A Quick Thought on The End of The Boston Saga

Something just feels right about this outcome.

I don’t mean to sympathize with the devil, but in the end; this was a 19 year old kid who was likely over-influenced by his radical older brother to do some truly horrific ill shit.

At the climax, he was a scared, bleeding, and cold stupid kid. All alone. The law enforcement personnel who came to stop him had every right to kill him…and they didn’t. His peaceful surrender was even met with cheers.

I am glad that he has lived to apologize to his victims and families. For some stupid reason, I think he will. Usually, I am not known for being optimistic.

Comments are closed.

  1. Thrill *

    WVR: That’s a great observation. He is definitely going to prison, like, forever BUT his life is still his own. International Jihad Dipshits, Inc can’t claim it unless he allows it.

    stogy: I don’t see this as Chechen terrorism though. These were self-radicalized domestic terrorists, more or less. I’m not convinced the Chechnya angle will hold up.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Mississippi Yankee

    He is definitely going to prison, like, forever BUT his life is still his own. International Jihad Dipshits, Inc can’t claim it unless he allows it.

    And if convicted would you prefer he go to Hotel Maximum Security or Gitmo? I say IF because he will have to be kept in bubble wrap between now and then. Other inmates such as Acmed Acbar would love to make him a martyr still.

    There is no way that I would condone shooting a surrendering man but earlier in the chase he and big Bro were killing cops and lobbing home-made grenades. A.33¢ kill shot last night might have saved 30 million over his life time.
    [CM calling me a hard man in 3..2..1]

    And then there’s Bill “Guilty as Charge, Free as a Bird” Ayers…

    Thumb up 1

  3. Mississippi Yankee

    Here’s a thought for you, and Pfluffy’s cousin too.

    Kind of ironical that the “everybody go to your room” thing happened on April 19, and in Asshatchusetts, where the Revolution started…

    And it was not just one town.

    Governor Deval Patrick asked people who live in the entire city of Boston, as well as the nearby communities of Watertown, Waltham, Newton, Belmont, Cambridge, to “shelter in place” — stay inside and not open their doors to anyone, except police with proper identification. All for ONE teenaged boy.

    This, to me, smacks of a test run of martial law.
    “Stay inside, follow orders”
    This can only happen if you are a ward of the state.
    Oh and New Jersey is fist to try, and probably succeed, in banning black power and some types of reloading gunpowder.

    If the goal of terrorism is to disrupt society, draw attention and impact a society financially, this has succeeded beyond the wildest of dreams. The only thing missing is a cause/message.
    Since he yet lives, he will get a soapbox to complete the perfect terrorist act.

    And we just walk into it headfirst.

    Hot! Thumb up 6

  4. Thrill *

    And if convicted would you prefer he go to Hotel Maximum Security or Gitmo?

    Supermax. I’ve never favored putting US citizens in Guantanamo. Let him spend the rest of his days with 23 hrs of confinement per day. He’s probably worse off there, you know.

    Thumb up 6

  5. Mississippi Yankee

    What I find absolutely amazing is that when I pointed out that a favored friend of the Regime® shuts down “the entire city of Boston, as well as the nearby communities of Watertown, Waltham, Newton, Belmont, Cambridge” I get 3 down-votes… on a blog board that used to be known for it’s Libertarian thoughts.

    The win here definitely goes in the Progressive column.

    Hot! Thumb up 3

  6. Hal_10000

    MY, I agree with you on shutting Boston down. Was planning a post on that subject. ironically, it looks like the shutdown DELAYED finding this joker.

    Thumb up 4

  7. stogy

    MY, we don’t often agree, but I also saw your point on this. It was something I hadn’t considered and thought it was a good observation. Certainly wasn’t me that voted you down…assuming that’s what you meant by “a win for the progressive column”.

    Thumb up 1

  8. stogy

    stogy: I don’t see this as Chechen terrorism though. These were self-radicalized domestic terrorists, more or less. I’m not convinced the Chechnya angle will hold up.

    Well it looks like the older brother spent six months in Dagestan last year, and was flagged as far back as 2011 by Russian intelligence. The FBI dropped the ball on this after failing to follow up on Russian tip offs.

    Thumb up 2

  9. Thrill *

    Oh, I get that Tamerlan went back to Russia. I’m saying I believe that this was more of an Internet problem than a Chechnya problem.

    Thumb up 0

  10. Mississippi Yankee

    stogy,
    The progressive jab wasn’t meant for you or any one person here. That being said, I believe that real Progressive-ism is this country’s biggest foe. The view that under the guise of large social reform an oligarchy, with them on top, is the best outcome for this country. And stogy I often think you fit into that clique. Not a jab, just a hunch.

    But it’s been my experience that many, if not most, of the people claiming to be progressive are nothing more that what The Urban Dictionary describes as Useful Idiots.

    During this week my observations on the Boston Bombing seemed to anger quite a few inhabits here. How else to explain how so many ‘libertarians’ could ignore the huge friggin’ elephant that Deval L. Patrick has placed in the middle of the room.

    Hal, he’s given you plenty to post on. They didn’t confiscate weapons (hey it’s MA) like they did during Katrina but somehow this feels a bit more pernicious.

    Thumb up 2

  11. stogy

    MY, there are plenty of useful idiots on both sides. Being a progressive isn’t a licence on stupid.

    Glen Beck is frothing at the mouth over a government conspiracy to cover up the secret deportation of a Saudi national supposedly linked to the Boston Marathon bombing.

    And then, according to the execrable Family Research Council, apparently mass murders are the result of the government’s hostility to the family and its values:

    If Congress wants to stop these tragedies, then it has to address the government’s own hostility to the institution of the family and organizations that can address the real problem: the human heart. As I’ve said before, America doesn’t need gun control, it needs self-control. And a Congress that actively discourages it–through abortion, family breakdown, sexual liberalism, or religious hostility–is only compounding the problem.

    And this one really takes the cake: Apparently Obama is literally a demon, and gay rights activists have lead to sabre rattling by North Korea:

    I would not be surprised that at the time when we are debating same-sex marriage, at a time when we are debating whether or not we should have gays leading the Boy Scout movement, I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that we have a mad man in Asia who is saying some of the things that he’s saying.

    I see religious stupid in very much the same way you see progressive stupid – a threat to my rights to act in ways that I see fit, as long as I don’t harm anyone else in doing do. Is that progressive? It’s sounds pretty libertarian to me. The only difference between your position and mine lies in what we would define as avoidable harm and how we should get there.

    Thumb up 4

  12. Mississippi Yankee

    Glen Beck is frothing at the mouth over a government conspiracy to cover up the secret deportation of a Saudi national supposedly linked to the Boston Marathon bombing.

    I caught a bit of Beck’s..ah..stuff earlier today. The thing about M’chel O visiting the Saudi in the hospital but not the 30+ victims is what caught my eye. The thing with Beck is that several times a week he has “breaking news” and it will be followed up next week, only next week never comes.

    As to the “execrable” (?) Family Research Council.
    As an old time family man I find nothing in your quote that I disagree with at this time.
    I’m a big 2nd amendment guy,
    Just like “Her Filthiness” I believe abortions should be rare,
    I further believe that LBJ’s Great Society did more long term damage to this country than anyone on your side of the scales will ever admit to,
    Now I did receive a large degree of benefit from the sexual liberalism. But I must point out that in the late 60’s thru the mid 80’s (MY peak) sex didn’t KILL YOU! So thanks for that Gen X.
    Which brings us to religious hostility. I’m 64 years old, I’ve worked all over this country and in 2 or 3 others. Granted I’ve heard people called “Jew bastard”, “rag head” and “snake handlin’ fanatic” in my life but in almost every case it’s been behind their back and in the heat of the moment. I see much more religious intolerance from so-called atheist on almost a daily basis.

    Of course your view may vary.

    I see religious stupid in very much the same way you see progressive stupid – a threat to my rights to act in ways that I see fit

    What someone says in the pulpit or on TV has zero effect on me. And I live in the Golden Buckle of the Bible Belt. My advice stop putting oil on your skin and let it toughen up… or if it’s a straw-man then roll it up and smoke it… but go to Wa or Co first.

    Thumb up 3

  13. stogy

    Read it again:

    And a Congress that actively discourages it–through abortion, family breakdown, sexual liberalism, or religious hostility–is only compounding the problem.

    Congress encourages abortion, family breakdown? That’s the only conclusion you can reach.

    So… he wants legislation from Congress to stop these things.

    How can a libertarian such as yourself support telling people how they should live, behave sexually, not have freedom of speech over religion?

    Thumb up 2

  14. Mook
    And a Congress that actively discourages it–through abortion, family breakdown, sexual liberalism, or religious hostility–is only compounding the problem.

    Congress encourages abortion, family breakdown? That’s the only conclusion you can reach.

    So… he wants legislation from Congress to stop these things.

    More like he probably believes that existing legislation, ala welfare, along with religious hostility has encouraged family breakdown and he wants to dismantle the welfare state which has incentivized so much bad behavior with predictably disastrous results.. see Detroit, Newark, and other high-percentage welfare cities and enclaves

    Thumb up 1

  15. Mississippi Yankee

    How can a libertarian such as yourself support telling people how they should live

    Please don’t call me the “L/l” word. I find the vast majority of “those” people to be fence sitters and head in the sand folks.They cluck their cheeks when their pet-peeves are troubled, pinch their pennies and give nothing but lip service to 3rd party candidates all year and then, much like a petulant child throw their vote at said 3rd party at the general election.

    In an un-blinkered world you shouldn’t be able to tell a true libertarian from a true anarchist. In this world the L’s have jobs and think themselves ‘normal’. They will be beyond shocked and appalled when the A’s take their lunch money. “It Can’t Happen Here”

    If you must label me I view myself as a constitutional conservative… unless I’m drinking or I’m horny.

    Thumb up 3

  16. stogy

    More like he probably believes that existing legislation, ala welfare, along with religious hostility has encouraged family breakdown and he wants to dismantle the welfare state which has incentivized so much bad behavior with predictably disastrous results.

    That would be a fair enough argument. But the argument the FRC is making isn’t that. It’s that being too liberal on matters abortion, sex and freedom of speech has resulted in take out gun violence. And that we need Congress to legislate to stop these freedoms, because they mean that people aren’t taking responsibility for themselves.

    Congress is hardly “pro-abortion” and certainly doesn’t encourage people to engage in religious hostility. Does Congress actually encourage divorce? And even if I accept that they arguing about the welfare system, does welfare destroy marriages? Is divorce much higher in families on welfare than it is amongst other families? Do the kids shooting up schools mainly come from families on welfare? Were the parents less responsible (courtesy of Congress) than other parents? I mean, the whole argument is completely messed up. No evidence. Nada. It’s sounds good at first, but once you think it through, it’s a mess.

    Argue against welfare, fine. But this is a group of religious nutters determined to remake the world in their own image.

    MY. Sorry I referred to you as Libertarian. You are entitled to define your political beliefs however you want. I was really referring to libertarianism as a political philosophy rather than the epic fail it is in American politics.

    Thumb up 1

  17. Mook

    And even if I accept that they arguing about the welfare system, does welfare destroy marriages? Is divorce much higher in families on welfare than it is amongst other families? Do the kids shooting up schools mainly come from families on welfare?

    The answer to the first two questions is – welfare incentives them never to get married in the first place. Better to shack up from a financial perspective. I don’t think you would have to look very far to find a ton of stats showing that children raised on welfare are disproportionately criminal

    Thumb up 3

  18. CM

    I don’t think you would have to look very far to find a ton of stats showing that children raised on welfare are disproportionately criminal.

    In how many cases would that likely have happened anyway. Is it causal or just correlated?
    Alternatively how many children “raised on welfare” might have turned to crime if welfare wasn’t available?
    (My personal experience involves welfare enabling us to get through some extremely bad/difficult years, and I was someone who could have easily gone off the rails….if we had to move into a bad area and I changed school and hung out with some bad people I can see that my life could potentially have taken a different path. I recognise that this is a single anecdotal example so only has limited value, but still).

    In terms of divorce – how many divorces are abused women able to get away from a toxic marriage (my wife’s aunty would have left her abusive husband had welfare existed at the time)?
    Even when it can be shown to be causal, often it’s not an intelligent indicator because it ignores the positive.

    Thumb up 2

  19. stogy

    I don’t think you would have to look very far to find a ton of stats showing that children raised on welfare are disproportionately criminal

    I’m pretty sure you’d be right (although it may depend on how you defined the crimes). But the FRC were arguing that government encouragement of irresponsible behavior leads to massacres – not crime. In other words, my freedoms – which for the most part have not harmed anyone else – caused the massacres. And therefore, according to them, we need to legislate to stop abortion, sexual immorality, divorce and attacks on religion – nothing here about stopping welfare.

    I don’t really want to be dragged into a debate on welfare now. The FRC weren’t arguing about welfare but about issues that are central to Christian politics. But blaming events like this and Sandy Hook on “small l” liberal values is stupid, has no basis in evidence, and just as likely, or even more likely, to result in loss of freedoms as any progressive agenda. You can’t argue against the pulpit, because the rules were apparently hand delivered by God.

