Slashdot Mirror


Explosions at the Boston Marathon

Reports are coming in that the headquarters at the Boston Marathon have been locked down after two explosions were reported near the finish line. According to reports "dozens of people have been seriously injured." CNN has live coverage. Google has a Person Finder up for Boston.
Update: The Boston Police Dept. says 2 people have died and 23 are injured. News conference scheduled for 4:30 ET.

1,105 comments

  1. Re:tell me again by Yebyen · · Score: 0

    You have to think fast to get the first post. I miss first posts about natalie portman and hot grits. What ever happened to hosts file challenge guy?

    --
    Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
  2. On TV now by bobbutts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Saw a clip of the two explosions. First one occurs right at the finish line and then the second one within 20 seconds 2 blocks away. It appears clear that this was a coordinated attack.

    1. Re:On TV now by GodInHell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or a gas line lit up and vented in two different locations. Wait and see, no point in speculating.

    2. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      What is this wait and see you're talking about? Let's bomb some country and then ask the questions! It worked last time didn't ti?

    3. Re:On TV now by GodInHell · · Score: 3, Funny

      ++good. I say this time we just bomb Nebraska. Because.

    4. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Reported third device found - gas line explosion sounds improbable especially considering the timing...

    5. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wait and see, no point in speculating.

      1) If you actually thought that, you'd delete your Slashdot account. This whole place is nothing but occasionally educated speculation.

      2)

      Overheard officer telling bystander that 3 more devices found.

    6. Re:On TV now by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Or a gas line lit up and vented in two different locations. Wait and see, no point in speculating.

      That was my initial thought. Sounds like they located two devices though, and are looking for a third.

    7. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Actual device or just some mooninites they missed last time?

      We're talking about Boston, they've already proven themselves incompetent at stopping actual terrorist attacks (see: 9/11), and they've already proven themselves incapable of maintaining their infrastructure (see: glued concrete panels becoming unglued and crushing people).

      This also wouldn't be the first time a gas main has exploded in Boston, the last one was five months ago.

      Gas explosion due to unmaintained infrastructure and misidentified "third device" that turns out to be a Nintendo DS sounds entirely plausible for Boston.

    8. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It appears clear that this was a coordinated attack.

      Much like the string of 17 explosions in Iraq today. Was that on your TV news?

    9. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about Boston, they've already proven themselves incompetent at stopping actual terrorist attacks (see: 9/11),

      Someone buy this man a map.

      Captcha: Mental

    10. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Colin Powell will be presenting the evidence to the U.N. soon.

    11. Re:On TV now by mrxak · · Score: 4, Informative

      It would be awfully coincidental. It's Patriot's Day in MA (and ME) and it happened right where lots of people are and lots of cameras (terrorists love bodies and media attention).

      Any other day, anywhere else, sure, maybe it's just a gas line.

      By the way, Boston Police just released some info. 2 confirmed dead, 22 wounded.

    12. Re:On TV now by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Of course it was. There are two Mooninites, after all.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:On TV now by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      What happened...did someone's PF Flyers blow out at the finish line?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Get a map yourself and look up where "Logan Airport" is. The planes that hit New York all left from Boston, which let the terrorist onto the planes WITH WEAPONS and DESPITE the fact that there was actionable intelligence that they were planning on some form of attack.

      And, yes, Boston ran (at the time) the security responsible for keeping terrorists off planes at their airport.

    15. Re:On TV now by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      What is this wait and see you're talking about? Let's bomb some country and then ask the questions! It worked last time didn't ti?

      I'm wondering how they're going to take this, and somehow link it to the need for greater gun control myself.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    16. Re:On TV now by modi123 · · Score: 2

      As a person living in Nebraska I would be staunchly opposed to this.

      So would StratCom.

    17. Re:On TV now by ZiakII · · Score: 2

      They are reporting they found ball bearings so definitely not accidental.

    18. Re:On TV now by oobayly · · Score: 2

      Um, from the 9/11 commission report:

      Boarding the Flights
      Boston: American 11 and United 175. Atta and Omari boarded a 6:00 A.M. flight from Portland to Boston's Logan International Airport.1

    19. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the asshole that is Nick Kristof https://twitter.com/NickKristof/statuses/323891060927512576

    20. Re:On TV now by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 3, Funny

      where and what is iraq?

    21. Re:On TV now by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Much like the string of 17 explosions in Iraq today. Was that on your TV news?

      Aren't there 17 explosions in Iraq every Monday?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re:On TV now by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      And blowing up additional devices. /sigh

      This is one time I REALLY didn't want to be wrong.

    23. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in a small country in Europe and they interrupted regular TV broadcasts in order to cover the tragic event in Boston.

      No news on Iraq though.

    24. Re:On TV now by Haoie · · Score: 1

      I was thinking Aqua Teen too! That was only a few years ago, quite the misunderstanding. This is much much more serious.

      --
      If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
    25. Re:On TV now by Cyrus20 · · Score: 1

      why bomb Nebraska, what did the cornfields and cows do to you?

    26. Re:On TV now by LifesABeach · · Score: 5, Funny

      Quiet, the corn have ears.

    27. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this just in, we have sources stating that nebraska is responsible for the event...

          oh, wait I forgot that I quit my job working for CNN

    28. Re:On TV now by steelfood · · Score: 1

      It's still a bit early, but some places are reporting that there was a third explosion somewhere else, and two other devices.

      Won't know for certain for a while (news sites could be feeding off each other), but the gas line theory isn't holding up so well.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    29. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It certainly did for the likes of Cheney and his Haliburton buddies!

    30. Re:On TV now by runeghost · · Score: 1

      Starting to look as though it was likely a deliberate attack. Either way, bets on whether the Boston PD will try to use this tragedy to justify their prior over-reactions?

    31. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) I think you are graciously overestimating the level of education of the speculation.

    32. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the spirit of Patriot's Day, I nominate the British.

    33. Re:On TV now by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Some people have been saying they've found ball bearings (read: "BB"s) near the blasts.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    34. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aaaand, doesn't appear to have anything to do with Patriot's Day. But as it turns out, it correlates with a high profile marathon with lots of people present.

      Suspect has been ID'd, a Saudi national, presently under guard at hospital:
      http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/authorities_under_suspect_guard_y2m8cJO29uC2PDGIjYBalO

    35. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't that make it either malevolence or incompetence?
      If they want to justify their over-reactions, then that means that they know something was up; hence their over-reactions...
      Either they could stop it but wouldn't... (hey, we'll get extra funding to buy cool toys in the future if we let this go off)
      Or they couldn't stop it (in which case they are incompetent and should all be fired)

      When dealing with LEO's and intelligence services, when the choice is between malevolence or incompetence; I usually go with incompetence...

    36. Re:On TV now by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is this really something that Boston deserves to be singled out for? It seems to me that the 9/11 terrorists probably could have gotten through security at just about any airport in the US. And look what happened afterwards: how long did it take them to just do the most sensible thing to prevent these hijackings, something they somehow never thought of doing before: installing locking doors for the cockpits, so that no one can enter. Even now, we still have ridiculously expensive and ineffective security measures (the TSA), despite all kinds of evidence that it isn't working.

      And Boston isn't the only place with shitty infrastructure; that condition exists all over the country.

      Don't blame Boston for incompetence and corruption: blame the USA. Blaming Boston for the USA's problems is like blaming your chubby hand for your health problems when you're 200 pounds overweight.

    37. Re:On TV now by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I'm a bit slow, i had to scroll back up after I got this one. Thank you.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    38. Re:On TV now by Guru80 · · Score: 1

      Definitely not speculation as other devices had been found.

    39. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, let's see whether this "newsworthy" rumor, currently only being reported by a Murdoch sensationalist tabloid, turns out to be true. My default guess: it's a baseless rumor spread by racist fucks to whip up the rage of fellow racist fucks.

    40. Re:On TV now by Hartree · · Score: 2

      The Feds are saying he's not yet a suspect.

      This is too early and confused for any conclusions to be drawn.

      Remember how Richard Jewel got falsely identified by the press as a suspect in the Olympic bombing.

    41. Re:On TV now by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Police are saying they have no suspects in custody, and that police are at hospitals to get witness statements as part of standard investigative procedure.

      There was also a report that the bombs may have been detonated remotely with cell phones, or with timers, in which case there would be no hospitalized terrorists.

      It's usually a good idea to take everything with a grain of salt when events like this happen.

    42. Re:On TV now by mrxak · · Score: 1

      The Boston Marathon is the oldest annual marathon in the world, and a major international sporting event (one of the big six World Marathon Majors). I'm sure news organizations in your country were covering the marathon anyway, even if just in their sports coverage. The fact that bombs started going off at it should certainly make the news all over.

    43. Re:On TV now by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Nope it was bombs as they found two that didn't blow at the scene so the question now is who, because knowing every whacko with a cause is gonna claim it.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    44. Re:On TV now by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      The only thing missing there is the probability of the whole thing, you're right its not 100% that the explosions were deliberate, but... the timing (during a race) and the supposed 20 second delay move the probability counter towards a bombing. Crazy enough, isn't this exactly what the movie "Four Lions" is about?

    45. Re:On TV now by Americano · · Score: 1

      Boston Police have announced that they have no suspect in custody, as of the press conference at 6:06 pm EST.

      http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/boston-police-no-arrests-have-been-made-in

    46. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on days that end in the letter Y.

    47. Re:On TV now by Tom · · Score: 2

      My thoughts.

      With all due respect to the victims and their families and friends - this isn't world news. In quite a few parts of the world, not just Iraq and Afghanistan, that's a small note somewhere on page 5 of the local newspaper.

      Also, to put things into perspective: That is almost exactly the number of people who die in car accidents every hour in the USA. Not just in this hour, every hour, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

      So it's not news-worthy for the body count and not for the fact that there was a bomb or two. It's news-worthy because it happened in front of cameras and you don't need much to turn it into a shocking headline. It has emotional impact, due to the rarity (on US soil) and the close-to-home factor, aka "omg! I could've been there!".

      And, most importantly and most disgustingly, we are still thinking in tribal norms. Our own dead and wounded are more important than the foreign ones.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    48. Re:On TV now by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      He could have committed the very serious crime of been "kinda arab at the scene of an explosion," a well known felony in the states.

    49. Re:On TV now by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      Funny, I couldn't help but wonder if it might have been caused by someone upset about the recent attempts at new gun control legislation by Congress. I can only hope everybody keeps a level head, regardless of what or who it turns out to be.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    50. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a chain reaction along a gas line.

      But hey... don't let me get in the way of you selective interpretation and confirmation bias!

    51. Re:On TV now by shoemilk · · Score: 1

      Were any of those explosions at a huge international event where tens of thousands of people were gathered?

    52. Re:On TV now by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Wait and see, no point in speculating.

      Wait and see, yeah right, as if the truth will come from the Obamanation. Weapons of mass destruction? Think of the children, national security, martial law, whatever happens will just be more lies on top of lies; like a house of cards.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    53. Re:On TV now by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Quiet, the corn have ears.

      Quiet, the Monsanto corn has real ears. FTFY

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    54. Re:On TV now by slick7 · · Score: 1

      It would be awfully coincidental. It's Patriot's Day in MA (and ME) and it happened right where lots of people are and lots of cameras (terrorists love bodies and media attention).

      So does the government, as long as it reflects the party line. Release all the Pentagram videos.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    55. Re:On TV now by crutchy · · Score: 1

      was dennis rodman participating in the run and coming first by any chance?

    56. Re:On TV now by crutchy · · Score: 1

      hang on hang on lets not get too carried away... iraq is one thing but nebraska is just too far away from america to have to send our troops to :)

    57. Re:On TV now by crutchy · · Score: 1

      they're probably mutating lasers too... to fight the sharks

    58. Re:On TV now by crutchy · · Score: 1

      fox news counters with...

      CNN are a bunch of idiots... it was really Hawaii responsible!!!

      it makes perfect sense after all

    59. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever since we invaded, yes.

    60. Re:On TV now by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Arkansas. Mississippi. Alabama.

      Just to reduce the number of people spending too much time with their first-cousins.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    61. Re:On TV now by quenda · · Score: 1

      I'm confused - why do they call it Patriots Day, when it honors the rebels of 1775? Isn't that the opposite of patriotism?

    62. Re:On TV now by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      don't even reply to such idiots

      nothing justifies an attack like this

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    63. Re:On TV now by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Informative

      With all due respect to the victims and their families and friends - this isn't world news. In quite a few parts of the world, not just Iraq and Afghanistan, that's a small note somewhere on page 5 of the local newspaper.

      It seems the world disagrees with you. This are all page one stories at sites that span the world.

      Germany - USA: Explosionen beim Boston-Marathon - drei Tote, hundert Verletzte
      Russia , (Act of terrorism committed in the U.S., numerous victims reported
      Australia - US on alert after blasts shatter Boston Marathon killing 3, wounding 140
      India - Boston Marathon bombing kills 3, injures over 130
      Argentina - Bombs kill 3 people, wound more than 100 at Boston Marathon
      United Arab Emirates - Boston Marathon: 3 killed, more than 140 injured as 2 bombs explode near finish line
      South Africa - Boston terror attack: Three killed, 100 injured
      Japan - 3 dead, more than 110 hurt after two bombs explode near Boston Marathon finish line

      So it's not news-worthy for the body count and not for the fact that there was a bomb or two.

      Actually it is newsworthy, for both reasons. Mass casualty events tend to be that way. Last I heard the number of bombs was 5-7.

      And, most importantly and most disgustingly, we are still thinking in tribal norms. Our own dead and wounded are more important than the foreign ones.

      Every family looks after its own first, as does every country. But as to tribes - there aren't really any tribes in the West anymore, none that function anyway. (Were the last the Scotts?) You might try that line of thinking on people from parts of the world that actually do have functioning tribes, such as the Middle East, or Africa. Your disgust will probably be taken as evidence of being crazy. It wouldn't even be a question to them - of course you look after the tribe first, it is a matter of survival. If you can convince the Arabs that making peace with the Jews is preferable to killing them, you might have a chance a reducing tribalism, but I doubt you can eliminate it.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    64. Re:On TV now by quenda · · Score: 1

      Aren't there 17 explosions in Iraq every Monday?

      No, its usually on a Friday, when the Mosques are most crowded. Monday might be news.

    65. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a lot of idiots in IRAQ. This was the most CHICKEN SHIT attack in the history of CHICKEN SHIT attacks

    66. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the hell was trying to justify it? No one.

      Just trying to explain why it happened in Boston: because the city has a track record of massive incompetence in everything they do. Why they're still allowed an airport after 9/11 I'll never understand.

    67. Re:On TV now by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      it happened right where lots of people are and lots of cameras (terrorists love bodies and media attention).

      So do politicians.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    68. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets bomb Texas... They consider themselves "a whole other country" anyways,,,,

    69. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but the Baghdad Marathon fell on a Tuesday this year, so it's not newsworthy.

    70. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn it. Not even Caturday is safe!

    71. Re:On TV now by Tom · · Score: 1

      It seems the world disagrees with you.

      I know. In the lower parts of my original post I talked about the why.

      there aren't really any tribes in the West anymore, none that function anyway.

      tribal, not tribes. We don't have well-defined tribes anymore, but our social structures are still the same, just with more fluidity. The basic principle, however, still works: Those close to me are humans, those remote frome me are sub-humans.

      You can see this almost every evening in the news, when they say "there was an aircraft crash in XYZ today, 97 people dead, 2 of them (insert your country here)". 95 people are a statistical number, 2 people matter. Why? Because they are "one of us" and not "one of them".

      Your disgust will probably be taken as evidence of being crazy.

      And my atheism will be grounds for execution, I know. But truth isn't a democratic principle and voting on the value of pi doesn't change it.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    72. Re:On TV now by Talderas · · Score: 1

      No one lives in Nebraska. The entire state is a huge government coverup. If you say you live there then you're part of the conspiracy.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    73. Re:On TV now by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's compare someplace considered generally safe with someplace considered generally not safe. Or a place and event that many people in our country are tied to in some way (even if only by the fast its our country) to a place (another country) that most people in our country arent tied to or impacted by.

      also: FYI, your iraqi explosions did make the news. but again, thats less personal than something that happens in our own backyard.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    74. Re:On TV now by dywolf · · Score: 1

      theres still the consideration that the USA is considered pretty much safe from these sorts of thing, while the same cannot be said of Iraq. that kinda has a lot to do with it too.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    75. Re:On TV now by gman003 · · Score: 1

      No, sometimes the Americans join the fun and blow some stuff up as well.

    76. Re:On TV now by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Or, he could be a witness who saw something/knows something that puts him at risk and the guard is for protection.

      So far this is all rumors and speculation. It's the old saying "Those who know aren't talking, and those who are talking don't know."

    77. Re:On TV now by ultranova · · Score: 1

      With all due respect to the victims and their families and friends - this isn't world news. In quite a few parts of the world, not just Iraq and Afghanistan, that's a small note somewhere on page 5 of the local newspaper.

      Explosions in America are world news, because they usually result in America doing things which then affect the rest of the world. Explosions in Middle-East are not, because the place has been a warzone ever since WWII.

      Also, to put things into perspective: That is almost exactly the number of people who die in car accidents every hour in the USA. Not just in this hour, every hour, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

      The difference, of course, is that those are just that: accidents. These bombings were deliberate.

      And, most importantly and most disgustingly, we are still thinking in tribal norms. Our own dead and wounded are more important than the foreign ones.

      It is rather foolish to be disgusted about having only a limited number of neurons in your brain.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    78. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's new rack mounted data center system in the iServer line. It's a 1U rack mountable Mac OS X Server system which includes a free copy of Angry Birds.

    79. Re:On TV now by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They're allowed an airport because 1) we need an airport there, and 2) no one else can do security better in this country. There's no shortage of incidents of people sneaking things through the TSA, in intentional tests and otherwise. The 9/11 terrorists picked Boston for several reasons (proximity to NYC namely, leaving their planes plenty of fuel after traveling the short distance between the two), but the lax security wasn't one of them. It's not like the 9/11 terrorist planners went around to various airports around the country, tested their security effectiveness, and found Boston to be the worst of the bunch. Boston was no worse than anyplace else, and surely still isn't any better or worse with the TSA idiots running things.

      Boston does NOT have a "track record of massive incompetence", compared to the rest of the country. It's not Boston that's incompetent, it's the entire USA. Crumbling infrastructure is not unique to Boston; you can find that all over the entire Northeast and just about everyplace else that's older than 40 years too. There's countless articles about this problem, and they don't focus on Boston. Remember that bridge that collapsed several years ago with cars on it? Where was that? Minnesota IIRC.

    80. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much like the string of 17 explosions in Iraq today. Was that on your TV news?

      Aren't there 17 explosions in Iraq every Monday?

      The reason it's news is that Boston is NOT in Iraq. That's the point, it's downtown Boston, MA. If someone reported a man had given birth, would you say "Aren't there thousands of babies born to women every Monday?"

      Who the fuck thought such a comment was insightful, and worthy of a Score:5? Also a shithead (or several, I suspect).

      Also, just to show you how asshole-ish your remark was, I'll add that every one of the 17 explosions in Iraq, that occur according to you, is a fucking tragedy and shouldn't be ignored either, but the point of the withdrawal and the end of the Iraq war, is that dealing with that, prevention and triage, cleanup, etc., is now officially the responsibility of the Iraqi government. But bombings anywhere, whether in Iraq, in Syria, in Mali or wherever, or in Boston, should NOT be happening.

      Bombings like this one are on par with gas attacks in war, random indiscriminate, and generally with loads of collateral damage. The victims weren't soldiers, they were civilians, not engaged in combat operations, they were running. They were competing in a sporting event.

      The takeaway is I think that if they manage to pin down who was responsible for this, the person or group (or country) behind this is going to end up wishing Bush were still President, because Obama has demonstrated he's not afraid to order a hit, has more blood on his hands than Bush, and he loves him his drone fleet of flying Murder-Bots (TM). Fuck with Obama, and you can expect to see a little flying robot with a gun which it will shove up your ass and pull the trigger until it goes... "click".

      They have some now that look like birds, which will soon make it tough to spot when a drone is about to kill you. So you can get killed or, as you're hiding in your cave or spider-hole, or retirement villa or what-have-you, you will find yourself ducking and covering every time a sparrow flies by, and that's no way to live.

      Also, the terrorists (assuming that this was not merely criminal,) will find their efforts ineffectual because you usually need to claim responsibility or everyone just shrugs it off, and if you claim responsibility, you're fucked, (see above). If it was just a criminal or maniac, if this is Unabomber 2.0, that's probably the worst possibility, then you just have someone who is periodically going to kill and maim because he's a fucking psychotic asshole.

    81. Re:On TV now by niftymitch · · Score: 1

      Or a gas line lit up and vented in two different locations. Wait and see, no point in speculating.

      Well now we know.....

      Watching the finish line video, this was a bomb from the get go,

      Makes me so sad.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    82. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a better conspiracy theory. This is clearly revenge for the injustice that is Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

    83. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iran must be behind it. Lets roll in and nerve-gas their nest.

    84. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this wait and see you're talking about? Let's bomb some country and then ask the questions! It worked last time didn't ti?

      bomb what???? The reason why we are in the situation that we are is because of the stupid and ignorant mentally. If we are going to bomb anyone it should be the White House because this is another event like 911. Nothing that is being said in the media is true. We were told 10 years later that BinLaden was captured and never got to see footage or pictures about his funeral. Everything was and still is a lie. BOMB the white house, because it seems like this is there doings.

    85. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe someone hates Husker football? & the child of incest Herbie the Husker who knows.

    86. Re:On TV now by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The reason it's news is that Boston is NOT in Iraq.

      That was my entire point, friend.

      I was responding to a troll who was snorting that the Marathon bombing shouldn't have been bigger news than the many tragedies that occur in places such as Iraq on a far more regular basis.

      Well, of COURSE it's going to be bigger news because it's happening here, now and to us.

      Take a breath.

      Fuck with Obama, and you can expect to see a little flying robot with a gun which it will shove up your ass and pull the trigger until it goes... "click".

      Oops. To late for that breath, I guess.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    87. Re:On TV now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not? We blame guns for people killing other people. Same analogy.

    88. Re:On TV now by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Interesting point, but blaming Boston seems like blaming only triggers for guns being used in killing people.

    89. Re:On TV now by Occams · · Score: 1

      No, It failed miserably last time. The USA is a war loser.

      --
      Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
  3. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Banning guns won't prevent mass murder because then people will just use bombs?

  4. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing!

    Rule 1 of the Internet: Don't feed the trolls

  5. Re:Worried by ButchDeLoria · · Score: 1

    It could still just be a gas leak or something. It was a building that blew, after all.

  6. the world is so full of jerks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    that pretty much says it. Why? Why do this? Your idealism is more important then other people?

    1. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, some people go to foreign countries and shoot people from flying drones, others place bombs. Everyone thinks they are the good guys.

    2. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      are you seriously comparing targeting civilians to military drone attacks?

    3. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many civilians have been killed by drones?

    4. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by tbird81 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You're a fucking cunt. These were innocent people, running in a race.

    5. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he just explains why some people are jerks.

    6. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said they were not innocent people running in a race?

    7. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes those are the same thing

    8. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "You're a fucking cunt. These were innocent people, at a wedding".

      see how it works now ? sit down fatty and learn something

    9. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by Rakarra · · Score: 3, Interesting

      are you seriously comparing targeting civilians to military drone attacks?

      They can be the same. It's the entire crux of the argument against drone strikes, in fact, and is the reason why folks in other countries (our "allies," no less) are so up in arms about it.

    10. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well just in case you're confused about who the good guys are I'll let you in on a little secret. They're not the pedophile murderers who think that by killing a bunch of innocent people that they're going to be rewarded with 72 virgins.

    11. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think he actually said anything about who the good guys are.

    12. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      this is /.
      expecting reason and logic in the place alternately known as Bash USA For Instant +5 Insightfulis a waste of time.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    13. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I don't see the difference. It's well documented that USA drone attacks have killed scores of women and children. Most civilized people consider those "civilians".

    14. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by fnj · · Score: 1

      You're a [expletive] [expletive]. These were innocent people

      Who do you think the collateral damage in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan were? Guilty of living in the wrong country? Attending a funeral too near to somebody else's idea of Bad Guys? Unfortunate misakes?

    15. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Your statement is a mistake. Given the person being held is a young Saudi man (as in a jihadi) we can give a probable guess as what his motivations are. These are the same motivations that jihadis have been using for 1400 years - long before drones, or the US, or (modern) Israel. The motivation can be summed up in the Qur'an, particularly Sura 9:5 "The Verse of the Sword" and associated commentaries:
      http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

      Please also note Sura 9:29

      Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

      The non-Muslim world may not have been at war with Islam, but Islam has *always* felt it was at war with the non-Muslim world (as stated in their teachings if you ever care to read them). Islamic apologists will lie to you about this (using one of the disgusting doctrines that Islam uses to permit lying: taqiyya, kitman, muruna. and tawriya). But the truth is the vast majority of Muslims agree with the goal of Islam, to bring Islam to the whole world (through any means necessary - including jihad).

      So stop putting the blame on the victim. It is disgusting and immoral. When the "Caliphate" is re-established it will get much much worse. Nothing the US can do can prevent the coming fight to the death between the evil political ideology called Islam and those who seek to defend Human Rights as we know them, Liberty and Free World. Choose your sides!

    16. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by quenda · · Score: 2

      Deuteronomy 17

      If there be found among you, ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them,... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, ... and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

      Anybody can quote scripture.

    17. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      In your effort to show how clever you are you completely miss the point (and inadvertently you also end up providing apologetics for defending the evil doctrines of Islam).

      Please name one homicide bomber that was inspired to murder by Christianity? Or name one mainstream Christian Church that said that murder in the name of Christianity is morally good in the 21st Century? you can't, because a central doctrine of Christianity is "Vengeance in mine, sayeth the Lord". That is, Christians have no doctrinal right to revenge and cannot assert over non-Christians.

      This is completely different to Islam, which not only asserts Sharia over all non-Muslims, but commands that Muslims enact revenge and jihad if they are able.

      So, by trying to assert moral equivalence (something the political Left always tries to do, and clearly you are emulating) you are trying to indicate that Christianity is as bad as Islam. This is simply not true. Christianity has many many flaws (and, in fact, is anti-scientific and massively self-contradictory man-made fiction, but we won't get into that now) but modern Christianity is positively angelic compared to the "anti-Christ" nature of *mainstream* Islamic doctrine. Note by Islam as "anti-Christ", I mean that whatever Christ/Christianity teaches Islam and Mohammed almost always command the opposite: eg. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" [no lying] in Christianity is explicitly countered by Islam's doctrines of *mandatory* lying in the form of taqiyya, tawriya, muruna and kitman (). In Christianity sexual immorality is prohibited and Christ set an example of "continence", whereas Mohammed had sex with 8 year old (9 lunar years) Aisha, have multiple wives and slaves (including sex slaves), committed rape and permitted others to do the same. I hope you get the picture.

      Your sophistry using moral equivalence is an immoral thing to do - you are wittingly or unwittingly defending Islamicists who commit murder around the globe (see http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ for the daily facts of the carnage). Please don't do that. Instead of trying to appear clever, how about you instead use your keyboard to defend the human rights and liberty of all those killed, maimed and oppressed by political Islam? that would be a better use of your talents, would it not? you may have to learn about the true nature of Islam - be careful, the taqiyya thrown out obfuscates things - this site is as truthful as any: http://www.jihadwatch.org/.

    18. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by quenda · · Score: 1

      you are trying to indicate that Christianity is as bad as Islam.

      No, I commented on the pointlessness of quoting scripture. You can't say that Muslims are evil because the Koran is evil, and then ignore the evil in the bible.
      Yes, Christians have mellowed and are no longer as evil as Muslims. But that is in spite of the Bible, not because of it.
      You do not have to look back far in history for some competition in the brutal violence stakes.

      Yes, Arabs have a tendency to violence, and most of them are Muslim, but correlation is not evidence of causality.
      Middle-Eastern terrorism was for a long time secular, e.g. notably George Habash, PFLP founder and the first Arab hijacker, was Christian.
      The rise of Islamism is more recent. Its bad, but things were not rosy in the secular Middle East either (Saddam Husein, Hosni Mubarak, ... )

    19. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, some people go to foreign countries and shoot people from flying drones, others place bombs. Everyone thinks they are the good guys.

      And the biggest jerks don't understand the difference between them.

    20. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The portion of the bible you quoted is Judaic law, which for Christians is to be viewed in the light of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

    21. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      You are correct about the Bible. You are incorrect about what motivates Muslims to jihad. I agree that there have been other causes. What matters now is the rise of Islamic jihad and the intention to restore the Caliphate. Even America would struggle to fight 57 countries at once. So, we get your point that Islam is not the sole source of evil. Fine. However, your statements often sound like you are excusing Islam. That is a dangerous thing to do by easily confused Slashdotters (some of whom would love to cling to the idea that political Islam wasn't as evil as it is). Please don't make apologies for evil !

    22. Re:the world is so full of jerks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is /.
      expecting reason and logic in the place alternately known as Bash USA For Instant +5 Insightfulis a waste of time.

      I wonder why USA has a bad reputation? /s

  7. Live feed of the news by RyLaN · · Score: 5, Informative

    Looks like bostonglobe.com is down, here's a live CBS feed that's still working http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/04/explosions-at-boston-marathon-finish-line/

    --
    At least the war on the environment is going well
  8. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Now we have to ban bombs. Last week, there were two incidents of people getting hurt by knives. OH NO! We must legislate! Something must be done!! Ban the bombs! Ban the knives! Ban common sense!

  9. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Sports are good for your health, they said, but I'm the one laughing now in the basement.

  10. In other news.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Kim Jong-Un rejoices of the success of his intercontinental missile attack..

  11. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People getting hurt in bomb explosions in USA are for everyone. Including a-hole nerds. If you are one this is for you.

  12. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The point is that in todays political climate, we spend SOO much time looking at "assault weapons" (a gun that looks scary in other words) we are trying to disarm america and acts like this just prove that banning guns, will not stop crazy people from being crazy.

  13. radiation by kpoole55 · · Score: 1

    Has anyone checked or reported as checking for radiation at the site? Of course, they may not want to report that particular thing if it were true.

    Hups, just saw a clip and it look like one of the explosions was set off behind a large widow to use the glass as shrapnel.

    Gonna be interesting to see who they nail for this.

    1. Re:radiation by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >> Gonna be interesting to see who they nail for this.

      Same as every other time this happens: Lady Liberty.

    2. Re:radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does radiation have to do with it? You think NK has made a baby nuke? If so, you have a lot to learn about atomic explosions and where they detonate.

    3. Re:radiation by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      Women who outlive their spouse are notably frangible.

    4. Re:radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If either explosion were nuclear, witnesses wouldn't be available, reports would be coming from multiple cities and the finish line would exist in another dimension.

    5. Re:radiation by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Possible dirty bomb...highly unlikely but worth checking, just in case.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    6. Re:radiation by kpoole55 · · Score: 1

      Not a baby nuke, that wouldn't have left so many people alive in the area, but a dirty bomb, maybe. It's going to happen one day and people need to be ready.

      Would North Korea do such a thing? Who knows if they would or not. Who can tell what a madman is going to do. But, someone will and they should add a radiation protocol to the response of these events.

    7. Re:radiation by elucido · · Score: 2

      Not a baby nuke, that wouldn't have left so many people alive in the area, but a dirty bomb, maybe. It's going to happen one day and people need to be ready.

      Would North Korea do such a thing? Who knows if they would or not. Who can tell what a madman is going to do. But, someone will and they should add a radiation protocol to the response of these events.

      Even North Korea isn't that crazy. It was probably domestic terrorists. North Korea would immediately be nuked into oblivion and they don't want that. Iran wouldn't do that either for similar reasons.

    8. Re:radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they may not want to report that particular thing if it were true.

      Who is "they"? This is 2013, not 1913; any asshole can buy a Geiger counter off of Amazon for like two hundred bucks.

    9. Re:radiation by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      This is all a plot by the guvmint to take away are guns!! Stoopid obummer!

      It doesn't have to be a plot. A convenient attack by enemy forces will have the same result (liberty being targeted).
      "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

    10. Re:radiation by war4peace · · Score: 1

      one of the explosions was set off behind a large widow

      How do you know she was a widow?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    11. Re:radiation by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. Realistically, any nuclear bomb detonated in an American city *today* would likely be ~5-10 kilotons, and most of the deaths and injuries would be due to panicked people running for their lives & getting hit by cars, injuries from wildlife or exposure to the elements if they literally "headed for the hills", or in the looting spree that would occur a few hours later.

      That's not to say even a small bomb wouldn't be incredibly harmful... death is death regardless of whether it's due to nuclear incineration, radiation, a bear attacking people who fled and are hiding in the woods, freezing to death (winter attack), a rattlesnake bite, or a bad car wreck when the healthcare system is regionally-overwhelmed, and the federal government would probably spend tens of trillions of dollars on the cleanup (excavating a square-mile down to the bedrock and hauling the dirt 3,000 miles to a site in Nevada or Wyoming).

      Regardless, anybody who lies awake at night worrying about cities getting multiply-nuked by 20+ megaton bombs can relax. The main reason they're still there is the perverse irony that we (in the US) are safer with the missiles pointing at us, but firmly under Russian government control and subject to inspection & auditing by the US, than we'd be if they were rapidly decommissioned. Decommission them *too* quickly, and there's a VERY real risk of uranium or bomb parts getting "lost" in the shuffle and ending up in the hands of people whom NEITHER the US *nor* Russia wants to have nuclear bombs. We're both gradually decommissioning missiles, and the main limiting factor is demand for their fissile uranium by nuclear power plants. The goal in both countries is for it to go straight from missile to power plant, with as little surplus floating around at any given time as possible.

    12. Re:radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea couldn't build a nuke small enough to fit in a garbage can, which I think I heard may have been where at least one bomb was found unexploded.

      A dirty bomb really should be set off at the top of a tall building, for maximum dispersal. Based upon the video/images, they'd be lucky to contaminate one city block with what was used here.

    13. Re:radiation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possible dirty bomb...highly unlikely but worth checking, just in case.

      Was Hillary in Boston? Perhaps a snuke?

    14. Re:radiation by kpoole55 · · Score: 1

      Now we're getting silly. It's a misspelling of "window", of course, which a spelling checker couldn't have picked out as an error but, even though that's what it looked like, the later reports said the bombs were placed in street garbage bins.

      I thought the idea of putting the bomb behind a window and using the glass as shrapnel would have been clever and could have been inspired by the Russian meteor explosion. There were hundreds of people injured in that event but they were injured by glass flying into their houses when the meteor exploded. Turns out the bomber wasn't so creative and followed the old packing of BBs or nails or something else around the bomb to increase the damage the bomb does strategy. At this point, I'm glad there wasn't anything more dangerous than plain metal shrapnel. It's still sad that, at this point, there are 3 dead and 144 injured but there could have been many more if the bomber had gotten more creative. Let's hope they don't.

      It's still going to be interesting to see what comes of the unexploded bomb they found and where it leads.

  14. Well, crap by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just felt a tremor in the force, like the Bill of Rights being stripped from hundreds of millions of Americans...

    1. Re:Well, crap by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Informative

      BTW, I really am sorry for the victims, fwiw.

    2. Re:Well, crap by dmatos · · Score: 5, Funny

      TSA decrees that you have to take your shoes off to go to the Boston Marathon now.

      --

      It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
      --Scott Adams
    3. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep, the smartest post in the whole thread right here.

    4. Re:Well, crap by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Like the Ethiopians didn't have a big enough advantage already.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:Well, crap by Applekid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just felt a tremor in the force, like the Bill of Rights being stripped from hundreds of millions of Americans...

      Bingo. Never let a good tragedy go to waste.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    6. Re:Well, crap by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 0

      +1 insightful
      -1 sad because it is true

      --
      Time to offend someone
    7. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume you mean both the people injured by explody things and all Americans. Remember when we did things because they were right and not out of hyped up fear? Me either. I've read about it though...

    8. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TSA decrees that you have to take your shoes off to go to the Boston Marathon now.

      Not funny dude! People died!

    9. Re:Well, crap by Pluvius · · Score: 1

      You're roughly 11.5 years late.

      Rob

    10. Re:Well, crap by BattleApple · · Score: 4, Funny

      And only one 3.4 oz bottle of water per runner

    11. Re:Well, crap by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't believe that we've ever done things because they were right. I honestly believe that our propensity to knee-jerk reactions is just a stem of the evolutionary tree that started with loud noises = excited monkeys. Name me one thing we've done because it was RIGHT, not because we were scared of something, or lack of something, or because it would profit us as a country. Just one.

    12. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Yes, it is funny.
      2. Sometimes we humans use humor to deal with tragedy.
      3. You, personally, have both made and laughed at jokes about tragic deaths before. That was okay, and so is this.

    13. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just felt a tremor in the force, like the Bill of Rights being stripped from hundreds of millions of Americans...

      I sense the same thing..."We need to prevent future events...."

    14. Re:Well, crap by dimko · · Score: 1

      I heard, those who refuse will get mandatory anal probe too, it's unclear, how they gonna run after it. On question about, what they think about the situation, TSA staff replied: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIVHNylH1Mk

    15. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to work the Obama administration and democrats at the moment, might as well keep the ball rolling.

    16. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as am i, but my first thought when seeing this on the tv wasn't that, it was 'what freedoms are we gonna lose this time'.

    17. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Voyager probes?

    18. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barefoot running is said to be good for the knees. It's a win-win situation.

    19. Re:Well, crap by turp182 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's call the Shock Doctrine.

      There's even a book about it (called the Shock Doctrine):
      http://www.amazon.com/The-Shock-Doctrine-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999

      From the Editorial Review:
      Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine advances a truly unnerving argument: historically, while people were reeling from natural disasters, wars and economic upheavals, savvy politicians and industry leaders nefariously implemented policies that would never have passed during less muddled times. As Klein demonstrates, this reprehensible game of bait-and-switch isn't just some relic from the bad old days. It's alive and well in contemporary society, and coming soon to a disaster area near you.

      This is why we have the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    20. Re:Well, crap by sconeu · · Score: 1

      The Marshall Plan?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    21. Re:Well, crap by qzzpjs · · Score: 1

      Next year, they'll be so panicked they'll just have us all run it at home on our treadmills.

    22. Re:Well, crap by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      21st amendment to the US Constitution: Repeal of Prohibition.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    23. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      National forests?

    24. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      motivation for the power elite: dick waving fear of Ruskies. Shortly preceding: Russian Venera 7,8,9 probes are first orbiters and landers on Venus; plus a bunch of Mars orbiters. Exploration of the outer solar system was one of only a few things the US could beat the USSR to in space.

    25. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      motivation for the power elite: fear of Ruskies. A recurring theme in the 20th century.

    26. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so one thing we've done right --- to roll back a gigantic bone-headed problem introduced by the same idiots.

    27. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note: "National Forests" are not "National Parks." They are handouts to logging interests; taxpayer-funded land management for private profiteers to come through and strip out all the old, valuable trees, leaving behind anemic stunted ecosystems.

    28. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name me one thing we've done because it was RIGHT, not because we were scared of something, or lack of something, or because it would profit us as a country. Just one.

      Putting an end to the misery of starving people in North Korea?

      Oh, wait...

    29. Re:Well, crap by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      The Marshall Plan?

      Fear of what Germany would turn into if they were not helped. It is commonly believed that the punative treaty that ended WWI was the primary cause of WWII.

      Unintended consequence, Germany was getting aid and recovered faster than the UK, who were on the hook for all the loans and equipment. The UK was still rationing well into the 1950s.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    30. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard about Shock Doctrine a lot during the Bush Administration, but now that it is the Obama Administration, any mention of it is met with disdain. It's almost as though people think their own party can't be evil.

    31. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why we have the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.

      You forgot income taxes, the FBI & BATFE (hell, all federal "police" agencies), and at one point, concentration camps.

    32. Re:Well, crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe that we've ever done things because they were right. I honestly believe that our propensity to knee-jerk reactions is just a stem of the evolutionary tree that started with loud noises = excited monkeys. Name me one thing we've done because it was RIGHT, not because we were scared of something, or lack of something, or because it would profit us as a country. Just one.

      Fighting against Germany after they sank a bunch of our boats while trying to take over a formerly free Europe. Fighting against Japan after they bombed Pearl Harbor.

      Oops, that was TWO things. Oops.

  15. Now then... by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who shall we blame this time? Dem dirty communist hippi anarchs? or ye good olde muslims?

    1. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Boston so it might be related to a Northern Ireland terror group.

    2. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mooninites. They are doing it really really hard.

    3. Re:Now then... by Anon,+Not+Coward+D · · Score: 1

      North Korea?

      --
      Sometimes it's better not having signature
    4. Re:Now then... by mc6809e · · Score: 1

      Who shall we blame this time? Dem dirty communist hippi anarchs? or ye good olde muslims?

      Dirty communist hippi bombers are too busy at working at universities in Illinois and at Columbia.

    5. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back and read the comments posted here on 9/11/01. No end of calls for attacking arabs and Saddam Hussein specifically in some instances. Don't know who we're supposed to preemptively strike these days though.

    6. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worth noting that radical left wing groups are responsible for more attacks outside the middle east than muslim extremists.

    7. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who shall we blame this time? Dem dirty communist hippi anarchs? or ye good olde muslims?

      If it's anything like previous explosions in Boston, then it's NationalGrid or nStar.

    8. Re:Now then... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't leave out the rednecks. They were in the lead until recently.

    9. Re: Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Irish troubles have been settld for over a decade over there, why would it spill over to the states?

    10. Re: Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are still attacks here and there from splinter groups who oppose the resolution of the troubles.

    11. Re:Now then... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Are they the ones who blow up all those abortion clinics?

    12. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That my friend, would be the British Government.

      An Irish terror group would most likely be inspired by the IRA.

    13. Re:Now then... by Hartree · · Score: 0

      "Dem dirty communist hippi anarchs?"

      Or is that "7 long haired friends of Jesus in a chartreuse microbus"?

      Remember: Never trust anyone with a user-id over a hundred thousand.

    14. Re:Now then... by runeghost · · Score: 1

      Given the recent threats the U.S. has been trading with North Korea, remember that it's also Kim Il-Sung's birthday...

    15. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exercise-hating couch potatoes?

      That describes 90% of slashdot and 95% of America.

    16. Re:Now then... by FirstOne · · Score: 1

      "North Korea?"

      Today(April 15) is the anniversary of its founder's birth

    17. Re:Now then... by dkleinsc · · Score: 0

      How about Aqua Teen Hunger Force?

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    18. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Administration is cosy with those groups. No we need to blame right wing conservatives and their guns for this one. It was a right-wing attack because their the enemy of the Administration and stand in the way of all the good that the Administration needs to do. The first sorts to soften up Texas are already underway.

    19. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why blame anybody?

      It was probably just a complete coincidence. 9/11 too.

      (forgive the 9/11 reference however cliche--trying to draw a hyperbole that eventually for deliberate attacks, someone is to blame...)

    20. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod it down so no one will know the truth.

    21. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My money is on Obama being blamed or being named the mastermind... Oh you meant who the government would blame?

    22. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or is that "7 long haired friends of Jesus in a chartreuse microbus"?

      Remember: Never trust anyone with a user-id over a hundred thousand.

      Gee you must be an old fart... quoting lines from such an old song. And it's 11, not 7 long haired Friends of Jesus in the chartreuse microbus.

    23. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans of course: https://twitter.com/NickKristof/statuses/323891060927512576

    24. Re:Now then... by JubilantShank · · Score: 1

      Well... given what we know about their nuclear weapons program, this could very well be one of their bombs. It's about par. :P

      I added the sarcasm tags to avoid being modded down by the challenged. I don't think this is the work of North Korea, but it wouldn't be too surprising if it was. Although, if it was I expect they would be taking some credit for it.

    25. Re: Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not completely, no. Although I'd expect a Protestant group to attack Boston if they did want to bring the troubles to the US, not a Catholic group, for obvious reasons. They're active, albeit not as active as the remnants of the IRA.

    26. Re:Now then... by sycodon · · Score: 1
      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    27. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who shall we blame this time? Dem dirty communist hippi anarchs? or ye good olde muslims?

      looks like ye good olde muslims...

      on with the apologies, excuses and cries of bigotry

    28. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My money is on sandniggers.

    29. Re:Now then... by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Remember: Never trust anyone with a user-id over a hundred thousand.

      It hurts me that you say this.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    30. Re:Now then... by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I think you have your statistics backwards...

      --
      +1 Disagree
    31. Re:Now then... by Hartree · · Score: 1

      Never trust anyone with a user-id under a hundred thousand, either.

