Calixte 1

Ubdasja Calixte
Professor Dagher
UWRT 1102
April 8, 2015
My interest in exploring the topic of terrorism started when I was heard about ISIS and
the oppression this regime caused people in Syria, Iraq, and surrounding areas. I was very
curious about why a group of people would want to cause so much destruction especially to
people of the Islamic community. What motivated these terrorists? What were they trying to
accomplish? And most importantly why target the civilians? Prior to doing the inquiry project, I
perceived terrorists to be insensitive psychopathic individuals who had a fetish for causing great
harm to others. Society marks terrorism as an act so evil that there is nothing that can justify it. I
wanted to see if the was a rationale behind what is being presented in news reports. In order to
explore that issue, I wanted to learn about government responses to terrorism and how that
impacts our understanding of terrorist actions.
In exploring my topic of terrorism, I wanted to understand why terrorists use violence.
According to Virgina Held, Terrorists use violence to accomplish a political goal(63). Society
may think theyre just a group of people trying to kill random civilians but in actuality these
people have a reason for why they do what they do. Perhaps the terrorists feel they arent being
misrepresented, or there is lack of political power. They cause harm to people to send a message
and bring attention to a specific issue. This revelation changed my former perception of terrorism
because I found that these people werent going on a killing sprees. They had a reason that was
rational to them.

Calixte 2

Moreover, terrorists arent psychopathic lunatics that I thought they were. According to
Virginia Held, Those who study terrorists are amazed at how normal, articulate, and rational
they are (71). Terrorists come in many different shapes and sizes. All are motivated by different
things; however, ideas that drive them are similar to ideas that could easily lure anyone. In
Deangelis article Understanding Terrorism, she explains that
a set of studies done in the US, Iran, and Isreal supported the idea the people who were
reminded of their mortality-and clinged more strongly to their group identities-were more
likely to support violence against the out group. Iranians supported suicide bombings
against Westerners. Americans were more likely to advocate military force, even if it
meant killing thousands, and Isrealis condoned violence against Palestinians. (60)
This study shows that people who felt strongly about their culture, and perhaps felt it was
being threatened by another group would support and possibly want to commit an action against
that group. Although it is immoral to want to kill thousands of people, terrorists still considered
the idea of hurting the other group. I found this study to be interesting because it shows how
easily people can change.
Governments characteristically define terrorism as something only opponents can
commit, as something only those who seek to change policies or to attack a given political
system (Held 62). Based on this definition, the governments actions often go unanalyzed
because their actions are deemed morally justifiable. Held further argues that the government
acts in equal iniquity by killing more civilians than the terrorists. (61). People become
desensitized to the lives of the civilians killed in the terrorists country by the government. Much
like how the terrorists become desensitized to the lives of the citizens they kill on their
opponents land. Each side feels justified for their actions.

Calixte 3

Unlike the governments definition, terrorism is actually more complex with different
forms, and different groups of people that characterize terrorism. What many arent familiar with
is that states can terrorize their own people. An example of state terrorism is when rulers of
Argentina extinguished thousands of their opponents in order to send a message to the public
(Held 62). There definitely is a double standard when governments define terrorism.
Governments make it seem like its only small groups that cause harm but they themselves cause
harm to their own people in order to control them.
The domination of the government and lack of political power given to the people could
be the reason terrorists attack in the first place. The causes for terrorism vary from group to
group. Martha Crenshaw, a political science professor states that the causes of terrorism are so
inextricably related to large-scale political, social, and economic conditions (for example,
poverty, corruption, weak civilian institutions, and demographic pressures (42). Perhaps the
government isnt giving these groups a voice they feel they deserve. There are many different
factors that contribute to why terrorists feel they should take drastic measures. They may feel
their culture or religion is insulted or perhaps they feel morally justified to do what they do. Lack
of help from the government and financial insecurities can affect those people. They may feel
they are doing a good thing by striking out. Again, these are all reasons that prove the rationale
behind what drives terrorists.
Terrorists end up killing many civilians in the process of trying to send their message.
This results in retaliation of the government that terrorists are trying to attack. Held explains in
her article Terrorism and War that it is unclear why those who bring about states policies and
give it armed services should be exempt from attacks (60). So in the publics eye citizens are
innocent, but in the terrorists eye they are targets since they support the governments policy that

