Boston Bombings Declared a Terrorist Attack

[DeletePlease]

Explosions rock Boston Marathon: multiple deaths and injuries reported - YouTube Second Boston Marathon explosion caught on tape - YouTube Boston Marathon explosions prompt White House to shut down - YouTube Boston Marathon explosions confirmed as terror attack - YouTube Obama speaks on Boston bombing - YouTube ... fuck. =/ Some people are blaming pro-gun right-wingers... those people are retards. Even a few news broadcasters are hinting towards that and people are eating it up. ffs... Bullshit aside, hopefully there aren't too many casualties. ----- @ Mods: Raise the video limit...

[TwoCrystalCups]

Now it's 3 people killed and more than 100 injured, so it says. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/us...rathon.html?hp

[Universal Mind]

This kind of stuff is why we need to ban bombs.

[cmind]

This kind of stuff is why we need to ban bombs. And marathons. They're too dangerous.

[Xei]

How can you make any assertions about who it was or wasn't..? Do you know something we don't? The most recent Western bombing in my memory was the Norwegian attacks, which were by a Christian right-winger. Anybody can become unhinged. It could be Muslim extremists, but I don't ever recall them not taking credit for an attack. This is more reminiscent to me of the Unabomber attacks, where he used a series of unclaimed bombings to instil terror, before making his demands. He was a domestic terrorist with a totally unpredictable motive (he had his own anti-technological philosophy). By the way, Alex Jones lost all credibility when he did his usual "false flag" thing only 10 minutes after the bomb went off; he had no information at all about the attack, let alone incriminating evidence. Transparent demagogue. This kind of stuff is why we need to ban bombs. They are banned. This makes it much harder, on top of being an imprisonable offence, to make an effective one. That's why, despite being set off in the middle a crowd, those devices yesterday took a mere three lives, and not three hundred. If you could get professional bombs over the counter at Walmart and walk around with them in public, I think it's pretty blindingly obvious that we would see a lot more bombings in the US, and when people become unhinged and go on rampages, we'd see a lot more bloodshed. Do you really want to take your analogy to its logical conclusion and suggest that bombs should be legalised?

[Universal Mind]

They are banned. This makes it much harder, on top of being an imprisonable offence, to make an effective one. That's why, despite being set off in the middle a crowd, those devices yesterday took a mere three lives, and not three hundred. If you could get professional bombs over the counter at Walmart and walk around with them in public, I think it's pretty blindingly obvious that we would see a lot more bombings in the US, and when people become unhinged and go on rampages, we'd see a lot more bloodshed. Do you really want to take your analogy to its logical conclusion and suggest that bombs should be legalised? My point was that people can still get their hands on weapons in general even when they are banned. Even if bomb illegality has a positive effect, people who want them bad enough are going to get them. The gun situation is very different from the bomb situation, though. Bombs are not used for self-defense, but guns are. Banning guns has an inherent negative effect that comes with any positive effects there may be because when people who obey the law don't have guns, criminals with guns are more powerful and a lot bolder. There is a major street market for guns, and banning them will not change that. That is what the anti-gun people can never get around. Guns are worlds more popular than bombs, and criminals absolutely are going to have guns no matter what the law is, unless we have a police state. If cops can go to house to house with dogs whenever they feel like it, they can get rid of guns. Without that, guns are going to be abundant. It is just a matter of whether or not the good guys are going to have them. Why put the good guys at such a disadvantage? Do you think we should ban knives? What about just assault knives?

[Xei]

My point was that people can still get their hands on weapons in general even when they are banned. Even if bomb illegality has a positive effect, people who want them bad enough are going to get them. Demonstrably false; whoever did this apparently wanted an effective bomb pretty badly, and they failed to get their hands on what they wanted. The two bombs that went off resulted in only a small number of fatalities, and two other bombs completely failed. This would not have been the case if they were able to buy military-grade bombs. There are plenty of other examples of people trying their best to cause maximum damage and failing due to "bomb laws". The Time Square bomb was another dud, for instance. The gun situation is very different from the bomb situation, though. I know. You were the one making the analogy, not me. I only wanted to show the failings of that analogy; given that you apparently concede that we should not legalise bombs, I think I've successfully demonstrated that the two are not actually analogous. That's all I wanted to do; I don't want to have an involved discussion about gun laws, because as far as I can see, unless this attack is claimed by a pro-gun faction, which I don't see any reason to believe, that debate is not relevant to these attacks.

[Universal Mind]

Demonstrably false; whoever did this apparently wanted an effective bomb pretty badly, and they failed to get their hands on what they wanted. The two bombs that went off resulted in only a small number of fatalities, and two other bombs completely failed. This would not have been the case if they were able to buy military-grade bombs. There are plenty of other examples of people trying their best to cause maximum damage and failing due to "bomb laws". The Time Square bomb was another dud, for instance. What is false? I didn't say that all bombs are going to be as effective as the users want them to be. Even legal weapons are sometimes faulty. I said that people who want bombs bad enough are going to get them. The people you are talking about had bombs... that killed and injured people. I know. You were the one making the analogy, not me. I only wanted to show the failings of that analogy; given that you apparently concede that we should not legalise bombs, I think I've successfully demonstrated that the two are not actually analogous. That's all I wanted to do; I don't want to have an involved discussion about gun laws, because as far as I can see, unless this attack is claimed by a pro-gun faction, which I don't see any reason to believe, that debate is not relevant to these attacks. I did make the analogy, and I reiterated the parallel. The fact that I used an analogy does not mean I see the situations as 100% identical. Analogies involve parallel situations that are not identical. That is how they work. Again, banning weapons does not get rid of them. That is especially relevant in the guns situation because banning them would get them out of the hands of people who obey the law but not out of the hands of people who don't give a damn about the law.

[Universal Mind]

That a sensible conclusion to draw from this bombing is that laws prohibiting weapons (bombs/guns) are silly. Is that not what your comment meant? No. This... Again, banning weapons does not get rid of them. That is especially relevant in the guns situation because banning them would get them out of the hands of people who obey the law but not out of the hands of people who don't give a damn about the law. Do you disagree with any of that?

[Descensus]

The two bombs that went off resulted in only a small number of fatalities, and two other bombs completely failed. Police here say there were only two explosives (the two that went off). Also it looks like they've found a circuit board which might've been used to set off the explosives. Cell signal was shut off yesterday to prevent activation of any other possible explosives as well.

[cmind]

Police here say there were only two explosives (the two that went off). Also it looks like they've found a circuit board which might've been used to set off the explosives. Cell signal was shut off yesterday to prevent activation of any other possible explosives as well. Arduboomo.

[Universal Mind]

They are banned. This makes it much harder, on top of being an imprisonable offence, to make an effective one. That's why, despite being set off in the middle a crowd, those devices yesterday took a mere three lives, and not three hundred. If you could get professional bombs over the counter at Walmart and walk around with them in public, I think it's pretty blindingly obvious that we would see a lot more bombings in the US, and when people become unhinged and go on rampages, we'd see a lot more bloodshed. Do you really want to take your analogy to its logical conclusion and suggest that bombs should be legalised? My point was that people can still get their hands on weapons in general even when they are banned. Even if bomb illegality has a positive effect, people who want them bad enough are going to get them. The gun situation is very different from the bomb situation, though. Bombs are not used for self-defense, but guns are. Banning guns has an inherent negative effect that comes with any positive effects there may be because when people who obey the law don't have guns, criminals with guns are more powerful and a lot bolder. Guns are worlds more popular than bombs, and criminals absolutely are going to have them no matter what the law is, unless we have a police state. If cops can go to house to house with dogs whenever they feel like it, they can get rid of guns. Without that, guns are going to be abundant. It is just a matter of whether or not the good guys are going to have them. Why put the good guys at such a disadvantage? Do you think we should ban knives? What about just assault knives? https://www.google.com/#output=searc...w=1280&bih=888

[Xei]

You said (ironically) that this kind of stuff would be prevented by banning bombs. But the fact is that this kind of stuff is a great demonstration of the reason we ban bombs, because the attack was a hundred times less effectual than it would have been if you could freely buy and transport military-grade bombs. As far as I'm concerned this is a pretty cogent response.

[Universal Mind]

You said (ironically) that this kind of stuff would be prevented by banning bombs. But the fact is that this kind of stuff is a great demonstration of the reason we ban bombs, because the attack was a hundred times less effectual than it would have been if you could freely buy and transport military-grade bombs. As far as I'm concerned this is a pretty cogent response. What exactly are we disagreeing on?

[Xei]

Okay, thanks. I didn't realise the historical significance of Boston, by the way. That makes a domestic attack seem more likely to me... it's of national significance but not really international significance. Not that anything is for certain. But I still find it funny but also rather concerning that one of the spectators floored the nearest Arab (who turned out to be a random civilian). What exactly are we disagreeing on? That a sensible conclusion to draw from this bombing is that laws prohibiting weapons (bombs/guns) are silly. Is that not what your comment meant?

[Raen]

Very sad stuff. Those affected have my condolences. A couple more articles on new information that has surfaced: Bombs 'were packed in duffel bags' - MSN News UK US stages massive manhunt for Boston bomber | South China Morning Post I hope that the ones responsible for this are found and punished severely very soon. There is a special place in hell reserved for people who harm innocents ...

[Xei]

Yes and no. But with respect I don't really wish to elaborate, as that'd just result in getting further drawn in to a debate about gun control and not this bombing, which as I said is something I don't want to do.

[sloth]

I don't have much to add on this. Sorry. I appreciate the thread. You guys have some very good points pointing towards this being an inside job. "Terrorism" must be a catch-all word now.

[Woodstock]

I don't have much to add on this. Sorry. I appreciate the thread. You guys have some very good points pointing towards this being an inside job. "Terrorism" must be a catch-all word now. I didn't see where anyone said it's an "inside job". Saying that an American probably did it doesn't mean the government did it. They did it purposely to kill people, that's terrorism, it doesn't matter who they are, where they live, or what group they belong to. Why does everyone think only certain groups from certain countries are terrorists?

[Xei]

They did it purposely to kill people, that's terrorism I can't tell if this is sloppy writing or if you actually think this...

[Woodstock]

I can't tell if this is sloppy writing or if you actually think this... If I actually think what? That killing people is terrorism? Definition of terrorism: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion".

[Descensus]

Definition of terrorism: "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". There is no universally-accepted definition of terrorism.

[sloth]

I didn't see where anyone said it's an "inside job". Saying that an American probably did it doesn't mean the government did it. They did it purposely to kill people, that's terrorism, it doesn't matter who they are, where they live, or what group they belong to. Why does everyone think only certain groups from certain countries are terrorists? Yes sir, and that is not what I was implying. I simply said "inside job" to refer to a domestic threat; inside the borders, if you will. I can, however, see where that miscommunication can easily occur, based off of what I said. My point about "Terrorism" was also misinterpreted. Before 9/11 I had never even heard the word "Terrorism". My remark was a note on the appearance of this word in our society, as if the ... media? ... decided that it was a good word to use. I completely agree that it, by its very nature, really is a catch-all word, and is not associated with the location of an event or the heritage of the person carrying out the event. I was pretty tired when I wrote this.

[TwoCrystalCups]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5jJDdIGtfQ Petman - Pentagon's most human-like robot ironic, when it's from boston dynamics and days after bombing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faOj...ture=endscreen

[Original Poster]

Inside job to distract people from CISPA, obviously.