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 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter shader
- Start date
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
There's a sweet but not safe for work video on youtube where a Guy Confronts Boston Conspiracy Theorists.
Rather humorous.
Rather humorous.
The Kerminator
Footballguy
Buckfast 1
Footballguy
Or a woman made them shredded chicken tacos using the pressure cooker. Lots of possibilities besides a woman being directly involved in the plot. The most likely of which is probably that the DNA came from one of the female victims.
mad sweeney
Footballguy
Which further fuel the #freejahar twitter idiots into saying "How can DNA blow back TOWARDS a bomb? smh #truth".
Wrigley
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Do we shoot GPS tracking chips in those in the database? Why should the government have any clue as to who was moving
around a public sidewalk without lots if difficult investigation.
How is this bad? How intrusive should we allow government to be in order to pretend we can proactively stop a lightening strike?
KCitons
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
So you favor Bloomberg's large soda ban (or whatever it/was called)? Because that ineffective overkill will prevent far more deaths and injuries at far less costs.Keerock said:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
We should make policy choices based on raw emotions? Should the Sandy Hook parents heartbreak and anger have dictated gun control policy?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Wasn't one of the Canadian terrorists a woman?
KCitons
Footballguy
The point was, we had the older brother in the data base. We had his picture and we had a warning from another country. If they can use technology to determine female DNA from the scene of a bomb blast, then I think we should be working on technology to identify and prevent.
And no, we should not make policy decisions based on raw emotion. But, we can learn from our mistakes and take actions to prevent this from happening again. You can bet that there will be government controlled surveillance cameras at public events like the Boston Marathon. (won't need to rely on outside cameras from department stores)
If the Vegas Casinos can use facial recognition to protect its profits, I think it's reasonable for the people of the United States to expect the same.
BTW, you never answered my question. Would you make that statement to Martin Richard's mother?
Keerock
Footballguy
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
The government questioned him and investigated him. And obviously found nothing they could detain or arrest him for. It was prior to the bombing. Should the Feds have detained him because he might one day do something bad? Isn't that the most anti-constitutional thing the government can possibly do? What exactly are you suggesting that they should have done here to prevent this? And yes, I would have no problem asking these same questions to the victim's parents.
Keerock
Footballguy
He's on a watch list. How about we watch him? Big red flag going to Russia for 6 months (or 6 days for that matter). Keep tabs on his social media. Lots of signs pointing at him being a threat that were not found or ignored.
There are probably a million people on that watch list. How would they have stopped a pressure cooker bomb full of ball bearings and screws? Monitor every department and hardware store he walked into? Put a drone with a camera in the sky to follow his every move? I'm pretty sure the same people who are whining that the Feds should have prevented this are the ones who would be screaming the loudest if peoples' freedoms were taken away every time one of them posted videos the government didn't like. There is a huge gray area here where doors would be opened that the general public would not like.
Keerock
Footballguy
Not me. In addition, many freedoms should be reserved for citizens.
I don't know the answer, Jr... but I've got to believe there could have been SOMETHING done based on the warning signs. Not all people on the watch list recently spent 6 months in Russia and posted radical, jihadist videos on their YouTube.
William Munny
Footballguy
See no evil
By MICHAEL GOODWIN
According to a relative of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Chechen immigrant believed there is oppression of the Muslim population around the world. The relative described Tsarnaev to The New York Times this way: He was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion.
Bombing the Boston Marathon was the Tsarnaev brothers way of defending Islam. To say their argument boomeranged, however, isnt fully true. Not as long as the Obama administration puts religious blinders on the defenders of our homeland.
At its core, the Boston case reveals two fundamental truths. One, not all Muslims are terrorists. Two, in recent times, almost all terrorists are Muslims.
Willie Sutton robbed banks because thats where the money is. Police didnt catch him by staking out lemonade stands.
By the same logic, preventing terrorism requires close scrutiny of Muslim men leaning toward violent jihad. Had they followed that logic, the FBI could have prevented the bombing.
But with each passing day, it becomes maddeningly clear that political correctness was complicit in the failure. President Obamas stubborn refusal to connect the dots to Islam isnt just a personal tic. It reflects the policy he has spread throughout the bureaucracy, including law enforcement and the military.
At the least, orders to see no Islam evil created extra hurdles for those trying to keep America safe. At the worst, they opened the door to the bombers.
The moral of the story is that political correctness kills.
We already knew that from the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, where 13 service members allegedly were murdered by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Witnesses say he shouted, God is great, in Arabic as he started a massacre that also left 30 other people injured.
Although Army brass and anti-terror officials knew Hasan, a psychiatrist, was a radicalized Islamist, they took no action for fear of violating his rights. His colleagues called him belligerent, paranoid and schizoid, but he was promoted. When Hasan communicated about suicide bombings with Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born terror leader living in Yemen, his superiors remained silent.
All this happened when George W. Bush was in the White House.
After Hasan allegedly turned Fort Hood into a bloodbath in November 2009, the Obama administration termed the shooting workplace violence instead of a terrorism, an outrageous designation that remains in place. In a remark that still takes the breath away, the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey Jr., declared that, as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think thats worse.
The US later droned Awlaki, making for a curious double standard. If he was worthy of death, wasnt Hasan at least worthy of scrutiny?
Which brings us back to Boston. In March 2011, Russian officials warned the FBI that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a follower of radical Islam who had changed drastically since 2010. They also knew he was planning a trip to a hotbed of terror in Russia.
Thats an incredible amount of detail. The FBI has said many things in its defense, some conflicting, but closed the case because agents found no evidence of terrorism or a crime.
Thats a non sequitur. The Russians didnt accuse Tsarnaev of committing a crime; they said he was a radical Islamist. Why did the FBI limit its concern to actual crimes?
The emerging reason is that bureau guidelines eliminate Islam and other religions as a red flag. In this case, making an actual crime the threshold meant Tsarnaevs links to radical Islam were ignored or downplayed.
Blinders in place, the screw-up continued. The frustrated Russians gave the same warning to the CIA six months later and added Tsarnaevs mother was also a threat. Again nothing was done, except both were put on a list with 700,000 other people. He went to Russia in 2012 and stayed for six months.
If the Russians were so clueless, how did they know his travel plans a year in advance? And The Washington Post reports that a source warned the Joint Terrorism Task Force that, after Tsarnaev returned to the United States, he had become radicalized but still nothing happened.
After all that, the FBI continues to defend its conduct, with an official telling The Washington Post that since there was no derogatory information, there was no reason to suggest that additional action was warranted.
This is worse than scary it is nuts. By definition, the information about Tsarnaev was derogatory. It was also true.
The Russians knew he was dangerous two years ago. The FBI figured it out only after the bombs went off.
By MICHAEL GOODWIN
According to a relative of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Chechen immigrant believed there is oppression of the Muslim population around the world. The relative described Tsarnaev to The New York Times this way: He was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion.
Bombing the Boston Marathon was the Tsarnaev brothers way of defending Islam. To say their argument boomeranged, however, isnt fully true. Not as long as the Obama administration puts religious blinders on the defenders of our homeland.
At its core, the Boston case reveals two fundamental truths. One, not all Muslims are terrorists. Two, in recent times, almost all terrorists are Muslims.
Willie Sutton robbed banks because thats where the money is. Police didnt catch him by staking out lemonade stands.
By the same logic, preventing terrorism requires close scrutiny of Muslim men leaning toward violent jihad. Had they followed that logic, the FBI could have prevented the bombing.
But with each passing day, it becomes maddeningly clear that political correctness was complicit in the failure. President Obamas stubborn refusal to connect the dots to Islam isnt just a personal tic. It reflects the policy he has spread throughout the bureaucracy, including law enforcement and the military.
