Introduction

In the previous chapter we looked into the field of terrorism studies and its different authors, centres, disciplines and approaches. We explored the results of the study of terrorism and counterterrorism and looked at the difficulties of doing terrorism research. In this chapter we are going to investigate some of the assumptions about terrorism that have often been put forward by scholars, practitioners, politicians or journalists. These assumptions are frequently repeated in the public debate on terrorism, or even constitute the basis of policy-making. Therefore, it is important to test these assumptions to see whether they are true, partly true or false. The five assumptions we are going to explore and analyse are the following:

• 1. Terrorism is caused by poverty.

• 2. Terrorists are crazy.

• 3. Terrorism is becoming increasingly lethal.

• 4. Terrorism is predominantly anti-western.

• 5. Terrorism is successful.

Assumption one: Terrorism is caused by poverty

One of the most frequently repeated assumptions about terrorism is that it is caused by poverty. The basic idea behind this assumption is that poverty leads to a lack of opportunities to improve the quality of someone’s life. This could result in antagonism towards people who are better off and could lead to blaming others, such as the government, for this lack of chances in life. These kinds of grievances are believed to be an important cause of terrorism. In combination with the idea that terrorists are rational actors, it is argued by some that violence might be the last resort of the downtrodden to put grievances on the political agenda. Others point to the fact that many poor countries seem to suffer from terrorism and that there are many examples of terrorists from the lower ranks of society. Then they assume that a correlation between poverty and terrorism exists. Lastly, it has to be mentioned that some terrorist organisations, specifically left-wing-oriented ones, have claimed to fight for or on behalf of the poor. Think of the earlier example given in chapter 3 of the Tupamaros who initially were mainly involved in robberies, distributing the stolen money among the poor (see box 4.01).