3 ms·

The only solution to end this is economics. Where people are not economically well off, these will happen, people are terrorists for a reason and it wasn't bec

The only solution to end this is economics. Where people are not economically well off, these will happen, people are terrorists for a reason and it wasn't because their life was great. We left Iraq susceptible without a Marshall Plan like economic effort after the military effort like we did in Japan and Europe after WWII. We downgraded the quality of life and that is not the direction things need to go for peace. The downgrade in quality of life fueled extremism even more. A peaceful place is a comfortable place and usually the cornerstone of that is an economy where everyone can participate and succeed, the government is secular, and bombs aren't being dropped where you live. There is nothing you can do to combat terrorism other than make a better life for the people susceptible to it and maybe they will decide it is not worth it. When people are comfortable they are calm. Bombs create more terrorism and gang like tribal attacks on both sides. Our strategy in Iran (and Cuba) is actually the best one we have going. Allowing people to live and let live and prosper as long as there is a mutual agreement not to attack. This worked in Japan, Germany and other places that also had idealogical control that was overly strong. We'll need a smarter economic plan for places we deal with. China is an emerging world power and their trade routes and economic benefits they bring will win out if we don't get back to building up after tearing down. It looks like this idea is out there in some circles [1] [1] http://www.ibtimes.com/mideast-marshall-plan-syrian-refugee-crisis-after-paris-terrorism-new-calls-invest-2186208 http://www.ibtimes.com/mideast-marshall-plan-syrian-refugee-...

enoch_r 11y ago
On the contrary, surprisingly enough, it does not seem to be the case that poverty causes terrorism--either within a country (poorer people aren't more likely to become terrorists) or between countries (people from poorer countries aren't more likely to become terrorists). https://www.nber.org/digest/sep02/w9074.html https://www.nber.org/digest/sep02/w9074.html http://www.economist.com/node/17730424 http://www.economist.com/node/17730424
- aikah 11y ago
  Thanks for the links, I found the OP's message just insulting to the poor people. Those who pull the strings of terrorism are well usually off and with a political agenda that couldn't care less about poverty.
aikah 11y ago
> Where people are not economically well off, these will happen, people are terrorists for a reason and it wasn't because their life was great. That's false, there is absolutely no correlation between being poor and wanting to slaughter thousands of innocents. One simple example : Bin Laden who comes from a filthy rich background. He never lacked on something in his life , his family was ultra rich, yet he created and financed a terrorist organization. There is however an absolute causation between giving loads of money to folks in KSA who spread an hateful ideology like Wahhabism and terrorism. I'm absolutely sick about this b-llsh-t explanation that just paint the poor as potential terrorists just because they are poor. No. No. > Our strategy in Iran (and Cuba) is actually the best one we have going. It's funny you talk about Cuba because , it contradicts what you just said. There should have been cubans terrorists blowing themselves up in the streets of USA because of they've been forced into poverty thanks to US blockade for 60 years. In 60 years it never happened. And the reason why is that they don't subscribe to a specific ideology and culture.
- drawkbox 11y ago
  Possibly, but Bin Laden wasn't the one with the bomb strapped on. He was more akin to a king sending peasants to die. It is a fact though that lower economical areas have more crime and less opportunity. It would be harder to recruit the foot soldiers. It will always be the plebs that have the power to continue or end it, and one way they might choose to end it is because they have a comfortable life. Look at Brazil, the inequality there, on the lower end human life means nothing. In conditions like that crime, terror, desperation will make people do anything to survive. While I agree this ideology is different, most strong ideologies arise out of a lack of economic options. If suddenly your house got bombed, members of your family died, and you lost the ability to survive economically, you'd probably survive however you can even if that means blowing something up for money for your family. People aren't born suicide bombers or terrorists, the environment around them forms that. I am simply saying one known way to win hearts and minds is to help economically and give options to people susceptible to it. I am not saying poor people are terrorists, I am saying terrorism (or at least desperation crime) can grow in lower economical areas for recruiting more easily, and the only way to combat that is with better economics and opportunity. The same happens in inner cities with gangs, high unemployment etc. [1][2] Equally decisive in determining crime rates are the more invisible barriers to crime set up by social norms and social cohesion. Indeed, one of the most robust statistical patterns known is that crime rates tend to go up with rising economic inequality, which itself tends to go along with erosion of social trust. [1] http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-06/want-to-fight-crime-address-economic-inequality http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-06/want-to-fig... [2] http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/crimwage.htm http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/crimwage.htm
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Where people are not economically well off, these will happen, people are terrorists for a reason and it wasn't because their life was great. I agree that social and economic context is relevant, but its very not a simple "when people are not economically well off, these will happen"; not only are many terrorists well off (both in local and global terms), lots of regions which are poor aren't breeding grounds for terrorism, either of the local or international varieties. While I think its quite likely that desperation frequently plays a role in people deciding to become terrorist foot soldiers (the kind of people who become leaders without first being foot soldiers are probably driven by different forces), I don't think mere poverty is enough (poverty may in some cases be a component, though.)

enoch_r 11y ago

On the contrary, surprisingly enough, it does not seem to be the case that poverty causes terrorism--either within a country (poorer people aren't more likely to become terrorists) or between countries (people from poorer countries aren't more likely to become terrorists). https://www.nber.org/digest/sep02/w9074.html https://www.nber.org/digest/sep02/w9074.html http://www.economist.com/node/17730424 http://www.economist.com/node/17730424

aikah 11y ago
Thanks for the links, I found the OP's message just insulting to the poor people. Those who pull the strings of terrorism are well usually off and with a political agenda that couldn't care less about poverty.

aikah 11y ago

> Where people are not economically well off, these will happen, people are terrorists for a reason and it wasn't because their life was great. That's false, there is absolutely no correlation between being poor and wanting to slaughter thousands of innocents. One simple example : Bin Laden who comes from a filthy rich background. He never lacked on something in his life , his family was ultra rich, yet he created and financed a terrorist organization. There is however an absolute causation between giving loads of money to folks in KSA who spread an hateful ideology like Wahhabism and terrorism. I'm absolutely sick about this b-llsh-t explanation that just paint the poor as potential terrorists just because they are poor. No. No. > Our strategy in Iran (and Cuba) is actually the best one we have going. It's funny you talk about Cuba because , it contradicts what you just said. There should have been cubans terrorists blowing themselves up in the streets of USA because of they've been forced into poverty thanks to US blockade for 60 years. In 60 years it never happened. And the reason why is that they don't subscribe to a specific ideology and culture.

drawkbox 11y ago
Possibly, but Bin Laden wasn't the one with the bomb strapped on. He was more akin to a king sending peasants to die. It is a fact though that lower economical areas have more crime and less opportunity. It would be harder to recruit the foot soldiers. It will always be the plebs that have the power to continue or end it, and one way they might choose to end it is because they have a comfortable life. Look at Brazil, the inequality there, on the lower end human life means nothing. In conditions like that crime, terror, desperation will make people do anything to survive. While I agree this ideology is different, most strong ideologies arise out of a lack of economic options. If suddenly your house got bombed, members of your family died, and you lost the ability to survive economically, you'd probably survive however you can even if that means blowing something up for money for your family. People aren't born suicide bombers or terrorists, the environment around them forms that. I am simply saying one known way to win hearts and minds is to help economically and give options to people susceptible to it. I am not saying poor people are terrorists, I am saying terrorism (or at least desperation crime) can grow in lower economical areas for recruiting more easily, and the only way to combat that is with better economics and opportunity. The same happens in inner cities with gangs, high unemployment etc. [1][2] Equally decisive in determining crime rates are the more invisible barriers to crime set up by social norms and social cohesion. Indeed, one of the most robust statistical patterns known is that crime rates tend to go up with rising economic inequality, which itself tends to go along with erosion of social trust. [1] http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-06/want-to-fight-crime-address-economic-inequality http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-06/want-to-fig... [2] http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/crimwage.htm http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/crimwage.htm

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Where people are not economically well off, these will happen, people are terrorists for a reason and it wasn't because their life was great. I agree that social and economic context is relevant, but its very not a simple "when people are not economically well off, these will happen"; not only are many terrorists well off (both in local and global terms), lots of regions which are poor aren't breeding grounds for terrorism, either of the local or international varieties. While I think its quite likely that desperation frequently plays a role in people deciding to become terrorist foot soldiers (the kind of people who become leaders without first being foot soldiers are probably driven by different forces), I don't think mere poverty is enough (poverty may in some cases be a component, though.)