NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/125870/conference_discusses_sociologists_conclusion.html

I've frequently heard that the suicide terrorism that occurs in the Middle East is the result of poverty, a lack of educational opportunity, American colonialism, etc.

I have yet to hear an adequate explanation for the fact that all 19 9/11 hijackers were college educated at European universities.

All the education in the world can't help someone who is completely brainwashed by a religion.

Considering all the fun things they're denied, terrorism is probably the only cure they have for boredom.

EDIT: Wikipedia says "Islamic fundamentalist governments, such as in Iran under the Ayatollahs and Afghanistan under the Taliban, have at times banned music completely, at least that of a secular nature." so I guess I was half-right.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/125870/conference_discusses_sociologists_conclusion.html

I've frequently heard that the suicide terrorism that occurs in the Middle East is the result of poverty, a lack of educational opportunity, American colonialism, etc.

I have yet to hear an adequate explanation for the fact that all 19 9/11 hijackers were college educated at European universities.What do you refer to? The attacks of 9/11 are somewhat different from suicide attacks in Iraq, and very different from suicide attacks in Palestine. The former are carried out for political/religious reasons, the latter are carried out out of despair (which is certainly abused also by folks with political agendas).

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/125870/conference_discusses_sociologists_conclusion.html

I've frequently heard that the suicide terrorism that occurs in the Middle East is the result of poverty, a lack of educational opportunity, American colonialism, etc.

I have yet to hear an adequate explanation for the fact that all 19 9/11 hijackers were college educated at European universities.



That's a pretty good article you've linked to up there.

Check out his essay on OES. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/189319/oppressed_evangelical_syndrome_on_the.html

Which do you think is more likely to cause someone to kill a doctor- southern poverty, or Christianity?

Considering all the fun things they're denied (I think even music is considered anti-islamic, but I'm not certain), terrorism is probably the only cure they have for boredom.WTF ?? I think you've been exposed to too much ultraviolent radiation...
music anti-islamic? terrorism out of boredom? that's just racist bullshit.

What do you refer to? The attacks of 9/11 are somewhat different from suicide attacks in Iraq, and very different from suicide attacks in Palestine. The former are carried out for political/religious reasons, the latter are carried out out of despair (which is certainly abused also by folks with political agendas).



When you say that the latter are carried out out of despair, why does it sound like you haven't read the article at all? Please provide at least one piece of evidence to relate your statement to reality, otherwise you are either lying or confused.

WTF ?? I think you've been exposed to too much ultraviolent radiation...
music anti-islamic? terrorism out of boredom? that's just racist bullshit.

You can't distinguish between a religion and a race and you think I'm crazy? This doesn't even deserve a proper response.

I'd say that it is more islam. They have a very strong authoritarian culture and there are too many rich people involved in this nonsense to be a purely economic issue. Now, of course one could argue that this relates back to cultural issues created by imperialism and the crusades in the psyche in the region, but Islam is closer to this. I do not think that they struggle because they lack wealth but rather against a perceived evil.

this thread is doomed to failure.

It's not a simple Islam vs. Economy equation. There are complex factors involved in terrorism, and the fact that many terrorists are highly educated, doesn't necessarily presuppose that religion is the only factor in their motivations.

Most fundamentalist terrorism is aimed at Arab leaders and governments who are perceived to be the puppets of Imperial powers. The few terrorist attacks on the west, have been to disuade western support of dictators in the middle-east. It's as much regionalism as it is religion. Many of these terrorists want to bring change to their home countries, but their revolutionary governments are founded on Islamic principles, rather than western ideology.

The fact that they are determined to bring change, is largely due to the economic situation of the majority of the peoples living in the middle-eastern world. It may not be the poor who are performing all of the terrorist actions, but the educated who understand how the modern world and economy work, are more likely to see that there are alternatives to the puppets backed by global demand for middle-eastern resources.

It's economy, and it's extreme religion. But it's more about regional determination, than either of those. Religion is the context of their revolution, as opposed to the forms of revolution that dominated the history of western civilization.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/125870/conference_discusses_sociologists_conclusion.html

I've frequently heard that the suicide terrorism that occurs in the Middle East is the result of poverty, a lack of educational opportunity, American colonialism, etc.

I have yet to hear an adequate explanation for the fact that all 19 9/11 hijackers were college educated at European universities.

I imagine you've either misunderstood or misheard. The argument I've heard and made is not that suicide terrorism is a direct result of poverty, just that oppressive conditions lend themselves to religious radicalism, and that suicide bombing is often--but not exclusively--a tactic that religious radicals use.

When you say that the latter are carried out out of despair, why does it sound like you haven't read the article at all? Please provide at least one piece of evidence to relate your statement to reality, otherwise you are either lying or confused.

I read the article, and it is of dubious worth.

The main thing - I doubt the integrity of the study:

It clearly states that the statistics have been collected "as far back as the early 80's", and yet - "100% of the suicide bombers Atran isolated in his study were Muslims". So - we are asserting a religious motivation, obviously.

However, he seems to have failed to notice that, during their most active period, the (secular) Tamil Tigers were carrying out more suicide bombings than either Hezbollah or Hamas. How his exhaustive study managed to entirely miss everyone that isn't Muslim, perturbs me.

