CEU eTD Collection

In partial fulfillment of the fulfillment of In partial requirements the Master degree of o for N ATURE OF Supervisor: Professor Andrés Moles Velazquez Supervisor: Professor Moles Velazquez Andrés R ATIONAL Department Science of Political Central European University S UICIDE Budapest, Hungary Gulnisa Asymova Submitted to Submitted -- 2011 -- I RRATIONALITY By By

B OMBERS C : HOICE

f Artsf

CEU eTD Collection stronger power explanation of the phenomenon. the for motives attackers’ suicide the of explanation in exist psy by influenced comb of need is the stresses model box black part The conditions. sociological in which individual an of system motivation a is box black where proposed, is framework box black the result approach new a creating for used is analysis data available choic bombers’ suicide explaining in useful is theories major the importa is it and right absolutely are area the in available they are or rational, bombers suicide the Are need. fullest explaining of capable not is – theory choice rational – explanation prom the of one that show I thesis this In decision-making. of level fewe but organizations terrorist the analyzing in made studies Th choice. bombers’ suicide the of phenomenon the studies thesis This

ABSTRACT ABSTRACT i

nt to find out to what extent each of of each extent what to out find to nt to explain the phenomenon. As the the As phenomenon. the explain to fanatics? None of the options options the of None fanatics? tlig bu te individual the about talking r e. A method of literature and and literature of method A e. sake of having a tool with with tool a having of sake ti hnmnnt the to phenomenon this eahr rfre t a to referred metaphor, inent theories of choice choice of theories inent ination of views that that views of ination ere have been many many been have ere hlgcl and chological CEU eTD Collection being actively involved in all stages of writing my thesis; his thesis; my writing of stages all in involved actively being g deep a express to like would I Certainly, education. of pursuit Košalko, my beloved sister-like my Babaeva, Diana without it make not would I CEU; throug all encouraged and me for there been always have who life my I special thank two to Inaddition want Iam standing upon. line theme finish to now I am dedicating this work to my family that has supported me supported has that family my to work this dedicating am I

fiancé. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii advices and guidance have led have guidance and advices throughout all the years of my my of years the all throughout ratitude to my supervisor for for supervisor my to ratitude best friend, and Matej Matej and friend, best h the two year path at at path year two the h people in in people CEU eTD Collection ABSTRACT ABSTRACT ...... i REFERENCE LIST ...... 50 CONCLUSION ...... 47 ENVIRONMENT BACKGROUNDSOCIOLOGICAL AND ...... 37 CHAPTERPSYCHOLOGICAL “BLACK AND MODEL 3: BOX” THE MISSIONS FORCAUSES SUICIDE ...... 26 ANDCHAPTER “BLACK REASONS -MOTIVATIONS, BOX” THE 2: OPENING THEORYCHAPTER CHOICE RATIONAL “BLACK AND 1: BOX” CLOSED ...... 12 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... ii 3.2 The Sociological Perspective on the Suicide Bombers Behavior Bombers Behavior 3.2 The onthe Perspective Sociological Suicide ...... 41 Bombers’Choice 3.1 The onSuicide Psychological Perspective ...... 37 2.2 Causesof Bombers of Suicide the Choice ...... 33 and Reasons2.1 Motivations for Attackers the Choice of Suicide ...... 26 the1.3 Application Behavior to of the RCT the Bombers Suicide of ...... 20 of Broader Axioms 1.2 Additional Rationality ...... 15 BehaviorIndividualOeconomicus1.1 “Traditional” Homo Rationality of ...... 12 3.2.2 Thetheory social of learningand violence...... normalization 43 theory3.2.1The relative deprivation ...... 42 – aggression theory 3.1.2 Humiliation ...... 40 cognitive theories dissonance 3.1.1 Cognitive and psychological ...... 38 of rational with suicide explanation 1.3.1 Problems bombers’ choice ...... 22 of possessing expectations 1.2.4 Assumption rational ...... 19 of narrow selfishness 1.2.3 Assumption ...... 18 of responsiveness 1.2.2 Assumption incentives to ...... 17 Tigers1.2.1 The case of Tamil ...... 16 TABLE OF CONTENT CONTENT OF TABLE iii

CEU eTD Collection epe ntoas f 5 ifrn cutis Te oiain ad reasons and motivations The countries. different 15 of nationals – people perspectives one may look at it. Many questions arise including arise questions Many it. at look may one perspectives bombers’ choice. The most plausible to a general public se public general a to plausible most The choice. bombers’ groups of the North Caucasus region. region.groups the North Caucasus of cla are suspects the though unclear, still are act horrifying r which of explosion the trinitrotoluene, of kg 5 about with filled ex improvised an with Russia Moscow, in Domodedovo airport international maximize their own utility?maximize that presumed is it when utility, future ones of part large a i come How position. right the be to seems intuitively it if even bom suicide that claim to hard is it which following theory choice g a pose acts such Thus, goals. and beliefs identified, clearly hersel or him- blow to prefers someone that possible is it how of And people? innocent kill reason good a of cover a for can someone how puzzling and unfortunate are bombings suicide the Clearly, groups. anarchists the with ending kamikazes, Japanese and crusaders with

The numerous events of such nature have taken place in the human histor human the in place taken have nature such of events numerous The Various theories of behaviors have been providing their view of the of view their providing been have behaviors of theories Various n 4 aur, 01 a ad oa etrd h bgae eli area reclaim baggage the entered a woman and a man 2011 January, 24 On INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION 1 perhaps more than any other fact, which makes which fact, other any than more perhaps h tra o siie errs s lre n so and incomprehensible large so terrorism suicide of threat the oneself, sacrifice to readiness apparent this is It

individuals act in such a way as to to as way a such in act individuals em to be the idea of psychopathy of idea the be to em md o e h rdcl Islamist radical the be to imed f up for the sake of some, not some, of sake the for up f t might be an option to bypass bypass to option an be might t et hleg t te rational the to challenge reat a one of humanist nature of nature humanist of one a esulted in the death of 35 35 of death the in esulted actions from all possible possible all from actions es r rtoa agents, rational are bers and radical religious religious radical and -

rational nature of nature rational nature of suicide of nature Wintrobe, 2006 - lsv devise plosive behind this this behind y, starting starting y, of the the of

CEU eTD Collection obr’ eair s ifcl bcue ) hy esd o exis to ceased they 1) because difficult is behavior bombers’ by case basis. Before going into profound discussion of the rationali the of discussion profound into going Before basis. case by rvd o e es osset hn ht f n raiain Tog I acce I Though organization. an of that than consistent less be to proved financ the to due is it claim others 2002); (Allen, have bombers ( purpose good overall of presence and group a to belongingness r 2003) (Wetherston, terrorists most motivates what not is this that However, 2009). Rubbelke, & (Pittel actors the of level hatred high and nprahbe ad ) t s n nlss f niiul ad h nature the and individuals of analysis an is it 2) and unapproachable, w sources; and data reliable of sort some provides it since 2005) organizations terrorist the analyze to is motivations the understand t claim rather and terrorists suicide of group a up make that the exclude scholars of the Some (Allen, enemy 2002). against the some effect availab only the as seen are bombers suicide Thus, 2005). Kimmage, enemies their by group, social a or nation it be group, certain of result revengeful the is bombing suicide the that argue Others Pape, 2005; Madsen, 2005; (Evans, enemy stronger much a against fight to hn h dcso o jiig raiain n a mn tms vn becom even times many at and organization joining of decision the when at organizations; of hands the in puppets just not are actors actual orga the with themselves ally who actors the of washing” “brain proc as points such in role vital a play organizations terrorist and particularly mission necessary define to terrorist suicide terroris s is it that and decision-making in role a playing be might more all that say ones diplomatic most The 2003). (Pape, receive will Wintrobe, 2006). Therefore, some still argue that it is due to true to due is it that argue still some Therefore, 2006). Wintrobe, Some authors think that the attackers use suicide bombing as one of one as bombing suicide use attackers the that think authors Some 2

hat the only important way to to way important only the hat ess of alienation and so-called so-called and alienation of ess ial remuneration their families their remuneration ial trongly dependent on the case the on dependent trongly the constant humiliation of a of humiliation constant the Ata, 05 Hqai & Haqqani 2005; (Altman, least not in the beginning, the in not least t and thus are physically physically are thus and t Routledge & Arndt, 2008, 2008, Arndt, & Routledge of these factors and many many and factors these of hereas, to analyze suicide suicide analyze to hereas, m. m. belief system that suicide that system belief iains ol, tl the still goals, nization’s Gmet, 06 Pape, 2006; (Gambetta, le army that might be of of be might that army le ty and motivations it is it motivations and ty te te eln of feeling the ather show findings recent of individuals has has individuals of the vital methods vital the pt the idea that that idea the pt ing a martyr is is martyr a ing individual sets sets individual 03 2005). 2003, CEU eTD Collection ae coc i bt stain te i i as pasbe o clai to plausible also is it then situations both in choice a have terrorist and differentiated are periods time decision-making two s a commit actually to choice a and group terrorist a enter difference semantic the find (2004) Wintrobe as such authors some ( group” terrorist a join to whether but trigger, the press to D’Erc Ariva as makes, bomber suicide a that decision conscious and 2003 Atran, in cited as Spengler, (Timothy themselves with along dec individual taking “individuals as point one from seen be should still as who of have all and desires, us. individuals motivations same wishes suicide the of most that believes (2005) Evans Ernest place. taking ay ae spot Tu, ihu a tog oil upr ad popula operate.(Atran, 2003). and support not would and social successful be never would strong bombers individual and a organizations without Thus, support. cases many provoke society the in martyrheroic the of idea engenderingthe this th spread to order in culture martyrdom the promote and moods social te The 51). p. 2006: (Hafez, helplessness” generalized of context grou suffering appeals, personal with associated nationalist factors emotive or vengeance, identities, religious in “rooted motivations exp often is one, individual the paper, this for important analysis triangle this drive that motivations different experience levels Ac 2006).(Moghadam, levels environmental the and organizations, terrorist a of levels one, than rather three, on at looked be should still they Even though mostly suicide attacks are analyzed on the level of ter of level the on analyzed are attacks suicide mostlythough Even huh ucd bmes r mr suid n h srcue gop memb group structured the in studied more are bombers suicide Though 3

uicide mission. First of all, if these these if all, of First mission. uicide Ariva D’Erchi, 2005). However, However, 2005). D’Erchi, Ariva of terrorist attacks. The level of of level The attacks. terrorist of rrorist organizations use the use organizations rrorist s do [or think that they do] they that think [or do s nalysis: the individuals, the the individuals, the nalysis: ressed in suicide bombers’ bombers’ suicide in ressed ). Therefore, the most vital most the Therefore, ). m that the person making making person the that m and empowerment in the the in empowerment and s the public debate and in and debate public the s hi believes, “is not when not “is believes, hi terrorists are rational rational are terrorists between the choice to to choice the between e idea of divine war; war; divine of idea e isions to kill people” people” kill to isions rorist organizations, organizations, rorist tors from all these these all from tors commitments, p rity terrorist terrorist rity rhp they ership be able to to able be CEU eTD Collection particular cause as in case of Irish for a political status Irishpolitical a forcaseof in as particularcause policy-oriented, legal and other purposes – is one of the reasons reasons the of one is – purposes other and legal policy-oriented, bomber. ma in force driving a as motivation latter the of importance the to dutyand bounds group the on more well as based, be might decision ma to able be to purpose or interest, of feeling on based be could as such preferences of inconsistency of problem a find not does (2004) ex for Thus, blured. and inconsistent be might actors the of motivations weighing of result the as rational being of capable is and #2, pe the is group terrorist a of member a become to #1 decision Definition of TerrorismDefinition first. have of organizations the the become members terrorist to generall but Intifada, second the during i Palestine in an especially being of cases been have there Surely members. group’s w that bomb living a as being human a use to aimed is that action i bomber suicide the while act individual the of case the usually s immolation of act the conducts who same the as perceived be not definitions will be the most relevant to the topic of this paper. relevantbe this the will most definitions the of topic to for plausible be will that definition particular one find to task on the territory of the USA; also the terrorism brings in int in brings terrorism the also USA; the of territory the on States United the of law criminal the violates which life, human eetees hs os o apy o cs f ef moain r hunge or immolation self of acts to apply not does this Nevertheless There is no single definition of terrorism. The purpose of the defini the of purpose The terrorism. of definition single no is There U.S. Congress defines an act of a terror as one that is aggressive and/or is aggressive is that as one a terror act of an CongressU.S. defines 4

. The potential suicide bomber, thus can thus suicide bomber, potential The . entionality of the act, which might might which act, the of entionality the preferences, even though the though even preferences, the rson who is making the decision decision the making is who rson everyone. The presented here presented The everyone. king any decision for a suicide a for decision any king y the potential human bombs human potential the y or any State and if committed if and State any or ke changes, while the second the while changes, ke ndividual suicide bomber, bomber, suicide ndividual ill kill a number of certain of number a kill ill why it is such a complex a such is it why s a strategically planned planned strategically a s serve. He rather states rather He serve. ne h lte oe is one latter the ince when first decision first when ml, Wintrobe ample, tion – statistical, statistical, – tion srks o a for strikes r dangerous to to dangerous CEU eTD Collection be to 1) coerce humans, 2) have an affect on the political decision b decision political the on affect an have 2) humans, coerce 1) to be actors. of rationality all are equal and any and all human life should be highly human all and protected lifebe areall should valued. and and any equal to is definition of purpose the case this In USA. the of system sake the for definition idiosyncratic an ass is This 1984). Code, or Congress kidnapping through functioning and instability government’s the 2008). p weaker a by used be to assumed is terror the that is addition condi combat asymmetrical an in 2008) (Atran, audience” an influence to clandestine or groups sub-national by targets m noncombatant against politically “premeditated, a as terrorism describes who i found I definition plausible most The ene order. political the the influence of members against conducted is it usually b since a general, be to seems order” “political the definition Waldmann’s Under s and sympathy also but fear, and insecurity of sense general a They order. political a against underground from directed violence “syst as terrorism to refers He change. political achieve Waldmann by terminology political in coined was area scientific bases) military 1 rationality of suicide terrorism in following chapters.following in terrorism suicide of rationality ar of clarity of sake the for actors non-combatant to definition is it paper this in while general, in terrorism the covers it service other and combatants soldier its against attacks includes Otherwise it will be some sort of guerrilla war, w war, guerrillaof sort somewill be it Otherwise However, it is important to distinguish between the attacks aga attacks the between distinguish to important is it However, and those only against against only those and

civilians hich does not necessarily need the further developm further the need necessarily not does hich 5

. Since the US Congress is broader it as well well as it broader is Congress US the Since . 1 The initial term of term initial The ematically planned, shocking acts of of acts shocking planned, ematically motn t nro dw the down narrow to important regulate the law and under law law under and law the regulate otivated violence perpetrated perpetrated violence otivated men as terrorist attacks. Thus, attacks. terrorist as men arty in a conflict (Bockstette, conflict a in arty gument and concentration on concentration and gument pot (adan 2002). (Waldmann, upport” (2002) as it was aimed to to aimed was it as (2002) re designed to produce a a produce to designed re y coercion, and 3) effect effect 3) and coercion, y s given by Atran (2008) Atran by given s agents, usually intended usually agents, my group in order to to order in group my of the legal and court court and legal the of inst inst it misleading or too too or misleading it tions. Therefore, an an Therefore, tions. terrorist mission terrorist all (i.e. including including (i.e. all assination (U.S. (U.S. assination ent of the of ent in CEU eTD Collection ae, tl al f h gvn he dfnto sae oe imp some share definition three given the of all still paper,

