quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:
Do we know whether anyone has claimed responsibility for the attack?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by loggats:
Do we know whether anyone has claimed responsibility for the attack?

---

I doubt that a genuine claim of responsibility will happen if it's a domestic group that has done this, but there will be fake claims.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
Surely there must be some way of blaming it on Mrs Thatcher.

Just kidding.

Everyone knows that like 9/11, it will have been engineered by Mossad to further the interests of those fiendishly clever Jews.
 

---

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
3 fatalities reported; about 140 injured, some critically. Apparently law enforcement have been questioning a person of interest since around 8 p.m. Boston time.
 

---

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
People are pretty spooked here. Apart from those physically affected, of course ( ), some of the Boston area's many universities have been locked down. There have been multiple bomb reports throughout the evening and night in Cambridge and Boston, and so far all have been checked out by police and found to be benign.

It's pretty twisted that some people's first response is political.
 

---

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
the use of ball bearings especially points to a US-based group for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But it will have the effect of depriving Americans of some more of those liberties that they (once) were so proud of.

This will occur, regardless of the group or person who caused the blasts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Surely there must be some way of blaming it on Mrs Thatcher.

Just kidding.

Everyone knows that like 9/11, it will have been engineered by Mossad to further the interests of those fiendishly clever Jews.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
I am struggling to understand what terrorist groups have to gain by such actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
I am struggling to understand what terrorist groups have to gain by such actions.

---

At this moment in time we know absolutely nothing about who caused the bombings, terrorists or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Surely, if they cause carnage, fear and terror, they are terrorists - wherever they come from and whatever their 'cause'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Surely there must be some way of blaming it on Mrs Thatcher.

Just kidding.

Everyone knows that like 9/11, it will have been engineered by Mossad to further the interests of those fiendishly clever Jews.

---

Not. Funny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:

It's pretty twisted that some people's first response is political.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Why is it that complete strangers should be expected to react to this in a non-political way, or risk being called "twisted"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
Those of you familiar with Boston might find this map helpful in understanding exactly where the explosions took place.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Why is it that complete strangers should be expected to react to this in a non-political way, or risk being called "twisted"?

---

I think that post was a response specifically to Kaplan Corday's comment. Not all political reactions are created equal, and that one was ... regrettable.

---

quote:

---

However atrocious, 9/11 made some sick sense in terms of its symbolism. The same can be said about the Oklahoma City bombing. For this one, I'm failing to see "the point" so far.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:

It was a bit surreal for me to hear jokes or speculation about civil liberties being curtailed while the police were still investigating suspicious packages literally blocks from my home, as I stayed inside to avoid the possibility of another explosion. That's all.

---

there's no playbook for this, but caution is in order, and compassion should be out ahead of anything else. The world's prayers are with you and all the other Bostonians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
My guess would be a domestic far-right/militia/white-supremacist/etc. individual, acting with encouragement or propaganda support but no tangible assistance. The symbolism could be Tax Day or Patriot's Day, both of which were yesterday. The Waco standoff, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Columbine High School massacre, and Hitler's birthday all have anniversaries this week.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
In form, it most closely resembles the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
My guess would be a domestic far-right/militia/white-supremacist/etc. individual, acting with encouragement or propaganda support but no tangible assistance. The symbolism could be Tax Day or Patriot's Day, both of which were yesterday. The Waco standoff, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Columbine High School massacre, and Hitler's birthday all have anniversaries this week.

---

fwiw, that's what strikes me as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bib:
Once again we wake to hear that innocent people have been killed or injured by bombs placed where a large number of people has gathered. I am struggling to understand what terrorist groups have to gain by such actions. Are we supposed to 'understand' them, or can we call for retribution. Christ instructed us to forgive over and over, but I find it impossible to follow such teaching in such a situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
In form, it most closely resembles the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing.

---

Yes. Including this cautionary tale:

Richard Jewell

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
... the bombs - there were 2, the second timed (13 seconds after the first) to catch the people responding to the first explosion-

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
In form, it most closely resembles the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing.

---

Yes. Including this cautionary tale:

Richard Jewell

---

Already potentially happening in Boston.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But this second bomb was a block away, so it's not the same strategy. That stuck me right away, that the second bomb was not planned to catch the rescuers rushing to victims of the first. Whoever it was, wasn't that organized.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:

My second thought was to wonder whether this was a stunt by a pro-gun nutter: after all, Boston as a city is totemic in the fight for freedom from colonial masters but is also now seen as a spiritual home for "pinko" liberals, widely blamed by the gun-toting fraternity for wishing to part them from their beloved firearms.

No, it doesn't make sense - but then neither does claiming the Second Amendment (passed 1791 to enable self-defence in those parts of the ex-colonies far from militia or army protection) is relevant and applicable to a person living in a Connecticut small town with a fully-functioning police department.

All desperately sad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
and that's only for events in Australian scale where our biggest fun runs don't come anywhere near the scale of Boston.

---

Slight correction: The City to Surf in Sydney is the largest event of its type in the world. Events of Australian scale = larger than the Boston Marathon, in terms of number of runners at least.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I was just reading up on the Atlanta Olympics bombing, and the bomber's stated motivations had to do with abortions and the homosexual 'agenda'.

With THAT kind of logic possible, speculation about the precise reasons for attacking the Boston Marathon is inevitably going to be exactly that: speculation. Because hey, the Olympics is an absolute hotbed of abortions and queers.
 

---

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :
 
For what it's worth: a student who has been with the US Army in Afghanistan told me today he thought this was domestic, not foreign terrorism. He had been reading up on newspaper accounts of the bombs' construction, and, in his view, they "weren't like the kind they used over there."

Like some of you, I'd also had the thought that the perpetrator(s) seemed too familiar with Boston/ New England symbolism and customs to be anything but a cultural insider.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
News just released:

Amongst the dead is an 8 year old boy. We now hope that the rumour that a party was present from Newtown is untrue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
The symbolism could be Tax Day or Patriot's Day, both of which were yesterday. The Waco standoff, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Columbine High School massacre, and Hitler's birthday all have anniversaries this week. In form, it most closely resembles the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
That said, don't the better-known organized terrorist groups typically claim responsibility fairly promptly after incidents they've actually engineered? Isn't that commonly part of the "strategy?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kentishmaid:
I note that the conspiracy theories have started already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
In form, it most closely resembles the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing.

---

Yes. Including this cautionary tale:

Richard Jewell

---

Already potentially happening in Boston.

---

The police are pushing back pretty heavily on the rumors about the Saudi guy, thank goodness. Poor man was just running from the scene like everyone else and gets tackled for being Arab...yikes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kentishmaid:
I note that the conspiracy theories have started already.

---

Must. Not. Start. Hell. Thread. This. Late. At. Night.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kentishmaid:
I note that the conspiracy theories have started already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I think speculating on who did it is pointless until evidence is found. Such speculation tells more about the fears of the speculator than the criminals.

---

quote:

---

"If your experience and your expertise is Middle East terrorism, it has the hallmarks of al Qaeda or a Middle East group," former FBI Assistant Director Tom Fuentes said. "If your experience is domestic groups and bombings that have occurred here, it has the hallmarks of a domestic terrorist like Eric Rudolph in the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympics bombings."

---

quote:

---

Contrary to widespread reporting, no arrest has been made in connection with the Boston Marathon attack. Over the past day and a half, there have been a number of press reports based on information from unofficial sources that has been inaccurate. Since these stories often have unintended consequences, we ask the media, particularly at this early stage of the investigation, to exercise caution and attempt to verify information through appropriate official channels before reporting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And here's a statement from the FBI:

quote:

---

Contrary to widespread reporting, no arrest has been made in connection with the Boston Marathon attack. Over the past day and a half, there have been a number of press reports based on information from unofficial sources that has been inaccurate. Since these stories often have unintended consequences, we ask the media, particularly at this early stage of the investigation, to exercise caution and attempt to verify information through appropriate official channels before reporting.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
However, maybe I'm paranoid, but everyone kept quoting law enforcement officials saying there was a person in custody, so a possibility #2 occurs to me too. They do have someone in custody but are using, what did they call it extreme questioning? to force said person to give more information like who their conspirators are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grammatica:
Briefing postponed, for now. There was a bomb threat (which turned out to be false) to the Moakley Federal courthouse in Boston.

---

I remember after the Virginia Tech shootings, there were assorted bomb threats which further upset everyone.

Moo
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
You do know how often the US government gets caught torturing people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
You do know how often the US government gets caught torturing people? Way too often for my taste. And I accepted that it was quite likely that their sources are wrong, but since they say their sources are law enforcement, that shouldn't be simply assumed, I'd think. Law enforcement REALLY should know whether a person is arrested or not. And law enforcement will not be likely to confuse arrested and detained for questioning either. But no, I am not saying that's what happened.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
According to news reports, the entire population of Boston and six other cities and has been ordered to stay indoors. Has there ever been such an extensive lockdown of population before?

---

Much of Europe had that pretty much every night for years on end int the 1940s.

Anyway its being blamed on Chechens. Which is bad news for the USA because if there is one conflict zone you really really don't want to get caught up its the Caucasus.
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Some of us would really rather not get caught up in any international conflict zone. It's just that much of Europe got tired of staying indoors & such during the 1940's.
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
According to news reports, the entire population of Boston and six other cities and has been ordered to stay indoors. Has there ever been such an extensive lockdown of population before?

