Boston Marathon bombed

[HoreTore]

Anders Behring Breivik's american pen-pal, Kevin Forts, lives in Massachusetts. He's been charged with bomb threats previously.

Just throwing it out there....

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm just playing into my own fears via your dreams.

[Fragony]

I hope it isn't anything more homegrown related to gun restrictions. We are doing so well in the gun debate at the moment, this would just screw it up. It would be counter productive to happen now.

Who knows, maybe they started planning it when things were going poorly and... Once the plan is in motion and all systems are go...

That would be awful

Could be I suppose, wasn't it patriots day. Lots of international flags where it happened

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's only in your own mind.

If you wish to be happy when people die, fine. I'm not.

And the worm turns - if you'd been paying attention you'll notice that nothing gets my back up like people saying "good riddance" or "I couldn't care less". Call me old fashioned, but I believe in basic respect for the dead.

Well, this could have been a lot worse, so we should be thankful for that, at least.

The MO appears to indicate clever amateurs at this point.

[HoreTore]

And the worm turns - if you'd been paying attention you'll notice that nothing gets my back up like people saying "good riddance" or "I couldn't care less". Call me old fashioned, but I believe in basic respect for the dead.

In order for you to think I was happy at Maggie's death, you would have to think I was happy at Saddam's death. I don't see many reasons for that other than you being happy when Saddam died.

As for me, I was not happy when either of the two died.

[Rhyfelwyr]

To those that say they don't care about this because it happens all the time elsewhere - I think you are misdirecting your sense of disillusionment/anger.

The fact that this incident has receieved more coverage is not (at least primarily) because Westerners regard their lives as more important than those of Iraqis. It is getting all this coverage because it is so out of the ordinary. A bomb going off in Baghdad is not news. In other places, it is.

I recall a few years ago there was an Islamist bomb went off in Kenya and that received a lot of news coverage. Why? Because it was a new development, and suddenly there were a lot of implications to discuss (eg, will Keyan troops become invovled in Somalia, etc). Meanwhile, a bomb in Baghdad is not a development, it is part of an ongoing and established process.

On the other hand, when the Troubles were happening in Northern Ireland, deaths from bomb blasts or shootings would often only be mentioned in passing, if they even made it to the national news. And these were regular white people, with the events happening on British soil. Meanwhile, bombings in Manchester or Dublin received vastly more attention - not because the victims there are seen as being worth more, but because those events were new developments. There's stuff that still goes on in Northern Ireland all the time that would get massive news coverage in England or Scotland.

[Lemur]

Best essay of the day (so far):

The Boston Marathon Bombing: Keep Calm and Carry On

[T]errorism is designed precisely to scare people -- far out of proportion to its actual danger. A huge amount of research on fear and the brain teaches us that we exaggerate threats that are rare, spectacular, immediate, random -- in this case involving an innocent child -- senseless, horrific and graphic. Terrorism pushes all of our fear buttons, really hard, and we overreact.

But our brains are fooling us. Even though this will be in the news for weeks, we should recognize this for what it is: a rare event. [...]

Remember after 9/11 when people predicted we'd see these sorts of attacks every few months? That never happened, and it wasn't because the TSA confiscated knives and snow globes at airports. Give the FBI credit for rolling up terrorist networks and interdicting terrorist funding, but we also exaggerated the threat. [...]

Terrorism isn't primarily a crime against people or property. It's a crime against our minds, using the deaths of innocents and destruction of property as accomplices. When we react from fear, when we change our laws and policies to make our country less open, the terrorists succeed, even if their attacks fail. But when we refuse to be terrorized, when we're indomitable in the face of terror, the terrorists fail, even if their attacks succeed.

Don't glorify the terrorists and their actions by calling this part of a "war on terror." Wars involve two legitimate sides. There's only one legitimate side here; those on the other are criminals. They should be found, arrested, and punished. But we need to be vigilant not to weaken the very freedoms and liberties that make this country great, meanwhile, just because we're scared.

Empathize, but refuse to be terrorized. Instead, be indomitable -- and support leaders who are as well. That's how to defeat terrorists.

[Major Robert Dump]

To those that say they don't care about this because it happens all the time elsewhere - I think you are misdirecting your sense of disillusionment/anger.

