IED explodes at Times Square recruiting station

A small improvised explosive device exploded in Times Square this morning, blowing a hole through the door of the Army recruiting station there, but causing no injuries, thank goodness. Excerpt:

Members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force, the large Police Department and F.B.I. unit that investigates terrorism, were at the scene of the blast, supporting the Police Department’s Bomb Squad, which along with other police detectives likely will take the lead role in investigating the incident, an F.B.I. official said. The official said that in today’s attack, a man in a gray hooded sweatshirt was seen leaving the scene on a bicycle.

The authorities were looking into whether the explosion was connected to two earlier blasts that were similar in method and timing, the official said. At about 3:40 a.m. on Oct. 26, 2007, two dummy hand grenades that had been fashioned into crude bombs exploded outside the Mexican Consulate at 27 East 39th Street in Murray Hill, shattering windows. The building was not occupied and no one was hurt. At 3:55 a.m. on May 5, 2005, two crude but powerful explosive devices detonated outside the British Consulate at 845 Third Avenue in East Midtown, shattering windows and damaging a planter.

Confederate Yankee has pictures, and says, "This was an act of domestic terrorism." He adds:

I do not, however, feel comfortable blaming any specific anti-war group for this act, or even pinning this as an anti-war act at this point in time.

Anti-war groups, in general, are non-violent in nature, and those that lean towards the anarchist fringe that are violence prone tend towards vandalism, and generally, don't have the technical expertise to manufacture even such a simple device.

Whoever built this bomb may have sympathies towards the anti-war movement and/or anti-military feelings, but I would be surprised to find them affiliated officially with any specific anti-war or anti-military group, and would be even more surprised if anyone inside one of these groups had advance knowledge of the attack.

(Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

Comments

[Dave]

"Ironic terrorism"? With respect, Brendan, sometimes you can be too glib for your own good.

For my part, I think it's pretty sad to see our servicemen targeted here at home. Thank God nobody was hurt.

[Brendan Loy]

Dave, obviously I wouldn't be so glib if anyone had been injured. But I certainly agree with you that it's sad and maddening to see something like this happen.

To be honest, it hadn't really occurred to me that the line you quote could be offensive, but I see your point. Maybe I'll take it out.

[Joe Mama]

I wouldn't blame "any specific anti-war group for this act at this point in time" without any proof, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least to find out at a later point in time that a crackpot anti-war person/group did this. Look no further than the very recent vitriol repeatedly aimed at military recruiting facilities in Berkeley...

[Aaron]

I didn't think it was too glib, and I don't think you should have taken it out. Like CY (or TiDoSY, as some like to call him) suggests, this was probably the work of some idiot anti-war protesters, and I'm in no way defending them. But there was pretty clearly no intent to injure anyone. To even call this terrorism is to stretch the meaning of the word farther than I think it should be stretched. (I feel the same way about most acts of "eco-terrorism.") But if you must call this terrorism, "ironic terrorism" was just fine and in no way too glib.

[Sandy Underpants]

Vitriol equals terror now? Berkley is a long way from NYC. Who knows who planted the bomb or what their motives were, but the war on terror was trivialized when the government started charging nuns with greenpeace for Terrorism because of a sit-in and peace protesters in SF with terrorism charges for obstructing the flow of traffic. How many more days do these clowns have in power?

[Joe Loy]

What is this, the IDEs of March already? I'd no idee. / It's IED ;}. Fix the Headline. :)

[Joe Mama]

Of course vitriol doesn't equal terror, but if anti-war groups aren't at or near the top of your list of potential suspects for such an attack on a military recruiting station (absent any better leads), especially given the infamous behavior of such groups towards military recuiters in Berkeley ("We Support The Troops When They Shoot Their Officers!"), then you are a complete idiot who has no business being in law enforcement.

[Joe Mama]

Who knows who planted the bomb or what their motives were, but the war on terror was trivialized when the government started charging nuns with greenpeace for Terrorism because of a sit-in and peace protesters in SF with terrorism charges for obstructing the flow of traffic.

Guess what, genius -- now we do know what their motives were. Like I said before, not surprised in the least. So much for sandy's prognostic abilities.

[Jim]

While many anti-war groups are peaceful, it would be wise not to forget the Weathermen.

That said, keeping an open mind while investigating is always handy.

[Sandy Underpants]

Once again, there hasn't been one recruiting station bombed in Berkley, nor has there been any peace protestors connected to any bombings or violence since the war began, so Joe Mama, you're assumptions are without foundation. Furthermore, anarchists and anti-government types like the Unibomber, Olympic bomber, and abortion clinic bombers are hardly representative of any group or those who hold opinions remotely similar.

The people who are murdering are on your side, Joe Mama. It's a fact I would find hard to handle as well, but then again I have a soul.

[David K.]

Wow Sandy, you were going real well up until the very end there. Despite my disagreements with him, i don't think Joe Mama advocates murder or has no soul. There are leftist extremeists who are more than willing to endanger and outright kill others too (the ELF comes to mind).

[Sandy Underpants]

Please DK, anyone in favor of war is in favor of killing people to resolve issues. Let's call a spade a spade, sheesh that's what war is. Especially now with so many people understanding what a mistake it was or how unneccessary it was, Joe Mama is still in favor of murdering women and children (who die every day with american bullets in their bodies) to accomplish a goal that he can't even articulate because it doesn't actually exist. I understand that no Republican is going to say "Yes, lets kill women and children and innocent men to accomplish our goals", that's not marketable, but it is factual (or as government has termed it-- "collateral damage").

Regarding your ridiculous ELF reference. They aren't an actual organization, but call letters for nutcases to write when they commit vandalism. I would have added them to the list of unrepresentative nutjobs like the Unibomber, Olympic Bomber, and Abortion Bombers, but ELF has not actually harmed a human being, so I left them off.

[David K.]

Congratulations Sandy, your extreme and uncomporomising position coupled with your inability to understand that the world is not black and white has earned you a place on my list as this websites liberal version of Alasdair.

[David K.]

Put less sarcastically, are you saying that Americans who supported our efforts to stop our enemies in WWII are in favor of killing people? Sometimes armed combat is the only option available, and while innocent may be killed you'd be hard pressed to find a significant number of people on EITHER side of the political spectrum who are actually in favor of an action BECAUSE it involves the killing of innocents.

Accepting an unfortunate affect of war is different than relishing it. I accept that there is disagreement about whether the war is necessary, I think it was most definitely NOT necessary, and I believe that we should leave ASAP because it means less innocent lives put at risk, but just because Joe Mama and others disagree with me, its not because they revel in the idea of killing innocent people, but because they feel that in the long run LESS people will be killed by this unfortunate but necessary action. Again I think they are wrong, but thats different than thinking they are evil. Despite what Alasdair would have you believe its not that i think our president (or Joe Mama) are evil because of their views, i simply think they are wrong and their views are more harmful than good, there is, as i have mentioned a difference between the two, and as I said your inability to grasp this difference is basically relegating you to fringe partisan nut land.