Boston marathon bombing

[Scarabin]

I had intended to return to these forums when I had something useful to contribute to the Bridge Material Review but feel I have to express my outrage at the cowardly and vicious attack on Boston, and to offer my sympathy to the good people of Boston and to all Americans.

[mike777]

interesting that the last mile is one of the most safe places on planet earth.

 

I mean this an extreme sense of the word safe.....very safe.

 

 

As a baseball fan....less than a mile away.....Boston Red sox played.

[onoway]

Terrible day. Cowardly and vicious are exactly the words. Sympathy to the families of those killed and the people maimed or hurt. It's hard to imagine, it all seems so entirely pointless.

[kenberg]

Words fail me here. The person who did this is less than human. I express my condolences to all who were victimized by such an atrocious sub-human act.

[PassedOut]

This reminds me of the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing. Our family walked by the cordoned off park the next day on the way to an event, and my boys peppered me with questions about the scene that I had no good way to answer. And this bombing mystifies me in the same way.

[Winstonm]

And all in the name of what? Senseless mayhem is not a solution.

[billw55]

Early reports say that five unexploded devices have been found so far. Apparently they are very crude, homemade looking bombs. This seems to suggest a lone loon, such as Kaczynski, but of course nothing can be certain at this stage.

 

I saw there was a website up with many residents offering lodging to anyone who needed it in the aftermath. Good show Boston!

[Phil]

Horrible stuff. Even though the device was crudely made, I am unclear why the CIC hesitates to use the word "terror":

 

CNN

[hrothgar]

Horrible stuff. Even though the device was crudely made, I am unclear why the CIC hesitates to use the word "terror":

 

The best explanation that I've heard is that terrorism implies intent.

The actor is using violence to achieve a specific political end.

 

As a practical example, the shooter in CT. does not qualify as a terrorist.

The Unibomber does

 

In this case, we have absolutely no idea who perpetrated the attack.

Some claim that it might be premature to label this as terrorism as opposed to criminal insanity.

[kenberg]

I agree with Richard on this. I have not been glued to the screen so I may be out to lunch, but it seemd like there was some too quick jumping to conclusions, or jumping to rhetoric, here.

 

Of course we will put a major effort into tracking down the culprit. That's hardly a major statement. Much better to concentrate on what we don't know and how we intend to find out. A criminally insane person is in some sense a terrorist and really I think a terrorist must in some sense be insane, but in spite of that most people would make a clear distinction between someone acting out on some personal grudge or fantasy on the one hand and someone who is part of an organized effort on the other hand. It's not the same, and we should not suggest or pretend that we know which category this falls into.

[ArtK78]

Horrible stuff. Even though the device was crudely made, I am unclear why the CIC hesitates to use the word "terror":

 

CNN

"This was a heinous and cowardly act and given what we now know about what took place, the FBI is investigating it as an act of terrorism," President Barack Obama said Tuesday after a briefing with his national security team. "Anytime bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror."

 

CNN

 

 

[ArtK78]

Early reports say that five unexploded devices have been found so far. Apparently they are very crude, homemade looking bombs. This seems to suggest a lone loon, such as Kaczynski, but of course nothing can be certain at this stage.

Despite earlier reports that more bombs had been found, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick said there were no explosives other than the two that detonated. [FBI Boston Field Office Special Agent in Charge Richard] DesLauriers said authorities were aware of no new public safety threats, but police officials asked Boston residents for patience with swarming investigators and increased security precautions around the city.

 

CNN

[billw55]

Despite earlier reports that more bombs had been found, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick said there were no explosives other than the two that detonated. [FBI Boston Field Office Special Agent in Charge Richard] DesLauriers said authorities were aware of no new public safety threats, but police officials asked Boston residents for patience with swarming investigators and increased security precautions around the city.

 

CNN

I guess in emerging situations, the early reports are often wrong. Who knows what the final answer will be ...

[barmar]

I guess in emerging situations, the early reports are often wrong. Who knows what the final answer will be ...

Yes, one of the problems with the 24-hour news and blogger culture is that rumors spread extremely quickly and are frequently reported as fact. There's little time for fact-checking.

[ahh]

On Sunday I was in Edinburgh Scotland to watch my daughter compete in her 1st half Marathon . It was an appalling day with gale force winds driving rain and very cold for the time of year. Despite this she finished in a respectable time and I was so proud to see her run along the finishing straight. It was thronged with people cheering on their family and friends and also encouraging people they didn't know to get over that distant finishing line . At the end everyone I spoke to was so proud of either their achievement or that of friends and family . To a person they all agreed it was the toughest race they had ever been in.

 

24 hours later I am watching the awful pictures from Boston --- it puts a lot of things into perspective .

 

Jim Hay

[cherdano]

Horrible stuff. Even though the device was crudely made, I am unclear why the CIC hesitates to use the word "terror":

 

CNN

Refuse to be terrorized

[kenberg]

Refuse to be terrorized

 

I regard this article as at once condescending and wrong. I have never found it useful to reprimand someone who is scared ant tell him not to be. My reaction is disgust and repulsion that such a being as the perpetrator could exist. I oppose capital punishment, but only in the case of humans so my opposition does not apply here.

 

But if someone is scared, I will not be telling him that he should not be.

[onoway]

I regard this article as at once condescending and wrong. I have never found it useful to reprimand someone who is scared ant tell him not to be. My reaction is disgust and repulsion that such a being as the perpetrator could exist. I oppose capital punishment, but only in the case of humans so my opposition does not apply here.

 

But if someone is scared, I will not be telling him that he should not be.

I had a somewhat different reaction to the article. It didn't appear to me to be saying people should not be afraid but that if they react entirely out of that fear then the bomber has won. He or they have captured the power to control the behaviour of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people because people have given them that power out of fear. One other article I read somewhere today mentioned the IRA bombing in London and how basically the average Londoner ignored the event although the police were obviously busy.

 

I think that's what he was trying to get to in the article, not that people shouldn't be scared but that they should try not to become hostage to the fear. OTOH London went through the Blitz so bombs going off and blowing people up are not entirely out of their experience, so a very different history.

 

However people react, it's a horrible and insane thing for someone to have done and I hope that the police are able to find the scumbag quickly.

[Flem72]

My wife was running, and I was sitting in the bleachers across from the general area of the explosions. Luckily (though all of those injured were standing in the packed-like-sardine crowds on the sidewalk directly in front of the storefronts ), she ran 20 minutes faster than we thought she would, so I and my friends had left to meet our runners.

 

One thing stands out: The people of Boston should be very proud of their city.. As we walked around the perimeter, so quickly established, I was very impressed with the high degree of organization in the midst of all this chaos. Someone was right on top of events, executing what had to be a pre-established general plan applied to these specific circumstances and location. Awesome.

[jjbrr]

Kenberg, as someone whom I've always respected for seemingly endless life experiences and cherished stories, can you explain why you think a person should be scared of an event that is both astronomically unlikely to occur and completely unreasonable to prevent? I mean, in your experience doesn't the good in life outweigh the bad to such an extent that it's unhealthy to be affected by something like this physically, emotionally, or psychologically?

 

Would society not benefit from ignoring the doom and gloom BS fed to them by the media and start focusing on how great life is?

 

What exactly is there to be afraid of, in your opinion, and why do you think it's justified?

[Trinidad]

The terror effect is not caused by the death toll or the number of injured. In this case, 3 people died. In the USA every 5 minutes 3 people die because of smoking. I live in The Netherlands. In Belgium -our neighbors- there was an accident just this week with a Russian bus with 40-50 students: several killed (I don't remember how many, but it was more than 3) and the rest got injured, some severely. It hardly made the news here. People find these things sad, but shrug their shoulders: "such is life".

 

The terror effect is due to the fact that "Boston" cannot be ranked under "such is life". It is terror because it intentionally converts happiness to horror.

 

We can rationalize converting happiness to horror without intent: Lethal accidents are sad but "sh-t happens". We know that today might be our last day because we may get hit by a bus while crossing the street. We even have life insurances.

We can rationalize intentional horror in a situation that was already horrible. (Did anybody notice that at the same time there was news about a bomb blast in Bagdad with many more casualties. "Well, there is a war going on there.")

 

We cannot rationalize how someone could intentionally convert happiness to horror.

 

It hurts us and it makes us angry. !!How can somebody want something like that!! It's incomprehensible. And it's the incomprehensibility that leads to insecurity, not the death toll or the number of injured. After all, the numbers on people getting killed in traffic or through smoking (just to name two) are not frightening us the least bit.

 

It's perfectly ok and normal to be terrified by a terror attack. It's also perfectly ok to try to bring it back to perspective: We can cope with this. (Easy for me to say from the other side of the pond.)

 

I wish you all strength and courage.

 

Rik

[Mbodell]

Yeah, the suddenness and unusualness is part of what makes the Boston attack have more salience and impact than "normal" tragedies. Plus the juxtaposition since Patriots day and the marathon are such terrific things and experiences. I vividly remember cheering folks on along the marathon and lots of friends who ran (both officially and unofficially).

 

If the attack day was a normal day in the US there were more than 800 violent crimes committed with a gun and more than 83 people killed by guns. There were another 89 or so fatalities by car accidents in a typical day. Somehow knowing the Boston attack was less than 2% of the typical combined gun deaths and traffic deaths doesn't make it seem little or small.

 

Incidentally Massachusetts is the state with the lowest per capita rate of firearm deaths and the lowest per capita rate of motor vehicle accidents. Unsurprisingly this also leads to the lowest rate of teen deaths and child deaths since those two are such a large cause of death among those populations.

[kenberg]

Kenberg, as someone whom I've always respected for seemingly endless life experiences and cherished stories, can you explain why you think a person should be scared of an event that is both astronomically unlikely to occur and completely unreasonable to prevent? I mean, in your experience doesn't the good in life outweigh the bad to such an extent that it's unhealthy to be affected by something like this physically, emotionally, or psychologically?

 

Would society not benefit from ignoring the doom and gloom BS fed to them by the media and start focusing on how great life is?

 

What exactly is there to be afraid of, in your opinion, and why do you think it's justified?

 

The article just struck me as wrong. When something like this happens, I don't want instructions about how I should feel. Pam (Onoway) didn't take it that way, she took it as suggestions about how to act. Maybe so.

 

Fear, like other emotions, comes and goes. As mentioned, my reaction is mostly revulsion. Even there, my emotions and my actions are two different areas. Emotionally, if they catch the guy and need a volunteer to stick an icepick into his heart, I'm ready. But I won't be called upon to do this so I don't much have to think of what I would really do.Would I run in the Boston Marathon? Sure, except I have never run in a Marathon and don't pan on starting now. But I wouldn't discourage a grandchild from doing so should she choose to.

[cherdano]

I naturally treat one-year-olds more seriously than most. Nevertheless, if you hear what I am saying to my nephew, I probably sound a little condescending.

Bruce Schneier's article is mostly talking to the same politicians and media who endlessly argued whether calling something an attack and an "act of terror" is as good as calling it a "terrorist attack".

Just saying.

[kenberg]

Fair enough.

How, if at all, we should change our approach to life is something that will be discussed, no doubt. Not only do we not wish to monitor everyone all the time, it really is not practical even in an age of advanced technology. David Ignatius, in today's Post, points out that there were surveillance cameras galore in Boston and that every available police officer was on duty.

 

Certainly it is the case that far more people are killed, by accident or with intent, in other ways. I think part of the reason that it stirs people, or at least it is true of me, is that it seems so utterly impossible that it will benefit anyone. Someone shoots a cabbie and steals his wallet. Awful, and we are horrified by the disparity between the gain and the crime, but the thug is doing it for the money. But with the bombing, there is no discernible purpose. I guess that is why I see it as sub-human. Humans, however immoral and misguided, have a purpose in their actions.