Said the New Yorker's David Remnick to PBS's Charlie Rose, in audio played by Rush Limbaugh, who proceeded to do the very thing Remnick sought sympathy for: hammer him from the right:
You know what's rooted in this wanting to understand? 'Cause, frankly, I don't care why people commit crimes. I frankly am not interested. They're perverts, they're psychopaths, they're sociopaths, I don't care why they did it. I want 'em punished. But these guys want to find out because in their minds there must be some justification for it. There's gotta be some reason they did it that makes sense. And then they make the move into what is it about us that they hate? Or what is it about America that they hate that would justify this? And we do seminars, "Why do they hate us?" Seminars, trying to examine why sociopaths, psychopaths hate us. Or, in this case, a couple of radicalized Muslims.
Posts
218 comments:
1 – 200 of 218 Newer› Newest»I really wish the media, on all sides, would treat this as a local story not worth their attention. I really hate the appropriation of this crime in Boston for political/social purposes by people who actually don't really care about what happened.
Turns out Jennifer Rubin's tweet was prob the best approach.
I think the trying to understand schtick is a misguided and simplistic notion. Understanding how/why Bomber A did what he did (I'm guessing in the hope that you can foresee it in someone else and stop them) in no way guarantees that you can stop Future Bomber B. The human condition is just to variable to allow for that kind of prediction.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Funny, that's the same reason I had no interest in Eastwood's biopic of the Japanese during WWII. I can barely read careful historical analysis of the societal impetus behind the Japanese empire. If I watched even a good "light" rendering and humanizing in pop lit I'd probably be yelling at the screen and going Elvis (not the alleged Ricin one) on my TV.
NB, I did *not* have this reaction to the famously anti-war novel written by a French/German conscript into the Wehrmacht. Probably this is a POV thing to me.
-XC
Often in trying to understand why, what is really going on is trying to come up with a better excuse than the obvious.
He needs to ask himself if he also cares about why people join the Aryan brotherhood or militias. Because that's pretty much the opposite side of the same coin. Part of otherization is imagining the other has deep, important reasons for doing the bad things they do.
A friend of mine, no crazy liberal, said the other day, "I feel a little sorry for him" about the younger brother. "He got sucked into a radical philosophy, and he was a 19-year-old male." (Rough quote.)
I was once a teenaged male, and I have known lots of them. I could not be enticed to do such evil, and I have never known any teenager who could be so enticed. There is no answer. Accept the obvious fact that there is evil in the world.
Yeah I wasn't exactly agreeing with Rush on that one either. Wanting to understand why people do things, what motivates them, is a good thing. It may even help prevent disasters in the future. It's not the same thing as sympathizing with them, or making excuses for horrific behavior.
Keep the victims in your mind like the mother still in very bad shape in the hospital who lost her 8 year old son, and who's young daughter lost her leg, and the young girl killed, the Chinese grad student killed, the man who will never walk again, all young and innocent simply out to watch people running in a celebration of life and freedom. Keep them in mind, and tell me you really care exactly which fever dream the assholes who did it were experiencing at the time. Forget about the victim and maybe you can take a casual stroll down that path of mental masturbation. It never ever makes any sense.
My reaction was closer to Remnick's than Limbaugh's. Unlike Loughner and Lanza, those two men had the appearance of normalcy. We want crazy people to look crazy.......Unlike Remnick's, I would ascribe a lot of their madness to religious fervor and, in particular, to Islamic fervor. There truly seems something about that religion that inspires its followers to such acts. Remnick claims he wants to understand such acts but he is not willing to let his understanding breach the grounds of political correctness.
They hate us for our policies. But for our policies, which are evil, they wouldn't hate us. We create the terrorist. That usually where this leads for the Left.
What is ostensibly about why they go bad often turns into a critique of how we are to blame. That's what trying to understand means to a Lefty.
The schmucky looking survivor, just outta high school, already has a gaggle of stupid females lusting over him!
What is it about the female brain that causes them to be attracted to these bad boys? Did you hear about the thug in the Baltimore jail who made babies with four guards?
What caused that actress to marry that motorcycle thug Jesse James?
This thing is going the way of the Menendez brothers!
People who believe in materialism or physicalism believe that the human mind is completely reducible to matter in motion. Since mental processes are reducible to physics, there is no such thing as a free will. Everything anyone does can be explained by physics if we know enough about their genetic makeup and environment.
Rush believes in freedom of the human will which means that the physical universe is necessary for the human free will to express itself but can not explain why free expresses itself the way it does.
So we find out he was mad about the Iraq war, or that his favorite didn't win American Idol. What the hell will we do different once we know. Nothing. It's bullshit.
These two 20 somethings are just following in a long line of young men who willingly became the ground troops of empires.
The needed perspective is what are the Empires who recruited them up to.
The Syrian/Jordanian/Iranian nexus is at a crucial stage that will decide the world's future far more than a dozen Boston Marathons will. But the Koran based Empire is using these two young soldiers to distract the attention of this powerful Democracy that has always based its strength on the King James Bible.
In short the Koran reading Empire is at war with the King James Bible reading Empire.
Maybe if we ignore it, then it will go away. That's been Obama's response.
Rush is making a fatal presumption in his statement: That understanding leads to sympathy and a propensity to accept justifications. That's not necessarily true; understanding can also reveal that a person isn't "sick" as much as twisted or evil, and that all protests to the contrary are actually mistaken or outright false.
I understand and sympathize to a degree with Rush. Too many times, soft folks conflate "understanding" with a desire to excuse behavior. But one doesn't have to follow the other. As I said, understanding a serial killer or other psychopath can lead in the opposite direction.
A little like Georgie Patton's speech to some of his troops after V-J Day, "I don't have to tell you who won the war, you know who won the war. Our artillery won it".
We know why they did it.
The Lefties think, if they can divine some special meaning, they can "reach" them. They can COEXIST.
Ain't.
Gonna.
Happen.
...why does Rush commit crimes? Does it help him or us to understand why?
If only they would expend as much effort trying to understand fellow Americans who don't hate them, yet with whom they disagree and characterize as evil.
In fact, whatever he used to justify this we should just do twice as much, unless the plan is to reward his stupid selfish act of evil.
I'd like to know why they did it, what happened and/or how it happened so maybe it doesn't happen again, but mostly I just want Joker wrung out of any useful information and put down, the same as he'd be put down if he were a pit bull that tore an 8 year old boy's face off in a mauling.
And which crimes are those, machine?
I have no interest in arguing with you, I just want to know what it is you're thinking.
I'd also like to know if you know what you're thinking.
So we find out he was mad about the Iraq war, or that his favorite didn't win American Idol. What the hell will we do different once we know. Nothing. It's bullshit.
I suspect a lot of people-like Remick- want to know why because they hope the thing that motivated the brothers is something they also hate about America or other Americans.
That would be the next best thing to having a right-winger actually commit the crime.
Years ago, I read a quote by the late J. Edgar Hoover that was very close to this: "Don't try to think like a psychopath because then we'll have to worry about you."
There are people like criminal profilers who try to understand the motivations and thought processes of serial killers and the like. They sometimes provide valuable information that can help with police investigations. To the extent that trying to understand what turned these two young men violent might provide insights to future investigations, that seems reasonable.
However, in the end, I really don't care what motivated them. I care very much about what they did. Is there any motivation that could even in the slightest way justify what they did, say from murder to manslaughter or justifiable homocide? Not in any sane world.
I'm not at all religious but have no trouble seeing that some people have evil intentions.
"two schmucky looking guys..."
Titus is gonna be pissed.
Tits.
And ass.
I think these guys did this because there are no background checks on private sales at gun shows.
It takes a strong person to attempt understanding of someone horrible without giving in to feeling sympathy for them. Most people are not that strong, so their attempt to understand soon turns to attempts to excuse, to find reasons why it wasn't really the evil terrorists fault.
So for most people, I recommend they don't try to understand. When someone does something horrible, it's okay to let your natural impulse be to "other-ize" them. That impulse is a healthy defense mechanism that lets you act to defend yourself.
We gave these two men the best of America: fine education, unlimited opportunity, personal glory, a peaceful supportive community. We didn't deserve this as thanks. You have to have a deep lack of understanding of what America is to think there could be any addressable justification. You have to think like the bombers to get there. No thanks.
Oh and:
Marathon bombings mastermind Tamerlan Tsarnaev was living on taxpayer-funded state welfare benefits even as he was delving deep into the world of radical anti-American Islamism, the Herald has learned.
State officials confirmed last night that Tsarnaev, slain in a raging gun battle with police last Friday, was receiving benefits along with his wife, Katherine Russell Tsarnaev, and their 3-year-old daughter. The state’s Executive Office of Health and Human Services said those benefits ended in 2012 when the couple stopped meeting income eligibility limits. Russell Tsarnaev’s attorney has claimed Katherine — who had converted to Islam — was working up to 80 hours a week as a home health aide while Tsarnaev stayed at home.
Isn't that nice?
I suspect a lot of people-like Remick- want to know why because they hope the thing that motivated the brothers is something they also hate about America or other Americans.
What if the issue was drone-killings of Afghans at a wedding?
Egad, that was Obama who authorized that, wasn't it?
Strike the pose.
Remnick is just voguing for Rose and the PBS audience to show that he (and they) have the correct intellectual response.
I don't for a minute think he's spent any time thinking about this outside of playing to an audience.
The trouble isn't asking, "why?" There's something useful for that. Doctors don't just treat symptoms, after all. There's also treatment for the underlying disease and public health responses to what may cause those diseases.
We get sewers, encourage clean air and getting sunshine. Don't smoke. Don't have unprotected sex.
Questions can and should be asked that help us to do what we can to address issues that can be addressed.
The trouble is that for many asking these questions there is a predetermined list of forbidden answers, we can't bring them up, so it really undermines the questions themselves.
They don't want answers, they want someone to blame, someone who fits into their predetermined category of acceptable Others. How do we pin this on Republicans?
It's a postmodern version of the Noble Savage, which dehumanizes a whole group of people by denying their moral and religious culpability, even as it attempts to celebrate them.
That's not to say that Islam is at fault, but inasmuch as Islam gave them language and justification, there's an issue that should be addressed. But it's not. Because Europeans, and many liberals, are so shamed over their own colonizing past, they can't bring themselves to critique others.
In one of the posts on this blog after this happened Ispeculated that the younger brother had been dragged into this by his older brother and didn't really know what he was getting into and someone accused me of the same thing. Being sympathetic is not the same as forgiveness or absolving them from liability for their choices. However, I can feel sorry for the younger brother because, having known a lot of families with domineering crazy older brothers who dragged their younger brothers down with them, he probably shouldn't be where he is. He is where he is and he has to pay the consequences, but I still feel sorry for him, based upon what I have read. I think that part of this sympathy comes from the fact that people think but for the grace of God something like this could have happened to me (or worse, my child) with respect to my friend/brother/etc. Most people have had a bad influence in their life at one point or another and most people who had that in their life realize that they are lucky that they escaped it without harm to themselves or others.
CEO-MMP said...
And which crimes are those, machine?
The crime is showing up the Lefties for what they are and, given obsessed people like the mindless automaton are with him, they think it deserves the chair.
Larry J said...
There are people like criminal profilers who try to understand the motivations and thought processes of serial killers and the like. They sometimes provide valuable information that can help with police investigations.
The operative word is "sometimes". Love to know what the profilers were suggesting on this one.
jacksonjay, it was ever thus. Take a look at Mark Twain's "Lionizing Murderers".
There is something sick about the desire to connect to and understand, and even love, evil people. Some girly-men have that desire; many more women seem to have it. It's part of the rock 'n' roll culture.
OK, to get this scholarly work finished, I'll tell you why they did it. They did it because they chose to believe things that were obviously not true, and which the world around them disproved every day of their lives. That reality plus a sick psychopathic disregard for innocent people in their own supportive community which showed them overwhelmingly good things. They CHOSE to do something terrible, with NO understandable justification. Is that really hard to get?
First, a bit of history:
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act, INS, Act of 1965, Pub.L. 89–236)abolished the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act. It was proposed by United States Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by United States Senator Philip Hart of Michigan and heavily supported by United States Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.
The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that was American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants' skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, nor "special immigrants" (including those born in "independent" nations in the Western Hemisphere, former citizens, ministers, and employees of the U.S. government abroad).
We need to repeal the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, and bring back the National Origins Formula. That would be a step in the right direction. There's enough people in this country as it is.
Two Words. I'll go slow.
Sleeper Cell
Got it?
I have a brother that is 15 years younger than me. If I told him that we needed to build some bombs and kill some people, he'd tell me to fuck off.
No, I do not feel sorry for a 19 year old who drops a bomb at the feet of an 8 year old and calmly walks away. No brother can drag you into that without you willingly participating.
AllenS said...
First, a bit of history:
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act, INS, Act of 1965, Pub.L. 89–236)abolished the National Origins Formula that had been in place in the United States since the Emergency Quota Act. It was proposed by United States Representative Emanuel Celler of New York, co-sponsored by United States Senator Philip Hart of Michigan and heavily supported by United States Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.
We need to repeal the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, and bring back the National Origins Formula. That would be a step in the right direction. There's enough people in this country as it is
(emphasis mine)
Teddy Kennedy's big contribution to the immigration mess.
Supposedly, he was a lot more influential in crafting it than the 2 names on the bill.
PS We'd have NixonCare today if it weren't for Teddy wanting the Demos to get sole credit for it and torpedoing the thing.
People feel sorry for the younger one because he is cute and has puppy dog eyes.
Terrorists would do well to remember to recruit the cute guys.
I line up with Rush, there is evil.
Its not just a local story, radical islamists affects all of us.
It is not a local crime. The Russians warned us multiple times about this guy. There are probably others like him. If this was a local crime and Ft Hood was "workplace violence" what will the next one be? Another local crime? This is the worst kind of denial, this idea that one can divorce an atrocity like this from its context in order to pretend that the context doesn't exist.
Good luck with that.
With the left it's all about us. We need to have dialogues about how bad we are, and how we are causing all this. What did we do in America that would cause these two boys to hate us so.
When in fact the evaluation is almost never directed outwards into an outright critique of Islamic jihad.
I too feel bad that these two boys went to the dark side. They seemed like boys that everybody knew and liked and were normal. So, I mourn for the lost opportunity of their lives. I look at Tambarlands death photo, and think "The wages of sin are death". He who lives by the sword dies by the sword". but he didn't have to live by the sword. He shouldn't have.
Then again, maybe when Zarqawi was younger he was a sweet boy who liked Mickey Mouse cartoons. He only became a murderous pyschopath later in life. Who knows? Ultimately, who cares? You wont find the triggering event, it just is.
But the Left in this country holds a lot of blame for any radicalization. Lets not forget that believing in Trutherism (and I'm not saying that all liberals are Truthers) is believing in an America that is SO evil that right minded people should take arms against it. And if the Left bandies in such language casually they are engaged in revolutionary talk and speaking of an alienation from your country that is profound and disturbing. It's mainstreaming anti american sentiment. Almost all libs are engaging in such language to one degree or another.
ErnieG @9:16,
I think our two comments mesh quite nicely. As you said, the good people's desire to understand the Other does not extend to other Americans with whom they politically disagree. So this desire to understand is not apllied universally. In fact, your comment underscores mine. This stated desire to understand is not only not universal, it really doesn't much exist at all beyond bearing witness to others that you have the correct attitude.
"Remnick claims he wants to understand such acts but he is not willing to let his understanding breach the grounds of political correctness."
Very well said.
It's nice to know the cause of rabies but once the dog has it , it still needs to be shot.
When I'm on a subway platform, I keep a comfortable distance between myself and guys who look like Loughner. I wouldn't give the Boston bombers a second glance. So just in terms of self preservation one wants an explanation of why people who look like us can be so aberrant. I'm not sympathetic to the bombers, but it just seems that creatures who committed such a strange act should look stranger.
AllenS said...
I have a brother that is 15 years younger than me. If I told him that we needed to build some bombs and kill some people, he'd tell me to fuck off.
Along the same lines Ted Kaczynski's brother turned him in. Americans have a responsibility to each other. If the left believes our expectation that immigrants commit to this responsibility is unreasonable I don't think they're going to get the response they hope for. Because to most Americans the response to that point is to conclude those unwilling to make that committment shouldn't be allowed to immigrate in the first place.
I'm worried about the radical Muslims the most. Later, I'm worried about the pc police, the multiculturalists and further Left. They will use psychology, sociology, and statistics to ultimately tie this event in with their worldview, which will treat Islam just like any other religion (this helps explain the impulse to treat this only as a criminal offense, despite other reasons).
Of course they don't treat Islam the same because some people in this the 'other' want them dead too. The rest wouldn't tolerate them.
The war on terror is an imperial act of aggression, which we mostly inspire, and it's mostly our fault anyways you will hear in certain quarters. They take the free will and agency away from the religiously inspired murderers, and shift it onto us. Naturally they want to fill the public square with this message, and will seek to control speech and the 'narrative.'
On some level, I do want to understand what the dynamic duo were thinking , to help stop radical Islamist killers in the future.
I know there is a network of such Islamist thugs around the world and online and I want to think clearly about how to best prosecute the war against them, or to keep them away from here as much as possible.
As for the pc police, I have a good idea where much if this 'understanding' will lead, their own ideological and political interests, of course.
Marshall,
Myself and my brother, along with Ted Kaczynski's brother are not Muslims. It might be that simple.
But they aren't really even trying to understand why these brothers became radicalized. They are trying to put their actions through a prism of a world they understand. Namely a left wing view of the world.
So, you don't get people staring Islamic Jihadism in the face and calling it enemy. You get people like Michael Moore saying "Why did they attack us (on 9/11) in New York? We didn't vote for George Bush" as if a jihadist is some lefty who was pissed that Bush stole the election or wanted to privatize social security.
And so you get any number of variations of "they hate us for our policies". Because to the left its always about a critique of the US. The jihadis can't possibly have a world view that is different and act upon that world view. No, they are galvanized into action by our policies. But for us doing something to them Al Qaeda would be at home planting flowers and flying kites and trying to get women into schools.
...and fantasyland continues to shine in the darkness...
chrisnavin.com said...
I'm worried about the radical Muslims the most. Later, I'm worried about the pc police, the multiculturalists and further Left. They will use psychology, sociology, and statistics to ultimately tie this event in with their worldview, which will treat Islam just like any other religion (this helps explain the impulse to treat this only as a criminal offense, despite other reasons).
Of course they don't treat Islam the same because some people in this the 'other' want them dead too. The rest wouldn't tolerate them.
As Angie Merkel noted, even the Lefties and the Euros are beginning to realize the whole multi-culti diversity thing is a crock (actually, they knew it all along; it was just a way to divide society into as many petty, bickering camps as they could - divide and rule still works).
These people really are insane.
and evil.
"Why do they hate us?"
They include the UN human rights honchos, and the American leftists who are still saddened that the white guys they saw on TV were not Tea Partiers.
"Why did they attack us (on 9/11) in New York? We didn't vote for George Bush" Michael Moore said after 9/11.
Isn't he basically saying that the left and the terrorists are allies? Because the left too believes that America is imperialist. The left too beleives that George Bush was the biggest terrorist (even though at the time Bush hadn't actually done any of the evil Bush things he was going to yet do). The left too is on board for viewing Israel as the second evilest country in the world and that the Palestinians are right. The whole middle East is right in their denunciation of Israel. That's the left view. So Michael Moore expressing shock that they would attack us in NY and not say a red state, shows the assumption that the left and the jihadis world views are aligned.
Again, not in their view of utopia. But rather their view of the enemy.
AllenS said...
Myself and my brother, along with Ted Kaczynski's brother are not Muslims. It might be that simple.
It might be. I have a fairly good muslim friend (born here, integrated, as moderate a background as possible) who openly admits she puts other muslims first because her religion requires it. There doesn't seem to be any sense that excluding people from your understanding of community based on religion violates the American ethos. It's fairly easy to see how this belief could be radicalized to deny any responsibility for non-muslims.
There are those on the left (some post here) - and the libertarian right - who want to "understand" in order to excuse. They want to turn the cause of the actions back to criticism of US policies, e.g., "blowback" et cetera.
But David Remnick is not one of those types.
imagine your legs blown off by islamic jihad.
now imagine some asshole wondering why.
The evil terrorist Eric Rudolph bombed numerous targets because he was, in part, against abortion rights and rights for gays and lesbians.
So granting gay men and women more rights "caused" the bombings?
No, Rudolph caused the bombings.
So we find out he was mad about the Iraq war, or that his favorite didn't win American Idol. What the hell will we do different once we know. Nothing. It's bullshit.
I suspect a lot of people-like Remick- want to know why because they hope the thing that motivated the brothers is something they also hate about America or other Americans.
That would be the next best thing to having a right-winger actually commit the crime.
Exactly!
Assimilation, not diversity, is the solution.
"Today’s piece from NR’s Editors on Boston and immigration policy gets assimilation right. But what are the chances congress will deal with the problem when so many believe that more celebration of diversity is the way to go? The report on our failed system of patriotic assimilation by Hudson Institute’s John Fonte and Althea Nagai is worth reading on this score. Consider that Maryland recently created a task force to promote the maintenance of immigrants’ birth languages, with funding from the state. Massachusetts explicitly rejects the idea of “pushing children to learn English as quickly as possible.” It’s all the opposite of what’s needed."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/346513/how-not-encourage-assimilation
David Remnick wrote The Bridge. He is exactly one of those types.
This rings true for me:
Frank Furedi
A lot of the problem is the frame through which people seeking to "understand" the bombers seek to "understand" them -- if the frame were: we need to "understand" them so we can keep a close watch on other people who share similar risk factors, then I don't there would be as much of a problem.
Understanding doesn't necessarily imply sympathy, and it could be framed more effectively as seeking understanding of the enemy. So you can extirpate him from the Earth. Which is common sense.
Remnick just said that he condemns the actions without hesitation. No excuses, no explanations, no defenses.
What more does he have to do to prove he's not excusing the actions?
There are those on the left - and libertarian element - that do so. But Remnick's own words show that he's not one of them?