    32. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The conspiracy of the people who dislike thin, fit marathon runners. Those overachievers! Now, where did I put my bag of Cheetos and hate?

    33. Re:Now then... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      My kingdom for UID 100,000.

    34. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they the ones who blow up all those abortion clinics?

      No, that's the Americans.

    35. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was the 1800's we could all blame the Irish, burn down a convent and feel good about it in the morning... Oh those were simpler times

      The only thing they have now is the Irish Car Bomb http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink7774.html

    36. Re:Now then... by quenda · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is the work of North Korea, but it wouldn't be too surprising if it was. Although, if it was I expect they would be taking some credit for it.

      A country that has launched a satellite and tested nuclear weapons? I think they'd be way too embarrassed to take credit for a home-made shrapnel bomb.
      You might as well blame N Korea for your missing socks.

    37. Re:Now then... by quenda · · Score: 1

      Woosh. IRA terrorists received a lot of funding from the US and the Boston area in particular. The Loyalists have not forgotten.

    38. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Bush, I am sure it is Bush's fault.

    39. Re:Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, conspiracy theorists will argue that it is the powers that be making something happen to send America further down the "police state" path.

    40. Re: Now then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Irish troubles have been settld for over a decade over there...

      I see... no matter what Western country you're currently in you've had your TV coverage intuerrupted by news of this tragedy - but if you're in the US you don't hear anything about the on-going Troubles in NI... or anywhere else for that matter.

      It's far from settled pal - they even have their own version of the Taliban on the go - local vigiliantes that knee-cap people who commit 'crimes against morality'.

    41. Re:Now then... by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      Already the Al-Qaeda is getting blame before any real facts are being produced to support such a claim.

      Typical US thinking: Blame first. Do something against the target of said blame later and completely ignore the real causes and facts.

  16. Re:tell me again by GodInHell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fortunately, every time some whackaloon goes crazy and kills people some fool makes the mistake of announcing the political message of the attack before it comes out that the dude was just a whackaloon.

    That being said -- if this isn't an accident -- there are so many ways to go with this one. First, it's April 15 - which is the TEA party day of action. (got to listen to a "what will you do to defend your country" speech at lunch today). Second, the last mile of the Boston Marathon was dedicated to the victims of Newtown -- so there's that lead in. Third, various politicians et al attend the race -- so there's the assassination angle.

    Best course -- pray it turns out to have been a big gas leak.

  17. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    All the while fucking their sisters, eating mayonnaise sandwiches.

    Don't hate the mayonnaise. The key to a real quality mayonnaise sandwich is to use lots and lots of pepper.

  18. There's no there there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's not even a middle, yet. It's only the beginning of a story, even if it's at the end of the Boston Marathon.

    Your editor should be horse-drawn.

  19. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because bombs were legal before?

  20. Re:tell me again by jc42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we wanted to read about ALL news, we would go to news.google.com or something.

    Actually, I was reading about it at google news just a few minutes ago, and slashdot tends to be a bit late to the party in reporting stories like this. I'd agree that it's a bit of a waste of bandwidth, disk space, etc. for /. to bother with it. Unless, of course, it turns out eventually that there's an interesting tech component to the story. It's likely that anyone interested in such "public interest" stories has a window open to one or more of the general news sources. So /. shouldn't bother.

    OT prediction: If it turns out that the act was committed by an American nutjob, as with the Oklahoma City bombing the media and political system will quickly forget about it. If it turns out that it was done by a "furriner", we'll hear lots about those awful "terrists" for some time, everyone will make vicious pronouncements, and they won't forget about it. In either case, little if anything will be done that's relevant to preventing future such acts.

    (But this is just based on history. I could be wrong, so stay tuned. ;-)

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  21. Patriot's Day by Westwood0720 · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriots'_Day

    For those that are not from the area.

    We have reports of people with missing limbs. happened near the Boston Public Library. Scary shit.

    1. Re:Patriot's Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like when the phones crashed on MLK day it HAD to be hackers (it wasn't). -- _Hacker Crackdown_

    2. Re:Patriot's Day by stewsters · · Score: 1

      'Patriot Day' was also the name of the memorial day to 9/11.

    3. Re:Patriot's Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not only reports, several blurred pics on CNN leaves little doubt and one online newspaper here initially showed a picture(they removed now)
      I think I'd rather not have seen it; young man being pushed in wheelchair one leg blown off from the knee, other just two broken bones sticking
      out and some lose flesh ...

         

    4. Re:Patriot's Day by guttentag · · Score: 2

      It's also tax day. A couple years ago I went to a downtown BofA branch and was stopped by an armed guard in combat boots who said I had to use the entrance on the other side of the building. There was another armed guard at the other entrance who was watching me, the street, etc. Once I got inside I asked one of the bank employees what was going on, and he said "it's April 15th and the IRS has offices upstairs." They were back last year on 4/15 too. Probably guarding the building again today.

  22. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does this have to do with news for nerds?
    If we wanted to read about ALL news, we would go to news.google.com or something.

    I agree.

  23. Re:tell me again by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Today I think you have it backwards. If it does end up being an american, it will be all over the media, used as an excuse to take away more rights. If it is a "furriner" it will be just a misguided man who is angry with america, and we should tolerate it.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  24. You Are the Scum of the Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell me again how gun legislation would have prevented this???

    First off, people are likely dead and the first comment is political horseshit. Immediate concerns should be focused on the victims, their families, their friends, their coworkers and then the investigation into who or what did this. A month later, you can start your political monkey shitfight okay? We still don't know what happened and I, personally, am concerned first and foremost for the safety of the people of Boston.

    Secondly whenever anything bad happens, do you show up and ask how gun legislation would have prevented this? Gun legislation isn't going to prevent deaths from drunk driving ... but that's not sound logic to block gun legislation. By the way, I think even the most idiotic gun nuts think we should have some legislation covering guns like, you know, background checks to weed out felons. There is a need for some gun legislation, the debate is how much. Are you saying it should be legal for underage kids to bring guns to school? Are you saying parents shouldn't be held accountable when they leave a fully loaded handgun for their kid to find? Are you saying your neighbor shouldn't be able to have celebratory gunfire into the sky daily? All of that is technically gun legislation.

    1. Re:You Are the Scum of the Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just watch...some idiot democrat WILL come up with a way to link guns to this and then try to enact SOME kind of legislation impacting guns just so they don't look like the ineffective, powerless, slobbering fools they are.

    2. Re:You Are the Scum of the Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
            - Rahm Emanuel

      Oh, it will happen, some politician will use this to remove more rights from US citizens. And while it is a Democrat in the WhiteHouse, you will be ALL for it.

    3. Re:You Are the Scum of the Earth by WaffleMonster · · Score: 0

      First off,

      First off this does not belong on slashdot.

      people are likely dead and the first comment is political horseshit.

      And your comment is a comment about political horseshit. I don't see much difference here.

      Immediate concerns should be focused on the victims, their families, their friends, their coworkers and then the investigation into who or what did this. A month later, you can start your political monkey shitfight okay?

      No it isnt. Who are you to declare for others what their priorities ought to be?

      We still don't know what happened and I, personally, am concerned first and foremost for the safety of the people of Boston.

      Good for you. I'd give you a cookie but some fat ass with dangerously high colesterol ate the last one.

      Secondly whenever anything bad happens, do you show up and ask how gun legislation would have prevented this? Gun legislation isn't going to prevent deaths from drunk driving ... but that's not sound logic to block gun legislation.

      If you make it legal to shoot drunk drivers it might.

      By the way, I think even the most idiotic gun nuts think we should have some legislation covering guns like, you know, background checks to weed out felons. There is a need for some gun legislation, the debate is how much. Are you saying it should be legal for underage kids to bring guns to school? Are you saying parents shouldn't be held accountable when they leave a fully loaded handgun for their kid to find? Are you saying your neighbor shouldn't be able to have celebratory gunfire into the sky daily? All of that is technically gun legislation.

      Can you scream "I am a hypocrite" any louder? The lecture on priorities followed immediatly by political lecture on gun issue is quite amusing.

    4. Re:You Are the Scum of the Earth by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Leave exploitation of tragedies and people involved in them to the president and other politicians (listen to the president's address to the people on youtube this past week? Yeah, you get what I'm saying).

    5. Re:You Are the Scum of the Earth by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      By the way, I think even the most idiotic gun nuts think we should have some legislation covering guns like, you know, background checks to weed out felons.

      Luckily, we passed those laws a couple decades ago.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:You Are the Scum of the Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, I think even the most idiotic gun nuts think we should have some legislation covering guns like, you know, background checks to weed out felons.

      Luckily, we passed those laws a couple decades ago.

      That's the whole point. It's gun legislation that we already have that works. The OP was asking about gun legislation period. So there it is.

    7. Re:You Are the Scum of the Earth by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I think instead they'll find out the bombs were propane, gasoline, kerosene, or some other common thing to buy, and we'll all have to start on rations for the "explosive materials" just like we're only allowed X number of sudafed tablets per year because of meth heads. People will have to file for special exemptions to get more fuel. Now that spring is here, people may not even think about kerosene or heating oil exemptions until after the bill is passed.

    8. Re:You Are the Scum of the Earth by ttucker · · Score: 1

      By the way, I think even the most idiotic gun nuts think we should have some legislation covering guns like, you know, background checks to weed out felons.

      Luckily, we passed those laws a couple decades ago.

      Not to mention all of the laws on the books that have made the crimes you commit with guns illegal for centuries...

    9. Re:You Are the Scum of the Earth by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      By the way, I think even the most idiotic gun nuts think we should have some legislation covering guns like, you know, background checks to weed out felons.

      Luckily, we passed those laws a couple decades ago.

      No, we didn't, and part of the problem is that people think we did.

  25. Explosions by hackus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mmmm...

    I wonder what other parts of the constitution they will rip up to protect us from explosions?

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:Explosions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How many people have to make this exact post before everyone realizes more trite than insightful?

    2. Re:Explosions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the devil did my "it's" go?

    3. Re:Explosions by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I think they'll need one of those fancy surgical robots to rip it up any smaller.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Explosions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How many people have to make this exact post before someone points out that ripping up the constitution happens so often that people now complain that calling attention to it is now considered "trite"

      Trite - (of a remark, opinion, or idea) Overused and consequently of little import; lacking originality or freshness.

    5. Re:Explosions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congrats, you know how a dictionary works. Want to be insightful? Offer a solution to the problem.

    6. Re:Explosions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they'll use a shaped charge... It's not like they're trying to be precise.

    7. Re:Explosions by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Congrats, you know how a dictionary works. Want to be insightful? Offer a solution to the problem.

      Whatever the solution, it's certainly not dismissing the numerous complaints as needlessly redundant or trite. I'll be a lot more worried if Americans stop constantly complaining about the Constitution being shredded.

    8. Re:Explosions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You congratulate the grandparent poster for knowing how a dictionary works, yet you operate off of a definition of "insightful" that suggests you have never even been in the same room as a dictionary.

    9. Re:Explosions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.

      The word is "Awww" not "Awe."

      Checkmate. Game over Mr. Smarty Pants.

      YOU: 0
      FAIL: 1

    10. Re:Explosions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't dismiss the complaints. I said they were more trite than insightful. Those are different things.

    11. Re:Explosions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original post contains about the same level of insight as a four year old pointing out that a firetruck is red. Pointing out the obvious is not insightful, no matter how cynical it may be. You and everyone else patting yourselves on the back over how insightful you are for seeing that people in power will use this as an excuse to strip freedom from people can get back to me when you understand the situation enough to offer a solution to the problem. Until then I'll carry your opinion with exactly as much gravity as I do any other pseudo-insightful talking head.

    12. Re:Explosions by steelfood · · Score: 1

      The only part still intact is that bit about patents and copyrights.

      One could dream...

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    13. Re:Explosions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...posting to revert mod. I so did not intend to put you down as off-topic.

    14. Re:Explosions by green1 · · Score: 1

      You mean the "limited time" part? or the part about encouraging innovation?
      Hate to say it... that part is long gone.

      The only part you guys still seem to have is the bit allowing everyone to run around shooting each other... Not exactly the thing that makes tourists want to visit...

    15. Re:Explosions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking the 1st amendment. If we don't have the right to assemble, then there is no marathon, and therefore no target. See? It's for our own good!

  26. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Posint anonymously to save what little reputation I have....

    What does this have to do with news for nerds?.

    Bombs are created by terrorists, terrorism is funded by internet piracy, internet piracy is big news here on /.

  27. Isn't it sad? by FuzzNugget · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't it sad that the first thought I have after, "those poor people, I hope they're OK!", is, " Oh, great, *now* what civil rights is the US government going to shit all over?"

    1. Re:Isn't it sad? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Every rational person had that exact sequence of thoughts.

    2. Re:Isn't it sad? by geek · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Isn't it sad that the first thought I have after, "those poor people, I hope they're OK!", is, " Oh, great, *now* what civil rights is the US government going to shit all over?"

      All the ones they haven't already.

    3. Re:Isn't it sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      You've been living in a soft martial law for years now. It won't become hard martial law until the can take the guns from all the civilians.

      Then you'll really be in trouble.

    4. Re:Isn't it sad? by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't it sad that the first thought I have after, "those poor people, I hope they're OK!", is, " Oh, great, *now* what civil rights is the US government going to shit all over?"

      Followed by "I wonder if they - the government - was somehow behind this." Not themselves, not directly, but involved. Perhaps prompting and arming some stupid schmuck in order to entrap him for terrorism, and not catching him in time. Or turning a blind eye to foreign operatives so they could make a dramatic arrest to further some political goal.

      Because while I don't believe most politicians or government employees are so corrupt and disloyal as to let an attack pass on American soil, I increasingly am of the opinion those officials aren't taking a long-enough view to see how their individual actions may affect the nation in the long run. Too often they are so focused on their immediate goal - be it the reduction of crime through semi-legal tactics, ensuring one's agency's budget next year by misallocating funds this year, or improving one's standings in the polls - that they sacrifice the bigger picture, and people are getting hurt because of it. They overlook little evils to pursue what they hope is a good goal, forgetting that not only don't the ends don't justify the means; but that the end itself can become unexpectedly corrupted by those methods.

      So, sad as it is, I hope it is just some nut-job who got his hands on too much explosives, but the increasingly cynical part of me worries that it's not. Because the former is just some dumb idiot who thinks this is going to convert people to his cause, while the latter is evidence of just how fucked up our society is.

      Either way, the media is going to have a field day with this. It's better than Christmas for them.

      I'm sorry. I'm not in the cheeriest of moods today, and then something like this happens that makes me see the worst in the world.

      I hope the families are okay.

    5. Re:Isn't it sad? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      No, it's not sad, it's logical given past experience. I'm not typically into conspiracy theories, but I can already see this as some sort of attempt to try and sway people on gun control. They'll find some way to link this to a militia group or something like that.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    6. Re:Isn't it sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunate, but these sentiments are not contradictory, thinking both of these things is sensible and prudent.

    7. Re:Isn't it sad? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Isn't it sad that the first thought I have after, "those poor people, I hope they're OK!", is, " Oh, great, *now* what civil rights is the US government going to shit all over?"

      I dunno, recent experience?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    8. Re:Isn't it sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been living in a soft martial law for years now. It won't become hard martial law until the can take the guns from all the civilians.

      Then you'll really be in trouble.

      Holy shit! You're right! If they take away my rusty shotgun and rustier rifle, then I'm just shit outta luck trying to defend my family from tanks and drones with a slingshot and softball bat.

    9. Re:Isn't it sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. It is sad that you didn't think of your civil rights FIRST. Putting it in second place is what lets the government get away with it, you are trading freedom for a false sense of security, YOU are part of the problem.

    10. Re:Isn't it sad? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Holy shit! You're right! If they take away my rusty shotgun and rustier rifle, then I'm just shit outta luck trying to defend my family from tanks and drones with a slingshot and softball bat.

      Kinda funny they way gun control supporters paint this: If its about resisting tyranny, then our guns are "rusty" pieces of crap barely more capable then a BB gun (and of course if used in self defense the attacker will just swat away your puny gun and use it against you).

      When they argue to take them away though, then they're "weapons of war" that don't belong on our streets for fear of the mass destruction they're capable of.

      So basically, they're so weak and ineffectual that you shouldn't care if they're taken away, but they need to be taken away because of how dangerous they are :S.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    11. Re:Isn't it sad? by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Man, we sure do love conspiracy theories. I'm betting more on that this was just some guy, not part of any "network" or "cell", just another mentally unstable individual that fell through the cracks of our selfish "I got mine, screw the rest of you" culture. Already the first thing people are talking about is what rights will the government deprive them of. Yes individual freedoms are important, but nothing is truly black and white.

      And soon it will be the right screaming that the left isn't tough on criminals and can't protect us the way they can, and the left screaming at the right that they're ignorant and savage and cause more harm than good.

      Preppers will step up their efforts and stockpile weapons, occupiers will chant some more to a drum circle, and the majority who simply shake their head at both will continue to be ignored in favor of ratings. Divisions will grow, flame wars will commence, and I can't help but wonder what it will take to get everyone to grow up and start thinking clearly.

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    12. Re:Isn't it sad? by geek · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's liberal doublespeak. They talk out of both sides of their mouth because they know the populace has been so dumbed down by public education that they'll never know the difference. Oh and should anyone actually point it out the news media will just ignore it anyway because it doesn't advance the new world order agenda.

    13. Re:Isn't it sad? by Klatzy · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how your next thought after "I hope everyone is ok" is "I'm sure the government is involved somehow." My next thought after I hope everyone is ok is "I don't understand how anyone could kill to make a point." I'm getting really tired of the conspiracy theories that mainly based on paranoia and a libertarian/anti-goverment worldview. Reading through slashdot comments a significant number of people seem more worried about the possible government response than the possibility that this was domestic/foreign terrorism. I'd have to say this being Patriot's Day I'm leaning towards domestic.

    14. Re:Isn't it sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It *is* sad. Which makes you part of the problem. Your rights are being stripped away by people who have the same emotive and mental process: it's all about me. Rather than bemoaning your sad state, why not make a real effort at changing your own behavior. But no. Change never starts with people correcting their own sad behavior, first. It's always something else that needs to change. Thus, nothing does.

    15. Re:Isn't it sad? by thoth · · Score: 1

      I increasingly am of the opinion those officials aren't taking a long-enough view to see how their individual actions may affect the nation in the long run. Too often they are so focused on their immediate goal - be it the reduction of crime through semi-legal tactics, ensuring one's agency's budget next year by misallocating funds this year, or improving one's standings in the polls - that they sacrifice the bigger picture, and people are getting hurt because of it. They overlook little evils to pursue what they hope is a good goal, forgetting that not only don't the ends don't justify the means; but that the end itself can become unexpectedly corrupted by those methods.

      Or substitute "corporations/wealthy" for "officials", "reduction of crime" for "tax avoidance", etc. and it kinda reads the same too.

    16. Re:Isn't it sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I will submit is this:

      https://www.google.com/search?q=bush+knew+about+911+before+it+happened&aq=0&oq=bush+knew+about+911&aqs=chrome.1.57j0l3.4870j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

      It is very sad. Hopefully it would solidify in the vast hordes of ignorant Americans the fact that neither major political party is worth a shit and should immediately be elected out of office.

    17. Re:Isn't it sad? by thoth · · Score: 1

      Which is kinda sad that at this point, nobody gives a crap about criminals anymore. Straight to complaints about possible future infringement of rights. It's almost as if nobody cares there were victims, or criminals, but damn another background check would be totally unacceptable.

    18. Re:Isn't it sad? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      Which is kinda sad that at this point, nobody gives a crap about criminals anymore. Straight to complaints about possible future infringement of rights. It's almost as if nobody cares there were victims, or criminals, but damn another background check would be totally unacceptable.

      Two people died. During the same hour, thousands died violently across the country in unrelated run of the mill events that don't get press because they're not potential terrorism. This event in Boston is only special in one way: it will be used to make the world a crappier place. When someone such as yourself insists we need to put huge focus on this kind of event while ignoring all of the equivalently dangerous but completely routine things going on at the same time, that's the sound of the terrorists winning.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    19. Re:Isn't it sad? by thoth · · Score: 1

      Please, there is plenty of conservative doublespeak too. Hell, just look at them talking about the government - it's incompetent and a waste, except the intel agencies which are all omniscient with information on everything, and they chose what tragedies to let through to strengthen their bureaucracies.

    20. Re:Isn't it sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strawman. The libs say no one should own guns because of the number of murders committed each year, and that claims that we need guns to protect us from the government are invalid because said government has us seriously out-gunned.

    21. Re:Isn't it sad? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm quite enjoying this, in a sad, almost sadistic / sarcastic kind of way. For the past few months, I've been inundated on Facebook and other sites by people with extremely poor logic skills or life experiences attempting to explain to me why limiting high capacity magazines (or even outright banning guns) would have a sudden and long-lasting effect on violence / deaths. No amount of careful reasoning about the myriad of ways that a human being can easily die seemed to penetrate the cloak of their minds, and one of my finer points that if you ban guns, people may resort to homemade bombs / other types of weapons that may prove more deadly than the original weapons.

      Now, if someone had killed / injured people today at this marathon with a firearm, the press would be running headlines like "the Boston Massacre" and various politicians would be scrambling to be seen signing gun control legislation. But since it appears, for the moment, to have been an explosive device, they are curiously silent. I find it even more troubling that these people seem unaware of how simple it is to construct such dangerous devices from various household items...they liken it to magic, when reality speaks to simple chemistry. I say this, as I live in an area where farmers have, in times past, used substances such as thermite (actually not an explosive), as well as possibly others, for dealing with gopher holes and the like. These are farmers, who may or may not have set foot inside a university chemistry lab, which says nothing of the trouble the US armed forces have encountered on the other side of the world with IEDs.

       

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    22. Re:Isn't it sad? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Isn't it sad that the first thought I have after, "those poor people, I hope they're OK!", is, " Oh, great, *now* what civil rights is the US government going to shit all over?"

      It is sadder still that yours is the first post I have seen here that gave any thought for those people at all - most have been going on about their civil rightts and nothing else. Sounds to me, as a non-American, that many of these posts are from Americans and that you are all so in love with the wording of your constitution that you have lost sight of whatever it was actually meant to achieve.

    23. Re:Isn't it sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't help but wonder what it will take to get everyone to grow up and start thinking clearly.

      The end of the United States, one way or another; collapse, secession, or revolution. I've have no realistic expectation anything short of that will bring the American public to their senses.

    24. Re:Isn't it sad? by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Already the first thing people are talking about is what rights will the government deprive them of.

      You're damn right we are. Anyone who's been paying attention to what both parties have been doing to civil liberties in this country post-9/11 is rightly pissed, and knows *exactly* what's coming next. If you don't think there will be gross over-reaction and more curtailment of our rights at ALL levels of gov't, you're either retarded or terribly naive. And if we all don't stand up and say that enough is enough, they'll just keep doing what they're doing, and this country as we once knew it WILL end.

      You can't bubble wrap the fucking world. Maybe people will begin to realize that.

    25. Re:Isn't it sad? by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

      Every rational person, that is, who isn't directly involved or doesn't personally know someone who is. While humans are pretty good at caring about those whom they know, most of us cannot help but regard others in a situation like this as far away abstractions.

      It is perfectly natural, therefore, that most of us should be concerned about how the event will impact us personally--we might worry about further erosion of liberty or that this will be a Gulf of Tonkin incident, providing cover to go into Syria, Iran, or some other place we'd be better off leaving be. It is an exceptional person, a saint even, who is reflexively concerned first for the suffering of strangers. A laudable goal, but if we're honest most of us do not live up to such a standard.

    26. Re:Isn't it sad? by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      America was looking for a way into WWII. We even had troops volunteering for other armies. Suddenly, a vast collection of ships appears within strike distance of Japan's aircraft, and the new radar system's operator's warnings go unnoticed. They couldn't have NOT taken the bait. I mean, if you're a strategist, would YOU have put all those ships in one place? It's not rocket science. Willful negligence is a valid military and political tactic.

    27. Re:Isn't it sad? by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      A war, a draft, and 10 million dead teenagers would pay for about 15 years of solidarity. A real war, of course, with an enemy willing to sacrafice a similar number of teenagers.

      The other option is to fundamentally change the human mind. Otherwise we're just a screaming bunch of apes looking for some "other" to shit on.

    28. Re:Isn't it sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we keep re-electing the same ones over and over again. Hilary's turn next.

    29. Re:Isn't it sad? by khallow · · Score: 1

      just another mentally unstable individual that fell through the cracks of our selfish "I got mine, screw the rest of you" culture.

      Speaking of conspiracy theories, here's another one. Everyone likes a neat and clean story.

    30. Re:Isn't it sad? by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 1

      I'm not really conspiracy minded. But I am rather down - especially today - on the way society is headed (I must be getting old. Damn kids, get off my lawn!). So while I don't believe that there was some organized plot to "Bomb the Marathon" the cynical part of me can't help but rear it's head and think that it didn't get by without crossing some agency's desk somewhere. Too often people - whether they work in the government or not - only look at the immediate goal, and far too often that goal is little better than "do only what is necessary to keep my job". It seems endemic in our culture and this lack of idealism I find increasingly depressing. And, frankly, when it comes to government officials, this lack is quite frightening. We give these people power over our children, our property, our money, our infrastructure and even our lives; in exchange, I hold them to higher standards. But far too often, all we hear about these days is how they have abandoned those standards to betray that trust.*

      So, yeah, I'll be the first to admit it's terrible that my mind jumps to these conclusions. I am anything but a libertarian; on the whole, I trust government intervention far, far more than I do the suggested alternatives. But given what's been happening the past few decades, I think I can hardly be blamed for my cynicism.

      Anyway, I'm in a dark mood today and this sort of event doesn't make me any more cheery.

      * Yeah, this sort of stuff has been happening forever. Our governing bodies have /never/ been as idealistically pure as we've hoped and believed. But there seems to be a uptick in the how self-serving our government officials have become in the past generation or two. The idealism that made this country seems dead - it's all about "me" today, not "us" - and it saddens me.

    31. Re:Isn't it sad? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      > Actually, I'm quite enjoying this

      You are fucking sick.

    32. Re:Isn't it sad? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      If you're going to quote me, quote me in my entirety. Do not take things out of context.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    33. Re:Isn't it sad? by Perx · · Score: 1

      No, they didn't.

    34. Re:Isn't it sad? by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 1

      Yep. The bowl of petunias thinking, "oh no, not again" is what went through my head, followed by comparing people that trust DHS to do what's best for us and the whale's, "Hey! What's this thing suddenly coming towards me very fast? ... I wonder if it will be my friend?"

      --
      Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
    35. Re:Isn't it sad? by anagama · · Score: 1

      A few years ago I had the stinky job of cleaning up a large area of a building that had skunk stink so bad I had to use a quality respiratory just to get near. A chemically effective solution involves hydrogen peroxide and baking soda: http://home.earthlink.net/~skunkremedy/home/sk00003.htm

      I went to Walgreens to get a bunch of hydrogen peroxide -- put eight quarts in my basket and proceeded to the checkout. When I got there, I was told I wasn't allowed to buy that much at once -- I can't recall the limit but it was less than I had. Obviously, I just went shopping at multiple stores till I figured I had enough, but, it is this kind of ridiculous crap that is sure to expand.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    36. Re:Isn't it sad? by khallow · · Score: 1

      It is an exceptional person, a saint even, who is reflexively concerned first for the suffering of strangers. A laudable goal, but if we're honest most of us do not live up to such a standard.

      Especially when the "standard" in question isn't desirable. Who's helping your suffering while you go rescue everyone else?

    37. Re:Isn't it sad? by blackfeltfedora · · Score: 1

      It is sad, sad that you have become so wrapped up in your own little world that you can't spare a second thought for the eight year old boy who won't see another birthday, or the 100+ people who had ball bearing tear through there bodies. Instead of worrying about how you are going to be inconvenienced by this tragedy how about thinking about the people who finished their 26.2 mile run by running to the hospital.

    38. Re:Isn't it sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody who doesn't think our government is capable of such a thing needs to Google Operation Northwoods.

    39. Re:Isn't it sad? by Hanzie · · Score: 1

      They couldn't have NOT taken the bait. I mean, if you're a strategist, would YOU have put all those ships in one place? It's not rocket science. Willful negligence is a valid military and political tactic.

      I must disagree.

      The Japanese attacked Pearl in a huge gamble precisely because it WAS unexpected. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that the Pacific Fleet commander stood by and ignored an incoming attack. At the time, commanders had extreme autonomy, and NONE of them would sacrifice their own fleet by letting an attack come in unopposed. It's the very same thing as the 9/11 truthers. The plot would have to have had a minimum of dozens of people, all of whom under the rank of President would have been tried and hung for treason at the next change of administration. Hell, JFK faced impeachment for boinking Marilyn Monroe.

      (9/11 would have required thousands as an inside job, and if you don't think the current administration, which blames the former for everything, would hesitate to arrest and hang Bush, Cheney and Co. for mass murder... well, you weren't awake during the last presidential campaign. Hanging the former administration for treason would sink the Republican party forever. Q.E.D., POTUS got nothing, therefore there is nothing.)

      Air power at the time was completely underestimated. The perceived threat was from battleships' and cruisers' big guns, and the planes were simply seen as harassers/long range eyeballs. As to the new radar system operator's warnings, it was a new guy, and nobody expected an invasion of Hawaii. Also, radar was very, very new, and took a LOT of interpretation to understand what was going on. It wasn't like today where you look at a computer generated screen on a map. It was wavy lines on an oscilloscope, and it had plenty of room for error.

      We knew the Japanese would attack somewhere, but with the entire pacific to choose from, Pearl Harbor seemed suicidally stupid. Generally, in the opening of a fight, you take out all the easy guys on the fringes first by surprise and overwhelming force, before they can all be pulled together into a task force and come kick your ass.

      Going for the quick knockout blow in the heart of the enemy is always a huge risk, because he has the home field advantage, and zero length supply lines. If you even fight to a bloody draw, you still have to limp back home with the pissed off enemy harassing your fleet, and gobbling up any wounded stragglers at near zero cost. The Japanese made a huge gamble at Pearl, and it paid off, but it could have lost them the entire war, very, very easily.

      So no, the strategists weren't stupid rounding up the fleet in a well protected harbor, centrally located so it could sally forth to wherever it was needed. It was extremely well protected from the anticipated threat, and sabotage was their biggest worry at Pearl. And there did turn out to be plenty of sabotage and espionage throughout the war, it was all hushed up at the time.

      There are several ways the Japanese could have kicked the US's asses out of the Pacific. A minor change in the attack on December 7, 1941, of hitting Schofield Barracks and Red Hill first instead of Pearl would have destroyed the US Pacific fleet, but they didn't think of it, and lost the war because of it.

      Remember Napoleon 'never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity'.

      --
      ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
    40. Re:Isn't it sad? by quenda · · Score: 1

      During the same hour, thousands died violently across the country in unrelated run of the mill events ...

      Good grief you have an apocalyptic view of the US. The average per hour is something like 1 or 2 murders, 4 motor vehicle deaths, a few suicides, falls, poisoning, ...
      Not even tens of violent deaths, let alone thousands. Do you watch a lot of television by any chance?

    41. Re:Isn't it sad? by quenda · · Score: 1

      No amount of careful reasoning about the myriad of ways that a human being can easily die seemed to penetrate the cloak of their minds

      I'd guess they had no argument with the point, but disagree on the relevance.

      and one of my finer points that if you ban guns, people may resort to homemade bombs

      Comparing the death toll here to Sandy Hook hardly supports your argument. Maybe they are not the ones with the cloaked mind? Making bombs is not as quick or easy as buying a gun.

    42. Re:Isn't it sad? by Hanzie · · Score: 1

      Why the hell do you want to claim the libertarains are the idiots? I'm libertarian, and the government being behind this never occurred to me.

      No US government conspiracy can survive Happy Hour at the local bar.

        "Conspiracy? A bunch of government types keeping a secret regarding murder? I'm amazed when those dipshits manage to get me my paycheck every week. They'd all sell each other out the first microsecond any prosecutor, or Oprah, offered immunity or a book deal." -- quote by a guy who knew what he was talking about.

      I'm leaning foreign.

      The simultaneous blast at the library makes it highly unlikely that it's the work of a lone nutjob. Grouped domestic nutjobs tend to be together to watch the mayhem unfold. This seems more to me like fairly independent guys going their separate ways to make whatever mayhem they can at a pre-arranged date and time.

      Domestic suspects:
      Tea Party?
      In spite of the news heads already blaming them, this isn't going to lower taxes, or get the government to stop spending like a pimp on meth.

      Drug gangs?
      They gain nothing.

      'Right Wing Extremists'?
      The favorite bugaboo of NBC and CNN, remember, Timothy McVeigh bombed the FEDERAL building, and was upset to find he'd killed kids in a daycare. Obviously marathoners are going to have their kids at the finish line. Bombs in Boston won't turn up birth certificates, college transcripts or get the big O impeached. It'll consolidate his power. When the New York Times building explodes, or George Soros's yacht sinks, then it'll be time to look here.

      Anarchists?
      No idiotic, rambling manifesto with lousy grammar yet, so no.

      Foreign suspects:
      Mexican Drug Cartels?
      Why. Absolutely nothing to gain, and a US holy war on them that Mexico's government would pop champagne corks over. This entire attack will be horrendously bad for anybody trying to smuggle anything. Drug dealing lives and dies by it's smugglers; bombings get people searched. All the stupid drug cartels are dead now. "There's no such thing as bad publicity" doesn't apply to criminal organizations.

      North Korea?
      It's the 100th birthday of Kim IL Sung, but no. This kind of attack would almost certainly be in South Korea, like the last hundred. Hawaii or Guam at the farthest. Japan if the get really insane. Not Boston.

      Cuba, or Venezuala?
      The worst Obama has to worry about from Spanish speaking communist dictators is mouth herpes from all his kissing.

      IRA?
      Serial bombing smacks of the IRA, and so does famously Catholic Boston, but the IRA would space the blasts farther apart, and there's no way the'd have 5/7 duds. And the Marathon isn't Ulster, or even Protestant. They're also mayhem for money, and neither side of their religious war will be revved up by this attack.

      Jihadis

      The attack seems designed to generate the maximum publicity and terror. The sheer number of bombs left in an area absolutely full of extremely high quality cameras (news) seems to be designed to make a large statement without much concern for the consequences of capture.

      That speaks of religious fundamentalism to me, since there aren't many earthly returns to getting caught. If they were closely coordinated, I'd expect the bombs to have been the same, purely for logistical reasons, rather than an incendiary at the library and an apparent string of IED's at the marathon finish line.

      Independent attacks at the same time is the MO of Jihadis in the middle east/asia. So are the IED's. So is the East Coast. So are the badly sync'd blasts. To really do damage, they would have timed it better. 15 seconds isn't time to get emergency responders into the 2nd blast area. 5/7 duds, worse than 2/3's failure rate is another independent jihadi trademark (world trade center bombs, shoe bomber, underwear bomber, ...)

      I lean Jihadi.

      Fear not. As the book "Dead Men Do Tell Tales" chronicles, the only hope of getting away with murder is that nobody cares enough to find all the clues. This one will be investigated exhaustively, and crammed in our faces every day as a reminder that only big brother can protect us.

      --
      ********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
    43. Re:Isn't it sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, terrorist actions like this one shows that massive damage is possible even without weapons (I presume the terrorists were foreigners, ineligible for obtaining weapons legally and not risking to blow their cover by trying to buy them on black market).

      There is never a safe amount of weapons (including none at all) in general population that guarantees there can be no mass rebellion capable of doing significant damage or overthrowing a tyranny. The most dangerous, and perhaps the only really dangerous weapon is human mind with destructive intent. In other words, if all or most of you is pissed enough and in revolutionary mood, it makes little difference if you have weapons or not, but if you are well armed, yet without sympathy and support from majority of population, you still are doomed to perish, after a famous last stand - The parable of two wolfs and well armed sheep ... well, the sheep will run out of ammo after a while and wolfs will have their dinner in the end.

      Therefore, weapons are irrelevant, or at least not indispensable.

    44. Re:Isn't it sad? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You've been living in a soft martial law for years now. It won't become hard martial law until the can take the guns from all the civilians.

      Then you'll really be in trouble.

      It will be hard martial law when the army is on the streets. Then you'll really see how many people will fight against the government, with guns or otherwise.

      Revolutions depend on the sheer weight of numbers who are prepared to stand up and die. The army can't kill everyone, even if the citizens just have sticks and stones.

      But well done for shoe-horning the issue of gun control into an article about unarmed civilian victims of terrorists.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    45. Re:Isn't it sad? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      Do you really think it's just every other government on earth that does this, but the US government doesn't play dirty?

    46. Re:Isn't it sad? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It's liberal doublespeak. They talk out of both sides of their mouth because they know the populace has been so dumbed down by public education that they'll never know the difference. Oh and should anyone actually point it out the news media will just ignore it anyway because it doesn't advance the new world order agenda.

      You forgot to point out that (a) it is "liberals" who carry out these terrorist attacks purely in order to provide an excuse for higher taxation, (b) if only the US had nuked North Korea and/or Iran these bombs would never have been planted and (c) ZOG is reading your brainwaves and poisoning your water with fluoride as you speak.

      Fucking. Rightwing. Batshit-crazy. Twat.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    47. Re:Isn't it sad? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Followed by "I wonder if they - the government - was somehow behind this." Not themselves, not directly, but involved. Perhaps prompting and arming some stupid schmuck in order to entrap him for terrorism, and not catching him in time. Or turning a blind eye to foreign operatives so they could make a dramatic arrest to further some political goal.

      I'm fairly sure the entire US government could come up with something a bit more dramatic than a couple of IEDs if they were capable of such cynicism.

      At least the 9/11 conspiracy theorists had a genuinely spectacular terrorist outrage to work with. This is the sort of thing we used to get all the time in London during the 1980s from the PIRA. It's pointless and deeply unpleasant but life goes on.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    48. Re:Isn't it sad? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Why the hell do you want to claim the libertarains are the idiots? I'm libertarian, and the government being behind this never occurred to me.

      There was an initial flurry of deranged "the government did this in order to increase surveillance/take away our guns/raise taxes" here. If you missed them, I think your own bias is showing.

      I know libertarian doesn't just mean "anti-government" but there is a large crossover.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    49. Re:Isn't it sad? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      No, it's not sad, it's logical given past experience. I'm not typically into conspiracy theories, but I can already see this as some sort of attempt to try and sway people on gun control. They'll find some way to link this to a militia group or something like that.

      That would sound a lot more convincing if this had been an attack by one or two nutjobs armed down with assault rifles (like in Mumbai) wouldn't it?

      Bringing the issue of gun control into a discussion about (presumed) terrorist bombings is paranoia. Terrorists will obviously get explosives and guns regardless of whether they're illegal. It's irrelevant.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    50. Re:Isn't it sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's rather easy to foresee in fact. Obviously the bombs were carried there somehow, so obviously the police needs the right to look in your bag or backpack at will, to prevent a repeat of the Boston tragedy. There also need to be tight restrictions on who can buy gunpowder, explosives of any kind, nitrating agents and such, and in what quantities. Furthermore, since this could have been prevented if the police had enough information, a general tightening of the surveillance regime can be expected. All phones will need to be listened too, all e-mails read and all packets opened by censors - err - DHS officials.

    51. Re:Isn't it sad? by tbannist · · Score: 1

      The quote makes the point, and the rest isn't important to point. You're taking enjoyment out of people dying or being injured because it means (to you) that you were right.

      There's a word for people like you: Sociopath.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    52. Re:Isn't it sad? by ravenlord_hun · · Score: 1

      They are weak and ineffective against armoured vehicles, UAVs or soldiers wearing ballistic armour with ceramic plates.

      They are hilariously effective against civilians who incidentally have nothing of those. Unless you know a lot of people who go to work in an IFV and wear bulletproof vest on a daily basis.

    53. Re:Isn't it sad? by dhomstad · · Score: 1

      If the liberals are guilty of doublespeaking, then the conservatives are guilty of straight up lies. The liberal/conservative left/right democratic/republican false dichotomy isn't helping our critical thinking...

      --
      No trees were killed to send this message, but a great number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
    54. Re:Isn't it sad? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      They are weak and ineffective against armoured vehicles, UAVs or soldiers wearing ballistic armour with ceramic plates.

      They are hilariously effective against civilians who incidentally have nothing of those. Unless you know a lot of people who go to work in an IFV and wear bulletproof vest on a daily basis.

      Actually body armor (a "bulletproof" vest) is generally only effective against handgun rounds. Virtually every rifle round including grandpa's lever action .30-30 will punch right through one.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    55. Re:Isn't it sad? by ravenlord_hun · · Score: 1

      The ordinary ones sure are. But there are plates providing effective (read: not absolutely worthless) protection against rifle fire. Heck, otherwise they wouldn't be issued to soldiers.

      Quick google result: http://www.bulletblocker.com/bullet-proof-ceramic-strike-plates-two.html
      Quote:"These ceramic plates are certified to protect against rifle fire."

    56. Re:Isn't it sad? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Air power at the time was completely underestimated.

      Not by the British - and not by the Italians either, afterwards...

      There were some errors made, like the radar warnings that were ignored - though there's probably little that could have been done anyway given the short notice. The fact that the carriers (which were what really mattered) had gone out on exercise was rather a stroke of luck, so I sort of see where the conspiracy ideas come from, even if GP is largely talking nonsense.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    57. Re:Isn't it sad? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it still hits a problem: military small arms ammo is actually fairly low in power (they prioritize smaller cartridges so that more rounds can be carried and the recoil remains manageable under full-auto fire). Notice that in the link you provided it'll protect against steel core (armor piercing) ammo from 7.62x39 and 5.56 NATO (common infantry rounds) but up to 7.62 NATO it only protects against standard lead core ammo and is the most powerful ammo they warrant against.

      7.62 NATO is just a bit more powerful than the .30-30 I referenced, but nearly every other major hunting cartridge today (.30-06, .270, 7mm Rem Mag, etc) outstripes 7.62 NATO in power by at least 15%. .300 Winchester Mag (which is used by many for hunting) actually generates about 60% more power than 7.62NATO.

      So you're still looking at a very large number of consumer owned rifles that effectively ignore body armor.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    58. Re:Isn't it sad? by ravenlord_hun · · Score: 1

      There's a lot more to it than just comparing the impact power of a bullet against a plate, otherwise you'd have seen a lot more dead occupiers in Iraq. Range of the shot, angle of impact, etc. Sure, head-on and in optimal range those bullets would penetrate, but they'd still loose a lot of force making a deadly hit "only" seriously wound, and in less favourable conditions they could turn into a glancing hit. Body armour isn't meant to make you invincible, just increase your chances to not die outright.
      The guys in Iraq even had fully automatic infantry weapons (even if using 7.62x39), and they still didn't exactly fare well against the occupying forces. The bodycount methodology makes determining ratios rather hard, but for each dead american soldier the insurgents paid a very steep price. If the US army was hell bent on taking Iraq and staying there, they could have squished them pretty darn well.

      So I'd still like (okay, not really ;) ) to see how guerillas armed with hunting weapons and basically zero protection fare against trained soldiers who are still wearing armour that - even if not completely eliminating the damage - protects them to a degree. But let's asume that the local militia still manages to hold ground against infantry in combat. But that's only a small part of the opposing force - they would likely be backed up by IFVs, tanks, UAVs and possibly other mechanized assets. Got any RPG as well?

      That's why home weapons (wheter "rusty junk" or state of the art) aren't particularly useful against an army; they might be meaningful if your side had the other parts of the arsenal as well, but without that backup, they still leave you without any real chance. Even assuming all the guys wielding them got proper combat training and practiced those regularly. You know, like how the army does.

    59. Re:Isn't it sad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank you very much for yr post. my thoughts exactly tho you express them much better than I cd have.

      oddly just a few minutes before hearing the news of Boston I was reading an account of the German invasion of Austria under Hitler, in which the author wrote, "And the 'Polish troops' who had raided the radio station [in Austria ] were actually German commandos wearing Polish uniforms." this was in reference to Hitler's claim that he ordered the invasion to protect Austrian Germans from the Poles.

    60. Re:Isn't it sad? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      At the start of WW2 most infantrymen were armed with powerful, heavy bolt-action rifles (Lee Enfield, Kar 98K). Later the balance shifted towards smaller, rapid firing submachineguns usually using pistol ammo (Thompson, MP40). Germany then went to something between the two with the StG44; rifle calibre but using a stubby cartridge with less propellant.

      History seems to indicate that there's factors other than power that count.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    61. Re:Isn't it sad? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Did you not read my entire post?

      (they prioritize smaller cartridges so that more rounds can be carried and the recoil remains manageable under full-auto fire)

      Yes, military arms have trended towards smaller less powerful rounds for a reason - reasons I've already stated.

