Why would you give infowars a press pass?

Truthfully, my prediction is that they will make a big show of trying to track down a foreign angle, but ultimately blame will be levied on a home-grown, right-wing extremist, gun nut, (media reporting and official statements have already been trending this way) and that this will be used as fuel for pushing gun control legislation.

But maybe my tin-foil-hat is just a little too tight today. Time will tell.

You're in terrible company.

Truthfully, my prediction is that they will make a big show of trying to track down a foreign angle, but ultimately blame will be levied on a home-grown, right-wing extremist, gun nut, (media reporting and official statements have already been trending this way) and that this will be used as fuel for pushing gun control legislation.

But maybe my tin-foil-hat is just a little too tight today. Time will tell.

You're in terrible company.

Wait, why is thinking that it'll probably end up being a domestic affair == thinking it was a false-flag attack?

No matter who's to blame, it will be used to push agendas. That's just what happens. If it's a domestic affair, it will surely be used to push more public safety laws, such as at least debating whether gunpowder should be sold alongside groceries.

Here in Australia, all the "not a pistol club gun" and "not a simple hunting rifle" type guns were banned after a mass-shooting like the Norwegian nutjob, to much protest from gun-fans claiming it was just a knee-jerk reaction (while we're at it though, the conspiracy for this one goes that the 'perpetrator' was actually a CIA patsy, and several snipers were involved... in a plot to "disarm the nation").

If it was a domestic attack, then the immediate worldwide reporting that a Saudi citizen had been arrested is very interesting. Psychological experiments show that even after a correction or retraction of a reported fact, the vast majority of us still beleive the original 'fact' at some unconscious level. Depending on how you're primed and questioned, you can give responses that show that you believe both the original and corrected facts somewhat simultaneously.

The point being, even if it's eventually officially blamed on a US citizen, many people will still feel a level of animosity towards Saudi Arabian men, for no rational reason.

Wait, why is thinking that it'll probably end up being a domestic affair == thinking it was a false-flag attack?

He didn't say it would be a domestic affair, he said "blame will be levied on a home-grown, right-wing extremist, gun nut" (emphasis mine). Maybe I'm reading it differently to you, but that says to me that a gun nut will be blamed, regardless of the truth.

It was more the tin-foil hat conspiracy brigade that I was getting at rather than the conspiracy itself.

No matter who's to blame, it will be used to push agendas.

100% agree. but that said.... not all agendas are created equal. For example,

If it's a domestic affair, it will surely be used to push more public safety laws, such as at least debating whether gunpowder should be sold alongside groceries.

would that really be such a bad debate? (note: not that I'm accusing you, more of a general question).

If it was a domestic attack, then the immediate worldwide reporting that a Saudi citizen had been arrested is very interesting. Psychological experiments show that even after a correction or retraction of a reported fact, the vast majority of us still beleive the original 'fact' at some unconscious level. Depending on how you're primed and questioned, you can give responses that show that you believe both the original and corrected facts somewhat simultaneously.

Completely agree. Especially when it's immediately HEADLINE NEWS: SAUDI IMPLICATED IN BOMBING and then several weeks later we may have made over reported the extent of the Saudi Arabian mans involvement.

Wait, why is thinking that it'll probably end up being a domestic affair == thinking it was a false-flag attack?

Because of the language used:

Truthfully, my prediction is that they will make a big show of trying to track down a foreign angle, but ultimately blame will be levied on a home-grown, right-wing extremist, gun nut, (media reporting and official statements have already been trending this way) and that this will be used as fuel for pushing gun control legislation.

Rather than something like "look at foreign leads, but probably end up finding a right-wing extremist responsible." Levying blame implies that whoever they'll find didn't actually do it. Plus latent touchiness given the situation.

For my money, I think it's actually some domestic terrorist (and yes, right-wing). Islamic terrorism tends to favor martyrdom, and you would think if they were part of a network someone would have claimed responsibility now.

would that really be such a bad debate?

Not at all. I'm very happy that my next door neighbour here in suburbia isn't allowed to have a handgun or a semi-automatic shotgun, or a soviet assault rifle in his cupboard, and that K-Mart doesn't sell ammo or ammo components.

When I was a kid (before the gun control laws), I was friends with a hunter's son, who's house contained a bucket of gunpowder and boxes of caps and bullets, outside of the locked gun cabinet (which AFAIK, only contained the bolts from the rifles). We (secretly) used to make "fireworks" and whatnot, and very nearly came to injury a few times. We surely would've copped a hiding if we got caught, but it would be better for us not to be in that situation in the first place.

I had other friends that used to build pipebombs for fun, because they could -- but for context Australia has only ever had one "terrorism" incident, which killed two garbage men... had we grown up in western Europe, we probably would've known how serious pipebombs were... maybe.

Anyway, there was no need for us to have access to explosive powder.

Gun crime here is extremely rare, with only large organized crime groups being able to afford to subvert customs and get illegal guns, which they use to shoot at rival mobs once every decade... rather than every street thug having one.
Most robberies involving guns turn out to be replicas or starter pistols, with the occasional sawn-off hunting rifle. Incidents like the batman or columbine shootings, which are an annual affair in the land of the free, simply don't happen.

you would think if they were part of a network someone would have claimed responsibility now

Yeah that's the confusing bit. For it to be terrorism, someone needs to come out and say "we did this because we want to see this change", implying that this political change must happen to avoid further violence.

Without anyone taking responsibility or giving their motive, it's just some twisted psychopath hurting people for no reason.

And if there's no attached threat, why a marathon? Not the tax office, not the financial district, not some camp connected to a political party? It's as without political connotation as a cinema.

And if there's no attached threat, why a marathon? Not the tax office, not the financial district, not some camp connected to a political party? It's as without political connotation as a cinema.

Yeah, the only thing I can think of is that it was simply the easiest target. Even something like a football stadium has better access control, since it's hard to cordon off a section of public street. Plus April 15th is pretty well known here as Tax Day every year... I guess Boston has the Tea Party (the original Revolutionary War one) history, too. But without anyone taking credit, it's all really circumstantial.

I also wonder how intentional the maiming (rather than killing), was?

What happened is sad.

But my 2 cent that such ' LARGE smear campaign' and 'minimum to non-existent' retract already happened before.

1) The Anthrax case. It ended up leading to a white man working at government own bio lab. He committed suicide.

2) The Norway shooting.

The interesting part to Norway is that not only the early report try to blame muslims and terrorist, when they find out the truth, they try to minimize the actual link to the shooter belief and faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks#Political_and_religious_views

Anyway, what happened at Boston is sad. Yet, someone somewhere will use that opportunity to push an agenda. That is the world we live in today.

I also have to add, with the Gulf of Tonkin and Bay of Pigs, people do have a reason to question. Its not the first time.

I wonder what will happen 50 or 100 years into the future. Will the great grandchildren look at current generation with disbelief just like current generation looked at the segregated and lynching past with disbelief?

And if there's no attached threat, why a marathon? Not the tax office, not the financial district, not some camp connected to a political party? It's as without political connotation as a cinema.

Yeah, the only thing I can think of is that it was simply the easiest target. Even something like a football stadium has better access control, since it's hard to cordon off a section of public street. Plus April 15th is pretty well known here as Tax Day every year... I guess Boston has the Tea Party (the original Revolutionary War one) history, too. But without anyone taking credit, it's all really circumstantial.

I also wonder how intentional the maiming (rather than killing), was?

I don't know if you can separate that two. A crude bomb with balls and nails? From what I heard, there are two unexploded bomb that they managed to defuse. So it could have been bigger.

Regarding link, I don't know if the Newton racer could be a link. There are conspiracy theory on Newton shooting.