“While nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer, nothing is more difficult than to understand him.” – Fyodor Dostoevsky
What motivates terrorists and how they differ from you and me?
How these ideas or doctrines develop?
Can psychology and behavioral science, tell us what motivates terrorists and how they differ from you and me in terms of behavior?
Evaluation and Observation (Abstracts)
Scientifically, it’s a tough task, since “terrorists don’t volunteer for psychological studies”.
Terrorism experts differ in their understanding of this motivation.
If I put a glance at different perspectives of visions by global experts; so to delineate the real means of transformation of human in to bomb; I have no reservation but to tag their work as insanely, bias and misdirected towards self presumptive belief keeping observation under complete misdirection.
This opinion is because almost every Harry and George taking origin to resolve this issue revolves and evolves around one perspective scope and that is; to assemble thought from the chapter of Islamic practice of belief as martyrdom and judgment day.
This is perhaps the reason of multiple opinions as thoughts which are still acting under the suspicion of supposed ideas.
It is a very well known fact as observation that “when you start your discussion in a preconceived format of assessment; logically, results would be felt as per your intended ideas”.
“You strive for what you desire” therefore; “you move in direction where your mind desire at subconscious level”; for ultimate “intended resultant”.
My point is “if you have intention to drag Islam and Muslims behind this idea of suicide bombing as preconceived idea”; you would delineate your thought as per your subconscious backup as “bias” thereby deceiving the resultant and the exact cause behind.
This is the main reason why this discovery to delineate “mind set of suicide bomber;” is still a matter of speculation as assumptions.
Though there are many who have logically tried; setting aside the realm of attachments of this obstinate behavior as bias but their “restricted knowledge over the subject of reality of belief and its practice as Islam” could not support their version of indictment.
Hence by all means this subject in terms of “mentality of suicide bomber” has “yet to become the verdict as validated book”.
Almost every research that has been conducted up till know since evolution; the contribution of the researcher was always seen under dominant share but since “this topic being a definite fate as death” no one has yet extended his horizon to “feel the realm of reality what a suicide bomber can feel” by putting himself under the threat.
This is another hilarious reason why “behavior of suicide bomber” is still a matter as “undocumented”.
This is also true that since “suicide bombers are invincible or invisible like supernatural”; “appearing all of a sudden and only when death as panic cordon surrounds” therefore; it limits period that could match so to predict a little about the “mood as attitude”.
Once again! Putting the subject under the platform of assumption and presumption as “hypothesis of belief;”
Under the extreme of “unavailability of proper and calculated data as evidence” modes to route this peril as threat is a real menace.
But still people at their verge are striving to dig the real theme of this “manufactured breed of bomb.”
There are many formats as belief that suicide bombers would be the “most irrational, unethical and distracted person with disturbed behavior.”
But contrary to this belief researches have proved that “these bombers and their handlers are all as similar to the lot as existing as normal.”
Hence proving that “terrorist has no abnormal behavior” and is as normal as we are.
Observations predict that any one giving an “exclusive situation” would behave in same pattern as been intended or provided.
There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that “given the right set of circumstances, almost everyone, irrespective of personality or background, will behave in a group in ways they never would when alone”.
In 1971, psychologist Philip Zambardo’s famously showed how easy it is to “turn ordinary people into monsters.”
He recruited students to imitate prison guards and inmates, and put them together in a mocked-up prison at Stanford University to observe their behavior.
The experiment was aborted after six days because the “guards” had pushed many of the “prisoners” to emotional breakdown.
Since then, many other experiments and real-life observations have reinforced the conclusion that “in a group environment for example a football crowds, a battlefield, a rioting mob; a person’s behavior is dictated far more by what is happening around them than by their own psychological temper”.
It seems we have “evolved to encourage group cohesion and co-operation.”
Suicide bombing is a classic—though extreme—example.
There is virtually no recorded case of a suicide bomber acting alone.
The “bomber is always recruited and guided by a group with specific political or ideological aims, and the bombers tend to adopt a brotherhood mentality” towards each other, “encouraged by their common cause”, their “loyalty to the group” and the “secrecy of their mission”.
To use a battlefield as symbol “they go over the top together.”
For 30 years, Rona Fields, a Washington, D.C. psychologist, has been psychologically testing terrorists and paramilitaries from Northern Ireland, Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon, Southeast Asia, and Africa.
