Friday, April 19, 2013

Let's find 'em!

The FBI has released these photos of the suspects. Millions of people can be brought to bear on this. Hopefully we can identify and capture these guys asap.









22 comments:

  1. This thread seems out of date (so what's new?). According to the Melbourne Age, the two have already been identified. One has been killed in a shoot-out with the police (a short distance from the finish of the marathon). A bomb was apparently employed by the suspect in the shoot-out.

    The other suspect is still being sought.

    The fact that the case has been solved so quickly gives lie to your satire that Obama wouldn't allow the bombing to be competently investigated, owing to his acquaintance with alleged terrorists 18 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Who said he wouldn't allow the bombing to be completely investigated?

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ben,

      Egnor said it when he wrote his satires. Stating that Obama's administration was looking for suspects by viewing something like 1.3 million YouTube videos. That Obama was seeking advice about terrorists by phoning someone who was an alleged terrorist decades ago.

      I'd noted in a previous thread that if Egnor wanted to write an effective anti-Obama satire, he should have had him condemning the Boston marathon terrorism in a cabinet meeting before immediately authorising further Predator drone missile attacks on Afghan and Pakistani villages targeting suspected terrorists.

      Bombs aimed at people who are unlike Americans with the intention of inducing terror and dissuading them from becoming terrorists being justified retribution. Whereas bombs aimed at Americans being heinous terrorism.

      Delete
  3. Hey Bachfiend, I was wondering. I am writing a story right now. The protaganist is a young Australian woman. I emailed an Australian friend of mine who lives in Japan to see if he would be my go-to guy with questions about Australia. He hasn't emailed back yet and I'm beginning to think he doesn't check that email address anymore. Could I ask you a few questions about Australia? I want to make sure I am creating an authentic character who really speaks and thinks like an Australian.

    Ben

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ben,

      OK, what are the questions. Not that I'd know much about young Australian women (being a grumpy old white male).

      Delete
    2. Well, the story happens in the early 1960s, so you might know some of these things. I'm not sure how old you are.

      I'd like to find out more about some young Australian women, actually. Ha!

      Here are just a few.

      1. Do Australians say Down Under, or is that just what foreigners call Australia?

      2. What are some of the negative stereotypes of Aborigines? Any slurs that people use?

      3. Do Australians use the word Yank to mean American? Would someone say, Oh I met a Yank sailor at a bar the other day?

      4. Have you ever heard of kids in the bush who "attend" school primarily by radio? Do you think that was common in the 1960's in rural areas in Western Australia?

      5. Are there any weekly news magazines in Australia that would be comparable to Time or Newsweek?

      Thank you. I appreciate it.

      Ben

      Delete
    3. Do Australians use globes with Australia on the bottom, or do they flip them upside down?

      Delete
    4. Ben,

      Down Under is used by Australians.

      Common unfortunate slang for Aborigines include Abos and Boongs, not used in polite company. Black fellas might be used by Australian Aborigines themselves. Australian Aborigines unfortunately are still disadvantaged with a much lower life expectancy.

      Yank would be a common expression particularly in the past.

      Schooling by radio in remote areas was common in the '60s 'School of the Air' via short wave radio from 1951 to 2003 when most went to satellite Internet with video.

      It's iconic similar to the Royal Flying Doctor Service, which came into existence to evacuate sick people from remote inaccessible stations (Australian for 'ranches') to hospital.

      The Bulletin (now defunct, owing to the Internet) was a very longstanding weekly news magazine similar to Newsweek (it actually included a section taken directly from Newsweek).

      Megnor,

      My computer desktop has a global map the right way up, with the heavier continents including Eurasia at the bottom.

      Delete
    5. It seems that the good guys have killed one of the bastards, and are hunting down the second. Tragically one MIT police officer was killed, an another transit officer has been seriously wounded. May God bless them both, and may this bad guy get apprehended without further bloodshed.

      Delete
    6. Thank you, Bachfiend. You have been very helpful.

      Ben

      Delete
  4. If the terrorist on the run survives he will still have a chance to find Jesus and go to heaven. God likes people who come to worship him and grovel for forgiveness, no matter what they do. If he’s Muslim, maybe God will reward him with some virgins. Who knows?

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @KW:

      If the terrorist is an atheist like you, KW, he won't have any basis to posit an objective standard of good and evil.

      So bombing people is just expression of an opinion, neither right or wrong, in any objective sense.

      People can, at times, do evil things in the name of religion. Atheists can't really do either good or evil, according to a rational understanding of their own worldview.

