Nanci
Alien Lover
Trying to listen now...
-
Hello!
Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.
Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....
Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.
Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.
Boston manhunt search
- Thread starter Chip
- Start date
Trying to listen now...
Nanci
Alien Lover
*this was a minor attack. It's inevitable. How are we going to react to it? Is it possible in the heat of the moment to react rationally?
*legislation needs a waiting period because we're temporarily insane. "We have to do something!"
*we are headed toward a police state. Anti-terror legislation isn't going to be repealed. What we have is a baseline. Any laws we add are permanent.
*no legislator can say we've done enough, we have enough anti-terror laws.
*Anything you do is piled on what we have already done. And then there's another attack. And what do we do then?
*you can't stop terrorism.
*Lindsey Graham wanted to treat suspect 2 as enemy combatant. He's just doing what the system encourages him to do.
(pausing in my transcript)
*the simplest concept of how to threat these suspects is, they're suspects. When you talk about treating him as a military asset, you're talking about an assumption of guilt. You're treating him as guilty before he has been proven guilty. He is not a terrorist until the law proves he's a terrorist.
*we are all potentially terrorists until we are not. Terrorism is going to morph into things that are not terrorism at all.
*the word terrorist is flexible. If it can be flexible, you can apply what the legislation we've been passing all these years to a bunch of things none of us today consider terrorism.
*a bill to prevent people from undercover filming of slaughter houses. Written by powerful lobbyists, ag-gag bills. Illegal to covertly observe livestock farms. Animal and ecological terrorism act. Violators placed on a terrorist registry.
*eg. "ecoterrorists" setting fire to cars. If you can treat these "ecoterrorists" with the same legal rules we've created to deal with Al Qaeda you create a legal loophole to use super-powerful laws on all kinds of people.
*created RICO laws, super-constitutional in nature, 40 years ago, now used for anti-abortion protestors. Legal creep. Used on tons of people now. Legislation passed in the 70's wouldn't have been passed if they knew it was going to be used on anti-abortion protestors.
(pause again!)
*Defaming owners of factory farms is being put on the same legislative level as people who are hurt by terror attacks.
*If you think this will never happen, you are not paying attention to patterns because this is how it always happens. this is not scare-mongering.
*Doesn't think there's a conspiracy- this is human nature.
*How do you prevent this legal creep?
*Very hard for supreme court to overtuen a decade-old law.
*Militarized response- can't stand seeing police as soldiers. Not a policeman. Raised in a different America. Who thinks that's good? Who thinks dressing them in black is good? He knows police are all good people. They look like the gestapo. Does it have to be a response that looks like we brought the military in? Do we need tanks? Assault rifles? Grenades? Black masks? Don't image and appearance matter?
*We are supposed to have a clear separation between police and military. Don't we think that separation is important, including the visual impression?
*Do we have any choice? He feels like we are missing a key part of the pillars that made up society in times past. We don't have philosophers thinking about the picture of the road we're on.
*We need legislative roadblocks to prevent the direction we are going in from being the destination we end up at.
*If we want to change everything right away, define what a terrorist is legally. Who can have those extreme super-constitutional laws applied to them. We have to say what it cannot be. It cannot be someone coming into an agricultural facility to film downer cows.
*We have no definition of what a terrorist is. There's your legal loophole.
*How can we see this and legislators don't?
Pause for lunch!
*We may not have the chance of ever looking back and saying boy did we overreact.
*When is terrorism going to end? Do you think ratcheting up the legislation is going to end if terrorism never ends?
*We need to take a holistic view of the road we're on.
*Don't let the terrorist win. What do the terrorists want? Even though Boston marathon was "small-" if you are touched by the event, it's as bad as it gets.
*People in the crowd have had sense of safety in a public place shattered forever.
*This is the fear that is at the root of the word terrorism; this is what they want to do to us.
*An act of God is not as traumatic as willfull murder. The evil changes the feel of the entire incident. Terrorism is murder; it's intent, it's people thinking about little kids getting blown up, and thinking that's why I'm doing this.
*To them, the worst thing that could come out of one of these attacks is that we don't do anything. They are hoping we overreact.
*We seek to hurt them [terrorists] and make them pay, but the people we end up hurting are us.
*Terrorism wins because humans respond in a predictable, knee-jerk way.
*If we don't do that, which is very very difficult to do, that is how terrorists do not win.
The end.
Last edited:
Nanci
Alien Lover
So this morning, as I listened to the "news," I heard that now Tamerlan was on two terrorist watch lists: FBI and CIA. It's the CIA's fault for not communicating with the FBI. Or the other way around. What happened to him being interviewed and deemed not a threat?
