Something wrong there. one has to wonder what is actually going on when America's own government arranges bombings in public places so it can overreact and depl revolution
x
Click to expand

Something wrong there

Something wrong there. one has to wonder what is actually going on when America's own government arranges bombings in public places so it can overreact and depl

one has to wonder what is actually going on when America's own government arranges bombings in public places so it can overreact and deploy military forces into civilian areas
American isnt not being invaded, the true terrorists were already inside usa, sitting in the white house and the hall of congress, and the American People need to fight back

The Boston bombing provided the opportunity
for the government to turn vvhat should have
been a police investigation into a
occupation of an American city.
l...)' . 'f This unprecedented move
lil a should frighten was as much or
f - more than the attack itself.
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+188
Views: 15474
Favorited: 25
Submitted: 05/04/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to konradkurze Subscribe to politics submit to reddit

Comments(194):

konradkurze has disabled anonymous comments.
[ 194 comments ]
#18 - HellsSponge (05/04/2013) [-]
>People detonated bombs, injuring over 100 people and killing 3.
>We don't know exactly who they are or why they did it, we know names but not if they're part of a terrorist group.
>We don't know where they are.
>"Lets let people keep going about their daily business and conglomerating in stadiums, office buildings, and other great bombing targets, while we calmly and quietly conduct a police investigation."

Yes, it was scary to see the government take over a city. Nothing actually came of it, and nobody was doubting the governments [i]ability[/i] to take over a city. If they hadn't locked down the city, and these guys set off ANOTHER bomb, everyone would be screaming "the police cant do anything right why didnt they lock down the city hurr durr." It's easier to complain about someone else than suggest an alternative, which is why everyone (including me) does it.
User avatar #19 to #18 - konradkurze (05/04/2013) [-]
cant you see it was all pre-planned

al designed to scare the people into demanding protection, so much they didnt mind living in military occupation
this was just a small attack, next one WILL be bigger and the military WILL stay longer, moving closer towards keeping people in a constant state of occupation
#20 to #19 - HellsSponge (05/04/2013) [-]
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
User avatar #21 to #20 - konradkurze (05/04/2013) [-]
ric, because pics or it didnt happen

if you cant see america being pushed towards a police state then youre lost
User avatar #36 to #21 - vicsix (05/05/2013) [-]
You're a dumb bastard. If America were to bomb itself, it would go all ******* out with that. It would look like a Michael Bay movie. get your **** right.
User avatar #152 to #36 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
no, actually going too hardcore would make people feel unsafe everywhere, whereas if you bomb one place, let the whole country know about it, then everybody will worry 'could that happen where i live?'....and if it doesnt, they tell themselves the system must be working to prevent it and trust the system more

have a wolf attack one sheep, and the rest will choose to herd themselves into the pen
User avatar #168 to #152 - vicsix (05/05/2013) [-]
30edgy46me. Seriously, dude, if you were trying any harder to be edgy, you'd fall. You're conspiracies are just produced by your fear of being controlled. The government isn't dumb enough to do that. If they wanted to people to be pumped for war, or scared of terrorism, they wouldn't do it to their own country. They would have an American owned oil company be bombed, or have an American embassy be raided.
User avatar #170 to #168 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
oh no, so many other powers throughout history have controlled people with strict rules, but america would never do that.......*gag*

im sorry, the romans, persians, ottomans, russians, prussians, germans, british, french, spanish, and japanese have each had turns invading other countries and forcing their language/culture/rules down other people's throats....but americas' not like that?
User avatar #171 to #170 - vicsix (05/05/2013) [-]
Yes, because that is exactly what I said. I said that America wouldn't force fear on it's own populus like that. That is just an idiotic excuse to find a far reaching answer. This isn't a movie, the government isn't some super-secret sunglasses and shaved heads organization that controls everything. Sure they are far from pure, but to think they did this, is just idiotic. It's not ignorant, because you choose not to know what is real. It is stupidity.
User avatar #172 to #171 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
if they were willing to stage the 9/11 attack, destroy several buildings and kill/injure a couple thousand people, you think theyd think twice about a small bombing like this?
User avatar #57 to #19 - reduxalicious (05/05/2013) [-]
Yes, Yes--We never landed on the moon--9/11 was George Bush, bla bla ******* blah--You idiotic conspiracy nuts make up one when ever ANYTHING ******* HAPPENS, ANYTHING! School shooting? GOVERNMENT! Bombing? GOVERNMENT! It's like you're too ******* afraid to realize there are just crazy people out there, and if there is--IT MUST BE THE GOVERNMENT HUR... **** off.
User avatar #150 to #57 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
blah blah blah, if somethings too horrible for you to believe, it must be a ******* conspiracy
+15
#26 - clinomania Comment deleted by konradkurze [-]
+35
#8 - leneotroll **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#55 to #8 - anon (05/05/2013) [-]
Yep
Because after finding out it was a teenager and his older brother they still needed ******* tanks in boston.
#108 to #55 - elementofloyalty (05/05/2013) [-]
I want to smack my face on the desk for every comment like this.   
   
What tanks? I saw no tanks. I saw "Mine Resistant Ambush Protected" vehicles being used in a potential bombing situation. I mean the suspects being hunted were found to open fire with small arms; why assume they can't possibly have bigger ones? And who's to say they've got a video game's carrying capacity: just 2 bombs. After all some of the last reports by the authorities themselves were that improvised explosives were being used in the car chase. So it would neither be logical to dismiss those reports as fodder nor NOT take such mentioned precaution after the chase ends.
I want to smack my face on the desk for every comment like this.

What tanks? I saw no tanks. I saw "Mine Resistant Ambush Protected" vehicles being used in a potential bombing situation. I mean the suspects being hunted were found to open fire with small arms; why assume they can't possibly have bigger ones? And who's to say they've got a video game's carrying capacity: just 2 bombs. After all some of the last reports by the authorities themselves were that improvised explosives were being used in the car chase. So it would neither be logical to dismiss those reports as fodder nor NOT take such mentioned precaution after the chase ends.
+8
#9 to #8 - leneotroll **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #15 to #9 - konradkurze (05/04/2013) [-]
americans not being invaded, the real terrorists were already there, in the white house and hall of congress
User avatar #42 to #15 - blokrokker (05/05/2013) [-]
**** man, you're about as paranoid as your namesake.
User avatar #151 to #42 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
yep and almost as right about the **** going on
you and others dont see it because the truth is too horrifying for you
#180 to #151 - blokrokker (05/05/2013) [-]
We don't see it because there isn't an 'it' to see.
We don't see it because there isn't an 'it' to see.
User avatar #182 to #180 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
right because you deny it is going on, it must not be going on
+6
#131 - trickytrickster Comment deleted by konradkurze [-]
User avatar #12 - brokendownpm (05/04/2013) [-]
As much as I agree with Ron about US becoming a "police state", this was a terrible example.
+6
#41 - blakhawk Comment deleted by konradkurze [-]
User avatar #34 - demandsgayversion (05/05/2013) [-]
People were scared. They put the soldiers there to make the people who lived in the area feel safe again, instead of living in fear.

Ron Paul took what was really a move to make people feel safe and turned it into a government conspiracy. We should fear that less than bombings though. because bombings kill people/
User avatar #46 to #34 - pebar (05/05/2013) [-]
The point of the post is to point out that the small feeling of safety from martial law is not worth giving up certain rights. It has nothing to do with conspiracies.
#38 - beanieman (05/05/2013) [-]
Actually this is common practice in all countries if there has been a terrorist act where there was no immediate evidence as to who or what organization did it.
Seeing that this is how the government behaves when there is a terrorist attack by wannabe jihadis, it makes me feel that this is possibly the only attack not conducted by the government!
I mean the gov. freaked out, and they did all they could to make sure people are safe because they had no idea who was doing this. whilst in all previous terrorist attacks the gov. was super calm and collected, giving me the impression they were aware if not complicit in those activities.
User avatar #166 to #38 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
take a note from hollywood, politicians are great actors

its because they were super calm in the previous incidents and when people saw it they questioned how they can be so calm in crisis
since the boston bombing was so obviously staged, if they put on an OMG face, it'll make them look more credible
User avatar #43 to #38 - pebar (05/05/2013) [-]
"wannabe"?
Two people shut down an entire city for a day, made the whole country reconsider the approach on immigration reform to include the chance of allowing a terrorist into the country, national security funding has been given a boost, and more rights are being butchered in the name of safety.

