Boston Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Apprehended Alive(mashable.com)
mashable.com
Boston Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Apprehended Alive
http://mashable.com/2013/04/19/boston-bombing-dzhozkar-tsarnaev-is-found/
129 comments
This kind of thinking is very dangerous and can be used to excuse all sorts of terrible behavior. We are all responsible for our actions. I can't prove that we have free will, but I feel it's important to believe it.
I think that's looking at it backwards. I'm not saying that he should be given any kind of leniency or have anything be "excused" because of this. I'm just wondering what a society would look like that started with the hypothesis that this was a failure in developing a citizen as opposed to a failure in preventing a crime.
Obviously when you've gotten to this point, it's time to apply the law, not justify things away.
Obviously when you've gotten to this point, it's time to apply the law, not justify things away.
The kind of thinking that is dangerous is the line that we deserve to have these things happen - those people deserved to have their limbs blown off - because America's foreign policy is "bad." At that point, you are agreeing with people like Bin Laden and you are just about set to contribute to these kinds of attacks yourself, because you agree with the reasons.
Acknowledging that we live in a material world and there are multiple causes for things is incredibly minor by comparison, and isn't an ideological basis for carrying out terror attacks. Causes aren't the same as reasons.
Acknowledging that we live in a material world and there are multiple causes for things is incredibly minor by comparison, and isn't an ideological basis for carrying out terror attacks. Causes aren't the same as reasons.
Explanation != Excuse
http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan60.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan60.html
Even if you don't have free will, if you set off bombs and shoot cops for no good reason, there is something wrong with the way you're wired inside. Someone might even say it's "your fault".
I don't believe that humans have free will although from time to time I doubt my believe because it is so extremely far from our everyday experience. But this kind of thinking is not dangerous; either there is free will and everybody is - at least partially - responsible for his actions or there is no free will and we are done because everything just happens and we cannot even freely discuss this.
It's important to ask how this happened, because of course our choices are themselves brought about by external reasons. We can, in many cases, do something about it. We can teach people how to make better choices, too.
But I agree, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that he did make the choice to be here today.
But I agree, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that he did make the choice to be here today.
[deleted]
Many would argue[1] that “responsibility” is an entirely perfunctory concept when you admit that society should judge and control you based on the actual consequences of your actions (and expectations of similar future behaviour).
[1]One of the many is HN-aligned Sam Harris: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/life-without-free-will
[1]One of the many is HN-aligned Sam Harris: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/life-without-free-will
Here in Canada one of our party leaders is under fire for having an ounce of concern about what led these men to this point. For asking how a person gets so disconnected from society that they can wage war against it like this. The right-wing backlash against these questions has been immense.
Who was it (which party)? I'm canadian too but haven't kept up with our local press.
Justin Trudeau, the Liberals just wrapped up their public internal vote thingy and he's the new leader. The Conservatives are trying to paint him as the dumb kid who's only in politics because of his dad.
Soon after the bombing, before anybody identified the attackers, Trudeau discussed it in an interview with Peter Mansbridge.
article:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/17/trudeaus-response-to...
Relevant quote:
Trudeau said he would offer the American material support “and at the same time, over the coming days, we have to look at the root causes.”
“Now, we don’t know now if it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue,” he said. “But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded. Completely at war with innocents. At war with a society. And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from?
“Yes, there’s a need for security and response,” Trudeau added. “But we also need to make sure that as we go forward, that we don’t emphasize a culture of fear and mistrust. Because that ends up marginalizing even further those who already are feeling like they are enemies of society.”
Soon after the bombing, before anybody identified the attackers, Trudeau discussed it in an interview with Peter Mansbridge.
article:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/17/trudeaus-response-to...
Relevant quote:
Trudeau said he would offer the American material support “and at the same time, over the coming days, we have to look at the root causes.”
“Now, we don’t know now if it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue,” he said. “But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded. Completely at war with innocents. At war with a society. And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from?
“Yes, there’s a need for security and response,” Trudeau added. “But we also need to make sure that as we go forward, that we don’t emphasize a culture of fear and mistrust. Because that ends up marginalizing even further those who already are feeling like they are enemies of society.”
sigh ... Harper.
Justin made some very valid and mature statements. I'll keep an eye on him. Thanks for the link.
