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
What makes a terrorist? The blind belief of anthropocentric propaganda. Be it theirs or ours.
American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
an?thro?po?cen?tric (
n
thr
-p-s
n
tr
k)adj.
- Regarding humans as the central element of the universe.
- Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience.
Copyright ? 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin
Luckily, sarafunn showed me this site. bdarg...please explain your thought to me in more detail.
Beach Lover
What is a terrorist ?
In todays post 1984 world of double speak a terrorist is a person or group our Government tells us is a terrorist based on the Governments definition which is based on actual or perceived threats to their National interest and continued survival. This is the position we are in.
We either accept this definition or we become "suspect".
No doubt the participants of the "Revolutionary War" were terrorists and rebels in the eyes of the British.
In todays instant news cycle Propaganda and branding are just as essential to winning a war as are guns and electronic hacking.
In todays post 1984 world of double speak a terrorist is a person or group our Government tells us is a terrorist based on the Governments definition which is based on actual or perceived threats to their National interest and continued survival. This is the position we are in.
We either accept this definition or we become "suspect".
No doubt the participants of the "Revolutionary War" were terrorists and rebels in the eyes of the British.
In todays instant news cycle Propaganda and branding are just as essential to winning a war as are guns and electronic hacking.
Beach Fanatic
clarification: we are not internet people. we are mofo sowal wenches. that is all.
This is so great - it is now my signature!Hey, what kind of cool-aide are you guys serving today?
Hey I'm ultra southern - only iced tea will do.
Maybe it should be the "offical beverage"
Is there a weekly, monthly, meeting of Sowal forum riders anywhere ?
An annual Masked ball ?
Who's in charge of the invites? Is it RSVP? Formal attaire? ......
How does the song go? Terrorism is just another word for nothing left to lose.
Oh wait - that's a hippy song. 6th won't like that. Wonder what he listens to? :scratch:
SoWal Insider
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?
I agree with you Punzy regarding technology being used to possibly exact greater public emotion and appeal, but disagree with the Sons of Liberty being considered terrorists per UT's definition. The Son's of Liberty didn't inflict or threaten harm on any individuals unlike terrorists. I would consider them rebellious, but they do not seem to fit the psychological profile of a "terrorist" or terrorist group.
In most pieces that I have read seem to have a general dynamic going on which is that most terrorists are deeply traumatized individuals, as children they suffered chronic physical or mental abuse and they mistrust others.
Something triggers them that pushes them over the edge and they need to release this rage and garner attention.
Leaders of terrorist groups feed on this mental state and the cohesion of ideologies establishes a sense of belonging.
I don't profess to know enough about why the Palestinians and Irish turned to violence in the 70's, but one thing that comes to mind is that in the 70's VCR tapes came into existence. Violent acts could be taped and showed worldwide and these groups attained the notoriety and attention they were seeking through the public media?
Now I really want a cup of tea for some reason... and anisette toast.
Edited
SoWal Insider
Technology's dark side is the easy empowerment of terrorism. Bad behavior is the dark side of freedom. It's all relative to our perspective. We label our enemies terrorists. Their methods of fighting with us are labeled terrorism. It's unfortunately a very effective way to fight a stronger enemy. It's all semantics, as nothing is the same on the battlefield, but everything's the same between the ears. When war and violence are waged, man takes the route he's raised up into: anger, fear, and hate. You hit me, and I strike you back tenfold to "teach you". Look at our pop culture. To the terrorists, we're the wackjobs. We, however, view their longing for medieval theocracy with the same jaundiced eye. We're all convinced of our "superiority". We prolong the terrorists hold on the world stage, by taking the low road and destroying and killing based upon false assumptions. We have, in the last several years, put forth the notion that might makes right,and America will do what it wants, whenever it wants, even acting alone with no good reason. Our leaders continue to offer no solutions, because no one will take the first step and admit responsibility for chaos and death on a large scale. It's as if Washington hopes it will all go away by itself. Meanwhile, Bin Laden is allowed to live another day to remain our permanent boogieman, and ironically, chief benefactor for the Pentagon's bloated budget.
Beach Lover
To me, it's more about their target. Terrorists are people who deliberately attack innocent civilians in order to terrorize an enemy society. Thus they hatefully use fear as a weapon against normal, everyday people. That's terrorism.
