could fundamental extremism be linked to poverty? :gasp:

[AliEnvy]

///

What freedom was sought when the planes hit the World Trade Center?

Please show me where perpetrators of terrorism are seeking freedom.

al-Quaida seeks to create and control a united Islamic caliphate that is "free" from all western influence, interference and control.

9/11 was just the beginning of attempting to create insecurity in the west and uniting the muslim world. The targets being global symbols of economic and political power.

The more momentum that can be gained from muslims feeling marginalized and oppressed by the west (sanctions, wars...resulting in economic desperation yet depicted as hatred...cartoons...), the more power and control al-Quaida gains to achieve their united "freedom".

 

[AliEnvy]

No reaction...hmmm, ok.

Well more specifically, Bin Laden will use Iraq. A war-torn, unstable country with a ravaged economy is a ripe recruiting ground for disillusioned, desperately poor people with few real choices.

 

[Irvine511]

Well more specifically, Bin Laden will use Iraq. A war-torn, unstable country with a ravaged economy is a ripe recruiting ground for disillusioned, desperately poor people with few real choices.

by global standards, Iraq is not desperately poor.

 

[nbcrusader]

///

al-Quaida seeks to create and control a united Islamic caliphate that is "free" from all western influence, interference and control.

9/11 was just the beginning of attempting to create insecurity in the west and uniting the muslim world. The targets being global symbols of economic and political power.

The more momentum that can be gained from muslims feeling marginalized and oppressed by the west (sanctions, wars...resulting in economic desperation yet depicted as hatred...cartoons...), the more power and control al-Quaida gains to achieve their united "freedom".

Using this concept of freedom, any group would be justified in using violence to "free" itself from the influence of another group. We've gone from slave-like economic oppression to the influence of a different set of values.

Hardly a justification for a fight for "freedom".

 

[AliEnvy]

Using this concept of freedom, any group would be justified in using violence to "free" itself from the influence of another group. We've gone from slave-like economic oppression to the influence of a different set of values.

Hardly a justification for a fight for "freedom".

Who said it was justified?

Acknowledging and understanding the dynamic and how slave-like economic oppression and the influence of a different set of values go hand in hand to create an enemy doesn't justify violence. It just explains it.

 

[nbcrusader]

Who said it was justified?

Acknowledging and understanding the dynamic and how slave-like economic oppression and the influence of a different set of values go hand in hand to create an enemy doesn't justify violence. It just explains it.

The "explanation" eliminates any discussion that the violence is incited by religious teaching and places it on external factors. In essence, it creates a victimhood for the terrorist. But for the economic factors, they would not engage in terrorism.

 

[AliEnvy]

by global standards, Iraq is not desperately poor.

If I'm not mistaken, dictators are not often good at sharing the wealth.

 

[AliEnvy]

The "explanation" eliminates any discussion that the violence is incited by religious teaching and places it on external factors. In essence, it creates a victimhood for the terrorist. But for the economic factors, they would not engage in terrorism.

You're getting close. What I'm saying is that ideological differences (religious teaching in this case) are the fuel that keeps the fire raging. But economic factors are the underbrush that started the fire...then it just becomes cyclical...when the negative economics factors spark, ideological differences throw the flame.

 

[Irvine511]

If I'm not mistaken, dictators are not often good at sharing the wealth.

you really need to take a look at Iraqi society -- it is nowhere near Afghanistan, or half a dozen nations in Africa, or Bangladesh. Iraqis are, in general, highly educated and they lived in a socialist state before the invasion and occupation. this is not to say that life in Iraq was a barrel of monkeys, or that it had it's share of rural poor, or that Hussein funneled profits into his mansions, or that the UN sanctions didn't unduly harm the iraqi people.

but it is quite a mistake to lable the whole of Iraq as "desperately poor" and then point to that as a reason for terrorism.

in fact, it would be more accurate to simply say "desperate."

economics is one of a host of factors that inspire terrorism and more often than not, as NBC has stated, it is completely insufficient as an explanation for terrorism. economics is one of many tools wielded by (usually) charismatic religious leaders who milk history and hazy cultural memory -- it's not that you're poor, it's that you're poor because *they* (insert Jews/Israelis/Bosnians) make you poor!

 

[Irvine511]

You're getting close. What I'm saying is that ideological differences (religious teaching in this case) are the fuel that keeps the fire raging. But economic factors are the underbrush that started the fire...then it just becomes cyclical...when the negative economics factors spark, ideological differences throw the flame.

and i'd say it's precisely the opposite.

ask yourself this: why and how are the Mohammad Attas of the world overwhelmingly from the middle and upper classes, and why and how were they radicalized in Europe and not in their own countries?

 

[AliEnvy]

but it is quite a mistake to lable the whole of Iraq as "desperately poor" and then point to that as a reason for terrorism.

Yup that would be a grave mistake. It would also be a mistake to interpret that as what I'm suggesting is the case. I'm simply applying a motivational principle to a situation.

economics is one of a host of factors that inspire terrorism and more often than not, as NBC has stated, it is completely insufficient as an explanation for terrorism.

I haven't been saying it's the only factor in explaining terrorism. It's the root cause.

 

[Irvine511]

I haven't been saying it's the only factor in explaining terrorism. It's the root cause.

and that's where you are mistaken.

it is not a root cause -- as everyone has pointed out, if it were poverty/economics, then we'd see terrorists from Angola.

we don't.

ask yourself why.

 

[AliEnvy]

ask yourself this: why and how are the Mohammad Attas of the world overwhelmingly from the middle and upper classes, and why and how were they radicalized in Europe and not in their own countries?

