Calixte 1

Ubdasja Calixte
Professor Dagher
UWRT 1102
April 8, 2015
My interest in exploring the topic of terrorism started when I was heard about ISIS and
the oppression this regime caused people in Syria, Iraq, and surrounding areas. I was very
curious about why a group of people would want to cause so much destruction especially to
people of the Islamic community. What motivated these terrorists? What were they trying to
accomplish? And most importantly why target the civilians? Prior to doing the inquiry project, I
perceived terrorists to be insensitive psychopathic individuals who had a fetish for causing great
harm to others. Society marks terrorism as an act so evil that there is nothing that can justify it. I
wanted to see if the was a rationale behind what is being presented in news reports. In order to
explore that issue, I wanted to learn about government responses to terrorism and how that
impacts our understanding of terrorist actions.
Terrorism is a very current issue that I felt needed to be explored more thoroughly. In the
news, I notice more and more people are getting killed by ISIS, Islamic state in Iraq and Syria.
What I found interesting about this regime is that these people claimed to be Islamic yet theyre
killing Islamic people. They are killing anyone, who doesnt support their radical ideas. The
motive for why they do what they do is unclear to me. I dont see how killing many people who
dont agree with ones ideology to be justifiable. In fact I dont see any reason to kill anyone
justifiable. I think this topic is very important because many people are affected by terrorism on a
daily basis, and there isnt many people who know why these people do what they do, and how

Calixte 2

to stop it. So in order to understand terrorism I wanted to get research into the mind of a
terrorists, by understanding the cause, what lures them, why they target citizens. Then I wanted
to understand the retaliation of the government, and how the government perceive terrorists.
Lastly I explore the different ways the government addresses terrorism.
In exploring my topic of terrorism, I wanted to understand the cause of why terrorists do
what they do. Society may think theyre just a group of people trying to kill random civilians but
in actuality these people have a deeper reason for what they do. Perhaps the terrorists feel they
are being misrepresented, or there is lack of political power. They cause harm to people to send a
message and bring attention to a specific issue. Martha Crenshaw, a political science professor
gives her take on why terrorists do what they do by stating that the causes of terrorism are so
inextricably related to large-scale political, social, and economic conditions (for example,
poverty, corruption, weak civilian institutions, and demographic pressures)(42). Terrorists may
be influenced to take such actions because they arent satisfied with a certain political system, or
their religion isnt being respected by a certain group. Poverty and huge population densities
could make these people feel like terrorism can cause some sort of change to their existing
conditions. Tori Deangelis states that People are lured to join terrorist groups for a sense of
identity, lack of political power, and feelings of anger and disenfranchisement (60). Terrorists
feel powerless, and they think that killing off massive people will cause some sort of change.
Even though that isnt effective in bringing about change. Time and time again it only causes
more damage to their situation.
Further into my research, I found that terrorists arent psychopathic lunatics that I thought
they were. According to Virginia Held, Those who study terrorists are amazed at how normal,
articulate, and rational they are (71). Terrorists come in many different shapes and sizes. All are

Calixte 3

motivated by different things; however, ideas that drive them are similar to ideas that could
easily lure anyone. In Deangelis article Understanding Terrorism, she explains that
a set of studies done in the US, Iran, and Isreal supported the idea the people who were
reminded of their mortality-and clinged more strongly to their group identities-were more
likely to support violence against the out group. Iranians supported suicide bombings
against Westerners. Americans were more likely to advocate military force, even if it
meant killing thousands, and Isrealis condoned violence against Palestinians. (60)
This study shows that people who felt strongly about their culture, and perhaps felt it was
being threatened by another group would support and possibly want to commit an action against
that group. Although it is immoral to want to kill thousands of people, terrorists still considered
the idea of hurting the other group. I found this study to be interesting because it shows how
easily people can change.
In the process of trying to send their message, terrorists kill many civilians. This results in
retaliation of the government that terrorists are trying to attack. Held explains in her article
Terrorism and War that it is unclear why those who bring about states policies and give it
armed services should be exempt from attacks (60). So in the publics eye citizens are innocent,
but in the terrorists eye they are targets since they support the governments policy that the
terrorists dont support. That shows that the terrorists have some sort of distorted rationale about
what they do.
What I learned from doing this inquiry project that I didnt know before is that terrorists
are people who feel very passionate about a particular political or religious issue. They feel that
their opponent isnt paying enough attention to this problem. Anger and fear drives some of these

Calixte 4

people to take very dangerous routes of attacking citizens to get the government to bring about
the change they want. Its like a robbery. A robber goes into a store, and hold someone hostage in
order to get whatever it is that they request. If they dont get whatever it is that they request, they
may hurt or even kill someone. The way that these people take out their anger is wrong, and
shouldnt be condoned. However, the government should consider alternate ways of dealing
with terrorists since terrorists issues are mostly political.
Governments characteristically define terrorism as something only opponents can
commit, as something only those who seek to change policies or to attack a given political
system (Held 62). Based on this definition, the governments actions often go unanalyzed
because their actions are deemed morally justifiable. Held further argues that the government
acts in equal iniquity by killing more civilians than the terrorists. (61). People become
desensitized to the lives of the civilians killed in the terrorists country by the government. Much
like how the terrorists become desensitized to the lives of the citizens they kill on their
opponents land. Each side feels justified for their actions.
I found that in history, governments typically dealt with terrorists by reacting with
violence, which hasnt been a very effective way in combatting the issue. Lloyd Dumas
examines the ineffectiveness of violent counter-terrorism, noting that for decades, Isreal has
doggedly followed a policy of responding to any act of terrorism with violent military retaliation
and the result has been that there exists today more terrorism directed against Isreal than ever
before (qtd. in V.Held 69). The US should attempt to find alternative ways to deal with
terrorists. If the result of military retaliation in Isreal has been ineffective then it probably wont
be as effective if US continues to retaliate with violence. The US should also attempt to
understand the views of terrorists instead of ignoring it and reacting how they normally do. The

Calixte 5

US is very powerful, and is able to take the risk of trying alternate ways to combat terrorism. If
they continue to react in violence, they may never know if there really is a more effective way to
deal with terrorism. I understand that the government reacts in violence because the civilians
were attacked in violence. Its only just to retaliate in the same fashion. However, it hasnt
stopped terrorists from continually attacking the way they have.
A way that the government can combat terrorism is to tap into the fear of the terrorist, and
the motivation. De-radicalization programs are effective ways of doing that because it connects
emotional, social, and intellectual components that has been successful at softening the hearts of
terrorists (Deangelis 60). Terrorists could have families, and might be religiously zealous.
Clearly, these people have a reason why they do what they do, and they seem very passionate
about it. If the government can understand the motives maybe they can try to help attack the core
problem. A firsthand account of a former terrorists who gave up on terrorism while participating
in a de-radicalization program in Indonesia is Jemmah Islamyiah, who fought from Afghanistan
to the Philippines. He says, After his arrest he realized he had to stop the operation because he
realized Osama Bin Ladens ideology wasnt jihad it was a crime(English). The program that
Jemmah joined clearly educated him about his religion and the principles of it, and afterwards he
realized how he was going against it. Since terrorists usually have a political goal, it certainly
can be resolved through means of communication, and through nonviolent approaches such as
de-radicalization programs.
However, government have to put away their own ideas, and try to understand the
terrorist groups. Suicide bombing one of the most lethal forms of terrorism cannot be stopped if
some of the requests made by the suicide bombers arent implemented (Riaz 342). The
government has to at least negotiate with these people. Terrorists feel very strongly about their

Calixte 6

beliefs enough to go out and kill a group of civilians to get the publics attention. If their initial
requests are being evaded every time and quelled by violence, it only breeds even more hatred
and desire to strike again.
From doing this inquiry project Ive learned a lot about terrorism and ways that the
government can combat terrorism. I feel I have a good understanding of both sides of the issue of
terrorism. Although there is some areas of terrorism that is hard to answer, I feel I have an
understanding of some of the basic questions I wanted to learn about this topic. Readers of this
essay can see how terrorists view their actions. Its interesting to see how very different people in
another group think. The way one person sees an issue can be very different from how someone
in a different part of the world sees the same issue. If I were to continue where I left off in my
inquiry project, I would inquire about if there were mental stages that terrorists went through
before going to the extreme? Would they start off with some sort of petition or request from the
government? Whether or not terrorists considered a nonviolent approach? Was it effective? If
not, what was their next approach? I would also question what tactics did these terrorists groups
use in order to lure their members. In the news I noticed many young people going into Syria to
join these regimes. I wonder how and why they would want to put their lives at risk. Lastly, I
would want to figure out, how do these regimes get powerful and where do they get their
weapons?

Calixte 7

Works Cited
Crenshaw, Martha. "A Long View of Terrorism." N.p., Jan. 2014:41-42 Web. 8 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.currenthistory.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/pdf_org_files/113_759_040.pdf>
.
Deangelis, Tori. "Understanding Terrorism." American Psychological Association 40.10 (2009):
60. Web. 8 Apr. 2015. <http://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/11/terrorism.aspx>.
English, France 24. "TERRORISM: A Program to Deradicalize Extremist Militants." YouTube.
YouTube, 9 Nov. 2010. Web. 08 Apr. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?
t=94&v=q6qwhLvsPIo>.
Hassan, Riaz. "Suicide Terrorism." Asian Journal of Social Science 38 (2010): 341-342. Web. 8
Apr. 2015.

<http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com.librarylink.uncc.edu/content/journals/10.116
3/156853110x499909>.
Held, Virginia. "Terrorism and War." Journal of Ethics 8.1 (2004): 59-75. Web. 8 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/25115781>.

Calixte 8

After Peer Review

I received a lot of helpful feedback from my peers. Some of the suggestions given to
me was to elaborate more on the central reason for choosing the topic. I decided to
elaborate more in my second paragraph on how dangerous groups like ISIS are, and
why I felt it was important to understand terrorism. Another suggestion I was given
was explaining my rational behind some of the ideas cited in from my sources. I reevaluated what I wanted to say, and I believe I did a good job explaining my
viewpoint. The last piece of advice I took was trying to organize my information
more closely to Ballingers way of organizing exploratory writing. I decided to talk
more about how terrorism effects people around the world and styled the next
paragraphs in accordance to my finding throughout my inquiry project. I took into
consideration all of the suggestions given to me. There wasnt anything that I didnt
consider in the revision. However, one of my peers felt I was on the terrorists side
which wasnt my intentions, and wasnt how I wanted the reader to interpret my
findings. I believe that after revising my paper I was able to clear up any confusions
and my point was expressed more clearly.
The feedback I have given on others EIP papers suggested that they be sure to cite
where they got their sources because some of their facts were without citations,
and isnt something people know as common sense. I also suggested that they
dont use too many citations, and if they do they should elaborate on it so their
voice can speak to the reader. Lastly, I suggested that they work a little more on
how the topic impacted them.