Explosion at the Boston Marathon.

Alphaba said:
Looks more like a monstrous ideological salad, mixing Mideastern salafist djihadism/Al Qaedism with American CTism/truthism, with antisemitism as bonding sauce. A new meaning for 'melting pot'? :(
Click to expand...

Yes, but don't overlook the importance of moon landing denial and gold fever.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Source?

If accurate... holy crapballs. The right-wing is going to go even crazier now :boggled:
Click to expand...

It was reported by CNN (by an unidentified source, so take it for whatever it's worth):

"Preliminary interviews with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev indicate the two brothers fit the classification of self-radicalized jihadists, the source said. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, wounded and held in a Boston hospital, said his brother wanted to defend Islam from attack, according to the source."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/22/us/boston-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

The original report I read used the word "avenge," which is, I suppose, not the same as "defend."
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
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.
Click to expand...

If they are, indeed, a member of an entity that is engaged in an armed conflict with your country, and they carry out an attack against the government or armed forces of your country, they haven't done anything illegal at all. That's the problem. Essentially you're redefining the laws of war in such a way that anyone who fights against you is an illegal combatant. I don't think that's a sensible idea. Mostly because it will discourage any future enemy from adhering to the laws of war.



quadraginta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dismissing terrorists as common criminals is both stupid and dangerous, as it belittles and ignores the seriousness of the threat they represent.
 
Hourglassmemory said:
5. The 'other men with backpacks'.
A lot of connections are made between the backpacks they are wearing and the evidence found at the scene (notably the black fiber and the white square on the handle). It is implied the bag packs they are seen carrying contain the bombs that will be detonated moments later.
One of the problems with this is that there is no picture of the same "bad guys" pictured at the top, without their bags, running from the scene.
There is however a picture of the younger brother running from the scene without a backpack. At least it's how I'm interpreting the image. The same image contains the older brother, further back. It is too blurry for me to see if he's carrying anything. but we know he carried a darker backpack which can work with the evidence found at the scene. I have seen claims the backpack remains are too dark and don't work with the colors on the older brother's backpack. I know how judging the color of something through blurry security footage is a pain in the neck and often not reliable at all.
Click to expand...


The "other men" who have been fingered by internet sleuths as SEALS or Mercenaries involved in a "false-flag" attack are actually members of a Massachusetts National Guard unit that specialises in providing WMD support to civil authorities in the event of a major attack or disturbance. These Civil Support Teams (CSTs) routinely attend large public gatherings, and were some of over 800 MNG troops on duty for the marathon. They were augmented by members of CSTs from the New York National Guard and one other (Rhode Island, I think?).

The most widely depicted photograph of these two "alleged bombers" showing both with backpacks and one holding a third bag, were almost certainly taken after the bombings (there's evidence of dust and debris on the street surrounding them), and other photo evidence shows these two remaining on the scene providing water and aid to the wounded, along with other members of their team.
 
gumboot said:
If they are, indeed, a member of an entity that is engaged in an armed conflict with your country, and they carry out an attack against the government or armed forces of your country, they haven't done anything illegal at all. That's the problem. Essentially you're redefining the laws of war in such a way that anyone who fights against you is an illegal combatant. I don't think that's a sensible idea. Mostly because it will discourage any future enemy from adhering to the laws of war.
Click to expand...


Are we at war? Has any nation declared war against the U.S.A.?


Dismissing terrorists as common criminals is both stupid and dangerous, as it belittles and ignores the seriousness of the threat they represent.
Click to expand...


How does convicting and imprisoning the terrorist equate to ignoring them?
 
They were just mad that their mom was arrested for stealing $1,600 worth of merchandise from a Lord & Taylor.
 
applecorped said:
They were just mad that their mom was arrested for stealing $1,600 worth of merchandise from a Lord & Taylor.
Click to expand...

That may just be the real reason. We'll never know.

BTW, the parents were grilled in Russia by the Russian authorities and FBI and are expected to be in the USA shortly. I wonder if we have agreed to overlook the outstanding warrant?
 
Since Friday the newspapers have been saying that the dad is headed to the US. I am starting to wonder if he is arriving by row boat...
 
Brass said:
Your lack of historical understanding is shocking.
Click to expand...

I am shocked as JJ saying something totally insane and ignorant about the same way that Louis was shocked at finding there was gambling going at Rick's place in Casablanca.
 
I see the defendent is going to use what could be called the Beaver Cleaver "Wally Is The Real Guy Responsible" defense....blame your older brother for everything.

That tactic did not work very often for Beaver Cleaver,when one of his and Wally's schemes backfired on them and the parents wanted to know exactly what happened,and I have feeling it will not work very well for the defendent.
Granted, that seems to be just about the only defense he has but still, I would like hell to be his lawyer.
 
phiwum said:
If one person publicly said, "I'm nigh certain this is the bomber," then we ought to say that he shouldn't have done so. This is true even if others immediately disputed the claim. I'm talking about individual, not group, responsibility here.

I've snipped the remainder, for the sake of space.

Yes, you're right, there are a degree of harms involved here, and by and large, the less harm, the less wrong done. Probably most persons identified by online sleuths as potential victims suffered only negligible harm.

But there's also a difference in responsibility. The police are supposed to find suspects. Inevitably, they will sometimes question an innocent person. That person suffers more harm than, say, those identified by internet sleuths, but if the police are doing their job well, then they have done no wrong. We recognize that this is their duty, and it's inevitable that sometimes, even when cops are performing their duties well, innocent persons are questioned or even tried.

The armchair sleuths had no similar responsibilities. I don't doubt that they meant well (though perhaps were also motivated by a desire for glory or at least self-satisfaction), but the fact is that when they publicly made accusations that turned out to be mistaken, we should be less ready to forgive them than we forgive police, because their accusations are gratuitous.

Again, I don't think that online sleuths are bad people, or that many of them did anything grossly wrong. I just think that one shouldn't make public accusations (or discuss suspicions of who the bomber is) without considerable care.
Click to expand...

This bears repeating. Well said.
 
gumboot said:
Dismissing terrorists as common criminals is both stupid and dangerous, as it belittles and ignores the seriousness of the threat they represent.
Click to expand...


Yep.

The historical consensus and modern U.S legal opinion are worlds apart. Again.

The difference between military and civil law enforcement is becoming very blurred.
 
BenBurch said:
That may just be the real reason. We'll never know.

BTW, the parents were grilled in Russia by the Russian authorities and FBI and are expected to be in the USA shortly. I wonder if we have agreed to overlook the outstanding warrant?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there is a warrant.

I was under the impression that she simply wasn't prosecuted, not that she left the country prior to prosecution.

I could be mistaken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom