Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[scottycelt]

I'm sorry, scotty - the analogy is quite clearly not false. Let's assume for a moment that as some part of the response to this incident a police officer or officers acted in a way or ways that were demonstrably contrary to any current US law or laws; that would be a simple fact capable of understanding and acceptance by most members of the public, not only by experienced specialist criminal lawyers, professional criminologists or members of the American judiciary. Let us also remember that those in US itself who pronounce opinions upon how the matter was handled by the authorities are for the most part especially entitled to do so because they're US taxpayers who fund those authorities; however, such entitlement is of itself self-evidently not (nor indeed should it be nor would any sensible person expect it to be) dependent upon each member of the American public expressing such an opinion being fully qualified not only to analyse all aspects of such action but also to set out in detail all of the alternative procedures that should instead have been followed.

Which part of Richard Barrett's analogy do you not understand or accept and why?

#308 ... I can't make it any clearer!

Okay I'll try ... here goes!

Person 1: I think the Government is doing all the wrong things

Person 2: Ah right, so what do you think it should be doing?

Person 1: Don't be such an idiot, Person 2.

Person 2: I'm only asking, it's a fair question, isn't it?.

Person 1: Right, that's it, I'm not going to waste my precious time with you any longer.

Get my problem, now, ahinton .... ?

[Mr Pee]

#308 ... I can't make it any clearer!

Okay I'll try ... here goes!

Person 1: I think the Government is doing all the wrong things

Person 2: Ah right, so what do you think it should be doing?

Person 1: Don't be such an idiot, Person 2.

Person 2: I'm only asking, it's a fair question, isn't it?.

Person 1: Right, that's it, I'm not going to waste my precious time with you any longer.

Get my problem, now, ahinton .... ?

:laugh::ok:

[Richard Barrett]

:laugh::ok:

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." :whistle:

[DavidP]

The analogy is false. As Mr Pee correctly points out if one goes as far as to criticise a course of action (especially in an emergency situation and especially when it did not result in failure) then others are surely entitled to expect that person to outline his or her preferred course of action. In the same way if I was qualified enough to criticise the performance of a professional pianist (which I'm certainly not!) you might reasonably expect me to explain what that pianist should have done better or differently.

As it happens, it was Russ_H who asked the question and I joined him in enquiring why he had never received a proper reply to that question ... and still hasn't.

So, are you saying the US authorities had no choice but to act in the way they did that night in Boston? If so, then do you belive there are some circumstances in which it is permissible to suspend or circumvent people's civil or constitutional rights? Could you tell us which rights you would be prepared to sacrifice under the same circumstancces?

[Serial_Apologist]

the response should have been less aggressive and should have stayed within the law.

Seems enough of an answer to the "what would you have done?" question, without recourse to the minutiae of the situation.

[ahinton]

#308 ... I can't make it any clearer!

Okay I'll try ... here goes!

Person 1: I think the Government is doing all the wrong things

Person 2: Ah right, so what do you think it should be doing?

Person 1: Don't be such an idiot, Person 2.

Person 2: I'm only asking, it's a fair question, isn't it?.

Person 1: Right, that's it, I'm not going to waste my precious time with you any longer.

Get my problem, now, ahinton .... ?

Fortunately, I do not "have" your problem, in the sense of having "got" your problem (i.e. being personally afflicted by it), but I do recognise your problem even though I can see no sensible reason why you should have it; however, but then I knew that before your latest post.

No one is suggesting that the US government does "all the wrong things" without exception. On the contrary, what's been questioned here is whether all aspects of the authorities' responses to the Boston incident were appropriate and lawful and I do not see even you implying that addressing the breach of one law by breaching another constitutes acceptable conduct on the part of those funded by taxpayers and charged with upholding the law.

As I have already said (but presumably I was wasting my time in so doing), it does not necessarily take an expert in law, justice, policing et al to recognise certain breaches of the law for what they are, just as the absence of such expertise does not invalidate all opinions on such matters or presume that anyone with an opinion or concern should have to know exactly how all such matters should be handled. I don't want to have to say this again; there's nothing esoteric about it.

[amateur51]

I don't want to have to say this again; there's nothing esoteric about it.

**sound of scotty's feared dictionary coming off the shelf** :yikes::biggrin:

[ahinton]

**sound of scotty's feared dictionary coming off the shelf** :yikes::biggrin:

Oh, no! - please, no! Substitute "complex" for "esoteric" (I don't think that the scottictionary would be required for that)...

[Mr Pee]

Seems enough of an answer to the "what would you have done?" question, without recourse to the minutiae of the situation.

Unfortunately for them, the authorities in Boston could not so conveniently ignore such "minutiae". :erm:

[ahinton]

Unfortunately for them, the authorities in Boston could not so conveniently ignore such "minutiae". :erm:

Sure - but then who's arguing with that? It is in any case part of their job not to ignore relevant minutiæ, after all.

[amateur51]

Unfortunately for them, the authorities in Boston could not so conveniently ignore such "minutiae". :erm:

So you're saying that civilians in distant lands should not pass critical comments about the Boston police then, Mr Pee :erm:

Didn't the Jews in 1930s/40s Germany complain about people in other lands looking the other way? :whistle:

[remdataram]

There's no doubting that this bombing was an outrage against totally innocent people. My sympathy goes to all those affected by the deaths and maiming resultant of the bombs.

Having said that, I'm getting more and more fed up with our medias obsession with America - the BBC in particular. The BBC even sent journalists from the UK to report on the bombing where three people were killed. As we endured a whole week of headline coverage by the BBC and many of the broadsheets an earthquake in China, the tragedy in Dhaka and the continuing slaughter in Syria have been reported with much lower coverage even though hundreds of people have lost their lives.

In the week of the Boston bombing five members of one British family died in a car collision; a much heavier death toll. But we are so outraged by three deaths in America that we go on to have a minute's silence for them at our London marathon. I wonder what that British family must of thought when so many people stood silently for three Americans?

Yes it is terrible and it may not have been perfectly handled, but do we HAVE to suffer every last detail day after day for over a week? America brought us nuclear bombs, obesity and a celebrity culture - when will our media stop being so grovelingly grateful?

[Mr Pee]

So you're saying that civilians in distant lands should not pass critical comments about the Boston police then, Mr Pee :erm:

Didn't the Jews in 1930s/40s Germany complain about people in other lands looking the other way? :whistle:

That's at least the second time on this thread that Nazi Germany has been mentioned. It's cheap, easy and completely irrelevant. :yawn:

You are clearly getting desperate.

[amateur51]

There's no doubting that this bombing was an outrage against totally innocent people. My sympathy goes to all those affected by the deaths and maiming resultant of the bombs.

Having said that, I'm getting more and more fed up with our medias obsession with America - the BBC in particular. The BBC even sent journalists from the UK to report on the bombing where three people were killed. As we endured a whole week of headline coverage by the BBC and many of the broadsheets an earthquake in China, the tragedy in Dhaka and the continuing slaughter in Syria have been reported with much lower coverage even though hundreds of people have lost their lives.

In the week of the Boston bombing five members of one British family died in a car collision; a much heavier death toll. But we are so outraged by three deaths in America that we go on to have a minute's silence for them at our London marathon. I wonder what that British family must of thought when so many people stood silently for three Americans?

Yes it is terrible and it may not have been perfectly handled, but do we HAVE to suffer every last detail day after day for over a week? America brought us nuclear bombs, obesity and a celebrity culture - when will our media stop being so grovelingly grateful?

Anyone would think it was all part of a plot to extend and maintain a state of apprehension regarding terror so far from our shores, remdataram, and to ease the passage of news about imprisonment of would-be terrorists amongst our own citizens.

We're all in this together.

Where's Shaw Taylor when you need 'im - "Remember! Keep 'em peeled!" :winkeye:

[amateur51]

That's at least the second time on this thread that Nazi Germany has been mentioned. It's cheap, easy and completely irrelevant. :yawn:

You are clearly getting desperate.

Nice of you to regard relatively recent European history as irrelevant, Mr Pee - crank up the Wagner why don't you?