Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 02:01 PM Apr 2013

Were the Tsarnaevs nuts or revolutionaries? [View all]

We may find the Tsarnaevs' ideology deluded, but we should take it seriously if we want to avoid others like them

BY MICHAEL LIND


Why do we Americans find it so important to believe that terrorists and assassins in the U.S. can be dismissed as mere emotionally disturbed maniacs, rather than viewed as revolutionaries in the thrall of militant political or religious ideologies? Why are so we intent in removing the political from political violence?

These questions are timely, following Vice President Joe Biden’s dismissive description of the Boston Marathon bombers as “knockoff jihadis.” Mere amateurs, these brothers, who were capable of murdering several marathon participants, maiming scores more and shutting down a major city and even rail lines for hours or days. The real amateurism, it might be suggested, is that of the pundits and journalists trying to psychoanalyze the Tsarnaev brothers and their relations from a distance.

But there are already reports that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving killer, has said that he and his brother acted in response to the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — wars that they considered to be attacks on Islam. What if this really was the motive? What if these brothers really were sincere Islamist revolutionaries, like the thousands of others who have rallied to militant jihadism in the past several decades, whether they were connected to international Islamist networks or acting on their own? That doesn’t exonerate their brutal crimes in any way. But surely Islamist terrorists are best understood in terms of the common Islamist ideology they share, rather than personal or familial experiences that are unique to each.

There’s nothing new about stripping American terrorists and assassins of the ideologies that in fact motivated them. Consider the case of the martyred brothers John and Robert Kennedy.

-snip-

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/30/were_the_tsarnaevs_nuts_or_revolutionaries/
43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
yes hedgehog Apr 2013 #1
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter Renew Deal Apr 2013 #2
Exactly! It's all relative to ones frame of reference. n/t RKP5637 Apr 2013 #26
They are evil! hrmjustin Apr 2013 #3
Amateur brats that slapped the hand that gave them refuge when they fled a genocide NightWatcher Apr 2013 #4
Amateur how? An amateur terrorist makes a bomb that doesn't explode. lapislzi Apr 2013 #6
They couldn't get away because their car was in the shop NightWatcher Apr 2013 #19
Great point. They killed some people, hurt more people Warpy Apr 2013 #30
Again, does anyone conduct this analysis for rightwing terrorist like Eric Rudolph and geek tragedy Apr 2013 #5
This liberal says that first we have to recognize that they are politically motivated Hekate Apr 2013 #21
But, we don't know that they kill because of politics, or whether the politics is something geek tragedy Apr 2013 #22
The article in Salon actually presents the case pretty well Hekate Apr 2013 #24
I read it. Found it rather lacking. geek tragedy Apr 2013 #25
we don't know what their motivation was. HiPointDem Apr 2013 #38
They each TOLD us. Using words in the English language. Hekate Apr 2013 #43
Except McVeigh wasnt Christian... onpatrol98 Apr 2013 #28
He stated Science, Agnosticism, and Roman Catholicism as his religion at different parts of his life LanternWaste Apr 2013 #33
Apparently the dad was nuts, the older brother was a decent guy, the younger brother was a weenie Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #7
A crown for king! n/t backscatter712 Apr 2013 #10
*** Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #11
Why can't they be both? Capt. Obvious Apr 2013 #8
Mostly because if they were part of the bigger terrorist world, a threat would still exist HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #13
I have little empathy with those who blow up children. backscatter712 Apr 2013 #9
Yes, certainly because we must comfort ourselves and assuage fear HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #12
Yeah, we stupid sheep who deny think that intentionally killing and maiming geek tragedy Apr 2013 #14
Actually I said nothing to suggest all of this isn't mainstream and au courante HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #36
No, you just labeled the idea that people who intentionally blow little children to pieces geek tragedy Apr 2013 #37
Well I respect your right to be of any opinion you choose HereSince1628 Apr 2013 #39
Neither. HappyMe Apr 2013 #15
Isn't the sentence above the by-line a defacto surrender? cherokeeprogressive Apr 2013 #16
Why do they have to be affiilated with a terrorist GROUP? Myrina Apr 2013 #17
Not group. Motivation. Hekate Apr 2013 #23
I read it. Don't bother. I'll sum up the stupid. DevonRex Apr 2013 #18
That is a truly excellent article Hekate Apr 2013 #20
Since religion seems to have been a factor, how about nuts. FarCenter Apr 2013 #27
This article is dangerously stupid...These kids didn't have an "ideology" BeyondGeography Apr 2013 #29
Well said. HappyMe Apr 2013 #34
+10.000 smirkymonkey Apr 2013 #42
Maybe terrorists? Puzzledtraveller Apr 2013 #31
It does seem to beg the question... LanternWaste Apr 2013 #32
I think they were disaffected losers CJCRANE Apr 2013 #35
i think they were like that Ohio shooter who wore the shirt with Killer on it in Court JI7 Apr 2013 #40
Neither. They're just assholes. MrSlayer Apr 2013 #41
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Were the Tsarnaevs nuts o...