[Repeat to Fade]

The weapon of the terrorist is the bomb, or as some have now taken to calling it the IED. We saw this oh too recently in Boston, but the olympic park bombings, the unabomber, the IRA among so many others all used the bomb as their method of making a statement. But why explosives? The bombs in boston were crude they killed only 3, yes they wounded more than a hundred but as far as the death toll was concerned it was hardly massive. That tends to be true of alot of bombings in the West a big bang but the death toll is never normally too high (there are of course some very notable exceptions). So why is their use so prevelant? Optimism? Is there something about an explosion that makes a statement just clearer? Because it's the done thing if you are a terrorist? In most cases of terrorism the terrorist has access to the other popular killing tool, the gun. Now as the attacks on mumbai showed when given a little planning they can carry a far greater death toll. But still the weapon of choice remains for the most part to be the bomb regardless of it's actual effectiveness.

The gun rampage on the other hand seems to be the activity of choice for the homegrown crazy, columbine, dunblane, viginia tech, aurora and sandy hook are among the many. So why aren't terrorists doing similar? Nothing seems to be stopping them from walking into schools, cinemas, workplaces with firearms and unloading.

We know the boston bombers were heavily armed but they opted not to use these firearms against the public.

So what is the logic at play here?

[Eauz]

Probably the potential to create more fear and instability amongst the public by planting bombs and attempting to hide their actions. The bomb can be placed anywhere to detonate at any time and the person who planned it all, doesn't even need to be there. They somewhat were successful in the early stages of the plot, in that they kept fairly quiet about it, but they were found out later. Shooting people is still a form of fear, but they probably would not have had a great chance to hide/escape from the situation, since police were still in the area of the marathon and there would be images of the person shooting.

The problem with the people who planned the attack was that they never considered finding an escape option beyond hiding out in Boston. If they had been smart enough, they could have hidden away, outside of the state and this search would still be going on and the fear would still exist.

[Igor Antunov]

Bombs are more disruptive. One person can strike multiple locations at once, causing panic and broadening attack area. They pack a huge punch in a small package. They can be concealed at a distance from people and still do vast damage, they can be set off remotely, they are easy and cheap to make in secret-easier and cheaper than obtaining firearms. Also firearms require training in effective usage.

Most importantly, in the interests of terrorising a populace, the aftermath of a bomb explosion in a public place is far more visible and gory-damage to area in and around explosion will remain for some time after the attack, and people with limbs blown off, guts strewn across the ground will make a far bigger media impact than people lying dead after being shot. You also greatly increase the number of non fatal injured. One bomb can effectively 'shoot' hundreds of people with shrapnel-all the attacker need do is press a button once-no shooting skills involved.

[voxlashi]

Bombs make a statement, while firearms are only effective at decisive killing. IRA in later years usually issued precise warnings about imminent bombings, allowing the areas to be evacuated in time for the explosion - still they kept on bombing. The high death toll by the Omagh bombing of 1998 was caused by a misunderstanding about the location of the bomb, causing police to evacuate people in the wrong direction. Many RIRA members abandoned the cause consequently, suggesting that the RIRA never intended to kill but only to cause disruption.

If the intention is to kill as many as possible, a shooting spree will be inferior to a bomb, as bombs don't allow people to escape once it's on. Unless people are trapped and isolated, as they were on Utøya during the Norwegian attacks of 2011, many - if not most - will be able to escape from a shooting spree.

The inefficiency of the Boston bomb was likely caused by its placement on the ground, which caused it to target the lower body instead of the vital regions. This is why bomb belts are so effective; they are inherently placed in a position in which the blast will hit the torso of anyone nearby.

[Baff]

You get a lot of bang for your buck with a bomb.

Why a bomb? It's available and it's effective.

[Oxymoron]

From what I see, these guys didnt have it in them to kill individuals, a bomb allows one to detach from the killing. Like a Pilot dropping his bombs, and flying away.

[Baff]

And yet suicide bombers and kamikase's don't even intend to get away.
So that's not true in all cases.

[Oxymoron]

They dont have to live with the repucusions either. Killing without justification is harder to live with then dying.

[Donna]

It's a way of emulating state power.

[marjy]

We know the boston bombers were heavily armed but they opted not to use these firearms against the public. So what is the logic at play here?

They were simply cowards.

It takes actually guts to look someone in the eye and kill them face to face.

They also contrived to disassociate themselves from their crimes, again out of sheer cowardice, by walking away.

A pretty pointless exercise all in all. Had they not been caught, any number of political or disaffected groups could have laid claim to the act. Even now we don't know what their 'reasoning' was and probably never will.

[Igor Antunov]

It is easy to label a perceived enemy a coward. I'd say they were fairly ballsy for having the balls to carry out an attack in the first place. 99% of terrorist wannabees haven't the balls.

[marjy]

It is easy to label a perceived enemy a coward. I'd say they were fairly ballsy for having the balls to carry out an attack in the first place. 99% of terrorist wannabees haven't the balls.

What a load of balls.

[JohnRawls]

Bombs are discreat, a way more effective way to cause fear than to get killed in the process and after that loose the sense of fear. Boston bomers were amateurs, if they had incidiary substance and knew anything about blastwave direction the casualties might have been in the hunders. Bottom line we got lucky that they were amateurs.

[The Immortal Goon]

For the reasons listed, they're the traditional form of the, "propaganda of the deed."

The IRA used them, in part, because they were traditionally tied to Stephens and his Skirmishers. This is a different model and tactic from the Volunteer model in Irish history.

It's something a lot of organizations have to deal with. The Propanganda of the Deed was preferred by anarchists to create chaos. Later, it became a way to utilize a small amount of people and try to provoke certain reactions. Bombs are good for that.

The other models of change would be mass action (like the Volunteers in Ireland or what most Marxists do) in which you use a large movement to create the change and often try for a feedback loop where the participants become broad enough that the movement itself ceases to be a movement but a revolution.

Finally there's parliamentary attempts.

But the guys in Boston were not going to start a successful political party or create a people's army. They had only the bombs to lean upon.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Hmm why the bomb over the bullet? Well if i was offered death or an alternative, the only alternative wouldn't think of accepting over death would be to be horribly maimed or crippled for life, both things the bomb is designed for. Also Hollywood has taught us that when good guy's get shot in a gun fight they always survive with just a small scar to show for their troubles. Last but not least, a bomb can be set off with out giving yourself away, as the IRA demonstrated with their use of flash guns during the troubles where as a gun is a bit more conspicuous.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

[/quote]
They were simply cowards.

It takes actually guts to look someone in the eye and kill them face to face.

They also contrived to disassociate themselves from their crimes, again out of sheer cowardice, by walking away.

A pretty pointless exercise all in all. Had they not been caught, any number of political or disaffected groups could have laid claim to the act. Even now we don't know what their 'reasoning' was and probably never will.

[/quote]

How is some hero jet pilot dropping tonnes of explosives on top of highly populated area's any less cowardly than someone severely outnumbered and technologically inferior using cunning to equal the odds. If the Provisional IRA took on the British army toe to toe they would have lasted two week's instead of twenty years. You can't invade a country and make life unbearable for the natives and then expect them to follow some rule book drawn up by super powers to suite their needs. I doubt any of the allied pilots looked their victims in the eye the night they fire bombed Dresden resulting in the horrific deaths of over 140,000 unarmed innocent men women and children. Please tell me the difference between a bomb that has been planted and a bomb that has been dropped. Tell me also who is looking who in the eye when predator drones are blowing up domestic dwellings in the middle of the night, they can't even confirm their kills. They go against all ethics yet their the future of warfare.