Thoughts on Arab Suicide

SINthysist

Rural Racist Homophobe
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
11,940
More in line with the Vonnegut, some folks just wired wrong school of psychiatry. Enjoy...



American-Israeli Military Technology at War Against Genetics – Part I
Lev Navrozov
Tuesday, April 30, 2002

[Editor's note: This is the first installment of a two-part article.]
Here before me is a book about the Islamic world, published by an American correspondent and describing how the U.S. government could not retaliate against a terrorist attack because the terrorists were dead. But the U.S. government felt "it had to do something to somebody," as the author puts it. So it went to war with a militarily weak country, allegedly guilty of the terrorist attack.

The result? A growth of terrorism.

Surely this is a description of U.S. government response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks? No, this is Ronald Reagan's attack on Libya in 1986 as described by David Lamb in his book "The Arabs," published in 1987, 15 years ago. (Vintage Books, pp. 95-96)

At that time, the "somebody" to whom it was decided to do "something" was not bin Laden, Saddam Hussein or Arafat, but Khadafi, now almost forgotten but at that time globally sensationalized as the father of world Islamic terrorism.

Yet the conviction that suicidal terrorism is "planned and carried out" not by suicidal terrorists, who cannot be retaliated against since they die, but by "somebody" alive to whom "something" can be done was the essence of Western and Israeli stupidity in 1986 – just as it is today.

In his 1987 book, David Lamb also described Islamic terrorism since 1962 (800 terrorist acts carried out by Palestinians) and noted (in 1987!):

"Israel for years matched each [terrorist] blow with a tougher counterblow [using technologically superior weapons] and in the process has seen Mideastern terrorism increase, not decrease." ("The Arabs," p. 96)

Bin Laden Again Found 'Responsible' for the Sept. 11 Terrorist Mass Suicide

On April 16, 2002, the New York Times published (p. A20) a report from Cairo where a "chilling videotape" was broadcast by al-Jazeera. The report is entitled "Videotape Links Al Qaeda With Sept. 11 Hijackers."

Ahmed Alhaznawi was one of the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists. In 1999 he asked his father, the leader of a mosque in Saudi Arabia, to bless his joining the Moslem rebels fighting Russian troops in Chechnya and going for that purpose to Afghanistan for training as a guerrilla soldier in "bin Laden's training camps."

So far this sounds true. The camps had been created by the CIA under the cover of bin Laden for the training of guerrilla soldiers to fight Russian troops in Afghanistan. Involved in these camps was also the ISI (Inter-Service Intelligence) of Pakistan.

The young Ahmed wanted to be trained as a guerrilla soldier to fight Russian troops in Chechnya, but returned to Saudi Arabia and went with two other Saudis to the United States to participate in the terrorist (not guerrilla!) attack of Sept. 11, 2001.

The CIA-ISI camps came to be associated with the name of bin Laden. So a "link" has been found. What follows from it? Nothing except that, yes, the CIA and the ISI did create camps for training guerrilla fighters, and one of the 19 Sept. 11 terrorists, a Saudi like most of them, did want to be a guerrilla fighter in Chechnya in 1999, but changed his mind and went to the United States to be trained as a pilot and/or knife-wielding hijacker.

But the CIA-ISI camps had never taught this form of fighting as they prepared gun-shooting and hand-grenade-throwing hit-and-run guerrilla soldiers for the war first in Afghanistan and then in Chechnya.

Now, what conclusion did the Cairo reporter of the New York Times draw from this "link," that is, the Saudi Ahmed's original intention to go to Chechnya and hence be trained as a guerrilla soldier in the CIA-ISI camps in Afghanistan?

The source of the tape is unclear, and the network would not say how it was obtained. But perhaps even more [!] than the other Qaeda videos that have come to light in recent months, it strongly suggests the responsibility of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the attacks.

Suicidal terrorists have been able to assassinate many zealously guarded heads of state – even of huge empires, like Alexander II of the Russian Empire. But according to the New York Times reporter, the 19 suicidal terrorists cannot be solely responsible for their actions (no more than can children, the mentally incompetent, or insignificant, lowest-level, slave-like human tools).

