General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAny thoughts on who might do an attack like this and not claim responsibility?
Usually if a major terrorist organization does a terrorist attack they claim responsibility right away. They are making a political or religious statement. So what type of personality or group would do this and not want anyone to know they did it? This strikes me more likely as domestic but I must admit it doesn't seem like a right wing homegrown group either. They usually hit Gov. buildings or property. It strikes me perhaps more as a nutty loan wolf or maybe two or three people with no other connections. That is purely my current hunch and I could be way off base.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,267 posts)It could be a right-wing extremist group, could be Al Qaeda, could be a single lone wolf sympathizer of one or the other, could be an unstable person who hates the world because his girlfriend dumped him or he lost his job or he didn't qualify for the Boston Marathon. The terrorism experts I've heard seem to be saying that an individual is less likely to claim credit than a group with a political agenda, but if that's the case the individual's motivation could be just about anything.
We have to wait.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)GReedDiamond
(5,299 posts)...a "dry run" of a most insidious nature.
I had not even considered that option...I assume the investigators would!
snooper2
(30,151 posts)that's why they are busy working many hours on the case and "everyone else" is spouting random shit on the Intertubes
greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)Shifty eyed bastards, they're always quietly hatching some plot or another. Alone, they're a menace. But together - well together they're still alone.
pettypace
(744 posts)First thing came to my mind while watching Fox N...err I mean while diligently analyzing the nuances of the events.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)McVeigh did not claim it
Neither did the Atlanta bomber
Nor did the Unabomber until decades after the first attack
Just go research any of these, all preferably.
This is one of the reasons I am inclined to believe this is quite domestic
Quixote1818
(28,903 posts)Guess we will have to see if we are thinking in the right direction or not?
Quixote1818
(28,903 posts)This makes me much less sure about who it might have been: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)flamingdem
(39,303 posts)They would pick 9/11 or New Years.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)That might be significant to some people....
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The Boston marathon is a global event that just happens to fall on patriots day.
I still think it's internal, alas this is speculation since none of us has access to any of the investigation.
I have tried, and, to remain firmly on what we know
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)For example, an American citizen for some reason decides to take up the cause of militant Islam. As part of his personal action for the cause he perpetrates a bombing similar to this one. Is that 'internal' or 'domestic' terrorism or something else?
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)I'm not saying he would or wouldn't have.
Among his militia buddies he would have taken credit, surely, but who knows if he ever would have tried to send a public message. He was caught too quickly, before he would have had a chance to.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Call news rooms...
Americans rarely do, or at least not since the early part of last century.
We had some claims with the Weathermen, but not since the anarchist syndicalist s way back, not really.
Which is odd...but that is the way it is.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Back in the 70's, terrorists claimed credit for about 60% of their actions.
Today, it's only about 14.5%.
Interesting paper: http://www.princeton.edu/politics/about/file-repository/public/Wright_CreditTaking_11.3.2011.pdf
flamingdem
(39,303 posts)if so they were not taken seriously!
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)If revenge, rather than notoriety is the goal, why claim responsibility at all?
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....you can't claim it without being caught.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)How satisfying would it be if someone else took the credit for your attack and said it was because of some issue you had no interest in?
The lack of any one taking credit leads me to suspect an individual over a group. I think someone along the lines of the Unabomber is responsible and a manifesto or statement of purpose will probably be forthcoming.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I can easily imagine that some hell-bent on revenge would be inwardly pleased whether they got credit or not.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)In that case the victim is probably aware of who their attacker is, and that's the main thing when it's personal.
If you're so angry that you're willing to blow up lots of strangers you'll probably want people to know why.
Just my thoughts. Hope we have answers soon.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Who shoots a President in front of thousands of people and then says "I didn't do it"?
flamingdem
(39,303 posts)because they've seen all the ways it happens and have planned ahead.
McVeigh was a nutjob and even then it was just chance that he got caught.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)find him. Let's just hope there are good and thorough investigators, not a sloppy ones, or he won't get caught.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)He was an amateur going up against the best pros in the world.
Myrina
(12,296 posts).... whether they turn out to be the TRUE guilty party, we may never know.
But as the cop said in "National Treasure": "Someone's gotta go to jail".
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Or some out there militia types who have no respect for people who live mainstream lifestyles and imagine that they are at war with everyone whose trying to take their freedom from them.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Sending a message while maintaining plausible deniability?
Response to Quixote1818 (Original post)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Though, yes, weary as well.
devilgrrl
(21,318 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:42 AM - Edit history (1)
Wary. Got it.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)You used the wrong word. Your grammar was flawless.
Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #32)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)anneboleyn
(5,611 posts)Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)What, me worry?
Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #33)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)can strike again. Unlike the Islamic terrorists, whose little egos seem to force them to crow about their misdeeds.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I don't know that that's true. Mostly, the whole "claim of responsibility" thing seems very old school terrorism, the old "liberation armies" of the 60's and 70's and the like.I don't associate claims of responsibility with contemporary terrorism.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Terrorists have an agenda, one they feel so strongly about that they're willing to kill to advance it. An attack like this is expensive in terms of both resources and risk. If no one knows the reason for your attack then how does it help the cause? At that point you're just a common murderer, killing for no reason, and most terrorists don't see themselves as mere criminals.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Thanks for working through that for me.
Despite the very obvious notion of why people would claim responsibility, we can look again at whether people do claim responsibility in all or even most cases. There are plenty of attacks with no credible claims of responsibility. So there's that
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)The agenda is to cause as much damage as possible to civil society in order to punish it for its perceived misdeeds. This is not the old Red Army Faction style of terrorism, which had concrete short and long-term goals, like "Release Ulrike Meinhof from prison," or "Establish a Palestinian state." Nowadays, terror is the end rather than the means. I think it has to do with end-times apocalyptic fanaticism, which seems to be coming from all sides lately.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)See my post #66 below for similar sentiments.
Great post!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If the response is the goal, there's no need to claim responsibility.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)But that may have just been to keep AQ from poaching on their own turf.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)It's a dying art form, this claim of responsibility...
But seriously, I think there's something to non-claims. The claim of responsibility is premised on the singularity of the event - this event is a specific thing, a reprisal, a warning, or whatever. The new terrorist organizations know they can't get specific leverage from events - unlike the liberation armies of old, they don't consider events instructive but simply destructive. The old school liberation army types considered themselves teachers of the people: we need this terrorism to teach you to see things our way. From the Red Brigades to the Weathermen to the PLO and everybody in between, these groups believed that their acts could teach. So the acts are always accompanied by a discursive adjunct - the writing that goes along with the event, the explanation of the pedagogy of the attack.
The new terrorist organizations are completely detached from the people (they are terrorizing). They operate more in the mode of total war. The terrorist act for them is not a singular event with a teaching purpose, but simply another attack in a long and ongoing war. It would be as silly for them to claim responsibility for it as it would be for the Allies to claim responsibility for every bombing raid over Germany. You don't claim responsibility in an ongoing war, precisely because no attack stands on its own, and the attacks operate by attrition, not pedagogy. Once terrorism was transformed from the ideological groups seeking to instruct to the pure enemy conducting total (asymmetrical) warfare, the claim of responsibility declines as a rhetorical form. It's unnecessary. You're meant to know who's attacking you.
The old terrorism, ironically enough, sought persuasion, consensus; it was, in this sense, rhetorical. The new terrorism is purely coercive; it has no need of rhetoric, since it doesn't seek to persuade, but to force.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I still get a sense of propaganda of the deed, though; there are easier and less showy ways to kill people.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Yeah, I agree with you that there's still that slightest teaching function in the event itself. Good point.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Please call the FBI and give them you evidence. That you happen to hate a particular group is not evidence of any crime.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)Go back to the Gungeon
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You have only shown that you are anxious to pin the blame on a group that you hate, to further your own agenda. A true progressive understands that all people and groups are innocent until proven guilty.
If you give the government the power to round up and eliminate those groups that you hate, don't be surprised if one day that government rounds you up.
I will post where I please. Nobody has appointed you as DU zampolit.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You are ready to throw away the Fourth Amendment and other parts of the Constitution to prosecute those organizations that you hate. A true progressive realizes that to protect ourselves we have to also protect our enemies.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)what a bunch of
morningfog
(18,115 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Crystal ball? Tarot cards? Tea leaves? I am stuck using mere logic, which says that there is not yet sufficient evidence.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)They have claimed that Islam is their worldview.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Most of the rest of us waited for more information. When you rush to blame some group, without information, you run a very high risk of being wrong. It turns out that the bombers worldview was Islam.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)It could very well be that their motivation was to draw attention to Chechen nationalism and not simply "the bombers worldview was Islam," in making such a claim, you throw yourself into the pool of people who are stupid enough to believe that this is some sort of cosmic battle with the "worldview" of "Islam."
Would you care to explain what makes you think that "the bombers worldview was Islam"
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)In case you haven't noticed, there has been a lot of Islamic terrorism, worldwide.
Are you still claiming that the bombers were a "nut job militia group"? Are you claiming that the wrong people were killed and captured?
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)These clowns today, your NRA-loving right-wing militias tomorrow.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Face the facts. In your haste, you blamed the wrong group.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)At Sat Apr 20, 2013, 07:21 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Are you ready to retract your claim?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2724940
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
"It turns out that the bombers worldview was Islam." = Sounds like right-wing desperation to pin this on "Islam" - this is the sort of language that Faux News and right-wing hate radio love - if this poster can refrain from dancing in the streets that this horrid act was not the work of the myriad of violent right-wing militia groups who have committed numerous acts of terrorism in this country and rather that of those durn Muslims he would be well-served rather than receiving the banishment that such simple, xenophobic and bigoted characterizations deserve.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Apr 20, 2013, 07:24 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The bombers worldview was Islam. That's true.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)ChangeUp106
(549 posts)And then **** themselves when they've realized what they've done and the hell to pay.
Lane1340
(20 posts)I also think it might not have been politically motivated. Could have been some hoodlums with nothing better to do.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Right wingers! Although I prefer to use the term "blame" to "responsibility".
Oldfolkie
(51 posts),,,,and the "perp" is among the wounded in a hospital somewhere.?
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)The fact that they "seem" to hit government buildings/property is probably more an artifact of our memories of dramatic events, like the IRS plane guy or OKC. I've posted this link a few times lately, and while there are plenty of government targets listed, not all are: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Now you know why most of the rest of us waited for more information.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Just pointed out the possibility, as I also pointed out the possibility that it was religious-based terrorism.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)and I hope they find him before he strikes again.
Recovered Repug
(1,518 posts)Maybe the perp was injured in the blast and doesn't want to make the call while still in the hospital.
Maybe a claim has been made and the police/FBI are denying it in the hopes that the perp gets pissed off and makes a mistake - ok, maybe I watch too many cop shows on that one.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)A violent loner living in a nearby apartment building, whose apartment has a clear view of the bombing site, getting his jollies by watching how his IED's are killing and maiming innocent people in real life.
Raine
(30,540 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Raine
(30,540 posts)I WAS WRONG! The OP asked our thoughts and I gave an "IN MY OPINION" that was wrong but call me out ANYTIME my opinion is wrong because I am one who will ALWAYS admit it. So THANKS for giving me the opportunity I think it's good for a person to admit you're wrong.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)That happened a lot in the early days of Hamas.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)There were two bombs that went off, both were in pressure cookers. That rules out accidents.
B2G
(9,766 posts)and watch us all try destroy the other side with wild accusations.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)who might think he has been "done wrong", and is too cowardly to look inwardly.
The psychology of it is odd too, since doing it, and not claiming it, creates publicity for a "cause" they keep to themselves until they are caught..One would think that if a person was so overwrought about "something", and they resorted to killing unknown innocents to retaliate, that they would at least own up to it. Failing to do that, and keeping it as a nasty secret they never share, defeats their purpose (if they thought rationally).
madokie
(51,076 posts)The not so bright domestic terrorist.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)Of course I don't still stand by what I posted. I've been shown to have been wrong and I accept that.
peace