    Thumb up 0

  20. stogy

    Here’s an interesting quote from one of the Boston bombers:

    “I don’t have a single American friend. I don’t understand them,” Tamerlan told an interviewer in 2009 before another boxing competition, lamenting the breakdown of “values”, in America and voicing concerns about the excess of American life, observing “people can’t control themselves“.

    Compare that to:

    As I’ve said before, America doesn’t need gun control, it needs self-control. And a Congress that actively discourages it–through abortion, family breakdown, sexual liberalism, or religious hostility–is only compounding the problem.

    It’s curious that both the FRC and Tamerlan can use the same arguments: one in support of religious oppression, the other (maybe) in support of religious violence. But the FRC are stupidly arguing that lack of self control leads to the kind of violence that Tamerlan then goes on to show he’s capable of.

    Thumb up 0

  21. Mook

    (My personal experience involves welfare enabling us to get through some extremely bad/difficult years, and I was someone who could have easily gone off the rails….if we had to move into a bad area and I changed school and hung out with some bad people I can see that my life could potentially have taken a different path.

    My question to you is, why did taxpayers have to subsidize you living in a more desirable area? I never had such a benefit. Buck up and deal with living in a bad area until your parents (or single mom) can work their way out of it. My dad had unstable employment for a number of years when I was growing up. I went to a tough Jr High. As a white boy at Hartman Jr. High in Houston, you are GUARANTEED to fight every week, sometimes several times a week. We took no welfare, no HUD, no food stamps. Nada. We “made do” and not without a fair amount of suffering. I have no sympathy for those who went through far less and whine like bitches. 95% of welfare is given out (my opinion based on much personal observation) to those who made bad decisions and are unwilling to do what it takes to make good on the vast opportunities that are/were available to them through family/friends/education. Many people land on hard times.. it’s how you are willing to adjust/adapt to those hard times is what makes the difference.

    We were later able to move up and out of that neighborhood, my dad eventually ended up with a good job. We paid our own way, even though it wasn’t easy to do so. But so many others that can do the same, don’t do it, because welfare is too easy. Fuck those who leech on the welfare system and create gang banging monsters who wreck entire communities due to their welfare upbringing and lifestyle

    Thumb up 2

  22. CM

    My question to you is, why did taxpayers have to subsidize you living in a more desirable area?

    We lived in a very average house, in a very average area. If the welfare system had not been in place, we would have had to move. So it’s not like welfare enabled us to somewhere better when the shit hit the fan. It just meant we didn’t have to move to a shittier area, or live in a crap house. I don’t think that’s unreasonable at all.

    Taxpayers had to “subsidise us” because that’s what the society I lived in decided was the decent thing to do. I’m sure between my mother and I we’ve paid back many many many many times what we took out.

    Buck up and deal with living in a bad area until your parents (or single mom) can work their way out of it.

    What if it’s easier to work your way out of it where you are She did ‘work her way out of it’, working as much as possible (given that I was very young).

    Point is – welfare got us through a bad time, where nobody was being lazy. Yes, I’m sure it’s possible to speculate that without welfare the outcomes would have been the same but I’m far from convinced. What limited support network we had would have been lost if we’d had to move. But none of that ever seems to get factored in when people rail against welfare.

    I have no sympathy for those who went through far less and whine like bitches.

    Who is whining, let alone like a bitch? I’m certainly not, I’m happy we were able to use the system to get through and I’m fine with contributing to assist others in the same predicament.

    Many people land on hard times.. it’s how you are willing to adjust/adapt to those hard times is what makes the difference.

    I mostly agree, although it’s a little too bumper-stickerish for me.
    Societies make choices about these things – I’m pleased we lived in a society that enabled us to get back on solid ground much quicker and with far less unheaval that would likely have occured otherwise.

    But so many others that can do the same, don’t do it, because welfare is too easy.

    No doubt. Although I’m always a little dubious about the claims of how many are in that group. As I say, I’m not sure you can make a casual argument about people being on welfare and crimes being committed. Some people are going to commit crime whether they are on welfare or not.

    Fuck those who leech on the welfare system and create gang banging monsters who wreck entire communities due to their welfare upbringing and lifestyle.

    Yes, fuck them. I agree. I certainly don’t support systems that make it easy for that to happen. I do support systems that require people who can work to be looking for work, and not turning work down becuase it might be ‘beneath them’. I’m certainly in favour of welfare systems with careful checks and balances and strict rules about qualiftying for it.

    Thumb up 2