I went out my front door one fine morning just as my neighbour, a Pakistani student, came out of his. We walked together to the bus stop where we would catch the bus to the university. His bloodshot eyes were swollen and his shoulders drooped. He walked with a stoop.
“Are you OK? What’s wrong?” I said.
“We lost our beloved president, Zia ul-Haq,” he informed me. “He passed away in a plane crash yesterday.”
He looked like he might start crying again, but that was not the reason I didn’t know what to say. I did manage, “I’m sorry,” which was not true. Actually, I was confused. I knew of Zia ul-Haq’s death and was looking forward to talking to my friends about it. General Zia ul-Haq was a brutal tyrant who had oppressed his nation. Why was this Pakistani man so distraught? Should he not have been ecstatic that the dictator was dead? I wondered whether he felt the need to put on a show of bereavement, but for whose benefit? There were no other Pakistanis around who could report back to his homeland that he might be delighted with the tyrant’s untimely departure. Was he related to Zia ul-Haq? Surely he would have acknowledged that closeness, rather than just “our beloved president.” Did he really love him?
It was not until a few years later, while watching a documentary on the life of Stalin, that a possible explanation for the Pakistani student’s devastation at the death of a brutal dictator came to mind. The Soviet people had suffered grievously under Stalin’s psychopathic cruelty. Yet when he died, they were beside themselves with grief. The queues of weeping, bent-over people, dragged their concrete feet along in hope of paying their final respects.
I am no psychologist. But what if — I tried to make sense of it all — what if they simply could not behave as if their tyrant was no longer there? What if they were lost, disoriented, adrift without the only reference point their lives had ever had? What if, with the brutal tyrant as their only provider, the controller of life and death, the only love they ever knew was love for their almighty tyrant? What if they genuinely loved Stalin? What if my Pakistani student neighbour genuinely did love Zia ul-Haq? Their pitiful grieving for the passing-away of the one person singularly responsible for all the misery of their lives is incongruous, yet it could make sense. Tears for a tyrant could make sense, no matter how much blood he had on his hands.
But how is one to explain tears for a terrorist? By this I do not mean the Muslim world’s going to pieces (the silence of Saudi Arabia speaking volumes) over the death of arch-terrorist Qasim Suleimani — one expects nothing less — but the Western mainstream media and practically every politician falling over themselves to tell us what a great tragedy the killing of Suleimani is. “The Dangers posed by the Killing of Qassem Suleimani” headlines The New Yorker, not “The Dangers averted.” Yes, he has blood on his hands, they all feel obliged to mention, but very quickly move onto: one, the illegality of President Trump’s attack on Suleimani; and two, the dire consequences that will follow from such reckless action.
The spectacle of Britain’s two arch-sycophants to Muslims, Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway, outdoing each other in their outrage, Galloway even calling the terrorist general “a diplomat”, quickly lost its freak-show appeal. In the US, Nancy Pelosi is desperate to outdo even her own Trump-impeachment fiasco. Now her feelings are hurt because the President that she had indicted failed to consult her first. With all this Western outpouring of respect for “Iran’s top General (capital G)” and the quick burying of his CV as a global terrorist mastermind, brutal quasher of the Iranian protests, controller of several extra-territorial terrorist militias ravaging the Middle East and assorted killer outfits around the world, are they ingratiating themselves to this dead man? Surely they don’t think Iran is going to come after them for failing to virtue-signal appropriately. But then, they are that kind of people and this is that kind of time.
My Pakistani student neighbour and the Soviet mourners shedding their tears for their respective tyrants can be understood. One can sympathise with them. There is even, in some sense, something pure about them. But most of the Western politicians and talking heads and celebrities and useful idiots so upset at Qasim Suleimani’s long-overdue demise have never heard of the Iranian Quds Force leader until his killing, and would not have cared about it one jot, but for the identity of the one who ordered the killing: the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.
