Schuyler R. Thorpe :

WASHINGTON, DC – Civil libertarians suffered a defeat today in their push against President Obama’s policy allowing the U.S. to kill American terrorists without trial or judicial review. Obama has authorized the CIA to kill U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who is hiding in Yemen, where he is allegedly involved in the local al-Qaeda branch. The White House went further in September, refusing to reveal its legal rational for the policy and requesting that a federal judge dismiss a lawsuit against that policy, arguing that even hearing the lawsuit could reveal sensitive state secrets. Now a lawsuit against the Obama administration for the “targeted killing” policy, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Awlaki’s father, has been thrown out by U.S. District Judge John Bates.

Why the Judge Dismissed the Suit “U.S. District Judge John Bates said in a written opinion that al-Awlaki’s father does not have the authority to sue to stop the United States from killing his son,” The Associated Press reports. “But Bates also said the ‘unique and extraordinary case’ raises serious issues about whether the United States can plan to kill one of its own citizens without judicial review.” The judge “seemed tempted to take on the legal issues but said he must dismiss the case because Anwar al-Awlaki did not bring the suit.”

How Is He Supposed to File a Lawsuit if the CIA Is Hunting Him? Gawker’s John Cook drips with sarcasm reacting to the judge’s rationale: You may be thinking to yourself, ‘That’s absurd! How could an American-Yemeni fugitive who is being actively hunted down by U.S. capture-or-kill teams possibly avail himself of the American legal system in order to stop his own assassination?’ But before you do, just remember: The United States of America is the only country on the planet that will let you challenge the legality of its hit squads, so long as you do it yourself, in open court.

Regular citizens are left struggling with nothing, the ruling elite are big game-hunter fans -- on their msi laptops, sitting comfortably under their best ceiling fans (some even have portable fans) meanwhile their wives wear designer silver jewelry, expensive perfumes, arabic makeup, read a kindle 3g wifi, they take a paseo melbourne yet worry about muscle pain in legs. Ordinary citizens don't have these luxuries in their own country

Judge Clearly Troubled by Obama’s Policy “Bates said the merits claims in the case raise serious issues of separation of powers and national security,” the ABA Journal’s Debra Cassens Weiss writes. “The opinion notes ‘stark and perplexing questions,’ including this one: ‘How is it that judicial approval is required when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for electronic surveillance, but that, according to defendants, judicial scrutiny is prohibited when the United States decides to target a U.S. citizen overseas for death?’”

Victory for Unchecked Executive Power National security blogger Marcy Wheeler writes: “It was nice of [Judge] Bates to save the Obama Administration the embarrassment of invoking state secrets to hide the logic for its tyranny. All in all, a tremendous victory for unchecked executive powers!”

Clearly Al-Awlaki meets the definition of traitor as specified in the constitution.

And surely a president, any president, can find a judge who agrees with him in such matters as Al-Awlaki.

There are special courts and judges for wiretapping of citizens in the US or abroad and there should be special courts and judges for this nasty business of killing traitors such as Al-Awlaki who are attempting to kill citizens of the US and to destroy the United States itself.

A special court of special judges is required to avoid the appeals processes that would anyway negate the purpose and efficacy of a president's kill order. Until a special court is established, the president must needs be recognized as empowered to issue kill orders against traitors operating clandestinely abroad to defend, protect and preserve the United States and we who are its loyal citizens.

I submit to you that bin Laden, Mohammed Atta, al-Awlaki et al were born to be terrorists, just as you or I were born not to be terrorists. Al-Awlaki is a traitor besides. The American Taliban John Lindh saved his arse by peacefully surrendering and expressing remorse; still, Lindh got a long prison term and the notice of his countrymen for the remainder of his life after prison.

You seem to be suggesting that certain people are predisposed to becoming "terrorists" due to their genetic make up. If so, kindly provide proof to support your "claim".

How could an American-Yemeni fugitive who is being actively hunted down by U.S. capture-or-kill teams possibly avail himself of the American legal system in order to stop his own assassination?’ But before you do, just remember: The United States of America is the only country on the planet that will let you challenge the legality of its hit squads, so long as you do it yourself, in open court. Hakan Selvi from Varolmak.

It is documented and the accepted norm in medical science that the sociopath personality mental illness and the psychopath personality mental illness are formed by a combination of genetics and activation of the genetic disposition by early childhood experience(s) in society. (It is accepted that a medical diagnosis of sociopathy or psychopathy is impossible until after the age of 15.)

Accordingly, I submit to you that terrorists such as al-Awlaki, Muhammed Atta, bin Laden et al have a genetic predisposition to become the sociopath/psychopath mentally ill personality disorder terrorists they are (were). This is true of most personality disorder fanatics such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao and many other sociopath/psychopath personality disorder mass murderers throughout history. Modern medical science knows this based on the emperical evidence and proof realized by serious medical research and analysis by serious medical scientists. This has been known to medical science since the 1930's. (Google either sociopath or psychopath.)

Let me clarify that I never stated, nor am I of the opinion, that OBL, al-Awlaki and the rest were ALL sociopaths or psychopaths, though some of these individuals may have had mental illnesses. While a multitude of diseases lead to violent behavior, the phenomenon of Islamic Terrorism is not the result of psychopathy, sociopathy etc. It is the militant face of a political movement. Al-Qaeda and the like have a stated agenda and have conscientiously waged an “asymmetrical war” against the west, and our allies, to meet their objectives. Their deliberate, planned and calculated “acts of terror” should not be confused with random acts of violence committed by unaffiliated people suffering from any malady.

Other mass murderers might have had “personality disorders”, but your explanation, while successfully connecting certain forms of violence to mental ailments (highly unimpressive by the way since this has been known to medical science since the 1930’s), fails to establish a link between the Islamic Jihadist movement, aka Islamic Terrorism, and psychological sickness.

In my previous post I meant to write "consciously" instead of "conscientiously". Provided below is the the corrected sentence that conveys the intended meaning:

Al-Qaeda and the like have a stated agenda and have CONSCIOUSLY waged an “asymmetrical war” against the west, and our allies, to meet their objectives.

Being a psychopath, or a sociopath, and having a religion or ideology are not mutually exclusive. In fact any study of history will find emperors of just about anywhere, anytime, engaged in behaviors that are consistently psychopathic, sociopathic, Narcisstic (anti social personality disorder and the like). Personality disorder on the scale of psychpathy is not restricted to isolated criminals in society who never become leaders of nations or of ideological movements of one sort or another.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association states that personality disorder, such as psychopathy or sociopathy is a "cronic type of mental illness." Do you say Hitler, the man who directed the mass slaughter of 11 million humans in death camps was not first a sociopath, then, as leader of a nation-state, a psychopath? Hitler had a clear and defined ideology, Nazism, (but not much religion) and was insanely obsessed against a particular religious group (Jewish).

The original crusader, Pope Urban II, would not likely have been a psychopath or a sociopath, tho he could have been either. His holyness might simply have been a cynical leader obsessed about his own religion, its verities and his own Kingdom Come. It is equally unlikely Saladin was a victim of personality disorder on the scale of psychopathy; the same can be said of his erstwhile opponent Richard the Lionheart.

Bin Laden was a psychopath personality as was al-Awlaki et al. They are tribally ruthless, heartless, inhumane mass murders who practice the ideology of religion as the vehicle to justify their manifest genetic defects and the associated malignancies of same. Whether an emperor, the leader of blitzkrieg or a present-day terrorist leader, Hitler, bin Laden, al-Awlaki are severe cases of personality disorder - they are classic psychopaths in the public arena.

While The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association, is clear in its definition of personality disorders That Bin Laden and al-Awlaki were psychopaths is purely your speculation, there is absolutely no medical proof that they actually were. But even if for argument’s sake one assumes that your hypothesis is correct, one still cannot discount the fact that, contrary to the other groups you mentioned i.e. the Nazi’s, al-Qaeda is a DECENTRALIZED organization with independently operating cells and at the peak of its popularity is estimated to have had thousands of members. And unlike Hitler, bin Laden, though the creator and head of the organization, did not plan and coordinate the strategy and tactical operations of al-Qaeda’s cells. Are you stating that the thousands of al-Qaeda members, past and present, had / have “genetic defects” which caused them to become terrorists? If so, why is it that only radicalized Muslims have supported and joined them? You may state that certain people are more prone to becoming radicalized than others, but even then one cannot overlook the role that life experiences and world-view play in the transformation of these people.

Let us look at the facts. It is known that foreign governments sponsor hate breeding “madrassas” which condition their students from early childhood by instilling within them an extremist perspective all the while demonizing the west and dehumanizing those different from them along with indoctrinating them with the belief that they will be rewarded in the after-life for destroying the “infidels”. This alone makes the decision of killing thousands of innocent people not only an easy one but also one that is, to them, morally justified and religiously required. Playing on the opinion that America is at war with Islam, Al-Awlaki with the use of modern technology sought to radicalize Muslims living in west by giving them online access to the same Islamist propaganda that the jihadist factories in the middle-east inculcate in the minds of their students.

It is also known that al-Qaeda has openly declared war on America. Don’t the soldiers of a country take many lives during times of war? Would you classify them too as psychopaths who’re acting in a particular manner because of their genetic predisposition? These terrorists are not a coalition of “mental cases” with uncontrollable compulsions. They are a well-trained and well-funded force which knows that it cannot engage its opponent in a traditional manner and has thus chosen to fight us in an “asymmetrical” way. The fact that members of al-Qaida target both our armed forces and non-combatant civilians is not due to them having any malignancies, it is in fact due solely to their offensive strategy and perception of who their enemy is.

First I must dispose of your 'obiter dicta' concerning the armed forces authorized by a lawful government to fight a war. In my conclusion I shall deal with your excessive focus on asymmetric warfare as somehow having such a nature as to relieve its practioners from the scrutiny of political psychology (not to mention international law).

The armed forces of a nation state are not, as a class, psychotics (necessarity or otherwise) invariably suffering from personality disorders. Your suggestion is plainly over the top. It credibly is agreed that certain elements of the armed forces of nation states that are led by psychotic dictators (Saddam Hussein the master of contemporary chemical warfare, his general 'Chemical Ali', Miladic, Mao etc etc) can and often are themselves sociopaths and/or psychopaths, to the extent such military personnel adhere to the ideology and murderous means of their leader, whether the leader be a National Socialist Nazi or a disciple of bin Laden or the ayatollahs, inclusive of al Awlaki and his son killed in the same attack.

Moving beyond your immaterial mention of legal military combatants of a nation state, I reference Dr Aubrey Immelman, associate professor of psychology at St. John’s University, Minnesota, also author of, in particular, the chapter “Personality in Political Psychology” in the Handbook of Psychology (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003).

In the next six paragraphs, I quote Dr. Immelman in regard to bin Laden in particular (also think of al Awlaki et al as you read):

"In the nomenclature of a Millonian approach (cf. Theodore Millon, Disorders of Personality: DSM?IV and Beyond, 1996), Bin Laden emerged as a primarily Ambitious/exploitative (narcissistic), Dauntless/dissenting (antisocial) personality, with secondary Distrusting/suspicious (paranoid), Dominant/controlling (sadistic), and some Conscientious/dutiful (obsessive-compulsive) features.

"Ambitious individuals [such as al-Awlaki, bin Laden, Mohammed Atta et al] are bold, competitive, and self-assured; they easily assume leadership roles, expect others to recognize their special qualities, and often act as though entitled. Dauntless individuals are bold, courageous, and tough; minimally constrained by the norms of society; routinely engage in high-risk activities; not overly concerned about the welfare of others; skilled in the art of social influence; and adept at surviving on the strength of their particular talents, ingenuity, and wits.

"Bin Laden’s blend of Ambitious and Dauntless personality patterns suggests the presence of Millon’s unprincipled narcissist (or narcissistic psychopath) syndrome. This composite character complex combines the narcissist’s arrogant sense of self-worth, exploitative indifference to the welfare of others, and grandiose expectation of special recognition, with the antisocial personality’s self-aggrandizement, deficient social conscience, and disregard for the rights of others (Millon).

"Bin Laden’s profile suggests that he is cunningly artful in exploiting Islamic fundamentalism in the service of his own ambition and personal dreams of glory.

"Theodore Millon and Roger Davis (“Ten Subtypes of Psychopathy” in Millon et al., Eds., Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior, pp. 161–170) explain that this psychopathic subtype—effectively devoid of a superego—is prevalent among society’s con artists. Akin to these charlatans and swindlers, Bin Laden likely harbors an arrogant, vengeful vindictiveness and contempt for his victims.

"What does command their full measure of devotion is humiliating their adversaries in a high-stakes game of wit, and relishing their frustration, anger, and dismay." (End of six-graf quote.)

The extent to which U.S. intelligence and military operations against Bin Laden and al-Awlaki can be framed as a hunt for devout, dedicated religious fundamentalists might serve as a rough measure of the extent to which one fails to recognize or comprehend the complex web of personality disorders evident in many movement leaders down through the ages. This is so whether the figures of history conduct symmetric warfare using the vehicle of the nation state or by utilizing asymmetric warfare in the hills of Bora Bora or Waziristan (or Abbotbad, Yemin etc). Your focus on asymmetric warfare sadly distracts from the point that throughout history leaders of movements of mass murder are sadistic and vindictive sociopaths and/or psychopaths regardless of whether they command the apparatus of the nation state or oversee a loose rag-tag global confederation of tribes and warlords who are strung together by a common derranged purpose.

It's much to easy and facile to bewail the old line about "man's inhumanity to man." To do so misses the point that most human suffering through the ages is the direct result of the psychopath's inhumanity to man - also the sociopath's inhumanity to man. Ninty-nine point nine percent of us are neither culprit nor perp. More loosely speaking however and somewhat tongue in cheek, I cite Abbie Hoffman's 1960's statement that "Ideology is a brain disease." More strictly speaking, on the scientific evidence and empirical proof, I assert that the ideology of bin Laden, al-awLaki et al do in fact derive from a brain disease created at conception by defective DNA.

After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan bin Laden was wandering about trying to find something to do. He and his associates focused on the United States as the Great Satan. Bin Laden didn't focus on the fascist dictatorship of Beijing which murders Turkic speaking Muslims in the recently annexed PRC Region of Xin Jiang, now the westernmost area of China proper. Bin Laden didn't decide to free Tibet from the Chinese yoke. Bin Laden focused on the United States and our people.

Your argument is deeply and inherently flawed. You are so engrossed in your own web of theoretical fantasies that you have become either incompetent of doing so or are deliberately unwilling to see reality for what it is. Discard your own fallacies and come to terms with the fact that in the absence of fundamentalist and extremist Islamist dogma bin Laden may very well have become an exceptional corporate CEO or an otherwise productive member of society. Most of the highly successful leaders in virtually any field possess many of the same characteristics as him. Therefore there is nothing to be detested about such traits for if channeled in the right direction they can produce overwhelmingly positive results. Bin Laden’s personality is not the reason why he chose to attack the U.S., but it is the reason why he did it so devilishly well.

