archer wrote: I'm leaning towards home grown terrorists rather than foreign, I think if foreigners were going to go to the trouble to pull off a bombing like this it would have been more spectacular and the extra two bombs would have gone off.......as bad as this was it could have been so much worse. I also think foreign terrorists are more prone to take responsibility and boast about it than a homegrown terrorist bent on mass murder. JMHO.
My fear is that if whoever did this isn't caught soon this kind of attack may replace the mass shootings where the shooter is almost always caught or killed.....that scares me.
That's a nice way of couching it anyways. Somehow I'm thinking that when you use the phrase "home grown terroriists" you aren't referring to those who were born here and have become radical Muslims like the shooter at Ft Hood, but I might be wrong.
LadyJazzer wrote: Like I said, Of course, we don't know if this was a terrorist organization; a disgruntled anti-tax teabagger; "Friends of Timothy McVeigh"; (maybe one of the sociopathic Conifer wackos who likes to paint swastikas on campaign headquarters windows); an anti-government gun-nut; a lone-wolf who likes to watch explosions; ... But never let a chance to blame it on DHS, or anybody else go to waste....
Personally, I think it was probably done by some teabagger gun-nut "militia/patriot" wacko... But I don't have any more proof than deltamrey.
Personally, I don't think you capable of rational thought, only bigoted emoting. You would have to overlook the description of the person the authorities wished to question, or abandon your irrational and bigoted clinging to the ethnic makeup of the groups you find so disagreeable to your ideology, to come to this conclusion.
From CNN:
Investigators warned police to be on the lookout for a “darker-skinned or black male” with a possible foreign accent in connection with the attack, according to a law enforcement advisory obtained by CNN. The man was seen with a black backpack and sweatshirt and was trying to get into a restricted area about five minutes before the first explosion, the lookout notice states.
On the bright side, at least the administration isn't trying to blame this attack on a bad YouTube video . . . . yet.
chickaree wrote: This kind of event is unpreventable. It is pure foolishness to pretend that terrorism ca be prevented. The Isrealis can't do it in a tiny country with the power of the Mossad, their army with compulsory service and a active and involved populace. A lone nutjob can drop IEDs in garbage cans the night before or drop backpacks around at various points without anyone having a clue. Please give the steps on preventing this? Or 9/11 or Oklahoma City or the anthrax. That is the very power of terrorism. Small cells of fanatics. It sickens me the way we immediately turn on each other when this happens instead of coming together". You people who are doing this are the cause if it. You are the terrorists and I condemn you for it.
You are spot on here chickaree. In a (mostly) free society, where people come and go as they please and are prone to congregate in large numbers for various events, there is nothing that can be done to stop this from happening from time to time. Freedom is never free, or safe for that matter. In fact, the more free you are, the less safe you are going to be from something bad happening to you.
chickaree wrote: This kind of event is unpreventable. It is pure foolishness to pretend that terrorism ca be prevented. The Isrealis can't do it in a tiny country with the power of the Mossad, their army with compulsory service and a active and involved populace. A lone nutjob can drop IEDs in garbage cans the night before or drop backpacks around at various points without anyone having a clue. Please give the steps on preventing this? Or 9/11 or Oklahoma City or the anthrax. That is the very power of terrorism. Small cells of fanatics. It sickens me the way we immediately turn on each other when this happens instead of coming together". You people who are doing this are the cause if it. You are the terrorists and I condemn you for it.
You are spot on here chickaree. In a (mostly) free society, where people come and go as they please and are prone to congregate in large numbers for various events, there is nothing that can be done to stop this from happening from time to time. Freedom is never free, or safe for that matter. In fact, the more free you are, the less safe you are going to be from something bad happening to you.
I'll gladly accept those risks over the alternative.
I'd wondered about the presence of these soldiers when I saw the first videos - how lucky it was that they were right there to help. Now I know, kudos to Mother Jones for publishing this story.
The ruckers at 5 a.m., before setting off on the course Military Friends Foundation
At 5:20 a.m. on Monday, four hours before the Boston Marathon's elite runners took off, a group of 15 active-duty soldiers from the Massachusetts National Guard gathered at the starting line in Hopkinton. Each soldier was in full combat uniform and carried a "ruck," a military backpack weighing about 40 pounds. The rucks were filled with Camelbacks of water, extra uniforms, Gatorade, changes of socks—and first-aid and trauma kits. It was all just supposed to be symbolic.
These soldiers, participating in "Tough Ruck 2013," were doing the 26 miles of the Boston Marathon to honor comrades killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, or lost to suicide and PTSD-related accidents after coming home.
It took about eight hours for all of the soldiers to cross the finish line, some cruising nearly at a 13-minute mile, others coming in at a little slower pace. They were gathered near the medical tent behind the finish line, waiting for the elite runners to come in. That was the contingency plan in case anything went wrong—meet by the medical tent.
When the explosion went off, Fiola and his group immediately went into tactical mode.
A Boston University graduate student was identified today as the third person to die from the terrorist bombing at the Boston marathon. The two other fatalities from the attack were identified earlier today as a boy and a young woman.
At least 145 people, including 10 children, were injured in the attack, according to the latest ABC News count. At least 17 people are in critical condition.
RenegadeCJ wrote:
Science Chic wrote: <snip>I'm applying it to every person on this planet who believes that weapons, violence, and war are a necessity to solve our problems
<Snip>
I wish we could get rid of evil as well, but it won't happen. War is a horrible necessity. You can debate specific wars, but in general, they have always happened and will always happen.
But why? Why is war "a horrible necessity?" Why do you think they "will always happen?"
As I look at the picture of Martin Richard, the 8 year old who senselessly died, whose family now mourns his loss, I cannot and will not believe that they are a necessity; I reject that assumption forcefully. Nor do I believe that they will always happen, else we are doomed. It's a cycle that needs to be broken, not assumed that it will never end and it's just a part of life. Owning slaves used to be a "part of life", it is no longer. Dying of smallpox used to be just a "part of life", it is no longer. Why accept the way things are if they are so abhorrent and painful? Why not refuse the status quo and aim for higher/better/more evolved? Wouldn't a world in which there were no more retaliation for the loss of loved ones be preferred?
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Science Chic wrote:
But why? Why is war "a horrible necessity?" Why do you think they "will always happen?"
As I look at the picture of Martin Richard, the 8 year old who senselessly died, whose family now mourns his loss, I cannot and will not believe that they are a necessity; I reject that assumption forcefully. Nor do I believe that they will always happen, else we are doomed. It's a cycle that needs to be broken, not assumed that it will never end and it's just a part of life. Owning slaves used to be a "part of life", it is no longer. Dying of smallpox used to be just a "part of life", it is no longer. Why accept the way things are if they are so abhorrent and painful? Why not refuse the status quo and aim for higher/better/more evolved? Wouldn't a world in which there were no more retaliation for the loss of loved ones be preferred?
First... you conflate Martin Richard with war. Not the issue (but a clever tug at the heartstrings).
Now on to the issue. We've been evolving for a hundred thousand years, and whacking each other on the head since the first person realized they could pick up a rock and throw it. And all that "whacking" has not stopped advances in education, science, political systems, innovation, medicine, philosophy or spiritual advancement. All of those have accelerated at exponential rates. You even admit the world is "better" in your slave and smallpox analogy above. War and violence has not stopped any of those things from advancing or being achieved.
But war has stopped crazy, blood thirsty men from becoming any more blood thirsty. War has prevented the destruction of the rest of the Jewish population on this planet by a megalomaniac named Hitler. War has stopped the elimination of whole populations of people in many times and places. There will be mentally unstable and politically over ambitious people in all eras, in all decades and no advancements in evolution will erase that. The science of evolution itself, and it's counterpart, Social Darwinism has already proven that.
Having a Captain Kathryn Janeway mentality is what kept the Voyager in the Delta Quadrant for seven years. If Seven of Nine was at the helm, they would have been home in 3 hours, and there would have been hundreds of less deaths in that Quadrant. That's the nature of humans. Unless you want a drug addled, politically and socially suppressed world population, you are never going to change human nature to the point of achieving your blessed utopia. Science is against you on this... Science Chic.
Science Chic wrote:
But why? Why is war "a horrible necessity?" Why do you think they "will always happen?"
As I look at the picture of Martin Richard, the 8 year old who senselessly died, whose family now mourns his loss, I cannot and will not believe that they are a necessity; I reject that assumption forcefully. Nor do I believe that they will always happen, else we are doomed. It's a cycle that needs to be broken, not assumed that it will never end and it's just a part of life. Owning slaves used to be a "part of life", it is no longer. Dying of smallpox used to be just a "part of life", it is no longer. Why accept the way things are if they are so abhorrent and painful? Why not refuse the status quo and aim for higher/better/more evolved? Wouldn't a world in which there were no more retaliation for the loss of loved ones be preferred?
First... you conflate Martin Richard with war. Not the issue (but a clever tug at the heartstrings).
Now on to the issue. We've been evolving for a hundred thousand years, and whacking each other on the head since the first person realized they could pick up a rock and throw it. And all that "whacking" has not stopped advances in education, science, political systems, innovation, medicine, philosophy or spiritual advancement. All of those have accelerated at exponential rates. You even admit the world is "better" in your slave and smallpox analogy above. War and violence has not stopped any of those things from advancing or being achieved.
But war has stopped crazy, blood thirsty men from becoming any more blood thirsty. War has prevented the destruction of the rest of the Jewish population on this planet by a megalomaniac named Hitler. War has stopped the elimination of whole populations of people in many times and places. There will be mentally unstable and politically over ambitious people in all eras, in all decades and no advancements in evolution will erase that. The science of evolution itself, and it's counterpart, Social Darwinism has already proven that.
Having a Captain Kathryn Janeway mentality is what kept the Voyager in the Delta Quadrant for seven years. If Seven of Nine was at the helm, they would have been home in 3 hours, and there would have been hundreds of less deaths in that Quadrant. That's the nature of humans. Unless you want a drug addled, politically and socially suppressed world population, you are never going to change human nature to the point of achieving your blessed utopia. Science is against you on this... Science Chic.
:thumbsup: Agree with everything you said except I don't believe it's "the nature of humans". I believe it's the nature of some humans. Most of us can't imagine using violence to settle our disputes in real life unless our security or someone we care about is threatened. But there are those people from the lowest to the highest levels of power who have no issue with using terror and violence to achieve their goals. Unless those people can somehow be eliminated, there will aways be a need for war, for cops, and for personal protection.
Bout time. You will never prevent people from finding ways of killing one another, regardless of how many restrictions you put on a populace. 
