Author Topic: Possible suicide bomber at Capitol (Read 1842 times)

mosgood · « **Reply #75 on:** April 12, 2005, 10:26:01 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raven_2
to mosgood

Full police control on citizens (and by their own will) in country that postulate itself "the freeest in the world" - that would bee cool.

In SU in 1917-1921 you can say that someone is counter-revolutioner and he is being arrested. Now in USA you can say that someone is terrorist - and get the same result. Good work, guys :-) Keep it going. Viva la democracy :-) SU is dead, now we have USA.

You are downplaying this to make an exagerated argument. The person we are talking about isn't just a "someone" he was a person that had asked to speak to the president of the United States (in a time of war) and was carrying 2 large suitcases and was conspicuous enough to earn the attention of security forces.

It is NOT unreasonable to expect caution in that situation.

Fishu · « **Reply #76 on:** April 12, 2005, 10:47:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
If he had bombs that went off and security said.... we though he was just a confused tourist...

how would this thread be going?

Yeah, lets also arrest all "suspicious" people on the streets.
The ones standing aboots at a corner and especially the ones standing aboots in a group.
Who knows what they were planning, maybe to mug someone or maybe just shoot someone for the fun of it.

Never knows! better to be safe than sorry, right!

Oh wait.. wasn't the "big brother watches" and "fascism" things something we didn't want?

Chairboy · « **Reply #77 on:** April 12, 2005, 11:25:07 AM »

In your world, Mosgood, I expect that everyone would be guilty until proven innocent. The jails would overflow with the 'suspicious characters' that had done something to attract the attention of law enforcement.

Eventually, it would be discovered that it's more practical to ship these suspicious/unreliable people off to an undeveloped part of the country where they can contribute to society while their 'sentence' was carried out. They could log timber, mine ore, etc, and the experience would give them time to reflect on their transgressions while they learn self reliance skills.

There could be a whole arm of quasi law enforcement agents devoted to monitoring citizens for their leanings while you're at it. These people could have cart blanche access/power throughout the country and help weed out 'undesirables'.

Why does this sound familiar? I can't shake the sense that I've heard of something like this before....

Anyhow, with this 'safety net' in place, I'm sure we'd have some sort of 'worker's paradise' in a heartbeat. Indeed, the bourgeoisie would tremble before the dialectic that powers this righteous movement.

I had that feeling of deja vu all over again....

mosgood · « **Reply #78 on:** April 12, 2005, 11:29:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
Yeah, lets also arrest all "suspicious" people on the streets.
The ones standing aboots at a corner and especially the ones standing aboots in a group.
Who knows what they were planning, maybe to mug someone or maybe just shoot someone for the fun of it.

Never knows! better to be safe than sorry, right!

Oh wait.. wasn't the "big brother watches" and "fascism" things something we didn't want?

But that is part of the point...... everyone on the streets wasn't rounded up. It took a very suspiscous situation for this to happen. Saying "Let's round up ALL SUSPISCIOUS people" is an exageration and it's not what happened.

Yet.. we have Raven already making parallels between this and the Ex-Soviet Union police state. Some of you guys should really think about choosing journalism as your career. I know a few major newspapers and media outlets that have obviousely already brain washed... err influenced you viewpoints and you would fit right in....

mosgood · « **Reply #79 on:** April 12, 2005, 11:36:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
In your world, Mosgood, I expect that everyone would be guilty until proven innocent. The jails would overflow with the 'suspicious characters' that had done something to attract the attention of law enforcement.

Eventually, it would be discovered that it's more practical to ship these suspicious/unreliable people off to an undeveloped part of the country where they can contribute to society while their 'sentence' was carried out. They could log timber, mine ore, etc, and the experience would give them time to reflect on their transgressions while they learn self reliance skills.

There could be a whole arm of quasi law enforcement agents devoted to monitoring citizens for their leanings while you're at it. These people could have cart blanche access/power throughout the country and help weed out 'undesirables'.

Why does this sound familiar? I can't shake the sense that I've heard of something like this before....

Anyhow, with this 'safety net' in place, I'm sure we'd have some sort of 'worker's paradise' in a heartbeat. Indeed, the bourgeoisie would tremble before the dialectic that powers this righteous movement.

I had that feeling of deja vu all over again....

Chairboy... I'm sure you would expect that in my world. But that's because you are exagerating this situation into something else entirely.

I'm sure in your world that person should not have been looked at twice because it would have been somekind of profiling and would have infringed on his personal and civil rights.

Chairboy · « **Reply #80 on:** April 12, 2005, 11:50:58 AM »

Looking at someone twice, that's fine. Talking to him, maybe arresting him for loitering if he doesn't move, hey, the law allows for that as well.

Sneaking up behind him to tackle him, that seems excessive.

Questiton: "But Chairboy, what if he was a suicide bomber with bombs and suicidal tendencies and, oh dear, my glasses have fogged up with tension! I get such terrible gas when I'm tense! What if he was a bomber? He was just standing there! He could have been anything! Oh, my forehead, I'm sweating just thinking about it! I need to use my handkerchief, oh dear..."

