HumphreyC

Don't get the problem with the 'U-S-A chant' - it's no worse than chanting 'En-ger-Lund, En-ger-lund, En-ger-lund'. It's much better than than the U.S national anthem which no-one can sing and which was ripped off from a British drinking song. If you want an example of a nasty chant/anthem look no further than La Marseillaise with the 'blood of the impure' irrigating the fields and what-not.

Ichigo-chan

I agree with your last comment

kimilseung

Both. There have been lots of these attacks stopped before they happened. Drones have also done a lot to diminish the external organizations.

MarylandNed

The greater availability of more advanced equipment, treatment options and drugs in better and more common world class facilities per capita.

Sally Redux

But do we chant 'Engerland' after a terrorist incident?

civilservant

Or there really aren't as many people out to get you as the mass media would have you believe

Ichigo-chan

That is subjective - where are the figures?

HumphreyC

No - but the 'Engerlund' chant has never made the leap in tradition from being a sports chant to one used at patriotic ceremonies. It probably never will due to it's association (imagined or otherwise) with the darker elements of English nationalism / racism / islamopobia.

The USA chant does have a history of being used at both patriotic ceremonies and in the aftermath of terrorist events - e.g by the rescue teams at the ground zero when Bush JR turned up. It's therefore not self evidently inappropriate to use it. Of course - if it's a bunch of drunken frat boys celebrating the death of Osama Bin Ladin then that is pretty vulgar - but then it's more the context than the chant itself.

civilservant

Mostly because England isn't the name of the country in which I live

HumphreyC

Yeah ok - that might be a better reason

A bit of patriotism after a terrorist attack isn't a bad thing IMO - I still remember the legend that was John Smeaton

Lion in Winter

So the surviving bomber is charged as a criminal suspect, not as an "enemy combatant." Good choice. Be seen to do it right. He won't be free again ever anyway, and I expect they will find a way to execute him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22257451

SultanOfSwing

I like that. Presumably he'd be charged with murder and sentenced accordingly.

Nicely done though, America did it right this time. A USA-USA chant would be appropriate now ...

dakota44

A military tribunal was out of the question. "The surviving suspect in last week's Boston Marathon bombings, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, "will not be treated as an enemy combatant" but rather will be prosecuted "through our civilian system of justice," White House spokesman Jay Carney said today. "Under U.S. law, United States citizens cannot be tried in military commissions," he said."

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been charged in federal court with use of a weapon of mass destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death.

The statutory charges authorize a penalty, upon conviction, of death or imprisonment for life or any term of years, according to a statement from the Department of Justice."

Giantaxe

And so it begins:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z3

it really would be unfortunate if the Boston Bombings killed immigration reform.

civilservant

Was it a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agent? No.