BREAKING:Explosion At Boston Marathon

reply to post by ravenshadow13

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by relocator

 

Are you kidding me?! The controlled explosion wasn't planned, I'm pretty sure it was used to detonate a device *by the bomb squad* as stated.

Good lord. Well, if they have a suspect in custody (which I did see on the Post, but who knows) then someone will take responsibility. And I'm sorry. If someone takes responsibility and seems plausible I don't honestly think that the government is paying someone off to admit fault. I'm pretty sure it would actually be their fault. So I expect to hear something relatively shortly.

Who would plant a bomb near the Newtown families? You ask yourselves that question.

How's that working out for you....

Now that we know that Obama likes giving everyone amnesty even if his minions are informed to keep an eye on at least one of them and still after question ng him they let him go and continue his mission to cause pain and suffering.

Let's see we have the Mexican Cartel allowed to run guns across the border, Bengazi, and now on U.S. soil....amnesty given those who only use it to cause pain and suffering on inoccent American citzens.

Amnesty is payment.

At last, the younger brother is taken alive and is now being treated and taken into custody. Do you think the US authorities can keep him alive long enough before someone does a 'Jack Ruby' on him?

It's amazing isn't it? Your government spends hundreds of billions of dollars on defense (or perhaps, should that be offense?) and security every year. You have a number of agencies like the NSA, the CIA, FBI and DEA, etc, whom seem to act with impunity at home and abroad; you have a domestic militarised police force, and all the technology they too can deploy, yet, even after all this, you're still not protected! Perhaps, it is time to think of a new game plan, a new strategy? Perhaps, it is time to change the paradigm of "You're either with us, or against us" policy put in place by Bush Jr. and change it to one that seeks to win hearts and minds? The only way you defeat terrorism is by taking away the reasons for its use. It's an ideological faultline you're up against, but the US is trying to combat it as if it is an actual war.

The current strategy against terrorism that the US employs is nothing more than a desire to dominate through overwhelming technology and firepower, and does absolutely nothing, makes no attempt whatsoever to relieve terrorism of its motivational force. If anything, it constantly, perhaps purposefully, adds fuel to its fire. Why is that?

Something to think about while we all await to uncover the reasons why 2 individuals sought to inflict punitive damage against American citizens in the heart of their own country, and how even with all the power and might of the US reigned against them they accomplished something of their own ideology and shutdown the whole city of Boston! I think it is amazing what Americans will accept in the compression of rights and strictures upon freedoms when the word 'terrorism' is mentioned. You've just had a psychological difference of opinion waged against you...and your country lost. If you don't set out to win hearts and minds, but prefer the leviathan of a military industrial complex for protection, you have to wonder after how these two young lads showed the world that you can take on America right on its front porch, whom now is formenting in their minds reasons to attack you in similar fashion?

Has anybody read Chuck Palahniuk's book "Pygmy"? Here is the author's description:

Chuck On Pygmy The lead character is a 13-year-old foreign exchange student sent to live with a suburban, white, middle-class family. Oh, and they're Christians. The visit is for six months, and he's one of a dozen similar kids, all shipped to America to live with typical families. The secret truth is that Pygmy is a terrorist, trained since infancy in martial arts, chemistry and radical hatred of the United States. He has six months to build a prize-winning project for the National Science Fair. If he succeeds, he and his project will go to Washington, D.C. for the finals competition -- where the project will explode, killing millions. So far, Gerry Howard says it's the best book I've done. Fingers crossed for luck.

Source
Source describes the book as

The Manchurian Candidate meets South Park—Chuck Palahniuk’s finest novel since the generation-defining Fight Club.

The lead character also comes from an unspecified nation, and is written in a broken English phonetic style that reads as Slavic. The group of exchange students in the book, who are sent to America, are not only trained in terror techniques, but also highly trained athletes (in various forms of hand-to-hand combat). The suspects were Chechnian and both athletes (boxing for one, wrestling for the other). Seems to me like Chuck Palahniuk's satire has a lot of parallels to the situation. It is interesting and makes me wonder if the really could be some way that a person can be just "triggered" and the person suddenly becomes violent and radical.

I sure hope there are no more surprises. This has been horrible.

I just wanted to give a shoot out to the Man that I consider the Hero of the Day!!! He noticed the blood and his boat had been distrubed and called Police. After the fact that the police had already came by her home and asked to search his boat. He stayed alert, did the right thing and bought an end to this nightmare. Kudos to You Neighbor and God Bless. Thank you.

reply to post by elysiumfire

At last, the younger brother is taken alive and is now being treated and taken into custody. Do you think the US authorities can keep him alive long enough before someone does a 'Jack Ruby' on him?