Though the founder of the organization, bin Laden did not give birth to the principles, ideology, and strategy which serve as the cornerstone of the political campaign of which al-Qaeda is but a part. His have been the actions of the most staunch and devout followers of the imperialist / nationalist movement that Islam actually is.

Instead of restating what I have posted previously I have provided below analysis by Michael Scheuer, a CIA veteran with 22 years of service, who ran the Counterterrorist Center’s bin Laden station. You can read it while Abbie Hoffman and his leftist cronies roll over in their graves:)

- The view of bin Laden as a lunatic is a form of “myopia” that limits Western military thinkers' ability to respond to the bin Laden phenomenon. The West's road to hell lies in approaching the bin Laden problem with the presumption that only the lunatic fringe could oppose what the United States is trying to accomplish through its foreign policy toward the Muslim world. Bin Laden's philosophy is slowly harnessing the two most powerful motivating forces in contemporary international affairs: religion and nationalism."

- "We are fighting a worldwide Islamic insurgency ? not criminality or terrorism"

- Islamists not affected by legal approach.

- The insistence on referring to al Qaeda and the Islamist movement around it as a terrorist group or terrorist movement has also been a mistake. The U.S. is faced with a global insurgency, rather than mere terrorism.

- The Islamist threat to the United States is rooted in "how easy it is for Muslims to see, hear, experience, and hate the six U.S. policies bin Laden repeatedly refers to as anti-Muslim:

• U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall.
• U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
• U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
• U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
• U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
• U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments.

Scheuer contends that Al Qaeda is following a martial strategy that is more rational than it is given credit for among Western politicians and media. He cites Clausewitz's dictum that one must strike one's enemy's "center of gravity", and pairs it with an al Qaeda writer's assertion that "the American economy is the American center of gravity.

- Islamist and anti-American sentiment continue to grow around the world, and the bin Laden movement is aimed, not at killing or conquering Americans or reforming their internal political systems, but rather bankrupting them in order to reduce their worldwide influence and thereby liberate Muslims from the yoke of American political, military, and financial influence. The failure of the U.S. to apprehend this threat is, in part, rooted in a misunderstanding and underestimation of Osama bin Laden himself. Osama bin Laden's beliefs, goals, and intentions are carefully chosen, plainly spoken, and precise. He has set out the Muslim world's problems as he sees them; determined that they are caused by the United States; explained why they must be remedied; and outlined how he will try to do so. Seldom in America's history has an enemy laid out so clearly the basis for the war he is waging against it.

- The war in Iraq was like a "Christmas gift" to bin Laden not just because it distracted the U.S. military from the war against al Qaeda, but more importantly because it has provided global jihadists a failed state from which to operate that is even more conducive to terrorism than Afghanistan. By attacking and occupying the second holiest place in Shi'a Islam, the U.S. has turned Iraq into a lightning rod for jihadists from around the globe to come attack the occupying armies. The invasion, he argues, has provided credibility and substance to bin Laden's assertion that terrorists are waging a defensive jihad against foreign occupier bent on destroying Islam

The Islamic ideology of cultural imperialism and violent expansionism is the direct result of the psychotic and sociopathic tendencies and motivations of the founder of Islam, that much I can grant you. While bin laden might have been attempting to fulfill his personal desires and aspirations by organizing and franchising the Islamist insurgency and becoming the face of it, your statement that only those with "defective DNA" become violent militants us false. The widespread support that Islamic Jihad had received throughout the Muslim world is proof of the fact that it is not a fringe movement restricted to only a minute percentage of the Islamic population. Al-Qaeda's recruitment hinges upon the notion that the current derelict condition of the Muslim world is a due to the policies of the West, especially the United States; they portray bin Laden as a hero who attempted to mobilize Muslims the world over to take part in the effort to free themselves from the perceived oppression forced upon them. Islamic militants attack us and our interests not because they are afflicted with a disease but because they see us as detrimental to their very existence. Therefore as supported by the widely-accepted analysis of a professional, I assert once again that indoctrination, world view, capability, and certain other circumstantial scenarios, not DNA, are the determining factors as to whether or not one becomes a "terrorist".

The invasion of Iraq was indeed a "Christmas gift" to the militant jihadists in their hellbent course against the United States while simultaneously depleting the US efforts in Afghanistan to contain and constrict the militants there. Most Americans to include myself were upset that no WMD were found in Iraq, given that the threat of Iraqi nuclear weapons was the most pressing justification offered by the neocons of Dumbya Bush. The FBI interrogator of Saddam for almost two years, George Piro, said Saddam finally confirmed he had maintained his WMD infrastructure, but more in fear of Iran than the United States, which is a credible statement by Saddam given his war against Iran 1980-88. However by the time Saddam had in 2006 confided the fact it was too late as most Americans had become focused on the fiasco the war had become.

