NationStates Jolt Archive

Does poverty have anything to do with terrorism?

Can we draw any conlusions from the favourite targets of terrorism?

Does poverty have anything to do with terrorism?

Can we draw any conlusions from the favourite targets of terrorism?
Sometimes yes, directly and indirectly. (sorry, in a hurry, would like to participate but don't have the time now.)

It has nothing to do with poverty. This is a political and religious struggle.

None of the 19 hijackers from 9-11 came from poor families - they were all educated upper middle class men. Bin Laden was rich.

Most jihadists who went to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets were from upper middle class families.

Terrorist organizations will recruit anyone dumb enough to strap on explosives to carry out suicide bombing missions. The recruiters are not impoverished, but they may take advantage of poor people in their recruiting, promising money to the bomber's family if the mission is carried out. Many of these people are doing it for the money alone.

In Iraq, they have even recruited people with Down's Syndrome to carry out suicide bombing attacks.

Despite the belief of some Americans (see post above) terrorism did not start with S11, nor are all terrorists Islamic or Middle Eastern.
The root causes of what fuels many terrorist movements are indeed economic.

Despite the belief of some Americans (see post above) terrorism did not start with S11, nor are all terrorists Islamic or Middle Eastern.
The root causes of what fuels many terrorist movements are indeed economic.

Not Middle Eastern terrorism. It's not economic.

Despite the belief of some Americans (see post above) terrorism did not start with S11, nor are all terrorists Islamic or Middle Eastern.
The root causes of what fuels many terrorist movements are indeed economic.

In general, yes. But than you can put everything in the "ecomony" basket. And economy equals social injustice. That's real problem.

Desperate people in a desperate situation.
Thus methods are as such,because it is innefective by other means. Poverty, not necessarily, but maybe.

"This is a political and religious struggle."

Oh and by the way Whispering Legs. 'Terrorism' the notion AND the word did exist before it became a mass cliche.

And also:
Terrorism
!= Middle eastern.
!= Afghanistan
!= Iraq

I think you've slightly directed this topic to quite specific examples, applying them (from how I percieve it) erroneously to the whole. For reasons of it being an issue to which you are emotionally attached.Take a step back for a minute, think about it objectively, not for the sake of making others see how it is, but rather for yourself, so you can collaborate with others, using your a (and their) knowledge and reasoning, constructively evaluating in while, to come to some kind of logical response, or conclusion however vague or specific.

Desperate people in a desperate situation.
Thus methods are as such,because it is innefective by other means. Poverty, not necessarily, but maybe.

"This is a political and religious struggle."

Oh and by the way Whispering Legs. 'Terrorism' the notion AND the word did exist before it became a mass cliche.

And also:
Terrorism
!= Middle eastern.
!= Afghanistan
!= Iraq

I think you've slightly directed this topic to quite specific examples, applying them (from how I percieve it) erroneously to the whole. For reasons of it being an issue to which you are emotionally attached.Take a step back for a minute, think about it objectively, not for the sake of making others see how it is, but rather for yourself, so you can collaborate with others, using your a (and their) knowledge and reasoning, constructively evaluating in while, to come to some kind of logical response, or conclusion however vague or specific.

You can't generalize to all forms of terrorism. I'm not applying what I see in Middle Eastern terrorism to, say, what the IRA does.

BTW, terrorism does have an explicit definition.

Despite the belief of some Americans (see post above) terrorism did not start with S11, nor are all terrorists Islamic or Middle Eastern.
The root causes of what fuels many terrorist movements are indeed economic.
No it's not, a study was done a while back by some Harvard prof. who went into the study expecting his results to show economic status as a cause. It wasn't.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html

A John F. Kennedy School of Government researcher has cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom.

Associate Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie examined data on terrorism and variables such as wealth, political freedom, geography, and ethnic fractionalization for nations that have been targets of terrorist attacks.

Abadie, whose work was published in the Kennedy School's Faculty Research Working Paper Series, included both acts of international and domestic terrorism in his analysis.

Though after the 9/11 attacks most of the work in this area has focused on international terrorism, Abadie said terrorism originating within the country where the attacks occur actually makes up the bulk of terrorist acts each year. According to statistics from the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base for 2003, which Abadie cites in his analysis, there were 1,536 reports of domestic terrorism worldwide, compared with just 240 incidents of international terrorism.

Before analyzing the data, Abadie believed it was a reasonable assumption that terrorism has its roots in poverty, especially since studies have linked civil war to economic factors. However, once the data was corrected for the influence of other factors studied, Abadie said he found no significant relationship between a nation's wealth and the level of terrorism it experiences.

"In the past, we heard people refer to the strong link between terrorism and poverty, but in fact when you look at the data, it's not there. This is true not only for events of international terrorism, as previous studies have shown, but perhaps more surprisingly also for the overall level of terrorism, both of domestic and of foreign origin," Abadie said.

Instead, Abadie detected a peculiar relationship between the levels of political freedom a nation affords and the severity of terrorism. Though terrorism declined among nations with high levels of political freedom, it was the intermediate nations that seemed most vulnerable.

Like those with much political freedom, nations at the other extreme - with tightly controlled autocratic governments - also experienced low levels of terrorism.

