Antonio José Sales Porto

10A
SOCIAL STUDIES 10°
Week from the 18th to the 22th of November 2019

READ THE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY, BEFORE STARTING (G1, V1, C1, M1)

I. In groups of three students, share the reading of the text “Understanding

terrorism”, by Tori DeAngelis (2009). Take individual notes (sentences that favor
the start of your own exam on the subject, key concepts and concepts that are
more difficult to understand) (40 minutes).

II. Discuss the reading in your group (20 minutes). This is a moment to check on your
individual findings,

III. Once you have finished the Reading, answer INDIVIDUALLY the following
questions (60 minutes):
1. Write a brief abstract of the article, ALSO identifying the main idea and three
ideas that lend their support to the first one (at least ¼ of a page).
Terrorists are often the victims of social injustice which they often fight by engaging in violence against
the state rather than just talking about the problem. These are people that (1)feel alienated, (2) feel
that their role in society gives them no power for doing a real change and (3) feel that, due to their
immorality, joining a movement can offer them social and psychological rewards. Its fundamental that
the deradicalization of terrorists must be developed taking into account mind components to soft them
such as intellect, emotions and social interactions. Terrorism can also be seen a a psychological
reaction towards the fear of death towards a threat in which these individuals have power to fight
against. This final key point is a really important aspect in order to de-radicalize the terrorists in order
to reintegrate them in a peaceful society. This consists on making them see their wrong doings toward
society and make them loose the idea of getting involved in any violent action related to the cause
their fighting for.
2. Based on the reading, what would be your definition of terrorism?
Terrorism consists on using violence as a social commentary against an specific social actor, usually
the State or the rulling classes. These individuals are often members of a marginalized population of
society and as they do not have the power to do a social change, they used violence as a way to
foster change and to speak up.
3. In your own words, what would be the usual motivation of terrorism?
The fundamental reasons that motivate terrorist actions consist primarily on social inequality and lack
of dialogue, usually it’s the State who doesn’t care about people’s demands. They often use fear and
intimidation to achieve a goal in a certain field such as politics, economy, religion or society. However,
their foremost reason is the fear of cultural annihilation because as we are seeing a massive
globalization, but not only, terrorism can be tracked to other countries intervention on other territories,
usually because they have any kind of interest (geopolitics, natural resources, dictatorships, among
others). So, the fear of the unknown is basically a tool to the States to legitimize hate speech against
immigrants or poor people.
4. Having the usual characteristics of terrorist individuals, offer three examples
of people that have engaged in such an activity, identifying the aforementioned
items.
The terrorists that we can be able to identify based on the characteristics that were presented on
DeAngelis’s “Understanding terrorism” can be the ELN and FARC guerrilla members, because they
were part of a branch in society that has been historically excluded by the wealthy ruling class, so
they join these groups in order to have the opportunities that the society had denied them. Osama
Bin Laden would be a terrorist because he came from a middle eastern country that suffered the
consequences of many of the American policies there. Some of the terrorist actions that we can see
are bombings of important political and/or economical infrastructures, for instance, in the case of
Colombia, the three bombings of 1993 in Bogotá in which there were cars planted with bombs inside
and detonated in certains regions of the capital cities which left at least 300 deaths. Osama Bin Laden
can be related to the September 11th 2001 attacks in New York and Washington. There were planes
crashed in many important locations of the United States which were the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon and supposedly either the Capitol or the White House.
5. How would you explain that terrorism deals with conflict by using violence and
death, but could be a reaction to the fear of death?
Violence is a statement often used as a method to show their hatred towards a society in which they
felt the social alienation. These are often people that were marginalized from a dominant social
minority. It is still important to acknowledge that people will fear death so they use the violent actions
as a method to defend themselves and their culture against it. This primarily consists of fear of cultural
annihilation as everybody fear that they will lose their individuality, therefore, they are more inclined
to die defending a position that looks transcending from their point of view.
6. Why do you think the idea of terrorism is related mostly to Muslim groups and
their members than groups or people from other parts of the World? Offer three
different examples from other parts of the World in which people or
organizations use terrorism regularly to solve their conflicts.
The three most important muslims groups related to terrorism are the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and
the Taliban.
The Islamic State, whose territory would be Iraq and Syria, claim that they are a caliphate and explain
they have religious, economic, political and military authority over all muslims. Terror is used to attack
anyone who doesn’t recognize the state as a Sunni Islamic State and this primarily happening as the
Caliph, who is meant to be the supreme leader, gives the order of muslim devotion to his figure but
he often attacks as there is a lack of support from the international community. (Boot, 2019)
Al Qaeda is another example as the use terror as a way of revenge towards the Western ideologies
being imposed on the territory of the Middle East. Terror is used primarily as there are laws called
fatwahs that indicate that the terrorist actions they do are necessary and proper. ("Al Qaeda -
Background - Al Qaeda | Inside The Terror Network | FRONTLINE | PBS", 2019)
The Taliban was has been considered as the most dangerous terrorist group in the world as of
November 2019 (Morrow, 2019) and the most important reason of this group’s existence is the
suffering of the afghan civil order and so they continue to act as an illegitimate central government
("Taliban | Definition, History, & Facts", 2019). There has been an increase of terrorism from the
taliban between 2017 and 2019 with an increase of 6103 kills however they have the intention of
dialogue as of July 2019 with large advances. ("Taliban | Definition, History, & Facts", 2019)
Stereotypes are formed because they had been widely broadcasted on social and traditional media.
I think people are more inclined to identify an arab person as a terrorist, because of the conflicts they
have in their territories, so these groups are a way of counter-reactions to foreign presence in their
countries. It’s similar to the Colombian situation: not everyone in here is a narco, but we are portrayed
like it by pop culture.
7. What ideas in OUR OWN culture seem to support the use of terrorism as a
political tool?
In Colombia’s armed conflict, terrorism is seen as good or bad thing depending on whether the state,
the paramilitary groups and guerilla groups. Whenever the state does a massive attack on a
population of civilians, it can be justified however whenever a guerrilla or a paramilitary movement
attacks, they can’t be justified because they aren’t the state.
That being said, this country has a double standard towards each sector involved in this conflict and
its influence on the economy and politics. Terrorism is then a tool used by our own state to discourage
us to speak up about the corruption and hunger our people suffer everyday.
8. Taking into account that terrorism is based in the culture of perpetrators, do
you think de – radicalization is an opportunity to solve the problem? Why?
What would be an alternative?
It can work. However, its fundamental element is the fact that it must be good enough. That being
said, a key example of applying this theory in Colombia would be viable because people could join
society once again because they need to, but as well because thanks to this system they can
reintegrate but without attacking or hurting anyone while still keeping their ideals. They can continue
to fight for their cause but without committing any violent action. On the other hand, deradicalization
would only work if the systemic causes are solved, like a better distribution of wealth through taxation
and adapting solutions especially designed to the local contexts. Social work and palliative solutions
are already shown to foster the causes of radicalization and anger because they don’t solve any
structural problems like better health or access to public education as it’s promised on the Colombian
constitution. This welfare system it’s based on subsidies (no more than USD30 per month: jóvenes
en acción, tercera edad) that don’t solve access to basic social services in a country where very few
people can dream about retirement or even,about higher education. That being said, it's really
important that this country can offer its citizens certain needs so they won’t even consider doing a
certain violent action that can do damage to a certain branch of our society. People need to have at
least some basic needs such as education, health guaranteed, food, a good home. This can be
beneficial so everybody can live in a relatively peaceful way that won’t lead them to such actions .

