Terrorist groups split internally over how to justify and target violence

Evidence

Terrorists contend that fundamental changes can be achieved only if they take up arms against blameworthy oppressive, corrupt regimes. They frame the battle for social change in a war metaphor, seeing themselves as “freedom fighters” and “revolutionaries” selflessly battling despotic enemy forces on behalf of the marginalized and maltreated (Cordes, 1987). In her analysis, Cordes notes that terrorist groups are not monolithic but have internal disputes over the justification of violence, the forms it should take, and whether to target the foe discriminately or indiscriminately. Sometimes they split over the disagreement, as in the case of the Weathermen, with one faction taking the more violent route (Sprinzak, 1990). — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2173

Categorization

• QUESTION: Worth chasing the Weathermen split as a case study — which faction took the more violent route and why?
• XREF: connects to: Half the studied extremists harbored violent intent while in their organizations — Ryan Andrew Brown, Todd C. Helmus, Rajeev Ramchand, Alina I. Palimaru, Sarah Weilant, Ashley L. Rhoades, and Liisa Hiatt (RAND Corporation), Violent Extremism in America:…, 31