The purpose of terrorism is to influence public policy by creating fear of another attack, especially to influence an economy.
These people aren't wannabes; they were extremely successful.
#47 to #43 - beanieman (05/05/2013) [-]
I agree with you entirely that these people were highly successful, they spread more fear than any other terrorist attack save 9/11! And the reaction of the government to all this is what provokes my mind to ponder whether this was the first genuine terrorist attack since 9/11. And I say wanna be jihadis because for all we know so far they did not belong to an organized terrorist group, they were not trained outside of the country. They used what the media says is a readily available pamphlet on constructing IEDs, the same one used by the Taliban and al-Qaeda worldwide.

also heres a thought provoking article on homegrown terrorism.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/05/01/f-q-a-trevor-aaronson.html
User avatar #167 to #47 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
okay that fat women disturbs me more than the bombing
why would you post that dude
#13 - theXsjados (05/04/2013) [-]
Honestly if they activated some of the home guard in response to this I would not be complaining, treasonists and terrorists need to be met with as much force as they are demonstrating with, especially when that force is used near civilians. Police may be capable of handling the situation but the military has the big guns and the multi-million dollar tools, they should have been utilized.
User avatar #16 to #13 - konradkurze (05/04/2013) [-]
so you'd prefer living in a military occupied state?

just what the new world order wants you to want
#27 to #16 - theXsjados (05/05/2013) [-]
Military response to an escalated manhunt that resulted in several dead and shootouts that had bullets passing into civilian homes is not 'military occupation'. Perhaps if they didn't know who the suspects were and the closed off the state and initiated checkpoints and warrantless raids I would say it's a military occupied state but a military response to that situation would be no more 'occupying' than the police's response. That and the situation would have probably been handled a lot faster, with fewer casualties.
User avatar #153 to #27 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
get it through your head, this was a trial to see how US citizens react to having armed soldiers patrolling around the streets, being a test they kept it short, but the next time they will be around longer and longer till the stage they simply stay put to permanently 'protect' people

whereas other fascist powers like nazi germany or the soviet union just did it at will, usa is taking baby steps so people dont rise up against it
#24 - tangentialrex (05/04/2013) [-]
The problem wasn't the occupation, it was the forces used for the occupation.

SWAT forces in full gear, with rifles, patrolling the streets in MRAPs; FBI Hostage Rescue Team wearing multicam and scanning the streets, ATF and FBI agents running around with rifles and riot gear, etc., etc.

These units are overly militarized.
A peacekeeper exists to do exactly that; i.e., keep the peace.
A soldier's main duty is to eliminate enemy forces.

When you begin to blur the line between the two, by giving peacekeepers automatic weapons and armored vehicles, you let them believe that they are there solely to kill. And regardless of crime, everybody in the U.S. is entitled to a fair trial.

TL;DR Police were fine, MRAPs and automatic weapons were a bit overboard.
User avatar #30 to #24 - largeheadphones (05/05/2013) [-]
They were acting like they had a nuke hidden away in the city somewhere, not just two homemade bombs.
#98 to #30 - elementofloyalty (05/05/2013) [-]
It wasn't "just two".
User avatar #177 to #98 - largeheadphones (05/05/2013) [-]
Only two that went off, but yea, more were supposed to go off.
User avatar #45 to #24 - blokrokker (05/05/2013) [-]
American doctrine is, has always been, and probably will always be, overwhelming response to violent actions.
User avatar #100 to #45 - elementofloyalty (05/05/2013) [-]
It's not just American doctrine regardless of this occasion being of American trouble.. Most countries capable of reacting in such a manner usually do react so. That's probably because underwhelming force is a fool's gambit, and even educational guesses at the 'proper' amount is no better.

You can never be too sure.
#32 to #24 - sandle (05/05/2013) [-]
you're right considering they could have had more powerful bombs at their disposal and could have injured or killed hundreds of other people, including children... I'd definitely rather have this guy on the case...
User avatar #33 to #32 - tangentialrex (05/05/2013) [-]
You're just proving my point.

Why give this asshole a select-fire M16 and let him loose in the streets? Leave that to somebody with actual training.
User avatar #35 to #33 - sandle (05/05/2013) [-]
you just tried to unsay what you said before... don't put out swat teams with automatic weapons use cops. now you're saying don't use cops with automatic weapons. you're going in circles here.
User avatar #37 to #35 - tangentialrex (05/05/2013) [-]
Now you're putting words in my mouth.

I said that an untrained unit, armed with gear far beyond their need or ability to use, are a danger to the U.S. population. SWAT and PD do not train to the standards as some divisions in the U.S. government do, and as such do not need this amount of armament. They are likewise not held to marksmanship requirements that other organizations are.

Please attempt to read my posts before you post next time.
Thank you.
User avatar #58 to #37 - Offspringofwolves (05/05/2013) [-]
theyre actually trained to use those weapons otherwise they wouldnt use them
User avatar #178 to #37 - sandle (05/05/2013) [-]
SWAT: Special Weapons And Tactics. They are trained exceptionally well not only in combat but hostage situations and negotiations. sounds like exactly what the situation called for to me.
User avatar #169 to #32 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
its a simple fact, usa has lowered the standards and budget of police forces to make them useless and direct more money towards the military
#29 to #24 - dontknowme (05/05/2013) [-]
which would you prefer, an over prepared police officer who could potentially stop someone preparing another person or an under prepared officer who kind of just stands there and doesn't realize what's going on? and option c, let the people keep blowing **** up and killing random people and the police and law enforcement do nothing?
User avatar #31 to #29 - tangentialrex (05/05/2013) [-]
I'd prefer a police force that was trained to deal with these situations over any idiot with a **** ton of gear. Believe me, gear doesn't mean **** without proper training.

Take the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team, in the picture I posted above. They train with Delta Force, DEVGRU, SAS, SBS, GIGN, and other elite anti-terror units around the world.

They were fully justified in being on the streets. They did not use MRAPs (as far as I saw), and generally acted more professionally than the SWAT teams in the same areas.

Meanwhile, SWAT, with their minimal training and tacticool gear, and cowering in their boots (and armored vehicles) and aiming their rifles at anything that moves.
#93 to #24 - elementofloyalty (05/05/2013) [-]
"Keeping the peace," is a 			********		 excuse for what I see as a terribly uninformed opinion when you consider the scale of unknowns in dealing with a situation that could have easily taken hundreds of lives. You can't keep peace you don't have. Sometimes you must use force to make peace before it can be kept. The "don't fire. We want to keep the peace, not make it," method only sporadically works in practice; as such remained evident during UN "peacekeeping" struggles in Rwanda.   
   
Which is it? Police were fine, automatic weapons were not? But the police had automatic weapons. Were the national guard without automatic weapons fine? On a similar note, "Mine Resistant Ambush Protected" vehicles in a proven bombing situation were a bad call? Should they have pulled up in old station wagons and tricycles? I mean, who needs a bomb resistant vehicle when patrolling for a bomb suspect that possibly has bombs on him in a civilian area with an unknown amount of accomplices oh may also have bombs on them.   
   
And lets not show too many numbers. Our citizens may think we are being too forceful and get scared of the police searching for the bombing suspect that already took 3 lives in an attempt to take many more.   
   
SWAT (and National Guard) are made to have full gear. You can't always get by with just the bare minimum and it'd be arrogant to think you could.   
FEBRUARY 28th, 1997: Two men rob Bank of America with automatic weapons and effective homemade bulletproof clothing. The severe lack of stopping power by local police during the post-robbery firefight helped the situation draw out long enough to cause not only the deaths of the robbers, but the injury of 15 people, 10 of which were cops. The whole situation only dissolved once SWAT teams arrived with heavy firepower that could stamp out the threat the robbers posed to the city's' innocent civilians.   
   
Such armor and weapons are brought as precaution because of large uncertainty held by not only police, but by the population. Hush.
"Keeping the peace," is a ******** excuse for what I see as a terribly uninformed opinion when you consider the scale of unknowns in dealing with a situation that could have easily taken hundreds of lives. You can't keep peace you don't have. Sometimes you must use force to make peace before it can be kept. The "don't fire. We want to keep the peace, not make it," method only sporadically works in practice; as such remained evident during UN "peacekeeping" struggles in Rwanda.

