Boston Marathon Explosions

[dann2707]

Probably lost a lot of blood here?! I read somewhere that in an explosion like the one at boston the veins and end of the limbs are almost like cauterised which would stop the bleeding no?

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01711/boston4_1711433a.jpg

I'm sorry for being so blunt before, I think you're actually quite interesting.

Aren't you in the army? Shouldn't you know about this sort of stuff?

Edited April 18, 2013 by dann2707

[i like cunning stunts]

Army me lol come on am so anti-government / authority that's the last place you would find me!

[Rich J]

You have said twice now I'll post something tomorrow. Why not today?

[1a2bcio8]

The trouble with all of this and why I think it's perhaps easy to readily assume, perhaps more so than we should, that the causes of things are other than they are given to us by 'officials' and/or 'official' sources is that governments do definitely conspire to do unlawful things. This isn't really debatable when you consider that the evidence of it happening, for example, is often contained in declassified documentation where the conspiracy is found in explicit terms.

For instance, prior to the Iraq invasion, Blair and his cabinet were well aware that Sadam no longer had a WMD program and, therefore, they must fabricate a reason for the invasion. The USA had already decided an invasion was going to happen and the UK was going to join them. What mattered next was how to spin a justification - lie - so that popular opinion would consent. This fact can be found in the recorded minutes from a cabinet meeting that were eventually declassified by the efforts of a scholar who I'll mention at the end of this paragraph. The mainstream media blindly repeated the lie that Sadam was a WMD threat - rather than properly critique it - and even to the present, they frame the 'failure' in terms of failed intelligence rather than fabricated intelligence and motives that were not noble (freedom, democracy, etc.). It was human error rather than callous, greedy intent. This despite the fact of the recorded minutes that I mentioned and also that UN weapons inspectors were unable to find evidence of WMDs prior to the invasion. This constitutes a conspiracy by our government to manipulate our consent by lying at the cost of what seems to now be over 1 million Iraqi lives as a result of the invasion. If anyone is interested in difficult to dispute evidence regarding all of this Mark Curtis' book "Unpeople" is well worth a read.

Regarding 9/11 I'm less inclined to believe the conspiracy about the government being involved in the planning, etc. but more open to them having let it happen. There are an array of things that happened, such as anomalous stock movements regarding the airlines involved, strangely ineffective defences, etc. that, at the very least, are suggestive. Before people simply brush off such evidence as conspiracy nonsense they should actually consider the evidence itself before doing so. Not doing so is to be just as stupid as simply believing it uncritically. At best, the US government exploited the situation. They lied about Sadam's connection to the attack which was a total fabrication. Almost immediately a list of seven countries in the Middle East was written up for invasion beginning with Iraq and including Iran, Syria and others (I forget which) with the attacks as a justification. America has a long interest in Imperialism within the 20th century. George Keenan who was in Eisenhower's administration in around the middle of the 20th century expressed how that America made up only a small part of the world's population but also owned most of its wealth - obviously to the detriment of other nations - and this must be maintained, advanced and, if necessary, done by force.

The general theme of that time was that Central/South America, the Middle East and parts of Asia would come under their control by making sure governments were aligned with their power interests. If they resisted they would be met with force of one form or another whether that meant direct intervention or sponsorship of coups, etc. Vietnam was not about communism but rather about a nation that had freed itself from French colonial power. This was not permissible because it might set an example that other slave nations might respond to. South America has seen huge amounts of terrorism on the part of American sponsorship of right wing guerilla groups - i.e. the Contras in Nicaragua I already mentioned. It tends to be a requirement that US friendly governments are dictatorships of one for or another. The reason being that most people aren't interested in losing their resources to another country whilst they live in poverty and therefore need to be controlled oppressively. The sorts of stories that come out of American sponsored states in South America are really horrifying. These countries are often called democracies (Orwellian double-speak) despite simply not being that and, of course, countries that don't fall into line with America's power interests are usually demonised and called dictatorships. Doing so brings about our consent to invade, kill, terrorise, etc. We have been duped by the myth of noble western governments bringing peaceful democracy to backward countries by blowing them up and murdering them... That's a contradiction even within the myth which should make people question the very nature of it.

Most of you probably don't know about this because the mainstream media mostly offers accounts that accord with 'official' sources. Scholarly analysis of the mainstream media as essentially, when it counts, a propaganda machine is very compelling. Essentially, the mainstream media is usually corporate and therefore orientated toward profit. An outlet might exist as part of a group of other businesses and will definitely have a specific owner/s which instantly creates bias but, more importantly, profit is made through advertising which limits the type of criticism which can arise. Advertisers will withdraw themselves and the revenue they offer if something is said that it doesn't like. The situation is more complex with additional reasons for bias and a framing of news within 'official' boundaries but I don't have time to go into anymore detail.

In others words though, governments do conspire. This doesn't mean that everything that happens is a government conspiracy but it does mean it shouldn't be ruled out prior to a proper consideration of the available facts. Government involvement can vary between direct involvement, indirect or simply letting something happen in order to gain some benefit - such as a justification for something else. There is a well documented, non-theoretical wealth of evidence that tells a very different story of foreign and domestic policy in the western world. A lot of people don't know this because people are generally good and wouldn't really stand for such horrific things being done in their name so the system is rigged to distract them and lie to them. A systematic analysis based on facts reveals this and not a conspiracy theory. Facts are offered and so simply applying the label 'conspiracy' (in a derogatory sense) or suggesting that it's being made up for egotistical reasons is the wrong response. Facts should be responded to according to their truth value which you can only really decide upon by exploring their source and reasonableness. Without doing that you can't really critique. Well, you can but it doesn't amount to much.

[1a2bcio8]

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/new_york_post_under_fire_for_bogus_boston_marathon_bag_men_story_20130418/

[MikeCottTrials]

Have you ever heard the word concise? Because you're not knocking it out of the park at the moment.

I notice a trend, people that believe in one conspiracy theory tend to believe in almost every conspiracy they come across.

People that don't believe seem to not believe in any conspiracy.

I am open to ideas; but on the whole the idea the Boston bombings were staged by the American government is a total joke.

I'm adding it to the pile of other popular jokes 9/11, the moon landings.

Conspiracy theorists live in a world where everything they see and hear is deception of some form. It's got to be tough for them

[Jake.]

Ben can you make a TL;DR version of every post you make? I swear every single one is an essay.

[i like cunning stunts]

Have you ever heard the word concise? Because you're not knocking it out of the park at the moment.

I notice a trend, people that believe in one conspiracy theory tend to believe in almost every conspiracy they come across.

People that don't believe seem to not believe in any conspiracy.

I am open to ideas; but on the whole the idea the Boston bombings were staged by the American government is a total joke.

I'm adding it to the pile of other popular jokes 9/11, the moon landings.

Conspiracy theorists live in a world where everything they see and hear is deception of some form. It's got to be tough for them

So thats your reply to bens thoughts? What are your thoughts on what he has said about the iraq invasion and the government lying to invade that country?

That to me is the icing on the cake really, they have admitted they were wrong (lied) and are still there killing people on a false accusation.

And no-one held accountable for their actions wtf? If no one questions an invasion killing millions whos going to question a small bomb in Boston killing 2 people?

[PaRtZ]

If no one questions an invasion killing millions whos going to question a small bomb in Boston killing 2 people?

Everyone who was a relative to those 2 people and the others injured. The bombings in Ireland werent exactly unquestioned...

If no one questions an invasion killing millions whos going to question a small bomb in Boston killing 2 people?

Everyone who was a relative to those 2 people and the others injured. The bombings in Ireland werent exactly unquestioned...

[i like cunning stunts]

Just watching the update on the bbc will post later what i think, you couldn't write it!

[Rich J]

Is that related to a few news channels blaming two immigrants?

[i like cunning stunts]

Yes statement from the massachusset police for events happened so far.. http://www.cambridgema.gov/cpd/Alerts/citizenalerts/policedainvestigatingfatalshooting.aspx

How very apt that one died at the hospital how much are we betting that the other suspect ends up dead too?

A bit far fetched that you would carjack someone at gunpoint after planning such an event, putting them at a very high chance of being caught don't you think?

Explosive devices thrown from the car in the chase too i bet an exact copy of what was used at the marathon.

Doesn't say what nationality they are yet but i wonder which country or group will be blamed this time?

Edited April 19, 2013 by i like cunning stunts

[JD™]

Last one from me as i can see im pissing in the wind.

[Rich J]

Not what I was on about.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311248/Sala-Barhoum-track-star-teenager-denies-involvement-Boston-Marathon-bombing-picture-widely-circulated.html

Thought you might have picked up on that.

[i like cunning stunts]

I wasn't going to but i came back to defend myself as there was some comments aimed at me and not what was happening.

Some really strange pictures i have seen i want to share shortly of people at the bombsite.

Edited April 19, 2013 by i like cunning stunts

[1a2bcio8]

Have you ever heard the word concise? Because you're not knocking it out of the park at the moment.

I notice a trend, people that believe in one conspiracy theory tend to believe in almost every conspiracy they come across.

People that don't believe seem to not believe in any conspiracy.

I am open to ideas; but on the whole the idea the Boston bombings were staged by the American government is a total joke.

I'm adding it to the pile of other popular jokes 9/11, the moon landings.

Conspiracy theorists live in a world where everything they see and hear is deception of some form. It's got to be tough for them

Ben can you make a TL;DR version of every post you make? I swear every single one is an essay.

Well, the first and last paragraphs acted like an introduction and a conclusion in the sense that they offered kind of summaries to my points. It wasn't my most articulate effort but I wrote it late and was on codeine for my wisdom tooth. I apologise if it's less articulate than it could be and difficult to understand. However, unless you want me to just say that governments conspire and offer no evidence supporting that assertion then you're placing me in a catch-22. If I summarize without facts by making my arguments shorter you criticize me as being a baseless conspiracy nut and if I go into reasonable, albeit what I still consider to be a very short, description of things that includes good evidence I'm criticized for being overwhelming.

I am saying that governments conspire and this is not a conspiracy theory but a conspiracy fact grounded in evidence such as actual government documents which explicitly show the intent to lie, exploit, etc. regarding illegal war, invasion, undermining democracies etc. Western governments have a lot of blood on their hands and this should make us suspicious about the stories they tell and what lengths they will go to in achieving their goals. Again, I am offering you definite facts. Those facts are what you should be addressing. Simply labelling me anything and skirting around those facts to avoid them isn't reasonable.

I am also saying that we are generally not exposed to these facts because our media systems (The BBC, ITV, newspapers, etc.) are ultimately either founded by government or run by business which creates bias. Medialens and books such as Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and Hermann offer a systematic analysis of this grounded in well referenced facts.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[1a2bcio8]

Also, my motivations aren't about ego. I don't care about being in the know. I often take my time to read about current affairs, history, etc. despite my general disinterest in politics. In an ideal world my 'intellectual' focus would be entirely upon philosophy and religion. However, I do it because I understand that social life is an ever-present struggle between having your freedoms and people taking them away from you. We are in a particularly free period of life, within the West at least, but a lot of the freedoms we have won across history are being eroded. Assuming things will always stay free and fair is ignorant. Even a basic understanding of history should make us aware of this.

Freedom also isn't just about what you can do physically but is also about how you are able to think - we can have the illusion of freedom even though our thinking has been significantly shaped to blot out various ways of looking at the world that might better serve us. Schooling destroys lateral/creative thinking as studies have shown. Children possess creative intelligence that if I an adult had the same levels we would call them a genius yet children have that part of them dulled. Learning is the process of unquestioningly absorbing 'facts' from 'official' sources which includes learning to shun anything outside those official 'facts'. It's the basis for unquestioningly believing in the intrinsic good of our system and noble intentions of those in power.

If you deny this, to what extent are you doing it with proper consideration and to what extent are you doing it unquestioningly, reflexively? Because it's very difficult to start thinking in ways that go against how you've been taught to think for years. I constantly fail and blatantly in lots of ways I've been duped and have narrow thinking. I say this because I have no interest in painting a picture of a completely illuminated person bringing my awesomeness to fools. I am also a fool but, in some senses, through painful effort, I have found that certain things are not as they seem - I am still a fool though and getting away from that is a work in progress I want people to know about this reality, which I am confident is more real, because I hate the idea that we are exploiting and killing people both abroad and at home so that a small minority can benefit in ways that matter so much less than the general well-being of humanity.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[i like cunning stunts]

Reports coming in that the suspects have been in the US for a year and are from an area within Chechnya.

So many questions i want answered already on this i think the media spouts so much s*** to confuse people.

[MikeCottTrials]

So thats your reply to bens thoughts? What are your thoughts on what he has said about the iraq invasion and the government lying to invade that country?

That to me is the icing on the cake really, they have admitted they were wrong (lied) and are still there killing people on a false accusation.

And no-one held accountable for their actions wtf? If no one questions an invasion killing millions whos going to question a small bomb in Boston killing 2 people?

The iraq invasion isn't really a conspiracy is it. I mean it is in the sense that they lied about nuclear weapons but the fact remains we removed a fairly awful dictator and have been attempting to install a democracy ever since.

I personally don't think its an absurd idea that stable countries have a duty to make this kind of intervention in failed states like iraq. Obviously it's a drastic measure and the moral argument whether we should would probably go no further than concept, but there we are.

Now that is completely different to something such as the Boston bombing, or 9/11. To say that a government like the US would allow or perpetrate an attack against its people, to me, is ludicrous. If for nothing other than the fear of being found out.

All that said, if one day I am proved wrong...I will eat a pair of my underpants on camera.

[1a2bcio8]

The iraq invasion isn't really a conspiracy is it. I mean it is in the sense that they lied about nuclear weapons but the fact remains we removed a fairly awful dictator and have been attempting to install a democracy ever since.

I personally don't think its an absurd idea that stable countries have a duty to make this kind of intervention in failed states like iraq. Obviously it's a drastic measure and the moral argument whether we should would probably go no further than concept, but there we are.

Now that is completely different to something such as the Boston bombing, or 9/11. To say that a government like the US would allow or perpetrate an attack against its people, to me, is ludicrous. If for nothing other than the fear of being found out.

All that said, if one day I am proved wrong...I will eat a pair of my underpants on camera.

It was a conspiracy according to the meaning of the word and when placed into the context of why these conspiracies are done - not for noble reasons - but gains in power, resources, etc. it becomes a significant conspiracy.

Why would you downplay the choice to lie about a serious threat to justify an action that has resulted in the death of over a million Iraqis? In actual fact, life under Sadam prior to the first Gulf War, although not great, was substantially better than how it is now. There was significant infrastructure like hospitals, schools, water, power, etc. which have all be destroyed through the two wars and sanctions. We were also fine with Sadam whilst he gassed the Kurds and exploited his people in the 80s. It was only when he no longer supported our interests that we suddenly pointed out his atrocities.

Iraq is still a dictatorship of sorts. It is called a democracy because saying anything else works against the illusion of a noble Western intent. Western governments are fine with dictators providing they tow the line. Just consider our relationship to Saudi Arabia or the situation in South America.

If intervention were to happen it should be grounded in good humanitarian intentions but it is not. Here you are buying into the myth that it is. Furthermore, the evidence is that intervention simply does not work; it usually causes more problems. However, this should be judged on a case by case situation.

Again, there's an underlying assumption throughout your words. It's the only reason you can have most of them. If a dictator removes another dictator claiming it's about 'democracy' and 'freeing' those people you wouldn't say, "oh, it's okay because a dictator was removed" but, rather, you would recognise that this was just going to cause more problems. We live in a democracy, only by name, as does America. Powerful business interests dominate the direction of our politics which are essentially totalitarian. Once you see it in these terms, the whole notion of helping people and actually achieving good falls to pieces.

You have almost entirely ignored my previous points. This is what frustrates me about talking to about these matters. The response is often reflexive rather than thoughtful and expressed in conventional rationalisations for imperialistic atrocity. Millions have died in Iraq and many more have a terrible quality of life because of western intervention. Sadam caused a minute fraction of comparable suffering. That doesn't mean I'm justifying Sadam who was, in many respect, a monster but I simply want to trash the myth of our mythical noble efforts actually amounting to anything good.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Ben Rowlands

[i like cunning stunts]

I will hold you to that even if i am a senile old man from all the government conspiracy theories, i wont forget that promise

In fear of being found out? But what do you think would happen at that stage, civil war? Or would they just use a couple of scapegoats and then put some other people in their positions?

I think were straying a little from the actual topic could we just discuss the Boston bombings and maybe start another thread for any other discussions?

They keep mentioning another mass casualty event i hope nothing else happens in the meantime

Edited April 19, 2013 by i like cunning stunts

[TrialsRob]

Freedom also isn't just about what you can do physically but is also about how you are able to think - we can have the illusion of freedom even though our thinking has been significantly shaped to blot out various ways of looking at the world that might better serve us. Schooling destroys lateral/creative thinking as studies have shown. Children possess creative intelligence that if I an adult had the same levels we would call them a genius yet children have that part of them dulled. Learning is the process of unquestioningly absorbing 'facts' from 'official' sources which includes learning to shun anything outside those official 'facts'. It's the basis for unquestioningly believing in the intrinsic good of our system and noble intentions of those in power.

So the System is killing the minds of our children. And you're the only one smart enough to see it? and try as you might, few others have the wits/intellect/clarity to accept it, you stand alone against the unending might of your enemies. Today a hero is born.... [see my earlier post]

Psychological games/constructs are fascinating to study, the above could be described as a coping mechanism to deal with a perceived need to feel smarter/more useful in society/respected/etc. Something that I imagine is becoming more common today due to the perceived insignificance of any one person within society as a whole. Goverments naturally become the focus of these 'games' because of their size and complexity, and the power they have. Its easy to see evil/malice/mystery in a system you don't understand.

[MadManMike]

Yes statement from the massachusset police for events happened so far.. http://www.cambridgema.gov/cpd/Alerts/citizenalerts/policedainvestigatingfatalshooting.aspx

How very apt that one died at the hospital how much are we betting that the other suspect ends up dead too?

A bit far fetched that you would carjack someone at gunpoint after planning such an event, putting them at a very high chance of being caught don't you think?

Explosive devices thrown from the car in the chase too i bet an exact copy of what was used at the marathon.

Doesn't say what nationality they are yet but i wonder which country or group will be blamed this time?

Really? Just really?

I'm sorry, but conspiracy folk just sound mad. Literally mad, as in mentally ill.

[Revolver]

So the System is killing the minds of our children. And you're the only one smart enough to see it?

No, it's obvious to others, too.

You can't deny the fact that the majority of the time, school was about absorbing facts from text books.

There is a lot more focus on academic subjects than creative subjects. This is why going to college was better, because you actually got a choice in what you wanted to do, and how you wanted to do it.

[MikeCottTrials]

You have almost entirely ignored my previous points. This is what frustrates me about talking to about these matters. The response is often reflexive rather than thoughtful and expressed in conventional rationalisations for imperialistic atrocity. Millions have died in Iraq and many more have a terrible quality of life because of western intervention.

You say life under Sadam wasn't great, but what were the prospects for the country? Endless changing of hands from one dictator to another. Living in fear from the police. The police which used torture chambers to get confessions to basically anything they wanted you to say. Militia that handed out brutal punishment anywhere and everywhere, and I doubt very much that hospitals in iraq where handing out treatment to everyone that needed it, although I don't know that for a fact.

The figure of over a million dead iraqs (I haven't checked that) isn't really a valid fact to rely upon for an argument. We don't know how any of them died, whether they would have died anyway, whether they were killed as the result of american/iraq action or even foreign fighters from neither nation.

We also don't know what would have happened had Sadam died of natural causes; civil war?

My point is in the long run we may have prevented deaths, and created a foundation on which a real functioning country can be built, instead of leaving a sinking ship to sink, we've scrapped it and built a new one in effect.

I agree the the installation of a democracy hasn't exactly gone to plan, but I do believe that the intent was to have one. That's obviously more difficult to put in place than expected.

I don't agree that we are 'fine' with dictators. I think what you are seeing is a relationship of necessity. I'm fairly certain that if Saudi Arabia, or any other dictatorship, was to push it, they would find themselves on the wrong end of an invasion. In fact I believe the only reason North Korea isn't balls deep in American/South Korean soldiers is there relationship with China.

You claim I'm assuming things; but I would say it is you. I'm listening to real information which comes to me, fact. Where as I think your theories are essentially grounded in assumption of foul play. You don't 'know' therefore you assert your theory as if it is a truth. This comes into play when you basically just said that we don't live in a democracy, which is completely untrue. Again you don't 'know', but you claim companies are in charge. Sure they have an influence, maybe even a larger one than they should, but the bottom line is you vote how you want. The basic fact that if you want to you can run as a party candidate, become the leader, then win an election to become pm and appoint who you wish means that we are in a democracy.

Also although this sentence 'The response is often reflexive rather than thoughtful and expressed in conventional rationalisations for imperialistic atrocity' would appear to to be an articulate sentence to a layman; I think it's typical of your tendency to write in a tedious and long winded style which achieves nothing more than to bore most people out of the discussion.