Terrorist attack at Boston Marathon

[Beowulf]

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...s-bostons.html

http://rare.us/story/four-reasons-wh...han-you-think/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/21/graham-ball-was-dropped-in-probe-of-tamerlan-tsarnaev/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hz0tmpokJ_dZ-S6DbTJa6nmUJpsA?docId=CNG.018e1625845b5f1688282300d99320f1.4d1

"The Tsarnaev family has said that Tamerlan visited Dagestan for six months last year.

One Russian report added that Tamerlan's father Anzor had kicked his son out of his house because he began displaying radical Islamist ideology.

The younger brother Dzhokhar -- badly wounded by the time he was detained by authorities on Friday -- also identified Islam as his "world view" on a Russian social media website."

[Beowulf]

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/04/israeli-publication-says-bostons.html

http://rare.us/story/four-reasons-why-the-boston-bombing-is-more-shocking-than-you-think/

[Errata]

He carried it around. He ran his brother over with a car. He shot at police. He knew what was going down. Doesn't mean he liked it. Afterwards, he spoke with friends as if nothing had happened. Definitely knew.

Mike

I actually see those things as an argument for him NOT knowing. It's not inconceivable that he was carrying a bag for his brother, wasn't particularly paying attention to what his brother was doing, didn't associate the bomb blast with anything they'd done. So he talks to his friends like nothing happened, because as far as he knew, nothing happened. Not until they are in a convenience store that gets knocked over and his brother freaks out at the approaching sirens, hands him a gun and tells him that they have to run because they bombed the marathon. At which point the kid gets super freaked out and seriously pissed. His brother is shooting, apparently has a bomb strapped to his chest, cops are shooting back, he has a gun in his hand so he fires back at the cops. He runs over his brothers body. Which is not that hard to avoid doing in the long run and serves no purpose. So either he had no control over the car, or he was THAT angry with his brother. He doesn't continue the crime spree. He doesn't car jack someone else, he doesn't kill anyone else. He hides in a boat bleeding out, and evidently tries to kill himself, which is not something bombers do. Suicide by cop is the way they go out. So the whole thing is just odd. Now, I am not saying that this is what happened, I'm saying it's possible that this is what happened, and would explain some things.

[The Good Michael]

It occurs to me that the younger brother's involvement could (not will, just could) simply boil down to his brother asking him if you wanted to go watch the marathon, and then when he said yes, his brother said "here. hold this." Because in the picture the older brother is trying to not be seen, but the younger brother is just walking. Like he has no idea something bad is about to happen. Which is a little unnerving to thing about, since you know, how many times does someone hand you something and says "here. Hold this."

He carried it around. He ran his brother over with a car. He shot at police. He knew what was going down. Doesn't mean he liked it. Afterwards, he spoke with friends as if nothing had happened. Definitely knew.

Mike

[Errata]

It occurs to me that the younger brother's involvement could (not will, just could) simply boil down to his brother asking him if you wanted to go watch the marathon, and then when he said yes, his brother said "here. hold this." Because in the picture the older brother is trying to not be seen, but the younger brother is just walking. Like he has no idea something bad is about to happen. Which is a little unnerving to thing about, since you know, how many times does someone hand you something and says "here. Hold this."

[kensei]

The news is now reporting that Dzhokhar, who is in serious but stable condition, is unable to speak because of a bullet hole to the back of his neck which appears to be an exit wound. The speculation is that he tried to commit suicide by shooting himself in the mouth, but survived. The doctors appear to be saying it's inconclusive.

Ok, let's consider...
If a person puts a pistol in his mouth at a diagonal angle it is in direct line with the brain stem, a popular method of suicide as it is instantly fatal. But if the gun is held perfectly horizontal, the bullet would indeed just exit out the back of the neck. A person who is sitting up or standing is likely to do the former, while someone lying on his back underneath a tarp hiding in a boat is more likely to do the latter (which I guess would change "horizontal" to "vertical" but it's the same principle). There is said to be meticulous forensics work going on in the back yard where Dzhokhar hid, and if there's a bullet embedded in the floor of the boat or in the ground underneath they'll find it. Maybe he tried to off himself. ON THE OTHER HAND- he also has a bullet wound to one leg from the shootout with the cops that he fled from, and there's always the chance that in that same fight he took a police bullet through the mouth that exited out his neck.

The solution should be simple: Does he or does he not have the inside of his mouth burned to hell by gunpowder? If yes, he tried to kill himself. If no, he didn't. And of course, there is the ballistics. Anyone know what kind of guns the brothers used?

p.s.
I rather doubt we'll get to hear about all these details.

[The Good Michael]

These areas of the world have a tribal, hierarchical line of thinking. The oldest brother is sort of a god and must be obeyed. There is no question about this. Girls must take care of all male members of the family and are almost never involved in any of the political dealings as they are marginalized. This is true for Kyrgyzstan where the brothers lived, Ingushetia, Chechnya, the Tatars, Dagestan, and to a lesser extent Kazakhstan. I see this every day. Not the terrorism, but the mindset of obedience. It is something we in the west cannot really fathom, and in a way would make the younger brother a forced accomplice in a psychological way were he not actively involved in a fundamentalist organization.

Cheers,

Mike

[Mayerling]

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is in "serious but stable" condition, so it sounds like he will live to face trial.

There were signs that Tamerlane was coming under the influence of extremist views. I'm much more puzzled as to how the younger brother, Dzhokhar, came to be radicalized. Every person who knew Dzhokhar said he was just "a normal American college kid". His friends all said that he was a kind and considerate person. Dzhokhar seems to have fallen under the sway of his older brother. Perhaps this had something to do with the dynamics of their fractured family?

In the midst of the firefight with police, the older brother, Tamerlan, got out of his carjacked vehicle and walked straight towards police officers firing his gun, Hollywood movie-style, as if he was deliberately seeking "a martyr's death". The police fired back but still wanted to take him alive if possible, and an officer was able to come from the side, tackle him, and bring him to the ground.

Tamerlan was on the ground being handcuffed by a couple of police officers when Dzhokhar suddenly jumped into the carjacked vehicle and drove it "pedal to the metal" straight at the cops handcuffing his brother. The two cops barely had time to leap out of the way, and Dzhokhar struck and ran over his own older brother, actually dragging him for a short distance. Apparently it was being run over by Dzhokhar that created the massive open gash across Tamerlan's body and killed him. The police & rescue workers tried to resuscitate Tamerlan, but due to the multiple traumatic injuries were unable to do so.

Now I'm wondering if Dzhokhar intended to kill his older brother?

I'm thinking maybe Tamerlan had told Dzhokhar something to the effect that he "didn't want to be taken alive", and that's why he walked straight towards the police - he wanted to "die a martyr's death". Then when it looked like the police really were going to take Tamerlan alive, Dzhokhar got in the car and deliberately ran him over to kill him.

The strange thing to me is that Dzhokhar didn't try to go out in a similar 'blaze of glory'; he fled. He was wounded, and the target of a massive manhunt, so had virtually no hope of escape, yet he hid all day in a parked boat. Even when he was totally surrounded, he didn't commit suicide. I've read reports that he actually surrendered. The police were able to take him alive.

It makes me think that Dzhokhar didn't have the same ideological desire for "martyrdom" that his brother seemed to have. - Which leads one back to the question, why did "a normal college kid" go along with his older brother's incredibly violent plans in the first place?

Best regards,
Archaic

Hi Archaic,

We may never be totally sure about why Dzhokhar killed Tamerlan. He may have felt that Tamerlan might say something to the authorities that compromised their mother and sisters. Or he may have felt that Tamerlan would still have his martyr's death this way. Or he may have been furious that his elder brother involved him in so many deaths and crimes and felt like getting back at him (after all, even if your non-Islamic enemies have arrested you, if you are killed by being run over by a car that really isn't being martyred as it is supposed to be). Finally, there is an interesting if slim possiblity in here that may come out.

It is just possible that Dzhokhar hoped to somehow shake off the police dragnet and search and lay low long enough to somehow get back in touch with his mother and sisters, and that he hoped to find a place to recover to continue his jihad campaign elsewhere. When the two brothers stopped a car and forced the driver to drive at top speed, they wanted to get out of the state of Massachusetts and head for New York City. They said so. They did have all those additional bombs. Because of the chase they used the bombs against the police, but had they avoided the chase somehow they would have been armed enough to continue their campaign. Dzhokhar may very well have hoped he'd avoid capture, recover, and somehow reach his next destination for destruction. That (to me) is a slight possiblity.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Jeff

Excellent and learned post, if I may say so.

But the problem remains?

Phil

Thanks Phil. My comment (although dealing with Britain) about the problem remaining I stand by. Think of a number of years back and the attack on the underground by terrorists. I don't recall but I think a few were living in England as immigrants. If I am wrong please correct me.

Jeff

[Archaic]

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is in "serious but stable" condition, so it sounds like he will live to face trial.

There were signs that Tamerlane was coming under the influence of extremist views. I'm much more puzzled as to how the younger brother, Dzhokhar, came to be radicalized. Every person who knew Dzhokhar said he was just "a normal American college kid". His friends all said that he was a kind and considerate person. Dzhokhar seems to have fallen under the sway of his older brother. Perhaps this had something to do with the dynamics of their fractured family?

In the midst of the firefight with police, the older brother, Tamerlan, got out of his carjacked vehicle and walked straight towards police officers firing his gun, Hollywood movie-style, as if he was deliberately seeking "a martyr's death". The police fired back but still wanted to take him alive if possible, and an officer was able to come from the side, tackle him, and bring him to the ground.

Tamerlan was on the ground being handcuffed by a couple of police officers when Dzhokhar suddenly jumped into the carjacked vehicle and drove it "pedal to the metal" straight at the cops handcuffing his brother. The two cops barely had time to leap out of the way, and Dzhokhar struck and ran over his own older brother, actually dragging him for a short distance. Apparently it was being run over by Dzhokhar that created the massive open gash across Tamerlan's body and killed him. The police & rescue workers tried to resuscitate Tamerlan, but due to the multiple traumatic injuries were unable to do so.

Now I'm wondering if Dzhokhar intended to kill his older brother?

I'm thinking maybe Tamerlan had told Dzhokhar something to the effect that he "didn't want to be taken alive", and that's why he walked straight towards the police - he wanted to "die a martyr's death". Then when it looked like the police really were going to take Tamerlan alive, Dzhokhar got in the car and deliberately ran him over to kill him.

The strange thing to me is that Dzhokhar didn't try to go out in a similar 'blaze of glory'; he fled. He was wounded, and the target of a massive manhunt, so had virtually no hope of escape, yet he hid all day in a parked boat. Even when he was totally surrounded, he didn't commit suicide. I've read reports that he actually surrendered. The police were able to take him alive.

It makes me think that Dzhokhar didn't have the same ideological desire for "martyrdom" that his brother seemed to have. - Which leads one back to the question, why did "a normal college kid" go along with his older brother's incredibly violent plans in the first place?

Best regards,
Archaic

[Phil H]

Jeff

Excellent and learned post, if I may say so.

But the problem remains?

Phil

[Mayerling]

As I recall, Jeff, the Chechin situation blew up at a time when the break-up of the USSR was still in progress - under Yeltsin.

Given the geographic location of Chechnya it woukld have been very difficult, not to mention politically dangerous in many ways, for a western power to become involved one way or another. Besides it was a particularly awful civil war with little to chose between the belligerents.

The former Russian republics are a strange lot, some dictatorships, others deeply corrupt - as with Georgia I cannot begin to imagine what the world view might be of someone from, brought up in, or of ethnic descent from one of those countries.

The brothers in the Boston case seem to have been intelligent (at least the surviving one is said to be) and they have grown up in, and had at least 10 years to take in the American perspective. I wonder what it was that made them, for all the USA might offer, prefer a sort of martyrdom.

They seem to have been separated from family - no mention of mother, father back in Asia, uncle apparently distanced. Were they lonely? Alienated in some way/

I find those the important questions, rather than religious ones (which can just be the colouring). Surely what we need to know is what makes youths like this (in any country) susceptible, vulnerable, open to the allure of the fundamentalist or the terrorist.

One thing that I have asked myself - in terms of home-grown UK terrorism - is this: in an age of large scale migration and large ethnic minorities in many countries, where does the fundamental loyalty lie?

A Pakhistani born and living in the UK (or equivalent nationality in the US): does he or she regard themselves as British or American, or do they see themselves as remaining basically a memeber of their family home/parent nation, and as only residing in their adopted birthplace/ therin may reside an issue that needs to be tackled.

Phil

Hi Phil,

As far as your point about migrating ethnic minorities and fundamental loyaties goes, it is not such a new phenomenon. On another thread I pointed out that in the age of the Ripper many Irish-Americans were avid supporters of Irish independence from Britain, and they were so anti-British that in 1884 and 1888 they helped sway two Presidential elections due to an unrepudiated slur against them in the former year, and a cleverly laid trap for a relatively stupid British diplomat (asked whom he thought would be better in the White House for Britain's sake) in the latter year.

