Boston

It is simply too early to make any significant assumptions about the bombings in Boston as there are conflicting reports and no information from law enforcement, rightly, will become public anytime soon. But we can make a reasonable set of assumptions based on what we have seen.

The perpetrator or perpetrators are likely relative amateurs; self radicalized or arriving here in a radicalized state of mind. The bombs while devastating to those in the area were not empirically strong explosive devices as the range of impact seemed to be limited to 20 – 30 yards. It is likely that these bombs were ‘kitchen chemical’ explosives and it is further likely that there was not a significant cell involved in the attack as a significant cell would have generated stronger explosions with a high probability of suicide attacks as a part of the planning. Nearly anyone can make a bomb, however, to make a devastating one requires specific training and experience. The timing of the two explosions also points to amateurs. If the first bomb was intended to drive people toward the second the second would have exploded more than the 12 – 15 seconds we see on film, the second bomb was, considering the location of the finish line, in the wrong spot to create maximum carnage. Multiple devices is a standard al Qaeda technique but in the past, more effectively applied and timed.

Having lived in and around Boston for many years there was not a significant, radicalized Right Wing presence in the area. That does not exclude the potential for domestic terrorism as a variety of anniversaries of prior domestic incidents surround this date and it is ‘tax day’, but the probabilities are low. The Pakistani Taliban has already distanced themselves from the bombing, making one wonder what they know and why they would feel the need to separate themselves from the event?

Al Qaeda has long called for lone wolf attacks as the degree of difficulty associated with 9/11 style attacks increases. The first edition of Inspire Magazine, an English language Jihadist publication out of Yemen had, as a lead article; “How to make a bomb in your Mom’s kitchen”. Reza Kahlili a former CIA informant in Iran has reported, since December, that Iranian based operatives have been dispatched to the U.S.

The unfortunate reality, as we saw in Mumbai, is that to fully protect soft targets is nearly impossible. What we can do is aggressively reject those who by word, deed and dollars support radicalized ideologies. There are many domestic organizations that have been proven to be involved in material support for terrorism. Many have access to our political leaders, including the White House. They reject the very idea of cooperation with law enforcement officials and maintain an ideology foreign to mainstream American values and history.

We can reject those who reject our values, we can do it aggressively! We can deny them the political correctness they depend on for cover! We can demand that word and deed agree! We can focus on the incredible body of factual information we have related to terror and terror support as opposed to ‘feel good’ standards of moral equivalency!!!

The enemy has no such problems with moral equivalency!!!

  • Bob

    “A February report from the Department of Homeland Security office of Inspector General criticized how Mass. public safety officials were spending federal money designed to protect the state and better assess threats.”…..”One of the biggest complaints in the report was insufficient performance measurements adopted by the states Executive Office of Public Safety and Security and Boston officials administering grant funds under the urban areas security initiative.The report said that the state and Boston lacked sufficient performance measures to use in determining their ability to deter,prevent,respond to and recover from acts of terrorism and manmade disasters.”

    From an article entitled “Homeland Security Report Criticized How Mass.Spent Federal Money On Threat Assessments.” on the McClatchy website(Kevin G.Hall)dated 16th of April 2013

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/16/188685/homeland-security-report-criticized.html

  • Bill Hedges

    From bob’s own link:

    “There’s no initial evidence that the shortcomings listed in the 50-page report played a role in Monday’s deadly blasts in Boston.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/16/188685/homeland-security-report-criticized.html#storylink=cpy

    A person “of interest” was identified day one. Said cameras detected him with 2 sacks. One hospital completely surrounded by law enforcement. Believed suspect was there hurt…

  • Bob

    I never said there was any connection.Seeing that we can’t read the report nor is all the evidence in on the bombing you read to much into something in an attempt to discredit the person.

  • Bob

    Talking about editorizing and cherry-picking quotes the sentence after the quote you give about “There is no initial evidence….” states:

    “But the federal document raised troubling concerns about the lack of performance measures adopted in Mass. and about insufficient federal guidance.”

    That was the reason I posted the article to bring to light the existence of the report.Something I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere else.

  • Bill Hedges

    1. “you read to much into something in an attempt to discredit the person.”

