What Makes a Terrorist?

Thursday, March 4th, 2004

What Makes a Terrorist? by James Q. Wilson starts with a brief history of terrorism — “until the nineteenth century, religion was usually the only acceptable justification of terror” — then explains Professor Jerrold Post’s division of terrorists into two (ambiguously named) categories: anarchic ideologues (either right- or left-wing anarchists) and nationalists (either nationalistic or religious terrorists).

Anarchist or ideological groups include the Red Army Faction in Germany (popularly known as the Baader-Meinhof gang), the Red Brigades in Italy, and the Weathermen in America. The German government carried out a massive inquiry into the Red Army Faction and some right-wing terrorist groups in the early 1980s. (Since it was done in Germany, you will not be surprised to learn that it was published in four volumes.) The Red Army members were middle-class people, who came, in about 25 percent of the cases, from broken families. Over three-fourths said they had severe conflicts with their parents. About one-third had been convicted in juvenile court. They wanted to denounce ?the establishment? and bourgeois society generally, and joined peer groups that led them steadily into more radical actions that in time took over their lives. Italians in the Red Brigades had comparable backgrounds.

Ideological terrorists offer up no clear view of the world they are trying to create. They speak vaguely about bringing people into some new relationship with one another but never tell us what that relationship might be. Their goal is destruction, not creation. To the extent they are Marxists, this vagueness is hardly surprising, since Marx himself never described the world he hoped to create, except with a few glittering but empty generalities.

A further distinction: in Germany, left-wing terrorists, such as the Red Army Faction, were much better educated, had a larger fraction of women as members, and were better organized than were right-wing terrorists. Similar differences have existed in the United States between, say, the Weather Underground and the Aryan Nation. Left-wing terrorists often have a well-rehearsed ideology; right-wing ones are more likely to be pathological.

Interestingly, Post groups nationalistic terrorists with religious terrorists:

By contrast, nationalistic and religious terrorists are a very different matter. The fragmentary research that has been done on them makes clear that they are rarely in conflict with their parents; on the contrary, they seek to carry out in extreme ways ideas learned at home. Moreover, they usually have a very good idea of the kind of world they wish to create: it is the world given to them by their religious or nationalistic leaders. These leaders, of course, may completely misrepresent the doctrines they espouse, but the misrepresentation acquires a commanding power.

Marc Sageman at the University of Pennsylvania has analyzed what we know so far about members of al-Qaida. Unlike ideological terrorists, they felt close to their families and described them as intact and caring. They rarely had criminal records; indeed, most were devout Muslims. The great majority were married; many had children. None had any obvious signs of mental disorder. The appeal of al-Qaida was that the group provided a social community that helped them define and resist the decadent values of the West. The appeal of that community seems to have been especially strong to the men who had been sent abroad to study and found themselves alone and underemployed.

A preeminent nationalistic terrorist, Sabri al-Bana (otherwise known as Abu Nidal), was born to a wealthy father in Jaffa, and through his organization, the Fatah Revolutionary Council, also known as the Abu Nidal Organization, sought to destroy Israel and to attack Palestinian leaders who showed any inclination to engage in diplomacy. He was hardly a member of the wretched poor.

Alan B. Krueger and Jitka Maleckova have come to similar conclusions from their analysis of what we know about deceased soldiers in Hezbollah, the Iran-sponsored Shiite fighting group in Lebanon. Compared with the Lebanese population generally, the Hezbollah soldiers were relatively well-to-do and well-educated young males. Neither poor nor uneducated, they were much like Israeli Jews who were members of the ?bloc of the faithful? group that tried to blow up the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem: well paid, well educated, and of course deeply religious.

In Singapore a major terrorist organization is Jemaah Islamiyah. Singaporean psychologists studied 31 of its members and found them normal in most respects. All were male, had average to above-average intelligence, and held jobs ranging from taxi driver to engineer. As with al-Qaida and Hezbollah members, they did not come from unstable families, nor did they display any peculiar desire toward suicidal behavior. Though graduates of secular schools, they attached great importance to religion.

