A few things:
Yes, and thank you for clarifying your comment. I'm surprised how often a seemingly clear statement gets redirected on the internet.
1. Not for casualties.
2. Material effect.
3. Messaging.
If it were for casualties, it would have happened at a time when people were present, not at 06:30 on a Christmas morning when the streets were empty.
If first responders were the target, there would be no warning with the opportunity to clear the buildings and then withdraw from the blast area before the explosion. The first responders would have been drawn to the bomb site and then it would be set off.
Since the reported target was an established corporate giant (AT&T), there may be a fringe political group involved.
--
Edit: Inobu, it looks like our comments overlapped in time and content.
Reminds me of IRA. They would often warn of attacks to help minimize casualties. I believe they wanted to disrupt rather than cause death (at least to civilians). I'm not saying this is IRA but whoever is responsible might have similar motives.
Yes, and thank you for clarifying your comment. I'm surprised how often a seemingly clear statement gets redirected on the internet.
1. Not for casualties.
2. Material effect.
3. Messaging.
If it were for casualties, it would have happened at a time when people were present, not at 06:30 on a Christmas morning when the streets were empty.
If first responders were the target, there would be no warning with the opportunity to clear the buildings and then withdraw from the blast area before the explosion. The first responders would have been drawn to the bomb site and then it would be set off.
Since the reported target was an established corporate giant (AT&T), there may be a fringe political group involved.
--
Edit: Inobu, it looks like our comments overlapped in time and content.