I agree that unstable individuals are exploited by their terrorist teachers, who warp their minds & send them as self-exploding weapons into an innocent crowd. So those walking bombs are themselves victims, of the terrorist brain-washers.
So the cause comes back to values, & so does the cure. "Winning the hearts & minds" of everyday people around the world, would dry up the support of terrorists. After 9/11, the hearts of the world were with us. We could have sought out the terrorists, with the world on our side. Now, with Bush's stirring up trouble in Iraq, we have a long way to go... to win the world's goodwill.
But it can be done. As generally good-hearted people, Americans are still well-liked in the world. When we elect new govt. leaders, the people of the world can give us a fresh chance to promote the values of freedom in the context of peace & harmony.
I agree that unstable individuals are exploited by their terrorist teachers, who warp their minds & send them as self-exploding weapons into an innocent crowd. So those walking bombs are themselves victims, of the terrorist brain-washers.
So the cause comes back to values, & so does the cure. "Winning the hearts & minds" of everyday people around the world, would dry up the support of terrorists. After 9/11, the hearts of the world were with us. We could have sought out the terrorists, with the world on our side. Now, with Bush's stirring up trouble in Iraq, we have a long way to go... to win the world's goodwill.
But it can be done. As generally good-hearted people, Americans are still well-liked in the world. When we elect new govt. leaders, the people of the world can give us a fresh chance to promote the values of freedom in the context of peace & harmony.
SoWal Expert
I agree with you Punzy regarding technology being used to possibly exact greater public emotion and appeal, but disagree with the Sons of Liberty being considered terrorists per UT's definition. The Son's of Liberty didn't inflict or threaten harm on any individuals unlike terrorists. I would consider them rebellious, but they do not seem to fit the psychological profile of a "terrorist" or terrorist group.
I believe the gov't's definition doesn't require harm to individual's. It can be to civilian population or gov't.
SoWal Expert
In most pieces that I have read seem to have a general dynamic going on which is that most terrorists are deeply traumatized individuals, as children they suffered chronic physical or mental abuse and they mistrust others.Interesting observation. I think the same could be said for many people joining the US military forces.
Something triggers them that pushes them over the edge and they need to release this rage and garner attention.
Leaders of terrorist groups feed on this mental state and the cohesion of ideologies establishes a sense of belonging.
Meow
To me, it's more about their target. Terrorists are people who deliberately attack innocent civilians in order to terrorize an enemy society. Thus they hatefully use fear as a weapon against normal, everyday people. That's terrorism.
I agree that unstable individuals are exploited by their terrorist teachers, who warp their minds & send them as self-exploding weapons into an innocent crowd. So those walking bombs are themselves victims, of the terrorist brain-washers.
So the cause comes back to values, & so does the cure. "Winning the hearts & minds" of everyday people around the world, would dry up the support of terrorists. After 9/11, the hearts of the world were with us. We could have sought out the terrorists, with the world on our side. Now, with Bush's stirring up trouble in Iraq, we have a long way to go... to win the world's goodwill.
But it can be done. As generally good-hearted people, Americans are still well-liked in the world. When we elect new govt. leaders, the people of the world can give us a fresh chance to promote the values of freedom in the context of peace & harmony.
Ocean breeze...I like your post and your outlook. I still shudder thinking of all of the schools that have been set up to churn out more and more terrorists. My heart aches thinking of innocent children being blasted with such hate.
SoWal Insider
I believe the gov't's definition doesn't require harm to individual's. It can be to civilian population or gov't.
If someone taxed my tea to oblivion, I might be inclined to dress up in disguise and dump tea all over the place too.
Would that make me a terrorist?
SoWal Insider
Interesting observation. I think the same could be said for many people joining the US military forces.
Terrorists also seem to have a total disregard for their actions and how it affects civilians. I think the word I am looking for is morally disengaged?
I do not think that is the case for most US military personnel in my opinion. I honestly believe their main self fulfilling objective in joining is the group dynamic of protecting and serving their country.
Beach Fanatic
This thread is confusing and totally beyond my comprehension and I am not exactly uneducated. It seems to me half of the intelligent posters don't know what they are talking about and the other half of the intelligent poster's points get lost in their own rhetoric.
Beach Fanatic
Terrorists also seem to have a total disregard for their actions and how it affects civilians. I think the word I am looking for is morally disengaged?
I do not think that is the case for most US military personnel in my opinion. I honestly believe their main self fulfilling objective in joining is the group dynamic of protecting and serving their country.
It seems to me as though you've embraced the brand, Mango, and not the definition our government provided us. Morally disengaged is the criteria? Well...
Sometimes, the actions and reactions of the Sons of Liberty to the Stamp Act took a violent turn as recorded in a local New York City merchant's diary in April, 1765. Violence broke out with the arrival of a shipment of stamped paper to the Royal Governor's residence. Cadwallder Colden, the acting Royal Governor of the New York colony and scholarly correspondent of Benjamin Franklin and Dr. Samuel Johnson, was extremely frightened of the patriotic group and so locked himself up securely inside Fort George immediately after he received the stamped paper from British officials. A few hours after receiving the official papers, a raucous mob captured the governor's gilded and spectacular coach and reduced it to a pile of ashes. From here the mob (consisting largely of extremist elements of the New York Sons of Liberty) raced uptown to the home of Fort George's commander, smashing numerous windows and breaking into the wine cellar to sustain their "patriotism" before descending on the rest of the house in a convulsion of vandalism. Tarring and feathering Loyalists ? those individuals who sympathized and were supportive of the British Crown, royal tax collectors, and other officials ? was a common practice carried out by the more radical elements of the organizations. (from EarlyAmerica.com)
As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's patriot.
Hearing some of the comments above reminds me of sitting in a History of the Middle East class when I was about 20 and voicing some of the same sentiments about freedom and democracy being contagious. We had a group of Lebanese army officers who were training at Fort Benning's School of the Americas who came to speak to the class, and afterwards asked if they could attend each session. Those men changed my thinking about the Middle East in so many ways. The whole "given the choice, everyone will choose capitalism, democracy, and freedom (as we define it)" argument is so ethnocentric and fails to factor in the culture of the people of the Middle East. I do believe that all human beings want the same thing on the most basic level, however I'm not sure I think that they will all see that emulating the culture of the West is the only path to happiness. Have we, as free, capitalist, little 'd' democrats created a perfect society? Yes, some aspects of their culture are medieval, but it's their culture. Our culture had it's own medieval period and was able to evolve organically.
I hope that this post will not be interpreted as pro-terrorist. The point I was trying to make was that 1) our government's definition of terrorism illegalizes the very sort of actions that created it, and 2) perhaps we should acknowledge that when we say "terrorist" we are using a code word for Islamic fundamentalist jihadists of the late 20th/early 21st century and the other semi-successful dissidents of the world they inspired.
Beach Lover
On that Technology vs. Luddite Thang....
The advancement of modern technology allows us to kill many more people
at one time. And it also allows more people to drive or fly to the beach in one day from 500 to whatever miles away.
Has nothing to do with the fact that people still want to kill each other
Advancing technology does not mean advancing consciousness
The advancement of modern technology allows us to kill many more people
at one time. And it also allows more people to drive or fly to the beach in one day from 500 to whatever miles away.
Has nothing to do with the fact that people still want to kill each other
Advancing technology does not mean advancing consciousness
Beach Fanatic
Terrorists also seem to have a total disregard for their actions and how it affects civilians. I think the word I am looking for is morally disengaged?Well said, Mango, and right on target.
I do not think that is the case for most US military personnel in my opinion. I honestly believe their main self fulfilling objective in joining is the group dynamic of protecting and serving their country.
Beach Lover
Question: If you could vote via the internet today and the will of the people
would be carried out.......
How many of you would be willing to Kill or support the killing of every Man Woman and Child if necessary at the least possible cost to American life
possible to be rid of "terrorists" also known as "the enemy" which I prefer.
Insert the word enemy in place of Terrorist and see if it changes your perspective.
That is what the enemy is prepared to do to every Man Woman and Child in our Country with no more regard than if we were a bunch of cockroaches.
would be carried out.......
How many of you would be willing to Kill or support the killing of every Man Woman and Child if necessary at the least possible cost to American life
possible to be rid of "terrorists" also known as "the enemy" which I prefer.
Insert the word enemy in place of Terrorist and see if it changes your perspective.
That is what the enemy is prepared to do to every Man Woman and Child in our Country with no more regard than if we were a bunch of cockroaches.
