If you're wondering what could possibly motivate people like Dzokhar Tsarnaev

[wtmusic]

or are harboring the illusion that U.S. drone programs represent justice, please read The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth.

In it, Mark Mazzeti describes how the U.S. hunt for terrorists has devolved into a blood sport competition between the Pentagon and the CIA for who can kill the most "terrorists" - a term which has been redefined to include people speaking out against the U.S., their associates, their neighbors, and their kids. The tragedy of the marathon bombing pales in significance to the mostly random carnage wrought by U.S. drones, and their biggest cheerleader is your president.

Boston is just a prologue to the dire consequences we'll face as a result of Obama's haphazard and shameful policy of extrajudicial assassination.

[div style="float: left; padding-right: 12px;"]"The Way of the Knife provides a stunning, inside account of the CIA's transformation after 9/11 from an intelligence agency into a global clandestine killing machine. Mazzetti, who is one of America's best national security reporters, has written a frightening, must-read book."

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/the-way-of-the-knife?store=allproducts&keyword=the+way+of+the+knife

[Faux pas]

1. I don't wonder at all.

We, aka: the CIA, have f-ed with almost every country in the world. NO ONE should be surprised when any of those countries strike back. Our losses compared to any of their's is minute.

[geek tragedy]

33. What country struck at us in the Boston bombings? nt

[randome]

48. Oh! Oh! I know this one! Kyrgyzstan! And they hate us for our freedoms!

Did I do well?

[geek tragedy]

50. Close, the answer was the Czech Republic and they were upset

about how they were portrayed in Borat.

[dballance]

52. You are joking right?

The Czech Republic is Czechoslovakia, not Chechnya, nor Kazakhstan. The Borat character was from Kazakhstan.

[Yavin4]

54. New Rule: The U.S. is not allowed to invade another country until a majority of Americans....

can find it on an unlabeled map.

[geek tragedy]

55. Yes, very much joking. nt

[Newest Reality]

2. Jeremy Scahill

speaks and writes on this subject, too.

To me, its like a bunch of good old boys at a pig shoot. If you were on the receiving end of "human hunting" what would be your honest, visceral reaction to it?

I'm not attempting to justify anything, nor am I implying a view about the OP subject line. It is important to focus more on just what our actual policies are and how they are being executed.

When you provoke people and then call that defense, it is a self-justification similar to how a bully would deny provocation when their victim finally lets loose with defensive blow rather than a cowering avoidance.

[geek tragedy]

11. Those two brothers were in no way, shape or form victims of US foreign policy.

they were more than happy to sit back and smoke joints for most of their lives here.

[Comrade Grumpy]

34. And those Libyans rushing to Syria to fight are in no way victims of Assad's oppression.

And Rachel Corrie was in no way being oppressed by Israel.

Yet there she was and there they are. People can (for better or worse reasons) identify with the oppression of others and act on it.

One can argue that the Tsarnaevs were pathological. One can argue that they were radicalized. It's probably some of both, and that radicalization takes place in a milieu of the global "war on terror," with all its festering resentments. To try to argue that the US role in the world these past few decades has nothing to do with it amounts to whistling past the graveyard.

[geek tragedy]

38. The argument of Libyans rushing to Syria proves too much, from your point of view.

Those Libyans aren't motivated by concerns for human rights. They're waging jihad against the Shiite infidels.

This ain't Simon Bolivar or even Abdel Nasser or Yasser Arafat we're talking about.

Rachel Corrie didn't kill anyone.

If these Chechen guys were motivated by oppression against Muslims, they would have started by blowing up Russians, who have stomped on Chechen Muslims for decades now.

They were both pathological and radicalized. But that radicalization thus far has been shown to be primarily religious, not political.

[Comrade Grumpy]

46. It would have made more sense for them to attack the Russians.

But they lived in Boston. (Although why Tamerlane didn't stay in Daghestan to fight I don't know.)

Let's face it: Nobody knows exactly why they acted. Some mix of the personal, the pathological, the religious, and the political.

I don't know how you can say "that radicalization thus far has been shown to be primarily religious" when that particular religiosity is so entertwined with the political mission of jihad. They were reading Al Qaeda training manuals!

