When a Jordanian soldier shot and killed Israeli third-graders who had come from their school to visit a "Peace Garden" planted on both sides of the Israel-Jordan border, he was described as "insane." When an Egyptian soldier, on the other side of Israel, opened fire on a group of Israeli tourists and killed men, women, and children, he was described as "insane."
Now if you do not know what texts the killers had read, what they believed, and the atmospherics of their existence, then you would of course describe both men as "insane." And you might also think them “insane” if you did not know about Islam, and had been very careful not ever to find out it, because then you might have to warn your people, and in warning them you might feel you were not so much arming them as depressing them, lowering their morale. For they would have to come to grips with the awful truth: that the Lesser Jihad against Israel is permanent, that it is rooted in Islam, immutable Islam, and that nothing Israel does, no further surrenders of territory, will assuage the Muslim Arabs. A state of permanent war (though not always of open warfare, as long as deterrence can be made to work) will simply have to be endured.
Abdul Aziz Yahya al-Abdi, murderer of an innocent man, a Jew, in Yemen, is clearly an upset man. Something has gone wrong with his life. He murdered his wife two years ago. Of course he wasn’t punished for that. Perhaps he murdered her because he had lost his pilot’s job and he had to take it out on someone. Or perhaps he lost his pilot’s job after he murdered his wife because, even though he suffered no other punishment, the air transportation company that had employed him became a little alarmed about his reaction to stress. But is Abdi, was Abdi when he killed that completely innocent Yemenite Jew, “insane”?
Was Abdi, that is, who killed a Jew because that Jew insisted on remaining a Jew, and even on remaining in Yemen, really someone whom the Yemenis in their own milieu consider “insane”? Or do they prefer to characterize him as “insane” only for the world’s outside Infidels, so as to protect the faith of Islam, so as not to have to make clear that he was behaving as Muslims can, with such impunity, because of the Shari’a? Was not the government of Yemen merely acting in the same way as the Jordanians do when they described that Jordanian soldier who murdered the Israeli schoolgirls “insane” and the same as the Egyptian officials who called that Egyptian soldier who murdered the Israeli families on a holiday in the Sinai “insane”? No, the Jordanian soldier, the Egyptian soldier, and Abdi the Yemenite were not insane. They were, possibly, simply unable to hold in their natural impulses, impulses which, you can be sure, on many occasions, over 1350 years, many Muslims have freely indulged in – killing Jews, or Christians, or Hindus, or Zoroastrians, with impunity, with no fear of being punished and no punishment, save that which fellow Muslims might mete out if, as in the case of the Jews of Yemen, they were considered chattel, property whose loss was felt and could, therefore, be avenged by destroying the property of the tribe of the killer.
And because in the fastnesses of the Yemen the pressure of European power, the presence of Europeans, never had much influence, the old ways continued right up to the last few decades. To understand just how unimportant the life of a Jew in the Yemen has been, right up to the middle of the twentieth century, the excerpt by the British scholar R. S. Serjeant, quoted in Andrew Bostom’s anthology, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, pp. 658-659, may be instructive:
...Judging by Arabic sources, the Jews of South Arabia were...dealt with...in fairly strict accordance with the shariah relating to the protected faiths...[for example] Outside the centralized Yemenite administration the Jew was protected by the Sultan, or even by the individual tribe; such was the case on the Habbanis. The protector would of course, be of the arms-bearing classes or perhaps of the religious aristocracy. In South Arabia it is shameful to kill a Jew, as it would be to kill a woman. An excellent example (emphasis added) of this form of protection ...is to be found in a passage from the Fakhir of al-Mufaddal b. Salamah. A protected Jew of al-Husain, the Sayid of the Banu Sahm, was murdered by the Banu Sirmah, so the Sahm in turn slew a protected Jew of the Sirmah...the Sirmah came to al-Husain to discuss the matter. Al-Husain replied, “You killed our Jew, so we killed your Jew,” adding that it would be a pity if two tribes closely related should actually engage each other in war.
And that is the end of the matter, even today, for most Muslims. Where do you think that Jordanian soldier or that Egyptian soldier are today, the ones who murdered the Israeli schoolgirls and families on holiday? Do you think they are still in prison? How long do you think they stayed in prison? Do you think they were ever seriously treated as if they were “insane”?
Don’t be crazy.
To the Mohammedans they are perfectly sane but to rational and civilized humans they would naturally be called insane because these acts do not register as being a natural way of living. The Mohammedans enjoy a world of chaos, violence, hatred and mass murder.
They are following their leader par excellence Mohammad the first Islamic terrorist and mass murderer, rapist and pedophile. It is a twisted psychology. Knowing this all non Muslims should respond to Islamic Jihadis as sane and rational when they are committing these acts of Jihad against non Muslims, because they are full well aware of their religious obligation.
Islam lives on the blood sacrifice of non Muslims, they are practicing their religion when the kill non Muslims.
See Dr. Jerrold Post's "Hatred Bred in the Bone" about collective identity (and the loss of individual conscience). Then see his work on what happens to a man (he gets stuck in the Freudian genital phase) when he's subjected to the kind of culture in which sex much be repressed and women are generally the targets of the rage that results from that repression.
Post says that these guys aren't classically insane at all. They are the result of collective identity in which the will of the culture is everything. Rage is a disempowered position, and to punish out of that rage becomes worth it as it is inescapable in the culture, and even if death is the result somebody has to get punished. How twisted cultures are that produce terrorists that mass-murder innocents is expressed in relief in Mumbai.
What about the pilot who brought down the Egypt Air flight? Wasn't he also labeled "emotionally distraught"?
Around 1996, a reservist I managed was in IIRC Cairo under the auspices of her civilian job with the Defense Intelligence Agency. Nothing covert or sneaky here, routine liaison stuff. While entering the rotating door of her hotel she was attacked from behind by an "insane" Egyptian man and knifed repeatedly, ultimately dying from her wounds. Her murder made the Post, but has been long forgotten since. Just one of many.
Muslims can be sane or insane as may be - it is the ideology of Islam, dreamed up by mohamed, that is insane.
Mohammed must be the first person in the world, whose insane delusions became a way of life for a large number of people.
"Mohammed must be the first person in the world, whose insane delusions became a way of life for a large number of people. " - posted by DP111
-
Speaking of that desert pedophile and his legacy of genocide, intolerance and murder (just to mention a few of the horrors he committed himself or has inspired throughout the ages), the true meaning of the Shahadah is "there is no bigger lie than allah and no bigger liar than Mohammed", since he's supposed to have told the aforementioned big lie.
And countless fools keep falling for that scam every day. Just look at Suras 9:29, 72:23, 33:21, 33:50 and 33:51. Those are just a few of Mohammed's self-serving "revelations", and whose self-serving purpose should be more than enough evidence for people to see how big a scam his cult is.
If someone decided to create a religion whose holy book stated "God said I (the one who's revealing His word to the world) am perfection incarnate, God said I can get intimate with my wives as I please, God said I must slay my enemies and YOU should help", how stupid would one have to be to believe it to truly represent a god's will? Apparently, just as gullible and stupid as the hundreds of millions of idiots who have fallen for it.
longtime lurker
It seems to be horrendously common. A couple of years ago a French family of 4 were on holiday in Marocco. Walking through the souk one day, a man came up behind the teenage son and stabbed him to death. Just like that. I don't know if the insanity plea was used here, but the father fought long and hard to have it classed as a religious crime, because our two favourite words were used, as in the 'A' words. Of course, these cases never really seem to make the news.
Another human sacrifice for the insatiable Allah.
http://www.bladi.net/8842-benjamin-vanseveren.html
From the link helpfully given just above by Silvester, it is clear that the father of the boy who was murdered, Eric vanSeveren, had no doubt of the Islamic nature of the murder. And he had no doubt that the Moroccan authorities, so intent on preventing him from being this matter up, also thought so, for immediately after the murder they conducted a "rafle" in the "milieux islamistes." Furthermore, a Moroccan journalist well-versed in such matters was sure of the "Islamist" connection. By "Islamist" is merely meant "Islam plus" -- that is, those Muslims who act on a Qur'an-and-Sunnah-prompted impulse. They are not "insane." Their views can be understood, and follow from the texts and tenets of Islam, not crazily, but with the logic that the truest of true believes is willing not only to follow, but to act upon.
From the story to which the link is given two postings up:
"L’ultime audience du procès de l’assassin présumé de Benjamin Vanseveren, un touriste français de 17 ans poignardé à Fès, au Maroc, en février 2005, doit avoir lieu ce lundi. Le père de la victime se bat pour que soit reconnu le caractère religieux du meurtre.
L’ultime audience du procès de l’assassin présumé de Benjamin Vanseveren, ce touriste français de 17 ans poignardé à Fès en février 2005, doit avoir lieu ce lundi. "Sauf surprise, lundi, le procureur présentera son réquisitoire et les avocats leurs plaidoiries puis le jugement sera mis en délibéré", a indiqué l’avocat de la partie civile, Me Majda Loukili.
Mais le père de la jeune victime, Eric Vanseveren, un cadre bancaire de 48 ans, interrogé samedi à Montauban peu avant son départ pour le Maroc, a rappelé sa certitude, basée sur le dossier de l’instruction et sur son enquête parallèle, de "la connotation islamique du meurtre" de Benjamin. Abdelilah Al Meziane, un habitant de Fes de 29 ans, a été interpellé juste après le crime et a reconnu les faits. Il encourt la peine de mort.
