Boston Marathon hit by explosions

[JimC]

Ignorance is deeply scary...

[mistermack]

Ignorance is deeply scary...

Not too scary to get elected president twice though.

It's the same old story repeated over and over again. Mustn't talk about american terrorism, that's not terrorism, that's just us being "strong".

Terrorism is the same thing, whoever does it. And I've seen LOADS of terrorism carried out by the US over the years against muslims.

The fact that the US population doesn't even KNOW it, means nothing. That just explains the dumb amazement when the muslims fight back. Dumb amazement doesn't put you in the right.

Innocent casualties mean nothing to either side. That's the logic of terrorism. You kill our innocents, and we kill yours.
We get VERY upset about our own innocent casualties. And don't give a fuck about yours.

[Seabass]

And I've seen LOADS of terrorism carried out by the US over the years against muslims.

And you British have been right there next to us. We make a great terror team, do we not?

[mistermack]

And I've seen LOADS of terrorism carried out by the US over the years against muslims.

And you British have been right there next to us. We make a great terror team, do we not?

Certainly do. Although I've never said "you americans".

[Cormac]

Ignorance is deeply scary...

Not too scary to get elected president twice though.

It's the same old story repeated over and over again. Mustn't talk about american terrorism, that's not terrorism, that's just us being "strong".

Terrorism is the same thing, whoever does it. And I've seen LOADS of terrorism carried out by the US over the years against muslims.

The fact that the US population doesn't even KNOW it, means nothing. That just explains the dumb amazement when the muslims fight back. Dumb amazement doesn't put you in the right.

Innocent casualties mean nothing to either side. That's the logic of terrorism. You kill our innocents, and we kill yours.
We get VERY upset about our own innocent casualties. And don't give a fuck about yours.

There is a lot in this with which I agree.

It still never justifies murdering innocent civilians. But there is a lot in it.

But that is the lesson of 1984. How this kind of blond ignorence and unconscious alignment can be achieved. The last 13 years have been very starkly Orwellian - in particular the amnesia about former allies turned enemies and the pretence that these events arose from nowhere, best illustrated in the moronic "they hates our freedumb!" idiocy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Faithfree]

I'll admit I had to google 'Alex Jones'.

[cronus]

The sewer is a necessary part of the internet. You wouldn't like the more crazy ideas to go mainstream would you? I'd like to know where all the sewer covers have gone though?

[Seth]

Who are you or they to interpret the consitution?

I'm a citizen of the United States, and the Constitution is the command of the People to the government to restrain itself from infringing on our liberties. The authorities and powers granted to government come from the People, not from the government, and we, the People, may revoke any or all of those grants of power and authority at our pleasure.

It's the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution. If they don't have a problem, then why should a bunch of nutjobs be allowed to attack the gumbint because they personally don't like a civil society?

Depends on what the Supreme Court, and the Congress, and the President do by way of maintaining a "civil society." We are not subjects or vassals of the government, we are free sovereign citizens in voluntary association and the government is our servant and vassal. We owe no allegiance to any particular government official or administration.

One might ask "if Mad King George doesn't have a problem with what his soldiers are doing to Colonists, why should a bunch of nutjobs be allowed to attack the gubmint because they personally don't like the King's notion of a civil society."

Generally, victors write the history.

The difference between the English army and the U.S. Army, and U.S. law enforcement, is that the English army swore allegiance to the King of England, in his person. Every officer and soldier in the U.S. military, and every U.S. law enforcement officer, including the FBI, swears allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, not Bush, or Obama, or any other politician or person.

And every one of them swears to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and the Constitution of their state for state officers. An example of this is seen in Colorado, where at least 14 county Sheriffs have pledged NOT to enforce the asinine magazine limit passed by the partisan Democrat-controlled legislature over the universal objection of the Republicans who were elected as well. They are choosing the U.S. Constitution and the Colorado Constitution over a partisan (and useless) political act by a small number of legislators that clearly violates the rights of Colorado citizens. Is this law justification for rebellion? Of course not, the legal system will grind along and the law will be overturned, but the RKBA remains the last defense for a time when the legal system does NOT act to preserve, protect and defend the Constitutions and the legislative system has become tyrannical and abusive to the rights of the People.

That is when the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment comes into play, just as the underlying unalienable right to keep and bear arms came into play in 1776.

[Seth]

That dead older brother, at least, is said to have been getting ideas from extremist Muslim websites, but didn't have a real connection to them. The price of freedom of speech, I guess.

Plus a government that arguably terrorizes other nations. Plus a city that has a downright negligent attitude towards security.

nothing "arguably" about it. Unless, of course, you could also use the term "arguably terrorizes" in the boston situation. Still no "news" coverage on the naked man being arrested?

That's because he was detained for about 40 minutes and then released when it was determined he had no connection to the terrorists. Having him strip was a wise precaution, given the evident fact that the dead older brother was wearing a suicide explosive vest.

