33171 replies to this topic

[Uncle Ben]

 

RIGHT NOW: Boston Police have shut down Boylston Street at the Boston Marathon finish line. Boston Police are checking out two backpacks left unattended.

 

Seriously? Are you f***ing kidding me?????

[Alextendo]

Paranoia is their favorite passtime. As an American, you should know that more than me

[Uncle Ben]

This isn't parnoia...this is common sense, It doesn't take a genius to realize the risks (but perhaps a fool to not).  You do not take risks when human life is involved. We had limbs blasted on the street last time, women and children having shrapnel fly passed their faces and through their flesh... We have a high priority target practically begging for a terrorist copycat wanting the publicity at this point.

[TheRedStranger]

Ben's right...It's basic Fire Science and Homeland Defense. IED's are easy to make, hide, and can kill a lot of people. All you need is a pressure cooker, some nails, and some modern chemicals you can buy at Lowes to build a bomb. It is miracle this doesn't happen every day...well, in Jerusalem it does about everyday. :/

[RedAuthar]

But it also is paranoia. Just like with 9/11, security will forever be beefed up, sometimes to ridiculous levels. Is it wrong? Hell no. Is it still paranoia? Very yes!

[TheRedStranger]

Your definition of parnoia is very different (and more sensible) than the one we are refering in the above posts. The above term connotes unecessary caution or perhaps a conspiritorially manipulative alarmism (like this is either mass paranoid skitzofrania on the part of America or social enginnering). This isn't the Edward Snowden case guys! We are not giving up our freedoms for security to Big Brother. This is about human lives that could be in danger, bottom line. Human lives are at stake and being incredibly cautious, your definition of "paranoia," Red, is indeed not unjustified. It is very right. When it looks like it could be a bomb these handful cops and some standby EoD guys are ready to put out the fire in what is obviously a terrorist hotspot. There is nothing malicious to this and no need to be critical! This needs to be this way for the sake of human lives and being critical and judgemental about these sensitive procedings (especially to further one's own egocentric political insights) is as inane as it asinine. Safety, sensitivity, and concern should be our top priority in this. This isn't being stupidly anxious, this is being wisely cautious. Let's not judge good judgement on the basis of our own obnoxious and offensive opinions...People have died from the last bombing and this is a tender time for Americans, especially Ben who is a Bostonian. It angers me to see any one say something off the cuff like this. It would be like someone wrongly criticizing Ben's loved ones at a funeral.

[TheRedStranger]

Indeed! And here is the ironic rub: the above statement is doing just that....It's taking this emotionally charged tragedy and revising it into some crazed narrative of a burgeoning American police state on the basis of justifying a view and priming alarmist reaction to further one's own political goals...The devil is not in the situation it is in the mirror.

 

Also note it's hard to make a big-goverment police state in a postmodern survaillance culture that sells security devices on the free market and has skilled workers that profit from busting Big goverment's chops if they step out of line (independant journalists, bloggers, people with camera phone, ect). We the people have their own security and go about being vigillant themselves - as you have said. In many cases we work with authorities and they just solve the problem, they don't constrain us (though this can happen and then someone films it with their Iphone and bam....unlike Stalin did with Trotski the whole world knows in a day). For every gambit of shady NSA documents and drone policies their is a wikileak and brave American that looks like this.

 

 

Come an' take 'em...

[furrykef]

Goddamn it, I'm not ready to be thirty.

[Alextendo]

This isn't parnoia...this is common sense, It doesn't take a genius to realize the risks (but perhaps a fool to not).  You do not take risks when human life is involved. We had limbs blasted on the street last time, women and children having shrapnel fly passed their faces and through their flesh... We have a high priority target practically begging for a terrorist copycat wanting the publicity at this point.

It is paranoia. You see, just one sad event like that is enough for the goverment to justify the need to transform the country into a police state (or a bigger police state at this point) with the promise of a ''better'' security, while your freedom and civil right mysteriously disappear in the meantime....

