Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Boston Massacre

--In "Brazil", the steampunk technocrats
can't keep up with the bombers

 ~How do you account for the fact
that the bombing campaign
has been going on for thirteen years?
~Beginners' luck 
--Brazil (1985)
_________________

Two bombs were detonated at the conclusion of the Boston Marathon 15 April 2013 resulting in 3 deaths and over 100 injuries. The event proves the maxim that to counter a threat we must be right every time, while the terrorists only need to be right once.

Why Boston? Key portal cities will be the only targets of terrorism. Terrorists have limited assets, and these cities offer easy ingress and egress.  Authorities are suggesting this is the work of a lone man, perhaps a Saudi national, but the lone wolf theory does not comport with historical events.

We must assume that any ancillary team members exfiltrated prior to the execution phase. The reason is asset value.  Bomb makers require sophisticated training and are the most valued members of the team; his life cannot be jeopardized in peripheral activities.

His specialty is not reconnaissance, security or any other support function of the planning stage.  Both active and passive support provide these functions, to include materiel gathering for the bomb maker (unless the explosives were provided by a State or non-State sponsor.) The explosives must also be infiltrated, and the maker is not the mule.

The pertinent question regarding whoever executed this attack is: How did they get past Saudi police, intelligence, Interpol, ICE, FBI, CIA and the Boston Police?  Note also that neither the 3rd Armored Division nor Seal Team 6 could have stopped this event, which shows that terrorism is not a military concern.

The  targeting of the Boston Marathon on Patriot's Day is similar to the Irish Republican Army's bombings in London streets during The Troubles. The targeting of a popular sporting event will cause terror beyond the actual destruction. The terrorist's goal is always far-reaching trauma, exceeding that of the physical damage.

A down and dirty review of necessary perpetrators:

  • Reconnaissance personnel familiar with Boston to select target locations
  • Security teams to protect the bomb maker
  • Administration personnel to provide safe houses, working areas and money, cover and transportation
  • A handler for these people; this is the coach and coordinator
  • A clean up team to sanitize their quarters
  • A driver, and possibly a photographer to document the event (today, that could mean carrying a cell-phone)

The bomber(s) and handler are expendable, and did not build the bomb. They only place and arm the bomb, and ideally will be killed in the explosion leaving no live intel sources behind (though Boston police are stating at this time that the bomber was not among those killed.)

These people are all like Chairman Mao's fishes swimming in a big river. In our little city, there are groups of Middle Eastern men who frequent local coffee shops playing chess, coming and going every few weeks, fading into the background, hiding in plain sight. We are not saying they are threats, but in a free society we have anonymous people coming and going at astounding rates; not being a police state is a double-edged sword.

The Boston bombing shows that despite the U.S. invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan, we have neither sufficiently or correctly identified the threat to the U.S., nor have we eliminated the motivation for attacks by these groups. While we send Special Operations Forces worldwide, a bomber gets through the levels of security cast by our supposed specialists.

Simply: All of the SWAT teams, drones and armored divisions will not protect us from a core of dedicated adversaries.

The question to be answered: From whom do the attackers obtain their operational abilities and support, and why do we fail to focus on the actual threat to our nation?

An event like the Boston bombing suggests we should reassess the logic and assumptions of the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©)
____________________

Follow-on, per the IED/bombs: 

Most likely these were commercial explosives, as they were in backpacks.  They probably weighed no more than 40 pounds and no shrapnel was incorporated, keeping them light and concealable. This also implies they needed to be placed strategically to employ the surrounding area to act as shrapnel.

This means the bomb-maker knew his craft both technically and tactically.

36 comments:

  1. jim

    You, like the bulk of the pundits, are making the a priore assumption that this is, indeed, an act of "terrorism" with an attendant political objective. Of course, no such fact has been established, and in the immortal words of SGT Joe Friday, "The facts, please, just the facts", is what is needed.

    All too many officials have stated, "We consider this an act of terrorism until proven otherwise." And what benefit does that offer?

    While your treatise on "terrorism and terrorism counteraction" is spot on, as far as Boston is concerned, it currently is as relevant to what happened as a treatise on feminine hygiene products.

    FDChief's thread is the one we should be reading. There are a lot of dots yet to be discovered and then to connect before a definition of what the Boston is properly categorized as.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Aviator,
    My essay is a historical over view.
    At least that's what i thought it was.
    Even if it's not a terror event and were just bombers having a little fun then they should follow the template that i've discussed.
    Who bombs a sporting event other than a terrorist?
    What you are saying is that he's not affiliated and i'm saying to consider the linkage concept of the event.
    But what is terrorism anyway?
    Shooting kids in a classroom? Bombing a parade? Dropping missiles on out door cafes in Yemen?
    Terror bottom line is criminal behavior. This was premeditated murder without a profit motive. We understand crime when money is involved. We even have trillion dollar bailouts , but we get squishy in criminal activity without profit motive.
    Whatever the facts here's a bloody tampon for you. This event caused terror contrary to your point. If it causes T then it's T. How can it not be T if it caused T?Please explain that to me? The absence at this point of a linkage to organized groups does not change the fact that terror was the result of this event.
    You also are making an unproven assumption that terrorism is a simple political act when it can be religeous, economical,anarchist,nihilist.Or so it seems to me.
    jim


    ReplyDelete
  3. jim-

    The FBI definition of "terrorism" is:


    The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.


    I think that clearly separates out individual acts of rage or lunacy that have no political or social objectives as other than "terrorism". A madman may be "terrifying", but he may not be a "terrorist". Yes, subtle semantics, but if a person(s) act in isolation from any political or social objectives, then their terrifying acts fall outside the general definition of "terrorism".

    If one does not include the requirement for political or social objectives, one could call anyone who uses a firearm to injure or kill another a "terrorist", as there is a significant portion of the population who claim they arm themselves solely to defend themselves from all those "armed criminals".

    Just as the term "war" has become overused, so has "terrorism".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ah; I wish I'd read this before I commented on the Bateman post. Gotcha, Al.

    So, yes, I agree; we don't even know if this is pure "terroristic" or genuine "terrorism".

    One thing that is becoming clear - whatever this guy's or guys' purpose, he wasn't a real slicky-boy. From the BBC this morning;

    "...he has been under-whelmed by the tradecraft of the terrorists. They bungled the job, he says - and had only minimal impact.

    "It's tragic and horrible, but from a strategic point of view it just shows that they're idiots," he says.

    "It was just crappy planning from the get go," he says.

    The fact that the terrorist or terrorists killed three people in a crowded area of Boston offers some information about their planning, experience and ability.

    If the bombers had been more sophisticated in their approach, they could have killed many more. In this way, the culprits inflicted a smaller amount of damage than they might have if they had been more efficient in their bomb making and delivery."

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've been thinking about Al's response to my article and must reply further.

    While your treatise on "terrorism and terrorism counteraction" is spot on, as far as Boston is concerned, it currently is as relevant to what happened as a treatise on feminine hygiene products.
    We just lost seydlitz for some reason. James comments on the way we comment here and that we attack PFK. I write here as friendship with Chief, but i don't expect shit thrown in my face.
    My essay is relevant and covers the topic.
    When we start being hostile this is not why i hang out here. My essay has validity and nothing in it is incorrect.
    If we can't argue in non hostile ways then i'd say it's time for me to reconsider why i hang out here.
    I avoid bars in the real world for a reason.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  6. jim: I don't see where you're coming from on this.

    You concluded your post with this:

    "An event like the Boston bombing suggests we should reassess the logic and assumptions of the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©)"

    Al is simply pointing out that if this attack is not "terrorism" - if it's just a random nutter - than the Boston bombing has no implications for anything concerning what the U.S. is doing or not doing with regard to "Islamic terrorism" (which is the real name of the GWOT/PWOT when it's at home.

    I don't see that as "arguing in a hostile way". Al is making the point that Bateman does in his article; that the worst thing we can do for ourselves as a nation and as individuals is to try and "interpret" this while we still don't have anything beyond random data points. Even the organization or lack of same of the perpetrator(s); you give us a likely team organization...but what if this really WAS a McVeigh-type deal involving one or two people?

