[hnbad]

The problem is that if the bomb is intended to kill a specific target, it's much harder to do so anonymously. If it is intended to "send a message", anonymity is usually the opposite of what the bomber wants.

A lot of so-called anonymous attacks also leave traces that can be used to pin the attack on someone if there is sufficient political will to lead a thorough investigation. And of course the victim can still decide to interpret them differently even if you didn't want to remain anonymous. Consider for example how Turkey would attribute acts of terrorism in Turkey to the PKK despite ISIS claiming them, because it was politically useful to justify a focus on attacking PKK-aligned Rojava in Syria even when it meant aligning with ISIS.

I guess what's saving us from anonymous bombings being commonplace is that few people are willing to carry them out, foolhardy to do so despite the risk of being caught, competent enough to carry them out successfully and sufficiently motivated to cause the death and injury of their victims. And of course the people most likely to be targeted tend to also be much harder to target.

And on an individual grievance level: while it's almost trivially possible to kill someone without being found out, it's much harder to kill a specific someone you want to kill without being found out.

[michaelt]

> If it is intended to "send a message", anonymity is usually the opposite of what the bomber wants.

Well, coffeebeqn did speak of terrorism with a "terrifying degree of anonymity"

In the IRA case they would generally make an anonymous phone call where the organisation claimed responsibility, but the actual individuals have long since fled the scene.