NationStates Jolt Archive

I ran across the first article on CNN the other day and found it quite interesting.

People assume that terrorism is linked to poverty and of we eliminate poverty we will eliminate terrorism, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. While there are good reasons to reduce or eliminate poverty in the world, eradication of terrorism is not one of them.

Studies indicate that most terrorists are more affluent and better educated than other people in their countries are. It appears there is a link between political freedom and terrorism. Those countries with the most political freedom and those with the most repressive governments have the least amount of terrorism.

“A comprehensive study of 1,776 terrorist incidents (240 international, the rest domestic) by Harvard professor Albert Abadie, who was sympathetic to the poverty-terrorism idea at first, found no such thing. "When you look at the data," he told the Harvard Gazette, "it's not there."
http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/13/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_murphy_terror.fortune/index.htm?section=money_email_alerts

“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.”
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html

“The study showed also that support for attacks against Israeli targets is particularly strong among students, merchants, and professionals. Notably, the unemployed are somewhat less likely to support such attacks. If poverty were indeed the wellspring of support for terrorism or politically motivated violence, one would have expected the unemployed to be more supportive of attacks than were merchants and professionals, but the evidence points the other way.”
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i39/39b01001.htm

So, what do you thimk?

There seems to be some confusion as to what this is referring to. "terror" as represented by Al Qaeda and "terror" as represented by Hamas/PLO are not the same thing at all.

Sometimes terror, or support thereof, is linked to poverty. The strongest support for terrorists of both colours in Ireland is in the working class.

But I agree Celtlund, that myopic model does forget the importance of ideology.

Sometimes terror, or support thereof, is linked to poverty. The strongest support for terrorists of both colours in Ireland is in the working class.

But I agree Celtlund, that myopic model does forget the importance of ideology.

Damn! You beat me to it regarding Ireland...I wonder if the same is true of the ETA people...

Damn! You beat me to it regarding Ireland...I wonder if the same is true of the ETA people... Probably. I'd hazard a guess that working classes tend to be more extreme and militant because they are less able to isolate themselves than the middle classes. Given that they are generally less educated they are easier to control as well.

Damn, that made me sound like a commie.

Poverty won't be the only factor, but I'd put it pretty close to the top of the list. The more affluent in these areas, after all, will be the ones with the means and ability to produce weapons and, in some cases, have the means and ability to read and be indoctrinated with terrorist propaganda. People who are perhaps struggling to survive are unlikely to be bothered about ideology or isms, but those just above that line, who have just a little space to think about more than where the next meal is coming from, they might be more vulnerable.

It also, I suppose, depends on how one defines poverty.

Poverty won't be the only factor, but I'd put it pretty close to the top of the list. The more affluent in these areas, after all, will be the ones with the means and ability to produce weapons and, in some cases, have the means and ability to read and be indoctrinated with terrorist propaganda. People who are perhaps struggling to survive are unlikely to be bothered about ideology or isms, but those just above that line, who have just a little space to think about more than where the next meal is coming from, they might be more vulnerable.

It also, I suppose, depends on how one defines poverty.

Why were the majority of the 9/11 scumbags Saudis? Saudi Arabia is a rich country with a very generous welfare program. The terrorists were from among the Saudi middle class. Poverty isn't the root of terrorism, ideology is.

Damn! You beat me to it regarding Ireland...I wonder if the same is true of the ETA people...

The Harvard Prof is from the Basque country and is studying ETA.

Oh, good, guess we don't need to worry about fixing poverty then.

Oh, good, guess we don't need to worry about fixing poverty then. Good job, since it's ultimately undoable.

Good job, since it's ultimately undoable.

Yeah, how else would I get my Nike shoes?

Diamonds are forever. The production of large quantities of diamonds is, to a great extent, dependent on poverty (hard to be rich when some nutter in a shower cap is burning down your hut). Since diamonds are forever, this state of affairs will never end.

Diamonds are forever. The production of large quantities of diamonds is, to a great extent, dependent on poverty (hard to be rich when some nutter in a shower cap is burning down your hut). Since diamonds are forever, this state of affairs will never end.

Did anyone else understand that?

I should start a career writing riddles.

I should start a career writing riddles.

Well...If you do that and stick to it, I guess you're right about poverty being unbeatable.

Oh, good, guess we don't need to worry about fixing poverty then.

All we have to do is liberate these barbarians from the evil oppression of their governments and culture. Then no more terrorism.
Right DCD?

I understand it now!

Since there is a strong link between the middle-class and terrorism...

All we have to do is get rid of the middle-class, and most of terrorism is gone!

All we have to do is liberate these barbarians from the evil oppression of their governments and culture. Then no more terrorism.
Right DCD?

It would eliminate a lot of terrorism, but remember that there were Western European terrorists too. Remember the Red Brigades? Terrorism won't go away completely, but it can be reduced.

The roots of terrorism are not economic, but political.

This fact does not change the essential truth that if terrorism is to be successfully defeated, attention must be paid to the roots and not merely to the manifestations.

Terrorism is caused by supporting israel against the palestinians and meddling in the middle east.

This isnt a hypothesis, this is declared again and again by actual terrorists and their leaders.

Not "they hate our freedom" not "they want to convert america" not "poverty" and not a "clash of civilizations."

We pushed hard in their part of the world, they're pushing back.

Why were the majority of the 9/11 scumbags Saudis? Saudi Arabia is a rich country with a very generous welfare program. The terrorists were from among the Saudi middle class. Poverty isn't the root of terrorism, ideology is.

Because 9/11 is not typical for 'terror'?

Most terror involves low tech solutions to an arms disparity or political inattention. Mercury tripswitches are the high-end of conventional terror - it usually comes in the form of much simpler mechanisms... a trigger, a contact in a road, a hand-held activator. Mortar shells, bullets... grenades.

The use of aircraft as weapons requires a paradigm shift, if anything 9/11 was symptomatic of a breed of 'educated' terror... and that type is both rarer, and far more expensive than the traditional form.

So - those who participate in new paradigm terror are much richer... but, also much rarer... than the conventional terorist.

Why were the majority of the 9/11 scumbags Saudis? Saudi Arabia is a rich country with a very generous welfare program. The terrorists were from among the Saudi middle class. Poverty isn't the root of terrorism, ideology is.

Actually they weren't from the middle class. They were largely from the upper class. The parents of the 9/11 hijackers were generally very well off. One of them owned a chain of car dealerships.

Terrorism is caused by supporting israel against the palestinians and meddling in the middle east.

This isnt a hypothesis, this is declared again and again by actual terrorists and their leaders.

Not "they hate our freedom" not "they want to convert america" not "poverty" and not a "clash of civilizations."

We pushed hard in their part of the world, they're pushing back.

Ermmm...

And where, exactly, does the IRA tie into that...?

I think some terrorism does stem from poverty, such as the Palestinian groups or the neo-Nazi types in Europe. Other terrorist groups are rooted in ideology or politics, such as Al-Qaeda or any one of the myriad of communist groups in Europe.

I think some terrorism does stem from poverty, such as the Palestinian groups or the neo-Nazi types in Europe. Other terrorist groups are rooted in ideology or politics, such as Al-Qaeda or any one of the myriad of communist groups in Europe.

I think ideology and politics gain especially sympathetic reactions among the poor, who are looking for any answer.

Something like Al Qaeda appeals to that same basic discontent. What sets Al Qaeda apart is largely about marketing - they have taken a poor-person's-fashion, and made it appear marketable to people in higher income brackets. So - while there are still those strapping bombs to their chests, there are also those who are wiling (and able) to buy into a more expensive brand(name) of terror.

I think ideology and politics gain especially sympathetic reactions among the poor, who are looking for any answer.

Disaffection and disenfranchisement in any form is a leading factor in terrorism. Whether you're poor or you have no cultural identity, disaffected individuals in such regions tend to seek escapism, usually in the form of religion. And that's where all the recruiters are waiting to snap up impressionable minds looking to belong and feel like they can change their lot in life.

Something like Al Qaeda appeals to that same basic discontent. What sets Al Qaeda apart is largely about marketing - they have taken a poor-person's-fashion, and made it appear marketable to people in higher income brackets. So - while there are still those strapping bombs to their chests, there are also those who are wiling (and able) to buy into a more expensive brand(name) of terror.

In other words, Al Qaeda is marketing jihad like rap music.

Terrorism is caused by supporting israel against the palestinians and meddling in the middle east.

This isnt a hypothesis, this is declared again and again by actual terrorists and their leaders.

Not "they hate our freedom" not "they want to convert america" not "poverty" and not a "clash of civilizations."

We pushed hard in their part of the world, they're pushing back. That might be why the "foot soldiers" commit terrorism, but only a fool would believe that's what motivates their masters.

Most of whom are probably rubbing their hands at glee at the prospect of new reasons to get young men to blow themselves up.

All we have to do is liberate these barbarians from the evil oppression of their governments and culture. Then no more terrorism.
Right DCD?

Obviously you didn't read any of the stuff in the links I left. :(

I think some terrorism does stem from poverty, such as the Palestinian groups or the neo-Nazi types in Europe. Other terrorist groups are rooted in ideology or politics, such as Al-Qaeda or any one of the myriad of communist groups in Europe.

Didn't you read the articles? The Palestinian groups were a major part of the study. :rolleyes:

Hmm. In the case of terrorists like the IRA their grievances were not motivated by arabic style poverty. Their terrorism is not only motivated by a political and religious hatred of protestants, but also the image in their heads that they are being oppressed by the protestant majority in northern ireland. (In quite a few cases this being true). The leaders, i'm not sure about, it could be they believe in the political cause or that they are simply motivated by greed.

Hmm. In the case of terrorists like the IRA their grievances were not motivated by arabic style poverty. Their terrorism is not only motivated by a political and religious hatred of protestants, but also the image in their heads that they are being oppressed by the protestant majority in northern ireland. (In quite a few cases this being true).

Dear jesus spare me from idiots.


The Palestinian groups were a major part of the study

Palestinians are an occupied people. Throwing them in with Al Qaeda etc is a bit of a non-starter.

Okay, this is just too funny a coincidence to not point out:

So they studied 1,776 terrorists, eh? And they determined they are terrorists for political freedom reasons, eh?

Anyone see the connection yet? Anyone? Or am I just reaching too much here?

In any case, I wouldn't be too surprised about political motives, though I hesitate to say political freedom, as it seems more like grabs for political power than actual freedom, much like our current President claims to be doing everything for freedom when he most certainly is not.

The problem here is in the silly habit people have of giving the meaningless classification of 'terror' to everything.

Every faction has its own reason for being. IRA and ETA are completely different from the Islamics in southern Thailand or Al-Qaeda.

If you wanted to point to a base motivations pulling them all together, poverty does not explain it - otherwise you would have terrorist groups in every impoverished neighborhood.

Much of it comes from frustration with the political landscape coupled with terrorist activities being seen as the only means of voicing that frustration (IMHO). This is largely correlated with poverty, but is by no means the same thing.

I understand it now!

Since there is a strong link between the middle-class and terrorism...

All we have to do is get rid of the middle-class, and most of terrorism is gone!

Here in America, we have George W. Bush to destroy the middle class. So if this socio-economic link is true, then Bush would at least be winning the War on Terror here in America if we had a terrorist problem.

I ran across the first article on CNN the other day and found it quite interesting.

People assume that terrorism is linked to poverty and of we eliminate poverty we will eliminate terrorism, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. While there are good reasons to reduce or eliminate poverty in the world, eradication of terrorism is not one of them.

Studies indicate that most terrorists are more affluent and better educated than other people in their countries are. It appears there is a link between political freedom and terrorism. Those countries with the most political freedom and those with the most repressive governments have the least amount of terrorism.

“A comprehensive study of 1,776 terrorist incidents (240 international, the rest domestic) by Harvard professor Albert Abadie, who was sympathetic to the poverty-terrorism idea at first, found no such thing. "When you look at the data," he told the Harvard Gazette, "it's not there."
http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/13/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_murphy_terror.fortune/index.htm?section=money_email_alerts

“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.”
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html

“The study showed also that support for attacks against Israeli targets is particularly strong among students, merchants, and professionals. Notably, the unemployed are somewhat less likely to support such attacks. If poverty were indeed the wellspring of support for terrorism or politically motivated violence, one would have expected the unemployed to be more supportive of attacks than were merchants and professionals, but the evidence points the other way.”
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i39/39b01001.htm

So, what do you thimk?

I'm thinking that, as usual, the MSM has an at best half-assed assessment of class.

Yes, the majority of the 9/11 terrorists and al-Queda operatives were from the upper-class in Saudi Arabia, but they were educated in the United States and Western Europe to accept largely bourgeouis capitalist notions of business. They then returned home to what is essentially a feudal system in which their business acumen means jack squat when it comes to making money, or developing a voice in the political system, or exercising control and autonomy over one's life, etc., etc., etc.

In short, class =/= poverty. The burghers in Germany and England were hardly poor, but the warfare that occurred over the commons during that time is almost impossible to describe in any terms other than class conflict. Further, that conflict was not exclusively about redistribution; it was also about reconfiguring government for the new economic group to have better political representation. In both cases, al-Queda seems to fit the pattern of bourgeouis resistance to feudalism. It boggles my mind that I should have to point something so obvious out.

Terrorism is the forceful reaction to a perceived injustice. Whether or not the individual's situation is actually unfair or not is only important in the frame of their tendency towards terrorism when we analyse its effect on what they believe about their own condition.

People suffering from poverty in this world have every right to think they are being treated unfairly, and to be honest I would probably have some sympathy for suicide bombings by the poor in the name of the cause of eradicating poverty. But if they don't think they are being oppressed or suppressed by society, whether on a local or global scale, they will not tend to such extremes.

There are thus two possible solutions.

1) Make everything fair by eradicating poverty and social injustice, so that there will be no sympathy for any cause that arises to take advantage of such conditions.

2) Make everyone think that 1) has been done.

The problem here is in the silly habit people have of giving the meaningless classification of 'terror' to everything.


The problem is, that 'silly habit' has been deliberately fostered overe the last half a decade.

People respond well to rhetoric like 'axis of evil' and 'war on terror', so it pays to market an idea of a homogenised Rambo-like vision of hundreds of henchmen, but all following on evil mastermind.

The reality - that people just have a tendency to 'lose it' when they think they have been pushed far enough (for whatever reason) - is not nearly as palatable, because it can't be 'beaten' with bombs and tanks.

Oh, good, guess we don't need to worry about fixing poverty then.

No one said that...

Ermmm...

And where, exactly, does the IRA tie into that...?

The IRA aren't the terrorists in the "global war on terror," so it doesn't matter where they tie into that, because they dont matter to anyone that matters.

That might be why the "foot soldiers" commit terrorism, but only a fool would believe that's what motivates their masters.

Most of whom are probably rubbing their hands at glee at the prospect of new reasons to get young men to blow themselves up.

The only statement or implication you've made is "terrorists leaders' motivation is glee at watching young men blow themselves up."

Last I checked, Osama bin Laden's reasons for doing terrorism were pretty similar to Khalid Sheik Muhammads and most of the other terrorists: US Meddling in the middle east, US support for israel against palestine.

Assuming, as sane people tend to do, that those terrorist leaders are 'their masters,' and especially in light of the absence of any explanation as to what indeed does motivate these apparently unknown 'masters' - the reasons I gave originally are the factual ones. Not just for 'foot soldiers,' but for financiers, &c.

i would think it fairly obvious by now the terror myth is used to excuse robbing poor nations and their people of their rags and raw resources at the point of a military gun. not to mention whatever semblence of democratic proccess they might otherwise have had for themselves.

=^^=
.../\...

No one said that...

No, but I would say it's a fairly typical mindset amongst people in Western countries, wouldn't you?

In any case, we should focus on defeating poverty for the sake of it alone.

You seem to be avoiding that if these immense disproportions in wealth didn't exist, that such radical ideologies would for the most part be exclusive to the educated young intellectuals, and not the commons. I believe that the main pulling of these ideologies and to these people are in the daily life evidence they can provide to the commons. The fast food restaurant on the corner, the mobile phone retailer next to the mosque selling the '10 most romantic' ring tones.

The sheer fact that they can look out onto their streets and see the disproportionate gap between those empowered and those dis empowered by international capitalism. In particular referring to the Middle East, people can literally see the industrial creep and it's greedy selfish wantonnesses spreading through their neighborhoods, all pervasive. And one should not mince words when saying that this international capitalism is an overtly nihilistic and societally destructive force. So when talking in particular about the ME, I think it is important to refer to the theories of Sayyed Qutb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb) in defining this.

I would encourage anyone interested in this subject to read up on this man, I believe it is he who for the radical generation of muslims, defined this ideology. Remember people for all it's rhetoric, the Russian Revolution was the result of the intellectuals coming together with the farmers and workers to convince them of the necessity of overthrowing reactionism. The same it is then in the Muslim world, indeed it is the ideological intellectuals coming to the common man who knows for himself the influence of hedonistic capitalism. This is where the base of such support comes from.

I would also encourage anyone who has the time and interest to get yourselves a copy of the DVD for 'The Power of Nightmares', probably the best documentary on these subjects I have ever seen, particularly on Qutb.

Did anyone else understand that?

Not sure I did, but it made me laugh anyway ...

I would encourage anyone interested in this subject to read up on this man, I believe it is he who for the radical generation of muslims, defined this ideology. Remember people for all it's rhetoric, the Russian Revolution was the result of the intellectuals coming together with the farmers and workers to convince them of the necessity of overthrowing reactionism. The same it is then in the Muslim world, indeed it is the ideological intellectuals coming to the common man who knows for himself the influence of hedonistic capitalism. This is where the base of such support comes from.



In many cases the revolution has been driven by the desire of middle class groups to over throw a percieved 'hated oppressor'.
And the said middle class people enlisted the farmers and the labourers to help in the struggle to overthrow the hated oppressors so that the farmers and labourers would gain their 'freedom'

Of course, finally the hated oppressor class is removed/banished/shot and the middle class guys who ran the revolution have their hands on the wheels of power.
Of course they want the power to stay in their hands so they ruthlessly oppress any middle class people, since thats where the revolution started from anyway, and in consquence, the workers , farmers and labourers suddenly find that the new rulers are even more oppressive than the previous ones

See the Russian revolution 1918-1989 for details

El-Presidente Boris
<<just had his entire middle class shot just in case

All we have to do is liberate these barbarians from the evil oppression of their governments and culture. Then no more terrorism.
Right DCD?
Stop going after individual posters, you troll.

The IRA aren't the terrorists in the "global war on terror," so it doesn't matter where they tie into that, because they dont matter to anyone that matters.

WTF :confused: What the hell are you on?

Sometimes terror, or support thereof, is linked to poverty. The strongest support for terrorists of both colours in Ireland is in the working class.



I'd argue that this would be the case for Ireland, though, because the "working class" tends to be more nationalistic than do more elite, cosmopolitan, social groups.

I ran across the first article on CNN the other day and found it quite interesting.

People assume that terrorism is linked to poverty and of we eliminate poverty we will eliminate terrorism, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. While there are good reasons to reduce or eliminate poverty in the world, eradication of terrorism is not one of them.

Studies indicate that most terrorists are more affluent and better educated than other people in their countries are. It appears there is a link between political freedom and terrorism. Those countries with the most political freedom and those with the most repressive governments have the least amount of terrorism.

“A comprehensive study of 1,776 terrorist incidents (240 international, the rest domestic) by Harvard professor Albert Abadie, who was sympathetic to the poverty-terrorism idea at first, found no such thing. "When you look at the data," he told the Harvard Gazette, "it's not there."
http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/13/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_murphy_terror.fortune/index.htm?section=money_email_alerts

“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.”
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html

“The study showed also that support for attacks against Israeli targets is particularly strong among students, merchants, and professionals. Notably, the unemployed are somewhat less likely to support such attacks. If poverty were indeed the wellspring of support for terrorism or politically motivated violence, one would have expected the unemployed to be more supportive of attacks than were merchants and professionals, but the evidence points the other way.”
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i39/39b01001.htm

So, what do you thimk?

Fairly old news. There was a guy saying something very similar on Al Franken's show a couple of years ago. Terrorists, for the most part, tend to come from Middle Class families.

To compare terrorism to common street crime is a faulty analogy. When you have a large, indigent class, a big gap between rich and poor, you do get terrorism, but it's from middle class people. Take a look at all of the Latin American revolutions. If they don't come from the military, they come from the Middle class.

Sure you get violence with poverty. But it isn't ideological. It's usually just poor on poor crime with the purpose of supplementing their income.

Okay, this is just too funny a coincidence to not point out:

So they studied 1,776 terrorists, eh? And they determined they are terrorists for political freedom reasons, eh?

Anyone see the connection yet? Anyone? Or am I just reaching too much here?

In any case, I wouldn't be too surprised about political motives, though I hesitate to say political freedom, as it seems more like grabs for political power than actual freedom, much like our current President claims to be doing everything for freedom when he most certainly is not.

Well, it's pretty common in revolutionary movements that if they end up being successful it was because they were unified by not being too picky about who they team up with. But of course, when a movement removes a government, the next guy to come into power is going to be the slick manipulative bastard who's good at getting power.

The IRA aren't the terrorists in the "global war on terror," so it doesn't matter where they tie into that, because they dont matter to anyone that matters.

Is this a sarcasm response, of 'for real'?

I ran across the first article on CNN the other day and found it quite interesting.

People assume that terrorism is linked to poverty and of we eliminate poverty we will eliminate terrorism, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. While there are good reasons to reduce or eliminate poverty in the world, eradication of terrorism is not one of them.

Studies indicate that most terrorists are more affluent and better educated than other people in their countries are. It appears there is a link between political freedom and terrorism. Those countries with the most political freedom and those with the most repressive governments have the least amount of terrorism.

“A comprehensive study of 1,776 terrorist incidents (240 international, the rest domestic) by Harvard professor Albert Abadie, who was sympathetic to the poverty-terrorism idea at first, found no such thing. "When you look at the data," he told the Harvard Gazette, "it's not there."
http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/13/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_murphy_terror.fortune/index.htm?section=money_email_alerts

“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.”
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/11.04/05-terror.html

“The study showed also that support for attacks against Israeli targets is particularly strong among students, merchants, and professionals. Notably, the unemployed are somewhat less likely to support such attacks. If poverty were indeed the wellspring of support for terrorism or politically motivated violence, one would have expected the unemployed to be more supportive of attacks than were merchants and professionals, but the evidence points the other way.”
http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i39/39b01001.htm

So, what do you thimk?


First Osama bin Laden is a member of one the richest families in the world and is a very educated man. These facts support the studies indicating that most terrorists are more affluent and better educated than other people in their countries are. Secondly terrorist need weapons in order to apply their trade, weapons are not free, so it follows that people that are unemployed or poverty laden could not support the needs of a terrorist organization, so logically the first must be the truth.

First Osama bin Laden is a member of one the richest families in the world and is a very educated man. These facts support the studies indicating that most terrorists are more affluent and better educated than other people in their countries are. Secondly terrorist need weapons in order to apply their trade, weapons are not free, so it follows that people that are unemployed or poverty laden could not support the needs of a terrorist organization, so logically the first must be the truth.

One rich guy somehow equates to everyone must be rich?

One expensive weapon somehow equates to every weapon must be expensive?


Again, I really hope this is (another) sarcasm response.

No, but I would say it's a fairly typical mindset amongst people in Western countries, wouldn't you?

In any case, we should focus on defeating poverty for the sake of it alone.

Agreed @ both.

Stop going after individual posters, you troll.

QFT.

One rich guy somehow equates to everyone must be rich?

One expensive weapon somehow equates to every weapon must be expensive?


Again, I really hope this is (another) sarcasm response.


Its not just one rich guy doing it for one thing. And while there may be a few weapons that don't cost much, the really good ones do cost money. Now I don't know about you but I live from pay check to pay check as do most poor people. Believe me when I say I couldn't afford to bankroll groups like that even if I wanted to ... which I don't and I won't stand back and let others try to blame us for all the worlds woes. Finally you need to wake up and smell the coffee, the real enemy is certain highly placed rich people, not the poor.

Terrorists (traditional) are almost exclusively young wealty idealists with no grasp of reality, and a belief that they alone know what is best for the world.

The USSR was heavily into funding them and arming them as a way to disrupt democratic nation and force the people to turn to the government for tighter and tighter controls, therefor making communism more palatable to capitalist countries.

