Just Like 9/11, Terrorists Got One Right
Even local papers like our own Frederick News-Post were hijacked by Associated Press stories of the Boston Bombings. CNN regained part of its former Gulf War One glory in actual "breaking news."
During the down-times of the real time coverage, they all attempted to create their own news.
Left leaning news organization openly hoped the perps would turn out to be white National Rifle Association guys in cammo hats; many on the Right immediately suspected an Islamist-radical terrorist "cell" had been activated. Both were knee-jerk responses; one was correct.
In fairness to our global sized Department of Homeland Security – and its most operative section in this matter, the FBI – “we have to be vigilant against all forms of terrorism all of the time; they have to get it right only once."
This makes it twice.
(Well, maybe even more, if one includes Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City, or that "workplace violence" incident by a Muslim colonel at Ft. Hood, Texas...but now we're haggling over details.)
You get the 9/11 World Trade Center bombings (two occasions, and two buildings, actually) and then you get the Boston Marathon Bombings, as Caucasians from the Caucuses detonated two Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) pressure cookers, perhaps built from instructions available on the Internet for years.
Of course what we don't know – and what's publicly available – heavily outweighs anything we do know.
And now the bragging rights fight for the "I told you so's" begins: Conspiricists will have a field day with the report that the Russian FSB – their national security service – tipped off our FBI about the Islamic-radicalization of the older Tsarnaev in 2010. This story even made the News-Post's page A-5 on Sunday's print edition:
"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Russian FSB intelligence security service told the FBI in early 2011 about information that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombings, was a follower of radical Islam, two law enforcement officials said Saturday.
“Tamerlan Tsarnaev died in a shootout, and his younger brother was captured alive. They were identified by authorities and relatives as ethnic Chechens from southern Russia who had been in the U.S. for about a decade.
“According to an FBI news release issued Friday night, a foreign government said that based on its information, Tsarnaev was a strong believer and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the U.S. for travel to the Russian region to join unspecified underground groups."
And on whose watch did this occur? Hearings?
If this was an intelligence miss, it's eerily reminiscent of the missed tip about foreign nationals taking flight training and didn't care about that "how to land" section.
We don't spend this fortune on the Department of Homeland Security apparatus just for a smartly done clean-up operation, do we? How about some more emphasis on prevention! Yes, you may even have to "profile."
And it was no drone that found the younger terrorist brother – at last – hiding in a boat; it was a homeowner checking out his own home on his own, just outside of a police cordoned-off zone... I wonder if he was a "gun guy?"
The politization of the Boston Bombings is just beginning; evidence aplenty is on the Internet and on Facebook.
The immigration debate will now be influenced, concerning the Group of Eight amnesty bill. Just how much cultural assimilation will be part of the new plan, and for how long? Of course, had Boston been a terrorist cell incident, this won't matter.
Gun guys presented an interesting graphic message on Facebook: Frame one – After shootings, we blame guns. Frame two – After bombings, we blame bombers... will Liberals understand the distinction?
Will we demonize pressure-cookers and box-cutters, and ignore the costs of political correctness in police investigations?
Lastly, intensive analysis of the lessons and meanings of the bombing will remain uncontained for months, to be certain. Video gamers and Hollywood will not remain unscathed!
Does a culture of visual violence incent Islamo-terrorists and home-grown terrorists alike, and somehow make shootings and bombings more probable?
Remember when Hollywood acted to make the depiction of cigarette smoking in movies result in heavy ratings penalties? Surely they then believe that movies encouraged movie-goers to smoke. So, why is a certain level of carnage in movies a virtual must and fully expected and accepted?
Yes, one can once again feel the world change in an instant, as on that crisp, clear September 11th, back in 2001.
Will we reap real lessons this time, and perhaps beef up budgets, or do we accept merely politically acceptable messages?