Global Terrorism

Lutz, Brenda J.; Lutz, Jack H.

doi:10.4135/9781446261835

Cited by 23 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Wilson, M. A., Scholes, A., & Brocklehurst, E. (2010 Abrahms (2011) "Psychological assessments of terrorists indicate that they are cognitively normal" Gupta (2012) Terrorists "by an large, seem to be free of diagnosable maladies of the mind" Jones and Bhui (2008) "We can be fairly certain that most of these individuals will not meet international diagnostic criteria for mental or personality disorders" Kruglanski and Fishman (2009) "The majority of such research points to the normality of individuals involved in terrorist organizations" Lakhani (2013) There is little evidence to suggest that the vast majority of terrorists hold any disturbed psychological symptoms, or that there exists an identifiable 'terrorist personality' Lutz and Lutz (2013) "Terrorists are not normally crazy or suffering from mental problems". (2010) "Every study that has seriously examined the psychological state of terrorists finds that they fall within the bounds of normality" Post (2005) "The search for psychopathological origins is fruitless"…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

There and back again: The study of mental disorder and terrorist involvement.

Gill¹,

Corner²

2017

American Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the past forty years, researchers studied the relationship between mental disorder and terrorist involvement. The literature developed in four paradigms, each of which differs in terms of their empirical evidence, the specific mental disorders studied, and their conceptualizations of terrorist involvement. These paradigms have not, however, witnessed linear and incremental improvements upon one another. Although one paradigm has generally tended to dominate a temporal period, many false assumptions and incorrect interpretations of earlier work permeate into today's discourse. This paper provides a history of the study of mental disorders and the terrorist. First, we briefly outline the core fundamental principles of the first two paradigms, The paper then outlines the core arguments produced by the seminal reviews conducted in paradigm three. We highlight how these findings were consistently misinterpreted in subsequent citations. We then highlight recent innovations in the study of terrorism and mental disorder since the various influential literature reviews of 1997-2005. We conclude by outlining how future research in this area may improve in the coming years by broadening our understanding of both terrorist involvement and psychopathology away from simple dichotomous thinking.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

There and back again: The study of mental disorder and terrorist involvement.

Gill¹,

Corner²

2017

American Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One of the main differences between terrorism by states and other actors is that states generally use terrorism to oppose changes to the status quo, whereas non-state actors use terrorism to try to change the status quo [12]. Government definitions of terrorism tend to be slanted to include their enemies, but not their irregular allies or friends [13,14], with actions by the latter considered a 'justified response' or justified self-defence' [15].…”

Section: Definitions Of Terrorismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the case of counterterrorism this context is conducive to instrumentalizing and dehumanizing those suspected of being involved in terrorist incidents or likely to do so in the future. It then makes it easy to forget the inconsistencies in purporting to defend civilization against the evil of terrorism [13] by violating the rights of other people and results in an organization or local Social Context with the potential to commit terrorist acts or acts which violate human rights in the service of counter-terrorism.…”

Section: Multi-loop Action Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Terrorism, human rights and ethics: a modelling approach

Hersh

2006

IFAC Proceedings Volumes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper applies ethical analysis techniques, including multi-loop adaptive learning and virtue ethics, to the analysis of both state and non-state terrorism. It also discusses the use of the fear of terrorism as a control mechanism by the state, the ways in which this fear can be encouraged, including by the media, and used to scapegoat minority groups to divert attention from government policies. A number of feedback models are presented to illustrate the relationships between terrorist acts, fear of terrorism, vested interests and scapegoating.

show abstract

“…These motives could overlap one another and the degree of complexity as well as multiplicity proves that the pathway to terrorism is complicated. Lutz and Lutz (2008) revitalized the definition of terrorism derived from Hoffman (2006), andClaridge (2006) that suggested that terrorism is the utilization of violence for political reasons that involve threat, target audience, and identifiable organizations. The act of violence is designed to create constant fear for target audiences that extend to non-immediate victims.…”

Section: Terrorismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Terrorist Threats: Measuring the Terms and Approaches

Talib¹,

Yusoff²,

Ismail³

et al. 2012

ASS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses terrorist networks that operate locally with diverse interests. A comparative study between Malaysia and Indonesia is discussed in this article, because these organizations share significant features that raise questions on their very existence. Ironically differing perspectives on threat contribute to differing actions by both countries. Although these fundamental Islamic groups are assumed to be standard and organized, their organizations turn out to be loose and cannot be sufficiently accepted as an organization. Factors such as family and kinship, unclear funding, and members' lack recognition may annul the meaning of the organization. Competing terms on terrorism and Jihad are explained in this article. Both comprise difficult conceptual frameworks. Understanding their modus operandi and examining the states' actions and mechanisms to curb any possible terrorist threat in the region are also central to this discussion. Both Malaysia and Indonesia show commitments to secure their borders and heighten state security, including assessing the group mobility and security enforcement.

show abstract

Global Terrorism

Cited by 23 publications

References 0 publications

There and back again: The study of mental disorder and terrorist involvement.

There and back again: The study of mental disorder and terrorist involvement.

Terrorism, human rights and ethics: a modelling approach

Terrorist Threats: Measuring the Terms and Approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About