Hearing about this first thing this morning made me numb .. and reminded me of something I once read...
http://www.danielpipes.org/3450/sudd...north-carolina
Another case of SJS?
Hearing about this first thing this morning made me numb .. and reminded me of something I once read...
http://www.danielpipes.org/3450/sudd...north-carolina
"Quiet, awkward type"
Longer bio.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/225310
This quote jumped out at me:Originally Posted by Greyhawk
It's eerily familiar to what I've read while studying the non-religious female suicide bombers in Diyala.While he worked to aid people scarred by war, that work in turn scarred Hasan.
Mike
spontaneous Jihad Syndrome
My take on spontaneous jihad syndrome in general:
1. Its not that sudden. I think there are usually warning signs. It seems like there were some signs here too.
2. MOST Muslims are not at some special risk of exploding all of a sudden. But loners and misfits who have joined a conservative/orthodox Islamic center or group and turned more religious ARE a high risk group. Those who are deeply religious but otherwise well adjusted are NOT a high risk group. But a turn towards orthodoxy could be a warning signal (sensitive, but not specific) because there IS a subtext of solidarity and religious conflict in the medieval theology of Islam (as there may have been in other medieval ideologies or even modern ones, the difference is that this "extremism" is still part of mainstream Muslim theology whereas it has already been pushed to the fringe in many other religious traditions...the saving grace is, the theology is not known to most mainstream muslims in any detail. sounds confusing, but its true).
3. But these signals may be ignored out of a concern not to appear "islamophobic".
4. The real "islamophobes" like Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer are correct in saying that literal adhesion to orthodox Islamic theology (not "extremist", just orthodox) is likely to include a mixture of Islamic solidarity, dislike for infidels, desire to fight in the way of Allah, etc. They are incorrect in assuming that all Muslims adhere to medieval injunctions about Jihad and fighting the infidels or that all Muslims are capable of ignoring more immediate secular interests and taking up the banner of jihad at a moment's notice. I suspect they are biased by their own agenda (usually pro-zionist, in some cases extremist Christian) and would like to advance particular foreign policy goals (like making the Israeli occupation permanent). but the bottom line is that while they are not unbiased messengers (who is?), they are closer to the truth when it comes to medieval Islamic theology than the Karen Armstrong types.
5. I guess what I am pushing is the idea that common sense CAN actually be a guide here. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and equally there is no need to be willfully blind to warning signs. And that biased agenda pushers on BOTH sides of this debate have obscured common sense options. Islamists operating out of Saudi supported Islamic centers are NOT a majority of American Muslims, but they have disproportionate share of media exposure as "muslim spokesmen". At the same time, people like Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer have a definite foreign policy agenda and it suits them to malign all Muslims (no matter how "secular") as long as they suspect them of Palestinian sympathies. Their warnings need to be heard keeping this in view.
6. I am still hopeful that common sense will prevail.
7. All nutcases cannot be stopped beforehand. Some surprises will always happen. There is no risk-free society, with or without muslims.
(Added by moderator: Discussion on this is on: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=8890 )
Last edited by davidbfpo; 11-06-2009 at 11:57 PM. Reason: Add mod comment and link
Not to make light...
But I fear we're going to soon have something called "Pre-TSD" as an identified psychiatric condition.
MikeF, I think there will be much chicken/egg debate regarding the doc. But I'd like to hear more about the suicide bomber angle. I take it you're saying a "caregiver" instinct was exploited to actually influence behavior towards something counter to the expected norm.
just follow the rings. Pay attention to ring 2....belief system.
goto my post #18.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=8773
Last edited by slapout9; 11-06-2009 at 06:38 PM.
This dude is not a victim, and I think that we hamper ourselves with all these labelings about disorders. In some ways, modern pyschology is about as modern as the army personnel system.
The caregiver instict is not valid. We have countless nurses, cops, and soldiers that are care-givers and don't snap and go postal.
I've been sorting through some thoughts about the suicide-bomber stuff. I may eventually incorporate it into an article. Right now, I'm probably gonna read up on some SBW and see how it fits.
Mike
Questions I have after reflecting for a day:
1. His Chain of Command. Why was he being forced to deploy when (already in hindsight) their were numerous signals he was unfit, and a danger to other troops? It flows into the larger issue of the stress placed upon the services, particulary the USMC and Army, to provide the forces necessary for two wars, plus our other ongoing responsibilities. While I've seen this occur with rifle units, where Marines on the edge, who really shouldn't go back, do because there is no magic "Dr's note" and the units are under stress to find the bodies to flesh out their numbers. Haven't seen/heard it as much as a few years ago. But few realize it spreads beyond just the grunts. Two years ago, a Navy psychiatrist gave me the percentage of doctors the Navy was short in his profession. I don't want to quote the percentage because I can't recall the exact number, but it was shockingly, shockingly low. They did not have the bodies to offer the necessary services. Whether the Army psychiatry corps was similiary understaffed, and whether that caused them to cut corners and force this person to deploy when he should have been seperated from service is a question that needs to be asked.
2. Was this jihadist/religious/political statement, a result of the mental trauma from working with (it appears, but not confirmed by any means) numbers of troops with PTSD, another mental condition, or a combination of these factors? I've seen first hand how draining it is, both mentally, morally and physically on the providers who help these soldiers, sailors and Marines. It is not a figment of imagination or "physcho babble" as some idiot JAG was referring to last night on Larry King. It's real. But whether that was a contributing factor should be of interest if no other reason than...
3. What will be his reply to whatever charges are brought in court (military or civilian TBD)? If he really has been working for an extensive period of time with PTSD troops, undoubtably he has heard some disturbing, highly disturbing stories. Would he seek to introduce evidence of this as some sort of mental capacity defense or as mitigation at any sentencing. Beyond the legal questions of his doctor/client relationship, what if he uses a trial to turn the "issue" somehow to the conduct of our troops during the war?
So early, but this could turn a truely awful event and drag it through all kinds of worse. I hope not.
My only confusion on this issue is why it has prompted discussion of suicide, PTSD, and stress on our military.
From what I've gathered, this is a guy who never deployed and then went on a murderous rampage.
At least I haven't heard anyone blame Bush or the NRA... yet.
It is not PTSD.....it is his Belief System. And that has nothing to do with Islam. Whenever a personal believes that violence is an acceptable solution to a problem..... an attack will occur unless the original motive is dealt with. That is why after all the backround work is done it will be obviousthat an attack was coming but no one did anything.....most organizations never deal with the Original Motive For War as CvC would say......that was for you Wilf
Belief System - yes
but as to this:
"nothing to do with Islam" is not something we should assume. See above post by omarali50[*], which is excellent.from Slap
And that has nothing to do with Islam.
The simplest explanation is that the man was quite sane, spent time and meditation in developing the concept of defensive jihad (preventing non-Muslim troops from setting foot in Muslim lands) ala the extreme Salafists (e.g., AQ), and put that developed concept into practice.
Some (many ?) will not be able to handle that explanation if it turns out to be so. It would be a case of absolute betrayal by a field grade officer - treason in a very real sense even though he is unlikely to be charged with that.
An easier explanation for many to handle is the nutjob who snapped. Boondoggle (nice to see a post from you, ancient JA) is not endorsing that, but he does explain how that explanation could be developed.
I am waiting for the CID and FBI folks to complete their investigation - and I expect we will also have tons of media investigation and the inevitable punditry.
-------------------------
[*] Nicely paragraphed. Now if you would put a space between the paragraphs, they would even be kinder on my old eyes.
Ask and yea shall receive.
Seriously, I think he "switched sides." I think he felt - and I'm just talking about his thoughts in his mind, not saying I or anyone else agree with them - that he believed he had to choose between his religion and his country. A choice he tried to avoid by getting out of the Army, and by asking not to be deployed.
Based on some of the articles I've read, it appears as though he used to go to the Mosque in his uniform. Then he switched to wearing what for lack of the correct term I'll call "Islamic attire" around the base. A clear statement on his part.
(I could be wrong. I haven't heard much about his victims. Might change my mind if it turns out he went after people who he personally had trouble with as opposed to soldiers about to deploy.)
Anyway, that's why I always thought "You're for us or against us" was a dumb idea. "Don't kill us and we won't kill you" seems like a much better message. Keep the people who don't like us or BinLaden on the sidelines. There's enough of us already. Even one more of them is too many.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 11-06-2009 at 11:47 PM.
Bookmarks