the conditions that "create terrorists"

Great Debates
1

disclaimer: i’m probably sticking my foot in my mouth just by conceiving these arguments… but i got to thinking and i’m curious so here goes…

Was watching a town hall meeting gephardt held in new hampshire and somebody asked something about what he would do fight terrorism. He said he certainly thought we needed to contain people who are actively causing problems (insinuating the iraqi situation)… but that we also need to try and fix the problems that cause terrorism in the first place. His spiel went something like this:

“There are 3.5 billion people in the world are living on less than $1/day. This is fertile ground for terrorism…they are going to come get us.”

This statement brought to mind two questions…

  1. My first question is exactly how relevant is this $1/day figure? Obviously he didn’t mean one literal american dollar, but how comparable are the goods and services necessary for survival in these admittedly destitute regions of the world? If most of these people are subsistence farmers (just hypothetically… i have no clue) they can certainly sustain themselves with little or no actual income. I’m just wonder how similar arguments and hypotheticals (or… even better… actual facts) reflect on gephardt’s “analysis”. Put more simply, is he actually suggesting, or is there actual evidence, that 3.5B people are living in the same conditions as an american who had nothing except $1 on which to sustain themselves?

I’m not trying to say I don’t believe there are ridiculously impoverished people out there, and a whole lot of them, but can we really compare what this means in terms of ability to live a life?

ok…hope i didn’t lose you already

  1. so for my second question… the statement that these 3.5B represent a fertile ground for terrorism. If his comparison were valid in the sense I previously suggested, I’m not sure they would have the ability to do much striking of any sort. That sounds calloused, but those 3.5B would be (and i suspect are) too busy trying to get from day to day to plot or scheme against anyone. So my question is now more of a fact-finding mission than anything else… Of the people who have actually plotted or carried out attacks (that we know of), how many were from conditions of abject poverty? The “terrorists” that immediately come to mind don’t strike me as such. I’m picturing something more along the lines of the impressionable malcontent who studied at a wahabi[st?] school and learned to focus their anger until it manifests in acts of destruction. That such schools exist may speak for itself, but this is hardly the slave revolt-like situation gephardt and others like to describe. Am I way off base on this hypothesis? I’m not really sure how to to study it or subject it to analysis, so I was hoping the teeming millions could come to my aid.

any input would be appreciated

2

1) My first question is exactly how relevant is this $1/day figure? Obviously he didn’t mean one literal american dollar, but how comparable are the goods and services necessary for survival in these admittedly destitute regions of the world? If most of these people are subsistence farmers (just hypothetically… i have no clue) they can certainly sustain themselves with little or no actual income

I’m pretty sure his figures are correct. The problem is that most of the terrorism is coming from people who are not poverty stricken. The terrorists themselves also have never mentioned the poverty of their people as a reason for their acts. Their main beefs usually revolve around American military action against Muslim states, support for Israel, and cultural infiltration of Western ideas into the people they are trying to brainwash.

Terrorism is first and foremost about ideology. I don’t count true guerilla movements as terrorists. Their desires tend to be a lot less complicated. But Al Qaeda is mainly ideological and utopian. They aren’t fighting for anyone, although they will issue press releases for PR purposes purporting to fight for the Muslim men of the world. More likely, they are fighting for the right to rule the entire Middle East, and eventually the world.

3

  1. Yep half the worlds population never ever used a telephone at all. Most have no source of treated water and survive on $1 a day. Welcome to Planet Earth Kaje.

    Is this a guaranteed source of malcontent ? Yes… Of terrorism necessarily ? No. Africa is a good example. They are the poorest continent by far and terrorism is very small issue there. Though Al-Q has seen Africa as a great staging area in the past… since money can buy a lot there.

    Still if you have a lot of poor people to recruit from its easier than if they are better off. Obviously terrorist leaders are not usually poor and do have better education. Muslim economies aren’t in good shape and palestinians are some of the poorest in the region.

    1. Yes, absolutely poor people don’t finance terrorism… its their poverty that allows them to become terrorists more easily. Someone with a good job and some kids is less likely to become a terrorist. Even then some of the Palestinian suicide bombers were family men from what I understand… but most are young adults.

    I suppose your trying to push the question of “The money to make bombs can’t come from $1 a day ?” It doesnt. It comes from Saudi Arabia and other arabs who privately and for various political and religious reasons finance terrorism.

    To destroy or shut down the religious schools won’t stop fanatics though. They will just meet elsewhere to pray, preach and to recruit as well.

