Explosion at the Boston Marathon.

dudalb said:
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.
Click to expand...

I disagree that this is a poor tactic or that it has little chance of working. Of course he is going to be found guilty (or even plead guilty), but this type of defense has a pretty long history of helping defendants receive less serious sentences than they would have otherwise. It may help him avoid a death sentence.
 
More details have been released about the bombs:

Investigators said the two Boston Marathon bombs were triggered by long-range remote controls for toy cars — a more sophisticated design than originally believed — bolstering a theory that the older suspect received bomb-making guidance on his six-month trip to Russia last year.

[...]

The intelligence bulletin on the bombs said each one "likely incorporated an electrical fusing system using components from remote control toy cars."

The bombs used "an electronic speed control" as a switch, and "sub-C rechargeable battery packs at the power source," read the bulletin, according to an official.

Both pressure-cooker bombs used a low-explosive mixture that incorporated nitrate and perchlorate-based oxidizers, the bulletin said. Investigators don't know whether the explosive was purchased that way or was mixed from different sources, including gun powder from fireworks purchased by Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

Pressure-cooker bomb recipes are available on the Internet. Officials said the brothers may have gotten theirs from Inspire, a magazine put out by Al Qaeda's Yemen affiliate. Bomb experts said it was unlikely, though not impossible, that the brothers successfully built and detonated the two bombs without outside help and practice, as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has told his interrogators.

Boston bombs showed some expertise
Click to expand...


ETA: In other news, the Washington Post reports that Tsarnaev "had no firearms when he came under a barrage of police gunfire that struck the boat where he was hiding".

ETA #2: Investigators say they've only recovered 1 gun, not the 3 initially reported.
 
Last edited:
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...

I don't see that. They are not 'common' in the sense that they are rare, but they are criminals. I think treating them differently is dangerous because you run the risk of skipping due process.
 
'Boston Terror Updates & Developments-April 24, 2013

CIA MO Not the FBI, Contradictions from Dagestan, Recent Shooting Incident in Dagestan, Georgia-NATO-Russia & More'



Sibel Edmonds said:
I have been repeatedly emphasizing the importance of going outside the US mainstream and quasi-alternative media outlets for information and new developments on the Boston Terror event. Similarly, I have been urging people to place the bigger part of their attention on developments in the Caucasus during this period following the event. Let me exemplify what I mean by this with the following developments you won’t be seeing printed or talked-about in the US MSM and their little quasi-alternative siblings.

In my latest interview for Boiling Frogs Post EyeOpener Report (See [video below -JJ]) I emphasized the role of the CIA rather than the FBI in evaluating the Boston Terror incident. Why? Because: 1-the suspects 100% fit the CIA recruitment profile; 2-The region being central to the CIA covert operations since the 1990s; 3- The suspect’s travel to the region (not the FBI MO but the CIA); 4- The classic occurrence of the FBI closing the case per CIA request and pressure … and much more. Please watch my comprehensive interview with James Corbett here for more details on this: Watch Video[below -JJ]
Click to expand...



'Sibel Edmonds on the Boston Bombing: The US roots of "Chechen" terrorism '

 
gumboot said:
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.
Click to expand...


One of us is confused, and I'm pretty sure it isn't me.

I'm not redefining anything, and I have no idea what war you are referring to.

Unless some new information has surfaced recently we are not currently at war either with Chechnya or Russia, nor are (or were) either of the two brothers members of the armed forces of either nation or any other recognized legal entity to which such laws would be relevant.

They are accused of crimes which quite clearly fall under the purview of U.S. statutes to which they are (or were) subject as resident aliens and naturalized citizens.

Unless you have knowledge which the rest of us are not privy to there is no justification for treating them as combatants and every reason to treat them as simple criminals. Merely because the crimes they committed were singularly heinous and brutal doesn't change that, any more than it did for Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph.

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.
Click to expand...


Romanticizing common criminals as terrorists is both stupid and dangerous, as it idealizes and misrepresents the seriousness of the threat they represent.
 
Is anyone here trying to put the pieces together or is everyone just waiting for the authorities to tell them what happened?
 
Dan O. said:
Is anyone here trying to put the pieces together or is everyone just waiting for the authorities to tell them what happened?
Click to expand...

Waiting.

People here and on the web in general have a pretty poor track record of sleuthing and detective work, especially for this event.
 
NoahFence said:
Waiting.

People here and on the web in general have a pretty poor track record of sleuthing and detective work, especially for this event.
Click to expand...

I've followed Reddit's attempt at crowd-sourcing and assisting in the investigation with great interest.

It was an absolutely abysmal failure.

Also, the JREF thread with speculation on the bomber's identities was mostly wrong (as was my own speculation in that thread).
 
If the internet has taught me anything, it's that you need to wait for everything. Be patient and let the facts come in. If they're not coming in fast enough for your liking, go for a walk, play a video game, smoke a fatty. Do something.

And Facebook rule #1:
The more an image and its text upset you, the more likely it is that it's cow dung.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom