I'm glad to learn more about the incident itself, but honestly the article does not give me a real reason to doubt that the phenomenon is real. Calling it a "diagnosis" is an attempt to medicalize it, which seems ridiculous as it is so incredibly situation-specific. And they in turn use this to attempt to undermine the "diagnosis" by a psychiatrist who never met with the patient; clearly meeting the patient and being able to interrogate them should be a significant part of a medical diagnosis, but this is not that, so it's an irrelevant criticism.
The hostages were held at gunpoint under the threat of execution, and even after a successful rescue with no hostages injured, they sided with their captors against the authorities. Nothing here seems to contradict that or the phenomenon.
The hostages were held at gunpoint under the threat of execution, and even after a successful rescue with no hostages injured, they sided with their captors against the authorities. Nothing here seems to contradict that or the phenomenon.