[psychohistory] Terror Attacks: A Psychohistorical view (fwd)

[Jim Choate]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 16:23:02 +0300
From: "[iso-8859-7] ×ñÞóôïò Êþíóôáò" <granazis at otenet.gr>
Reply-To: psychohistory at yahoogroups.com
To: psychohistory at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [psychohistory] Terror Attacks: A Psychohistorical view

Terror Attacks: A Psychohistorical view
By Christos Z. Konstas

A first word:
I feel that enough days have passed since the bombing and now we can look
upon the events in a more cool-headed manner.
It is still difficult to address the issue of the recent terrorist attacks
in the USA, but some things need to be said -and discussed - before the
situation deteriorate more.

A.
Every crime, why, every action in our world, needs three factors in order to
take place:
1. The opportunity
2. The means, and behind them all,
3. The motives
The recent criminal terrorist attacks are no exception to this. Before the
execution of the acts these three factors where already in place and in
order to understand the events we need to examine each one. For us
interested in Asimovian Psychohistory this means to examine them under the
light of it.

I want to examine the facts, and stay with them with as little
interpretation, as possible, and as little second-guessing as possible too,
though that may be occasionally unavoidable. Then I want to try to put the
facts into numbers in order to be able to get some calculated results out of
them.
Regretfully it is going to be a rough, low resolution analysis. Nevertheless
it will give us a crude but real picture.

B.
Opportunity, means, motives. These are key factors to the events and our
understanding them will give us the chance to neutralize them too, if we
want to minimize the chances of similar events will happening in the future.
Before looking at them we can divide those responsible for the attacks to
two obvious categories (groups):

a. Those who survived, and
b. Those who didn't survive.

These two categories differ not only by the outcome: survivors/non-survivors
but also by the different roles they played and by their motives too.
You see in group (a) belong all those who are behind the acts, the master
minds that designed them, their financiers, patrons etc.
In group (b) belong those who executed the acts and those are the ones that
I will examine first.
As a group is the most complex one and their motives cannot be explained by
simply labeling them as 'evil', something that could be said about the first
group, but more on this later.

Group (a)

1. Opportunities. These come and go. Sometimes a 'window' opens for a brief
time and then closes again. The opportunity in these particular events was
given by Time. The precise timing of the attack and the passing of time.
Facts: There had been some time since the last terrorist attack in the US
and 'guards' was down. Statistically, now and then opportunities for
terrorist hits arise and when the attack comes at 'right' moment their
success is entirely possible.
A lot can be done and is done towards the elimination of such opportunities.
You've heard it all, I'm sure, thorough airport checks etc. However those
with the motives and the means for terrorist acts are always looking for
such opportunities and statistically sooner or later they will succeed in
finding and taking advantage of them.

2. Means. They are the 'weapon', the tools of the execution. Again measures
taken against the means of a terrorist act can be very successful but time
and resourcefulness work for the terrorists.
Fact: This time they used knives, box cutters and commercial airliners.
There is no defense against the strongly motivated use of common everyday
things as weapons. Even a fork can do a lot of damage. Can you imagine the
paranoia of scanning passengers for forks? Again given time events of low
probability can happen too.

So we reach the single most important factor of everything: Motivation
3. Motives. Ultimately they are the most important factor, because in their
absence nobody bothers to act.
Facts: It is indisputable that the hijackers where highly motivated, they
sacrificed their lives after all for their cause.
That some people are sufficiently motivated to commit such acts to a degree
to give their lives in the process needs further examination. Because only
by eliminating the motives that makes them to act suicidal can we ensure an
adequate lowering of the probability of acts like that happening again.
Question1: Why they did it?
Question2: What can motivate a person thus?
Question3: What were their actual motives.
Answers: The first and most publicly discussed 'motive' is that they were
'religious fanatics'. Although that is a strong possibility leaves a lot of
questions unanswered and don't give a detailed picture of the hijackers. For
example: What turned them into religious fanatics? Even if they were
religious fanatics, what made the religious fanatics? Brainwashing, intense
indoctrination, money, love, hate? What?
The hijackers weren't, to all indications, illiterate savages, most had
probably had spend time living in the US, had studied in US colleges, some
knew how to pilot aircraft etc. Moreover the idea of them being just
religious fanatics oversimplifies things. If we think that this was their
only motive, we need not investigate their motives any further. It's the
absolute answer, blame it to fanaticism and stop worrying. But that is
misleading and give up a wrong or at least an incomplete picture.
Thus 'religious fanaticism' an answer is, for the time being, at least
incomplete, and until it answers more questions than it raises this motive
will be considered of secondary importance.
The most natural answer is that something made these people desperate enough
to act in the way they acted.

First interlude.
I want to bring to your attention, two loosely related facts, and the
questions that rise from them:

1. There where celebrations in Palestine and Iraq. As a contrast to those
celebrations I saw someone on the CNN wondering over them as seen under the
light of the tragedy and the pain the victims still suffer. Question: Are
the people of Palestine and Iraq so cynical in front of the pain and the
losses of innocent lives?
2. For many people it's hard to accept why there is so much hatred,
genocides and atrocities in the world. Yet all those are hard facts of life
and the very difficulty some people face in accepting these facts indicate a
lack of information. You see when one has all the information of the causes
the effects should be obvious, that's what Psychohistory hopes anyway.
Question: to what information I'm referring?

Honest answers could be painful but will guarantee a better comprehension of
the recent events.

Facts  in numbers
Now we have a number of those people motivated to commit suicidal terrorists
acts. It is reported that they were about 24. The precise number is
irrelevant. Lets call their number 'T'.
That 'T' number of willing to die terrorists did not came out of thin air.
They came from a larger pool of candidates of 'C' number and we know that
greed and personal profit was not their motive because they knew they would
die.
What do all these 'C' people had in common? Perhaps many things, but one is
very relevant here. They all shared an intense hate toward the USA. A hate
that made them insensitive to the knowledge that blind terrorist acts mainly
hurt innocent people. So there is an 'H' number of people that hates the USA
enough to make them hurt the innocent. Now this 'H' number obviously come
from even greater number of people that something in their lives made them
to hate the USA. They cannot be people who profit by the US policies.
Religion alone is not an important factor here. Islam is not by definition
anti-US, it's not by definition pro-Arab either. They must be people who are
or feel personally damaged by the US policies. Given the extent of US
influence around the globe there must be a 'D' number of people who are
displeased by the US, but these people must be very displeased indeed.
Question: What did make them so displeased in the USA?

Second Interlude
No we have a rough form of an equation here:
We initially have a pool of D number of people out of which comes a T number
of suicidal terrorist:
D-H-C=T
Where does this D number of people comes from?

Historical Fact sheet 1:
The USA during the last 30 years (that is since 1971) have:
Mercilessly bombed three countries:
Vietnam
Iraq
Yugoslavia
Invaded two countries:
Granada
Panama
Placed various types of - common people affecting - sanctions against:
Cuba
N. Korea
Iran
Iraq
Serbia
Military intervered in:
Lebanon
Sudan
Also intervered in:
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Argentina
Colombia
I'm surely missing out some countries but I think I've made my point.

Fact sheet 2
Many of the current US menaces were initially financed and helped by the US
before they become the US archenemies:
Noriega of Panama
Saddam of Iraq
And. Ossama Bin Ladden
They all were tenderly cared by the US at some point.
All those facts are indisputable. One can defend such US actions as having
'right' reasons. In this study that's irrelevant.
Even if all those actions were for the best of reasons, which is debatable,
as an aftereffect they resulted in the creation of a very specific group of
people. Innocent people that saw their lives, properties, houses, destroyed,
themselves hurt or injured and their loved ones and relatives dead, all
because they happened to be in the wrong place of the world or the wrong
side of a conflict. These are the 'D' people described above.

Conclusion:
There are two lines of action that can be suggested from this
Psychohistorical study of the recent bombings in the USA.
A. A thorough check on the past of people entering the USA will show who of
them have, potentially, a reason to hate the US. Those who have seen their
lives damaged because they happened to be 'collateral damage' in one of the
US military actions are obviously more prone to suicidal 'religious
fanaticism'. Will work for a short term but a more effective one will be the
next.
B. The best way to limit the number of willing to die terrorists (T) is to
reduce the (D) number of people that are hurt by American policies. That
will work better in the long run. Just think that an average of 5000
children die each month in Iraq because the US sanctions. That results in at
least 10000 people who are very displeased with USA. Now that's a big tank
from which any clever 'religious fanatic' usurper can tap for human
resources.
Under this light Madeleine's Albright  comment that 'they think' of it all
that 'the price is worth it (were the price is the dead Iraqi children)' is
suddenly less convincing. Is it not?




--------------------------------------------------------------------~-~>
to unsubscribe from this group, send a blank message to mailto:psychohistory-unsubscribe at egroups.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/