Make a Splash
This comment says pretty much exactly what I was thinking (and saying) a few days ago. I would guess that a lot of other people are thinking it too – but that’s just a guess. But it is related to Mona Eltahawy’s point, that it’s insulting for non-Muslims to think Muslims can’t take responsibility.
The notion that the British Muslim suicide bombers of July 7 were spurred on by some passionate form of public-spiritedness, of course, is both flagrantly idiotic and deeply dangerous…Yet Mr Ahmed’s apparent reasoning – that his nephew was compelled to kill himself and seven innocent people near Liverpool Street station by a combination of righteous anger and sheer desperation at injustices suffered by fellow-Muslims – is not too distant from the explanations that have in the past been provided for Palestinian suicide bombers by non-Muslim British public figures…I wonder, however, if the recent apparition of British suicide bombers – raised in circumstances that were far from desperate – might have caused Baroness Tonge and Mrs Blair to reconsider the psychological ingredients they once naively deemed necessary to the phenomenon…Suicide bombing, however, fired by a volatile combination of religious and political fervour, is a vigorous act of self-assertion: the bomber hopes to make his triumphant, bloody mark upon the world before proceeding to his reward in Paradise.
Bingo. It’s not righteous anger, it’s not altruistic rage at injustices suffered by other people – it’s narcissistic mark-making (peeing on a bush writ large and bloody, one might say) and Look At Me-saying, dressed up as altruistic whatnot. It’s not about other people, it’s about me, me, me. Get me, look at me, admire me, respect me, fear me, scream when you see me, dream about me, run away from me, tremble at the thought of me, hate me, pay attention to me. Be blown to pieces by me, be blasted full of nails by me. I’m powerful, I’m scary, I’m brave, I can make things happen, I can pee higher than you.
That impulse should never be confused with altruism.
It is no accident that the bulk of suicide bombers are young men, a group particularly drawn, not necessarily to hopelessness, but to the potent romance of a “cause”. They are easily bored by the dreary, complicated business of living peacefully: the dull job, the squalling baby, and the round of minor compromises. Their professed desire to “avenge injustice” is not their driving motivation: that is a palatable excuse to buoy up their self-image. The real spur is an arrested, adolescent craving for immortality and legendary status among their peers.
Well – exactly. At least I think so. I think it’s all about self-image, combined with disaster-porn. A bunch of dreary shits bigging themselves up. No, I know, as commenters pointed out the other day, I don’t know that. But boy it’s plausible.
But let us be under no illusion that Islamist suicide bombers, whether they immolate themselves in a Haifa restaurant or the London Underground, have any love for justice: they murder the most vulnerable without compunction. Nor have they any protective instinct for their fellow-Muslims, despite their rhetoric: one glance at the newspaper photographs after the July 7 bombings will proclaim that. For there, staring back from the page of victims, is Shahara Islam, a beautiful 20-year-old bank cashier from Plaistow; Atique Sharifi, 24, an Afghan man whose parents were killed by the Taliban, and who was struggling to forge a new life in London; and Ihab Slimane, a 24-year-old student from France. They were all Muslims too, and they are all dead, their dreams forcibly extinguished by a bunch of selfish fools who hoped, with some frantic gesture, to render themselves more significant in death than they could ever be in life.
There it is, you see. Their desire for significance at the expense of other people’s dreams. That’s why pious talk of their grievances and disaffection is so – loathsome.
Although, doesn’t suicide bombing in Palestine and Israel have a more direct political (rather than religious) motivation and justification, at least I think al-Aqsa (affiliated with Fatah) carried out suicide bombings.
But the people that both Al Aqsa and the Global Salafi Jihadists recruit as suicide bombers are usually the same sad lonely adolsecent types yearning for peer approval and “glory”. The different groups are exploiting the same psychological dysfunction in their followers.
Yeh, PM, it’s not that I’m trying to argue that no suicide bombers ever have a genuine political motivation, just that – one, it’s singularly unconvincing in these cases, and two, the selfish, narcissistic aspect in all of them shouldn’t be overlooked.
A sort of glorified graffiti tagging -make a name for yourself at other people’s expense and get 72 virgins.
Oh dear! Not again! (But perhaps I should be grateful for: “No, I know, as commenters pointed out the other day, I don’t know that.”)
Everybody seems to know what motivated these young men, which is odd given that the main accounts differ so substantially!
By coincidence, just this morning I received a message from someone (responding to a message I posted on a weblog), saying: “…well, if you wonder that, it shows that you…”
His conclusion (about my past experience based on what I had written) was, of course, quite wrong.
I wish people would stop speculating on the motives and focus on the only thing we really know: the four killed themselves and lots of other people for no obvious reason.
Fine. Now go write to the Guardian and other media outlets and tell the excusers, justifiers, and apologists the same thing.
The last poster said …
“Now go write to the Guardian and other media outlets and tell the excusers, justifiers, and apologists the same thing.”
There is one word that will do for these people:
Appeasers.
“I wish people would stop speculating on the motives and focus on the only thing we really know: the four killed themselves and lots of other people for no obvious reason.”
Although, in the longer term, it might be really quite useful to know what motivates these people.
So, what is it about Islam that breeds such narcissism?
“So, what is it about Islam that breeds such narcissism?”
Hitchens, as usual, put the matter quite aptly. He called it “the self-pity of a former superpower”.
Once we were great, Allah blessed us by making us the most advanced, civilized empire on earth, but somehow we were brought down to fourth-rate status and outstripped by those filthy infidels. Now look at us: We’re just gas-station attendants to the world. We have to move to the infidels’ home just to find a crappy job. How can this be? We must have been stabbed in the back, that’s how! Maybe if we return to our pure (Salafi) roots and wage ruthless jihad, we can regain our former glory.
That’s basically it.
PM – indeed. Depends who you talk to, As pointed out previously on this site (which easily outsrips the vast majority of web-garbage out there, OB), at least theoretically there is a united Jihad front from Chechenya to Chicago – but excuses, religious texts and motivations do differ. What doesn’t appear to differ is a sense of unassailability. One option for us would be to nuke Iran, but then we’d be in for WW3, so I guess we ought to get into smart moves rather than reflex responses, no matter how justified they feel. Intel is the absolute key in fighting this one. A little more understanding; less condemnation – sounds wishy washy unless understanding is taken in the spirit of Sun Tzu..
Karl – I go along with the sentiment, but a lot of these front-line guys are middle class or even rich kids – are they really fighting on behalf of the abject underclass of a lost empire ? They say that they are, all wrapped up in their self regarding medieval dogerell, but I wonder if they really dream of abolishing the pverty of the pan-Islam underclass in their ultimate vision of a 7th Century caliphate in London and Washington…
First: it’s worth saying that a desire for glory and a sense of real religious or political commitment are far from inseparable. To reinterpret ‘a group particularly drawn, not necessarily to hopelessness, but to the potent romance of a “cause”‘ in terms of disaster porn is frankly lazy – perhaps all here were immune to the siren song of the hot political cause in your own youth but I clearly remember the always naive, often misplaced, but above all burning sincerity and black-and-white clarity of young political belief. Yes, it’s narcissistic; yes, it’s selfish; it’s a whole lot of other things which only become worrying when translated into violence. It is sincere, however, and is far more than just a ‘pissing contest’. To simplify it as such is just to indulge in the stupid desire to pain our enemies as worthless – and to shift the blame from those who exploit the folly of youth (god I sound old-fashioned…).
Second gripe: Of course, a major ongoing theme on this site is about the ‘nonsense about rage and alienation’. To a large extent that’s a worthy cause – it does indeed seem to be rather common for (especially) those on the left to excuse the inexcusable jusat as long as the perpertrators were, are, or perceive themselves to be oppressed (Or whatever). To pretend, however, that ‘rage and alienation’ do not play a significant part is to blind yourself to reality.
Although ‘nonsense about rage and alienation’ excuses nothing, if it is part of the explanation then it is critical to recognize this and identify the cause. In most cases the ‘outsider’ feeling – on any scale – is misguided; among many it is reinforced by myths and conspiracy theories, swallowed whole and believed implicitly (one such present myth is this ‘shoot to kill muslims’ brouhaha; though the police don’t have a mandate to shoot on sight you can bet your bottom dollar that this will be widely believed).
People act, though, on what they believe to be true, not on what is true. To recognize this is not to be an appeaser.
outeast
You make some good points, but:
“People act, though, on what they believe to be true, not on what is true. To recognize this is not to be an appeaser.” True, but only if the concommitant value judgments to that recognition were restrained. What we have is crisis chatter, not facts, as Saul Below said, so we can safely assume that most pundits, including those sympathetic to Palestine and coming out with anti Bush/Blair rehtoric are blinkered to the totality of whatis playing out, whereas I think you’ll find much of the comment here (B&W) is from people who understand full well what Bush and his vile cabal are wringing out of our political economies globally without buying the line that victims of terror are the colateral damage of a guilt-free backlash to that economic proposition. Speaking for myself, natch…
“Once we were great, Allah blessed us by making us the most advanced, civilized empire on earth, but somehow we were brought down to fourth-rate status and outstripped by those filthy infidels”
So presumably New York had also better be on the look out for guys in bowler hats or pith helmets with stiff upper lips carrying briefcases full of explosives?
PM – Mr Benn-Laden ? (apologies to all non-uk non-forty somethings.. Mr Benn was a popular bowler-hatted childrens’ tv cartoon character of the 70s)
Some really excellent points here.
This quality of young men who believe violently in causes is certainly not restricted to Muslims. Anthropologically speaking, having a percentage of your young men willing to be suicidally brave soldiers for the group seems, well, almost too clear to bother arguing about. (Again, I point to Barbara Ehrenreichs’ Blood Rites).
Hell, I spent much of my youth hoping for the revolution to come, devouring my RCP ‘literature’. (The fact that the US Revolutionary Communist Party has a special wing called the RCYB is no accident (Youth Brigade)).
So, I thing OutEast has a fine point – to call it narcissism is to conflate the point. Many young men are prone to this type of thinking, believing. High school bombers, Timothy McVeighs and the like – it’s not Muslim, its human (though mostly male, I guess). I propose the term ‘quixotic’ here.
There were suicide bombers (and maybe the first) in Conrad’s anarchistic ‘The Secret Agent’ which is entirely English.
MP
Mr Benn-Laden…hmm, that might explain the shopkeeper’s fez…and why he never charged him for hire of the costumes, quick, get SO19 down Festive Road!
Keith,
Why do you wish people would stop trying to speculate on motives? Why do you think that’s a bad thing to do? Yes, the one thing we really know is that the four (plus) killed themselves and a lot of others, without for instance bothering to say why. But why does it follow that we shouldn’t speculate on why they did in fact do what they did? Doesn’t it seem pretty inevitable that we’re all going to wonder why they did it? What’s the alternative – just to shrug and say ‘huh, what an odd thing to do’?
outeast – no, I was not immune! That’s part of why I think this. I’m pondering my own less overt motivations for some of my ‘opinions’. And the disaster-porn thing – I’m not claiming to be immune from that. Not at all. There was a certain horrible pornographic thrill to 911, mixed with all the other less shameful reactions.
A further point. I actually do think there’s a real grievance lurking in the background of all this – one that gets oddly little mentioned, at least that I see. David Goodhart touched on it in his Guardian piece, but that’s all I’ve seen. I want to do a post on this (she said pompously) but it’s longish and I have a lot to do at the moment, so…I’ll get to it later. (God, that does sound pompous. I’m just saying – yeah, I do think there’s a real grievance, only it’s somewhat disguised.)
“The Hindus and Sikhs etc. don’t do this multiple murderous stuff all over the planet!”
Well they seem to manage gunning down each other (and the Muslims) in India – perhaps it is to do with the widespread dispersal of the Umma?
Alright, I have to ask. Who are you trying to convince now? Maybe I’ve missed it, but I haven’t seen a bunch of pacifist, soft, loony lefties in here trying to convince you that these men were justified in their actions. That all muslim extremists are justified or righteous. Why are you driving this point home so vigorously? Is it all because Tariq Ali? Several days of narcissism and “disaster-porn”. (Yes, I know there are a few other posts mixed in.) But, really.
Yes, you’ve missed it. Not people trying to convince me personally, but people telling the world. Yes, there are a good few droning about rage and alienation.
Of course, they don’t read B&W – but so what? We do what we do.
Besides which – I don’t think any of us have firmly settled thoughts on all this. I don’t. So there’s an on-going discussion all over the place, not just here. Why not?
“Why is it only the Muslims who are the alienated, murderous losers.”
Well, they’re not the only ones (can you say Tamil Tigers?), but as Ophelia said, Muslims are very large in number and very widely dispersed. Plus, this morbid style of collective self-pity is a constant theme in the Middle Eastern media, as well as a big part of widespread Salafi preachments. I have several North African friends who tell me that this one-day-we-shall-rise-again-and-be-great-and-tower-over-the-infidels crap was constantly being shoved down their throats, in schools, in mosques, in the media. (One of my friends told me that the imam from his hometown in Tunisia regularly used to denounce Gandhi as a satanic siren who was trying to trick Muslims into committing suicide-through-pacifism.) Combine all that with the usual frustrations and drabness of daily life, and you might well get a few nutcases willing to go out with a bang. Besides, look at all the great publicity you get. Your picture and your deed is all over the newspapers and TV. Hell, you even get a few of the more masochistic infidels to say in op-ed pieces that you were a serious person with legitimate grievances. Hooray. Allah be praised.
