What exactly is Chechyna'a beef with the USA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The verbal diarrhea coming from all of the Tsarnaev family members is a psychological case study in denial, duplicity, deep shame , and rage of a kind only decades of war and trauma, and terror can produce.

We need to think more carefully about who we let into this country and not just accept the stories people give us at face value when we lack the sophistication and intelligence capability to truly "get" the politics of their country.

It is very doubtful that the immigration officials approving the aunt's paperwork could have nailed her and her brother, not as the persecuted, but as collaborators with the Russian puppet gov't. This is a family that seems to have changed uniforms at least 3 times.

Two days ago her boys were framed innocents, now she is lining herself up to get jihadi widow money by claiming " the FBI was trailing my son for several years as he became more and more devout"

I have whiplash and I really wish some immigration official would have hit the trap door button on this family long ago.

[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?

My opinion from reading the reports and watching the families duplicitous interviews :

The father was a "prosecutor" in a former soviet puppet state. When things started to go south for the USSR in the Caucass they left. Remember the aunt's words , " all my family, they were lawyers" Well, perhaps the reality is many were members of the secret police, enforcers of the regime. So, with Chechens turning up the heat, they leave. Now FF 10 years and Russia has a puppet gov't installed down there, the Dad goes back.

Cancer , my ass. " wanted to die in my homeland" , my ass. What's clear from the moment he gave THAT excuse is that this man is a liar and everything else he is going to say is either an outright lie or a partial truth. Every statement he makes is based on, not the truth, but a loss /benefit calculation. Ditto every other member of the family. These people are scavengers of their own truth. And we wonder why the sons did what they did? No morals at home, for one. More likely the father ran afoul of his ethnic branch of the Russian mafia in the mid-atlantic area and so he chose the lesser of two evils, and went back "home" Hence, the split with the maryland half of family.

[Anonymous]

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

Not true, and who the heck cares. That was not my point. My point is that religion is not the prime mover of men the way you people seem to have taken to believing it is. Men drop their religion pretty quickly when its in the way of what they really want, in my experience.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

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)

Obviously I was not the lone voice in the entire world or even the entire country. But, I was essentially the lone voice in that discussion forum. My point is to show that conventional wisdom can coalesce around a falsehood. Time and again we find ourselves in a situation in which "everyone knows" something, yet there are not facts to support what "everyone knows". Can you deny that according to conventional wisdom at the time, Collin Powell had delivered an outstanding and persuasive presentation of the facts? Can you now deny that conventional wisdom was wrong? I am just saying that because "everyone knows" something, you should not immediately accept it as fact.

Anonymous wrote: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.

None of this is true. Most news sources have actually been pretty careful about describing motivations. I am reacting to specific posts in this forum and the general conventional wisdom that the brothers were motivated by radical Islam and are indistinguishable from the 9/11 attackers, the London Underground bombers, or any other Muslim terrorists. If you believe that there are sufficient facts available to support the conventional wisdom, let's have a discussion of those facts. While I am being accused of grasping at straws, I think those who cherry-pick one or two videos from a Youtube feed while ignoring others are the real straw graspers. But, let's discussion what is known and see where it leads us.

[Anonymous]

You are conflating political propaganda passed through a few cherry picked members of a political party( Colin Powell being one) and the motivations that political party had for doing same ( the profit that can be made in war, and settling old scores)

with

the motivations of literally hundreds of journalists who are reporting on the brothers back ground, many of which are WSJ reporters reporting from Moscow or Dagestan who have been covering the beat for decades, speak Russian well as well as other dialects, have real insight and lack the political agenda of the Cheyney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and who was their director of CIA ?

Different horse.

To call a spade a spade here is not equal to saying that " all the muslims in the world are in a world wide conspiracy to get us", its just to say that the Tsarnaev brothers had chosen to channel their rage and frustration towards a target indentified for them by radicals who use their religion and their cultural bak ground to win and hold their loyalty.

The evidence is not just that Tamerlan happened to have one video on his you tube account. Why are you deliberately minimizing ?

I suggest you turn off the internet for a while and pick up your phone and talk to some real journalists in the field. Get on the phone with the people at Mosocw bureau of WSJ, or people down at Freedom House who know the Caucasses well, and hear what they have access to. DCUM is a bit of a phone booth echo chamber,and does not reflect " commonly held views" , not by the standard of info that is, perhaps not commonly available in Washington, but available if you have a few friends who work in the field.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:You are conflating political propaganda passed through a few cherry picked members of a political party( Colin Powell being one) and the motivations that political party had for doing same ( the profit that can be made in war, and settling old scores)

with

the motivations of literally hundreds of journalists who are reporting on the brothers back ground, many of which are WSJ reporters reporting from Moscow or Dagestan who have been covering the beat for decades, speak Russian well as well as other dialects, have real insight and lack the political agenda of the Cheyney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and who was their director of CIA ?

Different horse.

To call a spade a spade here is not equal to saying that " all the muslims in the world are in a world wide conspiracy to get us", its just to say that the Tsarnaev brothers had chosen to channel their rage and frustration towards a target indentified for them by radicals who use their religion and their cultural bak ground to win and hold their loyalty.

The evidence is not just that Tamerlan happened to have one video on his you tube account. Why are you deliberately minimizing ?

I suggest you turn off the internet for a while and pick up your phone and talk to some real journalists in the field. Get on the phone with the people at Mosocw bureau of WSJ, or people down at Freedom House who know the Caucasses well, and hear what they have access to. DCUM is a bit of a phone booth echo chamber,and does not reflect " commonly held views" , not by the standard of info that is, perhaps not commonly available in Washington, but available if you have a few friends who work in the field.

You clearly either have problems reading or problems comprehending because your response has almost no relationship to my message. I suggest that you go back and re-read my message and then reply to what I actually wrote. As I wrote, if you want to discuss the facts of this matter, I am happy to do so. I won't have a discussion with someone who is debating straw men that don't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not true, and who the heck cares.

Provide evidence please.

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/uncle-of-bombing-suspects-says-he-had-falling-out-with-older-nephew-over-commitment-to-islam/2013/04/20/de8272ea-a9d6-11e2-9e1c-bb0fb0c2edd9_singlePage.html?tid=obnetwork

So for the future should relatives or others who know of those who choose to abandon work/school for possible mayhem report them to FBI?

Doesn't seem like this person was in a program similar to a seminary or divinity school.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/uncle-of-bombing-suspects-says-he-had-falling-out-with-older-nephew-over-commitment-to-islam/2013/04/20/de8272ea-a9d6-11e2-9e1c-bb0fb0c2edd9_singlePage.html?tid=obnetwork

So for the future should relatives or others who know of those who choose to abandon work/school for possible mayhem report them to FBI?

Doesn't seem like this person was in a program similar to a seminary or divinity school.

This is interesting. I think identifying the Tsarnaev brother's means of support will answer a lot of questions.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/uncle-of-bombing-suspects-says-he-had-falling-out-with-older-nephew-over-commitment-to-islam/2013/04/20/de8272ea-a9d6-11e2-9e1c-bb0fb0c2edd9_singlePage.html?tid=obnetwork

So for the future should relatives or others who know of those who choose to abandon work/school for possible mayhem report them to FBI?

Doesn't seem like this person was in a program similar to a seminary or divinity school.

This is interesting. I think identifying the Tsarnaev brother's means of support will answer a lot of questions.

I am glad you brought this up. No one seems to wonder how this 26-year old with expensive clothes and a Mercedes supported himself. He didn't seem to have a job or be at school; yet he had a wife and a 3-year old (who seem to be laying low).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not true, and who the heck cares.

Provide evidence please.

You are asking for evidence of what exactly ? Yes, there is a tool of convenience in some muslim countries that is a marriage certificate for a pre-set period of time. In countries of the middle east that have legalized this form of marriage of convenience it basically amounts to prostitution for hire with only one customer from this date to this date ( a sex permit, if you will). Not something I would engage in. Why would I need to ? Why would I be so stupid as to give up some of my soverenty and enter into a contract like that when my male partner has chosen to engage in this activity with me, assuming all the risks thereof and I could take the relationship or leave it at no risk to myself.

Yes, I did have a marriage proposal or two. I laughed them off. To me, it was simple, if you are afraid of being caught and getting 80 lashes, then don't come to be with me. My experience was that, religious law and legal punishments were just pushed aside in the man's mind as a calculated risk. They were grown ups. That is on them.

Whether or not such "sex permits " exist is irrelevant to my point because a) I did not enter into such a contract and b) my purpose of pointing out that sex outside of Islamic law exists widely in even the most conservative Muslim countries, is not to debate that per se, but to point out that:

contrary to what many people on this thread seem to think, religion is NOT a prime mover of men IN ANY CULTURE. In fact, I would say, if religious law or custom becomes an obstacle for a man between him and a base motivator he has, men all over the world will just shove aside or tune out their religious "beliefs" in pursuit of what are their more prime movers of their behavior.

It is my personal experience that this is true when what they want is sex, and I imagine it is also true when they are giving into hatred and rage.

Religion may be used as a crutch AFTER THE FACT, but when the decision is being made to give priority to a base motivator, religion is cast off as quickly as a Jimbia that falls to the floor when the belt of one's thobe is undone.
That is my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The verbal diarrhea coming from all of the Tsarnaev family members is a psychological case study in denial, duplicity, deep shame , and rage of a kind only decades of war and trauma, and terror can produce.

What are you talking about? They sound like pretty much every parent of a murderer. Can't believe it's true, claim their kids are innocent and being set up, lots of crazy talk. This doesn't require decades of anything except being a parent.

This is so common it is cliche.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/uncle-of-bombing-suspects-says-he-had-falling-out-with-older-nephew-over-commitment-to-islam/2013/04/20/de8272ea-a9d6-11e2-9e1c-bb0fb0c2edd9_singlePage.html?tid=obnetwork

So for the future should relatives or others who know of those who choose to abandon work/school for possible mayhem report them to FBI?

Doesn't seem like this person was in a program similar to a seminary or divinity school.

This is interesting. I think identifying the Tsarnaev brother's means of support will answer a lot of questions.

I am glad you brought this up. No one seems to wonder how this 26-year old with expensive clothes and a Mercedes supported himself. He didn't seem to have a job or be at school; yet he had a wife and a 3-year old (who seem to be laying low).

Didn't he have the Mercedes for a matter of minutes? From the time he carjacked it until the police riddle him with bullets (and his brother drove the Mercedes over him)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/uncle-of-bombing-suspects-says-he-had-falling-out-with-older-nephew-over-commitment-to-islam/2013/04/20/de8272ea-a9d6-11e2-9e1c-bb0fb0c2edd9_singlePage.html?tid=obnetwork

So for the future should relatives or others who know of those who choose to abandon work/school for possible mayhem report them to FBI?

Doesn't seem like this person was in a program similar to a seminary or divinity school.

This is interesting. I think identifying the Tsarnaev brother's means of support will answer a lot of questions.

I am glad you brought this up. No one seems to wonder how this 26-year old with expensive clothes and a Mercedes supported himself. He didn't seem to have a job or be at school; yet he had a wife and a 3-year old (who seem to be laying low).

Didn't he have the Mercedes for a matter of minutes? From the time he carjacked it until the police riddle him with bullets (and his brother drove the Mercedes over him)?

Yup, they carjacked the Mercedes SUV from someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Not true, and who the heck cares.

Provide evidence please.

You are asking for evidence of what exactly ? Yes, there is a tool of convenience in some muslim countries that is a marriage certificate for a pre-set period of time. In countries of the middle east that have legalized this form of marriage of convenience it basically amounts to prostitution for hire with only one customer from this date to this date ( a sex permit, if you will). Not something I would engage in. Why would I need to ? Why would I be so stupid as to give up some of my soverenty and enter into a contract like that when my male partner has chosen to engage in this activity with me, assuming all the risks thereof and I could take the relationship or leave it at no risk to myself.

Yes, I did have a marriage proposal or two. I laughed them off. To me, it was simple, if you are afraid of being caught and getting 80 lashes, then don't come to be with me. My experience was that, religious law and legal punishments were just pushed aside in the man's mind as a calculated risk. They were grown ups. That is on them.

Whether or not such "sex permits " exist is irrelevant to my point because a) I did not enter into such a contract and b) my purpose of pointing out that sex outside of Islamic law exists widely in even the most conservative Muslim countries, is not to debate that per se, but to point out that:

contrary to what many people on this thread seem to think, religion is NOT a prime mover of men IN ANY CULTURE. In fact, I would say, if religious law or custom becomes an obstacle for a man between him and a base motivator he has, men all over the world will just shove aside or tune out their religious "beliefs" in pursuit of what are their more prime movers of their behavior.

It is my personal experience that this is true when what they want is sex, and I imagine it is also true when they are giving into hatred and rage.

Religion may be used as a crutch AFTER THE FACT, but when the decision is being made to give priority to a base motivator, religion is cast off as quickly as a Jimbia that falls to the floor when the belt of one's thobe is undone.
That is my point.

I think you misunderstood. No one questions your adventures in the Middle East, whatever they were. No one questions that men in conservative countries have sex. I don't think anyone inquired why you didn't accept proposals that came your way, so I am not quite sure why you feel compelled to explain them.

What was in question, really, is twofold, as a matter of some detail:

a. Marriage with a set expiration date is allowed, to my knowledge, only in Iran. No Sunni-majority country allows marriages with a known expiration date. With unlimited freedom to divorce for men, I don't know why they'd feel they need to.

b. Truly devout Muslims do not have girlfriends. Note - not Muslims who feel the need to rationalize it in their minds - but Muslims who understand the rules of their religion and live by them. If Muslims have girlfriends, they aren't devout. That is all.

And I'm married to a Saudi, so you don't need to explain the minutia of Muslim law and behavior to me.