Saturday, January 10, 2015

French lesson



A burning car during the 2005 riots. (Wikicommons: Strologoff)

 

The gruesome attack on Charlie Hebdo has earned condemnation around the world. It has been called "cowardly" and "evil" by Barack Obama, "a barbaric act" by Stephen Harper, and an "infamy" by François Hollande.

Yes, violence is serious. It's a crime when done by an individual and war when done by a country. It's a grave breach of the rules that govern our society. Whatever differences we may have, they are to be settled peacefully, through the courts if need be. Violence is just not to be done.

Except it increasingly is. The attack on Charlie Hebdo is not an isolated incident. It's part of a worsening trend of violence by people described as jeunes [youths] or simply not described at all. That was not the case in the recent attack; the victims were too well known. But it is generally the case, and this conspiracy of silence has become something of a social norm, particularly in the media.

Yet statistics do exist, notably those compiled by the Gendarmerie. According to French criminologist Xavier Raufer:

The criminality we are talking about is the kind that is making life unbearable for the population: burglaries, thefts of all sorts, assaults, violent thefts without firearms, etc. In these specific cases, 7 out of 10 of these crimes are committed by people who in one way or another have an immigrant background, either directly (first generation on French territory, with or without a residence permit) or indirectly (second generation). (Chevrier and Raufer, 2014)

The word "immigrant" is misleading. Many if not most are French-born, and they tend to come much more from some immigrant groups than from others. In general, they are young men of North African or sub-Saharan African background, plus smaller numbers of Roma and Albanians. 

This criminality, when not being denied, is usually put down to social marginalization and lack of integration. Yet the reverse is closer to the truth. The typical French person is an individual in a sea of individuals, whereas immigrant communities enjoy strong social networks and a keen sense of solidarity. This is one of the reasons given why the targets of the crime wave are so often Français de souche [old-stock French]. "Whites don't stick up for each other."


Personal violence in human societies

In France, as in other Western countries, personal violence is criminalized and even pathologized. The young violent male is said to be "sick." Or "deprived." He has not had a chance to get a good job and lead a nice quiet life.

Yet this is not how young violent males perceive themselves or, for that matter, how most human societies have perceived them down through the ages. Indeed, early societies accepted the legitimacy of personal violence. Each adult male had the right to defend himself and his kin with whatever violence he deemed necessary. The term "self-defence" is used loosely here—a man could react violently to a lack of respect or to slurs on his honor or the honor of his ancestors. There were courts to arbitrate this sort of dispute but they typically had no power, enforcement of court rulings being left to the aggrieved party and his male kin. In general, violence was a socially approved way to prove one’s manhood, attract potential mates, and gain respect from other men.

Things changed as human societies developed. The State grew in power and increasingly monopolized the legitimate use of violence, thus knocking down the violent young male from hero to zero. This course of action was zealously pursued in Northwest Europe from the 11th century onward (Carbasse, 2011, pp. 36-56). There were two reasons. First, the end of the Dark Ages brought a strengthening of State power, a resumption of trade and, hence, a growing need and ability by the authorities to pacify social relations. Second, the main obstacle to criminalization of personal violence—kin-based morality and the desire to avenge wrongs committed against kin—seems to have been weaker in Northwest Europe than elsewhere. There was correspondingly a greater susceptibility to more universal and less kin-based forms of morality, such as the Christian ban on murder in almost all circumstances. 

Murder was increasingly punished not only by the ultimate penalty but also by exemplary forms of execution, e.g., burning at the stake, drawing and quartering, and breaking on the wheel (Carbasse, 2011, pp. 52-53). This "war on murder" reached a peak from the 16th to 18th centuries when, out of every two hundred men, one or two would end up being executed (Taccoen, 1982, p. 52). A comparable number of murderers would die either at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial (Ireland, 1987).


Gene-culture co-evolution?

The cultural norm thus shifted toward nonviolence. There was now strong selection against people who could not or would not lead peaceful lives, their removal from society being abrupt, via the hangman's noose, or more gradual, through ostracism by one's peers and rejection on the marriage market. As a result, the homicide rate fell from between 20 and 40 homicides per 100,000 in the late Middle Ages to between 0.5 and 1 per 100,000 in the mid-20th century (Eisner, 2001, pp. 628-629).

