What makes a Terrorist

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/what-makes-a-terrorist

I'd like to add that scapegoating, in order to place the blame elsewhere on the reasons why a region has strife, is a vital component. It distracts people from looking at the real reasons why their economics are a disaster and gets them fighting back at others instead of their own government.

A higher level of "education", or constant spoon feeding of propaganda (false history, etc.), just solidifies the "justification" of fighting back at those blamed for their state of living.

The article seems to miss this component, and asks about it rather than hitting on it.

It's not just economic deprivation and "lack of education" that leads to the making of a terrorist, it's also what kind of "education" the downtrodden masses are getting.

 

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/what-makes-a-terrorist

I'd like to add that scapegoating, in order to place the blame elsewhere on the reasons why a region has strife, is a vital component. It distracts people from looking at the real reasons why their economics are a disaster and gets them fighting back at others instead of their own government.

A higher level of "education", or constant spoon feeding of propaganda (false history, etc.), just solidifies the "justification" of fighting back at those blamed for their state of living.

The article seems to miss this component, and asks about it rather than hitting on it.

It's not just economic deprivation and "lack of education" that leads to the making of a terrorist, it's also what kind of "education" the downtrodden masses are getting.

Not sure where you are going with this. Does this analysis explain why doctors and university educated persons can be found amongst the ranks of terrorists?

The clear finding was that people with a higher level of education are in general more likely to say that suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq are justified. I have also broken this pattern down by income level. There is no indication that people with higher incomes are less likely to say that suicide-bombing attacks are justified.

==
Support turned out to be stronger among those with a higher level of education. For exam*ple, while 26 percent of illiterates and 18 per*cent of those with only an elementary education opposed or strongly opposed armed attacks, the figure for those with a high school education was just 12 percent. The least supportive group turned out to be the unemployed, 74 percent of whom said they support or strongly back armed attacks. By comparison, the support level for merchants and professionals was 87 percent.

One of the problems of this analysis is the inability to interview successful suicide bombers.

DR

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Not sure where you are going with this. Does this analysis explain why doctors and university educated persons can be found amongst the ranks of terrorists?

Did you read it? I'm not sure how many educated vs noneducated are terrorists vs suicide bombers. There are other ways to to terrorize. Some say terrorists only exist to push democratic sorts out of their countries. That confuses me too. Do democratic/peacekeeping sorts only go where they aren't really wanted?

One of the problems of this analysis is the inability to interview successful suicide bombers.

DR

Kinda funny, made me laugh, but there are other ways to terrorize... including recruiting and training suicide bombers. What percentage of dead suicide bombers are university educated?

What does make a terrorist? I'm sure there must be many diverse opinions on that. I'm curious. I said my bit already, and want to learn more.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

One of the things that makes a terrorist is religious fanatism, which is a topic with a lot of relevance especially in a skeptics forum... But that's not the only thing that makes a terrorist, of course.

This called my attention:

"Why is an economist studying terrorism? I have two answers. First, participation in terrorism is just a special application of the economics of occupational choice. Some peo*ple choose to become doctors or lawyers, and others pursue careers in terrorism. Economics can help us understand why."

It reminded me of my theory about "good people" and "bad people". How basically every human being has the potential to develop in any field: economy, science, arts, terrorism....

 

[Darth Rotor]

Did you read it?

Yes I did. I liked his approach, and his citing the debunking of "hard times leads to violent behavior" myth. It's not a one to one correspondence. I got where the author was going, what I was unsure of is where you were headed with the thought.

I'm not sure how many educated vs noneducated are terrorists vs suicide bombers. There are other ways to to terrorize. Some say terrorists only exist to push democratic sorts out of their countries. That confuses me too. Do democratic/peacekeeping sorts only go where they aren't really wanted?

Usually someone, at least one party in a scrap, doesn't want them there, else there'd be no conflict to get in the middle of. See Darfur for a fine example.

I agree with you that there are a number of ways to terrorize other than through the use of suicide bombers.

Kinda funny, made me laugh, but there are other ways to terrorize... including recruiting and training suicide bombers. What percentage of dead suicide bombers are university educated?

Indeed. What separates the leadership from the foot soldiers? Usuall cranial power of one sort or another.

What does make a terrorist? I'm sure there must be many diverse opinions on that. I'm curious. I said my bit already, and want to learn more.

What makes a terrorist? I'd say its the deliberate use of terror by an extranational faction, or a faction outside the legitimate political structure, as a means of last resort in order to achieve a political, or social, end. There are doubtless other definitions, but that's as pithily as I can put it.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

One of the things that makes a terrorist is religious fanatism, which is a topic with a lot of relevance especially in a skeptics forum... But that's not the only thing that makes a terrorist, of course.

I'd suggest political fanaticism is a more common theme, with religion one of many fig leaves used as an excuse for the simple pursuit of power, or at least more power than the status quo.

This called my attention:

"Why is an economist studying terrorism? I have two answers. First, participation in terrorism is just a special application of the economics of occupational choice. Some people choose to become doctors or lawyers, and others pursue careers in terrorism. Economics can help us understand why."

It reminded me of my theory about "good people" and "bad people". How basically every human being has the potential to develop in any field: economy, science, arts, terrorism....

I noted that as well. Interesting take on the topic.

DR

 

[PAC]

To under*stand who joins terrorist organizations, instead of asking who has a low salary and few opportunities, we should ask: Who holds strong political views and is confident enough to try to impose an extrem*ist vision by violent means?

The extemists Bush, Cheney, etc. of the Neo Con terroist organization seem to fit this description from the article.

 

[Darth Rotor]

To under*stand who joins terrorist organizations, instead of asking who has a low salary and few opportunities, we should ask: Who holds strong political views and is confident enough to try to impose an extrem*ist vision by violent means?

The extemists Bush, Cheney, etc. of the Neo Con terroist organization seem to fit this description from the article.

1. What is the deal with your asterisks?

2. Try applying your model to the Red Brigade, 17th November, or ETA and you might be surprised at how it fits. Do you look outside of the paper towel tube often?

DR

 

[billydkid]

It serves the purposes of the administration for them to be a terrorist??? Oh, you mean what actually makes a person commit violence on innocent people for political purposes. Some people are evil. Some people are insane. Some people are delusional. Some people are bitter and angry. Some people want an excuse to hurt other people. If the question is - what could drive and decent and sane person to become a person who kills innocent people - I was going to say loss of all faith and hope, but you know, there are plenty of people who could lose all faith and hope and still not feel justified in hurting innocent people - if it actually involves deliberately hurting innocents then I would nothing would compel a decent and sane person to do that. However, I don't consider destruction of property or infrastructure to be in any way equivalent to killing innocent people. There is no justification for killing innocent people.

 

[Wowbagger]

Absolutist Ideology is what seems to be a common element in all forms of terrorism, and the article seems to agree with that.

But, it also makes an interesting point about "opportunity": When one lives in a locale where there are more forms of non-violent ways to bring about change, terrorism is far less likely to occur, than a locale where there are no such freedoms. So, the only way to instill change, when your options are limited, is to be violent.

I'd say the article was fairly good.