Sexual Starvation and Jihad Fantasies


rage

[This article is reprinted from The Sydney Morning Herald.]

The 23-year-old Nigerian charged with trying to detonate a bomb on a Northwest Airlines flight over Detroit on Christmas Day was lonely and sexually repressed, according to messages left on an Islamic website.

As a US Senate Homeland Security committee continued to argue this week about how to handle Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the emotional anguish in his web posts provides an insight into fanatical Islam and what drives often hapless young men to become suicide bombers. Much as we would like them to be, they are not monsters.

Being the son of a wealthy banker, and living in London, Abdulmutallab had no real beef with Western life, did not complain about racism or express concern for downtrodden Muslim brothers.

But, like the September 11 bombers, who visited strip clubs before their date with destiny, when his devout religious beliefs conflicted with his corporeal desires, he found that blowing himself up along with a whole lot of infidels was preferable to being sexually frustrated.

As the New York Post put it: “The bomb wasn’t the only thing burning in his pants.”

On the Islamic Forum of the Gawaher website in 2005 and 2006 were more than 300 posts by Farouk1986 – Abdulmutallab’s middle name and birth year.

Under the heading: “I think I feel lonely,” Farouk1986 complains he has never found “a true Muslim friend”.

“As I get lonely, the natural sexual drive awakens and I struggle to control it, sometimes leading to minor sinful activities like not lowering the gaze.

“And this problem makes me want to get married to avoid getting aroused … but I am only 18.” In another post, he writes ”the hair of a woman can easily arouse a man”.

He also writes of “my dilemma between liberalism and extremism … how should one put the balance right?”

He talks at one point about his fantasies: ”The bad part of it is sometimes the fantasies are a bit worldly rather than concentrating in the hereafter.”

He tries instead to focus on more acceptable “jihad fantasies”.

”I imagine how the great jihad will take place, how the Muslims will win Insha’Allah and rule the whole world, and establish the greatest empire once again!!!”

As the youngest of 16 children and the son of his father’s No. 2 wife, he reportedly spent most of his childhood at an English boarding school in West Africa. The trajectory to extreme violence of this gentle, pious young man who wanted so much to be good and consequential, and yet was consumed with guilt about sex, fits with much of what is known about other Islamist suicide bombers.

Perhaps the best psychological explanation comes from United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, the recent book by Jamie Glazov, the managing editor of FrontPage Magazine.

In a chapter entitled “To Hate a Woman”, he describes in chilling detail the oppression of women in parts of the Muslim world and the “theological justification” for violence against females “from the very moment of their birth”.

Islamist hatred of women has “fertilised the soil in which … terrorism and the new death cult have grown”.

He claims there is an “Islamist war on private love [which] derives most of its energy from a deep-seated misogyny. Women’s empowerment, independence and self-determination, especially the sexual variety, pose a threat to Islamism’s very existence.”

Islamist misogyny, he claims, comes from Islam itself. “The notion that women are by their very nature inferior to men is the underpinning of the entire structure and derives its legitimacy from numerous traditional teachings.”

It is no coincidence that the Arabic word “fitna” has two meanings – beautiful woman and social chaos.

Glazov writes that in many Islamic societies, “women are supposed to dehumanise themselves in order to be tolerated … Women are considered to be the incarnation of shahwa [desire] which comes from the devil. In this environment the pathological notion arises that a man and a woman cannot be alone without the ominous threat of evil in their midst.

“The men denigrate the object of their lust so as to diminish their own shame. In this dynamic of sexual repression and misogyny, love is reduced to violent domination which becomes directly intertwined with terrorism against societies that allow women freedom, especially sexual freedom.”

Practices such as polygamy and repudiation – in which a man can divorce his wife by pronouncing certain words – conspire to “minimise the possibility of private love even among married couples”.

“Islam teaches that the sexual act is dirty and consequently surrounds it with rituals. The objective is to build a wall between the lovers themselves.”

Polygamy, Glazov writes, has a disastrous effect on Muslim boys who grow up with “all kinds of siblings born of different women which gives them the idea that none of these women, including their own mother, was good enough to be cherished alone. The boys internalise this misogyny which leads in turn to self hate.”

Their psychological abandonment of their mothers is “directly connected to their urge for terror and suicide”.

Female genital mutilation, in which a woman’s clitoris – or entire external genital organs – is removed is an attempt to “deny women even the possibility of personal happiness and sexual satisfaction”.

Glazov writes of Saudi instructional TV programs about wife-beating and cites a report from the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences which estimated 90 per cent of Pakistani wives had been beaten or sexually abused for offences such as cooking an unsatisfactory meal.

These stories are not remote from Australian concerns. The Islamic Women’s Welfare Council of Victoria, in a 2008 report, since removed from its website, concluded that some Australian Muslim religious leaders condoned rape within marriage, polygamy and domestic violence.

In gang rape trials, Muslim men have mounted the defence that their strict religious upbringing made them believe they could rape Australian non-Muslim girls.

This week, in Melbourne, an Afghan refugee is being tried for allegedly strangling his wife with her veil after complaining she was “becoming Australian”. The jury was told the victim had claimed her husband punched her and told her her only purpose was to have babies.

*

To order United in Hate, click here.

united

  • amit

    How amazingly these facts are in line with the real life situations I see in muslim world? now we know the real cause of muslim terror and polygamy in Muslim areas and homes

    • AWESOME

      DO NOT JUDGE A BOOK BY IT COVER. IF YOU WANT TO TASTE ISLAM THEN LIVE IT LIKE THE MESSENGER OF GOD LIVED IT. AS I HAVE FOUND OUT, THERE IS NOTHING MORE DELICIOUS THAN THE PEACE IT PROVIDES.

  • Randall F. Snuffle

    Allah is a monkey's cunt and Mohammed (fuck be upon him) is his catamite

    • 12-String Infidel

      Your anatomy knowledge is flawed: Allah is the Pederast and Mohammed is the catamite (ie: monkey's cunt). Eeep! Eeep!

  • http://cluesmarvincohen.com Tardiff

    Its a mistake to asseme that our enemies are tormented souls who would be cured by lots of sex.

    • Michael

      you obviously didn't read and "understand" what was being said Tardiff. Try reading it a second time.

    • Jacob

      Tardiff -

      “Its (sic) a mistake to asseme (sic) that our enemies are tormented souls who would be cured by lots of sex.”

      Absolutely right. Islamic terrorists are tormented souls who would be cured by a modicum of firepower correctly applied. Not politically correct firepower!

  • Manlyman

    How can you call islam a "religion of peace" when it condones this kind of behavior against there wife's? So barbaric!

  • Samir Khan

    Hi All,

    Peace be on you! Well written @ Randall. Nice Vocabulary. Did u say that tell that to your mum n dad ….only if u knew ur parents.

    West is the best……

    Cheers

    Sam.

  • stanley

    the youngest of 106 children? daddy wasn't sexually repressed!

  • LHM

    Glazov's book "United In Hate" is excellent and easy to read. Highly recommend reading. It explains in a straight-forward manner about the liberal Left's believer views and their association with radical leaders/causes.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/peachperry peachperry

    1st PAGE.

    Christian Wedlock.

    QUESTION:
    Can a woman have more than two husbands?

    ANSWER:
    No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.

    1 Corinthians 7:2King James 1611.
    Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

    Yr. 1783.10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars.(King George III).
    Yr. 1898.19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars.(Queen Victoria).

    Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.

    1 Corinthians 6:16King James 1611.
    What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

    Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:

    A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

    A man and courtesan/prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

    A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

    An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

    An adulterer and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

    A fornicator and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

    A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

    Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.

    • USMCSniper

      Say me a prayer for victory. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. As for the ragheads, had they not committed such great sins Allah would not have sent such a punishment as me upon them.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/peachperry peachperry

    2nd PAGE.

    Luke 1:28King James 1611.
    Luke 1:31King James 1611.
    Luke 1:28-35King James 1611.
    In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son, the father being God the Father. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.

