I feel pretty confidently that smoking weed had nothing to do with anything related to the terror attack.

Every law that one breaks lowers the barrier to breaking a more serious law. It's a variation on the broken window theory. Most who smoke "weed" do not become terrorists, but in this country, many terrorists have taken advantage of the license that Islam grants to jihadists to smoke weed to fit in with Americans, who like you, seem to dismiss such activity as easily as jay walking.

As in item one above, the willingness to commit mass murder over what may have been a "weed" deal gone bad makes it much easier for one to take murder and mayhem to the next level. The truth is, neither of us can know for sure, but neither of us can say authoritatively that drug dealing was not a gateway into terrorism for the brothers.

I love how strongly liberals state their case in the absence of any factual basis. Again, there is no way for you to know what role weed played in the transformation of these immigrants into Muslim terrorists, and had the older brother been convicted and placed in a prison cell, there is zero chance that he would have been free to have masterminded the Boston bombing.

 

Mitch, the fact that you just called Clyde a liberal literally makes my day. I owe you one....

Every law that one breaks lowers the barrier to breaking a more serious law. It's a variation on the broken window theory. Most who smoke "weed" do not become terrorists, but in this country, many terrorists have taken advantage of the license that Islam grants to jihadists to smoke weed to fit in with Americans, who like you, seem to dismiss such activity as easily as jay walking.

As in item one above, the willingness to commit mass murder over what may have been a "weed" deal gone bad makes it much easier for one to take murder and mayhem to the next level. The truth is, neither of us can know for sure, but neither of us can say authoritatively that drug dealing was not a gateway into terrorism for the brothers.

I love how strongly liberals state their case in the absence of any factual basis. Again, there is no way for you to know what role weed played in the transformation of these immigrants into Muslim terrorists, and had the older brother been convicted and placed in a prison cell, there is zero chance that he would have been free to have masterminded the Boston bombing.

 

Mitch, Carl Lewis called. He is very impressed with your ability to make a "giant leap."

 

Come on. I drank beer at 16. Are you saying that put me on the path to breaking more serious laws?

 

You would be better served to actually read the article instead of listening to the slanted presentation by the lady on FNC. THEN you can say if you think it was weed that led him down the path to terrorism.

Mitch, Carl Lewis called. He is very impressed with your ability to make a "giant leap."

 

Come on. I drank beer at 16. Are you saying that put me on the path to breaking more serious laws?

You obviously enjoy mischaracterizing other people's posts, Clyde, and then patting yourself on the back for beating up on a straw man that you created. That is always easier than dealing with substance. I will repeat, the elder Boston bomber most likely was responsible for murdering three people and spreading "weed" over their corpses. Not coke, not heroin, but marijuana. It appears that the Tsarnaev brothers were more than just casual users. Not everybody who smokes marijuana becomes a drug dealer, but it is a pretty safe bet that most drug dealers smoked weed before they began dealing. If you want to continue to pretend that marijuana smokers are no more likely to become criminals than people who never break any drug laws, go right ahead, but we both know the truth.

 

You would be better served to actually read the article instead of listening to the slanted presentation by the lady on FNC. THEN you can say if you think it was weed that led him down the path to terrorism.

I don't read RS. I am a little old for their sex, drugs, and rock and roll style "journalism." Nor did I watch the story on Fox, so you are wrong on that count as well. I don't need to read Rolling Stone's opinion or watch somebody on Fox to tell me what to think. As with many Islamic terrorists, the Tsarnaev brothers were deeply involved with drugs. Whether they were high or not during their bombing spree is really of no consequence.

You obviously enjoy mischaracterizing other people's posts, Clyde, and then patting yourself on the back for beating up on a straw man that you created. That is always easier than dealing with substance. I will repeat, the elder Boston bomber most likely was responsible for murdering three people and spreading "weed" over their corpses. Not coke, not heroin, but marijuana. It appears that the Tsarnaev brothers were more than just casual users. Not everybody who smokes marijuana becomes a drug dealer, but it is a pretty safe bet that most drug dealers smoked weed before they began dealing. If you want to continue to pretend that marijuana smokers are no more likely to become criminals than people who never break any drug laws, go right ahead, but we both know the truth.

 

I don't read RS. I am a little old for their sex, drugs, and rock and roll style "journalism." Nor did I watch the story on Fox, so you are wrong on that count as well. I don't need to read Rolling Stone's opinion or watch somebody on Fox to tell me what to think. As with many Islamic terrorists, the Tsarnaev brothers were deeply involved with drugs. Whether they were high or not during their bombing spree is really of no consequence.

 

I haven't mischaracterized anything. You are trying to say that one of the key factors in their ultimate decision to be terrorists was them using marijuana. You have nothing to support that. I say you're wrong and I DO have something to support that. Why? Because I read the damn article. The brothers were not "deeply involved in drugs." The article would tell you that IF you read it instead of opining on something based off of 1964 attitudes about marijuana.

 

Before you start throwing out more pejoratives let me state for you, Ed Sullivan, that I have NEVER smoked marijuana. So I'm not coming at this from the angle of trying to validate my own actions.

Dealing in weed a source of profit and pride for an immigrant can become a gateway to worse things it would seem.

 

In such a situation one was never in the mainstream of society prior to your immigration and naturalization. So you have no base and no broad support system that is in the mainstream of society growing up. Then your source of income and pride comes from illegal activity - dealing with other ciminals. Now you are still outside of mainstream society and not a good citizen.

 

The jump from drug dealer to terrorist is now not so hard to understand. You were never connected to your victims as fellow citizens. As a criminal drug dealer you will like not become a mainstream citizen. So you are on the outside and will likely stay on the outside. Now those on the inside - natural born and well adjusted immigrant citizens are to be scorned. So becoming a terrorist is not so hard to understand at all.

 

Rolling Stone may think there is some deep understanding and worthy of a long article. But its fairly straight forward - those on the outside of the mainstream are at risk. Immigrants from Muslim countries or Muslim background who fall into criminal activity are probably very much at risk to become 'domestic terrorists'. The Marathon bombing is a major data point to that possibility.

You can argue that being on the outside is some sort of factor. Weed is no more a factor in this case than being young or being a younger brother. Those two I would argue are MUCH bigger factors than weed.

 

Again, read the article and you can get a much clearer picture if what influenced the younger brother. It wasnt weed.

Let me add that some of you are really stretching the "criminal activity" angle. Selling a little weed is not the picture that is trying to be painted. Not even close.

If smoking or selling a little weed is a gateway to terrorism; we should have an incident about every 3 seconds or so.

You can argue that being on the outside is some sort of factor. Weed is no more a factor in this case than being young or being a younger brother. Those two I would argue are MUCH bigger factors than weed.

 

Again, read the article and you can get a much clearer picture if what influenced the younger brother. It wasnt weed.

If you accept a single Rolling Stone article as the authoritative last word on the subject, then you may be correct in your conclusion, Clyde. I reject the premise that RS is a credible source and their choice in the content of their cover shows that the magazine places profits over journalistic integrity. The Boston bomber brothers almost certainly helped finance their training and bomb building efforts in part through dealing pot. In most businesses, customers and rivals do not end up dead with the product sprinkled over their remains. Dealing dope necessitates dealing with a shadowy cast of characters.

If smoking or selling a little weed is a gateway to terrorism; we should have an incident about every 3 seconds or so.

That would be an absolutely outstanding response if I had said that smoking or selling a little weed compelled all people engaged in such activities to commit terrorist acts. I didn't, so it isn't.

I haven't mischaracterized anything. You are trying to say that one of the key factors in their ultimate decision to be terrorists was them using marijuana. You have nothing to support that. I say you're wrong and I DO have something to support that. Why? Because I read the damn article. The brothers were not "deeply involved in drugs." The article would tell you that IF you read it instead of opining on something based off of 1964 attitudes about marijuana.

 

Before you start throwing out more pejoratives let me state for you, Ed Sullivan, that I have NEVER smoked marijuana. So I'm not coming at this from the angle of trying to validate my own actions.

Let me first remind you that my name is not Ed Sullivan. lI never said or implied that you smoked marijuana, so don't imply that I did. The OP is about the unfortunate choice in cover art made by the management of Rolling Stone. My opinions are in no way limited to the article that accompanied the cover photo, so despite your attempts to confine the debate to those four corners, I will draw upon more credible sources for my facts, as I see fit.

 

The likely involvement of the elder bomber in a drug-related multiple homicide is a pretty good indicator that their involvement in the drug business was a little more than incidental misdemeanor possession. If the RS article did not make that connection, then its author was not really trying. Then again, maybe dropping marijuana on three corpses was simply carelessness on the part of the perpetrator(s) and not intended as any sort of message.

Rolling Stone's newsstand sales double for Tsarnaev issue

 

Link to article