The poverty/terror myth

[Darius11 12]

Quote

There may be an economic dimension to terrorism -- but it's not what you think, says Fortune's Cait Murphy.
By Cait Murphy, Fortune assistant managing editor
March 13 2007: 11:14 AM EDT
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- The idea that poverty breeds terror appears obvious; how could it be otherwise? And people as different as the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Bush, Jacques Chirac and Pakistan's leader, Pervez Musharraf, have also noted a link between poverty and terrorism.

In fact, there is now robust evidence that there is no such link. That does not mean, however, that economics is irrelevant.

First, to the question of poverty. Of the 50 poorest countries in the world (see list at right) only Afghanistan (and perhaps Bangladesh and Yemen) has much experience in terrorism, global or domestic.

But surely that is the wrong way to look at things. Aren't the people who commit terrorist acts poor, even if they are from countries that are not? No. Remember, most of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were middle-class sons of Saudi Arabia and many were well-educated. And Osama bin Laden himself is from one of the richest families in the Middle East.

But it goes deeper than that. In a 2003 study in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Alan Krueger and Jitka Maleckova reported the results of a post-9/11 survey of Palestinians. Asked whether there were "any circumstances under which you would justify the use of terrorism to achieve political goals," the higher-status respondents (merchant, farmer or professional) were more likely to agree (43.3 percent) than those lower down the ladder (laborer, craftsman or employee) (34.6 percent). The higher-status respondents were also more likely to support armed attacks against Israeli targets (86.7 percent to 80.8 percent). The same dynamic existed when education was taken into account.

In another study, 129 Hezbollah militants who died in action (not all of them in activities that could be considered terrorism) were compared to the general Lebanese population. The Hezbollah members were slightly less likely to be poor, and significantly more likely to have finished high school.

Outside Palestine, there is general agreement that suicide attacks on civilians is a form of terrorism. So where do suicide bombers fit in? A study looked at the biographies of 285 suicide bombers as published in local journals, from 1987-2002. And this found that those who carried out suicide attacks were, on the whole, richer (fewer than 15 percent under the poverty line, compared to almost 35 percent for the population as a whole) and more educated (95 percent with high school or higher) than the rest of the population (almost half of whom went no further than middle school). A similar survey of terrorists in the Jewish Underground, which killed 29 Palestinians in the early 1970s, found the same pattern.

A comprehensive study of 1,776 terrorist incidents (240 international, the rest domestic) by Harvard professor Albert Abadie, who was sympathetic to the poverty-terrorism idea at first, found no such thing. "When you look at the data," he told the Harvard Gazette, "it's not there."

What he did find was more intriguing. The freest countries experienced little terrorism; and the same was true for the most oppressed. It was in the middle - where politics was unsettled and evolving and governments are often weak - that suffered the most. He also found that geography contributed to terrorist destiny. Places like Afghanistan, with its austere mountains, or Colombia, with its remote jungles, might have been designed to sustain terrorism.

So, is there no economic dimension to terrorism? There may, be, but not in the way the conventional wisdom would have it.

Consider a chilling, but compelling recent paper by Efraim Benmelech of Harvard and Claude Berrebi of Rand. The two ask, in effect, what makes someone become a suicide bomber? Their answer: "Since there are returns to human capital in both the productive and the terror sectors, high-ability individuals will become suicide bombers if the expected payoff from suicide bombing is higher than their skill-adjusted expected lifetime earnings in the productive sector."

They test this proposition using a data base of 148 Palestinian suicide bombers from 2000-05. And they find that older and more educated suicide bombers are assigned to higher-profile targets, kill more people, and are less likely to fail or be caught. In short, there is a match between human capital, in this grossly distorted sense, and the desired goal.

And as for the bombers themselves, these authors argue that the bombers have made, what is for them, a rational choice: There is enough moral, psychological and sometimes financial payoff from the act of killing many people to offset the economic loss of their death. Therefore, the terrorist manager assigns the most deadly tasks to the highest-caliber people; otherwise, they will not bother. In an awful way, it makes sense, and it seems to be true. Caught and failed suicide bombers are conspicuously less educated than those who carry out their tasks.

The argument, with its "incentive-compatibility constraints" and various formulas, does not (and is not intended to) come to grips with a much more elemental question. What creates and sustains the hate to make mass killing over living an arguably rational choice?

That is a much tougher question. But it probably gets closer to the point than vague analogies between poverty and terrorism. There are many good reasons to worry about poverty, and to take action to alleviate it. But ending terrorism is not one of them.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/13/magazines/fortune/pluggedin_murphy_terror.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2007031311


Just something I have mentioned here a few times, and I bolded the section which I believe to be a very important question.
The reason I believe it is important is this. We in the west can not comprehend why someone would ever kill them selves just so they can kill a few of their enemies. We simply think there crazy or it is their religion.
This questions maybe has not been asked or paid that much attention to because it forces us to look at the cause. We simply don’t want to do that. It is much easier to pretend the “terrorists” are crazy and irrational people. It is easy to think that way when we have never faced the hardships and injustice that many faces daily.
If we start looking at the suicide bomber as a smart, educated, and rational person god forbid we might actually have to look at our selves and our actions.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[beowulf 1]

They may be smart, but if they weren't brain washed by their ideology they would see that there are better ways then terrorism or suicide bombings to achieve their goal. Terrorism and suicide bombings are counter productive.

[Andy9o8 0]

Interesting commentary, both in the article and by you. But I note that the article seemed to focus on the Palestinian example.

Do you think the same analysis applies to why there are so many suicide bombings in Iraq in particular? (Keeping in mind that most of those suicide bombings are directed not at foreign soldiers, or even Iraqi police/army "collaborators", but at Iraqi civilians.)

[billvon 2,400]

>Terrorism and suicide bombings are counter productive.

Well, that would depend on your goal, wouldn't it? If your goal is to kill a bunch of people and not get caught, suicide bombing can be quite productive.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

>Terrorism and suicide bombings are counter productive.

Well, that would depend on your goal, wouldn't it? If your goal is to kill a bunch of people and not get caught, suicide bombing can be quite productive.

But if you got to know them and understand their hardships then you would realize that they are right and everyone else is wrong. At least that is what Darius implies. Apparently if you kill people for an ideal then you are some how better then a common murderer.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Apparently if you kill people for an ideal then you are some how better then a common murderer.

That's a common opinion. Here's some examples of killing people for an ideal:

* State-sponsored execution
* Warfare
* Self-defense and defense of others

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Andy9o8 0]

Anyhow, I suspect you're oversimplifying the cause by saying it's hardship and injustice. While that may be the case in some cultures, it doesn't seem to hold true for others. I see suicide bombing being used in or near the Middle East, or by people whose roots are from there. But there is suffering, hardship and injustice in many parts of the world, for example, in Africa, Asia and Latin America. I don't see many (hmm..any?) suicide bombings in Latin America; and what suicide bombings do occur in Africa and Asia seem to be done mostly by Muslims. The Irish Republican Army seemed to have a different formula that worked for them: plant the bomb and get the fuck out before it goes off. This makes me think there is a cultural element in suicide bombings that is paramount, and that transcends hardship and injustice.

Still looking for your answer to whether you think the hardship & injustice rationale applies to all the Iraqi-on-Iraqi suicide bombings.

[billvon 2,400]

>Apparently if you kill people for an ideal then you are some how
>better then a common murderer.

We think that as well. We think US soldiers who kill people to defend the USA are heroes, and many people here think that an average citizen who kills someone on the street who looks like they are committing a crime is a hero. The issue devolves down to WHOSE ideals are worth killing for. Ours always are, other people's usually aren't.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

>Apparently if you kill people for an ideal then you are some how
>better then a common murderer.

We think that as well. We think US soldiers who kill people to defend the USA are heroes, and many people here think that an average citizen who kills someone on the street who looks like they are committing a crime is a hero. The issue devolves down to WHOSE ideals are worth killing for. Ours always are, other people's usually aren't.

Right and we can see where Darius's sympathies are.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

The issue devolves down to WHOSE ideals are worth killing for. Ours always are, other people's usually aren't.

Right and we can see where Darius's sympathies are.

Shouldn't we deal with the CONTENT of the post rather than attack the poster.

Another aspect of this is the relative value a culture places on a life, and from there the value members of that culture place on their own life.

In recent years (the last 50 or so), First-World societies have placed a very high value on individual life. WHere once casualties of 20,000 in a single day were accepted by society, the deaths of single soldiers is now deemed in some way unacceptable. Historically, no shortage of honours have been granted posthumously for what were in effect acts of suicide for a perceived greater good.

The First-World problem in this is their failure to realise that other cultures may not share their current values on individual life versus believed duty.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

If we start looking at the suicide bomber as a smart, educated, and rational person god forbid we might actually have to look at our selves and our actions.

Intelligence and education aside, there is no way to identify suicide bombers and anyone who supports them as anything but mentally ill.

There is just no moral justification for walking into a market and wiping out the lives of 50 shoppers and their children, even if there is no other way to gain funds, political power, or spread religion.

. . =(_8^(1)

[narcimund 0]

Quote

There is just no moral justification for walking into a market and wiping out the lives of 50 shoppers and their children, even if there is no other way to gain funds, political power, or spread religion.

Is there a moral justification for a government dropping a bomb on a market and wiping out the lives of 50 shoppers and their children?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[billvon 2,400]

>Is there a moral justification for a government dropping a bomb on
>a market and wiping out the lives of 50 shoppers and their children?

I think you have to get to a few hundred thousand innocent people before there is a defensible moral justification.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Is there a moral justification for a government dropping a bomb on a market and wiping out the lives of 50 shoppers and their children?

Not at all. The difference is - take a poll of western folks similar to the 2003 poll presented by Darius and see how the it compares. Think it would present similar results?

I don't. When a US bomber takes out innocents, the vast majority of Americans get really pissed off about it. At the least, not many people run around actively promoting the murder of innocents.

But apparently, when it happens on the other side, a lot of those citizens grin and nod their heads.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Darius11 12]

Hi Andy sorry I did not replay to you sooner. I do not have a computer at home, and if I used my phone to replay well most have enough problems understanding me with the spell check would hate to think what would happen if I didn’t use spell check.


I think any rational person who is pushed to the point of killing one self just to kill others must be going threw a lot of suffering and pain.

I do think that relates a lot more to the Palestinians, but lets not forget we have invaded a sovereign country and on every poll that I have seen the Iraqis want us out, most didn’t even want us in.

I know most here can’t relate to the decision of killing one self to kill your enemy. I can see why I have heard people use words like outrage, or unacceptable when they are referring to a problem with there coffee, or cell phone. We really are very spoiled here (that’s a good thing).

If I had to watch my home destroyed my family killed, and at the same time have no one there to go for help. No justice system, no UN, no one who will do anything eventually the frustration would get the best of me and the decision for payback and some justice would over come all other needs.
Islam is about justice, and giving you life to achieve justice or some form of justice is considered honorable in many cultures.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Darius11 12]

Quote

They may be smart, but if they weren't brain washed by their ideology they would see that there are better ways then terrorism or suicide bombings to achieve their goal. Terrorism and suicide bombings are counter productive.

How do you define terrorism?
Many believe invading a sovereign country is an act of terrorism.


Does using advance weapons automatically exempt one from being a terrorist?

Because I bet a lot of Palestinians and Iraqis were terrified of their invaders.

If you consider killing civilians an act of terrorism then we are worst then OBL.

As for it being counter productive, I agree with you but it is not like they have much of a choice. A. Get fucked in the ass, and have someone from another country tell you that you must accept there way of life, or B. fight to the death.

We just need to stop being so arrogant. There are people and countries in this world which do not want to be like us, I know it’s hard top believe for the people who think we are oh so cool, but it is. Get used to it.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If I had to watch my home destroyed my family killed, and at the same time have no one there to go for help. No justice system, no UN, no one who will do anything eventually the frustration would get the best of me and the decision for payback and some justice would over come all other needs.
Islam is about justice, and giving you life to achieve justice or some form of justice is considered honorable in many cultures.

There's a serious confusion between 'justice' and 'revenge' in that thought.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[beowulf 1]

Quote

As for it being counter productive, I agree with you but it is not like they have much of a choice. A. Get fucked in the ass, and have someone from another country tell you that you must accept there way of life, or B. fight to the death.

That's a pretty narrow view if all you can come up with is two choices. There are certainly more options out there and plenty of them are non violent. If the Palestinians were to stop their violent ways and concentrate on building up their economy they would be in a much better position to negotiate with the Israelis. Bottom line neither the Israelis or the Palestinians want peace. They both get what they want and deserve. From what I can tell Osama Bin Laden wants to make the world fit his Islamic view.

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

If I had to watch my home destroyed my family killed, and at the same time have no one there to go for help. No justice system, no UN, no one who will do anything eventually the frustration would get the best of me and the decision for payback and some justice would over come all other needs.
Islam is about justice, and giving you life to achieve justice or some form of justice is considered honorable in many cultures.

There's a serious confusion between 'justice' and 'revenge' in that thought.

If the only way to get some justice is threw revenge then you have no option.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

As for it being counter productive, I agree with you but it is not like they have much of a choice. A. Get fucked in the ass, and have someone from another country tell you that you must accept there way of life, or B. fight to the death.

