TERRORISM

This paper was written July 10, 2006 for my UFV Crim 100 (Introduction To Criminology) course, taught by Amy Johnson (now Prevost)

=====================================================================

INTRODUCTION

On February 22, 2006 Iraqi television reporter Atwar Bahjat, 30 was brutally murdered by a small band of Islamic extremists. The terrorists recorded their brutality by using a video cell phone. First she was stripped to the waist then her arms were bound behind her back then she was blindfolded. Her throat was slit with an eight inch blade and then she was decapitated. When her body was found there were nine drill holes in her right arm and ten in her left. There were also drill holes in her legs, her navel and her right eye (as told by Hala Jaber to David Frum of the National Post, May 9, 2006).

This is only one of the thousands of murders committed in Iraq by al-Qaeda terrorists, Baathist thugs and Iranian-backed militias. One asks why? Was it because she was half Sunni and half Shi’ite? Or could it have been because the terrorists hated hearing the truth be told to the Arab world?

There are a number of theories that explain the motives behind the actions of terrorists. In this paper I will briefly outline these theories. In conclusion I will also briefly outline the one theory that has never been addressed. It is this theory that I will use to attempt to answer why Atwar Bahjat was brutally murdered. I will also outline a number of definitions for terrorism.

DEFINITIONS

According to the FBI, “A terrorist incident is a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, in violation of the criminal laws of the United States, or any state, to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1999b, p. ii) (Bartol, Curt R., Bartol, Anne M.; Criminal Behavior, 7th edition. P. 348-349. 2005). Sternberg (2003) defines terrorism simply “as the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion (p. 299).

Hallett (2004) defines the term as a theatrical crime against person or property in which only symbolic or psychological satisfaction to the perpetrators is gained (Bartol et al; p. 349). Despite the vast and sometimes overwhelming array of definitions, Marsella (2004) finds some common ground in all of them.

“Terrorism is broadly viewed as (a) the use of force or violence (b) by individuals or groups (c) that is directed toward civilian population (d) and intended to instill fear (e) as a means of coercing individuals or groups to change their political and social positions” (p. 16). However, he further notes that any comprehensive definition of terrorism also requires thoughtful consideration of the psychosocial context, motives and consequences of the act (Bartol et al; p. 349).

MOTIVATIONAL THEORIES

Clearly, there is no single motive for engaging in terrorism. The motives are multiple and complex, raging from revenge and anger to paradise, status, respect, and life everlasting (Marsella, 2004). “The roots of terrorism are complex and reside in historical, political, economic, social and psychological factors. Of all these, psychological factors have been among the least studied and the least understood, but arguably the most important” (Moghaddam & Marsella, 2004a, p. xi) (Bartol et al; p. 350-351).

Bandura (2004) skillfully takes the explanation for motives of terrorism into the cognitive realm. He posits that terrorists justify their horrific acts through cognitive restructuring. Cognitive restructuring involves moral justifications, euphemistic language, and advantageous comparisons (Bartol et al; p. 351).

The first cognitive restructuring process of moral justification enables people to engage in reprehensible conduct by telling themselves that their actions are socially worthy and have an ultimate moral and good purpose (Bartol et al; p. 351).

The second cognitive restructuring process of euphemistic language is based on the well-known research finding that language shapes thought patterns on which people base many of their actions. People behave more cruelly when their conduct is given a sanitized or neutral label (Bartol et al; p. 351).

The third cognitive restructuring process is advantageous comparison, where terrorists are convinced that their way of life and fundamental cultural values are superior to those of the culture they attack Advantageous comparison is further advanced when the terrorists are told, and come to believe, that the enemy engages in widespread cruelties and inhumane treatment of the people the terrorists represent (Bartol et al; p. 351).

Bandura also states that other disengagement practices are also at play in developing motivations, such as dehumanization, displacement of responsibility, and diffusion of responsibility (Bartol et al; p. 351-352). Dehumanization is based on the premise that mistreating or randomly killing humanized or known persons significantly increases the risks of self-condemnation (Bartol et al; p. 352).

It is easier to mistreat (and kill) strangers who are divested of human qualities. “Once dehumanized, they are no longer viewed as persons with feelings, hopes, and concerns but as subhuman forms” (Bandura, 2004, p. 136) (Bartol et al; p. 352). In displacement of responsibility, terrorists may view their actions as stemming from the dictates of authorities and leaders rather than from their own personal responsibility, similar to the perpetrators of crimes of obedience.

Consequently, they avoid self-condemning reactions because they are not personally responsible for their conduct; they are only following orders, perhaps even from their god (Bartol et al; p. 352).

Ditzler (2004) describes a terrorist typology promulgated by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (U.S. Army Field Manual [Terrorism Research Center, 1997]). The typology also incorporates some of the research conducted at RAND (B. Hoffman, 1993). The typology identifies three motivational categories: (1) the rationally motivated terrorist; (2) the psychologically motivated terrorist; and (3) the culturally motivated terrorist (Bartol et al; p. 352).

Rationally motivated terrorists are those who consider the goals of the organization and possible consequences of their actions. They develop well-defined and theoretically achievable goals that may involve political, social, economic, or other specific objectives (Bartol et al; p. 352).

In many cases, rationally motivated terrorists try to avoid loss of life but focus instead on destroying infrastructures, buildings, and other symbolic structures to get their message across (Bartol et al; p. 352).

Psychologically motivated terrorists are driven by “a profound sense of failure or inadequacy for which the perpetrator may seek redress through revenge” (Ditzler; 2004, p. 202). The attraction to terrorism is usually based on the psychological benefits of group affiliation and collective identity. They are especially drawn to terrorist groups who have a charismatic leader (Bartol et al; p. 352).

Culturally motivated terrorists are driven by fear of irreparable damage to their way of living, national heritage, or culture by an organization, foreign country, or powerful factions. Most often, religion is the aspect that generates the fervor or passion in the group. That is, national or cultural groups who are largely governed or socially defined by a particular system of faith are often constantly vigilant for forces that may eradicate their religious way of life or cultural identity (Bartol et al; p. 353).

Ditzler (2004) gives the example of Afghanistan under the Taliban, where “Islam provided not only a system of religious faith as understood in the West, but the entire system of civil and criminal law, political organization, and social behavior” (p. 203) (Bartol et al; p. 353). Under such conditions a perceived threat to the faith would be cause for alarm and a threat to the group’s existence (Bartol et al; p. 353).

CONCLUSION

In concluding this paper, I am going to visit a theory of terrorism that has not been visited by the majority of academics. The Spiritual factor. Islamic terrorists call their war ‘jihad’ which translated means ‘holy war.’ The blueprint for their ‘jihad’ is the Qur’an. The spiritual factor could very well be the terrorists’ justification for the brutal murder of Atwar Bahjat. And definitely the brutal murder of numerous other innocent civilians. Both Iraqi and foreigners. The spiritual factor is also the Islamic terrorist’ justification for the attack on U.S. soil on September 11, 2001, commonly referred to as 9/11.

REFERENCES

Bartol, Curt R., Bartol Anne M. (2005) Criminal Behavior, 7th edition

Frum, David, National Post, May 9, 2006