You're right Pat - eliminating poverty won't stop terrorism. It's an oft-repeated statement in the media that poverty is one the main causes driving terrorism; problem is, those who actually study these things have found that not to be true. They've found that few terrorists, few of the individuals they've tracked as haveing been through the terrorist training camps, etc., are poor, or have ever been poor. No, most are from privileged and/or powerful families. Terrorism is expensive. And the roots of terrorism are idealogical, not economic.

I think there's a distinction to be made, between the leaders of terrorist groups, and their "foot soldiers" The leaders, like Bin Laden, or Arrafat, or the Euro versions like Badder Mienhof gang of Germany of the 60's or even white supremisists, here, like Metzger, were/are petulent ideologues. They aren't poor monetarily, but, slide into violent nihilsm, when they know their approach isn't accepted by "mainstream " society.
Their "foot soldiers", however do come from poor, hopeless, "have-nots" of their culture, who soak up the leaders propaganda as a way "out" and a way of lashing back, at the societies by which they feel rejected.
50 years in a refugee camp, in Palestine, poor & hopeless, will breed terrorists. Multi generations of minumum wage, dead end jobs, in rural America, will breed rascists.
add one charismatic nihilist, spokesperson, to the mix, of hopelessness and frustration, and "bingo" a terrorist organization!
One articulate
sociopath plus a poverty-striken mass equals violent acts

I don't think so. I really think that we need to separate the always important goal of improving conditions in the world from "understanding the roots of terrorism". Somehow it's gained a certain respectiblity in the last 30 or 40 years that simply has to go. And I just don't buy it. Especially the analogy to racism. Dangerous racism has and does exist in much more affluent and comfortable conditions than the ones you describe. We just had a trial here about a horrible beating of two undocumented workers. The segment of the community that's up in arms about these workers and that spawned these particular foot soldiers haven't missed any meals and have no obvious disadvantages to deal with. They just seem to prefer violence and hatred to other means of solving their problems, which in this case involved a possible decline in property values in their neighborhood. What should we be doing to undersand that?

If Poverty were the case, that ultimately breeds violence, and terror??? You would think UBL would have spent all his millions on food for his people...But his, evil (leaning to hate that word) was better spent making the world aware, there is a starving country over there!!! Something that few Americans would recongnize, had it not been for 9/11....Sad, but true!?

PROUD to be an INFEDAL!!!
Rb

No, it's the foot soldiers they are talking about here. Much like John Walker, most of the recruits to terrorism - as foot soldiers - come from, if not privileged, at least not poverty-stricken homes. Most of those who are recruited into terrorism, sent through the camps, etc., are not poor.

Now in Afghanistan, many of the people that were fighting on the side of the Taliban were indeed people who have basically nothing. But they did not tend to be volunteers......most were conscripted. And the Taliban was a large part of the reason they had nothing in the first place.

It was very interesting to read both "sides of the problem" on the one hand I think that it's very generous of the US that they helped the Afghan people with food supply.. And especially many Europeans have to be thankful for what the US did: helping West GErmany when they were blocked off by the Soviets and intervening in the second world war are just 2 examples of many great things Americans did and how they made it possible that democracy could be reestablished in Europe (and in other parts of the world) On the other hand they supported totalitarian regimes during the Cold War (for example Cuba and Afghanistan)
Only a week ago we had to discuss this "problem" (if the Americans should continue in their role as a police state) in class and Ì'd like to know your opinion about that..
If this shouldn't be part of the topic or if this is out of question ,just ignore my response <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15> Just thought a discussion would be interesting..

I think it's perfectly appropriate as a question. I don't know the answer or anything...What do you think?

We were very guilty of propping up bad goverments during the cold war and even of helping to overthrow some that we didn't like. Afghanistan wasn't really one of them. While there's no question that we were fighing a proxy war with the Soviets there, by supplying the Afghan fighters, they were invaded for real, which made it kosher. Then we left them to themselves. None of that was completely out of order in and of itself. It just had some really bad results as things turned out.

Fan, any time you are willing to look at, 'both' sides of a situation, it's worth talking about. You make good questions. I wish I had answers. But then again, don't we all. To take an interest, is a start. and it looks like you're off to a good one....<img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15>

*Kim thanks for the enlightenment. You bring, the real issues upfront. That's good!

The renewed Patriotism, from Veterans, of middle age....Most realize it's a young man's war. Average age 23... Like the boxer, who inevitably, has his last match. I sincerely wish I was 20 yrs. younger...I can see myself there...Any humantarian mission, would be cool. Can't say I'd wan't to be on front lines. Too bad, there is not a 'DRAFT' to, get guy's over thier, to re-build schools, and houses....Hospitals...I could dig getting drafted, to Fly over there, to do construction...IF I were young....When I was young, the choices were not there. VietNamn wasn't popular...Afganistan certainly needs attention. ? is, I guess, is who will be there?

Interesting, how Americans are told one minute to "leave us to run our own country and stop interfering," and in the next breath it's " how could you support these dreadful regimes that we put in charge of our countries?" We can't win this one, no matter how hard we try.

And let's not forget who is here looking for the American dream ... Why look: it's the sister/brother/son/daughter of those people back in the "old country," who have come here in search of something better, and who send money back "home" so they can be joined by the rest of the family as soon as possible -- or so that they can themselves return "home," rich with American dollars.