That's a pretty narrow view if all you can come up with is two choices. There are certainly more options out there and plenty of them are non violent. If the Palestinians were to stop their violent ways and concentrate on building up their economy they would be in a much better position to negotiate with the Israelis. Bottom line neither the Israelis or the Palestinians want peace. They both get what they want and deserve. From what I can tell Osama Bin Laden wants to make the world fit his Islamic view.

Something must be wrong today cause I agree with you again mainly because you said both.

Yes if they both wanted to they could compromise and find a better way then killing each other.


OBL wants everyone who is not like him dead, including me.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[sundevil777 93]

I don't think the term terrorist has any value. An act of war is an act of war. WWII is usually considered a 'justified' war, but at least some of the strategy to win that war included the intentional killing of civilians, and not just as a regrettable by-product of attacks on military targets.

Arafat's negotiators left Camp David with a deal they recommended to him, but he could not agree. Dennis Ross, head of the US team helping the negotiations, has made it clear which side backed out after all the other parties thought it was settled. He now believes that Arafat would never have agreed to a negotiated settlement, but he needed to go through the motions. I think it is absolutely wrong to conclude Israel doesn't want peace.

Do you think the Camp David deal should have been accepted?

I wish I could find the text of some extended interviews that Mr. Ross gave concerning this exact subject. I think I'll consider his take on events to be accurate for now, he was there and seems to be a very honest and reasonable guy.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Andy9o8 0]

This is turning into a Palestinians vs. Israelis thread, and I've had enough of those.

That "other" conflict aside, you really haven't refuted the notion that Iraqi-on-Iraqi suicide bombings are done not so much out of a sense of righting an "injustice", but because either Arab or Muslim culture, in the reality of its practice, makes suicide a desirable method of lashing out at those one hates.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Bottom line neither the Israelis or the Palestinians want peace. They both get what they want and deserve. From what I can tell Osama Bin Laden wants to make the world fit his Islamic view.

I think they both want peace; it's just that their terms are mutually exclusive.

I'm not intimately familiar with everything OBL has said, but I do not recall that they (he and other Muslim fundamentalist types) want to rule the world. IIRC, they simply want western influence out of their corner of it. They definitely, and correctly, see Israel as an outpost of western power in the middle of their world. They want a return to a Caliphate, where religion rules all and state borders are of trivial importance.

The western powers however want secular democracies wherever that can be managed; folks willing to do business the way we do. Monarchies and religious regimes are tolerable as long as they'll do business; i.e. - Saudi Arabia. (It's a bit of an embarassment for our government that the nastiest terrorism elements as well as the biggest chunk of their financing comes from there. But they managed to obfuscate on that little detail and invade Iraq instead).

That is the conflict at it's most fundamental level, a secular versus non-secular worldview. The rest is all sub-plots, smoke & mirrors, window dressing, political positioning and manipulation, etc.

The single most significant event leading to where we are at today in this dilemma was the dismemberment of the last such entity - The Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire threw in with Germany and the Hapsburgs in WWI. To the victors went the spoils of war, and they eviscerated the Ottoman's; drawing lines in the sand (literally) that nobody wanted, sponsoring a land grab on behalf of the Jews, installing puppet governments across the region, etc.

And that is basically where we stand today. (Though a few have gained various levels of political and/or economic independence). It's been almost 100 years and there has been no progress in the situation at all. Then again, in the sands of time, 100 years ain't no big deal. The situation will resolve itself, eventually. Could take another century or two. Almost certain to be some really nasty conflicts along the way.

BTW, in the long term view, western convention has held sway for the minority of the years in which it has been at odds with the east. No reason to think our little blip of technological supremacy will last. Given the birth rate alone, they'll overrun anyone opposing them eventually. It would be best to make up before that happens.

I mean, what is the alternative? We (both sides)gonna propogate the antagonisms until it ends up with nukes flying (a very likely scenario). It would serve us best to resolve sooner than later - the hand we have now is as good as it is going to get. Get back to running our corner of the world and let them get back to running theirs. Not talking isolationism. We still have needs each other can help with; but the Imperialistic style of spreading influence is over and done.

The world has become too connected and too interdependent for Big Stick policy.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Darius11 12]

I agree with Andy, this is becoming a Palestinian Vs Israeli thread and we have had enough of those.
So I will just say I don’t agree that Israel wants peace oh wiat Off course we all want peace what I mean is they are not willing to compromise to a degree that would result in peace. The same can be said about the Palestinians. As for who is has more right you know where I stand and I know where you stand.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[sundevil777 93]

Why avoid the simple question about your opinion of the Camp David negotiation? The details of that negotiation are now known, so what do you think about it? Do you think it should have been accepted? Do you agree that it was Arafat himself that rejected it?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am