Boston Marathon Bombings
 

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/15...hon/?hpt=hp_t1

Jesus fucking Christ. Why a RACE? What the fuck?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...medium=twitter

This picture is just fucking surreal: http://i.imgur.com/33D9cC4.jpg

I read that as "What a RACE" and started laughing. Then I saw what it really said, and felt bad, but still laughed.

Just now hearing about this, fucking tragic. There are some pics of the aftermath and some of the victim, gruesome.

Some footage here, it's a bit graphic in places so be warned.

Apparently a bomb went off in New Jersey as well. We do have a member there, hazel rah.


edit: Conflicting reports on whether or not there was a bombing in NJ.

It's disgusting, I can't watch any of the clips because it's genuinely upsetting to the highest degree. Just hope they find the fuckers.

Lots of people helping out:
http://i.imgur.com/zyfIwiM.jpg


-Patton Oswalt

I like these words.

Jesus man, that video made me nauseous and they're saying one of the victims was an 8-year-old kid smh

I was afraid something like this was going to happen this month in light of all these recent shootings and all the anniversaries this month (oklahoma, columbine, etc.)

They're also saying now that part of the race was dedicated to the Sandy Hook massacre and families of the victims were present. Christ, as if there weren't enough Sandy Hook conspiracies.

The bomb was apparently full of shrapnel and ball bearings and went off low-to-the ground. It wasn't designed to kill people in a concentrated area but wound and maim as many as possible. Apparently over ten amputations have been carried out and a few didn't even need one since they lost most of their limbs already.

That makes me sick.

...No words really. Other than I hope the fucking cunts who did this get caught.

I can't think of a better tv show host introduction I've seen after a tragedy than this. I'd never heard of Craig Ferguson before, but I like him a lot now.

*de-lurks* I'll probably get some flak for this somehow, but yesterday I noticed that Iraq suffered a series of similar, much more deadly bombings on the same day as the ones in Boston, and that there was next to no media coverage about it. (Finding that article now takes some digging, it showed briefly on the front page before the Boston bombings took place)

I'm a bit critical of the media for this and think that if people watch the news at all, that they should also be aware of this - Although I suppose there's a big political motivation for bombings in war-torn Iraq where such things are commonplace, while there wasn't a clear motivation for targeting innocent spectators of the Boston marathon in peaceful USA on our doorstep.

Regardless, that doesn't make incidents like this any less disgusting and less worth reporting on IMO. I'd also hope that when it happens closer to home and such tragedies are widely broadcasted, it'd serve as a reminder to us all to stop being such arseholes to each other, but a guy can dream.

I usually don't do this type of thing on this kind of thread, but it has a point:
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3...psb5b744a8.png

I don't think it's whether or not people care, it's more about new coverage. And of course there is going to be more coverage of a terrorist attack in the richest country in the world, than in an ex-warzone. Welcome to journalism.

oh hey lorne

We don't have any Middle Eastern members. If we did, they could all post about their local tragedies and we'd do our best to be sympathetic. Heck, we all tried to give a shit about the Egyptian riots when abe619 was still kicking around.

Let's just say Steamer_KING is quite lucky his image isn't obviously visible.

It's a pretty faggoty image.

Oh, now it is. God what a stupid image.

It's about the media, not the "happenings" themselves. Every death is tragic. But what DarkHoodness said is true, all the following bombings in Iraq were pretty much "zoned" because of the Boston bombings. Where's the media coverage? Because I saw in Portugal, news about Boston. But none of Iraq. I switched to CNN for a couple of hours. And yet, no news at all. I'm sorry if I hurt somebody feelings, it wasn't my intention, but that's just what happened in the media.

"There was a tragic death in [first world country]? How come the media doesn't talk about similar things in poorer countries?!"

"Stop talking about tragedies in poorer countries, people in [first world country] died!"

Both are pretty shitty but both have a point.

That's because you were watching CNN. An American news broadcaster. Switch to Al-Jazeera and I expect you'll see little of Boston.

At any given point in time, in any given country on Earth, something tragic is happening. News programmes have to report on whatever they think is most relevant to their chosen audience. Unless you're Fox, in which case you report on whatever has the most flags and eagles and scary-looking Arabs.

There was a story on the bombings in Iraq on the front page of either RT or Al Jazeera (can't remember which) earlier, to be fair. A similar argument about what gets reported arose in the thread about that shooting a while ago in an American primary school, and as much as I can see the point, it's the responsibility of the viewer/reader (or whatever) to seek out more than one or two news outlets. Sadly, an ignoramus will remain an ignoramus, and I'm not convinced that even if there was more coverage of the problems that are prevalent in places like the Middle East that there'd be much difference in the course of action (or lack thereof) that your average passive consumer would choose to take.
I'm also without doubt that there are insidious reasons that some events get reported and others don't, but all you can do is try and get people to show a more active interest in the news.

Basically, if you want news on Iraq, go watch Iraqi news.

Apparently April is the month for homebrew American terrorism (if that is what this is).

Here's a different take on yesterday http://mungerruns.blogspot.co.uk/201...of-boston.html

Yeah I thought my opinion may have been inappropriate in some way. Thanks for being my litmus test. Maybe it's 'cause I (wrongly) believe that the BBC should take the middle ground - But perhaps what mainstream media shows and doesn't show is subjective anyway depending on one's beliefs.

Also, maybe talking about this detracts from the tragedy of these events, so sorry 'bout that. I still don't understand why anyone would target spectators of a marathon and what the motives could be.

They're terrorists. Their motive is to instill terror.

Terrorists like claiming responsibility though. They're pretty well known for it.

I'm not saying the person or people who did it isn't by definition a terrorist, but I don't think it's that simple.

I don't know, anyone whose aim is to instil a sense of terror in a population is by definition a terrorist, whatever their motives are. I'm surprised no one has owned up yet though, an organisation or person that conducts an act like that would usually take responsibility so they can give their own twisted reasoning as to why they believed it necessary.

I was speaking somebody today who thinks the attack might have come from some lone crazy person rather than an organization, purely because it doesn't match the usual way terrorist groups operate - nobody's owned up to it, and terrorist groups normally aim to inflict large numbers of casualties rather than maiming.

A terrorist is someone who uses fear to get what they want, that could be anything from making a political statement to spreading panic for amusement.

Yeah I was thinking that right from the start. It isn't as huge as any other attack. Don't get me wrong, it's a big deal, in fact, it's a horrible thing that's happened. It's just it doesn't look like a major plot of a terrorist group like 9/11 was. I think it's more likely the work of some crazy guy with a unknown grudge, maybe even a local guy.

That said though, it really could of been anyone. So who knows.

Also did anything become of that third bombing? I haven't heard much about it.