This book I'm reading by Malika Oufkir is a fascinating glimpse into the Arab world. We in the U.S. tend ot think of slavery as something that died out after our civil war, and not as an institution that is alive and well and living in the Middle East. It's multi-generational slavery -- you are born a slave to slave parents, and your children will be slaves as well. No one mentions that kind of stuff when they talk about the US being the oppressor. Convenient little lapse of memory there, or if you will, convenient and very selective obliviosity at work.
No, the poor are too busy with the business of survival to be terrorists. You can't and don't fight wars on an empty stomach. When you're sick and weak, you don't do much except hope that someday a heart attack is going to finally get rid of the bastard who's keeping you down, or that through some fluke you'll manage to escape. Unfortunately, the poor and the ignorant are especially susceptible to believing the lies told to them by the same people who are keeping them down.
It's the people who simply adore the rush that a bit of chaos brings, who are in love with power and with themselves, who have the wherewithall to run a propaganda machine, who can buy deference, and who set themselves up as being "worthy" "valuable" and "entitled" -- they are both the terrorist foot soldiers and the terrorist leaders. Look at who was the worst among the Taliban: the "descendants of Mohammed" had the power and the privileges, the money and the freedom to do anything they damn well pleased. Other people had to follow their rules, but they consider themselves to be above anyone's rules -- especially the ones they impose on others.
Racism, ditto: when people have to coopertate to survive, they don't look so much at each other's skin color. It's when people start thinking of themselves as somehow separate and above those around them that we run into these layerings of society.

I'll bet anything UBL has read Machiavelli, and thought him brilliant ...

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see any substantial difference between UBL and the Tony Sopranos of the world, really. The mentality is the same. Terrorists are convinced of their "divine" right to do what they do. It's up to them to judge what's best for others, in their minds, but you don't have to live in Afghanistan to be a victim of terrorism, or even NYC. Of course, the way I look at it, any battered wife or abused child is a victim of a kind of terrorism.

Muffy, I think you're right - about everything. RB, you too, except I can't agree about the draft. I'm real glad that there hasn't been one so far and am hoping that there doesn't have to be one. I wouldn't like to see anyone forced to go, or forced to serve the way it used to be. For one thing the environment just can't take all the littering it would take to get a lot of guys out of the draft. I mean, there could be piles of garbage coast to coast - bigger than the ones we've got already. <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15>

Also it seems that one thing that's very much in our favor is that all of our military chose to be there. And according to today's paper, recruitment is up, we're not using a lot of people on the ground, so it doesn't seem necessary. In fact, our Marine friend who certainly seemed set to go - he was on a carrier sitting right in there in the Persian Gulf by Sept 12 or something, because he was in Kosovo when the attacks happened - got rotated home according to original schedule. And other reservists we know are on alert, but not called to go anywhere as yet.

I'm against the draft & Nam is the reason why. So many people were drafted that didn't wanna go. My hubby had to flunk school to get outta it... Don't force those who don't wanna go to go & then make em out to be un-american... <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/peace.gif" width=16 height=16>

This line "& then make em out to be un-american..." should be: "" & those who don't wanna go be making em out to be un-american... " <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/peace.gif" width=16 height=16>

(My brain wasn't working right LOL!)

RB, you could always join the Peace Corps, or like that ... There are several groups that even take the AARP crowd on "tours of duty" that only last a few weeks to a few months, for those who can't make commitments for two years at a pop.
As for Cheryl's post: Does the term "Conscientous Objector" ring any bells around here? That's been a classification in the U.S. military since there was a U.S., and if it's un-American to be a C.O., there are suddenly going to be a whole lot of Quakers and Mennonites with attitude running around. Perish the very thought! Yiiii!
No, Pat's quite right. The litter problem alone makes a draft quite unfeasible this time around.
LOL. You guys.

Fan, Steve, Shannon: I hope you don't feel that I'm dismissing what you're saying out of hand, or dissing any of you by throwing in MHO. I'm treating this as a dialogue/discussion -- and as such, figure that both agreement and disagreement are perfectly reasonable responses. Certainly, if any of you have "The Answer," this would be as good a time as any to chime right in.
And Bumper, sociopaths do tend to be articulate, convincing, likeable, and quite charming. It goes with the territory. That's part of the definition of the term, I believe. Oh: and they lie a lot, too.

What you all said.

Seems to me like it's the combination that's deadly--the sociopathic leaders being able to provide something the foot soldiers desperately need/want that their society isn't providing. Sometimes it's food and shelter or a job; sometimes a sense of importance and worth. Sometimes all of the above. Whatever it takes. So wouldn't the best defense, whether against family-level, domestic, or international abusers/terrorists, be to try to address the needs of the people? To have government policies that promote education, job training, and job availability? To take mental health seriously--for everyone? To really try to help other countries resolve their conflicts instead of just giving military help to the one that's currently on our "side"? To teach people to fish and plant rice instead of giving them fish and rice? Why is this all sounding so familiar to me, even as I type it? <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/wink.gif" width=15 height=15> Maybe we need to sing it REAL LOUD when it comes around on the gitar again.

i agree too, somewhat, those who lead violent groups, are usually charismatic, sociopathic & machevellian, those who follow, are sometimes poor, always desperate & without hope..and spousal abusers are the same, minus the charisma, they are terrorists, control freaks with a smaller "audience"