Why the Boston Bombers Succeeded

[longknife]

directorblue @ Doug Ross @ Journal provided the following:
Guest post By Scott Stewart, Stratfor Research

When seeking to place an attack like the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing into context, it is helpful to classify the actors responsible, if possible. Such a classification can help us understand how an attack fits into the analytical narrative of what is happening and what is likely to come. These classifications will consider factors such as ideology, state sponsorship and perhaps most important, the kind of operative involved.

Read more @ Doug Ross @ Journal: Why the Boston Bombers Succeeded [Stewart]

Yes, directorblue is a conservative as is the guest poster. But, instead of attacking them, READ the piece and try to tell us where he is wrong – and why.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1wZoCIydCgg#]'Confusion and inconsistencies': How US plans to distract public from real truth about Boston - YouTube[/ame]!

 

[Mad Scientist]

Yes, directorblue is a conservative as is the guest poster. But, instead of attacking them, READ the piece and try to tell us where he is wrong – and why.

Nice try but that's not likely to happen. Most USMB posters like to wave the Liberal or Conservative flag.

MSNBC or FoxNews flag.

Democrat or Republican flag.

 

[Old Rocks]

Read the article. One of the points about the grassroots terrorist is how easy it is to obtain instructions on how to build simple bombs. What it failed to mention, was that these simple bombs were constructed using gunpowder. When someone buys that much gunpowder, why are there not background checks, and a follow up to see what they are doing with said powder?

And what kind of organization would put the public at risk by opposing such background checks?

 

[Freemason9]

The attacks succeeded because we still live in a relatively "free" society. If we had so much law enforcement presence that such crimes became impossible, we undoubtedly would be much less free as a society.

 

[AceRothstein]

Read the article. One of the points about the grassroots terrorist is how easy it is to obtain instructions on how to build simple bombs. What it failed to mention, was that these simple bombs were constructed using gunpowder. When someone buys that much gunpowder, why are there not background checks, and a follow up to see what they are doing with said powder?

And what kind of organization would put the public at risk by opposing such background checks?

The older brother supposedly bought a shit-ton of fireworks.

 

[MikeK]

Read the article. One of the points about the grassroots terrorist is how easy it is to obtain instructions on how to build simple bombs. What it failed to mention, was that these simple bombs were constructed using gunpowder. When someone buys that much gunpowder, why are there not background checks, and a follow up to see what they are doing with said powder?

And what kind of organization would put the public at risk by opposing such background checks?

As I recall, as a New York City resident back in the 60s I was unable to buy gunpowder without a permit. And obtaining a permit required a background check.

But with regard to the Boston bombing issue it was very fortunate these two were amateurs, because gunpowder is a comparatively slow-burning compound which produces a relatively low explosive yield. If the same volume of ANFO (Ammonium Nitrate/Fuel Oil mixture) was used (e.g., McVeigh's bomb) there would have been ten times the death and damage. Same for C-4, Semtex, Astrolite, and many other explosive compounds.

It may be said the device the Boston bombers produced was a giant firecracker.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Read the article. One of the points about the grassroots terrorist is how easy it is to obtain instructions on how to build simple bombs. What it failed to mention, was that these simple bombs were constructed using gunpowder. When someone buys that much gunpowder, why are there not background checks, and a follow up to see what they are doing with said powder?

And what kind of organization would put the public at risk by opposing such background checks?

You don't have to buy it all at once, so how would background checks make a difference?

 

[Old Rocks]

And we have the case of some company in Texas storing tons of NH4NO3 without the governments knowledge or any kind of permits or safeguards. How many more scofflaws are out there doing this kind of thing and endangering all Americans? By the way, once the death count is complete in West, I think every official of that company that knew they were storing the ammonium nitrate there should be brought to trial on that many counts of involuntary manslaughter. And the sentences should be consectutive.

 

[Old Rocks]

Read the article. One of the points about the grassroots terrorist is how easy it is to obtain instructions on how to build simple bombs. What it failed to mention, was that these simple bombs were constructed using gunpowder. When someone buys that much gunpowder, why are there not background checks, and a follow up to see what they are doing with said powder?

And what kind of organization would put the public at risk by opposing such background checks?

You don't have to buy it all at once, so how would background checks make a difference?

You mean that computers have not been invented yet? That a bunch of purchases cannot be programmed to set off a red flag? What kind of organization would oppose such a program?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Read the article. One of the points about the grassroots terrorist is how easy it is to obtain instructions on how to build simple bombs. What it failed to mention, was that these simple bombs were constructed using gunpowder. When someone buys that much gunpowder, why are there not background checks, and a follow up to see what they are doing with said powder?

And what kind of organization would put the public at risk by opposing such background checks?

You don't have to buy it all at once, so how would background checks make a difference?

You mean that computers have not been invented yet? That a bunch of purchases cannot be programmed to set off a red flag? What kind of organization would oppose such a program?

Registration rears its ugly head again. They don't even have to buy the stuff themselves. There are so many ways to get around your computer tracking, why impose yet more regulations on those who have no ill intent?

 

[LoudMcCloud]

Title should be changed to: How the government succeeded in Martial Law.

 

[Politico]

Because there's no precrime division.

 

[MikeK]

Read the article. One of the points about the grassroots terrorist is how easy it is to obtain instructions on how to build simple bombs. What it failed to mention, was that these simple bombs were constructed using gunpowder. When someone buys that much gunpowder, why are there not background checks, and a follow up to see what they are doing with said powder?

And what kind of organization would put the public at risk by opposing such background checks?

You don't have to buy it all at once, so how would background checks make a difference?

You mean that computers have not been invented yet? That a bunch of purchases cannot be programmed to set off a red flag? What kind of organization would oppose such a program?

That would depend on what one considers significant or excessive. People who shoot a lot and reload ammo, both for their own use and for sale to others, use quite a bit of powder. There are many of them and I knew a few. These guys use enough powder in the average month to fill several pipe nipples or a pressure cooker or two.

 

[LoudMcCloud]

Who do you believe? The Resistance Report: Media Frenzy? - Boston Marathon Bombing False Flag