Not to mention that if he’s in the hospital with severe burns, he clearly didn’t do a very good job of reading the “how to bomb stuff” handbook. A sophisticated terror organization would have their shit together a bit more than relying on a 20 year old to drop the backpack and hope he can run fast enough.
When organized terrorists strike, they have a purpose. These guys are smart. 9/11 drew us into long, useless wars that cost us billions, devastated our international credibility, and created a whole new generation of people with pretty strong reasons for being pissed at America. It achieved it’s purpose neatly. 9/11 reshaped the world exactly to the terrorist’s liking- a broke and tired America, chunks of the planet that are scared and resentful of us, a new infrastructure of perpetual warfare, and growing support for fundamentalism.
WIth these wars winding down and the public in no mood for our next international adventure (which would probably be Iran, which we are going to continue avoid confronting because we know it’s more than we want to deal with), now isn’t a good time for a major attack. The only motivation I can think of would be to try to draw us more overtly into Mali or Nigeria, but that seems unlikely-- I just don’t think we can be convinced to care enough. We’re happy flying drones and gathering intelligence in the region, but I think trying to draw us into a real war is a lost cause at this point.
Beyond the technology of the bombs, this is why I think it is a lone wolf. It’s just not the right time for an attack like this to have the intended effect, and the evil masterminds know this.
AL QAEDA AFFILIATED ATTACKS
1993 WTC Bombing
1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing
2000 USS Cole Bombing
2001 9/11
2001 Richard Reid (Shoe Bomber)
2002 Bali Bombing
2004 Madrid Train Bombing
2005 London Tube Bombing
2009 Underwear Bomber
2010 That FedExing Bombs to US Synagogues Thing
RIGHT-WING DOMESTIC TERRORIST
1995 Timothy McVeigh
1996 Atlanta Olympics/Eric Rudoplh
2010 That Guy Who Flew an Airplane into the IRS Building in Texas
And by the same token, “eco-terrorists”, suggested in another post, usually (not always) target property rather than people…this doesn’t seem to fit with their modus operendi either.
Is there something special about western groups who
favor an absolutist government, which uses the power of the state to support the dominant ethnic group or religion and often to criminalize other ethnic groups or religions?
Yes unfortunately this is the truth, I do not always agree with you but in this case you are absolutely right. There is nothing Un American about being a Muslim, nothing at all. It’s a shame the populace needs to be reminded of this truth from time to time.
When posters who speculate about “right-wing domestic terrorists,” they mean the American flavor.
So socialist Basque separatist movements (Batasuna) and the socialist IRA really are not, as I’m sure you will agree, very much like the U.S. Tea Party or right-wing militia movement.
TL;DR: Oh, OK, good point. Maybe Basque separatists did this. Terrific work, Hans Blix.
Well sure, but your list was pretty clearly calculated to say “Hey look how much more prolific these guys are.” But you were comparing a list of attacks by a myriad of loosely affiliated groups operating across the globe to a single small faction in one country. If you’d just listed the actual attacks in the US by Al Qaeda I wouldn’t have said anything, but then you wouldn’t have had a very interesting comparison.
Yup, then Obama can use that as an excuse to pass a law called the Boston bombing decree and use it to dissolve the congress, suspend civil liberties and give himself war powers. Then we can invade Poland. The liberal dream is becoming a reality my friend.
Our domestic Commie terrorists are largely washed out has-beens, really. Most of the Macheteros not in jail are collecting Social Security.
But since you were comparing who’s more likely to be doing terrorist attacks* in the US*, you may want to strike from that list attacks not specifically against US targets (your Islamist/Al-Q thesis still comes out ahead then, BTW). Otherwise if discussing attacks in Madrid you would have to compare Al-Q vs. ETA, when discussing attacks in London you would have to discuss Al-Q vs. IRA in order to ask “Who’s more likely”.
There’s not much of a debate here. This feels like an extension of the other thread. Let’s argue about something. Something like, “these events will be used as a reason to take freedoms away, or add more restrictions to the right to own firearms.”
Just know that Dick Cheney lives, lives, on the inability of liberals to acknowledge uncomfortable facts about terrorism.
Every time a liberal says “Maybe it was Basque separatists!”, Dick Cheney’s heart becomes six months younger. It’s like national security version of Benjamin Button…
I’d strongly disagree with that. I think most of them had never even visited the US prior to coming over to the US, though most had been radicalized in Germany.
Yes, they were all fairly well-educated from well-off families, but that’s pretty standard for people in the Middle East who are attracted to radical Islam.
It’s not the philosophy of the hoi polloi or the suffering underclass.
People don’t refer to the IRA, Al-Fatah, the PKK, or the ETA as “right-wing”.
Also, neither the Hezbollah nor the Iranian government has ever suggested criminalizing other religious groups.
As for “ethnic groups”, Al-Quaeda, Hamas, and the Hezbollah have all made it clear they are cosmopolitan movements not nationalist movements. In fact, the Arabs in the Hezbollah pledge their loyalty to a Persian.
No one is saying that the Boston marathon was bombed by Basque separatists. And on one is saying it couldn’t possibly have been Muslim radicals. All we’re saying is that the argument that it couldn’t possibly have been American right-wing extremists because, gosh, they don’t just kill a bunch of random people (or plant two bombs) is bullshit.