☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Hard Talk
Interviews
The Psychology Of Terrorism
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Taranjeet singh" data-source="post: 123688" data-attributes="member: 10049"><p>Dear Aman ji,</p><p></p><p>An interlinked question that cannot be shunned away is the examination of the root cause of the terrorism. These things are interlinked. If there is a smoke there must be a fire.What we see is the result sizzling sentiments on accounts of wrong done to the so called terrorists.These wrongs may not be so perceptible by the civil society but the one who has suffered/or not suffered may see it point blank ,may be in reality it is not the same.The perception 'by the group of people' becomes important aspect.</p><p></p><p>To understand the psychology of terrorists one may have to go in for locating the root causes. It cannot be imagined in the present state of affairs that the terrorisms can be curbed by the use of 'power' or by counter-retaliation as there is no big loss felt by the terrorists. They are properly funded and sacrificing two or ten members of the group is also not material as there are number of new aspirants who are willing take the shoes of the one who has been killed.</p><p></p><p>It shall be appropriate for me if I keep the 'state sponsored terrorism' as a separate entity as bigger issues are involved.</p><p></p><p>Terrorisms root causes may be on account of the followings:</p><p></p><p>Those who are poor, uneducated and disadvantaged are never acceptable to the elite, or in-group, unless, perhaps, as servants. The underlying causes of political violence and terrorism begin long ago and faraway. Yet they remain a part of our lives today.They are made to see the difference on almost daily basis and there comes a point when they try to identify with some alter-egos who are facing the similar situations.It is applicably uniformly.This common factor forms the ground of the 'Group' passing through the same phase. With the passage of time they integrate and see the elite/eliteness as something that is responsible for this kind of the situation that they are put into.</p><p></p><p>I would resort to some standard material available on net.</p><p> </p><p>One may refer the useful book<strong>The Nature of Prejudice</strong>, Gordon W. Allport, (Addison Wesley 1979). We are all familiar with “those people” and what people say about “them.” They’re lazy, dirty; they breed like rabbits; they’re uneducated and uncouth; they stick to themselves; and they’re sneaky and can’t be trusted. Yes, you know who we’re talking about – the “out-group.” They could be black, or white, red or yellow. They could be Christians, Jews, Hindu, or Muslim. They could be from this country or that country. It doesn’t matter.</p><p></p><p></p><p>As <strong>Allport</strong> explains, in-groups always make the same observations and criticisms of out-groups. These prejudices lay the foundation for deeper future problems. Oftentimes such prejudices appear true, not because of a people’s nationality, or religion, but because of their circumstances. Those who are poor, uneducated and disadvantaged are never acceptable to the elite, or in-group, unless, perhaps, as servants. The underlying causes of political violence and terrorism begin long ago and faraway. Yet they remain a part of our lives today…</p><p></p><p><strong>Group Identity </strong>– People have an instinctive need to establish an identity. They are born into a family and naturally share that family’s identity in terms of name, relatives, clan, ethnicity, language, religion and culture. These associations form the basis of our existence and establish our identity. Through association and education we learn and adopt the values and behaviors typical of our group – our in-group. Over time, people realize that there are other groups to which they do belong and with which they don’t identify – out-groups. Invariably people recognize that there is an “us” and a “them,” that there are noticeable differences between groups, and develop loyalty to their in-group. People naturally take pride in their in-group and usually view their own group as superior. These basic group differences set the stage for competition and conflict.</p><p></p><p><strong>Inter-Group Dynamics </strong>– As groups interact with one another, patterns of cooperative and competitive behavior develop. The result of competition is that one groups wins and benefits, while the other loses and suffers. Each group then rationalizes the results, either reasserting the reasons for their success, or failure, which entails rejecting the out-group. Gordon Allport categorizes the forms of rejective behavior in a scale of intensity:</p><p></p><p><strong>Verbal Rejection </strong>– derisive comments, put-downs, ethnic (out-group) jokes </p><p>Avoidance – forms of self-imposed or voluntary segregation, sticking with our own kind</p><p>Discrimination – denying equality to others solely because of affiliation with an out-group</p><p></p><p><strong>Physical Attack</strong> – personal physical attacks against out-group members, rioting, lynching, attacking homes, etc. </p><p></p><p><strong>Extermination</strong> – concerted attacks designed to force out-groups to move away, or to actually exterminate the subject group – pogroms, massacres, ethnic cleansing and genocide</p><p></p><p>Over long periods of time group differences and rejective behaviors often become deeply ingrained and more severe behaviors have led to protracted conflict and hatreds between groups. These historic conflicts may be obscured by political changes or current events but remain as latent sources of renewed conflict as circumstances change, for better or worse, and opportunities arise.