A Letter To The Europeans.

Ted said:
Who is this clown? It has been a while since I have read such a belittle-ing, condescending, paternalizing piece of manure. Why is he instilling people with populistic fear? Doesn't he have anything better to then to judge us..... again?

haha, give'em hell Ted :biggun:
 
gladius said:
I never said this, when did I say? Where in that statement did I say they were all bad?

No I was mearly asking a question if that was what you ment by what you wrote, am I allowed to ask you a question, or should I just asume everything and comment totaly missinformed of what you mean? :shoothea:
 
AlexKall said:
No I was mearly asking a question if that was what you ment by what you wrote, am I allowed to ask you a question, or should I just asume everything and comment totaly missinformed of what you mean? :shoothea:

But thats what you just did, you made an missinformed comment in the guise of a question.

Yes you are allowed to ask a question, but the way you worded the question, you had already implied the answer. Not to mention your follow-up gave your oppinion to back up what you had already assumed. Stop pretending that's not what you meant to do after it backfires on you.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
Italian Guy nails an important point here: The majority of the Extremists and Fanatics are not poor. Most are relatively well off, many of them are the rich elite. Osama Bin Ladin is/was a multimillionare for instance. All of the 9/11 attackers were actually "educated" people with well above average wealth. They were most definitely not poor ignorant peasants by any stretch of the imagination.

Then again, I don't know if that is what you were getting at or not.

To be perfectly honest I think he completely misses the point.
There is no doubt the guys calling the shots are wealthy but you dont see Bin Ladin running around leading suicide squads or flying planes into buildings, almost to a man the guys killing themselves are from poor backgrounds, crappy environments etc. Sure some of them are well educated but who paid for that education, lifestyle etc?

I still believe that where you have people who have no real future to look forward to you have a breeding ground for recruits.
 
To be perfectly honest I think he completely misses the point.
Where you referring to me Montey, because from you wrote afterward you and I share the same point of view. You call the people who call the shots "rich" or "powerfull". But the ones who are willing to blow themselves to pieces..... well they don't have much to live for. If you watch the documentary on Palestinians who blew themselves into oblivion, you see the common denominator is no future.
 
Nope I was refering to godofthunder9010' s post saying that Italian Guy had hit the nail on the head, unless I have read it incorrectly (which is not impossible) I think he has missed the target entirely.

 
MontyB said:
To be perfectly honest I think he completely misses the point.
There is no doubt the guys calling the shots are wealthy but you dont see Bin Ladin running around leading suicide squads or flying planes into buildings, almost to a man the guys killing themselves are from poor backgrounds, crappy environments etc. Sure some of them are well educated but who paid for that education, lifestyle etc?

I still believe that where you have people who have no real future to look forward to you have a breeding ground for recruits.
Ted said:
You call the people who call the shots "rich" or "powerfull". But the ones who are willing to blow themselves to pieces..... well they don't have much to live for. If you watch the documentary on Palestinians who blew themselves into oblivion, you see the common denominator is no future.
Why do both of you still keep on insisting on something that is not true?

You have a preconceived answer, anything that doesn't fit that you disregard, and make up someting to fit your fantasies.

Some, but not all these people are poor, but that doesn't mean poverty is the issue behind terrorism, if that were the case you would have poor non-Muslim people would be suicide bombing the US, would they not?

So the issue is something else completely.

Even CNN although they are liberal leaning, even they recognize that its NOT all about poverty. I'd give you a more right-wing source but you might ignore that, maybe you will listen to this.


Terrorists' backgrounds defy conventional wisdom
Expert: Not all al Qaeda poor, uneducated, devout

By Henry Schuster

His research shows that many of these terrorists -- including the September 11 hijackers and other al Qaeda members -- tend to be fairly well educated and affluent, and don't come from deeply religious backgrounds...

"Even at the small number of 25 [terrorists], I realized the conventional wisdom was wrong." The conventional wisdom, he says, being that these were poor, uneducated young men who had a long-term exposure to fundamentalist religious beliefs...

