Is that the point he made? Because he said none of those things. He implied a hidden meaning in the title from me or the person who originally created it.
If you carefully reread what I wrote, it was, "...Ibragim Todashev's friend was partly to blame..." The point being that the hidden premise I was pointing out is that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was, in fact, one of the Boston Bombers. See how hard it is to spot?
That said, it's probably unnecessary to address the rest of your post, but I will due to its tone.
One does not cover up a shooting if the victim is responsible for a terrorist attack.
If it was a murder or due process was egregiously violated, of course they might cover it up.
Nobody in any of the communities...believes the narrative you are pushing...the title somehow gaslighting people into believing he was responsible for his own death, as it implies that he was a terrorist?
That's where you may have gotten the idea that I am acting in bad faith. That is not what I am trying to say at all. My conjecture is that the title is part of a psychological operation to instill the belief that Tamerlan Tsarnaev is guilty of being a "Boston Bomber."
Further, you can't know whether or not everybody in a community believes something, and even if your generalization were true that would be argumentum ad populum--the fallacy that something is true or false based on popular belief.
You are either playing devils advocate, or playing the fool.
One does not cover up a shooting if the victim is responsible for a terrorist attack.
Nobody in any of the communities that cover theories, where this title is prominent, as I cut and pasted it from elsewhere, believes the narrative you are pushing. Which leads to the Question, why are you pushing it? In fact, you are actively replying to a comment that outright tells you what the premise for this submission is, and yet, you move forward with your theory on the title somehow gaslighting people into believing he was responsible for his own death, as it implies that he was a terrorist?
No, seriously, what are you doing here now?
Are you painting me into a corner?
Are you painting yourself into a corner?
Are you just providing a soundboard for me to bounce ideas off of, so that I won't go mad from the sound of my own keys being pressed?
What color paint even is it?
Is it melancholy flavored paint?
I bet it's melancholy flavored. It must leave a most grievous after taste.
Protip: Don't eathepaintchips!
Never eat the paint chips, they are filled with lead!
https://www.bollyn.com/did-the-fbi-murder-ibragim-todashev/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/VIOTkN57uucp/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/O1FPW9WnIrXl/
Hes making a valid point,
Which is, the Tsarnaev’s didnt “bomb” anything.
It was a planned mass casualty drill, and FEMA deputy admin Richard Serino was the incident commander
Is that the point he made? Because he said none of those things. He implied a hidden meaning in the title from me or the person who originally created it.
If you carefully reread what I wrote, it was, "...Ibragim Todashev's friend was partly to blame..." The point being that the hidden premise I was pointing out is that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was, in fact, one of the Boston Bombers. See how hard it is to spot?
That said, it's probably unnecessary to address the rest of your post, but I will due to its tone.
If it was a murder or due process was egregiously violated, of course they might cover it up.
That's where you may have gotten the idea that I am acting in bad faith. That is not what I am trying to say at all. My conjecture is that the title is part of a psychological operation to instill the belief that Tamerlan Tsarnaev is guilty of being a "Boston Bomber."
Further, you can't know whether or not everybody in a community believes something, and even if your generalization were true that would be argumentum ad populum--the fallacy that something is true or false based on popular belief.
Your remaining questions don't seem serious.