could fundamental extremism be linked to poverty? :gasp:

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
But you see, conservative think tanks look for any reason BUT poverty to blame for all the ills of the world.

Melon
 
Poverty, or someone financing a rebellion. Looking at this as a pure economic problem leads to one side having to out-bid the other to pay for war or peace.
 
A_Wanderer said:
How many of the September 11 hijackers, Madrid or London bombers were poor?

thanks for pointing out the obvious and attempting to isolate discussion of the issue to only 3 examples. good science, indeed. if not poverty, then what is playing a role in the taliban's latest recruitment effort? you could post some useful information or opinions or perhaps you might want to call up the bbc and let them know your answer. less facts, more truthiness maybe.

here are a few interesting quotes to throw into the blender:

World Bank President James Wolfensohn said that “the face of bin Laden, the terrorism of al-Qaeda, the rubble of the World Trade Center and of the Pentagon ... are just symptoms. The disease is the discontent seething in Islam and, more generally, in the world of the poor.”

President Bush has called the war on terrorism a “struggle against hateful groups that exploit poverty and despair.”

"Poverty in all its forms is the greatest single threat to peace, security, democracy, human rights and the environment," the head of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), Michael Moore, told delegates.


now, surely no one expects me to quote these men regularly, but it seems even those at the top of established society see what could be happening behind the scenes. normally i would've thought you'd be suckling away at the proverbial teats of these guys, a_w, good show old chap. i guess you really do think they are all just off the fucking rocker and hiding in your closet with frank the monkey, waiting for the perfect chance to take away your freedoms.
 
Se7en said:

President Bush has called the war on terrorism a “struggle against hateful groups that exploit poverty and despair.”

How self-aware do you think he was when he made that statement?
 
Maybe none of the big shots responsible for 9/11 were poor, but there are people who will join the fundamentalists in a heartbeat if someone waves money in their face.
 
verte76 said:
Maybe none of the big shots responsible for 9/11 were poor, but there are people who will join the fundamentalists in a heartbeat if someone waves money in their face.

Is that a macro economic problem, a problem with people waiving the money, or a problem with the individuals who see the insurgency/terrorist group as a legitimate job choice?
 
It's a problem with the people waving the money in the faces of desperately poor people, because they are the misanthropic leaders of the fundamentalists out to bomb us into oblivion, and the people who are getting money waved in their faces because they'd rather get that nice big fat paycheck than starve. I'll bet those paychecks look awfully attractive.
 
nbcrusader said:
So, do you stop those who fund insurgency/terrorist groups, or outbid them?

What's the difference?

Especially when funding one anti-terrorist group creates a new, more powerful one.
 
Economic, social and political inequality, in various forms and to varying degrees, can usually be identified as an aggravating factor in almost any violent conflict. Northern Ireland, Bosnia-Herzegovina and the riots which killed thousands in the Indian state of Gujarat a few years back (in which many if not most of the Hindu participants were well-off middle-class nationalists) could all be cited as examples of conflicts where various forms of inequality play(ed) a role among combatants overall far better off then the average Afghan peasant. On the other hand, most of the world's poorest countries are *not* currently plagued with such conflicts despite having plenty of ethic and religious potential fault lines, so clearly there are other factors involved in lighting the fuse.

I doubt that "fundamentalist extremism" has ever accurately summed up the motives of most participants in factional conflicts in Afghanistan, but poverty alone doesn't do a much better job of explaining things--the Nothern Alliance fighters were all poor too, and didn't generally understand their goals in terms of fighting economic injustice. Reducing these kinds of conflicts to tussles over inequality is ultimately kind of circular thinking--you are never going to find a country where everyone agrees that all citizens are equally well-off, economically or otherwise. That doesn't mean inequality isn't a powerful aggravant, but history doesn't provide much support for the theory that improving economic conditions alone is a reliable guarantor of peace.
 
Poverty is a breeding ground for extremists, but it also has to be said that poverty is not a justification to commit crimes.

I will always be siding with the poor. In 90% of the cases however the poor people also have other chances. I´ve seen that in some poor countries I visited. The gang that did the armed robbery in Nicaragua wasn´t particularly poor; same for the Afro-Americans that robbed me in SFO.

Poverty is not an excuse to engage in terrorist activity.
 
does poverty lead to terrorism? not necessarily. does it make the potential terrorists harder to beat or stop? definitely.

there is something noteworthy about fundamentalist terrorist, with the exception of their rich leaders. here's the catch: they have very little to lose. they are not looking forward to setting up a family, buying a house, starting a business or purchasing a new car. they have very little in their hands, and their hopes and dreams are even less significant in comparison.

the best way to curb the extremist movement: give them something to lose.

no sane person, if they have a family, comfortable living standards, a job, a home, maybe a car, would go out and blow themselves up. its simply not worth it.
 
all_i_want said:
does poverty lead to terrorism? not necessarily. does it make the potential terrorists harder to beat or stop? definitely.

there is something noteworthy about fundamentalist terrorist, with the exception of their rich leaders. here's the catch: they have very little to lose. they are not looking forward to setting up a family, buying a house, starting a business or purchasing a new car. they have very little in their hands, and their hopes and dreams are even less significant in comparison.

the best way to curb the extremist movement: give them something to lose.

no sane person, if they have a family, comfortable living standards, a job, a home, maybe a car, would go out and blow themselves up. its simply not worth it.

ok generally I agree..

but I doubt the last sentence..

no sane person would go out and blow themselves up also if they don´t have all of what you mentioned. how much is life itself and happiness worth, without all these things?
 
Terrorism is a pretty good indicator of instability. Would that call for additional oppression to restore stability?
 
A_Wanderer said:
Yes, stability :|

Interesting. Does that mean you prefer Saddam´s oppression of Iraq (or generally a dictator´s oppression of a country) to instability like 20 car bombs per day?
 
Which causes more death and suffering?

Iraq is an example where the suffering of deposing the regime was significantly less than that caused by keeping it in place.

North Korea however is an example where the regime runs a complete slave state, kills millions but there is no way to remove the regime that would not kill so many more.
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:
So, do you stop those who fund insurgency/terrorist groups, or outbid them?
What's that Bible verse in Micah that links peace with a lack of poverty? Oh yeah...

Micah 4:2-4
2 Many nations will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

3 He will judge between many peoples
and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.

4 Every man will sit under his own vine
and under his own fig tree,
and no one will make them afraid,
for the LORD Almighty has spoken.

Therefore, the answer isn't "let's outbid Osama," but rather, "let's erradicate poverty in the name of justice and peace."
 
A_Wanderer said:
Which causes more death and suffering?

Iraq is an example where the suffering of deposing the regime was significantly less than that caused by keeping it in place.


i do think this is the central question, however, in light of recent events and the growing sectarian violence, it seems as if this is a prelude to a possible civil war that would cause greater death and destruction than either Saddam's rule or the current occupation.

what would happen if we have an Iraqi civil war, which leads to a polarization in the middle east amongst Sunnis and Shiites, which then leads to broader middle eastern war?
 
A_Wanderer said:
Which causes more death and suffering?

Iraq and North Korea are interesting case studies to pit terrorism vs oppression in asking that question since the outcome is that oppression easily causes more death and suffering.

Take that to the global scale. If oppression causes the most death and suffering, where is it coming from?

Oppressive foreign trade policies.
 
AliEnvy said:
What's the difference?

Especially when funding one anti-terrorist group creates a new, more powerful one.

The blurring of the issues of terrorism and poverty isn't solving either problem.

First, it is clear that there is no causal relationship between poverty and terrorism.

Second, it is fair to deny the "link" between the two, and still be in favor of actions to eliminate poverty.

Accepting and engaging in terrorism is a moral failure. To the extent you grant absolution because of economic situation, you've opened the door to anyone engaging in wrong behavior due to such factors. No one is in a position to accept one person’s wrong behavior due to economic circumstances, but punish another’s wrong behavior due to economic circumstances.
 
nbcrusader said:

The blurring of the issues of terrorism and poverty isn't solving either problem.

That's very true. What is the biggest blurring factor to sidestepping the link though? I'd say with strong conviction that it's cultural values and ideologies that play out through political and economic structure.

nbcrusader said:

First, it is clear that there is no causal relationship between poverty and terrorism.

Oppression leads to terrorism. (Extreme) poverty is an outcome of economic oppression. What's not clear about that?

nbcrusader said:

Second, it is fair to deny the "link" between the two, and still be in favor of actions to eliminate poverty.

So it's better to keep putting oil into your car because you want to deny that there's a leak? You can deny the leak but the car will still be spewing oil wherever it goes.

Are you just addicted to oil?


nbcrusader said:

Accepting and engaging in terrorism is a moral failure. To the extent you grant absolution because of economic situation, you've opened the door to anyone engaging in wrong behavior due to such factors. No one is in a position to accept one person’s wrong behavior due to economic circumstances, but punish another’s wrong behavior due to economic circumstances.

Insert oppression in place of terrorism and the statement still rings true.
 
AliEnvy said:
Oppression leads to terrorism.

I am not sure there is a casual relationship here either. Oppression may lead to a struggle for freedom, but that is not what we are dealing with here.



AliEnvy said:
So it's better to keep putting oil into your car because you want to deny that there's a leak? You can deny the leak but the car will still be spewing oil wherever it goes.

Are you just addicted to oil?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

To often, generalizations are made, not based on a position taken by someone, but if they question another position.
 
nbcrusader said:

I am not sure there is a casual relationship here either. Oppression may lead to a struggle for freedom, but that is not what we are dealing with here.

Ok, we're not dealing with freedom here? wtf

Let's be more concrete. Rather then me assuming what we are dealing with since these topics often go back and forth between the big picture and specific situations, give me the specific example of where the link is missing and I will demonstate the connections.


nbcrusader said:

I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

To often, generalizations are made, not based on a position taken by someone, but if they question another position.

It was just a metaphor.

Back to specifics.

Oppressive foreign trade policies.
 
nbcrusader said:


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

Please show me where perpetrators of terrorism are seeking freedom.



:ohmy:

one of those rare occasions when i agree with NBC!



:wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom