Yahoo’s news page has a wire service article supposedly shedding light on How a terrorist embarks on the 'pathway to terror'. The conclusion is:
"At the broader level, everything has to be done to undermine the idea that individuals think of themselves solely in terms of any particular group of sub-group," said a researcher.
Really one of those, "well, duh" articles. I don’t know why they cannot see that some things are really political and not psychological in nature. After all, did Americans not react as people thinking of themselves as belonging to a particular group or subgroup when they responded to 9-11? Does anybody?
I mean, this is good advice for transcendentalists who are overcoming ego and identification with the body and its designations. But does it apply uniquely to those who become terrorists? And can we expect that it shall ever become something that applies to anyone but the most exceptional creatures? And, besides, it seems to me that it is an ever moving goalpost anyway.
Terrorism is appropriately called "asymmetric warfare" because that is what it is. War is a method of inflicting pain on a large scale in order to impose one’s will. Those who wield the instruments of power find it easy to inflict pain on the powerless. Terrorism is the response. The only solution seems to me to be political empowerment. Or if not the reality, at least giving the illusion thereof is a place to begin, because even that requires making some concessions to genuine concerns of injustice.
At least, in order for anyone to think in terms of political issues in complex and interconnected terms, i.e., outside the limitations of ethnic, religious, nationalistic, etc. concerns, it is necessary first to defuse those concerns.
I really don't think that there is much in present geopolitical history that does that.
By the way, the following article on today's Guardian sheds some interesting light on the way such "scientific" articles are reported by the media. Don't let the facts spoil a good story.