Taking a cue from the master saxophonist Ornette Coleman, Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald asks, “Who’s crazy?”: people like Ghassan Abdullah al-Sharbi and Zacarias Moussaoui, or the dhimmi analysts who diagnose them?
“‘I’m going to make this easy for you guys. I fought against the United States. I took up arms,” he said in English, his hands clasped on the defense table in front of him. Later, he added: ‘I’m going to tell you what I did … I’m proud of what I did.'”
These are the words of Ghassan Abdullah al-Sharbi, “an electrical engineering graduate from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Ariz.,” who “was captured in March 2002 in Pakistan with senior al-Qaida lieutenant Abu Zubayda and other figures.”
He is as honest about what he did and why as Zacarias Moussaoui has been. Yet his honesty will in all likelihood be dismissed, just as Moussaoui’s was by his lawyer, and by many of those in the press. They simply cannot be bothered to learn what Islam teaches, and why Muslims might do what they do, think what they think, and harbor what dreams and resentments they do harbor. Instead, they describe such people time after time as “crazy” or “schizophrenic.”
They are not.
The only “crazy” behavior to be observed over the past few years is that of the Infidels like Richard Miniter who, faced with a threat, a menace, unlike any other they have faced on a world scale, cannot conceive of such a thing. They do not want to hear about it. They do not wish to engage in the kind of study that might offer an explanatory model that fits both past and present data (about Muslim behavior and attitudes) and that has predictive value.
This morning the BBC tells us that “anti-terrorist experts are floundering about trying to understand Islamic suicide bombers in the UK and the rest of Europe. The experts came together and argued together at a conference in London organised by the Centre for Defence Studies at King’s College and the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. The conference sought to assemble “˜the puzzle that will help us better understand what determines and motivates the actions of individual jihadists.” The puzzle however remained frustratingly in pieces.”
Despite the volcanic mountains of evidence that rise higher as heaving hatreds sputter from deep below, the Infidels of this world content themselves with every conceivable explanation but the real one: “It’s poverty.” (Then the studies explode this). “It’s American foreign policy.” (Then the killings in Bangladesh and Pakistan of Hindus, of Christians in the Sudan and the Philippines and Indonesia, and another hundred examples, are adduced). “It’s only the Wahhabis.” (Then the speeches of Ayatollah Khomeini are pointed out, and the history of Jihad-conquest that preceded Al-Wahhab by a thousand years). “It’s Iraq, it’s “˜Palestine,– it’s whatever you want it to be to explain Malmo, and Rotterdam, and the unintegrated and unintegrable Muslim masses in Europe, and the Norwegian imam who explains that stealing from Infidels is religiously-sanctioned because it is merely a taking of the “Jizyah” that is owed to Muslims anyway, and the Sydney rapes and the Swedish rapes and the Norwegian rapes.
Similar non-explanations purport to clear up the causes of the mass hysteria over Danish cartoons in a Danish newspaper, leading to worldwide boycotts of Danish goods, recalls of ambassadors, and demands for changes in Danish and Western and global laws pertaining to free speech so that Islam, Islam, Islam will be exempt.
It’s a “war on terror,” and those “terrorists” are a “handful of extremists.” No, they’re slightly more than a “handful of extremists.” Now they’re ten percent, and now potentially 50 percent, or if we are to believe the ex-Muslims, the keen apostates, more like 80% or more of those who take Qur’an and Hadith seriously support acts of terror. And then, of course, we are not entitled, are we, to even discuss Da’wa and the demographic conquest of Western Europe — even if such matters are discussed openly, with great anticipation and pleasure, at Muslim websites. That would not be possible.
Who’s crazy? Who’s schizophrenic? Is it Moussaoui? Is it Al-Sharbi? Or is it those Infidels who are still unwilling to look at the teachings of Islam — the Infidels who are still too paralyzed with fear of what they might find out and who thus remain incapable of even beginning to study the texts of Islam, and to discover what caused the 1350-year history of Islamic conquest and subjugation and then codified oppression of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, and indeed everyone under their control who was not a Muslim.
Who is crazy? Is it Al-Sharbi, or those who are discussing his case who will tell us that he’s just “one more nut case, like Moussaoui”?