Jump to content

Bomb in Boston

Hatch

By Hatch,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

dubai_phil

dubai_phil

Posted
Posted

Dear God the photos in the papers this morning are heartbreaking & shocking.

 

Thoughts with everyone at the scene.

 

144 Injured, lots with loss of limbs.

 

Saudi National arrested (oh dear, here we go again) premises being searched after another arrest.

 

Just horrific

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Dear God the photos in the papers this morning are heartbreaking & shocking.

 

Thoughts with everyone at the scene.

 

144 Injured, lots with loss of limbs.

 

Saudi National arrested (oh dear, here we go again) premises being searched after another arrest.

 

Just horrific

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted

Just a thought...

 

It's interesting how roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan - which happen on a regular basis and often kill many more people - don't generate anything like this much discussion and media attention.

 

 

Edit: I've just read SuperMikey's very similar post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Just a thought...

 

It's interesting how roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan - which happen on a regular basis and often kill many more people - don't generate anything like this much discussion and media attention.

 

Edit: I've just read SuperMikey's very similar post.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
Posted

the ira and iraqi's did use ball bearings and nails in their bombs. I heard a report on the radio this morning or it might have been the early hours of this morning, that the devices were very crude in construction and anyone with a little knowledge could make them. That come from some Police officer in Boston . Interesting how all of a sudden everyone is worrying about the london marathon this weekend. I would have thought security would hve already been put in place for this event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted

I could understand the British media being all over it if it had happened in London. But these things happen all the time in other far-away countries and they only warrant a small 3-minute section on the nightly news, if that. Yet when it happens in the good ole USA, it's massive headline news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Garrett

Saint Garrett

Posted
Posted
I could understand the British media being all over it if it had happened in London. But these things happen all the time in other far-away countries and they only warrant a small 3-minute section on the nightly news, if that. Yet when it happens in the good ole USA, it's massive headline news.

 

Even though it shouldn't be I would guess because it happens on a regular basis it's not really a 'shock' and it's almost expected. Obviously this isn't right but although it has happened previously, people are in shock that basically a terrorist attack has happened where there are loads of innocent people in the US.

 

Like I said it's not right at all that it happens on a regular basis there, but it's not surprising that it's being made a bigger deal out of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sour Mash

Sour Mash

Posted
Posted
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.

Who has said it doesn't matter when "it's them"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Who has said it doesn't matter when "it's them"?

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smirking_Saint

Smirking_Saint

Posted
Posted
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.

 

As wrong as it is, as a human is a human, no matter religion, race or sexual orientation. Its not difficult to realise that the vast majority are more inclined to give more of their attention to those that share the same cultural beliefs as themselves. Not to mention as I said before, Iraq etc is essentially a war zone, or if not described as one is still a militarised zone steeped in everyday violence. I can earn double what I can here doing my job because of the 'threat'

 

Now your an intelligent man, as is Bexy, its obvious to those not trying to stir political agenda, liberal chit chat 'why' these events get more air time then a similar event abroad.

 

FWIW I read the story of the americans bombing a wedding party, that is horrific and IMO should be top of the news reel as much as this. But in realityin much the sane way as you care for your kin more than your neighbour the majority will care for their creed more than anothers first and foremost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sour Mash

Sour Mash

Posted
Posted
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.

But that's not due to it being a case of "doesn't matter". More the element of surprise and shock - a marathon in North-Eastern USA or an area, which is rightly or wrongly, still considered by many as a highly dangerous war-zone. If bombs were going off every month for the last few years in the USA the reaction might be slightly different. UK and US soldiers are still getting blown up in Afghanistan on a fairly regular basis and it doesn't get a fraction of the coverage this Boston incident has got for the same reason. Plus, I would assume more people in Britain have either been to that part of the States, know people from that area and therefore have more of a connection to the area than they would to Iraq, there is nothing wrong with that, it's just normal human nature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smirking_Saint

Smirking_Saint

Posted
Posted
But that's not due to it being a case of "doesn't matter". More the element of surprise and shock - a marathon in North-Eastern USA or an area, which is rightly or wrongly, still considered by many as a highly dangerous war-zone. If bombs were going off every month for the last few years in the USA the reaction might be slightly different. UK and US soldiers are still getting blown up in Afghanistan on a fairly regular basis and it doesn't get a fraction of the coverage this Boston incident has got for the same reason. Plus, I would assume more people in Britain have either been to that part of the States, know people from that area and therefore have more of a connection to the area than they would to Iraq, there is nothing wrong with that, it's just normal human nature.

 

Its not its obviously racism :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted

The reason it gets more coverage is purely because explosions don't happen in the US as often and there are more connections with the UK. The media are only concerned with the amount of interest from their viewers.

 

Having said that there is obviously some racism in the level of people's reaction when compared to when a few brown people get blown up. The people in Iraq and Afganistan have to put up with this sort of thing daily thanks to the USA and UK governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jjsaint

jjsaint

Posted
Posted

The reason for the differences between reaction to bombs in US and bombs in Afghanistan/Iraq in my opinion

 

In the UK there is an affinity with and a similarity to the US. This is not overt racism - most people would be just as shocked if the victims were black/Muslim etc - but an attack on a similar culture will resonate with us more strongly. This is something we should overcome in a global society but is only natural.

 

In addition there are the political repercussions. This would be huge news if a similar event took place in, say, South Korea.

 

Just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sheaf Saint

Sheaf Saint

Posted
Posted
Its a pity you dont realise just how sad and damaging your conspiracist crap is Pap. Just for your benefit heres a picture of the guy rolling around pretending to be injured, next to the girl in blue who's already dead.

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BH8oDt2CAAAksi_.jpg:large

 

I don't think pap is actually supporting the conspiracy theory here. The image is suspect in as much as the guy at the marathon looks nothing like the soldier, so clearly it's a load of crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Its a pity you dont realise just how sad and damaging your conspiracist crap is Pap. Just for your benefit heres a picture of the guy rolling around pretending to be injured, next to the girl in blue who's already dead.

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BH8oDt2CAAAksi_.jpg:large

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
I don't think pap is actually supporting the conspiracy theory here. The image is suspect in as much as the guy at the marathon looks nothing like the soldier, so clearly it's a load of crap.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viking Warrior

Viking Warrior

Posted
Posted (edited)

Its interesting the conspiracy folk come into play.

 

The guy with half his leg blown away would be in a lot of pain unless they pumped morphine or pethidine into him , but he looks to alert from that. His face looks slightly like the US soldier and I mean only slightly. Theres no sign of his fibula though.his Tibia is present. Must have been some blast . I would have thought part of his fibula would still be intact. So it could be a mock injury if you want to believe the conspiracy brigade

 

The US soldier had above the Knee amputations while the guy in the gruesome picture has his knee and a third of his lower leg still intact. OK some may suggest thats an excellent piece of cas simulation. But the Guys knee is in place. so clearly this is not the US soldier the twitter guy refers to. So not a conspiracy theory to believed. Still a bloody mess all the same

Edited by Viking Warrior
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
The people that purport these conspiracies usually have their own axes to grind, and agendas to push.

 

Note one of the first people to start to conspiracy talk was the lovely Alex Jones.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KelvinsRightGlove

KelvinsRightGlove

Posted
Posted
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.

 

There are plenty of other people that are just as guilty, if less shouty.

 

The Zeitgeist movement for one. Clearly some intelligent people that are involved there. In my opinion, there are actually quite dangerous. They present opinions, often minority opinions, as fact and then extrapolate this onto wider meanings.

 

The reason I mentioned Alex Jones in this case, is because he was one of the first to start coming out publicly with conspiracy theories about this incident. So I think it is fair to mention him.

 

I'm not saying blankly accept everything everyone tells us. But these conspiracy theories more often than not read like the diary of a desperate paranoid weirdo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KelvinsRightGlove

KelvinsRightGlove

Posted
Posted

 

That's why I hate these conspiracies. It's just people trying to politicise a tragedy and push their own agendas. Idiots.

 

Poor kid. 8 years old, it's just senseless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
There are plenty of other people that are just as guilty, if less shouty.

 

The Zeitgeist movement for one. Clearly some intelligent people that are involved there. In my opinion, there are actually quite dangerous. They present opinions, often minority opinions, as fact and then extrapolate this onto wider meanings.

 

The reason I mentioned Alex Jones in this case, is because he was one of the first to start coming out publicly with conspiracy theories about this incident. So I think it is fair to mention him.

 

I'm not saying blankly accept everything everyone tells us. But these conspiracy theories more often than not read like the diary of a desperate paranoid weirdo.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KelvinsRightGlove

KelvinsRightGlove

Posted
Posted
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.

 

I totally agree the who and why's remain, and also it is encouraging that there doesn't appear to be a ready made culprit as it were.

 

However, I think it says something that before anything even resembling an answer has attempted to be given, conspiracy theorists are out in force. I'm not accusing you of this, but some people will want to look for the conspiracy in everything.

 

I'm not saying don't question, I just think a lot of the people who put these stories around actin quite a dangerous manner, speculating wildly, with little evidence, and usually ignoring anything that gets in the way of their agendas.

 

I've already seen this "FBI were running simulations of the exact same scenario at the exact same time..." nonsense. You'd think these people would be a bit more imaginative at least. It's the exact same line from 9/11 and Oslo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smirking_Saint

Smirking_Saint

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Its not just taking things on faith though, the majority of these conspiracy theories are complete nonsense made up from somebody that is attempting to peddle a tired agenda.

 

Also though, as much as I believe that governments may hush things that they feel Could be politically damaging such as missing obvious signs of terrorism or failing to act quick enough that could have stopped it I cannot swallow a theory that any large democratic government would maim its own public in order to force through policy or war. Its just so far beyond possibility its laughable. Could you imagine how damaging that would be should it get out ? And things like that eventually would. It for one would force so many against democracy it would be catastrophic.

 

Unfortunately yes you can scrutinize but generally the only 'evidence' to be scrutinized is peddled by those theorists anyway which taints any opinion or arguement based on it. Also you will probably find oddities, you can anywhere if you look at it hard enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KelvinsRightGlove

KelvinsRightGlove

Posted
Posted
Its not just taking things on faith though, the majority of these conspiracy theories are complete nonsense made up from somebody that is attempting to peddle a tired agenda.

 

Also though, as much as I believe that governments may hush things that they feel Could be politically damaging such as missing obvious signs of terrorism or failing to act quick enough that could have stopped it I cannot swallow a theory that any large democratic government would maim its own public in order to force through policy or war. Its just so far beyond possibility its laughable. Could you imagine how damaging that would be should it get out ? And things like that eventually would. It for one would force so many against democracy it would be catastrophic.

 

Unfortunately yes you can scrutinize but generally the only 'evidence' to be scrutinized is peddled by those theorists anyway which taints any opinion or arguement based on it. Also you will probably find oddities, you can anywhere if you look at it hard enough

 

The most funny thing is, how do they explain how these things don't get leaked?

 

It's not like government leaks are uncommon, they happen all the time. Things lie policy reform etc, when someone takes a disliking to it, they leak it to the media for it to get ridiculed into u-turn.

 

These sorts of things would take planning (imagine how much planning something like 9/11 would have taken!) somewhere a long the line, someone is going to find out about said plan and dislike it, and would leak it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
I totally agree the who and why's remain, and also it is encouraging that there doesn't appear to be a ready made culprit as it were.

 

However, I think it says something that before anything even resembling an answer has attempted to be given, conspiracy theorists are out in force. I'm not accusing you of this, but some people will want to look for the conspiracy in everything.

 

I'm not saying don't question, I just think a lot of the people who put these stories around actin quite a dangerous manner, speculating wildly, with little evidence, and usually ignoring anything that gets in the way of their agendas.

 

I've already seen this "FBI were running simulations of the exact same scenario at the exact same time..." nonsense. You'd think these people would be a bit more imaginative at least. It's the exact same line from 9/11 and Oslo.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
melmacian_saint

melmacian_saint

Posted
Posted

Conspiracy theories make me very angry. It's this kind of moany, against-the-world, informative overloading attitude that frankly has corrupted most Western societies into having so much contempt for its leaders and ultimately dropping the crucial levels of civic participation that make it all work.

 

The West has indeed become very fickle and hypocritical. We love to bash everything we have here, from politics to economics to historical facts and general society behavior and liberties under the comfort of our roof and laptop computers and the social media sites we visit in them. I don't get why there is so much "anti-westernism" by westerners. Change this into Venezuela, Iran or some absolutist arab kingdom and we would all hate it, yet all the populace wants is to bash, bash, smash and bash.

 

Gets on my nerves really...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pap

pap

Posted
Posted
Conspiracy theories make me very angry. It's this kind of moany, against-the-world, informative overloading attitude that frankly has corrupted most Western societies into having so much contempt for its leaders and ultimately dropping the crucial levels of civic participation that make it all work.

 

The West has indeed become very fickle and hypocritical. We love to bash everything we have here, from politics to economics to historical facts and general society behavior and liberties under the comfort of our roof and laptop computers and the social media sites we visit in them. I don't get why there is so much "anti-westernism" by westerners. Change this into Venezuela, Iran or some absolutist arab kingdom and we would all hate it, yet all the populace wants is to bash, bash, smash and bash.

 

Gets on my nerves really...

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})

  I accept