The Boston bombings: Questions abound
More questions than answers come with the killing of Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the legally U.S.-living Chechen brothers suspected of planting the bombs of death and carnage at last week's Boston Marathon.
Some are obvious. Why did they do it? What was the source material for their “pressure-cooker” bombs? Were they influenced in any way by their Chechen background? And if so, were they lone wolves or were there ties to a major terrorist group in Chechnya? Computer and phone records hopefully will provide clues.
Was the radicalization of Tamerlan, 26, the older brother, self-realized or was it more formal, facilitated by his trips abroad? And how did he come to radicalize Dzhokhar, 19, who, by most outward appearances and friends' accounts, had experienced a decade-long and picture-perfect assimilation into American society?
But some of the questions are not so obvious. It turns out that Tamerlan was no stranger to federal investigators. The FBI interviewed him two years ago. An unnamed foreign government — said to be Russia — wanted him vetted because it suspected ties to Chechen extremists. Supposedly, none were found. Is that the whole story?
Without elaboration, the Obama administration says the Russian government closely cooperated with the United States in the bombing investigation. Did Russia have information that we didn't? If it did, why didn't we have it two years ago?
And will the Boston bombings serve as an inspiration to others to begin a new era of civilian-centered attacks on U.S. soil? Or will law enforcement's excellent and expeditious work in nabbing the brothers Tsarnaev actually prove to be a deterrent?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Benchmarking questions: Fueling perversion
- U.N. Watch: Climate games
- Jesse White’s chutzpah
- Piercing the media’s shield: Muzzles & slopes
- Shenango shakedown: Public money at risk
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- The Thursday wrap
- A hunting question: A Pennsylvania proposal to limit the game that mentored youth hunters can take appears to be a solution in search of a problem
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes