Posted: June 5th, 2015

Threat of Terrorism

Lunderg, K. & Howitt, A. (2002). Threat of terrorism: Weighing public safety in Seattle. Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Available from <<https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/web/product_detail.seam?E=4162226&R=HKS488-PDF-ENG&conversationId=1127307>>

Lunderg & Howitt (2002) aptly describe how conflict of duty, tension and struggle between the different security agents has contributed to the escalating problem of terrorism. Apart from this, the authors believe that foreigners pose greater terrorist threat than the US nationals do. Citing the example of the Algerian man arrested crossing into the USA via Canada with a car laden with explosives, the authors believe that most terrorists tend to be foreigners. Domestic terrorism may not be wholly dismissed, but it is minute compared to what foreigners have posed in form of threat. The authors’ assertions form a suitable starting point in addressing the motivating factors of terrorism.

Brooks, R. (2010). Muslim “Home grown” Terrorism in the United States. How Serious Is the Threat? International Security, Vol. 36(2) 7–47.

Brooks (2010) tries to explain why persons with almost similar ideologies, but only differentiated by the fact that one is living in America and the other outside America, are in the opposing sides of terrorism. According to the author, the US has for a long time been considered immune to domestic or homegrown terrorism. The reason put forward for this trend is that such persons have undergone a significant amount of assimilation in the USA. They have internalized the American way of life and become Americans for real. Secondly, these people have had their social status improved in one way or another. They are much better off than their counterparts living outside America. Such persons are less likely to be involved in such activities. It is therefore evident that much of the threat comes from persons who are living outside America. Brooks opinions are logical, but definitely worth investigating to establish if this is really the case.

Neumann, P (2008). Terrorism in the 21st century. The Rule of law as a Guideline for German Policy Germany in International Relations. Compass 2020.

Neumann (2008) observes that terrorists nowadays are no longer only Islamic Jihadists, but also include Christians who are opposed to abortion and homosexuality. Jewish extremists in the ongoing war with Palestine in the West Bank are also a threat. Another example is the Buddhist cult that is inspired by their leader known as Aum Shinrikyo. The author further asserts that despite terrorist groups being small cluster groups, their influence and structure has become international. Previously, terrorists had a well-known geographical point of origin, convergence and operation. This has changed significantly at present, to the extent that the place where terrorists carry out their activities is very different from where they have their base or where they were born. According to this author, international travel and modern communication technologies have also become a contributing factor.

Maxfield, M. (2015). Basics of Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology. Cengage Learning.

Maxfield (2015) does not address the topic of terrorism in his book, but outlines the essential elements that ought to be considered when conducting research on crime, to which terrorism belongs. By presenting criminology as an important science that should be learnt, the author introduces the concept of ethics that is very vital in investigating the causes of terrorism. An interesting claim made by the author is that human inquiries are generally characterized by errors such as overgeneralization, politics and ideology as well as illogical reasoning. This claim ties in with the observation held by Neumann (2008) that terrorism is not necessarily always executed by Islamic Jihadists. To this particular task, Maxfield’s book offers insightful tips on choosing relevant sources for annotation. Though it does not specifically address the topic, the book is a useful guide in structuring the annotated work.

Hunsicker, A. (2006). Understanding international counter terrorism: A professional’s guide to the operational art. Place of publication not identified: Universal Publishers.

Hunsicker (2006) attempts to provide an answer to the question of what motivates terrorism using the characteristics and profiles of terrorists. The author relies on sociological, psychological and political science approaches in his explanation. Borrowing from the psychological concepts put forth by renowned psychologists and reliable researchers. With this understanding, the author asserts that terrorism is usually executed by unemployed and uneducated persons. The impression given by the author is that there is a link between boredom with terrorism. The author however makes a contradictory observation that in Western nations, terrorists tend to be idealistic and intellectual persons linked to support organizations. In contrast with previous authors, Hunsicker (2006) dwells more on education and intellect as opposed to religion and nationality. The book contains plenty of interesting and educative information that sheds light on the topic of terrorism.

Abrahms, M., & Lula, K. (2013). The Myth of Martyrdom: What Really Drives Suicide Bombers, Rampage Shooters, and Other Self-Destructive Killers. Middle East Quarterly, 20(3), 91.

Abrahms and Lula (2013) believe that suicide terrorists are driven by factors such as political altruism and frustrations with life. Concerning the former, the authors posit that suicide terrorism is a judicious tactic employed by some groups to attain a given political platform. In other cases, suicide terrorists tend to be frustrated people who view terror as the only way of escaping unbearable situations in their lives, such as professional failure, marital strife and depression. The article uses interesting evidence like suicide notes, martyrdom videos and love letters to explain terrorism motivations.

Juergensmeyer, M. (2004). Terror in the mind of God: The global rise of religious violence. Berkeley [u.a.: University of California Press.

