Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

To be fair, right wing extremists aren't the same as right wing, though it doesn't help when non-partisan, non-political entities talk about the rise of right wing radicals and the non-radical right wing seems that they are talking about them.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Except in this case the attack, to include target selection, did not fit the right wing template at all.

My turn to disagree.

The selection of an event taking place on a holiday commemorating the Battles of Lexington and Concord pretty much nails the whole 'New Revolution' symbolism cold.

'A shot heard 'round the world.'

But again, target selection completely negates that, as does the attack template used. And the date was NOT the target, the event was. The Marathon was gonna get hit on the 12th, the 20th, or whatever date it was. 'New Revolution' types do not attack that type of target, or at least have not done so yet.

When looking at dates, I submit you need to look outside your comfort box as well. 15 April 1992, Talibs take Kabul. 15 April 2012, Talibs stage massive attacks in Kabul to celebrate the 20 year anniversary and make a point that the coalition and Gov't of Afghanistan cannot protect the people.. See, dates can have more than one significance. If the target section and attack template don't fit the ideology you associate with the date, there is a HUGE chance the date was either not significant to the attacking group or that you chose the wrong significance.

(I do not think the date in this case was significant at all, the target was the target regardless of date.(

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Dready, if you can't figure out by now that I post in a overly dramatic and HIGHLY sarcastic manner on the subject of how 'trustworthy and fair' everyone's friend Uncle Sam is, please rent a clue.

Yeah, because deadpan delivery of the same subject matter repeatedly with no indication of sarcasm is effective.... Especially when you keep throwing out things like;

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Evidence of guilt and due process don't seem to matter around here. 'We saw it on the TV! Let's grab them there mooslims and hang 'em high! YEEEEHAAAWWW!"

And this is after saying that you would have done the same as the two alleged perpetrators did to the Police

 CptJake wrote:
And the date was NOT the target, the event was. The Marathon was gonna get hit on the 12th, the 20th, or whatever date it was.

Do you know that definitively? I hadn't heard that kind of motive information, but I tend to not follow the news as closely when my weekend as begun, i.e. saturday afternoon. It's rare I'm even on Dakka on a non-work Sunday.

 CptJake wrote:

But again, target selection completely negates that, as does the attack template used. And the date was NOT the target, the event was. The Marathon was gonna get hit on the 12th, the 20th, or whatever date it was. 'New Revolution' types do not attack that type of target, or at least have not done so yet.

No, but it's also not unheard of for US terrorists to hit that sort of target either. Look at the Wall Street and Los Angeles Times (ironically this one was also carried out by two brothers) bombings. And remember, just because they've never done something before doesn't mean they didn't. After all, 9/11 came out of the blue too.


Interesting note:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/boston-mayor-bombing-suspects-acted-19009788#.UXQCTsqjjFw

Mayor of Boston is saying that another arrest has been made in this case but did not elaborate.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And this is after saying that you would have done the same as the two alleged perpetrators did to the Police

And before that I pointed out that I would also not have put myself in their situation to begin with and have probably already left the country by the time the FBI Id'd them if I was the bomber.

However, if I had no idea how to escape and evade, like these guys apparently didn't, and I was of the opinion that the police were not likely to try and take me alive, regardless of guilt, then yes, i would do the same thing.

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, I'm aware. I was simply pointing out that, due to recent events, the right wing has no right getting butthurt that people assumed it was them.

Ouze... buddy...

It was epidemic...

The folks are the far left practically begged for it to be a rightwing-teaparty extremist... so that they can prove that the rights are wrong all along. All you had to do is look at any mainstream media (NBC, CNN, ABC, NYT, any left of center website).

Then, you have those on the right speculating that it's an elaborate AQ terror cell right off the bat...

Early on it's just a clusterfeth with regards with the new's agency and social media.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, I'm aware. I was simply pointing out that, due to recent events, the right wing has no right getting butthurt that people assumed it was them.

Ouze... buddy...

It was epidemic...

The folks are the far left practically begged for it to be a rightwing-teaparty extremist... so that they can prove that the rights are wrong all along. All you had to do is look at any mainstream media (NBC, CNN, ABC, NYT, any left of center website).

Then, you have those on the right speculating that it's an elaborate AQ terror cell right off the bat...

Early on it's just a clusterfeth with regards with the new's agency and social media.

And you had those on the far right calling it a conspiracy and the work of the president...

