Boston Bombing, Boston Marathon April 15th

[Dean]

Stop listening to Glen Beck.

I'm sorry, but I don't know who he is .

You vastly over-rate the ability of the government to plan, prepare for and execute a complex plot which involves training "fake terrorists", planting them on planes and allowing hundreds of witnesses on each plane, dozens of which then report the incident with cellphones, to see said "fake terrorists" in action and to report such to their relatives and friends, and to ensure your "fake terrorists" will happily agree to commit to a suicide attack... and then get a real terrorist organization to take credit for the attacks.*

I honestly think, and what I was trying to say is, the government can do such things. But, I don't think they did, in either "attacks", though.

-

And you vastly underestimate the ability of said real terrorist organization to simply tell some guys they'll go to paradise if they kill thousands of heathen, pay for their flight training, and let them simply get on planes and crash them into things.

That, I believe, has a better chance of happening...

*Because the easiest way to make people think that an airplane has crashed into a building, causing it to collapse, is to hit a building with an airplane, causing it to collapse. The other option involves building several fake airliners, simultaneously redirecting the real flights to areas unknown, hiring dozens of fake voice actors to supplant the "callers" on each flight, or instead paying each caller millions to fake their own deaths, planting hundreds of millions of dollars of explosives in the World Trade Center, and keeping the tens of thousands of witnesses and support personnel involved in this take completely silent, or paying for the separate disposal of all those bodies.

The best plans are often the simplest ones. Simple plan, get on a plane, hijack it with knives, lock the cabin door, crash it. Finis.

I agree. And, I don't think the government has enough reasons to pay those massive amounts of money, just to "see how their defense work". It could be possible, but highly unlikely. The Boston shutdown costed $330 million USD (CNN), and I really don't think it was planned (by the government), nor do I think the 9/11, was. We can't really tell, if it was planned (by the government) though, but again it's highly unlikely.

 

[Lock2Lock]

Thermal imaging isn't some magic snooping tool, you have to know where to point it. Flying over a hole city full of inhabitants and finding one hiding in a boat is not an easy method.

It's in no way comparable to looking for a body on an ocean or ski slope as generally there's far fewer heat signatures to distinguish against.

Oh I know that. What I was saying. Is the time it took during the car chase to the point where he ran into the boat. There was definitely enough time to get a helicopter out and over the area and find someone running around.

Or even a drone. The government has many flying over the US all the time. Commercial airplanes spot them all the time. It's just with all of these things we have there is no excuse for not having one up in that area

 

[lintels123]

What I was saying. Is the time it took during the car chase to the point where he ran into the boat. There was definitely enough time to get a helicopter out and over the area and find someone running around.

I've seen police chases on those "Wildest Police Videos" shows that have a hellicopter with thermal imaging camaras on the perp(s) for light to moderate crimes. Do they mean to tell me that they couldn't respond fast enough, let alone scan the genral vacinity with one. Haven't heard any details on if they did or not so I'm just speaking of info I've obtained, not claiming to have full knowledge of the situation so please someone tell me if I'm miss informed.

 

[niky]

Logistics is rarely simple, and hindsight is always 20:20.

We see all these car chases on TV with police helicopters buzzing around... what we are seeing is the tail-end of the chase, after the police and TV camera copters have finally latched on to the chase in progress.

In this case, choppers were already overhead, but the chase was over and the suspect had already gone to ground. It took time to sweep and locate him.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

You vastly over-rate the ability of the government to plan, prepare for and execute a complex plot which involves training "fake terrorists", planting them on planes and allowing hundreds of witnesses on each plane, dozens of which then report the incident with cellphones, to see said "fake terrorists" in action and to report such to their relatives and friends, and to ensure your "fake terrorists" will happily agree to commit to a suicide attack... and then get a real terrorist organization to take credit for the attacks.*

-

And you vastly underestimate the ability of said real terrorist organization to simply tell some guys they'll go to paradise if they kill thousands of heathen, pay for their flight training, and let them simply get on planes and crash them into things.




