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 FanaticAuthor
Name calling is unecessary and personal attacks will get you banned.
Please be respectful, or be somewhere else. Thanks!
I offer the same respect that I'm given. I disagree with most on here, but for the most part we can be civil about it. However, if someone is being a belligerent jackass, I've pointed it out. If you want to ban me, that's your prerogative as it is your website.
SoWal Insider
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.Hey I'm the jackass here!
Beach Fanatic
Name calling is unecessary and personal attacks will get you banned.
Please be respectful, or be somewhere else. Thanks!
I offer the same respect that I'm given. I disagree with most on here, but for the most part we can be civil about it. However, if someone is being a belligerent jackass, I've pointed it out. If you want to ban me, that's your prerogative as it is your website.
needs to get out more
I offer the same respect that I'm given. I disagree with most on here, but for the most part we can be civil about it. However, if someone is being a belligerent jackass, I've pointed it out. If you want to ban me, that's your prerogative as it is your website.
6thgen, many(most?) disagree with you on various levels, and have gotten testy, and argued with you, myself included, but i gave it up awhile ago, too pointless. but, i don't think you've been attacked directly(if i'm wrong, please cite examples). you on the other hand are quick with the attacks and namecalling. a defense mechanism, i believe.
my take.
Meow
6th...please respond to John R. Sometimes I think you were the victim of a bully.
Beach FanaticAuthor
6thgen, many(most?) disagree with you on various levels, and have gotten testy, and argued with you, myself included, but i gave it up awhile ago, too pointless. but, i don't think you've been attacked directly(if i'm wrong, please cite examples). you on the other hand are quick with the attacks and namecalling. a defense mechanism, i believe.
my take.
Kitty, for crying out loud, I don't spend every waking minute here.
Off the top of my head, I've been called uneducated, reprehensible, ignorant, cruel, an a**hole, a jackass, a troll (my personal favorite) and countless other things. I typically respond in kind, so you have me there. When someone talks down to me after I've posted a well cited and well researched article, with a plethora of scientific evidence, offering nothing to refute it other than the fact that it clashes with their opinion, they are, in my mind, being a belligerent jackass, standing athwart documented facts yelling "Wrong". If someone told me I was an idiot for believing that 2+2 equals seven, I'd say they were being a belligerent jackass.
I'm wearing my big boy pants, and I've never complained to the moderator or the board when someone calls me a name, other than arguing the accusation on the merits. If the owner of the site wants to restrict the way people on his site address one another, that is his privilege, and if he wants to ban me that too is his privilege.
needs to get out more
Kitty, for crying out loud, I don't spend every waking minute here.
Off the top of my head, I've been called uneducated, reprehensible, ignorant, cruel, an a**hole, a jackass, a troll (my personal favorite) and countless other things. I typically respond in kind, so you have me there. When someone talks down to me after I've posted a well cited and well researched article, with a plethora of scientific evidence, offering nothing to refute it other than the fact that it clashes with their opinion, they are, in my mind, being a belligerent jackass, standing athwart documented facts yelling "Wrong". If someone told me I was an idiot for believing that 2+2 equals seven, I'd say they were being a belligerent jackass.
I'm wearing my big boy pants, and I've never complained to the moderator or the board when someone calls me a name, other than arguing the accusation on the merits. If the owner of the site wants to restrict the way people on his site address one another, that is his privilege, and if he wants to ban me that too is his privilege.
point taken. i know it is a blow to you to be called 'uneducated';-) and i know you and timmy have had long standing opposing views, but the post above kind of backs up my point. calling him a jackass because he taunts you, is beneath your education level, imo. you can do better than that...
Beach FanaticAuthor
point taken. i know it is a blow to you to be called 'uneducated';-) and i know you and timmy have had long standing opposing views, but the post above kind of backs up my point. calling him a jackass because he taunts you, is beneath your education level, imo. you can do better than that...
Fair enough. Point taken.
Meow
...high road! 6th...I am sorry you can't spend more time with us, but maybe if you spent some time in the Lounge, it might help your stress level. I have the feeling you possess a funny bone. 
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.
On the contrary, the entire premise of your ?well cited and researched? article has been disproven by the Falun Gong and Timothy McVeigh examples.
Therefore the article is not worthy of basing opinions on. A lesson, apparently, you are slow to absorb.
