Obviously when you've gotten to this point, it's time to apply the law, not justify things away.

Acknowledging that we live in a material world and there are multiple causes for things is incredibly minor by comparison, and isn't an ideological basis for carrying out terror attacks. Causes aren't the same as reasons.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/callahan/callahan60.html

But I agree, it's important not to lose sight of the fact that he did make the choice to be here today.

[1]One of the many is HN-aligned Sam Harris: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/life-without-free-will

Soon after the bombing, before anybody identified the attackers, Trudeau discussed it in an interview with Peter Mansbridge.

article:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/17/trudeaus-response-to...

Relevant quote:

Trudeau said he would offer the American material support “and at the same time, over the coming days, we have to look at the root causes.”

“Now, we don’t know now if it was terrorism or a single crazy or a domestic issue or a foreign issue,” he said. “But there is no question that this happened because there is someone who feels completely excluded. Completely at war with innocents. At war with a society. And our approach has to be, where do those tensions come from?

“Yes, there’s a need for security and response,” Trudeau added. “But we also need to make sure that as we go forward, that we don’t emphasize a culture of fear and mistrust. Because that ends up marginalizing even further those who already are feeling like they are enemies of society.”

Justin made some very valid and mature statements. I'll keep an eye on him. Thanks for the link.

The second is that people are fundamentally bad and that external forces are required to keep them from doing bad things. I think the more you look at the world the more you find this second postulate is the right one, and your looking in the wrong direction for justification.

By the way, if we're talking about "fundamental" qualities of a person -- from a biological standpoint, there is some evidence for a genetic propensity toward 'good' (e.g. altruism) or 'bad' (e.g. violent) behavior. But the vast majority of people land somewhere in the middle.

And explanation is not the same as moral justification.

I think compulsory public schools and undergraduate classroom-based colleges are very repressive against individuals, without fluid and free avenues for grievances to be aired and needs to be met. Sit up and shut up. The answer has been to use psychiatric drugs, punitive incarceration and behavior modification against individuals, rather than addressing broader social issues.

Partisan bickering between politicians about short-term reactionary policies sidetracks us. Gun control, enhanced interrogation, etc. -- those are not addressing the real underlying issues, and are just kicking the can further down the road until there's another attack.

I do not find it a coincidence that most of these young people accused of mass shootings or acts of terrorism, are current or recent members of our school system. I would absolutely explode and probably go to prison if I had to deal with today's zero-tolerance school systems.

There is something about mass public education which diminishes the individual, and makes small local corrections impossible because there are no outlets for grievance or ways to meet existential needs. As a result, anger, anxiety and depression build up in a person until s/he has no other outlet than to hurt others, no matter what the personal costs.

I find it very sad that media focus on whether suspects are members of certain "groups", or whether suspects have been labeled with pseudoscientific psychiatric labels, or whether their parents were "good" or "fit", when really, it's a much larger social context, and public institutions, which lead to the behavior.

A good book on this topic: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1595230769

The War on Kids: http://www.thewaronkids.com/

Saying they are victims and suggesting that pity be given them is wrong. It insults the real victims in this tragedy.

Termed violent by no one.

  - Bertolt Brecht

The younger brother's "V Kontakte" page has some stuff that shows him in a bit different light compared to his twitter account. Perhaps because it was in Russian he was a bit more revealing. There he was a member of several Islamic groups (not exactly extremist ones, just in general Islam oriented). He also posted few comments and even a joke that sort of indicated how Chechens have been treated, the joke goes like this: "The Question: Chechen, Ingush and Dagestani are in the car, who is driving the car? The Answer: police".

What I think happened is that the older brother could not adjust quite well, and had some beef with his relatives as they were not too close. So these two brothers were sort of marinating in their own insanity. The older one could not fit in, probably felt like a failure and was a good candidate for a brainwash. The younger was another good candidate, their parents are still in Dagestan, both brothers lived alone.

I think it is a very complicated case and I think they acted alone, because they lost it alone at some point. Left to themselves they were easy prey to propaganda machine. I personally think it is extremely sad case for every single person involved including victims, their families, bombers and their families. The only winners are those who are spreading hate and brainwashing vulnerable people at the lowest point of their lives.