Boston

Pages: 1234
FredBill30 wrote:
Now I'm not saying I'm happy with the bombing or anything, but you guys have to think about other factors before you start to say things.

So, perhaps, should you. To begin with, the fact that they target noncombatants aggressively.
So they suspect it was nazis and not al-Quieda, too many people say we "shud just nuke the middle east" I like that now I can say and so we should nuke the west as well because Nazis are terrorists too and they live in the west.


I hate all far right wing groups with a passion, you have to be so will fully ignorant to justify far rightness.
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
The same could be said about the far left devon ; p by the way Germany is not in the west...
the far left dont march around persecuting/intimidating minorities and setting off bombs, so that so far at the moment you cant say the same about the far left, germany counts as an economic power house in the western world.
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
I would advise you to open your eyes and realize that the world isn't as black and white as your think it is. The left isn't always the good guys and the right isn't always the bad guys. Each side has done really good things and each have done really awful things. And yes yhe far left have set of many bombs over the years. But how bout instead of prosecuting a whole group of people (Left or Right) we actually blame the people who did it and not who they are affiliated with?
yeah me and you want the same things for people in this world yet we come from opposite viewpoints which is odd.

EDIT: Your right about the black and white thing; good guys bad guys, left and right, thats a HUGE theme in the media these days, its a massive lie they dont get tired of pushing, i wonder why.
Last edited on
good guys bad guys, left and right, thats a HUGE theme in the media these days, its a massive lie they dont get tired of pushing, i wonder why.


Because suddenly it becomes totally impossible to tell a story in ~2 hours, report something in less than 30 minutes/1000 words and, unless Stephen King is part of the writing staff, ~8 seasons.

Edit: Well not totally, but the general audience today does make it impossible.
Last edited on
I think the media effects the people, I don't think its the other way round like what they told me in graphic design.

things seem to be taken at face value and sold back to the people, just look at hippies for example, hippies today but hippy stuff from mainstream outlets, spiritualy and psychically speaking.

sociologists say we fit into only 16 different personality types, I say people can fit into 16 personality types that sociologists use.
Last edited on
I'm really getting tired of the media making 90% of the population over here in the US seem like the United States is the perfect society. Seriously, I'm sure if we bombed one of Iran's large cities, the United States populous wouldn't give two sh*ts or even praise the US for it. This black and white thing as gone too far.
I think the media effects the people, I don't think its the other way round like what they told me in graphic design.


It's probably more of a two sided thing. I agree that in complex issues, there's no such thing as black and white. The same goes that the media does indeed affect people, and vice versa.

The media is after all a business. They need money to stay alive, and the bigger a media outlet (mainstream) gets, the less risk they can take to divert from giving what the audience wants.

If the audience wants stupid delusional shit, that's what the media has to give them. Then more people get sucked in to believing nonsense because of that, then the media has to give more of that.

Still there are people from the media that take an honest approach. Unfortunately, thought provoking and controversy isn't mainstream.
its not all about the audience, theres PR, its the other money maker and its potentially more lucrative than giving people what they want to hear, its the UKs biggest industry at the moment.

Israel spends 11billion a year on PR!

When thatcher was in power murdoch was "the man who could take on the unions" being an editor of the sun that meant "man to manipulate the people to the governments will" thatcher was the first prime minister to use PR that way, hence the reason she was so popular (despite laying off 3 million with no contingency)
closed account (3qX21hU5)
It also might have something to do with saving the UK from serious financial disaster and turning it back into a economical power ;p
importing more expencive coal and oil plus getting millions of people out of work? hrmm
Last edited on
Yea the media is incredibly powerful and I honestly cannot even begin to understand the ins and outs of it. But the very fact that there are people in this thread that know the media can be full of it just shows that we're becoming more aware and less susceptible to media influence.

We even have the option to choose our media outlet now. There was no way to do that decades ago, what they show you is all you're gonna get. We can question the media and even people from the media are coming out and telling us "hey guys, this is actually crap".

We as the audience are becoming more fickle. We want what we want when we want it and the media has to keep up with that. Is the audience into vampires now? Rush those blood suckers out! What zombies now? Go mindless undead! Justin Bieber? Make a Hollywood budget movie of a fifteen year old.

PR is the very practice of giving people what they want to hear; or at least convincing them of it. It can't just sway people into changing their opinions with a flick of a switch. I'm not familiar with Murdoch's role in Thatcher's administration, but did people at the time even know about what she did? I doubt Obama can even get away with spitting in public now. Maybe that's why PR is so costly, it's just that much harder to pull off/too much dirt to clean.
Last edited on
LowestOne wrote:

Hmm, I think I would say violence is the only solution to violent problems


You've just contradicted the argument you've been trying to prove this entire thread.
whether doling out punishment, or thinking you are doling out punishment can you imagine how fucked up you have to be to set out to seriously harm someone?

wanting to punch someone even breaking something a little bit, say someone stole your girlfriend is understandable and just extreme communication but killing or maiming someone? you cant justify that,
and even unless someone murdered your whole family seeking revenge or setting out to punish someone is mental illness.
You've just contradicted the argument you've been trying to prove this entire thread.


If everyone followed what you just posted there would be no violence.

You took it out of context anyway, I meant it more as a rephrase than something I was devoted to.

Kindof like everything I've said, though I do believe it, it's more a way to spark thought rather than to prove I'm right.

What I honestly think when I think "What would I do if I found the people who bombed Boston"? "I would be famous". That was an interesting one.

Edit: as a side, I will point out that I'm comfortable having different opinions. I totally agree that things are not black and white. My girl friend and I do end up sharing the same general idea about right and wrong, we just have different methods of finding it.
Last edited on
Have two brothers they suspected. The oldest was killed in a shoot out and now they are looking for the younger one.
Last edited on by closed account z6A9GNh0
Was that the thing at MIT?
Yeah they killed a MIT police guard, stole a car, and the oldest was shot and found to have an explosive vest on him. The younger one is on the run still.
Pages: 1234