Thanks for posting this thoughtful piece. However, for someone who, like myself, is no stranger to assimilation and multiple cultural identities, it leaves several questions unanswered.
1. If there is a conflict between two identities, "Western European" and "other" which cannot be solved by other means than those involving ultimate aggression - why does that aggression must be directed against the "Western" rather than the "Other" identity? My situation of an Eastern European émigré in the US during the Kosovo war is comparable to that of many Pakistani or Egyptian émigrés in the US or UK during the Iraq war. I can tell from my own experience, as well as from that of fellow émigrés to whom I talked, that there were many conflicting emotions. There was the condemnation of the USAF bombardment, yet few people supported the Milosevic regime. However, I do not know of anyone who would entertain any violent action against anyone (let alone self) in retaliation for the US involvement in that war.
Likewise, I talked to a number of Latin American émigrés during the Falkland/Malvinas war or the US involvement in Nicaragua, Guatemala, or El Salvador. Again, a lot of mixed emotions and hatred of the US government - but nobody even entertained the possibility of a retaliatory action against the US population. In fact, Latin American émigrés were quire good at trying to win the popular support here.
2. Furthermore, even if there is an unresolvable identity conflict that prompts one to commit a suicide - why does that involve killing others? Acts of self-immolation committed by Buddhist monks protesting against the war in Vietnam were not intended to harm the spectators - in fact such a harm would be antithetical to the act itself.
A desire for a revenge might be a plausible explanation if the act was committed in the US, because of the overwhelming public support for the war and its perpetrators. But the UK public was overwhelmingly against the war - so why taking a revenge on someone who is essentially not your enemy, if not exactly someone on your side?
3. Moreover, if there is an identity conflict at all, why is not that conflict resolved in favor of the "assimilated" identity? The suggested explanation that this resolution requires that the "old" identity be reprehensive (e.g. US Germans renouncing their German identity because of Hitler) is not convincing, because there are many examples of renouncing the old identity that was not reprehensible in any way. Many assimilated Jews did that, both here and in Eastern Europe.
What is more, I often observed a peculiar behavior among Eastern European émigrés who made their old identity look reprehensible in response to setbacks they experienced in their new country. I met a number of people here, living essentially in poverty, who refused to go back citing horrible things that would happen to them "over there" - which I knew were patently false. My explanation of this behavior is that émigrés who came here with high expectations which then were not met could not come back without suffering the loss of status and ridicule from their ex-compatriots, but they needed a face saving justification for not wanting to go back. The vilification of the old identity provided that justification.
Therefore, it is quite possible that the identity conflict is resolved though the vilification of the old identity and embracing of the new one.
In sum, I am not quite convinced. I would also like to add a comment in response to ravi's comment on my macho aggression argument that hatred of Western feminism and liberalism is also expressed by many Western males. This is precisely my point - I believe that the behavior in question is universal and not limited to any particular culture. It also explains why Western males join violent street gangs, militias, "secret societies" and engage in acts of random violence.
Wojtek