Posted on 04/24/2013 7:00:05 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
He did? We certainly suspect this might be the case, given Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s unusual six-month sojourn to Dagestan and Chechnya, but, er … no one has actually established that as fact. At least judging by media reports, the current case theory postulates that Tsarnaev self-radicalized, and apparently approached bombmaking with the same auto-didactic enthusiasm. And yet, Secretary of State John Kerry told a Brussels press conference that Tsarnaev got radicalized in the Caucasus and came back to blow people up in Boston:
The question from the reporter, according to a transcript provided by the State Department, was, “Sir, with the problem we have that young people go to Syria (inaudible), does that matter also to the U.S., do you have the same problem?”
“Well, of course we have the same problem. We just had a young person who went to Russia, Chechnya, who blew people up in Boston. So he didn’t stay where he went, but he learned something where he went and he came back with a willingness to kill people,” said Kerry.
“I think the world has had enough of people who have no belief system, no policy for jobs, no policy for education, no policy for rule of law, but who just want to kill people because they don’t like what they see. There’s not room for that. That’s what we’ve been fighting against after all of the wars of the 20th century. Now we’re in the 21st century, and it’s time for a different organizational principle. And we need to, all of us, do a better job of communicating to people what the options of life are. And we’re open. Democracies are open to people participating in the democracy, not killing people. And so I hope that we can all figure out how we translate these better opportunities more effectively in our politics.”
You see, this is why government officials should exercise restraint when discussing criminal cases. It’s not just that their comments might be seen as unfairly prejudicial, which is certainly one rational concern, but also that they end up sounding like idiots.
This may have escaped the notice of America’s top diplomatic officer, but American officials are only now flying to Dagestan to start investigating exactly what Tamerlan did on his sabbatical:
A team from the U.S. embassy in Moscow is in Dagestan today to interview the parents of two brothers suspected of planting bombs at last week’s Boston marathon, ABC News has learned. …
Investigators want to know what Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the eldest brother, did in Dagestan, a restive region in southern Russia that is home to an Islamist insurgency, during a six month visit in 2012. Specifically they want to know if Tamerlan, who began linking to Islamic extremist web videos on YouTube after the trip, met any radicals or militants during his trip.
They’re coming from the US embassy? Shouldn’t the Secretary of State be informed of what happens at our embassies?
It’s more than possible that the investigators will find exactly what Kerry claims, but shouldn’t we wait until they actually find it first? It hardly seems diplomatic to publicly blame Russia (and Dagestan and Chechnya are still part of Russia) for radicalizing Tsarnaev without some solid evidence first.
That Hanoi Boi is so smart.
Gee, I thought that it was the Internet!
Now they’re saying he met someone at his mosque who radicalized him.
Not sure I buy this — plenty of radicalism loose around Harvard Yard. Maybe he attended some classes there.
There’s some evidence he was radicalized before he got there:
Where did John Hanoi Kerry become radicalized?
Now "He was radicalized in Chechnya" is stated without evidence, and may be later followed by "We never said that".
In my opinion, one of the best places to be indoctrinated in Hatred for America is the People's Republic of Cambridge,
And just where did you get radicalized there thurston howell the 3rd? Haavaad? The haughty john f’n kerry. SOS? Really? Man is the rest of the world laffin’ at us or what?
This is so irresponsible it is breathtaking.
Our Secretaries of State have been a Joke since Kissinger. (Even Jim Baker was an Islamophile)
“Something has to be done about that evil internet. I know let’s tax retail sales. That will stop these terrorists! Harumpf! Harumpf!” - Senator Foghorn
He went there BECAUSE he was a radical. No other reason for him to go back to a place they had left as a refugee.
Is there a way we can use a wayback machine to transport those unfortunate runners away from the marathon finish line and transport the Hillabeast and Kerrycretin there?
We would 1) increase the IQ of the gubmit measurably, and 2) decrease the sleaze of the gubmit in the same manner.
A world without Giggolo-boy and Marry-someone-so-I-can-be-successful-wench would be a greater world.
my first thought after reading this and having had lived up in MA.
No he got radical by living where he did and being around nuts cases up there.
They claim to be patriotic and then have their radical left wing nuts view and now I see Boston is selling shirts saying love and peace Boston bla bla
They came out to cheer and had signs saying we won and it’s over, these people up there are just nuts and even when I;ve been in bars and out up there I’ve met others who are radical and hate Israel and blame America.
That;s immigrants and Americans.
In the north end in a café called café paradiso an Albanian was working and with two pals were there with him.
I got talking soccer because I have an English northern strong accent and we then got politics.
One went outside and asked me to follow him and I DID for a smoke.
He then told me he worked at the airport at Boston and how America is to blame , bla bal bla, Hated Israel with a passion.
I went along with him to get more info and he was just as radical as anyone you could think of.
I called the feds and nothing I heard.
Another guy called Hasan hung about with a pal of mine, He said he was from Turkey but parents were from Saudi and UAE, went to school there and when we got onto to politics he too was a nut and said Israel should not be around and the Jews should go home bla bla.
The group he hung about was mostly Americans and they went along with him all the time.
I stopped talking to my pal after that and now I live in the free south thankfully
“Where did John Hanoi Kerry become radicalized?”
Like Father, Like Son—John Kerry’s Dangerous Worldview
Albert Mohler
Richard J. Kerry was a career diplomat in the U.S. State Department, serving through World War II and the Cold War. As a mid-level diplomat, the elder Kerry represented American interests in various European cities, even as young John attended boarding schools in Switzerland and the United States.
Richard Kerry’s understanding of foreign policy and diplomacy was not generally available to the public until 1990, when he released Star-Spangled Mirror, his treatise on American foreign policy.
Reading this book is like reading John Kerry’s mind. In this case, Richard Kerry is truly the father of his son, for Senator John Kerry echoes many of the themes articulated in Star-Spangled Mirror, and these themes have emerged as key issues in the 2004 presidential campaign.
During the Cold War, Richard Kerry became a major critic of America’s dominant foreign policy establishment, though this was hidden from public view during his years of public service. In Star-Spangled Mirror, he offered a critique of American idealism as a driving force in foreign policy. As he explained, “Americans are inclined to see the world and foreign affairs in black and white.” As a nation, we are prone to see our view of the world as driven by a desire for the application of universal principles like liberty, justice, and representative democracy. Richard Kerry saw this as naive and dangerous. In his view, many nations of the world should be seen as inhospitable to democracy, and unready for liberty.
As he laid out his diplomatic approach and view of the world, Richard Kerry distanced himself from hard-line anti-Communists like Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. Dulles’s diplomatic war against “godless Communism” was lamented as evidence of the late Secretary of State’s “intensely moralistic outlook.”
Echoes of Richard Kerry’s understanding of the world can be heard in virtually every comment made by his son on topics related to foreign policy. When Senator John Kerry attacks President George W. Bush for his identification of an “axis of evil,” one hears the refrain of Richard Kerry’s critique of “excessive moralism.” When Richard Kerry dismissed John Foster Dulles’ “ample moralism” by rejecting his statement that “neutralism is immoral,” we can hear John Kerry’s dismissal of President Bush’s public statement to the world, “you are either with us or with the terrorists.”
During the Cold War, Richard Kerry saw the United States as potentially more dangerous and destabilizing than the Soviet Union. “The assumptions that Marxist governments outside the Soviet orbit are under Soviet control, and that conflict and disorder are produced by Soviet intrigue are,” he argued, “essential to maintain the moral distinction Americans make between their own power and that of their adversary, the division of the world in accordance with that distinction, and the illusion that those who are not captives of the evil power will adhere to our preferred beliefs. It might be disproportionate to say that if the Soviets did not exist we would have to invent them, but we certainly have invented a part of their intentions and activities which is essential to our political faith.”
http://www.christianity.com/print/1292846/
Nah, really? I was still waiting for You Tube videos.
The ones who sincerely preach peace and tolerance are the "radical muslims."
Both of them.
Even his signature screams “pompous douchebaggery”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.