*Because the easiest way to make people think that an airplane has crashed into a building, causing it to collapse, is to hit a building with an airplane, causing it to collapse. The other option involves building several fake airliners, simultaneously redirecting the real flights to areas unknown, hiring dozens of fake voice actors to supplant the "callers" on each flight, or instead paying each caller millions to fake their own deaths, planting hundreds of millions of dollars of explosives in the World Trade Center, and keeping the tens of thousands of witnesses and support personnel involved in this take completely silent, or paying for the separate disposal of all those bodies.

The best plans are often the simplest ones. Simple plan, get on a plane, hijack it with knives, lock the cabin door, crash it. Finis.

If its so easy for terrorist organizations to brainwash, why isn't it the same for the government? The CIA has overthrown multiple international governments covertly, this is nothing compared to that. Why would the government use face voice actors when they can just kill the innocent people? They do it everyday in Afghanistan. They don't have to fake it, they can do it to themselves to cause fear in its citizens to gain their trust. If it costs the WTC and people's lives, at least the people are in fear and rely on their government to keep them safe, allowing them to take advantage of the people. Ever read The Handmaid's Tale?

 

[niky]

If its so easy for terrorist organizations to brainwash, why isn't it the same for the government? The CIA has overthrown multiple international governments covertly, this is nothing compared to that. Why would the government use face voice actors when they can just kill the innocent people? They do it everyday in Afghanistan. They don't have to fake it, they can do it to themselves to cause fear in its citizens to gain their trust. If it costs the WTC and people's lives, at least the people are in fear and rely on their government to keep them safe, allowing them to take advantage of the people. Ever read The Handmaid's Tale?

The CIA has attempted to overthrow multiple governments covertly, internationally. They've failed so many times at Castro, it's become a running joke, and where they've succeeded at installing the people they want, those people usually turn out to be worse than the people they replaced (Saddam), or are so unpopular that they're overthrown and governments hostile to the United States rise up instead (Iran, the Philippines, Iraq). Or, they actually have one rare instance of winning a covert war and leave the country in chaos, creating new enemies (Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Quaeda).

This is not to say that the Government doesn't use psychological warfare on its people or take advantage of ongoing situations to assert its authority and strengthen its grip on power, but again... you're giving them too much credit. Why go to the trouble of planning all that out, actually bankrolling terrorists and arranging specific attacks when so many people hate the United States that they'll gladly do all that without any help?

 

[Rage Racer]

Discussing conspiracy theories here? Well, I have another one: it was probably done by Russian authorities.
You might say - why? I suspect - the reason was to attract the world's (and particulary USA's) attention on Chechen terorrists. FBI is now checking Tsarnayev for links with Doku Umarov (the leader of Caucasus terrorist band). RF government probably would like Americans to be involved in these Caucasus affairs.

After the incident occured, Putin was the first of all other country leaders to phone Obama and suggest cooperation in investigation. Then, news headlines in Russian media were saying something like "Americans have no reason to confront us with that Magnitskiy act, when terrorism is our common enemy"...
They want to "become friends" with US, but... damn, I'd hate the friendship to be earned in a way like that.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Hopefully the real truth comes out about this and justice is served for the victims of this bombing.

I can see why people are making conspiracy theories about this as there is enough things out there that could contradict things being said so far by police.

 

[Pupik]

Conspiracy Theory Cycle:

1. Event/Incident occurs

2. Not enough information is known, because it just happened

3. Make up a bunch of stuff, using emotional pulls and ad/post hoc fallacies

4. Anything disproven by mainstream media, scientists, logic, and other people is dismissed because they're mainstream and/or brainwashed

5. Something about people/organizations keeping secrets, but we don't know for sure because it's secret, and they wouldn't tell anyone, for fear of harm by secret organization

6. Cite lack of information and previous empty theories as as reason for present theories

7. Repeat steps 2-6.

 

[playnthru]

All conspiracy theories aside.

CNN reporting charges are now being filed.👍

 

[Lock2Lock]

All conspiracy theories aside.

CNN reporting charges are now being filed.👍

Good news

 

[lbsf1]

What does everyone think of this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/miranda-rights-boston-bombing-suspect_n_3120333.html I think that by not allowing him his rights is a dangerous precident for the USA to set. Whilst the authorities say it is for "public safety" and that by giving him the right to remain silent further danger could be caused. However surely if he isn't going to talk then he isn't going to talk (unless the FBI are going to by using other methods to extract info) so what does refusing his rights do.

The whole point of the Miranda rights are for all suspects to have the same rights in the judicidal process to insure a fair trial and avoid evidence being unfairly gained. The public safety clause was only introduced after a situation ( New York v. Quarles (1984)) where questioning was needed at the scene of the incident (in the case above an robber who had discarded his gun giving the information of its whereabouts). Whilst the extension to terrorist acts was given to the public safety clause in 2010 I feel that if the suspect doesn't want to talk then he won't whether or not he has been read his rights (thus denying him his rights is pointless) and by denying him his rights you are also denying him a key part in a fair judicidal process.

 

[Liquid]

Charged with "using a weapon of mass destruction".

Somewhat cynically of me, if that constitutes a WMD, then Husseinian Iraq did indeed have the capability to produce WMDs. And lots of them.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Conspiracy Theory Cycle:

1. Event/Incident occurs

2. Not enough information is known, because it just happened

3. Make up a bunch of stuff, using emotional pulls and ad/post hoc fallacies

4. Anything disproven by mainstream media, scientists, logic, and other people is dismissed because they're mainstream and/or brainwashed

5. Something about people/organizations keeping secrets, but we don't know for sure because it's secret, and they wouldn't tell anyone, for fear of harm by secret organization

6. Cite lack of information and previous empty theories as as reason for present theories

7. Repeat steps 2-6.

There has been contradicting statements though, which makes some of the conspiracies believable for people who are looking at it from the conspiracy side. The two suspects can still be guilty but still some events can be hard to believe as it can seem a bit "Hollywood".

Like for example that something supposedly said by police, that Tamerlan got ran over / dragged by his brother in stolen SUV is contradicted by a medical examiner and also supposed eyewitness.

 

[playnthru]

I'm pretty sure we're past that and did Miranda Rights him?

They were only going that route if he was charged as a enemy combatant.

 

[Danoff]

Charged with "using a weapon of mass destruction".

Somewhat cynically of me, if that constitutes a WMD, then Husseinian Iraq did indeed have the capability to produce WMDs. And lots of them.

Agreed, a bomb is not a WMD. WMDs are biological, nuclear, or chemical weapons that are capable of killing tens of thousands. I hate inflation in language.

Also Saddam did posses chemical weapons which were produced by a chemical weapons program within Iraq - which he used to kill thousands of Iraqis.

The Halabja poison gas attack (Kurdish: کیمیابارانی ھەڵەبجە Kîmyabarana Helebce), also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Southern Kurdistan.

The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people, and injured around 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians;[1][2] thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[3] The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq,[4] was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.[5]

 

[lbsf1]

I'm pretty sure we're past that and did Miranda Rights him?

They were only going that route if he was charged as a enemy combatant.

Ah ok, my news sources must be a little out of date then, . Just looked at some others and yes it does seem that he isn't being treated as an "enemy combatant".

 

[Liquid]

Agreed, a bomb is not a WMD. WMDs are biological, nuclear, or chemical weapons that are capable of killing tens of thousands. I hate inflation in language.

As do I.

Also Saddam did posses chemical weapons - which he used to kill thousands of Iraqis.

Sadly, this is true. But the Iraq question is for another thread.

What would be a more appropriate charge? Three (possibly four now?) counts of murder, and some sort of charge relating to possessing and using explosives? Certainly not possession of WMDs; a gross exaggeration.

 

[lbsf1]

What would be a more appropriate charge? Three (possibly four now?) counts of murder, and some sort of charge relating to possessing and using explosives? Certainly not possession of WMDs; a gross exaggeration.

I would be inclinded to say 3/4 cases of 1st degree murder and however many other cases of Grevious bodily harm (or whatever the US equivilent is).

 

[G.T.Ace]

It was a gruesome, horrible terror attack, but WMD were not used, that's nonesense.

