Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Current emotion: sick of the media’s buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullshiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit. Like. I fucking can’t.

Anonymous asked: If you found out that Jahar was present at the Waltham murders (or even helped participate in it) how would that change your opinion of him and this case? Didn't phone records link both Tamerlan AND Jahar to that location on the night of the murders? (Btw I don't think he did participate I'm just curious what your reaction would be if you found out he did)

If I found out Dzhokhar participated in the Waltham murders I would have to seriously re-evaluate a lot of what I currently believe regarding the BMB’s motive and the brothers’ mindsets. Specifically, I would need to reconsider my stance that they are/were political radicals (before 2011, at least, which… ehhhhh… haha). Either that or I’d have to seriously wonder if there may have been more to the Waltham murders than just drugs.

Then again, it would also depend on why Dzhokhar was there and whether or not he actually participated in the murders. But I don’t even believe Tamerlan participated seeing as it makes no logical sense to me, so even if we found out for sure that just Tamerlan committed these murders I’d probably be reconsidering shit. Tamerlan seemed like far more volatile/emotional a person than Dzhokhar, however, so I have to say I would be far more confused finding out that level-headed ol’ Dzhokhar was involved.

Yeah, basically anon this would just confuse the shit out of SRI.

Anonymous asked: I've got to write a paper for a social studies class on terrorism. Obviously, that topic is really broad. The paper needs to be from 5-10 pages, I have about four weeks to write it. Have you any ideas about what sub-topic I could write about that's terrorism-related? Thanks for your input dear! Love the blog!

Thanks so much! (: Also, gettin’ real jealous of y’all and your awesome class paper topics over here. Lmao. 

  • Pick an ideology and discuss terrorism(/insurgency if you can cover insurgency as well, but they’re not the same thing so you’d have to find out from your professor) in its history. This isn’t difficult - I can’t think of one ideology off the top of my head that has no blood on its hands.
  • Kind of related to the last one - discuss the difference between terrorism, insurgency, rebellion, revolution…
  • Pick an organization in your country that is classified as a terror threat and discuss that organization as well as its relationship to terrorism (let me know if you want examples).
  • Overview of the different types of terrorism.
  • Overview of counter-terrorism tactics. 
  • If you live in the United States - how terrorism has changed the U.S. since 2001.
  • Discuss the court process for someone accused of terrorism in your country.
  • Political and/or religious radicalism and/or extremism.
  • Extremism/terrorism prevention. This would involve some research into the factors that cause extremism.
  • Rehabilitation of terrorists.

Good luck! If you need help with any of these you can also let me know.

Anonymous asked: The fact that the US refused to take any responsibility for the radicalisation of the Tsarnaev brothers is disgraceful. They looked everywhere for the "source" of the radicalisation (Dagastan, Chechnya, Misha, neighbourhood mosques, etc.), but never once took responsibility for it themselves. Let's face it, both of them grew up and was socialised in America. It's their environment to blame. If America refuses to take responsibility and do something about it, shit like this will keep happening.

maswartz:

somethingreallyirrelevant:

maswartz:

somethingreallyirrelevant:

I completely agree with you. Radical views don’t develop in a vacuum, they develop because of dissatisfaction with the current state of things in one way or another. The sad fact is, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar spent their early childhood in a war-torn environment, so it seems obvious to me that they’d be more aware than your average person of what the United States government is doing in other countries. Having been in a similar environment themselves, you can’t help but understand that maybe these guys wouldn’t be super happy about or oblivious to the injustice of the drone program/U.S. foreign intervention. When you think about it, I feel like there just had to be such a disconnect between the way they viewed this issue and their own American identities. You know? Especially for Dzhokhar, IMO, since he went to America much younger and assimilated into the culture much more easily. It’s really no surprise at all that there would have been some inner conflict and disconnect there.

But I mean, obviously the U.S. is never going to take accountability for the role their own actions often play in their citizens’ development of extremism. Every government is like this. What just seems so obvious to me is the way they always try to pit it all on religion and skin color - you know why they do that? Because the government will never want to acknowledge or discuss political terrorism that is aimed at them. Oh, no. That would involve drawing attention to their own flawed policies. That would involve people potentially thinking that the terrorists had a point. The government can’t have that! So they’ll shout terrorism from the rooftops when the perpetrator is a radical Islamist or a white supremacist or whatever, but when you’ve got someone like Dzhokhar who shows all signs of having been motivated by opposition to a government policy that’s already under significant public scrutiny as it is, they’ve got the dude locked up under completely unwarranted Special Administrative Measures and are overplaying the everloving shit out of his super convenient religion and country of origin. 

I’m not saying that the government is completely to blame for the individual decisions made by the Tsarnaev brothers, because they’re not. But the government is by no means an innocent victim here. And you can bet your ass that if things keep on the way they’re keeping on in America, yeah, it’s going to keep happening, over and over again, forever. Which I don’t even think the government wants, because they clearly benefit in so many ways from continuing the War on Terror - evidenced by the fact that they focus predominantly on race, religion, and non-violent dissidence in “trying to eradicate terrorism” when those are so not the larger problem at all

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!
The USA let those monsters live here! We sheltered them, fed them, clothed them, and they paid us back with violence and carnage!

I see, so the U.S. government is perfect and can do no wrong, and no one has any legitimate reason to be angry with their actions. Am I understanding you correctly?

Listen, by no means do I condone what the Tsarnaev brothers did, but the bigger picture is not a black and white issue either. People don’t just commit acts of terrorism because they’re bored one day. While the conduct is reprehensible, the deeper message behind the conduct most often holds some truth. What anon and I are trying to get at here is that if the government was not killing innocent civilians in the name of “counter-terrorism” in other countries the BMB might never have happened. That doesn’t mean we excuse or condone the BMB, but it’s also not right for the government to act like an innocent victim in this situation.

No I admit the government has in fact screwed up in the past *coughDubyacough* but not in this specific case.

To be clear, I’m not saying the government is directly at fault in the BMB. I don’t believe this was a conspiracy or a false flag. I think the Tsarnaev brothers were sole perpetrators and made the decision to commit this crime. All I’m saying is that every crime has a motive, and I believe the government’s actions as part of its foreign policy contributed to that motive.

Anonymous asked: The fact that the US refused to take any responsibility for the radicalisation of the Tsarnaev brothers is disgraceful. They looked everywhere for the "source" of the radicalisation (Dagastan, Chechnya, Misha, neighbourhood mosques, etc.), but never once took responsibility for it themselves. Let's face it, both of them grew up and was socialised in America. It's their environment to blame. If America refuses to take responsibility and do something about it, shit like this will keep happening.

maswartz:

somethingreallyirrelevant:

I completely agree with you. Radical views don’t develop in a vacuum, they develop because of dissatisfaction with the current state of things in one way or another. The sad fact is, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar spent their early childhood in a war-torn environment, so it seems obvious to me that they’d be more aware than your average person of what the United States government is doing in other countries. Having been in a similar environment themselves, you can’t help but understand that maybe these guys wouldn’t be super happy about or oblivious to the injustice of the drone program/U.S. foreign intervention. When you think about it, I feel like there just had to be such a disconnect between the way they viewed this issue and their own American identities. You know? Especially for Dzhokhar, IMO, since he went to America much younger and assimilated into the culture much more easily. It’s really no surprise at all that there would have been some inner conflict and disconnect there.

But I mean, obviously the U.S. is never going to take accountability for the role their own actions often play in their citizens’ development of extremism. Every government is like this. What just seems so obvious to me is the way they always try to pit it all on religion and skin color - you know why they do that? Because the government will never want to acknowledge or discuss political terrorism that is aimed at them. Oh, no. That would involve drawing attention to their own flawed policies. That would involve people potentially thinking that the terrorists had a point. The government can’t have that! So they’ll shout terrorism from the rooftops when the perpetrator is a radical Islamist or a white supremacist or whatever, but when you’ve got someone like Dzhokhar who shows all signs of having been motivated by opposition to a government policy that’s already under significant public scrutiny as it is, they’ve got the dude locked up under completely unwarranted Special Administrative Measures and are overplaying the everloving shit out of his super convenient religion and country of origin. 

I’m not saying that the government is completely to blame for the individual decisions made by the Tsarnaev brothers, because they’re not. But the government is by no means an innocent victim here. And you can bet your ass that if things keep on the way they’re keeping on in America, yeah, it’s going to keep happening, over and over again, forever. Which I don’t even think the government wants, because they clearly benefit in so many ways from continuing the War on Terror - evidenced by the fact that they focus predominantly on race, religion, and non-violent dissidence in “trying to eradicate terrorism” when those are so not the larger problem at all

ARE YOU KIDDING ME!
The USA let those monsters live here! We sheltered them, fed them, clothed them, and they paid us back with violence and carnage!

