What makes a terrorist?

[Miss Kitty]

Is it possible that there is no one size fits all answer to this question? ?t would appear to me that there could be a variety of reasons one would become a terrorist, especially with cultural differences, religious differences, socioeconomic differences, etc. The list goes on and on.

Not to mention, the Chris Rock reason, "Some people are just plain crazy."

Gotcha and trying to understand why is important, but that's why I always find it scary when "we" try to fix some problems based on our biases (cultural, social, religious, economic, etc.). The old adage walk a mile in their shoes comes to mind, and in some cases we can't. This is not only foreign, but also domestic.

Gosh darn you speak sense.

 

[30A Skunkape]

Maybe Miss Kitty can tell us what the motivation(s) might be

 

[Miss Kitty]

Maybe Miss Kitty can tell us what the motivation(s) might be

I could, but will save it for you until after a few Planter's Punches at B & A's in October! Just call it Miss Kitty's Salon at the Saloon!

 

[Uncle Timmy]

Absolutely, I'm just trying to follow others' examples of understanding why.

Then let me get you pointed in the right direction.

The author has shown that we can not claim that poverty is the root cause of terrorism because he demonstrates, statistically, that a number of terrorists do not come from impoverished backgrounds.

By the same logic we can not now claim that suppression of civil liberties is the root cause of terrorism because I have demonstrated through the following examples that terrorism is not always linked to a suppression of liberties:

Falun Gong- a group who has/is being repressed by the Chinese Government and who has not turned to terrorism.

Timothy McVeigh- An American who grew up in the same society we all live in and yet turned to terrorism without ever having been oppressed.

Therefore if poverty is not the root cause of terrorism, then suppression of civil liberties and political rights isn?t either.

The article makes no claims of absolutism in it?s conclusion-

?So what is the cause? Suppression of civil liberties and political rights, Mr. Krueger hypothesizes. "When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed," he says, "malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics."

My bone of contention isn?t with the author, but with your opinion you felt obligated to add ????..

?Not poverty. Not our support of Israel. Rather, suppression of civil liberties and political rights. Chickpea, here are your root causes, ? -6thGen

It is now glaringly obvious that you are incorrect in your stated opinion.

Admit that you were wrong and move along to the next fight, the longer you drag this out the more embarrassing it will be for you.

 

[6thGen]

Then let me get you pointed in the right direction.

The author has shown that we can not claim that poverty is the root cause of terrorism because he demonstrates, statistically, that a number of terrorists do not come from impoverished backgrounds.

By the same logic we can not now claim that suppression of civil liberties is the root cause of terrorism because I have demonstrated through the following examples that terrorism is not always linked to a suppression of liberties:

Falun Gong- a group who has/is being repressed by the Chinese Government and who has not turned to terrorism.

Timothy McVeigh- An American who grew up in the same society we all live in and yet turned to terrorism without ever having been oppressed.

Therefore if poverty is not the root cause of terrorism, then suppression of civil liberties and political rights isn?t either.

The article makes no claims of absolutism in it?s conclusion-

?So what is the cause? Suppression of civil liberties and political rights, Mr. Krueger hypothesizes. "When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed," he says, "malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics."

My bone of contention isn?t with the author, but with your opinion you felt obligated to add ????..

?Not poverty. Not our support of Israel. Rather, suppression of civil liberties and political rights. Chickpea, here are your root causes, ? -6thGen

It is now glaringly obvious that you are incorrect in your stated opinion.

Admit that you were wrong and move along to the next fight, the longer you drag this out the more embarrassing it will be for you.

Dismissing hard statistical data with anecdotes only works for politicians whose audience doesn't have the interest to call them on it. Have you ever taken a statistics class? Do you know what an outlier is? As always, you might want to win something before you throw tickertape.

 

[Uncle Timmy]

Dismissing hard statistical data with anecdotes only works for politicians whose audience doesn't have the interest to call them on it. Have you ever taken a statistics class? Do you know what an outlier is? As always, you might want to win something before you throw tickertape.

You think Falun Gong is a statistical outlier? Ok, easy enough?


Jewish Germans in the Reich 1933-1945
Cuban anti-Castro Groups
Dalits, the lowest rung on the Indian caste system
Tibetans living under Chinese occupation
The Chinese ethnic minority community within Vietnam
Black South Africans under Apartheid
Cambodian people under the Khmer Rouge
Bosnian Muslims under Serbian Control pre 1992
Indigenous Tribes in Guatemala and Honduras



All examples of groups whose civil liberties and political rights are/were suppressed and yet did not turn to terrorism.

The ?root cause? by definition, is going to be a factor in a vast majority, if not all examples of terrorism.

My response to your post should have been obvious enough, which makes me conclude that Chess isn?t one of your strong points either?..

Checkmate.

Beyond defaulting back to your standard ?because I said so? there is no reasonable way to conclude that a suppression of civil and political rights is the root cause of terrorism.

 

[Smiling JOe]

What makes a terrorist? a man and woman, gettin' jiggy wid it.

 

[grace]

 

[LightWorker]

What makes a terrorist? a man and woman, gettin' jiggy wid it.

Now that song is in my head.

 

[scooterbug44]

The original article made some sense to me solely as a refutation of "poverty & no education = terrorist".

I read it as "you can't blame terrorism on poverty or lack of education, but rather on people not having a non-violent way to protest/fight injustice".

Didn't think that it said what the true root cause (or causes) of terrorism was, rather just that its violence stemmed from a lack (or perceived lack)of other ways to fight for a better life & civil liberties.