Islamist Terror and Stockholm Syndrome
On a recent visit to Scandinavia, I recalled with clarity that strange psychological twist called the “Stockholm Syndrome” in which the victim of terror or abuse identifies with his torturers.
Immediately after the 9/11 terror attack on America, the eminent Middle East historian Bernard Lewis rushed a book to market titled What Went Wrong? It explained the mindset of the Muslim world. But for many Americans — including those in the media — the question asked was: “What did we do wrong?” For ordinary Americans who see the world as a microcosm of their own genteel environment, the instinctive response to the murderous rampage of Arab-Muslim terrorists was: “What did we do to them to make them so hateful?”
The rise of terrorism in the last 50 years as a weapon against the West and its institutions, and its success as a psychological tool to weaken Western resolve, has proven it to be a cheap and effective instrument of war.
Some liberal-minded Americans, Europeans, and Israelis would excuse methods of terror such as suicide bombers or exploding jetliners into buildings as the poor man’s weapon, since they lack fighter planes, tanks, and armies. However, the real target of the terrorists is Western public opinion. Change it and you are on the road to defeating your (Western) enemies.
The Soviet Union employed terror through proxies by training and supporting such groups as the German Baader-Meinhoff gang and the Italian Red Brigades. The terror attacks perpetrated by these groups weakened Western resolve and changed public opinion. These acts prompted questions such as: “What motivated ordinary Italian or German middle class young men and women to perpetrate such heinous crimes?” Or in the case of Arab Palestinians, what motivates them to blow themselves up? In Western academia and media, the automatic question was: “What is wrong with our society?” Few asked the following:
Who is behind these young terrorists and who directs their actions?
Who funds them and indoctrinates them to hate the West (Israel and America in particular), its states, and its institutions?
What is the aim of those organizations, groups, or states (like the former Soviet Union) who are behind the terrorists?
When the Western media and academia examine the mental attitudes of terrorists towards the societies they attack, they invariably echo the excuses made by Arab-Palestinians or al-Qaeda about “occupation,” capitalist exploitation of workers (in the case of European terrorists), or colonialism and imperialism as the American academic left did during the Vietnam War. These excuses, mired with their relativist mindset (found among the leadership of liberal Protestant denominations as well), create the impression that indeed the West is guilty in its relationship with the Third World (or the Muslim world) and in its treatment of the weak elements in its own societies.
Flirting with the terrorist’s motivation, many in the West have succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome. Moreover, they have failed to view terrorism in its wider perspective — that behind the Islamic (previously the Soviet) terror is a clear objective to weaken the West and ultimately defeat it.
“Compared to other cultures and civilizations — in particular to the Islamist creed — the West is light-years ahead in progress, compassion, and justice.”
Yes indeed and WE still have a long way to go ourselves with regards to calling a spade a spade…
“any Muslim who converts out, who becomes an apostate, is supposed to be killed by their families or by any other faithful Muslim”
My mottoe? Oh hell to the no!
“in which the victim of terror or abuse identifies with his torturers”
“Captors” is the word you’re thinking of.
But apart from that – this article’s just silly. A bunch of straw men. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to know the other guy’s motivation. That’s not the same as appeasement. And I don’t think anyone “excuses” suicide bombing.
“that behind the Islamic (previously the Soviet) terror is a clear objective to weaken the West and ultimately defeat it.”
Cobblers. 9/11 was an unusual case, in that it wasn’t a local attack motivated by local issues. Most terrorism is very local – they might share money and information, but abu sayyaf isn’t all that interested in the palestinian cause, and an al quaeda bomb maker in iraq probably doesn’t know anything about the politics of indonesia. Trying to paint all islamist-sourced violence as part of a uniform, global cause is ridiculous. Nobody goes to war over vague, symbolic ideals. They do it because they want something.
I might add that the idea that Islamic fundamentalists “lack armies, tanks, guns, planes”, etc., is complete nonsense.