Beach Lover
Question: If you could vote via the internet today and the will of the people
would be carried out.......
How many of you would be willing to Kill or support the killing of every Man Woman and Child if necessary at the least possible cost to American life
possible to be rid of "terrorists" also known as "the enemy" which I prefer.
Insert the word enemy in place of Terrorist and see if it changes your perspective.
That is what the enemy is prepared to do to every Man Woman and Child in our Country with no more regard than if we were a bunch of cockroaches.
If we act like them, we are no better. I vote No.
Beach Lover
If we act like them, we are no better. I vote No.A point I have made before myself.
Is this about who is better or who survives?
I want my Loved ones, friends, etc. to survive even if they are not better
than someone else.
And did Meher Baba say when this new mode will happen?
Right now the enemy is hampering my interplay, the Love is not being returned
Respectfully,
SON
SoWal Insider
Terrorists also seem to have a total disregard for their actions and how it affects civilians. I think the word I am looking for is morally disengaged?Not to be argumentative Mango, but active duty personnel would like to be anywhere but Iraq, and most are only in it for the stability/paycheck. Most terrorists are absolutely convinced they are taking the high moral ground and have God on their side. It's hard to see the flip side of a group of idiots so convinced in their rectitude. They'll justify killing anyone to win for their side. We did the same in WW2 when we firebombed all the major German cities and incinerated hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. We justified it for victory over Hitler. My question is who do we define as terrorists, and who are acceptable combatants in Iraq. Those who play by the Geneva Convention??? Were the terrorists in Iraq before we killed Hussein, or have they all moved in? What do you label a man shooting at U.S. troops in Iraq? Insurgent, terrorist, combatant, angry boy, patriot? What? Should not the big question be, what the hell are we doing over there? Who is sitting in whose neighborhood?
I do not think that is the case for most US military personnel in my opinion. I honestly believe their main self fulfilling objective in joining is the group dynamic of protecting and serving their country.
SoWal Expert
punzy, well said, and no, I don't think you are pro-terrorism based on what you typed. Look no further than my signature line, and you will know where I stand on the issue. IMO, the Fed Gov't of the USA is growing more and more like the old English Rule, and my thoughts are more and more like those of our Founding Fathers.
These radical Muslims have been killing Christians for hundreds of years, and vice versa. What makes people think that the end of the US is coming?
These radical Muslims have been killing Christians for hundreds of years, and vice versa. What makes people think that the end of the US is coming?
SoWal Insider
This thread is confusing and totally beyond my comprehension and I am not exactly uneducated. It seems to me half of the intelligent posters don't know what they are talking about and the other half of the intelligent poster's points get lost in their own rhetoric.It sure beats network TV, but not the sunset.
SoWal Expert
What do you label a man shooting at U.S. troops in Iraq? Insurgent, terrorist, combatant, angry boy, patriot? What? Should not the big question be, what the hell are we doing over there? Who is sitting in whose neighborhood?
You can bet big money that if I had enemy troupes invading my town and neighborhood, I would be using guerrilla tactics to injure and kill them, in hopes that they will pack up and get the hell out of Dodge. I will not be letting them convert me to their way of thinking. Damn, I'm beginning to sound like those people being described as terrorists. :scratch:
Beach Lover
What MAKES a Terrorist.......????
You Do by the label and the meaning you attach
One causing Terror to you and or your loved ones
The people in Waco Texas saw uncle SAM as a terrorist
Could be the person living next store of whatever faith or no faith
That is why I prefer the word Enemy, no excess baggage .
Someone who is going to take away everything you have and hold dear
Could be a rapist or Iran and you could be just as dead either way
You Do by the label and the meaning you attach
One causing Terror to you and or your loved ones
The people in Waco Texas saw uncle SAM as a terrorist
Could be the person living next store of whatever faith or no faith
That is why I prefer the word Enemy, no excess baggage .
Someone who is going to take away everything you have and hold dear
Could be a rapist or Iran and you could be just as dead either way
Beach Lover
Make that next door unless your in retail...
Meow
Here I go...it's simple, so bear with me. I see alot of this as fear of the unknown...we don't understand it and it goes against everything we know...so, it must be wrong and cause fear that overrules common sense. Of course, is there any common sense active in our government? I understand we as Americans are all about democracy, but who died and made us King of the World?
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.