Things go boom

[The Good Reverend Roger]

LMNO, Roger, I'm sorry if my earlier comments were out of line...

I got a nagging feeling that I dun fucked up.

No, no, Pix, you're aces.  No worries.

The problem is in my head, not your words.

Been running on PILLS HERE due to other stuff that made my head fuckery before this whole thing, and when I saw it i kind of freaked out because PD folks and other friends from teh interwebs being in MA.

Narrowly avoided 2 panic attacks due to timing my meds well, so, I guess thats a win. Night all.

I'm hitting it, too.  'Night.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Youre fine pix. I was actually touched that your status on fb said you were glad lmno eve and i were ok. You werent minimizing anything.

[Ben Shapiro]

Anarchists don't do this kind of thing, they haven't since the depression.  And even if they still did a marathon is not a target they'd go for.  It'd be something connected to power.

This.

I'm betting right wing nutjob.

What makes this a more attractive target for a right winger than for an anarchist?

I mean, wouldn't a righty's ideology make this action seem loathsome for being an attack against his countrymen?  It doesnt really jive with any of the right propaganda ive ever read...barring ueber-nuts groups like white nationalists (ok no euphemisms...nazis) or abortion-bombers...

My point is, a crazy anarchist could be equally responsible as a crazy right-winger...both would be attacking a not-so-ideal target if we go off of their politics, and both would share the aspect of crazy...

A few things.  One is Anarchists don't bomb any longer, they tried it, it didn't work, and they don't do it.  If one went off the rails and decided to bomb something they'd at least have picked a police station or a local bank, not a street at the end of a marathon which is actually more work than the previous two due to heightened security.

As far as right winger we can kind of assume the person is uber nuts, since they're bombing people, so your "barring ueber nuts" bit doesn't really make sense.  Unless bombing is mainstream in the right wing.  Also, those people aren't his country men, they are unamerican liberal homo loving socialists who his country would be better off without.

I think we're both oversimplifying the right to some degree. Im excluding the "bad" parts of the right (those who would have done this to spite those liberal homo loving socialists), because i am of the right and wish not to lump myself in with such scum...

You seem to be excluding the "good" part of the right (those that would have chosen targets more similar to your loose-cannon anarchist and minimalised casualties to his compatriots) in order to disentangle anarchism.


Tl;dr i think we have similar motives for our arguments from different sides of the table...

You're coming off as a Nazi Sympathizer!

[Salty]

Anarchists don't do this kind of thing, they haven't since the depression.  And even if they still did a marathon is not a target they'd go for.  It'd be something connected to power.

This.

I'm betting right wing nutjob.

What makes this a more attractive target for a right winger than for an anarchist?

I mean, wouldn't a righty's ideology make this action seem loathsome for being an attack against his countrymen?  It doesnt really jive with any of the right propaganda ive ever read...barring ueber-nuts groups like white nationalists (ok no euphemisms...nazis) or abortion-bombers...

My point is, a crazy anarchist could be equally responsible as a crazy right-winger...both would be attacking a not-so-ideal target if we go off of their politics, and both would share the aspect of crazy...

A few things.  One is Anarchists don't bomb any longer, they tried it, it didn't work, and they don't do it.  If one went off the rails and decided to bomb something they'd at least have picked a police station or a local bank, not a street at the end of a marathon which is actually more work than the previous two due to heightened security.

As far as right winger we can kind of assume the person is uber nuts, since they're bombing people, so your "barring ueber nuts" bit doesn't really make sense.  Unless bombing is mainstream in the right wing.  Also, those people aren't his country men, they are unamerican liberal homo loving socialists who his country would be better off without.

I think we're both oversimplifying the right to some degree. Im excluding the "bad" parts of the right (those who would have done this to spite those liberal homo loving socialists), because i am of the right and wish not to lump myself in with such scum...

You seem to be excluding the "good" part of the right (those that would have chosen targets more similar to your loose-cannon anarchist and minimalised casualties to his compatriots) in order to disentangle anarchism.


Tl;dr i think we have similar motives for our arguments from different sides of the table...

You're coming off as a Nazi Sympathizer!

That's cause he's a totse Randroid troll!

You guys have to read ALL the books.

