Running of the Bull
"We're satisfied the two main actors, the people that were committing the damage out there, have been either captured or killed." Boston Police Commissioner, Ed Davis
We appear faced with yet another grand performance in the increasingly high drama that is the United States of America, a horrifying spectacle disguised as a terrifying nation. The USA has become the traveling Cirque de Hades, putting on fiery displays with thunderous ovation in all the places we grace with our presence, our militarily festooned actors a brutal and cautious reminder that as the show goes on, any may be called upon to perform.
Our mandatory participation becomes as an indentured repertory company with featured performers – the earnest, hard-working public officials trying to get to the bottom of it and the wily conspirators confounding them up to their ineluctable, fiery demise – and of course the randomly recruited bit players, blown to bits by the swarthy, heartless bad guys who hate them for their perceived freedom.
In the Main Stream and surging through the Interweb the pundits, apologists and kooks join the fray offering all manner of defense of a system in decay, or recrimination for a system willfully self-destructing. I readily offer myself upon the altar of the dysphemism treadmill as a kook with the full understanding that such a moniker self-applied becomes diminished necessarily because it is the opinion of a kook. And one would be a kook to agree with someone like that.
I am not the kind of guy who never met a conspiracy theory he didn’t like. Frankly, as compelling as many of them are, they represent a tragic disconnect between appreciable reality and public perception which is disturbing to me. Those who challenge the orthodoxy in a forward-thinking culture would be held in esteem – they are the truth seekers, the vanguard against power run amok. Instead, where not the butt of social joke, we are increasingly trotted out as the instigators of minds prone to carnage.
Both AP and Huffington Post have suggested that the executed accused, Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s, immersion in conspiracy theories led to his radical response as demonstrated on tax day in Boston. As most conspiracy theories (at least the ones I consider) are the repudiation of violence and demand for accountability from the perpetrators, whoever they might be, one wonders how blowing up some people at a public event can be seen as an appropriate response to such inquiry. For the most part, it is the people in the Main Stream that call for killings and bombings. I don’t know of any conspiracy ‘kooks’ who do that.
Think about it for a paragraph: what do conspiracy kooks really want? What is our big demand? Accountability. That’s all. We want the mighty to be judged and repudiated just as the weak are. We want the people who really killed President Kennedy brought to justice. Same with the killers of his brother or Martin Luther King and each and every motherfucker involved in the horrid crimes of 9/11 – we want them imprisoned. We seek justice. That’s why people think we’re kooks. We look at the official story and see it for what it is. For calling bullshit when we see it, we increasingly become associated with the very thing we reject.
As with 9/11, the authorities readily acknowledge this as a conspiracy. When the FBI called upon the public to help identify someone they had been in contact with for over two years, they were very specific that we don’t look at the wrong suspicious characters, only the federally approved ones. We needn’t waste their time pointing out the military contractors with backpacks photographed near the site of the explosions. They apparently already knew who they were.
Curiously, one of the groups ready to point the guilty finger at the truth seekers is the FBI, who have been involved in bombings in the USA for decades. This organization provoked considerable ire when they murdered Vicky Weaver and her son while harassing her husband at Ruby Ridge. They also murdered a bunch of children in Waco while harassing their religious leader, David Koresh. This only a couple of months after they successfully bombed the World Trade Center in New York in 1993 with the help of some terrorists they were running.
"There is still an open question as to exactly what happened in this investigation. We can't say with 100 percent certainty...anything, actually, at this point." Ed Davis, again
We jump to convict Tamerlan and Dzhokhar in the media, owing to suspicions raised about them by the authorities. The authorities that pronounce unequivocally that they have caught or killed the bad guys, then state that they can’t be certain of anything. The authorities who killed one of them and will assuredly silence the other, already claiming he may never speak again. All based upon suspicion. Execution by accusation.
