|
|
|
|
September 11, 2008
Not fit for public discussion
Speaking of crime, a recent psychopathic hammer attack in Philadelphia has been getting national attention. The lead story is titled "Psycho hammers subway passenger": As the SEPTA subway train rocked forward, a thirty-something guy leaned over near the doorway and gently planted a kiss on the little boy at his side.The incident was captured on video, which shows, chillingly, that there were a number of able bodied men present, and not only did no one try to help, one of then opportunistically pitched in and stole the victim's cell phone: The video shows Taylor, a lab technician at the University of Pennsylvania, dozing after a long day at work on a seat of a subway car, headed home to East Germantown.By the time I read that, I was irritated, and even though I didn't have time for a post this morning beyond the 9/11 anniversary post, I spent a little time looking into this. I discovered that something is being omitted in the Inquirer. A little detail about the psycho -- as he carried out the unprovoked attack, he was chanting in Arabic: The attack was unprovoked. Taylor had dozed off while listening to his iPod. He was on his way home from work as a lab animal technician at the University of Pennsylvania. It happened at 12:15 a.m. last Thursday. Taylor tells Action News he remembers the attacker chanting in Arabic.Well I wonder why that didn't get into the papers that most Philadelphians read. In another ABC story, it is reported that the man kept repeating "Allah": Taylor told Action News last week that all throughout the attack, the man kept chanting something, and he distinctly recalled the word "Allah."But there's nothing about that in the papers. Instead, readers are treated to the usual litany of excuses from the family of the psychotic thug: Five months ago, and again four weeks ago, she said, she had him committed to a mental-health facility for treatment of paranoid schizophrenia. But he refused to take the prescribed medicine, saying doctors were trying to poison him, and was then released because of problems with health insurance.Released because of problems with health insurance? That sounds fishy to me. Does anyone check these stories? This man had a long criminal record, and it seems that if he was in fact committed and he was dangerous, it wouldn't be an insurance issue. Call me skeptical. The story has been picked up by a number of bloggers, including Baron Bodissey: Yes, it's likely that this guy is simply a deranged psychopath who should have been on medication.And Robert Spencer: Is this guy a Muslim? A jihadist? I have no idea, and I am not saying he is. But the possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand when he chants "Allah" and mutters in Arabic while attacking a man he does not know with a hammer. In a sane society, government, media, and law enforcement would be calling upon American Muslim groups to do something about this -- to face up to the capacity of Islamic texts and teachings to incite violence, and to institute comprehensive, honest, inspectable programs teaching against jihad violence and Islamic supremacism. But this is hardly at this point a sane society.Whether society is sane or not, this hammer man clearly wasn't. By all accounts, he had a long history of mental illness and criminal charges, including rape. One after another, they seem to have been dropped. If you're a real loon, they don't want you cluttering up the courts or the prisons, which are designed for sane criminals. Which brings me to the topic that the press always wants to avoid in cases like this: Islam. The reason the chanting in Arabic and the "Allah" stuff is not being reported is that "responsible" journalists believe ordinary people can't handle it, and that some might engage in acts of bigotry against Muslims. Accordingly, they scrub such details, even though by doing so they are abrogating their clear duty to report what happened, and rationalizing it with the arrogant claim that they cannot trust their readers. (This is a major reason for the growth of the blogosphere, but that's another rant and you've all heard it.) My problem is not with regular Islam, but with the psychotic, jihadist form. This won't be easy to explain, but I think that psychotic Islam attracts psychotic people, and as never before in history. For the record, let me pause and admit my bias. I believe it is psychotic to engage in suicide bombing of innocent civilians based on the delusion you will be rewarded by Allah in heaven. Calling it "religion" does nothing to change its inherently psychotic nature. I think that 9/11 can be called a psychotic triggering event, because I have noticed that American psychos have gravitated towards Islam as they never did before 9/11. I think it is psychotic to wear a bag covering your entire body, your head, and leaving only slits for your eyes in a free country, OK? A lot of Americans do this now. You can see them walking around in any big city, and I'm sorry, but I think they are the kind of people who are deeply anti-social, the kind of people who are doing it for attention, because they get a big kick out of freaking people out, and because it's a way to advertise their psychotic hatred. This is not dictated by Islam, but they don't care. The bottom line: they simply did not behave that way in such numbers before America was attacked on 9/11 by Islamic psychotics. The scandal that no one will discuss is that radical, psychotic Islam is a draw for mentally ill Americans. It is not allowed to be discussed, because those who discuss it are called "Islamophobic." "Bigoted." Or of course "racist." Nonsense. Ordinary Muslims are citizens like anyone else. This has nothing to do with ordinary Islam. What I want to know is why Americans with mental problems are gravitating towards the psychotic manifestations of Islam, and why this isn't being discussed as it should be. Calling them "terrorists" is mistaken and misses the point, as does calling Islam an inherently terrorist religion. (As does calling people bigots for discussing the problem.) MORE: In a post titled "What would you do?" Dr. Helen notes how methodical the psycho was: One thing that struck me is just how methodical the perpetrator was, just sort of like he was at another day at work. He puts his bag down, takes out the hammer and starts wailing away.Calmly wailing away while chanting. The whole thing gives me the creeps. posted by Eric on 09.11.08 at 11:06 PM
Comments
I think you are overreacting a little bit here. First, you are attributing sane reactions to the insane. By this, I mean that psychotics aren't going to reason rationally about any religion, so it matters not what the religion teaches or doesn't. Second, more psychotics are talking Islam now than before 9/11/2001 because they simply hadn't heard of it before. They are merely substituting Islam for Christianity in their ravings. The more "intellectual" psychotic may rave about more obscure "gods." I'm glad you admit your bias, but if it is psychotic to strap a bomb to oneself, it is a psychosis of culture, not of an individual. (If you think convincing an individual to stay on meds is difficult, try it with a culture :-) The "loony left" is, as a group, psychotic. But they are not (at least the vast majority) individually a physical danger to themselves or others. Supreme pains in the ass, yes... You are completely correct in saying that our criminal justice system is designed for sane criminals. But that still makes me laugh - how can criminality be sane, unless it's just another job description? As for insurance, you betcha that would influence a discharge. The term that is incorrectly used is "commitment". Unless it is a court that commits you in lieu of a sentence, then the hospitals will want somebody else to pay. In most jurisdictions, a complaint by a citizen or police officer that somebody is a danger to themselves or others will result in a mere 72 hr observation. The patient will be discharged with recommendations, referrals and a prescription, but further hospitalization is unlikely without insurance, and even then, it's not guaranteed. Our mental hospital system was a nightmare a generation ago, but the community system that was supposed to replace is equally a nightmare for the very sickest. And those are the ones that make the news. Donna B. · September 12, 2008 04:03 AM [color=#6699cc] Undureendurce · September 12, 2008 04:28 AM First, you are attributing sane reactions to the insane The attacker might be insane, or he might not. However, the fact that the attacker was chanting "Allah", and the fact that Islam sacralizes violence against unbelievers, means we cannot discount religious motivations for the attack. The injunction of Quran 8:60 "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies" is particularly compelling here. What might appear to be insane is rather conducive to striking terror, don't you think? Second, more psychotics are talking Islam now than before 9/11/2001 because they simply hadn't heard of it before. They are merely substituting Islam for Christianity in their ravings. I disagree. Do not discount the power of divine sanction in shaping behavior. People prone to violence are taking up Islam precisely because it sanctions violence. Christianity does not. Bob Smith · September 12, 2008 04:52 AM "And nobody DID anything...." CaptDMO · September 12, 2008 09:51 AM "My problem is not with regular Islam, but with the psychotic, jihadist form" To those familiar with Islamic theology, there IS no such thing as "moderate" Islam. Nor is there any such thing as "non-violent Islam." Islam is a violent, extremist belief system which has resulted in the overwhelming majority of people in the ME being illiterate, ignorant, poor and in thrall to a patriarchal cult. Islam leaves NOTHING in its wake but death and devastation. Connect the dots, for crying out loud! Sigmund Frayed · September 12, 2008 02:36 PM ...believes the doctor was trying to poison him. Thought others were trying to kill him. Believed there were people in his shoes. Paranoid Schizophrenia. I do this for a living. Donna B. is correct. Psychotics pick up whatever is in the air at the time of their first break, and stay with it pretty consistently thereafter. When I first started in the 70's, it was the CIA; when the Godfather movies came out the paranoids switched to believing the Mafia was after them; then satellites were big, then computers, and now implanted chips are the new delusion. Islam has been in the air over the past few years, and some psychotics will pick up on it. Lord knows I'm no apologist for the Muslim faith, and it does indeed teach violence, but Islam gets a pass on this one. I suppose you could make an argument that this particular delusional system, which encourages violence, would be more likely to produce it. But my experience tells me that's unlikely. Paranoid people who believe they are under any kind of attack might turn violent. History of childhood violence (even when asymptomatic) or substance abuse would be better predictors of violence. Assistant Village Idiot · September 12, 2008 03:43 PM ...believes the doctor was trying to poison him. Thought others were trying to kill him. Believed there were people in his shoes.So his family says. It might be true, but given the source I take it with heaps of salt. Bob Smith · September 12, 2008 06:23 PM How i may contact the administrator of a site? I have a question. KATOSISTJAL · September 23, 2008 09:29 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
September 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
September 2008
August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Fanning the frames of flames
Just say no! To Bush! Resurrection Thirty Missing Investigators Condoleezza's Ambition My late "Astroturf roundup" Fannie Mae trivia question Who would Jesus tax? Master Of The Astroturf Politics Chicago Style
Links
Site Credits
|
|
My problem is not with regular Islam, but with the psychotic, jihadist form
In that case, please explain the difference. Throughout the Quran believers are exhorted to harm and terrorize unbelievers so as to extend the power and influence of Islam. They are instructed to act as Muhammad did, whom the Quran calls "an excellent model of conduct" numerous times. According to the teachings of every orthodox Muslim sect, the Quran is to be understood literally. The fact that you might know a Muslim who genuinely doesn't want to crush you under his jackboot doesn't change the fact that his religion commands him to do so, nor does it change the fact that he has no theological or moral basis on which to object to the desire of his co-religionists to do so. Indeed, jihadists are successful in recruiting from the ranks of less fervent Muslims precisely because the jihadists can show they act in accordance with Allah's will as set forth in the Quran.