Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[MrGongGong]

Whatever. At least boilk knows that he needn't waste both our time by responding to me.

Actually, this is one of those occasions when I wish it was possible to hide this entire thread. It is alarming to see supposedly intelligent individuals coming with such deluded nonsense, such as equating the USA with Nazi Germany and somehow muddling up teenagers, law enforcement agencies, and terrorists. It worries me that a post such as boilks has not been universally condemned. Far too many contributors here seem to live in some sort of loony left fantasy land. If you're happy there, fair enough, although one day you might find the real world will intrude. Good luck with that.

You agreed with me when I said that folk didn't have to look at stuff they didn't want to ?
Whats the problem with not reading it ?
I think you are conflating a justifiable criticism with an endorsement

I would like the police who killed Jean Charles De Menezes to be prosecuted and sent to prison for murder
it doesn't mean that I think that it's OK to kill the police
People who do bad things , often hide behind those who's job it is to protect us
I would say that the soldiers who murdered innocent people on Bloody Sunday were terrorists
in the same way that those who planted bombs on the tube or in planes or at the marathon
Justice should mean that for all NOT just for those whom we happen to think are bad at the moment
remember the heroic "Mujahideen" fighting against the communists ? hummmmmm

When Law enforcement agencies behave like terrorists then they become that ....... our "British" way seems to be to never admit that "we" are wrong , a bit of humility would go a long way IMV

[scottycelt]

The simple answer is that you do what you can WITHIN the remit of the law.

You do not "enforce law" by breaking existing laws
You do not fight bomb terorrism by invoking terrorism at gunpoint.

You appear to to put those entrusted to defend the community on the same level as the terrorists. I do not. I suggest the police might know a bit more about the most productive way of combating 'bomb terrorism' than either you or I. If more people died due to the police following your advice regarding a 'softly, softly' approach would you accept responsibility for these deaths?. As far as I'm aware, for all the undoubted inconvenience and even fear suffered by residents, no innocent person was physically hurt during the action. The terrorists deliberately go out of their way to instill fear and kill and maim the very same people, The residents are not daft. They know that. That's why some of them took to the streets and cheered the police when it was all over.

:laugh::laugh: ... ha, ha, you're SO funny Scottycelt, ever thought of doing stand-up?

No, and it wasn't meant to be funny ... apologies for misleading you.

You clearly only watch mainstream (i.e. corporate and government-friendly) media ... which includes the BBC by the way. So if you saw a bunch of North Koereans cheering Kim Jong Un that would mean every single person in N. Korea was happy with their government?

FYI: non-mainstream media (TV and blogs) had footage and interviews with outraged objectors to the police state antics we witnessed. But as they say, people who watch only mainstream media can sometimes have a more distorted perception of the facts than even those who watch no media.

Any person of even below-average intelligence might just be able to tell the difference between a long-rehearsed, goose-stepping communist jamboree and a spontaneous gathering on the streets by members of the public.

Can you recommend the TV channels I should be watching, which are not 'corporate and government-friendly', and where I can get at the 'facts' that are available to you and not me... ?

[ahinton]

I mentioned to you once before in this thread that you weren't really paying attention to what people are saying, and it seems to be becoming a habit with you.
Boilk compared one event in the USA to what (as I've said before) would indeed have been a much more common occurrence in Nazi Germany. Have you actually watched all of the video he put in his post?
Nobody has "muddled" the categories you mention. If there's any muddle it lies with you I'm afraid. For example it seems to me very clear that if bombing innocent people in Boston is terrorism ("the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear"), bombing innocent people in Afghanistan must also be. A terrorist is someone who commits terrorism according to some definition of that word (the quoted one being from the US Army), wherever and to whomsoever they do it and for whatever reasons.

Alleluia! Well, no, not that, of course, but loud cheers for the good and balanced sense here. Committing acts of violence in a country that one has invaded without it having first declared war on one's own is "terrorism" of a kind, without any doubt.

[ahinton]

You agreed with me when I said that folk didn't have to look at stuff they didn't want to ?
Whats the problem with not reading it ?
I think you are conflating a justifiable criticism with an endorsement

I would like the police who killed Jean Charles De Menezes to be prosecuted and sent to prison for murder
it doesn't mean that I think that it's OK to kill the police
People who do bad things , often hide behind those who's job it is to protect us
I would say that the soldiers who murdered innocent people on Bloody Sunday were terrorists
in the same way that those who planted bombs on the tube or in planes or at the marathon
Justice should mean that for all NOT just for those whom we happen to think are bad at the moment
remember the heroic "Mujahideen" fighting against the communists ? hummmmmm

When Law enforcement agencies behave like terrorists then they become that ....... our "British" way seems to be to never admit that "we" are wrong , a bit of humility would go a long way IMV

Hear, hear!

[Richard Barrett]

where I can get at the 'facts' that are available to you and not me... ?

Facts are just as available to you as they are to everyone else, but as you've said you aren't even interested in questioning the whys and wherefores of the "anti-terrorist" policies of law enforcement agencies because you just assume they know what they're doing and it's all for the best and leave it at that, so what use are facts to you? Access to information is on the other hand not enough - a framework in which to question and understand it is also required, in connection with which I would recommend Chomsky and Herman's classic book Manufacturing Consent.

[Russ_H]

I have answered your question. I'll repeat the first sentence of my ealier post (#215):



As has been posted elsewhere here, when the goverment acts above the law (which it claims to uphold), those laws are undermined at the highest level and it sets an example for citizens to follow.

My quotation of your message does not seem to have formatted correctly, so I have pasted this in:

Originally Posted by Boilk
The simple answer is that you do what you can WITHIN the remit of the law.

Please give some examples.

[Boilk]

My quotation of your message does not seem to have formatted correctly, so I have pasted this in:

Please give some examples.

I think it’s safe to say - without having to list examples, for God's sake - that a developed country like America has long had adequate laws in place to hunt down criminals in neighbourhoods without terrorising residents, and violating their Fourth Amendment rights: namely protection against search [and seizure] of private properties without a warrant. Let alone at gunpoint. Of course this has kicked off a whole US debate about “exigent circumstances” and setting a precedent to alter the Constitution. Evidently the Patriot Act wasn’t enough.

And it was an informant and thermal imaging that located the suspect.

People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security, deserve neither and will lose both.
Attrib. Benjamin Franklin.

[Op. XXXIX]

An interesting take by someone 'fairly' close to the action. Worth a read.

http://http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/15895-random-notes-from-the-police-state

[Mr Pee]

An interesting take by someone 'fairly' close to the action. Worth a read.

http://http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/15895-random-notes-from-the-police-state

It certainly is-a breath of reality amongst all the fantasy on this thread- and all the more so because it comes from somebody right in the thick of it all, rather than armchair pontificators thousands of miles away.:ok:

[Flosshilde]

armchair pontificators thousands of miles away.:ok:

Not something that you ever do, of course? :erm:

Anyway, the Truth is undergoing maintenance just now, so we aren't able to see it.

[Richard Barrett]

Worth a read.

It is. However I don't really understand how it can be in such direct contradiction to Boilk's video, which (along with other eyewitness reports I've read of the incident) hardly seems to come under the heading of "fantasy". Perhaps Mr P will pontificate from his armchair that the video was faked and that the article is obviously the only true account; but that is surely wishful thinking.

[Mr Pee]

Not something that you ever do, of course? :erm:

Anyway, the Truth is undergoing maintenance just now, so we aren't able to see it.

Hopefully the link will be accessible again soon. All you lot should read it.

[Resurrection Man]

Hopefully the link will be accessible again soon. All you lot should read it.

But if they do they will most likely dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't pander to their 'expert' armchair views.

I hadn't realised that the forum had so many 'experts' in how to deal with potentially armed and dangerous suspects. Or indeed, on how to maintain security and protect law-enforcement officers when entering a potential threat area. We are truly lucky to have all these 'experts' on hand. I can sleep soundly in my bed knowing this.

Or perhaps they would simply like to sit down with any armed suspects/terrorists/maniacs/debate-angels-on-pinheads and have a nice cup of tea and discuss how society has 'failed them' and that 'they' (armed suspects etc etc) are poor victims of society. I expect that poor old George Osborne will get dragged in somewhere along the line as being to blame. He usually does.

Methinks the armchair 'experts' need to get out a smell the coffee.

[MrGongGong]

Or perhaps they would simply like to sit down with any armed suspects/terrorists/maniacs/debate-angels-on-pinheads and have a nice cup of tea and discuss how society has 'failed them' and that 'they' (armed suspects etc etc) are poor victims of society. I expect that poor old George Osborne will get dragged in somewhere along the line as being to blame. He usually does.

Methinks the armchair 'experts' need to get out a smell the coffee.

You really do miss the point in a spectacular way ..........
In saying (Again) that it's maybe NOT acceptable to have the "security experts" allowed to murder people and escape justice one isn't on the "side" of those who would want to cause death and destruction.......

Maybe if there had been WMD etc etc we might have a little faith in those who tell us that there are really dangerous people who are constantly being stopped by our "heroic" security services and forces ?
Crying "wolf" doesn't work after a few goes , maybe the moral being that you shouldn't tell the same lie more than once ?

I've just returned from a trip abroad where I had the usual security hassles (you try going through airport security with 5 condenser microphones, an external sound card, 15 mp3 players and a Chinese gong in your hand luggage :yikes:) , most of us, myself included, don't mind the piece of theatre that we have to go through in order to make us feel more secure, I do feel safe there. BUT when I go some places in the UK I feel very unsafe indeed when I see the UK police with automatic weapons as I am certain that if they use them in error or though negligence then there really is no justice for the victims. THIS is not (again) to say that I am "on the side" of those who would commit terrible things but some folk seem unable to understand this as they really have bought the whole "with us or against us" narrative.

[scottycelt]

Facts are just as available to you as they are to everyone else, but as you've said you aren't even interested in questioning the whys and wherefores of the "anti-terrorist" policies of law enforcement agencies because you just assume they know what they're doing and it's all for the best and leave it at that, so what use are facts to you? Access to information is on the other hand not enough - a framework in which to question and understand it is also required, in connection with which I would recommend Chomsky and Herman's classic book Manufacturing Consent.

You keep reading your classic books, by all means. Some of us prefer to study the reports and evidence from various outlets from all over the world, not just the BBC, but Reuters, Al Jazeera, France 24 and, of course, members' favourite TV Channel, 'Mr Murdoch's' Sky News. A broad cross-section indeed.

You say (I certainly didn't!) that I'm 'not interested in the whys and wherefores for the "anti-terrorist" policies of law enforcement agencies' because I 'just assume they know what they are doing'. What I have been interested in is pointing out are the facts which are also available to yourself .

I'm no expert in the matter of combating urban terrorism and I'd be hugely surprised if you are. What I do know is that the Boston situation was akin to a small war for the population. There was understandable fear. Nobody really knew how many terrorists there were or when the next bomb (if any) would explode and kill or blow their legs off. The police took the heaviest possible and most extreme course which they considered was the safest under the circumstances. People's lives were at stake, and at that time I very much doubt Bostonians were particularly interested in then settling down to read Chomsky and Herman's classic book Manufacturing Consent.

It's not the police opinion of themselves that I take too seriously but rather the widespread reports of public support for the action. Some 'civil libertarians' wholly fail to see that this was an emergency urban situation calling for extraordinary action. On the other hand, in the primary cause of saving innocent human lives (possibly their own), the residents appear to have grasped this perfectly well.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/23/mass-civil-libertarians-react-to-fridays