    A. I simple repeated information from your article & what I have heard.. What “discredit” ?

    B. How did I “read to much into something” ?

    You “raised troubling concerns”

    I raised “person of interest” was located perhaps at hospital.

    3. “editorizing and cherry-picking quotes”

    “editorizing” is spelled editorializing

    THERE is no comparison to what you do. Check out you conclusion after half-baked quotation you used of my quote. Answer this first. Then I’ll answer you:

    Is “PRINCIPLE… ” Since WHEN ???

    FINALLY, YOUR BULL FOLLOWS YOU to term…

    BOB BELIEVES in shortening out CONTEXT of another’s quotes. Wrong in MY estimation. I don’t speak for Nate & Landreaux. Their silence speaks loudly & VOLUMES. Very difficult to play I DIDN’T REALIZE.

    Now bob freely admits he insults me”

    “You’re to stupid to realize when you’ve been insulted or you don’t even read MY POST.All you have is your TIRED RHETHORIC AND SYNTHETIC INDIGNATION”

    Not “RHETHORIC ” bob but RHETORIC .

    __

    NOW bob BLAMES ME for carrying on crusade holding bob accountable for intentional re-vamping my quotes TO INSULT ME.

    So WHAT did I write to cause bob to write “TIRED RHETHORIC AND SYNTHETIC INDIGNATION” ?

    I have said WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES. bob’s shortcoming is his unwillingness to admit error when:

    A. bob partial quotes me. Leaving out the most pertinent part of my quote:

    “I watch a lot of movies.Have ban most politics from my cable.”

    I wrote:

    I watch a lot of movies. Have ban most politics from my cable. I research online.

    B. bob leaves off KEY PART OF MY QUOTE, then says:

    “I was taught that if you didn’t know what you were talking about as is clearly evident here YOU KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND NOT EMBARRASS YOURSELF!”

    bob IS being indigent concerning my holding him ACCOUNTABLE for his statements. TOO MANY TIMES I let his mistakes go away “silently into the night”. bob increases in being MORE * bel·lig·er·ent * AS I CONTINUE.. If bob thinks that is good practice, THEN put big “R” on Republican. Behavior MATTERS NOT by your actions. Be NOT a hypocrite.

    Principles HAS NO PLACE here ??? Flim-Flam Man COME JOIN site ??? Do your THING !!! As Landreaux wrote, concerning list of bob’s shame list, “Really ?!?”

  • Bob

    I simply repeated information from your post.

    ON THE THREAD “RNC POST-MORTEM”dated 27th of March @ 10:51 AM

    IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH YOU WRITE:
    “I have not done the research to see if true.”
    “My limited knowledge leads me to hazard a guess”

    In the 3rd paragraph you say:
    “I know very little about the convention”

    In the 4th paragragraph you wrote:
    “I watch a lot of movies.Have ban most politics from my cable..”

    THE FIRST THREE QUOTES SAY YOU WERE LAZY AND DON’T KNOW THE DETAILS AND WANT NATE OPINION.

    END OF STORY !!!!!

  • Bill Hedges

    “END OF STORY !!!!!” N O T. Gibberish. How are those ___ partial ___ quotes * ger·mane * to the following ? Answer THEY ARE NOT at all. They DO POINT TO THE FACT you misrepresent by quotes with OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTES. You said YOU INSULT ME. HAVE list to prove…

    A. bob partial quotes me. Leaving out the most pertinent part of my quote:

    “I watch a lot of movies.Have ban most politics from my cable.”

    I wrote:

    I watch a lot of movies. Have ban most politics from my cable. I research online.

    B. bob leaves off KEY PART OF MY QUOTE, then says:

    “I was taught that if you didn’t know what you were talking about as is clearly evident here YOU KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND NOT EMBARRASS YOURSELF!”

    bob IS being indigent concerning my holding him ACCOUNTABLE for his statements. TOO MANY TIMES I let his mistakes go away “silently into the night”. bob increases in being MORE * bel·lig·er·ent * AS I CONTINUE.. If bob thinks that is good practice, THEN put big “R” on Republican. Behavior MATTERS NOT by your actions. Be NOT a hypocrite.

    Principles HAS NO PLACE here ??? Flim-Flam Man COME JOIN site ??? Do your THING !!! As Landreaux wrote, concerning list of bob’s shame list, “Really ?!?”