Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 219 posts

Re: The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On

#181

Post by squozzer »

As much as I'd like to agree with the estimable Mr. Schneier, there's a part of me who remembers watching "Brazil" and the scene where the restaurant blows up and everyone just goes about their business. Later, if you remember, the protagonist goes through the wringer for failing to have a proper form 27/6 on a minor matter.

So why should we keep calm, not in the face of a terrorist attack, but knowing that our government has priorities that differ from the people's?

Consider how much time and energy our government spends to stop file-sharing and pot smoking, which despite what Nancy Reagan might have said, has not contributed much of anything to the terrorist financial networks.

I'm not so sure the measures taken so far to prevent terrorism were even designed for that purpose. Given the rotten state of government finances and the US's overall economic decline, the massive surveillance apparatus under construction seems better suited to preventing capital flight than plot detection.

It's sort of like the massive fence that used to separate Czechoslovakia from West Germany. The Czechs supposedly built it to keep NATO out, but the nuts and bolts faced towards West Germany.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. And I wouldn't mind it one bit.

Re: The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On

#182

Post by jlgreco »

jlgreco wrote: post #105
anigbrowl wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really ought to look into the history of the dark ages, because under the Pax Romana Europe enjoyed an extremely well-developed civil society that brought self-evident benefits to the participants, just like our culture of appreciation for scientific progress, the arts, and political theories...a culture which is not nearly as universal as you seem to imagine. Also, the word you should be using is 'hordes.' Hoard…

> under the Pax Romana Europe enjoyed an extremely well-developed civil society that brought self-evident benefits to the participants, just like our culture of appreciation for scientific progress, the arts, and political theories...a culture which is not nearly as universal as you seem to imagine. What is your point? I am not claiming that the aspects of our society that we cherish are unique to our society, or wer…

Apparently I've said something offensive. I suppose optimism and confidence in the resiliency of modern society is not patriotic if it means I am not beating the drums of war loud enough.

By all means, you can all carry on being afraid. Your fear, your lack of resolve, your lack of confidence in our way of life... that is the real threat. It is that which the (few existing) terrorists wish to stoke.

Re: The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On

#183

Post by theorique »

MrFoof wrote: post #148
rurounijones wrote: post #5

Glad this got posted quickly. I can already see the glee in intelligence / law enforcement agencys' eyes as they think how they can use this latest incident as reasoning for more over-arching powers. For a long time Londoners had to put up with IRA bombs but "Kept calm and carried on" (to use the phrase). I hope the US can follow suit. [EDIT] Changed "secret service" to "intelligence / law enforcement agencies" to av…

>I can already see the glee in intelligence / law enforcement agencys' eyes as they think how they can use this latest incident as reasoning for more over-arching powers. I think this is my biggest concern. Once in a while at the Back Bay subway/commuter rail/Amtrak station you will occasionally see Boston Police officers - sometimes accompanied by TSA agents - set up at the station, some of which are carrying submac…

But doesn't it make you feel safe?

Re: The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On

#184

Post by eli_gottlieb »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #61

"It turns out that terrorism is much harder than most people think. It's hard to find willing terrorists, it's hard to put a plot together, it's hard to get materials, and it's hard to execute a workable plan. As a collective group, terrorists are dumb, and they make dumb mistakes; criminal masterminds are another myth from movies and comic books." He is very wrong. He is confusing foot soldiers with their leaders. T…

I believe that it wasn't until the [Israeli] borders got sealed tight that the bombings subsided.

Bingo. We supposedly have "security guards" and "security checks" around everything important, but they don't really do much (in the literal sense that they don't actually check much). Besides, is it that much better if someone detonates themselves at the gate to a street party or shopping mall with a crowd around than if they get inside? What if it's a particularly active street party whose attending crowd has exceeded the gates and there are sellers of food and souvenirs outside getting mobbed, too (like the one for Independence Day I attended last night)? Anyone can just walk in and blow everything up.

Any large, open concentration of humanity is a target. The Israeli solution to this is closed borders and a really fucking harsh military policy. Contrary to popular belief, America does have its own response: very low population density to reduce the value of any one target.