It is bin Laden, Khadafi, Arafat and other "somebodies" to whom the United States and/or Israel can do "something," as David Lamb put it 15 years ago, that are responsible for suicidal terrorism.

The New York Times report proves not "the responsibility" of bin Laden, however, but rather the obsession of the Western-Israeli political establishment with finding "somebodies" to do "something" to them.

Incidentally, Ahmed's "link" with bin Laden (resembling the terrorist Nikolayev's "link" with Trotsky in the Soviet propaganda of the 1930s) is just Ahmed's verbal statement, not video material. Then what is shown as video material?

The goal of the mainstream media in Egypt and other Islamic countries coincides with that of the mainstream media in the United States: Both have been sensationalizing bin Laden as responsible for global Islamic terrorism, except that for the mainstream media of the United States the sensation has meant that something (like war) should be done to this arch villain, while for the Islamic media it has meant that this new Muhammad (in the eyes of many calling themselves Moslems) must be shown as the commander-in-chief of genius who planned and carried out that glorious "New York and Washington Battle" of Sept. 11, 2001.

How does the al-Jazeera videotape go about it? The videotape is a collection of segments that have nothing to do with one another. In most of them the suicidal terrorist Ahmed speechifies like a true "warrior of Allah" (nothing new), while, according to the New York Times report,

one segment shows bin Laden sitting contemplatively beside his second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, mumbling to himself and stroking his beard as Dr. Zawahiri hails the Sept. 11 attacks as a "great victory."

Well, bin Laden has been hailing publicly the "glorious New York and Washington battle" since the day the world media reported it. Here the multimillionaire's personal physician and sponger was summarizing for him what the media had been saying and showing about the sensational terrorist attack of Sept. 11.

So what? How is this scene connected with Ahmad except that both had been put into the same tape?

But the videotape seeks to suggest that the feeble-minded megalomaniac created by the CIA and ISI in the 1980s, charlatan and boaster is the wise commander-in-chief of the global Islamic war, listening to his "second in command" (!) reporting on his latest battle in New York and Washington, D.C., under his leadership of genius, but the great commander-in-chief is too wise and modest to say a word about how HE had planned and carried out that "great battle."

As neither he nor his al-Qaeda committed a single suicidal terrorist act during the war in Afghanistan of 2001 because neither he nor a single member of his al-Qaeda has ever been a suicidal terrorist, and perhaps never will be, he has recently been revealed as hale and hearty and threatening the United States with new brilliant suicidal terrorist battles under his leadership of genius.

Equally threatening is his captured subordinate, who also committed or was to commit (in his dreams, threats and curses) grandiose terrorist acts.

Only to mavericks like Dostoyevsky is the suicide of a suicidal terrorist of interest. But for the Islamic (and Western) masses to which the mainstream media cater, the fairytales about the omniscient and omnipotent leader of genius and his global network planning and carrying out Islamic world terrorism are far more interesting.

As for those who commit suicide, well, this is their trade, like bricklaying for bricklayers. Who is interested in them and of what importance are they?

Straight Suicide-Rate Lines

Since the Western-Israeli "eradication" of terrorism has been based from 1962 to

1987, as well as for 15 years thereafter, on stupidity, and in particular, the stark ignorance of social psychology, let us begin with its ABCs.

A chart of the World Health Organization (WHO) showing "global suicide rates" in the second half of the 20th century is at http://www.who.int/mental_health/Topic_Suicide/Graph2.htm. (2)

Recently, the grown daughter of a prominent American scientist we know committed suicide. The cause? In the note she left behind, she herself, her father, and everyone concerned believed it to be her quarrel with her mother.

If such are the causes of suicides, then the two lines on the WHO chart denoting the annual suicide rates, one of men and the other of women, must be two zigzags fluctuating up and down (like stock exchange curves), for surely the number of quarrels between parents and their grown children may vary widely. As may the number of other such alleged causes of suicides: personal failures, unrequited love, deaths of ones near and dear, poverty, diseases, political persecution, damages or injuries inflicted by criminals, and what not.

