Chicago Boyz

What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?

Recommended Photo Store
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Missing the Point

    Posted by Jonathan on May 1st, 2013 (All posts by )

    This Politico piece is an example of wishful thinking, agenda-driven failure to acknowledge the big picture or both in its attempt to explain away the jihadist angle in the Boston bombing.

    “We found a number of people who wanted to do bad things but didn’t want to see themselves as criminals,” a psychologist who works with federal law enforcement agencies told me. “They are murderers in search of a cause. They tell themselves, ‘I want to change the world.’ Some we give the romantic term ‘terrorist.’ They are people who want to do something bad, so they say it was for Al Qaeda or a jihad.”

    The above point may be valid but is missing perspective. Of course sociopaths, murderers and other thugs are over-represented among revolutionaries and political terrorists, including Islamists. What kinds of people does the article’s author think are most attracted to these roles? It has always been this way. The article also fails to consider the possibility, or probability, that whatever other crimes they would have committed the Chechen brothers would not have engaged in mass murder by bomb.

    More beating around the bush:

    “What encourages people to come forward, and what blocks them?” Fein asked. “I am talking about co-workers or family members. How might people who have concerns be encouraged to come forward?”
    I will be writing more about domestic terrorism and threat assessment in the days ahead. But the question of “ratting” on someone is a big, human and therefore messy problem.
    A threat assessment expert who has worked with high government agencies put it this way: “As parents, we are in denial all the time about our kids’ impulses. Who wants to think your kid is a murderer? Parents are paralyzed with either worry and fear, or they are in denial.”

    These are reasonable points but again there is a lack of perspective. The Boston bombers’ parents do not seem to have been in denial and the mother at least may actually have been an accomplice. What does look like denial is the Politico article’s failure to address the possibility that our government’s own politically correct mandates create incentives for officials to ignore warnings about jihad-driven individuals. That is what appears to have happened in this case, the Nidal Hassan case, the underwear bomber case and others.


    6 Responses to “Missing the Point”

    1. grey eagle Says:

      Terrorists do it for the publicity.

      If the TV networks and newspapers covered terrorism like they do abortions, there would be no mowe terrorist acts. After all, just one abortion ‘doctor’ kills more babies in one year more gruesomely than all the terrorists do.

      If it is not censorship to declare abortions are not news, then it is not censorship to declare that terrorist acts are ‘not news’.

      I think liberala are secretly on the side of the terrorists. They hate America and the fact that the descendents of former serfs used to run this country instead of well-born progressives.

      Progressive are obsessed with class.

    2. Jonathan Says:

      Agree re the press and abortion vs. terrorism. The media should systematically give mass-murderers, terrorists and psychos alike, less coverage. Disagree re your generalization about “liberals”.

    3. Robert Schwartz Says:

      It just gets worse:

      “Saudi Arabia ‘warned the United States IN WRITING about Boston Bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2012′” By David Martosko and American Media Institute on 1 May 2013

      * Saudis developed intelligence separately from Russia, which also warned the U.S. about the accused Boston bomber
      * A letter to the Department of Homeland Security allegedly named Tsarnaev and three Pakistanis as potential jihadis worthy of U.S. investigation
      * Red flags from Saudi Arabia to have included Tsarnaev’s name and information about a planned explosive attack on a major U.S. city
      * Saudi foreign minister, national security chief both met with Obama in the oval office in early 2013

      We can only assume that everybody in Washington stuck their fingers in their ears and sang: “la, la, la, I can’t hear you”

    4. Grurray Says:

      I don’t agree with their assessment that domestic terrorists are careful and have some unique ability to blend in. The opposite seems to be the case. The post 9-11 attacks have been mostly unsophisticated and amateurish. The Boston bombers were, quite literally, dopes.

      Their friends/accomplices were apparently arraigned today. They didn’t blend in very well:

      A few have succeeded recently because of how simple their attacks were. Like you said, if we had our eye on them they would have likely been detected in time.

      Last year Stratfor put a piece on out detecting terrorists before the fact. I guess that’s proof that the FBI doesn’t read Stratfor.

    5. Robert Schwartz Says:

      Grurray: Not only don’t they read Stratfor, they don’t even read the incoming from other security services.

    6. VXXC Says:

      Law Enforcement does not wageth war well, nor would we like a country where they could, would, or did.

      The only way for the Police to win a war is for them to be invested with all the terrible powers of the solider and spy at War. Never more terrible then in such a war as this, for what’s called for is the 7th Cavalry with all that entails.

      The Police would not be recognizable after such investment, nor would our laws, nor would America.

      As this is already what is slowly happening without any benefit to We the Putative People perhaps it’s either intended or the opportunity exploited.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.