The Harris/Nawaz book came out on audio, so I got it immediately. I didn’t realize it was so short. I just started, but it is packed with good stuff. Nawaz starts out explaining how religion alone or politics alone can’t account for radicalization. He is in quotes, and I paraphased Sam’s part.
“Grievances are not in themselves sufficient to radicalize somebody. They are half the truth. To summarize; When the West failed to intervene in the Bosnian genocide some Muslims became radicalized. When we did intervene in Afghanistan and Iraq, more Muslims became radicalized. When we failed to intervene in Syria, many more Muslims became radicalized. The grievance narrative that pins the blame on foreign policy is only half the story. It is insufficient as an explanation for radicalization."
Sam tries to sort this out, Bosnia did not require an invasion of Muslim territory, Hussein was a hated secular tyrant, yet when invaded Muslims said it was “Muslim land". Religion creates in-group loyalty even when the members are behaving like psychopaths.
“The grievances are relevant is in priming young vulnerable individuals who are experiencing an identity crisis to receive ideological dogma through charismatic recruiters." The dogma then frames the worldview. Poverty for example is not a reasonable factor since radicals come from non-impoverished people.
What I hear is, the anger of young men is something that all cultures have had to deal with. That never changes. How that anger is channeled does change and religion can play a positive or negative role in that.
Tashfeen was the wife. The man was Rizwan Farook.
I woke up the morning of the San Bernadino massacre, hearing Trump on the news, saying "We have to take out their families...We have to take out their families!". Here is something that is complete conjecture on my part:
I wonder whether Farook heard the same thing, that morning. I wonder whether his argument at the Christmas party that day might have had something to do with that. I wonder whether Farook's decision to carry out his jihad that particular day and at that particular place, may have been prompted by that. Apparently, he and his wife planned to do some sort of attack, soon, regardless (evidence being all the pipe bombs prepared). But the timing of Trump's broadcasting his views re: killing family members of jihadists, makes me wonder.
Anyway, to the larger point of this thread, intolerance often leads to oppositional intolerance, which often leads to more intolerance, and so on and so on.
The Harris/Nawaz book came out on audio, so I got it immediately. I didn't realize it was so short. I just started, but it is packed with good stuff. Nawaz starts out explaining how religion alone or politics alone can't account for radicalization. He is in quotes, and I paraphased Sam's part.
“Grievances are not in themselves sufficient to radicalize somebody. They are half the truth. To summarize; When the West failed to intervene in the Bosnian genocide some Muslims became radicalized. When we did intervene in Afghanistan and Iraq, more Muslims became radicalized. When we failed to intervene in Syria, many more Muslims became radicalized. The grievance narrative that pins the blame on foreign policy is only half the story. It is insufficient as an explanation for radicalization."
Sam tries to sort this out, Bosnia did not require an invasion of Muslim territory, Hussein was a hated secular tyrant, yet when invaded Muslims said it was “Muslim land". Religion creates in-group loyalty even when the members are behaving like psychopaths.
“The grievances are relevant is in priming young vulnerable individuals who are experiencing an identity crisis to receive ideological dogma through charismatic recruiters." The dogma then frames the worldview. Poverty for example is not a reasonable factor since radicals come from non-impoverished people.
What I hear is, the anger of young men is something that all cultures have had to deal with. That never changes. How that anger is channeled does change and religion can play a positive or negative role in that.
Tashfeen was the wife. The man was Rizwan Farook.
I'm sure Randy was being facetious when he named Tashfeen. In any case, we know women also are suicide bombers, they are just greatly outnumbered by men. They probably get involved in such activities for different reasons than men do. But I was very surprised to see a mother of a small baby do this. It would seem to go against the nature of a mother. She had to know there was a good chance that her child would be orphaned.
I woke up the morning of the San Bernadino massacre, hearing Trump on the news, saying "We have to take out their families...We have to take out their families!". Here is something that is complete conjecture on my part:
I wonder whether Farook heard the same thing, that morning. I wonder whether his argument at the Christmas party that day might have had something to do with that. I wonder whether Farook's decision to carry out his jihad that particular day and at that particular place, may have been prompted by that.
Both of them had planned a different attack earlier, but it was aborted, which means it probably wasn't anything said by the co-workers that day that set them off. The plan was most likely already in the works for some time.
Apparently, he and his wife planned to do some sort of attack, soon, regardless (evidence being all the pipe bombs prepared). But the timing of Trump's broadcasting his views re: killing family members of jihadists, makes me wonder.
It might have added fuel to the fire, but they were already planning an attack.
Anyway, to the larger point of this thread, intolerance often leads to oppositional intolerance, which often leads to more intolerance, and so on and so on.
That's true.
I’ve been getting distracted by other audio, but I got through a couple more chapters this morning.
Nawaz pointed out that bin Laden’s prediction came true. He said the “West” would get tired of intervening in various coups and skirmishes in the MidEast and stop supporting whatever group they could find that was less radical or somewhat liberal. This would create a power vacuum allowing for the rise of some sort of militaristic Islamist regime.
On Sam’s side, he keeps citing polls and defending his position of religion being the primary problem. So far, all he’s accomplished is pointing out that the problem is complicated. Sure, there are a high percentage of UK Muslims who want the death penalty for apostasy, but they also hate ISIS. There are plenty of conflicting statistics like that.
Tashfeen was the wife. The man was Rizwan Farook.
I'm sure Randy was being facetious when he named Tashfeen. In any case, we know women also are suicide bombers, they are just greatly outnumbered by men. They probably get involved in such activities for different reasons than men do. But I was very surprised to see a mother of a small baby do this. It would seem to go against the nature of a mother. She had to know there was a good chance that her child would be orphaned.
I woke up the morning of the San Bernadino massacre, hearing Trump on the news, saying "We have to take out their families...We have to take out their families!". Here is something that is complete conjecture on my part:
I wonder whether Farook heard the same thing, that morning. I wonder whether his argument at the Christmas party that day might have had something to do with that. I wonder whether Farook's decision to carry out his jihad that particular day and at that particular place, may have been prompted by that.
Both of them had planned a different attack earlier, but it was aborted, which means it probably wasn't anything said by the co-workers that day that set them off. The plan was most likely already in the works for some time.
Apparently, he and his wife planned to do some sort of attack, soon, regardless (evidence being all the pipe bombs prepared). But the timing of Trump's broadcasting his views re: killing family members of jihadists, makes me wonder.
It might have added fuel to the fire, but they were already planning an attack.
Anyway, to the larger point of this thread, intolerance often leads to oppositional intolerance, which often leads to more intolerance, and so on and so on.
That's true.
I, too, wondered about the motivation of a new mother to orphan her baby. Aside from her religious Kool-Aid, the only thing that occurred to me was the possibility of a post partum depression.
Tashfeen was the wife. The man was Rizwan Farook.
I'm sure Randy was being facetious when he named Tashfeen. In any case, we know women also are suicide bombers, they are just greatly outnumbered by men. They probably get involved in such activities for different reasons than men do. But I was very surprised to see a mother of a small baby do this. It would seem to go against the nature of a mother. She had to know there was a good chance that her child would be orphaned.
I woke up the morning of the San Bernadino massacre, hearing Trump on the news, saying "We have to take out their families...We have to take out their families!". Here is something that is complete conjecture on my part:
I wonder whether Farook heard the same thing, that morning. I wonder whether his argument at the Christmas party that day might have had something to do with that. I wonder whether Farook's decision to carry out his jihad that particular day and at that particular place, may have been prompted by that.
Both of them had planned a different attack earlier, but it was aborted, which means it probably wasn't anything said by the co-workers that day that set them off. The plan was most likely already in the works for some time.
Apparently, he and his wife planned to do some sort of attack, soon, regardless (evidence being all the pipe bombs prepared). But the timing of Trump's broadcasting his views re: killing family members of jihadists, makes me wonder.
It might have added fuel to the fire, but they were already planning an attack.
Anyway, to the larger point of this thread, intolerance often leads to oppositional intolerance, which often leads to more intolerance, and so on and so on.
That's true.
I, too, wondered about the motivation of a new mother to orphan her baby. Aside from her religious Kool-Aid, the only thing that occurred to me was the possibility of a post partum depression.
Do you suppose Farook also was suffering from post-partum depression? What's the explanation for his involvement?
