Not poverty. Not our support of Israel. Rather, suppression of civil liberties and political rights. Chickpea, here are your root causes, even though I know you won't read the book when it comes out.
Princeton Economist Says
Lack of Civil Liberties, Not
Poverty, Breeds Terrorism
July 5, 2007; Page A2
When Princeton economist Alan Krueger saw reports that seven of eight people arrested in the unsuccessful car bombings in Britain were doctors, he wasn't shocked. He wasn't even surprised.
"Each time we have one of these attacks and the backgrounds of the attackers are revealed, this should put to rest the myth that terrorists are attacking us because they are desperately poor," he says. "But this misconception doesn't die."
Less than a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush said, "We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror." A couple of months later, his wife, Laura, said, "Educated children are much more likely to embrace the values that defeat terror." Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn has argued, "The war on terrorism will not be won until we have come to grips with the problem of poverty, and thus the sources of discontent."
The analysis is plausible. It's appealing because it bolsters the case for the worthy goals of fighting poverty and ignorance. But systematic study -- to the extent possible -- suggests it's wrong.
"As a group, terrorists are better educated and from wealthier families than the typical person in the same age group in the societies from which they originate," Mr. Krueger said at the London School of Economics last year in a lecture soon to be published as a book, "What Makes a Terrorist?"
"There is no evidence of a general tendency for impoverished or uneducated people to be more likely to support terrorism or join terrorist organizations than their higher-income, better-educated countrymen," he said. The Sept. 11 attackers were relatively well-off men from a rich country, Saudi Arabia.
Mr. Krueger, 46 years old, is one of those academics whose research extends from the standard fare -- How much more do workers with education earn? What happens to employment when the minimum wage rises? -- to, well, cool stuff. Did Firestone factories produce shoddy tires during a period of labor unrest? (Yes) Are rich people really enjoying life more than the rest of us? (No) Are concert-ticket prices higher for female musicians than males? (Yes)
He began poking around this sordid subject a decade ago when he and a colleague found little connection between economic circumstances and the incidence of violent hate crimes in Germany. Among the statistical pieces of the puzzle a small band of academics have assembled since are these:
? Backgrounds of 148 Palestinian suicide bombers show they were less likely to come from families living in poverty and were more likely to have finished high school than the general population. Biographies of 129 Hezbollah shahids (martyrs) reveal they, too, are less likely to be from poor families than the Lebanese population from which they come. The same goes for available data about an Israeli terrorist organization, Gush Emunim, active in the 1980s.
? Terrorism doesn't increase in the Middle East when economic conditions worsen; indeed, there seems no link. One study finds the number of terrorist incidents is actually higher in countries that spend more on social-welfare programs. Slicing and dicing data finds no discernible pattern that countries that are poorer or more illiterate produce more terrorists. Examining 781 terrorist events classified by the U.S. State Department as "significant" reveals terrorists tend to come from countries distinguished by political oppression, not poverty or inequality.
? Public-opinion polls from Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey find people with more education are more likely to say suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq are justified. Polls of Palestinians find no clear difference in support for terrorism as a means to achieve political ends between the most and least educated.
Data on which all this relies are hardly perfect: Terrorists don't fill out elaborate questionnaires. Better-off, better-educated individuals could be motivated if not by their own circumstances, then by the conditions of their impoverished countrymen. Interviews of terrorists in Pakistan by Harvard terrorism scholar Jessica Stern reveal recruiters there found the poorest neighborhoods to be the most fertile ground, particularly among those who feel Muslims are humiliated by the West. She says Mr. Krueger and like-minded scholars don't yet have enough evidence to prove anything. "We are only just beginning to do really serious large studies in terrorism," she says.
But the conventional wisdom that poverty breeds terrorism is backed by surprisingly little hard evidence. "The evidence is nearly unanimous in rejecting either material deprivation or inadequate education as an important cause of support for terrorism or of participation in terrorist activities," Mr. Krueger asserts. The 9/11 Commission stated flatly: Terrorism is not caused by poverty.
So what is the cause? Suppression of civil liberties and political rights, Mr. Krueger hypothesizes. "When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed," he says, "malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics."
Which -- ironically, given that Mr. Krueger is no fan of the president's actual policies at home or abroad -- is close to Mr. Bush's rhetoric: "Liberty has got the capacity to change enemies into allies."
Write to David Wessel at capital@wsj.com, or chat with him about this column in his online forum.
Replies
297
Beach Fanatic
Ah, so by your over simplistic reasoning ?if we can just find a group who?s civil and political rights are being suppressed then what ?we will find terrorists?
Please explain Falun Gong.
And likewise when we see a terrorist then we are looking at someone who?s civil and political rights have been suppressed?
Please explain Timothy McVeigh.
I think the point of your article looks a little silly now, doesn't it?
Please explain Falun Gong.