    The point of having this as a public forum - as a "bar" - is to air our ideas AND to listen to the counterideas and objections and, yes, occasionally get "shit thrown in our face"; Andy and seydlitz shoot me down all the time. That's why I value them - they make me think about what I think, and reassess my analyses.

    I'm sorry you got Al's comments as an attack on you; I didn't see that. And I hope you don't see mine as such; they're not intended to slag off on your thesis. If you're right - if this IS a genuine terrorist attack then your analysis is a sound one. But as Al points out - we don't know right now whether it is or not...

    ReplyDelete
  7. As Chief reminds us, events do unfold, and duly recognized: we do keep our comments above the personal here at Milpub (unless we absolutely can't help it :))

    Per Aviator's comment, President Obama has labeled this an "act of terrorism", and presumably his statement is based upon access to more data than we have.

    ReplyDelete
  8. jim-

    No attack nor insult intended. Your thread is enlightening, but I posit that it's premature to associate it with Boston.

    Lisa-

    If POTUS has sufficient data to categorize this as an act of "terrorism", more power to him. As I quoted on FDChief's thread, the official stance is that "it will be considered an act of terrorism until proven otherwise", and I am willing to wager that POTUS' comments are in this vein.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lisa: Obama's statement has to be considered in context. After the Benghazi swiftboating he has to protect his right flank, if you will. The usual flying monkeys of the Beck/Limbaugh/Malkin Wing of the GOP were launching within hours of the explosions attacking him for not using the "T" word. So I read his statement as precise legalese for "Okay, douchenozzles, you want me to say "terrorism"? I will; here it comes, ready? "It will be considered an act of terrorism (by you fucking idiots) until proven otherwise (or not, but right now I'm as clueless as you fucktards but smart enough not to show my ignorance, thanks...)."

    BsdTux has made some good points over at your site, but let me add that - while I'm as clueless as anyone here, there are a couple of things that I consider "tells" that this may very well not be the work of an organized "terror" group:

    1. No claimants. Acts of mass murder are the glory of terror groups; this sort of thing is their windmill jam, their walk-off homer. Here it's been over 48 hours and nobody - none of the AQ franchises or any other jihadi group I've heard of - has claimed this?

    2. Amateur hour. The jihadis have the services of guys who've spent years perfecting their craft in central Asia. This shit sounds like something cooked up in Adam Lanza's basement.

    3. Track record and logistics. Badtux did a nice job of pointing out that of the U.S. domestic bombings only one - the WTC attack - was both Islamic and successful. Two if you count the Time Square failure, and three if you count the LA Olympics which was stopped at the border crossing. All the rest were home-grown loonies, left- or right-wingnuts.

    So...I'm not saying that this COULDN'T be "terrorist" or in some way related to the WOT. But right at the moment the indications appear otherwise...

    ReplyDelete
  10. An act of revenge by a lone wolf or by a small group may not fit the FBI definition of terrorism, but that act if sufficiently vicious can still cause terror.

    As jim says "If it causes T then it's T."

    On the other hand, I do not think anyone here was throwing shit in your face jim. My ideas are shot down on a regular basis, sometimes here, sometimes by my golfing partners, and always by my bride and my daughters. I think though that it sharpens my arguments, isn't that what constructive criticism is about?

    ReplyDelete
  11. After much thought, I would offer that making the assumption that it is a "terrorist" act for purposes of prevention and protection has some merit. That is, initially, it is of value to heighten security for a modest period of time in case there are to be several coordinated events across the country, even though history presents a low probability of same.

    From an investigative standpoint, apprehending the perpetrators is the goal, and assuming motive could hinder same.

    That Adam Lanza was not a "terrorist" and probably did not have a social or political objective does not lessen the horror and terror of his acts, nor does it make parents more confident of their children's safety in school.

    However, "terror" is an emotional state that can be caused by a variety of factors, to include Mother Nature. "Terrorism" is the use of terror causing means to achieve a particular political or social objective. We owe it to ourselves not to confuse the two.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mike,
    "While your treatise on "terrorism and terrorism counteraction" is spot on, as far as Boston is concerned, it currently is as relevant to what happened as a treatise on feminine hygiene products."
    Yes we kick each other and i participate, but i keep it civil, or i try to,BUT I DON'T ACCEPT comparing my writing to feminine hygiene etc. This is pure horse shit.
    I wrote this art immediately after reading the head lines, and did an analysis based upon a historical template. It was an analysis and i stand by it.
    Chief,
    Hackers book -CRIMINALS CRAZIES AND CRUSADERS is/was a classic on the topic of T. Let me say again- Crazy. Malvo comes to mind.
    My closing comment re the PWOT.
    We train the LE personnel in swat, shooting and all the hero stuff and not one policeman noticed an abandoned ruck/back pack. Kiss my ass!! In the 70's and 80's it was sop oconus to not leave any unattended items in public. A unattended back pack is a potential bomb.
    The police did not spot this and what did they do as soon as it went boom?
    They drew their weapons as thought that would be a correct response.
    Security was asleep at the wheel.
    This is my last comment on this article on milpub.
    I will service this essay at Ranger.

    ReplyDelete
  13. jim-

    I apologize for the analogy. I too was responding "immediately" and wanted to strongly suggest that you had the cart far before the horse.

    My point was that you were describing events, preparations and players without one shred of evidence to support the scenario you were offering, nor the accusations made towards government and security officials. Even today, we have no idea if this was the work of a lone lunatic or a group.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Aviator, FDC

    I saw the feminine hygiene comparison and thought "Uh-oh... That's not good. Too harsh."

    My point would be that maybe you two gentlemen don't realize that some of us are coming to this blog as a one handed axe-man to a duel. Both of you are excellent writers and can make a stiletto like blow just through your ability with words.

    If some of us are ham fisted with prose others need to tone it down a bit. I really don't want this to become an echo chamber for the most talented writers. Chief, with your ability, you could sell me the Brooklyn Bridge on E-Bay!

    I liked RAW's post, though I agree with Aviator that we can't assume the Boston bombing was an Al Queda attack. Personally I believe it was like that Olympic bomber in Atlanta.

    Jim made an interesting posit that IF it was an Al Queda -like attack this is what they would do. It was actually a bit scary that he could come up with that type of plan.

    If on the other hand it was a home grown attack, I have a question. I used to be a fan of MythBusters but they always seem to be making bombs and make it look cool. That gives me a cold shudder. Does anyone else not like this making boom boom is cool? If we put the mythbusters with a pissed off RAW what could the mayhem be?

    Sincerely, James.

    PS. Jim Keep posting and get Khans back.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yeah, I had to scroll back up through the thread and caught that, too, Al; now I get what put jim's back up.

    I should be the last person to call foul on inappropriate snark around here, but I agree that we DO need to play nice with our language. Attack the ideas, sure, but let's keep the rhetoric within bounds...

    James: My position all along is that this lacks many if not most of the hallmarks of an organized "terror" group's work. Too amateurish, too small, too anonymous - even now none of the public jihadi groups are claiming this. Al was making the point that jim's post directed his details (which are all factually sound) towards a conclusion that might not be.

    And I'd say that, rather, if this DOES turn out to be an AQ or AQ-affiliate attack it says something pretty scathing about the depth to which this organization has been degraded. Here we are less than a decade after the Madrid train bombings (that killed almost 200 people and injured almost 2,000) and the best these bastards can do is a piddly hundred or so? Pfah. Amateurs.

    And as for "making boom-boom is cool", well...argue with the human brainstem. Or human society; there was a time when the Mongols or the Huns or the Goths would come rampaging through your village and leave not a creature living. I doubt that they needed a couple of TV geeks to teach them mayhem.

    And PFK is here; he had a post he was writing draft just a couple of weeks ago but seems to have taken a break from that...hopefully he'll have some new insights here in not too long.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I see Jim's comment as a description of what we should have been doing in the aftermath of 9/11. The reaction with military force in '01 and '02 was knee-jerk. It was supported by a media in search of sensation.
    The investigation of this crime seems to be taking a more methodical approach. This bodes well for catching the culprit.

