case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2013-12-03 06:49 pm

[ SECRET POST #2527 ]


⌈ Secret Post #2527 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 042 secrets from Secret Submission Post #361.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
ill_omened: (Default)

[personal profile] ill_omened 2013-12-04 12:29 am (UTC)(link)
The problem there is the state can't lose a monopoly on force.

As trite and hated as the phrase is, 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' has serious long term value.

(Anonymous) 2013-12-04 12:30 am (UTC)(link)
DA

and I'd hope to hell that if the state destroyed half a city to stop a terrorist, someone would hold them responsible for ruining the lives of hndreds instead of insisting a greater good was done

(Anonymous) 2013-12-04 12:35 am (UTC)(link)
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllll, the lockdown of Boston after the marathon bombing was pretty harsh, on the scale of things. Didn't necessarily ruin anyone's lives, but looked an awful lot like a police state.
greenvelvetcake: (Default)

[personal profile] greenvelvetcake 2013-12-04 01:33 am (UTC)(link)
Not really. In the part of the city I lived in at the time, at least, you could go walk around the streets if you wanted to.

(Anonymous) 2013-12-04 12:36 am (UTC)(link)
Superheroes =/= the state.
ill_omened: (Default)

[personal profile] ill_omened 2013-12-04 12:41 am (UTC)(link)
Not a comic book fan, but aren't most superheroes enfranchised so as to for all intents and purposes be tools of the wider state aparatus?

Operating completely outside that would be problematic, yes.

(Anonymous) 2013-12-04 12:48 am (UTC)(link)
Very few of them. That I can think of. Even including the various plausible deniability black ops teams.

(Anonymous) 2013-12-04 12:59 am (UTC)(link)
No. Many of them are explicitly outside the law.