Perhaps the religous stuff was just a cover for their personal demons. But it is in the context of an ongoing war between radical Islam and the West (including Russia). I think its foolish to argue the geopolitical context has nothing to do with this.

My point about the Libyans and Rachel Corrie was no more than that people are inspired to act on behalf of others they view as being oppressed.

[geek tragedy]

49. the religious stuff started when their mother became a fundyclown.

Religious fundamentalism is known to have particular appeal to lost souls, people who lack purpose in their lives, etc.

Spree killers come from all political and religous stripes--leftwing (thought not recently), rightwing, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, etc.

One rarely finds spree killers who were happily married with good jobs and stable finances.

Virtually every killer has some political beliefs, but those can get exaggerated in terms of how they motivated the killings. Why? Because outsiders have an agenda in discussing them. If these guys had owned those cheesy Che t-shirts, you can bet the rightwing would be calling them Communist insurgents.

[kelliekat44]

64. +++1,000. nt

[kelliekat44]

67. In addition, OBL told the world the reasons for WTC yet few nation leaders would believe him OR

they just simply ignored his assertions like they ignored Saddam's insistence that he had no WMDs because the US and its allies just wanted to go after Muslims all over the world and keep the war machines roaring.

[geek tragedy]

74. Why should the world have respected bin Laden's 'assertions?' nt

[msanthrope]

78. Why would you believe Osama Bin Laden? You know, Ted Bundy claimed that he

killed women because of a porn addiction. He told this to James Dobson before he died, and Dobson fell for the murderer's tears and claims of motivation because it suited Dobson's anti-porn agenda. Watching that last interview, Bundy is polished, smooth, and utterly sociopathic. He played Dobson for his own ends.


Bin Laden was a psychopathic murderer who directed the deaths of thousands of people. But you think he is truthful?

[Bonobo]

122. So it actually turns out though...

That you can do both... smoke joints, drink beers AND also become enraged about the treatment of others that you identify as your in-group that do not have it as well as you.

Maybe that surprises you but it is kind of a "how the world actually works" moment as opposed to a "how Geek Tragedy thinks it should work" moment.

[geek tragedy]

130. They were so outraged that they didn't mention it until after they killed people.

And, of course, in my world people don't gullibly swallow third hand reports about the excuses offered by punk ass loser terrorists.

But, we live in different worlds.

[Bonobo]

132. Ah, I see that now you believe you have developed your own psychic powers. nt

[treestar]

3. There is no excuse for what he did

None whatsoever. There is no motivation that can make him sympathetic.

[OKNancy]

4. I agree and I really doubt the US actions abroad motivated him at all n/t

[wtmusic]

6. You believe US actions abroad against Muslims have been fairly even-handed, do you? nt

[geek tragedy]

18. Are you really incapable of distinguishing between

(a) substantive critiques of US foreign policy; and

(b) asserting a causal link between US foreign policy and everything from the Tsarnaevs to athlete's foot and Jersey Shore?

[OKNancy]

86. That is not what I wrote or implied

I said that I don't think our actions abroad influenced Dzokhar Tsarnaev. Simple as that.
If I have to explain: I think he didn't give a shit world affairs or how Muslims are treated. He never went to Mosque, he never expressed any religious beliefs and as I've read he didn't mention politics to anyone.

[gateley]

114. Sure! Just ask the Iranians how even handed the US (and British)

actions were to stage the coup to get rid of their democratically elected Prime Minister. I think they understand that it was to "liberate" them and NOT because the PM had nationalized Iran's oil, don't you?

And our evenhandedness doesn't end there.

We are SO GREAT

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Early releases from the FBI point to yes

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I guess those two are the 52nd and 53rd states of the union.

You go argue with these reports from the authorities

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/23/report-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-cites-wars-in-iraq-afghanistan-as-motivation/

[msanthrope]

80. Why would you believe a murderer is truthful? Do you think someone who places a bomb behind an 8

year old is really a source you can trust? '

I have a wonderful property for you. Built in 1883, a landmark, beautiful views.....connects right to Manhattan....

[wtmusic]

101. It would be a motive, wouldn't it.

I understand it's difficult for some to accept that the CIA is considered a terrorist org in a sizeable part of the world.

[msanthrope]

103. You believe a murdering sack of shit would tell you the truth? Sociopaths always have brave and

noble reasons for the horrible things they do---they are generally slick enough to know that they will find someone, somewhere to believe them.

[wtmusic]

107. You tell me. Why did he do it? nt

[msanthrope]

111. I don't waste my time on the motivations of sociopaths.

There's a reason you don't have to prove motive to gain a conviction in this country---you can never truly know what goes on in the mind of another. All you can know is what comes out of their mouths. And presuming that they have 1) self-awareness, and 2) are telling the truth is foolish, IMHO.

[wtmusic]

112. I have no doubt he'll be convicted

but that's not really the point.

Looking at the bigger picture, motive is important because it can inspire others to try the same kind of thing, whether it's justified or not. We should not, as a nation, be providing that motive. The drone war, as the book most capably points out, is shameful, disgusting and immoral.

[msanthrope]

113. There is no placating the sociopath. If these monsters didn't have 'the drones', they'd pick some

other bullshit reason to start killing.

Sociopaths don't care---but generally, they are smart enough to manipulate others.

[wtmusic]

116. That is true sometimes.

There's an entire spectrum of justification. David Berkowitz, the "Son of Sam", killed because his dog told him to.



There are other killings, attributable to revenge, that garner a considerable amount of sympathy; serial killer Jeffery Dahmer was beaten to death after being sent to prison by a fellow inmate.



Both are murder, and both are wrong. But attempting to cast both in the same light doesn't serve us going forward.

[msanthrope]

119. Wow. Just wow. nt

[wtmusic]

120. I'm taking from that comment that you believe all people who murder

should get the same punishment - no shades of gray. Is that correct?

[msanthrope]

128. I think you spend waaaaay to much time assuming what goes on in other people's heads. nt

[wtmusic]

129. When you can't answer a simple question

it does make me wonder. It makes me think you're avoiding it.

Answer, or avoid?

[msanthrope]

145. Not can't, won't. You've taken a Bush torture apologist, Davy Berkowitz, Jeffrey Dahmer

and the diagnostic skills of Dr. Frist into a mish-mash 'let's blame America using a rightwing source' thread that contained this most righteous smackdown--

LOL!!! WE took them IN when they needed ASYLUM from ANOTHER country.


Good fucking lord. Just stop it. Just STOP IT ALREADY with the bullshit that it's always OUR FAULT when some batshit crazy murderous motherfuckers decide to blow innocents to pieces. They BEGGED to come here because Russia treats Chechen terribly. They always have and always will. We took them in. We gave them an education. We gave them jobs. They were on welfare so they could live and eat. Dzhokhar became a citizen. He got scholarship money for college. We welcomed him into our family with open arms and hearts and wallets.

How many of his friends have you heard speak badly of him? NONE. But he would not have given one fuck if they had been blown up that day. Just like he didn't care about the child he put the bomb next to.He's not some noble person on a mission. He's a fucking psychopath who doesn't give a shit about anybody but himself.

I'm not answering your strawman questions I'm just sitting back and rejoicing that this thread has indicated to Mr. Pitt that it's time he come back.

[randome]

92. "...suggesting the brothers were motivated by an anti-American, radical version of Islam."

Religious extremists love to hate.

[wtmusic]

100. As opposed to the anti-Muslim, radical-version-of-Christianity extremists in the CIA?

Ain't no difference.

[randome]

115. I doubt the CIA is any more infiltrated by Christian fundamentalists than any other organization.

Which means to little or no effect, unless you can show me an American governmental organization that is so infiltrated.

[wtmusic]

117. IMO most Muslims, radicalized or not

believe the U.S. Government's foreign policy is based on Christian fundamentalism. Conservative pundits boast of it, although it's not true - just as radical Muslim clerics don't speak for most Muslims.

[wtmusic]

10. Sympathy is not the same as understanding

nor is an excuse the same as a motive.

These distinctions matter.

[geek tragedy]

12. How do you KNOW that US foreign policy was a motive rather than

post-hoc excuse or justification?

[wtmusic]

14. Read the book

because you don't know as much as you think you do.

[geek tragedy]

17. What book has been written about why the Tsarnaev's decided

to become spree killers?

[wtmusic]

19. The book came out months before the bombing

but describes in intimate detail Awlaki's Inspire magazine (which by all accounts was the source of the Tsarnaev's bomb making instruction).

Right now you're just empty words borne of jingoism. I'm done communicating with you until you take the time to inform yourself.

[geek tragedy]

20. So the book says nothing about what motivated the Tsarnaevs.

kthnxbai

[treestar]

56. I can understand Charles' Manson's motives

Doesn't justify them.

Manson had some motive of starting a race war, which we could comprehend, but that didn't mean there was any sense in his doing it.

Likewise, even if the bomber were to say it was to get back at us for drone strikes, he still has no right to do it and that does not make it excusable. But what is the OP for but to say we've somehow brought it on ourselves?

[wtmusic]

105. We have brought it on ourselves.

If you punch a guy in a bar, he will likely punch you back. Even though in many cases it will be illegal for him to do so.

We can expect decades of shit like this for seeds we've sown in the Middle East.

[treestar]

106. No, we did not bring it on ourselves

That is like saying you made the bully mad and made him hit you. And we get into the tussle of who hit first. Did we bring 911 on ourselves too? None of those drone strikes would be happening if Al Qaeda weren't a bunch of criminals who strike at innocent people.

[wtmusic]

108. Listen to yourself.

What is the difference between al Qaeda criminals who strike at innocent people, and Americans who have killed hundreds of thousands more innocent people in Iraq - except for you being on one side and not the other?

[treestar]

109. Wasn't Iraq after 911?

Listen to yourself, you are acting like we deserve it. You can't seriously think Al Qaeda has any excuse for what they've done. It's not just Americans they have attacked, either.

[wtmusic]

110. Now we're getting somewhere.

What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. Blowback.

In fact a US senator (Byrd) asked if 911 was blowback for our foreign policy, in particular Afghanistan in the 1980s...look into it.

And it is once again feared by intel professionals.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Motivation in any crime matters to both lawyers

And criminologists.

It matters...motive matters. That is way separate from sympathy.

[wtmusic]

102. +1

[jberryhill]

5. Or, he thought it was a cool thing to do

Because thinking about US actions abroad is something that occupies so much considered reflection by teenagers.

And, clearly, blowing up a bunch of spectators at a marathon race is the completely normal response to being upset with US actions abroad.

[wtmusic]

7. Straw man, but whatever.

USA! USA!

[geek tragedy]

9. Did you interview either brother or even meet them?

If not, how do you know what caused them to become killers?

[wtmusic]

13. A little reading helps.

You apparently know nothing besides what you heard on News at Eleven.

Here's a start.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/us/dzhokhar-tsarnaevs-dark-side-carefully-masked.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/world/09awlaki.html?ref=anwaralawlaki

Awlaki's son was killed by a drone in Yemen because he went looking for his father.

[geek tragedy]

16. Amazingly, the 2013 story you linked to doesn't mention US foreign policy.

It goes into their personal psychological profiles, which has jack shit to do with teh dronez.

[wtmusic]

21. Yeah, I guess you'll have to read a little more.

Educating yourself is a bitch.

[geek tragedy]

24. No, just have, you know, like facts that support your claims.

If you're going to blame the Boston bombings on US foreign policy, you ought to be able to show how US foreign policy took two harmless pot smoking guys and turned them into killers.

[treestar]

68. "Education" is not synonymous with everything you personally have read

and including your take on it. We don't know Joker's motives, but even if they are "pure" (a protest against drone strikes against the Al-Awlakis) he's still going to pay for it. Because you don't protest that by killing people.

[jberryhill]

25. Straw man?

[wtmusic]

28. "a completely normal response" nt

[geek tragedy]

8. Oh look someone trying to exploit the bombings for their own political agenda.

Amazing how many people KNOW what caused those punks to become mass murderers.

Dr. Fristism isn't confined to the rightwing.

[wtmusic]

15. We exploit our political agenda with drones.

Difference?

[snooper2]

22. what does the book motivate you to do?

