Two explosions at the finish line of the Boston Marathon have resulted in injuries.
Bloody spectators were being carried Monday to the medical tent that had been set up to care for fatigued runners. Police wove through competitors as they ran back toward the course.
Maybe its a sign of having spent over half my life living in a country that is telling me I'm constantly under threat of being bombed, but my first reaction wasn't concern for the people who got hurt, it was concern over which oppressive and ineffectual security measure is going to be put in to place because of this. I sure hope it isn't a North Korean national. There might be talk of war in that case. I'd believe it. Maybe this is just the bitterness of a dozen years spent hearing empty promises and being told a bunch of shit about how the world works, about everything from my rights as a citizen to how college was going to function, but I can't even feel all that terrible about the deaths. Yeah I know I should feel differently but I don't. Why? In the past year there's been more shootings and high profile murders than I can care to count. We have reports of drone strikes to the point where it feels like they're almost constant. What's a little bit more of it? I know what will play out over the next few days. The media will call the event a tragedy. They will run reports on the dead and speculate on whether or not the attack was political, they will propose various solutions, they will give a report on how the police are going to be trained to handle further attacks, and as the story winds down they'll give reports about other cities starting similar bomb prevention programs. At some point in the next few months a politician of some kind will introduce a bill that will be killed in committee dedicated to preventing bombings of marathons in the future. Boston will hold a candlelight vigil for the dead and the wounded, there will be a human interest story on the runner who lost their legs, and at least one or two networks will run something titled close to "finding hope in this tragedy." At some point FOX news is going to have a reporter make a joke, maybe a month later, about how it coincided with people doing their taxes and everyone will laugh about it, because a month from now this event will barely register on our memory. By then we'll probably have another shooting, or a bombing, or some kind of storm, or whatever. What will come out of this is death, lies, and repressive security measures. Great. Who wants to take bets on what is restricted next? Anyone? C'mon step right up, there aren't many left to choose from. Safe bets on are on a dumb measure like searching people's bags before they get to be in the crowd at a marathon. That's my bet. Fuck. I'm going to watch a movie and then get angry.
It's interesting. I lived half my life in a country where it wasn't "threat of being bombed" it was "threat of nuclear annihilation." We had mass shootings backintheday, too (this one sticks out in my memory) but it was always framed in terms of "at least that 'evil empire' dig didn't set the bombers a'flyin', hee hee, ho ho, pass the lead codpieces." I think in lieu of the ever-present "you may die in a ball of fire before your Chinese takeout is ready" the media machine has traded up to "you may die in a terrorist act while shopping at the Gap." Neither were all that likely but certain vested interests depend on the income generated by fear. What blows my mind is the TSA actually tried to give us our nail clippers back and the fucking flight attendants' union throws a hissy-fit. In the end, it'll depend on how afraid Boston feels like being.Maybe its a sign of having spent over half my life living in a country that is telling me I'm constantly under threat of being bombed
I saw a bunch of people on Facebook yesterday, middle aged people, lamenting that "our children have to grow up in such a rotten world." I didn't intervene in any of the conversations, but all logic says that their kids are growing up in a pretty damn safe world. It's funny how quickly everyone has forgotten about "Duck and Cover", the skyrocketing murder rates of the 1980s, and the fact that terrorism has been a thing for many decades now. If we need proof that terrorism has at its core little more than media hype, we need only look to Oklahoma City, which killed close to 200 people, many of whom were children in a day care center housed there. In that case, all we could do was prosecute the responsible individuals. There was no war to fight for it, so it went away quietly (and efficiently, as I can't remember the last time I heard the term "Michigan Militia" 'round here). Crime is down, but the media is up. That's the main difference. Personally, I think it's sad that our children have to grow up in a world dominated by 24 hour news.
Our culture cannot frame a world in which there is no "enemy" because we've had one since the earliest beginnings of our history. As such, the crime of terrorism is reframed as the war of ideas. You're absolutely right - if we'd treated the 2001 attack on the WTC the way we'd treated the 1993 attack on the WTC, the world would be a very different place indeed.