---

Much of Europe had that pretty much every night for years on end int the 1940s.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Anyway its being blamed on Chechens. Which is bad news for the USA because if there is one conflict zone you really really don't want to get caught up its the Caucasus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
According to news reports, the entire population of Boston and six other cities and has been ordered to stay indoors. Has there ever been such an extensive lockdown of population before?

---

Much of Europe had that pretty much every night for years on end int the 1940s.

---

Yehbut, yehbut.... I think it's a bit different here. One thing to have a regular, planned-for, properly patrolled night-time curfew during war-time; another to have a reactive lock-down for police pursual of suspected criminals. I was trying to imagine what life in Northern Ireland would've been like if there'd been a Boston-type response to every terrorist activity of that sort.

Still, different strokes and all that. And every situation needs to be taken on its own merits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
Yehbut, yehbut.... I think it's a bit different here. One thing to have a regular, planned-for, properly patrolled night-time curfew during war-time; another to have a reactive lock-down for police pursual of suspected criminals. I was trying to imagine what life in Northern Ireland would've been like if there'd been a Boston-type response to every terrorist activity of that sort.

Still, different strokes and all that. And every situation needs to be taken on its own merits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by malik3000:
According to news reports, the entire population of Boston and six other cities and has been ordered to stay indoors. Has there ever been such an extensive lockdown of population before?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
To be fair, Boston proper is pretty small -- some 75,000 souls altogether. The "six other cities" are really just a passel of grown-together burbs in the area surrounding Boston, where you can pass through three or four of them in the space of 10 minutes on one T (public transport) ride. Outside of greater Boston, most inhabitants of Allston, Brighton, etc. say, when asked, they're from Boston.

---

Boston proper is a city of over 620,000 people with 4.5 million in its metro area. We residents of Allston and Brighton say we are from Boston because they are both inside city limits.

[ 19. April 2013, 19:24: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
You do know how often the US government gets caught torturing people? Way too often for my taste. And I accepted that it was quite likely that their sources are wrong, but since they say their sources are law enforcement, that shouldn't be simply assumed, I'd think. Law enforcement REALLY should know whether a person is arrested or not. And law enforcement will not be likely to confuse arrested and detained for questioning either. But no, I am not saying that's what happened.

---

You think every policeman in Boston knows what the hell is going on with the investigation? I think common areas in police stations are just as likely to be a hotbed of rumour, misinformation and Chinese whispers as anywhere else. Having a badge doesn't provide omniscience. It just provides an aura.

---

Completely missed that this was a response to me in my vague tired reading. (That's totally the bad side of reading as a host ) Good point. Boston's a big enough city to have an awful lot of clueless police who may want to look important by talking to the media. That is probably way more likely than my theory--and almost guaranteed to be what actually happened considering how things ahve played out!
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
I'll say. Nothing about this looks to be anything other than a disaffected older brother winding up his younger brother and persuading him to get involved. I hope he hears his uncle's advice and turns himself in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Heard one news report that police had arrested 2 additional men and 1 woman in New Bedford, MA. Haven't heard any confirmation, but the report claimed there was some connection to the younger brother who's now in custody.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Let's hope the suspect is the right man, sometimes people run because they're chased.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Looks like they might have caught the fugitive suspect, hiding in a boat in a Watertown backyard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
Looks like they might have caught the fugitive suspect, hiding in a boat in a Watertown backyard.

---

So can anyone on this thread explain this picture, taken apparently from a news channel helicopter?

It appears to show "suspect 2" casually getting in, or out, of the boat. He doesn't appear to be seriously wounded at this point. The AFP caption says this is "after he was found hiding in a boat".

I'm completely confused by this photograph compared to the reports. Can anyone provide a sourced explanation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
It appears to show "suspect 2" casually getting in, or out, of the boat. He doesn't appear to be seriously wounded at this point. The AFP caption says this is "after he was found hiding in a boat".

---

quote:

---

This image obtained April 19, 2013 courtesy CBS News shows Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing who was captured Friday night, April 19, 2013 after he was found hiding in a boat in a Boston suburb

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Orfeo the AFP photo caption on the Daily Telegraph site says exactly what I said it said.

---

quote:

---

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing who was captured Friday night, 19 April 2013, after he was found hiding in a boat in a Boston suburb

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, having just spotted the relevant photo, the caption does NOT say clearly this image was obtained after his capture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, having just spotted the relevant photo, the caption does NOT say clearly this image was obtained after his capture.

---

What do you mean 'capture' in this context? It seems there were several stages to this, from being discovered by the boat owner and then surrounded by the police / FBI through to him emerging from the boat and then being handcuffed and led away.

I presume the photograph was taken after he was surrounded by the police, but before the police made physical contact with him and handcuffed him.

---

Well exactly. The caption's use of the word 'capture' is another reason that it's not very good at indicating just when it was taken. It's not a question of what I would mean by 'capture', because I didn't write the caption and I wouldn't write it like that. Not if I had any professional pride left after abandoning legislative drafting and deciding to work for the media instead...

If your presumption is correct (and it does seem a reasonable possibility), then a better caption would have referred to him emerging from the boat after he was surrounded. At least one news report suggests that he gave himself up after concluding that further resistance would be futile.
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
It does seem to me that the photograph was taken when the suspect was surrounded with no possibility of escape. I suppose some people might see him as being 'captured' at this point.

My (Concise Oxford) dictionary defines 'capture' as: seizing, taking possession of; thing or person seized; take prisoner, seize as prize.

I agree that 'capture' requires some kind of physical seizure which isn't present in the photograph.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
It seems to me that the most likely structure of the caption is that it isn't even attempting to explain when the photo was taken.

First part of caption is answering the question, who is this a blurry photo of? Answer: this is a photo of Dzhokar Tsarnaev.

Second part of caption is answering the question, who is Dzhokar Tsarnaev? Answer: Dzhokar Tsarnaev is the man who was captured after he was found hiding in a boat.

Running these separate pieces of information into a single sentence is a very clumsy structure, but also a quite common one.
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
If this caption annoys you, you should start reading photo captions on dailymail.co.uk. I don't know who writes them, but they sometimes directly contradict what's written in the main article.
 

---

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
"My innocent sons were set up," says mother.

Do you think this sort of view is a cultural thing? Would mothers who've lived in the West for a while say the same? It just surprises me every time when there appears more or less clear evidence of a crime, and we hear family not even considering they might have gone astray. I find this really striking. Is it because family bonds mean much more in their culture?
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
...I should start deliberately reading things that annoy me? Um, no thank you.

Anyway, I didn't raise the caption. Eutychus did because he found the photo confusing. I got involved to explain the major reason it's confusing - because the caption is written in such a way as to be open to more than one interpretation, and the interpretation Eutychus took is probably not the one that was actually meant. That's not Eutychus' fault, it's the fault of poor writing.

The other reason it's confusing is because the photo, while 'dramatic', is of very poor quality and would be rejected out of hand in ordinary circumstances.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wesley J:
"My innocent sons were set up," says mother.

Do you think this sort of view is a cultural thing? Would mothers who've lived in the West for a while say the same? It just surprises me every time when there appears more or less clear evidence of a crime, and we hear family not even considering they might have gone astray. I find this really striking. Is it because family bonds mean much more in their culture?

---

I hear Anglo-Celtic parents say the exact same thing.

In one case here in Australia, an Anglo-Celtic aunt even attempted to engineer the removal of guilt from her nephew onto the police when she KNEW her nephew was responsible for someone's death.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
I was involved, there, present at a manhunt in broad daylight in the English countryside three years ago. I'd worked out where he was, exactly on the map from previous intel (I was SO impressed with myself), that's where a friend found him, spoke to him. A few nights before he had evaded police on the ground and in the air who had spotlit him again in open country. That was part of the intel. He'd moved on 15 miles by then. I shoulda bin a cop. Or something ... My friend who found him where I said lost him in a moment. The cops poured in from two or three counties, with dogs and a helicopter.

Not a trace. We were there for getting on for an hour. Had everywhere covered. Were systematic, used beaters.

My friend's daughter was there and she was desperate for a pee and stepped in to a gap in a hedgerow. She came out silent and wide eyed in a trice and pointed. She'd seen a trainer. He was attached to it. The determinism of a gap in the hedgerow where many other creatures will have paused and peed is filed away.

He'd evaded police with dogs and a helicopter, sneaky old me, his mother, a farmer but not a woman with a weak bladder.

If a lion was two metres from you in metre high grass, in full daylight, you wouldn't know it. I have watched a deer disappear in front of my eyes in exactly those conditions. Tech is JUNK. There is no substitute for the mark I human eyeball. And patience.

I have evaded hostile pursuers more than once by being very still in both rural and urban situations, once pursued on an open rooftop at night. You CAN hide in plain sight Apart from me. You can track people and they don't know it with you in plain sight too. The risk is you'll burst out laughing. Yep, I was very impressed with myself in those days too.

So the lad getting away from a gunfight at night with cops - even SWAT - and not special forces isn't surprising at all.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wesley J:
"My innocent sons were set up," says mother.

