What Are The Three Main Explanations For Political Violence

During the 1900’s, the most common type of political violence was the act of lynching. No other form of political violence has resulted in as many deaths or has had the cultural impact of lynching. Records show that approximately 5000 violent acts, including the killing of blacks and other minority groups, occurred throughout the United States, resulting in a wave of terror amongst the population and demands for a more equal political system. Other types of political violence include revolution, guerrilla warfare and terrorism. Revolution is a “public seizure of the state in order to overturn the existing government and regime”(QUOTE). It has been observed that the greater the violence used in bringing down the old government, the more

In my opinion, although there are many conflicts of a political nature, religion always seems to take a leading central role in these unfortunate events, and that wrongly feeds the platform of terrorists to use violence. I personally do not understand terrorism; I think it occurs when human beings pass through the line of untenable reason of the lack of compassion towards for others, when they believe that their cause is more valuable than other people’s life. (Personal

One socioeconomic factor that highly contributes to Jihad terrorism is the constant fight for control over the oil flows in Iraq. Other socioeconomic contributors include a lack of education, a lack of health care, and a constant exposure to violence. Other facts include inequality and extreme poverty, both of which result is a bleak

In current media there are constant stories of terror attacks including bombings, shootings, and sieges. Many of these assaults have been undertaken by the religious extremist group, ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), which have stemmed from the basic religious teachings of

Factors like social grievances, economic woes and other similarities, give rise to violent extremist groups. Areas with lawlessness and desperation cause people to argue and bring terror (Does Terrorism,178). Extremist groups are often welcomed in such places because they may offer more of basic securities than the state itself. On the other hand, terrorism could be a weapon of the strong, not for the weak. Stronger states are able to disguise it as a legitimate violence

Maintaining theocratic governments revolves around utilizing religion as the main decision maker for political affairs. Over time, groups of individuals grow indignant with opposing ideologies of how theocracies are enforced. This then creates difficulty for a country to disregard public beliefs of theocracy being portrayed as rule of religion over the state, which results in pressure on governments. Islamic Wahhabism has ultimately led to both of these countries becoming subjected to projecting influence to the Arab world. Many terrorist organizations take advantage of unreliable governments in order to overturn their powers. If these countries support these organizations to prevent revolutions and corruption, other countries becoming judgmental of theocracies is not surprising. Need therefore arises to investigate why conflict and terrorism are viewed as benefactors within the theocratic regimes of these two

Acts of terrorism are typically political oriented and ideologically motivated, ranging from specific goals expressed in terms of the might of political nation-states to more general purposes connected to the dilemma of certain people and groups. Therefore, terrorism can result from demands made by ethnic groups to receive representation in an existing political community or have its own state be formed, while terrorism can also be part of ideological fights for the acknowledgment of diminished expressions of ideas and ways of life. Because of the essentially political ideological objectives of terrorism, the fundamental ideas of terrorism are important to consider as the inspiring forces that fuel terrorist groups and individuals.

As summarized of what Juergensmeyer states in the Minnpost, “religion is a tool used by violent activists who are driven by political or personal reasons.” Juergensmeyer explains that terrorist leaders will use religion to get people to listen to them. When someone adds a religious point of view to a violent crime, it makes the atrocity sound more justifiable. Juergensmeyer shows this by using a suicide bomber for an example. While everyone initially sees this as a violent attack, when put into religious terms, it makes the bomber sound like a martyr, rather than a dangerous extremist. In other words, religious views make violent crimes less horrifying to the perpetrator and others, and is used as a form of protest as well. This reasoning and answer is reasonable, due utilizing the connection between the actions and the fundamental core of radical groups, and providing a potential and possibilities of more reasons; thus analyzing in more depth of why radical groups are formed and why they cause destruction among

The first factor is that of victimization. Victimization is when an individual feels as though he or she has fallen victim to something, such as a physical, psychological, or financial harm. Individuals who are victimized feel as though they are missing something and are eager to be a part of something bigger than themselves, and terrorist organizations can fill those needs. An example of how victimization can attribute to the radicalization of an individual is if an individual lost family or friends in a drone strike conducted by the United States of America. The family and friends killed in the drone strike leaves the individual feeling scared, angry, and sad with a hunger for revenge. A terrorist organization such as Al Qaeda could be very intriguing to that individual because of their mission to wage war against and destroy the United States of America. Victimization is a dangerous factor because it can easily feed into other factors and victims can easily be manipulated into believing certain things, one of those things being religion.

The issue of popular support is further connected to terrorist group’s specific objectives, or goals. In general, terrorists motivated by a religious component are often associated with ‘apocalyptic’ like goals. Hoffman notes that these ‘apocalyptic’ goals, are in nature more violent when compared to the often more tangible political based goals of many secular groups. The association between religiously motivated terrorist groups and apocalyptic like goals is well known throughout academia. Jessica Stern’s book, Terror in the Name of God further references this connection. She is particularly careful not to equate these general end-of-time beliefs to one religion in particular. Instead she notes how such beliefs often span across multiple religions by noting their presence in various sacred texts across all three of the major Abrahamic faiths. She further ties back to Hoffman’s work when discussing how apocalyptic like goals often allow for more violence and destruction when compared to other terrorist objectives (such as forming a new government, or expelling a foreign nation from perceived territory). While Hoffman notes the specific constituency that secular terrorists must appeal to, Stern ties the lack of a needed supportive constituency back to religious terrorist goals. Because religiously motivated groups often seek the complete destruction of society, these groups are less concerned with long-term popular support, (beyond basic funding and recruitment needs.)

This article give details on diverse scholarly observations on how western scholars, blame religion for terrorism. Another group of scholars suggests varied causes of terrorism. They concluded that though, socio-political demands are at the root, however, religion also contributes. The article ended with the fourth group that suggested an alternative that globalization and not religion is the source of modern terrorism.

Many individuals are influenced by religion to join the fight. Islamic extremism is another major reason these terrorist organizations have followers willing to fight for them. “Islamic extremists believe they are obligated to install this form of governance in Muslim-majority territories, countries, and eventually, the entire world. In the minds of Islamic extremists, they are promoting justice and freedom by instituting sharia” (“Understanding Islamist Extremism”). These extreme forms of Islam are what make up the central beliefs of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS. They use their religious affiliations to justify their actions. Acts of Islamic extremism include terrorism, human rights abuses, the advancement of sharia-based governance, and overall hostility to the West (“Understanding Islamist Extremism”). While not all extremists use terrorism, it is common among the majority of the

Even though Islam is a religion that does not seek to promote violence among its followers, terrorist leaders have managed to manipulate the interpretations of Islam and other religions for their own benefit (Khan, 2012). Terrorist leaders modify the interpretations in way in which the tasks within the personal agenda of the terrorist leaders will be accomplished. When terrorist leaders modify the religious interpretations, they mainly seek to make violent acts appear justifiable by their religion so that the members and supporters of the terrorist organization can gain the valor and motivation they need to commit terrorist attacks against the enemies of the terrorist leaders (Khan, 2012).

Political violence is the leading cause of wars today. Personal agendas have led to many of the political objectives that cause violence today this has caused many problems throughout the world and will continue to do so until a solution to this issue is found. Political objectives have been advanced involuntarily dependent upon the kind of government a nation exercises. For instance, in a democratic nation political groups must worry about convincing the majority in order to advance ethically. Those who try to influence the majority through acts of violence are considered today as “terror” organizations. Though perhaps if it were not because of the recent 9/11 terror attacks that maybe such warrants would not be seen as terror attacks,

Terrorism is used around the world to create fear and influence the public on political views (Siegel, 489). There are four views of terrorism including the psychological view, socialization view, ideological view, and the alienation view. A religious terrorist would most likely fit under the ideological view. In this view the terrorist feels the need to change a wrong opinion and believes that, because they are sacrificing themselves for something they believe so strongly in, it justifies the damage and harm done to innocent people (Siegel, 490). They use terror to create fear in anyone who opposes them and attract followers to their religion. In short, terrorism is widely used for political