Abdulazeez: playing the victim card
It strikes me that Chattanooga shooter Abdulazeez probably got quite a bit of mileage, starting at least in high school and perhaps earlier, from playing the victim card.
Witness his high school photo comment:
My name causes national security alerts. What does yours do? —“Hijabman.”
Note how clever this is. First, it is meant to engender sympathy and outrage on his behalf: Oh, the poor guy, his very name triggers an alert! How bigoted of us; what discriminatory profiling! Next up, we have guilt: My goodness, my name doesn’t trigger anything. How unfair! And lastly, apparently “Hijabman” (the name he signed with in the yearbook) was “a blog created to chronicle [Abdulazeez’s] ‘struggles as a first-generation American Muslim.’”
Such a struggle that it caused him to kill four Marines because he couldn’t take their terrible persecution of him any more.
Pro-choice. Meanwhile, indiscriminate killing and human body parts trafficking at Planned Parenthood has left the news cycle. It has been established that murder can be committed for causes other than self-defense, including to relieve emotional distress. SNAFU
I have in my family a first generation Muslim male. The opposite of Abdulazeez, but he did recently recount (at a family event) how he was turned away from the Canadian border not long after 9/11. He understand why he presented the image of a potential terrorist (in addition to his name & ethnicity) – he was in between jobs and apartment, and he had decided to hop up to Toronto to visit a college buddy as part of a cross-country move. And then my father told him about the time he discovered he was on the terror watchlist (same name as an IRA terrorist) as he was being escorted off a plane, and recounted all the extra stuff he needs to do every time he’s flown since then.
So yes, it does stink to have a name or background that flags the attention of authorities. However, this happens to people other than Muslims, and most people handle it with grace and humor.
Lizzy:
Yes, it happens, and it must be annoying. But there is a reason for it, and people of reason don’t try to play off it.
The victim card, here the Muslim victim, is part and parcel of the narrative of the Islamist apologist — from whichever precinct of victimland they come. The no true Muslim epilogue follows and is as irrational as all things constituting the Left and Islam.
The Muslim epilogue and the inevitable inference:
If…
The Islamicist’s narrative has it that violence and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam, that terrorists are not true Muslims.
If further…
It is contended that if we say disagreeable things about the Prophet, Allah, Islam and Muslims, Muslims may radicalize and become terrorists and do violence.
If yet further…
We can do no other than conclude that our disagreeability offends Muslims and causes them to stop being true Muslims
Then…
(and utterly in keeping with Islam) – STUPID!
The Leftist epilogue and the inevitable conclusion:
If…
In the indictment of the EMO white racist for the murder — all by himself – of black folk, the verdict is that all of whitey, and historic Confederate influence, are guilty hating racists.
If further…
the indictment of the Muslim jihadist’s gunning down unarmed infidels – all by himself — the verdict is the exculpation of all Muslims, and Islamic influence.
then… Liberalism, Treachery (I repeat myself?)
This constitutes a dilemma for the average man on the street: whether Liberal considerations would demand he be damning with outrage, or, accepting with sufferance the very same action.
Given his actions, Chattanooga shooter Abdulazeez’s playing the victim card is simply a form of Taqiyya. But the concept of “Islamophobia’ itself is a form of Taqiyya.
Islam’s most fundamental tenets unequivocally declares that Allah himself commands, as a theological imperative, that all Muslims act as Abdulazeez did.
Since both Shia Islam and Sunni Islam support lying and deceit in pursuit of the furtherance of Islam’s worldwide dominance through any means necessary, there remains no reliable means of identifying the ‘moderate’ cafeteria Muslim from the devout fundamentalist Muslim.
In addition, Islam’s tenets are fundamentally incompatible and unalterably opposed to America’s precepts of the ‘unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. Thus, it is impossible to be an honest, sincerely devout Muslim while simultaneously embracing the values that define America.
Which is why, ultimately every Muslim must choose; Islam or liberty for all?
“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Matthew 6:24 King James Version
The headline on the Daily Beast is:
Chattanooga Shooter from Abusive Home
So not only is the shooter playing the victim card, leftist media are only too happy to help him along. Notice how that header doesn’t even have a qualifier, such as “claims abusive childhood,” or something like that.
Apparently abdulazeez was not insulted and abused enough to encourage him to flee the USA and die fighting for isis.
One reason I don’t pay attention to victim cards. It’s merely another form of tyranny over humanity. The so called victims want people to bow down to them, so they can rape, molest, and kill them, using their victim status as a justification. There’s no such thing as a person who is the weakest person in the world. There will always be someone weaker than that person, that the victim can enslave and stomp on.
Same went for slaves, there was always a hierarchy.
People keep asking what can we do about this radical Islamic ideology. How do we fight it?
The first thing we have to do is understand it. You can read the Koran, but it won’t give you the insight you need because, like the Bible, a reasonable person can interpret various passages differently.
Recently I stumbled upon an article from 2003 about the philosopher of Islamic terror, Sayyid Qutb. IMO, this should be required reading for anyone who is in the military or in a position to make policy for the United States. It’s long (8 pages), but explains what Islamic terrorists believe, why they believe it, and why it is so persistent and will be very difficult to stop. It’s serious reading for serious minds.
It details why radical Islamists are incompatible with Western and particularly American values. We believe in separation of church and state and freedom of religion. Radical Islamists believe it is sinful to follow men’s laws and that sharia law must be imposed through a tyrannical theocracy. Anyone who is devoted to those principles cannot feel right living in the U.S./Western culture and will be devoted to spreading their religion by all means necessary. Which we are now witnessing. They mean business. If we don’t stand up to them, we will eventually be taken down. Under our present leadership we aren’t defending ourselves with any vigor at all. That needs to change.
For those so inclined, I highly recommend it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/magazine/the-philosopher-of-islamic-terror.html
Hijabs are worn by Muslim women.
So his self selected nic indicates that he favored Sharia compliance — going all the way back.
parker…
But he DID die fighting for ISIS.
Such lone wolf attacks ARE what ISIS is ‘on about’ via the Internet.
CV,
Actually, there is something to the abusive home angle, but not in the way the PC crowd means it. Many Muslim families follow the strong man model, in which the father dictates to the wife, ignores his kids and sells them to cousins in arranged marriages, and teaches his sons after they are circumcized that they too can boss mom around.
To most of us this is pretty abusive, but it’s SOP for much of the Muslim world.
Expat, those relationships are built upon power domination and slavery, not love. Love would require some element of mutual dependence or equality, it would produce such relationships in abundance irregardless of the patriarchal system around them.
The fact that Leftist feminists and other members of their alliance also base their relationships around power domination, is why they feel more affinity to Islamic Jihad than to Christians.
My comment at 12:59am was meant for the other post – “So remind me: why are we increasing immigration from Muslim countries?” Sorry about that.
The fact that radical Muslims do not and will not ever accept separation of church and state is the key to why Muslim immigration should be very minimal. It’s impossible at this time to distinguish between the “moderate” and the radical when the radicals cover their intentions through taqiyah. Freedom of religion becomes a suicide pact when we don’t recognize that radical Islam is not just a religion but also a philosophy of theocratic government to be spread by any means possible and enforced through violence and fear.