Saturday, April 20, 2013

The Motivation... ?

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Lib
erty -vs- Tyranny


As information surfaces on the possible motivation of the Boston Marathon Bombers and the potential connection to Muslim terrorist organizations it is wise to consider how we best handle the issue of foreign immigration and the method to control it. Our primary interest is this day and age of madness is how to protect the citizens of these United States of America. Terror is a societal issue of the 21st century and determining how to address the deadly threat it presents civilized society must be of utmost importance. Now is NOT the time for misguided political correctness.

York York Times - WASHINGTON — With one suspect dead and the other captured and lying grievously wounded in a hospital, the investigation into the Boston Marathon bombings turned on Saturday to questions about the men’s motives, and to the significance of an overseas trip one of them took last year.

Federal investigators are hurrying to review a visit that one of the suspected bombers made to Chechnya and Dagestan, predominantly Muslim republics in the north Caucasus region of Russia. Both have active militant separatist movements. There are concerns in Congress about the F.B.I.’s handling of a request from Russia before the trip to examine the man’s possible links to extremist groups in the region.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who died early Friday after a shootout with the police in Watertown, Mass., spent six months of last year in Dagestan.

Tamerlan’s father, Anzor, said his son had returned to renew his passport, but his stay was prolonged and, analysts said, may have marked a crucial step in his path toward the bombing of the Boston Marathon.

Kevin R. Brock, a former senior F.B.I. and counterterrorism official, said, “It’s a key thread for investigators and the intelligence community to pull on.”

The investigators began scrutinizing the events in the months and years before the fatal attack, as Boston began to feel like itself for the first time in nearly a week .

Monday had brought the bombing, near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, which killed three and wounded scores, and the tense days that followed culminated in Friday’s lockdown of the entire region as the police searched for Mr. Tsarnaev’s younger brother from suburban backyards to an Amtrak train bound for New York City.

The motivations of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and his younger brother, Dzhokhar, who was taken into custody Friday night and is still too wounded to speak, are as yet publicly unknown. Of Chechen heritage, they lived in the United States for years, according to friends and relatives, and no direct ties have been publicly established with known Chechen terrorist or separatist groups.

The significance of the trip was magnified late Friday when the F.B.I. disclosed in a statement that in 2011 “a foreign government” — now acknowledged by officials to be Russia — asked for information about Tamerlan, “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.” {Read the Rest}

Indeed civilization is threatened by terrorist extremists, be they Muslim or otherwise should dirty nukes find their way into the terrorists arsenal of madness.

Via: Memeorandum

38 comments:

  1. Any immigration compromise that doesn't deal with beefing up the border (especially after this) will undoubtedly go down in flames yet again. And, yes, this is coming from an individual who wants to see a deal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Illegal crossings of our South boarder are lower than they have been in decades, which of course means (by you conservative wackos) that we should send 10,000 Marines to stand on the boarder. This is your logic/

      Delete
  2. Well, it's certainly starting to look like this may have been avoidable. Perhaps if we had realistic immigration, instead of idiotic "borders first" nonsense, then we'd have fewer people to skim through to find the terrorists. But that would be too heady a mathematical concept for the Right, I suppose.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, Jersey, "borders first" would mean the fewest people to skim through.

      Delete
    2. I'm not arguing against border security. I'm saying that making it "borders first" creates a silly, pointless, arbitrary obstacle to intelligent immigration reform.

      JMJ

      Delete
  3. What is idiotic about "borders first"? There can't be any sort of realistic immigration policy in a state of anarchy, and that is what you have with no borders.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've said variations of this statement already at AOW's and at Western Hero, so I might as well say it here, because my views are NOT going to change, whether others consider them strictly "rational" or not. ;-)

    I believe we should go and get THEM before they come to get US. I know this is considered a decidedly "un-American" attitude -- or so we like to believe -- but I have said -- consistently and repeatedly -- since 9/12/01, that we should have:

    A. IMMEDIATELY deported all foreign-born Muslims

    B. Denied future access to Muslims of any description from everywhere in the world on any pretext whatsoever

    C. At the same time we should have CLOSED all the MOSQUES, and issued an ultimatum to American-born Muslims requiring them to abandon Islam or get the hell out of the USA.

    Has terrorism changed MY life? You bet! Ever since 911, I have refused even to think of getting on a plane. Not because I am afraid of "terrorists," however, but because I am DISGUSTED at the sheer stupidity and pusillanimity with which we've attempted to handle airline security.

    It's OBSCENE that every American citizen must be subjected to the gross indignities and massive inconvenience perpetrated by the TSA. I never did like flying anyway, but this has caused me to eschew air travel altogether and just stay home.

    Do I feel deprived?

    Not really. I thank GOD, that I enjoy House & Garden to the great extent that I do! I must be part Hobbit, because I don't miss traveling a bit. It always was a pain-in-the-A-Double-Ess anyway, even in better times.

    I've hated air travel since "Security" in the early days of hijacking way back in the 1970's forced me to unwrap and entire suitcase full of CHRISTMAS PRESENTS I was bringing to prospective in-laws in another state. I had wrapped those so carefully and lovingly -- and I must say cleverly -- and "Security" left me with nothing but a disgusting mess.

    I am most grateful that my work never required me to do much traveling that could not be accomplished in an automobile.

    To tell the truth flying hasn't been much fun since they quit using propeller-driven planes. It was exciting then, but the novelty soon wore off as air travel became increasingly common. Airports in large metropolitan areas have been a nightmare for a very long time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FT,
      I have traveled by air only a few times since 9/11. At the Long Beach Airport in California in 2006, I was pulled aside for a thorough search. The search was so damned thorough that I asked, "Can we go into a private room for the pelvic exam?"

      Why the hell was I singled out like that?

      Delete
  5. As for "C", we will have a First Amendment, you know. That makes your "C" impossible .And I know some native-born Americans who are not Muslims who are quite scary. And some real nice foreign-born Muslims and native-born Muslims. The huge numbers of innocent people harmed by such discriminatory behavior makes it a show-stopper for me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Change centuries old immigration policy that has helped build American society because we are currently having a problem? Change centuries old gun policy because we are currently having a problem? The Congress has answered the later, why should the former be any different? Are you suggesting the government curtail out of country travel by citizens, or just spy on those who travel out of country. Sure, it's easier to control peoples behavior in a police State, thank God we do not have a police State, a dictatorship, Communism ..........

    ReplyDelete
  7. "A. IMMEDIATELY deported all foreign-born Muslims

    B. Denied future access to Muslims of any description from everywhere in the world on any pretext whatsoever

    C. At the same time we should have CLOSED all the MOSQUES, and issued an ultimatum to American-born Muslims requiring them to abandon Islam or get the hell out of the USA."

    I believe FT is pulling our legs, since any of those suggestions are all unAmerican and against everything we stand for. Just because a tiny percentage of the 1+ billion Muslims in the world are dangerous does not warrant our shredding the Constitution to solve the problem. I never heard anyone suggest that we round up all the Christians after the Oklahoma bombing or the Olympic Park Bombing or any of the abortion clinic bombings. So I imagine FT is just messing with people in suggesting those 3 solutions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Round up Christians after OK City? Are you sure McVeigh was a Christian, Shaw? I remember reading that he liked to bash Christians and was of the Atheist faith.

      Delete
  8. FWIW, this is from Wikipedia on Timothy McVeigh:


    "Political views and religious beliefs

    McVeigh was a registered Republican when he lived in Buffalo, New York, in the 1980s, and had a membership in the National Rifle Association while in the military, but voted for Libertarian Party candidate, Harry Browne, in the 1996 presidential elections.

    McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic. During his childhood, he and his father attended Mass regularly. McVeigh was confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York, in 1985.

    In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."

    In the 2001 book American Terrorist, McVeigh stated that he did not believe in Hell and that science is his religion. In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying as agnostic.

    Before his execution, McVeigh took the Catholic sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick."


    So yes, McVeigh was raised in the Christian religion and embraced it's sacraments at the time of his death.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was wrong saying that he was of the Atheist faith. He was an agnostic, a belief system which actually doesn't assert a faith.

      Delete
    2. Actually atheism is not a faith. Certainly not by conventional definition.

      "One who denies the existence of God."

      Of course one can argue this is a faith I suppose. In a convoluted sense of the word faith.

      " Allegiance to duty or a person, belief and and trust in and loyalty to God, belief in the traditional doctrines of religion..."

      Delete
    3. If you knew anything about present day atheist, you would know they operate just like a religion.

      Delete
    4. Strong atheism is indeed a faith. It is not convoluted at all to use "faith" as a word to describe those who don't merely deny the existence of God, but instead go as far as to assert that there is no deity at all.

      Agnostics, though, do not assert a strong belief.

      Delete
    5. Sal, call me old fashioned then. I could not care one iota less what "present day" atheism is . I prefer the correct or conventional understanding. But thanks anyway.

      Delete
    6. dmarks, I hope my response to Sal is sufficient. Not really on the mood to talk religion today.

      Delete
    7. Your choice to not deal in present day reality, but you should just drop any debate on your part.

      Delete
  9. It is not in good taste to criticize the Obama, after all he did kill binladen. Now that the obama has decided to attack the traveling public with his sequester on ATC, it is a miserable time to fly. He does have his priorities in order regarding the sequester
    Deny tour access to our white house
    Place the public in danger by cutting air traffic controllers
    Take education benefits away from the military
    Limit military training flights
    Go play golf with Tiget
    Have a massive party in the white house
    Spend millions going to Texas for a fund raising trip.

    The leader sure has the American Taxpayer in mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. who made the decision that ATC employees would be part of the sequester Republicans left Obama with?

      Delete
    2. Skud said: "Now that the obama has decided to attack the traveling public with his sequester on ATC"

      Don't forget that just a couple of months ago Obama demanded an $11 billion dollar handout in the form of a wage hike for rich, already overpaid federal employees. In order for the have-mores to become have-even-mores.

      Delete
    3. The obama was given discretion on implementing the sequester but he stayed true to his course and made it a totally political issue.
      Now we have the traveling public inconvenienced and put in danger just so he can blame the other party.
      The good thing is he hasn't let the sequester slow him and the wife y down with their travels and parties.

      Delete
    4. If that was any different than other presidents it might be note worthy.

      Delete
  10. Shaw,

    Many people lose touch with their faith and few are born atheist, that just evolves over time. I know several atheists and agnostics and all were brought up with some religious background but changed later in life. How is it you know he embraced religion at the time of his death. Maybe he was just covering all his bases. Those who believe in nothing will fall for anything and at least religion provides some base to build on.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Those who believe in nothing will fall for anything and at least religion provides some base to build on."


    Oh yes, the skud, very true. Just ask the Tsarnaev brothers about how religion provides some base to build on. In their case, "some base" to build bombs on.

    In complete contradiction to your ill-informed statement, it was RELIGION that provided the terrorists of 9/11 and more recently the Boston bombers a reason to kill.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And all this time I thought you were open minded about Muslims but I see you feel it is the religion that is destructive, not the individuals. Does that mean you believe with Ann C and outlaw Muslim immigration?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Skud, you don't know how to debate. Saying that religion provided the terrorists of 9/11 and Boston a reason to kill does not mean I believe Muslims should not be allowed into the country. Actually, if you knew facts, you'd understand that AMERICANS are killing AMERICANS at 30,000 A YEAR through firearm violence. That's 3 times 10 to the fourth power deaths to the 3 that the bombers killed at the marathon finish line. What do you do about that fact? American kill far, far, far more Americans here in this country than do Muslims. FACT.

    I am NOT a believer, so I don't follow any religion, nor do I think one religion is any better than any other. Religious fanatics are a bane on the human race.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your statistics are incorrect unless you consider suicide Americans killing Americans. I do agree that more people have been killed in the name of religion than any other factor. If you consider atheism a religion or belief you can throw in Hitler, Stalin and several other individuals who believed in nothing.

      People use all sorts of excuses to justify their actions and religion is at the top of the list.

      Delete
  14. Atheism, call it religion or not, is involved with most of the worst atrocities committed by the worst extremists in all human history. These fanatics are no less a bane than theists are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? The Crusades for starters. Take it away dmarks.

      Delete
  15. Crusades? The highest victim count I was able to find comes to about one-third of the victims of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and the other doctrinaire Atheist mass murderers.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Demarks, what's your count on the genocide perpetrated by the white European Christian in the New World?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I've seen that one all over the place. 20 million is one number I have found recently. I used to be quite conversant on it, but have not looked into it lately.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And yes, shaw, these totals of atrocities commited by theists do bring up shockingly high totals. But in comparison to atrocities ordered by the Atheist faithful? The entire New World holocaust total matches the total from just one Atheist leader: Stalin.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.