“The Sochi Olympics is next”?
Sochi is pretty much next door to Chechnya – it’s just a bit further from Sochi to Beslan (school massacre, 2004) than from Boston to New York.
The older brother is reported to have traveled to Russia last year. And maybe onward to the Caucasus? Where axe-grinding has been a major element of popular culture since ancient times.
Don’t know, but I bet there are a lot who are disappointed it wasnt right wingers.
Someone saying “a bomb exploded, a Muslim must be responsible” is being an Islamophobe. Someone saying “a bomb exploded, a Christian must be responsible” is also expressing religious bigotry. Terrorism in the name of protesting taxation (frex) makes more sense as a hypothesis than “$RELIGION people make things go boom” or “$ETHNICITY people make things go boom”. There’s more substance behind it.
How many conservatives did? You’re the only one that believes that Stack was a right-wing nutjob, probably because that was the first guess back then too and it’s stuck in your head.
I didn’t actually look the incident up. I assume it was a protest of Federal taxes, which, if someone doesn’t have evidence it wasn’t, isn’t that huge a leap.
When a bomb went off in Northern Ireland, do you think their first suspects would be North Koreans? When the primary threat to our security comes from Islamic terrorists our first thoughts won’t be North Koreans. We aren’t saying ALL Muslims are terrorists any more than the British thought that ALL Catholics were terrorists. Sure, it’s profiling but ask any policeman and they’ll tell you there is some validity in it.
They weren’t on their own. There’s a sleeper cell.
[QUOTE=drastic_quench]
[link omitted] They weren’t on their own. There’s a sleeper cell.
[/QUOTE]
The UK’s Daily Mirror does not have a good reputation for accuracy in its reporting. I’m not saying that the DM’s assertion that the Tsarnaev brothers were part of a sleeper cell is wrong, just that I’m going to wait until other, and more reputable, news outlets report this before I accept it as factual.
I checked the following news-reporting websites and none of them are carrying this, or a related story:
Christian Science Monitor
Reuters
Time
US News & World Report
Google news aggregator
It appears I was on the right track. From the article:
Some British did think of and treat Catholics generally as likely terrorist sympathizers, at the least. This was especially common among policemen. When one’s job entails dealing with criminals routinely, it exerts a powerful effect on one’s reckoning of the prevalence of criminality. It takes considerable character and force of will to resist.
True, but when investigators are looking for suspects they generally go for the most likely ones for the situation. When a wife is killed the husband (or ex) is the first suspect looked at. A child dies and the parents are the first ones investigated. If there is a shooting in the Englewood neighborhood of Chicago, the area with the highest murder rate, the police aren’t going to look for members of the Cosa Nostra or yakuza but will instead be searching for the African-American gang bangers who roam the area. This may seem unfair and racist but it is usually the case.
When investigating terrorism the investigators have to look at:
When this is added up the first type of suspect looked at is the jihadist because that is the most common type. Could it have been a member of ELF wanting to make a protest about how environmentally harmful the running shoe industry is and how the marathon route generates tons of garbage that is hurting the planet? Sure. Could it have been a couple of disgruntled runners who had been disqualified from running in the marathon and considered it a slight against them? Possible. But when you think about and are really honest with yourself you will admit that it seems highly unlikely and more than a little ridiculous to start looking in other directions than at the Muslim terrorists.
Is this racist? I don’t think so. As I have said many times, Muslim /= terrorist and terrorist /= Muslim. I know quite a few Muslims, some American and some from other countries (specifically Egypt, Thailand, Indonesia and Pakistan). Their reaction to the bombing suspects is the same as any other rational person: disgust, outrage, anger. They are also embarrassed and hurt that someone who proclaims to be of their faith would do something so heinous just as the majority of Christians are outraged, embarrassed and disgusted by the goat-felching scum of the Westboro Baptist Church protesting and intimidating funeral mourners. They don’t want to painted with the same broad brush as these suspects but realize that unfortunately the bad apples have indeed ruined it for the majority who are good, kind, caring, loving people.
You’re describing a completely ridiculous dichotomy there - obviously it’s a jihadist and if you think it’s likely it could be someone else then maybe it was a disgruntled marathon runner? There’s plenty of right-wing terrorists or just generally crazy (not really terrorist) people who could have carried out an attack like the one in Boston.
The Atlanta Olympics bombing is one example that is the complete opposite of your theory. It was an IED attack against a “soft target” with lots of civilian spectators. According to your theory, an honest person would find it “highly unlikely and more than a little ridiculous” that a person like Eric Robert Rudolph would place that bomb in Atlanta because of his anti-government political beliefs (he thought the Olympics represented “global socialism” and he wanted to embarrass Washington in the eyes of the world for its “abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand”).
You are correct, I forgot about Rudolph. He was just as disillusioned and twisted in his Christian/white supremacy views as the jihadists are in their interpretations of Islam and the inferiority of the “heretics”. In effect, he was committed to his own “jihad”.
What I was trying to say, though, is that although there was a possibility that there could have been some other kind of bomber out there, the odds seemed to favor someone who was justifying his actions based on a warped presentation of Islam. If the bombers in this case had been two boys from Belfast named O’Leary with red hair and freckles I would have been floored. And even though the attack did happen on April 15 which could point towards an anti-tax/anti-government motive, the other factors (using a pressure cooker bomb instead of just a pipe bomb like Rudolph) just didn’t seem to point that way.
I hope that the leaders in predominantly Muslim countries and the imams around the world step forward and declare forcefully and with heartfelt conviction that the murder and maiming of innocents is against the teachings of the prophet and these two losers do not represent Islam. Too often the silence from the mosques is deafening which is a shame.