What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Explosions at Boston Marathon (2 Viewers)

Sorry for any hippling I may be doing here: does anyone else find it incomprehensible that there are trash cans/mail boxes in the vicinity of crowds? After the '93 bombing at the WTC all the trash cans around there were replaced with explosive proof ones that focused the energy upwards; maybe that is why the first explosive did very little damage and the second was not contained as such? It is possible such devices are in place. What a horrible act.
It's a good point. There's no doubt going to be lots of changes to protect crowded areas in the future.
Well it may not apply to this situation but removal of trash cans and mailboxes has been pretty common in securing a location; they even inspect manholes and weld the covers down, when the President's motorcade will take that route.
 
Hawks64 said:
The Ref said:
tri-man 47 said:
Oooof. Just found out "the guy in the wheelchair" Is the younger brother of a guy I played football with in High School.
Damn. His injury was incredibly horrific ...has it been life-threatening?
Not sure. It was just posted on facebook.
The next time someone refers to peace activists as some kind of derogatory word that equates to coward, this is the guy to remember. One of the most courageous and amazing stories to come out of this so far.

 
Apparently Bill O'Reilly went on TV last night and lambasted Obama for calling this a "tragedy" rather than "terrorism".
Not true. He did not care about Obama not calling it terrorism; he said that several times.

And lambasted is a stupid way to put it. He only said, calmly, that it was not a tragedy, and that accidents like a storm wiping your family is a tragedy, and that yesterday was a vile act.

Let me guess: you didn't actual watch; you just read it on a left-leaning website or show, right?
I watched. What I can't remember is Bill O slamming Bush for doing the same thing after 911. I'm sure I just missed it though.
Maybe because Bush actually used the "T word" in the very first sentence and then 4 more times?
>>Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts.

>
Actually during the first presser he called it a national tragedy in the first two sentences. He called it apparent terrorism after that.
Maybe Bush knew more about what happened that day than Obama knows about yesterday.
 
As someone pointed out yesterday, terrorism specifically means having a political goal in mind. Oklahoma City was an act of terrorism; Newtown was not. We really don't know at this point if it is terrorism or not.

There is also, of course, the problem that if the President uses the word "terrorism" there will be a segment of the public who will immediately think "Muslim!". That's why I think it should be avoided. "Act of terror" is OK, I suppose.
I loved everything you said until 'act of terror' vs 'terrorism'.

This is just going nuts with language.

If the president can't clarify that terrorism could be domestic or foreign, islamist or some other ideology from libertarianism, fascism, communism and anarchism to anti-federalism, then what the heck good is he.

Btw - I think he's worth plenty good, but he knows the difference and he should clarify for everyone rather than just taking every line from his political hacks who are afraid he will make a mis-step.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As someone pointed out yesterday, terrorism specifically means having a political goal in mind. Oklahoma City was an act of terrorism; Newtown was not. We really don't know at this point if it is terrorism or not.

There is also, of course, the problem that if the President uses the word "terrorism" there will be a segment of the public who will immediately think "Muslim!". That's why I think it should be avoided. "Act of terror" is OK, I suppose.
I loved everything you said until 'act of terror' vs 'terrorism'.

This is just going nuts with language.

If the president can't clarify that terrorism could be domestic or foreign, islamist or some other ideology from libertarianism to anti-federalism, then what the heck good is he.

Btw - I think he's worth plenty good, but he knows the difference and he should clarify for everyone rather than just taking every line from his political hacks who are afraid he will make a mis-step.
The problem is so much thought and discussion goes into such non-sense. That is what the media talks about. That is what is discussed behind closed doors at the White House. That is what is discussed on this board.

 
Has anyone mentioned what happened at Times Square? What happened there.

This sounds similar to me.

Only difference is no one got suspicious in advance from smoke or other external pointers.

 
Why would you guys discern a domestic vs. foreign terrorist in motive, re: pressure cookers? Are you talking the about the arcing military response to this?

 
Has anyone mentioned what happened at Times Square? What happened there.

This sounds similar to me.

Only difference is no one got suspicious in advance from smoke or other external pointers.
That was a much larger bomb in a struck. Some station on TV showed an FBI staged explosion of a replica of the attempted Times Square bomb and it was much larger than what we saw in Boston.

 
Why would you guys discern a domestic vs. foreign terrorist in motive, re: pressure cookers? Are you talking the about the arcing military response to this?
I'm not sure I understand this question.
I think the answer he's looking for is that it will point the investigation in the proper direction. But you can google "pressure cooker bomb" and come up with some recipes. But if this bomb is similar to a bomb that went off in Hyderbad in 2009, that could be helpful.

