|
|
| UNDERSTANDING TERRORISM August 15, 1997 |
|---|
Return to this forum's top page.
Questions asked
in this forum:Isn't "terrorist" a relative term? What sort of values do terrorists teach their children? How much popular support exists for terrorists in their homelands? What's the difference between American and Middle Eastern terrorism? Could anyone be capable of a terrorist act? Viewer comments on Middle Eastern terrorism.
NewsHour Backgrounders
August 1, 1997:
A report on the attempted bombing of a Brooklyn subway.
July 30, 1997:
Clinton reacts to the Jerusalem bombing my militant Islamic group Hamas.
March 13, 1996:
A report on the international summit on terrorism.
March 12, 1996:
A report on terrorism and how to prevent it.
An Online backgrounder on terrorism.
The Online NewsHour asks: Under the right conditions, is it possible for anyone to be a terrorist, or is there a particular sort of person who becomes a terrorist?
Hala Jaber responds:
I think the answer is yes and no. Although there is no terroristic personality as such, there are terroristic environments that might push an otherwise secular person into extremism and violence. Although many believe they are incapable of committing violence against others under normal circumstances, their attitudes might change given the right circumstances. Normal people experience rage and feelings of anger in every walk of life and for the simplest of reasons, for example. These emotions are controlled by one's upbringing that violence is not a resort. But there are exceptional circumstances when one finds oneself stripped of the calm logical arguments that prevent all of us from carrying out terroristic acts.
This is not an argument or a justification to people to express their rage and anger in violence, but sometimes these things happen and we should not be quick in condemning the situation.
The other day, a new law was passed in L.A. which granted people the right to use their guns against car jackers. Even though this has caused controversy, the theme behind this law is self-defense and the defense of one's properties. Yet the act itself is terroristic. Many people interviewed about their views on this said they welcomed the law and would use the shoot-to-kill option if they believed they were being threatened. If laws are being introduced to allow people to defend their simples belongings, cars, homes etc., then can we now stand back and condemn nations or communities for trying to protect their self-existence itself and, in some cases, their national continuity? Are we in any position to label those we disagree with as terrorists yet provide laws permitting people to return to violent methods to those we think we agree with?
Most of us agree that violence and terroristic measures are wrong. Yet we are able to accept certain methods of violence and reject others. Until such a time when all violence, in every form or shape, is banned in the world with no exception or double-edged policies, one man's terrorist will always be anther's freedom fighter, and one man's resistance will continue to be another man's terrorist or tormentor.
Prof. Martha Crenshaw responds:
The answer is yes and no. There is no single "terrorist personality." Members of such groups often display many different psychological traits. Terrorism is what unites them. What is important is that terrorism is typically a group phenomenon. It is based on membership in an organization that is a "total institution," stressing cohesion, loyalty, commitment to the cause, conformity, and identification with the group. People who join such groups may do so because they have a psychological need to belong rather than out of political commitment, and once they are in the group they lose the ability to act on their own initiative. Furthermore, it is difficult, if not impossible, to leave. Abandoning the group is treachery. It may be punishable by death or severe penalties such as kneecapping. You might even put your family at risk. Moreover, most "terrorists" are young men. The leaders of such groups may be older, but the followers are often impressionable adolescents. They may also have few alternatives--no educational or job prospects, for example. Where there is a high level of political dissatisfaction, turning to an extremist political group might have the same attraction as joining a gang in the inner city.
But at the same time, we have to recognize that people are not equally susceptible to the appeals of extremism. Not all of us would be capable of violence against others or certainly of killing ourselves. Not everyone has the disposition to be a good soldier or perform well under combat conditions. It also happens that people who are prone to violence seek out opportunities to engage in it. If an organization already exists that promises such an opportunity, then they will be motivated to join. Politics will be secondary.
One fact to remember is that political movements often split over the issue of whether or not to use terrorism. It is often only a faction of a larger movement that adopts terrorism. Groups that are willing to use violence to overthrow a government will not necessarily condone terrorism. They will insist on military targets. The terrorist option does not appeal to them.
Continue to viewer comments...
 |
   
|
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
