Consider the case of “Jihad Jane.” Divorced twice (first marriage at 16), Colleen LaRose was arrested for drunkenness in Texas. She ended up living with a boyfriend in a Philadelphia suburb and taking care of his elderly father. Let’s say that LaRose was not one of life’s winners under conventional definitions.
But thanks to the Internet, LaRose could transform her drab self into an international woman of mystery: Jihad Jane. With her blond hair, blue eyes and American passport, LaRose became a very useful creature to radical Islamists. They told her to go kill a Swedish cartoonist, and she said OK.
And so who is Jihad Jane? Is she a real terrorist, or is she a disturbed woman who never played the cards of life very well — and perhaps not with a full deck?
Hers is the “changing face of terrorism,” security experts tell us. With tight surveillance of travelers from the Mideast, terrorist groups are recruiting Americans and Europeans who are lonely and angry, and can blend in with their societies.
That’s why one should take care in ascribing serious political motives to unstable people acting violently for some cause. Sadly, the more sophisticated the argument, the more they get away with it.
Last month, Andrew Joseph Stack III flew a small plane into a building that housed Internal Revenue Service offices in Austin, Texas. It was only by luck that he didn’t murder more than one innocent inside.
Stack was apparently mad at the IRS. He and his wife had tried to weasel a tax-exempt status by creating a church in their home. After the IRS told them to pay taxes like everyone else, Stack posted his tale of persecution online.
Austin’s mayor bemoaned the many who called Stack a “hero.” But the new Massachusetts senator, Republican Scott Brown — while not going that far — did offer a political reading, thus raising Stack’s status above that of deranged killer.
“I don’t know if it’s related, but I can just sense, not only in my election but since being here in Washington, people are frustrated,” Brown said on Fox News. “They want transparency. They want their elected officials to be accountable and open and, you know, talk about things that are affecting their daily lives.”
Is he out of his mind? I’m referring to Brown.
Soon after, John Patrick Bedell wounded two police outside the Pentagon, before he was shot dead. Bedell had issues, too. He questioned “the truth” of the Sept. 11 attacks and the suicide death of an army officer in 1991. Bedell’s anger with Washington was no doubt heartfelt.
The American who has spread more fear than any other is the “anthrax mailer,” whom the FBI believes was Dr. Bruce E. Ivins. As Americans reeled from the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Ivins apparently sent out letters containing deadly anthrax power. Five died as a result, the Postal Service spent hundreds of millions on clean-up, and frightened Americans started opening their mail with rubber gloves.
A skilled Army microbiologist and family man, Ivins turned out to be nuts besides. The bureau learned that he liked mailing letters from distant locations late at night, collected pictures of blindfolded women and had written an e-mail message saying, “I can hurt, kill and terrorize.” Ivins committed suicide in 2008.
And so where do we begin? Had Ivins complained about his taxes and sent the letters to IRS offices, some segment of American society would have undoubtedly hailed him a great man.
Really. Stack, Bedell, Ivins and Jihad Jane could all be deemed terrorists by reason of insanity. That some have slicker explanations than others is about all that separates them.
Copyright 2010 The Providence Journal Co. Distributed by Creators.com
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.