Islamic fundamentalist states are,militarily speaking, some of the most heavily-armed on Earth. Saddam Hussein had a massive army and air force in 1991. Iran has the sixth-largest army today (after the PRC, Russia, India, the United States, and Great Britain). Egypt is engaged in another round of arms buildups, as are most of the other Arab states. Lack of “conventional forces”, or even (in Iran’s case) the potential for nuclear forces have never been a problem for the Islamist states.
Where they have a serious problem is in actually using those forces to achieve their goals. Anyone who has observed the MidEast for the last two-thirds of a century must have noticed that whenever an Islamic army takes the field against those they regard as “infidels” (Israel, Western armies, etc.) they get handed their heads. Often in spite of three-to-one or greater numerical superiority on the ground. In the various Arab/Israeli wars, the Arab states have never had less that a 4 to 1 numerical edge- but they keep losing anyway, often with horrendous casualties. The same held true for the major internecine conflict in the region, the Iran/Iraq War, which ended in an armistice after the two sides nearly annihilated each other on the battlefield.
The problem, simply put, is doctrine. For the most part, the Arab states operate on tactical and strategic doctrines motivated by a combination of outmoded concepts (mostly learned from the Soviet Union through “military advisors”)and ideological/religious fanaticism (the belief that “Allah will not permit us to be defeated, as he has decreed the death of the infidels”).
Soviet tactical doctrines were based on mass as opposed to maneuver- throw enough bodies at the enemy, backed up by enough artillery (the red Army viewed tactical air as a form of artillery), and the enemy will be crushed by sheer weight of numbers. The result is little more than a human-wave attack- that fails badly when opposed by precision weapons in the hands of trained personnel under the control of commanders with continuous two-way access/command-and-control. When two armies both using the same primitive doctrines collide- you get the kind of trench warfare we saw in the Iran/Iraq War, that hadn’t been seen since Flanders in 1917 otherwise.
As for the ideological element, it often trumps even training. In both Iraq wars, U.S. forces noted that even supposedly highly-trained Iraqi soldiers tended to “shoot from the hip” without actually aiming their weapons. The logic being “Allah wills that I shall hit.”
There’s a difference between having heavy forces and knowing how to use them. The Islamists have them- and so far, have no clue what to do with them.
clear ether
eon
I like that you (Joseph Puder) have outlined the questions that should be asked.
not everyone blames themselves ..but a large perchentage does. this is largely due to the soviet influence on our elites, through them and the western (mainly american) school system.
these blame america first are still indoctrinating young students.
I will also add when a former president (carter) blames all of the white americans of racial bias and blames Israel for all the ills of the middle east. IT BEGS THE QUESTION …WHO INDOCTINATED CARTER ? he is an obvious victim of deluded reasoning. And not just of recent, he has always been way out there, AND HE BECAME PRESIDENT . he will be superseded as the worst president by obama .
there is no one with the courage to stop the indoctrination in the schools, hence this problem is with us for the forseable future …..and even after it is changed there are generations of tainted people.
2. Matthew
the koran and islam does have a goal of world domination.
Certainly not all muslims care or aid this goal. At the same time they do not challenge or get in the way of this goal.
the islamist in indonesia and those in Iraq may not be thinking or planning in tandem or even with consideration of each other. but htey are trying to do their part to promote islam “by the sword”
islam is at war with everything else where those non-muslims know or care.
like I said not all muslims ..but it doesn’t take all of them to cause a lot of damage and destruction.
regards
Could the Arab world enjoy freedom, such as we do here in America? Free elections? The rule of law equally and fairly applied to everyone? Freedom to worship as one wishes?
Could they? Yes.
Do they? No.
Why?
The answer to the last question is the key to understanding the reason for every war that has ever been fought.
Matthew:
” . . . They do it because they want something.”
