The surviving Boston bomber is hard to figure out

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Bruce Siegel

unread,
Apr 22, 2013, 2:34:32 AM4/22/13
to TAM...@googlegroups.com

I've been fascinated by the psychological makeup of the younger brother. Usually, when a crime of this type is committed, you'll hear at least one or two acquaintances say,"I'm shocked. He seemed like such a good person."

But in this case, EVERYONE who knew the younger brother says that. The following is from this article:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/21/us/tsarnaev-brothers-relationship/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

"Dzhokhar was kind-hearted, too. When he wasn't wrestling in high school, he volunteered at an after-school program to help kids with autism and Down syndrome.

"He was a funny comical guy. He had me laughing a lot," said Peter Tenzin, who co-captained the wrestling team with Dzhokhar. "After wrestling practice, he would rather go down and spend time with kids with learning disabilities than relax and go home."

The gist of the piece is that it was the older brother who was the leader, and it was easy to see signs of radicalization in him in recent years. And Dzhokhar, it's said, followed around his older brother like a puppy.

Still, it's hard to reconcile what Dzhokhar did with his life before the incident. He wasn't a loner, an outcast, socially inept, a school dropout, political, religious, or even sad or angry, according to those who knew him. Other than who is brother was, there doesn't seem to have been a single sign, of any sort, that Dzhokhar was capable of plotting to kill and maim innocent strangers.

Obviously, there's more we need to learn about this kid. But if the press had dug up the slightest negative or problematic thing about him that might help to explain his actions, they'd obviously love to be able to publish it. But so far . . . nothing.

A most unusual case, in my experience!

Bruce Siegel

unread,
Apr 22, 2013, 2:47:31 AM4/22/13
to TAM...@googlegroups.com
Let me ask you all this: based on what we know at this point about this 19-year-old, can anyone think of a single perpetrator of a major crime of this type who showed as few signs of being potentially troubled or motivated enough to do such a thing? (Again--leave out the older brother. I'm talking about personal characteristics or behaviors rather than associations.)

no one

unread,
Apr 22, 2013, 9:24:23 AM4/22/13
to TAM...@googlegroups.com
Hi Bruce, I have been pondering this same question.
 
I think one answer is that we secular Americans do not fully appreciate what it can mean to be a Muslim.
Islam is a religion that, in some interpretations, not only makes this kind of heinous act possible, but actually encourages it.  I like Pat Lang's blog. Pat was a special forces officer and then later headed up the middle east section for the defense intelligence bureau. He speaks Arabic and spend a lot of time in the region. He is a serious man and knows his stuff. There has been some vigorous discussion on his blog; particularly toward the end of this thread: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2013/04/open-thread-on-the-marathon-attack.html
 
A true believer can kill a non-believer and not feel the guilt because Allah's will is being done.  I know we are not supposed to say that. It's highly un-pc. Also, again, it goes against our core mindset as secular westerners to the extent that it is truly challenging to comprehend. BUt that doesn't mean it isn't true.
 
So I think the question is not to be answered by looking for signs of when this young man started to have psychological symptoms (e.g. sociopathology, psychosis), but when he started to adhere to a hard core interpretation of Islam.  It seems that both he and his brother had been attending a mosque that has already had members involved in some lesser forms of anti-US behavior. The mosque is a radical group.
 
Has this pattern been seen before? Yes, when Islam is involved and the attacks are based of that motivation.
 
 

Steve Echard Musgrave

unread,
Apr 22, 2013, 8:02:22 PM4/22/13
to TAM...@googlegroups.com
Gross inhumanity by peple who appear normal even morally upright is part of the herd mentality two examples

" So want to mention a very difficult subject before you here, completely openly.It should be discussed amongst us, and yet, nevertheless, we will never speak about it in public.Just as we did not hesitate on June 30 to carry out our duty, as ordered, and stand comrades who had failed against the wall and shoot them.About which we have never spoken, and never will speak.hat was, thank God, a kind of tact natural to us, a foregone conclusion of that tact, that we have never conversed about it amongst ourselves, never spoken about it, everyone shuddered, and everyone was clear that the next time, he would do the same thing again, if it were commanded and necessary.Iam talking about the "Jewish evacuation": the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. "The Jewish people is being exterminated," every Party member will tell you, "perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, ha!, a small matter."And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. They say: all the others are swine, but here is a first-class Jew . Most of you will know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when there are 500, or when there are 1000. And to have seen this through, and -- with the exception of human weaknesses -- to have remained decent, has made us hard and is a page of glory never mentioned and never to be mentioned . Decent

Heinrich Himmler

Poznan Concentration Camp

Rebel prisoners in our hands are to be subjected to a treatment finding its parallels only in the conduct of savage tribes and resulting in the death of multitudes by the slow but designed process of starvation and by mortal diseases occasioned by insufficient and unhealthy food and wanton exposure of their persons to the inclemency of the weather....Congressional Globe, 38th Congress, 2nd session, 1/24/1865, pg. 381

passed and signed

by Abraham Lincoln.

A Federal POW Guard tells of the result "During a period of ten months I was a member of the garrison of the Rock Island Military Prison. There were confined there about ten thousand men. Those men were retained in a famishing condition by order of Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War. That order was approved by Abraham Lincoln. It was read before the inside garrison of the prison sometime in January, 1864. It was read at assembly for duty on the 2d, in front of the prison. It went into effect on the following day. It continued in force until the expiration of my term of service, and, I have understood, until the close of the war.