Though his study didn't explore the reasons behind the trends he researched, Abadie said it could be that autocratic nations' tight control and repressive practices keep terrorist activities in check, while nations making the transition to more open, democratic governments - such as currently taking place in Iraq and Russia - may be politically unstable, which makes them more vulnerable.

"When you go from an autocratic regime and make the transition to democracy, you may expect a temporary increase in terrorism," Abadie said.

Abadie's study also found a strong connection in the data between terrorism and geographic factors, such as elevation or tropical weather.

"Failure to eradicate terrorism in some areas of the world has often been attributed to geographic barriers, like mountainous terrain in Afghanistan or tropical jungle in Colombia. This study provides empirical evidence of the link between terrorism and geography," Abadie said.

It has nothing to do with poverty. This is a political and religious struggle.
-SNIP-
The recruiters are not impoverished, but they may take advantage of poor people in their recruiting, promising money to the bomber's family if the mission is carried out. Many of these people are doing it for the money alone.

Why don't I get this?
Poverty has nothing to do with terrorism, yet many bombers are poor and doing it for the money alone..?
You only count the "brains" behind these acts as terrorists? he suicide bombers are just vehicles to deliver the bomb, they don't count?
Is that what you are saying?

Let's agree on a definition first:

Expected result of the violence: Let's define an action as "terrorism" if the use of violence would reasonably be expected to harm innocent civilians. This is to be distinguished from a "military" action, where the use of violence is not reasonably expected to harm innocent civilians.

Nature of the actor: A "state" action would be one conducted by a sovereign government. A "guerrilla" action will be one conducted by a non-governmental entity.

Four different types of violent acts: Hence, we can have both state military actions and state terrorism actions. Likewise, there can be both guerrilla military actions and guerrilla terrorism actions.

Under these definitional guidelines, if a country sends its bombers to destroy the water system or other civilian infrastructure of another nation, this would be a state act of terrorism, because harm to civilians would reasonably be expected to result. On the other hand, if a country sends its bombers to attack military airfields of its enemy, that would be a state military action.

Similarly: if a group fighting to overthrow a government or end an occupation by a foreign power sends a suicide bomber to blow up a civilian pizzeria, this would be a guerrilla act of terrorism. In contrast, if such a group sends a small boat filled with explosives to blow up a military vessel, that would be a guerrilla military action.

While these definitional results may stick in the craw of some, the value is that the killing of innocents will be condemned equally no matter who does it, and for however allegedly wonderful the ends sought.

Some may correctly point out that even striking a military airfield may kill some civilians who happen to be on the base, and that is true. But similarly, a guerrilla group blowing up a military vessel may also kill some civilians who happen to be on board. In defining "terrorism," as with all definitions, a bit of common sense has to be applied.

And again, since no subjective evaluations of the validity of often complex socio-political goals are involved in applying these definitions of "terrorism," the level at which likely or actual harm to civilians would trigger the "terrorism" label can be applied evenly to both governmental and non-governmental actors.


So, I think we're talking about guerilla (i.e., non-state) groups engaged in terrorist acts in which civilians are the likely (or only) targets.

And also:
Terrorism
!= Middle eastern.
!= Afghanistan
!= Iraq
Actually, it does, at least for all the incidents in Iraq where Iraqi civilians are killed. The homicide bombings also qualify. Afghanistan, not so much.

Why don't I get this?
Poverty has nothing to do with terrorism, yet many bombers are poor and doing it for the money alone..?
You only count the "brains" behind these acts as terrorists? he suicide bombers are just vehicles to deliver the bomb, they don't count?
Is that what you are saying?

Most of the bombers I consider to be hapless victims of the terrorists and the terrorist organization.

Most of the bombers I consider to be hapless victims of the terrorists and the terrorist organization.
Ok. Now I get it. It was the line "it has nothing to do with poverty" that confused me. It has something to do with it, cos it's easier to recruit poor people, but it's not the root cause. Right.

In the 50 poorest countries of the world there is little or no terrorism. Studies show that for example in India terrorist attacks mostly occurred in the most prosperous regions of Bunjab and Kashmir. Easy to see the reasons are religious and/or identity-based. In the poorest part of India there are virtually no such attacks.

In the Arab nations, terrorist activity seems to be the result of intellectual and cultural "backwardness", rather than of poverty. :D

Still, when all the other elements are there, poverty strenghtens the terrorist organisations.

Still, when all the other elements are there, poverty strenghtens the terrorist organisations.

It provides them with "weapons" in the form of expendable bodies.

I feel that the main driver behind terrorism as a tactic is the inability for civilians to overthrow their government by traditional battle with a country's armed forces.

Without a comparable modern army, you can't attack a modern army. It's suicide.

If you're going to attack, you have to attack asymmetrically against someone who can't defend themselves at all. That means unarmed civilians become the primary, and in some cases, the only, target.

I do think that the main cause of terrorism is frustrated political expression. If you can't change the government or your ethnic group's status by peaceful means such as voting, you're not left with much of a choice.

I do have another cause - the creation of groups of trained fighting men who, when a conflict is over, have nothing better to do than go somewhere else and fight.

