Tamerlan Tsarnaev…beyond the Obvious?

A question being asked these days, following the tragedy of the Boston Marathon bombings, is this: what happened to lead these two young men, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who had called America home for a decade, to turn so violently against her and her citizens? The obvious assumption would be, of course, conversion to a radical Islamist ideology. But behind that conversion, more specifically, at what point is an opening found through which to recruit a young man or woman into such an agenda? Why is it that he or she becomes susceptible to such a thing? And what could be done now to possibly short-circuit such an event in a future incident? These are not questions that have not already been considered; watching a special presentation of CBS’ “48 Hours”, aired the Saturday night after this horrible, horrible event shattered so many lives, I glimpsed a possible clue or two, I think.

~~~
  The father had very high expectations for his son.”

(Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s aunt, Maret Tsarnaev)

~~~
Anzor Tsarnaev was tough, a championship boxer back home, and he wanted his oldest boy to be tough too.  (link)
~~~

The Tsarnaev family gained political asylum in the U.S. just over a decade ago, escaping from the war-torn areas of Kyrgyzstan and Dagestan. They had managed to move to Chechnya from that turbulent area years before, but were eventually forced back.

They arrived in Boston in April, 2002.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older of the two brothers, began boxing shortly after their arrival in America. Tamerlan “registered with USA Boxing, the governing body for Olympic-style boxing and consistently rose through the ranks.” (link)  He represented New England in the Golden Gloves competition in 2009 and 2010.  In fact,  he won awards for his prowess in the sport.  According to reports (1)  http://www.bu.edu/com/comment/library/downloads/2010_comment.pdf, (2), Tamerlan had wanted to represent the United States in the Olympics boxing events, hoping to gain citizenship by being selected for the U.S. Olympic team. Despite being “In that weight division…probably one of the best out of New England,” according to gym owner Kendrick Ball, Tamerlan Tsarnaev was disqualified from entering the Olympics in 2010 because of complaints that non-U.S. citizens should not be allowed to compete.

~~~

Anzor Tsarnaev, Tamerlan’s father, seems to have been instrumental in developing Tamerlan’s drive to engage in boxing activities. He “would ride his bicycle as his son Tamerlan jogged to a Boston-area boxing gym, pushing him to run faster, to punch harder.” and “…make him run for miles.”  (link)

~~~

Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov has stated that the brothers grew up in America, therefore the roots to this tragedy should be sought in America.

~~~

In some of the articles I’ve read, the term ‘disenfranchised’ has appeared as part of the description of young recruits to radical Islamic organizations.  This term denotes being dispossessed of certain privileges or rights pertaining to citizenship. Something a person should have, they don’t. Learning about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, I wonder if a variation on that meaning could be applied to him.
The media has painted a picture of a Chechen family living in sometimes brutal conditions amidst wars and conflicts, and finally becoming political refuges here in the United States. We may not know exactly how much of their pre-American life was unsettled and in turmoil, but we do know that they came to America to escape it. It has to be assumed that they hoped for something better. The dream of America beckoned.

Tamerlan was fifteen when the Tsarnaevs arrived in the United States. He would have had more exposure to difficult living conditions than his younger brother Dzhokhar, who was eight. He also, being older, was closer to an age where one begins to think & perhaps learn about or train for a career. His desire for stability, for acceptance and an established life was probably greater than Dzhohkar’s, and would probably have determined Tamerlan’s choices & course in life.

Accounts indicate that his father Anzor had his own dreams for Tamerlan (as quoted above).

~~~

I wonder how much of Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s boxing ambitions were truly his own. I wonder if he absorbed that drive into himself as a means of pleasing his father & gaining his approval. Perhaps that, to a young Tamerlan, would’ve been the ultimate success?
I wonder if, as the years passed and he continued to train and develop his boxing skills, on some level Tamerlan became aware of a dissatisfaction gnawing within. On some level, perhaps he had begun to suspect a conditional acceptance by his father. As long as he succeeded, as long as he excelled at his boxing…but what if he wanted to ease up? Anticipating possible conflict with & rejection by his father may have produced a resentment that proved an eventual fertile breeding ground for other resentments, other grievances. ”He was never happy, never cheering, never smiling. He used to strike his girlfriend. … He was not a nice man” was how Zaur Tsarnaev, a cousin, described Tamerlan.  And an uncle cited “Being losers — hatred to those who were able to settle themselves“ as a motivation behind the carnage at Boston.

Additionally, Tamerlan himself is reported to have stated that he had no, or very few American friends, and had commented that people “smile at you all the time and forget about you the next moment.”  Perhaps he believed that achieving ‘star’ status as a boxer might alleviate a sense of isolation?  So when, in 2010, he was refused entrance to the Olympics boxing events because of his non-citizen status…all his efforts to succeed, all those years and all that work, hopes for acceptance and status and his self-esteem…crashed and burned.

I wonder if these circumstances in his life conspired to bring Tamerlan Tsarnaev to a place of readiness to hear and finally receive an extremist ideology.