Which is it? Police were fine, automatic weapons were not? But the police had automatic weapons. Were the national guard without automatic weapons fine? On a similar note, "Mine Resistant Ambush Protected" vehicles in a proven bombing situation were a bad call? Should they have pulled up in old station wagons and tricycles? I mean, who needs a bomb resistant vehicle when patrolling for a bomb suspect that possibly has bombs on him in a civilian area with an unknown amount of accomplices oh may also have bombs on them.

And lets not show too many numbers. Our citizens may think we are being too forceful and get scared of the police searching for the bombing suspect that already took 3 lives in an attempt to take many more.

SWAT (and National Guard) are made to have full gear. You can't always get by with just the bare minimum and it'd be arrogant to think you could.
FEBRUARY 28th, 1997: Two men rob Bank of America with automatic weapons and effective homemade bulletproof clothing. The severe lack of stopping power by local police during the post-robbery firefight helped the situation draw out long enough to cause not only the deaths of the robbers, but the injury of 15 people, 10 of which were cops. The whole situation only dissolved once SWAT teams arrived with heavy firepower that could stamp out the threat the robbers posed to the city's' innocent civilians.

Such armor and weapons are brought as precaution because of large uncertainty held by not only police, but by the population. Hush.
+2
#10 - aproudpatriot Comment deleted by konradkurze [-]
User avatar #3 - unclebourbon (05/04/2013) [-]
Bill Clinton was Impeached for much less.
#101 - neverposting (05/05/2013) [-]
Yeah, I'm really upset that the US shut down the city and stopped two maniacs with the intention of targeting another city! I would much rather watch a news report about more dead innocent people, as long as I know my freedom is intact. I ******* hate this ignorant, idealistic twat.
User avatar #156 to #101 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
what hole do you live in? USA is full of ******* maniacs, just these ones got funding from the government to have better equipment to create a terror attack
User avatar #188 to #101 - douthit (05/06/2013) [-]
You're right, I guess we should give up liberty for security.
User avatar #106 to #101 - pebar (05/05/2013) [-]
go move to Oceania
Big Brother will take care of you

I ******* hate people like you who would throw your freedom away out of fear
#114 to #106 - anon (05/05/2013) [-]
Found the ignorant, idealistic libertarian! Do terrorists attack not happen in your world? Do you try to explain to the explosion that what it is doing will hurt people and to please stop because you have so hampered the government's attempts to stop or investigate things like this that Baghdad has a better safety record?
User avatar #127 to #114 - pebar (05/05/2013) [-]
better than dumbass progressives who can't leave their homes unless they have a government official to tie their shoes for them
#130 to #127 - anon (05/05/2013) [-]
Possibly...though the progressive probably has less chance of getting shot or blown up.
User avatar #133 to #130 - pebar (05/05/2013) [-]
guns are self regulating, so no to the "less chance of getting shot part"
people tend not to shoot at others when they know they'll shoot back
progressives would take away that ability to shoot back, so only the malevolent person would have the gun (because people who don't follow laws to begin with won't turn in their gun just because a new law says so)

the blown up part..... ya..... but all fireworks would have to be banned so **** that
#137 to #133 - anon (05/05/2013) [-]
ARE YOU ******* KIDDING?
"people tend not to shoot at others when they know they'll shoot back"
Yes...because that doesn't happen in war. Or during gang violence. You sir are obviously mental deficient and should be nowhere close to a gun or explosive of any sort ever.

"(because people who don't follow laws to begin with won't turn in their gun just because a new law says so)"

So I guess we shouldn't have laws against murder or drugs or drunk driving or anything else because the people who are going to do those things are going to do them regardless. This argument is the most ******* ridiculous thing ever. Just ever...in the entire history of the world. Please take a look at the gun regulation in Australia or England. (You know...the places where gun regulation was put into effect and which radically reduced gun violence and mass shootings)
User avatar #158 to #137 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
yep, england, great example....ive spoken to british cops who LEFT england because the bad guys have guns and the cops DONT
but according to you, strict gun laws are 100% effective

User avatar #139 to #137 - pebar (05/05/2013) [-]
Convicted criminals have been interviewed and a vast majority of them fear their victims being armed more than the cops.
"beware of dog" signs deter home invasions just like "robbers may be shot" lingering in the back of people's minds deters crime
guns are a benefit to society; America would be a hellhole without them
User avatar #138 to #137 - pebar (05/05/2013) [-]
Ever wonder why people always shoot up schools instead of police stations?

north dakota has over 50% gun ownership and we don't have much crime either
England however does have a lot of crime, just not gun crime
because they don't have 300 million guns like those already in existence in the US
#149 to #138 - anon (05/05/2013) [-]
North Dakota having so little crime has less to do with so many people being armed and much more to do with the fact that the entire state has 11 times fewer people than just the city of New York. Less population density as well as less population overall means there is less crime in every society ever. Also North Dakota is one of the most homogeneous states as far as ethnicity is concerned which also contributes to the overall lower crime rate.

