Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Mass Murderer or Terrorist - An Important Distinction

This post comes with no pictures and no links. I simply want to get across the point that a mass murderer is different than a terrorist and we shouldn't confuse the labels.

Mass murderer - a disgruntled, angry psychopath or borderline personality disordered individual who hates everyone in the world and picks a group to target that a)  justifies his crime, b) is a fishbowl he feels comfortable committing the crime in,  and c) gets a lot of media publicity for himself.

Terrorist -  a disgruntled, angry psychopath or borderline personality disordered individual who is a) in the employ of a terrorist organization who selects the target for political reasons and the impact of the terrorist attack on the political issue, b) is sent on an assignment to kill, and c) gets a lot of media publicity for the cause.

Mislabeling mass murderers as terrorists encourages misdirected animosity between groups of people when the anger should be only targeted toward the individual and the development of psychopathy in society.

Examples of mass murder:

Oklahoma City - mass murderers 
Columbine - mass murderers
Virginia Tech - mass murderer
Fort Hood - mass murderer
Norway - mass murderer
Aurora, Colorado - mass murderer
Wisconsin Sikh temple - mass murderer


Examples of terrorism:

Ku Klux Klan - terrorism by Christian fanatics
9/11 - terrorism by Muslim fanatics
1985 bombing of Air India plane (Canada) -   terrorism by Sikh fanatics
2007 Ajmer Dargah blast  - terrorism believed to be enacted by Hindu fanatics


Let's put the proper label on the proper psychopath: it will help us not foment hatred for no reason and also help us understand what exact issues we should be focusing on to prevent future attacks. If we are dealing with mass murder, we need to focus on the development of psychopaths in middle class America and if we are dealing with terrorism we need to focus on where and why terrorists organizations are developing, how they are being funded, and how they are recruiting. For both types of killings, we need to know how to identify the individuals and their intent to kill before the crime is enacted and to develop the best methods to prevent and stop such killings.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

August 5, 2012

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Mass Murderer or Terrorist?

There is a new link to a blog making its way around the Internet which claims Pat Brown excuses criminality and is a big leftist.

This claim always make me laugh. I have no issues with people being liberal or conservative, or even far to the right or left. I may have a rousing discussion with them but I can still like a person with diametrically opposing views. I, myself, am a conservative, a constitutionalist, pro-Second Amendment, pro-carry, and pro-death penalty. The concept that I am a big liberal/anti-gun/soft on crime started in two places. Both came from the far right over the issues of gun control and terrorism. Some pro-gun folk on a particular site got all bent out of shape over a television commentary I did on men who kill their girlfriends. I pointed out that if you are a woman and you note these three things in your fellow, you might want to run the other way: a very controlling personality, an obsession with violence, and a massive gun collection. These pro-gun folks only paid attention to the last part and saw red; Pat Brown is saying all men with a gun collection are violent psychopaths who kill their wives and girlfriends.

Of course, this is not true. I know many men with gun collections, but they don't have continual violent ideation nor are they control freaks who push their women around. What is funnier is that I own two weapons and my children own weapons, more than one weapon each. I am pro-carry. But, for years, it has been claimed I am a big liberal who wants to take everyone's guns away!

The other far right group that decided I was a big leftist went nuts after I labeled the Ft. Hood Shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, a mass murderer rather than a terrorist. One site claims that I refused to even clarify my position, that I have some nerve to not call him a terrorist, even though I detailed three times over in the video they posted of me on FOX news my exact definitions of a mass murderer and a terrorist and why I think Hasan is the former and not the latter. I will explain it here again so somewhere on the Internet it is clear what I really believe and why.

A terrorist is someone who works with a terrorist organization over a period of time, is bred to be a terrorist and instructed on what to do by the organization. Then, the terrorist carries out the terrorist attack on behalf of the terrorist organization and its ideology. Finally, the attack itself, although the terrorist might have psychopathological issues of his own, is committed in order to forward a political ideology and coerce a government or country into making concessions that benefit the group's agenda.

