If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BDCwire)   In order to make the Boston Marathon safer this year, they are banning military groups from marching. Aren't they the ones that know how to react to a roadside bomb?   (bdcwire.com) divider line 65
    More: Asinine, Boston Marathon, improvised explosive devices, alternate route, marchers  
•       •       •

2066 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2014 at 5:30 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-05 07:09:25 PM  

vudukungfu: dittybopper: The smartest thing for us to have done is simply *NOTHING*

that


RIght.  They validated the terrorists.
 
2014-03-05 07:29:30 PM  

Satanus Maximus: It would be safer if they'd ban pressure cookers.


How about just ban bombs?
 
2014-03-05 07:44:02 PM  

Caffienatedjedi: Can we see what happens when a bomb goes off at a security checkpoint? I almost want to see the reaction to that, though it may be so stupid I'd rather not experience it.

Something I realised, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, is that Americans don't care about genuine security. We often undermine real security measures, or reject them. No, Americans like the measures that give a feeling of security, but do absolutely nothing. If we fear armed robbery, we limit the legal weapons. If we fear theft, we get fancy locks but forget about the windows. If we fear terrorists, we dig through everyones luggage and arrest brown people. In the end, it doesn't stop anyone, it just looks like it does. Now if you'll excuse me, I have this fancy rock of Tiger Protection to sell.


Do you have a poorly xeroxed newsletter that I can subscribe to?
 
2014-03-05 07:54:01 PM  

Fano: Caffienatedjedi: Can we see what happens when a bomb goes off at a security checkpoint? I almost want to see the reaction to that, though it may be so stupid I'd rather not experience it.

Something I realised, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, is that Americans don't care about genuine security. We often undermine real security measures, or reject them. No, Americans like the measures that give a feeling of security, but do absolutely nothing. If we fear armed robbery, we limit the legal weapons. If we fear theft, we get fancy locks but forget about the windows. If we fear terrorists, we dig through everyones luggage and arrest brown people. In the end, it doesn't stop anyone, it just looks like it does. Now if you'll excuse me, I have this fancy rock of Tiger Protection to sell.

Do you have a poorly xeroxed newsletter that I can subscribe to?


The reason why terrorists haven't blown up a security theater line at an airport yet, is because they know that if they did, mob mentality would take over and say "ermagerd, TSA lines are dangerous! Ban the TSA!"  They don't want to risk us replacing the TSA with something that actually works.
 
2014-03-05 07:57:11 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: In fact, it makes exactly zero sense to put restrictions on the runners AT ALL, when the bombers were completely unidentifiable, NOT runners or affiliated with the runners, and NOT wearing any identifiable gear of any kind...
Restricting runners is completely asinine. Restricting soldiers is stupid--they had nothing to do with the bombing. The issue is not whether the Marathon will "look" safer, but whether it will BE safer, and just because there are more runners doesn't mean it will be less safe.

Or maybe the issue has nothing to do with safety, and is just about trying to fit more people on a narrow course that has to be open for road traffic six hours later?

Then perhaps they should say that. However, they did not say that. They said it was about safety and security. If they need to try to fit more people on the course, they could, I don't know, make the Marathon longer, and open the road in seven hours; or limit total number of runners to 100,000 entrants like the NY Marathon or something.

This does not seem to me to be relevant to the security issue, and if it is merely a numbers issue, they should sever it from discussions of the ssecurity issue.


DNRTFA eh? Basically they are not allowing the Tough Ruck which was basically a bunch of bandits. If they want to continue doing it as a charity they can. I think in general they went overboard but the cut down on bandits makes sense.
 
2014-03-05 08:49:30 PM  

uber humper: Give all the runners a participation trophy of Muhammad?


That would not placate the Muslims at all.

rikkards: I think in general they went overboard but the cut down on bandits makes sense.


I had no idea that people were still robbing people for their gold on the side of the road.
 
2014-03-05 09:32:02 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: I'm OK with this.  Bring the marathon back to its roots.  Make it an athletic competition.  This year's going to be a f*cking spectacle.


I agree, marathons should be taken back to their roots.
Give every runner an important message to hand deliver to someone at the end, strip them of all technological goodies and assistance (Gatorade packets? Nope, but here's a canteen. Super space age running shoes and Under Armor shirts? Nope, but here's a pair of leather sandals. Guys giving water away? No, anybody who tries to catch you along the way is an enemy scout who wants to kill you, don't get within arm's reach) and let em loose.

That's how Pheidippides did it. Of course, he died of exhaustion in the process...sure you think you're hard enough?
 
2014-03-05 09:41:32 PM  

uber humper: Boston Strong, my farking ass. They're advertising the fact that the terrorists have won.  What's next? Give all the runners a participation trophy of Muhammad?
stop the race for prayers? Ban alcohol because it might he offensive to their Muslim overlords?

fark you Boston biatches


That's not a slippery slope, that's a f*cking cliff!
 
2014-03-05 09:48:26 PM  
I see subby didn't RTFA.

"the Boston Athletic Association has clarified that only those who are not officially registered will be prohibited from marching. BAA representative Nick Puleo says that, "130 members of the National Guard will be marching, along with other members of the military who qualified as runners. But anyone who didn't qualify and does not have a number, will not be authorized to be on the course."

As someone who grew up watching the marathon I have to say that back in the day unregistered runners were usually just rogue loons running with a viking hat and was nothing but a source of amusement. But since they made the Boston Marathon a cash winning event, unregistered runners have become ridiculous in number and make for a costly cleanup. The security is ridiculous to even consider and these military ruck runners usually show up hauling huge back packs in order to prove something. You know what's not a real good idea at this event? Unregistered runners hauling huge backpacks.
 
2014-03-05 10:21:57 PM  

Frederf: Satanus Maximus: It would be safer if they'd ban pressure cookers.

How about just ban bombs?


If owning bombs became a crime, then only criminals blah blah blah
 
2014-03-06 12:09:03 AM  
For the Los Angeles Marathon next Sunday, they'll be implementing security screenings and closing off a couple blocks to spectators around the finish line. That's about it. No need to go overboard by banning certain groups of runners.
 
2014-03-06 01:05:46 AM  
There are so many parts wrong with this article that I just need to start at the most basic, "reporter" you have to explain what a "ruck march" is...no, linking to another website that explains it isn't good enough, YOU need to spell it out if you write articles about this subject, pretend you're a real journalist and not a blogger.
 
2014-03-06 03:05:57 AM  
Guess they missed the part where the bomber wasn't even a runner, huh? Dumbasses.
 
2014-03-06 10:02:07 AM  

jaylectricity: Why in the hell would anybody try bombing the marathon again? There's a baseball game being played down the street that seats 37,000 some-odd people.


Marathons are much softer targets (yes, even post-Boston), especially when you're talking about big races with tens of thousands of people. Even ones that you would expect to be more secure--such as the Marine Corps Marathon or the Army 10-miler--could be easily attacked, as the vast majority of their security focuses on VIPs.
 
2014-03-06 04:46:41 PM  
A) Why would anyone march in a marathon?
B) The headline is misleading - only groups that are not registered for the marathon are prohibited from the marathon.
C) Apparently most Farkers don't even glance at TFA before going all stabby.
D) There is no D
 
Displayed 15 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report