In light of today's news about suicide terrorism, I went back and re-read the Times editorial from last Friday "Antidote to terrorism"
The work of the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, is the best antidote to the mindless violence of yesterday's murderous assault on London commuters. Uniting to fight poverty and disease pushes back hard against terrorism.We learn today that the suicide bombers who murdered dozens in London included a British-born university graduate named Shahzad Tanweer
The Tanweers, Pakistani-British who moved to the Colwyn Street address at least 20 years ago, were considered a success by local standards. Mumtaz Tanweer owned the South Leeds Fishery, a neat fish-and-chip shop painted in black and green just up Temple Road, and one or two other businesses. He had bought his house and the one directly behind itIn other news, four women were murdered by a suicide bomber in Netanya, Israel yesterday and another suicide bomber murdered a dozen children in Iraq this morning.
Does anybody seriously believe that finding a cure for malaria would have prevented any of these atrocities? Honestly, why does the Seattle Times pay people to write such insipid and irrelevant editorials?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 13, 2005 11:28 AM | Email ThisI would have to say that they must be afraid of the truth. Likely because the truth contradicts their belief system, and so it must be concealed, obscured, and apologized for.
Posted by: Jason on July 13, 2005 11:53 AMYou can color up today's US University Educations as something special, but at the end of the day, with professors like Ward Churchill in the system and the vast majority leaning toward the left and spouting their hatred of our capitalist society, there's little difference between our professors and the mullahs brainwashing the terrorists. Heck, Ward Churchill even advocates violence just like his terrorist heroes.
It's going to take another attack on US soil before liberals get it through their thick skulls that ideas matter. Philosophy matters. Western Culture and it's phenomenal success is not based on chance, nor should it be replaced with something inferior. As long as we've got backwards cultures that are actively engaging us and trying to destroy us, we've got a problem that we must address.
The good news is that the liberals won't win any more than the terrorists will because their entire philosophical structure is rationally unsound.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 13, 2005 12:02 PMTwo things:
Democracy
Reformation
Democratize totalitarian regimes. Ending state support for terrorists.
Reformation of Islam. Marginalizing the religious zealots so that they no longer have the support of the religion.
It only took a couple of millennia for democracy to go from concept to real government. And a mere 17 centuries for Christianity to reform.
No problem give me to the end of the week.
Posted by: JCM on July 13, 2005 01:09 PMThe Koran teaches that the infidel is bent on destroying Islam. Islamic terrorists respond by killing the infidel. Personally, I, an infidel, would be happy if Islam would follow the Second Great Commandment: Love your neightor as yourself.
Besides that UBL's beef with the West is we are decadent societies, we support the Islamists most avowed enemy; Jews and we, the infidel, have invaded Islam's holy lands (at the behest of their governemts).
I assume you have not noticed that the two groups that claim Abraham (Ibraham) to be their father have been fighting for what? 6000 years?
Islamic terrorism is just the latest manifistation of that 6000 year long war.
Modern Islamic terrorism has it's roots in the failure of the Arab/Islamic nations surrounding Israel to defeat Israel militarily. When organized warfare proved ineffective, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Lybia, et al, decided to bring down Israel through terrorism. And now Islamic Fundamentalists have taken up the cause.
Posted by: JC Bob on July 13, 2005 01:12 PMAre you really this insipid, or are you just running out of legitimate things to bitch about?
Posted by: A Moderate on July 13, 2005 01:32 PMI wonder if it looks something like this: First and foremost, we are friends with everybody (except Christians and conservatives, of course). So because we're friends with everybody, we have to make sure we stay friends with everybody. Hence, we can't offend anbody (except the Christians and conservatives, of course). So this must mean we're friends with insurgents, or not really friends, but we can't be their enemies. So maybe we're not friends with everyone, but we're just not enemies of everyone (except Christians and conservatives, of course). But terrorism...oh, terrorism is bad. It's bad because everyone says it's bad...but there's not much terror going on the world. Yeah, we're against terrorism. But there's no reason for this war, because there's not much terrorism. (Et cetera...)
Posted by: Cydney on July 13, 2005 01:33 PMYou should change your monniker to A Moron. It's consistent with your posts.
Posted by: Danny on July 13, 2005 01:47 PMYou're absolutely right, you weren't insulting Muslims, you were insulting yourself. Too bad that you don't realize that.
