Boston

Just wanted to once again point out that this was indeed an act of terrorism. Any time anyone threatens, injures, or kills citizens to affect the survivors* it is an act of terrorism, whether the terrorists are jihadists, zionists, environmentalists, anti-taxists, gang-bangers, soldiers, police, or secret service. So, is this something we can ALL agree on and stick with, no matter WHO the perpetrator(s) are? No going back, and changing the goalposts afterwards if we find out that the perpetrator was [gasp!] one of our own, however we define that to be?

*The reason why I define terrorism this was is to exclude one-on-one acts of violence. Also to exclude acts against property.

HERO- I think the timing and venue of the bombing was more than coincidental. If you simply want to injure large numbers of people, any sports event or holiday which brings people together in large numbers- New Year's Eve, for example- would be as effective. Either this is an anti-tax person or someone who really wants to muddy the waters. But what point is there to an act of terrorism if you mask your objective? The whole point of terrorism is to make people DO SOMETHING en masse, to drive them in a direction. If the objective isn't clear, all you have is a mob of people mentally milling around- yanno, like a stampede in an enclosed space.

So, what has the bomber accomplished? Personally-satisfying revenge? More subservience to Homeland Security? Fear of marathons? Fear of large crowds?

The longer nobody claims credit, the more puzzling it becomes. It becomes difficult to infer an objective, and therefore a perpetrator. One possible winner in this whole scenario is Homeland Security. After 911, everyone was ready to bend over and grab their ankles in the name of security. Rappy was willing to torture anyone who might be an enemy. We invaded nations for no reason whatsoever. We set up secret prisons everywhere, and funded this giant agency called Homeland Security (what an Orwellian name!) which is busy collecting every bit of information on everyone everyhwere. Let's not make that mistake again, and surrender what few rights we have remaining in the name of safety, invade some far-distant random nation, and throw even more money at the "security" agencies, OK?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Clearly everyone should have their own bombs so they can protect themselves.

#NRAlogic

---

Kwickie joking about the bombing

All Jongs was commenting on about was Matthews. Yet Kwickie can't decipher between the two.

---

Kwacko can't decipher anything anymore. The other day he said the Tea Party was the same as Al Qaeda. How ya supposed to respond to an insane lunatic like him? I don't know how you do it, but I do admire your efforts with him.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Kwickie - Your comment on the NRA made zero sense as it had nothing to do with the Boston bombing. What point, other than a snarky, passive/ aggressive " joke " could you have meant?

The answer? None. There was no point. It was you being you. Sadly.

---

Your inability to grasp the point doesn't mean it wasn't there. But then, there's very little you don't get wrong.

Now, back to the actual issue - there were no unexploded devices, it was confirmed today. The ATF did explode one package - just to be sure, but there was no device inside. The two detonated bombs are all they can confirm at this stage.






Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
HERO- I think the timing and venue of the bombing was more than coincidental. If you simply want to injure large numbers of people, any sports event or holiday which brings people together in large numbers- New Year's Eve, for example- would be as effective. Either this is an anti-tax person or someone who really wants to muddy the waters. But what point is there to an act of terrorism if nobody knows who to fear? The whole point of terrorism is to make people DO SOMETHING en masse, to drive them in a direction. If the objective isn't clear, all you have is a mob of people mentally milling around- yanno, like a stampede in an enclosed space.

So, what has the bomber accomplished? Personally-satisfying revenge? More subservience to Homeland Security? Fear of marathons? Fear of large crowds?

---

Bombing the Boston Marathon is an attack on very large scale sporting event that offers a unique oportunities and advantages for radical Islamic terrorists.

1. The event has a signifigant amount of international attention, especially in the Third World which is usually very effectively represented. It is also the premiere running event in the world. Others may be larger, but you'd be hard pressed to find one with more prestige.

2. It's venue is one of America's best known major cities. New York, LA, Chicago, and Washington are certainly top tier, but Boston is also a front runner for rounding out the top five and is certainly in the top ten.

3. It offers an extremely large number of people both as active participants, staff, and observers. These people are highly concentrated in confined city streets.

4. The venue is spread over a twenty-six mile stretch making comprehensive protection of the entire event nearly impossible.

I said a couple weeks back that the real danger we face is not Al Queda engaging in complicated plots to attack New York or LA, it's when they realize they dont have to attack New York or LA. At the time I wrote a series of possible targets which I deleted before posting because the possibilty was too frightening to put into words. I did not predict the Boston attack, but my targets included select low security sporting events located in cities other then New York, Washington, LA, or Chicago. The events I suggested included high school or college basketball games, graduation cerimonies, local political events, etc. I noted that the key ingrediants combine a large number of people in a confined area with little or no security to detect, deter, or prevent terrorist attacks.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

HERO- Well, I added more to my post.

And I see you're already assigning blame.

You have made a number of good points as to why ANYONE might target the Boston Marathon. It's a good target, but that would make it attractive for ANYONE seeking to terrorize people. It might even be an anti-immigration reform terrorist, since the proposal was going before the Senate that day.

Right now, you're jumping well ahead of information. You may be right, but you may also be wrong. We know where you stand. Don't start prosecuting before the evidence. Let it be.

AN ADDITIONAL THOUGHT- While the bombing is similar to the IEDs elsewhere, there were many ways it could have been made more lethal (not going to say how). Whoever did this is an amateur, and probably working alone since this is within the scope of one person.

Also, the blast looked to be black powder. Any thoughts?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME