Suicide Bombers, amphetamines and other drug use and addiction
Tantalizing Clues to Alcoholism in Suicide Bombers
There’s probably addiction somewhere — but it could be either the bombers — or the mentors
“I became stronger. I climbed on top of the roof of the car. They gave me a weapon and put some marks on my face. I was no longer human. I could do anything.”
–A child-soldier given amphetamines and tranquilizers that enabled him and certain other children to go on murderous binges for days during the Sierra Leone, Africa civil war.
Radical Islam “is not about religion but about domination and control.”
–Salman Rushdie, interviewed by Shikha Dalmia in “Reason” magazine, August 2005
The recent string of London bombings brings terrorism close to home in areas we normally consider safe. Yet, if we think of terrorism in its broadest sense, we will find lesser instances in the “safest”areas. Only then can we detect a common thread among all forms of terrorism.
While definitions vary, most use the term to describe attacks on civilians by individuals or groups having political or religious motives. However, to understand its true nature, we need to expand the concept by temporarily ignoring the motive. An act of terrorism is always violent, the objective is intimidation, the perpetrator is non-governmental and the deed is unlawful. Although not mentioned in descriptions, capriciousness is a common denominator, because it serves to create anxiety among survivors. In a broad sense, we see instances of terrorism every day.
Most Christians, Protestants, Jews, Catholics, Muslims and people of every denomination act non-destructively when dealing with others. However, a few act very badly, some of the time, regardless of faith, using unlawful and erratic violence to intimidate. Usually, these are alcohol or other drug addicts, who comprise at least 85% of those committing domestic violence and whom we could call “in-house”terrorists, 80-90% of convicts responsible for what we might term “home-grown”street terrorism and the vast majority of those engaging in road rage, or “road terrorism.”While the misbehaviors vary by circumstance and environment, the effect — causing others harm and fear — is the same. There’s no reason the addiction at the root of these “other”forms of terrorism couldn’t spark destructive behaviors unique to a particular sect. Perhaps, the motive is not what it seems.
The most horrific tyrants in history have almost all been addicts of one stripe or another. So have the vast majority of serial and mass murderers. According to former gang members, virtually all gang-bangers use drugs, which causes them to act badly, the behavioral hallmark of early addictive use. Although national defense officials seem to think there is no specific profile of an Islamic terrorist, why would they, as a group, be any different from others who use violence to intimidate and create fear? While Muslims are not supposed to imbibe, some terrorists have reportedly been seen drinking heavily. Furthermore, there is no prohibition on the use of other drugs. Officials seem blind to the possibility that the common thread is the addictive use of drugs, a key behavioral symptom of which makes the user act like he is God or claims he acts under God’s orders. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the true motive is a need to wield power, which is usually driven by alcohol and other-drug addiction.
In October 2001 I wrote a piece on Osama Bin Laden (available at www.addictionreport.com; under “articles and interviewsâ€) in which I proposed the idea that he could be a hashish-opium addict. After all, the root of “assassin”is “Hashishiyn,”or user of hashish; Muslim members of what was essentially a terrorist group founded in 1090 used hashish before killing Christians. I also mentioned that some, but not all of the hijackers in the atrocities of 9-11 were seen partying and drinking heavily before the attacks.
I’ve written elsewhere (particularly in my first book, Drunks, Drugs and Debits) that followers need not be addicts if their leaders are. Consider Jim Jones of Jonestown, Guyana, who talked 900 men, women and children into committing Kool-Aid suicide. While Jones was an alcohol and amphetamine addict, by no means was this true of all 900 followers. Hitler, an amphetamine addict and Stalin, an alcoholic, couldn’t have had some 50 million murdered without a lot of help. Addicts are truly the world’s greatest salesmen and, in a bid to wield power, often talk others into doing things they would never otherwise consider.
While we might surmise that the suicide mentors and bomb-makers are addicts just like Hitler and Stalin, it’s impossible to obtain direct evidence and, therefore, absolute proof of addiction in people who are far removed from the public spotlight. On the other hand, there are tantalizing clues to addictive use of drugs in at least some of the bombers. “The Economist”magazine, in discussing the fact that “for every one of these footsoldiers of terror, tens of thousands of similar young men choose to lead uneventful and peaceful lives,”sought out the “subtle patterns and tendencies”that cause a few to convert to jihad. They found that some may drift into a life of petty crime, “or an unIslamic taste for alcohol and women.”Although those seeking terrorism mentors may become more devout, “the reverse is more likely. He turns to drink, drugs and petty crime before seeing a ‘solution’ to his problems”in radical Islam. Others are “rescued”from prisons filled with addicts, like shoe-bomber Richard Reid.
