Muslim Medical Students Islamomatic Oath

The BMA, has confirmed that Muslim medical students and professionals have been allowed to hijack the medical field in Britain. It is kind of funny, they have no restriction on who they are going to kill, but they are so concerned about who they will help. As a Doctor, they are bound to help anyone that needs it…

But then again, look at the last batch of terrorist doctors that attacked England.

They are changing the rules to suit themselves with everything from selecting which disease they will learn about to refusal of patients based on gender. They have taken the Hippocratic Oath and thrown it away.

The new Islamomatic Oath:

I swear by Allah, the One True God, by Mohammad, Ahmadinejad and Osama and I take to witness all the terrorists, all the martyrs, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.

“To consider dear to me as my parents him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and if necessary to blow him up in a public place; to sacrifice his children as my own brothers, to teach them the art if they so desire without fee or written promise; to impart to my sons and the sons of the master who taught me and the martyrs who have enrolled themselves and have agreed to the die in the name of Allah, but to these alone the precepts and the instruction. I will prescribe regimen for the good of fellow Muslims according to my ability and my judgement and do harm to those that are infidels. To please no one will I build a bomb that does not explode. Nor will I give a woman permission to take off her burka in public. But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art. I will imbed nails in every bomb I build, even when the target is civilians;

Some Muslim medical students are refusing to attend lectures or answer exam questions on alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases because they claim it offends their religious beliefs.

Some trainee doctors say learning to treat the diseases conflicts with their faith, which states that Muslims should not drink alcohol and rejects sexual promiscuity.

A small number of Muslim medical students have even refused to treat patients of the opposite sex. One male student was prepared to fail his final exams rather than carry out a basic examination of a female patient.

The religious objections by students have been confirmed by the British Medical Association (BMA) and General Medical Council (GMC), which both stressed that they did not approve of such actions.

function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUrl,articleId) { var newWin =’template/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?id=’+articleId+’&&offset=0&&sectionName=UKHealth’,’mywindow’,’menubar=0,resizable=0,width=615,height=655′); }

Related Links

It will intensify the debate sparked last week by the disclosure that Sainsbury’s is permitting Muslim checkout operators to refuse to handle customers’ alcohol purchases on religious grounds. It means other members of staff have to be called over to scan in wine and beer for them at the till.

Critics, including many Islamic scholars, see the concessions as a step too far, and say Muslims are reneging on their professional responsibilities.

This weekend, however, it emerged that Sainsbury’s is also allowing its Muslim pharmacists to refuse to sell the morning-after pill to customers. At a Sainsbury’s store in Nottingham, a pharmacist named Ahmed declined to provide the pill to a female reporter posing as a customer. A colleague explained to her that Ahmed did not sell the pill for “ethical reasons”. Boots also permits pharmacists to refuse to sell the pill on ethical grounds.

The BMA said it had received reports of Muslim students who did not want to learn anything about alcohol or the effects of overconsumption. “They are so opposed to the consumption of it they don’t want to learn anything about it,” said a spokesman.

The GMC said it had received requests for guidance over whether students could “omit parts of the medical curriculum and yet still be allowed to graduate”. Professor Peter Rubin, chairman of the GMC’s education committee, said: “Examples have included a refusal to see patients who are affected by diseases caused by alcohol or sexual activity, or a refusal to examine patients of a particular gender.”

He added that “prejudicing treatment on the grounds of patients’ gender or their responsibility for their condition would run counter to the most basic principles of ethical medical practice”.

Shazia Ovaisi, a GP in north London, said one of her male Muslim contemporaries at medical school failed to complete his training because he refused to examine a woman patient as part of his final exams.

“He was academically gifted, one of the best students, but gradually he got in with certain Islamic groups and started to become more radical,” said Ovaisi.

“You could see there was a change in his personality as time went by. During the final exams he was supposed to treat a female patient in hospital. He refused to do it, even though it would have been a very basic examination, nothing intrusive.

“But he refused and as a result he failed his exams. I was quite shocked and disappointed about it because I don’t see there being anything in our religion that prohibits us from examining male and female patients.”

Both the Muslim Council of Britain and Muslim Doctors and Dentist Association said they were aware of students opting out but did not support them.

Dr Abdul Majid Katme, of the Islamic Medical Association, said: “To learn about alcohol, to learn about sexually transmitted disease, to learn about abortion, it gives us more evidence to campaign against it. There is a difference between learning and practising.

“It is obligatory for Muslim doctors and students to learn about everything. The prophet said, ‘Learn about witchcraft, but don’t practise it’.”