Please explain to me how poverty causes terrorism. Please explain how Mohammed Atta and his cohorts were poverty-stricken. Please explain how Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, known killers of American civilians, were living in poverty on Saddam's dime in Baghdad. Please explain how the London bomber referred to, Shahzad Tanweer, was a victim of poverty. While you're at it, please explain how Saudi Arabia and Britain are 'depressing and poverty-stricken'. If terrorists are poverty-stricken, where do they get all the money to carry out their attacks??
Using your logic, we could conclude that most terrorists come from countries with hot weather, and therefore the SUN itself is the cause of terrorism. This, of course, would be illogical - just like you.
And FYI, some terrorists HAVE come out of Canada. They caught one trying to sneak in on a ferry in Port Angeles before Y2K. If he wasn't from Canada - where'd he get the car, the clothing, the travel expenses, and the bomb? Oh, that's right - he was poverty-stricken.
A Moderate,
Okay, let's not constrain the discussion to malaria. Can you explain how fighting poverty and/or curing ANY disease will help combat terrorism? That's the true thread of this discussion. Rather than calling people adjectives (and not being able to think them up on your own, insipid), why not contribute to the conversation? Or do you have nothing intelligent to write?
Posted by: Larry on July 13, 2005 01:54 PMWill we get to a point where if anyone in THIS country says anything publicly critical of Islam that THEY too will find themselves brutally murdered in the street? What makes Holland so different from here, in that respect? This is a bad trend, and I hate to think where we could find oursevles, especially with liberal coddling of terrorists. (oh give me a break, all we hear is "Bush is worse than bin Laden. We're too mean at Gitmo. John Kerry even referred to one terrorist in Iraq as a 'legitimate voice' etc. blah, blah, blah...coddlers!)
Posted by: Realist on July 13, 2005 02:09 PMYou are aware there was a terrorist bombing in London aren't you? Perhaps it happened while you were at Yoga class.
Posted by: swassociates on July 13, 2005 02:17 PMAnd Look at the governments in the countries where Islamofacist terrorism has flourished the most---they are tyrannical basketcases! How can anyone flourish in THAT??? Get real, libs! Quit blaming America for the fact that the Taliban would cut people's body parts off! You CANNOT placate bloodthirsty monsters by building daycares, sorry Patty Murray!
Posted by: Realist on July 13, 2005 02:17 PMSee, impoverished people tend to get angry at big rich nations that think they own the world, like the U.S.
While the ringleaders may not be poverty-stricken, they grew up that way.
The London train bombers were originally from Pakistan, and that isn't exactly an urban paradise.
The islamofacist movement is a political movement to restore the 12th Century Caliphate. Using the religion of radical Islam as a vehicle.
Look at the leaders of the movement and terrorists carrying out the bombings. Just how is poverty motivating them?
Posted by: JCM on July 13, 2005 02:46 PM"See, impoverished people tend to get angry at big rich nations that think they own the world, like the U.S.
While the ringleaders may not be poverty-stricken, they grew up that way.
The London train bombers were originally from Pakistan, and that isn't exactly an urban paradise."
So now it's not that terrorists are from 'depressing and disease-ridden countries', they must only be from a country that 'isn't exactly an urban paradise.' Why are there no terrorists from North Dakota?
You still didn't explain how Mohammed Atta was EVER impoverished. Abu Nidal? Abu Abbas? Shahzad Tanweer? Do you even know who these men are? You say they grew up impoverished. Please provide evidence. FYI - Shahzad Tanweer's family moved to England in 1961, two decades before he was born.
Note to Bosco - the quickest way out of a hole is just to stop diggin'.
Bosco = Useful idiot.
If poverty is, as you postulate the cause of terror, then we should be able to buy the terrorist off.
We have an example of terrorists being offered their stated goal. The Palestinian movement. The when the UN proposed the state of Israel it also included a Palestinian State, the Arabs declined. Since then the Palestinians have been offered Statehood at Oslo, Wye River, and again with the Zinni mission in 2001. The Zinni mission came within one negotiating point of succeeding, Palestine had to curb the bombers. Since the stated goal has been on the table the numerous times the real motivation must be something other than a Palestinian State. If you read the writings of the leaders of the Palestinian leaders as well as the PLA own documents you find the real goal is the destruction of Israel.
