Explosions at the Boston Marathon

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Just my speculation, but it seems highly unlikely the 26-year-old brother did all this by himself without any outside guidance. I doubt the younger one has much information, but hopefully he has some.

I'm sure they weren't acting 100% alone. They at the very least needed help obtaining weapons and explosives, how much help and what part of a larger conspiracy who knows, could be small scale, could be something far bigger. Hopefully its on the smaller scale.

But I'm not convinced it was the older brother who was the ring leader in the family. As stated earlier, the younger brother sounds to me to be the one actually leading the 2 of them...much smarter, willing to sacrifice his older brother to attempt to enable his own escape. His brother's death allows him to claim he was just a pawn with nobody to refute the fact, and the report that he ran his brother over while fleeing only adds fuel to the theory.
 
You know what they really are, right?

They're Caucasians.

I laughed at this. But it's from yesterday, and 20+ pages ago, since this is the Internet that's super old news now. It might not be amusing anymore and I never got the updated twitter feed.
 
I don't mean to say that those people who have been shot dead in an isolated event deserved it or something, but overall it should be no surprise that an act of terrorism is a much bigger deal.

Since 9/11, there has been one - one - terrorist act on U.S. soil, while there were seven mass shootings in 2012 alone. That's not even mentioning the hundreds of thousands of gun deaths since 2001.

So acts of terrorism are really the "isolated" events, while gun violence is an unfortunate and sad daily reality that Americans everywhere have to live with.
 
Logically that makes sense, but it's maddening. We should care as much. We can take extreme measures to try and prevent terrorism, but we can't take common sense measures to try and prevent even one domestic massacre?

what about kids going to school?? or going to the cinema??

Well those mass shootings are in fact terrorist attacks in my book. I was talking about the individuals who get shot in a robbery or whatnot. I wasn't quite sure what the point was being made earlier... I am just saying that these guys were still alive after it happened and it's one of the few times where I think the hysteria surrounding the situation wasn't significantly far off of the reality of the situation.

The OP that I was responding to was popmartijn's. 40+ people being shot dead in isolated events really isn't the same thing. That's what I meant by saying 'it's not the same.'

So yeah, I view a domestic massacre and an act of terrorism as one in the same. But single killings I do not.
 
Since 9/11, there has been one - one - terrorist act on U.S. soil, while there were seven mass shootings in 2012 alone. That's not even mentioning the hundreds of thousands of gun deaths since 2001.

So acts of terrorism are really the "isolated" events, while gun violence is an unfortunate and sad daily reality that Americans everywhere have to live with.

Again, I think you guys misunderstood me a bit.

I'm including mass shootings in the whole bunch. Newtown, Fort Hood, etc.

To me, terrorism is something that is intended or achieves making you fear living a normal life. I think mass shootings are certainly included. You know... parents now fear sending their kids to school. People now fear the Boston Marathon. etc. etc.
 
Thank you. I'm not sure everyone got it, but I figured if you read it, you'd be one of the few.

And certainly no pressure cookers on airplanes.

I actually made a similar joke when I got to work, and one of the kids here said "but they're not white, they're Muslins." My IQ immediately dropped 10 points.
 
Just think, these are people who are allowed to give patients narcotics.
 
I actually made a similar joke when I got to work, and one of the kids here said "but they're not white, they're Muslins." My IQ immediately dropped 10 points.

as ridiculous as that sounds

a lot of people are 'sighing' that it was not a Tim McVeigh,
time+mcveigh.jpg
 
Since 9/11, there has been one - one - terrorist act on U.S. soil, while there were seven mass shootings in 2012 alone. That's not even mentioning the hundreds of thousands of gun deaths since 2001.

So acts of terrorism are really the "isolated" events, while gun violence is an unfortunate and sad daily reality that Americans everywhere have to live with.
You also fail to mention that these types of events get a lot of attention worldwide just for the sole fact that they happen in the US.

Car bombings and minimal-scale terrorist attacks have occurred quite frequently all over the world especially in Colombia, Iraq and numerous African nations; however, they do not get massive worldwide attention and news coverage because they occur in impoverished nations where the standard is to accept these common tragedies.

Given the level of security and law enforcement in the US, accepting a tragedy like this is not accepted or common as of today.
 
How in the hell was James Holmes (aka the Aurora shooter) not a "terrorist"?
He is the epitome of a terrorist.


56 people were killed in bombings in Iraq the very same day of the Boston shooting.
 
I thought this was interesting:

Boston Police say Dzhokar killed Tamerlan

"During a shootout with police on Thursday night, the older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, exited the vehicle he was in and started walking down the street, shooting at officers. He ran out of ammunition when he was only five or ten feet away from police. One officer then tackles him, and he and two or three others try to handcuff him.

As they try to handcuff the older brother, the younger brother comes barreling at them in the vehicle. The officers dive out of the way, and Dzhokar runs over his brother, dragging him for a short distance. Police think this is what killed him."

Boston manhunt: The day after – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs
 
.

I'm including mass shootings in the whole bunch. Newtown, Fort Hood, etc.

To me, terrorism is something that is intended or achieves making you fear living a normal life. I think mass shootings are certainly included. You know... parents now fear sending their kids to school. People now fear the Boston Marathon. etc. etc.

To me, personally, I might be more frightened for myself and loved ones with an armed lunatic on the loose carrying a machine gun than the potential for bombs and explosions, which always seem to be over quickly. Besides that, most people harmed or maimed by those bombs are completely caught by surprise. There is almost no terror before the fact. It's all after the fact. With guns, it's often both but especially if you are within eyesight of the shooter.

And that's what "terrorism" means me to me. Maybe I have something amiss.
I see it as filling us with fear and terror but to me there is an irrational aspect to sheer "terrorism" that can't be ignored. An over-reaction. And that's the effect they are going for. And it's true in cases of mass shootings or bombings or whatever.

I don't know if I'm right or not...but I don't see much difference.
 
How in the hell was James Holmes (aka the Aurora shooter) not a "terrorist"?
He is the epitome of a terrorist.


56 people were killed in bombings in Iraq the very same day of the Boston shooting.

I don't consider one off psychopaths to be terrorists. There needs to be an ideology. The act itself isn't what defines terrorism, it's the fear and chaos created as a result of the terrorism and the fear that it may happen again. The 'terror' is the lasting impression and uncertainty. It's a means to an end
 
Terror has a political agenda / motive.

The Dark Knight movie shooting and Sandyhook were not terror.

I have had ex-girlfriends terrorize me, they were not terrorists.
 
Also as a paramedic, the last thing I'd want to have to do is write up the paperwork for the transports of either of those guys to the hospital, particularly the younger brother. Obviously it's a very minor thing in the entire scheme of this whole story, but it sounds like a documentation nightmare.
 
Terror has a political agenda / motive.

The Dark Knight movie shooting and Sandyhook were not terror.

I have had ex-girlfriends terrorize me, they were not terrorists.

Not necessarily. It doesn't have to be political. It can be religious, ideological, whatever.

Sandy Hook? Maybe not 'terrorism' as per definition though, still. But for the context of my own argument, I'm including it. Inadvertent terrorism. It has the same effect.
 
Back
Top Bottom