Bombings at the Boston Marathon
Posted by: Hook on 15 April 2013
Today's headline...
(CNN) -- Two bombs struck near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday, turning a celebration into a bloody scene of destruction.
The blasts threw people to the ground, killing two and injuring dozens.
Hospitals reported at least 110 people being treated, at least eight of them in critical condition and 14 in serious condition. At least eight of the patients are children.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their family members.
Let us hope that those responsible for these cowardly acts of violence are soon brought to justice.
...
Howz SA Hook ???
Hope the shares in Windhoek Lager have taken a sharp upturn
Just got back from a short private business trip, we both go for 4 weeks of pleasure in September
Hi Mike -
We always have a wonderful time in SA, and yes, the fine folks from Namibia Breweries are always happy to see us arrive! ;-)
Four weeks is a proper trip I'd say. Unfortunately, our three weeks are just flying by. Still, I console myself with thoughts of someday either retiring here, or at least "snow birding" (i.e., trading the northern winters for southern summers).
Our first week here is in Pretoria, where the early autumn weather has been absolutely perfect! This weekend we'll drive up to Barberton, and spend a couple of nights in the Kruger. Then we drive back to Pretoria, and catch a flight to George. We'll be there a few days, then drive over to Cape Town, and north to Yzerfontein, where we'll chill for a few days. So, all told, a nice mix of running about and then relaxing when we get there!
Am a bit concerned about one thing though. I found out today that one of Mrs. Hook's cousin's kids runs a zip line (and canopy nature tour) in the Tsitsikamma National Park, so I have already begun steeling myself for the ride!
Cheers!
Hook
Howzit Hook, my business trip last month set us up for the snowbird life :-)))
In Sept we are going north Western Cape for wild flowers, south coast for whales & Cape Town for pleasure. The final 2 weeks are around the Hazyview area & at a friends property in Sabi Sands (private area of Kruger)
I did the zip line in Tsitsikamma 2 years ago. No worries, its OK for creaking seniors.
Sorry to hijack your Boston post
Hamba kahle (go well)
Hook I hope that you have a great holiday, and that your back is behaving and letting you have full enjoyment of your travels!
Must see you in Denver over Columbus Day Weekend (RMHF Show).
All the best, from gloriously sunny and recovering Boston! (See this post is on-topic.)
I think The Hawk raises a very interesting and valid point, and I agree with him completely.
To begin with, I have absolutely no problem at all with proselytism. If that is what Jihad means to the average Muslim, then that's cool by me. It means I can politely say "no thank you" to Muslims just as I do to Jehovah's Witnesses, and they will leave me alone in peace, correct? In fact, it doesn't even bother me that they label me an "infidel", so long as that only means a "non-believer". I am guessing that pretty much all faiths have some word to describe people who are "not of my faith".
I completely agree. With Christian evangelists, I even thank them for thinking enough of my immortal soul to urge me to seek my salvation. When they become overbearing, however, I tell them I am beginning to be concerned for their salvation, based on the fact they are doing it more for themselves and not for me--OR in aid of the Holy Spirit!
The problem, of course, is that the concept of Jihad has become widely radicalized, and terrorism has become an accepted practice for achieving Al Queda's long-stated goal of establishing a pan-Islamic caliphate throughout the entire world. And before anyone accuses of Islamaphobia, and of pulling that factoid out of the air, I would suggest reading a rather remarkable book: "al-Zarqawi - al-Qaida's Second Generation". Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein got the leader of Al Queda in Iraq to completely open up about their long term goals and strategies. He detailed Al Queda's seven phase plan, including an "all-out war" with the west beginning in 2016.
This, of course, is the problem. Whatever "Jihad" has meant historically, it is not surprising that it is now identified largely with violent attacks, suicide bombings, and war. Any confusion in this regard is not the fault of those who use the term, but rather of those who use the explosive devices. In addition to the book you recommend, Hook (which I have not read, but will) I would refer folks to any and all of the works by Bernard Lewis. Lewis is Jewish (which these days does not by any means pigeonhole him as anti-Muslim) but has a balanced view toward Islam. That having been said, the insights he provides into the minds of extremists are very interesting.
So, was this just craziness? Was this just the rantings of one single lunatic? Perhaps, to some degree they were. But these interviews were done back in 2005, when al-Zarqawi was second only to Bin Laden, and he is on record saying that their next great victory would be by the "Mujaheddin in Syria"...with Turkey and, of course, Israel, to follow. Again, that was eight years ago.
I sincerely hope that what's happening in Syria today is not a blueprint for Turkey's future.
One of the troubling aspects of what is going on in so many of the countries in the Middle East today is the increasing tendency toward implementation of Sharia Law or at the very least, calls for its implementation and expressions of support.
Hook
Just read a news article that referred to the US Department of Justice web site. The article said that although Muslims only represent about 1 percent of the American population, they constitute defendants in 186 of the 228 cases the DOJ lists.
You do know that the US isn't the only place that has terrorists, don't you?
Do you mean places like oh, say, Beirut, Lebanon, where in April, 1983, the U.S. embassy was destroyed in a suicide car-bomb attack killing 63, including 17 Americans? And then, of course, in October of that same year, Shiite suicide bombers exploded a truck near the U.S. military barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 marines (and minutes later, a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut). Or were you thinking more of 1988, when in Lockerbie, Scotland, the N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground? Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students. And oh course, we shouldn't forget 1998 in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, when two truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring 4,500?
So yes, Tarquin, to answer your condescending question, I do have a passing familiarity with acts of international terrorism.
You do realise that the only incidents you list involve US citizens, don't you?
If you just want to look at the US, only 6% of terrorist attacks between 1980 and 2005 where carried out by Muslim extremists. one terrorist group. Of course, if you add up every act of violence perpetrated by every onesy-twosy animal rights and radical environmental group, and if you go back far enough in history to include now-defunct groups like the Chicano Liberation Front, you can skew the statistics to make the current threat of radical Islam appear to be minimal. That is what your source does.
At least I've taken the time to show a source; I don't think you have?
But not all acts of terror are comparable. No individual source of domestic terror can in any way compare to the over 3100 people killed by radical Muslims in America. Do you happen to recall in 1998, when Al Qaeda issued a statement under a banner called "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders"? They said it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens-civilian or military-and their allies everywhere in the world. Can you really say with a straight face that there is a single greater threat to US citizens today?
Obviously - the NRA. 32,000 gun deaths a year?
Interesting to note that you're now limiting the issue to US citizens. Your original claim ( still unsubstantiated, by the way - wonder why? ) was the Muslims commit most acts of terrorism. I'd assumed you'd meant worldwide.
Rather than "us" proving you wrong, please provide source for this.
TMP,
I provided a link to their website. Of course if you are not an experienced and renowned high rise architect, structural engineer, chemical engineer, physicist, explosives expert or demolition consultant you would have a hard job proving me wrong as I will simply cite the evidence of expert witnesses. Watch the film - they line up expert after expert (detailing their qualifications and experience etc) and they pummel you with the evidence - there is even a psychologist who explains why some people refuse to see the truth even when it is right in front of their noses.
I have some knowledge of explosives.
The conspiracy theory you expound has long been exposed as a nutjob. No wonder you can't show a source. Wikipedia demolishes it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W..._conspiracy_theories
Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.
The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors. Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers[ without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.
Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?
Indeed.
Good point, TMP!
And as for the other tosh about 'democratically elected governments' going to war with UN approval
And what is the UN? It is a collection of nations who are to a greater or lesser degree corrupt and therefore if the parts are corrupt the whole is corrupt and the whole was bullied and hoodwinked into supporting an illegal war by the most powerful country in the UN so where is the legitimacy for war?
And then there is all this talk about 'acts of terrorism' and in fact, there is no clear definition of what terrorism actually is -
No problem Sniper,
I now appreciate you are unable to differentiate between accidents, UN resolutions, terrorism.
Cheers
Don
Just read a news article that referred to the US Department of Justice web site. The article said that although Muslims only represent about 1 percent of the American population, they constitute defendants in 186 of the 228 cases the DOJ lists.
You do know that the US isn't the only place that has terrorists, don't you?
Do you mean places like oh, say, Beirut, Lebanon, where in April, 1983, the U.S. embassy was destroyed in a suicide car-bomb attack killing 63, including 17 Americans? And then, of course, in October of that same year, Shiite suicide bombers exploded a truck near the U.S. military barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 marines (and minutes later, a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut). Or were you thinking more of 1988, when in Lockerbie, Scotland, the N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground? Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students. And oh course, we shouldn't forget 1998 in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, when two truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring 4,500?
So yes, Tarquin, to answer your condescending question, I do have a passing familiarity with acts of international terrorism.
You do realise that the only incidents you list involve US citizens, don't you?
