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
I believe that poverty/lack of education may be a major factor in terrorism from anarchists. The major factor for the Islamic terrorist is religious indoctrination at a young age and the support they receive from a substantial number of the local population.
Beach FanaticAuthor
I believe that poverty/lack of education may be a major factor in terrorism from anarchists. The major factor for the Islamic terrorist is religious indoctrination at a young age and the support they receive from a substantial number of the local population.
Given Muslim terrorists propensity to use the mentally retarded, you might have an argument there. However, most of the British Muslims that are causing a stir were radicalized later in life.
Beach Fanatic
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.
Actually we can all go back and look at what you actually did say, and you?ve modified it a bit. It?s Ok, we all know why.
Either way, that line of reasoning does not advance your argument.
It?s the MOST part of that statement which gets you into trouble.
Most terrorists are/have _________________(fill in the blank here).
With such a loose qualifier I could fill in the blank with any number of terms such as male, young, and well educated
All of which are statistically accurate but do not constitute ?the root causes? of terrorism.
Why? Because too many people have a penis, youth, and a diploma and don?t turn to terrorism. Same as those who are politically oppressed.
While it is entertaining for me to watch you writhe in the death throes of your argument, I think you should consider that for once, an admission of error would be more helpful to you than this charade.
Anyone reading this is increasing concluding that you are nuts.
?.And suffering from a physiological condition which precludes your being able to admit errors ? a condition which probably accounts for a generous portion of your political viewpoints.
Meow
I believe that poverty/lack of education may be a major factor in terrorism from anarchists. The major factor for the Islamic terrorist is religious indoctrination at a young age and the support they receive from a substantial number of the local population.
Given Muslim terrorists propensity to use the mentally retarded, you might have an argument there. However, most of the British Muslims that are causing a stir were radicalized later in life.
Good point 3B. I think the idea of being idolized (martyrs) is strong as well as the 70 virgins waiting for them. So much brain washing.
Edited
SoWal Expert
Given Muslim terrorists propensity to use the mentally retarded, you might have an argument there. However, most of the British Muslims that are causing a stir were radicalized later in life.Alright, Mr Let's-See-The-Evidence, where is your evidence that the Muslim terrorists use the mentally retarded? Surely, you are not saying that one would have to be mentally retarded to fly a jet into the trade towers, or to strap a bomb onto one's own person, are you?
SoWal Expert
Good point 3B. I think the idea of being idolized (martyrs) is strong as well as the 70 virgins waiting for them. So much brain washing.One would think that sexually experienced women, waiting on the other side of death, would be more attractive if the dying terrorists' goals were to have good sex.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Actually we can all go back and look at what you actually did say, and you?ve modified it a bit. It?s Ok, we all know why.
Either way, that line of reasoning does not advance your argument.
It?s the MOST part of that statement which gets you into trouble.
Most terrorists are/have _________________(fill in the blank here).
With such a loose qualifier I could fill in the blank with any number of terms such as male, young, and well educated
All of which are statistically accurate but do not constitute ?the root causes? of terrorism.
Why? Because too many people have a penis, youth, and a diploma and don?t turn to terrorism. Same as those who are politically oppressed.
While it is entertaining for me to watch you writhe in the death throes of your argument, I think you should consider that for once, an admission of error would be more helpful to you than this charade.
Anyone reading this is increasing concluding that you are nuts.
?.And suffering from a physiological condition which precludes your being able to admit errors ? a condition which probably accounts for a generous portion of your political viewpoints.
Are you even reading what I?ve posted? You are all over the board on fallacies, but somehow I?m the one that won?t admit when I?m wrong? That?s because I?m not wrong. Also, I?m sure the moderator will be addressing you on calling me nuts and suffering from a physiological condition as personal attacks are not tolerated as soon the warnings will end and the bannings will begin.
I?ll make my position very easy for you. Political oppression is a catalyst for terrorism, but if one is politically oppressed, they are not necessarily terrorists. I haven?t changed my position on that. People from London speak English, but we can?t assume that if we hear someone speaking English that they are from London. If you want to play ?gotcha? on my use of the term ?root causes?, you can split hairs on the use of the term, but that?s not the crux of the argument that you are losing.
So we are clear, do you believe that political oppression is a catalyst for terrorism? A yes or no answer will suffice. Thanks in advance and have a wonderful day.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Alright, Mr Let's-See-The-Evidence, where is your evidence that the Muslim terrorists use the mentally retarded? Surely, you are not saying that one would have to be mentally retarded to fly a jet into the trade towers, or to strap a bomb onto one's own person, are you?