And those two points are why it could have been anyone. Let's move along.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Yes, I'm aware. I was simply pointing out that, due to recent events, the right wing has no right getting butthurt that people assumed it was them.

Ouze... buddy...

It was epidemic...

The folks are the far left practically begged for it to be a rightwing-teaparty extremist... so that they can prove that the rights are wrong all along. All you had to do is look at any mainstream media (NBC, CNN, ABC, NYT, any left of center website).

Then, you have those on the right speculating that it's an elaborate AQ terror cell right off the bat...

Early on it's just a clusterfeth with regards with the new's agency and social media.

And you had those on the far right calling it a conspiracy and the work of the president...

Yeah, I know...that's why I stated it was a clusterfeth...

Everyone is trying to stake a position that their world view is right before any evidence is accurately identified... hence... cluster.feth.all.over.

Wall Street Journal is running an article that the Caucasian Mujahadeen is denying all involvement with this and reiterating that they have no quarrel with the US (or Christianity), that their beef is with Russia (and they elaborate on some Russian war crimes that I have no trouble believing but again, will never see go before the International War-crimes Court).

 ProtoClone wrote:
This is what the news has told us and what was told to them. Not saying it didn't happen, just that I am not 100% convinced.

See, trouble is, some of us were listening to the scanner feed that evening. Unless you're suggesting the Boston cops put on one of the better radio dramas of the modern age in an effort to further this conspiracy, it just doesn't hold water.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Is this a serious post? You're asking me to conclude if Jihadin actually meant the words he said?

Nope. Try actually reading next time.

You said that people with right-wing tendencies show an alarming proclivity to exchange certain rights for protection from terrorism. (I'm improving the language a lot, obviously.) When I pointed out the left does the same, you started shrieking about how you were only talking about Jihadin on this specific forum. Aside from being shockingly disingenuous - what else is new? - it brings up the troubling question of how you can detect a trend from one single post, so I asked how, exactly, you were doing that.

As expected, you had no relevant answer.

 Seaward wrote:

See, trouble is, some of us were listening to the scanner feed that evening. Unless you're suggesting the Boston cops put on one of the better radio dramas of the modern age in an effort to further this conspiracy, it just doesn't hold water.

People also listened to War of the Worlds and got ready for the Martian Invasion.

I once saw a magic act where it looked and sounded like a man caught a bullet with his bare hand.

That's why hearing something on the scanner isn't proof. Hell, if it was, at least one policeman I can think of would be in jail for murdering someone. (Too bad the police recording of that day 'disappeared')

 BaronIveagh wrote:

People also listened to War of the Worlds and got ready for the Martian Invasion.

I once saw a magic act where it looked and sounded like a man caught a bullet with his bare hand.

That's why hearing something on the scanner isn't proof. Hell, if it was, at least one policeman I can think of would be in jail for murdering someone. (Too bad the police recording of that day 'disappeared')

And that's where you lose me, because you're suggesting a massive conspiracy to frame two guys.

Hopefully we can get some real answers once the younger brother is stable enough for interrogation by the specialist team the Feds have lined-up waiting for him... By the sounds of it, they've got a mix of the FBI's BAU, (not to be confused with CBS's version), CIA & Pentagon agents waiting to have at it.

On the other hand, politicians of all stripes need to stop this kind of BS because it's not helping and is based on nothing but junk; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XRO4UGSiQo

 Seaward wrote:

And that's where you lose me, because you're suggesting a massive conspiracy to frame two guys.

I'm saying what you think you heard might not be what actually happened.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I'm saying what you think you heard might not be what actually happened.

That's true.

And we might not have landed on the moon.

 Ahtman wrote:
To be fair, right wing extremists aren't the same as right wing, though it doesn't help when non-partisan, non-political entities talk about the rise of right wing radicals and the non-radical right wing seems that they are talking about them.

Well, it's not much different than the vast majority of Muslims who have to suffer because people stick them in the same group as the radicalized jihadists.

 whembly wrote:
Ouze... buddy...

It was epidemic...

The folks are the far left practically begged for it to be a rightwing-teaparty extremist... so that they can prove that the rights are wrong all along. All you had to do is look at any mainstream media (NBC, CNN, ABC, NYT, any left of center website).

Then, you have those on the right speculating that it's an elaborate AQ terror cell right off the bat...

Early on it's just a clusterfeth with regards with the new's agency and social media.

You mean like Salon and their article "Let's Hope The Boston Marathon Bomber Is A White American"? - http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/

 BaronIveagh wrote:
And before that I pointed out that I would also not have put myself in their situation to begin with and have probably already left the country by the time the FBI Id'd them if I was the bomber.

However, if I had no idea how to escape and evade, like these guys apparently didn't, and I was of the opinion that the police were not likely to try and take me alive, regardless of guilt, then yes, i would do the same thing.

And peacefully surrendering through an attorney, or accompanied with a journalist to prove your name is a wholly unreasonable idea compared to the spontaneous building of bombs and shooting police?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I'm saying what you think you heard might not be what actually happened.

So far you've managed to say that you think Putin could have done it too, so was be in league with the Boston PD and the FBI and the US government?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And peacefully surrendering through an attorney, or accompanied with a journalist to prove your name is a wholly unreasonable idea compared to the spontaneous building of bombs and shooting police?

Those two options require that you calmly consider your options. Calm rational thinking was probably not going on at this point.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So far you've managed to say that you think Putin could have done it too, so was be in league with the Boston PD and the FBI and the US government?

No, I've said hat Putin is certainly cold blooded enough to order someone to bomb a US sporting event if he thought he had something to gain by it.. There's a difference. I do like how you fall back to straw men a lot though.

What I have said, fairly consistently so far, is that you're rushing to judgement, without possession of all the facts, and that doing so has led to people being falsely accused in the past.

How do we now that the whole thing didn't start off with '*BLAM* *BLAM* STOP! *BLAM* POLICE!' (Something I've seen panicking officers do) for example?

Facts that we actually have:

A witness stated a man matching the description of the older brother placed at least one of the devices. Both brothers were spotted by cameras at the event, but none seem to have caught them in the act.

Someone shot and killed a MIT campus cop. No actual proof linking the two events has been presented, yet.

Unknown events lead to a high speed chase, where supposedly the suspects use pipe bombs to try and discourage police pursuit. (Note that these IEDs are not the same as the ones used in the bombing, and are easy to make, quickly). One officer is injured. One suspect is killed. The other is badly wounded.

Those are, so far, the only things we can say beyond a shadow of a doubt actually happened.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
People also listened to War of the Worlds and got ready for the Martian Invasion.

No, they didn't. That was all a propaganda bit to build buzz for Orson Welles' radio show.


Stop and think about how mind-blowingly insane what you're suggesting is: that the police engaged in a massive bit of theatre and deception by thousands of people, most whom probably couldn't act their way out of a paper bag?

Sure, there's no 100% perfect evidence they were behind the bombing, but they were sitting on a pile of materials of the sort used in the bombs, they both fit the profile of a first-world terrorist to a t, and oh yeah they ran out and started a running shootout with police, in which they hurled bombs at them.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Those two options require that you calmly consider your options. Calm rational thinking was probably not going on at this point.

But making, preparing explosives and a firearm was a better choice?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
No, I've said hat Putin is certainly cold blooded enough to order someone to bomb a US sporting event if he thought he had something to gain by it.. There's a difference. I do like how you fall back to straw men a lot though.

And I like how you mis-represent what I say to accuse me of a strawman argument. You said;

 BaronIveagh wrote:
A bit far fetched... but I can actually picture Putin doing something like that, as he's cold blooded enough that if he thought it would work...

You then make accusations that the suspect will be disappeared into Gitmo, that he'll be in front of a military court, that he'll be deprived of his legal rights, that he might even turn up dead and then start talking about police and FBI cover ups. Please tell me what does not sound like conspiracy theory in what you've said?
What I did was ask you a question to try and show just how ridiculous your position on this has been. Turns out that there are some things beyond parody.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
What I have said, fairly consistently so far, is that you're rushing to judgement, without possession of all the facts, and that doing so has led to people being falsely accused in the past.

I'm rushing to judgement? Please show me exactly where I said that he was guilty. If you can't then it seems you're the one engaging in strawman arguments.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
How do we now that the whole thing didn't start off with '*BLAM* *BLAM* STOP! *BLAM* POLICE!' (Something I've seen panicking officers do) for example?

How do we know it did? Oh wait, we don't. You're letting your prejudices colour your view of the facts (constant references to Police and FBI incompetence and cover up)

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Facts that we actually have:

A witness stated a man matching the description of the older brother placed at least one of the devices. Both brothers were spotted by cameras at the event, but none seem to have caught them in the act.

