Explosions at Boston Marathon

[Osterbaum]

Here's something about the saudi "person of interest".

Originally Posted by New Yorker

A twenty-year-old man who had been watching the Boston Marathon had his body torn into by the force of a bomb. He wasn’t alone; a hundred and seventy-six people were injured. But he was the only one who, while in the hospital being treated for his wounds, had his apartment searched in “a startling show of force,” as his fellow-tenants described it to the Boston Herald, with a “phalanx” of officers and agents and two K9 units. He was the one whose belongings were carried out in paper bags as his neighbors watched; whose roommate, also a student, was questioned for five hours (“I was scared”) before coming out to say that he didn’t think his friend was someone who’d plant a bomb—that he was a nice guy who liked sports. “Let me go to school, dude,” the roommate said later in the day, covering his face with his hands and almost crying, as a Fox News producer followed him and asked him, again and again, if he was sure he hadn’t been living with a killer.

Why the search, the interrogation, the dogs, the bomb squad, and the injured man’s name tweeted out, attached to the word “suspect”? After the bombs went off, people were running in every direction—so was the young man. Many, like him, were hurt badly; many of them were saved by the unflinching kindness of strangers, who carried them or stopped the bleeding with their own hands and improvised tourniquets. “Exhausted runners who kept running to the nearest hospital to give blood,” President Obama said. “They helped one another, consoled one another,” Carmen Ortiz, the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts, said. In the midst of that, according to a CBS News report, a bystander saw the young man running, badly hurt, rushed to him, and then tackled him, bringing him down. The bystander thought he looked suspicious.

What made them suspect him? He was running—so was everyone. The bystander handed the man to the police, who reportedly thought he smelled like explosives; his wounds might have suggested why. He said something about thinking there would be a second bomb—as there was, and often is, to target responders. If that was the reason he gave for running, it was a sensible one. He asked if anyone was dead—a question people were screaming. And he was from Saudi Arabia, which is around where the logic stops. Was it just the way he looked, or did he, in the chaos, maybe call for God with a name that someone found strange?

What happened next didn’t take long. “Investigators have a suspect—a Saudi Arabian national—in the horrific Boston Marathon bombings, The Post has learned.” That’s the New York Post, which went on to cite Fox News. The “Saudi suspect”—still faceless—suddenly gave anxieties a form. He was said to be in custody; or maybe his hospital bed was being guarded. The Boston police, who weren’t saying much of anything, disputed the report—sort of. “Honestly, I don’t know where they’re getting their information from, but it didn’t come from us,” a police spokesman said. But were they talking to someone? Maybe. “Person of interest” became a phrase of both avoidance and insinuation. On the Atlas Shrugs Web site, there was a note that his name in Arabic meant “sword.” At an evening press conference, Ed Davis, the police commissioner, said that no suspect was in custody. But that was about when the dogs were in the apartment building in Revere—an inquiry that was seized on by some as, if not an indictment, at least a vindication of their suspicions.

“There must be enough evidence to keep him there,” Andrew Napolitano said on “Fox and Friends”—“there” being the hospital. “They must be learning information which is of a suspicious nature,” Steve Doocy interjected. “If he was clearly innocent, would they have been able to search his house?” Napolitano thought that a judge would take any reason at a moment like this, but there had to be “something”—maybe he appeared “deceitful.” As Mediaite pointed out, Megyn Kelly put a slight break on it (as she has been known to do) by asking if there might have been some “racial profiling,” but then, after a round of speculation about his visa (Napolitano: “Was he a real student, or was that a front?”), she asked, “What’s the story on his ability to lawyer up?”

By Tuesday afternoon, the fever had broken. Report after report said that he was a witness, not a suspect. “He was just at the wrong place at the wrong time,” a “U.S. official” told CNN. (So were a lot of people at the marathon.) Even Fox News reported that he’d been “ruled out.” At a press conference, Governor Deval Patrick spoke, not so obliquely, about being careful not to treat “categories of people in uncharitable ways.”

We don’t know yet who did this. “The range of suspects and motives remains wide open,” Richard Deslauriers of the F.B.I. said early Tuesday evening. In a minute, with a claim of responsibility, our expectations could be scrambled. The bombing could, for all we know, be the work of a Saudi man—or an American or an Icelandic or a person from any nation you can think of. It still won’t mean that this Saudi man can be treated the way he was, or that people who love him might have had to find out that a bomb had hit him when his name popped up on the Web as a suspect in custody. It is at these moments that we need to be most careful, not least.

It might be comforting to think of this as a blip, an aberration, something that will be forgotten tomorrow—if not by this young man. There are people at Guanátanmo who have also been cleared by our own government, and are still there. A new report on the legacy of torture after 9/11, released Tuesday, is a well-timed admonition. The F.B.I. said that they would “go to the ends of the earth” to get the Boston perpetrators. One wants them to be able to go with their heads held high.

“If you want to know who we are, what America is, how we respond to evil—that’s it. Selflessly. Compassionately. Unafraid,” President Obama said. That was mostly true on Monday; a terrible day, when an eight-year-old boy was killed, his sister maimed, two others dead, and many more in critical condition. And yet, when there was so much to fear that we were so brave about, there was panic about a wounded man barely out of his teens who needed help. We get so close to all that Obama described. What’s missing? Is it humility?

[RobinStarwing]

Originally Posted by shiney

Robin, what does intent matter if innocent people still end up dying? The US perpetrates a program of targeting and killing suspected insurgents with reckless disregard for collateral damage. There are mountains of documented evidence on this. Don't try to make an equivalency that somehow the US is not as bad because we don't explicitly and purposefully target random civilians. At the end of the day, the survivors don't care if we say it was an accident. Their loved ones would be alive if we weren't flying around dropping bombs on shit in the name of "national security".

So basically, you are saying everything the US has done to try to make bombs smarter and minimize Civilian Casualties is a load of bumkiss?

Are you aware of how the Taliban/Al Queada and similar groups like to use Hospitals, Schools, and even Mosques as headquarters? That they do and will make sure there are as many civilians around them as possible? If not, than consider this an eye opener as to the fact that the people who perpetrate these kinds of acts like Boston and other attacks don't give a damn about civilian casualties.

I feel bad that an innocent man got railroaded for a little bit but at least his name was cleared.

As of this morning, they believe they are looking at a Pressure Cooker IED filled with screws, nails, ball bearings, and bebes with gunpowder possibly as the explosive. Crude but still effective.

[Bells]

Robin, there was never any real reason to consider him anything but "clear of all suspicion"... kinda like being arrested for a crime you didn't commit. You might just spent the night in Jail and be released once the confusion gets cleared out... but its not simply "let us all put this behind us"...

Specially since in this situation, we have clear cut examples of explicit prejudice against him.

Also, what i THINK shiney was getting at... is that no amount of civilian casualties is ever "ok". And that the USA reducing the number of deaths caused by an action they initiated is nothing to praise about. It doesn't matter who started what, ordering a strike that will take innocent lives out is, and always will be, a terrible thing regardless of scale.

Also, you are linking the Boston attack to Al Queada... nobody can make that affirmation right now.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by shiney

The thing that upsets me about this (outside of the fact that it happened at all) is how instantly it was politicized. Damn muslims, damn right-winger tea partiers, damn left-wingers trying to blame right-wingers, damn anarchists.

America has/had a chance to show some solidarity and leadership regarding how we handle this, but as soon as the political machine sinks its teeth into it you can bet this will become just another bitter divisive issue that will serve only to separate the people of the nation.

/bitter today

... this was something that really surprised me as well. I guess it shouldn't have, but it really did.

We've no hard evidence at all. I mean it's like blaming the violent crime (whatever it is) that statistically happened about 23 seconds ago on <insert group here> for all the evidence you have. I mean, it's human nature to speculate, but speculation is one thing, outright politicizing and blaming/finger-pointing any of them is really bizarre.

I'm praying for the for those harmed and killed and their families, that they heal quickly (when applicable), and really hoping those responsible are swiftly brought to justice.

EDIT: nevermind I rethought my edit.

[shiney]

Originally Posted by RobinStarwing

So basically, you are saying everything the US has done to try to make bombs smarter and minimize Civilian Casualties is a load of bumkiss?

Yes. They put an awful lot of research into making sure they can kill more accurately and efficiently, and still there are stories constantly, if not daily, about another innocent killed by the US. We are a nation of killers, and our leadership are a group of murderers. It is not a crime to be anti-American in the middle east, but we sure as hell are trying to make it be one.

Originally Posted by RobinStarwing

Are you aware of how the Taliban/Al Queada and similar groups like to use Hospitals, Schools, and even Mosques as headquarters? That they do and will make sure there are as many civilians around them as possible? If not, than consider this an eye opener as to the fact that the people who perpetrate these kinds of acts like Boston and other attacks don't give a damn about civilian casualties.

They certainly are monsters. Does the fact that they are monsters make it OK for the US to kill innocent people and then say "Oops"? Let's say, let's just say, someone from Yemen, or Pakistan, comes to the US and kills a military member along with several innocent bystanders. But, they didn't mean to kill those bystanders. By your argument we would have no right whatsoever to argue this person is inherently wrong, because "oops".

Al Qaeda is certainly comprised of horrible people who do horrible things. The US has a great opportunity to be the country we proclaim we are, and stand firm against that, and stand for justice. But instead, we end up killing innocents in high-profile cases and end up making ourselves look even worse, because of an off chance that the person we were actually targeting might be planning an attack on the US that, given precedent, will fail miserably.

We bomb brown people and suffer NO repercussions apart from making more brown people hate us harder than before. We then bomb those brown people, and the cycle continues. Our smart bombs are not smart enough, and they never will be. We need to stop bombing brown people altogether and fuck off from that part of the world.

[RobinStarwing]

Originally Posted by Bells

Robin, there was never any real reason to consider him anything but "clear of all suspicion"... kinda like being arrested for a crime you didn't commit. You might just spent the night in Jail and be released once the confusion gets cleared out... but its not simply "let us all put this behind us"...

Specially since in this situation, we have clear cut examples of explicit prejudice against him.

Also, what i THINK shiney was getting at... is that no amount of civilian casualties is ever "ok". And that the USA reducing the number of deaths caused by an action they initiated is nothing to praise about. It doesn't matter who started what, ordering a strike that will take innocent lives out is, and always will be, a terrible thing regardless of scale.

Also, you are linking the Boston attack to Al Queada... nobody can make that affirmation right now.

I was not. I was trying to make a comparison. You are right, no amount of civilian casualties is acceptable.

The point I was trying to make was that the US policy is to go out of it's way to minimize civilian casualties. The people responsible for Monday don't give a damn about who is around when they do shit like this..or they want as many civilians around as possible.

And Shiney, you have good points. But may be that these civilian deaths are because the people we are going after are using civilians as Human shields and forcing the people on the ground to make hard choices that they will have to live with. Also, again I point out that war sucks.

I understand you are former military yourself and respect that and ask you, if it was you on the ground and you had intel linking a group of terrorists using a functioning hospital or school or mosque to an attack on either nearby civilians or even the country.

What would you choose to do if using manpower on the ground is out of the question due to logistics or political concerns?

I know, the math sounds cruel and cold and I personaly hate it. I also understand that this is the nature of things. If I had my choice, I would make every last bastard who wanted to fight a war do it all themselves and leave people out of it. As Lelouch said, "The only ones who should kill, are those who are prepared to be killed."

[Sifright]

Originally Posted by RobinStarwing

I was not. I was trying to make a comparison. You are right, no amount of civilian casualties is acceptable.

The point I was trying to make was that the US policy is to go out of it's way to minimize civilian casualties. The people responsible for Monday don't give a damn about who is around when they do shit like this..or they want as many civilians around as possible.

And Shiney, you have good points. But may be that these civilian deaths are because the people we are going after are using civilians as Human shields and forcing the people on the ground to make hard choices that they will have to live with. Also, again I point out that war sucks.

I understand you are former military yourself and respect that and ask you, if it was you on the ground and you had intel linking a group of terrorists using a functioning hospital or school or mosque to an attack on either nearby civilians or even the country.

What would you choose to do if using manpower on the ground is out of the question due to logistics or political concerns?

I know, the math sounds cruel and cold and I personaly hate it. I also understand that this is the nature of things. If I had my choice, I would make every last bastard who wanted to fight a war do it all themselves and leave people out of it. As Lelouch said, "The only ones who should kill, are those who are prepared to be killed."

Bullshit.

[Kim]

The point I was trying to make was that the US policy is to go out of it's way to minimize civilian casualties.

This is fucking bullshit. We do double-tap drone strikes, which are against international law and that kill civilian first responders.

[shiney]

I would say "Let's get the fuck out of here, quit killing them altogether, and beef up our incoming security to determine point of origin and affiliations."

I would not say "I have to kill this guy even if it means women and children die."

I would also suggest that, if the people of that area of the world want to depose these horrible people from corrupting their lives, culture and religion, then maybe we shouldn't actively participate in empowering them by murdering friends and family that are uninvolved in the conflict. Maybe, just maybe, we don't exactly have a sovereign right or moral superiority when we are in someone else's country killing their citizens on the shadiest of permissible grounds.

e: and, per the above, in violation of international law.

[Sifright]

Originally Posted by Kim

This is fucking bullshit. We do double-tap drone strikes, which are against international law and that kill civilian first responders.

I know guys who served in the Us military, supposedly there is a running joke when training people to use 50.Cal mounted machine guns on vehicles that if you are asked about it you should say you using it against the enemies equipment because using 50. Cals against people is against the Geneva convention.