Yes, so what? You do realize that a lot of people from other countries were also killed in those terrorist attacks that I mentioned, don't you? Interesting that you would refer to such heinous acts as mere "incidents".
If you just want to look at the US, only 6% of terrorist attacks between 1980 and 2005 where carried out by Muslim extremists. one terrorist group.
Of course, if you add up every act of violence perpetrated by every onesy-twosy animal rights and radical environmental group, and if you go back far enough in history to include now-defunct groups like the Chicano Liberation Front, you can skew the statistics to make the current threat of radical Islam appear to be minimal. That is what your source does.
At least I've taken the time to show a source; I don't think you have
A source for what? Are you refering to my reference to the number of current DOJ cases involving Muslims? If yes, it was the Wikipedia page entitled "Islam in the United States".
Also, in an attempt to preserve some clarity, I have seperated my words from yours immediately above, and highlighted yours in blue. Apparently, while editing your last attempt at a response, you accidently collapsed the two paragraphs, mixing your words with mine.
But not all acts of terror are comparable. No individual source of domestic terror can in any way compare to the over 3100 people killed by radical Muslims in America. Do you happen to recall in 1998, when Al Qaeda issued a statement under a banner called "The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders"? They said it was the duty of all Muslims to kill US citizens-civilian or military-and their allies everywhere in the world. Can you really say with a straight face that there is a single greater threat to US citizens today?
Obviously - the NRA. 32,000 gun deaths a year?
Interesting to note that you're now limiting the issue to US citizens. Your original claim ( still unsubstantiated, by the way - wonder why? ) was the Muslims commit most acts of terrorism. I'd assumed you'd meant worldwide.
While I am certainly no fan of the NRA, I would not go so far as to label it a terrorist organization. Apparently you did not bother to read my second post before replying, where I corrected the phrase "greater threat" to "greater terrorist threat".
Also, I never said that "Muslims commit most acts of terrorism". Those are your words, not mine. I simply repeated what appears to be a correct fact about the number of current US DOJ cases involving Muslims, and then later I said that Al Queda is the single greatest terrorist threat to the US. The first is easily substantiated, and the second is my opinion. Please make an effort to actually read what I write, and then quote it correctly.
Frankly, if these last few comments are all you've got, then we can end this discussion here. I am done replying to your off-hand, throwaway remarks.
Hook (out)
PS - I chose to ignore the ridiculous posts about 9/11. For what it's worth though, I did appreciate your rebuttal.
Although I am not a Christian, or even a believer of any religion, I am a product of the Judeo-Christian culture of the West. Due diligence and full disclosure out of the way, then, let's talk about extremism in general--as it applies to Christianity vis a vis Islam:
(1) I often hear from people whom I consider to be apologists for Islam that the Qur'an does not advocate violence--when in fact it does.
(2) The second thing I hear is that the Old Testament is filled with violence, killings, and revenge. And this is absolutely true.
(3) Then, it is pointed out that even though Jesus draws a distinction between the Old and New Testaments and basically says or implies that the message of His gospels is peaceful (olive branch, dove, turn the other cheek, and that sort of thing), that in fact, Christians have at various times committed horrible violence in the name of Christ and the Holy Trinity--e.g., the Crusades and the various inquisitions--again, all absolutely true.
(4) Finally, I repeatedly hear that religious nuts on the Christian Right still commit abominable crimes--and of course that is correct--they do. There are the rare, but no less unforgivable bombings of abortion clinics and shootings of doctors who staff them (not offset in any way by the monsters who, performing late-term abortions, clip the spines of babies which survive the process). (More full disclosure: I support a woman's absolute right to give birth or not--so long as she makes the decision prior to the onset of the third trimester.)
But here is the difference between the U.S. response to these crimes and those in most Muslim (Middle Eastern Muslim--at least) countries: We investigate, prosecute, and punish criminals--whether Muslim or Christian. And you may depend upon the fact that if some wacked out Jew decided to bomb a mosque here, as has happened in Israel, we would do the same with him or her--likewise with any Hindu, Buddhist, or Neo Pharonic Sun Worshiper. Equal opportunity, if it is to mean anything, should always include the opportunity for all races, colors, creeds, or bad hairdos--in the event you kill people during a terrorist attack, to have a needle slipped into your large veins and your body filled with deadly poison.
Best regards,
Russ
How did that old theme song from the 1950's go? Oh yes:
"Dada dada, Dada dada, Dada dada------Dahhhhhhhh." Four giant airliners are seemingly hijacked by young Saudi men. Two of them head for Washington DC, one to crash into the Pentagon, the other, to hit the Capitol or the White House. The first hits its target, but the second is re-taken by the brave passengers and crashes into a field. Dada dada Dada dahhhhh. Two more head for New York and hit the twin towers of the World Trade Center, ostensibly causing fires so hot they weaken the steel supporting the upper stories, seemingly causing the entire structure of both buildings to collapse!
BUT WAIT! LET BE BE FINALE OF SEEM! Did this really happen? Or was it really just a giant stage play--similar to the faked moon landings which were actually filmed in New Mexico? Or the coverup of the botched Kennedy Assassination--in which the President lived on as a vegetable for many years. You may have thought you knew what actually happened. But, my friend--you have entered THE TWILIGHT ZONE! Yes, these things all have in common that hundreds of powerful people conspired to make them happen and then further conspired to keep the secret! Impossible, you cry! "Dada dada dada dada dada dada DAHHHHHHHHH!
Oh, and how does that other one go? "Cu cu ca chooo!"
Beam us up, Scotty!--We have become trapped on an insane planet! The dilithium crystals are failing!----No intelligent life here!
Russ out as well.
Hook (out)
Hook, I seriously hope that this time you mean it. Your posts are getting more aggressive by the day.
No need for a reply, this way you can honour your "out"
Cheers
Don
I provided a link to their website. Of course if you are not an experienced and renowned high rise architect, structural engineer, chemical engineer, physicist, explosives expert or demolition consultant you would have a hard job proving me wrong as I will simply cite the evidence of expert witnesses. Watch the film - they line up expert after expert (detailing their qualifications and experience etc) and they pummel you with the evidence - there is even a psychologist who explains why some people refuse to see the truth even when it is right in front of their noses.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 there were many 'conspiracy theory' nut jobs rambling incoherently but these days there are huge numbers of highly qualified professionals and even award winning scientists who are highly organised and determined to be listened to. One day it will be common knowledge 9/11 was an inside job.
Remember, there is no conspiracy theory in this film - it just deals with the scientific evidence that shows that the official version is a lie and cover-up.
What are you smoking these days Sniper ?
I'm no expert, but...............I did study Civil & Structural Engineering and I have "demolished" a few buildings. I don't see any evidence of controlled demolition in the Twin Towers. Quote as many "expert" witnesses as you like.
Cheers
Don
How did that old theme song from the 1950's go? Oh yes:
"Dada dada, Dada dada, Dada dada------Dahhhhhhhh." Four giant airliners are seemingly hijacked by young Saudi men. Two of them head for Washington DC, one to crash into the Pentagon, the other, to hit the Capitol or the White House. The first hits its target, but the second is re-taken by the brave passengers and crashes into a field. Dada dada Dada dahhhhh. Two more head for New York and hit the twin towers of the World Trade Center, ostensibly causing fires so hot they weaken the steel supporting the upper stories, seemingly causing the entire structure of both buildings to collapse!
BUT WAIT! LET BE BE FINALE OF SEEM! Did this really happen? Or was it really just a giant stage play--similar to the faked moon landings which were actually filmed in New Mexico? Or the coverup of the botched Kennedy Assassination--in which the President lived on as a vegetable for many years. You may have thought you knew what actually happened. But, my friend--you have entered THE TWILIGHT ZONE! Yes, these things all have in common that hundreds of powerful people conspired to make them happen and then further conspired to keep the secret! Impossible, you cry! "Dada dada dada dada dada dada DAHHHHHHHHH!
Oh, and how does that other one go? "Cu cu ca chooo!"
Beam us up, Scotty!--We have become trapped on an insane planet! The dilithium crystals are failing!----No intelligent life here!
Russ out as well.
Russ,
No one at http://www.ae911truth.org/ says that the planes did not hit the towers.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the towers were designed to withstand a hit by a jet. All modern high rise buildings are.
Aviation fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.
Nano Thermite does burn hot enough to melt steel and quantities were found in the rubble.
Instead the of the whole area being treated as a crime scene the rubble was trucked out before FEMA could examine it and the steel was shipped to China to be re-cycled.
If the two towers were destroyed in free fall because they were rammed by an exploding jet full of aviation fuel then how how do you account for the pancaking of building 7?
NIST says it was destroyed by furniture fire. 2,000 architects, fire department experts, structural engineers, metallurgists, chemical engineers, physicists and demolition experts say that explanation is total bollocks and they give reasons why it is total bollocks.
But you and TMP (who has some knowledge of explosives gained in the Territorial Army) know best.
.
I'm no expert, but...............I did study Civil & Structural Engineering and I have "demolished" a few buildings. I don't see any evidence of controlled demolition in the Twin Towers. Quote as many "expert" witnesses as you like.
Cheers
Don
Have you watched the film or not? If you have not watched the film you can't really comment can you? What steel framed high rise buildings have you demolished and what explosives did you use? Are you also an architect, metallurgist, chemical engineer or just a twit in an armchair?
I have some knowledge of explosives.
The conspiracy theory you expound has long been exposed as a nutjob. No wonder you can't show a source. Wikipedia demolishes it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W..._conspiracy_theories
Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.
The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors. Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers[ without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.
Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?
Indeed.
Well if wikipedia says 2,000 architects, structural engineers, metallurgists, chemical engineers, demolition experts etc. etc. are wrong they MUST be wrong. I appreciate you know something about explosives but please let us know what peer reviewed papers you have written on nano-thermite.
If you were part of a small group doing renovation work on the towers (in the evenings and weekends) on every floor (such work went on in the weeks before 9/11) and you took the opportunity of planting explosives would you tell all your mates about in the pub? No one can say anything without implicating themselves because only those involved know any of the details. Is that hard t understand. What may appear as 'implausible' do you does not negate the evidence of experts who say the NIST report is total bollocks. This is what you need to think about: The towers came down. How did they come down? Did they come down in the way the official report says they came down? You need to examine the NIST report and evaluate the evidence of real experts who demonstration the official report is wrong. Just believing what you want to believe is clearly silly.
Did you watch the film or not?
Like you?
No
Cheers
Don
Sorry to burst your bubble but the towers were designed to withstand a hit by a jet. All modern high rise buildings are.
The impact didn't bring down the towers - they survived the impact.
They where brought down by the subsequent fire.
But you and TMP (who has some knowledge of explosives gained in the Territorial Army) know best.
The article I linked to comprehensively destroyed any possible factual base for a conspiracy theory. Naturally you've ignored that.
Must be quite annoying when you assume that somebody has no knowledge of explosives when they actually do, I suppose. Do you have any knowledge of explosives or controlled demolition, or are you just talking out of a bodily orifice not usually associated with intelligent discourse?
I heard that Elvis is working in WalMart, and the moon landings where faked, too.
Once again, as you seem to have missed it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W..._conspiracy_theories
Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.
The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors. Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers[ without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.
Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?
.
Indeed.
Send my regards to Elvis.
Beam us up, Scotty!--We have become trapped on an insane planet! The dilithium crystals are failing!----No intelligent life here!
Russ out as well.
There is intelligent life here, also supporters of nutjob conspiracy theories.
Say hello to Elvis, would you?
Did you watch the film or not?
errr, must have missed that one.............i've been watching too many Elvis movies recently !!
Also, the DVD seems to be out of stock at Amazon.
The trailer was very interesting, my recollection was of one pro-conspiricy interviewee saying something like "you don't need to be an expert to see....." kinda sums up the situation do you think ? - so i'll give it a miss this time round.
Meanwhile, I do recall three cooling towers at Ferrybridge collapsing in strong winds in c.1965. They didn't fall over sideways under wind pressure as you (being an expert) might expect. Each one kinda fell, more or less within its own footprint. No aeroplane, no fuel, no carefully placed explosives, just a "puff" of wind and - kapow! They actually seemed to fall in a more "controlled" maner than the ones at Calder Hall a few years back wich were the subject of a controlled demolition.
Cheers
Don
Been away from this thread for a few days and now I find it has taken another twist but time for the utterly surreal ie suggesting that the 911 & twin towers was an inside job. Really? I mean, REALLY?!
I know our Naim systems can convey music so well that on occasions you can drift away to far places but exponents of this theory must have some magical (possibly illegal) ingredient in their systems that is way beyond the capabilities of mine!
MDS
Living where Sniffer sorry Sniper does, its probably mandatory.......
Cheers
Don
Been away from this thread for a few days and now I find it has taken another twist but time for the utterly surreal ie suggesting that the 911 & twin towers was an inside job. Really? I mean, REALLY?!
I know our Naim systems can convey music so well that on occasions you can drift away to far places but exponents of this theory must have some magical (possibly illegal) ingredient in their systems that is way beyond the capabilities of mine!
MDS
It all comes down to one's FRAIM of mind..
It all comes down to one's FRAIM of mind..
