What exactly is Chechyna'a beef with the USA?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet you wouldn't bother with all this grasping at straws if the terrorist turned out to be the white male tea party anti-government type you were hoping for.

I didn't hope it would be anyone. I did hope it wouldn't be a Muslim because I was afraid of the anti-Muslim feeding frenzy we are now seeing.

But, let's turn things around. If a white, male, tea party, anti-government type had been caught, would you readily accept it? Or, would you question it? Would you agree with accusations that the actions of the culprit had meaning with regard to other white, male, tea party, anti-government types? I am pretty sure you wouldn't just sit back and agree that this action meant that the tea party, anti-government ideology had provoked the bombing.

If things were turned around, I probably wouldn't agree with alternative theories that you might offer and I might enjoy the challenge of poking holes in them. But, I wouldn't immediately rule them out. I've seen the conventional wisdom be wrong far too many times to immediately accept it.

I never had any problem accepting the reality of McVeigh, Rudolph ect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet you wouldn't bother with all this grasping at straws if the terrorist turned out to be the white male tea party anti-government type you were hoping for.

I didn't hope it would be anyone. I did hope it wouldn't be a Muslim because I was afraid of the anti-Muslim feeding frenzy we are now seeing.

But, let's turn things around. If a white, male, tea party, anti-government type had been caught, would you readily accept it? Or, would you question it? Would you agree with accusations that the actions of the culprit had meaning with regard to other white, male, tea party, anti-government types? I am pretty sure you wouldn't just sit back and agree that this action meant that the tea party, anti-government ideology had provoked the bombing.

If things were turned around, I probably wouldn't agree with alternative theories that you might offer and I might enjoy the challenge of poking holes in them. But, I wouldn't immediately rule them out. I've seen the conventional wisdom be wrong far too many times to immediately accept it.

I never had any problem accepting the reality of McVeigh, Rudolph ect.

Ditto. I haven't either

If these two bombers did it due to radicalized Muslim views, then they are who they are. If good Muslim people are victimized as a result, we deal with it in a swift and terrible manner. We don't live in fear of it, because that's what's wanted. Your sympathies are being played by monsters who use their bastardized views of a decent religion to murder others. Don't allow that.

[jsteele]

Of course, saying that you didn't have problems with McVeigh or Rudolph is a great way of answering my question without answering it. You guys should be in politics. The question was not how you responded in the past -- a time when the Tea Party didn't even exist -- but how you would react now if a tea party type had been accused of the bombings. You would not immediately agree that the Tea Party's ideology had inspired the bombing. I'm quite sure that you would look for motivations beyond his Tea Party association. Most likely, there would be a major effort to simply declare the guy crazy.

If you readily accept what your preconceived biases suggest, then it leads to exactly the situation we are now facing: Declare him an enemy combatant, deprive him of his rights, don't allow him to have a lawyer, maybe don't even charge him. Why even bother to give the guy a trial? Why go to that effort if we've already decided he is just another Muslim terrorist?

Maybe the conventional wisdom is right. Maybe the older brother suddenly became fantasized and brainwashed his brother and in an Islamic fervor they decided to bomb the marathon. Maybe that's true. But, I think there are other, equally possible, explanations. I think it is worth considering those.

[Anonymous]

It depends on what he says and does. Everything has extremes. I renounce evil deeds using extreme idealology as cause McVeigh was not crazy. I'm glad he's gone

[Anonymous]

Bush had a better grasp of reality than Obama. Pretending radical Islam is not a threat is idiotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bush had a better grasp of reality than Obama. Pretending radical Islam is not a threat is idiotic.

I'd take Obama's record for killing and capturing terrorists over Bush's any day.

[Anonymous]

Jsteele, given what we know at this stage about the brother's sentiments and activities - which admittedly is still not a lot - can you please elaborate on what you see as "other, equally possible, explanations" for the bombing??

And please don't take this the wrong way, but you have a personal link to this part of the world as you've mentioned here in the past? Is that coloring your interpretation of these events? I'm not accusing, just curious - I work on related issues and I have to say my own interpretation is absolutely shaped by what I know about the linkages between Chechens and a variety of different terrorist activities, including and especially Al Qaeda. But I thought the oped today (NYT? I think) that posed the question about whether this is a case of Columbine meeting Beslan was interesting, and deeply scary. I just don't yet see the Columbine part here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jsteele, given what we know at this stage about the brother's sentiments and activities - which admittedly is still not a lot - can you please elaborate on what you see as "other, equally possible, explanations" for the bombing??

