What do we do about the drug problem is the big thing. I don't want to live in a country where hard drugs are legal, call me crazy but I just don't think American citizens could handle that responsibility.
Boston: Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev conspiracy theories
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
Yes, those potentially nefarious folks demanding fair taxation and the prosecution of the ACTUAL criminals who caused the financial meltdown, they are certainly more worthy of the constant surveillance by the DHS than some people identified by Russian intelligence as potential terrorists.
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16446-the-wrong-men-how-the-dhs-failed-to-prevent-terrorism
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
So the US imprisons less people than China, something to be proud of. As for Stalin, you do realise that most of the people who died did so in the forced labor camps known as gulags? I recommend reading The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Gulags stretched across 12 times zones. During the great purge, before the second world war, Stalin's NKVD (which would become the KGB) was responsible for the deaths of less than 2 million people, after the war the Gulag system was set up, and the great imprisonment began. A substantial percentage of those imprisoned died there.
People are getting a bit het up about 'police state', but seem to be willfully ignoring that what I actually said was that 'it looks, to all intents and purposes, like a surveillance/police state'.
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
If we were to remove the 50% incarcerated in federal prisons and the 25% incarcerated in state prisons due to drug related offenses, the numbers wouldn't be quite as skewed. And yes, Mick, I agree, China shouldn't be used as the gold standard.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.tcH8olg4.dpbs
The reasons behind people being imprisoned don't change the fact that they are imprisoned. Certainly not for them.
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
Marijuana is not a hard drug, and most of those imprisoned have charges related to marijuana. Also, you previously state Americans have freedoms, but obviously the freedom of choice when it comes to intoxicants does not apply. Certainly, you are free to drink and to smoke, which contribute significantly to poor health and the cost of healthcare, but use of other intoxicants not controlled/managed by corporations will see you slapped in prison.
You fully admit that those people were in a prison before being killed or dying. Stalin was in power for about 29 years, he imprisoned and/or killed over 20 million people, I'd like to see documentation that the United States has imprisoned more people in that same time period. It only looks like a surveillance/police state if you listen to all the hoopla people spout on the internet instead of actually have lived here and lived it first hand, or fully understood what a real police state is.
Okay I admit I was doing my math a bit off. The numbers are a lot closer than I was adding up. It is hard to get an exact number but I will admit I was doing my math wrong.
I don't think marijuana is a hard drug at all. That is why I said I think it should be decriminalized at some point.
At least on the federal level, states should be able to choose if they want it legal. Why I was being specific and saying 'hard' drugs.
Trigger Hippie
Senior Member.
Perhaps they are. I don't know. There certainly is much talk of the FBI and the DHS dropping the ball. In that article, Carl Gibson insinuates that the brothers succeeded because the FBI was missdirecting it's resources. Those are legitimate concerns that should be addressed. But really, with all of Gibson's allegations, insinuations and finger pointing, he really doesn't provide any evidence that the Tsarnaev brothers succeeded because the FBI was tied up with the Occupy movement. There is simply nothing to back that claim.
From my perspective, the issue hinges on how the FBI dealt with Russia's warning about the Tsarnaev's. Was there a failure in procedures or communication. According to statements put out by the agencies, they claim to have done their due diligence but found nothing, so they cleared Tsarnaev.
"Russia had asked the FBI to look into Tamerlan's extremist ties, but the FBI's investigation yielded nothing of note and after interviewing him, kept no tabs on him. "The F.B.I. did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign," the FBI said in a statement.
The FBI said Russia had asked for the investigation "based on information that he was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country's region to join unspecified underground groups."
ColtCabana
Senior Member
To tell you the truth, I have many friends who live in Watertown. Only one told me they say a tank roll down their street (which wasn't too far from where the center of the investigation at night was going on.) Others tell me that the police were actually rather pleasant. My problem is more so with people falsely reporting that it was mandatory for people to stay indoors; it was simply a request. In fact, you could usually see civilians in the background of news coverage that day.
It wasn't nearly as bad as the media portrayed.
There were no tanks in Boston, just some armored personel carriers.
That's a Lenco Bearcat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenco_BearCat
This photo might make people say "tank"
But it's just a Humvee:
Saying "tanks on the street" is an appeal to emotion. Tanks are entirely impractical for that type of thing, they are slow, and they rip the road to pieces. But it raises the specter of authoritarian communist regimes crushing popular uprising, so it's an image that conspiracy theorists like to use.
That's a Lenco Bearcat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenco_BearCat
This photo might make people say "tank"
But it's just a Humvee:
Saying "tanks on the street" is an appeal to emotion. Tanks are entirely impractical for that type of thing, they are slow, and they rip the road to pieces. But it raises the specter of authoritarian communist regimes crushing popular uprising, so it's an image that conspiracy theorists like to use.
Last edited:
Chuck
Active Member
Colt, that's a good point. I'm heartened to hear that it was a product of hype than reality. I wasn't implying that there were any particular police problems other than the fact that it seemed like a huge overreaction. I personally don't think it's a healthy precedent to have armored vehicles patrolling neighborhoods. It matters not as much whether actual combat tanks were employed or whether it was "armored personal carriers", the point I was making had more to do with getting the citizenry accustomed to this kind of police presence.
I attended a major league baseball game last night and noticed that between innings there would be about 20 security guards standing on the sidelines looking defiantly at the crowd...as if they were expecting fans to storm the field. They've never had one serious issue in the 16 or so years the Tampa Bay Rays have played at Tropicana Field, yet this year, for whatever reason, they've decided that it was necessary. There's nothing inherently wrong with using security guards to protect the players, but it just seemed misplaced and excessive. It's this kind of constant police/security presence that people are reacting to. Things have changed a whole lot since I was a kid and that contributes to the "police state" accusations.
To be clear, what I don't buy into is the whole false flag/martial law conspiracy theory. Just because I believe law enforcement overreacted does not mean that they were the perpetrators.
ColtCabana
Senior Member
Fair points as well. If it means anything, no one I've talked to ever felt threatened by the police presence or felt as if their rights were trampled upon.
And there were 20 security guards at the Rays game? Must mean they outnumbered fans 2:1
Chuck
Active Member
And there were 20 security guards at the Rays game? Must mean they outnumbered fans 2:1
Touche. What self-respecting terrorist would bother with such a small crowd?
The fact is that it's the location of the stadium plays a significant role in the meager attendance. It should be in Tampa. But they signed a 30 year lease and have barely passed the halfway point, so, unless a serious threat to leave the area arises and therefore forces St. Pete's hand, I don't see anything changing. It's really a pathetic venue with a rather ignorant fan base but it's better than what we used to have i.e. nothing.
BTW, glad to hear that law enforcement behaved themselves, but I still don't like the precedent they set.
Similar threads