      Delete
    2. And, after all, as Justin Trudeau (the 'heir apparent' to the Canadian PM-ship) commented: "But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded ..."

      Delete
    3. Justin Trudeau is not even a shoe in for the Liberal party, never mind Sussex Drive. He is seen as rich, elitist, and a separatist in federalist drag. Nobody trusts him. Not even his own people.

      Delete
  5. Whodathunk? The bombers are/were foreign Moslems admitted to America as refugees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This issue of admitting to our country people from countries where terrorism is a real issue (eg Muslim countries) is a very real one. It doesn't seem wise to me.

      It'll be amusing to see the hypocrisy on the left, which will complain that we're "using" this tragedy to achieve political goals, like restricting immigration. Of course, the Left has shamelessly used the Newtown massacre to attack gun rights, and, fortunately, failed big time.

      Delete
    2. Michael,

      Yes, it's a problem admitting immigrants from countries in which terrorism is endemic. You might be admitting genuine refugees fleeing from political or religious persecution under which they are in serious danger of being killed. As well as terrorists.

      You have to have a process to distinguish the two groups, which is open and fair (fair also to the host country).

      The process has to be open. As open as the process in which all but 3 of the senators who voted down the watered down version of Obama's gun control bill accept funding from gun lobby groups.

      America has always restricted immigration to some degree. That's one of the points Erwin Black made in 'War Against the Weak' (funny that a book which you claim changed your entire worldview is so unfamiliar to you). The 'melting pot' of immigration was and is a myth. Migrants from alien cultures are reluctantly accepted and as a result tend to gravitate towards areas in which there are other members of their nationality seeking mutual support.

      In the '30s, America severely restricted the entry of Jewish refugees making the 'Ship of Fools' possible. Fear of 'strangers' made eugenics possible.

      Delete
  6. Restrictions on Muslim immigration, which I support, would be on ideological, not racial grounds. Islam is not a race, and this has nothing to do with eugenics and racial discrimination.

    It has to do with the Islamic affinity for terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael,

      As usual, you miss the point of my comment. Perhaps it's due to your difficulty in reading comprehension? Or your self diagnosed attention deficit disorder?

      One of the points Erwin Black was making in 'War Against the Weak' was that the American eugenics program was largely funded by American conservatives. It was fueled by fear of the strange, the unfamiliar. Its victims were just as likely to be 'poor white trash' who were living in inconvenient locations desired by their 'betters'

      It wasn't entirely 'racial' (although I dismiss the concept of 'race' as being obsolete and incorrect - based on our understanding of the science of genetics).

      If rich countries refuse to admit refugees from countries with endemic terrorism then they risk condemning them to death. Screening refugees and deciding whether to admit them or not is a problem I admit. Not one that's easily solved.

      Delete
    2. Gibberish. The term "conservatives" in the early 20th century didn't have the same reasonably coherent meaning it has today.

      Eugenics was strongly opposed by three groups: Catholics, orthodox Christians, and far leftists.

      Eugenics was supported most strongly by Progressives and by liberal Protestants. In fact, eugenics was a hallmark of Progressive ideology, from Wilson on.

      Christine Rosen's "Preaching Eugenics" is the best history of the political and religious ideologies associated with eugenics.

      Eugenics was detested by conservative Christians, and still is.

      Delete
    3. Michael,

      I know I'm running a serious risk, after you defined 'imaginary' as meaning the process by which the brain forms images in the mind from sensory perceptions, which may or may not be true, but what is your coherent definition of 'conservative'? And how does it differ from the concept as understood in the early 20th century?

      Anyway, you haven't answered the points Erwin Balack was making in 'War Against the Weak' (a book you've previously praised as changing your worldview), instead citing another book, which I'll look at. Not that I'm confident that you've got this author's arguments right either, with your record of misunderstanding books you've read (remember Benjamin Libet's 'Mind Time'?)

      Eugenics was a pseudoscience promoted by progressives and conservatives, both groups basically being 'control freaks', albeit at different ends of the political spectrum.

      Liberals and libertarians both recognise individual freedom, but differ in the amount of influence the state should have in protecting the individual from the strong and powerful.

      Lumping liberals with progressives is just silly. And anyway, eugenics is a dead buried pseudoscience. There's nothing left of the the eugenic movement for conservative Christians to still detest.

      Delete
    4. Michael,

      Yes Christine Rosen's book does seem interesting. I don't think it adds anything to Erwin Black's book. Not to the extent of paying $20 for the Kindle book. The sample Amazon provides is enough for me. If I had the time and money I'd probably buy it.

      Delete