And now they claim that the only gun the two possessed was the postol in Tamerlan's hand as he ran at police, shooting. (Heard yesterday that they shot the cop because they were "gun-shopping," and knew the cop would have a gun, so killed him, but were then unable to unlock his three-step holster). So, there was only the one gun, they say, and now Dzhokhar is being pushed on us, by the media, as a frightened unarmed teenager, hiding, bleeding in a boat.
WHY is this now the story??
First, he fired at them and they didn't return fire. Then, he fired at them and they _did_ return fire. Then, he appeared to have shot himself in the neck. Then, he was unarmed.
There was not a rifle, then there was a rifle, then there was not a rifle.
And Rich333 points out that first the dad claimed his sons were innocent, but now the paper reports that the dad was so concerned that his son Tamerlan had become radicalized that he sought out a Muslim support group. Okay- I guess I can believe that the dad was afraid to admit that in the beginning. He _wanted_ to believe his kids were not capable of that.
And now they claim that the only gun the two possessed was the postol in Tamerlan's hand as he ran at police, shooting. (Heard yesterday that they shot the cop because they were "gun-shopping," and knew the cop would have a gun, so killed him, but were then unable to unlock his three-step holster). So, there was only the one gun, they say, and now Dzhokhar is being pushed on us, by the media, as a frightened unarmed teenager, hiding, bleeding in a boat.
WHY is this now the story??
First, he fired at them and they didn't return fire. Then, he fired at them and they _did_ return fire. Then, he appeared to have shot himself in the neck. Then, he was unarmed.
There was not a rifle, then there was a rifle, then there was not a rifle.
And Rich333 points out that first the dad claimed his sons were innocent, but now the paper reports that the dad was so concerned that his son Tamerlan had become radicalized that he sought out a Muslim support group. Okay- I guess I can believe that the dad was afraid to admit that in the beginning. He _wanted_ to believe his kids were not capable of that.
Nanci
Alien Lover
Oh look- yet another story has changed! From NYT this morning.
“Then he sees blood on the other side of the deck,” Mr. Duffy said. “Then he looks over the engine compartment and sees a body. His words were, ‘I levitated off the ladder.’ He does not remember going back into the house. He told his wife, ‘Lock the doors,’ and he called 911.”
A call went out over the police radio. “They have a boat with blood on it, and they believe someone’s on the boat,” it said. Police officials initially said the boat was in the backyard of a house just outside the perimeter of the area where investigators had conducted door-to-door searches all day. But Commissioner Davis, of the Boston police, said this week that the boat had been inside the perimeter.
“It was an area that should have been checked,” he said. “We are not sure how long he was in the boat. There was a pool of blood near where the car was dumped about four or five blocks away from the boat.”
It is still not clear what prompted officers to fire into the boat. “Shots fired, multiple shots!” someone was heard saying on the radio, before another call went out: “All units hold your fire! Hold your fire.”
Commissioner Davis said that “we will have to see what prompted the volley of shots before the cease-fire was ordered by a superintendent of the Boston police.”
“Then he sees blood on the other side of the deck,” Mr. Duffy said. “Then he looks over the engine compartment and sees a body. His words were, ‘I levitated off the ladder.’ He does not remember going back into the house. He told his wife, ‘Lock the doors,’ and he called 911.”
A call went out over the police radio. “They have a boat with blood on it, and they believe someone’s on the boat,” it said. Police officials initially said the boat was in the backyard of a house just outside the perimeter of the area where investigators had conducted door-to-door searches all day. But Commissioner Davis, of the Boston police, said this week that the boat had been inside the perimeter.
“It was an area that should have been checked,” he said. “We are not sure how long he was in the boat. There was a pool of blood near where the car was dumped about four or five blocks away from the boat.”
It is still not clear what prompted officers to fire into the boat. “Shots fired, multiple shots!” someone was heard saying on the radio, before another call went out: “All units hold your fire! Hold your fire.”
Commissioner Davis said that “we will have to see what prompted the volley of shots before the cease-fire was ordered by a superintendent of the Boston police.”
BloodyBaroness
Captain Titsworth
Because the media does not give a rip about the actual truth anymore, it's all about agendas.
Guruofchem
New member
The more you look into complex events like this one, the muddier the water gets, partly due to agendas and partly just due to the chaos inherent in a large scale manhunt. I wonder if the government thinks that by pinning most or all of the violence on the older, more "radical," and conveniently dead older brother, they are keeping Muslims from reacting as strongly as they might if Dzokhar bears the brunt of the bombings.