Breaking:Large explosion at public event in Boston*Mod warning in OP

Allyall · 16-04-2013 02:01PM

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Danny Baker Twitter
https://twitter.com/prodnose

Danny Baker ‏@prodnose

Disgusting news from USA. Tragically, in 70s & 80s you couldnt drink in many Boston bars without putting money into a bucket for "the cause"

:eek:

Okay, so he goes back 40 years. Go back a further few decades and You have the UK running amock all over the Globe.. What's his point?

That sh!t annoys me, especially now when they go back 40 years, and and refer to it as if it was last week. Drawing comparisons with us, and leaving out the UK.. Like butter never melted..

Plazaman · 16-04-2013 02:02PM

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

In moments like this I really hate Twitter. I found the following comment when I went around doing a search:

That particular tweet has received 4,500 retweets. Job done. Thousands of people know think that a girl died. Some innocent girl has become the poster child of online 'retweet for respect' campaigns. And the above tweeter succeeded in extracting every last retweet out of the contrived situation.

There are some absolute fools on the internet. It amazes me that people don't bother doing a quick search for information. It would take 20 seconds to find out that it was a boy and not a girl.

Yeah, it's all over Facebook too "8 Year Old Girl Killed In Boston Marathon Running To Raise Money For Sandy Hook Victims".

I cannot fathom the mentality of the first person to design this post and put it onto the internet but it is the people that share it, some of them friends of mine who I am seriously thinking of unfriending, who (a) read Facebook for news instead of news papers/websites (b) genuinely think an 8 year old girl would be allowed to run a marathon.

My name is URL · 16-04-2013 02:06PM

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Danny Baker Twitter
https://twitter.com/prodnose

:eek:

Chris O'Dowd rightfully calling him out on it!

https://twitter.com/BigBoyler/status/323915069345902592

Witchie · 16-04-2013 02:06PM

Have had to put a post on FB asking people not to post pics of injuries etc. I dont want to see them. If they do they will be unfriended. So annoyed at some people seeming to delight in the whole tragedy.

Solair · 16-04-2013 02:06PM

There's still a lot to be said for serious news agencies like CNN, BBC (despite the scandals) etc etc.

Proper news services have a protocol of checking a story with multiple independent sources before reporting it. It's not always perfect, but it usually filters out inaccurate information and rumours.

I think though, you have to just accept that people will retweet things out of some kind of sense of solidarity. There's no harm meant but it, but I think we're just going to have to read social media with a little more intelligence than to accept everything at face value.

Havermeyer · 16-04-2013 02:11PM

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

In moments like this I really hate Twitter. I found the following comment when I went around doing a search:

That particular tweet has received 4,500 retweets. Job done. Thousands of people now think that a girl died. Some innocent girl has become the poster child of online 'retweet for respect' campaigns. And the above tweeter succeeded in extracting every last retweet out of the contrived situation.

There are some absolute fools on the internet. It amazes me that people don't bother doing a quick search for information. It would take 20 seconds to find out that it was a boy and not a girl.

There is a serious amount of douchebags on twitter. What is it about social media sites that turns people into complete morons?

Some really pathetic individuals out there.

Solair · 16-04-2013 02:14PM

nummnutts wrote: »

There is a serious amount of douchebags on twitter. What is it about social media sites that turns people into complete morons?

Some really pathetic individuals out there.

Have to say, I find Twitter great. It's all about the people you're following and interact with. It's as good/bad as the network you build up.

I always find the YouTube comments section has to contain some of the most caustic comments I've ever seen anywhere online tho!

Snickers Man · 16-04-2013 02:24PM

Plazaman wrote: »

Yeah, it's all over Facebook too "8 Year Old Girl Killed In Boston Marathon Running To Raise Money For Sandy Hook Victims".

I cannot fathom the mentality of the first person to design this post and put it onto the internet but it is the people that share it, some of them friends of mine who I am seriously thinking of unfriending, who (a) read Facebook for news instead of news papers/websites (b) genuinely think an 8 year old girl would be allowed to run a marathon.

First reports are always sketchy and unconfirmed. Facebook and Twitter are definitely NOT the best sources for reliable up to the minute reports.

One of the news broadcasts I saw a while back said that a child was killed while waiting for their FATHER to finish the Marathon.

No mention of what cause he was raising money for.

danniemcq · 16-04-2013 02:25PM

Seachmall wrote: »

I'd just be pulling numbers out of my arse.

My leaning towards Muslims is due to the lack of a specific target and the climate we live in.

McVeigh primarily attacked Government buildings, Kevin Harpham (a white supremecist) attacked Civil Rights marches on MLK day, Kaczynski primarily attacked "futurist" related organisations (universities, computer stores etc.).

Islamic extremists typically just look to maximise damage without targetting any one organisation or group specifically.

There are other bombers who seem to just want to maximise damage either for their own enjoyment or for a cause that isn't immediately obvious but they are rare. Most bombings in America, and in Europe, like this in recent times have been as a result of Islamic extremists.

Obviously this is all speculation, but my point is that it's not irrational.

I go the other way due to the way the acttacks happened.

-it wasn't a suicide bomber
-the explosives used do not seem high tech
-the explosion was quite small

these 3 points mean home grown unabomber style attack. I will agree yes that most terrorist attacks have been carried out by Islamic extremists but if it was related to them i would have expected almost a clear difference than i said above

-suicide bombers
-higher grade explosives used leading to much more destruction
-the reports all ball bearings used is minimal. This suggests possibly a smaller device.

There has also been the lack of admission from anyone or any group. Pakistan Taliban have even said it wasn't them

My name is URL · 16-04-2013 02:32PM

Some people are even wondering if the 'IRA' are behind it, given that Boston College was recently ordered to hand over tapes which might lead to convictions

http://www.experienceproject.com/question-answer/Could-The-Boston-Bombing-Have-Been-Linked-To-The-IRA/1866142?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Questions-Answers-At-Experience-Project+%28Latest+Questions+at+Experience+Project%29

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/04/15/court-rejects-appeal-over-secret-ira-tapes/2Jv7Z3M60XJr60ZawFou9H/story.html

Jimmy Iovine · 16-04-2013 02:33PM

nummnutts wrote: »

There is a serious amount of douchebags on twitter. What is it about social media sites that turns people into complete morons?

Some really pathetic individuals out there.

Twitter is fantastic. In a situation like this it's great to get instant news from reliable news sites.

On the other hand, Twitter is ****. In a situation like this a lot of nonsense gets tweeted.

I might be generalising but I think a majority of the 'douchebags' are teenagers. I've noticed it over the last few weeks. People have reduced the privacy settings on their photos. This allows them to upload a picture and it can go viral to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand likes.

I noticed one account yesterday put up a picture of that poor man in the wheelchair and it had 75,000 likes in an hour. I can't find it anymore but I reckon it's more than Lexi Dry Rite that since.

Quality in a tweet or post means nothing when the main aim of a lot of people is to get as many likes or retweets for something.

I view everything on the internet with a sense of scepticism. Unless it's 100% official then treat it as iffy, in my opinion. I read a quote from Abraham Lincoln recently that sums up my feelings on information available on the internet:

The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their validity.

.jacksparrow. · 16-04-2013 02:33PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Some people are even wondering if the 'IRA' are behind it, given that Boston College was recently ordered to hand over tapes which might lead to convictions

http://www.experienceproject.com/question-answer/Could-The-Boston-Bombing-Have-Been-Linked-To-The-IRA/1866142?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Questions-Answers-At-Experience-Project+%28Latest+Questions+at+Experience+Project%29

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/04/15/court-rejects-appeal-over-secret-ira-tapes/2Jv7Z3M60XJr60ZawFou9H/story.html

Probably Willie Frazer gettin ideas again!

Seachmall · 16-04-2013 02:36PM

danniemcq wrote: »

I go the other way due to the way the acttacks happened.

-it wasn't a suicide bomber
-the explosives used do not seem high tech
-the explosion was quite small

these 3 points mean home grown unabomber style attack. I will agree yes that most terrorist attacks have been carried out by Islamic extremists but if it was related to them i would have expected almost a clear difference than i said above

-suicide bombers
-higher grade explosives used leading to much more destruction
-the reports all ball bearings used is minimal. This suggests possibly a smaller device.

There has also been the lack of admission from anyone or any group. Pakistan Taliban have even said it wasn't them

Islamic Extremism doesn't necessarily mean it was carried out or coordinated by a well funded or skilled group (such as Al-Queda or the Taliban). Even if it were it is getting more difficult for such groups to train or communicate with cells in America. They can't fly them over for training anymore and communication is presumably kept to a minimum.

