Explosion at the Boston Marathon.

[zeggman]

I fear this could backfire on the FBI, and lead them to wasting a lot of time chasing down false leads.
I hope that I'm wrong.

If what I'm reading in this "critical thinking" forum is any kind of wider indication, the FBI royally screwed up by making this move with the video/photos, in my opinion.

I hope I'm wrong. We'll see.

I think this will backfire on the FBI. You can disagree - won't stop me from criticizing the decision.

And, once again, I really hope I'm wrong.

You may never be right, but at least you always get what you hope for.

Maybe you should try hoping to win the Powerball lottery.

 

[zeggman]

No, not at all. I'm saying that those individuals could end up getting sued personally for their actions here. And if such a lawsuit comes, their cute little JREF Forum handles won't protect them from getting ID'ed; if a supeona were to be issued, the JREF would give up any and all relevant account info so that prosecuting attorneys could build their case.

That's the legal side, I suppose (I'm no lawyer). However, as I and others here criticized at the time, the tone of the thread certainly led to an atmosphere which might have encouraged the behavior of those individuals. That is more of an ethical question, though.

If anybody who posted in this thread is successfully sued for their actions here, I will personally crawl to Las Vegas on my hands and knees and build a shrine at TAM to your prescience.

If not, I'll just stay home and marvel at your delusions.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

My gut instinct is for the west to totally redefine our entire attitude towards terrorism, and view it for what it really is; a tactic employed in fourth generation warfare. Perpetrators of terrorism are therefore combatants, and should be prosecuted for war crimes. Of course, to do this, the west has to recognise and accept that we are in a state of perpetual low-intensity war, with dozens of different state and non-state entities. The reality is we are, but because that sounds far more scary than it actually is, I doubt the western public will ever accept it. So we stick to this fantasy that terrorists are just criminals, like burglars or rapists.

What is the problem with treating them as "just criminals"? After all, they are certainly that, regardless of what else they may be, and it avoids no end of semantic quibbling which fails to lead in any useful direction.

All of the tools to give them a fair trail are already in place, without navigating the minefield of what constitutes a 'just' prosecution which depends on nomenclature that seems to lack consensus.

The extra attention only adds to their celebrity. Treating them like burglars or rapists robs them of all that.

Is there a clear downside to treating them like common criminals which offsets that? It seems to me that there isn't. The only upside is posturing for the crowd by pols using an 'anti-terrorism' mantra to show their constituents what tough guys they are.

 

[Dan O.]

And yes, there were people harmed by all the speculation; otherwise, why would Reddit be issuing a public CYA apologizing for exactly that thing? You asked for evidence of harm, and I and others provided it. Ignore it if you want. C'est la vie.

Evidence? HA!

There have been two instances brought up. The missing kid which somebody helpfully showed the web page created by some hoaxter that attributed the identification to the police. You haven't shown that this was the product of reddit or any other sleuthing community or that it was the sleuths that caused the media to swarm to the parents house.

Then there was the blue bag guy who apparently named himself by posting on his Facebook page that he was going down to the court house to get it straightened out.

It's apparent why you don't like Internet sleuths. You're not any good at it.

Your claim of all the harm caused by Internet sleuths will be ignored as so much hot air being exhaled by someone that doesn't have the facts. If you want to make the point, you'll need to demonstrate it with specific cases that withstand scrutiny.

 

[Natan]

I thibk you'll find the right wing was assuming Islam all along. It's the left wing that'll be scurrying for a new position.

I propose anal cavity searches for Caucasians. And confiscate all pressure cookers at airports.

 

[JihadJane]

Q: Who nurtured Islamic terrorism in Chechnya?

A: The mighty USA.

Same old sorry story.

 

[zeggman]

Q: Who nurtured Islamic terrorism in Chechnya?

A: The mighty USA.

Same old sorry story.

Care to fill in a bit of the backstory?

Is the mighty USA nurturing Islamic terrorism in Mindanao too? In Boston?

 

[Belz...]

Not quite correct:


Bolding mine.

That's not "analysis", though.

 

[Natan]

Care to fill in a bit of the backstory?

Russia has alleged in the past Chechen rebels got a bit of support from abroad, hinting at the US. Nothing proven, as usual.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Care to fill in a bit of the backstory?

Here.

 

[Shiner]

The legal definitions in the United States can be found here.

Thankyou.

 

[zeggman]

Here.