      The point of my post was arguing that just because the military has body armor doesn't make civilian weapons suddenly useless. The vast majority of body armor is ineffective against common civilian ammunition, and even the civilian arms that do use the smaller and less powerful rounds that the military uses are still not useless (else the military wouldn't use them in the first place).

      Telling someone that their civilian rifles are useless because the army has body armor is kinda like telling a fat kid he can't eat a Twinkie because it has a plastic wrapper around it.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  28. Re:tell me again by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

    The top poster is suggesting that 'evil-doers' will do evil with or with out guns.

  29. Re:What every runner and race promoter wants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reasons to run faster?

      What Capt. Hook said to Long John Silver just before they challenged the British for the buried treasure on Cape Hatteras, "Hey, don't come running to me if your leg falls off."

  30. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ban only assault bombs

  31. Re:tell me again by Applekid · · Score: 2

    OT prediction: If it turns out that the act was committed by an American nutjob, as with the Oklahoma City bombing the media and political system will quickly forget about it. If it turns out that it was done by a "furriner", we'll hear lots about those awful "terrists" for some time, everyone will make vicious pronouncements, and they won't forget about it. In either case, little if anything will be done that's relevant to preventing future such acts.

    (But this is just based on history. I could be wrong, so stay tuned. ;-)

    I dunno, I'm of the inclination that the amount of media attention will be directly proportional to how many rights will be compromised with the resulting legislation. Which works for both the "terrist" excuse (yay more warrant-less ass ramming) and home grown nutters (the public can't buy certain chemicals, no matter how useful they are in ways not related to explosives).

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  32. Jumping to conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is this wait and see you're talking about? Let's bomb some country and then ask the questions! It worked last time didn't ti?

    No, it's called "not jumping to conclusions"

    We ONLY know two facts: there were two explosions and people injured - maybe explosions.

    For all we know, some truck with tanks of CO2 for soda machines lost its strap and a couple tanks fell off and exploded when they hit the ground.

    I mean really, are you that much of a scare whore that you want to put people into panic?!

    And let's say - just say - it's a fucking terrorist attack - douzens of people were hurt. That sucks but ... big fucking deal! It's not like it's 3,000 jumping there deaths!

    Cooler heads Prevail!

    Repeat that 10,000 times.

    Repeat 100 billion times - the media ALL THE MEDIA - are a bunch of cock sucking whores and will make a flea bite out to be a terrorist attack.

    1. Re:Jumping to conclusions by GoogleShill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Whoosh!

    2. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe your sarcasm meter is defective.

    3. Re:Jumping to conclusions by hackula · · Score: 1

      3rd explosion now confirmed at the JFK library. I think it is safe to say this was most likely a coordinated attack at this point.

    4. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3rd explosion now confirmed at the JFK library. I think it is safe to say this was most likely a coordinated attack at this point.

      But that does NOT negate the fact that cooler heads prevail.

      Keep calm and THINK! Think! And Think Again!

    5. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Synerg1y · · Score: 1
    6. Re:Jumping to conclusions by alias.exec · · Score: 1

      Yeah almost as coordinated as the ongoing terrorist attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan, various other US interests. Drones, occupation, persecution. Americans really have a skewed, brainwashed view of the world. Pack up your soldiers and drones and go home. Don't give anyone a reason to hate you. Idiots.

    7. Re:Jumping to conclusions by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/15/us/boston-marathon-explosions/index.html

      Federal authorities are classifying the bombings as a terrorist attack, but it's not clear whether the origin was domestic or foreign, a federal law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation said.

    8. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      In regards to the JFK library:

      From my article:

      [Update, 5:31 p.m. ET] Boston police now appear to be backing away from their commissioner's earlier statement that a third incident – at the JFK Library 5 miles from the finish line - might have been related to the Boston Marathon blasts.

      On Twitter, Boston police say: "Update JFK incident appears to be fire related."

      From yours:

      Davis said a third blast at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library was believed to be related to the marathon bombings, but police later said that incident was believed to be fire-related. The library said all staff and visitors are safe.

    9. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wondering how they're going to take this, and somehow link it to the need for greater gun control myself.

      Whoosh!

      Whoosh!

    10. Re:Jumping to conclusions by cavreader · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have a real problem with the word "terrorist". I have not been terrorized at all by the so called "terrorists". I'm sure I'm not the only one with this opinion. Instead lets call the people who do this type of shit what they really are which is "murderers" or "psycopaths". Then we can get rid of the dipshits proclaiming that one mans "terrorist" is another mans "freedom fighter". The really sad thing is that the world at large and a sizeable but minority of US citizens do not condem these actions, especially when something nasty happens to the US. The failure to condemn all terrorist related actions no matter who the victim is will ensure more attacks in the future. After 9/11 it took around 24 hours for people to start saying the US deserved what happened.

    11. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      will make a flea bite out to be a terrorist attack.

      Have you ever had fleas? Have you ever faced the terror of the impending bite, not knowing when it will come next??

      Fleas ARE terrorists. Period.

    12. Re:Jumping to conclusions by swalve · · Score: 1

      It's not an either or situation. Terrorism is a tactic used by some murders and/or psychopaths.

    13. Re:Jumping to conclusions by manwargi · · Score: 1

      Hear hear, a shame my mod points expired. Nobody wants their day or their lives ruined by murderers with no conscience, and most people agree that innocent bystanders don't deserve to be shat on by someone's antisocial political statement. It is not okay, no matter who the victims or the killers are.

    14. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When Irish men fought the british to reclaim our country they were branded terrorists. I saw them as freedom fighters, police (for our neighbourhoods) and the only authority I could go to if I needed help. Guess that makes me a dipshit by your standards.

      You never had a boot on your throat, and don't appreciate what people go through before turning to paramilitaries, terrorism, whatever.

      No innocent people deserve what happened today, it is absolutely horrific. It is just as horrific as what the US did in fallujah, or shock and awe baghdad, and another low point for humanity worldwide.

      That doesn't change anything with regards cause and effect.

    15. Re:Jumping to conclusions by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It could have been a straight up murder attempt with the murderer seeking to obscure the attack behind terrorism. In this case the target possibly being a runner. The two remotely detonated bombs, placed a ground level in close walking distance were not timed to the first person crossing the line, when the numbers would have been greatest.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Jumping to conclusions by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      > Instead lets call the people who do this type of shit what they really are which is "murderers" or "psycopaths".

      Do you consider soldiers in war "murderers" or "psycopaths?"

      Soldiers for Allah are doing what their religion commands them to do.

    17. Re:Jumping to conclusions by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      terrorism has a specific meaning

      or at least it should

      the surprise intentional mass murder on innocent civilians outside of wartime for political reasons

      however, the term has been so abused and overused and applied to so many completely unrelated subjects (my professor is a terrorist for scheduling the final when he did... my political opponent is a terrorist because of his fiscal policies... etc) that the word no longer has a coherent meaning

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    18. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Then we can get rid of the dipshits proclaiming that one mans "terrorist" is another mans "freedom fighter"

      Sorry the leftists will throw a hissy fit over it, especially those in the "higher levels of learning" and in general the left-leaning media.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    19. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... took around 24 hours ...

      It also took just under 24 hours for the USA to demand they were innocent victims. Just like when misfortune befell Russia, no-one cared when the school-yard bully got a bloody nose.

      This time it was just the bully who pretended their thuggery would protect the 'free world'.

      Repeat a lie often enough and it's believed, or you lose all your friends. The invasion of Iraq demonstrated both at the same time.

    20. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we must place all dirty foreigners in concentration camps and systematically exterminate them.

      Dirty foreigners being anyone who isn't a wealthy middle aged-to-elderly white person who attended Harvard, Yale or Princeton.

      (Capture: antibody.)

    21. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      especially those in the "higher levels of learning" and in general the left-leaning media.

      you mean anyone who isn't a tv watching muppet?

      fuck you asshole.

    22. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When Irish men fought the british to reclaim our country they were branded terrorists. I saw them as freedom fighters, police (for our neighbourhoods) and the only authority I could go to if I needed help. Guess that makes me a dipshit by your standards."

      Freedom fighters don't fight to turn an area of land that the vast majority of the population that have always lived on that land want to remain part of one nation, into another. That's the exact antithesis of freedom - using force to force a majority of people into doing something against their will, so yes, that would make you a dipshit by most people's standards.

      "You never had a boot on your throat, and don't appreciate what people go through before turning to paramilitaries, terrorism, whatever."

      I think he does, but I think he also recognises that many others have suffered the same and not turned to paramilitaries, Ghandi's efforts to pull India away from British imperial rule being the rather obvious example. MLK's battle for equality being another. Note how both these people got their way? How effective have terror campaigns been in achieving their goals?

      "No innocent people deserve what happened today, it is absolutely horrific."

      Yet you're defending the exact same thing being done by Irish paramilitaries?

      The fundamental problem with your mindset is that you seem to believe terrorism works, you seem to believe that turning to terrorism is somehow some kind of last resort you can use to get your way. It's not, terrorism never works, it just makes the other side you're terrorising even more resentful of you and even more determined to oppress you.

      But there's an even bigger problem with terrorism - it's nearly always used by a minority, to try and push their will onto a majority, and that's the problem. It's used by people who can't accept that they're on the wrong side of democratic opinion but feel they have the right to force their ideals on others anyway - it was true of the IRA, and it's true of Al Qaeda.

      Terrorism is never right, and it never works.

    23. Re:Jumping to conclusions by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Some people consider them to be soldiers fighting an asymmetric war against the US.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:Jumping to conclusions by hackula · · Score: 1

      Wow, thanks moron. All I did was state a fact. The drone and ground attacks in those countries are obviously coordinated attacks as well. I happen to believe that nobody should be blowing up anybody as a matter of fact.

    25. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't see the difference between a soldier and someone who only targets unarmed civilians for effect than you are just a part of the problem. If you do think they are the same then I am all for letting the military bomb the shit of any population center and ignore anyone who complains. Stop using all those expensive precision weapons and just resort to indiscriminate carpet bombing. Make no distinction between civilian and non-civilian targets. Maybe the US could have just dropped a few nukes in Afghanistan and called it even without putting one single soldier on the ground. All the people constantly bitching about adhering to the Geneva conventions should know that fighters captured on the battlefield who are not readily identifiable by a their uniform or other indicators can be summarily shot.

    26. Re:Jumping to conclusions by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Soldiers for Allah are doing what their religion commands them to do.

      Actually, Soldiers for Allah are doing what their leaders tell them to do. Religions usually command a great many things, which are often self-contradictory and/or make no sense. It's the leaders who organize the soldiers.

      I'm not terribly fond of Islam, but it's important to keep perspective. I doubt Islam is significantly more violent than Christianity by design. However, as a religion of obedience to God, it would likely have fewer internal checks against misuse.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    27. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Nobody wants their day or their lives ruined by murderers with no conscience

      Right, I want my life ruined by someone who has a conscience.

    28. Re:Jumping to conclusions by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

      They're really running with it aren't they?

      So far they've produced multiple stories on just about anyboy who's given an account. Wrote an article on funerals, brought some stupid celeb into the mix via social media & immediately blamed terrorism. Also those pictures are not PG rated.

      Almost feels like they've been waiting for another terrorist attack since 9/11 to be ready & explode content wise like this... at least to me.

    29. Re:Jumping to conclusions by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      So, your point is that the civilian people killed were guilty because they were Americans? Wow, you better hope someone doesn't find out what your great great grandfather did, or we'll be standing by applauding when they give you your punishment. Moron.

  33. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And, of course, it's Boston. God help any college students walking around wearing accessories with blinkenlights or exposed electronics; they'll probably be shot on sight.

  34. /. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If anyone remembers 9/11, most US media websites could not handle Internet traffic. slashdot was able to scale traffic and keep information flowing in a time
    of horror and chaos. this is before the day of social media and citizen journalism.

    maybe, if you were in Boston now or had friends or loved ones who might have been near the finish line on Boylston Street at the time of the explosionsyou'd be concerned when you could not reach the local newspaper website. maybe then, you would not ask what this has to do with news for nerds.

    >> What does that have to do with this?

  35. the hill by Pharoah_69 · · Score: 1

    the Boston Marathon is known for being one of the toughest marathons out there because of the giant 6-mile uphill at the end. This just made it worse for the runners. Considering the Boston marathon is a national tourist attraction, my guess is that this was aimed at hurting Boston's economy.

  36. Re:What every runner and race promoter wants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too soon, Way to soon.....

  37. Video of the actual explosion by iONiUM · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a video of the actual explosion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUsu-yoIzq8.

    Doesn't look good..

    1. Re:Video of the actual explosion by iONiUM · · Score: 5, Informative

      Looks like another one here that is a little better: http://vine.co/v/bFdt5uwg6JZ.

    2. Re:Video of the actual explosion by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      The way people were talking I was expecting bigger. What is that, that explosion looks about the size of a medium sized firecracker.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    3. Re:Video of the actual explosion by fremsley471 · · Score: 2

      Moderate-sized explosions in an area packed with people. Very early to speculate, but 'Homemade IEDs' are what the police are saying.

      I'm totally speculating here, but this looks like 'domestic' (i.e., US and amateur) terrorists. Foreign governments like their explosives to be high and their targets to be internationally recognised. However, for the people who lost, lives, limbs or loved-ones, this won't be of any consolation. Our thoughts are with them all.

    4. Re:Video of the actual explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the orange shirt guy who just keeps on running like nothing happened.

    5. Re:Video of the actual explosion by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      Reality is not a Michael Bay film.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:Video of the actual explosion by Nimey · · Score: 1

      For certain values of "better", anyway.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    7. Re:Video of the actual explosion by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2

      These explosions are set up to be anti-personnel. They throw out shrapnel, not fireballs (that's Hollywood). Note the old guy who drops; probably hit with shrapnel.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    8. Re:Video of the actual explosion by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      The really damaging part of the explosion wasn't the visible blast, but the BB shrapnel they packed in the bomb. You can't see that part directly in the video; I did notice people well away from the blast crumple and fall.

    9. Re:Video of the actual explosion by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Note the old guy who drops; probably hit with shrapnel.

      If you're talking about the runner who went down, watch the video closely, and you can clearly see something hitting him. Look for an indeterminate white object down near street level.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:Video of the actual explosion by antdude · · Score: 1
      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    11. Re:Video of the actual explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? What's the point of seeing a better video of the actual explosion?

    12. Re:Video of the actual explosion by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      Here's some footage from the ground that shows both of the explosions (it's the long version of the clip that all the TV news channels are rolling): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=046MuD1pYJg The second explosion happens at 0:19 a couple of blocks away from the camera man.

    13. Re:Video of the actual explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree with you on the domestic terrorism angle, I think it's safe to say the Boston Marathon is an internationally recognized event.

    14. Re:Video of the actual explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what you get from watching hollywood movies. Real explosions aren't like that. Usuallu there is no need for huge fireballs, so the explosives don't actually produce huge fireballs, but produce pressure wave and/or shrapnel instead.

  38. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to think fast to get the first post. I miss first posts about natalie portman and hot grits. What ever happened to hosts file challenge guy?

    His user name is Jeremiah Cornelius, and he forgot to tick "Post Anonymously" with his last APK hostfile spamfest message. That user needs to be banned and the account deleted.

  39. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other News for Nerds:
    Did you hear about the Justin Bieber controversy regarding his comments about Anne Frank? OMG!

  40. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The point is that in todays political climate, we spend SOO much time looking at "assault weapons" (a gun that looks scary in other words) we are trying to disarm america and acts like this just prove that banning guns, will not stop crazy people from being crazy.

    Don't be so rational. Guns shoot bullets out of cartridges containing explosives, they're like a million little bombs you can carry in your pocket! Ban guns, ban machinery, ban tools, ban explosives, ban books, ban freedom

  41. Re:tell me again by sribe · · Score: 5, Informative

    What does this have to do with news for nerds?

    Why nothing at all that's what.

    But you have to be a fucking idiot to have read /. and never noticed that it's more than news for nerds. And it's right in the slogan: "news for nerds, stuff that matters".

  42. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed...

    This is the fastest / has ever posted news.

    Unfortunately, CNN has a rival comments section, and has been at it a lot longer + ...relevance to tech news?

  43. Look in the mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off, people are likely dead and the first comment is political horseshit. Immediate concerns should be focused on the victims, their families, their friends, their coworkers and then the investigation into who or what did this.

    Right on!

    By the way, I think even the most idiotic gun nuts think we should have some legislation covering guns like, you know, background checks to weed out felons. There is a need for some gun legislation, the debate is how much.

    And then you did that. You are no better than he; worse even because at least he doesn't proclaim it's a horrible time to debate gun control and do just that.

    Too bad both of you were not in Boston today.

    1. Re:re: Look in the mirror by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "Too bad both of you were not in Boston today."

      Does that make your comment worse than theirs --considering what happened in Boston today.

  44. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and by "the bastards" you mean anyone wearing a casio watch, correct?

    damn, I better switch to timex!

  45. Re:Americans being bombed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it sad that I thought this was funny for the one second before I realized that people probably died?

  46. Re:tell me again by Thoguth · · Score: 1

    It could work the opposite way. Remember the '90's Assault weapons ban? Columbine happened while the weapons were banned.... when it was time to renew it, the message was "this didn't prevent Columbine, it's worthless".

    Maybe when the warrantless snooping laws are up for review, someone will point out that it didn't prevent the Boston Bombing (or whatever it gets called) and it will expire with just as little fanfare.

    --
    The requested URL /iframe/sig.html was not found on this server.
  47. Bombs and circuses by Msdose · · Score: 0

    What will happen to the bread and circuses if they bomb the circuses? Will we still get the bread?

  48. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You are not going far enough.

    The real issue is banning Assault Knife Bombs...

  49. Graphic(ish) by Atlas_Atkinson · · Score: 1

    I was being serious about this until I saw blood all over the ground and M&Ms guy is just chilling like Fonzie.

    I can't take it.

  50. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CNN's comments section is significantly worse than Slashdot's, even browsing at -1.

  51. Re:tell me again by JWW · · Score: 2

    Fourth - North Korea has stated that something will happen on April 15th.

    Though I don't think its them.

  52. Re:Worried by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It could still just be a gas leak or something. It was a building that blew, after all.

    Cue the new laws several phone books thick of legalese for gas utilities and appliance makers and customers, and attach another phone book worth of amendments pledging funds for research towards making giant GMO ears of corn sentient, making it legal to set people's shoes on fire without a warrant, and providing a tax discount bounty for the movie studio that releases Green Acres The Movie.

  53. slashdot? by schlachter · · Score: 0

    I usually disagree with the stooges who ask why stuff of legal or societal interest is on slashdot, but why is this on slashdot?

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:slashdot? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I usually disagree with the stooges who ask why stuff of legal or societal interest is on slashdot, but why is this on slashdot?

      News for nerds, stuff that matters.

      Good chance that this is stuff that matters.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:slashdot? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just to follow up:

      If it's a terrorist attack, then it's stuff that matters.

      If it's an exploding gas line then it's new for nerds.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if the terrorists managed to trigger a gas line explosion, then it is BOTH.

    4. Re:slashdot? by digitig · · Score: 0

      If you are in Boston then yes, I suppose it's stuff that matters. If you're in Syria it might not be.

      Yes, I realise that /. is intentionally a US-centric site, but if something is already all over all the news feeds then I think there should be something specific for it to merit being on /.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    5. Re:slashdot? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      If it's a terrorist attack, then it's stuff that matters.

      If it's an exploding gas line then it's new for nerds.

      If it was an exploding gas line, police probably wouldn't have already found several more unexploded bombs.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about when you see a story with Boston in the title you just ignore it?

    7. Re:slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if they used an Arduino concealed in a 3D-printed case.

    8. Re:slashdot? by war4peace · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's stuff that matters to me and I'm in Romania. it's important because it is likely to affect much more than a few Bostonians (Bostonese?).

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    9. Re:slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if something is already all over all the news feeds then I think there should be something specific for it to merit being on /.

      Slashdot is a news aggregator. Everything on slashdot that isn't a shill article from Dice has already been reported somewhere else. Reporting someone elses news articles is the purpose of a news aggregator.

    10. Re:slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Boston we have more nerds per square mile than anywhere else in the world. So yes, this is an appropriate topic.
      Proud Bostonian Nerd

    11. Re:slashdot? by digitig · · Score: 1

      But supposedly a selective aggregator. Presumably everything on every news site matters to somebody.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    12. Re:slashdot? by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 1

      And funded with bitcoins, of course.

    13. Re:slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about exploding terrorists?

    14. Re:slashdot? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      If you are in Boston then yes, I suppose it's stuff that matters. If you're in Syria it might not be.

      Depending on who turns out to be responsible for this, it may matter a great deal in Syria.

    15. Re:slashdot? by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      Just to follow up:

      If it's a terrorist attack, then it's stuff that matters.

      If it's an exploding gas line then it's new for nerds.

      Why?

      Because if we ignore it the terrorists lose and we can't have that?

      Because the damage and death toll is vanishingly small compared to the deaths caused by unpublicized crime during the same five minute period in the rest of the country?

      What about "terrorism" makes this worth following?

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    16. Re:slashdot? by digitig · · Score: 1

      That's why I said that it might not.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    17. Re:slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      {{cn}}

      I'm not seeing any news reports of unexploded bombs.

    18. Re:slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's a terrorist attack, then it's stuff that matters.

      If it's an exploding gas line then it's new for nerds.

      If it was an exploding gas line, police probably wouldn't have already found several more unexploded bombs.

      If there are several more unexploded bombs then it's also news for nerds. Poor engineering, inadequate testing...

    19. Re:slashdot? by runeghost · · Score: 1

      As of 6:30 Eastern, I still haven't seen anything more definitive than an "anonymous official" that there were additional devices. There was an unrelated electrical fire at the JFK Library, and Boston PD blew up something suspicious, but neither of those is equivalent to an additional bomb.

    20. Re:slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For christ's sake, IGNORE THE ARTICLE if you're not interested in it.

      Why come in and shit up the commentary with bitching about how "/. ain't as good as it once was, this doesn't matter to ME, and I expect that everything that happens to come across the /. feed MUST be relevant to my interests"?

      Do you think the editors are REALLy reading your posts, going "Oh wow, digitig is super mad, we better not ever put anything about a bomb at the Boston Marathon again"? Or do you think it's more likely you're just whining ineffectually, and wasting your own time, and the time of anybody else who has to load the page your dipshit comments are on?

    21. Re:slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to follow up:

      If it's a terrorist attack, then it's stuff that matters.

      If it's an exploding gas line then it's new for nerds.

      Why?

      Because if we ignore it the terrorists lose and we can't have that?

      Because the damage and death toll is vanishingly small compared to the deaths caused by unpublicized crime during the same five minute period in the rest of the country?

      What about "terrorism" makes this worth following?

      I can't answer your questions but do go ahead and keep reading and offering your opinion on something you don't believe is worth reading or offering an opinion.

    22. Re:slashdot? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      There's so much confusion now. I'm turning the coverage off. The guy from Boston PD said the library explosion was related, and another guy said no, and the news is talking about a guy in custody, but the BPD says no and now we're hearing that the guy in custody was someone some civilians near the explosion thought was suspiciously muslim.

      I think I'll just put a pin in this and revisit tomorrow. for all I know it's Quebec separatists or a rogue Mormon motorcycle gang.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    23. Re:slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been reading nypost.com?

    24. Re:slashdot? by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Just to follow up:

      If it's a terrorist attack, then it's stuff that matters.

      If it's an exploding gas line then it's new for nerds.

      When the truth comes out, small article on page 9, next to K. Kardashian's ass.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    25. Re:slashdot? by anagama · · Score: 1

      With respect to Syria (or pick any random mideast country for that matter), why would it matter who was involved. See for instance 9/11, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    26. Re:slashdot? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      and now we're hearing that the guy in custody was someone some civilians near the explosion thought was suspiciously muslim.

      Apparently, he was doing something suspicious. Specifically, he was running away from the explosions.

      Don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure running away from explosions is the NORMAL reaction, not a "suspicious activity".

      Which is a roundabout way of saying "you're probably right, he looked too Muslim"....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    27. Re:slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the terrorists exploded a gas line,, then we are golden

    28. Re:slashdot? by quenda · · Score: 1

      Because the damage and death toll is vanishingly small compared to the deaths caused by unpublicized crime during the same five minute period in the rest of the country?

      Actually, it is more like a few hours' worth of typical nationwide crime.
      Of course most criminals don't want the publicity, but the Boston Marathon is a world-famous event.
      The media are giving the perpetrators the publicity they desire, because all they care about is page clicks, ratings and copies sold.
      Standy by for copy-cat bombings now.

    29. Re:slashdot? by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      Bostards.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    30. Re:slashdot? by Occams · · Score: 1

      It should be called Traitors Day, because that is what they really were.

      --
      Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
  54. It's the American remake of "4 Lions" .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1341167/

  55. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > water board the bastards all day if we have to

    Only problem is, you already did that. What's the civilian body count in the "war on terror" now? Including the Afghan and Iraq invasions, and continuing drone attacks all over the Middle East. Half a million? One million? And then you're surprised there are a few people who are looking to retaliate?

    Violence only produces one result: more violence.

  56. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by JWW · · Score: 1

    Agreed. /. was impressive with its news coverage on 9/11.

    This is news for everyone.

  57. and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the taxpayers!

    I'm sure Michael Chertoff is already salivating like a Pavlov dog...

  58. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought "stuff that matters" was a description of "news for nerds", not an addition to it.

  59. Re:Most likely this will be Far right wingers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Incorrect. Radical left wingers are responsible for more attacks outside the middle east than even muslims.

  60. Re:Americans being bombed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia you attack bombs. Huh, sounds like Yo Dawg speaking.

  61. Re: Why is this on a tech news site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Because it falls under "stuff that matters".

  62. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound like an unfastened coins lunatic:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI

    At least he was making a joke.

  63. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't speak too soon, this could be a right-wing militia group for all we know.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  64. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by alen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    there were no drones in the 80's and 90's and the same people went from hijacking planes and cruise liners to blowing up sky scrapers in NYC and US Navy destroyers

  65. Re:tell me again by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tell me again how gun legislation would have prevented this???

    Why stop at gun legislation, I would like a full accounting of all laws that are completely unrelated to an explosion (whether intentional or not), and how those laws could have prevented this.

  66. Re:tell me again by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hardly flamebait people. All you got to do is look at all the coverage of sandy hook and the politicians love affair with it, and then take a look at bengazi, which is never spoken about at all.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  67. Re:What every runner and race promoter wants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Too soon you say? Actually no, it goes to behavioral analysis. Could more damage have been done to runners and/or others at the start of the race with the density changes? To some would not have not allowing the race to complete be more worthwhile then at the end? More audience related towards the end? Who/what was the target? Who might chose to do it the way it was done and in what ways? Was the event the target or the cover? Tons more questions varied by the answers found along the decision tree as they must find the root of the problem.

  68. Re:Most likely this will be Far right wingers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the slimy snot of the Daily KOS slowly secretes from various Slashdot orifices.

  69. It's a bombing not an explosion by elucido · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The timing is precisely when the world would be watching, and the location is precise as well at the finish line.

    1. Re:It's a bombing not an explosion by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      It's several hours after the marathon winners have passed the finish line, so not timed to maximize "on air" publicity. However, the timing may be designed to maximize injury/death (since there will be a much denser crowd of slower runners a couple hours after the few top athletes trickle across the finish line).

    2. Re:It's a bombing not an explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which reeks of muslim involvement. They love murdering and maiming the maximum number of people with their bombings. Oh wait right. Religion of peace. Nevermind.

    3. Re:It's a bombing not an explosion by GodInHell · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, its been confirmed to have been a bomb -- other devices were found. Let the speculation commence. I put my .50c on crazed whackaloon.

    4. Re:It's a bombing not an explosion by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a safe bet for your half cent. What remotely likely explanations for this event wouldn't fit the description "crazed whackaloon"? Granted, there are all types of crazed whackaloons that this might be attributed to, but anyone who goes around blowing up random civilians is pretty much "crazed whackaloon" by definition (regardless of whatever other factors their motivations are also ascribed to).

    5. Re:It's a bombing not an explosion by spitzak · · Score: 1

      From footage I have seen, the crowd was smaller than when the marathon was finishing. Also there was already a lot less press coverage, and nothing live any more.

      I can't think of any reason a bomber who wants to cause maximum fatalities or maximum publicity would delay to this point, rather than do it when the top runners are finishing. They could possibly have even killed somebody famous. I think the bombers were just unable to get their bombs to the location before this point, possibly due to higher security, or just the crowds.

    6. Re:It's a bombing not an explosion by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      You're probably right about "unable to get their bombs to the location before this point". I suspect that access to finish line viewing locations when the winners are passing is indeed pretty hard to get --- probably reserved for VIPs and media, and only later accessible to the general public once the big excitement is over. Anyway, it indicates that the bombs weren't planted far in advance; probably not targeted at "somebody famous," either, since actual "VIP"s probably left hours ago before the general public could arrive to watch their friends/family cross the finish line.

    7. Re:It's a bombing not an explosion by JubilantShank · · Score: 1

      The delay may not have been intensional. Other devices have been found which were not detonated.

      Now, I'm not an expert on bomb-making, but I do know something about the cell phone network (currently working on a hackerspace project that involves sending data over SMS). When the cell system is congested, SMS messages can be delayed by anywhere from minutes to hours. Now, imagine that our bomber/bombers had used a cell phone for the trigger on the bombs - right as the marathon ends, he/she send the trigger text. However, as the marathon ends there are also hundreds of people, all in the same cell and therefore using the same towers as the bombs would, are texting, calling, etc with the exciting news about who won. Eventually, the cell activity dies down, and the trigger SMS messages get delivered. Boom.

      Basically, if the bomber/bombers used the cell network as the method of controlling his/her/their bombs, the delay could have been completely accidental.

    8. Re:It's a bombing not an explosion by mikestew · · Score: 2

      That side of the street is the "VIP" side. Hard to get into that, as I tried to get my wife some kind of access this year ( I ran it). Access requires a pass, and after four or five hours they may open it up.

    9. Re:It's a bombing not an explosion by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Maybe we'll catch the perps when someone makes a very angry call to Verizon customer service.

      “What part of *instant* messaging don't you idiots understand! I had time-sensitive work-related business riding on that text! I demand my 15 cents back! Also, two other phones on my plan have suffered a bit of, umm, accidental damage; can I get the new iPhones now?”

    10. Re:It's a bombing not an explosion by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Though finding the other devices helps the one thing about bombs is that all the evidence survives the blast. Fingerprints, DNA, etc are fully preserved by the blast because the bomb components themselves are blown wide before there is any fire or other damage that actually destroys evidence.

      The one thing that's almost guaranteed is that unless the bomb maker was VERY careful (like clean room careful) they left evidence on the bomb and their only hope of evading capture is that they have never been fingerprinted or had their DNA taken. I'd wager you are far more likely to be caught with a bomb than most other methods.

      There's a darn good chance they'll catch whoever did it. But honestly my first thought with two bombs and two declared dead that the dead were the bombers.

    11. Re:It's a bombing not an explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an interesting angle - you would think that whoever planned it would want the moment that the lead runners went across. That's one slim reed for investigators to go on. The bombers must've been slightly frustrated.

    12. Re:It's a bombing not an explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely when which part of the world would be watching? It was a full 2 hours after the pros finished -- probably after 20k people already finished. I'd have to assume all the major politicians would have been long gone by then. No doubt it was intentional, but it's definitely not timed to get the most casualties or the most attention.

      dom

    13. Re:It's a bombing not an explosion by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It's several hours after the marathon winners have passed the finish line, so not timed to maximize "on air" publicity. However, the timing may be designed to maximize injury/death (since there will be a much denser crowd of slower runners a couple hours after the few top athletes trickle across the finish line).

      No, there were much bigger crowds earlier when the professional athletes were finishing. Unless the bombers have a soft sport for professional runners, it sounds more like it didn't go off when it was supposed to

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:It's a bombing not an explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      psst, I'll tell you a secret: "The World" didn't even know boston marathon existed before the bombings.

    15. Re:It's a bombing not an explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whenever I see a troll like this, I always wonder: Is it some American who just hates himself, or some non-American who just hates Americans. I also enjoy the delicious irony in someone pushing this stereotype usually shits bricks over any other push of stereotypes. Go Team Tolerant!

  70. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True dat.

  71. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the while fucking their sisters, eating mayonnaise sandwiches.

    Don't hate the mayonnaise. The key to a real quality mayonnaise sandwich is to use lots and lots of pepper.

    And water on the side for dippin'

  72. Transformer by justthinkit · · Score: 0

    Based on the quality of power in my neighborhood, I'll bet on a transformer blowing up...load switching to other transformers and then another one blowing up. Admittedly shouldn't be enough to kill...

    --
    I come here for the love
  73. Re:tell me again by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Tell me again how gun legislation would have prevented this???

    [sarcasm] Easily, it would pacify anti-gun activists so that they wouldn't blow up marathon spectators in protest. (In other news, I've heard that anti-explosive activists have just gotten their hands on a thermonuclear warhead.) [/sarcasm]

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  74. Re:Most likely this will be Far right wingers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Congratulations, you have been awarded the Wolf Blitzer award for the most reprehensible evidence-free speculation about the causes of a mass killing.

  75. Re:tell me again by rickb928 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Today I think you have it backwards. If it does end up being an american, it will be all over the media, used as an excuse to take away more rights. If it is a "furriner" it will be all over the media, used as an excuse to take away more rights.

    There, fixed that for ya. A common mistake to think our current Government in any way wants to serve us, defend our rights, and generally do the right thing. You're not the first to make that mistake.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  76. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Hatta · · Score: 1

    I have one name for you Richard Jewell.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  77. Re:Most likely this will be Far right wingers. by tbird81 · · Score: 1

    Far-right-wing Muslims?

  78. Live Feed from BBC by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    Live Feed from BBC

    1. Re:Live Feed from BBC by Martin+S. · · Score: 4, Informative
    2. Re:Live Feed from BBC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus that poor old bugger took some shrapnel right in the side. I hope it didnt lodge in his spine or something. looks like it might have shattered his pelvis tho.

  79. Re:tell me again by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Informative

    People getting hurt in bomb explosions in USA are for everyone. Including a-hole nerds. If you are one this is for you.

    For what it's worth, bombings are happening every day elsewhere in the world. But in the US, granted, it's an uncommon sight. Quite sad. (That it happened, not that it's uncommon!)

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  80. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another fan of the award-winning propaganda film Zero Dark Thirty. If you lived in WWII Germany you'd be goose-stepping as soon as you saw Triumph of the Will. Terrorism (if that's what this was - no way to know yet) is a problem successfully addressed by law enforcement and emergency response, not by invasions and torture.

  81. Re:tell me again by 32771 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >Best course -- pray it turns out to have been a big gas leak.

    A war on decrepit infrastructure would probably be a good thing.

    --
    Je me souviens.
  82. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pity you have no idea what he was referencing. He was responding to a "first post"er claiming it would cause more anti gun legislation.

  83. Re:tell me again by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Since DHS/TSA has failed to stop more than one individual from getting on a plane with a device intended to cause damage, we can realistically assume they aren't perfect, despite claiming so and trying really, really hard.

    Just like your Wordpress site, security is an illusion - at best minimizing the opportunities, never preventing all attacks from succeeding.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  84. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by pspahn · · Score: 1

    Violence only produces one result: more violence.

    (at least up until the point when everyone is already dead)

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  85. You Need Help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off, people are likely dead and the first comment is political horseshit. Immediate concerns should be focused on the victims, their families, their friends, their coworkers and then the investigation into who or what did this.

    Right on!

    By the way, I think even the most idiotic gun nuts think we should have some legislation covering guns like, you know, background checks to weed out felons. There is a need for some gun legislation, the debate is how much.

    And then you did that. You are no better than he; worse even because at least he doesn't proclaim it's a horrible time to debate gun control and do just that.

    That wasn't a debate point, that was pointing out that some gun legislation already exists. The statement neither argued for more nor less.

    Too bad both of you were not in Boston today.

    Are you fucking serious?

  86. Re:tell me again by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

    Third, various politicians et al attend the race -- so there's the assassination angle.

    The other assassination angle: They only barely missed Joey of New Kids on the Block.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  87. Re:tell me again by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In either case, little if anything will be done that's relevant to preventing future such acts.

    You seem to be implying that there are things we should be doing that would prevent future such acts. So what should we be doing? I can understand hardening specific point targets like critical infrastructure, and general intelligence gathering. But we are already doing those things. In fact, many people feel that we are already way past the point of diminishing returns. What additional action could we have taken that would have prevented this?

    "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

  88. Re:Why is gold crashing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it was in an obvious emotion-fueled bubble that started with the 2008 recession. One that the goldbugs at ZeroHedge decided to pretend was a "secular bull market", whatever the fuck that means.

    C.f. the investment advice of former Warden and Master of the Royal Mint, Sir Issac Newton, to wit: "What comes up must come down".

  89. Re:tell me again by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    No, the point is to troll. Not even a decent attempt. Trolling so blatantly, I really just don't understand how anyone gets any pleasure out of it.

    Making people think you're serious and getting them upset, that's childish, but at least I can understand the thrill from when I was that childish. But essentially screaming "I AM TROLLING! EVERYONE GET MAD AT ME!!! LOL!!!" seems like it would be as entertaining as cheating at solitaire. Anyone acting upset at the troll is trolling as well. So I guess it would be closer to multiple people somehow cheating at solitaire and then laughing at how easy it is to cheat at solitaire.

  90. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Tell me again how MORE GUNS would have prevented this??? Tell me how MORE GUNS would result in fewer homicides each year. Convince me of that and I will join the NRA and fill my house with guns, get a concealed carry permit and join a militia.

     

  91. Re:tell me again by Applekid · · Score: 2

    >Best course -- pray it turns out to have been a big gas leak.

    A war on decrepit infrastructure would probably be a good thing.

    Only if handled better than the Big Dig

    --
    More Twoson than Cupertino
  92. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A sign of the new normal for the emerging country of Third World America?

  93. Re:Why is this on a tech news site? by isorox · · Score: 1

    Why is this on a tech news site? I come here for the news that I can't get on CNN, not for the general interest stuff that I can. Please, slashdot, please, return to your tech roots. It's what brought us here in the first place.

    Slashdot isn't a tech news site. It's a nerd discussion site, where like minded nerds can talk about things that interest them.

    Slashdot hasn't broken news for over a decade.

  94. How Is That A Lecture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By the way, I think even the most idiotic gun nuts think we should have some legislation covering guns like, you know, background checks to weed out felons. There is a need for some gun legislation, the debate is how much. Are you saying it should be legal for underage kids to bring guns to school? Are you saying parents shouldn't be held accountable when they leave a fully loaded handgun for their kid to find? Are you saying your neighbor shouldn't be able to have celebratory gunfire into the sky daily? All of that is technically gun legislation.

    Can you scream "I am a hypocrite" any louder? The lecture on priorities followed immediatly by political lecture on gun issue is quite amusing.

    Observations that gun legislation exists in many forms already are not lectures. Which side was the GP arguing for?

    1. Re:How Is That A Lecture? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      Observations that gun legislation exists in many forms already are not lectures. Which side was the GP arguing for?

      Your question is irrelevant to the hypocracy issue. The point is you came here and lectured a troll about how we ought to respond and then proceeded immediatly to spending most of your word count talking guns.

    2. Re:How Is That A Lecture? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is you came here and lectured a troll about how we ought to respond and then proceeded immediatly to spending most of your word count talking guns.

      No, no I did not. I stated first and foremost my concern was for the people of Boston. The second point was to address how stupid it is to argue against any gun legislation at all.

    3. Re:How Is That A Lecture? by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      No, no I did not. I stated first and foremost my concern was for the people of Boston. The

      Yes, yes you so did that. Anyone can go back and check what you have actually said.

      second point was to address how stupid it is to argue against any gun legislation at all.

      Stupid me.. I get it now... as long as you start by saying how concerned you are *then* it becomes acceptable to talk about guns. You don't even have to wait a months time before you feed an obvious troll.

  95. Re:tell me again by sarysa · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up. I myself almost forgot about the PATRIOT Act, let alone countless others. Obama's love affair with drones had a seven year setup that had nothing to do with him.

    --
    Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
  96. Re:tell me again by roc97007 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Posint anonymously to save what little reputation I have....

    What does this have to do with news for nerds?.

    Bombs are created by terrorists, terrorism is funded by internet piracy, internet piracy is big news here on /.

    Um, what? Terrorism is funded by giving away free stuff?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  97. Re:tell me again by pspahn · · Score: 2

    Not to mention that if someone intended to fire the "First Shot", Boston is an iconic choice.

    If there is a group of people responsible for this, I dislike them.

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  98. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You stupid Cunt. Why is it that good people die while human debris like you are left to make inane, mindless comments on the web.

    Why couldn't you have had your limbs blown off and your head cut in half?

  99. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't know what's more pathetic, this post or that it's modded insightful.

  100. Re:tell me again by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    OT prediction:

    My OT predictions:
    1. Fox News is probably already in the process of finding a way to blame Barack Obama.
    2. MSNBC is probably already in the process of finding a way to blame Republicans.
    3. No one in power will blame the organization that actually was directly responsible for preventing this and similar attacks, the FBI's anti-terrorism unit.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  101. Re:tell me again by meerling · · Score: 1

    Why? JC42 has correctly stated how these events have historically turned out generally. And no ganjadude, you should never 'tolerate' terrorism or murder. By the way, other countries also get really upset when stuff like this happens, and even more when it's done by those from other countries. I guess it's human nature to emphasize harm done by outsiders.

  102. Re:Most likely this will be Far right wingers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Really? Can you provide some evidence to support your thesis?

  103. Re:tell me again by GodInHell · · Score: 1

    The mob appears to be with me on this one. May have to reconsider my position.

    More seriously -- what I /meant/ is that this is going to set up a bunch of half-baked theories and speculation. I did not intend the above as a list of likely culprits. See the first line of my post which, I thought, qualified the following statement as a list of things "some fool" might say before it turns out to have been a whackaloon. Was that not clear?

  104. you got chocolate in my peanut butter by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    holy shit, the gold reserves have been replaced with bitcoins!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  105. Re:Why is this on a tech news site? by tbird81 · · Score: 1

    More's the point. How come this article isn't being reported one week after the event? Then followed up soon by a dup?

  106. Re:tell me again by Seumas · · Score: 1

    This already happened. Don't you remember the trillion dollars or whatever it was which was budgeted for "keep america working" or whatever during the whole 7 trillion dollars that were spent on TARP funding and rescuing banks and private industry a few years ago? Haven't you seen those signs all over streets since them explaining that the construction project you were passing was paid for through those funds? This was shortly after the whole "ermagherd, the bridges are falling apart all over murrica!" thing, too.

  107. Re:tell me again by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since, at the moment, we do not even know what 'this' was in any real detail, hard to say what if anything could have been done.

  108. Re:tell me again by Flozzin · · Score: 1

    Ban common sense!

    Then right after that lets ban the dodo bird.

    --
    "Cowardice in a race, as in an individual, is the unpardonable sin." --Teddy Roosevelt
  109. Re:tell me again by sycodon · · Score: 1

    That being said -- if this isn't an accident -- there are so many ways to go with this one.

    Depends on what you think you were being clear on.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  110. Re:tell me again by ProzacPatient · · Score: 0

    That does it! How many people have to die until we do something about explosions?
    I'm sure we can all be confident that Senator Feinstein (D-Cal) will be drafting an "Assault Explosions Ban" bill by the end of the week to rid us of this problem once and for all.

  111. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "this could be a right-wing militia group"

    Fuck off.

  112. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and I'd still be for waterboading them all day long and twice on Sunday. Terrorists are terrorists. I don't really care what color they are, what religion they are, what geographical location they are from, or any of that. If you think killing people will make them agree with you then you are not only a moron, but a terrorist deserving the full treatment as such.

  113. Re:tell me again by Flozzin · · Score: 2

    Guess it's too soon to make points that, if someone wants to kill other people, they can do it no matter what is legal or illegal?

    --
    "Cowardice in a race, as in an individual, is the unpardonable sin." --Teddy Roosevelt
  114. Re:Most likely this will be Far right wingers. by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

    You mean Bull Schitzer?

  115. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The world has changed in the last 12 years, Slashdot is now a little fish in a much bigger pond. In case you haven't noticed, there's now many sites with live video coverage that suck waaaaay more bandwidth and server power than this little mostly text based site.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  116. Re:Why is gold crashing? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Why is gold crashing?

    Gold has been crashing. It didn't start today.

    At 5:00am this morning, the financial news headline story was gold crashing. Normally, after a terrorist attack you would see an increase in gold prices.

    Probably not connected unless someone who lost a fortune on their gold investments in the past week snapped.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  117. Re:tell me again by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    He's a child. I expect no more, and will wait for him to mature, grow a set of ideals, and then offend Holocaust survivors with malice. Then I'll consider him a product of our licentious and misguided times, and forget him again.

    Feh.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  118. Re:tell me again by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    I was mildly surprised to find the story here on Slashdot. But - I'll bet a few nerds were involved, at least peripherally. Some nerd's brother may have been running . . .

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  119. Why not Iran? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Interesting

    nuked into oblivion...Iran wouldn't do that either for similar reasons.

    That makes no sense to me. There is almost nothing that Iran could do that would invite a nuclear strike from the U.S. Why? Because the people or Iran, by and large, are not at all culpable in what the crazy government wants to do. They are like a few million hostages being held in a bank; we can't just burn down the bank the hostages are being held in to get rid of handful of crazy people attacking us.

    Iran knows they aren't going to get nuked, and furthermore WANTS to be attacked because they want to start a war period, to justify further actions on their part that cannot even in the middle east be justified in a first strike.

    I don't think Iran did this mind you; I'm just saying there are very few groups you could at all rule out because of retaliation.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why not Iran? by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Iran wants to start a war? That's news to fucking everyone who pays attention. Get a grip.

  120. Re:tell me again by 32771 · · Score: 1

    I haven't been in the US for a while, I just read an article on gas leaks some time ago.

    --
    Je me souviens.
  121. Re:tell me again by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    Best course -- pray it turns out to have been a big gas leak.

    Well, with a name like "Bean Town", I can believe it!

  122. Wrong quote by geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/rahmemanue409199.html

    "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." -Rahm Emanuel

    Former aid to President Obama and current mayor of Chicago which is undergoing major budgetary and violent crime crisises as we speak.

    1. Re:Wrong quote by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You looked up the quote but couldn't look up the word "crises"? Interesting.

    2. Re:Wrong quote by geek · · Score: 2, Funny

      At least I can spell it fuckwad.

    3. Re:Wrong quote by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I think that was his objective with the idea of a Cloward–Piven strategy in mind. That, or he's just as evil as Saul Alinsky. Perhaps both.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:Wrong quote by jo_ham · · Score: 0

      At least I can spell it fuckwad.

      No, you can't.

    5. Re:Wrong quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens if this was one of Saul's other students, a former friend of Obama? Will there be a presidential pardon? A coverup?

    6. Re:Wrong quote by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Crisis: "A time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger."

      Crises: plural of "crisis".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  123. Re:tell me again by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately the AP is reporting 2 more devices were found and detonated by the bomb squad.. so not a gas leak.

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  124. Here's the difference by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Drones killing civilians is an accident; people thought there was a military target there. Sometimes mistakes happen, and innocent people die, but the intent is to target military forces and largely that is what happens.

    Civilians being killed as in Boston - there is no possibility of it being a military target, the target is as explicitly non-military as you can get.

    Can you truly not discern any kind of difference?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The families of the dead and maimed don't care if it was an accident or not. You shouldn't be invading their country based on obvious lies in the first place you fucking idiot.

    2. Re:Here's the difference by yerM)M · · Score: 2

      After just helping a runner who saw body pieces fly, I can tell you that the victims sure as hell can't tell the difference.

    3. Re:Here's the difference by dave420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And the terrorists aren't just doing it to senselessly kill people - they are usually trying to (whether accurately or not) protect thousands or millions of people from threats they perceive. That's the whole point of terrorism - to coerce people into taking them seriously. If governments earnestly listened to concerned citizens groups from both outside and inside their borders, there would be no terrorism. No happy person wakes up and thinks "Oh, I'll become a terrorist today. It's lovely weather for it". They usually do it because of perceived threats to their family/culture/country/their notion of "us". This is not a mystery. They see it as them having to do it to spare even more misery down the road. Some idiot throwing pipe bombs without political motive is not terrorism, but simple violence. And knowingly using shoddy intelligence to take out what might be a military target is hardly more noble, is it? Drone strikes suck donkey dick. So does terrorism. Solution: honest diplomacy.

    4. Re:Here's the difference by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Why do you think there are so many "civilian" casualties whenever there's a drone strike? It's because the targets largely are civilians. In fact, terrorists are by definition civilians. If the perpetrators were part of a military, it wouldn't be called terrorism, it'd be called military action, and acts or a declaration of war.

      It's no different than drone strikes against high-ranking members of the mob. I'm sure people wouldn't mind, but to call them military targets is to revise reality just to make it fit your apologetic justifications.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    5. Re:Here's the difference by stymy · · Score: 1

      So "double-tapping" targets, resulting in the deaths of civilians helping out and emergency response personnel is just an accident? Also, keep in mind that the US classifies all adult-age males killed in bombings as "enemy combatants" by default, unless proven otherwise. You should read this:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19704981.

    6. Re:Here's the difference by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Drones killing civilians is an accident; people thought there was a military target there.

      Bullshit. What really happened is 1) some Americans thought there was a military target there (such as a young man, who according to US doctrine is automatically a "militant" just because he's male and of "militant age"), and 2) there were a bunch of other people (women & children) around this "target". The Americans don't give a shit about any collateral damage, so they just bomb away, killing everyone around the target.

      I'm sorry, but when you target civilians (despite any lame excuses), you can't complain when the enemy targets your civilians.

      We brought this on ourselves. Good job, Obama voters.

    7. Re:Here's the difference by tibit · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm concerned, absent an act of war signed by Congress, if you go and shoot people in other countries, they are all civilians even if you happen to call the drones "military drones".

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    8. Re:Here's the difference by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If some government conducted drone strikes against mob members (high-ranking and otherwise), but did so without any regard whatsoever for collateral damage, what would be the result? For instance, suppose we had drones dropping bombs on alleged mob members when they were just walking down the street, but these bombs of course killed not only the alleged mobster, but scores of unrelated civilians who happened to be on the sidewalk or driving by at the time. I imagine this would create quite a few "terrorists" who, after watching their wife and child die in an attack, would decide they had nothing left to lose and would violently attack anyone they associated with the bombing.

    9. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And the terrorists aren't just doing it to senselessly kill people - they are usually trying to (whether accurately or not) protect thousands or millions of people from threats they perceive. That's the whole point of terrorism - to coerce people into taking them seriously.

      No, terrorists are sociopaths who like to rape, rob, torture and murder others, and claim whatever "this other group is evil" that works best to keep the support of the locals/keep away the lynch mobs. They want to control others for their sadistic pleasure, nothing more.

    10. Re:Here's the difference by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The people launching the attacks are a significantly weaker force, they simply don't have the resources to attack highly guarded military targets. Desperate people do desperate things.
      You can bet if both sides were fairly equal, they would both be attacking each others military installations and trying to keep away from civilian targets wherever possible.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    11. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Collateral damage is no an accident. Someone makes that decision to sacrifice innocent lives.

    12. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boston not a military target? The most oppressive regime in the world (US) and the most armed population in the world?

      Some people might not see it that way. Just sayin'...

    13. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when a funeral procession is intentionally targeted, because of the assumption that at least some of the people involved might be militants (but the full knowledge that all are not)? When people trying to aid people in a bombed building are targeted?

      Do you just value foreign lives less?

    14. Re:Here's the difference by Tom · · Score: 2

      The world is rarely this black and white.

      Military targets exclusively is the white end, intentionally bombing civilians is the other. But that's not binary. Every time you deploy a bomb, there is a risk of what is euphemistically called "collateral damage". The more you are willing to accept that, the more you move right on the spectrum. And in most wars, people move very, very far along this line, until it's basically "ok, there's civilians in the area, too bad for them". And some people move further.

      It's not that easy. Good guy / bad guy only works on TV.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    15. Re:Here's the difference by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the terrorists aren't just doing it to senselessly kill people - they are usually trying to (whether accurately or not) protect thousands or millions of people from threats they perceive.

      I'm not a fan of drone strikes. But there's a big difference between the killing of civilians while you're aiming for fighters (even if your aim is super sloppy), and deliberately killing civilians.

      If governments earnestly listened to concerned citizens groups from both outside and inside their borders, there would be no terrorism. No happy person wakes up and thinks "Oh, I'll become a terrorist today. It's lovely weather for it". They usually do it because of perceived threats to their family/culture/country/their notion of "us". This is not a mystery. They see it as them having to do it to spare even more misery down the road. Some idiot throwing pipe bombs without political motive is not terrorism, but simple violence. And knowingly using shoddy intelligence to take out what might be a military target is hardly more noble, is it? Drone strikes suck donkey dick. So does terrorism. Solution: honest diplomacy.

      I'm all for understanding terrorists and root causes but you're giving terrorists a lot more credit than they deserve. Those reasons you gave lead to societies that tend to generate terrorists. But as for the actual terrorists, they're dysfunctional individuals looking for a purpose. In a healthy society they're join a fraternity, cult, gang, political party hack, or become a spree shooter. In a threatened society they play the hero by becoming a soldier in a war against a great enemy (a terrorist), but the motive is the same, forget your morals and become a part of something.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    16. Re:Here's the difference by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Was bin Laden supposed to join the Democratic Party of Saudi Arabia? Should he have sent Al Qaeda Team Six in a stealth helicopter to shoot Bush in his bed? Terrorists deploy what resources they have, while the US's ordinance is too good to waste on civilians.

    17. Re:Here's the difference by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      And the terrorists aren't just doing it to senselessly kill people - they are usually trying to (whether accurately or not) protect thousands or millions of people from threats they perceive.

      Utterly and completely false. By making excuses for jihadis *you* are aiding an abetting evil. The reasons the jihadis *say* they kill westerners is because the Qur'an commands them to (go and look up Sura 9:5 and 9:25 and all the other evilness in the Qur'an). They have been doing this for 1400 years, long before the US existed, or drones were invented, or the Jews who lived continuously in Palestine declared a State under League of Nations and later UN auspices. By promoting the false narrative of the political Left and allied Islamicists you are excusing and enabling evil. Please stop it as your statements don't match the historical facts, the declared statements of the jihadis, nor the statements that a moral person would make (there is *zero* justification for this attack - apart from those that follow the evil totalitarian political ideology called Islam). Stop supporting evil!

    18. Re:Here's the difference by akgooseman · · Score: 1

      If these bombers are Afghani, Iraqi, Iranian, etc and pissed off at the US (not difficult to imagine, but that's not currently supported by any publicly available evidence), I'm sure they would much rather have blown up the Pentagon or Air Force One. Even if they were well funded, what are the chances of success attacking a hardened military target vs the Boston Marathon finish line? Only an idiot would would attempt a face-to-face attack on the US military. One's chances of survival are much higher against a soft target.

    19. Re:Here's the difference by quantaman · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point. bin Laden was a bad guy, I don't care what your political beliefs were, he wasn't a misguided idealist or some sort of freedom fighter. He cared about two things, having a purpose and being famous, and the easiest way to get those things was to use fear and murder to create a theocracy. I have strong criticisms for what the US does wrt Muslim nations, but the people making those decisions don't come from the same mindset as terrorists.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    20. Re:Here's the difference by anagama · · Score: 2

      Drones killing civilians is an accident; people thought there was a military target there.

      For definitions of "believe" that require no evidence or actual knowledge, then yeah sure, your comment is accurate. For rational definitions of believe, it's pure crap. Look up what "signature strike" means -- they have no idea who they are killing.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/11/three-lessons-obama-drone-lies

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    21. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, except diplomacy only works when both/all sides don't want mutually exclusive goals.

      If the demands were reasonable like "stop committing drone attacks within my country's borders", diplomacy CAN work. But it CAN'T work if the reciprocal is "we'll continue to ignore the terrorists living/training in our country".

    22. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drones killing civilians is an accident...

      WTF!? What alternate reality are you from?

      Drones killing civilians is NOT an accident. The drones are sent on those missions, they don't fly off course by themselves. The drones are sent on those missions by people that think it's okay to execute people without judicial oversight, rule of law, or concern for human rights.

      Drones killing noncombatants is not an accident; it's a choice made by the US government.

    23. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To avoid canceling out a mod, I anonymously call bullshit.

      Terrorists are by definition NOT civilians. Civilians are non-combatants. Terrorists are militants POSING as civilians. That world of difference is why spies are allowed to be shot on sight by all accepted codes of military warfare and why exposed terrorists, at least in a declared combat region, should not be treated to a civilian courtroom. Doesn't justify most of the residents of Guantanamo, of course.

    24. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes because targeting civilians has never been done by previous administrations. Your an idiot thinking that Obama is the only president to do awful things.
      Hell your an idiot for bringing your politics into this thread. This was a terrorist attack with no warning, Im not sure how you feel the President is personally to blame.

    25. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe me, drone strikes are welcomed by terrorists as a method to both infuse new blood into their ranks by raplacing military leadership, and recruite more troops from friends and family of innocent bystandards, so that is really not the cause for a terrorist attack. There is no diplomacy, honest or other with terrorists because terrroists do not seek coexistence. More accurately, those who fund terrorist acts have a hidden agenda to continue creating chaos while maintaining their position of power. The quesiton they ask themselves is - "What would happen if the people were educated, and had jobs and money and propserity and then wanted democracy, obviously the people would realize they don't need us, or worse come after us for lying to them all of these years about everything that's bad in their lives - being someone elses fault". So there you have it - the Terrorist cause is actually to worsen their people's situation by inviting a counter measure from a democracry (e.g. Israel, U.S etc) while they are mingled with innocent bystandards. A democracy will not be able to destory all of them while they hide behind women and children, and if there is some collatoral damage - the more, the better. What the terrorists don't realize, is that the people are fed up with this and they are starting to see that a democracy doesn't attack unless it is provoked, this is just a matter of time and we need to continue doing what we're doing. Bin Laden - RIP, Asad - on his way out, Ahmadinagad - one uprise away from being overthrown, Nasralla - will be lucky if he ever sees the light outside of his cave.

    26. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I'd like to believe that, there are certain sort of individual who thinks there is no room in the world for any paradigm but their own. You can't deal with people who aren't willing to compromise. At best you can try and contain them and curtail their activites as best you can, but you better be prepared to spend blood, sweat, and treasure for decades trying to deal with them. The Taliban, for example, were not content to stick to their particular region of Afghanistan and decided the whole country was better off under their rule. The HiG by contrast don't really care too much about things, provided native Pashtuns retrain control of tribal lands. (There are reports that with the US drawdown from AFGN, the HiG is starting to push the Taliban out to prevent them from reasserting national rule).

      Secondly, why should a government listen to a concerned group oustide its borders on matters of anything but foreign policy? The government isn't answerable to them, it's answerable those within its own borders. That's as silly as that Japanese buisinessman year ago who said the world should get to vote in US elections because our actions affect them.

    27. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did you pull alll that from, some tv drama?

      Some of our top politicians held high ranking positions in the IRA. They are not dysfunctional people looking for a purpose, they are normal people who grow up in places where their entire family/friends/society are being violently oppressed.

      Lets say China took over the US by force. There's chinese soldiers controlling your city, all decked out in military equipment and armaments, going door to door kicking them in and taking away all the males. Protests get shot at by chinese soldiers and you have nothing to protect you. You would fight them any way you can, its a natural response.

      In a different environment you would be a different person.

    28. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good job, Obama voters.

      Fuck you, moron. Fuck you very much. That kind of fucking bullshit rhetoric is why psychopaths put bombs in trash bins. You're the fucking problem.

    29. Re:Here's the difference by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      If the terrorists could gain wide enough support in their country to get control of the military and if their military could take it up to the US military they would attack the US military. But they don't, so they take it up to the easier target. What did you expect them to do? Give up? Besides their view is that the US soldiers in their country were sent by the US government voted in by US civilians.

    30. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a fan of drone strikes. But there's a big difference between the killing of civilians while you're aiming for fighters (even if your aim is super sloppy), and deliberately killing civilians.

      Not sure if that makes a difference for the civilians in question.

    31. Re:Here's the difference by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      Drones killing civilians is an accident; people thought there was a military target there.

      The current definition of "military target" seems to include any and all civilians they wish to include. Civilians have been targeted, non-military vehicles (not knowing who is in them) have been targeted, etc.

    32. Re:Here's the difference by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Where did you pull alll that from, some tv drama?

      Some of our top politicians held high ranking positions in the IRA.

      Note I included 'political party hack' in my list :)

      They are not dysfunctional people looking for a purpose, they are normal people who grow up in places where their entire family/friends/society are being violently oppressed.

      Lets say China took over the US by force. There's chinese soldiers controlling your city, all decked out in military equipment and armaments, going door to door kicking them in and taking away all the males. Protests get shot at by chinese soldiers and you have nothing to protect you. You would fight them any way you can, its a natural response.

      In a different environment you would be a different person.

      The IRA is a little different as it was more of a separatist movement, and if you're actively invaded/oppressed it's another thing entirely (ie militants in Gaza). But we're talking about Islamic terrorists, they're not lashing out at oppressors or invaders, they're lashing out at ideological foes. And I don't deny they would be different in a different environment, most people who do important things, good or bad, are on some level dysfunctional (that's what drives them). The problem with Islamic terrorism is they're being driven in the worst possible direction.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    33. Re:Here's the difference by dropadrop · · Score: 1

      Drones killing civilians is an accident; people thought there was a military target there. Sometimes mistakes happen, and innocent people die, but the intent is to target military forces and largely that is what happens.

      Civilians being killed as in Boston - there is no possibility of it being a military target, the target is as explicitly non-military as you can get.

      Can you truly not discern any kind of difference?

      A few times could be considered an accident, doing it over and over again can not. If the people responsible for those accidents would have repercussions and they would be handled openly then they might be viewed as accidents, now it looks like policy to me.

      Drones are killing 50 civilians for each military target, and this is over hundreds of strikes, where does the accident come to play? I really have the highest sympathy towards all victims in Boston, but the civilians in Pakistan are no less worthy humans then you or me.

    34. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really is there big difference? So if police catches the guy who did this and he says he wasn't targeting civilians but some unspecified militants, are you going to pat him on the back and give him a medal? Or better yet, what if he doesn't tell you why he did that, doesn't show you the laws he thinks let him do what he did, nor explains what informations led him to target the marathon. At least not officially, that is. Instead he denies he is doing any such attacks at all, although everyone knows that is a lie.

      Still giving him thumbs up and the medal even if the dead aren't brown people in far away country?

    35. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the terrorists aren't just doing it to senselessly kill people - they are usually trying to (whether accurately or not) protect thousands or millions of people from threats they perceive.

      I'm not a fan of drone strikes. But there's a big difference between the killing of civilians while you're aiming for fighters (even if your aim is super sloppy), and deliberately killing civilians.

      Not for the civilian, there isn't.

    36. Re:Here's the difference by dropadrop · · Score: 1

      I'm all for understanding terrorists and root causes but you're giving terrorists a lot more credit than they deserve. Those reasons you gave lead to societies that tend to generate terrorists. But as for the actual terrorists, they're dysfunctional individuals looking for a purpose. In a healthy society they're join a fraternity, cult, gang, political party hack, or become a spree shooter. In a threatened society they play the hero by becoming a soldier in a war against a great enemy (a terrorist), but the motive is the same, forget your morals and become a part of something.

      Not necessarily. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. People can be terrorists for lots of reasons, but generally of course something they feel strongly about (nationality, religion, race).

      If the US army lost a lot of it's might, and China invaded your country (yeah, not going to happen, but play along) what would you do? Would you fully submit to their will, or would you do your best to get them out? Let's say you won't fight back, but others do... Upon trying to find out the "patriots" trying to kick out the invaders they kill 50 civilians for each militant. Half of your relatives are killed without taking part in some combat. Does this make you feel like you did the right thing in submitting to the Chinese invaders, or feel even more like getting rid of them?

      I know the analogy does not work, but it's still not that far fetched. I live next to Russia in a country that has previously been invaded by them and regained independence. When we where under their reign any people fighting for independence where considered terrorists, and of course the same thing would happen again if they decided to invade us a second time. Looking from the Russian point of view terrorists would of course be considered the scum of the earth, they did after all invade our weak country in a day, now why can't everybody just submit and play along by their rules?

      Those reasons you gave lead to societies that tend to generate terrorists.

      Having your country invaded generates terrorists. Having your relatives shot and blown to pieces generates terrorists. Having a religious or nationalist nut doing your head in generates terrorists, especially when combined with low education and those previous points.

      But as for the actual terrorists, they're dysfunctional individuals looking for a purpose. In a healthy society they're join a fraternity, cult, gang, political party hack, or become a spree shooter.

      Some of them are for sure

    37. Re:Here's the difference by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Really is there big difference? So if police catches the guy who did this and he says he wasn't targeting civilians but some unspecified militants, are you going to pat him on the back and give him a medal? Or better yet, what if he doesn't tell you why he did that, doesn't show you the laws he thinks let him do what he did, nor explains what informations led him to target the marathon. At least not officially, that is. Instead he denies he is doing any such attacks at all, although everyone knows that is a lie.

      Still giving him thumbs up and the medal even if the dead aren't brown people in far away country?

      Huh? You're stretching the comparison too far, if the perpetrator isn't targeting civilians they're so delusional they're not mentally competent to stand trial (which would change how we see the attack).

      Intent matters. Imagine one guy who runs over a guy camouflaged in the middle of the road, another is drunk and hits a pedestrian, another is having a bad day so deliberately runs down a random pedestrian. You're basically arguing that all three acts are morally equivalent. Whoever did this specifically targeted civilians, that's a far worse crime than unintentionally hitting civilians while shooting at people who want to kill you.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    38. Re:Here's the difference by quantaman · · Score: 1

      For the China example if China invaded Canada maybe I'd fight back, but I'd fight back in Canada, not China, and I'd target the invading forces, not civilians. I think that's the distinction I'm thinking of. If you're resisting in your own country or society, and taking the fight to people who signed up for it that's an understandable reaction and that's when 'freedom fighter' or 'insurgent' also becomes an accurate term.

      But if you start targeting civilians as a part of your conflict, particularly civilians outside of your country, that's the dysfunctional terrorist mindset I'm talking about. And yeah, having "your relatives shot and blown to pieces" can generate that dysfunctional mindset, but I think that's more of a movie trope. The injustice generates societies who might support terrorists, but the actual terrorists tend to have the most in common with frat boys. They're young guys without a social circle or a strong purpose, a group comes along and gives them a family, gives them a purpose as heroes to all these oppressed people. If they were actually motivated by justice or compassion then they wouldn't be able to target civilians.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    39. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I deserved it" is lousy defensive strategy. "I told you so" is not helping, either.

    40. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drones killing civilians is an accident

      I think accident is not what you think it is.

    41. Re:Here's the difference by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      What part of drones in the US is not explicitly military? I'm pretty sure "is it inside the US?" pretty clearly rules it out as being off limits for military action of any sort...

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    42. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except intent is not determined by what you claim you wanted to do regardless of what you did and how you eventually did it.

      With drones you have things like "signature strikes", where they have absolutely no idea who they are killing. Or what about those double tap tactics where they target the same place twice, the second time when rescuers arrive. And if someone is or was terrorist/militant is defined by the same people who are killing them, the same people who have Guantanamo full of terrorists and militants they aren't able to charge of anything let alone convince them even in these farcial kangaroo courts. The same people who, by the way, are know to lie about these matters.

      So if you really believe all this can result into anything other than massacres of civilians, you are indeed delusional.

    43. Re:Here's the difference by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Drones killing civilians is an accident; people thought there was a military target there. Sometimes mistakes happen, and innocent people die, but the intent is to target military forces and largely that is what happens.

      Civilians being killed as in Boston - there is no possibility of it being a military target, the target is as explicitly non-military as you can get.

      Can you truly not discern any kind of difference?

      If your wife and children are blown up by a drone, do you really think you're going to care that it was just a "mistake"?

      If you can't differentiate a military from a civilian target, you should just be honest and admit you are happy to kill civilians too. Although, they're generally classed as collaborators or shields anyway, so it really serves them right.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    44. Re:Here's the difference by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm not a fan of drone strikes. But there's a big difference between the killing of civilians while you're aiming for fighters (even if your aim is super sloppy), and deliberately killing civilians.

      If you blow up someone's house where there are three women, six children and one terrorist, killing them all, you have killed 9 civilians. Even assuming you are justified in summarily executing suspected terrorists (rather than capturing and putting them through the justice system) you simply cannot pretend that you didn't mean to kill those civilians.

      It's also not exactly contributing to winning hearts and minds, which I thought we were now supposed to be doing.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    45. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...I'm not a fan of drone strikes. But there's a big difference between the killing of civilians while you're aiming for fighters (even if your aim is super sloppy), and deliberately killing civilians....

      Not to the dead.

    46. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in both cases civilians died. The families of the dead ones won't be seeing a difference. No matter how you try to justify killing innocent people with bombs or drones it's not right. If hitler was standing in a group of innocent people and you knew that by killing them all you'd save the lives of millions it still wouldn't be right.

    47. Re:Here's the difference by dywolf · · Score: 1

      partaking a bit too much of the 420 there dude.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    48. Re:Here's the difference by dywolf · · Score: 1

      ladies and gentlemen, this is your brain on ignorance.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    49. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By Obama voters, are you referring to those of us who voted for him in 2008 (against McCain/Palin) or in 2012 (against Romney/Ryan), because in the case of the latter I don't believe there would have been any change in foreign policy.

      It's easy to blame Obama for this, but the entire American political machine is to blame.

      Fitting CAPTCHA: crimes

    50. Re:Here's the difference by alexo · · Score: 1

      Drones killing civilians is an accident; people thought there was a military target there. Sometimes mistakes happen, and innocent people die, but the intent is to target military forces and largely that is what happens.

      Civilians being killed as in Boston - there is no possibility of it being a military target, the target is as explicitly non-military as you can get.

      Can you truly not discern any kind of difference?

      When you are a third-grader being constantly bullied by an eighth-grader, you are not going to "fight fair".
      If he got you by the throat and you believe that your only chance of escaping is kicking him in the nuts, you will do it.
      If he makes your life miserable every single day and the teachers/parents will not interfere, you will consider picking up a pointed stick and shoving it in his eye.

      It is called "asymmetrical warfare" for a reason.

    51. Re:Here's the difference by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, Obama isn't the only president to do awful things, he's the latest in a long string of Presidents doing awful things. The idiots are the Obama voters who railed against Bush for crap like this, but now that Obama's in office, are all busy defending his policies that are exactly like Bush's.

      And you're an idiot for thinking that politics have nothing to do with a terrorist attack. Why do you think these attacks happen? Because they "hate us for our freedom"? You can't get any stupider than that.

    52. Re:Here's the difference by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, a better defensive strategy is to figure out why things happen, then take steps to prevent them from happening. Maybe if we as a nation fixed our foreign policy, we wouldn't have this stuff happening to us. Instead, we run around the world murdering women and children left and right, and then wonder why some people get so mad about this that they turn into terrorists and target us.

      You're right, "I told you so" doesn't help when you're so stupid that you can't think about your actions and how they affect others. Instead, you're just doomed to make the same mistakes over and over, and suffer repercussions from those affected by your mistakes.

    53. Re:Here's the difference by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you voted for Obama, you voted for his policies.

      If you had voted for McCain or Romney, you would have been voting for their policies instead. If their policies are the same, then as Obama's, then by voting for Obama, McCain, or Romney, you're voting for that policy. So you only have yourself to blame in supporting that policy.

      If you didn't want to vote for that policy, you should have voted for someone who didn't support that policy. There were more than two choices in every race.

    54. Re:Here's the difference by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, you and the other moronic Romney and Obama voters are the problem.

    55. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They usually do it because of perceived threats to their family/culture/country/their notion of "us"...Solution: honest diplomacy.

      You can't really have honest diplomacy with leaders who control (or allow their people to be controlled) through fear and blame of external entities, those environments can innately foster extremism and terrorism. In a way, that sort of extremism distracts the populace from the real cause of their troubles and only serves to benefit those in power.

      It is wholly naieve to believe that this sort of control isn't part of human nature and can be easily eliminated. The only real guard is an educated, enlightened populace, which is tool b) in the repressive regime guidebook: keep the populace dumb.

    56. Re:Here's the difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the government chooses to continue drone strikes to kill bad guys and consistently kills innocent civilians as well or INSTEAD OF, no, there's very little fucking difference.

      If a guy ran over one of your dogs every day for a week, but kept getting out of his car to apologize, by day 5 would he seem much different from the guy who deliberately ran over one of your dogs?

      Do you even know your own fucking mind?

  125. Re:tell me again by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, I was reading about it at google news just a few minutes ago, and slashdot tends to be a bit late to the party in reporting stories like this.. . . So /. shouldn't bother.

    I think something slipped past you. Strictly speaking, Slashdot isn't a news reporting site, it is a news aggregator and discussion site (although that generally works better if the news isn't stale as in weeks or years old). That is the point of the forums with each story, and posting - to discuss the news. Or are your posts completely random? (Topic? I don't need no stinking topic! I want to discuss chocolate sundaes! (That should really be hot grits.))

    OT prediction: If it turns out that the act was committed by an American nutjob, as with the Oklahoma City bombing the media and political system will quickly forget about it. If it turns out that it was done by a "furriner", we'll hear lots about those awful "terrists" for some time...

    Strike two. Oklahoma City is constantly dragged out in discussions and policy debates, especially to denegrate the political right and Christians despite the fact that McVeigh was an atheist on his own tangent. On the other hand, the Obama administration has been actively suppressing use of phrases by the government such as "War on Terror" and Jihadi.

    By the way - it would be great if you would just spell foreigner as foreigner. That sort of feigned misspelling makes for tedious commentary.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  126. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of the children! The children of tomorrow need to be enslaved by my children, so your children can't have guns. That's how.

  127. Clearly confirmed as attack by Pecisk · · Score: 1

    Screw reasoning, this is sick (2 balsts, 1 controlled blast, 2 not activated). Hoping investigators will find those people.

    This is also doesn't feel like Jihadists...

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    1. Re:Clearly confirmed as attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Properly some sicko who did it for sake of being able to do it. Ruining people lives for sake of themselves. Regardless who did this, i hope they hunt those bastards down serious pain to them before hauling their sorry piece crap back to Jail.

    2. Re:Clearly confirmed as attack by SpeedBump0619 · · Score: 1

      This is also doesn't feel like Jihadists...

      Indeed. Jihadists would have put the second device in the rubble of the first, made the delay closer to 5 minutes than 20 seconds, and would have made it much larger. This is clearly by someone too concerned with his own safety to do it "right". Thank heavens.

    3. Re:Clearly confirmed as attack by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      Screw reasoning, this is sick (2 balsts, 1 controlled blast, 2 not activated). Hoping investigators will find those people.

      This is also doesn't feel like Jihadists...

      It is typical Al Queda tactics to have multiple, coordinated bombs. If there were 4 bombs, it doesn't sound like a lone nutjob did this.

      The amount of analysis that they can do on video from toll plazas, bridges and tunnels would be interesting to know. They can probably at least capture every license plate and do some cross checking with various databases.

    4. Re:Clearly confirmed as attack by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Coordinated bombs have been out there for so long that anyone who would like to have Al Queda like PR would have to do that - more damage, more victims, perfect panic storm.

      I guess I just don't want that to be Al Queda...again. Anyway, who cares. People died and have their lifes destroyed. I know it happens every day all the round the world. It still doesn't change that it is just sick to directly attack civilians like that.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    5. Re:Clearly confirmed as attack by isorox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is also doesn't feel like Jihadists...

      Indeed. Jihadists would have put the second device in the rubble of the first, made the delay closer to 5 minutes than 20 seconds, and would have made it much larger. This is clearly by someone too concerned with his own safety to do it "right". Thank heavens.

      You're describing the u.s funded ira

    6. Re:Clearly confirmed as attack by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      They also found two unexploded bombs...well, it's not confirmed yet, but if they did, that means not everything went according to plan...thankfully.

      Still lost limbs and two lost lifes (not counting bringing down major sports event) - I think he/she unfortunately succeeded.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    7. Re:Clearly confirmed as attack by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      You're describing the u.s funded ira

      He's describing current US drone policy.

    8. Re:Clearly confirmed as attack by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      At this point, with all the publicity, any idiot would understand the idea of multiple coordinated bombs, even if they didn't play strategy games or read Tom Clancy-ish novels and have a passing familiarity with tactics - like many of the engineers and programmers who read Slashdot.

    9. Re:Clearly confirmed as attack by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      This is also doesn't feel like Jihadists...

      Indeed. Jihadists would have put the second device in the rubble of the first, made the delay closer to 5 minutes than 20 seconds, and would have made it much larger. This is clearly by someone too concerned with his own safety to do it "right". Thank heavens.

      You're describing the u.s funded ira

      I think if you drew up a list of possible terrorist groups likely to target Boston, the IRA or any of its variants would be pretty near the bottom.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    10. Re:Clearly confirmed as attack by isorox · · Score: 1

      This is also doesn't feel like Jihadists...

      Indeed. Jihadists would have put the second device in the rubble of the first, made the delay closer to 5 minutes than 20 seconds, and would have made it much larger. This is clearly by someone too concerned with his own safety to do it "right". Thank heavens.

      You're describing the u.s funded ira

      I think if you drew up a list of possible terrorist groups likely to target Boston, the IRA or any of its variants would be pretty near the bottom.

      Indeed, they preferred to blow up towns like Warrington. Same M.O. Blow up one bomb, kids run away from it, straight into the path of another one a few minutes later. All funded by the good people of Boston and New York.

      "Jihadists" tend to be too thick to cause much of a problem. Look at the shoe bomber -- if he'd have gone to the toilet, or even booked himself in F, he'd have gotten away with it.

    11. Re:Clearly confirmed as attack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might as well be a drone strike.

  128. Re:tell me again by spitzak · · Score: 2

    All the runners should have been carrying their own bombs, that would have stopped it!

  129. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God help any college students walking around wearing accessories with blinkenlights or exposed electronics; they'll probably be shot on sight.

    What exactly is the downside again? I'm just thinking about how many knobs are going to step off of the curb face down in their I-whatever on my way to class across campus and then I have to make the conscious decision of not running them over just because I just washed my truck.

    Which is why they apparently deserve to die, according to you. Good, good, glad to see GodInHell's post involving whackaloons is getting more and more credible as we keep seeing responses like yours. But don't worry, I guess you're perfectly safe so long as you don't do something trivial that offends some mentally-imbalanced self-centered whackaloon with an axe to grind...

    Oh by the way fuk you /. for putting in a spel cheker.

    ...like being enough of an idiot to not realize that your own browser is what's putting the spellchecker stuff into the text area, not Slashdot.

  130. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's the very point. Bombs being legal or illegal have nothing to do with whether criminals or terrorists would use them. Same goes for guns. When gun ownership is banned, all it does is outlaw LEGAL possession, meaning law abiding citizens no longer have it. But criminals will continue to have it, regardless of whether the law allows it or not.

    Whenever there are any shootings, the anti-gun lobby is on overdrive. This time, no guns were involved, which is why the question the OP put is a good one. The root cause of this is either crime, which is a social problem, or terrorism, which is an Islamic problem. It has little to do with whether guns can be legally owned, which is why the attacks on the 2nd amendment everytime a gun based crime happens is actually an irrelevant one.

  131. Re:Most likely this will be Far right wingers. by Bigby · · Score: 1

    You don't need evidence when the writer can define what "left" and "right" mean.

  132. Re:tell me again by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    Banning guns won't prevent mass murder because then people will just use bombs?

    Yes, but if all those runners had been armed then, uh ... uh ... uh ...

  133. Re:tell me again by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    I don't know, what does the the Superbowl have to do with this either?

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  134. Not again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be on the lookout for yet another segment in the rape-fest of your rights when they ammend whatever "sign it or you're a terrorist"-underpinned shit bill as a consequence of this, the contents of which will eventually overflow across U.S. borders.

  135. Re:tell me again by GodInHell · · Score: 1
    You fail at reading comprehension.

    Fortunately, every time some whackaloon goes crazy and kills people some fool makes the mistake of announcing the political message of the attack before it comes out that the dude was just a whackaloon.

    Yes, there are many ways to go with this one -- look around and you'll see two of the points I raised already appearing in other threads here. Go to CNN and you can complete the set and add a bunch more.

  136. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ganjadude was pointing out the media's position, which is "tolerate killings by terrorist groups because it's America's fault" The desire right now is to turn anything into America bashing so that American civil rights will be restricted.

  137. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

    The mites would fight over our bodies.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  138. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is going to set up a bunch of half-baked theories and speculation
    I see you are already laying the seeds to label motherfuckers.

    Here's a few that aren't half baked
    Today's Gold
    Todays market
    Todays GDP to DEBT
    TOdays wars
    Todays DHS bullet buy
    TOdays shitting on the consitution
    Todays banksters stealing and fucking it all up
    Todays Gun Grabing oath breakers
    TOdays Spies sucking everything up.

    Ya know RFID was conspiracy theory too. But you would be considered STUPID if you treated people like that about it today, NOW THAT WE KNOW.

    I'm telling ya, WE KNOW.
    WE KNOW they want to crash the monetary system
    WE KNOW they want us disarmed
    WE KNOW they want to spy on us
    WE KNOW they want to STEAL from us.
    WE KNOW they want to KILL us.

    You go ahead with your fucking grass roots slander of people who point this shit out every fucking day.

    Your a fucking piece of SHIT, is that CLEAR?

  139. Re:tell me again by asylumx · · Score: 1

    To be fair, there are several 'western' countries where bombing like this make headline news in the US.

  140. Re:tell me again by davegravy · · Score: 1

    Best course -- pray it turns out to have been a big gas leak.

    It would be nice to return to the days of blissful ignorance when we believed we had no enemies or if the mounds of money and freedoms we give up for security would actually make us safe.

  141. Politically Motivated? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope someone catches you and cuts off your balls you son of a BITCH

  142. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by ttucker · · Score: 1

    there were no drones in the 80's and 90's and the same people went from hijacking planes and cruise liners to blowing up sky scrapers in NYC and US Navy destroyers

    Stop asking questions peon!

  143. Re:tell me again by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    The point is that in todays political climate, we spend SOO much time looking at "assault weapons" (a gun that looks scary in other words) we are trying to disarm america and acts like this just prove that banning guns, will not stop crazy people from being crazy.

    Don't be so rational. Guns shoot bullets out of cartridges containing explosives, they're like a million little bombs you can carry in your pocket! Ban guns, ban machinery, ban tools, ban explosives, ban books, ban freedom

    Actually, some of us are less worried about how scary guns look as we are in how many rounds they let loose before someone can get to them.

    An assault rifle is like a bomb in that it allows one person to wound or kill a lot of people in seconds. In fact, the main difference, functionally speaking, is that rifle spray is more unidirectional.

    Still, the NRA only considers guns to be "arms" protected by the 2nd Amendment, so expect the upshot of this is that you will be eventually cuffed and sent to guantanamo if you are found in possession of anything more chemically dangerous than it takes to make a chocolate milkshake. But who needs science if you have enough bullets?

  144. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by BTWR · · Score: 1

    I agree. As someone living in NYC at the time, none of our cell phones worked and television was knocked out for a while (I think it was CBS that was still broadcasting because their antenna was on the Empire State Building.).

    A largely text-only site like Slashdot is the best scenario for such situations.

  145. And it is also Kim Il Sung's 101st Birthday by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    Yup. The war is on.

    1. Re:And it is also Kim Il Sung's 101st Birthday by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      If that's the war then there are many places in the world that would gladly swap it for what they currently call peace.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  146. Re:tell me again by geek · · Score: 1

    Clearly you need to be carted off to the re-education camp. How dare you go against this administrations agenda! Don't you know you work for the liberal government? Did you think this was a democracy?

  147. Re:tell me again by excelsior_gr · · Score: 2

    What additional action could we have taken that would have prevented this?

    Like, you know, stop pissing people off for a change.

  148. Re:tell me again by Culture20 · · Score: 2

    Explosives have been legal ever since they were made. They're just heavily regulated. Using explosives in the way they were used today is illegal though. That doesn't stop the tragedy (nothing can), but it does allow a legal framework for prosecution, and in theory, the threat of prosecution will stop some people from blowing other people up.

  149. Tax day bombing by spiffmastercow · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    $10 says this was militant tea baggers. They all post so much crazy shit about killing people on facebook and eventually one of them snaps and acts on it.

    1. Re:Tax day bombing by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Bravo. Usually reporters and even slashdotters have too much of a sense of decency to start fingerpointing at the opposing party before getting any real details, but not you.

      Way to keep those standards high.

    2. Re:Tax day bombing by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      So you're taking the bet then?

    3. Re:Tax day bombing by thoth · · Score: 3

      sense of decency

      Here, are you serious? People skip right over the deaths to complain about their possible future loss of rights.
      I guess that's easy to complain about in a basement away from risk.

    4. Re:Tax day bombing by lightknight · · Score: 1

      I will, if only to see how this plays out. If you're going to accuse someone, you better have some evidence.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    5. Re:Tax day bombing by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      I will, if only to see how this plays out. If you're going to accuse someone, you better have some evidence.

      It's a bet. This is not the same as an accusation, it's a guess based on evidence (tax day, patriot day, "boston tea party").

    6. Re:Tax day bombing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not precisely pointing fingers - he's saying who he thinks the mostly likely culprit is, at least in general terms. It's nothing that millions of other people aren't likely thinking about. Patriot/Tax day. "Liberal" event in a "liberal" city. Explosives that apparently didn't all work, and caused far fewer casualties than similar Al-Qaeda attacks in Madrid and London. It's not hard to see that and say it might very well be the work of some far right wing militant(s).

    7. Re:Tax day bombing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Except they'd be more likely to attack a government building. Not people celebrating Patriot's day.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Tax day bombing by geek · · Score: 1

      I'll take the bet you ignorant, self righteous, pathetic welfare state piece of shit.

    9. Re:Tax day bombing by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Except they'd be more likely to attack a government building. Not people celebrating Patriot's day.

      I was a few miles away from the OKC bombing when it happened. Guess where his target was? That's right, the day-care center.

    10. Re:Tax day bombing by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      I'll take the bet you ignorant, self righteous, pathetic welfare state piece of shit.

      Geez, now why might we get the idea that right wingers are violent?

    11. Re:Tax day bombing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like it wasn't from what's currently being reported. So why don't you take your hateful ass elsewhere and stop being such a fucking bitch?
       
      Oh, and in lieu of the 10 dollars you can just go eat your own hateful bigoted shit since you tried to force feed it to us today. You're a fucking disgrace to everything a human should be in a time like this. But I guess that's what it means to never waste a crisis.

    12. Re:Tax day bombing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see a word of violence there. But then again, fucktards like yourself scream "racist" anytime anyone disagrees with your president. You don't give a fuck about the facts. You'll twist shit around. You'll lie and cheat to get your own way. You just want to be a hateful fuck who spreads schism. I hope it comes back to bite you in the ass in the worst of ways.

    13. Re:Tax day bombing by ttucker · · Score: 1

      $10 says this was militant tea baggers. They all post so much crazy shit about killing people on facebook and eventually one of them snaps and acts on it.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_bag_(sexual_act) profit?

    14. Re:Tax day bombing by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      I don't see a word of violence there. But then again, fucktards like yourself scream "racist" anytime anyone disagrees with your president. You don't give a fuck about the facts. You'll twist shit around. You'll lie and cheat to get your own way. You just want to be a hateful fuck who spreads schism. I hope it comes back to bite you in the ass in the worst of ways.

      Methinks thou dost protest too much

    15. Re:Tax day bombing by doesnothingwell · · Score: 1

      Not enough fireball black smoke radiant energy, the bomb had that homemade white smoke - black powder look, not that I'd know. Yeah, teabagger malcontent, bubba meets earl terrorists, would be a good guesses.

      --
      They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
    16. Re:Tax day bombing by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      $10 says this was militant tea baggers. They all post so much crazy shit about killing people on facebook and eventually one of them snaps and acts on it.

      Don‘t you mean £10? It’s hard to believe any American would be so clueless about the Tea Party.

      If you are looking for bomb makers among political activists in the United States, here is a hint or two on where to look.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    17. Re:Tax day bombing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      He was attacking a federal building. Please continue to talk. I'm interested in seeing if you can spew forth more idiocy.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Tax day bombing by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      He was attacking a federal building. Please continue to talk. I'm interested in seeing if you can spew forth more idiocy.

      The day care center of a federal building. He intentionally killed a disproportionately large number of children.

    19. Re:Tax day bombing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      He intentionally killed them, did he? Do you know this because you looked in his mind? Please tell us of your wonderful mind reading powers.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:Tax day bombing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either way it's wrong. You don't have the nuts to man up and admit that you're a bigoted fool. I don't expect much out of knee jerk fucks like you anyway.

