It is crucial that the United States abandon the rhetoric that casts the international struggle against terrorism exclusively in terms of a crusade against religious fanaticism. The anger that accompanies the ongoing and worsening social ills among the world’s poorest populations also contributes mightily to terror’s allure. Remedying such widespread resentment will not be easy, and cannot be done alone. A reasonable beginning would include greater international cooperation on sustainable development, renegotiation of lopsided trade agreements, a rethinking of the economics of globalization and an end to military and political unilateralism on the part of the United States. All this will, of course, require money””but far less than the world will spend combating the terror and violence that will otherwise flourish amid the ruins.
What absolute and unredeemable piffle, well-stocked with every favorite shibboleth in the petting zoo of modern American leftism.
“Caused by poverty,” yet overwhelmingly populated in the middle and upper ranks by fortunate and well-educated … religious fanatics.
It flourishes in failed states, which are, somehow, “the product of a failure of compassion” on the part of … oh, of course, how could I forget … America.
They can continue to believe and promote such nonsense only because thousands of men and women — far better than they — stand on guard and put their lives on the line in some of the nastiest corners of the globe.
Nastiness that is [i]not[/i] our fault.
No surprise the Jesuits still are in Liberation Theology mode. The argument that terrorism is primarily caused by poverty and income disparity is nonsense. It’s true that Islamists recruit votes aggressively among the poor in areas where people are allowed to vote, but the Islamist leadership is heavily from the educated classes.
Bart,
Delivered Timed on Target. One other salvo might be “the product of a failure of compassion” wherein monies from Iran put rockets in Gaza, not bread for the children.
Re: Katherine’s #2, the poor are the ones who get to deliver the bombs in suicide bombings, etc. The educated classes get to tell them where to go.
The United States certainly doesn’t use “rhetoric that casts the international struggle against terrorism exclusively in terms of a crusade against religious fanaticism” – unfortunately.
Since the Mideast is largely recognized in this article, I think a big question is where are the democracies and the strong middle class? Whoops, we need to hide from that answer because it is Israel. The large budget Gulf States bring in foreign workers who are below middle class economic standards. Is that the fault of the West? When money intended for development is siphoned off by the ruling class and corrupt of poorer nations, is that the West’s fault? When Countries like Venezuela that demonize the upper middle class and the US, and buy votes through redistribution of wealth which thwarts the middle class and creates antagonism, is it all the West’s fault. If many of these problems could have been solved so easily during the end of the twentieth century, we wouldn’t be needing to have this discussion.
http://www.5280.com/issues/2003/0306/feature.php?pageID=269 How the intellectual father of Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist network learned to hate America in a tiny Colorado town.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/presence-feb06.html A Lesson In Hate-How an Egyptian student came to study 1950s America and left determined to wage holy war
Two similar, but very interesting imho, articles about Sayyid Qutb and ” The Roots of Terrorism”
yes, if poverty and terrrorism are so intrinsically linked, why do we see relatively little of it emanating from sub Saharan Africa?
Errr, maybe because they don’t have the resources to do much?
And the poverty in the terrorist areas can be attributed to the undemocratic nature of the governments in the mideast, IMO.
[i]And the poverty in the terrorist areas can be attributed to the undemocratic nature of the governments in the mideast, IMO.[/i]
This is not quite accurate. Even authoritarian governments, such as Pinochet’s or Franco’s, can be prosperous simply by respecting property rights.
The economic policies of the Middle East are dominated by government cronyship and a stultifying state-sponsored religion, with the resulting barriers to affordable family formation. So young men turn to fanaticism and militancy, which engenders further capital flight, etc.
One of those thousands is my youngest, presently in Afghanistan. Thanks, Jeff.
In the last seven years America, along with [i]numerous[/i] allies — notably the UK, Poland, Australia, Canada, France and Italy — has liberated an additional one percent of the world’s population from unbelievable tyranny, in one case that of religious fanatics, and in the other that of remnant Nazis.
For you who don’t understand that last reference, it was the Bath National Socialist Party, established in 1940 by the German Nazis to oppose the UK in Mesopotamia. It still rules in Syria.
So terrorism is our fault. And Islam is peaceful. Pravda is truthful. The Episcopal Church welcomes you. etc.
James of scripture asks: “From whence come wars and fighting among you? . . . . .” and then answers his own question: “. . .you The problem of Islamic terrorism boils down to one bottom-line fact: they want the current land of Israel, and they cannot have it. If you really look at Islamic terrorism, wherever in the globe it is occurring, this is the fundamental reason for it, in the minds of those perpetrating the acts. They want, but they cannot have. And we, who represent a more rational part of the world right now, must never let them succeed.
Oops: James’ answer (above) is: “. . .you want, but you cannot have. . .” Apologies to all.
[i]it was the Bath National Socialist Party, established in 1940 by the German Nazis to oppose the UK in Mesopotamia. [/i]
In other words, the British continue to fight to the last drop of American blood.
[i]It still rules in Syria.[/i]
Still though, Patriarch Ignatius would rather live there than Turkey. And the Syrians have the good sense to slaughter the Muslim Brotherhood in their beds. They’ve also accomodated several million Iraqi refugees that we don’t seem to have room for.
[i]They want, but they cannot have. And we, who represent a more rational part of the world right now, must never let them succeed.[/i]
I wasn’t aware Israel was the US’s 51st state.
[i]In other words, the British continue to fight to the last drop of American blood. [/i] The Brits are superb soldiers. They’re badly equipped, their gear stinks, and they desperately need vastly more helos than they’ve got, but they’re excellent tacticians and very tough. It is their political class that have failed them, in a manner quite similar to that of the 1990s in the US.
Israel is merely the longest-lived democracy anywhere between Italy and India, and for that reason alone worth of robust support and assistance. For that matter, if you consider India and Israel were founded — as democracies — at roughly the same time (1947 and 1948), they are the only long-lived outposts of democracy anywhere between Italy and [i]Australia.[/i]
IMHO, Saudi Arabia has the contacts, the clout and the resources to stop terrorism in the Middle East overnight, if they really wanted to. But they don’t. It would be too unpopular with many of their peace-loving citizens who want to keep up the attacks on Israel and Western interests around the globe.
Bart,
The Brits are liberal social democrats, including their military. They have been glad to have the US clean up their post-imperial messes while they concentrated on building a welfare state that is defenseless against Muslim incursion.
I think the article makes some good points.
Perhaps one way to examine this is to look at our own form of homegrown terrorism that was popular in the American South during the late 19th century. That might help us understand the psychology of killing innocent people.
I would also add that although the US doesn’t, perhaps, directly cause terrorism, the CIA did have a term called “blowback” – unintended consequences for overthrowing democratic regimes that wouldn’t toe the US party line.
Terrorism is probably conducted by the same people who would be torturers in established regimes.
Granted, atheists might be right in blaming religion for hatred. I don’t think that’s completely accurate. Muslims in India are different than Muslims in Morocco who are different than Bosnian Muslims.
Bart I’m not sure that the article blames America as much as says that we have a responsibility for other human beings. I believe that it is probably true that if we encouraged openness, democracy and markets in the mideast, there might be less terrorism.
We are a very easy scapegoat for Muslims to avoid the conflicts among themselves.
Kendall, posting this just brought America magazine more views than I think they still have subscriptions. The Jesuits owe you. 😉
Total Bravo Sierra. John, you can get quite dirty looking for an undigested kernel in this pile of intellectual excrement.
And terrorism comes so predominantly from Islam that to deny it is to doom any possible solution. In comparison, lung cancer is not even remotely connected to smoking, nor cirrhosis of the liver to alcohol abuse. How would those ailments ever be controlled without recognizing the main causes?
[i]I believe that it is probably true that if we encouraged openness, democracy and markets in the mideast, there might be less terrorism. [/i]
Do you mean such as currently exist in Israel? And exist to a significant degree in Turkey? And such as we have rather recently made possible in Iraq? And are attempting to make possible in Afghanistan?
Just wondering.
As I read the article and then perused the comments, trying to locate helpful understandings others might have, it occurred to me to wonder: if poverty in fact gestates terrorism, why do we not see hordes of angry suicide bombers pouring out of Haiti?
It seems to me there must be more than economic deprivation at work to set up the seemingly limitless conflicts that have developed in places like Gaza or in earlier times, say, in northern Ireland (Cromwell’s policies did produce generations of terrorists, after all).
22 Tacit: there is plenty of terrorism in Haiti. Have you heard of Emmanuel Constant?
I’m not sure if there is an easy answer about suicide bombers. Shintoists, Hindus and others have engaged in suicide bombing. It does seem that most suicide bombers are mentally unstable and most of the time are involved in some degree of asymmetric warfare. For this reasons, powerful states don’t do suicide bombing in this age. They don’t need to risk lives to kill.
21 heh – touche’. I suppose if war actually created openness, democracy and markets …. but I’m skeptical: markets do a pretty good job of softening hardened regimes when people are patient.
#20 – so are you saying I should give up cigars and drinking? Or are you saying we should identify possible suicide bombers and make them Christian? I certainly support that. Then, if they commit suicide they’ll think they’re going to hell.
I hadn’t heard of E. Constant, John Wilkins. Now I have, and hope he is in the Suffolk County or some other jail and will remain there, though there is probably a non-zero chance the Great One may pardon him….
Anyway – it seems this thread is too old to attract further comment but I had hoped someone else might take up the obvious clue that the Hamas/Israel conflict’s intensity is likely due to the combination of territorial and religiously based issues, something like those in Ulster nearly 350 years ago. Considering the overwhelming influence that the flight of the Ulster Scots to the Colonies has had on all subsequent US history, it seems to me this comparison is worth considering. I think it more likely that Israeli conflicts with its neighbors will continue for decades at least, rather than find any resolution any time soon.
[blockquote]Perhaps one way to examine this is to look at our own form of homegrown terrorism that was popular in the American South during the late 19th century.[/blockquote]
Or, perhaps we could look at the homegrown terrorism that was popular in the American North during the mid to late 20th century. (I think it would be far more relevant. For one thing, it would be about 100 years closer to today.) The Weather Underground, the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, the Armed Forces for Puerto Rican Liberation (FALN), the radical Students for a Democratic Society group (whose leaders received training in Havana), the Black Panthers, the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA), the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Earth Liberation Front (ELF)…gosh, there were a lot of them. I wonder what they shared in common beside the willingness to murder innocents to get their way? Was there some particular ideology that they shared? Were they all aligned with one particular end of the political spectrum?
Hmmm…perhaps studying them might help us understand the psychology of killing innocent people.