On not going out on a limb . . .
When I first heard that two bombs had exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, the second bomb about thirteen seconds after the first, I instantly formed an opinion about the probable identity of who was responsible but kept it mostly to myself and refrained from posting a blog entry. After the two brothers who carried out the attack were identified as Islamist terrorists, I read what my friend Kevin Kim had posted about the news:
As I tried to say earlier, theories that the Boston Marathon bombing were somehow linked to home-grown Tim McVeigh types or to Kim Jeong-eun (for God's sakes, what??) were asinine, as were the calls for "open-minded" consideration of who the guilty parties might be. It didn't take a genius to figure out that this was another instance of Islamic extremism, and sure enough, the perpetrators -- caught with incredible swiftness by local and federal law-enforcement authorities -- turned out to be two disaffected Chechen Muslims who were both biological brothers and brothers in arms. One sibling is now dead; the other was caught while bleeding from wounds suffered during a firefight.I then left the following comment to Kevin's post:
Because there were two explosions, the terrorist attack fit the Islamist method of operations -- kill innocents by surprise, then kill the innocents running to help.Kevin replied in a follow-up comment:
I mentioned the point to a colleague at work, but I didn't blog on the point because I didn't want to chance being wrong and accused of prejudice.
I think the only people who'd have accused you of prejudice are members of the PC brigade who deliberately refuse to put 2 and 2 together. You've zeroed in on exactly the evidence that convinced me this attack was Islamist.I'm gratified to have good company. When I told my wife about the bombing, I said that I suspected Islamist terrorists because of the two bombs. A couple of days later, I spoke with an Ewha colleague who'd studied at Harvard and thus knows the bombed area, and I mentioned my observation to her. She's also not a "Politically Correct" type, so my reasoning immediately clicked with her.
I therefore agree with Kevin that the Islamist character of this terrorist attack was clear from the start, and most of us know this, if not for the pattern -- the two bombs -- then for the sheer likelihood of the act itself, given that the vast majority of terrorist attacks these days are carried out by Islamists, a fact that has surely forced itself into everyone's mind by now even if people disagree on "root causes."
As for root causes, those would differ from individual to individual, but the crucial question is this: what is there in Islam that makes its teachings apparently so susceptible to misconstrual and misuse by fanatics?