While teaching at the University of Pennsylvania, Sageman expanded on his research to include 162 terrorists and turned it into the groundbreaking book, "Understanding Terror Networks." He came across some compelling numbers:

About two-thirds of the terrorists went to college, in an area of the world where only about 10 percent of young men get a post-secondary education

About 87 percent came from generally secular backgrounds (most of the other 13 percent, who studied at the Muslim schools known as madrassas, were Indonesians)

Most came from middle or upper-middle class households

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/24/schuster.column/



You guys keep going on and on about how poverty is the real issue of terrorism, and how stopping poverty will stop terrorism, well that's a bunch of baloney.

Besides most of the poor ones you keep mentioning, fall into a category of local terrorist, those blowing things up in Palestine, and their own countries in the Middle East. Those don't affect the West as directly.

Most of the ones who are more affluent and the real dangerous ones, are the one who travel to the West and blow try to us up. This are the ones we should be more concerened about not other local ones. Most all these guys are NOT poor, and have a decent education.
 
Last edited:
Umm you may want to do a little more research on that source:

Understanding Terror Networks has been widely lauded for debunking the stereotypes of terrorists as “poor, desperate, naïve single young men from third world countries, vulnerable to brainwashing and recruitment into terror” (69). Many readers have marveled at Sageman’s ability to make insightful observations derived solely from research in open sources. For this reason alone, most reviewers have been recommending his book as an essential read. Before Studies in Intelligence recipients jump on the bandwagon, however, they are advised to proceed with caution.
First, a look at what Understanding Terrorist Networks is not: It is neither a definitive social analysis of Islamist terrorist networks, nor a conclusive characterization of the psychology of terrorist members. Sageman himself apologizes for the poor quality and insufficient quantity of data on which he has based his analysis: “There is evidence that those on whom enough information exists are not a representative sample of the rest. This inevitably slants the study in specific directions . . . and affects the validity of some of my conclusions” (64). He continues that his “sources included the documents and transcripts of legal proceedings involving global Salafi mujahedin and their organizations, government documents, press and scholarly articles, and Internet articles. The information was often inconsistent” and “the collected information suffers from several limitations” (65). Sageman also expresses regret for relying on journalistic accounts, citing the danger of misinformation, and finishes by identifying the “greatest limit on this inquiry . . .” as being “the lack of a relevant control groups . . . ,” which handicapped his ability to “make statements that are specific to terrorists” (69).
Usually after an author convinces me that the kernel of truth lying at the end of a good read is fatally flawed, I decline to invest more time in the work. In this case, however, that would have been a mistake. Although conditioned to be cautious about Sageman’s research, I found further reading did bring its rewards.
What is Understanding Terrorist Networks really about? At the end of his biography posted on the Internet, Sageman discloses that the original title of this book, commissioned by the University of Pennsylvania, was The Bonds of Terror: The Emergence of the Global Salafi Jihad.[1] Chapters One and Two are well written and do an admirable job of describing, in sufficient detail, the evolution of the Salafi jihad. Moreover, in an era when academics and bloggers alike are churning out ever more on terrorism, Sageman succinctly defines what the war is all about: The global jihad, or Islamist fundamentalist movement, is a “worldwide religious revivalist movement with a goal to establish past Muslim glory and authentic Islam in a great Islamist state.” What began as isolated struggles against apostate dictators in Egypt and Uzbekistan or foreign occupiers in Palestine and Afghanistan (the near enemy) has evolved into a philosophically unified, if no longer well-organized, struggle against the powerful and influential western states (the far enemy) that passively and actively frustrate the emergence of the “great Islamic state.”
Chapter Three begins well with a declaration that the “new global Salafi mujahedin are sufficiently distinct from other terrorists that an in-depth study of their specific characteristics, patterns of joining the jihad, and behavior are needed” (61). When he continues by declining to “muddy the more purely ideological waters of the Global Salafi Jihad” by excluding from his study those Muslims that answered the call to jihad in Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Bosnia, however, he falls into the unfortunate analytic trap of structuring his data to facilitate an anticipated outcome. In fact, it is well documented that many terrorists found their way to al-Qa’ida and other Islamist fundamentalist groups through training and fighting at these other “fronts” of the global jihad.