 

The bombing in Boston last year is one of the best exemple i can think of: Just to get two teenager, they put the martial law and the city civil right was (for the time of the operation) suspended. The police, acting like a military force, patrol the whole fucking town, forcing people out of their home, and go as far to allowed themself to shoot in sight, if need. In the end, they did this improvised form of martial law, on the spot, just because they could....

 

Do you have to ask yourself: to get only two teenager.....is this really worth it? Don't you think it may be overreacting much? People are conditioned to accept it, and are being lied in their face with the promise of protecting freedom and justice....while in reality the goverment simply couldn't give a shit about it.

 

Remember the words of George Orwell, from his novel ''1984'': War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

[RedAuthar]

Okay...further debate on US Paranoia needs to be moved to the Hot Topics thread.

 

Nobody is out of line, but clearly we've got some passionate opinions about it.  

 

 

Goddamn it, I'm not ready to be thirty.

Skip it and come back to it later. 

[furrykef]

Oh hey, FUS is back.

I didn't break it.

Honest!

[Uncle Ben]

apparently i talk when i sleep...

[RedAuthar]

Oh hey, FUS is back.

I didn't break it.

Honest!

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure you didn't. 

[ILOVEVHS]

Oh hey, FUS is back.I didn't break it.Honest!

(VHS causally polishes a shotgun, where Kef can see it)

[Alextendo]

Oh hey, FUS is back.

I didn't break it.

Honest!

 

[Uncle Ben]

 

Oh hey, FUS is back.

I didn't break it.

Honest!

 

 

 

Its Grif's fault

[Alextendo]

Its Grif's fault

Griff is actually my favorite character (along with Sarge)

[TheRedStranger]

Quote

 It is paranoia.

 

 

This is a naked assertion...

 

Quote

 

 

Quote You see [Yes, Ben saw...he was around, unlike some people], just one sad event like that is enough for the government to justify the need to transform the country into a police state (or a bigger police state at this point) with the promise of a ''better'' security, while your freedom and civil right[s] mysteriously disappear in the meantime....

 

 

 

 You can boil this argument down to this: “I think and say the police were unfairly obtrusive during the Boston Bombing, therefore I'd say all American public servants and law enforcement are eroding American's individual liberties!

 

This is the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc in spades... This is an oversimplified, hasty generalization about the entire contemporary American condition. This is an uncritical narrative, lacking primary source and rational substance. It is a vastly and clumsily oversimplified look at the complexities of the situation referred too and the intricacies of the American government (as discussed in both Bytor and my posts above). Though the issue of security vs. freedom in America is indeed valid as with Edward Snowden and the Drone issue pertaining to  America's current administration, what we have here is a purely isigetical political analysis, insensitively and judgmentally forced within the framework of this sensitive issue, The Boston Marathon Bombing in which many died, even more were maimed, and countless were psychologically traumatized (including Ben, who is now being affronted for being paranoid). It is to be hypocritical to call this a “sad event” with hollow sentiment and then dehumanize the actual persons involved in this wretched tragedy to further an erroneous point!

 

 This argumentation is also succumbing to the common the part-to-whole and part-to-whole fallacies of composition.:

 

 Even if this argument was remotely (and still only though temporarily) valid in this single case, at this single moment in time, in this one American city out of millions, it would not encompass all the hundreds-of-millions of people, fifty states, and several territories of the United States of America.  And, more importantly, it is inappropriate to callously politicize and agendavize this event given this delicate topic and complex context. This is a heartless and ill-timed barrage of alarmist audacity and contrived conjectures to inflict upon American individuals during this time, especially Ben who is a Bostonian. Also we must remember the law enforcement and emergency services who are living breathing human beings who were busy preserving life on blood-soaked, limb-showered streets and promoting safety the only ways they frantically could on that infamous day. These evil “police state” officers were and are not mindless unpatriotic Swatbots out to destroy American’s civil liberties; they were preserving American lives). This is akin to openly criticizing someone’s panicked behavior during a deadly accident while at a funeral for the victim of that same said deadly accident. It is backwards, behavior as well rearward reasoning. We weren’t there; who are we to assume malicious intent behind their heroic actions? Who are we to judge at all? 

