Psychology of Terrorists

Profiling and CounterAction

Raymond H. Hamden

• Publisher: CRC Press
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351643160
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Terrorism
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The Psychology of Terrorists examines the personality profile of the individual and categorizes the psychology of terrorists into four distinct profiles which are outlined and analyzed in detail. There are many books that cover social psychology and political violence and aggression, but few establish the mind-set of the terrorist as an individual. This includes taking into account personal experiences, and religious or political ideology for the purposes of understanding conceptual and tactical objectives and profiling terrorists to counter terrorist threats.

Dr. Raymond Hamden presents a unique look at terrorists as individuals with personal motives as well as those of principle. The book presents an analysis of terrorists without prejudice or bias for any political, religious, nationality, creed, or race. Too many times the world see experts focus on issues that are based on their own predispositions or partialities. Although there is criticism on the reliability of profiling, this research demonstrates validity and reliability. It is vital to understand terrorist motivations and this can only be achieved by "knowing" the terrorists' psychological character, looking at the individual terrorist, taking into account particular experiences, psychological makeup, background, and fundamentalist ideology.

The Psychology of Terrorists: Profiling and CounterAction will be a welcomed addition to psychologists, terrorism researchers, criminal profilers, investigators and intelligence professionals, counter- and anti-terrorism experts, as well as military, security, and law enforcement professionals tasked with protecting individuals from the various acts of terrorism, domestically and globally.

Chapter 1

History of Terrorists in Brief

Contrary to popular thought, the concept of terrorism is older than any modern nation as we know it. Still, it is not fully understood how this concept works, or how the idea is represented and utilized, both by governments and those ­acting against certain governments. Terrorism, as a phenomenon, rears its ugly head through a vast array of tactical methods, causing physical and/or psychological damage, occurring in the physical and/or the cyber world, and is guided by a wide range of ideologies, be they political, religious, or philosophical. As such, a sole understanding of the term terrorism will not do it justice. There are many legal, moral, and ethical debates that we as a society regularly engage in, as a result of ­terrorism. For instance, are environmentalists who take up arms considered terrorists or freedom fighters? How do we categorize Ted Kaczynski (aka the Unabomber)? Can we compare him to the French revolutionaries who fought to bring about awareness of a long-needed social and political reform? Or does he fall more in line with the Baader-Meinhof Gang (aka the Red Army Faction), who are characterized as a radical group responsible for mass and serial crimes while similarly fighting for political changes?

In order for us to be able to distinctly categorize what is or is not perceived as terror, we tend to use morality as our guide. Utilizing such a basis for judgment may at times support the argument. However, it may also serve to severely hamper our ability to recognize and place higher emphasis on the act of terrorism itself rather than focusing solely on the consequences. Is a car bomb more likely to be perceived as an act of terrorism than military action causing multiple civilian deaths? Both acts include innocent civilian deaths as a consequence, along with fear and ­destruction—all buzzwords for terrorism; nonetheless, each act can be, and is, interpreted and represented differently in our world today.

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

We are prompted to question whether military action is terrorism concealed beneath a different name or if this is simply the justification that most violent terrorists cling to? Those wanting to disrupt order and peace are creatively and constantly finding new ways to do so, thus allowing the definition of terrorism to continue to broaden over time. Over the last two decades, the world has seen terrorism and violence escalate. As such, more research and studies are required to gain a better understanding of the reasons behind it, as positive attempts to find solutions and enhance prevention.

Terrorism adheres to both left- and right-wing ideologies. On one side, we witness the Marxists, and on the other, the dictatorships and states built primarily on business leadership. Nationalists are often involved in causes protecting members of a cultural group or a certain region, while religious extremists are fighting for the supremacy of their religion and tend to view anything modern as immoral, a threat to their beliefs, and something that must be destroyed. Meanwhile, special-interest groups are taking arms against world phenomena such as abortion, animal rights, and the destruction of the environment—all following the consequentialist standpoint where the ends justify the means.

