What exactly is Chechyna'a beef with the USA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Wait. And there are no out of wedlock births in some other religions?

What's that got to do with anything? Don't understand the question.

A religious muslim would NOT have a relationship or girlfriend is analogous to a religious catholic NOT having sex and getting /or begotten pregnant.

[/b]

Agreed.

I am a woman who has lived in the middle east and I'm here to tell you that muslim men are men, period. Men first , last ,and always. Christian Arabs, Muslim Arabs, Druze, makes not one bit of difference. They all have sex outside of marriage, just like, yes, American men and Italian men, and French men.... . Given a willing partner they will do it Daily. Actually, multiple times a day. Marriage, Sharia, Koran and Bible say what ??? Maybe as the blood starts to rush elsewhere they forget ? Or is it because they aren't in the end suni or shia or christian or druze, but deep , deep down, MEN . period. That's been my personal experience.

In fact, I have had sex with muslim men in some VERY conservative countries after debating them into the ground about my personal belief that there is no god. Did they want to kill me for being a blasphemer? No, they wanted to have sex with me. In some of the countries I was in, the penalty for sex outside of marriage is 80 lashes for the man ( if he is a national), but did that stop them ? You'd think yes, but actually the answer is, NO. These were men who prayed 5 times a day, who fasted during Ramadan. Why did they set all of that aside to have sex? Because they are men. Religion, meh..." Did I say I am not supposed to have sex during the day during Ramadan, well, well, what the heck....

My point is deep down there is not some big fundamental difference here. There is history, there is loss , and pain , and grief, and death and rage, but none of it has anything to do with religion. Its politics using religious identity, using evil , but it is not religion itself. Believe me, push come to shove, these men break every religious rule they have just to feel really , really good for an hour or so...

Just like, us.

[Anonymous]

Pp, is that a joke? You actually were promiscious in a muslim country slept with several you did not even know?

Muslims allow temporary marriage.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know why the parents returned to Russia/Dagestan? Why on earth would a family that fled Russia & gained US entry seeking political asylum go back? Is it because they didn't "succeed" here and thought they'd go back to the Motherland since things over there became more stable than 10 years ago? Or is it because there was some kind of falling out in the family - that the parents gave their kids an ultimatum to stay or go back, and the kids refused, and the parents went back? (I'm just speculating here). It's not common to 1) go back to your home country after getting into the US via a political asylum amnesty, and 2) it's unusual to be out of touch and disconnected from the extended family. Clearly someone did something wrong - the parents did something f*d up or the parents resented the kids and wanted to distance themselves from them. Either way, these kids somehow had to deal with raising themselves for a certain period of time in an incredibly high cost area, which to me seems impossible without getting into organized crime (or having a rich uncle, which in their case, they seemed to be estranged from their uncles).

Bottom line question, anyone know when the parents went back and why?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think you are over -reacting Jeff, and if you were a journalist, I think you'd be called on the carpet for allowing personal attachments to seep into the way you try to steer/ control the message on this forum. You should be able to hear that criticism.

I have only skimmed the thread, but if there is a single post on here that says ver batim , " the brothers are another example of the world wide coordinated war by muslims" I have yet to see it on this thread.

Yes, people are angry, and people are sick of this, and have a right to be upset at seeing 8 year olds killed and 6 year olds with their legs blown off.

True, nearly 1 Million Iraqis are dead because of us, and their blood is equal to ours. It is true that out media dehumanizes Arabs , and muslims in general, and frankly I'd like to see us kick Israel to the curb, and take the side of justice once and for all over there.

But that does not make me less angry seeing American children with their legs blown off, and dead 8 year olds, killed by someone we took in , gave a scholarship to, made one of our own and, in the case of Katherine and her family, loved.

Its infuriating. And what they did is wrong.

Thank you. The one thing I wanted was advice about what is or is not posted in this forum from someone who admits to only skimming it. The fact that you, me, or any other reader is angry does not mean that events and motivations should not be properly understood. In fact, using anger instead of reason is exactly what leads to mistakes like the invasion of Iraq.

Do you think we are better off or worse off if we understand the true motivations of the brothers?

