Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Hmmm. . .

I am relatively "left" compared to many who visit here yet I have NEVER believed that "poverty causes terrorism" at least the Islamic al Qaeda nut-job variety. Poverty probably has caused terrorism in other historical circumstances but is irrelevant to bin Laden and his ilk.

What I do believe is that bin Laden and his ilk are nurtured by radical clerics who are protected by the governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and until we close those schools, we can be as persistent as we can, in Iraq, and it will all be beside the point.

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2005 09:35 PM

HA! The word "on-line" is deemed questionable content thus a naked link.

The British have an official assessment of the threat they are facing. Read the pdfs linked in the article, which are asserted to be from the official report prepared for Tony Blair.

Link (remove the - from timeson-line):

http://www.timeson-line.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1688261,00.html

= = =

Or visit Andrew Sullivan. His link to this same article works.

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2005 10:20 PM

So many confusions so little time:

a) if that is an assumption by the 'left' so what? It may be true, it may be false, it may be correlated. Either way, it doesn't matter what the 'left' think- it only matters to what extent it is true, because if correlated that offers a potential way to improve or solve the problem? Right? It would be nice to think that America could actual solve problems by improving economic conditions in foreign countries, rather than by blowing people up. But being American, encouraging everyone to hate you is much easier and more natural to you, so it would never occur to you.

b) you're confusing the terrorists with the support for the terrorists. The support may or may not be fanned by poverty. The actual terrorists that cause the actual atrocities are likely to be handpicked, and as such don't necessarily represent the constitutency that they are fighting for. Indeed they may be deliberately chosen to not represent them.

So, basically as normal, you're just playing your typical politically over-polarised stupid games here Rand.

Posted by Ian Woollard at July 11, 2005 06:37 AM

It would be nice to think that America could actual solve problems by improving economic conditions in foreign countries, rather than by blowing people up. But being American, encouraging everyone to hate you is much easier and more natural to you, so it would never occur to you.

Thanks for the ignorant comments, Ian.

Being American, actually, we are both improving economic conditions in foreign countries, and "blowing up" the people who are trying to kill us (and you), while minimizing collateral casualties to a degree unprecedented in the history of war.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 11, 2005 06:59 AM

If poverty caused terrorism, then we'd have continents full of terrorists.

Bin Laden was, and is, very wealthy. No poverty there.

The dangerous thing about fixating on the causes of terror is that it displaces responsibility for terror from terrorists to their victims.

Posted by billg at July 11, 2005 07:37 AM

The dangerous thing about fixating on the causes of terror is that it displaces responsibility for terror from terrorists to their victims.

Gosh, and just who might want to do that...?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 11, 2005 07:40 AM

Ian Woollard:

Except that much of the time, the terrorist "ethic" is rooted in almost anything but poverty.

I think it's safe to say that Baader-Meinhof, the Italian Red Brigades, and the Japanese Red Army Faction were all terrorist organizations. Were they motivated by crippling poverty in Germany? Were they a reaction to the disparity in wealth in Japan?

Or were the members, all from their respective middle classes, already predisposed to hate the West that they lived in, long before they mounted their campaigns against their respective governments and various outsiders (especially Jews and Americans)?

And, among so many other terrorist organizations, e.g., the Tupamaros, the Shining Path, what did they have to offer, other than death, either quick by terrorist shootings and bombs, or slow through Leftist economic mismanagement (in the case of Shining Path, Maoism of the Great Leap Forward variety)?

Posted by Lurking Observer at July 11, 2005 09:20 AM

I didn't actually claim causation, I didn't even claim correlation; I merely pointed out that Rand was assuming none, merely because the 'left' assumed that there was one. As in a religious belief, rather than science.

It seems to me that communism itself was rooted in relative poverty, and quite a few terrorist organisation were quite left wing. ( Personally I prefer ideas like 'share options' which tend to tackle two birds with one stone, rather than communism :-) ).

I also suspect a lot of terrorism in Israel/Palestine is quite closely related to oppression as well as, to some extent, deliberately imposed poverty. And that is intimately related with the support for terrorism, both 9/11 as well as 7/7. But I'm quite willing for good research to prove me wrong. I don't get that impression from Rand.