But even though it does the brothers Tsarnaev no good, let us remember others accused by the same authorities in regard to the marathon bombings, ultimately released back into the wild: a Saudi national was detained and released after his place was searched, turning up nothing – said he was in the wrong place at the wrong time; one supposes because people like him are known to blow things up. A couple of guys were detained in a cab that was stopped, as well as at least three others, all based upon mistaken ID. One, looking strikingly like Tamerlan, was stripped naked and placed in a police car on camera only to be released – with no name – so we are told.
This is interesting because a New Zealand news site offering transcripts of police band chatter reveals that the night Tamerlan was caught and killed was the same night they caught and stripped the suspect. Supposedly this occurred during the gun battle with the brothers, in Watertown, Massachusetts. A caller to a radio station purporting to be a witness said that a police vehicle hit Tamerlan and that they shot him repeatedly. The footage of the naked man shows a fellow of the same age, build, height, hair color and style as Tamerlan. He puts up no resistance to them, naked and handcuffed there, and gets in their car. Next thing we know, he’s dying in the street, run over by his brother, according to official accounts.
The footage of the detaining of the naked man is very telling: A remote reporter interviews a journalist from his station about the arrest and the journalist states that he followed the police to a point where he could see all manner of them, in full military regalia, drawing down and shouting at someone to get out of a car which was off camera for him. He then stated that the person of interest surrendered (still out of view) and the police relaxed their assault posture. They then brought their suspect out, stripped him, handcuffed him and perp-walked him into the back of their car.
The reporter didn’t describe a crazed shoot-out, or bodies on the street with people throwing hand-grenades made of fully laden pressure cookers (think about 30 pounds); he described the authorities shouting someone down, that man surrendering and them stripping and detaining him. The police band broadcast has them detaining two suspects, one whom they release (see photo, clearly not the naked man) and the other whom they claim was killed by his brother. They also state that there is a suspect at large. Tamerlan then was the naked man. The authorities lied.
A considerable lie, wouldn’t you say? So, they admit they got it wrong with five of the people they accused. As they existed in very visible abundance on the day of the bombings and no place more than near the finish line, they also admit that all of the security measures and precautions they had taken were utterly useless. Just like on 9/11, the full weight of the system’s shockingly awesome defensive and protective forces were completely confounded by determined amateurs, homicidal vandals with nothing better to do than destroy people and their things.
Because that is what this again comes down to: 9/11 as well as the Boston Massacre II were not acts of actual terrorism so much as vandalism. Homicidal vandalism. Terrorism is in response to something and as such comes with demands: stop doing this, quit bombing that, release our imprisoned comrades, etc. 9/11 and BMII came with no demands (beyond those of the system which demands our compliance and that we further relinquish any remaining notion of rights) and no grievances have been aired.
Terrorists take credit for their acts; they are done with an objective (beyond carnage) in mind. No one took credit for either of those atrocities and no reasonably attainable objective can be discerned for those accused. (The same cannot be said for the accusers, for with each of these attacks they get more of what they want.) These acts, according to the government of the USA, were motivated by nothing beyond anti-social malice. That’s a hell of a thing to suggest.
Does it make sense?
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick on Meet the Press stated, in regard to Dzhokhar’s guilt as determined by the videos the FBI used to ID him, “It’s pretty clear about his involvement and pretty chilling frankly…”
The Governor acknowledged that he hadn’t personally seen the "chilling" video but apparently was cooled enough by the description of the publically unaired footage to pronounce them guilty. He seemed quite happy, even though he acknowledged that Dzhokhar didn’t behave like someone who had committed such a heinous act, he having returned to his normal scholastic activities immediately afterwards.
“When you consider the enormity of what he was responsible for, it certainly raises a lot of questions in my mind…”
So on one hand the Governor is content to pass judgment upon a grievously injured teenaged suspect based upon footage he didn’t see of him setting his backpack bomb and walking away, yet still has some questions owing to Dzhokhar’s inexplicable behavior subsequent to what would admittedly be a fairly significant event in most 19-year olds' lives. Just as Big Ed Davis readily pronounced the actors of the crime guilty and vanquished left himself an out by stating there were still many unanswered questions, the governor gives himself a pass as well.
It appears, as the power structure further entrenches itself in its escalating conflict against those who ultimately feed and clothe them, their actors are more willing to show, or are less incapable of concealing, what’s really going on. Slipspeak – truth snippets from unexpected sources. Why would Big Ed Davis call the perpetrators of this madness actors? Were they being directed off-camera? Was that his implied message?
Was he playing to or admitting to the suspicions of an increasing number of people that this was a staged performance? Micro-scrutiny of an event so photographed is going to occur in a nation where half the workforce is sitting around on-line, either employed or not. Frankly it seems a better social use of time challenging dubious authoritarian proclamation than trolling beaver.cum for unilateral dating opportunities, but idle time offers much to keep on one’s hands and both activities can be enjoyed by those so inclined.
Why do people feel it was a staged event? The explosions to begin with: big and billowy, loud and flashy but signifying much less than the IED bombs that go off in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan in sheer carnage and property damage. Were pressure cookers actually filled with projectiles and explosives, the public and property damage would likely have been far greater. Yet photos show windows in direct line with the blast blown outward, toward the explosion, not inward toward the business, as one would expect were numerous projectiles burst toward them.
They show people clustered around the thing that blew them apart: bombs burst from a fixed position and whatever is around them is blown away from the explosion. Yet photos show people clustered where they should be dispersed with an explosive of such magnitude. Their clothes are ripped from their bodies but no burns or torn flesh or spurting blood is evidenced, while others stand nearby watching instead of diving to the ground which most would do if something exploded but a few yards from them.
The explosions looked like special effects, something seen in movies or on TV. Real explosions are hot and fast, completely uninteresting for camera because they are over so quickly. Try filming a firecracker exploding. To achieve an even marginally interesting explosion on camera the normal 24 frames per second must be cranked up to 300. And it’s still over in a flash. As on 9/11 they were placed and timed for maximum camera capture – get all eyes and lenses turned toward the first explosion and when the second goes off, boom! the money shot.
Runners reported the presence of militarized police and their sniffy dog partners along the route with announcements over loud speakers that they were to remain calm, running there as they were, as the authorities were just doing some drills. Live fire bomb drills. In Boston, on the day of the marathon. Like in Washington DC or New York on 9/11 when they were doing drills for, you know, a terrorist attack. Or in London of 7/7 when they were doing drills for exactly the very kinds of bombings that went on that day.
This doesn’t escape those with historical grasp – live fire drills occurring just as random unknown terrorists show up for the real thing. Emergency management drills on the very day in the very place that random, unknown terrorists show up and blow the shit out of everything. Does a reasonable mind merely pass this off to coincidence?
What of the military cut-outs who some suggest work for the private mercenary organization, Craft? They are all in the same tan khakis and boots, black jackets, dark glasses and big black backpacks, like the ones used to conceal the bombs, not little grey ones like Dzhokhar’s. Three of them appear to be some policemen who were interviewed on camera for the Sandy Hook slaughter, though why three Connecticut police officers would be at the finish line of the Boston marathon precisely when things started exploding has to go on to the expanding list of those pesky questions. I for one am glad they are being asked.
Then we have Jeffery Bauman, the one who fingered Tamerlan as the mad bomber. He said that Tamerlan looked him in the eye, then walked away, Jeffery apparently uninterested in the reason a stranger would just set a laden backpack on the street at his feet and then leave. Jeffery identified Tamerlan from his hospital bed. Jeffery is the guy in the pictures being wheeled away from the carnage with his legs blown off.
Jeffery is a conundrum. Invisible before the event, he inexplicably became even less visible to those around him during it. Then he became a hero. Photo after photo shows him lying, writhing on the blood splattered pavement, his legs blown to shreds, surrounded by people completely oblivious to him. Next to him lies a fellow in a dark hoodie and dark glasses. In one shot, surrounded by smoke and pandemonium, Jeffery lying legless before him, he puts his dark glasses on. As many of the emergency workers were also in dark glasses, perhaps it was a fashion thing.
