Part VIII. Islamic Bellicosity and Blood Lust

T. Belman. This is Part VIII of the series, ISLAM, Our Deadliest Enemy: Time is Running Out. I have been posting one Part every day for the last week and will continue for the next week til done. These articles written by VIPs and renowned scholars devastate Islam more comprehensively than anything in print. It is intended that this series come to the attention of Trump’s committee to Study Islamic Terrorism, when formed.

ISLAM, Our Deadliest Enemy: Time is Running Out

By  Prof. Paul Eidelberg, President, Israel-America Renaissance Institute, Jerusalem and Philadelphia

CONTENTS
Part I. Introduction
Part II. Identifying the Enemy
Part III. A Former Muslim Shows How to Combat the Enemy
Part IV. An Insider’s View of ‘Moderate’ Muslims
Part V. Beyond Multicultural Relativism
Part VI. The Theological Basis of Today’s Crisis
Part VII. Islamophobia: Facts and Fictions
Part VIII. Islamic Bellicosity and Blood Lust
Part IX. Blood Lust (cont’d)
Part X. Iran and Necrophelia
Part XI. Islamic Imperialism
Part XII. Islam: A Cult of Hatred, Especially of Jews

Part VIII. Islamic Bellicosity and Blood Lust

The candid reader will readily admit that aggressive and therefore bellicose behavior is subject to cultural influence. In the case of Islam, the paramount and all-pervasive influence on Islamic culture is the Quran, and what Muhammad is reported to have said and done as reported in the Hadith literature—all of which constitutes the foundation of Islamic law, the Sharia. No less than Winston Churchill described the Quran as the Mein Kampf of war, a conclusion supported (as cited below) by statistical analysis of the bellicosity of Quranic language.

It goes without saying that just as a society may cultivate pacifism among its citizens, so it may cultivate militarism—recall the Spartans. This acculturation begins in infancy and obviously depends very much on the method used in raising children. Enough to mention the influence of physical training, awards for victory in competitive games, and, more subtly, the influence of fierce language and of literature that glorifies war and conquest. The question is: can the acculturation of an infant affect a child’s internal organs—for example, the circulatory system—just as physical exercise can affect his musculature?  Every doctor knows how various organs of the body can be affected, for good and bad, by the mind, and vice-versa. This said, I will first submit for the readers’ consideration the blood lust evident in Islamic atrocities against Jews and Muslims. I will then consider scholarly evidence of  Islamic Jew-hatred, after which I shall consider the Hebraic understanding of how certain behaviors affect the blood stream of human beings in general, leaving the reader to judge for himself how a Muslim’s circulatory system may be affected by his hatred and violence toward Jews.

Now let learn from the accounts of Arabs and ex-Muslims and insiders understanding of Islam.

1. The Arab Lynching of Jews in Ramallah

Let us now consider the notorious Ramallah lynching in October 2000 at the beginning of the Second Intifada, when a Palestinian mob lynched two Israel Defense Forces reservists who had accidentally entered the Palestinian Authority-controlled city of Ramallah in the West Bank. The brutality of the event, captured in a photo of a Palestinian rioter proudly waving his blood-stained hands to the crowd below, received international coverage.

Aziz Salha, one of the lynchers, proudly waving his blood-stained hands from the police station window.

(From Wikipedia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U5-IVKe5QI)

On October 12, 2000, two Israel Defense Forces reservists (serving as drivers), Vadim Nurzhitz and Yossi Avrahami, mistakenly passed an Israeli checkpoint and entered Ramallah. Reaching a Palestinian Authority roadblock, where previously Israeli soldiers were turned back, the reservists were detained by PA policemen and taken to the local police station. Hearing rumors that undercover Israeli agents were in the building, a crowd of more than 1,000 Palestinians gathered at the station, calling for the death of the Israelis and stormed the building.

The soldiers were beaten, stabbed, had their eyes gouged out, and were disemboweled. A Palestinian (later identified as Aziz Salha), appeared at the police station window, displayed his blood-stained hands to the crowd, which erupted into cheers. One of the soldier’s bodies was then thrown out the window and stamped and beaten by the enraged mob. One of the bodies was set on fire. Soon after, the mob dragged the two mutilated bodies to Al-Manara Square in the city center as the crowd began an impromptu victory celebration.

1. Media Coverage of the Massacre

An Italian film crew, later learned to be employees of Mediaset, Italy’s largest private television station, captured footage of the lynching [1]. The picture of one of the lynchers waving his blood-stained hands from the window shocked and outraged many around the world, and became another iconic image of the conflict.

British photographer Mark Seager attempted to photograph the event but the mob physically assaulted him and destroyed his camera. After the event, he stated, “It [the lynching] was the most horrible thing that I have ever seen and I have reported from Congo, Kosovo, many bad places….I’ll never forget this. It was murder of the most barbaric kind. When I think about it, I see that man’s head, all smashed. I know that I’ll have nightmares for the rest of my life” [2].

The day of the lynching in Ramallah, journalists had their cameras ripped away and smashed on the pavement, their film confiscated or ruined, lest they record the bestiality underway.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered the Israeli security services to find and arrest the lynchers. Israel subsequently tracked down those responsible—enough to mention Aziz Salha, who was arrested in 2001. He admitted to being one of those who broke into the police station and choking one of the soldiers while others beat him bloody. When he saw that his hands were covered with the soldier’s blood, he went to the window and proudly displayed his blood-stained hands to the mob below, and was photographed while doing so. (In 2004, an Israeli court convicted him for the murder of Corporal Vadim Nurzhitz and sentenced him to life imprisonment. In October 2011 he was controversially released as part of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange.)

A second incident of Muslim blood lust was gruesomely displayed in Damascus in celebration of the tenth anniversary of the Yom Kippur War. The present writer watched that ceremony on Israel television. The ceremony was graphically described in the October 21, 1983 issue of the Jerusalem Post Magazine under the caption, “Syrian militia trainees [male and female] put on a show for Syrian president Hafez Assad. Martial music reached a crescendo as Syrian teenage girls suddenly bit into and killed live snakes [some four or five feet long], repeatedly tearing off flesh and spitting it out as blood ran down their chins. As Assad and his entourage applauded, the girls then attached the snakes to sticks and grilled them over fire, eating them triumphantly. Others [militiamen] then proceeded to strangle puppies and drink their blood.” The reader does not have to be a Jew to judge who or what the snakes, the puppies, and the blood represent.

Even more gruesome was the bloodlust manifested by Shiite Muslims who slaughtered members of the Shah’s forces in Tehran in 1979 when supporters of the Ayatollah Khomeini came into power. The victors engrossed their hands in the bloody organs of their victims and smeared the blood over their faces. (The TV clips of this Islamic barbarism no longer seem to be available on Internet.) But given the media’s anemic “political correctness” regarding Islam on the one hand, synchronized with the anemic response of the ever-so-tolerant liberal democracies of the free world on the other—how should we understand the barbarism that animates hundreds of millions of Muslims on this planet?