Skip to main content

View Diary: I don't want this to be another 9/11. (239 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Who thinks that? (6+ / 0-)

    There's one guy they can't find who fought off cops with homemade bombs and guns.  You really think the lesson from this is that the cops control everything?  Holy RKBA echoes, batman.

    That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

    by Inland on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 09:59:33 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That's what they're trying to prove (0+ / 0-)

      by shutting down the entire city for what you dismissively call "one guy they can't find"

      IOW, a massive over-reaction.  But Bostonians are probably conditioned for this type of thing  - after all this is not the first time this year they've been told to stay home for their own "safety"

      That's quite the change from Bostonians of old:

      "Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
      •  wow (3+ / 0-)

        I really don't think this is what Ben Franklin had in mind.

        Election protection: there's an app for that! -- and a toll-free hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE
        Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

        by HudsonValleyMark on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 10:23:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Huh! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kefauver, Quicklund

        And here I thought they shut down the entire city to keep people out of the line of fire and allow law enforcement to keep its resources more tightly focused on the manhunt than they could be if the city were operating normally.

        And that they did so despite the fact that it involves considerable cost and inconvenience, not just to the hapless masses, but to the government itself and the business interests I'm pretty sure you'd argue they're allied with.

        How could I not have seen the truth?

        Guess it's time to get new tin foil. Mine seems to have stopped working.

        "Do it in the name of Heaven; you can justify it in the end..." - Dennis Lambert & Brian Potter

        by pragmaticidealist on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 10:31:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, like one person can put an entire (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          city in the line of fire:

          And here I thought they shut down the entire city to keep people out of the line of fire
          but to couple that with "I thought" is nicely humorous to be sure.  Bravo on that!
          •  Yeah, he can (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            He's had several days at large, and clearly possesses both the knowledge and expertise to build explosive devices. There is reason to believe that he knows how to use remote control to detonate them.

            Modern technology and dense population centers make it disturbingly easy for a sufficiently knowledgeable and committed individual (or a small number of them) to imperil a very large number of the rest of us. The fact that it's unlikely that this has occurred doesn't free public officials from the necessity to assume that it has.

            Look at the alternative: They don't lock down the city. Law enforcement thins out its manhunt because it has to cover all the myriad things it has to do in a working city on a normal day. There is a bomb, maybe more, and people get hurt. The public officials who failed to assume that the threat existed and take steps to minimize its potential for harm would be held completely accountable for that failure -- and rightly so.

            Nuts or zealots with bombs can force us to do extraordinary things to keep vulnerable people safe until we neutralize the threat. If we assume that the folk we've hired to maintain the peace are all would-be tyrants, all we do is ensure that (a) they can't effectively keep the peace and (b) the ones who aren't would-be tyrants will start leaving in disgust, with the WBTs then filling the vacuum.

            "Do it in the name of Heaven; you can justify it in the end..." - Dennis Lambert & Brian Potter

            by pragmaticidealist on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 10:54:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If that reasoning applied to "ordinary" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              nutcases with guns who kill close to 100 people a day (often themselves, but whatever) in America the country would be on permanent lockdown.

              But we don't do that.

              There's no more reason to do it now than any other time.

              •  Of course there's more reason. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pragmaticidealist, kefauver

                He's not caught, he's in the area, and he plants bombs to kill randomly, possibly with a group.

                You find an analogous situation.  

                That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

                by Inland on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 11:02:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Sure there is. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                A nutcase with a gun -- a nutcase with 100 guns -- can only hurt the people he can reach.

                A nutcase with a few days and some remote-control explosives can hurt people miles away.

                You have to respond to the threat you face, not the one you wish you faced. And it's officialdom's job to assume that they face the worst threat they can reasonably see from the information at hand. It's not pretty, but it's the job.

                "Do it in the name of Heaven; you can justify it in the end..." - Dennis Lambert & Brian Potter

                by pragmaticidealist on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 11:11:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  again, if you're going to deal in hypotheticals (0+ / 0-)

                  like suggesting that this guy has control over remote control explosives - well, that could be the situation all over the country if somebody decides that's the case.  IOW, authorization to shut down a city, county, or state on a whim, as soon as the general population becomes conditioned to believing these pronouncements.

                  That aside, I'm curious how keeping people locked down makes them any safer from remote controlled explosives?  

                  What if they're locked down where the explosives are? In that case, oh gee, if only they had been allowed to go someplace else . . ..

                  •  Reasonable concerns (0+ / 0-)

                    Let's see:

                    The bomb fragments at the marathon site include elements readily identifiable (and very familiar to hobbyists) as having come from RC remote control devices.

                    One of the suspects was seen in video footage making a cell phone call at about the time one of the bombs went off.

                    Conclusive proof that there are remotely controlled bombs planted around the city? Of course not.

                    Reasonable cause for concern that there might be, and to act as if there were to ensure public safety? I think most people would say so.

                    The initial attack was on a public gathering place. Of the two spots I've seen reported as having received particular police attention (i.e., places suspicious packages have been reported/found), both are public spaces. So yes, keeping people in their homes is in high probability keeping more of them out of harm's way than letting them congregate in exactly that sort of spaces around the city.

                    And I'm sorry, but recognizing that an exceptional situation has required an exceptional response is NOT training a population of sheep to accept tyrannical power grabs whenever. Look up the definition of "exceptional" if you need more on this subject.

                    "Do it in the name of Heaven; you can justify it in the end..." - Dennis Lambert & Brian Potter

                    by pragmaticidealist on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 11:40:20 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Seriously, even NYC wasn't this batshit (0+ / 0-)

                      crazy - sure they shut down their bridges to vehicular traffic and their public transportation -but they still let their people walk around freely

                      And that was after a WAY worse attack than this.

                      This is just paranoia run rampant.

                      Either that or Big Brother taking intrusiveness to a whole new level I didn't expect to see in this country for another 7 or 8 years at the earliest.

                      •  They also weren't running a manhunt (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Quicklund, Inland

                        since all known suspects were conveniently dead.

                        That's kind of my point. Responses need to fit their situations.

                        And, with this, I will cease (for now) arguing the obvious with the obdurate.

                        "Do it in the name of Heaven; you can justify it in the end..." - Dennis Lambert & Brian Potter

                        by pragmaticidealist on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 11:53:54 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

          •  Well, if you know where the one guy is (3+ / 0-)

            and where any bombs are, so they can narrow it down, feel free.  Then you can provide something besides being irked by people cooperating with police.

            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

            by Inland on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 10:57:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  If they shut down cities every time (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Roadbed Guy

          there was a murderer on the loose I'd never be able to go anywhere.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 10:51:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yup. A bomb-wielding terrorist and a thug (0+ / 0-)

            with a Glock require exactly the same response from law enforcement.

            "Do it in the name of Heaven; you can justify it in the end..." - Dennis Lambert & Brian Potter

            by pragmaticidealist on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 11:23:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is no evidence he is a terrorist (1+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              Hidden by:
              •  This needs an HR (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I know I've engaged you. But this level of denial just requires the conversation be shut off and terminated.  

                Setting off two bombs in public crowds meets the common concept of terrorist. And yeah, several deaths  missing limbs are entered into evidence.

                •  Terrorism - by US Federal Government (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  prosecuting guidelines require evidence that the deed was done to further social or political goals.

                  Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
                  that's given in this diary

                  Do you have any evidence that these acts were done in furhterance of political or social goals?

                  I think not.  Therefore by definition it's not terrorism.

                  So it's you and your blatant disinformation that * really * needs to be hide rated.

                  But it's nice that you've so nicely outed yourself as one of those fearmongers that cry "terrorism" at every drop of the hat.

                  •  You just wallow in your minutae (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    auron renouille

                    Three dead at the race, scores injured, a dead police officer, IEDs and explosive vests add up to a shitload more than "zero evidence" nor a "drop of a hat".


                    •  Again, it doesn't matter how many (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      times you say it - words have meaning (well, not to you clearly, but in theory they do at least) - and terrorism has a necessary component of pursuing a political or social goal.

                      Now it * might * be possible that these guys met that criteria and actually were terrorists, but up to now I have seen absolutely no evidence of that.  And I note the you opted to not supply any such evidence when I suggested it.  So you seem to agree in that respect and just re-iterate a bunch of nonsense.

                      In any event, it seems much more likely that they were just a couple of completely fucked up nutcases.

                    •  Give it up. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      Anyone who chooses not to grasp the difference between a definition for the purposes of a specific law and the general use definition of the same word in conversational English isn't interested in discussion. From the rest of the thread -- and I've engaged with him repeatedly as if he were intending to be rational -- it's clear that he just wants to see whether he can keep the rest of us from doing something more important than arguing with a rock.

                      It's not worth the annoyance.

                      "Do it in the name of Heaven; you can justify it in the end..." - Dennis Lambert & Brian Potter

                      by pragmaticidealist on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 12:46:06 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You are of course entirely correct (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        In addition to your sound advice ... Now that I have issued an HR, site rules say I should not engage him further. Based on both sources, I will comply.

                        Getting harder to find wine among all the dregs in the DKos cask these days. Thanks for providing me a refreshing glass.

                •  I think the "terrorist" label should be reserved (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  for those acting to further a political or possibly theological agenda or ideology, in concert with others,  as opposed to deranged individuals acting out some personal agenda with a one (or two)-person crime-wave.

                  The theory goes that a "terrorist" acts deliberately to terrorize a population in order to sway it politically, towards the "terrorists'" goals.  I would grace neither the CO movie theater shooter nor the Sandy Hook shooter with that label. They were each random crazies, not part of some "movement".  

                  We don't know yet what the Boston guys had going for an agenda, what was driving them.

                  don't always believe what you think

                  by claude on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 01:59:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Can the police EVER do the right thing (0+ / 0-)

            in your world?

        •  That's it; I think that basically everyone with a (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          badge and active LEO duties east of Worcester is being tasked to this issue.  They simply do not have the time to deal with a tourist whose pocket was picked on Tremont, etc.

          "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

          by auron renouille on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 02:58:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  How DARE the governor tell people (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kefauver, Quicklund, liz

        not to drive in a snowstorm!!!  Someone call the ACLU!

      •  They found a bomb (0+ / 0-)

        outside a public transportation station. They feared that these guys had been planting bombs, and wanted to keep people away.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 11:29:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Dear Genius (0+ / 0-)

        Boston citizens are being asked to remain home, not detained at gunpoint. If a citizen wants to out outside,

        they go outside.

        No "liberty" is being sacrificed.

        •  If that is the case, why is the word (0+ / 0-)

          "lockdown" prominently feature in every headline?

          So, right back at you genius, what does the word mean if not what every internet dictionary tells me?

          •  Headlines define facts eh? (0+ / 0-)

            Never heard of headline writers have you? Well, they work for news orgs, not for law enforcement orgs. I presume in your imagination there is a shotgun-toting guard forcing every resident to stay inside. Not, you know, just a general request put out to the public.

            Keep up the genius-level reasoning.

            •  The term is all over the place (0+ / 0-)

              even at this site.

              That's the second word in the space of two minutes that you don't seem to have a clue what it means.

              Why don't you just pack it in for the day?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site