    Luke 2:23King James 1611.
    Exodus 13:2&12King James 1611.
    And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.

    Matthew 13:53-56King James 1611.
    Mark 6:1-4King James 1611.
    And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.

    Matthew 1:6&16King James 1611.
    Luke 3:23&31King James 1611.
    Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.

    Genesis 38:16-18King James 1611.
    “Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a payment of his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar. Judah then pledged Tamar that she could marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his pledge and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry. Tamar came and Judah demanded that Tamar tell him by which man she was with child. Tamar then produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his pledge and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar could have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her. Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/peachperry peachperry

    3rd PAGE.

    Genesis 1:27-28King James 1611.
    Genesis 2:7&18-19King James 1611.
    Genesis 3:20King James 1611.
    The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.

    Romans 7:4-6King James 1611.
    Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.

    1 Timothy 3:2King James 1611.
    A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

    1 Timothy 3:12King James 1611.
    A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

    Titus 1:6King James 1611.
    An elder can have only one wife.

    1 Timothy 5:4&9   King James 1611.   
    Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age without children, who have only had one husband.

    The Estate of Marriage.Martin Luther 1522.
    Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.

    To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.

    Luke 1:35&41King James 1611.
    Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/peachperry peachperry

    4th PAGE.

    Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.

    Matthew 19:11-12King James 1611.
    The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman.

    But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.

    1st Choice:
    Virgin woman without wedlock.

    2nd Choice:
    Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
    Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
    Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
    Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

    3rd Choice:
    Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
    Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

    A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.

    But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!

    A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.

    Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.

    Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.

    • Saoirse

      Matthew 19:11-12King James 1611.
      The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman.

      ~~Keep in mind though, during His time, the New Testament had not been written and Jewish men were not required to marry prior to their 30th birthday because they were required to study and learn the word of God in the Torah (Old Testament) As was the culture, marriages were arranged by the families.

      • http://www.infos411.com jimmy

        Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/peachperry peachperry

    5th PAGE.

    That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.

    And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.

    The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.

    Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon).388 B.C.
    League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan).1851 A.D.
    Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.

    Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.

    And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.

    Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.

    Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.

    Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.

    Mark 10:7King James 1611.
    Ephesians 5:31King James 1611.
    Both husbands must leave their families to go and become a member of the wife’s family, or the one husband must leave his family to go and become a member of the wife’s family.

    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MOHAMMEDRY.
    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.
    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTI.
    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.
    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATI.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/peachperry peachperry

    6th PAGE.

    CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.

    1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.

    2nd. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall maliciously and on purpose deny that any Mohawk person may have arms for his defence suitable to his condition and as allowed by law; he shall be put to death.

    3rd. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.

    4th. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.

    5th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.

    6th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.

    7th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

    8th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.

    9th. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.

    10th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.

    11th. If any child or children, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child or those children so offending shall be put to death.

    12th. If any stubborn and rebellious son or sons, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son or sons will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son or those sons so offending shall be put to death.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/peachperry peachperry

    7th PAGE.

    13th. If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.

    14th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny any marryed woman wedlock with two husbands, said marryed woman having borne a son, or any unmarryed woman wedlock with one husband; he shall be put to death.

    15th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his one wife; he shall be put to death.

    16th. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.

    17th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case he shall not be punished.

    18th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case she shall not be punished.

    19th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.

    20th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

    • Berl Boetz

      Yes, we 21st Century Christians can be sexually repressed too even though we know nothing of our own history. Good thing it's not hard for us to get laid. I feel sorry for men who are never allowed to be shaped by good hearted women.

  • Wyatt Wingfoot

    islam (small ‘i’ no respect here whatsoever, come get me jihadis!) is a ‘religion’ (sic) that revels in its childish repression and control in all facets of the lives of its adherents. mohammed (small ‘m’, yada, yada, yada…) was a genius in that he knew the ignorant peons of his time would buy into his totalitarian claptrap from the get-go.

  • swassociates

    I'm convinced most of these degenerate Jihadists are repressed homosexuals who spend most of the time bumping their buddies. No wonder they hate women so much.

