Skip to content

No Jihad Where There is Emotional Disturbance?

November 11, 2009

emotional

On the O’Reilly Factor yesterday, O’Reilly discussed how the liberal media continues to pound away at the “mental illness” angle in regards to Nidal Malik Hasan. Sally Quinn, of the Washington Post, joined him on the program and typically carried the torch for the Left on the issue.

While O’Reilly made the obvious case of Hasan being a jihadist, Quinn stumbled all over herself, emphasizing the “emotionally disturbed” angle and balking from associating Hasan with jihad. Alan Colmes did the same on O’Reilly the previous day, stressing how Hasan was disturbed and crazy and, of course, everything under the sun except a terrorist acting out of his Islamic faith. (Even though everything that came out of Hasan’s mouth was about jihad).

What I can’t get in all of this is where did we get this assumption that having emotional problems and being a jihadist are mutually exclusive?

Isn’t the whole issue that jihadists are jihadists precisely because they have emotional problems? Is there, for instance, a member of Hamas or Hezbollah, or of the Communist or Nazi Party for that matter, who has their head screwed on right? When a suicide bomber blows himself up in an Israeli café, does he do it because he doesn’t have emotional problems?

Anti-Semitism is, obviously, an emotional problem. Anti-Americanism is, obviously, an emotional problem — as sociologist Paul Hollander has profoundly documented in his scholarship.

These phenomena are depersonalized neuroses. If you want to cleanse the earth of Jews, for instance, and you work toward that goal, you are obviously a severely screwed up individual. If you consider female sexuality evil and, in allegiance to Islamic ideology, you force women into invisibility with burqas and you engage in honor killings and female genital mutilation and other monstrosities to stamp out female sexual identity, autonomy and self-determination, you are obviously a severely screwed up  individual. You definitely have emotional problems. How does that take away the evil of your acts and beliefs? How does it cancel out the pernicious danger and the reality of your ideology?

Hitler and Stalin were emotionally and psychologically screwed up. Does this fact make the threat they represented immaterial? Does it take the evil out of Communism and Nazism?

I wonder how many leftists and liberals think that George W.  Bush was simultaneously emotionally disturbed and conservatively evil? Why do I have a feeling that their insistence on these things being mutually exclusive would disappear out the window in this case?

This all doesn’t make any sense of course and it is not meant to make any sense. It’s just another one of those tactics the liberal-Left employs to throw dust into the eyes in order to distract society from the existence of an evil adversary. Because their goal is for us to focus on the supposed evil of our society — which they hate and wish to destroy.

*

[To get the whole story on the nature of the jihadi threat and why the liberal Left forbids the naming of it, read Jamie Glazov’s new book, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror.]

United in Hate cover

Advertisements
11 Comments
  1. David Forsmark permalink
    November 11, 2009 8:46 pm

    Yes, it’s apparently now sane to be a suicide bomber to the Leftist apologists. As Ralph Peters said to O’Reilly, who finally abandoned this line of junk himself after Peters knocked him around a little, “Terrorists are not by nature happy campers, suicide bombers aren’t necessarily from the middle of the Bell Curve.”

  2. November 11, 2009 9:12 pm

    Well of course he has emotional problems. Using it as an excuse is a little like saying a gang member who beat someone to death, only did it because he had anger issues.

  3. Jamie Glazov permalink*
    November 11, 2009 9:16 pm

    Exactly. Like I said, it’s the desperation of the Left. Anything to avoid calling an adversary evil. Then it might mean we have something worthy to protect — the anathema of the Left.

  4. November 11, 2009 10:43 pm

    Quinn and her ilk only seem capable of one-dimensional logic. The fact that two or more things can be simultaneously true seems to have escaped her. One fact doesn’t necessarily rule out another. A person could be a terrorist AND any number of other things, and all could be true. But I guess if you’re a member of the MSM, walking and chewing gum at the same time is as mentally challenging as it gets.

  5. November 12, 2009 3:41 am

    Great piece, Jamie. This is a huge problem with the Religious Left, as well. They have stopped believing in the existence of evil — at least where true evil exists!

  6. donnamarie permalink
    November 12, 2009 6:24 am

    I swear that I am ‘Alice’ of Alice in Wonderland. When is any of this going to make any sense? According to historical legend, when the Brits surrendered at Yorktown they played “The World Turned Upside Down”. Is that where we are?

    I do wonder if they (leftists) feel like the horse’s patootie when they have to reach so far to defend a completely heinous act by a complete loony toon radical islamic terrorist.

  7. John Davidson permalink
    November 12, 2009 7:56 am

    There simple is no excuse for being an idiot regardless of what the courts have determined, ultimately exposing their own idiocy for allowing excuses to be relevant.

  8. peachey permalink
    November 12, 2009 11:12 am

    Jamie,
    Thank you for the article. We live in a world where evil is viewed as good by many, and good is viewed as evil by the same group. It has become impossible for the Progressive to identify evil as it blurs the line of multiculturalism and inclusiveness that they so long for. A new religion of ultra-tolerance and inclusiveness that redefines acceptable/unacceptable thought and behaviors.Sometimes evil is just plain old evil. Unadulterated and in plain sight.

  9. jochang permalink
    November 12, 2009 12:34 pm

    Wasn’t it good, and fun, to note how quickly Sally Quinn changed her mind after a little bombardment from BOR? When she finally admitted that “terrorist” would describe Hasan and his actions at Fort Hood, she looked defeated. We need more of this insistence on the truth, and less of the PC babble. Praise to BOR for that, at least.

  10. Len Powder permalink
    November 12, 2009 6:53 pm

    You hit the nail squarely on the head Jamie! Anyone who reads about the life of Mohammed and the history of the Scourge he founded and the savagery which accompanied it cannot do otherwise than conclude that anyone who subscribes to the Koranic injunction to kill infidels is not of sound mind. Sanity and radical Islam (jihadism) are oxymorons. They cannot coexist in the same mind. Major Hasan illustrates this truth perfectly and what applies to him applies equally to his sick bretheren.

  11. Jamie Glazov permalink*
    November 12, 2009 7:53 pm

    Thank you Len and everyone for your comments and support. Jochang you are so right, it was so sad to watch Quinn crumble right before our eyes. She wants to be a liberal so bad but the facts just won’t let her in this case, so she was just so pathetically dumbstruck and speechless, it was really a sad case.

Comments are closed.