Centerfield

This is a paradox only to those who were not around in the 60s (especially in places like Berekeley) where the children of the rich were leading riots to "protest on behalf of the workers," while the children of those workers were going out of our way to avoid the riots. Not just because we were putting our energy into actually getting an education, but because we knew what those riots did to the folks trying to make a living where the riots were.

Different "cause" to fight for. Different locations. Same spoiled brat behavior...to the detriment of those they claim to be fighting for.

Posted by: Bill at July 28, 2005 12:20 PM

This feels like a straw man hypothesis, and I don't like when the issue is framed in such a way as to dismiss legitimate insight.

Why the obsession about one single "root" cause? Is there really a single "root" cause? If so, is it the chicken or the egg? :-)

If you ask me, poverty is a substantial contributing factor to almost all terrorism that occurs on any sort of large cultural scale. And it's usually a necessaryingredient in any recipe in which terrorism grows to that large scale.

If I can indulge in an off-the-top-of-my head analogy, it's like the role of moisture in mildew growth. If that's so, then fine, the moisture technically isn't the "root" cause, it's whatever organism is growing, in this case mildew, which is what, a type of mold or bacteria? Here's the thing: If you want to get rid of mildew, you kill as much of the mold as you can and you make sure to do something about the moisture problem, or it's a dead-solid guarantee that the mildew will come right back.

So in this context, leaving aside "cause" and focusing on the "problem," is the real problem the mildew or the moisture? C'mon now, does it matter? Isn't it most important to note that mildew is only really a big problem when there's a moisture issue?

I'd like to put to bed this continued strawmanning by which concern about poverty and terrorism is dismissed by saying stuff like That cancels the thesis which claims that poverty is the cause of terrorism.

Poverty is what makes it a really big problem. People are best-equipped to ignore nutbaggery when they have full bellies, a roof over their heads, and hope for a predictably decent future. I find it curious that the author of one of the quotes above mentions the seduction of islam in the context of dismissing concerns about poverty. The seduction of radical fundamentalist islam is undeniably at its greatest when poverty and oppression make the people most willing to listen to any abdul-come-lately peddling promising fantasies. Its freedom from want and fear of want that gives people the courage to say, as Jack Nicholson once did, "go peddle crazy somewhere else, we're all full up here."

Posted by: bk at July 28, 2005 12:40 PM

I agree with bk. As I wrote the last time this topic came up, that the terrorists themselves are not necessarily poor does not mean that poverty isn't at least one of the causes of terrorism, if not one of the main causes.

Like the rich kids on campus, whom I also likened the terrorists to before, they identify with those whom they regard as their powerless brethren. If they didn't see the injustices and inequities in their oil-rich native lands perpetuated by corrupt regimes in bed with industrialized Western democracies (e.g. U.S.A.), they would have to find something else to be radical over.

Posted by: WHQ at July 28, 2005 01:10 PM

Agree with both BK and WHQ. The problem with these analyses is that they are often driven by ideological agendas. The left wants to find "the cause" of terrorism in either poverty or western policies because it supports their criticism that terrorism is a self-inflicted problem. The right argues that it's simply a warped ideology that is only amenable to force and for which we have no responsibility. Obviously, both of these are simplistic. Any kind of political movement or ideology develops from a host of factors, both internal and external. Nazism, for example, stemmed both from internal factors--suspicion of democracy, distrust of modernity, and external factors--dislocations caused by World War I and the depression. This is true as well of Islamic extremism.

Posted by: MWS at July 28, 2005 01:19 PM

Poverty as a contributing factor is one thing. Poverty as a "necessary ingredient" or sole factor is another thing entirely. I don't justify Ali's single sentence--but focusing on it as you do ignores the point of the post, which is that the actual terrorists seem to be coming from reasonably (or even unreasonably) affluent backgrounds. Pointing at poverty as a "cause" of terrorism is severely lacking in solid evidence. If you think it's relevant, show the link between the two! How many poor terrorists are there, and how does the ratio of poor/nonpoor compare to the population ratio for area of origin and/or residence?

Bin Laden did not come from "poverty and oppression." Nor did the London tube bombers. Nor did Mohammed Bouyeri. Nor did Mohamed Atta al Sayed, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, and so on.

Asking "What causes terorism?" is a nebulous societal-causes argument, one that utterly avoids the more specific, relevant, and germane question, "What causes terrorists?" And what we see over and over again with the actual terrorists is disaffected middle or upper-class individuals promoting violent radicalism into political/cultural/religious conflicts. Poverty doesn't seem to be much in the mix, save as one lone factor, one endemic in much of the world, and difficult to seperate out for analytic purposes. Pointing at poverty as a "cause" of terrorism is an exercise in vague thinking. It's like pointing at air as a cause of terrorism.

SO, what causes terrorists?

Posted by: Tully at July 28, 2005 01:33 PM

Where is it exactly that "we've heard it argued that one of the greatest 'root causes' of Islamic terrorism is poverty"?

Other than in the hay field where you whipped up that straw man.

Posted by: mike at July 28, 2005 01:38 PM

"SO, what causes terrorists?"

Sperm and egg

Posted by: WHQ at July 28, 2005 01:58 PM

Where is it exactly that "we've heard it argued that one of the greatest 'root causes' of Islamic terrorism is poverty"? Other than in the hay field where you whipped up that straw man.

Straw man? One must laugh. If there's a "straw man" there, I'm not the one who rolled the bales together.

Over the last few years I've heard poverty as a root cause of terrorism so stated and argued by Gerhard Schroeder, Jacques Chirac, Pervez Musharraf, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Kofi Annan, Jean Chretien, Hamid Karzai, Gloria Macapaga-Arroyo, Silvio Berlusconi, the president of the World Bank, and even from George W. Bush. To name just a few.

So if poverty as a cause of terrorism's a "straw man" argument, it's one that one hell of a lot of world leaders are promoting, and not one I invented. And it's one that seriously deserves debunking.

Posted by: Tully at July 28, 2005 02:08 PM

Okay, thanks for responding to the "straw man" thing there...lol. I need to find my glasses. For a minute there, Tully, I thought you were debunking your own comments. Didn't realize it was a separate poster. Okay, now off to the eye doctor...lol...

Posted by: AR at July 28, 2005 02:31 PM

This thread has an assumption which will limit our ability to analyze any causes of Islamic terrorism. We are assuming that the values of our civilization (economic motivation / individual liberties) is also the dominating motivation of a different civilization (Islamic/Arab). I do not think that we are justified in this. It seem that adherance to their religous values is their greatest motivating factor.

If we also take into account that our civilization is expanding (with our democtatic and economic values) at the expense of the Islamic/Arab civilization amonst others, this leaves the other civilization few alternatives - accept our values - with the susbequent futher deteoriation of their own civilization, fight defensivly to retain their values, or take an agressive posture to insure that their civilization will continue with the objective of removing all Western aspects in their society.

Further evidence to support this is that terrorist attacks (including Iraq)are concentrated upon Western targets and Muslim targets that have accpeted Western ways

Posted by: tmitch at July 28, 2005 02:31 PM

A somewhat tangential post: It has been said many times that our (US) interest in these issues in the Middle East stem from oil.

Their spiritual leader is a Saudi billionaire's son who grew up with big ideas and too much money. He created a new identity for himself as a jihad leader, carrying the banner of a pristine Islam from the days of the Prophet Muhammad. The zenith of his warped amalgam of ancient and modern was having holy warriors fly airplanes into skyscrapers.

Based on this I would agree. It's just that the oil money has gone to finance the terrorist acts. So I guess it IS related to oil

Now hopefully the following comment isn't confusing. I'm wondering if we're all talking about two separate things: 1) "What are the factors that lead to these actions?" Such a question is analytic and "valueless". Fair enough. 2) "Why would anyone do such a heinous act?" Such a question is full of value but I'd say "legitamite" value (i.e. the value of protecting life, avoiding harms, etc)

I wonder if some are asking the first type of question and being heard as asking the second type of question. And I bet some are seemingly asking the first type of question but really implying the second type (i.e. "If we only eradicated poverty in the Arab world we would eliminate terrorism")

Posted by: c3 at July 28, 2005 02:55 PM

I don't justify Ali's single sentence--but focusing on it as you do ignores the point of the post, which is that the actual terrorists seem to be coming from reasonably (or even unreasonably) affluent backgrounds.

Guilty! Caught red-handed not reading the whole article. My bad. I posted based on the excerpt, and didn't have time to go back after reading the whole thing. I think it's absolutely legitimate to question the extent of the involvement of spoiled intellectual tourists, especially when there's evidence that some of the actual perpetrators are ideologues from middle and upper class backgrounds.

Pointing at poverty as a "cause" of terrorism is severely lacking in solid evidence. If you think it's relevant, show the link between the two! How many poor terrorists are there, and how does the ratio of poor/nonpoor compare to the population ratio for area of origin and/or residence?
OK, I'll get around to that as soon as they publish the results of the terrorist census, which I'm sure will clear it all up for us. :-)

Honestly, it may turn out to be the case that the poor have more of a role as sympathizers than as actors. I expect it varies depending on the venue. Even without the data to back it up, I'm still persuaded by my own argument that the support of an impoverished populace is what makes terrorism most potentially dangerous. Supposing that the leaders, movers, and shakers within a given movement may come from an intellectual elite, I still think that the growth and sustenance of a given movement requires the fuel of public support from those lacking other good options.

As I've mentioned before elsewhere, i have seen this pattern repeat itself in many places, where charismatic whackos prey on the poor and the alienated. In America, the emphasis is not upon the poor necessarily, but on the lost, lonely, and alienated. But that's why say, Jim Jones never grew a wide following. IMO, the conditions for widespread acceptance of a zealous ideology are greatest when there is also widespread economic despair.

But yup, it's a hypothesis, and I don't have a volume of data that directly supports it. I haven't seen data that refutes it either. The article you cited is either based on a small sample or anecdotal in nature, (these 4 guys, x out of these 17) depending on how you wish to characterize it. So I could just as well ask you where your data is that support your claim and where is the data that refutes mine. But as you know, that terrorist census is still not finished!

If poverty in the ME is just an excuse, they've sure got an awful big supply of excuse.

Posted by: bk at July 28, 2005 03:04 PM

And whether the poor sympathize with the terrorists or not, the terrorists sympathize with the poor, even if it ends up being to the detriment of the poor in the end. Perhaps poverty is just the main symptom of the perceived problems the terrorists are railing against - decadence, corruption, injustice, inequality, etc. One things for sure, they're certainly pissed about something.

Posted by: WHQ at July 28, 2005 03:18 PM

I'll get around to that as soon as they publish the results of the terrorist census

You had but to ask. Researchers at Harvard and Princeton have looked at that.

Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of Terrorism (PDF warning)

Education, Poverty, Political Violence and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection? (PDF warning)

Poverty may be exploited by terrorists, but there's no evidence at all that it's a cause, and some very serious empirical research against. At best, poverty seems to be another symptom of a dysfunctional culture in political transition. Much as a fever and a rash may go together with an infection, poverty and terrorism seem to be co-symptoms at most, and even that's a weak and tenuous link.

Terrorists reliably come from the educated and better-off classes, not from the poor. And they tend to come from the better-off nations in a region, not the poorest ones, though they definitely exploit poor nations as "safeholds" for training and organizing.

UPDATE: Lost a sentence there. Terrorism appears to be a "will to power" political phenomena, not an economic one.

Posted by: Tully at July 28, 2005 04:10 PM

And whether the poor sympathize with the terrorists or not, the terrorists sympathize with the poor, even if it ends up being to the detriment of the poor in the end. Perhaps poverty is just the main symptom of the perceived problems

OK I'll say it, sure would be nice if we could get read rid of poverty, whatever the reason! Posted by: c3 at July 28, 2005 05:18 PM

Ridding the world of political helplessness and false perceptions of moral superiority would help, too, be it for whatever reason, or specifically to eliminate terrorism.

Posted by: WHQ at July 28, 2005 06:58 PM

WHQ,
If your implying that being against random bombings of public transportation or crashing planes into large buildings is a manifestation of moral superiority then yes, I would accept being morally superior.

Posted by: c3 at July 28, 2005 07:50 PM

I'm implying no such thing. It is the false sense of moral superiority that gives the terrorist the justification in his own mind to commit random acts of mass murder.

Posted by: WHQ at July 28, 2005 08:32 PM

Also, I had a feeling someone might take that the wrong way, which caused me to add "be it for whatever reason, or specifically to eliminate terrorism."

Posted by: WHQ at July 28, 2005 08:35 PM

ITs all rubbish and if you people keep thinking that way, you'll never get it.

Posted by: Triple A at July 28, 2005 10:03 PM

TMitch,

"... with the susbequent futher deteoriation of their own civilization, fight defensivly to retain their values, or take an agressive posture to insure that their civilization will continue with the objective of removing all Western aspects in their society.

Further evidence to support this is that terrorist attacks (including Iraq)are concentrated upon Western targets and Muslim targets that have accpeted Western ways..."

For starters Mitch, for these people (I mean Islamic terrorist) the glory of an Islamic society doesnt depend on its wealth or its military prowess. For them, these results can only be with the implementation of ISlamic law and the ways of the first generation of Muslims, as they see it, then comes the wealth, power and glorious redemption. They can only look to a secular Turkey and see that secularism doesnt always mean power and wealth.

They are rebelling against a society, thier society that they dont consider Islamic and against Islamic principles. When the ruler doesnt rule by Islamic law they consider it heresy, nay apostacy. If the people arent living by Islamic law they consider it as the whole soceity being heretical or to put it in Islamic terms jahiliyah, which describes the period of the Arabian peninsula before Islam came.

HAsan Al Banna Syed Qutb and Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi are thier ideological forefathers, they all wrote about the apostacy of all Islamic soceity especially Qutb. YOu can find Qutbs books on Amazon but I encourage you not to read them because its pure poison.

I havent seen one Western or non Muslim thinker philosopher describe accurately the motivation of these people. I have only seen it come from scholars in Saudi Arabia who have actually debated, refuted and have become the enemies of these people. Its far more theological than Western intelligencia has the capacity to admit.

Posted by: Triple A at July 28, 2005 10:19 PM

Actually Bin Laden (senior) made his money in construction and I believe there was a falling out between his family and the Saudi Regime over the construction in Mecca or Medinah. I cant remember which.

Posted by: Triple A at July 28, 2005 10:21 PM

We must also consider that the logistics of terrorism requires that terrorist be educated and have some money. Illiterate people or poor people cant operate bombs, cant build bombs, cant scout for targets, cant get by in Western soceities. Education is important to terrorist and for terrorism to work.

Posted by: Triple A at July 28, 2005 10:25 PM

Triple A

I'm not sure that we have an area of disagreement. The Islamic Civilization (by defination - submission to the Will of God)is dominated by it's religion. Western Civilization prides itself in an agressive economy and individual freedoms. When they come in contact, friction must occur.

As you correctly identified, the Islamisist wants to return their society to their most fundemental roots - to the exclusion of all other influences -secularization, democracy, economic power held by a ruling elite etc. Such trends, correctly or not, are considered by them as Western and must be eliminated.

In any event, I do not feel that economic differentiation within the Arab society is a driving motivation for the terrorists. You indicate that it is based on religous fundementalism (a return to pure Islam) - I state that they want Western influences out of their region (elimination of non-Islamic value systems). I think we're saying the same thing.

To be sure, Islamisists can use economic disparity as a recruting tool - especially when they can equate it to Western or Zionist influence (such as the support of the Saudi royal family or recently, promoting Western tourism in Arab lands). But a more basic cause is the need to eliminate Western influence and the return to pure Islam.

Thanks for the reference. Knowledge of an enemy's philosophy is one of the most important values that we can have in our defense against them. Another is knowing their language. Alas, when it was my time, they were not an enemy and I have no Arabic and I'm too old to start!

Posted by: tmitch at July 28, 2005 11:56 PM

WHQ, Thanks for clarifying.

Posted by: c3 at July 29, 2005 12:26 AM

c3, no problem.

tmitch, I'm glad you wrote what you did. I was thinking the same thing. I couldn't figure out why in triple A's post there was a presentation suggestive of refutation of what you (and probably everyone else) wrote, but content mostly in accordance with yours. Certainly worthwhile posts, but oddly postured.

Posted by: WHQ at July 29, 2005 08:13 AM

Tully, is it your contention that poverty may foster the growth of terrorism and yet still be classed as "not a cause"? I admit that this is reasonable. However, I still harbors doubts as to how much this tells us about how big a part of the problem poverty is. Since you've informed yourself more than I have, my minimum responsibility is to try and at least scan those pdf reports you've cited.

Is it also your view that terrorism may grow to be substantially supported by a populace even in the absence of poverty and of oppression? Since I saw an article this a.m. about the IRA, I am inclined to also concede that terrorism "may" grow substantially even in the absence of widespread poverty. I admit that the perception of oppression and injustice on the part of a substantial subset of the population may be sufficient. Let me add that in my thinking, I was talking mainly about terrorism as it has manifested itself in its islamic fundamentalist form, in the Palestinian cradle. But it's my bad that I went ahead and generalized about all terrorism when I was thinking primarily about the islamic variety as manifested in the middle east.

It seems preliminarily reasonable for me to acknowledge for now that "successful" terrorism generally seems to requires means which are beyond the poor. I'm very curious about the extent to which actual terrorist acts fall within the domain of disaffected middle and upperclass intellectual tourists who have become ideologues because they've fallen for the easy explanation. (And I say "tourists" because IMO, if such people were actually solid thinkers, they'd look past simple explanations peddled by clerics with a will to power. Of course, YMMV.)

I've been giving this an awful lot of thought over the past few weeks. You might not all believe this, but I don't care a whit about whether my previous conceptualizations were spot-on accurate, close to accurate, of ill-conceived. I am very happy to modify them to integrate insights which others have shared, and which might help me (and maybe some others here) better understand the relationship between terrorism, poverty, oppression, intellectual tourism, strains of islamic theology, and so on.

What I know for sure is that charismatic and zealous nutbags tend to prey on the lost and the embittered, regardless of whether those conditions are due to poverty, oppression, naricissistic alienation, lack of opportunity, or something else. The thing here? In all the instances where people choose to follow charismatic nutbags, the calculus behind the choice is this: "since I've been following the way of nutbag A, my life is better! I have a place to live, food, friends, acceptance, structure, purpose, predictability form day to day, and hope. Therefore, A's way must the be the right way."

This highlights waht I still believe about the importance of the degraded cultural conditions in the middle east. IMO, it's the poor, oppressed, dysfunctional condition of the general populace in many parts of the middle east that makes islamic fundamentalist terrorism such a big growth threat. And it's the growth threat that really worries me. As long as terrorism draws primarily upon the tourist class for its actors and funders, its growth is bound to be limited, in which case it promises to be no worse that a terrible chronic disease that is not culturally fatal, just debilitating.

And please don't assume I'm trying to minimize how bad that is. My point is that the situation could well devolve into a more widespread struggle, even a 3rd world war, because our policies fail to address the sorts of things that foster the growth of terrorism. Here's the thing: if, by our policies and actions, we make this primarily a battle between western culture and islamic theology, that's what we'll get. If we can't get moderate sensible muslims to embrace democracy and modern economic opportunity by convincing them that islamic thought can peacefully coexist with these things, they just side with the muslims against the west.

If/once that happens on a large scale, our remaining choices will be two: 1)eternal war/containment 2) unforgivable widespread slaughter in the name of what the west believes

If we leave in place the lousy conditions, it just makes it easier for nutbag A, B, or C to craft a way for others to follow, a way which is better simply because the competing way is so messed up!

How long can we dismiss this until the handbasket to hell is all full up, with all of us inside?

Posted by: bk at July 29, 2005 09:29 AM

Poverty is what makes it a really big problem. People are best-equipped to ignore nutbaggery when they have full bellies, a roof over their heads, and hope for a predictably decent future.

Is this true? I would certainly like to see some actual evidence.

I, on the other hand, think that what gives “nutbaggery” an opportunity is intellectual poverty. When good ideas are squeezed out by bad ideas as is certainly true in so many Middle Eastern countries that have rigidly controlled media and propagandizing public education systems (not to mention our own propagandizing education system), that's the environment in which “nutbagger” becomes appealing.

Posted by: Dave Schuler at July 29, 2005 11:00 AM

I also think that searching for causes is probably not productive. Instead perhaps we we should be looking for critical success factors. Is poverty an exacerbating factor in the growth of terrorism? Probably, yes. But it's not a critical success factor for that growth.

Posted by: Dave Schuler at July 29, 2005 11:03 AM

The theme of this points assumes what needs to be proven: that individual characteristics (e.g. wealth or poverty) as opposed to larger social forces determine what happens in a society. That the terrorists may come from wealthy backgrounds is evidence relevant to an understanding of society premised on the theory that individuals are the principle actors of social change. If the terrorists happened to be poor this would no more support the conclusion that proverty is cause of terrorism. You're still looking at individuals, a theory that views poverty as the cause of terrorism looks at society.

Posted by: DQ at July 29, 2005 11:40 AM

A structuralist analysis understands Islamic terrorism, and Al-queda, in particular, as arising from a split in the Saudi ruling elite over its response to globalization. That the most important factor of crisis has been the hegemonic role of the US in the region, as exemplified by the devastation of Iraq, the US government's proprietary relationship to the management of oil resources in the Middle East, and the building of US bases right in Saudi Arabia, Islam's most sacred land. On all these counts, deep divisions have developed within these ruling classes pitting pro-American governments oten consisting of royal dynasties in the Arabian Peninsula against a new generation of dissidents within their own ranks who, in the name of the Koran, have accused them of being corrupt, of squandering the region's resources, of selling out to the US, of having betrayed Islam, all the while offering an alternative "social contract" to the working classes of North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia and using their wealth to create a multinational network of groups stretching through every continent and often taking on a life of their own.

Consider the Islamic Salvation Front, which almost took power electorally in Algeria in 1991, but for a military coup. The C.I.A. has expressed real fears that democratization could lead to the rise of terrorist regimes. Could we point to poverty as being a factor?

Posted by: DQ at July 29, 2005 12:12 PM

Tully, is it your contention that poverty may foster the growth of terrorism and yet still be classed as "not a cause"?

"Causes," of course, is both a question-begging and value-assumption term. There are as many (or more) "causes" of terrorism as there are terrorists. I used the term because it was necessary in approaching the entire "root causes" meme. "Foster the growth of," I wouldn't say. Poverty is often exploited by terrorists, but does not seem to be either an originating or growth factor. It simply seems to be present in varying degrees, as it is in all socieities, but the incidence of terrorism doesn't seem linked to the incidence of poverty. It does seem to be solidly linked to political-cultural transition and ethnic divisions, and terrorists themselves overwhelmingly come from the middle- to upper-class educated sectors.

If we approach a single terrorist movement looking for origins, we learn background history and some specific motivating factors ("seeds") but miss the "Big Picture" of what kind of "soil" is required for the "seeds" to flourish and grow. If we look only at the Big Picture, we miss the unique attributes required to deal with specific movements. Bad analogy, I know, but not nearly as simplistic as the intellectual blame-storming and blame-shifting of the politicos and partisans.

For analytical purposes, I'm really looking for the societal conditions that reliably accompany the rise of terrorist movements and can be used to predict them for threat assessment purposes. Poverty doesn't seem to be one of them. What I have found is roughly what Abadie found--that homegrown terrorism generally originates in countries/regions that are in political transition between rigidly authoritarian and closed, and politically permissive and open, and where there are significant internal cultural divisions, whether they be ethnic, religious, or political, or some combination.

Just asking the terrorists doesn't necessarily give you a good picture of reality either--words may well be far out of alignment with deeds. Logic and clear thinking aren't big players. Right now, for example, many of the jihadis in Iraq seem to be coming from Jordanian Sunni groups, and while they espouse anti-Americanism as their motivation, their actual operations are carried out almost exclusively against the Shiites.

Posted by: Tully at July 29, 2005 01:03 PM

Brina;

If we leave in place the lousy conditions, it just makes it easier for nutbag A, B, or C to craft a way for others to follow, a way which is better simply because the competing way is so messed up!

Who is the "we"? If I had to think of a poor region that has had (over the past 50 years) an enormous influx of dollars due to its exceptional resources, it would have to be the Middle East. To what extent are we responsible for their poor management and distribution of those resources?

Posted by: C3 at July 29, 2005 02:44 PM

Chris, I think that we don't have good alternatives to taking a lot of the responsibility, regardless of whether the fixing should be our responsibility. If your crazy neighbor lights his house on fire, and fire department doesn't come, how close do you let the fire get before youset aside blaming your neighbor and grab the hose?

My point is only that if it doesn't get better somehow, we're likely to suffer.

BTW, Tully, those are all good points, and I hesitate to doubt your insights. Let me just stress that my worries are geared towards not allowing terrorism to grow to the point where everyone feels like they have to both pick a side AND grab a weapon. Perhaps it is as you say, that poverty doesn't seem to be a direct contributing factor to either initial creation or in fostering growth, at least so far. Even if you're 100% right about this, I still feel the battle will go much worse for us and much better for Al quaeda if ME poverty endures. I believe literally retarded was only partially joking when he said that we need to get these people some mortgages.

Posted by: bk at July 29, 2005 04:23 PM

So Brian we're damned if we become the World's Policeman and we're damned if we just sit back and live and let live. Boy, the Swiss got it right.

Posted by: c3 at July 29, 2005 05:00 PM

The left wants to find "the cause" of terrorism in either poverty or western policies because it supports their criticism that terrorism is a self-inflicted problem.

The claim that terrorisms roots at least in part with western policies are not the providence of the left. There's a growing contingent on the right as well.

Posted by: carla at July 29, 2005 10:32 PM

"A structuralist analysis understands Islamic terrorism, and Al-queda, in particular, as arising from a split in the Saudi ruling elite over its response to globalization."

DQ, I have to disagree with your analysis because I am of the opinion that the motivation of Al Qaida and similar groups arent new but are a revival of another movement that is as old as Islam itself. Consider that Utham and Ali the last two of the right guided caliphs where assasinated by these same people who today call themselves jihadist or whatever.

It is difficult to get other Muslim religious leaders to take this position because they are so swepted up by rhetoric coming from Western intelligensia that they forget thier own history and statments made by Prophet Muhammed himself about these very people.

Even if the whole world were Muslim, Al Qaida would still exist in one form or another because thier beef is with Muslims. Consider that this movement appeared at a time when the Muslim community were militarily and politically the most powerful.

Posted by: Triple A at July 30, 2005 01:51 AM

Pape's thesis has holes you could drive a fleet through, Carla, but it certainly does fit well into the Buchananite's isolationism. Pape selectively fits ONE terrorist activity (suicide bombings) into his "data," but ignores a century or more of history on other terrorist groups and activities to do so. He also ignores that most victims/targets of suicide bombers are natives.

I agree with Triple A's point that al Qaeda would exist regardless of our presence or nonpresence in the area. Both the "death cult" and internicene "unconventional warfare" have long histories in Islamic culture.

Posted by: Tully at July 30, 2005 11:38 AM

Tully,

"I agree with Triple A's point that al Qaeda would exist regardless of our presence or nonpresence in the area. Both the "death cult" and internicene "unconventional warfare" have long histories in Islamic culture."

Al Qaeda doesnt do what it dpes to pay tribue to the assasins of yesterday. The dealt cult and unconventional warefare arent limited yo Al Q.

Posted by: Triple A at July 30, 2005 01:56 PM

TA, they don't have to be paying tribute or homage. The point is that the "72 virgins" meme in recruiting "suicide" operatives started with the Hashshashin, as does much of the rest of the philosophy and methodology of the modern fedayeen including the glorification of assaultive martyrdom.

Posted by: Tully at July 31, 2005 12:51 PM

the glorification of assaultive martyrdom

Tully, do you have any thoughts on the sorts of recruitment patterns used here? I've noticed, in looking at domestic radical movements and the violent plots of alienated males (especially but not exclusively adolescents) that there's a general theme of a will to power and glory on the part of socially maladjusted males. Such males will respond positively to messages of righteousness that allow them to express suppressed anger and promise some of coming glory.

Now presumedly a philosophy such as that of the fedayeen is more commonly known within the culture at large than a given minority philosophy in America. So perhaps social maladjustment does not need to play as large a role in the ME as here in America.

But the target recruitment audience seems to be the same.

Posted by: bk at July 31, 2005 01:13 PM

Not just "socially maladjusted males," but a VERY high correlation with drug use on the part of the suicide recruits, at least with Al Qaeda. Which also dovetails in with the Hashshashin pattern. I would guess that with AQ, these individuals are considered expendable because of their flaws, not fit for upper echelons but just fine as tools.

Overall, across socieites, oh my yes. The pattern of the typical "terrorist" has clear parallels with those of organized serial killers. Male, 18-35, alienated, intelligent, educated, with power fantasies to compensate for a perceived "lack of power," and (the key) willing to act out those fantasies. The only thing that doesn't seem to match is the childhood abuse pattern, but that may be a lack of research.

Posted by: Tully at July 31, 2005 01:27 PM

As for how and where the Palestinians get their base of recruits, there's always summer camp.

Posted by: Tully at July 31, 2005 01:31 PM

If U.S. presence in Saudia Arabia, Israel, etc., had nothing to do with the rise of Al-Queda, then why is the U.S. a major target of AQ?

Posted by: DQ at July 31, 2005 06:12 PM

Tully are you for real? Why do any of these men need 72 virgins when they come from communities where almost all of the unmarried women are virgins? Is it really about sex? Is it neccessary to take them at their word?

Posted by: Triple A at July 31, 2005 07:31 PM

Tully, the Hashshashin were also doped up.

Posted by: Triple A at July 31, 2005 08:37 PM

It's important to note that despite the popular media presentation of AQ as a single terrorist group, it is anything but. AQ is a loose alliance of numerous Islamic terrorist groups. ALL of the known "affiliate" AQ groups that existed before the First Gulf War had the US on their "enemies" list well in advance of same, for our support of Israel among other things. We are, after all, the Great Satan! We have been the Great Satan for much longer than we have had any substantial military presence in Saudi Arabia. And that presence is almost non-existent now, BTW. The troops were moved out of SA to Qatar befor the invasion. I would also note for the record that the United States has NO military bases in Israel. While we provide material military aid, we have supplied no troops to Israel at any time. That's a complete red herring on your part, DQ--tossing in "U.S. presence" in Israel to move the "justification" line back fifty years.

We exist, we're on the same planet, and our existence and influence is inescapable in the modern age. That's enough for them.

TA--because they have lousy luck with women? Real marriage means real commitments, and dealing with real women. The martyr fantasy offers the illusion of mastery and control.

Posted by: Tully at July 31, 2005 08:44 PM

Yep--the doping of the Hashshashin "martyrs" was an integral part of the recruitment. nd it's easier to bring on that virgin garden fantasy when the subjects head is stuffed full of pipe dreams.

Posted by: Tully at July 31, 2005 08:45 PM

I used the term presence in a broad sense. Material military aid is presence. Moreover, check to see if the ranks of AQ did not swell after the first gulf war.

Posted by: DQ at July 31, 2005 10:49 PM

What ranks, DQ? The total number of those involved does not seem to have materially increased at that point in time, regardless of which organization they claim as their home. (Yes, I checked.) Indeed, the AQ base despised Saddam as a secularist who was polluting their region with his non-religious government, but they didn't try to move on him because they lacked the ability to challenge his totalitarianism. What swelled their ranks the most was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

RE--"Presence in a broad sense..." In a "broad sense" it is our presence on the planet that is the problem, as far as they're concerned. If you mean that they're mad that we don't abandon Israel, yep. And we're also responsible from stopping the Third Reich from finishing off the Israeli immigration base of the post-war era. And our creation of modern communications technology is poisoning their culture...as Rosanna Rosannadanna used to say, it's always somethin'. If it's not one thing, it's another....

But realistically, our not abandoning Israel has kept some parts of the Arabic Middle East from becoming glowing radioactive craters. I don't think there's any real doubt that the Israelis are not going to fall over and die from a refusal to use the means they have to remain alive.

Posted by: Tully at July 31, 2005 11:11 PM

The U.S. has supported Middle Eastern dictatorships in the past and present. They have, for the most part, been Pro-Israel, and, to put it in the most unassuming terms, not Pro-Palestinian. The U.S. built military bases in Saudia Arabia during the first Gulf war.

These are facts. A different question is whether they are right or wrong policies. Based on the simplest explanation, AQ and the like resent these policies and capitalize on them to achieve their ends.

You seem to concede that AQ resents U.S. anti-Palestinian policy. In your opinion, this is the only U.S. involvment in the middle east that has created resentment?

Resentment of U.S. foreign policy seems like the simplest explanation for why they hate us. If you disagree, why? Also, do you have any specific evidence to support your "clash of civiliations" argument?

Posted by: DQ at August 1, 2005 10:54 AM

I thought caught a big whiff o' troll, what with the incoherent style, all full of semantically empty but portentious-sounding multi-syllabic polibabble. It sure sounded familiar. It's our old buddy Bing! How you doing, Bing? Decided on a new nom de troll, did you? Word up, Bing. I've answered all those questions copiously already, and if you're too lazy to dig back through the relevant threads and links, you're outa luck. You can do your own homework.

Now I realize you'd like to frame the dialogue to lead back to your own pre-determined conclusions, so go right ahead! Provide your own views, and back it on up with whatever you believe is relevant evidence. If this thread tracks off by time-out, I'll re-bump it to keep it current. As long as you're providing meaningful dialogue.

You see, Bing, if you have something intelligent to say, we'd actually like to hear it.

Posted by: Tully at August 1, 2005 01:21 PM

Even if I was Bing, I fail to see how anything I said, in this post, was outrageous or disrespectful. I might strongly disagree with you, but that is not the same as disrespect. Your style, imo, is very combative, and, in the past, I reciprocated that. Now, I'm beginning to suspect that you really enjoy cutting people down. You are briliant at criticizing and disrespecting people. Good for you! I despise that kind of behavior, but I don't despise you. I think it would be more fair of you to simply kick me off your fine site, then to pretend that you are interested in actually listening to what I might have to add to a discussion. I think you are a fine writer, probably a fine talker, but I don't think you're much of a listener. And what we need more of is good listeners. Folks who don't think they know everything and that everyone around them is stupid. Folks who can just listen for one tiny second, without thinking the whole time about how to get a one-up.

Posted by: DQ at August 1, 2005 02:30 PM

Bing, if by "combative" you mean that you will be judged by the quality and nature of evidence you bring to the discussion in support of your arguments, I agree. Pronouncements of political theology lacking in objective evidence generally get dissected a bit harshly around here, because at a centrist site we get bombarded by those from both ends of the political spectrum offering their articles of faith presented as "fact." We don't buy "faith." Use facts, please.

Your identity as previous poster "Bing" is not in question. You are Bing. If I were actually interested in being a true jerk, or if I thought you were trollish enough to deserve the abuse, we could dissect that in public. I'm not, other than to note you changed "identity" before joining this thread. And I don't despise you, either, but the style of "questioning" you're using, one that demands a complete recap of many thousands of words and many links already available by simply reading back through the discussion and links. It's an attempt to lead discussion down pre-determined paths to recreate a logical structure with a predetermined answer (a form of para-Socratic methodology) rather than actually exploring the fundamentals of the subject from base data. Do your own homework and make your own arguments. The information is already there.

Your attempt at tarring others with the ad hominem you yourself are guilty of falls a wee bit flat. We've seen it all before. Anyone interested in your previous postings can follow the link back to the thread where you appeared as "Bing," and judge for themselves how your prior actions and postings stack up with your rhetoric.

Now, this may come as a big surprise to you, but if you actually have something to say, an argument to make on the specifics of the thread, some insights to offer on the phenomena of terrorism, I'm offering you the floor. Again.

Posted by: Tully at August 1, 2005 02:58 PM

"The claim that terrorisms roots at least in part with western policies are not the providence of the left. There's a growing contingent on the right as well."

Carla,

I'm sort of annoyed that you took my sentence out of context to make your ideological point--which is consistently that poverty is the sole cause of terrorism. I never said that poverty was not a part of the problem. In fact, I specifically said it probably was part of the problem. My point was that the issue is too complicated to be reduced to single variate causation. This is very typical of the way you argue--take people's statements out of context and read only what you want to read into them. Let me make it clear--I think that poverty is a factor but not the only factor in terrorism. Please don't distort what I said.

Posted by: MWS at August 1, 2005 04:47 PM

Tully,

I believe it was the Ayatollah and his followers who coined the phrase The Great Satan. Al Qaida being a sunni group would consider both the US and Ayatollah and the Shias as great Satan. In fact Al Q dont even consider the Shia to be Muslim.

"TA--because they have lousy luck with women? Real marriage means real commitments, and dealing with real women. The martyr fantasy offers the illusion of mastery and control."

Really? Is this just some stereotype about Muslim men in general and Arab men in particular or are you jest being an idiot? What constitutes being lousy with women?

Posted by: Triple A at August 1, 2005 05:17 PM

This one just won't die (and that's okay). You just never know which topic will inspire 50+ comments.

I'm far less convinced than I was before this thread started about the causal role of poverty in terrorism. I think it is a matter of poverty being "co-symptomatic" and something that can be used to the advantage of terrorist organizations, but that those organizations would exist without it regardlessly.

But that's really not the point of this post. The point is that I have read what people have had to write and changed my position. If I were not capable of doing so, the only reason to be here would be to convince everyone else of the rightness of my position (or to cause trouble, waste time, etc. - not valid reasons). So, were I not able to change my mind or convince everyone of the rightness of my position, I would have no valid reason to be here.

What does this mean to any of you? Maybe squiddly diddly, I don't know. I just had to throw it out there.

Posted by: WHQ at August 1, 2005 05:17 PM

My comment was only partially facetious, TA. But I'm dead serious on the disaffected and acculturated young male prefering pleasing fantasies to less simplistic and more difficult realities. If that didn't apply to some degree or another to most males of that age group, PLAYBOY would've folded decades ago. In the case of the "suicide recruits," the "virgin harem in Heaven" motif is a motivational factor that's apparently played a part since the Hashshashin got going.

WHQ, it suggests to me that you paid attention to the evidence. I thought the poverty thesis was a strong one until I started examining the evidence. There are dozens, hundreds, of things that can affect group actions and motivations to one degree or another. Poverty is certainly in the mix. So are weather, technology, culture, geography, religion, etc.

In the case of terrorism, I can't find ANY solid evidence of a prime causal or correlative link between poverty and terrorism. I can find solid research that tries and fails to find such a link. I have to conclude that it's not a prime factor.

Posted by: Tully at August 1, 2005 06:02 PM