    ReplyDelete
  17. FDC
    FDC,

    Regarding that blast in Texas I saw on TV, they are assuming it is a criminal attack. No reason other than that is how they roll in Texas. Al has a point there. So does Jim.

    I don't think many of the victims of the Huns or Goths glorified the conquer's (sp) ways of war when they were getting trampled as we do when we see a great explosion. I remember one particular example when the mythbusters packed a cement truck full of explosives and set it off. They watched it from FAR away and giggled like little school children when it disappeared. The only thought that came into my mind was thank god they are not in Iraq where our guys were getting blown up by the day. This was circa 2004 or so.

    We watch this shit on TV for entertainment. We don't mind when we drop bombs in AF/Pack, Yemen, etc... with the same results but when it comes home to roost we overreact. It's only a matter of time before this becomes fairly common in our country because we continence this type of behavior.

    You are a Timbers fan. When a little bomb goes off in your neck of the woods will you still "Humph, amateurs?" Even if it kills only two or three and maims dozens?

    Though the continuum of violence is age old it seems to me that we are getting hardened to this type of violence as a normal every day type occurrence and the stakes are raised. As you so succinctly put it WSOF.

    James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not only will I still "Humph, amateurs?" i I DID;

      http://firedirectioncenter.blogspot.com/2010/11/spy-vs-spy-beaver-state-fathead-edition.html

      "So excuse me if I'm not celebrating the takedown of the greatest criminal mastermind since Professor Moriarty. This moron Mohamud sounds like he might have spent the next five years in his bedroom playing the jihadi version of "Call of Duty" and eating cheetos if the FBI hadn't pretty much handed him the color-by-numbers handbook for would-be jihadi truck bombers. This wasn't fucking Tim McVeigh. This wasn't even your basic Palestinian pay-for-kaboom suicide bomber. This was a fucking idiot who didn't have the basic common sense to check the equipment his suddenly confiding new "friends" procured, engineered, assembled, transported, and emplaced for him."

      I sounds like these Chechen dudes were smarter than our own homegrown Islamic idiot. But I don't think that either one of them needed some sort of silly TV show to make them "hardened to this type of violence". The killer ape has ALWAYS been capable of violence. We just have better toys now, that's all.

      Delete
  18. James,
    I'm back after taking an ass kicking from Lisa by calling me a prima donna.
    Exactly where in my essay did i mention AQ , or say this is a aq act??
    WHERE????????? Am i delusional on this point?
    I'm talking historical and I'm so agitated by this thread that i wrote a piece this morn to be posted on RAW. It's a spin off of this essay.(my cmts are not hostile to you and i appreciate your viewpoints) You're just in the crossfire.
    As for your comments i think Physicists should run our counter T programs b/c they understand that for every action there is a equal reaction.
    You can read my stuff at RAW.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  19. jim: Glad you're still on the net. I don't think you were over-reacting; I, too, have a thing about ladies' menstrual doo-dads.

    Anyway, the operative 'graph is this one:

    "From whom do the attackers obtain their operational abilities and support, and why do we fail to focus on the actual threat to our nation?

    An event like the Boston bombing suggests we should reassess the logic and assumptions of the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©)"


    The "war on terror" is, in practice, the U.S. government and it's allies and proxies fighting Al-Qaeda and its allies and proxies.

    So when you tie up your essay with a phrase like that, you are effectively saying that this bombing is and should be a data point for adjusting the U.S. policies and practices with regard to the Islamic jihadi groups...

    The wild card now appears to be that the two individuals suspected of this are Chechens; the Chechen separatist movement has been pretty thoroughly radicalized and Islamicized since the middle Oughts, and it seems entirely possible that these guys - assuming that they ARE the guys - might be getting SOME sort of payback Islam style.

    But we still don't know. Just because some dude is a Muslim doesn't rule out the possibility that he's just an asshole.

    I think we SHOULD still be on hold awaiting more intel...

