Explaining terrorism requires separating initiation from continuation and individual from group

Evidence

Further complexities in analyzing terrorism arise from the widely held assumption that terrorism is intentional behavior, in which motivations of whatever sort, rational or irrational, lead to action that can be objectively identified as terrorism. However, the translation of intention into action is modified by chance and opportunity, neither of which can be satisfactorily predicted. Furthermore, in asking why terrorism happens, one must distinguish between the initiation of a campaign of terrorism and its continuation in the face of government reaction. One must also distinguish between why an individual becomes a terrorist and why an organization (already formed as a group) collectively turns to terrorism. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4081

Categorization

• QUESTION: Worth chasing: does the individual-vs-group and initiation-vs-continuation distinction map onto a testable typology, or is it purely analytic? The group-turn parallel to ‘why a mob forms’ could be fertile.