On the So-Called War on Terrorism

Abstract: Since the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001, the country has embarked on a so‐called war on terrorism. This essay argues that so‐called war on terrorism has used the pretext of responding to terrorist attacks in the U.S. in September 2001 to wage wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have objectives other than stamping out terrorism. It further argues that war requires a moral justification that cannot be provided for either the war in Afghanistan or the war in Iraq.     

Terrorism and the New Forms of War

Abstract: The March 2003 American preemptive strike on Iraq and related events pose entirely new conceptual questions about the notion of a valid war. A “war on terrorism” goes well beyond any usual version of the “just‐war” concept, which is itself notoriously difficult, if not impossible, to apply in current international circumstances. The implications of the emerging forms of war are examined and are found to bear in an unexpected way on justifying war, “just war,” and justice in distributional and related respects.     

Losing to Terrorism: An American Work in Progress

Abstract: The evolution of the U.S. war on terrorism is on a path that poses a substantial probability of losing to it, although not necessarily of a victory by its declared targets. That conclusion follows from the definition presented of terrorism and thus central questions about the merits of responses justified by an objective of reducing it. Likely American responses to 9/11 are suggested by a review of well‐known policy‐making tendencies from past scholarship and experience, tendencies well‐established prior to 9/11 and by no means unique to the Bush II presidency. The expectations those tendencies suggest have been born out by what the United States has done and not done. Well‐established criteria and their implied rules of practice for security enhancing great‐power statecraft are presented, and the chosen U.S. program of action is found to be counter‐productive in their light.     

In the Face of Terrorism: Evidence that Belief in Literal Immortality Reduces Prejudice Under Terrorism Threat

Based on terror management theory, previous research has shown that terrorism threat increases prejudice against Muslims and is mediated by death‐related thoughts. Because this effect was found on a correlational level, it remains unclear whether terrorism threat increases prejudice against Muslims because of enhanced death‐related thoughts or the opposite: terrorism threat increases death‐related thoughts because of stronger prejudice against Muslims. To disentangle this shortcoming, we varied death‐related thoughts by systematically manipulating the belief in literal immortality. Using two studies, we found that participants exposed to terrorism pictures (vs. controls) had increased prejudice against both Muslims (Study 1) and immigrants (Study 2) when they were led to believe that literal immortality does not exist but not when they were led to believe that it does exist. Mediation analysis indicated that this effect was mediated by death‐related thoughts. This provides further evidence that terrorism threat increases prejudice because of death‐related thoughts.     

Iraq, American Empire, And The War On Terrorism

Abstract: The U.S. government is trying to secure continuing American military and economic supremacy on a global scale over the long term. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is part of this imperial project, which is now being pursued under the mantle of the war on terrorism. This essay examines these developments in the context of U.S. military spending and foreign policy since the end of the cold war, and it argues that there is reason to be concerned about the continuing viability of democratic government in the United States.     

Terrorism Between "Syndrome" and "Tool"

ABSTRACT— Two psychological views of terrorism are described, approaching it as a "syndrome" and as a "tool" respectively. Research thus far found little support for the syndrome view. The heterogeneity of terrorism's users is consistent with the tool view, affording an analysis of terrorism in terms of goal–means psychology.     

Consequences of Child Exposure to War and Terrorism

Acts of war and terrorism are increasingly prevalent in contemporary society. Throughout history, weaponry has become more efficient, accurate, and powerful, resulting in more devastation and loss of human life. Children are often overlooked as victims of such violence. Around the world, children are exposed to violence in multiple forms, frequently developing traumatic stress reactions. Such reactions are best understood within the context of social-emotional and cognitive development, as children respond differently to the stress of violence depending on their developmental level. Furthermore, the violence of war and terrorism often results in a multitiered cascade of negative life events including loss of loved ones, displacement, lack of educational structure, and drastic changes in daily routine and community values. These numerous losses, challenges, and stresses affect children's brains, minds, and bodies in an orchestrated whole-organism response. This paper describes these effects, synthesizing the current state of research on childhood traumatic stress reactions from the fields of neuroscience, clinical psychology, and pediatric diagnostic epidemiology.     

Terrorism and religious fundamentalism

At the beginning of the second decade of the third millennium, terror acts in Indonesia significantly shifted domestic national issues. Given that religion-based terrorism can be traced back to religious fundamentalism, this paper will set out a theological reflection from a biblical-Christian perspective on the essence of religion. In enhancing religious life for peacebuilding, this paper highlights the importance of preventing religious fundamentalism. This paper highlights three suggestions in relation to efforts for peacebuilding in Indonesia. First is the importance for society to enhance religious life more critically. Second is the urgent need to develop a religious attitude that encourages reinterpreting religious texts in the frame of peacebuilding. And third is the urgent need to enhance social justice and welfare that might prevent the spread of religious fundamentalism.     

Children's Coping in the Context of Disasters and Terrorism

Disasters and terrorism present significant and often overwhelming challenges for children and families worldwide. Individual, family, and social factors influence disaster reactions and the diverse ways in which children cope. This article links conceptualizations of stress and coping to empirical knowledge of children's disaster reactions, identifies limitations in our current understanding, and suggests areas for future study of disaster coping. Coping strategies, developmental trajectories influencing coping, and the interplay between parent and child coping represent critical areas for advancing the field and for informing programs and services that benefit children's preparedness and foster resilience in the face of mass trauma.     

Children as Victims of War and Terrorism

Summary

War and terrorism victimize all people in a country, group, or area, but disputes in recent decades are especially likely to impact children and families. Children can experience wars by being in the war zone, by being in countries that deploy military personnel to a war zone, by suffering from the consequences of military expenses and economic warfare, by experiencing war and terrorism from a distance through media, or by suffering fromindoctrination and the building of enemy images. This paper reviews what researchers havediscovered about the unique risks associated with each of those categories and recommendspromising solutions.     

自杀性恐怖主义的心理学述评

自杀性恐怖主义是指为了引起目标对象或公众的注意并散播恐怖气氛, 而自愿采取与选定目标同归于尽的方式残害无辜, 自愿牺牲自己的生命去换取任务的成功, 从而达到某种宗教、政治或社会目的。自杀性恐怖分子并没有单一的心理侧写, 其动机也很复杂。他们可能是出于宗教或政治目的而进行自杀性恐怖袭击, 也可能是基于理性分析而做出的选择。意义追寻模型是将有关自杀性恐怖分子动机的理论和观点连接起来, 形成的一个具有说服力的综合模型。自杀性恐怖主义的性别差异不大, 只是女性可能想要争取性别平等, 也更可能受个人原因的驱使。由于自杀性恐怖分子的真实数据和信息很难搜集, 所以得出的可能只是推测性的结论, 在未来的研究中还需要运用更多其他的实证研究方法。     

Responding to Terrorism in the USA

Abstract

In this article, career firefighters from Oklahoma City, New York City, and Arlington County, VA, and volunteer firefighters from Pennsylvania, share their on-site experiences and the emotional aftermath of responding to terrorism. The authors acted as facilitators, compilers, and organizers so that major themes firefighters have raised are presented to inform the work of first responders and others seeking to understand the experiences of firefighters during and after terrorist incidents. The authors conclude by presenting survey data indicating high levels of firefighter job satisfaction and the major sources of emotional support they use following exposure to terrorism.     

基于恐怖分子的恐怖主义心理学述评

关于恐怖主义的定义至今仍没有达成共识。文章中的恐怖主义是指任何个体、团体或组织为了达成某种政治、宗教或社会目的, 而对无辜者非法使用暴力或其他胁迫性手段, 企图引起目标对象或公众的注意, 并制造恐怖气氛的行为。其形成和发展可以用综合症模型、自恋–攻击模型、挫折–攻击模型、工具模型、社会情境模型和其他综合性模型来解释。作者对这些模型进行了述评并提出了相应的防止恐怖主义的心理学策略。心理学界对于恐怖主义的实证研究较少, 而且侧重于描述和解释, 在预测和应用上有待进一步发展。     

Misreading Islamist Terrorism: The "War Against Terrorism" and Just-War Theory

Abstract: The Bush administration's military war on terrorism is a blunt, ineffective, and unjust response to the threat posed to innocent civilians by terrorism. Decentralized terrorist networks can only be effectively fought by international cooperation among police and intelligence agencies representing diverse nation‐states, including ones with predominantly Islamic populations. The Bush administration's allegations of a global Islamist terrorist threat to the national interests of the United States misread the decentralized and complex nature of Islamist politics. Undoubtedly there exists a “combat fundamentalist” element within Islamism. But the threat posed to U.S. citizens by Islamist terrorism neither necessitates nor justifies as a response massive military invasions of other nations. Not only does the Bush administration's war on alleged “terrorist states” violate the doctrine of just war, but in addition these wars arise from a new, unilateral, imperial foreign‐policy doctrine of “preventive wars.” Such a doctrine will isolate the United States from international institutions and long‐standing allies. The weakening of these institutions and alliances will only weaken the ability of the international community to deter terrorism.     