Definition of Suicide Definition interpretation factors’ and additional of onthe the explanation phenom influence va scientific of sake the for consideration the from important is e mentioned, was it as However, individuals. against act violent fear; ps influencethe to wish orientation, goal political – Terrorism 1763). di to pilot the of factor duty a of presence a is there while pre no is there because suicide a as considered be not can action w who people other many of life of sake the for cost a as death di to intent not does pilot the that is distinction important the here to able being not but plane the redirecting otherwise or crash; whe villagers of number some killing but catapulting and himself has who pilot army an take lets example an As connotation. usual self-c non another, achieve to means a as used oneself of termination p To her/himself. die intentionally to wish not does but (usually) good for death) of 100% till up way the (all dying of risk high a into where cases the to refer latter The missions. risky highly and mis a otherwise is there since is, suicide what identifying in point. this die Intentionto 1975). (Brandt, life” own one’s of termination “intentional on clear be and itself suicide identify to important be Yet paper. this of topic main the is this since well, as vn huh h ls dfnto ses o e oe luil fr the for plausible more be to seems definition last the though Even Though there is a definition of terrorism it is still important still is it terrorism of definition a is there Though 6

fore defining suicide terrorism, it is is it terrorism, suicide defining fore vert the plane (Brandt, 1975; Kant, Kant, 1975; (Brandt, plane the vert save his life as the result. Thus, result. the as life his save ych of people and keep them in in them keepand people ychof understanding between suicide suicide between understanding a person indulges him/herself him/herself indulges person a ould otherwise die. Hence, his his Hence, die. otherwise ould sence of intentionality to die to intentionality of sence rat omn etrs of features common ortant the sake of a more general more a of sake the iiy n aodne f the of avoidance and lidity to define suicide terrorism terrorism suicide define to to choose between saving saving between choose to e but merely foresees his his foresees merely but e ucd, hs u, s an is put, thus Suicide, re the plane is going to to going is plane the re xcluding military agents agents military xcluding oncentrated end in its in end oncentrated t t hrl, t s a is it shortly, it ut plays a crucial role role crucial a plays upss f this of purposes ena. ena. CEU eTD Collection participate in any actions); the active terrorists (the ones (the terrorists active the actions); any in participate bombings is quite a recent historical phenomenon. historical phenomenon.bombings a quite is recent claim authors though Thus, fear. of feeling massive of pressureout change political to aim of criteria the to attention more pay making about the active as well. statements terrorists exclusively refer will paper This beliefs). and objectives f people innocent of number a with along themselves kill actually suicida the and strategy); its on work and status, its promote and ideas the support who ones (the sympathizers the terrorists: of Suicide TerrorismDefinition this definition since it clearly states that in addition to to addition in that states clearly it since definition this thi In 2008). Atran, 2005; (Pape, change political the of sake the for a an to referred is terrorism suicide that agree scientists two with name its to due intentional surely being as terrorism of a certain state. This strategy to influence the political political the influence to strategy This state. certain a of i them make and fear in audience the keep to is target main the agree Atran kill with to asI is many would asmissions possible, people or along goes change political addition In members. groups’ ( troops enemy territory certain a occupying of withdrawal for suicide bombers there are also criteria of necessary of criteria also are there bombers suicide for some political change political Bearing in mind the importance of intentionality of suicide we can construe canwe of suicide of importance intentionality the Bearing mind in oevr t s motn t srs ad ifrnit between differentiate and stress to important is it Moreover . The first two factors are clear by this point; nonetheless point; this byfactorsareclear two Thefirst . 7

intentionality ct of self-demolition against civilians civilians against self-demolition of ct who actually enter the organizations the enter actually who attack of civilians of attack to the last group, though sometimes though group, last the to Pape, 2005), release of terrorist terrorist of release 2005), Pape, of terrorism but do not directly not do but terrorism of . This in most cases means the means cases most in This . decisions through the suicide suicide the through decisions nfluence the political decision political the nfluence additional factors to it. Many it. to factors additional rspoe a eti social certain a presupposes that the goal of the suicide the goalof the that or the sake of their groups their of sake the or troit (h oe who ones (the terrorists l characteristic the criteria the characteristic s paper, I as well follow well as I paper, s t es tre ye of types three least at (2008) who states that (2008) and aim to cause cause to aim and I would like to to I like would the suicide the suicide CEU eTD Collection pressure and influence on the potential suicide bomber will be will bomber suicide potential the on influence and pressure ocnrtd n h siie obr tesle; eetees te org m the nevertheless, since themselves; bombers organizations, suicide the on terrorist concentrated closely analyze to intention no is ModernRoots Suicide Terrorism of the suicide terrorism. the suicide terrorism. c world the of attention the to led goals and approach international A Al the during particularly conflict, Israeli-Palestinian the num numerous the by highlighted was terrorism suicide of threat The territories Kurdish the Lanka, Sri to spread soon missions suicide The injured. were 100 over and died people 27 which of result the as 1981 in destroy to order in conducted was attacks suicide modern first the of examples major few are Crusades Christian early the during Isl the by and Romans, by occupied Judea of territory in Zealots George W. Bush back in 2001 declared that it was “the first war first “the was it that declared 2001 in back Bush W. George task priority a became terrorism suicide part most the for aim to have strong normative implications. And since this thesis dr thesis this since And implications. normative strong have to aim suic of profile single a find to seek not does paper this Moreover successful in the past years. the of topic not the is successful However paper. this the in past t proved not has combat the and it combating to prior thoroughly studied e the Thus, identify. and find to hard are which organizations, terrorist a unknown an to declared globally was war this However, terrorism. Terrorism itself has a substantive historical background dati background historical substantive a has itself Terrorism Particularly after the shock of the 9/11 the problem and combat of combat and problem the 9/11 the of shock the after Particularly To reveal what paper is going to provide, I should start with what with start should I provide, to going is paper what reveal To 8

on the worldwide agenda. President President agenda. worldwide the on (Atran, 2003; Lewis, 1967). One 1967). Lewis, 2003; (Atran, qsa intifada. The Al-Qaeda’s Al-Qaeda’s The intifada. qsa discussed in all the chapters. the all in discussed of the 21the of in Turkey, and Chechnya. Chechnya. and Turkey, in ifts off from the traditional traditional the from off ifts ide attackers and does not not does and attackers ide ng back to Jewish sects of sects Jewish to back ng ommunity to the issue of issue the to ommunity amic Order of Assassins Assassins of Order amic Iraqi embassy in Beirut Beirut in embassy Iraqi ctor, not to Iraq but to a to but Iraq to not ctor,

bers of attacks during during attacks of bers ainly this paper is is paper this ainly nzto ad group and anization nemy had not been been not had nemy paper is not. There not. is paper terrorist missions, terrorist st b strategically be o century” against against century” practice of of practice CEU eTD Collection bombers, the families of the deceased suicide bombers and of c of and bombers suicide deceased the of families the bombers, behaviors. behaviors. sui of phenomena the studying in theories main other unless bombers eair f ucd troit. n diin I lutae n hs the this in illustrate I addition, In terrorists. suicide of behavior a or theory one particular a on reliance than rather up, built be intervi the be can research the for information of source direct them of fact simple a to due bombers suicide successful from i the is mentioned, already as problem, major The well. as it t Irealize conclusions, and claims provable and research-based and theories in social and human sciences tackling with this phenomenon. this with and human theories sciences social in and tackling multidimensional behavior ofmultidimensional human beings. not is paper, this in theory choice rational the as such approach, genera rather the result the As better. terrorism suicide of t of phenomena the understand people enable will that framework o e osle ad nertd no h epaain rcs o such of process explanation the into integrated and consulted be to a to impossibility its claiming result the as overlooked be to rationa the by provided “rationality”of assumptions and concept The ac of choices is which studies, for attention morereceive systemshould motivation their making while rational are bombers suicide i it Thus, middle. the in somewhere is truth the and radical rather that assume I thesis this in And, factor. maximization utility commi who actors rational absolutely as or do they what know hardly o u i peiey te an ups o ti tei i t cre to is thesis this of purpose main the precisely, it put To This topic is important since usually suicide bombers are s are bombers suicide usually since important is topic This 9

l framework of understanding will understanding of framework l rgue for rationality of the suicide the of rationality for rgue being deceased. Thus, the only only the Thus, deceased. being he methodological problems of problems methodological he both of these explanations are explanations these of both mpossibility of obtaining data data obtaining of mpossibility ourse, the existing literature literature existing the ourse, ews with the failed suicide suicide failed the with ews he suicidal behavior in case case in behavior suicidal he sis that a single theory or or theory single a that sis poc i epann the explaining in pproach een as either fanatics who who fanatics either as een s presumed here that the the that here presumed s l choice theory will have have will theory choice l tion but however their their however but tion aal o epann a explaining of capable cide terrorism are going are terrorism cide also a part of this paper. paper. this of part a also t an act based on the the on based act an t phenomenological phenomenological ate a single broad broad single a ate CEU eTD Collection bombers. behavior. The assumption of utility maximization is rather giv rather is maximization utility of assumption The behavior. the deeper nature of the causes will lead to discussion of the ps the of discussion to lead will causes the of nature deeper the acti bombers’ suicide in the explaining of approaches sociological studied be will reasons actual The bomb. living a be and choose place take to missions suicide for causes underlying and reasons thi Moreover, be. to aims it as sense general a th in applicable choice rational why detail more in show will It beliefs. and this Elst Jon of on concentrate will II weaknesses Chapter theory. the of of application discussion following a with Wintrobe; Ronald rationa the of perspective the from missions suicide and suicide there assumptions, and characteristics theory’s choice rational from Apart I. chapter the in provided is theory choice rational the for theories different of framework a creating of content the in bom suicide writ any in deeply discussed been not yet,have but discussions of explanation for apparent rather appear might that principle maximization mere than choice and behavior human a to more b the explore will I thesis the of course the over Thus, interest. t contradicts even which behavior, complex rather a explaining for is assumption this However, motivations. other with filled neither and

s pr uiiy aiiain n h bak o a a motivator a as box black the in maximization utility pure a is self-inte a as behavior explains box black the of frame the in T decision. any making in actors human of motivations the to refers The structure of the paper goes so that the general questions and questions general the that so goes paper the of structure The Throughout the work I will refer to the metaphor of a “black box”, box”, “black a of metaphor the to refer will I work the Throughout 10

rested action. As the result, there there result, the As action. rested s will be followed by the actual actual the by followed be will s will be also a discussion on the the on discussion a also be will ten sources before; particularly particularly before; sources ten en ad-hoc and is not discussed not is and ad-hoc en better understanding of suicide of understanding better lack box and state that there is is there that state and box lack ons in the chapter III. As well As III. chapter the in ons ychological theories upon the upon theories ychological for whatever might be the the be might whatever for l choice theory applied by by applied theory choice l er’s writings on rationality rationality on writings er’s eory by itself can not be be not can itself by eory and suicide bombers to to bombers suicide and he rational choice theory choice rational he he intuitions of the self- the of intuitions he general information of of information general simply not satisfactory satisfactory not simply bers’ choice in daily daily in choice bers’ oe eal through detail more theoretical sum up of up sum theoretical ; some motivations some ; rte narrow, rather , where black box box black where CEU eTD Collection study –dimensional of suchmulti a phenomenon. com a of conclusion a byfollowed choice, bombers’ suicide explaining rat the that gap the in fill will turn in which missions, suicide 11

ional choice theory leaves out in in out leaves theory choice ional plexity and the need of of need the and plexity CEU eTD Collection particular as well as investigate what are the problems the are what investigate as well as particular axioms the for examples As RCT. the of discussion philosophical rc fr h cmoiy () h sles ih liae g ultimate with sellers the (i) commodity: the for price

1.1 1.1 “Traditional” Rationality of Individual Homo Oe Elster, 1986). Ha (See sort such ofbehavior the predict or describe,explain to bom suicide the on theory choice rational the of application the show par second the In behavior. organizations’ terrorist the use will consumers and going into a rather broader understanding of rationalit of understanding broader rather a into going r and consumers of prototype homo-oeconomicus standard the with starting (RCT), bas the of discussion the with start I chapter this In theorists. challenge serious a impose gain, personal the over good collective any and beliefs, religious altruism, as such phenomena other some end The RCT is exactly is RCT The dail the in firms and/or consumers as to referred usually individuals, interaction of both of these desires of buyers and sellers det sellers and buyers of desires these of both of interaction sp should s/he income her or his of much how deciding trouble a face a for orange of pack good a obtaining of goal the with consumer the sell/produce to oranges many how decide to has oranges selling from choice, which involves the choice of of choice the involves which choice, Te ainl hie hoy sal ivle te eair f hie of choice of behavior the involves usually theory choice rational The . CHAPTER 1: CLOSED “BLACK BOX” BOX” “BLACK CLOSED 1: CHAPTER RATIONALAND As was mentioned above the phenomenon of the suicide bombers’ choice as choice bombers’ suicide the of phenomenon the above mentioned was As Whenever someone refers to a rational behavior we usually think that that think usually we behavior rational a to refers someone Whenever how buyers and sellers of oranges, for example, find an equilibrium equilibrium an find example, for oranges, of sellers and buyers CHOICE CHOICE THEORY best meansbest 12

from available options to achieve the achieve to options available from of the RCT and its limitations in trying in limitations its and RCT the of a t mxmz te iaca gain financial the maximize to oal ermine the number and price of of price and number the ermine ics of the rational choice theory theory choice rational the of ics conomicus Behavior rsanyi, John. Chapter 3 in Jon, Jon, in 3 Chapter John. rsanyi, o te te hn, will I hand, other the on t for the broader rationality I rationality broader the for y economic interactions. economic y end on oranges, (iii) the (iii) oranges, on end minimal price tends to to tends price minimal and at what price; (ii) price; what at and on the rational choice choice rational the on y including some vital vital some including y te cocs ht put that choices other bers’ (SB) choice in in choice (SB) bers’ ational behavior of of behavior ational it is a certain a is it one or more more or one well as as well desired in in

CEU eTD Collection phenomena? The attempts, and many cases rather successful ones, ones, successful rather cases many and attempts, The phenomena? the deeper needbehavior roots of explain the having to behavior. without are that factors relevant all given objectives, their achieve side [both them help best that choices “the of consists oeconomicus rational the Thus, 2002). Greene, (See market the on sold being oranges 2002: 5).p. 2002: 1995; Kreps, 1995; 1990). Mas-C (See RCT the of assumptions classical the on elaborate assumptions of the RCT in short that describe the idea of the pr the of idea the describe that short in RCT the of assumptions plig h iiily cnmc hoy no h sca bhvo of behavior social the into theory economic initially the applying achieve a achieve rdtoa rtoa coc apoc i rte a eairl theory behavioral a rather is homo-oeconom approach the choice of rational behavior traditional the understand to needed necessarily not are in discussed be will that making decision of process the in involved Certainly end. given the achieve to means best provide that axioms a of speak they when refer to economists whatusually is This (ii) (i) (iii) (iv)

