The attack in Boston

Speaking about framing I would be very surprised if the Russian government had no hands behind the attack in Boston. The picture that seems to make considerably more sense than the alternative is that the attackers were part of a plan to frame Chechen refugees because the leadership in Russia did not like that this country takes Chechen refugees. From the first few days information about the attackers started to appear in the media ,the role played by the two as religious persons was never convincing neither in Al Qaida like way or any other way. Also, the action is suspicious because

 

1- Absence of any motivation or something that could make someone angry to do that. Why would someone from Chechnya want to kill people here.

 

2- To the best of my knowledge those who do such attacks among refugees brought here are not only low percentage wise but there are zero examples of them.

 

3-I did not spend time researching how morally the Chechen fighters fight the Russian government but I ,and probably also some others, remember the story of those Chechen women who held a big number of hostages inside a subway or similar place in Russia. The Russian forces used gas and hostages were all freed. The women who were holding them hostages were all found dead because of the gas while what appear to be explosive belts are still rapped around them not used. No hostage was killed or injured by those Chechen women by explosive, shooting or any other method. Based on how that sample show how they fight their main enemy, how probable that someone from them would want to put explosives here to kill people running a marathon?

 

4- The timing of the event after one of the attackers obtained citizenship sound very much like an intentional attempt to say look no matter what those people cannot be trusted.

 

 

Interesting sign about that video

Beside what was mentioned in the previous post there is this additional sign. This sign is interesting because it is by itself a combination of different things.

At first I did not think of the police chief complaining that the school bus driver did not check on the beaten boy other than probably a disguise but later it showed a depth potential deeper than that. I remember a soccer commentator where I came from who used to get exited when a player interrupt the passing of the ball from the opposing team while at the same time he passes the ball to a partner in his team with the that same move. It seems that there is something similar to that here. By attacking the school bus driver for not checking on the beaten boy even after the attack ,the police chief could be not only defending the plan through a disguise but also by that same attack on the school bus driver he could be providing a support for the school bus driver in that he was unable to verify whether the attack on the boy was real or fake because he did not check on the boy to see the rusting injuries.

This connect well with the driver saying that beaten boy skedaddled from the bus. That imply the supposedly beaten boy passed fast and the school bus driver did not have enough time to see the injuries of the boy.

To increase the clarity of this picture notice how the school bus driver was shouting while he stood in his place as if he was tied to his place which support a defence that he did not come close to see what was really going on. Also notice how the other boys in the bus stayed in their place and how the attackers covered most of the scene with their bodies.

Having said that, notice that I have no interest in denying such thing if real and wouldn't hesitate for one second n choosing between the aggressor side and the victim side. But I see a  probability that some are playing a game and that is why I wrote about the subject.

Some of the signs on that video

Sometimes one could be very sure of something but explaining the whole picture and/or some fundamental level make explaining why a time consuming task to do. Explaining why I see that the recent video of the school bus beating in Florida is more probably a fake show than a real event does not seem to require that kind of effort. So why not balance some of the assumption of objectivity with a showing of objectivity?

Hear are some of the things that why I think that video is more probably a fake show than a real event :

1- The shouting of the driver "leave the boy alone" did not sound like a shouting of someone watching a real event.

2-The beginning of the attack happened in away as if it was intended for the boy being beaten to hide from vision behind the seat as soon as possible.

3-The shouting of the boy close to the end of that beating did not fit with that of someone suffering such vicious beating ,or even any real beating at all, and was as if someone trying to compensate the lack of an image with a voice.

4-The reactions from other boys in the bus in general did not seem to fit with that of someone looking at that event as a real fight.

5-The injuries mentioned do not seem to be enough for the severity of the beating shown

6-The injuries mentioned resulting from that beating (two black eyes and a fractured or broken bone) do not seem to fit well with the position the attacked boy took. When an attacked person goes down trying to take a defensive position as that video seems to be suggesting then the normal defensive position seems to be to protect the head using the arms so why would he suffer two black eyes? Why only one fractured or broken bone and less injuries to the body comparison with the head in general? How could all that kicking lead to more black eyes instead of more broken bones and sever bruises?

7-The event supposedly happened at July 9 but the video did not surface until lately which gives time as an argument against whether the injuries really happened or not, or ,as a lesser probability, to choose a person to whom these injuries happened for some other reason then use that to make this claim.

8-Based on my search I think a video taken from the back of the bus where bodies of the attackers hide the victim surfaced first then a surveillance video from the front containing very blurry images.

9-The only clear front video(s) for the attack I could found shows the beating from after the beaten boy was hidden behind the seats.

10-Things were arranged as if for the bus driver to participate in the show without any legal responsibilities. He even claimed that the boy skedaddled out of the bus (after all that beating?) which provide an answer for why he did not check on the boy.

11-The police chief questioned why after the beating the driver did not check on the "children" instead of the "child" which supports knowledge that the action was a group show. With such a vicious attack ,if real, the attackers and the victim should be very far from being seen as one especially when it comes to the injury consequences of such attack.

12- What could support the point above even more is that the police chief came back to correct that mistake as if he recognized the significance of what it can reveal and said "..or the child in this case" or something similar to that.

The video of beating in the school bus in Florida

I try to point to the guilty regardless of whoever or from wherever he/she is or belongs to. Nevertheless I think that there are enough things in front of me to make me at least require some other signs to prove that fight was a real thing and not a fake show as some signs out there seems to indicate. That show seems to be produced in relation to the Zimmerman's case.  

 

By the way, speaking about fake shows , I wonder how many thought the situation with Paula Deen

was real not fake and she was acting? I don't mean that her apology was not sincere ,I mean that the whole problem was manufactured or magnified to create a situation in which she was a participating actor to begin with.  

Sorry, not for me

All those who think that I would willingly surrender to the shame of immorality of accepting and treating this trial as a real process in the justice system of this country in exchange for pleasing them are only dreaming. 

Prove your case

I think that some of the energy in the demonstrations related to that case could have been employed for something that could better serve the case like the polling I mentioned in a previous post. 

 

Again, I believe the verdict of this trial ,and I emphasize that is related to only the verdict not the events that led to the death that was the subject of that trial, was at the root the result of corruption and preparation of jury for the defendant, not racism . I think that a polling like the one I described in that post (or any equivalent one) will strengthen the proof of that much further.

 

The point is whatever your case is you need to present it as much as possible in an undeniable form. Even if you do not want to prosecute ,proving your case doesn't mean you necessarily want to prosecute or do not want to forgive. Prove your case then forgive as much as you want (of whatever you have the right to forgive). Proving your case could at least have the benefit of strengthening your position for similar situations in the future in demanding a much better transparency because the system can not be trusted.