Bush Insane 
A Palestinian official reported that US President George Bush had claimed God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
The comments were attributed to Mr Bush by Mr Shaath, a Palestinian negotiator, in the upcoming TV series Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs. Mr Shaath said that in a 2003 meeting with Mr Bush, the US president said he was "driven with a mission from God".
"God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did."
President Bush said that God guided him in what he should do, and this guidance led him to go to Afghanistan to rid it of terrorism after 9/11 and led him to Iraq to fight tyranny.
"When was the last time a Western nation had a leader so obsessed with God and claiming God was on our side? If you answered Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany, you're correct," Bob Fitrakis wrote.
Both Bush and Hitler believe that they were chosen by God to lead their nations.
With Hitler boldly proclaiming, before launching his doctrine of preventive war against all of Europe, that “I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany.”
“I follow the path assigned to me by Providence with the instinctive sureness of a sleepwalker,” Hitler said.
Hitler stated in February 1940, “But there is something else I believe, and that is that there is a God. . . . And this God again has blessed our efforts during the past 13 years.”
After the Iraqi invasion, Palestinian leaders reported that Bush told them, “God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did . . . .”
As Bush has invoked the cross of Jesus to simultaneously attack the Islamic and Arab world, Hitler also saw the value of exalting the cross while waging endless war: “To be sure, our Christian Cross should be the most exalted symbol of the struggle against the Jewish-Marxist-Bolshevik spirit."
For anyone wanting even more proof, Mein Kampf is chock full of the Fuhrer's musings on God.
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," Hitler wrote.
So, Hitler sent 5 million Jews to the gas chambers because he believe that he was acting in accordance with the 'Will of God'.
Equally, President Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq because he is obeying a divine command to kill the victims.
George Bush is certainly been under an Insane Delusion.
In M'Naghten case, the judge pronounced that:
"if a person labours under a partial delusion only, that is, if he is under the influence of his delusion he suppose another man to be in the act of attempting to take away his life, and he kills the man in self-defence, he is not guilty of murder."
The definition of insanity given by the "Century Dictionary" is probably as satisfactory as any:
"A seriously impaired condition of the mental functions, involving the intellect, emotions, and will, or one or more of these faculties, exclusive of temporary states produced by and accompanying intoxications or acute febrile diseases."
According to the rule of law,
"No act done by a person in a state of insanity can be punished as an offence."
The French law is slightly more specific:
"There can be no crime nor offence if the accused was in a state of madness at the time of the act."
More specific still is the law of Germany, yet it does not introduce knowledge or advertence as a criterion of responsibility:
"An act is not punishable when the person at the time of doing it was in a state of unconsciousness or disease of mind by which a free determination of the will was excluded".
In passing it may be observed that the laws of all countries assume that freedom of the will and moral responsibility are realities, and declare that punishment is to be inflicted only when the will has acted freely.
As a state of mental disorder, insanity has historically been attributed to supernatural or divine causes where theories of mental illnesses were not developed. Aberrant or destructive behaviour from an individual has been explained as another entity taking over their body (demonic possession) or as a mental unhinging inflicted by the gods, as punishment for wrongdoing. In these theories, insanity is an external condition overriding an otherwise sane mind (which may not ever manifest itself). That demonic possession occurs and can be a valid explanation for insanity in some cases is still asserted by some, but this view holds no more than minority acceptance.
To prove insanity, the accused must have suffered defects of reasons due to disease of the mind so as not to know the nature and quality of the act or even if he knew it, he did not know that it was wrong.
Is it, however, only in this general way, that is, through defective action of the intellect, that freedom and responsibility are lessened or destroyed in persons who are of unsound mind?
The English courts and almost all the courts of the United States answer this question in the negative. Their practice is to regard a defendant in a criminal case as responsible and punishable if at the time of the crime he knew the difference between right and wrong, or at least knew that his act was contrary to the civil or moral law. For example, a man who, labouring under the insane delusion that another has injured his reputation, kills the latter is presumed to be morally accountable if he realized that the killing was immoral or illegal.
In other word, the rule of the courts is that knowledge of wrong implies freedom to avoid it.
Medical authorities on insanity are practically unanimous in rejecting this judicial test. Experience, they maintain, shows that many insane persons who can think and reason correctly on every topic except that which forms the subject of their delusion are unable to determine their wills and direct their actions accordingly.
In an unsound mind normal intellection is not always accompanied by normal volition. We should expect to find this true from the very nature of the case. For if a diseased brain can interfere with normal thinking it can undoubtedly interfere likewise with normal willing. And there is in the nature of the situation no reason why this deranged condition of the will may not manifest itself in connexion with normal, as well as with abnormal, intellectual action.
The doctrine of moral philosophy and theology, which maintains that freedom of the will can be diminished or destroyed only through defective or confused action of the intellect. There is, however, no real opposition except on the assumption that the will and intellect in a diseased mind co-operate and harmonize as perfectly as in a mind that is sane. In the latter the will has power to determine itself in accordance with the ideas and motives presented by the intellect; in the former this power may sometimes be lacking.
In the observation of, John A. Ryan :, "It constitutes, therefore, an additional obstacle to freedom in so far as it interferes with normal intellectual action through abnormally strong passions and false ideas of right and wrong. Obviously, however, the mere fact that the affections, passions, or moral notions are perverted, for example, with regard to sexual matters, is not always evidence of true insanity, still less of that variety of insanity that directly hampers freedom of the will."
Maureen Farrell in her article, "God Is With Us": Hitler's Rhetoric and the Lure of "Moral Values" described the state of affairs in America,:
"In the meantime, however, for those who have not yet noticed, our own homegrown zealots -- those who advocate hatred in the name of the Lord -- have made considerable headway, with gays and lesbians currently at the center of legislation which, should it pass, will alter this country forever."
If President Bush is afflicted with ideational or impulsive insanity, the mere fact that his intelligence seemed to be normal, and all his acts deliberate, at the time of his self-destruction, is not always conclusive proof of volitional freedom and moral guilt.
At such, President Bush may not be guilty of murder on the ground of insanity or insane delusion, but he should be warded in a mental asylum for being INSANE. And America should not be ruled by someone who is under the influence of his own delusion and is consistently suffering from the defects of reasons due to the disease of the mind, unable to distinguish the quality and nature of his act; worst of all, did not know that it was wrong.
In observation of the case of Bush, we should consider Justice Stephen (2 HCL 160, n.1) statement for such person:
"My own opinion is that if a special divine order were given to a man to commit murder, I should certaintly hang him for it, unless I too got a special divine order not to hang him."
A Palestinian official reported that US President George Bush had claimed God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
The comments were attributed to Mr Bush by Mr Shaath, a Palestinian negotiator, in the upcoming TV series Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs. Mr Shaath said that in a 2003 meeting with Mr Bush, the US president said he was "driven with a mission from God".
"God would tell me, George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan. And I did, and then God would tell me, George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq... And I did."
President Bush said that God guided him in what he should do, and this guidance led him to go to Afghanistan to rid it of terrorism after 9/11 and led him to Iraq to fight tyranny.
"When was the last time a Western nation had a leader so obsessed with God and claiming God was on our side? If you answered Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany, you're correct," Bob Fitrakis wrote.
Both Bush and Hitler believe that they were chosen by God to lead their nations.
With Hitler boldly proclaiming, before launching his doctrine of preventive war against all of Europe, that “I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany.”
“I follow the path assigned to me by Providence with the instinctive sureness of a sleepwalker,” Hitler said.
Hitler stated in February 1940, “But there is something else I believe, and that is that there is a God. . . . And this God again has blessed our efforts during the past 13 years.”
After the Iraqi invasion, Palestinian leaders reported that Bush told them, “God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did . . . .”
As Bush has invoked the cross of Jesus to simultaneously attack the Islamic and Arab world, Hitler also saw the value of exalting the cross while waging endless war: “To be sure, our Christian Cross should be the most exalted symbol of the struggle against the Jewish-Marxist-Bolshevik spirit."
For anyone wanting even more proof, Mein Kampf is chock full of the Fuhrer's musings on God.
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," Hitler wrote.
So, Hitler sent 5 million Jews to the gas chambers because he believe that he was acting in accordance with the 'Will of God'.
Equally, President Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq because he is obeying a divine command to kill the victims.
George Bush is certainly been under an Insane Delusion.
In M'Naghten case, the judge pronounced that:
"if a person labours under a partial delusion only, that is, if he is under the influence of his delusion he suppose another man to be in the act of attempting to take away his life, and he kills the man in self-defence, he is not guilty of murder."
The definition of insanity given by the "Century Dictionary" is probably as satisfactory as any:
"A seriously impaired condition of the mental functions, involving the intellect, emotions, and will, or one or more of these faculties, exclusive of temporary states produced by and accompanying intoxications or acute febrile diseases."
According to the rule of law,
"No act done by a person in a state of insanity can be punished as an offence."
The French law is slightly more specific:
"There can be no crime nor offence if the accused was in a state of madness at the time of the act."
More specific still is the law of Germany, yet it does not introduce knowledge or advertence as a criterion of responsibility:
"An act is not punishable when the person at the time of doing it was in a state of unconsciousness or disease of mind by which a free determination of the will was excluded".
In passing it may be observed that the laws of all countries assume that freedom of the will and moral responsibility are realities, and declare that punishment is to be inflicted only when the will has acted freely.
As a state of mental disorder, insanity has historically been attributed to supernatural or divine causes where theories of mental illnesses were not developed. Aberrant or destructive behaviour from an individual has been explained as another entity taking over their body (demonic possession) or as a mental unhinging inflicted by the gods, as punishment for wrongdoing. In these theories, insanity is an external condition overriding an otherwise sane mind (which may not ever manifest itself). That demonic possession occurs and can be a valid explanation for insanity in some cases is still asserted by some, but this view holds no more than minority acceptance.
To prove insanity, the accused must have suffered defects of reasons due to disease of the mind so as not to know the nature and quality of the act or even if he knew it, he did not know that it was wrong.
Is it, however, only in this general way, that is, through defective action of the intellect, that freedom and responsibility are lessened or destroyed in persons who are of unsound mind?
The English courts and almost all the courts of the United States answer this question in the negative. Their practice is to regard a defendant in a criminal case as responsible and punishable if at the time of the crime he knew the difference between right and wrong, or at least knew that his act was contrary to the civil or moral law. For example, a man who, labouring under the insane delusion that another has injured his reputation, kills the latter is presumed to be morally accountable if he realized that the killing was immoral or illegal.
In other word, the rule of the courts is that knowledge of wrong implies freedom to avoid it.
Medical authorities on insanity are practically unanimous in rejecting this judicial test. Experience, they maintain, shows that many insane persons who can think and reason correctly on every topic except that which forms the subject of their delusion are unable to determine their wills and direct their actions accordingly.
In an unsound mind normal intellection is not always accompanied by normal volition. We should expect to find this true from the very nature of the case. For if a diseased brain can interfere with normal thinking it can undoubtedly interfere likewise with normal willing. And there is in the nature of the situation no reason why this deranged condition of the will may not manifest itself in connexion with normal, as well as with abnormal, intellectual action.
The doctrine of moral philosophy and theology, which maintains that freedom of the will can be diminished or destroyed only through defective or confused action of the intellect. There is, however, no real opposition except on the assumption that the will and intellect in a diseased mind co-operate and harmonize as perfectly as in a mind that is sane. In the latter the will has power to determine itself in accordance with the ideas and motives presented by the intellect; in the former this power may sometimes be lacking.
In the observation of, John A. Ryan :, "It constitutes, therefore, an additional obstacle to freedom in so far as it interferes with normal intellectual action through abnormally strong passions and false ideas of right and wrong. Obviously, however, the mere fact that the affections, passions, or moral notions are perverted, for example, with regard to sexual matters, is not always evidence of true insanity, still less of that variety of insanity that directly hampers freedom of the will."
Maureen Farrell in her article, "God Is With Us": Hitler's Rhetoric and the Lure of "Moral Values" described the state of affairs in America,:
"In the meantime, however, for those who have not yet noticed, our own homegrown zealots -- those who advocate hatred in the name of the Lord -- have made considerable headway, with gays and lesbians currently at the center of legislation which, should it pass, will alter this country forever."
If President Bush is afflicted with ideational or impulsive insanity, the mere fact that his intelligence seemed to be normal, and all his acts deliberate, at the time of his self-destruction, is not always conclusive proof of volitional freedom and moral guilt.
At such, President Bush may not be guilty of murder on the ground of insanity or insane delusion, but he should be warded in a mental asylum for being INSANE. And America should not be ruled by someone who is under the influence of his own delusion and is consistently suffering from the defects of reasons due to the disease of the mind, unable to distinguish the quality and nature of his act; worst of all, did not know that it was wrong.
In observation of the case of Bush, we should consider Justice Stephen (2 HCL 160, n.1) statement for such person:
"My own opinion is that if a special divine order were given to a man to commit murder, I should certaintly hang him for it, unless I too got a special divine order not to hang him."
1 comment:
i thought our semi value minister here like to blame god... but looks like the president in the land of the free too?
Post a Comment