faetal on 25/4/2013 at 11:27
That's ok!
Pyrian on 25/4/2013 at 21:36
Quote Posted by Azaran
Especially that naked guy who was arrested and happens to look exactly like the suspect who was killed.
"Exactly like"? He looks almost
nothing like him.
catbarf on 25/4/2013 at 23:44
The main problem I see in all these conspiracy theory arguments is that they can't posit a coherent motive. We're not about to go to war with Russia over Chechnya, nor is there any big scapegoat that can be used as a target. The fact that some people (like whoever made that album) are using CISPA as an example just shows that some people on the Internet have no sense of perspective. Yes, I'm sure the US Government staged a bombing for the purpose of distracting people so they could pass a bill on Internet surveillance. (
http://rt.com/usa/cispa-halted-senate-415/) Which failed.
The main thing that bugs me is the house-to-house searches they were doing in Boston to try to find the suspects. Searching a house with military equipment and tactics and (as far as I can tell) no individual warrant rubs me the wrong way.
demagogue on 25/4/2013 at 23:55
If one could posit a coherent motive it wouldn't be a conspiracy anymore. It'd just be a normal crime -- government official cracks and bombs people, or just run-of-the-mill absolutism that half the world still deals with as daily life -- government runs tanks over crowd to "quell dissent" -- which the government doesn't really need to do in secret.
This is the eternal paradox that non-existent or negligible things will always create more terror than real and terrible things ever do. Our worst nightmares have always been the fumblings of impoverished countries, mentally unstable vagrants, absent-minded functionaries, "chemicals", and so on.
catbarf on 26/4/2013 at 00:26
Well, I dunno, a lot of conspiracies seem to have clear motives they can pin to the 'responsible' parties- 9/11 Truthers say it was to justify invading Iraq, for people who claim the moon landing was a hoax it was supposedly to one-up the Soviets, stuff like that. Here... so a bomber blew up a bunch of people, with no topical political aim besides (maybe, it's a stretch) vilifying Muslims further? Or to distract people from some fairly minor legislation?
Even the really wacky conspiracies about Illuminati and chemtrails provide clear motives and logical (well, internally consistent) reasons for their existence. 'They want to control the world' and 'they want to brainwash US citizens' are far-fetched but at least they're motives you can point your finger at.
demagogue on 26/4/2013 at 00:42
I was exaggerating a bit for lulz, but I guess it really comes down to how far one is ready to stretch what's "coherent" for a viable motive. If you push any of them, they start crumbling really fast...
But actually what interests me is that there have actually been bona fide conspiracies in history, big ones even, but people don't see them as conspiracies. They just call them scandals. Conspiracy seems to thrive on the powers-that-be covering it up at all costs, and "debunking" them is just playing into their hands, to deserve the title.
Kolya on 26/4/2013 at 08:49
I've read quotes by the two suspects like "I have no American friends" and "I don't understand Americans". This sounds like he/they were socially isolated. As people who do such terrible things frequently seem to be. I guess it would have been harder for them justify these bombings with themselves if they were properly integrated with their community. Their isolation may be their own fault, maybe even their will after some point, because it helps to see everyone else as non-humans that deserve to die. Still it seems to me that the best prevention against such attacks would be to break the isolation of such individuals. One of the problems with this could be that most loners aren't out to kill anyone and might become the subject of social pressure then. The freedom of individuals to stay apart from the group without becoming "suspect" is worth defending. But involuntary isolation due to social-economical status is a different thing.
faetal on 26/4/2013 at 09:00
Quote Posted by catbarf
Well, I dunno, a lot of conspiracies seem to have clear motives they can pin to the 'responsible' parties- 9/11 Truthers say it was to justify invading Iraq, for people who claim the moon landing was a hoax it was supposedly to one-up the Soviets, stuff like that.
The funny thing being that a bunch of Saudi nationals flying planes into a building
wasn't justification for invading Iraq. In fact, why
was Iraq invaded again? WMDs? None found. Save Iraqis from dictators? The US props plenty of other dictators up. I'm not saying I know why (there are a few reasonable hypotheses, but why bother since we'll never know), but I think the tenuous reasons used mean that a false flag (has anyone actually proved these have happened since 1962?) justification would, at the very least have had
Iraqi nationals on the planes. No one even talks about
reasons for invading Iraq any more, just whether or not the invasion turned out best for the Iraqi people.
Dema is right. Conspiracy theories thrive on the unprovable. If something can't be proved, means it's obvious there is a cover-up.Azaran on 27/4/2013 at 02:25
Quote Posted by faetal
No one even talks about
reasons for invading Iraq any more, just whether or not the invasion turned out best for the Iraqi people.
Oil, greater American influence in the region, Israel...those are the reasons fro invading I hear the most from people. And none are far fetched
