Originally Posted by
Dominique R. Poirier
Mr. Blair,
coincidence makes that I am attempting to refine a behavioral approach of terrorism of my own and I find your assumptions attractive.
My comment would be pages long if I attempted to express myself as clearly as I would like about that. But let’s say that it all bears upon a frustration/action relationship; when inhibition does not take precedence over action as it happens in a majority of cases.
Most among us who are interested in that problem tackle it in wondering first why people become terrorists because we, who are not terrorist and unlikely to yield to similar behavior, are emotionally inclined to ask this question thus way.
My point is that since it proved to be fruitless until then, might it not be more enlightening to turn the question upside down?
That is, given that so many people are exposed to the presumed generating conditions for terrorism, or “root causes,” the triggering factors and catalysts--both for religious and political mobilization--that may lead to engagement in violent activity, why is it that so few people actually become terrorists?
When violent death within a relatively short lap of time is the likely outcome of action, then it is logical that inhibition will take precedence over action because survival (as drive originating in our Reptilian Brain) is theoretically much more powerful than unfulfilled endeavor or expectations in life. This seems explaining why terrorists are not more numerous.
Therefore, if unfulfilled expectations are the cause of the initial frustration before a person become a terrorist--and I believe as you do that they are in many cases—then they are unlikely to be the cause any longer once this same person is indeed become a terrorist. A change powerful enough to take precedence over the “rules” of the Reptilian Brain happened between these two events, if ever the solution lies here. But how might we “technically,” if I may say so, envisage it?
Regards,
Bookmarks