Twin Bomb Explosions Shatter Boston Marathon Finish Line

[SteeleJoe]

My daughter in grade school is better at Photoshop.I actually have to look at her work to pick out the flaws.She then comes back with something better. at least better than that crap.Hell, yes I'm insulted. (but its probably the rum talking lol)

No, those are real photos. They just don't show what is claimed.

Hint: the Taliban didn't exist until Reagan had been out of office for 2 years and the Taliban and al Q are completely separate entities.

[Potosi]

Anyone who thinks the Boston Mosque was an isolated problem (and part of a tiny minority, no doubt ) should read the following. 4 Mosques out of 5 promote extremist literature, but the leftist media can hardly even bring themselves to mentioning Jihad.

http://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/press/9/aflc-senior-counsel-co-authors-startling-peer-reviewed-study-of-u-s-mosques.html

New York — A leading international peer-reviewed journal specializing in the empirical study of terrorism has published a study that found that 80% of U.S. mosques provide their worshippers with jihad-style literature promoting the use of violence against non-believers and that the imams in those mosques expressly promote that literature.

The study also found that when a mosque imam or its worshippers were “sharia-adherent,” as measured by certain behaviors in conformity with Islamic law, the mosque was more likely to provide this violent literature and the imam was more likely to promote it.

No isolated problem, actually. Started with Reagan, who wasn't left.

and this fine chap.

Let's just follow the Orwellian story of AQ, heroes during the eighties and nineties, used by the US for terror acts in Afghanistan, Central Asia, China (that Uighur province).

Became villains on 9/11, 'the biggest enemies of humanity'.

Became heroes again and used by the West in the wars in Lybia, Syria, and in terror acts against Iran.

If you think you can continue to use them for the political goals of the US internationally, and there won't be consequences for Americans themselves, you are naive indeed.

Let me guess - you are one of those people who don't know the difference between the mujahideen and al Qaeda (or even understand what al Q is, let alone that it only came into existence at the very end of the 80's) - not surprising you'd go on to say something as ridiculous that they were heroes and became villains after 9/11...

By all means, criticize US foreign policy and it's consequences where it is worthy of such but you ought do some actual research instead just swallowing memes formed to support a specific agenda and outlook.

But dear, you mentioned 'Jihad' in your post which I quoted. I did not say Reagan met the Taliban or AQ, he met the Mujaheddin. They have the term 'Jihad' in their very name, literally 'people on Jihad'. Doesn't matter that the Taliban popped up a little later, because all but one pre-Taliban warlord of the Mujaheddin converted to Taliban most happily. And even if you insist they are different personnel which they're not, they share Islam and Jihad. As you see, I really like to mention Jihad.

[jamhar]

Really JS?

I recall Reagen being fairly strict in terms of diplomatic appearance.

No side had a stronger position in appearance than the other.

the Taliban was one of the mujaheddin that fought the USSR occupation of Afghanistan, no?

[SteeleJoe]

Really JS?I recall Reagen being fairly strict in terms of diplomatic appearance.No side had a stronger position in appearance than the other.the Taliban was one of the mujaheddin that fought the USSR occupation of Afghanistan, no?

* Reagan met with some Muj in '83 (could give you explicit details but it'd be way OT). Taliban did not exist until nearly a decade later.

* The US made zero bones about moral support for the anti - Soviet insurgency and the material support was no secret.

* No. Completely separate entities that did not overlap chronologically.

[SteeleJoe]

But dear, you mentioned 'Jihad' in your post which I quoted. I did not say Reagan met the Taliban or AQ, he met the Mujaheddin. They have the term 'Jihad' in their very name, literally 'people on Jihad'. Doesn't matter that the Taliban popped up a little later, because all but one pre-Taliban warlord of the Mujaheddin converted to Taliban most happily. And even if you insist they are different personnel which they're not, they share Islam and Jihad. As you see, I really like to mention Jihad.

What are you talking about? Where did I mention jihad that you quoted?

You said it started with Reagan and then spoke only of al Qaeda. Then you posted a picture captioned 'Reagan meets the Taliban'.

You have made even more clear - despite some googling done since you saw my post and a weak effort to back peddle - that you really don't know what you are talking about on this topic. (The Taliban and the Mujahideen are not the same thing - that's an objective fact.)

By the way, let me assure you that you needn't inform me about what Mujahideen means - I've been studying that topic and Islamist jihad since 1990 - don't claim to know everything but I certainly don't need any clues about nomenclature.