I see, so the U.S. government is perfect and can do no wrong, and no one has any legitimate reason to be angry with their actions. Am I understanding you correctly?

Listen, by no means do I condone what the Tsarnaev brothers did, but the bigger picture is not a black and white issue either. People don’t just commit acts of terrorism because they’re bored one day. While the conduct is reprehensible, the deeper message behind the conduct most often holds some truth. What anon and I are trying to get at here is that if the government was not killing innocent civilians in the name of “counter-terrorism” in other countries the BMB might never have happened. That doesn’t mean we excuse or condone the BMB, but it’s also not right for the government to act like an innocent victim in this situation.

Anonymous asked: Lolol how is someone gonna come on your blog and tell you "you never stop spouting your opinions" what the fuck do think a blog is for anon? Lmao

Yeah, I thought it was for me to post whatever the fuck I wanted but it looks like my whole Tumblr-life has been a lie. I don’t even know what to believe anymore… *violin solo*

Anonymous asked: Suspected terrorist, suspected gang member: we don't have to prove anything, but if we designate you one of these, you are less than human.

Yup, basically. Unless you’re a far-rightist actual terrorist because then it was just because of your obvious “issues” and you’re a poor little troubled muffin and will get charged with shit like “hate crime” instead of what you actually did. Meanwhile the rest of your network gets to “rebrand” and create neighborhood watches in “complement to the police” and no one bats an eye. Meanwhile the ELF destroys some companies’ property and gets classified as the “top domestic terror threat” in the United States, Muslims are under government surveillance left and right essentially for being “too religious”, and overseas if you say or do anything that makes them think you might be a “militant”, forget it, you’re fucking screwed and most likely so are all of your closest neighbors who did/said absolutely nothing. What a democracy.

Okay yes, 100%, complete double-standard etc., but let’s not make try to make Putin look good at Obama’s expense either. They’re both terrible. 

Okay yes, 100%, complete double-standard etc., but let’s not make try to make Putin look good at Obama’s expense either. They’re both terrible. 

(Source: real-terrorists)

In every movie about terrorism ever

  • President: we do not negotiate with terrorists
  • President: (negotiates with terrorist)

Anonymous asked: Not sure if this has been discussed, I've been away but thinking about the defence interest in Todashev & blaming Tamerlan. If it implied that Tamerlan was able to murder his best friend plus 2 others, it could possibly be argued that Dzhokhar would be afraid for his life if he would go against his brother. I know Dzhokhar would have had to know about the murders for this & it's not as simple as acute fear more a long term build up adding to the idolism the family had for Tamerlan.

justicefortsarnaevs:

dzhoslibrarian:

Welcome back, anon. Yes, this angle has been discussed and it definitely is something the defense wants to explore.

The thing which seems odd to me is—and I just now thought of this within the last few minutes tbh— if Tamerlan in fact committed the Waltham murders and he told Jahar about his participation, then Jahar would already have shared this with his defense. So why does the defense need to see the evidence against Tamerlan in Waltham if he told Jahar about it? IF Tamerlan did those murders, he either told Jahar about it, or he didn’t. The fact that the defense team is asking to see the evidence against Tamerlan seems to me to hint that Tamerlan never told Jahar about it (that is, if Tamerlan did it).

So I’m trying to think of why they need to see the evidence against Tamerlan in Waltham. I guess one other possible defense they could use is that even though Tamerlan didn’t tell Jahar about committing the murders, the fact that Tamerlan could have been capable of doing such a crime (if supported by the evidence) just shows how volatile he was, and that even without knowing about the murders, there is a high probability Jahar lived in fear of Tamerlan’s volatility. Idk, Just thinking aloud here about possible directions the defense could be going.

Couldn’t agree more, especially with the last paragraph.

Using the Waltham evidence, like dzhoslibrarian said, would paint a picture of a volatile, violent man capable of pressuring Dzhokhar into bombing the Marathon. Whether that’s completely true or not is debatable, but the fact of the matter is that the Waltham murders can be used to the defense’s advantage; their strategy, from what we’ve seen so far, is to basically pin it on Tamerlan. What better way to show what Tamerlan could be capable of than this? Like the anon mentioned, that would add to the argument that Dzhokhar was under his brother’s influence and would be afraid to go against him.

All this brings me back to wondering what the defense would do had Tamerlan survived…