Juergensmeyer (2004) introduces a new term by the name religious terrorism to counter the argument made by several authors in this paper that terrorism is not always driven by religion. The author does not wholly refute this claim, observing that frequent cases of terrorism are linked to disenfranchised groups that are desperate for gaining power. Even so, the author strongly believes that in many cases, religion is the principal motivation behind terrorism. His observations are similar to those held by Neumann (2008): that more than half of terrorist groups in the US are Buddhists, Muslims or Jews. In his highly intriguing account, the author claims that violence is a historical tradition of most religions. It is very insightful to read this book that has heavily invested in the theological viewpoints of famous personalities like Emile Durkheim, Sigmund Freud and Marcel Mauss.

Siegel, L. J. (2012). Criminology. Belmont: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

With all these similar and conflicting viewpoints about terrorist motivations, it would be valuable to obtain an understanding of the general factors that cause crime. Siegel (2012) offers a comprehensive discussion of these factors through a description of various crime causation theories. Each of the theories presented in the book has relevant implications for the assertions made in the other books explored in this annotation. For instance, the classical criminology model essentially postulates that individuals have a free will of choosing criminal solutions to fulfill their needs. This premise appears to match Hunsicker’s argument that most terrorists are unemployed persons. The author uses catchy phrases, an example being the suggestion that crime is seductive. Accordingly, the reader finds it irresistible to explore deeper in search of explanations for criminal behavior.

Bjelopera, J. P. (2011). American jihadist terrorism: Combating a complex threat. Washington, D.C.?: Congressional Research Service.

Bjelopera (2011) opposes the assertion by Brooks (2010) that the US is immune to homegrown terrorism. Defining homegrown terrorism as a phenomenon in which local citizens or foreigners that have acquired legal permission to reside permanently within a country are involved in terrorist activities, the author argues that the September 2001 attacks in the US involved such persons. The major point made by the author in this regard is that citizens in a country can facilitate terrorist attacks by offering material support or enrolling for terrorist training. Regardless of key shortcomings exhibited by homegrown terror groups, this book nonetheless addresses the hypothesis that a nation’s citizens can act as its major enemy especially when they engage in terrorist activities.

Pick, T. M., Speckhard, A., & Jacuch, B. (2009). Home-grown terrorism: Understanding and addressing the root causes of radicalisation among groups with an immigrant heritage in Europe. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

The US is generally perceived to follow the values of individualistic culture, which fundamentally emphasizes individual identity and rights rather than group identity and obligations. According to Pick, Speckhard and Jacuch (2009), this could be another factor that motivates terrorism especially among immigrant groups. Using teachings by cultural anthropologists, the authors note a difference between Western nations and Muslim countries. The former group values mutual exclusivity, whereas Muslim nations emphasize dependency and harmony. Through this comparison, the authors seem to be supporting the claim that terrorism is largely a domain of Muslims. This stereotype notwithstanding, the book is relevant to the topic as it shows how cultural differences can motivate terrorism.

Kruglanski, A. W., Bélanger, J. J., Gelfand, M., Gunaratna, R., Hettiarachchi, M., Reinares, F., … & Sharvit, K. (2013). Terrorism—A (self) love story: Redirecting the significance quest can end violence. American Psychologist, 68(7), 559-573.

 

Kruglanski et al. (2013) too approach the topic of terrorism from the dimension of values and ideologies. Unlike Pick et al. (2009) above, these authors use the psychological concept of self-love versus love for self. Their argument implies that individualism is the highest manifestation of love for self. On the other hand, the authors posit that terrorists are driven by self-love as they attack a real or perceived enemy in order to demonstrate and safeguard their personal significance. Advancing the observation by Juergensmeyer that terrorism is at times a quest for significance by disenfranchised groups; the authors discuss various scenarios that electrify this quest. The psychological perspective taken in this book is interesting and highly educative concerning the issue of terrorism.

Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism. (2008). Organizational and psychological aspects of terrorism. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

The Centre of Excellence Defence against Terrorism (2008) also addresses the motivating factors of terrorism from a psychological point of view. Nonetheless, a key argument in this book is that ideology does not motivate an individual to engage in terrorism in order to archive a certain political or personal objective. The reality, according to this book, is that ideology legitimizes terrorist activities in the society’s eyes. In this understanding, the Centre categorizes terrorism into four: religious, left wing, right wing and separatist terrorism. Important points made in this book, and which are similar to earlier assertions, are that terrorism is geared towards a particular goal; and that it has “a holy cause within its understanding” (p. 14).

Redlin, M., Gries, T., & Meierrieks, D. (2014). Oppressive Governments, US Closeness, and Anti-US Terrorism. Available at <http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/100588/1/VfS_2014_pid_276.pdf>>

Redline, Gries and Meierrieks (2014) however believe that terrorists do not always attack a given country because it is discriminative. The authors appear to disagree with allegations that the individualistic culture of the US motivates terrorists. On the contrary, they argue that there could be specific elements in the home countries of terrorists that are a good breeding ground to fight the US. This is especially the case if the disgruntled residents feel that their governments are receiving significant support from the US. In this sense, undertaking the US is thought to be an effective strategy of weakening the terrorist’s home government. The authors back their assertions with logical reasoning and empirical research. A major finding relevant to the topic is obtained: that terrorism in the US is more likely to be executed by countries whose governments are highly repressive.

