Heartland

My thoughts are with the people of Boston right now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22162884

Same here.
Seen some of the news coverage since last night & it's sickening that this can happen.
I see the London Marathon people have started reviewing their security again

fact that this things happens/happened is a prove that we live in still free society (at least in US of A), where secret services hasn't got that much power in their hands, that they can controle every single step. but i guess that is not a good cheer-up for those who are hurted in that attack.

First of all the thoughts are to those that injured badly and the other victims families as well

Secondly, for some strange reason my first thoughts in such things are that all those super secret agencies are behind all these things to reason the trillions of $$ they demand from the tax payers to provide "security" as a service.... Behind every whore there is always a pimp... Beware all those that speaking of control in human beings and double check who they are, who pays them, what is their circle, their beliefs about humanity and don't let them make you believe that you are part of this problem. They are the problem, all those that promising that all that control can make you feel safe. There is no safety being a part of sheep herd, it will always end as a dish in a kebab restaurant. At the best cases it will be a gourmet plate in a freaky expensive restaurant for freaky rich two legged costumed beings alienated from the own specie.

my thought are: 1) also with injured their frinds and families;
2) i'm more afraid that secret securities will use that situation as ammo, to push their idea of give-us-more-money-and-power, you see that with that budget and proxy we can't do much.

Tragic and sickening. And, sad to say, not shocking any more.

I haven't had a lot of time to catch up on details - has anyone claimed responsibility yet?

Not yet.
According to the Beeb anyway

So sad on so many levels

What a cowardly and cruel attack ... ...
although my thoughts are with the dead and their families, and my best energies are with those who might yet be struggling for their lives or their limbs,
but in fact this event makes me far more angry than sad.

What a zero of a creature does one have to be to think up such a twofold bomb attack?!? I should be surprised if that was a terror attack of the political kind ... It just smells like the smeariest plan to punish a rival or long-hated neighbour ... childish and disgusting and way too shortsighted for any intelligent adult human being ... ...

Being645 wrote:What a zero of a creature does one have to be to think up such a twofold bomb attack?!?

Alas, one doesn't have to go very far to answer that question:

The Guardian wrote:The inquiry will report to the UN general assembly in New York this autumn. Depending on its findings, it may recommend further action. Emmerson has previously suggested some drone attacks – particularly those known as "double tap" strikes where rescuers going to the aid of a first blast have become victims of a follow-up strike – could possibly constitute a "war crime".

None of this excuses yesterday's atrocity, but it does go some way to explaining the mentality of the mind(s) that conceived it.

heard of it last night, it's awful

EvilBastard wrote: None of this excuses yesterday's atrocity

It appears as if you're trying to do just that.

nowayjose wrote:

EvilBastard wrote: None of this excuses yesterday's atrocity

It appears as if you're trying to do just that.

Appearances are deceptive - I would no sooner try to excuse the bombing in Boston, or in London, or at World Trade, than try to excuse the actions taken by coalition forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, or by the IDF or Palestinian factions in Israel of the occupied territories. All violence is abhorrent.

But if we try to get our heads around the why (which normally doesn't happen because it often forces us to confront unpleasant truths about ourselves) rather than the who (which is much easier, because it allows us to demonise a person or a group, to put a face to the horror, personalise it, make it easier to deal with) then we have a better chance of finding a solution to the problem of violence.

My point was that we're quick to damn the mind that comes up with an attack that not only kills civilians but by design targets the emergency services that go to help them, but we ignore the idea that our actions (as detailed in the article referenced) might have had some bearing on it. When we do it we're "targeting terrorists", when they do it they're "targeting innocents". Maybe it helps us sleep at night, but in a dispassionate analysis neither of us have clean hands in all of this. There can be no excuse for either act. Ever.

EvilBastard wrote:

Being645 wrote:What a zero of a creature does one have to be to think up such a twofold bomb attack?!?

Alas, one doesn't have to go very far to answer that question:

The Guardian wrote:The inquiry will report to the UN general assembly in New York this autumn. Depending on its findings, it may recommend further action. Emmerson has previously suggested some drone attacks – particularly those known as "double tap" strikes where rescuers going to the aid of a first blast have become victims of a follow-up strike – could possibly constitute a "war crime".

Oh. Yes. Thank you for the hint.
These drone attacks are indeed cowardly, cruel and illegal, too (in my understanding).
Fine, that some special rapporteur of the UN is now undertaking a review on this lovely convenient new technique of atrocity ...
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure there won't become much of it ... and certainly no accountability will be identified for attacks that happened already ...
- and if only because they were not applied within war and will therefore not qualify as a war-crime ...

Anyway, it somewhat worries me that the investigation is carried out under the presumption of war times as such:

Emmerson told the Guardian: "One of the fundamental questions is whether aerial targeting using drones is an appropriate method of conflict … where the individuals are embedded in a local community.

I do not recall that these weapons had ever been employed in a war.
The only occasions they have been used on so far are targeted killings.
However, IIRC, there are basic human rights like:

Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

But nowadays, states declare "conflict", i.e. "war" apparently not against other states, but against organisations, groups, individuals just at their leisure,
thus turning criminal offences into acts of combat - and justifying and legalising their disregard for/indifference towards the rights of their opponents and anyone coincidentially around ...

It were nice, if this drones technology were prohibited, but this will take as long as it took to - at least basically - prohibit cluster munitions ...

None of this excuses yesterday's atrocity, but it does go some way to explaining the mentality of the mind(s) that conceived it.

Very true. And everybody knows that all creatures learn - among other methods - by imitation.

Sad enough ... and to all my taste and all my senses all this lying by the means of law - and even international law - is d i s g u s t i n g ... ...

Is there anything one can say in favour of this humanity behaving like toddlers in the 21. century ? Honestly, I fail.

EvilBastard wrote: But if we try to get our heads around the why (which normally doesn't happen because it often forces us to confront unpleasant truths about ourselves) rather than the who (which is much easier, because it allows us to demonise a person or a group, to put a face to the horror, personalise it, make it easier to deal with) then we have a better chance of finding a solution to the problem of violence.

I don't fully agree with everything you said there. However, before this discussion widens into a general US war-against-terror etc. debate, I think we should wait until it becomes clear who actually did this.

nowayjose wrote:I don't fully agree with everything you said there. However, before this discussion widens into a general US war-against-terror etc. debate, I think we should wait until it becomes clear who actually did this.

Whoever did it - whether it was someone with a pathological hatred of marathon runners, someone who couldn't get their taxes filed on time, a hitherto-unknown group of British nationalists who decided to strike at the seat of the greatest act of treason ever perpetrated, a disgruntled postal employee, a confused whackjob swayed by the arguments of religious extremism - violence is still never justified. Not ever.

EvilBastard wrote:... a hitherto-unknown group of British nationalists who decided to strike at the seat of the greatest act of treason ever perpetrated,

High point of your post.

EvilBastard wrote: violence is still never justified. Not ever.

Pure drivel. I'm sure it looks nice on a bumper-sticker or a commemorative quilt, but it is an utterly mindless sentiment. Violence is obviously justified under certain circumstances (definining those circumstances is perhaps difficult--but the difficulty does not justify mindlessness).

EvilBastard wrote:

nowayjose wrote:I don't fully agree with everything you said there. However, before this discussion widens into a general US war-against-terror etc. debate, I think we should wait until it becomes clear who actually did this.

... a hitherto-unknown group of British nationalists who decided to strike at the seat of the greatest act of treason ever perpetrated ...

Which act of treason was that? I guess you assume the British had every right to march on in to Concord AND that they had not fired the first shot? Let's say that was the "why" in this, since you made a point to list it as a possible example, how would knowing that some psychopath/s still holding a grudge over the Revolutionary War help us in stopping such atrocious acts as what occurred in Boston on Monday?

sultan2075 wrote:Violence is obviously justified under certain circumstances (definining those circumstances is perhaps difficult--but the difficulty does not justify mindlessness).

"Violence is justified - I just can't say precisely when"? Fair enough - if you can offer a couple of examples where the benefits of a violent act outweigh the benefits of any reasonable alternative, I'd love to hear them.

EvilBastard wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:Violence is obviously justified under certain circumstances (definining those circumstances is perhaps difficult--but the difficulty does not justify mindlessness).

"Violence is justified - I just can't say precisely when"? Fair enough - if you can offer a couple of examples where the benefits of a violent act outweigh the benefits of any reasonable alternative, I'd love to hear them.

I'm not entirely sure I need to do so. You're the one who has made the sweeping categorical claim. You're also assuming that there are reasonable alternatives. Sometimes there are not.

I think, in all honesty, intelligence trumps violence every time.

Unfortunately, intelligence is severely lacking in too many places

sultan2075 wrote:I'm not entirely sure I need to do so. You're the one who has made the sweeping categorical claim. You're also assuming that there are reasonable alternatives. Sometimes there are not.

Of course you don't need to - I'd just like to hear when you think that violence is justified. You're taking a counterpoint but seem unable to support your premise. Colour me shocked, stunned, and surprised.

EvilBastard wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:I'm not entirely sure I need to do so. You're the one who has made the sweeping categorical claim. You're also assuming that there are reasonable alternatives. Sometimes there are not.

Of course you don't need to - I'd just like to hear when you think that violence is justified. You're taking a counterpoint but seem unable to support your premise. Colour me shocked, stunned, and surprised.

Take a look at chapters 2 and 3 of Locke's Second Treatise .

I'd like to hear why violence is "never justified. Not ever." Is the slave who takes up arms against a master not justified? Is the use of violence in self-defense not justified? Or do we adopt the moral idiocy of Gandhi, so well-expressed in the following passage:

Gandhi wrote:
I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions…If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them

Such a view is certain to be applauded by tyrants the world over.

Why do you think such sweeping and categorical claims as you have made are even appropriate to a subject such as morality? Can moral truths ever be presented more than "roughly and in outline"? Or is morality an area subject to mathematical certainty? You seem very certain. Why is that?

Looks like they've arrested someone

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/17/us/bo ... _inthenews