Poor Man’s Hero

Thursday, January 8th, 2004

In Poor Man’s Hero, Reason magazine interviews Johan Norberg, Swedish author of In Defense of Global Capitalism. Norberg makes a number of interesting points:

Look at Vietnam, which I visited recently. It had the benefit that when the Communists took power there, they actually implemented their ideas. They collectivized agriculture and they destroyed private property, which meant that in the mid-1980s people were starving there. The Communists’ own ideas managed to do what the American bombs never did: destroy communism. In the wake of such failure, the government began to look for other examples, and they saw that Taiwan had succeeded by globalizing. The Communists in China were liberalizing trade and ownership laws and were seeing fast progress. The contrast is especially clear on the Korean peninsula. It’s the same population, with the same culture, just having two very different political and economic systems. In 50 years, one of them went from hunger and poverty to Southern European living standards. The other one is still starving.

I particularly like this point:

Sweatshops are a natural stage of development. We had sweatshops in Sweden in the late 19th century. We complained about Japanese sweatshops 40 years ago. You had them here. In fact, you still do in some places. One mistake that Western critics of globalization make is that they compare their current working standards to those in the developing world: “Look, I’m sitting in a nice, air-conditioned office. Why should people in Vietnam really have to work in those terrible factories?” But you’ve got to compare things with the alternatives that people actually have in their own countries. The reason why their workplace standards and wages are generally lower is the lack of productivity, the lack of infrastructure, the lack of machinery, and so on. If workers were paid U.S. wages in Vietnam, employers wouldn’t be able to hire them. The alternative for most workers would be to go back to agriculture, where they could work longer hours and get irregular and much lower wages.
[...]
When I was in Vietnam, I interviewed workers about their dreams and aspirations. The most common wish was that Nike, one of the major targets of the anti-globalization movement, would expand so that a worker’s relatives could get a job with the company.

I’ve seen this point before:

Places without natural resources, such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore, have developed relatively broad-based economies, where countries rich in oil or minerals often have not. The broader an economy is, the more wealth and income are spread around. The best thing that could happen to the Arab world would be for them to run out of oil. Then they’d have to open up to trade, and a small number of people wouldn’t be in control all of the wealth, as is the case in Saudi Arabia.

Returning to the idea of developing versus developed economies:

Many environmentalists care about green forests, clean air, clean water, and so on. What they don’t appreciate is that attitude is itself a result of industrial development. In our countries, people didn’t care about these things 100 years ago. Preferences shift when you can feed your children and give them an education. That’s when you begin to care about these sorts of things.

Singapore Policeman Gets Two Years for Oral Sex

Friday, November 7th, 2003

Singapore never ceases to amaze me. Singapore Policeman Gets Two Years for Oral Sex:

A Singaporean police sergeant has been jailed for two years for having oral sex in a country where prostitution is legal but oral sex is not, a newspaper reported Friday.

The Straits Times reported that the 27-year-old police coast guard sergeant landed in court after a 16-year-old reported to the police that she had performed oral sex on the man.

She was above the age of consent and agreed to perform the act, but oral sex is against the law in the city-state, the paper said.

‘The act by itself is an offence. It is not a question of consent or no consent. Even between consenting people, it is an offence,’ criminal lawyer Subhas Anandan told the paper.

The maximum punishment for the offence is life imprisonment.

Singapore Targets Late Wedding Guests

Wednesday, September 17th, 2003

Singapore provides an endless stream of darkly comic government programs. From Singapore Targets Late Wedding Guests:

Singapore on Wednesday began its latest behavior modification campaign — a wedding “punctuality drive” — to encourage guests to turn up on time for couples’ big day.

The government-backed Singapore Kindness Movement said it would provide 400,000 cards for couples to insert into their invitations as “gentle reminders.”

Previously the group has led efforts to encourage the city-state’s citizens to smile more, wave at fellow motorists and switch off mobile phones in cinemas.

“Wedding couples are held back from starting their wedding dinners when the majority of their guests turn up late,” the Singapore Kindness Movement said in a statement.

Singapore Lifts Ban on Chewing Gum

Friday, July 11th, 2003

I find Singapore endlessly amusing. According to Singapore Lifts Ban on Chewing Gum, they’ve finally lifted their ban on gum. Sort of:

The government of this island nation announced Thursday it will allow chewing gum, long-banned here, to be sold — although only from pharmacies.

