2 explosions at the finish line at the Boston Marathon.(411 Posts)
very possibly, math. I don't!
I suppose the Russians do have the advantage of decades of watching everybody & trusting nobody
<Am I the only one who remembers a statement from Russian president before the Iraq war to the effect that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?>
more Russian information from NY Times
'That warning was based on telephone conversations intercepted by Russian intelligence, including one between Mr. Tsarnaev and his mother, in which they discussed jihad, Russian authorities have told the F.B.I.'
No wonder she's so keen to deny everything
Russian intelligence seem to be much hotter than American
lots of background stuff about Tamerlan from NY Times yesterday
The wording of the Russians' warning the FBI/CIA about him in 2011 is really intriguing - I suppose they had been monitoring the communications of radical Islamists there & picked him up from that?
'In 2011, the Russian security service cautioned the F.B.I., and later the C.I.A., that since 2010 Mr. Tsarnaev had changed drastically, becoming a follower of radical Islam. The Russians said he was planning a trip to his homeland to connect with underground militant groups. An F.B.I. investigation turned up no ties to extremists, the bureau has said.'
Police in the US do in fact have the right to be judge, jury and executioner. All instances of police shooting are reviewed. Police go through extensive training and are not trigger happy gun-toting cowboys. Incidents that involve police firing their weapons are few and far between among all the policing interactions that they are involved in annually.
I don't know how you have got your hands on information that doesn't seem to be widely known to the effect that the suspect was as harmless as a wounded hamster, but if you have a source to back up your certainty, and if that information was available to the police in Boston at the time the suspect was found in the boat then I will find a hat and eat it.
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat with experience" I have always loved this quote from Mark Twain. What a wise man he was!
I guess if there is a wounded hamster hiding in a boat we should send all the wild cats to
execute catch him!!!!
OMG Ignorance teaches......!!!!
Police don't have the right to be judge and jury but if there is what they believe to be a dangerous criminal on the streets who poses a threat to everyone around him, then what the bloody hell are they supposed to do without people getting their knickers in a twist?
Breadandbutterfly I agree totally with what you are saying. It is sad that people in ''Civilised countries believe that the police have the right to be judge and jury!!!!!
Be patient it very frustrating to debate with ignorance ......
Breadandbutterfly, the Tsarnaev pair had already shot at and tried to throw bombs at police and there was every reason to believe the surviving brother was armed and had nothing to lose by resisting arrest. A gunfight occurred in the backyard involving Boston PD and the suspect until the FBI established a perimeter and took the suspect captive.
The police are not always wrong in the US despite the fact that they are
(1) armed, and
And yes, the AP site was hacked. Stock markets had a temporary blip until the hacking was revealed.
Gosh, this is intriguigingly personal. I was very fucking accurately referring to your post this morning, Lt Eve
How does ONE post about hackers raiding AP become every single story you don't like ? Are you hard of counting?
though for reasons you have not yet revealed you seem to find any suggestion that the accused might actually be innocent, deeply distressing
ALL your suggestions intimate that they are innocent. I don't agree, and have explained why. I'm not 'distressed'. Why on earth would I be? I just think you are wrong. I am content in my belief that this atrocity was committed by two losers with an axe to grind. If if turns out that it wasn't, then I'll hold my hands up and say "OK, I was wrong". It's not hard.
People are allowed to disagree. The difference between you and I is that I don't feel the need to be fucking rude, sarcastic or passive aggressive about it.
FWIW, as we're getting personal, Eldritch - you come across as supercilious and up your own arse. But at least more intelligent and less lacking in basic logic than Lt Eve.
Well, that's me done.
As you yourself correctly pointed out above, Eldridge, people have a tendency to pre-judge issues based on their existing beliefs - I find it fascinating how many on this thread are determined that the accused MUST be guilty, although the trial has not yet taken place and the evidence not yet all been collected let alone presented. I wonder what drove Lt Eve to this conclusion...
I find this as odd as those who in the absence of definitive proof are convinced of a conspiracy.
Two different types of judgey-pants, to use MN lingo. Neither very attractive.