In the 50 poorest countries of the world there is little or no terrorism. Studies show that for example in India terrorist attacks mostly occurred in the most prosperous regions of Bunjab and Kashmir. Easy to see the reasons are religious and/or identity-based. In the poorest part of India there are virtually no such attacks.
Of course there are no attacks in the poorest parts of the world. They have nothing worth attacking. Thats where normal crime comes into play. It doesn't take Greenspan to figure out why terrorists attakced the World Trade Ceneter and not Harlem.

Of course there are no attacks in the poorest parts of the world. They have nothing worth attacking. Thats where normal crime comes into play. It doesn't take Greenspan to figure out why terrorists attakced the World Trade Ceneter and not Harlem.
Oh, I agree. The reason I mentioned about the 50 poorest nations was that if poverty alone spawned terrorism, these countries would be filled with terrorists.

Does poverty have anything to do with terrorism?

Can we draw any conlusions from the favourite targets of terrorism?
It depends on the terrorism. I think the new wave of Islamofascist terrorists aren't fighting for social justice, but rather are fighting to impose their brand of repressive and violent Islam on others.

Look at those who participate, Osama's rich, so are the Saudi princes and Wahabbi clerics who support him. The 9/11 hijackers were upper middle class. These people aren't fighting to get more money for their people, they're fighting to drive out western ideology and culture and replace it with their own Islamofascist ideals.

If you listen to some of Osama's speeches you hear some political complaints about support for western oriented dictators in the Muslim world, and about Palestine/Israel, but you also hear talk that is purely motivated by Wahabi and Deobandi religious ideology. You hear about the presence of non-muslims in Saudi, about the reconquest of Al Andalus (he can't get over a defeat that took place in the 1400s for fuck's sake). You hear about apostates who work with the western "Zionist/Crusader alliance". You don't hear much at all about poverty.

In general, yes. But than you can put everything in the "ecomony" basket. And economy equals social injustice. That's real problem.Don't you think this point of view is colored by western thought? It doesn't take into account the fact that some people are willing to die because they think an invisible man in the sky commanded them to. It only takes into account economics and rules out any other possibility without any evidence.

If you listen to some of Osama's speeches you hear some political complaints about support for western oriented dictators in the Muslim world, and about Palestine/Israel, but you also hear talk that is purely motivated by Wahabi and Deobandi religious ideology. You hear about the presence of non-muslims in Saudi, about the reconquest of Al Andalus (he can't get over a defeat that took place in the 1400s for fuck's sake). You hear about apostates who work with the western "Zionist/Crusader alliance". You don't hear much at all about poverty.

Some people can't get over their affection for Marx, and they think that all acts of revolution and defiance of established power is done for reasons of class struggle.

Osama and his friends aren't engaged in class struggle. If you read their published announcements, they plan on taking over the world, eliminating any non-Muslims (as they define Islam), and restoring the Caliphate. Purely to make Allah happy - not for any economic reasons. Kill anyone and everyone they have to in order to achieve that goal.

Not a shred of Marxist liturgy in those announcements.

Whatever, I am poor and I don't have a car. I go to Bible Study Fellowship on Mondays and church on Sundays. Though I am not bound to go there every single week. I am not resorting to terrorism. Strange how I don't fit the concepts that have been put into your mind. I can't believe you are blaming the poor.

The people that bombed Madrid were all educated, middle class emigrants. The were not poor people. They attacked not due to lack of money, or lack of work, but because of civilizational clashes, and dificulty of integration.

Sounds funny that people would kill others because of that, but its true.. some Arab people feel that their culture, their legacy, etc, is being engulfed by the western values, and such intrusion was not asked for, or even welcomed, so they fight back. That simple.

Whatever, I am poor and I don't have a car. I go to Bible Study Fellowship on Mondays and church on Sundays. Though I am not bound to go there every single week. I am not resorting to terrorism. Strange how I don't fit the concepts that have been put into your mind. I can't believe you are blaming the poor.
Fess up dude. You're planning to blow up an abortion clinic or a gay bar, aren't you. :D

The people that bombed Madrid were all educated, middle class emigrants. The were not poor people. They attacked not due to lack of money, or lack of work, but because of civilizational clashes, and dificulty of integration.

Sounds funny that people would kill others because of that, but its true.. some Arab people feel that their culture, their legacy, etc, is being engulfed by the western values, and such intrusion was not asked for, or even welcomed, so they fight back. That simple.
You know what would be a much more effective form of fighting back? Not buying into western culture. Just don't go to Hollywood films, don't read western literature, don't drink Coke and eat McDonalds. If you don't give them money they'll go away. If you attack the people who produce them, they'll kill a bunch of your people in retribution. So, I would think the wise choice is clear.

Some people can't get over their affection for Marx, and they think that all acts of revolution and defiance of established power is done for reasons of class struggle.

Osama and his friends aren't engaged in class struggle. If you read their published announcements, they plan on taking over the world, eliminating any non-Muslims (as they define Islam), and restoring the Caliphate. Purely to make Allah happy - not for any economic reasons. Kill anyone and everyone they have to in order to achieve that goal.

Not a shred of Marxist liturgy in those announcements.
Yep. Hell, they fought the Soviets because Communism was an atheist philosophy. They even cooperated with the "Great Satan" to help fight the communists.

You know what would be a much more effective form of fighting back? Not buying into western culture. Just don't go to Hollywood films, don't read western literature, don't drink Coke and eat McDonalds. If you don't give them money they'll go away. If you attack the people who produce them, they'll kill a bunch of your people in retribution. So, I would think the wise choice is clear.

Bin Laden tries that, as do his followers (especially not listening to music). Unfortunately, the Taliban found out that the only way to get people to not listen to music (or affect Western dress, etc) was to shoot people in the head for minor offenses, and to have roving bands of religious police ready to beat or kill any violators.

Bin Laden tries that, as do his followers (especially not listening to music). Unfortunately, the Taliban found out that the only way to get people to not listen to music (or affect Western dress, etc) was to shoot people in the head for minor offenses, and to have roving bands of religious police ready to beat or kill any violators.
That's why I firmly beleive that Western nations should be actively promoting cultural imperialism. Our cultures are just better in many ways. We respect human rights and dignity.

You know what would be a much more effective form of fighting back? Not buying into western culture. Just don't go to Hollywood films, don't read western literature, don't drink Coke and eat McDonalds. If you don't give them money they'll go away. If you attack the people who produce them, they'll kill a bunch of your people in retribution. So, I would think the wise choice is clear.

No kidding: boycott it if you don't like it.

Bin Laden tries that, as do his followers (especially not listening to music). Unfortunately, the Taliban found out that the only way to get people to not listen to music (or affect Western dress, etc) was to shoot people in the head for minor offenses, and to have roving bands of religious police ready to beat or kill any violators.

Boycotting would be great if everyone (or most everyone) acquiesced to it... but if you leave people free to make their own choices, some will naturally not go along with the boycott.. at which point you have a choice:

Punish them for not going along with the boycott or allow them to remain free to make choices and continue to lessen the impact of the boycott.

Not Middle Eastern terrorism. It's not economic.
Yes it is. Have you noticed that in poor parts of the world there tends to be more religious fundamentalism? If the USA was poor I'm sure Phelps and Falwell would enjoy a lot of support.

Most of the bombers I consider to be hapless victims of the terrorists and the terrorist organization.
The suicide bombers are terrorists, and they are doing it for economic reasons. This is related to poverty. I'm not saying that the political agenda of the terrorism planners is based on poverty, but such groups would have difficulty finding recruits in richer countries.

What causes poverty in the Islamic world? Saudi students of mine (Saudi cops) told me lending and borrowing with interest is forbidden in Islamic law. Imagine trying to start a business or expand your company.

These countries are poor because of greedy dictators who horde and waste resources on themselves. Their countries are poor because of their behavior. Mohammed Atta, Egyptian native for example, was educated as a civil engineer but due to Egypt's dismal economy, neglected by a Muslim dictator, worked as a waiter. Angry because his hard work and education was being wasted he looked for who to blame. Blame the dictator and you wind up dead or in prison. Turn the anger outward with the help of propaganda and blame it all on America.

Yes it is. Have you noticed that in poor parts of the world there tends to be more religious fundamentalism? If the USA was poor I'm sure Phelps and Falwell would enjoy a lot of support.
The USA isn't a poor country. We've got some domestic fundamentalist terrorists, like the guy who bombed the Atlanta Olympics. Also we've got terrorists like McVeigh who hit the federal building in OK. Saudi princes and Wahabi clerics aren't poor by a long shot, yet they support terrorism. It's about secularism vs. hyper religiosity, not about wealth vs. poverty.

Yes it is. Have you noticed that in poor parts of the world there tends to be more religious fundamentalism? If the USA was poor I'm sure Phelps and Falwell would enjoy a lot of support.

Poor people may be supporters, but most of the active members of terrorist organizations come from upper middle class families.

Suicide bombers are recruited from the ranks of the poor, because they are easily manipulated - but I view the suicide bombers as hapless rubes who are being taken advantage of.

What causes poverty in the Islamic world? Saudi students of mine (Saudi cops) told me lending and borrowing with interest is forbidden in Islamic law. Imagine trying to start a business or expand your company.

These countries are poor because of greedy dictators who horde and waste resources on themselves. Their countries are poor because of their behavior. Mohammed Atta, Egyptian native for example, was educated as a civil engineer but due to Egypt's dismal economy, neglected by a Muslim dictator, worked as a waiter. Angry because his hard work and education was being wasted he looked for who to blame. Blame the dictator and you wind up dead or in prison. Turn the anger outward with the help of propaganda and blame it all on America.
Atta could have relocated to Europe or the USA and enjoyed a nice lifestyle on an engineer's salary. He clearly wasn't shy about traveling, he got around. If he was all about money he would have moved to a western country and made his fortune.

You know what would be a much more effective form of fighting back? Not buying into western culture. Just don't go to Hollywood films, don't read western literature, don't drink Coke and eat McDonalds. If you don't give them money they'll go away. If you attack the people who produce them, they'll kill a bunch of your people in retribution. So, I would think the wise choice is clear.


its not that simple. I am European, our countries are receiving (and we need them) a truck load of Arab emmigrants. They come in search of better conditions, and give us a cheap worforce. The thing is, when they arrive, they also have to take our culture, which is something that many of them werent willing to forfeit. But they still need the jobs we give them, and we still need them to work for us.

The answer? Force integration. Have the Childreen of muslim emmigrants to dress like the locals (Like they did in france), teach their mullahs the idiossincracies of our cultures (like they are doing in the Netherlands), and so on. It is not simple, fast, clean, or politically correct. But it is a necessity, and an answer.


Offcourse.. to the culture we export to the Arab countries.. well, we would do better if we just stopped supporting Arab dictators. The house of Saud is worse than the Taliban regime, but then again, they keep the oil flooding!

its not that simple. I am European, our countries are receiving (and we need them) a truck load of Arab emmigrants. They come in search of better conditions, and give us a cheap worforce. The thing is, when they arrive, they also have to take our culture, which is something that many of them werent willing to forfeit. But they still need the jobs we give them, and we still need them to work for us.

The answer? Force integration. Have the Childreen of muslim emmigrants to dress like the locals (Like they did in france), teach their mullahs the idiossincracies of our cultures (like they are doing in the Netherlands), and so on. It is not simple, fast, clean, or politically correct. But it is a necessity, and an answer.


Offcourse.. to the culture we export to the Arab countries.. well, we would do better if we just stopped supporting Arab dictators. The house of Saud is worse than the Taliban regime, but then again, they keep the oil flooding!
I can't really argue with anything you've said in your post. I agree that when you move to a new nation you must accomodate their culture, and sometimes give up parts of yours. After all, you chose to go there. It's also true that the US and other Western nations support some repressive dictatorships. The house of Saud is a good example. My question is if the house of Saud is deposed who takes control? Are there real democratic secular forces in the region, or will zealots fill the void?

Does poverty have anything to do with terrorism?

Can we draw any conlusions from the favourite targets of terrorism?
Of course! All us pore folks are terrorists! Didn't you know? I resent living below the poverty line so much that I just want to kill everyone with money! Kill. Kill! KILL! :rolleyes:

Of course! All us pore folks are terrorists! Didn't you know? I resent living below the poverty line so much that I just want to kill everyone with money! Kill. Kill! KILL! :rolleyes:

Why, thank you! I was actually thinking that the discussion was getting annoyingly level-headed. :rolleyes:

Now you've got that out of your system, please restrain yourself. ;)

Since Falwell has never preached violence against anyone, maybe we would be better off poorer then.

The soldiers just weeks back from Iraq I've interviewed on the air, all say, to the man, that money is the motivator of 90% of insurgent attacks. Most of the insurgent fighters are between 15-20 years old from the poorest areas of Baghdad like Sadr City (8 square miles, 2 million people). Insurgent leaders and recruiters pay homeless kids as young as six $10 (2 weeks pay for adults) to drop a grenade off a rooftop. Teenagers can make a month's pay by spraying a clip from an AK-47 around the corner. Repression and poverty breeds poverty, frustration and despiration.

Poor people may be supporters, but most of the active members of terrorist organizations come from upper middle class families.

Suicide bombers are recruited from the ranks of the poor, because they are easily manipulated - but I view the suicide bombers as hapless rubes who are being taken advantage of.


Political activists do tend to come from upper middle class families, don´t they? Che Guevara for example. It seems those who have to struggle for a living neither have the time nor education.

Political activists do tend to come from upper middle class families, don´t they? Che Guevara for example. It seems those who have to struggle for a living neither have the time nor education.

Revolutionary activity is a luxury. For those who can afford it, it ends up being an adventure (or a misadventure). For those who can't afford it, it ends up being a miserable way to die.

Since Falwell has never preached violence against anyone, maybe we would be better off poorer then.

The soldiers just weeks back from Iraq I've interviewed on the air, all say, to the man, that money is the motivator of 90% of insurgent attacks. Most of the insurgent fighters are between 15-20 years old from the poorest areas of Baghdad like Sadr City (8 square miles, 2 million people). Insurgent leaders and recruiters pay homeless kids as young as six $10 (2 weeks pay for adults) to drop a grenade off a rooftop. Teenagers can make a month's pay by spraying a clip from an AK-47 around the corner. Repression and poverty breeds poverty, frustration and despiration.

You're confusing their recruitment/employment with the actual terrorism.

They're LED to do the act because they pay. If there were jobs of *any* kind, I'm sure they'd take them. That's why you don't generally see suicide bombers in Rome, London, NYC... even though all the them have had poor people for hundreds of years. ;)

The guys who purpetrate it are doing it (supplying the capital!) are doing it for their own reasons (religious, political, etc.)

You're confusing their recruitment/employment with the actual terrorism.

They're LED to do the act because they pay. If there were jobs of *any* kind, I'm sure they'd take them. That's why you don't generally see suicide bombers in Rome, London, NYC... even though all the them have had poor people for hundreds of years. ;)

The guys who purpetrate it are doing it (supplying the capital!) are doing it for their own reasons (religious, political, etc.)
The 9/11 suicide hijackers weren't poor. They were upper middle class. Also the folks who tried to blow up the twin towers in the 90s weren't starving, miserably poor wretches. They had jobs and appartments.

