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

BeyondGeography

(41,138 posts)
29. This article is dangerously stupid...These kids didn't have an "ideology"
Tue Apr 30, 2013, 03:44 PM
Apr 2013

The older one was rebelling against what America did to his hoped-for rock star lifestyle, not what we did to the victims in Iraq and Afghanistan. What's interesting about Tamerlan is what happens when you combine the real-world difficulties of carving out a life for yourself in America with the outlet that radical Islam provides for rage and disappointment. This kid was both ambitious and unwilling to pick himself off the ground when hard times hit. That's hard for anyone, but especially someone who feels entitled, and who is surrounded by enablers, like his shoplifting mother, his submissive and probably scared-to-death spouse and every angry person who would listen to him.

There is something to be gained in digging deeper if we want to make ourselves safer, but spare me the talk of "ideology." This was a young immigrant Muslim male whose first inclination was to believe the hype and go all-in with America, found the place both difficult and incomprehensible and consoled himself with violent revenge fantasies that he eventually acted upon. He then gave every indication that he wanted to enjoy his fame, bragging about the crime to his carjacking victim and apparently planning a blaze-of-glory ending in New York. Terrorism was the ticket to celebrity that he couldn't purchase through conventional means. His ideology? Party of one.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

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...»Reply #29