Yet the suicide rates of men and women for the second half of the 20th century on the WHO chart are two straight lines. So the causes above cannot be the real causes of suicides.

Their real cause is the genetic inclination to death of a certain percentage of the population, and when our friend's daughter as well as he and everyone else around said that the cause was her quarrel with her mother, they replaced the real genetic cause with an "attending circumstance."

Actually, if not for her quarrel with her mother, she would probably have committed suicide all the same, but the attending circumstance would have been the suspected disloyalty of her boyfriend or her failure to get a job she had applied for.

Life was better for most or many men by the end of the 20th century than it was in 1950. Millions began to take medicines against the depression that often precedes suicide. Yet the suicide-rate line for men is not horizontal, but steadily ascends toward the close of the 20th century, where the suicide rate for men almost doubled the 1950 figure!

What about women? In the second half of the 20th century, the position of women was better than in 1950, but still worse than that of men even in countries like the United States, where women still could plausibly assert more causes for suicide than men.

Women were not supposed even to court or woo the men they liked, while a male criminal could resort to rape. Socially, they were less important and made less money on the average. In their families, they were often dominated by men or even abused physically.

Yet according to the WHO chart, even in 1950, three times more men than women committed suicide! Since then the suicide-rate line for women hardly ascended, while that for men ascended so much that the suicide rate for men began to exceed that of women by about five times!

Obviously, the suicide rates are genetic rather than caused by all those "attending circumstances" cited as the causes of suicides. Women are genetically necessary for giving birth to and nurturing children, while men are biologically more dispensable: Their ties to family, children, biological continuity, and hence to life, are weaker.

Now, in the Islamic world there is a variation on the theme of the genetic male suicide rate. Since the rich can have two, three or four wives, depending on how many they can keep, many of those less affluent do not have either a wife or a mistress.

Hence their higher suicide rate, since they are "male males," men without any ties to procreation, women or children, while homosexuality is a grave crime. In more than 13 centuries of Islam, Moslem men have become genetically even more superfluous biologically than men in the world at large.

You expect me to demonstrate the above by statistics in the Islamic countries. But the WHO table of October 2001 (http://www.who.int/mental_health/Topic_Suicide/suicide_rates.html) does not include most Islamic countries, while for Jordan the suicide rate for both men and women is 0.0. Under Abdullah II, everyone in Jordan is too happy to commit suicide, as was the case under Stalin in Russia.

Still, even assuming that the Islamic suicide rate is the world's average, more than 300,000 Moslem men and more than 60,000 Moslem women commit suicide every year.

Choosing the Best Fictitious Cause of Suicide

When our friend's daughter left a note to say that the cause of her suicide was her quarrel with her mother, she made a point: Let everyone pity her for having such a mother, and may her mother feel guilty for the rest of her life. It is a rare suicide who says: "I commit suicide because I belong to that percentage of the population that is genetically inclined to suicide."

When Romanticism came to Europe, unrequited love began to be considered a beautiful alleged cause of suicide. Goethe's tremendously successful novel "The Sufferings [translated into English as "The Sorrows"] of Young Werther" described how Werther suffered as a result of his hopeless love for the fiancée of another man and finally committed suicide.

The beautiful aria from the opera "Werther" in which Werther asks the coming spring not to awaken him is still performed in all countries of the West and in Russia 228 years after Goethe's novel was published.

Incidentally, young Goethe was hopelessly in love with that fiancée of another man. His novel was autobiographical, except that Goethe did not commit suicide but, indeed, lived happily to the ripe old age of 82, having fallen in love at the end of his life with a girl of 18, which he described in his "Trilogy of Passion." Today's biographers tell us that Goethe was happily falling in love, and not only with women.

But how beautiful is Werther's suicidal aria! He is dying of love! Give him that girl or give him death!

"Oh, don't wake me up, the breath of coming Spring!"

Not Unrequited Love, But Islamic Glory!

I wonder how many denizens of the Islamic world have heard of Goethe's novel or the opera "Werther." First of all, in this world, suicide as such – that is, suicide for personal reasons – deserves not admiration, beautiful music and tears, but scorn. Many Moslems cannot wish for some particular women or death, because no Moslem females have been left for them, as a New York Moslem taxi driver complained to me. He had come to New York to make enough money to be able to have one wife.

