Boston Explosions

[LadyLuna]

1. "An eye for an eye" is from the old testament. The point of it was to prevent escalation: someone taking your brother's eye does not entitle you to kill that person, just to take his eye. Someone taking your brother's life entitles you to kill that person, but not his entire family. It was put into place because the hebrew tribes had a habit of punishing an entire family for the one member's misdeeds.

2. "An eye for an eye makes the world blind" speaks to the idea that if the father of family A kills the father of family B, the son of family B will kill the father of family A. But then, the son of family A will kill the son of family B because of the death of the father from family A. And then, the other son of family B will kill the son of family A for the death of the son of family B. And on and on until both families are dead. Each time, they only took one life for the taking of another life, but that leaves the second taking of life to be redressed.

3. If the mob calls for the man's death before the trial, then that is revenge, not justice. Worse, it's revenge without being sure that the man is really the guilty party. Once the justice system has dealt out punishment, then it's justice. Though it's going to be really hard to find a jury whose mind isn't already made up about the man's guilt.

4. Forgiveness does not mean no punishment. Forgiveness simply means that you do not hold it against him after the punishment has been completed. And it means that the punishment is not about your anger, but about teaching a lesson.

Lastly, this:

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

1. "An eye for an eye" is from the old testament. The point of it was to prevent escalation: someone taking your brother's eye does not entitle you to kill that person, just to take his eye. Someone taking your brother's life entitles you to kill that person, but not his entire family. It was put into place because the hebrew tribes had a habit of punishing an entire family for the one member's misdeeds.

2. "An eye for an eye makes the world blind" speaks to the idea that if the father of family A kills the father of family B, the son of family B will kill the father of family A. But then, the son of family A will kill the son of family B because of the death of the father from family A. And then, the other son of family B will kill the son of family A for the death of the son of family B. And on and on until both families are dead. Each time, they only took one life for the taking of another life, but that leaves the second taking of life to be redressed.

3. If the mob calls for the man's death before the trial, then that is revenge, not justice. Worse, it's revenge without being sure that the man is really the guilty party. Once the justice system has dealt out punishment, then it's justice. Though it's going to be really hard to find a jury whose mind isn't already made up about the man's guilt.

4. Forgiveness does not mean no punishment. Forgiveness simply means that you do not hold it against him after the punishment has been completed. And it means that the punishment is not about your anger, but about teaching a lesson.

Lastly, this:

I agree. Plus I also really like the TokenLibertarianGirl she is adorable in addition to making sense.

This one was hysterical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5MtjJA3-M8&list=UUzIjg5vIfBGcdyLWu6lhXxw&index=3

 

[sweetiebatman]

On a random aside, If I hear the phrase "false flag" uttered one more time trying to pin anything and everything on the powers that be, then i dont think i want to live on this earth anymore..almost as idiotic as those blaming the Muslims after about 10 mins, some of the stuff I saw on Twitter immediately after the event was absolutely disgusting

 

[Just Me]

Just being pedantic, but "An eye for an eye" does not come from the old testament or the bible. Though certainly it is used there, it originated with a Babylonian king.

Code of Hammurabi

http://www.ushistory.org/civ/4c.asp

 

[LadyLuna]

Just being pedantic, but "An eye for an eye" does not come from the old testament or the bible. Though certainly it is used there, it originated with a Babylonian king.

Code of Hammurabi

http://www.ushistory.org/civ/4c.asp

Why thank you!

I will amend my statement:

1. "An eye for an eye"- most people take it from the old testament. The point of it was to prevent escalation: someone taking your brother's eye does not entitle you to kill that person, just to take his eye. Someone taking your brother's life entitles you to kill that person, but not his entire family. It was put into place because the hebrew tribes had a habit of punishing an entire family for the one member's misdeeds.

 

[Mirra]

I just feel like mankind is doomed if the hatred doesn't stop somewhere. It made me sad to see so many rage-filled calls for his death rather than a level of civility not just here but also on Twitter. I'm glad to see many others are able to temper their anger.

Also, Warcraft is surprisingly relevant.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I just feel like mankind is doomed if the hatred doesn't stop somewhere. It made me sad to see so many rage-filled calls for his death rather than a level of civility not just here but also on Twitter. I'm glad to see many others are able to temper their anger.

Also, Warcraft is surprisingly relevant.

Since the biblical 'eye for an eye' has already set precedent I'll just say I wouldn't worry about hatred dooming mankind. We've had it around since Cain and Abel and we've managed to survive thus far.

 

[Mirra]

Since the biblical 'eye for an eye' has already set precedent I'll just say I wouldn't worry about hatred dooming mankind. We've had it around since Cain and Abel and we've managed to survive thus far.

Yeah... I wasn't speaking strictly to the idea of eye for an eye as much the hatred in a few of the initial responses to his capture in a few places I saw.

As a side note, on the other hand, thanks to modern technology it only takes a handful of misguided people to destroy a majority of the world's population.

 

[trotskyleon]

an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind...

But to forgive..is what makes us different.

I dont know what this 18yr old and his brother have been through. But its not an easy thing to do and throw your life like that. A series of events in the past have led to this no doubt about that. Of course there is no justification for killing innocent people.

This type of "attack" is just beyond belief, it was clearly targeted at innocent people. It wasn't at the church, government or any other body.

I'm curious... why did you put the word attack in quotes? Not trying to start a debate, just curious as to why.

Oh simply because - I couldnt describe it. Attacking is mild word. Used often in sport and rarely has any negative connotations. This incident...is simply not an "attack".

But I am sure it also says in the testament, that to forgive rather than to take an eye for an eye will be viewed upon as the greater "deed".

Not everything Ghandi says is true or correct..the dude screwed up India and Pakistan.

 

[Nordling]

Oh, for gods' sake, Vlad, you can't even SPELL Gandhi.

 

[trotskyleon]

I cant edit my post :crybaby:

 

[LadyLuna]

I am sorry for bringing this back, but... I need help.

My partner found this article

I vaguely remember things that refute most of the problems with this, or at least, that I heard of them at one time, but I cannot remember what they are. I don't want to believe that this was staged... but I can't remember how to refute this article.

Edit: looks like this is the original, with comments.

 

[sweetiebatman]

That Lt Vogt and Jeff Baumann are clearly not the same person

Theres far too many people in the world who won't take things at face value and dig for what is not there

 

[Mirra]

Theres far too many people in the world who won't take things at face value and dig for what is not there

Generally speaking, I'm all for people not taking things at face value and investigating for themselves but some of these claims of this and that being staged are pretty insane.

 

[sweetiebatman]

Theres far too many people in the world who won't take things at face value and dig for what is not there

Generally speaking, I'm all for people not taking things at face value and investigating for themselves but some of these claims of this and that being staged are pretty insane.

I think when you hear the now en-vogue phrase "false-flag" its time to take what people say with a pinch of salt

There has just been a programme on in the UK which covered the US coverage of the Boston bombings, both from a mainstream media and an internet viewpoint, from CNNs claim there was a "brown" person involved to some of the disgusting, Chrime scene photos circling anyone not white as potential terriorists that ere circulating the internet and the #fuckmuslims hastag that was trending for a while after the event

It ended whith some idiot called Michael Matthews twitter account that, after it had come out they were Chechen, he claimed that the USA should "Nuke Czechoslovakia" Good luck bombing a defunct country!

Is it any wonder these obscene theories flourish with this kind of reporting?!

 

[LadyLuna]

I know that there are all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories. What I'm having trouble with is remembering the science that can refute this specific one. It focuses on video footage of the gentleman who lost both his legs in the bombing, and pulls things out frame-by-frame.

Here's the points that it raises:

1. the wounds don't appear to be bleeding at first, claims other people supply fake blood
2. the bone isn't bloody
3. the emt's don't deal with him first
4. he doesn't faint from lack of blood
5. the "tourniquet" doesn't appear to have enough pressure to cut off the flow of blood

It also deals with skin-tight clothing being torn but flesh underneath not being bloody, and a woman who doesn't seem to be injured at first, then suddenly has a huge head-wound.

I vaguely remember something about how sometimes wounds don't bleed at first, which is why stuff like this can happen. I also vaguely remember something about how when a shrapnel bomb goes off, you get crazy things like clothing being torn but the skin not hurt, and one person being injured while the next person doesn't have any injuries at all. I don't remember the specifics behind that science, and I need help finding it.

 

[Shaun__]

I know that there are all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories. What I'm having trouble with is remembering the science that can refute this specific one. It focuses on video footage of the gentleman who lost both his legs in the bombing, and pulls things out frame-by-frame.

Here's the points that it raises:

1. the wounds don't appear to be bleeding at first, claims other people supply fake blood
2. the bone isn't bloody
3. the emt's don't deal with him first
4. he doesn't faint from lack of blood
5. the "tourniquet" doesn't appear to have enough pressure to cut off the flow of blood

It also deals with skin-tight clothing being torn but flesh underneath not being bloody, and a woman who doesn't seem to be injured at first, then suddenly has a huge head-wound.

I vaguely remember something about how sometimes wounds don't bleed at first, which is why stuff like this can happen. I also vaguely remember something about how when a shrapnel bomb goes off, you get crazy things like clothing being torn but the skin not hurt, and one person being injured while the next person doesn't have any injuries at all. I don't remember the specifics behind that science, and I need help finding it.

Massive trauma can cause shock, there is no mystery there at all. Your body can slow blood flow to the limbs, and slow your heart beat to save your core from death for as long as possible. Too many people watch Hollywood movies are think that is what the real word is like.

 

[sweetiebatman]

Shock starts out in stage one: compensated shock. This is when the Brain realizes that something is wrong with the body; either the person is having an allergic reaction, they were hit by a car, they're a diabetic and don't have enough glucose, whatever. Either way, the body is in a life threatening position.

In compensated shock, the brain reroutes all of the blood in the body to go to your heart, brain, lungs and kidneys. These are your most vital organs, so your body is going to try to preserve what's most important. At this point, it really isn't good. It isn't too bad, but this patient has a decent chance.

Then comes the second stage of shock; decompensated shock. This is when the problem has progressed too far, the person has lost too much blood, they aren't breathing enough oxygen even for just the brain, heart, kidneys and lungs, so the brain starts to give up. This is very bad. At this point, the person is inches from death.

And then comes irreversible shock. This is the final stage of shock, and after this point, there is no going back. The person WILL die, there is absolutely no question about it. If there is a mass casualty incident with multiple patients and not enough ambulances, the person in irreversible shock, even if they may still be alive, is has last priority, because there isn't any way that you're going to save them. There's nothing an EMT can do, nothing a paramedic can do, nothing the greatest surgeon in the world can do. Once a person is in irreversible shock, there is no question about whether or not they are going to die.

 

[Red7227]

Here's the points that it raises:
1. the wounds don't appear to be bleeding at first, claims other people supply fake blood
2. the bone isn't bloody
3. the emt's don't deal with him first
4. he doesn't faint from lack of blood
5. the "tourniquet" doesn't appear to have enough pressure to cut off the flow of blood

It also deals with skin-tight clothing being torn but flesh underneath not being bloody, and a woman who doesn't seem to be injured at first, then suddenly has a huge head-wound.

I vaguely remember something about how sometimes wounds don't bleed at first, which is why stuff like this can happen. I also vaguely remember something about how when a shrapnel bomb goes off, you get crazy things like clothing being torn but the skin not hurt, and one person being injured while the next person doesn't have any injuries at all. I don't remember the specifics behind that science, and I need help finding it.

These are all high pressure blast injuries. The guy with his legs removed is a classic high pressure blast injury. The blast breaks the bone and then basically sucks his foot off. The muscles snap under load and the result is a very clean and neat removal and does not bleed. The veins and arteries have been stretched out and close off naturally when released.

As for the woman with the head injury, they can take a few seconds to start bleeding, and then look spectacular.

It could technically be faked but the logistics of keeping it secret are so massive that it would be simpler to just plant the bomb.

 

[Just Me]

I know that there are all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories. What I'm having trouble with is remembering the science that can refute this specific one. It focuses on video footage of the gentleman who lost both his legs in the bombing, and pulls things out frame-by-frame.

Here's the points that it raises:

1. the wounds don't appear to be bleeding at first, claims other people supply fake blood
2. the bone isn't bloody
3. the emt's don't deal with him first
4. he doesn't faint from lack of blood
5. the "tourniquet" doesn't appear to have enough pressure to cut off the flow of blood

It also deals with skin-tight clothing being torn but flesh underneath not being bloody, and a woman who doesn't seem to be injured at first, then suddenly has a huge head-wound.

I vaguely remember something about how sometimes wounds don't bleed at first, which is why stuff like this can happen. I also vaguely remember something about how when a shrapnel bomb goes off, you get crazy things like clothing being torn but the skin not hurt, and one person being injured while the next person doesn't have any injuries at all. I don't remember the specifics behind that science, and I need help finding it.

Massive trauma can cause shock, there is no mystery there at all. Your body can slow blood flow to the limbs, and slow your heart beat to save your core from death for as long as possible. Too many people watch Hollywood movies are think that is what the real word is like.

Also, if you note how much bone is exposed in those pictures, it is not just because some of the flesh and muscle having been blown away by the explosion. It is also due to the skin and muscles contracting upwards due to not having a lower spot to anchor too, this in itself helps stop you bleeding out. The skin and muscles contract and thus squeeze blood vessels closed if possible.

 

[trotskyleon]

1. No sources to the photographs

All those photos that dude posted could be fake. How do I know its an original photo not photoshopped? Its easy to make the blood look brighter in photoshop for example.

Hmm..but apparently it was a drill?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c_pCwkRrNQ

I don't know. :?

 

[LadyLuna]

1. No sources to the photographs

All those photos that dude posted could be fake. How do I know its an original photo not photoshopped? Its easy to make the blood look brighter in photoshop for example.

Hmm..but apparently it was a drill?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c_pCwkRrNQ

I don't know. :?

The "photographs" are frames from a video, which they link to. That's how we can know the timing.

 

[Brad]

With all the pictures, videos, eye witnesses, etc. I just can not understand why anyone would want to go the conspiracy route on this. This was one of the few slam dunks of guilt when it comes to a major crime. The dudes had all sorts of camera time in nearly every step of their crime spree. Too bad it wasn't staged as maybe then Sean Collier (the MIT officer) would still be alive, the guy with the Benz would not have been car jacked, and some guys boat would not be full of bullet holes.
:twocents-02cents:

 

[Bocefish]

Did the people pictured above that were killed along with the other 13 amputees somehow volunteer for this conspiracy too?

 

[sweetiebatman]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...inked-to-boston-marathon-bombing-8586850.html

This is what happens as a result of a bigioted social media witch hunt.. RIP

 

[JerryBoBerry]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...inked-to-boston-marathon-bombing-8586850.html

This is what happens as a result of a bigioted social media witch hunt.. RIP

The way I'm reading that article his death may have nothing to do with the bombing events whatsoever. It looks like he went missing a month before the bombing and the family was just using the fact that he was implicated to help find him. It doesn't mention how long ago he died, just when his body was found. It says they don't suspect foul play so he could have killed himself and well before the bombing.

So I don't think this has anything to do with a witch hunt at all.

 

[Just Me]

I am starting to believe that like rule 34 for porn, there should be a rule for conspiracy theories. There certainly seems to be a conspiracy theory for everything.

 

[Sevrin]

The "eye for an eye" saying originated back in the middle ages, Gandhi is the one who added the that it makes the world blind. If this was truly eye for an eye justice... there would be equally proportionate killing and maiming in retribution.

There's already been media stories about the brothers being involved with other terrorist cells, whether those pan out to be true or not has yet to be established.

Either way, the bomber will be facing the death penalty. Whether or not people consider that "eye for an eye" justice or revenge is up to them. I just want him fully interrogated first, then it makes no difference to me whether he gets killed in prison or executed by lethal injection.

The concept of an "eye for an eye" in Western culture dates from the book of Exodus. Jesus refers to it just before he tells his disciples to turn the other cheek.

Yes, these guys are evil. But are they more evil than the folks who ran a fertilizer plant located near a school and residential area in an unsafe manner and killed firefighters and their employees? Are they more evil than people who sent employees to work in an unsafe building to fill their orders for cheap pyjamas?

 

[Bocefish]

Yes, these guys are evil. But are they more evil than the folks who ran a fertilizer plant located near a school and residential area in an unsafe manner and killed firefighters and their employees? Are they more evil than people who sent employees to work in an unsafe building to fill their orders for cheap pyjamas?

Depends on if you believe murderous intent is worse than greed causing safeguards to be bypassed. Seems simple to me which is worse and deserving of the death penalty.

 

[Nordling]

Yes, these guys are evil. But are they more evil than the folks who ran a fertilizer plant located near a school and residential area in an unsafe manner and killed firefighters and their employees? Are they more evil than people who sent employees to work in an unsafe building to fill their orders for cheap pyjamas?

Depends on if you believe murderous intent is worse than greed causing safeguards to be bypassed. Seems simple to me which is worse and deserving of the death penalty.

If I am interpreting you right, I agree. With negligence we are talking about manslaughter...yeah, stiff penalties and some prison time, but with intentional mass murder...that's got to be the heaviest penalty possible...First Degree Murder.