Boston Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Apprehended Alive

Post by OGinparadise » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:02 AM UTC

herval wrote: post #119

OGinparadise wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On twitter a lot of people are essentially saying "Good, now we'll get answers." I'm sorry to say I don't believe there is typically anything satisfying about the answers of people who become deranged. Maybe this time, but if reading about madmen past is any guide, its very unlikely that we will be enlightened by any testimony. Answer is really simple: in his own world /subculture he is a hero, a martyr and his name…

Or maybe it's the OTHER simple and cultural answer: they were seen as "losers", then lost it and decided to kill random people. Pretty much like Columbine and all the other "seemingly normal kid kills random people with guns" incidents that keep happening, again and again. It doesn't matter, though - at this point, it's all just random speculation.

Post by cynwoody » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:13 AM UTC

pekk wrote: post #62

cema wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlikely. He is very much against Islamic terrorism, and this is apparently just that case.

If someone who happens to be Christian carries out terrorism, is this Christian terrorism? Or do we have a special exception for Muslims who carry out terrorism, that their terrorism is Islamic terrorism?

Post by cema » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:55 AM UTC

cema wrote: post #39

caf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how they'll find a jury that doesn't already think he's guilty.

Well, look at the currently top comment ( http://tf-575.com/images/renders/ ), they are victims, see... A jury is possible, yes.

Post by cema » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 3:59 AM UTC

kps wrote: post #110

pekk wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone who happens to be Christian carries out terrorism, is this Christian terrorism? Or do we have a special exception for Muslims who carry out terrorism, that their terrorism is Islamic terrorism?

It depends. If the act is clearly motivated by religion and directed at perceived enemies of the religion then it is plainly religious terrorism. If the religion of the perpetrator is clearly irrelevant (e.g. a political cause, and the terrorists and perpetrators are of the same religion) then it is plainly not religious terrorism. In between are grey areas that can be argued case by case.

Post by rdl » Sat, Apr 20, 2013, 4:37 AM UTC

cema wrote: post #126

rdl wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's defended MEK, which seems to be both Marxist and Islamist, although admittedly also anti-Iranian-Government.

Well, he is a complicated figure.