Responses...

Several explosions occurred in the American city of Boston yesterday. Reports indicate three people have died and more than a hundred injured.

After searching more than a dozen news sites from around the world that is all I can say with confidence about the event that is being called the 'Boston Bombing'.

Some sources report two explosions, others speculate a third in a library nearby. Most report three deaths from the explosions, though one reports a dozen killed. All agree there are many people injured but some describe amputated limbs and 'pools of blood'. With so much confusion regarding the basic facts of this terrible event it is unlikely the full truth will be known for many days.

Yet many people are quick, even eager to apportion blame.

The New York Post appears to be leading this trend, identifying a suspect who may not even exist. The ephemeral suspect was identified only by racial and religious traits, do I even need to repeat them? The origins of this report seem to stem from reports that the Boston police are questioning a man being treated for injuries at a local hospital. I would be willing to speculate that Boston police are questioning many people who were at the scene of the explosions.

It is important for law enforcement officials to make inquiries, develop theories and investigate these theories to ultimately apprehend the perpetrator of a crime. This is their job and there are systems in place to ensure it is done fairly and hopefully in an unbiased way. The rest of us engage in speculation and (conspiracy) theorizing out of some sort of macabre need to connect with the tragedy that is unfolding. Often this connection involves pushing a racist, nationalist or sexist agenda not warranted by the facts.

Twitter comes alive during an event of this magnitude. Amidst the stream of citizen reportage their is always an undercurrent of those pushing their own prejudiced agenda.

Policymic writer Elizabeth Plank, tweeting as @feministabulous compiled as list of the top ten most racist tweets to come out of the Boston events: the tweets listed include pejorative statements about muslims, arab peoples, gay people and even Barack Obama. Were it not for the seriousness of the events in Boston these tenuous links would almost be amusing.

Meanwhile filmmaker Michael Moore spruiked his own agenda. Tweets he released after the event imply conservative, right wing involvement including that of the American Tea Party movement.

Seemingly fanning the flames of anti-muslim sentiment the head of an extremist Jordanian Muslim Salafi group is reported by the Washington Post as saying he was happy and drawing the comparison that American blood is no more precious than Muslim blood spilled in conflicts.

To what end these personal attacks that often barely reach beyond local networks?

Certainly they do nothing to enhance the reportage of the actual event. To the contrary they spawn their own cottage industry that I'm going to dub 'crazy shit you're glad someone else said'. Nor do they assist those investigating the events. This may be a little less clear to these arm chair commentators. Perhaps they hope that by digitally screaming 'kill all {insert stereotype here}' from the cyber rooftops they are somehow making the streets safer. All I see is an inflaming of fear and hatred.

I doubt anyone knows the correct response to a tragic event such as that unfolding in Boston. Our American-voyeurism seems to demand some sort of response but why?

@adilray tweeted after the events - "Thoughts with families of 2 dead in bomb blasts in Boston, 8 in Afghanistan, 1 in Pakistan and 31 in Iraq today. Global terror. Sad times."

This is the truth of the matter: explosions kill people throughout the world daily. Today we're paying attention only because it's America. Watch if you want to, mourn, offer condolences but don't speculate. Or if you must, shut up about it...