On the other hand, the tales of "The Arabian Nights" begin with the description of a wife's infidelity. But her powerful and fabulously wealthy husband had many wives and concubines, and it would have been ridiculous for him to commit suicide, Werther-style, on the plea that he wished for the love of that particular woman or death. So he killed her (instead of himself) and then married a new woman every night, to be killed in the morning and thus deprived of the opportunity to cheat on him.

Now, in the past half-century or so, the Islamic world has been awakening to regain its erstwhile glory. Recall what it was at the beginning of the past (second) millennium. The Islamic countries were the world's most important entity (like the West today), in a state of cultural efflorescence and military invincibility.

What had it become by the end of the millennium? A set of culturally backward countries, each of which can be reduced by Western aircraft and/or armor to ruins and ashes, without any Western losses to speak of. In the past half-century there has been a growing belief among the 1.3 billion Moslems that the erstwhile glory of the Islamic world can and should be restored. How?

In Europe, in the second half of the 19th century, it came to be believed that the conquests of the Roman Empire and the Islamic world, or of England and Spain, were aggressive (not defensive) wars, and aggressive wars are evil, criminal, inhuman.

Hitler and other such rulers in 20th century Europe disagreed, but they were defeated and condemned. True, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 was an aggressive (not defensive) war, but NATO has not noticed this (see Milosevic and the Impeachment of President Clinton).

If the distinction between aggressive and defensive wars originated in Europe only in the second half of the 19th century, was so shaky in the 20th, and is still blurred in the 21st in the West, what can we expect of the Islamic world?

Hence the most beautiful alleged cause of a genetically caused suicide in the Islamic world today is not unrequited love, which would merely make the suicide look still more disgraceful, but "martyrdom" (suicidal terrorism) for the sake of the restoration of the Islamic world to its erstwhile glory.

The Islamic world has no aircraft or armor comparable to the relevant Western weapons in military power, and so a Moslem, genetically inclined to suicide, chooses to kill himself (or sometimes herself) as a live weapon. In Islamic culture this alleged cause of a suicide is as beautiful as unrequited love in the European culture of the past two centuries.

Nor is this suicide a suicide, a despicable act. This suicide is an act of martyrdom, a glorious deed, comparable to both the martyrdom of a Christian saint defying a horrible death in a Roman circus filled with ferocious beasts and the heroism (a Greek-root word) of a Western war hero, sacrificing his life to inflict a greater damage on an enemy country by means of the aircraft and/or armor he controls.

Deflowering of Ravishing Virgins

In addition, a Moslem genetically inclined to suicide and choosing the glory of Islam as its alleged cause goes to Islamic paradise, in which he is likely to believe as implicitly as 13th century Europeans believed in Christian paradise.

The Islamic paradise is different, though. In "The Arabian Nights" a new wife was deflowered every night and then killed. In the Islamic paradise the martyr, who could not, perhaps, have in his earthly life a single woman (any woman), deflowers not just a new wife every night, but, for example, nine ravishing virgins one after another, and by the time he has done with the ninth, the first one has become a virgin again. And so it goes on, forever, without earthly fatigue or satiety.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/29/193219.shtml
 
At Last!

A decent bit of dismantling of the screaming hysteria which has come from Bush and Blair since this "war" on terrorism began.

At least the author has pulled together many of the doubts and questions that have been raised, but never answered by, our respective governments.

He lost me on the suicide section though. He should have kept to the main theme of how and why suicides enter into terrorism as a weapon and not give a general background of the history of suicide rates or their reasons.

A good article that asks questions.

ppman
 
Can't say I agree with it. It was an entertaining read, even if a but disjointed.

But you'll like today's offering even better...
 
SINthysist said:
Can't say I agree with it. It was an entertaining read, even if a but disjointed.

But you'll like today's offering even better...

I did!

Something a bit more solid that I could get my teeth into. Though I only commented on the pederast bit...

Cheyenne's doing the Thread of the Day as far as I'm concerned.

:)

ppman
 
Back
Top