Talie Chen
October 25, 2015
ASA 002 A03
Whenever there are terrorist attacks, the news tries to find reasons to report that offer some explanation for the attacks -- Psychological disorders? Relationship problems? Involvement in cults or other groups? We believe there must be a cause to such heinous crimes, and this question seems to be the common focus in the aftermath of a terrorist attack: What caused it and how can it be prevented?
I found it interesting that Paur and Rai said that these explanations dwell on the sexual motives of the suicide bombers. At least from what I’ve read about terrorist attacks, I have not seen sexual frustration stated as the “most important” factor “in motivating young men, or women, to engage in suicidal motives.” However, I do agree with them that terrorism studies have disregarded the complex social, historical, and political dynamics of terrorism. I have noticed that there are many models and theories that aim to show how an otherwise normal individual could become a murderous terrorist. The excerpt of a statement made by Post sounds very similar to explanations I’ve seen consistently in the news, which focusses on two personality types of terrorists: the “anarchic-ideologue who experienced serious family dysfunction and maladjustment which leads to rebellion against parents and society, and the “nationalist-secessionist” who has a sense of loyalty to authority and rebellion against external enemies.
Only recently have I started to see a slight shift in the perception towards terrorism. Articles discussing how the US fueled the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq have started to emerge, shedding some light on the historical and political dynamics that strengthened the terrorist group. So what made these articles of this typically suppressed topic start to appear? And how should the US handle the responsibility it has in ties to terrorism?
No comments:
Post a Comment