What makes a person a terrorist ? This question haunts governments, psychologists, police, military as well as an ordinary citizen. Many people tried to find out the answer. Peter Bergen wrote a book 'United States of Jihad' and also tried to find the answer in his own way. In fact he counter question,'Is an answer even possible'?
Researchers at New America, a think tank, reviewed court records of more than 300 cases of people charged with Jehadi terrorism in USA after 9/11, ranging from relatively trivial cases like sending small sums of money to some terrorist organization to very serious ones like shoot outs. Their members spoke to terrorists, their family members and friends.
Earlier terrorists were categorised as bad or mad. In context of some recent events this explanation proved simply wrong. One out of ten had mental health problems, below the incidence in the general population. In fact they were not typically career criminals. twelve percent had served time in prision, compared to 11 percent of the US male population.
The study shows that perpetrators were generally by a mix of factors, including militant Islamist ideology; dislike of US foreign policy in the Muslim world; a need to attach themselves to an ideology or organization that gave them a sense of purpose; and a 'cognitive opening' to militant Islam that often was precipitated by personal disappointment, like the death of a parent. In many cases, joining a Jihadist group or carrying out an attack allowed them to become heroes of their own story. In each case, the proportion of the motivation factor varied. In 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, it was a non practicing Muslim Tamerlan Tsarnaev, older among two brothers, responsible for the act. He became Islamist militant as his dreams of becoming an Olympic boxer was shattered.At the time of bombing he was unemployed, bombing Marathon seemed to allow him to become the heroic figure that he perceived himself to be. His younger brother Dzhokkar, never seemed to embrace militant Islam. He was a drug addict, smoked marijuana, drank and chased girls-hardly the actions of a Islamic fundamentalist. Dzhokkar's motivation for the bombing was largely molded by his elder brother, whom he admired and feared, and by his own half baked opposition to US foreign policy.
In 2009, Nidal Hasan killed 13 people at Fort Hood Texas. He was a an Army Major, he seemed to be a more classic jihadist, an observant Muslim who objected to US foreign policy. His first cousin Nader Hasan, who grown up with him, he explanined that this massacre was also motivated by Nadal's personal problems, he was unmarried, both his parents were not alive, he had no real friends and a dreaded deployment to Afganistan loomed.
David C. Headley who was a part of 26/11 Mumbai attack planning and recce was not a observant Muslim. He juggled multiple girl friends and wives. He was motivated by a passionate hatred of India and his enjoyment in playing the role of Jihadi James Bond. He was also hanging around with Bollywood stars for cover while secretly planning one of the most spectacular and deadly terror terrorist assault since 9/11.
These stories underline how hard it is to satisfactorily answer the question of why terrorists commit heinous crimes. Human motivations are very complex. Immanuel Kant, a noted philosopher once said,' From the crooked timber of humanity not a straight thing was ever made.' It is a wake up reminder to the governments who seriously want to combat terror. Law enforcement agencies tries to response in their own way. Behavioral analysts at investigating agencies use a smart framework. They focus on behaviors that show that some one is on what they call the 'pathway to violence'. The ideology enabling this pathway is a secondary concern; whether they are dealing with neo-Nazis or Jihadists, agency analysts use actions, not ideas, to determine whether someone might carry out an attack. this approach is agnostic about the'why' and focus on 'what' : what a suspect of any ideological stripe might be doing along the pathway to violence, like scoping targets or acquiring weapons. But this postulate proved to be wrong in case of Florida gunman Omar Mateen. He was scanned by investigating agencies twice, but at those occasions he did not appear to be bfar down the pathway to violence.
The reports now suggest, Mateen began scoping out the Orlando night club, assembling weapons and trying to buying military grade body armor only few weeks before his attack. In bits and pieces analysts are trying to understand Mateen's motivation. He pledged his allegiance to the ISIS during his attack. His co-workers say he also praised Al Qaeda and Hizubullah. When questioned his former wife, she said that he was abusive and could not control his temper. There are suggestions that he might have been a gay.
Now the big question is, whether society will ever get rid of terrorists ? Answer is simply no as long as your terrorist is my warrior for a cause or other.
Researchers at New America, a think tank, reviewed court records of more than 300 cases of people charged with Jehadi terrorism in USA after 9/11, ranging from relatively trivial cases like sending small sums of money to some terrorist organization to very serious ones like shoot outs. Their members spoke to terrorists, their family members and friends.
Earlier terrorists were categorised as bad or mad. In context of some recent events this explanation proved simply wrong. One out of ten had mental health problems, below the incidence in the general population. In fact they were not typically career criminals. twelve percent had served time in prision, compared to 11 percent of the US male population.
The study shows that perpetrators were generally by a mix of factors, including militant Islamist ideology; dislike of US foreign policy in the Muslim world; a need to attach themselves to an ideology or organization that gave them a sense of purpose; and a 'cognitive opening' to militant Islam that often was precipitated by personal disappointment, like the death of a parent. In many cases, joining a Jihadist group or carrying out an attack allowed them to become heroes of their own story. In each case, the proportion of the motivation factor varied. In 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, it was a non practicing Muslim Tamerlan Tsarnaev, older among two brothers, responsible for the act. He became Islamist militant as his dreams of becoming an Olympic boxer was shattered.At the time of bombing he was unemployed, bombing Marathon seemed to allow him to become the heroic figure that he perceived himself to be. His younger brother Dzhokkar, never seemed to embrace militant Islam. He was a drug addict, smoked marijuana, drank and chased girls-hardly the actions of a Islamic fundamentalist. Dzhokkar's motivation for the bombing was largely molded by his elder brother, whom he admired and feared, and by his own half baked opposition to US foreign policy.
In 2009, Nidal Hasan killed 13 people at Fort Hood Texas. He was a an Army Major, he seemed to be a more classic jihadist, an observant Muslim who objected to US foreign policy. His first cousin Nader Hasan, who grown up with him, he explanined that this massacre was also motivated by Nadal's personal problems, he was unmarried, both his parents were not alive, he had no real friends and a dreaded deployment to Afganistan loomed.
David C. Headley who was a part of 26/11 Mumbai attack planning and recce was not a observant Muslim. He juggled multiple girl friends and wives. He was motivated by a passionate hatred of India and his enjoyment in playing the role of Jihadi James Bond. He was also hanging around with Bollywood stars for cover while secretly planning one of the most spectacular and deadly terror terrorist assault since 9/11.
These stories underline how hard it is to satisfactorily answer the question of why terrorists commit heinous crimes. Human motivations are very complex. Immanuel Kant, a noted philosopher once said,' From the crooked timber of humanity not a straight thing was ever made.' It is a wake up reminder to the governments who seriously want to combat terror. Law enforcement agencies tries to response in their own way. Behavioral analysts at investigating agencies use a smart framework. They focus on behaviors that show that some one is on what they call the 'pathway to violence'. The ideology enabling this pathway is a secondary concern; whether they are dealing with neo-Nazis or Jihadists, agency analysts use actions, not ideas, to determine whether someone might carry out an attack. this approach is agnostic about the'why' and focus on 'what' : what a suspect of any ideological stripe might be doing along the pathway to violence, like scoping targets or acquiring weapons. But this postulate proved to be wrong in case of Florida gunman Omar Mateen. He was scanned by investigating agencies twice, but at those occasions he did not appear to be bfar down the pathway to violence.
The reports now suggest, Mateen began scoping out the Orlando night club, assembling weapons and trying to buying military grade body armor only few weeks before his attack. In bits and pieces analysts are trying to understand Mateen's motivation. He pledged his allegiance to the ISIS during his attack. His co-workers say he also praised Al Qaeda and Hizubullah. When questioned his former wife, she said that he was abusive and could not control his temper. There are suggestions that he might have been a gay.
Now the big question is, whether society will ever get rid of terrorists ? Answer is simply no as long as your terrorist is my warrior for a cause or other.
.jpg "A Gumnam Actress Strips Nude to Protest Auto/taxi Fare Hike")
