J
Joe
Guest
Yes they always beef up security after a attack .So they will wait and attack something new . Its sad we live in a world like this . Real Sad .
Boston Bombing - Initial reactions
- Thread starter F4Jock
- Start date
Cairenn
Senior Member.
I just saw this in a post on my wall
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=311232565673299&set=o.2204686781&type=1&relevant_count=1
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=311232565673299&set=o.2204686781&type=1&relevant_count=1
David Fraser
Senior Member.
What is wrong with people? Rather than show support and sympathy they opt to talk bollocks.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
This is nuts. Such a hateful and low act. Man, I can't imagine starting your day out with joy, excitement and happiness about proving yourself by participating in a physical endurance test which is also a celebratory event, only to have it end with amputation. F***.
Who imagines this achieves something?
America was already on the brink of a rabid paranoia frenzy, this will push it further into darkness.
Just, damn.
And amazing how people can say, well bombings happen everyday in other countries but the media never reports it, why is this any different? The media's all over it, it must be to push a government agenda.
Really?
Your own country and it's not a big deal? Urgh.
The problem is, no matter who the perpetrator is, everyone will claim it's a lie meant to make *insert personal ideological affiliation here* look bad.
Who imagines this achieves something?
America was already on the brink of a rabid paranoia frenzy, this will push it further into darkness.
Just, damn.
And amazing how people can say, well bombings happen everyday in other countries but the media never reports it, why is this any different? The media's all over it, it must be to push a government agenda.
Really?
Your own country and it's not a big deal? Urgh.
The problem is, no matter who the perpetrator is, everyone will claim it's a lie meant to make *insert personal ideological affiliation here* look bad.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Wow. So many unintelligible F words building inside me.
Drew
Active Member
Hello to all. I've been a lurker on the forum for a few months now. As somebody who formerly studied media theory and politics and who has a casual interest in the mass psychology of conspiracy theory, I've been admiring Metabunk for its thoughtful, collaborative dissection of CT topics. I marvel at your patience with some of the ideas and people you deal with here. I haven't been sure how to join the conversation or what I have to add, but today's attack in Boston has prompted me to venture a few thoughts.
Can you even imagine circumstances in which a guy like Alex Jones would respond to an event like today's by saying "This is an awful tragedy, but in this case bears no marks of anything other than an isolated event perpetrated by a few extremists" and leaving it at that? Why does everything have to be a conspiracy? I'm reminded of the idea of conspiracy theory as a psychological defense mechanism or coping skill (I've seen this referenced in many places; for the moment I can't cite who specifically originated or elaborated it). Frightening events in a random, chaotic, uncertain world are tough to handle. The CT mind actually feels "safer" when big, scary tragedies havebig, scary causes. (Not to mention that Alex Jones and others in the CT cottage industry make a living perpetuating their worldview; they have no financial incentive to be judicious or intellectually honest.)
And of course, confirmation bias and selective exposure are also at play in the processing of this kind of attack. We're in that awful, frustrating moment when the slow trickle of facts has yet to catch up with the immensity of the event, and all the media can do is replay footage, air press conferences, and bring talking heads on to fill time with speculation. Some are more cautious than others. I'm troubled by how the NY Post has made original, obliquely sourced claims (e.g. that a "Saudi national" is in custody as a suspect, that the death toll is at 12 instead of 3). These may turn out to be true, but there's something gross about how quickly a paper like the Post is willing to report facts in a way that speak to the biases of its right-wing readership, dramatizing the threat and magnitude of Islamist terrorism. And where the Far Right bleeds into the Conspiracist Right (e.g. freerepublic or FoxNation) they can't seem to make up their minds whether this is al-Qaida's doing or a "false flag" attack from Obama's ATF, or whether those are one in the same.
And it's interesting, Mick, how you mentioned the similarities to the 1996 Olympic Park bombings in the other thread. I'm no terrorism expert, but I too see similarities. I won't speak for you, but I'm trying to remind myself to be cautious.
One thing I've noticed while paying attention to my emotional responses today is that on some gut level I kind of instinctively assigned blame to right-wing anti-government extremists. There are superficially plausible reasons for doing so, as mentioned, with this taking place on April 15 in Boston on Patriots' Day, at roughly the anniversary of Oklahoma City/Waco, and at a time when the fringe right are already frothing over with anti-government paranoia. It makes sense and wouldn't surprise me. But on some level (and I'm not entirely comfortable admitting this) I think maybe there's this icky, irrational, unreasoning urge/wish on my part preferring that the Far Right be at fault. It's interesting in this period of uncertain speculation to note the part of my thinking that feels pulled toward evidence and hypotheses supporting that. My own little deployment of confirmation bias. What I mean to say is that at times like this even skeptics should be mindful of our own biases.
Excuse this lengthy ramble if I sound unclear. It's late here, I'm wound up, still a little rattled by processing everything that happened in Boston, and still a little unused to writing in the forum . It'll be interesting to watch with you all as this unfolds.
Lastly, I'm glad to hear that the friends and relatives of everyone on this thread seem to be okay.
Can you even imagine circumstances in which a guy like Alex Jones would respond to an event like today's by saying "This is an awful tragedy, but in this case bears no marks of anything other than an isolated event perpetrated by a few extremists" and leaving it at that? Why does everything have to be a conspiracy? I'm reminded of the idea of conspiracy theory as a psychological defense mechanism or coping skill (I've seen this referenced in many places; for the moment I can't cite who specifically originated or elaborated it). Frightening events in a random, chaotic, uncertain world are tough to handle. The CT mind actually feels "safer" when big, scary tragedies havebig, scary causes. (Not to mention that Alex Jones and others in the CT cottage industry make a living perpetuating their worldview; they have no financial incentive to be judicious or intellectually honest.)
And of course, confirmation bias and selective exposure are also at play in the processing of this kind of attack. We're in that awful, frustrating moment when the slow trickle of facts has yet to catch up with the immensity of the event, and all the media can do is replay footage, air press conferences, and bring talking heads on to fill time with speculation. Some are more cautious than others. I'm troubled by how the NY Post has made original, obliquely sourced claims (e.g. that a "Saudi national" is in custody as a suspect, that the death toll is at 12 instead of 3). These may turn out to be true, but there's something gross about how quickly a paper like the Post is willing to report facts in a way that speak to the biases of its right-wing readership, dramatizing the threat and magnitude of Islamist terrorism. And where the Far Right bleeds into the Conspiracist Right (e.g. freerepublic or FoxNation) they can't seem to make up their minds whether this is al-Qaida's doing or a "false flag" attack from Obama's ATF, or whether those are one in the same.
And it's interesting, Mick, how you mentioned the similarities to the 1996 Olympic Park bombings in the other thread. I'm no terrorism expert, but I too see similarities. I won't speak for you, but I'm trying to remind myself to be cautious.
One thing I've noticed while paying attention to my emotional responses today is that on some gut level I kind of instinctively assigned blame to right-wing anti-government extremists. There are superficially plausible reasons for doing so, as mentioned, with this taking place on April 15 in Boston on Patriots' Day, at roughly the anniversary of Oklahoma City/Waco, and at a time when the fringe right are already frothing over with anti-government paranoia. It makes sense and wouldn't surprise me. But on some level (and I'm not entirely comfortable admitting this) I think maybe there's this icky, irrational, unreasoning urge/wish on my part preferring that the Far Right be at fault. It's interesting in this period of uncertain speculation to note the part of my thinking that feels pulled toward evidence and hypotheses supporting that. My own little deployment of confirmation bias. What I mean to say is that at times like this even skeptics should be mindful of our own biases.
Excuse this lengthy ramble if I sound unclear. It's late here, I'm wound up, still a little rattled by processing everything that happened in Boston, and still a little unused to writing in the forum . It'll be interesting to watch with you all as this unfolds.
Lastly, I'm glad to hear that the friends and relatives of everyone on this thread seem to be okay.
Drew
Active Member
Or this. You essentially cut right to the point of my whole rambly spiel in my lengthy previous post.
Met Watch
Moderator
Drew, thanks for your input on this. It was one of the more interesting reads I have had on this forum. Also, welcome to Metabunk. Make yourself comfortable.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Ha! No, it was artfully worded. Rambly spiels are allowed.
Edit.. I concur with your uneasiness about attributing blame to home-grown far right forces - definitely some reasons to do so, but still a premature move at this point that may have more to do with emotional vindication of a personal abhorrence for certain current trends evident within America.
It's important to be on guard against one's own biases.
Edit.. I concur with your uneasiness about attributing blame to home-grown far right forces - definitely some reasons to do so, but still a premature move at this point that may have more to do with emotional vindication of a personal abhorrence for certain current trends evident within America.
It's important to be on guard against one's own biases.