You have bought into the notion that poverty causes terrorism. But by looking at bombers few come from backgrounds of poverty. Similarly if you read the stated intention of the Islamofacists starting with Shaikh Imam Muhammad Abdul-Wahhaab through Osama bin-Laden you will not see elimination of poverty as a motivation you see the restoration of the 12th Century Caliphate.
Posted by: JCM on July 13, 2005 03:40 PMI'm embarrassed for you. And if you're not, you should be...
Posted by: ADR on July 13, 2005 03:51 PMDo you remember the early Palestinian terror group Black September? Hijacking Planes, shooting up airports other things on the terror hit parade. Black September was named after the Jordanian massacre of Palestinians in September '70. Yet as group with that name, they attacked western and Israel civilians, not Jordan.
I've told you what the Islamofascists goal is and given you the sources in their own material. Other than cliches what have you shown?
Posted by: JCM on July 13, 2005 04:00 PMThe full fledged 'war on mosquitos' that the US waged involved drastic overdosages and was quite indiscriminate - and had severe environmental consequences.
In moderation DDT could cause a far wider swath of destruction to _malaria_ than it would to higher animals.
Posted by: Al on July 13, 2005 04:08 PMThe British Authorities have determined that one of the bombers was a 19 year old British male. Lo and behold, he is Muslim. He was most likely lured into his extremism by the hateful mullahs that prey on young, gullible Muslims. More details will emerge soon.
The point that liberals are fully unwilling to acknowledge is that we are fighting against a fanatical branch of Islam. Against groups of people infected wtih hate through clerics of their religion.
Liberals tell us that Islam is a religion of peace. But the evidence suggests otherwise. How could it be that so many different people, across many different cultures, living under many different forms of government, could all have the same, hateful views that have lead them to the same conclusion, and willingness to die and spread their death, unless there was a unifying component?
That component is Islam. It may have practitioners that are peaceful, but it also has many who are willing to commit violence. We are going on 60 years of Islamic Terror. From Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and now Britain, we see citizens of these countries who are willing to be indoctrinated with enough Islamic hatred, that despite otherwise successful, Western lives, can commit these attrocities that are fundamentally a violation of THE core principle of Western thought: individual freedom.
What the clerics who hand down this hatred are most concerned with is the freedom that gives rise to the rational, secular, material, sexual and above all, happy lives that have become the hallmark of those people living under the Western governments that protect this freedom.
It's obvious where our targets lie. In the mosques. We must go to these mosques and root out the preachers of hatred. We are going to have to go door to door and start asking Muslims to out anyone who they have heard preaching this virulent Islamic hatred. We already know who many of these mullahs are, so why aren't we doing anything to stop them?
The sooner we go to the Mullahs and start arresting them, and preferably exterminating them, the sooner we end the assualt on our freedom, and our right to peacefully coexist with one another as Westerners.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 13, 2005 05:30 PMThe reason we aren't doing anything to stop them might have to do with the first amendment (at least in our country) It would be very hard to arrest people for speech and religious conviction without serious impacts to the first amendment.
Anyhow, You do bring up a salient point. And that is if Islam is such a peaceful religion, why are the supposedly "peaceful" groups not making greater efforts to insure that it actually IS a peaceful religion? If young people are being indoctrinated into a supposedly false form of Isalm, then the only way to "un"-indoctrinate them is for other Muslims to counter the teaching of the radicals so that the real truth is given. I know if there were Christians advocating this kind of murder, I would be very concerned that other members of the faith weren't working hard to correct the problem. Young Muslims need a strong alternative to the radical versions being preached. Who is providing that strong alternative?
Posted by: Eyago on July 13, 2005 05:46 PMRight on!!!
If I went out and said all blacks must die, I'd be put in jail. If I said all gays must die, I'd be put in jail. Why is it that a Mullah can say all infidels from the west must die and they can keep talking? Just because they say it's a religion. Well if so, I'm a Christian and I think I'll follow the old testament today and just kill all Muslims. It's my religion you know so that should be just fine. Right? I will repent my actions later.
Muslim people need to take care of this and out these freaks, but sadly that won't happen. It doesn't with gangs in cities and won't with this cause they are either afraid or just don't care as long as they aren't killed.
