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.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “DailyDirt: Helping People In Boston”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
The Real Michael says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I second that. Don’t allow the government and media to manipulate you using emotional ploys, much like Sandy Hook, as a means to take away more of your rights. Don’t put anything past this government; they don’t exactly invite trust.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Naturally, the White House’s version…

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.

Gothenem (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I disagree with your assessment. I think it was a domestic person. A foreign terrorist would have done three things different.

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.

OldMugwump (profile) says:

Re: Re: No. That isn't natural.

OK, let’s assume this was done by a terrorist.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: No. That isn't natural.

There are no innocents in war.

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.

Berenerd (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: No. That isn't natural.

Technically, even if home grown, bombs are involved and its a terrorist act. It was a deliberate act to hurt people at random. This is a terrorist act. I spent the night with 8 runners from outside the US because they couldn’t get back to their hotel. They were visibly shaken up This was not attack just on the US but other nations as well. This will not end well for who ever did this.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Yeah, cause killing a whole bunch of civilians, intentionally no less, is sure to make people hate the US less, and could never backfire by providing countless people who would otherwise not care one way or the other about the US the motivation to join a terrorist group to ‘strike back against the US’. /s

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.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Wow, looks like I was understating things before, in mindset at least you are no better than the terrorists you claim to hate so much, as both you and them consider civilian casualties nothing more than just another way to sap your opponent’s will to continue fighting.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

you are no better than the terrorists

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

You didn’t answer the other AC’s question…

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

extremely inhumane and dangerous

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?

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

“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.”

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!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

Average Joe, is that you?


…Honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

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.)

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Take a look at the indicators again.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

What “indicators”? The snowflake? AFAIK, it doesn’t follow you from story to story.

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.

Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:

I reject the notion that it’s “that simple”, as does anyone with any perspective. The attitude you are espousing is, as proven a million times over centuries of history, the single most dangerous, destructive and ultimately self-defeating attitude that a human being with a god complex can have.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12 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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

a world where superpowers wipe out entire civilizations

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.

Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

You are posing a false dichotomy between genocide and a police state. The fact that a problem hasn’t been solved doesn’t mean you must immediately embrace the most extreme solution, and the fact that you’re not an saint doesn’t mean you have to embrace the role of monster.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

dichotomy between genocide and a police state

This conversation, if you remember, began with Rekrul’s comment:

Naturally, the White House’s version of “helping” will be to take away even more of our rights in the name of keeping us safe.

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?

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

What would have been our best response to that attack?

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.


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.

Karl (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

Terrorists are not from a single state, nor a single “civilization.”

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.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“how do you feel about hiroshima?

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.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

The United States called for a surrender of Japan in the Potsdam Declaration on 26 July 1945, threatening Japan with “prompt and utter destruction”. The Japanese government ignored this ultimatum, and the United States deployed two nuclear weapons developed by the Manhattan Project.

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?

Rekrul says:

Re: Re: 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.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

You cannot do such horrid things as you suggest and still call yourself just or even human

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

you misunderstand the psychology of war. it’s attitudes like yours which is why the vietnam war was lost. newsflash- every time the US bombs civilians it becomes evidence for the terrorists that America is evil. Yes, bomb the terrorists. but make sure you are actually bombing terrorists, not a wedding. (or a funeral)

IOW, bombing civillians drives people to support the other side.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

IOW, bombing civillians drives people to support the other side.

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.

Leigh Beadon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

You’re a coward. Did you know that? I think you think that you’re brave and strongheaded and practical, but you’re not. You’re an utter and total coward.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

The cold war lasted much longer than 12 years, and it was eventually resolved without the missiles flying.

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.

The Real Michael says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

What about the size of the hole being much smaller than athe plane itself, no damage from the wings (which defies logic), the virtually impossible chance that a 747 could be navigated to perfectly target the Pentagon without causing any outside damage, i.e. taking down tree branches, poles, etc. Oh, and the Patriot Act was finished just a couple of days in advance of the attacks.

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…

Wally (profile) says:

By far…the biggest help one can give the authorities is sit down, shut up and do as Boston’s DHS representative asked….to not speculate on who did it UNTIL THE FULL INVESTIGATIVE REPORT IS COMPLETE.


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.

Wally (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I recall one of his 2008 campaign promises was to hunt down and kill Osama Bin Laden before the end of that 4 year term….

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...