<p>
</p>
<p>The uncle from Maryland is working with the funeral home on the arrangements. I think the individuals standing outside the funeral home chanting “USA” should find something more productive to do with their time.</p>
<p>I am not a member of an Abrahamic religion, so perhaps I am not qualified to comment.</p>
<p>However, having done some study, I think many people of religion miss the forest for the trees, myself included at times. If there is a divine presence who cares about us (and I think there is), I don’t think he would care whether you follow a ritual or not. I think he cares what you do with yourself and what you do for other people. There are all kinds of crazy theological disputes, and I think to myself (I am not very wise, of course), in this gigantic universe filled with countless galaxies, many planets, this God really cares about the presence or lack thereof of X? </p>
<p>No God condones causing pain to another, or to one self. I find it hard to believe that any religion that intentionally harms another person, be it via female genital mutilation (which, although common among Muslims also exists among Egyptian Coptic Christians) or denying them opportunities or whatever is accepted by God. I think each religion offers a path to God and maybe through the stupidity of mankind 
, the message is lost. </p>
<p>However, when we discuss a faith, I think it tends to be characterized by the practices of current practitioners, not the intent. And on the whole, I think Islam is more easily mis-interpreted than others, for whatever reason. As a person who lived in the States and mind move back (I have immigrated to the US’s northern neighbor), I think more caution needs to be taken with immigration. As an immigrant, I believe that some level of multiculturalism is possible and should be respected; however, when the previous culture’s values violate fundamental human rights or other western values, it needs to be discarded. You moved for a reason, yes? </p>
<p>I think it’s tougher for refugees. They don’t always have a choice whether to move or not, and my teacher brought up the point that sometimes, it is the actions of the West that force people to move. How do we deal with this? I think that maybe if the refugees assimilate to some extent and then peacefully instigate changes in thought that prevent such “forced migrations” to happen again, we can have a more harmonious society. </p>
<p>And I think to generalize that Arab people in general were cheering for 9/11 - that is not correct because I bet plenty of people thought it was terrible, no matter how much they disliked the West. I have benefited from living here, that’s for sure, but even a cursory review of history will reveal that the West does not have the best legacy and for good reasons (unless you are Niall Ferguson). Ethnic tensions and many other issues can be attributed to western imperialism. In an ideal world, people would realize that it sucks but its in the past and try to move on. But people are not perfect and when people are in desolate situations, it is easy to hate the West or really, any “other” and blame them. </p>
<p>Regardless, I do not think people are good, so I doubt that there will ever be any lasting peace in this world. I once read an article where Margaret Mead stated that warfare is preventable and not natural to humans. I don’t think that’s true.</p>
<p>All of this banter about religion, Islam, Muslim rituals, Muslim oppression against women and Christianity are negating the point. </p>
<p>Two terrorists (yes, they were terrorists, not just bombers) terrorized the great people of Boston and their guests on Patriots Day. They murdered 4 innocent people and maimed more that 200. What else is there to debate? Nice kid? Clean cut? Looks like my kids’ friend. Ugh. Whatever. You watched videos. You saw that nice, clean cut, sweet looking kid with his hat backwards plant a bomb next to a group of KIDS!!! AND YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY?? Is it that inconceivable that this sweet looking kid could be A TERRORIST?? Have you watched the news lately??? </p>
<p>Ask yourself this… do radical islamic terrorists ever use children or women to blow up or kill people? Yes. Yes they do. </p>
<p>My husband watched the Towers come down on 911 from a rooftop nearby. We lost friends. Friends lost wives, husbands, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers… family. This is our new reality people. </p>
<p>The police in Boston, including all agencies involved, are doing their best to protect the citizens. There are groups of radicals that want to kill Americans. Please do not confuse the 2. </p>
<p>Why won’t the President of the United States call these cowards “terrorists”??</p>
<p>jamminj, he did. Now let’s please keep politics out of this.</p>
<p>Stop the nonsense Jamminj.</p>
<p>Jamminj’s post was not nonsense, it was honest. Merely the last sentence was incorrect, but that doesn’t invalidate the rest of the post.</p>
<p>And the sentences before the last one. The penultimate statement about police and agencies is hardly supported by the evidence. But perhaps doing their best is still at the level derided by Max Sennett. And if that is their best, we have PLENTY of reasons to be really worried. </p>
<p>Really.</p>
<p>Well, doing one’s best is a rather generic and unmeasurable statement, and it doesn’t necessarily mean one is doing a good job.</p>
<p>The issue is that we are being led to believe that they are doing their so-called best via the self-congratulatory press conferences and a media compelled to play the role of cheerleaders to secure further access. The coverage of the final days of the islamist murderers rivaled with the LOE work for the biggest embarrassment and misguidance. A true comedy of errors.</p>
<p>Why repeat or accept that they are doing their best if they keep demonstrating how ill-prepared and ineffective they truly are, and even after hiding the truth as much as they possibly could. But heck, let’s dole out more honorory doctorates to those public servants! That works.</p>
<p>I didn’t think that one generic sentence was the point of the post. It seems a waste of time to focus on one sentence while ignoring the overall message. But yeah, I have been known to skip over 10 paragraphs of things I agree with to argue against one sentence that irritates me.</p>
<p>I find it distressing and demoralizing how the FBI and the CIA who had information about bomber/terrorist 1 weren’t able to locate him in a database that THEY had once they identified him with a photo. What is the purpose of the database if they don’t use it. I heard it discussed that at least they can use this information after a terrorist attack?? huh? and same with the UMass student who reentered the country with an expired Visa? what is homeland security doing? why aren’t they more on top of these things?? when the terrorist who placed a bomb in Times Square was </p>
<p>meanwhile we place our 3 oz of shampoo into our quart size ziploc bag when we fly and pretend this is providing additional security to all.</p>
<p>The problem of identification was the quality of the photographs. There’s a reason why we’re required to face the camera straight on for driver’s licenses and passports:
[Why</a> Facial Recognition Couldn?t Identify the Boston Bombing Suspects ? NOVA Next | PBS](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/tech/the-limits-of-facial-recognition/]Why”>The Limits of Facial Recognition | NOVA | PBS)</p>
<p>Facial recognition doesn’t work like on CSI. None of the science works like on TV. </p>
<p>My issue with the entire process can be summarized this way:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I understand the mistakes made. For example, the police started shooting and hearing others shoot more started shooting and they did this in the belief the kid in the boat was shooting when, of course, he was actually unarmed. This is not a new thing: the battle at Lexington Green started when someone not on the Green fired a shot, perhaps by mistake, and then the British troops hearing that fire starting firing. It happens. Training doesn’t prevent it from happening when people are edgy.</p></li>
<li><p>I don’t have a problem with praising the “first responders” as a class. I do have a problem with the way that phrase is being used but that is the nature of language. Most of the people at the scene were tended by ordinary people, not “first responders”. If you look at the video, you see a bunch of “first responders” not doing much - perhaps they were doing things like making radio calls or the like that doesn’t look like much. People were carried away, tourniquetted, etc. mostly by regular people not “first responders”. It bothers me a little that we use this phrase as though all cops or firefighters or EMTs are heroes. Next time you run into a small-minded cop who overruns his authority try thinking of him as a hero. People are heroes when they act like heroes, not because they wear a uniform. Here in Boston we’ve been dealing with massive feather bedding by the fire department that has cost the city many millions in artificially inflated salaries and pensions. Not heroes doing that. </p></li>
<li><p>I have a problem with the way the entire region was “locked down” to “shelter at home”. This was nonsensical, especially when 1 of the guys was already dead. We don’t lock down the city when dangerous, armed bank robbers kill a police officer or security guard and try to escape. We don’t evacuate every house in a neighborhood when an armed fugitive is loose. These guys had pressure cookers and fireworks, not nuclear weapons or lasers.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Sums up my feelings as well. Of course, I also believe that the interception of the suspects has its shares of misrepresentations. The cops say the terrorists ambushed them but do not share how the police car was noticed. The Kitzenberg video gives a hint. Red and blue flashing lights on the roof of the cruisers. Unless someone believes the police only turned the lights on after being attacked. And that the Keystone cowboy who spotted the cars was subtle in approaching armed and dangerous criminals. And that were was a chase. </p>
<p>And, then there is the absolute lack of description of the abandoned SUV in the first 24 hours and its context for the perimeter.</p>
<p>but even without facial recognition software, how bout simply looking for the few local people who are actually on the terror lists to begin with and start there? as has been posted before, there can’t be that many in the local vicinity of Cambridge/Watertown can there? perhaps if they spotted bomber 1 on the list and went to his home for questioning they could have prevented the police officer’s killing.</p>
<p>
.
20/20 hindsight is perfect. In the immediate aftermath though, the authorities didn’t know whether the 2 brothers were the only terrorists. Now, it looks like that’s the case. At the time though…nobody really knew.</p>
<p>The entire region wasn’t locked down. I drove into Boston that afternoon to pick up our son. Nobody stopped me. I didn’t see troops or police officers in the street. No checkpoints - nobody out with guns. I drove there, parked on the street, got my son and we went home. There were other cars driving on the streets and highways and people walking around. Far fewer than a usual Friday night but it wasn’t anything close to martial law.</p>
<p>Boston was theoretically on lockdown. Police had better things to be doing than enforcing it, but if action had moved from Watertown to Boston, you can bet that anyone outside in that area would have been in the way and adding to the confusion. I heard that people were out and about in Dorchester, and I’m sure they were in East Boston and Roxbury and other surrounding areas. The people who went outside in Watertown were noticed by police and stopped and generally sent back inside. It wasn’t martial law (maybe close to that within the radius in Watertown) but it was a request to the public.</p>
<p>My office is in Boston and further from where this happened than where BCEagle’s son lives. Our head of security was there that day (nobody else) and the police did stop by to check with him, make sure the doors were locked and that the security guard was staying inside and not letting anyone in.</p>
<p>I have relatives in Newton and Lexington. One of them went to work in Cambridge. I spoke to my mother in Newton on the phone and she didn’t see any signs of martial law. She got the early morning call. My sister in Lexington didn’t say anything about police or troops in the street either. I was in touch with our son during the day so I would have known if there were issues with traffic. As far as I can tell, there was no order restricting driving in Boston. The last time there was an order restricting driving was recent and due to a snowstorm.</p>
<p>The worm got home, which is Inman Square. The 26 y o security guard was shot outside his lab building, so he would not have been allowed on that street. The MIT FB thread was alive all through the night. No one could reach their children by phone. Students were stuck in the library. Parents asked other in their child’s House to see if their child was safe. MIT sent updates quite often.</p>