JonJson
Active Member
From time to time when I have been called a shill by somebody, usually because I have undermined their conspiracy theories, and I have pointed out to them that Alex Jones doesn't put his show on just to inform people. That he is in fact making money off of conspiracy theories and as a result he is not an impartial observer that he is instead part of the dreaded Main Stream Media, they never seem to think about that on their own.
The similarities I see are that it is a bomb at a sporting event, and nobody has claimed responsibility, or been arrested.
I don't even really think of Rudolph as right-wing, I think of him as a disturbed extremist. I think it's likely a lone disturbed extremist is behind this, but it's really far too early to say.
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
I checked Jones' twitter feed this morning. He first became aware of the explosions at 10.13. At 10.31 he brings in the #falseflag. 8 minutes later he predicts TSA groping at future sports events (oblivious to the fact that the T in TSA stands from Transportation, which is why you find them in e.g. airports). By 11.59 he has alerted his followers to the fact that the Boston bomb squad had controlled explosion drills on the same day.
J
Joe
Guest
Family Guy predicted the event according to InfoLies .
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
The episode where Peter wins the Boston Marathon by killing people in his car IS NOT the Turban Cowboy episode where he befriends Mahmoud and sets off two explosions off-screen when he uses his cell phone in a bar. They're different episodes. In Turban Cowboy, Peter starts off by taking up sky-diving.
It is the same episode, just two unrelated parts of it. The above video is a very misleading edit.
See:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1388-Debunked-Boston-Marathon-Family-Guy-Prediction
Last edited:
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
Sorry, but wasn't the marathon bit a Peter flashback to a previous episode?
It's a flashback, while skydiving. I'm not sure if it's a flashback to a previous episode though.
Drew
Active Member
Not to quibble, but I would find it difficult to characterize Rudolph's as anything other than right wing and that his bombing campaign was explicitly political:
His other targets included a lesbian bar and an abortion clinic, and his rhetoric and rationale are of a piece with the culture war conservatism and antigovernment/anti-NWO far right CT. Rudolph was certainly a disturbed extremist, but that doesn't preclude his having been influenced by far right-wing politics and conspiracy theory.
If your point is that at this early time ascribing political motives to the Boston Marathon attack is premature, I will agree. There are superficial resemblances, but in this informational vacuum all anybody can do is speculate.
My point above was that, as someone who is particularly concerned by the intersection of conspiracy theory, politics, and extremist violence, I should be careful of my own confirmation bias in looking at these events.
Sure, if you just look at his politics then you would have to say he's far right. But my point was that I don't really think about him as someone who took their political views too far. I think of him as disturbed, a crazy guy. So if I were to say someone like Rudolph did the Boston Bombing, then I'd expect them also to be a disturbed crazy guy, but I would not be surprised if they fell to the left or right on the political spectrum - although i would expect them to be at something of an extreme.
J
Joe
Guest
He was far right as you can get he was a Anarchist, and he was Nuts !
Grieves
Senior Member
Unless/until the blame falls on North Korea/Iran, or some actual evidence arises, I see absolutely no cause to make any assumptions about 'false flag' versus 'terrorists' versus 'crazy right-wingers'.
I'd suggest you apply this somewhat crass statement but entirely sound logic to our discussion of Kevin Purfield.
I'd first extend it to note that his political beliefs provided the targets for his madness, in the same way that a conspiracy theory can provide targets such as pilots and debunkers.
And there is something of a difference between people how have strong beliefs about the sanctity of embreo life, and people who hold demonstrably false beliefs.
JRBids
Senior Member.
Which is exactly the type of person Kevin Purfield is, which Grieves objected to.
Grieves
Senior Member
Wow. Kevin Purfield, a man accused only of harassment and erratic behavior so far as I know, is exactly the type of person who'd detonate bombs at a public race, killing and maiming?
And you're not at all a proponent of the stigma surrounding mental illness, huh?
Horrible stuff, man.
And you're not at all a proponent of the stigma surrounding mental illness, huh?
Horrible stuff, man.
The term was "disturbed extremist", that's all.
Grieves
Senior Member
True, and fair, but that doesn't put those political positions/the theories themselves in the blame. As you said, the acts themselves were a result of their being ill.
Is the belief that an embryo yet to develop a functioning brain/nervous system is conscious and possessing of its own identity not demonstrably false?
In direct reference to murderers, a reference included in the quote.
