Explosions at Boston Marathon

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by synrgy, Apr 15, 2013.

  1. Jakke

    Jakke Pretty wisdomous

    Messages:
    4,391
    Likes Received:
    775
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Location:
    In a van... DOWN' BY THE RIVER!
    Alex Jones is at it again, and apparently he's too stupid to check his own claims:
    Infowars: Family Guy predicted Boston bombing

    For those who do not want to support him by going to his page (which I absolutely respect):
    His proof for this is a cut-up from a very recent Family Guy episode where Peter wins the Boston Marathon, and joins a terrorist cell. The clip itself is two sequences cut together where Peter is asked in an interview how he won the Boston Marathon, then it cuts to where he dials on a phone, and distant explosions are heard. What Jones do not tell you is that it is revealed afterwards in the episode that Peter won by running over all the other contestants in his car, not by bombing them. The bombs come much later, on Quahog Bridge

    This sort of dishonest dumbfuckery is why I hate that lying piece of paranoid shit.
     
  2. erotophonophilia

    erotophonophilia SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    245
    Likes Received:
    6
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Location:
    northeast US
    [​IMG]

    I see 1-4 perpetuators. All male. From the ages of 21-25. Possibly all Caucasian. Possibly college students. All are spineless cowards. They'll never be anything else, so this makes them feel powerful. That's just my theory, because that's why all these disgruntled white kids, randomly shoot up places. Not Islamic extremists.

    They'd also need to know the layout, and the assailants would've had a very limited window of time. So I think, this coward, was involved with the marathon. After they do such a spineless act, they get on the Internet and read what people posted about them. So maybe we shouldn't give them any attention?
     
  3. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,415
    Likes Received:
    882
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    I have no clue who Alex Jones is, but from what you posted, I have to agree with you.
     
  4. Jakke

    Jakke Pretty wisdomous

    Messages:
    4,391
    Likes Received:
    775
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Location:
    In a van... DOWN' BY THE RIVER!
    Alex Jones

    He's one of the biggest conspiracy theorists in the media, and a good friend of Dave Mustaine. One of the more powerful images of him that I have is when that fat fuck was standing with a megaphone, screaming "WE ARE NOT YOUR SLAVES" at the Bilderburgs.
     
  5. groph

    groph SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    2,750
    Likes Received:
    404
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Right, an IED in a strict definition would be an explosive cobbled together with relatively "household" items and a bit of know-how, so it stands to reason that most acts of "domestic terrorism" involved an "IED" as we've defined it.

    I'm just wondering whether or not, if something like this happens again, if the news will call it an IED to suggest that IED's are now a threat in America, not just in Iraq or anywhere in the Middle East that there's a US military presence. I don't mean to say that the news coverage has just broadened the definition of the word - and maybe it has, but what I'm saying is that, by using the language of the war on terror, news agencies over here will contribute even more to a sense of fear of terror attacks which will in turn aid an evolution into a really securitized state that America seems to be becoming, or a "police state" to use a more common term.

    (honest question) Did they call the bomb that exploded in the first WTC attack an IED? The Unabomber, did he make what the news called "IEDs?" Maybe my point sounds kind of tangential or overanalytical but I really do think the language that news agencies use is really interesting.

    And yeah, isn't Alex Jones some shit.


    EDIT: And Flint, yes, of course "terrorist" is the biggest one. Interesting how there's a distinction between "domestic terrorist" and "foreign terrorist" and how terrorism is very much "what the other guy does" and not what the US and it's allies do/did. If there was another nation using drone strikes on us that killed more civilians than legitimate targets I bet we'd be pretty quick to call that terrorism. It's a matter of what side of the fence you're standing on. Strategic bombing, like what was done in WWII as part of a "total war" strategy is arguably terrorist as one of its aims is to bomb the civilian population into literal submission, forcing them to petition their government to surrender to stop the killing. If that's not "terrorist," then who gets to decide what is and isn't a terrorist act, and who is or isn't a terrorist?
     
  6. Jakke

    Jakke Pretty wisdomous

    Messages:
    4,391
    Likes Received:
    775
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Location:
    In a van... DOWN' BY THE RIVER!
    Well, from what I've heard, IED also depends on the size. The World Trade Center bomb was quite large, so it might have to do with that. The Unabomber's bombs already had a perfectly good name, namely letterbombs. There might have not been a need to name them something else.

    So no, I have not heard them being refered to as IED:s.
     
  7. dcoughlin1

    dcoughlin1 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    Location:
    Queens,NY
    Is it me or does Alex Jones look like the love child of Butters and Cartman.
     
  8. USMarine75

    USMarine75 Plays Authentic ® Contributor

    Messages:
    4,662
    Likes Received:
    2,616
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Location:
    Middle East
    Alex Jones is one of the elite conspiracy theory nuts. He's always going off about chemtrails, lizard men, 9/11, etc. If you enjoy that trash check out the Veterans Today website... it is glorious! The articles are written by wannabe intelligence experts that basically slam the Jews for causing everything from 9/11 to the Newtown shooting and Aurora. Most of the articles can be debunked with about 5 minutes of internet open source research. The best part of the articles are the forum comments below. Some seriously ill people but thoroughly enjoyable to read. :nuts:
     
  9. USMarine75

    USMarine75 Plays Authentic ® Contributor

    Messages:
    4,662
    Likes Received:
    2,616
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Location:
    Middle East
    To definitively answer this as someone who has been on site and is familiar with this kind of stuff - these were IEDs. They were of prototypical design consistent with usage by known listed terrorist groups and of a design popularized in internet forums.
     
  10. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Well a higher state of security isn't all bad. After 9/11 we tightened up airport security. Now it is a major pain to get on a plane, but nothing has happened since because of it. I'd say the heightened security has proven successful by the mere fact that terrorism towards the US isn't happening here (not including this because we don't know who or why yet). I mean the last major event of terrorism was Libya in an easy place for it to occur comparatively.

    We do like the us vs. them, it is also why the public always wants answers like why. It won't satisfy people to know, but they insist anyways. Truth is irrational behavior cannot be rationalized. Agree with the bolded.



    And tedtan, coercion is a key part to defining something as a terrorist act. Otherwise the definition for terrorism would only be the act of causing great fear which is far too broad for a word that has been overly sensationalized. It's all semantics and it wouldn't matter so much if it weren't the media doing it. They make a habit of jumping to conclusions and stretching the truth.
     
  11. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,415
    Likes Received:
    882
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    If you're speaking only in terms of organized terrorist cells, then I agree. Otherwise, I respectfully disagree.

    Did Ted Kaczynski's letter bombs coerce people into stopping technological and/or real estate development? Did Aum Shinrikyo's sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subways coerce people into anything? Did Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the Alfred Murrah building in Oklahoma City coerce people into anything? Were these attacks even motivated by an intent to coerce?

    No. These were pretty much nut jobs looking for revenge for some BS they were pissed about, but the acts they committed (and were convicted of) were still terrorist acts.
     
  12. flint757

    flint757 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,400
    Likes Received:
    197
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    The definition would disagree. Coercion doesn't have to be related to the event for it to be the case. You can't rationalize irrational behavior either. If said person thought they were coercing someone, successful or not, logical or not, that is how we should be defining acts of terrorism. It's a buzz word that has become so commonplace we willingly allow it to be misused.

    Ted Kaczynski is a terrorist because his intent was coercion, McVeigh was politically motivated and a poor attempt at inciting a rebellion, and Aum Shinrikyo was apparently religiously AND politically motivated. Those all fit within the definition of terrorism.

    The point is terrorism is directly correlated to the motivation of an event. Without the perpetrator(s) we don't know who or why so calling it terrorism is intellectually dishonest and serves to only sensationalize an already sensational event.

     
  13. Jakke

    Jakke Pretty wisdomous

    Messages:
    4,391
    Likes Received:
    775
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Location:
    In a van... DOWN' BY THE RIVER!
  14. tedtan

    tedtan SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    4,415
    Likes Received:
    882
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2009
    Location:
    Never Neverland
    I understand the definition, I just disagree with it. The motivation for a crime does not change the results. This is true of murder (why would it matter that a murder was committed due to (a) revenge or (B) the color of the victim's skin - the victim is dead either way) and it's also true of terrorism. Motivation for a crime doesn't matter in my book - the results do.

    Besides, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, however wrong yours may be on this topic, flint757. :fawk:
     
  15. Blake1970

    Blake1970 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    250
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2010
    Location:
    Humble, TX
  16. Randy

    Randy Sous Chef Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,924
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    What's to disagree with there...?

    Not to diminish the heroic actions of all the volunteers involved but firefighters, EMTs, etc. don't come free. The police forces that will be finding the perpetrators and prosecuting this abomination don't come free. The clean up, rebuilding and future securing of the area won't come free. He's absolutely right, Boston is lucky to have the people and volunteers it has to help them through but they're also lucky they have an infrastructure to lean on for support.

    Beyond that, I don't agree with politicizing what happened and I'd prefer we all mutually agree not to "go down that road" on this. If we want to talk blues and reds, dollars and cents about this when the bill shows up, fine, but right now I don't think ANYBODY CARES.
     
  17. Jakke

    Jakke Pretty wisdomous

    Messages:
    4,391
    Likes Received:
    775
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Location:
    In a van... DOWN' BY THE RIVER!
    Ok, Björn Ulvaes (of ABBA fame) said something that I feel was meant very innocently, but which people are losing their collective shit over (which I also can understand).

    He got asked how he stayed so young, and his answer was "running is always good, unless you run the Boston Marathon".


    I should start by saying that I am of the firm belief that you can joke about anything, if the joke is funny. I could see how this joke could have been funny (and Swedish humour is often quite black, I think it goes with the weather), but it was a bit too soon. Far too soon actually.
    I do however also believe that humour is a very good way of dedramatizing tragic events, and if just enough time can lapse between the event and the joke, it can be quite beneficial for society's healing.

    So, I guess I have to ask the other people on the board if you agree with me? Maybe you think he should be tarred and feathered?

    *EDIT* I also think that it is important that one does not make light of a tragedy, and I don't Björn was. He instead actually pointed out the severity of it, and I do believe that is key.
     
    skeels likes this.
  18. Randy

    Randy Sous Chef Super Moderator

    Messages:
    20,924
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    A little too soon, IMO. Also, the joke didn't seem to be particularly funny or smart.

    Beyond that, yeah, I agree humor is generally helpful. Tact and timing makes a big difference. Too much, too soon isn't even funny and isn't helpful.

    In general, I've see a lot of really calloused discussion about this over the last day. It like, just happened and already I hear people raving "WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH! THOSE SCUMBAGS" like, woah, we've kinda got more important stuff to talk about here. Far as we know, the guy(s) who did this are still on the loose and possible plotting/executing other attacks. There are still dozens of people clinging to life. I think the jokes and the the standard fare, alarmist or angry or "I hate all the people crying about this on facebook" shit can seriously afford to shut the fuck up for a little while.
     
  19. Jakke

    Jakke Pretty wisdomous

    Messages:
    4,391
    Likes Received:
    775
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Location:
    In a van... DOWN' BY THE RIVER!
    I think a good way to sift through the dumbfuckery around something like this is to ask oneself: "Is this person trying to be edgy?". If the answer is no, I usually let it pass. If yes, destroy them with all your might.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.