Anger Management Worked

Mark Steyn:

Former brother-in-law Elmirza Khozhugov explains Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s grievances to the New York Times:

He was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion.

So he blew up an eight-year old boy and a couple of hundred other Americans.

And now the media are full of stories about how the Tsarnaevs were all-American kids and “beautiful, beautiful boys” and maybe it was the boxing or the Ben Affleck movies or the classical music but, whatever it was, it was nothing to do with Islam. Nothing whatever.

So I guess it worked.

Related:

Here’s another one, for keeps:

If it weren’t for the Islamic Crescent on the “Coexist” bumper sticker, we wouldn’t even need a coexist bumper sticker.

The “co-exist” bombers

I wonder, when the “Co-exist” car is returned to its owner, whether he or she will keep the bumper sticker in place. One would not expect him to conclude, as the gays of Amsterdam and the Jews of Toulouse and the Christians of Egypt have bleakly done, that if it weren’t for that Islamic crescent you wouldn’t need a bumper sticker at all. But he may perhaps have learned that life is all a bit more complicated than the smiley-face banalities of the multicultists.

It’s very weird to live in a society where mass death is important insofar as it serves the political needs of the dominant ideology. A white male loner killing white kindergartners in Connecticut is news; a black doctor butchering black babies in Pennsylvania is not. When the manhunt in Boston began, I received a bunch of e-mails sneering I was gagging for it to be the Muzzies just as hungrily as lefties were for it to be an NRA guy, a Tea Partier, a Sarah Palin donor. But, actually, I wasn’t. On Monday, it didn’t feel Islamic: a small death toll at a popular event but not one with the resonance and iconic quality the big-time jihadists like — like 9/11, the embassy bombings, the U.S.S. Cole. After all, if the jihad crowd wanted to blow up a few people here and there IRA-style they could have been doing it all this last decade.

On the other hand, it didn’t feel like one of those freelance bumblers — the Pantybomber, the Times Square Bomber — finally got lucky. It feels like something in between, something new. Is it just a one-off? Or a strategic evolution?

Read the Article

One more excerpt from Steyn:

The Tsarnaev brothers had spent most of their lives in the United States, and lived the diversity dream. They seem to have had a droll wit when it comes to symbolism: Last year, the younger brother took his oath of citizenship and became an American on September 11. And, in their final hours of freedom, they added a cruel bit of mockery to their crimes by carjacking a getaway vehicle with a “Co-exist” bumper sticker. Oh, you must have seen them: I bet David Sirota has one. The “C” is the Islamic crescent, the “O” is the hippy peace sign; the “X” is the Star of David, the “T” is the Christian cross; I think there’s some LGBT, Taoist, and Wiccan stuff in there, too. They’re not mandatory on vehicles in Massachusetts; it just seems that way. I wonder, when the “Co-exist” car is returned to its owner, whether he or she will keep the bumper sticker in place. One would not expect him to conclude, as the gays of Amsterdam and the Jews of Toulouse and the Christians of Egypt have bleakly done, that if it weren’t for that Islamic crescent you wouldn’t need a bumper sticker at all. But he may perhaps have learned that life is all a bit more complicated than the smiley-face banalities of the multicultists.

****

From the comments:

Islam is the only major world religion that expressly endorses violence against nonbelievers. In the West of 2013, we call Holy War “Radical,” but Jihad is a “Moderate” Islamic belief. Tsarnaev’s Cambridge Mosque was a moderate Islamic mosque, yet it hosted “Radical” Muslim speakers who advocated violent Jihad and by doing so it gave legitimacy to the violent Jihadist.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/…

The difference between Moderate Islam and Radical Islam appears to be that the Radicals do the actual killing, while the Moderates agree with the radicals on the principle of Jihad. This is why Islam does not play well with others. If you look at a map and draw a line around the Islamic world, there’s violence and war everywhere Islam touches non Islamic beliefs; e.g., where Islam touches the Hindus of India, the Russians, the Jews of Israel, the Copts of Egypt, the Secularists of France, the UK, Spain, Denmark and Holland and now the earthy crunchy college town of Cambridge, MA. The commonality is that violence always erupts when Islam touches (x) belief system, but valance does not erupt when belief systems other than Islam interact with (x) belief system. At a certain point a reasonable person has to ask that maybe it’s not us, it’s them. Islam is the dependent variable, the commonality, Islam leads to violence.