By Iran-Interlink

Introduction

This report examines terrorism from the unique perspective of those who have been former  members of a terrorist organization. While there is a huge body of work from various fields of expertise which examine terrorism and how to confront it from various approaches, there is very little information available about what is happening inside the organizations associated with the practice of terrorism, in particular from the former members of these organizations. It is hoped that this report will add that information to that which already exists and hopefully prompt further investigation into the issues which are raised here. The report will use the Iranian Mojahedin-e Khalq as a case study to demonstrate the findings.

The report does not deal with the act of terrorism in itself, but looks instead at the perpetrators of terrorist acts. We are trying to provide some answers to the questions of how and why someone becomes a terrorist; what drives any individual to commit these heinous acts. We will address the issue of motivation. But we believe that what the terrorists tell us are their motives, or what we come to regard as their motives, gives little insight into their real mindset. The basic premise of this report is that attempting to identify and thereby to somehow remove the motives which terrorists cite to justify their actions is unhelpful at best and essentially diverts attention and resources away from the roots of the problem.

While many studies have looked at the terrorist mindset from the psychological or sociological, political or historical point of view, the view expressed in this report springs largely from direct, personal experience of the terrorist mindset and more importantly how that mindset is constructed and maintained. So that rather than start with the act of terror itself and examine what is behind it, we seek to show how the deliberate construction of a particular mindset is a prerequisite to the act itself.

Also, while many studies focus on the leaders and the actual perpetrators of the terrorist act and regard the organization's other members as largely irrelevant, we would argue perhaps the opposite, that the people who perform what might be regarded as mundane tasks on the periphery of the organization are actually a vital ingredient of the construct of terrorism. This is because we regard the terrorist to be made by the organization rather than being a proponent of its ideology or ideas.

Terrorism

Since so much has been written about terrorism from so many different angles we provide only the briefest of explanations to give context for our own views.

There is, as we are all aware, no universally accepted definition of terrorism. One straightforward definition offered by Brian Whittaker in The Guardian that "terrorism is violence committed by those we disapprove of" is balanced by complex, highly specific definitions from governmental agencies and international bodies which can be found listed in many websites. What this highlights is that definitions are worded according to the agenda of each country or agency or individual looking at the problem.

In this multi-national, multi-agency world, we are still left with the major difficulty that "until a working definition is agreed to internationally, the problem of state sponsored terrorism and Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighter will not be resolved."

Carroll Payne (http://www.globalterrorism101.com/index.html)

http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/Security/Terrordef.html

But surely as ordinary citizens we all know what terrorism is. It is a luxury now in perhaps the majority of countries of the world, to live without fearing the ‘threat of terror’. Perhaps because terrorist acts are by their nature arbitrary, indiscriminate, although we can often link them with nationalism or religion or political injustices, this is not particularly useful in predicting where or when an act of terrorism will occur. As a result, the ‘threat of terror’ – perhaps it should be called the ‘fear of terror’ - has curtailed our lives in ways we could not imagine even a decade ago. So much so, that counter terrorism has not only become the major preoccupation of many governments, it has also become an industry in its own right, with think-tanks, consultancies and security experts at hand to offer advice and help in every aspect of the issue.

Counter-Terrorism

Counter-Terrorism employs several approaches to confronting the threat of terrorism. These can be grouped largely as:

To investigate and prosecute terrorists – criminal investigation.

To conduct intelligence designed to prevent and defeat terrorism – from a security point of view.

To investigate the motives of terrorists - with a view to countering their influence.

In April 2006, the Secretary-General issued recommendations for a global counter-terrorism strategy ( 60/825), which led to the unanimous adoption by the General Assembly, on 8 September 2006, of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy ( 60/288).  The strategy marks the first time that countries around the world agree on a common strategic approach to fight terrorism. The strategy contains a plan of action: to address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism; to prevent and combat terrorism; to take measures to build state capacity to fight terrorism; to strengthen the role of the United Nations in combating terrorism; and to ensure the respect of human rights while countering terrorism.

While there can be no dispute over the urgent necessity to prevent and prosecute terrorist acts, it is the last of the above approaches – the investigation of the motives of terrorists with a view to countering their influence – that we address in this report; the underlying question as to why and how people come to perpetrate heinous acts of violence is also part of what counter-terrorism is about. Fundamentally the report is looking at whether it is more effective to define terrorism by the nature of the act itself, or by the identity of the perpetrators.

In this report we look at terrorism from the inside and reject prevalent views of terrorism as linked to particular belief systems or parts of the world, such as the current vogue for linking terrorism with Islam.

Motives, Typologies and Ideology

This debate is well treated at this site:

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/429/429lect01.htm

In this link we see Dr. Tom O’Connor's lecture on ‘THE CRIMINOLOGY OF TERRORISM: HISTORY, LAW, DEFINITIONS, TYPOLOGIES’

Another approach might be to distinguish terrorists from others of their kind or how they perceive themselves.  No group has openly admitted they were terrorists since the 1940s, and the most commonly preferred self-terminology includes guerrilla, fighter, or warrior.  What follows is an alphabetical listing of the many terms terrorists use to call themselves (with the proviso that any errors or mistakes in definition are my own):

·         Avengers -- those who evoke the image of righteous vengeance (on behalf of others)

·         Crusaders -- those who engage in extremes to set the pace for others

·         Defenders -- those who think of themselves as vigilantes (defenders of self and others)

·         Dissidents -- those who want to defeat or overthrow an existing government

·         Extremists -- those with strongly held political beliefs out of the ordinary

·         Fanatics -- those with strongly held religious beliefs out of the ordinary

·         Fighters -- those who usually claim the other side are terrorists

·         Guerrillas -- those who fight a stronger opponent with hit-and-run tactics

·         Insurgents -- those who use propaganda, guerrilla tactics, and irregular fighting forces

·         Insurrectionists -- those who are in armed opposition to the laws of a government

·         Liberators -- those who consider themselves on the vanguard of freedom fighting

·         Lunatics -- those on the extreme fringes of left or right ideologies

·         Nationalists -- those fighting for the whole of their homeland

·         Radicals -- those with left-wing opinions (right-wingers are called reactionaries)

·         Rebels -- those who champion a cause not always their own, but the people's cause

·         Revolutionaries -- those who are committed to a certain ideology to bring about change

·         Separatists -- those fighting for a separate division of their homeland

·         Soldiers -- those who say they belong to an army or other military organization

There are, of course, many other terms that one would encounter in studying terrorism.  What is left out from the list would be terms such as:  Liberationists; Pirates; Resisters; Propagandists; and Mercenaries. These may be terms that have some special meaning, but the process quickly gets redundant after awhile.  Redundancy is evident in the phrase Freedom Fighter, because no side to every clash fights for anything but freedom. 

What is described here is a list of motives. We need to ask, can we separate the act from the ideas that appear to drive the violence? If we look at the motives behind terrorism can we understand what drives a person commit such an act. Should we look at the ideas behind the act or should we look for a particular type of person.

Again, is there is a difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Is there a point at which all the political options have been exhausted and there is no option but violence?

As a postscript to his lecture Dr. O’Connor offers the following by Boaz Garnor as a definition of terrorism. It is included here because while this definition addresses the issue of terrorist vs. freedom fighter, it also includes a statement by Duval and Stohl which perhaps surprisingly dismisses completely the issue of motivation:

"From time to time, guest lecturers are invited into the course to make a contribution.  The following is one of those: Coming up with a definition of terrorism that can become a standard to judge actions against is a challenge.  I recommend looking at an article written by Boaz Garnor, Executive Direct of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (www.ict.org.il).  It is called "Defining Terrorism:  Is one man's Terrorist another man's Freedom Fighter?" (published 25 Jun 01)  He proposes the following as a common definition and explanation:

"Terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims. This definition is based on three important elements:

1. The essence of the activity—the use of, or threat to use, violence. According to this definition, an activity that does not involve violence or a threat of violence will not be defined as terrorism (including non-violent protest—strikes, peaceful demonstrations, tax revolts, etc.).
 

2. The aim of the activity is always political—namely, the goal is to attain political objectives; changing the regime, changing the people in power, changing social or economic policies, etc. In the absence of a political aim, the activity in question will not be defined as terrorism. A violent activity against civilians that has no political aim is, at most, an act of criminal delinquency, a felony, or simply an act of insanity unrelated to terrorism. Some scholars tend to add ideological or religious aims to the list of political aims. The advantage of this definition, however, is that it is as short and exhaustive as possible. The concept of “political aim” is sufficiently broad to include these goals as well. The motivation—whether ideological, religious, or something else—behind the political objective is irrelevant for the purpose of defining terrorism. In this context, the following statement by Duvall and Stohl deserves mention:

Motives are entirely irrelevant to the concept of political terrorism. Most analysts fail to recognize this and, hence, tend to discuss certain motives as logical or necessary aspects of terrorism. But they are not. At best, they are empirical regularities associated with terrorism. More often they simply confuse analysis. [Editor's emphasis]

3.  The targets of terrorism are civilians. Terrorism is thus distinguished from other types of political violence (guerrilla warfare, civil insurrection, etc.). Terrorism exploits the relative vulnerability of the civilian “underbelly”—the tremendous anxiety, and the intense media reaction evoked by attacks against civilian targets. The proposed definition emphasizes that terrorism is not the result of an accidental injury inflicted on a civilian or a group of civilians who stumbled into an area of violent political activity, but stresses that this is an act purposely directed against civilians. Hence, the term “terrorism” should not be ascribed to collateral damage to civilians used as human shields or to cover military activity or installations, if such damage is incurred in an attack originally aimed against a military target. In this case, the responsibility for civilian casualties is incumbent upon whoever used them as shields."  If you wear a uniform, you can expect to come under attack, but if you are a civilian, you should not expect to come under attack.  The problem with terrorism is that it usually attacks the civilian, not the soldier.  However, regardless of who the terrorist attacks, it is a criminal act."

Although this does place the act of terrorism firmly into a criminal sphere, rather than accept the dismissal of the issue of motivation, perhaps the phrase deserves, like the term ‘terrorism’  itself, further definition and investigation. Without this, are we not like the doctor who treats the symptoms and misses the actual disease?

Surely if we are to understand what makes people behave in barbaric ways we must answer this simple question, what motivates them? Is it possible to accept that the motive is always political? If we are dealing with “an act purposely directed against civilians” do we not want to look at the purpose? Why is this done on purpose? The simple answer is ‘to terrorize society’ and by doing so push society into compliance with the terrorists demands. Although this demand may be simplified by the generic term politics, this still does not help us to get to the heart of what puzzles most analysts, how does an ordinary person become a terrorist. But this still leaves the question as to who, why and how do people get involved in terrorism.

In this arena, sociologists, historians, political scientists, experts in international law, psychologists try to explain the motives and mindset of the terrorist. In this approach we are looking at the terrorist to find the clues for their behaviour.

On the website www.globalterrorism101.com, Carroll Payne lists some explanations for terrorist actions:

1)    Political Tyranny

2)    Religious Oppression

3)    Ethnic Oppression

4)    Military Occupation

5)   Guerilla Struggle

6)   Religious Duty

7)    Political Conviction

8)   Social Conviction

9)    Mystical Cult

10)  Restoration of Political / Social System

11)  Reactionary Terrorism

12)  Insanity

All of these, except perhaps the last, do appear to bear out the statement by Boaz when he says that the aim of terrorism “is always political”. They all seek to change an existing political system and to some extent to replace it with a system of their own. So, perhaps we need to reframe the concept of motive to examine the various ‘systems’ which the terrorists seek to impose through their violence; in which case what we are looking at then, is the ideology of any particular terrorist group. We need to ask what it is in any particular ideology which leads to the use of violence rather than other means to achieve the aim of having it accepted by a populace. Is there something inherently dangerous in these ideologies?

But, if we go straight down the path of examining the various ideological backgrounds of terrorist organisations are we not repeating the search for motives? This report proposes instead to focus on the terrorist as an individual. What kind of person is attracted by this ideology of violence and destruction? What kind of mindset are we able to identify which may lead us to put preventive measures into place. How far are we willing to curtail freedom of speech, of thought or of belief in our quest for security? If, instead of closing off our freedoms, we can identify what kind of individual might be attracted by an extreme ideology and find ways to curtail the extent of their involvement in potentially violent activity, surely we have come a long way along the route of counter-terrorism.

Unfortunately after may years of study by psychologists, sociologists, historians and other experts, no one has discovered such a set of characteristics which could be identified as describing a ‘terrorist mindset’. The paths lead back to ideology, it is what the person believes in that makes them violent, not their innate propensity. Just as there is no universally agreed definition of what is meant by terrorism, there is also no profile for terrorists. Indeed, whereas with terrorism there is broad understanding and consensus of what is meant by the term, in the search for individual propensity to commit terrorist acts, research shows that there is no such thing. There seem to be no indications at all to show that one person more than another could or would get involved in terrorist activity.

In September 1999 a report was published under an by Interagency Agreement by the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, titled: THE SOCIOLOGY AND PSYCHOLOGY OF TERRORISM: WHO BECOMES A TERRORIST AND WHY? [click here to see]

It states: “The purpose of this study is to focus attention on the types of individuals and groups that are prone to terrorism (see Glossary) in an effort to help improve U.S. counterterrorist methods and policies.” The report looks at almost fifty individuals and groups, including Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden, in an attempt to identify commonalities.

The conclusion is somewhat surprising. The Library of Congress comes to the conclusion over and over that there is no such thing as a terrorist mindset, no personality type which would identify someone as potentially a terrorist.

One valuable finding is that of distinguishing between the leaders of groups and the followers. Saying that the leaders often lead by "frightening or pressuring their followers". This finding becomes more meaningful if we accept that the 'motives' of a planner may not be the same as the 'motives' of the perpetrator.

This view allows us to see terrorism not as an ideological position but as a group activity, which has its own hierarchy of activity and commitment and belief.

Again, dismissing the motive and looking at the act leaves us like the doctor who treats the symptoms of disease without finding the underlying cause.

Another analysis which comes closer to understanding the disease itself is from Fathali Moghaddam who describes a staircase to terror. This description of the path a person takes in order to become a suicide bomber is on the right tracks but the context of his argument again brings up motive as the factor.

If we want to find the cause who better to ask than former members of terrorist groups. What is their story, their reason and their motivation.

It is not ideology that makes a suicide bomber, it is methodology.

This focus on the motives and the ideology of terrorists is limited by lack of knowledge about what is involved in recruiting and training terrorists. Why not find out from those who do this.

While the search for a psychology of terrorists or typology has failed to give answers, our experience tells us that it is the methods used by the groups which enable them to ‘convert’ seemingly ordinary people with vastly different backgrounds, skills, education, class and beliefs, etc into obedient members who support terrorism.

This report will show that this is done through a sophisticated mix of message and method. 

What we propose is a radical perspective on the individual terrorist which may offer some new insight into who, why and how any individual gets involved in terrorism. In this site we take the departure from conventional view of the terrorist as the enemy and view them as victims. From this perspective we are forced to ask victims of what and of whom? And it is by following this train of enquiry that we hope to offer our own concept of what lies behind terrorism.

To be continued...