In another shot, the hoodie dude lies on his side in a casual pose listening to someone shouting instructions, Jeffery writhing around on the ground behind him. Nobody is even looking at him. The hoodie dude is apparently whole, no blood spurting out, his limbs intact; he changes position from shot to shot with no wailing or apparent difficulty. Yet there is a shot of him being tended to by two guys in gloves while Jeffery lies unattended inches from them, completely ignored.
Then, to make it all the more plausible, they wheel some people clearly less injured out on gurneys, but Jeffery, who has just had his legs blown off, which I think would probably hurt like hell, they roll out in a wheel chair. Now, I can’t speak for others, but if I had my legs blown off, I think I’d want to keep off of them. Instead, they put him in a wheel chair. Lots of gory shots of him, you know, for kids.
So, two days after a considerable event in his life, in a hospital bed, loaded up on goofballs, Jeffery IDs Tamerlan as his antagonist. And while I am angered at any loss of life or limb to senseless and unnecessary violence, I feel a responsibility to raise the question: could not the person who set the bomb be among those impacted by it? Is it plausible post 9/11 that a swarthy stranger setting a mysterious and heavy backpack at the feet of a bystander in a crowd, then looking into his eyes and fleeing, would elicit no response? It seems to me a hero would have immediately alerted authorities regarding such a thing, not just stood there until it exploded.
As established, by their own accounting as well as those of reporters on the ground, Tamerlan was taken without incident (beyond his shameful public nudity) only to be murdered disgracefully by the authorities. They accused him / they executed him. They lied to us about it. They also stated that Dzhokhar engaged them in a shootout, hiding there in a Watertown local’s boat, then shot himself in the throat a la Tyler Durden in Fight Club.
The Israeli doctor at Beth Israel hospital where both the Muslim brothers were taken for treatment stated that Dzhokhar probably would never speak again. Yet the LA Times reported that the young ruffian cursed the people in the ambulance mightily on his ride to what might strike some as an interesting choice of hospitals. Then another lie: it turns out, contrary to multiple police reports, that Dzhokhar had no gun. It was another one-way shootout.
Coupled with official warnings to not believe a word that comes out of their mouths, we have the words that come out of their mouths. No decisive video footage showing the boys in their nefarious deeds. No conclusive still photos. No logical course of action, no reasonable characterization of events, all official statements are contradictions. We are expected to accept ridiculous piled on ridiculouser. That's ridiculous.
I haven’t found any shots directly preceding the explosions, yet all manner of wide and gory representation immediately afterwards. It seems the shots prior would be of more interest than all the ones immediately afterwards because they tell much more. Cameras were pointed that way; numerous high resolution shots exist of the moments immediately subsequent to the event in grim relief. Where are the same angles just before? In those shots we might see Tamerlan set his bundle before Jeffery, standing there.
Or maybe something else entirely.
“Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11.” New York Mayor, Nanny Bloomberg
We are to believe that the expanding police state is the result of anti-social miscreants like the brothers Tsarnaev or brown people who don’t speak English so good half a world away, but in fact it is people like Bloomberg who work to enslave us, to steal our freedom. It is American politicians who gut the Constitution, not the bin Ladens or Husseins or even the instructive minority. They reap the benefits of the police state they demand and the citizens pay the price. They show us that all their Draconian measures are useless against virtually any threat they can manifest, then demand that we get more Draconian still. As with physicians of old, if you don’t improve from the mercury treatment they’re clearly not giving you enough.
“The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry. But we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.” Bloomberg again
That doesn’t sound good. So, to further expose the masterminds behind our rapidly diminishing freedoms the Mayor supports the further diminution of our freedom. BMII was clearly a test of the people in regard to their Fourth Amendment rights as armed militarized teams stormed through Watertown homes for no apparent reason other than to see if they could get away with it.
Bloomberg is among the new vanguard not content to control the content of our heads, but indeed working to control our physical content as well. Oddly, privacy, it seems, should only be applied to those in public office. We must be open to every intrusion they impose upon us for our own good. To protect our freedom we must surrender our liberty.
And as the leader of the free world, how does the estimable President of the United States weigh in?
"Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror."
The terrorists reveal themselves.
Remain calm – this is not a drill.