Terrorism at a New Level
November 29, 2008
They are talking about the new face of terrorism, the men who gleefully and methodically kill for the sake of killing, all the while knowing that they will also be killed. It’s not particularly religious in tone, it’s not territorial/nationalistic. It’s not even goal oriented (other than to strike terror).
It most certainly is a different approach than that of the suicide bombers. In the current mode, the killer gets to see the death, hear the cries and screams, and actually hunt and kill his fellow humans. He fights the would-be rescuers or law enforcement to the death. The suicide bomber by contrast dies immediately and never got to enjoy the carnage, the killing and the suffering by his victims beforehand.
And how is it that males are so drawn to this type of activity? I understand, females can be violent, too, and just as vicious and cruel and damaging in many ways. But for sheer destruction, ultimate evil and raw violence, males are by far the most guilty. Is it testosterone? The Y chromosome?
I know many men who are gentle souls, and would never participate in this type of thing, and don’t enjoy violence. My own better half is one such individual. So it’s not all men. It’s not only testosterone and the Y chromosome. So what is it? Why haven’t we civilized that beast in us, yet?
What role does culture play in this? Why do we have less of these terrorists in our First World countries? Is it because we have more “acceptable” violence in other areas of our lives, (video games, movies, sports) which serves as a type of outlet? Or just the opposite?
Loading ...
) So any posts are greatly appreciate! 
November 29th, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Great article! I was hoping someone would write about this. Here is my theory:
We still live in a society where men are to play the tough role. Real men don’t eat quiche, real men don’t cry. It’s all hogwash. Real men DO cry and some even eat quiche (much I’m sure depends on your taste buds).
Women on the other hand are not as strong physically for the most part. Although some are pretty tough. We’re taught the nurturing role. These theories obviously do not apply to all of either gender but is certainly more the norm.
How anyone can commit such violent acts is beyond my comprehension. Further, I believe that with more single mothers raising their offspring, we’ll find more understanding and gentler men.
Another part is culture. Certain cultures believe that women should be seen and not heard. They should wear veils over their faces so that no other man can see them. As it used to be in the United States, men brought home the bacon. It is still very much the same in many other countries. Women stay home and tend to the young and are forbidden to work much less be overly exposed in public.
Wow, I may be getting totally off track here! But I believe this contributes simply because the man continues to see it as his duty to protect and/or destroy.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:14 PM
I think that women are equally as violent as men, but they have been acculturated to express that violence in other ways, or to just keep it in. Remember that women and children were recruited to be suicide bombers too, after they started having a shortage of (gullible) men.
Misty hits on several good points. One is that men are expected to protect and/or destroy in many societies. We prize those skills among our athletes in various team sports. We admire those hunters who literally bring home the bacon.
Another good point is the concept that with single mothers, we may have more gentle men. I actually overheard a man at church decry this “sissification” of the American male by the single mom. I pointed out to him that he thought minority gangs and all their violence were directly attributed to the lack of the male role model in the poverty ridden, single-mother home…so how could it be both ways, they are more violent but more gentle, too?
And to further illustrate the point, what kind of home was Barack Obama raised in?
Although, as a final note to all this, I recently discovered that a very kind and gentle man that I know was raised by a widowed military father.
So I guess we can look for root causes all we want but everyone’s pet theory may have only a small part in the actual makeup of humanity’s violent actions.
November 30th, 2008 at 9:41 AM
“Sissification”? I think it’s great that some of these men are being uh…”sissified” if that’s how to view it. Most are more sensitive to women. It’s no longer a man hearing “blah blah blah” every time a woman opens her mouth. Well, for the most part. I’d hardly call that a bad thing unless he still thinks women should be seen and not heard. He sounds sexist.
November 30th, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Men are supposed to take care of their families. I don’t agree with violence either but sometimes that’s the way it has to be. The terrorism has got to stop and I don’t think it will. Beating some guy up because he called you a sissy and throwing grenades at a bunch of innocent people are two different things. I know plenty of strong men who were raised by their mothers. If anything it made them more protective of their mothers, their wives and their siblings because they felt the need to take care of them. So Beth, your friend is wrong.
December 5th, 2008 at 2:31 PM
As I am working on my Master’s in Diplomacy and International Terrorism, I will comment.
Terrorism is used as a means to draw attention. Many groups have not gained the needed media attention, and have either faded away, or joined the larger Salafi jihad against the West. The media is just as guilty in promoting terrorism as many terrorist groups. In Palestine, violence does not begin until the media arrives, so it can be broadcast, and only the side of the Palestinians most of the time, or the news services are expelled from Gaza and the West Bank. Without international attention, terrorism does not normally take place. The new level of Salafi jihad exacerbates the problem as there is little fight for territorial concessions, or even political gains, but for anti-Americanism in many parts of the world. The fight against American hegemony, and colonialism in the Middle East currently revolves around Israel, and Western influence in that state. It has little to do with men taking care of their families, economics, or education of the terrorists (as most Core Arabs have college degrees). It has to do with a radical teaching, friendships, family ties, and acceptanceof such into key movements in terrorist organizations. The new level of Islamic terrorism is a condition of hte Cold War, its demise left terrorist with little to fight against (as many Muslims globally went to Afghanistan to fight the Jihad). This allowed people like bin-Laden to gain control Al-Qaeda, as well as increase connections and ultimate cooperation with Egyptian terrorist groups (Egyptian Islamic Jihad).If one really wants to understand terrorism, read the following books:
Mark Sageman, (2004), Understanding terror Networks. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bruce Hoffman, (2006). Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sageman looks at the makeup and psychological aspects of terrorism while Hoffman is considered the leading expert on terrorism. These two books cover most of the gambit of terrorism for the regular person, some of it is deep and boring, but both will give you the information needed to understand the movements and how the media is influencing our opinions and views of the issues.
December 5th, 2008 at 3:28 PM
If you’re saying the media plays the role in promoting terrorism, I agree. They play a huge role in promoting a lot of ugliness. They need to understand that a lot of what goes on are just people trying to make a name for themselves. They don’t care if it’s good or bad, they want notoriety.
December 5th, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Terrorism historically does not happen unless they have a means for broadcasting that terror. In the media industry they have a saying “if it bleeds, it leads.” This fits nicely with both terrorist organizations and the international media, marrying both of them up in a win-win situation. There are embedded reporters for the US military, but each of the major media outlets (CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, etc) have embedded with some cell or spokesperson for terrorist organizations. Daniel Pearl was killed while going on a secretive meeting/interview with a terrorist leader. This the rules of the game. Stephanie Gutmann states the person who gets a 5 year old Palestinian throwing rocks at Israeli Defense Forces will get the Pulitzer.
Gutmann, Stephanie. (2005). The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy. San Fransisco: Encounter Books
December 6th, 2008 at 7:12 AM
Interesting information youngasylum! That certainly makes sense that it would play a role although I’d never thought about it before. The incident with Daniel Pearl was so sad! Its certainly all food for thought.
So I’m curious as to what exactly they teach? Are you taught to essentially get inside the mind of a terrorist?
January 5th, 2009 at 8:19 AM
Misty, I know late response, but the holidays took it allout of me.
I am taught the auspices of terrorist organization, cell structure, and international reasoning behind both domestic (Aum Shinrikyo and Timothy McVey) and international terrorism (al Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiya, as well as German, French, Spanish, Latin American, and Asian groups). The Branch Davidians, and Ruby Ridge groups all planned or carried out terrorist acts. The use of salmonella in salad bars in Seattle, and the anthrax attacks in DC, all terrorist acts. Terrorism is an attack against non-combatants to gain political concessions. Attacks against a state or government entity is an insurgency. HAMAS is both, an insurgency that utilizes terrorism to gain its goals. the LTTE is the same in Sri Lanka. By understandingt he factors that create terrorism, especially imperialism and colonialism int he Middle East following WWI, we have the ability to fight the action more effectively.
Big variance coming from a presumably safe Rexburg!
January 5th, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Fascinating youngasylum, thanks for responding. I bet you don’t have too many dull moments studying the mind of the terrorist. Is it safe to say then that you actually have to get inside the mind?
This all undoubtedly wakes you up to the real world.
So I’m curious, do they teach preventative measures? What is the international reasoning?