When it was read, Colonel Shaffner, of the Eighth Veteran Reserves, was acting Provost Marshal of Prisoners. I think that it was Captain Robinson who read the order. It reduced the daily allowance of the captives to about ten ounces of bread and four ounces of meat per man.

Some time in January a batch of prisoners arrived. They were captured at Knoxville. Sixty of them were consigned to barracks under my charge. They were received by me at about 3 in the afternoon. One of the prisoners inquired of me when they would draw rations. I told him not until the following day. He said that in that case some of his comrades must die, as they had eaten nothing since their capture several days before - the exact period I cannot state. That evening at roll call one of the prisoners exhibited symptoms of delirium. He moved from the ranks, and seemed to grasp for something, which I understood to be a table loaded with delicacies. I returned him to the ranks, where he remained until roll call was over, when I left. On the following morning he and two others were dead.

The mortality report among the new Rebs was extraordinarily large. I think it amounted to about ten per cent of the entire number. It created an interest among the company commandant, and was the subject of many expressions. From the rebel orderlies I learned that the symptoms in each case were the same. There was no complaint; no manifestation of illness. Some dropped while standing on the floor; others fell from a sitting posture. All swooned and died without a struggle.

Some of the prisoners had money sent them. It was deposited with the Provost Marshal, and their orders on the sutler were at first honored, but supplies from this direction were soon prohibited; the sutler's wagon was excluded from the prison.. Supplies from relatives of prisoners, consisting of clothes, food and stationery came for some. The parcels containing them were distributed from "Barrack Thirty." The boxes were examined, everything in the shape of subsistence was removed, and the box and its contents delivered to the prisoner; the food it contained was destroyed before the face of the tantalized captive. 

i have lived in Turkey and Indonesia  it is not just a matter of Islam. There are two million six hundred thousand Muslims in America and two guys did this. If 1% of that population was radicalized there would be a bombing or shooting every day. From all indication Timothy McVeigh went from agood soldier and person to  mass murder in a brief period of time.

no one

unread,
Apr 22, 2013, 10:01:44 PM4/22/13
to TAM...@googlegroups.com
Steve, right. did not mean to imply that *all* Muslims are murderous terrorists. I am saying that a certain sub-herd of them definitely are. Their interpretation of Islam requires them to reject secularism and to avenge perceived wrongs done against the Uma. Our two guys in Boston fit this latter description.
 
However, that same Islam asks them to be mature and well mannered.
 
What I am saying is that the incident is not to be understood in terms of psychopathology. This isn't Adam Lanza. Rather, it is adherence to, as you put it, a certain herd.

Bruce Siegel

unread,
Apr 23, 2013, 2:54:30 AM4/23/13
to TAM...@googlegroups.com
Yes, I think you're right that Muslims often fall into that righteous/violent mindset. (Christians have done that too over the centuries. Look at the Inquisition, and much later, how the white, Christian settlers treated the "heathen" Indians. The latter wasn't entirely on religious grounds, but I think the notion that God was on their side probably played a role.)

But I don't get the sense that religion was all that important to the surviving brother. His older brother must have had an incredibly powerfully hold over him--that's the only sense I can make out of it.


no one

unread,
Apr 23, 2013, 7:20:18 AM4/23/13
to TAM...@googlegroups.com
"His older brother must have had an incredibly powerfully hold over him--that's the only sense I can make out of it."
 
Yes. That seems to be true. As Steve says, I think there is a cultural component to that aspect of as well.
 
I also note that the father and aunt seem a bit "off". They are quite paranoid, stating that the whole thing is a frame-up/government plot/ some kind of conspiracy. So maybe that kind of mindset is part of the family dynamic; which would add fuel to the fire.
 
It would be more comforting for us to further the paradigm that only obviously demented people commit acts of terrorism. However, it isn't the truth. Many US troopers would be most jovial and sociable the night before going out to slaughter Indian villages. Ditto Germans who sent masses to the gas chambers as a routine of their 9:00 to 5:00 job.
 
Yet, these people (the troopers, the SS men) were not even purely callous. They would feel empathy, sometimes deeply, for members of their in-group. It's just that they could also identify an out-group and then direct extreme savagery toward its members as if the members were not even human.
 
This kind of tribalism is not fully operational in modern US thinking, but it's still there.
 
 

Bruce Siegel

unread,
Apr 23, 2013, 6:57:16 PM4/23/13
to TAM...@googlegroups.com
"This kind of tribalism is not fully operational in modern US thinking, but it's still there."

Actually, I think it is: in our relationship to the animals we eat. And I'm not talking about the eating part, but about how we often treat them beforehand. Modern agricultural practices, in other words.

Michael Prescott

unread,
Apr 23, 2013, 8:24:14 PM4/23/13
to TAM...@googlegroups.com
That quote from the Civil War era is not correct. The resolution was worded differently. The part about prisoners being treated savagely referred to the treatment of Union captives at the hands of the rebels. Retaliation was called for, but there was much opposition on the Senate, and the bill was heavily amended. For the full text see: 


If you scroll down several pages in the Google Books result (to p. 236 of the text), you'll also see that the resolution, in modified form, passed the Senate but failed in the House, and was never signed into law. 
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages