Bombings at the Boston Marathon
Posted by: Hook on 15 April 2013
Today's headline...
(CNN) -- Two bombs struck near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday, turning a celebration into a bloody scene of destruction.
The blasts threw people to the ground, killing two and injuring dozens.
Hospitals reported at least 110 people being treated, at least eight of them in critical condition and 14 in serious condition. At least eight of the patients are children.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their family members.
Let us hope that those responsible for these cowardly acts of violence are soon brought to justice.
I agree that the media, including the portion of that media we used to call "journalism" goes into a feeding frenzy when something major happens, but guys, it always has. It is just that now, sources are more immediate and television plus competition among networks lends emphasis.
But Haim, are you objecting in any way that law enforcement kept your daughter in doors? I don't think you are saying that you would have had her go out on the streets in normal fashion. Sure, the chances of her being hurt were statistically small, but still...
I have to admit that I was not amused by a National Public Radio commentator, for whose opinions taxpayers pay a portion, hoping on the air that the perpetrator would be a right wing white male. I realize that racism is only possible one-way, but sheesh.
Best regards,
Russ
He has every right to, "do processor". I'll set it on chop,then blend....
MN
?
"
And their imbecilic idiot mother is still publicly defending these two incredibly stupid, useless packs of cowardly $h!t.... The apples didn't fall far from the tree.
She is their mum; coming to terms with the hideous crimes of her own flesh and blood will not be easy. She'll bear that burden for the rest of her life.
She should have thought of that before inculcating them with nonsense about a vengeful and cruel sky fairy.
Hook
Personal experience or involvement is not a necessary condition for a well reasoned argument. In fact, the opposite is true. We over-estimate threats that are personal and well-publicized, and are perhaps less likely to develop an objective and reasoned response that serves the greater good.
What if the bombings had taken place in my neighborhood and if someone I loved had been killed? Well then I would be the very last person who should be advising on response. I would be just too emotionally invested to be rational.
I saw something the other day where someone had been involved in an accident was interviewed and her opinion sought on improving safety standards. Sheer chance had apparently qualified her as an expert. Just ridiculous.
Hook
In a relative sense, the threat of terrorism remains trivial. 30,000 killed every single year on US roads. 2001 was a relatively safe year to fly. It can perhaps be helpful to keep things in perspective.
I realize that this is cold comfort to those directly affected, and they have my deepest sympathies. As do all those who have had loved ones torn away too early, for whatever reason. It just f&^%ing sucks.
Hook
In a relative sense, the threat of terrorism remains trivial. 30,000 killed every single year on US roads. 2001 was a relatively safe year to fly. It can perhaps be helpful to keep things in perspective.
I realize that this is cold comfort to those directly affected, and they have my deepest sympathies. As do all those who have had loved ones torn away too early, for whatever reason. It just f&^%ing sucks.
Winky -
I understand your point about public policy, but I nowhere suggested that it be set by grieving families of terrorist attacks. I was simply asking fatcat to have a tiny bit of empathy for the victims of last Monday's bombing. Nor was I simply calling for vengeance for vengeance sake. I was calling for prevention of the next attack.
In my view the reason why the threat of terrorism is statistically small is directly related to the enormous amount of resource and effort we put into homeland security. Since 9/11, it has reduced the effectiveness of Al Queda's efforts to the occasional conventional bomb here, or more likely, in Iraq, Afghanistan,Yemen, or other far away places.
But all that changes, and the comfort of your statistics goes right out the window, if there is just one single lapse in security. Seriously, if a freaking Elvis impersonator in Mississippi can get his hands on ricin, then how hard would it be for Al Quaeda to do the same (or much worse)? Do you have someone screen your mail for you? Yeah, me neither. But just imagine if they generated a mass mailing -- a million plus letters disguised as say, retail coupons -- all dusted with anthrax. Hundreds of thousands could die before getting proper treatment. Overnight, the statistics you quoted would look very different.
Also, I made it personal with fatcat because he made it personal with me. He accused me of being bellicose, and I am not. Of course I am angered by what these terrorists did, and I am honest enough to say that their being killed and/or captured gave me a feeling of satisfaction. But fatcat said I would rejoice over the killing of innocents! That was a petty, ignorant remark, and I was insulted by it. In fact, in retrospect, I think my response was well-measured. And if the worst I asked him to do was to climb off his high horse long enough to have a little empathy for the victims, then I fully accept blame for doing so.
ATB.
Hook
Of all things, accusing Hook of being bellicose or a jingoist! That's a laugh in itself!
