There is a great debate on the internet regarding the power, purpose and persuasion of Al Qaeda's Takfiri Islamist Ideology to turn other wise "normal" people into "radical" terrorists. Having watched war, terrorism, AQ, Islam and the many other human tragedies, it struck me that this idea of "radicalisation" and so called "lone wolf" terrorism is over emphasized. Possibly to the detriment of detecting a person who is or will be shortly planning a terrorist attack within the United States as a domestic terrorist.
IE, a person who has lived in the United States for a period of time and commits the act of terrorism inside the United States. As opposed to a foreign born or planned act of terrorism or terrorist. I believe there is a distinction between these two types of "terrorists". Even though they may share some distinct markers and in the end claim a similar ideology, the reasons or principles drivers for these acts are not necessarily the same.
If we were to strip away the ideology for just a moment and look at the people involved in the acts, we can compare their behavior and psycho-social markers with others who commit similar crimes: mass murderers, spree murderers, fratricide and even suicide. What we will find is that the individuals involved feel they are under a great deal of pressure without a suitable path to escape or resolve their issues.
Note the term issue(s). Not singular, multiple. While a singular, final incident may spark the flame, this is likely not enough to cause the unmitigated pressure that would have the individual overthrow a life time of behavior patterns that explicitly do not include routine episodes of mass murder or suicide.
That includes even the introduction of an aberrant ideology. This adoption of an ideology appears to take place after other events including personal tragedies or failures. This ideology may become the "permission" to finally act out to relieve the stresses the person is undergoing. Conversely, as we see with other mass murderers, spree killers, suicides, etc who are not followers of an aberrant ideology, the introduction of ideology is not necessary to the acts.
The reason this concept is important is that emphasis on ideology and it's markers may lead law enforcement to dismiss certain potential suspects who do not meet these overt markers. Such is the case with Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev.
Even when law enforcement is notified of the potential and does an interview, the lack of these overt markers leads the agents to dismiss the possibility. Understanding what other psycho-social drivers may lead to these acts may assist in better identifying potential terrorist behavior.
This is my interest in the life and times of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Even the adherence or adoption of a more strict form of Islam does not necessarily lead to acts of terrorism. This, I believe, is true of Tsarnaev. That he, like many other mass murderers, had other stresses that led him to the acts. That the adoption of this ideology took place after he had already determined that he had no other options and was already seeking a method to eliminate these stresses through violent means.
This essentially dismisses holistic ideas that international issues like ongoing wars in other Muslim nations, drone strikes or any other activity classified as "anti-Islam" are the drivers for domestic terrorism. These issues are adopted at the end, after other drivers have effected a sense of being "cornered" in their personal lives without a way to relieve the stresses. Identifying with global issues is away to rise above these personal issues and pretend that it is part of a greater whole instead of the personal failures of the individual.
No comments:
Post a Comment