[ETWolverine]

I think that experts on this board have been misunderstanding the question that I asked about the nature of terrorism.

I am not trying to figure out whether we did the right thing in invading Iraq to stop the terrorists or should have gone after them elsewhere. That is a fait acompli, and nothing we say or do will change it.

My question is with regards to the NATURE and socio-economic causes of terrorism.

As I mentioned, the conventional wisdom was that terrorism is caused by poverty, lack of education, religious zealotry and politics all acting together to foment a movement toward terrorism. That same conventional wisdom was that terrorism could be stopped by helping the poor out of poverty, educating them to modern standards, changing the political equation to make us an ally instead of an enemy, and changing the message of the religion from hate to tolerance.

However, the recent attempted car bombings in the UK were NOT perfomed by poor people. They were performed by well-educated doctors with upper-middle-class incomes and comfortable lifestyles.

Based on that, it would seem that conventional wisdom regarding terrorists being from poverty-stricken areas and uneducated would seem to be wrong. Thus, it would not have helped matters to try to take these doctors out of poverty and give them a modern education. They already had that, but were still willing to become terrorists. So clearly the conventional wisdom was wrong, at least in this case.

So my questions are as follows:

1) Was this an isolated incident, wherein educated and welathy people became terrorists? Or is conventional wisdom wrong about what causes terrorism in the first place, and it has nothing to do with poverty and education?

2) If conventional wisdom is wrong about poverty and education, does that mean that it is wrong about politics and religion being factors that cause terrorism as well?

3) If conventional wisdom is wrong, then what are the REAL socio-economic factors that cause terrorism?

4) What can we, the American people, do to change those socio-economic factors? Can they even be changed? And if not, what are our options.

That is the crux of my original post. It has nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan per-se. It is a much more global question than which country we invaded to stop terrorism, and whether that made the terrorists angry at us. This is a much more fundamental question about the nature of terrorism and its socio-religio-politico-economic root causes.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

Ok, let's try it this way. This may have been out of the ordinary as to who was actually carrying out this type of attack, but poverty and education is definitely an aspect of the nature of terrorism. I just don't believe the "conventional wisdom" relates HOW poverty and education come into play. I think you hit the reasons in your original post, basically religious zealotry and resentment manifested in an indoctrination of anti-western, anti-Semitic hostility instead of addressing their own failed policies.

What can we, the American people, do to change those socio-economic factors? Can they even be changed? And if not, what are our options.

That my friend, is the question of questions in this day. If we don't win the hearts and minds we can't change a thing, and I don't know how we can win enough hearts and minds to make much of a difference. All the food, shelter, skills and money in the world isn't going to change things as long as their leadership continues to spread blind hatred and blame us and Israel for their every problem. I believe it has to come from within the Islamic community. Wherever these so-called moderate Muslims are they need to stand up and take back their "peaceful religion" instead of paying lip service. Good luck with that.

[Dark_crow]

Frankly, those socio-religio-politico-economic root causes you speak of are not causes with-out a perception of injustice; a perception of injustice that is intolerable because an end is not thought possible.

[tomder55]

Most of the 9-11 attackers were well educated men . I do not consider poverty a cause of terrorism although the terror masters may exploit poverty by convincing someone there will be financial rewards for acts of terrorism.

All you really need to do is take the terror masters at their words to find the causes. Almost all of them are politically motivated by their professed ideologies and to a lesser extent by revenge against a perceived injustice , lust for power, ethnicity, religion or some other unifying bond (of which poverty can be exploited ).

Terrorism is a tactic in asymmetrical warfare . The terror masters have simply declared war on an opponent the most effective way they can;by finding weak points or gaps in enemy thinking and dispositions and taking advantage of these openings before the opponent can rectify them.The objective being to break the will of the opponent to fight without a decisive 1st generation victory on the battlefield.

But the only way will is broken is if the stronger opponent lets it happen and the biggest way to lose the will is to be in a ' think inside the box' mentality where conflicts have defined beginnings ,ends ,and time-lines . America's strategic attention span is short ,and that is one of the weaknesses they exploit .

After a few blows they forgot about being the world leader and the leader of the new world order. They left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

OBL May 28.1998 in comments about our retreat from Mogadishu

Another one being the openness of our society;our freedoms are used against us in the Mordred scenario I once posted about.

"The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win."

Former N.Vietnam Col. Bui Tin

The question that the US has been debating since 9-11 is what price are we willing to pay to win. So far it has not been much . WE did not even seriously put ourselves in a war footing after 9-11 and I don't see the future leadership of either party adequately addressing this . I'll believe that we are taking steps in that direction when we take real serious steps to ween ourselves off foreign crude or protect our borders.

[ETWolverine]

Frankly, those socio-religio-politico-economic root causes you speak of are not causes with-out a perception of injustice; a perception of injustice that is intolerable because an end is not thought possible.

Dark Crow,

First, define "injustice".

Is the fact that some people have less money than others "injustice"? Seems to me that the word "injustice" is a word used by many to justify redistribution of wealth.

Is the fact that some people are more successful than others "injustice"? It seems to me that the word "injustice" is a word used to justify equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity.

"Injustice" is also a word often used to justify moral equivalence and ignore the concepts of "good" and "evil", "right" and "wrong" so as to create an environment in which all choices are equal and equally valid, regardless of whether they conform to historic norms of morality.

Evan Sayet has a terrific speech on this subject that he gave at the Heritage Foundation. It is called "Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals 'Think'". Use this link to view the speech on Youtube, and here is a link to a written version of the speech.

The point is that the difference between your thinking and mine is that you believe that the terrorists have suffered some "injustice" that they use to justify attacks on innocent civilians, and that while their response may be wrong, their cause is worth hearing about. My position is that no matter the cause, no matter the justification, no matter what may have been done to them in the past, present or future, there is no justification whatsoever for deliberately targeting civilians, and those who do so are an evil that must be eradicated from this planet. Your position relies on perceived injustices and moral relativism ("yeah, the terrorists are bad, but look at what they have suffered, so they deserve our understanding"). Mine relies on discrimination between good and evil, and a willingness (responsibility?) to confront that evil and destroy it.

I don't accept the idea that perceived injustices done to the terrorists are something we should try to understand. No matter what, there will always be people who feel that their lives aren't what they should be, and will use that to justify evil acts. We can't change that. But we can confront those who commit the evil acts. I don't believe that these perceived injustices are a real factor in creating terrorism. They are merely the justification that some people use to accept it or justify it.

Furthermore, if we really want to look at injustices, how about the injustices done to the terrorists by their own leaders... the religious oppression, poverty, disease, illiteracy, lack of public utilities, etc. that is caused by their own leadership, a leadership that they continue to tolerate and refuse to overthrow for themselves. WE are not the cause of those "injustices". They are. So in fact, the injustices are merely the excuse, not the real cause of terrorism. If injustice were the real reason for their actions, they would place the blame at the feet of those who really caused it. That they do not do so would seem to indicate that "injustice" is not the real cause of their actions, merely the excuse.

Finally, if you look at what the terrorists goals are, they are not really pushing for "equality". They are pushing for Islamitization of the world. If they were really concerned with the perceived injustices done to them, wouldn't they be demanding equal wealth, equal jobs, equal opportunities, and equality in every other way to those who they perceive as being better off than them? But that is not what they are fighting for. In their own statements they say that their goal is to force Islam onto the rest of the world, not become "equal" to the rest of the world, however they perceive equality. So the stated goals of the terrorists do not bear out your argument of "injustices" causing terrorism.

Elliot

[speechlesstx]

I do not consider poverty a cause of terrorism although the terror masters may exploit poverty

Exploit, that's the word I was looking for :D

[ETWolverine]

Tom,

Does this mean we should forget the whole idea of "winning hearts and minds" and just concentrate on military solutions? Or is there some way to change those commonalities that create the "unifying bond" into something more friendly to us?

Elliot

[tomder55]

Winning the hearts and minds is not attempted to win over the terrorists. Just kill them. The winning hearts and minds is intended to deny the terrorists safe haven or the cover of the civilian population. We should in fact continue and expand our efforts in this regard. It is slowly working in Iraq as Michael Yon has reported .

In Anbar he reports :

For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the “al Ameriki tribe,” or “tribe America.”
I’ve seen this kind of progression in Mosul, out in Anbar and other places, and when I ask our military leaders if they have sensed any shift, many have said, yes, they too sense that Iraqis view us differently. In the context of sectarian and tribal strife, we are the tribe that people can—more or less and with giant caveats—rely on.

Most Iraqis I talk with acknowledge that if it was ever about the oil, it’s not now. Not mostly anyway. It clearly would have been cheaper just to buy the oil or invade somewhere easier that has more. Similarly, most Iraqis seem now to realize that we really don’t want to stay here, and that many of us can’t wait to get back home. They realize that we are not resolved to stay, but are impatient to drive down to Kuwait and sail away. And when they consider the Americans who actually deal with Iraqis every day, the Iraqis can no longer deny that we really do want them to succeed. But we want them to succeed without us. We want to see their streets are clean and safe, their grass is green, and their birds are singing. We want to see that on television. Not in person. We don’t want to be here. We tell them that every day. It finally has settled in that we are telling the truth.

Michael Yon : Online Magazine » Blog Archive » Baqubah Update: 05 July 2007

It works but it takes time.

[Dark_crow]

Dark Crow,

First, define "injustice".

Is the fact that some people have less money than others "injustice"? Seems to me that the word "injustice" is a word used by many to justify redistribution of wealth.

Is the fact that some people are more successful than others "injustice"? It seems to me that the word "injustice" is a word used to justify equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity.

"Injustice" is also a word often used to justify moral equivalence and ignore the concepts of "good" and "evil", "right" and "wrong" so as to create an environment in which all choices are equal and equally valid, regardless of whether they conform to historic norms of morality.

Evan Sayet has a terrific speech on this subject that he gave at the Heritage Foundation. It is called "Regurgitating the Apple: How Modern Liberals 'Think'". Use this link to view the speech on Youtube, and here is a link to a written version of the speech.

The point is that the difference between your thinking and mine is that you believe that the terrorists have suffered some "injustice" that they use to justify attacks on innocent civilians, and that while their response may be wrong, their cause is worth hearing about. My position is that no matter the cause, no matter the justification, no matter what may have been done to them in the past, present or future, there is no justification whatsoever for deliberately targeting civilians, and those who do so are an evil that must be eradicated from this planet. Your position relies on perceived injustices and moral relativism ("yeah, the terrorists are bad, but look at what they have suffered, so they deserve our understanding"). Mine relies on discrimination between good and evil, and a willingness (responsibility?) to confront that evil and destroy it.

I don't accept the idea that perceived injustices done to the terrorists are something we should try to understand. No matter what, there will always be people who feel that their lives aren't what they should be, and will use that to justify evil acts. We can't change that. But we can confront those who commit the evil acts. I don't believe that these perceived injustices are a real factor in creating terrorism. They are merely the justification that some people use to accept it or justify it.

Furthermore, if we really want to look at injustices, how about the injustices done to the terrorists by their own leaders... the religious oppression, poverty, disease, illiteracy, lack of public utilities, etc. that is caused by their own leadership, a leadership that they continue to tolerate and refuse to overthrow for themselves. WE are not the cause of those "injustices". They are. So in fact, the injustices are merely the excuse, not the real cause of terrorism. If injustice were the real reason for their actions, they would place the blame at the feet of those who really caused it. That they do not do so would seem to indicate that "injustice" is not the real cause of their actions, merely the excuse.

