3 ms·

But it is so professional. Two explosions, within seconds of each other. And these were decently powerful too considering they had to be small enough to hide in

But it is so professional. Two explosions, within seconds of each other. And these were decently powerful too considering they had to be small enough to hide in the crowds. You might be right, but something about this just makes me thing /organised./

smacktoward 14y ago
Presumably if it was some organized group we'll find out when they take credit for it. At this point we don't even know for sure if there were bombs involved -- we know there were explosions, but an explosion can happen for reasons other than a bomb going off. Again, all speculating does at this point is ramp up fear and anxiety, which doesn't help anybody.
kelnos 14y ago
The precision doesn't rule out a lone perpetrator. Just because someone is "crazy" in the sense that they'd do something like this, it doesn't mean they lack the ability to make intricate plans.
- zenogais 14y ago
  Agreed. Crazy is just a dismissive term. Perfectly sane people can do things like murder other people - we have tons of them walking around today but we call them Veterans. Crazy, in this sense, should probably be replaced by societally dysfunctional.
corin_ 14y ago
Casualty count seems low for something "professional" I would have thought - though certainly I'm no expert.
- pekk 14y ago
  What sort of casualty counts did IRA bombings have in London?
  - corin_ 14y ago
    Quite a few had bigger casualty lists, and many were more specifically aimed at political targets rather than large numbers of public, but fair point that a bunch were very similar or worse-done. Two points I would make about the comparison though, firstly the IRA campaign was very much one of fear more than one of death - deaths were an added bonus. Of course maybe that's the case in Boston as well, but it's too early to know right now. Secondly, the word used was "professional" - were the IRA professional? I guess in the context of terrorist attacks, that's probably not really a relevant term.
    - peejaybee 14y ago
      Actually, the IRA typically issued warnings beforehand -- soon enough to evacuate, but too late to find the bomb. I've heard it described as a calculation to minimize civilian deaths that might stiffen British resolve. The best description I have seen is here: http://exiledonline.com/wn-38-ira-vs-al-qaeda-i-was-wrong/ http://exiledonline.com/wn-38-ira-vs-al-qaeda-i-was-wrong/
    - DanBC 14y ago
      The IRA had structure, with ranks. They had a political wing. They had funding and training and available weapons. They had PR and issued coded warnings and press releases. Compare that to the London Nail Bomber (who killed three, and maimed many more) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland) who operated alone and got no funding from others.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
tomkarlo 14y ago
Not sure how it seems professional. Compare it to the London bus bombings or Madrid, and it seems much more haphazard. For one thing, had it happened about two hours before, there was a much larger national / international audience when the winners were finishing.

smacktoward 14y ago

Presumably if it was some organized group we'll find out when they take credit for it. At this point we don't even know for sure if there were bombs involved -- we know there were explosions, but an explosion can happen for reasons other than a bomb going off. Again, all speculating does at this point is ramp up fear and anxiety, which doesn't help anybody.

kelnos 14y ago

The precision doesn't rule out a lone perpetrator. Just because someone is "crazy" in the sense that they'd do something like this, it doesn't mean they lack the ability to make intricate plans.

zenogais 14y ago
Agreed. Crazy is just a dismissive term. Perfectly sane people can do things like murder other people - we have tons of them walking around today but we call them Veterans. Crazy, in this sense, should probably be replaced by societally dysfunctional.

corin_ 14y ago

Casualty count seems low for something "professional" I would have thought - though certainly I'm no expert.

pekk 14y ago
What sort of casualty counts did IRA bombings have in London?
- corin_ 14y ago
  Quite a few had bigger casualty lists, and many were more specifically aimed at political targets rather than large numbers of public, but fair point that a bunch were very similar or worse-done. Two points I would make about the comparison though, firstly the IRA campaign was very much one of fear more than one of death - deaths were an added bonus. Of course maybe that's the case in Boston as well, but it's too early to know right now. Secondly, the word used was "professional" - were the IRA professional? I guess in the context of terrorist attacks, that's probably not really a relevant term.
  - peejaybee 14y ago
    Actually, the IRA typically issued warnings beforehand -- soon enough to evacuate, but too late to find the bomb. I've heard it described as a calculation to minimize civilian deaths that might stiffen British resolve. The best description I have seen is here: http://exiledonline.com/wn-38-ira-vs-al-qaeda-i-was-wrong/ http://exiledonline.com/wn-38-ira-vs-al-qaeda-i-was-wrong/
  - DanBC 14y ago
    The IRA had structure, with ranks. They had a political wing. They had funding and training and available weapons. They had PR and issued coded warnings and press releases. Compare that to the London Nail Bomber (who killed three, and maimed many more) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland) who operated alone and got no funding from others.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

tomkarlo 14y ago

Not sure how it seems professional. Compare it to the London bus bombings or Madrid, and it seems much more haphazard. For one thing, had it happened about two hours before, there was a much larger national / international audience when the winners were finishing.