Really, what does he have to say in order to prove he's not excusing the acts?
jr565 said...
"Why did they attack us (on 9/11) in New York? We didn't vote for George Bush" Michael Moore said after 9/11.
Isn't he basically saying that the left and the terrorists are allies?
They think they are at some level.
They'd certainly like them to be, although the dhimmi aspect of all this also applies.
Didn't we all want to know why Adam Lanza shot all those children?
I did. Still do.
Many of the parents want to know too.
I doubt that by wanting to know why their children got killed is evidence that they excuse it.
Not everyone wanting to know why - and Remnick is a journalist after all - means they are trying to excuse it.
SMGalbraith:
Really, what does he have to say in order to prove he's not excusing the acts?
I think if he just connects the dots and says that knowing what factors made them susceptible tells us who to watch to stop the next crime would probably be enough.
Making clear that he's not trying to "understand" them because he thinks they're worth understanding as interesting, worthwhile people on their own terms -- monstrous beasts that they are -- but because they're worth understanding in a purely instrumental way, as a tool to catch the next disaffected youth who might want to blow Americans up.
"Understanding doesn't necessarily imply sympathy, and it could be framed more effectively as seeking understanding of the enemy."
it could be.
But only if the New Yorker's David Remnick or PBS's Charlie Rose or the rest of the lefty MSM or Obama or Hillary actually believed that the Islamofascist terrorists are in fact the enemy, which they don't.
I'm the enemy, to them.
"However, in the end, I really don't care what motivated them. I care very much about what they did. Is there any motivation that could even in the slightest way justify what they did, say from murder to manslaughter or justifiable homocide? Not in any sane world."
So you'll be surprised by the next terrorist attack ? They are coming and Muslims are subject to being radicalized by events no one else knows about. A Muslim limo driver from Irvine (about 5 miles north of me) drove to LAX and started shooting at the El Al counter. Why ?
The dead didn't wonder that.
This reminds me of Bill Maher expounding on the 'courage' of terrorists, and our own blameworthiness:
"We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly."
This is the same lefty bullshit.
They say they're just trying to understand is all, and recoil at being 'falsely accused' of being sympathetic or admiring.
And in a few months, that's exactly what they will be saying, that it is in fact once again all the fault of the Evil USA, and pretend they never meant otherwise.
Understand, schmunderstand.
This is the ritual laying down of the initial leftist argument. The end result will be the same shit we saw after 9/11 and every other Islamofascist terror event.
What the New Yorker's David Remnick and PBS's Charlie Rose are really saying is:
'Boston -and the rest of the USA- it's your fault. You deserved it. Bend over for more.'
You know what's rooted in this wanting to understand? 'Cause, frankly, I don't care why people commit crimes. I frankly am not interested.
This is an interesting twist. Not long ago the left was all about finding what societal ills drove people to murder. Now its we don't care because they don't want to face up to the reality that the societal ill is Islam.
This is a radical idea, but what if this could all be "cured" by a return to Christian and republican ideals? What if people tried to be righteous Christians or Jews instead of Muslims and Atheists? Could there be a difference in the things we choose to worship?
Nyaaaaa.
People are free to be interested in whatever or not. I am interested in the motivations of the bombers. Bully for Rush if he's not. But I'll bet he is at some level -- it's a natural response for anyone intelligent and reflective.
What I think Rush is really doing is strategically pre-empting the national conversation from focusing on "What's wrong with America?" or "Why Do They Hate Us?" That's clear from the full transcript.
You could say that Rush is reframing the debate a la George Lakoff.
Re: Pogo:
This reminds me of Bill Maher expounding on the 'courage' of terrorists, and our own blameworthiness
I don't agree with the "blameworthiness" bit, but I do find the reflexive impulse to call terrorists "cowards" a bit risible. It's a dangerous business they've chosen, fighting against a world-dominating superpower with an armada of flying killer robots, after all. They can be our enemy -- they can be evil -- without all being cowards. This reflexive overuse of the word "coward" just makes us look pathetic and juvenile. Like if our automatic response were to say terrorists all have small penises and are overcompensating.
Osama Bin-Laden hiding behind his wives -- you can call that cowardice. But the elder Tsarnaev seems to have resisted right up to the end, rather than begging for mercy (even if the coup de grace was delivered by his brother). That doesn't look like cowardice to me. Stupid and evil, perhaps. But not cowardly.
who really needs a Koran with more than 7 exhortations to murder, Mayor "Rewrite the Constitution" Bloomberg?
Of course we want to understand why these guys did this. The FBI analyzes crime and creates profiles that help predict the most likely candidates to have committed a similar crime.
The FBI said these guys were part of a cell of 12 muslim terrorists. The surviving terrorist brother said that that he and his older brother were outraged by the USA wars against terrorism in muslim countries. While the brother terrorists were nominally citizens of the USA, they had never been properly assimilated and identified more with their muslim identity and muslim countries than America.
These weren't random acts of violence, they were battles in a disproportionate war being waged between mujaheddin warriors and the USA. These guys had profound contempt for America and its culture and were willing to sacrifice themselves to inflict a highly publicized blow against the USA.
As far as hurting innocent people (including children), the USA has killed a bunch of innocent people while fighting islamic terrorism so the mujaheddin brothers probably did not worry to much about that.
No amount of tolerance, forbearance, or appeasement will make this war with islam go away.
I do find the reflexive impulse to call terrorists "cowards" a bit risible.
Bafegor: Agreed. I think this is more reframing from the right.
Understanding automatically leads to sympathy? I don't think so. Often enough, the more I learn, the greater my contempt and even rejection.
@ Balfegor:
"... But the elder Tsarnaev seems to have resisted right up to the end, rather than begging for mercy (even if the coup de grace was delivered by his brother). That doesn't look like cowardice to me. Stupid and evil, perhaps. But not cowardly..."
Then, are they courageous?
"I do find the reflexive impulse to call terrorists "cowards" a bit risible."
They are too pussy to attack like men, face to face. They wear civilian clothes to perform military actions. They hide, attack the unarmed, unsuspecting and weak. They beat their women.
Cowards.
Balfegor said...
This reflexive overuse of the word "coward" just makes us look pathetic and juvenile. Like if our automatic response were to say terrorists all have small penises and are overcompensating.
I see where you're coming from, but perhaps those who do it are referring to targeting children and civilians.
Then, are they courageous?
They obviously were not afraid to die. To use the term courageous implies honor or virtue. I would use the term fanatical, as historians use to describe Waffen SS troops who fought very hard and typically to the death, particularly on the Eastern Front.
So just think of these two as members of the SS. Their religion isn't a far stretch from that ideology anyway.
Lanza had no ideology. He was a sick fuck.
With these two, there is no indication of any mental disease other than radical Islam. We're back to the "Why do they hate us?" question.
Why did they do this? Because they wanted to kill and maim people.
Why did they want to kill and maim people? Because they hate America, Americans, Western values, Western culture, Western permissiveness, Western respect for the individual, Western domination, and everything we stand for.
Not all Muslims or even radical Muslims, but these two for sure.
Blogger Colonel Angus said...
Then, are they courageous?
They obviously were not afraid to die. To use the term courageous implies honor or virtue. I would use the term fanatical,..
I was thinking ruthless.
"To use the term courageous implies honor or virtue."
Exactly.
It's an affront to those who believe those words have meaning.
I'm a lefty and I don't feel one bit sorry for the younger brother. At 19 he was old enough to understand wrong and right. It's as simple as that. He had American friends, he seemed to enjoy their company, he was in this country long enough to have assimilated.
