Friedman has assessed this for political ramifications of Boston, but realized that it is a wide open field that could cut in almost any direction and therefore needs to be handled in a most circumspect fashion. At least until there is a moment of clarity. Unlike Sandy Hook, where the political implications were perfectly clear, and it was full-partisan-steam ahead.

Striking is not 'doing nothing' it is an organized activity of employees acting under the protection of specific laws. Quitting is the act that transitions someone to non-activity. Would Larson be ok with the government barring union members from quitting their current job positions?

Arguing whether this was the 'work' of AQ seems to miss the forest for the trees. As mentioned before AQ is more of a clearinghouse and banner for funding of shared interests. Funding being the key element of any terrorists' endeavors. Think of these groups as start ups in search of venture capital. In order to attract the right financing you have to demostrate why your product is worth supporting. The actions at the Chabad house were the group's calling card. Without that aspect they could have been any domestic terror element within India. Since targetting of generic 'westerners' could easily be taken for nothing more than economic warfare for purely domestic aims the group needed to differentiate themselves and show that they were something larger and therefore deserving of future support. What better way to accomplish that then tracking down and targetting the very samll but visible Jewish presence in Mumbai? That tells their prospective financiers that they are of a common cause and worthy of support. So no, as yet there is no proof of the direct 'operational links' so prized by some, but there is clear indiaction of shared purpose and a bloody reminder of what AQ represents to their fellow Islamists.