In terms of total crime the United States has 82% more crime than the UK. Also has significantly more suicides than the UK as well.
Well I hope tonight has been sufficiently enlightening(despite the fact that I know you will not be stirred by any of the rational arguments I have presented that argue for some gun control.) Good bye and good luck with the finding an appropriately sized helmet to keep you from hurting yourself.
#148 to #138 - anon (05/05/2013) [-]
Well I would continue bashing you mentally deficient person but I have been informed that it would be uncouth to do so. I will finish by saying this:

People shoot up schools because there are vulnerable individuals there. Do you know how many mass shootings Australia has had in the last 13 years? 0. None. Kind of argues that the ability to have a gun is the issue rather than the fact that we aren't packing glocks into the kids' lunchboxes. Did you know that there was an assault in China of all places on a school the same day as the Sandy Hook shootings? Guy couldn't get a gun, took a knife instead, still injured 22 people...NO ONE DIED.
User avatar #140 to #106 - HarvietheDinkle (05/05/2013) [-]
if the US government really wanted a permanent police state, it could make it happen.
User avatar #141 to #140 - HarvietheDinkle (05/05/2013) [-]
but it hasn't.
User avatar #142 to #141 - pebar (05/05/2013) [-]
it's trying to
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/opinion/mayor-bloomberg-on-stop-and-frisk.html ?_r=0
User avatar #144 to #142 - HarvietheDinkle (05/05/2013) [-]
Although I'm sure there are others like Bloomberg, that's one person (let alone the mayor of the city that's experienced some of the biggest threats (and followthroughs) the US has ever seen).

Do you have more examples of successful laws passed whose sole intent is to create a police state? (rather than an individual's opinion, it would be stronger to see something that had a majority opinion).

Based on my point of view, it doesn't seem to me that the government is trying to create a police state to infringe upon others' rights. To me, it seems as if they're either taking a temporary measure or at most inadvertently stepping up restrictions on personal liberties (ex: Patriot act did the same, but its intent wasn't rights infringement, but security).
User avatar #157 to #144 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
thats the thing, the US government knows it cant be too obvious with creating a police state, its taking it slowly

its like acclimatizing to hot shower, you dont just turn it on pure hot and jump in, you set it average and if you want it hotter you let yourself adjust bit by bit
same thing with US laws, they tighten up bit by bit so the people adjust

ask your grandfather how laws were back in his day, and he'll tell you he had more freedom then than you do now
User avatar #179 to #157 - HarvietheDinkle (05/05/2013) [-]
He had more freedom, but likely there was more strife, too. Some laws necessarily restrict freedom to ensure the safety and happiness (because not all freedoms create happiness).

Naturally, as more and more time passes new laws will be put into place to protect - from my point of view, at least - its citizens and to meet new challanges.

Why would the government want to take so much control over its citizens? Do they just do it because they want to watch others suffer? If that's your reason (which it probably isn't) then i'm not inclined to agree with you at all.

I think they're doing these things because they genuinely think they are protecting their citizens. Whether or not their efforts are idiotic is up for debate, but I still think that their intent, at least, is on the right side and not towards building a police state.
User avatar #183 to #179 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
the government wants to control people to restrict peoples actions, hence these terror attacks in usa are the governments way to pretty much say 'this is what happens when we dont control life enough, let us control your life more and it wont happen again'

theres a difference between protecting and sheltering, protecting people would mean that people can be free and such attacks are prevented....sheltering is locking the people away so theyre in no position to come under attack but at the same time dont have freedom to go anywhere