~~~

In no way are the thoughts expressed here, should they be valid, meant to be an excuse of any kind for this man’s actions, nor those of his brother or any other co-conspirators in this inexcusable crime.

Nor am I implying that Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s father is responsible for his eldest son’s decisions to kill and destroy. I am speculating on the possibility of his son’s harboring a suspicion of conditional acceptance. That may not have actually been the reality. It may, however,  have been Tamerlan’s reality.

And I am definitely not pointing a finger at an American policy of not allowing non-citizens to represent her  in the Olympics.

I am looking for root causes, period.

~~~

In this world, any of us can be deceived.  And there is plenty of disillusionment to go around.

Who does not want to be accepted and valued? I think there are very few who don’t care and are not affected if their lot in life doesn’t provide these things.  But what do you do if you are one of those people who, for whatever reason, find yourselves propping yourself up, self-esteem wise, with no or very little encouragement from the sidelines?  And you are hard-pressed to find solace, or cause change?

Any goal for which we strive can elude us.  Or, once we’ve attained to it, could yet be lost…or worse, not provide the satisfaction we thought it would.  Much falls into that that category, I think…and so I wonder, what events or interventions could have altered Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s path in life?  What might have yielded a kind of peace and self-acceptance that could have changed everything?

I only know one thing, that God alone loves unconditionally. Even our parents, our spouses and our close friends may or will let us down, as we will them, and withdraw support if the chips are down far enough. It happens.  Our human needs and our human identities can be very, very much intertwined with acceptance by others, and it can be painful, maybe too painful to stand alone. But at that point, should it come, there is a God whose Everlasting Arms are underneath to catch you, and in whose Son, the only begotten of the Father, you are accepted.

~~~

…here’s real Hope & Change…!

I wonder sometimes if the real underlying, ever-present battle is one between hope & despair preceded by fear.

During President Obama’s first-term campaign, (or was it early on in his Presidency?) his ‘politics of division’ was often mentioned. I remember reading that he was deliberately seeking to create class warfare; this, to me, as a fairly novice embracer of things political ,was a confusing notion. Now, everything is suspect! – but then I was ignorant of the darker, devious motives that might be employed to achieve one’s political goals. In my naive, lala land, God-bless-America mentality, I just assumed that both God and Washington, D.C. were good. All the time.

I still don’t absolutely know if Barack Obama was working on the warfare thing, or if he still is, at times. I read this, I hear that, and I think I get it – then someone I respect presents a whole other viewpoint that makes perfect sense, and I am again befuddled.

The thing is, once an idea like promoting division through envy, and employing scare tactics in the process, gets in your head, it can be almost impossible to blot it out. There lingers a grain of suspicion. Add that to all the other grains of other suspicions…or bushels of them…one remains cautious. Like Fox Mulder, I want to believe but the truth is more important. Judge nothing before the time, and perhaps always retain some skepticism until you are absolutely sure.

~~~

Lately, I keep coming across the idea of the Obama adminstration (or President Obama himself) employing scare tactics as a means to their/his ends. Despite my slight change of heart towards the President (link) , I find that my earlier suspicions remain intact. Though I am trying not to be adversarial, in my view, he is still suspect – so I seriously consider this fear maneuver as being a reality.

Just 2 days ago, in her article ‘The Anti-Confidence Man ‘ (guess who that is?), Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal columnist, wrote: “Their whole approach is still stoke and scare—stoke resentment and scare the vulnerable…” “The White House is, as always, confident of its strategy: Scare people as much as possible and let the media take care of the rest”, she declared the week before.  Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal advises the President to “… stop sending out your cabinet secretaries to scare the American people.”  “Then the Sequestration cuts won’t scare people like the current administration is trying to do.” (“The Politics of Fear and Sequestration” )

Fear is a powerful inhibitor.When I find myself in the grips of it, my ability to think is frozen. That is usually not a good thing. The opposition could easily manipulate and overtake. Our Founding Fathers knew that, given certain circumstances, fear might “trigger the temptation to surrender freedom to a demagogue promising strength and security in return.” (The Politics of Fear)  Where fear fractures reason, hatred & division can be a problematic result. We might trust the wrong person, become aligned with the wrong kind of thinking, and make choices detrimental to our well-being. Personal choices become a national reality, as citizens and then as a nation we lose our sovereignty.

Is this what you really want?

~~~

As with just about everything, conflicts and dilemmas lead me back to God. God does not give a spirit of fear  (2 Timothy:7).  There are no ifs, ands, or buts about this, as far as I can see. The antidote to fear is love – perfect love casts out all fear. (1 John 4:18)  And since Scripture teaches us that God is love and God is perfect…He is the starting point for combatting fear.

How this works out for each of us, on an individual basis, is personal. I can’t say how you or anyone might need to employ these truths of the Word, or specifically how, going forward, these principles can & will – if we try & if we let them – work out in our national realities. But getting a handle on the the true nature of the Lord can only help.

~~~

I realize this is my third Peggy Noonan quote, but I respect her thinking and like her style, so here goes:  ”…I see an opening for a candidate down the road who does the opposite of what Washington is doing now. Washington now is like a suffering marathon. Which kind of suffering do you want the most, cuts, tax increases, FAA flight controllers leave, it’s all about suffering. Someone coming forward and saying, no, actually, it’s all about growth. We can get dynamism back in our country again…”

Isn’t that a grand and wonderful approach? Doesn’t it make your heartbeat quicken? There are people who actually do see things this way…folks, here is the real hope and change…

Statue_liberty_American_flag

Back in the Spotlight: Terrorism

During the first year or two of Jesus, the Revolution & You, my newly developed interests in the founding and governing of America eventually led me into investigations of & research into terrorism. Once began, those ventures took on a sickening life of their own. I wanted to, but could not, stop. I failed to grasp how the American citizenry could not understand the enduring demand of vigilant counter-terrorism efforts, to be maintained at all times. It seemed a basic, grade school level premise that should be obvious but apparently wasn’t – if terrorism is not monitored and resisted, it will re-surface and spread. It doesn’t just go away nicely. And if one dares to learn some of its specifics…believe me, one does not easily forget them and one does understand the imperative of continued defense against such a force.

As time went by, and Americans increasingly wanted out of the Middle East, steps were taken in that direction; our national attention turned more & more to our disastrous economy.

Well, our economy has to be rescued. No doubt about that. Our debt situation is beyond horrendous – from what we are told – and desperately needs our attention. Probably no doubt about that, either. But I often had the quiet, niggling little thought that it was a mistake to allow such silence on matters of homeland security. What once occupied first place seemed to have completely disappeared from national awareness. That concerned me. A few times, it occurred to me to write a piece or two expressing this viewpoint…but perhaps I, too, needed a break from focusing on terror, on radical Islamist activity. So I let it slide. However, I have always believed that reducing our troops as much as we have, or intend to, is a mistake.

Suddenly, the spotlight has swung back onto this ‘empty stage’. Some of the previous players are being pulled back onto it. I, for one, am grateful for this renewed focus.

Very recently, a guest on one of the political roundtables expressed the above sentiment concerning troop withdrawals in the Middle East. His words resounded. It was the first time in a while that I’d heard anyone say this. Since then, his opinions, or variations of them, are showing up every time I turn around, and coming from the likes of such heavy hitters as Hillary Clinton and veteran news anchor Ted Koppel. The tragedy of Benghazi, followed by the Algerian hostage crisis, has been a wake-up call.

.Bill Kristol, of The Weekly Standard, calls the President’s intention of getting out of Afghanistan “deeply irresponsible,and adds that we cannot “support counter-terrorism operations, you can’t even support Special Forces or drones with two or three or four thousand troops. They’ll be defending themselves.” He considers such a US military draw down “a very dangerous policy.” (link

Bill Kristol of ‘The Weekly Standard’

Additionally, Kristol points out that American retreat from war zones sends a possible message “around the world…that we are not interested…”  A disturbing result of such a perception was seen in the Algerian hostage crisis, in which the Algerian government launched its own rescue mission – involving the rescue of American citizens – without even contacting our government, without asking for help. This has not been the norm, up until now. It says something. I don’t like the vibe.

Hillary Clinton warns resoundingly of the consequences of American retreat from the Middle Eastern conflict, as well as others, specifying the dangers of extremism taking root and threatening our security. (link)  Senator Kelly Ayotte, a member of the Armed Services Committee, is concerned about this policy resulting in “a situation where the Taliban come back in power, where al Qaeda is again given a launching pad to commit attacks against our country.”  It is hard to believe that any thinking individual has not been concerned about that.

~~~

The impression has previously been given that al Qaeda has been seriously weakened, almost vanquished. During his re-election campaign, President Obama used the word ‘decimated’ in referring to its leadership. I was a bit wary of his declaration. Was this so-called decimation really all that complete? To me, it felt like the President’s statement was missing something. Chris Wallace, host of FOX News Sunday, questioned Obama’s assertion by pointing out that more recently, as Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta stated “Al Qaeda is still there. They are still a threat.” Wallace continued his challenge: “Does the president now recognize that Al Qaeda is not decimated, but is, in fact, resurging in the countries that Leon Panetta talked about? And what is he prepared to do to take them out in Algeria and Libya and across the region?”

Ted Koppel

Ted Koppel labels President Obama’s rhetoric in this area as being one of the biggest mistakes he has made.  Koppel considers the image of  al Qaeda as having been ‘dealt with’ a false one, and that we still have some very real problems here. I have not been up on Capitol Hill. I do not walk the halls of Congress, sit in Senate sessions, nor meet with the President or his staff. I certainly do not know what is really going on in the corridors and chambers of government. But though perhaps not at the forefront, counter-terrorism offensives could not have been at a standstill. Nonetheless, it seems to be time to give them more of a center stage position. Ted Koppel believes America is entering “one of the most dangerous periods this country has ever known.” (link)  The option of focusing our country’s attention & resources primarily on domestic issues – our economy, job growth, immigration, etc. – should not even exist.

Evolving concerning Barack Obama…?

Doris Kearns Goodwin

Not too long ago, watching David Gregory interview the President on Meet the Press , I was struck not by the President’s words or the topic – but his manner. Low key, matter-of-fact. Not carefully crafted rhetoric type speech (though I don’t doubt that it was carefully crafted to appear not so.) Still, down-to-earth & willingly explanatory. To me, this seems significant, big time…My personal impression of the President’s manner of speaking was confirmed by one of the panelists, Presidential historian & author of Team of Rivals: the Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin. Her first response to Mr. Obama’s words was that she noticed a change in his style: “I thought he spoke in a different tone today, more conversational…he’s learned from that first term where he was arguing with– to explaining things. He talked simply in this thing. He talked conversationally.”

So, I didn’t imagine it. And I was very aware of that today also (January 14, 2013), watching his news conference televised on FOX 29. Maybe this shift in style is something as basic as, he won re-election & the heat is off, he’s undeniably Chief and can relax more in this secured position. Or maybe the shift represents as well a thoughtful change in his approach to We, the People…

~~~

My animosity towards this man, over the past 4+ years, has probably contributed no small part to the stress level in my life, as well as some physical ailments. It is a RELIEF to watch & listen to not only Barack Obama but many others with a more open mind. (Bi-partisan?) Not looking at certain ones through shades of resistance & hostility allows me, to my cautious surprise, to realize that maybe he/she is not the enemy…and, oh my, I think I actually see their point, and, uh, I think I agree with it.

And I’m also finding that some of those points are the same as certain suspicions nagging at the edge of my consciousness, concerning past issues & conversations, which I tried to ignore…but which I suspected held the truth. Certain apparently patriotic crusades & tirades sometimes struck me as extreme, too far left or right, even radical in a ‘your adversary the devil’ kind of way. It looks like I may have been headed towards the right track at times but thought I wasn’t!, and chose to stay off it! Well, Jesus said that even the very elect, if it were possible, shall be deceived…so, if ‘the elect’ could be led off-course, so could I…

I am not tossing the baby out with the bath water, nor leading the Barack Obama parade with banners & balloons.  Believe me, I am not.  I want to be careful here in this transitional place. Very careful. But the Scriptures tell us, in the thirteenth chapter of 1st. Corinthians, that loves believes all, hopes all. I sometimes wonder what that means, believes ‘all’…but this approach perhaps creates an open door to healing possibilities.

~~~

Yet, at the same time, we are also cautioned in these same Scriptures to “…judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts…” (1 Corinthians 4: 5)

Getting Back in the Saddle

Yesterday, I turned 62.

It has been a rough year for me, off & on, for various reasons, getting older which is not the least of those reasons!  You don’t really believe that aging will affect you, hinder your lifestyle…until it does.  And a main result of events in my particular situation has been a continual lessening of my writing-related activities.  And a result of that  has been a continual increase in a sense of emotional flatness, deadness even. The term ‘despair’ might not be going too far.

Yesterday, I cried aloud to God.

My condition was becoming unbearable, so much so that I couldn’t find the right words.  I’m not sure what I did say, or ask.  I don’t think I was even  able to form a complete sentence.  I only knew that I needed  release.  I was walking to the bus stop, headed for work, and a cry broke out from my heart.  Sitting in the first seat of the bus was Part One of my answer, though I didn’t realize it at the moment.  During my shift, Part Two approached me, fully fleshing out & confirming earlier counsel.  Both persons were trusted brethren in the Lord.  The testimony of two witnesses establishes a word.

Today, peace like a river is flowing…and we see I’m writing again.

~~~

Now, my worst dilemma at the moment is:  Where do I  start?  What threads do I pick up & try tying together?  So I thought I would begin with re-evaluating my post-Election Day thoughts.   On November 7, 2012, I wrote:

Barack Obama has been re-elected.

I never even considered that this could actually happen, and I am completely, completely deflated.  My heart is heavy. We, the People, kept him in office.  Right now, all I can do is cry.  I have no starch left in me, and at this point, I want nothing more to do with politics.

When I recover from this setback (and ‘setback’ isn’t really a strong enough word), re-evaluation will be the order of the day.  Because I know that the Scriptures tell us that it is God who raises up & brings low, I must accept that it is His intention for Barack Obama to have been re-elected.  Things are not out of control, and , though it may appear so, the devil has not won. 

Two months later…and it has taken a full two months…my mindset is considerably improved.  It has to be, or I will be of no help to anyone.  A willingness to reassess & make deliberate changes to one’s previous conclusions would seem to be a necessary part of the process to carry on.  I don’t know that such changes should be sweeping – or the prior beliefs/suspicions completely discarded from memory – but accepting the possibility that one may have been misguided in certain areas might prove beneficial.

In retrospect, I have to admit that there were times when I’ve wondered, am I too quick to echo agreement with an opinion, or a cause, or a petition, because in general I support the author, or the general ‘mission statement’ of a website?  It seems too easy to do that, without appropriate individual investigating.  And when the position being echoed is one of fault-finding…after awhile, when the contest is over and your opponent has won…how does continued digging in of your heels help anything at all?  It didn’t stop the eventual outcome, did it?

I’ve negotiated many deals in my life and here’s what they take. A win-win and a willingness to treat your opponents with respect. Not a constant win-lose and a denigration of your opponent at every opportunity. You’re not going to get a good deal that way.”  – Carly Fiorina, Vice Chair, National Republican Senatorial Committee & former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, speaking on Meet the Press.

A similar sentiment of laying down one’s weapons of chronic accusation was expressed by former Speaker NeFormer Speaker Newt Gingrichwt  Gingrich during this same conversation: “Republicans ought to quit worrying about President Obama. The president’s going to be president. The House ought to worry about being the House. Senate Republicans ought to worry about being Senate Republicans. Let the president deal with reality from their side.”

Let’s get on with the business of running America, to the best of our abilities.

~~~