True, tens of thousands die in car crashes every year. So also do thousands of inner-city kids, mostly young, black males perish in shootings and stabbings every year. Consider the difference--those who die in wrecks are not the victims of intentional violence. The kids in Detroit or Houston most certainly are. Yet there is very little gnashing of teeth or tearing of hair over either--what draws the attention and captures the imagination of the populace is either the serial murders of a lunatic or the spectacular mass attack--whether the act of a lunatic or that of a calculated individual with a religious or political cause. Thus has it ever been with human beings--and thus is it to an even greater degree today, given the feeding frenzies of the various television media outlets.
Not only that, but when an attack such as this happens, political elements--on both the right and the left in this country are fervently hoping (usually secretly, but too often openly) that the perpetrator will be found among whatever groups oppose their own political or religious agenda). When Gabby Gifford and several participants at a political rally were shot--some fatally--numerous individuals on the far left gleefully speculated that the killer was a right wing Nazi influenced by listening to Rush Limbaugh. (In fact, he was just a lunatic.) Most recently, after Boston, a commentator on Federally funded National Public Radio openly expressed the hope that he or they would turn out to be white males. On the other side of question, whenever a bombing occurs, anywhere in the world, the initial response among those who lean right, is that it was promulgated by Muslims.
The fact is, as Hook points out, we live in a world in which there is increasing vulnerability to attack--especially among large population concentrations--and I will add, where and when iconic events are taking place.
As for the mother of these two individuals, one now hopefully in Hell and the other on his way, I don't feel very strongly either way. It is what it is. As someone pointed out, she is his mum and she is trying to come to terms with what her sons did. She never will, of course. Yet, when I hear of a family who, when faced with overwhelming evidence, goes public and apologizes for what their loved one has done, I can have a lot more sympathy for them as peripheral victims of the crime than when, as here, they circle the wagons and whine about being set up by the government that welcomed them with open arms.
Let's face it: there is a tendency among militant adherents of a certain religious point of view, whose very word for Christians and Jews is vicious--and these people accept our open arms and then blow our legs off.
Best regards,
Russ
Your profile gives no clue as your national origins, so I have no idea what your country's history with terrorism is. But let me ask: what if that marathon had taken place where you live? What if it was your friends or family that were killed? What would want your own country's leadership and military to do in response? If nothing were done, do you honestly think that the threat of it happening again would somehow just...go away?
Hook
Hook
If a friend or relative was killed by a terrorist, the last thing I would want is innocent women and children killed in an in-discriminant retaliatory strike. I doubt retaliatory strikes have much effect in preventing terrorism. IMO, a leader, in your case "Mr president" would be committing political suicide not retaliating, a definite vote loser. A lot of innocent people die in the name of political expediency.
You're interested to know my experience with terrorism. I'm English and I live in Warrington. Warrinton was attacked by the IRA 20 years ago, in the attack two children where killed by the bomb blast. The parents of one of the children did not display hatred towards their sons killers, but campaigned for peace.
I used to work in the centre of Manchester. The IRA set off a bomb about 400m away, heard the thud, but no damage done, not to me anyway.
You may be interested to know, funding for the IRA came from Irish Americans living in Boston. Amazing isn't it, fundraising for a terrorist organisation carried out in New York and Boston with impunity, although in those days as far as America was concerned terrorism was somebody else's problem.
How the tune has changed.
Of all things, accusing Hook of being bellicose or a jingoist! That's a laugh in itself!
Russ
I didn't say Hook was bellicose, but perhaps you could suggest an adjective that better describes somebody who glorifies an action likely to cause the death of innocent women and children.
An emotional mistake from a very kind soul. None of us is a saint, unless of we subsequently become a saint after death ...
Hook makes a great deal of sense to me. I learn from such people, human like me but wiser than me ...
Farmer
"
And their imbecilic idiot mother is still publicly defending these two incredibly stupid, useless packs of cowardly $h!t.... The apples didn't fall far from the tree.
She is their mum; coming to terms with the hideous crimes of her own flesh and blood will not be easy. She'll bear that burden for the rest of her life.
She should have thought of that before inculcating them with nonsense about a vengeful and cruel sky fairy.
I'm not a fan of religious intolerance, and struggle to find why you've included that comment here.
You may be interested to know, funding for the IRA came from Irish Americans living in Boston. Amazing isn't it, fundraising for a terrorist organisation carried out in New York and Boston with impunity, although in those days as far as America was concerned terrorism was somebody else's problem.
How the tune has changed.
Two years ago I did an Exchange with the Rhode Island National Guard - some of the guys I met did the Boston Marathon in uniform, carrying weight, to raise funds for the Fallen Warrior charity.
We trained at the Massachusetts Military Reservation and oddly, one of the NG soldiers was ex British Army. The Americans had no idea as to the evils of the Provisional IRA, and seemed astonished to the point of shock when we told them some harsh truths.
the guys had no idea, and honestly thought that PIRA where simple freedom fighters.
fatcat: With all due respect, I think you need to focus more on the protection of the innocent children and adults who were killed and dismembered on U.S. soil by vicious, undeserving maggots who committed heinous acts in the name of God. At the time of making his post, Hook speculated (as did I to myself at the time) that the limp dick bastards who did this were at least smart enough to escape to the bosom of the women and children they so typically hide behind in foreign lands. I applaud President Obama (and if you knew me you would know how seldom I say this and would have some idea of how strongly I feel about the matter) for being willing to kill the bastards who do things like this. Yes, as with President Bush's actions, there is collateral killing of innocent people. Sorry to disillusion you, Sir, but the source of 98 percent of terrorism committed on this globe can be laid in the laps of persons claiming allegiance to one particular religion. And having attacked school buses and office buildings and airliners and you-name-it, they hide behind the burkas of their women and the children whom they should cherish--but instead put in harms way. It is hard for the President to drone these bastards--but thank God he cares more about us than them. Get used to it, my friend. Even the President will one day, if he is not out of office by then, begin to exercise such tools as military tribunals and waterboarding. But as long as the blows the bastards out of their caves and mud huts--God be with him!
I am tired of being accused of religious intolerance by people like you, who, though well-meaning, are just as naive as Europe's Jews who allowed themselves to be led to the gas chambers--because they had the audacity to believe in the ultimate goodness of the people who said they wanted to kill them. So don't tell us that we are racists or intolerant. When these unspeakable monsters manage to set off a dirty bomb on a major American city and then dance in the streets of Baghdad or Cairo--then come to us and tell us how intolerant we are. At that time, I hope to God we have a President who is willing to turn those cities into sizzling parking lots--without regard to collateral damage.
Russ
Russ.
If a single US citizen commits an atrocity on the streets are you equally happy for the city of their origin to be entirely destroyed in return?
So there goes the home of the Unabomber and a variety of towns inhabited by school shooters who have killed far more people than the Boston bomb. Whole bunch of 'parking lots' across the US (or is it just foreigners that deserve obliteration)?
The concept of proportionality comes to mind,. One mans 'collateral damage' is anothers innocent victim.
Acts of terrorism in my mind are generally committed by individuals, not by cities. They are certainly not committed by religions. Spend a little time with 'normal' Muslims, and the Quran and discover what it actually says-it is one of the few religions that actually states respect for other Faith. How convenient it is to rope them all together, in my opinion it has allowed the US in particular to ignore the questions of why it is a target, why muslims are being radicalised and how it should look in the mirror when it comes to criticising religious fundamentalism in others.
By the way I am a wooly liberal do-gooder. I am also possibly unique on this Forum (I hope) in that a close friend of mine was murdered in a very high profile terrorist event. So I've done the thinking about this a fair bit.
Bruce
"
And their imbecilic idiot mother is still publicly defending these two incredibly stupid, useless packs of cowardly $h!t.... The apples didn't fall far from the tree.
She is their mum; coming to terms with the hideous crimes of her own flesh and blood will not be easy. She'll bear that burden for the rest of her life.
She should have thought of that before inculcating them with nonsense about a vengeful and cruel sky fairy.
I'm not a fan of religious intolerance, and struggle to find why you've included that comment here.
I am a big fan of being intolerant to those who commit violence, whether in the name of their make-believe friend or for some other reason. Understandably, much violence is committed in the name of a fictitious being. It is really the only effective motivation. As someone once said:
"Good people do good things, and bad people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things, you need religion."
As far as I am concerned, people can worship whatever idiotic concept they please, just so long as they don't keep blowing us up.
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your comments about a 'dirty bomb attack' were specific but I cannot escape the same question; how would slaughtering yet more innocent people solve anything? Vengeance is not the same as punishment.
I take notice of all the atrocities. I took notice of what happened in Rwanda whilst the world looked away. I take notice of the fact that the invasion of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands (not that anybody cares about counting them) in the name of a war on terror to remove a dictator who had no WMD, and was not responsible for the Twin Towers.
'We are at war'. Well I am not, and neither are most of us. We have a tiny number of radicalised/marginalised individuals who perform acts which totally distort our perception of the world. Viewing terrorist attacks as war is ignoring the root causes in my opinion. Much like the 'war on drugs'.
When we commit acts of state sponsored violence and disproportionate responses the leaders and manipulators of these radical cells are the ones who are laughing, for we are making their job a thousand times easier.
Russ, has the 'war on terror' made you feel safer?
Bruce
I have tried to keep myself away from this thread but so much has now been said which I cannot fully agree. These unfortunate acts of terror will continue as long as there is injustice in the world and I can understand quite well where the anger is coming from (although I do not approve the methods used to express it). The current arrogance of western world as well as past wrongdoings are the major causes for this behaviour. After all the US of A was build by slaves captured from another continent on the land robbed from the original inhabitants. British on the other hand have invaded all but 22 countries in the world at some point in its history. We here (although not always counted as part of west) are not that much better considering what has happened to Sami people over the years.
You seem to be wrong here.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-servi...or02_05#terror_05sum
I am tired of being accused of religious intolerance
Your posts are hostile towards the religious - you are intolerant.
quote:by people like you, who, though well-meaning, are just as naive as Europe's Jews who allowed themselves to be led to the gas chambers--because they had the audacity to believe in the ultimate goodness of the people who said they wanted to kill them.
Very poor argument.
fatcat: With all due respect, I think you need to focus more on the protection of the innocent children and adults who were killed and dismembered on U.S. soil by vicious, undeserving maggots who committed heinous acts in the name of God. At the time of making his post, Hook speculated (as did I to myself at the time) that the limp dick bastards who did this were at least smart enough to escape to the bosom of the women and children they so typically hide behind in foreign lands. I applaud President Obama (and if you knew me you would know how seldom I say this and would have some idea of how strongly I feel about the matter) for being willing to kill the bastards who do things like this. Yes, as with President Bush's actions, there is collateral killing of innocent people. Sorry to disillusion you, Sir, but the source of 98 percent of terrorism committed on this globe can be laid in the laps of persons claiming allegiance to one particular religion. And having attacked school buses and office buildings and airliners and you-name-it, they hide behind the burkas of their women and the children whom they should cherish--but instead put in harms way. It is hard for the President to drone these bastards--but thank God he cares more about us than them. Get used to it, my friend. Even the President will one day, if he is not out of office by then, begin to exercise such tools as military tribunals and waterboarding. But as long as the blows the bastards out of their caves and mud huts--God be with him!
I am tired of being accused of religious intolerance by people like you, who, though well-meaning, are just as naive as Europe's Jews who allowed themselves to be led to the gas chambers--because they had the audacity to believe in the ultimate goodness of the people who said they wanted to kill them. So don't tell us that we are racists or intolerant. When these unspeakable monsters manage to set off a dirty bomb on a major American city and then dance in the streets of Baghdad or Cairo--then come to us and tell us how intolerant we are. At that time, I hope to God we have a President who is willing to turn those cities into sizzling parking lots--without regard to collateral damage.
Russ
Russ
There is really no reason to accuse you of anything or reply to this thread.
The thread itself quite clearly indicates your attitude, beliefs and grasp on reality.
Ah, yes fatcat. Damning with faint praise and bowing out.
Folks, I have no problem with your disagreement--that is what freedom of thought and expression are all about. But consider: Europe (another of my "weak" arguments here--was not at war either prior to 1939--except the Third Reich, of course.
As for excusing terrorism and blowing off the limbs, heads, and killing innocent people based on "injustice"...consider that there is a difference between blowing up a group of men women and children with the intent to kill children, on the one hand, and committing an act of war, as President Obama does with the drones, attempting to strike with as little collateral damage as possible--against people who hide behind their grossly abused women. If you do not see the difference, then so be it.
Best regards to all,
Russ
I do see a difference. A subtle one though, state sponsored killing (by oh-so-brave remote control) is still killing. Don't be convinced it is in any way accurate or specific though, the evidence does not bear that out.
More to the point I don't think either acheives anything. I'm not 'excusing terrorism' and none of my posts suggest I am. I'm just not excusing random revenge either. I think both are morally repellent.
You will be reminded of my earlier post, I have lost someone to a terrorist action. I don't forgive it but I don't feel the need to raize that individual's country to the ground in retaliaton. I do feel the need to ask; why did this happen, how do we stop it happening again?
Like I said, has the war on terror made you feel safer as a USA citizen at home (or more especially) abroad? Is it 'working'?
Personally I'm ashamed to be associated with a nation that has promoted it.
Bruce
This is how the Americans have fought the war on foreign soil in the past
Doesn't look that noble, does it.