Dave Cullen pens article comparing Boston bombers to Eric & Dylan

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just thought I'd share. Here's some highlights:

Quote :

Fourteen years to the day after Columbine, I would say Dylan’s main purpose in the whole tragedy was for Eric to have fun. What’s the fun of a shooting spree on your own? And more importantly, how does it entertain you the entire year leading up to the attack?

Quote :

Didn't he have enough firepower with his two guns to kill hundreds? He could have killed far more than 13 people if he focused on work instead of laughing it up and gabbing with his partner the whole way through.

The second quote actually makes me think. Could Eric have killed more people by himself? How about vice-versa? He did do most of the killing anyway. Does anyone else find it odd the disproportional number of people killed by each shooter--it's not even close to being even. Despite my feelings for Dave Cullen, he unintentionally illustrates a valid point here. If they acted alone, could they have killed as many as Virginia Tech or would they have been charged and out-powered?

Some things never change....

Just the tittle alone makes me want to bang my head off a wall

"Were the Tsarnaev brothers a “dyad” like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, with a charismatic leader and submissive follower?"

areyoulistening wrote:

Just the tittle alone makes me want to bang my head off a wall

"Were the Tsarnaev brothers a “dyad” like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, with a charismatic leader and submissive follower?"

Just the title and this quote make me want to do the same.. But just reading 'Dave Cullen' would have made me the same effect

They had the bombs to kill hundreds, but that fucked up, what they ended up doing was just a side part of the plan in the end.
I don't think they were prepared for that and I think that's the reason for 'not killing as many as they could have had' and not the not acting individually

areyoulistening wrote:

Just the tittle alone makes me want to bang my head off a wall

"Were the Tsarnaev brothers a “dyad” like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, with a charismatic leader and submissive follower?"

Agreed! And I couldn't stop having face palms the entire time I read the article and it's absurd of him to think that Dylan's main motivation was so Eric could have fun. And it's absurd for people to actually believe his lies.

Laeda wrote:

areyoulistening wrote:

Just the tittle alone makes me want to bang my head off a wall

"Were the Tsarnaev brothers a “dyad” like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, with a charismatic leader and submissive follower?"

Just the title and this quote make me want to do the same.. But just reading 'Dave Cullen' would have made me the same effect

They had the bombs to kill hundreds, but that fucked up, what they ended up doing was just a side part of the plan in the end.
I don't think they were prepared for that and I think that's the reason for 'not killing as many as they could have had' and not the not acting individually

Exactly, I always thought that.

I mean, they trained to have their plans go exactly one way- they didn't plan for things to go to shit. When that happened, they improvised.

I find it sooo reassuring to know that Dave Cullen is on the case. We will soon have accurate information about the bombers, their personal lives and beliefs, and their motives, all the while knowing that the younger brother is as blameless as Dylan was.

Idiot.

Of course. Dylan and the younger brother had no idea what they were getting into and were manipulated by the big bad people that they trusted. It was all their plan, Dylan and Dzhokhar were just following orders. Dave Cullen always knows what he's talking about.

Wideawake wrote:

I find it sooo reassuring to know that Dave Cullen is on the case. We will soon have accurate information about the bombers, their personal lives and beliefs, and their motives, all the while knowing that the younger brother is as blameless as Dylan was.

Idiot.

Hahahahahaha!!

Daveydawg sure knows his yaoi tropes. He and his clan of sparkly metrosexual vampires.

I never thought I'd use the phrase "ukefication" in reference to a real person, much less the real person named Dylan Klebold.

Prithee, dread spirit of spontaneous combustion, make Cullen stop talking.

MarmaladeSkies wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just thought I'd share. Here's some highlights:

Quote :

Fourteen years to the day after Columbine, I would say Dylan’s main purpose in the whole tragedy was for Eric to have fun. What’s the fun of a shooting spree on your own? And more importantly, how does it entertain you the entire year leading up to the attack?

Quote :

Didn't he have enough firepower with his two guns to kill hundreds? He could have killed far more than 13 people if he focused on work instead of laughing it up and gabbing with his partner the whole way through.

The second quote actually makes me think. Could Eric have killed more people by himself? How about vice-versa? He did do most of the killing anyway. Does anyone else find it odd the disproportional number of people killed by each shooter--it's not even close to being even. Despite my feelings for Dave Cullen, he unintentionally illustrates a valid point here. If they acted alone, could they have killed as many as Virginia Tech or would they have been charged and out-powered?

I saw that article yesterday and though I don't buy much of Cullen's neat theories, I do think he has a point that in the dynamics of the two, Dylan was the 'fun' element for Eric. It wouldn't have been as enjoyable for Eric had he manned/planned and carried out the whole thing himself. It was having that loyal, commited buddy who wasn't as 'Type A' as himself that he could share the inside jokes and foreshadowing with. The day of NBK, Dylan was the outward expression of drama and fun that Eric probably wouldn't have engaged in. It was having the opposite of himself to play off of that made it a woohoo! thing. I do think that if it had just been Eric, he would've killed more people in a cool, calculated, systematic way. Dylan kinda goofed it for him because they became caricatures playing off of one another for their audience. It was a show more than a serious war with kills. Plus, the bomb thing failed so they just didn't have what it took to go after tons of people as they were only hoping to pick off people fleeing after the bombs. Essentially, doing the clean up job and then hoping cops would off them.

As for the Boston bombers, the younger brother could've been swayed and convinced by the older sibling. However, he was nineteen and ultimately made choices of his own voalition.

I never actually thought about Eric or Dylan doing the shooting alone. I think Eric probably would have killed more if he never hit himself in the face with his gun. It seemed to ruin the fun for him.

Biggest load of shit I've ever read in my life... since Dave Cullen's book.

Why is Dave Cullen so obsessed with painting every murderous Team as one psychopath and one follower? Why is Cullen so fixated on seeing this Depressed Follower everywhere? It's pathological. Cullen needs professional help.

Cullen's looking for attention. It's too darn obvious.

Oh that Cullen. Always trying to stay relevant.

This was a good article by Cullen. I think many on here have misinterpreted it (or not read it).

He is arguing that while single killers display a variety of psychological characteristics, dyad killers (or pairs) usually involve a dominant and submissive. And while we don't know if that was the case in Boston (and Cullen cautions against jumping to conclusions), Columbine is a guide to precisely this pattern.

lasttrain wrote:

This was a good article by Cullen. I think many on here have misinterpreted it (or not read it).

He is arguing that while single killers display a variety of psychological characteristics, dyad killers (or pairs) usually involve a dominant and submissive. And while we don't know if that was the case in Boston (and Cullen cautions against jumping to conclusions), Columbine is a guide to precisely this pattern.

I think that we're all so fed up with Cullen that we blow him off totally. That said, I did read the article. At this point, we have no idea what the dynamic was between the brothers in Boston. But the point I take issue with is that we don't actually know the dynamic between the Columbine killers either. The evidence he uses to build his conclusions about the relationship between Eric and Dylan is flawed, sometimes downright wrong. Based on the information he's presented that I've read, he completely misrepresents both Eric and Dylan. Were they a dominant and submissive? Or more equal partners? Hard to say. But I don't think it's fair to hold them up as a great example of a dominant/submissive dyad when we can't genuinely back that up. To me, Dylan doesn't seem submissive so much as less motivated and less organized. I guess we'll never know.

If a friend invites me to go to the cinema because it's a movie they're really keen on -even though I'm not as interested in the film as they are... Does this make me a "follower"? Does it make me a "submissive" to my friend?

Friendships are always give and take. In the end, both friends get something they want out of the relationship.

Cullen's big assumption about Dylan is that if his suicidal pain had been alleviated than he wouldn't have gone through with the attack.

But Dylan writes, "[This person] will get me a gun, I’ll go on my killing spree against anyone I want". This was back in '97 -before Eric even started his journal. Dylan was very nihilistic and angry to begin with.

If Dylan's suicidal pain had been alleviated, it doesn't necessarily follow that his hate of the world would have been alleviated along with it.

One of Cullen's essays is titled, "At last we know why the Columbine killers did it".

Cullen is a dipshit and anything he has to say about the Boston bombers is worthless.

RaiseTheFist wrote:

If a friend invites me to go to the cinema because it's a movie they're really keen on -even though I'm not as interested in the film as they are... Does this make me a "follower"? Does it make me a "submissive" to my friend?

Friendships are always give and take. In the end, both friends get something they want out of the relationship.

