[ETWolverine]

In January 2006, I answered a question on another Q&A board about the nature and causes of terrorism. Here is the original Q&A:

Dear ETWolverine:

In your expert profile, I read this description of your expertise under "Terrorism":

"I have also lived in the Middle East and have a strong understanding of the politics and history of the region, and the forces that create terrorism."

Please tell me about "the forces that create terrorism." Please give me a detailed answer -- I am not looking for the short answer on this. Thanks and God bless.

C.L.


Answered By Answered On
ETWolverine 01/03/06
Hello CL,

The forces that create terrorism in the Middle East (and to a certain degree other forms of terrorism as well), are threefold: Religious, political and economic. And all three play on each other.

Religious: Islam teaches that only Islam is the one true religion, and that eventually the entire world will be Islamic. Certain factions within Islam (what we call the "fundamentalists") believe that this means that they must take it upon themselves to MAKE the entire world into a Muslim world, by any means necessary. This includes by force of arms. Furthermore, these factions teach that there is no such thing as religious freedom, and that any society that offers religious freedom is blasphemous and must be destroyed, either for punishment or to keep them from creating further "damage". Thus the picture of America, which offers such freedom, as "The Great Satan".

Political: the USA has been for the past 60 years, one of the two major world political players. We are, therefore, seen as the force that dictates policy to other nations through a combination of political pressure, economic power and military force. We are seen this way both in cases that are justified as well as in cases where it is NOT justified. (Most of the time it is not justified.) Furthermore, we are the political ally of Israel, which is the focus of the majority of religious hatred of Islam, and thus we are complicit of Israel's crime of existing.

Economic: there are a number of economic factors to look at.

1)The Muslim LEADERSHIP (which, coincidentally, lives much better than the rank-and-file Muslims, but has no problem pointing out how Americans are rich and thus the cause of everyone else's poverty) sees that the USA is the premier power in the world, economically, militarily and politically. They see our relative economic success, our religious and political freedoms, and they see that our system WORKS. This flies in the face of their religious beliefs that say that anything that is not strictly Islamic is by nature doomed to failure. In other words, the successes of Western Democracies are the proof that their religion (or at least their interpretation of Islam) is wrong. This cannot be allowed to continue. Our very economic success makes us dangerous to their brand of Islam by providing an example of something else, something that works. And thus, they must destroy us.

2) The majority of people living in Middle-Eastern Muslim areas are living in hovels and are at or below the poverty line. THey are disaffected, hateful of anyone who has more than they do, and distrustful of authority. Add the religious zealotry, and you have created a petrie dish in which terrorists are grown. Many are willing to lay down their lives to show how much they hate those better off than they are, and they are indoctrinated into such religious beliefs from very young ages. They are then pointed toward America and other western countries and told "Those people are the cause of your terrible lot in life, they are the reason that Islam is not the dominant religion on Earth, and they are the ones keeping you poor."

Put together a leadership that teaches that the USA must be destroyed and is the cause of their people's economic strife together with a group of disaffected youths with a religious fervor, and give them bombs and small arms, and you have created the environment in which terrorists grow.

As I said before, the three factors play on each other. The economics and the politics create the target and the environment for terrorism. The religious factors create a zealotry necessary for the terrorists to exist, and a willingness to die and/or kill for the cause.

However, in the wake of the attempted UK car bombings, I am forced to review this answer. Clearly the doctors in charge of the plot were not economically challeneged... they were upper-middle to upper class members of UK society. So I must question my opinions of the socio-economic factors that are the cause of terrorism.

This goes against the "conventional wisdom" (which is just another way of saying "lots of people being wrong with authority") that the reason that the terrorists want to attack us is because they are poor and suffering because of our policies towards them.

So if the conventional wisdom is wrong, and economics isn't a factor, what does that leave? Religion and politics. These doctors attempted their car bombings because of either their political leanings or their religious zealotry or both. Economics... being poor... was clearly not a factor for them.

So what does that say government officials who refuse to call terrorism a religious issue, and instead try to fix the economic plight of the terrorists in an attempt at appeasement? What does it say about the MSM that refuses to use the word "terrorist" in the same sentence as the word "Islam", and who refuse to link terrorism with a specific religious belief? And what does it say about American society that is trying so hard to keep from being biased towards the Islamic religion that it ignores the link between radical Islam and terrorism.

Was I wrong in my original assessment? Is economics truly not a factor in terrorism? Or was this an isolated incident... the exception that proves the rule as it were? And if my original assessment was wrong, then what are the factors that cause terrorism? And more importantly, how do we change those factors to stop terrorism from growing? Throwing money at potential terrorists and giving them good jobs and financial assistance clearly won't stop the terrorism "petrie dish". Also, it is quite clear that invasion of Iraq wasn't the cause of terrorism, since we have been attacked numerous times by terrorism well before we invaded Iraq. So changing ou political practices and policies won't stop the petrie dish either. So what will change things? Aside from purely military solutions, what can we do to change the attitudes of the terrorists and potential terrorists of the future toward the Western World?

I'd like your opinions. I THOUGHT I knew the answer to this question, but based on recent events, I am forced to question my conclusions.

Elliot

[excon]

I THOUGHT I knew the answer to this question, but based on recent events, I am forced to question my conclusions.

Hello El:

I'm glad you asked. I'll set you straight as usual...

I don't think it's as complicated as you make it out to be. Frankly, "terrorism" has been around as long as we have. It's an ethereal phrase. It's one of those phrases that you can't quite put your finger on. I don't quite know what it means - kind of like I don't know what "winning" in Iraq means.

So, I've expanded the conventional view of what a terrorist is. A bank robber is a terrorist. The Irgun were terrorists. WE were terrorists. Moses was a terrorist.

And, every one of those has different reasons for being terrorists. I think listing the reasons is futile. There are as many reasons for terrorism as there are people engaged in it.

I don't know how to deal with it. I think it's irresponsible to try to pigeon hole the reasons, and then proceed as though you understand them. An example of that is Bush saying the reasons the terrorists attacked us is because they don't like freedom.

I don't think that's the reason. But, I know the present band of terrorists are sure pissed off at us. So, I think we need to find out why, and address it, instead of pretending like we know, like Bush does. You do that by diplomacy. That's not Bush's strong suit... He doesn't have a strong suit.

excon

[tomder55]

But, I know the present band of terrorists are sure pissed off at us. So, I think we need to find out why, and address it, instead of pretending like we know, like Bush does. You do that by diplomacy.

US : OK why do you hate us ?

Terrorist : because we want to set up a global califate and you are in the way .

US : how can we get you to stop hating us

Terrorist : Submit to Allah or become a Dhimmi .

Negotiations ended .

[excon]

Terrorist : because we want to set up a global califate and you are in the way .

Hello again, tom:

Certainly, had we taken up negotiations recently, that's what we would have heard. But the conclusions derived from that kind of shortsightedness got us where we are today.

I'm talking about an expanded view of history. I actually want to look a little farther back than you or Bush does. The pres doesn't know history. I understand that - but YOU do.

Indeed, we've supported some pretty bad guys over there who really screw over their populace. We're still doing that today. That pisses people off - AT US. To pretend it doesn't belies the truth.. To say that they hate us just because they do, ISN'T true.

As long as we roll along on this course, it's going to get worse. And, it IS getting worse as we speak.

excon

[tomder55]

I see I've convinced you then to abandon the realist camp ;those who propped up tyrants because they were better alternatives to the will of the people . But in fact ,we were attacked by OBL because we were in the middle east keeping the tyrant in Iraq in check .

[ETWolverine]

excon,

All right, so you believe that my original reasoning for the existence of terrorism is too simplistic (despite it being the "conventional wisdom" of most "experts" in the field of anti-terrorism). Fine. Economics, politics and religion are the root causes of Islamic terrorism.

So what are the root causes of Islamic terrorism? You have stated that I don't have the answer. So what is the answer?

I am still of the belief that the terrorists want to kill us for primarily religious reasons. I believe that the terrorists' supporters egg the terrorists on because of both religious and political reasons. And I believe poverty causes some people to believe that they have no way out of their situation except to attack their perceived enemies suicidally. But you say that those aren't the causes.

So what are the causes? Are they anything we can affect? Is there a way to change those factors? Is it feasible to do so? And if not, should we abandon the idea of ever trying to make peace with the terrorist factions and just concentrate on military solutions?

Are there any answers to the questions of cause and effect in terrorism, or should we just stick to killing them whenever they pop up and finding them wherever they hide?

You have managed to tell me that I don't have the answers and neither does Bush. Do you?

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Perhaps the difficulty here is the fact that I am using the word "terrorist" which is difficult to define, as excon points out. By many definitions, Moses was a terrorist. So I will ask the question differently.

What makes a Middle Eastern man between the ages of 18 and 35 decide to strap on a bomb to kill innocent civillians? Is it politics, religion, economics, a combination of the three, or something else entirely that I am missing?

Elliot

[excon]

You have managed to tell me that I don't have the answers and neither does Bush. Do you?

Hello again, El:

Of course.

Yes, we should have done things different over the years. But, that was then – and this is now. I support the war against those who attacked us. Iraq didn't. Going there was a mistake. I've said so from the beginning. It's a lost cause. We need to withdraw. Will it be a disaster? It IS a disaster. When we withdraw, we need to reassess. We're losing. I don't know how to win a war that is already lost.

But I know how to win a war even if you lose a battle. This war is now being played out all over the world. Iraq is just a battle in the bigger war.

The next time we go in, we should go in to win. We didn't, and we're losing. Duh!

But an equal part of going in to win, is talking to them. I'm going to repeat what Ariel Sharon said. "Talk to them like you're not fighting them. Fight them like you're not talking to them". We forgot the first half. I wouldn't from now on.

excon

[CaptainRich]

I see I've convinced you then to abandon the realist camp ;those who propped up tyrants because they were better alternatives to the will of the people . But in fact ,we were attacked by OBL because we were in the middle east keeping the tyrant in Iraq in check .

Absolutely!

Opinions expressed are mine, and only mine. I speak for myself, only.

We don't care about a civil war in Iraq. We care about who's in control of the oil that's over there. If we were less dependent on oil to power our country, this would be over in weeks. That isn't going to happen. Still, I'd rather this controversy being dealt with Tikrit instead of Tallahassee.
OBL attacks us because, I believe, he doesn't want us getting between him (and his radicals) and all that oil. That, and he's jealous. We are a world power and he got kicked out of his own country, by his own family! I also believe they see us as globally repressive. Their kind doesn't want us meddling in South America oil interests for the same reason: If they got control the oil, they can, conceivably, control us or others economically. We just can't allow that to happen. We can put up a better fight than many smaller, less affluent countries.
Let's look at a scenario: I'm standing in my living room, looking out the front window. I see the neighbors house across the street. On the front porch is The Man of the Family, the head of the house, and he's screaming insults at his wife and beating her. Every body sees this going on but says to themselves, "It's not my fight. I'm staying out of it."
But he continues to beat his wife and eventually kills her. Someone called the police but they seem useless and don't do anything. So nobody else does anything. They just look away. But he's still mad. She's not there to take a beating any more, so he starts on whoever is nearby. Finally, I'm tired of this and I don't want him on my porch. I surely don't want him in my house. So I go across the street and confront him there.

Not too tough to figure out.

So, now we can sit here, in our respectively obscure tranquility, and grump about some entity that's keeping our dumb a$$es clean, dry and happy.

Can we get an American Flag icon?

[tomder55]

Whooooo yeah!!

[tomder55]

excon agrees: Like I said - he was once OUR tyrant.

Yes and OBL was our mujahadin... that is the nature of alliances ;they come and go as they serve an interest. England ,Germany and Japan were once our mortal enemies and now we are forever tied together (for now) .

I'm talking about an expanded view of history.

How far back in history should I go ? To the beginning of our republic perhaps when Jefferson had to fight a war with Muslim terrorists (they were called pirates in those days ) . I think probably to an earlier time when the Prophet picked up his sword to spead his religion throughout the non-Muslim Arabian peninsula.

Negotiations have always been based on the priniciples of hudna ;a tactic Muhammad used when he made a ten-year treaty with the Kuraysh tribe. After two years of the ten-year treaty, Muhammad concluded that the Kuraysh were too weak to resist.He broke the treaty and took overof Mecca without opposition.
.

[speechlesstx]

So what does that say government officials who refuse to call terrorism a religious issue, and instead try to fix the economic plight of the terrorists in an attempt at appeasement? What does it say about the MSM that refuses to use the word "terrorist" in the same sentence as the word "Islam", and who refuse to link terrorism with a specific religious belief?

To me it says they're idealistic fools, with a certain element among them that understands the problem but puts their agenda and lust for power above doing what they know is right.

And what does it say about American society that is trying so hard to keep from being biased towards the Islamic religion that it ignores the link between radical Islam and terrorism.

I think it says those idealistic fools are winning the culture war, and I believe that's a sad commentary on American society. That so many have been so misled that they could possibly be that naïve is pathetic.

I don't believe the case of these doctors is the exception, I mean how much was OBL worth? In the case of Islamic terrorism, someone is pulling the strings and someone is financing the poor saps that get to wear the suicide vests. That's not to say economics isn't a factor because clearly it is, but again, I believe the bulk of that is driven by an ideology - the Religion of Perpetual Anger - the one that wishes to establish that caliphate tom mentioned. If anyone doubts that, spend a few hours here, they mean what they say.

I don't believe you were wrong the first time. The bulk of terrorism today is bound in an intolerant religious ideology determined to gain worldwide supremacy at all cost, at the expense of the lives, welfare and security of even their own people - and you cannot separate their political and religious philosophies.

[speechlesstx]

I agree. But what about the economic atmosphere? Was I wrong about that?

Nope, it is largely that "religious zealotry" you mentioned that drives the economic aspect of it. Those affected just can't seem to figure out the right place to direct their anger over it - they just take it out on who they're told to.

[CaptainRich]

whooooo yeah !!!

I love it!