Explosion in London?

[Jaboney]

How much research on this have you read? This is from the article you cite: [quote=“Scott Atran: March 2003 (the date’s important)”]Suicide terrorists generally are not lacking in legitimate life opportunities relative to their general population. As the Arab press emphasizes, if martyrs had nothing to lose, sacrifice would be senseless (24 ): “He who commits suicide kills himself for his own benefit, he who commits martyrdom sacrifices himself for the sake of his religion and his nation. . . . The Mujahed is full of hope” (25). [/quote]
Right. Good.
And this is me:

[quote=“Jaboney”]“…primarily comprised of well-educated individuals wanting to place themselves between the downtrodden masses and their oppressors… Many of the foot soldiers do come from the poor and uneducated, but not all.”[/quote]Sounds like he and I agree: many of these guys have pretty decent opportunities, but choose to throw it all away in order to recast themselves as guardians of those they see as oppressed or downtrodden.

Which would mean that the poverty of others is a motivating factor… as well as political oppression, or religious humiliation, and a few other forms of acutely felt shame.

Now, the guy you cite and other commentators, expanding on Scott’s published remarks:

[quote=“Scott et al: July 2003 (in follow up to the article cited above)”][quote=“Gene Hammel”]I think it important to realize that deprivation is both absolute and relative. Relative deprivation, following Merton, may be more important than absolute deprivation. Suicide terrorists (or indeed any terrorists) may be acutely aware of their relative disadvantage within the societies they inhabit and their relative disadvantage compared to otherwise similar segments in other societies, for example the U.S. or Western Europe. These feelings may be especially acute among those who have been educated in Western industrial countries. They may also suffer substantial cognitive dissonance, especially in regard to political expression, gender relations and moral codes.
Thus the arguments about a lack of association between suicide terrorism on the one hand and poverty or lack of education on the other may be somewhat misplaced.

Demographic factors, as has been mentioned, surely play a role. Middle Eastern and more broadly most Muslim societies have among the highest growth rates in the world with doubling times a generation in length or less (although growth rates have plummeted in some, such as Turkey and Tunisia). The age pyramids of rapidly growing societies are quite broad at the base, each younger age group being substantially larger than the next older. It is a simple fact that if the opportunity structure of a society is not growing at least as fast as its population, some members will be blocked from participation in expected social roles. Employment is only one example. Marriage, having a family, just getting respect for being a real adult are others. The frustration experienced by persons blocked in their expected advancement finds an outlet in violence (although not necessarily suicidal violence).Other factors, such as military occupation, simply exacerbate these conditions.[/quote]

@Scott Atran: Response to Gene Hammel

Gene is surely right. The striking demographics of the Islamic world play an important role in terrorist recruitment, and this aspect is underplayed in my target article (as I indicated earlier in my response to Herb Gintis). Nevertheless, there are other world areas and peoples showing a similar demographic spurt, with a big youth bubble, and they do not produce terrorism, much less suicide bombers. The history of Islamic societies vis-a-vis European societies, the aggressive expansion of the (nonterritorial but still imperial)American world system (“globalization”), and the religious manipulation of heartfelt and universal sentiments for family and relief of existential anxieties are all significant factors.

**In fairness to Scott, in his original article, he also writes: “Nevertheless, relative loss of economic or social advantage by educated persons might encourage support for terrorism.” And “Suicide terrorists apparently span their population’s normal distribution in terms of education, socioeconomic status, and personality type (introvert vs. extrovert).”

[quote=“Gene Hammel”]Surely suicide terrorism is more likely, the more of the following conditions apply and the stronger they are:

Rapid population growth exceeding economic growth.

Repression of political and personal expression and the societal and/or family levels.

The presence of a rigid, authoritarian, fundamentalist morality in at least some segments of the society.

An ideology that stresses that death is not the end of existence.

Political repression within the society.

Political repression and domination from outside the society.

A keen sense of contrast with conditions elsewhere, i.e. relative deprivation.[/quote] [/quote]
Hmm…
What was that you said?[quote=“gao_bo_han”]But just so I’m clear, you do admit that the existing research disproves the notion that poverty is a leading cause of jihadism and suicide bombing, right?[/quote]
Uh, no. That’s not right. It clearly is a leading cause. A leading cause… if not in the way that you’d expect.

Now, have you read the research you’re citing?

If so, did you enjoy his conclusions?

[quote]Perhaps to stop the bombing we need research to understand which configurations of
psychological and cultural relationships are luring and binding thousands, possibly millions, of
mostly ordinary people into the terrorist organization’s martyr-making web. Study is needed
on how terrorist institutions form and on similarities and differences across organizational
structures, recruiting practices, and populations recruited. Are there reliable differences between religious and secular groups, or between ideologically driven and grievance-driven terrorism? Interviews with surviving Hamas bombers and captured Al-Qaida operatives suggest that ideology and grievance are factors for both groups but relative weights and consequences may differ.

We also need to investigate any significant causal relations between our society’s policies
and actions and those of terrorist organizations and supporters. We may find that the global
economic, political, and cultural agenda of our own society has a catalyzing role in moves to
retreat from our world view ( Taliban) or to create a global counterweight (Al-Qaida).
Funding such research may be difficult. As with the somewhat tendentious and self-serving use
of “terror” as a policy concept, to reduce dissonance our governments and media may
wish to ignore these relations as legitimate topics for inquiry into what terrorism is all about
and why it exists.

This call for research may demand more patience than any administration could politically tolerate during times of crisis. In the long run, however, our society can ill afford to ignore either the consequences of its own actions or the causes behind the actions of others. Potential costs of such ignorance are terrible to contemplate. The comparatively minor expense of research into such consequences and causes could have inestimable benefit.[/quote]

[Big_Fluffy_Matthew]

The doctor arrested on the M6 used to work last year in a hospital 12 miles from where I lived.

[Gao_Bohan]

Same quote, different emphasis.

@Scott Atran: March 2003 (the date's important)

Suicide terrorists generally are not lacking in legitimate life opportunities relative to their general population. As the Arab press emphasizes, if martyrs had nothing to lose, sacrifice would be senseless (24 ): “He who commits suicide kills himself for his own benefit, he who commits martyrdom sacrifices himself for the sake of his religion and his nation. . . . The Mujahed is full of hope” (25).

[quote=“Gene Hammel”]I think it important to realize that deprivation is both absolute and relative. Relative deprivation, following Merton, may be more important than absolute deprivation. Suicide terrorists (or indeed any terrorists) may be acutely aware of their relative disadvantage within the societies they inhabit and their relative disadvantage compared to otherwise similar segments in other societies, for example the U.S. or Western Europe. These feelings may be especially acute among those who have been educated in Western industrial countries. They may also suffer substantial cognitive dissonance, especially in regard to political expression, gender relations and moral codes. Thus the arguments about a lack of association between suicide terrorism on the one hand and poverty or lack of education on the other may be somewhat misplaced.

Demographic factors, as has been mentioned, surely play a role. Middle Eastern and more broadly most Muslim societies have among the highest growth rates in the world with doubling times a generation in length or less (although growth rates have plummeted in some, such as Turkey and Tunisia). The age pyramids of rapidly growing societies are quite broad at the base, each younger age group being substantially larger than the next older. It is a simple fact that if the opportunity structure of a society is not growing at least as fast as its population, some members will be blocked from participation in expected social roles. Employment is only one example. Marriage, having a family, just getting respect for being a real adult are others. The frustration experienced by persons blocked in their expected advancement finds an outlet in violence (although not necessarily suicidal violence).Other factors, such as military occupation, simply exacerbate these conditions.[/quote]

@Scott Atran: Response to Gene Hammel

Gene is surely right. The striking demographics of the Islamic world play an important role in terrorist recruitment, and this aspect is underplayed in my target article (as I indicated earlier in my response to Herb Gintis). Nevertheless, there are other world areas and peoples showing a similar demographic spurt, with a big youth bubble, and they do not produce terrorism, much less suicide bombers. The history of Islamic societies vis-a-vis European societies, the aggressive expansion of the (nonterritorial but still imperial)American world system (“globalization”), and the religious manipulation of heartfelt and universal sentiments for family and relief of existential anxieties are all significant factors.