I don't have time to sit through rambling videos, but the "expert" in that video seems to have written this. Seems like a frothing conspiracy nut to me -- short on facts, long on allegations.

 

[Shiner]

The Columbine massacre was never defined as terrorism. Neither are things like the Aurora or the Sandy Hook shootings.

Killing lots of people doesn't make someone a terrorist:

​

Yes it does. Maybe not in a legal definition in the U.S. Which I didn't know.

So, to qualify, I was using the emotionally charged broad brush definition. Mmmkay?

 

[Childlike Empress]

I don't have time to sit through rambling videos, but the "expert" in that video seems to have written this. Seems like a frothing conspiracy nut to me -- short on facts, long on allegations.

I originally posted the wrong link but changed it in the same minute. Maybe look again - that still can't provide more than "bit of the backstory", but that's what you asked for.

edit: oh, you already found it yourself.

edit2: this isn't explained in a few sentences. If you really want to learn about this topic, that site is one of the best places for it in the English language (this information is far more well-known outside the anglophone propaganda bubble).

 

[zeggman]

I originally posted the wrong link but changed it in the same minute. Maybe look again - that still can't provide more than "bit of the backstory", but that's what you asked for.

Okay, thanks, I did ask for a bit of the backstory.

It may be that the 5+ hours of video linked in that article are chock-full of the facts I claim are in short supply, but I'm not going to watch the videos when the article that links them is so unconvincing.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Okay, thanks, I did ask for a bit of the backstory.

It may be that the 5+ hours of video linked in that article are chock-full of the facts I claim are in short supply, but I'm not going to watch the videos when the article that links them is so unconvincing.

Maybe start with the Guardian article about the ACPC linked mid-way into it.

 

[zeggman]

Maybe start with the Guardian article about the ACPC linked mid-way into it.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but boiling it down, it seems the United States would be supporting the Chechen rebels for the same reason it supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan back when the Soviet Union was the evil empire -- to weaken the Russians.

It doesn't seem to me that that would be a credible motivation to support Islamic separatists at this point in history.

 

[phiwum]

From a Lord & Taylor! Wonder, if same one by bombing?

No. She was arrested (but not prosecuted) for shoplifting in the suburb of Natick.

 

[phiwum]

Evidence? HA!

There have been two instances brought up. The missing kid which somebody helpfully showed the web page created by some hoaxter that attributed the identification to the police. You haven't shown that this was the product of reddit or any other sleuthing community or that it was the sleuths that caused the media to swarm to the parents house.

Then there was the blue bag guy who apparently named himself by posting on his Facebook page that he was going down to the court house to get it straightened out.

Only two people publicly and falsely named and accused by persons who are idly playing armchair detective in their own living rooms? Well, that's all right then! Just the two!

Of course, more people were publicly accused, but only by photo, and so, hey, no harm! At least, they didn't go public saying they'd been harmed by these public accusations, so obviously...

Note: it doesn't matter much whether reddit or any other "sleuthing community" was the source of the accusations. First, I don't know what a "sleuthing community" is, but so long as the source is online and neither a deliberate hoaxster nor professionally speculating, it's an internet sleuth in my book.

Second, even if the source isn't an internet sleuth, the accusations were publicly repeated on widely read sites by persons I refer to as internet sleuths, and that's bad enough. Those individuals are responsible for that bad behavior.

It's apparent why you don't like Internet sleuths. You're not any good at it.

Your claim of all the harm caused by Internet sleuths will be ignored as so much hot air being exhaled by someone that doesn't have the facts. If you want to make the point, you'll need to demonstrate it with specific cases that withstand scrutiny.

Do you doubt any of the claims I made above and require citations? If so, which ones? I think that everything I've said here is common and irrefutable knowledge, but I could be mistaken.

 

[zeggman]

Of course, more people were publicly accused, but only by photo, and so, hey, no harm! At least, they didn't go public saying they'd been harmed by these public accusations, so obviously...

Were these accusations anything more than "this person has a backpack/bag which is large enough to contain a pressure cooker" or "this person is not looking where most people in the photo are looking"?

You're acting like these accusations amounted to "Fellow sleuths, we have our man. You're authorized to shoot on sight," when my recollection is that they were more along the lines of "this seems deserving of more investigation." It hardly seems like The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street.

We just had an Elvis impersonator who was arrested and questioned for days for allegedly threatening public officials with Ricin, then was suddenly released and all charges dropped. As far as I know, none of the people you claim were publicly accused were even held for questioning.