These comments by “The Economist”suggest their journalists are privy to some details of the private lives of suicide bombers that should interest us. In itself, drinking by a Muslim affords a high probability of addiction. In general, the greater the proscriptions on use in a culture or religion, the higher the odds of addiction in those who violate the rules. However, while an addict “rescued”by Islam is unlikely to drink regularly if at all, true recovery, along with an improvement in behaviors requires not only abstinence, but also ego-deflation. It’s unlikely that such deflation is part of the program in teaching would-be terrorists the art of mass murder.
In addition, there are intriguing clues from, surprisingly, cockfighting and African wars. The best roosters bred for cockfighting are injected with testosterone and methamphetamine. Likewise, in Sierra Leone’s recent civil war, children as young as seven were given cocaine, amphetamines and other drugs, driving murderous binges, some of which lasted for days. These children became known and feared for their extraordinary energy, lack of control and brutality. While this may work only with some children — probably, those with a genetic predisposition to addiction — we can’t be sure. The probabilities of addiction in those giving drugs to seven-year-olds, however, can’t be much less than 100%. In the U.S., almost every instance of very early adolescent drug use can be linked to an alcoholic or other-drug addicted parent. Why would those in contact with children in Sierra Leone be any different?
The use of amphetamines before committing violence can be found throughout recent history. Kamikaze pilots in WW II were charged up with meth. Suicide bombers in the Middle East were given amphetamines in the 1980s; Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turk who attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul in 1981, had amphetamines in his blood. Dr. Aziz Al-Abub, the psychiatrist behind the torture of hostages by terrorists in Beirut, Lebanon in the 1980s, provided amphetamines for suicide-bombers. I have previously reported on Yasir Arafat’s dilated pupils and almost-certain amphetamine addiction (Thorburn Addiction Report, November 2004). Hitler was on a combination of amphetamines and barbiturates as early as 1936. When we consider the fact that no one figured out that Hitler was on drugs until almost 35 years after his death, or suggested that the best explanation for Arafat’s behaviors was addiction, we should not be surprised at a scarcity of reports on use of psychoactive drugs by terrorists. Because almost everyone thinks bad morals or upbringing cause misbehaviors resulting in addiction, reversing cause and effect, virtually no one comprehends the significance of the use and that the biochemical processing of the drug may be the cause of horrific behaviors.
Osama Bin Laden’s chief lieutenant, Dr. al-Zawahiri, is a psychiatrist. As such, he has access to and extensive knowledge of pharmaceutical drugs. In Afghanistan, the main drug problem is not addiction to opium or its derivatives, but rather to prescription tranquilizers. These include the benzodiazepines, the most commonly known being Valium and Xanax, and also the date-rape drug flunitrazepam, the trade name of which is Rohypnol. Ten times more potent than Valium, this is often used with heroin and opium. Paradoxically, although classified as a depressant (hence its use as a date-rape drug), it causes excitability, agitation and aggressive behaviors in some users, to the point at which extremely violent crimes may be committed without fear or regret. Like alcohol, also classified as a depressant and in what we might call the Heisenberg drug uncertainty principle, its correct classification is dependent upon the user. Bin Laden and the top brass in Al Qaeda could be using some combination of these drugs — and, perhaps, giving some or all of them to suicide bombers.
If I am right, Islamic terrorism is motivated by an addiction-driven need for domination and control, which is no different from that of the street thug or in-home terrorist. And as is true for psychotropic drug addicts everywhere, it’s a model that predicts that the person on the drug is capable of anything. This should be at the forefront of our thinking in dealing with radical Islam as we approach an age where nuclear terrorism becomes increasingly possible.
Postscript
Cockfight survivors, generally thought to be too violent to be saved, can be taught to co-exist peacefully with others of their kind. They are detoxed off the meth and taught that bad behavior will not be tolerated. A rehab center for gamecocks reports that “even the most ferocious fowl take at most several weeks to pacify.”The co-director of the Eastern Shore Chicken Sanctuary in Princess Anne, Md., Pattrice Jones, says that “roosters fight from fear of death, not from natural aggression”and “after they’re rehabbed, they end up being the sweetest roosters here.”Meth makes people — and perhaps roosters — paranoid, living in fear of death. It may be that addicts, regardless of species, are all the same — monsters when using, kind and gentle when not.