IV. Send your individual work to Andrés Velásquez via Phidias, on Friday the 22th of
November at 8:00 pm tops.

References
Morrow, A. (2019). Taliban rises to become 'world's deadliest terrorist group'. Retrieved 21 November
2019, from http://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20191120-taliban-world-deadliest-terrorist-group-
terrorism-index-afghanistan
Al Qaeda - Background - Al Qaeda | Inside The Terror Network | FRONTLINE | PBS. (2019).
Retrieved 21 November 2019, from
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/network/alqaeda/indictment.html
Taliban | Definition, History, & Facts. (2019). Retrieved 21 November 2019, from
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Taliban
Boot, M. (2019). Not all terrorism is treated equally. Retrieved 21 November 2019, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/15/not-all-terrorism-is-treated-equally/

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/11/terrorism

Understanding terrorism
Psychologists are amassing more concrete data on the
factors that lead some people to terrorism—and using
those insights to develop ways to thwart it.
By Tori DeAngelis
November 2009, Vol 40, No. 10
Print version: page 60

Determining what drives people to terrorism is no easy task. For one thing, terrorists aren't likely to
volunteer as experimental subjects, and examining their activities from afar can lead to erroneous
conclusions. What's more, one group's terrorist is another group's freedom fighter, as the millions
of Arabs who support Palestinian suicide bombers will attest.
 Given these complexities, the psychology of terrorism is marked more by theory and opinion than
by good science, researchers admit. But a number of psychologists are starting to put together
reliable data. They're finding it is generally more useful to view terrorism in terms of political and
group dynamics and processes than individual ones, and that universal psychological principles—
such as our subconscious fear of death and our desire for meaning and personal significance—may
help to explain some aspects of terrorist actions and our reactions to them.

Eventually, such information could help in the complex quest to prevent terrorism. Psychologists'
findings suggest that assuaging people's fear of cultural annihilation, highlighting our common
humanity or demonstrating the discrepancy between the dream and reality of terrorist involvement
could keep would-be terrorists from turning to violence, for instance.

In fact, the notion that terrorists could be talked out of committing violence using peaceful dialogue
and a helping hand is no longer an idealist's pipe dream, but actually the aim of a growing number
of "de-radicalization" programs worldwide, says social psychologist Arie Kruglanski, PhD, co-director
of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START, one
of several university-based Centers of Excellence established under the Homeland Security Act of
2002.

"While there is still a big need to assess these programs," says Kruglanski, who is studying some of
these programs, "in some cases, there appear to be some authentic successes."

The lure of terror

For years, psychologists examined terrorists' individual characteristics, mining for clues that could
explain their willingness to engage in violence. While researchers now agree that most terrorists are
not "pathological" in any traditional sense, several important insights have been gleaned though
interviews with some 60 former terrorists conducted by psychologist John Horgan, PhD, who directs
the Pennsylvania State University's International Center for the Study of Terrorism.

Horgan found that people who are more open to terrorist recruitment and radicalization tend to:

● Feel angry, alienated or disenfranchised.

● Believe that their current political involvement does not give them the power to effect real change.
● Identify with perceived victims of the social injustice they are fighting.
● Feel the need to take action rather than just talking about the problem.
● Believe that engaging in violence against the state is not immoral.
● Have friends or family sympathetic to the cause.
● Believe that joining a movement offers social and psychological rewards such as adventure,
camaraderie and a heightened sense of identity.

Beyond the individual characteristics of terrorists, Horgan has learned that it's more fruitful to
investigate how people change as a result of terrorist involvement than to simply ask why they enter
in the first place. That's because asking why tends to yield pat, ideological responses, while asking
how reveals important information about the processes of entry, involvement and leaving
organizations, he has found. Potential areas to tap include examining the myriad ways people join
organizations, whether via recruitment or personal decision; how leaders influence people's
decision to adopt certain roles, for example by glorifying the role of suicide bomber; and factors that
motivate people to leave.

In turn, such data could help to create plausible interventions, he says. For instance, based on what
he's gleaned about why people leave organizations, a particularly promising strategy may be
highlighting how the promised glamorous lifestyle never comes to pass—an experience poignantly
recounted by a former terrorist now in hiding. The man told Horgan he was lured into a movement
as a teen when recruiters romanticized the cause. But he soon discovered his comrades held
sectarian values, not the idealistic ones he had, and he was horrified when he killed his first victim
at point-blank range.

"The reality of involvement is not what these kids are led to believe," says Horgan. "Speaking with
repentant former terrorists, many with blood on their hands, offers an extraordinary opportunity to
use the terrorists' own words and deeds against them."

Some psychologists believe terrorism is most accurately viewed through a political lens. Psychologist
Clark McCauley, PhD, a co-investigator at START and director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study
of Ethnopolitical Conflict at Bryn Mawr College, has come to see terrorism as "the warfare of the
weak"—the means by which groups that lack material or political power fight what they see as
oppressive forces. As such, he believes that terrorist actions and government reactions to them
represent a dynamic interplay, with the moves of one group influencing those of the other. As one
example, if terrorists commit an attack and a state uses extreme force to send a punishing message
back, the terrorists may use that action to drum up greater anti-state sentiment among citizens,
lending justification to their next actions. Yet research focuses almost solely on terrorist actions and
neglects the important other side of the equation, he contends. "If you can't keep track of what
we're doing in response, how can you ever hope to figure out what works better or worse?"
McCauley says.

The role of cultural values

Paradoxically, an unconscious fear of death may underlie much of the motivation behind terrorism
and reactions to terrorism, maintains psychologist Tom Pyszczynski, PhD, of the University of
Colorado at Colorado Springs. Along with colleagues Jeff Greenberg, PhD, and Sheldon Solomon,
PhD, Pyszczynski developed "terror management theory," which holds that people use culture and
religion to protect themselves from a fear of death that lies on the fringes of awareness.

Across dozens of studies, the team has induced thoughts of death by subliminally presenting people
with death-related stimuli or by inserting a delay-and-distraction task between a reminder of death
and people's assessment of its effects. This subliminal prompting induces people to psychologically
defend themselves against death in ways that bear little surface relationship to the problem of
death, Pyszczynski's team has found. These include clinging to their cultural identities, working hard
to live up to their culture's values and going to great lengths to defend those values. (Conversely,
the investigators have shown that getting people to consciously contemplate their mortality
increases their intention to engage in life-enhancing behaviors, such as exercise.)

To test whether the theory applies to the conflict between the Middle East and the West,
Pyszczynski's team conducted a set of studies in the United States, Iran and Israel. In all three
countries, people who were subtly reminded of their mortality—and thus primed to cling more
strongly to their group identities—were more likely to support violence against the out group.
Iranians were more likely to support suicide bombing against Westerners. Americans were more
likely to advocate military force to battle Islamic extremists, even if it meant killing thousands of
civilians. Israelis were more likely to condone violence against Palestinians. The studies are
summarized in an article in the journal Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism & Political Aggression (Vol.
1, No. 1).

Further research conducted by START co-director Kruglanski sheds light on the role a "collectivist
mentality" may play in terrorism. His surveys of thousands of people in 15 Arab and other countries
found that Muslims who have a more collectivistic mentality are more likely to support terrorist
attacks against Americans than those with more individualistic leanings. The research, submitted to
Political Psychology, also found that the lower people's reported personal success in life, the greater
their tendency to endorse collectivistic ideas and to support attacks against Americans. The findings
suggest that joining terrorist groups may confer a sense of security and meaning that people do not
feel as individuals, Kruglanski says.

"Being part of a collectivist cause has always been a hallmark of people willing to undergo personal
sacrifices," he says.

In a more global sense, a fear of cultural annihilation may help fuel terrorist sentiments, says
psychologist and terrorism expert Fathali Moghaddam, PhD, of Georgetown University's
department of psychology. In "How Globalization Spurs Terrorism: The Lopsided Benefits of One
World and Why That Fuels Violence" (Praeger, 2008), Moghaddam argues that rapid globalization
has forced disparate cultures into contact with one another and is threatening the domination or
disappearance of some groups—a cultural version of "survival of the fittest."

"You can interpret Islamic terrorism as one form of reaction to the perception that the
fundamentalist way of life is under attack and is about to become extinct," he says.

Because of such beliefs, psychologists are tracking public attitudes to determine how best to
promote peace. Pyszczynki, for example, has conducted as-yet-unpublished research showing that
people's attitudes toward out-group violence can be changed if they are reminded of a common
human problem. In two of his team's recent studies, Americans coping with the "war on terror" and
Palestinians in the midst of Israeli bombings were primed to think either about a local catastrophe
or global warming. Some also received reminders of their own mortality. In both studies, only those
primed with thoughts of both death and global warming increased their support for peacemaking
activities.

"The really encouraging note is that even in the height of a conflict going on with your own people,
reminders of mortality and a common cause reduces support for war and increases support for
peacemaking," Pyszczynki says.

Studying de-radicalization

In the real world, psychologists also are exploring the effectiveness of initiatives taking place in
countries including Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and the United Kingdom that are seeking to
soften the hearts and minds of terrorist detainees. In preliminary research, Kruglanski and
colleagues note that many of these programs share:
● An intellectual component, often involving moderate Muslim clerics who hold dialogues with
imprisoned detainees about the Qu'ran's true teachings on violence and jihad.

● An emotional component that defuses detainees' anger and frustration by showing authentic
concern for their families, through means such as funding their children's education or offering
professional training for their wives. This aspect also capitalizes on the fact that detainees are weary
from their lifestyles and imprisonment.

● A social component that addresses the reality that detainees often re-enter societies that may
rekindle their radical beliefs. A program in Indonesia, for instance, uses former militants who are
now law-abiding citizens to convince former terrorists that violence against civilians compromises
the image of Islam.

Some of these efforts have already shown promise, says Kruglanski. For example, Egypt's largest
radical Islamic group, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, renounced bloodshed in 2003, the result of a deal
brokered by a Muslim attorney between the group and the Egyptian government, and a program
where Muslim scholars debated with imprisoned group leaders about the true meaning of Islam. As
a result, the leaders wrote 25 volumes arguing for nonviolence, and the group has perpetrated no
new terrorist acts since, Kruglanski says. A second major Egyptian group, Al Jihad, renounced
violence in 2007 based on a similar program.

Five other such initiatives in Northern Ireland, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Colombia are
being studied by Pennsylvania State University's Horgan. His not-yet-published research proposes a
framework that policymakers can use to evaluate these programs, including examining how each
effort conceptualizes and measures success, and evaluating the reality and practical significance of
these success claims.

Given his own experience talking with former terrorists, Horgan is cautious about how much to
expect from these programs. In his recent study, he discovered that some of these efforts not only
lack clear criteria for establishing what constitutes "success," but also that actual de-radicalization
is rarely a feature of such programs—that former terrorists may rejoin society and keep from
engaging in terrorist actions, but retain their radical beliefs.

"There is no evidence to suggest that disengaging from terrorism necessarily results in de-
radicalization," he contends.

Kruglanski's team promises to shed more light on the issue via an assessment instrument they are
developing that will gauge attitude change in those who have undergone such programs, including
gauging implicit attitude change that more accurately reads their true feelings than simply what
they claim is the case.
Because of the wide variety of program types and the cultural and social conditions where they are
taking place, it is imperative that successful efforts design each program on a case-by-case basis,
adds terrorism researcher Max Taylor, PhD, of the University of St. Andrews, and co-editor with
Horgan of "The Future of Terrorism" (Routledge, 2000).
"One big problem with terrorism policy altogether is that it tends to interpret things from our
perspective, based on what makes sense to us," Taylor says. "That's not really the issue: The issue
is what makes sense to people on the ground."

Tori DeAngelis is a writer in Syracuse, N.Y.