Psychopaths and sociopaths are, as you know, cool calculating characters of meticulus planning and execution who consciously are warm and charming when it suits them and completely devoid of human sympathy or guilt when they are at their worst. The fact that al Qaeda has become largely irrelevant and immaterial attests to the reality that it is a closed anti-social clique of psychopaths and sociopaths. Bin Laden, al-AwLaki et al have only descended into their own abyss of narcissism and delusions. The mass of the Arab world have learned that OBL and his crew are not serious social critics or actors in any sense, whether as leaders, prophets or urgently needed military directors. The reaction against al Qaeda is rationally to be expected among the world's Muslims despite all of OBL's points of justification you so assiduously present above.

I submit that had bin Laden et al had been rational actors and sincere fundamentalist god worshippers, they immediately would have followed the withdrawing Soviet army group from Afghanistan into the Soviet Union, or at least had carried the fight to the Soviet Union and to the CCP-PRC. A rational and balanced fundamentalist god worshipper might well have chosen to fight against the "godless communists" centered in Moscow and Beijing rather than against religious peoples in the United States and in western Europe, Bali Indonesia etc etc.

Bin Laden, al-AwLaki et al, rather than being what I see as consistent practioners of the ideology of religion - in this instance Islam - and demonstrating such by attacking the truely huge elephants of godlessness in Moscow and Beijing, showed their psychotic and sociopathic nature by choosing the easy whipping boy, the United States. Bin Laden found the US to be a highly useful ally against godless communist and imperalist expansion in the Afghan war. So why didn't he continue the war against the godless ones? Because bin Laden, al-AwLaki et al went irrationally and wildly after the big giant, the easy target of everyone, the United States.

OBL's points of justification you so assiduously present above???!!! The points I have presented above are those made by reputed and qualified members of the U.S. intelligence community, specifically members of the CIA. They are not personal opinions clouded by emotions resulting from a desire to justify the actions of or to defend one side or another. Nor do they amount to frivolous and unsubstantiated non-sense spewed out just to validate one’s own point of view. It is an unbiased and objective analysis required to understand the root-cause of the insurgency in order to create an effective counter-insurgency plan. If one cannot correctly assess the nature and causality of a threat then one cannot successfully eliminate it. I being a true American understand that for the sake of our national interests we must detach ourselves from our nationalistic pride, which so often results in Americans over-estimating themselves while under-estimating and misunderstanding our enemies.

Who says that al-Qaeda has become “largely irrelevant”, apart from you? I challenge you to present a trustworthy and competent source with access to real-world information and real-time intelligence willing to make the same claim. Al-Qaeda has lost much of its top leadership and is considered to be "on the run" due to the direct military action conducted by the United States and its allies, but they are by no means "irrelevant". And yes, support for al-Qaeda has lessened considerably among “moderate” Muslims but that is again because of the deliberate actions taken by the U.S. and its allies. It is not because of the Muslim world arriving upon the conclusion that the agenda of al Qaeda was abhorrent or “non-Muslim”. Instead, it is because of them realizing that by supporting al Qaeda and its agenda they would invariably seal their own fate given the unrelenting resolve and unmatched martial capabilities of the United States. Had al-Qaeda been given a free hand to carry out their campaigns they would’ve had the full support of Muslims at large.

Your point that “had bin Laden et al been rational actors and sincere fundamentalist god worshippers, they immediately would have followed the withdrawing Soviet army group from Afghanistan into the Soviet Union…” followed by your subsequent conclusion that “Bin Laden, al-AwLaki et al… went irrationally and wildly after the big giant, the easy target of everyone, the United States” is derived from an inaccurate understanding of the motivation of the Islamists. Bin Laden and the rest were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan to resist the INVADING godless communists. They were in fact protecting a Muslim country from an encroaching non-Muslim force, they were not out to destroy “godlessness”. This is similar to what they’ve been doing against us in Iraq and Afghanistan and is also the reason why they chose to attack us at home, because they see us as detrimental to the interests of the Muslim world. That they have been attacking targets in Muslim countries like Indonesia and Pakistan is due to the support their governments have chosen to provide the U.S. The widely accepted belief is that if these countries cease to support the U.S. the Islamists will cease bombing them. Once again for your reference I have provided below the objective and unadulterated analysis of a CIA veteran with 22 years of service, who ran the Counterterrorist Center’s bin Laden station to uphold my statements:

- The Islamist threat to the United States is rooted in how easy it is for Muslims to see, hear, experience, and hate the six U.S. policies bin Laden repeatedly refers to as anti-Muslim:
• U.S. support for Israel that keeps Palestinians in the Israelis' thrall.
• U.S. and other Western troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
• U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
• U.S. support for Russia, India, and China against their Muslim militants.
• U.S. pressure on Arab energy producers to keep oil prices low.
• U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments.

I as an American speak to you Blogger1, who defines yourself as a "true American." I would take a moment to remind you about throwing the term around so loosely online - you never know when you're going to say it to a veteran of voluntary service in the US military.

Also for the record, I recognize the CIA analysis presented in your posts as the CIA's own analysys based on statements made by OBL himself. My point is that you readily present and harp on the fact, not that it is your own statement independently deduced or pulled out of the air. Our real difference is that I see more in the statements than you choose to see concerning political psychology in particular.

