• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boston Marathon bombing suspect caught after day-long manhunt

That happens every day in Boston. We need a longer lockdown?



ps. You guys are determined to make me look like a dick, aren't you?

There are not men known to the authorities who are suspected of bombing a public event on the loose everyday having already car jacked, robbed and also killed a cop sitting in his car.

You aren't being reasonable eco. That's the problem. Public safety first. One is dead the other caught, and he'll spend the rest of his days in prison. Neither won.
 
There are not men known to the authorities who are suspected of bombing a public event on the loose everyday having already car jacked, robbed and also killed a cop sitting in his car.

You aren't being reasonable eco. That's the problem. Public safety first. One is dead the other caught, and he'll spend the rest of his days in prison. Neither won.

I suspect the survivor will be tried federally and executed under the same laws that were used to whack Tim McVeigh
 
I would also add the suspects might have left bombs planted throughout the city. During the Thursday night chase they were throwing pipe bombs at the police. The next day during the lock down I heard over the police scanner that they were detonating several pipe bombs.

Good point. Not wise to have people out and about to run into more mayhem.
 
Ok, what do you think they expected to happen? I bet they didn't expect for a million people to be "sheltering in place" and Boston to be a ghost town. I'm pretty sure that was well beyond their wildest expectations.

Unlike you, I do not suffer under the delusion that I can read the minds of terrorists.
 
You aren't being reasonable eco. That's the problem. Public safety first.

I'm trying to be reasonable. A guy and his kid brother, with pressure cookers, guns and no training just crippled a major city for a day. You think that's reasonable?

One is dead the other caught, and he'll spend the rest of his days in prison. Neither won.

So, they would have to destroy western civilization AND escape to win? Aren't you setting the goals for a couple of untrained dip****s with no real weaponry a bit high?
 
I suspect the survivor will be tried federally and executed under the same laws that were used to whack Tim McVeigh

Yep, I would expect the same TD.
 
Unlike you, I do not suffer under the delusion that I can read the minds of terrorists.

hopefully, if you ever have to confront terrorists, their minds had been blown to mist before you have to deal with them
 
Unlike you, I do not suffer under the delusion that I can read the minds of terrorists.

It's not mind reading, it's simple logic. How much could a guy and his kid brother, without any serious weaponry, expect to accomplish? The fall of the western world? haha

In fact, who cares what they expected!

Let's just look at what they did and with what.
 
I'm trying to be reasonable. A guy and his kid brother, with pressure cookers, guns and no training just crippled a major city for a day. You think that's reasonable?



So, they would have to destroy western civilization AND escape to win? Aren't you setting the goals for a couple of untrained dip****s with no real weaponry a bit high?

In that case, you are failing miserably. Any reasonable person would realize that there are more options than merely wanting to "create terror" and "destroy western civilization"

When are you going to drop that little piece of insanity?
 
In that case, you are failing miserably. Any reasonable person would realize that there are more options than merely wanting to "create terror" and "destroy western civilization"

When are you going to drop that little piece of insanity?

It's not insane to presume they intended to create terror. Ok, how about this: who cares what they intended or expected.

The bottom line is, a guy and his kid brother managed to lockdown a million people and turn Boston into a ghost town with nothing more than pipe bombs, a couple pressure cookers and guns.
 
I'm trying to be reasonable. A guy and his kid brother, with pressure cookers, guns and no training just crippled a major city for a day. You think that's reasonable?



So, they would have to destroy western civilization AND escape to win? Aren't you setting the goals for a couple of untrained dip****s with no real weaponry a bit high?

Yes, I'm being reasonable because I expect that it does no one any good to claim the terrorists won because they weren't sheltering in place and ran into two desperate murders who then killed them. There's sensible and then there is willful recklessness. The authorities in charge would be castigated for failure to protect the public safety from a known threat.

Destroy western civilization? That was their goal? (I think was already asked of you, but I didn't see your reply, if you made one.)

I thought they were trying terrorize a city and get away with it. One goal, temporarily met, the other a big fail.
 
It's not mind reading, it's simple logic. How much could a guy and his kid brother, without any serious weaponry, expect to accomplish? The fall of the western world? haha

In fact, who cares what they expected!

Let's just look at what they did and with what.

No, there's no logic in what you say. Logic would suggest looking at other terrorists and see if their goals were anything like the nonsense you claim (Hint: they weren't)

AFAIK, no terrorist group has ever had "creating terror" or "destroying western civilization" as a goal.
 
Yes, I'm being reasonable because I expect that it does no one any good to claim the terrorists won

Sure it does. It causes us to re-examine our own goals and expectations.
 
No, there's no logic in what you say. Logic would suggest looking at other terrorists and see if their goals were anything like the nonsense you claim

What do you think they were trying to do?

AFAIK, no terrorist group has ever had "creating terror" or "destroying western civilization" as a goal.

Haha
 
AFAIK, no terrorist group has ever had ... "destroying western civilization" as a goal.

Huh? That's exactly what radical Islam says they want to do.
 
Yes, I'm being reasonable because I expect that it does no one any good to claim the terrorists won because they weren't sheltering in place and ran into two desperate murders who then killed them.

There is the quote, in context. Please do not edit my posts to change the meaning.

Sure it does. It causes us to re-examine our own goals and expectations.
 
It's not insane to presume they intended to create terror. Ok, how about this: who cares what they intended or expected.

The bottom line is, a guy and his kid brother managed to lockdown a million people and turn Boston into a ghost town with nothing more than pipe bombs, a couple pressure cookers and guns.

Your subsitituting of the word "intent" for "goal" is dishonest.

As far as who cares about their goal, the answer is "Most americans". Only the idiots don't care.

The bottom line is that whatever their goal was, it was thwarted. Your refusal to consider anything other than the fact that they shut down Boston for a day is known as "Anchoring" and it is considered irrational

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring
 
As far as who cares about their goal, the answer is "Most americans". Only the idiots don't care.

You've called my arguments insane, you've called me dishonest and you've declared that my position is "only idiots". One of the most pathetic "debates" I've witnessed.

Why should we base the evaluation of our actions upon their goals? They might have had a goal of "killing the entire east coast". Does that mean we were wildly successful? Besides, they could lie about their goals.

Let's just stick to the facts:

A guy and his kid brother, with small home-made bombs and guns, and without any training, managed to lockdown a million people and turn Boston into a ghost town for a day.
 
The bottom line is that whatever their goal was, it was thwarted.

Not if the goal was to terrorize people. A million 'sheltered in place' and tumbleweeds rolled in Boston.
 
You've called my arguments insane, you've called me dishonest and you've declared that my position is "only idiots". One of the most pathetic "debates" I've witnessed.

I call 'em like I see 'em.

Why should we base the evaluation of our actions upon their goals? They might have had a goal of "killing the entire east coast". Does that mean we were wildly successful? Besides, they could lie about their goals.

Now you're just making stuff up because you're losing and getting desperate. The fact remains that the *only* way to judge if they "won" is to determine what their goal was, and to see f they achieved it.

The facts also show that terrorists goals can be determined. Al Queda's goal was to get the West to withdraw from the Middle East. McVeighs goal to trigger a race war.

Political terrorists do not engage in terrorism for the simple joy of creating terror. for them, terror is merely a means to an end

Let's just stick to the facts:

A guy and his kid brother, with small home-made bombs and guns, and without any training, managed to lockdown a million people and turn Boston into a ghost town for a day.

And the fact is, they did not achieve their goals. They lost.
 
Back
Top Bottom