GMTom wrote:alleged?
when can we stop calling them alleged?
They killed several people, tossed bombs out a car window, the faces match those who carried the backpacks to the scene, they have been know to support terrorism in different ways, and they told the man they carjacked that they were indeed the bombers....alleged?

Until convicted, they are alleged. Of course if they are dead, the evidence will have to convict via public opinion. (Yes, I think they are the bombers too)

I'm not ragging on you and I understand why this is said but reporting and speaking about these people is being done in a court of law. In court they are innocent until proven guilty of course, but here we have people who DID it, even admitted to it, so why do reporters say "alleged" and "suspect", it's not like they need to worry about getting sued is it? Such PC reporting! it seems kind of silly to be calling these guys such terms doesn't it?

They've already been tried and convicted in the court of media and public assumption

again, REPORTING is not a court now is it? But beyond that, are you serious?
am I assuming anything here? They admitted to being the bombers, they had explosives attached to their bodies, they have killed police, they have been found to have been radical Islamists, what part am I assuming?

I still cannot figure out the mindset of the brothers and particularly the younger one. These guys were integrated into American society ... they had jobs (how do you go from being a life guard to indiscriminately killing people?), one was married, the younger went to a very good high school where he played soccer, and was known to be very afable. They are in Cambridge which is a very diverse community and accepting of their religion. Politically, the US is not responsible for Chechnya. Is this a question of religious/political fanaticism or young adult alienation? I'm trying to figure out whether this is more like 9/11 or Columbine.

What could drive them?

Poverty? No.
Lack of education? No.
Teen Angst? No, the older bro is 26.
Religious fervor? Perhaps?
Political fervor? Perhaps?
Jihad? Perhaps.

I put my bet on 5 and 6.

I dunno, it seems unlikely that they'd have suddenly been converted to jihadism without anybody being aware of it. Certainly possible, but you'd think by now that there would have been some kind of background stories coming out with some more details if that were the case. It's a very strange situation.

bbauska wrote:

GMTom wrote:alleged?
when can we stop calling them alleged?
They killed several people, tossed bombs out a car window, the faces match those who carried the backpacks to the scene, they have been know to support terrorism in different ways, and they told the man they carjacked that they were indeed the bombers....alleged?

Until convicted, they are alleged. Of course if they are dead, the evidence will have to convict via public opinion. (Yes, I think they are the bombers too)

Just like Marius van der Lubbe!

My question is, why does there always seem to be a
drill about the same exact thing
the same exact time
as these events?

How many anecdotes negate the likelihood of coincidence? When do they become data?

Guapo:

How many anecdotes negate the likelihood of coincidence? When do they become data?

When there is compelling evidence

As we find more info, I think there is a good chance that there will be evidence that the FBI has some responsibility for this. They visited the older brother 2 years ago based on a tip by the Russians. Have they done any follow up surveillance?

Then when they had the photos, they were unable to identify the suspects and had to ask the world. Didn't they have someone who tried to match the photos to suspicious people who live in the area? That seems basic to me.

GMTom wrote:I'm not ragging on you and I understand why this is said but reporting and speaking about these people is being done in a court of law. In court they are innocent until proven guilty of course, but here we have people who DID it, even admitted to it, so why do reporters say "alleged" and "suspect", it's not like they need to worry about getting sued is it? Such PC reporting! it seems kind of silly to be calling these guys such terms doesn't it?

General good practice is not to make definitive statements until an investigation or a court case is completed. In the UK, it could be contempt of court to put out media reports that are doing more than alleging.

I am not sure why it is something to get worked up about. I'm more concerned that footage of the police action shows not just a gun fight, but barrages of gunfire from law enforcement. Seems like overkill.

As someone who has been in a gunfight, I would disagree you. EVERYONE responds. This is not the time of feudal Japan and one and one combat.

I'm under the impression that the police fired many bursts to stun the killer before moving in. They knew he was dangerous, violent, capable of building bombs, random, and desperate so kudos to the agents for apprehending him without killing him.

Amen, RJ

bbauska wrote:As someone who has been in a gunfight, I would disagree you. EVERYONE responds. This is not the time of feudal Japan and one and one combat.

Because that is the only possible alternative?

And it is good that they got one of them alive (for preference both should be alive now), because the most important questions now can only be answered by them - why did they do it, was it just the two of them, were they given any assistance or just inspiration etc etc.

Ray Jay wrote:Guapo:

How many anecdotes negate the likelihood of coincidence? When do they become data?

When there is compelling evidence

As we find more info, I think there is a good chance that there will be evidence that the FBI has some responsibility for this. They visited the older brother 2 years ago based on a tip by the Russians. Have they done any follow up surveillance?

Then when they had the photos, they were unable to identify the suspects and had to ask the world. Didn't they have someone who tried to match the photos to suspicious people who live in the area? That seems basic to me.

I think it's a bit worse.

First, the only way that they failed to understand the nature of Tamerlan is they really didn't check into him enough. Yes, I've read Congressman Rogers' defense. However, assuming they saw nothing unusual/noteworthy, well, what about when he left the country for months?

I think it was political correctness, just as with Hasan, that blinded the authorities. From what I've read, the Russians don't normally tip us off to look at people like that.

Second problem: why did they wait to release the pictures? Unless they knew who they were (they didn't) and where they were (they didn't), there was no reason not to release the photos. Within hours of the photos being made public, they had numerous id's of the suspects.

The only thing I think they got right: the lockdown of Boston. Against all odds, the suspect remained in Boston (well, okay, Watertown) and they got him.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:As someone who has been in a gunfight, I would disagree you. EVERYONE responds. This is not the time of feudal Japan and one and one combat.

Because that is the only possible alternative?

And it is good that they got one of them alive (for preference both should be alive now), because the most important questions now can only be answered by them - why did they do it, was it just the two of them, were they given any assistance or just inspiration etc etc.

Agreed, on all except the "why" question. Isn't that plain?

Here's an oddity: I actually agree with Bill Maher! http://www.ijreview.com/2013/04/47883-f ... her-video/