Daily Kos Resorts to Personal Attacks to Discredit Military

Sounds like the Daily Kos is being funded by too… Then again they two peas in pod… Another POS article by the DK… I guess this really shows how the DK supports our troops…


Phonied-Up Republican Soldier – Yes, Phonied-Up

Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 11:35:00 AM PDT

What more can I give you people? I put in the effort and then I slip in a tasteful photographic study sometime in the late comments. What else can I do? It’s about Lieutenant Peter Hegseth, a smarmy creep who runs one of the most influential Republican 527s right now. But sure, read one of the short ones about somebody liveblogging their cat. Okay, I would click that. But you know what I mean.

Hi  ,Mom

First, I’d like to thank Mr. Hegseth for his service to the nation as a soldier. He has a Bronze Star for meritorious service. Indeed. I wish he had left it at that. But yes I mean it and yes I’m sticking by it. He lied about who he was while in uniform and he has consistently misrepresented his military experience.

Indeed, scant months after he went to active duty Peter Hegseth made it his business to break Federal law – certainly in spirit, possibly in letter – by constantly engaging in partisan political activity while on active duty at least by my understanding the following:

“DOD defines “partisan political activity” as “activity supporting or relating to candidates representing, or issues specifically identified with, national or State political parties and associated or ancillary organizations.”

Naming your Iraqi interpreter “John Kerry” is funny – for you – in Iraq. Reporting that fact to the Family Research Council is not, perhaps, in the best tradition of a non-partisan military. And suggesting in your hometown paper that Senator Durbin “handed our enemies a propaganda victory” is quite clearly inappropriate.

It is unclear to me how Mr. Hegseth had time to complete the four years of active duty required by his ROTC scholarship. And yet this person had the gall to argue with General Wesley Clark – 34-year  veteran who won the Silver Star for Valor for commanding his unit after being shot 4 times – that the Webb amendment would give too much time off to soldiers and ruin unit cohesion. This he knew from his “firsthand experiences” Of course Pete switched units after just a few of his  NINE MONTHS in Iraq, so obviously, well, he has no idea that the hell he’s talking about.

Hegseth “debating”:

But you- it’s oversimplifying the problem, oversimplifying the solution to something. What you have got right now is, you’ve got a one-for-one ratio that the Congress is trying to legislate, that when you bring troops over there, you, we can bring them back and have them stay the exact amount of time that they were in Iraq

Clark should have fired his staff on the spot for allowing him to “debate” this tyke of a soldier. There’s still time to fire them, General Clark.
Hegseth is 27-years-old, trained and fit. He shouts his patriotism at the top of his lungs. He presumes to “represent the troops”.  Is it astonishing that this young man does not volunteer to go back to Iraq? Should we be surprised he has only barely fulfilled his obligation to the US military, if indeed he has? No, of course not. He’s a Republican and patriotism is, to him, a “broad phylactery”

Matthew 23:

For they preach but they do not practice. / They tie up heavy burdens (hard to carry) and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them./ All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. / They love places of honor at banquets, seats of honor in synagogues, / greetings in marketplaces

I ask you, is this not a fetching couple?. Lovely girl.  

And let’s talk about that military career I thanked Lieutenant Hegseth for. It was laudable service, but unusual. At Princeton, the Family Research Council had Hegseth on a Witherspoon Fellowship. Young Hegseth was also on an ROTC scholarship. After all, Princeton is VERY expensive. But as much as Hegseth flaunts his five or six months of combat experience, he did not feel the need, while in ROTC, to do any of that ranger training or get a parachutist badge, as one of his  Princeton?ROTC classmates,

who is a girl, did.

And why would he? He had basketball to play. And after officer basic, he was headed to the New Jersey National Guard, marriage to his beautiful sweetheart and a job at Bear Stearns, the investment bank. But, one year after the initiation of the war in Iraq, this soldier has the…fortune?…misfortune?…of being called up and sent to dangerous duty in sunny Cuba – on guard detail at Guantanamo Bay.

From “The Nation” Magazine:

….with financial backing from well-heeled sources, conservative students founded a magazine called The Princeton Tory, which once declared “Open Season on Liberals,” featuring a photograph of a rifle-toting hunter on its cover.

Does Anybody Have That Graphic?

Oh, did I forget to mention that Hegseth had been the editor at the Princeton Tory? Yes, he’s always been very keen indeed on politics. It was his major and he “plans to pursue a Masters in Public Policy at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton” I wonder if anyone knew that when they sent him to Guantanamo – for example, Princeton alumni . Who could it have been? Not Rumsfeld, obviously, he wouldn’t have known about some kid. Bolten? Seems unlikely. Mitch Daniels? No. But there’s another fellow I’m trying to thing of. Not undergraduate, but Wilson School…hmm…MPA, PHD, spoke at the Wilson School. Eh, can’t remember. Maybe it will come to me later.

Anyway, Hegseth immediately used his estimable writing skills to become a flak for the Administration from the second he got home (if not before). After 12 months. In Cuba. During a War. Nice patriotism, Jackass.

Then comes a story you’ll find repeated across the Internet:

“I was drinking my coffee, and I opened the paper to read that a suicide bomber in Iraq had just blown up 18 kids and one American soldier,” he said. “It hit me: this is the face of pure evil. An enemy that would something like this has to be defeated.”That day was one of the most difficult of my life, ” he added. “I had to go to my wife and say, ‘Meredith, I love you, but I’m seeking your permission to volunteer for duty in Iraq.’ “

I love that story. This is Meredith:

I dunno, Pete, I prefer a slightly curvaceous girl, myself…………… ………………………………………………………………………………………. ………..

….um, what was I saying?

Anyway, after Pete “volunteered” to leave his new bride behind and actually finish his…um…military oblig……………..

I was going to be snarkier here, but I keep looking at that picture and admiring the young man’s sacrifice.

But whatever personal treasure…….he may have left behind, Hegseth was not going just anywhere. He was going to the “IRON RAKKASANS” – 3rd Battalion, One-Hundred and First Got-Dam Airborne. The only airborne unit to have served in every American war since its inception. Storied. Heroic.


No, not the Rakkasans, of course. Just a little odd that he joined them. Because I’m adding up the months….hmm….Where did the Airborne training come in? Parachutist’s badge? Certainly not Ranger school. Advanced infantry training? Because the Rakkasans are a pretty hard-core airborne group, so, you’d think that a combat lieutenant…..

Oh, wait, NOW I remember! The Princeton alum who might have made note of young Hegseth:

General David Petraeus! He commanded the Rakkasans!

After his brutal year in the Guantanamo sun, and three months at Bear Stearns, Hegseth was off to command a combat platoon in one of the toughest, most highly-trained light infantry units in the Army. Although he himself may for some reason have been just a touch light on training. We’ll see that won’t stop him.

Fantastic. I’m sure his unit did well. Thanks again, Lieutenant No-Training. “After six months of hunting insurgents, I will now spend my last six months helping Iraq get back on its feet” – he told his funders at the Family Research Counil. And then, it was back to Media Flak City. This time as a Phony Banker! The Defense department was so psyched about it, they put out a glossy and misleading profile of this important cog in their anti-terror machine

U.S. Army
1st Lt. Peter Hegseth
New York Banker Helps Rebuild Iraq Infrastructure

By Sgt. Waine D. Haley
133rd Mobile Public Affairs Detachment
SAMARRA, Iraq, March 23, 2006 — A New York City banker steps into the Army’s Civil Affairs world to help stabilize and rebuild Samarra’s infrastructure.

Three months at Bear Stearns. Three months. He’s a fucking banker.

“I’ve been in this position for about three weeks. This position continuously develops into different responsibilities.” With a background in banking and politics, Hegseth has an insight into many aspects of civil affairs. One of his many tasks is to evaluate the cities’ ability to sustain a financial institution. “There are no banks in Samarra,” said Hegseth. “We are trying to evaluate if it’s feasible to open one here. Security is a big issue with that – as are most things in Samarra.”


Hegseth and the Civil Affairs team are trying to coach the leadership of Samarra on how to obtain the funding to bring the city up to proper standards. At this point they are relying on Coalition Forces for this funding.

How to obtain funding – which he would know about, because he’s a banker.

“We don’t want a lot of U.S. money coming into the area,” Hegseth said. “With this money comes inflated prices and more security issues. For us to think we can just give them money is over-simplifying the problem.”

We don’t want money coming in and the soldiers don’t need rest. The key is not to over-simplify the problem.

“I majored in politics in college, so I’ve been very interested in how the government and how politics work,” Hegseth said. “Starting at the base level of the democratic institution has been a great learning experience.”

As long as you learned something, Pete. That’s the important thing. A whole country just for Petey’s resume.

Hegseth said working in this environment has taught him what is important personally and professionally. He said the leadership challenges and problem solving he has learned here will assist him when he gets home. “If you can solve a problem in Samarra, you should be able to solve a problem in the states,”

And if you can’t?…You’re, um,…a useless fraud? Oh, well how would Pete know anyway? He was gone three months later.

You’re gonna love this one:

“Government needs to provide security and basic services,” Hegseth said. “In America we tend to overlook that.”

Are you fucking kidding me?

When the young flak returned, which career do you think he pursued: military or banking? That’s right, he was a flak for the Manhattan Institute on the ill effects of liberalism in universities. To the extent, that is, that he did anything at all for them other than to collect a check and take over Sons of Confederate Veterans oh, no I’m sorry that’s the racist, sexist veterans group registered from the same address. I mean “Swiftboat Veterans For Truth, oh, no sorry, those are the military liars who had the same site creator, administrator, fundraising and PR people, The Donatelli Group. No Hegseth took over Veterans For Freedom and then he left the Manhattan institute after the trustees gave him a href=”00,000 No, not HIM, sorry. He left the Manhattan Institute, created by Former CIA Director Bob ““I Invented The Car Bomb, Shiite-Killer”” Casey and the trustees gave VFF a lot of money. But all these things I’ve mentioned are causally unconnected.