 
Why would you guys discern a domestic vs. foreign terrorist in motive, re: pressure cookers? Are you talking the about the arcing military response to this?
I'm not sure I understand this question.
I think the answer he's looking for is that it will point the investigation in the proper direction. But you can google "pressure cooker bomb" and come up with some recipes. But if this bomb is similar to a bomb that went off in Hyderbad in 2009, that could be helpful.
There's no question that Al Qaeda has provided instructions for building pressure cooker bombs in the past, and middle east violence has included pressure cooker bombs for some time.

It's certainly not a definitive source of the bombings by any stretch of the imagination.

 
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BOSTON_MARATHON_EXPLOSIVES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A person briefed on the Boston Marathon investigation says the explosives were in 6-liter pressure cookers and placed in black duffel bags.

The person says the explosives were placed on the ground and contained shards of metal, nails and ball bearings. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing.

The person says law enforcement officials have some of the bomb components but did not yet know what was used to set off the explosives.

President Barack Obama said Tuesday the bombings were an act of terrorism but investigators do not know if they were carried out by an international or domestic organization, or perhaps by a "malevolent individual."
 
Reporting via AP Twitter bombs made from ball bearings and pressure cookers.
Pressure cookers were used in Mumbai train bombing and in Pakistan also but I'm not sure that is significant.
Also they are saying they were not in trash cans but in backpacks. I guess pittstownkiller will want to outlaw backpacks now.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. BTW, try to carry a back pack into a sporting event.
 
Why would you guys discern a domestic vs. foreign terrorist in motive, re: pressure cookers? Are you talking the about the arcing military response to this?
I'm not sure I understand this question.
I think the answer he's looking for is that it will point the investigation in the proper direction. But you can google "pressure cooker bomb" and come up with some recipes. But if this bomb is similar to a bomb that went off in Hyderbad in 2009, that could be helpful.
There's no question that Al Qaeda has provided instructions for building pressure cooker bombs in the past, and middle east violence has included pressure cooker bombs for some time.

It's certainly not a definitive source of the bombings by any stretch of the imagination.
I guess my point is, what difference does it make as to why?

What difference would it make if it was coordinated domestic terrorism or coordinated international terrorism? Or lone wolf style of either foreign or domestic?

What is the story here? The random violence of this situation? Or the fact that we could some how further attack Al Queda? Whats left to attack?

I guess my thinking is, we need to somehow start managing our collective reaction to this stuff, no matter how horrible, tragic and senseless it might be. A random nut that stabs someone in Times Square or a drunk driver that takes out a family of four doesn't exactly change the way we live our lives. Because the guy who left this might be brown or white, I don't think it should either.

And frankly, I think if its a "lone white nut" this story will be over by the end of the week. But if its a foreign national, we start deploying and I frankly don't quite know why other than to "not look like a puswah"

 
Reporting via AP Twitter bombs made from ball bearings and pressure cookers.
Pressure cookers were used in Mumbai train bombing and in Pakistan also but I'm not sure that is significant.
Also they are saying they were not in trash cans but in backpacks. I guess pittstownkiller will want to outlaw backpacks now.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. BTW, try to carry a back pack into a sporting event.
I carry a backpack into Twins games all the time.
 
I don't really get the distinction between terrorist groups people are trying to make.

Regardless of who it is I expect my government to attack that group with every resource available, and to the degree possible eliminate their ability to do something similar in the future.

 
As someone pointed out yesterday, terrorism specifically means having a political goal in mind. Oklahoma City was an act of terrorism; Newtown was not. We really don't know at this point if it is terrorism or not. There is also, of course, the problem that if the President uses the word "terrorism" there will be a segment of the public who will immediately think "Muslim!". That's why I think it should be avoided. "Act of terror" is OK, I suppose.
Is this your definition Tim? It would seem to me that the Klan terrorized minorities; I guess you could say theirs was a political statement but it doesn't seem that way to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, we can all breathe easier now. Per the giant headline on cnn.com,

Obama calls bombings "act of terror"
His crack anti-Terrorism team comes through!
take a break.
Agreed... I don't really care what Obama refers to the incident as. Calling it an "act of terror" or "terrorist attack" or whatever doesn't change what happened nor does it give any comfort to those affected. It was a brutal attack on my city, call it whatever you want.

