It seemed just moments after news broke on April 15 of explosions in Boston that accusations of guilt began to fly. The most common assumed perpetrators, Islamic or right wing terrorists, were met with either approval or outrage, depending on which news sources you frequent.While the truth will come out glacially as police rightly protect their building case, a question about the accused remains: was it reasonable to assume either of these groups so soon? We of course do not know who planned or planted what. The demand, and assumption, of accurate up-to-the-moment news is a defect of the Internet age. Good reporting takes time, and “the fog of war” not only exists, but inhibits reporting and source vetting. Stories such as school shootings and terrorist attacks enable inaccurate initial reporting as the race to break news becomes a shorter and shorter sprint. Reports out of Boston regarding an alleged arrest, broke by CNN, was so woeful the FBI issued a public statement asking for caution from the press.
Yet, this demand is the fault of consumers as much as our media’s. The response to tragedies devolves from shock to voyeurism with haste, enveloped within the rising count of claimed lives and severed limbs. Far removed from the scene, we would speculate with or without real-time — often inaccurate — eye witness interviews and video feeds.
It should surprise no one that in short order, Islamic and right wing extremists received preemptive blame for the Boston Marathon bombing. Opposite the template of the loner-goth school shooter, which was never accurate and is even less so considering goths ceased to exist post 1999, presuming domestic terrorism is the work of Islamic or right wing extremists is an evidence based practice.
Islamic groups have successfully attacked American cities before — the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and 9/11 their crown jewels. Since the War on Terror’s inception, most attempts by Islam inspired psychopaths have been foiled solo ventures in the mold of the 2009 underwear bomber and the 2010 Times Square bomber. The few organizational efforts, like Richard Reid’s attempted shoe bombing in 2001, failed as well.
Right wing terrorism holds a lower profile than its Islamic counterpart, but has been more prevalent domestically since 1995. Though Islamic attacks make up 12 percent of all domestic terrorism, right wing extremists tally 56 percent, according to a report by the Center for American Progress.
Timothy McVeigh, the since-executed perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombing, would be the poster child for right wing terrorists: radically anti–government, believing their acts embody an ultimate form of patriotism.
Separate from their statistical prevalence, hints at Islamic and right wing groups come from the actual detonation of the explosives.
Few people understand the 1999 Columbine school shooting for what it was: failed domestic terrorism. The Columbine plan was not to stroll into school and shoot as many students and staff as possible. It was to level the cafeteria, pick off survivors fleeing the school, and claim first responders with secondary explosives.
If you haven’t heard this, it’s because — separate from poor reporting — successful bomb-making requires expertise and often training, something Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris didn’t possess.
Whether through terrorist groups or prior military service, the route of McVeigh, the skill acquisition and strategy bombings demand comes from somewhere. The two accused groups seem to get this.
In the end, immediate suspicion towards Islamic and right wing extremists is neither islamophobia, nor is it shameless politics. Considering the inevitability of speculation, these conclusions are reasonable. Something we should admit, while remembering reasonable and right may reside worlds apart.
Brian Marceaucan be reached [email protected]