Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [3]

[Pettytyrant101]

Just had a friend point out to me that Boston was one of the main financial contributing centres in the US for support for the IRA.
Bars in Boston use to sell drinks called 'car bomb' and 'kill a brit'.

John McDonagh is chairman of the New York-based Irish Freedom Committee, his organisation's supporters are sympathetic to dissident republicans who oppose the move away from an "armed struggle" in Northern Ireland.
While supporting what many would see as a terror group, he draws a line between the actions of the IRA and those of the 11 September attackers."There's no comparison. I don't think it's in the psyche of the Irish to become suicide bombers. The IRA gives warnings before its bombings. What happened here brings it to a whole new level."- BBC

(tell that to the victims of the IRA-an attack by the dissident 'Real IRA' in Omagh in 1998 claimed the lives of 29 civilians, while hundreds of people were killed and thousands maimed in IRA bombings and shootings in more than thirty years of violence.)

Funny, the people of Boston dont seem to pleased now its an inward investment in terrorism! Maybe they, and others like New Yorkers, will look again at their own nieve support of terrorists after this tradegy.

[David H]

"Unusual" disasters always get more attention than disasters that are perceived as mundane.

I think that's near the crux of my question, Eldo. How and when do we as a society collectively decide that there's even such a thing as a mundane disaster? Doesn't it seem a bit dirty to put those two words together? (I suspect that's why you inserted the qualifier above, right?)

We're making astonishingly poor decisions about perceived risk every day. I remember thinking the last time I was in Boston how foolish is was that a TSA inspector was groping me before I could get on an airplane with 80 other people, when I'd just gotten off a crowded subway with 10,000 people of all descriptions carrying all kinds of bags and boxes, and nobody giving them even a glance.

This bomber wasn't interested in killing the most people or he'd have gone for any transportation chokepoint at rush hour. He chose instead to to target the marathon to find the largest collection of cameras and sports reporters. And the media gave him everything he asked for. They've covered it like it was a major sporting event, and they're getting rich off it.

I find the unholy alliance between the media and psychopaths frankly disgusting.

[Pettytyrant101]

This bomber wasn't interested in killing the most people or he'd have gone for any transportation chokepoint at rush hour.- David

Sadly this has all the hallmarks so far of being an internal atrocity not an external terrorist group.
I definitely think the way the media, particularly the US media cover these things needs looked at- a quick glance through the Fox News pages quickly demonstrates the problem.
And part of that problem is the need to keep providing news 24 hours a day and keep viewers coming back for more.

[David H]

Just had a friend point out to me that Boston was one of the main financial contributing centres in the US for support for the IRA.
Bars in Boston use to sell drinks called 'car bomb' and 'kill a brit'.
.......

Funny, the people of Boston dont seem to pleased now its an inward investment in terrorism! Maybe they, and others like New Yorkers, will look again at their own nieve support of terrorists after this tradegy.

Yes, the Boston Irish have done a lot of rooting for terrorists from the sidelines over the years. It's easy to imagine a connection, a mentally ill child who grew up in such a household for example.

[Pettytyrant101]

Thats the problem when you make killing innocent random civilians glorious. Whatever the cause.

[Eldorion]

I think that's near the crux of my question, Eldo. How and when do we as a society collectively decide that there's even such a thing as a mundane disaster? Doesn't it seem a bit dirty to put those two words together? (I suspect that's why you inserted the qualifier above, right?)

Because nobody can become emotionally invested in every single fatal car crash that occurs. There are just too many of them. People eventually become desensitized to "everyday" deaths. I'm not saying that these deaths don't matter, but you cannot expect people to react with shock and horror to all of them. I've been as critical of media coverage of mass shootings as anyone, but I don't think this is exclusively a media issue. Media sensationalism has basically no upsides, but terrorist attacks and spree killings would still be sensational even without the media. Look at how news of the bombing spread rapidly over Twitter before any TV channels had mentioned it.

I've been trying not to speculate about the motives without evidence, but terrorist attacks usually target symbolically meaningful targets rather than going for maximum casualties. 9/11, for as many people died in those attacks, is an example of that. In any event, I'm saddened that anyone died, but I'm relieved that it doesn't seem to have been as destructive as it could have been.

[Mrs Figg]

my thought is in the difference is in the intent. That car driver did not intend to kill, he killed because of human stupidity. those bombs were intended to kill happy families on a sunny day, its an act of evil. car accidents are rarely acts of evil they are acts of crass irresponsibility, arrogance and stupidity but not pure cowardly evil.

[David H]

Media sensationalism has basically no upsides, but terrorist attacks and spree killings would still be sensational even without the media. Look at how news of the bombing spread rapidly over Twitter before any TV channels had mentioned it.

A fair point, but I'm curious how much the traditional media feed off of social media and vice versa. All the reporters are posting on Twitter, and all the program directors are watching to see which stories are trending as they decide how much coverage a story gets. If there were a way to decouple them, I wonder if the things might not stay a little saner.

[David H]

my thought is in the difference is in the intent. That car driver did not intend to kill, he killed because of human stupidity. those bombs were intended to kill happy families on a sunny day, its an act of evil. car accidents are rarely acts of evil they are acts of crass irresponsibility, arrogance and stupidity but not pure cowardly evil.

It feels that way to me too. It seems that the "sexiest" disasters have villains, like the BP oil spills or Al Qaeda attacks. Not only does it make them easier to package as sporting events where you know which side to root for, but it makes the world seem safer. Imagine how scary it would be if everybody was worrying about irresponsibility, arrogance and stupidity all the time! It's around us constantly and most of us even indulge from time to time.

I think that may be what Eldo means about not being able to worry about every car accident, though that's where the greatest real risk is. The world is just too scary without perceived evil!

[Mrs Figg]

I think normal everyday living is like Russian roulette there is always an idiot round the corner, and I think our brains can deal with normal everyday tragedy, we are inured to it. however extraordinary evil is quite rare and therefore shocking, well it is for Westerners anyway. I suppose if you live in a totalitarian state or in a Taliban village its par for the course.

[David H]

Yeah, eastern religions and ethics don't understand evil in quite the western way. It actually feels more natural to me in many ways.

[Pettytyrant101]

Sorry to jump topics but some classic George Galloway on the Daily
Politics and his ripping apart of Thatcher and the BBC's fawning over
her that I just had to share.

[CC12 35]

taylor swift > jenifer lawerrence > billions of people > margret thatcher

[Mrs Figg]

Yeah, eastern religions and ethics don't understand evil in quite the western way. It actually feels more natural to me in many ways.

in what way more natural?

[David H]

Well I really meant "natural" in the sense of matching my nature.

But as a man who works all the time in nature, I can make the case that a broader view of evil is more nature-like.

I see trees killing out bushes and grass with their shade, while mosses, fungii and vines strangle and suck the life out of the trees. My loving cat is not so loving if you happen to be mouse a rabbit , a squirrel, or a bird, but he's on the other side of the equation to the coyote, the eagle or the owl.

A person can view this a lot of layers of evil if they like, or you can take a more existential perspective that its all a piece of a bigger picture. Does that make sense?

[Mrs Figg]

but those things you mention I wouldnt call evil at all. they are just the need for nutrition, they are not done out of hate or Revenge. nature red in tooth and claw, I think nature can be cruel in that it is insensitive to feelings and pain of the victims, but its not the active malignant cruelty like that of our species.

[Eldorion]

Sorry to jump topics but some classic George Galloway on the Daily
Politics and his ripping apart of Thatcher and the BBC's fawning over
her that I just had to share.

That was awesome. The BBC's coverage of Thatcher has been extremely disappointing.

[chris63]

[Eldorion]

Because people don't like hearing about war constantly? You can't give every incident in a decade-long war saturation coverage. Also, most people don't give a shit about Afghanistan. Anyway, the Boston attacks have been described as terrorism by a ton of people, but the truth is we don't know the perpetrators or the motives so it's possible (though unlikely) that it was not an act of terrorism.

The last thing we need right now is more conspiracy shit.

[Eldorion]

I'm not defending the media on this, but I'm baffled that people seem surprised or confused about the coverage. I haven't followed it to closely but it seems (relatively) more responsible than the coverage of Sandy Hook where you had news organizations falling over themselves to smear the guy whose name was leaked who turned out to be the shooter's estranged brother. The Boston reporting seems to be pretty typical but not especially offensive.

[chris63]

Agreed

Lot of these pictures floating around Facebook at the mo.
A couple of nukes dropped in the right place could solve a few problems,
or is that going to far ? Don't think this shit is going to stop in my lifetime.

[halfwise]

The definition of Terrorism depends on intent. I feel morally queasy about the drone strikes, but they are not intended to cause terror among the general public. Grouping them with mafia hits would be closer to the mark. Though like mafia hits in some cases they may actually be doing more good than harm by who gets removed....

[Eldorion]

A couple of nukes dropped in the right place could solve a few problems,
or is that going to far ? Don't think this shit is going to stop in my lifetime.

WTF

[Eldorion]

The definition of Terrorism depends on intent. I feel morally queasy about the drone strikes, but they are not intended to cause terror among the general public. Grouping them with mafia hits would be closer to the mark. Though like mafia hits in some cases they may actually be doing more good than harm by who gets removed....

What I was trying to say was that it's possible -- though I stress, I don't think it's likely -- that this was a "random" attack without a political motivation, in which case it would be hard to classify it as terrorism. Most school shootings fall into this category. On the other hand, something like the Oklahoma City bombing was clearly an act of terrorism because it was politically motivated and targeted.

[chris63]

A couple of nukes dropped in the right place could solve a few problems,
or is that going to far ? Don't think this shit is going to stop in my lifetime.

WTF

Sooner or later there going to get there hands on something thats going to kill millions, its going
to be a case of us or them. Sadly