[Banned User 1]

The conspiracy is floating around about a guy "seen" on a rooftop while the explosion happened.
Courtesy of the HFT community.

The sons of bitches couldn't give Boston one fucking day.

Ive seen the ZOMG ROOFTOP MAN things. Im actually happy this is a thing...it shows that their is an entire group out there of people who will never effectively rig up a remote detonator. Why would bomberman need to be on the rooftop nearby if he could have detonated from across the country with a cellphone...

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

CNN just said something about a guy in Revere they're looking at.

[Cain]

I had a massive post here on ideological terrorism and its various manifestations....and then the site ate it.

[Cain]

Goddamnit, I am really fucking annoyed at that.

[Cain]

Gonna have a coffee, then try again.

[Banned User 1]

Anarchists don't do this kind of thing, they haven't since the depression.  And even if they still did a marathon is not a target they'd go for.  It'd be something connected to power.

This.

I'm betting right wing nutjob.

What makes this a more attractive target for a right winger than for an anarchist?

I mean, wouldn't a righty's ideology make this action seem loathsome for being an attack against his countrymen?  It doesnt really jive with any of the right propaganda ive ever read...barring ueber-nuts groups like white nationalists (ok no euphemisms...nazis) or abortion-bombers...

My point is, a crazy anarchist could be equally responsible as a crazy right-winger...both would be attacking a not-so-ideal target if we go off of their politics, and both would share the aspect of crazy...

A few things.  One is Anarchists don't bomb any longer, they tried it, it didn't work, and they don't do it.  If one went off the rails and decided to bomb something they'd at least have picked a police station or a local bank, not a street at the end of a marathon which is actually more work than the previous two due to heightened security.

As far as right winger we can kind of assume the person is uber nuts, since they're bombing people, so your "barring ueber nuts" bit doesn't really make sense.  Unless bombing is mainstream in the right wing.  Also, those people aren't his country men, they are unamerican liberal homo loving socialists who his country would be better off without.

I think we're both oversimplifying the right to some degree. Im excluding the "bad" parts of the right (those who would have done this to spite those liberal homo loving socialists), because i am of the right and wish not to lump myself in with such scum...

You seem to be excluding the "good" part of the right (those that would have chosen targets more similar to your loose-cannon anarchist and minimalised casualties to his compatriots) in order to disentangle anarchism.


Tl;dr i think we have similar motives for our arguments from different sides of the table...

You're coming off as a Nazi Sympathizer!

My political opinions are crude and unrefined considering the tastes of this board.

As for the accusations of being from totse, though...ive never posted there...lurked once, got bored and returned to my particular imageboard. And concerning ayn rand...heh. ive never read her works...not since gradeschool.

Regardless, im not in this thread to defend my political positions. Im in this thread to speculate about a bombing.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Anarchists don't do this kind of thing, they haven't since the depression.  And even if they still did a marathon is not a target they'd go for.  It'd be something connected to power.

This.

I'm betting right wing nutjob.

What makes this a more attractive target for a right winger than for an anarchist?

I mean, wouldn't a righty's ideology make this action seem loathsome for being an attack against his countrymen?  It doesnt really jive with any of the right propaganda ive ever read...barring ueber-nuts groups like white nationalists (ok no euphemisms...nazis) or abortion-bombers...

My point is, a crazy anarchist could be equally responsible as a crazy right-winger...both would be attacking a not-so-ideal target if we go off of their politics, and both would share the aspect of crazy...

A few things.  One is Anarchists don't bomb any longer, they tried it, it didn't work, and they don't do it.  If one went off the rails and decided to bomb something they'd at least have picked a police station or a local bank, not a street at the end of a marathon which is actually more work than the previous two due to heightened security.

As far as right winger we can kind of assume the person is uber nuts, since they're bombing people, so your "barring ueber nuts" bit doesn't really make sense.  Unless bombing is mainstream in the right wing.  Also, those people aren't his country men, they are unamerican liberal homo loving socialists who his country would be better off without.

I think we're both oversimplifying the right to some degree. Im excluding the "bad" parts of the right (those who would have done this to spite those liberal homo loving socialists), because i am of the right and wish not to lump myself in with such scum...

You seem to be excluding the "good" part of the right (those that would have chosen targets more similar to your loose-cannon anarchist and minimalised casualties to his compatriots) in order to disentangle anarchism.


Tl;dr i think we have similar motives for our arguments from different sides of the table...

You're coming off as a Nazi Sympathizer!

My political opinions are crude and unrefined considering the tastes of this board.

As for the accusations of being from totse, though...ive never posted there...lurked once, got bored and returned to my particular imageboard. And concerning ayn rand...heh. ive never read her works...not since gradeschool.

Regardless, im not in this thread to defend my political positions. Im in this thread to speculate about a bombing.

Then I urge you to wait until some solid info comes out. No point in formulating a hypothesis if you're not sure about the data.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Goddamnit, I am really fucking annoyed at that.

Yeah, that blows. I'm looking forward to it.

[Ben Shapiro]

Anarchists don't do this kind of thing, they haven't since the depression.  And even if they still did a marathon is not a target they'd go for.  It'd be something connected to power.

This.

I'm betting right wing nutjob.

What makes this a more attractive target for a right winger than for an anarchist?

I mean, wouldn't a righty's ideology make this action seem loathsome for being an attack against his countrymen?  It doesnt really jive with any of the right propaganda ive ever read...barring ueber-nuts groups like white nationalists (ok no euphemisms...nazis) or abortion-bombers...

My point is, a crazy anarchist could be equally responsible as a crazy right-winger...both would be attacking a not-so-ideal target if we go off of their politics, and both would share the aspect of crazy...

A few things.  One is Anarchists don't bomb any longer, they tried it, it didn't work, and they don't do it.  If one went off the rails and decided to bomb something they'd at least have picked a police station or a local bank, not a street at the end of a marathon which is actually more work than the previous two due to heightened security.

As far as right winger we can kind of assume the person is uber nuts, since they're bombing people, so your "barring ueber nuts" bit doesn't really make sense.  Unless bombing is mainstream in the right wing.  Also, those people aren't his country men, they are unamerican liberal homo loving socialists who his country would be better off without.

I think we're both oversimplifying the right to some degree. Im excluding the "bad" parts of the right (those who would have done this to spite those liberal homo loving socialists), because i am of the right and wish not to lump myself in with such scum...

You seem to be excluding the "good" part of the right (those that would have chosen targets more similar to your loose-cannon anarchist and minimalised casualties to his compatriots) in order to disentangle anarchism.


Tl;dr i think we have similar motives for our arguments from different sides of the table...

You're coming off as a Nazi Sympathizer!

My political opinions are crude and unrefined considering the tastes of this board.


Regardless, im not in this thread to defend my political positions. Im in this thread to speculate about a bombing.

We don't have any unless you're a Utopian! In that case give me all your money!

[Nephew Twiddleton]

As far as speculation goes, I seem to remember this guy... I think his name was Breivik or something like that. It happened a long time ago. Like, last year I think, in this place... It might have been Norway. Anyway, a bunch of people... mostly at Fox News.... speculated that it was some sort of Islamist attack. I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the guy turned out to be very anti-Islamist and that might have been precisely why he did what he did.

Twid,
Tries not to make unfounded guesses.

[Cain]

By and large, when a bombing of a large group of people happens in public, right wing extremists or Islamist terrorists make good suspects.  Both are the major sources of terrorism, the state itself aside in the modern world, and both display certain methodological similarities when it comes to target selection and tactics.

By right-wing terrorism, what is normally referred to is palingenetic ultranationalism, white nationalism, more later the "counterjihadist" movement and, especially in the US, the fringes of the "Sovereign Citizen" movement.  Sometimes Christian-inspired terrorism is also put under this label, due to the strong cultural links between political religion and the far right in the US (ie; the "Christian Identity movement").

This differs from the right wing in the US in general in that they do not support the institutions of the state to carry out political violence.   There have been some disturbing displays of willingness to use violence inherent in the US mainstream right in the last decade, but these have normally revolved around the use of the military, FBI and CIA to clamp down on dissent and Islamist terror.  However, the loss of political power of the right since 2008 (and 2005 in particular) has resulted in a greater use of tropes familiar to US history - suspicion of central government, resistance to authority that appears to be overstepping its bounds etc which are also trafficked in by the far right to build greater support for supposed acts of "tyrannicide", "revolution" and "secession" against the federal government.