The fact that this incident has receieved more coverage is not (at least primarily) because Westerners regard their lives as more important than those of Iraqis. It is getting all this coverage because it is so out of the ordinary. A bomb going off in Baghdad is not news. In other places, it is.

I recall a few years ago there was an Islamist bomb went off in Kenya and that received a lot of news coverage. Why? Because it was a new development, and suddenly there were a lot of implications to discuss (eg, will Keyan troops become invovled in Somalia, etc). Meanwhile, a bomb in Baghdad is not a development, it is part of an ongoing and established process.

On the other hand, when the Troubles were happening in Northern Ireland, deaths from bomb blasts or shootings would often only be mentioned in passing, if they even made it to the national news. And these were regular white people, with the events happening on British soil. Meanwhile, bombings in Manchester or Dublin received vastly more attention - not because the victims there are seen as being worth more, but because those events were new developments. There's stuff that still goes on in Northern Ireland all the time that would get massive news coverage in England or Scotland.

Yes, murders and death are so very uncommon in America.

People will always respond with more gusto when it happens to their own, in their own backyard. Perfectly common on a state, national and ethnic level. Been guilty of it myself, back when my give-a-damns were more than zero.

It's all horrible and terrible and the people who did it should suffer. But I am fresh out of outrage and shock. Used all mine up earlier in the month. Probably should have kept some in reserve since April typically has a couple of dates significant to people who want to murder and maim. Maybe next year.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I said a few aves.

Saddening to me. Even more saddening is MRD's response -- mostly because I understand his point. Kadagar's response -- though I am only inferring it rather than having read it -- does not sadden me. Some will always take that perspective -- poking epithets at the policital "top dog" is too entertaining to worry about the people harmed as opposed to the message of hate.

MRD's is worse, because he was among those we sent in harm's way to respond to/fight our "war on terror." If he is so burned out by such things that he can't bring himself to give a rat's patootie, that is far more concerning to me.

[Fragony]

400 dead in Iran just now because of an earthquake. How was your day

[HoreTore]

400 dead in Iran just now because of an earthquake. How was your day

A glorious example of why you shouldn't rely on blogs for information:

The number of casualties in Iran is not confirmed. 27 was reported by the state media, but that has since been withdrawn. 34 are reported killed in Pakistan.

Blogs are worthless.

[Fragony]

A glorious example of why you shouldn't rely on blogs for information:

The number of casualties in Iran is not confirmed. 27 was reported by the state media, but that has since been withdrawn. 34 are reported killed in Pakistan.

Blogs are worthless.

Slow fuse, you will see

[Husar]

To those that say they don't care about this because it happens all the time elsewhere - I think you are misdirecting your sense of disillusionment/anger.

I disagree.

The fact that this incident has receieved more coverage is not (at least primarily) because Westerners regard their lives as more important than those of Iraqis.

Debatable but also somewhat normal to care more about oneself or one's own family.

It is getting all this coverage because it is so out of the ordinary. A bomb going off in Baghdad is not news. In other places, it is.

I recall a few years ago there was an Islamist bomb went off in Kenya and that received a lot of news coverage. Why? Because it was a new development, and suddenly there were a lot of implications to discuss (eg, will Keyan troops become invovled in Somalia, etc). Meanwhile, a bomb in Baghdad is not a development, it is part of an ongoing and established process.

Wow, yes, so that's our reality. We've simply accepted that Iraqis die because it costs us too much money to help them and they're probably used to dieing all the time by now?
The fact that it is a common occurrence down there is all the more a reason to care about it. Otherwise I might just wish we had more bombings in the west so that I won't have to be so shocked anymore because that's really inconvenient. Maybe we can get bombings to the care-level of car accidents and cancer so we can deal with actually important issues and follow the advice Lemur quoted more easily.

[HoreTore]

I think you need to make a separation between rational and irrational feelings and thoughts, Husar.

Rhy's post is a good description of our irrational thinking, yours is a good description of rational thinking.