It does indeed seem that your thoughts are firmly settled. Aside from the occasional, “Oh, yes, I could be wrong”-type remark, you’ve made it abundantly clear how you feel, what you think these perpetrators are made of: Narcissism, machismo, selfish glory seeking, etc.
I do believe in a good discussion all around. And no, you are wrong, I haven’t missed it. People around the world with opinions that I think are a little crazy, I’ve seen. You know I was asking about in this blog, about the people who do actually read B&W.
As far as rage and alienation goes, I think outeast (and others) made it clear that these cannot be dismissed so easily as you like to do.
But, maybe I was wrong to suggest this topic–about London being about narcissism and disaster-porn and pissing contests–should be put to bed. Again, it’s clear people continue to want to chime in…and well, damn, I do to I guess! Sorry.
Peace,
MK
Actually, MK, I didn’t know what you meant, because you didn’t make it clear. So – your point is that as long as most people who comment here agree with me, I should stop writing about what I think? Well why should I do that? N&C is mostly a place to take a look (however presumptuously) at woolly thinking in the media.
And I did just say that I do think there is a genuine grievance in the background. But there can be a genuine grievance and be narcissism and look-at-me-ism.
If the guys with the rucksacks and the plastic food containers were actually trying to improve the world in a serious way, I don’t think they’d be trying to set off nail bombs on tube trains to do it. It just doesn’t quite add up.
‘Sokay! Do chime in. But if I say my thoughts are not settled – that’s because they’re not.
“As far as rage and alienation goes, I think outeast (and others) made it clear that these cannot be dismissed so easily…”
But rage and alienation can often have trivial and ignoble causes. What are the causes of the rage and alienation of America’s homegrown schoolyard shooters? When you boil it all down, it always turns out to be pure shite–I was snubbed, I wasn’t accepted by the cool kids, I can become famous by venting my rage. Suicide bombers just have a bigger support-network and a more high-falutin’ pretext.
I posted this above:
“Maybe I’ve missed it, but I haven’t seen a bunch of pacifist, soft, loony lefties in here trying to convince you that these men were justified in their actions.”
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that wasn’t clear.
Not in here, no. But in some parts of the media, there’s been some what-have-we-done-to-bring-this-on-ourselves breast-beating, which can only reinforce the suicide bombers’ mentality. So, obscure people such as myself, without access to the mainstream media, come here to bitch about it.
It enrages and alienates me that my voice is not being heard. Perhaps more people would listen to me if I blew myself up along with several dozen innocent blokes, so that everyone would hear my message that suicide bombers are immature jerks. Oh, the irony.
All right, MK, the sentence itself is clear enough. But the overall question was not clear, because I really don’t see why it’s a problem for you if I discuss opinions other than those of people ‘in here’. Why would I be taking into account only the opinions of people who comment here? For one thing, they’re a fraction of the people who read B&W, and for another thing, as I said, they’re not the basic subject matter of B&W. A cat can look at a king, and I can take issue with Guardian writers. And that’s that.
snerk
I might as well have saved my breath. Karl said it for me while I was saying it.
Don’t forget the nails, Karl. People won’t understand how enraged you actually are if you don’t put in a lot of nails.
Karl: “this one-day-we-shall-rise-again-and-be-great-and-tower-over-the-infidels crap was constantly being shoved down their throats”
I think you are right, Karl. While there may be the underlying rebelliousness, discontent and narcissism of youth, it is the teachings of their religion that motivates them and incites them to these extreme acts. Without the incessant urging of Islam, I don’t think we would see so many young men willing to kill themselves.
Everyone seems to be taking a shallow view of this by examining only the suicide bombers’ motives. What of the suicide bomber’s handler, whose goal is to convince young people to take their own lives and those of others? Is it narcissism that drives the handlers and those behind them or is it more a deep-rooted desire to eliminate all non-believers?
Quite so. The instigators’ motives and psychology is probably a separate study. Remember that home video of bin Laden and al Zawahiri chuckling over Atta and friends’ 9-11 extravaganza? They seemed mildly contemptuous of their “martyrs” (although, since I don’t speak Arabic, I might be mistaken). I’d really like to know more about what turned a wealthy, successful physician like al Zawahiri into a fanatical theo-fascist mastermind. Was it the same sort of cloak-and-dagger thrill that drives some people to become spies and computer hackers? A pure lust for political power? Devout religious belief? Some combo of the aforementioned?
