The Boston Marathon Bombings

Posted on by

As of this writing, three people have died – one an eight year old boy – and 143 are injured. Two bombs went off and two others were defused. Horrible though this is, it strikes me as a far cry from the kind of mayhem America’s enemies would like to inflict: terrorists on North American soil are, for the present, a bedraggled coterie of less than effectual bumbling cowards.

Predictably, President Obama couldn’t bring himself to call the bombings a terrorist attack even though, judging by the news video footage, everyone looked terrified.

On CNN, Peter Bergen suggested the bombers could have been “right wing extremists”; he really wanted to say “right wing Christian extremists” but didn’t think he would get way with that even on CNN.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah clearly were not listening to Peter Bergen since, minutes after the atrocity, they made a presumption of ownership and began to celebrate:

Shortly after terror bombs exploded and murdered over 12 people [actually only 3 so far] at the Boston Marathon, members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah were reported to be dancing in the streets of Gaza, handing out candies to passers-by.

[…..]

The head of an Islamic terror organization in Jordan – the Muslim Salafi group says he’s “happy to see the horror in America” after the bombing attacks in Boston.

“American blood isn’t more precious than Muslim blood,” said Mohammad al-Chalabi, who was convicted in an al-Qaeda-linked plot to attack US and other Western diplomatic missions in Jordan in 2003.

It seems that a Saudi national is a “person of interest”; even so, no-one denounced this as racial profiling – yet.

And the church is praying.

18 thoughts on “The Boston Marathon Bombings”

  1. If the President isn’t labeling it as terrorism yet, neither is the FBI. They have said that it is a criminal investigation that is also a *potential* terrorist investigation. Since there’s actually a definition for “terrorism” that goes beyond making people terrified – it’s violence done for political ends – maybe they’re waiting for some hint as to the purpose of the attack before jumping to conclusions.

    Reply ↓

  2. Agreeing on a definition of “terrorism” does not appear to come easily. There is this which would seem to encompass what happened in Boston:

    Article 2.1 of the 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings defines the offence of terrorist bombing as follows:

    “Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally delivers, places, discharges or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into or against a place of public use, a State or government facility, a public transportation system or an infrastructure facility:

    a) With the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or
    b)With the intent to cause extensive destruction of such a place, facility or system, where such a destruction results in or is likely to result in major economic loss.[39]

    Reply ↓

  3. David is right to question the Obama Administration on its reticence to call Islamic terrorism by its name:Fort Hood (workplace violence).
    The West will never survive the jihadis if it refuses to acknowledge its enemy attacks.

    Reply ↓

  4. David, that definition would cover the Boston attack, but it’s not the definition of terrorism that’s used in US law. 22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)(2) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” This is also the definition used by the US National Counterterrorism Center. So unless it’s politically motivated and not the act of an individual, it wouldn’t seem to fit the definition.

    Recall the shooting attack on the El Al ticket counter at LAX. It’s been classified as an act of terrorism since then, but at first law enforcement insisted there was no indication that it was anything other than an isolated criminal attack – and the Bush administration agreed.

    Reply ↓

  6. Well, there you have it. The administration is calling this terrorism.

    Some news outlets are quoting federal officials that the Saudi student is now considered a witness, not a suspect, not a person of interest, by the way.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply