bombs interrupt boston marathon

myk said:

If you trust a legal system which now denies basic legal rights and where one suspect is dead and the other in poor conditions. If you think a Chechen would be perpetrating attacks against the US after what Russia did to them. If you think anyone interested in the effectiveness of such an attack wouldn't provide "evidence" to make scapegoating and case-muddling easier.

The suspects killed a police officer and carjacked someone at gun-point in the course of their attempted escape, and then attempted to shoot their way out when they were cornered (hence why one of them is dead.) So how does this qualify as being denied basic legal rights? It's the result of cops using standard text book self-defense.

So you think all of this was perpetrated by pro-gun advocates, who set off the bombs, killed the cop, framed the suspects, and 'provided' all the evidence of witness testimony from people who knew the suspects as well as surveillance camera footage of said suspects planting the bombs at the scene and then fleeing, and... wait, what exactly is it that you think? And you think this was done merely to distract our elected officials from the issue of gun control?

You didn't answer my question, either: Which gun control bills are you referring to, that supposedly got shelved or postponed as a result of the bombing?

Caffeine Freak said:

The suspects killed a police officer and carjacked someone at gun-point in the course of their attempted escape, and then attempted to shoot their way out when they were cornered (hence why one of them is dead.) So how does this qualify as being denied basic legal rights?

The government is trying to deny it's own citizen his Miranda rights. You can't force a suspect to hang himself no matter how much he's painted guilty before a trial.

EDIT: He was granted his Miranda rights. Good.

Technician said:

The government is trying to deny it's own citizen his Miranda rights.

He was not being denied the Miranda rights. They were temporarily being suspended during a public safety crisis.

Miranda Rights:
1. Right to remain silent during questioning
2. Right to an attorney during questioning

Keep in mind that just because he didn't have the "right" to remain silent during this time doesn't mean he couldn't be silent--all that basically means is that they can potentially use his silence as a refusal to cooperate and can be used in court against him in the event that his refusal to cooperate results in more casualties. And I think it is appropriate to not have a lawyer there potentially impeding law enforcement from discovering any accomplices that may still be at large or from learning about any other bombs that may have been placed.

Also keep in mind all other rights and laws related to citizens being detained for questioning still apply. They still can't torture him. Heck, even if he wasn't a citizen. And they only have at most 2 days (48 hours) before they are still required to read him the Miranda Warning. The public safety clause is not just a free shot for the police to rough up citizens, it's there for a good reason.

Exactly. Miranda Rights are read to people right before they are interrogated and are intended to inform them of their rights during questioning. Also, the thing is that the suspect was in no shape to be questioned immediately after his arrest, having sustained a gunshot wound to the throat, so it would have made little difference to read him his rights at that point. He also was not formally charged with anything until today(4/22), whereupon they read him his rights.

Caffeine Freak said:
So you think all of this was perpetrated by pro-gun advocates, who set off the bombs, killed the cop, framed the suspects, and 'provided' all the evidence of witness testimony from people who knew the suspects as well as surveillance camera footage of said suspects planting the bombs at the scene and then fleeing, and...

I'm not saying whether they framed them, hired them or coerced them to do it. That would have to be determined though legal proceedings, if there's still a chance or anyone cares to try. Those are all possibilities in what I'm suggesting from motivations and the context. There's nothing new about an organized or powerful group getting someone who's conditioned economically, socially or legally to do something criminal for them. Tamerlan reputably had sociability problems, a legal record, was a foreigner and was unemployed. That's a rather vulnerable position that makes people quite usable.

And you think this was done merely to distract our elected officials from the issue of gun control?

Not distract, influence by increasing the sense of fear and the supposed need for a strong gun culture to avoid terrorism. For the reasons I noted in my first post, it looks like the right place, at the right time with visible results.

You didn't answer my question, either: Which gun control bills are you referring to, that supposedly got shelved or postponed as a result of the bombing?

You answered that yourself. One of the more prominent and relevant bills was shot down, which is a blow to the gun control initiative that, with a general change in public or media sentiment, may be in trouble from now on.

Nomad said:
And I think it is appropriate to not have a lawyer there potentially impeding law enforcement from discovering any accomplices that may still be at large or from learning about any other bombs that may have been placed.

It's sad to hear you are starting to swallow police state ideology. The presence of lawyers for detainees is what more or less helps guarantee that people's rights won't be violated or they won't be tortured. More so in an instance when the wrath of the State is suspecting you're a "monster".

The public safety clause is not just a free shot for the police to rough up citizens, it's there for a good reason.

Citizens? It looks like they roughed them up quite thoroughly as it is. That, if anything, will make the truth much harder to find, especially with the death of what seems to have been the main or most responsible suspect. Security hysteria already won over the search for justice.

If this was in any form orchestrated and not what the official line tells us, then I seriously doubt it had shit to do with gun control and everything to do with the rapid build-up of justification for launching the war on Iran.

Note that we are now supposed to believe that vehemently Sunni al-Qaeda is acting in concert with Shiite Iran to attack trains going between Canada and the US. Bet you that some tenuous link between the nebulous "sleeper cell" these two guys were supposedly involved with and this new attack is "found". Then we have the same setup that was used to justify the war in Afghanistan all over again.

myk said:

I'm not saying whether they framed them, hired them or coerced them to do it. That would have to be determined though legal proceedings, if there's still a chance or anyone cares to try. Those are all possibilities in what I'm suggesting from motivations and the context. There's nothing new about an organized or powerful group getting someone who's conditioned economically, socially or legally, to do something criminal for them. Tamerlan reputably had sociability problems, a legal record, was a foreigner and was unemployed. That's a rather vulnerable position that makes people quite usable.

Are you speculating any of this through the observation of actual evidence that has come to light, or is it because you'd prefer to believe that the NRA (or fill in the blank with whatever shadowy organization you like) actually hired/brainwashed/did whatever to get this guy to do their bidding, rather than believe these two brothers did it out of devotion to radical Islam? Do you have any viable reason for this speculation, other than 'well this gun bill got shot down in the Senate'? (Which isn't really a viable reason either.)

You're right, there's nothing new about some higher-ups getting a pawn to do their dirty work. There's also nothing new about something that appears true on the surface turning out to be completely true.

myk said:

You answered that yourself. One of the more prominent and relevant bills was shot down, which is a blow to the gun control initiative that, with a general change in public or media sentiment, may be in trouble from now on.

You're still relying on pure speculation here, as you don't know (without looking up a transcript of the Senate proceedings at least) what exactly the reason was for certain people voting against the amendment. Yes, it could have been the bombing. It could also have been any number of things, it could have been that pressure was put on certain senators in the form of blackmail, old favors/debts that were owed, etc. It could have been that certain senators weren't quite as liberal as they were thought to be. That's all part of the nature of politics. And again, THAT is all pure speculation, and it's pointless to discuss that aspect without further research.

myk said:

Citizens? It looks like they roughed them up quite thoroughly as it is. That, if anything, will make the truth much harder to find, especially with the death of what seems to have been the main or most responsible suspect. Security hysteria already won over the search for justice.

I also find it odd that you seem to think there's been an abuse of power when these suspects were demonstrably armed and dangerous, and opted to keep shooting rather than surrender. Really, how is it 'security hysteria' when armed murderers are brought down by force?

The guys on thinktwicenews mentioned that boston went under martial law to find one guy (despite that deaths from terrorism are fewer than slip and falls in the bathtub), and the mindset of cops behaving in such a way likely comes from their childhood upbringing; their fathers were most likely strict/violent, and now their brains want to 'normalize' to produce that same environment they were brought up in. They take the role of their violent father and society/"citizens" becomes the victim/child. I don't know if mere primates will be able to transcend their primitive and culturally distorted genetic programming into a free society. People are indoctrinated to believe a subset of humans have exemptions to the common law non aggression principle everyone else wants to abide by, especially if peaceful parenting was allowed to catch on since "negative" adult behavior very linked to childhood trauma.

Family guy sort of "predicted" these bombings, might be a coincidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d34g2HhPFOE
Its obvious family guy is a shitty show (see south park's manatee metaphor..), so it was likely "given" its popularity rather than actually made popular because people like/chose it, similar to most popular controlled crap (jersey show, twitter, everything). Some argue that one of the quirks of the supposed illuminati cult/religion is they have to tell you what they're gonna do before they do it. Hopefully alex jones is um.. sovereign, and isn't a mouthpiece for them telling us things they're gonna do.
They might start banning gun powder, a 2nd flank attack against the 2nd amendment defense against tyranny, while tyranny is increasing. There's talk of some internet sales tax crap, and cispa, etc going through. Everything seems like its being intentionally destroyed. There's basically funny business going on everywhere, and the amount of let's say hostile videos on youtube is like some new form of insane propaganda network. I am not even very certain that I'll be alive in maybe 3 years or so because everything appears to be becoming so insane.. maybe on welfare or something is the only way, possibly deliberately to domesticate and herd everyone to concentration camps. There's war against small businesses right now. You can't install a swimming pool without installing a mandatory 35,000 dollar handicap accommodation. Seems possibly engineered civil war is brewing. AFAIK economic collapse and war go together, like ww2 and the great depression, and it seems the economy is collapsing right now, so... People are saying the dollar might collapse, basically affecting the whole world that's pinned to it. I mean what the hell is zerohedge? "tyler durden"? Is all this anonymous crap just the elites hiding behind their mass sock puppet software to sway minds? I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Quasar said:
I seriously doubt it had shit to do with gun control and everything to do with the rapid build-up of justification for launching the war on Iran.

Attacking Iran is a bigger and likely longer or costlier campaign than attacking Iraq, without the oil scarcity issues you had before the current shale oil boom. Sanctions notwithstanding, it hasn't been conditioned and declawed like Iraq was after the Gulf War and it's a more organized nation, with a better military and a people brought together by the fact that they alone are the Persians. That land is their last stand and home. It's kind of like attacking Israel in that sense. Still, there's no reason why both things can't go together. It's harder to have a military strutting about the world threateningly without at least letting your population play with smaller guns, to feel in tune in their own private Idaho. It's not a coincidence that Republicans are the more ardent gun proponents and also speared the heavier military incursions lately (notwithstanding the non interventionist branch of the party).

Caffeine Freak said:
Are you speculating any of this through the observation of actual evidence that has come to light,

I explained earlier how this was hitting an event directly tied to the arms control issue, possibly followed by an incident tied to Waco, which is also related in the long run. I don't pretend to be infallible but it's certainly not random speculation.

or is it because you'd prefer to believe that the NRA (or fill in the blank with whatever shadowy organization you like) actually hired/brainwashed/did whatever to get this guy to do their bidding, rather than believe these two brothers did it out of devotion to radical Islam?

Doing something for radical Islam wouldn't be that much of a free choice either, and would also have political and social significance and aims. Why did these Chechens do this, just because they were part of a big bad religion? Why did they attack an event in support of the Sandy Hook victims instead of something to give their supposed cause more immediate resonance and importance?

There's also nothing new about something that appears true on the surface turning out to be completely true.

That "it's because he was a Muslim extremist" surface is relatively shallow spam by reactionary ideologues and part of the big media. When relating the significance of the events I was talking about the surface and appearance, not some mysterious layer beneath it.

Really, how is it 'security hysteria' when armed murderers are brought down by force?

Your question is security hysteria since I already answered it and it means to assert the cops did everything great and could not have used means to maximize catching the suspect instead of killing him, and that the general media stance and political environment wasn't making a dead-suspect resolution more likely. Obama murders Osama without a trial and sends drones to kill suspects with explosives that can kill nearby civilians and you expect cops to give a slightest shit about the chance of survival of a supposed terrorist? Even if they did for any reason, it would still be an environment making the suspect feel more cornered and trigger happy.

myk said:

When relating the significance of the events I was talking about the surface and appearance, not some mysterious layer beneath it.

Your cogitations aren't offensive or insensitive, unlike the kind of 'It was all staged by teh g0vernment!!!' retardery that was rightfully Post Helled when referenced. And the natural reaction to an incident like this is to try and make sense of it all by connecting certain dots. But you're going to an awful lot of trouble to tell us what you think is really going on, for someone who claims to stick to the available facts.

Just an observation of my own.

myk said:

I explained earlier how this was hitting an event directly tied to the arms control issue, possibly followed by an incident tied to Waco, which is also related in the long run. I don't pretend to be infallible but it's certainly not random speculation.

Not random, just unfounded and pointless.

myk said:

Doing something for radical Islam wouldn't be that much of a free choice either, and would also have political and social significance and aims. Why did these Chechens do this, just because they were part of a big bad religion? Why did they attack an event in support of the Sandy Hook victims instead of something to give their supposed cause more immediate resonance and importance?

The Boston Marathon is a 100+ year-old event, and in this instance, only the last mile was dedicated to the Sandy Hook victims. In this case the bombing site in question was out in the open, crowded and publicly accessible, with little to no security screening required to pass through. Also, as I just mentioned, this is a long-held tradition that likely has a lot of sentiment attached to it, and it will always have the stigma of the bombing attached to it now. Those are all perfectly valid reasons for the choice of attack.

myk said:

That "it's because he was a Muslim extremist" surface is relatively shallow spam by reactionary ideologues and part of the big media.

Motivations are often more complex than that, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid explanation. It's the surface of the explanation, the layers of complexity beneath it could fill entire books, just like the motivations behind a person shooting up a school are far more complex than 'he was psychotic.' Again, that doesn't mean either of those reasons are false, it just means there's more to it than a one-sentence sound bite.

myk said:

Your question is security hysteria since I already answered it

No it isn't, it's a perfectly logical question. And the only way you've 'answered' it is to fall back on the recursive logic of 'well, they could have done more to capture him/they shouldn't have been so rough on him.' You seem to think that any forceful measures against a dangerous person are really unwarranted, and that any use of force in any situation, no matter how dire, is excessive force or qualifies as 'security hysteria', or is simply motivated by an extermination mentality on the part of the authorities. You completely dismiss the notion that what happened to the suspects was a result of standard text book self-defense, even though they went down shooting.

Really, it seems like through all of this, you're willing to lend credence to any speculation EXCEPT for the one which is the most obvious, and doesn't paint the perpetrators as victims of any kind.

myk said:

Obama murders Osama without a trial and sends drones to kill suspects with explosives that can kill nearby civilians and you expect cops to give a slightest shit about the chance of survival of a supposed terrorist? Even if they did for any reason, it would still be an environment making the suspect feel more cornered and trigger happy.

Again, I have to point out your interesting use of terminology here. 'Murder' is universally used to imply a wrongful death, and you ascribe it here to the death of someone who helped orchestrate the deaths of nearly 3,000 people in a single day, not to mention the other attacks he was responsible for. And you seemingly forget that 9/11 was an act of war. When you engage an enemy in war, you are knowingly putting yourself in a kill or be killed situation. Bin Laden was an enemy combatant on a battlefield, just like the soldiers on any side of the conflict.

Caffeine Freak said:

And you seemingly forget that 9/11 was an act of war. When you engage an enemy in war, you are knowingly putting yourself in a kill or be killed situation. Bin Laden was an enemy combatant on a battlefield, just like the soldiers on any side of the conflict.

No, it was a terrorist attack, a crime for which he should've been tried in court.

Caffeine Freak said:

And you seemingly forget that 9/11 was an act of war.

then why isn't the US bombing the shit out of Saudi Arabia? most of the attackers, the mastermind included, came from there. they declared war on you! i call bullshit, baby.

dew said:

then why isn't the US bombing the shit out of Saudi Arabia? most of the attackers, the mastermind included, came from there. they declared war on you! i call bullshit, baby.

Because Saudi Arabia didn't commit 9/11, Al-Qaeda did.

Caffeine Freak said:

Because Saudi Arabia didn't commit 9/11, Al-Qaeda did.

but declaring war on a nonhomogenous worldwide-spread entitity is as silly as declaring war on, say, drugs...


...never mind.

Caffeine Freak said:

Because Saudi Arabia didn't commit 9/11, Al-Qaeda did.

Al-Qaeda is not a country; they're an Islamic organization based majorly on Sunni ideals. The majority of the people responsible for the attacks were Saudi and Egyptian, yet we didn't attack them. The Persian region had little to do with 9/11 and America focused on Iraq and Afghanistan. Basically the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is just a continuation of the blunder that was the cold war in the Middle East.

Technician said:

Al-Qaeda is not a country; they're an Islamic organization based majorly on Sunni ideals. The majority of the people responsible for the attacks were Saudi and Egyptian, yet we didn't attack them. The Persian region had little to do with 9/11 and America focused on Iraq and Afghanistan. Basically the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is just a continuation of the blunder that was the cold war in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia and Egypt didn't attack us or declare war on us. Al-Qaeda doesn't need to be a country to attack us or declare war on us, so I hardly see that as being relevant. Simply going after whichever countries the hijackers happened to be from, rather than the organization they represented, would be analogous to somehow blaming South Korea after Seung Hui-Cho shot up Virginia Tech.

Caffeine Freak said:

Al-Qaeda doesn't need to be a country to attack us or declare war on us, so I hardly see that as being relevant.

can i declare war on the US?

start smaller. declare war on gggmork first and work your way upwards.

Caffeine Freak said:

Saudi Arabia and Egypt didn't attack us or declare war on us. Al-Qaeda doesn't need to be a country to attack us or declare war on us, so I hardly see that as being relevant.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11 is irrelevant becasue neither Iraq or Afghanistan declared war.