Was this decline due solely to legal and cultural restraints on personal violence? Or were there also changes to the gene pool? Was there a process of gene-culture co-evolution whereby Church and State created a culture of nonviolence, which in turn favored some genotypes over others? We know that aggressive/antisocial behavior is moderately to highly heritable. In the latest twin study, heritability was 40% when the twins had different evaluators and 69% when they had the same one (Barker et al., 2009). The actual neural basis is still unsure. Perhaps a predisposition to violence is due to stronger impulsiveness and weaker internal controls on behavior (Niv et al., 2012). Perhaps the threshold for expression of violence is lower. Perhaps ideation comes easier (van der Dennen, 2006). Or perhaps the sight and smell of blood is more pleasurable (vanden Bergh and Kelly, 1964).

It was probably a mix of cultural and genetic factors that caused the homicide rate to decline in Western societies. Even if culture alone were responsible, we would still be facing the same problem. Different societies view male violence differently:

In Algerian society for example, children are raised according to their sex. A boy usually receives an authoritarian and severe type of upbringing that will prepare him to become aware of the responsibilities that await him in adulthood, notably responsibility for his family and for the elderly. This is why a mother will allow her son to fight in the street and will scarcely be alarmed if the boy has a fall or if she sees a bruise. The boy of an Algerian family is accustomed from an early age to being hit hard without whimpering too much. People orient him more toward combat sports and group games in order to arm him with courage and endurance—virtues deemed to be manly. (Assous, 2005)

In Algeria and similar societies, a shaky equilibrium contains the worst excesses of male violence. Men think twice before acting violently, for fear of retaliation from the victim's brothers and other kinsmen. Of course, this "balance of terror" does not deter violence against those who have few kinsmen to count on.

Problems really begin, however, when a culture that legitimizes male violence coexists with one that delegitimizes it. This is France’s situation. Les jeunes perceive violence as a legitimate way to advance personal interests, and they eagerly pursue this goal with other young men. Conversely, les Français de souche perceive such violence as illegitimate and will not organize collectively for self-defence. The outcome is predictable. The first group will focus their attacks on members of the second group—not out of hate but because the latter are soft targets who cannot fight back or get support from others. 

But what about the obviously Islamist motives of the Charlie Hebdo attackers? Such motives can certainly channel violent tendencies, but those tendencies would exist regardless. Even if we completely eradicated radical Islam, les jeunes would still be present and still engaging in the same kind of behavior that is becoming almost routine. At best, there would be fewer high-profile attacks—the kind that make the police pull out all stops to find and kill the perps. It is this "high end" that attracts the extremists, since they are the least deterred by the risks incurred. The “low end” tends to attract devotees of American hip hop. Keep in mind that less than two-thirds of France's Afro/Arab/Roma population is even nominally Muslim.


Conclusion

Modern France is founded on Western principles of equality, human betterment, and universal morality. Anyone anywhere can become French. That view, the official one, seems more and more disconnected from reality. Many people living in France have no wish to become French in any meaningful sense. By "French" I don't mean having a passport, paying taxes, or agreeing to a set of abstract propositions. I mean behaving in certain concrete ways and sharing a common culture and history.

This reality is sinking in, and with it a loss of faith in the official view of France. Faith can be restored, on the condition that outrageous incidents stop happening. But they will continue to happen. And they will matter a lot more than the much more numerous incidents tout court—the rising tide of thefts, assaults, and home invasions that are spreading deeper and deeper into areas that were safe a few years ago. The attack on Charlie Hebdo matters more because it cannot be hidden from public view and public acknowledgment. How does one explain the disappearance of an entire newspaper and the mass execution of its editorial board? 

The Front national will be the beneficiary, of course. It may already have one third of the electorate, but that's still not enough to take power, especially with all of the other parties from the right to the left combining to keep the FN out. Meanwhile, the Great Replacement proceeds apace, regardless of whether the government is "left-wing" or "right-wing."


References 

Assous, A. (2005). L'impact de l'éducation parentale sur le développement de l'enfant, Hawwa, 3(3), 354-369.
http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/156920805774910033 

Barker, E.D., H. Larsson, E. Viding, B. Maughan, F. Rijsdijk, N. Fontaine, and R. Plomin. (2009). Common genetic but specific environmental influences for aggressive and deceitful behaviors in preadolescent males, Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31, 299-308.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/226851959_Common_Genetic_but_Specific_Environmental_Influences_for_Aggressive_and_Deceitful_Behaviors_in_Preadolescent_Males/file/9fcfd506c1944288cb.pdf  

Chevrier, G. and X. Raufer. (2014). Aucun lien entre immigration et délinquance ? Une France peu généreuse avec ses immigrés ? Radiographie de quelques clichés "bien pensants" à la peau dure, Atlantico, November 26
http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/aucun-lien-entre-immigration-et-delinquance-france-peu-genereuse-avec-immigres-radiographie-quelques-cliches-bien-pensants-peau-1875772.html  

Eisner, M. (2001). Modernization, self-control and lethal violence. The long-term dynamics of European homicide rates in theoretical perspective, British Journal of Criminology, 41, 618-638.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/249284795_Modernization_Self-Control_and_Lethal_Violence._The_Long-term_Dynamics_of_European_Homicide_Rates_in_Theoretical_Perspective/file/60b7d52cbfa9aec78c.pdf

Ireland, R.W. (1987). Theory and practice within the medieval English prison, The American Journal of Legal History, 31, 56-67. 

Niv, S., C. Tuvblad, A. Raine, P. Wang, and L.A. Baker. (2012). Heritability and longitudinal stability of impulsivity in adolescence, Behavior Genetics, 42, 378-392.
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3351554

Taccoen, L. (1982). L'Occident est nu, Paris: Flammarion. 

Vanden Bergh, R.L., and J.F. Kelly. (1964). Vampirism. A review with new observations. Archives of General Psychiatry, 11, 543-547.
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=488664  

Van der Dennen, J.M.G. (2006). Review essay: The murderer next door: Why the mind is designed to kill, Homicide Studies, 10, 320-335.
http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/10/4/320.short

24 comments:

Ted said...

It's not a personal attack on you, Peter, but if anthropologists (the ones who know better, not the silly ones), and biologists, and evolutionary biologists would "take on" sociology departments and their ilk (the media and pols), people would be free to discuss that just as oil and water don't mix, certain cultures (you don't even have to raise the specter of race, just culture and the values that arise from it) don't mix and attempts to make them mix will lead or to pretend that they do, will lead to chaos, as has happened in Europe.

Even now, the idiot networks CNN, NBC are pretending this is all just because of poverty and young Muslim males feeling "left out."

Krefter said...

"In France, as in other Western countries, personal violence is criminalized and even pathologized. The young violent male is said to be "sick." Or "deprived." He has not had a chance to get a good job and lead a nice quiet life."

Finally someone says this. Male-like behavior is seen as unhealthy, abnormal, and only done by insane people in Europe and America, which feminizes men.

You do see normal social-human behavior in places in the west; like high school, small-kin based communities, and athletics.

I feel that legalism in western culture limits people in many other ways too. Western culture is to controlling in my opinion.

Reader said...

Peter, what you're describing conflicts with the situation in the United States, of which you've made no mention. In contrast to Europe, Australia, and Canada, for some reason Muslim-Americans are firmly integrated into American culture and the US hasn't witnessed any home-grown terrorists. Not only 2nd-gen but even 1st-gen Muslims in America are mostly peaceful. No more than 2 American citizens joined ISIS whereas hundreds came from Europe, Russia, Australia, etc. So the United States' melting pot seems to have successfully absorbed this demographic unlike other Western cultures, for reasons that are worth discussing.

You also talk about a different problem, which is that young men (les jeunes) are susceptible to violence and risky behavior. That is a whole different issue in itself. David Buss confirms in "Evolution of Desire" that "men who are unmarried and young are greatly overrepresented in risky activities... Homicides are disproportionately concentrated between the ages of 16 and 30... Men low in desirability, as indicated by being unmarried and young, seem especially prone to risk taking, which sometimes crosses the line and becomes lethal" (p. 201). And other scientists also write that young men are at the bottom of the mating pool and engage in destructive activities for that reason. George Gilder's chapter on young single men in his book "Men and Marriage" is entitled "Taming the Barbarians." His thesis is that young single men are barbarians with destructive instincts, but that marriage tames them and absorbs them into mainstream society.

Laban Tall said...

Here are youtube videos of "Frenchmen" booing the Marseillaise at games in Paris against Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia (just as the Star Spangled Banner was booed in LA when USA played Mexico).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0RrhBrMXbw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CaJKm3fJy8

Average Joe said...

