Bombs over Boston

when it is successful you call it a rebellion.

When they are the enemy, you call them terrorists.


Though I guess for the news media the life of an american must be a lot more worth then the life of everyone else. Because, if something like an village full with civilians in Chechnya or Georgia (not the US georgia or it would be in the news), is burned down by Russian spetsnaz soldiers, then its not worth to be mentioned really.
 
Crni Vuk said:
when it is successful you call it a rebellion.

When they are the enemy, you call them terrorists.


Though I guess for the news media the life of an american must be a lot more worth then the life of everyone else. Because, if something like an village full with civilians in Chechnya or Georgia (not the US georgia or it would be in the news), is burned down by Russian spetsnaz soldiers, then its not worth to be mentioned really.
Click to expand...

Numerous reasons for this which I dont really want to get into, but most of our major news networks especially in the west are American based....

Events like this in the US are fairly uncommon, Russian troops shooting up a town in Chechnya, not so rare and the concept of 'rule of law' isnt 'perceived' as being as intact as in the US.
 
or maybe, it just sells more.

It doesnt matter how many people die. Its bout how "spectacular" it is.

lets say an meteor of the size of an window hits an south african town where 200 people died.

It will be on the top news.

Lets say an african dictator decided to mass murder some 1000 men and their families because they are the oposition.

No one cares.

Its something I find a bit disgusting. Thats all.
 
Sander said:
Worked fine for 1940s/50s Israel, was semi-effective for late 19th/early 20th century Ireland, you could argue the French Revolution was partly fueled by terrorism, many colonized groups used terrorism to free themselves from colonists with varying degrees of success, and then there's the Cuban revolution, too. I'm probably forgetting a bunch of instances, too.

So, actually, terrorism has been successful quite often, and when you're a small group of people against a large army it is probably the most effective way to wage war.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about general terrorism, or the one that specifically targets civilians that have nothing to do with anything, for terror purposes?
 
AskWazzup said:
I can never understand why the casual, innocent bystanders are always the main target, be it terrorists, or domestic psychopath. Blowing someone up is a terrible act, but if you're committed, why not blow up some greedy, corrupt institution. And blowing up children, now that is just sad, the fuck is wrong with these fools.
Click to expand...

the boston marathon is a celebration of american independence and throwing off the yoke of a corrupt and tyrannical government (the british if you did not know)!

in the eyes of a foreign terrorist, that would be a good target maybe.

the only problems with it as an attack location, due to the open air nature of the event, any attempt to bomb it with conventional bombs would have a low death count. maybe a noticeable injured count, but you are still trying to deal damage with an open air explosive. without a properly tamped explosive where the tamping material is also doing double duty as flechette material, it would be more for the "wow" factor than actually doing damage to the people there.

much better to do it inside a building where the building can provide some compression factor of the explosion and provide flechette material.

open air events/gatherings lend themselves more to chemical attacks.
 
It's an obvious false flag operation to distract the sheeple from the gummint-manufactured drop of the gold-price.
Obviously :roll:
 
AskWazzup said:
Are we talking about general terrorism, or the one that specifically targets civilians that have nothing to do with anything, for terror purposes?
Click to expand...
All of those instances encapsulated both. That distinction is rather hard to make, too, as most often terrorism isn't 'just' hitting innocent civilians. 9/11 wasn't just hitting innocent civilization, it was hitting the Pentagon, but also an attempt to hurt the general U.S. economy, for instance.

The aim of terrorism is multi-faceted, but it is mainly psychological. And that has been the goal of all of those instances I mentioned.
 
well, maybe for a terrorist, he doesnt make really a difference between "Civilians" and "military personal", for the simple reason that they fight America, the government which is if you want so, as well representing the people, more or less.

Doesnt have to be true for all terrorists. Doesnt mean would be less disgusting.

Just saying, from a terrorist perspective it makes sense to attack the civilians maybe just as it does to attack soldiers.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Though I guess for the news media the life of an american must be a lot more worth then the life of everyone else.
Click to expand...

Or maybe because the American media jumps all over every tragedy and mass murder that happens? Yes, you should report it, yes, you should send condolences to the victims and their families, but not popularize it... It's a tragedy, not a show!
 
Crni Vuk said:
or maybe, it just sells more.

It doesnt matter how many people die. Its bout how "spectacular" it is.

lets say an meteor of the size of an window hits an south african town where 200 people died.

It will be on the top news.

Lets say an african dictator decided to mass murder some 1000 men and their families because they are the oposition.

No one cares.

Its something I find a bit disgusting. Thats all.
Click to expand...

I think that because a meteor could just as easily hit a quiet american suburb, an african warlord is only dangerous to africans
 
BonusWaffle said:
Crni Vuk said:
or maybe, it just sells more.

It doesnt matter how many people die. Its bout how "spectacular" it is.

lets say an meteor of the size of an window hits an south african town where 200 people died.

It will be on the top news.

Lets say an african dictator decided to mass murder some 1000 men and their families because they are the oposition.

No one cares.

Its something I find a bit disgusting. Thats all.
Click to expand...

