‘Terrorism’ at Psychology, Philosophy and Real Life

It’s September 11th, and I’ve been wondering about that phrase ‘post-9/11’. Politicians use it often in referring to how the world changed following the terrorist attacks 6 years ago. I wonder whether they think we all share the same understanding; or do they just want us to think that they share ours? How DID the world change after 9/11? What does that phrase ‘post-9/11’ mean to you?

As the British media frenzy continues about “dangerous foreign criminals” released from prison but not deported, I wonder what the furore says about us as a society. It seems to me to say something significant, because I haven’t heard a single news report about the “dangerous British criminals” who have also been released from prison after serving their time.

As the UK government moves to make it a crime to justify terrorist acts, I have to ask: don’t mainstream journalists justify terrorism every time they use the phrase ‘in response to’ in a description of terrorist acts, as they are particularly accustomed to doing when reporting on the conflict between the state of Israel and Palestinians?

As a video message from one of the London suicide bombers offers the first direct glimpse into terrorist motivations and psychology, public statements from politicians continue to suggest that they are unwilling or unable to engage in fact-based analysis of the terrorist threat.

Not content to focus on actual physical acts of terrorism, the UK government now plans to extend powers to deport or exclude foreigners on the basis of their beliefs. As the government prepares to make it illegal to ‘justify’ terrorism, and to exclude those whose views ‘pose a threat to UK security’, we ask about the psychology of terrorism and wonder why UK politicians are so reluctant to engage in reality-based analysis. Contrary to currently popular political demagoguery, ‘to explain’ and ‘to justify’ are not the same thing.