 

The bombing in Boston last year is one of the best example [examples] can think of: Just to get two teenager[s], they put the martial law and the city['s] civil rights was [were] (for the time of the operation) suspended. The police,

acting like a military force, patrol the whole fucking [this is gross and abrasive language to be using for such a sensitive issue, to a person who especially sensitive to the issue . It shows the writer is too busy emoting about rather than evaluating the issue with rationality and reverence towards with the one he speaking]  town, forcing people out of their home....[unsourced, were they really “forced?” Were people dragged out screaming and beaten? Was this really akin to the gestapo?  If so where is the evidence? Why don’t we ask Ben who was there?] and go as far to [too] allowed themself [allow themselves] to shoot in [on] sight, if need[ed.]  [Where they going to? How do you know? I mean do you just stand there and ask nicely for the Tsarneavs to not shoot at you? Well, whatever the case they didn’t…They didn’t even deliberately murder the perpetrators. They desperately tried to take them both alive, and succeeded in taking one alive despite injury, preserving his life. Then they will be given a fair trial this November].  In the end, they did this improvised form of martial law, on the spot, just because they could.... [“Just because “they” could? Question begging and thoughtless pigeonholing.]

 

 

 

This is a gross prejudice against the peace-keepers involved. What other options were there? To let people frolic through the bloody streets after hundreds upon hundreds almost died, gore flew through the sky and women and children were savaged (one 8 year old boy dead) with an easy to mass-produce IED (WARNING NSFW AND CHILDREN ; but this picture from the scene makes the point.) Think, dear reader, if this was happening to you right now… A bomb goes off and bloody mayhem ensues. You didn’t know yet how it happened, or who was doing it, or what other risks there were. Would you be worried about “civil liberties” (To do what? Get exploded, become a hostage? Oh truly, that is freedom we yearn for...if we are suicidal.) or shoul we be worried abou potential casualties and complications to this already horrible predicament? The curfew and “martial” law was necessary, sane, and wise choice in this context. We didn’t know the dangers or the numbers of those who were dangerous. Even when "verified" that they were "two teens", it is difficult, if not impossible, to absolutely certify that there were more. After all…this was a cloak and dagger operation. And these attacks that happen, which more commonly happen in places like Jerusalem, are usually a preliminaries for bigger strikes across the city as people riot and panic and emergency services congregate to the scenes of the attack. This is a rather ridiculous complaint.

 

 

 

Do you have to ask yourself: to get only two teenager.....is this really worth it? Don't you think it may be overreacting much? [Hindsight bias. They didn’t know that it was “only two teenagers” at the time. They didn’t know anything but that people were at risk.]  People are conditioned to accept it [Are they? Perhaps people like the writer are conditioned otherwise to further their own agendas…], and are being lied in their face [Question beginning. Is it all lies? How do we know the writer is not lying about these “lies? ] with the promise of protecting freedom and justice [More like protecting innocent human lives]....while in reality [question begging again] the government simply couldn't give a shit about it [Question begging in the extreme!  This apparent by the writer’s conspiratorial agendamongering… but given their offense against one of the living victims to further their own crackpot assumptions. It seems they don’t give a “*****” either. “Government” is a nebulous a term, generalizing all sorts of human beings, with diverse opinions and associations that work in public offices. What right do you have to define them as apathetic? You can’t tell people how they themselves think about this, or how they themselves feel about this. You don’t define the persons involved in this incident. This is revisionism in its basest form]

 

 