Do you think this sort of view is a cultural thing? Would mothers who've lived in the West for a while say the same? It just surprises me every time when there appears more or less clear evidence of a crime, and we hear family not even considering they might have gone astray. I find this really striking. Is it because family bonds mean much more in their culture?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Let's hope the suspect is the right man, sometimes people run because they're chased.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WesleyJ:
"My innocent sons were set up," says mother. [Roll Eyes]
Do you think this sort of view is a cultural thing? Would mothers who've lived in the West for a while say the same?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wesley J:
"My innocent sons were set up," says mother.

Do you think this sort of view is a cultural thing? Would mothers who've lived in the West for a while say the same? It just surprises me every time when there appears more or less clear evidence of a crime, and we hear family not even considering they might have gone astray. I find this really striking. Is it because family bonds mean much more in their culture?

---

I hear Anglo-Celtic parents say the exact same thing.

In one case here in Australia, an Anglo-Celtic aunt even attempted to engineer the removal of guilt from her nephew onto the police when she KNEW her nephew was responsible for someone's death.

---

I think you'll find that many non-Anglo-Celts have done that, too. It's a people thing. A kind of natural extension of the guilty person saying they didn't do it. Almost every soap opera has this kind of thing as its plot at least once in a while.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
It's a paranoid thing. A victim culture thing. His poor father said the same. His superb uncle said the opposite. There are people here who believe conspiracy theories, anything but the simple, chaotic, inept, real, inevitable, broken truth.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I think you'll find that many non-Anglo-Celts have done that, too. It's a people thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

Recognising that many Ship mates are not, in fact, Anglo-Celtic, but the question was set up as "oh look, funny people not like us do this", and Shipmates who are not from the dominant culture of the English-speaking world are less prone to "funny people not like us" statements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's a paranoid thing. A victim culture thing. His poor father said the same. His superb uncle said the opposite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
I think you'll find that many non-Anglo-Celts have done that, too. It's a people thing.

---

Yes, I know. But given the suggestion that only 'they' did it, my point was to make it clear that 'we' do it too.

Recognising that many Ship mates are not, in fact, Anglo-Celtic, but the question was set up as "oh look, funny people not like us do this", and Shipmates who are not from the dominant culture of the English-speaking world are less prone to "funny people not like us" statements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But what's missing from the "he's innocent" claim is - fine, but Boston Bomb is in a sense irrelevant, these two guys robbed a 7-11 and intentionally killed a (campus) policeman and hijacked a car, is there any doubt about those incidents?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But what's missing from the "he's innocent" claim is - fine, but Boston Bomb is in a sense irrelevant, these two guys robbed a 7-11 and intentionally killed a (campus) policeman and hijacked a car, is there any doubt about those incidents?

---

Yes, about one at least - apparently they did not rob the 7-11.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
There are people here who believe conspiracy theories, anything but the simple, chaotic, inept, real, inevitable, broken truth.

---

Martin
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But what's missing from the "he's innocent" claim is - fine, but Boston Bomb is in a sense irrelevant, these two guys robbed a 7-11 and intentionally killed a (campus) policeman and hijacked a car, is there any doubt about those incidents?

---

Yes, about one at least - apparently they did not rob the 7-11.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But what's missing from the "he's innocent" claim is - fine, but Boston Bomb is in a sense irrelevant, these two guys robbed a 7-11 and intentionally killed a (campus) policeman and hijacked a car, is there any doubt about those incidents?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
Did you feel the same way, Russ, on 9/11? There are a hell of a lot of Irish in New York.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I want to extend sympathy to all who've lost friends or family, all the injured, and to all in shock because something evil has intruded into their lives.

But there's a little voice in my mind that says something less publicly-appropriate. And I want to let it have its say, in the hope of getting rid of it.

I lived and worked in London in the 1980s, when bomb alerts were relatively common. The possibility of explosions was part of the culture; everyone knew that the reason there were no litter bins around Victoria Station was because they would provide such a good place for IRA terrorists to conceal bombs. Terrorists financed by Irish-Americans, probably many from Boston.

And I know it's way too much to hope for that any of those who've been hurt in the current evil are those who put some money in the box for the old country 20 or 30 years ago. Boston is a big city.

And it's way too much to hope for that any of the US government and media pronouncing on present-day terrorism should make any sort of mention of the fact that pre-9/11 the US government was cool about private citizens sponsoring terrorism overseas. Repentance ? What would be the point ? Old news.

Too much to hope for an adequate reckoning this side of the grave - that's part of the attraction of religion.

Thanks; feel better for saying that.

Russ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I do wish, ever so much, that the recent events of my dear city would not become an instance for patronizing sermons. How I do wish it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's quite a common story that some Boston bars used to sell drinks called 'car bomb' and 'kill a brit' - I don't know if it's true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think you can still buy an Irish car bomb, Guinness with whisky and Bailey's dropped into it. Kind of black humour, I guess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is that correct that the US was 'cool' about collections of money for terrorism? I knew that there were such collections, but didn't know about the coolness. You mean that that they didn't issue warnings and so on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I do wish, ever so much, that the recent events of my dear city would not become an instance for patronizing sermons. How I do wish it!

---

As you're discovering your dear city is public property, and when things like this happen to it, it's fair game for anyone and everyone. My dear city - and country - was a permanent instance for all such kinds of abuse, ignorance and misguided philanthropy (see up-thread reference to IRA foreign collections) for nearly 40 years. Hopefully, you won't have to learn how to live with it as 'normal', and the 'Boston Bombings' will just be another tragic but isolated episode of what doesn't usually happen in your part of the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is that correct that the US was 'cool' about collections of money for terrorism? I knew that there were such collections, but didn't know about the coolness. You mean that that they didn't issue warnings and so on?

---

The US knew full well that NORAID was funding the IRA - NORAID were forced to state as much on their financial returns after a court case in the US. The collections and the funding of the IRA continued.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The way I'm reading it, several posters have shown up to say they don't feel too bad about people getting their limbs blown off in our city because 20-30 years ago some Irish people here raised money for people in Northern Ireland to murder other people in Northern Ireland. That'll learn us to live in the same city as people who supported terrorists!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The way I'm reading it, several posters have shown up to say they don't feel too bad about people getting their limbs blown off in our city because 20-30 years ago some Irish people here raised money for people in Northern Ireland to murder other people in Northern Ireland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
But then I remember my mother insisting we go to Harrods the day after it was bombed (and she then spent the whole day complaining that the tights would have been cheaper at John Lewis).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
Frankly, if a city on total lock down, with all public transport suspended etc, while several 1,000 cops fail to find a single teenager is America "refusing to be terrorized", I dread to think what America being terrorized would look like. But then I remember my mother insisting we go to Harrods the day after it was bombed (and she then spent the whole day complaining that the tights would have been cheaper at John Lewis).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

---

Of course, the UK authorities never caught those responsible for the 1983 Harrods bombing - another notable distinction.

But if police then had just been in a firefight with one or more of them, and knew them to be at large in the area, do you think a reaction like the one in Boston would have been unreasonable (or as you seem to imply, overly fearful) at the time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
Frankly, if a city on total lock down, with all public transport suspended etc, while several 1,000 cops fail to find a single teenager is America "refusing to be terrorized", I dread to think what America being terrorized would look like.

---

quote:

---

city on total lock down, with all public transport suspended

---

quote:

---

The flags though does seem odd (if nothing else do you keep them on hand?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I do wish, ever so much, that the recent events of my dear city would not become an instance for patronizing sermons. How I do wish it!

---

As you're discovering your dear city is public property, and when things like this happen to it, it's fair game for anyone and everyone. My dear city - and country - was a permanent instance for all such kinds of abuse, ignorance and misguided philanthropy (see up-thread reference to IRA foreign collections) for nearly 40 years. Hopefully, you won't have to learn how to live with it as 'normal', and the 'Boston Bombings' will just be another tragic but isolated episode of what doesn't usually happen in your part of the world.

---

If you wish for me to be more familiar with the experience, do have the courage to say so plainly instead of putting on a cowardly show of wishing otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Jay-Emm - The reaction I was referring was the

quote:

---

city on total lock down, with all public transport suspended

---

which JoannaP mentioned and you edited out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Of course, the UK authorities never caught those responsible for the 1983 Harrods bombing - another notable distinction.

But if police then had just been in a firefight with one or more of them, and knew them to be at large in the area, do you think a reaction like the one in Boston would have been unreasonable (or as you seem to imply, overly fearful) at the time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Jay-Emm - The reaction I was referring was the

quote:

---

city on total lock down, with all public transport suspended

---

which JoannaP mentioned and you edited out.

---

Sorry, bad editing on my part, the reaction wasn't total lock down but the situation was different. And there was still a tension.
(actually the underground was shut down, and buses paused)**

PS you commented on an apparent lack of sympathy, the "they didn't get him" looks a bit like your glorying in the success of murders* over here (especially given how much of the difference is due to modern technology and luck*** added with good police response). If you aren't it might indicate how judging peoples sympathy and empathy is hard over the net. If you are...

*not that there weren't loyalist murders too.
**I should point out that I'm not a Londoner, and really speaking out of my place.
[*** edit-I'm glad you were 'lucky' and that you had a successful arrest, but it could have turned out differently]

---

quote:

---

the "they didn't get him" looks a bit like your glorying in the success of murders* over here

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
People had already mentioned Boston's contributions to the IRA, Anselmina. Forgive me for not recognizing that you weren't bringing IRA terrorism up for the same reasons others were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
...stuff...

---

It's not a problem of editing, Jay-Emm, it's that we were discussing police actions, and you were talking about cheering and flags.
...

---

quote:

---

As for my comments about the Harrods bombing, I don't accept that this

quote:

---

the "they didn't get him" looks a bit like your glorying in the success of murders* over here

---

is in any sense a fair reading...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
People had already mentioned Boston's contributions to the IRA, Anselmina. Forgive me for not recognizing that you weren't bringing IRA terrorism up for the same reasons others were.

---

No problem. FWIW, Boston's history - whatever it is - of helping finance the IRA is, I believe, irrelevant. Innocent people butchered is what matters. It's put your city in the limelight, and sometimes that's a harsh, judgemental place to be, especially when the city is raw and hurting. What seems like a black and white case of evil vs. innocence becomes polemics and political gamesmanship. It sickens and depresses.

Here's hoping justice will be done, normality restored and broken lives put back together as best they can be.

(PS: I bought my Crocs from the Croc shop in Boston a couple of years ago ! That guy still sitting on his horse?)
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
People had already mentioned Boston's contributions to the IRA, Anselmina. Forgive me for not recognizing that you weren't bringing IRA terrorism up for the same reasons others were.

---

You should have heard the reaction to 9/11. I believe the American ambassador is said to have wept at the reaction of the Question Time audience.

I don't think it is morally right. But I do think that folk not getting why it this response exists, is a clue to why these things happen in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Of course, the UK authorities never caught those responsible for the 1983 Harrods bombing - another notable distinction.

But if police then had just been in a firefight with one or more of them, and knew them to be at large in the area, do you think a reaction like the one in Boston would have been unreasonable (or as you seem to imply, overly fearful) at the time?

---

Dave,

Thank you for reminding me that the Harrods bombers were never caught - and of course in those days we never had the uncertainty over who was responsible.

That is an interesting question and my opinion (which I acknowledge may be deeply warped) is that to give the terrorists the power to disrupt that many lives, however briefly, is to let them win.

---

quote:

---

However, I am not sure how much my reaction to the lockdown is influenced by the knowledge that it was only after the lockdown was over that the man went into his garden and noticed the blood.

---

quote:

---

This NYT piece by Thomas Friedman reflects my views pretty well.

---

quote:

---

It is always held on Patriots' Day, the third Monday of April.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
(PS: I bought my Crocs from the Croc shop in Boston a couple of years ago ! That guy still sitting on his horse?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

JoannaP was criticizing the Boston police reaction and comparing it to the general UK reaction following the Harrods bombing; I noted that the UK police response (at least) was unsuccessful in catching the perpetrators, though circumstances were obviously different as I noted in my next paragraph.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
It's also worth noting that not having a lockdown and letting the guys kill a few hundred more people—which was a very real possibility—could be considered letting the terrorists win as well!

---

quote:

---

It's a bit post hoc when someone suggests that because he was found after the lockdown ended, the lockdown shouldn't have happened. Had there been no lockdown, and had he not been badly wounded and lying in a boat, and had he continued killing people, there would have been an outcry that there should have been a lockdown (probably not from the same people, mind you!)

---

quote:

---

It's a tough call for the Commonwealth to have made, and I haven't heard from a single person who was actually here during it who believed it was the wrong decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Trust me, I get it. I do feel, though, that if one wants to explain why we deserved it (and excuse me for saying 'we,' but that line does rely on the concept of corporate guilt), then at least don't add the condescension of false sympathy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
It's also worth noting that not having a lockdown and letting the guys kill a few hundred more people—which was a very real possibility—could be considered letting the terrorists win as well!

---

Not by me. I subscribe to the simple-minded view that the aim of terrorists is to terrorise. Deaths are a means to that end, not an end in themselves. If a populace refuses to change its values or behaviour regardless of how many of its members are killed, then the terrorists cannot win.

---

"Simple-minded view."

The dead people no longer have lives so they have "lost". The public is saddened and outraged and frightened -even terrorized-, the victims' friends and relatives have had their hearts torn out. But, hey, we've made the terrorists "lose". Face it: terrorists mostly "win" because they don't have the hearts to care about anonymous lives or the principles of a peaceful society. They are happy with either being destroyed. The rest of us "lose" because we care about both innocent lives and the ideals of civil rights. The closest thing to a win for us is to block as many terrorist events as we can within a legal framework.
 

---

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
Lyda Rose:
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
[qb] The way I'm reading it, several posters have shown up to say they don't feel too bad about people getting their limbs blown off in our city because 20-30 years ago some Irish people here raised money for people in Northern Ireland to murder other people in Northern Ireland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
People had already mentioned Boston's contributions to the IRA, Anselmina. Forgive me for not recognizing that you weren't bringing IRA terrorism up for the same reasons others were.

---

You should have heard the reaction to 9/11. I believe the American ambassador is said to have wept at the reaction of the Question Time audience.

I don't think it is morally right. But I do think that folk not getting why it this response exists, is a clue to why these things happen in the first place.

---

Trust me, I get it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
Frankly, if a city on total lock down, with all public transport suspended etc, while several 1,000 cops fail to find a single teenager is America "refusing to be terrorized", I dread to think what America being terrorized would look like. But then I remember my mother insisting we go to Harrods the day after it was bombed (and she then spent the whole day complaining that the tights would have been cheaper at John Lewis).

---

Of course, the UK authorities never caught those responsible for the 1983 Harrods bombing - another notable distinction.

But if police then had just been in a firefight with one or more of them, and knew them to be at large in the area, do you think a reaction like the one in Boston would have been unreasonable (or as you seem to imply, overly fearful) at the time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:

quote:

---

It's a tough call for the Commonwealth to have made, and I haven't heard from a single person who was actually here during it who believed it was the wrong decision.

---

Good point. I am pontificating from a very long way away. I have never been to Boston (though it is high on my list of places in the US I want to visit) and, AFAIK, I do not know anybody living there apart from ship-mates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
UK wise, I think only if they are known to be spree shooting. They didn't lock down London after the failed bombing (not sure where you would put all the people to be honest). Conversely when the spree killer in Cumbria was loose, and when they were hunting Raol Moat people were advised to stay in doors.

[Crosspost]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
[qb] The way I'm reading it, several posters have shown up to say they don't feel too bad about people getting their limbs blown off in our city because 20-30 years ago some Irish people here raised money for people in Northern Ireland to murder other people in Northern Ireland.

---

You're reading it wrong.

The likelihood of any such "karmic justice" seems pretty small. Chances are that for all the individuals who are suffering, this is a shocking, unexpected and entirely undeserved tragedy.

But if I believe that the concept of collective guilt is flawed, is it inconsistent to wonder about collective innocence ?

It's only natural for American media to treat this as vastly more important, more evil, than similar atrocities in Forn Parts. British or French or Irish media would be no better.

But do you not see what message that sends to the rest of the world about the relative importance of American lives lost versus non-American lives lost as a result of American action ?

---

quote:

---

Seems to me that nobody here wants this sort of ghastly thing to happen. But if and when it does, it's not wrong to wish that there were some justice in it.

---

quote:

---

Or to wish that something good might come from it (such as a change in US culture so that sponsoring terrorism abroad will never be acceptable again).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
I mean, I think you'd have to hope that one of the actual IRA bombers was there at the finish line, wouldn't you? Or would a $100 dollar donation be enough to justify it, do you think?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
People had already mentioned Boston's contributions to the IRA, Anselmina. Forgive me for not recognizing that you weren't bringing IRA terrorism up for the same reasons others were.

---

You should have heard the reaction to 9/11. I believe the American ambassador is said to have wept at the reaction of the Question Time audience.

I don't think it is morally right. But I do think that folk not getting why it this response exists, is a clue to why these things happen in the first place.

---

Trust me, I get it.

---

Your reaction suggests otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
I mean, I think you'd have to hope that one of the actual IRA bombers was there at the finish line, wouldn't you? Or would a $100 dollar donation be enough to justify it, do you think?

---

Without wishing to condone any kind of theory of karmic retribution, I will say that if you knowingly support terrorists, you have just as much blood on your hands as the person who planted the bomb.

I'm sure there were some people under the impression that NORAID was the peaceful political advocacy organization that it claimed to be, but people singing "boys of the old brigade" in bars and putting cash in the tin for the cause are as guilty as Martin McGuinness.

---

quote:

---

I see you have decided on your interpretation.

If I say I hope you come to understand the feelings which accompany sympathy when it involves traumatic events in one's own experience, can you understand that is not the same as wishing such traumas on you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoannaP:
But then I remember my mother insisting we go to Harrods the day after it was bombed (and she then spent the whole day complaining that the tights would have been cheaper at John Lewis).

---

After the Danish cartoon protests, I bought Lurpak butter instead of my usual brand. I spent the next few weeks regretting my purchase, too. This solidarity lark is harder than it looks, sometimes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
People had already mentioned Boston's contributions to the IRA, Anselmina. Forgive me for not recognizing that you weren't bringing IRA terrorism up for the same reasons others were.