[wtmusic]

23. It motivates me to try to get other people to read it

because most people have no idea of the heinous shit their tax dollars are paying for.

[snooper2]

26. Good, just checking...long as it has you just playing on the Intertubes

and not thinking about anything nefarious

[Puzzledtraveller]

30. ^^

[wtmusic]

36. Fear sucks.

I wonder what it's like to have drones hovering overhead 24/7.

[snooper2]

37. where is your home?

[wtmusic]

39. Next door.

Hey neighbor!

[snooper2]

43. I didn't know your name was Susan...

You want 2 or 3 drones, all I can get out of inventory right now...

[MineralMan]

44. You wouldn't know.

[wtmusic]

99. Another expert who hasn't read the book.

People mouths just drop open, and nothing comes out.

Blah.

[Turborama]

60. From what we know, the Tsarnaev brothers never had drones hovering over their heads 24/7

Probably never had a drone fly over their heads once.

[geek tragedy]

32. So why is your reaction to not bomb innocent people like the Tsarnaevs did?

What about you is different from them?

[Comrade Grumpy]

27. Silly you. There is absolutely no relation between US foreign policy and people attacking us.

There is absolutely no relation between US foreign policy and people attacking us.

There is absolutely no relation between US foreign policy and people attacking us.

There is absolutely no relation between US foreign policy and people attacking us.

There is absolutely no relation between US foreign policy and people attacking us.

See how that works?

[wtmusic]

29. Got it.

Them, us. Got it.

[geek tragedy]

31. Empty snark is not a substitute for an actual factual argument.

Yemeni tribespeople resolving to attack us over drones? Makes perfect sense.

Boston potheads murdering their neighbors over drones? Patent bullshit.

[Comrade Grumpy]

35. See my post #34 above.

[RedCappedBandit]

126. Wait, you're serious?

[MineralMan]

42. Hmm...no.

Simplistic explanations are simplistic, as always. Your memograph is malfunctioning, and isn't reproducing your memes in true fidelity. You should have a technician check that out.

[dkf]

45. Tsarnaev was just "speaking out against the US" until he bombed us.

And he was more upset that we planned 9/11 to frame Muslims than he was about drones.

[Savannahmann]

47. Two things

First, I don't think the CIA should be in the paramilitary business of killing people.

Second. I doubt this had much if anything to do with the nutty Boston Bombers, or anyone else for their justification.

Look on these boards. Look at me. I hold Police in very low regard. You can't point to one incident and say that was the thing that turned me against the police. There wasn't any "one" incident, it was the culmination of hundreds of things, large and small. Finding someone who thinks something is wrong with something isn't hard at all.

The Arabs in the region were not pleased with America after World War II because those regions were colonies of the European powers. Now, how did we get in the middle of that mess? Partly it was because we were seen as the great liberator, and we didn't liberate the colonies from their colonial masters fast enough. Partly it was that the two biggest kids on the block were us and the Soviets, and we took actions to protect our interests. Partly it was because we supported Monarchy in those regions while denouncing it elsewhere. Partly it was because we supported brutal dictators who were terrible, but they weren't communists.

There are a lot of reasons. Most of which are at best, half true. We get the blame because France held the Colonies of North Africa after the war. We get the blame because Great Britain held colonies after the war. We get the blame because while we denounced Racism, we ignored South Africa while they were supplying us with Uranium and Gold. We get the blame because we overthrew democratically elected Governments before I was born.

Those who are so irrational to resort to violence, will always find a reason. Those who are so unbalanced that they believe they are charged by God to slaughter innocents would be told by their cats to kill if there wasn't some historical wrong they could point at as justification.

[dreamnightwind]

58. Yeah, I guess that explains all of the attacks on Canada

<sarcasm>They're just random and people will make excuses regardless of anything we do.</sarcasm>

[Savannahmann]

62. In this case

I would say that your reasons are irrational, and there is little I can do to inform or educate you.

[dreamnightwind]

85. Ignoring the direct and indirect effects of blowback

is what I call irrational.