Not a chance. The FBI learned a lesson with Jack Ruby. This kid will be in maximum security isolation for the rest of his short life and when transported to and from federal court he'll be guarded by a small army of federal agents while wearing body armor, much like Timothy McVeigh.

No Miranda Warning when arrested...

Originally posted by elysiumfire
At last, the younger brother is taken alive and is now being treated and taken into custody. Do you think the US authorities can keep him alive long enough before someone does a 'Jack Ruby' on him?

It's amazing isn't it? Your government spends hundreds of billions of dollars on defense (or perhaps, should that be offense?) and security every year. You have a number of agencies like the NSA, the CIA, FBI and DEA, etc, whom seem to act with impunity at home and abroad; you have a domestic militarised police force, and all the technology they too can deploy, yet, even after all this, you're still not protected! Perhaps, it is time to think of a new game plan, a new strategy? Perhaps, it is time to change the paradigm of "You're either with us, or against us" policy put in place by Bush Jr. and change it to one that seeks to win hearts and minds? The only way you defeat terrorism is by taking away the reasons for its use. It's an ideological faultline you're up against, but the US is trying to combat it as if it is an actual war.

The current strategy against terrorism that the US employs is nothing more than a desire to dominate through overwhelming technology and firepower, and does absolutely nothing, makes no attempt whatsoever to relieve terrorism of its motivational force. If anything, it constantly, perhaps purposefully, adds fuel to its fire. Why is that?

Something to think about while we all await to uncover the reasons why 2 individuals sought to inflict punitive damage against American citizens in the heart of their own country, and how even with all the power and might of the US reigned against them they accomplished something of their own ideology and shutdown the whole city of Boston! I think it is amazing what Americans will accept in the compression of rights and strictures upon freedoms when the word 'terrorism' is mentioned. You've just had a psychological difference of opinion waged against you...and your country lost. If you don't set out to win hearts and minds, but prefer the leviathan of a military industrial complex for protection, you have to wonder after how these two young lads showed the world that you can take on America right on its front porch, whom now is formenting in their minds reasons to attack you in similar fashion?

edit on 19/4/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)

I thought the same thing. The big dog and pony show with all the military type vehicles in the area, what seemed like hundreds of police, helicopters, the whole works and in the end it did win BUT it didn't make USA look strong it made them look extremely vulnerable. I can only assume they had intel that made the suspects look like they had a dirty bomb or something and decided the best way was the way they went.

I still wonder why LA didn't shutdown during the Dorner rampage. Both were bad people with bad intentions, one of them seemed forced with a heartless ending and the other a very tense situation indeed.
Obviously maybe Boston or FBI looked at that and thought to try better this time plus the amount of injured and the sheer spectacle of it all.

Originally posted by BABYBULL24
No Miranda Warning when arrested...

Don't care.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


You might not care but other members might...

-SAP-

Originally posted by BABYBULL24
No Miranda Warning when arrested...

Nor was one required....


Miranda rights and terror suspects

April 04, 2011

There was an uproar when it was revealed that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called Christmas Day bomber, was read his Miranda rights. The hysterical reaction obscured a real dilemma for law enforcement: how to obtain what could be vital information about terrorist plots without denying suspects their legal rights.

Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. and the FBI have produced guidelines that adroitly balance the two interests.
Issued Oct. 21 but made public only recently, the guidelines will not please those conservatives who insist that suspected terrorists shouldn't be Mirandized at all. But they strike us as reasonable and, equally important, useful in heading off efforts in Congress to weaken Miranda.

The guidelines say that if applicable, "agents should ask any and all questions that are reasonably prompted by an immediate concern for the safety of the public or the arresting agents without advising the arrestee of his Miranda rights."s." This advice is consistent with a 1984 Supreme Court decision making an exception from the Miranda requirement for questioning motivated by a concern for public safety.

Next, the guidelines say that after public safety concerns have been resolved, agents should promptly Mirandize a suspect. But there are exceptions: situations in which, "although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogationion." This provision pushes the public safety exception to its limit, but it's defensible.

Finally the guidelines remind agents that the Miranda rule is ultimately about ensuring that confessions introduced at trial are not coerced: "The Supreme Court has strongly suggested that an arrestee's 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination is not violated at the time a statement is taken without Miranda warnings, but instead may be violated only if and when the government introduces an unwarned statement in a criminal proceeding against the defendant." The point is that if an agent believes Mirandizing a suspected terrorist would lead to vital information being withheld, the agent can delay doing so — but at the cost of rendering the results of the interrogation inadmissible.

The new guidelines strike a reasonable balance between the needs of law enforcement and the rights of suspects. In fact, they're so reasonable that they shouldn't be limited to terrorism cases but should apply to any case — a gang-related case, say, or a murder plot — in which a suspect may have knowledge of a possible future threat. Singling out terrorism suspects as less deserving of legal protections than others is generally a bad idea. So let's by all means implement the new guidelines, and broaden them beyond terrorism.

Dude is still missing, last text sent from Newton/Watertown.. FBI has no developments on finding him despite current events & goodbye note says he was up to something big.

reply to post by tropic


any source for the Text message from watertown??

reply to post by topdog81


Imagine if there were 10 /20 / 50 of these terrorists in every major city, the whole nation would be on shut down and rapid chaos ensued from a minimal amount of terrorists. A major rethink of security is required as well as a major international meeting of intelligence from EVERY possible target nation.

reply to post by JBA2848


Essentially global politics of the lowest form has shafted itself good and proper, welcome to the international f* up where banking, trade, immigration and elitism has the people by the proverbials, security for all was never it's aim.

The Ultimate Terror

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth

Imagine if there were 10 /20 / 50 of these terrorists in every major city, the whole nation would be on shut down and rapid chaos ensued from a minimal amount of terrorists. A major rethink of security is required as well as a major international meeting of intelligence from EVERY possible target nation.

A major rethink is also required of the assumption that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present government is needed protect everyone.

It can't, it's not fair to expect it to, and to try to make it able to is to choose a path far more terrible than any form of terrorism we could ever possibly face: perpetual imprisonment within a totalitarian police state over which none of us would have any form of control.

It has happened before, it is happening now, and it will happen again if we as a society don't possess the courage to stop it.

reply to post by elysiumfire


This isn't sexism, but as long as men are running the world, as they currently are via politics and secret societies, their inherent warring, as coded in their DNA will come to the fore, at times of stress, or fight / flight situations (and that includes threats such as terrorism or threats to their own financial security etc).Their DNA will automatically kick in with 'war', boys toys and all, blowing the enemy to bits, the satisfaction their DNA requires in mindless destruction.

Their DNA doesn't recognise 'solve', 'insight', 'negotiate' or 'see the bigger picture' as a first response. For millions of years tribalism and violence have dominated human relations, some societies are more advanceD, some aren't, until evolution kicks in it's 'peaceful resolve' function or until humanity somehow manages to pull of an evolutionary stunt of fooling it's DNA into appropriate behavioural responses, it might take some time for humanity to live peacefully.

ETA unless aliens have the answer.

reply to post by Majic


Society has it's hands tied essentially, unless there is some sort of political revolution, but vigilantism isn't the answer either.

If there is a solution it is in the adaption of mindsets, from all parties. Idea and actions stem from the mind, the mind, individually and as a collective. If the minds of all humanity can be geared towards cohesive unity and peacefulness, then the deal is done.

Whilst the west thinks it's all good and it's all 'them' and their mindsets, the west has a lot of work to do also, the current selfish, totally non cohesive lack of community and lack of proper values do affect people and their attitudes and behaviour, yes alcohol and irresponsible behaviour included, from a young age most western societies children are given societal messages that could easily have their minds on the wrong track to selfish, reckless behaviour instead of family orientated, constructive life paths.

Just as certain non western ideaology requires rethinking and altering, the issues there, it is also long built in to the culture.

Cultures and ideology on both sides have to alter and compromise for any sort of solution to even begin.

For the record, this isn't America bashing either, or Western society bashing, just a realistic viewpoint.

TheAbsoluteTruth:

...as long as men are running the world, as they currently are via politics and secret societies, their inherent warring, as coded in their DNA will come to the fore...

I don't doubt that genetic characteristics play a part in the great scheme of men's ambitions (and probably women's too), but the situation is much more complex than that, I would suggest. Terrorism isn't a war, it's an ideological schism that motivates to acts of war. So, I see the problem as being the inability to address this one very important aspect.

It requires the removal of the reasons for terrorist actions to succeed. You'll never, ever succeed using violence to quell terrorist actions. The problem is in our heads, in our mindsets, in our thoughts. When you shoot a terrorist you don't quell the cause, you feed it, nor when a terrorist blows up a building or people does he ever quell the response against him (or her), he invites the response. Both actions feed the cause of the other.

A government is not going to ask a terrorist to the debating table when he's just blown people up. They are not going to say to the terrorist, okay, let's talk things through, what is it that I'm doing that you feel justifies your violent actions towards us? A terrorist won't want to come to a table to discuss his problems while he's burying the only parts of his child he has left after a drone strike. Where's the compromise going to come from that brings the fractious parties together? It's not essentially a masculine issue!

reply to post by elysiumfire


Read the post above yours, I just said something similar to that which you posted afterwards.

The AbsoluteTruth:

I just said something similar to that which you posted afterwards.

Yep, began reading it after I made my post, and agree. Do you think the problem is insurmountable?