usa is trying to do what the ussr did have have an 'iron curtain' to protect itself from anything outside the borders and put a heavy filter on anyone trying to come in, whilst keeping a strict eye on everyone already inside
User avatar #185 to #183 - HarvietheDinkle (05/06/2013) [-]
Well, considering what they're capable of, they're not doing a good job of what you're saying, which I don't agree with. We're judging intentions here, which can't be proven one way or the other.
User avatar #145 to #144 - HarvietheDinkle (05/05/2013) [-]
lol didn't finish that sentence

stepping up (blah blah blah) because they value security over liberties at this time.
User avatar #189 to #141 - douthit (05/06/2013) [-]
Nothing happens until it happens.
#107 to #106 - neverposting (05/05/2013) [-]
1. I'm not afraid, I just live in the real world
2. I'm not even American, so I was never born with the "Hurr durr muh freedums" attitude, I just live here due to work.
3. Would you genuinely have rathered more civilians die just so you can say your god old fashioned 1950s American Freedom dream can stay alive even though it is 50 years out dated?
User avatar #112 to #107 - pebar (05/05/2013) [-]
1. foolish policy allowed this to happen, martial law would not have been necessary
2. good for you
3. removing the 4th amendment would reduce crime a lot but it would allow for a police state. So yeah; I'll put up with the crime.
User avatar #159 to #112 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
yeah, it may be hard but any sane person would prefer the ability to defend their home from nut jobs
a police state does not guarantee actual protection for private citizens, there is no guarantee police will be any less **** about protecting people, they'll just be more harsh on the few they actually do catch
#117 to #112 - anon (05/05/2013) [-]
Pretty sure radicalized individuals planned and carried this out...and no illegal searches occurred.

Ignorant twat
#115 to #112 - neverposting (05/05/2013) [-]
1. Agreed, the whole situation could have been avoided
3. I agree with your statement in principle, do you think there is anyway the 4th amendment could be repealed, and new legislation put in place to reduce crime but maintain civil freedom? Genuine curiosity, no malice intended...
#120 to #115 - anon (05/05/2013) [-]
1. How?
#122 to #120 - neverposting (05/05/2013) [-]
1. Apparently, the two were behaving in ways and such that should have put them on a watch list, including the eldest one even going to Chechnya and disappearing for a few months, they should definitely have been under constant surveillance, but I stand by my principle that after the fact, the shut down of Boston was necessary, and I'm glad they did it.
#128 to #122 - anon (05/05/2013) [-]
Except that we don't live in a police state and even if we did we do not have the manpower in our federal law enforcement agencies to follow every suspicious individual around. And watch lists are basically saying that this person needs to be given extra attention for getting into places like airports. Its not a list of people that the government is constantly following around. If they used the justification of someone going to a radicalized or potentially hostile country to decide who to follow it would take far too many resources.
User avatar #160 to #128 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
if america stopped spending more on military equipment than 20 other countries combined, it might have enough money to fund additional manpower to provide better domestic law enforcement
#129 to #128 - neverposting (05/05/2013) [-]
True, like I said, these are just some of the issues with modern day security...
#132 to #129 - anon (05/05/2013) [-]
The issue is that unless the FBI or some other agency was bugging the house the two were living in there was literally no way to have determined they were doing anything suspicious. There was no signals intelligence, what you would get from intercepting someone using a computer or phone to communicate plans because all of their planning was done in person which wasn't suspicious because they were family and I believe they lived together. There were no suspicious purchases that would have shown up as red flags. The pressure cookers and ball bearings are mundane objects and the US doesn't have any meaningful regulation on the purchase of black powder. So the only way to have picked up on this would have been a random bag search or for someone to have picked them up for something unrelated.
User avatar #119 to #115 - pebar (05/05/2013) [-]
Potentially it could, but I wouldn't trust the gov to do it. The whole point of a constitution is to limit what the gov can and cannot do. That's why it starts "we the people give only this much power to the gov".
#123 to #119 - neverposting (05/05/2013) [-]
Indeed, it is a critically important piece of legislation for both citizen and government, and there are convincing arguments for its repeal, but equally convincing arguments for why it is needed, I suppose that is our modern world though...
#154 to #143 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
say it with style
#88 - adrenalinbbq (05/05/2013) [-]
First of all, it was the national guard which was patrolling and investigating the incident, which is different from the 'American military' since it's controlled by the state. Second of all, there's zero proof that it was some inside job. more than likely, this is just a little something someone threw together to get everyone thinking... It's really disgusting to me.
#91 to #88 - anon (05/05/2013) [-]
no one said it was an inside job
the post is about the dangers of totalitarianism
#94 to #91 - adrenalinbbq (05/05/2013) [-]
You missed reading the description.

