Free Markets, Free People

Why did he do it!

We’re working really hard in the media to avoid discussing the elephant that Mohammad Abdulazeez rode going to his Chattanooga Islamic terrorist attack.   Official government sources are working nearly as hard.

“It” let’s talk like ‘it’ wasn’t killing 5 men while we’re worrying about whether or not he was ‘radicalized’ or depressed or a wannabe member of ISIS.

There’s no evidence he was inspired by ISIS you see.

I’d like to suggest there was no evidence that Major Nidal Hasan was inspired by ISIS either if that’s a helpful guidepost to those who are trying to figure out what we can do to prevent people from killing when they think they will gain entry to paradise for killing.

Just because young Mohammad didn’t write “Dear Diary, today, inspired by the glory of ISIS and all they do in the name of Allah, I’m going to go and kill some American servicemen” doesn’t mean the cause isn’t pretty obvious.

He was a lone gunman according to the President, who avoided the word ‘Terrorism’ like he avoids making useful decisions.

The kid did mention ‘becoming a martyr’ didn’t he?  And what exactly does that mean to some people who practice the religion of peace?

Short and sweet.

To the best of my knowledge there’s only one world-wide religion that rewards you for dying while killing others. Only one major religion where “becoming a martyr” is a matter of choice. Only one where you get rewards for killing unbelievers.

And based on the xplodidopes who blow themselves up in mosques, even killing ‘believers’ can get you a reward even if the only difference between you is believing the prophet rose at 6:00 AM every morning while they insist emphatically he didn’t rise until 6:10.

In Christianity, you kill yourself, and others,  and you are NOT going to get the first class treatment when you get to Heaven’s gates. You are most certainly not going to get it if you slaughter innocents first and manage to get yourself killed in the ensuing battle with the forces of goodness and niceness.

Only Islam rewards you with paradise for killing others before your number comes up in the fight, even if you’re the one who started it.

But we need to know young Mohammad was doing drugs and alcohol.  What we know is it makes him a lousy practitioner of Islam.  What we can guess is it could be a factor in why he needed the martyr bonus package to buy his way to paradise.

He was ‘in debt’ – sure, after you drop somewhere on the order of (easily) $3000+ to buy an AK74, an AR-15 and a Saiga 12 semi-auto assault shotgun, plus the ammo to feed them, and spend time, and money, at a range practicing with them, yeah, you’ve gone a lot deeper in debt then when you couldn’t make that $380 monthly car payment.    Now oddly enough, he didn’t have that additional debt, until after he’d returned from a trip to the Middle East. I’m sure there’s nothing unusual about that though.  I came back from Fredericksburg Texas a couple weeks ago, and when I got back to Dallas I went out and bought Heffeweizen and German sausages, so maybe it’s a coming back from the Middle East thing to go out and buy weapons and ammo.

Finally, the day Mohammad decided he was ready to ‘commit suicide’, he set out to shoot, and kill, not just any unbelievers, no, he went off to shoot and kill members of the armed forces of the United States of America. He seems to have had a particular bone to pick with the Marines but obviously he’d shoot American sailors too. I suspect Army, Air Force or Coast Guard personnel who crossed his path would have made their way onto his kill list.

Now let’s pack up all those bits of information as we ponder why he did ‘it’.-

A follower of Islam, looking to achieve martyrdom, takes a trip to the Middle East for several months, comes back and buys several semi-automatic weapons of man killing caliber, buys ammo for them, practices with them and then attacks the recruiting offices of the United States military. In the process he dies, thus achieving his goal of martyrdom. Before his ‘suicide’ is complete he kills 5 American military personnel,  largely unarmed (because he’s a brave warrior seeking paradise), until finally someone puts enough jacketed lead into his nasty little body to put him down like the diseased animal he was.

Should we CARE what motivated him? Isn’t it all about the outcome for progressive America?

I don’t care if he was depressed, taking pills, in debt, confused or having a bad beard day.  He wasn’t a good boy, he killed other people for nothing more than being Americans, in uniform.

And he did it, specifically, because his religion taught him that dying while killing infidels would get him into heaven.

It’s NOT any more complicated than that.

Is it radicalized? is it terrorism? (yes, and yes).

Who cares, if it’s not, it’s still Islam.

Now go figure out how knowing it’s Islam will prevent the next follower of Mohammed who’s ‘depressed and in debt’ from attempting to do little shoe kissing pork eating Mohammad Abdulazeez one (or more) better.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

30 Responses to Why did he do it!

  • I’m still not clear on the motive. Perhaps he was confused about his current place along the gender continuum? Ah yes, that must be it, those darned heteronormatives forced him to do it because they…uh, they…well because they! Glad I got that straightened for you all. I’ll be here all week, try the veal and don’t forget to tip the waitress!

