Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

[compared2what?]

What is exactly is the difference between between cops who look and perform their duties exactly like like military troops "securing" my neighborhood and actual military troops "securing" my neighborhood?

Think about it.

You can, too. If it looks like troops, shoots like troops, and busts in my door like troops ...

Then you're fantasizing troops, because you apparently find seeing pictures of the police in the newspaper that frightening!

Try thinking about what actually happened.

ON EDIT: I can't find any report of residents having their doors kicked in or being shot at by cops. But if there are any, post them.

[DrVolin]

To be fair to Stickdog, there is a real difference only if the police act within the scope of civil and criminal law, with oversight by the courts. given the Miranda debate in this case, the outcome of being apprehended by the police seem indistinguishable from the outcome of being captured by a military force. And don't forget that you are also talking about a citizen here. The window keeps moving at a terrifying speed.

[compared2what?]

To be fair to Stickdog, there is a real difference only if the police act within the scope of civil and criminal law, with oversight by the courts.

I agree. But there's also a real difference between people having their doors kicked in/getting shot and that not happening.

given the Miranda debate in this case, the outcome of being apprehended by the police seem indistinguishable from the outcome of being captured by a military force.

The non-Mirandizing is vile, intolerable bullshit. But "indistinguishable" is an overstatement.There's a greater loss of rights in being captured by the military than not being advised of them.

And don't forget that you are also talking about a citizen here. The window keeps moving at a terrifying speed.

Agree. But that doesn't mean there are troops kicking in people's doors when there aren't. Or that martial law has been declared when it hasn't. Or that a twenty-hour manhunt has exactly the same implications for the people affected by it as an armed occupation.

Details.

[DrEvil]

If there were photographs of the suspects that the U.S. intel agencies had from either interviews, surveillance or passport, why ON EARTH DIDN'T THEY GET A MATCH WITH FACIAL RECOGNITION SOFTWARE AFTER THE VIDEO IMAGES WERE RELEASED?

Was the whole release of images to the public on April 18 a ruse? Or am I missing something? If so, somebody please point out my fallacy in this thinking..... Thanks.

At a guess I would say the video images were probably not detailed enough or taken at the correct angle. It's why you have a whole list of no-no's for when you're taking a passport picture. Look straight into the camera, no hair covering your face, white t-shirt on bland background, etc.
The software compares things that you can't easily change about yourself; facial proportions, distance between eyes, cheekbones etc., but you need a decent picture to begin with.

Edit:
Boston police chief: facial recognition tech didn’t help find bombing suspects

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013 ... -suspects/

[Simulist]

What is exactly is the difference between between cops who look and perform their duties exactly like like military troops "securing" my neighborhood and actual military troops "securing" my neighborhood?

Think about it.

I doubt that'll do much good, C2w.

And I'm honestly not intending to take some swipe at StickDog's intellect either; it's just that what people see is greatly determined by the way they see things. So, here's the question I'm thinking about: "Has anyone's way of seeing things ever been changed through a process of rational discourse?" (Especially if they feel certain they're right.) And most especially rational discourse on an anonymous message board? (To say nothing of irrational discourse on a message board!) Because I doubt that kind of change happens very often.

But that's really not what's interesting to me. Here's what's a bit more interesting to me:

StickDog's question is actually a sort of Rorschach test — and a person's personality and attitude when approaching that kind of test will determine more than anything else what he or she sees during the test. To be a bit more concrete: if I knew a crazed bomber were in my neighboorhood, and I saw "cops who look and perform their duties exactly like military troops 'securing' my neighborhood," I'm pretty sure I'm going to see the Cavalry, come to rescue me! But some others might see an assault force, come to get them.

So that's why I suspect that really no amount of rational discourse is likely to change those kinds of deeply-rooted perspectives.

FWIW.

[Simulist]

I'll also add that your invitation to "Think about it" actually might be the only avenue for someone changing their mind in that way — because that involves a voluntary change of perspective. I meant to mention that, above.

