<p>
This is true, but I don’t think one can assume that he was always a hidden sociopath–I want to know if he really was a (relatively) regular college kid until something happened to change that–and if so, what exactly was it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that at all. It’s quite evident that it wasn’t his evil twin, but him, who participated in the bombings, murdered the MIT security guard, and hid in the boat. The “Free Jahar” people are a bunch of whackjobs and their opinions aren’t worth considering; everyone else knows he’s guilty. What the appropriate punishment should be (life in prison, death penalty, etc.) may be a point where reasonable people can and will disagree, but I don’t believe that anyone thinks he’s “innocent.” This wasn’t a 5 yo kid whose big brother told him to steal candy from someone.</p>
<p>Indeed, if the older brother was a nut, the younger brother might have more culpability for going along with him. I’d just like to know a lot more about how this happens.</p>
<p>I agree. But we have seen some views that are empathic with him, and in my view, minimizing his actions, calling them mistakes for example.</p>
<p>I’m pretty creative, but I have trouble constructing a scenario in which the younger brother is innocent, or even significantly less culpable. Could he have been tricked into thinking these were just smoke bombs? It seems extremely far-fetched. More likely is that he was persuaded into believing that this was somehow the right thing to do. That’s what’s really hard to deal with.</p>
<p>you may be right Hunt, and that is really hard to deal with, that he was persuaded into believing this was the “right thing to do”. I’m honestly questioning, how does one make that “right” psychologically when it involves killing innocent people. (at a minimum there’s cognitive dissonance) do we think he still would have had to be antisocial to begin with? I I have difficulty seeing someone who values human life able to snuff out and maim others without having been taught to hate.</p>
<p>anyone else remember singing this in elementary school, “You’ve got to be carefully taught” from South Pacific. I sang it weekly in our assembly, and I believe it’s words…</p>
<p>You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught from year to year,
It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear,
You’ve got to be carefully taught.</p>
<p>You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You’ve got to be carefully taught!</p>
<p>I get something of a grin out of all the different positions on this.</p>
<p>Everyone knows “he did it.” “He’s guilty.” Well, the same thing can be said for the bombing of the King David Hotel that killed 91 and injured 46. The Irgun took credit for it. The Haganah approved it. Menachen Begin was part of carrying it out. </p>
<p>Look at the Lehi. Yitzhak Rabin was an active participant in this organization instrumental in the train bombings, political assignations and massacre Lehi carried out.</p>
<p>Since ultimately they “won,” Rabin and Begin became Prime Minister. There is now a Lehi Medal and in 2006 the government dedicated a plaque to the King David Hotel bombing (later to re-word it after British outrage). </p>
<p>I cannot imagine that we would not want to know why those who joined these terrorist groups may have done so. Perhaps we can learn from probing Tsarnaev’s situations/motivations so that the US does not suffer more of these attacks from people who have been in the US for an extended period of time and are youths.</p>
<p>The way to justify killing innocent people is either to convince yourself that they aren’t really innocent, or that they are simply unfortunate collateral damage in the pursuit of a noble cause. Every country–including the U.S.–that drops bombs on populated areas has to do this. We feel more uncomfortable when unauthorized people do it.</p>
<p>
Most of that was coming from a 17 y/o, though, and although she got defensive, it really just shows her naivete. Some attitude was also shown by the other kiddie poster.</p>
<p>From the 17 y/o:</p>
<p>
This is the parent section of the website. Recite after me. </p>
<p>
More naivete. Well, she’s young.
Just a man defending his employer. Would it change anyone’s mind? </p>
<p>
A little too much empathy for me.</p>
<p>One can empathize without excusing, you know. Two entirely different things. I can empathize with parents who have been told that their children have done something unbelievably heinous and now one is dead. I have no idea whether the senior Tsarnaevs were “good” or “bad” but I don’t have evidence that they cold-bloodedly raised their kids to do these things.</p>
<p>I wonder if we’ll ever find out what really went on? What was their cause? What were they hoping to get out of this?</p>
<p>The following is something that many people take seriously, although it is extremely difficult:
Does this mean excusing or justifying wrongdoing? No. But, I think, it does mean recognizing the humanity and worth of even people who do terrible things. It doesn’t mean that you let them out of prison, of course.</p>
<p>I agree pizzagirl, we certainly can empathize without excusing, I was hearing a bit of a mix of that which is what concerned me. We can also empathize with parents, or anyone whose kids or other family members have done heinous things. From some of what I have read about the Tsarnaev family I have not found myself feeling particularly empathic. But I respect that others may. </p>
<p>[Tsarnaev</a> family history: theft, violence, Islam, and the Boston marathon bombings. - Slate Magazine](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/04/tsarnaev_family_history_theft_violence_islam_and_the_boston_marathon_bombings.html]Tsarnaev”>Tsarnaev family history: theft, violence, Islam, and the Boston marathon bombings.)</p>
<p>lindz, I read some of the article you posted. Goodness, this family has all types of problems!</p>
<p>Well, Charles Whitman the UT Tower sniper also had personal problems and a family with problems.</p>
<p>Actually, Charles Whitman also had an undiagnosed brain tumor, which may have been involved in why he did what he did: [The</a> Mind Of A Mass Murderer: Charles Whitman, Brain Damage, And Violence (VIDEO)](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>The Mind Of A Mass Murderer: Charles Whitman, Brain Damage, And Violence (VIDEO) | HuffPost Impact)</p>
<p>Hunt–the original autopsy doc said the size and location of the tumor did not have any part of the “why.” The Connelly Commssion concluded that it “might.”</p>
<p>As regards the comparison of the King David Hotel incident to other instances of terror, we can’t escape the attitude among some that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. And it wasn’t long ago that our own U.S. government had a very lax attitude concerning the complaints from Cuba about militants associated with the U.S. leaving bombs for Cuban officials in Havana and elsewhere in the world (including blowing up foreign airliners if Cubans were passengers). Needless to say, in my opinion Tsarnaev is no freedom fighter.</p>
<p>The movie Cleanskin depicts how a British-born Muslim is radicalized during his college years. If I recall correctly, the pre-terrorist student already believed violence is necessary to show supreme power citing the creation of Israel and U.S.A. as examples. An imam lured (?), recruited (?) him into the privilege and honor of becoming a suicide bomber. Towards the end, the bomber created a tape stating his noble duty to inflict violence on the apathetic British citizens so that they may feel the same brutality his people suffers from daily. There were some silly moments in the movie but overall, it was not a waste of my time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
And of course I agree, too. (Duh?!) </p>
<p>I’m not sure a 17 y/o knows the difference, though. “Empathy” is a nice-sounding word (particularly when one is posting in the parent area), but too much of “excuse” rather than “empathy” was coming through for me.</p>