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.
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.
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”.
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
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317493/Saudi-official-Kingdom-warned-United-States-IN-WRITING-Boston-Bomber-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-2012-rejected-application-entry-visa-visit-Mecca-2011.html
We can only assume that everybody in Washington stuck their fingers in their ears and sang: “la, la, la, I can’t hear you”
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:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312123/Two-owners-Terrorista-1-BMW-believed-friends-surviving-Boston-bombing-suspect-taken-custody-second-time.html
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.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/detecting-terrorist-surveillance
Grurray: Not only don’t they read Stratfor, they don’t even read the incoming from other security services.
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.