I think that because a meteor could just as easily hit a quiet american suburb, an african warlord is only dangerous to africans
Click to expand...
there could be other examples. I chose the meteor not because it can be "dangerous" to everyone, you notice it anyway after it hit you. But because its not the "ordinary". See. people starving to death in Africa, Warlords dealing diamonds for weapons, or the Russians beating on their neighbours is what people are "used" with. Nothing what the media really wants to investigate. It doesnt sell.

Seriously there happen so many atrocities around the world, that you can not even imagine it. The issue definitely is not that the media has a problem to show them, there is enough violence in the news media.

I say it again. They do only show what "sells" or what they believe "sells". If that is paris hilton vomiting after a long party, then they will send that as news. If it is an bomb that killed 2 people, then its that.

What we have with the media is sensational or yellow journalism and not investigative journalism which actually might even educate people or help them to form their own opinion.

And to the "western" media the death of an american or european is A LOT more worth then the death of thousands of africans.
 
Sure, but whats wrong with putting out what sells? Should it matter to a north american or european citizen that thousands of africans died? Hearing about Paris hilton vomiting may have more of an impact on their lives than violence in africa.
 
I dont even know how to respond to that. So here is a picture.

starving%2Bcartoon.jpg
 
I guess in my mind just being human doesnt make you automatically worthy of my support. Maybe it makes me a bad person, but when it comes down to it i think that the only thing people care about is their own survival. When you are part of a community, you want those other members of your community to do well so they can pitch in and help you out as well. Africans just arent part of my community. Giving them aid does not help me at all, actually if african nations were more powerful it would be more of a threat than anything else given our differences in culture and ideology.
 
didnt even mentioned any of the things you said.

its about awareness. Beeing more then a sheep that gobles down everything you see without even questioning it. The world doesnt end with Fox news you know. That you have not the power to either help or care about everyone is obvious. We are all just rather normal humans after all. But understanding what actually is the reason behind certain situations helps to form your opinion. Because it might change how see things. It helps to understand WHY there is actually such a danger for Americans in teh first place, that some of the issues you face are actually "home made" to speak so. Particuilarly the terrorism the US had to face in the last decade where pretty much all of the people the US had to deal with received either money, logistics or training by the US Government during the 60s, 70s and 80s. Of course, if all you do is to show the population nothing more then sensations, many might never realise the coherences, and actually I guess it is not even desired by most politicans that their population (on a large scale) understand them even.
 
Well thats a different argument altogether and i totally agree with you there. People should be aware of the full consequences and reasons behind their governments actions, not just settle for the sensational propaganda meant to subvert any real democracy in exchange for faster more intense support.
 
Unfortunately, selfless acts only appear after tragedy strikes. There will be no revolution, there will be more complacency. I stand in awe of what our rulers have accomplished to that end. I know I would only ever talk about it, never be about it. The rewards of complacency are too delectable.
 
I think people are reading far too much into things here, my opinion on the state of Western Media in general isn't high, we are clearly being dumbed down by television (I especially hate reality shows) however....

This must be said...

People don't care nor pay much attention to other world atrocities simply because it is seen as 'the norm.' you'd be surprised at the suffering on our very own streets that occurs daily, you won't see it because 90% of population doesn't see it simply because they don't notice it.

I spend my working life being a glorified street sweeper, it's rather sad when you look at it like that but the harsh reality is it's true. Human suffering is all around us, you just won't notice it because it's somehow become part of the fabric of everyday life.

Just as we accept in places across the planet thousands upon thousands of people are murdered by corrupt regimes/dictators daily - it doesn't shock us because:

1. You cannot relate to these people.
2. It's just another grim news headline.

However with an atrocity like the one in Boston suddenly our rather safe and orderly society is disturbed and we see people just like us suffering... We can relate to that suffering, these people ARE us just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I'll go back to the whole 'rule of law' argument I mentioned earlier, our societies are safe and orderly - ALOT of other societies aren't and I include fairly 'developed' nations within this bracket aswell - we expect bad things to happen in these places because that level of control and order simply isn't there, I personally find it very difficult to imagine a place like Somalia say - a country with no real organised government where anarchy truly is part of the daily routine - can you actually imagine complete and utter anarchy? A place where woman are raped so often it's part of every day life? Where people are killed openly and no-one bats an eyelid or where homosexuals are burned alive in the middle of a dirt road in broad daylight? None of us can relate to this because it's simply so alien to us, so sickening and so against everything we hold dear and understand it's ALMOST beyond our comprehension.

However when our lives are interrupted and our 'bubble' is popped we suddenly take notice - this is human nature.

Do you think the Iraqi policeman is thinking "what an awful loss of life in Boston" perhaps, but realistically though he'll have seen bombings on a much larger scale, with hundreds of dead and many more injured - it won't shock him because he'll have seen much worse... It's part of his working life.

For the majority of us these events thankfully aren't, so when they happen it immediately strikes a chord with the public...

For those of you crying out for 'revolution' do you truly understand what you're wishing for? Do you truly understand what would happen to civilised society if organised Government was overthrown?

Because you don't see the evil that occurs on a daily basis in OUR safe societies doesn't mean it's not there - there are people among us who would consume everyone around them given the opportunity - I hope we never cross that bridge, because if we did I doubt we'd make it across the otherside in one piece.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top