I don’t know about rich (outside of leadership positions), but lots of terrorists are fairly educated, sometimes in Western schools. You can’t throw a dead cat without hitting a terrorist with an engineering degree.
I gave this some time, but I don’t see a debate.
Off to IMHO.
It’s probably useful to consider that insurgent groups membership will to some aspect depend on the nature of the insurgency in question. A typical cell of local Taliban come from a society where literacy is not the norm and subsistence farming is common. In Northern Ireland, during the peak of the IRA, there was an insurgency composed of people from a relatively modern, educated, and urban society.
Groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS have better ability to recruit from outside their immediate area. There migh be some limited screening of the truly underclass in Western societies when you consider who joins. The potential international recruit needs to be able to make contact, have a passport to get there, pay for travel, etc. That barrier would likely be much lower for someone in the region.
So perhaps not exactly on point but I did find a National Bureau of Economic Research study (PDF) that found no correlation between unempoyment and attacks by insurgents in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Philippines. Just throwing it out there.
OP you need to understand terrorists and religious fanatics have more to do how brainwashed they are or into the religious faith.
Money,wealth,education,job and knowledge does not stop a terrorists if he or her is obsessing over his or her religion or is really brainwashed.
In case it isn’t obvious, there is a supposedly self-evident ‘truth’ from the left that terrorists and most other radicals come from marginalized and disaffected groups. The general idea is that, if you can give marginalized groups a political voice, there wouldn’t be nearly as many terrorist or extremist groups in the first place. All you have to do is listen to them and address their core economic and social concerns and the problem will mostly go away on its own once they have some prosperity and power.
The whole idea is false because terror groups ranging from Al Qaeda to ISIS and even domestic militia groups don’t draw their leaders or even most of their rank and file members from the poor and uneducated classes at all. Osama Bin Laden was from one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia and he had many highly successful family members living in the U.S. at the time. The people that carried out the 9/11 attacks were not poor or uneducated. The brothers that carried out the Boston Marathon bombing weren’t poor or uneducated either. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols as well as most of the notorious school shooters were brought up in solid, middle-class families. ISIS doesn’t want a bunch of malnourished semi-homeless people showing up to join them. They recruit people with something real to offer including gullible Western girls who think they are up for an adventure in their new world order.
This problem is difficult and can’t be blamed on any specific social ills or policies. Some people apparently just really want to go radical and take others out with them whether the purpose is religion or just their own personal fantasy. I don’t know what the real fix is but I do know that there is little that any country can do from a policy standpoint to stop it.
Neither a rule, nor an exception - but certainly quite common. Less often the rich - ObL is in fact a bit of an exception in his extreme wealth, though certainly not singular. But highly educated and middle-class, most certainly.
This has been framed in a few different ways, one of which is a modification of the ‘disaffected groups’ meme Shagnasty so loathes. That in the kind of corrupt rentier economies that dominate the ME/NA it is precisely the educated middle-class, locked out the the corrupt upper halls of power, that are most likely to be frustrated by a lack of tangible success and hence the most prone to radicalization. Authoritarian plutocracies breed frustrated intellectuals. To quote a paper specfically on the subject of the over-representation of engineers in jihad groups: These signs point to a classic explanation of the onset of rebel movements – frustrated rising expectations and relative deprivation. From here
Although the IRA had members who were middle and even upperclass, in the '70s etc. the vast majority of IRA volunteers were drawn from working class areas. The same is true for UVF, UDA, UFF etc.
Radicalism has indeed always been a middle-class hobby. The French revolution, radical communists, radical anarchists, radical feminists, radical Islamists, and so on have almost entirely been drawn from the educated, literate, middle classes. ISIS’s and Al-Qaeda’s leaders certainly qualify, as well, though their minions may not.
What is publicly known about terrorist ranking and promotional practices? E.g. if Abdullah wants to get promoted from Jihadist Recruit to Jihadist First Class, what does he do? Is it mostly a crony/good old boy/spoils system where he would have to suck up to the leadership or are there written or oral exams and/or equivalencies (e.g. a bachelor’s degree equals promotion to X rank, at least 5 years experience in military or police equals promotion to Y, etc.)
True and even moreso, freedom fighter/terrorists/militants etc are almost always politically aware and active people. These are often persons with more education, formal or not than the average peasant.
Many of them are actively opposing the status quo. So it makes sense that such peoplke will skew more educated.
In the UK more than 2/3 are well educated.
Carlos the Jackal comes from a rather privileged background.