  • Saoirse

    Ok, so first they were misunderstood …now they are sexually frustrated? C'mon now, enough with the excuses for their horrid behavior. There is NO viable excuse for the horrors they visit upon the innocent. Let's face it folks..Satan is at work through them and he is the only one that can provide the heinousness that we see done at the hand of muslims and they do it in the name of their religion….Islam! Enough of the excuses, already!

  • George B

    I wonder if inbreeding due to cousin marriage is also a factor in the insane part of the world.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/305768/marriage-and-the-terror-war/stanley-kurtz
    http://www.jstor.org/pss/3774053

  • JB71

    If nothing else, they'd be too busy to worry about blowing up their undershorts.

  • Imam

    Bunk!

  • Robert Arvanitis

    Marcuse called it repressive desublimation. I call it the answer. See for example:

    http://marx.econ.utah.edu/archives/theory-frankfu

  • Capt. Spalding

    The guy in the photo at the top of this article seems to get around. This is his most famous "mouth and eyes wide open angry shouting" pose. I have seen him in many other photos from different places. What a dork.

    • Jim_in_Texas

      Yes, he's a professional (apparently) islamic protester. Google 'islamic rage boy'.

    • guest

      That's Islamic Rage Boy.

  • elaine

    So let me get this straight: they're aherants to a religion which drives them crazy.

    And, further, this being crazy leads them to be violent.

    Didn't we already know that?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/crypticguise crypticguise

    It is important that to understand these seemingly crazy jihadists that we have a basic understanding of Islam. If one takes the time to do a little basic research, read the Koran, and Sira and Hadith you'll discover that Islam is DESTRUCTIVE of human empathy and relationships between men and women.

    Islam through the words of Allah and Mohammed in the Koran specifically deny "friendships" between a Muslim and a kafir (nonMuslim). As a Muslim you are allowed to treat a kafir in any manner and it is good – be friendly or torture or kill them and every type of abuse in between physically and politically. Allah HATES kafirs! That is what is taught and it is in the Koran repeatedly.

    • COMMENTMAN-J WALLS

      KILL THE INFIDELS. OVER AND OVER ………….
      A PEACEFUL RELIGION ???

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/crypticguise crypticguise

    Women are not even second class citizens, they are not worthy of a man. Women are even subservient in Heaven and put aside as the Muslim man is serviced by the "virginal" houris as they eat dates sitting and lounging on a couch. This nonsense and the incredible lies of Mohammed are TRUE to the believer, even though they are contradicted by him constantly.

    Islam is a political, cultural and religous system. Anyone who believes in the literal interpretation of the Koran is going to support the murder, torture and abuse of the kafir (Non Muslim) and all Muslims are "locked into" this craziness because to question Mohammed or to leave Islam is a DEATH SENTENCE.

    Sexuality is a reality that is unattainable by most young Muslims, frustrating them on a very basic human level and the failure of Muslim Society gives them no hope for living a reasonably happy and productive life if they believe in fundamental Islam. Inculcating the Islam of the Koran, Sira and Hadith into young Muslim men creates "human time bombs". Just add the explosives and a detonator.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/crypticguise crypticguise

    Oh, yes. Killing kafirs (nonMuslims) is jihad and a ticket to Heaven and unending sexual satisfaction. So, you have young Muslim men willing to put explosives in their jockey shorts or up their rectum to KILL kafirs (nonMuslims) for a "ticket to heaven". Inshallah, it is written.

  • Wordbearer

    Yeah Muslims are sexual starved perverts who treat women like cattle. Their prophet was just like this so they are acting out their savage pagan religion. Many are also closet homosexuals just like Mohammed. The sooner this religion is wiped out the better off we will all be.

  • Teacher in Tejas

    In his analysis of what makes terrorists tick, found in his collection, "Beyond Terror," Ralph Peters has made much of the very same point. He states that socieites that oppress their females are loser states and that Islamist terrorists have an almost Freudian "fear of girls."