She thinks today’s “suicide terrorists share the still-born moral and emotional development she saw in the Khmer Rouge, who created a bloodbath in Cambodia during the late 1970s.”
“Their definition of right and wrong is very black-and-white, and is directed by an authoritative director,” says Fields.
“There is a “total limitation of the capacity to think for them selves.”
“A terrorist develops gradually from a young age”, Fields says.
The boys (typically aged 10 to 16) who are easiest to recruit for suicide terrorism are “at the stage of development of moral judgment called retributive justice or vendetta.”
“This “an eye for an eye” stage of emotional development as was described by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, She adds.
In “societies where there’s been intergenerational, intercommunal war,” Fields says, “many adults never outgrow the vendetta, and are trapped in righteous indignation,” which Fields found among; examined.
“They believe there’s a difference between right and wrong, but when they do something in the name of the cause, it’s justified.”
“These true believers”, she adds, “are angry, but they don’t feel guilty about their anger.”
“They are rational, they are not insane,” says Richard Pearlstein, associate professor of political science at Southeastern Oklahoma State University.
“They have goals and they are moving towards those goals.”
“Not only are terrorists; not crazy, but they don’t share a personality type”, wrote David Long, former assistant director of the State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism.
“No comparative work on terrorist psychology has ever succeeded in revealing a particular psychological type or uniform terrorist mindset” still.
Long wrote that terrorists tend to have “low self-esteem, are attracted to groups with charismatic leaders, and, not surprisingly, enjoy risk oddly”.
Long! Concluded that many terrorists are; “ambivalent about violence and guns”
History has revealed that terrorists are capable of carrying out “bold and destructive acts” that at first glance appear to be unexplainable.
What kind of person would sacrifice his or her own life in order to kill innocent people?
What could possibly motivate a young person to become a suicide bomber?
Research shows “no indication that terrorists are crazy or psychopathic or that they lack moral feelings.”
Most “terrorists are not psychologically deviant” and do not operate outside the “normal rules of behavior”, but are instead “ordinary people from unremarkable backgrounds”.
In fact, research indicates that “terrorists tend to have considerable insight into their own actions and are aware of how others view them.”
“They believe that their violent actions, while somewhat regrettable, are justified and noble.”
Moreover, “their emotional commitment to their cause and comrades is indicative of normal human psychology.”
Often “their actions do not ultimately stem from hatred” but rather “from love of their own group and culture that they believe is threatened and requires protection.”
Human being by nature have “built-in trait” as characteristic termed the “Ego”. (Writer contd….)
The phrase of claim as “Mine” is an expression of egoistic attitude explaining the theme behind; that the person “owns his feels as features” in terms of “absolute relation” under “constrained fashion.”
Though at one end this attitude is egoistic but at other perspective it does explain that such “own as claim” can “litigate as rift”, if at all “means as maneuvering” could be put as conflict.
My Point is; “claiming legitimacy” as “Mine” or “own” would and shall counter and “retaliate as behavior”.
This is especially over grown; if at all “situations as conflicts” are created under the rule of pin point controversy as emotional attachments. (Writer)
It is important to note at the outset that the use of the term ‘suicide’ to characterize these attacks reflects an outsider’s view.
Those who commit or advocate such attacks do not regard them as acts of suicide, but rather as acts of martyrdom.
While suicide is associated with hopelessness and depression, the actions of the bombers are seen as a matter of heroism and honor.
Many theorists focus on ideology in their attempt to understand what motivates suicide bombers.
Randy Borum (2003) focuses on “terrorist ideology and the process of how these ideas or doctrines develop”.
He identifies a four-stage process whereby individuals develop extremist beliefs.
A ‘group’ or ‘individual’ first “identifies some sort of undesirable state of affairs”; then “frames that event or condition as unjust”; then “blames the injustice on a target policy, person, or nation;” and then “vilifies or demonizes the responsible party” so that aggression seems justified.
Those suffering from adverse conditions do not regard themselves as “bad” or “evil” but only as the ‘victims of injustice.’
This makes aggression against the “evildoers” to justify psychologically.
Terrorists tend to have an “apocalyptic” revelation perspective of worldview as vision” and to see the world as precariously balanced between “good and evil”.
