2 explosions at the finish line at the Boston Marathon.

[landofsoapandglory]

BBC have it as news at the moment.

Sky also have it.

One person dead according to Sky on the TV.

No more assumptions in my posts that yours bread. We are coming at it from different viewpoints is all.

I'd love to agree to be polite, but I can't. You're assuming he's guilty. I'm assuming we can't know that yet. But my assumption is fact unless you've spoken to the man himself and he confessed or you personally witnessed him place the bag down and it then blow up.

As that seems unlikely, I'll stick with my assumptions for now.

Eldritch - agreed - veeery unfortunate turn of phrase on my part. You gave me the impression of being less than even-handed. But maybe that impresion is unfair.

Thanks.
It's not the conclusions people come to so much as the reasoning that I often find odd.
We know from experience that we get told things at e.g. press conferences that turn out to be wrong (famous example re drone attack in Afghanistan, the US Army response was shown to be completely wrong in circs not really explicable except on the basis of 'We'll just say...oh shit, they've worked out that can't be true') so questioning the official version is A Good Thing, in my book.

But on a rational basis. And equally, if people want to shoot down some of the alternative theories, it has to be properly reasoned, not just dismissed. I looked at some of the links posted on this thread and thought, 'Well you're asking me to take a lot of things that support your theory on trust, why should I?' I don't see why if I refuse blindly to trust the FBI I should suddenly blindly trust Internet People.

This is a cause dear to my heart because I do feel that No Platform in all its manifestations (very modish when I was at university) was never satisfactory and is not at all helpful in the internet era. You have to keep having, and winning the argument. Just like with Bell Curvers and Holocaust Deniers, if you think someone is a conspiracy theorist way off base, you have to demonstrate it by persuasive analysis. And ditto if you believe the official version is wrong.

All that said, a personal disclaimer: I have a relative who is a senior US govt official. The blanket dismissal of US govt as peopled by evil murderers does really really get to me. My rellie has made huge sacrifices in the cause of public service, and he's not alone.

I'm glad we don't have to be polite then Bread. I think your posts make you sound as if you are determined to disbelieve the official story simply because it is the official story.

I haven't said once what I believe. But my 'gut feeling' is that the bad planning, the small number of victims, the simplicity of the bomb and the failure to 'get away' clean all point towards two losers doing this on their own.

My DH and I have had (minor) experience in this field and we were both saying the same thing at the very initial stages - the only thing we got wrong is that we were both leaning towards it being 'home grown' and a fight against Obama, rather than against America.

If it had been a 'false flag' operation, or a known terrorist organisation's operation it would have been a 'better' job. This is just too sloppy.

I don't really have any idea who did it - no grand conspiracies. I just feelslightly uncomfortable with the automatic assumption of guilt before trial. But maybe the brothers are guilty. I hope the trial will answer many of my questions and join the dots and that the remaining brother will get a fair trial.

Eldritch - like you I am influenced by family members at some subconscious level. My family survived Nazi Germany - from their experiences I have learnt not to blindly assume that govts always do the right thing or act fairly in the interests of all their citizens (and no, am not equating the US and Nazi Germany before anyone suggests that...). Just that I believe in making up my own mind before trusting anyone, govts or otherwise. So pretty similar to you, really.

Refs to the IRA on this thread have reminded me - wasn't Boston one of the main cities for IRA fundraising back in the day when the terrorists were blowing up British cities? Raising money for the boys back home and all that? Of course that doesn't in any way justify this latest horror, nor take away from the suffering of innocent victims. Just wonder whether anyone who was around back then and put their hand in their pocket for the IRA has realised, since 9/11 or with this fresh atrocity, quite what suffering their actions caused.

And musing on that makes me think about the US drone attacks in Pakistan. I've seen figures quoted that more than 100 children have been killed. Again, doesn't justify what happened in Boston, but why do we ignore their plight when we are quick to express our sympathy for the bereaved in Boston? Because it's further down the news agenda, partly, I guess, but surely there's something more to it...

yes, the drone thing definitely needs more Western attention, edam

there was a very effective thing on FB today \link{https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100574499754824&set=a.570147278264.2159938.14305299&type=1&theate\linking it to the Boston neighbourhood where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was hiding in the boat}

LtEveDallas, I am nodding in agreement with everything you are saying here.

Edam, yes it was. And sadly, I think many of the same people would pass the cap again if they thought circumstances warranted it. The belief being that the targets the IRA was after were security forces (army and police) rather than civilians, and even if civilians were IRA targets the assumption was that they deserved to be targets. Bombings, where people were killed and injured randomly are harder to justify except in a broader political sense. Of course many people were able to do this in their heads.

However, in the wake of the Omagh bombing by the 'Real IRA' I think support for the armed struggle fell off considerably. That slaughter got a lot of coverage in US media.

NicholasTeakozy -- all that NY Times article suggests to me is that there are quite a few disaffected and radicalised Muslims in the US, living lives that are marginalised and estranged from the rest of society for various reasons, but that the FBI is onto them, keeps track of them, and has done an excellent job of profiling them; I think it shows that in the main the wannabe terrorists are not half as bright as their mothers think they are.

Not that good a job if this story is true, math...

Better than the UK.

It seems odd that given there are real terrorists out there planning real attacks (as those in the UK that no one seems to have doubted were genuine show) to jump to the conclusion that any that succeeds must be a false flag government operation. Or to assume that when answers are not immediately forthcoming that conspiracy rather than uncertainty is the reason.
There seems to be an expectation that the public should be privy to all the information instantly and without hesitation. Apart from anything, the authorities need to be mindful not to prejudice a trial.

Oh come on - it's precisely the fact that the trial has already been obviously prejudiced that worries me. Every leak we have had has been to present the pair as guilty. It goes on day after day, drip-feeding more and more... If the US has a jury system for this sort of crime, how can they find any jury anywhere who has not already read all this and made up their mind?

If they were saying nothing once they'd caught him and there was no ned to report further, then fine. But they're not. There are numerous daily articles and much of it eg today's articles on what the accused is supposed to have confessed to, are highly prejudicial.

If you compare that to the terrorism cases we've had here, no-one here had even heard of most of those cases at all unttil they came to court, so the accused could and did get a fair trial. Any details that came out came out during/after the trial as should always be the case.

I have no idea how this cannot be obvious to everyone.

Blimey, they really can't win can they? Don't release evidence that the pair are guilty and it's a government set-up framing an innocent boy. Do release evidence and it's a bad thing to show the pair were justifiably shot by the police and stop the Internet outrage because it might prejudice the trial.

I don't think the FBI were behind the release of those private photos to the Daily Mail, by the way. I doubt they have that much control over private mobile phones.

And there are alternatives to conspiracy theories. There is also the 'don't know' theory. The opposite of the accused being guilty is not that a conspiracy is responsible. It's that we don't actually know who is responsible.

There are lots of unsolved crimes out there but we don't describe them all as 'conspiracies'. That just patronises everyone who thinks that the case may be less straightforward than has been presented by tainting them as 'nutters'.

The US does not have the same contempt of court laws, so there is no prior restraint on what can be published about an accused. The safeguard for the accused is to have lavish opportunities (that UK defendants would not get) to question potential jurors about prejudice and challenge them. That is why it can take weeks to empanel a jury. Very different from here, but not necessarily unfair.

noblegiraffe - I can imagine a situation in the UK where it would be legal to publish the amount of info about the supposed accused before trial. I don't know what laws the US has relating to contempt of court but leaks such those over the last couple of daysrelating to things the accused has supposedly confessed to can - if true - only come from the FBI - I'm assuming he's not confessing to every nurse in the hospital...

How can these leaks not prejudice the trial?

Sorry - should read I canNOT imagine a situation in the UK...

Crossed posts - thanks Eldritch. I prefer the UK system for sure.

And don't forget, the accused can't be tried unless a grand jury decides that there is sufficient evidence to try him on, which is another procedural safeguard. Grand jury proceedings are secret so the eventual trial is not prejudiced by the process or findings.

Still prefer the UK version...

'Not that good a job if this story is true, math...'

Clearly someone's head will roll for this. There have already been questions asked in Congress and there will be the mother and father of an inquiry. The matter of the warning from Russia is one many on Capitol Hill are interested in. (Not that long ago there was enough support for anti Russia grandstanding that the Magnitsky Act was tacked onto the Bill admitting Russia to the WTO)

Oh look, now officials say that the suspect dodn't actually have a gun at all on the boat. So not only did he not shhot himself conveniently in the throat, he didn't shhot at the police either. So why were they shooting at an unarmed man??

And people wonder why they are conspiracy theories.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2314448/Now-officials-claim-Boston-bombing-suspect-NOT-armed-boat-showdown--despite-police-account-firefight-shooting-himself.html

I wonder what the people banging on about the pair's innocence on Facebook make of the revelation that the elder brother was on a terrorism database.