Via the AP:
Two U.S. officials say preliminary evidence from an interrogation suggests the suspects in the Boston Marathon attack were motivated by religion but were apparently not tied to any Islamic terrorist groups.
Someone alert MSNBC host, Melissa Harris Perry, because over the weekend, she bloviated that Tsarnaev’s faith is about as relevant to the investigation as Ben Affleck movies.
Her panel guests agreed and added that Americans have to “otherize” violent actors in order to absolve themselves from responsibility for or connection to their violence.
Actually, no. I feel no responsibility for, or connection to, what they did in Boston. Only seething anger, sadness, and revulsion – aka normal reactions.
“We don’t really know,” said Harris-Perry, throwing her hands up about the discussion into the Tsarnaev’s motives. “The younger brother, he’s getting all kinds of tweets from his friends. I think part of the answer is that it’s still an open question.”
Wrong again. By the time they had this discussion it was no longer an “open question.” It was pretty darn obvious that they were motivated by radical Islam. You had to be willfully blind not to have picked up on that, by then.
“They don’t have the privilege of being anonymous – ‘they,’ speaking of people of color or other minorities – we don’t know yet, but we fill in the blanks,” said Georgetown University Professor Michael Eric Dyson. “We fill in the blanks with what makes us feel the most comfortable that this was an exceptional, extraordinary case that happened because they are this.”
I’ll leave it to someone else to try to translate that nonsensical mumbo jumbo. I think his bottom line is, “otherness” absolves you of any and all crimes and awards you permanent victim status. No matter what you’ve done. Even if you planted a bomb right next to an eight year old and his little sister.
“I keep wondering: is it possible that there would ever be a discussion like, ‘oh, this is because of Ben Affleck and the connection between Boston and movies about violence?'” Harris-Perry asked. “And, of course, the answer is ‘no.'”
Just wow. This is what passes for an intelligent discussion among liberal academics, today. Could they be any more dense? Could they be any more closed minded?
“Given that they’re Chechen, given that they are literally Caucasian, our very sense of connection to them is this framed up notion of, like, Islam making them into something that is non-[unintelligible],” Harris-Perry continued.
They had to throw in the idiotic “literally Caucasian” line. Brilliant.
“The point is that it’s important to say, ‘that is not us,” Dyson agreed. “We want to demonize the other. We have to distance it from the dominant culture.”
No, what we want to do is have an intelligent discussion about what happened. We don’t do that by burying our heads in the sand, or blaming ourselves for someone else’s evil actions.
Leftists like to pretend they’re higher evolved beings because they reserved judgement (after initially trying to blame the tea party based on 0 evidence) and love to point out that not all Muslims are terrorists when 99% of us understand that obvious fact, (it makes them feel so superior to lecture us so.) Those of us not suffering from pathological delusions or “epistemic closure”, however, are able to recognize that the vast majority of terrorist attacks we’ve seen in the world in the past 100 years, has come from “Religion of Peace” and it’s not “islamophobic” of us to point that out.
It’s called being “reality-based.” The left should try it sometime.