    21. Re:Tax day bombing by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      Fun fact, McVeigh called those children "Collateral Damage".

      What has the Obama administration called children killed in drone strikes?..........Collateral Damage.

    22. Re:Tax day bombing by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're seriously going to sit here and defend McVeigh as having unintentionally killed people? And you ask why people think you're nuts?

    23. Re:Tax day bombing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. If the extreme right was to make an 'official' move it wouldn't be a cowardly attack like this. There is no motive for that and it would buy them nothing, even less than nothing actually. They would target some 1%'ers or something/someone of higher value than mere civilians. They need civies on their side...

      Motive dictates....This will either be A: a lone nutjob(s). B: ragheads(or NK but I don't think they roll like that....). or C: false flag by one of your very own 3 letter agencys.

    24. Re:Tax day bombing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I didn't defend him, I mocked you for trying to throw your prejudices on any convenient target. I'll bet you're the kind of person who blames the other political party for all the problems in government, as well.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    25. Re:Tax day bombing by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Okay then, who do your predjudices tell you he was trying to kill? Clearly your predjudices lead you to assume I adhere to a political party (wrong, btw). My home city was bombed by right wing militants, so I think I have a bit more perspective than you when it comes to armed right wing nut jobs that talk about starting revolutions.

    26. Re:Tax day bombing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I read your post history expecting to find some angry guy, but actually I found you are quite calm and collected, even when people are writing rude comments to you. That made me happy, good job.

      Instead I found that your biggest weakness is that you make a lot of arguments from ignorance, and seem to actually believe them. For example, I found you can't figure out how minimum wage would reduce employment, therefore you come to the conclusion that it doesn't. Well, that's wrong, you just don't understand it.

      So stop making arguments from ignorance and you'll be wiser.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re:Tax day bombing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here, are you serious? People skip right over the deaths to complain about their possible future loss of rights.

      The politicians are already thinking about it. If you don't prepare for the inevitable Patriot Act Part 2 then it'll just fly through congress.

      It's a scale thing, a few tens of people were seriously injured which is a tragedy, but tens of millions of people being deprived of liberty is a tragedy as well.

    28. Re:Tax day bombing by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      My point about the minimum wage is that it only loosely correlates to employment, as employers will pay the absolute minimum they can per employee, regardless of the benefit they see from the employee. It might hurt some businesses at the margins, and increase prices a bit, but could seriously put a dent in our poverty problem.

      As for McVeigh.. Maybe his target was just feds, but I really do think he targeted the day care for maximum effect, though I can't prove it. I have grown up around right wingers (many in my family), and I've seen a disturbingly casual attitude from them regarding killing people that don't agree with them, including attitudes toward killing children (though they think fetuses are sacred, for some reason). I'm really not trying to bait when I say that I think this was a right wing nut job(s), I have seen enough of them in my lifetime that I would not be at all surprised if one of them went and did the kind of thing that they joke about all time.. If you saw my FB feed, you would just see my extended family doing nothing but posting jokes about killing liberals and/or brown people all day. Somewhere out there is someone who takes this shit seriously, and I think it's more likely than not that this bombing in Boston was done by just such a person. So I'm just calling my guess.

    29. Re:Tax day bombing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      My point about the minimum wage is that it only loosely correlates to employment, as employers will pay the absolute minimum they can per employee, regardless of the benefit they see from the employee. It might hurt some businesses at the margins, and increase prices a bit, but could seriously put a dent in our poverty problem.

      You should really buy an economics book.

      The rest of your post.....isn't that the same as saying video games caused someone to kill? BTW it entertains me that you think having your town bombed would give you more perspective on the topic, when it could as easily narrow your perspective.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    30. Re:Tax day bombing by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      My point about the minimum wage is that it only loosely correlates to employment, as employers will pay the absolute minimum they can per employee, regardless of the benefit they see from the employee. It might hurt some businesses at the margins, and increase prices a bit, but could seriously put a dent in our poverty problem.

      You should really buy an economics book. The rest of your post.....isn't that the same as saying video games caused someone to kill? BTW it entertains me that you think having your town bombed would give you more perspective on the topic, when it could as easily narrow your perspective.

      I'm just saying that if several million right wingers say it in jest, a few of them aren't going to get the joke, and think it's for real. I've been all over, and I've seen many kinds of people, but the only kind that scare me more than right wingers are meth addicts (there tends to be some overlap there, which leads to a very scary combination). Liberals might say some dumb shit from time to time, but they don't often go around proposing to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them the way right wingers tend to. As for the economics thing.. If you're really worried about the minimum wage, you're looking in the wrong place in terms of employment costs. Obamacare is going to roughly double the cost of hiring a minimum wage employee, compared to the 20% pay increase from a wage hike. If we went the sensible route and had a tax-based health care system like every other country in the first world employers wouldn't have to shoulder that burden. A basic income might be a better system than a minimum wage from an economics perspective, but that has exactly zero chance of ever happening in the US.

    31. Re:Tax day bombing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Liberals might say some dumb shit from time to time, but they don't often go around proposing to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them the way right wingers tend to.

      Liberals who do that are called goths

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:Tax day bombing by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Liberals might say some dumb shit from time to time, but they don't often go around proposing to kill everyone who doesn't agree with them the way right wingers tend to.

      Liberals who do that are called goths

      No, they're called anarchists.. I've met a few of them, too. Jackasses like the ones in Seattle during the G8 (or 6, or whatever, can't remember what the number was) or in the ALF. They're out there, but they're not nearly as common as the right wingers. What freaks me out isn't that there are *some* right wingers that do this, it's that *most* right wingers are cavalier in their attitude about killing.

    33. Re:Tax day bombing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I think you'd need to do a survey or something to see if most are cavalier like you say, more likely you just have a weird social circle.

      A lot of people do threaten to use guns and kill, but it's an expression of powerlessness more than anything. They notice people get worried when they mention guns, so they mention them more.

      Some city folk get in the same situation by threatening to sue every time something goes wrong

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    34. Re:Tax day bombing by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      Granted there may be a sampling bias, but the social media age has made things much worse. my family, who were mostly apolitical when I was growing up, have mostly become conspiracy theorists since Obama took office. If you saw how mainstream this kind of shit is in places like Oklahoma, you might be concerned about it too.

    35. Re:Tax day bombing by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      People skip right over the deaths to complain about their possible future loss of rights.

      Yes, yes we do and I find your comment quite distasteful.

        The thing is there are something like 100,000 deaths per day in the world from various causes, some tragic, some not. In abstract, one ca feel empathy for lives cut short and loved ones lost it is beyond rediculous to feel that I could spare a thought for them. I'd never get anything---including sleep---done.

      So why these people? Why should I feel specially about people who I never met but whose death happens to be in the news?

      I do not have enough in me to feel any more than sad in bastract for the death of people I have not met.

      And here's the part where I find your post distasteful.

      Do you feel for the poor bastards who were locked up and tortured in gitmo for 10 years and then released with no charges? Or at least a sense of righteous outrage?

      That's what we got last time something like this happened. But you're focussing on the bostonians to the exclusion of those people.

      So yes, it's right for people to look forward and worry about the future loss of rights becuase that has historically and will affect more people and likely cause more deaths too.

      And this is why I like slashdot and its comments. People here feel less need to conform to odd ideas of how society feels people ought to react which has the largest emphasis on not being rational.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    36. Re:Tax day bombing by isorox · · Score: 1

      sense of decency

      Here, are you serious? People skip right over the deaths to complain about their possible future loss of rights.
      I guess that's easy to complain about in a basement away from risk.

      I travel all over the world, hardly a week goes by without being on a flight somewhere and staying in a hotel somewhere. From Islamabad to Gaza, from Boston to Mumbai.

      I was in Joburg last week, a colleague survived an attempted carjacking leaving the office when I was there. He had a gun held to his head and the trigger was pulled. Fortunately the gun jammed and he got away.

      Later the police found 3 casings and the bullet -- it had been struck, but didn't go off. One lucky guy.

      I'm hardly hiding away in my basement, however I'm far more concerned about the erosion of rights than on any improvement "safety" that comes from events like this. Shit happens. If I had been in Boston this week, I'd be more likely to be run over than blown up.

    37. Re:Tax day bombing by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      So why these people?

      Because these people are in the news, missing limbs, and if you are able to watch a news report about some tragedy where 20 or so people are maimed or killed without feeling anything, it just means that you've succeeded in killing off a part of what makes you human.

      I feel outrage against a lot of things. But right now, to try to take advantage of a tragedy for political gain even as people are trying to figure out whether their loved ones are alright, is seriously messed up. If you really want to be a complete jerk and score some political points off the back of this, at least have the decency to wait until the dust settles and the bodies have been accounted for.

    38. Re:Tax day bombing by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Because these people are in the news,

      That does not make them more deserving than the other 100,000 people dying every day. There are 100,000 people dying every day out there. Some from old age. Others from tragic accidents. Others from murder others from preventable disease. Others from unpreventable but extremely painful diseases.

      missing limbs, and if you are able to watch a news report about some tragedy where 20 or so people are maimed or killed without feeling anything, it just means that you've succeeded in killing off a part of what makes you human.

      What should I feel? Should I feel this is a bad thing that should not have happened? I do. Should I feel that it is a tragedy and deeply unfortunate for those involved? I do. I cannot however feel a personal sense of loss since I have no connection to these people, any more than I have a connection to the several hundred people who died while I composed this reply to you.

      But right now, to try to take advantage of a tragedy for political gain even as people are trying to figure out whether their loved ones are alright, is seriously messed up.

      That's the whole point! People will use this tragedy for political advantage. They have always done so in the past and they will do so now. The ONLY option is to stand up and shout about that very loudly.

      If you really want to be a complete jerk and score some political points off the back of this, at least have the decency to wait until the dust settles and the bodies have been accounted for.

      Something seems to be missing in your thought process here. I like most people on slashdot am not a politician and have no political points to score. Unlike the people in power who will do exactly what you're accusing me and others of.

      But feel free to sit at home and wring your hands and shed a tear for people who you have never met who died, but don't forget to do it at the rate of 1 per second for whoever happens to be dying while you are shedding that tear.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    39. Re:Tax day bombing by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Alright. Just avoid making arguments from ignorance. Your post quality will improve 200%

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    40. Re:Tax day bombing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing you can do about the people in the explosion unless you are there. So spending pointless time mewing over things you can't change seems kind of dumb.

  150. Re:tell me again by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

    Guess it's too soon to make points that, if someone wants to kill other people, they can do it no matter what is legal or illegal?

    Only an idiot or a legislator would think otherwise. But I repeat myself, to quote Mark Twain.

    Realistically - not that being realistic has anything to do with politics or ide(ot)ology - it would be useful to be able to use the law to limit the amount of damage that people can do without making it impossible to function as a creative, productive, and free society. An all-or-nothing approach is worse than useless, regardless of which pole you adhere to. We'll never be 100% safe, regardless.

  151. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not killing so many brown people would probably be a good start.

  152. Who will they pin it on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what's most urgent on the agenda? Will they pin it on Syria? Iran? North Korea maybe? Pro-gunners? I bet they will discover explosive devices which failed to detonate, from which they can extract enough for blame. Perhaps they even find a lost passport. Convenient.

  153. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

    Don't speak too soon, this could be a right-wing militia group for all we know.

    More than likely, given that it's on tax day.

  154. Suspect Identified, detained by sycodon · · Score: 1, Interesting
    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Suspect Identified, detained by uncanny · · Score: 1

      I must say i'm suprised, i figured they'd "identify a North Korean National" right now, but i guess they still need oil too!

    2. Re:Suspect Identified, detained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NY Post is the only news source reporting that one, so I'd be cautious trusting that until someone else corroborates it.

    3. Re:Suspect Identified, detained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure about that? Looks to me like they're still picking up suspects, as of 17 minutes ago:

      https://twitter.com/Eric_Twardzik/status/323910549895262210/photo/1

    4. Re:Suspect Identified, detained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Boston police commissioner just reported that they have no suspects in custody. I guess the NYPost's piss-yellow journalism loses again...

    5. Re:Suspect Identified, detained by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      nope, that's what you get for trustingthe comPost there is not a saudi national apprehended or suspected.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  155. Re:tell me again by geek · · Score: 0

    I can only tell you what I would do:

    1) If it was a foreign terrorist. I would hang him, publicly for all the middle east etc to see. Then I would deal with the country that sent him/her because these people are rarely loners. They are almost always sanctioned by a state, usually Iran.
    2) If it was a home grown loon, I would determine if they were the Oklahoma federal building variety or the Occupy Wall Street variety. Then I would hang them publicly for all the world to see and deal with their organization harshly and quickly, because they are almost never loners and are almost always sanctioned by a particular group residing in a particular state.

    The bottom line is, this runs deeper than we know. It must be dealt with harshly and we must be intolerant of political bullshit. The first politician to trott the victims out on stage or off a plane to DC, regardless of party, should be beaten within an inch of their life, tarred and feathered and set to walk down main street in shame.

  156. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hardly flamebait people. All you got to do is look at all the coverage of sandy hook and the politicians love affair with it, and then take a look at bengazi, which is never spoken about at all.

    Bengazi not spoken of? I had to sit through weeks of drivel from Republicans claiming Hillary Clinton personally ignored their pleas for help. More self-induced memory editing, I think.

  157. Re:Worried by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    As an outsider, judging by how 9/11 "rallied the American spirit" - no thanks. You all went batshit crazy and still are. I'm afraid to think where more rallying will leave you. Checkpoints on every block? Full body scanners and patdowns at every public event? Personally I still like my odds of dying of a heart attack versus being killed in a terrorist act. Please don't take more civil liberties away. That stuff is contagious and other countries are catching it. Also, condolences to the bereaved and wounded.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  158. Don't worry, everyone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As with the Fort Hood shooting where Nidal Hassan shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before opening fire, I'm sure the government will rule that this is *not* an act of terrorism!

  159. Fire at the JFK Library by Cyfun · · Score: 1

    They're now reporting a third incident at the JFK Library, which has erupted into a fire.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
  160. Re:tell me again by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

    So, they probably haven't even finished picking up the body parts and you are already declaring there is nothing to do, we may have already done too much? I don't suppose there is even a sliver of thought in your mind that it might be a little early to declare defeat and despair before the bodies have even cooled? How about that quait old custom of finishing picking up the bodies and then have . . . what did they call it. . . .oh yes, an investigation?

    I'm certainly open to the possibility that an investigation might actually find some measures to take that even Eisenhower might approve of. Or do you believe that American government and its security policy is now at the height of perfection and eliminates any poor choice, practice, or bad policy that might be improved upon?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  161. Re:tell me again by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lay off the weed a bit, "ganjadude," it's making you paranoid but doing your analytical skills no favors. Benghazi was "never spoken about at all," except by just about every media pundit and political campaigner for months (whining on every prime-time TV media show about how there was no media coverage). Do you know anyone in this country who didn't hear endless re-hashes of the Benghazi attacks? So far as the Benghazi incident didn't prompt calls for immediate changes in domestic policy like Sandy Hook did, have you considered that might be because Benghazi isn't in the USA so there's fuck all changes to domestic policy that would be relevant to "preventing the next Benghazi"?

  162. Re:Most likely this will be Far right wingers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You got that right. Those filthy left wingers, sneaking in at night to provide free health care and subsidized housing to their innocent victims.

    Just bomb 'em all.

  163. Could have been prevented by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We seriously need to implement more background checks before allowing people to buy bombs.

  164. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your stupid assed comment aside, I don't really have a problem with that. A terrorist is a terrorist, and foreign or domestic, liberal or right wing, if you think blowing people up is going to win hearts and minds you deserve to be waterboarded every day and twice on Sunday. First of all for being a complete moron, but also so we might learn who else is as stupid as you are. It may not be nice, but it's been proven to be effective. Coddling people who want to kill us is generally a bad idea IMO.

  165. We already know who it is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It must be a white gun owner aged 25-35 who is affiliated with the tea party. (CNN Propagadist Wolf Blitzer already Tweeted that).
    The Saudi will be released as a mistaken suspect.
    New laws will have to be passed. More gruesome bloody images will be shown.

    Wait and see before passing judgement.

  166. Three explosions so far, cell service is shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2 devices at the boston marathon finish line
    1 device at JFK library
    Cell service shut down
    This is from the live feed of the Boston PD press meeting

    Definitely a coordinated attack, the question is now, who did it?

  167. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking as part of the 1%, the current government serves me just fine, much as the last one did.

  168. Re:tell me again by WGFCrafty · · Score: 1

    In either case, little if anything will be done that's relevant to preventing future such acts.

    You seem to be implying that there are things we should be doing that would prevent future such acts. So what should we be doing? I can understand hardening specific point targets like critical infrastructure, and general intelligence gathering. But we are already doing those things. In fact, many people feel that we are already way past the point of diminishing returns. What additional action could we have taken that would have prevented this?

    "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

    Inspired words from the man who sanctioned America's first coups in Democratic countries.

  169. Re:tell me again by eth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Today I think you have it backwards. If it does end up being an american, it will be all over the media, used as an excuse to take away more rights. If it is a "furriner" it will be all over the media, used as an excuse to take away more rights.

    There, fixed that for ya. A common mistake to think our current Government in any way wants to serve us, defend our rights, and generally do the right thing. You're not the first to make that mistake.

    This. I'm actually far more afraid of what the government will do in response to stuff like this than actually being a victim of something like this.

  170. Re:Google Maps - Third Site by Martin+S. · · Score: 1

    Third Site - JFK Library reported by BBC

  171. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then, if something actually does happen on April 15th, you know it wasn't the North Koreans.

    It's always opposite day in NK.

  172. Maybe its just Lithium Ion's by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    Someone's Macbook Retina battery forgot its a battery and decided its a bomb. They did find out that Lithium Ion batteries have memory problems.

    Sad to see people injured and killed with this, even sadder when we find out this ends up being some disgruntled American suffering from an overload of first world problems, just like the Atlanta Olympic bombing.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    1. Re:Maybe its just Lithium Ion's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This joke is in very poor taste.

  173. Precedent for arming stupd schmuks by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 4, Informative

    Perhaps prompting and arming some stupid schmuck in order to entrap him for terrorism

    Or perhaps something worse, like this: "[Operation] Fast & Furious involved uncontrolled deliveries — of thousands of weapons. It was an utterly heedless program in which the feds allowed these guns to be sold to straw purchasers — often leaning on reluctant gun dealers to make the sales. The straw purchasers were not followed by close physical surveillance; they were freely permitted to bulk transfer the guns to, among others, Mexican drug gangs and other violent criminals — with no agents on hand to swoop in, make arrests, and grab the firearms. The inevitable result of this was that the guns have been used (and will continue to be used) in many crimes, including the murder of Brian Terry, a U.S. border patrol agent. In sum, the Fast & Furious idea of “trace” is that, after violent crimes occur in Mexico, we can trace any guns the Mexican police are lucky enough to seize back to the sales to U.S. straw purchasers who should never have been allowed to transfer them (or even buy them) in the first place. That is not law enforcement; that is abetting a criminal rampage." -- K. Pavlich

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  174. directly? by tacokill · · Score: 1

    directly responsible

    I don't think this means what you think it means.....

    1. Re:directly? by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      I didn't say "directly responsible for causing", I said "directly responsible for preventing". The FBI anti-terrorism unit is there specifically to prevent bombings. They have agents that can and have directly infiltrated and stopped bomb plots (e.g. this one). That's their job description, and that this happens means they screwed up.

      Speculation based purely on the public information known right now:
      - April 15 is Tax Day, which may be a motivating factor for the date.
      - The American Revolution started in Boston, which may be a motivating factor for the location.
      - The targeted event and means of attack guarantees a pretty random assortment of victims. It's not after political leaders, police, military, business, or any other particular organization. By contrast, Sept 11, OK City, Ft Hood, etc were all targeting very specific kinds of people and groups.
      - No one has claimed responsibility, so it's probably an individual rather than an organization.
      - Based on the above: It's probably a lone nut with anarchistic tendencies, thinking that he's starting some kind of revolution but is in fact just a lone nutcase.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:directly? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      And today is also Israel's Independence day. What specific kind of people did the Sept 11th attacks target? Americans, maybe?

    3. Re:directly? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      What specific kind of people did the Sept 11th attacks target?

      World Trade Center - Executives of US-based international financial corporations, particularly Morgan Stanley.
      Pentagon - Top officers of the US military.

      The attacks killed lots of other people too, but those were the targets.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:directly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the event was not preventable, they didn't screw up. A lone wolf could use anonymizing web browsing software to research how to make an effective IED and deploy it in a public place to cause a few casualties, and significant psychological impact, as we saw today. He could do this without providing any information to law enforcement prior to the attack. How can this be prevented? It can't. Effective explosives can easily be synthesized by a careful layman. Blaming the FBI in such circumstances is moronic.

    5. Re:directly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not entirely clear that the FBI actually prevented the bombing of that bridge near Cleveland. I get the feeling that those idiots only had access to "explosives" due to the FBI's infiltration of their group, and had the FBI had no involvement, they would have amounted to nothing.

      Whenever you hear that the "bomb" was inert and we were never in danger, it always calls into question whether the suspects were ever really a threat, or if it's just a way for the FBI to pad their resumes by turning mostly-harmless ne'er-do-wells into "terrorists". You never know how much coercion the FBI provided, nor whether they ever had access to any real explosives.

      The Times Square bomber, on the other hand, was a real threat. He had a real bomb that failed to properly detonate, and would probably be trying again this very moment had he not been quickly apprehended.

      However, the FBI doesn't have enough Times Square bombers to go around, so they have to keep creating bombers for them to "foil" -- much like firefighters who start fires so they can be heroes when they put them out.

      dom

    6. Re:directly? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I didn't say "directly responsible for causing", I said "directly responsible for preventing". The FBI anti-terrorism unit is there specifically to prevent bombings. They have agents that can and have directly infiltrated and stopped bomb plots (e.g. this one [newsnet5.com]). That's their job description, and that this happens means they screwed up.

      Unless you have a society like the old DDR, with police spies at every family and social level, no intelligence agency can prevent a one-off attack by a serious nutcase. That is just a fact of life.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:directly? by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      I have not heard anything yet about the size or concealment of the IEDs used. Presumably they were quite large and had been in place for a short while, perhaps hidden in storm drains or garbage cans or mailboxes or backpacks. If so, then that's what the security team can look for, I believe they even have explosives sniffing dogs and presumably some kind of explosive sniffing technology could be developed. They could presumably also set up HD video cameras along the event route for a couple of weeks before the event and then take them down when the event is over.

      This story is still unfolding it seems a shame that it has now scrolled to yesterdays news on slashdot. It would be good to be able to vote it back to being current and to be able to see the comments stacked in reverse cronology. I know everyone has their own favorite bitch about the slashdot UI, but this is a good example of a story that suffers from it.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    8. Re:directly? by rmandevi · · Score: 1

      > I didn't say "directly responsible for causing", I said "directly responsible for preventing". The FBI anti-terrorism unit is there specifically to prevent bombings. They have agents that can and have directly infiltrated and stopped bomb plots (e.g. this one [newsnet5.com]). That's their job description, and that this happens means they screwed up.

      Do you honestly expect the FBI to make the Boston Marathon unbombable? There's no such thing. We can't keep assassins with guns away from our Presidents, and a President is a two-meter target. You're asking for ironclad security across an event twenty-six miles long. You want to make a marathon unbombable? Cancel it. Nothing short of that will do.

      The FBI's job is not to make the marathon unbombable. The job of the police is not to make crimes impossible. Their jobs are to stop as many bombings and crimes as they can with the tools (both physical and legal) at their command, and failing that, to bring those responsible to justice. There are cracks, and there are those who will slip through those cracks.

      But as you said, they have stopped bomb plots. They can't stop all of them. Even if you gave them above-the-law, license-to-kill legal abilities and turned them into the SS, they couldn't stop all bomb plots. The fact that this bombing happened is not, in and of itself, evidence that the FBI "screwed up".

      --
      People who live in glass houses shouldn't walk and text.
    9. Re:directly? by rmandevi · · Score: 1

      > I didn't say "directly responsible for causing", I said "directly responsible for preventing". The FBI anti-terrorism unit is there specifically to prevent bombings. They have agents that can and have directly infiltrated and stopped bomb plots (e.g. this one [newsnet5.com]). That's their job description, and that this happens means they screwed up.

      Do you seriously expect the FBI anti-terrorism unit to make the marathon unbombable? Do you sue your doctor every time you catch a cold?

      Let's say, just for a minute, that we give the FBI above-the-law, license-to-kill getapo-like privileges (and let me be clear that this would be a tremendously bad idea). This isn't the Superbowl, taking place in an arena designed to limit where people can get in and out (just to force you to buy a ticket). This is a fifty-two mile security perimeter within a city that evolved out of cow paths. You need airtight security checkpoints around that entire perimeter--and that means that neither police tape nor Jersey barriers are enough, you're going to have to put six foot walls up around the route. And your bomb-sniffing dogs? Not only do you need them within the perimeter, but you're going to have to search every building within trebuchet range of the route (what, don't think they have trebuchets here? We've got MIT, where a freshman will build you the best one in the world for the cost of parts!). You're going to have to patrol the sewers, in case some lunatic wants to pass a bomb out of a manhole cover.

      The FBI wants to make it impossible to bomb the marathon? Then CANCEL it. It's the only way to be sure.

      Anti-terrorism units don't stop all terrorism. Cops don't stop all crimes. Doctors don't stop all disease. When a terrorist attack happens, a crime happens, or somebody gets sick, that doesn't mean that the good guys screwed up. Be glad they stop all the terrorism, crime and disease that they do. Don't expect them to bat a thousand.

      --
      People who live in glass houses shouldn't walk and text.
  175. Re:tell me again by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

    Seems a lot of the Newtown victim's families were seated at the VIP section near the finish lines, which is where the bombs were planted.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  176. Vacation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are Michael and Fiona vacationing in Boston? I'm used to seeing shit like this all over Miami, but not Boston.

  177. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell me again how having a gun would have prevented it.

    Shooting a person who wasn't spotted or identified, through some magical means?

    Maybe you could be like the NASCAR fan at Texas, who shot himself after an argument.

  178. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Mike+Frett · · Score: 1

    Most likely one of those extremist Republican groups that we've heard so much about. I wouldn't be colored shocked in the least bit.

  179. Re:tell me again by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    Tell me again how gun legislation would have prevented this???

    Because you can have guns to keep the government in line or overthrow it if you don't like the way they respond to terror attacks. It's your right.

    TMYK

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  180. Re:Most likely this will be Far right wingers. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    Really? Can you provide some evidence to support your thesis?

    unabomber etc. right wing wackos(nazis) tend to go beat up homeless(they think they're working for the state). though, I think you could define the politcal wacko scale more as a circle, if they're far enough to the left or to the right they're actually at the same spot far away from sane people on the other side of the circle. but I would be surprised if this was done by muslims.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  181. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Posint anonymously to save what little reputation I have....

    What does this have to do with news for nerds?.

    Bombs are created by terrorists, terrorism is funded by internet piracy, internet piracy is big news here on /.

    Um, what? Terrorism is funded by giving away free stuff?

    You'll be surprised with how much money you'll have left if you copy everything for free. They're just gonna spend it on hookers and blow.

    And in this case, it's just blow.

  182. Let's talk about the bang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else understand the flash and smoke the same way I did? To me it looks very much like a decent sized homemade device, but the builder failed to control the explosion, along the lines of a pipe bomb that had an imperfect seal, allowing the expanding gas of the blast to leak out unevenly. It makes my bet go to a lone American who's pissed off with losing his job or something, and not an organized attack by a larger domestic or foreign group.

  183. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They cling to guns and religion.

    You cling to bigotry and lies.

    Therefor, they are superior to you. Morally and intellectually, they are giants compared to you.

    You cannot refute these facts, or even disagree with them. You can only inadvertently confess that they are accurate, and you will begin doing so now.

  184. Bombing by VeryBest52 · · Score: 2

    They apparently found multiple unexploded bombs. This was confirmed to be a bombing.

  185. Re:tell me again by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    Thanks for the advice, I dont really smoke that much anymore

    we heard the media talking about it yes, and the media has been covering for the administration on the issue. notice how no one there has been brought in to be spoken to? in fact the admin has gone out of its way to keep them from speaking. meanwhile we get lie after lie concerning sandy hook, for example today ABC FINALLY admitted that no assault rifle was used in the attack (which is not stopping the government from pushing assault rifle bans)

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  186. Re:tell me again by FishOuttaWater · · Score: 1

    You mean giving away overpriced stuff.

  187. Citation Needed by mr.mctibbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Drones killing civilians is an accident; people thought there was a military target there. Sometimes mistakes happen, and innocent people die, but the intent is to target military forces and largely that is what happens."

    According to whom, the government that won't officially acknowledge the program exists?

    1. Re:Citation Needed by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 0

      In that case, where is your citation that the "women and children" were not in the same compound as jihadis (which actually makes them unfortunate, but legitimate casualties). Note that many claimed casualties in Afghanistan have been found to be things like donkeys killed near the jihadis. It is worthwhile for villagers to do this as NATO pays handsomely for any civilians killed. There is simply no moral comparison to be made between the war crime of the jihadi tactics of war (deliberately targeting civilians) and the NATO waging of war (killing civilians that the jihadis and Taliban mix with deliberately; because they care less about civilians than NATO does). While your view may be popular (especially among the uniformed and anti-Western political Left) it is not correct.

    2. Re:Citation Needed by dywolf · · Score: 1

      he stated, making a claim that was out of date and inaccurate 3 years ago...

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  188. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeh, 101st birthday of Kim Il-sung

  189. Re:tell me again by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Seem you are the one who failed with your inane speculation.

    A Saudi National has been detained. Mostly because he seems to have blown himself up.

    Just a bit of advice...if the idiots are agreeing with you, it's time to reassess your position.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  190. Re:tell me again by spasm · · Score: 1

    I thought this was 'news for nerds', not 'failed Republican talking points'?

  191. Re:Worried by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

    As an outsider, it's pretty easy to hear about an incident where X,000 poeple died, and just look at it as a statistic. Try looking at the pictures of the people who actually died on 9/11, they're on google images, and they're pretty gruesome. I wasn't there, but if I was I would be pretty damn pissed too. When somebody you don't even know declares open war on you, and underhandedly and violently attacks you, you do things you normally wouldn't do. While taking civil liberties away is a bad idea, calling people who react to it batshit crazy about it is a pretty callous, asshole thing to do. In other words, go fuck your sheltered complacent self.

    It's likely some moderators will come down on me, but I don't really care to be honest.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  192. A losing battle by mpp · · Score: 1

    What could we possibly do to prevent such attacks? Treat every such event like a presidential visit? Bomb-sniffing dogs everywhere? Police swarming the area? All buildings on the route thoroughly searched? Every spectator searched?

    We live in a free country; stuff like this is the price we pay. What is the alternative? A police state?

    Terrorists can't destroy a country, they can only scare a country into destroying itself.

    --

    Dilute! Dilute! OK!
  193. Info I wrote down from CNN Live stream by skelly33 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here are a couple hotlines just announced by Boston Chief of Police in response to today's apparent terrorist attacks in Boston: For help locating people: 1-617-635-4500 For witness tips: 1-800-494-TIPS

  194. Re:tell me again by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    Even nerds living in their basements should have at least SOME notion of what is happening outside.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  195. suspect is saudi by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    well, I guess I am surprised.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  196. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Violence only produces one result: more violence.

    (at least up until the point when everyone is already dead)

    Or until we take the kid gloves off and do what we're capable of, exterminating the vermin outright and damn the collateral damage, a la WW II. We're perfectly capable of shutting these groups down and eradicating them forever, we just don't (yet) have the stomach for the ancillary harm to anyone and anything nearby that would likely be required. Give us time--and enough of these sort of incidents--and we will.

  197. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

    Violence only produces one result: more violence.

    Not in World War II.

    Some wish to assert all violence is bad. That's not true. Some - most - violence is bad. But sometimes it is good. It's an example of the complexity of the world. Like chemotherapy drugs. Under normal circumstances, they are a poison. But in certain circumstances, they can be used to lifesaving effect.

  198. 42.195 km (26.2 miles) by Max_W · · Score: 1

    Historically every marathon finisher gets a medal. Marathoners know that every such a medal is well deserved. Time is not that important. Finishing is winning.

    Running a marathon has got many risks. It requires training, discipline, thinking.

    It is sad that the second great US marathon had to be canceled.

    1. Re:42.195 km (26.2 miles) by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Running a marathon has got many risks. It requires training, discipline, thinking.

      And Kevlar...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:42.195 km (26.2 miles) by cowdung · · Score: 1

      Very depressing.

  199. Lots of events by phorm · · Score: 1

    Also the "founder" of North Korea's birthday, and apparently a day where it's not unexpected for them to do something extra-crazy.

    However, that said the Boston Marathon seems like an odd target for external terrorism, unless it's the beginning of something worse. I wasn't even aware it was happening until the bombing.

  200. Re:Most likely this will be Far right wingers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All militant Muslims are far-right.

  201. Government and rights by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    A common mistake to think our current Government in any way wants to serve us, defend our rights

    Yes -- in a humorous bout of wishful thinking, our Declaration of Independence says that the very reason "Governments are instituted" is to "secure" our rights.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  202. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (assuming that the rate of death, on average, exceeds the rate of birth)

  203. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > water board the bastards all day if we have to

    Only problem is, you already did that. What's the civilian body count in the "war on terror" now? Including the Afghan and Iraq invasions, and continuing drone attacks all over the Middle East. Half a million? One million? And then you're surprised there are a few people who are looking to retaliate?

    Violence only produces one result: more violence.

    Americans are the terrorists and the cause of terrorism against us.

    We gave millions in dollars, equipment and training to sadam back in the day. We helped train and fund him.

    Then we spend decades making fun of middle eastern people on tv, comic strips, newspapers and so on.

    Then we spend years bombing the hell out of them.

    Then they decide to fly some planes into some building, few hundred people die (compared to the thousands we killed over the years previously) because they had enough of us and what happens then? We somehow manage to blame them.

    We are essentially just bullies who smacked a younger kid around too much and he had enough and hit us back. Yet we still feel innocent despite the fact we have killed far more of them than they did of us and helped screw our own country by wasting billions of dollars "fighting terror".

    And what do americans say? "support our troops they protect our freedom". No they don't, the only people who can take our freedom is our own politicians. Since the whole 911 thing have we lost freedoms? Sure. Who took them? Our government. No terrorist took anything or is ever capable of taking a single thing from us.

  204. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think you can rely on an anti-terrorism unit to stop all terrorism, much in the same way that you can't rely on the police to stop all crime. It is even more unreasonable to expect an anti-terrorism unit to consistently (or even probably) stop lone nuts, which seem to be the main cause of mass killings/maimings in the US nowadays.

  205. Dramatic images of the scene. by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

    Images of a big fireball and a lot of blood on the pavement: http://deadspin.com/explosions-reported-at-the-boston-marathon-473008941

  206. Waves his cane menacingly: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    "It's 11, not 7"

    Must be those senior moments that started about age 12.

  207. Re:tell me again by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    The priority of those stories should have been reversed.

    They probably were... in Iraq...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  208. Cell phone service turned off by police by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The AP (Associated Press) is reporting that the Boston Police have turned off the cell phone system and infrastructure to prevent the use of cell phone signals from triggering another bomb. Something else to consider when the only means of communication you have left are cell phones and no land lines.

  209. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

    That's a completely absurd statement. Any attempt of the sort you describe would backfire appallingly, and the world would live with the bloody consequences for generations.

  210. No military budget cuts now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it awfully coincidental that this happened right around the time they were talking about some military budget cuts...

    What are the odds that those would never happen now?

    1. Re:No military budget cuts now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you think the military is responsible for security at the Boston Marathon? You're a nitwit.

  211. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This A.C seems to like to talk about waterboarding a little too much.

  212. You do know... by publiclurker · · Score: 1, Troll

    that the entire world does not revolve around your small penis and need to compensate for it.

  213. Maybe not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In militant Islam everyone from a country that is not fully controlled by Muslim law is considered a valid war target. There are no civilians in the Dar al-Harb (house of war).

    I don't disagree with you, but there are many willing to give up their lives to end ours.

  214. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    meanwhile we get lie after lie concerning sandy hook, for example today ABC FINALLY admitted that no assault rifle was used in the attack (which is not stopping the government from pushing assault rifle bans)

    Only if you don't consider the bushmaster / AR15 an assault rifle, which technically it may not be but to the common person it is. You're splitting hairs.

  215. Re:Why is this on a tech news site? by PoolOfThought · · Score: 1

    Hmmm... I'm not so sure about this "like minded" business. Slashdot has just as much variety of opinion on topics as anywhere else. Perhaps user of /. are more informed, but definitely not "like minded". You could argue with me, but then you'd just make my point about the not like minded deal. Of course, if you agree with me instead then you concede my point.

    Seriously though, you're basically right, and anyone who doesn't get that this story is "stuff that matters" is missing an understanding of what "stuff that matters" means.

    --
    My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
  216. Note that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...said report also grossly misreports causalities at "12 dead 50 injured", while also misreporting unrelated event at the JFK library as "the library bombing".
    Neither of which is true, nor was it reported by police.

    From TFA:

    The library bombing occurred about 4:30 p.m. and more than a mile from the marathon.

    A law enforcement source confirmed to The Post that 12 people were killed and nearly 50 were injured in today's blast.

    From Boston Police Dept. official twitter feed:

    Update JFK incident appears to be fire related

    Update 23 injuries 2 dead

  217. Re:tell me again by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    lol Benghazi never spoken about at all????? You miss all the news stories and Congressional testimony? Or, did your favorite radio/cable news blow hard tell you that?

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  218. Re:tell me again by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    I haven't seen a word of anyone blaming Republicans. What I have seen is Conservatives all over the internet trolling forums from here to IMDB about Obama's incompetence and conspiracy theories.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  219. Re:tell me again by steelfood · · Score: 1

    It is sad that the bombings are happening around the world with such frequency. Human lives are still human lives, no matter they be U.S. citizens, Iraqis, Russians, or Koreans. Why should it be sad in some places and not so much in others?

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  220. Occupiers - and/or YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Tea Party activists have all had peaceful, clean protests.

    Occupiers like yourself have however smashed windows, set fire to things and attacked police. They've also attacked a Democratic party HQ in a false flag attack.

    So if we had to choose a domestic source for the attack, it would very likely be some group you admire responsible. In fact it could very well be someone like yourself trying to set up the Tea Party... with any luck you posted from a traceable IP because it's very likely whoever did this would be online monitoring posts about it, as you are.

    1. Re:Occupiers - and/or YOU by spiffmastercow · · Score: 1

      In fact it could very well be someone like yourself trying to set up the Tea Party... with any luck you posted from a traceable IP because it's very likely whoever did this would be online monitoring posts about it, as you are.

      Paranoid much?

    2. Re:Occupiers - and/or YOU by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The bad element of Occupy protests involve juvenile delinquency, not stuff that often leads to domestic terrorism. The bad element of Tea Party protests sees themselves as the last stand before the collapse of civilization by some sort of muslim atheist communist takeover. The second group is far more likely too fall into the terrorist mindset.

      Either way judging a group by its craziest member doesn't tell you much about the group. For me the only way their political allegiance becomes significant is if the perpetrator was actually accepted by the movements mainstream.

      --
      I stole this Sig
  221. Ban the Bomb! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, wait... Where am I? When am I?

  222. Re:tell me again by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    it is actually a relevant comment. You can hurt people with lots and lots of things, but instead of concentrating on the people that do this kind of stuff, crazy or religious nuts there is a huge distraction on "things" like guns. The focus needs to be on people.

  223. Re:Most likely this will be Far right wingers. by runeghost · · Score: 1

    I thought his real name was Shark Divebomber?

  224. Re:tell me again by yurtinus · · Score: 1

    You're making the flawed argument that common sense had existed before going extinct...

    --
    +1 Disagree
  225. Re:tell me again by Krater76 · · Score: 1

    4. Aaron Sorkin is already writing this into an episode for season 3 of 'The Newsroom'.

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  226. White House photo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least they were able to successfully retrieve the big O from the golf course in time to take a not exactly all that impressive looking photo. Wonder how much that cost us?

  227. Cell phones shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and here comes the security theater. Word is that cell phone service in Boston has been shut down to prevent cell-phone detonations--I'd assume this is being done by ordering cell towers to not certain types of calls as opposed to using an RF jammer. Hopefully, they're still allowing burglar/fire alarm cell networks to operate (i.e., Honeywell AlarmNet).

    Bruce Schneier will no doubt write about this, but shutting off cell phone service will not stop remote detnoation; off-the-shelf GMRS radios have a pretty long range.

    1. Re:Cell phones shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/i.e./e.g./

    2. Re:Cell phones shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to escape the periods. Fail.

  228. Eccolo Terrorista by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can do the Boston Shake!

  229. Re:tell me again by yurtinus · · Score: 2

    Man I love chocolate sundaes. What do you think, nuts or no nuts?

    --
    +1 Disagree
  230. Re:tell me again by femtobyte · · Score: 1

    Every Liberty-loving Real American Republican knows the right answer: require every able-bodied adult to carry bombs at all times. No whacko would think about bombing a crowd, if he knew everyone else would bomb him right back on the spot. A polite society is a bomb-throwing society!

  231. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, in the '80s and '90s we didn't kill civilians with drone strikes. Instead, we gave weapons to various dictators so they could kill civilians.

  232. What's really sad by publiclurker · · Score: 0

    is that paranoid gun nuts spew this ignorant BS all the time. Which shows why they are against any sort of mandatory psych evaluations, since even they know that they are off their rockers.

  233. Violence determines who will win the war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It only takes one side to fight a war, and this war is called jihad.

    Do you really want to lose that war? Lose that war, and the naifs who call fundamental Christian opposition to gay marriage "hate" will learn the TRUE depths of homophobic, misogynistic, anti-humanity HATE at the black heart of Islam.

    1. Re:Violence determines who will win the war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only takes one side to fight a war, and this war is called jihad.

      Do you really want to lose that war? Lose that war, and the naifs who call fundamental Christian opposition to gay marriage "hate" will learn the TRUE depths of homophobic, misogynistic, anti-humanity HATE at the black heart of Islam.

      I'm glad you didn't forget the boldface allcaps. People just don't understand you're serious without proper typography.

  234. Re:tell me again by ganjadude · · Score: 2
    no, the gun was on scene, but it was not used in the shooting

    This continues to be a very complex investigation and there is a lot of contradictory information out there, but we have some new information this morning (one month ago) from a couple of federal officials and state officials. They say now that there were actually four handguns inside the school, not just two as we were initially told. Four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school. We knew that Adam Lanza, the man said to be the gunman here, also had an ‘assault-style’ AR-15 -style rifle that he had had taken to the school, it was in the car he drove there, his mother’s car, but we have been told by several officials that he had left that in the car.

    This is from NBC who corrected it way back in january (not MSNBC however they still claim that he used the AR) http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  235. Right that we'll lose by RubberChainsaw · · Score: 1

    I suspect that this event will lead to legislation to increase surveillance powers for the intelligence gathering agencies. Any red tape that still exists which allows agencies to tap communications of suspects will be removed. Whether this event was perpetrated by foreigners or americans is irrelevant. For example, if it is a homegrown attack by some disturbed person, then the agencies will claim it could have been prevented if they were allowed to eavesdrop on all communication of former mental patients, and felons without warrant. Then we've got a law that states ISPs and telcos have to allow access to any agent who can show that the account holder is a former felon - which will end up meaning that anyone with the same name as a former felon is fair game for eavesdropping. If the attack was done by foreign elements, then we'll see calls for warrantless eavesdropping for anyone who has recently entered the country, or recently convicted felons (since nobody ever stands up for felons). Either way, we're all boned.

    --
    I welcome our new 99% overlords.
  236. RACES/ARES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had decided not to do any RACES/ARES work because of being burned out after 10 years as a 911 Dispatcher, including being there as 9/11 occured. I'm starting to reconsider that decision.

    1. Re:RACES/ARES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should reconsider. With the cell phones shut down in Boston, if you didn't have a radio with patch capability, you had no way of talking to the PD, FD or even just to let the folks at home know you were OK, or help runners and spectators pass health and welfare messages back to their own families as in this case.

  237. Had he shouted "Praise Jesus!"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...how would you categorize that?

    1. Re:Had he shouted "Praise Jesus!"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure we can figure it out when it happens. Don't hold your breath.

  238. Re:tell me again by mc6809e · · Score: 2

    Not killing so many brown people would probably be a good start.

    Nah. You have to go back to moment dirty American infidels touched pristine Saudi Arabian Holy Land. That was Osama's gripe from the start.