</p><p></p><p><strong>Relative Deprivation</strong> – Over time, groups often establish a pattern of dominance that may be based on group size, specialization (farmers vs. merchants), discrimination, or external influences (colonial power favoritism). The relative differences between group successes may not be a problem unless it is seen as the result of unfair, unequal or discriminatory distortions. Where a dominant group imposes a system that results in disadvantage for a particular out-group it eventually invites demands for reform. Such demands usually come from out-group members who have become better educated and aware of the inequality that frustrates their efforts to advance and prosper according to their abilities.</p><p></p><p>The out-group may be at a disadvantage in education, living standards, job opportunity, job advancement, political influence, or ability to express its group identity, language or culture.</p><p></p><p>In many colonial situations, the European colonial powers favored specific minority groups as part of the divide and conquer strategy. They used these favored minorities as surrogates to help maintain order and dominance over much larger majority populations. When the colonists withdrew after World War I and World War II, little or nothing was done to establish more democratic governing systems, or to redress the relative disadvantages that had been created.</p><p></p><p>In other cases, the ruling systems, monarchies or regimes that were left in power continued to exploit out-groups for their own benefit, or failed to move their countries forward in the global marketplace. In either case, out-groups developed heightened expectations for their future but remained frustrated at their inability to change their disadvantaged situation.</p><p></p><p><strong>Discrimination </strong>- A memorandum of the United Nations defines the issue of discrimination:</p><p></p><p>"Discrimination includes any conduct based on a distinction made on grounds if natural or social category, which have no relation either to individual capacities or merits, or to the concrete behavior of the person.” Among the forms of discrimination officially practiced in various parts of the world, the United Nations lists the following:</p><p></p><p>Unequal recognition before the law (general denial of rights to particular groups) </p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inequality of personal security (interference, arrest, disparagement because of group membership) </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inequality in freedom of movement and residence (ghettoes, forbidden travel, prohibited areas, curfew restrictions) </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inequality in protection of freedom of thought, conscience, religion </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inequality in the enjoyment of free communication </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inequality in the right of peaceful association </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inequality in treatment of those born out of wedlock </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inequality in the enjoyment of the right to marry and found a family </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inequality in the enjoyment of free choice of employment </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inequality in the regulation and treatment o£ ownership inequality in the protection of authorship </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inequality of opportunity for education or the development of ability or talent </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inequality of opportunity for sharing the benefits of culture inequality in services rendered (health protection, recreational facilities, housing) </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inequality in the enjoyment of the right to nationality inequality in the right to participate in government </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inequality in access to public office forced labor, slavery, special taxes, the forced wearing of distinguishing marks, sumptuary laws, and public libel of groups</li> </ul><p></p><p><strong>Reform Movements</strong> – In situations where out-groups have access to a political system reform movements often emerge demanding changes. Under monarchies and authoritarian regimes there is rarely the ability to petition the state for reform and repressive regimes are often quick to quell any such movements. The rise of a reform movement inevitably raises expectations of the out-group.The initial reaction to reforms demands is most often to reject the demands as unfounded – to deny the existence of the problem and blame the situation on prejudiced characterizations of the out-group. (“The reason they’re poor is that all out-groupers are lazy.”) A typical theme is that, “we don’t have a problem, they do.”</p><p></p><p>Even if a state recognizes a demand as legitimate, specific interest groups that will oppose reform from fear that it will dilute their position of power and advantage. It’s often said that no one has ever given up power or wealth voluntarily. Such interest groups are easily provoked into a strong reactionary response targeting either, or both, the reformers group, or the government. The emergence of these fear-driven reactionary forces is perhaps the most potent factor is a cascading plunge into violent political conflict. The state is placed in the position of choosing the lesser of two evils, confronting the weaker of two adversaries, and pursuing a course that ensures its own interests and immediate survival.</p><p></p><p>Not surprisingly, reform movements often meet with limited, if any, success. The greater the institutionalized discrimination, inequality and injustice, the lower the prospects for reform and the greater the chances for eventual violence. Rejection of reform demands heightens out-group frustration and strengthens the arguments of militants and their call for decisive action.</p><p></p><p><strong>Dissident Movements</strong> – It is not human nature to go quietly into the night. When governments reject reasonable reform, they invite more aggressive dissent. And when reactionary interests enter the fray, attitudes harden, demands escalate and prospects for resolution diminish quickly. As reformers become dissenters, more militant leaders may take up the call, organizing demonstrations and protests. These activities are designed to raise out-group support and recruit participants to pressure and threaten the state and its dominant in-groups. There is an inevitable struggle between dissenters between non-violent protest and the classic revolutionary tactic of provoking the state to violent repression as a means to anger and inflame people against the injustice.</p><p></p><p>Dissident movements face three obstacles: ignorance, apathy and inertia. Hence their objectives are to inform people of the problems and motivate them to take a position and join the movement. Public protests are designed to attract publicity and attention, but it is difficult to sustain an active movement unless it can show progress and inspire hope. Where government controls the media, or there is little means for public exposure the prospects are dim.</p><p></p><p>The rise of dissident movements creates ever more visceral fear within privileged in-groups and is as likely to provoke reactionary violence from counter-demonstrators as from the state. As fear and tension rises, violence is but a stone’s throw away; all that is need is a precipitating incident, whether intentional or not, to ignite the cycle of violence.</p><p></p><p><strong>Political Violence –</strong> Once violence erupts, the voices of reason and moderation become muted, militants fight for control and rogue elements, whether dissident or reactionary can influence events. A key result of the transition to violence is to eliminate apathy. People are pushed from the fence of indecision and forced to take a position or join the fray.</p><p></p><p>Political violence requires there be a target for attacks and the choices are limited - people or things, government or private. The obvious first targets of the militants are the repressive state’s buildings, facilities, symbols and security forces. Ironically, the state’s assets are better protected than the community they are designed to protect, which serves to redirect violence toward the private sector. As violence breaks out, threatened in-groups are often quick to organize for counter-attacks and their targets are limited to out-group individuals, their homes and businesses. Attacks against these targets can readily be defined as terrorism, but because they support the state, they are rarely condemned for what they are.</p><p></p><p>As dissidents evolve from militants, to armed insurgents, they quickly find themselves out-numbered and out-gunned by increasingly aggressive security forces and caught in a vice between them and reactionary paramilitary or vigilante groups. At this point, the burden is on the state – either they will act to quell the civil discord through negotiation, or through force. Unfortunately, most of today’s current conflicts and resulting terrorism result from a cooperative effort – a joint venture – between the state and its in-groups and out-groups.</p><p></p><p>In real wars, we‘ve all become familiar with apologies for civilian casualties known as “collateral damage.” Violent political groups have no such excuse; once a bomb, or stray bullet kills an innocent civilian, the perpetrators are branded as terrorists, and as government spokespeople and politicians have said a million times, “once a terrorist always a terrorist.” </p><p></p><p>This is a broad, generic description of the conflict development process and there are a myriad of variations and exceptions in specific cases. The classic example of the process is the conflict in Northern Ireland. The UK endured nearly 30 years of conflict in Ulster at a cost of some 3,500 lives and tens of billions in economic cost – all of which might have been avoided by agreeing to rather modest human rights demands that have since been granted anyway.</p><p></p><p>The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a number of similarities and even though there was no government authority to consider reforms, Great Britain and the U.N. could have taken up this role. Again, the economic and human costs have been staggering with no resolution yet in sight. The situation in Sri Lanka also includes many elements of the process, as do conflicts in Spain, Turkey, Cyprus and elsewhere.</p><p></p><p>A contrasting perspective is available by analyzing the U.S. experience with the 1960’s civil rights movement and Viet Nam anti-war protests. Often forgotten is that America experienced a devastating Civil War that demonstrated the compelling need to deal with civil discord.</p><p></p><p>During the civil rights conflict in the South, the U.S. Government sent National Guard troops, not to repress the civil rights demonstrators, but to protect them and to enforce the rule of law. Such actions are unparalleled. Meanwhile, anti-war demonstrations became increasingly violent and fractured American society. At Kent State University National Guard troop shot and killed student demonstrators in 1971. This tragic escalation helped sober the nation, restrained protestors and spurred the government to commit to withdrawal of US forces from Viet Nam. </p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.flashpoints.info/issue_briefings/Terrorism-Causes/Terrorism-Causes_main.htm" target="_blank">Terrorism Causes</a></p><p></p><p>At many points the effected Governments have tried to define this as per their perceptions.Some of these are quoted below.</p><p></p><p><strong>Defining Terrorism & its Root Causes: </strong></p><p>references to the definition of terrorism and the root causes as discussed in the UNGA debate "Measures to eliminate international terrorism" </p><p>October 1-5, 2001, United Nations, New York</p><p> </p><p>This document compiles references made to the definitions and root causes of terrorism by Member States in the debate of the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism". </p><p> </p><p><strong>Definitions of Terrorism</strong></p><p></p><p>In the General Assembly debate, the lack of a working definition of terrorism was repeatedly noted. In a briefing produced by the United Nations half way through the debate, it was noted that "the absence of a definition seriously undermined international efforts to tackle a grave threat to humanity." One of the first things that will need resolution in the negotiation of a Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism will be the question of a definition. Reaching Critical Will has collated the following from speakers to the debate on terrorism to provide an easy reference tool for non-governmental organizations and interested Member States. </p><p></p><p><strong>Root Causes of Terrorism</strong></p><p></p><p>While discussing the elimination of terrorism, clear calls were made by some governments to examine the root causes of terrorist acts. A number of governments indicated that terrorism does not happen in a vacuum, but rather occurs for reasons of economic degradation, as well as social and political alienation. Freedom fighters and those struggling for independence were an area of great contention, both in defining the term terrorism, and identifying its root causes. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><strong>1. DEFINITIONS of Terrorism</strong></p><p></p><p>In alphabetical order by nation:</p><p><strong>ALBANIA </strong></p><p>Statement by Ambassador Agim Nesho, Permanent Representative of Albania to the United Nations - 4 October 2001</p><p>"Terrorism is a scourge that takes innocent lives, threatens values of humanity, human rights and freedoms and impedes development and world progress. The fight against terrorism should rise above the individual interests of states and can not be justified with differences in the social development or cultural and social disparities. </p><p>…</p><p>This fight, in no way, can be confused with the legitimate struggle of the people for freedom and self-determination, equality and respect of their democratic rights and, furthermore, can not be used to justify the intransigent stands of some countries to not respect the rights of citizens in the multi-ethnic society and principles and laws of democracy therein."</p><p></p><p><strong>ANGOLA</strong></p><p>Statement by H.E. Mr Ismael A. Gasper Martins, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Angola to the United Nations - 3 October 2001</p><p>"Terrorism is a scourge that affects all of us as it threatens the very way of life we have come to cherish.</p><p>It challenges the economic and political institutions we have erected. It undermines the principles of interaction among states. It negates due process. And worst of all, it fails to adhere to internationally accepted standards for conflict resolution.</p><p>…</p><p>Terrorists destroy vital social and economic infrastructure in their arbitrarily selected target countries.</p><p>Through their actions, terrorists deprive innocent victims of their livelihoods.</p><p>In their existence, terrorists undermine the will of the governed and the internationally accepted."</p><p></p><p>The following link would be helpful for those who are curious to investigate it further. I am no expert on this topic but do have keen interest.</p><p></p><p> <a href="http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/terror.html" target="_blank">Definition of Terrorism and Its Root Causes</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Taranjeet singh, post: 123688, member: 10049"] Dear Aman ji, An interlinked question that cannot be shunned away is the examination of the root cause of the terrorism. These things are interlinked. If there is a smoke there must be a fire.What we see is the result sizzling sentiments on accounts of wrong done to the so called terrorists.These wrongs may not be so perceptible by the civil society but the one who has suffered/or not suffered may see it point blank ,may be in reality it is not the same.The perception 'by the group of people' becomes important aspect. To understand the psychology of terrorists one may have to go in for locating the root causes. It cannot be imagined in the present state of affairs that the terrorisms can be curbed by the use of 'power' or by counter-retaliation as there is no big loss felt by the terrorists. They are properly funded and sacrificing two or ten members of the group is also not material as there are number of new aspirants who are willing take the shoes of the one who has been killed. It shall be appropriate for me if I keep the 'state sponsored terrorism' as a separate entity as bigger issues are involved. Terrorisms root causes may be on account of the followings: Those who are poor, uneducated and disadvantaged are never acceptable to the elite, or in-group, unless, perhaps, as servants. The underlying causes of political violence and terrorism begin long ago and faraway. Yet they remain a part of our lives today.They are made to see the difference on almost daily basis and there comes a point when they try to identify with some alter-egos who are facing the similar situations.It is applicably uniformly.This common factor forms the ground of the 'Group' passing through the same phase. With the passage of time they integrate and see the elite/eliteness as something that is responsible for this kind of the situation that they are put into. I would resort to some standard material available on net. One may refer the useful book[B]The Nature of Prejudice[/B], Gordon W. Allport, (Addison Wesley 1979). We are all familiar with “those people” and what people say about “them.” They’re lazy, dirty; they breed like rabbits; they’re uneducated and uncouth; they stick to themselves; and they’re sneaky and can’t be trusted. Yes, you know who we’re talking about – the “out-group.” They could be black, or white, red or yellow. They could be Christians, Jews, Hindu, or Muslim. They could be from this country or that country. It doesn’t matter. As [B]Allport[/B] explains, in-groups always make the same observations and criticisms of out-groups. These prejudices lay the foundation for deeper future problems. Oftentimes such prejudices appear true, not because of a people’s nationality, or religion, but because of their circumstances. Those who are poor, uneducated and disadvantaged are never acceptable to the elite, or in-group, unless, perhaps, as servants. The underlying causes of political violence and terrorism begin long ago and faraway. Yet they remain a part of our lives today… [B]Group Identity [/B]– People have an instinctive need to establish an identity. They are born into a family and naturally share that family’s identity in terms of name, relatives, clan, ethnicity, language, religion and culture. These associations form the basis of our existence and establish our identity. Through association and education we learn and adopt the values and behaviors typical of our group – our in-group. Over time, people realize that there are other groups to which they do belong and with which they don’t identify – out-groups. Invariably people recognize that there is an “us” and a “them,” that there are noticeable differences between groups, and develop loyalty to their in-group. People naturally take pride in their in-group and usually view their own group as superior. These basic group differences set the stage for competition and conflict. [B]Inter-Group Dynamics [/B]– As groups interact with one another, patterns of cooperative and competitive behavior develop. The result of competition is that one groups wins and benefits, while the other loses and suffers. Each group then rationalizes the results, either reasserting the reasons for their success, or failure, which entails rejecting the out-group. Gordon