I'll check back in a month for the rest of your predictions. You're 6/7 so far! Classy piece of the day...they found a person from Newton who ran the marathon! OMFG double uppppppp on your points, boys and girls! http://www.enterprisenews.com/answerbook/pembroke/x848270799...The media will call the event a tragedy.
Done. http://www.google.com/news?ncl=dtamBBVeIfAwfqMTrYqcAtGBe1q7M...They will run reports on the dead...
Yup. And they will run reports on the reports about the dead.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/04/1.../... and speculate on whether or not the attack was political
Awww...I'm sorry...the correct answer is "act of terror." We would've accepted "terrorism" as well.
http://www.google.com/news?ncl=dfZcpPE0FYLB5nMC3o6u87W20Yk0M...Boston will hold a candlelight vigil for the dead and the wounded
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&...there will be a human interest story on the runner who lost their legs
I would've given you +1000 if you had predicted that there would be TWO of them...and they were brothers!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/boston-hospitals-ma...will run something titled close to "finding hope in this tragedy."
I wish there were a way to search TV stations. It's all over the cable.repressive security measures
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000160363/article/super...
http://www.dailymail.com/News/NationandWorld/201304160216
I wouldn't be surprised if the suspect ends of being N. Korean and that sends us into war. Wasn't it a supposed attack by the Germans that began one of our numerous wars? The "War on Terror" has lost its vigor and so we need some way to boost our economy.
In what way does this show I even attempt to understand North Korea? Also, I'm aware that there was controversy surrounding the attack I referenced and that there's reason to believe it was a US initiated attack. However, if there's something I'm not understanding, please enlighten me.
In that North Korea is a "Hermit Kingdom" that faces entirely inward. Their actions abroad are almost entirely related to counterfeiting and narcotics. North Korea lacks the foreign muscle to deal with their own dissidents, let alone attempt terrorism. But more importantly, North Korea gains nothing from a small-scale terrorist attack against a sporting event in a city most North Koreans don't even know exists. Remember - they've released at least two propaganda videos in the past month in which they triumphantly nuke the United States out of existence. What value is there in demonstrating that they can cause less harm and horror abroad than they can in their own prison camps? North Korea is a piss-poor bogeyman. This can be solved by inspection. There is nothing in their behavior - in the past 50 years - that demonstrates the slightest inclination towards terrorism. More importantly, there is no demonstrable advantage to their initiating terrorist tendencies now. However, the movies are full of "North Korean terrorists" this week so that's immediately where you go. So I repeat. You do not understand North Korea. More than that, you're believing exactly what the media wants you to believe.
I never said that I believe it was a North Korean attack. I highly doubt it is. More than likely it was some American guy with some mental issue trying to get attention. What I was saying is that somehow, we'll try to pin this on N. Korea since so many people have been wanting an excuse to attack them with the recent "threats" they've been posing. No need to be so condescending sir.
You said: Thus my statement stands. I shall neither reward nor pamper you for holding ignorant beliefs. I shall call you on them and correct you. That's what friends do.I wouldn't be surprised if the suspect ends of being N. Korean and that sends us into war.
What I was saying is that somehow, we'll try to pin this on N. Korea since so many people have been wanting an excuse to attack them with the recent "threats" they've been posing.
No need to be so condescending sir.
Poor phrasing on my end. What I meant was that I would not be surprised if somehow, government enforcement would find out the suspect to be N. Korean, even if that isn't true in order to rally up the masses against N. Korea in support of a war.
Thus I reiterate - You do not understand North Korea. From an American perspective, the storyline on North Korea is that it's a powerless hermit kingdom that poses a grave threat to South Korea, which happens to be one of our staunchest allies. It is a humanitarian disaster and a member of the "evil empire" but it is a long goddamn way from an existential threat. In order for the United States to gin up charges against North Korea based on the f'ing Boston Marathon we would have to trash 20 years of policy and perform a total about-face on our entire foreign stance. Not only that, but we would conclusively demonstrate that we don't give the first shit when North Korea blows the fuck out of our allies but set off one pipe bomb in an American city and the gloves are off. From a North Korean perspective, the storyline on the United States is that we are ancient demons that provide an existential threat to a devout community of militant acolytes that have never seen an American. There is no aspect of North Korean policy or propaganda that does not seek to illustrate how powerless the United States is. Don't know if you missed it but not two days ago there was a propaganda video in which North Korea nukes the fuck out of NORAD. Which appears to be in Louisiana, but that's the sort of detail that is unimportant to the narrative. For your allegation to have the slightest chance of being true, the United States would have to suddenly decide that well-known, well-portrayed clowns are somehow an existential threat all of a sudden. And that benefits exactly zero people. I apologize for failing to relent on this, but the fact of the matter is, North Korea represents a decades-long failure of foreign policy, not Hollywood's latest bogyman-*du-jour*. When you cling to the latter narrative while dismissing the former, you reveal yourself to be superficially informed about the situation and I am not a fan of superficiality.
