Who They Killed For Allah
I ran into this piece in my web travels -- about a family, Peter, Sue, and Christine Hanson, who were aboard the hijacked United Airlines flight 175 from Boston flown by the Muslim terrorists into the World Trade Center. Christine was two. Here's a letter from Eunice, "Pete's mom":
Dear Peter:Nine years ago we were happily preparing for your wedding to Sue on August 14th. Today, your Dad and I are discussing the One Year Memorial Observance of your death, you, Sue and little Christine Lee on September 11. You and 3000 others were slaughtered, and now we have been asked by so many to describe our feelings. You and Sue and Christine are always in our thoughts and hearts...we miss you so much. Peter, I still feel the terrible pain that went through my whole being when Dad, holding the phone heard your last words. As the plane banked and crashed into that tower and exploded in a burst of flame, I screamed, I knew that all the joys we had together, all the love, care and good times we shared all the dreams and hopes we had were gone...ended by those murderous cowards. The thought of the three of you in each other's arms in that final moment will never leave me. I have been told that there could not have been any pain, but you knew what was happening. How could those murderers have looked at those innocent people on the plane, at beautiful Christine and so cruelly kill? How could their leaders, hidden and protected in a far off land, laugh and joke about their lack of humanity. I want them brought to justice, but my feelings are about you. How can I ever forget you, why would I want to forget you? How could I forget your curiosity and energy. Or those bitter sweet teen years when you would quietly come into my bedroom and ask if would talk with you and you would pour out your experiences of life, not looking for answers, only wanting to talk. And those dreadlocks!! After you met Sue you cut them off and brought them home to me. The Grateful Dead, whose music you loved so much that you convinced your Dad and I to attend some concerts to share the experience. You moved to Boston to attend College, embrace the city then met Sue. I remember your calling me from Boston, and asking me to come and help you pick out an engagement ring because you were going to ask her to marry you. I remember how you encouraged Sue to go for her PhD. We loved her so much. And Christine Lee was love personified. The world would have had no limits for her. She made me feel so special.
She was truly her mom and dad's daughter. To this day, I expect to he phone to ring and hear her sweet voice telling me about her day at day care and always closing with "I love you Namma". Before the trip she told me she was going to visit her great grandmother and then visit Mickey Mouse and Pluto. And then she said, "I want to go to your house Namma". Peter, people have been so kind. Our Church, Easton Community, the people of Groton, MA where you live, Boston University, your friends, our friends, the political community and even the press. The Memorial dedicated to you, Sue and Christine in Groton is so meaningful and the elegy written by Carl Schroeder, "Christine's Lullaby" is so moving, so beautiful. I am sure when Mickey Hart of the Grateful Dead called us you were smiling he told us he was dedicated a concert of his new group to you. You all had so many friends, good friends who keep in contact with us, for you and Sue were such good loyal friends. Your love was steadfast. We have all the wonderful memories no one can take from us but oh, how I miss you my beautiful children.
Love Mom
As for why they killed these people? Yeah, Allah is the shorthand version. Maybe they really just wanted to get laid. Here, from a piece by Pepe Escobar in The Asia Times, Arif Jamal, "arguably the leading expert on jihad," explains the rewards of waging it:
Jamal: Prophet Muhamad also offered a lot of incentives for those who would wage jihad in their lives. The mujahideen were assured of entering Paradise before the first drop of their blood fell to earth. The Holy Scriptures of Islam also say that houris [beautiful virgins of the Koranic Paradise] come down to Earth to take the spirit of the mujahid who is about to die before the first drop of his blood falls to earth. The martyrs are promised 72 houris in Paradise. These houris are more beautiful than all the beauties of the world combined. I have studied more than 600 wills of Pakistani mujahideen who were fighting in Kashmir. There is hardly any will that escapes this concept. All the mujahideen have mentioned the houris as an important incentive for waging jihad. The Paradise with houris is the prime objective of these mujahideen....ATol: So most mujahideen are single.
Jamal: Yes, most mujahideen prefer to get married in Paradise. Apart from jihad, they do practice namaz (the ritual of five prayers a day) regularly, they very regularly fast, but they ignore other concepts of Islam. They say jihad is the summit of Islam. So if you have found the summit, you have found the whole thing. This is what they are taught. They believe jihad will bring them honor in the world, they will become powerful. The heroes of the mujahideen have always been generals. No Muslim scientist, or intellectual, or artist has ever become a hero. It's a military tradition that dominates the mujahideen.
No Muslim scientist, or intellectual, or artist has ever become a hero.
If true, this speaks volumes as to what is wrong with Islamic culture. While I realize that in Western culture the real heroes throw or kick balls for adoring crowds, we do manage from time to time to make room to recognize those discover new things, bring great ideas to light or create beauty.
justin case at December 13, 2007 9:00 AM
Islam is not good for art:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6616167
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2007 9:15 AM
...wow. That made me tear up...
Gretchen at December 13, 2007 10:35 AM
How can anyone read this and stay dry-eyed and yet it was people who did this. Yet it's the infidels who are labeled heartless? I think not! It takes a belief not only in that paradise of virgins but that you deserve that paradise more than a sweet little innocent two year old deserves to live to pull off this special brand of heartlessness.
Donna at December 13, 2007 10:37 AM
...ATol: "So most mujahideen are single."
Yes. And apparently extremely, extremely, extremely horny.
Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg at December 13, 2007 10:43 AM
My friend Satoshi Kanazawa has written a couple of papers about why suicide bombers are almost always Muslim. (He also goes into this in Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, a book he wrote with the late Alan S. Miller.) Basically, polygyny means some men monopolize the women -- usually, the older richer ones. The horny young ones are left to the cause and to their gullibility for claims that they'll get their 72 virgins after they cold-bloodedly take out innocent people in the name of their primitive religious beliefs.
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2007 10:53 AM
OT: An good link from Reynolds that buttresses a topic here from over the weekend: http://urltea.com/2cz0
We don't get to choose how others play their poker, even if we sit out for a hand or two.
Crid at December 13, 2007 11:56 AM
Along those lines, for those who argue that "we had it coming," did the Algerians, who just suffered two massive Al Qaeda car bombings, have it coming, too? And for what?
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2007 12:07 PM
The only difference between these animals and people who pretend to be Klingons is their level of commitment.
Jim Treacher at December 13, 2007 12:27 PM
Wheaties pissing time, I'm afraid.
Amy,
Kanazawa may be right about the polygamy and suicide bombing (it passes the intuition test), but some of your friend's research seems pretty far-fetched. Good for sensational headlines, bad for evolutionary psychology as a credible discipline. He makes our genes seem as though they are self aware. One of his claims is that beautiful people have more daughters because beauty is more useful to women. This implies our genes must know how attractive we are; but as far as I can find out, he proposes no mechanism for this. He has problems with his stats, too.
Crid,
Usually your links are better than that. You pass us an article where the book of Job is used as an example? And where the article says things like:
Where's the bit about infidels occupying the holy land that was what Bin Laden was talking about? He's playing at straw men here.
This is an odd post. I think that there are merits to evolutionary psychology, and I don't buy the blowback theory of 9/11. But neither of your sources here strike me as persuasive.
justin case at December 13, 2007 12:28 PM
It's not just Satoshi, but one of their own guys (and many others from their team) talking about sex with virgins in the place there's no evidence exists being a prime motivator.
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2007 12:33 PM
Justin, I think you missed the larger point of Reynold's post:
--We may agree...that our interventionist policy in the Middle East has led to unintended negative consequences, including even 9/11, but this admission offers us absolutely no insight into what unintended consequences [the] preferred policy of non-intervention would have exposed us to. It is simply a myth to believe that only interventionism yields unintended consequence, since doing nothing at all may produce the same unexpected results. If American foreign policy had followed a course of strict non-interventionism, the world would certainly be different from what it is today; but there is no obvious reason to think that it would have been better.--
doombuggy at December 13, 2007 12:47 PM
I didn't miss the point - I'll even grant him his point. I just think he did a poor job with the argument. Biblical tale - unpersuasive. Historical account with inconvenient detail excised - unpersuasive.
justin case at December 13, 2007 12:56 PM
"The only difference between these animals and people who pretend to be Klingons is their level of commitment."
...yes, that, but don't forget the Klingons actually did evolve emotionally over time. Instincts still kicked in every now and then, but they were somewhat rational as time went on.
To accept any form of lifestyle that not only encourages but urges the murder of innocent people is wrong. I don't feel this is a pro-life stance, as in, I don't believe in killing people b/c they don't believe what I believe. In essence, the very core idea of Jihad is irrational, anti-life and anti-"think for yourself." Jihadists are more like the Borg...
I know some Muslims who are great people with no ill wishes. It just sucks that a vast number of people in the same religion are the polar opposite.
Gretchen at December 13, 2007 12:57 PM
ok, way to proofread after deleting things, Gretchen. I also shouldn't use believe three times in a sentence...
Should be:
I feel this *is* a pro-life stance...
Gretchen at December 13, 2007 1:01 PM
Harris put it straight through the uprights.
We stationed troops in Saudi Arabia during the first gulf war and the Saudis hugged our shins for it. Everyone assumed Saddam was on his way to Rihadh and he probably was.
Western forces observed Saudi cultural and religious conventions by not posting any Jewish personnel or allowing non-Islamic religious rites of any kind in contravention of our own laws and policies toward our soldiers' rights. Soldiers who wanted to attend a Sunday church service had to catch a helicopter out to the carrier fleet.
Nobody parked tanks at the gates of Mecca or rev'd engines during call to prayers. Our efforts at imperialism are wussy.
And using an example from the bible negates the effectiveness of the piece in the same way that using the Presbyterian church building as a polling place disenfranchises secular voters (it doesn't.)
martin at December 13, 2007 1:25 PM
What's so special about sex with virgins?
Norman at December 13, 2007 1:27 PM
Unfortunately, you have to have had sex a few times to know that.
Personally, my first time was hilarious. And the person I had sex with now lives with his boyfriend. When he came out, a few years later, he did say, "If I weren't gay, you'd be 'the one'," which I thought was very sweet.
Amy Alkon at December 13, 2007 1:45 PM
And using an example from the bible negates the effectiveness of the piece in the same way that using the Presbyterian church building as a polling place disenfranchises secular voters (it doesn't.)
If you find charming stories about God destroying a man's life in a bet with the Devil to be relevant to this argument, then I guess not.
As I said above - the article gets the main point right - "straight through the uprights" but makes his case with bad and factually flawed examples. As a writer, he's left himself totally exposed - people can trash the piece without engaging the deeper merits of his argument.
justin case at December 13, 2007 1:58 PM
maybe its a typo....when the suicide bomber gets to heaven, looks around, and says "where are my 72 houris?" somebody will say "your 72 hours started already...then its eternity in HELL you stupid motherfucker..."
George at December 13, 2007 2:21 PM
Okay justin, let's just skip over the fact that you are familiar with the details of the story of Job and we'll agree that using comparisons to widely recognized literature can wind up distracting easily offended readers from the central point, fair enough, you've convinced me.
But help me out, where is the factual error in his point about occupation of holy lands? Our troops were there, plenty Muslims didn't like that. What exactly is being left out or misrepresented in that particular portion of the article?
martin at December 13, 2007 2:32 PM
But help me out, where is the factual error in his point about occupation of holy lands
He doesn't make it. Not once does he mention holy lands (for your convenience, the relevant block quote is in an earlier post above), which isn't a trivial detail, wouldn't you agree?
justin case at December 13, 2007 2:51 PM
"I know some Muslims who are great people with no ill wishes. It just sucks that a vast number of people in the same religion are the polar opposite."
Gretchen, it sucks even more that the good Muslims do such a shitty job denouncing the extremists. I'll stick with your metaphor and blame their violent Obsidian Order (or Tal Shi'ar!) for chilling any dissenting opinions.
snakeman99 at December 13, 2007 6:28 PM
Justin, Much culture and fable has passed through the pews. If yours is the kind of atheism that says not only that Jesus never happened but that religious belief never happened either, then go forward and enjoy it in good health. I'm not so twitchy, and I think Job was right: Bad things happen to good people. I've seen it happen.
The part I liked was what Reynolds quoted, because it echoes the point from last week: "It is simply a myth to believe that only interventionism yields unintended consequence, since doing nothing at all may produce the same unexpected results. If American foreign policy had followed a course of strict non-interventionism, the world would certainly be different from what it is today; but there is no obvious reason to think that it would have been better."
Crid at December 14, 2007 1:38 AM
My response to that quote
Its not about making the world better, its about not morgaging our humanity for monetary gains
lujlp at December 14, 2007 5:31 AM
"Its not about making the world better, its about not mortgaging our humanity for monetary gains"
It sort of is. It's about making our world better, and monetary gains sometimes reflect this. Sometimes making other people's lives better makes our lives better.
doombuggy at December 14, 2007 5:47 AM
Unfortunatley doombuggy more often than not the people whos lives we 'make better' are dictators who make their countrys population worse off.
And more often than not the majority of americans dont benefit to much form the exploited wealth of other countries.
Example Saudi Arabia, the royal familly and their freinds are well off, no so the peons
lujlp at December 14, 2007 7:07 AM
touche
doombuggy at December 14, 2007 9:42 AM
Loojy- What do you mean "it's about"? I assume you're saying that our past intrusions and manipulations in the region we not good policy ("dictators who make their countrys population worse").
I'm glad you agree with me about this. Too many people are easily confused when history branches as it has in this decade.
Crid at December 14, 2007 10:32 AM
Crid, you originally posted the quote
"It is simply a myth to believe that only interventionism yields unintended consequence, since doing nothing at all may produce the same unexpected results. If American foreign policy had followed a course of strict non-interventionism, the world would certainly be different from what it is today; but there is no obvious reason to think that it would have been better."
My response to that quote was non-interventionalism (for me anyway) isnt about making the world a better place but mking america one
Unfortunatly america's forgin policy for the last 60yrs has been the same as its corperate policy
Short term gains with no thought to the long term consequences
lujlp at December 14, 2007 12:22 PM
lujlp -
non-interventionism will NOT make America better.
non-interventionism got us Pearl Harbor.
brian at December 14, 2007 6:49 PM
And what would have prevebted pearl harbor?
Ever think if it werent for being sucker punched the american public would have care nothing for europes plight in WW2?
And I am not against intervention, just intervention for the sake of exploiting a forgein countrys natural resorses at the expense of the native population
lujlp at December 14, 2007 6:54 PM
> isnt about making the world
> a better place but mking
> america one
Like it or not, the rest of the world has things we need, and we're going to be doing business with them.
> Short term gains with no
> thought to the long term
> consequences
True.
For most of the 20th century, certainly in the years of Kissinger and Scowcroft, the United States tried to interfere as little as possible. If the guy who could sell us the oil (or rubber or fruit or whatever) could do it without us having to deal with the rest of the locals, that was fine with us. That's how the House of Saud and Saddam got so powerful. For a very short time in the early part of this decade, George Bush had promised that we were going try a new game, and millions of Americans heard the pitch for a more decent approach to foreign policy and supported him. He's lost the ball, but we ought to be holding him (and anyone else we elected) to those better strategies.
Crid at December 15, 2007 1:14 AM
What would have prevented Pearl Harbor?
How about kicking Hitler square in the nuts when he was going on his "annexing" spree. If we had done that, the axis pact would never have been signed. Sure, Southeast Asia would have been a mess for decades, but you gotta admit that preventing Hitler from coming to power would have prevented just about every bad international-relations event that has happened since.
brian at December 15, 2007 10:52 AM
Suppose Hitler had been stopped.
You just posted a quote saying a non interventionalist approch over the last few decade was no reason to think that things would have been better
How would contaning germany have prevented japan from attcking us anyway?
You cant champion the idea that changing the past woldnt have made things better and then turn around and claim the opposite.
lujlp at December 15, 2007 9:04 PM
Do you think Japan would have attacked if there'd not been so much distraction across our other ocean? It's been forty years since the grade school studies of this, but if memory serves, the world seemed up for grabs in those years, with Stalin and Hitler making pacts about who got what slice and so forth.
Crid at December 15, 2007 11:32 PM
Lujlp -
Hitler made the deal with Japan. Japan attacked us because Hitler wanted to divert our attention from Europe. He knew that our limited intervention thus far (Lend-Lease) was preventing him from taking England.
Hence Pearl Harbor. No Hitler, no Lend-Lease, no Axis pact, no Pearl Harbor. Japan would not have risked a solo war with the United States to end the oil embargo.
To recap - A dead Adolph Hitler in 1938 means no invasion of Poland, no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, no battle of Leningrad, no battle of Britain, no Battle of the Bulge, no Normandy Invasion, no partitioning of Germany, no strengthening of the USSR, no Cold War, no Bay of Pigs, no Cuban Missile Crisis, no Korean War, no Vietnam War, no Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no socialist revolutions in Latin America, maybe even no Mao.
How much better would the world be if even a few of those things had never happened.
I believe that none of them would have occurred had Hitler never invaded anyone. By signing and then violating the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Hitler put the USSR into a position of enormous power that they might not have otherwise ever gained. This made socialism appear to be a valid worldview and system of governance - which they then exported to Latin America and southeast Asia.
Hundreds of millions of people died at the alter of socialism since the end of WWII. All because Neville Chamberlain was more interested in "Peace in our time".
brian at December 16, 2007 5:51 AM
Again, supposing hilter had been stopped is no gaurentee that Japan might not have attacked us. Perhaps with Hitler dead the soviets and the japaness would have formed their own alliance
and gone to wok on aisa and locking it up before turning to europe. Had that been the case the populations of amreica nad western europe would have cared even less.
It my very well be that hitlers rise to power capped the soviets expansion
lujlp at December 16, 2007 6:10 AM
"To recap - A dead Adolph Hitler in 1938 means[...]"
Everything that flows from Hitler's theoretical untimely death is premised on the assumption that anybody was in any position to bring that about. The European and American reticence about getting into the war derived in large part from people looking around and not seeing fleets of battleships and tanks sitting around with the dedicated and trained young folks ready to take them into battle (we were chicken, and rightly so.)
Hitler is not/was not the lynchpin of history. He was a product of Versaille which was the product of other historical forces. It's all a rich tapestry and standing around stroking our beards and insisting it all comes down to a single dropped stitch is ridiculous (however diverting.)
Fascism rose because liberalism (the good kind) took a break. Intervening is what people do. To go against our nature is futile. At the end of the day, I believe "we" will make life better for people in the places we butt in. Omelette, eggs, etc.
martin at December 16, 2007 7:01 AM
Leave a comment