In the run up to the Iraq invasion I participated in a discussion forum and was one of the lone voices speaking against the invasion. On the day Colin Powell gave his presentation, a poster called me out saying, "any questions?" I replied that I didn't have any questions, but that I expected almost every single fact that Powell had stated would eventually be shown to be false. I proved to be correct about that. However, at the time, the vast majority of people reacted to me the way you guys are. Yeah, I was really funny and my biases were making it difficult to think logically.

As I said in an earlier post, if Jim and Bob Smith decide the world sucks and they want to blow it up, they are two mentally disturbed kids. Unless they turn out to be Muslim, then they are international terrorists. If Adam Lanza had been Chechen, we would be referring to Sandy Hook as America's Breslan. But, that's okay because people are angry.

I don't think the brothers understood their true motivations, Jeff. Seeing that the older brother listened to the rants of radical imams over and over again, just shows us where he was directing his anger, but that does not show us his motivation. The super ego is the first casualty of the toxic mix of rage + testosterone in the young adult male. A rationale, does not a motive make. A rapist for example, might say, " all prostitutes are sinners and they deserve to die in hell" , but that rant does not reveal their motivation. No rapist says," I raped and killed those women because I am a sexually repressed victim of extreme child abuse and I feel powerless unless I can unleash my rage against that which makes me feel powerless"

As the President said, "they are those who destroy because they cannot build,.... and think that makes them powerful ". That pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Secondly, you were not alone in your suspicions prior to the gulf war, you just may have been someone who was asked your opinion. There were many Americans who saw the writing on the wall back during the election as the R nominee ( Bush vs McCain) was being decided, we just have other jobs, lines of work, some of us were out of the country even.

I realized there was going to be a war when I saw who Bush wanted to pick for his VP, his Sec of State and his Defense Secretary in like July of 2000 and I work in a completely unrelated field.

I debated why Bush the son, would be a disaster with a lot of Egyptians, Yemenis and Lebanese as I was abroad during those years and do you know what they all said, " Bush will be good, we liked the father"

I warned them , " No, you don't want Bush to win, if he does, within a year there will be a war." I told them all " that is the only reason these men have picked him as their nominee... because they can control him, look at their resumes and their agenda is obvious" The answer of my learned Lebanese and Egyptian hosts, " "No, Bush the father was good, the son will be like the father"

By your reasoning anyone who supported Bush is a hater of muslims, a fascist, a follower. Well, how do you explain then the millions of muslims in the middle east who were just praying that Bush v Gore would be decided in Bush's favor ? None of them could get passed the small , truly meaningless fact the Lieberman was jewish, until they became victims of the war themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know why the parents returned to Russia/Dagestan? Why on earth would a family that fled Russia & gained US entry seeking political asylum go back? Is it because they didn't "succeed" here and thought they'd go back to the Motherland since things over there became more stable than 10 years ago? Or is it because there was some kind of falling out in the family - that the parents gave their kids an ultimatum to stay or go back, and the kids refused, and the parents went back? (I'm just speculating here). It's not common to 1) go back to your home country after getting into the US via a political asylum amnesty, and 2) it's unusual to be out of touch and disconnected from the extended family. Clearly someone did something wrong - the parents did something f*d up or the parents resented the kids and wanted to distance themselves from them. Either way, these kids somehow had to deal with raising themselves for a certain period of time in an incredibly high cost area, which to me seems impossible without getting into organized crime (or having a rich uncle, which in their case, they seemed to be estranged from their uncles).

Bottom line question, anyone know when the parents went back and why?

the mother is still here. The family has suggested there is some sort of family conflict but has not elaborated. Also according to the Boston globe, the older son was separated from his wife.

If his parents and he both have marital issues that could be a possible explanation. Lots of violence has been done in that situation.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know why the parents returned to Russia/Dagestan? Why on earth would a family that fled Russia & gained US entry seeking political asylum go back? Is it because they didn't "succeed" here and thought they'd go back to the Motherland since things over there became more stable than 10 years ago? Or is it because there was some kind of falling out in the family - that the parents gave their kids an ultimatum to stay or go back, and the kids refused, and the parents went back? (I'm just speculating here). It's not common to 1) go back to your home country after getting into the US via a political asylum amnesty, and 2) it's unusual to be out of touch and disconnected from the extended family. Clearly someone did something wrong - the parents did something f*d up or the parents resented the kids and wanted to distance themselves from them. Either way, these kids somehow had to deal with raising themselves for a certain period of time in an incredibly high cost area, which to me seems impossible without getting into organized crime (or having a rich uncle, which in their case, they seemed to be estranged from their uncles).

Bottom line question, anyone know when the parents went back and why?

The father said in an interview that he returned because he was diagnosed with cancer. Presumably, he couldn't afford the treatment in the US, but would be able to in Russia. But, I suspect that there may be more to the story.

The father only lived in Chechnya for one year. According to his sister, the father was given asylum because he had worked in the "enforcement agencies" in Kyrgyzstan as a lawyer and he was persecuted and they were lucky to get him out of there. But, it seems that before getting asylum, the family had moved to Dagestan where the mother has ethnic and probably family roots (she is an ethnic Avar rather than Chechen). Given that the parents have returned to Dagestan, they probably could have stayed there rather than be granted asylum. I have been able to identify anything that was going on in the late 1990s in Kyrgyzstan that would create a need for asylum for the family.

[Anonymous]

The father said in an interview that he returned because he was diagnosed with cancer. Presumably, he couldn't afford the treatment in the US, but would be able to in Russia. But, I suspect that there may be more to the story.


Yep, because a number of states (Florida, e.g.) will give you a TON of medical care free. I can't believe any state-run medical care in some former Soviet hellhole would be better than the US.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
By your reasoning anyone who supported Bush is a hater of muslims, a fascist, a follower. Well, how do you explain then the millions of muslims in the middle east who were just praying that Bush v Gore would be decided in Bush's favor ? None of them could get passed the small , truly meaningless fact the Lieberman was jewish, until they became victims of the war themselves.

I was right with you until this paragraph. The first part of your message was very interesting and made a lot of sense. But, I am at a loss to see how this paragraph represents my reasoning. Frankly, this paragraph is a bit disjointed from the rest of your message and I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp, is that a joke? You actually were promiscious in a muslim country slept with several you did not even know?

Muslims allow temporary marriage.

I didn't say I didn't know these men and what's with throwing the promiscious label at me? I was approached and courted by these men same as in this country and in other countries ( different pick up lines, different language, same exact purpose, hmmm...) So, I had sex with several men over a multi -year period. big deal. These were men I spent a lot of time around or met socially. My point in sharing it is not titilation, its merely to point out for those who have no experience with men from different cultures what I know to be fact: deep down when push comes to shove, religion does not define a person. In fact, push come to shove, it will be discarded for what men really want.For most, it is discarded * ( snap) just like that. Frankly, it surprised me too , until it no longer surprised me and by then I think I could say that men are men,period.

Yes, I have had a lot of post-coital marriage proposals, to which I shook them by the shoulders and said " snap out of it !" I did take a moment to tell them that a lot of 37 year old American women would really appreciate them, but not me. I got a lot of ," but my Allah tells me that I must marry you now " and " I cannot go on like this with you unless we are married" To which I said, "OK, bye bye"

Of course, there was always another time and another time, and a last time and then never again, except well....

My point is religion is not a base motivator. There are far stronger motivators of a man, and religion is not one with that much power over them at least in my experience .

Hate and rage, maybe, but religion, that will be cast off in less than 5 minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The father said in an interview that he returned because he was diagnosed with cancer. Presumably, he couldn't afford the treatment in the US, but would be able to in Russia. But, I suspect that there may be more to the story.


Yep, because a number of states (Florida, e.g.) will give you a TON of medical care free. I can't believe any state-run medical care in some former Soviet hellhole would be better than the US.

Your reaction is not uncommon, as is the decision by recent immigrants to move back home when diagnosed with a deadly disease. Quite simply, one wants to die surrounded by people he knows, speaking the language he understands. He didn't go there for medical treatment. He went there so that he could die at home. For a Chechen especially, to be buried outside of Chechnya is unthinkable.

Of course, he ended up getting better, but he may not have expected that.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know why the parents returned to Russia/Dagestan? Why on earth would a family that fled Russia & gained US entry seeking political asylum go back? Is it because they didn't "succeed" here and thought they'd go back to the Motherland since things over there became more stable than 10 years ago? Or is it because there was some kind of falling out in the family - that the parents gave their kids an ultimatum to stay or go back, and the kids refused, and the parents went back? (I'm just speculating here). It's not common to 1) go back to your home country after getting into the US via a political asylum amnesty, and 2) it's unusual to be out of touch and disconnected from the extended family. Clearly someone did something wrong - the parents did something f*d up or the parents resented the kids and wanted to distance themselves from them. Either way, these kids somehow had to deal with raising themselves for a certain period of time in an incredibly high cost area, which to me seems impossible without getting into organized crime (or having a rich uncle, which in their case, they seemed to be estranged from their uncles).

Bottom line question, anyone know when the parents went back and why?

The father said in an interview that he returned because he was diagnosed with cancer. Presumably, he couldn't afford the treatment in the US, but would be able to in Russia. But, I suspect that there may be more to the story.

The father only lived in Chechnya for one year. According to his sister, the father was given asylum because he had worked in the "enforcement agencies" in Kyrgyzstan as a lawyer and he was persecuted and they were lucky to get him out of there. But, it seems that before getting asylum, the family had moved to Dagestan where the mother has ethnic and probably family roots (she is an ethnic Avar rather than Chechen). Given that the parents have returned to Dagestan, they probably could have stayed there rather than be granted asylum. I have been able to identify anything that was going on in the late 1990s in Kyrgyzstan that would create a need for asylum for the family.

His father is a car mechanic, not lawyer. His aunt in Canada sounded a bit unhinged to my ears.

[Anonymous]

Only Shia allow temporary marriage and they are a minority among Muslims.

[Anonymous]

To the PP-- as a child of immigrants who escaped Soviet oppression (including torture and murder) not a single person would want to go back to a former, pseudo, or actual Soviet state for substandard medical care, or even to die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the PP-- as a child of immigrants who escaped Soviet oppression (including torture and murder) not a single person would want to go back to a former, pseudo, or actual Soviet state for substandard medical care, or even to die.

As an actual immigrant out of a former Soviet state, I know one of the key traits of our people is to speak with conviction on things they know very little about except their own personal experience. Hence the silly blanket statements like "not a single person."

If you aren't from Caucasus, you wouldn't understand.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
By your reasoning anyone who supported Bush is a hater of muslims, a fascist, a follower. Well, how do you explain then the millions of muslims in the middle east who were just praying that Bush v Gore would be decided in Bush's favor ? None of them could get passed the small , truly meaningless fact the Lieberman was jewish, until they became victims of the war themselves.

I was right with you until this paragraph. The first part of your message was very interesting and made a lot of sense. But, I am at a loss to see how this paragraph represents my reasoning. Frankly, this paragraph is a bit disjointed from the rest of your message and I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Right here in your post, Jeff:
In the run up to the Iraq invasion I participated in a discussion forum and was one of the lone voices speaking against the invasion. On the day Colin Powell gave his presentation, a poster called me out saying, "any questions?" I replied that I didn't have any questions, but that I expected almost every single fact that Powell had stated would eventually be shown to be false. I proved to be correct about that. However, at the time, the vast majority of people reacted to me the way you guys are. Yeah, I was really funny and my biases were making it difficult to think logically.

Jeff, perhaps you don't realize how you come across, but you are basically saying that those who supported the Iraqi invasion were dupes, followers, and though you don't call them fascists, you defend your "lone voice" as if it were the last stand of reason against rush to war based on , false statements by our Sec state ( fascism)

You then conflate that with what news sources ( not political figures this time) are revealing about the Tsarnaev brothers and suggest that the info being released about them is similarly " a false rush to judgement" based on some darker motivation, which you say, you, Jeff Steele, warned us about back 10 years ago.

I say apples and oranges. Colin Powel was used and his career is over for it. Doubtful that the BBC, the Independant, CNN, Fox, NBC, Boston Globe, FBI , Russian Intelligence, and the Daily Beast are all simultaneously creating a political smoke screen , and only Jeff knows the truth.