Social Solidarity

[Dondi]

I read this article entitled "Seven Habits of Highly Ineffective Terrorists", probably written as a response to the aftermath of Mumbai. But I was struck with the idea of the need "social solidarity" as motivator for people to join groups like this.

People who join terrorist groups most often have friends or relatives who are members of the group, and the great majority of terrorist are socially isolated: unmarried young men or widowed women who weren't working prior to joining. These things are true for members of terrorist groups as diverse as the IRA and al-Qaida.

Seems to me that most people have some kind of need to be part of something else, whether it be a church, lodge, knitting circle, gang, family, charity, organization, or even in the work place in order to feel a belonging. I admit that I feel comfortable with being a member of my church for the simple reason that there is a cameraderie with people who are like-minded in faith and purpose. Even those here in IO who might not even go to church might have a supprt group or a group of people that enjoy doing the same things as they do.

So my question is, as the article suggests, would it be possible to, instead of trying to kill off or get rid of terrorists, bring them out by educating them or get them to join a group where they can find a camaraderie with folks that live more peaceful lives? How might this be done?

There is another article referenced in this article in a .pdf file that gets a bit deeper with this, found here, particularly starting at pg. 18 and onwards.

 

[wil]

I read this article entitled "Seven Habits of Highly Ineffective Terrorists", probably written as a response to the aftermath of Mumbai. But I was struck with the idea of the need "social solidarity" as motivator for people to join groups like this.

Your WIRED article was written 10/2/08 nevertheless valuable stuff.

Folks that are empty are looking to fill a need. Folks that are looking to grab folks and fill that need often have alterior motives. Fodder, profit, a congregation, whatever.

But don't you think the folks that would tend toward bombing are a different breed? Or do you think at the right time anyone could fall into the 'wrong' hands.

On the flip side we must remember...terrorist is a name determined by what side you are on. The good old USA was founded by terrorists, just ask the brits in the 1700's

 

[Dondi]

Your WIRED article was written 10/2/08 nevertheless valuable stuff.

Folks that are empty are looking to fill a need. Folks that are looking to grab folks and fill that need often have alterior motives. Fodder, profit, a congregation, whatever.

But don't you think the folks that would tend toward bombing are a different breed? Or do you think at the right time anyone could fall into the 'wrong' hands.

On the flip side we must remember...terrorist is a name determined by what side you are on. The good old USA was founded by terrorists, just ask the brits in the 1700's

Oops...I didn't even notice that. Truth be told, this was a discussion on another website that referenced the articles.

Still, it's a worthy and timely topic. I hope to have a meaningful discussion here.

 

[Dondi]

But don't you think the folks that would tend toward bombing are a different breed? Or do you think at the right time anyone could fall into the 'wrong' hands.

Well, like the article reports, many of the recruits are on the edge of society and isolated. so in that sense, they are more vulnerable to tactics to recruit them. They will find themselves with an identity, however deranged it may be. It's the same phenomena when it comes to gangs.

The other thing is that many are recruited via family members. Or at least there is some association with family members already in the group. Did you ever see the movie, "American History X"? The younger brother was heavily influenced by the older brother, until the older brother broke out of the hate group he was in. (An actually, the father in that movie was a racist, but not part of the group, so the seed was sown).

In the matter of terrorists, Muslim or otherwise (it matters not what religion, rather it is the use of religion as a vehicle to bring some kind of familiarity to the recruit in order to gain his/her trust through a naive and misrepresented understanding of the religious ideology, i.e. texts verses used out of context to justify the purpose or ideology of the group or leader), they will adapt themselves with others in the group and attempt to blend in. Doesn't matter that what they are doing is immoral, the important thing is that they do it together.

This mentality can extend to any group.

For example, look at what happen to the Walmart employee that got trampled to death. The group (or should I say mob) mentality was 'every man for himself'. People who line up at a Walmart at 4 am in the morning to get the hot deal on Black Friday are already predisposed to make that rush to land the Wii, at any cost. When you multiply that by the hundreds who line up pressed against the door, a prevailing attitude develops and reason just goes out the window.

Why do you think that there were so many screaming and crying prepubescent girls on the Ed Sullivan Show when the Beatles appeared?

So yes, i suppose it can happen to anybody, depending on the situation.

On the flip side we must remember...terrorist is a name determined by what side you are on. The good old USA was founded by terrorists, just ask the brits in the 1700's

To a certain extent. The difference is that our Founding Fathers weren't trying to systematically blow the Brits up. Who fired on Crispus Attucks first?

 

[citizenzen]

But don't you think the folks that would tend toward bombing are a different breed? Or do you think at the right time anyone could fall into the 'wrong' hands.

Anybody could become a "terrorist". It just makes sense if you're trying to inflict damage on a country as powerful as the U.S. What are you supposed to do, march on the border in uniform?

Methods of stealth, hitting soft civilian targets, underground networks are the only way for these groups to survive and succeed.

It should come as a shock to no one why people resort to these methods.

 

[citizenzen]

To a certain extent. The difference is that our Founding Fathers weren't trying to systematically blow the Brits up. Who fired on Crispus Attucks first?

I think you attempt to put too fine a spin on our founders.