**In fairness to Scott, in his original article, he also writes: “Nevertheless, relative loss of economic or social advantage by educated persons might encourage support for terrorism.” And “Suicide terrorists apparently span their population’s normal distribution in terms of education, socioeconomic status, and personality type (introvert vs. extrovert).”

[quote=“Gene Hammel”]Surely suicide terrorism is more likely, the more of the following conditions apply and the stronger they are:

Rapid population growth exceeding economic growth.

[b]Repression of political and personal expression and the societal and/or family levels.

The presence of a rigid, authoritarian, fundamentalist morality in at least some segments of the society.

An ideology that stresses that death is not the end of existence.

Political repression within the society.

Political repression and domination from outside the society.[/b]

A keen sense of contrast with conditions elsewhere, i.e. relative deprivation.[/quote]

[quote]Perhaps to stop the bombing we need research to understand which configurations of
psychological and cultural relationships are luring and binding thousands, possibly millions, of
mostly ordinary people into the terrorist organization’s martyr-making web.[/b] Study is needed
on how terrorist institutions form and on similarities and differences across organizational
structures, recruiting practices, and populations recruited. [b]Are there reliable differences between religious and secular groups, or between ideologically driven and grievance-driven terrorism? Interviews with surviving Hamas bombers and captured Al-Qaida operatives suggest that ideology and grievance are factors for both groups but relative weights and consequences may differ.

We also need to investigate any significant causal relations between our society’s policies
and actions and those of terrorist organizations and supporters. We may find that the global
economic, political, and cultural agenda of our own society has a catalyzing role in moves to
retreat from our world view ( Taliban) or to create a global counterweight (Al-Qaida).
Funding such research may be difficult. As with the somewhat tendentious and self-serving use
of “terror” as a policy concept, to reduce dissonance our governments and media may
wish to ignore these relations as legitimate topics for inquiry into what terrorism is all about
and why it exists.

This call for research may demand more patience than any administration could politically tolerate during times of crisis. In the long run, however, our society can ill afford to ignore either the consequences of its own actions or the causes behind the actions of others. Potential costs of such ignorance are terrible to contemplate. The comparatively minor expense of research into such consequences and causes could have inestimable benefit.[/quote]

[Gao_Bohan]

Jaboney,

Atran does not say that poverty is a leading cause of jihadism, he concedes it is a significant factor (of many) in response to criticism of his essay. His original essay was pretty obviously written, at least in part, to debunk the myth of the poor hopeless suicide bomber. His conclusion, which you apparently believe bolsters your argument, focuses on Western policies and their effect of terrorist recruitment. But Western policies do not create poverty in the Middle East, nor does Atran make that claim. The “existential anxieties” that Atran refers to are occupation and oppression from foreign power. From the article:

The first major contemporary suicide terrorist attack in the Middle East was the December 1981 destruction of the Iraqi embassy in Beirut (27 dead, over 100 wounded). Its precise authors are still unknown, although it is likely that Ayatollah Khomeini approved its use by parties sponsored by Iranian intelligence. With the assassination of pro-Israeli Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel in September 1982, suicide bombing became a strategic political weapon. Under the pro-Iranian Lebanese Party of God (Hezbollah), this strategy soon achieved geopolitical effect with the October 1983 truck-bomb killing of nearly 300 American and French servicemen. American and France abandoned the multinational force policing Lebanon. By 1985, these attacks arguably led Israel to cede most of the gains made during its 1982 invasion of Lebanon. In Israel-Palestine, suicide terrorism began in 1993, with attacks by Hezbollahtrained members of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) aimed at derailing the Oslo Peace Accords (8). As early as 1988, however, PIJ founder Fathi Shiqaqi established guidelines for “exceptional” martyrdom operations involving human bombs. He followed Hezbollah in stressing that God extols martyrdom but abhors suicide: “Allah may cause to be known those who believe and may make some of you martyrs, and Allah may purify those who believe and may utterly destroy the disbelievers”; however, “no one can die except by Allah’s leave” (9, 10) (Fig. 2). The recent radicalization and networking through Al-Qaida of militant Islamic groups from North Africa, Arabia, and Central and Southeast Asia stems from the Soviet-Afghan War(1979–1989).

