The Boston Marathon Bombing
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
I'm not sure why the issue of locking down the city provokes such strong sentiments: yes, if cities are being shut down all the time, it has a certain ring of 'letting the terrorists win'.
But in the short-term view, if a bunch of teenagers out for their Boston-day larks and sunshines happened to stumble around the corner as Thuggerlane et al come roaring down the street, firing and setting off explosives with the cops in hot pursuit, the tragedy could easily have become hugely worse. Can any of you imagine the public outrage from such a happenstance? From the political perspective, the risk is unacceptable. From the moral perspective, the risk is unacceptable. If it's an everyday occurrence, like London under the Blitz (which was more of a Sitz) then there is a certain moral standing in bearing up without taking such strong preventative measures. In this case, not so much.
I'm much more interested of course in whether they really were part of a larger group. It's been proposed, but really what they did didn't doesn't seem to be terribly technically difficult, nor the materials expensive. CNN describes the explosives as "homemade". The information itself they probably could get anywhere, or during one of their visits to Dagestan. Now according to the Mirror (hmph) there's a massive manhunt for a sleeper cell, with arrests, even.
The arrests come as a surprise to me: again, given the relative simplicity of such an attack, I don't see why other people would really have been needed. The profiles that I've seen in my admittedly rapid scans of the coverage suggest a pair of individuals who simply became highly zealous in their religious beliefs and made an attack in retaliation for the Chechnyan wars.
That last part is one of the more curious: why the US rather than Russia? I'm sure the embassy wouldn't have been too hard to get to. Or is it just like airline bombings: lashing out at a softer target for the purposes of sensationalism. Or even just for carnage? A sufficiently devout Islamist might consider any non-Muslim lives as sufficient repayment.
I'll be interested to see the outcome of this 'cell' investigation, though I'm (heh) skeptical that this cell exists as such. Maybe a loose association of the like-minded.
Note this, too: despite the rightful jubilation, Boston lost this round. Several dead and hundred injured, many seriously, for one terrorist dead and another wounded. My guess is that the costs of repair and trial will easily cross $10 million. Too many victories like that and the US will have to start considering a double-sequestration. This is the other, usually unremarked-on advantage of terrorism: economic carnage.
But in the short-term view, if a bunch of teenagers out for their Boston-day larks and sunshines happened to stumble around the corner as Thuggerlane et al come roaring down the street, firing and setting off explosives with the cops in hot pursuit, the tragedy could easily have become hugely worse. Can any of you imagine the public outrage from such a happenstance? From the political perspective, the risk is unacceptable. From the moral perspective, the risk is unacceptable. If it's an everyday occurrence, like London under the Blitz (which was more of a Sitz) then there is a certain moral standing in bearing up without taking such strong preventative measures. In this case, not so much.
I'm much more interested of course in whether they really were part of a larger group. It's been proposed, but really what they did didn't doesn't seem to be terribly technically difficult, nor the materials expensive. CNN describes the explosives as "homemade". The information itself they probably could get anywhere, or during one of their visits to Dagestan. Now according to the Mirror (hmph) there's a massive manhunt for a sleeper cell, with arrests, even.
The arrests come as a surprise to me: again, given the relative simplicity of such an attack, I don't see why other people would really have been needed. The profiles that I've seen in my admittedly rapid scans of the coverage suggest a pair of individuals who simply became highly zealous in their religious beliefs and made an attack in retaliation for the Chechnyan wars.
That last part is one of the more curious: why the US rather than Russia? I'm sure the embassy wouldn't have been too hard to get to. Or is it just like airline bombings: lashing out at a softer target for the purposes of sensationalism. Or even just for carnage? A sufficiently devout Islamist might consider any non-Muslim lives as sufficient repayment.
I'll be interested to see the outcome of this 'cell' investigation, though I'm (heh) skeptical that this cell exists as such. Maybe a loose association of the like-minded.
Note this, too: despite the rightful jubilation, Boston lost this round. Several dead and hundred injured, many seriously, for one terrorist dead and another wounded. My guess is that the costs of repair and trial will easily cross $10 million. Too many victories like that and the US will have to start considering a double-sequestration. This is the other, usually unremarked-on advantage of terrorism: economic carnage.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I heard a report on the news that the older brother was a really good boxer. A source told the reporter that the brother was fine until he was rejected for a high level competition, and he viewed the choice as discrimination against him for his ethnicity. After that time the source told the reporter that he was changed. His motivation was gone, he was withdrawn, and described as a changed man. I think there might have been rage and he wanted revenge on society. JMO
I saw a photo gallery of Tamerlan at Wai Kru accompanied by descriptions.
In one of them, he said that he did not have a single American friend, because he did not understand them. I don't know why this would be the case, but it certainly formed part of his motivation.
http://www.boston.com/sports/2013/0...hon-bombing/Qil39GhtyWEZm7nOfjJ5JK/story.html
Rocky would never have quit.
The rejection would only have made him train even harder.
@Bells
It is very difficult to keep your temper when you are arguing with someone
who misinterprets what you have said, and then insults you for those distortions.
Once I stopped arguing with him, he started on GeoffP.
I would advise GeoffP to put him on ignore, same as I did.
The rejection would only have made him train even harder.
@Bells
It is very difficult to keep your temper when you are arguing with someone
who misinterprets what you have said, and then insults you for those distortions.
Once I stopped arguing with him, he started on GeoffP.
I would advise GeoffP to put him on ignore, same as I did.
Last edited:
Interesting.
In human psychology, there's probably never any one reason for something like this. Religion, alienation, alienation resulting from religion, and so forth. But then again I saw a lot of reports about how well integrated these two actually were; girlfriend, social interactions, and so forth. Were they alienated? Doesn't seem so. All that social media stuff suggests they were liked and noticed. Trudeau opined recently that they were alienated; but frankly he's another brainless rich kid, so fuck his non-intuition from the get-go. (And I think we've seen enough bad examples of daddy-baby inheritance in the political process, thanks.)
Let's say they really were on the outs, though: do we burn them anyway for their crimes? Where do we start forgiving people for their evils based on their experiences? Should we? Everything in human interaction seems to come down to a ratio of power vs moral responsibility anyway.
In human psychology, there's probably never any one reason for something like this. Religion, alienation, alienation resulting from religion, and so forth. But then again I saw a lot of reports about how well integrated these two actually were; girlfriend, social interactions, and so forth. Were they alienated? Doesn't seem so. All that social media stuff suggests they were liked and noticed. Trudeau opined recently that they were alienated; but frankly he's another brainless rich kid, so fuck his non-intuition from the get-go. (And I think we've seen enough bad examples of daddy-baby inheritance in the political process, thanks.)
Let's say they really were on the outs, though: do we burn them anyway for their crimes? Where do we start forgiving people for their evils based on their experiences? Should we? Everything in human interaction seems to come down to a ratio of power vs moral responsibility anyway.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Yes. There must be negative consequences for that type of behavior, and the public demands it. Not only does it deserve tough punishment, but it's also needed as a deterrent to future crimes. The punishment needs to fit the crime or justice is not served.
I think we're slowly getting better at that as we evolve. The very nature of the terms of becoming "more civilized" pretty much sums it up. As we evolve as time elapses we generally get more civilized, which kind of sucks in a way, because I think the old hangings would instill a real sense of justice and community like the old days. It must leave a distinct impression in one's mind when you see a guy hanging on a rope in front of everyone. One must think extra hard before one does something deserving of the rope!
A reasonable person would not have to invent stuff. If it wasn’t voluntary as you have been claiming, then it has to be mandatory. And the shutdown or sheltering in place was clearly voluntary. It was not a “lockdown” as you have been claiming. And that fact has been repeatedly proven to you. Sticking your head in the sand is not going to change reality.
NO YOU HAVE NOT. You have made a lot of allegations, none of which have been backed up with reason or proof. The fact is you have not and cannot offer a single shred of evidence that public officials said what you want/need them to say. They never called this event a lockdown. They called it a request. They called it "sheltering in". There was no enforcement.
You obviously don’t read your references. The mayor didn’t refer to the sheltering in place request as a lockdown. In the article you referenced he referred to it as a shut down. That is not a lockdown…minor details getting the way of your reality again. The fact is you cannot find a single instance in which the responsible public officials implemented a “lockdown” as you have claimed. Lockdowns are mandatory.
All you have done is report someone said someone said it was a lockdown. Someone said that Governor Patrick said, it was a lockdown. That is called hearsay. Hearsay is not reliable which is why it is not allowed in our courts. As previously pointed and proven to you, Governor Patrick said no such thing. When you look at what officials said, including the highest state official, Governor Patrick, they said no such thing. The governor and his fellow officials all referred to it as a request.
Well who exactly is mealy mouthing around the Constitution? No one, how does a public request to stay indoors and lock your doors violate anything in the Constitution? It doesn’t. And who exactly are the people being treated like terrorists who are not terrorists? Can you name a single person? No you cannot, because all of this is a product of your imagination.
Last edited:
I see abc has switched the video so heres the transcript:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, let me ask you more about that lockdown. Because some have suggested that it was an overreaction to lock down the city, was actually giving the terrorists exactly what they wanted. Are you convinced it was necessary?
MENINO: At the time the decision was made, it sure was. I had information that there was other things going on during the decision that was made. And I agree with that decision at the time, because of the information we had. And at that time, we found a pipe bomb in another location in the city of Boston, another individual was taken into custody in another location. So there was many activities going on. And so to bring it to -- so we can have a clarity of this situation, we brought people together and said, okay, folks, please work with us.
