Boston Bombing

Iv'e been ignoring the news on this as much as possible because I know that no matter what, its bad news. This country as a people, has totally lost it. I can't stand the hyper political environment. Everyone uses tragedy today to further their political agenda.

And then I read this on the LRC blog today:

Posted by Lew Rockwell on April 16, 2013 10:03 AM
How much attention is paid to the four people murdered in Chicago over the weekend, and the 20 people wounded? Not much, and here's why. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn pointed out in the Gulag Archipelago, public criminals feel a certain affinity with private criminals, and used them to supervise the political prisoners in the concentration camps. The Boston murders are taken so seriously because the government feels targeted, and because it and its media can use them to tighten the grip around our necks.

Of course! The media goes nuts for these kind of events, but just think of how many people are killed locally everyday. Think of the news stories we read about the latest San Bernardino murder or shooting.
People are killed all the time, but they want us to be in fear of the things they tell us to be to be, all in order to justify their grip on power.
This country makes me sick.

LOL at people freaking out over the situation in Chicago and then claiming over-saturated media coverage of something like yesterdays Boston bombings, while simultaneously, and perhaps unknowingly, being guilty of falling for similar media sensationalism themselves. It's not an everyday occurrence in this country when over 170 people are injured and 3 killed as the result of a coordinated bombing at a world-class event. On that ground, I find it somewhat odd to equate daily violence in urban city pockets with yesterdays incident in Boston.

I believe this recent incident in Boston without a doubt merits public attention, although I would advise taking precautionary and analytical approaches to those seeking more information, and not blindly swallowing the corporate media reports, especially when a lot of the information we're being presented during these incidents has proven to be, time and time again, precarious at best.

On that note, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if this incident is eventually blamed on "domestic terrorists". And I fully expect the political powers at be to ride this incident out as much as they can because remember, as Rahm Emanuel said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste.".

After Boston: In a California terrorist attack, cameras would be watching

'We will be able to piece it together'
By Eric Hartley and Sandy Mazza

eric.hartley@dailynews.com @ethartley on Twitter



Read more: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_23040325/after-boston-california-terrorist-attack-cameras-would-be#ixzz2QhFxvPZA





If terrorists ever strike Southern California, police and federal agents here will immediately ask the same question those in Boston did Monday: Where are the cameras?

The answer: almost everywhere.

Though there's no guarantee terrorists would be recorded in the act, the chances grow almost every day - as does the size of Southern California's network of public and private surveillance cameras.

Immediately after the Boston Marathon bombings Monday, the FBI started combing through footage taken by cameras in the area. CNN reported Tuesday federal officials said they had not yet found footage of anyone placing the bombs.

Likewise, in a Los Angeles-area attack, video footage would be one of the first tools - not only from traditional surveillance cameras, but from the smartphones now carried by nearly everyone.

"Cameras have gotten so affordable, and the quality is so good for the money," said Capt. John Romero, whose division coordinates hundreds of cameras for the Los

Angeles Police Department. "There's going to be so many cameras out there that we will be able to piece it together. "
Surveillance cameras have been around for decades. But in recent years, as new technology has made them cheaper and better and terrorism concerns have made them more attractive, their numbers have grown dramatically.

Cities, police departments, transit agencies, businesses and regular people across Southern California have installed thousands of cameras, some paid for with federal homeland security grants.

The city of Gardena now has 125 of them in its six square miles - and more in the works. Redlands, with about 70,000 people, has more than 100 cameras.

Larger cities, including Los Angeles and Long Beach, have hundreds more.

And with Web-enabled cameras now common, requiring only a Web browser and a password to view, police can now monitor even private cameras (with the owners' permission) in real time or after the fact.

When police explain new surveillance cameras to residents, they talk almost exclusively about crime.

Gardena Police Chief Ed Medrano said his city's cameras have helped catch drunken drivers and a man who shot someone in a park. Capt. Tom Brascia, the commander for the LAPD's Topanga station in the San Fernando Valley, said he expected them to be most useful in solving property crime.

But quietly, without any official plan, the Los Angeles region has also built a massive homeland security apparatus everyone hopes will never be needed.

A mouse click

Twenty years ago, police investigating a store holdup or a vandalism would ask that same question: Where are the cameras?

But in those days, using video evidence meant an officer or detective driving to a store and poring over grainy VHS tape - if someone hadn't already taped over it.

Now, police in cities including L.A., Long Beach and Gardena can view live or archived digital video and control cameras miles away with a few clicks.

When the LAPD unveiled 16 new surveillance cameras in the southwestern San Fernando Valley in January, police showed reporters how they could rotate the cameras with a mouse or a joystick.

Last year, Long Beach began using a system that integrated about 400 public and private cameras throughout the city. Video feeds are monitored by dispatchers in a room at the Police Department.

In Gardena, the cameras are so clear that viewers can make out whether someone is smoking a cigarette or a joint. And when there was a call for an argument at a park recently, Medrano said, he was able to scan the entire park and discover there was no problem before officers had even arrived.

At the LAPD's Real Time Analysis and Critical Response Division, Romero's officers can access hundreds of cameras in addition to those monitored at individual stations.

He did not want to discuss where in the city the cameras were or exactly what capabilities they might have in the event of a terrorist attack.

"The issue is that, do we really want to be talking about our methods for deterring terrorism?" he said.

The cameras aren't all watched in real time, something that would require many hundreds of officers, volunteers or civilian workers doing nothing else. But they make digital recordings that are kept for 30 days - or longer if necessary.

A detective can pull up footage in minutes or seconds. After a terrorist attack, the FBI could do the same.

Privacy overshadowed

Privacy advocates, civil liberties groups, libertarian and Tea Party groups oppose the growth in cameras as an invasion of privacy.

"Of course, when people are walking down the street, they can be seen by other members of the public, but it's a very different thing to have their activities in public recorded and maintained by law enforcement," said Peter Bibring, a senior attorney for the ACLU of Southern California.

Jacob Sullum, a senior editor with the libertarian Reason magazine, said a network of cameras covering an entire city would violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures because they could track people constantly, something impossible for police officers alone to do.

But the number of cameras seems likely to keep growing.

Torrance Mayor Frank Scotto said his city will add cameras when it can afford them.

"I think it's a great tool and a great way to catch criminals," he said. "I believe that technology is advancing so quickly that, in the future, a surveillance camera will be at every corner. Some people believe it's infringing on privacy, but if you're not doing anything wrong, your privacy won't be affected. "

Dennis Zine, a Los Angeles city councilman who used discretionary money to pay for 16 police cameras in his western San Fernando Valley district, said he thinks the monitoring will be more centralized in the future.

If there is an attack in a public place in California, the most important "surveillance" camera might be not the one installed on a rooftop, but the one in your pocket. At any public event, especially those like the Boston Marathon that seem likely to be terrorist targets, there's bound to be someone holding up a smartphone. A lot of someones.

After the Boston attacks, the FBI asked anyone with pictures or videos to email them to boston@ic.fbi.gov.

That kind of sharing, whether ahead of time or after the fact, is likely to be central to the future of video surveillance, Romero said.

That would help solve one problem: the expense of maintaining an ever-growing network of government-owned cameras. An L.A. City Council report last year found some of the city's 368 cameras hadn't been working for years and said police should dedicate more resources to them. Broken cameras kept police from getting evidence on the stabbing death of a 53-year-old man on L.A.'s Skid Row, the report said.

City Council members are expected to vote soon on a motion to spend money to fix broken cameras.

When LAPD officers monitored Occupy protests in the city, they used traditional surveillance cameras. But they also used footage from mainstream media and from "citizen journalists" broadcasting live video on sites such as Ustream, Romero said. People were, in effect, giving police the tools to watch them.

Privacy concerns, so far, have been no match for the march of technology.

