Image:
The Myth of Martyrdom: What Really Drives Suicide Bombers, Rampage Shooters, and Other Self-Destructive Killers
Adam Lankford
Palgrave Macmillan, 2013 ($27)
The dust had not yet settled after the 9/11 attacks when people began debating whether to call the hijackers cowards. Addressing the nation, President George W. Bush assigned cowardice to the 19 terrorists, articulating a worldview that equates courage with good. Others, including journalists Bill Maher and Susan Sontag, argued that the hijackers could not be cowards, no matter how despicable their methods, because it takes guts to die for a cause. No one, however, questioned the hijackers' dedication to their campaign, until now.
In The Myth of Martyrdom, author Lankford, a criminal justice professor at the University of Alabama, rejects the prevailing view of suicide terrorists as radicalized individuals who will do anything for a cause. Rather, he asserts, they are merely unhappy, damaged individuals who want to die. Terrorist organizations recruit people who are in desperate straits for suicide missions and call them martyrs, and we have bought into their propaganda.
Citing recent research, including evaluations of preemptively arrested suicide terrorists, Lankford argues that the psychological profiles of self-destructive killers, whether underwear bombers or school shooters, are not so different from those of the 34,000 Americans who commit suicide every year, burdened by mental illness, social isolation, and personal and professional failures. Underneath the political rhetoric in suicide letters, martyrdom videos and testimonies of grieving family and friends, Lankford finds evidence of deep psychological pain. The young mother who blows herself up in a crowd, for instance, turns out to be escaping the shame of an adulterous affair.
Ironically, most suicide terrorists come from the Muslim world, where the stigma against conventional suicide is high. For those who fear both life and the religious repercussions of suicide, martyrdom seems to offer a loophole—the only honorable death.
But they are only fooling themselves. Lankford draws clear distinctions between true heroism and its pretenders. Real heroes, such as the soldier who throws himself onto a live grenade to save his unit or the firefighter who rushes into a burning building, do not have a death wish; moreover, their actions directly save other people's lives.
Although Lankford builds an impressive case for his view of suicide terrorism, he offers little in the way of practical solutions to reduce these tragic incidents. (Surely airports will not start screening passengers for suicide risk, as he suggests.) In the end, he knows he is playing the propaganda game as well. If the courage assumed of suicide terrorism is its most powerful weapon, we can disarm this threat by denying its practitioners the myth of martyrdom.
This article was originally published with the title Death Seekers.
See what we're tweeting about
24 Comments
Add CommentSuicide is just another word for homicide. All suicidal people are homicidal. It is only the whims of a defective mind, that determines if a suicide will go alone OR take someone with them. Homicidal is homicidal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSociety should protect itself from homicidal people. It is NOT enough to place such people on anti-depressants (which in itself, may tip the subject into homicide). They should be monitored and restricted. In fact, isn't that the prime purpose of government (provide security)? GK
I come from a long line of folks who tend to suffer from Major Depressive Disorder or MDD. Over the last couple hundred years, we have a notable tendancy to die in odd accidents, like the great uncle who decided to clean his rifle in the barn in the wee hours of the morning, without a lantern; self destructive acts, like the 2nd cousin who died of a massive drug overdose and the 2 great uncles who drank themselves to death within a year of making it home from WWII; and outright suicide complete with dramatic flourish, like the aunt who gassed herself in her garage. I myself have had a couple of close calls before Prozac became widely available and I can tell you for a certainty, if you are truly at that point, it takes great courage to remember your duty and step back from the edge. At that point you will only survive if you can pull your head out of your own backside and decide that you love something or someone more than you hate yourself. None of the folks I just referenced, myself included, abused their family members or committed violent crimes, because they were moral people who had become depressed, they lost the fight for their lives but not for their souls. Most mentaly ill persons still have empathy and a sense of morality. Depression and its attendant cowardice may explain self destruction, but it does not explain murder.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with everything you said AND it needed to be said but...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"may explain self destruction, but it does not explain murder."