---

You should have heard the reaction to 9/11. I believe the American ambassador is said to have wept at the reaction of the Question Time audience.

I don't think it is morally right. But I do think that folk not getting why it this response exists, is a clue to why these things happen in the first place.

---

Trust me, I get it.

---

Your reaction suggests otherwise.

---

I can't understand the sentiment and think it's repulsive at the same time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
"providing material support" (equivalent to putting cash in the tin) won't get you the death penalty (nor a sentence to have your legs blown off with a bomb, which appears to be Russ's notion of justice.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
It does indeed seem to me that there is a certain aptness, that one who intends to kill and maim others by means of explosives should be themselves blown up. If "karmic justice" isn't the right term, perhaps you could suggest a better one ?

---

quote:

---

Yes, Derek Bird and Raoul Moat were in relatively small places.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:
(PS: I bought my Crocs from the Croc shop in Boston a couple of years ago ! That guy still sitting on his horse?)

---

"That guy"? Who? You mean this guy, George Washington, the father of our country?

Yep -still there last time I looked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I'm a little surprised that I can write something that says "justice is too much to hope for this side of the grave" and it's read as saying ""they deserved it". But maybe some people can't cope with responses that aren't as simple and unmixed as "fer it" or "agin it".

---

quote:

---

And I know it's way too much to hope for that any of those who've been hurt in the current evil are those who put some money in the box for the old country 20 or 30 years ago. Boston is a big city.

---

quote:

---

Do you want to see a world without terrorism ? Wouldn't it be a big step in that direction if the world's only superpower publicly committed itself to never again support terrorism in any form ? Wouldn't that be a good outcome, the best use to which the wave of public emotion about this recent crime might be directed ?

---

quote:

---

pre-9/11 the US government was cool about private citizens sponsoring terrorism overseas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
The criminal investigation will throw up some answers as to the specifics of this case. But if you want to know - need to know - how people can do such things, you don't have to look very far from home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
You appear to be misidentifying the sentiment as either schadenfreude or revenge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
Meanwhile, "how people can do such things"...I haven't heard of anyone close to home knowing what it's like to set down a bomb in a crowd in cold blood, look someone in the eye, and walk away without flinching when it explodes.

---

quote:

---

But then the ANC, the Iraqui insurgency, the Provos - do these fit? I don't know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
It does indeed seem to me that there is a certain aptness, that one who intends to kill and maim others by means of explosives should be themselves blown up. If "karmic justice" isn't the right term, perhaps you could suggest a better one ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, it's a nightmare separating out resistance movements, insurgencies, guerilla groups, terrorists, and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

And I know it's way too much to hope for that any of those who've been hurt in the current evil are those who put some money in the box for the old country 20 or 30 years ago. Boston is a big city.

---

Again I ask - what kind of justice system includes the punishment of having your legs blown off?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Quetzcoatl wrote:

quote:

---

But then the ANC, the Iraqui insurgency, the Provos - do these fit? I don't know.

---

I think one of the modern critera(not part of the old Just War theory) is "Are you fighting against a dictatorship or a democracy?" The logic being that resort to war is valid only if you have no recourse at the ballot box. Therefore, ANC good, IRA bad.

But even that kind of falls apart when a democratic country invades a sovereign country, as in the US/Iraq. Since the people in the targeted country did not get a vote on the matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Tangent sort of - Have there been any stories of people repenting of having financed Irish bombings? Like, after 9-11?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that is like Ireland, I mean the 1916 uprising. I think the British eventually conceded the legitimacy of the Irish war, since they negotiated with Michael Collins, who had just had some of their intelligence officers shot in their beds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Tangent sort of - Have there been any stories of people repenting of having financed Irish bombings? Like, after 9-11?

---

As a result of 9-11? Sincerely doubt it. Not how it works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that is like Ireland, I mean the 1916 uprising. I think the British eventually conceded the legitimacy of the Irish war, since they negotiated with Michael Collins, who had just had some of their intelligence officers shot in their beds.

---

I'm not sure this follows: after all, I'm pretty sure the British don't "concede the legitimacy" of the Provisionals' campaign, and yet Martin McGuinness is now the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bostonman:
Someone who puts money in a tin is not as responsible as someone who builds or detonates a bomb

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
march over to my computer and brag about it on the ship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
march over to my computer and brag about it on the ship.

---

More like 'honestly admit to'. It's an unbidden, unwanted response, but, like recurrent anxiety attacks or an inability to cope with certain sorts of confrontation, it's something you have to work with and through.

No marching* or bragging involved.

*a particularly loaded term in the context of NI.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greenleaff:

I went to church Sunday-- the message was that what the city went through last week is nothing compared to what people in Baghdad endure, that marginalized people feel unsafe every day, and in that light would we please participate in an event 3 weeks from now to raise money for disaffected youth. During prayers of the people, there were many contributions but no one mentioned the 5 people who died, the families of the victims or suspects, or anything of our fear and loss we felt this week. I was close to tears for the 1st part and couldn't really speak up.... I should have.

I have to admit I found this lack of acknowlegment mystifying and I feel a little numb. Luckily my workplace is holding some events today to help people mark what's happened, and talk about how its affected our community here. I was moved by Obama's speech at the interfaith service last week. I wish my own faith community could do something to just acknowledge the loss and uncertainty. Are we really a community? we seem not to be able to grieve together. Even at work, where politics and religion are off-limits subjects, we are able to talk about how this has affected us and shaped who we are. Churches should be able to do the same thing... paying attention to the gravity of this event is not equivalent to fear-mongering. To me this does bring up questions of evil in the world and how to deal with that, and i'm certainly not bringing that up with coworkers! At least have a little empathy for those of us who feel hurt by this, even if its not as bad as Baghdad.

Last night I spent a long time praying for the victims, the suspects, their families, for healing for everyone, for help... I plan to do the same thing tonight... Seems like the right thing to do.

(Sorry for the rant.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greenleaff:
It was a truly frightening day and I've never experienced anything like it.

---

for you and yours.

I lived in Birmingham during the time of the pub bombings. I was due to go to the Tavern in the Town that night with my boyfriend - by sheer co-incidence I finished with him that lunch time, we didn't go.

The shock of 'It could have been me' took a long time to subside. We had bomb scares at school at least twice a week in those days (hoaxes, obviously - but concerning nonetheless)
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greenleaff:
I'm struggling to understand how anyone in our community could do something this awful-- there is no answer that could possibly address the depth of the tragedy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
And you have to care, in order to hate. That usually means contact, on some level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I do imagine it's quite hard for many Bostonians. I saw how affected many people were by 9-11. My thoughts for all of you.

But that's the thing. People seemed to feel they'd lost their innocence or their feeling of safety, which is partially what I'm hearing from Greenleaff. I had attributed it to our western illusion of safety. But from what I'm hearing, Brits don't seem to have the same shock that violence happens. Is this because of things like the troubles or did the London subway bombing a few years ago create the same level of people feeling their whole life had changed. I kept hearing that in 2001, and I had already seen enough crap that I didn't get it then and don't really get it now.

---

I would say that a lot of Brits just got used to it. After all, 4000 people died in the Troubles, week by week over 20 years or so. OK, most of them were in Ireland, but I heard the Oxford St Wimpy bar bomb go off. And my local launderette was blown up, the police said by Iranians. The owner was blown out of the shop, and lay in the road where I live, dying.

I think 7/7 was quite a shock, but people quickly started taking the tube again, and so on.
 

---

Posted by Greenleaff (# 16449) on :
 
Thanks for the kind responses so far. I can understand why some might find this reaction naive or dramatic. I will probably have a more detached way of talking about it in a couple of weeks, but this happened just 3 days ago. If you sail straight past the shock and pain and immediately start talking about ever-present violence in the community, or point out that these 5 deaths are nothing compared to the people who are murdered every day under more boring circumstances, you are technically correct but missing the point about how people feel. Tell me all that in 3 weeks and I won't argue, but for right now it seems callous. I didn't miss any work for this and my life is not drastically altered, but it's important to me to acknowledge these events as painful and once I've done that move ahead. There should be some space for grief.

[ 22. April 2013, 19:17: Message edited by: Greenleaff ]
 

---

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
I lived in London during the 90s, on the edge of the city in a hospital, and heard 5 bombs go off and remember the constant alerts in hospital, the tube closures and the army presence in the City.
My church was the 12th century St Helen's Bishopsgate which was badly damaged in 2 IRA bombs, the Baltic Exchange one and the Bishopsgate one (I started at the 'church' a year later but didn't set foot in the building for several years because of the repairs). The rector of the church was lucky to have decided to read on his bed on the night of the Baltic Exchange bomb as he probably would have died if he had been in his study when the bomb went off. Much of the old medieval church was destroyed. Friends who were part of the congregation at the time were shocked and stunned by the event. They temporarily moved to share another church but this was damaged by the second bomb.

to those in Boston and others affected by this terrible tragedy. It is hard to know how to respond when something like this affects your community, it shakes our sense of security.
 

---

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Grammatica wrote:

quote:

---

There's a reflexive anti-Americanism on the old British left and I think it's been surfacing on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
As for what was going through the mind of the person who triggered the bombs, I've no idea. Fear ? Hate ? Exhilaration ? The nobility of martyrdom for the cause ?