Justin made some very valid and mature statements. I'll keep an eye on him. Thanks for the link.
I see this argument boiling down to two trains of thought. One is that people are fundamentally good and only external forces make them do bad things. That appears to be the opinion you have expressed.
The second is that people are fundamentally bad and that external forces are required to keep them from doing bad things. I think the more you look at the world the more you find this second postulate is the right one, and your looking in the wrong direction for justification.
The second is that people are fundamentally bad and that external forces are required to keep them from doing bad things. I think the more you look at the world the more you find this second postulate is the right one, and your looking in the wrong direction for justification.
Third viewpoint- that people make choices about their reactions to external forces and they are responsible for those choices.
Reality is not so dichotomized. Human choices are influenced by both nature and nurture (i.e. environment). In psychobiology, I believe the consensus is that nurture contributes at least 50% to personality development and consequently propensity for certain choices and behavior. If inherent nature can't be changed, how could have the environment been different, to change the outcome? That was what I got from the parent comment.
By the way, if we're talking about "fundamental" qualities of a person -- from a biological standpoint, there is some evidence for a genetic propensity toward 'good' (e.g. altruism) or 'bad' (e.g. violent) behavior. But the vast majority of people land somewhere in the middle.
By the way, if we're talking about "fundamental" qualities of a person -- from a biological standpoint, there is some evidence for a genetic propensity toward 'good' (e.g. altruism) or 'bad' (e.g. violent) behavior. But the vast majority of people land somewhere in the middle.
A third train of thought is that we evolved to live in groups, able to show great empathy--the source of most "good" actions--for members of our group, and no empathy at all for anyone else. That would acknowledge our natural tendencies to be helpful and loving, selfish and destructive, depending on worldview and circumstances.
Yes, the increasing frequency of these homegrown attacks and school shootings should raise questions about our culture.
And explanation is not the same as moral justification.
I think compulsory public schools and undergraduate classroom-based colleges are very repressive against individuals, without fluid and free avenues for grievances to be aired and needs to be met. Sit up and shut up. The answer has been to use psychiatric drugs, punitive incarceration and behavior modification against individuals, rather than addressing broader social issues.
Partisan bickering between politicians about short-term reactionary policies sidetracks us. Gun control, enhanced interrogation, etc. -- those are not addressing the real underlying issues, and are just kicking the can further down the road until there's another attack.
I do not find it a coincidence that most of these young people accused of mass shootings or acts of terrorism, are current or recent members of our school system. I would absolutely explode and probably go to prison if I had to deal with today's zero-tolerance school systems.
There is something about mass public education which diminishes the individual, and makes small local corrections impossible because there are no outlets for grievance or ways to meet existential needs. As a result, anger, anxiety and depression build up in a person until s/he has no other outlet than to hurt others, no matter what the personal costs.
I find it very sad that media focus on whether suspects are members of certain "groups", or whether suspects have been labeled with pseudoscientific psychiatric labels, or whether their parents were "good" or "fit", when really, it's a much larger social context, and public institutions, which lead to the behavior.
A good book on this topic: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1595230769
The War on Kids: http://www.thewaronkids.com/
And explanation is not the same as moral justification.
I think compulsory public schools and undergraduate classroom-based colleges are very repressive against individuals, without fluid and free avenues for grievances to be aired and needs to be met. Sit up and shut up. The answer has been to use psychiatric drugs, punitive incarceration and behavior modification against individuals, rather than addressing broader social issues.
Partisan bickering between politicians about short-term reactionary policies sidetracks us. Gun control, enhanced interrogation, etc. -- those are not addressing the real underlying issues, and are just kicking the can further down the road until there's another attack.
I do not find it a coincidence that most of these young people accused of mass shootings or acts of terrorism, are current or recent members of our school system. I would absolutely explode and probably go to prison if I had to deal with today's zero-tolerance school systems.
There is something about mass public education which diminishes the individual, and makes small local corrections impossible because there are no outlets for grievance or ways to meet existential needs. As a result, anger, anxiety and depression build up in a person until s/he has no other outlet than to hurt others, no matter what the personal costs.
