Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
75. What men?
Mon Apr 22, 2013, 04:38 PM
Apr 2013

people who only spend time on DU or at the Mainstream Media stations, they know for certain that it was the two Tsarneav brothers.

Those of us who spend our among multiple sources of information including Sibel Edmond most excellent web blog know this:

One) There was a backpack implicated in the explosion, due to the fact that said backpack was found at the scene of the bombing. It was blown up but still had identifying marks.

That backpack is dark grey or black in color, and quite importantly, it has a small white square on it.
Two) There are at least four people with such a backpack near the scene of the explosion. Three of these people are later on seen joining a group of people identified as being part of the bombing drill squadron. One of those three no longer has his backpack. (We know there was a bombing drill that day because the Boston Globe tweeted the fact, announcing that there would be an explosion!)

The fourth person is the young nineteen year old brother. He is seen in footage before the explosion with his backpack. It has no white square, so it is not the backpack that ends up gong off as part of the explosion.

As some of the thinking people I hang out with have explained - if there was indeed a drill, and that fact was also mentioned by a track coach who attended the Marathon and spoke with a TV channel 15 out of Mobile, Alabama,
then we don't know what the nineteen year old's involvement was. Perhaps he ad been approached by the FBI and asked to participate. How hard would it be for them to explain they needed some participants at the drill to carry in items tainted with explosives residue, to test the capacity of bomb sniffing dogs to perform in the high crowd capacity setting of the Marathon? This kid was rather a nice person, and he was possibly simply helping out. His mother has told the press that her kids were under the influence of the FBI.

Oh I know, a good decent American citizen can explain to me that our government would never ever hurt any innocent person. Except for all those times we have hurt innocent people. Including Aaron Swartz. (Interesting that it was DOJ in Boston that harassed him so much!) And then going back a little bit further in our history: some one million civilians killed in Iraq, the last big event resulting in us patriotic Americans getting all fire up and wanting to see someone creamed for the injury done to us on Nine Eleven.