  • Kafir Joe

    There's no Dog but allah and moooohammud is his pervert.

  • theBuckWheat

    I read a story several years ago (which I believe was in Frontline) that Israelis have found the genitals of a few male suicide bombers to have been wrapped in aluminum foil, presumable to ensure their survival into the afterlife. The author made the point that given the imagery about Paradise, with its flowing wine and forever-virginal females, these jihadists were blowing themselves up in an attempt to meet women. What a pitiful culture and world view.

  • Bruce

    Glazov or someone needs to elaborate on the whole psychosexual dysfunction at the root of jihadism. In particular how to explain the deafening silence of the so-called women's rights advocates (e.g; NOW) on the brutalization of Muslim women. These are the same women who go ballistic here over the slightest hint of sexism. Maybe the NOW gang is mostly lesbians and misandrists who secretly enjoy seeing men blow themselves up out of sexual frustration. Calling Dr. Phil.

    • COMMENTMAN-J WALLS

      The womens org only help their own. If there were a large percent of Muslim women who were LESBIAN, or TRANSVESTITE, or any combonation of all the other. They would be there, who knows, could get lucky.

    • Jamie Glazov

      My friend, I explain all of this in my book United in Hate,

  • Awesome

    THIS IS NOT THE ISLAM 1.5 BILLION MUSLIMS FOLLOW.
    THIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ATTEMP TO SPREAD OF FIRE OF ISLAMOPHOBIA!

    • billy no mates

      Look the light is dawning on Awesome…He DOESN'T KNOW what his religion is !!! but he's finding out !!!

    • JANE

      REALLY, WE LIVE IN AN INFORMATION AGE. WE CAN COLLECT ENOUGH INFORMATION ON THE VIOLENCE OF ISLAM TO FILL A BOOK ON A DAILY BASIS. THE TRUTH IS ISLAM DOES NOTHING LESS THAN CREATE PSYCOPATHS. AND OF COURSE THAT IS THE OBJECTIVE. ALL NON-MUSLIMS HAVE YOUR NUMBERS NOW

    • jane

      Please tell me this awesome, why every picture shown of rioting muslims has the face of a person you see in a lunatic asylum.. Do they all practice that look in a mirror until they manifest that spirit of demon possession. If your allah is a god of peace than why don't you muslims manifest that.

    • COMMENTMAN-J WALLS

      Awesome – Please explain, KILL THE INFIDELS. Cited many, many, many times in the quran ? I have read 3 different translations. After doing so, my conclusion is. The Quran is a TERRORIST TRAINING MANUAL.

  • Tanker

    It doesn't matter if 1 person or 1.5 billion people follow the cult of islam. Evil is evil, and yes, 1.5 billion people can be totally subsumed into a sick, twisted religious culture that aims to keep them emotionally retarded and intellectually stunted, under the thumbs of semi-literate, hate-spewing imams. Islam = failure on a civilizational level. Islam has produced absolutely nothing useful for the furtherance of humanity, if not ever then for centuries at least. Almost every islamic country is a backwards s**thole with no hope of ever attaining civilisation.

    • billy no mates

      Sorry Tanker you are wrong..ALL islamic countries are a backwards s**thole with no hope of ever attaining civilisation.

  • Marco

    On this topic, see Wilhelm Reich's "The Mass Psychology of Fascism". See also, the website of those who carry on his therapeutic and political work: the College of Orgonomy in Princeton, New Jersey. Marco Ermacora

  • Demophon

    It is a shame that most people don't understand Islam. His sexual drive had nothing to do with what he did.

    2:244 Qur'an – And fight in the way of Allah, and know that Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

    Does it need to be simpler?

  • Redgar

    Running around wearing dresses, and dressing their women up like packman ghosts has to screw a guy up. Wooh I see an ankle, excuse me while I give myself 90 lashes in the bathroom.

