Strategy of Tension – Boston Marathon bombing
By Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley
‘Marathon Monday’ will never be the same for Bostonians. The 117th Boston Marathon ended abruptly when two bombs went off in quick succession at 2.50 pm EST near the finish line on Boylston Street in downtown Boston. 3 people were killed and 176 have been treated for injuries, 17 of whom are in critical condition. The bombs – spaced some 500 yards and 10 seconds apart – went off on the same side of the street, where many spectators had gathered to cheer runners on to the finish line.
Flying limbs and streets awash in blood from what were effectively anti-personnel bombs, designed to maximise trauma, are daily occurrences in countries occupied by the U.S. military, but such gruesome scenes aren’t usually seen on the streets of the ‘homeland’. Until now.
As the initial shock subsides to make way for an official narrative that will no doubt squeeze every ounce of political capital from this heinous deed, we want to point out some of the inconsistencies we’ve noticed thus far.
A marathon spectator, Fred Milgram, speaking to Irish ‘NewsTalk’ Radio, said that he was talking to Boston Marathon runner Tim Hare, who saw a trashcan explode. Milgram stated that the other bomb was in the Marathon Sports store close to the finish line. This contradicts ‘anonymous sources close to the investigation’ (remember them?) who have since claimed that the explosives were contained in “6-liter pressure cookers and hidden in black duffel bags” left on the sidewalk. Milgram also stated that marathon runner Tim Hare claimed that there was a young man who had been wandering around warning people for hours that “something was going to happen”.
Another Boston marathon runner, Mike Heiliger, told the Squamish Chief newspaper that a woman holding several bags had been telling runners who were picking up their pre-race packages in downtown Boston on Saturday (April 13th) that they were going to die if they participated in the event.
“I was downtown on Saturday and you know, you see these people on the street and think it’s just some nutbar,” he told The Chief from his Boston hotel on Monday. “It was a little creepy because you can identify who the runners are and I heard her say to this runner two feet away from me that, ‘If you run tomorrow you’re going to die.’“
But the strange synchronicities don’t stop there. In an April 12th story, Firehouse.com reported that Boston EMS would deploy a new, off-the-shelf, lightweight mobile device for the first time at the Boston Marathon on April 15th. The device is “intended for use in mass-casualty situations and gives EMS personnel the ability to carry into crowds and assess a patient upon arrival, document in real-time, transmit data to transport units before they arrive, and other features.”
‘Don’t worry, it’s just a training exercise’
As we’ve seen time and time again, ‘drills’ coinciding with ‘terror attacks’ are a constant theme in the major attacks that have been used to justify the ‘War on Terror’. From September 11th to the London bombings to the active shooter drills in schools near Sandy Hook last December, drills conducted by emergency services that switch from ‘passive exercise’ to ‘real-time active’ mode have proven to be tell-tale signs that leave enormous question marks over the official narratives of events.
University of Mobile’s Cross Country Coach, Ali Stevenson, who was near the finish line of the marathon when the explosions went off, said he thought it was odd there were bomb-sniffing dogs at the start and finish lines, as well as law enforcement spotters on the roofs of buildings.
“They kept making announcements to the participants – ‘Do not worry, it’s just a training exercise’,” he told CBS Local TV 15 News.
“Evidently, I don’t believe they were just having a training exercise,” Stevenson said. “It seemed like there was some sort of threat, but they kept telling us it was just a drill… I think they must have had some sort of threat or suspicion called in.” Stevenson has participated in many marathons in major metropolitan areas, but stated that he had never seen such heightened security presence at a race.
That is one possibility: that local police were tipped off about a security threat on the day of the race, combed the scene before and during the race as a precaution, and announced to participants that “it’s just a training exercise” to prevent panic and reassure people. But investigators have since emphatically stated that there was no intel or warning prior to the attack, suggesting that the drill really was planned in advance.
How DID he know that?!
Observing the stream of spurious and misleading claims disseminated by anonymous ‘law enforcement officials’ in the immediate aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre – claims the real investigators later retracted – we have speculated that drills timed with such attacks provide ideal cover for ensuring that people working for the perpetrators can be placed on the scene to ensure that the ‘right information’ reaches the press (and therefore the nation) in the immediate aftermath of an attack. Most drill participants unwittingly respond to open invitations for emergency personnel from all sectors, and even from neighbouring jurisdictions, to participate in ‘improving emergency preparedness’, etc. All it takes is one or two (maybe more?) intel operatives to blend in with the emergency response effort in the chaotic aftermath; provided they have appropriate attire, I.D. indicating membership of one alphabet agency or another, and security clearance, just about anyone can justify their presence on the scene – if later questioned – on the basis that they were there to take part in the drill.
Remember the second armed man wearing black cammo gear and caught in the woods next to the Sandy Hook school? He was apprehended, taken into custody then later quietly released with the explanation that he was “an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town.”
And do you remember this guy from 9/11? His name is Mark Walsh. Mark was pulled aside by a Fox News reporter to give a statement immediately after the second plane crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. How did he manage to describe in succinct detail a scenario the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) would take four years to make up?
NIST got it wrong of course, but that’s a whole other story. The point is that it’s common practice for intel operatives to be placed on the scene of a false flag attack to quickly establish the official narrative for the media.
Sure enough, we’ve come across a couple of instances of this at the Boston Marathon bombing. This was reported in the UK’s Daily Mail within an hour of the bombs going off:
A source who was speaking with authorities told MailOnline that there were shotgun shells in two explosions, which sprayed onlookers and runners with massive amounts of shrapnel, though the statement has not been confirmed by authorities.
The following day, April 16th, investigators determined that the bombs were packed with ball bearings to maximise the extent of devastating injuries, but how could anyone have established that as a fact so soon after the explosions?
Here’s another hot contender for deliberate disinfo, taken from the same article:
Police told the Boston Globe that they are still finding ‘secondary devices,’ and pleading with anyone still in the area to leave at once.
In fact, a later report ‘confirmed’ that 7 other bombs were found and that a ‘controlled explosion’ had taken place outside the JFK Library around 4.30pm. And yet the following day, Reuters cited officials stating that no additional explosives were found in the area, leaving just the two fatal explosions. But yesterday, Boston police said during a press conference 2 hours after the explosions that there was a third explosion, the one at Boston’s JFK Library. Throwing more confusion in to the mix was the earlier report of a fire, “possibly caused by an incendiary device”, at the library just ten minutes after the 2 Boylston Street bombs went off.
No wonder Reuters later described the official revision from ‘multiple secondary bombs’ to just two bombs as “a development that could complicate the case”! ‘Complicating the case’, it would appear, is exactly what the stream of false reports is intended to do following a mass traumatic event.
The following ‘eyewitness’ – interviewed within an hour of the explosions – also appears a little too confident and knowledgeable about the nature of the bombs, to the extent that even the news anchor feels obliged to state that no one really knew, at that point, what had happened.
The 2013 Boston Marathon was themed in remembrance of the victims of the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14th 2012. 26 seconds of silence were observed before the race began. The race being 26.2 miles long, one mile was dedicated to each of the victims. Survivors and their families watched on from the VIP area in the spectator stand at the finish line where the first bomb went off yesterday, cheering on a group called ‘Newtown Strong’ – Newtown parents taking part to raise money for local charities. Below you see that the banner marking the final mile carries a dedication to Newtown.
While several people were taken in for questioning, as yet no charges have been pressed and no group has claimed responsibility. There is no autistic, reclusive 20-year-old to blame. What we have instead is this powerfully symbolic connection to – and reminder of – the Sandy Hook atrocity. The timing of this attack – on Patriots’ Day, a civic holiday commemorating the anniversary of the first battles of the American Revolutionary War, and traditionally observed on the third Monday each April – is intended to remind the people why they need strong leaders to protect them from ‘random’ acts of terror. There is also the fact the following day, Tuesday 16th April, is Israeli national independence day.
Disgust is often the first reaction to the mere suggestion that authority figures alone stand to benefit from terror attacks. And yet, in the midst of their trauma, they ask: “WHO COULD DO SUCH A THING?” While we can’t name names, history tells us that the source always lies within “ramified networks of mutual pathological conspiracies poorly connected to the main social structure”, as described by Lobaczewski in Political Ponerology.
Many older Europeans ought to be familiar with the ‘Strategy of Tension in Europe in the ‘Cold War’ years. The strategy of tension, employed by US and European government agents, was a tactic that aimed to divide, manipulate and control public opinion using fear, propaganda, disinformation, psychological warfare, agents provocateurs, and false flag terrorist attacks.
The strategy began with allegations that the United States government and the Greek military junta of 1967-1974 supported far-right terrorist groups in Italy and Turkey, where communism was growing in popularity, to spread panic among the population who would in turn demand stronger and more dictatorial governments. There is no reason to assume, or believe, that governments today are any less interested in controlling the people through fear and terror.
This article was first published on SOTT.net, Tuesday, 16 Apr 2013
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=248599
Posted by Niall Bradley on Apr 18 2013, With 0 Reads, Filed under Civil Liberties and Freedom. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.