Is cbs from new york as well ?
Bomb blast at Boston Marathon
- Thread starter pjbleek
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
-
231Replies
-
6KViews
-
2Participant count
-
Participants list
Sad isnt it...killing over ideologies.
I second that ...and to all that have loss and suffrage as well.
Its going to be a long road for many to come.....deep emotional scars in addition to any physical impairments.
I heard that picture was making the rounds. I don't know about age restrictions and what not, but my first thought was that I seriously doubted an 8 year old had been able to run all the qualifying races needed to participate in the Boston marathon. It's not a marathon you just sign up for and run...you have to run a qualifying race and meet a certain time restriction in order to be allowed to participate.
I'm not right wing.
Patriots' Day
Patriots' Day (officially Patriots' Day in Massachusetts[SUP][1][/SUP] and Patriot's Day in Maine[SUP][2][/SUP]) is a civic holidaycommemorating the anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. These were the first battles of the American Revolutionary War. It is observed on the third Monday in April in Massachusetts[SUP][3][/SUP] andMaine[SUP][4][/SUP] (once part of Massachusetts), and is a public school observance day in Wisconsin[SUP][5][/SUP]. Florida law also encourages people to celebrate it, though it is not treated as a public holiday.[SUP][6][/SUP] Observances and re-enactments of these first battles of the American Revolution occur annually at Lexington Green in Lexington, Massachusetts, (around 6:00 am) and The Old North Bridge in Concord, Massachusetts, (around 9:00 am). In the morning, mounted re-enactors (National Lancers - Massachusetts) with state police escorts retrace the rides of Paul Revere and William Dawes, calling out warnings the whole way.
Since 1969, the holiday has been observed on the third Monday in April, providing a three-day long weekend, as well as being the first day of public school vacation week in Maine and Massachusetts. Previously, it had been designated as April 19 in observance of the anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the first battles of the American Revolutionary War.
It is also a school holiday for many local colleges and universities, both public and private. In addition, as Patriots' Day is considered a holiday in Maine and Massachusetts, when it falls on a day where United States federal income tax returns would otherwise be due for the remainder of the country, residents of those states are given until midnight of the next day (Tuesday) to submit their return.[SUP][citation needed]
Sporting events
The Boston Marathon is run on Patriots' Day every year, so the holiday is referred to as "Marathon Monday" by many Bostonians. On April 15, 2013, at approximately 2:50 PM EDT (18:50 UTC), 04:09:43 since the start of the 117th running of the race, two bombs were detonated near the finish line, killing 3 and injuring over 140 people.
The Boston Red Sox have traditionally been scheduled to play at home in Fenway Park on Patriots' Day every year since 1959. The games were postponed due to bad weather in 1959, 1961, 1965, 1967, and 1984, and canceled in 1995[SUP][7][/SUP] because of the late start to the season. Since 1968 the games have started early, in the morning, around 11:00 am. The early start to these games usually resulted in the game ending just as the marathon is heading throughKenmore Square. However, since 2007 the marathon has started between 9:30 am and 10:00 am, resulting in the racers going through Kenmore towards the middle of the Red Sox game.[SUP][8]
LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriots'_Day
[/SUP]
[/SUP]
Patriots' Day
Patriots' Day (officially Patriots' Day in Massachusetts[SUP][1][/SUP] and Patriot's Day in Maine[SUP][2][/SUP]) is a civic holidaycommemorating the anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. These were the first battles of the American Revolutionary War. It is observed on the third Monday in April in Massachusetts[SUP][3][/SUP] andMaine[SUP][4][/SUP] (once part of Massachusetts), and is a public school observance day in Wisconsin[SUP][5][/SUP]. Florida law also encourages people to celebrate it, though it is not treated as a public holiday.[SUP][6][/SUP] Observances and re-enactments of these first battles of the American Revolution occur annually at Lexington Green in Lexington, Massachusetts, (around 6:00 am) and The Old North Bridge in Concord, Massachusetts, (around 9:00 am). In the morning, mounted re-enactors (National Lancers - Massachusetts) with state police escorts retrace the rides of Paul Revere and William Dawes, calling out warnings the whole way.
Since 1969, the holiday has been observed on the third Monday in April, providing a three-day long weekend, as well as being the first day of public school vacation week in Maine and Massachusetts. Previously, it had been designated as April 19 in observance of the anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the first battles of the American Revolutionary War.
It is also a school holiday for many local colleges and universities, both public and private. In addition, as Patriots' Day is considered a holiday in Maine and Massachusetts, when it falls on a day where United States federal income tax returns would otherwise be due for the remainder of the country, residents of those states are given until midnight of the next day (Tuesday) to submit their return.[SUP][citation needed]
Sporting events
The Boston Marathon is run on Patriots' Day every year, so the holiday is referred to as "Marathon Monday" by many Bostonians. On April 15, 2013, at approximately 2:50 PM EDT (18:50 UTC), 04:09:43 since the start of the 117th running of the race, two bombs were detonated near the finish line, killing 3 and injuring over 140 people.
The Boston Red Sox have traditionally been scheduled to play at home in Fenway Park on Patriots' Day every year since 1959. The games were postponed due to bad weather in 1959, 1961, 1965, 1967, and 1984, and canceled in 1995[SUP][7][/SUP] because of the late start to the season. Since 1968 the games have started early, in the morning, around 11:00 am. The early start to these games usually resulted in the game ending just as the marathon is heading throughKenmore Square. However, since 2007 the marathon has started between 9:30 am and 10:00 am, resulting in the racers going through Kenmore towards the middle of the Red Sox game.[SUP][8]
LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriots'_Day
[/SUP]
[/SUP]
Joe the meek
Active Member
I didn't say YOU were right winged, I said it was the right wing theory.
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
huh
I don't know where you come up with right wing theory? If it was homegrown I would not think of it being done by lefist kooks but right wing kooks given the day it happened
seems like it would be more anti govt than anarchy types would choose that day.
If it was some militant group with ties to the mideast I would think they would have layed claim to this by now. I am gonna guess the Saudi who was being grilled by the police might have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But then like everybody else I am just speculating.
I think the saudi guy may be innocent as well
Wahhabism {radical sect of Islam} have no problem in vesting up in explosives {martyr} they feel as if they get a reward for such while going to heaven.
Wahhabis make up a large percentage of Saudi Arabia....thats the clench
If the guy is a wahhabi he wasnt there to watch a race
Doesnt mean he placed the bombs but may have wanted to see the destruction.{if he had knowledge}
If the man isnt practicing Wahhabism and is of the peaceful sect of islam from SA he is no more dangerous than you or I.
Joe the meek
Active Member
i should of said it was a theory on why it may of been right winged nuts.
Alien Allen
Froggy the Prick
well the silliness gets gets more absurd
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...d=maing-grid7|main5|dl3|sec3_lnk3&pLid=299363
as somebody with a brain noted in the comments after the article .....
which was a brilliant response to the tripe in the article
comparing it to Newtown is the most idiotic example one can use. One was a calculated premeditated attack. The other not. You can figure out which is which on your own if you are confused.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...d=maing-grid7|main5|dl3|sec3_lnk3&pLid=299363
as somebody with a brain noted in the comments after the article .....
which was a brilliant response to the tripe in the article
comparing it to Newtown is the most idiotic example one can use. One was a calculated premeditated attack. The other not. You can figure out which is which on your own if you are confused.
It has been updated the Saudi is no longer a suspect.
His room mates {2 other Saudis} stated he is a good guy.
Several bags were removed during the raid...we now have to wait to see if there was anything to implicate him.
IMO they shouldnt waste alot of resources on this and broaden their investigation.
His room mates {2 other Saudis} stated he is a good guy.
Several bags were removed during the raid...we now have to wait to see if there was anything to implicate him.
IMO they shouldnt waste alot of resources on this and broaden their investigation.
Joe the meek
Active Member
I have a feeling a lot of people were questioned just as the Saudi was, but the NY Post picked up on it and ran it as "news" because the man was from the Middle East.
Accountable
Well-Known Member
Seems odd. Who would stand to gain from such an attack? And why the finish line? Seems that it would do far more damage at the starting line, with 25,000 participants crammed together and a large crowd of onlookers. That's where Al Queda would do it, I would think. A suicide bomber would gain a lot of fame like that.
You're probably right.
also a more adept groupd would not explode a bomb 100 meteres away from dozens of medical staff, the finish line of any marathon not just this one has lots of medical staff on hand
the more i read about this and the lack of claim of responsibility by any known group the more i supect some deranged individual or very small group
Accountable
Well-Known Member
It'll be an episode on NCIS and/or other dramas soon. The writers are working feverishly already.
Maybe Glee will have one and blame everything on the retard like they did the shooting. Well, they didn't blame the retard, they blamed the gun for seducing her or some shit.
*Note: I use the term "retard" in the most pejorative sense to emphasize my disgust in how Glee decided to portray disabled children as mentally ill.
Maybe Glee will have one and blame everything on the retard like they did the shooting. Well, they didn't blame the retard, they blamed the gun for seducing her or some shit.
*Note: I use the term "retard" in the most pejorative sense to emphasize my disgust in how Glee decided to portray disabled children as mentally ill.