[Andres]

You may not like his analysis, but I think Rhyfelwyr offers a good explanation as to why this bombing gets more attention than the 1.784th terrorist attack in Iraq

[Strike For The South]

An 8 year old kid should never have to for geo political interests he will never understand (perhaps that some sort of macabre blessing). Of course that maxim cuts both ways. The USA, like most other "great" states has accrued enough bad karma, it's honestly a wonder it doesn't happen more often. I don't subscribe to the naive myopia that assumes that foreign intervention and terror attacks are on a binary It should also be noted that we have no idea if this is a result of foreign or domestic forces. I find it funny that the same people who claim this will lessen the tonnes of bombs dropped on brown people are also the first to point the finger at them.

I think this is just the world we live in now. The goalposts have been moved, no longer do we worry about another giant across the sea, instead we worry about short, brutish acts of terrorism. So it goes, I suppose.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wow, yes, so that's our reality. We've simply accepted that Iraqis die because it costs us too much money to help them and they're probably used to dieing all the time by now?
The fact that it is a common occurrence down there is all the more a reason to care about it. Otherwise I might just wish we had more bombings in the west so that I won't have to be so shocked anymore because that's really inconvenient. Maybe we can get bombings to the care-level of car accidents and cancer so we can deal with actually important issues and follow the advice Lemur quoted more easily.

The function of the news is to tell us what is going on in the world, not to provide a memorial service. The fact that one tragedy recieves a lot of coverage while another does not does not necessarily mean that the victims of one were seen as more important or worthy of symphathy than those of the other.

Like I said, this single bombing could have big political and social consequences in ways that a bombing in Baghdad would not. Along with the fact that it is domestic news (well, for our Americans anyway) that is why it gets so much coverage. Just because the sheer volume of atrocities in Baghdad means that they can't receive the same coverage does not mean that people do not care (well maybe they don't, but that's not the reason why they get little coverage).

[Montmorency]

The function of the news is to tell us what is going on in the world

The function of the news (media) is to generate dividends for shareholders.

well maybe they don't, but that's not the reason why they get little coverage

Therefore, it is precisely the reason.

As it so happens, serious geopol-analysis outfits - which more than others "tell us what is going on in the world" - give quite a lot of coverage to bombings in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and so on. Just because something has transpired 'yet again in the same place' does not mean that it's just business as usual. Think about Al-Shabab in Nigeria - 'oh, more terrorist attacks in Nigeria? Whatever.' As it turned out, from 2010-12 the widening range, frequency, and complexity of their attacks turned out to reflect imported training from Al-Qaeda.

It's the very same with these 'rare' attacks on the Western world (if this is indeed one such): more often than not the events have the character of an archetype, of local radicals attempting to produce a serious effect on the enemy state while evading the enemy's security forces. Same techniques, same goals, same motivations, same story. For one to get through the defenses is indeed rare, but it is certainly not novel. It doesn't even mean that the security apparatus is breaking down! (Of course, keeping in mind that we don't yet know what really happened here. For all we know, Boston was the first step in a series of coordinated attacks by Al-Qaeda, each bigger than the last. You get the point, I hope...)

[Rhyfelwyr]

The function of the news (media) is to generate dividends for shareholders.

Well that depends on the station, and it's not really relevant for our purposes here. Like I said, the reason events are reported is to show significant events, not provide an obituary.

Therefore, it [lack of care on the publics part] is precisely the reason [why bombings in the Middle East do not receive coverage].

That is, as I said, at best partly true. Most news stations do show some sort of integrity, rather than just going with whatever's popular.

As it so happens, serious geopol-analysis outfits - which more than others "tell us what is going on in the world" - give quite a lot of coverage to bombings in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and so on. Just because something has transpired 'yet again in the same place' does not mean that it's just business as usual. Think about Al-Shabab in Nigeria - 'oh, more terrorist attacks in Nigeria? Whatever.' As it turned out, from 2010-12 the widening range, frequency, and complexity of their attacks turned out to reflect imported training from Al-Qaeda.

The crucial difference there being that the value of the analysis lies in the patterns that these attacks collectively show - rather than any real impact from one individual attack.

Events like the Boston bombing are different - the very event is and of itself a phenomenon, a new development,even if this is only due to where it happened.

Also, Al-Shabab are a Somali group are they not? Unless you mean Boko Haram?

[Montmorency]

me, that's right.

the reason events are reported is to show significant events

It seems to me that most local or national cable news focuses on frivolous feel-good stories and minor outrages.

As for the online fronts of those news networks - forget about it, they'll publish anything.

[LittleGrizzly]

I thanked you for your post, because I agree with the sentiment.

But if you truly don't care about the dead of an 8 year old, even if it's one of the so many 8 year olds who have died all over the world in similar attacks, then I feel sorry for you.

For all the talk that has been going on about being human in this thread, your post made me feel very sad.

My condolences to all people involved.

I thanked MRD as well so I will give you my take.

There is so much death going on around the world, from children to adults to old people that there literally isn't the time to mourn the passing of every human life. You are only going to hear about a certain amount of them anyway...

If you spent even an hour of each day upset at the death of someone you have never heard off outside of a mention in the news you would spend half your waking hours upset.

If I watched a long documentary on any victim of a tragedy with upset relatives and friends talking about their dreams and wishes and how great a person they were I would be upset at their death...

Those I only hear the name off or see a picture off along with a news story telling of their passing I feel very little for, it may be cold but I value the lives of all human beings the same so if one child and 2 adults dying in Boston left me feeling terrible I would never get out of bed given the daily tragedies occurring much more often in worse off parts of the world.

There will be the occasional line that hits me, like hearing of runners having their legs amputated but mostly I am cold to things reported by the news.

All that said I hope the loss is as painless as possible for the families of the deceased and those with injuries manage to live life to the fullest.

[Lemur]

My suspicion is that it is domestic.

Reasons to think it's domestic:

• Tax day
• Patriot day
• Obama derangement syndrome

Reasons to think it's foreign:

• East coast (urban) target
• Synchronized bombs

[Husar]

I think you need to make a separation between rational and irrational feelings and thoughts, Husar.

Rhy's post is a good description of our irrational thinking, yours is a good description of rational thinking.

You may not like his analysis, but I think Rhyfelwyr offers a good explanation as to why this bombing gets more attention than the 1.784th terrorist attack in Iraq

Wow, yes, so that's our reality.

After that I was simply explaining my disgust with humanity and why we will always have wars and bombings as long as we define such irrationality as valid "thinking".

The function of the news is to tell us what is going on in the world, not to provide a memorial service. The fact that one tragedy recieves a lot of coverage while another does not does not necessarily mean that the victims of one were seen as more important or worthy of symphathy than those of the other.

The purpose of the news is to generate money for the shareholders. Money is generated by advertisement depending on the number of vieewers. The number of viewers increases during subjects that these viewers care deeply about. As such the subjects are chosen according to what people want to see. What people want to see is what they care about. Idem quo ipso tracet lalelu if the news don't show Baghdad bombings it's because that doesn't generate much revenue because people don't care as much.

Like I said, this single bombing could have big political and social consequences in ways that a bombing in Baghdad would not. Along with the fact that it is domestic news (well, for our Americans anyway) that is why it gets so much coverage.

Yes, and what does it tell us when 2 dead have more political consequences than 31 dead? And what does it tell us about how much we value the lives of foreigners when we care more about two domestic deaths than 31 deaths of foreigners?
It's not that your description of the world is completely wrong, I just criticize human thinking, which is seemingly incompatible with globalization or at least severely lagging behind.

Just because the sheer volume of atrocities in Baghdad means that they can't receive the same coverage does not mean that people do not care (well maybe they don't, but that's not the reason why they get little coverage).

As I explained above, that people don't care IS the reason there is so little coverage. Proper journalism for the betterment of mankind is in its last throes.

[HoreTore]

After that I was simply explaining my disgust with humanity and why we will always have wars and bombings as long as we define such irrationality as valid "thinking".

I'd say discarding irrational thinking(ie emotions) as irrelevant is itself an irrational thought

[Andres]

After that I was simply explaining my disgust with humanity and why we will always have wars and bombings as long as we define such irrationality as valid "thinking".

Contrary to popular belief, human beings are not rational.

The purpose of the news is to generate money for the shareholders. Money is generated by advertisement depending on the number of vieewers. The number of viewers increases during subjects that these viewers care deeply about. As such the subjects are chosen according to what people want to see. What people want to see is what they care about. Idem quo ipso tracet lalelu if the news don't show Baghdad bombings it's because that doesn't generate much revenue because people don't care as much.

I agree with you that the days of good investigative journalism, decent and well-made documentaries about ongoing events and quality news in general are, sadly, almost over. Not everything about capitalism is good.

Yes, and what does it tell us when 2 dead have more political consequences than 31 dead? And what does it tell us about how much we value the lives of foreigners when we care more about two domestic deaths than 31 deaths of foreigners?

It tells us that humanity hasn't evolved much since the middle ages, which shouldn't come as a surprise since evolution is a very slow proces. What do you expect from humanity? That in a few hundreds years we evolve from a warmongering bloodlusty and tribal species towards some sort of saints? We are what we are. Thanks to people like you, we'll hopefully evolve into something better.

You should stop wasting your time posting here and go out to spread your genes

[Husar]

I'd say discarding irrational thinking(ie emotions) as irrelevant is itself an irrational thought

Of course, I agree. My point was that we should not confuse emotions with thoughts and maybe use thoughts a little more often instead of running into the next wall based on our immediate emotions.

Contrary to popular belief, human beings are not rational.

Indeed, I'm not even claiming that I am. I'm not sure whether that's popular belief though, if it is then we're even worse off than I thought.

It tells us that humanity hasn't evolved much since the middle ages, which shouldn't come as a surprise since evolution is a very slow proces. What do you expect from humanity? That in a few hundreds years we evolve from a warmongering bloodlusty and tribal species towards some sort of saints? We are what we are. Thanks to people like you, we'll hopefully evolve into something better.

Yes, that is the problem, we are using technologies which are way above our evolutionary capabilities. What I demand is a return to tribal structures, dismantling of inter-regional infrastructures (internet, water, electric energy, roads), nation states, region-states and city-centric administration structures. The monkeysphere of any given person does not exceed roughly 130 persons so that's the size self-sustainable communities should have. This whole "Obama calls Putin on behalf of 300 million Americans"-concept is stupid because Obama can't even grasp the 300 million, at best he can call someone on behalf of 130 other people.
The current structures we built up are so bad that they lead us to the brink of self-destruction again and again and one day it might just actually happen.

You should stop waste your time posting here and go out and spread your genes

Whenever I find a good emotional and rational match (in my opinion), she disagrees about it. And why should it surprise us? I can't even get my point across to you rational males without explaining it again and again, how could a more emotional female of our species be expected to "get me"? They always attribute things to me that I find utterly wrong, misplaced and simply showing a lack of understanding for my personality...

[Fragony]

Reasons to think it's domestic:

• Tax day
• Patriot day
• Obama derangement syndrome

Reasons to think it's foreign:

• East coast (urban) target
• Synchronized bombs

My bet is on domestic, Breivik type. Noticed all the international flags where the first explosions went off

[Seamus Fermanagh]

....at the finish line of an international race (the Boston having been one of the marquee events in its genre for some time).

Not a key factor. Location was chosen for maximum casualtiess and likelihood of cameras at finish of race.

I favor the idea of a foreign operative/source because the target was NOT connected to the USG (which makes me think the domestic points noted by Lemur are less likely to apply in this case) and because they were smaller, anti-personnel explosions. The USA mentality is usually "Bigger is Better" with things that go boom -- hence Oklahoma.

[HoreTore]

....at the finish line of an international race (the Boston having been one of the marquee events in its genre for some time).

Not a key factor. Location was chosen for maximum casualtiess and likelihood of cameras at finish of race.

I favor the idea of a foreign operative/source because the target was NOT connected to the USG (which makes me think the domestic points noted by Lemur are less likely to apply in this case) and because they were smaller, anti-personnel explosions. The USA mentality is usually "Bigger is Better" with things that go boom -- hence Oklahoma.

US domestic mentality is also small, in the form of poisoned letters, for example.

I'm leaning towards a random loonie right now, kind of like that Batman cinema shooter.

[rajpoot]

And now there has been a blast in Bangalore. Luckily no one was injured.
All this is really depressing.