Calixte 4

the terrorists dont support. That shows that the terrorists have some sort of rationale behind what
they do.
What I learned from doing this inquiry project that I didnt know before is that terrorists
are normal people who feel very passionate about a particular political or religious issue. They
feel that the government isnt paying enough attention to this problem. Anger and fear drives
some of these people to take very dangerous routes of attacking citizens to get the government to
bring about the change they want. Its like a robbery. A robber goes into a store, and hold
someone hostage in order to get whatever it is that they request. If they dont get whatever it is
that they request, they may hurt or even kill someone. Instead of trying to understand the
motives, the government see the lack of morality, and feels anger which gives the government
justification to retaliate with violence. However, there are other ways in which the government
or opposing group can retaliate which can be more effective and less destructive.
I found that in history, governments typically dealt with terrorists by reacting with
violence, which hasnt been a very effective way in combatting the issue. Lloyd Dumas
examines the ineffectiveness of violent counter-terrorism, noting that for decades, Isreal has
doggedly followed a policy of responding to any act of terrorism with violent military retaliation
and the result has been that there exists today more terrorism directed against Isreal than ever
before (qtd. in V.Held 69). The US should attempt to find alternative ways to deal with
terrorists. If the result of military retaliation in Isreal has been ineffective then it probably wont
be as effective if US continues to retaliate with violence. The US should also attempt to put aside
their own moral views, and understand the views of terrorists in order to stop any future threats.
A way that the government can combat terrorism is to tap into the fear of the terrorist, and
the motivation. De-radicalization programs are effective ways of doing that because it connects

Calixte 5

emotional, social, and intellectual components that has been successful at softening the hearts of
terrorists (Deangelis 60). Terrorists could have families, and might be religiously zealous. If
terrorists were to go through some sort of program that can understand the terrorists motivations,
or ideology and could educate and convince them that their family, and everything they care
about wont be in danger then it may change terrorists. A firsthand account of a former terrorists
who gave up on terrorism while participating in a de-radicalization program in Indonesia is
Jemmah Islamyiah, who fought from Afghanistan to the Philippines. He says, After his arrest he
realized he had to stop the operation because he realized Osama Bin Ladens ideology wasnt
jihad it was a crime(English ). The program that Jemmah joined clearly educated him about his
religion and the principles of it, and afterwards he realized how he was going against it. Since
terrorists usually have a political goal, it certainly can be resolved through means of
communication, and through nonviolent approaches such as de-radicalization programs.
However, government have to put away their own ethnocentric ideas, and try to
understand the terrorist groups. Suicide bombing one of the most lethal forms of terrorism cannot
be stopped if some of the requests made by the suicide bombers arent implemented (Riaz 342).
The government has to at least negotiate with these people. Terrorists feel very strongly about
their beliefs enough to go out and kill a group of civilians to get the publics attention. If their
initial requests are being evaded every time and quelled by violence, it only breeds even more
hatred and desire to strike again.
From doing this inquiry project Ive learned a lot about terrorism and the terrorists
themselves. I was able to see them as people with a strong passion rather than just psychopathic
people. If I were to continue where I left off in my inquiry project, I would inquire about if there
were mental stages that terrorists went through before going to the extreme? Would they start off

Calixte 6

with some sort of petition or request from the government? Whether or not terrorists considered a
nonviolent approach? Was it effective? If not, what was their next approach? I would also
question what tactics did these terrorists groups use in order to lure their members. In the news I
noticed many young people going into Syria to join these regimes. I wonder how and why they
would want to put their lives at risk. Lastly, I would want to figure out, how do these regimes get
powerful and where do they get their weapons? Terrorism is a very complex issue, and there are
many directions it can lead to. In different types of terrorism there are different ways to deal with
it. Its not impossible to stop but it definitely will take time, and willingness on both sides.

Calixte 7

Works Cited
Crenshaw, Martha. "A Long View of Terrorism." N.p., Jan. 2014:41-42 Web. 8 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.currenthistory.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/pdf_org_files/113_759_040.pdf>
.
Deangelis, Tori. "Understanding Terrorism." American Psychological Association 40.10 (2009):
60. Web. 8 Apr. 2015. <http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/11/terrorism.aspx>.
English, France 24. "TERRORISM: A Program to Deradicalize Extremist Militants." YouTube.
YouTube, 9 Nov. 2010. Web. 08 Apr. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
t=94&v=q6qwhLvsPIo>.
Hassan, Riaz. "Suicide Terrorism." Asian Journal of Social Science 38 (2010): 341-342. Web. 8
Apr. 2015.

<http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/content/journals/10.116
3/156853110x499909>.
Held, Virginia. "Terrorism and War." Journal of Ethics 8.1 (2004): 59-75. Web. 8 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/25115781>.