It's misused but I think you'll find that most people incorrectly use the concept of a crazy person to mean a messed up "evil" guy or whatever and not actually clinically mentally defective
I agree,and it may not be a popular opinion,but evil would also desribe killing scores of innocent people when a leader orders a strike on a higly populated city and callis it "shock and awe". I am not condoning any kind of war or killing,but when powerless foreigners (i say powerless,because they are powerless vs our militatry might)do these types of things,they probably see it as an eye for an eye. This eye for an eye is exactly what Hobbes is asking for to be done,so it is more of a circle of destruction rather than a stability label.
I think we should be concerned that this POS is still walking the streets, not what color his skin is. There will be a time and place to discuss that and the motives.
I'm not that concerned about the motives. I'm just concerned about getting him/them off the streets and learning as much as we can to prevent this from happening again. Those concrete posts and stanchions that you see around most federal buildings are a result of the '93 and '95 bombings. They're designed to prevent a car or truck packed with explosives from getting close enough to a building to destroy it the way the federal building was destroyed in Oklahoma City. Not sure if they're actually capable of preventing that but at least we're trying. We need to do the same thing around this incident. It's completely reasonable to prevent people from carrying backpacks into the crowd at large events like the finish of the Boston Marathon. There are probably a bunch of other things that we can do also that do not infringe on liberty much (who needs to carry a backpack to an event?) but make organized public gatherings safer.
All good in theory. And, yes, learning and then being proactive is important. But how practical is it really? (That's what I meant in this post a few pages ago: http://forums.theganggreen.com/showpost.php?p=2752646&postcount=188) Even if backpacks are forbidden from large events, what about purses? Would all bystanders be prohibited from any type of bag? What about in a mall? If I wanted to walk into a mall with a pressure-cooker bomb - and I couldn't walk into the mall with a backpack - then I'd just put the bomb in a Macy's bag and leave it somewhere in the food-court or some other location within the mall that's densely populated. How can that scenario be prevented, while maintaining and respecting civil liberties?
All that we should be trying to do is to prevent another bombing at an organized event with a crowd involved. We can worry about the other scenarios when it has become clear there is a reason to do that. Preventing people from carrying backpacks into organized crowds is very doable. It infringes only upon people who come upon the event unexpectedly and they just get shooed around the edges of the event instead of being able to walk through it. It's a common sense approach in a world in which backpack bombs in crowds are now a reality.
Evil is the more appropiate term. Good Call. And as to the backpacks, searches is enough. Ive seen it done in NYC at rush hour, and Israel dies it routinely enough.
I do think it's very feasible. While I can't think of any right now, I definitely know I've attended events and been to places where a backpack was prohibited. I guess I just don't see it as proactive (rather, more reactive) by prohibiting backpacks at large events. It might help solve/prevent the issue of this most recent tragedy; but when that happens, they - whoever is behind these evil acts - will then find the next easy venue to hit (such as a movie theater or a mall). So, how can that be prevented? Is there even any type of prevention for such a scenario? Or can it only be addressed by waiting until the next attack and then learning from?
A police state can control most eventualities. A free society has to be constantly adapting to the challenges it faces. It has to be very careful not to turn into a police state in the process.
so don't create any preventative measures is the solution? that is silly. you deal with things as they are and then deal with newer threats when they emerge. how is not doing anything reasonable to you? restricting the use of backpacks does not restrict civil rights any more than restricting bringing candy into a movie theater. for the latter, private business has created rules to protect their business, the former sports events create rules to protect their customers. point being both are trivial and if one trivial restriction does not infringe on civil liberties than the other does not either.
was the bomb area a sealed off area for spectators? or was it just the side of the street? Because if it was just the side of the street then your talking about not allowing anyone to carry a bag down the street anymore,or atleast being able to search anyone at any time. I can understand regulating anything into venues etc,but on the street? Your talking about watching people being scared enough to submit themsleves right into 1984
You just can't ban backpacks on a street level at a public event with no entrances or exits. There would be no more parades, festivals, etc. Large purses, diaper bags, cloth shopping bags, those things would have to go as well. Its just too much to give away, too much room to conceal the unknown that can never be eliminated. There is no way to eliminate the risk we all take in a public venue, your safety will never be guaranteed unless you ban public gatherings altogether. And that would still not save a single life, but it would be another freedom tossed into the flames of fear.
One more bomb in a backpack in a crowd and you won't have parades, festivals etc, or at least not well-attended ones. You do what you have to do to keep things running. In this case what that will mean is a lot more security around large public events. It'll mean cordoning off larger areas for the event. It'll mean more closely controlling what goes into that event. Try taking a backpack into Yankee Stadium. See what happens.
I never suggested nor implied to "not do anything" going forward. At this point, forbidding backpacks is both feasible and probably necessary for preventive purposes. My point was: If that method works, then great -- no more bombs at marathons. But, why stop there and just wait for the next attack to learn from? Why not be more proactive - regarding other public forums - instead of waiting to react? I suppose being more proactive in other areas could lean further towards a police-state, which is something nobody wants. I just don't know how to find the middle ground between the two. Good point. And I don't think it would infringe on my rights in an egregious way. (But, still, we all know there will be plenty of people/groups/etc who complain that it does violate their rights.)
You're talking apples vs oranges, I was careful to point out street level with no entrances or exits. At some point, it will have to depend on the vigilance and suspicions of my fellow citizens in public, because there just aren't enough trained security in this world to cover 100% of public grounds. I hope this doesn't have us all living like groundhogs afraid of our own shadows unless getting some sort of guarantee first. I don't care if this does happen again, we must persevere with common sense and unfounded confidence. Which is all we've ever had before yesterday anyway.
Any venue at street level can be setup to have entrances and exits. In many major events this already happens. Go to Times Square at New Years and what you get is a huge multi-block area that has been cordoned off into separate sections with movement between the sections closely observed and in some cases controlled. The overall area definitely has entrances and exits defined by placed barriers. The finish line of the Boston Marathon could have been setup as a much more tightly controlled area than it was. There was no need to allow pedestrians to walk easily in and out of the congested areas where the race finished. Next year the odds are pretty good that everything will be much more tightly controlled for the day and that things like backpacks will at least be inspected if not outright banned from the congested areas. It's not hard to setup a check area where people can check belongings that are then secured by event staff until the event is over or the people leave. It's not hard to make that area far enough away from congestion to make a large number of casualties unlikely in the event of an act of terror associated with items checked there.
Banning backbacks at events like parades and any event like this ridiculous. There was a thwarted bombing by a white supremecist group in Oregon at an MLK Parade and I doubt the idea of banning backpacks was ever considered. If some evil person gets on a bus and blows it up do we ban backbacks from buses? Now I go to plenty of sporting events in Vegas and I always bring a backback (in large part because I have a 5 year old) and they always check it, I've never had an issue with this and I never will but if we go to the extreme of banning backbacks at marathons, outdoor concerts, festivals or whatever we allow these scumbags to win.
let's catch the scumbag first and debate the civil liberties issues later. I am all for profiling. if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about.
So every white guy with a John Deere cap who drives up to a building in a truck should be profiled because of Oklahoma City?
