A minor correction here: In a press conference yesterday between 6 and 6:30pm EST, the State Police said that the robbery in question was not performed by the brothers. It coincidentally occurred at roughly the same time they were at the store.
Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
They didn't search his house, it was just outside of their search area. IMHO at least, they had to set a limit somewhere and they were close.
No, they're above average as far as terrorists go by virtue of the fact that their bombing plot actually succeeded where so many others fail. Albeit their plot was fairly modest in scope compared to state sponsored or more organized terrorist groups like al Qaeda.
If terrorists were mostly geniuses, they'd probably find another line of work. The leaders, planners, and facilitators are usually smart guys, but the foot soldiers and cannon fodder --the guys taking the most risk-- are usually insular, ignorant, and easily suggestible. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, and fanatical ideology can sometimes convince even smart people to do stupid things, but for the most part that's true.
The shoe bomber failed because he had sweaty feet that dampened the fuse after he had to wear his shoes a day longer than expected. The underwear bomber got jumped and hit with fire extinguishers when he set his pants on fire (which was the actual plan). The Times Square Bomber double parked at a weird angle, left the hazard lights on in his unoccupied car, and it started smoking. These aren't the best and the brightest. But even so, in the case of the first two at least, their schemes would have been successful in severely damaging or destroying their planes if not for dumb luck and dumb terrorists. It's not like it always takes a complex plot to be a successful bomber.
In the case of these two, they were fairly well educated (the younger brother more so). But intelligent or not, there's only so long you can hide when a sizable chunk of the nation's law enforcement resources are working 24/7 to catch you.
A more apt description of these guys would be what their rather amusing uncle called them originally: losers. They escaped a war-torn oppressive region and came to a country where they had plenty of opportunities to succeed and in the case of the previously outgoing and well-respected and well-liked younger brother, were actually doing that right up until they decided to squander it all and throw not only their own lives away but the lives of several innocents. They're not lacking in intelligence, though their actions certainly were at times. Fanaticism and antisocial behavior (especially in the older brother) will do that to you.
They didn't rob the 7/11. That was just a very unfortunately timed and located coincidence that caused confusion.
How about it was the middle of the night and very dark, it was an extremely tense and confusing situation, the older brother provided a distraction by going after police with the IEDs and gunfire on foot, and there was smoke everywhere from the grenades, IEDs, and gunfire. The visibility was so bad that the younger brother ran over the older brother while trying to run over the police, and he bought himself some time to escape when they scattered from the path of the car. He put some distance between them, then ditched the car and went to find a place to hide. It's not rocket science.
Even on 24 where you seem to be getting your conspiracy theories from, did they ever actually set up an airtight perimeter no matter how many times they assured the CTU head or president of the week that they had? Even in fictional terrorism land it's hard to do.
You're talking out of your ass here. Besides the fact that it was law enforcement doing the searching and not "the army" (the National Guard mostly established perimeters and provided air support like the Blackhawk helicopters; they had no arrest authority) they didn't need search warrants because of the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, and because, as far as I'm aware, everyone whose home was searched in the Watertown area gave them consent to search due to the gravity of the situation (not that they would have needed it on account of the emergency situation, but still).
They didn't mess anything up, they had a boatload (pardon the pun) of crowded and occupied territory in the middle of a major city to search. House to house searching and urban combat are the most dangerous and time intensive kind.
Because the guys from Psych, The Mentalist, and Criminal Minds who notice miniscule things with one glance and record it with their photographic memories aren't real, and besides, they hadn't searched that house.
The police had hundreds of occupied homes to search over dozens of square miles during the middle of a crisis. You make it sound as if it was as simple as finding Waldo or doing a word search. Just because you can't conceive of these things with your less than even a layman's understanding of them doesn't make them suddenly become a conspiracy.
Don't be like one of those "loose change" doofuses. Skepticism and questioning the status quo is okay, but what you're doing is actually the opposite of skepticism, despite how conspiracy theorists like to portray themselves.
Last edited:
I usually hate these things, but you deserve it:
I'd ask you to do us all a favor and think before posting again, but you actually did get a chance to think this time and decided to double-down on the stupid, so I'll just ask you to please shut up instead.
Now we wait for Dennis Lehane to write the novelization.
Talking to Wolf Blitzer (who really should be the terrorist with that Die Hard villain name) he said he'd be fine with writing an article (and as Tora Ziyal posted he already did), but that he wouldn't write a novelization because he's too close to it and "it's not really his style" (his words).
Nice that the mods here can act like assholes. Do you get a trolling warning for that?^
The cops missed. The lock down didn't work, he was hiding in the boat outside the lockdown area. Once the martial law was lifted and people went out is when someone saw the blood and called.
I like this article on some weird site...
http://www.albanytribune.com/19042013-what-is-the-threshold-for-martial-law-oped/
What if they didn't find him? They just lifted the "lockdown" and pretty much went "We didn't get him, whatever, go out enjoy the day, don't mind the fact it's not any safer". There was never a plan when locking everyone down. What if he was found in Hartford the next day, would you lockdown every city until you find ONE person?
The cops missed. The lock down didn't work, he was hiding in the boat outside the lockdown area. Once the martial law was lifted and people went out is when someone saw the blood and called.
I like this article on some weird site...
http://www.albanytribune.com/19042013-what-is-the-threshold-for-martial-law-oped/
What if they didn't find him? They just lifted the "lockdown" and pretty much went "We didn't get him, whatever, go out enjoy the day, don't mind the fact it's not any safer". There was never a plan when locking everyone down. What if he was found in Hartford the next day, would you lockdown every city until you find ONE person?
No, because what I said was directed at the content of your post rather than at you personally, and was in direct reaction to something you said rather than out of the blue and unprovoked.
Last edited:
"Lock down didn't work". Really? Think again.
NOBODY ELSE DIED. Suspect apprehended. It certainly did some good. The lock down kept the suspect "locked down" where he was, even if just outside the "official perimeter"... he couldn't go anywhere far and with all the bleeding was getting weaker by the hour, hiding out until he couldn't stay hidden longer. He probably would have died in the boat if he hadn't been tracked down, he was so out of it.
So what if a civilian found traces of blood that led to the suspect? The police asked citizens to be vigilant and keep an eye out. They did. They helped.
Yeah, it's easy to sit back in your comfy chair and cite how this was an unreasonable form of marital law, but had they not done this and the suspect managed to kill more people... what then? So people were inconvenienced. Most people would agree that being safe is far worth the trade-off of inconvenience.
Sheesh... get with it.
All this is just silly. You're always going to have the knee-jerk anti-law enforcement types trying to sound cool. In Massachusetts, we are merciless to our cops and officials when they screw up, but we give them props when they do things right. This was an unprecedented situation and all the agencies did a beautiful job and so did the civilians. I'm sure somebody somewhere is kicking his or herself for not extending the perimeter another block, but hindsight is always 20/20.
That's fantastic.
That is pretty scary.
I didn't even know he had been interviewed. I'll have to check YouTube. I can certainly understand how he would feel too close to it, but it's interesting that he doesn't consider it his style.
Did everyone see this, this morning?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images...rip-slide-2VW7/the-strip-slide-2VW7-jumbo.png
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images...rip-slide-2VW7/the-strip-slide-2VW7-jumbo.png
He's an idiot, ignore him.
This isn't TNZ. Knock it off.
He's an idiot, ignore him.
This isn't TNZ. Knock it off.
OK, what is The Neutral Zone? I can see how to get to it but what it's purpose and do I remain cloaked there?
I wonder if the writings of Alisa Ganieva might give some clue as to motive. From the wiki:
"She moved with her family to Dagestan and attended school in Makhachkala...Her debut novel "Salaam, Dalgat!" describes the everyday life of Dagestani youth in the cities and shows the decay of traditional life...
Here was a statement from the Head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov--made on Instagram before the younger brother was caught:
"Tragic events happened in Boston. As a result of a
terrorist attack, people were killed. We already expressed our
condolences to the residents of the city and to the people of America.
Today, as the media report, a certain Tsarnaev was killed during a
detention attempt. It would be logical if he was detained and an
investigation was conducted, all the circumstances and degree of his
guilt explained. Apparently, the special forces needed a result at any
price to calm society." Debunked
I can't help but wonder if they were radicalized by this group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariat_Jamaat
Nice to see law enforcement being cheered for once. The parade of vehicles--that was the end of the marathon--I consider that day Patriots Day--and we are all Bostonians now.
"She moved with her family to Dagestan and attended school in Makhachkala...Her debut novel "Salaam, Dalgat!" describes the everyday life of Dagestani youth in the cities and shows the decay of traditional life...
Here was a statement from the Head of the Chechen Republic Ramzan Kadyrov--made on Instagram before the younger brother was caught:
"Tragic events happened in Boston. As a result of a
terrorist attack, people were killed. We already expressed our
condolences to the residents of the city and to the people of America.
Today, as the media report, a certain Tsarnaev was killed during a
detention attempt. It would be logical if he was detained and an
investigation was conducted, all the circumstances and degree of his
guilt explained. Apparently, the special forces needed a result at any
price to calm society." Debunked
I can't help but wonder if they were radicalized by this group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariat_Jamaat
Nice to see law enforcement being cheered for once. The parade of vehicles--that was the end of the marathon--I consider that day Patriots Day--and we are all Bostonians now.
Very well said, Locutus. I'm getting tired of all the anti-law enforcement Monday morning quarterbacks (not just here).
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been officially charged with using a WMD. I'm not questioning whether Dzhokhar here perpetrated the bombings, but a pressure cooker bomb is a WMD?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/137391129/Criminal-Complaint-Tsarnaev
In the link above there is the official criminal complaint, in the second page in point 3, it clearly says that Dzhokhar used a WMD against persons and property.
Now I've done some checking and a WMD is a weapon which belong to the CBRNE class (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosives (high yield)). But does a home-made pressure cooker bomb count as a high yield explosive? We're not talking about weapons which produce dozens or hundreds of casualties, but thousands or tens of thousands of casualties or higher.
This is blatant fear-mongering and sensationalism to plant the idea that a WMD was used in the Boston terror attacks. Those were terrible attacks but since when have IEDS been considered WMDs?
There's something very rotten going on here...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/137391129/Criminal-Complaint-Tsarnaev
In the link above there is the official criminal complaint, in the second page in point 3, it clearly says that Dzhokhar used a WMD against persons and property.
Now I've done some checking and a WMD is a weapon which belong to the CBRNE class (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosives (high yield)). But does a home-made pressure cooker bomb count as a high yield explosive? We're not talking about weapons which produce dozens or hundreds of casualties, but thousands or tens of thousands of casualties or higher.
This is blatant fear-mongering and sensationalism to plant the idea that a WMD was used in the Boston terror attacks. Those were terrible attacks but since when have IEDS been considered WMDs?
There's something very rotten going on here...
Seems pretty clear to me. Bombs are a weapon. They are intended to cause mass destruction. Therefore they are a weapon of mass destruction. What part of this is unclear?
It's certainly a sensationalist use of terminology, and I find calling it a WMD ridiculous, but there's no intent to fool anyone into thinking this was a nuclear/biological/chemical attack or that the bomb was more powerful than it was. The public is abundantly clear at this point on what kind of weapon was used and the scope of its damage thanks to the nonstop media coverage this past week.
However, you've now moved on from your previous baseless conspiracy theories about the brothers possibly being framed to trying to insinuate that a poor choice of words indicates some kind of grand scheme to fool the public or cover something up. Just give it up already. It's really coming off as foolish at this point.
Because the meaning of the term weapons of mass destruction is well established as primarily concerning N/B/C weapons and not low yield IEDs. The fact that they caused a lot of damage and chaos doesn't change how the term has traditionally been used. When that elderly man plowed through the Santa Monica Farmer's Market in his car killing ten and injuring 63 they didn't start calling his car a weapon of mass destruction (though I'll grant it's not designed to be a weapon, unlike an IED, but that's still not how we've used the term WMDs).
It's a deliberate misinterpretation which the US media will bandy about until everyone starts believing that Boston was attacked with a WMD. It implies that suicide bombers and car bombers (and all those bombings you hear about in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere) have been setting off not just explosives but 'WMDs'.
I mean when you think of a WMD, you think of deadly toxins, nerve gas, nuclear weapons and now... pressure cooker bombs? Just how far do extend the definition of a WMD? C4, Semtex, grenades or even guns? After all guns have killed just as many, if not more, people as explosives have. Where do you draw the line? Maybe the Second Amendment should read like this-
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear weapons of mass destruction shall not be infringed.
Anyway I'm side-tracking here, so my point is this. Terrorism is one incredibly sensitive and polarizing subject in the US, saying that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev detonated a WMD will only make things worse and will only give the US government more leverage to expand its anti-terror laws. Already the House of Representatives has passed CISPA (and after the Boston attack it was all everyone could talk about, so there was no chance for an online petition to form), and the Senate will soon vote upon it, so already US politicians are taking advantage of this terrorist attack.
The attack on the Boston Marathon was a terrible thing, but saying that a WMD went off is a misrepresentation of what happened. I'm saying let's stick to the facts here; two pressure cook bombs (IEDs) were detonated (while five more explosive devices were diffused) and saying that these IEDs were WMDs is misconstruing the truth.
The House passed a more comprehensive version of it last year too, without any terror attack to "take advantage of," and it died in the Senate. Between the Democratically-controlled Senate and President Obama's threat to veto it, it might just die this time too, even in its revised form.
If your goal is to challenge sensationalistic rhetoric, you're going about it in entirely the wrong way by imagining that everything is interconnected and part of some elaborate plot. The CISPA vote would likely have proceeded the same way regardless if there had been an attack in Boston or not.
Similar threads
