Bin Laden was not poor, Lenin was not poor, the terrorist of London was not poor, neither was the terrorist of London, were the Rote Armee members poor, was Carlos poor ? Robin Hood was not poor ,etc...

The Peace Corps did not prevent terrorism . You can give a terrorist $ millions, he always will have an excuse to murder people .It is also an insult to the poor to link terrorism to poverty . The great majority of the poor in Syria supported Assad .

Muslim terrorism is not caused by poverty but by the Islam .

What Monty is talking about is not how wealthy these people are or were. He is talking about social and political structures that creates a feeling among some people they cannot do anything else than use violence on their own terms rather than challenge their opponents on their terms. Monty might correct me and feel free to do so if I misunderstood your post.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

What Monty is talking about is not how wealthy these people are or were. He is talking about social and political structures that creates a feeling among some people they cannot do anything else than use violence on their own terms rather than challenge their opponents on their terms. Monty might correct me and feel free to do so if I misunderstood your post.

No need to correct anything you are right, these groups have attracted wealthy, educated, poor and stupid alike, what I believe links them is a belief that in order to correct the wrongs of society that this is their only/best option.

One thing I would also point out is that many of them are in their late teens to mid-twenties which tend to be both an idealistic phase and an emotion-driven period for people growing up.

Which is why I believe that in order to reduce the supply of recruits to these groups we have to start addressing the social issues within our own countries and one of the largest social issues we all have is the sense of inequality in terms of both wealth and justice.

Originally Posted by lljadw

Bin Laden was not poor, Lenin was not poor, the terrorist of London was not poor, neither was the terrorist of London, were the Rote Armee members poor, was Carlos poor ? Robin Hood was not poor ,etc...

The Peace Corps did not prevent terrorism . You can give a terrorist $ millions, he always will have an excuse to murder people .It is also an insult to the poor to link terrorism to poverty . The great majority of the poor in Syria supported Assad .

Muslim terrorism is not caused by poverty but by the Islam .

Bin Laden put his money and life where his mouth was though so it isn't hard to see how he attracted followers, Lenin railed against wealth and social inequality in a country largely inhabited by indentured servants to a wealthy minority so it isn't difficult to see where he got his support and while Robin Hood didn't exist it was the story of an underdog fighting for the poor and oppressed oddly enough against the rich and powerful.

Do you see any connection, or are we blaming the Muslims for Robin Hood as well?

Incidentally looking at the Peace Corps mission statement and oddly I don't see any mention of fighting terrorism:

The Peace Corps Mission

To promote world peace and friendship by fulfilling three goals:

1. To help the people of interested countries in meeting their need for trained men and women.
2. To help promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served.
3. To help promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans.

.

There is a discussion about that here in Sweden. There are parts of our major cities where the inhabitants don't feel they belong to the society and some of these people have joined ISIS or they are members of criminal gangs. It seems to be a turf war between some of the criminal gangs.

They need to be integrated better, get the feeling they belong to the society. To get the options to be integrated, get the education, get the jobs, be able to break the bad circle.

I also believe the political grievances must be solved and now I am thinking about the Palestinians. The Israelis have pushed them against the wall and that doesn't work.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

There is a discussion about that here in Sweden. There are parts of our major cities where the inhabitants don't feel they belong to the society and some of these people have joined ISIS or they are members of criminal gangs. It seems to be a turf war between some of the criminal gangs.

I think that is the same the world over because there has been a major disconnect between the "state" and the "masses" and I think most of the "masses" are beginning to believe that the "state" is there to keep the existing power structures in place rather than improve conditions for the "masses".

The result of that is the formation of different allegiances with people turning toward local leaders (whether it be religious fundamentalists, gangs or populist politicians like Trump) and away from the establishment as a method of protest. Oddly enough it is one of the reasons I think the west is in the very early stages of its own "Arab Spring".

They need to be integrated better, get the feeling they belong to the society. To get the options to be integrated, get the education, get the jobs, be able to break the bad circle.

This is the thing that few people seem to be able to solve, unemployment leads to crime but just having a job also fails unless the job pays enough to live comfortably but pay people more and prices go up so that cycle begins, I tend to lean toward the idea of not paying people more but instead reducing tax and applying luxury sales taxes.

