April 25, 2013
-
Disaffection and Terrorism
Thanks for the interesting comments on our last posting.
To continue the subject for a bit, let me propose one possible answer as to why the Tsarneav brothers decided to become terrorists.
The older brother seems to have become discouraged and irritated by his life in the US – he certainly made comments about how he had no American friends and did not understand Americans. His younger brother seems to have fit in to American society better, but was apparently much influenced by his brother.
This disaffection might well have been caused by his perception of American politics and observation of recent US conflicts with the Islamic world as well as anti-muslim comments in the media. His visits back to Russia apparently left him discouraged about life there also and built in a general dislike for all things non-muslim. Recent US politics certainly do not leave any observer with much of a favorable attitude toward the US.
The kind of bombs they built did not seem to require much prior training and their “trade craft”was amateurish at best. After their last shoot-out the remaining living brother apparently dropped his weapon and fled to the nearest hiding place. They apparently had no real plan of what to do after the bombing – except maybe plant another bomb or two.
How could this kind of Amateur terrorist activity be prevented?
Comments (11)
There will be much more control. I experienced this last weekend in Ft. Lauderdale during the Air and Sea Show
Bomb-making is a very dangerous craft (ask the many dead Palestinian ex-bomb-makers). Not only does it require training-it requires a training facility and testing whether the practice bombs actually detonate.
I suspect this doesn’t fit the Hate-America narrative which you believe, so you don’t actually scrutinize your own ideas.
The Russian govt. warned the U.S. about Tamerlan’s islamist connections, which is uncontroversial and contradicts your narrative, so your narrative is simply absurd. Scrutiny, scrutiny, scrutiny, not Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton!
@soccerdadforlife - As I understand it, the Tsarnaev brother’s bomb types were from easy-to-access internet site directions. Unfortunately, bomb-making does not require much training – just proper ingredients and a steady hand. Back in the sixties and seventies there were a lot of amateur bombers -some of whom blew themselves up, but unfortunately too many were successful.
FYI, the most readily available and among the most dangerous ingredients is Ammonium Nitrate – fertilizer. All you have to do is dry it out (McVey used fuel oil to do this), pack it tightly, and set it off with a firecracker. Any knot-head can do this with very little practice. And there is almost no control on sale of this stuff.
The brothers undoubtedly hated America and were living examples of the problems we have with world perception.
I think this perception has two major factors: First, the US is the most powerful country in the modern world and we do tend to throw our weight around – thus inciting envy among the less prosperous. Second, We have the problem of a long history of religious/cultural war between Christianity and Islam. The US is the first modern country to make any attempt to recognize the basic idea of religious equality among all citizens – even the non-Christian ones; which makes dealing with this divide very difficult – for one thing, the Muslims don’t necessarily believe that we are sincere in our ideas of religious equality, as that is certainly not an idea popular within Arab countries.
@tychecat - Wow, you are parroting the liberal Hate-America line, too. Any powerful country will have enemies–including Russia. Why did the muslim Chechens bomb Russian civilians? Was it because the Chechens were being treated differently from other Russians? No, it was because the Chechens wanted to form a separate islamic state. I lost IQ points reading your comment.
Lol, go try out bomb-making. See how successful you are. You obviously have no clue about what’s really involved. The Boston terrorists used cell phones to detonate the explosions. And the amount of ammonium nitrate in a backpack wouldn’t wreak the havok that happened in boston. And the fuel oil isn’t used to “dry out” anything. It’s a part of the combustive (redox) process that produces the explosion. The fuel oil is the reducing agent and the nitrate is the (strong) oxidizing agent. And carrying that stuff (ANFO) around isn’t safe, either. Producing it is hazardous. You need a stabilizing agent to prevent a premature explosion. That’s all part of a process that must be done carefully and accurately. Then you must test your bombs.
You have no clue about the history of Islam. When active, Islam is a political movement disguised as a religion. When inactive, it becomes a religion of sorts. Why did the Eastern Roman Empire fall? Was it perhaps because of muslim attacks? Egypt used to be predominantly Christian, as did most of the Mediterranean. Same with Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. How did they become predominantly muslim, along with part of Spain? Which country runs the Shiite muslims?
The Crusades were initially a reaction to obstacles to Christian pilgrimages to the land of Israel. The Crusaders (at least one of whom was a fiend) attacked muslim countries in order to gain access for pilgrims. This was expanded by some to gain land and power–std. European stuff. Not really driven by Christianity at all, other than the initial motivation to gain access for pilgrims. Of course, the muslims saw it differently, since they project the political aspects of their religion onto Christianity.
The driving force behind terrorism is ideology not disaffection with one’s life.
If what you propose were true the world would have blown itself up 10,000 years ago.
Dissatisfaction is what drives progress. Blaming dissatisfaction for Islamic terrorism is really a convoluted stretch.
@soccerdadforlife - correction, the Boston bombers used line-of-sight electronic detonators. A CNN law enforcement source familiar with explosive experts told CNN that the experts say that for an amateur to successfully detonate 5 devices used by the Boston bombers would seem miraculous to them.
@soccerdadforlife - Sigh,
As a young man, I sailed for a time as a merchant seaman – part of the time on a Lykes C2 hauling several THOUSAND tons of Ammonium Nitrate from Texas to Japan. A couple of the crew members had been on the Flying Arrow when it blew up at Texas city a few years before – it was fully loaded with Ammonium Nitrate and caught fire – we were well aware of the dangers of that cargo – we got paid extra – but took no special precautions – ahh those were the days.
Later I served in the US Army Engineers and got their explosive- bomb defusing – etc training. I suspect I have handled and fired off a lot more nasty stuff than you have – but that was a long time ago – maybe I’ve forgotten something.
I taught history for thirty years- including the rise of Islam, and the Crusades. I think you could benefit from a refresher course in World History – I have a few books I could recommend if you are interested.
@tychecat - Maybe I did a little with explosives in my study of the chemistry of 1776 some 35 years ago.. Nitrates are strong oxidizers and lend themselves readily to fires and explosives. How much time did you spend on stabilizing agents? By itself, with no reducing agent around, ammonium nitrate (NH4+/N03- as I recall) is not explosive at all. Go to a chem lab and put some in a glass beaker and add a match. Nothing happens except the match burns. I earned a degree in chemistry and worked briefly as a chemist, but never taught it except to my kids.
Reducing agents that can react with ammonium nitrate include wood, sawdust, lots of metals, plastic, gasoline, fuel oil, etc. Reducing agents that are in a physical state that lends itself to rapid reaction (e.g., fine particles and vapors) are the most dangerous.
Gunpowder includes one of the forms of nitrates (e.g., potassium nitrate or sodium nitrate) You could also use ammonium nitrate in gunpowder. I’m sure you can google some decent books on explosives that would use ammonium nitrate.
There’s a good reason that terrorists tend to not use fuses when they want to bomb crowds–a fuse tends to alert people that an explosion is about to occur and draws attention to the terrorist. Terrorists far prefer electronic ignition systems because they give no alert, are easily controlled, can be detonated remotely, and are instantly effective. Electronic ignition systems can also be tested beforehand, unlike fuses.
Oh, I’ve probably forgotten more history than you taught, lol. I tend to scrutinize things anymore rather than swallowing them blindly, even from academic sources. I spent a few years in the Middle East as a boy and loved it. My family is very friendly to Arabic culture. Not so much to Islam. There used to be a lot of Christians in the Middle East–still quite a few in Egypt. Many Christians have left the Middle East in the last few decades because of muslim terrorism.
@tychecat - Sigh, if you’re relying on this site, be advised that it has numerous errors.
@soccerdadforlife - I mis-remembered. It was the SS High Flyer – not the SS Flying Arrow – that blew up at Texas City. As I remember, we were told that AN was hydoscopic (?) and as long as it was damp- not dangerous. When we unloaded in Japan, the stevedores actually used small Bobcat-like motorized scoopers to handle the stuff which was bulk – not bagged. Later, in the army, I got to play with what we called cratering charges – 40 lb AN canisters. We set them off with detonators – which are hard for terrorist bombers to get hold of. I also got to both set and defuse booby-traps – not fun.
The problem with setting off AN is probably why the Tsarneav brothers used black powder.
The problem Soc mentions about some parts of the world – mostly Islamic – hating us is more a statement of fact than a criticism of the US. It’s probably a factor of our success. What bugs me is the demand on the part of some of us for “Exceptionalism”- which I see as another word for jingoism or prejudice. We were once the most admired nation in the world. How did this change?
While the discussion of explosives is interesting, it does nothing to answer the question.
The idea that America is hated because of its success doesn’t make much sense – as tychecat says: for many years America was probably the most admired nation in the world – how did this change, and why?