No, but it's easy to argue the mental instability for those on suicide missions. Here's one example.
Sincerely,
Mr. Let's See The Evidence (I'm not into hyphenated names)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6889106/
SoWal Expert
No, but it's easy to argue the mental instability for those on suicide missions. Here's one example.
Sincerely,
Mr. Let's See The Evidence (I'm not into hyphenated names)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6889106/
That is evidence, but it is of only one person, which we know in your book, doesn't carry much weight. ;-) You mention that they have a "propensity" to use the mentally handicapped people, and the use of one person is quite different from the definition of "propensity."
Political oppression is a catalyst for terrorism, but if one is politically oppressed, they are not necessarily terrorists.I understand this thought, but it would make more sense to me if these terrorists were terrorizing their gov't which has oppressed them. I don't see the connection as to how their own govt suppressing them would lead to terrorizing another country.
Edited
Darlene is my middle name, not my nickname
I understand this thought, but it would make more sense to me if these terrorists were terrorizing their gov't which has oppressed them. I don't see the connection as to how their own govt suppressing them would lead to terrorizing another country.
I agree.
Beach Fanatic
I?ll make my position very easy for you. Political oppression is a catalyst for terrorism, but if one is politically oppressed, they are not necessarily terrorists. I haven?t changed my position on that. People from London speak English, but we can?t assume that if we hear someone speaking English that they are from London. If you want to play ?gotcha? on my use of the term ?root causes?, you can split hairs on the use of the term, but that?s not the crux of the argument that you are losing.
So we are clear, do you believe that political oppression is a catalyst for terrorism? A yes or no answer will suffice. Thanks in advance and have a wonderful day.
Political oppression is not necessarily a cataylist.
I was smart enough to anticipate that argument on post #2 when I made sure to include Timothy McVeigh.
Better address that statistical outlier smokescreen with other examples:
Richard Reid ?the shoebomber who grew up in England
Ted Kazinski ?the uni-bomber
Carlos the Jackal
Any anonymous ETA bomber
All these individuals live(d) in western democracies and have not had their civil or political rights suppressed, and yet all are terrorists. So your attempt to over-simplify the question into a yes or no condition is pointless. Political oppression has played no role in their terrorism.
And since it was your choice to hold out civil and political suppression as the ROOT cause of terrorism I?m afraid we are going to have to keep on bringing the term up until you are prepared to concede the point.
You lost the argument because you made it the crux. Deal with it.
Adressing your mindset wasn't a personal attack as much as a diagnosis. Seek help.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Political oppression is not necessarily a cataylist.
I was smart enough to anticipate that argument on post #2 when I made sure to include Timothy McVeigh.
Better address that statistical outlier smokescreen with other examples:
Richard Reid ?the shoebomber who grew up in England
Ted Kazinski ?the uni-bomber
Carlos the Jackal
Any anonymous ETA bomber
All these individuals live(d) in western democracies and have not had their civil or political rights suppressed, and yet all are terrorists. So your attempt to over-simplify the question into a yes or no condition is pointless. Political oppression has played no role in their terrorism.
And since it was your choice to hold out civil and political suppression as the ROOT cause of terrorism I?m afraid we are going to have to keep on bringing the term up until you are prepared to concede the point.
You lost the argument because you made it the crux. Deal with it.
Adressing your mindset wasn't a personal attack as much as a diagnosis. Seek help.
Again, you are wrong. Let's just look at 2007. To date, there have been 71 terrorist attacks or thwarted plots worldwide. Given the absolute benefit of the doubt, four were perpetrated by citizens (used broadly) of free states. That includes Cho, a South Korean, Miles Cooper, the Brit busted for UK letter bombs, Paul, a resident of Ohio that was busted teaming up with AQ to bomb European tourist resorts and US military bases, and really giving you your argument, a Rikers Island inmate who tried to pay a guard to kill NYC Police Commissioner Kelly. I'm not taking the time to go through every year since a 95% correlation from the current year fits my argument. You can disprove it if you like, but you can't. I'm also not counting Dix, JFK, or Glasgow since the terrorists were of foreign origin from countries with oppressive regimes (save Turkey, but they aren't exactly a beacon of light for democracy).
95% correlation. I'm not conceding a damn thing.
SoWal Expert
Your examples keep getting more desperate and farfetched.
Every nutjob who kills people or makes the news isn't a terrorist.
What are the 71 incidents you are citing (a couple RELAVENT examples would work, don't need the whole list)?
Cho was just a whack job, w/ severe social & mental problems.
An inmate who wanted to kill a police commissioner - gee, that had to be a terrorist plot too, not a grudge!