Re: The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On

#185

Post by freehunter »

ygra wrote: post #122
artsrc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I flew less after 9/11 because it made rational sense to do so. Before I could turn up at the airport 10 minutes before my plane took off and go the the gate and check in. After 9/11 I was in a queue for ages and had to arrive really early. So it was quicker to just drive.

Also deadlier.

Do you have statistics showing that it's more deadly to fly post-9/11 than it was before? Are more airliners crashing now?

Re: The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On

#186

Post by eli_gottlieb »

markdown wrote: post #72
rdouble wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peru has had tens of thousands of civilians killed in conflict with the Shining Path.

TIL. However, a cursory skimming of the Wikipedia page seems to indicate that it's an internal conflict. Not really relevant to this discussion.

Quite relevant considering that no known terrorist organization actually obeys a distinction between "internal" and "external". You say "legitimate nation-state", they say, "bourgeois oppressive occupier". You say "reactionary fascist regime" they say "glorious liberator". You say "death", they say "glory".

Re: The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On

#187

Post by eli_gottlieb »

rayiner wrote: post #172
flyinRyan wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the fuck? Citations please? There is absolutely no reason I can see to beleive that every person we kill with drones had any plan (realistic or otherwise) to attack us? Where do you get this? Because of Obama's reclassification of male casualties between 16-65 as combatants? Is that kind of word-game nonsense really so effective?

There are of course collateral casualties, but I do believe every drone strike has a target that has expressed some intention to attack the U.S. We're not blowing up random Afghans for fun.

Actually, American drone attacks have a pretty miserably bad civilian:militant casualty ratio. Not that anyone has ever achieved a ratio sufficient in a fight against terrorist/guerrilla enemies to satisfy the bleeding-heart types, even when it's actually less than 1.0 (that is, fewer civilians than militants are killed or injured).

Re: The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On

#188

Post by eli_gottlieb »

ronnier wrote: post #57

"Keep Calm and Carry On". This phrase from the British has peaked in recent times. http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Calm%20and%20Carry%20... A week hardly passes that I don't see it on a shirt, a coworkers wall, or in a meme.

Sign of the times.

Re: The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On

#189

Post by tptacek »

venomsnake wrote: post #171
rayiner wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he's not caught on US soil and is not a citizen, like Osama, then he has no protections under the constitution and its duck hunting season. The Constitution does not create any protections for international fugitives engaged in acts of war. Terrorists are the modern day Barbary Pirates. Nobody in the founding generation suggested they should get full Constitutional protections and a trial.

Sorry but there was no act of war because Osama never represented political entity that could declare war on the US. And there are good reasons why the Israelis went to such pains to bring Adolf Eichmann to trial instead of just shooting him in Argentina. Also murder is crime in Pakistan ... so if there was Pakistani rule of law the navy seals are murderers.

I don't think there's a way to make the logic you're employing work. Wars are routinely fought between entities that do not recognize the sovereignty of their adversaries; see, for instance, every civil war ever. We fought one of those too.

On the nuts and bolts, the distinction you're trying to draw is also moot; Congress explicitly authorized:

     That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate
     force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines
     planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
     occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or
     persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international
     terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or
     persons
If you'd like to look this up in the Geneva Conventions, you'll find GCIV isn't particularly helpful to your argument; it refers to "persons taking active part in hostilities" or "combatants", not nation-state actors, and explicitly acknowledges conflicts that occur where one side or the other doesn't acknowledge a state of "war". And "the presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations".

About the best I think you can say is that striking Bin Laden could have been an act of war against Pakistan. Somehow, I don't think they're going to follow up on that.

Re: The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On

#190

Post by jaredandrews »

freehunter wrote: post #185
ygra wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also deadlier.

Do you have statistics showing that it's more deadly to fly post-9/11 than it was before? Are more airliners crashing now?

Parent is probably referring to the fact that it is safer to fly than drive a car, statistically speaking.[0]

[0] - http://reason.com/archives/2006/08/11/dont-be-terrorized

Post reply on HN