Atran warns against the two most common misconceptions of suicide bombers: that they are poor and hopless, or just crazy.

Suicide terrorists often are labeled crazed cowards bent on senseless destruction who thrive in the midst of poverty and ignorance. The obvious course becomes to hunt down terrorists while simultaneously transforming their supporting cultural and economic environment from despair to hope. What research there is, however, indicates that suicide terrorists have no appreciable psychopathology and are at least as educated and economically well off as their surrounding populations.

He goes on to debunk the crazy myth, and then his next section is titled, oh what’s this, POVERTY AND LACK OF EDUCATION ARE NOT RELIABLE FACTORS. Gosh, wherever did I get the idea this guy is debunking the myth that poverty and lack of education are create jihadis?

[quote]Poverty and Lackof Education Are Not Reliable Factors

Across our society, there is wide consensus that ridding society of poverty rids it of crime
(20). According to President Bush, “We fight poverty because hope is the answer to terror. . . . We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize” (21). At a gathering of Nobel Peace Prize laureates, South Africa’s Desmond Tutu and South Korea’s Kim Dae Jong opined, “at the bottom of terrorism is poverty”; Elie Wiesel and the Dalai Lama concluded, “education is the way to eliminate terrorism” (22).

Support for this comes from research pioneered by economist Gary Becker showing that property crimes are predicted by poverty and lack of education (23). In his incentivebased model, criminals are rational individuals acting on self-interest. Individuals choose illegal activity if rewards exceed probability of detection and incarceration together with expected loss of income from legal activity (“opportunity costs”). Insofar as criminals lack skill and education, as in much bluecollar crime, opportunity costs may be minimal; so crime pays.

Such rational-choice theories based on economic opportunities do not reliably account for some types of violent crimes (domestic homicide, hate killings). These calculations make even less sense for suicide terrorism. Suicide terrorists generally are not lacking in legitimate life opportunities relative to their general population. As the Arab press emphasizes, if martyrs had nothing to lose, sacrifice would be senseless (24): “He who commits suicide kills himself for his own benefit, he who commits martyrdom sacrifices himself for the sake of his religion and his nation. . . . The Mujahed is full of hope” (25).

Research by Krueger and Maleckova suggests that education may be uncorrelated, or even positively correlated, with supporting terrorism (26). In a December 2001 poll of 1357 West Bank and Gaza Palestinians 18 years of age or older, those having 12 or more years of schooling supported armed attacks by 68 points, those with up to 11 years of schooling by 63 points, and illiterates by 46 points. Only 40% of persons with advanced degrees supported dialogue with Israel versus 53% with college degrees and 60% with 9 years or less of schooling. In a comparison of Hezbollah militants who died in action with a random sample of Lebanese from the same age group and region, militants were less likely to come from poor homes and more likely to have had secondary school education.

Nevertheless, relative loss of economic or social advantage by educated persons might encourage support for terrorism. In the period leading to the first Intifada (1982–1988), the number of Palestinian men with 12 years or more of schooling more than doubled; those with less schooling increased only 30%. This coincided with a sharp increase in unemployment for college graduates relative to high school graduates. Real daily wages of college graduates fell some 30%; wages for those with only secondary schooling held steady. Underemployment also seems to be a factor among those recruited to Al-Qaida and its allies from the Arabian peninsula (27).[/quote]

There is the bulk of his argument against the notion of poverty and lack of education as an indicator. He does say that relative loss of economics or social advantage “might encourage support for terrorism.” But the bulk of his argument, as anyone can see above, is that poverty and lack of education do not a terrorist make. In fact, there is apparently evidence of a positive correlation between education and support for terrorism.

Now anyone who reads the article in its entirety will clearly see that. You picked off some tangential points, quoted one of the academics who disagrees with him (from a differenta article) and quoted his somewhat conciliatory responses. Why not stick to the original article and recognize that Atran’s research and thesis contradicts the tired liberal myth of the poor helpless hopeless suicide bomber?

For the readers’ benefit, let’s see what Atran says about what WILL NOT WORK TO STOP SUICIDE BOMBING.