At the least, orders to see no Islam evil created extra hurdles for those trying to keep America safe. At the worst, they opened the door to the bombers.
The moral of the story is that political correctness kills.
We already knew that from the shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, where 13 service members allegedly were murdered by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Witnesses say he shouted, God is great, in Arabic as he started a massacre that also left 30 other people injured.
Although Army brass and anti-terror officials knew Hasan, a psychiatrist, was a radicalized Islamist, they took no action for fear of violating his rights. His colleagues called him belligerent, paranoid and schizoid, but he was promoted. When Hasan communicated about suicide bombings with Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born terror leader living in Yemen, his superiors remained silent.
All this happened when George W. Bush was in the White House.
After Hasan allegedly turned Fort Hood into a bloodbath in November 2009, the Obama administration termed the shooting workplace violence instead of a terrorism, an outrageous designation that remains in place. In a remark that still takes the breath away, the Army chief of staff, Gen. George Casey Jr., declared that, as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think thats worse.
The US later droned Awlaki, making for a curious double standard. If he was worthy of death, wasnt Hasan at least worthy of scrutiny?
Which brings us back to Boston. In March 2011, Russian officials warned the FBI that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a follower of radical Islam who had changed drastically since 2010. They also knew he was planning a trip to a hotbed of terror in Russia.
Thats an incredible amount of detail. The FBI has said many things in its defense, some conflicting, but closed the case because agents found no evidence of terrorism or a crime.
Thats a non sequitur. The Russians didnt accuse Tsarnaev of committing a crime; they said he was a radical Islamist. Why did the FBI limit its concern to actual crimes?
The emerging reason is that bureau guidelines eliminate Islam and other religions as a red flag. In this case, making an actual crime the threshold meant Tsarnaevs links to radical Islam were ignored or downplayed.
Blinders in place, the screw-up continued. The frustrated Russians gave the same warning to the CIA six months later and added Tsarnaevs mother was also a threat. Again nothing was done, except both were put on a list with 700,000 other people. He went to Russia in 2012 and stayed for six months.
If the Russians were so clueless, how did they know his travel plans a year in advance? And The Washington Post reports that a source warned the Joint Terrorism Task Force that, after Tsarnaev returned to the United States, he had become radicalized but still nothing happened.
After all that, the FBI continues to defend its conduct, with an official telling The Washington Post that since there was no derogatory information, there was no reason to suggest that additional action was warranted.
This is worse than scary it is nuts. By definition, the information about Tsarnaev was derogatory. It was also true.
The Russians knew he was dangerous two years ago. The FBI figured it out only after the bombs went off.
I agree, Buddy. Not sure we'll ever know how much actual information they really had on this guy. As citizens, we all want our freedoms and we all want to feel we are protected. It's not easy providing both.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Are you really suggesting that the government should only be limited by the availability of technology in to monitor the activities of a free people?
Do you know what the Compassionate Friends are? Have you ever driven a grieving parent to a meeting? Your parent? I have! Can't you make a better argument for your position than to drag a grieving parent into the discussion? If not than that should tell you something. Cold, rational discussion is how we should debate policy. Irrational fear and raw emotion can only lead to bad decisions. Didn't the past decade teach you all anything?
KCitons
Footballguy
Interesting. You still failed to answer the question. Which means, you know it would be wrong to make those statements to the parent.Bottomfeeder Sports said:
The last decade has taught me a lot. But, if that's the only period that you have as reference, then it's a good thing you didn't grow up in the 60's
Sorry, never heard of Compassionate Friends organization. But, I have drove a grieving parent to bury one of their own children. My brother in law killed himself when he was 19. I understand the stress it puts on family's. And I understand the search for answers. So, don't assume that because a person doesn't belong to an organization or carry a fancy title, that they don't have experience. If he haven't noticed, I have been one that has stressed the importance of mental health in regards to the increase in violence in this country. I would rather spend the time and money trying to find the cause and prevent, than to spend the same resources on caskets.
With that said, I am not expecting the government to use any and all technology to infringe on the rights of US citizens. But, look around. They already do. When I went to Canada a few years ago fishing, I had to have a passport, the Canada Border Guard asked how long we were going to be in the country. He scanned our Passport ID's. He knew who we were, where we lived, and how long we were going to be in the country. Do you find it a strange coincidence that Canada just arrested two suspected terrorists? How did that happen?
I'm sure the US has the same technology. So, if you have a person that is on the terrorist list, and they leave the country to go to an area of the world that has an increasing terrorist population. You might want to have the computer flag that person for a closer look. Perhaps we could have prevented this from happening.
I will tell you the same thing I tell my kids. Don't just come to me with problems, come to me with possible solutions that we can work on together to find a solution. Do you have any suggestion for preventing this from happening again? And please don't spew the same civil liberties crap, put some real thought into it.
sporthenry
Footballguy
Wait, so you actually think the same government who can kill a guy in Yemen with pinpoint accuracy while driving the drone from Virginia doesn't have this technology? Or you think they didn't try to use it?KCitons said:
See this is the problem with this Monday morning QBing or hypothesizing about what we could have done. The government had no clear photos of Tamerlan b/c most of the pictures came off a CCTV. Again, go look at the original FBI photos and tell me what you see. It isn't much. Add in the fact he is wearing a hat and sunglasses and it makes facial recognition near impossible.
KCitons
Footballguy
Not sure what they used. Nobody will. My point was that we need to be more proactive. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't know how many people from Boston are on the Terrorist watch list. I don't know how many of those people visited Chechnya area in the past year. But, I would hope that the FBI or CIA computers kicked out this piece of information for someone to review between the time the brother returned and the time the bombs went off.Wait, so you actually think the same government who can kill a guy in Yemen with pinpoint accuracy while driving the drone from Virginia doesn't have this technology? Or you think they didn't try to use it?KCitons said:
See this is the problem with this Monday morning QBing or hypothesizing about what we could have done. The government had no clear photos of Tamerlan b/c most of the pictures came off a CCTV. Again, go look at the original FBI photos and tell me what you see. It isn't much. Add in the fact he is wearing a hat and sunglasses and it makes facial recognition near impossible.
Did they have a better picture, I guess not. But, as I already mentioned. You will see a government video surveillance of some type at these events in the future. Some want to view this as a loss of civil liberties, I see it as protecting what is most important.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
mad sweeney
Footballguy
There hundreds and hundreds of other issues that we as a society can be more vigilant about in order to protect our children. Certainly to the Richards family it's a different story, but the number of children killed or otherwise severely negatively impacted by preventable issues utterly dwarves the number of children killed by terrorists.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
No! Things are not good enough the way they are. We are already sacrificing too much for no real benefit. If we cared about innocent people, especially children there were a whole lot more effective ways to spend that trillion dollars over the 10 years with out selling out our values.
No one is saying do nothing. Sure the government infringes on our freedoms, but lets demand a good reason with a reasonable expectation of a benefit. Lets make our policy choices based on facts and rational thinking, not "inordinate fear" and other raw emotions. And lets remember those values that we have always asserted as a people, if not actually lived up to.
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
I believe you and I are in agreement about protecting people. The difference comes when you continue to argue dollars and civil liberties. When did I make any reference to infringing on civil liberties?
I said that surveillance will be used at public events. It's obvious that you're scared of Big Brother watching with a camera on every corner. I never said this (that's for another thread). I could certainly see portable units that would decrease costs, yet allow high definition surveillance of events like this. Pair this with facial recognition software and you may have been able to recognize these guys and prevent an incident. (yes, I know the brother had on sunglasses)
You can't go into a convenience store or mall without being on camera. Why would it be a big deal if you were on camera in a public place? Unless you have something/someone to hide from.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Actually I objected to expectation that such surveillance should know who is at public events. Even those specific individuals in a specific watch list database. How many of these mobile camera/face recognition units are going to be needed to cover a marathon course? And of course there is never more than one public event at a time. So again how much are you willing to spend to avoid a lightning strike? At the expense of those very children we are supposed to be "thinking of".