Cullen's big assumption about Dylan is that if his suicidal pain had been alleviated than he wouldn't have gone through with the attack.

But Dylan writes, "[This person] will get me a gun, I’ll go on my killing spree against anyone I want". This was back in '97 -before Eric even started his journal. Dylan was very nihilistic and angry to begin with.

If Dylan's suicidal pain had been alleviated, it doesn't necessarily follow that his hate of the world would have been alleviated along with it.

One of Cullen's essays is titled, "At last we know why the Columbine killers did it".

Cullen is a dipshit and anything he has to say about the Boston bombers is worthless.

Completely agreed about Cullen being a dipshit and his input on the Boston Bombers. He even said on his Facebook there was no transcript for the Basement Tapes which there clearly is.

Is it just me or does anyone else think Cullen somewhat modeled his book after In Cold Blood by turning Eric into Dick and Dylan as Perry? The way Capote wrote In Cold Blood makes the readers believe Dick was the evil one who was completely responsible for the murders and someone you don't want to have sympathy for. Whereas Perry is seen as the follower of Dick, a much better person and someone people will have sympathy for.

I never read that but, that makes sense now why so many compare it to "In Cold Blood."

Because this is tha terrorist thuglyfe, not bad slashfic.

RaiseTheFist wrote:

If a friend invites me to go to the cinema because it's a movie they're really keen on -even though I'm not as interested in the film as they are... Does this make me a "follower"? Does it make me a "submissive" to my friend?

Friendships are always give and take. In the end, both friends get something they want out of the relationship.

Cullen's big assumption about Dylan is that if his suicidal pain had been alleviated than he wouldn't have gone through with the attack.

But Dylan writes, "[This person] will get me a gun, I’ll go on my killing spree against anyone I want". This was back in '97 -before Eric even started his journal. Dylan was very nihilistic and angry to begin with.

If Dylan's suicidal pain had been alleviated, it doesn't necessarily follow that his hate of the world would have been alleviated along with it.

One of Cullen's essays is titled, "At last we know why the Columbine killers did it".

Cullen is a dipshit and anything he has to say about the Boston bombers is worthless.

Very good points.

The key to all of this is the word "assumption". That is what he has used. Nothing but assumptions of his own, and blatant assumptions of others.

What if all of Eric's pain had been alleviated? Or what if Eric's hatred for the world had been alleviated?

It is amazing that he sees and promotes one as entirely human, and the other as a demonic robot, devoid of any emotion or soul.

What is even more astounding is how many gormless buffoons swallow his story whole. Again, that's a testament to the fact that this fable of his is designed to soothe that particular demographic's conscience.

Quote :

What if all of Eric's pain had been alleviated? Or what if Eric's hatred for the world had been alleviated?

It is amazing that he sees and promotes one as entirely human, and the other as a demonic robot, devoid of any emotion or soul.

Cullen doesn't believe that Eric's hatred could have been alleviated because he clearly states that Eric was born a psychopath. Like you said -he thinks Dylan was human, but Eric was born evil.

Eric obviously enjoyed violence, and Cullen believes that anyone who would enjoy mass murder must be abnormal.

There are heaps of teenagers on the net who say things like, "I would love to shoot up my school, but I don't want to go to jail or commit suicide". These teenagers aren't holding back because of any compassion for their victims, they're holding back out of selfish self-preservation. In Cullen's reasoning, these teenagers would all be psychopaths? That's a hell of lot of psychopaths in the world...

Eric hated himself, and I believe that no matter how much bravado he portrayed in his writings, he was a seriously depressed self conscious person who just wanted to feel important and needed (his sex fantasy)

I think that he was a prideful individual who saw his flaws as weakness that he hated because he wasn't as tall or sporty as his brother was. As much as he made fun of that lifestyle, I think given half the chance he'd love to have had it.

areyoulistening wrote:

Eric hated himself, and I believe that no matter how much bravado he portrayed in his writings, he was a seriously depressed self conscious person who just wanted to feel important and needed (his sex fantasy)

I think that he was a prideful individual who saw his flaws as weakness that he hated because he wasn't as tall or sporty as his brother was. As much as he made fun of that lifestyle, I think given half the chance he'd love to have had it.

I completely agree with this entire post!!