Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | yessuccess's commentslogin

They don't hate US and what WE stand for. They hate our government and its foreign policy. Also the decade long occupation of their country.


They absolutely hate us for what we stand for, for example there is a very large uproar in France about "forcing women to undress" when that's clearly not the intent of the "unveiling" laws.

There are a lot of people and organizations that want to establish Sharia laws across the planet (effectively establishing a global caliphate) and they're not shy about it, look at what happened to Egypt. Once the MB got their election they tried to get their grubby hands into every nook and cranny of government and industry, and it was all orchestrated to cement another Islamic republic in the region.

They see Western decadence as an affront to their way of life, and there are a lot of absolutists that have no interest in integration or cooperation. Their interests lie in world domination, and not the American kind of economic domination -- medieval domination with slavery or death planned for non-Muslims.


There are crazy people and crazy organizations in every country. An extremely small percentage are sufficiently motivated to carry out violent attacks.

When you bomb, shoot, torture, and aid in the oppression someone's family members, friends, and countrymen, that makes them hate you and want to hurt you. Aside from being common sense, this is well understood even within the US military establishment[1][2].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

2: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/mcchrystal-admits-drones-i...


WE allow this to happen.


Random person with mental problems? Like all of the other shootings, stabbings, etc that have occurred in the last 10 years.


But it is so professional. Two explosions, within seconds of each other. And these were decently powerful too considering they had to be small enough to hide in the crowds.

You might be right, but something about this just makes me thing /organised./


Presumably if it was some organized group we'll find out when they take credit for it. At this point we don't even know for sure if there were bombs involved -- we know there were explosions, but an explosion can happen for reasons other than a bomb going off.

Again, all speculating does at this point is ramp up fear and anxiety, which doesn't help anybody.


The precision doesn't rule out a lone perpetrator. Just because someone is "crazy" in the sense that they'd do something like this, it doesn't mean they lack the ability to make intricate plans.


Agreed. Crazy is just a dismissive term. Perfectly sane people can do things like murder other people - we have tons of them walking around today but we call them Veterans. Crazy, in this sense, should probably be replaced by societally dysfunctional.


Casualty count seems low for something "professional" I would have thought - though certainly I'm no expert.


What sort of casualty counts did IRA bombings have in London?


Quite a few had bigger casualty lists, and many were more specifically aimed at political targets rather than large numbers of public, but fair point that a bunch were very similar or worse-done.

Two points I would make about the comparison though, firstly the IRA campaign was very much one of fear more than one of death - deaths were an added bonus. Of course maybe that's the case in Boston as well, but it's too early to know right now. Secondly, the word used was "professional" - were the IRA professional? I guess in the context of terrorist attacks, that's probably not really a relevant term.


The IRA had structure, with ranks. They had a political wing. They had funding and training and available weapons. They had PR and issued coded warnings and press releases.

Compare that to the London Nail Bomber (who killed three, and maimed many more) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Copeland) who operated alone and got no funding from others.


Actually, the IRA typically issued warnings beforehand -- soon enough to evacuate, but too late to find the bomb. I've heard it described as a calculation to minimize civilian deaths that might stiffen British resolve.

The best description I have seen is here: http://exiledonline.com/wn-38-ira-vs-al-qaeda-i-was-wrong/


Not sure how it seems professional. Compare it to the London bus bombings or Madrid, and it seems much more haphazard. For one thing, had it happened about two hours before, there was a much larger national / international audience when the winners were finishing.


No they tend to use guns or knifes (or in one case, bow and arrow) because they want to be up and close with the victims.

Bombs fit either muslims or crazy homegrown terroists, but those tend to put their bombs in cars, (and you can't park a car there) so my guess is muslims.


There have only been 3 major terror bombings in US history where cars have been used. One was the original WTC bombing. The other two were OK City and Bath School, back in 1927. There were a couple minor car bombs.

Most other domestic US bombers of all stripes used pipe bombs or suitcase bombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: