Taking a Look at Terrorism

Terrorism is a difficult issue to understand and grasp for many people. What is even more difficult to understand is what drives an individual to become radicalized to the point of joining a terrorist organization and committing terrorist acts. While there is not specific criteria or a “cookie cutter” approach to understanding what motivates and radicalizes an individual to participate in such atrocities, there are however, several psychological and behavioral factors that have been common among these individuals. The following paper will outline some of the psychological and behavioral factors that attribute to an individual’s radicalization and eventual willingness and even perhaps

Overall, our society has been impacted greatly since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The growth of terrorism and its groups continues to increase globally. Furthermore, attacks are becoming more sporadic and smaller, making them more difficult to prevent. The United States government continually responds to terrorism which has affected many aspects of society. For example, new requirements are affecting state law enforcement as they have new responsibilities regarding terrorism-related investigations. Additionally, political participation continues to increase, while reenlistment in the military decreases. There is a sense of paranoia in education systems, and Americans persistently discriminate against Muslims. Ultimately, terrorism is

During this week, I learned about the face of terrorism, as well as terrorist organizational models, and the psychology of terrorism. As a result, I am able to identify what terrorism is by identifying the political, psychological, violent, and deliberate objectives of a group. In addition, I now understand the structure of a terrorist organization and the four levels that make up a terrorist group, as well as the human behaviors that lead a person to become a terrorist.

When one is coming to understand terrorism and all of its components, a generally accepted definition is hard to come by because it tends to be described through the “subjective outlook of the definer” (Ganor, 2002). This idea has best been described as saying that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (Laqueur, 1987). For example, Osama Bin Laden, the man who is most known in the development of the plans for the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, was most likely seen as a freedom fighter in the eyes of those in support of Al-Qaeda, while Americans and people all around the world viewed his actions as one of a terrorist. Terrorism is not this tangible object that can be defined as one thing and is applied

The physical and symbolic attacks on the United States and its political and cultural powers that occurred on September 11, 2001 opened a new academic debate on the issue of terrorism. The abundant literature on the topic, which predominates in the West, reflects an unfaltering focus on Islam and the Muslims, attributing to them the adjective ‘terroristic’.

Terrorism is a current threat to our nation, to our lives, to our neighboring countries, and also, to our nation’s allies. While terrorism consists of acts of violence, nevertheless, the loss of innocent lives occur during the process of these acts of violence.

When discussing theoretical perspectives regarding terrorism, conflict theory perspective and functionalism perspective come to mind. Functionalism states that behaviors accompanied by societal institutions can be used to bring about change (Barkan, n.d.).. Whereas the conflict theory focuses on an organization’s presence, or lack thereof, that allows opportunities for continuous confrontation.

The United States promotes international freedom, and discourages any organization who is attempting to disrupt freedom. In recent years, terrorism has become one of the United States greatest dilemmas. Terrorism is a horrific crime against society, and the people who carry out these acts are considered people some of the worst criminals of today. Following September 11 the United States made a decision to wage war of terror. The United States “War on Terror” attempts confront these people and their organizations and remove them from power, bring peace to their home nation and hopefully establish international peace. (5) The war on terror is not only fought with guns and soldiers, but in the interrogation room as leaders attempted to learn more about the interworking of these dangerous groups. The men who are captured are dangerous and sometimes well connected leaders with lots of information. The question which logically arises after these men are detained, exactly what is the proper interrogation technique and exactly how far can we go to extract information. Clearly, any information these men have could save the lives of innocent people. Due to their knowledge terrorist cannot be imprisoned without making an attempt to learn what they know. This is where the War on Terror has created a huge moral dilemma, these men are dangerous and sometimes ruthless, but when they are in our hands what exactly is acceptable to save lives. Interrogation can quickly turn to torture as

Scholars who study subjects such as anthropology, sociology, and history say primary research is both “possible and necessary for gaining an in-depth, richly textured and nuanced understanding of the subject” (Jackson 2011: 32) and “terrorism cannot be fully understood outside of the historical, political, social and cultural context in which it occurs” (Jackson 2011: 33). Terrorism cannot thrive as a field of study without primary sources “straight from the horse’s mouth’.

Mathew Heazlett is a Master’s Student in the Terrorism & Counter Terrorism Studies at Henley-Putnam University. Submitted to the faculty of Henley-Putnam University, this research paper is in partial fulfillment of the requirements for TCT 596.4A, Origins, Evolutions, and trends in Terrorism and the Master’s Terrorism and Counter Terrorism Studies program. Contact Mathew Heazlett at MathewHeazlett@stu.henley-putnam.edu for correspondence regarding this paper.

As shown by the British security service MI5 and the French government’s estimations of the current threat level of international terrorism, respectively defined as SEVERE in the United Kingdom (Security Service MI5, 2016) and HIGH in France (French Government, n.d.), terrorism is considered to be among the most significant security threat nowadays. Understanding what encourages the development of terrorism and being able to develop effective counterterrorism strategies is therefore a central goal to many governments and policy makers today. As a result, an entire field of study has emerged dedicated to analyzing and researching the evolution of terrorism. Bruce Hoffman (2006:40) defines terrorism as “the deliberate creation and

From news rooms to newspapers and websites, the words “acts of terrorism” were blurted out again and again over the past 13 years. The reality is, there is no “act” of terrorism. Individuals create acts of violence in support of terrorism, thus making them part of a larger process. In chapter One, Canter mentions a staircase terrorism model that was introduced by Moghaddam in 2005 describing the process as “a person entering into and becoming part of an ever more involving commitment to violence for political or ideological ends.” For this to take place, two things must occur; first, the organization must be feared by others (i.e. groups, communities, government, etc.), and second, they are remembered culturally and internationally for the grievances the organizations cause. These grievances are key to the organizations success and keeping them feared over the course of years. They also become the identifying mark of the organization, laying the groundwork for resentment to those who the organization sees as their enemy. One of the major misconceptions about terrorism is it’s not how devastating or damaging the incident is, but how well the organization can spin the incident to its supporters that drive the influx of violence. Terrorism is created on a psychological level. Social media, friends, family, and gatherings all contribute to the influence of hatred of external groups,

From the angle of criminology, psychological warfare also known as Terrorism is an enrapturing trouble that offers a hard plausibility for academic reflection on various hypothetical, experimental, and sensible inconveniences. The segment of the fear based oppression thinks about generally envelops both psychological oppression as a particular side interest including the curse of harm for specific capacities, and counter-terrorism, in regards to practices and organizations required with characterizing and reacting to fear based oppression. Criminology examines psychological warfare as wrongdoing or aberrance and researches counter-terrorism as social control. The extraordinary commitments of criminology make it a prized expansion to the more extensive train of fear based oppression contemplates.

Wherever anyone goes, anyone is vulnerable to terrorism. Terrorism is something that is a horrific thing and effects everyone that went through it and the people watching the news and newspapers. The effects of terrorism can be extremely dangerous; sometimes it can even be deadly. In the last of a couple of years around 50 terrorist attacks have been in the United States. Around 200 in the world, just last week there was an attack on the London bridge. ISIS even has claimed that they planned the attack. For anybody that doesn't know who ISIS is they are a terrorist organization that people say "are more extreme than al-Qaida or any other terrorist group in the world." Terrorism affects the world in so many ways, and it isn't pretty.

When looking at the terrorism that ISIS has endued it has become very evident that a solution needs to be drawn into action. In my opinion the only way to take down this organization is to begin to treat it like the state that it is. A state is defined as: “a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.” ISIS has not only gained territory in Syria, Iraq and Istanbul but according to New York Times columnist, Tim Arango, “ISIS is building a capacity to govern.” In 2014, ISIS formally informed the world on their establishment of a caliphate. This caliphate is governed under Islamic beliefs and rulers. “They have begun issuing identification cards for residents, promulgating fishing guidelines to preserve stocks, and requiring that cars carry tool kits for emergencies” (Arango). Believe it or not, ISIS has been a state for two years, regardless of their lack of legitimacy, their consistent threat of violence against any of those who oppose their beliefs allows them not only to get things done, but get them done efficiently. Whether we want to accept it, ISIS is a state, and we need to treat it as such.