Suicide, homicide, and terrorism
In the aftermath of the Bastille Day terrorist attack in Nice, some in the press seem to be emphasizing the fact that the perpetrator probably was not trained directly by ISIS, and had had marital troubles and reportedly been depressed.
Although authorities need to know all the details, this emphasis on the psychological can serve to minimize the huge influence of the ideological. Suicide murderers and suicide bombers of the Islamist variety have—as do all killers—a variety of motives, a mix of influences. There is the psychological (desire to die), of course. Even that is not simple with an Islamist terrorist—in other words, why do they want to die? Depression is probably in the mix for some, but for all there is the motive of their concept of religious martyrdom and reward—both in the next world, and prestige for their family in this world.
These are not the ordinary suicidal thoughts or even ordinary homicidal thoughts. And the Bastille Day attack was not an ordinary suicidal or homicidal act, or even a primarily suicidal act at all, any more than was true of the 9/11 plotters (who also knew they would die).
With every murder, the psychological interacts with the sociological (in the case of the Bastille Day perp, there was post-divorce and cultural dislocation as well). But in the case of Islamist terrorists they interact very powerfully with apocalyptic religious Islamist sentiment and the desire to kill the infidel as per ISIS’s commands. Even the modus operandi is usually suggested by terrorist manuals, as we’ve seen in the case of Nice.
A perpetrator’s psychological state may have some bearing on the question of “why this particular person and not another?” But when we hear of an atrocity such as what happened in Nice, most of us are able to name the religious ideology of the perpetrator before we know much more about him except the bare outline of his crime.
This does not mean there were not psychological and sociological aspects to the actions of the terrorist in Nice. There certainly were, and authorities need to take a look at them, too. But when newspapers emphasize them, it seems fairly clear that they are trying to draw attention away from the all-important “but for” element: inspiration by and identification with the destructive aims of Islamist terrorist groups such as ISIS.
The media’s attempts to draw away attention from the ideological motivation of the killers borders upon collaboration. That they have leftist rather than Islamist goals changes that collaboration not in the slightest. The vast majority of the media are actively obstructing an effective response to Islamist terrorism.
Eventually, their actions will have horrific consequences for them and it would be purest justice if that consequence arrives at the hands of those with whom they are collaborating. The pundits and commentators who have recently begun to acknowledge that “We are in a war” are beginning to realize that they too are high profile targets.
How easy would it be for ISIS to kidnap a national anchor or other celebrity and then televise their torture and murder? That fate for a celebrity would raise terror to a whole new level, for if it could happen to them, how safe are the rest of us?
How long before terrorists upload to the internet and al-Jazeera the tortured condition of their victims that the French authorities sought to hide?
The attack in Nice is just one of many attacks to come. The Left has ensured it and in doing so, bears it’s full share of responsibility.
Geoffrey: the Islamists have already killed journalists ( https://cpj.org/killed/2016/), but ISIS has not taken that particular route yet.
Although that event might make the media and public hunker down even more than they are now, as you suggest, it’s also possible that it would be a tipping point in the other direction: once people see that bowing to Islamic Jihad won’t protect them, some of them might be emboldened to speak the truth.
AesopFan Says: 4:16 pm
“… once people see that bowing to Islamic Jihad won’t protect them, some of them might be emboldened to speak the truth.”
I don’t buy into the idea that the left’s collaboration with Islam is based on fear or cowardice. I believe they are all such arrogant power hungry SOB’s that they think that terrible things will only happen to little people – the hoi polloi – whose lives are expendable so long as their sacrifice enhances the power of the elites.
The left with have been praising Obama’s race baiting and hate speech for 7 years. Now that they have succeeded in starting a shooting race war with policemen’s lives as the sacrificial pawns the are rubbing their hands in glee since they have almost achieved their goal of so disrupting civil society that they can consolidate power in a way not possible just a few short years ago.
His last cell phone transmissions — and more — clearly establish that he was on jihad — and doing it for Allah and ISIS.
He was ANYTHING but depressed — based on his ‘selfies.’
