How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 7 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

peragro · #91 08-15-2006, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

Do they have something like ACLU in England?

Yes, it's called blood pudding. It's a nasty congealed mess that often as not makes you sick.

Chris Bell · #92 08-16-2006, 01:58 AM

Interesting interview below, thought somebody besides myself would find it a good read.

SUBJECT: ISLAMIC SUICIDE KILLERS

SOURCE: NORIEL [email protected]

Pierre Rehov's "Suicide Killers"

12 August 2006 - 9:00am HST

Still image from Pierre Rehov's film "Suicide Killers"

by Bob Moore at [email protected] on 8 August 2006

As first prioity, we need to get our national security to include recognition of the total threat. I believe the threat is as descibed in the Q and A's below. We had better do this in the coming elections or it may be too late.

On July 15, 2005, MSNBC's "Connected" program discussed the July 7th London attacks.

One of the guests was Pierre Rehov (www.pierrerehov.com) , a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas. Pierre's upcoming film, "Suicide Killers," is based on interviews that he conducted with the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it. Pierre agreed to a request for a Q&A interview here about his work on the new film.

Q - What inspired you to produce "Suicide Killers," your seventh film?
A - I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film on PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became fascinated with the personalities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were described again and again by their victims. Especially the fact that suicide bombers are all smiling one second before they blow themselves up.

Q - Why is this film especially important?
A - People don't understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem, showing the real face of Islam. It points the finger against a culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has become their only certitude.

Q - What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know?
A - I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior.. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil. Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on Earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution.

Q - What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and survivors of suicide bombings?
A - It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the absolute truth. I hear a mother saying "Thank God, my son is dead." Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize.
This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only achievement goal is to fulfill what they believe to be their destiny, namely to be a Shaheed or the family of a shaheed. They don't see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy.

Q - You say suicide bombers experience a moment of absolute power, beyond punishment. Is death the ultimate power?
A - Not death as an end, but death as a door opener to the after life. They are seeking the reward that God has promised them. They work for God, the ultimate authority, above all human laws. They therefore experience this single delusional second of absolute power, where nothing bad can ever happen to them, since they become God's sword.

Q - Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the psychopathology.
A - Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts, but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don't see good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the afterlife in Paradise.

Q - Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction?
A - Yes, it is their only conviction. They don't act to gain a territory or to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do.

Q - Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way?
A - All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and there is no room, in their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderate Muslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their lifetime, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists.

Q - Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers.
A - Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women's behavior.

cmac2012 · #93 08-16-2006, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

The war is against messianic mediaevalists who control the planetary energy supply and who wish to bring their vision of Heaven-on-Earth to all of the dark lands of Satan. The dark lands of Satan would be "us."

In the long term the best way to defeat them is by encouraging them to embrace a new vision of humanity's relationship with God. One that respects individual liberty and education and rights of women, etc.

Part of the problem methinks is that in their view, our desire to control "the planetary energy supply" steps hard on their collective individual liberty.

I also wouldn't be surprised if they think we're using, rather, squandering the wealth beneath their sand on frivolous luxury and hijinks. And because of our lust for the stuff, we have a habit of supporting tyrannical despots who are easily bought.

Imagine if they considered that we in the US controlled the planetary wheat supply and behaved as though they had say so over the disposition of same.

cmac2012 · #94 08-16-2006, 02:30 AM

All of this talk about how we better nuke them first cause they'd do it to us in a heartbeat misses the fact that they have not yet been in the position of potentially having their country paved with glass.

We worried big time about Russia and China getting nukes and when they did, it almost brought them to some sense, I'm guessing.

Any first use of nukes on our part would bring down an international $h!t-storm of the highest order. Any possible restraint Iran or anyone else might have had on using nukes would be swept aside.

It's a bit of damned if you do and damned if you don't. We just need to make it clear to them that we bat last.

soypwrd · #95 08-16-2006, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

... I also wouldn't be surprised if they think we're using, rather, squandering the wealth beneath their sand on frivolous luxury and hijinks. And because of our lust for the stuff, we have a habit of supporting tyrannical despots who are easily bought.

And you don`t see any truth in this?

Botnst · #96 08-16-2006, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Part of the problem methinks is that in their view, our desire to control "the planetary energy supply" steps hard on their collective individual liberty.

I also wouldn't be surprised if they think we're using, rather, squandering the wealth beneath their sand on frivolous luxury and hijinks. And because of our lust for the stuff, we have a habit of supporting tyrannical despots who are easily bought.

Imagine if they considered that we in the US controlled the planetary wheat supply and behaved as though they had say so over the disposition of same.

I imagine more folks in the west are concerned about "squandering" then the owners of the oil. All of the tinpot dictators and kings serve our purposes or they don't. As long as they don't f**k with the oil supply we tolerate them. Step out of line and it's a new relationship.

This is what we call, 'statecraft." Is it moral? I think that is what you are arguing about. Good question. If it is immoral for our country to behave as it does then that means it is immoral for us as individuals to support it and also immoral for us as individuals to put the gov in a position that it behaves as it does.

So if we have a moral problem with the current model we should each one of us individually, act NOW to reduce our use of petroleum products. Failing to do so is immoral. Waiting for the gov to issue an edict forcing national compliance is simply cowardice--blaming our failure on somebody else.

Bot

soypwrd · #97 08-16-2006, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I imagine more folks in the west are concerned about "squandering" then the owners of the oil. All of the tinpot dictators and kings serve our purposes or they don't. As long as they don't f**k with the oil supply we tolerate them. Step out of line and it's a new relationship.

This is what we call, 'statecraft." Is it moral? I think that is what you are arguing about. Good question. If it is immoral for our country to behave as it does then that means it is immoral for us as individuals to support it and also immoral for us as individuals to put the gov in a position that it behaves as it does.

So if we have a moral problem with the current model we should each one of us individually, act NOW to reduce our use of petroleum products. Failing to do so is immoral. Waiting for the gov to issue an edict forcing national compliance is simply cowardice--blaming our failure on somebody else.

Bot

Thanks Bot, and agreed. Our family and business is on that track to rid ourselves as much as possible from the deadly national addiction to the Devil`s Tea. And voting out those that don`t see the light.

mikemover · #98 08-16-2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Bell

Interesting interview below, thought somebody besides myself would find it a good read.

SUBJECT: ISLAMIC SUICIDE KILLERS

An excellent article, that makes some excellent points! I'd like to see this guy's films...

Thanks for posting it.

Mike

mikemover · #99 08-16-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Part of the problem methinks is that in their view, our desire to control "the planetary energy supply" steps hard on their collective individual liberty.

I also wouldn't be surprised if they think we're using, rather, squandering the wealth beneath their sand on frivolous luxury and hijinks. And because of our lust for the stuff, we have a habit of supporting tyrannical despots who are easily bought.

Imagine if they considered that we in the US controlled the planetary wheat supply and behaved as though they had say so over the disposition of same.

What exactly is "collective individual liberty"?.... Is that not an oxymoron?...

Regardless... I don't agree.

The ruling class in the Middle East isn't worried about our "squandering", because they are making billions and billions off of our "squandering".

The uneducated masses from which the radicals and extremists tend to spring up certainly aren't worried about it, because most of them are too uneducated and unworldly to even COMPREHEND the issues related to global oil suppy, etc...

And besides, they are too busy with more important concerns, such as brutally subjugating their women, killing all infidels, and eventually finding their way to heaven, where their 72 virgins await them.

Mike

Maroon 300D · #**100** 08-16-2006, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I imagine more folks in the west are concerned about "squandering" then the owners of the oil. All of the tinpot dictators and kings serve our purposes or they don't. As long as they don't f**k with the oil supply we tolerate them. Step out of line and it's a new relationship.

This is what we call, 'statecraft." Is it moral? I think that is what you are arguing about. Good question. If it is immoral for our country to behave as it does then that means it is immoral for us as individuals to support it and also immoral for us as individuals to put the gov in a position that it behaves as it does.

So if we have a moral problem with the current model we should each one of us individually, act NOW to reduce our use of petroleum products. Failing to do so is immoral. Waiting for the gov to issue an edict forcing national compliance is simply cowardice--blaming our failure on somebody else.

Bot

Bravo, particularly on that last paragraph. I think if we reduce our oil consumption enough our problems in the Middle East will be greatly reduced.

aklim · #**101** 08-16-2006, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

So if we have a moral problem with the current model we should each one of us individually, act NOW to reduce our use of petroleum products. Failing to do so is immoral. Waiting for the gov to issue an edict forcing national compliance is simply cowardice--blaming our failure on somebody else.

Bot

Ok. Why reduce? Not eliminate? Why touch that immoral stuff then? So if someone killed for money and it is blood money, is it ok if I just take some of the money and not my allotment?

Also, that worthless as long as everybody, and I mean everybody in the world doesn't do the same.

aklim · #**102** 08-16-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

Bravo, particularly on that last paragraph. I think if we reduce our oil consumption enough our problems in the Middle East will be greatly reduced.

Enough being the key word. Can you get to negative numbers? What about China and India? Or do you think their affairs have nothing to do with the ME and us?

Maroon 300D · #**103** 08-16-2006, 12:47 PM

Ultimately we can't control what China and India do. But if we stop buying ME oil, or at least large (huge!) quantities of it, the problems in that area will involve us less and China and India more, assuming they pick up the slack.

As for 'enough...' I was purposely vague. Someone with more knowledge than me would have to plug a number in there.

I think Bot is right. We have to reduce our oil consumption on an individual basis. Start taking the bus even if it takes you 20 minutes more to get to work. Start using biodiesel. Ride your bike. Etc.