Don't kid yourself "self destruction" is just a gentle way of saying "self murder". Only by facing that reality, can one be safely protected by morality and philosophy. GK
You apparently are not familiar with the medical model of MDD. Any illness that can be traced to biological, often heritable causes is an illness not a sin. You may wish to believe that those who die of this particular illness are evil and or damned, but thankfully that does not make it so. Consider, someone who knows they have epilepsy, but doesn't like the side effects of the medication and wants to drive a school bus. So they do not take their meds. lie to the school districts HR department and then take a bus load of kids into a major accident. Is this because epileptics are evil, or is it because this individual was too selfish to be trusted with anyone else’s well being? Does it have any bearing on the morality of the average epileptic?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven the Catholic Church has come to realize that those who fail to survive the potentially fatal illness that major depressive disorder is, are not guilty of anything and those who commit willful murder are. Again referring to medicine and modern biology we also acknowledge that there is such a thing as not guilty by reason of insanity; as in the case of a schizophrenic who believes he has saved his neighbors by killing an attacking alien because he is in a complete psychotic break. He cannot be found to have murdered the meter reader, as he has no idea that's who he actually killed. In this case the actor needs to be locked up because he is a known danger to himself and others, not damned in the eyes of God because he is an unrepentant murderer. It is to be assumed that God knew what was in his mind and my church would certainly arrange for him to receive Visitors for the Ill and Infirm if he or his family asked for them. Just as they would comfort my family should I succumb to the illness I am currently in remission of.
I didn't say suicides were evil. I said each and every suicidal person is homicidal. When a person stops being suicidal, they stop being homicidal. You are trying to separate the two terms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre homicidal people evil? Not necessarily. Every soldier becomes homicidal as he confronts the enemy. Hardly comparable to someone who becomes homicidal because he is depressed and whose spouse just burned the toast.
If you are prepared to kill a human being (which the self surely is) then you are "homicidal". Putting lipstick on it doesn't change the facts. All homicidal people are a danger, either to themselves, or/and others.
When do they stop being homicidal? When they stop thinking about killing themselves or anyone else. See how this works? GK
It works because they have the morality to not harm anyone they do not need to harm. The soldier who kills the enemy on the battle field may or may not be homicidal. He or she may in fact be motivated by the desire to protect: their country, comrades in arms, innocent civilians or even themselves. Again, mainstream Christianity has long viewed the "sins" of soldiers as unavoidable. If they throw up their hands in battle it would be suicide, if they run away and leave their fellows unprotected they have allowed them to be killed, if they do not protect their nation they may cause their countrymen to be slaughtered. Since they cannot act and still be sinless, they may be easily forgiven for choosing the lesser evil, by observing their oath to their country and their branch of Service. To kill in defense or by accident is not homicide, it' manslaughter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are also incorrect if you see the desire to put an end to unbearable pain and suffering in yourself, as in any way being, like the desire to inflict pain and suffering on an innocent bystander. Your own lack of empathy shows though in your belief that the burden the mentally ill carry with them everyday is kinda like being disapointed at the quality of your toast.
The facts remain, in this country the mentaly ill are not more likely to commit violent crime, they are more likely to be the victims of it.
I'm curious why you think that suicide = homicide, and why you think that your opinion applies to everyone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuicide cannot be homicide, since ending the life of someone who wants their life to end is not homicide either - at least according to my morals. (And with moral absolutism, only my morals matter, because any which disagree are wrong. Isn't that nice? (Whoever said moral relativity was evil clearly didn't understand the dangers of moral absolutism))
Has anybody looked into the role anger plays in suicide?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To kill in defense or by accident is not homicide, it' manslaughter."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I agree with your view and disagree with G. Karst's, this particular point is incorrect because you're bringing legal points into a philosophical debate. To kill in defense is legally justifiable homicide. Killing by accident *may* be manslaughter, but only if one knew or should have known that the action would occur. The garbageman that unwittingly crushes a homeless person that was sleeping in a trash bin is not guilty of manslaughter if he didn't know the homeless person was there.