And there are other problems with Chapter Three. On the one hand, Sageman contends that foreign fighters were barely involved in fighting in the Soviet-Afghan war (57); on the other hand, he stipulates that the leadership and founding members of al-Qa’ida were indeed in the fight (70). Next, the author explains that “unlike many political organizations, Salafi groups are careful to avoid a cult of personality” (87); yet, several pages later, he reminds readers that all true members of al-Qa’ida must swear an oath of allegiance, or act of Baya, not only to the organization, but also to Usama bin Laden himself (91).
Sageman’s treatment of terrorist recruitment is equally problematic. He begins well by recognizing that “joining the Jihad is actually a process and not a single decision” (91). He is spot on when he observes that most of those who have joined the jihad did so in a foreign country, and that Muslim expatriates, homesick “especially in an unwelcoming non-Muslim Western country,” look for other Muslims in places like the local mosque (93). Sageman uses two case studies to offer some constructive discussion concerning group social dynamics; however, as he develops the theme of how people of like minds grow closer together at local mosques, he missteps by asserting that the individuals, or “groups of guys,” decide in isolation to join the jihad.
The author reports that some think that “the Global Salafi Jihad mujahedin were recruited in mosques, where they underwent some sort of brainwashing,” a conclusion that he trivializes by noting: “So far, I have read no accounts of sinister al-Qa’ida recruiters lurking in mosques, ready to subvert naïve and passive worshippers” (122). Later, however, Sageman makes a powerful counterargument when he points out that “potential mujahedin have a hard time joining the Jihad if they do not know how to link up with the movement.” He further observes that “Montreal, London, Milan, Madrid, Hamburg, the Saudi province of Asir have contributed heavily to the global jihad because of the presence of mujahedin who might act as brokers for potential members of the jihad” (142).
The author misses his own point. Recruitment is a process and the strategically located “brokers” (recruiters) spot the talent and facilitate that process. It is true that the religion may be inspirational, but these “groups of guys” that form around study groups at mosques are guided to their inspirations. As Sageman says himself: “This perhaps chance encounter with a formal member of the Global Salafi Jihad is the critical element leading to the enrollment into the Jihad” (121).
Although Sageman errs in concluding that Islamist fundamentalists do not have a deliberate recruitment strategy, he succeeds in applying his knowledge of network theory in practical terms to how Salafi terror networks probably function. In Chapter Five, he discusses the flexibility and performance of small-world networks using a topology of self-organizing hubs and nodes. For anyone trying to imagine how al-Qa’ida may communicate, his observation that their “communications are possible horizontally among multiple nodes, allowing them to solve their problems locally without having to refer them upward to Central Staff and overwhelming the vertical links of communication” (165) helps put this normally complex concept in easily understood terms.
Sageman provides food for thought in his concluding section, which offers well-considered tips on how to prosecute the war. For example, his suggestion that researchers and analysts should focus on the friends and relatives of an identified terrorist, especially those he associated with just before joining, makes excellent sense (178).[2]
The real value of this book, and the reason why the Intelligence Community should pay attention, is that it is symptomatic of current problems associated with analysis of terrorism, both in government and in the popular and academic sectors. Demand for knowledge about terrorists, their motivations and intentions, and the structure and functionality of their organizations far outstrips all of the multitudinous but disparate research efforts underway. Given the great volume of production on the subject, this may seem counterintuitive; however, it is the quality of the output, not the volume, that is in question. Sageman has managed to make some useful observations working exclusively with unclassified information, despite its flaws. In fact, his goal in part was precisely to demonstrate that serious research on terrorism could be conducted outside “the cloak of secrecy” (ix) of the Intelligence Community.
Nonetheless, one hungers for the additional insights on this critical subject that might emerge from a true pooling of data across agencies and academia.



http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/Vol49no2/Terror_Networks_Book_Review_9.htm
 
Ahh, what were does it state in that long article you posted that poverty is the cause? It doesn't! So you are still wrong that poverty is the cause of terrorism.

This is the real cause (I have said this here before, one which the author of the posted article agrees also), as I will quote from the article you posted;

Although conditioned to be cautious about Sageman’s research, I found further reading did bring its rewards.

What is Understanding Terrorist Networks really about? At the end of his biography posted on the Internet, Sageman discloses that the original title of this book, commissioned by the University of Pennsylvania, was The Bonds of Terror: The Emergence of the Global Salafi Jihad.[1] Chapters One and Two are well written and do an admirable job of describing, in sufficient detail, the evolution of the Salafi jihad. Moreover, in an era when academics and bloggers alike are churning out ever more on terrorism, Sageman succinctly defines what the war is all about: The global jihad, or Islamist fundamentalist movement, is a “worldwide religious revivalist movement with a goal to establish past Muslim glory and authentic Islam in a great Islamist state.
That's whats is all about. Those who believe strongly in that, are the ones suseptable to being terrorist whether they are rich or poor.


Although the article does contend with Sageman on certain points, the fact is the article does agrees with alot of the things Sageman has written.

He is spot on when he observes that most of those who have joined the jihad did so in a foreign country, and that Muslim expatriates, homesick “especially in an unwelcoming non-Muslim Western country,” look for other Muslims in places like the local mosque(93).
These people aren't poor they are already living and studying in the West, enjoying its lifestyle, so how can you say poverty is the answer.

The articles stated that Sageman's writting had some flaws but most of this had to do with the way the cell organized themselves, recruiment strategy, and and nuances of how they operate, none of which countered the fact that alot of these men were educated and affluent. On the contrary the article supported those aspects of his report (as quoted above).
 
Last edited:
Some, but not all these people are poor, but that doesn't mean poverty is the issue behind terrorism, if that were the case you would have poor non-Muslim people would be suicide bombing the US, would they not?

I have to say you are right. But I started of by deviding to terrorism in two categories: the "traditional" and the "religious" terrorism. I also stated that the early motive was to tip the balance of power and not poverty. I merely stated that the ones that die are often the poor. The planning is done by the rich.
This doesn't seem to stick with religious terrorism, stricking but true (so it seems)

Oh....and Gladius, is the US the only country that experiences terrorism? And if so; what was that in London and Madrid? (Nit picky I know......:))
 
When I mentioned terrorism to the US, I meant the West in general, I did say the West a few times, I just mentioned the US sometimes to keep it brief, I admit sometimes it can be confusing.

And yes you are right, when it comes to religious terrorism, poverty is not a major factor in as far as the motivation goes.




For those others out there who need more proof, here is some background info of some of the 9-11 highjackers, to prove to that poverty is not the major factor of terrorism against the West.

Mohamed Atta al-Sayed- Graduated with a degree in architecture Cairo University. Attended Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg.

Marwan Yousef al-Shehhi- Attended Languege Institute in Bonn, Germany.

Majed Mashaan Moqed- Law student at King Fahd University, Suadi Arabia.

Hani Saleh Hanjour- Son of a food supply bussinessman in Saudi Arabia.

Abdulaziz al-Omari- Attained a degree from Imam Muhammad Ibn Islamic University.

Wail al-Shehri- Shcool teacher.

Ahmed Abdallah al-Nami- Enrolled at King Kahled University, Saudi Arabia.

Ziad Samir Jarrah- Born to a wealthy family in Lebanon.

As you all can see most of these terrorist are from middle class to wealthy backgrounds. Most of them went to college, where in the Middle East only 10% go to college, so they are a far far cry from coming from poor, desperate backgrounds.
 
Last edited:
But IG, do you agree that religious terrorism does have to do with tipping the balance of power?

And a second thing; being enrolled or attending college doesn't mean you are paying for it yourself. We won't and don't know, so you can explain it either way. Some of you will call this very thin indeed, but you can't dismiss it.....
 
If you had a formula for "How to build a Terrorist" (based upon everything outside of Palestine),
1.) Education
2.) Reasonable amount of wealth - enough that the person in question is willing to consider any number of things outside of the category of not starving to death, etc.
3.) For some reason, a good amount of exposure to the West.
4.) Extensive contact with Extremist Movements.

Palestine breaks about every consistent rule for what to expect from Extremists and Terrorists.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but Palestinian terrorist are localy isolated to that region (as far as the poor ones go). The other ones aren't.

But I think you are on the right track with the formula you pointed out. You made a good point to the fact that they are not poor so they have time to think and do other pursuits other than simply putting food on the table. It seems alot of terrorist are probably people given or develop radical, or revoloutionary thinking (maybe they pick it up while in dicussions with other radicals in college, this is the case with alot of past radicals in the West).

