A pair of explosions rocks the finish line at the Boston Marathon, injuring at least a half-dozen people.

  On 4/23/2013 at 2:37 AM, jules said:

 

  On 4/23/2013 at 12:26 AM, encey said:

Jules -- I'm no expert, but I take it that what happened was he was just outside the radius of their door-to-door search. They must have some procedure for determining how big that circle should be, and it just turned out it wasn't the right size to enclose how far he could have gone in that time. They only just missed him in their radius, though! And I presume they would have kept looking even if they told everyone to come out.

 

I do agree, though, that they didn't seem to wait super long before telling the citizens, 'Okay, we can't do this to you and make you hole up in your homes any longer, you poor, shuttered folks.' I think they could have lasted at least another day!

 

 

yea, i totally get that. i am no expert either. i have a feeling if i robbed the 7-11 in my small shit town and tried to run over a few cops after shooting at them and then i ran away on foot and hid under a blanket in someone's backyard...i'd be found pretty quickly. and this town probably has 10 cops.

 

 

thermal imaging helicopters and dogs with his scent could not pick him up? he was bleeding like a stuck pig. and had bomb residue. it just seems crazy to me.

 

Yeah, I'm surprised by the dogs, too. Could be they weren't sniffing outside the search radius. And I guess the thermal imaging would be useless without a heated body in sight.

  On 4/23/2013 at 2:43 AM, logakght said:

everything is a conspiracy!

to be clear, I'm not saying it has anything to do with a conspiracy.

encey: wouldn't the search radius start with where he was last seen? seems like simple tracking there and the scent trail was probably pretty good considering he was bleeding out.

I'm not sure what my point was anymore.

I agree Jules, it seems crazy. However I also feel like you're oversimplifying a bit. I mean it's not like they can have all the dogs all the time in all the search radii for example. Perhaps they were also gearing up for an explosive-laced confrontation, trying to be more cautious than they would for your average 7-11 friday night specialer. I have a feeling that the lift on the lockdown was some kind of pressure-induced snafu, maybe panic by a public official. It doesn't fit with the force's agenda.

I guess I'm saying that I have sympathy for large groups of people trying to safely navigate a violent clusterfuck. Also the fact that it is their job to take care of crazy people like that. I mean, I do sound for comedy web videos. I rarely risk anything for the public good.

No sympathy for the unprofessional members of the media, though. Capitalizing off of horror and misinformation is one of the great wrongs of our society today. I would like to poop them all into a giant toilet.

Does anyone have video or reports of people being prevented from going outside? In the last couple of days, I could have sworn I read about people going outside and being forced back in, but I can't find anything currently.

People are saying that the lockdown was a request, and people were free to go outside as they pleased, but I don't know if that's entirely truthful.

  On 4/23/2013 at 3:11 AM, jules said:

encey: wouldn't the search radius start with where he was last seen? seems like simple tracking there and the scent trail was probably pretty good considering he was bleeding out.

Yeah it would seem so -- I dunno what the fuck happened! But I'm sure those things are messy uncertain.

as usual,

the fear is artificial, the event illusory, the popular commentary leashed & chaperoned

imo

  On 4/23/2013 at 1:07 AM, goDel said:

 

  On 4/23/2013 at 12:26 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

I'm not accusing you of that, but you seem to have a problem with other people having problems with it whether it be the treatment of the suspect or the way it was delivered to the public. Fine I get that you don't have the same problems, but what I don't understand is why it's so important for you to beat into our heads why we shouldn't complain about things like the state of the mainstream media (like if we choose to watch it).

I'm not a 'news junky', politics at this point are practically my day job. So I think it's sort of a hard to say that if I think it's abhorrent I should turn it off. Part of my role in what I do is media analysis of events like this. You're a fan of Jon Stewart right? Well check out his coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings, I thought it did a pretty good job of exemplifying the irresponsible and absurd nature of the reporting (yet im sure that he still had to stomach quite a bit of it to find the humor in it). Sometimes to get a good understanding of something you find so awful you have to immerse yourself in it, surely you can understand that?

 

Because you (multiple) choose to watch it? Those devices have an off-button, don't they? It's in peoples power to decide which media outlet they choose, right?

 

i think this pretty much sums up the fall of U.S. constitutionalism. granted, its a gradual fall, but a fall nonetheless.

democracy=failure?

i dunno.

Im amazed at how quickly the terrorist were identified from fuzzy street cams and i guess iphone pics of the event. Considering its a whole city of people. One day later and they are caught. Amazing.

  On 4/23/2013 at 12:26 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

I'm not accusing you of that, but you seem to have a problem with other people having problems with it whether it be the treatment of the suspect or the way it was delivered to the public. Fine I get that you don't have the same problems, but what I don't understand is why it's so important for you to beat into our heads why we shouldn't complain about things like the state of the mainstream media (like if we choose to watch it).

I'm not a 'news junky', politics at this point are practically my day job. So I think it's sort of a hard to say that if I think it's abhorrent I should turn it off. Part of my role in what I do is media analysis of events like this. You're a fan of Jon Stewart right? Well check out his coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings, I thought it did a pretty good job of exemplifying the irresponsible and absurd nature of the reporting (yet im sure that he still had to stomach quite a bit of it to find the humor in it). Sometimes to get a good understanding of something you find so awful you have to immerse yourself in it, surely you can understand that?

I think we are in a time when old world industries like print media and tv news are trying to find their place in the information age. Its going to be a little sloppy for a while.

Yes! Look at the compilation of horrible mistakes thats posted on huffpo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/boston-bombings-media-mistakes_n_3135105.html

It's the old media with their old fashioned authoritative ways of presenting things. They really need to learn to get on with the times. That holds for both the media, and the people looking for news, btw.

For all the mothers ( and dads), or soon to be mothers (dads), here's a beautiful piece about a mothers of a 19 year old who looks like the suspect:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simi-singh-juneja/he-could-be-my-son_b_3128180.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Propaganda for parents?

witness account of shootout

http://www.getonhand.com/blogs/news/7743337-boston-bombing-suspect-shootout-pictures

  On 4/23/2013 at 8:45 PM, jules said:

witness account of shootout

 

http://www.getonhand.com/blogs/news/7743337-boston-bombing-suspect-shootout-pictures

Andrew Ktizenberg: All fotos and descriptions is my website creative commons all rites reserved

Gov't: No

Andrew Ktizenberg: Ok

Cool story bro

Are those military police? They look like Space Marines.

PoliceStateUSA

If I was a Boston resident I'd be singing patriotic songs too if they just locked down my entire town to catch a 19 year old kid

  Quote

 

Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

Can an act of violence be called 'terrorism' if the motive is unknown?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/boston-marathon-terrorism-aurora-sandy-hook

 

Greenwald knocks it out of the park again, asks why so many people are quick to link this with the overall framework of 'islamic terrorism' simply because he's a muslim.

  Quote

 

The word "terrorism" is, at this point, one of the most potent in our political lexicon: it single-handedly ends debates, ratchets up fear levels, and justifies almost anything the government wants to do in its name. It's hard not to suspect that the only thing distinguishing the Boston attack from Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook and Columbine (to say nothing of the US "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad and the mass killings in Fallujah) is that the accused Boston attackers are Muslim and the other perpetrators are not. As usual, what terrorism really means in American discourse - its operational meaning - is: violence by Muslims against Americans and their allies.

 

  On 4/23/2013 at 10:16 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

If I was a Boston resident I'd be singing patriotic songs too if they just locked down my entire town to catch a 19 year old kid

just when i get a glimpse of hope that you might not actually be that fucking dumb you go and post some shit like that.

the kid was a suspected murderer on the run whose exact whereabouts were unknown, who supposedly possessed very powerful weapons with a high probability of using them on random civilians. is that really that bad of a reason to lock down an area ?

The militarization of the police in the states is quite ridiculous. I guess that's what you get when every nutter has easy access to weapons.

eugene: chill out with the personal comments please.

I'm of the opinion that locking down the whole area was way overboard. and also homeland security police??

No need to come to my defense Chengod, I'm honored that comments I make that aren't personal attacks get such a rise out of certain members of the forum. *pats self on back*

  Quote

Greenwald knocks it out of the park again, asks why so many people are quick to link this with the overall framework of 'islamic terrorism' simply because he's a muslim.

the younger brother said his older brother wanted to fight for Islam because its under attack by the USA.

Why the semantics on terrorism? What's the point? Two guys placed and detonated bombs at the boston marathon, for gods sake. And greenwald hits a ball out the park for discussing the use of the label terrorism? Who cares? Lets create a new word for this specific incident: tgnhnhnthn.

There. Are we done now? Problem solved, right? No more misuse of the word terrorism.

It's something I like discussing obviously, I mean I could spend a bunch of time making a case for you for the quadrillionth time why I like discussing it so much but I feel I've already done that.
Problem won't be solved until the 'war on terror' as a concept ceases to exist.

With it's demise the semantic problem with the word 'terror' as it has been re-defined will die along with it.

schmerror.