On Jul 6, 2004, at 4:23 PM, snit snat wrote:
> Stern argues that what draws terrorists to the organization is shame
> and humiliation. (Which reminds me: Riverbend, herself, argued that
> sexualized torture was the most humiliating thing that could happen to
> Iraqis. hmmmm. :)
>
> Also, Doug forwarded this piece by Stern from the FT:
>
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040607/
> 012776.html
>
i read this piece and recall thinking she had something going. but shame and humiliation, helplessness generally, often drives people to religion, not just terrorism. in the case of "muslim terrorism", religion provides the coherent world-framework within which a war against the west and its "values" (whether expressed by westerners or not) becomes important and, more importantly, reasonable. much like with christian terrorists.
even when the organization becomes more complicated, the religious aspect is still core to the sense of identity. that is, they still *think* they're just being good muslims/christians/revolutionaries, no? even if the org takes on a life of its own, doesn't it recruit and propagandize according to that core ideology? indeed, it's when the recruit has given him/herself over to the faith that they will do whatever it takes to fulfill it.
right?
j