Let me just tell you, Boston did a great job that day. Nobody went on the streets. Boston was on lockdown. But it was for the benefit and public safety of the individuals.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-mayor-thomas-menino/story?id=19008022
I am disinterested in semantics when we are dealing with a population of 400K+ who reasonably use the term lockdown to describe the situation they lived through. The MAYOR called it a lockdown.
There is no way you are going to convince me a 'reasonable person' would not interpret the request made by the governor to Shelter in place was not the equivalency of a Lockdown. Time and again google searches into legal docs interchange lockdown/shelter in placewiki on reasonable person said:
Meg Mahon LeonGuerrero The Watertown Police are refusing to allow the employees at the Watertown Target who are sheltering in place to go home. Please help.
1 · Friday at 10:44am
Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency Hi Meg, while in general employees are allowed to return home, local authorities may have specific restrictions for certain areas given local conditions or security concerns. Please be patient
Friday at 10:46am
Meg Mahon LeonGuerrero Thank you for the response.They probably should have mentioned that at the press conference since all those employees watched and are now extremly frustrated that they can't leave.
Friday at 10:47am
No response from the MEMA person. So another posts a response (Randy may work for MEMA but hes using the terms they say):
Randy S Martin They did say that it was safe for workers in Boston to go home, they did not say if you were in Watertown behind the barricade you would be allowed to pass through the barricades
Friday at 11:06am
Meg Mahon LeonGuerrero that would have been helpful if they had said that.
https://www.facebook.com/MassachusettsEMA/posts/10151334243497331
Mealy mouthing their way around the constitution. See folks you werent really prisoners in your own homes/workplace. In General you were instructed to move between your employment to your home. Well unless your in a location we didnt talk about during the news conference.
You are back to hearsay. More and more hearsay is not going to change the facts. It was a request. Compliance was totally voluntary, as has been proven time and time again. Below is a link to the actual request. The governor and the Boston police chief specifically used the word “voluntary”. No matter how much puke you dump, it will not change history try as you will.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50145197n
None of that changes the facts. This was announced as purely voluntary request. And there is nothing unconstitutional or unconventional or radical about government leaders making requests. Governor Patrick and the police chiefs were not treading on the Constitution when they requested people shelter in place for a time.
http://www.kmuw.org/post/boston-police-ask-residents-shelter-place
Lockdown is a word that has various levels.
A full lockdown is where people are not allowed to move about,
for example in a prison after a riot,
when prisoners are confined to their cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockdown
Bostonians were requested to stay indoors.
Those that didn't were probably subject to questioning,
but I can't find a single instance of a person being arrested for venturing outdoors.
So it was a partial lockdown.
Good journalists should have made that plain.
When you think about it, a full lockdown have been impossible to enforce.
For example.
If someone had a sick relative they were caring for, they would have to visit them.
Also, I have now heard the full exchange of words between Napolitano and Duncan,
There was far more said than the brief exchange reported in the Washington Times,
and while Napolitano did lose her cool, it was under provocation.
The reporting standards have not been great.
You shouldn't have to go to original sources to understand current affairs.
A full lockdown is where people are not allowed to move about,
for example in a prison after a riot,
when prisoners are confined to their cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockdown
Bostonians were requested to stay indoors.
Those that didn't were probably subject to questioning,
but I can't find a single instance of a person being arrested for venturing outdoors.
So it was a partial lockdown.
Good journalists should have made that plain.
When you think about it, a full lockdown have been impossible to enforce.
For example.
If someone had a sick relative they were caring for, they would have to visit them.
Also, I have now heard the full exchange of words between Napolitano and Duncan,
There was far more said than the brief exchange reported in the Washington Times,
and while Napolitano did lose her cool, it was under provocation.
The reporting standards have not been great.
You shouldn't have to go to original sources to understand current affairs.
Last edited:
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Joepistole, You keep saying the word voluntary. Please explain to me who (by name) volunteered to have their primary mode of transportation (public transport) shut down?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Ditto.
There is a distinction, though. The citizens were acted upon, and the terms used to describe the events were well chosen words so as to not be used against the politicians at a later date. However, the choice of words used made no difference in the actions implemented. The big difference for the wording is on the political landscape, the politicians are the ones concerned with the wording. Me? I couldn't care less what they call it, ACTIONS speak louder than words!
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Paranoia speaks louder than words and reality.
Are you suggesting that I should blindly trust a politician?
Are you suggesting that I should blindly trust a politician?
Of course not, but there is a line between "blind trust" and paranoia. In this case, it was very clear people were advised and requested to stay in their homes. They were not ordered to stay in their homes. There was no emergency orders issued by the governor, the guy with the power to issue such orders. Reasonable people do not need to rewrite history or rewrite the dictionary.
Right. That and Islam.
Right because any and everything done by a Muslim is because of their faith. Why don't you just keep quiet until you get your bigotries in check.