  239. Re:tell me again by vjg · · Score: 1

    It it turns out that the bomber was in any way associated with the race, it will be classified as "workplace violence" so as not to offend anyone of another nationality.

  240. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Relying on the racists fucks at Murdoch's sensationalist tabloid New York Post for reliable breaking news is several steps down from inane speculation.

  241. Re:tell me again by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    But it's only brown people, right?

    Race baiting never gets old, does it?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  242. Re:tell me again by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    Any posts which use the words "Americuh" or "furriner" (or variants thereof) are flamebait.

  243. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think big fish are good at... what exactly?

    If you'd said that slashdot got bought out and no longer has the people in place to pull something like that off again, sure, but to suggest that the 'big fish' who "suck waaay more bandwidth and server power" than slashdot would be able to weather another worldwide news meltdown like 9/11 is... well, I'm picturing Jackie Chan.

  244. A "brief" explosion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> Gonna be interesting to see who they nail for this.

    Same as every other time this happens: Lady Liberty.

    I always wondered what she was hiding up her skirt.

  245. Find them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Find the stupid rat bastards that did this, shoot them and those who helped them. Its not a gas line explosion, the probabilities are way off. I don't really care what the nutter wants or what their ideals are. Its clear that their ideas aren't worth pursuing, and they have to use bombs to get attention. They could bomb my street or my house, and I don't want that, so the way is clear: 1) find those who planted the bombs and what their ideals are 2) shoot them 3) bomb those who hold similar ideals, till they can't bomb my street or your street. If it requires bombing or shooting a lot of them, bomb or shoot a lot. The line about 'confused youth gone radical' has grown very thin. Oh, and before someone claims they are idealists, no they aren't: they are cowardly murderers.

    1. Re:Find them by crutchy · · Score: 1

      the probabilities are way off

      I don't really care what the nutter wants or what their ideals are

      1) find those who planted the bombs and what their ideals are 2) shoot them 3) bomb those who hold similar ideals

      is that you mr wolfowitz?

    2. Re:Find them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America's been doing that for over a decade now. So I suppose all is well and according to plan?

  246. Re:tell me again by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The only way to prevent all possible violence against all possible targets is by definition a police state.

    Dont want that? Accept the possibility that someone could ruin your life at any possible time, and that as a free society we deal with crimes after they happen, not before.

  247. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bombs being legal or illegal have nothing to do with whether criminals or terrorists would use them. Same goes for guns. When gun ownership is banned, all it does is outlaw LEGAL possession, meaning law abiding citizens no longer have it. But criminals will continue to have it, regardless of whether the law allows it or not.

    Which is why we need to do away with those laws that ban murder, stealing, rape and piracy (the kind you do with a boat) - cause they are CLEARLY worthless as "outlaws" keep committing those crimes, and all they are good for is preventing "law abiding citizens" from returning in kind.

    or terrorism, which is an Islamic problem

    Timmy was a Muslim?

  248. Re:tell me again by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    You have such useful insights. Don't ever change.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  249. Re:tell me again by lgw · · Score: 1

    But the actual assault weapon ban we had until recently really was a "scary looking gun ban" - it was a ban on all the harmless toys that gun geeks like to dress up their guns with, that didn't affect the actual danger of the weapons. It was a "fuck you" to a specific subculture of America by another subculture. Any future gun control laws at the national level will likely be the same, because they'll be motivated the same way.

    If you're concerned with rational stuff like "how many rounds they let loose before someone can get to them", consider that reloading is pretty quick in any case, and all but one mass shooting in the past 25 years has been done in a place where guns were outlawed, so it's not like the shooter was going to be in much danger while reloading. Crazy suicidal people are the real danger that we need to deal with here.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  250. Re:tell me again by geek · · Score: 1

    This. I'm actually far more afraid of what the government will do in response to stuff like this than actually being a victim of something like this.

    That's only because you haven't been a victim of it. I'm pretty sure if you were one of the people with their limbs blown off you'd be singing a different tune. Not that I'm disagreeing with you, just trying to keep this in perspective.

  251. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Constantly "playing nice" with others.

    Is that what you call "fucking people over" these days?

  252. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by SillyHamster · · Score: 1
    Violence only produces one result: more violence.

    Unlike the non-violence that produced Peace for Our Time right before WWI.

    Humans produce violence. The only question is who is going to be left standing.

  253. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You quoted the wrong post there buddy.

  254. Boston is a huge tech center by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    Boston has a huge internet/tech/biotech community.

  255. Re:tell me again by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    A war on decrepit infrastructure would probably be a good thing.

    That was supposed to be the stimulus plan "shovel-ready projects." Whatever happened to that?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  256. Suspect in custody by Slammer64 · · Score: 1

    Just a FYI for all you wanting to blame the Tea Party and other "right-wing extremist groups" Suspect in custody, Saudi National: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/authorities_under_suspect_guard_y2m8cJO29uC2PDGIjYBalO

    1. Re:Suspect in custody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just an FYI for all you wanting to trust Murdoch's racist tabloid New York Post as if it were a reliable news source: you're idiots.

    2. Re:Suspect in custody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this guy was a Saudi national who was tackled by someone for *gasp* running away from where the bomb blew up. He has been cooperating and is NOT a suspect.

      oh and the captcha i had to enter to post this was "miseries" seem

  257. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever stop to think for a second that perhaps the rest of the world is a bit sick and tired of people like you willing to destroy the USA from the inside out, torture people for no reason, and completely throw away any sense of a justice system and protection of the innocents... Just might be why everyone wants to see you die?

    The worst part is, if our country contains a majority of people like you, the sober truth is you deserve it.
    This is the type of thing that happens to the bad guys. Torturing people for no reason is the action of the bad guys.

    Do you really need to be dragged away in the middle of the night with your family, locked in a cement cell, and tortured for no reason what so ever for the next few years before you turn your brain back on to realize it?

  258. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    You're too kind. In the last 12 years, Slashdot went from a major internet forum to a has-been, a shadow of its former self, with most users fleeing for greener pastures.

  259. President Lawnchair Promises ... Whatever by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    President Lawnchair just gave his news conference and used the usual weasel words that were signature of every administration of recent memory. He will do whatever his corporate overlords tell him to do.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:President Lawnchair Promises ... Whatever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      President Lawnchair? I thought he left office in 2008?

  260. Re:tell me again by hey! · · Score: 1

    Tell me again how gun legislation would have prevented this???

    Well, maybe you're onto something. Gun legislation would force somebody to switch from using a powerful, highly lethal, high capacity firearm to some kind of hare-brained improved explosive -- as was used here.

    The result is that only two people are killed and a couple of dozen injured, instead of the carnage that would have been inflicted if the persons responsible had pulled out an AR-15 with a couple of 30 round clips taped together "jungle style". If we're lucky, a lot of the people responsible for this sort of thing will save us the trouble of hunting them down by blowing themselves up.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  261. Re:tell me again by Catbeller · · Score: 1

    Fox will blame liberals.

    MS-NBC will actually hold the line, waiting for actual information to come to light. If, however, as the date suggests, it is the work of Tax Warriors, they, unlike every other news outlet on TV/Cable, WILL talk about the enormous right-wing loony terrorist networks that have been shooting people and planting bombs for years. And the fact that, less than three years ago, the FBI was told to dismantle the domestic right-wing terrorist task group because of enormous pressure from right-wing congressmen and women who felt that their constituents were being persecuted. And that Obama hadn't the balls to fight them. Again.

  262. Prediction about the Bull Sh*t Happening in BOSTON by hackus · · Score: 1, Interesting

    In my attempt to take the day off from coding my latest ULTIMATE Android app, I noticed the BULL SH*T on television.

    Now, not being the totally cynical human being I am, keep in mind I got this scenario in my head because of all the history books I read about governments. Not only from reading, but in my case I have found people to be treacherous in general. So I might have a paranoid bias.

    No matter, because even if I am paranoid, the times we live in make people like me VERY valuable. People like me, don't miss a THING that goes on now days.

    But, let me guess what is going to happen after the BULL SH*T dust settles:

    1) Our government will announce they have NO IDEA how this happened, and that they will "GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS". Meanwhile, like all of the NO IDEA events in the past decade they will parade families on TV in between IDOL spots declaring how unsafe the streets are in BOSTON and how could the government let them kill my baby. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

    Government SAVE ME!!!!! ...meanwhile:

    RESULT: TSA will get the go ahead to put troops on the streets in the future as more events that the government claims they have NO IDEA about happen or some other BULL SH*T.

    2) A couple of weeks later, it will be discovered that this a domestic terrorist because as we all know who are tracking the world events, the crap is starting to finally hit the fan in the derivatives markets, and the banks are desperate for cash from all of their criminal activities.

    No doubt they will get some patsy to parade on TV like the BATMAN guy or something else....anything really and announce that well, yet another piece of that, dirty, outdated piece of paper the constitution ... needs to go!!!

    Of course, it is to keep everyone safe!!

    So, after looting Europe, surprise here they come for America. So to start things off, we need a couple of bombs to go off.

    Oh, and as more bombs go off, they will claim: "Oh we the BANKS have bad news. It looks like these domestic terrorists have created a PANIC in the markets and your accounts will have to be frozen".

    Darn, those terrorists:

    RESULT: Some sort of financial liquidity event for the crony bankers, and the government who protects them. Meanwhile you will be lucky if you get your money out of the bank or you are WIPED OUT.

    I could be wrong of course...but I doubt it.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  263. Re:tell me again by geek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First, it's April 15 - which is the TEA party day of action. (got to listen to a "what will you do to defend your country" speech at lunch today).

    You mean the Tea Party that had the most peaceful protests in the history of this country? The ones who were assaulted by union thugs, called racists by the media and were called every foul name under the sun by the losers in the Democratic party, including Anderson Cooper calling them "teabaggers" on national TV?

    I'm sick of pathetic scum bags like you trying to write the narrative on the tea party. They've done absolutely nothing to you and in fact have worked their asses off to specifically preserve your constitutional rights. So fuck you and your ignorant left wing bullshit. You're going to get exactly the type of government you deserver and go fuck yourself when it happens because my wallet will be closed to your sorry ass and mommy and daddy will be broke and unable to help you.

    Go occupy wall street and rape some more people in tents, defecate on some cop cars and attempt to blow up some bridges. Asshole.

  264. Re: tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont give a fuck except its another reminder to be on the lookout.

  265. Re:tell me again by femtobyte · · Score: 1

    dontcha know, every bombing has taken place in a bomb-free zone? Make bombs illegal, and only criminals will have bombs. The only way to stop a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb.

  266. I'm sure that he thinks he is a patriot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'm sure that he thinks he is a patriot.

    .

    And now for something completely different.

    the term "Tree of Liberty" is associated with Thomas Jefferson's quotation, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." from the Liberty Tree article at

  267. Here's hoping it was a disgruntled geek... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...so that I may come to your home, bash your knees, elbows, spine and jaw with a baseball bat, then make you watch as I bash the brains out of all your family members and your close friends, burn your house down along with your car and all your belongings, plow it all over, salt the ground, kill your pets... and then hang you by your eyeballs from a tallest building in the area, for everyone to see.

    After that, we'll stuff you corps and tour you around schools for children to see and spit at.
    And every year, on your birthday, we will burn effigies of you while violently murdering people who bare your name or likeness. Live, on national television.

    And then when we have eliminated you and your family from the bloodline and culture - we'll nuke the place you were born at.
    Just to make sure nothing like you ever crawls out from under a rock again.

    Harshly and intolerant of political bullshit enough for ya? No?
    How about if we make you rape all your family with razorblades first? Would that do the trick?
    Let us know if you have some more specific ideas. We're open to suggestions. I'll go get my bat.

  268. Clear video of the initial explosion by Beeftopia · · Score: 2
  269. Re:tell me again by ABEND · · Score: 1

    Copley Square in Boston is a "hop skip and a jump" from MIT.

    --
    In all seriousness:
  270. Re:tell me again by GodInHell · · Score: 1

    Just a bit of advice...if the idiots are agreeing with you, it's time to reassess your position.

    I'm pretty sure you're not agreeing with me. Just saying.

  271. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    by greener pastures you mean kuro5hin, digg and rebbit right? LOL

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  272. Freedom To Listen by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Iran wants to start a war? That's news to fucking everyone who pays attention.

    If you had in fact been paying attention you might have read one of the many speeches the leader of Iran has given proclaiming they are going to wipe Israel out. Should we not listen and just "pay attention" to people like yourself who tell us to ignore what they say they want to do?

    Or perhaps you were alluding to the fact that Iran has not really ever ended a war, as the feed arms to Iraq, Syra, the PLA, etc.

    Get a grip.

    I have a grip. You need a clue.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Freedom To Listen by anagama · · Score: 1

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/09/iran

      Hmmm ... some random dork on /., or people who spent years in the __GWB__ administration dealing with Iran?

      TLDR: you're wrong and brainwashed.

      Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett are two of the nation's preeminent experts on all matters relating to Iran. They have also become the nation's most unlikely yet compelling critics of US policy toward Tehran and particularly the misconceptions shaping political and media discourse in the west. What's most amazing is that they come directly from the belly of the National Security State beast: they both were Middle East officials in the National Security Council and State Department during the Bush years, while he also worked as a CIA analyst and she for the US mission to the UN and as one of the few diplomats to directly negotiate with Tehran in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. With their top secret security clearances, they both had front-row seats to the run-up to the Iraq war from inside the US government.

      They have now published an extraordinary new book entitled Going to Tehran: Why the United States Must Come to Terms with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  273. Time on Clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time on the clock at explosion 04:09:44

    I keep thinking the time has something to do with it.

    Article written 4/9/1944
    http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm

    1. Re:Time on Clock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This too...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leila_Khaled

  274. Re: tell me again by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 2

    If the Dakar rally, World Cup, or World Series of Poker were bombed, we'd hear about that too. Bombings of sporting events make news no matter in the world they are...this is not a US story, this is a world event.

    Look at how many different nationalities are represented in a top level marathon - the Olympics are the only more diversified sport event I can think ok.

    --
    "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
  275. Google Person Finder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're looking for someone, or have information about someone who's lost, post it here: http://google.org/personfinder/2013-boston-explosions

  276. Re:Now then... [Fixed that for ya] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who shall we blame this time? Dem dirty communist hippi anarchs? or ye good olde muslims? or those slanty eyed Chinese?

  277. Re: tell me again by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 1

    Change ok to of in my last sentence. Damn autocorrect....

    --
    "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
  278. Re:Most likely this will be Far right wingers. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    And you would be wrong.
    Wisc. Sikh attack by a far right winger white supremicists.
    Aurora movie attack. Just a nut job. Raised right wing, but leaned left, or neutral.
    Discovery Communications. A left winger.
    Fort hood massacre. A Right Winger Muslim
    US Holecaust museum. A NAZI, which is right wing
    Arkansas shooting. AQ which is considered right wing.
    Assaination of George Tiller: Right winger
    David Feldheim's home. Environmental group. Left Wing if true.
    Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting: Wanted to kill dems and liberals. I think that we can call that right winger.

    You can go through it all, but what you see is that the majority of them are right-wingers, not left wingers.
    The only left winger attacking would be environmental groups (kind of weird in itself).
    BUT, most ppl miss the fact that AQ and their type are truly right wingers.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  279. Re:tell me again by ABEND · · Score: 1

    Certainly, if laws "currently on the books" were enforced (both "to the letter" and "in the spirit of"), we would have a better chance of preventing attacks such as this.

    --
    In all seriousness:
  280. Re:tell me again by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Actually, some of us are less worried about how scary guns look as we are in how many rounds they let loose before someone can get to them.

    That has little to do with what constitutes an "assault rifle". According to liberal politicians, an "assault weapon" (by which they really mean an "assault rifle") also has several 'important' features to make it what it is. One really big one is a bayonet mount. No hunting rifle has a bayonet mount, but they're fairly common on assault rifles. This of course is a highly dangerous feature that no civilian should have on a gun he owns, because bayonets have been used so often for bloody rampages in schools and malls and daycare centers around the country.

    Another important feature is an adjustable stock. Unlike hunting rifles which are made of a single piece of wood (usually expensive walnut), "assault rifles" frequently have stocks which can be adjusted for the user's arm length. Apparently this somehow turns a harmless semi-auto rifle (like an AR-15 circa 1965) into an instrument of mass destruction, though I still haven't figured out how, but apparently some politicians know better than me.

    One final feature is a barrel shroud. Hunting rifles don't have these, so if you touch the barrel after shooting them, you'll burn your hands. But on many "assault rifles", they have a thin piece of vented metal suspended over the barrel, so that you can grab it without hurting yourself. Perhaps this feature was used to devastating effect in many mass shootings?

    If we can just ban these features, we'll have guns which are perfectly safe for civilians to wield.

  281. Re:tell me again by Catbeller · · Score: 2

    What happened? Obama "bargained" with the right wing in congress, and half the stimulus went to tax breaks - useless when the problem is unemployment, as no demand = no need to make as much - and the rest of the stimulus was nowhere near enough to jumpstart the economy. So, as Krugman and the other gets-it-right economists predicted, it helped, but fizzled almost immediately.

    When money is cheap to borrow, and you need to get people working, you spend, and spend big. And not on contractors in Iraq who pretty much stole the money and walked away (and that was on the credit card to future generations - we never raised taxes to pay for that war). You spend it on poor people who will actually spend their money on the street and generate sufficient electromotive force that will jumpstart the motor of the economy. Instead, the money that is being accumulated is going to the top five percent or so of the population - and it is staying there. So here we are. Dead in the water - plenty of money to borrow at zero interest, and no incentive to spend it on putting people to work. Plenty of incentive to hoard it overseas.

    Fix it? Start state banks, like North Dakota's, who will actually lend money to people rather than putting it into derivatives. Make that free-to-get money go to people who need it. Build roads. Replant forests. Build a real seawall for New Orleans. Rebuild Louisiana's wetlands. Build solar power farms in the desert, and build a new transmission grid to move the power to where it is needed. So much to do, but no incentive to give it to workers to do anything when financial instruments make so much more money than lending money to entrepreneurs to open factories.

  282. I'm leaving. by holophrastic · · Score: 0

    I said this in December, I'm saying it again. I'm pulling out. I'm pulling out all of my money, my business, and my plans from your country. You simply don't deserve my money.

    Once again, "we'll find out who did this, and we'll bring them to justice.".

    You seem to be satisfied by prosecuting terrorists. Congrats. Your people die, and you win afterwards.

    This isn't a security issue. It isn't a safety issue.

    This is a social, cultural, economic, political, or financial issue. And you aren't bothering to even try to solve it.

    I don't need you. And I'm not interested in your business anymore. Quite frankly, I spent all weekend working on a really tough, really expensive project. And if I find out that my client's customer is among the dead in boston, I'll be very upset when they don't pay my bill.

    I can't imagine how many of my hard earned dollars that I've spent on U.S. products and services wind up turning into tax dollars to fund your emergency services and bomb clean-up crews. It's really not worth it to me.

    In december, I asked you how many children need to die before you decide that things need to change. And you didn't do anything, didn't change any laws, and seem to have totally forgotten. So now I'm going to ask a new question.

    What needs to happen before you decide that your country just doesn't deserve to have you any more. What needs to happen before you decide to leave. What will happen before you spin the globe and pick a beautiful part of the world where no terrorist attacks, international or domestic, have EVER happened? When will you move?

    You don't deserve my money any more. I realize that now. I'm not sure that you ever did.

    1. Re:I'm leaving. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are 100% correct, we should all move to the middle east where a bunch of ignorant fucks murder in the name of some jackass self claimed profit for the last thousand years.

      fuck you, get the hell out already, we dont want your money or your shit product

    2. Re:I'm leaving. by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      You mis-understand. I don't live in your country. And I have zero intent to do so. Your economy isn't exactly the greatest now, and you're about to lose my business dollars and my tourism dollars. I'm responsible for approximately $200'000 annual dollars into your country. And I'm taking them away from you. You don't know how to read -- which is a different problem in your country. I'm currently purchasing your product. And this will be the last year that I do.

      And like I said, not the middle east. There are certainly worse places to live. And there are many way better places. How can you possibly tolerate this? How many times in the last year has your news network spent days covering a single violent event? It's time to leave. Clearly you can't solve the problem.

      And you may want to not be anonymous when you make an argument. They carries no weight if you won't admin to stating them.

    3. Re:I'm leaving. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you may want to not be anonymous when you make an argument. They carries no weight if you won't admin to stating them.

      This is a lie, one that you use to give yourself an excuse to ignore arguments you know you can't refute. The fact is, an argument is not magically made less valid by the absence (or presence) of a cute little nickname. And you know it.

      Also, you're lying about both the amount of money you put into the US and your intent to remove it. And everyone can tell.

    4. Re:I'm leaving. by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      I've had no trouble refuting your arguments. You're certainly right about a cute little nickname. But a consistent alias that represents you globally across time means that you can't abandon your arguments later. Anonymous means you can. Anonymous means you don't stand beside your arguments.

      I'm not lying about the $200'000. I own a business, and spend over $40'000 annually on U.S. suppliers. I also organize a car club of 150 members, planning trips for the group. Each trip typically has members spending $1'000 per person including gas and food. Easy math dude.

      In December, I cancelled the trips to the U.S., directing them elsewhere instead -- to peaceful places without any terrorism in their entire history.

      In January, I contracted new suppliers for my business, to replace the U.S. ones. By the end of June, I'll have transitioned 80% of my business. By the end of the calendar year, 100%.

      Welcome to consequences. Your country has serious problems, and you aren't solving any of them. Not housing, not education, not science, not deficit, not violence, and not death in your streets. You don't deserve my support, and you won't be getting my money.

      What have you done to improve the situation in your country? I'm saying that it's reached the point where it's your responsibility. Either fix it or leave. It's simply no longer acceptable. You've literally got children being torn apart in the streets. Whatever you've done hasn't worked.

      I imagine that I'm not the last one to pull out of supporting your failing economy. You can decide how many people, or dollars, it'll take before you decide that people like me matter. But judging by what I've seen you do recently, I presume you'll just let your country go down the drain until there's nothing left. You already don't have any money left. I wonder what's next.

    5. Re:I'm leaving. by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Just in time: U.S. Offshore Wind Farm Receives $2 Billion From Japanese Banks.

      The Japanese have stepped in to provide relief from your crippling economic sanctions.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    6. Re:I'm leaving. by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      cool that an entire county can offset my sanctions. cooler that it only offsets me and 20'000 like me. even cooler that 90% of wind lose money.

      but coolest of all? you don't realize that's a loan, to be paid back eventually. now you're another 2 billion dollars in debt. smooth move.

  283. Probably just out of bandwidth by Animats · · Score: 1

    Probably just out of bandwidth. Verizon says their 4G service in the area is overloaded but texting is working. Boston.com was redirecting to their own blog for a while, but now they're back up on their main site.

    1. Re:Probably just out of bandwidth by Animats · · Score: 1

      The Boston Globe talked to the major carriers, and they all report heavy calling but not an outage. AT&T mentions that their temporary WiFi set up for the event is up and will be kept up for "an extended timeframe".

    2. Re:Probably just out of bandwidth by girlinatrainingbra · · Score: 1

      You're right about it just being an overload of calls beyond the bandwidth capacity. The L.A. Times has updated article at 4:12 pm PDT to say: [Update 4:12 p.m. April 15: The AP is now reporting that cell service has not been shut off in Boston. This has also been reiterated by at least one network, Verizon Wireless, to the Times. Verizon said it has not been asked by government officials to shut off cellphone service.] But earlier, they reported that DHS had asked for cell service to be turned off. Now, it turns out not to be true.

  284. Suspected Action by NSA, Police? by barfy · · Score: 1

    Ok... Pure speculation, but what I would do if I was designing an anti-terrorist plan.

    Imagine you have immediate access to all cell phone activity in the country. There are reported reasons to believe that this is true...

    ASAP prepaid cellphone lockout in the area, and possibly nationwide or just rich target areas.

    Almost immediately thereafter cellphone number of the triggers and what phone called them. (This can be done by simply looking at calls that weren't answered at the right time and right location),

    Tracking of location of calling phone, to within a cell tower.

    Time tracking of triggered phones and calling phone, within a relatively short period of time. Proximity (time/location) to any other preferably pre-paid phones, this will give an indication to additional devices.

    Transmit to authorities continual location of calling phone.

    Full time tracking of triggered phones. To give location of origin of bomb making, number of devices, time of plot, testing of devices.

    Take down of bomb making site.

    Additional features I am sure.

    All within hours, max. I am sure that this would have been scripted for almost immediate action. Who knows what the constitutional implications are.

    1. Re:Suspected Action by NSA, Police? by crutchy · · Score: 1

      pfftt.... waaaaaay too complicated

      just do what the nazis did (erm i mean the US government) after 9/11; pick whatever country you think might be trying to break free from the grip of US persecution, and flatten the whole country using B-52s and cluster bombs.

      the other benefit... "justification" for all the trillions of borrowed dollars spent building up the world's biggest offensive military

  285. A-t-h-e-i-s-t? HA! You misspelled Christian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    McVeigh was an atheist on his own tangent.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Political_views_and_religious_beliefs

    McVeigh was a registered Republican when he lived in Buffalo, New York in the 1980s, and had a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military,[84] but voted for Libertarian Party candidate, Harry Browne, in the 1996 presidential elections.[85] McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic.[86] During his childhood, he and his father attended Mass regularly.[87] McVeigh was confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York, in 1985.[88] In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."[86] In the 2001 book American Terrorist, McVeigh stated that he did not believe in Hell and that science is his religion.[89][90] In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying as agnostic.[91] Before his execution, McVeigh took the Catholic sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.[92]

  286. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AND... the analysis here is , by and large, logical and rational. Compare that to the wildly inaccurate, scoop-driven 24 hour news cycle. In a pinch, I'd rather hear from people who think for a living.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  287. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure there will be a huge push to outlaw bombs... oh wait.

  288. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    And, after those generations, we'd rid the world of the threat. They'd go the way of the Nazi or the Imperial Japanese.

  289. Re: tell me again by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 1

    I read about it on google news, caught the facts from several sources, then came to /. to see what my idiot nerdy colleagues thought about the news. Anyone coming to slashdot for breaking news are the same folk who use /. poll results for any useful stats...

    --
    "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
  290. Re:tell me again by TheSeatOfMyPants · · Score: 2

    They're not legal everywhere -- in many areas, people can't even set off "safe" fireworks on the 4th of July anymore due to the cost of sending the fire department out to handle calls or minor fires, let alone anything more exciting.

    --
    Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
  291. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    In case you haven't noticed, there's now many sites with live video coverage that suck waaaaay more bandwidth and server power than this little mostly text based site.

    Which is why it is so resilient and scales well.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  292. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the video I saw, it looked like the blasts took place in a standing-room area, across the street from the bleachers where VIPs would be sitting (likely an area easier to access without being a VIP), with not nearly enough power to cause problems across the street (though bad news for the crowd standing directly around the blast).

  293. Re:tell me again by Bartles · · Score: 1

    Look, I'm opposed to almost all the legislation that has been proposed or passed since Sandy Hook. I realize that assault rifle is just a name.

    But you are dead wrong on this.

    Just because you have an article from January that got the facts wrong does not make it correct. Even the freaking coroner said he used the AR-15. The long gun recovered from the trunk was a shotgun.

  294. Re: tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a terrible post there. What a turd you must be.

  295. Re:tell me again by hawguy · · Score: 1

    Certainly, if laws "currently on the books" were enforced (both "to the letter" and "in the spirit of"), we would have a better chance of preventing attacks such as this.

    Ahh yes, well we can all dream of the day when each person has their own government owned drone to follow them around that can instantly issue a ticket for all infractions of the law. What a utopian world that would be!

    Maybe if we had a more reasonable penal code, absolute enforcement of the laws would be a good thing, but when you can break dozens of laws in your every day life without even being aware, that's a sign that there are too many laws, giving police too much power to decide when to enforce them. No one can even tell you how many laws there are, let alone recite them all. There are thousands of criminal laws just at the federal level, spread over tens of thousands of pages. Add in the government rules that can also make you a a law breaker, there are hundreds of thousands.

    And you think we'd be better off if every law was enforced "to the letter"?

  296. Re:tell me again by crutchy · · Score: 1

    it would be headline news for nerds if a terrorist blew up a computer

  297. Re:tell me again by Teancum · · Score: 1

    That's only because you haven't been a victim of it. I'm pretty sure if you were one of the people with their limbs blown off you'd be singing a different tune. Not that I'm disagreeing with you, just trying to keep this in perspective.

    This is assuming that every "victim" (however you define it) is willing to trade security for their civil rights? I doubt it would make much of a difference on how I feel about keeping civil rights if I or one of my children were injured or killed in an incident like this. Demanding police actually do their job and stop this BS that can be called "security theater" and instead actually gathering information and finding the "bad guys" who are doing these silly things is more what I would be demanding.

    In other words, I would want to have officers on patrol and to have the American government stop doing stupid things that cause other cultures to be angry with America. It doesn't need an increase in anybody's budget either, and I'll even admit that you can't be 100% successful in catching all of the idiots in this world. Furthermore, if there is a foreign government involved with this kind of activity, bomb the hell out of that government and teach them to never do this kind of shit again or it will be returned with interest. Make sure that heads of state are prime targets together with their legislative buildings as well, not to mention military headquarters too.

    If this is some domestic nut job, there is absolutely nothing more that really could have been done other than tracking the idiot down who did this and making sure he lands in prison.

  298. Re:tell me again by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    I'd agree that it's a bit of a waste of bandwidth, disk space, etc. for /. to bother with it. Unless, of course, it turns out eventually that there's an interesting tech component to the story.

    Bombs are technology.

  299. The worst part by TechieRefugee · · Score: 0

    I was listening to "Boom, Boom, Boom, Boom" by The Vengaboys at the time. Am I a horrible person for busting out laughing a while afterward?

    1. Re:The worst part by crutchy · · Score: 1

      no, you're a horrible person for listening to vengaboys

  300. Hey! Anne was a great girl! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And she WOULD have been a belieber.

  301. Re:Worried by Pharoah_69 · · Score: 1

    "When somebody you don't even know declares open war on you, and underhandedly and violently attacks you, you do things you normally wouldn't do."

    That's when they shut you up and send you to a mental hospital. The powers that be are at hand here. What is worse, is that all these so-called "disasters" could be prevented but the person(s) responsible for it fail to act or do the best they can to minimize it. It's a chess game of politics in which "might makes right" prevails and therefore, people are allowed to fail.

    (Btw, you made a great statement with which I agree)

  302. Re:tell me again by crutchy · · Score: 1

    used as an excuse to take away more rights

    i think this is given

    no need to speculate or make bets

    only ignorant fools are yet to wake up and realize that this is all part of a carefully organized plot

    i don't claim to know the entirety of such plot or how and when it will play out, but i wouldn't be surprised if collapse of the united states dollar and economy is part of it, possibly to give rise to a global currency based on special drawing rights from the international monetary fund... then those who control the federal reserve will have unlimited global power and wealth. dunno how the whole world war 3 conspiracy fits in though... if the whole world is irradiated and 90% of the population dies off, for those in power it would probably be like having a chess board with no pieces left; surely they need slaves and resources to manipulate, even if for no particular reason other than to keep them fat and entertained.

    watch what obama does carefully... there is no doubt that he will implement new executive orders to "protect americans" from future "domestic terrorists" (read the united states government will forcefully confiscate any "unauthorized" resource, be it information, materials, chemicals, guns, ammunition, etc).

  303. I Swear To Gosh! by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    I was on my way to pay those taxes...

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  304. Re:tell me again by Teancum · · Score: 1

    Which is why we need to do away with those laws that ban murder, stealing, rape and piracy (the kind you do with a boat) - cause they are CLEARLY worthless as "outlaws" keep committing those crimes, and all they are good for is preventing "law abiding citizens" from returning in kind.

    Murder, theft, rape, and other crimes commonly thought of as felonies by ordinary citizens (forget what a legislature says on the topic, I'm talking the big ones that are common in almost any society at any time period), it isn't that laws ban these activities.... they just promise that if you commit them that you will be prosecuted and that your liberties will be taken away on either a temporary or permanent basis for having engaged in those acts.

    Being declared an "outlaw" used to mean that you were literally outside of the law and unfit for making any claim upon the law for protection. In ancient times you could literally kill, rape, steal from, or do whatever you pleased to an outlaw because they quite literally were outside of the law. That was their punishment for choosing not to conform to society's laws and ignoring the courts in the first place. Sadly, it is the outlaws that have rights now and it is ordinary citizens trying to obey the law that has their rights stripped from them.

  305. Re:Prediction about the Bull Sh*t Happening in BOS by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

    Wakka Wakka!

  306. Re:tell me again by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    I don't have actual hard numbers, but I'm figuring on it taking at least 2-3 seconds to eject a magazine and slot another one in. If the weapon is capable of firing 10 rounds/second, that ought to slow down the total number of deliverable bullets/second. Plus, even with the best of practice, Joe Whacko is going to be distracted by changing magazines to the detriment of tracking - or shooting at - anything else going on. Which is why I think probably most people are concerned more about the legal magazine size than almost anything else.

    Scary-looking weapons may make good press for legislators who want to hold them up and look like they're doing something, but that just means that the next nut that comes along with something that didn't look scary enough will set the pot boiling all over again. It's ultimately not how the gun looks that's at fault, it's how much real damage it can do in the hands of the incompetent.

    If a 20-round magazine is illegal locally but easily obtainable in a day trip to another county or state, it really doesn't matter where it's illegal. For Whacko's purposes, it's practically on the table already. That's where Federal controls come in, by making it equally difficult to obtain everywhere. It cannot be made impossible to keep Joe's greasy little mitts off those high-capacity magazines, but if you make it hard enough, it ups the odds that someone will catch on before it's too late. Especially since most of these guys are already showing malfunctions to begin with.

  307. Re:tell me again by ganjadude · · Score: 1
    Lets say you are right and I am wrong. Obama just this past week claims that adam lanza used a fully automatic weapon..... (and even if he did use the AR - it is NOT a fully automatic.)
    Even if I am wrong about the AR not being used (and I still am iffy on it even after reading the medias take on it) Obama is being dishonest about gun violence
    http://americanlivewire.com/sandy-hook-fully-automatic-weapon/

    “Now, over the next couple of months, we’ve got a couple of issues: gun control. (Applause.) I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don’t have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon — by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.”

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  308. The TSA Principle by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you didn't do anything wrong, why then were you running?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:The TSA Principle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real American Patriots don't run, they drive an SUV.

  309. Re:tell me again by geek · · Score: 1

    I would want to have officers on patrol and to have the American government stop doing stupid things that cause other cultures to be angry with America.

    You lost me there. These people aren't "angry with America" they are angry with the world. America could disappear tomorrow and they would just find another country to bomb. This is a religious quest for them. Anything and anyone different from them has to die.

  310. Re:tell me again by Mashdar · · Score: 1

    Here come the bleeding hearts to tell me I need to pass a background test before I buy 100 lbs of ball bearings and 500 lbs of fertilizer. I need them for hunting, and for maximum-retaliation-style self defense.

  311. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn straight! If only the marathon runners had been armed, this would have been prevented!

  312. Re:tell me again by lgw · · Score: 2

    I don't have actual hard numbers, but I'm figuring on it taking at least 2-3 seconds to eject a magazine and slot another one in. If the weapon is capable of firing 10 rounds/second, that ought to slow down the total number of deliverable bullets/second.

    Machine guns are already illegal almost everywhere. All these "assault weapons" are semi-auto, much like a cowboy revolver - one trigger pull, one bullet. Full auto would actually be better IMO, because it's usually quite inaccurate and the shooter would just run out of ammo faster, and put most of his fire into the ceiling.

    a 20-round magazine is illegal locally but easily obtainable in a day trip to another county or state,

    The last time large-cap magazines were banned, existing magazines were grandfathered in and the manufacturers had plenty of notice to produce them before new production was outlawed. Vast warehouses were filled with high-cap mags, and the law ran out before the legal stock did. The law allowed seller to charge more for "pre-ban" magazines, and that was pretty much the only effect. Now that you can 3D-print your own, a law would have even less effect.

    Any law should show a dramatic gain in social good for the reduction in freedom any new law entails. These stupid gun laws passed by people who don't understand the technology will reduce our rights, but have just as much effect on the technology as the DMCA-like laws written by people who don't understand the internet do on copying DVDs or whatever.

    And anyhow we had a mass stabbing in a school (community college of some sort in California just this month. It's not the weapon: it's the nutjob.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  313. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it is the start of the banking cartel's attempt to suppress bitcoin.

  314. Re:tell me again by Bartles · · Score: 1

    No disagreement there. Someone who doesn't understand the underlying mechanics of firearms has no business regulating said firearms.

  315. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by antdude · · Score: 1

    How many general people know /. compared to CNN and other general news web sites? I am sure if everyone knew /., then /. would have problems. Reddit had problems earlier today. I am pretty sure it was related to this event. :(

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  316. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not even "technically". An "assault rifle", per the current definition, is a full-auto weapon, not a semi-auto.

  317. Re:tell me again by deimtee · · Score: 2

    The problem is that technology has advanced to the point where creating those jobs is too expensive, and they employ highly skilled people who have no trouble finding a job anyway.
    You no longer need 500 ditch diggers for your canal, it's a few engineers and skilled equipment operators.

    A similar thing is happening to labor as happened to capital, it is all concentrating on the top few percent because of the force multipliers of technology and automation.
    There are a some possibilities, but they are all politically unpalatable:
    - Universal Basic Income (start low and increase until enough people drop out and live on it to make unemployment hit your desired %)
    - Legally mandated (and enforced) maximum working hours (Start at 40 and drop until unemployment hits your desired %)
    - Massive Bullshit Makework projects

    --
    I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
  318. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quite sensible. Your odds of being injured or killed in a terror incident are miniscule. Whereas the odds of the response screwing things up without doing anything likely to prevent future incidents is near certain.

  319. Baking Soda by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    I have a friend living in Ecuador and the biggest surprise he found is that he can't get baking soda at the grocery store. Apparently there's some way to make some explosive where one of the steps involves baking soda as a reagent. So, a bombing happened one time, and apparently (unless I've been very obscurely punked) they banned baking soda in response.

    America will not be safe while baking soda can threaten our children! You bitter clingers with your buttermilk pancakes and your Irish soda bread are just holding on to obsolete notions!

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Baking Soda by ejasons · · Score: 1

      I have a friend living in Ecuador and the biggest surprise he found is that he can't get baking soda at the grocery store. Apparently there's some way to make some explosive where one of the steps involves baking soda as a reagent. So, a bombing happened one time, and apparently (unless I've been very obscurely punked) they banned baking soda in response.

      Yes, when paired with vinegar, it becomes a potent explosive.

      I'm actually curious about what kind of real explosive there is that could use baking soda ... but decided that googling it probably isn't a good idea...

  320. NRA Response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NRA has responded to the recent bombing by calling for all Americans to carry bombs. "If everyone had a bomb then we would be able to bomb the bombers before they bombed us".

    1. Re:NRA Response by crutchy · · Score: 1

      especially the poor... there should be hand grenade stamps handed out with food stamps

  321. Obama doesn't matter by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter what you think of President or our collapsing system - the people are to blame for the BS that is in the "news". Bomb proof public trash cans?? they exist but we won't pay for them... that would raise taxes. We'd like them and somebody can get points for saying we need them but we won't pay for it and if we do we'll throw out whomever is responsible for spending our money. Even this is just a side issue:

    If people weren't such drama queens there would be no point in performing such acts. Stuff happens and a lot more in other places in the world; oh, there is a much larger world beyond North America. 2 people died, some were hurt. nothing important to see, move on. More likely somebody you know will be hurt in their car tomorrow... but you all are not giving it a second worth of thought.

    A Monsanto exec kills more people every day.

    1. Re:Obama doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bomb proof public trash cans?? they exist but we won't pay for them... that would raise taxes.

      Nor should we, since that wouldn't actually help anything.

    2. Re:Obama doesn't matter by crutchy · · Score: 1

      hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

      you stupid yanks are funny.... "Bomb proof public trash cans"... that must have been a joke right?

      maybe they would protect the trashcans from all your garbage

      only in america could people be convinced that bomb proof trashcans will protect them from terrorism, especially if you publicly announce it...

      "CNN newsflash!!!! bomb proof public trash cans to be installed across america!!! now if terrorists really hate blowing up trash cans they will need to find another way to destroy them other than explosives... if they are too stupid to figure out another way to unhinge their anger on trash cans they may have to find something else to blow up because trash cans are now off limits!!"

    3. Re:Obama doesn't matter by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Sort of. Nothing stops nutcases completely and nothing that would stop sane attacks is politically realistic here.

      If spending some money would help, we'll not do it unless it involves the increasing the police state. Trash cans that don't turn into big pipe bombs is a minor precaution and not that unreasonable and don't increase the police state. Have you seen the costs some cities put into these public trash cans?? I've seen concrete street corner obelisks that cost $10,000! (increased accidents too)

      So I'm serious about doing something about it, but I don't it won't solve the problem. This was a minor thing which makes me think another redneck did it. A serious level headed person would have made it far more effective use of the trash cans. I'm waiting to hear it is a pipe bomb and similar to the MLK day one that didn't go off - unlikely same person but this one learned from that one.

      More could be done by simply NOT releasing so many details to the press so every idiot knows what not to do. They'll probably give enough details to know why 1 didn't go off. Hell, a level headed person might even think about framing somebody with a "failed" one (while a smart one wouldn't take the risk.)

  322. Double Tapping Drone Strikes - War Crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The inquiry will report to the UN general assembly in New York this autumn. Depending on its findings, it may recommend further action. Emmerson has previously suggested some drone attacks – particularly those known as "double tap" strikes where rescuers going to the aid of a first blast have become victims of a follow-up strike – could possibly constitute a "war crime".

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/24/un-examine-uk-afghanistan-drone-strikes

  323. Re:tell me again by __aaxtnf2500 · · Score: 1

    You think there are states in the US where explosives can never be used, even for demolition or mining purposes? Does that actually sound reasonable to you?

  324. How about instead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUCK YOU!

  325. Hear it (& reports on it) online (Android ver. by ivi · · Score: 1

    So, these (& similar) Android app give audio on the event:

    1. "Scanner Radio" app offers a list
    - sorted by number of listeners -
    of available online scanners, ie,
    around USA & the world.

    When I chose Boston police, fire, etc.
    from that list (of course, it held top-place),
    there were over 50,000 others listening-in.
    Normally, numbers of listeners - across
    the list - are under 500.

    (If your area lacks an online-connected
    scanning receiver & your have such a
    receiver & some bandwidth to share,
    why not consider adding your area's
    emergency services audio to the list?)

    2a. "TuneIn [Pro]" app is (yet another)
    Internet Radio app; [Boston Univ Radio's]
    WBUR stayed on the story -continuously-
    from shortly after the event became known.

    2b. Using the same app, one can get cur-
    rent weather and detailed forecasts, also
    on a continuous basis, from USA Weather
    broadcasters (commercial-free, these are
    available 24x7 - to those near the area of the
    event - on 10 VHF channels near 162 MHz);
    Boston's gov't weather station was available
    via TuneIn (Search "By location" for Boston
    for a list of all broadcasters - AM / FM / Wx,
    including some located in nearby states).

    3. "EchoLink" app - for Radio Amateurs -
    let licensed Hams listen to & (in normal times)
    even transmit on repeaters - most on 2m VHF
    (around 146 MHz) & 70cm UHF (near 440 MHz)
    - that would become active, especially when an
    event (flood, earthquake, etc.) takes out normal
    POTS or cellular phone & 2-way radio comms.

    (If you're a Radio Ham, you can add your own
    station (eg, home, office or vehicle radio) or
    your club's repeater to the list. Whenever you
    sign-in, you're on one of the lists, so friends
    can contact you, on the fly. Also, EchoLink is
    like an old-time phone-echange switchboard,
    ie, able to connect repeaters, etc. together, eg,
    to support relief operations after a larger dis-
    aster or - during peaceful times - just a yacht-
    or bike-race, etc.)

    These apps work on Android phones & tab's
    2.2 thru 4.1.2, in my experience. Of course,
    YMMV.

    I don't know what app's may be available for
    iPhone, etc.

  326. Re:Worried by oobayly · · Score: 1

    Well after September the 11th, I thought the same as the GP - slow down, take stock and work out who was actually responsible, rather than go "batshit insane". And then I thought "how would I feel if it were somebody I knew". Then after my cousin was killed in Bali I realised my thoughts hasn't changed.

    Then again I grew up in Ireland in the 80s, so I've always known that retribution trends to be a bad idea. The London bombings didn't change my views either.

