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
Meow
:roll: ...hey all you internet people...6thGen is hanging with real people right now. 
SoWal Insider
What is that Einstein quote? Something about World War III being fought with sticks and stones. I think Ted Kaczynski was also trying to alert people to the dangers of technology. Ever read his manifesto? It is rather interesting.he wasn't thrilled about nuclear fission in a convenient ready-to-go package. Wasn't it H. Ross who coined the phrase" Hey you internet people".
Edited
Beach Fanatic
Can anyone think of an example where technology didn?t enable terrorism?
The KKK maybe.
Perhaps we?ve stumbled on something that could be a ?root cause?. It certainly helps explain the absence of terrorism until fairly recently.
The KKK maybe.
Perhaps we?ve stumbled on something that could be a ?root cause?. It certainly helps explain the absence of terrorism until fairly recently.
Meow
he wasn't thrilled about nuclear fission in a convenient ready-to-go package. Wasn't it H. Ross that coined the phrase" Hey you internet people".
...omg, BOB...another TEXAN!!! They are everywhere!
SoWal Expert
he wasn't thrilled about nuclear fission in a convenient ready-to-go package. Wasn't it H. Ross who coined the phrase" Hey you internet people".Was it potato chips or microchips???
Beach Lover
People cause Terrorism.
So what do we do?
So what do we do?
SoWal Expert
Can anyone think of an example where technology didn?t enable terrorism?
The KKK maybe.
Perhaps we?ve stumbled on something that could be a ?root cause?. It certainly helps explain the absence of terrorism until fairly recently.
I think that some of the gangs in the US could be said as being terrorists, and although most pack heat (technology), they seem to be operating fairly efficiently with old school methods.
With today's technology being fairly cheap, I think many terrorists will employ technology to carry out effective missions. In some cases, they don't use products any different than you or I with the Blackberry's, internet access, web cams, computers, etc. In fact, much of what they use is available for free at businesses and libraries around the country.
Thinking a little ahead, past nuclear weapons, I've often said that if terrorists wanted to terrorize the masses in the USA, they would ditch the high tech stuff, and get some petri dishes for growing botulism, which would be very simple, then putting their teams to work in the food industry, at restaurants across the nation, and food distribution centers around the world. Any idea of the billions of dollars we spend on eating out? If it came to a stop tomorrow, the US would spiral rapidly down the tube for a long time. So I would say that utilizing technology is not a requirement to terrorize, and in order to stay more undercover, we may see terrorists resort to the simple stuff, later in time, as the gov't has such a great hidden ability to spy on everything we do in our daily lives. Type in the words bomb destroy America, or anything like that on the internet, and you will automatically be detected by someone or some computer behind the curtain of darkness
wave, as they try to determine what you are writing about. Nothing is sacred any more. Need a wire tap for phone conversation? no problem, they can do it without ever getting a warrant. I wonder if those listening ears ever get bored and start reading something like SoWal, and then become addicted? 
Darlene is my middle name, not my nickname
Beach Fanatic
I think that some of the gangs in the US could be said as being terrorists, and although most pack heat (technology), they seem to be operating fairly efficiently with old school methods.
With today's technology being fairly cheap, I think many terrorists will employ technology to carry out effective missions. In some cases, they don't use products any different than you or I with the Blackberry's, internet access, web cams, computers, etc. In fact, much of what they use is available for free at businesses and libraries around the country.
Actually street gangs aren?t terrorists as defined by the US government?s definition.
The relevant technological advancements or devices aren?t supposed to be rare or uncommon, just the opposite -as the more common they are the easier they can be used.
It is the development of these technologies, from an historical perspective, that seem to me to have enabled terrorism.
Think about it; it?s impossible to perform most acts of ?terrorism? that we see today if you are only working with Industrial Age technology.
I?m not saying it constitutes a ?root cause? of terrorism just yet, but it certainly answers a big part of the question ?Where was terrorism prior to the 20th century??
Beach Fanatic
Interesting.
From your link:
"Ultimately, Islamic terrorism, just as its Marxist or secessionist version in the West and Latin America was, is a matter of power?who has it and how to get it?not of poverty. Accepting this as a fundamental aspect of terrorism does not suggest any immediate solutions"
I think this relates to what I said earlier about terrorism being, at it's most basic, simply a tool to leverage power.
