Maybe he gave Buraq a copy of “Despotism for Idiots?” ”

That’s an even more horrifying thought than the islamic terrorism possibilities.

If we’ve come to the point where that’s considered to be a viable possibility, I think we’ve slipped over some edge. I’m not sure _what_ edge, but some edge.

What next?

Alternatively, use a smaller bomb to draw in first responders, then other bombs to inflict casualties on them.

Not mentioning them or identifying them in any way would be extremely odd, whether the writer be a man or a woman.

However, I understand—and agree with—your point that the influence of feminism as well as a 60s liberal mentality over the last few decades, in news coverage as well as society as a whole, has increased victim-based perspectives. But the question is how much is too much—at what point there is too much hand-wringing over victims and too little attention paid to the most effective preventive (and liberty-preserving) actions and the most effective responses.

In the case of Boston, everything I’ve read about the blast indicates it did almost all its damage low down. That’s why people’s legs were very much affected. Although this might not be typical of most bombs, it seems to have been the case with this one.

I know very little about the physics of this sort of thing, but wouldn’t those facts indicate that (at least in this particular case, which may be a rare exception), lying down flat on the ground would have led to even worse injuries?

The best personal, universal, tactic is to drop low, flat to the ground, protecting the head with hands and arms.

Anarchists/ Islamists/ fanatics are now rigging for follow on explosions.

Since it’s impossible to figure out where such devices might be — and with no time left on the clock — getting flat quickly is the least bad option.

The AQ gambit seen in Iraq dictates that civilians should stay down and flat until the authorities declare it ‘all clear.’

First responders should attend to sweeping the zone for follow-on bombs — first.

If you are not in the immediate blast zone, it’s wise to assume the worst, and just fall flat.

You will note in the videos, no-one is adopting the ‘duck and cover’ solution.

===========

I would expect that in the fullness of time Boston was chosen because the perps have a college connection to that town.

Historically, mad bombers have always come from the fanatical college educated crowd.

It’s a rare dufus that can rig a decent bomb without blowing himself up or giving away his intent long before the crime is complete.

The Unabomber — a Harvard man — is the exemplar.

(I predicted he’d be a free-ride/ scholarship boy from Harvard circa 1962 — before he was outed — just based upon his profile.)

(His ‘projects’ betrayed an immense intellect. That the FBI couldn’t see that ‘fit’ merits them the Lestrade award.)

(Only a genius could, and would, craft bombs all the way from natural materials up into a final work. Only a genius could, and would, even discover and target the very high IQ victims on the Unabomber’s list.)

(Someone that bright — and undiscovered — is certain to be insanely introverted — hence the kind of fellow (bombers are always guys, and nerdish to boot) to score off the charts for ‘g’ loaded tests. His politics bespoke of 1960s — and coming of age under the shadow of the Vietnam War.)

For the bomber(s) at hand…

They’ve adopted the AQ script.

Hence, it’s a straight-up AQ gambit (Gitmo related?) or it’s a false-flag op designed to let the despot reign free.

I’m reminded of the Moscow apartments bombs. The weight of the evidence points to the FSB/ KGB/ Russian Mafia/ Putin & Co. Those brave souls willing to pursue this line of reasoning have found themselves ‘suicided’ out of their fifth-story apartments onto the pavement below.

After the Moscow blasts, Putin became unstoppable.

Maybe he gave Buraq a copy of “Despotism for Idiots?”

A third factor contributing to the higher public profile that is now
accorded to victims in general was a growing sensitization during the
1960s and 1970s towards the existence and needs of particular groups of
‘vulnerable’ victims: notably women who experienced domestic violence at
the hands of abusive partners; women who had been sexually assaulted or
raped; and children who were the victims of incest or other forms of abuse.
The women’s movement, comprising political and practical activists who
were inspired and often radicalized by feminist ideals, played a major role
in this process. Campaigning activists responded by not only setting up
support networks such as the Women’s Refuge Movement6 and ‘Rape Crisis
Centres’,7 but also by drawing attention to the manifest inadequacies of the
criminal justice system in dealing with such offences. Initiatives such as
these helped to fuel broader concerns about the way victims in general are
dealt with,8 and these now form part of the agenda of the so-called ‘victims’
movement’,