Allport categorizes the forms of rejective behavior in a scale of intensity: [B]Verbal Rejection [/B]– derisive comments, put-downs, ethnic (out-group) jokes Avoidance – forms of self-imposed or voluntary segregation, sticking with our own kind Discrimination – denying equality to others solely because of affiliation with an out-group [B]Physical Attack[/B] – personal physical attacks against out-group members, rioting, lynching, attacking homes, etc. [B]Extermination[/B] – concerted attacks designed to force out-groups to move away, or to actually exterminate the subject group – pogroms, massacres, ethnic cleansing and genocide Over long periods of time group differences and rejective behaviors often become deeply ingrained and more severe behaviors have led to protracted conflict and hatreds between groups. These historic conflicts may be obscured by political changes or current events but remain as latent sources of renewed conflict as circumstances change, for better or worse, and opportunities arise. [B]Relative Deprivation[/B] – Over time, groups often establish a pattern of dominance that may be based on group size, specialization (farmers vs. merchants), discrimination, or external influences (colonial power favoritism). The relative differences between group successes may not be a problem unless it is seen as the result of unfair, unequal or discriminatory distortions. Where a dominant group imposes a system that results in disadvantage for a particular out-group it eventually invites demands for reform. Such demands usually come from out-group members who have become better educated and aware of the inequality that frustrates their efforts to advance and prosper according to their abilities. The out-group may be at a disadvantage in education, living standards, job opportunity, job advancement, political influence, or ability to express its group identity, language or culture. In many colonial situations, the European colonial powers favored specific minority groups as part of the divide and conquer strategy. They used these favored minorities as surrogates to help maintain order and dominance over much larger majority populations. When the colonists withdrew after World War I and World War II, little or nothing was done to establish more democratic governing systems, or to redress the relative disadvantages that had been created. In other cases, the ruling systems, monarchies or regimes that were left in power continued to exploit out-groups for their own benefit, or failed to move their countries forward in the global marketplace. In either case, out-groups developed heightened expectations for their future but remained frustrated at their inability to change their disadvantaged situation. [B]Discrimination [/B]- A memorandum of the United Nations defines the issue of discrimination: "Discrimination includes any conduct based on a distinction made on grounds if natural or social category, which have no relation either to individual capacities or merits, or to the concrete behavior of the person.” Among the forms of discrimination officially practiced in various parts of the world, the United Nations lists the following: Unequal recognition before the law (general denial of rights to particular groups) [LIST] [*]Inequality of personal security (interference, arrest, disparagement because of group membership) [*]Inequality in freedom of movement and residence (ghettoes, forbidden travel, prohibited areas, curfew restrictions) [*]Inequality in protection of freedom of thought, conscience, religion [*]Inequality in the enjoyment of free communication [*]Inequality in the right of peaceful association [*]Inequality in treatment of those born out of wedlock [*]Inequality in the enjoyment of the right to marry and found a family [*]Inequality in the enjoyment of free choice of employment [*]Inequality in the regulation and treatment o£ ownership inequality in the protection of authorship [*]Inequality of opportunity for education or the development of ability or talent [*]Inequality of opportunity for sharing the benefits of culture inequality in services rendered (health protection, recreational facilities, housing) [*]Inequality in the enjoyment of the right to nationality inequality in the right to participate in government [*]Inequality in access to public office forced labor, slavery, special taxes, the forced wearing of distinguishing marks, sumptuary laws, and public libel of groups [/LIST] [B]Reform Movements[/B] – In situations where out-groups have access to a political system reform movements often emerge demanding changes. Under monarchies and authoritarian regimes there is rarely the ability to petition the state for reform and repressive regimes are often quick to quell any such movements. The rise of a reform movement inevitably raises expectations of the out-group.The initial reaction to reforms demands is most often to reject the demands as unfounded – to deny the existence of the problem and blame the situation on prejudiced characterizations of the out-group. (“The reason they’re poor is that all out-groupers are lazy.”) A typical theme is that, “we don’t have a problem, they do.” Even if