Open

Coming up

Don't miss

Replay


LATEST SHOWS

WEB NEWS

France's top consumer group sues Internet giants

Read more

WEB NEWS

Web users pay tribute to South Korea ferry victims

Read more

AFRICA NEWS

A landslide victory for the 'invisible candidate' in Algeria's Presidential polls

Read more

THE WORLD THIS WEEK

The World This Week - 18 April 2014

Read more

THE WORLD THIS WEEK

The World This Week - 18 April 2014 (part 2)

Read more

MEDIAWATCH

Presidential adviser resigns over "shoe-shine scandal"

Read more

#THE 51%

Breaking stereotypes

Read more

#TECH 24

Galaxy S5 v. HTC One (M8): Which is the right one for you?

Read more

FRANCE IN FOCUS

New PM Manuel Valls outlines priorities

Read more

  • Why Syria’s cash-strapped jihadists let hostages go

    Read more

  • Ukraine rebels call for Russian troops after deadly clash

    Read more

  • The Great War's unsung four-legged heroes

    Read more

  • UK’s Hamilton cruises to victory at Chinese Grand Prix

    Read more

  • Divers begin pulling bodies from sunken South Korean ferry

    Read more

  • Freed French journalists arrive home after Syria ordeal

    Read more

  • Syria’s Assad visits recaptured Christian town at Easter

    Read more

  • In pictures: French kite festival takes flight

    Read more

  • Le Pen’s National Front fail to woo Britain’s Eurosceptics

    Read more

  • PSG clinch fourth League Cup title after beating Lyon

    Read more

  • Militants kill Algerian soldiers in deadly ambush

    Read more

  • Scores killed in South Sudan cattle raid

    Read more

  • VIDEO: Anti-Semitic leaflets in Eastern Ukraine condemned

    Read more

  • In pictures: Good Friday celebrated across the globe

    Read more

  • Bouteflika, the ghost president

    Read more

  • Does Valls’ upcoming Vatican trip violate French secularism?

    Read more

  • Ukraine separatists say ‘not bound’ by Geneva deal

    Read more

  • Abel Ferrara’s hotly awaited DSK film to premiere on web

    Read more

  • Obama signs bill to block controversial Iran diplomat from UN post

    Read more

  • Astronomers discover Earth-like planet that could support life

    Read more

  • In pictures: Iranian woman pardons son’s killer at the gallows

    Read more

Middle east

Boston bombings: Terror attack or ordinary crime?

© AFP

Text by HAARETZ

Latest update : 2013-04-17

Were the Boston marathon bombings criminal or security-related, asks Haaretz’s Amir Oren. A terror attack or an ordinary crime? These are new questions for Americans, he says.

Read premium content from Israel's Haaretz on www.france24.com.

Three people were killed in Boston on Monday and dozens injured in explosions. Those are the facts. Now the question: was it criminal or security-related? A terror attack or an ordinary crime?

In a similar case ‏(later solved‏) in Tel Aviv, in December 2003 − at the bloody height of a wave of terror − then Police Commissioner Shlomo Aharonishki coined the hybrid phrase “criminal terror attack.” But the obvious public response to the sights − that it is terror − does not suit the American mind-set; certainly not the well-ordered logic of a man who studied law at Harvard, not far from the scene of Monday’s explosions − U.S. President Barack Obama. Information first, conclusions later.

However, in the first 24 hours after the explosion there was no information. There were also no warnings. The Department of Homeland Security, established after the attacks of September 11, 2001, had recently changed its method of warnings. It no longer uses the metaphor of the traffic light, changing according to the seriousness of a warning − deemed too confusing, especially as the years pass without attacks. Now there are only two types of warning: “elevated” and “imminent,” and these, too, are issued for limited periods. Monday there were no warnings, either new or old.

If there were no warnings, that means there was no intelligence. Here, too, there are two possibilities. Either preparations were carried out under the extensive network of federal, state and municipal radar, or there were no suspicious preparations.

Preparations mean obtaining equipment, collecting information ahead of the operation and chatter among operatives. A single individual, a “lone wolf” − who knows that stores selling explosives or nitrates that can be used as explosives must report strange orders to the authorities, likewise delivery services − will proceed with caution. If he has not shared his plot with anyone, it will be very difficult to intercept him before the act is committed.

Obama was frank yesterday in pointing out the contradiction between deeming the explosions an act of terror and the double mystery of “who” and “why.” If the identity and motives of the operatives are unknown, how can their actions be categorized? The solution to the conundrum is amazingly simple: the president will decide. If Obama says it’s terror, it’s terror. And he has a new definition of terror − any event with multiple explosive devices. That is the wording the White House used Monday, and Obama used similar wording yesterday.

That, of course, is a reasonable assumption based on the modus operandi of Al-Qaida and similar groups, although a determined and thorough individual can also hide explosive devices and time them to go off. Such an individual can also choose a commemoration date on the Al-Qaida calendar − the second anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden. According to the general calendar, there are still two weeks to go before that anniversary, but according to the Muslim calendar, it was marked last week. And under those circumstances, a week’s-wait is possible for the tempting opportunity of a mass event such as the marathon.

After 9/11 ‏(in which Boston’s Logan Airport played a key role in terms of lax security‏), the Bush Administration responded with clumsy organizational steps. The establishment of Homeland Security was one of these. The establishment of the interagency National Counterterrorism Center, which answers to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ‏(a coordinating agency of the intelligence community‏); but the center does not deal with domestic terror.


And the Pentagon’s lexicon defines terrorism as “The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.” The motive for terror, the definition adds, is frequently religious, political or another ideological belief, and usually serves political goals. Military action against terrorism, according to this definition, is taken directly against terror networks, and indirectly to prevent global and regional environments from providing a welcoming attitude to terrorist networks.

What does all this have to do with Boston? Very little, but Obama was burned last year in Benghazi, Libya, when intelligence − and thereafter the entire Administration − first talked about “spontaneous demonstrations.” These had morphed into an attack on the CIA annex and the killing of the ambassador and three of his security guards, before the Administration was informed and conceded that it was terror.

This time, Obama prefers to take a risk in the direction of conservatism: the number of explosions defines the crime, even before we know who carried it out and what the motives were. The struggle against terror, administration spokesmen will certainly say − repeating the old adage − is not a sprint but a marathon.

-- By Amir Oren, Haaretz

Click here to read more on Haaretz (registration required).

© Read premium content from leading Israeli daily Haaretz on FRANCE 24

Date created : 2013-04-17

  • USA

    Boston bombs 'packed nails inside pressure cookers'

    Read more

  • USA

    FBI launches manhunt in wake of Boston bombings

    Read more

  • PAKISTAN

    Pakistan Taliban deny role in Boston Marathon blasts

    Read more

Comments

COMMENT(S)