Jump to content
Login with your Gmail HERE and start posting in seconds! ×
Don't just read! Be part of the Community! Join the conversation ×

Twin Bomb Explosions Shatter Boston Marathon Finish Line

SeaVisionBurma

By SeaVisionBurma
in World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Publicus Diamond Member

Publicus

Posted
Posted

I don't want to take a lot of page reproducing this image.

I just want to say I wish these terrorist guys could see this before they start their crackpot schemes to blow up and kill people. The two brothers were not readily suicidal so they are the kind of people who need to be shown this, and to realize the crime and the punishment. This image per se isn't necessarily going to stop airplane shoe or underwear bombers, but it might give others, who, like the brothers, actually did just walk away, as they were sure they would be able to do.

They need to know beforehand that walking away means walking into this.

ADX.CELL.DESIGN.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

keemapoot Gold Member

keemapoot

Posted
Posted

One of the Kazakhs dad, Borat, said his son never goes to Mosque, is a great kid, etc., etc..

Kadyrbayev said that the individualized license plate was a joke gift from their friends in Spain. “This joke led to trouble. But it was just a gag of their Spanish friends, just a gift.” They needed the car to get to their university and go to other places.
For more information see:http://en.tengrinews.kz/people/Tengrinewskz-interviews-father-of-Kazakhstan-student-detained-in-Boston-18855/
Use of the Tengrinews English materials must be accompanied by a hyperlink to en.Tengrinews.kz

Borat (ok, well Murat) is a former top government postal official turned business mogul in the oil rich western region of Aktau. (no surprise)

75752326.jpg

http://en.tengrinews.kz/people/Tengrinewskz-interviews-father-of-Kazakhstan-student-detained-in-Boston-18855/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OZEMADE Gold Member

OZEMADE

Posted
Posted (edited)

TVF Mods may let you look at this link.

If you are a bit squeamish and don't want to look at what the Muslim Boston Bombers did, delete now.

This will happen here in OZ. The shootings have already started. We already have a lot of them in Australian Prisons already.

The ones that were convicted of plotting to blow up the stadium in Melbourne during an AFL Final.

The ones that were going to blow up the Nuclear Plant in Sydney.

The ones that were going to kill the soldiers at Ingelburn in NSW

The ones that were running a Terrorist camp in the NSW bush.

There are many more already too many to mention.

It will happen here one day, just a matter of time.

I hope this Boston Bomber after they extract all info from him, is executed.


I hesitated to send this. It is very graphic. If we hear about rights for the bomber, look and see what rights he gave these innocent people and the little 8 yr old boy. He put the bomb right by the kid.


These are pictures of the Boston bombings. Some are horrific. Don't view if you are sensitive.


http://cryptome.org/2013-info/04/boston-bombs/boston-bombs.htm



Caution is advised when opening the above link as some of the pictures are quite disturbing

Edited by metisdead
Added precautionary note.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeverSure Star Member

NeverSure

Posted
Posted

TVF Mods may let you look at this link.

If you are a bit squeamish and don't want to look at what the Muslim Boston Bombers did, delete now.

This will happen here in OZ. The shootings have already started. We already have a lot of them in Australian Prisons already.

The ones that were convicted of plotting to blow up the stadium in Melbourne during an AFL Final.

The ones that were going to blow up the Nuclear Plant in Sydney.

The ones that were going to kill the soldiers at Ingelburn in NSW

The ones that were running a Terrorist camp in the NSW bush.

There are many more already too many to mention.

It will happen here one day, just a matter of time.

I hope this Boston Bomber after they extract all info from him, is executed.

I hesitated to send this. It is very graphic. If we hear about rights for the bomber, look and see what rights he gave these innocent people and the little 8 yr old boy. He put the bomb right by the kid.

These are pictures of the Boston bombings. Some are horrific. Don't view if you are sensitive.

http://cryptome.org/2013-info/04/boston-bombs/boston-bombs.htm

No thanks, I'll pass. I think we have a good idea what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chopperboy Silver Member

Chopperboy

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have just read that the uncle of the murdering brothers was married to the daughter of a top CIA official. I would not read anything into this in isolation, but lets just add it to the growing pile of coincidences.

http://www.madcowprod.com/2013/04/26/boston-bombers-uncle-married-daughter-of-top-cia-official/

Former FBI agent Seibel Edmonds gives her geo-political take and mentions that Uncle Ruslan also lived for one year with former Chechnyan top CIA official Graham Fuller after the divorce.

Edited by Chopperboy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jingthing Legendary Member

Jingthing

Posted
Posted

This item claims that the CONTENT of the calls between Tamarlan and his wife CAN be known. While important to the potential case against his wife, I suppose the possibility that ALL phone call content can be retrieved is actually much bigger. Hard to believe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston

CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national
security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that
conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going
to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation
and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Publicus Diamond Member

Publicus

Posted
Posted

This item claims that the CONTENT of the calls between Tamarlan and his wife CAN be known. While important to the potential case against his wife, I suppose the possibility that ALL phone call content can be retrieved is actually much bigger. Hard to believe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston

CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national

security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that

conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going

to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation

and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

I saw that interview several days ago. As I said at the time, it is simultaneously assuring but unnerving. This kind of previously unknown legal surveillance can help nab terrorists. However, it is used very widely and 24/7, which leaves one a bit uncomfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jingthing Legendary Member

Jingthing

Posted
Posted

I'm glad I don't have to decide their punishment. What they did was very bad and showed a complete disconnect from reality. However, is it really fair to "make an example" of people just because it is a high profile case? In other words, if they get long sentences, would the same type of offense for a no profile case invite the same punishment?

Speaking of which, it is reported now that Jahar was rather a pothead. Surely the defense can make something of that, perhaps mental impairment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Publicus Diamond Member

Publicus

Posted
Posted

I'm glad I don't have to decide their punishment. What they did was very bad and showed a complete disconnect from reality. However, is it really fair to "make an example" of people just because it is a high profile case? In other words, if they get long sentences, would the same type of offense for a no profile case invite the same punishment?

Speaking of which, it is reported now that Jahar was rather a pothead. Surely the defense can make something of that, perhaps mental impairment?

Agreed that high profile cases make bad law and challenge both procedures of law in the courtroom and the rules of evidence. In the U.S. judicial system, the only way find out what needs to be improved is on appeal to a superior court. An appeals court considers only questions of law, procedure, evidence, the judge's rulings, exact instructions to the jury and the like. The appeals court is not a new jury. The appeals court accepts as a given all of the jury's findings of fact and works on that basis.

1) The actions and behaviors of the two Kazahk students were, at best, banal. It is for this reason that the judge should throw the book at them. Banality is seldom good, In this case, the banality rises to the level of being extraordinary, which means the mindless actions of the two Kazahks qualify as evil. Throwing the book at them makes clear to everyone that being criminally banal at an obvious and extraordinarily adverse time, place, circumstance, make you culpable, liable. This example must be set so everyone can be ready to reexamine our own banality, to include family or friends.

2) By all accounts Robel Phillipos is a good kid. His soccer coach tells us Phillipos has a lot of heart and talent, a drive that takes him beyond his circumstances. Phillipos however lied to federal investigators who were pursuing the perps of the Boston Marathon bombings. The kid lied and knew he was lying. Phillipos wasn't lying to a flatfoot about a buddy shoplifting a CD. He was lying about a friend, or person he knew in congenial ways, who was being investigated in connection with the Boston Marathon bombings. In the case of Phillipos, the prosecutors agree he should get some consideration, so I would yield to the prosecutor's judgement in the matter. However, even I could get my mother to say some good things about me, so this is still a long way from over for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteeleJoe Ruby Member

SteeleJoe

Posted
Posted (edited)

1) The actions and behaviors of the two Kazahk students were, at best, banal. It is for this reason that the judge should throw the book at them. Banality is seldom good, In this case, the banality rises to the level of being extraordinary, which means the mindless actions of the two Kazahks qualify as evil. Throwing the book at them makes clear to everyone that being criminally banal at an obvious and extraordinarily adverse time, place, circumstance, make you culpable, liable. This example must be set so everyone can be ready to reexamine our own banality, to include family or friends.

Banal?!

Criminally banal?

Our own banality?

EDIT: I think I just clocked it - you've borrowed from Hannah Arendt but totally misunderstood the title and the phrase by not knowing the word (apparently didn't read the book). Yes?

Edited by SteeleJoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeverSure Star Member

NeverSure

Posted
Posted

I'm glad I don't have to decide their punishment. What they did was very bad and showed a complete disconnect from reality. However, is it really fair to "make an example" of people just because it is a high profile case? In other words, if they get long sentences, would the same type of offense for a no profile case invite the same punishment?

Speaking of which, it is reported now that Jahar was rather a pothead. Surely the defense can make something of that, perhaps mental impairment?

It has long been established that making an example of someone is good practice in many instances. Agreed however that the example has to fall within the confines of the law. The law has a maximum penalty for an offense, as you know. The prosecution can decide to "throw the book at him" by charging him with every possible crime including spitting on the sidewalk to get additive sentences. (I exaggerate to make a point.)

The pothead thing doesn't fall under mental impairment. Pothead is a choice and is itself evidence of violation of federal law. Mental impairment defenses rarely succeed anyway. Someone has to have a real diagnosis of mental illness to the extreme that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong. In most cases, even the mentally ill know that what they were doing was wrong so that defense fails.

