The theories on Who Did It, because it's time for wild speculation before the facts are in!

[xiphias]

Once we know things, we can't just spout off ignorantly. So if I want to spout ignorant opinions, I need to do it now, before I learn things.

I'll LJ cut it, though, just so nobody has to see it who doesn't want to.

Okay, there are three major possibilities for who was behind the Boston Marathon bombings. Islamofascist terrorists, domestic anti-government militia terrorists, or some lone crazy person.

And, of course, it might be none of these.

But let's look at them.

First: Islamist terrorism. What are the arguments in favor? The Boston Marathon is an international event with high visibility. It's an American tradition, it's a soft-target crowd, it is symbolic. It's a good symbolic strike against America.

Second: domestic militia terrorism. Arguments in favor? Largely the date: Patriots' Day is a celebration of Lexington and Concord -- it's the Monday of the week in which April 19th occurs. April 19th is an important day to anti-government militia terrorist organizations: it's not only "The Shot Heard 'Round The World", starting the American revolutionary war, which they identify with, but it's also the day of the Waco compound raid, and of the Oklahoma City bombing. An additional date-based argument is that April 15th is Tax Day.

Third: individual crazy person. Arguments in favor? If the devices were black-powder explosives loaded with ball bearings, which is what I heard Somewhere From Somebody Probably On The Internet (so you KNOW it's accurate), that's a pretty easy bomb to make. This wasn't an attack that needed any great deal of planning, preparation, or co-ordination, and it is exactly the kind of high-visibility thing that crazy people who want to hurt people seem to like to do.

I don't have any actual reason to prefer one of these theories to another, but I feel that domestic militia terrorism is the most likely, because it best fits my preexisting confirmation bias.

However, I wouldn't be too surprised if it turned out to be a two sixteen-year-old boys from the suburbs. Because from Leopold and Loeb on forwards, if you're looking at a murder or murders with absolutely no rhyme or reason behind it, you're usually looking at a teenage boy or two. There are exceptions (Brenda Ann Spenser, who didn't like Mondays), but that's the way to bet.

And, of course, Islamist terrorism is on the table, although, to me, it feels like the least likely of the three possibilities, probably because of my aforementioned confirmation bias.

But I think we should also consider alternative theories.

The first one I mention is one that I wrote as a comment to Andrew Greene on Facebook -- the possibility that this was just someone who forgot that their explosives were armed when they threw them out in the trash cans. My mother doesn't believe that one, though, because they were in two different places, and she figures that if SHE was cleaning out her backpack and throwing out explosives, she'd just have dumped them BOTH in the SAME trash can.

So I'm going on to my second theory, which is that it was Wayne LaPierre, who wants to demonstrate that taking away people's guns won't make anyone safer, since people can kill people in other ways.

The third theory is, of course, that it was The Amuurikan Gummint, who did this in order to take people's guns away. This theory is incompatible with my Wayne LaPierre theory, of course.

Any other theories anyone wants to float out there? I haven't figured out how to tie in the Illuminati or the lizard people who live inside the hollow earth.

Edited to add: At the advice of folks in comments, I've changed the word "Islamofascist" to "Islamist". Also, the description of the explosive devices as built on a plan that's common in Afghanistan and Pakistan increases the odds of it being Islamist, and decreases the odds of it being some kid from the suburbs, although all those options are still on the table.

Comments

[chanaleh.livejournal.com]

The Illuminati! Sabotaging Patriots' Day!

[ceo]

Just as a note, "Islamofascism" is a slur used exclusively by right-wing whackjobs, and using it serves no purpose other than making yourself sound like one.

[daharyn.livejournal.com]

Yes, this. I have unintentionally sparked quite a discussion here at work about whether or not "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamist terrorism" would be more correct. The latter seems to imply a greater degree of fundamentalism to us, but does anyone know the terminology with greater certainty?

[sethg]

AP Stylebook s.v. “Islamist” has been revised to say: “An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam. Do not use as a synonym for Islamic fighters, militants, extremists or radicals, who may or may not be Islamists. Where possible, be specific and use the name of militant affiliations: al-Qaida-linked, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.”

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

This does seem to leave us with a gap in our terminology. I'm unwilling to use "jihadi" as a term for "militant", since it is also used within Islam to refer to someone practicing peaceful, or even INTERNAL change.

[sethg]

I’m going to resist the urge to install the AP Stylebook app on my iPad RIGHT NOW and then use it to look up “jihadi”.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I think the key to why we should suspect the motives of the AP Stylebook here, and ignore its recommendations, lies in the fact taht it uses "fighters, militants, extremists or radicals" in order to avoid using the simple descriptive term "terrorists."

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

What term do you prefer to distinguish between Muslims and people who wish to install a Muslim-based theocracy?

[ceo]

"Islamist" covers the latter, as noted above.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

And this is better than "Islamofascist" because ...? Note that "Islamist" actually more firmly implies that the problem is with being Islamic in general, while "Islamofascist" at least selects only a subset of Muslims.

I've variously used both terms, and also "jihadist," to describe the real-world entity.

[ceo]

For one thing, "fascist" is used here in a way that has nothing to do with actual fascism, but is shorthand for "people we don't like".

Islamism is a term with many definitions, but broadly speaking, it is a political movement that advocates the integration of Islamic theology and law with the political sphere. More importantly, it is no more necessarily violent or terroristic than, say, Christian Dominionism is (that being the closest analog I could think of).

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

More importantly, it is no more necessarily violent or terroristic than, say, Christian Dominionism is (that being the closest analog I could think of).

Then isn't a problem with using the term "Islamism" to refer to atrocious, violent terrorism that one will by doing so discredit whatever non-violent Islamist movement may exist? Or is that your intention?

(Personally, given the obnoxiousness of shari'a to anyone who isn't a male Muslim of public piety, I have little problem with discrediting peaceful Islamism as well).

[ceo]

I am not at all suggesting one should use "Islamism" in that context. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Nor am I saying it's a movement I have any particular respect for.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Right. There's no similarity at all between one bunch of aggressive, militaristics totalitarian, fanatical Jew-haters and another, save all the points I just mentioned. Also, we shouldn't slur fascists by comparing them to Muslims. Or did you mean that the other way round?

[between4walls.livejournal.com]

Fascism is stridently nationalistic, whereas al-Qaeda in particular is definitely not nationalistic. If it's not nationalistic, it by definition cannot be fascism.

Anti-Semitism is not a defining feature of fascism, though it's certainly a good indicator. The original fascists under Mussolini were plenty aggressive, militaristic, totalitarian, etc before they became anti-Semitic.

And Communism was also totalitarian and frequently aggressive and militaristic, but we don't call them "commiefascists" because that makes no sense.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I think I see your point.

The three legs of fascism are said to be a patriarchal relgiious establishment, monied interests (oligarchs in ancient fascism, corporations in modern), and, most importantly, a powerful military and paramilitary. The general population has to respect and even revere these things.

So, it is basically impossible to have fascism without really snappy military and police uniforms. Having your military and paramilitary dress impressively is not in itself a sign of fascism, but if your uniforms are more informal, or nonexistent, you're not going to have fascism. Ideally, you have awesome-looking dress uniforms AND really cool battle dress, but I think one or the other would be okay, too.

In the United States, our military mainly dresses for comfort, which is a good sign. However, our police departments in various places are dressing more and more Terry-Gilliam's-BRAZIL-like every year, which is not such a good sign. Islamist militias don't have uniforms at all, so they CAN'T be fascist.

Most of the potentially-worrisome Islamic groups have the patriarchal religious establishment; Saudi Arabia has the "control by money", but nobody's got all three. So there isn't enough centralized control anywhere to really count as fascistic.

We can argue that different groups have fascism as a goal -- but they're not there right now.

[between4walls.livejournal.com]

We can argue that different groups have fascism as a goal -- but they're not there right now.

I guess this is true but then it makes it hard to call any out-of-power movement fascist. Whereas I have no trouble saying Golden Dawn is.

Saudi being actually ruled by its royalty makes it a bit more like several-centuries-ago conservatism- it's when old-style conservatisim fails, as with the fall of the Kaiser after WWI, the abdication of Alfonso XII, etc, that fascism shows up to shake up the old-fashioned and failing right. There's a reason they always emphasize youth and consider themselves revolutionary.

Patriarchal religious establishment isn't really a necessity imo, it's just something that tends to be convenient when you pose as the defender of the (historic, pure) nation against the godless leftists and Jews and foreigners, especially in a country that mostly follows a single religion. But Hitler, for example, did without it- he did set up and favor a group of churches that agreed with him, but it wasn't a big part of his ideology. It was probably easier to do without because German Christians were split between Protestants and Catholics anyway.

Whereas Mussolini's rule shows the element of convenience- he was an atheist who grew up in a country with separation of church and state ("prisoner of the Vatican," etc), but wound up being the one to make peace with the church via the Lateran Compacts.

So, it is basically impossible to have fascism without really snappy military and police uniforms. Having your military and paramilitary dress impressively is not in itself a sign of fascism, but if your uniforms are more informal, or nonexistent, you're not going to have fascism.

Good point.

[between4walls.livejournal.com]

I assume that whoever coined the term was inspired by the (disputed) term clerico-fascism, referring to fascist movements that were not theocratic but were strongly supported by and influenced by the Catholic or Orthodox churches, eg the Utashe, Dolfuss, Franco, the Iron Guard. It's hard to think of Islamist regime with a similar structure- Iran is much more directly theocratic and not a one-party state. If the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood were to do away with elections, that might be the sort of regime it would make sense to call Islamofascist. As a description of al-Qaeda, it's a "slur," however richly they deserve to be slurred, because it's just tacking on fascist as an insult without regard for accuracy.