Finally, if you look at what the terrorists goals are, they are not really pushing for "equality". They are pushing for Islamitization of the world. If they were really concerned with the perceived injustices done to them, wouldn't they be demanding equal wealth, equal jobs, equal opportunities, and equality in every other way to those who they perceive as being better off than them? But that is not what they are fighting for. In their own statements they say that their goal is to force Islam onto the rest of the world, not become "equal" to the rest of the world, however they perceive equality. So the stated goals of the terrorists do not bear out your argument of "injustices" causing terrorism.

Elliot

For the definition of injustice to make sense it must be used in a context- you set the context, ‘…the nature of [Political] terrorism’; and socio-economic as the perceived causes of that terrorism. So please confine the discussion to that subject and do not go skipping through the bramble bush of ever changing context, it only muddles clear thought; that is what Politicos’ seem to do best.
You are right to point to Economics as a cause; but you are wrong on the point of economic justice, for history is riddled with examples of wars and revolutions as a result of perceived injustice in the course of Trade, especially government intervention in Trade. I sincerely hope you do not need examples.

The final test of every government is the res publica, the public affairs, or the public good. The injustice of aristocratic government has been unending and given the nature of man will probably continue forever; this is what makes so-called Political Terrorist. All Religions, by their very nature are peaceful so you can forget religion as a root cause for terrorism.

No, one difference between you and I is that while I revolt against injustice and tyranny I do not believing in returning injustice and tyranny as a means of stopping it.

[Dr D]

One of the questions posed by ET Wolverine was, why are so many of the Islamic terrorists educated people who are not poor. I believe that most of them are educated in the sciences: medicine and engineering. They have been trained to accept laws of physics, chemistry, and biology in their professions. Couple that mindset with religious zealotry, and you have someone who literally accepts everything in the Koran as an instruction manual.

One can take passages from the Bible and use them as justification for all kinds of unspeakable behavior. Most mainstream religions have undergone Reformations over the last few centuries enabling them to become more tollerant of non believers. Islam will have to experience the same, and discard the tenet that commands true believers to convert or kill all infidels in the qwest for a Muslim world. If this does not happen, all I can forsee is ever increasing carnage.

[excon]

The point is that the difference between your thinking and mine is that you believe that the terrorists have suffered some "injustice"

Hello again, El:

There it is!! That's the crux!! And, you're wrong, of course! It does point out a fundamental misunderstanding by your side, of those who oppose you.

I don't believe they've suffered an injustice. I don't think you've even heard that argument here. DC doesn't seem to be an apologist for them. You certainly don't think I am (or maybe you do).

The fact of the matter is, THEY believe they've suffered an injustice.

Because you don't believe they have, you ignore them. Worse than that, you call them liars… Even though I too don't believe they have, I would have been talking to them. Maybe I could have averted some nasty stuff.

The right wing has made the mistake of thinking that only wimps and bleeding hearts talk.

excon

[Dark_crow]

One of the questions posed by ET Wolverine was, why are so many of the Islamic terrorists educated people who are not poor. I believe that most of them are educated in the sciences: medicine and engineering. They have been trained to accept laws of physics, chemistry, and biology in their professions. Couple that mindset with religeous zealotry, and you have someone who literally accepts everything in the Koran as an instruction manual.

One can take passages from the Bible and use them as justification for all kinds of unspeakable behavior. Most mainstream religions have undergone Reformations over the last few centuries enabling them to become more tollerant of non believers. Islam will have to experience the same, and discard the tenet that commands true believers to convert or kill all infidels in the qwest for a Muslim world. If this does not happen, all I can forsee is ever increasing carnage.

All religions are in their nature united with principles of morality. Who would be attracted to a religion that advocated vicious, cruel, or immorality as a creed?
However when a church is established by Law it becomes a stranger to its parents.
The Inquisition in Spain was not a child of its parent; it became an aberration between the church and the state.
Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law.
Therefore, it is not true religion, but this aberration we see in countries where there is a marriage between church and state.