Posted by: Mightier than the Sword on July 13, 2005 05:48 PMThe goal in blowing up kids is to make this war unpopular here in the US. Thereby causing the US to withdraw, as in Vietnam and Somalia, events discussed at length by bin-Laden. With the US gone the terror masters take control. Once they have control just what will they do to eliminate poverty? How many more day care centers will bin-Laden build in Iraq?
By propagating the poverty-terror argument as a reason to end the war on terror you are aiding the enemy in their propaganda efforts. You are encouraging them to blow up children.
I just wish the MSM would publish pictures of a dismembered child so that the handy work of theses poor, misunderstood, downtrodden lads could be seen in all of its gory glory.
Jeff B.
Your taking the most direct route to Islamic reformation, kill the Islamofacist mullahs until reformers take there place.
Mightier.
One of the great dichotomies of a free society those who would advocate its destruction are protected by its values.
It's as likely to work as any of the drivel your bunch suggests...
Besides, you guys should be right in line with this bunch. After all, they are just protesting the immoral culture of the west... Killing sinners has a long, happy tradition among christians.
Posted by: Third Party Voter on July 13, 2005 06:43 PMPoverty is related to terrorism in the same way that poverty is related to militias, skinheads, the KKK and hate speech. They're correlated -- when you find poverty in this country, you tend to find racism, fanaticism, and support for groups like the Klan. Move this example to the middle east, and you find fundamantalist islamic religion, suicide bombing, and al qaeda.
Ignorance breeds hate. Poverty breeds discontent. And while many of you are caught up in semantics (i.e. "poverty can't be proven to directly CAUSE terrorism, therefore politicians are stupid for worrying about it"), you're missing the larger point: if you attack poverty, you attack many of the fundamental inequities that lead to terrorist activity.
And, hey, just because so many of you have posted anti-Islamic sentiment in this forum, I'll add the following: statistically speaking, in _this_ country, ignorance breeds conservative ideology. You don't find many skinheads in the Democratic party....
Posted by: A Moderate on July 13, 2005 06:45 PMPoverty is related to terrorism in the same way that poverty is related to militias, skinheads, the KKK and hate speech. They're correlated -- when you find poverty in this country, you tend to find racism, fanaticism, and support for groups like the Klan. Move this example to the middle east, and you find fundamantalist islamic religion, suicide bombing, and al qaeda.
Ignorance breeds hate. Poverty breeds discontent. And while many of you are caught up in semantics (i.e. "poverty can't be proven to directly CAUSE terrorism, therefore politicians are stupid for worrying about it"), you're missing the larger point: if you attack poverty, you attack many of the fundamental inequities that lead to terrorist activity.
And, hey, just because so many of you have posted anti-Islamic sentiment in this forum, I'll add the following: statistically speaking, in _this_ country, ignorance breeds conservative ideology. You don't find many skinheads in the Democratic party....
Posted by: A Moderate on July 13, 2005 06:45 PMNo, just the Klan in the Democratic party. Robert Byrd.
There are people of all race, color, creed and financial status that breed ignorance. I know many ignorant liberals as I do conservatives. Hatred is hatred, it doesn't have to have anything tied to it. Some people are just plain evil and want to kill others. That is the only truth in the world.
Posted by: Mightier than the Sword on July 13, 2005 06:56 PMWhich is fortunate! Otherwise, there would be way too many of us! And no work for the fuzz or the army!
Hell, if there weren't any just plain evil people, there wouldn't be any fuzz or army!
Posted by: Third Party Voter on July 13, 2005 07:12 PMApparently you don't know much about the concept of causality. Your two paragraphs contradict each other:
"{Poverty and terrorism are} correlated -- when you find poverty in this country, you tend to find racism, fanaticism, and support for groups like the Klan."
"Ignorance breeds hate. Poverty breeds discontent."
So which is it? Does poverty breed discontent, or terrorism? Do poverty and ignorance go hand-in-hand, breeding hate and discontent, which leads to terrorism? That'd be a pretty racist and ignorant statement in and of itself. Thanks for your enlightenment. Not.
Your last statement in your second paragraph really sums up your worldview: "fundamental inequities that lead to terrorist activity".
The only 'fundamental inequity' that leads to terrorism is the belief that infidels are inequal to Muslims and therefore deserve to die.
You're welcome at any point to illustrate how 9/11, 3/11, and 7/7 are related to poverty.