They should all be treated as hateperps and known as murderers forever after. graham4anything Apr 2013 #1
The motive is known. It is radical Islam that influenced them, that may not be the still_one Apr 2013 #2
You know something the president doesn't? whatchamacallit Apr 2013 #5
The last two years of their activities, there is no suspect about it. The older one was thrown out still_one Apr 2013 #16
But it's not at all clear . . . markpkessinger Apr 2013 #82
I think they became extremely antiAmerican and that is the point. The driver still_one Apr 2013 #84
Jared Loughner had reasons for his attack as well. antigone382 Apr 2013 #90
"Terrorism is a violent means of coercion perpetrated for a religious political or ideological goal" Douglas Carpenter Apr 2013 #103
Can you cite the radical islamists who influenced these murderers? Jeremy Almond Apr 2013 #8
It was either self-motivated recruit, or in their 6 months of travel previously got still_one Apr 2013 #70
Tamerlane posted banned videos on his Russian social media page. If I cared to argue with stupid- KittyWampus Apr 2013 #77
Is it still terrorism if there is no coherent worldview or stated aim? CJCRANE Apr 2013 #18
I always defined it as political =terrorism Mojorabbit Apr 2013 #25
The dictionary tends to agree with you Dragonfli Apr 2013 #45
The difference is that these guys expressed political/religious/social consciousness geek tragedy Apr 2013 #3
I agree. That is the difference for me. nt stevenleser Apr 2013 #6
Exactly, and that is what most people define as terrorism still_one Apr 2013 #20
Especially when they targetted a high profile event--their bombs were designed to draw attention geek tragedy Apr 2013 #22
I'm not sure that they've expressed anything CJCRANE Apr 2013 #21
They had AQ videos on their youtube page. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #24
and you've verified that the Youtube pages are really theirs, huh? Myrina Apr 2013 #27
They attacked the Boston Marathon. It doesn't take a spectacularly high IQ geek tragedy Apr 2013 #34
This isn't rocket science still_one Apr 2013 #71
pretty elementary. Just another rather obvious thing that this author doesn't get. grantcart Apr 2013 #46
But, Glenn Greenwald nt geek tragedy Apr 2013 #47
That seems to be the underlying issue here.... TwilightZone Apr 2013 #59
Well, to the extent he always fails to consider facts that geek tragedy Apr 2013 #62
I always found it amusing... TwilightZone Apr 2013 #68
Sainthood has its perks. grantcart Apr 2013 #107
Jared Loughner did express political reasons before his actions. antigone382 Apr 2013 #91
How about the beltway snipers? They certainly instilled terror (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #4
Certainly the term could have been fairly applied to them. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #9
Because it happened during Bush's administration. Common Sense Party Apr 2013 #39
Did the fact that they used bombs have anything to do with it? n/t Raven Apr 2013 #7
So everyone who uses a bomb to murder is a terrorist? Jeremy Almond Apr 2013 #10
I was merely asking the question, not expressing an opinion one way Raven Apr 2013 #14
That was my reaction to the question. Lindsay Apr 2013 #11
Can bombs be considered "arms"? n/t Fantastic Anarchist Apr 2013 #64
I would hope so. They are stored in an armory, are they not? DeadEyeDyck Apr 2013 #102
Yes, why the charge of WMD use nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #89
i think it's motive, but in the end they are all horrible events, Sandy Hook is not "less bad" JI7 Apr 2013 #12
"there is no known evidence" TwilightZone Apr 2013 #13
There is evidence that the men committed a crime but there is no known evidence that they crime Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #35
The key phrase, of course, is "in furtherance of political or social objectives" TwilightZone Apr 2013 #41
I agree that there is a possibility but I agree with Greenwald that applying a terrorrist Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #52
The social agenda was to attack a very public event, the Boston Marathon. TwilightZone Apr 2013 #58
To merely attack furthers what? If there was no objective to further Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #72
Creating mayhem for its own sake . . . markpkessinger Apr 2013 #85
What men? truedelphi Apr 2013 #75
Intent would be primary ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #15
Its a great question. apnu Apr 2013 #17
Why would Oklahoma City have been terrorism but Boston marathon bombing not terrorism? geek tragedy Apr 2013 #23
We don't know yet if or what group or ideology influenced them. CJCRANE Apr 2013 #26
I tend to agree, but that poster was claiming that describing this as terrorism is racist. nt geek tragedy Apr 2013 #29
No that's not totally right. apnu Apr 2013 #38
A lot of people called it terrorism assuming it was white supremacists or not knowing at all who did geek tragedy Apr 2013 #40
Agreed. TwilightZone Apr 2013 #44
How do you know the "... point was to ... grab the public's attention" ? apnu Apr 2013 #50
Well, you can pretend there is zero information from which to infer a motive. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #56
infering anything before all the facts are in is dangerious apnu Apr 2013 #111
People getting blown to bits by bombs is bad, but Arugula Latte Apr 2013 #19
So all types of violence could be terrorism? Bad Thoughts Apr 2013 #28
Didn't you know? Only brown people that kill white people are terrorists! n/t backscatter712 Apr 2013 #30
But these guys were not "brown" (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #33
They had funny foreign sounding names, and were Muslim. For the redneck right, close enough. n/t backscatter712 Apr 2013 #36
The redneck right... dems_rightnow Apr 2013 #106
Terrorists: ProSense Apr 2013 #31
Maybe it's nothing more than bombs instead of guns?...nt SidDithers Apr 2013 #32
Harris & Klebold tried to use bombs at Columbine. James Holmes made bombs in Aurora. backscatter712 Apr 2013 #37
and Columbine killers clearly expressed DeadEyeDyck Apr 2013 #55
The targets of their violence were people against whom they had a personal grudge. nt geek tragedy Apr 2013 #63
I was pretty young when it happened but I always remember that one of them asked a girl DeadEyeDyck Apr 2013 #101
The only witness says that did not happen... Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #110
Simple sarisataka Apr 2013 #42
There's a colloquial definition adieu Apr 2013 #43
It isn't ideas Brainstormy Apr 2013 #48
What gets me is when the gun nuts act like they will shoot any cop coming for their guns. Spitfire of ATJ Apr 2013 #49
"Federal authorities charged Tsarnaev with using a weapon of mass destruction" ProSense Apr 2013 #51
Easy... They used explosives nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #53
Do you mean the "explosives" part of the definition if sufficcient? Jeremy Almond Apr 2013 #57
The legal definition needs expanding IMHO. nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #60
Oh. I understand. It would be terror if the definition is expanded some day Jeremy Almond Apr 2013 #65
I don't think we need to expand the definition of terror. Holmes and Lanza are mass murderers Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #76
So there was no terror involved? nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #79
I am sure that those exposed to their actions felt terror but that does not mean Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #87
I know the legal definition nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #88
Why? Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #92
Because they do cause terror nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #93
Being held at gun point while being mugged causes terror. Luminous Animal Apr 2013 #95
We're not talking of a mugging and you know it nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #96
The FBI doesn't seem to agree. TwilightZone Apr 2013 #67
Re-read the definition you just posted nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #69
Explosives are not automatically a weapon of mass destruction. TwilightZone Apr 2013 #73
No, not always nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #74
Then, it would seem that you're confusing terrorism with the legal charge of use of a WMD. TwilightZone Apr 2013 #98
Yeah right... nadinbrzezinski Apr 2013 #99
If there's someone left over to do it again, it's terrorism muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #54
Another salient argument from Greenwald. Fantastic Anarchist Apr 2013 #61
An excellent point. AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #66
Mooooooslims. Iggo Apr 2013 #78
Pretty obvious to me.. SoCalDem Apr 2013 #80
Maybe it's because Sandy Hook wasn't terrorism? Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #81
They have to have a special category for Muslims so they don't have to treat them fairly harun Apr 2013 #83
3 dead vs who? PatrynXX Apr 2013 #86
If you create terror among the masses are you a terrorist? Rex Apr 2013 #94
Because the NRA hasn't received permission yet to call themselves the NR&BA... Tikki Apr 2013 #97
In the end, Boston may not end up being classified as an act of terrorism. Xithras Apr 2013 #100
Because of the motive? AnnieBW Apr 2013 #104
what was the stated or implied political motive in the Boston Marathon bombing? Douglas Carpenter Apr 2013 #108
political motivation arely staircase Apr 2013 #105
Loughner was terrorism by any reasonable definition dsc Apr 2013 #109
Loughner was terrorism as defined by United States Code!!! 18 U.S.C. 2332b El Fuego Apr 2013 #112
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Greenwald: Why is Boston ...»Reply #75