What makes a terrorist?

Elvis?

It seems to me as though you've embraced the brand, Mango, and not the definition our government provided us. Morally disengaged is the criteria? Well...

Tarring and feathering Loyalists — those individuals who sympathized and were supportive of the British Crown, royal tax collectors, and other officials — was a common practice carried out by the more radical elements of the organizations. (from EarlyAmerica.com)

Not to be argumentative Mango, but active duty personnel would like to be anywhere but Iraq, and most are only in it for the stability/paycheck. Most terrorists are absolutely convinced they are taking the high moral ground and have God on their side.

I think the key here is "the more radical elements of the organization. Not all sons of liberty took to tarring and feathering and it's not lethal.
What makes some people more radical than others? What makes someone have a total disregard for life to further their agenda vs. people who have similar views but won't resort to physical violence?

When I say morally disengaged, I meant relative to the value of life.




I don't consider any opinions as argumentative at all. I value them. It makes for healthy debate.
I am sure that there are many reasons for enlistment in the services as well as those like SJ pointed above.
I am not debating that.

But like SJ's Marine friend who was trained to get pumped up to blow things up, does this not make people wonder where these people are coming from mentally and psychologically who can do this without any feeling any moral consequence?

So in asking what makes a terrorist, I feel moral disengagement has to be a factor.

They're being grossly misused now.

Then all those B-17 pilots flying over the Channel were terrorists by that reckoning. To a man they all said they were focused on getting to the target and getting home safely. Moral disengagement was necessary to do the job of wiping out the enemy. We firestormed cities. We gave those pilots medals and called them heroes. If you asked a German, what would they call those pilots?

Good point Bob, yes, I do believe that one has to be morally disengaged in certain situations, ie, condemning someone to death through lethal injection, war, etc., however, I believe there's a difference between morally disengaging in certain situations and still having a moral identity. Does this make sense? I think I am looking for another term other than morally disengaging in the above circumstances, but I can't put my finger on it.

It's been written that terrorists seem to share a feature of a psychological condition known as antisocial personality disorder or psychopathic disorder, which is a lack of empathy for the suffering of others, do not feel other's pain.
Charachteristics include: sense of entitlement, unremorseful, apathetic to others, unconscionable, blameful of others, manipulative and conning, affectively cold, disparate understanding of behavior and socially acceptable behavior, disregardful of social obligations, nonconforming to social norms, irresponsible, however they do not appear unstable or mentally ill.

However, my feeling is that although many psychologists and analysts are trying to understand terrorism, they can not and never will fully understand all the mechanisms as to what makes a terrorist and fully define it.

Mango,

IMHO, trying to neatly categorize a terrorist in a well defined psychological box is difficult (and I do not believe you are trying to do this), as the list of personal grievances can vary immensely from group to group. Your list of characteristics make sense and probably represents a large cross section of terrorists - but with respect to suicide bombers and their motivation, there is no mention of just pure desperation, feeling of abandonment and the sharp, untenable sense of one's life being worthless and futile - it becomes for some a welcome way out as opposed to dealing with the perpetual pain, humiliation, anguish (etc...choose your word). I really believe that SOME (certainly not all) suicide bombers do feel empathy and the suffering of others but because they are so acutely aware of their own, they chose to take a course of action that they know will bring about destruction, but it is semi-justified in their eyes because they have only known war.

Chickpea, I believe yes, you are correct that suicide bombers probably do not fit the psychological profile of most terrorists. I think they feel like soldiers of war, or acting appropriately to their religious beliefs, and that their act is a heroic one. I suppose similarly to the way a US soldier feels when they are are forced to use violence in war to protect their country, minus the hopelessness.

I would like to add that I took some interest this thread because post 9/11 I was consumed with anger watching my friends and neighbors family members perish. I did do some research on this subject to quell my anger and gain a better understanding of other cultures and religions, particularly Islam.
I learned years ago that trying to neatly package what makes a "terrorist" just can not be done, but I do believe that if people do stop just briefly to think about what motivates others, whether it be good or bad, we would have a lot less strife in this world as a whole.

On that note, I will be bowing out of this thread permanently for personal reasons, but I am glad to see it discussed so perhaps more people will gain a better perspective of what could be possible root causes or catalysts, or whatever word is being used now.

Chickpea, I believe yes, you are correct that suicide bombers probably do not fit the psychological profile of most terrorists. I think they feel like soldiers of war, or acting appropriately to their religious beliefs, and that their act is a heroic one. I suppose similarly to the way a US soldier feels when they are are forced to use violence in war to protect their country, minus the hopelessness.

I would like to add that I took some interest this thread because post 9/11 I was consumed with anger watching my friends and neighbors family members perish. I did do some research on this subject to quell my anger and gain a better understanding of other cultures and religions, particularly Islam.
I learned years ago that trying to neatly package what makes a "terrorist" just can not be done, but I do believe that if people do stop just briefly to think about what motivates others, whether it be good or bad, we would have a lot less strife in this world as a whole.

On that note, I will be bowing out of this thread permanently for personal reasons, but I am glad to see it discussed so perhaps more people will gain a better perspective of what could be possible root causes or catalysts, or whatever word is being used now.

Goodbye from this thread, Mango. Thanks for your insight...

Now we're getting to the essence of the problem. Your empathy for the terrorist as a human being with a twisted mind, reminds me of Jesus praying, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." The problem with terrorist thinking is a kind of delusion or spiritual ignorance, both individual & collective.

Misguided values are in every culture, but in extremely sectarian sub-cultures, it can lead to insane levels of violence. So direct defense is sometimes needed, but that is not the main solution to the underlying problem.

Part of the larger solution is to help uplift the outlook of the surrounding cultures, so that their support for the terrorists dries up. Humanitarian actions around the world, preventing needless wars, & respecting other cultures would all show the whole world that we are not the enemy. We should uplift the world by our friendship.

While it is not what makes a terrorist, I see an absence of civil communication
as playing a small roll, sometimes leading to terrorism. Not only that, but I see it also wrecking relationships between spouses, parents and children, employer and employee, neighbors, states, and countries. (This is the point where 6thGen tells me to go sit down with someone who wants to slice off my head.) Communication needs to flow in both directions, and it involves more listening and understanding, than talking. I think it is easy to see the importance of communication, and do not think that it is a root cause, which if changed, will change the course of terrorism, but I do think the lack of effective civil communication presents a problem in all aspects of life.

I think all elected officials in this country should be required to take some courses in communication skills before stepping foot into their office.

Before we as humans can judge which side is ultimately "legitimate" we have to fully understand the conflict from both sides. I know I don't and there is very little national debate about it because if you even ask the question in some circles you are a treasonous coward liberal advocating therapy for the terrorists.