Ted said:
And a second thing; being enrolled or attending college doesn't mean you are paying for it yourself. We won't and don't know, so you can explain it either way. Some of you will call this very thin indeed, but you can't dismiss it.....
I don't get this, so what if they don't pay for it. The fact that they are attending college means their situation is no longer hopless and destitute. You were contending ealier that they did it because of their hopless situations brought about by poverty.
(I thougt you agreed yourself that this has little or nothing to do with poverty, unless I'm mistaken)
 
Last edited:
One interesting little fact of History. Up until the mid-1600's, the Muslim World was far more wealthy, scientifically advanced and prosperous than the Christian World. That has completely reversed itself since then. The predominantly Muslim nations of the world are among the very poorest. Bangladesh is the poorest nation in the world and almost completely 100% Muslim.

The Islamic World is confused by this but they are also trying to justify it. "How can the infidel have become more prosperous than the true religion of Islam." is what they are no doubt thinking. This is a lot of wah leads directly to Terrorism and Extremism.
 
It is with all things a curve. From innovative and curious to expanding and further enhancing. In the end the new newcomers copy the good things (ie science, philosophy, medicine etc) and filter out the bad things. The head start becomes a last place because they can't adapt. These decaying entities might resort to "other" means to survive.

I don't get this, so what if they don't pay for it. The fact that they are attending college means their situation is no longer hopless and destitute. You were contending ealier that they did it because of their hopless situations brought about by poverty.
(I thougt you agreed yourself that this has little or nothing to do with poverty, unless I'm mistaken)

The fact that they attent college doesn't make them wealthy but dependent. A money lender lends his money for a purpose. He lets a bright kid go to flight school for a reason. This kid can't say: I know how to fly now, I'll look for a job at Delta!
It's true that I said that religious terrorism isn't a poverty thing. But I said that the ones who blow themselves to pieces often are the poor ones. There are plenty poor, bright kids with pleny of hatred willing to blow themselves to hell for a higher purpose. It just like the grunts in the mud. There are cases of very rich kids ending up in the mud and the blood by choice. But there are far more of them having a cushy job where it is save, with a nice example of Bush's draft in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war. If you would look at the numbers I reckon one could say that it's often the poor who die and the rich who plan their death.
 
Europe could be a very powerful influence if it could ever learn to sing from the same hymn sheet. There are to many Governments and interested parties pulling in so many directions that nothing will ever get done.
 
Ted said:
The fact that they attent college doesn't make them wealthy but dependent. A money lender lends his money for a purpose. He lets a bright kid go to flight school for a reason. This kid can't say: I know how to fly now, I'll look for a job at Delta!
It's true that I said that religious terrorism isn't a poverty thing. But I said that the ones who blow themselves to pieces often are the poor ones.There are plenty poor, bright kids with pleny of hatred willing to blow themselves to hell for a higher purpose. It just like the grunts in the mud. There are cases of very rich kids ending up in the mud and the blood by choice. But there are far more of them having a cushy job where it is save, with a nice example of Bush's draft in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war. If you would look at the numbers I reckon one could say that it's often the poor who die and the rich who plan their death.

Not in this case! And most other international terrorist cases as well, those who blew themsleves up were far from being poor. The facts point otherwise, why do you still keep on insisting on this link to poverty? As if the facts are going change after the matter. It could be some where poor, but this is not a common denaminator, and it never will be.

Those terrorist on the list went to college NOT flight school. Only a few went to flight school, this had nothing to do with their college education. Flight school only came later when they planned the attack. They took it specifically for this attack. They already had college educations which they could have used to get them a decent paying job.

The notion that you are trying to say that someone paid some poor person for their college education so that they can throw it all away at the end so they can kill themselves is beyond idiotic. You are going to spend all that money so he can get a deegree and not use it, but blow himself up?

And if you say they are actually poor, having them go to college to get a better life did not persuade them to find something else, rather than do those terrorist attacks. Then this also proves that getting rid of poverty by giving people better opportunities will NOT stop terrorism. So you are wrong either way.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top