‘Hitchens, as usual, put the matter quite aptly. He called it “the self-pity of a former superpower”.’
That’s certainly very Gibbonesque of him. A charming idea, I won’t deny that, but I’m not sure there’s much truth to it. Many civilizations in the past have had their Golden Age, but we haven’t seen hordes of suicide bombers flocking to recover it before.
I wonder however how these suicide bombers would compare to other death cultists. Are they any different in character or temperament, from for instance the Order of the Solar Temple, Branch Davidians, or the Aum Shinrikyo cult?
Yeah, there are lots of failed civilizations, but Muslims in particular just won’t let it go. Also, Islam isn’t fixated merely on regaining some ancestral homeland (like the Hindu fundies in India). It’s a proselytizing religious ideology. Just why Muslims in particular just won’t let go, I don’t know. Maybe the injection of massive amounts of easy cash from their oil business gave renewed life to extreme Wahhabist ideology (remember that the Saudis spend BILLIONS building mosques around the world and staffing them with Salafist imams).
A thought experiment: Image that all those Confederate nostalgists in the American South suddenly came into vast amounts of easy money and used it to fund, say, the Church of the Creator (a real cult, btw) and preach White Power and the resurrection of the Old South’s Noble Cause, which had been defeated by the evil verminous North and unjustly persecuted ever since, and extolled martyrdom in the most glorious terms. I think we’d start seeing more than a few crackers suicide-bombing D.C., Manhattan, and anyplace else where the people and government stood in their way.
Can’t answer for the first two examples you gave, but Aum Shinrikyo is basically a bunch of bored professionals (accountants, chemical engineers, business executives, secretaries) who formed a sad little apocalyptic cult around Shoko Asahara, a failed political radical turned mystical guru. They were more like militant Moonies, really. Or the Bader-Meinhof gang. And even though they were Japanese, they weren’t particularly into committing suicide. ;) Frankly, I think the followers of Asahara turned to cultism out of sheer boredom. Japan is a supremely boring place.
Karl,
I think the instigators probably treat the suicide bombers as weapons, which is more a pragmatic view rather than contemptuous. They find disaffected and impressionable young people who are in that phase where they feel the need to be recognised or to make a mark on the world and they inculcate them with stories of paradise and the duty to eliminate non-believers. They are simply desperate or callous enough to use terrorism and suicide bombers as tactics and weapons to further their cause.
Very interesting thought experiment, Karl. The maudlin self-pity (and staggering narcissistic blindness – oh poor poor us, having our property taken away, how unfair) of The Old South seems quite – not exactly similar, but closely related.
Prussian self-pity, too, and Hitlery self-pity after the Great War. Defeated bullies in general.
Maybe a little closer than you think, OB. Read the Southern newspapers and political speeches from the late 1850s and see how often you find serious plans for creating a slave empire not only throughout the South and in the territories but also in the Caribbean and in Latin America. And see how often the Bible is quoted as justification for it (descendants of Ham, hewers of wood and drawers of water, yadda yadda yadda…). It’s a damn good thing we Yankees crushed those Confederate fuckers when we did. (And thank almighty Zeus that that fucking Copperhead George McClelland didn’t win the 1864 election.)
Sorry. I’m still wound up over them damn Copperheads and slavemongers. I gotta stop living in the past.
I have, I have read some 1850s stuff. In David Brion Davis’ The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, mostly. And I know, about the Bible – I think also from that book. That’s why I’m always so unimpressed when people try to tell me that Christianity was essential to abolitionism and the civil rights movement. Hmph – the pro-slavery side got there first, and stayed there for a loooong time.
PM: “Although, in the longer term, it might be really quite useful to know what motivates these people.”
I agree and…
OB: “Why do you wish people would stop trying to speculate on motives?”
Did I write “speculate”? Oh dear, I did! (Hopefully, that will serve as this week’s major blunder.)
My problem, as an earlier post made clearer, is not with speculation but with speculation stated as certainty.
It seems to me that fact that some people (yes, usually young men) commit these atrocities is so incomprehensible (it is, to me) that — like those who said “God’s will” after the tsunami — we need to have some explanation to deal with it: “Iraq”, “Bush”, “Blair”, “alienation”, “narcism”.