Due to the general weakness and lack of popular support such groups have, the best way for them to raise awareness of themselves and their cause is attacks on large, public targets and international events, or those that involve ethnic minorities in the USA.  So, for example, the shooting at the Holocaust Museum, or the assassination of Alan Berg.  Because they tend to be unpopular, they can attack public targets with little in the way of hesitation, as I alluded to earlier with my reply to Suu.

There is also a long pedigree of right wing extremism in the US.  It tends to fly lower on the radar, because it raises the disturbing thought that terrorism is endemic to modern political life, rather than a manifestation of an "evil other" located outside of the nation-state, either literally or through custom and practice.  Fortunately, such groups tend to be small and disinclined to work with each other due to the petty political posturing of their various leaders, and it is thoroughly infiltrated by FBI informants (a point I will touch on later).

In the case of Boston, we have a history with strong historical resonance to the US, and in particular political violence carried out in the name of virtue and resisting tyranny - tropes the extremist right like to believe apply to themselves.  We also have a strongly liberal city in a very liberal state, hosting an international event on "Patriots Day" - another historical resonance - and also Tax Day, a significant concern of the extremist right and in particular the Sovereign Citizen movement, which has had some influence on right-libertarianism in the US, which itself has had a strong influence on mainstream right wing political discourse in the last few years.  The combination of these factors may have made an attractive target to those inclined in such a way.

Islamist terrorists probably need no introduction.  Transnational Islamist groups target the USA because of the political support of the government there for Israel and the corrupt Arab monarchies and military dictatorships, and because more recently because of costly military interventions in the region.

Attacking the US is part of the Al-Qaeda grand strategy of confronting the "far enemy" to topple said Arab dictatorships.  The idea is that the Islamist groups of the Middle East are pointlessly targeting their own governments, because the source of their strength is American economic and military might, and the willingness of its citizens to fund such ventures.  Terrorism is therefore an act of punishment and intimidation against the American population, designed to raise the cost of such support to such a level that the public there stop supporting them.

Yes, I'm saying Islamic terrorists are pretty naive in their understanding of the US political system and how much power voters have.

Al-Qaeda's core message has been adopted by a number of Islamist groups, most notably the "Al-Qaeda" regional franchises such as Al-Qaeda in Yemen and Al-Qaeda in the Mahgreb, though one should always be cautious when considering such groups, as they operate with significant state support to achieve political objectives related to US geopolitical aims in those regions and in acquiring counter-terrorism and military funds for the states in question.

Nevertheless, there has been significant ideological transmission from the main Al-Qaeda core in the NWFP and the international jihadist movement as a whole.

Boston would be a step down for them, as the Islamist movements generally rely on mass casualties and, famously (though not exclusively), suicide bombings to demonstrate their zeal.  They prefer targets which typify American power and prestige, and to kill large numbers of people.  However, the fragmentation of the Al-Qaeda core network since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan has led them to adopt a strategy of provocation and support for lone wolves and small cells, whose operational capabilities are generally far inferior to what "The Base" could deploy in the years leading up to 9/11.  Also, the most formidable elements of Al-Qaeda are mostly involved in Afghanistan, in the Lashkar al-Zil group, attempting to drive the US out of the region as a priority goal before resuming the "far enemy" strategy.

Boston would be a target due to a public holiday, ensuring larger causalties, and because of the presence of the Boston Marathon, which would ensure international or global coverage of the attack.

Among the other major reasons for terrorism, this methodology would be very unusual.

For example, anarchist terrorists were mentioned in the thread.  Anarchism has a long pedigree of using terrorist action, the phrase "propaganda of the deed" is an originally Anarchist one.  However, Anarchist violence has typically waned since the 1910s.  Before then, it was almost entirely focused on the act of assassination, typically of heads of states, as part of a strategy of designed to invite greater state repression in hope of formenting general revolution among the population.  Nowadays, Anarchist violence is mostly resigned to attacks on corporate offices and banks, or else symbolic public targets.  A mass casualty incident is not the typical Anarchist MO.

Another large source of terrorism is environmentalism.  Again though, it is hard to see a link here.  Environmental terrorist groups, while generally poorly understood, target scientists or corporate officials for assassination, or else focus their attacks on corporate offices and labs of companies involved in what they consider environmentally detrimental research.  They also frequently carry out acts of malicious sabotage, but again a public bombing on this scale is unheard of.

