Marathon Bombing and the Media

[meazza]

Chechens reported as terrorist by the Russians? To the Russians, Chechens ARE terrorists. The surprising thing is that the FBI took it as seriously as they did.

 

This is the first instance I can think of where a Chechen attacked the US...mostly because Chechens have no reason to.

 

I heard someone say that Putin would use this as an excuse to attack the rebels in Chechnya. As if Putin ever needed a reason

[B-Man]

More information coming out regarding the brother's motives

 

NBC News has just reported that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had visited an Islamist radical six times at a mosque in Dagestan.

 

The Caucasian/Chechen angle offers some hope for successful obfuscation by those who want discussion on everthing but Islam, as a lot of media time can be spent talking about that conflict.

 

 

Of course, as Tom correctly points out, if the young men were acting as Chechens and not as Islamists they would have attacked a Russian target. The United States has not — even by the usual stretch of radical Islamist imagination — had anything to do with the conflict in Chechnya.

 

 

.

[B-Man]

The Boston bombing has usefully distilled the media template for such stories to its absolute essence.

 

Stage One:

Let’s Hope The Boston Marathon Bomber Is A White American

Stage Two:

 

The Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So?

 

Cut-out-and-keep these two headlines, and you too can be on top of the conventional wisdom within moments of the next atrocity.

 

 

 

Today's No-Islam-to-See-Here Update

By Mark Steyn

 

Charlie and yours truly mentioned below The Atlantic’s Megan Garber:

The Boston Bombers were Muslim: So?

 

As I write, the Mounties are just wrapping up a briefing with “Muslim community leaders and imams” over a thwarted cross-border terrorism plot to blow up a passenger train between Toronto and New York City.

 

All together now!

 

“So today’s railroad bombers are Muslim: So?”

 

Meanwhile, a pal passes along this “60 Minutes” interview with one of young Tsarnaev’s friends, Ahmad Nassri:

If someone a few days ago told me that one of my friends was responsible for the bombs, bombing in Boston, I would’ve named off at least 90 percent of everyone that I know before I would’ve said Dzhokhar.

 

 

That’s one lively social circle.

 

 

 

LOL

 

 

.

Edited April 22, 2013 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

Hey, good news everyone. The "simple Boston bomb plot" (according to ABC News) was just done by two guys who "followed no international groups" (according to CNN).

 

In fact, I suspect many are starting to question why we called this terrorism in the first place. We'll probably charge them with what? Public nuisance? Resisting arrest? Littering?

 

http://abcnews.go.com/

 

http://www.cnn.com/

Edited April 23, 2013 by LABillzFan

[Nanker]

It's a comfort to know that,LA. It's a comfort to know.

Now that we've heard from the victim himself - in his own words that he did it for his brother who was motivated purely by his love of Islam, we can rest assured that there's nothing more to the story than that. Now he can set about suing the authorities who victimized him brutally and persecuted him and his brother because of the religious intolerance and hatred that the city of Boston have shown to them.

[B-Man]

You're not very consistent Chrissie, whats different about this time , hmmmm?

 

 

Matthews on Tsarnaev Bros.: ‘What Difference Does It Make Why They Did It?’

 

On his MSNBC show yesterday, Chris Matthews wondered why the motives of the Boston Marathon bombers ultimately mattered. “Why is that important? Why is that important to prosecuting? I mean, what difference does it make why they did it, if they did it?” Matthews asked former FBI profiler Clint Van Zandt.

 

Van Zandt explained to Matthews that it is important for a number of reasons, especially to determine whather anyone else may have been involved. “You know, you can’t quit and just say, ‘Okay, we got two guys, we’re done with it, let’s move on again,’” Van Zandt said

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

It's a comfort to know that,LA. It's a comfort to know.

Now that we've heard from the victim himself - in his own words that he did it for his brother who was motivated purely by his love of Islam, we can rest assured that there's nothing more to the story than that. Now he can set about suing the authorities who victimized him brutally and persecuted him and his brother because of the religious intolerance and hatred that the city of Boston have shown to them.

 

The joke on twitter lately has been predicting which university the kid will end up getting tenure at. Ayers got a great gig at UI Chicago, and all he did was show incompetence by blowing up his own people.

 

Some think a spot at Georgetown is in his future once he's on parole.