  • gama

    Glazov's gives no basis for his speculation that misogyny turns into self hate. Stick to history Jamie! Although I'm totally against it I think the objective of circumcision in the Islamic mind is meant to keep Muslim women moral. If they don't get pleasure out of sex they won't go around seducing Muslim men. I also think Muhammad wanted men to have all the power in sexual relationships. Muslims want to blame everything shameful about sexual relations on the woman.

    • Jamie Glazov

      If you read United in Hate you will see exactly how misogyny leads to self-hate. It's common sense anyway if you think about it. If you are tempted by that which you hate . . . .Anyway read United in Hate and get back to me. start here though:
      http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/11/why-the-rich-m

  • Tim

    Interesting about the hair of a woman arousing a man, which of course is why the head gear to cover a woman, all with the exception of the eyes, which in reality are the only parts of a woman which do any arousing….

    Islam, Muslim, whichever, whatever, when religion or religious fanaticism is involved is the epitome of insane behavior which if not stopped will end in something which is not near or even close to God….

    Love is the answer, though love needs to be understood, as a woman knows love.

  • Optimus Maximus

    I believe the following facts about Muslim terrorists have been extensivley documented:

    (1) They are misogynists, as Islamist misogyny is a tenet of the faith;
    (2) Most have homosexual tendencies, as only other men are their equal, and they desparately want to impress their peers, which often leads to man/boy love affairs;
    (3) Their inability to truly love a woman results in a personality schism from their earliest days. Every child's natural tendency is to love it's nuturing mother, but Islam teaches them, and their male role models demonstrate, that women are property, with no intrinsic value and are sources of evil temptation which must be constantly policed;
    (4) Once you are taught to see all women as inferior, even your mother, it is increasingly easy to excuse the deaths of innocent women and children if you believe or are propagandized into believing those deaths advance the cause of your religion;
    (5) Most muslim men have small brains and even smaller penises.

    OK, number 5 is not as well documented as the other 4 points, but really, is there any doubt?

  • mrsteve

    having lived amoung M’s I noticed that if you are not the 1st son with the first wife basically you never get much attention or recognition. When a guy gets married the wife’s family naturally wants to marry the 1st son because of inheritance and other social factors.

    This kid could have been a brain surgeon but he never would have been seen as being as important as the 1st son, no matter what. Thus becomeing a shahad is a way to get recognition in this life and the next. As for the sex thing, most of those guys know where Dubai or Beirut are.

  • COMMENTMAN-J WALLS

    The Pashtun, who directly supported the Taliban and are now supplying Terrorist Fighters for their cause. They might not LOVE another man, but they sure Love to Sodomize them. Hey, it gets lonely out there in the badlands of Homo-istan, Afganistan. Also, it is very lonely in the high mountain border areas of Pack-itin-istan, Pakistan. What is a Terrorist to do ? Faced with being alone for months on end, without sex. You can't blame Abdulah Pak-reeristan for taking along a ripe young 14 year old Ali-budie Ali-poopoo. What would you do ?

  • Sharbat

    The most bizarre thing I’ve learned was that the muslim world has had success in hiding some facts about men and young boys. A pretty young boy without any pubic hair is…well, you can do own research. It’s a disgusting practice that goes back to the ancient times. I’m not saying it continues widely; but from what I’ve read, it hasn’t completely stopped.
    It’s tough bonding with only one woman or wife, if as a young pretty boy, you were preyed upon by grown men. Then as a grown up, you take more than one wife- possibly 4 or 5 wives; and wallah, you have 4 or 5 women for puppets that you can rape or beat anytime you want, because the true loving relationship between a husband and wife just isn’t there. No love, no respect and you got this book that tells you how to live your life.
    But of course, I am still convinced that they are not all the same. I own the movie “BARAN”. Buy or rent it if you can. I fell in love with the sweetness of the young man and how the love he felt for the young woman must have been at its highest degree known to humankind. If only all muslim men were like that; I would be a convert.

  • wan

    This Abdulmutallab guy missed nothing not having made it to heaven.

    Mohammad Atta (9/11 bomber) who did make it to heaven was so disgusted the way he was promised 72 angels.

    He was rewarded with angels alright. But Prophet Mohammad did not tell the jihadists that there are ONLY 72 angels in heaven.

    With the gush of suicide bombers admitted to heaven, and the queue number Mohammad Atta gets, he reckons by the time his number is up, his dick is down with ED.

    So much for the 72 virgin angels Prophet Mohammad promised.

  • Big Paddy

    No one goes off and blows themselves up because they are a little disaffected with life and sexually frustrated.there's no doubt in my mind that Islam is a dated oppressive and misogynistic religion,no different then C of E in the 18th century or Catholicism in the 19th.A religion coming from developing countries brings with it developing traditions.This is where the conflicts originate.Coupled with the economic disparity and global migration there is more chance of this happening than not in today's political climate.
    We are all greedy,it's a human condition,half the world is living in poverty and dying young if not starving and to make it worse they now can see how the rest of us live.We throw away more than some of these countries consume.On top of this we act as judge and jury whenever these despot dictators get out of hand (and interfere with our financial interests) leaving the locals in an even worse situation than they started with.
    Now I don't know about you but if that was my culture and my parents country, if an old draconian religion (being manipulated by extremists) offered me an answer.I think I might just take it.
    As a spoilt Irish person of little political or religious affiliation I can only say that if we were genuinely prepared to put time and money into righting some of these wrongs we could turn it around.The psychopaths and extremists will always be there but their support wont. Or something like that…

  • Richard

    I would love to believe that Jihadists blow themselves up out of sexual frustration, but the data does not support this. These terrorists overwhelmingly come from secular backgrounds, are well educated in Western institutions, and are for the most part married. Robert Pape and Mark Sageman are perhaps the best sources here. If there is any profile to be made at all, Jihadists tend to hold advanced engineering or medical degrees.

    • Optimus Maximus

      1 of 2

      See latest news link:
      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/28/afghan

      Their religion encourages (demands?) all males in the culture to be misogynists. Hard to develop a loving relationship with a life time mate of the opposite sex if your religion teaches you the opposite sex is vastly inferior and a source of temptation and trouble. This tends to drive them toward homosexuality. But, their religion condems homosexuality also. Makes for some very confused, easily led young men.

      My question is why their women seem to support this hateful religion. My guess is over the centuries, their women have been beat down so much that the majority of the women are pretty much exhibiting the "stockholm syndrome".

    • Optimus Maximus

      2 of 2

      Also, I challenge your premise that "These terrorists overwhelmingly come from secular backgrounds, are well educated in Western institutions, and are for the most part married."

      That's probably a true statement for the terrorist's leaders, but not for the majority of actual suicide bombers.

      The leaders prey on the conflicts created by Islam within a young man's mind, between Allah's commands and his hormones, exploits those conflicts, and voila, another young extremist is ready to claim his 72 virgins in heaven.

    • Jamie Glazov

      It is precisely because they are Westernized that they turn to jihad and act on Islamic misogyny.
      http://frontpagemag.com/2010/01/11/why-the-rich-m

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AnimalFarm AnimalFarm

    The devil himself couldn't come up with a more evil religion than islam… wait… I think he did, from the deepest pits of hell.

  • http://www.edenmor.org/ Eden mor

    Not too sure how I found this blog but glad I did find it. Think I was looking for something else on google. Not sure I agree 100% with what you say, but have bookmaked and will pop back to read to see if you add any more posts. Keep up the good work.

  • batcountry

    That is why it is important to create a climate of education and empower the women of Islam. Bhuttos death was a blow to that process. The only way we can influence effective change in the Muslim world is to free the women. Iran is a classic example, that is were we should start the process. Just as the women of Ireland stopped the civil war there, the daughters of Allah hold the key to there future. We can not lose the battle.

  • scottie476

    America seems to me to be a weird place. There seems to be a huge disregard for truth or for recognized standards of evidence, among (I presume) Republicans disappointed that their (reluctantly) beloved Mittens failed (of course) to win the election. Please, live with it. Oh, and try to lift your standards of debate at least fractionally above those of what we call here in the UK ‘the Fourth form’