Posted by Ian Woollard at July 11, 2005 11:11 AM

I merely pointed out that Rand was assuming none, merely because the 'left' assumed that there was one.

That's kind of a stupid strawman. I've never claimed that I assume none simply because the left assumes that there is. I don't, in fact, "assume" none. I conclude none, based on the evidence, which many on the left (and you) ignore.

I also suspect a lot of terrorism in Israel/Palestine is quite closely related to oppression as well as, to some extent, deliberately imposed poverty.

If it is, it's poverty imposed by the UN and the other Arab nations, who keep them in poverty in the camps instead of taking them in, to create pawns in their war against the Zionist entity. But it's pretty clear to anyone paying attention that Palestinian terrorism is a result of brainwashing in the camps and schools from an early age to hate Jews in general and Israelis in particular, and the glory of dying for Allah.

As someone else noted, if poverty caused terrorism, much of the third world would be awash in it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 11, 2005 11:24 AM

Ian:

Now you've moved the goal-posts.

Your comment was predicated on two parts:

1. You accuse Rand of believing X, simply because the Left believes "not-X." While that may be true, it is far more likely to be the case that Rand believes X because X is, in fact, the case.

In this case, the argument is whether terrorists are the results of poverty or not. As anyone w/ a passing familiarity w/ history would know, that is simply not the case.

What that says about the Left's knowledge of history, I leave up to the reader.

2. You try to make a distinction between "terrorists" and "supporters of terrorists." But the history of terrorist organizations, especially in Western Europe but also elsewhere, is that many terrorists are neither themselves the products of poverty, nor even from poverty-stricken nations.

Again, I ask, what were the roots of Baader-Meinhof or Action Directe?

To then drag in the Palestinian issue is a further shifting of the very topic.

Are you suggesting that the Palestinians engage in their attacks out of poverty? Then how much terrorism occurred in the pre-1967 period, when Egypt and Jordan administered the West Bank and Gaza? Now that Gaza is being returned to the Palestinians, why have the various leaders announced that they will continue their terrorism?

Conversely, how many of the German refugees post-WWII, displaced from Czechoslovakia and Poland, engaged in terrorism? How many from the Chinese or Vietnamese or Cambodian diaspora? Surely their situation was no less financially challenged (in post-war situations, no less!) than that of the Palestinians?

Posted by Lurking Observer at July 11, 2005 11:36 AM

Some on the Left may say "poverty causes terrorism" however I assert such people are a fringe minority of the so-called Left.

On the other hand, some on "the Right" assert 11 September happened as divine retribution for America de-criminalizing homosexual behavior.

Posted by Bill White at July 11, 2005 11:48 AM

You can assert all you want, Bill. I think that there are far more of the former than the latter, and they're not a "fringe."

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 11, 2005 11:52 AM

Rand:

That's where you're wrong.

Some of the folks who have linked terrorism and poverty in just those words are:

James Wolfensohn, head of the World Bank
Jacques Chirac

http://on-line.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110911119848561282,00.html?mod=opinion

UK Chancellor of the Exchequer (#2 man in the UK gov't), and likely Blair successor Gordon Brown thinks this, too:

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/analysis/2004/1101breed.htm

I mean, who are these dweebs? Whereas Jerry Falwell, now that's authority, that's power, that's typical of your average leadership!

I'm surprised I have to point this out to you.

Posted by Lurking Observer at July 11, 2005 12:04 PM

Are these guys Left or Right?

There is ample evidence, however, that the poverty caused by a lack of economic freedom fuels the resentment, desperation, and hopelessness that terrorist organizations utilize to recruit new members and muster support for their activities. A key component of any long-term solution to terrorism, therefore, must be eliminating the circumstances under which people are susceptible to the enticement of terrorists by promoting economic freedom around the world.

Posted by Bill White at July 11, 2005 12:50 PM

Yeah, remember all that terrorism in the US during the Depression?

Posted by Toren at July 11, 2005 01:02 PM

I don't know if they're left or right, but I do think they're wrong. Terrorism isn't bred by hopelessness--it's bred by hopefulness--the hope that they can bend us to their will if they kill enough of us.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 11, 2005 01:03 PM

Rand, I actually agree with your last post.

Terror however is also intended to manipulate or "play" the victim, to induce emotionally driven responses that are not prudent when examined objectively. bin Laden also needed to motivate the Islamic base because pre-9/11 most Muslims weren't buying into the al Qaeda agenda. Goading us into flattening Fallajuh helps bin Laden recruit aimless alienated but financially secure British Muslim teens as the leaked British study reveals.

Like that American moron from Marin County who "found himself" by working with al Qaeda. Idiot!

= = =

On the original point, since the Heritage Foundation is hardly the refuge of liberals the "poverty causes terrorism" meme cannot be pinned only on the so-called Left.

However, either way, you are correct that poverty has NOTHING to do with the origins of al Qaeda.

See, we agree again. ;-)

Posted by Bill White at July 11, 2005 01:19 PM

Goading us into flattening Fallajuh...

We didn't "flatten" Fallujah. I'm always amused at war opponents' misleading hyperbole. We "blew up" Afghanistan. We "flattened" Fallujah. Give me a break.

We liberated Fallujah from Al Qaeda, and the remaining residents are glad we did, because they were being terrorized until we did so.

...the "poverty causes terrorism" meme cannot be pinned only on the so-called Left.

I didn't pin it "only" on the left, but that's mostly where you hear it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 11, 2005 01:24 PM

It would be instructive, for those who claim we "flattened" Fallujah, to compare how Fallujah looks after two battles w/ Caen, which was taken in the first week or so after Normandy.

To suggest that we flattened Fallujah suggests either a lack of understanding of what "flattened" really looks like, or a desire to extend hyperbole where it is inappropriate.

But then, these are often the same folks who caw raucously about the "massacre" in Jenin, so what the heck....

Posted by Lurking Observer at July 11, 2005 01:35 PM

Frankly, I suspect the "cause" of terrorism, if one exists, lies within the minds and emotions of those few individuals who turn to terror.

These people, I think, have much in common with criminals such as Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and others of that ilk. The point of commonality is the willingness to step beyond the bounds of accepted civilized behavior to accomplish their objectives. The rest of humanity sees exactly the same situation, yet something drives these people to respond in a manner that is beyond the pale of acceptance. Their actions are often buttressed by an distorted, perverse and historically unsound and inaccurate ideology: Mein Kampf, Marx and Engels, radical Islam.

Hitler looked at Europe and began exterminating millions of people. The rest of Europe saw exactly the same continent and did not turn to genocide. Stalin and Lenin turned to mass executions, death camps, and wholesale ethnic cleansing and forced migration. Bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists turn to airliners, subways, and teen-aged Palestinians.

I don't know what differentiates a Hitler or a Stalin or a Bin Laden from the rest of us. I don't know what allows other, less dynamic, individuals to act as the tools of these men.

But, I do know that, whatever may distinguish these people from the rest of us, the importance of learning about it lies only in impoving our chances of thwarting, catching and eliminating them.

Understanding the historical and social context that spawns these people should not lead us to justify their behavior, or to a transfer of responsibility to the victims and targets because of their roles in shaping that context.

For example, we can study the context out of which Hitler grew to power, and we can understand the role played by the decisons and actions of other nations in creating that context, but we cannot absolve Hitler of sole responsibility for his own actions in response to that environment. Nor can we, or should we, absolve terrorists of their responsibilities simply by working to understand the context of their genesis.

This is the fundamental error of many labeled as "left": Conflating an understanding of the context of criminal behavior and our putative ability to change that context with the absolution of the criminal's personal responsibility for his behavior.

Posted by billg at July 11, 2005 02:06 PM

Ian Woolard
f that is an assumption by the 'left' so what? It may be true, it may be false, it may be correlated. Either way, it doesn't matter what the 'left' think- it only matters to what extent it is true, because if correlated that offers a potential way to improve or solve the problem? Right?

No. Because the 'left' is a political block and can enact programs and legislation. If the goal of such is not aligned with reality, there are costs (monetary and opportunity) wasted on a false premise.

Posted by Brian Dunbar at July 12, 2005 09:06 AM

Post a comment