whenever a group claims credit for an attack days after it happened, when there's no mention of any secret details that only the attacker could know, i wonder if the credit claimer is really the culprit.
if you're the kind of group that is interested in getting credit for an attack, claiming credit for one you didn't do is a win-win situation. the public usually doesn't question such claims (unless there are competing claims), so you generally get the credit without any of the expense, risk or loss of personnel that actually sponsoring an attack would bring.
i'm not saying that al qaeda in the islamic magreb isn't behind the recent attacks in algeria. they probably are. but i just wonder why they didn't claim credit right away if they really did it and wanted credit.