Muslim-Americans are firmly integrated into American culture

No, they are not. Law enforcement agencies in the United States are just much better at stopping Islamic terrorist attacks while they are still in the planning stages.

Tommy Hass said...

American Muslims are far more successful educationally and economically. They really ARE better inegrated.

Johnny said...

America's legal immigration laws with regards to Muslims don't really resemble that of problem European countries like France. Most of the muslims going to the US are upper middle class professionals. It's not like lower class Algerians can swim across the atlantic.

Anonymous said...

"American Muslims are far more successful educationally and economically. They really ARE better inegrated."


Like Somali gangbangers in Minnesota?

The average level of "integration" of various immigrant groups in various countries is a function of what part of the source population they were drawn from.

If they were drawn from the educated segment then they'll have a higher level of integration. If they were drawn from the uneducated segment then they'll be sitting at the bottom of the economic ladder getting resentful.

The problem is the economic right and cultural left colluded in importing vast numbers of immigrants from the *bottom* of the economic ladder.

The economic right did it to drive down wages.

The cultural left did it to ensure they would vote for the left.

The majority of Muslims in Europe have been drawn primarily from the bottom of the pile.

Beyond Anon said...

It was probably a mix of cultural and genetic factors that caused the homicide rate to decline in Western societies. Even if culture alone were responsible, we would still be facing the same problem. Different societies view male violence differently:

We should not reify culture or regard it as some sort of sui generis thing.

It is, in my opinion, the average behavior of a racial group of humans and is very much under the control of genes. That is, the stable behavioral modes that result from the interaction of genetic tendencies and the structure of the society/environment that those humans live in are under control of genes.

I would claim that over time, if the genetic tendencies of a group of humans does not lead to a stable set of behaviors, that group will no longer exist.

And, since the environment contains other groups with differing genetically-derived cultures, and has always done so, I wonder if there has been selection for eliminating (either by absorbing them or destroying them) other cultures.

Andrea Ostrov Letania said...

"The first group will focus their attacks on members of the second group—not out of hate but because the latter are soft targets who cannot fight back or get support from others."
Interesting article, but Peter Frost left out a key point.
Suppose there's a violent and aggressive far-right German minority in France, and suppose these elements stuck together to carry out thuggish violence against the French, especially French Liberals.
Would the French just sit and take it? Or, would French crowds gather together and march against German violence and even break some bones? The French certainly loved using vengeful violence after the end of WWII. They rounded up collaborators and tortured and killed a bunch of them. And French women who'd slept with German soldiers were routinely humiliated and beaten.
If German far-right gangs were running amok in France, I think French would form into gangs and fight back. On the other hand, they wouldn't need to since the French state will use all its might to crack down on German far-right gangs.
The problem is ideology. The ideology of EU revolves around 'white guilt' over slavery and imperialism. And white 'racism' is also associated with the Holocaust, which has become the new religion of Europe.
That is the reason why white people all across the EU--not just in NW Europe--are so afraid to come together to march against non-white violence, open immigration, and Arab/Muslim/black violence. And it is because of the prevailing ideology that the governments of Europe have been lax in cracking down on non-white violence and aggression. It's like white Americans feel that they better shut up about black violence since America has to atone for its 'original sin' of slavery. (Incidentally, shouldn't the 'genocide' of American Indians be considered the 'original sin' of America?)
During the Algerian War, plenty of right-wing French showed they could be angry and aggressive. Some of them even carried out terror attacks and beat up & even killed Algerians in France. And in 1968, leftist youth of France showed they could gang together and wreak horrific violence in the streets. During the Algerian War, the French Right was still in the game. They were not socially taboo. And in the 60s, French leftist youth were full of confidence in leading the revolution.

Andrea Ostrov Letania said...

