Originally Posted by petegz28
Don't get me wrong. I applaud the Boston PD. What I am saying is terrorism is to instill fear and to paralyze in some ways. That was acomplished by 2 students with pressure cookers.
The aftermath did look like a police state. The city of Boston shut down while the cops and military combed the streets and homes for 2 guys.
So while I agree it would have taken a police state to prevent it and that is now what we want, it pretty much took a form of a police state to end it.
Your implication is that it was ****ing pathetic that Boston had to go into a police state to stop a terrorist attack. That's what it takes when you don't want a police state to prevent an attack.
What makes your argument flawed is that it doesn't consider the alternatives. We could have avoided this by a heavy police state to prevent it. I don't want that. We could have avoided a police state in hunting down the criminal, nevermind that this could have increased the likelihood that the scumbag could have gotten away or at least prolonged the hunt.
There was nothing pathetic about how it was handled. It was a remarkable partnership between citizens, businesses, and the police to capture two guys in a crowd. In fact, it was really remarkable.