This is why it is wrong to point a finger at religion as a cause of terrorism.

[speechlesstx]

Winning the hearts and minds is not attempted to win over the terrorists. Just kill them.

Speaking of killing terrorists, the UK's Times Online described the "gruesome, blood-splattered remains of Islamabad's Red Mosque" in Islamabad where Abdul Rashid Ghazi and other fellow terrorists were killed. "On the wall of one of the basement rooms, someone had written the Urdu message in chalk: 'Oh God. Give us a martyr's death.'"

It looks like their prayer was answered.

[tomder55]

DC while I generally agree with your position about religions are born of peaceful intention ,I think a caveat should be stated that the founder of Islam was a warrior by nature himself.

[Dark_crow]

DC while I generally agree with your position about religions are born of peaceful intention ,I think a caveat should be stated that the founder of Islam was a warrior by nature himself.

That’s arguable in view of the fact that Abraham is the father of the Jewish people. Abraham is also important to followers of Christianity and of Islam. Islam and Christianity is by extension founded on the Book of Genesis (the first book of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles) in chapters 12-25.
While it is true that that Mohammad was a warrior, all had their warriors which served Divine Providence.

[speechlesstx]

Because you don't believe they have, you ignore them. Worse than that, you call them liars… Even though I too don't believe they have, I would have been talking to them. Maybe I could have averted some nasty stuff.

The right wing has made the mistake of thinking that only wimps and bleeding hearts talk.

Wow ex, how did we get along without you setting us straight?

I have to disagree though (surprise!). Talking is great, talking is necessary, but what good is all that talk if one side - the Islamists - plan on killing you no matter what you say? Really, how wise is it to negotiate with Islamic terrorists? I've said we need to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, but that isn't going to happen when the message that is pounded day after day is America is the great Satan responsible for all your ills... and that's just from the Democrats, moonbats and media in this country. Imagine what they get at home.

[ETWolverine]

All religions are in their nature united with principles of morality. Who would be attracted to a religion that advocated vicious, cruel, or immorality as a creed?
However when a church is established by Law it becomes a stranger to its parents.
The Inquisition in Spain was not a child of its parent; it became an aberration between the church and the state.
Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all law-religions, or religions established by law.
Therefore, it is not true religion, but this aberration we see in countries where there is a marriage between church and state.

This is why it is wrong to point a finger at religion as a cause of terrorism.

I disagree with your analysis of history. I believe that the Inquisitions were not aberrations of Christianity, I believe that they were the norm for that period of that religion's development. Christianity persecuted its own sects almost as much as it persecuted other religious groups. And that was simply the nature of that religion at that time. It wasn't an aberration.

But over the centuries, the child that was Christianity grew up and matured into a relatively peaceful adult. There are indeed some aberrations that take place today, but the fact that those aberrations are not supported by the clergy or the lay leadership of the Church is what proves them to be aberrations.

Islam is now in the same place, in terms of maturity, that Christianity was 1000 years ago. It is persecuting all other religious groups because it is an immature religion that needs to "prove" ---to itself, as much to everyone else--- that it is a force to be reckonned with. The problem is that Islam has not matured as a religion the way Christianity has, and shows no wish to do so. This isn't aberrant behavior by cetain Muslims. There is too much support for terrorism by the religious and lay leadership within the Muslim community for this to be an aberration. This is what Islam is in this time and place. It will be centuries before they are able to mature into something better as a religion. That's not to say that individual Muslims aren't peaceful. I think that as individuals, most Muslims probably are peaceful. But as a religion, they are stuck in the 11th century with the persecutorial tendencies that were common to that period.

There's a lime from Men In Black that I absolutely love that fits this topic.

Jay: "People are smart."

Kay: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. "

That's how I see the Islamic religion today... as individuals, they are good people, and 99.99% of them are peaceful people who just want to get on with their lives as best they can, just like everyone else. But as a group, they are stuck in a cycle of destruction, persecution and death. That cycle will change eventually as Islam matures. But until then, they are a bunch of dumb, panicky dangerous animals. That is simply the way things are for them right now.