I find it very sad that media focus on whether suspects are members of certain "groups", or whether suspects have been labeled with pseudoscientific psychiatric labels, or whether their parents were "good" or "fit", when really, it's a much larger social context, and public institutions, which lead to the behavior.
A good book on this topic: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1595230769
The War on Kids: http://www.thewaronkids.com/
If the allegations are true (they murdered women and a child and blew off the limbs of innocent men women and children) then they are not victims, they are criminals.
Saying they are victims and suggesting that pity be given them is wrong. It insults the real victims in this tragedy.
Saying they are victims and suggesting that pity be given them is wrong. It insults the real victims in this tragedy.
Can't they be both?
The headlong stream is termed violent
But the river bed hemming it in is
Termed violent by no one.
But the river bed hemming it in is
Termed violent by no one.
- Bertolt BrechtI can see where you're coming from and we probably won't know until he gives a statement. Whether it was a religious, nationalist or anarchist attack, it will be interesting to see why he thought he needed to do what he did.
I think you've asked an interesting, reasonable question here, but you should have looked for a way to avoid any suggestion of sympathy if you hoped to see answers to the former as opposed to reactions to the latter.
Denying people agency for their actions is just as dangerous and dehumanizing as vilifying them as inhuman monsters. They are human monsters who are responsible for their own actions.
[deleted]
[deleted](2)
In the interview one of their uncles said that the older brother called around 2009 or so and started babbling about Islam and "holy war". So this uncle shut him off pretty quickly by saying it is a complete nonsense.
The younger brother's "V Kontakte" page has some stuff that shows him in a bit different light compared to his twitter account. Perhaps because it was in Russian he was a bit more revealing. There he was a member of several Islamic groups (not exactly extremist ones, just in general Islam oriented). He also posted few comments and even a joke that sort of indicated how Chechens have been treated, the joke goes like this: "The Question: Chechen, Ingush and Dagestani are in the car, who is driving the car? The Answer: police".
What I think happened is that the older brother could not adjust quite well, and had some beef with his relatives as they were not too close. So these two brothers were sort of marinating in their own insanity. The older one could not fit in, probably felt like a failure and was a good candidate for a brainwash. The younger was another good candidate, their parents are still in Dagestan, both brothers lived alone.
I think it is a very complicated case and I think they acted alone, because they lost it alone at some point. Left to themselves they were easy prey to propaganda machine. I personally think it is extremely sad case for every single person involved including victims, their families, bombers and their families. The only winners are those who are spreading hate and brainwashing vulnerable people at the lowest point of their lives.
The younger brother's "V Kontakte" page has some stuff that shows him in a bit different light compared to his twitter account. Perhaps because it was in Russian he was a bit more revealing. There he was a member of several Islamic groups (not exactly extremist ones, just in general Islam oriented). He also posted few comments and even a joke that sort of indicated how Chechens have been treated, the joke goes like this: "The Question: Chechen, Ingush and Dagestani are in the car, who is driving the car? The Answer: police".
What I think happened is that the older brother could not adjust quite well, and had some beef with his relatives as they were not too close. So these two brothers were sort of marinating in their own insanity. The older one could not fit in, probably felt like a failure and was a good candidate for a brainwash. The younger was another good candidate, their parents are still in Dagestan, both brothers lived alone.
I think it is a very complicated case and I think they acted alone, because they lost it alone at some point. Left to themselves they were easy prey to propaganda machine. I personally think it is extremely sad case for every single person involved including victims, their families, bombers and their families. The only winners are those who are spreading hate and brainwashing vulnerable people at the lowest point of their lives.
I'm impressed with the professionalism of the Boston police. After cops killed, and a day-long adrenaline filled hunt, they managed to remain professional for the sake of the greater good and take this schmuck alive.
edit: I guess only 1 cop was killed?
edit: I guess only 1 cop was killed?
It's interesting comparing their behavior to the LAPD/etc. during the Christopher Dorner manhunt a few months ago.
Yeah. I don't normally commend people for doing what they should do but in this case I'll make an exception. It must have been very hard to stay professional but it seems they have just set a good example for police across the nation.
I think the Dorner thing has some factors you're not quite taking into account.
