Supposedly that's one of the primary reasons the FBI released the images ASAP, to stop the internet from playing detective.
This is what I don't like about the 4chan pictures. Not only, "were we all going to see what our prejudices led us to see", but the culprits were not even in the pictures made available on 4chan.
The biggest thing about the crowd sourcing is that it's effectively a digital lynching. That's not the same thing as throwing a rope over a branch and hanging somebody but it has the potential to become that and at some point it will.
This is why someone might call it perfect because the amount of packs lets them finger anyone they want,not my theory someone elses
I'll bet that backpacks & large bags will now be completely banned & forbidden along the entire Boston Marathon route for every year forward
What about every person who has ever been falsely accused of doing something? What about every witness who has been mistaken as a perpetrator? What about being brown means you should be scrutinized more than the white attendees? Whoever's theory it is, they were under the influence of several narcotics when they concocted it and everyone who passes along someone else's farfetched theories is just as idiotic as the person who came up with the dumb idea. I'm 99.9% sure that the FBI photos release preceded the Missing Brown U student accusations. If demeanor means anything, the two suspects (dead and in custody) looked calm and cool asf in photos and on surveillance, even after they were identified by the FBI, so is body language really that important?
Federal Criminal Complaint Filed Against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/...al_complaint_130421_1847__1366653273_0367.pdf
I doubt it, but they might be banned for the few places that crowds accumulate, like at the start and finish. Really it's going to be more a question of "are you willing to take a backpack into a crowd at an event knowing that people are going to be worried about it?"
Maybe it's something,maybe it's nothing. In any case,i'm sure there is a perfectly good explanation. [YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8&feature=player_embedded not one angry person in Boston Jon Rappoport Shocked? Horrified? Grief-stricken? Determined? Yes, Boston residents who voiced those feelings passed through the media filters and were interviewed on camera. But angry? Deeply angry at what happened at the Marathon and ready to give vent to it? The screeners took a pass. I wrote about this subject after the Sandy Hook murders, and it applies to the Aurora massacre as well. The sober sepulchral tones of media anchors, and their extreme deference to FBI, police, and politicians, form a hypnotic induction for viewers…and these leaders don’t want to break the spell, which is exactly what anger does. Therefore, it’s a no-go. Anger is a spark that fires up and spreads. So dampen it. Ignore it. Don’t show it on television news. Instead, say this: “Step back, everybody, huddle in your homes, let the pros do their job, they’ll catch the killers, look at the photos they want you to look at, remain calm, depend on designated officials.” This is the new American dream. If you don’t show anger on the television news, it doesn’t exist. Out of sight, out of mind. Then, once in a while, media can point to an angry group they want to defame: “See, look at those people. They’re angry. They’re the only people who are. So there must be something wrong with them. They’re dangerous. What they stand for must be a threat to all the rest of us…because they’re angry.” Suppose, right after the killings in Boston, the major networks interviewed 50 people who were in a rage. Viewers would start to wake up. That’s not permitted. This engineered absence of anger dovetails perfectly with the “have a nice day” philosophy. It’s all about “thinking positive thoughts” and immediately lapsing into a passive invisible state. A culture of “anger-is-destructive” has made enormous inroads on American life. We even have so-called experts issuing phony statements about the deleterious physical effects of “negative emotions.” This is preposterous idiocy, at best. The key distinction here is between mindless outrage and anger directed at those who deserve to be exposed for their crimes. It’s also a distinction between bottling up, out of naked fear, such specifically directed outrage, and expressing it. Unless you believe the American Revolution was fought by smiling troops who strolled into battle like glazed donuts sporting muskets. Read Tom Paine’s Common Sense, the pamphlet that shook the Colonies and forced the Declaration of Independence. If you see no anger there, you’re dead. In these modern massacre ops, the media formula works like this: “See, the perpetrators were brought to justice; it worked; the citizenry was kept in the