KCitons
Footballguy
OK, I take it back, we're not working towards the same goal. No point in arguing anymore. Peace.
So are you saying that if the Boston Marathon had surveillance cameras set up all over the place, they could have simultaneously run facial recognition on 1000s of people and if they saw someone that matched the "watch list" which consists of over a half a million people, they could have arrested Tamerlin BEFORE he put the pressure cooker bomb down and saved lives?
I really really don't want to minimize this at all. I'm trying to say this in a way that is not offensive to people who may feel personally affected by this. Please don't take this the wrong way. But 75,000 deaths in this country are linked to alcohol every year. I live in a city. There are a lot of murders; there are a lot of young innocent children murdered in the crossfires of gang wars. Way more than 3. Three people died at the Boston Marathon. That's a good week in Chicago. And we really haven't had an Islamic terrorist attack against civilians since 9/11. I mean I get that this may be emotional for people - especially those living in Boston. But to suggest that our national security is flawed or that something could have been done to stop this really sounds irrational. Bad stuff happens. There is no way in the world that we can prevent every bad thing in this country from happening.
I brought up the alcohol thing... 75,000 people a year. Should we outlaw alcohol? If you are saying you want to run some Alias-like facial recognition programs at every major event in the US and closely monitor a half a million people and their comings and goings so we can save the lives of 3 people, wouldn't it be even more important to deal with the alcohol issue? Just using one example of something that would violate our freedoms but save a whole buttload of lives.
I don't even want to touch gun control. But I almost feel like the people that are pounding the desks about this bombing are the same ones that were up in arms about politicians trying to pass increased gun control legislation in a reactionary fashion to Sandy Hook.
yeah, your goal is to save the children, and everyone else doesn't care. Gotcha. Perhaps you should write in to Homeland Security and suggest surveillance cameras that cover every square inch of the country, complete with face recognition software. Oh, and then convince the public to be accepting of being watched 24/7. Thankfully, there are great men like you around who care for the children.
Please See Mine
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Sorry, I was just looking at possible solutions to prevent another incident. I'm not sure how better cameras in a public place would violate anyone's rights. If that's the case, then I want all video cameras on the outsides of buildings to be removed to protect my freedom.Nikki2200 said:So are you saying that if the Boston Marathon had surveillance cameras set up all over the place, they could have simultaneously run facial recognition on 1000s of people and if they saw someone that matched the "watch list" which consists of over a half a million people, they could have arrested Tamerlin BEFORE he put the pressure cooker bomb down and saved lives?
I really really don't want to minimize this at all. I'm trying to say this in a way that is not offensive to people who may feel personally affected by this. Please don't take this the wrong way. But 75,000 deaths in this country are linked to alcohol every year. I live in a city. There are a lot of murders; there are a lot of young innocent children murdered in the crossfires of gang wars. Way more than 3. Three people died at the Boston Marathon. That's a good week in Chicago. And we really haven't had an Islamic terrorist attack against civilians since 9/11. I mean I get that this may be emotional for people - especially those living in Boston. But to suggest that our national security is flawed or that something could have been done to stop this really sounds irrational. Bad stuff happens. There is no way in the world that we can prevent every bad thing in this country from happening.
I brought up the alcohol thing... 75,000 people a year. Should we outlaw alcohol? If you are saying you want to run some Alias-like facial recognition programs at every major event in the US and closely monitor a half a million people and their comings and goings so we can save the lives of 3 people, wouldn't it be even more important to deal with the alcohol issue? Just using one example of something that would violate our freedoms but save a whole buttload of lives.