Someone shot and killed a MIT campus cop. No actual proof linking the two events has been presented, yet.

Unknown events lead to a high speed chase, where supposedly the suspects use pipe bombs to try and discourage police pursuit. (Note that these IEDs are not the same as the ones used in the bombing, and are easy to make, quickly). One officer is injured. One suspect is killed. The other is badly wounded.

Those are, so far, the only things we can say beyond a shadow of a doubt actually happened.

So because the pipe bombs used by the suspects weren't constructed out of pressure cookers then bingo, they cannot be connected to the bombing? So is it common to have a stash of ready made pipe bombs just sitting around on the off chance that the police want to question you? I'm not a US citizen so if this is something that I need to know when I apply for citizenship in a few years it'll be useful to know. Just so we're clear is the etiquette that I detonate them when they come to my door and ask to speak to me, or will hearing about it from a 3rd party suffice?
You are correct that a lot of the facts are still not confirmed, more will come to light as the suspect is questioned and details are given to the press. However the facts as the stand, including the actions of the two suspects, is highly damning. Innocent people are not likely to flee. They are even less likely to have a cache of home made explosives and engage in a gun fight with police.

I haven't said that the suspects are innocent or guilty. I have said that they should be brought before I judge. I even encouraged people to keep an open mind - but in your case I'm not sure if you are being deliberately contrary, or whether you still maintain that the actions of the suspects are reasonable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
No, they didn't. That was all a propaganda bit to build buzz for Orson Welles' radio show.

Stop and think about how mind-blowingly insane what you're suggesting is: that the police engaged in a massive bit of theatre and deception by thousands of people, most whom probably couldn't act their way out of a paper bag?

Not just the police, but also the FBI, ATF, National Guard and other agencies. So potentially thousands of individuals took part in a conspiracy (and the more people know about it the risk of leak grows exponentially) where no motive is known, for an unknown end.

Seems legit, right.........

One thing that often gets me is that the same person is often able to combine the following two scenarios in their head:

1) The Government is a catastrophic noneffective machine that due to it's sheer size cannot possibly do anything right.

2) The Government is an efficient super effective propaganda machine that despite it's sheer size is able to keep even the biggest secrets.

 d-usa wrote:
One thing that often gets me is that the same person is often able to combine the following two scenarios in their head:

1) The Government is a catastrophic noneffective machine that due to it's sheer size cannot possibly do anything right.

2) The Government is an efficient super effective propaganda machine that despite it's sheer size is able to keep even the biggest secrets.

Pretty much

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
[
No, they didn't. That was all a propaganda bit to build buzz for Orson Welles' radio show.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_%28radio_drama%29

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
[
Stop and think about how mind-blowingly insane what you're suggesting is: that the police engaged in a massive bit of theatre and deception by thousands of people, most whom probably couldn't act their way out of a paper bag?

Sure, there's no 100% perfect evidence they were behind the bombing, but they were sitting on a pile of materials of the sort used in the bombs, they both fit the profile of a first-world terrorist to a t, and oh yeah they ran out and started a running shootout with police, in which they hurled bombs at them.

One, the bombs that they were found with were of a different type. The 'pile of material' was a single pressure cooker found in their house (no credible details yet on type or quantity explosives that I have seen so far though I may have missed it)

Two, I've listened as well, and heard a lot of officers saying what they thought was going on, which might or might not be what actually happened. No theater required, just a lot of Adrenalin and a gunfight in the dark. After all, thousands of people didn't see it, they only heard the cops description of events over the police band. Were 'thousands' of police directly involved in the chase? No, most likely only a handful were actually involved on the scene initially.

How about the guy who saw them tossing bombs outside his window?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You then make accusations that the suspect will be disappeared into Gitmo, that he'll be in front of a military court, that he'll be deprived of his legal rights,

The fact that that exact outcome has been pitched by members of Congress to the President and in front of the press.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm rushing to judgement? Please show me exactly where I said that he was guilty. If you can't then it seems you're the one engaging in strawman arguments.

Achem...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Let him have his day in Court with all the evidence before him so any cries of victimhood will pale by comparison to the evil that he wrought on innocent people.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

How do we know it did? Oh wait, we don't.

Which was sort of my point.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So because the pipe bombs used by the suspects weren't constructed out of pressure cookers then bingo, they cannot be connected to the bombing?

If they don't contain the same type of explosive (and such is not found in their home, etc), yes, actually that could be a serious problem for the prosecutor.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So is it common to have a stash of ready made pipe bombs just sitting around on the off chance that the police want to question you? I'm not a US citizen so if this is something that I need to know when I apply for citizenship in a few years it'll be useful to know. Just so we're clear is the etiquette that I detonate them when they come to my door and ask to speak to me, or will hearing about it from a 3rd party suffice?

Well, one, how do you know they were ready made and not, say, produced after seeing their faces all over the news? Two, it's always best to confirm a target with your own eyes before pushing the plunger. I recommend you hold the bomb tight in your hand when you do it.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You are correct that a lot of the facts are still not confirmed, more will come to light as the suspect is questioned and details are given to the press. However the facts as the stand, including the actions of the two suspects, is highly damning. Innocent people are not likely to flee. They are even less likely to have a cache of home made explosives and engage in a gun fight with police.

Yes, but in this case guilty people (at least ones with brain one) would have skipped town long before they were identified. They most definitely would have prepared a vehicle or means of escape in advance as well, rather than resort to a carjacking and stealing from the guy's ATM, which screams 'impromptu' to me. That and the fact they let him go. I'd have shot him to prevent him from running to call the police and report the vehicle stolen, buying me some time.

 Grey Templar wrote:
How about the guy who saw them tossing bombs outside his window?

If it's the one I'm thinking of, I'm not sure I buy it. He gives a lot of detail that most people wouldn't have noticed, but...

 Seaward wrote:

 ProtoClone wrote:
This is what the news has told us and what was told to them. Not saying it didn't happen, just that I am not 100% convinced.

See, trouble is, some of us were listening to the scanner feed that evening. Unless you're suggesting the Boston cops put on one of the better radio dramas of the modern age in an effort to further this conspiracy, it just doesn't hold water.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Is this a serious post? You're asking me to conclude if Jihadin actually meant the words he said?

Nope. Try actually reading next time.

You said that people with right-wing tendencies show an alarming proclivity to exchange certain rights for protection from terrorism. (I'm improving the language a lot, obviously.) When I pointed out the left does the same, you started shrieking about how you were only talking about Jihadin on this specific forum. Aside from being shockingly disingenuous - what else is new? - it brings up the troubling question of how you can detect a trend from one single post, so I asked how, exactly, you were doing that.

As expected, you had no relevant answer.

One is reminded of Orson Wells's production of War of the Worlds.

I agree, though. It is hard to conceive of the motive for the police to set off bombs at the marathon and then pretend to capture the people allegedly responsible.

Democrats and Republicans (members of Congress) both voted for the PATRIOT act. Of course it is supposedly a Democrat tendency to want to enlarge government power, and the Republicans are supposedly against that, but anyway...

At least we can rest comfortably knowing that the FBI still has a 100% track record when it comes to stopping attacks where they picked the perpetrators and supplied them with resources and targets.

 BaronIveagh wrote:



Well, one, how do you know they were ready made and not, say, produced after seeing their faces all over the news? Two, it's always best to confirm a target with your own eyes before pushing the plunger. I recommend you hold the bomb tight in your hand when you do it.

The only real facepalm worthy thing is you thinking its probable for someone who is completely innocent to see their face on the news connected to a bomb plot and react by making bombs and having a shootout with the police.

Its as crazy of an idea as saying they would have reacted by going out and tap dancing in the middle of the street while juggling squirrels dressed as the Ghost of Christmas past.


The only conceivable reason I could see someone reacting like this is if they were either guilty of the crime they stand accused of OR they were already planning on committing an act of terror with bombs and there just happened to be a bizarre coincidence of someone else with the same idea hitting the marathon.


If it turns out that they really were completely innocent and on the spur of the moment manufactured these pipe bombs and had a shootout just because then I'll convert my entire GK army into Chaos GKs.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Wall Street Journal is running an article that the Caucasian Mujahadeen is denying all involvement with this and reiterating that they have no quarrel with the US (or Christianity), that their beef is with Russia (and they elaborate on some Russian war crimes that I have no trouble believing but again, will never see go before the International War-crimes Court).

And after 9-11 AQ and the Talibs denied AQ had anything to do with the attack...