Another possibility is apocalyptic cultism.  Apocalyptic cults tend to not be too worried about mass casualties.  Their capabilities also tend to range based on their resources, but for most cults, that capability is pretty low.  However, such a group would be flying pretty low on the radar, and almost certainly be previously unknown for violence.

Ethno-nationalist violence in the US normally takes the form of white-nationalism, which comes under the right wing extremism label.  I have seen no signs of increasing radicalization among the fringes of Black or Latino nationalist movements, which do not have a strong history of violence in the US anyway.

Marxist violence is also fairly rare.  Most violent Marxist groups are legacy insurgent organizations dating back to the Cold War, such as FARC.  While Marxism has been called "the ideology of justified political violence", it is typically not very popular in the post-Cold War world, and in the US in particular.  Marxist targets also more generally involve political, military and corporate targets, as part of a move from terorrism to broader insurgent violence, though the data on that is somewhat skewed thanks to Italy and the....unusual circumstances surrounding terrorism from the left and the right there (spoiler: elements of the Italian state, NATO and the CIA were ultimately responsible, though they'll never admit it).

A word though on state terrorism, false flag operations and covert ops.  Such things are not unheard of, in history or most recent times.  The very structure of the struggle against terrorism makes an element of manipulation, negotiation and crossover between state intelligence services and terrorist organizations a given, as we are not engaged in "total war" against terrorism (yes, Dorothy, Bush and every other political leader ever lied when they said they would not negotiate with terrorists.  They did, and frequently).

I cut my teeth on studying Italian terrorism, so I consider myself to know something about this subject.  There are sometimes....structural links between terrorist oganizations and intelligence services, the latter of whom see fit to use the spectre of terrorism for more immediate political and longer-term geopolitical ends.  A pet terrorist group on a leash, carefully controlled via informants and selective arrests of independent elements, can give agencies a very useful tool in furthering objectives, such as the overall stability of the state.  How better for the state to secure itself than to control the organization which purports to fight it?  Such a pet can also be let off the leash, should the political climate become less favourable.

However, such claims must be treated with the utmost caution and only made when there is evidence to support them.  Such claims, when true, often end up with the claimant suffering a "fatal mugging".  And such claims, when false, not only reduce the credibility of the person making them, it also means one is not fundamentally dealing with the conditions which caused this terrorist act.

As of yet, there is no evidence to suggest state involvement in Boston.  The FBI has been engaging in what I consider a foolhardy program of provocation, whereby it uses paid agent provocateurs to organise false terrorist attacks and supply fake materials for bombings, then arrests the participants (some of whom have been mentally ill, or not undertaken any overt attacks) and puts on a great public show about a "narrowly thwarted terrorist attack".  This may perform the same basic function as allowing terrorist attacks to actually occur, in that it increases fear of Islamist terrorism and thus justifies the FBIs ever increasing counter-terrorism budget, and political moves in Washington done in the name of counter-terrorism.

And, as previously mentioned, the FBI has thoroughly infiltrated the right wing extremist movement too.  There has been a disturbing general pattern in rightwing terrorism in Europe in recent years of police informants carrying out murders and bombings while, supposedly, under the watchful eye of state security.  There are also perisistent rumours that the FBI had informants in "Elohim City" that might have known about the OKC Bombing.  It is always keeping in mind why the FBI persistently infiltrates certain groups, yet does not act to dismantle them.  Recall the words of Gianfranco Sanguinetti, "The State has been declaring for years that it is fighting the R.B.'s, it infiltrated them several times without ever attempting to dismantle them, therefore the State makes use of the R.B.'s as a cover, because the R.B.s are useful to this State, therefore R.B. = the State."

There is also the possibility of a lone wolf attack, by a person who does not have an ideological position as we normally understand the phrase, or was attempting to carry out a personal vendetta, such as murdering someone, under the guise of a terrorist act.

However, until further evidence is made available, there is nothing to definitively suggest any of these as "the" motivation behind the attack.  I assign most weight to the extreme right/Islamist/lone wolf theories, in that order, because that's what the data over the previous decade or so suggest are the most likely motivations, but this is a probablistic assessment and nothing more until we have more information.