1. He was a trained professional 2. He knew their hand, their next move even 3. He was an outed cop on a rampage based on inequality in the ranks of the LAPD
I don't think Dorner was ever going to be brought in alive, the LAPD didn't want him to have a soap box to preach from or to give him hero status. I remember shaking my head as I listened to police scanner while they started to set the cabin on fire.
This was a scared confused kid hiding in a boat with the nation watching and wanting to hear what he had to say. The other seemed more like a shut it up, sweep it under the rug, the guy is a nut, let's all just forget this happened kinda thing.
1. He was a trained professional 2. He knew their hand, their next move even 3. He was an outed cop on a rampage based on inequality in the ranks of the LAPD
I don't think Dorner was ever going to be brought in alive, the LAPD didn't want him to have a soap box to preach from or to give him hero status. I remember shaking my head as I listened to police scanner while they started to set the cabin on fire.
This was a scared confused kid hiding in a boat with the nation watching and wanting to hear what he had to say. The other seemed more like a shut it up, sweep it under the rug, the guy is a nut, let's all just forget this happened kinda thing.
#2 and #3 support the thesis "BPD > LAPD", along with your other points.
#1 might be countered with "he was a radical Islamic jihadist" (in the worst case).
#1 might be countered with "he was a radical Islamic jihadist" (in the worst case).
Agreed, but the slight difference is that Dorner was specifically targeting officers and their families. These two brothers were cop killers, however it was more "collateral damage" than their main goal.
What I was most pleased with is Colonel Timothy Alben.
He would get in front of the podium, say only what he wanted the police to say, then refused questions and immediately ended the conference. With as much misinformation that the media had already spread that evening, and over the previous week, I was pleased to see the, "...now STFU we'll BBL" stance of the Boston Police.
He would get in front of the podium, say only what he wanted the police to say, then refused questions and immediately ended the conference. With as much misinformation that the media had already spread that evening, and over the previous week, I was pleased to see the, "...now STFU we'll BBL" stance of the Boston Police.
Earlier I was reading through the Twitter account of the now apprehended suspect and what is most striking is just how normal he is. Every one of his tweets could have been attributed to a completely normal teenager, he couldn't be more generic. It's strange how Twitter offers an insight into his life... but really it doesn't show anything. When someone blew people up in the 90s the news would report they're crazy, we'd all accept it and move on but now with platforms like Twitter we can see how this could be any one of us, maybe we're all one shitty situation away from doing terrible things. Unnerving.
Some of the people I regularly follow on Twitter were literally in disbelief over hearing this about someone they thought they knew - "please take him alive" they pleaded.
It was awful to see someone be so wrong about a person, as it became more and more certain that he was indeed one of the people involved in the bombing.
It was awful to see someone be so wrong about a person, as it became more and more certain that he was indeed one of the people involved in the bombing.
Wait, what? You follow people on twitter who knew this nobody?
There are probably lots of people who are within 2 degrees of separation of this guy.
Anyone who went to college in Boston can probably find a connection in a couple degrees.
Well, not all of them... I remember there was one native kid who made the news a few years back that had massively telegraphed his plans. He'd made Flash animations of murder-suicide killing sprees and hung around on neo-Nazi forums before he went off.
Many people join the military and kill others, for example. Context matters.
I'm not sure I get what you're saying about traditional media. It's a well-accepted trope about mass murderers and serial killers that whenever their neighbors and family interviewed them it would be said that they we're quiet and kept to themselves.
The only insight we used to get into "bad people" was second hand, what people had seen and the things they had done. Now we get to see it all first hand. He has over 1,000 tweets from the last 18 months, Tweets that offer an insight into what he enjoyed, what he did, how he felt... we get to see him as a human. How many people saw Ted Bundy as a human? Maybe I'm overstating the value of his Tweets.
"Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him." -Dostoevsky
On twitter a lot of people are essentially saying "Good, now we'll get answers." I'm sorry to say I don't believe there is typically anything satisfying about the answers of people who become deranged. Maybe this time, but if reading about madmen past is any guide, its very unlikely that we will be enlightened by any testimony.
On twitter a lot of people are essentially saying "Good, now we'll get answers." I'm sorry to say I don't believe there is typically anything satisfying about the answers of people who become deranged. Maybe this time, but if reading about madmen past is any guide, its very unlikely that we will be enlightened by any testimony.
