* * *

You needn’t convince me of the government’s war on whistleblowers, its war on truth (or general disinterest in it), the hijacking of government and the press by corporations, etc. I’m well aware of it. Are you next going to bring up the murder of Fred Hampton as evidence for why the FBI did something dubious in Boston (as well as to further outline what you perceive to be my naivety)? You are unwilling or unable to see what I’m saying, and you continue to imply that I can’t hold an argument against you without also being naive about the government. I thought at first it was an incapacity for nuance that was at the root of this, though now I’m thinking it might be ego driven. Perhaps you see yourself as a stand in or symbol for all just opposition to the powers that be, and therefore any attack on you is viewed as an attack on opposition itself. I don’t know.

This is my last comment. I’ve been trying to make a single point while you keep trying to have arguments other than the one I’m having. You keep responding to things I’m not saying, things like “craft presence WAS benign”, “there are NO QUESTIONS regarding the Boston bombings in need of answers”, “I trust official narratives as my default position”… All I’ve been trying to show you is that your thinking is flawed.

Some of the theories you have decided to swallow and pass along are filled with many holes or are otherwise untrue. Example: You formulated the question, “Why were some runners and others told a bomb blast ‘exercise’ was being done at the same time?” out of little to no evidence, and likely out of a string of online conspiratorializing (see links previously provided). Had the “official story” somehow needed the “bomb blast exercise” in order to support its version of events, you would have been quick to point out how full of holes it was and talked about how fishy it all smelled. But as it came from the position of questioning the official story, you swallowed it wholesale and added it to your bag of evidence. Put another way: when it comes to disproving the official story, you jump on Google; when it comes to disproving or discrediting theories and speculations, instead of jumping on Google to vet them, you demand that the government does it for you. Once more: for the government (and even credible independent media, apparently) you require an unattainable (or perhaps ALMOST unattainable) level of evidence; from sources discrediting the government (no matter their reputations and standards!), you require nothing but speculation before gleefully hopping into bed with them. (For other examples see the captions and insinuations regarding the Craft backpack(s) that I pointed out above, the unfounded belief in The Craft being a mercenary force, that the government or media ignoring an unfounded speculation is suspect, etc.)

This is the flaw in your thinking. It’s clear, it’s real, and it’s borne out of a mentality and procedure very similar to that which fuels birtherism, climate-denialism, and all manner of other things you rightfully disdain. It’s an easy trap to fall into, and no one is immune. That’s why we must always be on guard.

For some further questions regarding Boston, see this article in which the very “liberal” Timothy Egan gives an adulatory white-wash of the incident, and then read the readers comments – not from the rabid pages of Alex Jones or other such net notes (though those are the only places which deemed publishing a lot of these fotos – certainly not to be seen in mainstream press), but readers of the NY Times.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/good-cops-bad-cops/

The official narrative has bounced around like a ping-pong ball: it was these two guys, armed and dangerous; it was a shoot-out at the boat; it was a 12 person cell; it was just these two guys; the shoot out was between the cops only because the armed and dangerous guy didn’t have a gun. Etc. etc. etc.

You are welcome to believe the official versions and find “benign” reasons for the Craft folks being around; my 70 years of experience of the US govt tells me to beware of almost anything it does, and to always be skeptical of its announcements. Then again I have in the past had its forces camped at my front door, and I have spent a few years in prison owing to its policies. I suppose that biases me and makes my views invalid.