Bombing Suspects
As our frequent readers know, we have not wanted to get out in front of the search for the perpetrators of the Boston bombings and have therefore resisted offering any specific profiling information without full knowledge of what is going on inside the investigation.
However, there are a few characteristics of which we are dead certain, and we are therefore offering them without fear of getting in the way of the investigators or compromising their work.
At this point, we don’t even know whether this was the work of a cabal of terrorists or a lone wolf. But one thing we do know is that whoever it was, the perpetrator – or perpetrators – is an abject coward. The other thing we know is that whatever his political aims or beliefs, he is an incomplete, maladjusted antisocial or asocial individual.
Years ago, we ran into a buzz saw of criticism for saying that whatever else the 9/11 hijackers were, they were not cowards. Misguided, hateful, evil – we’ll go with all of those descriptives. But you don’t plan and execute the taking over of a commercial airliner, attempt to subdue its passengers and crew and hurtle it into a suicidal crash if you are a coward. These reprehensible acts require not only abiding faith and a political cause. They require raw courage.
But planting a bomb is not such an up-close-and-personal act. It does not require the forfeiture of your own life. It does not even require you to confront the object of your evil intentions. And anyone willing to take the life of innocent noncombatants without even facing them is by definition a coward. He may be intelligent and/or mechanically minded like Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski. He may be a decent planner. But like Kaczynski, there is not a courageous bone in his body. The courageous, emotionally complete one in that family was his brother David, who had the moral fiber to turn him in once he recognized his older brother in the so-called Manifesto.
What’s more, a bomber fits the description of most predatory sexual criminals in that to kill as he does, he must depersonalize his victims. No matter how politically committed, there is no rational justification for taking the life of an innocent child. And the argument that the lives of other innocent children have been lost in actions perpetrated by the “other side” – whomever that other side is – is no excuse.
So whoever you are, know that we all get it that you are nothing but a craven, cowardly and tremendously incomplete person. And know also that whatever political or moral justification you may have ascribed to your actions, they are nothing more than a thin smokescreen to cover your own emotional weaknesses and failings as a human being. By your cowardly and depersonalized act, you have shown the world your own deep and far-reaching inadequacies and no amount of political posturing can cover that up.
We already know you for what you are. And when you are caught, all it will mean is that we can put a face to the profile of a pathetic loser we already understand all too well.
Original Who? Time to die in California case. I know your with us and I like that!
Chris
It is hard to quarrel with the likes of John E. Douglas. Nevertheless, it seems to me there is a flaw in his modelling when it comes to dealing with Islamic terrorists. I’m not sure that the same psychological profiling models work. In this instance, the two UNSUBs turned out to be more well-adjusted (and perhaps more courageous) than the model predicted ahead of time. Also, there were hints of Islamic terrorism in the bomb design and the choice of the target. The 9-11 terrrorists, as far as I can tell, were the cream of the Saudi Arabian system not the dregs. I recommend Dore Gold’s Hatred’s Kingdom for an overview of the terrorist threat we are dealing with now.
Or in this case was big brother a loser who used religion as en excuse for self aggrandizing behavior. We’ll have to find out.
I agree with Tom. Ethnic groups other than white Anglo-Saxon Protestant snap.
I see this as potentially more like Columbine, just the killers in this case were members a rare ethnic group.
Hello Chris,
I am not white anglo-saxon protestant, so it is “cool” to know that according to you, I “snap” 🙂
That being said, the difference between these kids and the 9/11 terrorists is that these kids were almost “homegrown”. The 9/11 terrorists had spent their formative years, as far as I remember, elsewhere than in the US (mostly in Saudi Arabia, given their nationalities). In addition, these youth, while Muslim, were not Saudis or from the surrounding region by any means. They were not Arabs. They come from a historically culturally very different region. They are ethnically Chechens (a historically Sufi group from the former Soviet Union, while most Saudis belong to the Sunni Wahabi sect), and while there has been a lot of Chechen terrorism following the Chechnia independence war, Chechen terrorism has targeted Russia and Russian interests. It has not internationalized. These kids, in addition, grew up far from Chechnya, somewhere else in the former Soviet Union.
The thing is, what is happening may not be too surprising, but it is once again a sign that Islamic terrorism is spreading far beyond its initial boundaries. It has been spreading into “homegrown” terrorism for a while (London bombings, Merah in the South of France, and now Boston), and has been spreading, and spreading techniques and “styles” (like suicide attacks that have touched countries, like Mali, thought to be culturally immune to this “style” of attack) beyond their original borders. This is an issue of concern, and means that a broader and broader variety of people may suddently feel like they are “part” of the global Islamic terrorist movement.
Beyond the individuals who committed these crimes and their individual stories, the way we react to it is also very important. I have been lucky to move around a lot, and be in a variety of places on Earth (including “unsafe” ones), and meet people there. It is important not to be naive (people come to the US and other countries on Earth with more diverse cultural backgrounds than before, which poses unique challenges we are not accustomed to, and “business as usual” may not be enough to successfully integrate all these individuals into society), but paying attention to the way we react (are we going to blame an entire category of people, or are we going to blame the individuals) is also essential. Each time we “vent” against an entire group of people, this group feels unfairly targeted. The thing is, for the better and the worse, we are not alone speaking about our internal matters: it pisses us off (and be sure it pisses other countries off as much as it does us), but no major American, French, Saudi, or Chinese “internal” event, decision, or mindset can happen without being noticed and commented and judged upon by most of the rest of the world. “Internal” is not internal any more. Websites, boards, are shared with a variety of people from around the world. We are therefore all, in some ways, “ambassadors” of any group other people may want to identify us with to the whole world, and not just our co-citizens…
Well said, Chris. Thanks.
Ted-and-David just completely summarize everything that I think is wrong with… pretty much everything.
Ted gets worshipful letters constantly. David doesn’t. But David helps people, is really patient (you seriously have no idea), writes beautiful poetry… tens of thousands have read Ted’s writings but almost no one reads David’s writings.
Everybody pays attention to the Westerboro Baptists, but there’s no news coverage of my church’s homeless program or community rehabilitation projects.
The news is completely feeding these maniacs. The classic is the Zodiac, but these highly staged theatrical events are directed at the media. It’s to cause a frenzy to get attention.
It really bothers me. They say “kindness is its own reward,” but Skinner would probably differ.
Manson family.
4 men