I interpret that quote differently than you. To me he's saying not that we won't learn anything from evildoers, but that it's important that we really try.
And I think that's exactly right. The younger suspect seems by all accounts to be a smart young man. It's important that we try to understand what drove him to do something so terrible, even as we denounce it.
And I think that's exactly right. The younger suspect seems by all accounts to be a smart young man. It's important that we try to understand what drove him to do something so terrible, even as we denounce it.
>To me he's saying not that we won't learn anything from evildoers, but that it's important that we really try.
I read it the same way.
Though, I don't think it's about literally learning from any individual, but to attempt to understand the underlying mechanisms.
I read it the same way.
Though, I don't think it's about literally learning from any individual, but to attempt to understand the underlying mechanisms.
[deleted]
There's a lot of practical information to be obtained, though. What the elder brother was doing out of the country for 6 months, through what channels he became radicalized, whether they were co-conspirators or the younger was just along for the ride, did they act alone or were they funded/goaded on by extremest groups, etc.
Even a deranged motive provides some explanation, which is more than we have.
The unabomber's manifesto was highly enlightening, and also frightening for how right he seemed on some of his points even if you technically disagree with many of them.
How old is the maxim "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? And yet how often do we ignore it?
Much of the worst evil in history has been committed in service to a hypothetical greater good, or in retribution against very real wrongs. Germany had serious grievances in their treatment after WWI, for example. Communism, including Stalinism and Maoism, was a response against an extremely unjust social and economic order. Just because you've been wronged and victimized doesn't give you free reign to commit wrongs yourself.
Much of the worst evil in history has been committed in service to a hypothetical greater good, or in retribution against very real wrongs. Germany had serious grievances in their treatment after WWI, for example. Communism, including Stalinism and Maoism, was a response against an extremely unjust social and economic order. Just because you've been wronged and victimized doesn't give you free reign to commit wrongs yourself.
Who are you talking to? Nobody justified anybodies work, not this terrorist, not the unabomber and not any other organized retribution in history.
No commentary was made except that the unabombers manifesto was enlightening. That is all.
No commentary was made except that the unabombers manifesto was enlightening. That is all.
I'm not attacking you, relax, reread what I wrote, there's no attack there.
I'm saying that most of the time people who do bad things based on ideological grounds are "right" about certain things in some way. It's the norm more than the exception. Real bad guys often have significant and real grievances, but it's how people respond to grievances and wrongs against them that makes them bad or good.
I'm saying that most of the time people who do bad things based on ideological grounds are "right" about certain things in some way. It's the norm more than the exception. Real bad guys often have significant and real grievances, but it's how people respond to grievances and wrongs against them that makes them bad or good.
On twitter a lot of people are essentially saying "Good, now we'll get answers." I'm sorry to say I don't believe there is typically anything satisfying about the answers of people who become deranged. Maybe this time, but if reading about madmen past is any guide, its very unlikely that we will be enlightened by any testimony.
Answer is really simple: in his own world /subculture he is a hero, a martyr and his name is being mentioned worldwide.
Answer is really simple: in his own world /subculture he is a hero, a martyr and his name is being mentioned worldwide.
Or maybe it's the OTHER simple and cultural answer: they were seen as "losers", then lost it and decided to kill random people. Pretty much like Columbine and all the other "seemingly normal kid kills random people with guns" incidents that keep happening, again and again. It doesn't matter, though - at this point, it's all just random speculation.
Maybe, but I've read about Chechnya.
I'd bet on the religion angle. Especially the young generation can be very motivated as they seek their identity.
I'd bet on the religion angle. Especially the young generation can be very motivated as they seek their identity.
Glad to hear they got him alive, it must have been hard to do that. Having him alive is important to understand and analyse the sequence of events, the motivation, the planning etc. There is also a possibility they had help and more people may be involved and if he were dead that would be very hard to discover.
Kudos to the FBI and the Police authorities of Boston.
Thank God. While I'm honestly not concerned about the man's well-being - that 8-year-old boy should be alive in his place - I am very curious as to why they did this.
They come from a very Islamic country and it's been said that they'd recently started wearing traditional Muslim clothing--a switch from the european clothing they'd been wearing for most of their lives. It's easy for kids to become obsessed with a cause... even if it's a terrible one. Basically, all signs point to this being just another religious extremist attack.
It appears that the elder brother got disillusioned/pissed-off (I guess he came here in his late teens, so didn't get the chance to adjust). He got angry. Maybe he felt that he belonged in the Olympic team and didn't make it. Whatever. But this provided the kindling; and some religious nut turned this anger into a weapon.
The younger brother was just too much under the influence of the elder, it appears from what I've read. Maybe he looked up to him, and just followed him blindly. Who knows.
As long as we keep figuring out ways to hate each other, we'll keep figuring out ways to kill each other.
The younger brother was just too much under the influence of the elder, it appears from what I've read. Maybe he looked up to him, and just followed him blindly. Who knows.
As long as we keep figuring out ways to hate each other, we'll keep figuring out ways to kill each other.
The big question is to what degree it was organized, or whether the older brother's social problems (inability to connect etc.) so alienated him that he just seized on the most empowering role model he could think of, an Islamic rebel. Chechnya is a country that has been ruled pretty poorly by Russia at it's not so long ago that Chechen Muslims were seen as heroic freedom fighters in the west.
In short, it's unclear whether they were actually involved with any organized jihad groups or just developed a personal obsession with the ideas and copied the methods.
In short, it's unclear whether they were actually involved with any organized jihad groups or just developed a personal obsession with the ideas and copied the methods.
[deleted]
Speculation is that they are/were radical jihadists based on their background and recent changes in their behavior.
Agreed. A trial is the best possible outcome to this bad situation. Boston & surrounding PDs did a good job.
I wonder how they'll find a jury that doesn't already think he's guilty.
Sometimes they hold a trial outside the area where the crime occurred for that very reason. Since he'll be facing federal charges I think they have fairly broad latitude on where the trial is held. Doubtless the government will go into court with a mountain of evidence. Considering how easily they were IDed and caught I'm guessing they left a lot of forensic evidence.
Of course, he may decide to confess and plead guilty. There'll be an avalanche of detail either way, books ad nauseam and so on..
Of course, he may decide to confess and plead guilty. There'll be an avalanche of detail either way, books ad nauseam and so on..
Well, look at the currently top comment (http://tf-575.com/images/renders/), they are victims, see... A jury is possible, yes.
What the heck did you link to? :-D
(cut-n-paste gone wild!)
[deleted]
This link needs an NSFW tag...
LOL! Sometimes it's wise not to assume we know what's on the clipboard. That link is to a pile of computer-rendered lesbian porn images!
Heh, no idea what it was.
Update: wow. WTF is this? :-)
Thanks for all the upvotes...
Update: wow. WTF is this? :-)
Thanks for all the upvotes...
I wonder if he'll talk. If he is treated like a normal citizen, he doesn't have to say a single thing to the officers conducting the investigation.
He will not be treated as a normal citizen and will be interviewed by the "high value detainee interrogation group" https://twitter.com/abc/status/325417178927083524
edit: Carmen Ortiz (prosecutor in Aaron Swartz case and now Boston Bombing/Manhunt) confirms use of public safety exemption
edit: Carmen Ortiz (prosecutor in Aaron Swartz case and now Boston Bombing/Manhunt) confirms use of public safety exemption
[deleted]
Did they ever figure out the motive of James Holmes?
I'm wondering what ever happened with that.. any reason WHY?
I'm wondering what ever happened with that.. any reason WHY?
Now that the full audio[1] transcript of the police scanner is available, I'd be interested in whether police ever actually mentioned the the two other individuals that everyone seemed to think had done it.
[1]https://soundcloud.com/producermatthew/scanner-audio-from-wa...
[1]https://soundcloud.com/producermatthew/scanner-audio-from-wa...
They did indeed mention the uh Mulugato guy (however it was spelled, I'm going from memory.) I was listening to it live last night, but what is unclear is why they were saying/spelling his name. They never said he was connected to this, they just mentioned his name/spelling on the same radio as the Boston Bombing investigation. Probably around 2:30AM EST if I had to guess (I heard it live.)
Edit: Mulugeta, I guess, is how you spell it. I certainly didn't hear a first name, though, when I was listening, just the last name plus spelling of it.
Edit: Mulugeta, I guess, is how you spell it. I certainly didn't hear a first name, though, when I was listening, just the last name plus spelling of it.
I think that name was mentioned in relation to a completely separate crime that was going on a the same time.
The ending to The Blues Brothers seems prophetic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2quc-iQ96R0
To edit and elaborate: they shut down a large portion of New England, affecting millions of people. Amtrak service, for example, was suspended north of New York City at 12:30pm today. Private taxi service in the Boston Metro area shut down until 11am. Other public transit, such as the T, shut down for most of the day. People didn't go to work.
I know it sounds callous, considering how many died or were maimed, but we now have to consider that a couple of pressure cookers are on par with hurricanes, blizzards and power blackouts when it comes to anesthetizing the North East corridor. I think we should think about this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2quc-iQ96R0
To edit and elaborate: they shut down a large portion of New England, affecting millions of people. Amtrak service, for example, was suspended north of New York City at 12:30pm today. Private taxi service in the Boston Metro area shut down until 11am. Other public transit, such as the T, shut down for most of the day. People didn't go to work.
I know it sounds callous, considering how many died or were maimed, but we now have to consider that a couple of pressure cookers are on par with hurricanes, blizzards and power blackouts when it comes to anesthetizing the North East corridor. I think we should think about this.
* they shut down a large portion of New England*
No, "they" really didn't. Life was pretty much normal outside of 128.
No, "they" really didn't. Life was pretty much normal outside of 128.
I don't know what 128 is, but I know of people who were taking Amtrak to Connecticut but had to get off at NYC and travel uptown to Grand Central Station to get on a commuter train. They weren't going to Boston. Amtrak service was halted north of NYC because of this manhunt.
I do know that much of Boston had no choice but to take a day off on Friday. I know the Bruins game was cancelled, and that Comic Con was "postponed" and likely cancelled because of the difficulty of re-booking the conference center anytime before next year.
Not even considering the salaries and overtime of the officers involved, it is not wrong to say that this manhunt may have cost hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars in economic losses. For example, some of the speculation from The Washington Post this afternoon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/19/t...
This is as if an entire city went into anaphylaxis.
I do know that much of Boston had no choice but to take a day off on Friday. I know the Bruins game was cancelled, and that Comic Con was "postponed" and likely cancelled because of the difficulty of re-booking the conference center anytime before next year.
Not even considering the salaries and overtime of the officers involved, it is not wrong to say that this manhunt may have cost hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars in economic losses. For example, some of the speculation from The Washington Post this afternoon:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/19/t...
This is as if an entire city went into anaphylaxis.
I don't know what 128 is
Route 128 is the loop highway running around Boston.
I do know that much of Boston had no choice but to take a day off on Friday
Much of Boston is not the same as "a large portion of New England." New England is ~14 million people. The affected areas covered about 600K people.
may have cost hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars in economic losses.
Your own link doesn't support "billions of dollars in economic losses." In any event, extraordinary events require an extraordinary response. In any event, I can't see how having those streets packed with cars and pedestrian traffic (as happens on a normal Friday) would have done anything but hinder the manhunt.
Route 128 is the loop highway running around Boston.
I do know that much of Boston had no choice but to take a day off on Friday
Much of Boston is not the same as "a large portion of New England." New England is ~14 million people. The affected areas covered about 600K people.
may have cost hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of dollars in economic losses.
Your own link doesn't support "billions of dollars in economic losses." In any event, extraordinary events require an extraordinary response. In any event, I can't see how having those streets packed with cars and pedestrian traffic (as happens on a normal Friday) would have done anything but hinder the manhunt.
> Much of Boston is not the same as "a large portion of New England."
Alright, much of Boston is not "a large portion of New England" but to use your figures, even 600 thousand is still huge. Does it really disprove my point that this manhunt will have enormous economic consequences? Even if our economy can absorb it, we must address the fact that the cost was staggering in proportion to what it cost the bombers to conduct their attack.
> In any event, extraordinary events require an extraordinary response.
Bruce Schneier pointed out, once, that airport security was brittle because it couldn't contain an event to the gate: it had to shut down a whole terminal and often--such as with the LAX evacuations after 9/11, an entire airport. This event shut down the work of perhaps 600,000 for the price of some pressure cookers and black powder.