Kyle Orton: “From Zarqawi onward, a criminal history has been a *spur* to the adoption of religious militancy as a form of redemption.”
It is interesting that no one tries to excuse Hitler’s crimes be on psychological grounds like they try to excuse the jihadis crimes. The crimes committed by jihadis are more easily explained as rational behavior since they have religious imperative to motivate them whereas than the genocide against European Jews was not supported by religious beliefs and was counter productive to Germany’s long term self interest.
Here’s a sober, and disconcerting, “solution” to the problem of Islamic jihad, from Spengler (David Goldman).
http://atimes.com/2016/07/why-the-terrorists-are-winning-the-intelligence-war/
“These attacks, in other words, are designed to impress the Muslim public as much as they are intended to horrify the western public. In so many words, the terrorists tell Muslims that western police agencies cannot protect them. If they cooperate with the police they will be found out and punished. The West fears the power of Islam: it evinces such fear by praising Islam as a religion of peace, by squelching dissent in the name of fighting supposed Islamophobia, and by offering concessions and apologies to Muslims. Ordinary Muslims live in fear of the terror networks, which have infiltrated their communities and proven their ability to turn the efforts of western security services against them. They are less likely to inform on prospective terrorists and more likely to aid them by inaction.
The terrorists, in short, are winning the intelligence war, because they have shaped the environment in which intelligence is gathered and traded. But that is how intelligence wars always proceed: spies switch sides and tell their stories because they want to be with the winner. ISIS and al-Qaeda look like winners in the eyes of western Muslim populations after humiliating the security services of the West.
As a result, western European Muslims fear the terrorists more than they fear the police. The West will remain vulnerable to mass terror attacks until the balance of fear shifts in the other direction.”
* * *
His examples of how that balance shifts do not make for comfortable reading. However, since the governments responsible for the spread of Islam in the West have refused in the past to make common-sense efforts to ameliorate the situation (think Rotherham, and rapes in Sweden even before the recent influx), the natural citizens of Europe and America will eventually be much more demanding of extreme measures to protect themselves.
PS recognizing that something MAY happen is not the same as advocating it. I wish we had leaders who would take steps to make it NOT happen – so long as that step is not just to cravenly give in and submit to the Islamic demands for submission of all our rights and freedoms —
Remember, we are talking about a religion and culture that supports, even demands, this kind of atrocity, among many others:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pakistani-stars-brother-not-embarrassed-by-killing-her/ar-BBupDfw?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
Dennis Says:
July 17th, 2016 at 5:21 pm
“I don’t buy into the idea that the left’s collaboration with Islam is based on fear or cowardice. I believe they are all such arrogant power hungry SOB’s that they think that terrible things will only happen to little people — the hoi polloi — whose lives are expendable so long as their sacrifice enhances the power of the elites.”
* * *
Fair enough; there are many on the Left AND Right with the motivations you suggest.
But there are many others who are “going along to get along” so long as that looks like the safest route. Fear of being called a racist bigot pales, however, against the fear of being mutilated and beheaded, and the jihadis and the Left between them are quickly forcing the world into that pincer.
The Leftist alliance is ideologically closer to the religion of Islam than is ordinarily apparent. Consider feminism and Islam’s FGM and practice of controlling women as cattle.
Even if we accept that the Bastille jihadi was overloaded with personal problems, we still have a problem.
A disconsolate Buddhist whose life is going wrong on all fronts isn’t going to do something like this. Most Americans who commit suicide do it by themselves, while some do it “by cop”.
He may be a straightforward jihadi.
Or he may be messed up in seventeen different ways, but in this case, he took the Muslim way out.
Woops.
Pick one.
AesopFan,
I was speaking of prominent celebrities and media ‘personalities’, not the journeymen media drones. Daniel Pearl for instance was not a name that most recognized before his murder. And certainly some on the left would reexamine the Islamist threat.
I also find Splengler’s assertion problematic, as regardless of how inadequate western police forces may be, anonymous tips through the Internet are always an option.
I’m in full agreement with Ymarsakar as to the closeness of Islamists and Leftists, in that at base, their nature is totalitarian. The main difference is that one is unapologeticly atheist and the other wraps itself in religious pretense. Two sides of the same coin.
I commented on another thread that the Nice jihadi seemed to me to be pretty typical of the French Muslims who have radicalized. Many have been criminals who didn’t follow the tenets of Islam. I think the ISIS/al Qaeda recruiters aim their recruiting pitches at just this type of screwed up young Muslim men. They know these men are probably seething with rage and feel ineffectual and maybe worthless. The recruiters offer them a way to get right with Allah – a martyrdom operation. Their motives are not pure hatred of the infidel, but more like a chance to do a deed that will provide salvation and notoriety to a bad Muslim who has led a wasted life of crime.
Just an observation from someone with no training. So, take it for what’s it’s worth.
His last words were that he was acting for the glory of allah and the prophet. Why should his f#$*ed personal issues be of any concern? Those who follow a strict interpretation of the koran and sharia are f#$*ed people. They need to be wiped off the face of the earth, and those who give them support no matter how passive or fearful. No mercy, no regrets leads to peace.
If djt would promise on the heads of his grandchildren to nuke mecca and medina after being sworn in as POTUS I might consider voting for him.
AesopFan Says: at 6:23 pm
Dennis Says:
July 17th, 2016 at 5:21 pm
“I don’t buy into the idea that the left’s collaboration with Islam is based on fear or cowardice. I believe they are all such arrogant power hungry SOB’s …”
* * *
Fair enough; there are many on the Left AND Right with the motivations you suggest.
I don’t accept the moral equivalence. I agree that people on the right are humans with moral failings but they are not generally as ruthless as those on the left. The left murdered about 100 million people last century and show no evidence that they have developed any moral scruples since.
While the left tries to redefine the Nazis as right wing they share almost no beliefs with American conservatives. Both the left and the Nazis shared in their abhorrence of the morality normally associated with traditional Christian Western Civilization. Modern leftists have very little positive to believe in so – just like the Communists in the last century and the Nazis – their truth is what they are against. They don’t know much but they certainly think they know that Christians are wrong and evil. In other words they define themselves by what they are against which is still Christian morality which had been codified into secular laws. In China the left modified their approach to include traditional Chinese morality as well as Christian morality for destruction.
Wonder if Neo explaining here the differences and motives for comparison between Anders Behring Breivik is a Norwegian far-right terrorist who openly telling his motive why he done his crime with Bastille Day psychological killer.
Remember this
The Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, also known as the Ibrahimi Mosque massacre or Hebron massacre,[1] was a shooting massacre carried out by American-Israeli Baruch Goldstein.
The killer I fiancée by Meir Kahane, the US-born rabbi who was a founder of the violent Jewish Defense League and later the leader of the fascist Kacy party – which was so openly racist.
So different religion
Pero:
One incident by a unique individual, condemned for his attack by an entire society and religion, only proves how different Judaism is and how unsupportive of such actions, compared to huge swaths of Islam with many many many perpetrators and supporters of terrorism and terrorists.
Pero:
Wonder if you know how to use the “search” function to find what I’ve written about Breivik.
“Those who follow a strict interpretation of the koran and sharia are f#$*ed people. They need to be wiped off the face of the earth, and those who give them support…If djt would promise on the heads of his grandchildren to nuke mecca and medina after being sworn in as POTUS I might consider voting for him.” – parker
Why stop there? The problem with all that is flip out koran and sharia and flip in communism (or whatever identifier for a group in a given region that is causing us harm in one way or another) and we have justification for nukes for a large variety of scenarios.
Would like to think there are several steps yet to take long before reaching that point, to say nothing of the consequences we’d face of going directly there.
Also, a man willing to go directly there as POTUS, without attempting other means first, will certainly have few qualms about subjugating his own people.
Earlier in the thread questions arose regarding Pakistan nukes. Here is some background on the “Russian loose nukes” and terrorism theme:
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/articles/20160719.aspx