As for your last paragraph, it shows how much your hatred of conservatives skews your worldview. Remember - Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. And all those racial riots in our southern states in the 1960s were rebelling against - you guessed it - the ruling Democratic machine. If you write it down, you won't forget it and end up looking so stupid next time. I'm glad you're not poor, because with all your hatred, you'd probably end up a terrorist. ;)
Posted by: Larry on July 13, 2005 07:29 PMI would not want to have my community stained with the bad deeds of a few. So, I'd perhaps consider turning in those who--in my community--want to do harm and upset this life I have struggled so hard to make good.
Gentle Reader in this blog of Another Culture---do you get the drift?
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 13, 2005 08:31 PMUsing your theory, why dont the Democrats (liberals) give up and let the Evil Republicans (conservatives) run the country, because the poverty level with the Dem's Control (in this state 20 years control) has lead to a Declaration of War (I-912).
If the US doesnt stand it's ground on the War on Terror, this country will be considered weak, or even Weaker than under (pantywaist) Clinton terms in office. That is the enemy's wish.....
Think about it.
Posted by: Chris on July 13, 2005 08:54 PMI always thought ignorance was bliss. If you're ignorant of something, how could that turn into hate? Hate for being stupid? Hate for being to lazy to be educate yourself? I don't quite understand that.
Oh, BTW, thanks for clearing up that logic that poverty leads to terrorism. It makes TONS more sense now...^_^
I believe that poverty can lead to discontent in a lot of cases. But do you really think that discontented people turn to killing? If I were discontent with my level of poverty, I'm intelligent enough, as a human being, to know that murdering dozens of innocent people and myself isn't going to cure my poverty, or any of my cronies' poverty.
You still seem to be avoiding the widely known fact that a lot of these terrorists were University graduates. I wouldn't call a University graduate ignorant, and I wouldn't say he was in poverty, either. They don't terrorize people because of their discontent or "ignorance." They do it because of their convictions.
Somewhat Relevant Sidenote: Just yesterday I posted a bit on Muslims and "understanding" them--Understand them? I think they speak clearly enough...
Posted by: Cydney on July 13, 2005 09:06 PMIt should be read as:
You still seem to be avoiding the widely known fact that a lot of these terrorists were University graduates. I wouldn't call a University graduate ignorant, and I wouldn't say he was in poverty, either. They don't terrorize people because of their discontent or "ignorance." They do it because of their convictions.
Posted by: Cydney on July 13, 2005 09:09 PMEither way we still have to democratize totalitarian regimes and reform Islam.
The best way to beat poverty is in a free and open society. If you believe in other causal factors the best way marginalize radical elements is a free and open society.
Moderate, I guess that means you're all for toppling totalitarian regime and starting democracies because that is historically proven way to end wide spread poverty.
Yep...The Skinheads were into Nader,etc...Definitely third party supporters.
You WILL find that the Bloods, Crypts, Banditos, Gypsies, Hells Angels, MS-12, Russian Mob, Mexican Mafia, etc...are card carrying Democrats!
And they have a lot of money....Including our tax dollars to pay their welfare as they also make millions on the street through various illicit means. They pay the Democrats handsomely to relax immigration laws, to close their eyes at the border, to neuter the local law enforcement, to give shorter jail sentences, etc....
I can see how you believe that appeasing these types of *thugs* on an international level would buy you their cooperation.....You are so used to playing that game of "pay the extortionists so they won't hurt you" here on the streets of the USA! Democrats are so foolishly *inclusive* - they would sell out their law-abiding countrymen for a *deal* between them and the terrorists!
Posted by: Deborah on July 13, 2005 10:17 PMThat is the most accurate statement I have read all week. At least this is true of today's crop of liberals who like to call themselves "progressive."
I'd put Hillary Rodham at the top of the list. If any of you have not already picked up Edward Klein's new book, "The Truth About Hillary," you should do so soon. This book is very well documented and give a very clear picture of roots of Rodham's gender feminist ideology as well as her ability to lie with such ease.
Of course, it also displays all the very convincing evidence that Rodham and Clinton have a marriage of political convenience. But, that's not even the interesting stuff any more.
One thing is for sure, Rodham is obsessed with control and she would be ecstatic to be able limit free speech so the truth about her doesn't make it into any more books.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on July 13, 2005 11:24 PMLiberal would-be first amendment protectors want anything at all to be considered free speech and protected by the first amedment, but there are clearly limits to free speech. If I yell fire in a crowded theatre, that's not free speech. Nor is it free speech to unleash with megaphone a tirade of profanity in the middle of some official ceremony that others are enjoying, etc. If there's a mullah, even here in the US preaching this kind of terror breeding hatred, then I want to know about it, and he should be suppressed outright.
There's obviously a fine line here. Is Ward Churchill spewing this kind of hatred? He's pretty damn close, and he's in the position of an educator, which makes it highly suspect. Still though, as much as Ward Churchill has suggested violence, he's not directly preaching for kids at UC to go out and strap bombs to themselves. That's clearly over the line, and that's what many of the mullahs of Islam are doing everyday in the middle east.
Frankly, as much as we have to be mindful of the First Amendment here in the US, we should show no mercy at all at simply marching in to the mosques in any known terrorist sponsoring countries where these preachers of hatred lurk, and rounding up these guys and shipping them directly to Guantanamo Bay. And I personally don't care if we just summarily execute them because as far as I'm concrened, anyone preaching hatred to the degree of terror has no rights, here in the US, or anywhere else.
This would certainly be far more effective than waiting for the terror trained foot soldiers to come to us.
What we have got is lots of $$$$$. I'd put a large bounty on the head of every hate preacher or terrorist trainer. Greed is a good motivator. It's going to be a lot harder for these guys to recruit their foot soldiers if they don't have the Mic and the daily sermon to plant the seeds of hate.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 13, 2005 11:26 PMEquating terrorism with poverty is a liberal myth that has its origins in Palestine. While it may be true that brainwashing and recruiting the uneducated poor of Palestine is easy picking, it's not the poor and uneducated that are masterminding terrorist plots, making bombs, etc. Nor are the leaders of these terror groups particularly concerned with poor Muslims. Even a cursory reading of the history of Arafat's terrorist rule of Palestine will reveal how many times he took humanitrain aid money from the UN and the US and funneled it right into his own personal coffers or to those of Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa Martyrs, etc.
But what's even more disgusting and ignorant is trying to justify the terrorism as simply a lashing out due to poverty. This is the kind of read-between-the-lines America bashing that we're hearing from almost every major liberal politician, rock star, movie star, etc.
It doesn't take much figuring to see this hatred for what it is and make note for the next election cycle. One more reason that the Democrat Drought is going to continue.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 13, 2005 11:46 PMLarry, I know the difference between correlation and cause. I also know that the logical fallacy that you're looking for ("cum hoc ergo propter hoc") doesn't go as far as you think it does. Correlation does not imply cause. It doesn't preclude cause, either. Go read a book on logic -- you might learn something.
That said, I would just like to point out to all of you that I do not HATE conservatives. I am not a liberal. I am not a conservative. I prefer to think for myself, and while I may agree with you or disagree with you on various issues, I find all forms of irrational, ideologically-driven behavior intolerable (in other words, most of what passes for "debate" in this forum...)
Frankly, those of you who refuse to see the link between poverty, fundamentalism, hate and terrorism are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Is poverty the only factor leading to the development of terrorists? No. Of course not. I never said it was. But if you're using your brains, even in the tiniest way, you can't deny that a relationship exists. Most terrorists come from poverty-stricken nations. Most hate groups have their greatest support in poor communities. Poverty does correlate with ignorance (and no, it's not "racist" or "hateful" to state facts like these), and ignorance correlates with fundamentalism, be it Islamic, Christian or otherwise.
I get the very real sense that many of you believe that some people are fundamentally "evil." I find this sad -- once you write off a population as "evil," you leave no hope for change. And despite what dubyah says, you can't fight "evil," if only because you can never predict it. You can, however, fight poverty, inequality and ignorance -- all goals of the G8 summit. All goals that will improve the lives of millions of people around the world. Millions of people who will be less likely to hate the industrialized nations.
I really don't know why any of you would have a legitimate beef with the G8 summit. That said, given the quality of your arguments so far, I doubt any of you will be able to list a reason that doesn't involve calling me names. So have at it, I guess....
Posted by: A Moderate on July 14, 2005 04:13 AMRepeating an argument doesn't make it so.
Did you ever consider that you have the syllogism backwards? That fundamentalist, repressive regimes are the cause of poverty, not the result. The best current example of that is Zimbabwe.
Few of the bombers come from impoverished backgrounds. Add to that the stated goals of radial Islamic clerics. Despite this evidence you still insist that the cause is poverty. Poverty and terrorism are corollaries result from the same root cause therefore where you see poverty you are more likely to see terrorism.
Poverty is the all purpose bugaboo of the left, poverty causes crime, terrorism, poor school performance, gangs, drugs, ad infinitum ad nauseam.
One difference between left and right is that the right recognizes the existence of evil. The left believes people will do bad things only in the presence of external forces, i.e.. poverty. However that argument falls apart when you look at the evidence a vast majority of the poor try desperately to improve their situation without resorting to damaging behaviors. The right believes that evil is the intrinsic capability of a human being to do wrong if the opportunity presents itself, independent of a persons economic status.
Posted by: JCM on July 14, 2005 07:01 AMLooking backwards up the list,
Jeff B did.
Deborah did.
Cydney did.
Chris did.
And Larry certainly did.
What do you think an ad hominem is?
Anything that offends your delicate sensibilities?
Anything that deviates from your perspective?
Or was this just another pathetic attempt to play the victim card?
"I find all forms of irrational, ideologically-driven behavior intolerable (in other words, most of what passes for "debate" in this forum...)"
Fine. Go away!
If you remain, be prepared for what you earn, and what you deserve.
ciao
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 14, 2005 07:05 AMYou're halfway there:
"Most terrorists come from poverty-stricken nations. Most hate groups have their greatest support in poor communities."
Now read ahead to JCM's comments to close the loop:
"That fundamentalist, repressive regimes are the cause of poverty, not the result."
There is a correlation between poverty and terrorism. However, that poverty was not, is not, and never will be the result of the United States nor any other western industrialized nation. That poverty is not caused by the targets of the terrorists attacks.
The poverty in the equation is caused by the repressive governments and regimes in these countries that purposefully KEEP their citizens in poverty and blame the west.
So poverty is NOT a cause, but it is correlated. And that poverty is NOT caused by the west, but by the governments of the terrorists. Those same governments encourage terrorism against foreign, western targets.
Once you realize this, you'll realize that removing these dictators from power, like we did with Saddam Hussein, is the BEST solution for terrorism.
See how it all comes together?
Class has now ended!!
My brain is full can I go?
Courtesy "The Far Side"
That poverty is a breeding ground for terrorism is only one of their many baseless beliefs. They also claim:
1) that Iraq is a "breeding ground" for terrorism now (only after we ousted Saddam, of course).
2) that Saddam's government and Al-Queda had no ties (thoroughly debunked).
3) that fighting terrorism only breeds more terrorism, and that we make ourselves targets by fighting it openly.
4) that being a terrorist and fighting terrorism are somehow morally equivalent.
5) that being White Supremacist Christian Gun-nut is reprehensible, but being a Muslim Suicide Bomber is simply misguided.
6) and, that the worst outcome of Muslim terrorist bombings is the potential (however unrealized) of backlash against "innocent" Muslims.
I'm sure many of you can add to this list . . .
Posted by: starboardhelm on July 14, 2005 08:15 AMI have respect for the G8 Summit, and think it is a "Good Thing" but...
The topic here is not the summit, but how the Local MSM put a opinion spin on the summit. We all have our views, opinions, and draw our own conclusions.
For the MSM to spin the poverty/terrorism theory is "hogwash" and leads to further Anti War sentiment. The really sad thing here is, there are people out there that will buy into it, without ever "thinking deeper" or "thinking on their own". Carte Blanc, it is SO because it is in the "Paper".
The MSM has a responsibilty to the public, but try telling them that. Like talking to a wall.
Other posters have made good points, but let me tackle it from this perspective...
When one attmpts to draw links between two things, it is important to not only look at all the instances where they apparently coexist, but to also look at the times when each exists separate from the other, and also HOW those links actually exist.
In the case of perverty, it is true the the terroist "movement" seems to come from nations that are poorer than the median, but that is about as far as we can draw that conclusion. There are many poor nations, but there are few nations that "breed" terrorism. There are few terrorists themselves that have a history of poverty, and though their heritage is from contries that have lots of poverty, they don't seem to be ones who are affected by that poverty.
Now, it seems logical to make an assuption that people struggling in impoverished conditions with little access to information, might be manipulated into becoming terroists, but is that actually happening?
It seems logical that if you take someone who has less, tell him that they COULD have more, tell them that the reason they DON'T have more is the fault of some other governemnt, you MIGHT convinnce them that they should blame the other people for thei condition. That is a standard approach for any form of propoganda. Turn disaffection (or in some cases create disaffection first) and mold into hate. Then, take that hate and refine it in the crucible of superiority.
And THAT is where we find the crux of the issue with ANY group that justifies the killing of innocnet people. It is in the belief that the innocents are first, not morally equivalent, second, knowingly complicent in the oppression of those morally superior to them and thus not acutally innocent, and third, deserving of death for thier complicity.
The thing about it is, poverty is not neccesary for this formula to work. In fact, I suggest that poverty is a factor in less than 10% of attorcities committed by groups against innocents. From Nazi Germany, to Stalinist Russia, from Pol Pot, to Idi Amin, from Sien Fein, to Hamas, from KKK to Crips and Bloods. Poverty is not the issue and never has been. In Somalia, in Rwanda, and in other African countires, bitter fueds are faught, and poverty becomes a problem, but the poverty is the RESULT of the power struggle, not the cause. Hate is bred from ideology and from the beleif that the object of the hate has somehow desreved his fate.
In no way would Islamist terrorsts be impacted by a reduction in poverty. They make no effort to bring "poverty" to the negotiating table, and they don't need it to recruit their operatives. Theirs is an ideological struggle. If poverty was not a wedge, they would still hae decadence, and culture, and pollution of holy lands by infidels. They would hae the issues of women operating out of the "natural order", they would hae arrogance, they would he Allah's calling, they would have the existence of a single jew living on earth.
Poor people don't kill indiscrimantly. Amazingly enough, most poor and ignorant people seem to hae a highly developed sense of respect for human dignity that many educated seem to lack. Thre is a huge step that one must take from misey due to one's lot in life to wanting to kill women and children you hae never met. Most people won't even consider it. No, it isn't one's lot in life that feeds a hatred strong enough to murder innocents, it is the indoctrination into a belie system that imbues a moral authority upon that adherents that makes them superior to those who are not.
When someone adopts a belie system that justifies killing as a matter of moral right, there is no remedy outside of phyical force that will suffice.
Posted by: Eyago on July 14, 2005 11:08 AMFirst, calling you ignorant of the facts is not ad hominem. But your attempt to divert attention from the real argument is a false dilemna, an appeal to consequences and a red herring.
Is poverty an issue that factors in to terroism? In some small ways, it might be. As I outlined above, if you live in destitute poverty (and most who do, do so because of the oppresive governments that they live under) then you might have little hope, so the idea of joining a death cult may be an appeailng way to go out with a bang. But to imply that poverty is in any way a root cause of terror is ignorant. It's simply not true, and any cursory analysis can prove it so. The majority of the terrorist are not poor. The majority of the clerics who preach the hatred are in fact, quite well off. Bin Laden and the many governments that support terror are quite well off from either stealing UN dollars, private inherited wealth, drug trade, etc.
Even the concept of terror is not possible from an unfunded position. It takes time, money, connections, and a lot of research, communications equipment, computers, etc. to plan attacks on the scale of even what we saw in London last week. There was absolutely zero aspect of that attack that can be linked to poverty. So where's your argument?
Go think it through and get back to us when you are willing to admit you are wrong.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 14, 2005 11:33 AMTerrorists are not motivated by political causes. They are psychopaths, sociopaths, and butchers who use politics as an excuse to act out their barbaric impulses.
Posted by: V the K on July 14, 2005 12:08 PMDo you remember the thuds of our citizens leaping on 9/11? Do you remember the charred bodies and beheadings? Still no evil? How many times on the playground did you get punched in the nose before you figured that that bully was evil? My guess is once and only once. Maybe not. You have those 3 monkeys posing on your fireplace mantle. "See no..."
Time for action. Peace, love & understanding is great for Woodstock, a college paper or academic debate. This is war. We can not wait for the response of our enemies.
By the way--lots of US money has gone to Africa for poverty for many years. Where are the results? Arms are still being hacked off.
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 14, 2005 12:51 PM