Causes of Terrorism

[SGOS]

Terrorism here is loosely defined, and can include acts of terror without political motive. Some people may even include homicide in terrorism.  But it's a complex human behavior.  There is no single predictor.  It can often be religious in nature, and indeed this is common.  But this article underscores a big question I have had about terrorist behavior.  I've brought this up before (not in the forum), and was dismissed with the usual, "Terrorism is caused by poverty, or this, or that (insert just about any social issue)."

But what I've always wondered about is what comes first, the propensity towards violence or the political/religious motive?  Could it be that violent people unconsciously seek out reasons to put a better face on their violent needs.  Or is it more like inherently good men are rationally directed to violence for the purpose of creating a greater good?  Or can it be both?

I lean toward the assumption that terrorism is unlikely without the preexisting desire to commit violent acts first.  Here's some highlights from one study that more or less mesh with my belief:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/investigators-said-they-killed-for-isis-but-were-they-different-from-regular-mass-killers/2016/09/23/0e97949a-80c2-11e6-b002-307601806392_story.html?tid=hybrid_collaborative_3_na

Lankford points to Omar Mateen, who pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State during the rampage in which he shot and killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. The FBI investigated Mateen prior to the attack, determined he had no links to terrorism and dropped the investigation. But Lankford said there were other red flags, such as boastfulness and a craving for attention, which are often seen in mass shooters.

“Omar Mateen has more in common with Dylann Roof than he does with Osama bin Laden,” Lankford said, referring to the white supremacist who allegedly shot and killed nine black churchgoers last year in Charleston, S.C.

No links to terrorism?  Obviously he did have links, but it sounds like the investigation was profiling links to Islam.  Here Islam is more like an eventual excuse for violence than the actual cause.

On several occasions the FBI has launched at least a preliminary assessment of a potential terrorist and then backed off â€" only to see that person erupt, months or years later, in violence.

I assume they look for Islamic fundamentalist connections, and dismiss the investigation if they are not found.

The landscape has changed since Sept. 11, 2001: The violent jihadist attacking inside the United States today is less likely to be someone trained overseas and more likely to be a disturbed American seizing on an ideology amid a host of personal issues or psychological problems.

It jumps out at me again.  The need to commit violence comes first, not religion.

Religiosity is often presumed to be the animating theme in cases of Muslims committing mass violence, but it usually isn’t, experts say.  The Muslim men who have carried out violent attacks in the United States since 9/11 have ranged from deeply religious to nominally so, or what Hughes calls “converts to ISIS, not Islam.” Some have prayed regularly and performed the hajj pilgrimage. Others abused drugs and alcohol.

I'm not sure what this says.  It sounds like on one hand it's, "Islam is not the cause," yet it also points out that all in the study were religious to some degree.  For us atheists, we often hear about the eventual violence that comes when religion crosses a threshold on the way to acquiring more and more power.  It occurs throughout history.  Currently, it seems to be of Islamic origin, but I'm suggesting that it's origin lies in the violence, with Islam (or insert favorite disliked religion) being the most convenient large institution for those needing to justify their violence.

[SoldierofFortune]

Currently, it seems to be of Islamic origin, but I'm suggesting that it's origin lies in the violence, with Islam (or insert favorite disliked religion) being the most convenient large institution for those needing to justify their violence.

Thanks. I agree with you. ''The West'' can't be without ''an evil, and a devil'' to fight with it...This devil was communism before, now There is a new devil to fight, and now it's Islam...

[SGOS]

Thanks. I agree with you. ''The West'' can't be without ''an evil, and a devil'' to fight with it...This devil was communism before, now There is a new devil to fight, and now it's Islam...

The hysteria after 9-11 created a fertile environment to attack the Mideast.  George Bush and the neocons wanted to solve the instability of the Middle East.   Or so it has been documented that was their motive for attacking Iraq, although some Americans have suggested that creating more instability for the purpose of driving up oil prices was the real motive.  This makes some sense in that the Bush administration was heavily tied to the oil industry, with members of the industry included at the top of the administrative power structure.  Many Americans latched on to the movement as an excuse to attack Islam because well, Islam is so unChristian.  So invading Iraq became politically correct because of a host of flawed assumptions designed to appeal to a broad spectrum of American fears and needs from "freeing the Iraqi people," to ridding WMD, to getting more oil.  Some strongly denied that Islam played any part at all.  And so it has been ever since with one side blaming Islam and the other denying that Islam has anything to do with terrorism.

As the article points out, terrorism in the US is somewhat insignificant when compared to the vastly greater threat of homicides in general.  Well, that's true in the US, but in Iraq and Syria, death from terrorism is not just an inconvenience, but is creating a major upheaval on a global scale.

[Baruch]

Other tribes are dangerous.  Members of your own tribe are dangerous too.  We are the killing ape.  Terrorism is a home grown or state sponsored asymmetrical warfare.  More sane than just lobbing nukes.  Human beings compete fairly and unfairly all the time .. violence is one end of the spectrum.  As to why individuals engage in violence, there are plenty of psychological studies.  Being part of a group, that demonizes another group, is essential for terrorism and regular warfare.  Usually young men are involved, because they are still pliable.  In traditional society, the male coming-of-age was in warfare.  Among Cossacks a young man couldn't leave home until he beat up his own father.  Freud was correct in this ... if my father hadn't learned to respect me when I turned 21, I would have had to leave home or kill him ;-)  So in modern times, when natural male coming-of-age is unavailable ... our men are permanent boys.  This is why Conservatives understand the necessity of permanent war ... so at least some of your boys become men.

[Cavebear]

The true cause of terrorism is POVERTY, POVERTY, POVERTY...

And POVERTY, in case I didn't make that clear.