The younger one definitely was a citizen and generally assimilated. The older one had the green card and had made trips back. Likely radicalized and turned his younger bro.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Younger brother was a citizen older was a green card holder here under political asylum. The green card and political asylum can be revoked if you are suspected of a crime it is on the state departments website.
Respectfully I get what you are saying, but I'm not buying it. The majority of these reports are from the media and well the Al Queda and the Taliban have a very long and established history of crying foul and the media going with it. Frankly that link you posted is inflammatory and a slap in the face to the victims in Boston! The United States has never waged a open war on innocent civilians and I doubt we ever will. Do we on occasion get it wrong? Absolutely! Do missiles and bombs miss the target rarely, but yes it has happened. When you provide a link claiming its a excellent example and the headline claims the United States citizens can see what it's like well you have lost all credibility. If you can't see the difference between Jihad and openly admitting to wage war on civilians causing maximum death to women and civilians I don't know what to say because nothing I say will educate you. Here is a report from Columbia University that claims a significant less amount of civilian deaths then your conspiracy theory sites, but more important it says that all reports of deaths are reports by the media not the govt. do you know where that starts? Al Jezeere! Look how the numbers fluctuate in the Columbia University study that uses 3 sources one source says 72-155 total deaths with as many as 55 being civilians while another source says 3-9. The report says all of the sources are very reliable, but when it references percentage increases it clouds the facts. For example if the last report is used and the initial report of 3 deaths is actually 9 then the report was off by 300%. The main thing I get from this study is how it says all claims of deaths in Pakistan be it civilian or militant are very difficult to determine.
Two weeks ago I sat next to a female Army medic in her 11 yrs of service she has deployed 4 times, she told me countless stories of her a unarmed medic defined by the Geneva Covention running out of a Blackhawks to retrieve a down soldier while taking fire. Then days later she was forced to treat the very person firing at her because he was shot. She literally laughed about how these men would deny it and she openly said she would tell them just shut up I saw you shoot at me don't insult my intelligence while I save your life. I ask her how frequent this happened and she said pretty much daily. It is also worth while to mention this same soldiers brother was killed in battle before his 20th birthday by a IED and here she was still doing it right.
Like I told you before read the books from our guys on the frontline they all say the same thing about the terrorist claiming to be a innocent civilian. Just curious have you researched the vetting process a target goes through( both military and civilian) before it is hit? Don't you find it odd that many times we hit a target with thousands of pounds of ordinance and the only thing left standing is a piece of evidence that sells their story to the media. I am not saying we haven't killed innocent people it sucks, but it is the fog of war. What I am saying is it is no where near the numbers those sites claim, we don't openly target civilians, and we do go above and beyond placing our own troops at risk to limit collateral damage. The point I am making is for every report or site you quote from the media, it an be countered by countless soldiers or sailors that will flat out tell you otherwise. Ultimately it is up to you who you believe!
I know you are going to claim the United States government should own up, they should release reports and refute the claims. We have Rumsfeld use to stand at the podium and refute these claims, he would show evidence it wasn't a wedding, or a funeral or whatever was claimed. Some media accepted that and some of the media called it lies. It's terrorist 101 claim to be a innocent farmer or whatever and turn the media against the war.
Skape for a week you have been saying you want answers for the bombing, you have been looking for every reason for this not to be a foreign terrorist. Now you want to believe his brother made him do it because what has been told about the brother. Think about it for a minute, why are the authorities leaking this about terrorist 1? Because he blew himself up we don't have to try him. Terrorist 2 lived and we need to present evidence in court or a tribunal and if they leak it now it may not be admissible in court. Let it play out let the facts be presented to a court.
Referring back to your grandfather and how you respect and honor his service in WWII. Do you know what the collateral damage was after the Army Air Core bombed a German, French, Dutch, etc city? Do you know what the civilian death tolls were back then? We have come a long way from those days , the point is no matter how hard we try civilian loss of life is a fact of war. The difference is The United States is not waging war on civilians! These are not knee jerk war monger reactions to a terrorist attack, it is taking the fight to a enemy that has no value of human life.