Gosh, this is intriguigingly personal. I was very fucking accurately referring to your post this morning, Lt Eve, though for reasons you have not yet revealed you seem to find any suggestion that the accused might actually be innocent, deeply distressing. I don't give a shit about two losers etc etc either, but do care a lot for the principle of 'assumed innocent until proven guilty' - which is clearly something else you don't give a shiney (sic) shit about.
Eldritch - such as...?
I find your precis of me somewhat innacurate, and indeed, irritating.
breadandbutterfly has a propensity for inaccurate precis. It is irritating.
Lt Eve - oh come on - so every single story you don't like is put there by hackers
OK, so are you very fucking rudely mixing me up with someone else? I haven't mentioned hackers before my post this morning.
And my post wasn't in relation to anything you had previously posted, except the fact that you posted yet another Daily Hate link and I know that the Daily Hate gets most of their USA stories from AP.
I don't give a shiney shit about two sibling losers looking to cause havoc to bring excitement into their tiny mind-numbing little lives and I have even less interest in tin-foil losers.
I find the Anonymous posts and tweets far more interesting, and saw one this morning where they are trying to backtrack the AP hackers - most likely for their own amusement and to 'get their own back'. I'm enjoying the play.
OK, thanks. I asked because you used the word 'lie', which means a deliberate untruth.
And it's Friday now - The bomb in the White House story was disproved within minutes.If these stories re those accused of the Boston bombs were false, they'd have been rescinded long before now. It doesn't take 2 days to announce that these stories were planted by hackers.
Talk about clutching at straws to hold on to anything - anything! - that backs up your pet theory of guilt.
Lt Eve - oh come on - so every single story you don't like is put there by hackers...
And you accuse others of conspiracy theories!!!
No, I'm not 'firmly excluding the possibility of mistake or incompetence' - on the contrary, it is because I have seen both mistakes and incompetence shown so far that I strongly suspect there may be further examples of mistake or incompetence to come.
As I stated, the pattern so far gives me little confidence that the main evidence against the accused is watertight either. The FBI announced the conclusion that the pair were guilty very early on - given the huge amount of evidence to be gone through, I'd have thought that firm conclusion seemed somewhat premature. It is entirely to be expected that a careful and detailed sifting of the evidence later would reveal new facts or flaws in the original conclusion. No problem with arresting the suspect - in case. But I do have problems with putting out a story that is prejudicial to the suspect and not yet carefully checked.
the drip-feed of incriminating 'evidence' that is then later rescinded and turns out all to have been a lie
So you are firmly excluding the possibility of mistake or incompetence? Why?
I'd be even more careful about what you read quoting the AP than I would the DM.
The AP was hacked on Wednesday and put out a number of sensational news stories, including one where a "bomb had gone off in the White House and the President was injured". Their Twitter feed was taken over for about 2 hours, and lots of the stories tweeted sounded plausible, but ultimately weren't.
Anonymous have said they are currently trying to track back the hackers, but I'm surprised that the DM didn't know about it and issue some caution in their own stories.
No, not really - as you yourself pointed out earlier, the FBI has lots of people on their books as suspected terrorists - not all of them actually are terrorists in practice, clearly, or we would be inundated with terrorist attacks non-stop. I have yet to see any evidence that implies the younger brother was known to be a terrorist - and he is the one due to go on trial.
Personally, I find the drip-feed of incriminating 'evidence' that is then later rescinded and turns out all to have been a lie eg they robbed a 7-11 at gunpoint - oh no they didn't; the younger brother was armed and shooting at police - oh no he wasn't etc - gives me diminishing confidence that any other part of the story holds water either.
So far, the only 'evidence' we have been presented with that matters, in relating to the suspect, is that he was videoed putting down the bomb and it then blew up - if this is truly the case, then clearly he is guilty. But so far, we have only assertions by anonymous sources that this video evidence actually exists. If it is as reliable as all the other 'evidence' of guilt so far, ie as illusory as the guns the younger brother was supposed to have and be using, then I am not very convinced, no.
Even if it can be proven that his older brother was guilty - which is far from proven (being a nasty piece of work may be coincidental rather than causation), no-one should be judged on the sins of their brother.
Join the discussion
Please login first.