Overview of Terrorism

Terrorism can be defined as the systematic and calculated use of violence, or simply the threat of violence, against individuals in order to obtain a certain goal. This goal can be political, ideological, or religious in nature, and is usually achieved by instilling outstanding pressure, intimidation, and fear (Terrorism, 2018). It is most commonly believed that terrorism is a definition for situations that are intended to create immense fear and ones that show no empathy for civilians and anybody who intervenes. Not only is the term terrorism viewed as basic unconventional warfare, but also, because it has a strong impact and influence, both politically and emotionally, it is viewed as a form of psychological warfare. A 1988 U.S. Army study found that there are more than 100 definitions for terrorism, and it very succinctly labeled any person who practices terrorism a “terrorist.”

An International Round Table on Constructing Peace, Deconstructing Terror (2004), hosted by the Strategic Foresight Group, called for a distinction between terrorism and acts of terror. Per United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), acts of terrorism are criminal acts. There is a global consensus that acts of terrorism should continue to be absolutely unacceptable. However, what we deem as terrorism continues to be a point of contention. This matter is brought up at major important conventions, such as the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Strategy, the Madrid Conference on Terrorism, the Strategic Foresight Group, and the ALDE Round Tables at the European Parliament. However, no consensus has been reached to better clarify the term and the acts that fall beneath it.

Origin of the Term Terrorism

The term terrorism, as we know it, dates back to 1795. It was then used as a ­description for the actions of the Jacobin Club in their rule of post-revolutionary France, known as the “Reign of Terror.” Their justification of violence that escalated over time was to bring about political and cultural change; though the club did eventually close, they have had a strong influence throughout history and a strong impact on how we view and characterize terrorism.

Maximilien Robespierre, a deputy and member of the Committee of Public Safety in the 1970s, and one of the most famous and influential figures of the French Revolution, was very strong and instrumental during this Reign of Terror. According to his speech at the French National Convention in 1794, “If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is ­virtue and terror-virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent.” This made him among the very first individuals within the political or governmental sphere to legitimize the use of violence. Robespierre was himself a victim of his own “system” and was eventually arrested and executed. Even until today, politicians and governments assess and characterize terrorism in accordance to their own views and goals.

Agencies, experts, and governments have not been able to reach a consensus to define terrorism, but many have established broad or basic definitions. For instance, the United Nations Security Council report (United Nations, 2004) described ­terrorism as “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”

Others, such as the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), countered with their own definition: “The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological” (Departments of the Army and Air Force, 1990; Department of Defense, 2010). The primary difference between the two definitions is that the United States deems “fear” as sufficient to label the act as “terrorism,” while the United Nations requires more concrete consequences, including bodily harm or death of civilians.

Differences between Criminals and Terrorists

Given that criminals who kill people and terrorists both pose physical threats to society, it is quite easy to conflate the two terms and suggest that terrorists are merely criminals. However, it is important to determine the forces that drive these individuals to kill others. Upon examining around 400 cases, Holmes and Deburger (1998) suggested that criminals who kill others can be categorized into four types:

The hedonistic type—This type engages in the act of killing another purely to achieve the thrill from the act. Typically, the hedonistic killer gains pleasure from killing others.

The power/controlling type—This type of killer is typically one to engage in sexual assaults, whereby he is the one in control, while the victim is powerless to stop him. The controlling type of killer derives his pleasure from being in a position of power to do as he pleases to the victim, who he perceives to be helpless.

The visionary—This type of killer is one who kills because he hears “voices,” possibly from God or a demon, which directs him to engage in the act of killing. These voices are likely due to the killer experiencing hallucinations of delusions, typically found in psychotic disorders.

The missionary—This type of killer is motivated by a mission to kill others, specifically to kill certain groups of people, be they a specific race, gender, or other group.

However, unlike criminals, terrorists are driven by other factors that motivate them to cause harm to others. Terrorist behavior can be explained through the 3I model:

■ Impress—Terrorists tend to impress their beliefs and radical thoughts upon people of similar demography

■ Impose—Terrorists choose to impose their ideology on the community at large

■ Implement—Terrorists would like to implement their concept of rule and order upon the world at large

When conducting a differential assessment of crime, defining the 3Is may be key to determine whether the act is one of terror or crime, which may have no purpose to impress, impose, or implement.

Criminals may commit acts of crime yet have no purpose outside their own impulsive gratification, monetary, or materialistic desire. Terrorists, particularly ethnogeographic and retribution types, will have a defined goal with defined aims.

Psychologists may have an explanation for human actions, but

there is never an excuse to do harm.

Revisiting the history of individuals of terror may enlighten us of their motivation, conscious, or unconscious. The conscious is our awareness and we can control what we know. The unconscious is what actually motivates our behavior according to psychoanalytic writings. It is our unawareness and we cannot control that which we are not mindful of.

Terrorism typically involves causing physical harm or the threat of violence, usually to induce a sense of fear within the community at large. These terror attacks or threats are made to coerce people to take action or prevent them from taking action, such as influencing a political policy, for example, a terrorist attack on a family planning clinic that allows families to have abortions or birth control. Moreover, terrorist attacks are typically violent and directed toward civilians, usually in public areas, to achieve a public audience; the greater the media coverage of the attack, the better the publicity for the terrorist cause. It should be noted that while violent criminals and terrorists differ in their motivations, they should all be regarded as engaging in criminal behavior. However, unlike other criminals, terrorists, particularly terrorist organizations, enjoy claiming credit for the violence that has been perpetrated.

Furthermore, terrorist attacks often go beyond the immediate physical harm they cause, as their victims often experience long-term psychological damage and posttraumatic stress after the terrorist incident. In being able to cause psychological trauma and fear in mass numbers, terrorists are able to publicize their radical ideology, strengthen their cause, generate mass panic, and coerce governments to comply with their demands.

Key Criteria of Terrorism

The use of and reference to key terms can work to facilitate our ability to determine whether the use of counteraction or counter-terrorism policies is justified and required. Governments and agencies refer to these key criteria to determine the core features of terrorism, that is, the target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy or legality of the act.

Violence—Walter Laqueur, Center for Strategic and International Studies, states that “the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.” The use of violence by terrorists is simply a piece of the puzzle. It is integrated along with a variety of other tools; however, it defines the very act of terrorism itself. Violence or the threat of it is used as a tool of manipulation and is directly associated with the terrorists’ entire motive.

Psychological impact and fear—In this way their attacks are meant to be severe and prolong psychological wounds. Acts of terrorism are considered a performance and created to have a large audience. Terrorists also attack national symbols to show their disregard for their enemy. This also shakes the foundation of the country in question and often the government of that country as well. This increases the legitimacy of the terrorists and often weakens the government’s standing in the eyes of its people.

Perpetrated for a political goal—Terrorist attacks usually have a political goal. They are considered in the same vein as protesting; they are created to call attention to a certain situation that the terrorists need addressed. Since the goal of such an operation is the be-all and end-all, no one considers death of civilians a real issue here. This is where terrorism and religion find common ground and work to empower one another. When a terrorist fails on a religious ground, the failure is insurmountable and is worse than the number of civilians who may have died on one of their missions.

Deliberate targeting of noncombatants—It is believed that the goal of ­terrorism is to target civilians, and that is not untrue as civilians are not targeted because they are threats, but because they are such useful symbols. When those victimized are children, mothers, women, and/or the elderly, it is considered the highest form of criminality and an act against humanity. Terrorists aim to instill extreme fear and moral panic within society, and therefore aim to incur the highest levels of death and suffering to innocent civilians. This also works to attract the eye of the public, an integral part of their game.

Disguise—Among the aims of terrorists is to delegitimize the government in the eyes of the people as an attempt to bring to the surface what they view as wrongful actions being taken by the government, and have the public on their side. One of their techniques is to disgui...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Foreword
• Author
• Acknowledgements
• 1 History of Terrorists in Brief
• 2 Analysis with Psychological Defense Styles
• 3 Types of Terrorists
• 4 Psychopathic Terrorists
• 5 Ethnogeographic Terrorists: Religious and Political
• 6 Retributional Terrorists
• 7 Techniques of Interviews and Interrogations
• 8 Techniques of Intervention
• 9 Understanding Terrorist Attacks: Methods, Mode, Tactics, and Strategies
• 10 Track I: Profiling and Counter-Terrorism
• 11 Track II: Profiling and CounterAction
• Bibliography
• Index