5 ms·

Those do not include the most ridiculous thing they've done. The absolutely most bizarre thing is that, being "Chechnyan separatists", they attacked the US, pr

Those do not include the most ridiculous thing they've done. The absolutely most bizarre thing is that, being "Chechnyan separatists", they attacked the US, precisely the one country they shouldn't have. An attack of Russia, while stupid in its unlikelihood to mobilize popular support for their country, would be at least understandable. Russia is, after all, raping their country every fucking hour. An attack of revenge, maybe against the military or police forces, would be what's expected. Instead, they attacked the country which they should have tried to ally with, the US. With United-Statesian support, at least they could have a shot at independence, or at least some favourable publicity. There are plenty of reasons for that to happen [1]. The ironic thing is that, even though it was a passional, senseless move, the kind that no serious terrorist planner would consider, it could bring a better understanding, and better publicity for Chechnya in the West. I hope. Or maybe they just ripped to shreds the only good card their country had. Every terror attack that is attempted, the more convinced I am of Bruce Schneier's views on terrorism: terrorist are fundamentally stupid, emotionally fragile, intellectually lazy people [2]. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/what-you-should-know-about-chechnya-as-the-boston-story-unfolds/275156/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/wha... [2] https://www.schneier.com/essay-242.html https://www.schneier.com/essay-242.html

samwillis 13y ago
There is fairly strong evidence that they were not "Chechnyan separatists" and more likely had an Jihadist motivation. Although it is also highly likely that they acted completely alone and are just stupid.
- nsns 13y ago
  I think most facts point to two very confused and deluded youngsters, it's a joke even calling them "terrorists" or "Jihadists". Their madness adopted an Islamic tinge because of their roots, but IMO they're not very different from all the other disturbed American young people who commit gun violence.
  - samwillis 13y ago
    Completely agree, that is what I was kind of trying to say. The evidence points to two very angry and confused young men and there may have been a slight influence of fundamental Islam. I wouldn't be surprised it this influence was self imposed through YouTube and such though.
  - Symmetry 13y ago
    I think you're wrong here. The vast, vast majority of gun violence is directed against specific targets. And for the remainder who start randomly shooting people, they seem concerned with notoriety and don't make any attempt to conceal their identity or get away with it. I figure this probably began with the domestic violence conviction that derailed the older brother's plans for his life in the US. If you come from a society where a given behavior is considered normal and you move to a new society which think that not only is that behavior wrong but that it makes you an intrinsically bad person, well, that's a hard pill to take. More so in that to accept that this is so bad you now have to accept that everyone you knew and respected back home are then bad people. Or you could just listen to those who say that you and your people are fine, it's just America that's corrupt and decadent. And here's a template for acting in a way that'll make you the hero, rather than someone who blew his chance.
- AtlasLion 13y ago
  Sure, because the first thing that jihadists do after setting up a bomb is go to a campus party.
  - samwillis 13y ago
    I think its fairly clear that they had done very little planning and were completely unprepared for what would happen after the attacks. They even seemed to think they could just carry on with their lives and not get noticed. But I don't think that is a reason to discount an extremist religious motivation, although it may be only part of it.
    - berntb 13y ago
      Uhm, of course they acted as normal until they realized they were identified. Why would they attract attention by different behaviour?
- Vivtek 13y ago
  They had a Jihadist motivation like a metalhead has a Nazi motivation. Their father was a Russian anti-separatist enforcer and the older brother's act of rebellion was to act like a jihadi. And the younger brother thought that was cool. The most American terrorists imaginable, actually. I'm surprised they weren't wearing bin Laden tee shirts or something.
  - pohl 13y ago
    Did you mean skinhead?
    - Vivtek 13y ago
      Skin, metal - some kinda head. Stop joggling my elbow, son, you're distracting me.
      - pohl 13y ago
        Cool, I thought that might have been a mistake. I only asked because it changes the meaning entirely, like a foo without a bar is like a fish without {water, a bicycle}.
jacquesm 13y ago
Schneier definitely has a point. But these particular two guys were attending a top university in the United States so they can't have been too deficient in the IQ department. Why they would attack the country that gave them shelter is beyond me. For run-of-the-mill suicide bombers I think that fewer brains is actually preferable from the perspective of their higher ups. The less they think things through and the more impressionable they are the bigger the chance they will go through with whatever stupidity they are being tasked with. Essentially this is an education problem, if you'd manage to get people to think for themselves early enough then you might be able to head off a lot of misery before it gets off the ground.
- stan_rogers 13y ago
  I know a lot of absolutely brilliant people (in their own fields) who I'm sure need help tying their own shoes and hold either pure Pollyanna or tightly-wound conspiracy theorist views of the world around them. Intelligence does not always translate well across magisterial boundaries.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  Top university in the United States? Suspect #1 had been sporadically attending classes at a community college. Suspect #2 had been attending UMass Dartmouth, a state school. No offense to either, but top universities they are not. Unless you meant Cambridge Rindge and Latin, which, while a decent urban public high school, is not to be confused with the prestigious Boston Latin, which is also public but requires admission by way of a highly competitive exam.
- illuminate 13y ago
  "Why they would attack the country that gave them shelter is beyond me." Why would someone attack their domestic partner that gives them love? Some people are ill, some people lash out, some people want to hurt others for perceived (to real) hurt received in their lives.
- Vivtek 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure they attacked the country that gave them shelter purely because that is where they were physically located.
Unosolo 13y ago
> An attack of revenge, maybe against the military or police forces, would be what's expected. Sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis Ironically Ingush and Chechen islamic terrorists are persistently referred to as "rebels" and "separatists" by Western media, BBC which is perceived as more "independent" news outlet didn't utter once word "terrorist" even during the coverage of the heinous terror attack against children. People committing acts of terror are terrorists regardless of their aims.
- asb 13y ago
  The BBC tries to avoid terms like 'terrorist' http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/dec/16/terrorism.broadcasting http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/dec/16/terrorism.broadc...
  - arethuza 13y ago
    "The word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them." That actually sounds pretty sensible to me. These guys probably weren't part of some organisation that is trying to achieve political goals through acts of terrorism (e.g. like the IRA) - labelling a pair of nutters as "terrorists" really doesn't achieve very much in terms of news reporting or public understanding.
    - EliRivers 13y ago
      WMD charges don't help either. A pipe-bomb has been considered a WMD for a decade now. The term has been cheapened so much some schools ban the term as useless and carrying almost no information.
      - theorique 13y ago
        Well, it explains why we invaded Iraq after the fact. If a mere pipe bomb or IED is considered WMD, then Iraq was FULL of them. Chemical or biological weapons, not so much.