SoWal Insider
People cause Terrorism.hope the irish stay drunk
So what do we do?
SoWal Insider
GW's recipe for Texas Toast
Beach Lover
Speaking of the Irish it is said
"God created Whiskey so the Irish wouldn't rule the World"
"God created Whiskey so the Irish wouldn't rule the World"
SoWal Expert
Actually street gangs aren?t terrorists as defined by the US government?s definition.
The relevant technological advancements or devices aren?t supposed to be rare or uncommon, just the opposite -as the more common they are the easier they can be used.
It is the development of these technologies, from an historical perspective, that seem to me to have enabled terrorism.
Think about it; it?s impossible to perform most acts of ?terrorism? that we see today if you are only working with Industrial Age technology.
I?m not saying it constitutes a ?root cause? of terrorism just yet, but it certainly answers a big part of the question ?Where was terrorism prior to the 20th century??
In which particular ways do you think that the street gangs don't meet the gov't's definition of terrorists?
Look no farther than my idea of spreading food poisons across America, to see that terrorists need no technology to carry out acts which will effect us all greatly, and basically shut down the US more than the planes being flown into the Trade Towers. If they really wanted to stir the puddin', they would start start burning churches. To carry that one additional step, they could push us into another Race War by do acts like the KKK once did, like burning only black churches and setting crosses on fire in people's yards, and claim to be the KKK. Then they could pretend to retaliate by setting white churches on fire and claim to be followers of Malcom X.
Beach Lover
We come from rocks to rockets
Improvements all along
we haven't changed our hearts though
The killings still going on
-From Rocks to Rockets a song by SON circa 1980
Improvements all along
we haven't changed our hearts though
The killings still going on
-From Rocks to Rockets a song by SON circa 1980
SoWal Insider
We come from rocks to rocketswe're all looking to be baptized by money,and forget our family tree...-bob, circa now
Improvements all along
we haven't changed our hearts though
The killings still going on
-From Rocks to Rockets a song by SON circa 1980
Beach Fanatic
In which particular ways do you think that the street gangs don't meet the gov't's definition of terrorists?
Look no farther than my idea of spreading food poisons across America, to see that terrorists need no technology to carry out acts which will effect us all greatly, and basically shut down the US more than the planes being flown into the Trade Towers. If they really wanted to stir the puddin', they would start start burning churches. To carry that one additional step, they could push us into another Race War by do acts like the KKK once did, like burning only black churches and setting crosses on fire in people's yards, and claim to be the KKK. Then they could pretend to retaliate by setting white churches on fire and claim to be followers of Malcom X.
I am going off this definition:
Terrorism:
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism ?
In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:
?activities that involve violent? or life-threatening acts? that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and? appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and? (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States? [or]? (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States?"
Since the street gangs aren?t intending to intimidate or coerce the government or general population; they are just common criminals. The target for most of their violence is other street gangs, or their crime victims.
But let?s look at your example of botulism. Is it really that easy to make and deploy? I?ll bet that it is harder than you think if you only had access to industrial age technology. Or for that matter, didn?t have access to modern medical knowledge regarding botulism.
I don?t have an answer regarding using coordinated arson as a possible terrorist method. It would certainly weaken the suggestion that access to modern technology is a ?root cause? of terrorism. As I stated earlier, the KKK was already a contradiction to the theory.
However, I am still intrigued by the nexus between terrorism and the technology that clearly enables a large percentage of it.
Beach Lover
baptized by money.....
baptized ..by.. money.........
baptized .....by....... money
I'd like to hear more about this .....
baptized ..by.. money.........
baptized .....by....... money
I'd like to hear more about this .....
SoWal Insider
baptized by money.....wash me wake me from this dream baptized by money awakened by the green
baptized ..by.. money.........
baptized .....by....... money
I'd like to hear more about this .....
Beach Lover
Thanx,
SON
SON
SoWal Expert
I am going off this definition:I'm not so certain that the definition of terrorist includes trying to coerce an entire civilian population. If they try to coerce part of a city, I would think that would serve the definition of the word. Now obviously, I know nothing about gangs, other than what I learned from the movie, "Colors," but I think they do try to scare the ba-geezers out of people in their hood, and on the outskirts, by physical intimidation. Ever get those emails about the gang peeps flashing the headlights to try to make you flash yours back, then they hunt you down and beat you to death? The only reason you get those is because they do scare the ba-geezers out of some people. I would be a little more than terrified if I lived in a community filled with gang violence.
Terrorism:
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism ?
In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:
?activities that involve violent? or life-threatening acts? that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and? appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and? (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States? [or]? (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States?"
Since the street gangs aren?t intending to intimidate or coerce the government or general population; they are just common criminals. The target for most of their violence is other street gangs, or their crime victims.
But let?s look at your example of botulism. Is it really that easy to make and deploy? I?ll bet that it is harder than you think if you only had access to industrial age technology. Or for that matter, didn?t have access to modern medical knowledge regarding botulism.
I don?t have an answer regarding using coordinated arson as a possible terrorist method. It would certainly weaken the suggestion that access to modern technology is a ?root cause? of terrorism. As I stated earlier, the KKK was already a contradiction to the theory.
However, I am still intrigued by the nexus between terrorism and the technology that clearly enables a large percentage of it.
As for spreading food born illnesses, there are plenty of text books available on how to prevent food born illnesses, so no high tech needed there. Statistics show that if you leave your chicken at room temp for long enough period of time, salmonella is very likely to grow. Contaminate food prep areas with raw pork or chicken and look out. You don't even need a petri dish. Just use unsanitary methods while at work. A little stool in the restaurant's food, should get many people sick. It ain't rocket science, and guess who is to blame if the govt cannot prove a conspiracy? That's right, the restaurants and possibly the local Health Depts.
Beach Fanatic
I am going off this definition:
Terrorism:
The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism –
In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:
…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"
Since the street gangs aren’t intending to intimidate or coerce the government or general population; they are just common criminals. The target for most of their violence is other street gangs, or their crime victims.
But let’s look at your example of botulism. Is it really that easy to make and deploy? I’ll bet that it is harder than you think if you only had access to industrial age technology. Or for that matter, didn’t have access to modern medical knowledge regarding botulism.
I don’t have an answer regarding using coordinated arson as a possible terrorist method. It would certainly weaken the suggestion that access to modern technology is a ‘root cause’ of terrorism. As I stated earlier, the KKK was already a contradiction to the theory.
However, I am still intrigued by the nexus between terrorism and the technology that clearly enables a large percentage of it.
I disagree that terrorism was born of technology. According to the definition of terrorism Uncle Timmy cites, the Boston Tea Party was an act of terror. It was an act of violence designed to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coersion. More, it was an inexpensive way of garnering a disproportionate amount a attention. The Sons of Liberty were definitely a terrorist organization. Granted, I've never come across a primary source document referring to the founding fathers as 'terrorists,' but that is probably because the word didn't exist at the time. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the word first appeared in the late 1790's and was used to refer to government by intimidation vis a vis post-revolution, reactionary France. The meaning of the word itself changed in the late twentieth century, as the rise of terror as an act of resistance began to reemerge in the early 1970's.
When we ask what makes a terrorist, we should ask what provoked a return to terrorism over peaceful resistance given the strides made by Ghandi and King in the mid-twentieth century? Why did the Palestinians and Irish terrorists of the 1970s choose to turn to violence when resistance through non-violence was effective and philosophically avant-garde?
UT does take my thinking in a new direction, however -- maybe it's that technology enables demagoguery to reach greater numbers of people. People with small ideas and political aspirations can cast a wider net to find people swayed by there message. How much easier is it to find a few malcontents willing to blow themselves up than whole communities willing to be sprayed by fire hoses?
Edited
Beach Fanatic
What makes a terrorist? The blind belief of anthropocentric propaganda. Be it theirs or ours.
SoWal Expert
I agree with punzy about our founding fathers...
On another thought about terrorists, although big businesses are not usually dumb enough to get caught acting violently to politicians and Judges, by Uncle Timmy's gov't definition, plenty of big businesses would be considered, terrorists. ;-)
On another thought about terrorists, although big businesses are not usually dumb enough to get caught acting violently to politicians and Judges, by Uncle Timmy's gov't definition, plenty of big businesses would be considered, terrorists. ;-)
SoWal Expert
"I don't mind a rule or two if it was one that I'd do anyway." -- Steve Earle
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.