What's new

Boston Marathon Bombings [Suspect #1 Dead, Suspect #2 in Custody]

what is thsm these guys plot bombs and then go for robbery? yeh kya pagal hain kya - ? what the

The police have confirmed they were NOT the ones involved in the armed robbery of the convenience store next to the 7-11 in Cambridge. They just happened to have visited the store. When the robbery took place and police reviewed the footage, they saw the suspects on the video. Then they converged on the area, and as they did the MIT police officer was shot. RIP to that bloke btw, only 26 and had been in the force for a year. Just responded to a 911 call about a carjacking and was shot dead.
 
7News reporting that the bomber has been taken into custody and ALIVE.
 
Looks like the negotiators were able to talk him into surrendering. They are calling for medics to attend to Tsarnaev now to keep him alive, to face justice.
 
at least we will now find out why they did it....a truth hard to swallow but necessary to face. At least all the tin foil hat folks will get some closure knowing he wasn't killed on the spot
 
Last edited:
Watertown residents out of their houses clapping and thanking the police who were in the town the whole day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Why would anyone with a promising future , educated background do this ? Or am I thinking like a normal person here ? You can make change in a constructive way in this world , this is just absurd . Good thing they catch him alive , now , he has got questions to answer . What change exactly has this killing brought about If anything , people will hate Muslims and Islam more , willl be more convinced Islam is an evil religion .
 
That's no small feat of skill from the police negotiator to take this man alive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Why would anyone with a promising future , educated background do this ? Or am I thinking like a normal person here ? You can make change in a constructive way in this world , this is just absurd . Good thing they catch him alive , now , he has got questions to answer . What change exactly has this killing brought about If anything , people will hate Muslims and Islam more , willl be more convinced Islam is an evil religion .

Your description will mostly fit for even 9/11 guys. You can always find some nut cases who are not going to be rational.

About people getting more convinced about Islam being bad. I don't think that these kind of one or two incidents will make too much difference. People, who already think Islam as devil religion, will simply use it but others will hardly jump to their bandwagon. When you start getting too many of these then normal folks get influenced.
 
Last edited:
Hats off to Boston PD! Brilliant work by FBI, Boston PD....one helluva week for Boston...hats off to the citizens of Boston and OZGOD
 
at least we will now find out why they did it....a truth hard to swallow but necessary to face. At least all the tin foil hat folks will get some closure knowing he wasn't killed on the spot

LOL. Nope, tin foil folks will simply change their story to suit new reality.
 
Suspect has been brought to Mt Auburn Hospital in Cambridge where I'm sure he will have intense security surrounding him.
 
OzGod, it's not that.

The media is a mouthpiece for the government. It's propaganda. When you don't toe the line, it is bad news for you in the media.

Look at how Assange has been treated - including by the Aussie govt.

Look at how hated Al Jazeera was by the US govt because they didn't like their coverage of the wars, and how the US Air Force has bombed their offices in Kabul and in Iraq - purposely.

Look at how aggressive the Obama admin is going after any whisteblowers and how unaccountable the govt is for actions that are illegal. Why doesn't more of the media point it out.

Google Glen Greenwald and read some of his articles to get better acquainted with the media.

You are being naive if you believe it is simply about trying to attract viewers.
 
Last edited:
The search is over.

Just like to re-iterate to keep comments within reason. Any offensive posts will be deleted and will result in an immediate ban.
 
Look at how Assange has been treated - including by the Aussie govt.

.

The Australian government is representitive of the people, the people of Australia are ashamed of they behavoir of Assange. Australian people think that the women that have made allegations about Assange deserve the right to face him in court.

Yes there are a few fanatical anti-american blowhards that try to push some childish theory that the US are going to kill Assange but that dosent fly with 98% of the Australian population.

If you are going to use Assange then be prepared to be laughed at.
 
OzGod, it's not that.

The media is a mouthpiece for the government. It's propaganda. When you don't toe the line, it is bad news for you in the media.

Look at how Assange has been treated - including by the Aussie govt.

Look at how hated Al Jazeera was by the US govt because they didn't like their coverage of the wars, and how the US Air Force has bombed their offices in Kabul and in Iraq - purposely.

Look at how aggressive the Obama admin is going after any whisteblowers and how unaccountable the govt is for actions that are illegal. Why doesn't more of the media point it out.

Google Glen Greenwald and read some of his articles to get better acquainted with the media.

You are being naive if you believe it is simply about trying to attract viewers.

There's a difference between being a mouthpiece for the government and espousing views shared by the government though. Example: Fox News. You could hardly call them a mouthpiece for the Obama government. Rupert Murdoch is well known for NOT sharing any of the views or policies of this Democratic government. There's a difference.
 
Last edited:
Let me first say that I hope the Moroccan kid and Mike Mulugeta and Sunil Tripathi all sue for defamation. And for poor Sunil's family, their child is missing and they wake up one morning and Twitter has turned him into a terrorist. Shame on American media for it's rush to judgement. These innocent young may have had their lives ruined. God bless them.

Secondly, I'm glad the terrorists were caught, hats off to law enforcement. Glad no one else (RIP to the MIT cop) had to die.

I am afraid the only lesson Americans will take away from this is that Muslims can also be foreign-born whites. * sigh * Even still, quite a few Twitter vigilantes were still trying to ID them as Arabs. I had to break it down to them that they are the original CAUCASIANS, people of the Caucasus Mts.

I hope incidents like this don't make the world fall even further into ignorance. There should still be room in your heart for love and forgiveness.
 
Gilly - had the leadership of those corrupt countries reacted - we wouldn't have witnessed so much terror in the world. Yes governments of both sides are to be blamed for the mega mess.
 
The outrage has to start from the USA because the govt of America drones innocent little kids. Their foreign polices have made this world hell. They got some taste of their own medicine in Boston.

I would also blame the leadership of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan etc.

They allowed US to enter rather than taking care of their own self.

From your post, I thought you were drawing a parallel and talking about no outrage after terrorists kill people outside US. If you meant drones then simply saying drones would have been much better. That will avoid any confusion.

If you see this incident as getting taste of their own medicine then I would say that this is very small example. You can cite 9/11 where lot more innocent people were killed and had a much larger impact.

I don't support this stupid policy of drones because many innocent people are getting killed. I also don't think that these kind of incidents will help anyone even if you see it as getting taste of their own medicine.

US is already out of Iraq and I think it should get out of Pakistan/Afghanistan as soon as possible. I expect very negligible presence in that region within 2-3 years. Spending trillions there serves no purpose.
 
Last edited:
Gilly - had the leadership of those corrupt countries reacted - we wouldn't have witnessed so much terror in the world. Yes governments of both sides are to be blamed for the mega mess.

Could they have reacted though? There's only so much you can do, especially if you don't have the resources in those governments. The government of Afghanistan and Pakistan can barely take care of their own people, let alone try and invest the time and money to protect their borders and eliminate these terrorists.

Not an excuse - just pointing out the reality.
 
3 more people arrested in New Bedford, apparently related to the case. No other details but they were taken in for questioning. Posibility that one of them was in a relationship with Suspect #2.
 
Could they have reacted though? There's only so much you can do, especially if you don't have the resources in those governments. The government of Afghanistan and Pakistan can barely take care of their own people, let alone try and invest the time and money to protect their borders and eliminate these terrorists.

Not an excuse - just pointing out the reality.
Pakistan has one of the powerful Army and Intelligence service in the world. They could have eliminated terrorism from Pakistan had they wanted.

Governments have the resources and money to tackle their problems if they are honest.
 
Governments have the resources and money to tackle their problems if they are honest.

Governments have the resources to find and nullify "groups" that pose a threat but it is almost impossible to find these lone-wolf kind of people... any person in any corner of the country can snap out at certain time and cause these kinds of mayhem...
 
I wonder who will represent Tsarnaev in court. Court appointed lawyer? Or his aunt in Ontario who is a lawyer?
 
They are Not gonna read Miranda rights...
some public safety clause BS :facepalm:

not sure......what's the cover up
wanna try him in Gitmo or waterboard him

whatever it is.......it's a ploy to hide the facts from the public :moyo
 
according to sky news it's "highly probable that they received jihadist training in chechen camps at a young age" ...
 
according to sky news it's "highly probable that they received jihadist training in chechen camps at a young age" ...

How can that be? They moved to the US when very young. Maybe the older brother - he returned to Russia for 6mths last year. Where's the facts that lead Sky to this supposition?
 
I feel for their parents. How bad must it feel as a parent to have kids that have been accused of this type of crime, and who have been involved in carjackings, gunfights, etc.

Interview with his dad below.

New York Times Interview With Suspects’ Father



Here is a transcript of a telephone interview with Anzor Tsarnaev, the father of the suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings, conducted Friday by Ellen Barry and Andrew Roth of The New York Times’s Moscow bureau.

Q.

Anything strange when you last spoke to your sons?

A.

Nothing strange, nothing at all. Everything is normal, everything is well, nothing new. Everything was thought up there…. Something is wrong. They have been framed. I am watching TV and cannot believe it. What are they talking about, Watertown? He didn’t live there…. How could he live there? This is where the lie begins — why are they saying this crap?

Dzhokhar has not been in Russia since 2001. Tamerlan did come. He came to renew his passport. He stayed here and left, but did not want to go. He wanted to stay here because it was hard for him to work there.

Q.

Did he want to stay in Russia?

A.

Yes, he wanted to stay. He looked around, what the life is here, and he wanted to stay. He said I speak English now, I can work as a translator and start some business here and go to China. He had this kind of plans.

Q.

How long did he stay with you?

A.

Yes, he was here for six months. He had to wait for a new passport to be issued.

Q.

Was he in Makhachkala?

A.

Yes, he was in Makhachkala. Makhachkala, he was never out my sight. He used to sleep till lunchtime, then we visited relatives. We went to Chechnya to visit relatives. He only communicated with me and his cousins. There was nobody (else). People know. I would ask him, did you come here to sleep or what?

Q.

Did he go to Turkey?

A.

What Turkey? He has never been to Turkey. These are all lies. He must have a passport…. He did not go anywhere.

Q.

Did he want to be an American citizen?

A.

He wanted to, of course. Why not?

Q.

But it didn’t work out, right?

A.

Because with his girlfriend, there was a scandal. He hit her lightly. He was locked up for half an hour. There was jealousy there. He paid $250, that was it, he went home. Because of that — in America you can’t touch a woman, they wouldn’t give him citizenship.

A.

Because of that they didn’t give him citizenship?

Q.

He had gone through the interview, that was it. But they said, he said, they will check the federal authorities, when they check me they will give it. He would have been granted it, he passed the interview. Now we have a new system where they check young people. Because he is a Muslim, I think, and a Chechen, too.

Q.

Was he disappointed?

A.

No, he said, ‘Dad, I don’t have to go anywhere!’ He works, his wife works, he has a child, they will give it to him! He didn’t want to come (here). He had plans of his own. How could he leave everything and go?

Q.

Was he offended by the fact that they did not give him a chance?

A.

No! No! Why would he be offended? He could come and go, arrive and leave as he wished.

Q.

Did Dzhokhar want to be a citizen?

A.

He is already a citizen of America. He is an American citizen.

Q.

So he already had his citizenship?

A.

He was coming for the holidays. He told me to do a visa. I was making a visa.

Q.

Did they love America?

A.

Of course a person loves it.

Q.

Why did you not go the States?

A.

I wanted to but I got sick. I was very sick. I thought I would die, so I thought I would better be buried here. They checked me and said I was healthy as an ox, but I was losing weight. I weighed only 50 kilos. I lost about 40 kilograms, and I had strong pains inside. I had a pancreatic problem and a hematoma in my head. I needed a surgery.

Q.

Did your kids suffer from the war?

A.

No, my children did not see the war. They grew up in Kyrgyzstan.

Q.

They never saw the war?

A.

Yes, we left, ran away from the war. We did not need it, you see?

Q.

Where are you from in Chechnya?

A.

We never lived in Chechnya.

Q.

So you were Chechens living in Dagestan?

A.

Once I arrived, I’ve been living here for a year. I wanted to leave, but I was waiting for my son to come for vacation so that we could go back together.

Q.

Your brothers in the States, they say something very different about your sons.

A.

Well, we quarreled long time ago…. We were not on speaking terms.

Q.

They sound like they believe your sons did this.

A.

What can they say if they did not see them for five or six years? They are just blabbing what they know nothing about. How can they speak about them if they did not see them for a long time? If they kill him now….

Q.

How many members of your family ended up in America?

A.

Four children and parents.

Q.

And your brothers?

A.

My brother sent me an invitation … but we were not planning to stay. But the time was such, the circumstances, persecution. You must know, there was a hunt for Chechens as for wolves in the woods.

Q.

Did your children feel like Russians or Americans?

A.

Well, children, they get adjusted. Russia was like a fantasy for them. If a child has not grown up here, how can he think or dream about Russia?

Q.

Did you or your relatives work for law enforcement bodies before the war?

A.

Yes, they did. They worked for the prosecutor’s office.

Q.

In Chechnya?

A.

Yes, they were lawyers, all of them.

Q.

What is your family’s attitude to Kadyrov (the president of Chechnya)?

A.

Very good attitude. My sister was an outstanding lawyer of Kyrgyzstan, she moved there. She is in Chechnya now because everything has straightened out. The life has gotten better, as it should be. Nobody wants a war.

A.

What did the investigators want to ask you about?

A.

The investigators didn’t talk much. They were not concerned about anything. They asked what and how, just like you.

Q.

Did you hear anything from the Russian leaders, Kadyrov?

A.

I can’t think about anything like that. Seeing my child on television — he has never been to any Watertown, it is nonsense. It is nonsense. My child lives in Cambridge, first of all.

Q.

What is his character?

A.

He has the character of the best person who could exist. Anyone who sees him falls in love with him. Dzhokhar, he is a gift from Allah, not just because he is my son — he is like an angel, this child. The Americans know him better than I do. They taught him. He was in the newspapers everywhere: he was excellent, good, kind. He worked all the time. In his extra moments, he worked so that things would not be difficult for us, his parents. He didn’t keep a penny for himself. This kind of child. You understand.

Q.

Tamerlan was also calm like that?

A.

He was also a kind man. He was also a kind man.

Q.

I understand that your younger son took the will of Tamerlan like a law. Was that always true?

A.

Dzhokhar listened to Tamerlan, of course. He also listened to us. From childhood, it was that way. He had his own head on his shoulders. He was a very gifted person. He had a gift of kindness, calmness, fairness, you understand, goodness? For him to do what they’re saying, it doesn’t fit him at all, it is not possible. Not at all.

Q.

Did they go to mosque regularly, both of them?

A.

He used to bring him, Tamerlan would bring him to Friday prayers. The child, he smoked. I would occasionally find cigarettes in his pockets or his room. What kind of radicalism are they talking about? I caught him with a cigarette two or three times.

Q.

There is a feeling that in recent time they came, especially Tamerlan, became more devout?
(Line goes dead)

As CNN reported, Anzor Tsarnaev made similar charges, that his sons had been framed, in an interview with Russian state television on Friday. Mr. Tsarnaev also said that he had been questioned by the Russian security services.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/20...imes#the-doctor-who-treated-tamerlan-tsarnaev
 
These bladdy terrorists. How does killing innocent ppl achieve any thing? Morons.
 
No one questioned Christianity last year during the Denver shootings.

Because the perpetrator never claimed he was fighting a holy war in the name of Jesus. Or that his deeds shall be rewarded by Jesus after his death.

Islam has been used as a shield by terrorists across the world , who try to portray that whatever they are doing, is in the name of Allah. They try to buy the sympathy of the millions of Muslims over the world, by proclaiming to be fighting a holy war. The day such people are disowned by Muslims over the world, we shall see them being isolated and exposed as just terrorists, and nothing more or less.

@Topic:- Good to hear that the guy has been held alive. It was important for the authorities to reach to the bottom of this.
 
Because the perpetrator never claimed he was fighting a holy war in the name of Jesus. Or that his deeds shall be rewarded by Jesus after his death.

Islam has been used as a shield by terrorists across the world , who try to portray that whatever they are doing, is in the name of Allah. They try to buy the sympathy of the millions of Muslims over the world, by proclaiming to be fighting a holy war. The day such people are disowned by Muslims over the world, we shall see them being isolated and exposed as just terrorists, and nothing more or less.

@Topic:- Good to hear that the guy has been held alive. It was important for the authorities to reach to the bottom of this.

BUSH: GOD TOLD ME TO GO TO WAR

Tony Blair believed God wanted him to go to war to fight evil, claims his mentor

Genocide and the role of the Church in Rwanda

All over Rwandan hills, valleys and mountains, thousands of crosses
mark mass graves of genocide victims of 1994. During the genocide, many
Tutsis were massacred in or around places of worship, including Catholic churches


‘Militant Christian’ Anders Breivik wants to be taken seriously

Anders Behring Breivik, self-described “militant Christian,” wants to be taken seriously, and is complaining that he is the subject of ridicule in court proceedings.
 
Last edited:
mani you bring up this point as a straw man over and over again. We get it by now. We get that it relates to Bush, Blair and Iraq. But please stop trying to relate it to entirely non-relatable issues. Surely a man of your intelligence has something else that he can add.
 
mani you bring up this point as a straw man over and over again. We get it by now. We get that it relates to Bush, Blair and Iraq. But please stop trying to relate it to entirely non-relatable issues. Surely a man of your intelligence has something else that he can add.

There was no mention of religion by the Bombers no "Jihad" videos that doesn't stop the media from creating a link.

Self proclaimed "Militant Christians" like Anders Breivik are not called as such.

Grooming underage girls by people who happen to be of an Islamic Background are referred to as Muslim rape gangs.
Yet Blacks who feature more prominently in this crime according to the latest figures are not referred to as Christian rape gangs nor get the same airplay.
National treasure Jimmy Peado was awarded by the Christian Church yet barely a mention of it never mind the Christian Church, which the less said the better regards to peado, genocide etc etc.
 
BUSH: GOD TOLD ME TO GO TO WAR

Tony Blair believed God wanted him to go to war to fight evil, claims his mentor

Genocide and the role of the Church in Rwanda

All over Rwandan hills, valleys and mountains, thousands of crosses
mark mass graves of genocide victims of 1994. During the genocide, many
Tutsis were massacred in or around places of worship, including Catholic churches


‘Militant Christian’ Anders Breivik wants to be taken seriously

Anders Behring Breivik, self-described “militant Christian,” wants to be taken seriously, and is complaining that he is the subject of ridicule in court proceedings.

Does this justify killing innocents in the name of God? Or religion?
 
Does this justify killing innocents in the name of God? Or religion?

No my reply was regarding the fact that to me it looked like you were suggesting Christians don't kill in the name of Religion hence why they don't get called on it.
 
There was no mention of religion by the Bombers no "Jihad" videos that doesn't stop the media from creating a link.

Self proclaimed "Militant Christians" like Anders Breivik are not called as such.

Grooming underage girls by people who happen to be of an Islamic Background are referred to as Muslim rape gangs.
Yet Blacks who feature more prominently in this crime according to the latest figures are not referred to as Christian rape gangs nor get the same airplay.
National treasure Jimmy Peado was awarded by the Christian Church yet barely a mention of it never mind the Christian Church, which the less said the better regards to peado, genocide etc etc.

You need to get a grip, this is not about religion.

Many posters were going on about his religion in this thread before any mainstream media outlets mentioned it. Why do you fixate on his religion. So what if his religion is mentioned it is just background information, nobody really cares.

He is muslim and that is that just get over it.
 
You need to get a grip, this is not about religion.

Many posters were going on about his religion in this thread before any mainstream media outlets mentioned it. Why do you fixate on his religion. So what if his religion is mentioned it is just background information, nobody really cares.

He is muslim and that is that just get over it.

Being Muslim and being Jihadi are two different things no?
 
Being Muslim and being Jihadi are two different things no?

In the sense of the word (Jihadi) that I believe you're using here, then yes. But I have also heard that Jihad has a deeper meaning and is in fact relevant to the internal existence of every Muslim.
 
Back to the topic
Is this likely to happen?

Lindsey Graham Calls For Boston Bombing Suspect To Be Held As 'Enemy Combatant'

en. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested on Friday that the Obama administration should toss the court system and Constitution out the window when handling the missing suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/lindsey-graham-bombing-boston-suspect_n_3118731.html

The police are handling the situation, if he were to be considered a enemy combatant then I imagine the army would be involved.

People are upset and will be venting a lot of anger after what has happened, take a cdeep breath step back and wait until the dust settles before taking anyone serious, a lot of people are in shock and will say things that they would not normally say.
 
To be honest the younger one doesn't seem that Radicalised as much as the older one.
 
Back to the topic
Is this likely to happen?

Lindsey Graham Calls For Boston Bombing Suspect To Be Held As 'Enemy Combatant'

en. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested on Friday that the Obama administration should toss the court system and Constitution out the window when handling the missing suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/lindsey-graham-bombing-boston-suspect_n_3118731.html

did the same thing happened with Colorodo man who killed people in cinema?
 
No my reply was regarding the fact that to me it looked like you were suggesting Christians don't kill in the name of Religion hence why they don't get called on it.

Here come the people with their political barrow to push again, when so few facts are available. I think you may have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Nobody in this thread from what I can see has suggested Christians don't kill in the name or religion. Thousands were massacred by the Christians during the Crusades. Yes Christians can be responsible for terrible atrocities. As a Catholic myself I will happily agree with it and if you wish I will research as many instances of this as you would like. Not sure what it has to do with this thread at this point. In fact nobody has mentioned that these killings were done in the name of religion, except others who have mentioned that they "hope the perpetrator isn't Muslim".

For all we know this bloke may turn out not to be a practicing Muslim at all, he may have converted to being a Mormon, or a Wiccan, or a Satanist. It's silly setting up your stall when so few facts are still available.

At risk of derailing the thread and turning into a "which is better Christianity or Islam" or "who is fairer Western or non-Western media, what you are talking about is media bias. Unfortunately that happens in every country. I posted something about it on this thread. It sucks and is unfair but when has life been about fairness. In fact in places like Saudi Arabia Christians cannot openly worship. In that case we talk about the "rights of the country to make its own laws in its own territory". But enough about that. I don't want to derail the thread too much.
 
Last edited:
The police are handling the situation, if he were to be considered a enemy combatant then I imagine the army would be involved.

People are upset and will be venting a lot of anger after what has happened, take a cdeep breath step back and wait until the dust settles before taking anyone serious, a lot of people are in shock and will say things that they would not normally say.

To be honest with you regarding American Politicians nothing surprises me.Especially with the likes of Sarah Palin making borderline racist remarks regarding Obama and his "Shuck and Jive talking"
 
Here come the people with their political barrow to push again, when so few facts are available. I think you may have a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Nobody in this thread from what I can see has suggested Christians don't kill in the name or religion. Thousands were massacred by the Christians during the Crusades. Yes Christians can be responsible for terrible atrocities. As a Catholic myself I will happily agree with it and if you wish I will research as many instances of this as you would like. Not sure what it has to do with this thread at this point. In fact nobody has mentioned that these killings were done in the name of religion, except others who have mentioned that they "hope the perpetrator isn't Muslim".

For all we know this bloke may turn out not to be a practicing Muslim at all, he may have converted to being a Mormon, or a Wiccan, or a Satanist. It's silly setting up your stall when so few facts are still available.

At risk of derailing the thread and turning into a "which is better Christianity or Islam" or "who is fairer Western or non-Western media, what you are talking about is media bias. Unfortunately that happens in every country. I posted something about it on this thread. It sucks and is unfair but when has life been about fairness. In fact in places like Saudi Arabia Christians cannot openly worship. In that case we talk about the "rights of the country to make its own laws in its own territory". But enough about that. I don't want to derail the thread too much.

Of course my reply was to this.

Originally Posted by ahmedzee

No one questioned Christianity last year during the Denver shootings.

style_guru

Because the perpetrator never claimed he was fighting a holy war in the name of Jesus. Or that his deeds shall be rewarded by Jesus after his death.

Islam has been used as a shield by terrorists across the world , who try to portray that whatever they are doing, is in the name of Allah. They try to buy the sympathy of the millions of Muslims over the world, by proclaiming to be fighting a holy war. The day such people are disowned by Muslims over the world, we shall see them being isolated and exposed as just terrorists, and nothing more or less.
 
Back to the topic
Is this likely to happen?

Lindsey Graham Calls For Boston Bombing Suspect To Be Held As 'Enemy Combatant'

en. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested on Friday that the Obama administration should toss the court system and Constitution out the window when handling the missing suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/lindsey-graham-bombing-boston-suspect_n_3118731.html

There's no way it will happen. It was an incident that occurred domestically, was allegedly conducted by an American citizen. How can he be treated as an enemy combatant when a) there is absolutely no proof (that we know of) that he has any relation to any foreign state? Lindsey Graham doesn't understand the law. He is pandering to members of his constituency which will determine his possible reelection to the Senate, of which unfortunately there are more than a few of.

In fact, as far as I know that term no longer has legal meaning in the US, since 2009.
 
Last edited:
to be honest with you regarding american politicians nothing surprises me.especially with the likes of sarah palin making borderline racist remarks regarding obama and his "shuck and jive talking"

ok.
 
There's no way it will happen. It was an incident that occurred domestically, was allegedly conducted by an American citizen. How can he be treated as an enemy combatant when a) there is absolutely no proof (that we know of) that he has any relation to any foreign state? Lindsey Graham doesn't understand the law. He is pandering to members of his constituency which will determine his possible reelection to the Senate, of which unfortunately there are more than a few of.

In fact, as far as I know that term no longer has legal meaning in the US, since 2009.
what are the miranda rights? Just saw in news that he has not been read his miranda rights so there is a strong possibility that he will be treated as enemy combatant?
 
what are the miranda rights? Just saw in news that he has not been read his miranda rights so there is a strong possibility that he will be treated as enemy combatant?

I doubt he would have been read his rights as yet. He would be under medical care and probably cant or wont be questioned until his health is stable.

Once again a big hulabaloo about nothing.
 
Of course my reply was to this.

Originally Posted by ahmedzee

No one questioned Christianity last year during the Denver shootings.

style_guru

Because the perpetrator never claimed he was fighting a holy war in the name of Jesus. Or that his deeds shall be rewarded by Jesus after his death.

Islam has been used as a shield by terrorists across the world , who try to portray that whatever they are doing, is in the name of Allah. They try to buy the sympathy of the millions of Muslims over the world, by proclaiming to be fighting a holy war. The day such people are disowned by Muslims over the world, we shall see them being isolated and exposed as just terrorists, and nothing more or less.

A random killing spree by a deluded man can and should never be associated with a religion. I quoted and answered ahmedzee about his query. If you equate the Denver incident with terrorism, and associate it with Christianity, then you certainly have a chip laid somewhere.
 
A random killing spree by a deluded man can and should never be associated with a religion. I quoted and answered ahmedzee about his query. If you equate the Denver incident with terrorism, and associate it with Christianity, then you certainly have a chip laid somewhere.

So Western media and every one who blindly believes it must have chips laid every where I can give you a 100 examples but i'm sure you already know.
 
So Western media and every one who blindly believes it must have chips laid every where I can give you a 100 examples but i'm sure you already know.

You see, blind believers are everywhere. No one's better or worse then the other.
 
So Western media and every one who blindly believes it must have chips laid every where I can give you a 100 examples but i'm sure you already know.

A child has died, several adults were killed, a university policeman was killed, a policeman was killed, one of the suspects has been killed and at least 100 people have been injured. Stop with the cheap shots and pay a bit of respect.
 
Of course my reply was to this.

Originally Posted by ahmedzee

No one questioned Christianity last year during the Denver shootings.

style_guru

Because the perpetrator never claimed he was fighting a holy war in the name of Jesus. Or that his deeds shall be rewarded by Jesus after his death.

Islam has been used as a shield by terrorists across the world , who try to portray that whatever they are doing, is in the name of Allah. They try to buy the sympathy of the millions of Muslims over the world, by proclaiming to be fighting a holy war. The day such people are disowned by Muslims over the world, we shall see them being isolated and exposed as just terrorists, and nothing more or less.

I saw it. I believe he was responding to a specific incident, the one involving James Holmes in Colorado. I believe the reason Holmes wasn't branded as an "evil Christian" is because he never claimed to be one. As for Anders Breivik, yes he IS a Christian terrorist as far as I'm concerned, becuase he uses his religion as a reason to justify acts of mass murder. Anyone with half a brain will know this. For more on this, you can read here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/26/anders-breivik-christian-terrorist_n_910379.html

Of course, people like Bill O'Reilly in that article would disagree, which I will get back to later.

Not surprisingly, conservative pundits who share some of Breivik's views and also consider themselves Christians quickly sought to distance themselves from Breivik by declaring, as Bill O'Reilly did on Fox News, that "Breivik is not a Christian."

"That's impossible," O'Reilly said Tuesday. "No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the 'net, but he is certainly not of that faith."

I agree with Bill that anyone who is a true Christian would not commit mass murder, as that is against the teachings of the religion. But what matters is Breivik says that he did his crime because he sees himself as a modern day Crusader, so as far as I'm concerned he is a Christian terrorist. He is committing crimes in the name of Christianity. But does Bill's comments sound familiar though?

Without knowing what his political values or motives are, I would assume Style Guru's second paragraph relates to the tendency of terrorists of Islamic bent to use their religion to justify their action. Bit like Breivik actually. But we know they aren't really Islamic terrorists, because we know Islam does not justify mass murder, any more than Christianity does. But if Breivik is a Christian terrorist, what does that make people who kill supposedly in the name of Islam?

Ultimately I think you are talking about bias in mass media, which I agree with. Thats why we have to be active readers/listeners and process what we read, so we can sift fact from fiction.
 
Last edited:
I saw it. I believe he was responding to a specific incident, the one involving James Holmes in Colorado. I believe the reason Holmes wasn't branded as an "evil Christian" is because he never claimed to be one. As for Anders Breivik, yes he IS a Christian terrorist as far as I'm concerned, becuase he uses his religion as a reason to justify acts of mass murder. Anyone with half a brain will know this. For more on this, you can read here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/26/anders-breivik-christian-terrorist_n_910379.html

Of course, people like Bill O'Reilly in that article would disagree, which I will get back to later.



I agree with Bill that anyone who is a true Christian would not commit mass murder, as that is against the teachings of the religion. But what matters is Breivik says that he did his crime because he sees himself as a modern day Crusader, so as far as I'm concerned he is a Christian terrorist. He is committing crimes in the name of Christianity. But does Bill's comments sound familiar though?

Without knowing what his political values or motives are, I would assume Style Guru's second paragraph relates to the tendency of terrorists of Islamic bent to use their religion to justify their action. Bit like Breivik actually. But we know they aren't really Islamic terrorists, because we know Islam does not justify mass murder, any more than Christianity does. But if Breivik is a Christian terrorist, what does that make people who kill supposedly in the name of Islam?

Ultimately I think you are talking about bias in mass media, which I agree with. Thats why we have to be active readers/listeners and process what we read, so we can sift fact from fiction.

:19: couldn't agree more.
 
what are the miranda rights? Just saw in news that he has not been read his miranda rights so there is a strong possibility that he will be treated as enemy combatant?

Miranda rights have to be read to anyone who is arrested. The police have to tell him of his Fifth Amendment rights againest self-incrimination due to forced confessions - he has the right to remain silent, if he chooses to waive that right anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law. He has the right to an attorney - if he chooses to waive that right one will be appointed for him by the court at no charge. Etc etc. We've all seen it in cop movies. Thats why when someone chooses not to answer a question in court or to law enforcement, they are said to be "pleading the Fifth", because they don't want what they say to incriminate themselves, and they have the right to not answer. Of if they do, their answer (even if they admitted to the crime) is not admissible in court, and cannot be used as evidence to convict them.

Of course these rights were thrown out the window for "enemy combatants" after 9/11 when Dubya decided that terrorists did not qualify for the right to remain silent or the right to an attorney, because they were "unlawful combatants representing another state" (combatants that did not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions). So if you were a terrorist you did not have the right to remain silent, you could be waterboarded till you confessed. For that to happen there has to be some kind of serious threat to public safety. It opens up a can of worms in terms of prosecutions because the defence can argue on that "public safety" point - meaning all statements from the suspect could be inadmissible, if the judge disagrees there was a significant threat to public safety.

The enemy combatant definition was dropped after Obama came to power back in 08 or 09 AFAIK. But it's still blurry, because he said he would shut down Gitmo and other camps, and he hasn't, and there are people there who are still held without charge or trial up to today.

As for Tsarnaev...won't happen. He isn't representing another state AFAIK. Of course if he turns around tomorrow and says he did it because he wanted to bring the US and Russia to war, then all bets are off. But unlikely.
 
Last edited:
I doubt he would have been read his rights as yet. He would be under medical care and probably cant or wont be questioned until his health is stable.

Once again a big hulabaloo about nothing.

Technically they have to be read their rights as soon as they are taken into custody, as long as they are conscious obviously. Too big a risk that he may say something that would then be admissible. But MA Atty-General Carmen Ortiz confirmed at the press conference that the US Atty General Eric Holder confirmed that the suspect could be questioned under a public safety exemption - some obscure law that came into effect that allows law enforcement to question a suspect and for his answers to be admissible in court, without reading him his Miranda rights, if they think there is great danger to public safety. Which in this case they could probably prove in court, given the circumstances (maybe he has accomplices at large, maybe they have other plans, etc).
 
Last edited:
Miranda rights have to be read to anyone who is arrested. The police have to tell him of his Fifth Amendment rights againest self-incrimination due to forced confessions - he has the right to remain silent, if he chooses to waive that right anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law. He has the right to an attorney - if he chooses to waive that right one will be appointed for him by the court at no charge. Etc etc. We've all seen it in cop movies. Thats why when someone chooses not to answer a question in court or to law enforcement, they are said to be "pleading the Fifth", because they don't want what they say to incriminate themselves, and they have the right to not answer.

Of course these rights were thrown out the window for "enemy combatants" after 9/11 when Dubya decided that terrorists did not qualify for the right to remain silent or the right to an attorney, because they were "unlawful combatants representing another state" (combatants that did not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions). So if you were a terrorist you did not have the right to remain silent, you could be waterboarded till you confessed.

The enemy combatant definition was dropped after Obama came to power back in 08 or 09 AFAIK. But it's still blurry, because he said he would shut down Gitmo and other camps, and he hasn't, and there are people there who are still held without charge or trial up to today.

As for Tsarnaev...won't happen. He isn't representing another state AFAIK. Of course if he turns around tomorrow and says he did it because he wanted to bring the US and Russia to war, then all bets are off. But unlikely.

I dont think you got it right OZGOD, they dropped the right to remain silent for terrorists to allow information that maybe intrinsic to saving lives.

If you are a US citizen you have rights under the 5th amendment but it had to be clarified for terrorists from a different country. The right to silence was over ridden for the safety of terrorist threats to citizens.

To give you an example: If a terrorist is captured after planting a bomb would you expect the police to read him his rights and advise him to remain silent until he consults a lawyer or would you expect them to do everything in thier power to force him to tell them where the bomb is located and try to save lives.

Can you see the prediciment that the police would be in.
 
Technically they have to be read their rights as soon as they are taken into custody, as long as they are conscious obviously. Too big a risk that he may say something that would then be admissible. But MA Atty-General Carmen Ortiz confirmed at the press conference that the US Atty General Eric Holder confirmed that the suspect could be questioned under a public safety exemption - some obscure law that came into effect that allows law enforcement to question a suspect and for his answers to be admissible in court, without reading him his Miranda rights, if they think there is great danger to public safety. Which in this case they could probably prove in court, given the circumstances (maybe he has accomplices at large, maybe they have other plans, etc).

Taken into custody or arrested?.
 
I dont think you got it right OZGOD, they dropped the right to remain silent for terrorists to allow information that maybe intrinsic to saving lives.

If you are a US citizen you have rights under the 5th amendment but it had to be clarified for terrorists from a different country. The right to silence was over ridden for the safety of terrorist threats to citizens.

To give you an example: If a terrorist is captured after planting a bomb would you expect the police to read him his rights and advise him to remain silent until he consults a lawyer or would you expect them to do everything in thier power to force him to tell them where the bomb is located and try to save lives.

Can you see the prediciment that the police would be in.

Sorry I should have clarified this. Miranda rights don't have to be read to terrorists (citizens or otherwise) and anything they say can still be used against them in court, if they ever get to one, as long as they invoke the public safety exception (which predates the enemy combatant definition). Because they may need to beat some info out of some b@stard they catch planting a bomb if they think that there is another one about to go off in a crowded stadium somewhere.

What they did was drop the "enemy combatant" nomenclature, because the public safety exception clause still technically covers it. Because it would allow them to question the likes of James Holmes (who clearly isn't an enemy combatant) if they felt he had information that posed an immediate threat to the public. Also the "enemy combatant" definition implied that the only people who posed a threat to public safety were overseas terrorists, which clearly isn't the case.
 
Last edited:
Taken into custody or arrested?.

Taken into custody would be the legal definition of a requirement of Miranda. If a cop tells you to come with him, and you are not free to say no, whether you are charged with anything or not you need to be read your Miranda. That said I believe it is the same thing in the US under law. Once you have been deprived of your liberties, you have been arrested and taken into custody.
 
Sorry I should have clarified this. Miranda rights don't have to be read to terrorists (citizens or otherwise) and anything they say can still be used against them in court, if they ever get to one, as long as they invoke the public safety exception (which predates the enemy combatant definition). Because they may need to beat some info out of some b@stard they catch planting a bomb if they think that there is another one about to go off in a crowded stadium somewhere.

What they did was drop the "enemy combatant" nomenclature, because the public safety exception clause still technically covers it. Because it would allow them to question the likes of James Holmes (who clearly isn't an enemy combatant) if they felt he had information that posed an immediate threat to the public. Also the "enemy combatant" definition implied that the only people who posed a threat to public safety were overseas terrorists, which clearly isn't the case.

i heard them say that by not giving him his miranda rights, authorities now have the liberty to interrogate him in hopes of getting some intel out of him. They, however, cannot use statements made by him during the interrogation against him in court.
 
i heard them say that by not giving him his miranda rights, authorities now have the liberty to interrogate him in hopes of getting some intel out of him. They, however, cannot use statements made by him during the interrogation against him in court.

When they say 'interogate' does this mean they're allowed to torture him?
 
My heart goes out to the families effected by this tragedy.

Having followed this event for the past few days i have seen one really strange thing.

I have seen kids walk into colleges and schools, cinemas and masacre kids and teachers and ordinary citizens with guns but i have never heard of thier uncles, parents and friends being interviewed and have to hear them defend themseleves.

Media yet again is doing its upmost to link this event to Islam.

IF these kids have carried out these attcks they should feel the full wrath of justice.
 
The Australian government is representitive of the people, the people of Australia are ashamed of they behavoir of Assange. Australian people think that the women that have made allegations about Assange deserve the right to face him in court.

Yes there are a few fanatical anti-american blowhards that try to push some childish theory that the US are going to kill Assange but that dosent fly with 98% of the Australian population.If you are going to use Assange then be prepared to be laughed at.

is this real stat, or is it out of thin air?
 
Technically they have to be read their rights as soon as they are taken into custody, as long as they are conscious obviously. Too big a risk that he may say something that would then be admissible. But MA Atty-General Carmen Ortiz confirmed at the press conference that the US Atty General Eric Holder confirmed that the suspect could be questioned under a public safety exemption - some obscure law that came into effect that allows law enforcement to question a suspect and for his answers to be admissible in court, without reading him his Miranda rights, if they think there is great danger to public safety. Which in this case they could probably prove in court, given the circumstances (maybe he has accomplices at large, maybe they have other plans, etc).

Miranda warning only has to be issued if they wish to question or interrogate a suspect in custody. Not upon arrest.

Although if the suspect was conscious enough for dialogue they would definitely do it upon arrest unless for the reasons you mentioned which could be the case.
 
Last edited:
A child has died, several adults were killed, a university policeman was killed, a policeman was killed, one of the suspects has been killed and at least 100 people have been injured. Stop with the cheap shots and pay a bit of respect.

Sadly enough this fact has been lost in the aftermath of people feeling vindicated that someone elses children, wives, brothers, and fathers were killed. People don't know how to be human any more, it's all about points on the board. Score one for the bad guys.
 
I have a strong feeling that the older brother was the one behind all this and manipulated the younger one. I believe the younger brother panicked and escaped the police with his brother. Also, considering he accidentally ran over his brother while trying to escape means he made a very naive move out of fear. His best friend on Twitter is claiming his friend is being framed. Not just that, this friend of his has been tweeting and retweeting nonstop since God knows when. And yes, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has supporters; the people who believe he is not guilty.
Also, Tsarnaev's tweets are so ordinary, humorous and sounds like what a typical American kid would say. He has barely ten or less tweets about religion and he was casually tweeting and was seen in parties after the Boston bombings. No guilty idiot does hangs out when he is supposedly being hunted down.

His brother, on the other hand, was HIGHLY suspicious.
 
Yeah I just plucked it out of thin air, the real stat could be 97.2546% or 98.0463%.

Depends how pedantic you want to be.

so only 2% population of Australia is ignorant? i refuse to believe that. population of Aborigines was 2.5% in 2006.
 
Last edited:
(My previous post)..continuation. One of the first tweets made by the suspect was to this girl to whom he said, 'omg haven't seen you in ages'. Check her profile, nah, she doesn't believe it either. None of his friends do. It's a very strange situation.
 
Back
Top