Then, because of his very short time in Iraq, paucity of military command training and absolute political bias, the Wall Street Journal published his article about banking. No, sorry again. He was a phony banker. They published his opinion piece about why we needed more troops.

But even the “liberal” Washington Post gave this young rascal with no qualifications or intent to do anything but FLAK for the Republicans a bunch of FREE space on their opinion page. It’s awful when papers undercharge political groups for space on their opinion pages, isn’t it?

Here’s my favorite quote:

Iraq today is the front line of a global jihad being waged against America and its allies. Both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have said so.

It’s cute. It’s like he’s saying “Dad said so” – as long as you don’t mind the idea of US policy being dictated by pig-ignorant, violent fundamentalists.

Which he clearly doesn’t.

Daily Kos or Our Troops?

The Daily Kos, has published another great piece. DK, it is not a choice of Contractors or Our Troops. The liberal media is why the recent Blackwater incident on the radar. The only ones claiming it is a choice between the two is the liberal crap being published, like this piece.

It is you that are not on the same side, and haven’t been ever. This story seems like politcal posturing for the Hillary Camp, who wants to abolish the use of all security firms. Who’s going to take their place? Maybe you can volunteer Kos, then you can be in Iraq the next time Michelle Malkin goes there and maybe you can be assigned to protect her.

Blackwater or *our* troops?

Fri Oct 05, 2007 at 04:10:43 PM PDT

Given the choice, the wingnuts always choose Blackwater over our own troops. They’re not on the same side, and haven’t been ever.

“It was obviously excessive, it was obviously wrong,” said the U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the incident remains the subject of several investigations. “The civilians that were fired upon, they didn’t have any weapons to fire back at them. And none of the IP (Iraqi Police) or any of the local security forces fired back at them.”

The whole “screw them” thing four years ago was exactly that — the wingers were more outraged over four Blackwater mercenaries killed than they were about the five Marines that had died that very same day.

I was pissed that the sacrifice of those Marines merited less attention that those of a private, profit-motivated, unaccountable militia.

It’s always been clear where the US military has stood in regards to the mercenaries. Soldiers complain about them:

“They act like they’re God’s gift to combat operations” complained one soldier to me, “Swanning around with weapons and equipment every bit as powerful as anything in our armoury, but without any of the legal  framework that we have to work within. They’re rude, aggressive and to be honest, their attitudes piss us guys off so I dread to think how the Iraqis view them”.

The top brass have been complaining about their ill effect for years:

In the post-9/11 world, demand for the commandos is not only soaring within the military. Private firms and government organizations – including the CIA – are luring away troops with bigger salaries.
“It is a very lucrative opportunity right now for special operations folks to get out and take very high-paying jobs” with private security firms, says General Brown. A 20-year veteran leaving Special Operations receives about $23,000 in retirement pay, but can earn $100,000 to $200,000 in private industry, military officials say.

With no end to the demand in sight, the military must carefully allocate SOF while increasing their ranks. To fill the current gap, it is accepting added risks with less experienced forces.

And if anyone cares (usually they don’t), the Iraqis have been complaining about them for years. This was from back in 2005:

Soldiers have for some time been angered by the salaries earned by the estimated 20,000 armed contractors working in Iraq, many of whom are ex-servicemen.

It is common for them to earn £750 a day. They provide protection for senior government officials and reconstruction projects.

They are even more unpopular with Iraqis. Interior ministry officials say at least 12 Iraqi civilians are killed by contractors every week in the capital.

“Enough is enough,” said an official at the interior ministry. “We are looking at ways to tighten weapons licenses, and to punish the worst cases. The culture of impunity must stop.”

A senior member of one private security firm in Baghdad said: “Like it or not we are combatants. If our guarantees are removed, we would have to leave.”

But given the choice between the mercenaries who impede the war effort (and profit the longer it is prolongued), and our troops trying to win, Republicans and their apologists always side with the mercenaries.


Baghdad Diarist Story Still Not Retracted

The New Republic still has not retracted its stories  or lies about the authenticity of the Baghdad Diarist. They have now been caught on their claim that Beauchamp has been cut off from the world and not allowed to communicate with anyone by the Army. Yet another story buried by the Mass Media.

Snorting at The New Republic, take two: Scott Thomas Beauchamp is not incommunicado

By Michelle Malkin  •  October 5, 2007 08:05 AM

the new republic
Sinking ship

Paging Franklin Foer, paging Franklin Foer….