Quatre témoins absents
Eric Vanseveren a déploré que lors de l’audience précédente, le 6 mars à Fès, la justice marocaine n’ait pas autorisé son avocat Me Jean-Lou Lévi à plaider en français avec l’assistance d’un traducteur et ait refusé la demande de la partie civile de citer quatre témoins. Eric Vanseveren avait demandé l’audition d’un religieux susceptible d’avoir influencé le jeune assassin, des deux policiers ayant dressé les procès-verbaux initiaux "en particulier ceux effectués à l’occasion de rafles dans les milieux islamistes dans la journée suivant l’assassinat", et d’un journaliste qui avait évoqué la piste islamiste.
Le juge Mohamed Dahmani avait motivé son refus en expliquant que ces officiers de police, qui ont instruit le dossier et rédigé les procès-verbaux, sont tenus au secret. Il avait en outre refusé de convoquer le journaliste Mohamed Boudarham, rédacteur au quotidien Libération au moment de l’assassinat, soulignant que celui-ci n’était pas présent sur les lieux du crime, et que "ses opinions et déductions ne regardent que lui".
"Que la justice suive son cours normalement "
"Nous espérons que la situation va se dénouer, que la justice marocaine fera le nécessaire pour sortir la tête haute de ce procès (...), je recherche simplement à ce que la justice suive son cours normalement en ayant étudié toutes les pistes, ce qui n’a hélas pas vraiment été fait, après elle appliquera le code pénal marocain", a expliqué Eric Vanseveren.
Nota Bene: "La connotation islamique du meurtre" of which Benjamin Vanseveren's anguished father is convinced, and so too, of course, was and is the prevaricating Moroccan government, determined not to allow that issue to be raised, for why else would it have immediately conducted a search in the "milieux islamiques" and why else would it be so intent on silencing a Moroccan jouranlist who was convinced of the "piste islamique"?
Don't visit Morocco. Don't go to any Muslim country. It's just too damn risky. And you don't want to encourage them, you don't want to give them your Western money. You want them to sink into the swamp of their own murderous making. If they can't or won't change their textbooks, won't or can't change their antisemitic and more general anti-Infidel broadcasts and press, if they can't or won't monitor what is taught in the madrasas and shouted in the mosques in the khutbas, if they can't make the place safe for non-Muslim tourists, non-Muslim tourists should simply stay away.
Stay home, for god's sake. Read a book or two. Make yourself more interesting. Make your life more interesting. Another country or five added to your life-list is really not all that impressive. Anyone can do it, if the money is there. It means nothing.
Wow, Hugh, others, Thank you for clarity of mind.
In the west we rely on cliches' and catch phrases to quickly reach the dulled mind - too much.
This is clarity. And to the matters heart. This was Word to me - what I needed to hear and take away.
I've always felt safe in Morocco, probably because I was in EPCOT Center. From Morocco, I could see France and Japan.
The Middle East, especially Egypt and Israel, was always on the wish list but PBS, the History Channel and National Geographic will have to suffice.
Hugh might be right about travel not making people "interesting". It was always said the travel "broadens the mind" but it depends on the person.
I particularly dislike those people such as journalists who go to Muslim countries and come back after a few days glowing with praise, telling us that the women are so happy in their hijabs and such charming hostesses and that really, we could learn a lot from these people about "how to live". It infuriates me that they make money from writing this trash, and that they lull Western people into even more sleepy denial.
Travel "broadens the mind"? See the short story by Sinclair Lewis, "Travel Is So Broadening."
I have no desire to ever set foot in an islamic country again. Almost thirty years later, I am still haunted by my memories of a week in rural Turkey and I have a feeling that if I went back tomorrow, everything would be exactly the same.
I had an opportunity several years ago to go scuba diving in Egypt, something I would absolutely love to do if Egypt wasn't full of mentally disturbed muslims. I just couldn't trust muslims to provide safe diving gear to an infidel female in a wetsuit and if I'm going to drown, I would just as soon do it off the shores of Hilton Head or West Palm.
Nor are devout Muslims 'extremists' or 'radical Muslims'. And they have not hijacked 'the religion of peace' of which primary source George Bush and Tony Blair have so repeatedly lied about having read.
And we are not at war, as Muslims understand the obligations of their complete way of life, with 'evil doers'.
Our president-elect, viewed by so many in the Muslim world to be a Muslim, has a unique opportunity to state, unequivocally, that Islam is incompatible with the United States Constitution which he will again swear to support and defend.
He knows it is. And he does have that opportunity. And from that the long-overdue national conversation about Islam can begin.
And at Easter, rabbits will hide eggs.
'I've always felt safe in Morocco, probably because I was in EPCOT Center. From Morocco, I could see France and Japan.
The Middle East, especially Egypt and Israel, was always on the wish list but PBS, the History Channel and National Geographic will have to suffice.'
Lol, Jasmine was pretty hot at Disney.
Constantinople, maybe. Israel, hopefully.
Never been an Egypt fan. And the rest for now, nah, too many brothers-in-their-right-mind. I saw Man Verses Wild Sahara. Bear Grylls ate sheep eyes and got inside of a dead camel carcass. Who needs that, ya know.