And please don't take this the wrong way, but you have a personal link to this part of the world as you've mentioned here in the past? Is that coloring your interpretation of these events? I'm not accusing, just curious - I work on related issues and I have to say my own interpretation is absolutely shaped by what I know about the linkages between Chechens and a variety of different terrorist activities, including and especially Al Qaeda. But I thought the oped today (NYT? I think) that posed the question about whether this is a case of Columbine meeting Beslan was interesting, and deeply scary. I just don't yet see the Columbine part here.

I'm obviously not Jeff. But a young person who feels like a misfit / alienated from society could do something like this. Look at Columbine. And they might even gravitate toward an ideology to justify it. Look at how Anders Brevik. The guy is schizophrenic according to the courts, but you could blame right wing Christian separatist ideology if you wanted.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jsteele, given what we know at this stage about the brother's sentiments and activities - which admittedly is still not a lot - can you please elaborate on what you see as "other, equally possible, explanations" for the bombing??

And please don't take this the wrong way, but you have a personal link to this part of the world as you've mentioned here in the past? Is that coloring your interpretation of these events? I'm not accusing, just curious - I work on related issues and I have to say my own interpretation is absolutely shaped by what I know about the linkages between Chechens and a variety of different terrorist activities, including and especially Al Qaeda. But I thought the oped today (NYT? I think) that posed the question about whether this is a case of Columbine meeting Beslan was interesting, and deeply scary. I just don't yet see the Columbine part here.

First, I'll respond about my personal links. I originally came to Washington to study the Middle East at Georgetown. During my studies at Georgetown, I took a year off to study Arabic in Kuwait. During that year and in later years, I travelled quite a bit in the Middle East. So, I have a pretty strong attachment to that part of the world. Separate from that, I am married to a Georgian. Georgia, as you know, borders Chechnya and the problems in Chechnya have often spilled over into Georgia. As a result, I've learned quite a bit about Chechnya and Chechens over the years.

Do these personal ties color my interpretation? Absolutely. I think those ties help me be better informed.

Since the bombs went off, there has been a rash of posts here, similar to things appearing in other media, that suggest the bombs were part of an ongoing, coordinated war by radical Muslims (with "radical" sometimes not included). I have hoped, and continue to hope, that this is not the case. But, regardless of those sentiments, the more I have learned about the bombings and the apparent perpetrators, the less I believe this interpretation. So, if the bombings are not part of some monolithic war against the US being waged by radical Muslims, what were they? I don't know the answer to this, so I've been tossing out possibilities.

What has come out today about the Tsarnaev brothers makes me think it is even less likely this is some part of an al-Qaida-like attack. The brothers apparently never lived in Chechnya. They went from Kyrgyzstan to Dagestan to the US. They were not affected by war-torn Chechnya and the violence that occurred there.

With regard to Tamerlan's attachment to Islam, it doesn't strike me as out of the ordinary. Some people seem to think that one Youtube video of a radical Imam is enough to prove he is a fanatical Muslim. I don't know that there is anything to be learned from his Youtube account, but we watched all the videos there today. One is about Sufi Islam. The type of Muslims that wage attacks against civilians are Salafist and hate Sufis. He had a music video that was a poem in Arabic, but had two that were of Western pop music -- and super cheesy at that. Tamerlan may be a more devote Muslim than I originally suspected, but I still don't see signs of the type of radicalism the general public seems to believe are there.

So what causes two seemingly normal young men to blow up innocent men, women, and children? One idea I have suggested is brain damage suffered by Tamerlan as a result of boxing. But, that doesn't really explain Dzhokhar. Then I noted that they have no visible means of support. Yet, Dzhokhar was seen wearing and bragging about $900 shoes. Where is the money coming from? I suspect criminal ties. I don't know what would motivate a criminal gang to blow up the marathon, but I could see a criminal gang forcing them to do it.

There is the suggestion that the brothers were simply alienated from American society and wanted to undertake a Columbine-like act of violence in protest. This also doesn't add up for me.

I think as more information comes out, this case will begin to look a lot different than it does now. For most of the day yesterday, we were told that not only had the brothers robbed a 7-11, but there was film of them doing it. Now we are told they didn't rob it. How much else of what we have been told will turn out to be wrong?

One other thing I read today is that Tamerlan got out of the carjacked SUV and tried to throw an explosive at the police. That either failed to ignite or blew up in his hand -- I've seen both reported. He then fired his gun until he ran out of ammunition and was tackled by police. He was later found to have an explosive and triggering mechanism strapped to his body. The immediate explanation is that this explosive was to commit suicide. But, when he was about to be tackled, that would have been the obvious time to trigger it. Another explanation is that he kept explosives strapped to his body the way soldiers hang grenades on a belt -- so that he could have quick access to them. Because the explosives were improvised, they had to have a triggering mechanism. So, it's possible he had no intention of blowing up himself, but rather the explosive was meant to be used against others. An al-Qaida-type attacker would have been much more likely to commit a suicide attack.

I could go on, but there is a lot that doesn't make sense. We'll just have to see how things play out.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Of course, saying that you didn't have problems with McVeigh or Rudolph is a great way of answering my question without answering it. You guys should be in politics. The question was not how you responded in the past -- a time when the Tea Party didn't even exist -- but how you would react now if a tea party type had been accused of the bombings. You would not immediately agree that the Tea Party's ideology had inspired the bombing. I'm quite sure that you would look for motivations beyond his Tea Party association. Most likely, there would be a major effort to simply declare the guy crazy.

If you readily accept what your preconceived biases suggest, then it leads to exactly the situation we are now facing: Declare him an enemy combatant, deprive him of his rights, don't allow him to have a lawyer, maybe don't even charge him. Why even bother to give the guy a trial? Why go to that effort if we've already decided he is just another Muslim terrorist?

Maybe the conventional wisdom is right. Maybe the older brother suddenly became fantasized and brainwashed his brother and in an Islamic fervor they decided to bomb the marathon. Maybe that's true. But, I think there are other, equally possible, explanations. I think it is worth considering those.

I'm a democrat and I have come out on here pretty squarely critical of the brothers , their associations and their family. Frankly, I was surprised that is was recent immigrants who are buying into radical propaganda, because I THOUGHT it was going to be right wing radicals, especially after the ricin and the WACO fire.

You seem to be overcompensating for something ( boxing head injury, LOL). Why the grasping at straws, why the resistance to believe anything , but what it is two young immigrant men who reactionarily over -identifed with radical propaganda that makes them feel powerful( just like the President said, btw) I think the ink has dried and I believe in calling a spade a spade.

Yes, we have hate coming from several directions in this world. What they all have in common is the idea that their truth is the pure one and that everyone else is "less pure" than theirs.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jsteele, given what we know at this stage about the brother's sentiments and activities - which admittedly is still not a lot - can you please elaborate on what you see as "other, equally possible, explanations" for the bombing??

And please don't take this the wrong way, but you have a personal link to this part of the world as you've mentioned here in the past? Is that coloring your interpretation of these events? I'm not accusing, just curious - I work on related issues and I have to say my own interpretation is absolutely shaped by what I know about the linkages between Chechens and a variety of different terrorist activities, including and especially Al Qaeda. But I thought the oped today (NYT? I think) that posed the question about whether this is a case of Columbine meeting Beslan was interesting, and deeply scary. I just don't yet see the Columbine part here.

First, I'll respond about my personal links. I originally came to Washington to study the Middle East at Georgetown. During my studies at Georgetown, I took a year off to study Arabic in Kuwait. During that year and in later years, I travelled quite a bit in the Middle East. So, I have a pretty strong attachment to that part of the world. Separate from that, I am married to a Georgian. Georgia, as you know, borders Chechnya and the problems in Chechnya have often spilled over into Georgia. As a result, I've learned quite a bit about Chechnya and Chechens over the years.

Do these personal ties color my interpretation? Absolutely. I think those ties help me be better informed.

Since the bombs went off, there has been a rash of posts here, similar to things appearing in other media, that suggest the bombs were part of an ongoing, coordinated war by radical Muslims (with "radical" sometimes not included). I have hoped, and continue to hope, that this is not the case. But, regardless of those sentiments, the more I have learned about the bombings and the apparent perpetrators, the less I believe this interpretation. So, if the bombings are not part of some monolithic war against the US being waged by radical Muslims, what were they? I don't know the answer to this, so I've been tossing out possibilities.

What has come out today about the Tsarnaev brothers makes me think it is even less likely this is some part of an al-Qaida-like attack. The brothers apparently never lived in Chechnya. They went from Kyrgyzstan to Dagestan to the US. They were not affected by war-torn Chechnya and the violence that occurred there.

With regard to Tamerlan's attachment to Islam, it doesn't strike me as out of the ordinary. Some people seem to think that one Youtube video of a radical Imam is enough to prove he is a fanatical Muslim. I don't know that there is anything to be learned from his Youtube account, but we watched all the videos there today. One is about Sufi Islam. The type of Muslims that wage attacks against civilians are Salafist and hate Sufis. He had a music video that was a poem in Arabic, but had two that were of Western pop music -- and super cheesy at that. Tamerlan may be a more devote Muslim than I originally suspected, but I still don't see signs of the type of radicalism the general public seems to believe are there.

So what causes two seemingly normal young men to blow up innocent men, women, and children? One idea I have suggested is brain damage suffered by Tamerlan as a result of boxing. But, that doesn't really explain Dzhokhar. Then I noted that they have no visible means of support. Yet, Dzhokhar was seen wearing and bragging about $900 shoes. Where is the money coming from? I suspect criminal ties. I don't know what would motivate a criminal gang to blow up the marathon, but I could see a criminal gang forcing them to do it.

There is the suggestion that the brothers were simply alienated from American society and wanted to undertake a Columbine-like act of violence in protest. This also doesn't add up for me.

I think as more information comes out, this case will begin to look a lot different than it does now. For most of the day yesterday, we were told that not only had the brothers robbed a 7-11, but there was film of them doing it. Now we are told they didn't rob it. How much else of what we have been told will turn out to be wrong?

One other thing I read today is that Tamerlan got out of the carjacked SUV and tried to throw an explosive at the police. That either failed to ignite or blew up in his hand -- I've seen both reported. He then fired his gun until he ran out of ammunition and was tackled by police. He was later found to have an explosive and triggering mechanism strapped to his body. The immediate explanation is that this explosive was to commit suicide. But, when he was about to be tackled, that would have been the obvious time to trigger it. Another explanation is that he kept explosives strapped to his body the way soldiers hang grenades on a belt -- so that he could have quick access to them. Because the explosives were improvised, they had to have a triggering mechanism. So, it's possible he had no intention of blowing up himself, but rather the explosive was meant to be used against others. An al-Qaida-type attacker would have been much more likely to commit a suicide attack.

I could go on, but there is a lot that doesn't make sense. We'll just have to see how things play out.

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.

[jsteele]

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.

[jsteele]

For those of you who are convinced the Boston attacks were the acts of radical Muslims, here is the sort of thing that strengthens your case. This is from an FBI press release that I am just now seeing for the first time:

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/2011-request-for-information-on-tamerlan-tsarnaev-from-foreign-government

Once the FBI learned the identities of the two brothers today, the FBI reviewed its records and determined that in early 2011, a foreign government asked the FBI for information about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The request stated that it was based on information that he was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.

In response to this 2011 request, the FBI checked U.S. government databases and other information to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest, travel history and plans, and education history. The FBI also interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev and family members. The FBI did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the foreign government in the summer of 2011. The FBI requested but did not receive more specific or additional information from the foreign government."

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:For those of you who are convinced the Boston attacks were the acts of radical Muslims, here is the sort of thing that strengthens your case. This is from an FBI press release that I am just now seeing for the first time:

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/2011-request-for-information-on-tamerlan-tsarnaev-from-foreign-government

Once the FBI learned the identities of the two brothers today, the FBI reviewed its records and determined that in early 2011, a foreign government asked the FBI for information about Tamerlan Tsarnaev. The request stated that it was based on information that he was a follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.

In response to this 2011 request, the FBI checked U.S. government databases and other information to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest, travel history and plans, and education history. The FBI also interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev and family members. The FBI did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the foreign government in the summer of 2011. The FBI requested but did not receive more specific or additional information from the foreign government."

Wasn't the accusation from the Russian secret police? When did we start trusting them, and why would we give credence to their assessment of a Chechen with asylum in the US?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Wasn't the accusation from the Russian secret police? When did we start trusting them, and why would we give credence to their assessment of a Chechen with asylum in the US?

Yes, these are good points. I just read an analysis that suggested that the Russians may not have had any information about Tamerlan, but since he had applied for a visa, they sent the FBI on a fishing expedition. Since he was allowed into Russia after the FBI interview, the Russians must not have been too concerned about him.

If the Russians did have information that he was going to join radical Islamic groups, one would think they would have kept tabs on him while he was in Russia and known about any contact he had with such groups.

This whole thing could be interpreted as a clean bill of health for Tamerlan.