Or it could be an Iranian guy, or at least a guy who looks Iranian. Hey man he just needs to look like an arab to give us an excuse to bomb literally anyone with black hair, tan skin, and an accent. C'mon let's just get a war going on, we need to be juggling at least 9 or everyone in Washington begins to lose their throbbing erections.
If only that were true. * * * You know, it's interesting. There's a great book called Legacy of Ashes that details the history of the CIA from the Black Chamber to September 11. It actually left me sympathetic to Cheney's point of view; when he was a senator and we went into Iraq during Desert Storm, we found a whole bunch of heinous shit that the CIA didn't know anything about. So when he was VP and the CIA was telling him there wasn't any heinous shit in Iraq, he sort of went "that's what you said last time" and presumed that if the CIA couldn't find it, that meant it was worth hiding. Make no mistake - I think the dude is evil. But thanks to that book, I could see his point of view.
If North Korea was to pick a fight with us the first round would probably be the obliteration of Seoul. Attacks on the U.S. or our allies from them have only one purpose, to preserve their reign, which a terrorist attack would not do. They want another shipment of biscuits, and leverage at the bargaining table, not a fight to the finish.
I'm not sure how I keep getting misinterpreted. I'm not saying it was an attack by N Korea. I'm saying that the masses want some sort of reconciliation since they've sent recent "threats" our way. The masses want an excuse to attack since they feel violated and it wouldn't surprise me if somehow the situation became so misconstrued it turned into an excuse to attack, even though knowingly they'd never attack us.
And if the politicians do nothing, they will be castigated by the media and by the public. Don't oversimplify such a difficult issue.my first reaction wasn't concern for the people who got hurt, it was concern over which oppressive and ineffectual security measure is going to be put in to place because of this.
That's the end result though. I'm not concerned with the welfare of a politician - though I understand that a politicians career effectively comes before the good of the public - because I am not a politician. I'm concerned with the welfare of ordinary people. What we've ultimately seen in the post 9/11 world is a series of crackdowns on maybes. Are there terrorists sneaking through the airport right now? Well there might be so we decided to up the security, please remove your shoes. Are there terrorists planting bombs in the street? Well there might be, so please, don't mind the security cameras. Are there some American terrorists? Well there might be, so let's just give the President the ability to bomb U.S. citizens. I understand that taken individually these are not actually huge deals. I mean, after all, some more security at an airport isn't terrible right up until they start sexually harassing people, but its just security right? Same with the camera. After all, its not ACTUALLY a private space, you shouldn't be saying things out in public you don't want heard in public anyway, right? And no President would DARE use a drone strike on an American, right? That'd be crazy. They'd never do that until people start showing how much they are willing to put up with until it eventually becomes something people don't even think about. I'm sure everything was suggested with good motives in mind, even if I disagree with how the issues were handled, but good motivation does not make for good action. When you start setting these precedents, you open up massive opportunities for abuse that becomes perfectly legal. Remember when the United States bombed Al Jazeera? When that becomes okay, what else does? The precedent is already set, and undoing something is a lot harder than people think. Quick aside, there's a middle ground between searching everyone entering and leaving the city and doing nothing at all. That middle ground could be, oh, I don't know. Reforming bomb search tactics to better counter the tactics used at the bombing? Increasing the number of police officers in the field, a tactic proven to reduce crime that would also give more coverage in the future? Funding for mental health institutes and works inside the city to create a better environment? When the measures taken to prevent an attack create an environment that is incredibly stressful, where people are constantly paranoid and questioning what they can say and do, what is actually being set up is not a peaceful, secure society, but another attack. When you feel you can't speak any other way, violence becomes a very strong language.
