The Boston mooninite Mass-a-cree, part 1

Feb 06, 2007 17:30

A few days ago, I'd assembled a lengthy essay on what happened, contemporarily, in Boston. Unfortunately it became very lengthy and I never finished the stupid thing; however, you can probably guess the point that I was gearing up to make. I hope that I'll complete it sometime in the near future, but for now, I'd like it to be read while it's ( Read more... )

politics, in the news, philosophical rant

Leave a comment

Comments 16

bensanaz February 6 2007, 22:39:59 UTC
What honestly pissed me off the most was that the reaction online was "they should've recognized it was a Mooninite! Obviously that's harmless!"

What pissed me off the second most was that this was very blatantly a case of a massive corporation engaging in vandalism for publicity purposes (yes, a light-up Mooninite giving passersby the finger is vandalism) and not even bothering to go through the motions of pretending to be worried about being punished for it.

Reply

efbq February 7 2007, 12:34:52 UTC
If they were prosecuted for vandalism I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Reply

scooterbird February 7 2007, 20:50:13 UTC
Well, my reaction was more of "they should have recognized it was an LED board with some batteries attached, and obviously that's harmless". The comments of the Boston city council president were telling: "It was a very suspicious device. It had these wires and batteries sticking out of the back of it ( ... )

Reply


polydad February 6 2007, 23:23:01 UTC
Do we have a one-word label for this, yet? Professional-incompetence-by-refusal-to-exercise-judgment? We need one.

We also need to eliminate the concept that public officials are immune from prosecution for their official actions. That might've been necessary in 1790 when trying to convince people to serve in time-consuming and thankless positions; now, it just encourages more graft and incompetence.

best,

Joel. Ready to join you on the island if necessary, but would prefer to try to make life here work.

Reply


thecanuckguy February 7 2007, 05:02:25 UTC
they consisted of batteries, wires, lights, and a circuit board. Seattle police did not receive any calls about them and characterized them as "obviously not suspicious". Boston police, momentarily forgetting they were not located in an Iraqi province, characterized them as "components consistent with improvised explosive devices." Batteries, wires, lights, a circuit board.

Racial profiling meets Radio Shack.

Good God.

Reply


rotty_0079 February 7 2007, 05:43:50 UTC
We can no longer speak about the terrorists "winning" if a certain event happens. It has, and they have.

No it hasn't, and no they haven't. The stated goal of the Sunni terrorists striking against the West is to render the Western Powers ("Crusaders and Jews") incapable of interfering in the goal of restoring the Caliphate through any combination of the following:

A) Bankrupting them through asymmetrical warfare.
B) Killing more of them than their cultures can stomach, so they withdraw from Dar al-Islam in accordance with the political demands of the mujahideen.
C) Conversion to Islamic polities.

Since the United States is neither bankrupt, nor has its military and foreign aid vacated Dar al-Islam (defined as all states with Muslim majorities plus India, Israel, Iberia, and the Balkans), nor have members of our government converted to Islam and staged a coup to replace the Constitution with Sharia, the terrorists have not won vis-a-vis us.

Reply

efbq February 7 2007, 12:34:13 UTC
Interesting how 'the terrorists' suddenly become one particular group of terrorists.

The goal of terrorists (in general) is to use fear to manipulate society. Fear grown out of terrorism has certainly influenced the governments reaction to the incident.

The fact that it's not in a way anyone particularly desired or worked for is extraneous.

Reply

rotty_0079 February 8 2007, 04:42:02 UTC
Interesting how 'the terrorists' suddenly become one particular group of terrorists.

Yes, the one terrorist network the United States is under attack by. The United States is not under attack by God's Army (Myanmar), the two National Socialist Council of Nagaland organizations (Nagaland, India), National Liberation Front of Tripura (Tripura, India), the Khalistan terrorists (Panjab, India), ETA (Spain/France), or a litany of other terrorist groups. The terrorists who are directly engaged in a military campaign to win against the United States are the global Sunni mujahideen, who have been at war with us since the 1993 WTC bombing.

The goal of terrorists (in general) is to use fear to manipulate society. Fear grown out of terrorism has certainly influenced the governments reaction to the incident.Rational people don't contest the fact that our own politicians play to the electorate's fears as a tool to win election or re-election. However, instilling fear in a target population is a means, not a end, and it cannot be said that "the ( ... )

Reply

scooterbird February 8 2007, 08:27:33 UTC
I think there may be some families in Oklahoma City who disagree with your assessment of the terrorist threat.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up