[zappaman]

51. I miss UNREC.

[FSogol]

65. Exactly. Bring back the unrec.

:smilie of an emoticon banging his little fists on a table:

[Solomon]

53. Oh for fucks sakes drones have nothing to do with it.

We've been wrongfully fucking over other people way before drones were invented. Jeremiah Wright was talking about blowback more than 10 years ago. I personally think if we're going to fuck with people, that drones are more humane than dropping daisy bombs on an entire country.

[randome]

59. Not to mention, they do a hell of a lot more killing among themselves than drones ever did.

[snagglepuss]

57. YOu have no clue what motivates asshats. They can say whatever they want

but people like this don;t question themselves, they strike out.

[DevonRex]

61. LOL!!! WE took them IN when they needed ASYLUM from ANOTHER country.

Good fucking lord. Just stop it. Just STOP IT ALREADY with the bullshit that it's always OUR FAULT when some batshit crazy murderous motherfuckers decide to blow innocents to pieces. They BEGGED to come here because Russia treats Chechen terribly. They always have and always will. We took them in. We gave them an education. We gave them jobs. They were on welfare so they could live and eat. Dzhokhar became a citizen. He got scholarship money for college. We welcomed him into our family with open arms and hearts and wallets.

How many of his friends have you heard speak badly of him? NONE. But he would not have given one fuck if they had been blown up that day. Just like he didn't care about the child he put the bomb next to.He's not some noble person on a mission. He's a fucking psychopath who doesn't give a shit about anybody but himself.

[FSogol]

63. +1. Also, Isn't the author of that book a big proponent of Bush's torture program?

Now that guy can say this with a straight face: "Boston is just a prologue to the dire consequences we'll face as a result of Obama's haphazard and shameful policy of extrajudicial assassination."

Double

[DevonRex]

72. Yes, the very same. I posted a separate reply on that below. Yep he's pro torture. nt

[RedCappedBandit]

131. That is interesting. nt

[randome]

69. Wow.

[treestar]

70. Excellent rant.

[WilliamPitt]

76. Posts like this

almost make me want to start participating here again.

Well done.

[msanthrope]

82. Come back. nt

[DevonRex]

83. Thanks Will.

Some things just have to be said.

[trumad]

90. Welcome back...

douche.

[Cha]

79. Thank you, Devon! Thanks for the actual reality of the Boston Bombings.

Always someone with an agenda trying to twist facts and use it for their purpose.

[DevonRex]

84. That book was written by a Bush torture apologist, too.

So it's amazing the dude is criticizing Obama for jack shit. He said the only reason President Obama got Bin Laden was because of W's hard work torturing all those prisoners at Guantanamo.

[Cha]

87. What a stupid prick.

[msanthrope]

81. Thank you. nt

[wtmusic]

98. LOL spare me the open arms bullshit.

My ass you "welcomed him into your family"...I'm really fucking touched.

I'll tell you what he is - he was a kid who's father ditched him and his crazy big brother became his father, and he was probably discriminated against his whole life here because he didn't talk like an American, and he went off the deep end and did what his "father" told him to do. That will never make it right - but now maybe you can tell me what's different about those idiots pushing buttons at Langley and blowing entire families into little bloody bits on the other side of the world?

I really want to hear you defend that, Mr. Welcoming American.

[DevonRex]

121. You prefer the Bush ass-kisser journalist's opinion? So be it.

It doesn't surprise me then that everything in your post is dead wrong. I won't bother correcting you, mostly because I don't give a rat's ass if you continue displaying your ignorance. That's all on you.

I did post below about the Bush ass-kisser journalist you're trying to shove down our throats in your OP. He is a torture enthusiast. Just FYI. So get off your goddamned high horse, bud, about poor Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. I don't like fucking terrorists who blow up innocent children ON FUCKING PURPOSE. Sue me.

[wtmusic]

124. Poison that well, baby. Go for it.

I see it's difficult for you to imagine how a writer could be wrong about one subject and right about another. For a lot of Americans, it's difficult to not see all Muslims in the same light too.

On this thread many who are guilty of one are guilty of the other. Funny how that works.

[DevonRex]

133. You say a lot of bad stuff about Americans. Odd that. nt

[hrmjustin]

66. I think it would be very hard to get into the mind of someone who kills innocent people.

You can try your best to do it. but I imagine it would be very hard.

[DevonRex]

71. "Winners & Sinners: from Mary Murphy to Mark Mazzetti"

Sinner: Mark Mazzetti, whose coverage of American torture will forever live in infamy. His latest contribution to his torture canon, the day after Osama Bin Laden was assassinated, was a story (with Helene Cooper and Peter Baker) which credulously adopted the line of former Bush administration officials (as Mazzetti has done dozens of times before) who were desperately trying to convince the world that torture was the main reason that Bin Laden had been located. The offending paragraphs were these:

The raid was the culmination of years of painstaking intelligence work, including the interrogation of CIA detainees in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, where sometimes what was not said was as useful as what was...

Snip....
This prompted FCP to write the following e-mail to Mazzetti, Times executive editor Bill Keller, managing editor Jill Abramson, and Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet:

Everything I've read today--from Feinstein's press conference to Donald Rumsfeld in NewsMax [Rumsfeld reversed himself under neocon pressure the following day] to Jane Mayer to the round-up in Talking Points Memo--suggests that your strong implication on the front page of today's newspaper that torture played an essential role in developing the information that led to Osama's killing is flatly false... Judging from what everyone else has said today, once again, for the umpteenth time, all you are doing is repeating the CIA line to protect the people who tortured their prisoners."
Snip
http://www.hillmanfoundation.org/blog/winners-sinners-mary-murphy-mark-mazzetti

[FSogol]

73. +1. Excuses for W while bashing Obama.

[DevonRex]

75. Yes. Not the kind of man I would take any advice from. Damn Bush worshiper.

I knew I knew the name but couldn't quite place him until you jogged my memory. Thank you. We all owe you one.

[dembotoz]

77. as i see the family of the bomber having lots of problems getting a grave

as I see calls for all sorts of actions to be taken against the bombers wife
as I see the bloodlust in general in boston

the arguments of no justification start to ring more hollow

[DevonRex]

97. WTF??? "the arguments of no justification start to ring more hollow" ??????

So, AFTER that fucking TERRORIST blew innocent people up and no cemetery wants to have his grave (can you blame them - just imagine the disruption) you think Tamerlan is somehow justified for already having murdered and maimed those innocent people?

That's like saying I'm justified in murdering you now because the state will fry me for it later. You'd be cool with that, eh?

[JI7]

88. is there any evidence these guys had issues with our foreign policy or any political matters ?

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. Yup, see 41

[JI7]

93. that isn't evidence of anything , it's his excuse after he got caught

i'm talking about whether they were involved in anything like protests, or just even participating in some board , doing anything to try to change our policies without killing innocent people ?

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. So the FBI is making it up

You can bet it's gonna come up.

[JI7]

96. no, i'm saying that doesn't count as evidence they had issues with foreign policy

it's what he says after he got caught. anything to show they were involved in any political process before ? there are anti war rallies and other things going on all the time . any evidence of these guys as having done any of it ?

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. And you know this how?

You listened to talks before...the attack?

Older brother travelled to Chechnya, where according to the FSB he met with a radical or two...that was well before the attack. There is evidence of radicalization, and not the excuse after the fact.

I guess the FBI is truly imagining things when they said they got tat in the debrief.

Yes, people do develop a shall we say hate relationship for our foreign policy, even inside the US

[JI7]

118. so what ? none of that shows he gave a shit about foreign policy

it just shows he was looking for a way to carry out attacks.

[DevonRex]

127. You have more patience

than I do. I think what we have here is a deliberate something or another. Hmm. Refusal to acknowledge the definition of evidence? I believe that about sums it up.

[JI7]

139. it's a need to view everything as supporting your own beliefs

you see it with republicans and beghazi, all the weird conspiracy theories involving sandy hook and Obama being behind all of these things in order to get gun control.

[DevonRex]

140. Yeah.

Damned strange.

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. Have a good life in fantasy land

Both the FBI and FSB have provided evidence...

Good bye.

[JI7]

138. i'm sure you know a lot about fantasy land, the FBI provided no evidence

those guys gave a shit about foreign policy. him going overseas or even associating with extremists is not evidence he gave a shit about our foreign policy.

when they were in the car with that driver they were talking about ipods, girls, and other stupid shit. nothing about how angry they were over foreign policy.

