UK Muslim covert nail bomber had burning World Trade Center screen saver

"Why "mental illness" seems again and again to play itself out in this way when found among Muslims is never explained."
-RS

"Mental illness" is what we look for. We figure anyone who would commit suicide is mentally ill. Admitting that there are other motivations would require taking action, which is undesirable. Better to tell ourselves that "poor, misguided souls" such as this young man can be rehabilitated with the milk of human kindness.

"Neighbours described him as an introvert with few friends."

I'm an introvert with few friends. I've never come even close to thinking about attempting to explode a bomb in a restaurant or anyplace else for that matter.

What do you think the difference is between Nicky and me?

"Devon and Cornwall Deputy Chief Constable Tony Melville said Reilly appeared to be a "vulnerable" individual who had been "preyed upon" and "radicalised".

He said: 'Our investigations so far indicate that Reilly, who has a history of mental illness, had adopted the Islamic faith.

We believe that he was preyed upon, radicalised and taken advantage of.'"

Reilly was arrested by police at the scene of the explosion. He suffered lacerations to his eye and some facial burning after one device exploded.
-- from a story in The Daily Mail

Not half-wits in the Garaudy or Galloway or Chomsky sense, each quite capable of low cunning, but half-wits in the literal sense. For Muslim "activists" (fine word, activists--its awfulness reflecting the awfulness of all "activists") are good at identifying, for the purposes of Da'wa, target populations of the economically and psychically marginal.

The explosive Mr. Reilly of Exeter turns out, unsurprisingly, to be a man with a history of mental illness who was "preyed upon and radicalised" by Muslims.

This description fits perfectly the Dutchman Volkert van der Graaf, a demented man and "animal-rights activist" whose "concern for the most vulnerable members of society" led him -- via Muslims who carefully explained to him that next to of course animals it was they, Muslims, who best fit that definition and it was bad old Pim Fortuyn who was out to get them and wouldn't it be nice, wouldn't it be right, if some brave protector of the "most vulnerable" were to come to their aid by shooting Pim Fortuyn dead so he wouldn't any longer be able to threaten those "most vulnerable" and helpless Muslims.

And that is exactly what Volkert van der Graaf did.

There are those who continue to believe that because Volkert van der Graaf was not a declared convert to Islam, and was known as an animal-rights activist, his murder of Pim Fortuyn had nothing to do with Islam. They never seem, these people, to ask themselves two questions. First, what did the murder of Pim Fortuyn have to do with animal rights? Was Pim Fortuyn known for having taken any position on the treatment or mistreatment of animals? No, he was not.

The second question is: why did Volkert van der Graaf, then, murder Pim Fortuyn? What was it about Pim Fortuyn that he, Volkert van der Graaf, told the court was the reason for his murdering him? It is no secret. He made it clear before his trial, and at his trial, and after his trial.

From the Daily Telegraph of March 28, 2003:

"A Left-wing activist confessed in court yesterday to Holland's first political assassination in 400 years, claiming that he shot Pim Fortuyn to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution. Volkert van der Graaf, 33, a vegan animal rights campaigner, said he alone was responsible for killing the maverick protest leader last May, days before a general election in which the Fortuyn List party vaulted into second place and shattered Holland's consensus.

Facing a raucous court on the first day of his murder trial, he said his goal was to stop Mr Fortuyn exploiting Muslims as 'scapegoats' and targeting 'the weak parts of society to score points" to try to gain political power. He said: "I confess to the shooting. He was an ever growing danger who would affect many people in society. I saw it as a danger. I hoped that I could solve it myself.'"

Possibly van der Graaf arrived at this conclusion on his own. More likely, I think, is that Muslims used him as a weapon, a human guided missile that they could exploit and direct through the power of mental suggestion.

But it doesn't matter. It was a killing for Muslims, on behalf of Muslims, for a Muslim cause, by a non-Muslim sympathizer, of a man known for his anti-Muslim views.

Surely that is enough to connect it to the case of Mr. Reilly, in Exeter, a half-wit whom more cunning Muslims, demented in a different way, were willing to exploit by putting thoughts into his head – which thoughts led to his little bomb, and little explosion. That explosion hurt, in this case, only him. But there are other half-wits, for Islam preys in the West not only on the economically marginal (who are given a Total System that justifies them in their resentments, and organizes that resentment, often taken out in criminal activity, so that it all makes sense within the framework of Islam, as justified hatred of Infidels, and criminal behavior re-interpreted, so that stealing from Infidels becomes justified as proleptic Jizyah, and rape of Infidel women – see those imams in Norway, explaining this so solemnly – is deserved, because of the way they dress, which means, of course, that they are, civilizationally, asking for it.

No, in this case there was what the Israelis drily call a “work accident.” But what about next time, with the next half-wit?

There are no Muslim terrorists. Islam is peace. He took the Koran out of context. No mass protests. No apologies from the UN or Condemnation. No charges for inciting religious hate. Welcome the new reality of violence and tolerance of bombing innocent peoples non Muslims because we must accept the fact the Islam allows the killing of non Muslims as a act of piety. DISGUSTING and SICK. Whats really sick is the complacency in the action of western leaders to this obvious and real threat.

"For Muslim "activists" are good at identifying, for the purposes of Da'wa, target populations of the economically and psychically marginal."

Large parts of the North of England could go under.

On a happier note, I was pleased to see the Conservatives take that by-election yesterday in Northwest England. MAybe people are waking up? Or they're just FED UP!

Isn't saying a convert to islam has a mental illness kind of redundant?

Being born into it and brain washed as a child (the mouse and the bee on Al Jazeera shildrens show comes to mind) is one thing, but knowingly converting as an adult (even a young adult) has got to indicate some kind of mental instability.

"...knowingly converting as an adult (even a young adult) has got to indicate some kind of mental instability."

Agreed, most especially in the case of women who convert. After all, islam offers many advantages for men, but absolutely none for women.

Richard Reid redux.

Why not then have 'mental psych' tests for muslims.
Islam continues to seemingly have thousands of 'disturbed' people practising in their religion that are carrying out 'violent' acts in the name of their religion.

Either muslims should be tested for mental illness to prevent further crimes or the west can try to figure out why 'what common factor' they are have in common that incites them to violence.

I'll give them a hint.

Why is it the mentally marginal are so easily drawn to the violent side of Islam? What does that say about Islam itself? Why does it attract violent behavior within its ‘religion of peace’ context? Can it be ALL ‘taken out of context’, and only the mentally marginal understand it? Puzzling indeed, until one learns of the basic tenets of Mohammad’s commands to subdue the whole world for Allah… then it makes sense.

The mentally marginal are drawn to this vicious cult of Allah for the same reasons so many are in prison, because their criminal tendencies are rewarded by Mohammad’s good book of supremacist world conquest. Machievelli had nothing on him, since the crazies were not drawn to his Prince, while the criminally marginal are drawn to Mohammad’s Prince. A Prince of evil and darkness so easily draws them to the dark side, and drives them into insane violence. Yes, this ‘mental illness’ even has a name:
Passive-aggressive-violent paranoia, a.k.a Islam.

From the article:

"Officials believe an attempt was recently made to radicalise another vulnerable man in the West Country, an area thought unlikely to become a terrorist target...."

First, let's clarify matters. This is what the paper SHOULD have written:

"Officials believe Muslim jihadis recently attempted to recruit another vulnerable man in the West Country, an area thought unlikely to become a target of Jihad...".

Now, let's reflect.

If the 'West Country' has been thought less likely as a target of Jihad, then, if other allegedly areas, more visibly and obviously inhabited by large numbers of Muslims, are watched more carefully by the Infidels, naturally, the jihadis will go for the LESS WATCHED areas, the softer targets...

But: the West Country. Plymouth. Devon and Cornwall. Wasn't it from the coasts of Cornwall, in the 17th century, that Thomas Pellew was seized by Muslim slave-raiders, the Barbary Pirates, and carried off to durance vile, and forcible (after severe torture) 'conversion' to Islam, as per the book 'White Gold'? (He did, however, manage to survive, to return home, and to bear witness).

Time for the West Country authorities, instead of soothing lies about the 'religion of peace', to publicise instead the story of Thomas Pellew, and to revive the folk memories of the Barbary Pirates. Reawaken the spirit of Sir Francis Drake. If the Authorities won't, it's up to the common folk.

Oops. Typo in the above: in the first sentence, where you see 'instead of other allegedly areas', read 'instead of other allegedly more at-risk areas...'.