  • No, attacking US military personnel on US military installations is not “terrorism.”

    “Terrorism” is attacking civilian non-combatants for the purpose of creating terror (with the goal of achieving political aims).

    Attacking US military personnel on US military installations is “war.”

    Abdulazeez was an unlawful combatant (unless he was wearing a distinguishing uniform/badge to identify himself as a combatant), but he was not a “terrorist.” There’s a difference.

    • I don’t believe he was necessarily about creating terror, although for US civilians I submit that having our Marines and Sailors gunned down in the heart of America at strip mall “military installations” is going to stir up more than just uneasy feelings among the non-military general public.

      Do I think terror was his goal, no, I don’t.
      More than likely his goal was to collect the 72 virgin bounty his religion teaches him he will receive for his suicide by cop or soldier.

      • Think of it in military terms, and on the assumption that he was inspired by and/or involved with the Islamic State.

        The Islamic State has been calling for its adherents to attack US forces in the United States, not just in the Middle East and Central Asia. Every dollar and every man hour that the US has to spend on security at its rear bases is a dollar and man hour that can’t be spent on operations “at the front line.”

        It’s sound doctrine, and it’s been US doctrine forever.

        I doubt that the Islamic State can put it into full effect in the US — i.e. attack US bases and domestically-based military personnel with the same frequency and effectiveness that US forces attack their bases and personnel in their countries — but that’s what they’re attempting.

        • Well, the things you and I think it is aren’t what the experts are saying, at least not yet.
          Rest assured when we’re done we won’t be hearing about how the problem is directly related to Mohammad’s religion.
          Meanwhile we’ll fly the other fifth columnists into the country from Syria and Congo and who knows where else, set up house for them and wait for them to get depressed.

          • Well, you’re right about that. We won’t be hearing about how it’s directly related to Islam, because it’s no more directly related to Islam than Guadalcanal was directly related to Lutheranism. If you go to war, prepare for the other guy to go to war too.

          • ANY action in the Pacific in WWII WAS directly related to Shinto.

            Wow. I expect some intelligence from posters here…

          • “ANY action in the Pacific in WWII WAS directly related to Shinto.”

            Well, you lost me there. I don’t follow. Perhaps it is my ignorance about
            Shinto.

    • Hmmm…

      Let’s see if this BS of yours holds up.

      Shooting up a strip mall is NOT correctly, legitimately seen as “terrorism” by the people by-standing? Because it has a recruiting office in it?

      Naw.

      • Ragspierre,

        So let’s see if I have you right:

        When a US Marine rifle squad or a US drone operator takes out an al Qaeda cell, if that al Qaeda cell happens to be in an otherwise civilian area in Baghdad or Kandahar — a market, a highway full of civilian traffic, etc., it’s “terrorism?” Is that really your position?

        • Nope. And if you can’t see the difference, I can’t hep ya.

          • “The difference” is that it’s one side doing it instead of the other.

            Either the US is at war or it isn’t. Whether or not it is is an interesting question (no congressional declaration, etc.), but IF the US is at war, then its military personnel and their facilities are legitimate military targets.

            Abdulazeez was probably violating the laws of war — I haven’t heard that he was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge to identify himself as a combatant as those laws require — but if the US is at war then he was not a “terrorist.” You don’t have to like it. That’s how it is whether you like it or not.

          • Yeah, no. You are an example of why radical Libertarians can’t have nice things…

            like any respect.

            Sorry, dude. Not everything reduces to binary thinking. Matter of fact, few things do.

          • It’s not about being a radical libertarian, dumbass. It’s about not turning into whiny pussies when it turns out that the enemy didn’t get the “no attacking us over here” memo.

          • Awww… I’ve reduced you to a sputting, name-calling pile of stupid.

            Did you notice that the boy was American…???

            Now, I kain’t say whether he was MORE motivated by his crazy understanding of Islam or his plain ol’ crazy, but I CAN and DO say what he did was terrorism.

            Now, you can call me some more names and do the stompy-foot dance. Too funny…!!!

          • “Did you notice that the boy was American…???”

            Yes. That’s not relevant to whether or not his actions were terrorism.

            Words mean things. The word “treason” and the word “terrorism” mean two different things. The former sounds reasonably applicable. The latter simply isn’t, because terrorism means attacking civilian non-combatants, not attacking military personnel.

          • It’s about not turning into whiny pussies when it turns out that the enemy didn’t get the “no attacking us over here” memo.

            But you raised the issue. Dinya??? You DO remember that the World Trade Towers were here too, right? Any DOD tenants ?

      • I sort of agree with Knapp,
        When the OK bombing happened and I learned government workers had a daycare in the federal building, all I could think of was “why do we have a daycare in a federal building?” When we go to war, the first few things we target are of course military defenses and such but also government infrastructure. We see those targets as legit targets and when innocents get killed we blame the other side for hiding among the population.
        Islam has gone to war with us, so we should separate the government from the population as much as possible.

        • Really? YOU are confused about the attack on the Morrow Building being terrorism, too…!?!?!

          Jeebus.

          • He doesn’t seem to be saying it wasn’t terrorism. Rather he was pointing out that it’s a stupid idea to put non-combatant kids in buildings that are legitimate military targets (the Murrah building was no different than the Iraqi government buildings that people delighted in seeing blown up in 2003).

        • Exactly. I thought the same thing about the OKC daycare center at the time. Dumb idea to put kids right on obvious targets.

          We are very fortunate that only a fraction of a percent of Islam has declared war on us. Our government’s best efforts to make it into an existential threat have been signally unsuccessful. It’s a nuisance and unlikely to become more than that.

  • Evidently the late Mr.Azzz suffered from depression and had suicidal thoughts. But suicide is forbidden in Islam. Oh, dear, what to do, what to do?. I know! Take a few kaffir along for the ride, and voila! Your sin is now martyrdom! How convenient.

  • But we knew for a fact before the bodies were cold, Roof was just a white racist. And to speculate anything else was wrong.

    • But he was. And there was ample evidence to support that conclusion.

      Wasn’t there?

      • http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33209654
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11688181/Dylann-Roofs-friend-Charleston-church-wasnt-primary-target.html

        The school he planned to shoot up is demographically 6% black. A poor choice if you just want to kill Black people. Unless he was going to target a Black Cultural center or something, but then he’d have to be smart enough to realize they’d have one.

        I suspect he wanted to kill people for the same reasons Loughtner or Holmes wanted to kill people. Be important or God for 15 minutes, suicide by cop or wtf ever. In roof’s case he is a racist but his racism helped him choose his target that day. Maybe its a subtle difference but based of stuff that’s leaked around the narrative he was potentially a nutjob shooter first, racist second. The difference is that if he wasn’t a racist he might have killed kids in a school that day and opposed to staying home.

        Its just a possibility.

        But my real complaint is that ‘he’s a racist. Don’t you dare suggest anything else’ was a talking point before the bodies were cold, literally. There’s no way anyone knew that for sure when the talking point was born. Anything we got courtesy of Big Media was going to be through that filter, so we’ll never really know.

  • He was a lone gunman according to the President, who avoided the word ‘Terrorism’ like he avoids making useful decisions.

    Candy Crowley assured us that the President mentioned terrorism in the Rose Garden just after Benghazi.

  • “Why did he do it!”

    Because it’s the same sort of thing Mohammed did and urged his followers to do.

    This is not complicated.

    • . . . and, the Press reaction to it isn’t complicated either:
      (1) If a white or a conservative does an “evil something”, that “something” is used as an example impugning the innate characteristics of every white (or conservative) person — living, dead, or yet-to-be-born.
      (2) If a Favored Minority or a Progressive does an “evil something”, it’s just one of those occasional happenstances that the occasional crazy person does, and in no way reflects badly on the larger group.

    • yeah, really – you’d think, but…

      FBI: Shooter acted alone, motive still unknown
      “Exactly why they were thrust into this fight — not in a warzone in a place like Iraq or Afghanistan, but in otherwise placid southeastern Tennessee — is a question investigators are trying to answer.”

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/us/chattanooga-shooting/

      Gotta have an exact, precise reason you see, and therefore we’re never going to get a public definitive answer.
      Because “he was motivated by the teachings of Islam” isn’t going to be satisfactory to the White House.

      There has to be a flag involved somewhere here,
      maybe he was a white Kuwaiti-American,
      maybe he’d inadvertently looked at an old Sara Palin map that had cross-hairs on Chattanooga,
      maybe the guns whispered to him.
      It won’t be because Islamic martyrdom = 72 Virgins and the easy life in Paradise.

  • Who cares why he did it or what it’s called. Recruiters should just wear civies, close the blinds and bury their heads in the sand like Obama said!