Boston Bombing

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... other than the two corpses of course.

Death doesn't automatically mean murder.

There isn't shred of evidence that this was murder.

Speculation isnt journalism.

Speaking of corpses, the contrast between your link and the alternative news link highlights the failings of the MSM which is leading to it's demise. The New York Times article has to adhere to the propaganda model and remain within what is considered "acceptable" discourse - it doesn't even mention the units arrest of Jahar Tsarnaev. The alternative article on the other hand can and does and explores the possibility that this was more than an accident.

Without any evidence to support this "possibility".

I think you should try to keep your ridiculous, irrelevant and nasty comments to yourself.

I think you should stick to forum rules and report any objectionable post.

I know, that's why I used it.

The unit has 90 members according to Wikipedia. There is an extremely good chance that the deceased were involved in the capture of Jahar. I'm sure you know that already though.

There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that they were. Or that they were murdered.

Lets be clear at your logic, when the New York Post makes a factually inaccurate headline mis identifying the perpetrator you think it's "distasteful" but when a alternative news organisation suggests that two FBI agents could have been murdered for their part in a raid that they may not have even participated in, without a shred of evidence, this alternative news source "is exposing the failings of the MSM".

What was it I said about double standards?

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

Death doesn't automatically mean murder.

I'm aware. Thanks.

Sixtus wrote: »

There isn't shred of evidence that this was murder.

There isn't a shred of evidence that this was an accident either. When someone meets an untimely death there are two possibilities 1) Accident and 2) Murder. Which of the previous two statements do you disagree with and why?

Sixtus wrote: »

Speculation isnt journalism.

Tell me why exactly a reporter shouldn't investigate and suggest the possibility of foul play.

Sixtus wrote: »

Without any evidence to support this "possibility".

Again, what evidence is there to support your assertion?

Sixtus wrote: »

I think you should stick to forum rules and report any objectionable post.

I thought I was. I was responding and commenting on your nasty comments.

Sixtus wrote: »

There isn't a shred of evidence to suggest that they were. Or that they were murdered.

Rubbish. There unit was there therefore there is a strong possibility that they were there.

Sixtus wrote: »

Lets be clear at your logic, when the New York Post makes a factually inaccurate headline mis identifying the perpetrator you think it's "distasteful" but when a alternative news organisation suggests that two FBI agents could have been murdered for their part in a raid that they may not have even participated in, without a shred of evidence, this alternative news source "is exposing the failings of the MSM".

What was it I said about double standards?

I've bolded the important part. This is the case that they "could have been murdered" is it not?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There isn't a shred of evidence that this was an accident either. When someone meets an untimely death there are two possibilities 1) Accident and 2) Murder. Which of the previous two statements do you disagree with and why?

One of those possibilities is more commonplace and therefore, the more likely one.
The difference in likelihood means that one possibility is not worth seriously considering in the absence of evidence.
This disparity is made worse when we add that the other possibility also requires a large conspiracy (which there is no evidence for) that doesn't make a lot of sense.

So why should we hold these possibilites to be equally likely when they are not?
Why do you think murder, the least likely to most people is if fact the most likely?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Tell me why exactly a reporter shouldn't investigate and suggest the possibility of foul play.

Because a decent reporter should provide some evidence to suggest the possibility of foul play.
Otherwise why can't reporter make speculation on all manner of random every day accidents?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've bolded the important part. This is the case that they "could have been murdered" is it not?

Why do you hold that the possibility of these FBI agents being murdered as likely when there is no evidence, but demand evidence before even considering that the accused brothers might have actually been bombers?

Why is it ok to speculatively accuse the FBI of murder based on no evidence, but not a person as you believe time magazine did?

Hoop66

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Tell me why exactly a reporter shouldn't investigate and suggest the possibility of foul play.

I don't think that anyone is arguing against investigative journalism.

So... 1) investigate. Then, based on the results of your investigation, provide evidence that allows you to 2) suggest the possibility of foul play.

It's the evidence bit in the middle that seems to be missing here. Which reduces the reporter's efforts to sensationalist speculation.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm aware. Thanks.
There isn't a shred of evidence that this was an accident either. When someone meets an untimely death there are two possibilities 1) Accident and 2) Murder. Which of the previous two statements do you disagree with and why?



Tell me why exactly a reporter shouldn't investigate and suggest the possibility of foul play.

Lets look at the two articles

NY Times wrote:

VIRGINIA BEACH — Two F.B.I. agents were killed in a training accident in Virginia, a spokeswoman for the agency said on Sunday.
The spokeswoman, Vanessa Torres, said the agents died on Friday afternoon off the coast of Virginia Beach, but she did not have further details.
The F.B.I. did not release the names of the agents, who were members of the Hostage Rescue Team based in Quantico, according to WAVY-TV in Norfolk.

the dailypaul wrote:

2 FBI Agents Involved in Dzhokar Tsarnaev's Arrest "FALL" Out of Helicopter and Die





Remember that scene in Scarface?

Two members of the FBI’s elite counterterrorism unit died Friday while practicing how to quickly drop from a helicopter to a ship using a rope, the FBI announced Monday in a statement.
The statement gave few details regarding the deaths of Special Agents Christopher Lorek and Stephen Shaw, other than to say the helicopter encountered unspecified difficulties and the agents fell a “significant distance.”
Last month, the team was involved in the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. And in February, it rescued a 5-year-old boy held hostage for six days in an underground bunker in Alabama.
“Whenever things go really wrong, the FBI calls in the Hostage Rescue Team. It’s the government’s 911,” Coulson said.
Irvin Wells, a former FBI special agent who retired in 1990 after leading the Norfolk field office for three years, stressed that the Hostage Rescue Team is different from the FBI’s regular SWAT teams. He noted that agents assigned to a field office’s SWAT team also must perform other jobs inside the bureau, while agents assigned to the Hostage Rescue Team have no other duties.

In the daily paul article I don't see any evidence that these two agents were involved in boston incident, and I don't see any evidence or that allows the journalist to put "fall" in inverted commas.


Put simply, I don't see any investigative journalism I see some nasty conjecture and speculation.


The kind of conjecture and speculation you found reprenhensible when the NY Post did it.

Again, what evidence is there to support your assertion?

What assertion? ralph hornsby from the daily paul has offered no facts or evidence to support his implication of foul play in their death. I'm pointing that out.

I thought I was. I was responding and commenting on your nasty comments.

How long have you been on this forum? If find something someone says "nasty" you report the post.

Rubbish. There unit was there therefore there is a strong possibility that they were there.

But no evidence.

If the journalist had written a article saying "two FBI agents who may have been involved in the Tsnarnev's arrest die in helicopter accident, was foul
play involved?" it would have been a more accurate article.

I've bolded the important part. This is the case that they "could have been murdered" is it not?

You've bolded the part you want to be important. Where's the evidence that suggests foul play. Is there any.


As Hoop66 pointed out, I've nothing against investigative journalism. I like investigative journalism. However there's no evidence that the article in the daily paul investigated anything. It's barely journalism. What it appears to be is a plagarism of the article it links to http://hamptonroads.com/2013/05/fbi-agents-died-fall-helicopter-va-coast

combined with speculation.

Brown Bomber

Hoop66 wrote: »

I don't think that anyone is arguing against investigative journalism.

So... 1) investigate. Then, based on the results of your investigation, provide evidence that allows you to 2) suggest the possibility of foul play.

It's the evidence bit in the middle that seems to be missing here. Which reduces the reporter's efforts to sensationalist speculation.

I just lost my other post to King Mob and can't be arsed writing it out again but perhaps you could tell what investigative process the New York Times undertook?

Also, maybe the mods can split this off from this thread if they think there is any point cos this is way off topic now.

Brown Bomber

Sixtus wrote: »

Lets look at the two articles.

Lets not. We both already have and it is no kind of response to the point/question I put to you. Which was:

There isn't a shred of evidence that this was an accident either. When
someone meets an untimely death there are two possibilities 1) Accident and 2)
Murder. Which of the previous two statements do you disagree with and
why?

And do you genuinely not know what plagiarism is even though you work in the media? Strange.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Lets not.

Lets. What new information is there in the dailypaul article, which allows them to draw the conclusion that the men were murdered?

We both already have and it is no kind of response to the point/question I put to you. Which was:

Stamping your feet and demanding I dance to your tune is all well and good. There's no evidence of foul play, and Hanlon's razor should apply.

Put simply where is the evidence that suggests that this was anything other than a accident?