And explanation, suggests control. So I do agree with PM that it might be quite helpful to find some common causes in what motivates these people. The responses here are generally thoughtful but some elsewhere are just parading their prejudices. To be helpful, explanations have to be true.
And I don’t think that the emphasis on narcism is that helpful: plenty exhibit that flaw without blowing themselves up in crowds.
OB: “just to shrug and say ‘huh, what an odd thing to do’?”
No, and that’s where my post was incomplete. I wonder how those who lost loved ones feel about all the “explanation” and “justification” that’s flying around. There is probably little we can do for them but I don’t think the focus on the perpetrators helps. (I can’t help thinking of the contrast with natural disasters where the focus is on those who’ve been harmed.)
The problem that I guess most of us face is that we feel helpless in the face of these senseless and, in any specific way, unpredictable acts. And that’s an uncomfortable and unpleasant feeling.
“Plenty exhibit that flaw without blowing themselves up in crowds.”
It’s probably a necessary but not sufficient ingredient. But combine it with religious fanaticism and a fascistic political ideology, and you’ve got something explosive. We’re not saying everyone who’s narcissistic will be a suicide bomber. We’re saying that almost all suicide bombers of the global jihadist sort are probably rather narcissistic.
“The problem that I guess most of us face is that we feel helpless in the face of these senseless and, in any specific way, unpredictable acts. And that’s an uncomfortable and unpleasant feeling.”
The kind of feeling that can lead people to turn to religion… could make for one hell of a vicious circle…
Stewart
surely a virtuous circle ?
‘Aum Shinrikyo is basically a bunch of bored professionals (accountants, chemical engineers, business executives, secretaries) who formed a sad little apocalyptic cult around Shoko Asahara, a failed political radical turned mystical guru. They were more like militant Moonies, really’.
Precisely. When you look at the suicide bombers, you find some apparently quite succesful people. Take Mohammed Sidique Khan–it is perhaps that photo which really creeps me out, the one where he holds the pencil–though he was from a popular background, he had a respectable job as a teaching assistant. Not perhaps the best paid job, but definitely one held in high esteem. Some of these people are not the ones who suffered because of terrible injustices, on the contrary, they often succeeded in spite of them.
OB,
Alright, I admit it. I did a lousy job of conveying my thoughts on this.
It is not at all that I think you should only take into account the opinions of those who post in here. I was curious as to the redundancy, the repetition, the rigorous driving home of the point. I was curious as to how much longer you were going to say what you’ve said quite a number if times already.
Today, I see you’ve expanded your thoughts on it a little bit more. Yay!
Aplogies for a half-formulated thought, but surely the history of e.g. World War One shows that it is in fact extraordinarily easy to persuade young men in their late teens and early twenties to put themselves into situations where death is nearly certain for the sake of real or spurious ideals?
Absolutely. That’s been one of the background ideas I’ve had in mind. Those young men didn’t merely put themselves into those situations, they did it (a great many of them – at first) rejoicing. There’s a lot of pure fantasy at work in all of this. (Look at that interview in Prospect, for instance – that guy raving about how terrified he is of natural death; no, only ‘martyrdom’ will make Allah happy with him. Disgusting delusional murderous nonsense – and fantasy.)
I wonder how these suicide bombers would compare to other death cultists. Are they any different in character and temperament from Order of the Solar Temple, Branch Davidians, or Aum Shinrikyo.
I just finished reading the useful Sageman book recommended by Karl, which deals with this subject in some detail. Both the jihadists and the members of the religious cults prey upon the lonely and weak willed, so perhaps the characters and temperaments are similar in both cases. However, their methods are very different.
Both jihadists and religious cultists form intense personal connections with their in-group peers. But the religious cults are classic examples of cults of personality, which center on an all-wise father figure who dictates the smallest actions of his followers, whereas the global jihadist terrorist groups are spontaneously formed and largely self-directed. In the case of the jihadists, small groups of young men (“bunches of guys” who average about eight in number) attach themselves to radical mosques, but by and large they brainwash themselves and each other through intense peer group bonding and ideological one-upmanship. It is estimated that it takes approximately two years to create a suicide bomber this way.
Same sheep, different dynamic. If you wanna turn ’em into zombified flower-sellers, send ’em off to the Unification Church. If you wanna turn ’em into deadly missiles capable of mass destruction, send ’em off to your nearest radical mosque to form a “study group”.
‘It is estimated that it takes approximately two years to create a suicide bomber this way.’ By whom?
There are probably citations in the Sageman book…? That’s my guess anyway.