skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Anecdotes suggest that Mr. Tsarnaev became more religious in the last several years and may have embraced more conservative Islamic ideas.
On Monday, a spokesman for the Islamic Society of Boston, a Cambridge mosque, said Mr. Tsarnaev disrupted a talk there in January, insulting the speaker and accusing him of deviating from Islam by comparing the Prophet Muhammad to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It was the second time he had disrupted an event at the mosque because he felt that its religious message was too liberal, said the spokesman, Yusufi Vali, according to a report in The Boston Globe.
Posts
66 comments:
oh my god, he took offense at a comparison between his holy prophet and a wife beating, sex-addicted, prostitute frequenting plagiarist?!!
Yeah, now the narrative is finally beginning to take shape.
The government/education/media/pop culture establishment were thrown off at first by the Brothers Tsarnev being both Caucasian and Muslim. It's as if their own cognitive dissonance (and probable ignorance about Chechnya, Islam and Islam in E. Europe/Central Asia) had them running in circles in search of a cohesive narrative.
But after years of striking out on stories about racist white lacrosse players raping black college students/exotic dancers, racist white Hispanics gunning down angelic black honors students in cold blood and Klansmen wreaking havoc on liberal college campuses, they NEEEEEEDED to find a way to pin the worst terrorist attack on American soil since Maj. Nidal Hassan's shooting rampage at Ft. Hood on a right wing white male.
Since everybody knows that conservative white males are the real terrorist threat in America -- only ignorant right wing bigots think Muslims are terrorists! -- the only surprising thing is that it's taken them this long to figure out a way to turn the Brothers Tsarnaev into conservative white males.
"more conservative Islamic ideas"
oh! that's what they're calling bombing innocent people now, is it? How very liberal.
wathc 'muslim' 'chechen' terrorists fade from MSM to be replaced by 'far right nationalists'
Side not amazing how MLK has literally become a saint in the church
The claims about Tamerlan disrupting a talk about MLK at the mosque could be fabrications or exaggerations. It's damage control by the mosque.
So, if they can't ignore the fact that he was Muslim, they'll make him a "conservative" Muslim (as opposed to the many liberal, feminist, ecumenical Muslims, I guess). To people who follow the New Age Church of Oprah and get their religious views from Hollywood, that has to be just one step over from "conservative Christian," right? The guy probably watched the 700 Club and contributed to anti-gay-marriage groups. Ah, now we know who to blame.
The first hint I had that the libs would try to blame this on US conservatives is the headlines in the various papers saying that the bombers turn to "religion" caused the problems. It would be more accurate to say "Islam" than religion.
This reminds me of the tail end of the Soviet Union, when those opposed to Glasnot were routinely described in the US media as "conservative" or even "right-wing." In other words, the most Communisty of the Communists, the Leftist of the Left, were "right-wing" and "conservative" to the media. Makes sense, no?
The sheer lack of faith of these media vermin is truly a wonder.
OT: Oberlin madness spreads to University of Nebraska as former women's basketball player concocts a fake hate crime:
http://www.ajc.com/news/ap/crime/nebraska-woman-sentenced-for-faking-hate-crime/nXQML/
Tamerlan is an embarassing kind of caucasian to those people ( the David Sirota crew) and they're trying to turn him to the kind of caucasian that they love to hate.
" when those opposed to Glasnot were routinely described in the US media as "conservative" or even "right-wing." In other words, the most Communisty of the Communists, the Leftist of the Left, were "right-wing" and "conservative" to the media. Makes sense, no?"
Actually those media labels made a lot of sense demographically. I was there at the time. The staunchest supporters of the Communist Party in the 1980s tended to be social conservatives, and professionally the sort of people who would be conservative in the US - middle aged engineers, plant managers, energy sector workers, military officers, etc. They had nothing common socially or ideologically with Western "leftists". The academics, the artists, musicians and college kids tended to be "anti-Communist", and socially very liberal, and had little in common with most American conservatives.
Just goes to show that a lot of ideological talk about "free markets", "diversity", "personal responsiblity", "equality", etc. is just rhetoric to fire up your team. At the end of the day politics is all about who-whom.
The first hint I had that the libs would try to blame this on US conservatives is the headlines in the various papers saying that the bombers turn to "religion" caused the problems. It would be more accurate to say "Islam" than religion.
It would be more accurate to say, "sense of justice." Information from interviews with the surviving suspect indicate the bombings were retaliation for Iraq and Afghanistan.
The odd thing is why American conservatives are working to advance leftism and stamp out religion. All the while building up a security state that will then be turned on religious Americans.
"So with the Bible he believed that it was ... used as an excuse for many wars fought by America to invade countries and take land away," said Elbrecht Ammon. "He mentioned how America is a colonial power and wants to take as much land as possible and most casualties are innocent people shot down by American soldiers."
We invade and kill people and we are surprised when they fight back eventually? There is nothing unusual to psychoanalyze about these events.
The Zionist press will try to spin this as hatred of America or Christianity per se. They need to, in order to deflect blame for US deaths from the Zionist wars.
Is there any length the international Caucasian brotherhood will not go to in order to denigrate saint MLK? Muslim or Christian, Turk or Slav or Scandinavian or Frenchman, conservative or Marxist, we are truly an unrighteous people.
Repent, all ye wicked and idolatrous racists, from the Caspian Sea to the Emerald Isle, repent.
Drunken Idiot,
Correct your spelling please.
But after years of striking out on stories....
It is stroking out.
http://www.amren.com/news/2013/04/pat-buchanan-calls-gang-of-8-proposal-acts-of-madness-suicidal-folly-for-gop/
If I worked for the NY Times, this is how I'd spin it:
Frustrated by what Tsarnaev saw as the increasing liberalization of Islam in America, he had apparently been flirting with a shadowy sect of the Evangelical Christian Right, which calls itself "the Baptist Church." Tsarnaev was particularly incensed by Islam's historical tolerance of homosexuality, as well as its eagerness to embrace such diverse champions of human rights as Martin Luther King, Yasir Arafat, and Malcomb X.
Tsarnaev had also become frustrated with his progress as an aspiring boxer, and was considering another sport, such as lacrosse. The Department of Justice is investigating whether Tsarnaev's movement away from the boxing ring and toward the lacrosse field put him in contact with neo-Nazi sleeper cells affiliated with the mortgage brokerage industry and various predominantly White country clubs throughout the Northeast.
Tsaenaev's family hailed from Chechya, a region torn by civil war and religious strife. Tsarnaev recently visited, and perhaps underwent terrorist training, in his troubled homeland, which like Alabama, borders the state of Georgia.
"This reminds me of the tail end of the Soviet Union, when those opposed to Glasnot were routinely described in the US media as "conservative" or even "right-wing." In other words, the most Communisty of the Communists, the Leftist of the Left, were "right-wing" and "conservative" to the media. Makes sense, no?"
Soviet Russia was socially liberal from 1917 till WWII. The Soviet Union was socially conservative from WWII till 1985. Western elites supported the Soviet Union while it was left-wing and led a cold war against it when it became socially conservative and Russian-nationalistic. Stalin's turn towards conservatism was the cause of the Cold War. The West represented the lefty side in the Cold War.
In the post-WWII Soviet Union homosexuality and pornography were forbidden, abstract art was in great disfavor, classical, pre-revolutionary Russian culture was heavily promoted by the state, divorce was rare, drug abuse and prostitution were non-existant, the young dressed modestly, and so on and so forth. A full list would fill volumes.
People get fooled by labels. Modern China isn't Communist either. It's socially conservative, Chinese nationalist and economically capitalist. When Stalin turned away from Communism, he didn't change the label either.
Though granted, the post-war Soviet Union was not economically capitalist.
So, let's see if I'm getting the message:
This guy was bad because he was a conservative, but we should not try to stop conservative immigrants from coming to our shores to blow us up, because that would be conservative, and conservatives are bad.
Is that about it?
Fellow Massachusetts resident and second-generation immigrant also dislikes the preaching of MLK (at 12:40).
Will the muppetmedia portray this character as a conservative? No. First, he needs to bomb a lot of white people.
Somewhat related, Steve, venture capitalist Fred Wilson blogged on immigration reform today. You should consider participating in the comments there. It will give you a chance to reach some new and influential readers who haven't been exposed to your arguments yet.
I just posted a link there to Matloff's research on how H-1Bs are a source of cheap labor that may be lowering US innovation.
It's the same forces that take Trotsky and turn him into a "fascist" that is the same as a "nazi" that is same as someone who follows Hayek, Burke, Von Mises, Thomas Jefferson, etc.
The same forces = The KGB = the New Left.
It would be more accurate to say, "sense of justice." Information from interviews with the surviving suspect indicate the bombings were retaliation for Iraq and Afghanistan.
If so, that makes me wonder how we would have treated (or did treat, if it happened) German or Japanese immigrants who killed Americans with bombs out of a "sense of justice" after WWII. Would we have beaten our collective breast and chastised ourselves for not reaching out to them properly?
Another neat thing about this narrative is that vocal criticism of MLK is now classed with terrorism.
Too late to ask him if he was for or against amnesty.
"Though granted, the post-war Soviet Union was not economically capitalist."
There is nothing inherently "conservative" about capitalism. Really only in the US does this equation hold. In Europe the most avid proponents of free markets and capitalism are called "liberals." The European left is very anti-capitalist, and European conservatives are generally luke-warm about capitalism. To a true European conservative, the primary goal of conservatism is preserving the nation, preserving national traditions and preserving the natural hierarchies within that nation in order to maintain harmony and order. Private property is very important to European conservatives. But European conservatives believe capitalism should serve the national order, not undermine it, and sometimes capitalism needs to be constrained to preserve more important values. To an American conservative capitalism simply is the highest value.
It would be more accurate to say the Tsarnoff brothers were motivated by a "sense of justice." Information from interviews with the surviving suspect indicate the bombings were retaliation for Iraq and Afghanistan.
If so, that makes me wonder how we would have treated (or did treat, if it happened) German or Japanese immigrants who killed Americans with bombs out of a "sense of justice" after WWII.
Why would it make you wonder about something like that? Not all situations are the same. With respect to the Muslim world, the United States has been the clear aggressor. If Muslims respond to our violence with violence, that is merely called reciprocity. And reciprocity is a cornerstone of justice.
Would we have beaten our collective breast and chastised ourselves for not reaching out to them properly?
I didn't write anything about "reaching out to them properly." If you don't want to be a target of bombings, I'd suggest we stop invading, bombing, and killing people.
"Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will ‘Have to Change’ After Boston Bombing"
In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Monday the country’s interpretation of the Constitution will “have to change” to allow for greater security to stave off future attacks.
“What we cant do is let the protection get in the way of us enjoying our freedoms,” he said. “You still want to let people practice their religion, no matter what that religion is. And I think one of the great dangers here is going and categorizing anybody from one religion as a terrorist. That’s not true … That would let the terrorists win. That’s what they want us to do.”
http://politicker.com/2013/04/bloomberg-says-post-boston-interpretation-of-the-constitution-will-have-to-change/
------------
Top rated comment on the story above:
"We're going to suspend your rights to protest, bear arms, privacy, and trial by jury."
"Why?"
"To protect you from terrorists."
"Why do we need to be protected from terrorists?"
"They hate you for your freedom."
Multicultural empires are police states, must be in order to keep the vast number of competing groups from tearing each other apart. You lost your freedom the day LBJ signed the 1965 "immigration reform" act (yet another one) into law.
"There is nothing inherently "conservative" about capitalism."
American conservatives are more fond of capitalism than are European conservatives because in America the government redistributes wealth from whites to blacks. It's really a racial issue. And it's very understandable.
Before mass immigration hit Europe the capitalist/socialist split there had no racial and few ethnic undertones. So it wasn't very relevant to the nationalist/anti-nationalist debate. For example, I think it was Bismarck who instituted the first system of socialized medicine in the world. I'm sure that as all the implications of the multi-racial society are digested in Europe, European nationalists will become pro-Capitalist. And it will be smart for them to do so.
As you said, inherently, taken in a vacuum, there is nothing conservative about capitalism. It's not like the preservation of the nation itself or social conservatism.
You're being absurd in trying to find bias here. "Conservative" is pretty accurate in describing the direction of his thinking.You think that by saying he embraced "conservative Islamic" ideas they're trying to imply that he liked Glenn Beck or was anti-gun control or something?
And the MLK thing is a pretty interesting anecdote, as his brother seemed to smoke pot, hang out with blacks, using ebonics slang, and supported Obama.
Here's better evidence of bias: has any mainstream source reported that the younger brother tweeted support for Obama? That seems pretty important, and if my impression is correct that the media is hiding this, then it's pretty important.
The point is that there's a lot of liberal bias out there, and you don't bring attention to it by "crying wolf."
>the post-war Soviet Union was not economically capitalist.<
Anarchists like to use Lenin's term "state capitalism" for the whole failed experiment. No true NEPman? (groan)
Anyway, the powers that be want a sharp divide among (using American understandings of these terms) "liberals" and "conservatives." Aka Punch and Judy, with the same man's hands up their tuchuses and ours.
E. Michael Jones, a firebrand Catholic intellectual, explains that what the deep state requires for social control is the false alternative of "bankers v. wankers." It's a view that is at least satisfyingly smug and entertaining (here).
Elite opinion is clearly slotting the Bombing Borat Brothers into "bankers." Socially conservative religiosity = anti-wanker, so how do these brothers fit into the neoconservative program? Simple, they're obviously angels among us whom we should support, therefore avatars of freer immigration. Note the canny uncle's riffs: they were all about the American Dream (of money). So, bankers. But they couldn't do it, they were "losers," because they couldn't settle themselves among the libertines; so, anti-wanker.
This is how it's perfectly possible to regard them as being, simultaneously, evil conservatives and poster boys for open borders (aka more complex immigration understandings).
"In the post-WWII Soviet Union homosexuality and pornography were forbidden, abstract art was in great disfavor, classical, pre-revolutionary Russian culture was heavily promoted by the state, divorce was rare, drug abuse and prostitution were non-existant, the young dressed modestly, and so on and so forth."
The same could be said about most of the "lefty West" as you call it after WW2.
Nice try though, trying to make Stalin look like a right wing conservative, problem is that all those lefty Westerners did not seem to stop supporting this right wing paragon. I have heard this lame attempt at rewriting history before, it does not work because it is completely untrue, unless you want somehow that argue that the gulags did not exist before Lenin, and that Lenin was also selling the virtues of homosexuality and abstract art.
Are they still calling it the "Patriot's Day" bombing, "Patriot's Day" being a dog whistle for white people?
I didn't write anything about "reaching out to them properly." If you don't want to be a target of bombings, I'd suggest we stop invading, bombing, and killing people.
Target, schmarget. They can't bomb us if we don't let them come here.
Funny there's not more in MSM about Tsarnaev's possible involvement in this triple murder, especially considering who the victims were.
...when those opposed to Glasnot were routinely described in the US media as "conservative"...
"Conservative" simply means you see value in the current social/religious/economic situation and want to preserve it.
In 1776, the conservatives were the Tories, not the Revolutionaries. (You can imagine them wearing Union Jack lapel pins and thanking every Redcoat they met for their service.)
"Free Palestine"
--Tweeted by Dzhokhar Tsarnoff
One of these days, a radical Muslim is going to kill an abortionist, and proclaim that he did it to eliminate a murderer from the earth.
Maybe then, liberals will take radical Islam seriously.
What anonymous at 5:27 said. It may be true, but it certainly makes this mosque seem like the "right kind" of muslims.
With respect to the Muslim world, the United States has been the clear aggressor. If Muslims respond to our violence with violence, that is merely called reciprocity. And reciprocity is a cornerstone of justice.
If you ask the Muslims themselves, they'll tell you this battle has been going on for centuries with plenty of violence on both sides. Only Americans and Europeans have short enough memories to think this stuff started last decade.
However, I'm not defending our ongoing presence in their countries. At most, we should have mounted punitive expeditions and then gone home to let them sort through the rubble. (I'm assuming (again, because they say so) that our killing them doesn't draw this stuff so much as our tinkering, arrogance, and general impression of soft decadence.) I don't see why we have a single soldier on foreign soil right now.
But regardless of their reasons or rationalizations, when someone comes into your country and kills people, you don't apologize for making him do it. That kind of wussy hand-wringing might gain Democrat votes, but it'll also encourage the next guy to try his luck.
I wonder if that imam is really that liberal or if he's just making the story up for whatever reason. (Especially given the racism of Arabs towards black Muslims.)
He wasn't anti-MLK per se. He was opposed to comparing the great Prophet with MLK.
"oh my god, he took offense at a comparison between his holy prophet and a wife beating, sex-addicted, prostitute frequenting plagiarist?!!"
If you think about it, Muhammad and MLK may have much in common.
Muhammad plagiarized the Old and New Testament and had lots of women.
http://www.ajc.com/news/ap/crime/nebraska-woman-sentenced-for-faking-hate-crime/nXQML/
"Prosecutors say her story quickly fell apart, and that she faked the attack because she thought it would inspire change in the treatment of gay people."
False fag operation.
Anon at 4/23/13, 9:06 AM continues to provide excellent arguments for continuing to import foreign muslims into our country.
"oh my god, he took offense at a comparison between his holy prophet and a wife beating, sex-addicted, prostitute frequenting plagiarist?!!"
Well, at least, MLKJ wasn't a murderous pedophile.
But, yeah, I wouldn't want to meet either one of them in a dark alley.
"We invade and kill people and we are surprised when they fight back eventually? There is nothing unusual to psychoanalyze about these events."
When did America invade Chechnya and kill anyone there? By your logic, shouldn't the Chechen extremists stick to their old tricks of blowing up large residential buildings in family neighborhoods and holding up elementary schools in Russia, since that's the country that prevents Chechnya from raiding their neighbors?
"We invade and kill people and we are surprised when they fight back eventually? There is nothing unusual to psychoanalyze about these events."
When did America invade Chechnya and kill anyone there? By your logic, shouldn't the Chechen extremists stick to their old tricks of blowing up large residential buildings in family neighborhoods and holding up elementary schools in Russia, since that's the country that prevents Chechnya from raiding their neighbors?
American has invaded, killed, and tortured other Muslims (as well as other human beings). You are assuming a crabbed premise I do not ascribe to. Besides, even if the Muslims were not the Tsarnoff's identity group, would it be wrong for the brothers to have come to their defense?
Would the United States have been unjustified in, say, intervening against Germany on behalf of Jews?
If you ask the Muslims themselves, they'll tell you this battle has been going on for centuries with plenty of violence on both sides.
No they won't--unless you ask someone like Fareed Zakaria. Zionist America's depredations against the Arab world over the past 75 years do not constitute any kind of tit-for-tat relation. The resistance fighters who have targeted the United States cite contemporary violent oppression by us as justification for taking up arms against us.
Only Americans and Europeans have short enough memories to think this stuff started last decade.
You are correct, inadvertently. They think that 9/11 came out of nowhere. This "stuff" started in 1917.
I didn't write anything about "reaching out to them properly." If you don't want to be a target of bombings, I'd suggest we stop invading, bombing, and killing people.
Target, schmarget. They can't bomb us if we don't let them come here.
Our immigration policy should be tightened significantly. Our borders should be made secure. There should be a fence along both borders. But we are still a large country that is connected into the world in many ways. Absolute security is practically impossible, while high security is very, very expensive and is tilts closer to a police state regime where excessive power is held hazardously in the hands of the federal government.
Better to also not provoke people if it can be avoided.
"The same could be said about most of the "lefty West" as you call it after WW2."
Not true. And it was all true of the USSR up until the late 1980s.
" problem is that all those lefty Westerners did not seem to stop supporting this right wing paragon."
Not true. It was fashionable among Western intellectuals and artists to be Communist before WWII, but not afterwards. Obviously, the content of their beliefs didn't change, but when Communism became associated with Stalin's post-war policies, the Communist label was dropped by fashionable circles in the West.
"unless you want somehow that argue that the gulags did not exist before Lenin"
What does that have to do with my argument? The czarist government had prisons, but they were not called gulags.
"and that Lenin was also selling the virtues of homosexuality and abstract art."
