They know why.
Hat tip Atlas Shrugs for photo
The above has to be the dumbest headline in the history of American journalism. If anyone has the mailing address of the Washington Post, please send it to me so I can send them the scoop of the century because I sure know why. Two words:
Islamic jihad.
Of course, the media is afraid to say those words, so they print ridiculous statements like, "The search for why begins".
"Two hands, check."
"Flashlight, check."
"Now let the search begin."
14 comments:
We now know who the stupids are!!! They work for the Washington Post. This headline says it all: We are stupid. Last night, a U.S. attorney spoke about the legal process that will deal with the bomber. She sounded like a first year law student, and that is being generous. There was no mention of terrorism, the use of weapons of mass destruction, nor Islamic Jihad, which it was. I was also floored when someone in the crowd, ask the Boston police chief if the bomber was Marandized. More stupids! You do not Marandize terrorists. They are a threat to public safety and do not get Marandized.
Squid
I don't think you need to get so bent out of shape about this. It's hard to argue that these guys were inspired by violent Islamic Jihad, but saying that is only part of the answer. Why were they inspired by it? Is there something irresistibly compelling about it? Were they sociopaths who just needed an excuse and would have latched on to anything? Is there an organized effort that's trying to brainwash/recruit?
I would also not be surprised if the motivation for each brother was slightly different, just as it was different for both of the Columbine killers. (I know that they weren't inspired by violent jihad, but the point is that each one did it for different reasons.)
I agree that Islamic jihad is the "why" but I don't think that it's the full answer.
jakes,
I will let you sort out which sura inspired them. I know all I need to know.
Who mentioned suras? Not me.
What I mean is, why do most Muslims not do this sort of a thing but some of them do? I'm sure that a lot of Muslims are exposed to the more violent forms of their religion, but they don't all embrace it. Why is it that some of them do and some of them don't?
What's wrong with wanting to figure that out?
Basically, I think you're confusing the effort to understand with an effort to excuse.
jakes,
Don't you think a better question we should be asking ourselves is what is the real Islam? In other words, were these brothers following the pure religion or misinterpreting it?
I think that we should be asking all sorts of questions, especially if they can lead to ways we can prevent this sort of a thing in the future.
As for whether this is really "true" Islam or not, I'm not sure how the answer to this would help. I'm even less sure if it's possible to answer. Is there a Muslim out there who thinks that he's NOT following "true" Islam? No, but they all seem to believe pretty different things. Even if we could prove that violent Jihadi Islam was the true Islam, what would it matter if the majority of Muslims don't agree that it is the true Islam?
Obviously, there is something about Islam that makes it easier to justify these kinds of acts, at least in the present-day. Why is that? Seems to me that the problem is that Islam is having a hard time evolving like many other religions have. Hundreds of years ago, Christians were prone to violence against nonbelievers, yet they have moved past that.
I think a better question is this: Is there something fundamental to Islam that makes it impossible for it to evolve and exist peacefully in the 21st Century? Or can it move forward with the rest of the world?
Jakes,
The million dollar question. here is what we know. In practically every Muslim country today, non-Muslims are being persecuted. In countries where Muslims make up a significant minority, there is strife.
Islam never went through the Reformation or the Enlightenment.
I wonder what would happen if peaceful Muslims were to debate with the hardliners like Qaradawi strictly on theological grounds. I fear they would lose the debate. The texts (Koran, Hadith, Sunna) as well as the life of Mohammed are on the side of the Qaradawis. The greatest Islamic schools of thought like Bukhari and Al Azhar University are also on the side of the Qaradawis.
I think that all of that should be part of the conversation as well. Like I said, maybe there's something about violent jihad that simply appeals to the mentally unbalanced.
In other words, no doubt there are many Muslims who are exposed to the ideas of spreading violence, but their response is "No thank you" not so much because it's their religion but that they're decent, mentally balanced people.
The problem seems to be that when you mix a mentally unbalanced person with such a dangerous philosophy, they're naturally going to gravitate toward it.
Check this out, it's a study linking the belief in an angry God (like the one described in the Koran, I think) with mental illness.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/17/study-belief-in-an-angry-god-associated-with-variety-of-mental-illnesses/
Jakes,
I have to disagree. You cannot pass off the 21,000 Islamic terrorist incidents just since 9-11 on mentally unbalanced people. Here again, everyone said that the two guys were normal and they were shocked. It goes deeper than that. The jihadists are following Islam not just as a religion, but as an ideology, and Islam is definitely a political ideology-one that is totalitarian, expansionist and intolerant of other faiths.
I think the key is not to take the word of Geller, Spencer, etc, but take them at their own words. Check out the most authoritarian and well respected sources in the Islamic world and see what they say. As for American Islamic leaders here, they are on a concentrated campaign of deception toward us.
I urge you to check out people like Zuhdi Jasser. (He is a Muslim, and he knows who the bad guys are.
"You cannot pass off the 21,000 Islamic terrorist incidents just since 9-11 on mentally unbalanced people."
I agree. I'm just suggesting that it might be part of the big picture when it comes to some of them.
Yeah, everybody said those guys were "normal". Have you ever read up on sociopaths? They ALL seem "normal" until they do something awful.
And all for the same reason?
When a an Aryan terrorist gunned down several people at the Sikh Temple in Milwaukee, nobody said its "Christian soldiers marching as to war." Nobody even blamed an organization, because none could be identified that financed, trained or gave orders to him. But when two deluded punks give themselves airs and THINK they are waging jihad, Gary is the first to credit them with being just as big a deal as they would like to think they were. No dice, they were a couple of punks who picked their poison. What they did doesn't even rate as "Jihad," and there's nothing good about jihad.
The team of German operatives landed from a submarine to commit sabotage was engaged in illicit warfare. They were trained, funded, and ordered.
(Don't waste too many words Jake... all Gary needs to know he learned in kindergarten).
No, and that's my point.
I think that with this situation, and with the 9/11 hijackings, it's interesting to note that in so many ways, they DIDN'T act like what one would think of "typical" Muslims. They didn't appear to be very pious in any other way, yet they go off and do something as extreme as that.
I just think that the situation is complicated, and the questions you raised are as valid as the one that the Washington Post raised. As of right now, it seems to me that it might be a combination of radical Islam and sociopathic tendencies, which leads to the question: Does Islam make it easier for sociopaths to justify their wicked actions? Seems to me like it does.
Post a Comment