PPD is too often used to explain every kind of strange behavior in a woman who has recently given birth. PPD seldom results in violence, except, rarely, when the mother kills or otherwise harms the baby and/or other children she has given birth to, or herself--then it's usually referred to as post-partum psychosis. I have never heard of post-partum depression inciting violence against strangers. Too often when a woman does anything antisocial and she's recently given birth, it's blamed on post-partum depression. It's too convenient and popular an explanation to be anything more than abused and overused pop psychology.
Lois
Do you suppose Farook also was suffering from post-partum depression? What's the explanation for his involvement?
PPD is too often used to explain every kind of strange behavior in a woman who has recently given birth. PPD seldom results in violence, except, rarely, when the mother kills or otherwise harms the baby and/or other children she has given birth to, or herself--then it's usually referred to as post-partum psychosis. I have never heard of post-partum depression inciting violence against strangers. Too often when a woman does anything antisocial and she's recently given birth, it's blamed on post-partum depression. It's too convenient and popular an explanation to be anything more than abused and overused pop psychology.
Lois
I had similar thoughts. The reports I've read indicated this couple started their plan long before the wife got pregnant.
Do you suppose Farook also was suffering from post-partum depression? What's the explanation for his involvement?
PPD is too often used to explain every kind of strange behavior in a woman who has recently given birth. PPD seldom results in violence, except, rarely, when the mother kills or otherwise harms the baby and/or other children she has given birth to, or herself--then it's usually referred to as post-partum psychosis. I have never heard of post-partum depression inciting violence against strangers. Too often when a woman does anything antisocial and she's recently given birth, it's blamed on post-partum depression. It's too convenient and popular an explanation to be anything more than abused and overused pop psychology.
Lois
I had similar thoughts. The reports I've read indicated this couple started their plan long before the wife got pregnant.
Yes. I think the plans were in process at least since she arrived in the US. It might have been the reason she entered the United States.
Lois
Tashfeen was the wife. The man was Rizwan Farook.
I'm sure Randy was being facetious when he named Tashfeen. In any case, we know women also are suicide bombers, they are just greatly outnumbered by men. They probably get involved in such activities for different reasons than men do. But I was very surprised to see a mother of a small baby do this. It would seem to go against the nature of a mother. She had to know there was a good chance that her child would be orphaned.
I woke up the morning of the San Bernadino massacre, hearing Trump on the news, saying "We have to take out their families...We have to take out their families!". Here is something that is complete conjecture on my part:
I wonder whether Farook heard the same thing, that morning. I wonder whether his argument at the Christmas party that day might have had something to do with that. I wonder whether Farook's decision to carry out his jihad that particular day and at that particular place, may have been prompted by that.
Both of them had planned a different attack earlier, but it was aborted, which means it probably wasn't anything said by the co-workers that day that set them off. The plan was most likely already in the works for some time.
Apparently, he and his wife planned to do some sort of attack, soon, regardless (evidence being all the pipe bombs prepared). But the timing of Trump's broadcasting his views re: killing family members of jihadists, makes me wonder.
It might have added fuel to the fire, but they were already planning an attack.
Anyway, to the larger point of this thread, intolerance often leads to oppositional intolerance, which often leads to more intolerance, and so on and so on.
That's true.
I, too, wondered about the motivation of a new mother to orphan her baby. Aside from her religious Kool-Aid, the only thing that occurred to me was the possibility of a post partum depression.
Do you suppose Farook also was suffering from post-partum depression? What's the explanation for his involvement?
PPD is too often used to explain every kind of strange behavior in a woman who has recently given birth. PPD seldom results in violence, except, rarely, when the mother kills or otherwise harms the baby and/or other children she has given birth to, or herself--then it's usually referred to as post-partum psychosis. I have never heard of post-partum depression inciting violence against strangers. Too often when a woman does anything antisocial and she's recently given birth, it's blamed on post-partum depression. It's too convenient and popular an explanation to be anything more than abused and overused pop psychology.
Lois
A religious ideology, in and of itself, that is powerful enough to overcome maternal instinct, is hard to fathom. While I agree that PPD is an explanatory stretch, what else could provide the contingencies for her action? Perhaps a life of hidden seething vengefulness for some atrocity perpetrated on her, earlier in her life? But, then again, maybe she was just being a loyal slave to Allah.