pap

I've been checking in on this story on conspiracy sites for a few days. The linked pictures come from 4chan. The two large blokes with backpacks look dodgy as hell, but according to some of the reports I've seen from Boston, they're apparently with the authorities. The most interesting picture on that link is the one that comes from the anonymous poster, which basically says they're going to nick a bloke in his 20s tomorrow who has NRA literature in his house.

You're not comparing like with like. Harold Wilson presided over a country with more or less full employment. Mining wasn't a particularly well-paid job. When the pits closed, people were able to move into other work, so it wasn't as big as a deal. You've also got to consider the motivation for closing the pits. In many cases, pits were closed simply because they could not get enough local manpower. Thatcher wanted to destroy the unions, and decided to do so by removing the base of their power; the workers who made them up. It irks me when people say that Thatcher closed the mines because they were uneconomical. She closed them for spiteful political reasons and because it was a means to an end. Apparently, Thatcher flooded many of the best mines. I am told they are unrecoverable. (big siphon? )

Cremated.

All sorts of speculation going on at the moment. I think a few commentators have mentioned how the slight delay between the two bombs was an IRA tactic.

Tractors! Feck me, they've no big roads in Northern Ireland. This means that if you live there for any significant period of time, you get to do a run to the airport. Occasionally, you'll have a tractor in front of you for ages. The bugger won't move over. There's a queue of cars behind him that snakes into the Republic, but he doesn't care. It is honestly one of the most stressful experiences going, and even if there are no tractors, you live in fear of tractors.

I've seen numerous rumblings and would not want to speculate too much here, but your suggestion that this may be attributed to a "deranged individual" is already doing the rounds. The only logical problem that I have with that notion is this. There were two blasts, more or less going off at the same time ( "seconds apart", according to the BBC ). This implies that those responsible intended those bombs to go off at that specific time. So here's my problem with the deranged individual hypothesis. Why not set the bombs off at the start of the race, when more people were around? Previous experience of the deranged and disaffected US citizen suggests that they try to inflict maximum casualties.

I think you'll find that what drives most people who are into conspiracy theories are the consequences of the atrocities for our societies, which include the erosion of many of the rights you say we have. Some extremely scary legislation was passed in the decade after 9/11. I don't suppose you know that the UK has its very own enabling act, introduced in 2006, which allows any law to be modified and new laws to be created without the consent of Parliament. These new laws can presently only carry a 2 year custodial jail sentence, but the best bit is that the law can be used to modify itself, removing any effective safeguard of a 2 year maximum term. That, my friend, is anti-democratic in every way, a potential tool for a future oppressor and quite frankly, scary as hell. It would never have made it into law outside the helter-skelter climate of fear that existed after 9/11. George W Bush famously said that terrorists wouldn't change the way we live. He was right; our own politicians did that.

And 7/7, too. If they were doing a drill that simulated that exact attack, how would they have gone about it? Would they have had their own Muslim bombers pretending to blow up London? The reason that conspiracy theorists keep mentioning the drill element is that it provides a means for operational success. If you look through the released FAA tapes from 9/11, one of the recurring problems that FAA operators had was distinguishing between real and simulated hijacked airplanes. NORAD were running hijacked airplane drills that same day. An air defence apparatus that managed 67 successful interceptions of suspect aircraft between Jan 1 2001 and Sep 10 2001 failed to prevent jet liners from breaching what one would assume would be some of the most protected airspace in the world. Due to the drills, no-one really knew what was going on that day - which is why drills that happen on the same day as atrocities, particularly if they covered the same scenario, are viewed with suspicion by conspiracy theorists.

For me, KRG - it starts with JFK. If you accept, as most people do, that his assassination involved more moving parts than Lee Harvey Oswald, then you've got to start asking who, and why. Hamilton_Saint mentioned Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex on his departure from office. If you look at the period spanning Kennedy's time in office, the way he wanted to do things, and the policy the US followed after his death, there is a massive difference between JFK's direction ( "I'm almost a peace at any price President" ) and the napalm-happy era that followed. Incidentally, the man in the dodgy photo has been identified as a Jeff Bauman, apparently - not the Nick Vogt character that was suggested on the image. Even so, those key questions about the Boston bombings, who and why - remain. The fact that we don't have immediate handy answers is encouraging. Hopefully, there'll be a proper investigation. I've seen some interesting claims on the David Icke website, so as usual, it'll be interesting to see what comes of them.