It is important to know what probably will not work. Raising literacy rates may have no effect and could be counterproductive should greater literacy translate into greater exposure to terrorist propaganda (in Pakistan, literacy and dislike for the United States increased as the number of religious madrasa schools increased from 3000 to 39,000 since 1978) (27, 38).

Let’s stop there for now. Increasing education will not work. It’s apparently better when they’re illiterate peasants because then they can’t understand all the Islamist propaganda.

Lessening poverty may have no effect, and could be counterproductive if poverty reduction for the entire population amounted to a downward redistribution of wealth that left those initially better off with fewer opportunities than before.

Alright, so neither will reducing poverty. So what will work?

Ending occupation or reducing perceived humiliation may help, but not if the population believes this to be a victory inspired by terror (e.g., Israel’s apparently forced withdrawal from Lebanon).

Ending occupation. Nothing to do with being poor and having no prospects, or lacking an education.

[Jaboney]

You’re all over the place with this now, aren’t you?
That’s ok. It’s a good start, actually.

What’s the secret?
“There is no perfect pickle! There are only perfect pickles.”

(I wonder how many people will pick up on that one.)

[quote]“Suicide terrorists apparently span their population’s normal distribution in terms of education, socioeconomic status, and personality type (introvert vs. extrovert).”[/quote]Meaning what?

Meaning disaggregate the mass if you want to really understand what’s going on.
-Some well-educated individuals join the cause to assume a leadership role and reposition themselves within some grand narrative. Possibly because of some side effects of their educations.
Address that issue.

-Some poorly-educated individuals join the cause because they’ve got no prospects, no purpose, and the promised next life sounds a hell of a lot better than this one.
Address that one.

-Some don’t know what’s going on, and get roped into delivering a package to an uncle on the other side of the check point.
How about that?

• Some are religious zealots who just want to be martyrs.
  Address them.

• Some are irreligious, but highly politically-motivated.
  Address them.

What does this not mean? It does not mean that there is ‘no evidence to support the continued belief that poverty creates terrorism.’ It means that that are other reasons in addition to poverty, which act differently on different sectors of society. Like education; and the lack thereof. Like extremism: religious and political. Like hope of rewards to come, and utter hopelessness. It means that poverty and a lack of education are a leading cause for some, but not the cause.

[quote=“gao_bo_han”]Now anyone who reads the article in its entirety will clearly see that. You picked off some tangential points, quoted one of the academics who disagrees with him (from a differenta article) and quoted his somewhat conciliatory responses. Why not stick to the original article and recognize that Atran’s research and thesis contradicts the tired liberal myth of the poor helpless hopeless suicide bomber? [/quote]Actually, anyone reading the article and the follow up comments to that same article (important aspect of academia, that ongoing dialogue) will also see that the points I chose go to the heart of the issue, and that’s driven home in his conclusion:

Perhaps to stop the bombing we need research to understand which configurations of psychological and cultural relationships are luring and binding thousands, possibly millions, of mostly ordinary people into the terrorist organization’s martyr-making web. Study is needed on how terrorist institutions form and on similarities and differences across organizational structures, recruiting practices, and populations recruited. Are there reliable differences between religious and secular groups, or between ideologically driven and grievance-driven terrorism?

Configurations of psychological and cultural relationships… populations (plural) recruited… religious and secular… ideological and grievance driven… that’s a pretty rich, diverse field of questions to be answered in future research. Or would be, if you didn’t think you already had all of the answers.

[quote]The anthropologist Scott Atran has studied jihadism and suicide bombing, and concluded that poverty is not the genesis of suicide bombing. See his scholarly article on the subject here. Note that he expresses confusion over the continued belief that poverty creates terrorism, despite no evidence to support it.

But Atran fails to understand the machinations of the liberal mind. You see, my optically-challenged amphibious friend, inconveniences like “facts” are not relevant to liberals. The idea that poverty=jihadism, compounded with the idea that all poverty in the world is the result of Western “policies,” whatever those may be, is simply part of the liberal religion. Religion is guided by dogma, and dogma as a rule is not subject to reform. It would not matter one iota if these doctors were multi-millionaires, nor would it matter if teams of Muslim doctors, business executives, attorneys, etc. began blowing up every bit of Britain. The liberal mind cannot comprehend such actions, because poverty=jihadism=the-result-of-Western-policies. Do you understand? I hope that’s all clear now.[/quote]Ah yes… liberal dogma and Islamic zealotry: funny how it’s everyone else who’s fixated and suffering from tunnel vision.

I wonder, if objective readers were to study Scott’s paper, your ‘interpretation’ and ‘conclusions’, and mine, who would they find had a better handle on the issue?

No, that’s not true.
I have enough of respect for the reasoning capacity of most people, most of the time, that there’s no need to wonder.

Hmmm… actually, you know, between the tinfoil hat brigade, and the pass-me-my-diaper-I’m-so-scared-I’m-about-to-piss-myself-again crew, I may have to reconsider my commitment to John Dewey’s pragmatism.

[Gao_Bohan]

@Jaboney

You’re all over the place with this now, aren’t you?

Actually no. I’m just defending Atran’s thesis from your pick-and-choose-while-ignoring-the-main-idea stlye of argument.

I leave it to the readers’ discretion which one of us accurately described Atran’s work, and which one attempted to mischaracterize his ideas by cherry picking bits and pieces.

[Jaboney]

You want a pickle with that?

[Huang_Guang_Chen]

See also One brave weegie takes on al-Qaeda. Be sure to pledge a pint.

I suspect the farkers will think carefully before going the weegians again. Imagine of they’d tried this shit on a Friday night!

[quote]The Pride of Scotland: Have-a-go hero Smeaton reveals his boot’n’banjo anti-terrorism tactics
By Andrew Johnson
Published: 08 July 2007
“This is Glasgow. We’ll just set aboot ye.” It might lack the rhetorical flourish of one of Osama bin Laden’s notorious videos, but the words of baggage handler John Smeaton, one of several have-a-go-heroes who helped police subdue the two would-be suicide bombers at Glasgow airport on Saturday, captured the world’s imagination, and spawned a quite remarkable Nae Messin’ website at johnsmeaton.com.

He explained what he did, thus: "I seen a man get out of the passenger side of the vehicle. The man attacked a policeman. I thought, that’s not right. I ran over to assist. Other members of the public did the same.

“I got a kick in. Other passengers were getting kicks in. The flames were going in two directions. You know when you’re younger, you put a can of Lynx on the fire and it’s like a flamethrower? Me and the other folk were just trying to get the boot in and some other guy banjoed him.”

The efforts of cab driver Alex McIlveen, 45, were captured in the Daily Record with the surely unbeatable front-page headline: “I kicked burning terrorist so hard in balls that I tore tendon in my foot”.

He told the paper: "The guy in the passenger seat got out and … kicked and punched a man to the ground before punching a policeman square in the face. That sort of thing just isn’t on. I told my passenger to run for her life, then I went for the man and managed to skelp him in the face. I followed it up by booting him twice.

"Then the driver got out of the car. He was already in flames. It was obvious he was the real psycho of the pair. He was going crazy, just lashing out at everyone and babbling a lot of pish in a foreign language.

"I ran for the guy and punched him twice in the face with pretty good right hooks. Then I kicked him with full force right in the balls but he didn’t’ go down. Luckily more people joined in, and we managed to beat the guy down. I don’t think the policeman I saw at the scene drew his baton during the whole thing. He should have given it to me. I would have leathered those guys with it."

Not only did he damage a tendon in his foot, but the police took away his Nike trainers for forensic examination - “They’re a good pair, too,” he lamented. And guess what? When he returned to pick up the car, he had a parking ticket.

Michael Kerr, 40 fared less well. He said: "I just went for the terrorist: it was basic instinct. I flew at him a few times in the face but he wouldn’t go down. Then he punched me so hard he knocked out my teeth and sent me flying so hard I broke my leg.

“I landed right next to the burning Jeep and I thought it was going to explode. But the guy John Smeaton saw me lying there and dragged me to safety. He’s a hero.”

Smeato, we salute you. For you have sent the terrorists home to think again. And, more than that, you have put a spring into the step of proud Scots everywhere.[/quote]

:bravo:

HG

[Problematique]

So the guy was charged under the terrorism laws. His name: Majeep Bin Sinjed.