Comments on: The Struggle to Understand: Jihad, Going Postal, and Superempowerment

By: A.R.Yngve

A.R.Yngve — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:15:20 +0000

Hasn’t anyone here seen Monty Python’s LIFE OF BRIAN? Whatever religion comes around, someone will always use it as an excuse/license to act out his/her worst instincts.

So it is never, ever really like this: “Oh! Suddenly God is telling me to kill lots of people! I must obey this instant message from Beyond!”

Rather it would be a little something like this: “I hate myself I hate my co-workers I hate this life I hate being so powerless I want to die but I’m not going alone but it would be wrong to… God. Yeah. That’s right. If I kill myself and lots of people and God wants it, then it’s OK. Heh heh heh…”

Religion is the excuse, not the cause. The cause is in us. We have religions for the same reason we have laws, to restrain people’s murderous instincts… thought perhaps not always with great success.

By: Chris Dierkes

Chris Dierkes — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:31:32 +0000

Mark,

No one has yet suggested there was any group cell conspiracy on this one. For all it appears, this was a lone figure. He certainly seems to have interpreted his act as part of some resistance to America, but I still don’t see (as lonerism) this really is all that different (as other commenters have pointed out) from a Christian-inspired murder of an abortion doctor. It’s a terrorist act, a domestic terrorist act for that matter, and it’s horrible, but I think we give it too much power if we link it to some idea of some worldwide threat against the US that threatens to overthrow our democracy. It’s a criminal act, horrible in its consequences undoubtedly, but not some existential threat or the tip of some foreign coming spear. I’ll have more to say on this probably Monday, but sufficed it to say I don’t think it helps to label all such activity as Jihad with a capital J and act like it’s some monolithic, united front against America. The idea in war is to divide your enemies and conquer them, not multiply your enemies.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:25:15 +0000

Political correctness will win the day on this most detestable act of Jihad waged on our own soil. The lib media will continue to spin this as anything but Jihad. The truth stares us in the face yet we are unwilling to see. Instead of this worthless, feel-good drivel, more articles telling the truth about radical Islam need to start appearing in the main stream media in order that we, as a people under incredible danger from these extremists, are able to face the sad reality that is Jihad.
This article is ridiculous.

By: Jaybird

Jaybird — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:00:58 +0000

Oh, I’m pretty certain that his religion inspired him to kill folks.

Hell, I’m even pretty certain that he was a terrorist.

I’m just also pretty certain that he didn’t see himself that way.

By: Bob Cheeks

Bob Cheeks — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:22:21 +0000

Re: your first paragraph, Chris, I don’t buy it. I think the media “shys” away from defining the murderers as ‘Muslims” or “Islamists” for pc reasons only, e.g. an overt effort to deflect responsibility for the crime (murder/massacre) away from a ‘protected minority’ group, in this case Muslims. You can be assured that if the murderer(s) were Caucasian, Presbyterians they’d have no problem announcing that fact to the world.
The same phenomenon occurs with regard to particularly horrendous crimes committed by homosexuals (and no, I’m not saying homosexuals are all criminals). The msm is in fact covering for certain, select, minority groups, against the evil majority.
And, that’s one reason why the msm is dying and the internet sites, such as this one, gets so much traffic. People are very simply looking for the truth!

By: greginak

greginak — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:38:27 +0000

Yes Chris. It is not hard at all to think his religion had something to do what his actions. just the same as religion may be a factor in the murder of abortion providers or the actions of the many other spree killers. but in America people can make the distinction between what one nut does and all the various other believers. with Islam people seem unable to do that and the maroons in the MSM seem unable to understand or articulate that.

By: Chris Dierkes

Chris Dierkes — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:01:46 +0000

excellent comment. I struggle with those questions all the time. I try to raise them through my blogging here and in conversations I have with folks. Beyond that I don’t really know what else I can do.

By: Chris Dierkes

Chris Dierkes — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:00:19 +0000

Because the media in particular have a hard time understanding the distinction/relationship between “his religion” and “the religion” (in this case Islam). The media have no real helpful analytic frame to deal with religion, so as a result they are afraid they will tar a whole population of people (unfairly) and therefore tend to shy away from it.

Also, even if they did have an illuminating analytical frame (which they don’t), they can’t assume their audience (or a majority of them) will share said analytic frame and will (mis)interpret their words to be the same result: branding all Muslims (esp. in America) as terrorists.

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:50:33 +0000

And that change was to kill 13 Americans? Why can’t people accept that his religion was a major factor if not the major factor in his actions? People are more than willing to blame Christianity when an abortion protester kills someone.

By: Jaybird

Jaybird — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 04:00:05 +0000

This is where my postness kicks in.

I doubt that he “decided to become a terrorist”.

Maybe he decided to kill his co-workers. Maybe he decided that he would rather die than go overseas and what better way than in a blaze of glory. Maybe he decided that God (Allah) would want him to take a stand against the heretic oppressors who were going to kill those 10 times more devout.

I doubt he woke up and said “I’m going to become a terrorist.”

If anything, he woke up and said “I’m going to be the change I want to see in the world.”