• U.S. codenames Abdulmutallab 'underwear bomber'
A TERRORISM scholar has interpreted the events surrounding last week's bombings in Boston, including the idea that the suspects' motivation might have been driven by their faith, and declared the incident as unique in America's experience.
Brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev are believed to be behind the bombings, during the Boston Marathon, that killed three people and injured more than 170 others. Authorities also said the brothers shot a police officer to death on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus.
Tamerlan, 26, was killed by police in a shootout, and Dzhokhar, 19, was captured a day later.
Dzhokhar told police his older brother was the driving force behind the attacks and that "Tamerlan's motivation stemmed from jihadist thought and the idea that Islam is under attack, and jihadists need to fight back." That, said Tom Brister of Wake Forest University, Winston- Salem, may be strong enough evidence to label the bombings "terrorism."
The don, who spoke to The Guardian in his office on the university campus, had earlier maintained that "linking the April 15 attacks to terrorism" would be difficult despite volumes of information made public about the suspects.
"If this is the case, then I think that it is legitimate to call this 'terrorism' — especially once the motive is confirmed," said Brister, a senior lecturer on terrorism and counter-terrorism in the school's Department of Politics and International Affairs.
Brister said it appears that the brothers "are 'self-radicalised' or what is sometimes called 'homegrown jihadis' — although it would not surprise me to find some sort of external links as the investigation moves on."
"Homegrown" or "grassroots jihadis" are individuals or small groups who act autonomously but are connected through the internet and other means with other individuals and groups around the world who share a similar world view.
According to him, the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world — locally and globally —might be impacted if it's proven that the brothers were driven by Islam.
"I would say that it's not yet clear that they were driven to commit this particular act because of their Muslim faith in and of itself," Brister said. "There is no evidence for that. There is evidence that they identified as Muslims. I do know that the older brother clearly espoused strict views of Islam, seems to have been influenced by a radical Islamic cleric in Australia (who, however, has not explicitly advocated violent jihad), and — again, using circumstantial evidence — certainly fits the profile of a possible 'grassroots jihadi.'
"Did religion drive them? Or might it be better expressed that he-or they-were motivated by anger toward specific U.S. actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other areas of the world that, in their view, are harming fellow Muslims or are threatening Islam as a religion?
"According to jihadi rhetoric, the U.S. and the West is 'at war with Islam.' Thus, it is not 'Islam as religion' per se that would drive violence — that is absurd and dangerous, inflammatory rhetoric. I am not saying this to condone, defend, or apologise for any form of violence in the name of any religion - simply that we need to be clear about how we incorporate religious identity into an analysis of terrorist violence. Otherwise, we would have to conclude that Christianity drove the violence of Eric Rudolph (the 1996 Atlanta Olympic bombings) and Anders Breivic (the right-wing extremist convicted of killing 77 in Norway in July 2011)."
Brister said the brothers "fit the demographic of young, alienated males committing acts of murder and destruction for nonpolitical or personal reasons. Unfortunately, this case blends elements of both, and is certainly unique in the American experience."
The Guardian