So deep is their hatred of Trump that Suleimani borders on a hero, save for Islamo-sycophants Corbyn and Galloway, of course, for whom the terror boss is a hero. Had Qasim Suleimani been killed, taken out, eliminated, wasted, by anyone other than President Trump, we would have heard all about just what an evil son-of-a-bitch Suleimani was, and of course there would be no question about the necessity of killing him and, in any case, what could unstable, dire straits Iran do about it? Nothing. They wouldn’t dare after a blow like that. The howls and threats coming from the Ayatollahs and their remaining generals would be called out for the impotent blustering that it is. Muslims always talk in hyperbole and threaten to open the gates of Hell, etc., etc. We all know this. But Trump, not anybody else, Donald Trump, killed the world’s top terrorist, and therefore it was an unconscionable thing to do, therefore World War III looms. This is very likely a great part of the explanation, especially as far as the US is concerned.
But there is something that most social critics overlook, and that is the depth to which the West has been dhimmified. All those who object to Trump’s killing of Suleimani are terrified of Iran’s response (many who hate Trump even hope for it). Every journalist, with alarmed expression, wants to know where Iran will strike. It is as if it is not possible to prevent Iran from attacking, or as if the West is incapable of fighting back should it be attacked. In other words, Suleimani, along with all Islam’s jihad terrorists, should be left to get on with what they do and we should keep our heads down and go about our business as if none of it is happening. And if they bomb or strike or attack us, then they bomb or strike or attack us. That is all.
It doesn’t even cross such people’s minds that we could fight back. To them, self-defence is not even a concept. The fundamental right of self-defence that has for so long been denied Israel is now being denied the entire Dar al-Harb. They are terrified of what Iran will rain down upon us for having the temerity to strike the terrorist who had been striking us. At the same time, they are chastising us for not knowing our place, for behaving out of turn, for acting above our station. We are supposed to feel ourselves subdued, as they so evidently already do. This is precisely the position of the dhimmi. The dhimmi may not strike a Muslim, and should a Muslim pummel a dhimmi with blows, the dhimmi may not block or parry the blows, but must take them without the slightest resistance. He may, however, apologise and beg the Muslim for forgiveness. For a dhimmi to dare to fight back is to bring an even more terrible fate upon himself, exactly as the Shari’a stipulates. We have not witnessed dhimmis shedding tears for a terrorist (their Muslim masters did that), but the dhimmi response to Qasim Suleimani’s death over the past six days demonstrates to Muslims that they can be victorious through terror, exactly as their prophet had boasted.
K John Rosier. says
True. J
andrew mckendrick says
Excellent post ,Anjuli.
commonsense says
Seconded.
mortimer says
Anjuli Pandavar has raised a fine psychological point, namely, why so many people are attracted to and admire mass murderers (not just Mohammedans, by the way). The hysterical responses to the death of Stalin and to the death of Hitler as well are other examples of this phenomenon.
Can it be that in all of these totalitarian ideologies (Hitlerism, Stalinism and Mohammedanism), there is an element of SADOMASOCHISM … the joy of giving and receiving pain?
There is a huge psychological relief when people see that the pain is being sent to designated SCAPEGOATS whom they are encouraged to hate simply for being different.
‘Those people’ are designated victims and hating them and persecuting them allows people to be distracted from the evil deeds of the dictators.
I think Islam has a very real emotional subtext of sadomasochism.
Pandavar points out that to the lovers of terrorists our right to ‘self-defence is not even a concept’, since we are the designated scapegoats whom the dictators command their followers to hate and persecute.
We ‘deserve’ to be punished according to their ideology, and so resistance to the punishment is further evidence of our guilty.
The Leftards go along with anyone who wishes to punish Americans, because they always blame America first.
gravenimage says
+1
Carol the 1st says
It’s probably the good cop/bad cop routine softening them up. The lesser of two evils makes guy #1 look awfully good in USSR or pre WWll Germany but I don’t think we’re at all that frayed in Europe or North America (unless it’s fear of nuclear war making us flinch and make nice). We have far too many reserves. Luckily you Americans finally got Trump. Canada can only hope Trudeau will go the way of the Clintons and that shiny pony Meghan Markle doesn’t run for the PM position next.
Krishna says
That’s because in Shia world the Leaders are cult like figures
Quazgaa says
To the point where, in shia islam, there’s a fatwa saying the fart if a mullah smells like musk. Might want to look it up, it’s full of gems, but this one I remember.
gravenimage says
It is not just Shi’ites who are like this, but Muslims in general.
prebangian says
Thank you Anjuli for articulating the situation so accurately.
observer says
Anjuli
I haven’t seen you in these parts for too long.
WHERE have you been ?
don vito says
Thus the well earned moniker dhimmicrats, showing what a good fit, the moniker is for the party of traitors, collaborators, and sympathizers
Martin says
Rep. Adam Schiff On Iran
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oougr4BK_W4
Reziac says
Boy, is this geared toward true-believers… you’ve got to be in want-to-believe cult mode for this to sound at all credible.
Look at Schiff’s body language — he’s lying outright. “Believe me” look. He knows there were attacks planned, but is denying it.
Also, listen carefully to the audience applause — it’s at least partly canned.
Martin says
PAKISTAN – LAHORE – Thousands of people protested in Lahore on Saturday against the US killing of Iranian Quds Force General Qasem Soleimani.
Protesters were seen burning US and Israeli flags.
Protesters were seen holding pictures of Soleimani, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and former Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCW_b3fb5p0
Quazgaa says
It’s ok, protesting against one thing or another is national pastime in Pakistan.
Just Venting says
Very thoughtful and interesting post, AP. Your experiences and insights are worth reading.
Based upon my experiences with various individuals and cultures at home and abroad, I have come to the following conclusions:
1. Daily life for most of us has uncertainty, risks, and does not furnish the luxury of a guaranteed future. It takes hard work and careful thought just to get by, let alone succeed in life.
2. In some places, daily life is so uncertain and dangerous that making it from one day to the next is a major accomplishment.
3. Many will flock to the tyrant du jour because he/she/it seems to promise a secure future. Simply do what the tyrant demands and your future is set. These sheep assume that they will be safe and no longer need to think about a future. Unfortunately (or fortunately) when the tyrant croaks, the sheep are now on their own.
Reziac says
I think this is it, more than anything else. The totalitarian leader is the father figure, the only source of security for sheeple who have been taught that thinking for yourself is dangerous. So if he dies, there is panic. Islam deliberately teaches that you are stupid and Allah (in the person of Glorious Leader) is the only source of wisdom and security.
Want peace and stability in Iran? Give ’em a western-oriented king again, someone to fill this father-leader void who these people can accept as divinely appointed, and who will sit that throne for decades to come, and leave a son trained to do the same.
Because ‘democracy’ is just going to get another hardcore Islamist elected, as it has everywhere Islam holds sway. Don’t think so? Name me one country with “democracy” where it hasn’t. I’ll wait.
Give Muhammad this — he was one hell of a mob psychologist.
Walter Sieruk says
It’s a total waste of tears to cry for that brutal murderous Iranian warlord chief.
For Soleimani was a very vicious and dangerous man. Therefore it was necessary that he was eliminated.
gravenimage says
Tears for a Terrorist
…………….
Excellent analysis from Anjuli Pandavar.
Lydia Church says
My theory:
Their lives were dictated over for so long, they were oppressed to such an extreme, that these leaders still wield power over them “from their graves.” They are so programmed by fear and emotional manipulation that they never learned how to think critically for themselves. Mind you, this power does not actually exist, it is only perceived, it only carries weight if you let it. Not everyone did. It’s the dynamic of every tyranny, and in every one there are the dissenters and resisters, the Niemollers and Bonhoffers. It’s the same “No one can control you without your consent” principle. Of course there is hypnotics, brain washing, mind control that folks are subjected to by the propaganda machines in various areas of society (hint: television, music, magazines, “education,” news media, etc.) that shapes one’s views on a subconscious level, most are unaware and gullibly sculpted into what the “elites” want to program them to think and do, like robots, and we see this today en masse. But all the more reason to remain vigilant, you must take charge of your mind and be on guard, lest someone else take the helm. Most today are fast asleep from leftist lullabies. And you can tell that they are controlled, when you activate them by a buzzword, they get “triggered,” and their head starts to spin, their eyes pop out, and their mouth shoots like a volcanic eruption, and soon a huge explosion follows… you can’t miss it.
On another note, I could not find a spot for this but over on Christian News Network for today there is an article about the perils of allowing in migrants and sending back true Christian asylum seekers (or deporting recent converts to the faith) from the EU to the middle east. It discusses the problems this presents to the society where it happens, not to mention the victims. I did not read the whole thing, but just FYI.
Sandy Tatham says
Great read… thank you so much Anjuli and Jihad Watch.
Marigold says
It seems to me that the need for heroes is inherent in the human psyche and often that need leads to a lack of discernment in who they look up to.I once heard a German woman defending Hitler on a TV documentary
saying he did do some good things.He built the autobahns and got the economy going again, providing work for people. However, you need the full picture which she would have lacked because information was tightly controlled under Nazism.It was only available at the end of the war.This human need coupled with the lack of information can blind people to the reality of their heroes true objective.
Aussie Infidel says
Anjuli, A very insightful article. Your suspicions are correct. The analogies of the Pakistani student grieving for ul-Haq and the soviet citizens weeping over Stalin are apt. You are right in assuming that “they simply could not behave as if their tyrant was no longer there”. They were “lost, disoriented, adrift without the only reference point their lives had ever had”. And “the brutal tyrant as their only provider, the controller of life and death, the only love they ever knew was love for their almighty tyrant”. These tyrants become the provider-protector for people who have never known much love or care – but only if they continue to do as he says. Such brutes are usually psychopaths, or at least sociopaths or narcissists, who have little empathy for the feelings or desires of anyone else – and little remorse for their actions.
“Britain’s two arch-sycophants to Muslims, Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway”. It beggars belief that anyone could harbor such levels of hatred and bigotry. But these sychophants are also products of a centuries- long process of propaganda and vilification of Jews; and I know from personal experience that it has had a profound effect on many people.
“Nancy Pelosi is desperate to outdo even her own Trump-impeachment fiasco”. Again, Nancy is the product of decades of leftist propaganda and political activity. At heart, I think she is a good person, but caught up in the intransigence of leftist ideology. And of course since she is the leader of the House, she can’t be seen to be outdone by the younger, more radical members of the ‘Squad’, who are obviously eager for her job. Why should Trump consult with those who are desperately trying to kill his Presidency? To hell with appeasement!
“So deep is their hatred of Trump that Suleimani borders on a hero” – again due to the process of conditioning and identification, many people learn to hate those who disagree with them, with a vengeance. It’s the same process which compels victims to identify with their oppressors – the Stockholm syndrome or the battered wife syndrome. When you have never known anything else, even a tyrant can be a security blanket.
“Trump, not anybody else, Donald Trump, killed the world’s top terrorist”.
I can’t imagine that Hillary or Bernie Sanders, or most of the other Republican candidates for the Presidency, would have had the guts to do what was needed.
“But there is something that most social critics overlook, and that is the depth to which the West has been dhimmified”. Because of the infiltration of universities in the West by communists over the last 50 years or so, virtually every journalism, sociology, and political science student has been exposed to continual leftist propaganda. Through lectures, tutorials and assignments, students have been conditioned – to a greater or lesser extent – to believe in a Marxist world order. And since the Marxists are in bed with the Muslims – for now – they have also dhimmified many students, who later find themselves in positions of authority. I recently had a debate with a professor who taught Islam in religious studies at university, who argued that there was no violence in the Quran. It was obvious from his statements that this person had not even read the Quran in any detail, let alone the Hadith or the Sharia. But these are the people who governments turn to for advice.
People who criticise Islam are damned if they do – and damned if they don’t. But I think that the tide is turning, and I sure hope Donald Trump gets another four years to do much more.
Tom says
Hell No !!!! There are still enough men left in the west that will stand against appeasement of Islamists and their terrorist ways.
We just have to rid our governments of the politicians of the left and replace left wing appeasement with politicians who have a backbone and will stand up to Islam.
It is coming but it won’t be an easy fight considering all the power that Islam has been allowed to build in our political systems.
First and foremost must be declaring the Muslim Brotherhood and affiliated Muslim organizations as banned groups in the west.
Then, only those who are declared loyalists to our country must be allowed to hold office. Any who show disloyalty to our country or loyalty to an ideology that is detrimental to our culture, society or country must be sent packing back to whichever hellhole they originally came from.
We can win this without violence by taking back control of our political systems and being strict with our standards of acceptance.
Norger says
Superb analysis from an excellent writer. Truly a breath of fresh air. If only these opinions were considered acceptable to even be discussed in the MSM (sigh)