It's not an either or answer. A lot of factors play into it. And many of those factors are from the camels back breaking. Of course you know .. I'm not speaking for _every_ individual who partake in violence. But poverty isn't _the_ reason and Islam isn't _the_ reason. I will never use _these_ again.

WTF ?? I think you've been exposed to too much ultraviolent radiation...
music anti-islamic? terrorism out of boredom? that's just racist bullshit.

the taliban banned music whenthey ran afghanistan. they considered music to be unislamic.

the taliban banned music whenthey ran afghanistan. they considered music to be unislamic.so now the Taleban determine what is islamic and what is not?

so now the Taleban determine what is islamic and what is not?
The fundamentalists who will agree with a ban on music are probably the type to go and blow people up, or vice versa.

so now the Taleban determine what is islamic and what is not?

there is no "pope" of islam, so yes, they do determine what is islamic in the areas they control.

Considering all the fun things they're denied, terrorism is probably the only cure they have for boredom.


"Hey guys! Wanna pick up chicks at the Metallica concert?"
"We live in Iraq, remember?"
"Oh, right. Wanna pick up chicks at the death squad headquarters?"
"Yeah, okay."


And I like with the poll we have to be either close-minded or bigoted. It's not one or the other. It could be both, or it could be something else entirely. And there's no joke option. This poll fails hard.

there is no "pope" of islam, so yes, they do determine what is islamic in the areas they control.So the execution of 'witches' at Salem were Christian, because those in power determined it as such?

Considering all the fun things they're denied, terrorism is probably the only cure they have for boredom.

Actually I heard that with the rise in the internet a cure is now often gay sex. I suppose it could be a bad memory speaking there, however, I believe that the article referenced the sexual repression in their culture. The sexual frustration lead to gay sex as such could be accessed more easily because of the fact that it can be difficult to get a woman. It could easily be a bad memory issue.

"Hey guys! Wanna pick up chicks at the Metallica concert?"
"We live in Iraq, remember?"
"Oh, right. Wanna pick up chicks at the death squad headquarters?"
"Yeah, okay."

More like, "Oh, right. Wanna get married to someone you've never met before?"

So the execution of 'witches' at Salem were Christian, because those in power determined it as such?

yes. or puritan perhaps.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/125870/conference_discusses_sociologists_conclusion.html

I've frequently heard that the suicide terrorism that occurs in the Middle East is the result of poverty, a lack of educational opportunity, American colonialism, etc.

I have yet to hear an adequate explanation for the fact that all 19 9/11 hijackers were college educated at European universities.

Good point; Islam teaches its adherents that if they die in a jihad ("holy" war) killing "infidels" (i.e. anyone who is not a Muslim), they automatically go to heaven/paradise or whatever they call it.

THAT, and not poverty or lack of educational opportunities, and certainly not "American colonialism", is what causes them to become suicide bombers; they want to hurry up and get to their "paradise".

yes. or puritan perhaps.Really? The execution of 'witches' is a feature of Christianity? Because at some places in some times it was determined as such by those in control?
Cool, I need to get my government to determine free alcohol for all and sex orgies to be features of Christianity then...

More like, "Oh, right. Wanna get married to someone you've never met before?"

Actually, from what I've heard, Iraq is fairly modern about such things. Bigotry does not become you.

Good point; Islam teaches its adherents that if they die in a jihad ("holy" war) killing "infidels" (i.e. anyone who is not a Muslim), they automatically go to heaven/paradise or whatever they call it.

THAT, and not poverty or lack of educational opportunities, and certainly not "American colonialism", is what causes them to become suicide bombers; they want to hurry up and get to their "paradise".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad) :rolleyes:

Actually, from what I've heard, Iraq is fairly modern about such things. Bigotry does not become you.Iraq was a secular state before the Americans came.

Really? The execution of 'witches' is a feature of Christianity? Because at some places in some times it was determined as such by those in control?
Cool, I need to get my government to determine free alcohol for all and sex orgies to be features of Christianity then...

good luck with that.

yeah, it was christian as defined by those in power at the time. go figure.

Good point; Islam teaches its adherents that if they die in a jihad ("holy" war) killing "infidels" (i.e. anyone who is not a Muslim), they automatically go to heaven/paradise or whatever they call it.

THAT, and not poverty or lack of educational opportunities, and certainly not "American colonialism", is what causes them to become suicide bombers; they want to hurry up and get to their "paradise".

ya know im thinking that back when suicide bombers meant young palestinian men blowing themselves up in israel, we latched onto their poverty as an explanation for their willingness to die because it made sense to us. maybe all along it was much more radical islam than desperation that drove them and we ignored it because we didnt understand it.

ya know im thinking that back when suicide bombers meant young palestinian men blowing themselves up in israel, we latched onto their poverty as an explanation for their willingness to die because it made sense to us. maybe all along it was much more radical islam than desperation that drove them and we ignored it because we didnt understand it.

I suppose this does in some ways make sense. If Christianity within the first 1300 years into its existence could murder countless people as heretics during the Inquisitions, and go on a Crusade that seriously weakened the Byzantine Empire, worshippers of their own religion, then Islam can convince people to blow themselves up.

New technology, same stupidity.

good luck with that.

yeah, it was christian as defined by those in power at the time. go figure.so christianity is not based on jesus or the bible but on what the ruling junta determines? good to know.

so christianity is not based on jesus or the bible but on what the ruling junta determines? good to know.

welcome to the real world.

I suppose this does in some ways make sense. If Christianity within the first 1300 years into its existence could murder countless people as heretics during the Inquisitions, and go on a Crusade that seriously weakened the Byzantine Empire, worshippers of their own religion, then Islam can convince people to blow themselves up.

New technology, same stupidity.

yeah. and wealth and education have little to do with religious fervor. so to convince people to do things that are not in their own best interest you dont have to pick on the poor and ignorant but on the true believers.

ya know im thinking that back when suicide bombers meant young palestinian men blowing themselves up in israel, we latched onto their poverty as an explanation for their willingness to die because it made sense to us. maybe all along it was much more radical islam than desperation that drove them and we ignored it because we didnt understand it.

I alrady showed (on the first page) why this isn't true. The study ignores Tamil Tigers (I don't know what else, that was the first thing in my mind, and they missed that).

I don't place much faith in studies that choose to ignore any evidence that doesn't match a pre-chosen conclusion.

I read the article, and it is of dubious worth.

The main thing - I doubt the integrity of the study:

It clearly states that the statistics have been collected "as far back as the early 80's", and yet - "100% of the suicide bombers Atran isolated in his study were Muslims". So - we are asserting a religious motivation, obviously.

However, he seems to have failed to notice that, during their most active period, the (secular) Tamil Tigers were carrying out more suicide bombings than either Hezbollah or Hamas. How his exhaustive study managed to entirely miss everyone that isn't Muslim, perturbs me.


Scot Atran's study was a study of the Middle East. That he missed Sri Lanka in his exhaustive study of the Middle East, and that you point this out as a disqualifying attack on the credentials of the study, reveal to me is that no actually, you probably didn't read the article. Please, please, please do not walk into this conversation blind.

To state that the Tamil Tigers are a secular group is silly. They are fighting for the sovereignty of an ethnic population called the Tamils who are mostly Hindu- and who just happen to practice a form of Hinduism that differs from the dominant form of Hinduism practiced elsewhere in Sri Lanka (the Tamil Hindu pantheon contains Murugan and Amman for example, which VERY few practicing Hindu sects recognize as canonical).

yeah. and wealth and education have little to do with religious fervor. so to convince people to do things that are not in their own best interest you dont have to pick on the poor and ignorant but on the true believers.

Yes, but pointing the finger at Islam and going "Oooh, all your fault" doesn't really make much sense, and is a bit hypocritical of the western world.

Really the source of fundamentalism and ideologically-motivated violence is the ideology in question. It was the same thing with nationalism and the Black Hand society at the turn of the 19th century. It was the same thing with Christianity and the Crusades. It's the same thing now.

Scot Atran's study was a study of the Middle East. That he missed Sri Lanka in his exhaustive study of the Middle East, and that you point this out as a disqualifying attack on the credentials of the study, reveal to me is that no actually, you probably didn't read the article. Please, please, please do not walk into this conversation blind.


The article says he 'investigated the claims that suicide bombings in the Middle East are purely secular'. It doesn't say which data he chose to examine, just: 'Atran has tracked available intelligence dossiers on the perpetrators of suicide bombings'.

You leap to a conclusion that may not be supportable.

Of course - even if all he did stude WAS the Middle East... why choose to ignore non-regional evidence that flies directly in the face of your assertion?

Simple - he had already decided what was 'to blame'.


To state that the Tamil Tigers are a secular group is silly. They are fighting for the sovereignty of an ethnic population called the Tamils who are mostly Hindu- and who just happen to practice a form of Hinduism that differs from the dominant form of Hinduism practiced elsewhere in Sri Lanka (the Tamil Hindu pantheon contains Murugan and Amman for example, which VERY few practicing Hindu sects recognize as canonical).

Tamil Tigers are 'secular' in comparison to the stated 'Muslims'.... the conflict is geographical, rather than religious.

Both are factors.

Neither are the primary reason.

Yes, but pointing the finger at Islam and going "Oooh, all your fault" doesn't really make much sense, and is a bit hypocritical of the western world.

Really the source of fundamentalism and ideologically-motivated violence is the ideology in question. It was the same thing with nationalism and the Black Hand society at the turn of the 19th century. It was the same thing with Christianity and the Crusades. It's the same thing now.

yes it is. i wouldnt suggest that islam has more violent tendencies than other religions. im saying that the impulse comes from the same part of the brain (to reference the religiosity thread)

yes it is. i wouldnt suggest that islam has more violent tendencies than other religions. im saying that the impulse comes from the same part of the brain (to reference the religiosity thread)

Agreed.

The article says he 'investigated the claims that suicide bombings in the Middle East are purely secular'. It doesn't say which data he chose to examine, just: 'Atran has tracked available intelligence dossiers on the perpetrators of suicide bombings'.

You leap to a conclusion that may not be supportable.

It says several times in the body of the article what his sources were, including first-hand accounts from social workers. Please, please, please, please, please read the WHOLE ARTICLE.

Of course - even if all he did stude WAS the Middle East... why choose to ignore non-regional evidence that flies directly in the face of your assertion?

Simple - he had already decided what was 'to blame'.

Because his study was about the Middle East. Let me show you why your answer here is a little goofy.

Suppose I am trying to find causes of poverty in the United States. I point to low educational attainment and violence enabled by easy access to drugs and firearms. You then go and say "well you're completely ignoring the fact that poverty in Nepal is caused by the absence of a stable currency. Therefore, I question your study's reliability. Why choose to ignore non-regional evidence that flies directly in the face of your assertion?"

Because the assertion is about a region, dear. :headbang:



Tamil Tigers are 'secular' in comparison to the stated 'Muslims'.... the conflict is geographical, rather than religious.

This is strange to me because it offers no defense to what I said to almost this exact same statement from you in that post. I therefore consider my statement unrefuted as you have opted only to reiterate your incorrect statement.

Next.

To state that the Tamil Tigers are a secular group is silly. They are fighting for the sovereignty of an ethnic population called the Tamils who are mostly Hindu- and who just happen to practice a form of Hinduism that differs from the dominant form of Hinduism practiced elsewhere in Sri Lanka (the Tamil Hindu pantheon contains Murugan and Amman for example, which VERY few practicing Hindu sects recognize as canonical).

The dominant ethnicity of Sri Lanka is the Sinhalese who are majority Buddhists.

Yes, Tamils have Murugan and Amman as favorite deities but not exclusively. The Tamil Hindu pantheon is not very different from the non-Tamil pantheon. Muruga is known as Karthikeya (son of Shiva) and Amman is another form of Shakthi or the female Goddess who can be found represented in many forms throughout India.

The issue is not religious. It is primarily ethnic (and linguistic and socio-cultural etc.....concepts associated with ethnicity). Tamil Muslims and Christians can be found in the ranks of the LTTE and its sympathizers (though I cannot say how representative they are considering their population percentage).

If Bengali hindus blow up Buddhists from Cambodia because Bengali Hindus share the religion with Tamils and Cambodians share their religion with Sinhalese Budhists, the issue can be analogous to salafi transnational terrorism.

I have yet to hear an adequate explanation for the fact that all 19 9/11 hijackers were college educated at European universities.You've yet to hear an adequate explanation, so you've decided - seemingly arbitrarily and against all evidence - that it's because of one of the biggest religions in the world? OK, rhetorical questions aside, how do you think you're doing so far?

It's neither poverty or Islam. Resource strong, marginalized people engage in terrorism. And it's primarily about payback. It's payback when an anarchist buys a high-powered rifle and blows some asshole away. It's payback when some Muslim academic buys a bomb and blows up his and/or our corrupt leaders.

And it's usually payback for the poor who don't have time and energy for payback, for the history stolen from us. From the irrational scorn and hatred we're met with. For the lack of anyone who'll listen to first our pleas, then our threats and finally our screams.

I say our, not because I'm a terrorist, but because I'm an anarchist, have anarchist friends, am marrying a Muslim, have Muslim friends, and 99.9% of the time feel like one of a handful sane individuals in a world with desire to murder us that is as irrational as it is bottomless.

In other words, it's people like you who create the basis for non-state terrorism. It's people like me who indulge you. When you consistently push a particular group hard enough, some of that group will eventually get so fed up with you they start pushing back.

It's what I'll never get about whiny little assholes like us Westerners. We're raping 80% of the world so damn hard it's become a danger to the very planet's biosphere. And yet we cry and play ignorant on the rare occasions somebody makes a futile attempt at responding in kind. It's not just hypocritical as fuck, it's borderline hypochondriac. 3,000 dead businessmen. Right. And how many children below the age of 1 die every year because of the economic system we enforce through military might and globalisation?

People like you and I makes me fucking ashamed of humanity.

But hey, just to top it off, we declared war on ME culture, proving that what the Muslim Brotherhood and the like have been saying since their inception, was right all along. Apparently we are out to destroy their culture. Just read the press. And don't be idiotic enough to think they don't.

My rant isn't aimed at the US in particular, but it's useful as an example. So click away, (http://www.doublestandards.org/whatcall.html) if you want an insight into why non-state based terrorism exists.

Islam or Poverty?

Since poverty is enabled by Islam, it is really a false choice.

Without secure property rights and a consumer banking industry, endemic poverty is inevitable. Islamic theocratic government precludes both of those things. Without access to capital markets and no guarantees that you can even keep the fruit of your labor, there is no incentive to acquire wealth. Without this incentive, no economic growth is even possible.

Since poverty is enabled by Islam, it is really a false choice.

Without secure property rights and a consumer banking industry, endemic poverty is inevitable. Islamic theocratic government precludes both of those things. Without access to capital markets and no guarantees that you can even keep the fruit of your labor, there is no incentive to acquire wealth. Without this incentive, no economic growth is even possible.

Enables poverty? HAH!

I might think you don't have any facts that to back that up, or this opinion is formed right from your ass.

Isn't that right Abu Dhabi?

I read the article, and it is of dubious worth.

The main thing - I doubt the integrity of the study:

It clearly states that the statistics have been collected "as far back as the early 80's", and yet - "100% of the suicide bombers Atran isolated in his study were Muslims". So - we are asserting a religious motivation, obviously.

However, he seems to have failed to notice that, during their most active period, the (secular) Tamil Tigers were carrying out more suicide bombings than either Hezbollah or Hamas. How his exhaustive study managed to entirely miss everyone that isn't Muslim, perturbs me.

Moreover, the struggle of Hamas and Hezbollah is political in nature rather than religious...

Implying that people are willing to sacrifice themselves for political rather than religious ends.

Scot Atran's study was a study of the Middle East. That he missed Sri Lanka in his exhaustive study of the Middle East, and that you point this out as a disqualifying attack on the credentials of the study, reveal to me is that no actually, you probably didn't read the article. Please, please, please do not walk into this conversation blind.

To state that the Tamil Tigers are a secular group is silly. They are fighting for the sovereignty of an ethnic population called the Tamils who are mostly Hindu- and who just happen to practice a form of Hinduism that differs from the dominant form of Hinduism practiced elsewhere in Sri Lanka (the Tamil Hindu pantheon contains Murugan and Amman for example, which VERY few practicing Hindu sects recognize as canonical).

Taking the Middle East and then asserting that 100% of the perpetrators is Muslim is similar to taking political violence in Latin America and asserting that 100% of the perpetrators is Christian…

It is absurd, if you want to examine the role of Islam (independent variable), to select your cases on this variable. As the Middle East is mainly an Islamic area it does not tell you anything…

Both are factors.

Neither are the primary reason.

qft

Suppose I am trying to find causes of poverty in the United States. I point to low educational attainment and violence enabled by easy access to drugs and firearms. You then go and say "well you're completely ignoring the fact that poverty in Nepal is caused by the absence of a stable currency. Therefore, I question your study's reliability. Why choose to ignore non-regional evidence that flies directly in the face of your assertion?"

Because the assertion is about a region, dear. :headbang:



Suppose I am trying to find causes of poverty in the United States. I point to almost 100% of the poor is American...

Being American must therefore cause poverty in the region... :eek:

It is perfectly valid, for it is a regional study

Taking the Middle East and then asserting that 100% of the perpetrators is Muslim is similar to taking political violence in Latin America and asserting that 100% of the perpetrators is Christian…

It is absurd, if you want to examine the role of Islam (independent variable), to select your cases on this variable. As the Middle East is mainly an Islamic area it does not tell you anything…
QFT

Poverty drives it, however the people who actually commit the acts aren't poor themselves. They're well-off, typically young idealists who are easily manipulated into thinking their acts will benefit 'their people'.

Where's the 'other' option?

Since poverty is enabled by Islam, it is really a false choice.

Without secure property rights and a consumer banking industry, endemic poverty is inevitable. Islamic theocratic government precludes both of those things. Without access to capital markets and no guarantees that you can even keep the fruit of your labor, there is no incentive to acquire wealth. Without this incentive, no economic growth is even possible.

Poverty enabled by Islam :D

still wrong; still priceless :D

Reason for edit: I should learn to read, see Nazz' post ;)

Poverty caused by Islam :D

Sooo wrong; it's priceless :D
Learn to read. Enabled =/= caused by.

Edit: I'd like to add that I don't necessarily agree with Gartref's assumptions, but if you're going to attack him, at least attack him for what he said, not what you wish he'd said.

Learn to read. Enabled =/= caused by.

my bad, :)

but still...

Since poverty is enabled by Islam, it is really a false choice.

Without secure property rights and a consumer banking industry, endemic poverty is inevitable. Islamic theocratic government precludes both of those things. Without access to capital markets and no guarantees that you can even keep the fruit of your labor, there is no incentive to acquire wealth. Without this incentive, no economic growth is even possible.

It is almost as silly...

First, the poster speaks of Islam enabling poverty. Then the poster continues on to theocratic govt. as a cause for poverty... However, theocratic govt. are hardly endemic in the region.

If the poster were to state that dictatorship enables poverty, he/she poster might have had a point. Now, it is only slighly amusing...

the taliban banned music whenthey ran afghanistan. they considered music to be unislamic.

so now the Taleban determine what is islamic and what is not?

Same thing has happened in small Christian sects in the US. The only real difference is in the reach each group has--the US churches could only "ban" inside their congregations and had limited enforcement capability. Thus the need for a secular state.

And that's why I get frustrated with the "the US is a Christian nation" crowd. What happens if your church doesn't win? What happens if the church that winds up on top is one which considers your congregation heretical? Look at Afghanistan for the answer.

Between the two, I'd put poverty as a more important motivator. Simple pragmatism, really. People are significantly more willing to give up their lives if they view themselves as having little to lose.

If your life is lived in comfort and wealth with all your needs and wants provided for, you're going to be a lot less likely to volunteer to blow yourself up. If, on the other hand, you have been on the verge of starvation for most of your life, live in unsanitary, unsafe conditions, are almost certainly going to die of a preventable disease before you reach middle age, and can expect to be pretty much completely ignored by the rest of the world until the day you die...then hey, going out in a blaze of glory may seem like a better choice.

Can I suggest that perhaps Poverty, in addition to being a factor in and of itself of behavioural leaning towards terrorism, might also be a key contributor to the success of Islam?

Dink-dink! Both!

Plus a perception of injustice!

Can I suggest that perhaps Poverty, in addition to being a factor in and of itself of behavioural leaning towards terrorism, might also be a key contributor to the success of Islam?

The secret to success of every theistic religion in da world (Islam holds no exclusive rights to it).

The secret to success of every theistic religion in da world (Islam holds no exclusive rights to it).

Absolutely. I don't think it's a coincidence that the greatest growth in Christianity in the last 30 years has been in Africa, South America and Eastern Europe, all economically depressed places.

Absolutely. I don't think it's a coincidence that the greatest growth in Christianity in the last 30 years has been in Africa, South America and Eastern Europe, all economically depressed places.

I also don't think it's a secret that some places are scientifically and educationally stunted by certain religions, thereby exacerbating poverty, and ensuring that future generations are crushed down even further by poverty.

Naipaul makes compelling arguments about the role that Islam plays in this regard.

While you might make similar arguments about Christianity in some countries, or Buddhism (and its central tenet of worldly fatalism), far more countries with Christian backgrounds (or even Buddhist backgrounds) have risen from poverty and accepted more secular views of the world.

If it weren't for a few oil rich Islamic nations, they would all be in the most abject and appalling states of poverty - they are already intellectually and educationally stunted on purpose.

I also don't think it's a secret that some places are scientifically and educationally stunted by certain religions, thereby exacerbating poverty, and ensuring that future generations are crushed down even further by poverty.

Naipaul makes compelling arguments about the role that Islam plays in this regard.

While you might make similar arguments about Christianity in some countries, or Buddhism (and its central tenet of worldly fatalism), far more countries with Christian backgrounds (or even Buddhist backgrounds) have risen from poverty and accepted more secular views of the world.

If it weren't for a few oil rich Islamic nations, they would all be in the most abject and appalling states of poverty - they are already intellectually and educationally stunted on purpose.

Pssst, Malaysia is also a Muslim majority nation, they even had shariah courts to dispute matters, yet with a GDP per Capita of USD 12700, they even outranked Mexico (Christian, well, Catholic majority nation).

And to think that they don't always rely on oil, the nerve of them silly Malaysians.

Are you guys sure that you're not jumping into conclusions here?

Rather than Islam or poverty, I'd blame encroaching spheres of economic and political influence that threatened their way of life. In the old days, they call this "Imperialism"... now they call it "Corporate Imperialism".

Pssst, Malaysia is also a Muslim majority nation, they even had shariah courts to dispute matters, yet with a GDP per Capita of USD 12700, they even outranked Mexico (Christian, well, Catholic majority nation).

And to think that they don't always rely on oil, the nerve of them silly Malaysians.

Are you guys sure that you're not jumping into conclusions here?

Rather than Islam or poverty, I'd blame encroaching spheres of economic and political influence that threatened their way of life. In the old days, they call this "Imperialism"... now they call it "Corporate Imperialism".

Malaysia's GNP would be seriously smaller if not for oil revenue.

Malaysia's GNP would be seriously smaller if not for oil revenue.

Not really.

By 1999, nominal per capita GDP had reached $3,238. New foreign and domestic investment played a significant role in the transformation of Malaysia's economy. Manufacturing grew from 13.9% of GDP in 1970 to 30% in 1999, while agriculture and mining which together had accounted for 42.7% of GDP in 1970, dropped to 9.3% and 7.3%, respectively, in 1999. Manufacturing accounted for 30% of GDP (1999). Major products include electronic components -- Malaysia is one of the world's largest exporters of semiconductor devices -- electrical goods and appliances.

See, you can't be a good semiconductor exporter if you're not educated.

Rather than Islam or poverty, I'd blame encroaching spheres of economic and political influence that threatened their way of life. In the old days, they call this "Imperialism"... now they call it "Corporate Imperialism".
Corporate Imperialism and Poverty are seriously codependent; each thrive off the other. Solving Poverty would almost certainly involve a complete overhaul of the way the world economy currently works so as to cripple the power of the corporation.

Can I suggest that perhaps Poverty, in addition to being a factor in and of itself of behavioural leaning towards terrorism, might also be a key contributor to the success of Islam?

As a few other people have pointed out, Islam is by no means the only religion to benefit in recruitment due to poverty. The vast majority of converts to Catholicism in India after the arrival of the Portuguese missionaries were from the poor. Christianity tends to be more beneficial to the poor and downtrodden than Hinduism, or at least it used to.

As a few other people have pointed out, Islam is by no means the only religion to benefit in recruitment due to poverty. The vast majority of converts to Catholicism in India after the arrival of the Portuguese missionaries were from the poor. Christianity tends to be more beneficial to the poor and downtrodden than Hinduism, or at least it used to.
I'm merely suggesting that even if the direct cause of a lot of the dischord and terrorism is found to be religious conflict, it would still be fair to point to poverty at the roots of it.

I also don't think it's a secret that some places are scientifically and educationally stunted by certain religions, thereby exacerbating poverty, and ensuring that future generations are crushed down even further by poverty.

Naipaul makes compelling arguments about the role that Islam plays in this regard.

While you might make similar arguments about Christianity in some countries, or Buddhism (and its central tenet of worldly fatalism), far more countries with Christian backgrounds (or even Buddhist backgrounds) have risen from poverty and accepted more secular views of the world.

If it weren't for a few oil rich Islamic nations, they would all be in the most abject and appalling states of poverty - they are already intellectually and educationally stunted on purpose.
My argument would be that those nations have done so in spite of Christianity as opposed to because of it. The constant infighting among sects post-Reformation might have had something to do with it, as well as the wealth of natural resources that the western Europeans (and later, the colonists in North American) had to work with. I'm pulling from Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel for the latter part of that. But at this point, I am certainly willing to argue that looking at the situation as it stands, we need to do more to make certain that governments remain secular instead of becoming more theocratic, especially in the US, where the religious right is doing everything they can to obliterate that division between church and state.

My argument would be that those nations have done so in spite of Christianity as opposed to because of it. The constant infighting among sects post-Reformation might have had something to do with it, as well as the wealth of natural resources that the western Europeans (and later, the colonists in North American) had to work with. I'm pulling from Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel for the latter part of that. But at this point, I am certainly willing to argue that looking at the situation as it stands, we need to do more to make certain that governments remain secular instead of becoming more theocratic, especially in the US, where the religious right is doing everything they can to obliterate that division between church and state.

The important thing to know is that European civilization managed to wrest itself away from a Church-run government a long, long time ago - even when there was only the Monarchy. A Reformation made this sort of thing possible.

If no Reformation had taken place - if no rebellion against Church authority had taken place, Europe would have been as benighted as many Islamic areas are today.

It is precisely because Christianity lost its hold on government, and adapted over time that progress was made possible.

It's impossible to have that sort of progress (and have it accepted by the majority of people in an area) if the people running the religion run the state.

It's impossible to have that sort of progress (and have it accepted by the majority of people in an area) if the people running the religion run the state.

It's not that easy, another case-study: Indonesia.

Moslem majority, secularist goverment,... and, remember the Bali bomb?

This is not the case of religious intervention in the goverment, but rather a case of popular grass-roots religious radical groups.

The important thing to know is that European civilization managed to wrest itself away from a Church-run government a long, long time ago - even when there was only the Monarchy. A Reformation made this sort of thing possible.

If no Reformation had taken place - if no rebellion against Church authority had taken place, Europe would have been as benighted as many Islamic areas are today.

It is precisely because Christianity lost its hold on government, and adapted over time that progress was made possible.

It's impossible to have that sort of progress (and have it accepted by the majority of people in an area) if the people running the religion run the state.
Oh, I know. That's why I found the main article in yesterday's NY Times Sunday Magazine about Pope Benedict so funny. He's claiming that the Catholic Church is in the perfect position to bridge the gap between current fundamentalism and European secularism--because the church was powerful during the Enlightenment.

Oh, I know. That's why I found the main article in yesterday's NY Times Sunday Magazine about Pope Benedict so funny. He's claiming that the Catholic Church is in the perfect position to bridge the gap between current fundamentalism and European secularism--because the church was powerful during the Enlightenment.

Obviously, he has Alzheimers. A transformation is necessary within Islam itself - a transformation identical to the one that Christianity underwent in the Reformation.

It has to give up its political power (or a lot of it), and the people who practice it need to embrace a more secular life (or separate their religious beliefs and practices from the secular world).

If they're never able to make that leap, they'll be wearing the yoke of poverty.

Obviously, he has Alzheimers. A transformation is necessary within Islam itself - a transformation identical to the one that Christianity underwent in the Reformation. To be fair, he was talking about fundamentalism in general, both Islamic and Christian. Of course, where he gets the idea that the contemporary Catholic church is a model of liberal thought is beyond me.

music anti-islamic?

Actually many do view music as Haraam. For others its only Music with instruments that is haraam. The Taliban considered all music to be haraam so they banned it. Personally the Hadiths I've seen point to only Music with instruments being Haraam.

To answer the OP. I'm Muslim and I haven't had the desire to blow myself up. But the answer is different depending on the situation I think. In Palestine for instance the Muslims there are under continous occupation and almost no chance for economic advancement. So when some says if you be a suicide bomber we will take care of your family or something, chances are they will do it out of sheer desperation. However the cause may be more Islamically related if say a Syrian Muslim feels they need to go to Iraq for Jihad and to fight the occupation. So it depends on the situation.

To be fair, he was talking about fundamentalism in general, both Islamic and Christian. Of course, where he gets the idea that the contemporary Catholic church is a model of liberal thought is beyond me.

Probably in comparison with old catholic church.

It is precisely because Christianity lost its hold on government, and adapted over time that progress was made possible.

It's impossible to have that sort of progress (and have it accepted by the majority of people in an area) if the people running the religion run the state.Not really. Europe is a good example of it not being impossible.

But it's important to note that unlike in Europe, the MEs greatest period of prosperity and enlightenment, lies partially at the feet of Islam. While our religion oppressed the fuck out of us and turned everything to shit, theirs helped them get organised, form national identities, strenghten trade, conquer resources and so on. And unlike our religion, theirs made a - for the times - unparalleled attempt to solve problems of poverty and unemployment through redistribution of wealth.

And it's important to note that this isn't lost on Muslims. Regardless of how big a non sequitur it is, a lot of them want a religious revival, because it worked for them once. Try to look at some of the arguments flying around at the time of the Iranian revolution. And when you've done that, try to see what's actually happened to that society as a consequence.

To say that Islam and poverty has any sort of direct relationship is no more or less idiotic than saying Islam and wealth has some sort of direct relationship.

Obviously, he has Alzheimers. A transformation is necessary within Islam itself - a transformation identical to the one that Christianity underwent in the Reformation.

It has to give up its political power (or a lot of it), and the people who practice it need to embrace a more secular life (or separate their religious beliefs and practices from the secular world).

If they're never able to make that leap, they'll be wearing the yoke of poverty.

How do you reform the Buddhist? Islam is not like Catholicism. There are Shiahs, Sunnis, Sufis, Khajariites, even there's different schools of thought within one another, and they can be very contrasting between each other.

