I get the relief to the manhunt ending, but what I don't get...(is the)...chanting USA! USA!
The chanting is a direct effect of relief and pride, but it also says something else, it says something of their perception towards the two brothers
as being wholly alien to the USA! In the minds of the chanters, a foreign enemy had been overcome, and for a short period many people celebrated their
country's martial supremacy. Should they be criticised for it? No, I don't believe so, even though I myself would not partake in such a spectacle, I
can empathize and understand their feelings.
Given the fact no one knows if they have the right guy, they arrested a suspect.
That is rather disingenuous of you, Neo, he was the suspect they were searching for and thus they have the right guy.
They have no clue about the motivation behind the bombings.
That is not true, there are clues as to possible reasons why the brothers brought their own brand of 'terrorism' to Boston, but that is not to say
that the clues will lead you to the actual truth. It was important that they captured the younger brother alive so that the 'specialised'
interrogators can learn why? Before you ask me to tell you the clues, here's a couple...
1) They are Muslim, and although this does not automatically confer them as 'terrorists', they may well have been radicalised to jihadist rhetoric?
2) They are from Dagestan...an ethnically-diverse region near Chechnya, that suffers from Islamic insurgency, ethnic tensions, and acts of terrorism,
and is an area from which groups like Al-Qaeda recruit.
...of course, these clues may not be true, but are applicable to the causation of their actions.
I think for many members of the ATS community their concern now is not so much the chanting, but the 'unprecedented response' made by the authorities
to secure the capture of the bomber/s. The issue regarding martial law has been discussed here on this thread and in others, but the truth is, martial
law was in no way declared in Boston. As true as that statement is, it would be disingenuous of me to simply leave it undiscussed.
Martial law was not declared in Boston, but it is a certainty that 'elements' of martial law were used, and used in a most benignly officious way so
as not to frighten the city's citizenry. You had militarized law enforcement agencies in armoured carriers on your streets, alongside FBI and Boston's
finest (but ordinary) police officers. Boston was placed in a lockdown, not by forcible means, but by advisory tactics. The city's entire transport
system was shut (even though the 19 year old terrorist fled the first firefight in a car and could even switch vehicles if necessary), businesses were
asked to remain closed, and citizens to remain inside their homes. All these are definitely elements of martial law, and were applied as 'common
sense' advisory applications, rather than forceful subjugating orders. This 'unprecedented response' made itself a precedent for future application
elsewhere in other cities, and the citizens of Boston unwittingly applauded it, and were not concerned in the slightest at what could feasibly be
called a 'test of martiality' that had just been carried out in their city.
The lockdown was an overkill response to the threat, and was wholly inappropriate. It wasn't until the lockdown and advisory limits were lifted that
the suspect was captured, so it didn't serve its purpose, it failed it. Advisory caution should be stated here. Becareful of the security you accept,
because one day it will subjugate you .
edit on 21/4/13 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)
edit on 21/4/13 by
elysiumfire because: (no reason given)