I also believe the political grievances must be solved and now I am thinking about the Palestinians. The Israelis have pushed them against the wall and that doesn't work.

Strangely I am almost a Trump supporter on this one, for years I have been a two state fan but now I honestly can't see how a viable Palestinian state can be formed therefore I now lean towards a single state, one people, multiple religions approach (anything less is apartheid and that is something the world won't tolerate).

I think if the world adopted that approach it would scare Israel into coming to a deal as it would destroy the racial superiority complex Isreali's have adopted.

ISIS, to me seem not much different than cockroaches or rabid rats.No amount of reasoning or negotiating is going to help.Identify, isolate and exterminate. We don't need to give them jobs. We need to vaporize em, shoot em,poison em, feed em to crocs , burn em, starve em, drown em, run em thru wood chippers. What ever they do, give it back 10x over. Or, just make em listen to Hillary Clinton speak. OK, that's going too far.

Originally Posted by Hutchie

ISIS, to me seem not much different than cockroaches or rabid rats.No amount of reasoning or negotiating is going to help.Identify, isolate and exterminate. We don't need to give them jobs. We need to vaporize em, shoot em,poison em, feed em to crocs , burn em, starve em, drown em, run em thru wood chippers. What ever they do, give it back 10x over. Or, just make em listen to Hillary Clinton speak. OK, that's going too far.

Not sure I disagree with that but at the same time that is very much Hearse at the bottom of a cliff, we still need to address the issues that push people into joining them otherwise this will never end.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I think that is the same the world over because there has been a major disconnect between the "state" and the "masses" and I think most of the "masses" are beginning to believe that the "state" is there to keep the existing power structures in place rather than improve conditions for the "masses".

The result of that is the formation of different allegiances with people turning toward local leaders (whether it be religious fundamentalists, gangs or populist politicians like Trump) and away from the establishment as a method of protest. Oddly enough it is one of the reasons I think the west is in the very early stages of its own "Arab Spring".




This is the thing that few people seem to be able to solve, unemployment leads to crime but just having a job also fails unless the job pays enough to live comfortably but pay people more and prices go up so that cycle begins, I tend to lean toward the idea of not paying people more but instead reducing tax and applying luxury sales taxes.

Strangely I am almost a Trump supporter on this one, for years I have been a two state fan but now I honestly can't see how a viable Palestinian state can be formed therefore I now lean towards a single state, one people, multiple religions approach (anything less is apartheid and that is something the world won't tolerate).

I think if the world adopted that approach it would scare Israel into coming to a deal as it would destroy the racial superiority complex Isreali's have adopted.

To have one state instead of two, it's not impossible, but highly unlikely now. If the UN decided one state instead of two shortly after the WWII. Nobody had been forced from their homes, they could have traded with each other. Maybe a power sharing system similar as how France has with a president and a PM.

Originally Posted by lljadw

Old marxist theory who has been proved to be wrong ,the truth is that muslim terrorism is not caused by inequality,but by Islam .

We can argue in many different ways on the causes and consequences of modern terrorism, but old Marxist theory has become a new "relative deprivation theory" at the dawn of new millennium, which drives people to push back against their opponents.

Remember, "change is the law of the universe".....here is an academic article

Relative Deprivation Theory in Terrorism: A Study of Higher Education and
Unemployment as Predictors of Terrorism
http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4..._terrorism.pdf

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

To have one state instead of two, it's not impossible, but highly unlikely now. If the UN decided one state instead of two shortly after the WWII. Nobody had been forced from their homes, they could have traded with each other. Maybe a power sharing system similar as how France has with a president and a PM.

The problem is that while a one state solution is difficult (I would argue no more difficult than South Africa's integration) it is possible whereas a two-state solution is now impossible.

Essentially the squatters in the West Bank have made it impossible to form anything but a single state, Israel has made an art form out of offering solutions that it knows are either unviable or unacceptable to the Palestinians so that it could colonise more of the ground however, they never gave a moment's thought to what the long term ramifications would be.

Those ramifications will be that they will have to accept at least 4 million maybe 6 million Palestinians as Israeli citizens on top of the 2 million Arab Israelis they already have at some point in the future which will bite home once they realise there only 6 million Jews in Israel.

However this is not the thread for this discussion.