They did what they did because they embraced extremist fundamentalism, Muslim in this case. Also embracing conspiracy theories spewed by kooks like Alex Jones didn't help.
I don't feel sympathy for the mother either, if those two were my sons, I'd not be showing my face in public and would be contemplating suicide.
Who are you, and what have you done with Inga?
*Islam*/ correction.
Pogo, I don't think I've ever sided with extremist fundamentalism.
With these two, there is no indication of any mental disease other than radical Islam. We're back to the "Why do they hate us?" question.
The answer is fairly easy if you're willing to accept uncomfortable truths. Islam, unlike Christianity or Judaism was advanced by the sword. It is a religion of conquest and forced conversion. Fundamentalist Islamist still believe this and far too many are willing to act on it and many more are silently supportive or indifferent.
Until there is anything resembling a reformation movement, I fear it will get far worse than better.
@SMGalbraith,
Don't focus on words, focus on actions.
Words, and the context in which they are delivered, can be actions themselves.
So he SAYS he condemns the bombings...but what he is DOING is using that pro forma statement as cover to then turn the conversation to what will help the Left politically, or away from wheat will harm the Left.
So if we try to understand the bombers, we don't have to question the role of welfare for able-bodied men, or diversity policies being obstacles for assimilation, or the fact that draconian gun control could not prevent the bombings, but concealed carry might have dissuaded them, etc.
Just like Inga's pro forma words of being pro-life while providing rhetorical cover for the worst of pro-choice policies, or phx claiming to be a moderate while only attacking, questioning, and undermining any information that hurts the Left agenda.
One can lie in more ways than just uttering provable untruths.
You may condemn the bombings, too, but you are defending and providing rhetorical top-cover for someone trying to find a way to blame this on conservatives. So how much does an empty sentence of condemnation count if your actions will help make it easier for the next bomber to get away with it?
As usual, Limbaugh shows teh stoopid.
"These two 20 somethings are just following in a long line of young men who willingly became the ground troops of empires."
So...just like our own troops, right?
Robert Cook you obviously (don't) know by now that Rush Limbaugh has gotten rich by causing people like you to have that reaction. You are being played which you don't realize, talk about teh stoopid.
"Lanza had no ideology. He was a sick fuck."
Perhaps but we found that out, didn't we?
We didn't say that we didn't want to know why, that his acts didn't need to be explained.
No, we tried to understand his motivations even if his motivations were those of an insane person.
Re Remnick's words: I really don't know what people want him to say. He explicity states that he isn't excusing their actions. What more can he do?
After all, he is a journalist and part of their job is explaining the world. Even if he's asking why in a non-journalist sense he is still clear that he condemns their actions without qualification.
Again, what more does he have to say?
Re: Pogo:
They are too pussy to attack like men, face to face. They wear civilian clothes to perform military actions. They hide, attack the unarmed, unsuspecting and weak. They beat their women.
Two of these things are, in fact, criticisms that are made of the United States killer drone program, and reasons that many people around the world think we're the pathetic cowards. For the most part, we don't ride out to fight our enemies "face to face" in manly battle -- we send robots piloted remotely, like a video game, to kill our enemies. And we kill them when they are at home, relaxing with their families, at weddings and funerals, or just out with friends at an outdoor restaurant. And when we use drones, the soldiers controlling them are at zero physical risk. My understanding is that much of the time they're actually safe at home in the United States when they're piloting the drones. And even before the drone program, firing cruise missiles at targets around the world was one of our favourite tactics in the 90's, precisely because it avoided face to face fighting, and the possibility that American troops might die.
Now, I think that's a good thing. if we have a technological advantage, we should use it, even if it's not "fair," especially when fighting an enemy that rejects the Western culture of war -- it's impossible for me to imagine anything like the Christmas truce with our modern enemies. But people criticise us for fighting like cowards when we fight like that. It's a bit rich for us to complain of cowardice on the part of our enemies who, even if they're attacking soft targets, are actually putting themselves at physical risk to do so.
That's not to say I'd call them courageous -- there is a connotation of valor and heroism that attaches to the term, and it's incompatible with sneak attacks on soft targets. But there is a great distance between cowardice and courage, and I think these particular terrorists fit comfortably into that middle ground.
Re: Colonel Angus:
Until there is anything resembling a reformation movement, I fear it will get far worse than better.
I think this is their Protestant Reformation -- their Thirty Years War, with a healthy helping of frothing Luther-ite Jew hatred to boot.
The Protestants calmed down, eventually. Hopefully the Islamists will do as well.
"Robert Cook you obviously (don't) know by now that Rush Limbaugh has gotten rich by causing people like you to have that reaction. You are being played which you don't realize, talk about teh stoopid."
Well, I guess that's a matter of whether Limbaugh really believes teh stoopid he says or if he is just pandering to his audience.
Maybe I should be that cynical, to assume Rush knows better than what he says for hours every day on the radio, and is really just exploiting (and laughing at?) the ignorance and prejudices of his audience merely to enrich himself.
Now, I think that's a good thing. if we have a technological advantage, we should use it, even if it's not "fair,"
Indeed. The French thought the English use of the longbow was cowards and unchivalrous.
I'm still trying to understand why bombing with a drone is far worse than bombing with a fighter.
I believe Remnick condemns the acts. That's completely separate from understanding, eventually, that someone (we) pushed them into the frame of mind that mde them want to do it. Which is the kind of understanding I believe Remninck to be interested in.
Just as many on the left hate suicide, but understand why the student from Rutgers did it- because his roommate bullied him.
"'I do find the reflexive impulse to call terrorists "cowards" a bit risible.'
"They are too pussy to attack like men, face to face. They wear civilian clothes to perform military actions. They hide, attack the unarmed, unsuspecting and weak. They beat their women."
You misunderstand, then, the purpose of such terrorist acts. It is not to fight a battle to victory, to defeat an army, to win a war. It is to sow fear among the enemy, to disturb his certainty and security, to initiate the destabilizing internal rot of anxiety and paranoia in the enemy's forces and people.
(Moreover, while men have been valorous in battle, war--modern war, at least, but probably all war--is not in the least about valor or honor or courage or cowardice: it is about carnage and slaughter--mass murder.)
I think this is their Protestant Reformation -- their Thirty Years War, with a healthy helping of frothing Luther-ite Jew hatred to boot.
The Protestants calmed down, eventually. Hopefullythe Islamists will do as well.
Well it would be nice if they can calm down without shedding the blood of innocent bystanders but I don't think that is in their nature.
Nathan Alexander, your absolutist outlook on life is rejected by many people of both ends of the spectrum. Extremism, such as the kind you display often is what is dangerous and insidious.
I don't have a problem with really finding out why they did it. I think that's different from understanding why they did it. Which in turn is different from excusing them for it.
Robert Cook said...
"These two 20 somethings are just following in a long line of young men who willingly became the ground troops of empires."
So...just like our own troops, right?
4/24/13, 11:29 AM
_________________________________
We all knew you wouldn't be able to differentiate.
Here's a shocka!!!
I think people need to read more about and from Remnick instead of just lumping him into "the left."
To be sure, there are folks who want to explain in order to excuse. And the excuse always comes back to blaming the US or Israel or the West.
But again, Remnick is not in that group.
OTOH, someone who publishes Seymour Hersh's crap may not be a credible person.
"We all knew you wouldn't be able to differentiate."
There may be a differentiation between terrorists and our troops--at least, hopefully, in most cases--but our soldiers are certainly the "ground troops for empire."
SMG- as I said, I base much of my opinion of Remnick on The Bridge, which sought to excuse so many of Obama's extremist ties. His sympathies were with Obama and the extremists he walked with.
No Robert Cook, Limbaugh talks a lot and mostly its not something you would hear about but certainly its good stuff for his listeners. But he throws out the "teh stoopid" because its gets reactions and that's what sells his brand. Ann Coulter, Bill Maher, etc. Laughing all the way to the bank. He's not taking advantage of his knuckledragging listeners, that like what he does to you.
Michael K said...
"However, in the end, I really don't care what motivated them. I care very much about what they did. Is there any motivation that could even in the slightest way justify what they did, say from murder to manslaughter or justifiable homocide? Not in any sane world."
So you'll be surprised by the next terrorist attack ? They are coming and Muslims are subject to being radicalized by events no one else knows about. A Muslim limo driver from Irvine (about 5 miles north of me) drove to LAX and started shooting at the El Al counter. Why ?
The dead didn't wonder that.
Because terrorist attacks in the US are thankfully rare, I'll be surprised when (not if) the next one happens, just like I'll be surprised when (not if) the next time some sick fuck shoots up a school. Things that are rare are surprising.
I'm not surprised that the Boston attack was committed by radical Muslims because that isn't rare. A high percentage of all terrorist attacks around the world for the past 20+ years have been committed by radical Muslims.
Anent AllenS' comment, looks like Choom's attempt to defer deportation is going down.
Robert Cook said...
I do find the reflexive impulse to call terrorists "cowards" a bit risible.
They are too pussy to attack like men, face to face. They wear civilian clothes to perform military actions. They hide, attack the unarmed, unsuspecting and weak. They beat their women.
You misunderstand, then, the purpose of such terrorist acts. It is not to fight a battle to victory, to defeat an army, to win a war. It is to sow fear among the enemy, to disturb his certainty and security, to initiate the destabilizing internal rot of anxiety and paranoia in the enemy's forces and people.
Oh, yeah, Cook just loves those freedom fighters who hide behind women and kids, using them as human shields, rolling live grenades into movie theaters.
Real gutsy.
Let's see these "heroes" walk into a police precinct and shoot it out with the uniforms. Or stage some kind of commando raid on an Army post.
It's easy to be the tough guy when the other side is unarmed.
BTW, that stuff doesn't "sow fear among the enemy, disturb his certainty and security, or initiate the destabilizing internal rot of anxiety and paranoia".
It makes him mad as Hell to the point of saying, "The only good one is a dead one".
PS For someone who's always whining about "war crimes", Cook seems to be OK with them as long as it's the other side that's committing them.
Actually edutcher, those guys do that all the time in Astan and Iraq. Again, its not courage as much as it is fanaticism. To quote a line from Braveheart:
So he has courage, so does a dog.
Inga,
Calling me the worst possible Leftist insult because I expose your tactics doesn't really help your credibility.
What, exactly, is extreme about focusing on actions rather than empty rhetoric?
Should I be like you and claim to oppose murder while enabling it? Or would that be hypocrisy?
Remember, you claimed that Akin's misinformed opinion was proof that the entire GOP was engaged in a war on women, completely ignoring the horrible treatment of women by the last few Democratic presidential nominees.
Or let's out it this way: you say you are pro-life.
I say I'm not an extremist. Whose actions actually match their claims? Who has more credibility?
Have you ever voted for a pro-life politician over a pro-abortion politician?
Cookie...That's right our young men are ground troops for an Empire right here in North and South America that just wants the rest of the old Empires to leave us alone.
Our motto was "Don't tread on me." In other words, It's our property now, and we have guns and ammunition to keep it lead by Andrew Jackson types.
And the British Monarchy's Empire did rule the world, with a short Napoleonic glitch, until 1945. The British Empire is the one we fought to a standstill, yet they still re-invaded us once and dream of doing it again.
That said, the Brits did a lot of The White Man's Burden" work after the industrial revolution bringing machinery, steam power using coal and then oil, and modern medicine to the rescue of the rest of the people outside our little Monroe Doctrine area.
So, whose side are you on?
Inga said...
Nathan Alexander, your absolutist outlook on life is rejected by many people of both ends of the spectrum. Extremism, such as the kind you display often is what is dangerous and insidious.
Rich coming from someone who believes we need to vote for Obama to prevent those scary christians from replicating the Handmaid's Tale in America.
Extremism, such as the kind you display often is what is dangerous and insidious.
This is pretty funny coming from the person who thought a Romney presidency would usher in The Handmaid's Tale.
Inga said...Pogo, I don't think I've ever sided with extremist fundamentalism.
richly funny coming from someone who blamed Benghazi on a video.
Wow Marshal....;-)
Remnick claims he condemned the killings
Inga claims to be pro-life
Bill Clinton claimed he didn't have sex with that woman
Richard Nixon claimed he wasn't a crook
OJ Simpson claimed he was going to look for Nicole Simpson's killer
Anyone claim anything if they don't pay any price for making the claim.
Colonel Angus said...
Wow Marshal....;-)
I've seen it happen with three at once also.
PAR-TAY!
y'all aren't being fair to Inga. she said she'd ban abortion for risk-free pregnancies.
Here's another fun thing about language, called "subordinate clauses".
What is the difference between
"I love you, but I can't stand what you did."
And
"I can't stand what you did, but I love you!"
Remnick says, "I condemn the bombings, but...."
What can we assume about what follows the but?
X said...
y'all aren't being fair to Inga. she said she'd ban abortion for risk-free pregnancies.
And this makes the HandMaid's Tale reasonable? If this was sarcasm I missed the bite.
Nathan Alexander claims not to be an extremist.
I've not seen anything Nathan has written that would support the extremist label. Did you have an example to share?
It's really not worth addressing, but I will anyway.
X would you be so kind as to cite where I said anything remotely resembling that?
Colonel, please cite a comment in which I made, that would support Nathan Alexander's assertion about my motives?
And for the record, am PRO CHOICE, never having claimed I was anti abortion. I am in favor of limiting abortion to the first 8 weeks or brain activity.
Colonel, please cite a comment in which I made, that would support Nathan Alexander's assertion about my motives?
Certainly. I recall a thread in which you claimed that you believed abortion to be murder but abortion should be legal because its still a woman's right to choose. That is an extremist view, unless of course murder isn't just that big a deal to you.
And what have you done to help that become law?
What politicians have you voted for that will restrict abortion to those circumstances?
I'm an extremist because I say talk is cheap?
I'm an extremist just because you say so, without any evidence to back it up?
Ah Nathan, you like to throw around accusations, but not man enough to take some of your own medicine? Coward.
I'm working towards a theory that explains the actions of these brothers. My guess is that if you're stuck with a mother as histrionic and volatile as she, then there's a good chance you feel a lot of submerged hostility towards women. Indeed the older brother had a history of slapping his women around. I think the older brother was drawn to Islam not because of hostility to the west but because of his hostility towards women. If you wish to sanctify your misogyny and make it a godly act, then Islam is the way to go........I don't think that writers like Remnick are willing to acknowledge the appeal that Islam has towards misogynistic young men.
inga, you said you were against abortion after 8 weeks unless there was a health risk to the mother, which there always is, but you didn't mention that part.
No Colonel it is not an extremist view.
It IS not an absolutist's view.
Althouse herself must be an extremist in your eyes then too, what utter nonsense.
What I find quite interesting and revealing is, is that after I stated my opinion about the bombers and their mother that somebody like Nathan Alexander comes along and tries to discount what I said in good faith.
Asshole.
X you are grasping and reaching. Why don't you go harrass Maybee who stated she thinks abortion should be legal until the 22nd week.
What accusation did I make?
I said talk is cheap, and asked what you have done to back up your claims.
You have refused to give a single example of anything you've done to bring about those restrictions.
And I used your dichotomy of words and actions to analyze Remnick's words and actions.
When you want to provide concrete examples of me not backing up my words, go ahead.
Until then, slinging insults for some childish attempt to get even is just silly.
Although I do admit, getting hit with a lefty insult like "extremist" or "absolutist" for expecting someone to walk their talk is funny, if not counter intuitively complimentary.
Our little darlings and their Mama apparently attended a very radical mosque.
Kell Sur Prize!
I didn't say anything about your comment about bombers.
So now you have attacked me again, unfairly.
Attack, insult, call names, try to claim victim status.
Don't you ever get tired of lefty tropes? Don't you ever just want to be a person, accountable for your words, actions, and principles?
Very revealing Nathan that you would derail this thread to make an attack on me , after my comment regarding the bombers and their mother.
Er, yes Inga, it is an extremist view. When you claimed abortion is murder, you took an absolutist view. Unless of course you don't think murder is a big deal and ranks with smoking pot or driving 10mph over the limit.
As for what Althouse thinks, I really could care less. If she thinks abortion is murder but goes along with it because its the knee jerk feminist response then yes, thats an extremist view.
Sometimes a thing is right in front of your nose and it's easily recognizable, Nathan.
You didn't like it that I didn't present what you consider the typical leftist view of the bombers and their mother, that pissed you off, so you proceeded to cast doubt on what I said and what my motives in saying it was.
Now I'm done dealing with you and your nonsense.
I'll still go with the tried and true theory that they were radical Islamists and as such acted as radical Islamists do.
The parable of the frog and scorpian immediately comes to mind.
Pogo, notice Inga's use of "extreme fundamentalism". Meaning, that Christianists are capable of setting bombs and blowing people up. I'd guess Inga is thinking of all the thousands of abortion doctors that have been killed recently.
"I'll still go with the tried and true theory...."
A good way to remain ignorant, and a good explanation for much of the persistent ignorance among the human race at large.
attended a very radical mosque.
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting Jew! in a mosque and causing a panic.
If you become a very religious Catholic, there's a good chance you will take out a hostile position to abortion and maybe even contraception. The left has no qualms about fitting this under the rubric of war on women. From what I've seen the Moslems routinely commit acts far more hostile to women's rights than opposition to abortion. Yet you will not find writers like Remnick ever talking about Islam's war on women.
Jack, when you put words in people's mouths you need to back up your assertions, or you are just another person who blows hot air.
don't forget guys, Inga is a nurse, which means she's also a doctor or thinks she is, and is qualified to diagnose you over the internet.
"Meaning, that Christianists are capable of setting bombs and blowing people up."
Or of committing the atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition or the waging the Crusades.
There is no religion or ideology that cannot have a tyrannizing effect on the human mind. Zealotry is zealotry; it lies in the human mind and not in a particular belief system.
Well Mr. Cook, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I'm sure you don't feel the same way about your tried and true theories about the so called 'elites'.
I must admit I really don't care; still I feel compelled to ask:
Inga; do you denounce the previously made citations by Colonel and Marshall: "the person who thought a Romney presidency would usher in The Handmaid's Tale."
Is that not a reference to a belief you held? A comment you made?
A couple of days ago, or yesterday, can't recall, someone mentioned the film "Not Without My Daughter". I commented then that as a mother of daughters, that it would be an essential lesson to their daughters to view this film and generally grasp what Muslim men consider their "rights" towards women, especially their wives.
It's always a hoot when leftists drag out the Crusades or the Inquisition as if events that took place over half a millennia ago have some moral equivalance to Islamist jihad in the 20th century.
Leland, I was using hyperbole. I've stated that several times now, but some people like to glom onto this as something I seriously believed would happen.
Also I don't recall using the example of The Handmaids Tale in conjunction with a Romney Presidency.
Colonel, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition, but that's only because it's usually islamic jihad.
"I'm sure you don't feel the same way about your tried and true theories about the so called 'elites'."
I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, but I'll surmise and say: I believe the problems with the elites and their exploitation of the rest of us for the aggrandizement of of their own wealth should be dealt with through application of the law, while a zealot might say, "Skip the laws, let's lynch 'em!"
So, no, any beliefs can be taken to fanatical extremes by zealots.
"It's always a hoot when leftists drag out the Crusades or the Inquisition as if events that took place over half a millennia ago have some moral equivalance to Islamist jihad in the 20th century."
How are they any different, except in their scale? (The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were much more deadly than any recent supposed "Islamist jihad.")
Also, you assume--incorrectly, I would guess--that many that we identify as "Islamic jihadists" are driven by religious fanaticism, while I believe many of these people are simply driven by a desire for revenge for the deaths of their loved ones by our military invasion of their lands, or by a wish to repel foreign forces from their lands.
You know, the way you would want to take up arms and kill if the Russians or Chinese invaded America or bombed your loved ones from afar with drones.
Mohammed Atta wasn't motivated by Islamic jihad? Because I don't recall our military in Afghanistan or Iraq prior to 9/11.
You, incorrectly assume there were no Islamic jihadist attacks prior to 9/11.
Inga said...
Leland, I was using hyperbole. I've stated that several times now, but some people like to glom onto this as something I seriously believed would happen.
In fact she spent hours defending her assertion on multiple occasions. She downplays it now because our remembering the crazy hurts her credibility when criticizing others.
I assume no such thing, Kernel. I stated that the extent of death and suffering caused by the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were far greater than any caused by recent "Islamic Jihad."
And you ignore my remarks regarding many of those we choose to label "jihadists" being, more likely, simply nationalists defending against our invading forces or seeking revenge for our murder of their loved ones.
After all, just because we decide Afghanistan (or Iraq or any other areas bleeding across borders in the ME) are "our enemies against whom we must make war" does not mean the people we're attacking had any prior particular awareness or concern for us or animus toward us. It's as if the Chinese or Russians attacked us out of the blue; we might say--correctly--their attacks were unprovoked, while they might have erected elaborate mythologies justifying their attacks as "defense" against our supposed malfeasance against them.
I'll argue Afghanistan, ruled by the Taliban, who by the way subscribe to Sharia, radical Islamist law, decided to become our enemy when they provided aid and comfort to Al Queda who attacked us on 9/11. Then refused to turn over the masterminds.
I know Mr. Cook doesn't accept this but I think a dose of reality was required.
Marshal, you really have no insight at all. Again, I ask are you somewhere on the Autism scale? I don't mean that as an insult to you, just trying to understand your thought processes. You don't seem to grasp nuances at very well.
Cook,
When did we invade Chechnya?
Robert Cook said...
I assume no such thing, Kernel. I stated that the extent of death and suffering caused by the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were far greater than any caused by recent "Islamic Jihad."
Since you're travelling back centuries to indict Christianity why not continue to the original Jihad which killed and enslaved on a far greater scale than the inquisition or crusades? Don't you find it odd that to make your point you first have to expand beyond any reasonable time period to create a comparison and also cease expanding for no discernable reason to ensure you don't include something else which would discredit it?
Such a practice doesn't come off as a reasonable analysis. It looks like you're desperate to defend the indefensible and are cherrypicking your data to justify it.
Mr Cook, your comparison of the Crusades to 'recent jihad' is misleading naturally due to scale. Then again the Crusades paled into comparison to Islamic incursions into Spain and Eastern Europe in the medieval and Renaissance eras.
That doesnt count Islamic conquest into the Levant, the birthplace of Christiandom.
Nuances = someone on the left is caught in an indefensible position.
Inga said...
Leland, I was using hyperbole. I've stated that several times now, but some people like to glom onto this as something I seriously believed would happen.
Inga Moods Swing
Nathan Alexander= self described translator of "Lefty speak".
Actually Chickie, my "mood" is usually quite unchanged. But I do love your Chirbits, LMAO,
Inga, when did I say anything about your response to the bombing?
If you don't provide the link and/or exact wording, then you are wrong, and should apologize.
Take the time to notice how I referenced you as an example of someone not backing up a claim with actions. Your words and (lack of) actions were peripheral until you made it all be about you and our being a victim, againYou can dispel this easily by just backing ip our words.
Again, don't you ever get tired of being the worst stereotype of a Leftist harridan? Don't you ever just want to be a full human being, accountable for your own words and actions and circumstances?
Clearly the reason to bring up the Crusades is to deflect crticism of Islam by saying Christians are no better. The fact leftists have to dredge up 1000 year old Christian wars to make the comparison is irrelevant.
Dear Nathan, it is YOU not I who is doing the stereotyping, hence this whole back and forth between you and I.
I knew who and why a minute after I knew what happened. Tax protesters, crazy theorists, anti-govt types blow up Federal buildings, professors FBI agents, not crowds of people on an outing. Muslim terrorists came instantly to mind and I was neither glad nor satisfied when we found out who did it because I already knew. As did every person reading this. Even the lefties hoping for the Aryan brotherhood or the KKK knew who did it and they knew then as they know now that the reason was jihad. Hand wring all you want, go on Charlied Rose and pretend an interest but Remick and Charlie both know. As does their audience. But they pretend to be dispassionate, nuanced, worldly and sophisticated observers who want to get to the bottom of it. It is all show.
Poor Inga.
You have it so hard.
People just constantly caring more about your actions then whatever random rhetoric pops out of your brain to serve whatever leftist propaganda point you are trying to make at the moment.
Inga said...
Marshal, you really have no insight at all. Again, I ask are you somewhere on the Autism scale? I don't mean that as an insult to you, just trying to understand your thought processes. You don't seem to grasp nuances at very well.
It's true the "nuance" required to conclude we're in danger of the religious right instituting the HandMaid's Tale excapes me, along with 90+ percent of America. Maybe someone will teach you nuance and crazy are different concepts.
Last time you argued this you tried to claim it was a hypothetical, forgetting you asserted it as a reason to vote for Obama. I wonder what you'll say next time?
Wyo sis said:
"This is a radical idea, but what if this could all be "cured" by a return to Christian and republican ideals?"
Wyo Sis is on to something.
Bloomberg said we clearly have to re-write the US Constitution to limit guns.
Obama said we have to do whatever it takes in limiting guns on the basis that if it saves even one life, we MUST do it.
So if forcing everyone in the US to attend weekly Christian worship services can save just one life, using Obama's own principle, we MUST force this.
The 1st Amendment is no more or less malleable than the 2nd Amendment. The1st Amendment is no more or less subject to interpretation and re-interpretation than the 2nd Amendment. The US Constitution is a living document, the liberals tell us.
If forcing everyone to attend weekly Christian worship services will increase assimilation, reduce welfare, reduce single motherhood, reduce divorce, reduce crime, etc, then it is a common sense solution.
There is probably more evidence that weekly Christian worship services would solve social problems than tighter griping control will.
So why are liberals on'y pushing tighter gun control, hm?
"I'm a lefty and I don't feel one bit sorry for the younger brother. At 19 he was old enough to understand wrong and right. It's as simple as that. He had American friends, he seemed to enjoy their company, he was in this country long enough to have assimilated.
They did what they did because they embraced extremist fundamentalism, Muslim in this case. Also embracing conspiracy theories spewed by kooks like Alex Jones didn't help.
I don't feel sympathy for the mother either, if those two were my sons, I'd not be showing my face in public and would be contemplating suicide."
4/24/13, 11:14 AM
-------------------------
I repeat.
Inga,
Great!
No problem at all with that opinion!
Welcome to your first conservative viewpoint/reaction!
Hopefully the first of many, many more!
Nathan Alexander, go to hell.
I want to understand why he did what he did.
I want to know what he thought were his reasons to justify it.
I want to see if something like this can be avoided in the future.
Then I want them to stick a needle in his arm and I want him to die.
"We have been the cowards. Lobbing cruise missiles from two thousand miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building. Say what you want about it. Not cowardly."
What Maher said was incredibly stupid. What's cowardly is taking boxcutters to the throats of stewardesses (sorry, flight attendants.) armed only with a smile and beverage cart.
Terrorism is always a cowardly act.
Maybe lobbing cruise missiles from 2k away isn't "courageous" but it's fucking smart when you don't want to waste the lives of 50 men.
Swede,
Yep. There's a difference between analysis and appeasement.
Re: EMD:
Maybe lobbing cruise missiles from 2k away isn't "courageous" but it's fucking smart when you don't want to waste the lives of 50 men.
Yeah, but if you adopt the Pogo standard, it's definitely "pussy" since you aren't fighting those enemies (or, uh, Chinese embassies) "face to face." Like a manly man would.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisiion death estimates to be so small
Why the number seem smaller than one Islamic jihad that murdered over 3000 infidels on one sunny September morning.
Over forty thousand people were murdered by the secular humanists during the French Reign of Terror.
Who should we pressure cooker bomb today to avenge that atrocity?
Worse than the Reign of Terror is that the detestable French inflicted their madness upon the whole of the Continent at a cost of millions of lives! Voltaire, Rousseau, the Buonaparte -- they are the Villains of History!
Political Correctness is literally ("literally" literally, not "Joe Biden" literally) killing us.
"I'll argue Afghanistan, ruled by the Taliban, who by the way subscribe to Sharia, radical Islamist law, decided to become our enemy when they provided aid and comfort to Al Queda who attacked us on 9/11. Then refused to turn over the masterminds."
We asked them to turn over bin Laden and they requested evidence of his complicity in 9/11, (just as we would ask for such evidence if asked to extradite someone in our country to another country). We ignored their request and attacked...because we just wanted an excuse to attack Afghanistan. Otherwise, why stay there for 12 years (and counting) after his quick escape from the country?
That aside, most of the people we've killed in Afghanistan over the years have nothing to do with the Taliban, but are just the people who live there.
"I know Mr. Cook doesn't accept this but I think a dose of reality was required."
That's why I continue to post here...to provide that dose of reality everyday.
My point in comparing the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades with the "Islamist Jidadis" is not, really, to go point for point, blow for blow, "who's the baddest of the bad" kind of comparison. It's simply to point out that:
No religion, no culture, no people are free of violence, fanaticism, sadism, brutality, and atrocities. For example, as Martin Luther King, Jr. said 46 years ago (on April 04, 1967), and it's still true today,
"America is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
It wasn't always so and it won't always be so. There were other superior world powers that preceded us and there will be another great world power who will supersede us as the world's de facto monarch, and who will be--then--be the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. But right now, it's us. Such is the burden of being (and trying to hold on to being) the king of the world.
Post a Comment