From the Wikipedia:
"In 1917, the Russian Revolution saw the overthrow of the Tsarist government, and the subsequent foundation of the Russian SFSR, the world's first socialist state, followed by the founding of the Soviet Union after the end of the civil war in 1922. The new Communist Party government eradicated the old laws regarding sexual relations, effectively legalising homosexual activity within Russia, although it remained illegal in other former territories of the Russian Empire. Under Lenin's leadership, openly gay people were allowed to serve in government. In 1933, the Soviet government, under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, recriminalised homosexual activity, most probably to improve the strained relations with the Russian Orthodox Church, who considered homosexuality sinful."
The same is true of abstract art. Lenin's Russia was a major source of it. You don't seem to know much about the time and place under discussion.
Free Palestine
--Dhjokhar Tsarnoff (11/28/12 tweet)
[Posting correct link.]
The Brothers Tsarnaev had utopian, idealistic goals: the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate.
This is textbook liberalism. Conservatives seek to conserve, while liberals seek to destroy the status quo in the name of progress... unfortunately, sometimes with bombs (cf, Kathy Boudin, now teaching at Columbia).
The Brothers Tsarnaev had utopian, idealistic goals: the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate.
They seem to have just wanted the United States to stop bombing, slaughtering, and torturing other human beings.
"They seem to have just wanted the United States to stop bombing, slaughtering, and torturing other human beings."
They couldn't have been THAT utopian. Other Muslims, maybe. Although I suspect that if Chechnya attacked another Muslim entity (the Chechens attacked Dagestan some years ago), those brothers would have picked Chechnya's side.
They couldn't have been THAT utopian.
Why not?
My comment about H-1B workers is now the highest-rated one on Fred Wilson's immigration blog post. Fred leans left on most issues, but his readership is more balanced. Steve and readers here should consider commenting there when Fred posts on immigration and other topics of interest.
"Why not?"
Because Islam is a club, like almost everything in politics. It tends to treat insiders differently from outsiders. Imagine these guys reading on online forums about the spread of Islam in the Middle Ages. Would they have sympathized with the Christian, Hindu, pagan victims of that process? I find that idea highly implausible.
If you replaced "other people" with "other Muslims" in your formulation, then maybe, maybe some plausibility would attach to it.
If you replaced "other people" with "other Muslims" in your formulation, then maybe, maybe some plausibility would attach to it.
They seem to have just wanted the United States to stop bombing, slaughtering, and torturing other [Muslims].
My original sentence was accurate (other Muslims are other human beings), but it seems not specific enough for your taste.
During the first few centuries of its existence Islam usually played the role of the bully. It initiated conflicts back then. And lots of people must have died. How many modern Muslims are so universalist, so utopian, so hippy-dippy as to feel sorry for any of that? And if they could somehow regain the upper hand in world affairs, what's the reason to think that they would act differently?
If you ask the Muslims themselves, they'll tell you this battle has been going on for centuries with plenty of violence on both sides. Only Americans and Europeans have short enough memories to think this stuff started last decade.
Actually America used to be wildly popular in both the Arab and Muslim world; however relations deteriorated over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the popular perception that America was constantly unfairly taking Israel's side, even to the point of pushing sanctions and wars against Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a threat to Israel (while telling Americans he was a threat to America). The September 11th terrorists targeted New York city's economic center probably in part because they probably perceived it as the Jewish heart of America.
However the anti-Israel motives of Muslim terrorists is almost never discussed by the media because doing so might cause Americans to question America's unique relationship with Israel. Much better from the neo-con perspective to keep the public ignorant by claiming they hate America for its freedom and secularism or that they've just ALWAYS been at war with the West, and thus the only rational response is more wars in the middle east, and while such wars help Israel, they have devastating consequences for both America and the Muslim world.
Excellent comment, fact checker.
See for similar:
http://mangans.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-liberal-meme-it-wasnt-political.html
"Would the United States have been unjustified in, say, intervening against Germany on behalf of Jews?"
Who knows. The fact is the United States did not intervene against Germany on behalf of the Jews, and most Americans in the 1930s would have been opposed to such an intervention if it meant military force.
Dude was practically a Teaper
Post a Comment