It's called "exigent circumstances" which permit the police to do any reasonable thing (short of killing someone) necessary in the hot pursuit of a criminal who poses a grave danger to the public. Being detained and disrobed because you bear a reasonable resemblance to a terrorist bombing suspect is entirely reasonable under the exigent circumstances exception.

[Seth]

532733_585330064833601_188966991_n.jpg

A well-regulated militia indeed.

Pity the people of Boston were forced to cower in terror during the manhunt because only the police have the arms necessary to secure the community.

In a rational community, ever single homeowner would have been patrolling his own property with his semi-automatic rife, high capacity ammunition magazine and handgun and, seeing the suspect, would have raised the alarm and if necessary put the fugitive down with some well placed shots long before the police got there. He had already escaped the police perimeter and but for his wounds would very likely have escaped. It was his blood that gave him away TO AN OBSERVANT CITIZEN, who should be credited with his capture. The police just showed up to clean things up and haul him off to the hospital. They did nothing a hasty team of competent armed citizens could not have done in their absence.

Now, this is not to say that the Boston Police and all the other law-enforcement agents involved did not do excellent work, but it was a vigilant citizen who actually found him...and could easily have gotten killed sticking his foolish head into the boat...and could have been taken hostage if the terrorist had been better trained or more determined...like his older brother...because he did not have a firearm with which to protect himself.

It was pure luck that he didn't get killed. He wasn't so much brave as he was oblivious to the true nature of the danger he was facing because, being a disarmed sheeple, he had no tactical training or plan for dealing with an armed criminal hiding in his boat.

Now imagine that the suspect, less wounded, escaped the dragnet and took refuge in a rural area where law enforcement is far away and much less concentrated. Keep in mind they ambushed a MIT police officer and killed him. Imagine that someone living 30 minutes away from the nearest cop sees bloody handprints on his boat, or his shed or barn. If he's unarmed, the best he can do is retreat to his house, barricade himself and his family in and call the police...assuming he has a phone, and then wait a half hour or more while hoping that the armed terrorist doesn't decide to bust down the door and take them all hostage.

The armed citizen, on the other hand, has options and can decide to pursue and subdue the terrorist, set up a defensive barricade and wait for the police, or take the terrorist under observation from a protected firing point that allows him to take the terrorist out if he attacks or tries to flee before the police get there.

Now imagine that this same rural resident has neighbors nearby whom he can call who will arm themselves and come to his aid while awaiting the police.

An armed citizenry providing for their own defense and protection and the protection of the community in the absence of the police.

Sounds a lot like what Sir Robert Peel contemplated: "Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

I prefer scenario number two myself, which gives one many more options for self defense and protection of the community.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah, everybody should have been out hunting those guys.

[Seth]

these guys, like many Chechens, were frustrated with the lack of intervention or even interest from the US on behalf of their country's struggle against harsh Russian occupation, and they sought some combination of revenge and attention for their homeland's plight.

Seems like a good reason not to let them into the US.

It's a shame Russia wasn't more successful in Chechnya, as only a thorough cleansing of Islamic influences will fix it.

And, as any cook will tell you, you can't "cleanse" an influence without breaking heads.

Actually, it was the "cleansing" done by the Chechnens themselves, and the Russians, that opened the door to Islamic fundamentalism and the intrusion of Islamic radicalism into the area.

[Seth]

It'll be interesting to hear what, if anything, the kid says now that he's in custody.

In the meantime, people are just projecting their own belief systems onto what this kid's motivation might have been. Of course Sandi types have brought up US/western military action overseas and how it surely must create more terrorists than it destroys, etc (though I kinda doubt these guys were personally pissed about that). Of course mistermack, having a thing about the IRA, brings up the historical footnote of the IRA drawing some of its US funding from the Boston area and sports a reap-what-you-sow sort of schadenfreude (which says nothing about Boston and less about these bombers, just about mistermack). And since it hasn't been mentioned yet, I'll sum up one right-wing line of thought I've heard from somewhere (which I do not really agree with either): these guys, like many Chechens, were frustrated with the lack of intervention or even interest from the US on behalf of their country's struggle against harsh Russian occupation, and they sought some combination of revenge and attention for their homeland's plight. Or, it might be something else entirely.

How about we just wait to hear what the young jerk has to say for himself?

How about we don't? I don't give a flying fuck what his complaint is because nobody at the Boston Marathon had anything to do with it, which makes him a terrorist and nothing else.

Use whatever interrogation methods are necessary to extract every single iota of information from him in order to track down other terrorists and kill them and then hang him from a gibbet in the Boston Common in a highly public execution...then leave him there for a week or two so the crows can pluck out his eyeballs.

Then piss on his corpse and flush him down the sewer.

[DaveDodo007]

OK I'm not going to read 38 pages because I'm a lazy cunt. Though can someone summerize why Chechen rebels what to harm Boston people. The only thing I know about the Chechen rebels is they have no problem with killing school children and that makes them utter scum in my book. Thanks in advance.