A mass murderer is psychopath who has issues in his own life and wants to do something that will show the world it should have paid more attention to him, that he is someone important, and now they will never forget him. They want to go out with a bang and make all the newspapers. They may create a political ideology to justify their big day but they have not been trained nor are they working in concert with a terrorist organization.

9/11 was a terrorist attack; this is clear. So are other terrorist attacks; for example, places that blow up in India and Egypt are terrorist attacks; Mumbai, Jaipur, Hyderabad, Delhi in India, and Sharm-el-Sheik and Luxor in Egypt. Most of the Indian attacks are over who should own Kashmir - Pakistan or India (or neither) - and are committed by members of Lashkar-i-Taiba (LET). Some of the attacks are over Bangladesh. Egypt has a variety of factions trying to force the government to act toward Israel or the US in the way that terrorist group wishes. They are all politically motivated and usually involve lengthy planning and groups of operatives. The 1983 bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon was a terrorist attack aimed at getting the United States to go home. It worked. The 2004 Madrid train bombings were carried out to influence the upcoming election and to get Spain to pull out of Iraq. It worked. Most of these terrorist attacks cited are radical Islamist groups, but not all terrorist attacks are committed by al-Qaeda or their cells or Islamic radicals. There are and have been terror groups in India (some are radical Hindus or Radical Christians), Sri Lanka, Africa, South America, Asia and elsewhere in the world where other political aims or religious aims are or were at play.

In the United States we have also been subject to terrorist attacks. Jose Padilla was convicted in 2005 of being an enemy combatant of Pakistan for trying to bring a "dirty bomb" into the country. The Virginia "Jihad" Network consisting of eleven men with ties to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Lashkar-i-Taiba was brought down in 2003. And in 2010, Faisal Shahzad was charged with attempting to blow up a bomb in Times Square in New York City. He had ties to the Pakistan Taliban from whom it is believed he received training.

These are just some of the attacks targeting the United States that are true terrorist attacks. I call these perpetrators "terrorists" because they are truly working with a terrorist group.

Now, we have a new issue on the horizon, what we call "homegrown" terrorists. These are usually psychopaths who join up with a terrorist network because they want to feel important; similar to someone joining a cult. I don't call Hasan a homegrown terrorist because he did not actually join a group and work with them.

Mass murderers just want their day in the sun and to take revenge on society, the society that didn't give them respect. The Columbine Mass Murders were committed by two psychopathic teenage boys who wanted to mow down the more popular kids, especially the girls who they didn't think would date them, and the wanted get their name in the papers. Cho of Virgina Tech fame had similar "Wannabe a Rockstar/Killer" ideation.

But, Oklahoma City Bomber, Timothy McVeigh, and Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Behring Breivik, were older and had achieved "midlife crisis" (the two major mass murder groups are teens who feel adult life offers nothing to live for and those who have become frustrated that they have not reached the level of success they wanted as adults and give up); these two men felt society had ignored them long enough. They developed a political ideology of White Superiority that propelled them to their big day in the sun and made them heroes for a cause (if only in their own minds). While they may have reached out on occasion to certain groups, gone to their websites, and read their books, they were not working with any terrorist cell. This was their big day and that big day was really about nothing but themselves. They were losers who wanted to become antiheroes and they succeeded.

Nidal Hasan didn't even work as hard as McVeigh or Breivik on any intricately developed ideology. He had moments of getting all radical Islamic when he was feeling down, but, in the end, he wanted to kill his workmates and get back at the Army he had served for half his life, the organization he felt didn't appreciate him enough. Yes, he reached out right before the mass murder to radical Islamists to give himself a better justification for his killing his fellow servicemen and he yelled "Allah Akhbar" before he pulled the trigger, but this does not him a terrorist make. He had the traits and behaviors of a mass murderer and if al-Qaeda is cheering and claiming he committed a terrorist act in the name of Allah, so be it; sometimes mass murdering psychopaths help out the terrorists.

Why do I insist on the importance between this distinction of mass murderer and terrorist? Certainly not, as this website claims, because I want to "excuse criminality" or that I want play down any radical Muslim connection to terrorist attacks. I have often labeled certain attacks terrorist attacks and if they are conducted by groups who adhere to a radical Islamic philosophy, I state this as well, and, I am hardly excusing criminality because I recommend the death penalty for either a mass murderer or a terrorist. My purpose in laying out the differences between the mass murderer and the terrorist is so that we know what to watch for and what traits and behaviors to recognize, so we can intervene before the terrorist or mass murderer strikes. This is the kind of work I do in anti-terrorism training funded by Homeland Security and TSA and in my psychopathology training for law enforcement.

Psychopathy, mass murder, and terrorism are increasing in our world. If we cannot find a way to talk about these subjects rationally, we will not be able to address and prevent these mass homicides from occurring.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why Was America Attacked on September 11, 2001?

All those who believe it was because the terrorists are jealous of us and our capitalistic society, raise your hands. Those were the reasons President Bush gave for the murders of thousands of innocent people shortly after the attack on September 11th. For God sake, put your hands down, and think! Why would those men dare to attack America, knowing full well they would incur the great and mighty wrath of our government and military in return? Remember this is not a small group of crazed extremists, but rather a large, organized, well-funded network.

I did not buy that jealousy crap for a second, and I thought, what would drive me to do such a thing? What could fill me with that much rage? The answer is to avenge and protect my loved ones, my home, and my country. I am not for one second saying the terrorists had a right to attack and kill innocent civilians, or that the perpetrators should not be hunted down, stand trial, and pay with their own lives. However, the fact remains we will never be safe until we know the truth about the complex issues behind the reasons for the attack of 9-11 and other attacks against the U.S.

Congressman Ron Paul had the courage to point out the proverbial elephant in the room, which not many are willing to face. During the GOP debate in South Carolina last month, Rep. Paul “who has long served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explained how 50 years of American interventionism in the Middle East has helped compromise our national security…” Rudy Giuliani interrupted saying he had "never heard anything so absurd.” Dr. Paul then advised Mr. Giuliani to read the 9-11 Commission Report. Andy Bacevich wrote this about Giuliani’s remarks to Dr. Paul’s statement in his essay published in the Atlantic Monthly, “indignation is not an argument, and 'How dare you!' is not a response”. So before anyone makes a similar comment here, I have a reading assignment for you too. Only then, can there be an exchange of opposing viewpoints-if you still have one.

It happens that Dr. Paul’s explanation is also supported by well-documented facts contained in our National Security Archives. I am a big fan of our National Archives, and have spent countless hours reading documents written by our nation’s leaders and policy makers on a variety of subjects. It is here that you can read for yourself about how individuals with an unquenchable thirst for money and power have manipulated elections, economies, and the lives of people in other countries in the name of the United States of America, because it was beneficial to American business interests. For example this January 25, 2001, memo on al-Qaeda from counter terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. Or the enlightening 1999 Desert Crossing Seminar documents. “In late April 1999, the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), led by Marine General Anthony Zinni (ret.), conducted a series of war games known as Desert Crossing in order to assess potential outcomes of an invasion of Iraq aimed at unseating Saddam Hussein.” Over seventy participants including the Dept. of State, the CIA, the Dept.of Defense, and the National Security Council took part in the event. And there is plenty more to read about 50 years of U.S. interventionism in the Middle East and South Asia document collection. When you have finished reading about the Middle East, I suggest the section on Latin American Affairs.

Those that have the courage to seek the truth are true patriots. Not only is it our right as American citizens to question the actions of our leaders and hold them accountable, it is our responsibility. It is up to us to see that our representatives conduct themselves with honor, integrity, and decency on behalf of our beloved America. We the People have our work cut out for us, and because I love my country so deeply, I will continue to question my government and its actions. It is the least I can do.

Donna Weaver

For My Honey, I am so proud of your devotion, strength and courage !!

Panthers, 505th PIR, 82nd Airborne- All The Way!! H-Minus!!

May God keep you safe and bring you home to us soon.