Contrary to The New Republic’s claim that fabulist Scott Thomas Beauchamp is forbidden by the military from contacting the magazine or any other media or anyone else in the outside world, Blackfive blogger Laughing Wolf, embedded in Iraq, met face-to-face with him. LW writes that “he is not being held incommunicado in an undisclosed location with Dick Cheney.”

Bob Owens is waiting, waiting,waiting:

Just how long does it take to pen a retraction?

I only ask because it’s been roughly a month since The New Republic had their first solid chance to interview Scott Thomas Beauchamp since he returned from duty at COP Ellis.

Since then, he’s been online–hence, available–at least several days every week, including today. Beauchamp even had time to talk with Laughing Wolf from Blackfive as recently as September 30. Why not TNR?

Is Scott not talking to Franklin Foer, or is Franklin Foer simply unwilling to print what Scott has to say?

Or is Foer hiding under his desk, praying for all this to just go away and hoping his advertisers don’t get wind?


Earlier this week: Snorting at The New Republic.

Flashback: Franklin The Duck…

Fireworks Kids – Update

Michelle Malkin has a couple of updates on the Goose Creek Fireworks kids

Anyone notice the Mass Media is still in denial over this case. One brief mention shortly after it happened and nothing since. It is the local media that has kept this alive so people know about it.

Does anyone know if CAIR is still around, they have been awefully quite about this, since the indictment…

Curiouser and curiouser. As long as the Goose Creek Two and their families arouse suspicion and the mystery unfolds, I’ll continue to cover them. The latest development in the case involve suspect Yousef Megahed and his brother, Yahia.

Megahed’s bond was delayed late last night over after the federal judge in the trial heard new evidence involving Megahed’s alleged research into high-powered rifles:

A federal judge in Tampa on Friday, heard new evidence against Megahed that, in addition to the video includes research allegedly done by Megahed on high powered rifles. Prosecutors say Goose Creek police say they found the information on Megahed at the time he and fellow University of South Florida student Ahmed Mohamed were arrested in August. Evidence also includes a stop the two made at an Ocala Wal-Mart on their way to South Carolina and a weapon prosecutors say Megahed stored at a rented storage unit.

Fireworks. Just fireworks. Just two students on a leisurely drive to the beach. That’s all. Nothing to see here. Move along…

Separately, local Florida outlets are reporting on a strange video of Megahed’s brother, Yahia. Via Fox 13 News in Tampa:

An odd video raises new questions about the USF students who caused a national security scare. Ahmed Mohamed and Yousef Megahed are already charged with driving explosives across state lines. Now prosecutors say Megahed’s brother tried to send a sinister code through a jail-house camera.

Tampa Bay 10 also has the story, but dismisses the video:

The federal government says a tape of Yousef Megahed’s brother Yahia shows him using secret code through facial movements and then sign language to communicate with Megahed. The government told a federal judge, that’s why Megahed is a danger to the community.

And when the government first played that tape of what it said was Megahed’s brother sending secret signals to him when he was talking to him while he was in jail it looked as if it had a real smoking gun. Unfortunately for the government at the time the tape was made, Megahed was in his cell and couldn’t see it and Megahed’s brother says he was just seeing himself on camera and making faces because he was bored.

Adam Allen, Megahead’s attorney, says he thought it was rather funny and comical that the government would make such assumptions of a 24-year-old. Although Megahed’s attorney wouldn’t go as far as saying the government tape was embarrassing, he can’t understand how prosecutors could tell a federal judge that this was part of dark conspiracy.

Yahia Megahed, he was waiting to talk to his brother in jail, it was boring situation, and he was waiting around for 15 minutes and was just playing around with the camera. But what about the sign language he is supposedly doing? Megahed says he doesn’t know sign language so it is impossible for him to do any.

You should watch the video for yourselves and see if you believe Yahia Megahed. I’m posting screenshots. Just goofing off? Rather extraordinary, precise, and deliberate for supposedly random gestures from a guy who claims he doesn’t know sign language:








The Damascus Trail – Homocide Bombers Pathway to Heaven

A homocidal maniac goes to a TV station and tells the reporting team that he is going to go to the library and kill everyone  that he can before police shoot him. He goes on to describe how he helped is brother do the same last year. Does the reporting team have an obligation to notify police and prevent this killing spree from happening? If they do not go and tell the police and provide all the information, is the reporting team liable for the murders that will be commited? Do they have to disclose the information that this person was an accomplice to the prior murders.

At least in the US, this would be premeditated murder and the reporter would not be protected by the law, since the reporter knew a crime was already commited and another crime was going to be commited.

I find it amazing, all the reporters that meet with terrorists and nothing is done about it. These were prearrange interviews. By reporting this, these reports have aided the enemy and provided comfort to them. Here the London Times has an interview, a last supper if you will, with a homocide bomber who is planning on following in his lunitic brothers footsteps proudly. Yet nothing is done about it.