[BringBackFergy]

It's a comfort to know that,LA. It's a comfort to know.

Now that we've heard from the victim himself - in his own words that he did it for his brother who was motivated purely by his love of Islam, we can rest assured that there's nothing more to the story than that. Now he can set about suing the authorities who victimized him brutally and persecuted him and his brother because of the religious intolerance and hatred that the city of Boston have shown to them.

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/157546-boston-marathon-conspiracy/page__st__80#entry2787097

[DC Tom]

In fact, I suspect many are starting to question why we called this terrorism in the first place. We'll probably charge them with what? Public nuisance? Resisting arrest? Littering?

 

I wouldn't call it terrorism, any more than I'd call Sandy Hook terrorism.

 

A terrorist event is a violent crime committed within the context of a greater strategic plan or goal (note that that goal doesn't have to make sense, it merely has to exist). There was no strategic plan or goal in this...just a couple of guys with a persecution complex who lashed out and committed a violent crime, not part of any plan or goal. Calling it "terrorism" gives both them and true terrorists more credit than they're due.

 

And yes, I know the response will be "But they're Muslim!" So what? Just being Islamic doesn't make a criminal a terrorist.

[IDBillzFan]

I wouldn't call it terrorism, any more than I'd call Sandy Hook terrorism.

 

A terrorist event is a violent crime committed within the context of a greater strategic plan or goal (note that that goal doesn't have to make sense, it merely has to exist). There was no strategic plan or goal in this...just a couple of guys with a persecution complex who lashed out and committed a violent crime, not part of any plan or goal. Calling it "terrorism" gives both them and true terrorists more credit than they're due.

 

And yes, I know the response will be "But they're Muslim!" So what? Just being Islamic doesn't make a criminal a terrorist.

 

I don't think you can say this wasn't part of a greater strategic plan or goal, especially if all you need is for a goal -- regardless of whether it makes sense -- to exist. The greater strategic plan and goal was to murder and terrorize people with bombs again and again. Plus, the understanding is they went so far as to follow the How To Terrorize People Playbook by setting one bomb to kill, but also to move people toward the second bomb for maximum death and terror.

 

Sounds like terrorism to me.

 

The Muslim angle means little to me beyond the fact that we always have to spend three days hearing it's probably a white person before we find out it's not. I think the larger issue, which will undoubtedly be raised by the WH is, are there any transgender terrorists? If not, why not? Yes, it's terrorism and people die, but shouldn't all terrorists have a level playing field?

[DC Tom]

I don't think you can say this wasn't part of a greater strategic plan or goal, especially if all you need is for a goal -- regardless of whether it makes sense -- to exist. The greater strategic plan and goal was to murder and terrorize people with bombs again and again. Plus, the understanding is they went so far as to follow the How To Terrorize People Playbook by setting one bomb to kill, but also to move people toward the second bomb for maximum death and terror.

 

Sounds like terrorism to me.

 

The Muslim angle means little to me beyond the fact that we always have to spend three days hearing it's probably a white person before we find out it's not. I think the larger issue, which will undoubtedly be raised by the WH is, are there any transgender terrorists? If not, why not? Yes, it's terrorism and people die, but shouldn't all terrorists have a level playing field?

 

What campaign by what organization pursuing what result was this a part of?

 

The Tate/LaBianca killings more closely fit a definition of "terrorism", since Manson's cult was actively trying to spark a race war (never mind it made no sense - you had an organization with an overarching goal of which the crime was merely a part).

[GG]

I wouldn't call it terrorism, any more than I'd call Sandy Hook terrorism.

 

A terrorist event is a violent crime committed within the context of a greater strategic plan or goal (note that that goal doesn't have to make sense, it merely has to exist). There was no strategic plan or goal in this...just a couple of guys with a persecution complex who lashed out and committed a violent crime, not part of any plan or goal. Calling it "terrorism" gives both them and true terrorists more credit than they're due.

 

And yes, I know the response will be "But they're Muslim!" So what? Just being Islamic doesn't make a criminal a terrorist.

 

Bullcrap. You're implying that just because these guys weren't part of an official organization, it's not textbook terrorism. Yet this is an extension of the debate going on over the last 20 years or so - can you call a loosely organized movement around a nebulous concept of Jihad against western society and moires, a strategic plan or goal? If you don't consider these guys as part of a broader movement, then what exactly would you define as terrorism over the last 20 years?

 

Even if you don't ascribe this action to "terrorism" their incentive and goals were certainly fueled by something much larger than simple animus towards America, and it appears they received either training or instruction to commit their acts from people who absolutely have a strategic plan and a goal.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Bullcrap. You're implying that just because these guys weren't part of an official organization, it's not textbook terrorism. Yet this is an extension of the debate going on over the last 20 years or so - can you call a loosely organized movement around a nebulous concept of Jihad against western society and moires, a strategic plan or goal? If you don't consider these guys as part of a broader movement, then what exactly would you define as terrorism over the last 20 years?

 

Even if you don't ascribe this action to "terrorism" their incentive and goals were certainly fueled by something much larger than simple animus towards America, and it appears they received either training or instruction to commit their acts from people who absolutely have a strategic plan and a goal.

I endorse this response completely.

[IDBillzFan]

What campaign by what organization pursuing what result was this a part of?

 

The Tate/LaBianca killings more closely fit a definition of "terrorism", since Manson's cult was actively trying to spark a race war (never mind it made no sense - you had an organization with an overarching goal of which the crime was merely a part).

 

So the Tsarnaev brothers need to belong to a organization pursuing a published result -- or at least a definable result that is on the record -- for it to be coined terrorism?

 

I'm thinking your taking a side for the sake of taking a side. You can call it what you want. Thousands of people were terrified last week when hundreds of people had their body parts blow all over a Boston street with homemade pressure cooker bombs.

 

Close enough to terrorism for me.

[DC Tom]

So the Tsarnaev brothers need to belong to a organization pursuing a published result -- or at least a definable result that is on the record -- for it to be coined terrorism?

 

Yes. Sharing the same disaffection, alienation, and even general principles as Islamists, and acting on them, doesn't make one a.terrorist. Sharing the same goals, and committing violence in pursuance of those goals, is terrorism. So what goal was Tamerlin pursuing (I omit the other brother because I can't spell his !@#$ing name)? He had a belief that western imperialism was alive and well and oppressing Islam world-wide...so, what? What was he actually trying to accomplish? Just killing and maiming people? That doesn't fly...killing and maiming is a crime, terrorism is crime in the context of a greater purpose than the crime itself. What greater purpose was he pursuing?

 

None. He was just a disaffected bozo acting out. Again, not unlike the disaffected bozo at Sandy Hook. By your argument, Adam Lanza was a terrorist just because he shot up a school, and other people want education reform.

 

And it is vitally important to make that distinction...because you can't fight it if you don't know what it is. If every act of violence by a Muslim is Islamist terrorism, you will never defeat Islamists, because you will never stop violence.

[We Come In Peace]

I don't think you can say this wasn't part of a greater strategic plan or goal, especially if all you need is for a goal -- regardless of whether it makes sense -- to exist. The greater strategic plan and goal was to murder and terrorize people with bombs again and again. Plus, the understanding is they went so far as to follow the How To Terrorize People Playbook by setting one bomb to kill, but also to move people toward the second bomb for maximum death and terror.

 

Sounds like terrorism to me.

 

The Muslim angle means little to me beyond the fact that we always have to spend three days hearing it's probably a white person before we find out it's not. I think the larger issue, which will undoubtedly be raised by the WH is, are there any transgender terrorists? If not, why not? Yes, it's terrorism and people die, but shouldn't all terrorists have a level playing field?

Both brothers were from the Caucasus, where the Caucasian race came from. So both were white people.... you realize that someone's religion doesn't change their skin color, right?

 

Yes. Sharing the same disaffection, alienation, and even general principles as Islamists, and acting on them, doesn't make one a.terrorist. Sharing the same goals, and committing violence in pursuance of those goals, is terrorism. So what goal was Tamerlin pursuing (I omit the other brother because I can't spell his !@#$ing name)? He had a belief that western imperialism was alive and well and oppressing Islam world-wide...so, what? What was he actually trying to accomplish? Just killing and maiming people? That doesn't fly...killing and maiming is a crime, terrorism is crime in the context of a greater purpose than the crime itself. What greater purpose was he pursuing?

 

None. He was just a disaffected bozo acting out. Again, not unlike the disaffected bozo at Sandy Hook. By your argument, Adam Lanza was a terrorist just because he shot up a school, and other people want education reform.

 

And it is vitally important to make that distinction...because you can't fight it if you don't know what it is. If every act of violence by a Muslim is Islamist terrorism, you will never defeat Islamists, because you will never stop violence.

All evidence to the contrary. It's time to invade Iran!

[DC Tom]

Bullcrap. You're implying that just because these guys weren't part of an official organization, it's not textbook terrorism. Yet this is an extension of the debate going on over the last 20 years or so - can you call a loosely organized movement around a nebulous concept of Jihad against western society and moires, a strategic plan or goal? If you don't consider these guys as part of a broader movement, then what exactly would you define as terrorism over the last 20 years?

 

Even if you don't ascribe this action to "terrorism" their incentive and goals were certainly fueled by something much larger than simple animus towards America, and it appears they received either training or instruction to commit their acts from people who absolutely have a strategic plan and a goal.

 

No, I'm not implying it. I'm stating it.

 

And it's your post with the high bull **** content. Terrorism over the past 30 years hasn't been centered around any "nebulous concept of Jihad against western society and moires," it's been very specific within the context of very real and tangible geopolitical goals. Hamas, Hezbollah, and their predecessors, all the way back to the 60's, don't have some nebulous hatred of the west in pursuing an ambiguous concept of Jihad, they want to eliminate Israel. The Shi'ia Muslims have an apocalyptic vision which, in trying to fulfill, they want to establish the historical Persian hegemony over the Middle East and eliminate Western imperialism. Libyan terrorist attacks in the '80s were directly related to disputes over navigation rights in the Gulf of Sidra. Chechen terrorism is uniquely focused on Russia in the explicit pursuit of Chechen independence.

 

You can go on and on, with multiple examples (Tamil Tigers, Mau Mau, Shining Path, FARC, the Kurds in...every country they live in, the Taliban and Northern Alliance both, Abu Sayyaf, the Provos, the Basques, the UNC, the Viet Cong, etc. You can go all the way back to the Spanish in the Peninsular war or even earlier to the American Revolution, if you want). Terrorism is never pursued for ambiguous reasons. It's a practical application of violence in the pursuit of concrete purpose that is itself greater than any single application of violence.

 

Otherwise, you may as well argue that every bank robber is trying to collapse the American monetary system. Since all bank robbers are unified in their desire for wealth, even if they're not coordinated.

[We Come In Peace]

No, I'm not implying it. I'm stating it.

 

And it's your post with the high bull **** content. Terrorism over the past 30 years hasn't been centered around any "nebulous concept of Jihad against western society and moires," it's been very specific within the context of very real and tangible geopolitical goals. Hamas, Hezbollah, and their predecessors, all the way back to the 60's, don't have some nebulous hatred of the west in pursuing an ambiguous concept of Jihad, they want to eliminate Israel. The Shi'ia Muslims have an apocalyptic vision which, in trying to fulfill, they want to establish the historical Persian hegemony over the Middle East and eliminate Western imperialism. Libyan terrorist attacks in the '80s were directly related to disputes over navigation rights in the Gulf of Sidra. Chechen terrorism is uniquely focused on Russia in the explicit pursuit of Chechen independence.

 

You can go on and on, with multiple examples (Tamil Tigers, Mau Mau, Shining Path, FARC, the Kurds in...every country they live in, the Taliban and Northern Alliance both, Abu Sayyaf, the Provos, the Basques, the UNC, the Viet Cong, etc. You can go all the way back to the Spanish in the Peninsular war or even earlier to the American Revolution, if you want). Terrorism is never pursued for ambiguous reasons. It's a practical application of violence in the pursuit of concrete purpose that is itself greater than any single application of violence.

 

Otherwise, you may as well argue that every bank robber is trying to collapse the American monetary system. Since all bank robbers are unified in their desire for wealth, even if they're not coordinated.

...This is what we call a beat down.

[DC Tom]

...This is what we call a beat down.

 

Just a discussion. Maybe a debate, perhaps heated.

 

A beat-down would have included calling him an idiot and mocking him mercilessly.

[We Come In Peace]

Just a discussion. Maybe a debate, perhaps heated.

 

A beat-down would have included calling him an idiot and mocking him mercilessly.

Fair enough.