You know what would be a much more effective form of fighting back? Not buying into western culture. Just don't go to Hollywood films, don't read western literature, don't drink Coke and eat McDonalds. If you don't give them money they'll go away. If you attack the people who produce them, they'll kill a bunch of your people in retribution. So, I would think the wise choice is clear.

I think thats the difference between a fundamental and a fanatic.

The 9/11 suicide hijackers weren't poor. They were upper middle class. Also the folks who tried to blow up the twin towers in the 90s weren't starving, miserably poor wretches. They had jobs and appartments.

So you agree terrorism isn't economically based. :cool:

Perhaps we should look at things this way, if just for a moment?

Life without opportunity breeds discontent.

Discontent in an economic situation can lead to terrorism, or simple brigandage. It can lead to persons simply taking advantage of whatever short-term gains are available, regardless of their effects on others (Brigandage, fraud, theft). Or it can lead to attempts to change the entire system in the long-term, to prevent the return of poverty (revolution and/or Terrorism).

Discontent with your political situation can lead to peaceful protests or violent ones. Apathy or action. Either the discontented party withdraws from the public scene, peacefully works for change, or violently works for change.

If one who violently works for political change encounters others who are working for economic change, they may see eye to eye. If either one of those meets those too desperate for change to care, they can use them to further their goals.

Thus one can say that poverty CAN lead to terrorism, but other factors also lead to terrorism, and perhaps those do so more often.

Lack of opportunity in one way or another is the chief cause of all attempts to damage, change, or destory the system of government.

Interesting therad. Just some points that haven't been discussed yet.

1. Poverty->lack of education->easier to manipulate. I belive that education is the answer to almost all problems in this world. (except greed which is the biggest problem)
I can already hear you typing about how Atta was not poor and that he was actually well educated. If you think that Atta is a "normal" terrorist and flying planes to huge buildings is a normal terrorist act, you're wrong. That kind of terrorism is extremely rare. One can also find several reasons why once reasonable Egyptian turned into fundamental maniac. Anyway, I think that poverty is just one factor that can cause terrorism.

2. Poverty affects indirectly too. The terrorists may be rich but the people who should prevent their acts can be very poor. If a terrorist can silence 5 officers by giving them 20€, you could say that the terrorist act which happened due this corruption was caused by poverty. They would not have let the terrorist to the plane with a bomb (they knew they had a bomb) if they wouldn't have been so poor. (I suppose everyone is sane enough to understand that I'm not talking about 9/11)

I believe that the terrorists themselves are just the tip of the iceberg.
The IRA has a large number of supporters, the ETA has a large number of supporters and so has Al Quaeda. None of these organisations could exist without a society that agrees with their methods and supports them.
I'm not saying that every Arab agrees on Al Quaeda's actions or motives, far from it. But these people must come from somewhere, from a background that first gave them their ideas and that taght them that it's right to fight for them, with whatever means possible.
I've often wondered how this could be ... just imagine a mother telling her child that it is good to kill and die for your country / god / ideal???

Lack of opportunity in one way or another is the chief cause of all attempts to damage, change, or destory the system of government.

That doesn't cover the concept that one's own culture is threatened with the presence of another culture (replace culture with religion if you wish).

What Bin Laden and his followers see as a threat to Islam is the mere presence of Western society. Our ideas are the threat - and the best way to get rid of the ideas is to kill the people who think them.

If you think back to the Taliban shooting a woman in the head for listening to music, or shooting children who flew a kite, just scale that up to the death of millions, and you'll have some idea of what they're after.

That doesn't sound like "lack of opportunity" to me. They don't want to participate in our society at all.

Partly, hence the popularity of Hamas in the Palestinian Territories.


If the Palestinian Authoraties would have provided more money for hospitals and schools instead of their own pockets (Mrs. Arafat !!), I'm positive the role of Hamas would not have been so important ...

I would define a "terrorist" as "someone who engages in terrorism" rather than "terrorism" as "something that a terrorist engages in". Terrorism is - as its root indicates - aimed at provoking terror, and a feeling of insecurity. It is often used to destroy a sense of "invulnerability" and undermine trust in the established order.

Because it takes far less effort to cause chaos and confusion than it does to keep a state of order, terrorism is a very cheap and efficient strategy when used with precision.

The "-ist" and "-ism" do not indicate personal affinity. Terrorism is not a way of life or a religion, and a terrorist is not a follower of Terrorism the way a buddhist is a follower of Buddhism. The terrorist's ultimate goal is something else besides terrorism, he uses terror as a means to an end.

Of course, that does not extend always to the suicide attackers themselves. These are mainly just people driven to desperation and persuaded with offers of glory/renown/divine rewards by those who exploit them. There relation to the masterminds is much like the relation between soldiers and a commander who sends them into death. What does the individual soldier know about the political stakes of the war he dies in? If he did, it would merely undermine his resolve, so his superiors tell him some nice story about patriotism and courage.

Suggestion for Conclusion:

Poverty helps, but can not cause terrorism by it self????



Question: (fill in the gap)

If there was no _______ , there would be no terrorism.

So you agree terrorism isn't economically based. :cool:
I've been saying that the whole time. The modern Islamofascist terrorism isn't economically based.

Interesting therad. Just some points that haven't been discussed yet.