A fourth factor contributing towards the higher public profile for victims
of crime in recent years relates to the spate of well-publicized incidents
both at home and abroad involving serious acts of politically inspired
criminal violence. They include acts of terrorism that are directed against
innocent civilians, political assassinations, violent outbursts resulting from
ethnic or intercommunal tensions and even, on occasion, violent acts carried
out by state agencies. At a more mundane but equally significant level
— not least because its effects have had a more immediate personal impact —
the period between the early 1950s and mid-1990s witnessed a dramatic
escalation in the level of recorded crime in most modern industrial countries

The fifth factor relates to the introduction and increasingly widespread
use of victim surveys on the part of both central and local government
agencies. The first such survey was conducted on behalf of the American
President’s Crime Commission in 1967, which was established in the wake
of serious urban rioting in over 150 US cities earlier in the year (Ennis,
1967; President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration
of Justice, 1967).

Much early post-war
criminology could be described without exaggeration as comprising a
victim-free zone, though some feminist criminologists of the 1970s and
early 1980s13 deserve an honourable mention for bucking the trend (Rock,
2002a: 3). However, even the ground-breaking furrows they ploughed were
prompted by the work of other feminist political activists. For other radical
criminologists (for example, Lea and Young, 1984) it took the incontrovertible
data provided by the first British Crime Survey (BCS) to drive home
the message that much crime impacts most heavily on the poorest and least
privileged urban sectors of the community. Or, as Downes (1983) had
rather more pithily put it, much crime operates as a ‘regressive tax on the
poor’.14 More recently, the growing prominence accorded to victims has
not only been acknowledged by growing numbers of academic criminologists
but, as we shall see, has helped to carve out a new agenda for the
discipline.

[edited for length]

Consider Culture and Diversity
Providing Culturally Congruent Care
Serving Victims’ Language Needs
Serving Victims’ Literacy Needs
Serving Victims’ Spiritual Needs
Serving Adolescent Victims
Serving Victims on Campus
Serving Victims With Disabilities
Serving Trafficking Victims
Serving Migrant Communities
Serving Rural Victims
Serving Victims in the Military
Serving Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Victims

and how do you know they are victims?
by their heart wrenching tales of anecdotal whatever

and all this:
What is Left of Radical Feminism? Victims and Victimology in the Contemporary United States
http://www.humanitiesinstitute.buffalo.edu/content/about/documents/Mardorossian.pdf

One of the most visible legacies of the feminist movement with which this book is
concerned is the evolution of the term “victim” in cultural and academic life. Whether it is from
the left or the right, feminism or the backlash, everyone seems to agree that being a victim is no
longer a straightforward proposition

now we are in the age of tne nuanced victim

George Bush’s closest adviser, Karen P. Hughes, who was
instrumental in crafting the White House’s response to 9/11, insisted that in his first speech to the
nation, the president not describe the tragedy in terms of the United States’ victimization as
originally planned. To quote Hughes, “When he [Ari] read it, the first line made me apoplectic:
‘America today was the victim of ….’ ‘We are not victims,’ I interrupted, ‘we may have been
attacked but we are not victims.’”

we are attacked, but we are not victims

by focusing on the people, you focus on nothing that will help…

was it rational argument that you were for in the gun battle, or the constant emotive bs that came from newtown?
[edited for length by n-n]

when they have events like this, the game is not to remove all the trash cans, the game is to keep emptying them over and over. (now if the pressure cooker was just placed on the floor, thats another story).

they came up with things to bolt them to the ground (so they cant be removed, modified, and put back), they tried to make them explosive proof… which to some extent they did, but HUGELY expensive..

what they did NOT do, was sink them 1/4 to 1/3 into the ground. it would make it easier for the cleaning people to lift a bag up and out. it would prevent it from being moved… and if this was in place in boston (and they used a can, which i dont know yet), the VAST majority of the blast, would have gone upwards…

if you cant sink the garbage can, then you only need a 2 foot tall garbage can ring… ie. just a cheap manhole cover steel plate kind of ring bolted to the ground… if you want, you can add a few thick bars higher up… no doors… the can gets lifted out.

with such a thing, a blast would go up. instead of the blast being magnified by the concrete ground. ie. imagine a blast in air… 360 degrees 3 axis… now, on the ground… half of the sphere is blocked…

people think that it then goes up… but it doesn’t
it travels along the ground… which is why military knows that you have to have your head below the blast line (blasts do not go around corners like sound).

so the blast sphere along the ground is much stronger than the blast in the air… and so, it sheers the legs off of people… even if there wasnt much junk added to cause damage.

given the photos, its hard to tell… the few who were hit on the street, seem to be hit because a crowd makes an opening where there are trees and decorations… so their bodies were not there and a gap formed…

sadly, it was only a matter of time before people with better skills arrived via school, mexico, etc… and would ave expertise… with so many groups going to the war to learn, and the army having to take them given that gang bangers are generally healthier and more competent than liberals…

given that the man in custody is NOT THE MAN WHO DID IT, but a witness… and one who is cooperating completely (the search of the apartment was not on warrant, he gave permission which makes things happen faster). the people or peoples are still out there

the other sad part is that the left is saying most stuff is from the right, but if you look at the top 10 worst events, most of the worst bombings happened back when communists were anarchists and blew lots of things up

[and given how hte left is trying to use this, its pretty clear that the idea of lizard people (sociopaths) makingup the ruling class, is so much more believable. its clear they have no guilt, which is what would clue people in if they were not so willing to make excuses]

The 10 Worst Bombings in US History
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/04/16/the-10-worst-bombings-in-us-history-n1568828/page/full/

10) The World Trade Center Bombing (February 26, 1993)
9) The Preparedness Day Bombing (July 22, 1916)
8) The LaGuardia Airport Bombing (December 29, 1975)
7) The Haymarket Affair (May 4, 1886)
6) The Los Angeles Times Bombing (October 1, 1910)
5) The Bath School Disaster (May 18, 1927)
4) The Wall Street Bombing (September 16, 1920)
3) United Airlines Flight 629 (November 1, 1955)
2) Continental Airlines Flight 11 (May 22, 1962)
1) The Oklahoma City Bombing (April 19, 1995)

if you noticed, the communist 20s and the prior period of americas revolutionary times, are times for bombings.

the anarchists and communists and labor unions blew things up

in the 60s, the second time, it was ayers, and others who blew things up… feminists blew things up, as their birth was in terrorism… rote zora, and more…

now, again? you can almost tell whether the left is in ascendency by how many bombs go off!!!!!!!!!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

we dont need facts, we just need emotion!!!!
and we need to feed that monster as we are conditioned to if we are women. ergo, we are not going to find out much facts about this, but will get a whole bunch of puff pieces, and victim pieces

why?

cause everything about women in the modern age is about commisseration and rolling in misery and emotive feeelings based lies or truth… cant be a woman today unless you make sure you go to the important, lets get to know the victims so we can feel and associate with them…

of course, rationalize it so this is not the same emotive victim focus as the other emotive victim focus, this is a higher emotive victim focus.

all it is, is making paranoia rational through emotional arguments which then let you associate with people you could not otherwise associate. but with the common thread of women as eternal martyred victims, it works great!!!

we build mouse traps to catch creatures by playing their psychology, but as humans, we are too stupid to avoid that trap. once we see everyone step in it, we feel abnormal if we dont step in it and rub it all over ourselves. (and if you look at the people who go from wacko fad to wacko fad, guess who it is!!)

and by doing the female emotive thing, an focusing on the victims, you cloud all rational thinking on it. VDH has a nice piece on that kind of cloudiness

but he refers to it as the age of anecdote…
and that is a female thing!!!
as it wins by emotions…
basically i wish that such masturbatory emotive jerking around by people who dont have enough of it in their lives, and so focus on it to squeeze out feelings, would quit it…

it just foments irrationality, which women used to be known for… now we just are quiet, as they run around get deseases, choose things by anecdote, think the emotionally tear jerking thing means something (as it moves them to give up all freedoms and be slaves hoping to be safe from the world that their husbands used to protect them from)

it gets kind of tired watching the news go wacky and know its for the beneifit of women, not men.. who then will go wacky and push push push. (note that they just informed us thsi weekend that 74 percent of animal hoarders are women, ie. cat ladies… and that most women favor ending the 2nd amendment, and it was their vote that moved obama into the second term, and is about to destroy marraige, which they love, and on and on…

yes. panicking squieeling and running around as an emotional wreck as you live everyones misery…

is the new normal
which is why i guess you would never name your sone misery, but for women its not unheard of…

by the way, this is how our society lost rationality
rationality is patriarchal, irrationality is female
so emotive irrational jerking of your emotions is the new rationality…

which is why they will get upset at newtown, and not give a damn about gosnell!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ]

“No more hurting people. Peace.”