If you watched BBC, CNBC, CNN, and so on -- as I did -- you might be scratching your head -- as they did -- about the motive for the Boston Marathon bombing murders. What could they have been thinking, the Tsarnaev frères?
The motive was no further elucidated by the worthies at these outlets by the fact that the elder brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, had a YouTube site on which he posted videos of Feiz Mohammed, an Aussie Imam who says that Muslims should kill we infidels. They didn't even talk of the videos on Tamerlan's website. When they glancingly mentioned them, it was to say that, no, we should not make a connection between the videos and what they said about killing infidels and the bombings, for that would be "jumping to conclusions" and by implication "Islamophobic".
So then you're left scratching your head.
Then I shifted to Fox and they did at least talk of the videos on Tamerlan's site and what they might mean. But even then, they wondered. He, Tamerlan the older brother, had been popular at school and college, had done well, was on the wrestling and boxing teams, and so on. The younger brother, Dzhokhar, was even more popular; good looking, too. What, wondered Fox, had made them "radicalise"?
The answer is simple:
But if you're a Muslim, as Tamerlan was (his name, btw, a version of the brutal Muslim warlord Tamerlane), then you're going to read it differently. I'll assume for a moment that he'd not read it closely till recently-ish. That's how it sounds from the reports. Then he started reading it. And we have reports that he said he was getting more pious, reading the Koran, stopped drinking and smoking.
He knows that the Koran is the inerrant word of Allah. And that what it says, he must follow. Not just to give up the smokes and grog; but also to kill infidels. For that's there, in the Koran, and in unambiguous terms, in wording that cannot be mistaken or misread for its "context" (as we're so often told by Koranic apologists mitigates the most bloodthirsty of the verses; no it doesn't).
So, the path to so-called "radicalisation" is easy: it's a Muslim, becoming more pious, reading the Koran and following its directives.
The hypocrisy of the left.
They would love for the bombings to have been by a right winger (Salon even had an article openly saying they wished it was a "white American").
You could almost feel the collective buttock-tighening as they wished for the bombing to have been a right-wing atrocity, say and anti-Tax protest. And had it been, you can bet that those on the right would have been blamed: especially the Tea Party, for, say, beating up on high taxes (I must say here that I'm no Tea Partier; but I've seen how they've been scapegoated in the past, including for the Norwegian Anders Breivik killings). And that's despite the fact that noone on the right, not even the Tea Party, has called for violence.
But once it's proved to be a Muslim... there's no thought on the left that Islamic theology might be linked to the event. Oh, no, do so would be Islamophobic. And that's despite the fact the Islamic doctrine does indeed call for violence and killing of infidels.
Oh Hypocrisy, Thy name is Huffington (and Slate and Salon, and CCN and ....).
Losers?
The Tsarmaev's Uncle appeared on TV and said that "it had nothing to do with religion", just that his two nephews were "losers", who were jealous of the Boston Marathoners.
What crock.
First: what sort of "losers" were these? They'd come to the US as refugees, made it to school, to University, one a competitive wrestler and boxer, the other studying for medecine. The younger one had a scholarship. What sort of "losers" are these?
Even assume for a minute that they are "Losers", then what about all the other millions of "losers" in the US, in far worse a state than they were. Why don't they go on murderous bombing sprees?
It always seems to be the Muslims that do so.
Then again, I'm an "Islamophobe" for suggesting that....
The motive was no further elucidated by the worthies at these outlets by the fact that the elder brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, had a YouTube site on which he posted videos of Feiz Mohammed, an Aussie Imam who says that Muslims should kill we infidels. They didn't even talk of the videos on Tamerlan's website. When they glancingly mentioned them, it was to say that, no, we should not make a connection between the videos and what they said about killing infidels and the bombings, for that would be "jumping to conclusions" and by implication "Islamophobic".
So then you're left scratching your head.
Then I shifted to Fox and they did at least talk of the videos on Tamerlan's site and what they might mean. But even then, they wondered. He, Tamerlan the older brother, had been popular at school and college, had done well, was on the wrestling and boxing teams, and so on. The younger brother, Dzhokhar, was even more popular; good looking, too. What, wondered Fox, had made them "radicalise"?
The answer is simple:
Reading the Koran.If someone like me -- an atheist -- reads the Koran, he'll likely be, as I was when I first read it, horrified. I can still remember the hairs on the back of my neck standing up in horror at what I'd read and thinking "if this is what we're up against, we're in trouble". I'd guess many other non-atheists, believers like Christians and Buddhists, may well have the same reaction.
But if you're a Muslim, as Tamerlan was (his name, btw, a version of the brutal Muslim warlord Tamerlane), then you're going to read it differently. I'll assume for a moment that he'd not read it closely till recently-ish. That's how it sounds from the reports. Then he started reading it. And we have reports that he said he was getting more pious, reading the Koran, stopped drinking and smoking.
He knows that the Koran is the inerrant word of Allah. And that what it says, he must follow. Not just to give up the smokes and grog; but also to kill infidels. For that's there, in the Koran, and in unambiguous terms, in wording that cannot be mistaken or misread for its "context" (as we're so often told by Koranic apologists mitigates the most bloodthirsty of the verses; no it doesn't).
So, the path to so-called "radicalisation" is easy: it's a Muslim, becoming more pious, reading the Koran and following its directives.
The hypocrisy of the left.
They would love for the bombings to have been by a right winger (Salon even had an article openly saying they wished it was a "white American").
You could almost feel the collective buttock-tighening as they wished for the bombing to have been a right-wing atrocity, say and anti-Tax protest. And had it been, you can bet that those on the right would have been blamed: especially the Tea Party, for, say, beating up on high taxes (I must say here that I'm no Tea Partier; but I've seen how they've been scapegoated in the past, including for the Norwegian Anders Breivik killings). And that's despite the fact that noone on the right, not even the Tea Party, has called for violence.
But once it's proved to be a Muslim... there's no thought on the left that Islamic theology might be linked to the event. Oh, no, do so would be Islamophobic. And that's despite the fact the Islamic doctrine does indeed call for violence and killing of infidels.
Oh Hypocrisy, Thy name is Huffington (and Slate and Salon, and CCN and ....).
Losers?
The Tsarmaev's Uncle appeared on TV and said that "it had nothing to do with religion", just that his two nephews were "losers", who were jealous of the Boston Marathoners.
What crock.
First: what sort of "losers" were these? They'd come to the US as refugees, made it to school, to University, one a competitive wrestler and boxer, the other studying for medecine. The younger one had a scholarship. What sort of "losers" are these?
Even assume for a minute that they are "Losers", then what about all the other millions of "losers" in the US, in far worse a state than they were. Why don't they go on murderous bombing sprees?
It always seems to be the Muslims that do so.
Then again, I'm an "Islamophobe" for suggesting that....
