![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphiasOnce 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-17 06:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-18 03:59 am (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-18 05:13 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-18 07:24 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-04-18 04:43 am (UTC)