And do you genuinely not know what plagiarism is even though you work in the media? Strange.

I do know what plagiarism is. The daily paul clearly plagiarised it's piece from the viriginan pilot. There's no evidence of new reporting yet how can it make claims that the death of the two agents was murder?

I just lost my other post to King Mob and can't be arsed writing it out again but perhaps you could tell what investigative process the New York Times undertook?

That is the most dubious piece of turntable logic I've ever heard.

The NY times, USA Today, The Washington Post, ABC, the Virginian Pilot and the Daily Paul all report that two FBI agents die in a helicopter crash. The Daily Paul is the only publication to suggest that they were murdered. The article in the daily paul offers no more information on the story than any other publication. It does not have any other facts than any other publication. In fact it's story appears to be directly plagiarised from the Virginian Pilot.

And you expect Hoop66 to explain the investigative process of the New York Times.

Furthermore you said not a few posts ago

Speaking of corpses, the contrast between your link and the alternative news link highlights the failings of the MSM which is leading to it's demise. The New York Times article has to adhere to the propaganda model and remain within what is considered "acceptable" discourse - it doesn't even mention the units arrest of Jahar Tsarnaev. The alternative article on the other hand can and does and explores the possibility that this was more than an accident.

So please explain exactly what additional information you think the daily paul has.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I just lost my other post to King Mob and can't be arsed writing it out again but perhaps you could tell what investigative process the New York Times undertook?

Also, maybe the mods can split this off from this thread if they think there is any point cos this is way off topic now.

The New York Times did not do much more investigation before declaring an innocent person is linked to a crime.
This is bad journalism.

The article you posted also did not do any investigation (and did not provide any evidence) before declaring that two agents being murdered was a likely possibility.
This is also bad journalism.

You however are saying that one baseless unsupported accusation is unacceptable while the exact same thing is also good journalism.
This is a double standard, unless you can explain why one baseless speculation is different from the other or show that there is some reason to believe that the possibility of these FBI agents being murdered is likely.

Brown Bomber

Isn't the proper approach to reserve judgement until evidence becomes available.

Isn't it the case here that no evidence has become available as of yet?

In a case of unnatural death isn't it necessary to INCLUDE both the possibility of foul play and accidental death?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

The New York Times did not do much more investigation before declaring an innocent person is linked to a crime.
This is bad journalism.

The article you posted also did not do any investigation (and did not provide any evidence) before declaring that two agents being murdered was a likely possibility.
This is also bad journalism.

You however are saying that one baseless unsupported accusation is unacceptable while the exact same thing is also good journalism.
This is a double standard, unless you can explain why one baseless speculation is different from the other or show that there is some reason to believe that the possibility of these FBI agents being murdered is likely.

If the mods see fit I will be happy to discuss media reporting in a split thread. Not here anymore though. It is taking the thread way off topic.

And Diogenes:

In fact it's story appears to be directly plagiarised from the Virginian Pilot.

You might want to learn what plagiarism is if you are going to keep banging on about this.

Noun
The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Isn't the proper approach to reserve judgement until evidence becomes available.

Isn't it the case here that no evidence has become available as of yet?

In a case of unnatural death isn't it necessary to INCLUDE both the possibility of foul play and accidental death?

Which of these possibilities is the more common and more likely explanation?
Which of these would require that there is a large conspiracy for which there is no evidence?

And why do you not extend this approach to the possibility of the two brothers being guilty?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Which of these possibilities is the more common and more likely explanation?
Which of these would require that there is a large conspiracy for which there is no evidence?

And why do you not extend this approach to the possibility of the two brothers being guilty?

So your response to 3 questions is 3 questions then? Brilliant. This is productive.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So your response to 3 questions is 3 questions then? Brilliant. This is productive.

The answers to the first two questions I asked answer your questions.
1. Murder is not as likely as an explanation. It is much much less likely than an accident.
2. The murder explanation requires that there is a large conspiracy for which there is no evidence.
(If either of these are not true, please explain.)

This answers your questions: No to all as in the absence of evidence those two explanations are not equal. An accident is the much more likely and probably explanation and unless there's any evidence of foul play there's no reason at all to think there might be.

The third question is asking you why you are showing a double standard as while you are saying that we cannot reach conclusions without evidence you are also immediately jumping to conclusions without evidence in the case of the guilt or innocence of the bombers.
You are not even considering the possibility that they are guilty.

Brown Bomber

haha...this is a joke.

You answered my question by posing your own questions and then answering your very own questions and ignoring my questions. Don't know why I bother.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

haha...this is a joke.

You answered my question by posing your own questions and then answering your very own questions and ignoring my questions. Don't know why I bother.

BB, I explained why my questions were relevant and lead to the point I was making. I answered them as you did not and the answers were obvious (which was the point I was making).
I then directly answered your questions in full and in detail:

This answers your questions: No to all as in the absence of evidence those two explanations are not equal. An accident is the much more likely and probably explanation and unless there's any evidence of foul play there's no reason at all to think there might be.

Brown Bomber

This is like pulling teeth. I can't believe I have to negotiate to have simple questions answered :rolleyes:

If I answer your 3 questions directly shall then return the favour.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is like pulling teeth. I can't believe I have to negotiate to have simple questions answered :rolleyes:

If I answer your 3 questions directly shall then return the favour.

I have answered your 3 questions, clearly and directly. Twice.

Isn't the proper approach to reserve judgement until evidence becomes available.

Isn't it the case here that no evidence has become available as of yet?

In a case of unnatural death isn't it necessary to INCLUDE both the possibility of foul play and accidental death?

No to all three as in the absence of evidence those two explanations are not equal. An accident is the much more likely and probably explanation and unless there's any evidence of foul play there's no reason at all to think there might be.

Brown Bomber

Which of these possibilities is the more common and more likely explanation? Accident
Which of these would require that there is a large conspiracy for which there is no evidence? Neither

And why do you not extend this approach to the possibility of the two brothers being guilty? I do.
__________________

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I have answered your 3 questions, clearly and directly. Twice.

No to all three as in the absence of evidence those two explanations are not equal. An accident is the much more likely and probably explanation and unless there's any evidence of foul play there's no reason at all to think there might be.

So to be clear you are actually saying that following an unnatural death where there is no evidence to indicate either accidental death or foul play that foul play should be completely omitted as a possible cause of death and the only cause of death that can even be considered is an accident because statistically accidents are more common than murders.

That is laughable to be frank.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which of these possibilities is the more common and more likely explanation? Accident

So then you understand the point I am making and why police and proper journalists do not treat all deaths as equally suspicious if there is no evidence of foul play.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which of these would require that there is a large conspiracy for which there is no evidence? Neither

But you and the article are suggesting that these agents were murdered because of a connection to the bombings. This requires a conspiracy.
If you are suggesting that it was just a random murder with no connection to the bombings, why bring it up at all?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And why do you not extend this approach to the possibility of the two brothers being guilty? I do.

So why do you continually demand evidence of their guilt, but never once ask for anything to support the claims about the conspiracy to frame them?

Why is the New York times making baseless accusations off the back of pure speculation not ok, but someone else doing exactly the same thing ok?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So to be clear you are actually saying that following an unnatural death where there is no evidence to indicate either accidental death or foul play that foul play should be completely omitted as a possible cause of death and the only cause of death that can even be considered is an accident because statistically accidents are more common than murders.

That is laughable to be frank.

No, this is not what I am saying at all. It is once again a misrepresentation of what I have said.

Following an unnatural death where there is no evidence to indicate foul play that foul play should be considered unlikely as a possible cause of death and the most likely cause of death that can even be considered is an accident because statistically accidents are more common than murders.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

No, this is not what I am saying at all. It is once again a misrepresentation of what I have said.

Following an unnatural death where there is no evidence to indicate foul play that foul play should be considered unlikely as a possible cause of death and the most likely cause of death that can even be considered is an accident because statistically accidents are more common than murders.

Ok. Good. So we are agreed (and have been all along) then that foul play is an actual possibility (though less likely) at this early stage.

Lets avoid all this messing about and just lay our cards on the table to avoid this again.

Based on the evidence (or lack thereof) I am open to the possibility of both the innocence and the guilt of the Tsarnaev brothers at this stage.
Based on the evidence (or lack thereof) I am open to the possibility of both accidental death and foul play with the FBI agents.

Considering that the deceased FBI agents were part of the unit that arrested Jahar Tsarnaev and the shadiness surrounding this arrest I am open to the possibility that the two instances may be connected.

Likewise, I am open to the possibility of the Tsarnaev's guilt and the accidental death of the FBI agents and also the Tsarnaev's innocence along with the accidental deaths.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ok. Good. So we are agreed (and have been all along) then that foul play is an actual possibility (though less likely) at this early stage.

Lets avoid all this messing about and just lay our cards on the table to avoid this again.

Based on the evidence (or lack thereof) I am open to the possibility of both the innocence and the guilt of the Tsarnaev brothers at this stage.
Based on the evidence (or lack thereof) I am open to the possibility of both accidental death and foul play with the FBI agents.

Considering that the deceased FBI agents were part of the unit that arrested Jahar Tsarnaev and the shadiness surrounding this arrest I am open to the possibility that the two instances may be connected.

Likewise, I am open to the possibility of the Tsarnaev's guilt and the accidental death of the FBI agents and also the Tsarnaev's innocence along with the accidental deaths.

And I agree with most of the above of the above. (Save for the bolded bit)

However the important difference is that I believe that some of these possibilities are more likely than others. Some of these possibilities being so unlikely in fact that they are not worth seriously considering unless evidence in support of them can be produced.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

haha...this is a joke.

You answered my question by posing your own questions and then answering your very own questions and ignoring my questions. Don't know why I bother.

I know it's just sooooo unfair.

You want to shift the goalposts of the debate to be about anything other than the issue everyone else wants to talk about.

Which is your defence of the journalism of the daily paul. Journalism in this case means plagiarism of the Virginian Pilot's article, while adding in some baseless speculation (to wit that the men were murdered for their part in a operation they may not even have had a active part in).

You want to discuss everything else, the journalism of the NY Times, the possibility they may have been murdered, anything else than the fact that you're defending the "investigative journalism" of the daily paul ( the investigative journalism in this case appears to have been googling the Virginian Pilot and investigating what the "ctrl+c" & "ctri+v" shortcuts do). All the while condemning the shoddy journalism of the NY Post. You appear to have a irony deficiency.

Now once again you're backpeddling and announcing we should consider the "possibility" of the murder of the FBI agents. Fine I'll consider the possibility that this was something other than a tragic accident, just as soon as someone presents some evidence to support this theory.

I won't hold my breath that it'll be coming from the daily paul though.

Brown Bomber

As much as I enjoy the odd melodramatic rant this thread is about the boston bombing.

And if you must insist on bandying about plagiarism charges try to learn what it is first.

Sixtus

Brown Bomber wrote: »

As much as I enjoy the odd melodramatic rant this thread is about the boston bombing.

And if you must insist on bandying about plagiarism charges try to learn what it is first.

Okay if you think this thread is about the boston bombings why are you attempting to get in not very subtle dig about "misunderstanding" of the concept of plagiarism.

<snip>

brown bomber you seem think that

A) I don't understand what plagiarism is.

and

daily paul isn't engaging in plagiarism

And yet I've repeatedly stated that I think the daily paul plagiarised the Virginian Pilot. And you keep on at this issue.

Shall we first establish the concept of plagarism?

"Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work."

So lets get at this shall we.


On the 22nd of May 2013 Ralph Hornsby of the Daily Paul reported the death of two FBI agents

http://www.dailypaul.com/286354/2-fbi-agents-involved-in-dzhokar-tsarnaevs-arrest-fall-out-of-helicoptor-and-die

The Daily Paul wrote:

2 FBI Agents Involved in Dzhokar Tsarnaev's Arrest "FALL" Out of Helicopter and Die



Remember that scene in Scarface?


Two members of the FBI’s elite counterterrorism unit died Friday while practicing how to quickly drop from a helicopter to a ship using a rope, the FBI announced Monday in a statement.


The statement gave few details regarding the deaths of Special Agents Christopher Lorek and Stephen Shaw, other than to say the helicopter encountered unspecified difficulties and the agents fell a “significant distance.”

The Virginia Pilot article written by Scott Daugherty on the 20th of May 2013

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/05/fbi-agents-died-fall-helicopter-va-coast

Virginia Pilot wrote:

Two members of the FBI’s elite counterterrorism unit died Friday while practicing how to quickly drop from a helicopter to a ship using a rope, the FBI announced Monday in a statement.


The statement gave few details regarding the deaths of Special Agents Christopher Lorek and Stephen Shaw, other than to say the helicopter encountered unspecified difficulties and the agents fell a “significant distance.”

Now Brown Bomber how could the these two same publications have the same opening paragraphs without one plagiarising the other?

This isn't a rhetorical question, you to like accusing me of misunderstanding the concept of plagiarism. So please explain how either the daily paul isn't plaragising the Virginian Pilot or vice versa.


Continuing

The next line in the Daily Paul also comes from the article from the Virginian Pilot.

The Virginian Pilot, copied in the Daily Paul wrote:

Last month, the team was involved in the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. And in February, it rescued a 5-year-old boy held hostage for six days in an underground bunker in Alabama.

Weirdly the daily paul article has the exact same quote as the virginian pilot

The next line from the daily paul is hilarious

The Paul Paul wrote:

“Whenever things go really wrong, the FBI calls in the Hostage Rescue Team. It’s the government’s 911,” Coulson said.

Coulson who? The Daily Paul never explains. In fact the Daily Paul never explains gives a explanation to whom he is. Or why they are quoting him? Why Should we care who Coulson is? The Daily Paul never elaborates.

The Virginian Pilot on the other hand

The Virginian Pilot wrote:

“It’s the most rigorous training regiment in law enforcement, probably in the world,” said Danny Coulson, a former deputy assistant director of the FBI who started the team 30 years ago and served as its first commander. “They have to be able to do any mission, at any time.”


Among other things, members of the Hostage Rescue Team are trained to rappel from helicopters, scuba dive and use explosives to break down doors and walls. When needed, the team can deploy within four hours to anywhere in the U.S.


“It sounds risky, and it absolutely is,” Coulson said. “They have the same skill sets as SEAL Team 6 and Delta Force.”


In all, the team has responded to more than 850 incidents involving terrorism, violent crimes and foreign counterintelligence, according to the FBI’s website.

Last month, the team was involved in the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings. And in February, it rescued a 5-year-old boy held hostage for six days in an underground bunker in Alabama.


“Whenever things go really wrong, the FBI calls in the Hostage Rescue Team. It’s the government’s 911,” Coulson said.

So to clear I think the Daily Paul plagiarised the Virginian Pilot. It's quite clear that they've nicked not just quotes but the entire language of the Virginian Pilot article.


Lets go on;

The Daily Paul wrote:

Irvin Wells, a former FBI special agent who retired in 1990 after leading the Norfolk field office for three years, stressed that the Hostage Rescue Team is different from the FBI’s regular SWAT teams. He noted that agents assigned to a field office’s SWAT team also must perform other jobs inside the bureau, while agents assigned to the Hostage Rescue Team have no other duties.

<snip>

Virginian Pilot wrote:

Irvin Wells, a former FBI special agent who retired in 1990 after leading the Norfolk field office for three years, stressed that the Hostage Rescue Team is different from the FBI’s regular SWAT teams. He noted that agents assigned to a field office’s SWAT team also must perform other jobs inside the bureau, while agents assigned to the Hostage Rescue Team have no other duties.

So to be clear. The Daily Paul and the Virginian Pilot have reported the same facts using the exact same words, so either;

A) The Daily Paul plagiarised The Virginian Pilot.

The Virginian Pilot plagiarised the Daily Paul writing article including more information two days before the publication of the Daily Paul article. Which means the journalists from the Virginian Pilot are both clairvoyant as well as plagiarists.

In fact he only original content in the Daily Paul article is the title, and the first sentence and they have clearly "plagiarised" their entire article from the Virginian Pilot. So somehow the Daily Paul can suggest that the two agents were both part of the Boston Bomber siege and were killed because of this using only the same information the Virginian Pilot has.

<snip>


In this instance my accusation that the Daily Paul plagiarised their article from the Virginian Pilot is charitable towards the Daily Paul, outright robbery would be a more accurate description.



<snip>

Penn

Locked pending mod review

Penn

Thread re-opened. Reminder to all to discuss the topic and keep things civil. Flaming and point-scoring is not permitted.

old_aussie

This lady presents a different view of the bombers mother, and the travels of the family.

http://www.therightscoop.com/must-watch-judge-jeanines-epic-smackdown-on-the-mother-of-the-boston-jihadi-bombers/