They believe that through their actions, they can “uphold their values of family, religion, ethnicity, and nationality and bring about the triumph of the good”.
Other theorists stress the idea that “becoming a terrorist or suicide bomber is largely a matter of socialization”.
In some cases, “those personally frustrated by their life circumstances may become angry with those they view as the source of their problems”.
According to Jessica Stern (2003), terrorists are often “individuals who feel deeply humiliated and confused about their future path, or are frustrated about the political climate in which they live”.
Humiliation, poverty, and hopelessness often give rise to a sense of outrage and desperation, which can be harnessed by extremist leaders to create support for a terrorist movement.
For individuals who feel deeply alienated or desperate, ‘death provides the ultimate escape from life’s dilemmas.’
In other cases, ‘individuals become angry about the frustrations and insults experienced by their ethnic, cultural, or religious group, though they do not experience this insult at a personal level.’
This makes sense of the fact that ‘many terrorists are middle-class individuals who have fairly wide options and some degree of educational background’.
Their strong group identification and anger over group insult helps to explain their ‘willingness to sacrifice their own lives.’
Those who feel frustrated and angry may join ‘terrorist organizations, which provide a variety of emotional, social, and economic benefits.’
Individuals who have a sense of uncertainty about their future may find that ‘terrorist groups provide the sense of identity, structure, and guidance that they crave’.
“Identification with the cause and other group members” may satisfy individuals’ needs for meaning and justice and afford them an opportunity to bolster their self-esteem.
Belonging to a terrorist group may also satisfy desires for adventure, “glamour,” and ‘social connections’.
Once they join the group, ‘individuals may feel strong and powerful and believe they have a clearer purpose in life’.
Many terrorist organizations also offer economic incentives to persuade individuals that ‘it is rational to sacrifice their lives for the good of the cause’.
For those who believe they lack options, cannot find a job, and have few social safety nets in place to assist them, suicide bombing may seem like a relatively reasonable option.
Families of suicide bombers often receive money and are treated as heroes.
Once individuals join ‘organizations that share their frustrations,’ they may undergo a ‘process of indoctrination’ whereby their “beliefs and behaviors are made to confirm the group’s basic principles”.
Within these tight-knit communities, individuals’ fear of letting down their comrades becomes greater than their fear of dying.
Many come to believe that by sacrificing their own lives for the sake of the cause, those lives can take on a broader meaning.
Various grievances and social stressors can contribute to the formation of terrorist groups.
For example, poverty, unemployment, epidemics, and criminality often lead to social instability, which provides fertile ground for terrorist activity.
Over-population, socioeconomic struggle, and a lack of professional opportunities can also produce a sense of rage, powerlessness, and resentment among the populace.
Disaffected individuals and or groups may perceive the world as treating them harshly and unjustly.
In some cases, there are indeed genuine causes for grievance and a sense of group persecution.
The move from being a disaffected individual to a violent extremist is usually facilitated by some catalyst event.
In most cases it is an act of extreme violence committed against the individual, family or friends by those in authorities or by some rival group.
Research findings indicate that “most suicide bombers have had at least one of their loved ones killed or severely harmed at the hands of their enemies.”
Many of them join terrorist groups in an angry and vengeful state of mind with the intent to take part in aggressive acts.
In fact, many suicide bombers may view themselves as soldiers engaged in a war.
Casualties are then seen as the regrettable but inevitable consequence of fighting for one’s just cause.
It is not that they are bloodthirsty or that they enjoy killing civilians, but rather that they believe these missions are the only way to fight for their cause.
Although the realization that terrorists view themselves as soldiers engaged in a just war does not legitimize their cause or methods, it does provide some insight into their psychology and motivation.
It suggests that their psychology is similar to that displayed by combatants in other conflicts, and that suicide bombers view themselves as soldiers or warriors reacting to the provocative abuses and injustices of others.
According to this line of thinking, suicide bombing is a matter of fighting against unjust political or economic policies, authoritarian governments, and structural violence.
Some argue that the global economic order contributes to groups’ sense “that they have been mistreated.”
Michael Stevens (2002), for example, argues that “globalization contributes to the creation of socio cultural and psychosocial conditions from which terrorism is more likely to emerge”.
The West has exported its economic, political, and cultural systems with little regard as to how they might be received.
While globalization has no doubt generated wealth, it has also produced economic inequality, threats to language and community, and support for oppressive regimes.
Many believe that it has also contributed to the uprooting of traditional values and customs.
1990s to present: Private organizations, like the Osama bin Laden network, operate internationally as what some call “professional terrorists.”
Unlike predecessors, they often use suicide bombers, and do not gather hostages to negotiate for concessions.
Although they kill to make a political point, they seldom claim responsibility for their acts.
The motivation of terrorists may have changed along with their targets and methods.
“First-generation terrorists,” Pearlstein says, “joined for a variety of reasons: social, psychological, and political.”
There is evidence that these people suffered “narcissistic injuries” — massive and lasting damage to self-image and self-esteem which may be severe enough to force the discredited self to seek a new, positive identity.
“They represented the kind of human raw material that a recruiter for some terrorist organization would find it easy to prey upon,” Pearlstein says.
“All had a lack of other satisfying career options.
‘All had no compunctions against the use of violence”.
While these psychological factors were “quite significant” among first generation terrorists, and to some extent, the second generation, Pearlstein says “they do not apply to today’s suicide bombers.”
“The individual psychological factors are not as important as they were even 15 years ago.”
“These folks are motivated overwhelmingly by religious beliefs or at least, their interpretation of religious faith”.
“Indeed, their audience seems to be Allah, not the office workers in New York, Kenya or Tanzania, where their bombs have detonated”.
John Horgan, a psychologist at University College Cork (Ireland) echoes Fields by saying,
“One of the major appeals of fundamentalism is the remarkable ability to see the world in black and white terms.”
‘Fundamentalist terrorist groups’, Horgan adds! ‘Offer persuasive inducements to would-be bombers.
“We shouldn’t underestimate the lures of joining these groups.’
‘Some have specific ideas of what the afterlife involves.’
“Allah will forgive the sins of both the suicide bomber and his family.”
“Suicide bombers’, he adds, “are often “seen as heroes in the Palestinian struggle.”
“You can see the pictures of martyrs plastered on walls.”
“The families are praised… and the families of the bombers usually receive some financial reward.”
One goal of analyzing terrorists in psychological terms, obviously, “is to deter or prevent attacks,” but the present situation is not encouraging.
“There are not just people ready to die, but people who want to die,” Horgan notes.
Rather than analyze terrorism in terms of psychopathology, Horgan and others prefer to see it in the context of culture, politics and religion.
Terrorism, he says, “is a product of its own time and place.”
“You’re not going to find personality traits that will allow you to predict that one person or another is more likely to become a terrorist.”
Horgan also suggests looking at the process of screening and training that creates terrorists and selects those best suited to individual “jobs” or leadership.
During the dramatic aftermath of terrorist attacks, “We don’t see the protracted process of indoctrination that terrorists go through.”
To understand motivations, he says, “The focus should shift from personality to process”.
Those who maintain that “suicide attacks are motivated by religious ideology suggest that the bombers believe that God has sent them on a mission.”
They are motivated primarily by the promise of “a happy afterlife and heavenly reward and the threat of heavenly retribution”
Their rationale is that by “blowing themselves up in a crowd of people, they are making themselves martyrs and forging their own gateway to heaven”.
Many of these individuals are indoctrinated at an early age about the spiritual importance of purifying the world and sacrificing their lives to a holy war.
In some cases, radical religious groups use the concepts of benevolence, self-sacrifice, and martyrdom to spread the idea that suicide bombing is a noble and Godly act.
Acting on God’s behalf to defend these values is viewed as more important than life.
For example, Muslim fundamentalists often fear that their religious values and culture are in danger of being overwhelmed by the secularism and military and economic power of the West.
Some may view terrorism as a way to defend against these “evils.”
Others argue that religious fervor only partly explains the actions of suicide bombers and that religious ideology and political aspirations tend to become intertwined.
It is not that suicide bombers simply exhibit an unquestioning obedience to extreme leadership or that they are pressured to carry out such acts.
Rather, it is in reaction to perceived political oppression and the belief that one’s rights have been trampled.
For example, because life under military occupation is experienced as humiliating, many believe they will find a better life in paradise.
Many theorists writing about the Palestinian suicide bombers argue that “the suicide bomber, unable to develop and express his individuality under occupation and unable to serve his society in constructive ways, turns to a goal beyond this world.”