You can't bombard a country like Iraq and blame them for the workings of a rogue guerrilla group, especially seeing as they are found in just about every Islamic country. Even Bush used the excuse that Saddam was harboring them, even though Iraq (Shiite nation) and Al-Qaeda (Sunni extremists) don't particularly get a long.

Like I said, America attacking Afghan and Iraq was just them fixing problems they themselves caused during the Cold War and little to do with fighting Al-Qaeda. Only recently has America been successful in diminishing Al-Qaeda's numbers with drone strikes in Pakistan, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

DoomUK said:
But you're going to an awful lot of trouble to tell us what you think is really going on, for someone who claims to stick to the available facts.

Probably not enough, since there are other facts that make me suggest this that I haven't necessarily had the opportunity to mention. I'm not saying I'm holding things back, but that what I say depends on the discussion, in substantiating mainly what is questioned, and I'm not going to write a book about it here.

Caffeine Freak said:
Motivations are often more complex than that, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid explanation.

I'm not saying Islamic extremism is not a valid hypothesis at all, I'm saying "hey look here before you draw conclusions about the apparently obvious".

It may seem arbitrary to you and I doubt most people in the US have enough exposure to some events to even start to swallow the possibility of such a local attack. But US political actors have done similar or worse things abroad, with little respect for civil populations or democratic institutions, and things have changed since Bush's government. Globalization also means investors and businessmen move money and means of production out of their countries, increasing the chances they may act against their fellow citizens' interests.

For a touch of context, Donald Rumsfeld made this speech at the Pentagon on December 10th, 2001. The very next day, as you know, a plane hit the Pentagon. It's no secret that the Afghanistan and Iraq war initiatives made applying the restructuring Rumsfeld was proposing much easier, without the level of opposition he seemed concerned about.

The dude those social justice retards on Reddit were blaming for the bombing was found dead.

The US Gov's has been active in the Middle East since the the early 1950's. The US gov has trained militants, over throw governments and has been supporting hard-line dictator/regimes since then. And, lets also not forget the petrol dollar. If anything 9/11 was retaliation for the US past and present transgressions. As the old saying goes: "You can only push someone, so far, before they start pushing back" Osama and al-Queda just happen to be the people pusing back. At this point, I'm pretty much convinced that these kind of attacks will become more common place and its only matter of time tell we see another large scale attack like 9/11.

As I keep telling people, Americans need to educate them self's on the facts, spread the facts as far as they can and demand the US gov completely leave the Middle East. While it might not stop these attacks outright, it's enough forward progress to appease some groups. People in the US also need to realize that if they want this kind of change they will have to force it and be ready to do what ever it takes.

It's actually kind of sad if you research how liberal the middle east was back in the fifties and sixties.

Speaking of Alex Jones - the bombers were apparently big fans.

Technician said:

The dude those social justice retards on Reddit were blaming for the bombing was found dead.

:(

Like I said, leave it to the professionals. I'd be pretty petrified if I was the target in a witch hunt that some neckbeards on the internet had encouraged, too. Hopefully this is the last instance of senseless tragedy and injustice surrounding this whole event.

In fairness, he'd been missing for several weeks, and it's quite possible that his death was completely unrelated to what happened on the Internet.

That said, it must have been horrible for his family to have had to deal with all that at a time that they were already suffering because of his disappearance.

fraggle said:

In fairness, he'd been missing for several weeks, and it's quite possible that his death was completely unrelated to what happened on the Internet.

Of course, but it's also possible he had access to the internet at some point and saw what people were saying about him. Maybe he had other problems going on, and this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Maybe I'm making some erroneous speculations of my own, but whatever the case it just seems like far too much of a coincidence to me.

I maintain that even the most well-meaning members of the public should leave these things alone. Nothing good comes out of irresponsible "This is the bad guy!" finger-pointing, based on suspicion and extremely flimsy evidence, even if - perchance - nothing bad came out of it either.

EDIT: That's not to say the authorities are incapable of getting stuff wrong, either. But those whose job it is to deal with these things are trained to deal with the consequences of making a huge mistake. Regular people aren't.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/us/boston-marathon-bombing-trial/

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev found guilty of all 30 counts

Edit: wow, one week shy of the two year anniversary of when it happened; going by the start time of the thread.

Holy fuck, the Boston bombing is nearly two years old now?