Schrödinger’s Bombs
show comments
  • Stephen

    People shouldn’t be surprised if this takes quite a while to sort out. Two names: Ted Kaczynski and Richard Jewell. It took years to catch Kaczynski and years of hounding Jewell before it was realized by authorities that they had the wrong guy.

  • Perhaps you meant the Heisenberg moment? It was Werner Heisenberg who formulated the uncertainty principle, according to which the momentum and location of an elementary particle cannot be simultaneously determined. (In fact they don’t even simultaneously exist!) Or maybe you are referring to the fact that the Schrödinger equation only gives us information about the probability of an event, in this case, I presume, who done it?

  • NoNewt

    Right, the only identifiable potential set of candidates (i.e., other than the absolutely generic “lone wolf” or “conspiracy”) is “deranged right-wing nutjobs.”

    Not Islamic terrorists. Not left-wing haters of capitalism. Clearly, it must be the Tea Party.

    WRM isn’t exactly the mainstream media, and this post may well have been written by an intern with mixed-up ideas received at a bastion of left-wing conventional wisdom like the Columbia School of Journalism.

    But. It’s revolting and unfair that any time we have a terrorist act, the only politically correct potential suspect to name is “right-wing nutjobs.” Forget that Michael Bloomberg’s intimation “the right” was behind the failed Times Sq. bomb turned out to be a dud because it was, surprise, an Islamist. Or that pretty much any terror situation we’ve had has been from those quarters – excepting, of course, the likes of the Occupy Wall Street socialists who tried to blow up bridges in Ohio.

    Certainly, a WASPy 60-something Tea Partier former executive with his crazy views about limited government and taxation must be behind this. Clearly.

  • I would not be surprised if the culprit(s) turn out to be “right-wing nut jobs” or for that matter, a post-Occupy reincarnation of the Weather Underground or even someone with a grudge against the Boston Marathon.

    However, it is disappointing to see WRM pussyfooting around the jihad. The odds that this attack was carried out by jihadists is at least 20 to one, based on the fact that since 9/11 there have been dozens of foiled or failed jihadist attacks and a few successful ones inside the US, based on the fact that there are still at least four al Qaeda groupings overseas that are hard at work trying to find ways to attack Americans, and also not incidentally based on the circumstances of the attack.

    Let’s face it: the ridiculous media obsession with whether this was a crime, an act of terror, or terrorism and the near-frenzied repetition of the warning against “speculation” or “jumping to conclusions” is a combination of wishful thinking by Democratic pols and their media supporters (“Please, please, let it be a Timothy McVeigh”) and laying the groundwork, if as is likely it is jihadist terrorism, for a narrative to the effect that it’s no big deal.

    • Notice how the emerging watchword as early as last night is “resilience” as in, “We’re a resilient people, so let’s not get too worked up over a couple of bombs.”

    • Right on cue, David Gergen, spokesman for our political establishment, echoes Obama’s words — Boston is “tough and resilient” — in a column and posts to his Facebook page that the “people of Boston will not surrender to the forces of darkness.” That would seem beside the point or even wierd until you factor in the emerging narrative: Sure, those al Qaeda guys are going to get through once in a while and cause some damage, but we’re tough and resilient. We can take it and keep on with our lives.

  • TheCynical1

    Yes, let’s minimize the bipartisan wrongs of Bush and Obama. Move along, nothing to see here.

  • Corlyss Drinkard

    Boston: More evidence supporting CCTV on public streets everywhere all the time. Anyone in public has no expectation of privacy, period. The claims that such CCTV is invasive and hostile to individuals’ privacy rights are laughably bogus.

  • My own emerging pet annoyance is the pass the media is giving Marathon security, overlooking the obvious flaw in the Boston Police Commissioner’s repeated excuse: it’s a 28-mile race course that has to be open to the public, so what could we do. But terrorists of whatever stripe are not going to waste their time, energy and resources and risk capture to plant a bomb at mile nine of the race that might not kill anyone. Sure, it’s a soft target, but so is my backyard. The bombs were planted virtually on top of the finish line clearly because the crowds would be thick there, you might hit some VIPs, and there would be a dozen or more TV crews recording the whole thing. With the millions spent on security for this event — including no doubt some federal counterterrorism dough — you certainly could have secured five or 10 blocks that provide the most tempting target. NYC manages to allow a million people to gather in Times Square on New Year’s Eve while making every one of them pass through a check point and forbidding them to bring backpacks.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.