Edited April 25, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[SeaVisionBurma]

You guys are all wayyyyyy off topic. This thread is about the Boston bombings.

Next off topic post (or a reply to one) - gets a holiday.

You have been warned.

[F430murci]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/25/17914667-officials-boston-suspects-discussed-second-attack-in-times-square?lite

[Jingthing]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/25/17914667-officials-boston-suspects-discussed-second-attack-in-times-square?lite

There was no way those bozos were going to pull off a Time Square attack with their pictures plastered all over the world, probably including a big screen at ... Times Square.

[Jingthing]

Now a new report in saying Boy Band Terrorist spoke with the feds for SIXTEEN HOURS (!) before a judge came in and read him his Miranda rights. As soon as that was read, he shut up. If true, that is pretty amazing. Did he not know he didn't have to speak to anyone rights read or not?

[wooloomooloo]

Now a new report in saying Boy Band Terrorist spoke with the feds for SIXTEEN HOURS...

Jeez, it wasn't JLS or New Kids on the Block was it?

[Publicus]

Now a new report in saying Boy Band Terrorist spoke with the feds for SIXTEEN HOURS (!) before a judge came in and read him his Miranda rights. As soon as that was read, he shut up. If true, that is pretty amazing. Did he not know he didn't have to speak to anyone rights read or not?

We know these guys like to shoot their mouths off too - brag and discuss their grandiose and Grand Plans.

No doubt being Mirandized is a strong shot of reality.

[Ulysses G.]

His lawyer came with the judge who read the miranda rights and most likely told him to shut up. I'm not sure how much info they could get out of someone in his condition in the time that they had. The FBI are reportedly very angry that the interrogation was halted prematurely. Another justice department screwup.

[maidu]

Now a new report in saying Boy Band Terrorist spoke with the feds for SIXTEEN HOURS (!) before a judge came in and read him his Miranda rights. As soon as that was read, he shut up. If true, that is pretty amazing. Did he not know he didn't have to speak to anyone rights read or not?

We know these guys like to shoot their mouths off too - brag and discuss their grandiose and Grand Plans.

No doubt being Mirandized is a strong shot of reality.

I heard that there's a new law saying Miranda is not required for terrorist suspects. The 16 hour interrogation thing sounds bloated out of proportion. The suspect had his throat damaged (self inflicted?). When people get their emotions rattled, as many did with the Boston marathon bombings, then high strung theories get bounced around. Right after 9-11, I had a photo sent to me which showed the classical devils face (probably photoshoped) depicted on the flames coming out of the skyscraper - as if it was real.

Yesterday, I saw a discussion by some folks, on facebook, revolving around an assertion that the Boston bombing was CIA plot.

Maidu's spin: Ridiculous. If some folks are going to spin conspiracy theories, at least lend a modicum of credence to them. Otherwise they just look like immature ranting.

[geriatrickid]

For the benefit of those that may not understand the suspension of the "Miranda" warning (named after the Miranda v. Arizona case), the Miranda warning is intended to ensure that the interrogators respect the US Constitution 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment protects an accused against a "compelled" self incrimination and gives the right of an accused to legal counsel. Miranda came about because of the brutality and abuse of accused people in the USA. There are exceptions to the reading of a Miranda warning and one of those exceptions is "public safety". The two most notable cases where public safety exceptions were used were the underwear bomber in 2009 and the Times Square attempted bomber in 2010.

The public safety exception allows the police to interrogate for up to 48 hours without the warning if there is an immediate threat to public safety. It was evident within a day of his capture, that there was no immediate threat, and yet the government used the immediate threat exception. That was the beginning of the dance on a slippery slope. Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler made the decision to read the defendant his rights. In the USA there is a distinct separation between the judiciary and the police. As such, the Justice department could do little or anything to block the judge.

The judge's decision arose from another requirement that an accused have due process. More specifically, she was bound by law. Had she not done what she did, there is the possibility some or all of the charges could have been dismissed on a legal technicality. Federal rules require that defendants appear before a judge without unnecessary delay. The standard definition is usually defined as within one business day. The first federal charges were filed in court on the Sunday. The Judge allowed the day of interrogating to proceed. In fact, she allowed 16 hours before enforcing the 1 day rule. She accommodated the interrogators request to question a man in the ICU, also balancing the issue of whether or not it was appropriate to question a defendant in such bad medical shape. She came down on the side of public safety.

