The Boston Marathon Bombing

I wouldn't disagree, but ....

Ophiolite said:

Since the bombing a few hours ago, several hundred children around the world have died of inadequate supplies of drinking water. A small reduction in oversumption in the west and diversion of funds to the affected areas would eliminate these unecessary deaths. The Boston event is sad, but the tradgedy is the ongoing deaths of truly innocent children.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree, but events do have their moments.

People do need to get their priorities straight. Meanwhile, a crime has been committed, and this one just happens to be spectacular. Remember the news cycle, and rest assured that people will soon enough return to their everyday apathy. But, no, we shouldn't blame people for paying attention, experiencing some manner of pathos, and otherwise being horrified.

This well could affect their daily lives, regardless of what else they're ignoring in the world.

And in the context of the immediate challenges facing us in this time, I would offer two points toward those potential effects:

(1) I have long considered soft targets an indicator of TWAT. Al Qaeda has been sending farm-league benchwarmers, people who can't strike a match, or can only manage to set their balls on fire. If the bad guys really want to do damage and create chaos, the nation is burgeoning with soft targets from college football games to nightclubs, casinos, and concerts, to, well, the Boston Marathon. We've seen what 9/11 and subsequent events did to air travel; there is a legitimate question of how we deal with soft targets like school recitals or megachurches, and how that approach is going to affect Americans' lives. Regardless of the need to reprioritize, this aspect makes the list.


(2) In truth, my money is on white supremacists. This is nothing more than my best speculation, and I'm fully prepared to be wrong, but that's my early guess because it reminds me of the MLK Day bombing attempt in Spokane, white supremacists are allegedly on a roll right now, and given the state of Al Qaeda at present it seems a better bet than Al Shabab hopping the ocean, the cartels deciding that this would somehow be good for business—speak nothing of the implied inexplicable change of methodology—FARC suddenly deciding to go suicidal in honor of Chavez, or ... er ... um ... I don't know, Québécois separatists? The who and why will have tremendous implications for Americans' daily lives, especially if this is a domestically sponsored hit.​

And, besides, you're not going to change the saturation-based news cycle unless you change the societal business model, which is also near the heart of why people are ignoring the dying children around the world.
 
Ophiolite said:
Based on previous experience no one will pay a blind bit of attention to this observation.

Since the bombing a few hours ago, several hundred children around the world have died of inadequate supplies of drinking water. A small reduction in oversumption in the west and diversion of funds to the affected areas would eliminate these unecessary deaths. The Boston event is sad, but the tradgedy is the ongoing deaths of truly innocent children.

Please feel free to continue to ignore the plight of the large numbers of anonymous dead and focus on the smaller numbers of soon to be named bombing victims. There is plenty of research to show it's a natural human reaction. Absolutely no need for any of you to feel guilty.
Click to expand...

I deliberately delayed having children until I could afford to have them. So now you want me to support the children of others who have acted irresponsibly and had children they could not support? Two, if I and those like me in the west do support these children do you have any proof that this will solve the problem or will it just make the problem worse? Three, what is “over consumption” exactly? It is an inexact term that has no practical meaning outside of demagoguery. And fourth, the west is spending large sums of money supporting children in less developed areas of the world (e.g. The Gates Foundation, the Buffett Foundation, UNICEF, The World Bank, etc.). The problem is more than just funding. You have to be able to deliver the aid effectively. Too often aid is stolen by corrupt leaders and individuals.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/

http://www.thehowardgbuffettfoundation.org/

At some point, personal responsibility needs to enter the picture in order to solve this problem. This is a chronic problem. It is not an acute problem which is the result of a natural disaster and can be remedied with temporary measures. This problem isn’t as simple as you are making it out to be. The solution to hunger and poverty is more than just charity from the west or anywhere else for that matter.

At any rate, it has nothing to do with the Boston bombing. I will agree that the Boston bombing while tragic is totally unworthy of all the attention it is receiving in the press. This is not the first terrorist event we have witnessed in this country nor is it the worst nor will it be the last. The scumbag(s) responsible for this tragedy will be found and they will be prosecuted and punished. And hopefully, the Boston PD and the organizers of the Boston Marathon will be better prepared for this kind of threat going forward.
 
I hope the good folk of Boston will reflect, at this time, on the hundreds of thousands of dollars contributed by the "Irish patriots" among their number to fund terrorism in Ulster.
 
Ophiolite said:
Don't talk crap. This has nothing to do with overcrowding and everything to do with those with the power and the funding to correct the issue doing so. Your remarks are offensive, distasteful and reveal your value as a human being.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that if only 50 people were living on that land in that area, which would mean they would have enough water to drink, then I'm wrong in what I say because 50,000 now live there and consume more and more everyday. How many people can a place sustain without decimating their resources where they live? True if you have enough money to supply everyone with the things they need it would be a temporary help to the problem but not stop the problem in many instances. If you supply more water than a region has to offer one day there will be more people than that region can sustain and run out of food. What then use more money to bring in more food they don't have?
 
