Explosions at Boston Marathon (Video) 1 Suspect Dead, 1 Injured and in Custody

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

The Gentleman:

It's also published on the internet (the famous "Make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom" article published in alQaeda's Inspire online magazine), which means pretty much anyone with an internet connection and basic technical knowledge. It might as well have been a device out of the infamous Anarchist Cookbook for all the good it could do at tracing the design style will do.

The sophistication of the device, however, does suggest an individual or small group rather than a large organization with the logistical support that could procure more effective and powerful explosive devices.

Really? Wow, I knew there must be information like that floating around the net but I never realised it was that easy to get a hold of. The terrorists could be anyone then, I'm leaning towards lone nut if I had to bet right now. The whole attack so far seems like it was brewed up in someone's backyard and the lack of a statement of responsibility is telling.

Also, might as well mention that news sources are saying the third fatality was a Chinese-national graduate student studying at Boston university, they've contacted family back in China but have yet to attain permission to release the name.

It does seem similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bomb_attempt

This sounds unsophisticated too. It didn't even work. Many groups claimed responsibility, but appears Holder, after weighing the evidence, decided it was Pakistani Taliban.

What about the firing mechanism? That apparently used some rather more sophisticated methods than the usual timer-devices tend to do, involving a circuit board. And why didn't any Islamists take responsibility yet? They thrive on the publicity of their supposedly "just war" against "the great satan" USA. As I said before, this doesn't seem like their handiwork to me at least.

Gorfias:
It does seem similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bomb_attempt

It's similar only in the sense that both involved a pressure cooker (but otherwise have little in common).

This sounds unsophisticated too. It didn't even work. Many groups claimed responsibility, but appears Holder, after weighing the evidence, decided it was Pakistani Taliban.

Got a reasonable cite for that? I'm scouring news sites and the only connection it's had with any group is being similar to a design alQaeda published on the internet in an English electronic magazine (which was heavily circulated by media cites).

Imperator_DK:

Skeleon already explained "reciprocity", though not my reason for embracing it. Which is that I don't believe human worth to be objective or godgiven, but intersubjective; Something which is created in and dependant on the interaction with and treatment of the innocent.

I'm sure many have pointed this out to you, but you're setting your own worth pretty low. Every time you pull out this card, you take one more step across the line. You start out with two beliefs which I find disgusting and reprehensible: firstly that people of certain belief systems are automatically evil and oppressive, and secondly that evil people deserve the same evil done to them. Again, I find those terrible, but you may believe what you will. But then you put them together and heartlessly shrug off people you know nothing about except their claimed religion getting attacked or having their homes destroyed. The level of disconnect is escalating quickly, but this last one is just terrible.

You took one look at an article about 19 people being slaughtered and concluded that since they lived in Somalia they probably deserved it. How can you make that conclusion!? I know you're crossing the "everyone in somalia is muslim or they were murdered already" bridge, but not only did you know nothing of these people's faiths, that's only more reason to give them the benefit of the doubt because even those declaring their faith there might just be doing so to not die.

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

The Gentleman:

Gorfias:
It does seem similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bomb_attempt

It's similar only in the sense that both involved a pressure cooker (but otherwise have little in common).

That's (basic design) a lot actually. That the device was left in a very public place in a big city on a street is also similar.

This sounds unsophisticated too. It didn't even work. Many groups claimed responsibility, but appears Holder, after weighing the evidence, decided it was Pakistani Taliban.

Got a reasonable cite for that? I'm scouring news sites and the only connection it's had with any group is being similar to a design alQaeda published on the internet in an English electronic magazine (which was heavily circulated by media cites).

Found this but still seems iffy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052804854.html

Did we end up striking part of Pakistan? I think we did. Reviewing.

I'm hearing the Pressure Cooker design is pretty well known.

My point was that some posters seemed to think the crudeness of the Boston bombs point to a lone loon. I worry that need not be the case.

Gorfias:

The Gentleman:

Gorfias:
It does seem similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Times_Square_car_bomb_attempt

It's similar only in the sense that both involved a pressure cooker (but otherwise have little in common).

That's (basic design) a lot actually. That the device was left in a very public place in a big city on a street is also similar.

This sounds unsophisticated too. It didn't even work. Many groups claimed responsibility, but appears Holder, after weighing the evidence, decided it was Pakistani Taliban.

Got a reasonable cite for that? I'm scouring news sites and the only connection it's had with any group is being similar to a design alQaeda published on the internet in an English electronic magazine (which was heavily circulated by media cites).

Found this but still seems iffy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052804854.html

Thought you were referring to the bombing on Monday.

According to the Wiki, Shahzad had contact with Anwar alAwaki via the internet and several people in Pakistan, including a member of a militant group.

Did we end up striking part of Pakistan? I think we did. Reviewing.

Considering the amount of Hellfire missiles fired by the US into Pakistan via Drone platforms, you may need to be more specific.

I'm hearing the Pressure Cooker design is pretty well known.

My point was that some posters seemed to think the crudeness of the Boston bombs point to a lone loon. I worry that need not be the case.

Like I noted before, larger organizations means more resources and logistics (not to mention larger footprints that can be tracked) and tend to take credit for events like this immediately with some evidence that they actually did it. The design, which, minus the detonator, was relatively crude, as well as the lack of any real link with a group suggests a lone actor or small group. Remember that the Oklahoma City Bombing was done by only two people (four if you count a couple who helped him obtain a fake licence and were aware of the attack prior), so there isn't a need for a larger organization to be involved.

Suspect has supposedly been arrested based on security video images of them, no details on who they are yet.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/17/us/boston-blasts/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Edit: Photos of alleged bomber(s) according to crowdsourcing anons, warning may not be accurate:

http://imgur.com/a/sUrnA/noscript

Edit 2: Okay, apparently there hasn't actually been an arrest, there was a "misunderstanding" between officials.

The Gentleman:
there isn't a need for a larger organization to be involved.

Just as scary. When a bunch of terrorists shot up India a few years back, some reporters seemed relieved that they didn't seem to have ties to a major, known organization. Others pointed out that is the problem. You can have un-related people with the same goals working without syncronization.

We should know more soon: http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/us/boston-blasts/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

More: http://www.infowars.com/boston-bombing-culprits-found/ (passed on by a friend, not sure how right any of this is. I'm more interested in hearing more from the arraignment at 5 PM today.

tstorm823:
...
I'm sure many have pointed this out to you, but you're setting your own worth pretty low. Every time you pull out this card, you take one more step across the line. You start out with two beliefs which I find disgusting and reprehensible: firstly that people of certain belief systems are automatically evil and oppressive, and secondly that evil people deserve the same evil done to them. Again, I find those terrible, but you may believe what you will. But then you put them together and heartlessly shrug off people you know nothing about except their claimed religion getting attacked or having their homes destroyed. The level of disconnect is escalating quickly, but this last one is just terrible.

I know their religion, I know what it says, and I know that they've chosen to declare worship to it.

What more would I ever need to deem them guilty of adhering to the views of their own religion? They themselves have proudly confessed to the choice.

You took one look at an article about 19 people being slaughtered and concluded that since they lived in Somalia they probably deserved it. How can you make that conclusion!? I know you're crossing the "everyone in somalia is muslim or they were murdered already" bridge, but not only did you know nothing of these people's faiths, that's only more reason to give them the benefit of the doubt because even those declaring their faith there might just be doing so to not die.

Read the post. I spoke of a "wager". It is of course theoretically possible that those killed weren't Abrahamics, but accepting of the rights of every variety of choice and lifestyle within harmless plurality. But really, what is the probability of it?

If I were at a court to judge what fate to impose upon them, I'd of course go with a standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt" for each and every one of them. When merely choosing how to personally react emotionally to something, "overwhelming probability" more than suffice to decide whether or not pity is accorded. You'd be hard pressed to disagree that there's objectively a very large statistical likelihood of them being either Muslims or Christians, would you not?

Now, the obvious response to this is of course "That's kinda prejudiced!". Yes, to a certain extent, it is! Same as a woman showing more caution to dress herself properly when entering an Afghan village than when at a Northern European beach is "prejudiced"; She cannot know how the villagers will react to her if she came naked. There might in fact exist a possibility that one Afghan village exist where she'd not be condemned or assaulted at all. But the indisputably wise thing for her to do would obviously be to go with the prejudiced assumption that the people of this specific village aren't down with female nudity, as it is founded in an overwhelming statistical likelihood, gauged from a vast amount of empirical evidence.

Plenty of irrational, illogical, and empirical unfounded prejudices obviously exist, and are a great source of injustice and harm all around the world. This does not mean that reactions actually based on statistical likelihood and/or previous experience - i.e. engaging in judging a thing before you know everything about that specific thing - are inherently a bad thing. In fact, humans couldn't function without them, and the law often recognize this.

***

Reciprocally, this obviously mean that I must accept other people reacting to me based on my statistically significant features offering up an overwhelming likelihood of me being something as well. Such as making initial - potentially negative - assumptions about me, based on my location, cultural and social background, language, age, presence at a gaming forum etc. etc., until I myself might speak to the contrary.

Which is indeed doing little more than accepting how things work in reality. I'm really not interesting enough that people would or should care about examining every fact potentially relevant to their reaction/interaction with me. That much I can muster in way of humility.

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

Same as is wrong with you in my eyes; Not following the right morality.

JoJo:

Edit: Photos of alleged bomber(s) according to crowdsourcing anons, warning may not be accurate:

Stuff like this is potentially quite dangerous for the individuals fingered (or even just people who look like them), because it potentially incites members of the public to attack them, which is a big problem if they're innocent.

I find the "no bag" arguments quite weak - I usually take my rucksack off when standing in crowds too, because with them sitting on your back in a press makes it awfully easy for pickpockets to steal from them.

Anonymous saves the day again!
Or at least the guy here seems pretty suspicious:

http://imgur.com/a/sUrnA

http://basedheisenberg.tumblr.com/post/48181500129/what-happens-when-you-give-4chan-images-of-the-boston

EDIT- JoJo beat me to it

JoJo:
Edit: Photos of alleged bomber(s) according to crowdsourcing anons, warning may not be accurate

Hammartroll:
Anonymous saves the day again!
Or at least the guy here seems pretty suspicious:

Would you both kindly remove the links to the "suspicious individuals" pictures? It promotes an element of vigilantism and mob mentality that is extremely unhealthy in a developed society, not to mention that those efforts potentially incite violence against innocent people, as noted by Agema.

Hammartroll:
Anonymous saves the day again!
Or at least the guy here seems pretty suspicious:

http://imgur.com/a/sUrnA

http://basedheisenberg.tumblr.com/post/48181500129/what-happens-when-you-give-4chan-images-of-the-boston

EDIT- JoJo beat me to it

i can honestly say i saw nothing that looked suspicious about him

The Gentleman:

Would you both kindly remove the links to the "suspicious individuals" pictures? It promotes an element of vigilantism and mob mentality that is extremely unhealthy in a developed society, not to mention that those efforts potentially incite violence against innocent people, as noted by Agema.

I appreciate your concern but I considered that angle before I posted the link and decided that any additional risk was neligible. These pictures are doing the rounds on Twitter and blogs all over the net, they aren't hard in the slightest for anyone to find with even a search engine or by accident while looking for news (as I did). You could make an argument that if no-one linked them anywhere, no-one would know in the first place about them but at this point, the genie is out of the bottle, any removal would be purely symbolic.

JoJo:

The Gentleman:

Would you both kindly remove the links to the "suspicious individuals" pictures? It promotes an element of vigilantism and mob mentality that is extremely unhealthy in a developed society, not to mention that those efforts potentially incite violence against innocent people, as noted by Agema.

I appreciate your concern but I considered that angle before I posted the link and decided that any additional risk was neligible. These pictures are doing the rounds on Twitter and blogs all over the net, they aren't hard in the slightest for anyone to find with even a search engine or by accident while looking for news (as I did). You could make an argument that if no-one linked them anywhere, no-one would know in the first place about them but at this point, the genie is out of the bottle, any removal would be purely symbolic.

Ok.

I don't see how that justifies leaving them up here though. Hasty accusations are hasty, and even though it might not make much of a difference in the long run, it is probably more responsible to not post those links than to post them, and it is probably more responsible to remove them than to keep them up.

Imperator_DK:

Same as is wrong with you in my eyes; Not following the right morality.

Here's the wonderful thing about my version though- I've accepted that we are all imperfect beings and can use a little forgiveness. Going parallel to your original logic of the innocent vs the not, I would certainly say your words against others leaves you among the guilty (you're ok with others being slaughtered) but I don't believe you deserve the same. I will say you are wrong, but I wish no ill towards you.

The Jesus of the religion you despise taught that everyone's a sinner so we should be forgiving to one another.
You're pretty much saying that we're all wrong in each others eyes so we're all in our right to drag each other down kicking and screaming.

This really isn't putting you on the good side of the arguement.

Oh, but after it's been established the Saudi guy was a victim a bunch of randoms just didn't like the look of, who are we supposed to jump to conclusions about?

thaluikhain:
Oh, but after it's been established the Saudi guy was a victim a bunch of randoms just didn't like the look of, who are we supposed to jump to conclusions about?

THE GOVERMNMENT! Didn't you see that one 4chan post? This is all an elaborate plot to outlaw gunpowder! Damn libruls.

Nikolaz72:

thaluikhain:
Oh, but after it's been established the Saudi guy was a victim a bunch of randoms just didn't like the look of, who are we supposed to jump to conclusions about?

THE GOVERMNMENT! Didn't you see that one 4chan post? This is all an elaborate plot to outlaw gunpowder! Damn libruls.

Nah, we have to find some small group that can't defend itself. Spitting on police officers in the street might get me in trouble, and while I want to show terrorists I'm not afraid, there's a limit.

Hammartroll:
Anonymous saves the day again!
Or at least the guy here seems pretty suspicious:

http://imgur.com/a/sUrnA

http://basedheisenberg.tumblr.com/post/48181500129/what-happens-when-you-give-4chan-images-of-the-boston

EDIT- JoJo beat me to it

Wow. I was both amused and disturbed by the humor they used in those pictures. XD

tstorm823:
...
Here's the wonderful thing about my version though- I've accepted that we are all imperfect beings and can use a little forgiveness. Going parallel to your original logic of the innocent vs the not, I would certainly say your words against others leaves you among the guilty (you're ok with others being slaughtered) but I don't believe you deserve the same. I will say you are wrong, but I wish no ill towards you.

Yeah, because if there's anything Christianity has always been known for, it's tolerance and forgiveness towards differing world views.

Also, the fact that Christians believe that gays/atheists/etc. etc. need forgiveness to begin with is what makes them so vile. And that belief also doesn't stop them from actively fighting their rights and oppressing them, which of course can't be forgiven.

The Jesus of the religion you despise taught that everyone's a sinner so we should be forgiving to one another.

Well, if magical carpenter guy said it, basing it on delusional claims such as there being a life after death, and himself being the one to worship in order to obtain it, then it must be true.

You're pretty much saying that we're all wrong in each others eyes so we're all in our right to drag each other down kicking and screaming.

Or rather not do so, out of fear that the same will be done to us.

Which seems to offer rather more efficient discouragement from oppression and harm than Christianity ever has... given that it's so often stood for the oppression and harm against the innocent, and still does so to this very day.

This really isn't putting you on the good side of the arguement.

Well, fix the whole problem of your world view being based on baseless factual claims of heavens and gods existing, and there'll actually be something worth arguing against.

Imperator_DK:
Also, the fact that Christians believe that gays/atheists/etc. etc. need forgiveness to begin with is what makes them so vile. And that belief also doesn't stop them from actively fighting their rights and oppressing them, which of course can't be forgiven.

Yes, because all adherents of a Religion share a hive mind and share the exact same stances on every issue in the book.

Quit your fundementalism and get back on the topic.

OT: I'm relieved to see the death toll hasn't gotten higher. I was anticipating some of the people in a critical condition would sucumb to their injuries but it looks like Boston's hospitals were up to the task.

McMullen:

JoJo:

The Gentleman:

Would you both kindly remove the links to the "suspicious individuals" pictures? It promotes an element of vigilantism and mob mentality that is extremely unhealthy in a developed society, not to mention that those efforts potentially incite violence against innocent people, as noted by Agema.

I appreciate your concern but I considered that angle before I posted the link and decided that any additional risk was neligible. These pictures are doing the rounds on Twitter and blogs all over the net, they aren't hard in the slightest for anyone to find with even a search engine or by accident while looking for news (as I did). You could make an argument that if no-one linked them anywhere, no-one would know in the first place about them but at this point, the genie is out of the bottle, any removal would be purely symbolic.

Ok.

I don't see how that justifies leaving them up here though. Hasty accusations are hasty, and even though it might not make much of a difference in the long run, it is probably more responsible to not post those links than to post them, and it is probably more responsible to remove them than to keep them up.

My justification for leaving them up here is I believe they may be of interest to my fellow Escapists, and I have not made any accusations, I've very clearly put that it is "alleged" and that the information may not be accurate. Given these disclaimers, I see no pressing need to censor myself and besides, the links have already been posted by three other users on this page alone (including quotes, which the links will remain in unless the quoter edits their post too), practically they're unlikely to all be edited out.

Shaoken:
...
Yes, because all adherents of a Religion share a hive mind and share the exact same stances on every issue in the book.

...your sarcasm is a bit hazy there.

Which is of course fitting, as it's exactly what they themselves claim; That they're united in a common faith, following a shared divine creed, rather than personally picking and choosing whatever they individually like or dislike.

So you might want to convince them that they stand alone with their personal scriptural interpretation, before you attempt to convince me.

***

Doesn't seem to be much development in the case yet. The imagery of the supposed suspects offers at best a few vague and circumstantial indications that they could be worth taking a closer look at. Wouldn't be too fortunate if they turn out to be innocent.

And even if they actually are guilty, announcing to them that they're in the spotlight across the internet doesn't seem like the best way to aid the investigation. If it actually were those guys, they might think that since the death toll is pretty low, and they're being closed on in anyway, they should drive somewhere and shoot up/burn down a kindergarten in a last stand move or whatnot.

Given the primitivism of the bombs, whoever did it is probably acting autonomously (i.e. uncontrollably), there's still plenty of media attention, and they have already shown a preference for soft civilian targets. Lone wolf terrorist dudes are better left thinking they've got a shot at getting away with their crimes, until you can actually take them down.

Not that any of this outweigh Freedom of Expression, but it could've been used more responsibly by those who started this public investigation thing. Cat's already out of the bag now though, so there's no point in belated censorship.

Imperator_DK:
[

So you might want to convince them that they stand alone with their personal scriptural interpretation, before you attempt to convince me.

It might help if you actually knew anything about the religions you go on about before asking that they fix problems you invent.

***

Anyway, its been days and there's still no solid lead? What the fuck. And the pictures from Anon were probably not all that useful, as the cops would have been all over it by now.