I do not think that anyone erred. Rather, the court system acted to uphold US law and that's what courts are supposed to do. The USA's civil order is based upon the laws and procedures that the judge respected.

Edited April 26, 2013 by geriatrickid

[Publicus]

For the benefit of those that may not understand the suspension of the "Miranda" warning (named after the Miranda v. Arizona case), the Miranda warning is intended to ensure that the interrogators respect the US Constitution 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment protects an accused against a "compelled" self incrimination and gives the right of an accused to legal counsel. Miranda came about because of the brutality and abuse of accused people in the USA. There are exceptions to the reading of a Miranda warning and one of those exceptions is "public safety". The two most notable cases where public safety exceptions were used were the underwear bomber in 2009 and the Times Square attempted bomber in 2010.

The public safety exception allows the police to interrogate for up to 48 hours without the warning if there is an immediate threat to public safety. It was evident within a day of his capture, that there was no immediate threat, and yet the government used the immediate threat exception. That was the beginning of the dance on a slippery slope. Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler made the decision to read the defendant his rights. In the USA there is a distinct separation between the judiciary and the police. As such, the Justice department could do little or anything to block the judge.

The judge's decision arose from another requirement that an accused have due process. More specifically, she was bound by law. Had she not done what she did, there is the possibility some or all of the charges could have been dismissed on a legal technicality. Federal rules require that defendants appear before a judge without unnecessary delay. The standard definition is usually defined as within one business day. The first federal charges were filed in court on the Sunday. The Judge allowed the day of interrogating to proceed. In fact, she allowed 16 hours before enforcing the 1 day rule. She accommodated the interrogators request to question a man in the ICU, also balancing the issue of whether or not it was appropriate to question a defendant in such bad medical shape. She came down on the side of public safety.

I do not think that anyone erred. Rather, the court system acted to uphold US law and that's what courts are supposed to do. The USA's civil order is based upon the laws and procedures that the judge respected.

Gee 'kid', be careful or you'll end up at the hands of the axeman the way the Lord Chancellor Thomas Moore did when he kept insisting to Henry VIII that due process and the rule of law must be respected and observed. Chop! Or at least some of the axemen at TVF .

The Supreme Court issued its Miranda ruling in 1966 in the case of an Hispanic immigrant whom Arizona local police roughed up during interrogation after he had been arrested flat out. By the time Miranda had got the "3rd degree" from the Arizona gest, er, local police, he was ready to confess to assassinating Lincoln. Yes, Arizona and immigrants again, even way back then.

Some may recall that the "3rd degree" was the new technique J. Edgar Hoover's FBI regularly used against captured gangsters (beyond suspected) beginning in the late 1920s. The FBI and local police would give the gangsters the 1st degree, which was questioning. Of course that would fail. So the FBI gave 'em the 2nd degree, which was tough interrogation and questioning. If the gangster still hadn't spilled his guts, so to speak, the FBI went to the 3rd degree which was to make him into a punching bag until he sang or his lights went out, whichever happened first. At times the 3rd degree would continue over a period of days while no one knew until afterward, and because they were gangsters no one cared how the FBI and/or the local police got their information.

When I was a kid my father used to ask me if I wanted the 3rd degree directly or would I just come clean .

The magistrate acted reasonably, balancing the interests of the society, the rule of law and of justice with the Constitutional rights of the suspect - it's all one continuum anyway. Unlike the world of the 1920s and 1930s, and beyond, we and the whole world presently get to see instant replays of the shootouts and even still photos taken during the action by citizens peeking through their windows using cellphone cameras, not to mention in this case surveillance cameras at the scene of the crime. So while we may know the suspect is indeed the suspect, due process and the rule of law apply in this instance too, as it does in all instances, no matter the nature of the charges and the particulars of the formal and official criminal Complaint. (The Complaint is also broad enuff, ie., using a weapon of mass destruction to kill, without it being vague and thus self-defeating.)

The magistrate didn't have the "ticking bomb" scenario occurring after the suspect was apprehended so she couldn't allow the questioning to occur indefinitely. Yet we know we want the investigating authorities to get basic info from the guy, which after 16 hours - even while in a hospital bed - seemed reasonable, especially after his condition was upgraded from 'serious' to 'fair.' The reports are that he was "lucid" once he was brought to a fair condition. Fair enough.

I recall the Miranda case from an undergrad course "Civil Liberties in America," taught by a pretty sharp prof. A friend in that class and I have kept contact over the years, occasionally turning to one another, "What are questions Ed Beiser would ask."

Edited April 26, 2013 by Publicus

[Sing_Sling]

^ I very much like your posts and writing style when you're not being a Star Spangled Banner Chest Thumper.

[Steely Dan]

Now a new report in saying Boy Band Terrorist spoke with the feds for SIXTEEN HOURS (!) before a judge came in and read him his Miranda rights. As soon as that was read, he shut up. If true, that is pretty amazing. Did he not know he didn't have to speak to anyone rights read or not?

And it would appear the FBI were furious they didn't get to continue questioning him for 48 hours and that as a result national security may have been compromised, but alas that seems pretty low down on the current list of priorities.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/25/megyn-kelly-surprise-revelation-fbi-was-shocked-to-see-judge-waltz-in-and-give-suspect-miranda-rights/

[keemapoot]

Now a new report in saying Boy Band Terrorist spoke with the feds for SIXTEEN HOURS (!) before a judge came in and read him his Miranda rights. As soon as that was read, he shut up. If true, that is pretty amazing. Did he not know he didn't have to speak to anyone rights read or not?

And it would appear the FBI were furious they didn't get to continue questioning him for 48 hours and that as a result national security may have been compromised, but alas that seems pretty low down on the current list of priorities.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/25/megyn-kelly-surprise-revelation-fbi-was-shocked-to-see-judge-waltz-in-and-give-suspect-miranda-rights/

Whatever the analysis was of when to Mirandize him, you can bet it was made with teams of the best legal minds from the Justice Dept., White House, FBI, and outside counsel. It will, through whatever appeal is lodged by terror boy's defense counsel likely stand up to legal scrutiny.

[geriatrickid]

Now a new report in saying Boy Band Terrorist spoke with the feds for SIXTEEN HOURS (!) before a judge came in and read him his Miranda rights. As soon as that was read, he shut up. If true, that is pretty amazing. Did he not know he didn't have to speak to anyone rights read or not?

And it would appear the FBI were furious they didn't get to continue questioning him for 48 hours and that as a result national security may have been compromised, but alas that seems pretty low down on the current list of priorities.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/25/megyn-kelly-surprise-revelation-fbi-was-shocked-to-see-judge-waltz-in-and-give-suspect-miranda-rights/

IMO they were more furious at the local police that let loose a volley of gunfire on the night of the capture. At first it was a reasonable error that some police officers opened up as it is reported that the accused may have had something in his hand. However, he had nothing. It now appears that the initial report of a self inflicted wound to the throat was wrong as the accused was unarmed.

Listening in on the police scanner on that night, I could hear the repeated orders to hold fire, that some local units were not following. The FBI nearly lost the suspect because some police were incapable of maintaining discipline. On the plus side, the improved command procedures and training that police have implemented over the years paid off because the location supervisors were able to shut down the police gunfire within minutes. However, the incident serves to illustrate why those pesky laws about a suspects rights are so important. Humans when in an excited state sometimes do not act with restraint. Those laws help to prevent unwanted deaths and transgressions. The Boston transit police SWAT team that intervened quickly to apprehend the suspect followed the rules and by doing so delivered an alleged murderer for justice.

[geriatrickid]

Anyway, is it just me or does anyone else think that the accused's mother has some responsibility in this matter?

Listening to her comments, aside from getting the impression she is one nasty piece of business, I believe she encouraged her sons. What are the chances of the Russian police questioning her?

[keemapoot]

Anyway, is it just me or does anyone else think that the accused's mother has some responsibility in this matter?

Listening to her comments, aside from getting the impression she is one nasty piece of business, I believe she encouraged her sons. What are the chances of the Russian police questioning her?

"US Embassy personnel" (read spooks & White House elite interrogators I guess) have questioned her extensively. I assume both the US and Russian gov't had told her and Hubby in no uncertain terms they will cooperate if they expect to live in peace in either country. She is adamant how this is a frame-up, how bad America is etc., how she is sorry they ever moved there, Ad naseam.

She is a sweety.

[Jingthing]

More dish. Apparently terror Mama has a case of shoplifting charges that she ran away from that she will likely have to deal with if she returns to the U.S. Terrorista American wifey (of Tamarlan) is said (according to Boy Band Bomber) to have called Tamarlan when she saw his picture on television. No she didn't turn him in. She didn't ask him to turn himself in. She WARNED him. Wouldn't that be illegal, even for a wife?

Edited April 26, 2013 by Jingthing

[Credo]

she is one nasty piece of business, I believe she encouraged her sons. What are the chances of the Russian police questioning her?

"US Embassy personnel" (read spooks & White House elite interrogators I guess) have questioned her extensively. I assume both the US and Russian gov't had told her and Hubby in no uncertain terms they will cooperate if they expect to live in peace in either country. She is adamant how this is a frame-up, how bad America is etc., how she is sorry they ever moved there, Ad naseam.

She is a sweety.

Most of the US is sorry she ever moved there as well.

[keemapoot]

More dish. Apparently terror Mama has a case of shoplifting charges that she ran away from that she will likely have to deal with if she returns to the U.S. Terrorista American wifey (of Tamarlan) is said (according to Boy Band Bomber) to have called Tamarlan when she saw his picture on television. No she didn't turn him in. She didn't ask him to turn himself in. She WARNED him. Wouldn't that be illegal, even for a wife?

Yup, marital privilege only applies to her testifying against him. *But he is dead now anyway, so that point is moot. She is an accomplice or accessory if what you said is true.

Edited April 26, 2013 by keemapoot

[jamhar]

More dish. Apparently terror Mama has a case of shoplifting charges that she ran away from that she will likely have to deal with if she returns to the U.S. Terrorista American wifey (of Tamarlan) is said (according to Boy Band Bomber) to have called Tamarlan when she saw his picture on television. No she didn't turn him in. She didn't ask him to turn himself in. She WARNED him. Wouldn't that be illegal, even for a wife?

Yep, theres something not quite right with her. Nothing i can put a finger on, but she doesnt pass the smell test IMO

JT, where did you get that tidbit of info on the wife?

[Ulysses G.]

More dish. Apparently terror Mama has a case of shoplifting charges that she ran away from that she will likely have to deal with if she returns to the U.S. Terrorista American wifey (of Tamarlan) is said (according to Boy Band Bomber) to have called Tamarlan when she saw his picture on television. No she didn't turn him in. She didn't ask him to turn himself in. She WARNED him. Wouldn't that be illegal, even for a wife?

Yup, marital privilege only applies to her testifying against him. *But he is dead now anyway, so that point is moot. She is an accomplice or accessory if what you said is true.

I'm not sure that one is compelled to call the police when contacted by a criminal by telephone. She could claim that she was not sure the picture was him if it came to that.

[keemapoot]

More dish. Apparently terror Mama has a case of shoplifting charges that she ran away from that she will likely have to deal with if she returns to the U.S. Terrorista American wifey (of Tamarlan) is said (according to Boy Band Bomber) to have called Tamarlan when she saw his picture on television. No she didn't turn him in. She didn't ask him to turn himself in. She WARNED him. Wouldn't that be illegal, even for a wife?

Yup, marital privilege only applies to her testifying against him. *But he is dead now anyway, so that point is moot. She is an accomplice or accessory if what you said is true.

I'm not sure that one is compelled to call the police when contacted by a criminal by telephone. She could claim that she was not sure the picture was him if it came to that.

For sure, there is no legal duty on her to call the police on her husband. However, what she may not do is aid and abet his escape and further commission of crimes. If it turns out she did this, she may well be charged.

[F430murci]

More dish. Apparently terror Mama has a case of shoplifting charges that she ran away from that she will likely have to deal with if she returns to the U.S. Terrorista American wifey (of Tamarlan) is said (according to Boy Band Bomber) to have called Tamarlan when she saw his picture on television. No she didn't turn him in. She didn't ask him to turn himself in. She WARNED him. Wouldn't that be illegal, even for a wife?

Yup, marital privilege only applies to her testifying against him. *But he is dead now anyway, so that point is moot. She is an accomplice or accessory if what you said is true.

I'm not sure that one is compelled to call the police when contacted by a criminal by telephone. She could claim that she was not sure the picture was him if it came to that.

For sure, there is no legal duty on her to call the police on her husband. However, what she may not do is aid and abet his escape and further commission of crimes. If it turns out she did this, she may well be charged.

I am really not sure on this one. I did write on the spousal privilege in my state back in 97ish while clerking for a Supreme Court Justice. I do recall application was in compelling testimony in a trial setting. Seems like a duty to report, especially if imminent danger or threat of harm to others is present, would not be ameliorated by a spousal testimony privilege.

I have dealt with duty to warn in the hospital, medical and psychiatric setting which focus on Tarasov and its progeny. Other than Florida which seems to deviate a bit from Tarasov, I would think duty to warn in most states may be applicable under certain circumstances including imminent danger to self and others, abuse of elders, abuse of children and so forth. A spouse could concievably be guitly under complicit or accomplice theories for the crimes of their spouse. Definitely something a bit beyond the scope of my practice and knowledge, but perhaps an easy quesiton for a criminal defense attorney. Unfortunately, I don't have time, or inclination to look it up right now.

[Publicus]

Anyway, is it just me or does anyone else think that the accused's mother has some responsibility in this matter?
Listening to her comments, aside from getting the impression she is one nasty piece of business, I believe she encouraged her sons. What are the chances of the Russian police questioning her?

"US Embassy personnel" (read spooks & White House elite interrogators I guess) have questioned her extensively. I assume both the US and Russian gov't had told her and Hubby in no uncertain terms they will cooperate if they expect to live in peace in either country. She is adamant how this is a frame-up, how bad America is etc., how she is sorry they ever moved there, Ad naseam.

She is a sweety.

We don't know whether the FBI is satisfied based on original questioning of her herself, or concerning anything she may have said about her two precious kids. Same applies to the father, perhaps too to some other relatives or acquaintances of the elder son. We haven't heard anything either way officially or by way of leaks about the interviews of the parents. Many homicidal types have some sort of whacky mother, and this one is a doozie.

The parents are over there, in the general vicinity of a lotta madness that's been going on for a long time. I'd be surprised if they were oblivious about their firstborn, especially given he traveled to and stayed there an appreciable period of time. Their denial is an understandable human drama, but her assertions that it was a government set up job, which is what the mother said 9/11 was, are facile, which leaves me uncomfortable.

If she wasn't either aware or involved in some way I'd be surprised, at least at this point in the whole thing. But then neither government has said anything of her or of the parents together. Maybe the FBI questioning of the kid and the parents left the investigators satisfied, but we don't know that either.

We do see the obvious, which is that just about the whole family, to include the dead guys' widow, want to talk about everyone else being wrong or guilty while saying as little as possible about themselves or the sons In particular. Edited April 26, 2013 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

Anyway, is it just me or does anyone else think that the accused's mother has some responsibility in this matter?

Listening to her comments, aside from getting the impression she is one nasty piece of business, I believe she encouraged her sons. What are the chances of the Russian police questioning her?

"US Embassy personnel" (read spooks & White House elite interrogators I guess) have questioned her extensively. I assume both the US and Russian gov't had told her and Hubby in no uncertain terms they will cooperate if they expect to live in peace in either country. She is adamant how this is a frame-up, how bad America is etc., how she is sorry they ever moved there, Ad naseam.

She is a sweety.

We don't know whether the FBI is satisfied based on original questioning of her herself, or concerning anything she may have said about her two precious kids. Same applies to the father, perhaps too to some other relatives or acquaintances of the elder son. We haven't heard anything either way officially or by way of leaks about the interviews of the parents. Many homicidal types have some sort of whacky mother, and this one is a doozie.

The parents are over there, in the general vicinity of a lotta madness that's been going on for a long time. I'd be surprised if they were oblivious about their firstborn, especially given he traveled to and stayed there an appreciable period of time. Their denial is an understandable human drama, but her assertions that it was a government set up job, which is what the mother said 9/11 was, are facile, which leaves me uncomfortable.

If she wasn't either aware or involved in some way I'd be surprised, at least at this point in the whole thing. But then neither government has said anything of her or of the parents together. Maybe the FBI questioning of the kid and the parents left the investigators satisfied, but we don't know that either.

We do see the obvious, which is that just about the whole family, to include the dead guys' widow, want to talk about everyone else being wrong or guilty while saying as little as possible about themselves or the sons In particular.

Well said.

Obviously we know very little about what is being done or thought in official circles. We can bet that the investigation is international and huge. We see only the tip of the iceberg, and then only the part they want us to see.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that all available and possible aid is being given by Russia. They have their own problems with this bunch.

If this case is bigger than just a couple of guys who "acted alone," it will be found out. I have a hard time with that theory, and think there are other people beyond the family involved. I don't know that of course, but the first theory and official theory doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think investigators will accept that and walk away.

Investigators were able to pin 9/11 on Bin Laden, and stay with it for ten years before they killed him in a country where they didn't have "official" permission if permission at all. I do believe one thing, and that is that investigators won't give up, not even internationally, until they are satisfied that they know what happened, and until any other possible perps are dealt with.

This is just my $.02 and it's probably not worth that much.