4

PS… small addendum:

The very fact that terrorism is prevalent in the Middle East while other regions that suffer worse poverty have none is very much a characteristic of the region, the politics the 1st World played here as well as the religion itself. They have a self image and a group conciousness and pride… which makes heavy handed invasions and humiliation of Arabic leaders that much worse when trying to foster less terrorism.

5

Poverty also slows the process of secularization. Secularization tends to strip a religion of militancy.

6

“Secularization tends to strip a region of militantcy.”

Not sure I agree with that. Much of Africa isn’t subject to wild-eyed religiosity, but you’ll notice Sierra Leone, among other places, is pretty much screwed and subject to the whims of warring militants.

In their case, the reason being that the only way to avoid being enslaved by one warlord is to get a gun and join ANOTHER warlord… Rule by street gang, basically.

The idea that poverty generates terrorism is ludicrous. Poverty generates crime, certainly, but I wouldn’t call a convenience store holdup (or its foreign equivalent) an act of terrorism. The hungrier you are, the more interested you are in getting fed; other considerations tend to fade before that.

The thing that bothers me is the trumping up of “The Enemy” over there.

Suicide bombers tend to be young men. This makes sense. Old men have too much to lose. Young men do, too, but they haven’t figured that out yet. Young men are easily manipulated, if properly indoctrinated, and you know what buttons to push. Military training is predicated on this.

In short, a fair number of people over there have built their power structure on this: We Must Fight The Evil Enemy In The Name Of Allah.

It’s a great trick. Hitler used a variation on it to take Germany from an utterly crushed state to that of a European Superpower in only a few short years. Morale was high, confidence strong, and the economy… well… y’can’t have everything. But if they’d had huge oil reserves, that wouldn’t have been a problem.

To some extent, Saudi Arabia has done just this… not to the point of terrorism, but to the point of keeping its people’s attention off the government’s own excesses… and to the point where Al-Qaida seems to find them a fertile recruiting ground…

7

Lots of conjecture here. I did a summary search on those figures, it didn’t seem to come up with much. Is it seriously believable that over half the world’s population exists on $1/day? You have to consider that about 1/6 of the people here exist in China and India, both of which have major economic problems (not to mention Bangladesh), but ONE dollar a day? It sounds crazy, but I’m in no position to argue it. Those people should move to Liechtenstein. Unfortunately it’s about the size of Rhode Island, but hey, they can build high-rises.

As for the “cause of terrorism,” I’ll offer a completely unoriginal argument here.

Educated readers will know that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was instigated by Westernized political positioning. I.E., it could be said that Britain walked into “Palestine,” and said “nice place, get the F out,” installing the Jews thereafter.

Of course there is the whole biblical issue of it being their land in the first place, but isn’t possession 9/10’s of the law? Evidently not Sharia law, I’m guessing.

My attempt at a short-winded explanation of why “terrorism” exists is because the majority of Arab nations dislike the US’ support of Israel, the former US stationing in Saudi Arabia (which, ironically, according to the CIA Factbook, ~90% of its citizens are actually Persian, not Arab in ethnicity), and my hopefully acceptable conjecture of a general radical Muslim hatred toward other societies’ aberrant straying from Sharia law.

This is one of the most interesting times in history that I know of, and it’s tense, yet exhilarating to be reading such major developments in the news (i.e. Saddam’s capture) so frequently. It’s enjoyable, yet unnerving to observe the ever-changing climate. Does the old Nostradamus quote about a “man in a blue turban” being the antichrist ring a bell of truth, or is this just another petty conflict that will carry a shadow similar to Vietnam in the next 20 years? The US doesn’t get attacked on its’ own soil too often – 1812, 1947, 2001. That’s all I can recall.

8

Terrorism and revolutions are not carried out by the poor. They are carried out by wealthy and middle class.

There are IMHO, several forms of terrorism:

Political terrorism - This is a response to a foreign invasion or occupation. Palestinians, Irish and Iraqi terrorism would be examples. Friction with visible and possibly antagonistic outsiders is the obvious cause of this kind of terrorism.

Idealogical terrorism - Basically terrorism by a group that feels they are serving a higher calling. Al Quada, The ELF, etc. are examples. It has little to do with poverty. They feel the world should be a certain way and they don’t feel that legitimate methods of change are effective. They feel justified in killing innocent people because they are either part of the system or an acceptible loss to serve the greater good. They recruit angry, idealogical young people with too much time on their hands. Probably the most dangerous form of terrorism since it is organized and highly motivated.

Lone Crazyman With A Grenade - Basically, a crazy psycho like the Unibomber. Probably the hardest to predict or stop because of it’s randomness.

9

Heat is a key ingredient for fire but heat alone cannot create fire. Fuel and oxygen are needed. Similarly, poverty alone will not lead to terrorism. Discontent (with said poverty) is needed. Agitation (to harness the discontent) is needed. And finally, a focus for the agitation is needed. The Middle East is indeed a fertile ground for the above.

Of course one could argue that poverty, discontent and focus could of course lead to taking a good hard look at the situation and ultimately self-improvement but it’s human nature to lash out at others rather than look within for the source of trouble.

Frankly, I can’t imagine that if Israel ceased to exist and the Palestinians occupied all of the area that the PLO, Hamaas, Al Quida, etc would all go into the aluminum siding business the next day.

10

Master Wang-Ka brings up a good point against Rashak Mani, in that Africa may not be so subject to “terrorism,” but what defines terrorism? I say rampant civil wars are tantamount to, if not totally beyond terrorism. What percentage per capita of refugees do you need to bring in peacekeeping forces, let alone the “Blitzkrieg/Shock and Awe” domination of sovereign nations?

msmith537: That’s what I was saying. Osama has convinced himself that we (the Western Infidel Types ™ ) are desecrating his holy land (from which he was exiled), and has formed this group to strike back against us. It’s not really working, but 3,000 dead people is a pretty significant motivator in destroying whatever target the populace believes to be Axis… I mean, Evil.

The problem with this is that the major portion of Muslim terrorists seem to be torn between destroying Israel and destroying the entire Western culture that they perceive as supporting it. So are they basically hell-bent on destroying everything? Have they even considered the repercussions of full-scale war primarily against the one nation to use nuclear arms in anger AND win the Cold War hands-down?

11

Billy Shears: Well said! Welcome to the board!

12

For an article that actually gives some data see Science 2003 March 7; 299: 1534-1539. (in Review) I’d link but you need a subscription so either sign up or go to the library. Here are a few conclusions:

Thus it seems that being poor is less adversive than losing status that you had or expected to have. And that instead of institutions which give young single educated Arab males a chance to use their knowledge for advancing their regions economically and technologically and offering them status and real families, there exist institutions which take advantage of their disenfranchisement by offering them fictive “family” and “ideals” for which they are willing to die.

13

Abdul, I don’t mean this to sound bad… but the remark about “we are the only nation to use nuclear weapons in warfare, don’t they know who they f**kin’ with?” is a remark I have heard many times since 9/11.

Y’know what? We ain’t gonna use nukes. We ain’t even gonna think about it.

The entire world would lose its mind if we launched the birds. No sane President would consider it unless there was no real alternative and the US was on the verge of physical collapse or total surrender to an invading foreign power.

…either that, or the “mutually assured destruction” thing that was so popular back during the Cold War.

We’d either have to be in a world war so insane that nobody’d much NOTICE if we nuked someone, or we’d have to be in so horrible a position that we would not CARE if the world went crazy and turned on us, because how is that any worse than what made us launch the nukes to begin with?

I mean, let’s face it: we are NOT the darlings of world opinion right now, on a variety of levels. Nuking anyone would make that way, way worse.

Admittedly, Bush gives a fine impression of someone who does not give a fart in a high wind what his OWN people think, much less a buncha foreigners, but I’d hate to think he was actually, really, INSANE…

14 
I agree that Israel dissapearing wouldn't stop terrorism... but they would certainly look for the next convenient scapegoat...
15

**Y’know what? We ain’t gonna use nukes. We ain’t even gonna think about it.

The entire world would lose its mind if we launched the birds. No sane President would consider it unless there was no real alternative and the US was on the verge of physical collapse or total surrender to an invading foreign power.
**

The world wouldn’t do crap. The world is to economically dependent on us and to many nations rely on us for their security.

I mean, let’s face it: we are NOT the darlings of world opinion right now, on a variety of levels. Nuking anyone would make that way, way worse

If the US was driven to nuke someone, I don’t think we’d care.

I agree that Israel dissapearing wouldn’t stop terrorism… but they would certainly look for the next convenient scapegoat…

India, Russia, and the Phillipines are the most immediate on the Islamic fundie hit list after Israel.