Returning for a moment to the immediate aftermath of 9-11, global surveys by organizations such as inter alia the Pew Center found that Muslims globally approved of OBL and Al-Qaeda but at the same time agreed that the United States (and its allies) would 'x' him out along with his henchmen, which is what we are doing, the past three years especially.

Your point, "That [Muslim terrorists] have been attacking targets in Muslim countries like Indonesia and Pakistan is due to the support their governments have chosen to provide the U.S. The widely accepted belief is that if these countries cease to support the U.S. the Islamists will cease bombing them," is well known, recognized, understood here.

[W]idely accepted belief held by whom and where? Do you contend this is the prevailaing view in Jakarta? In Kuala Lumpur? In Cairo? My point is that OBL and his closed, exclusive, clique of mass murders are sociopaths and psychopaths who are directing certain others in the general population under the pretext of genuine religious ideology that is based on a holy book. The certain others are so blinded by their religion and parochial culture as to be particulary susceptible to simplistic religious ideas, especially when those ideas make no distinction between religious or secular law respectively. In sharp contrast, those not so blinded are the people in the streets and squares of the Middle East who have ushered in what we call the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring is a far cry from OBL's original delusion and al-AwLaki's traitorous bents.

The Lybian Transitional Council is not fighting for OBL or for Hezbollah, or any of the sort. The Syrian people are not fighting against the United States in the Middle East or against Israel. Egyptians too are embracing the notions and contemporary realities of the European Enlightenment upon which many principles and provisions of the US Constitution are derived. We see same or similar movements in Tunisia, in Yemen and we will soon see a reawakening of it in Iran and elsewhere in the region.

The psychopaths and sociopaths of history are well known, to include Caligula and other Roman emperors; emperors of China among many emperors of the Old Word. Even in ancient times such leaders as Gadhafi and Saddam were considered by their contemporaries to be cruel psychopaths, tyrants, who raised the mace of power before them to shield their sociopathy. Of course al Qaeda has not disappeared. But it is disappearing ideologically and physically.

...not because of the fact that my family and I have for generations protected the citizens of the United States, and have sacrificed life and limb while doing so, but simply because I believe in and whole-heartedly support the interests of the U.S. I’m not foolish enough to think that one’s service record can lend credibility to any baseless opinions one may have, which is exactly what you have tried to do. And while I thank you for anything you may have done for my country I must remind you that it cannot win you this discussion.

The CIA analysis I have presented to “support my independently deduced observations” is not simply a regurgitation of the statements made by al-Qaeda. How dare you say that and defile, degrade and dishonor the work of the very people who hold NOTHING dearer than the security and national interests of the United States? How dare you say something so vile simply for your selfish need to maintain your baseless and defunct argument? How dare you say that and claim to be an “American patriot”? I would say that you, if a patriot at all, are a misguided patriot at best.

As far as the Arab Spring is concerned, al-Qaeda itself has declared that “U.S. support for apostate, corrupt, and tyrannical Muslim governments” is one of the reasons they declared war against the U.S. The governments that have been overturned during the “Arab Spring” were known throughout the world as those supported by the U.S. and were working to contain al Qaeda and the Islamic insurgency. You yourself have acknowledged in your comments that a vast majority of Muslims around the world approved of bin Laden and al Qaeda following 9/11. How then can you believe that governments that are of, for and by the people who support Islamists will be positive for Americans given the legitimate conflict between the interests of the Muslim world and American interests? With the exception of a revolution orchestrated by the U.S. or brought about by pro-American groups to replace one pro-American govt. with another under the guise of a political upheaval, any truly democratic public uprising in these countries that overthrows a pro-American government is bound to bring into power one that is Anti-American in comparison to the former, as long as Anti-American sentiments persist among the citizens of these countries, which they still do.

But let’s get back to original argument which is whether or not DNA is what causes one to become a terrorist. So far in this discussion you have not provided any conclusive evidence that would “empirically” prove your claim that DNA causes one to become a terrorist. Aubrey Immelman’s article that you quoted from earlier is simply a personality analysis of bin Laden. It is not an analysis of the Islamic insurgency nor does it claim to present a typecast of a “terrorist personality”. If you “see more in the statements…concerning political psychology in particular” that’s fine, but provide proof along with the statements you post in a public forum otherwise, you run the risk of looking like someone simply “seeing things”.

Well that's twice in separate posts during this colloquy that you've declared yourself the "true American," so I think you and I have run the course. The main issue is that you repeatedly overstate my own assertions, e.g., that I imply my military service should per se carry the argument in my favor, when I in fact say or intend no such thing.

Let it be said that I appreciate your hard-bitten and determined attitude towards causing disruption and harm to those who would destroy our country. Go get 'em as you've been doing and then some. I'd also add that because you are of such a fixed and fixated mind and means in this respect, someone sometimes needs to try to check and balance your feriocity.

I live and work in a majority Muslim province (90%) in a foreign country so I don't necessarily or particularly see the Muslims you see in all directions every time you look. Recently, at an outdoor night market, I saw a young Muslim lad wearing a T-shirt with a Christian cross on it that was overlain by the prohibited sign and the words "Bad Religion." When we noticed each other he seemed as uncomfortable and awkward about it as I was. The youngster turned his face down, his eyes cast towards the ground. No one spoke of it. Nothing else notable happened.

I was pleased to be invited by a group of Muslim public school educators to their evening prayers followed by a dinner (I would highly recommend Muslim cuisine). The only insistence was that I sit on the floor - a major displeasure I have in an otherwise pleasant and productive life abroad. It was strange to me that all the women had to be in a separate room. When I went outside to have a smoke I almost bumped into a woman dressed in a black tent, but her husband moved her off to the side to give me free movement and to give her breathing space - that's not my idea of how to live in a marriage but no one blew anybody up or anything close to it.

True, true American, I am appreciative of the work you do and the unrelenting attitude you have towards the demented people who are very real threats to the United States and who would destroy us. Maybe however a little perspective would go a long way for you without spoiling your effectiveness.

You misread (or I miswrote) a statement that set you off in your post subsequent to it. This is my statement, which is not written to say, suggest or to mean you are independently deducing something (heaven forbid) or pulling something you say out of the air. Kindly re-read my statement:

"Also for the record, I recognize the CIA analysis presented in your posts as the CIA's own analysys based on statements made by OBL himself. My point is that you readily present and harp on the fact, not that it is your own statement independently deduced or pulled out of the air."

If further understanding of my statement might be desirable to you, let me know.

…and you should refer back to my earlier response for the rebuttal you’ve obviously missed. Since you initiated this discussion, I’m asking you once again that instead of evading the question please provide valid and irrefutable proof of your claim that “the ideology of bin Laden, al-awLaki et al do[es] in fact derive from a brain disease created at conception by defective DNA” or clarify if this one of your independently deduced assessments devoid of any unnecessary little inconveniences the rest of the world likes to call supportive facts.

Your response was so awful that I had to believe you misunderstood my statement, which I identify above in a separate post. But you reassert that you did understand me. That you in your misunderstanding responded in the way you did, and then affirm your awful statements, is unfortunate. I restate that you did not understand my statement. You also keep demanding that I present the information which I did provide, to wit: in my post of October 14th, then further in my post of October 18th which quotes Dr. Immelman in particular.

Your reply to Dr. Immelman is that he was analyzing bin Laden exclusively. Again, this limited comprehension restates your inability to extend and apply the analysis to Islamic terrorists as a group in society. As with bin Ladin, Mulsim extremist terrorists are in fact sociopaths. Sociopathology is, as I have stated, a "cronic type of mental illness" as defined in the American Psychological Association DSM. Other cronic types of mental illnesses are narcissism, meglomania, psychosis, personality disorder etc.

As to mental illness, it is: "Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma. Also called emotional illness, mental disease, mental disorder."

Kindly note the inclusive factors of "biochemical, genetic."

For example, the Waffen SS were sociopaths (psychopaths to boot) who were organized by sociopaths and psychopaths to function purposefully as sociopaths/psychopaths. The goal oriented and meticulous Waffen SS had an ideology, Nazism, just as same or similar Mulsim terrorists suffer from an ideology, i.e., reactionary Islam.

But then again, you and I can't agree on the time of day.

Immelman’s personality analysis of bin Laden is based purely on information collected from open-source biographies and media reports with the analyst having had no direct contact with the subject, thereby severly dilluting its validity. Your acceptance of Immelman’s work as the final word regarding the subject of the analysis astounds me, but your insistence upon attributing the phenomenon of the global Islamic Jihad to the psychological abnormalities the author perceives in a single individual makes me question your very sanity, especially when Immelman himself does not even remotely infer that such a connection exists.

Provided below, for the reader, is a link to Immelman's work you have quoted from:
http://psychopathyawareness.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/the-death-of-a-deadly-psychopath-osama-bin-ladens-personality-profile/

Nowhere in his article does Immelman claim that psychological or biological defects determine whether or not people become Jihadists or terrorists, therefore your claim is an unsubstantiated and far-fetched assumption lacking the support of “serious medical research and analysis by serious medical scientists”.

Refer instead to the research of Prof. Andrew Silk who currently holds a Chair in Criminology at the University of East London, where he is the Field Leader for Criminology and the Director for Terrorism Studies. Professor Silke has a background in forensic psychology and has worked both in academia and for government. He serves by invitation on both the European Commission’s Expert Group on Violent Radicalization and the United Nations’ Roster of Terrorism Experts.

In his study titled “Holy Warriors, Exploring the Psychological Processes of Jihadi Radicalization”, which was published in the European Journal of Criminology, Silke provides an overview of the psychology of individuals who join and engage in terrorism, in particular individuals who engage in jihad-motivated terrorism such as carried out by al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Silke found that those who become involved in terrorism, particularly jihad-motivated terrorism, are normally rational, mentally healthy individuals that are progressively drawn to the movement in stages. This debunks the myth of terrorists as highly deviant personalities who integrate quickly. The author’s findings show that terrorists, on average, do not suffer from mental illness or disorders and do not typically fit the widely held public stereotypes associated with terrorism. The majority of individuals involved in radical terrorism come to it as the result of a gradual process over time that involves ordinary psychological processes and small group dynamics.

Provided below are actual quotes from Prof. Andrew Silke’s study:

- “Post (1990: 29) noted that every ‘terrorist group is unique and must be studied in the context of its own . . . culture and history’.”

- “Despite the indiscriminate and extreme violence of many terrorist attacks, the vast majority of research on terrorists has concluded that the perpetrators are not psychologically abnormal (Silke 2003; Horgan 2005). On the contrary, many studies have found that terrorists are psychologically much healthier and far more stable than other violent criminals (e.g. Lyons and Harbinson 1986).”

- “Psychologists who have met terrorists face to face have nearly always concluded that these people were in no way abnormal, and on the contrary that they had stable and rational personalities. This is not to say that people suffering from psychological disorders are never found in terrorist groups. They are, but these are the exception and not the rule. Quite simply, such people do not make good terrorists. They lack the discipline, rationality, self-control and mental stamina needed if terrorists are to survive for any length of time (see Taylor 1988). When they are found, they tend to be fringe members of the group and not central characters.”

- “Islamist terrorists do not fit many of the stereotypes that shape public expectations. The individuals involved do not suffer from mental illness or disorders, but instead are generally ordinary and unremarkable in psychological terms. Their involvement in terrorism is usually the result of a gradual process – typically occurring over a period of years.”

- “Ultimately, it is the combined impact of a number of factors that pushes and pulls someone into becoming a terrorist, and these factors will vary depending on the culture, the social context, the terrorist group and the individual involved.”

Silke lists the following factors as instrumental in the radicalization of an individual and his / her decision to become a terrorist:

Age and gender – “The most important biological factors associated with joining a terrorist group are age and gender. Although a causative role for these factors is not entirely unambiguous, there is certainly a correlation between these two factors and most recruits to terrorist organizations… The unavoidable conclusion is that other factors besides age and gender must be playing crucial roles in the process and decision to become a terrorist.”

Education, career and marriage – “Traditionally, factors such as good educational achievement, good socioeconomic background and marriage have been associated with a reduced likelihood of criminal offending. An analysis of the backgrounds of jihadis, however, suggests that such trends do not apply as strongly to them.”

Social identity – “Identity has been shown to play a vital role in explaining involvement in terrorism. Recruits always belong to the section of society that supports or shares the aims, grievances and ambitions of the terrorist group. In the case of jihadi extremism, individuals need to have a strong sense of Muslim identity and equally, to identify strongly with the wider Muslim community – the umma… The key aspects of social identity in the context of jihadism are (1) the role of religion and (2) group loyalties.”

Marginalization – “Social marginalization appears to be a common factor in the backgrounds of most jihadi recruits. Research has shown that most members of groups such as al-Qaeda joined the jihad while they were living in a foreign country or when they were otherwise isolated from older friends and family. Often these individuals were expatriates – students, workers, refugees – living away from home and family.”

Discrimination – “If such marginalized groups are discriminated against or internal sections believe that there is discrimination, then there will always be sections within such communities who will be receptive to radical ideologies that advocate changing or reforming the established, mainstream social system. The aim of these changes will be to improve the lot of the disadvantaged group.”

Catalyst events/perceived injustice – “One of the most important elements in understanding the psychology of why people become extremists is an appreciation of the psychology of vengeance. It has long been recognized that for most terrorists a key motivation for joining a terrorist organization ultimately revolves around a desire for revenge (Schmid and Jongman 1988). Within the context of jihadi terrorism, the perception of a strong shared identity and link with the wider Muslim world – the umma – has serious consequences when the individual perceives that some Muslim communities are being treated brutally or unfairly. Perceived injustices are important drivers of individual decisions to become involved in militant activism. Catalyst events (i.e. violent acts that are perceived to be unjust) provide a strong sense of outrage and a powerful psychological desire for revenge and retribution (Silke 2003).”

Status and personal rewards – “As well as providing an outlet for desires for vengeance, terrorist groups offer other inducements and rewards to outsiders.”

Opportunity and recruitment – “People cannot become active terrorists unless they can find a terrorist group that is willing to let them join.”

Based on the analysis of the CIA, which I submitted in my previous post, along with Prof. Andrew Silk’s study which I have referred to above, combined with your failure to prove otherwise, I emphatically declare that psychological or biological defects, though present among a minority sample of the group in question, are not the determining factors as to whether or not people become terrorists.

One should not forget that Bin Laden was FOUND AND KILLED in Pakistan. Would you feel better had he escaped into Iran from Afghanistan, our sworn enemy, where our chances of finding him would be next to nothing? Admit what you know deep inside, that the real world is a murky grey cesspool and not a black and white painting with well-defined borders that arm-chair analysts with personal agendas, such as yourself, would like others to believe.

One should not forget that Bin Laden was FOUND AND KILLED in Pakistan. Would you feel better had he escaped into Iran from Afghanistan, our sworn enemy, where our chances of finding him would be next to nothing? Admit what you know deep inside, that the real world is a murky grey cesspool and not a black and white painting with well-defined borders that arm-chair analysts with personal agendas, such as yourself, would like others to believe.