Some of the Effects of Terrorism on Refugees

Summary

Highly traumatized people are vulnerable to exacerbation of symptoms when confronted with stressful situations. The extensive TV coverage of the 9/11 attacks provided such a stressful stimulus. Many patients from Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Somalia, and Bosnia had severe reactions. Nightmares and flashbacks occurred most among So-malis, who felt less safe; depressive symptoms increased most among Bosnians. Encouraging patients to turn off the TV was very therapeutic. The Patriot Act severely affected refugee immigration to the United States, leaving many families separated and increasing suspicions of discrimination among Muslim refugees. Terrorism's effects are pervasive and destructive. Some countermeasures may have similar unintended consequences.     

Attitudinal and Emotional Consequences of Islamist Terrorism. Evidence from the Berlin Attack

Studies about Islamist-inspired terror attacks in the Western world have identified a recently declining impact on public opinion. What explains this development? I argue that the wider audience of terrorist attacks has become desensitized. Cognitive desensitization occurs when citizens increasingly expect an attack, reducing the likelihood of attitudinal change. Emotional desensitization occurs when audiences lose sensitivity to attacks, tempering emotional arousal. To assess the implications of desensitization, I analyze a survey conducted around the Berlin Christmas market attack in 2016 and account for baseline information of the surveyed individuals, an approach not used before due to data limitations. I find that attitudes like trust in government, national identification, and views of Islam remain unchanged. Sadness and anger are heightened in the immediate aftermath of the attack. The wider German audience may thus have expected an attack but still be emotionally sensitive to it in the short term. These findings are relevant as political leaders have justified important policy changes in fields like migration and even war making with reference to supposed shifts in public opinion after attacks.     

The Paradox of Terrorism in Civil War

A great deal of violence in civil wars is informed by the logic of terrorism: violence tends to be used by political actors against civilians in order to shape their political behavior. I focus on indiscriminate violence in the context of civil war: this is a type of violence that selects its victims on the basis of their membership in some group and irrespective of their individual actions. Extensive empirical evidence suggests that indiscriminate violence in civil war is informed by the logic of terrorism. I argue that under certain conditions, that tend to be quite common, such violence is counter productive. I specify these conditions and address the following paradox: why do we sometimes observe instances of indiscriminate violence evenunder conditions that make this strategy counterproductive? I review four possible reasons: truncated data, ignorance, cost, and institutional constraints. I argue that indiscriminate violence emerges because it is much cheaper than its main alternative – selective violence. It is more likely under a steep imbalance of power between the competing actors, and where and when resources and information are low; however, most political actors eventually switch to selective violence. Thus, given a balance of power between competing actors, indiscriminate violence is more likely at early rather than late stages of the conflict. Overall, the paper suggests that even extreme forms of violence are used strategically.     

System Justification and Affective Responses to Terrorism: Evidence from the November 2015 Paris Attacks

A large stream of research has shown that emotional reactions have a powerful impact on political choices and decision-making processes. Yet little is known about individual-level differences in experiencing specific emotions in the light of threatening events. In this article, we argue that system justification, or the endorsement and bolstering of existing social and political arrangements, is positively associated with the experience of positive emotions and negatively associated with the experience of negative emotions in the light of threat. We test our hypotheses using a study conducted a few days after the November 13, 2015, Paris terror attacks on a large sample in France. Our results show that system justification was positively associated with experiencing hope in the light of the attacks and negatively associated with experiencing fear and anger. Moreover, the size of these effects exceeded the respective size of other psychological characteristics such as authoritarianism, conservatism, and national attachment. These findings extend research on the palliative function of system justification to the domain of emotional responses to terrorist shocks.