1. Poverty->lack of education->easier to manipulate. I belive that education is the answer to almost all problems in this world. (except greed which is the biggest problem)
I can already hear you typing about how Atta was not poor and that he was actually well educated. If you think that Atta is a "normal" terrorist and flying planes to huge buildings is a normal terrorist act, you're wrong. That kind of terrorism is extremely rare. One can also find several reasons why once reasonable Egyptian turned into fundamental maniac. Anyway, I think that poverty is just one factor that can cause terrorism.

2. Poverty affects indirectly too. The terrorists may be rich but the people who should prevent their acts can be very poor. If a terrorist can silence 5 officers by giving them 20€, you could say that the terrorist act which happened due this corruption was caused by poverty. They would not have let the terrorist to the plane with a bomb (they knew they had a bomb) if they wouldn't have been so poor. (I suppose everyone is sane enough to understand that I'm not talking about 9/11)
In many parts of the middle east rich and poor all get an Islamic education. Sometimes the form of Islam being taught is the violent Wahabbi version. Money doesn't make a difference. Culture does.

Question: (fill in the gap)

If there was no _______ , there would be no terrorism.

If there were no assholes, there would be no terrorism. Only an asshole would intentionally target civilians with the idea of killing or frightening as many people as possible. Only an asshole would execute an innocent civilian on the Web by cutting their head off after making them beg for their lives. Only an asshole would strap a bomb to someone with Down's Syndrome. Only an asshole would shoot a woman in the head for the crime of listening to music. Only an asshole would shoot children who were flying a kite.

I've been saying that the whole time. The modern Islamofascist terrorism isn't economically based.

I'll go one further: I don't think there has ever been economic terrorism!

* The sabotage of machines by the Luddites wasn't terrorism, as they didn't try to kill the owners, just break the machines.
* The varioius 18th-21st century Anarchists and Communist and Fascist "terrorist tactics" were political in bent, not economic.
* Even the World Bank and WTO protestors tend to be environmentally based, and they don't do assassinations.

Dropping loads of bombs on a country usually breeds terrorism

Dropping loads of bombs on a country usually breeds terrorism
Good thing we didn't bomb Saudi Arabia. Then we'd have Saudi nationals flying planes into.... Oh yeah.

Dropping loads of bombs on a country usually breeds terrorism

If that were true, why wasn't the US overrun with German and Japanese terrorists in the immediate years following World War II?

Or Vietnamese terrorists?

Assholes (the root cause of terrorism) are born, not made.

If there were no assholes, there would be no terrorism. Only an asshole would intentionally target civilians with the idea of killing or frightening as many people as possible. Only an asshole would execute an innocent civilian on the Web by cutting their head off after making them beg for their lives. Only an asshole would strap a bomb to someone with Down's Syndrome. Only an asshole would shoot a woman in the head for the crime of listening to music. Only an asshole would shoot children who were flying a kite.


a valid point, indeed.

Suggestion for Conclusion:

Poverty helps, but can not cause terrorism by it self????



Question: (fill in the gap)

If there was no _______ , there would be no terrorism.

If there were no sociopathy or cultural differences, there would be no terrorism.

(yeah, like either is possible -- one controlled by genetics, the other by millennia of tradition and values)

The best answer I can give is "sometimes yes, sometimes no."

Suggestion for Conclusion:

Poverty helps, but can not cause terrorism by it self????



Question: (fill in the gap)

If there was no _______ , there would be no terrorism.
people

Terromrism? Requires poverty, almost certainly. The poverty within a nation can cause a groundswell of Jealousy against another nation, this explains much of the Anti-US feelings within the world, particularly Asia and Africa, the tow poorest continents in the world.
That said the majority of the poor are so poor that they are illiterate (education being too expensive) so are unable to organise a terrorist attack and carry out precise instuctions and remain undetected. Terrorists can find shelter and goods amongst the poor which allow them to continue to exist. If some Afghanis didn't support UBL the US army would have found him.

Marshalls theory for communism could well be applied to terrorism

Poverty + Desperation = terrorism

These people have nothaing and are promised more by terrorist leaders like UBL who have the money to buy favour, install a well or buy cows or something similar. In return the village peole provide shelter and such. It is no suprise though that little terrorist activity occurs in the 50 poorest countries. Most are dicatorships and anybody who looks shifty is normaly given special attention so terrorist activity is either not reported or the would be terrorists are punished for being dissadents. This does not apply to every country though.

Terromrism? Requires poverty, almost certainly. The poverty within a nation can cause a groundswell of Jealousy against another nation, this explains much of the Anti-US feelings within the world, particularly Asia and Africa, the tow poorest continents in the world.
That said the majority of the poor are so poor that they are illiterate (education being too expensive) so are unable to organise a terrorist attack and carry out precise instuctions and remain undetected. Terrorists can find shelter and goods amongst the poor which allow them to continue to exist. If some Afghanis didn't support UBL the US army would have found him.