But what does it mean it does what But opeees axiom: Completeness rsne f lentv choices: alternative of Presence Transitivity of preferences axiom: preferences of Transitivity Choice: However, what would a social scientist think of when applying the RC whentheapplyingof think scientist social a would what However, given goal given between be ofalternatives all s/he should indifferent to them. the than preferences or is indifferent towards them towardspreferences them indifferent or is preferred to the others (socially acceptable)preferred (socially the others to givengoal h pro sol pee A o ( > ) I cs i te person the if case In C). > (A C to A prefer should person the mak to order in then C), > (B C to B prefers also and B) > (A A person chooses the preferred alternative or if no preferences no if or alternative preferred the chooses person A . If we stay in the area of consumer decision making, it will it making, decision consumer of area the in stay we If . best means best o ay ar f h atraie hie a idvda has individual an choices alternative the of pair any For There is a set of alternative choices to achieve a a achieve to choices alternative of set a is There for a desired end? Here I am going to employ the the employ to going am I Here end? desired a for If a person prefers A alternative to B alternative B to alternative A prefers person a If 13

beyond their control” (Greene, (Greene, control” their beyond rational behavior - a clear set of set clear a - behavior rational ocess to find the find to ocess le, hntn Greene, & Whinston ollel, s: i.e. buyers and sellers] sellers] and buyers i.e. s: that describes people’s people’s describes that the next part and which and part next the tee s uh more much is there , have been made in in made been have human beings. The The beings. human e a rational decision rational a e behavior of homo homo of behavior T into the social the into T best means best is indifferent indifferent is

hw than shown be easier to to easier be icus. The The icus. to to CEU eTD Collection provides us with the best strategy to get to our given goal, no mat no goal, given our to get to strategy best the with us provides rdcig uue odtos n h rgt a ad ae eiin accor decisions make and way right the in conditions future predicting at f h cmlxt o te C nwdy i t cmiain w combination its is nowadays RCT the of complexity the of part comp the is debate ongoing an for reasons the of One practices. way possible best the in goals their to get to order in do to have t theory normative a is RCT the that show also above assumptions science point of view? science of view? point t philosophical the from behavior rational of understanding the be would a of role a play not does thus, and,standards certain impose not does goodor as such aims, the of nature that implies This is. goal will talk more about the rational expectations further, but as a as but further, expectations rational the about more talk will simpl are decisions of outcomes as made errors the result, the t relationship causal the understand cannot they if even expectations, indivi average on that is TRE the of idea main The theory. economics’ this for 1995 in backPrize Nobel a with awardedwas who economist, of these views as being initially and theoretically up till todayup till ofas these being initiallyand views theoretically dif wil I should I though RCT the of umbrella the And under theories the of both combining behavior. rational of understanding deeper a gives and contradictive not is which theory, expectation rational the of ideas choice rational the it, see I as Currently, (TRE). expectations caused as much debate as any moral theory in the field of its its of field the in theory moral any as debate much as caused The theory of rational expectations was found by Robert Lukas, an an Lukas, Robert by found was expectations rational of theory The First, I find it important to say that even though the RCT is not not is RCT the though even that say to important it find I First, 14

bad do not matter for the RCT; it RCT; the for matter not do bad theory started to incorporate the incorporate to started theory part of the RCT conditions that that conditions RCT the of part application to the daily life and and life daily the to application y the unforeseeable mistakes. I mistakes. unforeseeable the y lexity of the RCT itself. As a As itself. RCT the of lexity ferent theories. ferent theories. but rather supplementary supplementary rather but ter what the nature of the the of nature the what ter hat tells people what they they what people tells hat ith the theory of rational rational of theory the ith moral theory. Then what Then theory. moral Ese, 96 p 3. It 3). p. 1986: (Elster, o such expectations. As As expectations. such o valuable addition to the to valuable addition a moral theory it has it theory moral a give respects to both both to respects give duals are capable of of capable are duals erss o social of heorists’ ding to such such to ding l proceed in in proceed l American CEU eTD Collection Money". of theNeutrality and behavior. rational the on writing the scholars various into incorporated be will it Further economics. placetake to behavior rational the for met be to have 1.2 Additional1.2 Axioms Broaderof Rationality axioms. strict but simple particula tha economics in RCT classical the to power explanation valuable a of explanation intentional the as seen is explanation behavior. the guiding of model the in credit more given are individuals the where behavior, human rational a of model the of description mere c more in goes behavior rational and choice rational the of discussion 2 ainl expectations rational selfishness narrow incentives, to responsiveness It is important to remember that both desires (D) and belief and (D) desires both that remember to important is It relationship of: of explanation the Thus, place. take to explanation choice rational particular have should decision-making of actors the that argues he will we that rationality of model his developing Further agents. abil providesthe it since one, plausible much a is rationality the that argues 1986) (1983; Elster Jon behavior. human the of explanation (Sheffrin, 1996; Pesaran, 1987). These assumptions make up the so-ca the up make assumptions These 1987). Pesaran, 1996; (Sheffrin,

hs s h ls mnin f h ter o rational of theory the of mention last the is This (ii) (iv) (iii) (i)

oe cnmc hoit cam ht C sol icue uh ia fa vital such include should RCT that claim theorists economic Some the behavior (B), st f vdne E, n te wrs h ifrain ht suppor that information the words other in (E), evidence of set a a set include that ofand goals desires (D), finally a incorporate set that of beliefs cognitions (C), desires actor. of the pr fo te lsia aim gvn n h frt at of part first the in given axioms classical the from apart Journal of Economic Theory. of Economic Journal

For more information see Lukas, Robert. 1972. "Expe 1972. Robert. Lukas, see information more For RCT and its assumptions, since it is usually done done usually is it since assumptions, its and RCT xetto i te ae a a itnt nta the initial distinct a as paper the in expectation 15

of an agent be it a person or a group, and its its and group, a or person a it be agent an of

2 . In the philosophy of social science the science social of philosophy the In . ity to identify the intentions of theof intentions identifythe ity to s (C) serve as serve (C) s return to later in the chapter the in later to return t is guided by the few rather rather few guidedthe by is t bhvo. hs ds a adds This behavior. r elements in order for the for order in elements omplex discussion than discussion omplex behavior equals to the the to equals behavior lled lled desires and beliefs of beliefs and desires The rational choice rational The reasons for for reasons broader version of of version broader s h bles and beliefs the ts broad rationality broad h chapter the ctors as as ctors (which ctations ctations ory in in ory so by by so

CEU eTD Collection eair Te rdtoa RT oe lcs hs at n t expla its in part this lacks model RCT traditional The behavior. behavior and it is crucial for a broader understanding of rationalit of understanding broader a for crucial is it and behavior bombing. However, in January 2009 the Tigers lost their de-facto capital city their de-facto capital Tigers lost 2009the January bombing. in However, point of employing such a strategy. In addition, si addition, strategy.In a such employing of point achieve a particular desire or goalachieve a or Elster,particular desire 1986). (See all against weighted action alternative best the is - evidences su is that beliefs of set certain a given - behavior rational set particular having of circumstances the under (D) desire the their final goal be it independence or withdrawal ofgoal foreigntheir final or troops independence withdrawal be it of one as missions suicide the employ to choice Tigers, Tamil terrorist the of examples the with detail in axiom each about e intentional an in theory rationality broader the applying while ta be should and decisions phenomenological the of explanation better a model Elster’s along with assumptions above-mentioned three whyThat the is s that decision-makers of beliefs and desires of importance 1.2.1 The case of Tamil TigersTamil of case The1.2.1 suicide missions some part of this paper should con should thispaper of part some missions suicide 5 URL: visit and Hamas", and LTTE 4 are 96 Utl a 20 i hs en n o te ot rmnn ette i entities prominent most the of one been has it 2009 May Until 1976. l organization terrorist a is Tigers Tamil as to referred 3 order to learn in detail the behavior of a suicide suicide a of thebehavior into detail learn order h wr gis te oenet ry n b My h sriig p surviving the May by and army government the against war the “ Eelam” means “homeland” from the Tamil language language Tamil fromthe “homeland” means “Eelam” "Strat 2008. Vera. Heuer, see LTTE more on read To org theterrorist to refer I part isthe only This causes of) causes s h rsl, hs fu eeet gv a osblt fr ca for possibility a give elements four these result, the As h ognzto o te ieain ies f h Tml Eelam Tamil the of Tigers Liberation the of organization The particular behavior, meaning that the behavior (B) was the bes the was (B) behavior the that meaning behavior, particular

http://www.defence.lk/pps/LTTEinbrief.pdf 4 4

anizations and the rationality question. I believe believe I question. therationality and anizations bomber to, first, learn how the terrorist organizat terrorist the how learn first, to, bomber nce the terrorists organizations are a vital part o part vital a are organizations terrorists the nce centrate on them, as a basis for the suicide bomber thesuicide for basis a as them, on centrate egic Suicide Campaigns: A Comparative Study of the of Study AComparative Campaigns: Suicide egic 16

ocated in Sri Lanka operating since since operating Lanka Sri in ocated pre b te esnbe e of set reasonable the by pported other possible actions in order to order in actions possible other erve as the reasons for a certain a for reasons the as erve organizations, particularly the the particularly organizations, xplanation. Shortly, I will talk talk will I Shortly, xplanation. the major strategy to obtain to strategy major the 3

nation of human behavior. behavior. human of nation . f eif () I sot a short, In (C). beliefs of y since it incorporates the incorporates it since y art of the LTTE army army LTTE the of art usal explanation of a a of explanation usal 5 LT) r shortly or (LTTE) vle i suicide in nvolved e it account into ken , Kelinochchi, in in , Kelinochchi, might serve for might serve t way to realize realize to way t it is important in in isimportant it ions come to a a to come ions fstudy on s behavior. sbehavior. CEU eTD Collection pressured by the Sri Lanka’s officials up to date that can that date to up officials Lanka’s Sri the by pressured timelong a t all not that in that cautious be to needthe government will that and extinguished remember to important is it Moreover, outbreaks. the forvery valuable still is Tigers the caseof the However, existe its ceased and 2009 in process government the by defeated officially result, the As 2011). (Anderson, jungles the into withdrew LTTE will be further discussed in the axioms of broader beLTTE rationality. furtherwill the axioms in discussed past the in members its of group special a by out carried t as missions Lanka. forTigers the suicide are using famous of Sri Tamil The 6 1.2.2 Assumption of responsiveness to incentives incentives to responsiveness of 1.2.2 Assumption as their strategy. main wherebehaviortheydecide (i) the exhibited Tigers the desire st sovereign Tamil the form and independent become to (iii) desire because and Lanka Sri in Tamils of life everyday of evidence tha and self-determination to right natural a had Tamils the that data statistical the attacks, suicide employ that organizations I it. do to willing be will they probability the is more the conduct a costs to rational the the lower for actors situation In ideal the demand curve. be should there that means speaking technically which incentives, not lead to continuous fight backs against the gove the against backs fight continuous to lead not orga the of still theideas 2009, in back destroyed In some cases I am going to refer to the Tigers in theTigers to refer to amgoing I cases someIn Through the prism of Elster’s model of rationality the LTTE had LTTE the rationality of model Elster’s of prism the Through h frt etr o a ra dfnto o rtoa coc i res is choice rational of definition broad a of feature first The 6 . The goal of the Tigers is to form an independent state of Tami of state independent an form to is Tigers the of goal The .

nizations are carried on in the Tamil region that m that region inon theTamil carried are nizations the present tense, since even though the organizat the though even tense,since present the rnment. rnment. 17

called Black Tigers. The case of the the of case The Tigers. Black called be (iv) supported by vast amount of amount vast by supported (iv) be n case of the behavior of terrorist terrorist of behavior the of case n study of terrorism and insurgencyand terrorism study of d to employ the suicide bombing bombing suicide employ the to d shows that “although suicide suicide “although that shows of this the LTTE had a clear clear a had LTTE the this of t they have been immorally immorally been have they t ate. In order to achieve its its achieve to order In ate. region to keep power forpowerkeep region to nce as an organization. organization. an as nce he Tamil Tigers were were Tigers Tamil he the Tamil Tigers were were Tigers Tamil the eaiey inclined negatively a (ii) strong belief belief strong (ii) a ls on the territory the on ls he strategy, main ponsiveness to to ponsiveness ight or might or ight ion was ion an action an action CEU eTD Collection pursuit of one’s preferences, which might or might not be of not nature. selfishpursuit in one’s or which might preferences, might exhibiting or decision any making while self-interest of pursuit eair sc a hlig oen wtot xetn te eun of return the expecting without someone helping as such behavior, pure action out of self interest, but not necessarily that those i those that necessarily not but interest, self of out action pure for relatedall 48% of deaths” 2001, to 1980 from incidents terrorist all of 3% only up made attacks 1.2.3 Assumption of narrow selfishness selfishness narrow of Assumption 1.2.3 such rational strategy. organizations works tactic the since Thus, 2005). (Caplan, themselves they as them, employ will organizations terrorist effective, that arguments spread wide a is there why is That well. as t employ to Tigers Tamil Lanka’s Sri of group persua involved actively Lebanon in 1983 in SM Hezbollah’s the example, For was. it this of implementers first the because spread (SM) missions 7 hs odto ma?Wa i exactly is What mean? condition this efsns o te ap f h ilso o nro slihes n s and selfishness narrow of illusion the of camp the or selfishness e of camps between divided are theorists rational Many RCT. the fully neither is selfishness narrow of concept this Unfortunately, random strangers” (Shepsle & Bonchek, 1997: p. 17). Thus, narrow selfis narrow Thus, 17). p. 1997: Bonchek, & (Shepsle strangers” random family for “empathy pursue to interest someone’s even be might

For more information see Pittel & Rubbelke, 2009 2009 & Rubbelke, Pittel see more information For oevr ofa ad comc (04 p 29 si ta iiily h s the initially that said 259) p. (2004, McCormick and Hoffman Moreover The second feature of broader rationality is – narrow selfishness narrow – is rationality broader of feature second The For example, we most likely will agree that there is nothing i nothing is there that agree will likely most we example, For 7

(Pape, 2003, p. 5). (Pape, 2003,5).p. narrow 18 hs supin a e nesod s mere as understood be can assumption This ?

tactic showed how cost efficient cost how showed tactic do not presuppose high risks for for risks high presuppose not do nterests have to be of the selfish selfish the of be to have nterests ic te ucd msin are missions suicide the since nor clearly elaborated within within elaborated clearly nor hese actions in their practice their in actions hese ither necessity of the narrow the of necessity ither fins wae, re, or trees, whales, friends, , any pattern of behavior. behavior. of pattern any the favor. Moreover, it it Moreover, favor. the rrational in non-market non-market in rrational ml peec o the of presence imple they were responsible responsible were they will keep employing employing keep will of actors. What does What actors. of ded the soon to be be to soon the ded hness presumes the the presumes hness uicide CEU eTD Collection eif ta hv t b fre i te ih wy n sol b base be should and way right the in formed be to have that beliefs eair rm rtoa pit f iw s ht h aet i reasona did agent the that is view of point rational a from behavior pictures it. expectations rational possessing of Assumption 1.2.4 as a employs suicide strategy.organization missions the sover becoming in interest particular have do they since fulfilled, a this LTTE, the to respect In 18). p. 2011: (Blau, nature egoistic or the broad understanding of rationality the presence and definition of definition and presence the rationality of understanding broad the rationa of theory the of part the as about talked already have etoe hr: eta gvrmn fa o srnt o te nugn g insurgent the of strength of fear government central here: mentioned expectations The employing. was it missions suicide the all ex certain had agent decision-making a as LTTE the example, For the making to prior package information sufficient having meaning oe mut f esnbe nomto t mk a eti dcso. Thus decision. certain s act a rational more where framework rigid a of consists rationality a make to information reasonable of amount some partic a of outcome possible the be to were that expectations can one thing only and mere the Therefore, expectations? rational inf the making for necessary is information the a of much is how However, and one informative an is made being choice the that ensures lack of information the errors can be made in expecting the future the expecting in made be can errors the information of lack ar individuals since surely, But 1987). Pesaran, 1996; (Sheffrin, happening one is expectation rational a theorists to According vital. very Last but not least is a complex assumption of rational assumption This expectations. a complex least not is Last but As a part of this assumption is the possession of satisfying of possession the is assumption this of part a As 19

ular decision they made and had had and made they decision ular l expectations above. Indeed for for Indeed above. expectations l ol b oe r l o the of all or one be could that has a high probability of probability high a has that outcome to be the way one one way the be to outcome hould be rooted in rational rational in be rooted hould pectations as the result of result the as pectations proof of information that information of proof rely on while explaining while on rely ssumption can be easily be can ssumption in n, ec, s an as hence, and, eign decision (Elster, 1986). (Elster, decision o rtoa evidence, rational on d rational expectationsrational et osbe choice. possible best ormed decision with with decision ormed bly believe in the the in believe bly e subject to having to subject e roups of Tamils, Tamils, of roups is something I something is , the broader broader the , is CEU eTD Collection by Marc Sageman, a psychiatrist in 2004 who found that “only 4 of of 4 “only that found who 2004 in psychiatrist a Sageman, Marc by twe of end the at made studies However, irrational. even parts a Now etc. Lanka, Sri in region Tamil the for autonomy the of provision within their group.within but individuals asocial not are bombers suicide where work, team suic particularly terrorism, that claimed he Thus, disorder“. a of

despair” (Atran, 2003); 400 members of Al-Qaeda out of 430 mentioned ab mentioned 430 of out Al-Qaeda of members 400 2003); (Atran, despair” middl mostly well-educated, fairly are people “these that show bombers suicide 430 of biographies fact, In 2004). Sageman, 1999; Hudson, psychologica in normal absolutely are bombers suicide that show rat seems around people innocent killing with along up herself or p a of idea the Indeed 2003). (Atran, individuals asocial” or apathetic, bomb suicide that believe many still why is That bombs? human individua the about What goals. their to get to strategy efficient bombings suicide use they since actors rational are they that Application1.3 of the RCT to Behaviorthe theof S forces. def their be to out turned world real in which information, of lack and t of evidence enough having not of fact simple a to due rational seem the act rational of expectations mentioned above the all applying maybe and yes, Maybe agents? individual for rational expectations organiz rational a was surely LTTE the hence and rational; very expe the framework theoretical the in that say would I defeat? rat considered be can still Tigers Tamil the Are rational? In discussion of terrorist organizations most of the scholars and gene and scholars the of most organizations terrorist of discussion In 20

ional agents, even after their bloody bloody their after even agents, ional uicide Bombers as one of the main and the most the and main the of one as ntieth and the current millennia millennia current the and ntieth e class and not acting at all in in all at acting not and class e ide terror is a very organized organized very a is terror ide ctations the Tigers had were were had Tigers the ctations ls who actually choose to be to choose actually who ls Tigers as individuals do not do individuals as Tigers her intuitively wrong and in in and wrong intuitively her ers are “crazed, cowardly, “crazed, are ers to. oee, ee the were However, ation. the 400 men had any hint hint any had men 400 the rather active participants participants active rather not. Even though when when though Even not. heir success in the future future the in success heir l aspect (Atran, 2003; 2003; (Atran, aspect l eat by the government government the by eat erson blowing himself himself blowing erson re these expectations expectations these re ove were studied studied were ove ral public agrees agrees public ral of Al-Qaeda Al-Qaeda of CEU eTD Collection eair wih oial wl eprevd s o-ainl For non-rational. as perceived be will logically which behavior, the claiming indirectly – behavior bombers’ suicide to RCT pure beliefs of the group. The reason to incorporate the values of the of values the incorporate to reason The group. the of beliefs the rational choice theory. The theorists of the RCT face a ma a face RCT the of theorists The theory. choice rational the hie I hs ok n ainl xrms (06 hs eiiin f rati of definition ofimportance utility of the of agent. maximization function his (2006) extremism rational on book his In choice. rational as behavior any almost explain to able be to seems feeling of belongingness that is missing in daily life of t of life daily in missing is that belongingness of feeling 108) argues that person’s utility function transforms as he or she or he as transforms function utility person’s that argues 108) suici of case the in example, For makes. she or he choices the maximi to tries one latter the where agent, the of satisfaction an theofgroup part be wish to mostlyis it rather 9 in thepaper. later tackled will and be debatable 8 group. the within acceptance and solidarity gaining the of sake up give to need will bombers suicide potential sects, religious w group other any in membership like just However, members. the gr a with beliefs the sharing for search who individuals be to have The possible. utility maximum the brings that decision informed an content are rational, such as to be more integrated and feel belonged to a grouandcontent as feelbe arerational, to a more to such integrated belonged rat be can still choice the irrational, be might belief the the though even that ground the on explanation rational a provides he Thus, 137). It is important that Ronald Wintrobe does not see see not does Wintrobe Ronald that isimportant It feeling not and isolated being SBs questionof The h uiiy ucin aiiain a b udrto a cmuain of computation as understood be can maximization function utility The Lately there have been attempts to explain SBs as rational as SBs explain to attempts been have there Lately Following the logic of the Wintrobe’s argument, the SBs are r are SBs the argument, Wintrobe’s the of logic Followingthe

d be accepted that leads to the decisions of such n suchof thedecisions to thatleads accepted be d any signs of altruism in the behavior and choices o choices and behavior the in altruism of signsany a part of a certain group and lack of feeling love feeling of lack and group certain a of part a 21

he potential SBs potential he ional if the reasons to belief in that in belief to reasons the if ional some of their autonomy for the the for autonomy their of some nldn te ucd bombers suicide the including jor issue when trying to apply a a apply to trying when issue jor ze this satisfaction or utility by by utility or satisfaction this ze de bombers Wintrobe (2006: p. (2006: Wintrobe bombers de As the result the leader of the of leader the result the As ntne Rnl Wintrobe Ronald instance, actors through the prism of prism the through actors oup with high solidarity of of solidarity high with oup internalizes the values and values the internalizes ainlt o ay ot of sort any of rationality potential suicide bombers suicide potential group is the need for the for need the is group ith strong ties, i.e. gangs, i.e. ties, strong ith ational agents who make who agents ational 8 (Wintrobe, 2006: p. 2006: (Wintrobe, onality adds the the adds onality p 9 (p.119). (p.119). ature. ature. content of of content d is d f the SBs ftheSBs relative relative CEU eTD Collection obr ae o o apriua tplg ad o o necessarily not do and typology particular a of not are bombers is it However, line. finish successful a to it made who bomber problem. Hence, a person should feel that he or she is not bringin not is she or he that feel should person a Hence, problem. being as strong as they are the SBs do not think of free riding as an option. freeasriding an of option. thebeing as SBs think donot strong as they are due And express. and hold vigorously they beliefs the on depends bombers Wintrobe (2004) or Wintrobe (2006) or visit URL: ht visitor URL: (2006) Wintrobe or (2004) Wintrobe beeach to the out group’s as utility SB potential such. turns utili own one’s maximize to way primary a is goals groups’ maximization and function utility the of source the becomes group clearly 2008 in conference 2.0 Belief Beyond the at talk his in Atran result this agent will bring by killing himself will be ma be will himself killing by bring will agent this result losi only not reason the for act the commit not and contract suicidal rationa should she or he still group; the of leader the to autonomy her solidari and interests group of sake the for a further, and organization become to decided one if example, For solution. free-riding the – 10 h poes f nenlzto o bles apn. hs means This happens. beliefs of internalization of process the peo thewhy reason – simple somewhatis explanation Wintrobe’s so-called the of number the then Why attack. suicide a committing 1.3.1 Problems with rational explanation of suicide bombers’ choice choice suicide bombers’ of explanation rational with Problems 1.3.1 one bom suicide potential a of decision the guide that forces other of argument his However, one. rational as SBs of behavior the explaining More on Wintrobe’s position see: See Breton and Wi and Breton See see: position Wintrobe’s on More 10 Itrsigy h Wnrb’ psto ses o e general be to seems position Wintrobe’s the Interestingly . Though, Wintrobe’s position is clear there is an important probl important an is there clear is position Wintrobe’s Though, Indeed to certain extend the idea of Ronald Wintrobe sounds plausibl sounds Wintrobe Ronald of idea the extend certain to Indeed

tp://136.159.142.206/Guest-Lecturers/Wintrobepaper. 22 ntrobe (1986) or Wintrobe (1998), chapter 13 or or 13 chapter (1998), Wintrobe or (1986) ntrobe

rginal comparing to solution of the the of solution to comparing rginal ty. Thus, the personal utility of of utility personal the Thus, ty. vital to understand that suicide suicide that understand to vital that the utility of the suicide suicide the of utility the that ple do not opt out is because is out opt not do ple bln t troit groups. terrorist to belong zbe oad ay suicide any towards izable ty, gave up most of his or his of most up gave ty, e t bcm te actual the become to ber g about much change by by change much about g ng one’s life but that the the that but life one’s ng argues that the terrorist the that argues free-riders is minimal? minimal? is free-riders s appear to be ignorant be to appear s h laes r rather or leaders the em appearing to solve to appearing em l ot u fo the from out opt lly part of the terrorist terrorist the of part e and suitable in suitable and e to the beliefs beliefs the to pdf CEU eTD Collection bonds. bonds. wit themselves mobilize who teammates soccer are bombers usual, a to refer to wayas comprehensive inused a 12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dc7iT75P2I&feature= the at Atran them of think we sense the in organizations real not are organizations system terrorist organizations and the recruitment) is highly debatable. the highly recruitment)terrorist is and debatable. organizations 11 anylike their in neighborhood. person other e not do RCT and utility of maximization still belongingness, of tha assume we if Even much. explain not does maximization utility tha important more being leader its and group the of interests particular and SBs of case in However, utility. of maximization normalbe to proved bombers suicide man thus, And 1986). Funder, & Block (See explanation of prism own his through of understanding distorted rather a have can thus, and action the in involved s as “hungry” belongingness being SBs of judgment the to refers attri The bias. attribution an conducted Wintrobe SBs, of choice the aparHere, friends. and families their with bonds social of lack o recorded been not have SBs the beliefs, and values common share impor is men, young 8-12 usually of group the in bondness of feeling ag might (2008) Atran though Even values. group’s internalize and autonomy ha they which for solidarity, and bonds group the for bombers suicide I personally do not like the expression „normal“ a „normal“ expression likenotthe do personally I a play to not found is religion the Interestingly, 11 oevr Wnrb I eiv oeepaie te eprt need desperate the overemphasizes believe I Wintrobe Moreover, pr fo psiiiy f odcig h atiuin ro, Wint error, attribution the conducting of possibility from Apart . Thus, the perception of having a particular way of getting on the on getting of way particular a having of perception the Thus, . Beyond Belief 2.0 Conference. A Conference. 2.0 Belief Beyond

12 vailable at URL: at vailable units of their own societies and have social bonds just bonds social have and societies own their of units crucial role for the SBs to choose the suicide. Se suicide. the choose to theSBs for role crucial not different from others patterns of behavior and behavior of patterns fromothers different not nd the notion of „normality“. However here it seemsit here However „normality“. of notion thend 23

related

h a common strong moral beliefs beliefs moral strong common a h t from not being able to explain to able being not from t xplain much since according since much xplain een by Wintrobe, who is not is who Wintrobe, by een te eiinmkrs the decision-maker’s, the n t the main drive is feeling is drive main the t y h iprac o the of importance the ly f being asocial or having or asocial being f bution bias in this case this in bias bution . Most of the suicide suicide the of Most . tant and they tend to to tend they and tant certain up give to ve robe argues for the the for argues robe path of the SB (viaSB the of path of the potential potential the of other’s behavior; behavior; other’s e talk by Scott Scott talk by e e ta the that ree social social y of the the of y to be be to CEU eTD Collection best way to connect to the group. best way the group. to connect to purely economic assumption of means-ends strategy with the ultima the with strategy means-ends of assumption economic purely explicit. mot of level the on operates RCT the while forces, motivational of of cause a as serves rather It RCT. traditional of idea the ma utility for drive appropriate an as feeling the of discussion as emotional, but cognitive not is drive belongingness this since alread is motivation a such considering of fact the that say to suicide the And belongingness? group in utility person’s achieve the is attack suicide the how explained have should it RCT the to best the is it thinks truly person the “if phrase in s up summed RCT The rationally. acts doll a in pin sticking by enemy his 13 bel who person if acceptable be would it RCT the for example, fact the to due inconsistency internal is there However, choices. that RCT, the of strength the surely is This goal. clear so not aut one’s up give and die to weather as context deeper and stronger morni the in coffee or tea have to weather as decisions different equa to seems assumptions rationality the of position Wintrobe’s otherwise that explanatorypower the out rules of sort explanation appr narrow the that think I However, being. human a of process making fact these applying in wrong nothing is there Surely, utility. of Wintrob The principles. rationality broader the on based not RCT, applicat the on based is choice bombers’ suicide the to RCT the More on causes and motivations in the Chapter II II Chapter in the motivations causes on and More To look even deeper into the Wintrobe’s content of argument – belongin – argument of content Wintrobe’s the into deepereven look To 13 This leads to the last but not least of Wintrobe’s issues - a - issues Wintrobe’s of least not but last the to leads This

24

the behavior which is a deeper level level deeper a is which behavior the y challenging for the RCT itself RCT the for challenging y ximized action is not relevant to to relevant not is action ximized possible way for him to achieve to him for way possible ieves in in ieves ng with the choices of a much much a of choices the with ng ors of the RCT to a decision- a to RCT the of ors ion of the weaker form of the of form weaker the of ion could be present. In fact the the In fact present. be could they accept the equality of of equality the accept they e’s arguments are based on on based are arguments e’s ac o ti cs cn be can case this on tance of equalizing choices. For For choices. equalizing of can hardly seem to be the the be to seem hardly can t s feig Tu, the Thus, feeling. a is it onomy for some clear or or clear some for onomy te goal of maximization maximization of goal te lize, for instance, such such instance, for lize, classical application of application classical vtos ht r more are that ivations most effective way to to way effective most woo-doo ah o rational to oach gness – I have – gness wants to kill to wants CEU eTD Collection behind suicide bombers’ choice. behindchoice. suicide bombers’ provides in his papers of the suicide bombers. Elster as well as Elster bombers. suicide the of papers his in provides terror act and the next chapter is dedicated to the detailed r detailed the to dedicated is chapter next the and act terror moti as serve reasons The detail. in studied be should actions the behabombers’ suicide of make anyexplanation to able be to order such.and the human as nature oversimpl is – process decision-making phenomenological and complex pos descriptive mere the applying of risk biggest the hence, and, wi problem clear a is there But rational”. is it then end, the area with a complex phenomenological actions, such as suicide. areaphenomenological as awith suicide. complex actions, such sphere economic the in success its project to tries actually demonst good a is Wintrobe of position described above the instance, throu behavior the explain to tried have actually theorists choice behavior, human the explain cannot but goals achieve to ways us give it decision-making; and behavior of sort any explain to ability The beliefs and desires form, as stated above, the above, stated as form, desires and beliefs The belie the – decision any of factors important the about talks 1986) mor a series in Elster Rather Jon considered. be to has features. behavior human understanding RCT classical a of prism the through ee wud ie o un o h Ese’ psto o sc explanat such on position Elster’s the to turn to like would I Here In my position the suicide bombers’ decision can be referred to to referred be can decision bombers’ suicide the position my In 25

reasons of explaining behavior into a social a into behavior explaining of esearch of reasons and motivations and reasons of esearch criticizes the RCT for lacking the lacking for RCT the criticizes th such interpretation in this case this in interpretation such th for a particular behavior. And in And behavior. particular a for is only a normative theory to to theory normative a only is gh the prism of the RCT. For RCT. the of prism the gh vations for a SB to commit a a commit to SB a for vations vior / choice his reasons forreasons his choice / vior ition of the RCT to a very a to RCT the of ition fs and desires of an agent. an of desires and fs e profound approach of of approach profound e ification of the theory theory the of ification though many rational rational many though ration that the RCT RCT the that ration of his works (1984, works his of as rational, but not not but rational, as ions as Wintrobe Wintrobe as ions CEU eTD Collection bombing act? bombing act? ari will i detail more in done be to going is which way, better a approaches in phenomenon and theories sociological and psychological

crusaders, and others in the past? crusaders, the in past? and others ma of path the choose people make that motivations those are What have along up themselves not blow to do decide they do who why then abnormalities agents rational as viewed are bombers suicide if convince thoroughly to fails it how also but rational, be to actions nature of emotion that triggers the individual’s behavior. Generally s Generally behavior. individual’s the triggers that emotion of nature Motivations2.1 and Reasons for Choicethe Suiciof r te esn ad oiain o te scooial haty i healthy psychologically the of motivations and reasons the are the Thus, theory. choice rational the with equipped only tackle to hard r the that clear it make will examples The action. for source b suicide the of those and general in beliefs the like just nature whic causes and reasons deeper the Rather behavior. emotion-based addi in and driven utility merely not is behavior human of motivations and b the that find may one chapter this In action. utility-oriented rational simple the beyond goes chapter This studies. terrorism debated highly questions vital other some and these answering MOTIVATIONS, REASONS SUICIDE FOR CAUSES AND The previous chapter showed how the rational choice model sees the s the sees model choice rational the how showed chapter previous The The explanation of such factors as motivation inevitably leads to to leads inevitably motivation as factors such of explanation The hs hpe cnetae o oeig p h bak o o ato m action of box black the up opening on concentrates chapter This CHAPTER 2: OPENING 2: CHAPTER - BOX” “BLACK THE MISSIONS MISSIONS 26

easons and causes particularly are are particularly causes and easons lack box, in other words reasons reasons words other in box, lack de Attackersde explanation of behavior as a as behavior of explanation ombers will be discussed as discussed be will ombers on the rational ground. And And ground. rational the on dvdas o omt o a to commit to ndividuals rtyrs, or the assassins, the assassins, the or rtyrs, currently in the area of of area the in currently peaking, emotions serve emotions peaking, h might be of irrational of be might h with innocent people? people? innocent with e n xliig the explaining in se n chapter III. So what So III. chapter n studying in detail the the detail in studying any psychological psychological any in tbig an being it tion uicide bombers bombers uicide ed o the for need tvs via otives CEU eTD Collection bombers that are not to say formed but definitely intensified b intensified definitely but formed say to not are that bombers behind a revengeful act (Rosenberger, 2003; Tosini, 2010). As an exa an As 2010). Tosini, 2003; (Rosenberger, act revengeful a behind to proximate causes while ultimate ones are rather rather are ones whileultimate causes proximate to pr into causes of division isa there since reasons cl of bel murder religious or ethnic on based community same and the of members dishonor of fact the to due anger and distress emotional exper high the Undeniably, 405). p. 2010: (Tosini, hatred” and indignation anger, reven for “desire the is choice bombers’ suicide the to linked As 2010). (Tosini, it intensify and action further the for base a as the suicide attack. reasons finding trigger that emotions negative strong by driven are hi authori attacks’ suicide the all almost Russian throughout found be may the examples against missions suicide conducted children and vengeance by husbands driven who above, discussed widows Chechen the to back refer mean rather the same phenomenasame the rather mean ca and reason of concept the philosophy in Though choice. vital their suic drive forces both where detail, more in causes and reasons introduces Elster Jon Missions” Suicide in Beliefs and “Motivations feelings such as resentment andfeelings resentment hatred. such as territorie occupied the from withdrawal military liberation, t be can reasons The bomber. suicide each of personality of roots motivati the rather are Reasons paper. this in discussion the for 14 country their liberate to as such beliefs and motivations Their Meaning that reasons are causes in philosophy, eve philosophy, in causes are reasons that Meaning r te mtos eesrl te oiain fr h atos In actions? the for motivations the necessarily emotions the Are There might be all sorts of reasons for suicide bombers to ac to bombers suicide for reasons of sorts all be Theremight

14 , Elster distinguishes between them, which is quite useful quite is which them, between distinguishes Elster , oximate and ultimate ones, where some reasons tend tend reasons wheresome ones, ultimate oximateand vague. More on causes can be found later in this ch in this later found causeson be can More vague. n though it is also true in philosophy that not all not that intrue philosophy isalso it nthough 27

s, while the causes are deeper deeper are causes the while s, y the causes that lie deep in the the in deep lie that causes the y ge caused by emotions such as such emotions by caused ge ons and beliefs of the suicide suicide the of beliefs and ons ide terrorists towards making making towards terrorists ide r o e rset n family and respect get to or one of the major tendencies major the of one ongingness factors are often often are factors ongingness he political reasons such as as such reasons political he tually justify their actions. their justify tually for committing an act of act an committing for story, where individuals individuals where story, use do go together and together go do use dsicin between distinction a mple, the reader may may reader the mple, ss oe or ones osest i article his of killed killed of causes are are causes to be close close be to apter. apter. y Such ty. ience of of ience CEU eTD Collection eid h osre mtvto o te eair fr ntne feig of feeling instance, for behavior, the of motivation observed the behind result the As missions. suicide as phenomenon such to definition broader rat than more is there that explains Elster where – box black goals. political matter this on views opposing had have who Elster and Pape between the choice; their for reasons of examples the are benefits, eair r hie f ucd bmes Wie ae es h su the sees Pape While bombers. suicide of choice or behavior

terror mission that is used not as the last resort but as the m the as but resort last the as not used is that mission terror he Moreover be. might latter the what matter no goals, their suici the choose rationally and deliberately also bombers suicide which from clear is rational being agents terrorist of idea his decision-makers individual to much refer not does he while strategy; missi suicide the use organizations terrorist that claims date Pales in Intifada second the during missions suicide the of motivation was there addition, In missions. their to prior recorded tapes video justifying are who bombers suicide and people various from hear revenge. metap the on based is argument The 10). p. 2006: Crenshaw, in cited response in retaliation and “revenge the by driven be to likely opeet ah te ta ops. o cn w rte dfeet ex di different on operate rather Elster and two Pape believe, I can Here complementary? How oppose. than other each complement motivation or the proximate cause, in this case, of suicide missions suicide of case, this in cause, proximate the or motivation Elster on the other hand, states that the suicide bombers in this in bombers suicide the that states hand, other the on Elster t h ed f h dy huh bt Pp ad ltr r rgt n t and right are Elster and Pape both though, day the of end the At 28

things we can actually observe and and observe actually can we things ost efficient way of achieving the achieving of way efficient ost refers to the means of suicide suicide of means the to refers oaiy n t nro o even or narrow its in ionality to specific Israeli actions” (as (as actions” Israeli specific to n a a en o rational of means a as ons follows that the individual individual the that follows frn lvl o explaining of levels fferent de as the means to achieve to means the as de their acts, for instance on on instance for acts, their fc o te ofit and conflict the of rface such as bombing being a being bombing as such such as suicide bombers, bombers, suicide as such tine. Pape (2003) up to up (2003) Pape tine. hor of this thesis – the – thesis this of hor a significant debate debate significant a in the context of the of context the in particular case most most case particular hr ae forces are there eaito and retaliation lntos be planations hey rather rather hey CEU eTD Collection obr’ hie icuig eiiu fco, aeil remuneration, material factor, religious including choice, bombers’ phenomenon side. from rather psychological a different, a emphasize to Moreover evidence. sufficient and rational on based f be should actors of beliefs the where vision rationality broader same time the individuals might be driven by far less observab less far by driven be might individuals the time same Tosini 2003; Rosenberger, r 2009; “the (Riaz, choice doing their the of behind ideamotivations on based nation the of liberation of factors the most of motivations true the not are appraisal social the evenor remunera material as factors motivational such that true be to Important individuals. the of beliefs and motivations possible other and and try to formation system belief and mind human to down go to decided wit studied be cannot what of out stay to preferred Pape While indistinguishab too is topic this since beliefs the about talking exactly is This holocaust. the – campaign successful and logical orga to managed he still but complex, inferiority and superiority irrati Hitler’s the at look a take can we example, an As absolutely be might still to lead may beliefs irrational on ac rational of presence the for important very is (1987) Elster f of process and content their as well as granted for taken are woo-doo agent of beliefs that argues that RCT to threat significant fac the that says (2005) Elster as moreIt is missions. suicide r and motivations individual of explanation of level psychological the on limit and circumstances certain in combating of way logical Elster (2005; 2006) goes deeper and gives quite a detailed list of r of list detailed a quite gives and deeper goes 2006) (2005; Elster described above illustrates, RCT has little explanatory pow explanatory little has RCT illustrates, above described 29

rational, in terms of implementation. implementation. of terms in rational, s have to be realistic. As the case of case the As realistic. be to have s nl ard f es ae o the on based Jews of hatred onal s, Elster goes deeper and operates and deeper goes Elster s, t that beliefs are irrational poses a a poses irrational are beliefs that t tion. Nevertheless, actions based actions Nevertheless, tion. tion or life in heaven afterwards afterwards heaven in life or tion of the suicide bombers; rather rather bombers; suicide the of le feelings such as revenge or revenge as such feelings le to according which ormation, le and hard to argue upon. upon. argue to hard and le ormed in the right way and and way right the in ormed sgiiat eut, Elster results, significant h what Pape states without without states Pape what ie msie strategic, massive, a nize er and should stick to the to stick should and er gain, in RCT the beliefs the RCT in gain, ieain f h nation, the of liberation to note that it seems it that note to gt tig r the are thing ight” easons for suicide for easons easons to commit commit to easons explain the SBs the explain 21) A the At 2010). , CEU eTD Collection be martyrs.” (Interview cited in Mekhennet and Moss, 2008; cited in T in cited 2008; Moss, and Mekhennet in cited (Interview martyrs.” be power, and loyalty to leaders of their groups. Milgram’s exp Milgram’s groups. their of leaders to loyalty and power, theory for purpose. the valuable s the trigger successfully can nationalism along and religion in grounded homeland the freeing and revenge as motivations such result they jihad, to go should they that youngmen the tell to anyone need don’t t have they that feel themselves they countries, Islamic the the see people] [young they “when result, the As nations. their the share who volunteers of pool a created already has Islamism pro and recruitment for need no be to seems there socially Thus, 409). dom western to opposition an as countries Islamic the in spread is pa of trend ideological the to belong to found are attackers suicide cont current the In revenge. for desire and humiliation their caused had in dying worth rather but living worse not lives their found thus and valuable very a is thinking whi lives, own their course of apart lose, to nothing had attackers pa this in additionally and, 241) p. 2006: (Elster, war the in children and reve the enjoy and die to there came they that confessed women i theatre in taken hostage Moscow of case in example, For hatred. n epes bdec twrs h atoiy ae w mjr discover major two made authority the towards obedience people’s on driven be can missions suicide the Sometimes territory. own one’s number of experiments Milgram came to a conclusion that a pers a that conclusion a to came group Milgram experiments of a number within individual an of behavior conformist with deals theory and The revenge is not the only hidden motive as well as not the only r only the not as well as motive hidden only the not is revenge The the agentic state theory state agentic the good but in this case I believe, women had no one left to live for for live to left one no had women believe, I case this in but (See Milgram, 1963) Milgram, (See 30

. The first finding of the conformist the of finding first The eriment that started in mid 1961 mid in started that eriment g t fih jhd Tdy you Today, jihad. fight to go o news and what is going on in on going is what and news liberate to beliefs ideological nge for their killed husbands husbands killed their for nge ch in conditions of rational rational of conditions in ch uicide-homicidal behavior uicide-homicidal n-Islamic nationalism that nationalism n-Islamic by the fear of the superior superior the of fear the by on, especially at times of times at especially on, n Dubrovka, the Chechen the Dubrovka, n ination (Tosini, 2010: p. 2010: (Tosini, ination harming the enemy who enemy the harming paganda since this pan- this since paganda with strong beliefs beliefs strong with rticular case, suicide suicide case, rticular osini, 2010). As the As 2010). osini, themselves want to to want themselves ies: ies: . Throughout the the Throughout . ext, many of the the of many ext, eason to liberate to eason the conformist conformist the CEU eTD Collection rsue n rus f errss n a te eut l o thes of all result the as and terrorists of groups in pressure to Adding suffering. members’ family even and death promising by by these miserable emotions. A good man should be driven by the idea the by driven be should man good A emotions. miserable these by case many in but actions, for responsible oneself hold not do and cause themselves see they since obey and instructions authority’s follow that states addition, in theory state agentic The individual. of eyes has one latter the because command its and authority the follows le group’s a to process decision-making the leave will crisis eyes of peers, which might be used a lot in the peer pressure analogue. beeyes used the in peer apressure analogue. of lot which peers, might this in action for reason Another kill. dyingto of act the commit Even at last the terrorist groups and leaders can impose the f the impose can leaders and groups terrorist the last at Even c the from away kept sure for than brain-washed not if and society a bombers suicide that argued usually is it attacks suicide attacks flight suicidal the in participate to decision a making po authority the where places, enemy the into planes their orient com “voluntarily” that kamikazes of Japanese case the for is example this of death. Thus, from the individual view the belief in the “rightness” the in belief the view individual the from Thus, death. of rig the in belief strong the to due mind their change not do who volunteers wrong certainly and unfair be will it However, pilots. c Kamikaze or recruited being than rather act the for volunteer they since value the in believe truly they – choice their and bombers suicide refe be can This 239). p. 2005: Gambetta, in (Elster action the of be not drive should warrior good and man and fear,revealed –shamedue above the to drives soldiers of lots While 2005). Gambetta, (in Elster by summarized rsol dsusd h mtvtos f ra wrir n i wri his in warrior real a of motivations the discussed Aristotle 31

e xldd rm h rs o the of rest the from excluded re ear for opting out of the contract the of out opting for ear e can be served as a reason to to reason a as served be can e ader. In addition the individual the addition In ader. (Hill, 2006). In contemporary contemporary In 2006). (Hill, group is shame; shame in the in shame shame; is group do not opt out from battles battles from out opt not do and goodness of their act, their of goodness and as mere tools for a good good a for tools mere as ecd s n h cs of case the in as oerced wer played a big role in in role big a played wer this there is a certain peercertain a is there this ontra argumentum ideas. ideas. argumentum ontra more competency in the the in competency more rred to as motivation to to motivation as to rred o li ta Ss are SBs that claim to n niiul ed to tends individual an of his deed might be be might deed his of of intrinsic goodness intrinsic of mitted themselves to mitted leaders. s htness of their act act their of htness tings that are are that tings

good A n CEU eTD Collection atclry n h Sit bac o Ilm de nt etil i certainly not does Islam, of branch Shiite the in particularly unhonorablepossible death. bomber] without really losing any self-respect, the respec the self-respect, any losing really without bomber] Howe bombing. the commit to argument important an as this consider sa afterlife in believe truly who bombers suicide be might a too is statement this surely Though, salvation. the of expectation good-byes are manufactured, the person is being referred to as a a as to referred being is person the manufactured, are good-byes w otherwise culture,martyr’s in vital is which reputation their refrain to choosing not of pressure a up puts This 2000). Congress, the to distributed are that videotapes creating friends; family, bom suicide potential a when return, no of point so-called org a create the since commitment the of out way no such as is There 2003). May hai, hai, riig eid n pca cms hog vros en o coercion of means various through camps special in period training r even rat are also who but and organizations, terrorist the enter to volunteer freedom, and homeland their for fighting of individuals aspired t Thus, 118). p. 2002: (Ergil, martyrs living other of front in attack the Workers’Part S aexecuting by measures harsh rather the employ happenedto Kurdistan the PKK, as such organizations, other Some dead. terrorisuicide mission, it should be said that the religious certa religious the that said be should it mission, terrorisuicide rae pit f o eun I te oa’ troit tak, “t attacks, terrorist today’s the In return. no of point a create organiza terrorist the joins martyr potential a once that argue process rationalization post-decision a as understood 15 This rationalization processes are discussed in mo in discussed are processes rationalization This which means that the SB is only temporary alive in the human fle human the in alive temporary only is SB the that means which s o te oiain f h atriepyof o te sacrifi the for pay-off afterlife the of motivation the for As

re detail in Chapter III III Chapter in detail re 32

15 O te raiains ie authors side, organization’s the On . t of others” (Merari, CBS News, 25 25 News, CBS (Merari, others” of t lvation as well as those who do not not do who those as well as lvation ould be ruined. And after all the the all after And ruined. be ould tions there is a strategic plan to to plan strategic a is there tions B who did not wish to commit commit to wish not did who B in support for the martyrdom, martyrdom, the for support in here is no return [for suicide suicide [for return no is here mply the martyrs’ belief and and belief martyrs’ the mply her manipulated during their their during manipulated her living martyr, living public (Merari, before US US before (Merari, public from the martyr’s path, as path, martyr’s the from e n h cret Islamic current the in ce mbiguous as well. There well. as mbiguous e wie ls ltes to letters last writes ber sh, but he is already is he but sh, uh s hm and shame as such e, hs particular this ver, e B tn t be to tend SBs he nztos also anizations y in Turkey, Turkey, in y al-shahid al- al-shahid eligion who who eligion CEU eTD Collection by the suicide bombers and terrorist organizations. They are like an ac are an like They terrorist organizations. and bombers by suicide the eetees shlr se t are ht h dsr fr h s the for desire the that agree to seem scholars Nevertheless, behavior. However any other possible explanation power of the RCT can can RCT of power the explanation possible any other behavior. However Reuter,of (Elster2005; a Gambetta, 2002). commitment successful in a rather but martyrdom, of act the commit to SB the for motivation f no since against, or for argue to possible not rather is motivation as revenge, homeland freedom can easily be a part of the cla the of part a be easily can freedom homeland revenge, as mot these of Some remuneration. religious as such fate their choose less well as are There fear. and shame, revenge, of feelings belief true homeland, the free to willingness – path attacker’s 2.2 Causes2.2 theof Choice Suicide of Bombers of human othermotives accepting behavior than maximizat mere are there that rather refer to the proximate causes and which are in addition for addition in are which and causes proximate the to refer rather bel of feeling of lack poverty, age, gender, are: usually causes ac terror the conducting for world outer the in reasons the finding to frustr or inferiority of feelings example, For emotions. deeper p unconscious an be to has it since himself, individual the of back the b the of intensity the provide They stated. clearly or visible not tha forces some are causes ultimate the above explained reasons some may causes proximate While 2005). Thiery, 1992; (Alessi, causes literat in defined are causes typesof usuallyabove,two mentioned agent each by experienced feelings deep or causes, underlying Cneunl tee r rte srn mtvs o idvdas o choos to individuals for motives strong rather are there Consequently The most exciting and rather unknown part of explanation of human behavi human of explanation of part unknown rather and exciting most The 33

ssical RCT model explanation of explanation model RCT ssical of important factors for SBs to to SBs for factors important of in the right cause and goal and goal and cause right the in ated expectations actually lead lead actually expectations ated lain n prds i nt a not is paradise and alvation t underlie the reasons and are and reasons the underlie t eliefs and motivations stated motivations and eliefs ongingness, and others that that others and ongingness, ure: proximate and ultimateand proximate ure: ms of causes of the suicide the of causes of ms certain bonus as the result result the as bonus certain ivations and reasons, such reasons, and ivations actual data can be found. be can data actual of an action. As it was was it As action. an of t. Some of the other cited cited other the of Some t. tion taking place behind behind taking place tion rocess of dealing with with dealing of rocess times be referred to as to referred be times be enhanced only by by only enhanced be ion ofion utility. e the suicide suicide the e or is the is or CEU eTD Collection psychotic men. However as stated above the empirical evidence empirical the above stated as However men. psychotic S perceived time that at who societies attacked the from bias T 2006). Gambetta, in (Elster basis starvation sexual possible young single a overview: causal following the had profile bomber’s particular negative way. particular way. negative the participation (Pape, 2003). difference no shows also gender Moreover oneself. commit to interest a mission suicide choosing of causes the on background socio-economic the i onthe the little scholars have of finding with beenmissions lately shattered attackers might be as well under the attributional error as w as error attributional the under well as be might attackers not if had have could it what and has it what of unfairness the feels educate this Particularly account. deprivation the in be to seems economically and educated relatively are attack suicide commit to t found is it though Mostly gender. and age even or poverty or education wit correlation causal have not do and challenged mentally being from on the group level. The situation gets out of hand even more while the while more even hand of out gets situation The level. group the on causes nature lower a of someone as one views someone that feeling la are Arabs “all that sure are a Israelis many centuries inferiority of feeling of case Palestinian the about talks p 2006: (Elster, people of group the of resentment and inferiority L Sri and East Middle the in least at cause, relevant most The cited Loewenstein and (Frederick actions to lead that feelings Prior to 9/11 apart from being perceived as mentally disorient mentally as perceived being from apart 9/11 to Prior In general, the gap between the expected and actual experiences actual and expected the between gap the general, In 34

zy, cowardly, and cruel” (p. 245). The The 245). (p. cruel” and cowardly, zy, ell as they see their enemies in a in enemies their see they as ell Bs as completely irrational and irrational completely as Bs his was a clear correspondence clear a was his anka seems to be the feeling of feeling the be to seems anka d eetet aprnl for apparently resentment: nd in Elster in Gambetta, 2006). 2006). Gambetta, in Elster in d layer of the poor society society poor the of layer d . 245). For example, Elster example, For 245). . well-off; the problem then problem the well-off; far are SBs the that shows the occupiers. Thus, the the Thus, occupiers. the the inferiority complex inferiority the man, uneducated, with with uneducated, man, ed, the typical suicide typical the ed, in creating causes for for causes creating in triggers the negative negative the triggers hat people who tend tend who people hat direct interaction of interaction direct sc fcos as factors such h f any influence of a il o an of field a s CEU eTD Collection rtss n ble o klig h “vl (oiain ad belief and (motivations “evil” the killing of belief and protests 9/ the of example the is here vivid causes and reasons between In to order etc. community, the media, be precise to or world by outer the Accordi ideas. and stereotypes their with worlds two of people by alienation, loneliness, feeling of inferiority, and other dee other and inferiority, of feeling loneliness, alienation, by obr coc cn e et xlie fo te as’ pit of point cause’s the from explained best be can choice bombers poorer strata of society that he had witnessed in his life. Thus, I Thus, life. his in witnessed had he that society of strata poorer

(Khosrokhavar, 2005; Sageman, 2004) say that these motivations were ca were motivations these that say 2004) Sageman, 2005; (Khosrokhavar, m which humiliation of feelings by driven are individuals desperate Centers. Nineteen hijackers were claimed to be motivated by r by motivated be to claimed were hijackers Nineteen Centers. hs r bs suid y h pyhlgcl n sm sociological some and psychological the by studied best are thus sociological approaches. sociologicalapproaches. common enemycommon of their society. trigg successful a be can person a surrounds that poverty social pr not did it however family, well-off very a from was Engels poverty the witnessing the is causes such of One list. the to added possi more some are there However, attacker. suicide a of choice bel he that – resentment and complex inferiority – causes major t start to trigger powerful a as serve well may Israelis interacti the in humiliation on based resentment the but SBs, many wea USA’s the of envy the example, For 1999). (Elster, stronger s much a is resentment The tragedy. prosp 9/11 the and for responsible wealth America’s instance, for towards, envy an usually “othe that with interaction the in rooted is resentment while else, The inferiority complex usually derives from the comparison of of comparison the from derives usually complex inferiority The 35

he revenge. Elster stands for these two two these for stands Elster revenge. he event him from standing for the for standing from him event p reasons (causes). The causes causes The (causes). reasons p 11 attack on the World Trade World the on attack 11 tronger and deeper and thus, thus, and deeper and tronger eligious convictions, political convictions, eligious r”. The inferiority complex is complex inferiority The r”. would say the experience of of experience the say would er in standing up against the against up standing in er ng to Crenshaw (2006) the the (2006) Crenshaw to ng lth is not going to motivate motivate to going not is lth iefs might help explain the explain help might iefs ost probably are generated are probably ost ble causes that should be be should that causes ble in general. For example, example, For general. in ) hl sm analysts some while s) theories and the suicide suicide the and theories n f aetnas with Palestinians of on iw y h psycho- the by view oneself with someone with oneself make the distinction the distinction make erity by the pilots, pilots, the by erity used and intensified and used CEU eTD Collection by the purely psychological theories of human behavior and motivation of the la of andby theories behavior motivation of psychological human the purely oefl n xliig ua bhvo, atclry f phenomenolog a of particularly behavior, human explaining in powerful feelings and causes deep the with along approaches; sociological by chapter next the in explained further be should bombers suicide st are which beliefs, and reasons irrational The nature. exclusive

much to develop or even loosen up its assumptions of the rational ac rational the of assumptions its up loosen even or develop to much ltrs icsin n pit f iw ned hw ta rtoa choice rational that shows indeed view of point and discussion Elster’s 36

ated in the motivations of the of motivations the in ated of humiliation are covered are humiliation of tors if it seeks to be more be to seeks it if tors h pyhlgcl and psychological the ical and rather rather and ical tter. tter. hoy has theory CEU eTD Collection pathology based on the parental hatred and any other events rooted in t in rooted events other any and hatred parental the on basedpathology peop the being bombers suicide of made was conclusion the phenomenon, amateur slightly this, With psychoanalysis. the was psychology ca reasons the way the provide will It particular. in bombers stayed out of the explanation of the behavior. suicide bombers’ stayed the explanation of out psychod the then Since 2005). Victoroff, (see before provided attacker a fit not do who individuals “normal” rather but psychopaths actually tha experiments many through realized psychologists time, over

3.1 The 3.1 Psychological Perspective Suicideon Bomber of bombers. decisionimportance making suicide the in process of such explanations social the provide will theories sociological proclaime of layer the under lying something of causes, the of application better possible its for consider to theory choice g that way a in bombers suicide the of beliefs irrational and theor psychological the that show and box black the more even unpack a tapes SBs’goodbye in observable well are that motivations c ultimate and proximate the shaped which detail more bit a in motivations human of box black the Thus, bombs. human becoming of choice bombers suicide of feelings rooted deeper as causes and motivations PSYCHOLOGICAL BACKGROUND SOCIOLOGICALAND h vr frt prah n xliig h siie tak and attacks suicide the explaining in approach first very The presence the of discussion the illustrated chapter previous The CHAPTER 3: THE “BLACK BOX” MODEL BOX” 3: “BLACK CHAPTER THE AND ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT 37

to the case of suicide and suicide and suicide of case the to n serve as rather rationalizations rationalizations rather as serve n ives opportunity to the rational the to opportunity ives nd notes. In this chapter I will will I chapter this In notes. nd auses along with some surface surface some with along auses and complicated tool for such such for tool complicated and identity group and pressure as s’Choice d motivations. Moreover, the the Moreover, motivations. d t suicide bombers are not not are bombers suicide t ny typology of a suicide suicide a of typology ny that drive them to the to them drive that he childhood. However childhood. he ies explain the causes the explain ies their carriers within within carriers their ynamic theories have have theories ynamic e ih certain with le f esn as reasons of was explained explained was CEU eTD Collection obr ae o te eiin n h cniin f otoes. h pro know person The controversy. of condition the in decision the on takes bomber power of the cognitive dissonance is very useful when dealing dealing when useful very is dissonance cognitive the of power irrational and destructive behavior such as that of a behavior suicideas irrationalbomber. of that such and destructive al death own her or his be to campaign successful a of consequences Kandel, Ernst, 2003). 1998; Satterfeld, 1988; thi of way her or his in rooted are individual an of actions violent a substantial a is There world. outer for has one prejudices and base particularly is style cognitive This individual. an of thinking tactics used by the mind the by used tactics way any in dissonance the decrease to tend situations uncomfortable to as deep as goes theory The ideas. conflicting absolutely more com that feeling uncomfortable very a is which dissonance, cognitive important idea at the moment is the concept of of concept the is moment the at idea important the of part particular a to behavior and emotion certain a link to natureyoung its in experimental whe rather and area This of psychology is abilit learning and language, attention, memory, as such body human of w theories cognitive The applicable. most the be to tend theories than ever tends to think of his or her ideas and opinions as the right on right the as opinions and ideas her or his of think to tends ever than situa tricky very a is dissonance of state The other. the against going of aware isnot theagent and one unconscious dissonance cognitive and theories psychological Cognitive 3.1.1 16 It is important to bear in mind that cognitive dis thatcognitive mind in bear to isimportant It How is this theory relevant to the choice of a suicide attacker? attacker? suicide a of choice the to relevant theory this is How As a part of the cognitive theories is a risk that all individua all that risk a is theories cognitive the of part a As Out of non psychoanalytical psychological theories on suicide ter suicide on theories psychological psychoanalytical non of Out 16 are denying, rationalizing, blaming or justifying a parti a justifying or blaming rationalizing, denying, are

sonance as most of other cognitive processes, isan processes, cognitive mostother of as sonance through the stage of dissonance. dissonance. of thestage through 38

ontv stylecognitive rea of evidence that shows that that shows that evidence of rea tion when an individual more individual an when tion ork with the mental functions mental the with ork , in other words the way of of way the words other in , with a factual or seemingly seemingly or factual a with d on such ideas as biases, biases, as ideas such on d brain function. The most most The function. brain nking (see Bryant, 1984; 1984; Bryant, (see nking say that people in such such in people that say ls run into facing – the the – facing into run ls es from holding two or two holding from es ong with the death of of death the with ong ies of the individuals. the of ies rorism the cognitive the rorism osbe Te usual The possible. es. The explanation explanation The es. re psychologists try psychologists re isl, suicide a Firstly,

cular idea idea cular the s CEU eTD Collection being wrong. However, psychologically the mind of a human being w being human a of mind the psychologically However, wrong. being conseque problematic additional the face death, and life between to. to. op to try not will person the that predictive more and “easier” post- the with dealing of possibility the way this In choice. his f the to attention martyr’s future down narrow to order in society suici future the alienate to tend leaders the II, and I chapter since, members group the of dissonance cognitive the minimizing of marty future the influence to power the groupshave terrorist training in already place takes process decision this the usually Moreover, making of way positive more a in thinking their lead corre the and valuable be will action their of value intrinsic the justi over the apply will they bombers suicide of case the in attract more look made was that decision the make to ways find making in particularly individual, an dissonance post-decision of condition post-decisi the experience well as should attacker suicide Palest in justificationexample into such ofput is terroraction as for conductingthe of motivation extrinsic the with mergesact the of t at existing else anything than valuable more is which goal, suici future when occurs effect over-justification so-called the value the for valuable is that goal the to linked stronglybe should the addition, In it. for life own of price the with along goes that procl or land free it be goal, final of value the and life of value makin decision of phase first the in dissonance The people. other In addition to the over-justification effect once the decision has bee has decision the once effect over-justification the to addition In 39

on dissonance (Pink, 2005). In the the In 2005). (Pink, dissonance on hat time. The intrinsic motivation intrinsic The time. hat rs. Thus, the leaders have the role the have leaders the Thus, rs. fication effect here as well, since well, as here effect fication de bombers from the rest of the the of rest the from bombers de t out of the contract he entered he contract the of out t ctness of their decision should decision their of ctness ive (Peci, 1995). For example, example, For 1995). (Peci, ive value system of an individual an of system value aimed hero, or any other goal other any or hero, aimed e obr lv fr h final the for live bombers de decision dissonance becomes becomes dissonance decision nces of the decision possibly possibly decision the of nces act for the people and god, ifgod, and people the foract ap wee h laes of leaders the where camps inal goal and correctness of correctness and goal inal he or she holds. In this case Inthis holds. she or he g seems to be between the the between be to seems g ine. ill automatically try to to try automatically ill o e h rgt one. right the be to as was discussed in in discussed was as n made the future future the made n difficult choices choices difficult CEU eTD Collection punish transgressors who violate the contracts of social species: social of contracts the violate who transgressors punish people. people. theory – aggression Humiliation 3.1.2 neet wt te ot f n’ on ie wih ae te ed eve deed the makes which life, own one’s of cost the with group’ interests the of sake the for phenomenon social a quite be can revenge this from Hence, 2005). Victoroff, in Parkercited & Brock – g (Clutton the also but individual vengeful a of goals the only not serves often r deeply probably is that emotion an is since“revenge revenge humiliation of feeling constant the from oneself free to rational clai (1995) Paker & Brock addition, In behavior. asocial an not is which outgro vs ingroup the on based be course, of can, behaviorand preferences group anti-social an of be to considered not is orient revenge usually is it Daily Instead 2005). Victoroff, 1995; Parker, & (Brock vital factor in triggering the suicide bombers’ choice, partic choice, bombers’ suicide the triggering in factor vital and vision the shares Palestine in psychiatrist a (2002), Sarraj authorities, Israeli the to subordination and interaction from comes humiliati the by motivated widely are who bombers suicide young i example, For humiliation. of source a is actually that actor int or communication constant the through comes humiliation the Usually wars Crusade the to led that movements Christian the for motivation s cross the on Christ the in depicted was that times early the oppres the example, For 2005). (Victoroff, explanation their and events po fact in is humiliation the for revenge or behavior aggressive the commit to bombers suicide the of motivation the influence to thought uiito a dsrbd n hpe I a wl, s nte psy another is well, as II chapter in described as Humiliation 40

ularly the choice of the younger the of choice the ularly ooted in the adaptive instinct to instinct adaptive the in ooted n the case of Palestine and its its and Palestine of case the n and fear – through aggression, through – fear and pular in the ancient historical historical ancient the in pular ymbol, served as a powerful powerful a as served ymbol, findings that humiliation is a is humiliation that findings hence, it is a motivator that that motivator a is it hence, followed by fear. Eayd el- Eayd fear. by followed on in their daily life that life daily their in on ed towards the particular particular the towards ed chological idea that is is that idea chological sion of Christians in Christians of sion terrorist attack. The The attack. terrorist s or even society’s society’s even or s (Armstrong, 2001). 2001). (Armstrong, up behavior model, model, behavior up oals of his group” group” his of oals point of view the the view of point n of an altruistic altruistic an of n rcin ih the with eraction y oe authors some by ta i i even is it that m CEU eTD Collection rc t b al t pns te rngesr. h rsac has research The transgressors. the punish to able be to price punishment for the transgressor which is held by the punisher. Stil punisher. the by held is which transgressor the for punishment psychological, or rational choice. Out of the following wide range of socio wide following the Outof choice. rational psychological, or Rationalit bomber suicide the why On and how on remains question The Marriage). Elster, (see rational be to found been has naturewhich to punish the transgressors for a very high cost for themselves f themselves for cost high verya transgressors for the punish to sugges area the in research available the that concludes he where thi discusses (2010) Henrich Joseph for? strives one purpose the for of cost the wayhow seea be to still However,there cancosts. deci the during brain the of part rational the of suppression the even since life) one’s as (such high too are costs the when condition b should it altruism and revenge for strive to rational is it r the As cortex. rational the of activity the inhibited well have b the of part sub-cortical deep the activity punishers’ during w brain the of activity the study this during Interestingly 2004). tr their punish to able being for price high quite pay to ready 3.2 The 3.2 Sociological Perspective on Suicidethe Bom area. this theories shed into more will light results. experiment the by unanswered is behavior punishment such of lal b ti pit a nt e xlie b oe ige theo single one by explained be not can point this by clearly phenomenon the of view the broadens it however, understand; or explain m suicide of phenomenon the make not does sure It theories. sociological e certain a to be can choice bombers’ suicide the for support The 78). p. 2009: (Tosini, comrades their of support community the on depend It is well-known that the terrorist organizations armed with the hum the with armed organizations terrorist the that well-known is It 41

e irrational to be a punisher in the in punisher a be to irrational e ansgressors (De Quervain et al., et Quervain (De ansgressors rain was activated which might might which activated was rain esult, it seems that even though even that seems it esult, someone’s life is a rational costrational a lifeis someone’s bers Behavior or a reason of fair trial and fair fair and trial fairof reason a or xtend explained by particular particular by explained xtend hwd ht niiul are individuals that showed ts that individuals are ready are individuals that ts as studied that showed that that showed that studied as sion-making with too high high too with sion-making l the question of rationality rationality of question the l s question in his article his in question s the neuroscience shows shows neuroscience the y b i sociological, it be ry, is willing to pay a high high a pay to willing is ’s explanation which explanation ’s o Atus and Altruism of y logical theories that that logical theories oe sociological Some an bombs heavily bombs an issions easier to to easier issions community CEU eTD Collection theory deprivation 3.2.1The relative of the their argumentation in sound positions. detail, discussed in be will two first the onlytheory – cultural the oppression hypothesis, lear aggression social – behavior: frustration theory, bombers’ depravation suicide the explain to tried have and what they could have had but also the comparison of what others out out others what of comparison the also but had have could they what and indi what of status-quo the of comparison through works theory this course, opportuniti more up opening and growth economic for allow not did that treatment unfair to due years for had have they gap the realize indi sensitive particularly are they that is society a within b suicide of case the in theory this behind idea The attackers. behavior deviational and movements social as phenomenasuch explain relative deprivation theory was introduced back in 1949 by Sam St Sam by 1949 in back introduced was theory deprivation relative unfai of feeling from act her or him makes feels individual an that rather that above mentioned still was it choice bomber’s suicide Soldier Soldier hostile individual and social behavior and choices. and social individual and behaviorhostile choices. etc infidels, occupiers, i.e. the not if off, better been have could that knowing of fact the to due misery of feeling the from comes dissatisfaction mutual The way. resourceful and material in south as seen is north the where world the of division north – south of case the b exploited or deprived feel might that societies the with works S & (Walker experiencing been have they misery the bear cannot vn huh t a fud ht h eooi sau de nt ae n effect an have not does status economic the that found was it though Even The relative deprivation theory has been in political science f science political in been theoryhas deprivation relative The where he claimed that the rebellious behavior comes to place wh place to comes behavior rebellious the that claimed he where 42

viduals of rather middle class who class middle rather of viduals since I find them being the most most beingthe I them sincefind or occupation of their territory their of occupation or ombers as the group of people people of group the as ombers . As the result this leads to the to leads this result the As . y other societies. For example, example, For societies. yother the gap of deprived goods goods deprived of gap the or a long time in order to to order in time long a or h lf idvdas have individuals life the ouffer in in ouffer of the group of people people of group the of ih 20) Te same The 2001). mith, ns ad iey The misery. and rness ning theory, relative relative theory, ning such as that of suicide suicide of that as such an exploiter of the of exploiter an of their world have have world their of enever individuals individuals enever ory, and national national and ory, s o pol. Of people. for es viduals have now have viduals The American American The n the on CEU eTD Collection bombing out of the feeling of misery and deprivation. It still doe still It deprivation. and misery of feeling the of out bombing va some of think people makes nature unfair the of particularly behavior is considered to be of a deviant nature; thus, the actors are actors the thus, nature; deviant a of be to considered is behavior demonstrably with commonplace, and accepted becomes – abnormal nega usually is that act an life, one’s of taking “senseless the of sense the that happen might it However, point. “normality” a from hog osrainl learning observational through outs the from learnt be to behavior human the explains theory This 1977. field. sociological a in Theory Association 18 behav novel replicating and retaining observing, of serve to individual bomb. as a human i up ends turn its in that arises deprivation the of relativity r the As bombers. suicide potential the than better being without i rest the are off well how example, for them: to comparison in ramn. oee ti sil ant prv te osblt o c of possibility the approve cannot still this However treatment. to order in unreasonable seem not do motivations These mindset. their punis to least at or consequences fair the for fight to want them 3.2.2 The social learning theory and normalization of violence violence of and normalization theory learning social The3.2.2 of violence normalization why the soc in theory and the other need onlearning we social of experience The obvious. quite be can answer the but complex, 17 urudn evrnet f h ciias Te rmnl eair s wel as behavior criminal The criminals. the of environment surrounding as behavior criminal the explain to attempts the in criminology The theory is also called the social learning theo learning thesocial called also theory is The i.e – itself for speaks learning observational The Why and how then can it make their choice seem more rational? The rational? more seem choice their make it can then how and Why The social learning theory has roots in psychology developed b developed psychology in roots has theory learning social The

17 I te oilgcl pee hs theory this sphere sociological the In . . immitation – is „a type of learning that occurs a occurs that learning of is„a type – immitation . ry; however, there is a possibility to refer to it to refer to possibility isa there however, ry; ior executed by others“ (Bandura, 1977) 1977) (Bandura, others“ by executed ior 43

n triggering the motivation of an of motivation the triggering n tively regarded as aberrant, if not not if aberrant, as regarded tively the result of learning from the the from learning of result the h those who are in charge, in in charge, in are who those h s not make it rational that is is that rational it make not s lues of fairness and makes makes and fairness of lues n other parts of the world world the of parts other n esult of comparison the the comparison of esult showing the deviation the showing nutn te suicide the onducting normality inverts and and inverts normality positive connotations” positive y Albert Bandura in in Bandura Albert y 18 fight for one’s fair fair one’s for fight negative feelings, feelings, negative rnfre into transformed question is rather is question l as the suicidal suicidal the as l d environment ide as Differential Differential as s a function function sa iety. iety. CEU eTD Collection based on the theological justification of the actions has played a played has actions the of justification theological the on based participation. good die and for to making God’s the will. the cause Nobel it duty encourages and justifies actually societies Islamic other of Pal the in acceptance wide its and martyrdom of culture the Thus, ca is It death. called not is This death. not is This perdition. to or throwing not is [son] he supersede…But can whatsoever emotion no which [martyrdom this But mothers. compassionate most the of one am I sons, “beli said: she as detail more in explains sons, her of three of support her caused that reasons the explained who woman Palestinian comm the within respected highly are families their and heroes “A on work his suic the perceived society in the Attacks” Suicide of (2009) Understanding Tosini by in described example as For intifadas, community. Palestinian particular a within 157) p. 2006: (Hoffman, Turkey). Even though such desires as living next to Allah are rath are Allah to next living as desires such though Even Turkey). Sri-La in Tigers Tamil the of exceptions (with territories volunteer more invite to as well as system value the and organization Palestine in PIJ the and Hamas by exercised highly been has the of victory inevitable the for fight who martyrs, determined or terrorist a of image the supports martyrs by madetapes such of circulation the Moreover 2006). (Hoffman, martyrs the of choice re the to example an setting and families their and attackers to provided encouragement spiritual and material through organizations In addition to normalization of violence in the society the role of soci ofsociety rolethe the in violenceof normalization to In addition supporte often quite is violence the of normalization of tendency The 44

ganization of being consistent of the the of being consistent of ganization st of the community of exemplary of community the of st nka and PKK party of Kurds in in Kurds of party PKK and nka to strengthen the position of the the of position the strengthen to to participate in suicide attacks, attacks, suicide in participate to eve me, when it comes to my to comes it when me, eve organization. This technique technique This organization. estinian society and number number and society estinian role in many terrorist based terrorist many in role unity. An interview with a a with interview An unity. ide bombers as martyrs, or martyrs, as bombers ide er the bonus perception in in perception bonus the er lled martyrdom” (p. 79). 79). (p. martyrdom” lled of the suicide missions suicide the of fr h “oy war” “holy the for s materials as video- as materials ] is a sacred duty, duty, sacred a is ] al learning highlylearning al both the suicide suicide the both d by the terrorist terrorist the by d himself to death to himself Sociological Sociological h cs of case the CEU eTD Collection jihad eif te tes hud e ae n scoyai processes psychodynamic on made be should stress the beliefs suicide bombers to choose to conduct the act. conductsuicide to bombers choose the act. to voluntee recruit to organizations for both easier it makes community T or Hamas as such course of ones other The organizations. terrorist Ti Tamil the or Turkey, in asPKK such organizations other religion, an of behavior the case, a such In grounds. religious or territorial, suici the whom with ones the also but people closest the ofonly not humil of experiences previous the to linked are that rage moral and condition w the addition, In combined 2004). al., nature et (Lester beliefs authoritarian fundamentalist the of be can They mind. attacker’s resul that Christians of prosecution of thehistory the of culture the martyrdom. and normality reinforceme a as seen be can messages of type this Hence, 158). i (cited sake?’” your for martyrdom of me deprived you have why God, t of middle the in wake should days these in martyrdom attain not does televi Palestinian the broadcastedwason that 2001 12, April on sermon M Ibrahim Sheikh example For divine. and “normality” of limits the certainl religion the society the in choice, bombers’ suicide as cultural or life world of component This heritage. cultural share 19 history they employed the idea of martyrdom. martyrdom. of theidea employed historythey killingot against convictions negative strong have The culture of martyrdom seems to appraise in the in the appraise to seems martyrdom cultureof The culture of martyrdom of culture in order to support the acts of suicide terrorism. Hence, the Hence, terrorism. suicide of acts the support to order in The attackers, however, can not be fully explained by only sociolog only by explained fully be not can however, attackers, The As with any other society, the members of communities who sup who communities of members the society, other any with As 19 . Even though the nature of this culture is suggested to be rooted i rooted be to suggested is culture this of nature the though Even

ted in Crusades. Important to notice that both of t of thatboth notice Importantto Crusades. in ted hers and committing suicide, however in a particula a in however suicide, committing hersand time of crisis: nowadays in Islam and was also comm also was and Islam in nowadays crisis: of time 45

y shapes and as the result defines result the as and shapes y heritage is usually referred to to referred usually is heritage nt for the society to embrace embrace to society the for nt ht culy apn n the in happen actually that presence of such beliefs in a a in beliefs such of presence de attackers shares ethnic, ethnic, attackers shares de individual is “affectually is individual iation and assassination, and iation rs and for the potential potential the for and rs aliban actually call for call actually aliban adhi proclaimed in his his in proclaimed adhi es eog o secular to belong gers sion that “anyonewho that sion he night and say: ‘My ‘My say: and night he port suicide terrorism terrorism suicide port of emotional distress distress emotional of n Hoffman, 2006: p. p. 2006: Hoffman, n ith the religious religious the ith ical pressure and pressure ical hese religions religions hese r period of period r on in in on n CEU eTD Collection utfcto efc o cretes f hi bles s w as beliefs their of correctness of effect justification motivat The sociology. and psychology in roots their have that bombers husbands and children. reve to aim who II, and I chapters in above discussed women Chechen f as revenge, such tensions emotional of because 1966) determined” (Weber, instance in the video tapes. The causes of their behavior are rathe are behavior their of causes The tapes. video the atta in instance the by way some in pronounced usually are motivations These had have could they what and have they what between gap the envision g of bombers suicide possible of deprivation visible the actors, normalizat of learning social the are: chapter this in detail choiceone’s the own expense in of life. aggre to leads which humiliation of feeling the is influential be to bel is which cause, Another made. was that decision the to arguments t from alienated is martyr future the sure make who leaders, and assist the with dealt cases of lot a in which dissonance, cognitive

To summarize, this chapter concentrated on the motivations and causes and motivations the on concentrated chapter this summarize, To

46

ell as the pre- and post-decision post-decision and pre- the as ell o o voec adbd s good vs bad and violence of ion ance of the terrorist groups terrorist the of ance he outer world and contra- and world outer he os s ta te clearly they that so oods, r such factors as the over- the as factors such r so ad h revengeful the and ssion ieved by many scholars scholars many by ieved kr tesle for themselves ckers if not the occupiers. occupiers. the not if ions learnt in more in learnt ions nge for the killed killed the for nge or example of the or of example of the suicide the of CEU eTD Collection bombers. Certainly, none of the other theories, be it sociologica it be theories, other the of none Certainly, bombers. political phenomenon. Thus, the rational choice approach fails to answe to fails approach choice rational the Thus, phenomenon. political at f h peoeo, tes ocnrt o sca evrnet n conditions and environment social on concentrate others phenomenon, the of part hruhy xli te oiain o te ucd bmes Ta i pa up bystrongest are taken of existing box the the theories black points is That bombers. suicide the of motivations the explain thoroughly There are rather number of factors that influence the decision- the influence that factors of number rather are There forcebehi driving the not often is maximization utility IIthe grante for Ias However, utility-orientedness. beingthe motivator important condition rationality their taking individuals, of motivations and take out something that might help us understand why suicide bombers do what they do. and might do what take why help something suicide understand they us do. out bombers that the into look a take to important is it phenomenon, a such explaining schools of most Since attackers. suicide of behavior the understanding bl the of framework the opened and decision-making individual the at suicide of behavior the explaining in framework general a create att much not bombers.Yetsuicide become result as the who individuals hoy wih un ot o e o rgd o e be o xli sc a such explain to able be to rigid too be to out turns which theory, of prism the through seen are attackers suicide where Wintrobe

in this thesis and beyond, concentrate on the terrorist organizations organizations terrorist the on concentrate beyond, and thesis this in whi example, For theories. and perspectives different from area the in provided is literature much So phenomenon. complex more a even As the result, the black box metaphor serves as a framework t framework a as serves metaphor box black the result, the As One of the most contradictory interpretations of suicide bombers' suicide of interpretations contradictory most the of One The understanding of suicide has always been rather difficult. The difficult. rather been always has suicide of understanding The CONCLUSION CONCLUSION 47

