I agree with your first comments, EZ, but not the second part. The blood is on the hands of who ever does the killing. Anyone that can use some event such as this as an excuse to kill someone is the one deserving of scorn and should take the full responsibility for his/her actions. No one forces another to kill, there are no excuses.
Extreme fanatics are insane by our standards (e.g., the 9/11 shahids). We know that many of these Islamic extremists are not only ready and willing to die and all they need is a reason -- a push. Burning the Koran will incite them just as provoking an angry dog will cause it to attack. Deliberately provoking a known fanatic to violence makes one culpable for the fanatic's actions.
Free speech does not mean it's okay to yell
"Fire!" in a crowded theater. Therefore free speech is limited, not absolute. So this opportunistic minister, Jones, should be enjoined from burning the Koran and he should be arrested and imprisoned if he does it. Let him explain his action to the Black Muslims there.
What I see evidence of on this Thread is...... Wait for it......
Yes..... You guessed it.... You are all Hostages..... Lets play Stockholm Syndrome and tear away at each other.
Stockholm syndrome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Stockholm syndrome (disambiguation).
Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg, StockholmIn psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, essentially mistaking a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBIs Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3] The syndrome is named after the Norrmalmstorg robbery of Kreditbanken at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm, in which the bank robbers held bank employees hostage from August 23 to August 28, 1973. In this case, the victims became emotionally attached to their captors, and even defended them after they were freed from their six-day ordeal. The term "Stockholm Syndrome" was coined by the criminologist and psychiatrist Nils Bejerot, who assisted the police during the robbery, and referred to the syndrome in a news broadcast.[4] It was originally defined by psychiatrist Frank Ochberg to aid the management of hostage situations.[5]
Contents [hide]
1 Development
2 Psychoanalytic explanations
3 Notable examples
4 Lima syndrome
5 In popular culture
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
[edit] Development
While there is still disagreement as to what factors characterize incidents that contribute to the development of Stockholm syndrome, research has suggested that hostages may exhibit the condition in situations that feature captors who do not abuse the victim, a long duration before resolution, continued contact between the perpetrator and hostage, and a high level of emotion. In fact, experts have concluded that the intensity, not the length of the incident, combined with a lack of physical abuse more likely will create favorable conditions for the development of Stockholm syndrome.[1]
The following are viewed as the conditions necessary for Stockholm syndrome to occur.
Hostages who develop Stockholm syndrome often view the perpetrator as giving life by simply not taking it. In this sense, the captor becomes the person in control of the captives basic needs for survival and the victims life itself.[1]
The hostage endures isolation from other people and has only the captors perspective available. Perpetrators routinely keep information about the outside worlds response to their actions from captives to keep them totally dependent.[1]
The hostage taker threatens to kill the victim and gives the perception of having the capability to do so. The captive judges it safer to align with the perpetrator, endure the hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor than to resist and face murder.[1]
The captive sees the perpetrator as showing some degree of kindness. Kindness serves as the cornerstone of Stockholm syndrome; the condition will not develop unless the captor exhibits it in some form toward the hostage. However, captives often misinterpret a lack of abuse as kindness and may develop feelings of appreciation for this perceived benevolence. If the captor is purely evil and abusive, the hostage will respond with hatred. But, if perpetrators show some kindness, victims will submerge the anger they feel in response to the terror and concentrate on the captors good side to protect themselves.[1]
In cases where Stockholm syndrome has occurred, the captive is in a situation where the captor has stripped nearly all forms of independence and gained control of the victims life, as well as basic needs for survival. Some experts say that the hostage regresses to, perhaps, a state of infancy; the captive must cry for food, remain silent, and exist in an extreme state of dependence. In contrast, the perpetrator serves as a 'mother' figure protecting the 'child' from a threatening outside world, including law enforcements deadly weapons. The victim then begins a struggle for survival, both relying on and identifying with the captor. Possibly, hostages motivation to live outweighs their impulse to hate the person who created their suffering.[1][6]
In many cases, capture may also involve the killing (or threat of killing) of the captive's relatives, thereby isolating the captive. The captive is subjected to isolation and so sees even a small act, such as providing amenities, as a great favour. Such captives may side with their captors while believing their captors have conferred on them great importance and love. Furthermore, captives who perceive themselves as the only members of their group not to have been killed may believe that they have been shown a special interest.[citation needed]
[edit] Psychoanalytic explanations
Stockholm syndrome is a psychological shift that occurs in captives when they are threatened gravely but are shown acts of kindness by their captors. Captives who exhibit the syndrome tend to sympathize with and think highly of their captors. When subjected to prolonged captivity, these captives can develop a strong bond with their captors, in some cases including a sexual interest.
Psychiatrist Frank Ochberg, widely credited with Stockholm Syndrome's psychiatric definition, describes it as "a primitive gratitude for the gift of life," not unlike that felt by an infant.[7]
According to the psychoanalytic view of the syndrome, this tendency might be the result of employing the strategy evolved by newborn babies to form an emotional attachment to the nearest powerful adult in order to maximize the probability that this adult will enableat the very leastthe survival of the child, if not also prove to be a good parental figure. This syndrome is considered a prime example for the defense mechanism of identification.[8]
Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Save Us From Ourselves!!!!!