According to your logic, since we invaded Iraq and struck the first blow, every retaliation against our troops a legitimate act of defense. I actually believe this to be true, but I somehow doubt that you're willing to go there.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Dondi,

In the matter of terrorists, Muslim or otherwise (it matters not what religion, rather it is the use of religion as a vehicle to bring some kind of familiarity to the recruit in order to gain his/her trust through a naive and misrepresented understanding of the religious ideology ...

I am not aware of any empirical descriptions of this. I think lot of it is our own armchair theorizing.

Based on the article, it appears the cause may actually irrelevant for some/many terrorists. The article alludes to this: "These people know little about politics or Islam, and they frankly don't even seem to care much about learning more." On the other hand the writings left behind by female suicide bombers suggest very powerful political motives.
http://www.mcrg.ac.in/Spheres/Danielle.doc

I'm always suspicious of a theory that is intended to explain all kinds of terrorism. Goals vary, as do outsider's definitions and classifications. Female suicide bombers' motives in particular seem to be very unique. It seems for them religious ideology is subordinated to the perceived political importance of anti-colonialist resistance/patriotic commitment/feminism.

To evoke religion - even if only to for purposes of idelological baptism or as an organizational tool - obscures more fundamental realities of what is actually going on. These outsider-looking-in theories are not helpful. They are unlikely to lead to constructive anti-terrorist prevention policies.

 

[citizenzen]

Well said Netti-Netti.

Religion? Economics? Politics? Whatever the reason for terror one can't be seen as more evil than the other. Terrorism itself is merely a part of the spectrum of violence that humans engage in.

Domestic violence, sidewalk muggings, gang murders, campus shootings, armed insurgencies, civil war, invading battalions. How does one tell the difference between terrorism and the same-old-same-old bloodshed? It's just a matter of perspective.

 

[TheKhan]

I think terrorists have been mislead by leaders who want to accomplish something within their life-time. Desperate measures are often taken when things are rushed.

Terrorism(gangsters) is also a very old tactic that was invented by the middle-easterners to make a point, but in this case there are probably more effective ways to get what they want in the long term. One way to get rid of this would be to convince them to be more patient, but when you anger someone to a certain point, it is probably impossible for them to listen to any logic, as their reasoning is lowered to a point where they could almost be enslaved(their brain becomes a mush). Who`s to blame for that is your call.

In the case of Muslims, the alternative is to move to the United States have lots of babies, build political groups, secure certain amount of votes while being normal etc..

I have my doubts that a defense mechanism or something that has the same effect has been mobilized and directed into the middle-east for decades, whether intentional or not. Otherwise the US would have already been like Europe.

When you get in the way of something as big as natural migration which is like a tidal wave, things should be expected. Personally I don`t recommend it if something like this is happening.

I also have no doubt that some of the bombers actually believed in world peace.

 

[citizenzen]

I think terrorists have been mislead by leaders who want to accomplish something within their life-time. Desperate measures are often taken when things are rushed.

Oh. You mean like George W. Bush and Iraq?

 

[citizenzen]

One way to get rid of this would be to convince them to be more patient, but when you anger someone to a certain point, it is probably impossible for them to listen to any logic, as their reasoning is lowered to a point where they could almost be enslaved(their brain becomes a mush).

Now I'm sure you're talking about Bush!

 

[TheKhan]

Oh. You mean like George W. Bush and Iraq?

George W. Bush is a classic case of when things go wrong after the 3rd generation.

After centuries of rule by the Shogunates, the Japanese have a term for people like Bush. The direct translation means "dumb prince".

I never thought I`d get to see a classic case of dumb prince in my lifetime, but clearly I was wrong.

p.s. I am American.

 

[citizenzen]

p.s. I am American.

And a fine one too.

 

[Netti-Netti]

People who line up at a Walmart at 4 am in the morning to get the hot deal on Black Friday are already predisposed to make that rush to land the Wii, at any cost. When you multiply that by the hundreds who line up pressed against the door, a prevailing attitude develops and reason just goes out the window.

Bin Laden's plan of action is very well reasoned. The idea was to bankrupt the US with unwinnable wars. He has made considerable strides in that regard. When indirect costs are included, Iraq and Afghanistan will be costing trillions. For Iraq alone the estimates given by a University of Michigan group was $3 trillion - and that was several years ago.

As for followers, many seem to be in it for a very rational reason: money. Mercenary terrorists in Afghanistan have been around for at least 15 years. It appears that neighboring Pakistan is now flooded with them, as well.

Terrorism is a lucrative business and you will have no trouble finding descriptions of the business model that's being used by some of these organizations. Being a paid mercenary has considerable appeal in countries with high poverty/unemployment rates - countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Recall that Bin Laden originally made inroads into Afghanistan by paying the Taliban.

There is some suggestion that in Iraq insurgents/terrorists are being managed by simply buying them off. The so-called "Surge" that was hailed a military success was just a cover story.

It's quite possible that the US initial efforts to turn security over to Iraqis actually created the conditions for more insecurity. For one thing, the US was apparently unwilling to pay new Iraqi security force recruits for fear of being accused of turning these people into mercenaries. In other words, these people were expected to risk their lives with very little incentive to do so.