Boston

[brokenshoelace]

I don't get the whole "homegrown terror" thing. Not to start a $hitstorm but wouldn't all the atrocities the US did in Iraq (Abu Ghraib stands out) be considered "homegrown"?

I know terrorism is looked at differently, but heinous acts are heinous acts. Terrorism, war crimes, serial killing, or whatever else... Yes, terrorism is often motivated by religion/politics ( or, more accurately, by false interpretations of both), so we'd like to think that it emanates from abroad (and it often does, I'm not disputing that), but at the end of the day, this is the act of two (or more) horrible individuals. Killing is killing. Taking lives is taking lives. There's no need to get so defensive based on a technicality (terrorism). They could well be homegrown and IMO, it doesn't change much. The horrible nature of the act remains the same. o

---

they are homegrown terrorists really (usa)..the family emigrated so long ago in those bombers lives from Chechnya,

that's going to freak people out more even than the actual bombing maybe ??...and 3 dead, from 2 bombs, the crowd were lucky the bombs were a bit feeble..although some nasty injuries.

There are lots of horrible things which happen in the US by people born here (Oklahoma City, Newtown, Columbine, etc.), so the fact that they had lived in the US for so long doesn't freak me out.

BINGO!

That's exactly my point. The reason people are making a bigger deal out of the potential homegrown aspect in this case is due to the "terrorism" technicality (at least I consider it as such). To me, it's murder. And blowing up innocents is no different than shooting them in masses.

Anyway, an all around tragic situation that I'll personally choose to remember most for the death of an innocent 8 year old.

 

[Kieran]

That's a good post, Broken. Very well-reasoned. I live in Ireland and have seen 30 years of terrorism and I think it's a hard thing to see these gratuitous and cruel attacks on America, especially when you see an 8 year old being murdered on what should be a great day of celebration and charity.

Reading Obama's sickly rhetoric, quoted here, was one thing, but then I saw the Boston police tweeted this:

Boston Police Dept. ‏@Boston_Police 10h
CAPTURED!!! The hunt is over. The search is done. The terror is over. And justice has won. Suspect in custody.

Apart from the fact that it admits he's a suspect, and so therefore due process is his right, meaning that 'justice' hasn't yet spoken or 'won', this kind of hyperbolic reaction is only understandable in the light of the terror which preceded it. I wonder if there's a study anywhere which suggests that Terrorism works most efficiently when it induces extreme reactions in those being terrorised. I don't blame the Boston police for their joy in trying to make people feel safe, but they should have somebody more mature deal with their social network pronouncements, given how many people actually take Twitter seriously.

But also, what if these two are in cahoots someone else?

What if there's more to this, and I don't mean in some dumb-arse conspiracy-theory way, either. I just mean, they caught one and killed one and there's so far been no trial or defence made, but maybe there's another guy somewhere who planned this?

I know, I'm making too much of it, but the "terror is over and justice has won" is a little mollycoddling and cosseting a reaction to a cruel and tragic event. I suppose I'm looking at the reaction from afar, but I saw terrorism up close and was treated as a suspicious person every time I took the ferry to England. I had my bag searched and I heard the comments, every single time. You get experienced at these things, and Americans aren't used to feeling insecure at home - and I hope they never get used to it, by the way. It's one of my favourite places to be...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

^ Broken, I agree...at the end of the day, lives are lost, some have totally changed, people lost limbs....it really does not matter if the terrorists are home grown or imported. Evil is evil...no matter who does it...

What interests me even more now is what civil liberties Americans will " willingly" give up this time around....I never forget the chilling quote of Rahm Emanuel "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before"

 

[Kieran]

I never forget the chilling quote of Rahm Emanuel "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before"

In fairness, I take that to mean that from extremities come opportunities to make things better, not as an incitement to curtail peoples civil liberties...

 

[tented]

I never forget the chilling quote of Rahm Emanuel "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before"

In fairness, I take that to mean that from extremities come opportunities to make things better, not as an incitement to curtail peoples civil liberties...

That's exactly right. Here's the full quote and its context from a 2008 Wall Street Journal article:

As the economic signs grow ever more grim, so do the problems facing the incoming Obama administration.

That's one way of looking at things. Here's another:

As the economic signs grow ever more grim, the opportunities for the Obama administration to drive through its agenda actually are getting better.

The thing about a crisis -- and crisis doesn't seem too strong a word for the economic mess right now -- is that it creates a sense of urgency. Actions that once appeared optional suddenly seem essential. Moves that might have been made at a leisurely pace are desired instantly.

Therein lies the opportunity for President-elect Barack Obama. His plans for an activist government agenda are in many ways being given a boost by this crisis atmosphere and the nearly universal call for the government to do something fast to stimulate the economy.

This opportunity isn't lost on the new president and his team. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week.

He elaborated: "Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

He ticked off some areas where he thought new doors were opening: energy, health, education, tax policy, regulatory reforms. The current atmosphere, he added, even makes bipartisanship easier: "The good news, I suppose, if you want to see a silver lining, is that the problems are big enough that they lend themselves to ideas from both parties for the solution."

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I never forget the chilling quote of Rahm Emanuel "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before"

In fairness, I take that to mean that from extremities come opportunities to make things better, not as an incitement to curtail peoples civil liberties...

That's exactly right. Here's the full quote and its context from a 2008 Wall Street Journal article:

As the economic signs grow ever more grim, so do the problems facing the incoming Obama administration.

That's one way of looking at things. Here's another:

As the economic signs grow ever more grim, the opportunities for the Obama administration to drive through its agenda actually are getting better.

The thing about a crisis -- and crisis doesn't seem too strong a word for the economic mess right now -- is that it creates a sense of urgency. Actions that once appeared optional suddenly seem essential. Moves that might have been made at a leisurely pace are desired instantly.

Therein lies the opportunity for President-elect Barack Obama. His plans for an activist government agenda are in many ways being given a boost by this crisis atmosphere and the nearly universal call for the government to do something fast to stimulate the economy.

This opportunity isn't lost on the new president and his team. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week.

He elaborated: "Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

He ticked off some areas where he thought new doors were opening: energy, health, education, tax policy, regulatory reforms. The current atmosphere, he added, even makes bipartisanship easier: "The good news, I suppose, if you want to see a silver lining, is that the problems are big enough that they lend themselves to ideas from both parties for the solution."

Unfortunately, MY interpretation has been proven correct time and time again, if you look at recent history, no? I am sure you are familiar with Patriot Act, I am sure you know what happens in Guantanamo Bay...I can give many more examples . And it was amusing to watch the talking heads on tv arguing about if it was required to read the Miranda Rights or not to the terrorist who got caught.
And the sad thing is, people are bullshitted into believing that it is good for them and they welcome it with open arms, and then they wonder why their phone conversations are being recorded without proper authorization.:huh:

 

[tented]

I never forget the chilling quote of Rahm Emanuel "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before"

In fairness, I take that to mean that from extremities come opportunities to make things better, not as an incitement to curtail peoples civil liberties...

That's exactly right. Here's the full quote and its context from a 2008 Wall Street Journal article:

As the economic signs grow ever more grim, so do the problems facing the incoming Obama administration.

That's one way of looking at things. Here's another:

As the economic signs grow ever more grim, the opportunities for the Obama administration to drive through its agenda actually are getting better.

The thing about a crisis -- and crisis doesn't seem too strong a word for the economic mess right now -- is that it creates a sense of urgency. Actions that once appeared optional suddenly seem essential. Moves that might have been made at a leisurely pace are desired instantly.

Therein lies the opportunity for President-elect Barack Obama. His plans for an activist government agenda are in many ways being given a boost by this crisis atmosphere and the nearly universal call for the government to do something fast to stimulate the economy.

This opportunity isn't lost on the new president and his team. "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama's new chief of staff, told a Wall Street Journal conference of top corporate chief executives this week.

He elaborated: "Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

He ticked off some areas where he thought new doors were opening: energy, health, education, tax policy, regulatory reforms. The current atmosphere, he added, even makes bipartisanship easier: "The good news, I suppose, if you want to see a silver lining, is that the problems are big enough that they lend themselves to ideas from both parties for the solution."

Unfortunately, MY interpretation has been proven correct time and time again, if you look at recent history, no? I am sure you are familiar with Patriot Act, I am sure you know what happens in Guantanamo Bay...I can give many more examples . And it was amusing to watch the talking heads on tv arguing about if it was required to read the Miranda Rights or not to the terrorist who got caught.
And the sad thing is, people are bullshitted into believing that it is good for them and they welcome it with open arms, and then they wonder why their phone conversations are being recorded without proper authorization.:huh:

I understand the nature of what you're saying, but nevertheless your initial reference to that quote made it seem like Emanuel had something sinister in mind, which wasn't the case.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I understand the nature of what you're saying, but nevertheless your initial reference to that quote made it seem like Emanuel had something sinister in mind, which wasn't the case.
[/quote]

Being the individualist that I am , and believing that the most despicable and evil words that have ever been uttered are "For the greater good" , my mind went to where it did when I heard the quote from Emanuel, even though I know the context of it. I am also pretty sure, being the collectivist that he is , Rahm's philosophy includes the sinister side as well, indirectly as it might be.

 

[Kieran]

I understand the nature of what you're saying, but nevertheless your initial reference to that quote made it seem like Emanuel had something sinister in mind, which wasn't the case.

Being the individualist that I am , and believing that the most despicable and evil words that have ever been uttered are "For the greater good" , my mind went to where it did when I heard the quote from Emanuel, even though I know the context of it. I am also pretty sure, being the collectivist that he is , Rahm's philosophy includes the sinister side as well, indirectly as it might be.

Everywhere and everybody includes the sinister, my friend, but the US is one of the least sinister places you could be...

 

[DarthFed]

I have to disagree a bit with Broken on one thing: homegrown vs. "imported" terrorism. The acts are the same and murder is murder but if they had turned out to be imported terrorists who came to the US for the sole purpose of killing American people it is a lot different than 2 guys who likely had just recently been radicalized. With "imported" terrorists you have to worry about whether there could be dozens or hundreds more from whatever group they came from. There still will be some concern about that in the coming days for the Boston suspects but it really does seem that they worked alone.

On the other hand the acts are more shocking since these guys have lived here so long with the younger one moving here at age 9 or 10. It makes it more disgusting to think that America gave them so much; the opportunity to move from the dangerous and run-down Chechnya, opportunities for the older one to make a name for himself in boxing, a fricking scholarship for the younger one to pursue higher education, etc. So the terrorist attacks they pulled off are even more disgusting when you factor all that in. But it is also less alarming (for lack of a better term) than if this was a couple Al Qaeda terrorists who got into the country a year or two ago.

 

[tented]

Everywhere and everybody includes the sinister, my friend, but the US is one of the least sinister places you could be...

Unless you're in former President Cheney's house.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

they are homegrown terrorists really (usa)..the family emigrated so long ago in those bombers lives from Chechnya,

that's going to freak people out more even than the actual bombing maybe ??...and 3 dead, from 2 bombs, the crowd were lucky the bombs were a bit feeble..although some nasty injuries.

There are lots of horrible things which happen in the US by people born here (Oklahoma City, Newtown, Columbine, etc.), so the fact that they had lived in the US for so long doesn't freak me out.

I didn't say it did freak you out..im sure the are 315 million people in the usa and not just you though.. :huh:

.those bombers were muslims that were supposed to be assimilated into the country..and also, to the average American, i'm sure that those bombers don't look like the usa idea of what muslims actually look like..(they wernt brown)..

going off on a tangent....one of the things with airport security over here is a lot of folk think that white folk shouldn't be screened/searched because all muslim terrorists are brown..so why not just screen/search middle eastern looking people, they say??.., i said to someone once..what about muslims in bosnia and chechyna ?? they look more caucasian..and they didn't know what I was on about :s:huh:..

 

[tented]

they are homegrown terrorists really (usa)..the family emigrated so long ago in those bombers lives from Chechnya,

that's going to freak people out more even than the actual bombing maybe ??...and 3 dead, from 2 bombs, the crowd were lucky the bombs were a bit feeble..although some nasty injuries.

There are lots of horrible things which happen in the US by people born here (Oklahoma City, Newtown, Columbine, etc.), so the fact that they had lived in the US for so long doesn't freak me out.

I didn't say it did freak you out..im sure the are 315 million people in the usa and not just you though.. :huh:

I know you didn't say it to freak me out, and I do realize I'm speaking only for myself.

But when you wrote "that's going to freak people out more even than the actual bombing maybe," as one of the 315 million people, I felt compelled to provide my take on your statement.

 

[brokenshoelace]

On the other hand the acts are more shocking since these guys have lived here so long with the younger one moving here at age 9 or 10. It makes it more disgusting to think that America gave them so much; the opportunity to move from the dangerous and run-down Chechnya, opportunities for the older one to make a name for himself in boxing, a fricking scholarship for the younger one to pursue higher education, etc. So the terrorist attacks they pulled off are even more disgusting when you factor all that in. But it is also less alarming (for lack of a better term) than if this was a couple Al Qaeda terrorists who got into the country a year or two ago.

That's the thing though, the "homegrown" thing almost makes it sound like you're wondering "how can these guys be so ungrateful?"

To me, I find this question, in this particular context, quite miniscule. These guys just KILLED people. They took lives. So to focus on how ungrateful they are when they've committed a far worse crime is a bit odd.

I get what you mean though, don't get me wrong. I just think it makes very little difference, as the act is just atrocious on its own.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I hate to be right again, but as people were debating whether the two terrorists were home grown or imported, and people were singing "sweet Caroline" all around the country, congress was passing a new Cyber Security ! bill that overrides every state law regarding the protection of e mails and so forth, and in Canada, MPs are busy introducing a new anti-terrorism bill that, yes, gives more rights to the cops and takes away more rights from individuals....
That's how she goes...with applause and one right at a time...