In England the revolution of 1789, the Reign of Terror, the Napoleonic Wars, the revolution of 1830 (in France), the revolutions of 1848, and the coup-d'etat of Napoleon III in 1852 led to massive refugee problems from the continent, and many of the refugees were more concerned with their former homelands than Britain. Two classic examples: Victor Hugo fled Napoleon III as he was one of that gentleman's biggest critics. Hugo settled on one of the Channel Islands to be near France. When he wrote his novels, his comments on Britain were rarely friendly. He returned to France as soon as the Franco - Prussian War and the Paris Commune were over. He never regretted his views about his host nation. The other example was the mess in 1858 concerning Felice Orsini's plot against Napoleon III. The assassination plot (concocted by Orsini in London) required bombs. He got them in Birmingham, through the offices of Dr. Simon Bernard. After Orsini struck and killed over a dozen passersby, and was arrested, tried, and convicted, Napoleon III tried to get the good Dr. Bernard extradited. Prime Minister Palmeston seemed prepared to say yes, but Dr. Bernard was acquitted by a trial, and Palmeston's actions appeared to be to pro-French to be tolerated - so he was briefly thrown out of office.

The alien problem in England and the empire kept resuming every now and then. But it was not a new problem.

Jeff

[Phil H]

As I recall, Jeff, the Chechin situation blew up at a time when the break-up of the USSR was still in progress - under Yeltsin.

Given the geographic location of Chechnya it woukld have been very difficult, not to mention politically dangerous in many ways, for a western power to become involved one way or another. Besides it was a particularly awful civil war with little to chose between the belligerents.

The former Russian republics are a strange lot, some dictatorships, others deeply corrupt - as with Georgia I cannot begin to imagine what the world view might be of someone from, brought up in, or of ethnic descent from one of those countries.

The brothers in the Boston case seem to have been intelligent (at least the surviving one is said to be) and they have grown up in, and had at least 10 years to take in the American perspective. I wonder what it was that made them, for all the USA might offer, prefer a sort of martyrdom.

They seem to have been separated from family - no mention of mother, father back in Asia, uncle apparently distanced. Were they lonely? Alienated in some way/

I find those the important questions, rather than religious ones (which can just be the colouring). Surely what we need to know is what makes youths like this (in any country) susceptible, vulnerable, open to the allure of the fundamentalist or the terrorist.

One thing that I have asked myself - in terms of home-grown UK terrorism - is this: in an age of large scale migration and large ethnic minorities in many countries, where does the fundamental loyalty lie?

A Pakhistani born and living in the UK (or equivalent nationality in the US): does he or she regard themselves as British or American, or do they see themselves as remaining basically a memeber of their family home/parent nation, and as only residing in their adopted birthplace/ therin may reside an issue that needs to be tackled.

Phil

[Mayerling]

At the Boston Marathon, flags from all over the world representing the nations of the participants line the parade route.

I just read that one of the bombs was placed under the Russian flag.

That seems deliberate, and therefore somehow symbolic in the minds of the bombers.

But being from Chechnya, resenting Russian domination and the long Chechnyan War, then blowing up Americans doesn't make much sense.

Best regards,
Archaic

Hi Archaic,

I would agree with you, as the Russians put down the Chechyans in two wars (during which there were several violent terrorist acts against the Russians). However, the Americans have been in the vanguard of the Iraqi, Afghani, and Pakistani wars, and in police actions against Somali pirates. We have been involved in lesser positions in North Africa in Libya. Even if we have begun disengagement we are aware that many Shiite and Suni extremists disapprove of our activities. And they will not agree to see it from our point of view at all (i.e., we are not going to tolerate killing twenty five hundred people by destroying two skyscrapers and four planes, and hitting the Pentagon). In fact, I sometimes wonder if there was a secondary message in the 9/11 destruction of the twin towers (the second terrorist attack on those buildings in a decade, by the way). Their precious Sharia law mandated that only buildings owned by Mohammadans could be above a certain height.

Further, America (aside from a few vague protests), did not rush to Chechnya's aid when it tried to become independent. Probably because we did not want a crazy situation with Russia.

As for hurting the jury pool by publishing our thoughts on the internet, given the activities so well chronicled on the news of this precious pair of brothers I think the jury pool may be tainted already - and there is little that the surviving brother and his lawyer can do about that!

Jeff

[Phil H]

Even if the surviving brother lives, I suspect we'll have to wait a long time before we are clear on motive.

The fury of their fight to survive suggests some determination, yet why stay in the Boston area after the bombs went off? That defies belief and begs capture - or a final fight. Not suicides but suicidal, it seems!!

Why so amateur - no getaway car - one had to be highjacked? Why rob a convenience store? To draw attention to themselves?

Phil