To reform (like the Catholic Church), one must have a distinct organization first, after the Caliphates, it is safe to say, that there's no ultimate ruling priesthood/leadership in Islam.

How do you reform the Buddhist? Islam is not like Catholicism. There are Shiahs, Sunnis, Sufis, Khajariites, even there's different schools of thought within one another, and they can be very contrasting between each other.

To reform (like the Catholic Church), one must have a distinct organization first, after the Caliphates, it is safe to say, that there's no ultimate ruling priesthood/leadership in Islam.

After a while, there wasn't a unified Christian organization (especially after Luther). That's not a valid reason not to espouse and create reform.

Buddhists have a different problem - a real-world fatalism - a sort of self-taught passive-aggressive mentality that erodes an otherwise progressive society.

If you're not happy, then you haven't said "fuck it all" enough with fervent belief.

I think the "reform" has already taken place in Buddhism - a lot of its followers seem to pay lip service to it, and assume they'll never reach Nirvana, and aren't trying too hard to get there - in much the same way that a lot of Christianity is merely lip service, and most people show up only for Christmas and Easter.

Actually, from what I've heard, Iraq is fairly modern about such things. Bigotry does not become you.

That wasn't bigotry, that was ignorance. I'd also like to point out that my first post in this thread was mostly intended as a joke, although I do think that the restrictions religion puts on people can reduce their happiness and that unhappy people are more likely to engage in activities like terrorism.

How does the song go again?

Islam or Poverty, Islam or Poverty
Go together like a horse and the unresolved palestinian situation causing millions to live in misery
This I tell you brother
You can't have one without the other


So both are important factors - and wait, there's more! :eek:

I think the "reform" has already taken place in Buddhism - a lot of its followers seem to pay lip service to it, and assume they'll never reach Nirvana, and aren't trying too hard to get there - in much the same way that a lot of Christianity is merely lip service, and most people show up only for Christmas and Easter.

I'm with you in this one,... I think that people shouldn't let religious fervor cloud their judgement.

But I think we're deviating from the topic;

I'd say Islam (as a whole religion) is not and never the cause of suicide terrorism. Oppression is, fueled by peverting a religious tenet.

How does the song go again?

Islam or Poverty, Islam or Poverty
Go together like a horse and the unresolved palestinian situation causing millions to live in misery
This I tell you brother
You can't have one without the other


So both are important factors - and wait, there's more! :eek:

I've personally always preferred the version about sex and chocolate. :D

It says several times in the body of the article what his sources were, including first-hand accounts from social workers. Please, please, please, please, please read the WHOLE ARTICLE.


I read the whole article. I think it is self-serving wank, with a conclusion it was going to find no matter the cost, decided in advance.

Just because I don't think it's worth the paper it is written on, doesn't mean I didn't read it.


Suppose I am trying to find causes of poverty in the United States. I point to low educational attainment and violence enabled by easy access to drugs and firearms. You then go and say "well you're completely ignoring the fact that poverty in Nepal is caused by the absence of a stable currency. Therefore, I question your study's reliability. Why choose to ignore non-regional evidence that flies directly in the face of your assertion?"

Because the assertion is about a region, dear. :headbang:


You don't see the logical flaw in your assertion?

You honestly think you can run an experiment where you don't account for the variables?

The idea of finding the roots of sucide bombing without allowing for the fact that it is a global phenomenon, is either VERY flawed, or intellectually dishonest.

Having read what i have read, I think dishonesty is the key. The 'expert' had no intention of a rigourious study of the phenomenon, he had already decided what he was going to find, and he tailored his experiment to find it.


This is strange to me because it offers no defense to what I said to almost this exact same statement from you in that post. I therefore consider my statement unrefuted as you have opted only to reiterate your incorrect statement.


On the contrary - your failure to understand what I have illustrated doesn't speak to the truth of my statement. The Tamil Tigers are an example of suicide bombing entirely disconnected from Al Qaeda, or the spread of Islam.

If the assertion is that suicide bombing is somehow 'Islamic' in nature... the Tamil Tigers are an example of the 'secularity' of the phenomenon.

I don't see how you don't get that - clearly Tamil Tigers show that it is 'democratic' in it's religious application.

WTF ?? I think you've been exposed to too much ultraviolent radiation...
music anti-islamic? terrorism out of boredom? that's just racist bullshit.

fail

this thread is doomed to failure.

Gary Cherone is made of less fail than this thread.

Christianity tends to be more beneficial to the poor and downtrodden than Hinduism, or at least it used to.

It never was. The poor converts are still poor. Those who make it across, make it due to their own effort/education etc not due to conversion to xtianity or islam for that matter.

The NE state of Nagaland became xtian majority. They are still piss poor with no prospects of improvement.

Evangelists are no less a danger than jihadis and hence the coining of the term Evanjihadis. ;)

It never was. The poor converts are still poor. Those who make it across, make it due to their own effort/education etc not due to conversion to xtianity or islam for that matter.

The NE state of Nagaland became xtian majority. They are still piss poor with no prospects of improvement.

Evangelists are no less a danger than jihadis and hence the coining of the term Evanjihadis. ;)

This is why I shouldn't talk about the country my parents came from as if I knew what I was talking about.

Consider me corrected. :)

Iraq was a secular state before the Americans came.

Yeah, but secular states still have societal standards and norms, and from what I've heard the standards and norms of Iraq are fairly modern.