samwillis 13y ago

There is fairly strong evidence that they were not "Chechnyan separatists" and more likely had an Jihadist motivation. Although it is also highly likely that they acted completely alone and are just stupid.

nsns 13y ago
I think most facts point to two very confused and deluded youngsters, it's a joke even calling them "terrorists" or "Jihadists". Their madness adopted an Islamic tinge because of their roots, but IMO they're not very different from all the other disturbed American young people who commit gun violence.
- samwillis 13y ago
  Completely agree, that is what I was kind of trying to say. The evidence points to two very angry and confused young men and there may have been a slight influence of fundamental Islam. I wouldn't be surprised it this influence was self imposed through YouTube and such though.
- Symmetry 13y ago
  I think you're wrong here. The vast, vast majority of gun violence is directed against specific targets. And for the remainder who start randomly shooting people, they seem concerned with notoriety and don't make any attempt to conceal their identity or get away with it. I figure this probably began with the domestic violence conviction that derailed the older brother's plans for his life in the US. If you come from a society where a given behavior is considered normal and you move to a new society which think that not only is that behavior wrong but that it makes you an intrinsically bad person, well, that's a hard pill to take. More so in that to accept that this is so bad you now have to accept that everyone you knew and respected back home are then bad people. Or you could just listen to those who say that you and your people are fine, it's just America that's corrupt and decadent. And here's a template for acting in a way that'll make you the hero, rather than someone who blew his chance.
AtlasLion 13y ago
Sure, because the first thing that jihadists do after setting up a bomb is go to a campus party.
- samwillis 13y ago
  I think its fairly clear that they had done very little planning and were completely unprepared for what would happen after the attacks. They even seemed to think they could just carry on with their lives and not get noticed. But I don't think that is a reason to discount an extremist religious motivation, although it may be only part of it.
  - berntb 13y ago
    Uhm, of course they acted as normal until they realized they were identified. Why would they attract attention by different behaviour?
Vivtek 13y ago
They had a Jihadist motivation like a metalhead has a Nazi motivation. Their father was a Russian anti-separatist enforcer and the older brother's act of rebellion was to act like a jihadi. And the younger brother thought that was cool. The most American terrorists imaginable, actually. I'm surprised they weren't wearing bin Laden tee shirts or something.
- pohl 13y ago
  Did you mean skinhead?
  - Vivtek 13y ago
    Skin, metal - some kinda head. Stop joggling my elbow, son, you're distracting me.
    - pohl 13y ago
      Cool, I thought that might have been a mistake. I only asked because it changes the meaning entirely, like a foo without a bar is like a fish without {water, a bicycle}.