"one has to wonder what is actually going on when America's own government arranges bombings in public places so it can overreact "
0
#134 to #94 - anon Comment deleted by konradkurze [-]
User avatar #147 to #134 - eatingmachine (05/05/2013) [-]
The U.S. military was not involved in the occupation. Just the national guard and local police.
User avatar #97 to #88 - eatingmachine (05/05/2013) [-]
Hello. I am in the military and I'd like to agree with you.

Also even if it was the military that was occupying anything, people seem to forget easily that we're people too, we aren't mindless. We have the right to disobey unlawful orders.
#104 to #97 - anon (05/05/2013) [-]
but they didn't
User avatar #105 to #104 - eatingmachine (05/05/2013) [-]
There was nothing wrong with occupying an area where a possible terrorist threat had taken place. You mean to tell me you'd be ok with no one showing up at all?
#135 to #105 - anon (05/05/2013) [-]
not at all
its just the extent this went to is cause for concern
User avatar #146 to #135 - eatingmachine (05/05/2013) [-]
Perhaps, but I don't know all of the details. I heard that the police went overboard with their door kicking though. Everyone at my squadron said they'd sue the city for the way they handled things.
User avatar #73 - billybeee (05/05/2013) [-]
Also while this was dominating the media, Israeli - American backed right wing groups were attempting to overthrow the venezuelen government, in which over 50 people were killed
#75 to #73 - anon (05/05/2013) [-]
boo ******* woo
better than left wing retards depending on the government for everything
User avatar #136 to #75 - billybeee (05/05/2013) [-]
AKA a zionist puppet government
User avatar #161 to #73 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
america has stepped in to force its power on south american governments several dozen times
another case of america not being able to handle people running their own countries
#48 - pebar (05/05/2013) [-]
So many people keep ripping on Ron Paul...

he's got a point
#5 - thetjester (05/04/2013) [-]
a police style investigation would of taken a month, shutting down on of the busiest cities in the country and leaving it in panic, this "military style occupation" took about a week. I personally would take a week of US military "occupation" than a month of not leaving my house for basically anything and a month of constant panic.
User avatar #7 to #5 - konradkurze (05/04/2013) [-]
i say what happened was a prelude to worse

it was organized to test public reactions to living in a military occupied environment....im sure they;ll do it again soon and have soldiers around for a longer time
#2 - iamtheblackgoat (05/04/2013) [-]
Can he please just be president in 2016? Would that really be so bad?
User avatar #4 to #2 - crazycommando (05/04/2013) [-]
dude i'm military and i would love that, the man has a point
#6 to #4 - konradkurze (05/04/2013) [-]
a truly patriotic soldier protects his homeland from all threats foreign and domestic

for a little inspiration, take what boris yeltsin did in russia,...he opposed the corrupt system so much it inspired the military forces to stand up for him and siege the Russian white house
User avatar #11 to #6 - crazycommando (05/04/2013) [-]
i'm patriotic to some level, ex french Navy and now moving to US Navy

the thing im trying to say is i don't fight for the country but for the people within it.

and going by that logic, Ron Paul seems to be along the same lines
User avatar #17 to #11 - konradkurze (05/04/2013) [-]
well thats just it, a nation should be for the people and by the people

true patriots fight to protect their fellow man, not corrupt governments
User avatar #173 to #17 - crazycommando (05/05/2013) [-]
yup that's how it should work....apperently the people who thumb us down are not of our same opinion.... oh well i stand my ground and confirm what you say good sir
User avatar #174 to #173 - konradkurze (05/05/2013) [-]
yeah, those who thumb us down are the sheeple who are angry we dont like their shepard trying to herd us
User avatar #175 to #174 - crazycommando (05/05/2013) [-]
yup pretty much man
User avatar #25 to #2 - rhetoricalfunny (05/04/2013) [-]
Ron is an asshole
I still fail to understand why the internet likes him so much. I mean, next to people like ***** Romney I can see why they might want him, but on his own he's certainly no paradigm of morality
[ 194 comments ]
 Friends (0)