There's not much to say about Monday's Boston Marathon attack because there is virtually
no known evidence regarding who did it or why. There are, however, several points to be
made about some of the widespread reactions to this incident. Much of that reaction is
all-too-familiar and quite revealing in important ways:
There's not much to say about Monday's Boston Marathon attack because there
is virtually no known evidence regarding who did it or why. There are, however, several
points to be made about some of the widespread reactions to this incident. Much of that
reaction is all-too-familiar and quite revealing in important ways:
(1) The widespread compassion for yesterday's victims and the intense anger over the
attacks was obviously authentic and thus good to witness. But it was really hard not to
find oneself wishing that just a fraction of that compassion and anger be devoted to
attacks that the US perpetrates rather than suffers. . . .
(2) The rush, one might say the eagerness, to conclude that the attackers were Muslim
was palpable and unseemly, even without any real evidence. The New York Post quickly
claimed that the prime suspect was a Saudi national (while also inaccurately reporting
that 12 people had been confirmed dead). . . .
(3) One continually encountered yesterday expressions of dread and fear from Arabs and
Muslims around the world that the attacker would be either or both. That's because they
know that all members of their religious or ethnic group will be blamed, or worse, if
that turns out to be the case. . . .
(4) The reaction to the Boston attack underscored, yet again, the utter meaninglessness
of the word "terrorism". . . .
(5) The history of these types of attacks over the last decade has been clear and
consistent: they are exploited to obtain new government powers, increase state
surveillance, and take away individual liberties. . . .
[The revelation that the family of the two suspects in the Boston Marathon
bombings was from Chechnya prompted new speculation about the attack as Islamic
terrorism. Less discussed was the history of U.S. neocons supporting Chechen terrorists
as a strategy to weaken Russia.--Coleen Rowley, "Chechen
Terrorists and the Neocons," consortiumnews.com, April 19, 2013]
C-SPAN, April 24, 2013 -- Dzhokhar Tsarnaev said to be leaving crime scene with his backpack
that multiple warnings by Russian investigators to the FBI were likely
ignored because the CIA was in all probability using Tamerlan Tsarnaev as an asset to
travel to Russia's Caucasus region and make contact with US-backed terrorists.--Tony Cartalucci, "Both FBI & CIA Watched Boston Bombing Suspects for
Years," globalresearch.ca, April 26, 2013]
[The United States perpetually remains in the awkward position of claiming something
just shy of a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence over the entire globe, while
ceding its monopoly on gun violence within its borders.--Marissa Brostoff, "Mass murder vs.
terrorism," salon.com, April 28, 2013]
[Yet, virtually no one in the U.S. political/media hierarchy has dared to discuss, in a
candid way, the issue of motivation.--Ray McGovern, "Boston Suspect's Writing on the Wall," antiwar.com, May 18, 2013]