Ezell, B. C., Behr, J., & Collins, A. (2012). Identifying Factors that Influence Terrorist Decisions and Target Selection. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 9(1).

Ezell, Behr and Collins (2012) argue that it is possible, though time consuming and difficult, for intelligence departments in any country to predict the likelihood of terror attacks. A better way to do this, according to this source, is to observe the capabilities, preferences and perceptions of the adversary. The authors rely on the expert opinions of political scientists, laboratory experts and psychiatrists to illustrate how this approach. Although the approach taken by the authors is quite detailed, it is somewhat similar to arguments that terrorist are motivated by perceptions and cultural values.

Poloni-Staudinger, L., & Ortbals, C. D. (2013). Terrorism and violent conflict: Women’s agency, leadership, and responses. New York: Springer.

It is worth noting that in contemporary times, women are also engaging themselves in terrorist activities. Poloni-Staudinger and Ortbals (2013) explain this phenomenon using for Rs: redemption, revenge, relationship and respect. Revenge means that women will kill in order to avenge a close family member’s death. Alternatively, female terrorists could engage in terror purportedly to seek redemption from past sins. Moreover, women in relationships with terrorists are likely to become terrorists themselves. Lastly, some women perceive terrorism as a show of dedication. These assertions are unique, but are highly relevant to the study about terrorism.

Ozeren, S., Gunes, I. D., & Al-Badayneh, D. M. (2007). Understanding terrorism: Analysis of sociological and psychological aspects. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.

An important impression obtained so far is that terrorists are motivated by certain goals, which is explained by the instrumental concept presented by Ozeren, Gunes and Al-Badayneh (2007). From psychological and social viewpoints, terrorists are also motivated by sadistic intentions such as hurting or coercing a particular group to follow a certain action. This book is of great significance to this study as it also outlines different tactics that can be used to deal with terrorists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Abrahms, M., & Lula, K. (2013). The Myth of Martyrdom: What Really Drives Suicide Bombers, Rampage Shooters, and Other Self-Destructive Killers. Middle East Quarterly, 20(3), 91.

Bjelopera, J. P. (2011). American jihadist terrorism: Combating a complex threat. Washington, D.C.?: Congressional Research Service.

Brooks, R. (2010). Muslim “Home grown” Terrorism in the United States. How Serious Is the Threat? International Security, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Fall 2011), pp. 7–47, Retrieved on 5^th May 2015 from belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu

Centre of Excellence Defence Against Terrorism. (2008). Organizational and psychological aspects of terrorism. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Ezell, B. C., Behr, J., & Collins, A. (2012). Identifying Factors that Influence Terrorist Decisions and Target Selection. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 9(1).

Hunsicker, A. (2006). Understanding international counter terrorism: A professional’s guide to the operational art. Place of publication not identified: Universal Publishers.

Juergensmeyer, M. (2004). Terror in the mind of God: The global rise of religious violence. Berkeley [u.a.: University of California Press.

Kruglanski, A. W., Bélanger, J. J., Gelfand, M., Gunaratna, R., Hettiarachchi, M., Reinares, F., … & Sharvit, K. (2013). Terrorism—A (self) love story: Redirecting the significance quest can end violence. American Psychologist, 68(7), 559-573.

Lunderg, K. & Howitt, A. (2002). Threat of terrorism: Weighing public safety in Seattle. Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Available from << https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cb/web/product_detail.seam?E=4162226&R=HKS488-PDF-ENG&conversationId=1127307>>

Maxfield, M. (2015). Basics of Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology. Cengage Learning.

Neumann, P (2012). Terrorism in the 21st century. The Rule of law as a Guideline for German Policy Germany in International Relations. Compass 2020.

Ozeren, S., Gunes, I. D., & Al-Badayneh, D. M. (2007). Understanding terrorism: Analysis of sociological and psychological aspects. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: IOS Press.

Pick, T. M., Speckhard, A., & Jacuch, B. (2009). Home-grown terrorism: Understanding and addressing the root causes of radicalisation among groups with an immigrant heritage in Europe. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Poloni-Staudinger, L., & Ortbals, C. D. (2013). Terrorism and violent conflict: Women’s agency, leadership, and responses. New York: Springer.

Redlin, M., Gries, T., & Meierrieks, D. (2014). Oppressive Governments, US Closeness, and Anti-US Terrorism. Available at <http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/100588/1/VfS_2014_pid_276.pdf>>.

Siegel, L. J. (2012). Criminology. Belmont: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.