DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston
from the do-something dept
Apparently, the last mile of the Boston Marathon was dedicated to the Newtown shooting victims, so it seems that much more messed up that participants in the Boston Marathon may need some help due to senseless bombings. Below are just a few helpful links for anyone out there who might need to find loved ones in the Boston area.- The Red Cross has a website for finding people after emergency situations. Unconfirmed reports say that many of the runners of the Boston Marathon have been donating blood, so blood supplies are sufficient for the moment.
- The Salvation Army has been helping out with food and other assistance. If you'd like to help out the Salvation Army....
- Google.org also has a person finder website for this tragic event.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: boston marathon, help, tragedy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We can deal with the BS later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's pretty disturbing that cops were walking around dressed like military ...and they weren't National Guard nor SWAT. I also read somewhere that an eye-witness reported seeing bomb-sniffing dogs at the marathon before the explosion. Not sure if that's true or not but this whole thing is extremely suspect.
For one thing, who had access to explosives? It requires some expertise to A) create the bomb, and B) create a cell-phone activated trigger mechanism, if that was really what happened. How'd s/he go around planting them around Boston undetected? Why didn't the others go off?
Also bear in mind the timing of this event. Public approval and trust in Washington is at an all-time low and there's tremendous dissent among the public. They're trying to push through dangerous, Constitution-eroding bills like CISPA on a more frequent basis. They want to create a national registry for guns so that they can confiscate them later. They push for having drones patrol our skies and increased presence of Homeland Security/TSA. If anyone stands to gain from a 'terrorist attack' it's definitely the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seconded.
In fact, I think it would be best if we left politics out of it altogether. People who do that are usually just exploiting a tragedy for political gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. That isn't natural. There's nothing naturally about it. The natural thing to do would be to retaliate reciprocally.
In previous wars, for instance, WWII, when the Germans bombed London, Churchill reciprocated by bombing German cities. That's natural.
During the Cold War, we promised the Soviets that if they nuked American cities, then we would nuke their cities. And we meant it. We really meant it, and they believed us.
These terrrorists are intentionally targeting our civilian population.
The natural thing to do is to retaliate the same way.
Nothing we do will ever make these terrorists our friends. They hate us. We do not have the power to make them stop hating us. What's worse, they're trying to kill us.
We do have the power to make them stop trying to kill us. We just need to use it. The same way we would have used our power against the Soviets. That's the natural thing to do.
That's what we elect Presidents for. Ever since the end of WWII, the President has been the man with his finger on the button. That's his fucking job. And if Obama won't do his job then we need to get someone in their who will. Fuck these fucking terrorists, and fuck the cities they came from, and fuck the nations where they were born. We need to kill them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But Timothy McVeigh is dead, isn't he?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1/300,000,000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
1: Taken credit for it.
2: Attacked a much higher-profile target.
3: Done more damage.
I think it is an American who used the connection the Boston Marathon had with the Sandy Hook shooting to attempt to sow more confusion and anger. Probably a nutbag who wanted to be mentioned in the same breath as the nutbag from Sandy Hook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not claiming credit for it is an actually an Al Qaeda indicator.
A medium-strong Al Qaeda indicator. Fits their past behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No. That isn't natural.
You're suggesting that we should do the "natural" thing and attack some completely innocent people who happen to live someplace near where we think the terrorist came from?
That strikes me as unreasonable. Criminal, even.
Let's start by finding out exactly who did this, first. Then figure out how to persuade them, and others who think like them from doing it again. Yes, if necessary, by killing them. Them, not innocents who had nothing to do with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No. That isn't natural.
We are losing in Afghanistan. Damn near have lost. Ten years after 9-11, and were no closer to "pursuading" the Moslem world not to attack us. Forget pursuasion--it's not working.
War is not a debate.
We need to focus on taking away their capability. Destroying their capability. In the cheapest, most efficient way possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No. That isn't natural.
Those folks at the marathon were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No. That isn't natural.
No. It seems that they weren't. Not even the eight-year old.
They're just wounded and the dead.
American wounded, and American dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No. That isn't natural.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No. That isn't natural.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let me put this as plain as I can: Repaying atrocity with atrocity would make the USG nothing more than just another terrorist organization.
You seem like the kinda person who follows the 'ends justify the means' idea, so you may not realize this, but those that consider attacking civilians, of any nation an acceptable strategy in a war or conflict, are the generally considered the lowest of the low, and nothing more than terrorists and war criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We won't care if they still hate us—after they're dead.
After they're all dead, they won't be trying to kill us anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Congratulations, you are no longer allowed to get angry at terrorists for their actions without exposing yourself as a massive hypocrite, as they are just doing the very same things you apparently see no problem with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did I ever say I was?
No. I'm not morally superior. I'm willing to grant the terrorists enough shared humanity to recogize that I need to consciously dehumanize them.
But there's no hypocrisy about it.
Only sides. The American side. And the enemy side.
Or to look at it another way, the dead, and the survivors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The bomb worked. You can argue all day long about whether it was necessary. But history demonstrates that Hiroshima combined with Nagasaki was effective. It did the job. Fullfilled the requirements.
The Nips stopped trying to kill us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The other AC can speak for himself, thank you. If he doesn't think I answered his question than he can say so himself.
If you don't —you yourself— don't think I answered his question, then please say why. I'm not dodging here. I think I answered it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a dangerous world.
Look, are you saying you're morally superior to the kids who firebombed Dresden and Hamburg and Tokyo? American kids, and Brits, and Canadians, and Aussies... kids then, but your fathers and grandfathers.
Are you morally superior to those kids? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We have better morals than an asshole little shit for brains fucktard such as your self...at least we don't troll you fuckers when something bad happens across the fucking pond!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Average Joe, is that you?
...Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope.
Take a look at the indicators again.
(Although I slightly suspect that you —truly— spotted them already. Surprised that I feel the way I do? Are you calling me AJ in order to shock me into thinking differently? Sorry—if that's what you were trying to do, the tactic didn't work.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What "indicators"? The snowflake? AFAIK, it doesn't follow you from story to story.
I thought you might be AJ, because the vindictive way you talk about retribution at any cost is the same way that AJ talks about "piracy."
And, honestly, it was a dig at AJ... I think it's funny that AJ is so bad, even you don't want to be compared to him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either you recognize the style or you don't.
Anyhow, don't mistake my thoughts for mere vindictiveness.
Rather, I've thought about this ever since 9-11. What would have been our best response to that attack? What mistakes did we make in the response we chose? And, importantly, what is our best response to another attack on American soil? What is our best next move in this war?
We've had a decade, and we've fucked around in Afghanistan, and Iraq, and have not change anyone's minds there. Pursuasion, or dissuasion, has not worked. We have not gotten the message across.
It needs to be crystal fucking clear that attacks on American cities shall not be tolerated.
And that, in the end, the United States will respond to attacks on civilians in American cities by ordering the complete destruction of the enemy civilization.
We don't really have a choice. Our open society will not last under sustained terrorist assault. You want to just give up and become a police state? Cowering in fear from a bunch of barbarians trying to bring us down? Or do you want to just make the attacks stop. Using the practical and effective means we have at our disposal to deal with the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fine. So be it. But quit acting so baffled that most people here are better than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Us or them. That simple. Choose: Us or them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you believe that the human race, as a whole, is not capable of ever being anything more than a bunch of tribes engaging in genocide, then I suppose your attitude makes sense, since that is an incredibly bleak outlook.
But the fact is that the only thing standing between the world and total destruction is the fact that some people do not immediately and gleefully destroy their enemy just because they have been given nominal lease to do so. Balancing that with the need for security and strength, and sometimes the need for extreme action, is difficult but necessary, not to mention noble.
Only cowards and monsters gleefully embrace genocide as a solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It isn't gleeful. No, if you want point out some feasible, practical alternative, that perhaps I've overlooked....
But I don't see an alternative.
We have a very complex, inter-related world these days. There's a whole lot of powerful technology around—that we cannot really secure or defend. Not against fanatics willing to attack our cities.
Our culture won't survive in world where terrorists fly passenger planes into office building, and blow up eight year-olds at the Boston marathon. We have only a finite set of resources. We can't physically defend every potential target.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ever spent any time on an Indian reservation here in America? It's eye-opening. You know what we did to those cultures, don't you? Still kinda do there, a little bit.
