boston marathon bombing

[Homsar]

Originally Posted by Bob

i think there's a difference between asking questions/keeping an open mind (healthy) and saying "ok, the mainstream media reported it this way, so let's pick apart everything i can find on the internet on my own and figure out the truth and shout down anyone that disagrees because they're a sheeple mind slave" (less healthy)

that kind of bullshit does more harm than good, because if there's ever a situation where the government/media/oligarchy/whoever is lying about something (which has happened, and will almost certainly happen again and again), and someone figures it out, nobody's gonna believe them because everybody's so goddamn burnt out on these goddamn lizardman conspiracy theories

sometimes a man with both his legs blown off is just a man with both his legs blown off

Glad to see you're safe, Bob.

[checkyourprez]

Originally Posted by afronaut

I'm not saying they were wrong in doing what they needed to do at the time. I am saying that the fact that they took the most drastic of measures and didnt even come close to finding the guy is a fail. Because they didnt find the guy, and they wouldnt have found the guy. You can say "derpy derp derp safety!" all you want, the fact of the matter is the lessening of those safety measures is what caused the dude to get caught. No offense to the brave people who had to carry out that operation, but there is some incompetence somewhere.

Looking at situations like this in hindsight is most important, because that is the only time you will see what went wrong, what went right, and what were the real reasons for going about things in that manner. The real reason was panic, fear, and never having to deal with such a situation before. Understandable, yes. But as for the people in charge, who come up with these strategies, you failed. You didnt catch the guy. You wouldnt have caught the guy. Why? We're talking about a half dead, bleeding to death, 19 year old kid. That inspires no confidence whatsoever in me.

Fact of the matter is, the whole operation was inappropriate for the situation at hand. They went about it as if this were a situation where someone was harboring a terrorist, not as if this were a manhunt. Instead of setting up a perimeter and raiding each and every house within that perimeter, simple infared sweeps of the entire area could have led to a capture much sooner, and without the suspension of amendment rights. Of course, a terrorist loose is an appropriate situation to suspend those rights. But its no excuse to use ineffective measures when other measures would be far more effective and less fear generating.

And this is nothing against the brave people who have to carry out operations like this. They're heroes. My anger is at the fact that we do not seem to know what to do in domestic terror situations. Its easy for the FBI to search out potential terrorists, provide those terrorists with ideas and supplies, and then shut down the terror operation before it goes through.

Apparently, its not so easy when a real terrorist slips through the cracks. In that situation, fear and panic seem to inform those in charge just as much as it does the civilians. And that is a problem.

Also, I'm not referring to some far out conspiracy theories about the FBI. Facilitating terror plots has been a large factor in many - if not most or all - domestic terror plots that have been foiled since 9/11. I guess its a smart strategy, if not a little Minority Report-ish.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...ucceed/273537/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/op...nted=all&_r=2&

i still think you are really looking at this way too much in hindsight like its an easy call to make these decisions in the heat of the moment.


sure they knew they were looking for a 19 year old kid, but there is no way to know if it was just him. if he was working with other individuals. what kind of guns they had or bombs, or even yet if things were boobie-trapped and honestly where this kid was.

yeah sure he wasn't in the search radius, thats clear......now. how in the world at that time would they know that? they can only go on what information they have and their best intuition.


i agree with bobs usage of the word smug in this instance. why at the time the search was going on didn't you call up the boston pd and recommend a different search area?

its also easy look at it from afar and say "derp derp saftey derp derp, they are taking away our freedom" when talking about the suspension of the 4th amendment. once again, no one really knew the gravity of what they were dealing with. the police did the right thing to prepare for the worst.

say it wasn't just the two brothers, it was a gang of them, and they just started to periodically detonate bombs across boston as civilians were just going about their normal day to day business because there was no lockdown? i dont understand how you have a hard time grasping the severity of the "what if" in this situation. because the way you are going about this i feel you would be the first person to call them out for not doing enough had the hypothetical situation i just posed actually been the case.

[TurdBerglar]

SPRINGFIELD — Ninety-one percent of Massachusetts residents agree with the decision to lock down parts of Greater Boston while looking for the second Boston Marathon bombing suspect April 19 and 86 percent have a favorable opinion of the state police's handling of the case, according to survey results released Tuesday morning by The MassInc Polling Group.

Steven M. Koczela, president of the MassInc Polling Group, said the acceptance people showed for the all-day security cordon didn’t surprise him as someone who experienced that day himself.

“It sort of felt that way, just watching people’s reaction,” Koczela said Monday by phone. “But you never know until you ask.”

MassInc is an independent think tank based in Boston.

Nearly half, about 48 percent, of polling respondents said they are more concerned that the government will not go far enough to investigate and prevent terrorist attacks compared with just 36 percent of residents statewide who are more concerned civil liberties will be infringed.

“People approved of the response that they saw and are open to giving the government more leeway for any future crisis,” Koczela said.

A recent national poll conducted by the Washington Post found the opposite, with more people worried about constitutional rights than worried that the government won’t pursue and prevent terrorist attacks aggressively enough.

Western Massachusetts residents were more evenly split, though. In this region, 41 percent told pollsters they were more concerned about the government not going far enough and 42 percent were worried that the government would go too far.

As always in these polls, there remaining respondents were split between “don’t know” and “both, it depends.”

Koczela said it makes sense. Most Boston residents are reacting to events in their neighborhoods. The tragedy, while felt, was felt less viscerally here in Western Massachusetts and even less intensely across the country.

William C. Newman, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Western Massachusetts, agreed.

“It seems proximity makes a makes a big difference in these numbers,” Newman said.

He and the rest of the ACLU are concerned that the surviving bombing suspect, 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was questioned without being advised of his right to remain silent. The law does have an exemption for questioning pertaining to threats to public safety.

Newman said the national Washington Post poll was heartening .

“I think it shows a recognition that denial of rights is un-American,” Newman said.

Fifty-one percent of respondents statewide thought the government should not place restrictions on the media in during a crisis to curtail misinformation. But a considerable minority of 42 percent does favor such restrictions.

In Western Massachusetts, just 38 percent of respondents called for restriction on the media while 56 percent said no.

“I don’t think that the government should be in the business of censoring the media,” Newman said.

Newman said lots of incorrect news reports such as the ones reporting additional bombs or an early arrest started with Twitter and other social media feeds then got pick up by traditional media.

The poll showed that about 35 percent of respondents checked social media, like Twitter, frequently for updates on the bombing and investigation. But that number trailed local television and news websites.

Residents seem to think Gov. Deval L. Patrick did a good job. He had a 61 percent favorable rating versus a 23 percent unfavorable rating compared with 60 percent favorable and 26 percent unfavorable in December.

U.S. Den. Elizabeth Warren had 50 percent favorable and 29 percent unfavorable compared with 54 percent favorable and 34 percent unfavorable in December.

MassInc polled 500 Massachusetts residents April 23 through 27. The margin of error here is plus or minus 4.4 percent.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.s...iver_de fault