In short, he comes to believe that he has a religious duty to struggle against the group’s enemies and achieve its political goals in the name of God.
“Suicide is viewed as a tax paid to redress the group’s grievances and achieve both its religious and political objectives.”
Within particular cultures, “martyrdom is also viewed as a status symbol”.
Those who participate are regarded as heroes who are sure to experience a happy after life.
“The cultural message is that sacrificing one’s own life to kill others is not only acceptable, but highly desirable”
An entire cultural structure consisting of family, friends, teachers, religious institutions, and political establishment may share this belief.
For young people struggling to find some significance to their bleak existence, the meaning of suicide bombing is perfectly clear.
They will be heroes, they will help the cause of their group, and they will be awarded in the afterlife.
Finally, many terrorism experts say “it’s worth understanding why some terrorists give up the bomb and re-enter society.”
The excessive focus on the psychology of terrorism echoes the mistakes of criminologists a century ago, Horgan concludes.
“Early criminology was characterized by attempts to find differences between the criminal and the non-criminal.’
We ignored groups, culture, opportunity, the development of people’s involvement.
Similarly, until terrorists are studied in the context of their lives, “psychological profiles” and pathological diagnoses are unlikely to provide a satisfying explanation for evil — or a conclusive warning. (David Tenenbaum and Eric Zuelow)
Though there are hundreds of such abstracted ideas and notion on the myth of mentality in relation to psychological analysis of behavior of suicide bomber but this dilemma of havoc is still the matter of complex; hence still to resolve issue.
Reason is as I declared earlier that “when you start your discussion in a preconceived format of assessment; logically, results would be felt as per your preconceived and desired intended dreams”.
“You strive for what you desire” therefore; “you move in direction where your mind desire at subconscious level”; hence for ultimate “intended resultant”.
Here my point is “if you have intention to drag Islam and Muslims behind this idea of suicide bombing as preconceived idea”; you would delineate your thought as per your subconscious backup which is “predetermined notion” thereby deceiving the resultant and the exact cause behind.
Besides what is an agreement as logical and weight full in the contest and context of above mentioned inference as theories; my personnel feel over the issue is that; “every iota of human psyche need to be scrutinized in order to evaluate and scrutinize the mentality and behavior of this human bomb”.
Since “deficient protocol of ethics as impartiality, is still the chapter as guide; road to map the route towards willful destination is hampered”.
“How theses ideas and doctrine develops in to a formal desire of death has roots from built in tendency of human behavior that perceive its surround on the principle of belief as “cordoned domain” which is logically dependent on ‘egoistic innate attitude’”.
“Human Being since in continuous phase of perception and evaluation and therefore interpretation, their behavior always assess environment on the basis of desire and change’.
“Any change that put ones mind in uneasiness creates embezzlement in attitude”.
Her again egoistic attitude as potential aptitude resurrects thereby disrespecting ‘ethics as norms and morality as behavior’.
This conversion of temperament explains the theme behind that; ‘the person owns his surround and souvenirs as relation in constrained and possessive fashion’.
My Point is; ‘claiming authority as own and similarly possession’; would and shall counter and retaliate; if at all situations as conflict are created under the rule of “pin point target and controversy”.
Besides materialistic objects, “religion dominates among people in more emotional and calibrated format similarly; as emotional bindings exist between relations”.
It is because of ‘this theme of emotion and attachment that people sacrifice their lives and living along with children on behest and behalf and in the name of religion as martyr’
It is the same ‘theme as attachment that people set aside their lives hence to offer life to safe guard and sanction life to their home and country as emotional bindings; accepting death as desire.’
A person dying for his country under attachment and within his own country is a martyr whereas; same person being a victim of death under enemy is called rebellion or enemy of state.
It is this ‘attachment that becomes controversy’ among people with ‘different perspective vision’ as discussion; some tagging it ‘fanaticism’ where as other putting it as ‘dogmatic and stubborn hence irrational or extremism’.
“Emotional attachment under egoistic dominance with cordoned belief as faith; under the rule of religion is called faithfulness and obedience”.
It’s all how you perceive with different perspective vision as desire.
Though “at one end this attitude is egoistic but at other perspective it does explain that such own as claim can litigate as rift, if at all means as maneuvering could be put as conflict.”
However! A person as outsider; not within the domain of that religion would always litigate the controversy as dogmatic hence fanatic.
Similarly insignias as name, nomenclature, symbols and prestigious monuments as attachment bear same model emotional elements as attachments, among people cordoned within selective groups as class or sect hence religion.
“Not necessarily a person need to be in and under Islamic principality of belief as Muslim so to appear as suicide bomber” but; “any one who being human is under the rule of psyche as behavior can react in normal tone of acts”.
How can we justify the suicide attacks by Tamil and similar non Muslim war lords under so called liquidated fact as “belief of martyrdom and Day of Judgment”?
They are not Muslims neither under oath of Islam nor are they in the belief of same slogan of life after death as do Muslims belief.
Why do armies attend war and under what slogan do they react against life hence to accept death as martyr?
As I said this “factor as religion is one of the factor of human egoistic and emotional attachment” where as, ‘not necessarily be the dress of Muslim only but; any one who regards his thought as necessary hence prestigious’.
And yes poverty, social mismatches, unemployment, tendencies, conflicts deprivation glamour, suppression they are factors that may contribute towards the psyche of unsocial behavior as theft ,robberies and misconducts but are not the actual or in any way; a cause of suicidal tendency as bomber.
These factors though cause severe blow like post traumatic syndrome but in actual increase suicidal tendency and to the extreme at solitary act as suicide but never ever has turned up in to aggressive attitude since “these social issues cause depression for which person consider himself as the only complainant and routes easy escape”.
“For a person to appear as suicide bomber emotional factor is the sole factor” that can only give the clue as answer.
And again only ‘emotions in lieu of attachment come as prediction’, therefore directing that; ‘only cause can be a grievance of such a nature that has disrupted and distracted as blow causing severe psychological behavioral derangement.”
As to the Muslim concept of this sacrifice such means as manners were and are part of well defined areas where aggression as occupation has blown away all images of human nature as it is in Palestine and similar areas.
Here people under gruesome restrictions have faced limits of human deprivation and brutality and had only option to give ‘life for survive’ hence to ‘award few more breath to their legitimates’.
Here again ‘emotional factors rule the domain and attachments therefore to feed the desire.’
There is no denial of this fact that we have faith in “desirable death over ravished life”.
This is also true that “we prefer sacrifice over life if perception demands safety of religion, release of land, and life and fair living of generation.”
But “such routes as disaster to humanity; in the name of suicide bombing are neither the part and parcel of Islam nor the substance of belief , practice and faith.”
Again! It’s the matter of partiality and ill knowledge or deliberate neglect; since different terrain and culture have their own prerequisite of desire as necessity under rule of threats.
“If a civilization and race of resident may it be a Muslim; under the threat of maltreatment; it’s their prerogative of the people to retaliate with means they consider as available”.
“If some one as Muslim in Palestine or Iraq have acted to sabotage his enemy by any means may it be a suicidal attack, it’s the prerogative of that community to award him heroic insignia against ruthlessness as perceive by the people through his act.”
Again under no means this can be tagged as practice under the slogan of Islam.
“War in Palestine or Iraq is an endemic war between local and occupant as aggressors” and is a rational slogan internationally that people “who award and risk their lives in acceptance with death are subjected as insignia hence are awarded and rewarded as medals internationally as well”.
Scrutiny reveals that here again! Factor that dominates under such behavior of risking life for the safety of the people or peasant “is a reflection of his attachment with his belief and oath as savior.”
Supposedly a police officer somewhere in modernize nation, if sacrificed his life for the sake of person hence qualifying for gallantry award as savior; would he be thereafter going to hell?
I am sure he won’t be awarded hell in lieu as per my belief since and similarly people and governance may it be from any religion would paste and paint his photos as insignia on walls and veils.
This is because he has expressed the peak of human tendency which is definitely a reflection of truth; as it is in my faith ‘that “human beings are put as most gracious being in the universe because of this tendency as sacrifice”
Under the rule of this image as “something special as life of death” is not only the concept of Muslim but a potential belief of other religion as well; may I say it “all”
Therefore “this factor in suicide bombing to gain something after death is a secondary” and gives impression that “there is a primary factor which is; an attachment with the cause hence psyche of human behavior to do something for the one he thinks as must”.
Here again it may be “a duty, a faith, and his belief as dutiful.”
Islam is the “religion of peace”.