I'd say the acts were a combination. If they did not get all riled up, then would they be doing similar things?
A) No, and B) that's not really his position.
I think you are the only one who read that into the statement. I do not think that was intended.
I removed my comment, after thinking better of it.
The category was "disturbed extremist", that seemed very clear to me.
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
This is a thing? It's so ridiculous I thought it must be someone deliberately trying to bait conspiracy theorists to make them look stupid. But no, it's a real discussion point.
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=1602&start=90
What is even supposed to be the suspected logic behind it? Probably not worth getting worked up over. But still, pretty sad.
"Kangaroo foot"
"Sloppy cut and paste trimming of hand and neck area"
Clues Forum thinks that 9/11 did not happen, and was faked with computer graphics. They are really not worth engaging as their "work" speaks for itself.
JRBids
Senior Member.
After looking at the forum Pete Tar posted above, I stand by my statement that conspiracy theoriests can be very disturbed. Who would come up with this stuff. Their imaginations are way to active. I'm sure not all are, some are just gullible, but the people making this stuff up especially are have either a sick sense of humor or are disturbed.
Either there are no videos and "we" don't see any blood, or we do and they're all faked:
Sick people.
Either there are no videos and "we" don't see any blood, or we do and they're all faked:
"Simon, I came to the same conclusion about the flag symbolism.
Its sad how easily you can tell this is fake, anyone who has ever been in a situation with a lot of gore can tell this is just down right fake. Not to mention the silly reactions from all the people ducking, I would think most people would be "GTFOing".
I'd like to meet the guy who can get both of his legs blown off while remaining calm and letting someone lift him into a wheel chair. So no shock, tears, blood? (I imagine since it would be down right painful to sit up with blown off legs he would be laying in mass amounts of his own blood before being tended too...
@anonjedi All of those people in 2nd photo look as if they were photo shopped into the picture, especially the guy on the far right in the brightly colored jacket.
I don't understand how so many people have clothes that are ripped in such ridiculous ways.."
"I'm also rather baffled by this other image. Here we see the 1st (alleged) BOMB's "epicenter" - with still a lot of cleaning to do. Yet there is NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON to be seen. Have they all gone off to lunch?"
Sick people.
The writer there is suggesting this because if it's a Muslim, then that would be used as an excuse to push through policy decisions regarding the wars in the East.
He does not realize that people like Joe feel that if it's a white guy, then it will be used to push through policy decisions that affect people like Joe.
Enter the Boston bombing. Coming at the very moment the U.S. government is planning to withdraw from Afghanistan, considering cuts to the Pentagon budget, discussing civil liberties principles and debating landmark immigration legislation, the attack could easily become the fulcrum of all of those contentious policy debates — that is, depending on the demographic profile of the assailant.
If recent history is any guide, if the bomber ends up being a white anti-government extremist, white privilege will likely mean the attack is portrayed as just an isolated incident — one that has no bearing on any larger policy debates. Put another way, white privilege will work to not only insulate whites from collective blame, but also to insulate the political debate from any fallout from the attack.
It will probably be much different if the bomber ends up being a Muslim and/or a foreigner from the developing world. As we know from our own history, when those kind of individuals break laws in such a high-profile way, America often cites them as both proof that entire demographic groups must be targeted, and that therefore a more systemic response is warranted.
Alhazred The Sane
Senior Member.
It's not that unusual for nobody to claim responsibility; cast your mind back to the Atlanta Olympic bombings, how long was it before Rudolph admitted he was responsible? Not until he was eventually caught. The fact that nobody has claimed responsibility might indicate that there is no political terrorist organisation behind it. For example; the Provisional IRA in Ireland, ETA in the Basque Country, Hizbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, Al Qaida wherever - all were generally quick to claim responsibility because the whole point of their campaigns was to get public attention for their cause. But lone nut-jobs, they're a different thing altogether (the Una-Bomber excepted).
J
Joe
Guest
Or people like you Mick . If its a Muslim we will wind up Blaming Syria or Iran . Starting another worthless war in the Middle east . I just find it strange that someone would wish it would be One or the other . It could be someone like Obamas buddy Bill Ayers ?
Cairenn
Senior Member.
A friend posted this.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/16/tech/...ton-fakes/index.html?sr=fb041713bostonfake12a
It is good that CNN is starting the fight against the misinformation.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/16/tech/...ton-fakes/index.html?sr=fb041713bostonfake12a
It is good that CNN is starting the fight against the misinformation.
