It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
I guess they would have had intelligence on the family, but I believe it was only Tamerlan they actually engaged.
It is strange and with all the facial recognition software the F.B.I have, it is a bit unbelievable really isn't it? Maybe it was the fact he was wearing shades?
Originally posted by WhiteAlice
Originally posted by Cobaltic1978
I guess they would have had intelligence on the family, but I believe it was only Tamerlan they actually engaged.
It is strange and with all the facial recognition software the F.B.I have, it is a bit unbelievable really isn't it? Maybe it was the fact he was wearing shades?
This was their retort on the matter: www.salon.com...
Originally posted by evc1shop
How else do you appeal to the masses to have cameras mounted at every location possible and to get to try out the Martial Law/ City Lockdown? I grew up in Boston and I never saw the streets as barren as I did on the news a few days ago. That was surreal to me watching the city, like an opening shot for the movie 12 Monkeys or something.
They didn't name him though did they? And that is standard practice surely? Also, they would have had an address for him, even if it was a previous address. Again standard practice to follow these things up, it's not like they went on the run is it? Embarrassing failure on the F.B.I's part I would suggest.
The FBI has not explained why it did not immediately retrieve the Tsarnaev file after the Boston bombs went off — an event that should have triggered routine checks on those suspected of involvement with Islamist militant groups.
Even when three days later, the FBI identified the bombers, it failed to cross-reference photographs with the man whose picture was on file.
When asked by The Daily Telegraph why the file had been overlooked, the FBI said it would not comment on “operational matters.”