Every nutjob who kills people or makes the news isn't a terrorist.
What are the 71 incidents you are citing (a couple RELAVENT examples would work, don't need the whole list)?
Cho was just a whack job, w/ severe social & mental problems.
An inmate who wanted to kill a police commissioner - gee, that had to be a terrorist plot too, not a grudge!
Edited
Beach FanaticAuthor
Your examples keep getting more desperate and farfetched.
Every nutjob who kills people or makes the news isn't a terrorist.
What are the 71 incidents you are citing (a couple RELAVENT examples would work, don't need the whole list)?
Cho was just a whack job, w/ severe social & mental problems.
An inmate who wanted to kill a police commissioner - gee, that had to be a terrorist plot too, not a grudge!
Exactly on Cho and the unnamed inmate - I'm taking giving the benefit of the doubt to the extreme.
Beach Fanatic
Again, you are wrong. Let's just look at 2007. To date, there have been 71 terrorist attacks or thwarted plots worldwide. Given the absolute benefit of the doubt, four were perpetrated by citizens (used broadly) of free states. That includes Cho, a South Korean, Miles Cooper, the Brit busted for UK letter bombs, Paul, a resident of Ohio that was busted teaming up with AQ to bomb European tourist resorts and US military bases, and really giving you your argument, a Rikers Island inmate who tried to pay a guard to kill NYC Police Commissioner Kelly. I'm not taking the time to go through every year since a 95% correlation from the current year fits my argument. You can disprove it if you like, but you can't. I'm also not counting Dix, JFK, or Glasgow since the terrorists were of foreign origin from countries with oppressive regimes (save Turkey, but they aren't exactly a beacon of light for democracy).
95% correlation. I'm not conceding a damn thing.
The highlighted part of your quote is probably the most insight we will get into your flawed thinking-
"I just found something that supports my opinion and so now I will close my ears to any other facts so as not to have to change opinions."
One year?
Well for someone who was attempting to give me a lesson in statistics earlier, you are embarrassingly ignorant of statistical methodology.
Your stated goal is to understand the ?root cause? of terrorism, and so you will ignore 30+ years of facts (which contradict your premise) and only examine data from last year.
Shifting the goalpost to suit your needs, ignoring evidence, refusing to admit you are wrong -yep sounds like a 6thGen post (reflections of Bush Admin tactics?).
This thread has gone from entertaining to downright hilarious.
Beach Fanatic
Your examples keep getting more desperate and farfetched.
Every nutjob who kills people or makes the news isn't a terrorist.
What are the 71 incidents you are citing (a couple RELAVENT examples would work, don't need the whole list)?
Cho was just a whack job, w/ severe social & mental problems.
An inmate who wanted to kill a police commissioner - gee, that had to be a terrorist plot too, not a grudge!
One day 6thGen will learn that facts don?t exist in isolation,
-Just because you can find some scrap of information to support your opinions does not make that opinion valid unless it can withstand the assault of contradictory evidence.
Until he learns this lesson, he will continue to embarrass himself as he has done here. And entertain the rest of us in the process.
Beach Fanatic
One would think that sexually experienced women, waiting on the other side of death, would be more attractive if the dying terrorists' goals were to have good sex.I agree. Being the "first" is alot of pressure. Multiplied by 70? Geez!
SoWal Expert
I'm still waiting on the evidence to show that the terrorists have a propensity to use the mentally retarded to carry out their acts of terrorism.
Beach FanaticAuthor
The highlighted part of your quote is probably the most insight we will get into your flawed thinking-
"I just found something that supports my opinion and so now I will close my ears to any other facts so as not to have to change opinions."
One year?
Well for someone who was attempting to give me a lesson in statistics earlier, you are embarrassingly ignorant of statistical methodology.
Your stated goal is to understand the ?root cause? of terrorism, and so you will ignore 30+ years of facts (which contradict your premise) and only examine data from last year.
Shifting the goalpost to suit your needs, ignoring evidence, refusing to admit you are wrong -yep sounds like a 6thGen post (reflections of Bush Admin tactics?).
This thread has gone from entertaining to downright hilarious.
Your ability to dance in the face of failure never ceases to amaze me and your need to call me out for your own failures is nothing short of comical. I didn't shift the goalposts. The goalposts were that terrorism and political and civil oppression correlate with terrorism. You said they don't. You don't bother reading anything I prove, so I don't know why I bother. The other years I looked at were consistent with this year. I am not a journalist so I don't really have the time to go through each year and dissect it. Much to JohnR's chagrin, here's a list of terrorist incidents. Look for yourself to see that it correlates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
Beach FanaticAuthor
I'm still waiting on the evidence to show that the terrorists have a propensity to use the mentally retarded to carry out their acts of terrorism.
I gave you an example. Given the fact that suicide bombers tend to blow up further evidence to prove that, mostly themselves, I don't have time to look for numerous examples.
SoWal Expert
6thGen,
If political oppression leads to acts of terrorism, please explain why the terrorists go after people who are not suppressing them, rather than going after the people who are suppressing them. That is the part in the article which I really don't understand.
If political oppression leads to acts of terrorism, please explain why the terrorists go after people who are not suppressing them, rather than going after the people who are suppressing them. That is the part in the article which I really don't understand.
SoWal Expert
I gave you an example. Given the fact that suicide bombers tend to blow up further evidence to prove that, mostly themselves, I don't have time to look for numerous examples.Yes, you gave one example, but you used the word, "propensity" to describe the tendency or inclination for them to use the mentally retarded, and one instance does not make that point. For the one case you found, it could have just as easily been said that they use people with brown hair who are 5'3" tall, weighing 125 lbs to carry out their acts of terror.
Beach Fanatic
Your ability to dance in the face of failure never ceases to amaze me and your need to call me out for your own failures is nothing short of comical. I didn't shift the goalposts. The goalposts were that terrorism and political and civil oppression correlate with terrorism. You said they don't. You don't bother reading anything I prove, so I don't know why I bother. The other years I looked at were consistent with this year. I am not a journalist so I don't really have the time to go through each year and dissect it. Much to JohnR's chagrin, here's a list of terrorist incidents. Look for yourself to see that it correlates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
Ah nope.
?Not poverty. Not our support of Israel. Rather, suppression of civil liberties and political rights. Chickpea, here are your root causes,? -6thGen
And now??
?The goalposts were that terrorism and political and civil oppression correlate with terrorism.? -6thGen
Big jump there. And a more clear cut example of shifting the goalposts you will not see.
There is a vast difference between a root cause and a correlation. Duh.
Lame.
You fail to understand that this discussion has long ago ceased to be about the root cause of terrorism, but rather a display of the root cause of your ignorance.
Why not entertain us with another display?
Beach FanaticAuthor
I?m not backing off from the statement that poverty does not cause terrorism and that political and civil oppression are a root cause of terrorism. The Israel comment was hyperbole, and that was pretty obvious given the fact that the savages name that every chance they get. Not everyone that is politically oppressed will strap a bomb to their chest, as you frame your argument. Just like drinking is a root cause of accidents in the evening. Not every drunk driver is going to get in an accident.
Now, take off your bowling hat and three piece suit and step away from the tea party you are having with your stuffed animal pretending to be Neville Chamberlain and tell me I?m the one that?s crazy.
Now, take off your bowling hat and three piece suit and step away from the tea party you are having with your stuffed animal pretending to be Neville Chamberlain and tell me I?m the one that?s crazy.
Beach Fanatic
I?m not backing off from the statement that poverty does not cause terrorism and that political and civil oppression are a root cause of terrorism. The Israel comment was hyperbole, and that was pretty obvious given the fact that the savages name that every chance they get. Not everyone that is politically oppressed will strap a bomb to their chest, as you frame your argument. Just like drinking is a root cause of accidents in the evening. Not every drunk driver is going to get in an accident.
Now, take off your bowling hat and three piece suit and step away from the tea party you are having with your stuffed animal pretending to be Neville Chamberlain and tell me I?m the one that?s crazy.
Better than that -I will happily explain to you why you are crazy.
A scan of your link provided the following information:
1950?s ?The vast majority of incidents were perpetrated by the KKK against blacks ?not an example of a group who?s civil and political rights are being oppressed but ironically the opposite.
1960?s- 61% of incidents occur in the US and Canada, hardly hotbeds of civil and political oppression.
1970?s ? 52% of incidents were carried out by groups such as the Black Panthers, Basque Seperatists, etc who do not come from societies with repressive regimes.
1980?s- 42% of incidents do not involve groups who are being oppressed. (There is even one by the Animal Rights Brigade!)
1989- 1993- The vast majority of incidents were carried out by Drug Lords in Colombia.
1994-Present ? The percentage of incidents not associated with an oppressive regime skyrockets to 67% -mostly the result of continuing violence in Colombia, and violence against Buddhists (?) in Thailand.
?95% correlation. I'm not conceding a damn thing???. ?The other years I looked at were consistent with this year.?- 6thGen
How on earth are you going to salvage your argument when even your own 'supporting evidence? does not support your argument?
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.