Poverty does not produce terrorism

[Rekaar.]

researcher has cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 ... error.html

Can we conclude, assuming the study proves true, that liberating Iraq and Afghanistan will reduce global terrorism?

[Xzion]

researcher has cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/200 ... error.html

Can we conclude, assuming the study proves true, that liberating Iraq and Afghanistan will reduce global terrorism?

hell no.

I saw a book written by a conservative who conducted research to "prove" that the constitution was meant to be a temporary document, and not meant to still be in place...sure as fuck doesn’t mean i believe it

[Lohrno]

I think that terrorism (the type I think we're talking about, not Shock and Awe) appears to come from a couple catalysts.

A) A severe anger at what the world around you has done to you. This can come from poverty, or your family being blown up.

B) A greater than one's own life belief that violence will help change the world for the better. These terrorist suicide bombers sincerely believe that if they die serving their god they are guaranteed into heaven.

Basically to create a terrorist you need to make someone who is severely angry, and with little to lose believe that by doing some suicidal violent act that they will change the world for the better, and go to a better life. You don't see many atheist terrorists.

So: (Anger from poverty, or loss of loved ones close + Brainwashing/Religion) = Terror.

What we are doing now is creating more reasons for anger, and thus more people there will turn to terrorists. Fun?

-=Lohrno

[Kelshara]

hum.. I think they are oversimplifying it bigtime. I think it is a combination of financial situation, political situation, religious situation and several other factors. I don't think you can point directly at one and say "This is how it is!". You can find some people who fit the mold and some who don't. And of course it also depends on how you define a terrorist.

That said.. once again putting Iraq and Afghanistan together like that is ridiculous.

[Markulas]

false. The reality of the situation is poverty effects your education and upbringing so much that many of us cannot fathom it. The terrorists training grounds are poverty stricken regions where the children are taught from day one to hate and blame america. And most of these potential terrorist problems have to deal with money and having your country carpet bombed everyother day. The article is bogus in arguing why poverty doesn't affect terrorism( well the data... what data? hell what argruments against poverty?) instead it gives us the obvious agrument for the political freedom vs. terrorism, and terrorism vs. geography. We cannot eridicate terrorism in those regions because there is no control, and no education.

Can we conclude, assuming the study proves true, that liberating Iraq and Afghanistan will reduce global terrorism?

If the article was legimately proved true empirically, then we need to crush the rest of the countries where political freedom cannot be had. Anyone think China would be a good one to liberate next?[/quote]

[Xzion]

Terrorist in a subjective term, some people seem to forget that…just like pirate or “bad guy”. The British could have called the guerrilla warfare minute men terrorist for there “unfair and savage” war tactics. They attacked out of secrecy and essentially killed the enemy without giving them a fair chance to retaliate…our “insurgents” fought in such a manner because we were under equipped and no match for the British army on open battlefields…so we resulted to a form of “terrorism” to instill fear and panic into the enemy as they marched threw the forest wearing there bright red coats.

[Rasspotari]

You don't see many atheist terrorists.

that's why president Bush scares people, cuz he's not atheist and demands other follow the same relegious rules he thinks are "true" caring little for what others believe in.

[Forthe]

Can we conclude, assuming the study proves true, that liberating Iraq and Afghanistan will reduce global terrorism?

So desperate for moral justification when there is none. Must be hard being religious when the actions you support should send you straight to hell.

[Voronwë]

i have a hard time believing poverty is not a serious factor in terrorism.

the entire reason terrorism or any guerrilla actions are undertaken, is because the cause those persons are espousing represent a country or group that experiences massive technological (and hence economic) inferiority to its opponent.

in other words, the Soviet Union would not have chosen to engage in a substantial amount of 'terrorism' against the US in a ground war in Europe. They could inflict much more damage using conventional means.

economic disparity and lack of political power (in terms of access to 'services') are inherently tied together anyway.

[Rekaar.]

Can we conclude, assuming the study proves true, that liberating Iraq and Afghanistan will reduce global terrorism?

So desperate for moral justification when there is none. Must be hard being religious when the actions you support should send you straight to hell.

lol?

