Explosions at the Boston Marathon

[Guest American Woman]

Dramatic action shot of the heightened security at the London Marathon:

And here another dramatic shot:

[kimmy]

Oh. They had guys on mopeds? Alright, then.

I remain skeptical of any compelling security reason to classify Dhokhar Tsarnaev as an "enemy combatant".

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Oh. They had guys on mopeds? Alright, then.

That was pretty much my reaction to your "dramatic shot."

I remain skeptical of any compelling security reason to classify Dhokhar Tsarnaev as an "enemy combatant".

Fine. Remain skeptical. But your skepticism isn't exactly based on a wealth of knowledge, which is my only point.

[eyeball]

Notice that declaration doesn't say "al Qaeda," but "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001..." That's open to interpretation, so any ties at all to the al Qaeda cause, any support, could be determined to be "aid." The war against terror is not "against al Qaeda and no one else," as you claim, by any means.

I guess that explains why fatwas that treat those nations, organizations, or persons that determine, plan, authorize, commit, or aid imperialism and dictatorship in the Muslim world get interpreted a little loosely too at times.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course that's the reason. Anything and everything that goes on anywhere in the world comes back to us. It's all simply a reaction to us, while it's never the other way around. Unless it's something good, of course. Then they deserve all kinds of credit and praise. I get it.

[kimmy]

That was pretty much my reaction to your "dramatic shot."

I included that for humor, of course, but the picture does show people right out there on the course with all sorts of gear. I see a megaphone, a bottle, big white bag that could contain dangerous things, who knows.

Fine. Remain skeptical. But your skepticism isn't exactly based on a wealth of knowledge, which is my only point.

If I knew for sure, I wouldn't need to be skeptical. That's kind of how things work. Until more is known, skepticism is highly justified.

What are your feelings?

-k

[eyeball]

Of course that's the reason. Anything and everything that goes on anywhere in the world comes back to us. It's all simply a reaction to us, while it's never the other way around. Unless it's something good, of course. Then they deserve all kinds of credit and praise. I get it.

No, you clearly don't. Maybe this will help.

Bad is Stronger than Good

The greater power of bad events over good ones is found in everyday events, major life

events (e.g., trauma), close relationship outcomes, social network patterns, interpersonal

interactions, and learning processes. Bad emotions, bad parents, and bad feedback

have more impact than good ones, and bad information is processed more thoroughly

than good. The self is more motivated to avoid bad self-definitions than to pursue good

ones. Bad impressions and bad stereotypes are quicker to form and more resistant to

disconfirmation than good ones. Various explanations such as diagnosticity and salience

help explain some findings, but the greater power of bad events is still found

when such variables are controlled. Hardly any exceptions (indicating greater power of

good) can be found. Taken together, these findings suggest that bad is stronger than

good, as a general principle across a broad range of psychological phenomena.

[-TSS-]

Does anyone else think it is rather worrying that even though the FBI had kept an eye on the older brother he was still able to carry out his act? Imagine how many people there must be who have not yet been noticed by the authorities but are harbouring very nasty ideas.

[silver72]

Does anyone else think it is rather worrying that even though the FBI had kept an eye on the older brother he was still able to carry out his act? Imagine how many people there must be who have not yet been noticed by the authorities but are harbouring very nasty ideas.

I felt the same way and so I went searching and you won't believe what I found in an article and its backed up by former FBI agents. Thje article states that all the attacks on US soil, the FBI is connected to them. These two guys, could have been programed to do the dirty deeds by the FBI, for their own reasons, which could be security on the streets or whatever the reasoning. I really don't think people can trust anyone , even their government or at least think of both sides of the issue. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-boston-bombings-in-context-how-the-fbi-fosters-funds-and-equips-american-terrorists/5331872

[Michael Hardner]

Does anyone else think it is rather worrying that even though the FBI had kept an eye on the older brother he was still able to carry out his act? Imagine how many people there must be who have not yet been noticed by the authorities but are harbouring very nasty ideas.

This isn't unusual. Lee Harvey Oswald, for example, was regularly visited by the FBI due to his having defected to the Soviet Union, and back again.

[Michael Hardner]

I felt the same way and so I went searching and you won't believe what I found in an article and its backed up by former FBI agents. Thje article states that all the attacks on US soil, the FBI is connected to them. These two guys, could have been programed to do the dirty deeds by the FBI, for their own reasons, which could be security on the streets or whatever the reasoning. I really don't think people can trust anyone , even their government or at least think of both sides of the issue. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-boston-bombings-in-context-how-the-fbi-fosters-funds-and-equips-american-terrorists/5331872

You need to cite credible sources for your argument. That is a fringe conspiracy theory cite that no reasonable person would accept without corroboration of some kind.

This statement is typical:

"But the evidence shows that every major terror plot on American soil in the past 10 years has been fostered, funded and equipped by one organization: the FBI."

[GostHacked]

You need to cite credible sources for your argument. That is a fringe conspiracy theory cite that no reasonable person would accept without corroboration of some kind.

This statement is typical:

"But the evidence shows that every major terror plot on American soil in the past 10 years has been fostered, funded and equipped by one organization: the FBI."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CwTpJ1EoV6A

[WWWTT]

Here's another pic that brings this into perspective.

WWWTT

[silver72]

You need to cite credible sources for your argument. That is a fringe conspiracy theory cite that no reasonable person would accept without corroboration of some kind.

This statement is typical:

"But the evidence shows that every major terror plot on American soil in the past 10 years has been fostered, funded and equipped by one organization: the FBI."

You need to cite credible sources for your argument. That is a fringe conspiracy theory cite that no reasonable person would accept without corroboration of some kind.

This statement is typical:

"But the evidence shows that every major terror plot on American soil in the past 10 years has been fostered, funded and equipped by one organization: the FBI."

Michael, do really think that the FBI would never ever do anything like this? In North America, citizens may not believe that within their government there are bad people and do bad things, and if one never believes that the POSSIBLITY it could happen, then those people have freed that government to do just that. We have to look with an open mind when something like this happens. look at how many times someone in the US has tried or did kill their President. When it comes to the US, anything is possible. I'm not 100% sure if these guys acted alone or weren't programed by someone.

[Michael Hardner]

Here's another pic that brings this into perspective.

WWWTT

I don't see how a graphic adds to the point being made. You could just provide a cite to the statistic. A lot of the impact graphic messages I see on facebook are misleading and unsourced.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, do really think that the FBI would never ever do anything like this?

Never ? Is it remotely possible, given any future scenario over an infinite timeline ? I suppose I would have to answer that it's *possible* but that's not the point. The article is making specific claims that are characteristic of fringe views, ie. sensational claims that are not substantiated by institutional media sources.

[jacee]

Here's another pic that brings this into perspective.

WWWTT

NSC Study Shows You are more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist

...

How do the odds of dying in a terrorist attack stack up against the odds of dying in other unfortunate situations? The following ratios were compiled using data from 2004 National Safety Council Estimates, a report based on data from The National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, 2003 mortality data from the Center for Disease Control was used.

-- You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

-- You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

-- You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane

-- You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack

--You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack

-- You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack

-- You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack

--You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack

--You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack

--You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

--You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack

-- You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack

SOURCE: The Progressive Review

Comment on this story, by email [email protected]

I'm worried now about "accidental suffocation in bed".

How does that happen and how can I prevent it?

Terrorist bombs are more traumatic and scary, but perspective is good: Murdered by your bedding is still dead!

Edited April 22, 2013 by jacee

[Michael Hardner]

NSC Study Shows You are more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist

...

How do the odds of dying in a terrorist attack stack up against the odds of dying in other unfortunate situations? The following ratios were compiled using data from 2004 National Safety Council Estimates, a report based on data from The National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, 2003 mortality data from the Center for Disease Control was used.

http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/news/Pages/RelatedNews.aspx?Filter1Field=Article%20Category%20Keyword%20Tag&Filter1Value=Value%20of%20Workplace%20Safety

Source data still not found but ...

[jbg]

Americans like to make a lot of declarations. It started with the Declaration of Independence and they've yet to live up to any of them.

That turned out better than the Declaration of the Rights of Man (French Revolution), though people did go "out of their heads" about that one.

[Guest Derek L]

There is only one way to be a 'combatant' in the USA: Be associated with Alqueda or the Taliban. Without that association there is no way the bomber can be declared an enemy combatant. Despite all the rhetoric about war against terrorism the USA is not at war with anybody except Alqueda and the Taliban. The USofA is not at war with Chechen terrorist groups or any other terrorist organizations except Alqueda and the Taliban.

Two crackpots taking up the Chechen cause in Boston does not a war make. Derek raised the possibility that perhaps they were under some sort of marching orders from the Chechen terrorists because the older brother visited Chechnya some time ago.

The FBI questioned the fellow at the request of the Ruski's for that trip. The FBI was so concerned with the result of the questioning and with the intelligence provided by the Ruski's that they let him go free. Of course that was the Big Brother bomber not the surviviing

little brother who never went back to chechyna.

While it is possible that the bombers were part of some larger non-alqueda/non-taliban organization with plots to attack the USofA, there isnt a shred of revealed evidence to support Dereks contention. And the fact that after questioning by the FBI they let Big Brother

go free shows that there isnt a shred of secret evidence to support Dereks contention either. So it seems Big Brother took a trip to chechyna for the same reasons many immigrants take trips to the old country.

There fool will be tried in massachusetts in a civil court and executed (maybe - if found guilty).

You have no idea what you're talking about......Do yourself a favor and Google United States Supreme Court Case Hamdi vs Rumsfeld and the ensuing Military Commissions Act of 2006...... Simply put, A combatant status review tribunal could determine Peter F an unlawful enemy combatant if they saw fit.

[jbg]

You have no idea what you're talking about......Do yourself a favor and Google United States Supreme Court Case Hamdi vs Rumsfeld and the ensuing Military Commissions Act of 2006...... Simply put, A combatant status review tribunal could determine Peter F an unlawful enemy combatant if they saw fit.

Even assuming Peter F is a Canadian?

[Guest Derek L]

Even assuming Peter F is a Canadian?

Canadian, American, French, Mexican, Saudi Arabian, Libyan, Syrian etc

[GostHacked]

Even assuming Peter F is a Canadian?

Yes, we can use Khadr as an example.

[GostHacked]

Never ? Is it remotely possible, given any future scenario over an infinite timeline ? I suppose I would have to answer that it's *possible* but that's not the point. The article is making specific claims that are characteristic of fringe views, ie. sensational claims that are not substantiated by institutional media sources.

It has been documented time and time again that most of the foiled plots were plots contrived by the FBI. Essentially using small players as bait to try and out the bigger fish. But as we see that can have some ... drawbacks. Or blowbacks if you wish. The information is all there if one cares to actually look for it and read it.

Judge Napolitano has been a great source and a huge critic of big government and the encroachment on the rights of Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano Former New Jersey Supreme Court Judge.

[Michael Hardner]

It has been documented time and time again that most of the foiled plots were plots contrived by the FBI.

I think that this needs further sourcing and clarification.

Does this include 9/11 for example ?