Most social scientists say that "ordinary" violence like that a rapist or robber would commit would lacks the key component that makes a violent act an example of collective violence: social change. This however is not the case when it comes to terrorist groups, because they desire a result that end in social change. It is the goal of the group to obtain this. Like most other hate groups, terrorist also want to obtain social change, but they go about gaining it through the use of terrorism. In a terrorist group it is not that the terrorist want to harm as many individuals as possible, which is the view taken by most of civilization, it is that they are trying to obtain there "change", but there are just innocent people standing in there way, who unfortunately get hurt in the process. It is not the indicial intent of terrorist to reek havoc on people, but to create fear among them.
Another question we must address when dealing with terrorism or any group, is how rational is the political violence and how rational are its participants? Many people view "terrorists acts as "senseless" and their participants are often depicted as irrational" (Barkan 6). To describe which act or participants are rational or irrational depends on the specific types of political violence and the circumstances under which it occurs. .
Besides using classroom sources, I have found that Peter Sederbergs FIRES WITHIN book also gives a great insight into causes of political violence. Sederberg explains four of the most popular explanations for violence and revolution and points out some of the flaws in the arguments. .
One of the major topics Sederbergs discusses in explaining violence is the "Killer Ape Thesis", which states that humans are biologically programmed toward violence and that because we are programmed in this way, this is an explanation for the cause of violence. .
This theory can be seen greatly in the book ON Killing, which also explores theories that have to do with war.