Haven't got a great deal of time for Alex Jones. As you say in a later post, he's very shouty. He's also a shortcut device for anyone looking to bash proponents of conspiracy theories in general, which is another reason he doesn't help. Smirking_Saint asked whether I was one of these people who believed there was an angle to everything. Not really. I'm capable at taking things on faith, but I really don't have a lot of faith in government statements. There are enough people who question the official account of 9/11 that similar incidents will, and should, attract a similar level of scrutiny.

It is far too early to support any notion. However, it's always well worth keeping an eye out for oddities.

It's a pity you don't realise how unaffected I am by your jibes, although I am honoured you've elected to spend one of your three a day on me. To clarify, what I meant was the fellow in the picture looks very similar to the war veteran in the other three pictures.

Yup. That first image is very suspect!

Interesting. Security at the Boston marathon was uncommonly high, more so than any other marathon this British eye-witness has been to. Bomb squad all over the start and finish lines, sniffer dogs, the lot. http://www.local15tv.com/mostpopular/story/UM-Coach-Bomb-Sniffing-Dogs-Spotters-on-Roofs/BrirjAzFPUKKN8z6eSDJEA.cspx

You are quite right, Sour Mash. No politician has come out an openly said "we don't give a f**k about brown people". However, the difference, particularly the emotional response to the same kind of event happening in two parts of the world pretty much says the same thing. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/15/iraq-bombings-wave-attacks.html 55 were killed in Iraq bombings last night. 3 people were killed in Boston. Both are terrible, terrible events - yet pretty much all the attention is on the plight of the Americans.

One of my mates, who I normally have a great deal of time for, launched into a Twitter rant about how these bombings are incomparable with Iraq. I'm tempted to ask him why not. It's a massive double standard with an implicit "us and them" flavour about it. Matters when it's us, not when it's them.

@papingu - shared on here several times.

There is a big difference between my potentially made up missus and kids, and your potential made up girlfriends. Mostly it's how we present ourselves. One of the benefits of not being anonymous is that people can say "yeah, I know that nobhead. He's definitely got kids" Also, their grandfather posts here. He's probably in on the scam too !

To be fair to Obama, he's taking his time. Seem to remember all 19 hijackers being named within 12 hours of 9/11. The US press are taking him to task for not presently describing it as an act of terrorism, although the DHS has followed suit. No raising of threat level, apparently. I think a big part of the language choice stems from the fact that to many Americans, terrorism is synonymous with brown people and Al Qaeda. That's largely on Bush Jr and pals, but there it is. Broadly though, I'm agreement with SuperMikey.

I take it your first video didn't get the desired effect

Dunno whether it annoys me as much amuse me, but I've loved this thread. Look at this big list of complaints. What a bunch of mewling b!tches. Do you want tucking into bed, lads? /ducks

You're right on many levels.

Well, BlakeySFC - I don't have the heart to rip you after that candid account. On vicinity, strictly speaking I should have supported Swaythling - but if I'd have done that, I might be an Eastleigh fan by now.

That's certainly being weighed into the evidence hypo. The post-natsiedoodaa one that you over-mention also factors in.

The archive footage from the first few minutes is excellent. I liked seeing the woman with the placard that said "I exist on £47 a week. How can I pay the poll tax?". Given those riots happened 23 years ago, it really does show what an utter p!ss-take this "£53 a week in 2013" malarkey is, and Poll Tax is the sort of sh!t the Tories think they can get away with after a few years in Government. The video is flippant in the section where you've got the vox pops, but you can't deny that George Galloway makes some decent points. Pop charts being manipulated for political purposes, the reconciliation between the "cannot speak ill of the recently dead" complaint with the treatment of Chavez, the gentle examination of cause and effect of what happened to the North, specifically the miners, once it was gutted. I've watched 25 minutes so far, and although it is clear that Mr Galloway can be something of a sensationalist bastard, I am not actually disagreeing with much of what he says; it's just my degree of agreement that differs. He's saying the same things as most left wingers do. That we're not making use of our natural resources, and that Thatcher likely destroyed them for political reasons. That our employment rights have been eroded, that industrial areas have been massively affected by her policy decisions. Successive PMs using Thatcher's "fronds of industry". I have to say, I only agree with George about UB40 to a certain point in their career, but I've already made points about hardship producing great art. Update. I'm at 36 minutes now. He's banging into the poll tax.