Poverty or Terrorism?

[kami]

I read this article on the BBC homepage and I guess it's nothing new really but it's unusual that I agree so wholly with a man of the clergy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3495685.stm

Now then, what's the biggest threat?

[BFG]

The dudes got a point. Help remove the poverty and you also help remove the support for terrorism. If there was a smaller divide accross the world of living conditions and levels of poverty things would be a lot more peacfull.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Yes and no.  The poverty stricken are the most likely tools for the people that back terrorists.  But there are people with lots of cash that bank roll the terrorists.  Some nations, yes, but other individuals with an agenda too.

Helping to cure poverty will help reduce the number of assholes that can be talked into strapping a bomb on their chest and running into a crowd, but it wont stop the people that are actually behind it.  

Also, the figures seem a bit off.  Too many people that criticize the USA about it's foreign aid only look at what the government dolls out, not at what comes out of the private sector.  I think I read that US citizens gave $240 Billion to help foreign peoples last year.  So while the government only gives about .1% of the GDP, the people give around 2.3% (don't quote those numbers though, I'm doing it from memory).

[BFG]

True and false

well actually yeah true, but its not allways the 'assholes' with a bomb strapped to their chest.

Say if Palestine had the same living conditions and quality of life as the israli's had... then those men and women who kill themselfes wouldn't need to.... And the extreamists behind the bombers who suply the bombs, and use the actual and very real poverty stricken state of so many palestinians in their drive to 'destroy israel'...
I think we definatly need to draw a line between the two... Yes it would remove the bombers, as we would be removing the reason for their actions... and like bucc said though it wouldn't remove those at the core, that is somthing rather difficult.... but however their actions would be so much more  difficult.

So overall, a little less on military spending and a hell of a lot more on cancelling out 3rd world debt, and helping rebuild and inprove the countries that most need it would go a long long way to soothing the current world situations... and those few terrorists with different agenda's might find it one hell of a lot harder to opperate..

just my ten pence

[BTs_FahQ2]

Basically you have to think of it from a distinct aspect of economics.  There is only so much wealth in the world and you just can't make new wealth appear.  So when they say help poor nations out of their poverty, that means some nations must stagnate or decrease in order to help them.  It's the basic laws of nature.  Not everyone can be what they call the "haves".  In order for there to be a homeostasis there must be the "have-nots".  Basically what they suggest is eventually a form of Socialism.  Everyone on the exact same level no matter what the subject is.

Well, as life has shown, nobody wants to decrease their way of life so that other people can live a little better.  It's just not how people are.

[acura]

Who's to say that poverty has a lot to do with suicide bombers? The non Iraqi arabs blowing themselves up in Iraq currently probably believe in a cause more than they need the money right now. What about all of the countless others who went to Al-Qaeda sponsered terrorist training camps over the years? Did they all need money or did they believe in their cause?

Blaming poverty for extremist segments of the population is short sighted in my opinion. I don't see the homeless and countless other millions of Americans in poverty uprising or doing extremist things.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Look at the background of the actual suicide bombers, the "front line" terrorists.  Most of them come from poverty (no, not all).  It's easier to convince these people, they don't feel as if they have so much to lose, and often it's the first time they've felt important in all their lives.  Even the ones that go to other countries, most of those foot-soldiers come from the ranks of the poor.

You want examples in the USA?  The ANP.  Look who they recruit.  And the nazi's here are terrorists, if you don't believe me, I suspect you don't know what a terrorist is.  They use terror tactics to further their agenda (well, that of the ANP anyway).  They just do it a bit less publicly and not as randomly.  

BFG, anyone that straps a bomb on their chest, and runs into the middle of a market filled with innocent children, among other civilians, is by definition, an asshole.  I don't care how wronged they are.

And like I said, even if they did bring up the quality of life, it would only make it harder for the real power (money) behind the terrorist to find it's stormtroopers.  Not impossible.  

["Sixhits"]

Yah, I agree with Bucc (wtf is going on?)

The answer is yes and no.

I'm a Liberal but I'm also a Structuralist. That means when I see a problem I want to know why it became a problem.

So when I consider terrorism I often think about why are there so many terrorists?

One among many reasons is that life sucks for the majority of the human race. What's worse, they can look over the wall, or the in the next town, or at the West, and see vast, seemingly unending wealth.

I know I feel like a rich man when I look at poor African children, with their swollen bellies, pocked with scars, teeth rotting.

I have no clue where to send money to help. My government, tho, had better fucking know where to send money and it had better fuckign send it. That, and more importantly, send people to help.

I like to think of social issues as National Security issues. If people are impoverished and hungry and someone gives them some bread and a promise of more then that someone has likely earned their loyalty. Good works beget good feelings. But when those good works come from Bad Guys and help from the US doesn't materialize or when it goes to those that don't need it ...

But, helping isn't going to solve the problem. Like most problems, the solution is larger than we can contemplate. Ending terrorism is likely a pipe dream. Limiting it's support and under cutting it's agendas are good places to start, though.