    ReplyDelete
  20. And here's the "quote of the day":

    "Ruslan Tsarni, the uncle of the bombing suspects, speaking with reporters, says the family is "ashamed." His brother, the suspects' father, is now back in Russian. The family are ethnic Chechens. When asked what provoked the attack, his answer was simple: "Being losers." He also said that "any connection to Islam … is a fake," though he admitted he hasn't seen his nephews in years. The suspects, he insists, have never been to Chechnya."

    "Being losers." You tell 'em, Uncle Tsarni...

    ReplyDelete
  21. [To all: I did tell Jim that he is not a little flower and he is amongst peers here, and we get nowhere by being defensive and taking things personally. Ego control is a constant project.]

    A commenter @ WeMeantWell observed that the Chechens have been convenient whipping boys in the past:

    (excerpt):

    "I lived in Russia in 1999 when there was a series of apartment bombings, ultimately blamed on Chechen terrorists as a casus belli for another war in Chechnya. At the time I believed it was done by the Russian government, and now many American pundits say they believe so too."

    ReplyDelete
  22. follow-on:

    I just saw Tsrani's quote, Chief, and that IS winning. I think Sascha Baron Cohen would have a place for him in a follow-up to his "Borat".

    It reminds me that "Does not play well with others" on the elementary report card can be a harbinger of things to come.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oh, and p.s.s.:

    The "menstrual doo-dads" issue that set Mr. Hruska off reminds me that I owe you a piece of writing, as this tiny bit of revulsion lets us peer into the gender problem ;)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Lisa: Thank you for the reminder and, yes, I should re-emphasize that we still have NO idea why these guys did what they did. It could have been political. It could have been religious. IT could have been because the voices in their heads were telling them that long-distance running is a form of submission to Gozer the Gozarian. We have No Fucking Idea why this happened. If the other Tsarnaev Bro is killed we might never find out.

    And, yes, my dear, but patience is a virtue and given the quality of your reflection I am not pressing you for time. Festina lente.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Chief,
    i say again-i did not once mention aq in my essay.
    remember rtp in the days of old. army tests.
    READ THE PROBLEM. read what is there and not what u want to be there.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  26. Yes, Ranger, I think we all fail to RTP, perhaps even you, at times ;) Each media outlet provides a relentless barrage of its own agenda, and we can tend to fall into that pattern recognition.

    Most of us here may be a bit snarkier than you; you do "sarcasm", a different skill set.

    ReplyDelete
  27. FDC,

    I applaud you on your hrumph. I think Al had it right. We don't know the motives for this stupid attack. RAW made a good post and got flames thrown his way for his troubles. Thank goodness someone has the cojones to lay them on the line and post. That Jim made a post that provokes such opinion is surely a good thing.

    RAW I want to get your thoughts on the shoot down of the background checks for potential gun owners. That will get everybody in a lather.

    James

    ReplyDelete
  28. james and jim

    Flames were not the intent, just an attempt to "dramatize" that while RAW posted a fine treatise about on specific type of situation, there was no data available, by a wide measure. to assume nor imply it applied to Boston.

    Boston appears to be as much of a "one off" as 9/11. 9/11 was an AQ act, exploiting vulnerabilities in a well planned and coordinated manner. However, their weapon of choice ceased to be viable when the passengers on Flight 93 learned of what was actually contemplated by the hijackers. It is doubtful that aircraft passengers will ever again allow the aircraft they are on be used to kill others, even though it will cost their own lives. Thus, I call 9/11 a "one off".

    Boston may very well be a "one off" in that it could very well have been the actions of two lunatics venting their own personal ire or insanity. I doubt there will be a long list of "necessary perpetrators" or "The question to be answered: From whom do the attackers obtain their operational abilities and support, and why do we fail to focus on the actual threat to our nation?"

    I did RTP, and at at the time I read it, there was absolutely no legitimate data to apply the "Problem" to events in Boston. Subsequent revelations do not change that.

    That said, the treatise does, indeed, as I stated from the outset, have great merit for the threats it does address. However, one size does not fit all.