Answer: A fine question, mosgood! If we are to ask why we can't assume he's a suicide bomber, the corollary must also be asked of 'why shouldn't we apply this standard to every person who loiters?' I expect the answer should be pretty self evident! Any time any person is ticketed for loitering, that means that they disobeyed the instructions of an officer that told them to 'move along now'. Perhaps we need to standardize the enforcement of the law in this post 9/11 world to make sure that all of these people are properly tackled, arrested, and that their belongings are 'disrupted' by water cannons. After all, in this post 9/11 world, we can't assume ANYTHING! ....except that there are a lot of terrorists. I guess we can assume that. And that anyone (ANYONE!) in the street could be plotting an attack THIS MINUTE!

Question: "Oh Chairboy, won't you please think of all the little children?"

Answer: Indeed, and I do. I think my children deserve to inherit a world that doesn't have all the sharp edges filed down. Liberty is pointy. That might make it uncomfortable to hold, and maybe it doesn't make a great pet, but it's a powerful, fearsome force to be reckoned with and I wouldn't trade it for anything, especially not comfort.

oboe · « **Reply #81 on:** April 12, 2005, 12:33:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mosgood
You are downplaying this to make an exagerated argument. The person we are talking about isn't just a "someone" he was a person that had asked to speak to the president of the United States (in a time of war) and was carrying 2 large suitcases and was conspicuous enough to earn the attention of security forces.

It is NOT unreasonable to expect caution in that situation.

You are right, caution would be appropriate. I just saw the video of them sneaking up on him, gang tackling him from behind, then hauling him off by the arms (his legs dragging behind him - they wouldn't even let him walk). They searched his suitcases and found no explosives, but THEY BLEW THEM UP ANYWAY. I saw video of that, too.

Holy cheese.

dedalos · « **Reply #82 on:** April 12, 2005, 12:56:12 PM »

Right, wrong, I don't know. Police showing their high inteligence and training

yes.

If that guy was a terrorist, one garantied way to set off the bombs would be to tackle him. Another, would be to risk sneaking up from bihind. So, if they are not that stupid, then they probably knew he was not a real threat but someone that had to be dealt with, and make an example of. If they did not know, that was the dumest thing they could possibly do.

Is like the security guys at the airport asking me to tun on my laptop to make sure it is not a bomb. Any guesses on what would happen if that laptop was really a bomb?

Security is a jock. Its just a show to make us feel safe. Lets just hope we don't fal victims to that show.

mosgood · « **Reply #83 on:** April 12, 2005, 01:34:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
You are right, caution would be appropriate. I just saw the video of them sneaking up on him, gang tackling him from behind, then hauling him off by the arms (his legs dragging behind him - they wouldn't even let him walk). They searched his suitcases and found no explosives, but THEY BLEW THEM UP ANYWAY. I saw video of that, too.

Holy cheese.

Wait a sec.... you mean that the Police State of America actually allowed that to be shown on TV?!?!

I'm sure that some poor tv producer will be sent to siberia for this !!!!!

oboe · « **Reply #84 on:** April 12, 2005, 02:27:49 PM »

Seriously, I always considered the police state comments goofy, but watching the secret service gang tackle that guy gives one pause.

He basically stood there for more than an hour with his suitcases, minding his own business. Suspicious, yes. And its not clear whether anyone tried to communicate with him prior to the tackle.
They literally dragged him off the terrace.

And why, if no explosives were found, did they BLOW UP his suitcases?

I still have lots of questions about this situation.

BlueJ1 · « **Reply #85 on:** April 12, 2005, 02:44:58 PM »

A picture showed the man looking at the police officers crouching behind him. The man certainly knew they were there. When he turned around again he was tackled.

Tuomio · « **Reply #86 on:** April 12, 2005, 04:01:59 PM »

There are ways of telling whether he is a witch.

Raven_2 · « **Reply #87 on:** April 12, 2005, 05:11:21 PM »

to mosgood

Sure, I hiperbolize. But! I live in Russia and I know what that mean when your government say to "enemies are everywhere". It`s a perfect way to justify ANY police action against person, any crime by government itself. Not the fact that this guy was arrested disturb me, but the fact that some of you think that his arrest is something logical and, in general, right thing.

Sample. Toad blame USSR for destroing KAL-007 in 1983. But think about it: USSR/Russia policy is to destroy suspicious planes. USA policy is to land them. USA had 9/11. USSR/Russia haven`t. So, such behavior is a perfect way to defend people from plane-based terrorist attacks. But why whole world blame USSR for that incendent, then? You understand why, yes?

This is the way USSR come in 1918. There were England/France/Finland/USA intervention and civil war. Communist government told this mantra ("enemies are everywhere") to people - and there was reason for this at that time. But AFTER that they still used this, Stalin built his totalitarian system (well, it was pretty useful for state at that time, if you ask me, but still it totalitarian) on this slogan and justify execution of ~500.000 people by it.

First step to totalitarism is done in your country. Your government persuade part of you that suspiciousness can be an argument for arrest.

BTW, why just can`t do limitations on big bags transportations in such "hotspots" and make some bag holiding places on enter?

BTW2, and now imagine how this guy was treated by police if he would had an arabic origins...

Jackal1 · « **Reply #88 on:** April 12, 2005, 06:05:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fishu
and how about the "using" part?
I doubt majority of the firearms fires very well with an unpowdered bullet.

The bullet was what you asked about. You asked if it was illegal. Remember? It is not. Question answered.
What about the using part do you not understand?

Tumor · « **Reply #89 on:** April 12, 2005, 06:35:18 PM »

How 'bout this:

Don't stand around in potentially high-threat area's looking and acting like a freak. Put on your wittle common sense thinking cap before you act-out and you won't have to go home feeling all abused and poopy.