Not going into Boston today because I just want to let things calm down but I'll be in tomorrow about a mile away from the attacks. I imagine it is going to be an odd feeling. I am already seeing an outpouring of responses from people today: the wait to donate blood at MGH is/was about 1 1/2 hr just to give medical info, seeing a few attempts to organize a marathon run this weekend, also a running of the last mile beginning at Kenmore.

Boston is seen at as a major city, or atleast we like to think of ourselves as one, but in reality it is pretty small and very insular. Everyone seems to know someone who was running or has a family member who is a nurse or was drinking at a nearby bar, there has been such a strong response, it's good to see.

 
Reporting via AP Twitter bombs made from ball bearings and pressure cookers.
Pressure cookers were used in Mumbai train bombing and in Pakistan also but I'm not sure that is significant.
Also they are saying they were not in trash cans but in backpacks. I guess pittstownkiller will want to outlaw backpacks now.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. BTW, try to carry a back pack into a sporting event.
I carry a backpack into Twins games all the time.
Not in NYC, my friend.
 
Why would you guys discern a domestic vs. foreign terrorist in motive, re: pressure cookers? Are you talking the about the arcing military response to this?
I'm not sure I understand this question.
I think the answer he's looking for is that it will point the investigation in the proper direction. But you can google "pressure cooker bomb" and come up with some recipes. But if this bomb is similar to a bomb that went off in Hyderbad in 2009, that could be helpful.
There's no question that Al Qaeda has provided instructions for building pressure cooker bombs in the past, and middle east violence has included pressure cooker bombs for some time.

It's certainly not a definitive source of the bombings by any stretch of the imagination.
I think given what we know now this was a carefully conducted bombing, it must have taken a good deal of planning and coordination to get the placement and timing just right. CNN saying the bomb/s had a timer so despite it not having the max impact, it was fairly intricate. Doesn't seem like your Daddy's Al Qaeda but it does seem to me that lone wolf or small cell acting independent of any command structure seems most likely. That they aren't caught yet makes me think the web is fairly small, no more than like three people. We'll see.

 
"1. Choose liberty over security.

2. See events like the Boston Marathon bombing by virtue of their rarity as evidence of our relative security, not as one more reason to feel afraid.

3. Understand that our relative security is guaranteed on the whole not by guards and guns, but by basic human psychology, which involves the remarkable nonviolence of the majority of human beings in ordinary circumstances. The exceptions to this rule, far from being minimized by repressive or violent acts, will only be multiplied by them.

4. In the name of both security and decency: Whatever the ideology of the perpetrators of a terrorist act right wing or left, Islamist or otherwise do not make one event an excuse to clumsily demonize a large swath of largely peaceable humanity: conservative or liberal, Muslim or other."

-Wes Alwan

 
Reporting via AP Twitter bombs made from ball bearings and pressure cookers.
Pressure cookers were used in Mumbai train bombing and in Pakistan also but I'm not sure that is significant.
Also they are saying they were not in trash cans but in backpacks. I guess pittstownkiller will want to outlaw backpacks now.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. BTW, try to carry a back pack into a sporting event.
I carry a backpack into Twins games all the time.
Not in NYC, my friend.
Every sporting event I've been to in the past three years allows backpacks. You want us to live in a bubble, it won't happen. Fear and terror prevail if we start removing our mailboxes. :mellow:

 
Reporting via AP Twitter bombs made from ball bearings and pressure cookers.
Pressure cookers were used in Mumbai train bombing and in Pakistan also but I'm not sure that is significant.
Also they are saying they were not in trash cans but in backpacks. I guess pittstownkiller will want to outlaw backpacks now.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. BTW, try to carry a back pack into a sporting event.
this is pretty common actually.

 
Reporting via AP Twitter bombs made from ball bearings and pressure cookers.
Pressure cookers were used in Mumbai train bombing and in Pakistan also but I'm not sure that is significant.
Also they are saying they were not in trash cans but in backpacks. I guess pittstownkiller will want to outlaw backpacks now.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. BTW, try to carry a back pack into a sporting event.
this is pretty common actually.
Yeah, but I can not go into a sporting arena without all bags being checked.

 
Apparently Bill O'Reilly went on TV last night and lambasted Obama for calling this a "tragedy" rather than "terrorism".
Not true. He did not care about Obama not calling it terrorism; he said that several times.

And lambasted is a stupid way to put it. He only said, calmly, that it was not a tragedy, and that accidents like a storm wiping your family is a tragedy, and that yesterday was a vile act.

Let me guess: you didn't actual watch; you just read it on a left-leaning website or show, right?
I watched. What I can't remember is Bill O slamming Bush for doing the same thing after 911. I'm sure I just missed it though.
Maybe because Bush actually used the "T word" in the very first sentence and then 4 more times?

>Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist

acts.
Actually during the first presser he called it a national tragedy in the first two sentences. He called it apparent terrorism after that.
Wrong again.

>Today, we've had a national tragedy. Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country.
That isn't the first sentence but who is counting. Perhaps you can try reading what you posted and tell me how I was wrong again?

 
Reporting via AP Twitter bombs made from ball bearings and pressure cookers.
Pressure cookers were used in Mumbai train bombing and in Pakistan also but I'm not sure that is significant.
Also they are saying they were not in trash cans but in backpacks. I guess pittstownkiller will want to outlaw backpacks now.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. BTW, try to carry a back pack into a sporting event.
this is pretty common actually.
I carry one to Phillies games as well but they are searched

 
fred_1_15301 said:
Has anyone made any donations yet? I'm looking for a reputable charity on Boston.com but can't find anything,
I made a small donation this morning to Children's Hospital Boston.

 
Why would you guys discern a domestic vs. foreign terrorist in motive, re: pressure cookers? Are you talking the about the arcing military response to this?
I'm not sure I understand this question.
I think the answer he's looking for is that it will point the investigation in the proper direction. But you can google "pressure cooker bomb" and come up with some recipes. But if this bomb is similar to a bomb that went off in Hyderbad in 2009, that could be helpful.
There's no question that Al Qaeda has provided instructions for building pressure cooker bombs in the past, and middle east violence has included pressure cooker bombs for some time.

It's certainly not a definitive source of the bombings by any stretch of the imagination.
I guess my point is, what difference does it make as to why?

What difference would it make if it was coordinated domestic terrorism or coordinated international terrorism? Or lone wolf style of either foreign or domestic?

What is the story here? The random violence of this situation? Or the fact that we could some how further attack Al Queda? Whats left to attack?

I guess my thinking is, we need to somehow start managing our collective reaction to this stuff, no matter how horrible, tragic and senseless it might be. A random nut that stabs someone in Times Square or a drunk driver that takes out a family of four doesn't exactly change the way we live our lives. Because the guy who left this might be brown or white, I don't think it should either.

And frankly, I think if its a "lone white nut" this story will be over by the end of the week. But if its a foreign national, we start deploying and I frankly don't quite know why other than to "not look like a puswah"
That's kind of the point, I think. If this is a "lone white nut" story, the FBI will have the guy in handcuffs or a body bag in a relatively short period of time and people will feel slightly safer, whether that's reasonable or not. If it's not, then we've had a serious intelligence failure again, and we're going to see things shape up differently in that department. Plus, there's the question of "what can we possibly to do AQ that we aren't already" which is a pretty scary question.

People want to feel like this is an isolated incident. Whether that's true or not, finding out it's domestic and tied to a single person or very small group of people would help with that feeling.

 
shadyridr said:
I like how MOP blasts posters for acting a certain way in this thread and then starts doing the same things and making the thread about himself.
This is pretty much the entire story of MOP in an nutshell.

 
Apparently Bill O'Reilly went on TV last night and lambasted Obama for calling this a "tragedy" rather than "terrorism".
Not true. He did not care about Obama not calling it terrorism; he said that several times.

And lambasted is a stupid way to put it. He only said, calmly, that it was not a tragedy, and that accidents like a storm wiping your family is a tragedy, and that yesterday was a vile act.

Let me guess: you didn't actual watch; you just read it on a left-leaning website or show, right?
I watched. What I can't remember is Bill O slamming Bush for doing the same thing after 911. I'm sure I just missed it though.
Maybe because Bush actually used the "T word" in the very first sentence and then 4 more times?

>Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist

acts.
Actually during the first presser he called it a national tragedy in the first two sentences. He called it apparent terrorism after that.
Wrong again.

>Today, we've had a national tragedy. Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our co

untry.
That isn't the first sentence but who is counting. Perhaps you can try reading what you posted and tell me how I was wrong again?

You said you couldn't remember O'Reilly slamming Bush for not saying terrorism (or any variation) like he supposedly did last night about Obama. I pointed out that he did mention the "T word" several times in his speech that night. You came back and brought up the speech at the school, even though he said "t word" twice there. So I have no idea what you're trying to get at other than trying to score some cheap political points and failing badly. Now, please go elsewhere.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top