And likewise when we see a terrorist then we are looking at someone who?s civil and political rights have been suppressed?
Please explain Timothy McVeigh.
I think the point of your article looks a little silly now, doesn't it?
Beach Fanatic
And likewise when we see a terrorist then we are looking at someone who?s civil and political rights have been suppressed?
Please explain Timothy McVeigh.
I think the point of your article looks a little silly now, doesn't it?
Silly Uncle Timmy, that's simple. American's can never be terrorists :roll: ;-)
Beach FanaticAuthor
Ah, so by your over simplistic reasoning ?if we can just find a group who?s civil and political rights are being suppressed then what ?we will find terrorists?
Please explain Falun Gong.
And likewise when we see a terrorist then we are looking at someone who?s civil and political rights have been suppressed?
Please explain Timothy McVeigh.
I think the point of your article looks a little silly now, doesn't it?
I didn't write it, a professor at Princeton did. His research is incredibly well cited. Why don't you tell me what you believe makes a terrorist? I'd expect it to be equally referenced.
SoWal Expert
Keep the sheep fat and happy (12pks of beer, NASCAR and other sports on TV), and you won't have gov't uprisings. I had never heard that people become terrorists because of poverty. Thanks Pres. and Laura Bush, for letting me know that.
Many founders of this Country and many patriots would be classified as terrorists, by today's definitions. Look no further than our first President, George Washington, John Hancock and Samuel Adams.
We will never have another Tea Party, due to the average low income American being kept boozed up and preoccupied with important stuff like TV. When Americans become more educated, they will become a little more pissed off at the Gov't and only then, will there be any dancing at the Tea Party. They day will come, but I'm fairly sure that it won't be while I'm living.
Many founders of this Country and many patriots would be classified as terrorists, by today's definitions. Look no further than our first President, George Washington, John Hancock and Samuel Adams.
We will never have another Tea Party, due to the average low income American being kept boozed up and preoccupied with important stuff like TV. When Americans become more educated, they will become a little more pissed off at the Gov't and only then, will there be any dancing at the Tea Party. They day will come, but I'm fairly sure that it won't be while I'm living.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Washington, Hancock or Adams never specifically targeted innocents. I'd always put you above moral relativism.
SoWal Expert
So by definition, a terrorists has to target innocents? Just out of curiosity, are elected officials considered to be innocents?
Beach FanaticAuthor
So by definition, a terrorists has to target innocents? Just out of curiosity, are elected officials considered to be innocents?
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism[/ame]
Terrorism is a term used to describe unlawful violence or other unlawful harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.[1] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target non-combatants.
As for elected officials, as a whole, I wouldn't classify them as innocents as their actions and decisions are what made them targets.
SoWal Expert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Terrorism is a term used to describe unlawful violence or other unlawful harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.[1] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear or "terror", are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target non-combatants.
As for elected officials, as a whole, I wouldn't classify them as innocents as their actions and decisions are what made them targets.
and from American Heritage Dictionary:
ter?ror?ism
(těr'ə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
It seems that definitions are not so definitive anymore.
I guess it should also be noted that an innocent to one person, may not be an innocent to another. The radical Muslims don't think Americans are innocents at all.
Edited
Beach FanaticAuthor
and from American Heritage Dictionary:
ter?ror?ism
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
It seems that definitions are not so definitive anymore.
I guess it should also be noted that an innocent to one person, may not be an innocent to another. The radical Muslims don't think Americans are innocents at all.
Being wrong about something doesn't change the fact.
Beach Fanatic
6th Gen,
No way I am starting a debate with you again - I suspect that by now you should have a clear idea of where I stand with respect to understanding SOME of the root causes of terrorism.
I will however look forward to reading people's thoughts on the subject.
No way I am starting a debate with you again - I suspect that by now you should have a clear idea of where I stand with respect to understanding SOME of the root causes of terrorism.
I will however look forward to reading people's thoughts on the subject.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Unless I'm mistaken, and to save you some time on checking on it I'm not, you've stated in the past that poverty and individuals' stance on terrorism were correlated. Is that right? Regardless, I'm glad that you are interested in reading points of view that don't mold with your world view for a change, rather than dismissing the authors as folks that "understand nothing" whose "views are as uneducated and reprehensible to (you)". Glad I've made some progress with you.
Beach Fanatic
Unless I'm mistaken, and to save you some time on checking on it I'm not, you've stated in the past that poverty and individuals' stance on terrorism were correlated. Is that right? Regardless, I'm glad that you are interested in reading points of view that don't mold with your world view for a change, rather than dismissing the authors as folks that "understand nothing" whose "views are as uneducated and reprehensible to (you)". Glad I've made some progress with you.
=6thGenSoWal Expert
So do you believe that people like George Washington would instead of being labeled as terrorists would be defined as "enemy combatants?" 
Edited
Skunky
So do you believe that people like George Washington would instead of being labeled as terrorists would be defined as "enemy combatants?"
I think he technically would have been a traitor.
Beach FanaticAuthor
=elgordoboyBeach FanaticAuthor
So do you believe that people like George Washington would instead of being labeled as terrorists would be defined as "enemy combatants?"
A better example would be Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis. As you can probably guess, many people in my family tree were labled as traitors, enemy combatants, rebels, etc.
needs to get out more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
Terrorism is a term used to describe unlawful violence or other unlawful harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.
.
and from American Heritage Dictionary:
ter?ror?ism
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) describes terrorism as ?the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.?
these are all relatively the same, no?
6th gen, i believe this is the second time you've referenced wikipedia. the weakest fact source on the internet. i expect more from you.
Beach FanaticAuthor
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) describes terrorism as ?the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.?
these are all relatively the same, no?
6th gen, i believe this is the second time you've referenced wikipedia. the weakest fact source on the internet. i expect more from you.
Yea, it's incredibly lazy, but I'm supporting my fellow Auburn men.
Beach Fanatic
I didn't write it, a professor at Princeton did. His research is incredibly well cited. Why don't you tell me what you believe makes a terrorist? I'd expect it to be equally referenced.
Well then, you've learned a valuable lesson today - you shouldn't believe everything you read.
Your lesson for tomorrow will be -when you base your opinions on things you read, and those writtings are disproven, you need to change your opinion.
Beach Fanatic
Lol..pretty good
SoWal Expert
A better example would be Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis. As you can probably guess, many people in my family tree were labled as traitors, enemy combatants, rebels, etc.Right, but if the people fighting were not in uniform and they were burning towns, they would be considered terrorists, right?
Admin
Keep the sheep fat and happy (12pks of beer, NASCAR and other sports on TV), and you won't have gov't uprisings. I had never heard that people become terrorists because of poverty. Thanks Pres. and Laura Bush, for letting me know that.
Many founders of this Country and many patriots would be classified as terrorists, by today's definitions. Look no further than our first President, George Washington, John Hancock and Samuel Adams.
We will never have another Tea Party, due to the average low income American being kept boozed up and preoccupied with important stuff like TV. When Americans become more educated, they will become a little more pissed off at the Gov't and only then, will there be any dancing at the Tea Party. They day will come, but I'm fairly sure that it won't be while I'm living.
As long as people are relatively well fed and have basic rights there won't be big changes. There are no benfits to those in power to improve education, only risk. However, it is a great gift for each of us who have the freedom and time to pursue improvement within ourselves, although it takes discipline and desire. The answers have always existed inside, but modern society contains many distractions.
I see a few people post on this forum who have some knowledge of the outside world (or at least how to find it), but who remain ignorant within, without understanding.
"What is it exactly that hurts you? Open your heart and speak. Open your eyes and see. At the moment that you look with your eyes wide open, everywhere you will find differences, an infinite variety."- Swami Prajnanpad
Beach FanaticAuthor
Well then, you've learned a valuable lesson today - you shouldn't believe everything you read.
Your lesson for tomorrow will be -when you base your opinions on things you read, and those writtings are disproven, you need to change your opinion.
It's not an opinion, you belligerent jackass, and you have done absolutely nothing to disprove it. Disagreeing with the facts presented in the paper is like disagreeing that London is in England.
Beach Fanatic
It's not an opinion, you belligerent jackass, and you have done absolutely nothing to disprove it. Disagreeing with the facts presented in the paper is like disagreeing that London is in England.London, Ontario
[edit] Places in South Africa
- London, Limpopo
- London, Mpumalanga (Graskop)
- London, Mpumalanga (Noordprovincie)
- East London, Eastern Cape
- London, Conecuh County, Alabama
- London, Montgomery County, Alabama
- London, Arizona
- London, Arkansas
- London, California
- London, Indiana
- London, Kentucky
- London, Minnesota
- London, Missouri
- London, Ohio
- London, Richland County, Ohio
- London, Oregon
- London, Pennsylvania
- London, Tennessee
- London, Texas
- London, West Virginia
- London, Wisconsin
- London Mills, Illinois
- [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Township"]London Township[/ame], the name of several places
- Londontowne, Maryland
- New London, Pennsylvania
- [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_London_Town_and_Gardens"]Historic London Town and Gardens[/ame]
- London, Belize
- London, Equatorial Guinea
- London, Finland, a section of Jakobstad
- London, Kiribati, a small city on Kiritimati
- London, Nigeria
Admin
It's not an opinion, you belligerent jackass, and you have done absolutely nothing to disprove it. Disagreeing with the facts presented in the paper is like disagreeing that London is in England.
Name calling is unecessary and personal attacks will get you banned.
Please be respectful, or be somewhere else. Thanks!
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.