But unless he's a total psycho, I bet he believes he has the support of and acts for some community who have the mistaken belief that this is an acceptable way to achieve their aims.

Yours sadly,

Russ

---

quote:

---

Russ: As for what was going through the mind of the person who triggered the bombs, I've no idea. Fear ? Hate ? Exhilaration ? The nobility of martyrdom for the cause ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
And you have to care, in order to hate. That usually means contact, on some level.

---

Hmm. How does this apply to people in, say, Egypt or Syria or Pakistan, who hate Americans with a red-hot passion? There is no contact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Tangent sort of - Have there been any stories of people repenting of having financed Irish bombings? Like, after 9-11?

---

As a result of 9-11? Sincerely doubt it. Not how it works.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Grammatica wrote:

quote:

---

There's a reflexive anti-Americanism on the old British left and I think it's been surfacing on this thread.

---

One thing I've always found somewhat odd(and I'm not specifically thinking about anyone on this thread) is when left-wing British people bring up US support for the IRA as an example of American interference in other countries.

I mean, if I were a left-wing(and hence supposedly anti-imperialist) Brit, I would try to come up with an example other than one that reminds everybody that my own country was once a major imperial power, vehemently disliked among some of its subject peoples.

Granted, the intermingling strands of nationalism and leftism can sometimes be hard to untangle, and it's likely that many of the Brits who rail on and on against the "rich Irishmen in Boston" are more the former than the latter. Still, p.r. lesson for the day: if you're a Brit looking for sympathy as a downtrodden victim of the bullying yanks, DON'T bring up Ireland!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I do imagine it's quite hard for many Bostonians. I saw how affected many people were by 9-11. My thoughts for all of you.

But that's the thing. People seemed to feel they'd lost their innocence or their feeling of safety, which is partially what I'm hearing from Greenleaff. I had attributed it to our western illusion of safety. But from what I'm hearing, Brits don't seem to have the same shock that violence happens. Is this because of things like the troubles or did the London subway bombing a few years ago create the same level of people feeling their whole life had changed. I kept hearing that in 2001, and I had already seen enough crap that I didn't get it then and don't really get it now.

---

I would say that a lot of Brits just got used to it. After all, 4000 people died in the Troubles, week by week over 20 years or so. OK, most of them were in Ireland, but I heard the Oxford St Wimpy bar bomb go off. And my local launderette was blown up, the police said by Iranians. The owner was blown out of the shop, and lay in the road where I live, dying.

I think 7/7 was quite a shock, but people quickly started taking the tube again, and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Grammatica wrote:

quote:

---

There's a reflexive anti-Americanism on the old British left and I think it's been surfacing on this thread.

---

One thing I've always found somewhat odd(and I'm not specifically thinking about anyone on this thread) is when left-wing British people bring up US support for the IRA as an example of American interference in other countries.

I mean, if I were a left-wing(and hence supposedly anti-imperialist) Brit, I would try to come up with an example other than one that reminds everybody that my own country was once a major imperial power, vehemently disliked among some of its subject peoples.

Granted, the intermingling strands of nationalism and leftism can sometimes be hard to untangle, and it's likely that many of the Brits who rail on and on against the "rich Irishmen in Boston" are more the former than the latter. Still, p.r. lesson for the day: if you're a Brit looking for sympathy as a downtrodden victim of the bullying yanks, DON'T bring up Ireland!

---

I find that argument peculiar. I would think most left-wing people in the UK would bring up Ireland, not because of the US, but because it was a colony in our backyard, and one where a classic war of independence went on.

Thus, the left don't ignore the imperial history, far from it. Its historical aftermath still of course goes on, see for example the recent court cases by Kenyan guerrilla fighters, who were tortured in British camps.

Of course, we may well also critique the US imperium, and those British politicians who snuggle up to it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I would agree with this, it is habituation to a certain extent. But I don't think it is just about the IRA bombing campaign.

Who grew up feeling safe in the public sphere ? Really?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Now that we've caught this sick boy, we've got to love him.

Wipe his feet clean with our tears and hair. Reconcile him to those he's grieved. As we grieved him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
march over to my computer and brag about it on the ship.

---

More like 'honestly admit to'. It's an unbidden, unwanted response, but, like recurrent anxiety attacks or an inability to cope with certain sorts of confrontation, it's something you have to work with and through.

No marching* or bragging involved.

*a particularly loaded term in the context of NI.

---

Sure, but it's a bit much to expect the victims of your vicious thoughts to help you through them, especially when you don't seem to repent of them very much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greenleaff:
Thanks for the kind responses so far. I can understand why some might find this reaction naive or dramatic. I will probably have a more detached way of talking about it in a couple of weeks, but this happened just 3 days ago. If you sail straight past the shock and pain and immediately start talking about ever-present violence in the community, or point out that these 5 deaths are nothing compared to the people who are murdered every day under more boring circumstances, you are technically correct but missing the point about how people feel. Tell me all that in 3 weeks and I won't argue, but for right now it seems callous. I didn't miss any work for this and my life is not drastically altered, but it's important to me to acknowledge these events as painful and once I've done that move ahead. There should be some space for grief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
My, but you must go through a lot of straw.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greenleaff:
I will probably have a more detached way of talking about it in a couple of weeks, but this happened just 3 days ago. If you sail straight past the shock and pain and immediately start talking about ever-present violence in the community, or point out that these 5 deaths are nothing compared to the people who are murdered every day under more boring circumstances, you are technically correct but missing the point about how people feel. Tell me all that in 3 weeks and I won't argue, but for right now it seems callous. I didn't miss any work for this and my life is not drastically altered, but it's important to me to acknowledge these events as painful and once I've done that move ahead. There should be some space for grief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
I just found an interesting article about the brothers.

Moo

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, has been referred to as a terrorist. Richard Jewell did not commit the Olympic Park bombings. Quite the opposite, his actions saved lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So far as I can tell, there is no useful idea of what the motives of the bombers may have been, just as we have little idea what actually drove the killers in Oklahoma City, Aurora, Arizona or Sandy Hook/Newtown, or, for that matter, the Washington sniper. We have some suggestion of what drove the killers at Columbine, and a better idea of the copy-cat killing in Taber, Alberta.

None of these latter were discussed as "terrorism" though, any more than Richard Jewell (Atlanta Olympics) was seen as a "terrorist"

Is it necessary and sufficient to know that someone is a Muslim to ensure that he is referred to as a terrorist? Is it necessary and sufficient to know that someone is NOT a Muslim to say that he is not a "terrorist"?

Or is it just that a native-born American could not be called a terrorist, while an immigrant is obviously one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Who grew up feeling safe in the public sphere ? Really ? ... When was this time when we were innocent, when we could leave our doors open, when you could play safely in the street.

It was not in my life time and I am 37 now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
And now to bash the yanks for a bit...

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Tangent sort of - Have there been any stories of people repenting of having financed Irish bombings? Like, after 9-11?

---

As a result of 9-11? Sincerely doubt it. Not how it works.

---

Well, at least one American supporter of the IRA, Rep. Peter King, suddenly came to the epiphany, post-911, that the IRA were indeed a nasty bunch of guys.

---

The article isn't all that clear that he had any kind of 'sudden epiphany'. It looks more like a gradual process that started before 9/11 and might have been accelerated by the sheer undesirability of PUBLICLY supporting terrorists after 9/11.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I can't recall spending a lot of time being very scared in the public sphere here.

Occasionally there's a worry that someone might think to attack the national capital, but it's usually tempered by the recollection that half the world thinks the national capital is Sydney.

The most scared I've ever been was due to natural disaster (fires), not human beings. It was real and it was happening, not dreamed up by someone.

And in terms of crime... a lot of it IS dreamed by the media. Crime rates continue to fall here but surveys always indicate people believe it's getting worse. Because the media bombards them with stories.
 

---

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I'm not a lawyer. My intuition would be that the person who actually pulls the trigger is more guilty than other members of a conspiracy to murder, but not by very much. That Conspiracy is a less-serious but similarly-serious crime.

So I think you're right in what you say, but it doesn't invalidate the original point.

---

quote:

---

Understand the mentality of IRA supporters in Boston and you'll understand how people can conspire to commit atrocities like the recent bombs in Boston.

---

quote:

---

But there is understanding to be gained from setting these things in the context of the past.

---

quote:

---

the fact that pre-9/11 the US government was cool about private citizens sponsoring terrorism overseas

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What is so wrong with just charging Tsarnaev with several counts of murder and even more counts of attempted murder? Why do prosecutions have to be for such dramatic offenses these days when there are ordinary, well-understood ones readily available?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I also think the bit about the 'public danger' exception to his Miranda rights was extremely worrying.

What happens if evidence against this guy gets thrown out of court because the rules weren't followed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What is so wrong with just charging Tsarnaev with several counts of murder and even more counts of attempted murder? Why do prosecutions have to be for such dramatic offenses these days when there are ordinary, well-understood ones readily available?

---

They want to kill him, for an offence committed in a state without the death penalty. Baroque federal offences are a way to achieve this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Cold, calculated plans to kill. Ironic, isn't it?

---

Yep
 

---

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Which was that having your legs blown off by a bomb would be a just punishment? For anything ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
On another angle... Weapons of mass destruction, eh? Did Iraq get invaded because Saddam Hussein had a stockpile of pressure cookers?