The odd thing is no one has yet claimed responsibility for this attack. Whoever did this obviously did it for attention. So why are there no claims of responsibility? I expect as time goes by, al Qaeda will claim responsibility, they always do. I’m thinking the perpetrator is lone individual.
 
Axelrod just pointed out that the attack came on "Tax Day". Coincidence or blatant attempt at misdirection?
 
Tach said:
Axelrod just pointed out that the attack came on "Tax Day". Coincidence or blatant attempt at misdirection?
Click to expand...

Axelrod: "You use those words [terrorism] and it means something very specific in people's minds. And I'm sure what was going through the president's mind is -- we really don't know who did this. It was tax day. Is it someone who was pro . . . You just don't know. And so, I think, his attitude is let's not put any inference into this. Let's just make clear that we're going to get the people responsible."

Doesn't sound like a "blatant attempt" at anything.
 
billvon said:
Axelrod: "You use those words [terrorism] and it means something very specific in people's minds. And I'm sure what was going through the president's mind is -- we really don't know who did this. It was tax day. Is it someone who was pro . . . You just don't know. And so, I think, his attitude is let's not put any inference into this. Let's just make clear that we're going to get the people responsible."

Doesn't sound like a "blatant attempt" at anything.
Click to expand...

If two bombs go off at the Boston Marathon finish line with intent to kill and injure people, then it's terrorism, and it happened under this President's watch, like it or not!
 
Motor Daddy said:
If two bombs go off at the Boston Marathon finish line with intent to kill and injure people, then it's terrorism, and it happened under this President's watch, like it or not!
Click to expand...

Very much like Ft. Hood, for once I have to agree with you. Wasn't there an attempt reclassify Ft. Hood as a case of "workplace violence"?
 
Tach said:
Very much like Ft. Hood. Wasn't there an attempt reclassify Ft. Hood as a case of "workplace violence"?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't doubt it.

Under much pain I had to admit that Obama was in charge when we killed Osama Bin laden, so I have to acknowledge that he is responsible and he gets the credit. In the same breath I will say that he is responsible for ALL that happens while he's in office, this included.

Brace yourselves, as the liberals get stronger the country gets weaker.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Who dun it is not relevant to what we call it. Two bombs blowing up and killing and injuring people at a crowded event is terrorism, PERIOD!
Click to expand...

No. A man trying to kill his wife is a murderer. A man trying to kill random people is a terrorist.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Under much pain I had to admit that Obama was in charge when we killed Osama Bin laden, so I have to acknowledge that he is responsible and he gets the credit. In the same breath I will say that he is responsible for ALL that happens while he's in office, this included.
Click to expand...

OK. Want to run the numbers on total people killed due to domestic terrorism under the last, say, five presidents?

Brace yourselves, as the liberals get stronger the country gets weaker.
Click to expand...

Fortunately there are plenty of places to go where conservatives still rule the day. I hear Saudi Arabia is pretty nice.
 
billvon said:
No. A man trying to kill his wife is a murderer. A man trying to kill random people is a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Two bombs blowing up at the Boston Marathon is terrorism. If you can't understand that two bombs detonated in a public place is terrorism, then you don't have a grasp on reality.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Two bombs blowing up at the Boston Marathon is terrorism. If you can't understand that two bombs detonated in a public place is terrorism, then you don't have a grasp on reality.
Click to expand...

And if you don't understand the difference between murder and terrorism - you might want to not serve on any juries.
 
billvon said:
OK. Want to run the numbers on total people killed due to domestic terrorism under the last, say, five presidents?
Click to expand...

How does that relieve Obama of responsibility for this action?



billvon said:
Fortunately there are plenty of places to go where conservatives still rule the day. I hear Saudi Arabia is pretty nice.
Click to expand...

I see you are trying to shirk responsibility for Obama, eh? All for taking credit for something, but low and behold something shitty happens, then it's Bush's fault! (rolls eyes)
 
Motor Daddy said:
How does that relieve Obama of responsibility for this action?
Click to expand...

The same reason it relieves the head of the Boston Marathon for responsibility for this action.

I see you are trying to shirk responsibility for Obama, eh?
Click to expand...

Nope. You were blaming liberals, not Obama. Gotta keep track of your most recent blaming.
 
billvon said:
And if you don't understand the difference between murder and terrorism - you might want to not serve on any juries.
Click to expand...

I guess it's you who doesn't understand terrorism if you think two bombs at the Boston Marathon finish line is anything other than terrorism.
 
billvon said:
The same reason it relieves the head of the Boston Marathon for responsibility for this action.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious? Obama can't be relieved of responsibility unless he is ousted. If he holds the position he is responsible, period! You have much to learn about responsibility, grasshopper.



billvon said:
Nope. You were blaming liberals, not Obama. Gotta keep track of your most recent blaming.
Click to expand...

I am saying Obama is responsible for all that happens while he is in office. This happened while he was in office, so he is responsible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top