Key points

  1. All well educated
  2. None are poor
  3. Only one was an Iraqi, part of Saddam’s military
  4. The families of two of them are proud they are going to die
  5. Two of them had been arrested and were in custody, but got out of prison
  6. The Imans are the ones fueling the decision to become homocide bombers
  7. The strife between the different sects of Islam is the driving force of the Imans, which means that it is not about the US invasion, but rather religious dominance, so even if the US pulls out, this will continue on

IN a small flat in Damascus, a young man in jeans and T-shirt draws frequently on a Gauloises cigarette as he describes how he dressed his brother in a suicide belt and watched him blow up some American soldiers at a drinks stall in Iraq.

The young man calls himself Ahmed. He is 23 and he has a degree in chemistry. He knows all about explosives.

Last year, he says coolly, he took 15kg of TNT, packed it into pouches with some nails and strapped the bomb to his 19-year-old brother’s waist.

There was never any doubt that it would go off. Ahmed placed detonators in both his brother’s trouser pockets and a third in a shirt pocket, just in case the others failed.

Finally, he slipped wire rings on to his brother’s fingers and attached them to a fourth detonator in the palm of his hand. The thinking was that even if his brother were shot, he would clench his fist and the TNT would still explode.

Ahmed had borrowed a drinks stall used by American convoys on the road that winds north from Baghdad past Saddam Hussein’s home town of Tikrit. His brother was instructed to grab some bottles of cola in his free hand and head for a group of soldiers taking a break from their journey.

Go sell them some Pepsi,” Ahmed told him gently. “We will meet in heaven, you and I, and that’s a promise.”

Ahmed says his brother kissed him, turned and walked away without a moment’s hesitation.

Did he not long to call his brother back, I ask? The question brings tears to his eyes.

“He had a smile on his face,” Ahmed replies. “He knew he was crossing to a better place where he would meet his maker as a martyr.”

The emotion passes and Ahmed talks with steady self-assurance about his plans to follow his brother’s example. He, too, will take Americans with him when he dies, he says. His ambition is to blast some CIA men to smithereens.

The flat where we met was rented by a handler in Damascus, the Syrian capital, who channels aspiring “martyrs” to insurgent groups such as Ahmed’s.

Our encounter was arranged as part of a four-week Sunday Times investigation into the world’s biggest suicide bombing campaign. More than 1,300 bombers are said to have struck on foot or in vehicles since the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 – more than all the other suicide bombings of the past 20 years put together.

The number this year promises to be higher than ever. The bombers are estimated to have killed and injured more than 4,000 people in the first nine months. Their targets have ranged from lines of police recruits in and around Baghdad to an entire village near the Syrian border where up to 500 died.

So who are these bombers and why do they do it? How are they organised? And how much impact are they really making on a war that is sucking ever larger numbers of suicidal volunteers from across the Middle East into Iraq’s vortex of violence.

We tracked down three bombers in our search for answers. The first interviews of their kind with men passing through Syria on their way to die in Iraq, they confounded expectations.

These were no psychopathic loners from the ghetto, but articulate, middle-class men in their twenties and early thirties who had come from good homes and gone to university. One was a newly married accountant.

Yet all had reached the chilling conclusion that killing “sinners” would transport them to paradise. None had the slightest inkling that they might be exploited by Al-Qaeda and other battle-hardened groups which will probably use these fresh-faced idealists for no higher purpose than to sustain the most brutal sectarian conflict of our age.

SIPPING a Turkish coffee and smoking a hubble-bubble pipe, the middle-aged man waiting for us at a cafe in Damascus 13 days ago could have been any commercial supplier breaking his Ramadan fast after work.

But Abu Ziad’s is no ordinary business. He takes eager volunteers, inveigles them into Iraq for a fee and delivers them to insurgents who consign them to a bloody death with clinical efficiency.

His network includes the imams who drum up the volunteers and forgers who create new identities for their journey across the 390-mile border with Iraq.

Then there are the officials he bribes to turn a blind eye, and insurgent groups ranging from the pan-Arab, fundamentalist Al-Qaeda in Iraq to the Iraqi nationalist 1920 Revolution Brigade, started by former members of Saddam’s armed forces.

Abu Ziad appears to receive no help from the Syrian authorities, which have been accused by some in the West of aiding the flow of terrorists into Iraq. On the contrary, he seems to live in fear of discovery by Syria’s security apparatus.

We left the cafe in a taxi and alighted in a street crowded with late-night shoppers. There we switched to a second car. Only when Abu Ziad was satisfied that we were not being followed did he direct the driver to the flats where we met our first bomber.

We shook hands with Ahmed and sat on sofas, eyeing each other anxiously, while Abu Ziad turned up the sound of a soap opera on television to render our conversation inaudible through the thin walls.

I told Ahmed that he was looking at me with a hard expression on his face. Had I offended him in some way?

“No,” he said with a grin. But the smile vanished as quickly as it had come and did not return during our five hours together.

Ahmed is an Iraqi whose small, dark eyes reflect the horrors he has witnessed. He comes from a military family. While he studied for his degree in Baghdad, he served in the Fedayeen, or “Men of Sacrifice”, a paramili-tary group loyal to Saddam.

When Saddam was toppled in the spring of 2003, Ahmed was outraged. Although he was little more than 18 years old, his father encouraged him to gather together a group of neighbours to resist the occupation in their Sunni area of Baghdad. For their first attack, they rigged up a box of grenades to be detonated as a US troop-carrier passed by. They called their weapon the “fearsome invisible enemy” and used it again and again.

Ahmed’s tiny band of followers eventually joined forces with two other insurgent groups and extended their operations beyond the capital, but he was arrested near Tikrit.

It was in prison that Ahmed first heard about suicide bombing. His interest was stoked by clerics whose fiery sermons the Americans obligingly photocop-ied and distributed without the slightest understanding of their destructive force. Seminars followed on the making of suicide belts, the selection of targets and the timing of attacks.

By the time Ahmed emerged from jail, he had not only been radicalised but was armed with deadly new skills. Arrested a second time, he tricked his way to freedom by promising to inform on his fellow insurgents. Instead, he presented them with a proposal to carry out the group’s first suicide mission himself.

His men objected, reasoning that as their “emir”, or commander, he was too valuable to be sacrificed. The task should fall to one of their number, they insisted.

Ahmed now made his fateful decision. To show the men that he valued them as much as his own flesh and blood, he chose his brother for the attack.

As the teenager strolled casually into the group of soldiers on the Tikrit road, cola bottles in one hand and detonator in the other, Ahmed heard the Americans asking him what he wanted. This was the predetermined cue for detonation.

Ahmed and his men turned from the scene, climbed into a waiting vehicle and drove off.

He recounted the details to his father, who expressed satisfaction. But his mother was distraught: “One minute she cried at her loss and the next she ululated with joy and pride.”

The couple are soon to lose Ahmed, their only remaining son, though he has sisters aged 12 and 9. While Ahmed’s girlfriend, a university student in Mosul, knows nothing about his impending suicide mission, his father has said he will be proud if it proves “worthy” – in other words, if he kills the enemy.

The determination to kill Americans was common to the three bombers interviewed for this article, but is highly unlikely to be fulfilled by all of them.

Fewer than a quarter of suicide bombers succeed in blowing up coalition forces, who are relatively well shielded behind concrete barriers or the armour plating of their vehicles.

The bombers are much likelier to be deployed against Iraqi Shi’ites; soldiers, police, officials or even civilians. According to academics who have studied the Sunni insurgency, the main aim is not to avenge the destruction inflicted by US forces, but to broaden the sectarian divide, perpetuate the cycle of hatred and undermine confidence in the ability of the Shi’ite-led government to restore order.

And so a warm welcome awaits the volunteers streaming into Iraq from other countries to mutilate the Shi’ites. The insurgents embrace men such as Abu Ibrahim, the newly wed accountant, before giving the order to kill and die. ABU IBRAHIM, 28, our second bomber, was due to leave his native Syria last weekend for Iraq. He wanted to complete his mission by the end of Ramadan in the middle of this month. But first, he said, he would have to do something about his bride.

Speaking at his elegant, traditional home in a town we agreed not to identify, Abu Ibrahim, whose family owns two wholesale fruit businesses bringing in $500 a day, explained that he had become engaged two months ago to an educated young woman. “She loves me and I just adore her,” he said. “I am crazy about her.”

He listed the dowry items he had promised her, as perhaps only an accountant in love would do: gold jewellery to the value of $1,300, clothes worth $600, items of furniture for their home and so on.

They have undergone an Islamic wedding ceremony but Abu Ibrahim refused to consummate the marriage and intended to divorce her before he left so that she could find another husband, her honour intact.

“She begged me to let her come along so that we could carry out a joint mission,” he said proudly. “She told me that would be the best honeymoon, in heaven together.”

Instead, he was arranging to make sure that she was financially secure after he had gone.

Asked why he had married her when his suicide mission was already planned, he cited Islamic doctrine: he must carry on in life as if he would live for eternity but he must also prepare for his end as if each day were his last.

Abu Ibrahim’s radicalisation came in two stages. “I had no Islamic inclinations at the start of the war,” he said softly. But when he sat with his parents watching television as the first bombs of the Shock and Awe campaign fell on the country next to his, the strength of his reaction took him by surprise.

“I felt a tightening in my chest and a feeling of personal offence and injury, as though every Iraqi woman was my mother, wife or sister, every little boy my young brother and every old man my father,” he said. “I spent all night crying in my bed, and in the morning I left the house and applied for a passport.”

He had decided to fight in Iraq. His mother gave her blessing, saying she wished for Allah to accept him as a martyr if need be but that she would never forgive him if he became a prisoner.

His father, however, was so strongly opposed that he hid Abu Ibrahim’s passport. Abu Ibrahim stole it back and joined about 400 fellow fighters in the north of the country.

He described with bitterness how he witnessed the defeat of Saddam’s forces near Mosul and then found himself detained, just as his mother had feared.

Now came the second part of his transformation into a jihadi. In prison he met Sunni clerics from Saudi Arabia and other countries. These were followers of the Wahhabi tradition of Islam which casts Shi’ite Muslims as heretics. They were also supporters of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They idolised Osama Bin Laden and lauded the September 11 attacks on America.

According to Mohammed Hafez, a visiting professor at the University of Missouri and author of Suicide Bombers in Iraq, the Strategy and Ideology of Martyrdom, the influence of the Saudi Wahhabis is key to any understanding of the phenomenon. His study of 139 suicide bombings found that 53 were carried out by Saudis, compared with 18 by Iraqis, seven by Syrians and four by Jordanians.

The Saudis had already fought foreign jihads in Afghanistan, Bos-nia and Chechnya, Hafez said. In Iraq they exploited the culture of martyrdom established by Palestinian suicide bombers. The targeting of so many Shi’ites has been consistent with their beliefs.

“Wahhabi tradition sees the ascendancy of Shia as [a] worse evil than occupation by infidels, because Shia are heretics and apostates,” said Hafez.

So it was that if the black-bearded Abu Ibrahim went ahead with his journey as planned last week, he was bound for Al-Qaeda in Iraq; and regardless of his determination to slaughter American soldiers, the chances were that he would end up being directed towardsa Shi’ite target instead.

He had no regrets about his impending death: “There is nothing stronger than my love for God and seeking martyrdom,” he said brightly.

As for his wife, he had already thought of his last message to her: “If Allah accepts my martyrdom, then I shall ensure that you are one of those I name to be salvaged and brought to heaven when your time comes.”

THESE, then, are the factors driving the bombers inexorably onwards. First, fury over the occupation, fuelled by images of the dead on Arab TV stations and fundamentalist websites, and fanned by radical imams who damn the “infidels” and praise Al-Qaeda to the heavens.

Second, burgeoning Wahhabism has played into the hands of Sunni extremist groups, directing their attacks increasingly at Iraq’s predominantly Shi’ite security forces.

Third, the groups know that suicide attacks are easy, cheap and effective. It is hard to defend against them. They terrify the enemy, cow the general population and cast the government as incompetents, incapable of providing security.

The controllers know they can rely on a volunteer who has come all the way to Iraq for one purpose. They can be sure he is not merely willing, but fanatical.

Take Sayeed, our third bomber, who has come to Syria from his home in Jordan. Sayeed studied engineering at university, though he dropped out after a year. Now 32, he runs his own currency exchange business.

It was the hanging of Saddam, whom he regarded as one of the greatest symbols of the Arab world, that made Sayeed resolve to become a suicide bomber. He felt the need to show that “we Arabs have not lost our dignity”.

Months of discussion followed with handlers in Amman before Sayeed, a Shi’ite, was admitted to the Sunni network that will smuggle him into Iraq. He has specified that he will have nothing to do with Al-Qaeda.

Sayeed has settled his debts and exonerated his creditors but has said nothing to his well-to-do family of lawyers and busi-nessmen. His parents will get over it, he says. A little sister died when she was only a few years old. “It was devastating at the time but with time we picked up our lives and moved on.”

His only targets will be Americans, he insists, like the others. “I’m going there to defend civilians, not to kill them.”

But here is the paradox that becomes apparent from meeting the three bombers. They are intelligent men whose decisions have entailed a good deal of thought, discussion and, in two of the cases above, study.

“These are what I call the ‘violent intellectuals’,” said Professor Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, Washington. “They are well educated and highly motivated, two important attributes that ensured success in their education and then business and which will also be useful in ensuring their success as suicide bombers.”

And yet they show surprisingly little insight into the big picture in Iraq. They think not of the epic struggle between Sunni and Shi’ite but of gratifying their desire for revenge or glorification on the path to the next world, where at least 70 nymphs will be waiting to give them heavenly fulfilment.

Their impact on the course of the war has nevertheless been devastating, according to Robert Baer, a former CIA officer who has presented documentaries about suicide bombing. “Thanks to the suicide bomber, there is no way the US can defeat the insurgency,” Baer said.

Ahmed, the first bomber, has seen at first hand the misery and mayhem the “martyrs” can cause. He does not see that his brother’s actions last year and his own imminent mission will achieve little more than prolonging the anguish of Iraq. His mind is made up. You can see it in the intensity of his small, dark eyes.