quote:

Now that the Boston bombers have been identified - one killed and the other brother captured - the next question is why? Why did they do it, and did religion play a role?

As soon as it became clear that the Tsarnaev brothers were Muslim and that Tamerlan, the older of the two, had become pious in recent years, commentators began to point to religion as the culprit. Once again, they implied, an act of violence has occurred with the specter of radical Islam hovering in the background. Or so it may initially have appeared.

But I suspect the truth is more complicated than that.

THE BOSTON CASE APPEARS TO BE SIMILAR TO MANY OF THE OTHER LONE WOLF TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE UNITED STATES IN RECENT YEARS. Before Boston, there was the December 2012 Newtown massacre by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary School; the July 2012 movie theater shootings by James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado; the August 2012 attack on the Milwaukee Sikh Gurdwara by Wade Michael Page; the 2010 Times Square bombing attempt by Faisal Shahzad; and the 1996 Atlanta Olympic park bombing by Eric Robert Rudolph, to name a few.

SOME OF THESE WERE COMMITTED BY CHRISTIANS, SOME BY MUSLIMS, AND SOME BY THOSE WITH NO PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION AT ALL. IN ALMOST ALL CASES, THOUGH, THESE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES WHERE LONELY, ALIENATED INDIVIDUALS HAVE RAGED AGAINST A SOCIETY THAT THEY THOUGHT HAD ABANDONED THEM.

These lone wolf events are different from other instances in recent years where organized radical religious groups such as the Christian militia or a Muslim jihadi organizations have plotted attacks and recruited participants to be involved in them. IN THE LONE WOLF CASES, RELIGIOUS IDEAS, WHEN THEY APPEARED AT ALL, WERE MORE OF AN EXCUSE THAN A REASON FOR THE VIOLENCE.

The Boston incident seems to be a case in point. Though the details of the background and motives of the Tsarnaev brothers aren’t entirely clear, religion in the Boston bomber case also seems to be a secondary aspect of their motivations. LIKE THE OTHER CASES IN RECENT YEARS, IT IS AN EXPRESSION OF THE RAGE OF ANGRY YOUNG MEN.

SPECIFICALLY, IN THE CASE OF THE TSARNAEV BROTHERS, IT IS THE EXPRESSION OF THE RAGE OF ONE ANGRY YOUNG MAN ASSISTED BY HIS YOUNGER BROTHER.....

Still, for Tamarlan the notion of being a part of a great battle seemed appealing.

Real wars can sound tremendously exciting to such people. The imagined wars of great religious conflict are more than exhilarating - offering the promise of opportunity, of playing an ennobling role within that cosmic war. Perhaps most directly, such imagined wars provide a justification for doing something destructive to the very society that they think has shunned them.

Hence the defense of a religion provides a cover for violence. It gives moral license to something horrible that the perpetrators had longed to do, to show the world how powerful they really could be, and to demonstrate their importance in one terminal moment of violent glory. RELIGION DOESN’T CAUSE THE VIOLENCE, IT’S THE EXCUSE FOR IT.

ONE DOES NOT NEED RELIGION TO DO THIS, OF COURSE. AFTER ALL, ADAM LANZA SHOT UP THE NEWTOWN SCHOOL AND JOHN HOLMES ATTACKED THE AURORA MOVIE THEATER CROWD WITHOUT A NOD TOWARDS RELIGION.

BUT IN THE CASE OF ATLANTA OLYMPIC PARK BOMBER ERIC ROBERT RUDOLPH AND THE SIKH GURDWARA ATTACKER WADE MICHAEL PAGE, THEIR MOTIVATIONS APPEAR TO HAVE INCLUDED THE DEFENSE OF CHRISTIAN SOCIETY. ATTEMPTED TIMES SQUARE BOMBER FAISAL SHAHZAD AND TAMERLAN TSARNAEV BOTH JUSTIFIED THEIR ACTS OF RAGE AS A DEFENSE OF ISLAMIC SOCIETY.

IT’S NOT RIGHT, OF COURSE, TO BLAME CHRISTIANITY FOR THE ACTS OF ANGRY YOUNG MEN WHO ARE CHRISTIAN - EVEN WHEN THEY CLAIM TO BE DEFENDING THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. SIMILARLY, ISLAM IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANGRY MUSLIMS.