    ReplyDelete
  29. jim: I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

    If your post posits a complex terror network enacting a sophisticated operation and concludes by observing that the success of the operation "...shows that despite the U.S. invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan, we have neither sufficiently or correctly identified the threat to the U.S., nor have we eliminated the motivation for attacks by these groups. While we send Special Operations Forces worldwide, a bomber gets through the levels of security cast by our supposed specialists." you can't than turn back and say "not once did I mention AQ".

    The whole point of the invasion of Afghanistan was to punish AQ and its Taliban supporters, and Iraq was sold as such, for all that we know now and should have known then that the terrorism connection was a scam.

    I will be the first to agree with you that the past decade shows perfectly why the U.S. should be correctly identifying the "threat" - or lack of same - and considering the impact of our policies and practices.

    But I will be the first to suggest that this PARTICULAR crime may or may not have any bearing on these policies and practices; if this is not related to an organized terrorist group then it becomes more like Columbine and less like the Bali and Madrid bombings. There are still wider implications for public policy from Boston-is-like-Columbine but I will suggest they're not the same as Boston-is-like-Madrid.

    James: "RAW made a good post and got flames thrown his way for his troubles."

    I'll say this one more time; that's what happens here. People post things. Other people discuss them, dissect them, support them, and, yes, disagree with them. Disagreement is not flaming. Flaming is name-calling, ad hominem, or groundless poop-flinging; Al didn't do that and neither in my opinion did anyone else. Jim wrote a good post, much of which Al and I agree with - tho we might not have said as much, this not being one of those group-hug blogs where everyone gets a medal for participation - which pointed to a conclusion that we disagreed with.

    As is typically the case, we opened a discussion on the point we dissented from and not the rest. If you want to call that "flaming" you are welcome, but I would suggest that you go back and review some of the old free-for-alls we had at the old Intel Dump archives. THOSE had some serious flame-wars, to which this is a little teeny quibble over details...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Al, FDC.
    I read you. And as usual I basically agree with your points I just don't want to lose RAW as a contributor!

    James

    ReplyDelete
  31. James.
    With my level of expertise i must come back to pub at least every 28 days.Don't worry ;be happy;dress snappy.
    I'll address my cmts to u for all.
    - a bomb goes boom in Boston.
    -During the marathon. UMMMH. A symbolic target.
    Conclusion - this is an act of terrorism UNLESS the bomber is a disgruntled hot dog vendor.
    -since this was not a tactical scenario and i'm not a marine rifleman scout writing a sitrep on a physical problem ISTM that a analysis based upon my professional knowledge was a reasonable c/a.
    -ONLY A HALF CRAZED ALBANIAN DWARF WOULD CONCLUDE OTHERWISE about it being a T event.
    This was the data i had when i wrote my brief of what a atk would/could look like.
    I say again- based on the limited data that i had I'LL STILL stand behind what i said.
    Since then aren't there some strange linkage points coming out.Duh.So simple even a mother fucking marine scout used to lying would acknowledge that something is going on down range.
    I still say that there may have been active or passive support here in conus.Although doubtful it's possible. This is historically the case in world wide bombing scenarios of which i've studied and taught over the years in my classes called "terrorist opns".
    Here are my areas of discomfort.
    -What was the detonator and was the cap commercial or home made.
    -how detonated.What was the power source and the kicker?
    -if these dudes were the stone killers then why didn't they execute the Amie who was car jacked? Why do a bomb and then leave a live witness etc..?
    -where did they acquire the raw materials for the device?
    James pls be cool. Lisa will water board my sorry old ass if i checked outta the net.
    Besides im cool. I've taken to using tampons as ear plugs and i use maxi pads to cover my eyes.
    jim

    jim

    ReplyDelete
  32. RAW


    Besides im cool. I've taken to using tampons as ear plugs and i use maxi pads to cover my eyes.

    That got me laughing.

    James

    ReplyDelete
  33. to all,
    as of 29apr 13 there are some intel indicators that the brothers grimm had a support network.
    i'll like to see what this amonts to.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  34. Latest News
    Boston police arrest three new suspects in bomb case
    [Email this article] 1 may 13.
    jim

    ReplyDelete
  35. eToro is the most recommended forex broker for rookie and professional traders.

    ReplyDelete