Bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev worked out, slept, partied after Boston Marathon attack

Discuss

39 Responses to “Bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev worked out, slept, partied after Boston Marathon attack”

  1. thaum says:

    Dude, if I were at a party, and there were humans and a cat there, I’d pick up the cat and pet it and talk to the cat. Totally not creepy.

    • Vgan says:

      EXCEPT for the fact that this kid has a history of shooting puppies dead. The sick part is that his coach knew about it and didn’t do anything. According to this quote in SI.com the idiot didn’t even think it was an indication of a problem: ‘Oh yeah, I knew this. I knew he used to shoot puppies in the backyard…Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.’ [referring to no indications of what was to come].

      • thaum says:

        Well, of course murdering animals is evil. So is permitting it to go on. That goes without saying.

      • Emily says:

        I think you may have read that quote out of context. That was said by someone using hyperbole to say that he had never given any indication of being capable of this. 

        “Everyone is completely bewildered,” Payack said. “Not one person — not one — said, ‘Oh yeah, I knew this. I knew he used to shoot puppies in the backyard.’”His voice trailed off. “Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.”

      • sab k says:

        LEARN HOW TO READ? HE SAID THAT “NO ONE” SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. YOU MUST BE A COMPLETE IDIOT.
        “Everyone is completely bewildered,” Payack said. “Not one person — not
        one — said, ‘Oh yeah, I knew this. I knew he used to shoot puppies in
        the backyard.’”His voice trailed off. “Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.” 

    • nachoproblem says:

      Dude, I would so totally pick up her cat.

      Sorry, I just… So many details, so little insight. It’s to the point of absurdity. As in, I have to laugh so I don’t… hemorrhage from the ears, pretty much. 

  2. Bailey says:

    worst article I’ve ever read. Spell check plz, and wtf, context? 

  3. agonist says:

    The banality of evil. He seems to lack empathy or concern, which would imply he’s a sociopath.

  4. Bill Hart says:

    Am I the only person deeply disturbed by the thought that an apparently normal, well-adjusted teenager can carry out an atrocity and keep acting like an apparently normal, well-adjusted teenager after said atrocity.

    I get that his brother was apparently into extremist stuff, despite the fact that his mother and father don’t want to believe it. He clearly wasn’t normal, well-adjusted or a teenager.

    But how does he just happen to also have a sociopathic brother? Coincidence? Has this sort of familial delinquency been studied?

    What I don’t get is that his brother was clearly motivated by extremism (it is said that he stopped smoking and drinking, etc), yet his younger brother just goes on smoking tokes and partying. Isn’t there a kind of dissonance here? There is for me, and I’m having trouble getting my brain around it.

    I simply don’t believe conspiracy theories, even with the father and mother and one crazed reporter screaming blue murder. But how does one make sense of this!?

    • thaum says:

      I mean, if you knew one of your family members was becoming unhinged like it seems his brother was, that’s a pretty seriously fucked up thing to deal with. Sounds like Tsarnaev’s way is to get stoned and try and ignore it. People cope with things in different ways.

      • Bill Hart says:

        He partied after he and his brother had blown up 170+ people. That’s a whole ‘nuther way of dealing with things in my opinion.

        Most people who commit heinous crimes either commit suicide shortly afterwards or they are at least reclusive loners. They don’t seek out the company of people and tweet things like “Ain’t no love in the heart of the city… stay safe”.

        • thaum says:

          I don’t know, is that partied as in “coerced by his brother”, “attended but really didn’t participate”, “danced wildly and enjoyed good music”, “got rolling drunk and threw up and danced and partied the fuck out”? 

          Who knows?

        • This is rather a sweeping generalisation. I don’t think those IRA members were killing themselves after planting bombs in bars, shopping centres, etc.

    • timquinn says:

      Your complaint is that he doesn’t fit the stereotype. That would be your problem. 

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      If he weren’t Muslim, the headlines would have screamed, WAS IT BATH SALTS?!?!?

    • ocschwar says:

      “Am I the only person deeply disturbed by the thought that an apparently normal, well-adjusted teenager can carry out an atrocity and keep acting like an apparently normal, well-adjusted teenager after said atrocity.”

      Plenty of prescription drugs, available at reasonable prices in every high school lunch hall, can accomplish that. Valium. Xanax. Lots of others. 

    • nachoproblem says:

      A “normal, well-adjusted teenager” is what I would call a heavily qualified term. I won’t be so crass as to call it an oxymoron, but look… I’ve been a teenager at least once, and I can tell you there’s quite some time between the onslaught of those hormones and when you finally come around to the point where you can understand things the way other humans understand them, or at least close enough that you could be called “normal and well-adjusted” relative to the whole species, not just your peer group.

      I’m not trying to excuse anything he did. But let me not mince words here: teenagers don’t fucking understand what life is worth. That should be no news to anybody. Nevermind specific teenagers, but the fact is in general there is just a huge discrepancy between what you would consider “normal” and their perspective at that stage of development. Why do you think kids of about 16 to 19 are always the best recruitment candidates for atrocities and suicide missions? This is true everywhere and throughout history. They’re as physically fit as you could ever want, and they have hardly any idea of what they’re giving up or destroying. That’s not a moral judgement or an endorsement or anything of that nature, just cold, hard fact.

      Consider how many young lads throughout time have returned to a “normal” way of life completely opposite from the horrors of war they recently participated in, because they were taught that all the awful things they saw or did were just part of how it’s meant to be. The fact is that he could return to “normal” because his views of normality are probably constructed much differently from yours.

      Maybe I’m too jaded to be properly disturbed. I certainly don’t LIKE it. But I don’t see it as much of a surprise, either.

    • toyg says:

      The truth? The truth is that there is no such thing as “normality”. Every single human being is fucked up in its own special way. All these generic labels we use (sociopathic, depressed etc etc) are simple attempts at making sense of the fundamental randomness of nature and nurture, usually *after* something happens that forces us to face the dirty secrets of somebody’s psyche.

      In this case, Dzhokhar was 1) an immigrant, 2) a teenager, 3) a teenager  left unsupervised for long periods (the father seems fond of disappearing to Russia for months), 4) a younger brother, 5) a younger brother of somebody who had become a religious extremist, 6) a member of a minority religion which has gone through a hard patch in the last 12 years (his formative years!), 7) a fairly nice-looking guy, 8) a successful guy, both in sports and academia. Can such conditions produce emotional detachment and sociopathic behaviour? Of course — we know of sociopaths with lives much less interesting and variegated than what this 19-yr-old already experienced.

  5. luther_blissett5 says:

    To question the official story may or may not mean being a conspiracy theorist, but it does make one a rational human being who is not comfortable with cognitive dissonance, lapses in logic and narratives full of multiple contradictions. It’s more important than ever not to take rumors and possible false reports from anonymous sources at face value. And though it is quite natural to be blinded by emotion, we must remember that before a thorough trial and objective investigation, alleged suspects should not be assumed guilty.

  6. social_maladroit says:

    Personally, I’m tired of the constant barrage of pop psychology to which we’ve been subjected ever since the identity of the Boston marathon bombing suspects became known. The media may need to fill up their airtime and pages with something, but, assuming Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is guilty, I don’t need to hear what some acquaintance of his (or an expert on Chechnya, or his uncle, or his father, or some guy who wrote a book on domestic terrorists, or some guy who combed through his Twitter account, or…) thinks of him. His actions speak for themselves.

    There are some things I would like to know, such as: Did he and his brother make prototypes, or did they just get lucky? What did they use to set them off, in order to allow themselves enough time to get away? Will this cause a surge in people calling 9-1-1 and reporting unattended backpacks on the street? How’s this incident going to affect potential legislation that further curtails peoples’ civil liberties?

    And most of all, did the Tsarnaev brothers leave some kind of conclusive evidence behind as to what the fuck they thought they would accomplish by maiming and killing a large number of innocent people? 

    • in all history of mankind people tried to seek revenge by going after those who treated them wrong – just in the last 12 years that changed … now going after people sitting in the same boat just on a different place.
      How did that happen? 

      • nachoproblem says:

        In the last 12 years? Pfft, as if. But it has become markedly more common in the last century or two.

        The main reason? Massively-destructive weapons that you can use anonymously.

        • this would mean people would just vent their anger … against anybody.

          in return that would mean in the past people did, too. but in the past they at least tried to aim at the perpetrators from their point of view.

          now they could do that with those weapons way more effective. why not?
          why all of a sudden just venting anger?

          • nachoproblem says:

            IN THE PAST, PEOPLE DID TOO. People don’t hate each other any more nor less than they ever did! And they have taken out their aggression on innocent targets ALL THE DAMN TIME.

            I don’t have time to write an article called “Civilian Massacres Throughout History,” but you could find one if you care to look around at all.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            It’s hard to notice, because there’s such pervasive media coverage of every horrible thing that happens, but things are quite a bit better now than they were 500 or 1,000 or 2,000 years ago.

  7. knoxblox says:

    Regarding DeInnocentis’ quote, I remember many college gatherings where we just showed up at someone’s house without knowing it was invite only. It was college.

    So, he probably showed up uninvited (perhaps not knowing it was invite only), dropped some string cheese on the couch by accident, got yelled at, and went upstairs with somebody who didn’t give a damn. Namely, the cat.

  8. Their behaviour IS strange.
    - he goes to college & parties afterwards (but no one mentions that anywhere BEFORE they cought him – I d run to the media when his name was out being wanted if i sat beside him the day before!)
    - they rob a conv.store??
    - and after all they did they are letting the driver of the highjacked car go – instead of … lets say … using him at least as a human shield? (as nothing-to-loose-probably-terrorist-trained-psychopaths?)

    • nachoproblem says:

      It doesn’t really sound like they were terrorist-trained at all. It sounds more like they were making it up as they went along, based on stuff they had seen and heard.

      It’s probably pretty easy for anybody to do that.

      •  exactly, doesnt look trained at all, or psychopathic.
        ok.
        they made it up as they went along – they organized: guns, ammo, made bombs … and then the young brother is wearing a WHITE basecap? (if filmmakers want to have their actor standing out in a crowd that is what you let him wear: a color that stands out so the audience sees him) – he didnt think of that? if he wanted to get away? planning more..?

        • nachoproblem says:

          I’m pretty sure they didn’t have the benefit of experience — theirs or a mentor’s.

          It fits the overall picture of their motives. Chechen separatists attacking the US is not a “thing.” Islamic terrorist attacks on the US are, but Chechens are not part of the organized pool for that. Which means they would be a pair of lone nuts, and not trained by any organization. And the skills and tactics they used, they could have researched on their own. That means they could have missed the FAQ on what not to wear in public.

          If they weren’t connected to anything, that also might explain why the counter-terrorists didn’t know more about them.

        • toyg says:

          Some reports say he would always wear that with friends, clearly for him it was “normal behaviour”; and of course he was bent on looking as normal as possible on that day. Not everyone is a filmmaker. CCTV from the convenience store shows him without the hat, btw, so he ditched it at some point.

          These two weren’t battle-hardened jihadi veterans, they were two youngsters with fucked-up identities. They weren’t Americans: the older brother couldn’t get a US passport because of his jihadi sympathies, couldn’t break into the Olympics because of it, and clearly felt he didn’t belong anyway — moving at 15 to a completely foreign country is a real bitch. They weren’t Chechens: they lived in suburban Boston, not in a war-thorn village. They weren’t Russians: Russian identity is a complex subject in its own way, let alone for people in a Caucasian region.

          So they likely scoured the internet for months in search of a cause to make sense of their precarious existence; they learnt what they thought was relevant to their “cause”; the elder brother maybe attended a month-long training camp, maybe not, but even if he did, how much can you learn in a month from some AK47-brandishing nutjob used to fight in caves and woods? How much of that is applicable in Boston, against American police forces? I reckon they did fairly well as they did, staying undetected for almost a week after pulling off a senseless act of wanton mass-violence.

          •  (clearly for him it was “normal behaviour”)
            thats a good point, toyg. but – knowing about cameras allover the place wouldnt he choose a different normal look at least?

      • wysinwyg says:

         They made bombs that worked.  People with terror training seem to have trouble with that step.

    • Bill Hart says:

      They didn’t rob a convenience store. This is one of the many contradictions in the story. The CCTV showed no such thing.

Leave a Reply