The question is whether it is in our power to help them break that cycle and grow up, or do we just have to let them be children and give them a good spanking every time they break the rules until they learn the lesson.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

Wow ex, how did we get along without you setting us straight?

I have to disagree though (surprise!). Talking is great, talking is necessary, but what good is all that talk if one side - the Islamists - plan on killing you no matter what you say? Really, how wise is it to negotiate with Islamic terrorists? I've said we need to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, but that isn't going to happen when the message that is pounded day after day is America is the great Satan responsible for all your ills ... and that's just from the Democrats, moonbats and media in this country. Imagine what they get at home.

Of course there should be talks with the so-called Political Terrorist committing acts of violence against the western people. It is not the Terrorist who should be punished but their governors.

The Terrorist themselves are victims of the unconscionable greed of those governments. That is why I supported the ousting of Saddam, but not the occupation that followed.

We need to be talking to the people about human rights, not rights granted by government but the inherent rights of all peoples. We need to be talking to them about being cheated and plundered by government.

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

There it is!!! That's the crux!!! And, you're wrong, of course! It does point out a fundamental misunderstanding by your side, of those who oppose you.

I don't believe they've suffered an injustice. I don't think you've even heard that argument here. DC doesn't seem to be an apologist for them. You certainly don't think I am (or maybe you do).

The fact of the matter is, THEY believe they've suffered an injustice.

Because you don't believe they have, you ignore them. Worse than that, you call them liars… Even though I too don't believe they have, I would have been talking to them. Maybe I could have averted some nasty stuff.

The right wing has made the mistake of thinking that only wimps and bleeding hearts talk.

excon

No, excon. You again misunderstand me. It's not that I am ignoring them or calling them liars. I don't think it matters whether YOU believe they have suffered an injustice or not, or whether I do, or even whether THEY do. It simply doesn't matter. There is NOTHING ON THIS EARTH that justifies deliberately attacking civilians. Period. End of story. The fact that they happen to use that excuse to justify their actions doesn't mean that we have to listen to it. EVEN IF THEY HAPPEN TO BE RIGHT AND THEY HAVE SUFFERED INJUSTICES. It still doesn't justify what they are doing. And the moment they do it, any injustices that they may feel they have suffered no longer are part of the equation. They lost the right to claim "injustice" the moment they planted that bomb or shot that family or blew up that car.

And aren't you the one who said that OBL was "our guy" way back when? If that is true (and I actually believe that the myth of OBL having once been a CIA operative has been thoroughly debunked) then he had a chance to air his grievances in a way that is more peaceful. He chose not to. Furthermore, being one of the richest men in Saudi Arabia, he could have quite easily gotten the attention of US leaders by simply throwing some cash around... this is America: cash talks, bull$h!t walks. He chose to become a master terrorist instead. Which leads me to believe that the "grievances" are just an excuse, and they never had any intention of talking. Which means that your proposed solution is nothing of the sort.

One more point, Excon. The world has been trying to talk to Ahmadinejad for the better part of 3 years now in order to try to get him to stop his nuclear weapons plans. It doesn't seem to be doing a damn bit of good to talk to him. And exactly what injustices is Ahmadinejad suffering from?

Don't you get it, Excon. The entire concept of "injustices" as a rationale for terrorism is a canard. And the moment the terrorist commits an act of terrorism, they lose the moral high ground to claim "injustice"... even if they are 100% right in their claim.

Elliot

[inthebox]

ET: are you referring to religion in the HUMAN way: prone to misinterpret, politicize, and use it to gain power over others? If so, I agree with your assessment.

DC: are you referring to the IDEALS of religion [Judeo-Christian, I don't know much about Islam], such as love, justice, control, hardwork etc.. If so, I agree with you also.

As to the opening question, in the simplest most generalized way, I think it comes down to---ideaology.



Grace and Peace