Terrorism as Multiple Murder, Research Paper Example

Abstract

Prevalent perceptions about terrorism typically reflect the political and/or religious motivations associated with the crime. While it is of course necessary for any nation’s security to delve into this, the stark reality of the terrorist’s identity as a multiple murderer is often taken as a collateral effect of the activity, and not as perhaps the prime motivation it may be. First and foremost, most terrorism on any scale involves the murdering of several or many individuals, and it is specious to assume that a political agenda or religious fervor is responsible for ‘making’ a multiple murderer out of an otherwise non-homicidal individual. The terrorist is above all a murderer first, and the path to this demands real investigation.

Impact of Terrorism

In a general sense terrorism has had the effect in modern history of altering conceptions about warfare. The word has in fact become so identified with was as to be virtually synonymous, and the most severe impact, aside from the actual death and devastation brought about, is a climate of fear in the target. This turn leads to heightened security measures and pervasive unease and suspicion, particularly when the terrorism is linked to a different ethnicity.

Terrorism is an intrinsically devious mode of attack. Traditional engagements are acknowledged by all parties involved; the conflict, and thus the battles and death, are anticipated.  Seemingly random and never foreseen, terrorism derives its lasting impact from surprise and trauma, and the people so attacked are, quite literally, thrown: “Terrorism is a particularly complex hazard for individuals to interpret and respond to because…it comes from the intentions of other people, and those are hard to understand” (Sheppard, 2009, p.21). Nonetheless, what is key is that terrorism almost always translate to multiple murder.

Public Perceptions

To successfully examine terrorism as the murderous act it essentially is, an idea of how people perceive it is needed, and beyond the manner in which the act has communal or national repercussions. Moreover, the weighty issues of ethnic and/or spiritual differences may be set aside, for terrorism as multiple murder – which is what it in fact is –  exists as an act at the core of, and not as such dictated by, these things.

This is the single greatest conundrum within public perception of terrorism as multiple murder. By virtue of its invariably being a violent expression of politically-driven hatred, it is generally assumed that the act itself, frequently causing massive death, is nonetheless ‘non-murderous’, or even relatively sane. Fanaticism is thought to be the root of the terrorist act and it would be facile to ignore such a prevalent motivation, yet even this fanaticism is viewed as a cause of sorts by its target territory. It is an abhorrent cause to the survivors, but it is nonetheless explicable. In the public mind, it is not precisely murder, but rather a case of principle taken to an horrific extreme. That the act is murder gets lost in this greater miasma.

This perception may be easily traced to traditional estimations of warfare. Technically, any warfare is sanctioned murder.  A cause, supported or opposed, is at stake and therefore casualties are utterly removed from the victim status of the murderer’s object, as the perpetrators are soldiers, and not ‘killers’. Thus, even as terrorism is held as a despicable act by the vast majority of citizens globally, it nonetheless escapes condemnation as murder. This begs the question posed by Crenshaw: “Why is this rage to kill with a radical purpose held up as…explanatory justification?” (1995, p.61). It must not be, clearly.

The Subterfuge of ‘Cause’

The Terrorist Mind

There is of course no single ‘terrorist’ mind, as there is no single pathology for every multiple murderer. “Terrorists personify the full range of every character type from the self-doubting wretch, the cunning and the brilliant, the suicidal, the political zealot…as well as those individuals haunted by demons indescribable” (Boros, Munnich, Szegedi, 1998, p.336). In other words, anyone with extreme and/or pathological internal conflict is a potential terrorist.

However, there is another commonality, in place whether extremism fans the fires or if the motive is more personal in nature: it is that ending the lives of others is a lesser consideration, or of no importance at all. This is pivotal in understanding that the terrorist and the multiple murderer are as one. In either individual, a complete disregard for human life must be in place before the act can be committed, be it a shooting spree in a park or destruction on a 9/11 level.

It is as well crucial to note that, while the ostensible objective of the murderer/terrorist is sometimes the killing of a specific group of people, that in itself is nonetheless a factor born from an innate disregard which must first be present. This is the murderous foundation. For most of us, there is no circumstance save that of self-defense in which murder is not unthinkable. It is, quite literally, an act of which we cannot conceive, regardless of a dire situation.

For the terrorist, and in a bitterly ironic parallel to the perceptions of his victims, murder is a necessary by-product of what he must do. Thus is multiple murder through terrorism inherently oxymoronic, for there is no fanaticism so potent that could eradicate the naturally sane human abhorrence of murder. Issues of actual sanity aside, this key component of the human psyche must be absent, and before any political or religious zeal could hold sway. The terrorist mind is the multiple murderer mind. It merely has latched onto an ostensible goal or purpose, and ’cause’ may never be seen as, exactly, that. To do so would be to provide, perversely, justifications for what we call ‘hate crimes’.

