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.

The Saudi Arabian chap initially named as a suspect was on a list of people having 'terrorist connections'. Didn't stop him getting into the White House. Or being visited in hospital by Mrs O'Bama.

Abdul Rahman Alharbi was on the same list Noble. But he got spirited out of the country. Just like Bin Liners family after the 2001 attacks in New York.

noblegiraffe - you appear to be implying that it is ok to shoot unarmed suspects if they have a family member on a terrorism database.

In my world, it is not OK to shoot unarmed suspects - the only reason for shooting someone several times is if they are posing a real threat and risking others' lives. If they're not, you just sit and wait. Not as if he was going to disappear in a puff of smoke. He's not magic. Sooner or later, he'd get bored or hungry etc. Or get him out with some sort of gas to send him off to sleep etc.

Why was it necessary to not only shoot the guy but then lie that he had shot himself? How can you justify this?

\link{http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/25/boston-bomb-suspects-new-york-city-attack'It has also emerged that the boat was within the search perimeter laid down by local police, contrary to the earlier assertions of senior officers'}

'Boston police commissioner Ed Davis said the circumstances of the capture of Tsarnaev would be reviewed. "We will have to see what prompted the volley of shots before the cease-fire was ordered by a superintendent of the Boston police," he said'

tbf, they must all have been on a knife-edge - the littlest sound/movement would have set them off firing. So thank God we do not have armed police as a regular thing in this country...

My point being that even if he is GUILTY - which we hve no proof of yet - that is no excuse for US police to start shooting him. That is not how justice is supposed to work in civilised countries - we do not shoot first and ask questions later. We do it the other way round.

edam I thought of Noraid too. And the IRA never ever said it only targeted the army etc but maybe no one ever told the Americans about the Harrods bomb, the Warrington bomb, the Canary Wharf bomb and all the other victims of this particular brand of terrorism that the US seemed to find so charming.

The sanctimonious parading after the final Boston bomber was caught was absolutely nauseating.

we do not generally shoot at all, breadandbutterfly armed police are only brought in here when it's confirmed that there is a gun in the equation (like with Raoul Moat)

it is different in the US & I can't help feeling that violent criminals reap what they sow there

ponders - I'm sure we shoot when we are 100% sure that the criminalis armed and we are shooting in se;lf-defence. Some criminals here (fewer than the US obviously) do have guns.

How do 'violent criminals reap what they sow there?'

'violent criminals reap what they sow there' because they know that all the police are armed

here they aren't - eg I don't imagine Dale Cregan would have got as far as the equivalent of a Crown Court trial in the US

Eh, butterfly, what did I say that even remotely hinted anything about shooting people?
I was talking about the facebook group that was mentioned earlier protesting their innocence, that the police had the wrong guys, they were nice etc. The revelation that Tamerlan was known to the FBI, the Russians had expressed concerns etc must have taken the wind out of their sails?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!!!

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.

OK, thanks. I asked because you used the word 'lie', which means a deliberate untruth.

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.

breadandbutterfly has a propensity for inaccurate precis. It is irritating.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
(2) American

And yes, the AP site was hacked. Stock markets had a temporary blip until the hacking was revealed.

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 ......