    The problem is that until 9/11, Americans were lucky not to have experienced terrorism to the extent, unfortunately it also meant that your politician's reactions *were* "batshit inane" when it came to dealing with it. I'm not trying to belittle what happened - it certainly was horrific.

    As for open warfare - don't fool yourself, it was nothing of the sort. The reason that large scale attacks haven't happened on yours (or my) soil for years is because the terrorists who have the stomach to go out and kill themselves aren't very good at repeat performances. Look at today - yes it was a shock, but as if now, two people are dead and 30 odd critically wounded.

  327. Re:tell me again by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    we heard the media talking about it yes, and the media has been covering for the administration on the issue. notice how no one there has been brought in to be spoken to?

    It's almost like Libya was another country that we don't have any way of policing!

    It's not quite Iran 1979, but I'd consider it still to be 'hostile territory.'

  328. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you need is some mundee's mustmayostarayonnaise.

  329. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  330. DONATE BLOOD PLEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go donate blood if you're near the area.

    Please

  331. Re:RUN! by crutchy · · Score: 1

    ...forrest ...run!

    haha yeah gotta love that movie

    "directly in the buttocks"

  332. Taxes Due Today by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    Somebody has a problem with that.

  333. These times are not special by paiute · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacco_and_Vanzetti

    Multiple bombings involved. I once looked at a house which had replaced the one in which one of the jurors lived - it was damaged by an anarchist bomb in 1927 and had to be torn down.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  334. Re:Worried by crutchy · · Score: 1

    go fuck your sheltered complacent self.

    says he from the nanny state

  335. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shh don't interrupt his "They hate us because we're just poopy heads and if we licked their anuses they'd love us" line of reasoning.

  336. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let us assume that the act is due to a jihadi. The solution is clear, strike at the *ideology* of jihadis. At the moment the US is fighting a war on jihadi terrorism but completely ignoring (or, under the Obama Administration, suppressing) the *facts* about Islamic ideology that grows these jihadis. Just wait for the media to start using the words "extremist" which is a complete lie - jihad is a mainstream and central tenet of Islam. Until the US is honest about the problem it is facing it will never win. At the moment the Us is on a course to becoming progressively Islamicised under the guidance of Leftist "political correctness". Until the US tells the truth about Islamic teachings it cannot win the important war - the *ideological* one. Once the US properly understands the teachings of Islam as Muslims believe them (not as Western apologists do) then the Free World has a chance of surviving the coming Caliphate.

  337. Re:tell me again by Miseph · · Score: 1

    Yeah, somehow the bots are more intelligible than most of their actual human comments.

    Really makes you lose faith in humanity, doesn't it?

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  338. blame canada! by crutchy · · Score: 1

    they aren't even a real country anyway

  339. Re:tell me again by lennier · · Score: 1

    So far as the Benghazi incident didn't prompt calls for immediate changes in domestic policy like Sandy Hook did, have you considered that might be because Benghazi isn't in the USA so there's fuck all changes to domestic policy that would be relevant to "preventing the next Benghazi"?

    Of course, when it comes to foreign policy, it's possible that if the US military stopped trying to covertly smuggle arms through 'peaceful' embassies to Al-Qaeda-affilliated terrorist factions in Syria in direct contravention of the international antiterrorism treaties they themselves set up, then the other side might stop treating those 'diplomatic' bases as the illegal military bases they actually are.

    But strangely the Republicans don't seem concerned about that Benghazi scandal.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  340. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    1. Fox News is probably already in the process of finding a way to blame Barack Obama.

    Assuming this was a jihadi attack then the Obama Administration is to blame. It has purged all association between Islamic jihad and terrorism from the Department of Defence, FBI, CIA etc. No wonder, The Administration is *thoroughly* penetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood (as even the Egyptians attest to: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates)

    It turns out that Fox appears to be telling the truth about the threat of jihad in the US. The Left and Leftist media have done a very very good job of keeping you in the Matrix so that you don't see what is going on. Hence, this attack is a surprise, as was the attack in Benghazi (which has been covered up by Obama - notice that not one of the 30+ survivors have been permitted to speak - because it would ruin the pro-Islamicist agenda of the Obama Administration).

    Wake up global citizens. Islam is making war on you, *every day*. Their motivation for this is the Qur'an, hadiths and sira. Nothing the US or Israel has done or will do will change this. Islam is determined to make you submit to their political system. This is a fight to the death between the 21st Century and the medieval Islamicists. Appeasement won't work.

  341. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    The problem is the US is lying to itself. It kills what it thinks are "extremists" when in fact it should be going after the *mainstream* Islamic ideology that calls for jihad. The Free World is losing the fight because most people are in denial about the true (evil!) nature of the political system called Islam.

  342. Re:tell me again by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    This. I'm actually far more afraid of what the government will do in response to stuff like this than actually being a victim of something like this.

    That's only because you haven't been a victim of it. I'm pretty sure if you were one of the people with their limbs blown off you'd be singing a different tune. Not that I'm disagreeing with you, just trying to keep this in perspective.

    Betting pools are now open.

    Which TLA in 2 months will suddenly get sweeping new powers here in the U.S. as a result of this?

    DHS
    TSA
    FBI

    And as a side bet, what will the decibel level be of the thunderous applause generated by the American public in response to these new far reaching powers granted for their safety and protection?

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  343. Re:tell me again by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    He was injured in the blast, but is not currently a suspect and law enforcement officers say he is not in custody.

  344. Re:tell me again by approachingZero+ · · Score: 0

    It is tiresome to hear politicians, and those who make their living courting the will of people, make promises that can't be kept in the atmosphere of a free society. But maybe that's the end game. Orwell was an optimist.

    --
    'I don't know what it's called. I just know the sound it makes, when it takes a man's life.' ~ Four Leaf Tayback
  345. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sadly, it appears your "they hate us for our freedom" still doesn't apply even though we listened to you retards the LAST TIME this happened and gave up all those precious precious freedoms. So what do they hate us for now, you fucking retard?

  346. Counting the enemies of Uncle Sam by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    *The Chinese
    *The Russians
    *The Muslims
    *The non-Whites
    *The anti-capitalists

    Who else ??

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Counting the enemies of Uncle Sam by Divebus · · Score: 1

      I'm sure every Muslim in this country hope the guy's name doesn't have Mohammed in it.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    2. Re:Counting the enemies of Uncle Sam by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      White Supremacists and Christian Fundamentalists are the other two categories, and the biggest home grown ones. Think the Norwegian massacre and tell me it couldn't happen in the US.

      With organized crime groups like the Aryan Brotherhood and the downright terrifying militia movement, combined with the frequency of lone wolf killing sprees, America has far more to worry about from the home crowd than it does from abroad.

    3. Re: Counting the enemies of Uncle Sam by baristabrian · · Score: 1

      I'm just as sure that most Muslims don't care the Mohammad was a pedophile.

      --
      -- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
    4. Re: Counting the enemies of Uncle Sam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North korea?.

    5. Re: Counting the enemies of Uncle Sam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea?.

    6. Re:Counting the enemies of Uncle Sam by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      The "militia" movement is not who you need to worry about (unless you work for the government) they are not after americans and soft targets like the religious fundimentalists (of all types, I dont know why you singled out christians when statistically they commit far fewer terroristic acts these days)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re: Counting the enemies of Uncle Sam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you should be shame of yourself by writing that! the first think you should do is give some respect to any religion and their prophets... imagine somebody tells you that your father is a pedofile! For other side, compare USA with third world countries, the violence in those countries are because of surviving issues over here is just some guy who just want to kill because is mad with his mom or friends or just because he wants to be the guy! my point is that they don't have any right justification to do that. Over here you have to be careful every moment because you don't know when somebody is going to do something stupid (like kill childrens, stab your friends or just because is black friday and people want to get the best deals and spray some in order to be the first). In a third world you also have to be careful but they my robbed you for food... Any of those has a real justification but the different is ironic!!!

    8. Re:Counting the enemies of Uncle Sam by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      I singled out Christians because they're the biggest religious group in America (by a very very long way), and I was talking about home-grown terrorists. America has become fixated on the concept of "Islamists" as the be all and end all of terror- as you rightly say, religious fundamentalists of all flavours can be extremely dangerous, and America has a lot more of one kind than it does the other.

      Again, if I was worried about anyone in America, it's the White Supremacist, neo-Nazi, hyper-Christian ultra-Patriot types who I'd be worried about. They exist in large numbers, and even if most wouldn't dream of committing a real atrocity, it wouldn't take more than a fraction of a percentage of them to be that crazy to create a real threat.

  347. did anyone check? by crutchy · · Score: 1

    ...if there were any drones flying overhead at the time of the explosions?

  348. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so let's fucking kill a few more thousands of those sand people

  349. Re:tell me again by lennier · · Score: 1

    Guess it's too soon to make points that, if someone wants to kill other people, they can do it no matter what is legal or illegal?

    Let's investigate that logic.

    Since what works between individuals ought to work between states, then it's obvious that any country that wants to attack another country with nuclear weapons will do it whether or not they are legal or illegal, so let's abandon all international nuclear proliferation frameworks and hand out plutonium pellets in the UN lobby like candy.

    Oops. Perhaps, after all, there is a difference between wanting to commit a crime and having the ready means available to do it efficiently?

    Let's try that logic from the other side.

    If someone wants to kill, they will do it with or without a gun, using a knife or a baseball bat.
    Therefore, it's obvious that guns are exactly as efficient killing weapons as baseball bats.
    Therefore therefore, anyone being attacked by a thug with a gun only needs to display a baseball bat and the thug will run.
    Therefore therefore therefore, nobody ever needs to buy any more guns. All gun stores can convert to sporting goods stores, and people will be exactly as safe as before. The firearms industry and large chunks of military defense contractors, can close down overnight, saving the US citizen and taxpayer millions of dollars.

    Q.E.D.

    Hope that helps! You can send me the cheque for solving the sequester crisis later.

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  350. Re:tell me again by Flozzin · · Score: 1

    Not sure why I should care what Mark Twain thinks on freedom. The only thing you quote him as saying that I agree with is we will never be 100% safe. Some people are more willing to give up freedom in order to gain the illusion of safety. I am not.

    --
    "Cowardice in a race, as in an individual, is the unpardonable sin." --Teddy Roosevelt
  351. Guns Guns Guns by Jericho+Whiplash · · Score: 1

    The obvious solution is to have all marathon runners carry AR -15s - with 50 round magazines. That out of the way - my condolences and support for the deceased and wounded and to quote Jack Burton - "son of a bitch must pay!!!!!"

    1. Re:Guns Guns Guns by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      STFU you schmuck. Nobody is claiming firearms are a panacea for safety. If anything, this incident should prove that people intent on terror and mass murder will commit their crimes regardless of what anti-gun laws the government forces on us.

  352. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

    And then there will be another threat. The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

    Face it: Violence will not bring peace.

  353. Re:tell me again by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Tell me again how MORE GUNS would have prevented this??? Tell me how MORE GUNS would result in fewer homicides each year.

    They do not result in fewer homicides, but they do not result in more, either. If you need proof for that assertion, go look up violent crime statistics for Australia for 90s and 00s, and compare them before and after their gun ban (which involved a large-scale buyback program, so it actually significantly reduced the number of guns that citizens held) that happened in 1996-97.

    There's no need to join the NRA and fill your house with guns unless you are specifically interested in them, or feel the need to carry. But it would be highly appreciated if you didn't vote in politicians and support regulation (such as the assault weapons ban) restricting the ability of other law-abiding citizens to have and use guns, when said regulation has a proven track record of yielding no positive side effects whatsoever.

  354. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Violence only produces one result: more violence

    Only if you don't finish the job.

  355. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    Correct. It is political Islam that motivates them far far more than the actions of the West. It is best to stop listening to the narrative of the political Left and left-leaning mainstream media that blames the West, US and Israel. The fact is that jihadis are motivated by the *mainstream* doctrines of Islam (calling it "extremism" shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what Islam actually commands - but then the media and politicians are usually even more ignorant than many in the public).

  356. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

    No, violence is a means to and end. The problem is when violence becomes and end unto itself.

    Why to Arabs attack us? They've told us repeatedly, because they view our interventions in the region as an assault on their culture and right to self rule. So they attack us in retaliation. The leaders at home don't blame their bad foreign policy, but say that they are attacking because "they hate us for our freedom" and so they attack the Arabs back, which only makes it all the easier for the Arabs to recruit new members to attack again. Our "leaders" are trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline onto it.

    Now you of course you may ask, If they know we're going to strike back, why do they attack us if they want us to leave them alone? Because they know that the American government won't leave them alone no matter how many times they say please, so they attack knowing that we will try to go after them. Their violence is simply a means to an end, that end is to bankrupt the American Military-Industrial complex so the US government is forced to leave because they are defeated economically. They know that we have to spend $1000 in the middle east to counter every dollar they spend. They know that every bullet we fire, every bomb we drop, every solider we send, brings them one step closer to victory. Sure some of them say they want the world to all be ruled by Islam, but they're practical people and realize that they're not gonna launch an invasion of the mainland US.

    The correct thing to do is give them what they want, leave them along and let people buy the oil at whatever price it is selling for. The number of people they can send over to us is little more than a lethal nuisance and can be easily dealt with here. With us gone, the many Arab factions will lose a common enemy and within a decade they will go back to fighting each other like they have done for hundreds of years and not give us a second thought.

  357. Re:tell me again by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

    No, it's because you are *far* more likely to be a victim of government oppression than you are of a terrorist attack.

    See: NSA warrantless wiretapping, the TSA, stingray phone communication interception with a warrant obtained on deceitful premise, increasingly violent LEOs, a myriad of ways you can be in violation of laws you aren't even allowed to know exist...

  358. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by lennier · · Score: 1

    And, after those generations, we'd rid the world of the threat. They'd go the way of the Nazi or the Imperial Japanese.

    Do you mean these Nazis?

    --
    You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  359. Re:tell me again by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    I was pretty resigned to the fact that nothing could be done before it happened. There are too many attack vectors and too many potential actors. The attacker gets to choose his time and place. If he is part of an organized network, you have some hope of infilitration and intelligence foiling some plots, sure.

    Lone nutbags or spontaneous groups? Good luck. Seriously, they will just keep picking low hanging fruit and using whatever means they have available.

    What could have stopped the "Killdozer"? (which was admittedly not terribly lethal to people, more property damage).

    Nutbags using bombs or guns do so because its what they can use. To think they can't choose differently is to seriously underestimate their motivations. Do you really think anything can be done about explosives?

    I had no doubt that some bombing like this would happen, and another school will get shot up too, and one bombed. Its going to happen. That knowledge however is not really actionable information, its impossible to predict the next event.

    Why should I think we need to change regulations over something that I had already accepted would happen? I may not have known it would happen within 8 miles of my house. I didn't know it would be on patriots day at the marathon, but I knew somebody, someday would bomb a crowd of people. Don't get me wrong, its not comfortable to know how close to home it was, but no good comes of making changes based on every tragedy just to feel better.

    You know thats exactly how we ended up with the patriot act. I laugh when I hear 9/11 was an "inside job" or "they allowed it to happen". The real truth is so much more subtle and worst. It was sitting in a drawer just waiting for the next tragedy so it could be brought out. Its not a matter of if, sometimes its only a matter of when, and it is only ever going to be.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  360. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you kill them all.

  361. get educated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have never defended the dirtbag McVeigh, and do not know anybody who has but you seem a tad ignorant

    "collateral damage" is a term that has been around for a long time and is used in MANY situations. Although it is often used in situations tainted by politics (like seemingly EVERYTHING these days) it is NOT a political term. Collateral Damage is the damage that occurs as a generally predictable but not specifically targeted side-effect of something else. Example: when the allies dropped a bomb on a ball bearing factory in Germany and ended up destroying a neighboring building, the target was the factory, and it was predictable that neighboring things would be damaged or destroyed but the specific building next to the factory was not, itself, targeted.... THAT neighboring building was "collateral damage". As such (and as a guy with military experience) if McVeigh said the kids were "collateral damage" he was using a specific military term to indicate the kids WERE NOT targeted but was acknowledging that his bomb killed them.

    For some bizarre reason, people on the left have been attempting to twist the technical term "collateral damage" into a political term meaning "killed/destroyed with reckless disregard".... the term has nothing to do with intent other than to say "destroyed while not being targeted, and not by the weapon going off-target"

  362. Re:tell me again by jc42 · · Score: 1

    Copley Square in Boston is a "hop skip and a jump" from MIT.

    Hmmm ... A quick check shows that it's actually on the order of a kilosmoot, if you take the obvious route of going south on Mass Ave, hanging a left on Comm Ave, and a right at Dahtmouth. That's quite a lot of hops, skips and jumps, at least for a normal-size human.

    Someone oughta try it, though, and report the actual number of hop+skip+jump units it takes them to make the trip. Or maybe organize a team of people of different sizes, and report the mean of their counts.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  363. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tea party is full of ignorant selfish children. They can barely read the constitution, they absolutely cannot understand or interpret it. It has nothing to do with being left wring. Republicans hate the tea party too. Mostly because it makes the few intelligent republicans look bad. The tea party is not trying to protect anyone's constitutional rights, they do not care about freedom or understand liberty. They would happily trample the rights of millions so that their tiny minority could have rights they misinterpreted from a Constitution they do not understand. They would happily watch children starve in the street if it would save them a dollar. The tea party is a refuge for the lowest reactionary dregs of our society.

  364. Re:tell me again by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    You're going to get exactly the type of government you deserver and go fuck yourself when it happens because my wallet will be closed to your sorry ass

    If he gets the government he thinks he wants, your wallet - along with everyone else's - will be open to the Glorious State, which will provide us with bread lines and busy work.

  365. terrorist motivation wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    terrorism was originally state originated (e.g. Reign of Terror in France), but in the revolutionary scheme of things, the idea behind terrorism is to create a feeling in the population that the government is unable to control things, and that they should rise up and overthrow the government (particularly if you're a nihilist), or throw the government out (e.g. the Irgun driving the British out of Palestine in the 40s). The IRA bombings in England are another example: an attempt to make the English population rise up and demand that their government stop their activities in Ireland.

    Roadside IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan are not terrorism: they're simply guerilla warfare.

    Diplomacy generally does not work to prevent classic terrorism, because diplomacy works with the government, and the terrorist is trying to tear down the government by creating a crisis of confidence in the population, to replace it with a better one.

    There are also psychopaths who like the commotion and excitement from the bombing. Not unlike the arsonist.

  366. Re:Worried by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

    We didn't all go batshit crazy. I'm as annoyed with the security theater as anyone else. OTOH, since we live in an NYC suburb, my wife and I personally knew two people who were killed and one who was injured by falling debris, and two couples who had to move out of their homes until the poisonous cloud settled down. Our son had multiple schoolmates who lost a parent.

  367. psst...your ignorance is showing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McVeigh was in the wrong and did an evil act (and interestingly was killed for it FAR faster that anybody from the left is ever killed for their political violence) BUT he did not target that building for its day care center. Indeed, by placing a day care center in a federal law enforcement facility (an obvious target) one might argue that the feds were using those kids as "human shields" (Personally, I tend to think this was not the case and that the placement was a combination of laziness and convenience and poor risk management... but the US often accuses people in the middle east of using kids as "human shields" when they do similar things). McVeigh targeted the facility because its occupants had ties to the Waco Raid, which many on the right saw (and many continue to see) as a shocking example of an out-of-control federal agency mass-murdering Americans in their own home as part of a political endeavor which included a pile of lies and "lost" paperwork and "misplaced" evidence when (if there even was a real justification to make an arrest) the feds had plenty of documented opportunities to do so peacefully off-site and away from all the "collateral damage" (the piles of dead women and children resulting from the raid). People also forget the ties to Ruby Ridge in which the feds similarly lied their butts off while murdering people who were no danger to anybody else and simply wanted to be left alone. McVeigh acted stupidly and at a time when anti-ATF sentiments were boiling; his target was very specific (not something general like a marathon race and not something terrorist like "a bunch of random children in a day care center")

    TEA partiers tend to be extremely focused on the problems of over-taxation and trillion dollar annual deficit spending, and as such should not be automatically presumed to have much in common with people who have issues with the ATF (which is where McVeigh was coming from). Also, contrary to the mindless drivel at MSNBC and Comedy Central, there's no record of TEA Party violence. Even among those on the right who do have an extreme hatred for the ATF (not generally a TEA Party issue), violence is extremely rare... far less rare than violence is on the left (see: President Obama's friend Bill Ayers and all the bombings of his era, the bomb-play of some of the "occupiers", etc)

  368. WOW, militant homosexuals did this?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's an interesting spin! Why would a bunch of militant gay guys attack gay-friendly Boston? I get it that it would be consistent with the trend in the US for most political bombings (McVeigh is an odd exception) to be carried out by the left, and sexual deviancies tend to be a left-wing fixation ... but if a bunch of gay guys were gonna bomb something I'd have expected it to be in South Carolina or Texas... perhaps at a "straight pride" parade... oh, wait, straight people don't generally run parade floats down main street celebrating their sexual proclivities....

  369. Someone else's terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There have been a lot of bombings in Kenya lately, and when the winners reach the end of the Boston Marathon there are a lot of high-visibility Kenyans right about where those bombs went off. Just a theory...

  370. Re:tell me again by strikethree · · Score: 1

    You seem to be implying that there are things we should be doing that would prevent future such acts. So what should we be doing?

    Hm. How about stopping the destruction of the American middle class? How about having the police actually acting like they are there to serve the public rather than to be the servants of the political elite? How about not pushing so many tens of thousands into grinding poverty every month?

    I dunno. How about just not acting like assholes so there are fewer people motivated to act like assholes to us?

    --
    "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  371. Re:tell me again by jrumney · · Score: 1

    I'd agree that it's a bit of a waste of bandwidth, disk space, etc. for /. to bother with it

    Clearly the Slashdot community in general does not agree, as stories like this always end up attracting far more comments than the rest of the day's stories (including yours - if you think it is a waste of bandwidth, why are you even reading the story and ensuing discussion let alone posting comments in it?).

  372. Re:Well we know it can't be AL Queda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and we know it can't be an American Right-winger, because they are all utterly sane folks like the parent poster, never driven by delusions to psychotic rage

  373. How do you stop a bad guy with a bomb? by Ardipithecus · · Score: 1

    ...

  374. Re:tell me again by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1

    This comment is +5 insightful? Whelp, it was a nice ride, /. I'm off to reddit.

    --

    --
    $tar -xvf .sig.tar
  375. Re:Worried by manwargi · · Score: 1

    As an American who is sufficiently aware of just how vile and gruesome said records are, I concur that a lot of us went crazy and still are. It escalates conflict, it sets a bad example that other countries imitate, and it wastes a lot of energy and resources.

    Be there for the people who are hurting and scared as a result of these attacks, instead of spending a lot of time on fear and loathing of the culprits. You'll feel better and come out of it less of a monster. You know, "United we stand."

  376. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Massive Bullshit Makework projects"

    Yeah! Like, maybe, fixing our bridges and other parts of our infrastructure. Not REALLY necessary, right? There's plenty of work that needs doing, that isn't getting done.

    Then again, with massive unemployment, why strive for efficiency? Don't use a few engineers and skilled equipment operators, but go for the 500 ditch diggers. Or would you rather the 500 be on welfare? Me, personally, I'd rather folks EARN their money, even in a "bullshit" job. It helps their self-respect and makes me feel good that money is going their way, at least they're working for it.

  377. Re:tell me again by cstdenis · · Score: 1

    Hard to say definitively without knowing much details about who was behind it, but if it is some nut job as these things often are, then better mental health care would be a good step in the right direction.

    --
    1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
  378. Re:tell me again by tirefire · · Score: 1

    Machine guns are already illegal almost everywhere.

    I'm pretty sure you have to pass a strict background check and pay a $200 fee, but I know it's possible. Same with silencers/suppressors. Otherwise, this man would be in jail by now.

  379. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And anyhow we had a mass stabbing in a school (community college of some sort in California just this month. It's not the weapon: it's the nutjob."

    There was one in California also? I only heard about the stabbing in Texas, outside of Houston. A nutjob with an X-acto knife stabbed 14 people, two of them critically. Knives, guns and bombs don't kill people. NUTJOBS kill people with those, and many other, things.

  380. Re:tell me again by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    > I had to sit through weeks . . .

    Really? All that? Compare that to the Watergate scandal reporting which went on for years.

    Watergate was just a burglary, nobody was murdered.

    The Bengazi cover-up scandal has been swept under the rug by the 90% liberal democrat pop-media.

  381. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wow if we add to that the list of people killed in drone attacks, by the DEA and by handguns, we'd have the bleakest possible list in the world!

    then again, we could always branch out and add genocides, serial killers and killer virus outbreaks.

  382. Re:tell me again by rthille · · Score: 1

    From the article you linked:

    Editor's note: Connecticut State Police have confirmed that Adam Lanza did, in fact, use a Bushmaster .223 high capacity rifle and two hand guns. As far as we can tell, NBC has not issued a retraction

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  383. Re:tell me again by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1

    OT prediction: If it turns out that the act was committed by an American nutjob, as with the Oklahoma City bombing the media and political system will quickly forget about it. If it turns out that it was done by a "furriner", we'll hear lots about those awful "terrists" for some time, everyone will make vicious pronouncements, and they won't forget about it. In either case, little if anything will be done that's relevant to preventing future such acts.

    This bombing is similar to the foiled MLK day bombing in Seattle that turned out to be some crazy neo-Nazi. And by "foiled" I mean someone basically stumbled on the bomb before it went off in the middle of a very crowded parade.

    As a former resident of Boston, that city will always have a special place in my heart. Attacking the marathon is just the lowest of lows. I hope they catch whomever did this and lock them up for good in the rapiest prison they can find and don't turn it into some empty-headed left versus right shouting match on cable news.

    --
    Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
  384. Re:tell me again by GodInHell · · Score: 2

    in fact have worked their asses off to specifically preserve your constitutional rights.

    Let's see -- what has the Tea party accomplished -- blocked Obamacare? nope. Stopped taxes from going up? nope. Stopped the Patriot act? nope.

    Oh, I know, they knocked off a bunch of marginal republicans, isolated the party from hispanics and more than 50% of the white population and then blew up.

    Damn am I glad there was a tea party.

  385. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like Hacker News and invite only forums.

  386. What is up with this week? by will.perdikakis · · Score: 1

    -OK City Bomb -Waco, TX massacre -Columbine -VA Tech -BP oil also: Hilter and and Lanza's birthday.

    --
    -Will P.
    1. Re:What is up with this week? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Can't explain birthdays and oil spills. However, Tim McVeigh definitely planned the OK City bombing as a response to the Waco massacre. Erik Harris had delusions of "out-doing" McVeigh (Thank $deity his bombs malfunctioned or he might have succeeded) and also timed his attack to coincide.

      You also forgot tax day in your list.

    2. Re:What is up with this week? by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

      Had to look it up - wikipedia has A. H.'s birthday as 4/20/1889. Not close enough for me to conclude that the idiot(s) behind this might have had that reason.

  387. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe then, you would not ask what this has to do with news for nerds.

    So Slashdot is now a service for one ten-millionth of the world population who might want to see their local newspaper's website?

  388. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have actual hard numbers, but I'm figuring on it taking at least 2-3 seconds to eject a magazine and slot another one in.

    If you're proficient with the weapon, a second is all you need. thumb the magazine release & let the empty magazine drop, slap the new magazine in, chamber your first round, keep firing.

    Any weapon capable of firing 10 rounds PER SECOND is an automatic weapon, and already outlawed. If you're burning off a 10 round magazine with a semiauto pistol as fast as you can, you're looking at, perhaps, 1 round per second, and not very accurate. At that rate of fire, a 20 round magazine would probably take you 20 seconds to burn through. 2 10 round magazines, 23 seconds, if it takes you 3 seconds to swap out the magazine after 10 shots. That's really not much of a difference.

    What the magazine size argument really says is, "It's totally cool if you kill up to 10 people... but more than 10, we're going to make it slightly more inconvenient for you."

  389. How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment."
    -- Sherlock Holmes, speaking in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "A Study in Scarlet"

  390. Re: tell me again by pev · · Score: 1

    Only on America - some nut-job bitching that the government trying to do something to make a difference after a load of children are murdered!

    Well done. Give yourself a slap on the back and feel proud that you're defending your rights. "but its in the constitution and Ill use that to win every argumement with the red lefties". Yes it is. However the only reason the constitution doesnt have at the very top "the right not to be murdered" is that the people who wrote it didnt think anyone would be so fucking stupid that they need it written down explicitly.

  391. Re:tell me again by Chrisq · · Score: 2

    Let us assume that the act is due to a jihadi. The solution is clear, strike at the *ideology* of jihadis. At the moment the US is fighting a war on jihadi terrorism but completely ignoring (or, under the Obama Administration, suppressing) the *facts* about Islamic ideology that grows these jihadis. Just wait for the media to start using the words "extremist" which is a complete lie - jihad is a mainstream and central tenet of Islam. Until the US is honest about the problem it is facing it will never win. At the moment the Us is on a course to becoming progressively Islamicised under the guidance of Leftist "political correctness". Until the US tells the truth about Islamic teachings it cannot win the important war - the *ideological* one. Once the US properly understands the teachings of Islam as Muslims believe them (not as Western apologists do) then the Free World has a chance of surviving the coming Caliphate.

    You are completely correct. It is inevitable that the Muslims in the West will rise and try to end free society. Hell they even say that they will do it! In future we will face a battle like Spain did, eliminate the Muslims or die.

  392. In the 1970s.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the people of Boston used to run collections to support the terrorists who were bombing the people of Belfast.

    Just saying....

  393. Re:tell me again by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, son. You live in a Democracy. In Democracy, herd mentality protects you from anything egregious that a runaway government which listens not to its constituents or the Constitution might do.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  394. Re:tell me again by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    No. You're quite wrong.

    In a police state, you are only preventing repeated acts of violence against the populace by the same individual or non-government organization.

    You still have the one-off acts of terror, such as suicide bombers.

    You still have governmental abuses and 'lack of oversight', such as drone bombings of children or plutocratic rape of the system and individuals. (And you will have a lot more of these.)

    You will still have organized crime - and, in fact, a lot more of it, because it's demand goes up and it can only operate with the covert 'blessing' of the system.

    You will also have things like a lot more unreported crime (fear of reporting the wrong person, or simple government involvement in your life - see people reporting burglaries in the UK and getting fines, sued and jail time for things like building code violations or 'hostile work environment').

    The only people who benefit from a police state (also known as a totalitarian regime) are the people who are in power. Just ask anyone who's lived in a small town/county before (where there are fewer than 2k people within 30 miles of you, small). If you're not in power and with the cops, you're on the outside, regardless.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  395. Re:tell me again by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You realize that if we were to effectively fight jihadist terrorism, Dearborn, MI, as well as various other locations in the US, would have to be depopulated with most of the inhabitants shot, deported, or jailed, right?

    (There is Sharia by majority rule in Dearborn.)

    I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it will never happen, short of a no-punches-pulled Balkanized civil war.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  396. Re:tell me again by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    1) Fox News had a talking head expert short moments after the bombing occurred (an hour or two?) who said almost immediately that it's likely/probably a home grown terrorism attack, likely white supremacists.
    2) Done.
    3) Probably.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  397. Re:tell me again by N1AK · · Score: 1

    Wake up global citizens. Islam is making war on you, *every day*.

    No it isn't and you're deluded assertions don't alter that. There doesn't have to be a 'fight to the death' but you, and those like you, who ARE the problem would certainly bring one about if you got the chance.

  398. Re:tell me again by mha · · Score: 1

    Let's pretend I believe your rant for a moment. What is still missing from your post is ANY kind of suggestion for what you would want to DO. What is your proposed ACTION?

    The only option I see from your post is total annihilation of Islam, and that means of all Muslims since brain-reprogramming does not work very well (definitely not on a large scale - and just threatening people will make them HIDE their beliefs, that's not brain re-programming).

    Is THIS what you propose? So let's assume I'm a cold-hearted robot and not a human. Problem is, it would STILL not work: The more people you kill, the more opposition (and more and more violent opposition) you will get in your own ranks. Your own people won't let you kill millions of other people.

    So it comes down to this: Your rant is just that, a rant. You have no solution whatsoever. What you propose is an eternity of mutual hate and hot air.

  399. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are always more people to waterboard.

  400. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 2
    Actually, to fight jihadis you can do several things:
    • 1) a kinetic war, which attracts the 'moths to the flame' and thins their numbers
    • 2) designate Islam for what it is, a political movement with superstitious aspects, not a personal faith. That means the Islamic political hate creed is no longer protected speech as religious speech is.
    • 3) get governments around the world that actually believe in standing up for liberty for all people. Get rid of the politically correct weaklings that infest the EU and US.
    • 4) stop paying the UN and its Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) voting bloc for making up rules in the Human Rights Council that works to condemn liberal democracies and promote anti-Free Speech blasphemy laws.
    • 5) Enact legislation that makes it clear that foreign laws will never be adopted. Fortunately some states of the US are adopting such laws. Europe and the rest of the civilized world needs to follow suit.
    • 6) increased surveillance of mosques. A recent survey of US East Coast mosques found around 80% had islamicist hate speech material (that is, mainstream Islamic material).
    • 7) prevent activist judges from setting precedent that trumps native law by Sharia-compliant laws. Many judges aim to show how progressive they are yet undermine the existing legal system with foreign laws
    • 8) stop 'culture' as being a used as a defence for youths commiting crimes around the world (eg. the rape of women by Muslims in Sweden, Denmark, Australia, and the rape gangs in the UK).
    • 9) stop the leftists and islamic propaganda being taught in US schools
    • 10) prevent the proselytization by imams in prisons. This is a big source of recruits.
    • 11) vote for politicians that have the balls to stand up to bully regimes like Iran and North Korea (both routinely threatening neighbours with utter annihiliation).
    • 12) increase stricter immigration laws and quotas
    • 13) have no fear in ejecting hate preachers. At the moment places like the UK cannot even expel evil hate preachers. Remember who the sovereign power is - make and enforce laws like men, not like pussy whipped weaklings afraid of criticism.
    • 14) strengthen Free Speech laws. The right to offend is important. In an ethnically diverse society someone will always be offended by what someone else says. As long as it is not hate speech, nor immediate incitement to violence then offensive speech should always be allowed.
    • 15) hold police to criminal charges when they enforce Sharia-compliant laws (eg. the corrupt police in Dearborn).
    • 16) repeal all blasphemy laws world-wide and reject UN HRC Resolution 16/18 (shamefully co-sponsored by the thoroughly incompetant Hiliary Clinton).
    • 17) hold media to account for false reporting, through fines for slander (eg. the Owen Jones' of the BBC falsely reporting aspects of the Gaza conflict in 2009 and 2012).

    There is a lot that can be done without expelling anyone. If the war against Islam is to be won (and it needs to be, it is clear it is a fight to the death) then the US needs to win the *ideological* battle. At the moment many citizens of the Free World (and supposedly well-informed people on Slashdot) either don't know or are in denial about the facts of the nature and aims of Islam. This bombing is only the start. The US cannot placate Islam with appeasement. The US will have to learn the lessons the Israelis did - you are hated because the Qur'an commands that all non-Moslems be hated and subjugated. Therefore, you will only survive if you are in a position of strength. At the moment the US is gradually being islamicized. It is a slow process so many US citizens not only don't notice, they foolishly and mistakenly see counter-jihadists as some kind of bigots - when it is only their own ignorance that prevents them from seeing the truth that the counter-jihadists are trying to point out.

    Remember Americans and Europeans, the Middle East was once Jewish and Christian with no Muslims. If Isl

  401. The posting here is a world away by sdreader · · Score: 1

    Slashdot is the ONLY place I've seen on the net so far where the majority of comments (at least the up-voted ones anyway) are talking about the potential for further restrictions of rights, drone strikes being the precipitation for the attacks, and general political shit slinging (despite the fact it could very well be just the result of a single dickhead who's got his own issues with whatever). Everyone else, from reddit to just general talking, is concerned about the actual attack and people's experiences more than anything else.

    Yes the potential ramifications of what might happen as a result of this attack are important - but I have to ask why Slashdot commenters are the only ones so obsessed with talking about them RIGHT NOW. Are we so absolutely cynical about the world that this is all we can discuss? As if some people can't just be naturally evil and want to do this for their own gain regardless of what the US Government might be responsible for?

    --
    Apparently being anti-Steam is grounds for insults, even if there's basis. I shall learn to keep my mouth shut.
    1. Re:The posting here is a world away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we so absolutely cynical about the world that this is all we can discuss?

      Yes. In the past tragedies have been used as distractions to manipulate people in shock. Is it not good that at least one forum tries to rise above that in case something is amiss?

    2. Re:The posting here is a world away by sdreader · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of smart people on a lot of other forums. They haven't really brought up the political issues and started any finger-pointing in the manner Slashdot has - not yet anyway.

      I will say thought that if I tried discussing this tragedy by focusing on the issues presented in this thread with people face-to-face and not on the net, I'd be looked at with disgust and shock for even thinking such things - regardless of how logical my argument might be. Maybe that's the reason Slashdotters are doing so with each other? Because it's the only place anyone they'll be able to talk without scorn? Can't blame them I suppose.

      --
      Apparently being anti-Steam is grounds for insults, even if there's basis. I shall learn to keep my mouth shut.
    3. Re:The posting here is a world away by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      In this day and age when the government will "never let a crisis go to waste", is it any surprise that people would quickly start thinking along those lines?

      The 9-11 attacks have been used as an excuse for two full scale wars, a huge amount of authoritarian legislation and abuses like indefinite detention and arbitrary assassinations of U.S. citizens.

      The Newtown CT murders are being used an excuse to further a pernicious anti-gun agenda.

      It's obvious to assume that these bombings in Boston will be used as an excuse for even more government surveillance and other restrictive measures to make us "safe".

      It doesn't really matter if it was some dickhead with a grudge or a foreign terrorist. Government has demonstrated that they will use these incidents to accumulate power. I feel terrible for the victims, but I feel dread about what new police state measures the government will impose on the rest of us.

    4. Re:The posting here is a world away by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      In my office actually the first thing we started discussing was what new regulations and loss of rights we'd face. Sure it sucks that some people died and that hundreds of others were injured, but we don't know those people, we probably don't even know anyone that knows those people. However we have all had our lives affected by the lose of rights following 9/11. Of course we are going to talk about what will have a real impact on our lives. Besides I'd rather talk about things that can still be influenced.

      What good is there in endlessly crying about the victims that we have no connection to? I would never fault someone who is actually connected to those people for having an emotional reaction but I can honestly say I didn't miss a blink of sleep over their pain and suffering lastnight. In fact since the regularly scheduled broadcasts were all screwed up by the media whoring I just watched some streamed episodes and played some pc games.

    5. Re:The posting here is a world away by sdreader · · Score: 1

      The media focuses on the crying and expression of suffering because they know that pulling heartstrings and causing emotional responses in viewers somehow increases viewership and repeated viewings. It's sick, but it's also a well-known tactic which seems to work for most. In my case I'm kinda like you, in that I just stopped watching after a while and did some more housework. The actual amount of news and new developments regarding the tragedy are still very slow to come out, and hence the media is just regurgitating the same shit over and over again, so you don't really need to be continuously watching anyway.

      --
      Apparently being anti-Steam is grounds for insults, even if there's basis. I shall learn to keep my mouth shut.
  402. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    Hell they even say that they will do it!

    Yes, they say it daily. The Muslims around the world certainly understand what is going on - they gloat about the coming Caliphate and what they will do to Free People.

    The abuse that Israel is under is coming to all non-Muslim countries until they submit to Sharia. Note that even after a country becomes Muslim the violence doesn't stop, it actually gets worse as different Islamic sects are then free to slaughter each other without restraint (eg. see Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Syria etc). As long as Israel stands it will be the shield of the rest of the world (that's what the symbol of their national flag is, ""Magen David", the Shield of David). All free nations need to stand together against the coming Caliphate (an Islamic political entity that will subvert the culture of and then subjugate nations one-by-one).

    Democrats and Left-wingers, I urge you to start looking at the *facts* of what is going on, rather than following your *emotions* about what you think may be going on. The conservatives may have realised the nature and aims of political Islam earlier than you, but if you keep an open mind those same conservatives will try to give you the facts as they understand them. Islam's declared aim is to remove the Human Rights and liberties of all Free People and subjugate them under Sharia. If you think conservatives are the enemy then you are not seeing or thinking clearly. Islam is the enemy of all Free People.

    See the facts of the number of killings going on *daily* by Islam (mostly Muslim on Muslim violence). The violence is caused by commandments in the Qur'an, not what the US or Israel has done (as the Left and Islamicists lie to you ad infinitum - to throw you off the true scent of their totalitarian aims until it is too late):
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

  403. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    The world has changed in the last 12 years, Slashdot is now a little fish in a much bigger pond. In case you haven't noticed, there's now many sites with live video coverage that suck waaaaay more bandwidth and server power than this little mostly text based site.

    Having live video coverage of a load of emergency services vehicles parked on the streets hours after a terrorist event is entirely useless in providing information.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  404. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    False. Stop projecting. Also, you are *wrong*. You are spouting your *opinion*. Here are the *facts*: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

    Notice how there are *multiple* Islamicist attacks around the World every day? doesn't your enormous ignorance concern you? don't do you feel even a tinge of guilt for trying to demonize those who know a fsck load more than you and are armed with facts rather than your wimpy and *false* opinions? It is apologists like you that are the problem. Your weak agenda has allowed the human-rights violating cancer of political Islam into tolerant societies. You are part of the problem yet you are too ignorant to understand it, yet. Fortunately the Islamicists state they are very very willing to provide many more examples for you on a daily basis until you finally wake to the *facts* of the situation - that political Islam is an evil totalitarian ideology that must be opposed by all moral Free People (which currently does not appear to include you - hopefully that will change as you learn more).

  405. Re:Prediction about the Bull Sh*t Happening in BOS by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    It's good to see that someone's worked everything out so quickly. You really are a fucking Renaissance guy, able to move from coding apps to change the ringtone on your phone to global political analysis in your break times. Well done!

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  406. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, I do have a multi-pronged approach consisting of many items. Unfortunately I still think it is necessary for some kinetic action to be taken against those who would never listen (eg. Al Qaeda). Now it turns out that I actually believe that many Muslims are in fact moral and very law abiding. It just turns out that the set of morals and laws that they obey are barbaric 7th Century edicts that doctrine prohibits from evolving or even discussing. The ideological battle to be waged is *far far* more important than the kinetic battle, but both are necessary for victory. At the moment the US is losing, badly, because it has deluded itself into believing political Islam is the same as various personal faiths - yet it most clearly is not.

    For the specifics of my suggestions I hope you will consider my post I put here:
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3651105&cid=43459335

    Please note that I neither call for deportation nor extermination nor oppression of Muslims (a courtesy that Islamists are unwilling to extend to Kosovar Serbs, Iraqi Assyrians, Kurds scattered around the place, Armenians, Egyptian Copts, Indonesian Christians or Southern Sudanese). Let readers judge whether I am trying to be reasonable or not, while still opposing the evil totalitarianism of Islam and promoting the defense of Englightenment Liberties for all.

    If you are interested in various aspects of Islamic Law (eg, how the OIC are using the UN to promote evil Sharia worldwide) or how jihad is not in any way an "extremist" Muslim doctrine (as the political left, leftist media, and Islamic apologists continually lie to you about) in the sense that it is, in fact, a *core and mainstream* Islamic doctrine. When an Islamicist says they "condemn terrorism" it never means they condemn jihad. They are condemning "illegal warfare", which in Sharia means those who oppose jihad. This is an example of the Islamic doctrine of lying called "tawriya". Citations for your enlightenment and pleasure:
    http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/139-louis-palme/1095-knowing-four-arabic-words-may-save-our-civilization-from-islamic-takeover.html
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsArto3UVT0 "Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkAZUvQAzkc "Stephen Coughlin, Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law "
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t98WRrOPj2s "Stephen Coughlin, Part 3: Abrogation & the 'Milestones' Process"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y " Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner"

    So, fellow Slashdotters, please let me cue you in. When the inevitable TV appearances have Muslims condemning terrorism there will be some genuine condolences (those that are good human beings, but bad Muslims) but more than a few will be practicing "tawriya" - saying something with the knowledge that you will interpret it in one way, while they view it as the complete opposite due to the different interpretation under (evil !!!) Sharia.

  407. Re: tell me again by baristabrian · · Score: 1

    Do you ever actually read what you write? If not, than you have no clue how silly it makes you sound---in spite of your being quite articulate, actually. A shame.

    --
    -- "I'm not in a hurry; I'm in Hawaii." The Homeless Guy
  408. Re:tell me again by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    Speaking as a detached outsider (I'm not American) everything I have read or watched about the Tea Party shows them to be right wing even by US standards, anti-government, anti-tax, obsessed with "the Constitution" so as to justify repealing all civil rights legislation, against firearms restrictions, against any non-private healthcare provision and so on.

    Pretty much like most people on slashdot form what I've seen.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  409. Re:tell me again by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Tell me again how gun legislation would have prevented this???

    Because you can have guns to keep the government in line or overthrow it if you don't like the way they respond to terror attacks. It's your right.

    TMYK

    At what point did the word "democracy" become a dirty one in the US?

    Relying on armed strength is fascism, not democracy.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  410. Re:tell me again by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 2

    Jihad means many things. Most of those things have nothing to do with physical violence or death.

    People like you really miss the Red Scare don't you?

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
  411. Re:tell me again by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Most news sites don't have a decent comment system. At least on slashdot you get some intelligent postings, as well as some good jokes and a whole heap of paranoid right wing crap for entertainment.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  412. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly you need to be carted off to the re-education camp. How dare you go against this administrations agenda! Don't you know you work for the liberal government? Did you think this was a democracy?

    Time for your meds, dude.

  413. Re:Why is this on a tech news site? by isorox · · Score: 1

    Just because we're like minded, doesn't mean we agree.

    On the whole we're interested in things like computers, robotics, science and technology in general, scifi etc. We're not (on the whole) interested in sports, soaps, or reality tv.

  414. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Lotana · · Score: 1

    Please mod parent up. Very insightful, appropriate and scary example.

  415. Re:tell me again by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

    So the whole correlation between these attacks happening in places where revolutions have gone down, the abject poverty, the fact that bombs and other attacks mean that very few people can do lots of damage?

    No, it's islam. Like I said, you probably spent weeks in depression when the cold war ended..

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
  416. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by Lotana · · Score: 1

    It was in a way a triumph for Slashdot, but also the start of the downfall.

    Ever since 9/11 coverage Slashdot irreversibly changed. It gained a different demographic and turned distinctly more political. That in my opinion is when the tech content became more and more rare, with Your Rights Online section becoming most common types of stories posted.

    Pity.

  417. Re:tell me again by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    Wikipedia says that the shooter was armed with "a .223-caliber Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle (with a 30 round magazine)".

    Whatever you class it as, it is still capable of firing 30 shots very quickly. Does it really matter that it's not a fully automatic assault rifle except to gun nerds?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  418. Re:tell me again by moortak · · Score: 1
    --
    Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
  419. Re:tell me again by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    The one thing a police state guarantees is that violence is a more frequent.

    The only way to reduce fatal violence is to minimise the number of really fucked-off people.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  420. Re:tell me again by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Just wait for the media to start using the words "extremist" which is a complete lie - jihad is a mainstream and central tenet of Islam.

    There are an awful lot of people who aren't "real" Muslims then, aren't there? Surely all these bloodthirsty fanatics could have organised themselves into a proper army by now?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  421. Re:Prediction about the Bull Sh*t Happening in BOS by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

    So, how many duster coats and fedoras do you have in your closet?

    --


    He tried to kill me with a forklift!
  422. Re:tell me again by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, the Obama administration has been actively suppressing [csmonitor.com] use of phrases by the government such as "War on Terror"

    But that's a good thing.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  423. Re:tell me again by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

    What additional action could we have taken that would have prevented this?

    Like, you know, stop pissing people off for a change.

    The only way to do that is to STFU and stay home forever. Not very likely.

  424. Re:tell me again by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

    Posint anonymously to save what little reputation I have....

    What does this have to do with news for nerds?.

    Bombs are created by terrorists, terrorism is funded by internet piracy, internet piracy is big news here on /.

    Um, what? Terrorism is funded by giving away free stuff?

    You'll be surprised with how much money you'll have left if you copy everything for free. They're just gonna spend it on hookers and blow.

    And in this case, it's just blow.

    Although it's a different kind of blow you can get from a hooker.

  425. Patriot Act 2 by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Stop or I'll shoot anyway.

  426. Re:tell me again by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    And anyhow we had a mass stabbing in a school (community college of some sort in California just this month. It's not the weapon: it's the nutjob.

    There was one in Texas recently. 14 people were injured but no one was killed. That's the difference between a nutter with a blade and a nutter with even one 30 round magazine in a rifle, never mind a bunch of them.

    I don't want to be stabbed, but I'd rather take my chances being stabbed than shot half a dozen times from a rifle. Plus, me and 1 or 2 other people have a much better chance of subduing someone with a knife than a gun.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  427. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Yes, and in the 80s and 90s the US had absolutely no involvement in the Middle East, so they were just imagining all their grievances? Grow up.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  428. Re:Worried by tehcyder · · Score: 1
    As an individual, you were fully entitled to feel anger. As a country, you were not entitled to act illogically based on those feelings and invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

    To non-Americans, your internal paranoid security theatre is your own problem, as it just means that at some point we'll all just stop visiting the US by choice. Lucky for us there's not a world US/N government, eh?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  429. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by acoustix · · Score: 1

    Agreed. /. was impressive with its news coverage on 9/11.

    This is news for everyone.

    Especially since the Boston Marathon is an International event. It is International news.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  430. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some ppl (like me) ONLY get their news from Slashdot, and expect that if it's a big enough story that everyone will be talking about it (like this one), it will eventually make its way here. I kept hearing ppl talking about "what happened in Boston" on Facebook, but had no idea what they were talking about until I came here and read the summary. I would have been disappointed if it hadn't been represented here. And judging by the number of comments, I'm not the only one. Just because it's not specifically "nerd news" doesn't mean I'm not interested in what the Slashdot community has to say about it.

  431. See the source... by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

    Seem you are the one who failed with your inane speculation.

    A Saudi National has been detained. Mostly because he seems to have blown himself up.

    Just a bit of advice...if the idiots are agreeing with you, it's time to reassess your position.

    An advice that all of us should heed.
    Boston police commissioner says no suspect is in custody in marathon explosions

    At a press conference Monday night, Boston police commissioner Edward Davis refuted reports that a suspect in Monday's Boston Marathon bombing was at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

    "I want to stress one thing," Davis said. "There is no suspect at Brigham and Women's Hospital. There are people that we are talking to but there is no suspect at Brigham and Women's Hospital as has been widely reported in the press. I would like to fix that right now."

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  432. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more nuts the better, just like these discussions.

  433. Re:tell me again by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    At the moment the Us is on a course to becoming progressively Islamicised under the guidance of Leftist "political correctness".

    You are insane. Please seek medical help.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  434. Re:tell me again by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    You are completely correct. It is inevitable that the Muslims in the West will rise and try to end free society. Hell they even say that they will do it! In future we will face a battle like Spain did, eliminate the Muslims or die.

    You are insane. Please seek medical help.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  435. Re:tell me again by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    You realize that if we were to effectively fight jihadist terrorism, Dearborn, MI, as well as various other locations in the US, would have to be depopulated with most of the inhabitants shot, deported, or jailed, right?

    You are insane. Please seek medical help.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  436. Re:tell me again by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    everything I have read or watched about the Tea Party

    keep in mind that several media sources seek to mischaracterize political parties, and almost all of them in the US seek to mischaracterize parties beyond the "big two".

    shows them to be right wing even by US standards,

    True, but probably not in the way you mean

    anti-government,

    Anti big government. Anarchists are anti-government.

    anti-tax,

    Some tea party members believe that federal income tax is unconstitutional due to some technicality. All of them believe that over-taxation is a problem.

    obsessed with "the Constitution"

    True. In theory, every political party in the US is obsessed with the Constitution.

    so as to justify repealing all civil rights legislation,

    The worst of the mischaracterizations. The Tea Party is not a racist organization. There are probably more racists by both absolute numbers and percentage in the Democratic Party than in the Tea Party (the southern US has many more Democrats who are "good ol' boys"). There have been many blatant lies about Tea Party rallies in the media, referring to them as KKK rallies, media images being photoshopped to remove black Tea Party members to make the rallies look all-white, black political figures lying about racial epithets, etc.
    To bring this point back to the Constitution, the 14th amendment, section 5 prescribes the need for civil rights legislation: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

    against firearms restrictions,

    2nd amendment. Plenty of R's and D's are against further firearm restrictions too (Although tea party members seem to dislike all current restrictions)

    against any non-private healthcare provision and so on

    Only non-private healthcare provisions created by the federal government, as the Constitution of the United States doesn't give the fedgov such power. Barring a new amendment, the proper place for government-run health care is at the state-level (assuming the individual state constitutions allow it).

  437. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What 'victims of Newtown' are you talking about?

    Try googling 'Sandy Hook actors'.

  438. Not so sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I tend to take every story from Boston with a grain of salt. The last time they claimed a terrorist attack it was christmas lights that somebody put up. Before that it wwas a squirtgun, and / or fireworks.

    Boston has a history of crying wolf wolf. The positions and timing would indicate these could have been simple underground transformers exploding.

    A terrorist could have killed more people if done at the beginning of the race, when the crowds were bigger, or a terrorist could have hit a TSA checkpoint at a major airport. That would have proven to the world that the TSA is pointless, and cost the federal government hundreds of mllions.

    A home grown terrorist mad at the government would more likely go after a government building or military forces. Even Timoth McVey did that. Internet resources show a lot of anger towards government, and most of the time people are just venting their frustrations, but those that are real threats still seem to target government officials like Congress, or board members of big corporations lik Monsantos.

    The third theory is that it is an inside job. Government officials doing this as a way, an excuse to grab guns, and bring about more tightened control over the people. Mr. Obama has everything to gain by doing this and the federal agencies should be considered suspects in this and any future cases, the federal authorities should not be allowed to be involved in any investigations.

    Even if none of those are true, I remind everybody of the Olympic park bombing that authorities got completely wrong and it took them years to finally figure stuff out.

  439. Re:tell me again by dywolf · · Score: 1

    1) an armed society is a polite society. simply inarguable. we have nothing to fear frm each other, only from those who live outside the law and would seek to make me a victim
    2) most criminals give precisely 0 f**ks about gun laws. disarm every citizen, and everyone is equally ready to be a victim to anyone able to gain any advantage over them, be it through sheer size/strenght, or a gun illegally obtained. its like the naive hope that if we just dismantled our entire military, the rest of world would follow suite, and there would never be any war every again and everyone would just be one big happy family.
    3) the NRA has a membership of only ~4million people.
    4) meanwhile there are >180 million gun owners in the country, over half the population, 99.999% of which have never committed a crime, and never will
    5) meaning the NRA represents only 2.2% of gun owners, possibly as many as double that in terms of folks who would jion and just havent. the rest dont give 2 f**ks about the NRA, even though the NRA claims to speak for them
    6) the "militias" represent an even smaller portion of the populace than the NRA (making that an Appeal to the Extreme fallacy). its about as relevant as as painting all leftists as dope smoking free loving hippy communists.
    7) guns would not have prevented this. and guns arent necesarily about fewer homicides. most homicides are between criminals anyway (re: #2), and no one really cares if they kill each other off. what people care about is innocent victims, bystanders, or otherwise defenseless persons who become victims to criminals. armed citizens are less likely to fall victim to an attack.
    --
    a woman walking down the street pushing a baby stroller in Georgia, 2 thugs rob her and shoots her baby in the head. no gun law would have prevented that. but if she had been carrying, she could have. its as simple as that.

    guns arent always the answer, by any means. there's a concept called the "Continuum of Force". if someone shoves you, you dont pull a gun and shoot them in the head. a person with a gun who goes "cowboy" can be as dangerous as the criminal threat. and sometimes it is easier or safer to just hand over the wallet. but that's not something anyone on the outside of a situation can ever determine for someone else who's in that situation, especially in hindsight. it is the person in the moment who must make that decision, of how serious the threat is. ie whether its reached the point where serious bodily harm and/or death is likely outcome, and therefore use of deadly force is the best chance for survival.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  440. Slashdot: Redundant news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this news for nerds?

  441. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been an anon coward for over 10 years and I have ALWAYS assumed that it should be read as "news (stuff that matters) for nerds".

    Is there an explanation of the slogan anywhere?

  442. Re:tell me again by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    to be fair, it IS what the muslim faith teaches. Death to infidels - infidels being any non muslim. I am not saying I want a war, but I am sick of playing games where one side has rules to follow and the other doesnt.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  443. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shit, if you applied that rule, nobody in congress would have any business regulating justice ... Wait, you may be onto something there!

  444. Re: tell me again by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Yes, because the proper response to tragedy is to do anything, regardless of whether it's correct or incorrect. I'd agree with you on that: Lots of Americans will do something JUST TO BE DOING SOMETHING. Now, let's go with your idea: Since the bombing in Boston, we need to crack down more on foreigners! See, not so obvious now, is it?

  445. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article you linked:

    Editor's note: Connecticut State Police have confirmed that Adam Lanza did, in fact, use a Bushmaster .223 high capacity rifle and two hand guns. As far as we can tell, NBC has not issued a retraction

    Is it any surprise? This is the same NBC that edited the Zimmerman 911 call to make him sound like a racist.

  446. Re:tell me again by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Which is why we need to all settle down a bit and figure out what's going on before going crazy on how to respond.

  447. Re:tell me again by lgw · · Score: 1

    That's the "almost" everywhere. They're mostly outlawed at the local level, but if you live in a rural area there's a good chance you can get one.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  448. Re:tell me again by lgw · · Score: 1

    A stab wound from a knife is worse than being shot by a pistol (or some rifles), usually leaving one with lifelong reduced function. Ultimately you don't want to be the victim of any violent crime.

    Plus, me and 1 or 2 other people have a much better chance of subduing someone with a knife than a gun.

    Or you could be carrying a gun yourself, you know.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  449. Re:tell me again by AndrewX · · Score: 1

    You both have it wrong. If it does end up being an american, it will be all over the media with stories about how they were suffering from PTSD, or autism, or aspergers, or whatever, and how they aren't being treated correctly, and about how our society is (somehow) causing our good god fearing children to become sick. If it's a "furriner," they'll be an agent of evil that hates our freedom and has no cause to do what they did other than being an inherently violent and evil terrorist, and how the new Mosque being built in Boston is disrespectful.

  450. Re: tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only on America - some nut-job bitching that the government trying to do something to make a difference after a load of children are murdered!

    Well done. Give yourself a slap on the back and feel proud that you're defending your rights. "but its in the constitution and Ill use that to win every argumement with the red lefties". Yes it is. However the only reason the constitution doesnt have at the very top "the right not to be murdered" is that the people who wrote it didnt think anyone would be so fucking stupid that they need it written down explicitly.

    Right not to be murdered? Convenient how the left pulls that right out of thin air for the gun debate, but it's nowhere to be found with abortion.

  451. Re:/. has servers that stay up - that's why, nerds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then why the hell are you on Slashdot? We don't think - we parrot the approved talking points of our little cliche

  452. sad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I feel for the afflicted. Boston holds a special place in my heart. Speaking as a tourist in the USA, it is the most beautiful and peaceful city I've ever been to. Its people the kindest and most reasonable, and these qualities were hard to find with such abundance in other big cities I've been to on the east coast.
    Bombing civilians is a hideous act and this kind of thing should not happen anywhere, but Boston holds a dear place in my heart, and it makes me sadder to see it happening there...

    1. Re:sad... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Bombing civilians is a hideous act and this kind of thing should not happen anywhere

      Presumably you consider Birmingham and Warrington to be exceptions. I suspect many Bostanites would agree, since most of the funding came from them.

      I'm not saying two wrongs make a right or that the recent casualties are all IRA supporters, but I suspect the irony wasn't lost on many people in the UK.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  453. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a bit of advice...if the idiots are agreeing with you, it's time to reassess your position.

    Indeed. If you're reading this and you agree with sycodon, might want to reassess your position about breathing so we're all better off.

  454. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oklahoma City hasn't been forgotten, huh? When Breivik perpetrated his attacks in Norway two years ago, and every single detail known during the first twelve hours was simply screaming "Norway's Timothy McVeigh", the message on American news channels was predominantly "Oh those poor Norwegians! The Arabs are coming for them!"

  455. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can people stop saying 'dude' and 'bro' on the internet? It might've been cool at some point, but not anymore.

  456. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This IS flamebait, and you are a stupid fucking troll. "...tolerate it."? Are you psychotic? Name one organization in the U.S. that will respond with anything even close to "tolerate it" instead of "we condemn this evil act".

    What a fucking horses ass you are.

  457. Re:tell me again by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

    (which is not stopping the government from pushing assault rifle bans)

    Why should it stop them? If he'd had a more powerful weapon, couldn't the tragedy have been worse? Do you think an assault weapons ban isn't strong enough?

    But, to the point of the story in Boston, if everyone had explosives then we wouldn't have this problem. The only rational solution is legalize IEDs and other explosive devices so that we can all protect ourselves.

  458. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    Doubly false. Shows you don't know as much as you think you do - and you need to do a lot more research than merely regurgitate the propaganda of Hamas-inspired CAIR and their Leftist Allies.

    False. Jihad means many things. There are not "many" interpretations of jihad. There are two. This shows you don't actually know what you are talking about. "Jihad akhbar" is "greater jihad" that is a personal struggle. "Jihad asghar" is the "lesser jihad". However it is jihad asghar that is called for in most of the 109 or so verses of the Qur'an that call for the slaughter and subjugation of non-Muslims. I hope you never repeat this falsehood again - you are supporting jihadis when you do (which is why their propaganda arms like CAIR and Muslim Student Association put the lie out there - to play a "Jedi Mind Trick" on any weak-minded person who will repeat the falsehood without investigating the facts). If you want to learn how you were mistaken please see the excellent YouTube videos by Major Stephen Coughlin. This one analyses the basis for jihad in Islamic Law (using *Islamic sources only*): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsArto3UVT0 "Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law"

    People like you really miss the Red Scare don't you?

    False. Actually I wish Islam was a "religion of peace" rather than the evil totalitarian political movement it is. However, your characterization to slander me with projected falsehood is a typical tactic of the political Left. By trying to demonize an opponent it absolves you from ever listening to them or needing to produce facts to counter their argument (which in most cases, you couldn't do). Please desist from this. It is a bad habit and resorting to it shows you actually have no counter argument to make - which makes you look bad. I suggest instead of closing your mind to counter-evidence you instead follow the citations I give. That might cure you of your current delusions with regard to the nature and aims of political Islam (and you would then stop making excuses for evil).

    Furthermore, let us conduct a "thought-experiment". Imagine if the Qur'an verses mentioning jihad really meant "personal struggle" rather than "total war against unbelievers", what would the Islamic World and Middle East then look like? would we still have 270 million killed by Islam? would we have subjugation and discrimination against all remaining non-Muslim populations in the Middle East (eg. Jews, Christians [Assyrians, Copts], Atheists, etc). Would the world have multiple attacks per day by the Muslims who follow the *mainstream* Islamic doctrine that jihad means warfare against unbelievers, check out the facts:
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Now that you understand you have been repeating propaganda planted for you by evil jihadis and their apologists I hope you will stop parroting it. The following sites will help you distinguish the islamicist lies from reality (and show you *facts* that the mainstream media is too afraid to show):
    http://www.jihadwatch.org/
    http://gatesofvienna.net/

  459. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bah, if we couldn't quote hypocrites, we'd be left with only MLK and Gandhi...

  460. I have the solution by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    I know what needs to be done. We must ban all gatherings greater than 3 people. No permits allowed as that will create the target of opportunity. This would need to include sporting events, graduations, movies, fairs, carnivals, swap meets, renaissance faires, street performers of any kind that are good enough to gather a crowd, etc. Once we no longer have the crowd that a bomb could injure, then we will no longer have to fear bombs being planted. It wouldn't be worth it to blow up a bomb to kill one person. Might as well use a knife of bullet at that point.

    I just realized we would also need to limit the number of emergency personnel that respond to any emergency. You might injure a couple of people and then when the EMT's show up you blow up the bomb to get the larger target goal. Even firefighters, if too many were in one burning building at once it would make that building a target for terrorists, so we must limit it to only 3 firefighters at a time in the building.

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  461. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure there will be a huge push to outlaw bombs... oh wait.

    or if you're a republican, a push to make sure everyone has one

  462. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    I have already refuted both your false understand of Islam (thanks to the Jedi-mind trick propaganda you swallowed whole) and your secondary tactic of unwarranted and false demonization.

    Ok, you've swallowed the whole "poverty", "US intervention", "Israel" false narrative line. Then I have two questions for you: did you know that most jihadis come from *priviliged backgrounds*? They don't fight because of poverty, they fight because Islamic ideology tells them to. The second question is: using your (false) Leftist Narrative, how do you explain the fact that jihad has been going on for 1400 years and doesn't look it will stop by itself? again, could it be because the jihad is waged because of Islamic political ideology? (before the US was funded, or Israel re-founded, or drones were invented, or Mubarak came to power, etc etc).

    Please understand that you are merely parroting Leftist Narrative that projects the ideology of the Left. This does not correlate at all with either the facts, nor the motivations that *the jihadis themselves* say are "inspiring" them. So stop repeating falsehoods and learn to be fact based. Then you will see that jihad is caused primarily by Islamic doctrine - and your understanding of the situation is completely backwards (which is what the propagandists wanted you to do).

  463. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    That organization is coming. It will be called the Caliphate. Many many islamicist supremacists who make comments on places like YouTube repeatedly mention the restoration of the Caliphate and what they will do to you once they have it. If one or two of them mentioned it you could dismiss it as fringe, but *all* of them mention it. They are aware of the situation. It is a shame you are not. Educate yourself about the coming Caliphate!

  464. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    You are in a prison where you can't even see the walls, dude. By Islamicised I mean that Muslims get special treatment that non-Muslims do not. Examples:
    1) Muslims may show images of Mohammed and discuss him; non-Muslims get killed if they do the same thing.
    2) Muslims may criticise all other religions; non-Muslims may not criticise Islam (on pain of death), neither can Muslims - but the point is still the same.
    3) Muslim blasphemy laws are being applied to non-Muslims (see UN HRC Resolution 16/18)
    4) Muslim segregation laws for men and women are already in the Havard gym and other universities in the US
    5) In the UK all schools serve halal meat whether you are Muslim or not (strangely, no animal rights activist challenges the torture of halal).
    6) Many multi-national food companies how have halal-only products. eg., Cadbury chocolate has paid the Islam mafia protection racket to rate their chocolate as halal (in Australia the money Cadbury gave was then misappropriated for an islamic supremacist cause).
    7) In the US there have been 21 cases where Sharia Law principles have faced off against the Constitution. In most cases the Constitution has yielded.
    8) global mainstream media is completely cowed in reporting about Islam, due to threats of violence. This is Sharia compliant reporting.
    All this is only the start. Islam will not conquer the US by force. What it intends to do is wage 'cultural jihad' and slowly bend US case law into setting Sharia-friendly precedents.

    So, rather than demonizing me, could you please instead try and argue with facts? it turns out that I am sane, but you are in denial and self-delusion.

  465. Probably done by some "Über-Patriot" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My guess is this was done as a protest against the new gun laws being
    debated by legislatures country-wide as well as Congress.

    Someone who considers themselves a Super Patriot thinks it's OK to maim
    and kill innocent people to protest what they see as an erosion of his god-given
    rights to bear arms.

    1. Re:Probably done by some "Über-Patriot" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would any American decide to inflict RANDOM violence on other Americans to protest gun control? Senseless violence would do MAJOR damage to that cause. If the government tries to pin this on some "patriot" it's a total setup to discredit the movement. Nobody that's smart enough to pull this off without getting caught could be DUMB enough to think it's going to help their cause.

    2. Re:Probably done by some "Über-Patriot" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would any American decide to inflict RANDOM violence on other Americans to protest gun control? Senseless violence with guns would do MAJOR damage to that cause.

      FTFY

  466. Re:tell me again by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

    Spreading fear, intolerance and racism toward a group of people is generally counterproductive. Note that we don't know who's responsible for this yet, but I'm guessing the percentage of American muslims that would actually do something like this is extremely low, way less than one percent. You think forcing the entire muslim-american population into conditions of a police state is going to shrink that number? No. There'd be a backlash, something else just like this, and the condition would spiral for the worse.

  467. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    False. What race is Islam exactly? no one is saying American Muslims have to do anything. What is being said is that Islamic law will not be applied to non-Muslims (despite the imposition of barbaric Sharia on all people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, this being an explicit goal of Islam). So quit with the false strawmen arguments please.

  468. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citation please, or you're full of it. Unless your citation is some TV show you watched, or someone told you about it, or a photo you saw posted on some website. Really think about this: Is this information you've obtained yourself, or just anecdotes you're been presented with by Jon Stewart? I'm guessing the latter.

  469. All I have to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The perps of this attack are coward scum. My advice to them is to never claim responsibility. The U.S. has shown that no matter how fast you run and how hard you try to hide, we will find you and give you "da badda bing", like we did Bin Laden. Let's just hope that this time, thousands of your neighbors don't have to die also. It should be easier to do this time around, since, we're getting pretty good at sending Hellfire missiles fired from drones up terrorists a**es.

  470. Re:tell me again by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

    The word 'strawman' is like a meme on slashdot. Not everything is a strawman argument. Now, if you're going deny that Islam is confined to a few distinct races (i.e. skin tones, as we tend to know them), then you're just playing ignorant. The basis for your list is that Islam == Terrorism. It doesn't. It's just that Muslims happen to live in impoverished countries that we keep declaring war against, or threatening to. Impoverished people are more prone to fear and religious zealotry and some of them will strike out. Their wealthy leaders manipulate this to take advantage of them and maintain their own wealth and power. Kim Jung Un is (unsuccessfully) following this same playbook right now. If we return his threats, he'll just use them to his own benefits, to scare his people and keep them loyal. So just as people like you have learned to fear Muslims, they've learned to fear Christians and Americans. The tools their leaders use to gin up this fear and hatred are the words and writings of people like you, Koran-burners, and on and on.

    Not to mention you're overly paranoid. If some population of Muslims in the U.S. wants to enact Sharia law in their city or state, they've got a huge obstacle: the U.S. Constitution. We don't even need to implement anti-sharia laws to enforce it, it's already there. We don't need such laws specifically targeting Muslims because they would (1) violate the constitution, (2) needlessly provoke the sort of violence those laws are trying to protect us against.

    As for racism (or religionism, if you prefer), recent laws against illegal immigrants have sparked waves of racism against latinos in general. It's the same dynamic. There've already been attacks on mosques and muslims by right-wing maniacs. Muslim kids get bullied all the time by other kids who've listened too much to people like you.

  471. Re: tell me again by Emb3rz · · Score: 1

    Dude, u mad bro?

  472. Meanwhile in Pakistan by quenda · · Score: 1

    another Islamist suicide bomber kills 20 at a Peshawar political rally.

    http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-97057-Peshawar:-Blast-near-ANP-rally-kills-17,-injures-60

    while Pakistan condemns the latest US drone killings.

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/04/16/298603/pakistan-condemns-us-drone-attack/

    Unless Wikileaks gets the footage, it will never make the TV news though.

  473. Re:tell me again by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Definitely good eating, but I've got to go with no nuts. There are too many here already.

    Try a hot fudge shake/malt if you haven't.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  474. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    The word 'strawman' is like a meme on slashdot. Not everything is a strawman argument.

    Yes, but you set a strawman argument, claiming I'm a racist when I made no mention of race. You don't even know what race I am. So stop protecting your bullshit strawman argument - which you are doing because you are intellectually lazy and closed minded - you would rather dismiss my argument out of hand without even looking at the citations I have given and justify this dismissal with your strawman. I suggest instead you use the Scientific Method, hear what I have to say (the links I gave), and then see whether it matches the evidence or not. What you are doing is illogical and un-scientific (dismissing the facts that are counter to the delusion you'd like to believe).

    Now, if you're going deny that Islam is confined to a few distinct races (i.e. skin tones, as we tend to know them), then you're just playing ignorant.

    This is another strawman you have constructed. You are again wrong. I always take pains to state that Islam is an evil political ideology (the evil of which you would clearly like to excuse). An *ideology* has zero to do with race. Even if it did, rational people would still be able to debate it in a logical manner. Only the weak minded politically correct fools censor free thought.

    The basis for your list is that Islam == Terrorism. It doesn't. It's just that Muslims happen to live in impoverished countries that we keep declaring war against, or threatening to.

    False. Islam is not equal to terrorism, statistically it just happens to be the motivation for over 90%. Stop projecting your own ignorance onto me. The second part of your statement are falsehoods promoted by the political Left who would like that to be the reason for Islamic terrorism. If you stop listening to the falsehoods and delusions of the Left you would instead have enough of an open mind to accept reality - the jihadis themselves say what their motivation is, and that motivation is Islam, eg. Sura 9:5 and 9:29 (please go an read them so you are less ignorant than you are now, and so you don't repeat the falsehoods of the political Left).

    So just as people like you have learned to fear Muslims,

    The reason rational people fear Muslims is because they deliberately strike at civilians, any time and any place. Contrary to the leftists propaganda you subscribe to the US does not do the same thing - it simply isn't economic to waste million dollar weapons on random killing. Now often in drone strikes today a jihadi will be in a compound with his family or other human shields. That is not the fault of the US and is in-fact the fault of the jihadi (it is immoral and internationally illegal for combatants to hide behind civilians).

    Not to mention you're overly paranoid. If some population of Muslims in the U.S. wants to enact Sharia law in their city or state, they've got a huge obstacle: the U.S. Constitution. We don't even need to implement anti-sharia laws to enforce it, it's already there. We don't need such laws specifically targeting Muslims because they would (1) violate the constitution, (2) needlessly provoke the sort of violence those laws are trying to protect us against.

    Dude, you really are quite ignorant of the facts, aren't you? No surprise, the left-leaning media are careful to hide reality for you, lest you stumble on the stated aims of the Islamists (which the immoral Left have common cause with). Here are some court cases where the Constitution has given was to Sharia:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/sharias_encroachment_into_american_courts.html
    So please get a clue. I'm not a racist, I'm trying to shake you out of the Matrix you are in (fed lies by the leftist media and academia) and get you clued up on what is really going on.

  475. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    Oh, by the way, I hope you are not so far in Leftist delusion that you would be pleased at the Boston civilian murders as these guys:
    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/04/16/muslims-celebrate-with-sweets-praise-to-allah-over-boston-bombing-62151

    The Islamists don't hate America and Israel for what they have done or not done, or what they will do or not do. Islam commands Muslims to kill, convert or subjugate all non-Muslims. The Qur'an is very clear on this and it is not an extremist teaching, all five schools of Islamic jurisprudence are in completely agreement on this. So stop your denial of reality - it is shameful.

  476. Re:tell me again by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    Muslim blasphemy laws are being applied to non-Muslims (see UN HRC Resolution 16/18)

    Have you read the resolution? Can you point to the language that applies "Muslim blasphemy laws" to non-muslims?

    http://geneva.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Resolution16-18.pdf

    I reiterate. Please seek medical attention. You are delusional.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  477. Re:tell me again by mha · · Score: 1

    I don't like Islam or any religion, and I have read your suggestions in the comment you link to. It sounds like you are just as dangerous as the islamists. (Oh people, please read them, see the posters link, before judging MY words).

  478. Re:tell me again by mha · · Score: 1

    Yes it is - and I asked for what your proposed ACTION (solution) is. Ranting on /. and Internet forums does not help all that much I would say, nor does any kind of throwing words at each other. A lot of people seem to mistake "being against XYZ" for a solution for problem XYZ.

  479. Re:tell me again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who would pay for this care? Me, that's who, despite there being NOTHING in the constitution permitting socialist healthcare.

    The real truth

  480. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    The following is already in action. All materials associating "islam" and "terrorism" in the same breath have been purged from the US Government. The DoD, CIA and FBI cannot call jihadi terrorism for what it is. The Fort Hood shootings are thus swept under the carpet as "workplace violence" with an unknown cause - despite Major Nidal Hussein's business card describing him as "Soldier of Allah" and the fact as he was murdering he went around screaming "Allahu Akhbar". It is *you* that is living under a delusion as to what is happening and how the Obama Administration and media are suppressing what is going on (no surprise, the Admistration is thoroughly penetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, the MB say so themselves: http://www.investigativeproject.org/3869/egyptian-magazine-muslim-brotherhood-infiltrates).

    d) To undertake a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures;

    Do you understand that the intent of 16/18 restrict Free Speech of all UN member countries? what constitutes intolerance? under Sharia "slander" is anything a Muslim doesn't want you to hear - no matter how truthful it is. Therefore any member of the 57 nation OIC can claim intolerance for speaking the (awful) truth about Islam. That is why the US opposed the draft resolutions - it was only incompetent Hiliary Clinton who let this through (no wonder, her chief assistant is the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Huma Abedin: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/08/12/Huma-Abedin-s-Ties-to-Muslim-Brotherhood-May-Be-Even-Deeper-Than-Rep-Bachmann-Suspected et al.)

    Let's also not forget the fact that at its heart 16/18 is against the US First Amendment.

    You are delusional.

    False. You are in denial. You have zero facts and don't understand the subtleties and intent of documents unless they are written at a childish level for you. Be coddled in your delusion - hopefully the Islamicists won't place a pressure cooker IED next to where you are standing while you defend their immoral and barbaric actions - you idiot.

  481. Foil hats - on! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I'm fairly sure the entire US government could come up with something a bit more dramatic than a couple of IEDs if they were capable of such cynicism.

    That's exactly what they want you to think. Remember, if you're a professional you can make it look amateur, but not the other way round. Military grade explosives[1] would have been a total giveaway.

    I'm giving them far too much credit, aren't I?

    [1] You'll notice it went "poof", rather than "BANG", implying relatively low powered explosives.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  482. Re:don't hurt the terrorists by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    My money's on the NRA. See, guns don't kill people, pressure cookers do!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  483. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    I call for nothing other than the preservation of Constitutional liberty for all, and the application of native law for all, with no exceptions. I propose no violence on the enemies of freedom that remain non-violent. I propose nothing based on race, only on ideology.

    I'm afraid that reasonable and rational people will be wondering what you smoking given that you oppose civilized measures such as strengthening Free Speech laws and the restriction of activist judges that effectively set law bypassing normal democratic processes (that's why the Islamicists try and get precedents set in case law, since it effective changes laws without going through Congress).

    It is clear you are reading into my words something you want to see (but not what was written), because you *desperately* want to defend jihadists despite all the facts indicating that Islam is the reason they commit their crimes against humanity.

    Like the good little jihad apologist the Left has brainwashed you to be you try and make moral equivalence between someone calling for strengthening Free Speech and jihadis that commit murder in the name of Allah. Only a muppet still stuck in his propaganda Matrix would think that calling for strengthening Free Speech and legislating for native law (only) is "just as dangerous" as those promoting Sharia either by stealth, lying or violence. I guess you have soaked up the brainwashing against "discrimination" but never realise it also means "discernment" - the ability to tell good and evil. Moral relativism and political correctness has made you illogical and emotion-based rather than fact-based.

  484. pork-dodging cockchoppers 101 by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    in the name of some jackass self claimed profit

    Prophet. It's the other lot that worship profits.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  485. Re:tell me again by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    Have you read the resolution? Can you point to the language that applies "Muslim blasphemy laws" to non-muslims?

    You have zero facts and don't understand the subtleties and intent of documents unless they are written at a childish level for you.

    So that'd be "no" then.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  486. Re:tell me again by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying you're racist, and if I did I apologize. I meant that your N-step plan for cleansing the Muslim ideology from otherwise-pristine American society will lead to racism among people who can't be bothered to differentiate a Muslim from someone with an olive-complexion or dark skin. I'd wager this is most people, and if you look at the effects of anti-immigration policy in the south or south-east you'll see what I'm talking about.

    If you're worried about a couple verses in the Koran, the answer is education. If we all followed the Bible as closely as they follow the Koran, we'd be executing people left and right for a hundred seemingly ridiculous reasons. I think there's a reasonable case to be made that, if left to their own devices, Christians today would descend into the same sort of fascism as we see in Saudi Arabia, with women being subjugated, slavery being reinstated (yes, it condones slavery), witches being burned at the stake (as puritans did early in our country), etc. Look what Christians do now to homosexuals based on a couple random verses from the Bible.

    Through constant so-called 'leftist' education, we've overcome much of the irrational intolerance practiced in our own ancient religion, and we can do the same with Islam. The answer isn't to attack them, either literally or with provocative legislation, but to integrate the best of our western values-- namely tolerance and integration.

    You can find examples of members of most religions cheerleading terrorist acts. Timothy McVey remains a hero in some right-wing militia-type circles. You think the mindset of McVey's celebrators is any different from these Boston-bomber celebrators? It's the same thing, different narrow, uneducated ideology.

  487. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying you're racist, and if I did I apologize

    No problems, and thank you. You have shown yourself to be a reasonable fellow, which is great. In political discussion the word "racist" is often thrown around, usually with the intent of demonization such that the position of one party needs no further examination. It is a tactic used by all sides, but is a favorite of the Left. Fortunately it is clear this was not your intent. But I hope you are now aware that not all accusations of racist have basis in fact - and that it is often used to shut down an opponent, especially when they are telling uncomfortable truths that cannot be challenged on a logical basis.

    I meant that your N-step plan for cleansing the Muslim ideology from otherwise-pristine American society will lead to racism among people who can't be bothered to differentiate a Muslim from someone with an olive-complexion or dark skin. I'd wager this is most people, and if you look at the effects of anti-immigration policy in the south or south-east you'll see what I'm talking about.

    Please let me be clear here. I have *zero* problem with Muslims practicing their superstition as a personal faith. For sure they are anti-scientific and deluded, but that is their business. What I do have an *extreme* problem with is not Muslims (who are people, and often good), but the *political ideology* called Islam whose core doctrine is to assert political control over all people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. That is a huge difference. Please re-read my statement so you are clear on what I mean.

    I agree with you in that great caution has to be used to prevent discrimination against Muslims who are non-violent (technically these are no longer considered Muslims by Islam, they are "apostates" and condemned to death by the growing Wahhabi and Salafi movements). The steps I outlined would make no difference to Muslims practicing personal faith. All they do is prevent *political Islam* from changing Constitutional and case law in the Free World and US. I hope you can now see that I am not calling for the expulsion or harm of any minority. I'm calling for the upholding of Enlightenment Values where they are challenged by Sharia.

    If you're worried about a couple verses in the Koran, the answer is education. If we all followed the Bible as closely as they follow the Koran, we'd be executing people left and right for a hundred seemingly ridiculous reasons. I think there's a reasonable case to be made that, if left to their own devices, Christians today would descend into the same sort of fascism as we see in Saudi Arabia, with women being subjugated, slavery being reinstated (yes, it condones slavery), witches being burned at the stake (as puritans did early in our country), etc. Look what Christians do now to homosexuals based on a couple random verses from the Bible.

    There is a huge difference between Islam and Christianity in that Christianity has (finally!) evolved past a literalist interpretation in the mainstream. Islam is still literalist. In fact, to question a literalist interpretation renders a Muslim an apostate (and the penalty for apostasy is *death*). Islam cannot be questioned by Muslims or they will be killed. Islam cannot be questioned by non-Muslims or they will be killed (as soon as devout Muslims are able to achieve this). That is why many freedom fighters around the world have already been killed for *truthful* criticism of Islamic barbarism (eg. in Holland and Denmark etc). So, I hope you see that while Christianity was a threat it is no longer much of a threat. Islam is still a threat, to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. That is why I provided you with the link http://www.religionofpeace.com/ so you could see the facts of what is going on today. A huge amount of Muslim on Muslim violence due to their literalist interpretation and the Sharia law that commands Muslims to kill all apostates

  488. Re:tell me again by sanman2 · · Score: 1

    The cult of transnationalism feels happiest when locals are at fault

  489. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    The only "no" is in your utter immorality in defending jihadis and their ilk. Rather than counter the *facts* of multiple jihadi attacks worldwide (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks) you instead try and deflect using the tactics of personal demonization (as witnessed from your first and continued statements), just as written in this book "Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans" http://www.amazon.com/Bullies-Culture-Intimidation-Silences-Americans/dp/1476709998.

    I bet you are so indoctrinated you have no idea what the hate speech in the Qur'an actually says, or about the 270 million souls killed by jihadis over the last 1400 years (and continuing today), or the goal of Islamists to destroy all liberties and human rights the Free World hold dear. Instead in your upside-down world you think you are resisting intolerance but instead you are defending the barbaric intolerance of Islam and opposing those who are arguing for *protecting* the liberties the Free World has (which is under massive threat by Islamists, even if you too ignorant to notice the facts and trends).

    The fact is, you can't actually actually contest the *facts*, instead you try and bypass them since actually using the Scientific Method to alter your incorrect worldview to a better approximation using the facts and links I've given would blow the worldview the propagandists have fed you and you now parrot like a good little apologist for evil.

    You are smug in your unearned and assumed moral superiority but the reality is because you live a fact-free bubble of ideological nonsense you are aiding and abetting the evil jihadis with your attempted defense of them. Shame on you for supporting the evil totalitarian, theocratic, misogynistic, racist, supremacist political ideology called Islam (which, apart from some nonsense superstitions, is largely indistinguishable from the ideology of National Socialism if you look closely). Supporting such evil is immoral!

    You are worse than insane - you are willfully ignorant of the growing threat to human rights and quality in the World (what part of the Qur'an do you think talks about equality? for women? and homosexuals? and non-Muslims? and Jews? and Christians? and Zoroastrians? and atheists?). Stop defending the evil that is political Islam, because it makes *you* evil !

  490. Re:tell me again by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Islam, defined to a few small 'races', as you call them?

    Yeah, how about:

    * Africans (ie the entire northern 2/3 of Africa at this point)
    * Persians (ie Iran and surrounding areas)
    * Arabs (from North Africa across the middle east)
    * Caucasians (ie those in the Caucus region)
    * Rus (ie Serbians and Russians)
    * Asians (stretching across the SE Pacific)
    * Indians (aka "people who were Indian but are now Pakistani")

    The majority are Arab, and yes, most of them have dark skin - meaning, they're not Northern European.

    So which 'few, distinct races' are you referring to? That's over (at least) half the world's population, not "a few distinct races". Sounds like you're the one who racially distinguishes.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  491. Re:tell me again by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Good list.

    Unfortunately, it's culturally impossible. It won't be something the West will attempt until it's too late to do so effectively or completely, and by then we'll be in a state of total ideological war - balkanized warfare on a global scale.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  492. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    Thank you very much. It would be ideal if violence could be avoided and the ability of Muslims to practice personal faith be preserved without political Islam warping laws and customs (in the way that the million Muslims in Israel are able to worship without changing laws).

    It is unfortunate the political Left that states it wishes to avoid war and violence is in fact making it more likely but denying the rising problem of Islamic supremacy.

  493. Re:tell me again by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Sorry, not going to happen. The Quran/Koran is inherrently political - the same way the Torah is. Unfortunately unlike the Torah, the Koran is also inherrently violent.

    Islam aka "Religion of Submission" would have to be something other than Islam before it would happen.

    I think Russia has the right idea at this point, ironically.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  494. Re:tell me again by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    I agree with you. However, *if* Muslims were prepared to adapt Islam to be non-political then we would be open to accommodate it, yes? it is anti-scientific superstitious bullshit, but as long as it is personal bullshit I don't care too much.

    We both know that without the political aspect Islam would be a husk, and without the threats of death for apostates it would wither and die as people could talk openly about how ridiculous it is. I do think it is worthwhile for reasonable people to state we would tolerate Islam if the ideology changed to be more tolerant itself. We know that won't happen, but at least it shows the "ball is in their court". This is especially relevant for all the confused liberals out there who think Islam if just another personal faith and it is the defenders of liberty who are the ones starting conflict and being unreasonable.

  495. Re:Most likely this will be Far right wingers. by tbird81 · · Score: 1

    Hardly - they're left-wing. They believe in tight government control of our lives and reduction in personal freedom for the greater good.

  496. Dear Stupid Moron, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your shift key obviously works, becaue you were able to type left and right parentheses.
    Your period key works too.

    So Captialize your fucking sentences and end them with periods, OK?

    Dumb shit.

    Your friend,
        Gramer andspeling guy

  497. Dear Stupid Moron, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Captialize your fucking sentences and end them with periods, OK?

    Dumb shit.

    Your friend,
        Gramer andspeling guy

  498. Re:tell me again by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

    Yes, but when random violance against muslims happens, it happens toward people who 'look like' muslims. A sikh (not muslim) temple was attacked by an anti-muslim crusader recently presumably because they looked muslim.

  499. Re:tell me again by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

    On top of that, racists generally don't form their prejudices based on researching wikipedia, they make presumptions based on skin color. Likely if an anti-muslim guy encountered an indonesian muslim, he wouldn't know that he was supposed to hate them too.