[randome]

91. There probably isn't a single DUer who doesn't have issues with our foreign policy.

But we don't go out of our way to kill and maim as many people as we can find in order to make...hm, I wonder what sort of point they were trying to make.

[JI7]

95. true, but i don't think these guys cared anything about our foreign policy or anything political

all evidence points to the older brother as having become more angry as he kept getting more personal failures. he got the younger brother to go along by buying him crap.

and i believe they never thought they would get caught which explains the younger one going on with his life at school, the gym, partying etc after the bombing rather than getting away.

[RedCappedBandit]

123. I always hate reading this threads.

So many people seem utterly incapable of differentiating between excusing or sympathizing with violent offenders / terrorists and understanding their motives, whether or not they're valid. Interesting title, I'll have to look into it.

We are fools if we cannot acknowledge that US imperialism abroad creates extremists, with or without the Boston Bombing.

[wtmusic]

134. Thank you.

Your thoughtful reply gives me the courage to believe a few people get it. I'm out of here.

[Honeycombe8]

137. We might as well discuss Jeffrey Dahmer's motives. Let's understand him.

But best he be put away first, to protect more innocent people from being murdered. Truth is...there are evil people in the world who get a kick out of killing innocent people. Gives 'em a rush. That's the motive. It makes disillusioned, insecure, young men, who feel little, feel big for a change. THEY are in control. And in the news.

Another motive besides that one? Could be anything. Domino's Pizza was late with the pizza, drones, dude stole my look, don't get paid enough, ....you name it. But the motive of them all is the same, isn't it? It's a rush, man....to know these people have no idea their arms are about to be blown off by little ol' me. That's the motive.

[RedCappedBandit]

141. Sure, there are clearly sociopaths out there

There are also people shaped by the circumstances in which they live. Brushing off the issue by saying there are just evil people is nonsense.

Are there some scumbags who simply do it for a rush because they're egotistical, evil pieces of shit? Probably. But does that account for all extremists, everywhere? No, I don't think so. That's why it's worth looking into. Do people think a kid who sees their parents blown up due to violence perpetuated by ANY government won't grow to hate that government and potentially become militant with that hatred? It doesn't matter if its the US or otherwise.

[Honeycombe8]

146. That's what I believe, anyway. Do some have high moral causes?

Not if they're killing innocent people. It's about the rush, the control, the power. They like hurting people. People like that often don't bother with a cause, but some pick a cause.

Most people with a cause go after people involved with the cause. Not innocent children. No...that's about the rush, the thrill.

Whatshisname - the Oklahoma bomber - supposedly had a cause. So he bombed a federal building full of working stiffs just going about their jobs, and a daycare center full of children belonging to the working stiffs. Was it for a cause, or was it the thrill of the guy who haunted woods with his assault weapons? I think it was the thrill. There were actually better targets more directly related to his supposed cause. A govt bldg full of working stiffs is no far removed from those he was supposedly targeting as to make the act unrelated. I bet he got a hard on when the bomb went off. Seriously. The unabomber ws the same, except I believe he was mentally ill. But those he harmed were mainly so far removed from what he was targeting as to make it unconnected with his cause. He felt powerless....until he starting hurting people.

[JI7]

142. they talked ipods, girls etc when they were in the car with the cab driver hostage

nothing about how horrible our foreign policy is.

there is NOTHING to show they gave a shit about our foreign policy. nothing to show they gave a shit about people in iraq, afghanistan or any other muslims or anyone else.

[RedCappedBandit]

143. The issue is not limited to this specific tragedy.

[Scootaloo]

144. Or they could be a pair of jerkasses

One, a depressed sociopath, and the other the brother who follows him everywhere like a puppy.

Really, sometimes it is just so simple as "they wanted to be complete assholes," folks. I see people trying to tie this to some civilizational conflict, or some culture-clash issue, or "they hate us," or "we hate them," some shit like that.

Sadly for speculation on the internet though, not everything has a deeper meaning. Sometimes it actually is exactly what it says on the tin.