a state recognizes a demand as legitimate, specific interest groups that will oppose reform from fear that it will dilute their position of power and advantage. It’s often said that no one has ever given up power or wealth voluntarily. Such interest groups are easily provoked into a strong reactionary response targeting either, or both, the reformers group, or the government. The emergence of these fear-driven reactionary forces is perhaps the most potent factor is a cascading plunge into violent political conflict. The state is placed in the position of choosing the lesser of two evils, confronting the weaker of two adversaries, and pursuing a course that ensures its own interests and immediate survival. Not surprisingly, reform movements often meet with limited, if any, success. The greater the institutionalized discrimination, inequality and injustice, the lower the prospects for reform and the greater the chances for eventual violence. Rejection of reform demands heightens out-group frustration and strengthens the arguments of militants and their call for decisive action. [B]Dissident Movements[/B] – It is not human nature to go quietly into the night. When governments reject reasonable reform, they invite more aggressive dissent. And when reactionary interests enter the fray, attitudes harden, demands escalate and prospects for resolution diminish quickly. As reformers become dissenters, more militant leaders may take up the call, organizing demonstrations and protests. These activities are designed to raise out-group support and recruit participants to pressure and threaten the state and its dominant in-groups. There is an inevitable struggle between dissenters between non-violent protest and the classic revolutionary tactic of provoking the state to violent repression as a means to anger and inflame people against the injustice. Dissident movements face three obstacles: ignorance, apathy and inertia. Hence their objectives are to inform people of the problems and motivate them to take a position and join the movement. Public protests are designed to attract publicity and attention, but it is difficult to sustain an active movement unless it can show progress and inspire hope. Where government controls the media, or there is little means for public exposure the prospects are dim. The rise of dissident movements creates ever more visceral fear within privileged in-groups and is as likely to provoke reactionary violence from counter-demonstrators as from the state. As fear and tension rises, violence is but a stone’s throw away; all that is need is a precipitating incident, whether intentional or not, to ignite the cycle of violence. [B]Political Violence –[/B] Once violence erupts, the voices of reason and moderation become muted, militants fight for control and rogue elements, whether dissident or reactionary can influence events. A key result of the transition to violence is to eliminate apathy. People are pushed from the fence of indecision and forced to take a position or join the fray. Political violence requires there be a target for attacks and the choices are limited - people or things, government or private. The obvious first targets of the militants are the repressive state’s buildings, facilities, symbols and security forces. Ironically, the state’s assets are better protected than the community they are designed to protect, which serves to redirect violence toward the private sector. As violence breaks out, threatened in-groups are often quick to organize for counter-attacks and their targets are limited to out-group individuals, their homes and businesses. Attacks against these targets can readily be defined as terrorism, but because they support the state, they are rarely condemned for what they are. As dissidents evolve from militants, to armed insurgents, they quickly find themselves out-numbered and out-gunned by increasingly aggressive security forces and caught in a vice between them and reactionary paramilitary or vigilante groups. At this point, the burden is on the state – either they will act to quell the civil discord through negotiation, or through force. Unfortunately, most of today’s current conflicts and resulting terrorism result from a cooperative effort – a joint venture – between the state and its in-groups and out-groups. In real wars, we‘ve all become familiar with apologies for civilian casualties known as “collateral damage.” Violent political groups have no such excuse; once a bomb, or stray bullet kills an innocent civilian, the perpetrators are branded as terrorists, and as government spokespeople and politicians have said a million times, “once a terrorist always a terrorist.” This is a broad, generic description of the conflict development process and there are a myriad of variations and exceptions in specific cases. The classic example of the process is the conflict in Northern Ireland. The UK endured nearly 30 years of conflict in Ulster at a cost of some 3,500 lives and tens of billions in economic cost – all of which might have been avoided by agreeing to rather modest human rights demands that have since been granted anyway. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a number of similarities and even though there was no government authority to consider reforms, Great Britain and the U.N. could have taken up this role. Again, the economic and human costs have been staggering with no resolution yet in sight. The situation in Sri Lanka also includes many elements of the process, as do conflicts in Spain, Turkey, Cyprus and elsewhere. A contrasting perspective is available by analyzing the U.S. experience with the 1960’s civil rights movement and Viet Nam anti-war protests. Often forgotten is that America experienced a devastating Civil War that demonstrated the compelling need to deal with civil discord. During the civil rights conflict in the South, the U.S. Government sent National Guard troops, not to repress the civil rights demonstrators, but to protect them and to enforce the rule of law. Such actions are unparalleled. Meanwhile, anti-war demonstrations became increasingly violent and fractured American society. At Kent State University National Guard troop shot and killed student demonstrators in 1971. This tragic escalation helped sober the nation, restrained protestors and spurred the government to commit to withdrawal of US forces from Viet Nam. [url=http://www.flashpoints.info/issue_briefings/Terrorism-Causes/Terrorism-Causes_main.htm]Terrorism Causes[/url] At many points the effected Governments have tried to define this as per their perceptions.Some of these are quoted below. [B]Defining Terrorism & its Root Causes: [/B] references to the definition of terrorism and the root causes as discussed in the UNGA debate "Measures to eliminate international terrorism" October 1-5, 2001, United Nations, New York This document compiles references made to the definitions and root causes of terrorism by Member States in the debate of the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism". [B]Definitions of Terrorism[/B] In the General Assembly debate, the lack of a working definition of terrorism was repeatedly noted. In a briefing produced by the United Nations half way through the debate, it was noted that "the absence of a definition seriously undermined international efforts to tackle a grave threat to humanity." One of the first things that will need resolution in the negotiation of a Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism will be the question of a definition. Reaching Critical Will has collated the following from speakers to the debate on terrorism to provide an easy reference tool for non-governmental organizations and interested Member States. [B]Root Causes of Terrorism[/B] While discussing the elimination of terrorism, clear calls were made by some governments to examine the root causes of terrorist acts. A number of governments indicated that terrorism does not happen in a vacuum, but rather occurs for reasons of economic degradation, as well as social and political alienation. Freedom fighters and those struggling for independence were an area of great contention, both in defining the term terrorism, and identifying its root causes. [B]1. DEFINITIONS of Terrorism[/B] In alphabetical order by nation: [B]ALBANIA [/B] Statement by Ambassador Agim Nesho, Permanent Representative of Albania to the United Nations - 4 October 2001 "Terrorism is a scourge that takes innocent lives, threatens values of humanity, human rights and freedoms and impedes development and world progress. The fight against terrorism should rise above the individual interests of states and can not be justified with differences in the social development or cultural and social disparities. … This fight, in no way, can be confused with the legitimate struggle of the people for freedom and self-determination, equality and respect of their democratic rights and, furthermore, can not be used to justify the intransigent stands of some countries to not respect the rights of citizens in the multi-ethnic society and principles and laws of democracy therein." [B]ANGOLA[/B] Statement by H.E. Mr Ismael A. Gasper Martins, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Angola to the United Nations - 3 October 2001 "Terrorism is a scourge that affects all of us as it threatens the very way of life we have come to cherish. It challenges the economic and political institutions we have erected. It undermines the principles of interaction among states. It negates due process. And worst of all, it fails to adhere to internationally accepted standards for conflict resolution. … Terrorists destroy vital social and economic infrastructure in their arbitrarily selected target countries. Through their actions, terrorists deprive innocent victims of their livelihoods. In their existence, terrorists undermine the will of the governed and the internationally accepted." The following link would be helpful for those who are curious to investigate it further. I am no expert on this topic but do have keen interest. [url=http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/terror.html]Definition of Terrorism and Its Root Causes[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Hard Talk
Interviews
The Psychology Of Terrorism
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top