How ridiculous.

What is so wrong with just charging Tsarnaev with several counts of murder and even more counts of attempted murder? Why do prosecutions have to be for such dramatic offenses these days when there are ordinary, well-understood ones readily available?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
When I hear that someone has been blown up, I hope - in the time between hearing the headline and learning the details - that the person who has been blown up is someone for whom such a fate would be natural justice. That is, someone who has plotted to blow up others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
On another angle... Weapons of mass destruction, eh? Did Iraq get invaded because Saddam Hussein had a stockpile of pressure cookers?

How ridiculous.

What is so wrong with just charging Tsarnaev with several counts of murder and even more counts of attempted murder? Why do prosecutions have to be for such dramatic offenses these days when there are ordinary, well-understood ones readily available?

---

Gives the national government a more control of the prosecution. IIRC, regular murder charges would be a local prosecution. The WMD charge makes it a federal crime.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Which begs the question why the Feds should have control of it. Nothing so far leaps out at me and says 'clearly a Federal kind of crime'. A couple of brothers who have spent much of their life growing up in Boston set off bombs in Boston.

---

quote:

---

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just about every discussion I see on the Boston Bombing talks about "terrorism", and we have no hard evidence of anything but the fact that many people felt terror. But people feel terror everywhere at all times for all sorts of reasons. I'm sure the guy who ran around a WalMart parking firing a hand gun at a deer (and eventually killing it) caused terror among the witnesses. But he isn't a terrorist.

---

quote:

---

Did Iraq get invaded because Saddam Hussein had a stockpile of pressure cookers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just about every discussion I see on the Boston Bombing talks about "terrorism", and we have no hard evidence of anything but the fact that many people felt terror. But people feel terror everywhere at all times for all sorts of reasons. I'm sure the guy who ran around a WalMart parking firing a hand gun at a deer (and eventually killing it) caused terror among the witnesses. But he isn't a terrorist.

---

I think this hinges on a definition of terrorism. To me, terrorism is inflicting death or serious injury on a random group of people who happen to be in a certain place at a certain time. The lack of selectivity is key.

By this definition a single individual acting alone can be a terrorist.

Moo

---

quote:

---

I always understood 'terrorism' to involve some sort of political agenda or objective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
To me, terrorism is inflicting death or serious injury on a random group of people who happen to be in a certain place at a certain time. The lack of selectivity is key.

By this definition a single individual acting alone can be a terrorist.

Moo

---

I think Moo has it exactly right though I'd add the word intentionally before inflicting in her definition so that the misguided deer hunter is not a terrorist.
I'd say that terrorism is a overly dramatic crime these days and I find much more personal fury at the local couple who brutally abused and killed their infant son than at these brothers, but I think they clearly are terrorists. They wanted to create a big, scary, deathly drama, so terrorists.

ETA crosspost. Agreed with Firenze too. "for political reasons" probably should be added in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
And now to bash the yanks for a bit...

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Tangent sort of - Have there been any stories of people repenting of having financed Irish bombings? Like, after 9-11?

---

As a result of 9-11? Sincerely doubt it. Not how it works.

---

Well, at least one American supporter of the IRA, Rep. Peter King, suddenly came to the epiphany, post-911, that the IRA were indeed a nasty bunch of guys.

---

The article isn't all that clear that he had any kind of 'sudden epiphany'. It looks more like a gradual process that started before 9/11 and might have been accelerated by the sheer undesirability of PUBLICLY supporting terrorists after 9/11.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
To me, terrorism is inflicting death or serious injury on a random group of people who happen to be in a certain place at a certain time. The lack of selectivity is key.

By this definition a single individual acting alone can be a terrorist.

Moo

---

I think Moo has it exactly right though I'd add the word intentionally before inflicting in her definition so that the misguided deer hunter is not a terrorist.
I'd say that terrorism is a overly dramatic crime these days and I find much more personal fury at the local couple who brutally abused and killed their infant son than at these brothers, but I think they clearly are terrorists. They wanted to create a big, scary, deathly drama, so terrorists.

ETA crosspost. Agreed with Firenze too. "for political reasons" probably should be added in.

---

But I would think that Ted Kozinski (sp?) was a terrorist, and I'm not sure "crazy" counts as "political." He selected specific people to target, didn't blow up large numbers of people at a time, and the place where they were when they opened the package doesn't seem to have been all that important to him. Just saying...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
To me, terrorism is inflicting death or serious injury on a random group of people who happen to be in a certain place at a certain time. The lack of selectivity is key.

By this definition a single individual acting alone can be a terrorist.

Moo

---

I think Moo has it exactly right though I'd add the word intentionally before inflicting in her definition so that the misguided deer hunter is not a terrorist.
I'd say that terrorism is a overly dramatic crime these days and I find much more personal fury at the local couple who brutally abused and killed their infant son than at these brothers, but I think they clearly are terrorists. They wanted to create a big, scary, deathly drama, so terrorists.

ETA crosspost. Agreed with Firenze too. "for political reasons" probably should be added in.

---

But I would think that Ted Kozinski (sp?) was a terrorist, and I'm not sure "crazy" counts as "political." He selected specific people to target, didn't blow up large numbers of people at a time, and the place where they were when they opened the package doesn't seem to have been all that important to him. Just saying...

---

I'd actually be fine excluding the unabomber from the category of terrorists. I think he's an excellent example of the fuzzy place in how we define the word. To many people any disaster that kills many people on purpose is terrorism, and since TK did that, he must be one. I'd say that he was no more a terrorist than any other violent mass murderer who seems to mainly want to watch the world burn. (Would you call The Joker a terrorist?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

But I would think that Ted Kozinski (sp?) was a terrorist, and I'm not sure "crazy" counts as "political." He selected specific people to target, didn't blow up large numbers of people at a time, and the place where they were when they opened the package doesn't seem to have been all that important to him. Just saying...

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
All my life I have been warned about stranger danger, all my life I have been warned about unattended baggage.

I remember chernobyl, I remember the massive posters on the tube saying Don't Die of Ignorance at the beginning of the Aids epidemic.

When was this time when we were innocent, when we could leave our doors open, when you could play safely in the street.

It was not in my life time and I am 37 now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
On another angle... Weapons of mass destruction, eh? Did Iraq get invaded because Saddam Hussein had a stockpile of pressure cookers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
If the Tsarnaev brothers' pressure cooker bombs are weapons of mass destruction, so are the assault weapons used in various mass shootings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
If the Tsarnaev brothers' pressure cooker bombs are weapons of mass destruction, so are the assault weapons used in various mass shootings.

---

quote:

---

(a) Offense Against a National of the United States or Within the United States.— A person who, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction—
[...]
(2)against any person or property within the United States, and
[...]
(B)such property is used in interstate or foreign commerce or in an activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce;
[...]
(D)the offense, or the results of the offense, affect interstate or foreign commerce, or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce;
[...]
shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

---

quote:

---

(4)The term “destructive device” means—
(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i)bomb,
(ii)grenade,
(iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v)mine, or
(vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
[...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
How about an answer?

---

quote:

---

Is it necessary and sufficient to know that someone is a Muslim to ensure that he is referred to as a terrorist? Is it necessary and sufficient to know that someone is NOT a Muslim to say that he is not a "terrorist"?

Or is it just that a native-born American could not be called a terrorist, while an immigrant is obviously one?

---

quote:

---

Sorry I got Rudolph mixed with Jewell, but there is a point even there. Jewell was called a terrorist despite provably not being such.

---

quote:

---

A huge number of Muslims, the vast majority, are not terrorists, but the reflexive answer is to call them ALL terrorists for something as simple as "not looking like us". How about the Christian Middle Easterners, who are also tarred with the "potential-terrorist" brush because of their appearance? There's a certain mindless reaction to things that bothers me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Here's the WMD law under which Tsarnaev is being charged: 18 USC § 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Here's the WMD law under which Tsarnaev is being charged: 18 USC § 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction

---

Ah, ok so it was the use of the term in 2000 that was flawed.
Actually checking that, from the samish source...
web page.

So it's been a long standing riskily overloaded word (kind of like 'man'). That makes sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I was talking about natural justice, in the "hoist by your own petard" sense. (Thanks, Anglican't). The idea that - just as morality is doing to others as you would have them do unto you, so justice is being treated by others as you treat them. If you go around beating people up, natural justice is that someone else beats you up. If you steal, you deserve to be stolen from.
I was not talking about the criminal justice system, or suggesting an appropriate judicial penalty for any particular crime.
For example, the death penalty for murder would be natural justice, but I don't advocate that any state should have such a law.

---

quote:

---

If you're looking for a thread that has nothing more than tea and sympathy (English expression - no Boston reference intended) you might find one or start one in Heaven.
Others have suggested that they're still a little too shocked by recent events to bring their full rationality to bear upon the topic. If that applies to you, feel free to come back to this subject at a better time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If any bomb is a weapon of mass destruction, the law is written far too strongly. Stupid teenagers blowing up mailboxes become terrorists, which is ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

18 USC § 2331(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Here's the WMD law under which Tsarnaev is being charged: 18 USC § 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction

---

Ah, ok so it was the use of the term in 2000 that was flawed.
Actually checking that, from the samish source...
web page.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W:
I think what you're describing is emotional satisfaction, not justice. I think justice has to have a component of thoughtful consideration, and if I wouldn't countenance a particular outcome as the result of a judicial process, I can't call it justice when it happens by chance.
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W:
I think what you're describing is emotional satisfaction, not justice. I think justice has to have a component of thoughtful consideration, and if I wouldn't countenance a particular outcome as the result of a judicial process, I can't call it justice when it happens by chance.