 

[tented]

I hate to be right again, but as people were debating whether the two terrorists were home grown or imported, and people were singing "sweet Caroline" all around the country, congress was passing a new Cyber Security ! bill that overrides every state law regarding the protection of e mails and so forth, and in Canada, MPs are busy introducing a new anti-terrorism bill that, yes, gives more rights to the cops and takes away more rights from individuals....
That's how she goes...with applause and one right at a time...

Yep. Awful stuff.

And for the record, I never disagreed with your content. I was simply pointing out that when Emanuel said that quote about taking advantage of a tragedy, he didn't mean it in a sinister way. Your reinterpretation of it, however, is spot on, and I completely agree.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I hate to be right again, but as people were debating whether the two terrorists were home grown or imported, and people were singing "sweet Caroline" all around the country, congress was passing a new Cyber Security ! bill that overrides every state law regarding the protection of e mails and so forth, and in Canada, MPs are busy introducing a new anti-terrorism bill that, yes, gives more rights to the cops and takes away more rights from individuals....
That's how she goes...with applause and one right at a time...

Yep. Awful stuff.

And for the record, I never disagreed with your content. I was simply pointing out that when Emanuel said that quote about taking advantage of a tragedy, he didn't mean it in a sinister way. Your reinterpretation of it, however, is spot on, and I completely agree.

I know bro, the way I quoted the quote had context issues, but you know what I mean...

 

[Kieran]

I hate to be right again, but as people were debating whether the two terrorists were home grown or imported, and people were singing "sweet Caroline" all around the country, congress was passing a new Cyber Security ! bill that overrides every state law regarding the protection of e mails and so forth, and in Canada, MPs are busy introducing a new anti-terrorism bill that, yes, gives more rights to the cops and takes away more rights from individuals....
That's how she goes...with applause and one right at a time...

That's interesting. I think it's difficult to strike a balance between keeping people safe and stepping on their toes. For example, the FBI knew about the bombers, from the Russians. Imagine if they had followed them, snooped on them, infringed their human right, the uproar would be tremendous if it got out.

And lives would have been saved.

I'm not advocating that the governments act illegally or against the citizens best interests, by the way, I'm just saying that getting it right is problematical. Where does the line get drawn? And why is it always drawn after a tragedy and not before?

Well, the answer to this could be that people feel most vulnerable and in need of protection after a tragedy, or an outrage, and so they see things differently to before.

Again, I'm not advocating any human rights abuses, nor am I neglecting human responsibilities either, but I'm putting it out there. What's the cost of combatting terrorists and stopping this from happening again?

 

[britbox]

My opinion is that you can't legislate for nutcases. If you impose draconian measures on an overall populace on the basis that "lives might be saved" you would ban pretty much everything and curtail freedoms to a ridiculous level.

On top of that, bear in mind government agencies sell databases to the private sector all the time. A lot of intelligence gathering has in recent history had a commercial dimension and abuse is rife.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I hate to be right again, but as people were debating whether the two terrorists were home grown or imported, and people were singing "sweet Caroline" all around the country, congress was passing a new Cyber Security ! bill that overrides every state law regarding the protection of e mails and so forth, and in Canada, MPs are busy introducing a new anti-terrorism bill that, yes, gives more rights to the cops and takes away more rights from individuals....
That's how she goes...with applause and one right at a time...

That's interesting. I think it's difficult to strike a balance between keeping people safe and stepping on their toes. For example, the FBI knew about the bombers, from the Russians. Imagine if they had followed them, snooped on them, infringed their human right, the uproar would be tremendous if it got out.

And lives would have been saved.

I'm not advocating that the governments act illegally or against the citizens best interests, by the way, I'm just saying that getting it right is problematical. Where does the line get drawn? And why is it always drawn after a tragedy and not before?

Well, the answer to this could be that people feel most vulnerable and in need of protection after a tragedy, or an outrage, and so they see things differently to before.

Again, I'm not advocating any human rights abuses, nor am I neglecting human responsibilities either, but I'm putting it out there. What's the cost of combatting terrorists and stopping this from happening again?

This is obviously a huge debate and I would love to get into it more eventually , but to answer your basic question, the only way to ensure you can stop tragedies before they happen is if you live in a Police State, where nobody has any rights or privacy... Or have some people predict the future for you like in the movie Minority Report. If you claim to be a democracy, the job becomes tough. You work your ass of, follow every lead , respect individual rights because they are not given to individuals by governments, people are born with them. You will stop some tragedies, some will fall through the cracks and you will learn from them and do your best for next time, but you will not stop every tragedy.