Heartbreaking… all the deaths and injuries are just heartbreaking.
WHY?
A bunch of redneck blogs are discussing how ‘evil’ and ‘awful’ the muslims are – ‘so violent’ is another favorite expression that comes up a lot. Where do westerners get the idea muslims are so bad? Seriously, a bunch of cracker-asses whose western culture is almost all violence are declaring that muslims are nothing but violent extremist.
I guess if all you know of history has been written since Israel was formed, well, I suppose I understand the view of violent muslims… but if you look at the past few hundred years, isn’t it the christians that have actually been far more violent? The crusades were probably a good argument for the muslims to keep the gringos out of the middle east… Sigh.
I guess it’s too early in the a.m. for me (4:00) and I should shut-up, but I still don’t understand the western hatred of muslims. It wasn’t muslims that killed their jesus. Muslims haven’t been violently invading country after country (IMO)… what gives?
And who’s to blame for Boston? Most of the people I’ve seen pointing fingers should be looking in the mirror as they’re pointing. The same assholes that brought us 9/11 and the war on terror are who is ultimately responsible for this latest crime… regardless of who set the bomb off.
Meanwhile at the local Walmart folks spend plastic money to buy more plastic shit they don’t need while their spouses are earning a paycheck by sitting at a computer and blowing away another innocent wedding party by remote control. In some ethnic neighborhood in Anywhere u.s.a. the gang in blue is beating some idiot crack dealer to death… in AZ a red-faced angry ‘patriot’ is stuck in a border check-point (200 miles north of the border) yelling about ‘his rights’ while the jackbooted thugs he’s paying the salaries of are screwing with him. The liberal who is sipping a starbucks coffee while reading about america’s coming to terms with ‘gay rights’ on his smart phone is smiling, glad he voted for obama, glad he lives in such a great gay nation. The shyster businessperson is figuring-out how to screw his customers with another stupid service fee. A bunch of college students are planning a rally to protest this, that, and the other and in 20 years, when they’re part of the establishment, they will have something cool to remember and tell their kids about. Politicians are taking bribes and voting not just against their constituent’s best interest, but their own. Lawyers are drawing-up complicated paperwork they don’t even understand to help their corporate masters steal another billion. And most of us are blind to anything other than trying to pay our bills and keep food on the table… everyday another thousand americans fall thru the cracks and lose their jobs, their homes and even their families because of the crap they themselves voted for.
And in the boardrooms of the world’s big businesses there is nothing but laughter.
When does this end?

Posted by: DaveS | Apr 16 2013 10:35 utc | 4

It seems to get clearer now …
There is this picture of a man on the roof of a house a some 100 yards away.
Let me look into my magic chrystal ball:
(Some weeks ahead) “If we had had drones available”, explains a speaker of the police “we would have been able to see that man early enough to avoid the bloodshed”.
In other words, the explosions in Boston might quite well turn out to be nothing more than a sales event of the drone mafia.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Apr 16 2013 11:14 utc | 6

terrorism: The unlawful use of violence or threat of violence to instill fear and coerce governments or societies. Terrorism is often motivated by religious, political, or other ideological beliefs and committed in the pursuit of goals that are usually political.
The Boston bombings occured on Patriots’ Day, a state holiday in Massachusetts, commemorating the anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. These were the first battles of the American Revolutionary War. It is observed on the third Monday in April in Massachusetts (and in Maine, where it is Patriot’s Day, which was once part of Massachusetts).
Patriots’ Day terrorism. Now will come the police state’s reaction under the USA Patriot Act.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 16 2013 11:55 utc | 8

@Monolycus#6, You cant state it is not, as much as someone can state that it is, either way you are wrong, unless you are privy to inside information and know all the facts that the rest of us don’t. As far as the definition of terrorism, and there are many, and not only politically motivation, like; religious or ideological goals; the common vein is deliberately targeting or disregard the safety of non-combatants, civilians/citizens generally unrelated. One such definition: United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as: any act “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act”. So we have a clear and/Or (Very UN, never tie yourself down). However this case does more and is defined by ‘Domestic terrorism’ (For now, as the Nationality or persons are still unclear) as Terrorists (USG)are entities that attack national symbols,events, gatherings (As the Marathon was) to display power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to.
This act did negatively affect a government, RoL, peace and general well being of all, not just the US, it even rippled the stock market.
True, if you want to spin, one can say; separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, opposition, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel etc; all dressing, unless you have an agenda and need to change perception for the agenda.
In the US, the ruling the aside from ‘Political terrorism’ covers Civil disorder as one of six terrorist categories, and many more sub cat’s – A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community – This went far beyond ‘community’. Participants of the event were also ‘International’, the runners!
In a nut shell, whatever the outcome, it is ‘Terrorism’. I addition; Medically devaluing a perpetrator does not lessen the crime or change the act, it just changes the judgement or penalty. What you are stating is a person who is mentally unstable can politically (If they so do decide) or not blow shit up and because they are unbalanced, it is not an act of terror?

Posted by: Kev | Apr 16 2013 12:31 utc | 10

My view is that there is three major strands that have lead to this steady escalation in Iraq – all of which has been covered in various parts by ‘b’ & other posters here, but I like to summarise:
1) The enormous sums of money & arms flowing into the salafi horde from the GCC/NATO alliance moving on from Libya & now into Syria. This has been well covered here, with the enormous jihadi recruitment drive weaponizing thousands of jihadis streaming from across the globe into the staging grounds around Syria.
2) The now accepted wisdom across the board that the Shia gaining power in Iraq was an enormous loss to the West, & that Iraq has now been moved into a subset of the anti-Iran file across many of the major Western thinktanks. The Saudi’s have been extremely hostile from the start, & the current Western elite factions in the driving seat appears to have accepted their ‘solution’ to the problem, ie. chaos followed by open insurrection.
3) The fact that Syria isn’t going that well for the jihadi’s inspite of the vast levels of Western/GCC support & they are taking enormous losses. As numerous propaganda videos & their actions attest, many of these ‘Warriors of God’ are in fact cowards that are much happier slaughtering helpless civilians than engaging in a standup fight, or even in protracted guerilla warfare, ala Hezbollah. They are now looking for easier targets away from the meatgrinder that is Syria…
Some of the attacks are obviously orchestrated, likely by the Saudi’s utilising some Western off-the-books intelligence resources, ie. the assaults & bombings of independant politicians standing for the coming elections, especially targeting independant Sunni voices. Others attacks appear to be more opportunistic – an obvious result of recruiting, arming & sending the thousands of jihadi’s into Syria, from where they spread to what seems to be easiest target of opportunity but where their actions will still be supported by GCC money train.
The Iraqi government seems to have only realised the extent of their predicament recently, as the US seems to of kept soothing them with promises of official backing (again, there seems to different factions at play – the conventional US military seems to want to back them & have been doing so to a certain extent, but they keep getting over-ruled by the ‘liberal/humanitarian’ imperialist factions & the CIA. There are also the oil majors along with the new Middle Eastern pipelinistan great game).
Finally they seemed to wake up & went through with the major Russian arms deal. They will need to expedite this quickly, especially the Mi-28’s. The salafi’s next move will likely be to set up staging areas from which they can expand from, & these need to smashed fast. With the amount of heavy armament that have been given to the salafi’s, the weaponry the US has been selling to them won’t cut it, but the heavily armoured, armed, & sophisticated Mil’s will chop right through them.
They also need to stop sitting on the fence about Iran & start supporting the Iranian channels of support into Syria much more pro-actively instead of just looking the other way now & then.
One of the ‘good’ things that may result from all this carnage is that the West/GCC alliance seems to be inexorably driving Iran, Syria & Iraq into a block of mutual support, as each will need the other to help survive the onslaught.

Posted by: KenM | Apr 16 2013 14:12 utc | 12

Jim Stone is always interesting, never boring, on the marathon here. Apparently there were sniffer dogs near where the first bomb went off, part of a “drill.”

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 16 2013 15:04 utc | 14

Before the Iraq invasion, some warned that the projected violence would come home (i.e. to USuk), and not thru blowback, as it is usually understood or touted by the left (we are evil and do harm, others will naturally riposte or seek revenge, one can’t blame them for that!), but simply as a way of acting, of doing.
We were both right and wrong.
9/11 spawned, as many crimes do, copycats. The London and Madrid bombings, both seriously deadly, were false flag, or better said, collaboration between parts of the PTB and roped in dummies or poor on-the-make types, to make it perhaps too simple.
Wrong because subsequently there have been no major incidents of “terrorism” in the USuk besides insignificant events of different kinds: shoe bomber, underwear bomber, – media hype! – flying into a building that houses a tax office, abortion clinics, 2007 Glasgow airport ‘attack’, etc., all of them, imho, either fabricated with help from whomever, or pathetic lone nuts, in any case trivial.
In the US, any excuse has to be used for the ‘fear factor’, generally by obscuring ‘right-wing’ terror and hyping either mysteries or anything that can be connected to Muslims.

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 16 2013 16:22 utc | 16

Before the Iraq invasion, some warned that the projected violence would come home (i.e. to USuk), and not thru blowback, as it is usually understood or touted by the left (we are evil and do harm, others will naturally riposte or seek revenge, one can’t blame them for that!), but simply as a way of acting, of doing.
I WAS gonna post

“first person to post something about blaming this on ‘Blowback’ gets 2 hasbara gold-stars”

but you ruined before I got there

Posted by: yah . . . But | Apr 16 2013 16:37 utc | 18

curious
–The two explosions occurred at 2.50PM on Monday.
–After I spoke to McCormick [and after the two explosions], there was a loud sound, which seemed to come from the other side of Copley Square, and the crowd began to move around uneasily. It was a little after four. It may have been a controlled detonation by the police (it was reported that there was at least one). Or maybe it was just the sound of something heavy being dropped—a normal city sound.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/after-the-boston-marathon-explosion.html
–Boston law enforcement indicated on the emergency personnel radio scanner at 3:53 p.m. ET that they would be conducting a controlled explosion on the 600 block of Boylston Street, near the Copley Square site of the original explosions that rocked the Boston Marathon earlier Monday afternoon. The explosion occurred around 3:55 p.m. ET — news reports follow.
http://www.sbnation.com/2013/4/15/4227858/boston-marathon-explosions-controlled-detonation
–Boston police initially said a third incident — a fire or explosion — occurred at the JFK Presidential Library at around 4:30 p.m., about an hour and a half after and four miles away from the marathon blasts. But they later indicated that incident was unrelated to the attack.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/twin_bombing_rocks_boston_ruCEEddqK5xkHVxquE2FaO
–BOSTON — Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick says no unexploded bombs were found at the Boston Marathon. He says the only explosives were the ones that went off Monday. . .Special Agent in Charge Richard DesLauriers says at a news conference there are no known additional threats.
http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/295074/45/Officials-Only-two-explosives-at-Boston-Marathon?odyssey=tab|topnews|bc|large

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 16 2013 16:58 utc | 20

Curious, Indeed. High profile event with relatively low casualties. If they don’t name a Neo-Nazi pro gun control group as the suspects, I will be very surprised. No Crazy Jihadist this time.

Posted by: HIlmi Hakim | Apr 16 2013 17:11 utc | 22

@Sasha, just read it, an balanced report; very rare. As I see it the reporter is neither American or from another conflict/War zone thus looks at the issue in black and white, i.e. civilians/Deaths/method, and rightly came to the conclusion the Boston attack is minor in the bigger picture in terms of civilian atrocities, unless your an American that is. But as you said, ‘choked on tea’; likewise my mouth sat open (Kettle was still boiling), even the comments we ‘pro’ the write-up.
I just saw ‘Ricin’ is in US post to a senator as ‘Breaking News’ not sure if this is a diversion, as they also linked 9/11 (Anthrax) to the same MO – more fear mongering. Frigging caster oil by-product, this is a false flag, and making it seem like terrorism but will not mention the ‘word’. In that the write-up also mentioned ‘Is that what “terrorism” is?’ and rightly so!

Posted by: Kev | Apr 16 2013 23:02 utc | 24

Thanks b!

Posted by: DaveS | Apr 16 2013 23:10 utc | 26

@#25
How difficult can it be to become a journalist?
It’s ‘dealer’s choice’ — either make up something or look it up on the web, and then attribute it to ‘a person who can’t be identified because . . .’, write it up and publish it.
I’m sure that Karen Jeffrey hasn’t been the only one to make stuff up, by a long shot. Cape Cod Times:

The reporter was Karen Jeffrey, 59, a writer for the Cape Cod Times since 1981. In an audit of her work, Times editors have been unable to find 69 people in 34 stories since 1998, when we began archiving stories electronically.
On Tuesday, Jeffrey admitted to fabricating people in some of these articles and giving some others false names. She no longer works for the Cape Cod Times.