It never “relegates other religion neither its follower”.
“Islam condemns such acts which cause devastation among and within humanity or nature”.
It awards “Peace and orders dignity”.
Even under extremes of situation it orders “calmness and patience”.
It “barred occupation and disqualify oppression”.
However “Islam is against the tyrannize concepts and orders alertness against such motives as stand”.
It is here where “jihad rest as option” though it still “prohibit massacre of those who do not come up for war”.
This “order as prohibition is the basic of Islam and under all means compliance fall under the ethics as faith and belief”.
Under the rule of the “law as faith who can dare to break and breach the cordon of belief though who is not within the practice”?
Such “act of brutality under no means comes under the Islamic principality of belief.”
These acts under the rule of war and engagement may it be Palestine, Iraq or similar place where encounter between people and aggressor enemy are means of release from aggression; “is conditional” hence “under the realm of practice as selective means to topple enemy;”
In my opinion here it do refers this subject as logical similarly as “bombing on Nagasaki and Hiroshima or similar bobbing on Gaza” where people were massacred to ‘worst mayhem of history;’ though this bombing is still logical in the name of war.
It is because of this “logical belief in these areas of restiveness ; that people who succumb; their lives in such acts as bombers; are regarded as heroes hence paste their photo as symbol of desire and insignia of religion and land”.
Again! “It is an endemic and situational hence conditional”; expressing ‘behavior as emotional attachment’; in the name of ‘religion, place and its people’ hence “saviors of the land and generation”.
However “’any act that is put as brutal in nature as nation or place as people’; may it be, here or else; ‘without the conceptual truth of such aggression or tyranny as oppression’; with motive explainable as political, or in the name of religion hence ‘without conditional circumstances of war as logical’; are ‘condemnable and under no means fall within the communal or religious slogan as ethical”.
Converging! Discussion towards the questionnaire that “Can psychology and behavioral science, tell us what motivates terrorists and how they differ from you and me in terms of behavior” as solution; I am of the opinion that;
“The only factor that evolves around the chapter of suicide bombing is attachment in terms of sentiments and emotion”.
“It is this sentiment that becomes grievance hence a route to search for factors as console and relief.”
“It is this console as reason that is being cashed by these ravishers as terrorist hence to soothe these insecure peasants of their misery.”
In my opinion “if people have instinct to differentiate emotions they are as normal as any body” however this is a fact that under stress “reaction of people are different.”
Here again intervenes; this point as means that “under such circumstances of emotional derangement people with factors as social despondency have no option but to search for mode against their misery whereas those who are among their own as legitimate are never distracted.”
It is here where “emotions whip as suffering and who ever provide relief from dire and dying sentiments takes away desire”
As far as debriefing of terrorist is concerned it is again a fact that “they are as normal as any human may be”; though “their acts which is of course under the vocabulary of brutal and ruthless are always expressive of their behavior as sharp, attentive calculated and moment seeker which rattle them under the rule as attentive, alert and orientated in time and space hence declaring themselves as more smart than smartness”.
Under such rule of thumb as qualities “terrorist seems to have a more dominant active role as function and any distracted peasant can not perform such acts of massive ailment with fuse horizon”.
At other perspective: what factors that pull these terrorist towards such acts seemingly seems to be are “glamour, wealth, greed, accidental induction or due to litigated affairs that has put them in undue proclamations as acquisition, Blackmailing, grievance and once again attachment in terms of sentiment may it be political, religious, or emotional as relation”.
This route of induction and assignment of terrorist under psychological evaluation as behavior; seems to be ‘a choice route’ in which , people having ‘potential tendencies’ are infact first ‘ignited or maneuvered’ after one time event ,or in some cases, are self ‘triggered by built in desire’ as ‘self ignition’ therefore as ‘exposure;’
In my opinion ‘these tendencies’ therefore and then, ‘frame and structure mind as per desire and surround’; thereafter ‘exhibiting qualities as potential.’
Besides these factors “same behavioral traits are among terrorist as well also as”; it is the “sign and signature of suicide bomber or populace at large”.
In my conclusive opinion “this is a misnomer that perhaps suicide bombers and sibling terrorist have behavioral abnormality in terms of rage and aggression” but contrary to this belief; “their reaction to action are reflections of their extreme perception as reception”.
(A Research and Referenced Article)