The higher up the food chain you go, the more that controlling your own destiny goes from hand-to-mouth existence to furthering the cause of what you feel is the greater good and the quality of livelihood for those you feel connected to, whether they are next door or across the world.

Doesn't change the fact that gaining more control for your cause has an economic element to it.

 

[AliEnvy]

and that's where you are mistaken.

it is not a root cause -- as everyone has pointed out, if it were poverty/economics, then we'd see terrorists from Angola.

we don't.

ask yourself why.

Because their civil war ended only a few years ago...as most of Africa is still emerging from inner conflicts (based on the same principles I've tabled). Terrorism exists over there, but it's inwardly forcused (for now) and we are rarely exposed to it.

 

[nbcrusader]

it is not a root cause -- as everyone has pointed out, if it were poverty/economics, then we'd see terrorists from Angola.

Or from Appalachia. Or from the Bayou. Etc.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The poor are rarely the leaders of revolutions.

 

[AliEnvy]

Or from Appalachia. Or from the Bayou. Etc.

How many people are dying from extreme poverty, treatable disease or violence in those areas?

 

[AliEnvy]

The poor are rarely the leaders of revolutions.

That's right. How can they be? They have no resources until someone puts a gun in their hands and says fight...or else.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It may be a serious mistake to unduly project motivation upon groups, Islamist groups like Hizb-ut Tahir have very little to do with social justice.

 

[AliEnvy]

It may be a serious mistake to unduly project motivation upon groups, Islamist groups like Hizb-ut Tahir have very little to do with social justice.

Am I unduly projecting motivation on a group? I'm not even sure what you mean by that.

 

[Irvine511]

Am I unduly projecting motivation on a group? I'm not even sure what you mean by that.

you are saying that terrorism is an attempt to recitfy economic inequalities, misguided though it might be.

hence, projecting motivation upon Hamas, Al-Qaeda, the insurgency, etc.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And when you make that mistake you can be easily manipulated, I just think of the example I see at uni where posters from the supposedly progressive socialists are siding with the reactionary forces of Islamic fundamentalism against what they see as the greater evil in the US and Israel.

Groups like Hizb-ut Tahir are experts in sending message of religious totalitarianism in a package of social justifce and anti-imperialism.

 

[yolland]

There are several large, elegantly designed, and very persuasive studies arguing that the geographic pattern of Hindu-Muslim riots in India--which almost always occur in the same small handful of areas, despite widespread dispersion of both groups throughout the country--cannot be convincingly (i.e. consistently) linked to greatest local impoverishment, greatest local activity by hardline sectarian groups, or even greatest concentrations of Muslims in majority-Hindu areas (or vice versa). Rather, the strongest link seems to be to level of civic engagement between the two groups--do they live in wholly separate, ghettoized parallel universes, or do they freely mix and mingle in each other's shops, union chapters, political party headquarters and schools? These studies, along with my own personal experiences documenting the political apathy which prevails among inhabitants of Mumbai's worst slum (the world's largest), and numerous painfully poor villagers in various other cheek-by-jowl-populous regions, have led me to rethink some of my own initial assumptions about the demographic factors most relevant to communal violence. (And when I say "riots," I'm talking setting buildings on fire, gang-raping women, and beating people with metal pipes and sticks--stuff anyone can do; no guns or Semtex required.)

It's just one country, and I can't claim real expertise about conditions anywhere else, but I do see an awful lot that seems to support these conclusions in my daily perusal of the international headlines. As I mentioned in my previous post, I have absolutely no doubt that economic inequality (whether in desperately poor countries or far better off ones) is a potent aggravant of other violence-conducive grievances. But I am very skeptical that it can be reduced to the master root cause of all violence. Often it comes to be perceived as a far greater aggravant than it had been originally once the slide towards communal polarization begins. I do not say "always"--there are situations where economic inequality alone does indeed seem to explain the origin of a conflict pretty handily. But that is not the majority of cases.

 

[AliEnvy]

you are saying that terrorism is an attempt to recitfy economic inequalities, misguided though it might be.

Actually, what I've been saying is that terrorism is an attempt to rectify inequalities, one of which at a basic level is economic.

 

[AliEnvy]

And when you make that mistake you can be easily manipulated, I just think of the example I see at uni where posters from the supposedly progressive socialists are siding with the reactionary forces of Islamic fundamentalism against what they see as the greater evil in the US and Israel.

Groups like Hizb-ut Tahir are experts in sending message of religious totalitarianism in a package of social justifce and anti-imperialism.

This has a familiar ring to it...oh yeah, don't use your brain to objectively analyze an issue because you may be manipulated to come to the wrong conclusion.

 

[A_Wanderer]

That is not what I am saying at all, objectively look at the manifesto of Islamist terror groups, political organisations and spiritual leaders. You make some broad statement that this is just a reaction to inequality, it places the burden of responsibility strictly upon the western world. That has a very familiar ring to it and that is of Hizb-ut Tahir, an Islamist political group that advocates Islamic government over the entire world and couches itself in the language of social justice.

Advocacy of Empire though the restoration of the caliphate, supression of rights (extending to full denial through execution) for those who do not subscribe to belief in their monotheistic God (Christians and Jews may be able to live as protected persons), removal of common law with replacement by Sharia is not rectification of inequality, it is establishing power and dominance.

Just because they oppose neo-liberals does not make them any less authoritarian. The will to power is the driving force behind these groups and their demagogic leaders, violence is the means to driving their opponents into submission.

I cannot see how inequality through Islamist revivalism is a way to rectify inequality in the world today.

 

[Harry Vest]

I think it goes both ways.

 

[AliEnvy]

I think it goes both ways.

It does. And the difference is one side observes the rules of engagment (well, mostly) and the other doesn't.