jacquesm 13y ago

Schneier definitely has a point. But these particular two guys were attending a top university in the United States so they can't have been too deficient in the IQ department. Why they would attack the country that gave them shelter is beyond me. For run-of-the-mill suicide bombers I think that fewer brains is actually preferable from the perspective of their higher ups. The less they think things through and the more impressionable they are the bigger the chance they will go through with whatever stupidity they are being tasked with. Essentially this is an education problem, if you'd manage to get people to think for themselves early enough then you might be able to head off a lot of misery before it gets off the ground.

stan_rogers 13y ago
I know a lot of absolutely brilliant people (in their own fields) who I'm sure need help tying their own shoes and hold either pure Pollyanna or tightly-wound conspiracy theorist views of the world around them. Intelligence does not always translate well across magisterial boundaries.
twoodfin 13y ago
Top university in the United States? Suspect #1 had been sporadically attending classes at a community college. Suspect #2 had been attending UMass Dartmouth, a state school. No offense to either, but top universities they are not. Unless you meant Cambridge Rindge and Latin, which, while a decent urban public high school, is not to be confused with the prestigious Boston Latin, which is also public but requires admission by way of a highly competitive exam.
illuminate 13y ago
"Why they would attack the country that gave them shelter is beyond me." Why would someone attack their domestic partner that gives them love? Some people are ill, some people lash out, some people want to hurt others for perceived (to real) hurt received in their lives.
Vivtek 13y ago
I'm pretty sure they attacked the country that gave them shelter purely because that is where they were physically located.

Unosolo 13y ago

> An attack of revenge, maybe against the military or police forces, would be what's expected. Sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis Ironically Ingush and Chechen islamic terrorists are persistently referred to as "rebels" and "separatists" by Western media, BBC which is perceived as more "independent" news outlet didn't utter once word "terrorist" even during the coverage of the heinous terror attack against children. People committing acts of terror are terrorists regardless of their aims.

asb 13y ago
The BBC tries to avoid terms like 'terrorist' http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/dec/16/terrorism.broadcasting http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/dec/16/terrorism.broadc...
- arethuza 13y ago
  "The word 'terrorist' itself can be a barrier rather than aid to understanding. We should try to avoid the term without attribution. We should let other people characterise while we report the facts as we know them." That actually sounds pretty sensible to me. These guys probably weren't part of some organisation that is trying to achieve political goals through acts of terrorism (e.g. like the IRA) - labelling a pair of nutters as "terrorists" really doesn't achieve very much in terms of news reporting or public understanding.
  - EliRivers 13y ago
    WMD charges don't help either. A pipe-bomb has been considered a WMD for a decade now. The term has been cheapened so much some schools ban the term as useless and carrying almost no information.
    - theorique 13y ago
      Well, it explains why we invaded Iraq after the fact. If a mere pipe bomb or IED is considered WMD, then Iraq was FULL of them. Chemical or biological weapons, not so much.