Boston Thoughts

  1. The media is slowly waltzing around  an unspoken fear – the Tsarnaev’s  weren’t alone. If this were true ‘terrorism’, history  would not only demand the likelihood of more participants, it’s also doctrine: chances are that well ahead of  the actual event  the “event director”, bomb maker,  logistics (someone needed to gather the bomb supplies, someone who didn’t lead back to the brothers Tsarnaev) and support (security) personnel left Boston. Because these are actual assets; the bombers themselves would be considered expendable  (we never believed McVeigh/Nichols acted ‘alone’, either.)
  2. Our thinking goes thus: large cities that act as ports will be the future targets –  easier access/exits.
  3. Targeting certain public events multiplies terror far beyond  actual destruction. The goal  being as  far-reaching trauma as possible…the most bang for their buck.
  4. Drone use would not have prevented the Boston bombing.
  5. S.W.A.T., a buncha Rangers or even SEAL Team 6 could not have prevented this
  6. One bright policeman or even a curious bystander could have prevented this: “Hey – what’s this perfectly good and obviously jam-packed back-pack doing here all by its lonesome?” Do  you believe for a second that back-packs abandoned in public spaces in London, Frankfurt or Tel Aviv would have been ignored? The world has moved on and we deed to do the same:  change our thinking, not add weapons or personnel.
  7. In line with that, the people rushing directly to the site of the explosion immediately afterward? While that may have once been considered admirable, it will soon self-deselect as a useful survival mechanism.
  8. Another way of looking at the NRA is as a support organization for home-grown terrorists: how else would one be able to purchase large quantities of gun powder?
  9.  Zubeidat Tsarnaeva does not accept the premise of her sons’ guilt. She instead claims a conspiracy, citing the death of her eldest son. This should be easy to refute and should have been done so last week: simply release all raw video footage shot by the Boston Police Department showing their sons firing on BPD and the footage of their youngest son running over his older brother. Release all raw footage now – there’s not a single reason not to.
  10. Either NH  State Rep (R)  Stella Tremblay is an omniscient genius, or she’s a buffoon. There’s no in-between on this. 1
  11. How long will it be before the U.S. Government steps in and censors the innernetz?

WNBTv - Good TV!

Show 1 footnote

  1. To help you decide, make a list of the number of state and national ‘genius’ legislators you are aware of, then divide the result by the remaining number of corresponding pols. For example, the number of genius Kansas state legislators would  be    {-10:165 = -.06}   nonexistent.

6 Replies to “Boston Thoughts”

  1. “Another way of looking at the NRA is as a support organization for home-grown terrorists: how else would one be able to purchase large quantities of gun powder?”

    Make it yourself? Fireworks stands?

    Does the NRA sell gunpowder?

    1. Given the average IQ in this country making gunpowder at home would, eventually, only result in a slight rise in the aforementioned stat. Same with the deconstruction of fireworks: check the local papers this 4th of July.

      Without the NRA there would not be large quantities of gunpowder available.

      However if we shut down the NRA’s influence then we’d lose access to semi-automatic (snicker) weapons capable of spraying up to 60 rounds in 10 seconds. Then how would we slaughter our ‘game’, much less defend our precious freedoms?

      No, far better little kids and random strangers in far away cities die than society curtail our access to any weapon…

  2. Sorry if I’m harshing the vibe with rational thought here, but according to some news sources of questionable credibility €¦

    the exact type of explosives used are not known. But earlier Tuesday, ABC News affiliate WMUR reported that Tamerlan Tsarnaev bought two large pyrotechnic devices in February from a New Hampshire branch of a national fireworks chain. A similar report in The New York Times said executives at the chain’s parent company discovered the purchase in their records and reported it to authorities.

    and

    Federal agents have analyzed the two pressure cooker bombs used in the Boston Marathon attack and confirmed early speculation that they were built largely, if not entirely of commercially available items, including parts of a remote control toy car, BBs and small nails.

    So I suppose we also can assign the “support of home-grown terrorism” label to Toys ‘R Us and Cuisinart.

    I mean, it’s fine to be against the NRA. I think there are lots of good reasons for being anti-NRA. But as a general rule, it’s best to not let fear and prejudice get the better of you. If you want to try to limit the reoccurrence of such events, it’s probably better to focus on actual root causes.

    1. The Toys R Us/Cuisinart comment is cute, though disingenuous: nothing those coprorations ordinarily sell will -of themselves- explode and kill/maim doezens of people.

      RE the fireworks…that may be a possibility. But it doesn’t ipso facto lessen the argument against the NRA. If anything it argues for national regulation of the items, instead of the randon state by state system currently in use…which is full of holes.

      For example, the following are legal to purchase in New Hampshire: Cone and cylindrical fountains, ground spinner, party
      popper, snake/glow worm snapper, wheel. (Small sparklers not regulated as Consumer Fireworks and therefore allowed.) To purchase ‘display fireworks’ (of the type with sufficient powder to create an IED) one must “apply to local authorities at least 15 days
      before display date; $100,000 liability maybe required; a State Police Certificate of Competency required and a written examination. Minimum age 21 years, fee $40.”
      Massachusetts allows no consumer fireworks…

      So there should be some serious questions posed right there, agreed?

      [Indeed, one can reasonably make the case that rigerous enforcement of current laws might have dissuaded Tsarnaev from purchasing the material for his IEDs from a fireworks outlet: no need to proscibe our toys! Though if so, you wouldn’t be a Republican; instead you make the argument that Tsarnaev -being a criminal- would simply collect his explosives illegally…]

      The fact of the matter is fireworks – like semi-automatic weapons – have no place in day-to-day life.

      RE “…fear and prejudice get the better of you. If you want to try to limit the reoccurrence of such events, it €™s probably better to focus on actual root causes.

      Fear and prejudice? I don’t understand the reference…

      …focus on actual root causes. Agreed; that would be a worthwhile national discusion. WHat do you feel are the root causes?

  3. I don’t really have any “feelings” on the root cause as of yet, other than the nebulous “They hate us because we’re global pricks.”

    As far as fear and prejudice goes, it’s easy and comforting to the irrational mind, in moments of national (or even personal) distress, to seize upon a certain known entity that it has a negative association with anyway and ascribe the cause of said distress to said entity (i.e., “The NRA is to blame for bombings/mass shootings.” “Bush is to blame for Hurricane Katrina.” “Clinton is to blame for cigar sex.” etc. etc.)

    The larger point is, the more we continue to let fear do the work for us and labor under the misguided assumption that it is possible to keep all bad people from doing all bad things, the more we’ll allow our federal government to ignore pretty much all the constitutional protections we kid ourselves into thinking we have.

    1. While I agree with your sentiments vis a vis ‘hot button issues/entities’, I merely noted one could see the NRA as a support organization for home-grown terrorism (whether by bomb or semi-automatic weapon). That is not the same as drawing a causal link.

      Having said that, however – if you strictly regulate and/or prohibit ownership of explosive materials and semi-automatic weapons, I would expect a direct correlation between such act and a decrease in mass murders (regardless of nomenclature.)

      Of course the NRA is opposed to such actions on ‘constitutional’ grounds, though one would be hard-pressed to read ‘the right to own semi-automatic weapons, or numerous semi-automatic weapons, and bomb materials’ into any issue of that worthy document I’ve ever perused.

Something to say...?