Shadowstar38:
...
It might help if you actually knew anything about the religions you go on about before asking that they fix problems you invent.

Alas, the homophobia of the bible is not a recent invention of mine.

Imperator_DK:

Shadowstar38:
...
It might help if you actually knew anything about the religions you go on about before asking that they fix problems you invent.

Alas, the homophobia of the bible is not a recent invention of mine.

You make the assumption that homophobia is something that every Christian subscribes to and thus, find them all guilty of doing. Learn how denominations work.

Shadowstar38:
Anyway, its been days and there's still no solid lead? What the fuck. And the pictures from Anon were probably not all that useful, as the cops would have been all over it by now.

It took, what, two years after the Atlanta Olympics bombing to find who did it, though they chased some other bloke for ages.

...

OTOH, though, they apparently found the guy who sent Obama ricin in the mail the other day.

Imperator_DK:

Yeah, because if there's anything Christianity has always been known for, it's tolerance and forgiveness towards differing world views.

Just a reminder, I'm Catholic. The answer to that is yes for like 99% of Church history. And the points where that isn't the case, most of that is specific people going against the grain, grabs at political power having nothing to do with doctrine, or outright didn't happen and have been exaggerated by dirty, filthy protestants. (that was a joke...)

Also, the fact that Christians believe that gays/atheists/etc. etc. need forgiveness to begin with is what makes them so vile.

I would quite say that's a your perspective thing. I'm sure you'll agree that if the christian god is real, there are a lot of atheists on here that will be needing forgiveness when they die. Is in it wonderful to have that promise instead of "they deserved to have their houses burned down."

And that belief also doesn't stop them from actively fighting their rights and oppressing them, which of course can't be forgiven.

But it should, so why are you blaming the belief and not the specific people? People trying to save people from sin through secular laws are wrong.

Well, if magical carpenter guy said it, basing it on delusional claims such as there being a life after death, and himself being the one to worship in order to obtain it, then it must be true.

Are you saying that we aren't all evil at some point? Or are you really saying we should all be destroying each other for our misdeeds? And what part of that logic relies on the afterlife to make sense? Sounds to me like you've not much arguement here but "I don't like that so I'm going to ignore it and deflect to something else."

Or rather not do so, out of fear that the same will be done to us.

Then why do you have no fear? You've essentially condemned half the planet to gruesome deaths- why are you not afraid of retribution for your claims? Either you're assuming yourself excempt from judgement or you're a case study why your own idea doesn't work.

Which seems to offer rather more efficient discouragement from oppression and harm than Christianity ever has... given that it's so often stood for the oppression and harm against the innocent, and still does so to this very day.

I'd rather say Christianity has done more for the innocent than any other organization in human history, and to be honest, not that much oppression. I think a lot of the things you'd support your claim with are wild exaggerations or outright lies. Please do tell me where the Church is standing for the harm and oppression of the innocent and I will make you look silly.

Edit:

Imperator_DK:

Which is of course fitting, as it's exactly what they themselves claim; That they're united in a common faith, following a shared divine creed, rather than personally picking and choosing whatever they individually like or dislike.

Look, there's everything a Catholic must subscribe to in one convenient place. I'm not seing "kill the gays" in there anywhere strangely enough.

The new york post has gone and put on their front cover a pic of two people wanted by the feds for the bombing.

Minor problem in that they aren't wanted by the feds for the bombing, apparently they are the reddit people.

...

Here's hoping they don't get lynched.

The two men investigated by the internet have apparently been cleared by the police.

thaluikhain:
The new york post has gone and put on their front cover a pic of two people wanted by the feds for the bombing.

Minor problem in that they aren't wanted by the feds for the bombing, apparently they are the reddit people.

...

Here's hoping they don't get lynched.

And this kind of stuff is why you don't crowdsource criminal investigations...

Yay, vigilantism! It works so well in finding people to kill. Any people. Justice, yay!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked