Originally Posted by sorcha_healy27:
“Why on earth would they be claiming responsibility for something they didn't do?”
I think the technical term is "boasting".
The question "was it an ISIS attack?" most likely doesn't have a straightforward answer. Back in the 90s, the company I worked for were very keen (well, at least they
said they were keen) on replacing "top-down" with "bottom-up" management. The idea was that instead of detailed control originating at the top level of management and passing downwards through the chain, top management would instead define a "vision" of what the company was for along with some objectives that set out, in fairly broad terms, how that vision was to be achieved. The actual
detail of the day-to-day activities to put those activities into practice would originate from lower levels of management, or in some cases at shop floor level. They would then propagate upwards and sideways, with the idea that good practices would thus be adopted across the company.
Needless to say... that's not how it worked out in practice. Senior managers weren'tboverly keen to let go of
that much control.
But, if it's a business model that wasn't wholeheartedly embraced by business, it has proved popular with terrorists. Forget the old-style organisations with a defined chain of command or an "Army Council", and actively recruiting members. The modern way of doing things is to sound off about what they want to see happen, to encourage their supporters (but not necessarily
specific individuals) to carry out particular acts, but otherwise let them get on with the planning and execution themselves. So, assuming that this does indeed turn out to be ISIS-inspired, the situation most likely looks like this:
Was ISIS responsible: yes.
Do ISIS
know that they're responsible: not for certain, but they
hope they were.
Did ISIS
plan this attack: probably not in any organisational sense. Which leads to the kind of outrage that can be planned
and carried out, from start to finish by a single individual. Criminal contacts would be
useful but not essential.
Which is what makes it difficult to deal with. If there are no detailed orders being passed down the chain of command, what communications are there to be intercepted? How can a chain of command be infiltrated if there isn' t one?
Not consciously at least.