-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What creates terrorists?
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
The literature on the psychology of terrorism shows there isn't one route to terrorism or even a particular personality type involved. Mental illness is not a major factor as terrorists are generally "sane".
https://www.surrey.ac.uk/politics/r...mmeracademy/instructors /The Terrost mind.pdf
Given the fact that it is very hard to get data on it (as terrorists wouldn't trust psychiatrists) a lot of the explanations are sort of myths.
Understanding terrorism
Spiderman
Veteran Member
You are intelligent and educated...now if only you had God
Weirdly, this is a subject of interest to me. I've studied it too much to be healthy, probably. Pro Tip : Getting on a plane with a book called 'Why Terrorism Works' leads to your fellow passengers getting nervous.
Anywhoos...
It's not only religion that leads to terrorism, not by a long shot. Ultimately, you need to have an ideology which can justify extremist behaviour. Whilst this can certainly be religion, it can also be political (eg. Red Army Faction) or nationalistic (eg. ETA).
This framework/cause needs to cut through enough that people can justify extreme behaviour and violence. They are serving a 'higher cause' in many cases.
Of course, once that is established, there are entirely pragmatic considerations. Some acting under the name of a terror group are simply violent anti-socials who have found a support network and 'acceptable' way of expressing their violent tendencies. Others are purely mercenary, working for terrorist groups or causes for financial gain, or similar.
The other thing that is required is a level of powerlessness. The deliberate targeting of civilians is not limited to terrorist groups (eg. Nagasaki), but the reason for using terror and guerrilla tactics is largely tied to a need to be able to garner publicity for the cause and force action which exceeds the actual damage done.
Spiderman
Veteran Member
True
@PopeADope you're starting to remind me of the Young Pope! (seen it? worth a watch!)
(seen it? worth a watch!)
Spiderman
Veteran Member
Never seen it@PopeADope you're starting to remind me of the Young Pope!
. Which Pope is it? lol
Never seen it
It's an Italian TV series about Pope Pius XIII!
Spiderman
Veteran Member
cool!
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
Terrorist is a point of view. We point and say terrorist and that is what makes terrorists.
Depends. Their religion was a large part of their cultural identity, so trying to divide concepts of nationality/nationalism and religion is difficult. It's informative to consider the IRA split, when Marxist philosophy, and concepts of class struggle (which potentially could unify Protestant and Catholics against a common foe) led to a split in IRA ranks. The Provisional IRA was very much a 'back to roots' movement, disassociating itself from Marxism, and firmly re-establishing it's Catholicism.
IRA meetings and vows included nods to Catholicism and to God. There is also interesting evidence on IRA terrorists seeking forgiveness for crimes they were ABOUT to commit. (refer : God and the Gun, by Martin Dillon).
It wasn't a religious OR nationalist struggle, it was both, and the Marxist split of the IRA means at least SOME of the participants saw it as a class struggle.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Thought that was about Catholic versus Protestant.....are was that a different skirmish?
Check out post #34...
But basically, Catholic and Protestant was a factor, since it was tied to the cultures and nationalities of the proponents. The IRA (Catholic) also dipped their toes in Godless atheism for a while. It didn't end well, fractured the movement for a while, and they returned (mostly) to their Catholic roots.
As opposed to the other kind of atheism.
Bahahahahahaha!!!
Yes, exactly. In my head, I had typed 'Godless Marxism'. Go figure. Freud would have a field day.
Always knew you were a secret communist.
Well, it may just seem that way lately, since the religious terrorists seem the most active these days. But there have been non-religious terrorists who have been defined as such. McVeigh and the Unabomber are two examples which come to mind, although there are many others.
I also mostly agree with your definition of "terrorism" as using violence for a political agenda, but even that can be fraught with complications, depending on how one defines "violence" and "political agenda."
Just out of curiosity, did their views about Catholics and Protestants extend to people from other countries? For example, if a US Protestant (who's not even Irish and just visiting) found themselves in a Catholic zone (or vice versa), would they be in any danger?
Not really, in terms of being targetted, but the risk of being collateral damage obviously exists. I'll have to go a little generic with the answer, because there are so many different groups involved. Even just looking at the main paramilitary groups on both sides it's tought to give 'an answer' (I like how you put in vice versa, since some of the Loyalist paramilitaries were particularly vicious).
But no. Some of the historically important figures in the struggle for Irish independence were actually Protestants (eg. Wolfe Tone) and whilst that is less common in Northern Ireland, there are still Protestant members of both the Provisional IRA and some of the more extreme splinter groups (INLA, for example). During some of the worst sectarian violence, and in certain areas (like Shankill Road), groups would pick up someone of the 'other side' and would sometimes not care who they were. And there were cases of mistaken identity, with Protestants or Catholics killed by their own 'side' based on walking through an area normally populated by those of the other 'side'. I would guess an overseas guest walking through some of the most troubled areas was as likely to be targeted for this sort of mindless reprisal as an Irishman.
It can be more complicated, though. Biggest overseas source of funds for the IRA was always the US, due to both Catholic and Irish connections, as well as Irish emancipation from England being something many Americans could sympathise with (at least broadly). The end result was that both the Nationalist and Loyalist paramilitary groups did keep an eye on America and American policy. But as far as I know, no visiting American was ever deliberately targetted by either side.
This is worth a quick read, despite it's age :
Does Peter King know the IRA killed an American?