Jeffrey went too far with it, is the reason she got caught. Instead of quoting “persons who choose to remain anonymous because . .” like the geniuses on AP, etc., she fabricated people.

In 2011, for example, a story on the Fourth of July parade in Cotuit featured Johnson Coggins, 88, “the patriarch of the family” and a longtime Cotuit summer resident. No one by that name can be found using public-records searches and there is no Coggins in the town of Barnstable’s assessor’s database. We were unable to locate five other people featured in that story.

Real “journalists” don’t do that – they use anonymous sources. Why be creative?
Okay, that’s my vent for the day.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Apr 16 2013 23:40 utc | 28

Just ask yourself of what religious persuasion were those who perpetrated the list of attacks on this so-called Bloody Monday. Comparable attacks occur every day of the week, every week of the year. It’s no wonder we become complacent.

Posted by: David | Apr 16 2013 23:48 utc | 30

A laissez faire approach to terrorism would be a BANE, not a boon, for the defense and homeland security industry. So I doubt, despite what some in the MSM have suggested, that a laissez faire approach to terrorism will lead to a boom in the terror market, i.e., the war on terror. The war on drugs is a reliable template of this. The more we spend on the war on drugs, the bigger the war on drugs becomes.
Therefore, the most strategically sensible steps the US can take to ensure itself against terrorist attacks is to drag its arrogant military ass out of all other countries and to shut its yapping pie hole about how evil any other country is! These steps add nothing to the military and homeland security budget and are guaranteed to be effective.
And I know that hindsight is 20-20, but why didn’t these world-renowned “security experts” make any efforts to secure a high-profile finish line? Just another reason why it’s futile to waste a lot on tax dollars on combating the war on terror!

Posted by: Cynthia | Apr 17 2013 14:50 utc | 32

30) David, I suggest no religion. The following is a list of so called “Christian” terrorists.

Posted by: somebody | Apr 17 2013 16:02 utc | 34

I dare to assume that almost no real terrorists exist that is, that basically every “terrorist” attack is state sponsored or executed by secret services.
Of course, private persons kill, too. And for many reasons. But all those reasons fall in 1 of 2 categories, crime or personal (jealousy, revenge, etc.) In basically all cases private persons go for a clearly defined target (a bank, the lover, etc.). “Terrorism” however goes against rather indiscriminate groups.
While I can’t see any reason whatsoever for a private person or group to bomb marathon runners, there are plenty of reasons a state or interest group could have.
Also the risk/benefit ratio is completely different for private persons and state organizations. To instill fear and panic in a rather indiscriminate group has no value for a private person while the risk to be cought is extremely increased. For a state organization, however, it’s quite the contrary; the state power (police etc.) are no danger but rather an asset and instilling fear and panic serves a states interests very well.
Another point worthy mentioning is the child-victim. Basically every human being has a very high barrier to harm or kill children. Actually there are cases of crimes stopped for the simple reason that a child entered the scene (e.g. a child with his maother in a bank to be robbed).
For state organizations, however, this “shock factor” is actually a benefit. Bluntly speaking it strongly underlines the question intended to form in citizens minds “Are we willing to tolerate that or should we give more power to the state?” With a dead or maimed child in the equation the chances to get a “Go” are considerably higher for the state.
Btw.: Turning this around also explains why it’s so important for the usa military and the embedded media whores to show kids with weapons early on in the war (and be it by giving some boy a weapon and some dollars to wave it …). On a conscious level this carries the message how savage those enemies are; on a subconscious level it “OK’s” the indiscriminate brutality of ones own troups. After all, even kids of the enemy are to be perceived as dangerous killers.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Apr 17 2013 22:34 utc | 36

Wako, Texas fire, fertilized plant, a cover-up of a bigger ‘home grown’ plan that could be related to Boston – OR am I just being a tit?

Posted by: Kev | Apr 18 2013 3:02 utc | 38

That nitrate plant in Texas:
April 17 (a few years ago):
Blasts and Fires Wreck Texas City of 15,000; 300 to 1,200 Dead; Thousands Hurt, Homeless; Wide Coast Area Rocked, Damage in Millions

Texas City, Tex., Thursday, April 17 – A chain of explosions set off by the blowing up of a nitrate-laden ship smote this Gulf port yesterday, killing hundreds and injuring thousands. It was the worst American disaster in ten years.
Much of the boom industrial city of 15,000 population was destroyed or damaged. Property loss will run into millions of dollars.
Fires followed the blasts. Poisonous gas from exploding chemicals was reported to be filtering through the area.
Estimates of the fatalities ranged from 1,200 down to 450.
…

Posted by: b | Apr 18 2013 13:02 utc | 40

I still don’t understand the western hatred of Muslims, Dave S wrote.
First, not everyone exhibits that hate as Dave knows.
In Europe, when talking ethno/religious/racial groups, from say 1950 > 1990, hatred of Jews, of Blacks, of immigrants as a class predominated. Not to mention other targets such as homosexuals, the very rich, or Catholics hating Protestants, and so on. Or just ‘immigrants’, again..
The country that had the biggest problems with post-colonial immigration, France, did not frame social problems or scape-goating in religious terms, but in National terms (.. Algerians are scum), or in terms that refer to social groups, such as ‘ppl living in X suburb’, ‘uneducated profiting from social assistance’, etc. Not Muslims. Nobody cared about religious-ethnic definitions.
The hatred for Muslims is a result of relentless, continuing, media manipulations.
It started before 9/11 – think defiled Palestinian suicide bombers – but thereafter boomed.
Day by day, the news shows pictures, snippets, odd news, writes articles, that overtly or subtly describes the terrorist or devil class as ‘Muslim’. The BBC is a master at this.
The media sortie had the effect of making Muslims (previously unconcerned by this aspect of discrimination) band together more, re-enforce their ‘culture’, and opened up new spaces for ‘Muslim’ leaders to enter to mobilize ppl., not to mention those who can be radicalized under any banner. (See Syria.) Being an avowed Muslim became a self-defensive move, a new community being created, which then in turn can be identified, then throws up nasty, aggressive, discussions, etc.
Muslims are painted as the ultimate evil, for Sharia law, for patriarchy, for backwardness, for poverty, for lack of education, for women’s role, for rejecting homosexuals, and on and on. Lots of social values in there – try entering a French restaurant wearing a veil today, can’t be done. That is why it works, in part: the hate bypasses the racist label and becomes ‘cultural’, so to speak, a new yardstick trumped up out of nothing. Other groups that exhibit similar characteristics get a free pass. Muslims are *terrorists*, there you go, truth!
Almost all terrorist attacks in the W in the past 20 years have been carried out by separatists, extreme right- and left- wing factions, almost always local, inc. some lone nuts. Or by the State (false flag.)
Israel’s enemies are Muslim, and several ‘muslim’ countries are sitting on huge oil reserves. So for the W sheeples to go along Muslims have to be demonized.

Posted by: Noirette | Apr 18 2013 15:29 utc | 42

Crazy as hell, CNN & BBC still running with two suspects, Black cap & White cap, both teens and not connected, Huff post did a piece eventually. The one lad happens to be of Moroccan origin, and scared stiff. New York Post had recklessly placed on its cover a picture of two young men not implicated in the Boston attack and labeled them BAG MEN in its headline. BTW the two men have been “cleared by investigators.”. Media making a buck again, hope they get sued! The full statement from Allan, the Post editor, was obtained by Salon:
We stand by our story. The image was emailed to law enforcement agencies yesterday afternoon seeking information about these men, as our story reported. We did not identify them as suspects.
Just the ‘Bag men then’?

Posted by: Kev | Apr 19 2013 4:12 utc | 44

care to be more specific in your objections? Otherwise it’s impossible to understand what it is you are objecting to.
For example: Are you maintaining that the were no ” 2 guys all dolled up to look like Special-Forces-guys-on-Recon.”?
Are you maintaining that those photos of ” 2 guys all dolled up to look like Special-Forces-guys-on-Recon.” are fake?
Or are you maintaining that the ” 2 guys all dolled up to look like Special-Forces-guys-on-Recon.” pictured at the bombsite, shortly before the bombs went off, are of no significance?
How would you know that?
Are you maintaining that I am wrong in my assertion that the media has as yet made no mention of the ” 2 guys all dolled up to look like Special-Forces-guys-on-Recon.”?
If so could you provide me with some of examples of mainstream media reporting of the ” 2 guys all dolled up to look like Special-Forces-guys-on-Recon”, please.

Posted by: yah . . . But | Apr 20 2013 4:57 utc | 46