Since then, PC and Holocaust worship have taken over as the new ideology of EU. As well as homomania, the favorite agenda of Jewish globalists. Generations of Frenchmen have been browbeaten and instilled with worship of Jews and people of color(diversity and multiculturalism).
Because the governments, media, and schools are so busy instilling PC and 'white guilt' in all Europeans, whites find it difficult legally, politically, and emotionally to come together to fight for their interest.
However, if German far-right youths in France were attacking liberals and Jews, tons of angry French would pour out into the streets and beat the crap out of German far-right youths. Such violence might even be politically and morally tolerated the establishment. Consider the total lack of sympathy in Europe and America for the black violence against whites in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Even Western governments that insist on due process and rule of law pretend that all the murders and rapes against whites in South Africa haven't taken place. They see it as righteous revenge for past injustice. And in the US, where was due process and sense of fairness when some fraternity of UVA was falsely accused of gang rape by some Jewish 'journalist' named Sabrina Rubin Erdely in Rolling Stone magazine? If anything, MSM promoted the Rolling Stone hoax story because it aroused hatred for 'blonde southern males'.
It's like the Liberal Establishment in America more or less looks the other way when blacks burn down cities over some issue, as happened in Ferguson recently. It's as if blacks have every right to get angry and vent their rage. And when 'leftists' were marching holding signs saying 'BUSHITLER', that too was more or less condoned and approved by the Liberal Establishment. In colleges all across the US, white Liberal and 'leftist' students organize energetically to attack 'racism' and 'sexism' and 'homophobia'. So, there's no lack of white unity and energy in the political struggles.
The real problem is whites are not allowed to unite for white interests. That has been taboo-ized by the new socio-political order dominated by Jews. But, plenty of white Liberals and Conservatives will eagerly come together to fight for Jewish interests. Consider how nearly all the Republicans in Congress vowed to enforce even tougher sanctions on Russia.
So, it's entirely not about aggressive non-whites vs non-aggressive whites. Whites can be very aggressive, but PC has defanged whites from uniting for racial or ethnic reasons. Today, whites can only unite for 'progressive' causes or abstract principles like 'lower taxes'(as with the Tea Party).
In contrast, Jews, blacks, homos, and browns are allowed and even encouraged to come together and push aggressively for their own group interest.
So, it's more a matter of taboos than styles of aggression or lack thereof.
Whites can be politically aggressive and violent. But not for white causes. That is the real problem.
Consider what happened to Richard Spencer and friends when they tried to organize a pro-white conference in Hungary. If Spencer and his friends were antifa and very aggressive/hateful in their rhetoric against white power, they would have been allowed to proceed with their meeting.
So, whites can hate and fight... but it better be against themselves.

Anonymous said...

The French certainly loved using vengeful violence after the end of WWII. They rounded up collaborators and tortured and killed a bunch of them. And French women who'd slept with German soldiers were routinely humiliated and beaten.

Right, many French women who had consorted with German soldiers during the occupation were beaten and got their heads shaved and were even shot by angry Frenchmen after the war.

Anonymous said...

If German far-right gangs were running amok in France, I think French would form into gangs and fight back. On the other hand, they wouldn't need to since the French state will use all its might to crack down on German far-right gangs.
The problem is ideology.


Yes, the problem is not so much some sort of general aversion to action or fighting back, but that the body-politic by and large conforms to the dictates of the "mind" of society - those moral authorities figures embodied in politics, media, academia, etc. that proscribe and prescribe what is moral behavior.

Horatio said...

Well, as bad as it sounds, maybe we should bring back some of the old ethnic gangs of the past, hopefully more in a protective manner than a criminal one. Those old timey gangs really kept their co-ethnics safe from attacks by blacks. White gangs started to go away in the late 60s, around the same time the black on white crime wave started. Where have you gone Albert Anastasia, a nation turns it's lonely eyes to you?

Big Bill said...

"American Muslims are far more successful educationally and economically. They really ARE better inegrated."

They are not "better integrated" in regions where they form a colony, such as Dearborn, Michigan.

They stone Christian street preachers there. In public. On camera. And they get away with it.

Google "youtube arab fest violence christian dearborn"

There are 0.5% Muslims in America as compared to 10-20% in France. Sixty-eight percent of babies born in Paris and environs (i.e. Ile de France) are Arab/African now. They are not afraid.

Back in 1940 or so, when only 0.5% of France was Arab/African they were very well behaved. But now they feel their power and they re not afraid of expressing it.

The Muslim populations of Europe and America cannot be compared except in US regions like Dearborn where the Muslim colonies are quite large.

Average Joe said...

American Muslims are far more successful educationally and economically. They really ARE better inegrated

Could you provide some examples?

Average Joe said...

America's legal immigration laws with regards to Muslims don't really resemble that of problem European countries like France. Most of the muslims going to the US are upper middle class professionals. It's not like lower class Algerians can swim across the atlantic.

Actually there are plenty of uneducated Muslim immigrants coming to the United States. The important difference is that the US law enforcement agencies are better at stopping Islamic terrorist attacks than are their European counterparts.

Average Joe said...

Those of you who believe that Muslims are well integrated in the United States should check out this link:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/11/dianne-feinstein-terrorist-sleeper-cells-are-us/

Quote: "Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and her party’s ranking member on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, flatly stated that she believes terrorist cells are hiding in Europe and the U.S., waiting to be activated and carry out attacks similar to the ones that claimed 17 lives in France last week."

Conatus said...

I certainly agree with Andrea Ostrov Letania's comments. Having lived in Northeast DC for some twenty years as a YT guy i certainly realized no one was ever going to back me up in any street confrontation with the natives. So I got some natural backup, two dogs to stroll the cobblestones with obsessive sniffiness but at the same time watch my back. In reply to my characterizations of canine placidity the natives would say, "They have teeth don't they?"
Yes they do have teeth.
I knew no other being would back me up, but especially another YT. Because nightly, as we worshiped at the feet of the Electronic Rebbe, I would be shown, but never told, how YT had been bad in the past and therefore had no rights now. It would be hinted that my kind was not worthy of comity. And any display of YT rights would be laughed at a as ridiculous.
Most people learned their nightly catechisms well, they shriveled before my very eyes. White guys who once revered Clint Eastwood now liked the guy on the Big Bang Theory. Wow! What a change in deities. That was a church i just could not attend.
I moved and expected more solidarity in the suburbs but Lo! i was disappointed since the nightly lessons in DC were continued out here also.
My conclusion was the Temple that YT attends was not good for his health. He needs to limit his viewing(and therefore his being propagandized) to ...say the Alaska TV shows, the 'lets shoot some animals' shows or in the end, YT will be resoundingly demoralized and defenseless.
And get some dogs.

Anonymous said...

I think its also time to admit openly the fact that immigrants have higher schizophrenia rates because of their gene-culture co evolution... right!?

The city center of Paris is virtually devoid of black people and any immigrant! The racism, discrimination and social segregation is so solid you can see it, feel it and hold it in your hands. it is a disturbing and enlightening experience for any one willing to see.

I understand and accept the concept of gene-culture co evolution and follow your line of reasoning. But claiming that this is a major factor in the observed social phenomena has a very shaky foundation at best. Totally ignoring "nature and nurture" approach and the emerging concept of epigenetic modulation of human behavior...

Given the fact that European countries never employed any serious integration and educational policies towards those people, advocating the recognition of unsubstantiated claims of supposedly innate differences among people will only lead to neofacism.

Average Joe said...

Given the fact that European countries never employed any serious integration and educational policies towards those people, advocating the recognition of unsubstantiated claims of supposedly innate differences among people will only lead to neofacism.

I would rather live in a "neofascist" state than an Islamic one. It is not the job of Europeans to make sure that Muslim immigrants integrate. It is the job of the Muslim immigrants to integrate. If you seriously read this blog and others you would know that biological differences between the various races and ethnic groups have been well researched and documented.

Anonymous said...

Average joey Putin,
the president of Russia want ban all sort of "reicism" around the world.

Santoculto

Average Joe said...

Here is another sobering link for those who believe that Muslim immigration to the United States has been a good thing:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396262/troubling-math-muslim-migration-ian-tuttle

Quote: "The Boston Marathon bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, born in the Soviet Union and Kyrgyzstan, respectively, came to the United States as refugees in 2002. They were radicalized inside the country, Tamerlan reportedly at the Islamic Society of Boston mosque in Cambridge, Mass. That mosque has reported links to several other convicted, or suspected, terrorists. Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, born in Eritrea and raised in Yemen, was reportedly an attendee before being sentenced, in 2004, to 23 years in prison for (among other things) his role in a Libyan plot to assassinate then–Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. Also reported to worship there was Aafia Siddiqui, “Lady al-Qaeda,” born in Pakistan, later a graduate of MIT and Brandeis University, sentenced to 86 years in prison in 2010 for attempting to kill a U.S. Army captain in Afghanistan. But that was just what they prosecuted: She had plans to conduct a chemical attack in New York City."

Larry Martins Fernandes said...

That's the most insightful article I've read about the Paris attacks. Kudos.