The decision stems from a recently signed free trade agreement between the United States and Singapore, and follows lobbying from the U.S. Congress and American gum makers.

Squeaky-clean Singapore outlawed the import, manufacture and sale of chewing gum in 1992, complaining that spent wads were fouling the city-state’s famously tidy pavements, buildings, buses and subway trains.
[...]
Singapore initially agreed to allow gum to be sold only with a doctor’s prescription, but that didn’t satisfy U.S. negotiators.

Pharmacies may sell dentist-recommended gum that aids “dental and oral hygiene” once the trade pact takes effect, expected to be by the end of the year, a government spokeswoman said.

I didn’t realize the ban only went back to 1992.

Singapore Seeks to Change Boring Image

Wednesday, March 12th, 2003

Singapore always makes me chuckle. Nervously. Now they want to mandate creativity and excitement. From Singapore Seeks to Change Boring Image:

Straight-laced Singapore is urging its young people to figure out what turns them on and help the government make the city-state less boring, a lawmaker said Tuesday.

“I do not believe it is possible to be creative if you do not know how to enjoy yourself,” said Vivian Balakrishnan, Minister of State for National Development, as he urged youth to take part in a government-organized street festival.

“We need to reach deep inside ourselves to find out what turns us on,” said Balakrishnan, chairman of the government-appointed “Remaking Singapore” committee — a panel tasked with getting public feedback on how to make Singaporeans more lively and artistic.

The specifics are what really make the story though:

Among the events scheduled for the June street festival are graffiti, street wear and inline-skating contests.

Singapore is widely known for its tight controls on media. Cosmopolitan magazine and HBO’s television hit “Sex in the City” are banned, along with home satellite TV antennae and even some popular songs deemed too racy.

In recent years, officials have taken small steps to spice up the nightlife, such as allowing some explicit language in plays.

The government may soon allow bar-top dancing and let nightspots stay open 24 hours, instead of closing at 3:00 a.m. as currently required.

Singapore Diarist: Lion in a Jungle

Wednesday, February 26th, 2003

Singapore Diarist: Lion in a Jungle, by Howard Husock, makes the point that Singapore is surrounded by Muslim-dominated nations (Malaysia and Indonesia), has its own Muslim minority, and presents quite a target for anti-Western, anti-capitalist terrorists. It also makes some lighter points:

If Singapore is multiethnic, it is decidedly not “multicultural.” When the island became an independent nation in 1965, the ruling People’s Action Party made English the national language, even though few Singaporeans spoke English at home. Today, when I ask an American expatriate to describe the difference between Singapore and his former home of Los Angeles, his deadpan reply speaks volumes: “More people speak English here.”

Singapore Plays Matchmaker, Hoping to Boost Its Birth Rate

Thursday, January 30th, 2003

I always find Singapore’s ambitious social-engineering projects darkly comical. Singapore Plays Matchmaker, Hoping to Boost Its Birth Rate describes a program that tops “caning” vandals or outlawing chewing gum:

This tiny, Type A city-state, worried by a steep decline in population growth, is trying to get its best and brightest to mate and breed with a new generation of government-sponsored dating games, some of which it has copied from American singles groups.

Government-sponsored dating games?

It’s American-style Speed Dating, sponsored by the government’s official matchmaking agency, the Social Development unit. The SDU assembles a group of men and women and pairs them off at tables. They chat for seven minutes until a bell rings, and then rotate on to a new mystery date. At the end of the session, participants write down who they’d like to meet again. If there are matches, they’ll get a date.

The SDU also organizes Zodiac Dates, in which singles try to guess each other’s astrological signs. Prizes for right answers include bath gels and restaurant vouchers.

Then there are Library Dates, in which eight men and eight women are paired off and given 45 minutes to look through bookshelves, choosing books that reflect their interests. Then they write down their impressions of each other based on the books they have chosen. Over drinks and cake, everyone gathers at a roundtable discussion to present the partner to the rest of the group.

I won’t cast aspersions on the dating games themselves — they have a certain dorky charm — but there’s something seriously creepy about a Zodiac Dates session set up by the government’s Social Development unit. Seriously creepy.