nd someone's behavioral patterns. patterns. behavioral someone's nd le many researches, mentioned manyresearches, le making process of the suicide suicide the of process making the traditional rational choice rational traditional the bombers. This thesis looked thesis This bombers. l or psychological ones, can can ones, psychological or l showed in the chapters Iand chapters the in showed in order to explain certain explain to order in model. model. o a better understanding understanding better a o ack box to be helpful in helpful be to box ack most important of them of important most empt has been done todone been hasempt ae hi ves on views their have r the question of the of question the r ope sca and social complex suicide terrorism is is terrorism suicide tclry h the why rticularly choice is given by by given is choice terrorism studies studies terrorism wt a single a with d of CEU eTD Collection by various psychological, sociological cognitiveasby factor well psychological, as own various violence of sense the where in lives individual the society the both bel of system The have. to prompt mostly individuals that beliefs a for space a is there that considers model box black The phenomenon. sugg It occurrence. complex rather a is behavior, particularly rcs o dcso- aig f ucd bmes rm aiu perspe various from bombers suicide of making decision- of process decision rationally in procedural way; however, the rationality is rationality the however, way; procedural in rationally decision decis a to more is there result, the experience.As life his which and has individual that system motivation the of construction the and ex profound much a gives result the as that other each to connection the of combination unique a presents thesis this choice, terrorists’ t prominent existing combine to trying in before research done their explaining for framework better a create afterwards individuals that push their such typ to heroic of acts ofconditions the environmental unfairnes deep of feelings system, belief own his by influenced of weighing rational on based decision detrimental a makes who t in bomber suicide a Thus, decision. the decision of part influenced socially own her or his of division a also is there why is that and but alone not is person hand, other the On system. motivational the drive causes as serve that cognitions unconscious emotional own their also as serve that cognitions rational own their on based only not decision hum that “fact” the supports box black a of idea The phenomenon. the of The valuable continuation of the study of the phenomenon of suicide bomb suicide of phenomenon the of study the of continuation valuable The Thus, the most important implication of this thesis is that it it that is thesis this of implication important most the Thus, 48

ion making process that is influenced is that process making ion actions. Since there has not been been not has there Since actions. ests that suicide bombers make a a make bombers suicide that ests s of the status-quo and support support and status-quo the of s ere ta epan suicide explain that heories cost and benefit, but who is who but benefit, and cost iefs is mostly dependent on on dependent mostly is iefs still bounded by irrational irrational by bounded still can be a natural response, natural a be can agent an is framework his re ad xlis their explains and ories . s. rpss olo a the at look to proposes planation power of the the of power planation stated motivations, but motivations, stated of their behavior and behavior their of n individual to make a make to individual n making part from the the from part making lives in the society society the in lives ctives and only only and ctives is dependent on dependent is n aue and nature an er’s choice choice er’s e. e. CEU eTD Collection beliefs. beliefs. pe other of number with along life own her or his taking of situation life normal daily as just lead and psychotic, not are who those come ex andunderstand to help will This bomb. human a become to decision a soc distinguish and signal can that behavior of pattern any is ma terrorist available and existing the with done be can studies given a in test to possible not be well might approaches of kind addi In process. making decision- complex a such explain to theories se to important is it point this at e However, choice. of attackers’ framework one possible in theories existing the merging s in steps first the taken has thesis This further. needed is 49

tudying the existing literature and and literature existing the tudying ial and personal drives in making making in drives personal and ial i tee r ohr as and ways other are there if e terials and finding out if there there if out finding and terials xplanation of the suicide suicide the of xplanation otx, oe qualitative more context, tion, even though such such though even tion, s s n u i the in up end us as plain even more how how moreeven plain pe o te ae of sake the for ople CEU eTD Collection aln Byn 20. Troim Te eeac o te ainl Choice Rational the of Relevance The “Terrorism: 2006. Bryan. Caplan, ltr Jn 1983 Jon. Elster, Dawkins, Richard. 1989. Crenshaw, M. 2006. “The Logic of Terrorism: Terrorist Behavior as Behavior Terrorist Terrorism: of Logic “The 2006. M. Crenshaw, ------. 2005, 2006. “Motivations and Beliefs in Suicide Missions” in ed. in Missions” Suicide in Beliefs and “Motivations 2006. 2005, ------. Marke Rational in Performance and Flows Fund “Mutual 2002. Steven. Greene, Cholbi, J. Michael. 2000. “Kant and the Irrationality of Suicide”. Suicide”. of Irrationality the and “Kant 2000. Michael. J. Cholbi, rnt B Rcad 17. Te oaiy n Rtoaiy f Suicide”. of Rationality and Morality “The 1975. Richard. B. Brandt,

Gambetta, Diego. 2006. 2nd ed. ed. 2nd 2006. Diego. Gambetta, Altman, N. 2005. “On the psychologyAltman, N. of 2005.“On suicide bombing”. the le, oi 20. Tee r Mn Raos h: ucd Bmes a Bombers Suicide Why: Reasons Many Are “There 2002. Lori. Allen, netn Cals Jh R Cre. O Rtoa Coc Ter ad h S the and Theory Choice Rational “On Carter. R. John & Charles Anderton, Bockstette, Carsten. 2008. “Jihadist Terrorist Use of Strategic Strategic of Use Terrorist “Jihadist 2008. Carsten. Bockstette, ses Pti. Sbetv o Ojcie ainl hie Theory? Choice Rational Objective or “Subjective Patrik. Aspers, Atran, of 2003.“Genesis Terrorism”. Suicide Scott. vn, ret “h mn o a errs: o troit se str see terrorists How terrorist: a of mind “The Ernest. Evans, Ariva D’Erchi. 2005. “Suicide Bombings: Insanity or Strategic Choice?”. Ha Choice?”. Insanityor Strategic Bombings: “Suicide 2005. Ariva D’Erchi. Environment. Paper no.9275. MakingMissions Sense Suicide of Choice.” Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill. IA:Dubuque, McGraw-Hill. Quarterly. Study of SuicideStudy of CambridgeUniversity Press. University Press. Choice. Palestine”. Terrorism”. Techniques”. Social Social Mechanisms. College. Vol. 128. No. 1/2. Vol.17 No.2. pp. 159-176.pp. Vol.17 No.2. Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Understanding the New Security Security New the Understanding Counterterrorism: and Terrorism Su Gae, tde i te uvrin f Rationality of Subversion the in Studies Grapes, Sour . Middle East Report Middle East Defense and PeaceDefense and Economics. 2 George C. Marshall Center Occasional Paper Series. Paper Center Series. Occasional Marshall George C. , S. Perlin (ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press. (ed.) Perlin University, S. Press. Oxford Oxford: nd nd Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: UniversityPress. Cambridge The Selfish GeneThe Selfish ed, ed. by Russell D. Howard & Reid L. Sawyer. pp. 54-66. 54-66. pp. Sawyer. L. Reid & Howard D. Russell by ed. ed, Stockholm: Stockholm University. Stockholm Stockholm: REFERENCE LIST LIST REFERENCE aig es o Siie Missions Suicide of Sense Making . No. 223. pp. 34-37. . No. 223.34-37. pp. . New York: University Press. Oxford . Oxford: Oxford University Oxford Press. . Oxford: 50

Vol 16. No.4. pp.275-282. No.4. pp.275-282. Vol16. Social SciencesSocial Review. Tikkun. Communication Management Communication tg ad morality”. and ategy No. 20. No. 20. ”. a Product of Strategic of Product a History of Philosophy Philosophy of History . New York: Oxford Oxford York: New . Hnbo fr the for Handbook A Working Papers on on Papers Working Vol.299. Gambetta, Diego. Diego. Gambetta, milton: Hamilton milton: Model”. nd Martyrs in in Martyrs nd Cambridge: . ts.” Working tudy of of tudy Public Public World World CEU eTD Collection Ferrero, Mario. 2006. “Martyrdom Contracts”. Contracts”. “Martyrdom 2006. Mario. Ferrero,

ae, oamd 20. Dig o e atr: h Smoi Dimens Symbolic The Martyrs: Be To “Dying 2006. Mohammed. Hafez, Haqqani, H., & Kimmage, D. 2005. “Suicidology: The online bios of Iraq’s “m Iraq’s of bios online The “Suicidology: 2005. D. Kimmage, & H., Haqqani, etnn Ai Jak Koiok. 07 “nelsi Asmtos n Rational in Assumptions “Unrealistic 2007. Kuorikoski. Jaakko & Aki Lehtinen, Khosrokhavar, Farhad. 2005. “Suicide Bombers: Allah’s New Martyrs”, t Martyrs”, New Allah’s Bombers: “Suicide 2005. Farhad. Khosrokhavar, Breton, in Extremism”. of Epistemology Crippled “The 2002. R. Hardin, Kant, Immanuel.Kant, 1763. Suicide and Signaling, “Terrorism, 2004. McCormick. Gordon & Bruce Hoffman, In behaviour”. rational of theory the and “Morality 1986. John. Harsanyi, ----. 1797. ----. 1787. ei, enr. 1967. Bernard. Lewis, asn J 20. Mre ad atro: ucd tro i te hr mill third the in terror suicide martyrdom: and “Murder 2005. J. Madsen, Mises, Ludwig. Mises, 1966. Margalit, Avishai. 2003Avishai. Margalit, -----. 06 “h Ros f ucd Troim A ut – C – Multi A Terrorism: Suicide of Roots “The 2006. ------. ohdm Asf 20. Siie errs, cuain ad h Global the and Occupation, Terrorism, “Suicide 2006. Assaf. Moghadam, Affairs, No.855. Extremism and Rationality. Republic. Nicolson. Journal pp.707-729. Globalization of Martyrdom of Globalization Terrorism” in ed. Pedahzur, Ami. Ami. Pedahzur, ed. in Terrorism” FrenchLondon: Press. Davidby Pluto Macey. Social ChoiceSocial Theory. Studies in Conflict andTerrorism. Conflict in Studies Theory”. http://pos.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/37/2/115 http://pos.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/37/2/115 Penguin Press. Penguin Press. Martyrdom: A Critique of Dying to Win”. Win”. to Dying of Critique A Martyrdom: Critique Metaphysics of Morals.Metaphysics of 167(4), 175–179. No. 23. pp. 97-109. No. 23. 97-109. pp. No. 233. Vol. 14. 14–16. pp. No. 233. Vol. hlspy f h Sca Sciences Social the of Philosophy . Cambridge University Press. . CambridgeUniversity Press. A treatise on EconomicsA treatise Lecture on Ethics . Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies Its of Eyes the in West The Occidentalism: . h Assis A aia Sc i Islam in Sect Radical A Assassins: The ed. Jon Elster. Cambridge: Jon Cambridge ed. University Press. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . Oxon: Routledge.. Oxon: . Cambridge University Press. University Press. . Cambridge No.27. pp.243-281. No.27. pp.243-281. 51 . Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. Company. Henry Regnery . Chicago: Root Causes of Suicide Terrorism: The The Terrorism: Suicide of Causes Root

ora o Cnlc Resolution Conflict of Journal tde o Cnlc & Terrorism & Conflict of Studies . Vol.37. No. 115. available at at available 115. No. Vol.37. . Lno: edned & Weidenfeld London: . ua Apoc” n ed. in Approach” ausal ranslated from the from ranslated A. et al. et A. . New York: The The York: New . ennium”. Foundations of of Foundations o o Suicide of ion artyrs””. zto of ization Vol.50. . Attack” Political No.29. . Choice Arena New New CEU eTD Collection oii Dmnc. 00 “acltd Psint, iu Eteim Beyond Extremism: Pious Passionate, “Calculated, 2010. Domenico. Tosini, Victoroff, Jeff. 2005. “The Mind of the Terrorist”. Terrorist”. of the Mind 2005. “The Victoroff, Jeff. Ehud. 2000.“Rational Fanatics”.Sprinzak,

Shughart, William. 2009. “Terrorism in rational choice perspective” perspective” choice rational in “Terrorism 2009. William. Shughart, Sheffrin, Steven. 1996. itoe Rnl. 2006. Ronald. Wintrobe, Universi G. Douglas. Suicide”. “A CaliforniaWhitman, of State Search Theory 2002. Bomber: Suicide the of Behavior the “Discerning 2003. John. Rosenberg, Pittel, Karen & Dirk Rubbelke. February 2009. “Decision Processes Processes “Decision 2009. February Rubbelke. Dirk & Karen Pittel, Pesaran, 1987. Hashem. M. Wetherston, D. 2003. “Terrorism and Mental Illness: Is there a Rel a there Is Illness: Mental and “Terrorism 2003. D. Wetherston, Theory”.2000.“RationalChoice John. Scott, M self-defence: as “Self-sacrifice 2008. Arndt. J. & C. Routledge ao Dvd 18. Te ocp o Rtoa Suicide”. Rational of Concept “The 1986. David. Mayo, ------. 2005. ------. Pape, Robert. 2003. “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” Suicide of Logic Strategic “The 2003. Robert. Pape, European Journal of Social PsychologyEuropean Social Journal of Journal of OffenderJournal of Therapy andComparative Criminology Revi ew Philosophy. USA: EdwardUSA: 126–153. pp. Elgar 2011. 394–415. Terrorism”. Suicide of Theory Choice (eds.). Mathers L, Rachel and Vengeance”. Pedahzur, Ami Ami Pedahzur, Zurich. copy Electronic http://ssrn.com/abstract=1347945 at: available Psychology”. and Economics Integrating House. House. fot t afr a yblc motl ef t h expense the at self immortal symbolic a affirm to efforts of the of Present. 1. pp.3-42. Oxon: Routledge.Oxon: Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. UniversityCambridge, Press. UK: Cambridge . Vol. 97. No.3. . Vol. 97. No.3. Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide TerrorismSuicide of Logic Strategic The Win: to Dying No. 11, pp.143-155. Journal of Religion and Health Religion Journal of ed. G. Browning, F. ed. & G. Webster. A. Halcli, Root Causes of Suicide Terrorism: The Globalization of Martyrdom of Globalization The Terrorism: Suicide of Causes Root Rational Expectations. Rational The Limits to Rational to ExpectationsThe Limits ainl xrms: h Pltcl cnm o Radicalism of Economy Political The Extremism: Rational The Handbook on the Political Economy of War of Economy Political the on Handbook The Foreign PolicyForeign 52 Understanding Contemporary Society: Theories ContemporarySociety:Theories Understanding Cambridge:University Cambridge Press. . No.38. pp. 531-541. . No.38. pp. sa Junl f oil Science. Social of Journal Asian

Journal of Conflict Resolution. Conflict Journal of etr o Eooi Rsac a ETH at Research Economic for Center . Vol.42. No.1. pp.13-20. . Vol.42. No.1. pp.13-20. . No.120. pp.66-73. . No.120. pp.66-73. The Journal of Medicine and and Medicine of Journal The . Oxford: Basic Blackwell. BasicBlackwell. . Oxford: . American Political Science Political American . No.47. pp.698-713. rlt slec increases salience orality ationship?” ationship?” in Christopher J. Coyne J. Christopher in of the physical self”. self”. physical the of of a Suicide Bomber – – Bomber Suicide a of . NewYork: Random Random NewYork: . h Rl of Role The International Vol.49 No. No.38. pp. pp. No.38. a Rational Rational a ty. ty. . MA, MA, . . . . . CEU eTD Collection ______Siddique, H. 2008. “We Were Told to Kill Until theLast H. Until 2008.“We WereSiddique, Kill to Told Breath”. Heroes”, BoyKiley,“In No War Without Martyr”. Was “This a 2004. Susan. Talk by Scott Atran. 2008. 2008. Atran. Scott by Talk

“An Interview with Eyad El Sarbaj”. 2002. Sarbaj”. El Eyad with Interview “An

U.S. Congress Code Admin. News. Admin. Code Congress U.S. 76. STAT. URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dc7iT75P2I&feature=related URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dc7iT75P2I&feature=related The

eod eif . cneec “sa & ucd Bombers” Suicide & “Islam conference 2.0 Belief Beyond 1984. 98th Congress, 2nd Session. Vol.2., par.3077. 98 par.3077. Vol.2., Session. 2nd Congress, 98th 1984. Journal of Palestine StudiesPalestine of Journal 53

Guardian. . Vol.31. No.4. pp.71- No.4. Vol.31. .

Observer. Observer.