Terrorists (modern) come from all walks of life, and are what psychologists would call followers. Essentially they are people that have no real ambition of their own, but have anti-social tendencies to a greater or lesser extent. Terrorist groups, often incorrectly called fundimentalist, offer guidance and purpose to these individuals allowing them to achieve a percieved greatness through the actions that lead to their deaths.

Common examples of the type of people that are prime candidates for this type of terrorism are most of the lower eschelons of environmental groups that willingly follow their leaders with virtually no comprehension of the ideals or understandig the arguments of their leaders. Not suprizingly their lack of understanding makes them ideal cannon fodder, as they generally do not know enough or care enough to learn anything about what they are fighting for.

It should be noted that the largest contributors to modern terrorism are in fact large corporations which use the leadership of these groups to affect stock prices and purchasing of the masses, thereby manipulating the public to pull in profits by directing unreasoned anger at competitiors or causing stock prices to plummet raking in huge profits by "selling shorts" in the stock market.

One rich guy somehow equates to everyone must be rich?

One expensive weapon somehow equates to every weapon must be expensive?


Again, I really hope this is (another) sarcasm response.

You will note that OBL never actually involves himself directly in any terrorist attack, and there is some question as to wether he has actually been involved in planning any attacks.

This suggests that being part of the leadership, his goal is merely to use the lower eschelons of his group for profits.

THis can actually be seen in several ways, from direct manipulation of stock pricing to nations who have paid tributes to terrorist organizations to prevent attacks.

WTF :confused: What the hell are you on?

Well, he accidentally has a point.

the IRA has been pretty quiet for some time now, at least on the world stage, and seems to have matured into a political organization.

WTF :confused: What the hell are you on?


They have dumped arms and cease operations, having been on ceasefire during negotiations for some time. "the war is over" was the expression used.

It is rare to see so much ignorance in one thread.

Not Really

Its not just one rich guy doing it for one thing. And while there may be a few weapons that don't cost much, the really good ones do cost money. Now I don't know about you but I live from pay check to pay check as do most poor people. Believe me when I say I couldn't afford to bankroll groups like that even if I wanted to ... which I don't and I won't stand back and let others try to blame us for all the worlds woes. Finally you need to wake up and smell the coffee, the real enemy is certain highly placed rich people, not the poor.

Couple of points.

First - I also live from paycheck to paycheck, and I have four dependents on that paycheck, so don't try to preach to me about the lifestyle.

Second - I'm an Englishman. That means, while terrorism is a new threat to the yanks - who ten years ago were happy to support the IRA - it's been a reality to me all my life. ANd it's not about wealthy people - it's about idealists who are pissed off enough about something (whether 'we' think they are right or wrong) that they are willing to kill - or die - for it. And that cuts right across all artificial class divides.

Third - let's look at the average weapons of terror... basic bombs, mortars, homemade explosives, pretend 'chemical or biological' agents, poisons, threats of poisons, threats of bombs (there's a favourite), small arms. Most weapons of terror are relatively cheap (or, in fact, free), and almost all can be obtained fairly easily or homemade. I think people forget what terrorism is - the main weapon is just fear.

Fourth - There are a couple of big names in the terror field, but they are not 'most terrorists'. There have been a few expensive terror attacks, but for the most part - they are pretty cheap. One can simply compare the cost of 9/11 versus the cost of the Lockerbie bombing (Pan Am Flight 103).

Fifth - It is not a matter of 'blaming' the poor. Obviously, not all of 'the poor' are terrorists, any more than 'all' of any group are anything. But, to say that most terrorism is a poor people's phenomenon isn't unreasonable - since those who are wealthy often have less incentive for 'terror' - being able to buy the changes in life they want or need.

Perhaps the high-profile 'terrorists' who fund organisations and who have the means to spread their ideologies (ie. religious fanaticism, etc) aren't poor, but I think the majority of the foot soldiers are drawn from those who are poor and angry-- and it's easy to be angry when you can't afford (or live in a place without the prosperity or security to provide) food and education-- and thus easily swayed to give up lives on someone else's say-so. Therefore there is value in solving the problem of poverty to help get rid of terrorism, because the fewer poor, angry, starving and uneducated people there are, the fewer pawns and less cannon-fodder there will be for the rich ideogogues to exploit.

Perhaps the high-profile 'terrorists' who fund organisations and who have the means to spread their ideologies (ie. religious fanaticism, etc) aren't poor, but I think the majority of the foot soldiers are drawn from those who are poor and angry-- and it's easy to be angry when you can't afford (or live in a place without the prosperity or security to provide) food and education-- and thus easily swayed to give up lives on someone else's say-so. Therefore there is value in solving the problem of poverty to help get rid of terrorism, because the fewer poor, angry, starving and uneducated people there are, the fewer pawns and less cannon-fodder there will be for the rich ideogogues to exploit.


I can agree with you on this, I'm just tired of the poor always being the
ones holding the bag.

QFT.

Truth eh? So if I ask someone a question, it's trolling and 'going after' them?

Even if they essentially answer yes?

I think you might want to rethink your thinking, especially since I had two people "going after individual posters", specifically you and Global Avthority calling me a troll and contributing absolutely nothing relevant to the discussion.

Couple of points.

First - I also live from paycheck to paycheck, and I have four dependents on that paycheck, so don't try to preach to me about the lifestyle.

Sorry about our luck

Second - I'm an Englishman. That means, while terrorism is a new threat to the yanks - who ten years ago were happy to support the IRA - it's been a reality to me all my life. ANd it's not about wealthy people - it's about idealists who are pissed off enough about something (whether 'we' think they are right or wrong) that they are willing to kill - or die - for it. And that cuts right across all artificial class divides.

Don't talk to me about what us yanks were happy to support. I have NEVER supported terrorism in any form, anywhere, by anybody.

Third - let's look at the average weapons of terror... basic bombs, mortars, homemade explosives, pretend 'chemical or biological' agents, poisons, threats of poisons, threats of bombs (there's a favourite), small arms. Most weapons of terror are relatively cheap (or, in fact, free), and almost all can be obtained fairly easily or homemade. I think people forget what terrorism is - the main weapon is just fear.

If weapons that work are so cheap then why is the US spending so much on new weapons?

Fourth - There are a couple of big names in the terror field, but they are not 'most terrorists'. There have been a few expensive terror attacks, but for the most part - they are pretty cheap. One can simply compare the cost of 9/11 versus the cost of the Lockerbie bombing (Pan Am Flight 103).

Terrorist attacks may seem cheap monitarily but in human lives they are not and that is the main problem.

Fifth - It is not a matter of 'blaming' the poor. Obviously, not all of 'the poor' are terrorists, any more than 'all' of any group are anything. But, to say that most terrorism is a poor people's phenomenon isn't unreasonable - since those who are wealthy often have less incentive for 'terror' - being able to buy the changes in life they want or need.

I suppose if you are starving and the only job you can get is something in terrorism, a few poor people would go for it. But most would not, I certainly would not!

Sorry about our luck


I don't know if 'luck' has anything to do with it. 'Buyer-beware' capitalism is fundamentally geared against equal playing fields. The system is designed to keep the rich, rich.


Don't talk to me about what us yanks were happy to support. I have NEVER supported terrorism in any form, anywhere, by anybody.


As a nation, the US was not nearly so worried about terrorism, when 'terrorism' was just 'paddies blowing up limeys'. Funds were raised here, and government officials made appearances at Sinn Fein events. If the time was now, and we were being observed from outside, the US would be being compared to a state like Syria or North Korea.


If weapons that work are so cheap then why is the US spending so much on new weapons?


Different types of weapons, for a different type of fight. Also, of course, military spending is good for the economy.


Terrorist attacks may seem cheap monitarily but in human lives they are not and that is the main problem.


Not really. The poor have access to that one commodity just like the rich.


I suppose if you are starving and the only job you can get is something in terrorism, a few poor people would go for it. But most would not, I certainly would not!

Actually, if one looks at the middle-east where people have been paid to enroll in 'insurgent' groups... poverty is quite a motivator. The US is in decline, but it is still in the 'Bread and Circuses' part of it's Decline and Fall - so it mostly hasn't got quite bad enough to make the US a fertile terror recruiting ground... yet.