X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Coffee House

Boston bombing suspects: what we know, and what we don’t

20 April 2013

9:04 PM

20 April 2013

9:04 PM

With the manhunt for the alleged perpetrators of the Boston bombings – Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev – now over, a complex and confusing picture is emerging of the two men involved. Here’s what we know so far.

1. The older brother, Tamerlan, expressed concerns about the American lifestyle. Featured in a photojournalism essay about his love of boxing, Tamerlan told the reporter he was very religious and disliked taking off his shirt at the gym in case women got the wrong idea. He also said he given up drinking because ‘God said no to alcohol’. Tamerlan also expressed concern at American values, arguing ‘there are no values anymore…[people] can’t control themselves.’ This led to his isolation from wider society, with him confirming ‘I don’t have a single American friend, I don’t understand them.’.

2. Tamerlan’s Youtube account reveals he had watched jihadist videos. These videos were not overtly linked to al-Qaeda (they were not, for example, speeches by Osama bin Laden) but nonetheless came from the jihadist milieu. In many cases they echoed the millenarian narrative of jihadist propaganda, accompanied by the motifs, logos, and iconography that is associated with it. Yet, Tamerlan’s online viewing habits are not as obviously jihadist as might be expected. Contrasting him with the failed ‘underpants bomber’ Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Tamerlan’s online persona is much more benign. Abdulmutallab left behind a clear trail of messages revealing a highly disturbed and radicalised personality. By contrast, Tamerlan was watching a lot of Russian pop songs – despite Salafi-jihadists declaring all forms of music forbidden. His brother, Dzhokar, reveals a similar history online. Six days before the bombings he posted a video online about the conflict in Syria, but had also posted clips from a Russian sketch show. Indeed, the overall pattern of their viewing habits online does not fit the pattern of a typical jihadist.

[Alt-Text]


3. Neither of the men seemed particularly active in the local Muslim community. So far no details have emerged of any mosque where they are said to have regularly prayed. They also appear to lack connections to any group, nor have any of their friends spoken of them becoming radicalised over time by becoming more religious or by embracing more extreme political opinions. Again, this suggests there could have been a motive other than a jihadist one, but it remains unclear.

4. It is too soon to know if the men were part of a wider network or if they acted alone. What we do know is that at least one of the bombs closely matched a recipe released by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. For the last two years AQAP has tried to equip sympathetic Muslims in the West with all the information they need to build crude homemade explosive devices, which saves them the need to visit training camps abroad. As a result it has published detailed bomb making instructions in the English language, in order to reach beyond its traditionally Arab audience. This would obviously suggest it was a jihadist attack.

5. Much is made of the men’s Chechen background. While they were born abroad, both had spent a decade in the United States, were educated there, and enjoyed the opportunities of a free society. This suggests the authorities will consider the case one of ‘homegrown’ terrorism rather than a foreign plot (as was the case with 9/11). Many Americans had assumed they were immune to this kind of attack, believing America could better integrate its immigrants than European countries. This will have an impact on future immigration debates in the United States.

6. This was probably the most crowd-sourced terrorist attack in history. Long before the FBI released official photographs of the suspects, internet users from online communities like 4Chan and Reddit had poured over open sources pictures to identify potential suspects. It was a clumsy and crude method – plenty of entirely innocent people were framed – but this is likely to be an unstoppable trend following all such attacks in the future. On Twitter, too, residents inside the Watertown cordon in Boston were warned not to tweet the location of tactical response units as they scoured the area looking for Dzhokar.

The Boston bomb plot itself was relatively straightforward and unsophisticated. Far more complex and complicated are the men behind it, their trajectories and motivations. That Dzhokar was taken alive means we can expect to learn a lot more about them in the coming days.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close