But for that matter, what do you think we did to Germany and Japan? We bombed their cities into oblivion, didn't just destroy their armies and navies, but destroyed the existing cultures there, and then reformed them into something acceptable for our modern world.So, based on all that's happened before, our American culture can survive another episode of genocide in our history. We need to recognize that we've never been exactly angels or saints.
But, on the flip side, how much censorship are you willing to accept in order to avoid offending muslim sensitivities? How many bag searches on the subway before they become unreasonable searches? How many naked searches at the airports? How many demands for identification when you go into a building? How many combat-armed police patrolling the streets? Our culture is losing our love for the liberty of our citizens. And what's worse, all that shit isn't really working to keep us safe. We give up the liberty of our citizens and don't get any safety. Fuck.
You wanna be just another dirty, grubby police state? Or are you willing to do what's really necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're every bit as much an extremist as the most violent terrorist, and your rhetoric sounds quite similar to theirs. That makes you part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This conversation, if you remember, began with Rekrul's comment:
We don't have the power to change our enemies minds. They want to kill us, and they are actively trying.
What do you want to do about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, for starters, going after the people who were actually responsible, and not preyed on that fear to invent scare stories to go to war with Iraq. Not bombing civilian targets would have helped. Not gunning down journalists from helicopters, or running them over with tanks, probably would have been a good idea.
These actions may not have convinced the actual terrorists to love us, but they wouldn't have created more terrorists.
And that, in the end, the United States will respond to attacks on civilians in American cities by ordering the complete destruction of the enemy civilization.
And what civilization would that be, exactly? Terrorists are not from a single state, nor a single "civilization."
So, what, we should wipe out all Muslims across the world? Or everyone in the Middle East?
And what do you do about terrorists like the Oklahoma City bombers? Kill all the white people? Murder anyone in an American militia?
Do you honestly think doing that would not lead to a police state?
Our open society will not last under sustained terrorist assault.
This, of course, is complete bullshit. The only way our "open society will not last," is if we listen to people like you, and grant our government's military carte blanche to do whatever they want.
Or do you honestly think they'd stop with genocidal actions against foreign citizens? Please.
Also:
What do you want to do about that?
Well, if your goal is actually to save lives and keep America free, then it would be better to do nothing than to take your advice. Fewer lives would be lost (even American lives) from terrorist attacks than would be lost in an all-out war. And we'd certainly have more freedom, though less safety.
On the other hand, if your goal is to cleanse the planet of all human beings, then you've got some good ideas. I can understand that, I'm a fan of Boyd Rice too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd also like to point out that we don't know who perpetrated the bombings at this point. It could just as easily be Tea Party extremists as Islamic terrorists. Or it could be mass murderers without a political agenda, like many of the school shooters. Or someone completely different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The bomb worked. You can argue all day long about whether it was necessary. But history demonstrates that Hiroshima combined with Nagasaki was effective. It did the job. Fullfilled the requirements.
The Nips stopped trying to kill us."
That's a statement of history...he wants your opinion...oh wait...judging by your comments below, you're to fucking stupid to even know the moral dilemma those decisions held.
History lesson:
The Japanese would not give up because the Japanese military brainwashed the Japanese people to not give up because the American occupation forces would "rape their women, steal their clothes, and eat all their food". You ever hear of a Kamakzi pilot asshole? Yeah....see that would not have stopped if Nagasaki and Hiroshima...Japan's largest manufacturers of aircraft parts...weren't leveled.
So it got the job done you say...guess what asshole...that's exactly how the terrorist who set up the bombs in Boston felt....Anyone reading this now best not read this AC's other comments in this thread; it would be a fucking waste if your time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On August 6th and August 9th of that year the US dropped atom bombs on Japan.
Try not to reinvent history there when trying to bring down a comment next time will you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And turning the other cheek gets you two bruised cheeks.
Let me give you a hypothetical scenario;
Out in the middle of the desert, a squad of US soldiers with impeccable ethics comes face to face with an equal sized squad of Taliban fanatics who enjoy killing Americans. Each fanatic is using an innocent civilian as a human shield.
Which side is going to win?
The terrorists are essentially using the countries they're in as human shields. Not to mention that probably half the governments in the middle east are probably either secretly supporting the terrorists, or at the very least, turning a blind eye to what they do.
The Arab world as a whole could probably put a stop to this crap, but they don't want to. The problem is that countries today aren't scared of the US anymore. They know that we're all bark and no bite. Sure, we invaded Iraq, but that amounted to little more than a skirmish. They know that we're not going really do anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You cannot do such horrid things as you suggest and still call yourself just or even human
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, by the way, you can thank Christian ministries and missionaries for you not being eaten if you ever decide to visit Papua, New Guinea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Humans are not limited to either always does right or always does wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is why I said you do not base things solely on what cold logic tells you nor on arbitrary morality based in feelings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Listen, Mister-Soft-In-The-Head, in case you haven't noticed, we're kinda beyond the name-calling stage with these terrorists.
They are intentionally targetting civilians in American cities.
It is a problem. We need to make them stop doing that.
Americans are a practical, can-do people. We can do it. Make them stop attacking civilians in our cities. Now, are you willing make that happen, or do you want to stand around wringing your hands over the atrocity.
Do you know what humans are really capable of, when you put them under a little bit of pressure? Flying a plane over the flak in Europe, kicking out five-hundred pound bombs on top of an old city, knowing there's eighty-percent chance the damn thing will land within a mile of its aim point—and correspondingly, a twenty-percent that it won't—when the bombing target is “area dehousing”, and the intention is to start a conflagration, a fire-storm. Americans are capable of that, or at least they used to be. We didn't even need nukes for Dresden and Hamburg. We burned those old cities up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IOW, bombing civillians drives people to support the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not if the bombing is effective. If the bombing kills them all, then they're won't be another side to support.
Do you understand how big a kiloton range explosion is? Let alone a megaton range.
We need to kill them all. All of them. All. They will never be our friends. They will never stop hating us. They will never stop trying to kill us. The only thing we can do is to get them first.
Wipe out their civilization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you know why? Because you want to take the easy way out. You're upset that 12 years in Afghanistan -- a blip in world history -- hasn't solved all of its problems. You think that trying to be constructive and address the root causes of terrorism is too much work and too scary. So you take the coward's way out: "kill them all".
The cold war lasted much longer than 12 years, and it was eventually resolved without the missiles flying. The world came very close to that disaster many times -- but each time it was narrowly averted. Do you know why? Because braver men and women than you were there to keep a level head, and choose the hard work over the easy and deadly coward's solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
During the entire cold war, the Soviets never once —never once— attacked civilian targets in American cities.
They were deterred.
Do you understand deterrence?
So what do you when deterrence has failed? Deterrence failed on 9-11. Now, deterrence has failed again. It's time to pull the trigger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't bother trying to insult me or shame me. This has gone beyond name-calling. This is serious.
Deterrence failed on 9-11. And deterrence failed again yesterday. Now we have to cope with the consequences.
Did you think we bluffing during the cold war? We never promised no first-use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Americans, always have to be at war with someone, and always needing to HATE some group or another, you simply would not be Americans if you did not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've got some nerve asshole. But that's all you are...an asshole. You're stating that the US Gvt. is a terrorist organization? Who brought down Osama Bin Laden fucktard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The US killed Osama Bin Laden without NATO's help. You're also being a troll for no reason and railing against the US when there is no reason to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
9/11 was the best thing that could've ever happened for the government. It gave them all the jusification they needed to erode our rights and set the wheels of war in motion...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cough BILLSHIT..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOW FOR THE FUCKING POLITICAL BULLSHIT FROM ABOVE:
Obama did as he was supposed to do and it is extremely unfair to compare him to President George W. Bush during 9/11/2001. It is his fucking job to tell his people to do what they can to help and to bring the scum that attacked my nation's soil, be it domestic terrorism or foreign, to bring these assholes (yes it was coordinated) to justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You have the department of interior investigating along with the DHS and FBI on the matter. The two unexplored bombs will have traceable numbers on them and we will be kept in the dark until a full investigative report is done.
Furthermore, President George W. Bush was already doing a pre-recording of a national televised event while 9/11 happened. He did as other presidents would have done and so has Obama...who was likely eating lunch when he got the news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]