Skip to comments.Saudi National and Boston Student Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi Is Being Deported [instead of arrested]
Posted on 04/18/2013 12:26:45 AM PDT by grundle
click here to read article
Yes two guys. AND NOBODY ELSE.
Asking questions is not a conspiracy theory, don’t be ridiculous.
As a matter of fact, the FBI wants two guys - which is a conspiracy. Are there others involved?
The photos the FBI referred to without naming came from the 4chan channel on imgur.com. Who took those pictures? Some of those pictures are from a second story window above the bomb-site. Who is the tenant there? Did someone associated with the tenant take those pictures? Is it a vacant office? Is it open to the public?
It could be just an average citizen noticing identically dressed guys.
There were identically dressed guys and that is not a conspiracy theory. Note that I am not attaching anything nefarious to them, I only ask who and why.
The only way answering these questions would be “wasted resources” would be if they don’t have the answer, if they don’t know who they are: in which case it wouldn’t be wasted resources to find out who they are. They are definitely not civilian.
The reason why the FBI is after those two guys is because the one with the white hat was on a video dropping the bomb off at one bombing location. And they both show up at both locations ... and in addition ... they are both together, following in single file.
When you’ve got a video of a guy dropping a bomb off at the bomb site, you go after him and his accomplice - and not some shadow on the roof ... LOL ...
And the pictures and video the FBI has released to the public is at these links:
That’s the guy!!
We just found out that Steven Emerson’s source got it wrong. He was misinformed or didn’t have all the information! Unfortunately Steven Emerson was fed the wrong information. That doesn’t mean anything bad in regards to Steven Emerson himself, because he does a very good job and I’ve followed him from the mid-1990s. He’s excellent. But, when a source get it wrong - it’s going to spill over to you, if you’re relying on that source.
“Senior law enforcement official: Saudi national in ICE custody, unrelated to the Boston bombing”
I'd like to see that video, but apparently the FBI doesn't want me to. Curious.
Shadow on a roof? I’ve not referred to anybody on a roof. Why do you throw this out?
By all means go after the two suspects. BUT that doesn’t mean you ignore other related individuals.
You seem to be personally vested in this. If you or yours were in Boston, I’m sorry.
Don’t wear blinders.
Emerson might not have been misinformed after all:
I guess will know for sure soon enough.
You get the guy who dropped off the bomb - you’ve got the whole thing. Everything is cracked open at that point. That’s why the FBI focus is there.
Get the ALL.
Well, you see, the FBI is not asking you to “work the case with them” - what they’re asking you to do is “identify” someone that they know dropped the bomb. It sounds like you’re interested in getting in on the FBI’s meetings and “working the case” with them ... :-)
That’s the problem with a situation where someone has “my source” and then there’s “your source” - and the game of “my source is better than your source” ... LOL ...
Get something “on the record” and then we’ll really have something to talk about. And I’ve noted this before about using “sources”. The trouble with that, is that you can never hold an unknown and unnamed “source” accountable. You don’t know who he (or she) is.
I know someone else (on another subject) who uses “sources” and half the time he’s just flat out wrong (when things eventually work out). Of course, before it works out - you have no way of knowing. Using a source is like talking to a neighbor over your fence line and he says he has an aunt who heard so-and-so say this about that ... :-).
Get them ALL.
What I’m saying is, there are ways to illicit cooperation from the public and there are ways to engender suspicion among the public. Releasing pics of guys they say dropped the bags, but then not releasing any pics of the drop — or even of the guys post-drop without their backpacks on — accomplishes one of those. I’ll leave it to you to decide which.
It doesn’t work that way with investigations. Inside information is kept inside. Investigations aren’t made so that the public is actually “part of the investigation”. The investigators will reach out to the public when they need help, but they will keep the details close to the vest, so as to not alert others (who may be involved in the crime) as to what the “extent” of the knowledge is - that the investigators have. That keeps those perpetrators guessing and they can be surprised that way - and caught, as a result.
Like I said, it sounds like you want to be “part of the investigation itself” and saying that about the public - that’s essentially the same thing - in making the public another partner in the investigation. That’s never how investigations go.
If you read my post, then you didn't read it carefully. I said nothing of the sort.
But what I have seen developing throughout the evening, is precisely what I said. Suspicions why the FBI won't show a pic of the drop or of the suspects sans backpacks. If they have their reasons for creating suspicions among the public, from whom they're seeking help, then bully for them.
I said it sounds like - not that you “said” it ... :-)
Several more press conferences are cancelled. Finally today the conference is held. It is brief and questions are limited. We are emphatically told to only look at pictures of two individuals designated by the FBI. Questions about the khaki guys are nervously ignored.
If these guys are with some federal/state/local agency and are monitoring a large public gathering, what's the problem? Say so.
If they are not: "see something say something" - but the FBI doesn't want to hear about it. Why?
There is more going on.
Could it be? It's not out of the realm of possibility. Remember the first WTC attack?
I'm NOT saying it is, but there are legitimate questions that require answers.
If they are with a federal/state/local agency and are monitoring a large public gathering, great. If they are not monitoring, then why are they there?
If the are not with any federal/state/local agency then who are they? Why are they there? What are they doing? Who sent them?
They very obviously are not civilian. What is going on?
I wouldn’t be worried about them right now. Here’s the guy to concentrate on ...
“New, Higher-Resolution Image of Boston Marathon Suspect Emerges”
Just for conversation...
What if the khaki guys are not with any fed/state/city agency?
Would be good to know, yes?
These guys are pros. Who are they? Why are they there?
You seem to have a desire to limit the scope. Your business of course.
I think ALL INVOLVED PARTIES MUST BE IDENTIFIED, AND PROSECUTED OR EXPLAINED. No “others unknown” bs.
The fact that there are pros on scene needs to be explained.
What if the khaki guys were handlers?
What if the khaki guys were foreign?
Sorry, I’m busy following the war zone at MIT ... :-)
It’s too early to tell, but they may have caught the bombers - or else - we’ve got some really bad crooks on the loose around there with automatic weapons, who are cop killers and are setting off explosives ...
If martial law is put in place in Massachusetts, can anyone leave the state legally?
Kick out? No, no, no....RELOCATE to the Middle East where they can live under Sharia law and worship their sacred rock.
If Muhammad Ali and Kareem Abdul Jabbar worship with their butts pointed toward heaven and heads pointed toward hell, then they might as well go worship their rock and Satan among murderers in the Middle East.