[Rekaar.]

i have a hard time believing poverty is not a serious factor in terrorism.

the entire reason terrorism or any guerrilla actions are undertaken, is because the cause those persons are espousing represent a country or group that experiences massive technological (and hence economic) inferiority to its opponent.

in other words, the Soviet Union would not have chosen to engage in a substantial amount of 'terrorism' against the US in a ground war in Europe. They could inflict much more damage using conventional means.

economic disparity and lack of political power (in terms of access to 'services') are inherently tied together anyway.

POverty is a universal factor, but what the study shows is that there are many impoverished nations that don't suffer the same levels of terrorism. He argues terrorism only evolves as a political last resort. (I think!)

[Voronwë]

that only means that poverty is not "sufficient" cause for terrorism. meaning it does not create it automatically and requiring no other contributing factors.

It does not mean that it is not a "necessary" ingredient.

And even if it is not a "necessar" ingredient, that does not mean that it is not a potential motivator.

[Seebs]

I think Poverty causes poor people. Uncontrolled hate causes Terrorist.

Hostess causes fat fucks.

[Lohrno]

that's why president Bush scares people, cuz he's not atheist and demands other follow the same relegious rules he thinks are "true" caring little for what others believe in.

Myself included. But as if that weren't bad enough, we're at a time when we need to handle international situations well, and he is very bad at that.

-=Lohrno

[Apostate]

Can we conclude, assuming the study proves true, that liberating Iraq and Afghanistan will reduce global terrorism?

Let's ignore poverty all together and just talk about your question there, and look back at the article-

Instead, Abadie detected a peculiar relationship between the levels of political freedom a nation affords and the severity of terrorism. Though terrorism declined among nations with high levels of political freedom, it was the intermediate nations that seemed most vulnerable...

"When you go from an autocratic regime and make the transition to democracy, you may expect a temporary increase in terrorism," Abadie said.

Basically he concludes that totaliterian regimes like old Iraq didn't see terrorism hardly at all, since it would stomp it flat. Keep in mind he was writing more about domestic terrorism (ie insurgency) than global terrorism (attacks against the policies of massive foreign powers, the US).

The question is how big that 'temporary increase in terrorism' is. I mean, a stable democracy in Iraq might not happen in our lifetime, if it happens at all. Saying that if it reaches the level of personal freedom of the first world is well and good, but if the average Iraqi in the street feels they are being imposed on by a puppet government of the US, the nation is going to be in that murky intermediate area that is vulnerable to and creates terrorism. Sure, if the average Iraqi feels they have a free, democratic government, then definitely there won't be much insurgency, but to think that is a temporary transition is probably very optimistic.

I don't think, 'If people feel they are free and not oppressed they won't become terrorists' is exactly a wild assertion. The problem is I think it would be a pretty hard sell to convince a lot of the middle east that they aren't, in fact, oppressed by US forces or policies in the region.

[Rekaar.]

Obviously only time will tell, but I suspect we won't see the generational struggle you're worried about here because I think Middle Easterners are just like us - people are all the same. Just like we didn't see it when we rebuilt other nations.

[Zaelath]

Obviously only time will tell, but I suspect we won't see the generational struggle you're worried about here because I think Middle Easterners are just like us - people are all the same. Just like we didn't see it when we rebuilt other nations.

No actually, that's the problem. People are NOT all the same. Culture and language affects the development of their brain in ways that we don't completely understand yet, but which show a clear divergence from yours. Not everyone is like you, not everyone wants what you want, and your assertion that you can predict the behaviour of an Iraqi from your own is just another reflection of your arrogance and ignorance.

[Rekaar.]

So you call it arrogant to assert that I'm not fundamentally better nor worse than anyone else? You must be a lot smarter than I, because that doesn't make any sense.

[Zaelath]

So you call it arrogant to assert that I'm not fundamentally better nor worse than anyone else? You must be a lot smarter than I, because that doesn't make any sense.

That's not what you said, jackass. You said "people are all the same".

And yes, I am a lot smarter than you.

[Rekaar.]

Is that why you resort to name calling?

[Kelshara]

No he uses a name that quite fittingly described your change of subject. And all people are not the same.

[Zaelath]

Is that why you resort to name calling?

No, that's just a visceral reaction to people that attempt to change reality to suit themselves. Even if you could, different != lesser.