The basic issue here is G. Karst's attempt to redefine homicide. Homicide has long been defined as killing *another* human being. Your debate opponent is trying to play games with the etymology (homo [human] + caedere [cut or kill]) while ignoring centuries of use, at least in English: the word 'suicide' has been around since at least 1651.
True, I didn't consider the clasification, justifiable homicide. And you are right that a completely innocent accident makes one not guilty of anything; I suppose in the same way that someone who was entirely out of their wits would be innocent of any act he did not know he had committed, even if he does need to be incarcerated for his and our own safety.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKaren - you are confusing the act of killing a human being with the justification process, punishment, and judgement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe act of killing a human being is the act of homicide. Whether the act is "justified" or not, is a question for morality and the philosophers. Punishment is a matter separate and is dealt with by the justice system. None of this changes the fact that a human life was lost, hence homicide has occurred.
Certain homicides are sanctioned by the state such as those killings which save lives - either your own or somebody else. Police, military, and private citizens may avail themselves of this sanction, but it must be dispensed by the justice system (or military order) through a hearing.
You are reading morality into my comment and it simply isn't there. If one does not respect their own life, do not expect them to respect your life while you cringe on the floor begging for mercy. It is no time, to be contemplating the killers justification for committing homicide or what pain they are experiencing. That has to happen previously, with the subject's first attempt at suicide.
Listing circumstances that justify suicide is defining the act by the anomalies, or rare and unusual circumstances. It indicates you are still suicidally susceptible, as the various vulgarities of life can still persuade you into suicide.
Whether you represent a risk to yourself or others, should not be decided by you, but by another trained in such a field. You may not care about your life but many others do, and they too... deserve protection.
This in no way affects my empathy or sympathy, for those who feel, they are at the end of their rope. That and a buck, will get you a cup of coffee. GK
jafrates - Thanks for the reluctant assist... I think?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I am drawing focus to the root meaning of the word. It is where the issues lie. Anyone who is prepared to take one human life, whether self or another, is a homicidal act.
Splitting the various sub-catagories of homicide into:
Patricide
Matricide
Fratricide
Sororicide
Genocide
Omnicide
Uxoricide
Democide
Regicide
Tyrannicide
Pseudocide
Deicide
AND SUICIDE
Only serves to identify the victim, and should not be used to exclude any, from the actual act of homicide. Using the root meaning was just a mechanism to open such debate. Hardly a game and was "deadly" serious. Cheers GK
@G. Karst
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat tells us only that the person who dies is human, and it tells us nothing about the distinctions or commonalities between the taking of another's life and the taking of one's own life.
You're incorrect. You get no assistance from me. You're attempting to redefine the word that has held a particular meaning--killing *another* person--for centuries. I don't know for sure whether they were considered the same before around 1651, but they have not been seen the same since.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI submit that some people committ suicide because they are unhappy with life ... find no joy in living but have and have no evil intent toward anyone else ... they just don't want to live any longer ....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, in 1651 women and children were considered chattel (property). Killing them was considered vandalism (property loss). Good thing we were able to bring them into full personhood (redefined). It was the reason for the founding of the SPCA. If children were not human beings, then they must be animals... hence the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to ANIMALS was created (for the protection children). Now it has been redefined to cats and dogs. Things change. Go figure? GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWampum:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Violence Policy Center reports that:
Medical studies estimate that between 1,000 and 1,500 deaths per year in the United States are the result of murder-suicide. [Violence Policy Center] analysis reveals that, in the first half of 2005, there were 591 murder-suicide deaths, of which 264 were suicides and 327 were homicides. Using these figures, more than 10 murder-suicide events occur in the United States each week."
It is dangerous to be close to a suicidal person. Not because they are distraught, but because they are homicidal. GK
Your attempt to equate suicide and homicide is wrong. Most suicidal people are NOT homicidal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany of your initial comments have simply been arguing semantics; then when that did not work you moved on to using an association fallacy:
Premise 1: A is a B.
Premise 2: A is also a C.
Conclusion: Therefore, all Bs are Cs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
Translated to this example:
A suicidal murderer is suicidal.
A suicidal murderer is also homicidal.
Therefore, all suicidal people are homicidal.