 

[GTsail]

The local news stations are saying that Tsarnaev was arraigned in his bed at the Hospital by a local magistrate judge.

Tsarnaev has been charged under US code section 2332a, which states:

"A person who without lawful authority uses..... a weapon of mass destruction"..... shall be put to death (if the weapon causes a death) or sentanced to life imprisonment".

The code section further says:

"The term "weapon of mass destruction" means:
A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title"

and section 921 says:

"The term "destructive device" means":

"any explosive, bomb or grenade.......etc"

So, this section of the US code does seem to be broad enough to allow someone to be sentanced as using a "weapon of mass destruction" even if they used a bomb or grenade (even if its explosive payload might not be considered overly large).

GTsail

 

[Slash]

I'm pretty sure there are laws against that. It's much more difficult to recant something that you have put into writing, and the law is unclear on precisely what can be admitted and under which circumstances. And if Tsarnaev is being interrogated with his lawyer present, there's a whole minefield of possibilities relating to attorney-client privelige.

Maybe so, but according to a few sources he's been doing it regardless.


I hope he gets put to death. Guess he is facing the death penalty. If they sentence him to death I want that publicly shown on TV. I want to watch it. Scumbag deserves to be humiliated that way.

 

[Danoff]

So, this section of the US code does seem to be broad enough to allow someone to be sentanced as using a "weapon of mass destruction" even if they used a bomb or grenade (even if its explosive payload might not be considered overly large).

Poor use of the term.

 

[GTsail]

Poor use of the term.

Yeah, it does seem overly broad.

Looking thru the rest of section 921, though, it does seem that it was meant to be very broad.

Section 4 of the Section 921:

"The term "destructive device" means --
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas --
---(i) bomb,
---(ii) grenade,
---(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
---(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
--- (v) mine, or
--- (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses"

Items that the section wants to exclude are very limited:

Quote: "The term "destructive device" shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety or similar device". "or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes."

Like a flare or similar device (<<< my comment).

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[G.T.Ace]

So a handgrenade is a Weapon Of Mass Destruction according to US laws?

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

you're giving them too much credit. Why go to the trouble of planning all that out, actually bankrolling terrorists and arranging specific attacks when so many people hate the United States that they'll gladly do all that without any help?

But they wouldn't have control over it after it was invaded. The terrorists would.

 

[TB]

So a handgrenade is a Weapon Of Mass Destruction according to US laws?

Mass is defined as "a considerable assemblage, number, or quantity". As such, the fact that more than one person was killed and well more than one injured, yes, I'd describe that as mass destruction.

Certainly not in the sense that we've come to understand it from the Bush era, but mass destruction nonetheless.

 

[Slash]

Mass is defined as "a considerable assemblage, number, or quantity". As such, the fact that more than one person was killed and well more than one injured, yes, I'd describe that as mass destruction.

Certainly not in the sense that we've come to understand it from the Bush era, but mass destruction nonetheless.

From that era I always as others have viewed also it more as a nuke than a pipe bomb.

 

[G.T.Ace]

The fact that even the Wikipedia article shows almost only CBRN weapons, proofs that this is the general understanding of a WMD. Although, a huge conventional bomb could also be classified as a WMD.

As such, the fact that more than one person was killed and well more than one injured, yes, I'd describe that as mass destruction.

That would make every gun, or even a sword, a potential weapon of mass destruction.
They're all capable of killing multiple people at once (yes, yes, both don't involve explosions, although you could argue about that regarding guns).

On the other hand, Kofi Annan said the following: "In terms of the carnage they cause, small arms could well be described as weapons of mass destruction."


Since no one is talking about "CBRN-Weapons" when thinking of nukes, gas, or whatever, the whole term "WMD" is kinda obsolete then.

EDIT: It's a bit different in German by the way, we have "Massenvernichtungswaffen" (weapons of mass destruction) and "Massenvernichtungsmittel" (instruments of mass destruction). The latter is also used for small arms, or herbicide.

 

[Zenith]

Some opinions on what the punishment should be for the bomber are medieval. These are coming from people who don't even have a personal connection to the victims.