I don't even want to touch gun control. But I almost feel like the people that are pounding the desks about this bombing are the same ones that were up in arms about politicians trying to pass increased gun control legislation in a reactionary fashion to Sandy Hook.
Yes, we should do more about the alcohol, drug and gang problem in this country. (not to mention the high cost of health care associated with smoking). Let's hear some suggestions. Find a solution. Too many people in this country are just looking for things to complain about, but never do anything to make things better.
As far as facial recognition and cameras. Yes, I think something like that could be done. As I mentioned a couple of times casinos do it in the private sector, so the technology is there. Would they have caught these bombers. Perhaps
KCitons
Footballguy
I never suggested surveillance on such a large scale, or in private areas. But, look around, you're being watched already, it's just by private companies and individuals. If it's such a concern, then you should be screaming for laws to have those cameras taken down.JuniorNB said:
I take it from your comments that you don't have children.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Lets say that sometime in 12 minutes that these guys rounded the corner and the time the bombs went off some camera caught them and some software ID'd the older brother. What then? What exactly changes here? What stops the older brother, even if he is confronted from setting off the contents of his bag? What stop the second bomb from going off a block away from the older brother? Sure maybe the events of Thursday night and Friday could have been avoided, but what significant change to the events at the Boston Marathon do you actually think could have changed for the better in those 12 minutes even if your "solution" worked?
KCitons
Footballguy
Not sure where your issue is with finding solutions to problems. As I answer each question with solutions, you will just continue to with more. What will it cost? How many people will it take to operate? Does it work in the rain?
To answer your question, one MIT cop may still be alive. The city of Boston may not have lost millions due to the lock down. (I know how much your are concerned with money and spending, think of the tax revenue)
I already pointed out the fact that we will never agree on this subject. I'm looking for cost effective, portable, and non-invasive solutions. Your suggestion is to do nothing. What more do we have to talk about?
The Flying Elvis
Footballguy
The Boston Globe @BostonGlobe43s
BREAKING: A source tells the Globe that the three were connected to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at UMass Dartmouth and helped him after the fact.
Man, if this is a case of some idiot college friends help hide the kid, what a mistake they made.
BREAKING: A source tells the Globe that the three were connected to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at UMass Dartmouth and helped him after the fact.
Man, if this is a case of some idiot college friends help hide the kid, what a mistake they made.
Last edited by a moderator:
tom22406
Footballguy
TwinTurbo
Footballguy
Now hopefully we can learn who actually supported them and helped them build the bombs. There is no way these two idiot losers figured out how to do this on their own.
tom22406
Footballguy
Saudi Arabia warned the US in writing about the older brother as well.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317493/Saudi-official-Kingdom-warned-United-States-IN-WRITING-Boston-Bomber-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-2012-rejected-application-entry-visa-visit-Mecca-2011.html
The Saudis' warning to the U.S. government was also shared with the British government. 'It was very specific’ and warned that 'something was going to happen in a major U.S. city,' the Saudi official said during an extensive interview.
It 'did name Tamerlan specifically,' he added. The 'government-to-government' letter, which he said was sent to the Department of Homeland Security at the highest level, did not name Boston or suggest a date for his planned attack.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317493/Saudi-official-Kingdom-warned-United-States-IN-WRITING-Boston-Bomber-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-2012-rejected-application-entry-visa-visit-Mecca-2011.html
The Saudis' warning to the U.S. government was also shared with the British government. 'It was very specific’ and warned that 'something was going to happen in a major U.S. city,' the Saudi official said during an extensive interview.
It 'did name Tamerlan specifically,' he added. The 'government-to-government' letter, which he said was sent to the Department of Homeland Security at the highest level, did not name Boston or suggest a date for his planned attack.
Last edited by a moderator:
Keerock
Footballguy
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
For all the talk from certain posters in this thread wanting to give the government more power to prevent these things, they sure as hell aren't doing much with what they have now.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}