Springsteen
Number 2, Rafael!
You think too small my man, you need to think bigger. This is next year's Hollywood summer blockbuster. They're just awaiting the trials now.
Accountable
Well-Known Member
:24: Not a glee fan, but I would have been back in high school days. Actually they were bitching about it on local talk radio, so I checked out that episode on Hulu.
Joe the meek
Active Member
I found this article very interesting, hope others may as well.
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/
As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.
This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.
Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.
“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise. “White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”
Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail — it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks. That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.
To know that’s true is to simply consider how America reacts to different kinds of terrorism.
Though FBI data show fewer terrorist plots involving Muslims than terrorist plots involving non-Muslims, America has mobilized a full-on war effort exclusively against the prospect of Islamic terrorism. Indeed, the moniker “War on Terrorism” has come to specifically mean “War on Islamic Terrorism,” involving everything from new laws like the Patriot Act, to anew torture regime, to new federal agencies like the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to mass surveillance of Muslim communities.
By contrast, even though America has seen a consistent barrage of attacks from domestic non-Islamic terrorists, the privilege and double standards baked into our national security ideologies means those attacks have resulted in no systemic action of the scope marshaled against foreign terrorists. In fact, it has been quite the opposite — according to Darryl Johnson, the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, the conservative movement backlash to merely reporting the rising threat of such domestic terrorism resulted in DHS seriously curtailing its initiatives against that particular threat. (Irony alert: When it comes specifically to fighting white non-Muslim domestic terrorists, the right seems to now support the very doctrine it criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for articulating — the doctrine that sees fighting terrorism as primarily “an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort” and not something more systemic.)
Enter the Boston bombing. Coming at the very moment the U.S. government is planning towithdraw 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. At that point, it’s easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston as a reason to block immigration reform defense spending cuts and the Afghan War withdrawal and to further expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties.
If that sounds hard to believe, just look at yesterday’s comments by right-wing radio hostLaura Ingraham, whose talking points often become Republican Party doctrine. Though authorities haven’t even identified a suspect in the Boston attack, she (like other conservatives) seems to already assume the assailant is foreign, and is consequently citing the attack as rationale to slam the immigration reform bill.
The same Laura Ingraham, of course, was one of the leading voices criticizing the Department of Homeland Security for daring to even report on right-wing domestic terrorism. In that sense, she perfectly embodies the double standard that, more than anything, will determine the long-term political impact of the Boston bombing.
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/
As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.
This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.
Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.
“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise. “White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”
Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail — it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks. That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.
To know that’s true is to simply consider how America reacts to different kinds of terrorism.
Though FBI data show fewer terrorist plots involving Muslims than terrorist plots involving non-Muslims, America has mobilized a full-on war effort exclusively against the prospect of Islamic terrorism. Indeed, the moniker “War on Terrorism” has come to specifically mean “War on Islamic Terrorism,” involving everything from new laws like the Patriot Act, to anew torture regime, to new federal agencies like the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to mass surveillance of Muslim communities.
By contrast, even though America has seen a consistent barrage of attacks from domestic non-Islamic terrorists, the privilege and double standards baked into our national security ideologies means those attacks have resulted in no systemic action of the scope marshaled against foreign terrorists. In fact, it has been quite the opposite — according to Darryl Johnson, the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the Department of Homeland Security, the conservative movement backlash to merely reporting the rising threat of such domestic terrorism resulted in DHS seriously curtailing its initiatives against that particular threat. (Irony alert: When it comes specifically to fighting white non-Muslim domestic terrorists, the right seems to now support the very doctrine it criticized Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry for articulating — the doctrine that sees fighting terrorism as primarily “an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort” and not something more systemic.)
Enter the Boston bombing. Coming at the very moment the U.S. government is planning towithdraw 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. At that point, it’s easy to imagine conservatives citing Boston as a reason to block immigration reform defense spending cuts and the Afghan War withdrawal and to further expand surveillance and other encroachments on civil liberties.
If that sounds hard to believe, just look at yesterday’s comments by right-wing radio hostLaura Ingraham, whose talking points often become Republican Party doctrine. Though authorities haven’t even identified a suspect in the Boston attack, she (like other conservatives) seems to already assume the assailant is foreign, and is consequently citing the attack as rationale to slam the immigration reform bill.
The same Laura Ingraham, of course, was one of the leading voices criticizing the Department of Homeland Security for daring to even report on right-wing domestic terrorism. In that sense, she perfectly embodies the double standard that, more than anything, will determine the long-term political impact of the Boston bombing.
80,498Threads
2,194,513Messages
5,014Members