Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

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

    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:
      kefauver

      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:
        AoT

        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:
          kefauver

          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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site