Marshalls theory for communism could well be applied to terrorism

Poverty + Desperation = terrorism

These people have nothaing and are promised more by terrorist leaders like UBL who have the money to buy favour, install a well or buy cows or something similar. In return the village peole provide shelter and such. It is no suprise though that little terrorist activity occurs in the 50 poorest countries. Most are dicatorships and anybody who looks shifty is normaly given special attention so terrorist activity is either not reported or the would be terrorists are punished for being dissadents. This does not apply to every country though.
We've seen rich people leading terrorist organizations, and middle class people carrying out suicide attacks. We've heard from the terrorist leaders what their goals are. None of that points to poverty as a cause. Sure some poor people sympathize with the terrorists, but so do many rich and middle class people. Saudi princes aid and protect terrorists just as loyally as Afghan and Pakistani peasants.

In many parts of the middle east rich and poor all get an Islamic education. Sometimes the form of Islam being taught is the violent Wahabbi version. Money doesn't make a difference. Culture does.
They are manipulated, not educated.

Ok, they are educated but not very well. Once they can read they should be able to read all kind of things, not only books approved by an oppressing government. They don't have a chance to actually build other kind of view of the world.

This kind of education and propaganda are a simple way to control country's population. Keep them dum so they won't rebel against you.

They are manipulated, not educated.

Ok, they are educated but not very well. Once they can read they should be able to read all kind of things, not only books approved by an oppressing government. They don't have a chance to actually build other kind of view of the world.

This kind of education and propaganda are a simple way to control country's population. Keep them dum so they won't rebel against you.
No argument here. Saudi Arabia even tries to export this ignorance. Saudi sponsored Islamic schools in the USA, Europe, and Asia have been found to teach out of Wahabbi textbooks that promote religious hatred. All funded by Saudi money.

That doesn't cover the concept that one's own culture is threatened with the presence of another culture (replace culture with religion if you wish).

What Bin Laden and his followers see as a threat to Islam is the mere presence of Western society. Our ideas are the threat - and the best way to get rid of the ideas is to kill the people who think them.

If you think back to the Taliban shooting a woman in the head for listening to music, or shooting children who flew a kite, just scale that up to the death of millions, and you'll have some idea of what they're after.

That doesn't sound like "lack of opportunity" to me. They don't want to participate in our society at all.

Actually, look at Bin Laden's options before he started attacking the US directly. What could he do? How could he stop his perception of American encroachment on his nation, his culture, his religion? Could he enter civil service and manipulate things from the inside? No. Could he petition the government? No. Could he publish anti-American tracts in Saudi Arabia without being persecuted? No.

Bin Laden had few options indeed. If his perception was the US interests were interfering with his "peoples'" interests, the government he was born under would not allow him much room to discuss it, let alone work for change.

The option he eventually chose was a) work in a guerrilla movement already established to gain training and contacts, b) Take up religious trappings for political/social protection c) start off his career with low key "fundraising" and chairity work to spread his name.

Thus when he finally took that last step of attacking the US interests abroad directly, he had a well established reputation for being benevolent, devout, and charitable. He set himself up in the one bastion of power outside control of the Saudi Arabian government; the clergy. Now they couldn't go after him very actively without seeming to be "attacking the muslim faith in defense of the US"

That was his only OPPORTUNITY to work for change. His only real option, considering his positions on the issues.

This is not to say the man was not prone to religious extremism, violence, or anything like that. I'm simply stating that the man and his followers were funneled into their extremist position by lack of political outlets and a strong religious undertones in their culture.

If you simply state that its their nature, or the product of religious or cultural fear, you simplify the case too much. The US has plenty of extremists, "nut jobs", etc. But with political outlets for them to express themselves their extremism is minimized somewhat. Precisely because they are allowed to say what they want the "fear" and "radical nature" of their movements are lessened.

The Oklahoma bombings show that this method is not foolproof, but does allay it to a considerable degree.

We've seen rich people leading terrorist organizations, and middle class people carrying out suicide attacks. We've heard from the terrorist leaders what their goals are. None of that points to poverty as a cause. Sure some poor people sympathize with the terrorists, but so do many rich and middle class people. Saudi princes aid and protect terrorists just as loyally as Afghan and Pakistani peasants.

Yes but the motives of the rich and powerfull for supporting UBL and Co must be considered, they are popular to remain popular and thus in a positition of power they must have a populist agenda on some fronts, so supporting UBL may allow a Saudi Prince to get away with practices or deeds that would otherwise lead to a decrease in his influence.

Poverty + Desperation = terrorism


A recipe is in the making! or an approximation thereof...



How about religion? Is there such a thing as an atheist terrorist?

Poverty + Desperation + Religion(especially mulimism) = terrorism?????????????

Poverty + Desperation + Religion(especially mulimism) = terrorism?????????????

Hmmm...quoting oneself feels good in a way.... :D

If the quoted equation is correct, which part is easiest to remove?

OK, terrorism solved, what next? Bring it on!

A recipe is in the making! or an approximation thereof...



How about religion? Is there such a thing as an atheist terrorist?

Poverty + Desperation + Religion(especially mulimism) = terrorism?????????????
What about ETA? Chechen terrorists?

edit: They aren's atheists, but their religion has nothing to do with their ations.

Does poverty have anything to do with terrorism?

In certain circumstances, but that doesn't really prove anything.

For example, in certain circumstances, terrorism must caused by something else, like guinness, because there are plenty of countries poorer than Ireland where they don't have any terrorism.