________________
Yes, they do. They want you and everybody else in the world to live in a state of submission to islamic law. And the imposition of islamic law anywhere is a step toward imposition of islamic law everywhere. That’s why Abu Sayyaf has financial and training ties with salafi funding sources in the M.E. via its affiliation with Al Islamic Tablighi:
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31265.pdf (Starting on page 5)
It’s why islamic convert Troy Castigar, along with many other jihadists across the M.E. have traveled to Somalia to join the jihad against a secular government:
“Sixth Minnesota Man reportedly dies in Somalia”
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/09/11/somali-death/
It’s the reason many of the major mosques in the UK sound like this:
“Undercover Mosque, Part 1″
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee2_1208691530
It’s also why deobandi’s attacking Pandits in Kashmir and plotting attacks in India are trained in Saudi funded Madrassas in Pakistan:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html
” . . . All of these groups are rooted in a network of seminaries, or as the term is called in the local vernacular, “madrassa.” My argument was that the main source of funding for these groups is Saudi Arabia. In fact, this whole phenomenon that we are confronting, which Al Qaeda is a part of, is very closely associated with Saudi Arabia’s financial and religious projects for the Muslim world as a whole. …
Q. You said that the main source of funding for these Islamic extremists–
Or at least the institutions that train them.
Q. — is whom?
It’s Saudi Arabia and its network of charities and the like. The argument I make is that there is an undercurrent of terror and fanaticism that go hand in hand in the Afghanistan-Pakistan arc, and extend all the way to Uzbekistan. And you can see reflections of it in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Indonesia, in the Philippines.
For instance, in one madrassa in Pakistan, I interviewed 70 Malaysian and Thai students who are being educated side by side with students who went on to the Afghan war and the like. These people return to their countries, and then we see the results in a short while. … At best, they become hot-headed preachers in mosques that encourage fighting Christians in Nigeria or in Indonesia. And in a worst case, they actually recruit or participate in terror acts.”
If you raise generations of people who have been socialized into believing their individual lives have no meaning. How hard is it to convince individuals (and groups) that to make an impression on the world all they have to do is fly a plane into a building, or blow themselves up in a crowded market? . . . Then, they will be martyrs, then they will make their families and communities proud (and what about those 40 Virgins eh!!?). Between the realities of life in a culture that diminishes the value of the individual, and a typical government brutal in practice, yet innocent (“things would not be this way if it were not for those Americans/French/Jews, Europeans . . .) to it’s people (see Kaddafi), it is the perfect place to recruit the innocent to perform mind numbing acts of violence.
@Matthew #2:
You are making the claim that Islamism is not monolithic, just as leftists claimed Communism was not.
Mr. Puder did not claim that Islamism is monolithic. He did claim that all Islamist violence shares a goal–defeating non-Muslim power. Just as all Communists shared the goal of defeating capitalist power.
You are the one setting up a straw man. Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to know your opponent’s motivation. Stockholm syndrome is about accepting your opponent’s position as valid.
Islamists are at war for the cause of Islamic supremacy just as Nazis went to war for Aryan supremacy.
A rudimentary internet search will disabuse you of the notion that no one excuses suicide bombing.
” . . Between the realities of life in a culture that diminishes the value of the individual, and a typical government brutal in practice . . ”
It’s not the culture or the government alone, but the ideas present in the alleged holy books themselves that transform these people into monsters – and it’s true for the Shia as well as the Sunni.
It doesn’t matter what terrorists think or want; our actions should be based on our own sense of decency, peace and justice. By all means we should protect our country, but we should also ask the difficult questions of our own aggressions (even when not related directly to terrorism, and I would argue that most are not, but do mirror others in a context we have helped shape with good and bad results for ourselves and others)in the world,and the predicable outcomes of those actions.
They cleverly declared their struggle to be for justice…
From a mahoundian perspective, what exactly does justice mean? Raymond Ibrahim has pointed out that, while fighting for justice from a Western perspective is viewed by most of us as a noble cause, “justice” in mahoundian epistemology “justice” actually means granting mahoundians a legal status superior to those of non-muslims (a.k.a. human beings), in addition to making a woman be equally legal to half a man. Just as violent jihad against the human race is viewed by the inbred bedouin savage tapeworms that wage it as “charity”, “altruism” and “love.”
This should be thrown in the face of leftards and other assorted apologists and appeasers, so that the so-called “justice” mahoundians claim to fight for will be debated for what it means in mahoundian epistemology, and NOT for what it means to us Westerners.
BackwardsBoy -
“The answer to the last question is the key to understanding the reason for every war that has ever been fought”
I’m dying to hear the answer. What is it? I’d love to know the reason for every war that’s ever been fought.
Jan McDaniel -
“You are making the claim that Islamism is not monolithic”
It isn’t. At the very least, it’s split between two groups that regularly pick fights with one another. So what?
“just as leftists claimed Communism was not”
Irrelevant. And what’s with this “monolithic” business anyway?
“Mr. Puder did not claim that Islamism is monolithic. He did claim that all Islamist violence shares a goal–defeating non-Muslim power”
Oh, I see – a straw man. We’re both talking about the goals of islamist violence. Lets not change the subject.
“Just as all Communists shared the goal of defeating capitalist power”
Irrelevant.
“You are the one setting up a straw man”
There’s a bit of it going around.
“Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to know your opponent’s motivation”
Then stop accusing people who ask the question of being suckers.
“Islamists are at war for the cause of Islamic supremacy”
Rubbish. Some of the creeps at the top might be selling that line, and some of the clowns at the bottom might believe it’s true, but nobody lines up to be killed just because they think they’re superior – particularly if they just keep losing. Outrage is a much better motivator. I reckon it’s safe to think they’re mad about something (rightly or wrongly).
“just as Nazis went to war for Aryan supremacy”
The NAZIs too! How about the mongols – are they involved?
“A rudimentary internet search will disabuse you of the notion that no one excuses suicide bombing.”
Fair enough. I guess I should have qualified that the “nobody” I had in mind is the group this article ultimately tries to criticise – i.e. western leftists. Obviously the terrorists themselves excuse it.
“They do it because they want something.”
That “something” is control over you.
It doesn’t matter what terrorists think or want; our actions should be based on our own sense of decency, peace and justice. By all means we should protect our country, but we should also ask the difficult questions of our own aggressions
By that logic, Jews should have asked “Why they (the Nazis) hate us?” and all while walking in the gas chambers apologize to their SS guards for the ten pfenning one of their long dead ancestors had unlawfully charged in 1737AD.
Both WWII UK ad US weren’t perfect. But Nazis and Japanese imperialists (who routinely sluaghtered millions of Chinese and experimented in biological warfare) were far worse and we have a better world for the Allies not having gazed at their navels asking themselves about their sins but instead kept sending bombers over Japan and Germany. Millions of Chinese and East-europeans owe their lives to that.
What you are proposing just helps jihadi recruiting. Jihadism will not end by us wringing our hands but by Muslim populations having Jihad’s and Islam’s crimes smeared on their noses (just like Germans were forced to visit death camps) until they reject them in horror instead of, like now, considering that a crime is only a crime when the victim is Muslim.
You’re right, but the problem is even more disturbing.
The fact that we in the west are as anxious as we are about Islamic extremism, the fact that we are fearful we might not win, speak eloquently of a pathetic lack of resolve. We are not facing off against an enemy who matches us in resources, weapons of war or even popular support. This is not WW2. These people should not be a threat to us materially or culturally. But they are; and it is due only to our paralysis of will, courage and confidence.
While the West is paralysed by political correctness and apathy, the other side is steadily engulfing values and attitudes which have been reached in the West after centuries and centuries of stuggles – no, Virginia, the Pygmy or the Aztecs don’t/didn’t have a judicial system we should embrace.
With this as an introduction, I just came upon an interesting piece by Bernard Levy in – of all! Huffington Post! – which describes the cultural encroachment I mentioned before (or rather the struggle to resist it).
Note: I am not a big fan of Levy, I find him a bit pompous and a bit fuzzy, politics-wise, but in this case his description is very (alarmingly) right – bellow is the link –
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/will-unesco-be-faithful-t_b_294165.html
BackwardsBoy:
“That “something” is control over you”
Are you going to tell us the secret to all wars? The one that’s somehow related to arab freedom? I’d love to hear it.