background; nothing negative was expressed; and all’s well that ends well.” Keeping citizen anger off the front pages and off the television-news screens is a purposeful pose. It’s really an emotional lockdown of the country. The police not only act as an armed physical surrogate for the people, they also effect an emotional transfer. “You folks don’t have to get angry, give us your feelings, we’ll do the job, and we never hate. We’re efficient.” This contributes mightily to the sense that we’re living in a land of androids. Television is the universal teacher Communities and cities learn how to react, should a crisis suddenly descend on them, from having watched how it worked in other places—as television showed it, as television selected it. “This is how you’re supposed to feel, this is when you feel it, this is the sequence, these are the words you use.” In this artificial ballet, the last people who are going to doubt the law-enforcement bosses are those who learn from television. The rule of television coverage operates in another way as well. Suspects in these massacres, if they survive, rarely if ever speak before cameras to a national and world audience, before trial. The police don’t permit it, and if they did, a defendant’s attorney wouldn’t allow it, on the grounds that prosecutors could use his client’s statements against him in the courtroom. So the accused are buffered off from the public, kept in a tight cocoon. This contributes to an overall air of extreme caution. The wheels of the machine are grinding; no humans appear to be present. The only officials who speak before cameras are trained to emit bureaucratic blather. The public accepts this. They buy the presentation—idiot pseudo-scientists using techno-speak to analyze some species of insect, while also throwing off gaseous generalities about the nation, the life of communities, and the coming together of good citizens. From the earliest days of television, the vaunted anchors who shaped the role for later generations—Ed Murrow, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Walter Cronkite—gods to the American audience—affected the air of a reformed drunk who was always walking close to the edge of doom and needed to enunciate his concerns carefully, lest he fall into a pit of actual human experience where he would drown. This became the rhythm, sound, and tempo of truth. Now, Brian Williams, and Scott Pelley, the keepers of that flame, are practicing in the same school of understatement, are doing their slow tap dance around the rim of the cliff, assuring viewers they are taking them as far as humans can go without encountering details too sordid for civilized exposure. Among those omissions are the words and outraged feelings of citizens who demand justice and know there is a great con in progress, a charade. The lesson was learned in 1963. After that piece of television coverage, the monarchs of media struck out on a different path. Americans actually saw Lee Harvey Oswald, after he was arrested. They saw his anger. They saw him say, “I’m just a patsy.” They saw his disgust and growing hour-by-hour understanding that he was going to his end. They saw he knew he was going to be swallowed up and disappeared. And finally they saw Jack Ruby shoot him in an underground garage. Guilty or innocent, Oswald transmitted a disquiet that was corrosive to the public consciousness. That had to stop. Television could not do this anymore. It was too strong, too real. No one individual could come across that way again. The government and its media machine would have to build a castle and surround it with armed force in layers of protection. It would have to develop a new kind of language to pretend to a humanity that was on the way out. That’s what they did, and it worked. It worked, at bottom, because it created a new audience that came to expect and demand three-dollar bills, one after another, standing in for the real thing. In some humans, when you open their souls, you see fierce joy, oceanic energy and imagination. In others, you see dust, and a machinery that pretends to these things. Knowing the difference makes all the difference in the world. The dust-and-machine people can voice the highest ideals and thoughts, but it’s all prerecorded. Like media. Especially when it’s live.
Apparently a terrorist plot to derail a train in Canada (possibly heading to New York) was foiled and the two suspects are in custody. Might be linked to Al Qaeda through Iran. Not related to the Boston Marathon but is terrorism related so thought I would mention it.
That article is making the false assumption that anger is good or productive. This is rarely the case in our modern world. Anger is more often a symptom of fear and ignorance. If there was not a lot of anger shown in Boston, I consider that a good sign, not a bad one.
I think it was pointing out the medias abilty to hide a good portion of what really goes on,and steer public opinion in an orchestrated manor. Anger and out rage wouldbe a natural responce just like fear,but instead they show the complete acceptance of the military style parenting,and how through what many would consider teetering on the edge of marshall law(if they weren't scared into submission),we got the bad guys! There are a lot more voices in this that will never be heard,except through non-mainstream media. People whos homes were searched in an unconstitutional manor will come forth,only to be heard by what most here will consider non reliable outlets,and painted into the corner as the article sugested as the small angry group.
Anecdotal evidence and all, but everyone I talked to in Boston wanted to catch the last guy alive, there was no "lets kill this fool" or anything else. It was more "Why" than revenge type anger. On top of that, there was nowhere to place the anger on Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday because nobody claimed responsibility. You can't be angry at something you don't know. Within 24 hours of the suspects pictures/names being released, one was dead, the other on the run and about to be captured it seemed. There was little time for anger, and more let BPD/FBI clean this up and let's move on.
You trust in the machine. Media,FBI,CIA PD,whatever. Thats your thing. You think their word is absolute,and anything that opposes is crazy conspiracy etc,also fine. But i do hope you realize how far the FBI,CIA and others go into these things. They infiltrate,befriend, etc. You wouldnt have to look any further than the CIA and their relationship with the likes of Bin Laden,the Taliban. The fact that before taking Saddam down,we empowered him with Chem weapons against Iran. Also,false flags are no big secret in history. You can beleive in what you want,trust in what you want,but Boston Ma last week was no Mr Rogers neighborhhod. I am not convinced of anything,for all i know these 2 did do this as stated and their now caught. But the FBI has switched their story about their contact,the family has more to say and givin the history,the actions in Boston last week as far as testing Marshal Law,and the complete mess,i am not jumping on the mainsteam bandwagon. People in this country are funny. They will go on about how the Gov is coming for their guns and going against the constitution,they will go on about how the Gov is capable of a Benghazi coverup and a load of other shit. Why? Because it can be linked to party politics and at least 1 news outlet is still watchable with that mindset and encoraging it. Take the Boston incident,have all the media on one page,and suddenly the Gov is no longer capale of what they will be acused of as soon as this blows over.
I don't think their word is absolute, but I'm sure as hell not going to try to waltz past a police/swat perimeter and single handedly arrest a bomber who might have suicide vest on. I let the BPD/FBI do their job. And I'm sure as hell not trusting the internet who started a witchhunt for Saudi individual because surprise surprise he was Saudi and not American. The BPD/FBI are set up to take care of things like these, I let them do that. What would you have done differently than sat and watched them do their job on TV? What's your alternate suggestion? And if you think this was "a mess", what do you consider the Dorner situation in CA?
The Saudi,has what 5 members of his family on an exclusive terrorist list? He is being flown home or "deported" tomorrow ,no? I at 1st thought this was some white gun nut,but i certainly will never trust anything coming from SA Your missing the point. I would not have gone out either. But they did ,infact,take people out of their home in an unconstitutional way as was shown in the vid i posted(and i'm sure more will come out,just not on the fox,cnn and disney channel as i pointed out earlier), And some other accounts searchable on google. You lose more everytime in the name of keeping you safe. Not sure how people don't see that. The Dorner situation? I can only imagine.
Exactly, just because I let the BPD/FBI do their job doesn't mean I believe everything they say. You jumped to that conclusion from nowhere. It's not unconstitutional if there is an immediate danger, like I don't know a bombe. And there are many first witness account of families saying no and the police not entering just asking if they are okay. Is that bad too? And no you don't lose more every time, because if that was the case we would have absolutely nothing right now. What push is going to come from this? A law that makes A ok for the police to always enter your house for no reason. Yeah right that gets passed and deemed constitutional. Things that don't noticeably change a person's routine, that's what is always going to be taken away. People relatively don't care Facebook, Google, etc take your information. They don't care people might be reading their emaisl/texts/listening to their calls. They don't care because it doesn't noticeably affect them. Forcibly removing someone from their house for no reason, they'll notice.
