Edited by Gillian Palmer
The Return of Terror
Published in Neue Zurcher Zeitung
(Switzerland) on 16 April 2013
by Andreas Rüesch (link to original)
(Switzerland) on 16 April 2013
by Andreas Rüesch (link to original)
Translated from
by Holly Bickerton.
Edited by .
There are still many unanswered questions about the explosions in Boston, but it was clearly a targeted terror attack. For America this is a turning point with unforeseeable consequences. Since the devastating al-Qaida attacks of Sept. 11, 2011, the American mainland has been spared deadly bombings. Gradually, and especially after the violent end of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, a feeling of security had returned to everyday life. With the bloodbath of Boston, however, the population has been brutally snapped out of this mood and reminded that there is no absolute protection from unscrupulous extremists.
Maximum Impact Intended
The attacker, or attackers, chose their target full of cynicism and with the intention of causing the largest possible impact. The Boston marathon is an internationally renowned event which brings together more than 20,000 participants and an enthusiastic crowd of half a million spectators. The bombs were purposefully detonated in the area around the finishing line, where a dense crowd of spectators stood tightly packed together waiting for their exhausted heroes, and abruptly turned an area of celebration into a scene from a war zone. At the place where the runners' national flags highlighted the unifying character of this event, panic and distress spread after the initial moment of shock.
According to the authorities no one has claimed responsibility; so far there have been no arrests. More than a day after the attack, it is still unclear whether the perpetrator is to be found in America or abroad. This act of terror does not have the typical hallmarks of al-Qaida, which has perfected its bombing technique in the past and doubtless would have been capable of a much more devastating attack. It is conceivable that a radicalized imitator without a direct connection to the Islamist terror network put together and planted the bombs. In recent years such homegrown jihadists have often been exposed by investigators who have had sheer luck on their side more than once. An Islamist background is only one of many plausible explanations, however. The coordination of simultaneous attacks and the choice of the target with a view to gaining the widest possible media coverage are not the exclusive trademarks of terrorists in al-Qaida's orbit. It also quite possible that the act of violence can be attributed to homegrown, non-Muslim extremists.
Monday's attack is strongly reminiscent of the bombings during the Atlanta Olympics in 1996. Then as now, the target was a large sporting event, and even the number of victims — in 1996, one person died and over 100 were injured — is comparable. The perpetrator, who was found guilty years later, was a radical opponent of government who acted out of a crude mixture of fear of socialist infiltration and loathing of American abortion legislation. Embittered government-haters could certainly have seen this week as a suitable moment to act: April 15 is Tax Day, when tax returns are due. For some, this has become a symbol of an excessive authoritarian state. Monday also saw the celebration of Patriots' Day, a local state holiday commemorating the first shots fired by the militiamen of Massachusetts in 1775 in the fight against British rule. Last but not least, this week is also the 20th anniversary of the Waco siege, which the extreme right castigates to this day as an illegal act of violence by security agencies.
Just the Beginning?
For the time being, we can only speculate about the background of the bloody deed in Boston. The only thing that is certain is that the Obama government is now suddenly faced with a new challenge, one where the public would like to see quick success. There will inevitably be a discussion about whether the safety and surveillance measures introduced after 2001 are sufficient or whether the country has become slack in matters of counterterrorism. There is also the question of whether Boston was just the beginning of a new type of campaign of attacks on gatherings of people. This event has brutally demonstrated one thing: Even if America's airports and government buildings are better protected than before, there are still countless "weak" targets which make the country vulnerable. This cannot be fundamentally altered without an exorbitant increase in spending and security restrictions in public life being taken to extremes.
Maximum Impact Intended
The attacker, or attackers, chose their target full of cynicism and with the intention of causing the largest possible impact. The Boston marathon is an internationally renowned event which brings together more than 20,000 participants and an enthusiastic crowd of half a million spectators. The bombs were purposefully detonated in the area around the finishing line, where a dense crowd of spectators stood tightly packed together waiting for their exhausted heroes, and abruptly turned an area of celebration into a scene from a war zone. At the place where the runners' national flags highlighted the unifying character of this event, panic and distress spread after the initial moment of shock.
According to the authorities no one has claimed responsibility; so far there have been no arrests. More than a day after the attack, it is still unclear whether the perpetrator is to be found in America or abroad. This act of terror does not have the typical hallmarks of al-Qaida, which has perfected its bombing technique in the past and doubtless would have been capable of a much more devastating attack. It is conceivable that a radicalized imitator without a direct connection to the Islamist terror network put together and planted the bombs. In recent years such homegrown jihadists have often been exposed by investigators who have had sheer luck on their side more than once. An Islamist background is only one of many plausible explanations, however. The coordination of simultaneous attacks and the choice of the target with a view to gaining the widest possible media coverage are not the exclusive trademarks of terrorists in al-Qaida's orbit. It also quite possible that the act of violence can be attributed to homegrown, non-Muslim extremists.
Monday's attack is strongly reminiscent of the bombings during the Atlanta Olympics in 1996. Then as now, the target was a large sporting event, and even the number of victims — in 1996, one person died and over 100 were injured — is comparable. The perpetrator, who was found guilty years later, was a radical opponent of government who acted out of a crude mixture of fear of socialist infiltration and loathing of American abortion legislation. Embittered government-haters could certainly have seen this week as a suitable moment to act: April 15 is Tax Day, when tax returns are due. For some, this has become a symbol of an excessive authoritarian state. Monday also saw the celebration of Patriots' Day, a local state holiday commemorating the first shots fired by the militiamen of Massachusetts in 1775 in the fight against British rule. Last but not least, this week is also the 20th anniversary of the Waco siege, which the extreme right castigates to this day as an illegal act of violence by security agencies.
Just the Beginning?
For the time being, we can only speculate about the background of the bloody deed in Boston. The only thing that is certain is that the Obama government is now suddenly faced with a new challenge, one where the public would like to see quick success. There will inevitably be a discussion about whether the safety and surveillance measures introduced after 2001 are sufficient or whether the country has become slack in matters of counterterrorism. There is also the question of whether Boston was just the beginning of a new type of campaign of attacks on gatherings of people. This event has brutally demonstrated one thing: Even if America's airports and government buildings are better protected than before, there are still countless "weak" targets which make the country vulnerable. This cannot be fundamentally altered without an exorbitant increase in spending and security restrictions in public life being taken to extremes.