"There is no expectation of privacy when you come to the public sphere, whether it be the airport or walking down the street," Zine said. "Some people say, 'This is Big Brother watching you.' Well, this is Big Brother protecting you. "

Daddie Strong Pipe wrote:LOL at people freaking out over the situation in Chicago and then claiming over-saturated media coverage of something like yesterdays Boston bombings, while simultaneously, and perhaps unknowingly, being guilty of falling for similar media sensationalism themselves. It's not an everyday occurrence in this country when over 170 people are injured and 3 killed as the result of a coordinated bombing at a world-class event. On that ground, I find it somewhat odd to equate daily violence in urban city pockets with yesterdays incident in Boston.

I believe this recent incident in Boston without a doubt merits public attention, although I would advise taking precautionary and analytical approaches to those seeking more information, and not blindly swallowing the corporate media reports, especially when a lot of the information we're being presented during these incidents has proven to be, time and time again, precarious at best.

On that note, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if this incident is eventually blamed on "domestic terrorists". And I fully expect the political powers at be to ride this incident out as much as they can because remember, as Rahm Emanuel said, "You never let a serious crisis go to waste.".

The reason for equating violence in the city to this event is simply to highlight the hysteria. Yes, its rare that a incident like this happens which is why it is news worthy, but the hysteria and nonstop coverage and talk about what steps need to be taken next is all to further an agenda. They tell us when to be afraid and what to be afraid of. Yet, the chances of dying in a terrorist attack like this is less than slim. You have a better chance of getting killed in a domestic dispute or some random act of violence in your city. But the government doesn't care about that. It only cares about fear mongering after events that they can use to further their agenda, to gain more power, to pass more laws, to bring on the police state. And it goes beyond just making everyone fearful, but also to smear political opposition and so they start with all this talk about it probably being "Anti government RIGHT WING" "anti tax" anti federal reserve" etc people behind it.

Point is, anyone can die and get killed anywhere at anytime for any reason. But they zero in on the incidences they can use for their gain.

I agree. And liked I mentioned in the chatbox earlier, it only takes so much of psychological manipulation and constant fear mongering to eventually coax the masses into accepting new reformations and laws that would otherwise been seen as a violation of constructional rights. As a matter of fact, these very things are going on as we speak with the recent onslaught for gun control.

If you hav a stomach for it go to www.bestgore.com and there you will see what news can't show, and will also see some strange shit where they make it seem like the secret gov is at it again

(CBS News) The FBI was involved in what it called a "violent confrontation" in Orlando, Fla., early Wednesday that killed a Chechen man with ties to the older brother suspected in last month's deadly terrorist bombing at the Boston Marathon.

CBS News senior correspondent John Miller, a former FBI assistant director, reported on "CBS This Morning" that the man, Ibragim Todashev, was friends with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a suspect in the attack that killed three people and injured more than 260 others.

The FBI has not commented on the relationship between Todashev and Tsarnaev but confirmed that Todashev died in the shootout. Miller reports that, like Tsarnaev, who was once a boxer, Todashev was a mixed-martial-arts fighter.

In a statement Wednesday, the FBI didn't refer to Todashev by name but said that the individual who died was being interviewed in connection with the investigation into the April 15 attack. An FBI special agent was accompanied by two Massachusetts State Police troopers and other law-enforcement officers to interview Todashev in the apartment complex where he lived.

"In the encounter in the apartment, something went wrong," Miller said.

The FBI said that the interview subject initiated "a violent confrontation." The FBI said the agent "sustained non-life-threatening injuries" during the confrontation and was involved in the shooting but didn't provide any other details.

An official told CBS News that Todashev came at the agent with a knife.

Special Section: Boston Marathon Bombing

Miller reported that the FBI went to the apartment after midnight Wednesday morning to question him. Todashev had been on the bureau's radar since Tsarnaev was identified as a suspect in the bombing.

(CBS News) The FBI was involved in what it called a "violent confrontation" in Orlando, Fla., early Wednesday that killed a Chechen man with ties to the older brother suspected in last month's deadly terrorist bombing at the Boston Marathon.

CBS News senior correspondent John Miller, a former FBI assistant director, reported on "CBS This Morning" that the man, Ibragim Todashev, was friends with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, a suspect in the attack that killed three people and injured more than 260 others.