"Language changes" is a weak argument. You're attempting to redefine a word for your own purposes to subvert the issues surrounding suicide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the SPCA, you're perpetuating a myth. The Royal SPCA was formed in 1824 to protect horses, not children. The American SPCA was formed in 1866 to promote anti-cruelty laws to animals, not children. People *involved with* the ASPCA got involved in 1874 but stressed that they were not acting in their official capacities. Please read the actual story before you repeat such falsehoods.
http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/who-we-are/history/mary-ellen-wilson.html
There were 32,559 suicides in 2011 in the US. A tiny fraction of them involve injury or death to another. Even at 1500 per year with 45% of the dead those who commit suicide, that makes for 675 people committing suicide taking someone else with them, or about 2%.
Consider also that suicide is usually something done alone. That's not so that they won't take someone else with them but so they can be uninterrupted. While firearms are the most prevalent method in the US, the Japanese choose hanging, jumping from heights, jumping in front of trains, and poison. The number of firearm suicides in Japan was only 47 in 1999 while the number of suicides was well in excess of 30,000. These numbers further counter your views of suicidal people as dangerous to others.
Look, I know it's hard for people with suicidal tendencies to hear the hard facts, but survival is at stake. I have said my piece, and have not much more to add.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor interest's sake, I will share the SPCA (humane society) founding story in Canada:
"The story of the SPCA (or more commonly referred to as the Humane Society) in Ontario and the Ontario SPCA Act has a long and interesting history.
It all started in Toronto in November 1886 when a Globe and Mail reporter, J.J. Kelso happened upon two children, a brother and a sister, who had been forced by their parents to beg at least 25 cents per night at the threat of a severe beating. Kelso found shelter for the children and the parents were charged with neglect the next day but the judge threw the case out on the basis that there were no grounds for prosecution.
Severely affected by this, Kelso was by all accounts a true humanitarian in that he envisioned a society free of cruelty and shortly after the November 1886 incident Kelso presented to the Canadian Institute. The title of his presentation was "The necessity of a society for the prevention of cruelty in Toronto" and he called for a non-denominational humane society whose mandate included both animals and children. The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty (note the lack of "to Animals") was born.
After years of maintaining a vision of a unified society for the prevention of cruelty to animals and children, in 1919 the first Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was enacted and the line between the Humane Society and the previously formed Children's Aid Society was drawn."
http://www.wellandhumanesociety.org/ourroots.html
Similar conundrums were experienced by other countries (mostly British colonies) and were comparably enacted. Cheers GK
I'm glad that you've said your piece because it allows you to stop perpetuating falsehoods. The very text you quote shows that the Ontario SPCA started as a group that fought against cruelty in general and only 30+ years later did the animal cruelty side of it get a separate mandate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour opening words also come off as a thinly veiled ad hominem attack against me. I am not suicidal, nor have I ever been. That you can resort only to such attacks and further twisting of history to support your own views in spite of the evidence against you shows just how weak your argument really is.
The children in the Muslim world are brought up to believe that to die as a martyr is the cool thing to do
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe late King Hussein of Jordan said in his eulogy at Rabin's funeral that it was every Muslims desire to die in battle.
It is a very short stretch to suicide by an Israeli bullet.
A sort of death by cop scenario
Muslims state that they love death as much as Israelis love life!
Reading the Koran shows that Islam is a death cult.
Israel shouldn't be expected to negotiate with a death cult !!
No, my opening line was addressing all those who think suicide is a viable alternative to life's natural struggle to survive. Hence the term suicidal tendencies. Only a small proportion of such people will actually progress to suicide/homicide. The fact that you feel so threatened by my opinion is indicative of other things. Look inward for more answers. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou know how on cars people have the little Jesus Fish, or Darwin Fish, or a Jewish Gefilte fish. There is even a Thor Fish. But, there is not a Muslim style fish, so I made a Martyr Fish, with some TNT strapped to it. I was going to upload the design to cafepress but decided not to as it would probably offend a lot of people. Maybe I'll make a Mohammad fish. Anyone got any idea. I don't want Muslims to be left out fish-wise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this