[sethg]

Some Tories who still have a grudge about that whole American Revolution thing. (Blame Canada!)

Disgruntled Yankees fans.

[quietann.livejournal.com]

I'm betting on a random nutjob or two. But it will be a long time before we have any idea, I think.

Now it *may* be that said nutjobs are affiliated with the Tea Party or extremist Muslim groups...

[cbpotts.livejournal.com]

I am pretty sure it is the struggling TV networks, who want people inside on the couch and not doing foolish things like Running! Outside! Without screens!

And I have it on pretty good authority that all the major networks are headed up by Lizard People Vaguely in Disguise

[tylik.livejournal.com]

I almost always run with a screen when running outside. (though I don't look at it - I stream internet radio through my phone.)

[wcg.livejournal.com]

Dr. Doofenschmertz finally got one past Agent P?

More seriously, I think it's some kind of domestic terrorism. But we shall just have to wait and see what the investigators come up with.

[temima.livejournal.com]

Somebody somewhere is going to try to pin it on Jewish people. No, I'm going to look for examples. It will just remind me that people do this sort of crap with a straight face.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The Muslim Brotherhood, already has, though without naming Jews explicitly.

[bradhicks.livejournal.com]

The MO matches an attempted bombing of a Martin Luther King Day Parade in Spokane two years ago, and over the last week it's been pretty clear that some kind of new gun-control bill is going to pass, so my prime suspect is (or was) some kind or right-wing militia or right-wing lone wolf, like Eric Rudolph.

I say "or was" because there was a report, late in the day yesterday, that police are looking for a young black or dark-skinned man in a hooded sweatshirt who was seen, 5 minutes before the first detonation, trying to push his way into a restricted area while wearing (or carrying, not sure) a black nylon backpack that matches the (possible) description of the other bomb(s). If that report is accurate, it makes the motive more likely to be revenge for American killings of Muslim civilians in Iraq, Pakistan, and/or Yemen.

But those are only the two leading causes on a list of over half a dozen that I compiled right after the attack, none of them all that certain. Or, for that matter, none of them even likely; there are so many possible suspect groups that I wouldn't rank any of them above 30% or so. I don't think they're going to solve this one by researching the motive angle, especially not without a credible claim of responsibility. I think the FBI is almost certainly focusing few or none of their resources on why did it happen, and most of their resources on canvasing stores in the region that sell black powder and/or ball bearings looking for a bulk purchase or repeat purchases.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

And don't forget HUMINT. I thought the Special Agent in Charge made a good point in the press conference. He said that whomever did this has family, friends, neighbors -- and SOMEBODY knows. Might not know that they know yet, but SOMEBODY is going to remember their neighbor buying ball bearings or BBs, a pressure cooker, and a nylon duffel bag.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I don't see anything wrong with the term "Islamofascist." But you're leaving out one obvious suspect: North Korea.

I don't actually believe that North Korea did this, beause this isn't their normal target or M.O. However, they were (and still are) in a confrontation with us when this happened, so I wouldn't entirely rule it out.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I'd put NK as more likely than my Wayne LaPierre theory, and the US Government theory, but less likely than the "someone forgot that they'd filled their pressure cookers with explosives, and just accidentally left them lying around" theory.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

Why hasn't somebody claimed responsibility, if it's a terrorist group?

The point of terrorist groups blowing things up is to terrify people, not to terrify them randomly but to make them sufficiently terrified of them that they will give them their objectives. This doesn't work if you don't know who did it. Therefore, terrorist groups claim responsibility. Which makes the "lone nut" theory more plausible.

If you want crazy theories, how about Unionist kneecappers from Northern Ireland doing it to get revenge on Boston for funding the IRA? (But they'd have claimed responsibility.)

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The lack of any claims to responsibility is unusual. This sort of makes me wonder if the attack was carried out by a team whose sponsors got cold feet about the attack but too late to stop the operation.

This has happened before in American history. 1865 -- the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. John Wilkes Booth was acting as a Confederate agent -- after the South had already surrendered. (True history, but little-known because very much not in the interests of the elementary and secondary school systems of any American section).

Here, the motive for the cold feet might have been fear of the likely American response.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Islamist terrorist attacks around the world HAVE been done without claims of responsibility. In cases like that, it's either because they just believe that striking non-Islamist targets (including more moderate Islamic targets) are a goal in itself, or because their goal is simply to make the targets become more paranoid, insular, and security-bound.

The IRA always gave warnings so that they WOULDN'T kill people -- did the Unionists?

Basque separatists? SMERSH? Nazis who've remained hidden for the past sixty years?

Cobra Commander would have already claimed responsibility.

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

It might have been domestic terrorism, where "domestic" is related to the meaning in "domestic violence." What if it was somebody stalking his ex, horribly bitter because she likes running so much more than she likes him? It's not political terrorism, and there's no organized group to claim responsibility.

But it is still terrorism, in the larger sense.

[(Anonymous)]

You've left out a strong hypothesis: This is just viral advertising for a new Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie.