The factors that give rise to insurgencies are varied from case to case. However, history suggests the emergence of an insurgency turned terrorist organization is often due to political, religious, or social reasons.[10] In fact, though one single definition has not been adopted for terrorism, according to the FBI’s definition, terrorism is the unlawful use of force against people to intimidate the government or civilian population for political, religious, or social objectives.[11] The reasons insurgencies turn to terrorism can be seen as a traditionalist desire to return to rooted values in ancestral ties, often for religious purposes. For example, terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al Qaida believe political rule should be based on the Koran and Sunnah-Hadith, the traditional sayings of Muhammad. There are also egalitarian insurgencies that seek to make everyone equal. Examples of this type of insurgency can be seen in groups such as the Viet Cong in South Korea, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), and the Front for the Liberation of Nepal.

Yet, in the Sri Lankan civil war, socio-economic disparity between the Tamil and Sinhalese people gave rise to high tensions and unfair treatment between the two. The government in particular was responsible for this, since the established laws purposefully kept the Tamil people down, and when riots began, the government did not revoke the laws. When they could no longer pretend the situation was not deteriorating, the Sri Lankan government decided to try and bring the LTTE to the negotiating table using military means. Although, the LTTE entered negotiations five times in twenty two years, no consensus was established. Each cease-fire was always broken, usually by the LTTE. Had the Sri Lankan government taken the Tamils needs into account, the civil war may have taken far less time to end. Tackling the Tamils exoteric and esoteric appeals—concrete grievances, such as food for the hungry and shoes for the shoeless, and overarching goals such as political rights and freedoms, respectively—might have proven significant.

If the government or opposing force cannot stop the organization at the root of the cause, nor conform to the exoteric and esoteric appeals of the people, they must convince the population that what they are doing is for the best. Unfortunately, gaining popular support is easier said than done. Bard E. O’Neill, author of Insurgency and Terrorism from Revolution to Apocalypse, believes there are several ways of gaining popular support other than just meeting the exoteric and esoteric goals of the people, each subject to exploitation by the government or anti-terrorist forces. The first is charismatic attraction in a leader the people regard as a hero. This is someone who builds trust through a forceful personality and/or inspiring oratorical skills. The next is the government gaining popular support through demonstration of potency. O’Neill states that an insurgent group may use provocation of government repression for gaining popular support. This is where insurgents carry out attacks to provoke arbitrary and indiscriminate government reprisals against the people. This same approach can be used to the government’s advantage by not allowing the terrorism to take place through nonproliferation tactics or to not respond to attacks in an action-reaction spiral theory. Therefore, the government would gain popular support by not overreacting to the terrorists honeypots. Finally, the last two methods in gaining popular support are terrorism and coercion. Although these are more insurgent strategies, a government can use this approach, but it may not be the best solution. The concern is that terrorism and coercion can do the exact opposite of gaining popular support. It can provoke others who were on the fence to turn against the cause.