My thoughts on what I consider to be a ridiculous and overblown argument on the part of libertarians everywhere is elsewhere on hubski. You're using the same tired slippery slope argument. I don't feel like getting into that again.
Your thoughts, however, are *completely fucking wrong.* Restating them does not give them weight.
I work on a college campus, and if we took all the cameras away, there would not be a single working piece of equipment anywhere in a five mile radius the next morning. You can throw questionable studies cherry-picked from a targeted website at me (although next time if you want to be a little more polite about it I might give an in-depth response), and it won't change that.
I have several friends that work on college campuses and if you leave that shit unattended it's going to walk the fuck off. That doesn't give you the right to videotape my ass. Those studies were commissioned and paid for by the British government. Referring to them as "questionable" and acting dismissive as if you've somehow provided any real evidence for your claims guarantees that I will never be more polite about this. You are wrong. You are baselessly wrong. You are condescendingly wrong. And should you attempt to insinuate that your opinions are somehow facts, I will be right behind you to make you feel bad. That's a promise.
Not trying to be condescending. I just don't feel like having this discussion when you approached it the way you did. If someone speaks to me like that in my daily life, I walk away from them, so I'm figuratively walking away from this. We've had multiple conversations and I think you know I'm not the sort to make baseless claims; I stand by my beliefs on this issue. I read a couple of the studies on the list you linked and skimmed a couple more. I'm not being dismissive of your argument, I'm being dismissive of your manner. That's my right, I think. Sorry. Maybe next time.
Its an eerily accurate argument though. Let's take a look see. We've got a highly monitored culture where people have gotten used to being watched. We don't think about it all that much and often rationalize any surveillance as for protection, regardless of how correct that assumption is. Along comes the memo fom the IRS stating they can view anyone's email without a warrant. Or the other incalculale number of bills infringing on various constitutional rights. What do people do? Rationalize, for better or worse, and without regard to how effective that law will be, or what exaclty that ability will do. There are very basic questions that most audiences do not receive answers to or even hear in the first place, and yet the rationalization takes place. I mean, they need to shut down cell phone service in Boston. They could use them to set off more bombs. Its not about waking up in 1984 come this weekend. Its about waking up in 1984 in twenty years, or in the best case, having to spend time and effort just getting half the laws repealed. I also do not at all consider myself a libertarian. I just believe governments of any kind should think first and then act. Take more time deciding on what to say and do than it takes to make a good lunch.
You missed the point of my first post. Politicians do what they do because they want votes. They know that if they act a certain way in a time of crisis -- by ramping up security measures pointlessly after the fact, or by allowing BPD to shut down all cell service -- they will get votes next time they run. So they do it. Find the root source; don't stop at one of the links in the chain.
Okay, so let's trace this back. Problem start: Politicians perform ineffectual acts to improve the perception of security within the city, which have no real effects and increase alienation and hostility, which results in more crime. Why? Because they get votes for it. They get votes because people feel like they need to see that the government is doing something, even if that thing is ineffective. People feel like they need to see that because people do not have the time in the modern world to thoroughly research every single issue, which would give them a wider perspective and thus a better understanding of the problems at hand, which would at the very least lead to the demand for a more effective solution. People do not have the time to research every single issue because people are generally employed in busy, high stress environments and have various other responsibilities which remove leisure time beyond the weekends. People have this high stress environment because the philosophy of a modern corporation - which we'll just group in to one for this dumbed-down thought experiment here - is that the work day is not actually 9-5, its any time they can be called on a cell phone, thus removing the normal safety net of relaxation that comes from having a job with predictable hours. Businesses think that they can do this because people have been trained for their entire lives to think that competing for a job is incredibly competitive and that if you are not working hard you are somehow immoral, and that hard work requires sacrifices in order to succeed. People think a lack of sacrifices and a lack of hard work is immoral because of the tradition of the Puritans in America to follow the teachings of Calvin as well as the more modern teachings of puritans in England, who believed that material wealth was a measure of the likelihood of a person to get in to heaven. The Puritans in England believed that material wealth became a measure of a person's success because it was deemed to be God's reward for living a godly life. This belief truly stemmed not from religious disagreements but from the necessity of Puritan life in England; with no other place to work, no ability to really go in to politics or law, the Puritans were forced to become industrialists. They were forced to become Industrialists because the Anglican Church banned the Puritans from holding most public offices and from becoming ordained ministers, which traced back to the Oliver Cromwell and his role in the two English Civil Wars. Oliver Cromwell only took part in the wars due to the conflict of interests between the authoritarian crown and the consitutionalist Parliament. This divide traces itself back to the Magna Carta, which only existed because of the belief that feudal lords in England had that the King was limited by the power of law as well as certain individual rights and protections against various malpractices in the government. So the Magna Carta is basically the root of all problems because it created an environment where Puritans couldn't run for office, so they became industrialists and reconciled their religious beliefs with the necessities of industrialist living, which created an environment in which people believed that wealth was an indicator of morality, which persisted as a system of values still in place in the United States today, which in turn caused an environment where people make sacrifices to work harder because it is viewed as morally correct. These sacrifices included free time, which means less time for researching issues such as national security, which means people are unable to accurately assess if an action taken by a politician is actually effective, but they still require some fulfillment on an obvious problem, so they demand that some action be taken regardless of what it is. Or it could be a political agenda, it could be the conflicting values of security versus freedom, it could be people's inherent belief in their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness coming in contact with the desire to remain private individuals. Do you know how many roots there are to problems? You can't go back to the root of the problem and just tear it up or try and fix it because the root of the problem influences the world we live in so heavily we wouldn't exist without it. You can't tackle roots, because problems aren't a weed. Problems are conflicts of values, and you have to resolve the conflict to actually overcome it. Now I don't know the answer to this problem, and I really can't be expected to know. I know what's ineffective, and I know what is a breach of trust, and I know what's done for politics and votes. I don't know how you give the public a solution that is also actually beneficial, but I can guess it involves researching the crime, and making changes, real changes, that will prevent the crime from happening in the future. It could be better, cheaper housing, it could be getting more work for people, it could be mental health care and anonymous treatment, it could be more police officers in the area to reduce crime or even lighting the streets up more. Or it could be the problems of the city themselves; maybe there just aren't enough trees, someone gets super stressed because they don't see trees any more, it compiles everything wrong with their life, and they blow up. I don't know. But a politician should. They're the ones with power, they're expected to have solutions that are effective. That's the whole point of this civilization thing, its why we trust people with power in the first place. Yes, at any point the President could probably just nuke North Korea and say fuck it, but we're putting trust that he'll try and do something better than that, something that provides a long-term solution rather than a short-term bandaid. Eventually people are going to realize that security measures like these, with all of the cameras and the service shut-downs and the searches, those don't actually solve anything. They're a bandaid patched on to a gaping wound. And then the politicians who took part in it, their votes will dry up. I know its hard to see it these days, but people actually do like honest politicians, and people like it in the long-term when the hard decisions are made. Yes, there will be complaints. There will always be complaints, from everyone, about everything. That's not important. If you put an honest effort in to doing something good and effective, even if the change is small - hell, it might just be getting more lights and more trees in the city - then people will remember it. And votes will come.
I read this while I was drinking and I was angry at you for some reason, I don't know why, but then it was clear you were right. One of the officials speaking at the press conference talked about heightened security in Boston tomorrow as if it were rote. "Just be patient and deal with it." It's not at all that it was planned or whatever batshit crazy ideas people are putting forth, it's more the boring facts of security that are so frightening to me. Everyone knows NOT A THING will happen tomorrow and yet everyone entering or exiting the city of Boston will have to get their backpacks pored through by police like it helps, like it'll catch anyone doing anything untoward on a day when the people of Boston will be on their absolute best behavior. It's so utterly misguided the only comparison I can draw is Joe Morgan arguing against sabermetrics.
You want cynical? Recently they've been talking about how to generate money to upgrade infrastructure, especially transportation infrastructure as the highways, bridges and the T are all falling apart. I'll bet you anything they'll use this to dodge the infrastructure issue yet again. I bet that you're right that a proposed security bill will be quashed and that somehow, someone on Beacon Hill is going to end up making a fat profit out of all of this, because that's what happens in Boston.
:( I used to walk that area all the time. So sad. Seems weird to me...Boston, home of the Boston Tea Party, on Patroit's Day. The symbolism is terribly ripe for a right wing domestic terrorist. Hope I'm wrong, -not that a terrorist attack by a foreign interest is really that much better :/ Edit: Yup. I'm totally wrong.
-EDIT- Via Reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1cen3t/there_was_just_.../ For those unused to live update threads, the best way to view them is to switch periodically between sorted by top and sorted by new. The sorted by new lets you get the most recent information, the sorted by top will let you see replies to important comments. [1] http://twitter.com/Boston_to_a_T/status/323871088532668416/... It looks like there has been a big explosion at the Boston Marathon, with some on twitter saying it looked like a bomb went off. Stay safe. Update 1: Live video of the finish line: [2] http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013-boston-marathon-finish-line/ Update 2: Mass casualty event, potentially more bombs: [3] http://twitter.com/universalhub Update 3: Not for the squeemish: [4] http://deadspin.com/explosions-reported-at-the-boston-marath... Update 4: Boston Fire Dept. scanner: [5] http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/497/web Update 5: Another live feed: [6] http://www1.whdh.com/video/7newslive/ Update 6: Bomb Squad en route to Mass Ave. and Newbury: [7] http://twitter.com/universalhub/status/323878470750961664 Update 7: At least one runner lost both legs: [8] http://twitter.com/JesseRodriguez/status/323878089903964160 Update 8: Boston PD has reported at least 3 dead. Update 9: Youtube video of the explosion itself: [9] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfCK3Ar7Yus&feature=playe... Update 10: State Trooper scanner says more devices potentially at Boylston and Gloucester. Update 11: Fairmont Copley Hotel on lockdown as per WBZ. Also, another link to the Boston Fire Dept. Scanner: [10] http://tunein.com/radio/Boston-Fire-Department-s145668/. Update 12: List of scanners in Boston, including police scanner: [11] http://www.radioreference.com/apps/audio/?mid=13 Update 13: Another video of the explosion: [12] http://vine.co/v/bFdt5uwg6JZ Update 14: EMS on scanner reporting for all personnel to be wary of trash containers. Update 15: Numerous sources including scanners reporting secondary devices have been found unexploded, pleading with people to stay away from the area: [13] http://fox17online.com/2013/04/15/secondary-devices-found-un...
It's tax day in the US. Of course there's no evidence or anything yet, but I'm assuming it's going to be a disgruntled white male(s) with anti-government tendencies. Could just be that the Boston Marathon and tax day are coincidences, but I doubt it. I'm guessing it will be a domestic terrorist, but who knows. They may never find the person and no one may admit to it. Never a time when there wasn't more cameras around, and the place was swept with bomb dogs and scanners before people showed up, so assuming it was bombs in trash cans, they were dropped while it was underway. Which leads me to believe they have to have it on camera somewhere. But who knows.Domestic terrorism?
Besides my initial reaction to this, which was "oh shit, that's terrible, do I know anybody in Boston and if so are they alright?" my second response was to consider this question. If no one admits to it or posts any sort of rationale, it ain't terrorism. Although it's been usurped for obvious reasons in the past decade, the term "terrorism" ought only be used in reference to violent acts perpetrated against person or property with the express intent of making a broader political statement against a particular governmental entity while at the same time undermining that entity's ability to govern effectively. Ultimately, what defines terrorism is not the target of the attack, but the target audience of the attack, and the express message pinned to the attack. Such an attack can result in loss of life, but doesn't have to. And not every attack that results in widespread death or bodily harm necessarily counts as terrorism. Thus you can have acts, like those of the Earth Liberation Front in the late '90's, that don't hurt or kill anybody but are still considered terrorist acts; likewise, you can have something like last year's shootings in Aurora that kill several and injure several more, but won't be considered terrorism by anybody not hoping to distort the term for political purposes. In regards to today's tragedy: until somebody owns up, the best we can say is that it's maybe incidental terrorism. That is to say, without any indicators pointing us towards explicit political statement, the immediate act ought to be considered nothing more than shitty-minded criminal mayhem. Secondarily, however, the act undermines our feeling of security within zones generally considered safe; it undermines our faith in the ability of the local government to keep its citizens safe. And the longer the perpetrator goes unidentified, it undermines our faith in the federal government's ability to successfully identify and prosecute the perpetrator or perpetrators. Hence, "incidental" rather than "explicit" terrorism: no immediate statement claiming political intent, but an as of yet unintended political reverberation. I suspect that, after careful initial political triangulation, we'll hear intimations toward- if not an explicit spelling out of- terrorist intent on the governmental side of things. While it would clearly be in the Administration's best political interest to play it off as criminal activity, I suspect the federal government is going to want the investigative and prosecutorial tools afforded to terrorist activity. Ergo, if they can establish an early link to terrorist intent, they can avoid a lot of the investigative snares that tangle up criminal investigations, and then if and when they catch the perpetrator they can prosecute accordingly while avoiding potential claims that they at any point acted counter to due process and all that. Above all of this navel-gazing, though: regardless of what else it was, today's incident was horrible. I can't figure out how anybody could do something like this. Imagining those in the crowd as it happened, I can't think of anything other than how fundamentally offensive to one's very state of being something like this must be. To go out expecting nothing more than a day of leisure with a group of friends or loved ones, and in a heartbeat have to be subjected to such confusion, horror and pain... goddamn. Hope everybody in this community, and theirs, are safe and emotionally okay. EDIT: Nailed it
I hear you, but given the reports of the kinds of injuries sustained by the bomb, it seems like the intent may have been to wound more than to kill. The bombs went off low and many people will likely have limbs amputated by the blast or have to have limbs amputated. On Boston's NPR they're saying that at least one of the people dead is very likely a child. As I mentioned in this thread, Boston is known for not being great on the security front, particularly at Logan airport and the various riots that have happened over the last decade among other incidents. A lot of my friends are in Boston and as far as I know, none of them are physically hurt, but I can tell you that terrorism or not, people are terrified.
No doubt, that was why I added the "incidental terrorism" part. Even if it wasn't a terrorist act, it still terrorizes as a consequence. Who knows what the offender's purpose was at this point. Could have been that he (gonna go ahead and assume that it was a "he") wanted to hurt rather than kill. Could have just as easily been that he was just kind of an incompetent criminal. Can't remember where, but I recall somebody trying to stash some pipe bombs in trashcans during an MLK day parade a few years ago. Had they gone off, not many people would have been hurt, but the guy's stated intent was to kill. My feeling is that some people just want to cause as much damage and grief as possible, and they're not too concerned with the specifics.
lol, oh Alex Jones, my favourite source of conspiracy theories. It wouldn't be a tragedy without him claiming it as a false flag attack on American liberties.
The conspiracy forums all over are already calling it a false flag operation. I find it funny, that a group such as conspiracy theorists, who pride themselves on being more "open minded" and "smarter" than everyone who isn't a conspiracy theorist, are already claiming to know exactly what's happened and why... yet there's no evidence, there's no suspects, the types of devices aren't known, and we literally know NOTHING about this yet other than two bombs went off. But sure, "we're so open minded that it can be only this one thing. Despite any research, facts, or evidence, we just know. It's clearly the government!" I don't like to call people crazy and stupid, but when their community is this knee-jerky, it's just ridiculous and stupid. Hell, when earthquakes happen now, they knee-jerk to the "IT'S ANOTHER HAARP ATTACK!" Accidents, natural disasters, and attacks don't happen in their world, everything is a false flag. Must be nice to have it all figured out...
Has anyone else realized the irony of the origin of a Marathon and this attack? Originally a messenger was sent to Athens to inform the government that they had won a battle, and here the battle happened at the end of the marathon.
Excellent point. I'm tempted to point this fact out to others, partially because it is ironically amusing and partially just because it's an interesting historical tidbit. However, I'm afraid people may look at it as being insensitive.
Just put it perspective: http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/the-boston-ma.../ As long as the USA keep torturing and killing innocent people these attacks will continue.