Again this is all begging the question (the fallacy petitio principi) in the extreme. It merely assumes this is “one of the best examples” of a growing police state by assuming this itself was purely a police state action. Hundreds of human lives were at risk and this was indeed a matter of security and not controlling people. "Martial Law" was merely limited to curfew for fear of more bombs hidden and attacks planed in and in densely populated locations. This argument suffers from hindsight bias and egocentricism. The arguer knows from his perspective it was just two boys, but the police at the time did not. The writer reads his own perspective into the issue instead of thinking about the persons involved during the time. In the perspective of the police this curfew was valid, for they did not know how far reaching this attack would be and the potential for causalities around Boston during the time. This argument lack any sense of temporal and empathic understanding.  We ought not say that this was a “police state” event. Police states maintain a constant political order and surveillance on all the individuals within the state, but in this case didn’t know what they were up against and had to regulate the situation and temporarily marginalize risk. Instead of assuming it was like a presumptuous and judgmental alarmist and conspirator: Why don’t we ask Ben? Who was there in Boston during time:

 

Ben, were your rights violated?  Were you assaulted by this mythic police state of magical unicorns? Did someone ask to “see your papers” before ferreting you of into an internment camp?

 

 

 

 

 Remember the words of George Orwell, from his novel ''1984'': War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. 

 

 

 

 

Bellicose and hurtful, you must be serene.

If freedom is slavery, then you are a man unchained.

If ignorance is strength, you must be invincible...

Air Strip One would be proud to have you as a citizen.

 

And remember, only you can stop forest fires...so you should stop making them when the weather's dry: this isn't the debate section of the forum after all. And now that you know what the sting feels like, you should apologize to Ben and all the people involved in this incident and abandon your inane and egocentric judgementalism. This isn't a place to kick people while they are down, and the more you push your oblivious politics on people, the harder they will snap back at you. 

 

--------

[Alextendo]

Oh boy, that's a bunch of stuff to read. But i'm sorry, i don't have the time (nor the patience) do to it. But for now, i'll say this: In Canada, our Police down have armor car, militarise police and constant ''terrorist'' threat trow down our throat. It's more quiet here. Maybe living in a police state is normal for you, especially if you're a US citizen, so you're so used to it that you might don't see the difference. But i can say one thing for sure: So much security, police and their attitude (situation of police violence happen WAY too often in the US) is simply not normal. Like i said, it may be a standard for you, but here....it look like a living nightmare of paranoia, constent fear trown to justify more police and abusif security.

 

Also, if you're okay with it, it proove that the US goverment succeed in their job, which is to make you belive that they want you to belive. Now you can simply shut down you're brain because the goverment is taking care of the situation for you. You can watch the mainstream media and go along with it. Don't mind the presence of camera security everywhere, don't mind the tank, police armor car and drone....Simply remember: Long live Big Brother!

 

PS: Even though i didn't read you're entire post, you're attitude towards me feel too agressive and provocative. I'm in no way going to support this sort of behavior, then pretend i'm pushing my ''politic''. I'm not here to promote Communism, but to warn the situation of the current-state of the US goverment. Saying i want to force my politic position make me feel like you're looking for something to blame. Just a warning, don't go too far...

 

You may as well check this out in the meantime:

 

Edit: I've just read a bit more of some part and i'm simply astonished! You really trying to antagonising me, aren't you? Some of the thing i've read in your post is mind-blowingly RIDICULOUS! You trying to make me look like i have something agaisnt Ben, or that i'm trying to be irrespectuous towards him, then have the nerve to say i'm ''egocentric'' amount other insulting comments. What are you trying to proove? Are you so obsessed that i'm a atheist, or i'm a Communist, so you feel the need to antagonise me? Why such attitude towars me if these aren't the reason? Do you really think your argument have more weight then those i have? What if you're the ''egocentric'' person? What can you say to justify your position to be more worthy then those of others, like me? Twisting my word and make me look like a evil person is what's going to far. I already have to deal with suicidal thought with problem i have to deal with, i REALLY don't need you to push me over the edge. Also, stop trying to come up with your ''analysis'', which look like they serve you the purpose to twist thing in the way you like...

[RedAuthar]

Last warning.  I said to move it to the hot topic thread.