Marathon bombings mastermind Tamerlan Tsarnaev was living on taxpayer-funded state welfare benefits even as he was delving deep into the world of radical anti-American Islamism, the Herald has learned.So he let the wife work 80 hours a week and he stayed at home plotting revenge against his benefactors? I think he'd figured out America quite well. And let's be honest here -- do-it-yourself jihad is time-consuming and expensive, so state subsidies really help. It's tough to find the time to build pressure cooker bombs if you're stuck behind a desk. I'm not sure if you can buy ball bearings in bulk with an EBT card, but I'm sure the Herald will let us know.
State officials confirmed last night that Tsarnaev, slain in a raging gun battle with police last Friday, was receiving benefits along with his wife, Katherine Russell Tsarnaev, and their 3-year-old daughter. The state’s Executive Office of Health and Human Services said those benefits ended in 2012 when the couple stopped meeting income eligibility limits. Russell Tsarnaev’s attorney has claimed Katherine — who had converted to Islam — was working up to 80 hours a week as a home health aide while Tsarnaev stayed at home.
In addition, both of Tsarnaev’s parents received benefits, and accused brother bombers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan were recipients through their parents when they were younger, according to the state.
Snark aside, there are some useful updates in the linked article, including this equally unsurprising synopsis of Tsarnaev's reading habits:
Relatives and news reports have indicated that Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s descent into extremist Islam began around 2008 or 2009, when the ethnic Chechen met a convert identified only as “Misha,” began to become more devout, and sought out jihadist and conspiracy theorist websites, and the rabidly anti-Semitic propaganda tract, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”God's business often involves blowing 8-year old boys to bits. And while I can't speak for anyone else, if having values means reading anti-Semitic tracts, I'd rather be an antinomian.
In 2009, he was quoted in a photo essay as saying, “I don’t have a single American friend, I don’t understand them,” adding that he believed Americans had lost their “values.”
His uncle Ruslan Tsarnaev said it was around that time his nephew gave up drinking and was devoting himself to “God’s business,” while Tamerlan’s mother, now wearing a hijab — an Islamic headscarf — began relating conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to her cosmetology clients that she said her son had told her.
4 comments:
I think we are going to find that the Tsarnaev brothers are a lot closer to being Harris and Kleebold than to being bin Laden.
The angry and disaffected are drawn to things like radical religion and conspiracy theories, more than these things make people angry and disaffected. They really have nothing to offer if you are generally satisfied with your lot in life.
Put another way, the core of Tsarnaev (and McVeigh, and Rudolph, and Kaszinski, and a host of others) is rage. Religion, anti-semitism, or whatever are just the vehicles for its expression.
And I really do think that there is a distinction to be drawn between them and someone like bin Laden, or the Real IRA. As odious as their actions might seem to us, they served a clear purpose and vision that they could articulate. They had goals beyond merely lashing out. They were engaging in "politics by other means".
I don't say any of that to apologize for or justify terrorism. I just think we risk over-analyzing the acts of a lot of these people in a way that isn't constructive at all.
The angry and disaffected are drawn to things like radical religion and conspiracy theories, more than these things make people angry and disaffected. They really have nothing to offer if you are generally satisfied with your lot in life.
Put another way, the core of Tsarnaev (and McVeigh, and Rudolph, and Kaszinski, and a host of others) is rage. Religion, anti-semitism, or whatever are just the vehicles for its expression.
This is the Eric Hoffer argument. And in this case I find it persuasive.
And yet, and yet. . . I would be remiss if I didn't mention that there are those who peddle the more radical variants of Islam who find people like these two useful.
One other thing -- if they were trying to gain sympathy for the cause of Chechens, they couldn't have done anything that would be more counterproductive.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention that there are those who peddle the more radical variants of Islam who find people like these two useful.
Absolutely. That was a further distinction that occurred to me after posting, but I figured I'd rambled on enough.
It's possible the Tsarnaevs were useful to someone else, and that is an angle that should be investigated thoroughly. But I doubt it will be the case, precisely because of what you point out in terms of it (not) helping any Chechen cause.
I'm thinking that this fits the Chechen narrative more than th AQ, but I'm not convinced yet that this is just "rage." They did things too well to be just someone flying off the handle.
Too well, or too wickedly, whichever you prefer. And their behavior does fit the AQ mold in some ways--partying right before the atrocities and so on.
Post a Comment