Oh and 6th ?lighten up. You continually display an emotional defensiveness when your opinions are challenged. A rational individual is always prepared to re-examine and even change their opinions in the face of factual challenges.
A little less emotion driven politics, and more reasoned viewpoints would be a far more impressive than your usual adrenaline fueled rants.
Beach FanaticAuthor
On the contrary, the entire premise of your ?well cited and researched? article has been disproven by the Falun Gong and Timothy McVeigh examples.
Therefore the article is not worthy of basing opinions on. A lesson, apparently, you are slow to absorb.
Oh and 6th ?lighten up. You continually display an emotional defensiveness when your opinions are challenged. A rational individual is always prepared to re-examine and even change their opinions in the face of factual challenges.
A little less emotion driven politics, and more reasoned viewpoints would be a far more impressive than your usual adrenaline fueled rants.
The article did not, nor did it claim to show perfect correlation. Your examples disprove the article as much as citing the $10.5 million dollar home sale to disprove the fact that the nationwide coastal residential market is still in the toilet.
Beach Fanatic
Is it possible that there is no one size fits all answer to this question? ?t would appear to me that there could be a variety of reasons one would become a terrorist, especially with cultural differences, religious differences, socioeconomic differences, etc. The list goes on and on.
Not to mention, the Chris Rock reason, "Some people are just plain crazy."
Not to mention, the Chris Rock reason, "Some people are just plain crazy."
Beach FanaticAuthor
Is it possible that there is no one size fits all answer to this question? ?t would appear to me that there could be a variety of reasons one would become a terrorist, especially with cultural differences, religious differences, socioeconomic differences, etc. The list goes on and on.
Not to mention, the Chris Rock reason, "Some people are just plain crazy."
Absolutely, I'm just trying to follow others' examples of understanding why.
Beach Fanatic
Absolutely, I'm just trying to follow others' examples of understanding why.
Gotcha and trying to understand why is important, but that's why I always find it scary when "we" try to fix some problems based on our biases (cultural, social, religious, economic, etc.). The old adage walk a mile in their shoes comes to mind, and in some cases we can't. This is not only foreign, but also domestic.
Meow
Is it possible that there is no one size fits all answer to this question? ?t would appear to me that there could be a variety of reasons one would become a terrorist, especially with cultural differences, religious differences, socioeconomic differences, etc. The list goes on and on.
Not to mention, the Chris Rock reason, "Some people are just plain crazy."
Gotcha and trying to understand why is important, but that's why I always find it scary when "we" try to fix some problems based on our biases (cultural, social, religious, economic, etc.). The old adage walk a mile in their shoes comes to mind, and in some cases we can't. This is not only foreign, but also domestic.
Gosh darn you speak sense.
Skunky
Maybe Miss Kitty can tell us what the motivation(s) might be
Meow
Maybe Miss Kitty can tell us what the motivation(s) might be
I could, but will save it for you until after a few Planter's Punches at B & A's in October!
Just call it Miss Kitty's Salon at the Saloon! 
Beach Fanatic
Absolutely, I'm just trying to follow others' examples of understanding why.
Then let me get you pointed in the right direction.
The author has shown that we can not claim that poverty is the root cause of terrorism because he demonstrates, statistically, that a number of terrorists do not come from impoverished backgrounds.
By the same logic we can not now claim that suppression of civil liberties is the root cause of terrorism because I have demonstrated through the following examples that terrorism is not always linked to a suppression of liberties:
Falun Gong- a group who has/is being repressed by the Chinese Government and who has not turned to terrorism.
Timothy McVeigh- An American who grew up in the same society we all live in and yet turned to terrorism without ever having been oppressed.
Therefore if poverty is not the root cause of terrorism, then suppression of civil liberties and political rights isn?t either.
The article makes no claims of absolutism in it?s conclusion-
?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."
My bone of contention isn?t with the author, but with your opinion you felt obligated to add ????..
?Not poverty. Not our support of Israel. Rather, suppression of civil liberties and political rights. Chickpea, here are your root causes, ? -6thGen
It is now glaringly obvious that you are incorrect in your stated opinion.
Admit that you were wrong and move along to the next fight, the longer you drag this out the more embarrassing it will be for you.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Then let me get you pointed in the right direction.
The author has shown that we can not claim that poverty is the root cause of terrorism because he demonstrates, statistically, that a number of terrorists do not come from impoverished backgrounds.
By the same logic we can not now claim that suppression of civil liberties is the root cause of terrorism because I have demonstrated through the following examples that terrorism is not always linked to a suppression of liberties:
Falun Gong- a group who has/is being repressed by the Chinese Government and who has not turned to terrorism.
Timothy McVeigh- An American who grew up in the same society we all live in and yet turned to terrorism without ever having been oppressed.
Therefore if poverty is not the root cause of terrorism, then suppression of civil liberties and political rights isn?t either.
The article makes no claims of absolutism in it?s conclusion-
?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."
My bone of contention isn?t with the author, but with your opinion you felt obligated to add ????..
?Not poverty. Not our support of Israel. Rather, suppression of civil liberties and political rights. Chickpea, here are your root causes, ? -6thGen
It is now glaringly obvious that you are incorrect in your stated opinion.
Admit that you were wrong and move along to the next fight, the longer you drag this out the more embarrassing it will be for you.
Dismissing hard statistical data with anecdotes only works for politicians whose audience doesn't have the interest to call them on it. Have you ever taken a statistics class? Do you know what an outlier is? As always, you might want to win something before you throw tickertape.
Beach Fanatic
Dismissing hard statistical data with anecdotes only works for politicians whose audience doesn't have the interest to call them on it. Have you ever taken a statistics class? Do you know what an outlier is? As always, you might want to win something before you throw tickertape.
You think Falun Gong is a statistical outlier? Ok, easy enough?
Jewish Germans in the Reich 1933-1945
Cuban anti-Castro Groups
Dalits, the lowest rung on the Indian caste system
Tibetans living under Chinese occupation
The Chinese ethnic minority community within Vietnam
Black South Africans under Apartheid
Cambodian people under the Khmer Rouge
Bosnian Muslims under Serbian Control pre 1992
Indigenous Tribes in Guatemala and Honduras
All examples of groups whose civil liberties and political rights are/were suppressed and yet did not turn to terrorism.
The ?root cause? by definition, is going to be a factor in a vast majority, if not all examples of terrorism.
My response to your post should have been obvious enough, which makes me conclude that Chess isn?t one of your strong points either?..
Checkmate.
Beyond defaulting back to your standard ?because I said so? there is no reasonable way to conclude that a suppression of civil and political rights is the root cause of terrorism.
SoWal Expert
What makes a terrorist? a man and woman, gettin' jiggy wid it.
Beach Fanatic
Beach Fanatic
What makes a terrorist? a man and woman, gettin' jiggy wid it.Now that song is in my head.
SoWal Expert
The original article made some sense to me solely as a refutation of "poverty & no education = terrorist".
I read it as "you can't blame terrorism on poverty or lack of education, but rather on people not having a non-violent way to protest/fight injustice".
Didn't think that it said what the true root cause (or causes) of terrorism was, rather just that its violence stemmed from a lack (or perceived lack)of other ways to fight for a better life & civil liberties.
I read it as "you can't blame terrorism on poverty or lack of education, but rather on people not having a non-violent way to protest/fight injustice".
Didn't think that it said what the true root cause (or causes) of terrorism was, rather just that its violence stemmed from a lack (or perceived lack)of other ways to fight for a better life & civil liberties.
Beach FanaticAuthor
You think Falun Gong is a statistical outlier? Ok, easy enough?
Jewish Germans in the Reich 1933-1945
Cuban anti-Castro Groups
Dalits, the lowest rung on the Indian caste system
Tibetans living under Chinese occupation
The Chinese ethnic minority community within Vietnam
Black South Africans under Apartheid
Cambodian people under the Khmer Rouge
Bosnian Muslims under Serbian Control pre 1992
Indigenous Tribes in Guatemala and Honduras
All examples of groups whose civil liberties and political rights are/were suppressed and yet did not turn to terrorism.
The ?root cause? by definition, is going to be a factor in a vast majority, if not all examples of terrorism.
My response to your post should have been obvious enough, which makes me conclude that Chess isn?t one of your strong points either?..
Checkmate.
Beyond defaulting back to your standard ?because I said so? there is no reasonable way to conclude that a suppression of civil and political rights is the root cause of terrorism.
I never said that all that are suppressed are terrorists, I said that most terrorists have had their civil liberties and political rights suppressed. You are making the common mistake of affirming the consequent. You are getting better at disguising your fallacies, but you still have a ways to go.
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.