Pathology of the ‘Classic’ Multiple Murderer

Leading experts in the research on multiple murderer psychology tend to point to one fairly specific type of individual: calm, seemingly composed and sane, and exceedingly calculating. Moreover, the model almost always seeks to avenge himself upon a group responsible for a perceived injustice to him personally. “Most often, the underlying motivation for mass murder is the resolution of intense anger brought about by frustration and feelings of injustice” (Kauzlarich, 2009, p.54).

It could therefore be inferred that the classic multiple murderer is basically a more internalized version of the terrorist. He merely is concerned with rectifying his own perceived victimhood, while the terrorist has opted to focus on a broader and less personal range. This assumption is wholly valid, once we accept that both are capable of operating beyond the scope of acknowledged human limits. One is furious at the school. The other is outraged by another nation’s interference in his culture. Both, however, can kill.

The greatest difficulty in identifying the potential multiple murderer, not unexpectedly, lies in that documented, cool, unobtrusive demeanor. He does not as a rule broadcast his intentions, due to the mechanisms guiding him to best achieve his purpose. In this he is again as one with the terrorist, although differently motivated; the terrorist as multiple murderer is usually highly circumspect as well, but more for distinctly practical purposes. He bears that responsibility to his ’cause’, while the non-terrorist is accountable only to his own ends.

The Non-Serial Killer

It is regrettable and not a little disturbing, that ‘multiple murderer’ is usually seized upon by the public to refer to the sensationalized ‘serial killer’. While the latter certainly fits the definition, the pathologies are worlds apart.

A great deal of popular speculation remains rampant regarding the serial killer mind, and much of it, while unfortunately glamorized by the media, is in fact based on evidence. “…The etiology of the serial killer rests within an unstable home environment where abuse and other forms of dysfunction were apparent” (Holmes, Holmes, 2002, p.176). This is precisely what the public at large believes. The psychopathic individual who steadfastly murders a succession of victims is operating from a psyche badly traumatized through maltreatment.

No such allowances or rationales attach to the multiple murderer. “It has been proposed that serial murder can be distinguished from mass murder…in terms of time factor and intermittence. But there is also an assumption of a different psychology operating in each of these types of multiple murder…” (Kocsis, 2006, p.69). This is evidently the case, if for no other reason than that the patterns of the murders run to widely divergent forms. Multiple murderers are as a rule not ‘repeat’ offenders, and not entirely because the scope of their crime generally brings about swift capture. It is more that, to this individual, the troubling situation has been remedied as planned.

It is nonetheless apparent that a profoundly dissociative problem exists with the multiple murderer, as it does in the serial killer. This prompts the question: is murder, any murder, then inherently an insane act? Is it reasonable to suppose that the lack of the mechanism rendering murder inconceivable to the average person is a criterion for insanity? These are issues wrestled with perpetually, in courtrooms and in research centers. Definitive answers may never be forthcoming.

However, technically ‘insane’ or otherwise, the reality remains that a substantial degree of control is manifested by the multiple murderer. However irrational his feelings regarding an injustice personally done to him, the methodology employed is invariably contemplated, planned, and executed in as expeditious a manner as possible. The same can be said for the terrorist, and the point is essential to properly see the terrorist as the multiple murderer he is.

The Sociopath

In peering at the motives of the multiple murderer, the issue of sociopathy demands attention. As generally understood and very much true to the definition, the sociopath lacks the moral compass present in humankind at large. It is not that he desires to kill, or even that he does not; it is more that there is no boundary within him to indicate a visceral awareness of wrong, or criminality. The keynote most frequently associated with the sociopath is an eerie and seemingly inhuman coldness, and “….This cold-hearted and selfish approach to human interaction at one time garnered for sociopathy the moniker of ‘moral insanity’” (Baron-Cohen, 1997, p.134).

As overwhelmingly an open field for murder, if not motive, sociopathy is, it is rarely the guiding force behind the multiple murderer, terrorist or otherwise. It is not in these cases that there is no awareness of others as living individuals; on the contrary, that is precisely the reason they must be disposed of. For the terrorist/murderer, these victims are typically a faceless mass who must be sacrificed because the greater cause dictates it. For other multiple murderers, these people are the source of the wrong needing to be addressed. The multiple murderer, as opposed to the sociopath, keenly feels a sense of right and wrong. It is simply that this sense in him is wildly skewed, and expanded.

The Purposeful Murderer

Candidates for Terrorist Murderer Roles

As terrorism/multiple murder usually emanates from an outside culture, the common impetus is to view it as an expression of a fanaticism so alien to us, it induces such extreme and violent action. We tend to think of the terrorist/murderer as subhuman and deranged, for only a person so maniacally obsessed could take such measures.

This is valid up to a point. It fails as a complete rationale because, again, it does not take into account that fanaticism must be bred. It is not a sui generis attribute, and it can only reach fruition through indoctrination of some kind or another. Be it strictly political or fueled by passionate religious conviction, fanaticism nonetheless must begin life as a seed. It is where that seed grows that we must attend to, for it enables the murderer to fulfill that role.

It is doubtful that any government on the planet actually seeks out or attempts to recruit those with multiple murderer tendencies. For one thing, the tendencies cannot be predicted in any reliable way. For another, and regrettably, there is no need to do so in the first place. The multiple murderer with an agenda will find his place. Witness the ongoing trial of Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of killing thirteen and wounding thirty in 2009, in Ft. Hood, Texas. Hasan was both psychiatrist and U.S. Army Major, and certainly did not elude government investigation regarding his placement in this military field. Yet, while the army was aware of a shift in Hasan’s views from Muslim to more radically Islamic, he was not deemed a danger. It may be inferred, then, the the murderous fanaticism he allegedly committed was both a deeply held ‘germination’ of the seed, as it was obfuscated by that normalcy of appearance and behavior so common to the traditional multiple murderer.

The individual capable of killing numbers of people is, in a very real sense, a commodity looking for a reason to be exploited, whether of his own contrivance or imbued from an outside source. This is yet another striking similarity binding the terrorist to the more classic multiple murderer. The means are within them, regarding the crucial ability to take life; they merely lack the cue upon which to spring into action. Thus, sadly, are ‘candidates’ for terrorism never an issue for nations seeking to employ them. They are multiple murderers waiting to be employed.

Differences Between Terrorist and Non-Politically Inspired Murderer

Ultimately, and seemingly absurdly, the essential differences between the terrorist and the multiple murder are few and superficial. Moreover, as we’ve examined, the differences as such come to, substantially, one. It is the ostensible trigger, or motivating factor.

The multiple murderer, usually acting on his home soil, is reacting to a highly personal sense of grievance. In some cases, as in severely bullied students, genuine pressures devolve into scenarios requiring vendetta-like responses, and the murders are a massively disproportionate means of addressing actual wrongs. In others, schizophrenic impulses compel the extermination of wholly innocent people. In either case, the murderer is acting upon a pathological need to ‘even the score’, and be revenged upon those who have done him a disservice or will wrong him in the future.

This is the aim of the terrorist/murderer, but in a way seemingly removed from his personal needs. It is the greater wrong he wants to redress, and he often and willingly sees himself as a martyr to his cause in the likelihood of capture. The terrorist, in point of fact, invariably attempts to lose his identity in the cause and the actions, submerging any trace of person grievance, when in fact the seed of fanaticism could not have so expanded within him were the circumstance not, at least initially, of a highly personal nature.

Conclusion

As the world moves forward with strategies on countering terrorism, attention to this basic shared foundation between the multiple murderer and the terrorist is essential. It is far too easy, in fact,  to play the terrorist’s own game and attribute his actions solely to a cause in which he was, blindly, swept up. This is, however, a common mode of thinking. We do not absolve the terrorist of his crimes, but we too eagerly view them as apart from actual murder.

Yet that is, precisely, what they are. It is dangerous and misleading to bestow upon motivation so powerful a role. The tendency is understandable; after all, the fates of nations often hang in the balance. This line of thought, however, obfuscates a principle upon which all human conduct has been evaluated for thousands of years. Murder, planned in any manner, is an unconscionable crime. It is to many the most outstanding evil man is capable of perpetrating, and to look to global disputes, territorial conflicts, or ideological imperatives as even a rationale is a specious handling of so weighty an issue. The terrorist is, first and foremost, a multiple murderer, and this is paramount in any judicious treatment of one.

References

Baron-Cohen, S. (1997.)  The Maladapted Mind: Classic Readings in Elementary Psychopathology. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press Publishers.

Boros, J., Munnich, I., & Szegedi, M. (1998.) Psychology and Criminal Justice: International   Review of Theory and Practice. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co.

Crenshaw, M. (1995.) Terrorism in Context. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.

Holmes, R.M., Holmes, S.T. (2002.) Current Perspectives on Sex Crimes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kauzlarich, D.  (2009.) Introduction to Criminology. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Kocsis, R.N. (2006.) Criminal Profiling: Principles and Practice. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.

Sheppard, B. (2009). The Psychology of Strategic Terrorism: Public and Government Responses to Attack. New York, NY: Routledge.