Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Source: Man fatally shot by Boston police part of terror network

I have no comment on this at the moment , I am waiting for the press to get done with their spin orgy and see what develops .

(CNN)A man who was fatally shot by police in Boston on Tuesday was part of a broader terror investigation involving suspected Islamist extremists being tracked by the U.S. Joint Terrorism Task Force, a law enforcement official said.
The suspect belonged to an ad hoc terror network, said a second law enforcement source.
Police and federal agents shot and killed the man after he waved a large military-style knife at officers, authorities said.
The suspect was identified as Usaama Rahim, according to his brother, Ibrahim Rahim, who posted about the death on social media.
The FBI-led task force had been watching Rahim and two associates believed to be radicalized by ISIS and other extremist influences, according to a law enforcement official. Rahim had been monitored for at least a couple years.

Ibrahim Rahim, an imam at the Lighthouse Mosque in Oakland, California, wrote on Facebook that his brother was shot while at a bus stop on his way to work.
Ibrahim Rahim said his brother was shot three times in the back during the confrontation. He said his brother was on the phone with their father.
The suspect had been under surveillance by the U.S. Joint Terrorism Task Force, Boston Police Commissioner William Evans told reporters, without elaborating.
Evans said the shooting occurred at about 7 a.m. after officers and FBI agents confronted the unidentified man, who turned around with a large black knife.
The officers retreated and ordered the man to put down the weapon before they opened fire, Evans said.
"Unfortunately, he came at the officers and, you know, they do what they were trained to do and, unfortunately, they had to take a life," Evans said.
A Boston police officer and a federal agent opened fire on the suspect, Evans said.

One thing I would be curious to know is if the brother wasn't there, how does he know the guy was shot in the back?

There is the usual  government is the good guys propaganda  dispersed throughout this piece also.
Another thing I find interesting is if the Feds have been watching this guy for a couple of years and finally decided to go after him , declaring him as they have as a dangerous individual,
who the fuck made the decision to confront him at a bus stop in broad daylight?

That is a ridiculously bad call but shouldn't surprise me I suppose.


  1. " declaring him as they have as a dangerous individual,
    who the fuck made the decision to confront him at a bus stop in broad daylight?"

    Would you rather they did a 0300 SWAT raid? Possibly killing a innocent in the process? I'm going to side with the coppers on this one. Broad daylight works for me. To bad the guy had to be a idiot. From the initial report it sounds like he committed suicide by cop. I do want to know what took them so long. A couple of years? I understand gathering evidence and Intel, but 2 years?

    Of course the FBI knew about the 2 idiots in Texas for years and look what they let those two do. Famous But Incompetent. Your tax dollars at work.

    1. By the way, I do agree that they could have picked a better place than a bus stop. Why ddin't they nab him when he came out of his house/apartment.

    2. That was the point I was trying to articulate.

      Why have armed thugs with itchy trigger fingers and all ramped up on adrenaline anywhere near the general public?
      There was absolutely no need for that and it endangered the public by doing so.
      Shots were fired in that public arena because of piss poor decision making.


Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, some peoples stink more than others too. Remember, I can make your opinion disappear, you keep the stink.

Fair Use Notice

Fair Use Statement: This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: “http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml” If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.