Boston Bombing, Boston Marathon April 15th

[Zenith]

My bad, wrote the wrong subject. Edited.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Read. Considered. Dismissed.

The majority of murders in the US are blacks killing other blacks. And yet all the blacks get bent out of shape when one gets killed by somebody of any other color, even a half-hispanic they call white who doesn't even look white. Does that make any sense to you? Perhaps the arrest and incarceration rate for young black males is proportional to the rate of serious crimes committed by young black males?

That's like saying it's unfair that such a high percentage of cripples are in wheel chairs.

I read it too and agree with you, I also ask what the heck PM is trying to get at by posting that. Is he sided with that rhetoric or just doing it for added conversation?

 

[McLaren]

And before you dismiss the author's thoughts, consider what she has to say about George Zimmerman.

She's a complete & utter idiot who thinks the judicial system allows black people to be murdered without consequence.

Yes, there was anger towards Zimmerman, but the real outrage was reserved for a justice system that continues to excuse the extra-judicial killing of young black men: every 28 hours, a black man is killed by police or security guards or vigilantes.

The source she uses tallies that 313 black people died last year at the hands of 3 specific groups & doesn't take note that the group that conducted is the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement.

The Malcolm X Grassroots Movement is an organization of Afrikans in America/New Afrikans whose mission is to defend the human rights of our people and promote self-determination in our community by any means necessary!mxgm.org

Yep, there's totally zero chance they don't have a racist agenda & will twist their reports.

Perhaps this is one young black death too many, because the overriding feeling in Union Square was that the justice system had, in the words of one speaker, "declared open season on black people" and they just weren't going to take it anymore.

The people who spout this nonsense are the ones who need to be locked up. They don't say these things to gain support for their cause, they say these things as an excuse to retaliate, that whatever they do is really "justice" that the courts failed to carry out.


The fact the author continued on marching with people of this mindset dismisses anything.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't really see what this woman's article has to do with the bombing though...

I posted it because I felt she publised something fairly insightful about the Rolling Stone cover. However, I was fairly certain that people would simply dismiss it out of hand because it didn't show enough moral outrage for them. So I linked to the Zimmerman article so that people could get some exposure to her thoughts on other subjects, and maybe take that into consideration before dismissing anything she has to say.

Unfortunately, I fell into the very trap I was trying to avoid: the opinion on Zimmerman doesn't reflect the opinion of the reader, so the reader dismisses everything that has been said on any subject. Ironically, this only proves her point about Tsarnaev: that he has already been defined, and that we don't like anything that challenges our own perception. Any attempt to understand what drove him to commit the crimes he has been accused of is written off as being sympathising with a terrorist, even if understanding his motiviations might help to prevent another crime like the Boston bombings.

I can't comprehend this refusal to understand more about the criminal. But I'm guessing it has something to do with an unwillingness to confront the idea that you did something to provoke it. Take the example given, of the teeanger killed in a drone strike that was targeting his father. Did he deserve to die? Is his death considered an acceptable loss because a radical cleric died? Is it justified? There are some who may agree with that setinment. But consider the spokesperson's response when asked if the death could have been prevented: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father." For all we know, he was an excellent father who happened to be a radical cleric. But the spokesperson saw the radicalism first and assumed that it made him a bad father, that he should have known that he would be the target of a drone strike, and that by keeping his son close to him - which any responsible father invested in their child's life would do - he was knowingly putting his son in harm's way. His flippant remark amounted to "You brought this on yourself, so the boy's death isn't on our hands". Does nobody realise that an avoidable death coupled with a patronising comment from a government spokesperson might incite people to anger - the same kind of anger that people showed in the aftermath of the Boston bombings? And that people might channel that anger into violence, fighting against what they see as a tyrannical, oppressive government - the same kind of fight that the most dedicated of gun owners would claim is necessary and justified should the government try to take away their right to own a gun?

 

[arora]

I can't comprehend this refusal to understand more about the criminal. But I'm guessing it has something to do with an unwillingness to confront the idea that you did something to provoke it.

Oh really now? Check yourself prisonmonkey, please check yourself. The truth is some of us grow tired of your bleeding heart

BTW, the rest of your post? You guessed it, tl;dr

You cannot terrorize the u.s., we rally around ourselves, pick each other up and get on with it. We will support our police, gov etc right or wrong.

The event is troubling to me and I'd like to understand more so we could grow into a world where this sort of thing is even more rare then it is(which is rare already)

 

[prisonermonkeys]

BTW, the rest of your post? You guessed it, tl;dr

This is what we call "being a part of the problem". You say you want to try and understand what is a complex and sensitive issue, but as soon as someone takes the time to actually write something about it, you ignore it because it might take more than five minutes of yor time.

It's especially funny considering that parts of my post might have contributed to your understanding, but you wrote them off because I'm the one that posted it.

 

[arora]

You are either thicker then a brick, or just being an ass for no reason. Do you not realize I actually do read your posts? In fact I read them multiple times, I probably try to understand you more then most on here.

Lighten up and realize people will always have a different position to yours, and more importantly perhaps, I don't know, you could learn from me as well? Oh nooos!

I like the way you down play the fact I already pointed out what you wanted to say... many days ago

Get it straight ffs, think about it at least.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Get it straight ffs, think about it at least.

Well, excuse me if I take what you say at face value. When you say that my post is too long and that you didn't read it, and when there is no evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that you didn't read my post because it was too long.

 

[arora]

Here is your peace offering.

Seriously, you are one silly monkey.

 

[BobK]

the opinion on Zimmerman doesn't reflect the opinion of the reader

More importantly, it doesn't reflect the facts. Given that, and her obviously biased stance, I don't see why I should take anything else she has to say seriously.

 

[Keef]

Unfortunately, I fell into the very trap I was trying to avoid: the opinion on Zimmerman doesn't reflect the opinion of the reader, so the reader dismisses everything that has been said on any subject.

I'm above that. I don't care about her opinion. Everybody's got one. The problem is the attitude with which she delivers it that leads me to dismiss her views based on a poor style of argumentation and lack of critical thinking. Ol' boy Charles Barkley doesn't have the same opinion as me either but as you can see in the video of him in another thread, I respect his opinion because he delivers it in a respectful way.

Ironically, this only proves her point about Tsarnaev: that he has already been defined, and that we don't like anything that challenges our own perception.

A lot of people are up in arms about it. I don't understand why:

Junkie. Overdosed and killed herself. People think she's awesome.

Smokes weed constantly, and sings about it. People think he's awesome.

Slung coke and tried to sell his mom heroine once. Now one of the wealthiest and most respected entertainers in the world.

Nicky Barnes was before my time but they still banked on his reputation. Years later, movies have been made about this subject and people view this guy, Frank Lucas, all the mafia figures, and other crime kingpins as rockstars worth emulating.

People are used by the media because they allow themselves to be used. They're all idiots.

When you say that my post is too long and that you didn't read it, and when there is no evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that you didn't read my post because it was too long.

When you say the kid attacked you and you had to defend yourself, and when there is no evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that you defended yourself because you were being attacked.

One of the most blatantly hypocritical statements I've seen you post. It's okay for you to consider evidence and make a judgement, but when numerous people including professional prosecutors, investigators, lawyers, a judge, and a slew of jurors do the exact same thing you are beyond critical but declare them wrong and go out of your way to find out why they're wrong, using only assumption because all the concrete evidence must have been wrong because it was used during the trial which resulted in a verdict that you don't think is correct.

 

[Dotini]

Rolling Stone, over the decades, has printed a lot of controversial covers and articles. The point of the current well researched article on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is to explore how and why the boy who was so well integrated into American society could go wrong so quickly and thoroughly. The cover depicts the ideal boy who turned virtually overnight into an unrecognizable monster.

 

[Northstar]

*Amy Winehouse Pic
Junkie. Overdosed and killed herself. People think she's awesome.

*Wiz Khalifa
Smokes weed constantly, and sings about it. People think he's awesome.

*Jay-Z Pic
Slung coke and tried to sell his mom heroine once. Now one of the wealthiest and most respected entertainers in the world.

To be fair, if they excluded musicians with a drug history, they would have a rotation of about 5 artists.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Keef you're wrong about Winehouse she did not die from an overdose, she died from the opposite actually.

 

[PeterJB]

Keef you're wrong about Winehouse she did not die from an overdose, she died from the opposite actually.

She was found dead with five times the legal driving limit of alcohol in her blood.

 

[Liquid]

Keef you're wrong about Winehouse she did not die from an overdose, she died from the opposite actually.

But all those drugs she shovelled into her had no effect in her revolting appearence and early death.

None at all.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

She was found dead with five times the legal driving limit of alcohol in her blood.

But all those drugs she shovelled into her had no effect in her revolting appearence and early death.

None at all.

My point is his comment would lead others to believe that she got high and then died due to being a junkie. A junkie and alcoholic are two different things thus wanted people to not be mislead. Also there is many who think (thus why I said it) that she died more so due to her pattern than being an outright alcoholic, there are those who state that due to her trying to cope with withdraw on her own instead of professional help caused her downfall.

Also @Liquid what does appearance have to do with death, have you ever seen a person or worked in a hospital after they die? They tend to look sickly and not full of life, you know since they're dead and all (if you want to be sarcastic). She also had an eating disorder as well, that could have caused her to look frail, funny you don't mention that either.

 

[PeterJB]

My point is his comment would lead others to believe that she got high and then died due to being a junkie. A junkie and alcoholic are two different things thus wanted people to not be mislead. Also there is many who think (thus why I said it) that she died more so due to her pattern than being an outright alcoholic, there are those who state that due to her trying to cope with withdraw on her own instead of professional help caused her downfall.

Also @Liquid what does appearance have to do with death, have you ever seen a person or worked in a hospital after they die? They tend to look sickly and not full of life, you know since they're dead and all (if you want to be sarcastic). She also had an eating disorder as well, that could have caused her to look frail, funny you don't mention that either.

The side effects of heroin are pretty obvious.

 

[Liquid]

When she was on NMTB, she looked very healthy, bubbly and charming. Then she lost weight and vitality like a slut's virginity when she got on the smack.

But I fear we're straying off topic.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The side effects of heroin are pretty obvious.

Once again, if you want to be one sided and ignore the other issues she had and make her out to be a junkie only, that's your prerogative, I rather people have more facts. If you can prove that is a picture before her death, and that only heroin caused her to be in that state, then I'd happily agree with you. However, you yourself stated her cause of death as did I and it wasn't heroin or crack so I'm just trying to clear thing.

When she was on NMTB, she looked very healthy, bubbly and charming. Then she lost weight and vitality like a slut's virginity when she got on the smack.

But I fear we're straying off topic.

The point is she gave up drugs, then became an alcoholic who had an eating disorder, she'd go into a withdraw on her own for weeks then pick back up drinking in a way that would kill anyone in quick enough time. And yes I agree we are straying off topic, my point was to keef that Winehouse didn't OD on drugs like he seems to suggest, let's be factual about this.

Also these people that rolling stone put on their covers are entertainers that use drugs, so what? They didn't injure tons of people and kill a handful of others including a child, that is why Boston is mad. I don't care really I don't read Rolling Stones, but I agree they have a right to publish their magazine as they see fit, and obviously to get people to read it.

 

[PeterJB]

Alcohol is a form of recreational drug, and she took just about every mainstream drug in bulk, those things have long-lasting effects.

 

[arora]

Amy lived her life how she chose to, battling addictions etc., creating music or performing, whatever, why do people care that her lifestyle killed her? She lived a successful to some degree, life.

On the other hand, the bomber guy, well, he killed and injured others for no valid reason(to most of us). Big difference imo 👍

Maybe we are saying we want to see role models only on a mag cover which neither one was.

I don't need to understand a drug addict/alcoholic's behavior or reasons so much, sure it would be nice if we could help people in that place but they have a right to live as they see fit. I would however like to understand the mind of a terrorist, how he got there and what we need to balance in regards to foreign relations, treatment of our own citizens, etc, to further limit these attacks.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Alcohol is a form of recreational drug, and she took just about every mainstream drug in bulk, those things have long-lasting effects.

I agree, but they weren't the direct cause of her death which was my point to keef, because his writing would seem to suggest otherwise. And though Alcohol is a form, he called her a junkie thus referring to a different type of drug. That's all I was saying and trying to set it straight. It seems clear from his writing that he thought she OD'd on a drug like heroin and not alcohol poisoning, that is why I responded to correct him. As Liquid said we've gone off topic and probably should get back which I did my last post.

 

[Caz]

Backpack detonated at finish line tonight.


1 year ago today already. After a powerful day.in the city today, this happens.


Today:
Alittle over a half hour ago Boston PD shut down the area around the marathon finish line due to 2 backpacks left unattended.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/04/...acuated-after-backpack-left-near-finish-line/



Bomb squad preparing to detonate back pack. All trains have been moved away from copley station.

1 bacpack blown up by bombsquad

Both backpacks have been neutralized, unsure if explosives were in them at this time.


Boston police have given the all clear.

 

[Caz]

Pressure cookers filled with confetti. This clown claims to bea performance artist.
Hope theyake an example of this guy, causing terror and panic at the site of a tragic event on the one year anniversary, by simulating the original attack while the area is full of survivors and thier families is nothing short of an act of terror in and of itself.


http://www.ijreview.com/2014/04/130...n-finish-line-contained-rice-cooker-confetti/

 

[niky]

Sending tweets about being a terrorist is stupid enough to deserve jail time

This? This deserves something a whole lot more.

This could actually be classed as and tried as a terrorism case...

 

[Caz]

I agree Niky.
The apparent goal of this, ummmm, prank(?) Was to strike fear into those whom survived the original attacks. Tho it was "harmless" the net affect on those in the area for the days festivities is still the same as if the backpacks did in fact contain live explosives.

Imho, a terrorist attack does not require the loss of or maiming of human life.



Edit ; meant to pist this originally.
i use prank and harmless and art very loosely. They are not my views on this act.

 

[niky]

Will have a hard time claiming that was simply performance art, given his Facebook page. I think insanity is the only possible defense.

 

[BobK]

It would be a huge understatement to say what he did was sick and in extremely poor taste. But I have to ask, what did he do that was actually illegal? I understand he was charged with posessing a hoax device, but I've never heard of such a a law.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Absolutely insane, I believe strongly in freedom of artistic expression and therefore support this guy's right to do what he did... but he has to understand that the presentation of a piece isn't the end of its life but the start of its provenance. And this one is, as they say, a doozy.

EDIT: I'll clarify, I support his right to make the statement. I don't support the right to attempt to delude people into thinking that a genuine bomb is at the scene - such a threat could spark a panic that would kill and injure more people than the original attack.

All credit to the Boston Police for handling this as well as they seem to have done.