[KeenInsight]

Lastly, the so-called prediction by an anonymous whistleblower, posted on 4Chan on how the event may unfold. It is mostly becoming true.

This was posted HOURS before the attack:

And reposted, and reposted, and reposted literally hundreds of times on a schedule of about 4 hours on different 4chan boards:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=36276#p498291

Both black powder and reloading powder are classified as low-explosives, though reloading powder really only works as a propellant. Bills like this are shelved for months or years at a time until a political situation comes along that could garner support for it.

Also, I doubt they're going to find an NRA handbook given that his twitter account suggests he was pro gun control.

That's not the point. I already know the difference between black powder and reloading powder. Its being used only to benefit some political agenda, and someone knew about it. In the end civilians obviously don't need access to something that makes a bomb, but it DOES NOT stop someone from being supplied with it (I.E. the creation and abetting of terrorists by those in intelligence agencies) or gaining access to it by some other means without any background check. And someone was in contact with the suspects.

Just in the way if a gun were banned outright, but a criminal is still going to get a hold of one. Or a fascist government is still going to point a gun at an unarmed person and shoot them. Its hypocrisy.

[conniption]

Context and Contact: Exploring Agents of Influence in the Boston Attacks
Written by Chris Floyd
Saturday, 20 April 2013 10:11

Without wishing to indulge in deep-fried conspiracy gobbling at this point, I will say that the revelations about the FBI's prior involvement with one of the suspected Boston attackers, apparently going on for years, are of great interest. Even more so in the light of the fact that a very large number of the terrorist attacks and attempted terrorist attacks in the United States over the past two decades have turned out to have had significant FBI involvement, often in the form of outright provocation by FBI infiltrators, egging on and sometimes even planning attacks that were later "foiled" -- by the FBI.

This doesn't automatically mean that the FBI or other government agencies were "behind" the events in Boston; sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes people do bad things without government prompting. But the consistent pattern of prior FBI involvement, in various degrees and at various stages, with people and groups that later go on to attempt or carry out violent actions cannot be ignored, and should be more thoroughly explored in this case. Particularly considering the fact the agency at first denied having any contact with the suspect -- until her mother outed them to the media. From CBS News:

Although the FBI initially denied contacting Tsarnaev, the brothers' mother said they had in an interview with Russia Today. Zubeidat Tsarnaeva said her son got involved in "religious politics" about five years ago, and never told her he was involved in "jihad."

She insisted the FBI "knew what he was doing on Skype" and that they counseled him "every step of the way."

Tsarnaeva went on to say that "they were controlling him, they were controlling his every step...and now they say that this is a terrorist act." That may or may not be true; certainly if I were the parent of someone in this situation, that's what I would want to believe. But the now-established involvement of the FBI, as well as the probable involvement of both the American and Russian intelligence agencies with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, should not be ignored when the reasons and roots behind the Boston attack and its bloody aftermath are explored.

That said, it is of course very likely that these connections will be ignored, as the well-worn narrative of "good boys turned bad by Islam" hardens into conventional wisdom. This narrative might be the truth in this case -- but it also works to the advantage of so many powerful forces. This is true not just for those opposing immigration in the the United States (that bloody shirt is already being waved frantically by many American politicians and other high-toned peddlers of racial and ethnic enmity), but even moreso for all those in power structures around the world who profit -- politically and financially -- from the vast engines of a military-security complex gorging on the fear of Islamic terrorism. (Other kinds of terrorism -- particularly the far more constant and far more murderous attacks of state terrorism -- don't bother them too much.)

Most immediately, this incident will greatly strengthen the military-security apparat in the United States and Russia, helping further demonize Muslims in general for the American apparatchiks and Chechens in particular for the Russians -- especially all those opposed to the brutal rule of the Kremlin and its satrap in Chechnya. But every political power structure that feeds on fear -- and which ones do not? -- will benefit from the crime spree in Boston, whatever its origins.

Again, these are just speculations, drawing on the few facts that are known at present, and putting them in the context of recent history. Perhaps the Tsarnaev brothers were lone operators: tormented individuals emerging from the brutal and brutalizing background of invasion, repression, violence and murder that characterizes modern Chechnya, who then internalized this violence and hatred, and sought, in anguish, ignorance and error, to expel it by directing it outward toward some generalized enemy, a demonized Other. Perhaps not. Perhaps other psychological factors were at work that we know nothing of at the moment. Perhaps not. Perhaps some agency or other of some military-security apparat somewhere seized on these troubled individuals and turned them toward the agency's own ends, with results that were either intended or else slipped far beyond the agency's wishes or control. Perhaps not.

But I think there are deeper contexts to the case -- whether these are restricted to the twisting of individual psyches by the greater geopolitical and cultural forces that have done so much pointless violence to us all, and in particular to the direct targets of massive power structures, such as Chechnya or, latterly, the Muslim world at large, or whether there are more specific involvements of military-security apparatchiks in the development of this murderous tragedy. Yet, as already noted, we will almost certainly see none of these deeper contexts explored in the earnest postmortems -- by politicians, pundits, academics and self-appointed "experts" of every stripe -- in the weeks and months to come.

Listen to Scott Horton - good shows this week


http://scotthorton.org/

4/19/13 Philip Giraldi

Philip Giraldi, Executive Director of The Council for the National Interest, discusses the Boston Marathon bombing; the “surgical strikes” legal justification for drone attacks; the war in Syria; and the US empire’s messy and ugly decline.

4/19/13 Anthony Gregory

Anthony Gregory, author of The Power of Habeas Corpus in America: From the King’s Prerogative to the War on Terror, discusses the 20 years of state terror since the FBI/ATF massacre of Branch Davidians at Waco; the precedent of killing rather than capturing criminal suspects; and why blood-lusting Americans are eager to accept the lies

Scott Horton from anti-war has done a good job interviewing people, exposing numerous deliberately unsucessfull FBI created false terror attacks. But this attack was now successful. Allowing for some government involvement, is the FBI or other government agency now using patsies, to not just scare most of the American people with failed terror attacks which had minimal pubic fear response, to now deliberately murdering fellow americans to create hyper fear in the people ? Just look at the public and media reaction. No matter if the Tsarnaev brothers were working alone, this is just what the abusers of power love to see. The upcoming increase in more government and corporate fascist powers based on the Boston Attack, will be the answer to just how much more abusive the elite can get.

From the 17 comments following Chris Floyd's article:

j kelley • a day ago

It's looks to me like the lockdown with massive paramilitary display was the 'main event.' And gosh, so well documented by so many major media players milling about on the streets. Streets that were proclaimed unsafe for everyone else. Mean Streets. So, America gets a taste of martial law. A major US city shut down because of ONE on-the-run 19 year old. And they loved it. They even cheered and sang the national anthem. From their fear and ignorance springs forth the willingness to be led to the slaughter.

tom j kelley • 19 hours ago

j kelley nailed it. The people, like the stupidest of Pavlov's subjects, will much more now associate being surrounded by militarised police with ' security '.

Which bring me to the quality of propaganda used in today's age with such great effect. It's not good quality propaganda that works these days.
Piss poor propaganda is dominant and thats enough. Most people deliberately and willingly do not, at an increasing rate, wan't political, moral and ethical responsibility in a growing number of areas. They are relieved to hand over those crucial human qualities to their state and corporate overlords, which will thank the public with suppression and oppression. Denial of these responsibilities, as semi-conscious beings, automatically creates a fake identity, fake morality and fake world view. And that effect is seen and understood by those in power. We see the effects of the elites understanding hundreds of times a day.

j kelley tom • 3 hours ago

Good point. It's like the blockheaded willingness of so many consumers to buy such shitty products...always succumbing to the ever thinning lie. It leaves just the shell of a man.

Asymmetrical advertising?

Eric Krupin j kelley • 21 hours ago

Bingo. Note the orders against recording the activities of the militarized police squads. I suppose disobeying that order would now constitute "abetting terrorists".

Grandma Sheila j kelley • 21 hours ago

How eager they are to be slaves, to paraphrase Tiberius. Phylter remarked on the extensive media presence throughout this mess, while the regular citizens were to keep to their homes. But they have to launch the propaganda, and especially the house to house searches, "keeping them safe". The nauseating street party afterward was telling.

duwaynejosephsson Grandma Sheila • 19 hours ago

Grandma

Isnt Boston the town that made so much noise about the British quartering of troops and other heavy-handedness by the Redcoats?
Just asking.

Grandma Sheila duwaynejosephsson • 6 hours ago

Yep. Funny how things change. Now, they welcome them with open arms. It's wonderful, how effective a few years of relentless fear-mongering psy-ops can be.

[wetland]

Catching up on my listening this afternoon, I am struck by how Rig Int-y this record is from the MK-Ultra shoutout in its opening track to the acidic sad irony of its trans-imperial curtain-dropper chant.

It seemed to be pre-release streaming from lots of points (including via NPR), but now you're going to need to look for it on Spotify or iTunes or somewhere.



"The Flaming Lips Get Dark On The Terror, Freak People Out"

http://chicagoist.com/2013/04/16/the_fl ... the_te.php

The Flaming Lips' new album The Terror is out and it's a doozy, throwing even longtime fans' critical opinions this way and that and generally shaking up the band's fan-base. The album is a dark journey, extremely challenging at times, and is honestly not a pleasant listen. Not that that's ever been a prerequisite for a Flaming Lips song. People have just gotten so used to thinking of the band as free spirited hippies—and a recent car commercial admittedly did nothing to dispel that opinion—but The Terror is probably a more honest reflection of the band, and their current tenor is very much informed by Wayne Coyne's frame of mind. (Kind of like this commercial.)

It's common knowledge that multi-instrumentalist Steven Drozd contributes the vast majority of the musical composition when the band writes, but Coyne is still, and forever will be, the heart of the band. Many have attributed the darkness of The Terror to Drozd's struggles with addiction, but we think the tone is more reflective of Coyne's own life changes. Most notably Coyne parted ways with his longtime companion / girlfriend / wife? / artistic collaborator Michelle Martin. He has also taken to great outpourings across social media outlets like Twitter and Instagram, giving him access to pour out thoughts as they occur and get fan's reactions. A recent Reddit chat provided even more insight into his current thinking.

Fan adulation and near universal critical acclaim have allowed Coyne to stretch his creative process to the extreme outer reaches. All of this has contributed to a general sense that Coyne is free to delve deeply into himself and everyone will listen. What most people forgot is that, deep inside, Coyne is a pretty dark person. "Do You Realize?" — that song everyone sings along to joyfully as confetti cannons boom over the crowd at Lips shows — is about death. In a recent interview with Vulture, Coyne said, in response to the success of Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots:

“People seemed to like it, and you’re like, ‘We can do that forever. [snip] You go in that direction for a while, but part of you starts to get dissatisfied. You’re not going into the unknown."


The Terror is definitely borne of the unknown, and to us it sounds like what happens when humanity becomes unmoored. Songs drift in and out and a sort of tunnel vision develops, where everything on the periphery is ever darker and more menacing, causing one to focus more intently on what's directly ahead. It's these little sonic nuggets, the scary guitars in "Look... The Sun Is Rising," the weird oscillations in "Try To Explain," these are the things saving the listener from flying into oblivion. Perhaps Coyne is working with the band to keep himself from flying into the darkest nether regions as well.

The Terror deals with a sort of death, but this is not a physical expiring, it's an existential crisis. What's scarier than a man who can do absolutely anything he wants? If there is no wrong, then there is no right, and that means we are all spinning into the abyss. This is what The Terror is all about.

This isn't an album meant to appeal to fans and make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. The Terror is there to enforce the fact that we're all alone. Or at least that's what The Flaming Lips believe. For now. If you view The Terror through that lens, we think the album delivers exactly what it promises, whether you like it or not.

[seemslikeadream]

Look . . . the sun is rising
There is a little spaceship
Hiding in the clouds
You want it to love you
the voices down
You can hear the voice
Telling you to love
The voice of MKUltra
And you're doing what it wants
Love is always something
Something you should fear
When you really miss her
Fear is all you hear
I know that you will love me
Until I come down
Look, the sun is rising
What will love us now
Look . . . the sun . . . is rising, rising
What will love us
Look . . . the sun . . . is . . . rising . . . rising . . . rising . . . rising . . . rising

welcome to our America.... Same as it ever was same as it ever was



Geronimo Pratt, Leonard Peltier, James Carr, Dhoruba Bin Wahad, Fred Hampton, Marshall Eddie Conway, Malcolm X., Joe Stuntz, CISPES, Judy Bari, Louis Tackwood, Pine Ridge, Robert Chambliss, and Thomas Cook. I could go on….and on and on.

[wetland]

The things whiteman can perform on Letterman these days!
I know that you will love me until I come down, indeed.

Mixing pop and politics...

[FourthBase]

If this were the other night, those comments would have launched me into...
Well, ironically, into a conniption, lol. A justified conniption, by the way.

Are the people here not good enough, smart enough?
Do we really need to post comments like that here?
The opinions of "j kelley" and "Grandma Sheila"?

I will try out this new great method of communicating, underreaction:

What should have been done? What could have happened where you and stickdog and whoever would have been like, "Oh, well, I guess I can see the point of that" or "Yeah, thankfully this thing happened but not that thing" or "Wow, I guess I expected something very different, much worse...but this thing was surprisingly not that worst case, not that bad, maybe even good"?

Surely, you were expecting that Tsarnaev was going to be torched in that boat, right? They even said "light it up" on the scanner, and deployed flash bangs. But, the boat wasn't burned. The suspect, another huge shocker to you I imagine, is not even dead. He's alive, and while there may yet be fishy stuff that happens to him, at the moment it looks like he will survive, hopefully to face trial in an American court, hopefully not after he's been tortured. But, you were surprised, weren't you? Or does nothing surprise you? What would that mean, if nothing surprises you? People say it about themselves as a point of pride, to express how experienced and wise to the world they are. But what if nothing surprises you because you process and collate everything that you see into a preconceived notion of what-is-really-happening, improvising as events you expect to happen don't, after the fact forgetting (conveniently, to preserve your confirmation bias) that you did.

What else, let's see. The common refrain now is, "It was only one 19-year-old!" and "It was only 4 deaths!", and this is supposed to mean that it was obviously a staged event, because of how small the threat appears and how few were killed. (I wonder what you and your cohort would do, if met on the street by a 19-year-old with an arsenal of bombs who's aiming a rifle at you.) But, so that means if it had instead been several teams of terrorists who killed hundreds or thousands of people, then you wouldn't think it was staged? Or are your interpretations non-falsifiable? And, no matter what had happened, it was going to have been staged, in your opinion? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I kind of get the sense some of you were disappointed in the outcome, in the low death toll, in the suspect being captured alive, in the fact that the cops didn't harm one bystander. I get the sense you wish there had been more deaths, a bigger terrorist cell, all the suspects now dead and silent, injured bystanders like in the Dorner manhunt, and generally more mayhem. Stickdog has probably been eager to find pics of doors being knocked down and children terrified by menacing military types with big guns, but is coming up empty, and is disappointed. Had there been a media blackout, you same people would have been screaming bloody murder, bloody fascism. There wasn't, the events were well-covered (at least the local news here, can't speak for the cable news outlets), and yet here you are muttering unbloody murder, unbloody fascism. Heads it's fascism, tails it's fascism.

I think you have a death wish, and you want there to be a bloody totalitarian police state crackdown. I think you want there to have been more mayhem, more devastation, more murder. I'd say more legs ripped off, but they don't seem to count. I think you hope for the worst case scenario, and filter everything you see and read in order to conform to that hope, in order to fulfill one or both of two things: Your desire to have been proven right, and your desire to be entertained. Am I wrong? No. And you know it.

[DrEvil]

Amen!

[conniption]

If this were the other night, those comments would have launched me into...
Well, ironically, into a conniption, lol. A justified conniption, by the way.

Are the people here not good enough, smart enough?

They're smart, but that ain't good enough.

Do we really need to post comments like that here?

Sorry. Most everyone is better at communicating my thoughts better than me.

The opinions of "j kelley" and "Grandma Sheila"?

Three cheers for "j kelley" and "Grandma Sheila" and Chris Floyd for that matter.

I will try out this new great method of communicating, underreaction:

What should have been done? What could have happened where you and stickdog and whoever would have been like, "Oh, well, I guess I can see the point of that" or "Yeah, thankfully this thing happened but not that thing" or "Wow, I guess I expected something very different, much worse...but this thing was surprisingly not that worst case, not that bad, maybe even good"?

Surely, you were expecting that Tsarnaev was going to be torched in that boat, right? They even said "light it up" on the scanner, and deployed flash bangs. But, the boat wasn't burned. The suspect, another huge shocker to you I imagine, is not even dead. He's alive, and while there may yet be fishy stuff that happens to him, at the moment it looks like he will survive, hopefully to face trial in an American court, hopefully not after he's been tortured. But, you were surprised, weren't you? Or does nothing surprise you? What would that mean, if nothing surprises you? People say it about themselves as a point of pride, to express how experienced and wise to the world they are. But what if nothing surprises you because you process and collate everything that you see into a preconceived notion of what-is-really-happening, improvising as events you expect to happen don't, after the fact forgetting (conveniently, to preserve your confirmation bias) that you did.

What else, let's see. The common refrain now is, "It was only one 19-year-old!" and "It was only 4 deaths!", and this is supposed to mean that it was obviously a staged event, because of how small the threat appears and how few were killed. (I wonder what you and your cohort would do, if met on the street by a 19-year-old with an arsenal of bombs who's aiming a rifle at you.) But, so that means if it had instead been several teams of terrorists who killed hundreds or thousands of people, then you wouldn't think it was staged? Or are your interpretations non-falsifiable? And, no matter what had happened, it was going to have been staged, in your opinion? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I kind of get the sense some of you were disappointed in the outcome, in the low death toll, in the suspect being captured alive, in the fact that the cops didn't harm one bystander. I get the sense you wish there had been more deaths, a bigger terrorist cell, all the suspects now dead and silent, injured bystanders like in the Dorner manhunt, and generally more mayhem. Stickdog has probably been eager to find pics of doors being knocked down and children terrified by menacing military types with big guns, but is coming up empty, and is disappointed. Had there been a media blackout, you same people would have been screaming bloody murder, bloody fascism. There wasn't, the events were well-covered (at least the local news here, can't speak for the cable news outlets), and yet here you are muttering unbloody murder, unbloody fascism. Heads it's fascism, tails it's fascism.

I think you have a death wish, and you want there to be a bloody totalitarian police state crackdown. I think you want there to have been more mayhem, more devastation, more murder. I'd say more legs ripped off, but they don't seem to count. I think you hope for the worst case scenario, and filter everything you see and read in order to conform to that hope, in order to fulfill one or both of two things: Your desire to have been proven right, and your desire to be entertained. Am I wrong? No. And you know it.

Yes. You're very wrong, and I know it.

*

Amen!

Funny. ..you don't look Norwegian.

[DrEvil]

Funny. ..you don't look Norwegian.

Dammit! Foiled again.

But seriously - It wasn't really aimed at you in particular. You just happened to.. um.. be in the way.
I just think people have been giving Fourthbase a hard time in this thread, and I wanted to show a hint of support without having to get all emotional and stuff. Sorry for using you as my cover.