What Motivates Terrorists? Essay

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

New York City. Washington D.C. London. Nairobi. Beirut. Yazidi. Beslan. Mumbai. Lockerbie. These are the locations of some of the world’s worst terrorist attacks, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. The culprits of these attacks were nearly always a relatively small group of individuals that were labeled as terrorists. It has been said that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. This is the problem with understanding terrorism, a word that means many things to different people. Our different perspectives make it a difficult problem to define and solve. These incidents have occurred relatively infrequently but their impact has been long term and far reaching. What could drive human

Terrorism is an act of violence, usually done in the public sphere, which is used to incite fear in a population in order to coerce change in public opinion or a government’s position on an issue. In many parts of the world, groups wage war with their countries, either to separate from the government or to overthrow it entirely. Sometimes these people are treated unfairly by their government, and their struggles are justified. Other times, these groups use violence against both military and civilian targets, terrorizing innocent bystanders to get what they want—these groups are terrorists. Often, though, it is difficult to tell the difference.

Terrorists deny the authenticity of states, the rights of people , the unique importance of individual human beings and ultimately morality. Terrorists for one reason or another, loathe our freedom and our way of life. (Zupan, 2004)

“Terrorism's particularly heinous but highly attractive means to achieve political objectives or even radically restructure political foundations is manifest within societies in all reaches of the world. While the practical application of terrorist methodologies comes across as a relatively straightforward craft, the conceptual and ideological understanding, and subsequent evaluation of its socio-political influence, implementation, and psychological impacts present difficult questions, and in some cases conceivably insurmountable obstacles” (Romaniuk 2014, para

The most common and frequently the most serious problem in legal definitions of terrorism under national laws is that they are overbroad and vague. As a basic legal principle, such laws fail to give reasonable notice of what actions are covered. Many are so broad that they cover common crimes that should not reasonably be deemed terrorist or acts that should not be considered crimes at all. “Their scope leaves them susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by the authorities” (In the Name of Security). Few terrorism definitions are so narrowly drawn. In general, definitions of terrorism tend to cover acts carried out for a wide variety of purposes, often with no requirement that they cause or intend to cause death or serious injury, and without specifying the level of physical property damage required to render an act terrorist. “Legal definitions of terrorism generally specify two or three basic elements: the act and purpose, or the act, intent, and purpose” (In the Name of Security). The crime of terrorism is typically characterized as an act carried out with a particular intent—for example, the intent to kill—and for a specific purpose, such as coercing or intimidating a government or population into performing or abstaining from an action. The American Civil Liberties Union

Terrorist organizations from the past did not have much exposure compare to terrorist organizations now who have diverse media outlets. The different types of media coverage's include the internet , social media, news, and YouTube videos. Terrorist have an advantage with these media outlets, they can recruit members to join the fight against those who are against Islam. These individual can receive training from these terrorist organization. Training can include how to make a bomb, fight tactics, or planning terrorist attack. They play to and for an audience, and solicit audience participation (Hoffman 2006, 173). These terrorist organization want as much media exposure as to bring terror to those who oppose them. By these terrorist attack

“In addition to communicating messages of fear to the mass audience, terrorists also may polarize public opinion, make converts, mislead the enemy by spreading false information, win publicity, advertise causes and movement, and discredit victim(s), to name just a few (Denton, 2004, p. 3)”. These terrorists wanted to get across this message that they wanted the United States citizens to stay out of the Middle East and to destroy or corrupt Christianity. Their main tactic in accomplishing their goals, was to scare off whoever they thought were intruding on their customs and country.

The following is a brief explanation of the motivation of the Islamic Jihad Group. Included is a response to how the knowledge of the Islamic Jihad Group’s motivation might assist in planning counter terrorist strategy. Included are explanations as to how the motivations of terrorists differ from the motivations of other violent criminals and how cultural, socioeconomic, or political factors could lead a person to become a terrorist or criminal.

The statement that one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist is not valid and this is because the differences between the two are far more complex than perspective alone. The issue with perspective being the only distinction is in the difficulty to accurately define terrorism in a way synonymous to describing the characteristics of a freedom fighter. In examining the characteristics of numerous definitions it becomes evident that there is a distinction in the relationship which terrorists and freedom fighters have with civilians when carrying out their violent and politically motivated goals.

This week in Lamy terrorism and human security were covered in chapters nine and ten. LAmy describes terrorism as the use of violence to bring attention to a “grievance”, to get a certain “response”, or to weaken someones moral to elicit “political change”. Lamy explains that terrorism can be done as a result of infractions on culture, economics, and/or religion. One example the book gives is Al Qaeda which is a religious based terrorist group that fight due to an oath of loyalty to Osama bin Laden. This group became recognized as a terrorist group after the incident of September 11. These terrorist acts were done on the premise of the belief in jihad. Like most terrorists, Al Qaeda fights for the beliefs for which there is no compromise;

The act of terrorism, an unlawful use of violence and intimidation, is most commonly seen targeting civilians but can also include damage to property or injury to specific individuals. These malicious acts are used to fulfil political, religious or ideological aims in attempt of intimidating the government or society. Terrorisms’ impact reflects on the government and society extracting various responses, both legal and non-legal. The effectiveness of these responses, aimed at obtaining equal justice against terrorism, tend to vary while considering the concepts of preventing terrorist attacks while not infringing on human rights and the resolution of the ‘war against terrorism’. The evident lack of consistency in these responses has been reflected

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.

They focus on the traits of terrorism that cause most of us to view the practice with deep moral repugnance: (i) violence (ii) against non-combatants (or, alternatively, against innocent people) for the sake of (iii) intimidation (and, on some definitions, (iv) coercion). In highlighting (ii), they relate the issue of terrorism to the ethics of war and one of the fundamental principles of just war theory, that of non-combatant immunity. They help distinguish terrorism from acts of war proper and political assassination, which do not target non-combatants or common citizens. It does not matter very much whether the victims of terrorism are described as “non-combatants” or “innocent people”, as each term is used in a technical sense, and both refer to those who have not lost their immunity against lethal or other extreme violence by being directly involved in, or highly responsible for, (what terrorists consider) insufferable injustice or oppression. In war, these are innocent civilians; in a violent conflict that falls short of war, these are common

In addition, terrorist groups come from a failed country or a country who have had human rights issues by