---

Your main point seems to be that you want to apply the label "justice" to the "judicial process" sense and not the "naturally deserves" sense. Which is fine if there's a better label for the latter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I would it poetic justice. It is fitting, but it is not true justice. Just because a thing feels good doesn't make it right

Course my sense of justice suggests all humans should just stop setting off bombs, but maybe I'm crazy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
Here's the WMD law under which Tsarnaev is being charged: 18 USC § 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction

---

Ah, ok so it was the use of the term in 2000 that was flawed.
Actually checking that, from the samish source...
web page.

---

That definition of "weapon of mass destruction" makes any artillery shell such a weapon, or small missile, such as is fired by drones in Afghanistan or Pakistan. However, it does mean that they should have been able to find some kind of WMDs in Iraq, by that definition (and there certainly are such WMDs in that country now).

---

quote:

---

By Dave W
"Overloaded" is about right, I think. Though I'm not sure there's all that much extra risk in this case, since the Feds have other statutes underwhich the death penalty would apply.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
If the Tsarnaev brothers' pressure cooker bombs are weapons of mass destruction, so are the assault weapons used in various mass shootings.

---

No. Bombs are "weapons of mass destruction" because they are indiscriminate. Guns are aimed, so are not weapons of mass destruction, even though they can cause a lot of destruction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Feels good - I'd want to distinguish satisfying the sense of "just deserts" from any positive feeling we might get from our tribe being vindicated and/or a rival tribe being brought low. Yes, acting on either of those feelings might not be the right thing to do. But whereas tribalism is something we should try to overcome, a sense of poetic justice is a form of recognition of objective moral law, and thus I suggest more like part of the solution than part of the problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If any bomb is a weapon of mass destruction, the law is written far too strongly. Stupid teenagers blowing up mailboxes become terrorists, which is ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
If you maintain some loathsome double standard, such as
When foreigners set off bombs in America, that's a horrible crime. When America and its friends set off bombs in other parts of the world, that's a legitimate form of protest, and the loss of life regrettable but necessary"
then my sense of natural justice recognises a big child bullying his playmates.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I think this is somewhat like saying that my bias is more likely to be right than other people's. On one hand, of course one can't really help believing that. On the other hand, I don't see why my gut feelings really are more useful than others'. Often they will be informed by what happens to gross me out or upset me or what traumatic experiences I have had. If I were a banker, perhaps I'd be a little more accepting of the ways bankers can lose everyone else's money, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
not some moral qualities inhering in random acts of violence indiscriminately visited on the guilty or innocent.

---

quote:

---

There are a lot of terrible things about official American policies, now and in the past, and there are a lot of people in the world who have just cause to resent them. I don't think Brits who complain about the IRA are prominent among them.

---

quote:

---

if you're looking for the arrogant imperial power whose policies radicalized all those IRA bombers

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If any bomb is a weapon of mass destruction, the law is written far too strongly. Stupid teenagers blowing up mailboxes become terrorists, which is ridiculous.

---

Yes. It's a shitty definition. However, it's the law. I can't blame the prosecutors for using it. Just whoever came up with it in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Another thing I read this morning that I didn't enjoy. I didn't hear about this at the time, but it certainly bothers me. In much the same way as Anonymous declaring it could name rapists bothered me.

---

quote:

---

Reddit has scored a significant, game-changing victory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
If you maintain some loathsome double standard, such as
When foreigners set off bombs in America, that's a horrible crime. When America and its friends set off bombs in other parts of the world, that's a legitimate form of protest, and the loss of life regrettable but necessary"
then my sense of natural justice recognises a big child bullying his playmates.

---

That's funny - my sense of conversational justice notices that you still haven't substantiated your allegation that "pre-9/11 the US government was cool about private citizens sponsoring terrorism overseas".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
If we're talking about divvying up the sweeties, then considerations like who's kind to animals, or who said a naughty word, are irrelevant. But who just tried to grab all the sweeties for himself is relevant, and there's a poetic justice if the person who tried to take others' share is left with none himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
I don't why you feel it's outrageous for me to hope that such an evil act might be (in what seems to me at this point the only way possible, but I'm open to suggestions) less evil.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

There are a lot of terrible things about official American policies, now and in the past, and there are a lot of people in the world who have just cause to resent them. I don't think Brits who complain about the IRA are prominent among them.

---

Wouldn't claim to be first in what might be a long queue.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

if you're looking for the arrogant imperial power whose policies radicalized all those IRA bombers

---

Are you suggesting here that being an arrogant imperial power in some way justifies or excuses terrorism ?

---

quote:

---

When I hear that someone has been blown up, I hope - in the time between hearing the headline and learning the details - that the person who has been blown up is someone for whom such a fate would be natural justice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
If you maintain some loathsome double standard, such as
When foreigners set off bombs in America, that's a horrible crime. When America and its friends set off bombs in other parts of the world, that's a legitimate form of protest, and the loss of life regrettable but necessary"
then my sense of natural justice recognises a big child bullying his playmates.

---

That's funny - my sense of conversational justice notices that you still haven't substantiated your allegation that "pre-9/11 the US government was cool about private citizens sponsoring terrorism overseas".

---

You need to draw a line between private citizens funding terrorism and "private citizens" funding terrorism because the US government would NEVER EVER fund terrorism.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
If the Tsarnaev brothers' pressure cooker bombs are weapons of mass destruction, so are the assault weapons used in various mass shootings.

---

---

This is a distinction without a difference.

The guy who shot up the theater in Aurora shot indiscriminately. If you were there, you were in danger of getting shot. Ditto Sandy Hook Elementary School. That guns have to be aimed doesn't make any difference in the case of guns that can shoot off a large number of rounds in a very short period of time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:

Try this one: Suppose that, in carrying out the bombing on the 15th, the Tsarnaev brothers had also managed accidently to kill themselves along with the others who were killed, maimed, and otherwise wounded. Would that have made their act any "less evil"? I just don't see it. (I wouldn't be sorry to hear of their deaths, but it wouldn't give me any sense of mitigation.)

---

quote:

---

you making claims about US government support for (or acquiescence in) IRA bombings as a hook for expressing your feelings about "natural justice" and then going on about US bullying in general is absurd.

---

quote:

---

outrageous for aggrieved residents of Ireland to seek signs of "natural justice"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
It's not that I'd at all deny the use of one's natural sense of ethics. But I don't think gut reactions are necessarily useful and I think you are privileging them above thought out reactions. Also, I think that when a situation gets complex, we will have as many gut reactions as people.

---

quote:

---

Jane's homeless and has no treats of her own, should we give her extra? She also has a gambling problem, so maybe it's her own fault and we should avoid her so as not to be polluted and not give her any of future batches of treats. If John doesn't like our treats, are we entitled to give him a different kind? What about Natasha who's allergic or Jose who could buy half of the city, do we still need to give him some? I doubt we would all define fairness the same way when we get to a more complex situation like that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
If I focus unduly on the IRA it is because of the specific Boston connection.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

outrageous for aggrieved residents of Ireland to seek signs of "natural justice"

---

You still don't seem to get it. Natural justice is not generalised retribution - it is the symmetry of having done to you exactly what you personally have intended for others. It's not something invented, not a way to justify whatever malicious feelings you may have in your heart. If you feel aggrieved because someone's called you a plonker, then the maximum action which you may be justified in taking is calling him a plonker right back. Not something worse - then you stray into evil. And it may well be better to choose a different response.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
would natural justice supporters only be allowed to hope that such people were among shooting and torture victims, but not among bombing victims, because "bombing" isn't exactly what they were responsible for?

I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly?) that you would say there was no one in the British government who would have been a suitable victim (natural justice-wise) for that attack.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
would natural justice supporters only be allowed to hope that such people were among shooting and torture victims, but not among bombing victims, because "bombing" isn't exactly what they were responsible for?

I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly?) that you would say there was no one in the British government who would have been a suitable victim (natural justice-wise) for that attack.

---

An eye for an eye is quite specific. If you want to take a nose for an eye, or a little finger for an eye, it is no longer poetic justice, it's just retribution.

---

quote:

---

The Boston IRA connection is well-established. (I use a smartphone for the Ship in odd moments rather than typing at the computer, and pasting a link is beyond my technical skills, but if you Google "Boston IRA" you should be able to satisfy yourself of that much).).

---

quote:

---

As for the attitude of the federal government, seems to me that a tiny fraction of the resources that are being devoted to preventing foreign "acts of terror" in the US would have sufficed to prevent US support for "acts of terror" abroad. But the will wasn't there.

---

quote:

---

I guess with today's global media it's all too easy to get the impression that you think bombing Boston is more criminal, more morally outrageous, than bombing Brighton or Belfast or Baghdad. If you've never implied that, then I'm sorry if I've over-emphasised the point.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0