It would also be more difficult for an extremist with ties to Al-Queda to purchase high-grade explosives or bomb making equipment than it would an "out of the blue" American terrorist.

Hell, it's probably more difficult for any Muslim to get a hold of that stuff than any white American.

Also, the fact that it was a bomb in a populated area makes it difficult for me to buy the argument that it was a smaller bomb and therefore more likely an American domestic attack. You bomb populated areas to maximise injury, why would you decide to make that bomb smaller? To minimise injuries? I'd guess the size of the bomb had more to do with availability of parts or skill of the bomber than the origin or intentions of the bomber.

rebel girl 15 · 16-04-2013 02:40PM

Any link to press conference?

edit: on sky news now

Menas · 16-04-2013 02:40PM

danniemcq wrote: »

I go the other way due to the way the acttacks happened.

-it wasn't a suicide bomber
-the explosives used do not seem high tech
-the explosion was quite small

these 3 points mean home grown unabomber style attack. I will agree yes that most terrorist attacks have been carried out by Islamic extremists but if it was related to them i would have expected almost a clear difference than i said above

-suicide bombers
-higher grade explosives used leading to much more destruction
-the reports all ball bearings used is minimal. This suggests possibly a smaller device.

There has also been the lack of admission from anyone or any group. Pakistan Taliban have even said it wasn't them

I think you are nailed on. The low tech is the clincher for me. Home grown nutcase on patriots day.

rebel girl 15 · 16-04-2013 02:43PM

Over 150 people injured, there were no other unexploded devices found, there was only 2 bombs which went off

Menas · 16-04-2013 02:45PM

I was on this thread from about page 1 to 14 last night as events unfolded. Makes interesting reading now in the cold light of day.
Generally most of the posts were well informed and sympathetic. But some were way over the top with their reaction (hoping that someone in hospital who may have been a suspect dies) and some were sadly out to provoke others as the story developed.

So for I have to say fair play to the mods for cutting out the nonsense and dishing out a few bans. It helped keep this thread balanced and engaging.

rebel girl 15 · 16-04-2013 02:45PM

Plazaman wrote: »

Yeah, it's all over Facebook too "8 Year Old Girl Killed In Boston Marathon Running To Raise Money For Sandy Hook Victims".

I cannot fathom the mentality of the first person to design this post and put it onto the internet but it is the people that share it, some of them friends of mine who I am seriously thinking of unfriending, who (a) read Facebook for news instead of news papers/websites (b) genuinely think an 8 year old girl would be allowed to run a marathon.

There was kids running the last bit of the marathon - one of the people interviewed last night said that he was running with his kids

Seachmall · 16-04-2013 02:46PM

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Over 150 people killed

Injured?

Havermeyer · 16-04-2013 02:47PM

Jimmy Iovine wrote: »

Twitter is fantastic. In a situation like this it's great to get instant news from reliable news sites.

On the other hand, Twitter is ****. In a situation like this a lot of nonsense gets tweeted.

I might be generalising but I think a majority of the 'douchebags' are teenagers. I've noticed it over the last few weeks. People have reduced the privacy settings on their photos. This allows them to upload a picture and it can go viral to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand likes.

I noticed one account yesterday put up a picture of that poor man in the wheelchair and it had 75,000 likes in an hour. I can't find it anymore but I reckon it's more than Lexi Dry Rite that since.

Quality in a tweet or post means nothing when the main aim of a lot of people is to get as many likes or retweets for something.

I view everything on the internet with a sense of scepticism. Unless it's 100% official then treat it as iffy, in my opinion. I read a quote from Abraham Lincoln recently that sums up my feelings on information available on the internet:

That's what I use it for myself. But tweets like the one you referred to above leaves the mind boggled.

Solair wrote: »

Have to say, I find Twitter great. It's all about the people you're following and interact with. It's as good/bad as the network you build up.

I always find the YouTube comments section has to contain some of the most caustic comments I've ever seen anywhere online tho!

My comment was about a minority, not every user.

Also, I agree with you about youtube. Serious nutjobs hanging around there.

EuskalHerria · 16-04-2013 02:47PM

No claims of responsibility yet, the explosives were apparently made of gun powder with additional shrapnel (ball bearings). It seems to be leading towards domestic individuals rather than a group or external threats.

Targeting a large public event for maximum exposure and fatalities. If this turns out to be a domestic U.S threat rather than international then I can't help but think of this interview with a doctor in the U.S about trying to downplay and not glamourise these events so as not to appeal to copy cats also looking to cause deaths and mayhem to grab the headlines.

http://youtu.be/Q9jn_qUXtMk

My name is URL · 16-04-2013 02:49PM

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Probably Willie Frazer gettin ideas again!

Hopefully it remains as wild speculation. There's a bit of talk about the possibility on Twitter also. Jim Allister mentioned parallels between the events of yesterday and those in the North.

That's why I don't think people should jump to conclusion or instantly assume that Muslims etc are responsible. There's plenty of people who would happily assume that the Irish are to blame too. So I don't think were in the best position to be jumping to early conclusions!

danniemcq · 16-04-2013 02:53PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Islamic Extremism doesn't necessarily mean it was carried out or coordinated by a well funded or skilled group (such as Al-Queda or the Taliban). Even if it were it is getting more difficult for such groups to train or communicate with cells in America. They can't fly them over for training anymore and communication is presumably kept to a minimum.

It would also be more difficult for an extremist with ties to Al-Queda to purchase high-grade explosives or bomb making equipment than it would an "out of the blue" American terrorist.

Hell, it's probably more difficult for any Muslim to get a hold of that stuff than any white American.

Also, the fact that it was a bomb in a populated area makes it difficult for me to buy the argument that it was a smaller bomb and therefore more likely an American domestic attack. You bomb populated areas to maximise injury, why would you decide to make that bomb smaller? To minimise injuries? I'd guess the size of the bomb had more to do with availability of parts or skill of the bomber than the origin or intentions of the bomber.

I dunno i'm still thinking lone wolf, seeking attention for a cause. that could explain the low explosive charge. Looking for maximum pubicity for themselves.

perhaps in biased in hoping that religion isn't involved in this but it just doesn't seem that way to me

Rented Mule · 16-04-2013 02:54PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Also, the fact that it was a bomb in a populated area makes it difficult for me to buy the argument that it was a smaller bomb and therefore more likely an American domestic attack. You bomb populated areas to maximise injury, why would you decide to make that bomb smaller? To minimise injuries? I'd guess the size of the bomb had more to do with availability of parts or skill of the bomber than the origin or intentions of the bomber.

There is also the issue of being able to conceal/transport these devices. Since they weren't using a high grade explosives, I'm going to guess that they were going to have to 'use more' in the process.

super_furry · 16-04-2013 02:55PM

Isn't there usually a host of groups jumping to claim responsibility for these things? The fact that no-one has come forward yet would lead me to think that it could be a home-grown nut.

rebel girl 15 · 16-04-2013 02:55PM

Seachmall wrote: »

Injured?

Edited - thanks

BBC just pulled away from the press conference, switched onto BBC because Sky kept showing the video of the explosions, with the sound from that video being mixed in with the press conference

Area around crime scene has been reduced from 15 blocks to 12 blocks now

VinLieger · 16-04-2013 02:56PM

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Edited - thanks

BBC just pulled away from the press conference, switched onto BBC because Sky kept showing the video of the explosions, with the sound from that video being mixed in with the press conference

Area around crime scene has been reduced from 15 blocks to 12 blocks now

In work so cant watch, any more new info from the press conference?

rebel girl 15 · 16-04-2013 02:57PM

Every officer at the press conference looking for all photographic and video evidence

dfx- · 16-04-2013 02:58PM

I don't quite understand the denigration of the device as "unsophisticated".

It looks like it did exactly what it was designed to do. Low level extensive injuries and to be very visible - like the bus bomb in 2005 became the image of the attack despite the main focus of the attack being the underground.

Solair · 16-04-2013 03:00PM

I would be a little concerned that there's been a growing theme of attacks on the public in the USA i.e. the school shootings, cinema shooting, random shootings etc.

It could very conceivably be domestic terrorism.

I just hope they get to the bottom of it quickly though as whoever it is needs to be in custody even just to prevent any further attacks.

Breaking:Large explosion at public event in Boston***Mod warning in OP**

Comments

Breaking:Large explosion at public event in Boston*Mod warning in OP