For instance, the mental defense would probably fail if the accused had tried to hide the evidence, which he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ulysses G. Star Member

Ulysses G.

Posted
Posted

As far as I know, Lyndsay Graham has not given his opinion and Fox News does not seem overly concerned. It is not impossible that this guy is mostly just a victim of circumstances. He claims that he had not seen these guys for months and just happened to be in town for a seminar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Publicus Diamond Member

Publicus

Posted
Posted (edited)


1) The actions and behaviors of the two Kazahk students were, at best, banal. It is for this reason that the judge should throw the book at them. Banality is seldom good, In this case, the banality rises to the level of being extraordinary, which means the mindless actions of the two Kazahks qualify as evil. Throwing the book at them makes clear to everyone that being criminally banal at an obvious and extraordinarily adverse time, place, circumstance, make you culpable, liable. This example must be set so everyone can be ready to reexamine our own banality, to include family or friends.

Banal?!

Criminally banal?

Our own banality?

EDIT: I think I just clocked it - you've borrowed from Hannah Arendt but totally misunderstood the title and the phrase by not knowing the word (apparently didn't read the book). Yes?


You're working hard at this. Perhaps a mite too much. You're full of leading posts in the matter of banality, of evil, and of a nexus between the two.

I read the book so you are wrong in your presumptive assertion that I did not read the book. I've read other philosophers too, and I am not the only one in this respect. By invitation I attended a lecture Hannah Arendt gave in Boston. So I acquired the view of this particular, often political, philosopher in more than one way.

"Evil can occur though extreme thoughtlessness and insensitivity by persons who are not particularly evil at the start." I would expand on that by saying or by people who aren't necessarily evil at all. Arendt was speaking as an observer who attended the captured Nazi Adolph Eichman trial in Israel. We're not talking about Adolph Eichman however or of the Nazis.

I say the two Kazakh students, in mindlessly helping a buddy who turned out to be a mass murderer, are guilty - not necessarily of conspiracy, but of the banality of evil. I'd be confident there's a legal charge somewhere in their after the fact behaviors.(Given the nature of the sms phone text message the two received from their buddy the perp, one could argue there was a common understanding of what the message said and meant. I could not say, however, exactly and precisely what any possible common understanding might possibly have existed.)

You need to get your clock fixed. You have the right and freedom to interpret Arendt for yourself and positively to argue your position or view, not to dictate to another your interpretation of her, or to demand that another adhere to your interpretation of anything. Edited by Publicus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteeleJoe Ruby Member

SteeleJoe

Posted
Posted (edited)

I read the book, yes, among many other books. By invitation I attended a lecture Hannah Arendt gave in Boston. So I acquired the view of this particular, often political, philosopher in more than one way.

"Evil can occur though extreme thoughtlessness and insensitivity by persons who are not particularly evil at the start." Or who aren't necessarily evil at all. So says Hannah Arendt who attended the captured Nazi Adolph Eichman trial in Israel. We're not talking about Adolph Eichman however.

I say the two Kazakh students, in mindlessly helping a buddy who turned out to be a mass murderer, are guilty - not necessarily of conspiracy, but of the banality of evil. (Given the nature of the sms phone text message the two received from their buddy the perp, one could argue there was a common understanding of what the message said and meant. I could not say, however, exactly and precisely what any possible common understanding might possibly have existed.)

You have the right and freedom to interpret Arendt for yourself and positively to argue your position or view, not to dictate to another your interpretation of her, or to demand that another adhere to your interpretation of anything..

Yes, I know what she said and I know that she was at (a small part) of the trial. I won't debate her conclusions - I neither entirely agree with them nor by no means dismiss them as being entirely without value or accuracy.

I haven't in any way attempted to dictate any interpretation or demand adherence to anything. To suggest that I have is absurd and dishonest.

I simply couldn't help be baffled and then point out that, at least when you made it that post, you clearly had no idea what "banal", "banality" or "banality of evil" meant.

Banal: Drearily commonplace and often predictable; trite.

Banality: The condition or quality of being banal; triviality: The banality of the speaker's remarks put the audience to sleep.

Something that is trite, obvious, or predictable; a commonplace: Television commercials are full of banalities.

Just for fun, let's try it with the way you used it:

The actions and behaviors of the two Kazahk students were, at best drearily commonplace and often predictable; trite . It is for this reason that the judge should throw the book at them. Something that is trite, obvious, or predictable is seldom good, In this case, the quality of being trite and predictable rises to the level of being extraordinary, which means the mindless actions of the two Kazahks qualify as evil. Throwing the book at them makes clear to everyone that being criminally commonplace and often predictable at an obvious and extraordinarily adverse time, place, circumstance, make you culpable, liable. This example must be set so everyone can be ready to reexamine our own triviality; to include family or friends.

Hmmm...come on, you have to admit that's pretty funny!

As for your opinion of the Kazakhs, not that you should car or want my approval of course, but I have no disagreement with it.

Edited by SteeleJoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steely Dan Ruby Member

Steely Dan

Posted
Posted

1) The actions and behaviors of the two Kazahk students were, at best, banal. It is for this reason that the judge should throw the book at them. Banality is seldom good, In this case, the banality rises to the level of being extraordinary, which means the mindless actions of the two Kazahks qualify as evil. Throwing the book at them makes clear to everyone that being criminally banal at an obvious and extraordinarily adverse time, place, circumstance, make you culpable, liable. This example must be set so everyone can be ready to reexamine our own banality, to include family or friends.

Banal?!

Criminally banal?

Our own banality?

EDIT: I think I just clocked it - you've borrowed from Hannah Arendt but totally misunderstood the title and the phrase by not knowing the word (apparently didn't read the book). Yes?

You're working hard at this. Perhaps a mite too much. You're full of leading posts in the matter of banality, of evil, and of a nexus between the two.

I read the book so you are wrong in your presumptive assertion that I did not read the book. I've read other philosophers too, and I am not the only one in this respect. By invitation I attended a lecture Hannah Arendt gave in Boston. So I acquired the view of this particular, often political, philosopher in more than one way.

"Evil can occur though extreme thoughtlessness and insensitivity by persons who are not particularly evil at the start." I would expand on that by saying or by people who aren't necessarily evil at all. Arendt was speaking as an observer who attended the captured Nazi Adolph Eichman trial in Israel. We're not talking about Adolph Eichman however or of the Nazis.

I say the two Kazakh students, in mindlessly helping a buddy who turned out to be a mass murderer, are guilty - not necessarily of conspiracy, but of the banality of evil. I'd be confident there's a legal charge somewhere in their after the fact behaviors.(Given the nature of the sms phone text message the two received from their buddy the perp, one could argue there was a common understanding of what the message said and meant. I could not say, however, exactly and precisely what any possible common understanding might possibly have existed.)

You need to get your clock fixed. You have the right and freedom to interpret Arendt for yourself and positively to argue your position or view, not to dictate to another your interpretation of her, or to demand that another adhere to your interpretation of anything.

I would humbly refer you to my current signature quotation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Publicus Diamond Member

Publicus

Posted
Posted
SteeleJoe Posted 34 minutes ago

I simply couldn't help be baffled and then point out that, at least when you made it that post, you clearly had no idea what "banal", "banality" or "banality of evil" meant

___________________________________________________________________________I am Publicus. My response is as follows:

In my post today, numbered #1103, I stated, "I read the book so you are wrong in your presumptive assertion that I did not read the book. I've read other philosophers too, and I am not the only one in this respect. By invitation I attended a lecture Hannah Arendt gave in Boston. So I acquired the view of this particular, often political, philosopher in more than one way."

Yet, in your response above, you continue to assert that I had never read the book, that when I wrote the post in respect of the nexus of banality and evil I had no actual idea what I was writing about.

You also stated above that I am "dishonest."

If you continue to pursue me in these offensive and unresponsive ways - demonstrating an irresponsible disregard of my statements correcting you - I will report you and let the moderators/admin sort things out as may suit them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteeleJoe Ruby Member

SteeleJoe

Posted
Posted (edited)

In my post today, numbered #1103, I stated, "I read the book so you are wrong in your presumptive assertion that I did not read the book. I've read other philosophers too, and I am not the only one in this respect. By invitation I attended a lecture Hannah Arendt gave in Boston. So I acquired the view of this particular, often political, philosopher in more than one way."

Yet, in your response above, you continue to assert that I had never read the book, that when I wrote the post in respect of the nexus of banality and evil I had no actual idea what I was writing about.

You also stated above that I am "dishonest."

If you continue to pursue me in these offensive and unresponsive ways - demonstrating an irresponsible disregard of my statements correcting you - I will report you and let the moderators/admin sort things out as may suit them.

"Yet, in your response above, you continue to assert that I had never read the book..."

No, I did not. The post is right there.

Yes, I asserted that to claim what you did was dishonest (not that you were dishonest in a general sense) - again my post is there to see and I never did what you claimed (dictated or demanded adherence).

An irresponsible disregard of your statements correcting me?! Are you serious? You mean not accepting them when they are fallacious? Not simply allowing whatever you say to stand or not responding the way you want? Who do you think you are?

Regardless of what happens, you make yourself, in my opinion, look ridiculous with your threats. Perhaps I will be punished as a result of some action you take but don't embarrass yourself with threats as if they would prevent me from making perfectly legitimate comments. Do as you see fit, as will I.

Edited by SteeleJoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...
""