Thankfully Boston bombs relatively modest in killing power Not like al Qaeda's More like homegrown anarchists They'll hunt them down in days—
Geraldo Rivera (@GeraldoRivera) April 15, 2013
Twitter users gave the professional ghoul the business.
There are now 176 casualties, and three confirmed dead. Horrible.
That’s not all. Geraldo’s tactless “analysis” doesn’t even make sense.
First, he asserts that the Boston bombs were less powerful than al Qaeda bombs.
What evidence supports that?
True, the number of fatalities in Boston was lower than in, say, the 2004 Madrid train bombings or the 2005 London bombings.
Then again, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing killed “only” six people (plus one unborn baby). Unfortunately, the fatality count in Boston may eventually top that, as a number of people injured in the blast are in critical condition.
The number of fatalities is a faulty metric for judging who committed this heinous attack.
Second, he appears to assume that “homegrown” terrorists are not capable of utilizing powerful bombs. Evil Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh demonstrated otherwise:
The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6, and injured more than 680 people. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings.
Third, he draws a bogus distinction between “homegrown” anarchists and al Qaeda. There are numerous examples of “homegrown” terrorists who joined Islamic jihad (see, e.g., Beltway sniper John Muhammad, al Qaeda associate Jose Padilla, Taliban soldier John Walker Lindh, al Qaeda mouthpiece Adam Gadahn).
Is it possible that the marathon bomber is a U.S.-born “anarchist”? Anything’s possible at this point. But Detective Rivera’s flawed and flippant Twitter B.S. doesn’t get us any closer to the truth.
Back to the vault, Geraldo!