If it cost a few hundred dollars to shut down 600,000 hosts or terminals on the Internet, we would be looking at ways to improve security and protocols so that such an inexpensive attack could not force such enormous losses.
I think we should brainstorm ways to block this vulnerability. It should not be possible for two guys, 26 and 19 years old, to freeze a major city.
Alright, much of Boston is not "a large portion of New England" but to use your figures, even 600 thousand is still huge. Does it really disprove my point that this manhunt will have enormous economic consequences? Even if our economy can absorb it, we must address the fact that the cost was staggering in proportion to what it cost the bombers to conduct their attack.
> In any event, extraordinary events require an extraordinary response.
Bruce Schneier pointed out, once, that airport security was brittle because it couldn't contain an event to the gate: it had to shut down a whole terminal and often--such as with the LAX evacuations after 9/11, an entire airport. This event shut down the work of perhaps 600,000 for the price of some pressure cookers and black powder.
If it cost a few hundred dollars to shut down 600,000 hosts or terminals on the Internet, we would be looking at ways to improve security and protocols so that such an inexpensive attack could not force such enormous losses.
I think we should brainstorm ways to block this vulnerability. It should not be possible for two guys, 26 and 19 years old, to freeze a major city.
Even inside. I live in, uh, 10 minutes' drive up north from the Charles river, and my life was not disrupted at all.
[deleted](2)
Why are the parents saying 'he didn't do it' when they were throwing exploses out of a car and killing officers. Wtf??
For me this will be the enduring image of the manhunt: http://i.imgur.com/lV7CMQA.jpg
Even if there's a manhunt, shelter in place order, and an officer with an assault rifle on every corner, life will go on.
Even if there's a manhunt, shelter in place order, and an officer with an assault rifle on every corner, life will go on.
I don't understand what this is an image of. The quality is very poor, is this because its a crop of a much larger image?
It's actually poor quality because it's at max zoom on a Galaxy Nexus. It was an Italian wedding party with raucous singing by the men and I wanted to stay a respectful distance. This happened at about 5PM as I went in search of someplace open where I could get something to eat.
It looks like a crop of an image in a park where a bride and her bridal party are having their picture taken while the groomsmen wait off to the side.
I'm assuming from the long white dress that this is a photo of a wedding.
A wedding.
So who gets to be his lawyer?
Alan Dershowitz?
Unlikely. He is very much against Islamic terrorism, and this is apparently just that case.
If someone who happens to be Christian carries out terrorism, is this Christian terrorism? Or do we have a special exception for Muslims who carry out terrorism, that their terrorism is Islamic terrorism?
It depends. If the act is clearly motivated by religion and directed at perceived enemies of the religion then it is plainly religious terrorism. If the religion of the perpetrator is clearly irrelevant (e.g. a political cause, and the terrorists and perpetrators are of the same religion) then it is plainly not religious terrorism. In between are grey areas that can be argued case by case.
Yes, and I guess I could have verbalized it more, but it seems like that need (to verbalize) appears every time anything like this is mentioned. So maybe the verbalization is not so important after all.
"Terrorism" means more than just doing very bad things. Terrorism is violence against innocent people in order to further a cause.
Both Adam Lanza and the Beslan terrorists[1] killed lots of kids. But only the Beslan killers were terrorists. They hoped to further the goal of Chechen independence from Russia. Lanza was just a homicidal maniac.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis
Both Adam Lanza and the Beslan terrorists[1] killed lots of kids. But only the Beslan killers were terrorists. They hoped to further the goal of Chechen independence from Russia. Lanza was just a homicidal maniac.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis
[deleted]
EDIT: I'm not denying agency or free will, I'm just expressing the belief that you are the product of your environment. I like the saying that an individual will tend towards being the average of their friends. If all of your friends are into running, you'll probably end up being into running. If all of your friends are into music, you'll probably end up interested in music. Certain books, movies, or other cultural experiences can affect individuals in differing, significant ways. All of these forces act on people to create who they are tomorrow.
There's no statement about free will, in a strong sense, in there. It's all about social and cultural context, and brownian motion. He's still responsible for his actions. I would reserve the term "human monster" for measurable psychopaths. Those do exist, and are a different matter entirely.