Sadly, by evoking faith as an element of their bloody rage they compound their crimes, making religion yet another victim of their awful violence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

The more I learn about Islam, the more I dislike it. With Islam comes Sharia Law, where women who are raped are whipped or executed because they don't have the several male witnesses required to prove rape. Women are required to cover themselves to avoid being a temptation to men, which IMO translates to men not being required to take personal responsibility for their own actions. Then there's the commandment to kill those who aren't into Islam or those who leave Islam. Even in countries with Sunni Muslims, the number of honor killings is high. Islam seems to have a very evil culture associated with it. That being said, many years ago, Christians did a lot of stupid things like burning "witches." But most Christians stopped being violent a long time ago. The Westboro Baptist Church consists of verbally abusive radicals, but at least they aren't blowing people up. For the most part, I'm pretty liberal on most issues, but I admit to being prejudice toward Islam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

The kids themselves didn't say they did it casue of manson, religious wackos here tried to blame it on manson. I was in high school then, in the same town here in CO, one of the victims was a classmate in grammar school of mine, I am all too aware of what happened. The religious hand ringing was despicable.....I am pointing out that this kid in Boston claimed it was religious zeal, therefor there might be something to be said for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto
THE BOSTON CASE APPEARS TO BE SIMILAR TO MANY OF THE OTHER LONE WOLF TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE UNITED STATES IN RECENT YEARS. Before Boston, there was the December 2012 Newtown massacre by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook Elementary School; the July 2012 movie theater shootings by James Holmes in Aurora, Colorado; the August 2012 attack on the Milwaukee Sikh Gurdwara by Wade Michael Page; the 2010 Times Square bombing attempt by Faisal Shahzad; and the 1996 Atlanta Olympic park bombing by Eric Robert Rudolph, to name a few.

quote:

RELIGION DOESN’T CAUSE THE VIOLENCE, IT’S THE EXCUSE FOR IT.

ONE DOES NOT NEED RELIGION TO DO THIS, OF COURSE. AFTER ALL, ADAM LANZA SHOT UP THE NEWTOWN SCHOOL AND JOHN HOLMES ATTACKED THE AURORA MOVIE THEATER CROWD WITHOUT A NOD TOWARDS RELIGION. ...

Sadly, by evoking faith as an element of their bloody rage they compound their crimes, making religion yet another victim of their awful violence.

quote:

These lone wolf events are different from other instances in recent years where organized radical religious groups such as the Christian militia or a Muslim jihadi organizations have plotted attacks and recruited participants to be involved in them. IN THE LONE WOLF CASES, RELIGIOUS IDEAS, WHEN THEY APPEARED AT ALL, WERE MORE OF AN EXCUSE THAN A REASON FOR THE VIOLENCE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
the community with which the terrorist or terrorist group identifies is under attack from outside malignant forces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto
Timothy "Science is my god" McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was an avowed atheist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh
McVeigh was raised Roman Catholic.[85] During his childhood, he and his father attended Mass regularly.[86] McVeigh was confirmed at the Good Shepherd Church in Pendleton, New York, in 1985.[87] In a 1996 interview, McVeigh professed belief in "a God", although he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs."[85] In the 2001 book American Terrorist, McVeigh stated that he did not believe in Hell and that science is his religion.[88][89] In June 2001, a day before the execution, McVeigh wrote a letter to the Buffalo News identifying as agnostic.[90] Before his execution, McVeigh took the Catholic sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.[91]

quote:

Ultimately, this perspective is an optimistic one as it offers as solution to the problem of terrorism and a practical strategy to marginalise terrorist groups and ideologies. By focusing on addressing the underlying political issues as part of an overall response to terrorism, it is possible to separate the terrorists and their support base, which leads inevitably to the demise of terrorists as a danger to other people and as an active player in the power politics of the region in question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Ultimately, this perspective is an optimistic one as it offers as solution to the problem of terrorism and a practical strategy to marginalise terrorist groups and ideologies. By focusing on addressing the underlying political issues as part of an overall response to terrorism, it is possible to separate the terrorists and their support base, which leads inevitably to the demise of terrorists as a danger to other people and as an active player in the power politics of the region in question.

Your analysis is spot on but I don't share your optimism. Political terrorism is more often than not a response to oppression by an asymmetrical power, either internal or external. In almost every case terrorism leads to an anti-terror response by the greater power. The 'oppressing' power feels injured and feels the need to exercise a response from strength, which only makes matters worse. Has there ever been a case when the greater power did not attempt to crush the terrorists? Either the rebellion is suppressed or marginalized, or the rebels gain some degree of authenticity and are able to secure help from other powers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto
(...) act of violence has occurred with the specter of radical Islam hovering in the background (...) But I suspect the truth is more complicated than that. (...) RELIGION DOESN’T CAUSE THE VIOLENCE, IT’S THE EXCUSE FOR IT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
For Americans considering these issues in the wake of Boston, the question is does the USA wish to pursue a considered strategy designed to achieve eliminate terrorism, or does it wish to pursue a military response which might be emotionally more satisfying but whose outcome is doomed to defeat.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)