The FBI has not commented on the relationship between Todashev and Tsarnaev but confirmed that Todashev died in the shootout. Miller reports that, like Tsarnaev, who was once a boxer, Todashev was a mixed-martial-arts fighter.

In a statement Wednesday, the FBI didn't refer to Todashev by name but said that the individual who died was being interviewed in connection with the investigation into the April 15 attack. An FBI special agent was accompanied by two Massachusetts State Police troopers and other law-enforcement officers to interview Todashev in the apartment complex where he lived.

"In the encounter in the apartment, something went wrong," Miller said.

The FBI said that the interview subject initiated "a violent confrontation." The FBI said the agent "sustained non-life-threatening injuries" during the confrontation and was involved in the shooting but didn't provide any other details.

An official told CBS News that Todashev came at the agent with a knife.

Special Section: Boston Marathon Bombing

Miller reported that the FBI went to the apartment after midnight Wednesday morning to question him. Todashev had been on the bureau's radar since Tsarnaev was identified as a suspect in the bombing.

I caught word of this yesterday. All I can say is that this story has been a disastrous, incoherent, and mind-boggling mess since day one. A few hours of dedicated, open-minded research into the matter, reveals a great deal of loose-ends, inconsistencies, anomalies, and obvious contradictions within the official reports.

The corporate media refrains from reporting anything about it for a few weeks at a time, while completely disregarding other emerging details of importance and evidences which contradict the official narrative, and then seemingly out of nowhere, they come with a flurry of 'startling revelations' regarding the alleged suspects and their other purported criminal activities and admissions.

When they're caught in their lies, they change the story, pin the focus on something else, or simply abandon that part of the narrative if they see that it's being ineffective or counter-productive in pushing the main story along. A good example of this is when they were fervently promoting the "Mischa" character; a person of interest who was alleged to have 'radicalized' the brothers. When that 'lead' was shown to be a farce by members of the suspects family, and a failure of yielding anything compelling, they jumped ship and eventually moved on.

Here's a noteworthy piece of information for those who haven't been following all of the details surrounding this event; talks of the Tsarnaev brothers being connected to the 2011 Waltham triple murders were already in effect just a couple of days after the bombings took place, and well before most of the public even knew any of the back-story concerning the main bombing incident .

They finally began reporting on this story openly about 2 weeks ago, but they merely flirted with 'possible connections'. As of yesterday, it became official. This Ibragim Todashev character allegedly admits to participating in the murders along with Tamerlan, complies initially with the FBI, and then gets violent with one of them just as he's about to sign a written confession. As the story goes, he lunges towards one of them with a knife and is shot and killed on the spot. Just that quickly, any evidence of such a signed declaration, is gone. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

The murders connection..... it's as if they're eager in any way, to demonstrate to the masses that these brothers are unequivocally guilty of everything they've been charged with. Further demonize the suspect and his brother and convince the sheeps that, they are without a doubt, guilty as charged. Even if that means adding more odd twists and turns into the story.

Remembers folks, dead men don't talk. Dead men can't tell the truth. Dead men can't defend themselves. Dead men can't speak to some hidden facts, truths, contradictions or complexities.

It's easy to kill, blame the person and associate all kinds of crimes on that person(s). And people with short memories, poor knowledge of the events and lots of prejudice, blindly go along - namely, the sheeple. Stay alert, be awake, and question all that you're being told. Answers and truth will only come to those that seek it. Do your own research. We are being lied to on a daily basis.

The Feds seem to be on a killing spree. They've just gone wild lately and the country seems to be becoming more and more divided as time goes on, mainly between the anti authoritarian types that like to independently evaluate information they receive on a daily basis and those that are perfectly content to swallow what ever those in charge tell us. Problem is the authoritarians are in charge and are getting more and more aggressive in their attempts to crush opposition through smear campaigns and by passing totalitarian "laws." Hell, simply advocating for peace in this country puts you at risk for being targeted as a person of "suspicious" or "dangerous" behavior.

I've been noticing when I post something on facebook regarding nothing in particular I get all kinds of replies. When I post something that can be or is political I get don't get responses...and I have quite a few people against the grain like me. I'm starting to think they isolate posts and block most from seeing it