Whoa, that's really not what Badgenome's saying. He's saying that the likelihood that this was motivated by religion is because they were following patterns that other Jihadists have followed, namely that a sudden spike in religious devotion is a potential sign of radicalization, but not necessarily meaning that even all devout muslims have been radicalized, at all.

I think its more that a devout muslim who blows up bombs to harm people is a terrorist. Had he just been a devout muslim there wouldn't be an issue.

First Amendment much?  So, is your idea to destroy one of the freedoms in the Constitution, in order to save American way of life?

And what if people have a Mosque in their house?  You going to throw people out of their own houses?  Since you seemed to express so much like of France, why don't you move there?  There are plenty of other countries without a Bill of Rights like the U.S Constitution.

Until things become clear, then you are engaging in stereotypical thinking.  It is important  to wait for more information to come in before saying X.  I said this: I seriously suggest people wait before passing judgement on this.  

Until you know with greater degree of certainty, you are doing stereotypical thinking.

Bombings in Boston has nothing to do with "radical Islam". It's no-brainer, check suspects background, "radical Islam" doesn't work that way as it first and foremost belongs to politics. The incident in Boston is as much of  political action as Sandy Hook was. I mean, it could be part of the politics (future will tell), but not in convenient way you might expect.

To save time I just quote one guy, that happen to fight terrorism for quite some time (with my cuts and comments):

What do they want?

(they = terrorists -- mai)

...

There's Islam - it's a religion, and there's islamism - it's a blend of religion and politics. The goal of islamism -- to reduce control of every government that doesn't follow Sharia law. Any territory where Muslims live by default considered some kind of Sharia state, and the state, given territory belongs to de-facto , is considered an occupant, that people should fight. Islamism is characterized by two prominent things -- expansion and agression, or in other words, expanssion of an agression and agressive expansion.

On example of North Caucasus. Everything has began few years before the first Chechen campaign, or actually it has started way before that -- with dissoultion of the USSR and as a result the fall of iron curtain as well. People have started to go abroad en masse, some went to Islam states (education as a main way of new religious recruits -- mai). There they have been ideologically brain-washed in the "right" way, so by the return new "imams" have started to preach various revolution kind of things. Seeds have fell on rich soil due to existing vacuum of ideology that is no moe, so local population absorbed it like a sponge. You must remember how we got inspired with fairy tales about market economy and paradise supposodely to follow after it, right? Then you might have an idea of what has happened in Chechnya. The enlightenment was later, few years have passed before we understood that profit-gainers were someone else and they weren't us.

Those preachers of ismlamism have paved the way for what that has been presented as liberation war. This was an idea of "Independent Ichkeria" in order to recruit minds and forces of still not brain-washed by islamism part of population, which is a majority (i.e. secular idea for secular people -- mai). The war led to flow of mercenaries along with ideologists that now openly preach ideas of islamism to psychologically ready people: "Those are your enemies, they're kafirs, they fight you because you're Muslims" -- very convinient.

Saudits understood that this is was their chance to root themselves into Caucasus, as at some point Checnya wasn't under jurisdiction of RF (Russian Federation -- mai). What puppeteers should have done but didn't? Restore peace and infrastructure for further expansion... instead right from the start they've invested into expansion over neighbouring Dagestan (second Chechen campaign -- mai). Of course, they were in a hurry not only because they were impatient, but partly due to loosing a grip over people's minds. When people were fed up with Sharia and realized that paradise didn't happen, moreover the republic is going down to hell fast, the supreme mufti of Chechnya, Akhmed Kadyrov (father of current president -- mai), have started a revolt  against wahabbists and was supported by federal forces, terrorists have been defeated in Dagestan and retreated. Those who made it back alive have gone underground. Financial support from abroad was either cut off or dried up by itself as nobody is going to invest into risky business.

...

In 2007, ex-criminal that grown to the position of field commander, Doku Umarov, understanding that "Independent Ichkeria" is failed business-plan proposed new project under the name of "Caucasus Imarat", starting "new jihad", but despite of all attempts he didn't find a lot of investors. Saudits have acknowledged their mistake, the ground was just too shaky... Umarov and his gang have gone into impasse, though the only thing they can do to survive is contiunue on their way.

 ...

Why they need it (they = Saudits in this case -- mai)? Saudits doesn't have capabilities for military takeover, they'll just got their asses kicked by practically anyone with armed forces. And quite understandably they do not need territories, especially that distant, that's not the goal -- they need influence over the region. In this specific case they're becoming situational allies with anyone who found RF distraction from more important tasks a pleasent outcome, i.e. Great Britain and the US, who invested their fair share in the turmoil in North Caucasus, financially and ideologically by talking shit about human rights abuse, freedom fighters etc., be it Western or local mass media, no difference (pretty much the same is happening in Syria now -- mai).

...

Uh... no. It isn't. At all. That you don't see the difference is staggering.

Now, if a guy who is a known Christian fundamentalist bombs an abortion clinic, it is safe to assume he did it because of his religious beliefs. Likewise, if a guy who is known to have demonstrated a rapidly intensifying interest in his Islamic faith goes and blows up a bunch of people, it is pretty safe to assume his motive. More or less latent believers who suddenly become very devout are basically like new converts to a faith, and both types are far more given to extremism than those long time practitioners who have more successfully integrated their faith with the rest of their life.

Where's that epic facepalm gif? :D Sorry.

I believe I and that Jewish guy (what was his nickname?) have told you that's not correct? Why you insists on wrongs?

I don't remember us ever discussing that before, but its true, is it not? There's "Passport Russian" and "Russian."

There's "россиянин" [rossiyanin, noun] = citizenship, word is simply based on "Россия" (Russia), there's "русский" [russkiy, adj.] = a nation. You could say "российский азербайджанец" (Russian Azeri) as opposed to "иранский азербайджанец" (Iranian Azeri), but you could say as well "русский азербайджанец" (same Russian Azeri for you) to denote he's assimilated or simply live here. Russitsky sounds like somebody's last name.

As for the Boston guys in question. Their last name sounds like Ossetian to me (probably part of Ossetian diaspora in Chechnya or Dagestan?), from what I've got they lived in Kyrgyztan, lived in Makhachkala for like 4 months (that's Russia, Dagestan), eventually moved to the States using Turkish visas. Now... you decide who they are if this's really that important :D

Few enough Americans know about Chechnya period. Even among those who know of Chechnya, the North Caucasus is all the same to them (Ossetian, Ingushetian, Dagestani, Chechen, et al). So they are Chechen, much as all middle-easterners become Arabs to us.

Hell, it was all the same to me until i took a class in Russian Politics and did a study of the 2nd Ossetian war (in 2008)

btw, what do you guys call that war?