Boston Marathon - explosion

I hope this murdering bastard has realized that being taken alive was the worst mistake he could have made.

dimitrispearljam wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/04/27/apnewsbreak-russia-had-wiretap-bomb-suspect/thxyRlTklJWMBHAb746DSP/story.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. officials say Russian authorities secretly recorded a conversation in 2011 in which one of the Boston bombing suspects vaguely discussed jihad with his mother.

Officials say a second call was recorded between the suspects’ mother and a man under FBI investigation living in southern Russia.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the ongoing case.

They say the Russians shared this intelligence with the U.S. in the past few days.

The conversations are significant because, had they been revealed earlier, there might have been enough evidence for the FBI to initiate a more thorough investigation of the Boston bombing suspects’ family.

as i sais before in this thread...i dont get those 2 did it,with out some of their family donr know anything about their action,their thoughts,their hate for the usa,while they gtow up here,..+ i said,Obama when they told him those 2 are from Chechenya,the first person he called was Vladimir..

I agree Dimi. No one becomes so radicalized that they are willing to commit mass murder in the streets without those closest to them knowing something was wrong.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-boston-marath ... 48880.html

Like the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Sandy Hook massacre and other tragedies, the recent Boston Marathon bombing has spawned several conspiracy theories. Some of the more cynical conspiracy theorists do it simply for attention and ratings, or to promote their books, DVDs and seminars promising to reveal the truth that no one else would dare.

These days most conspiracy theories are promoted by one or two (relatively) high-profile people. A man named Alex Jones was at the forefront of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook school attack last year — including the claim that the shooting didn't really happen. This time around, former Fox News host Glenn Beck is among those leading the charge that a conspiracy is afoot in the Boston bombing case that left several dead and one suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, in the hospital.

Beck is apparently not denying that the Boston bombings took place — the thousands of eyewitnesses, countless videos and forensic evidence is too overwhelming to be dismissed. No, instead the conspiracy seems to center around what Beck believes is the suspicious government handling of a Saudi national named Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, who was supposedly investigated (and cleared) of some connection to the Boston attack, but whose student visa had expired, and who may or may not be in the process of being deported back to Saudi Arabia. [The 10 Most Bizarre Conspiracy Theories]

Beck claims to have secret information from people who assure him that Ali Alharbi had something to do with the attack, though it's not clear why Beck and his anonymous sources would have better information than the FBI and Department of Homeland Security. An official at the Department of Homeland Security called Beck's allegations "one hundred percent false."

What, exactly, is Beck claiming happened? That Ali Alharbi is the real killer, and the Tsarnaev brothers were just innocent patsies? That the three of them worked together to execute the plan (despite Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's statement to police that he and his brother worked alone)? Or was that a lie, too? Maybe one of Tsarnaev's doctors or nurses at the hospital is really an undercover Saudi agent who drugged or threatened Tsarnaevinto saying the brothers acted alone, to cover up Ali Alharbi's role?

In the end it doesn't really matter: In the world of conspiracies, one wild theory is as good as the next; it all depends on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go. Conspiracy theorists are in the business of raising questions, not providing answers — even for their own claims.

Belief in conspiracies

Why are some people so quick to believe in conspiracy theories? In part, many conspiracy theorists don't consider themselves conspiracy theorists. They don't see themselves as the caricatured, tinfoil hat-wearing loons. Instead, they see themselves as patriots and independent thinkers who are smart enough to see through the lies put out by the government and its news media stooges.

Often those who promote conspiracy theories frame them as simply asking legitimate questions — and who can deny that everyone has the right to ask questions of their government and news media? The problem is that the questions they ask are often non-questions that can be (and have been) easily answered. Conspiracy theorists prefer complex mysteries over simple truths, and so they find mystery where none exists.

Big events like terrorist attacks often spawn conspiracy theories, because they carry social and political freight; they mean something to the public. Conspiracy theories do not arise around small, local events no one cares about. Instead events with international implications, such as the moon landing, terrorism and the deaths of John F. Kennedy and Princess Diana, feed the conspiracy mill.

People who embrace and promote conspiracy theories do so for a reason — typically because it bolsters their (often anti-government) social or political agendas. Conspiracy theories don't emerge in a vacuum; instead, there are people who are simply waiting for each new tragedy to occur so that they can frame it in a way that suits their purposes. For example, many people seized upon the Sandy Hook massacre as a faked event staged to rally public support for stricter gun control laws. [5 Milestones in Gun Control History]

They seek out what appear to be contradictions or holes in "the official story." Conspiracy theorist websites offer "suspicious" examples and evidence, ranging from real or perceived contradictions in eyewitness accounts to conflicting news reports. But what the conspiratorial mind sees as misinformation and lies, others see as merely perfectly ordinary incomplete and inaccurate information following a chaotic tragedy. Eyewitnesses can be confused and mistaken, police officers and reporters can make errors, or repeat information that is corrected after further investigation.

Part of the reason that conspiracy theories linger is that any contradictory evidence — no matter how conclusive or compelling — can just be dismissed by claiming that it's part of the cover-up. Conspiracy theories have been with us for millennia, and are not going away any time soon.

I don't know if she was involved but she had to have known something was not right. I would find it very hard to believe she had no idea how radicalized he had become, that he was planning something.

JimmyV wrote:

I don't know if she was involved but she had to have known something was not right. I would find it very hard to believe she had no idea how radicalized he had become, that he was planning something.

i agree

Bronx Bombers wrote:

So not only did the brothers and their family pull in 100k in welfare benefits over the past 4 years taxpayers will now be on the hook for millions for his defense team as well. :fp:

Infuriating. The country these two murderers apparently hated so much seems to have done quite a bit for them over the years.

vant0037 wrote:

Bronx Bombers wrote:

...taxpayers will now be on the hook for millions for his defense team as well.

Yeah, but what's the alternative in America?

I have a question you may be able to answer. These attorneys are all working as public defenders in this instance and will be paid as public defenders, correct? Meaning that if the family had gone out and hired attorneys of this caliber on their own the price tag would be much higher - at least in terms of salary paid to the attorneys themselves. Or am I wrong on that?

vant0037 wrote:

I think I understand the question. Private attorneys, generally speaking, make far more than public defenders. Generally speaking, the caliber of lawyer isn't much different. I'm not sure if that answers it.

In this case, because it's likely a capital case, there may be an appointment of an attorney, at a state-determined hourly fee (I'm just speculating). Many times, in high-profile capital cases, there won't be a public defender office attorney appointed to the case. Instead, there will be an attorney with capital punishment experience appointed, perhaps from the private bar.

Thanks, that does answer it for me. OJ for instance hired and paid for his own dream team of lawyers. Whatever the price was he paid, the state of California would not have been under obligation to pay the same had he gone the public defender route.

For what its worth, I do not think he gets the death penalty for this. I think the defense makes the case that he was under the brother's spell, that he was a victim too, etc.