In "Princeton Economist Says Lack of Civil Liberties, Not Poverty, Breeds Terrorism" by David Wessel in the Wall Street Journal (thanks to all who sent this in), Princeton economist Alan Krueger ably debunks the crumbling myth that poverty causes terrorism, and then, breezily ignoring the jihad ideology, constructs his own alternative myth.
...Less than a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush said, "We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror." A couple of months later, his wife, Laura, said, "Educated children are much more likely to embrace the values that defeat terror." Former World Bank President James Wolfensohn has argued, "The war on terrorism will not be won until we have come to grips with the problem of poverty, and thus the sources of discontent."..."As a group, terrorists are better educated and from wealthier families than the typical person in the same age group in the societies from which they originate," Mr. Krueger said at the London School of Economics last year in a lecture soon to be published as a book, "What Makes a Terrorist?"
Krueger hasn't discovered anything new in the idea that jihadists are generally wealthier and better educated than their peers. We have documented that fact here again and again and again over the years.
"There is no evidence of a general tendency for impoverished or uneducated people to be more likely to support terrorism or join terrorist organizations than their higher-income, better-educated countrymen," he said. The Sept. 11 attackers were relatively well-off men from a rich country, Saudi Arabia.[...]
• Backgrounds of 148 Palestinian suicide bombers show they were less likely to come from families living in poverty and were more likely to have finished high school than the general population. Biographies of 129 Hezbollah shahids (martyrs) reveal they, too, are less likely to be from poor families than the Lebanese population from which they come. The same goes for available data about an Israeli terrorist organization, Gush Emunim, active in the 1980s.
• Terrorism doesn't increase in the Middle East when economic conditions worsen; indeed, there seems no link. One study finds the number of terrorist incidents is actually higher in countries that spend more on social-welfare programs. Slicing and dicing data finds no discernible pattern that countries that are poorer or more illiterate produce more terrorists. Examining 781 terrorist events classified by the U.S. State Department as "significant" reveals terrorists tend to come from countries distinguished by political oppression, not poverty or inequality.
• Public-opinion polls from Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey find people with more education are more likely to say suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq are justified. Polls of Palestinians find no clear difference in support for terrorism as a means to achieve political ends between the most and least educated.[...]
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."
The Wall Street Journal's dogged cluelessness about the jihad ideology never ceases to astound me, and here we go again. For a rebuttal, let's bring in Mr. Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of Great Britain, and no friend of those who, like Muslims Hassan Butt and Tanveer Ahmed, believe that the root cause of jihad terrorism is not anything that non-Muslims do, but the jihad ideology itself. Mr. Blair? What would you say to someone who posits that Muslims in Britain hatched the recent terror plots because of a lack of civil liberties?
...'The idea that as a Muslim in this country that you don't have the freedom to express your religion or your views, I mean you've got far more freedom in this country than you do in most Muslim countries,' Blair told Observer columnist Will Hutton, who presents the documentary.'The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we're not actually fighting it properly. We're not actually standing up to these people and saying, "It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified."'...
Blair added: 'How are [we] oppressing them? You're oppressing them when you support the people who are trying to blow them up.'
RSS Feed
OT
I am feeling a little better now. For the last five minutes I have literally been banging my head on my desk, and crying with frustration and anger, luckily I don't have much hair. Like most of my fellow countrymen in times of adversity I have gone and mashed myself a good strong cup of tea. My blood pressure is going down, and my dog has resumed her usual position curled up at my side by the computer. The pure inanity of some of the people in power defies belief. I am certain many of my compatriots who read Jihad Watch will be feeling the same as myself. I feel that there is a suppressed anger bubbling away under the surface. I am English to the core, a WASP, and I can trace my descendants back the the 12th century. These so called leaders of ours are alienating the indigenous population. The more stupidity they spout the more contempt the population will feel for them. They will pay a heavy price for their contempt when we are really attacked and a backlash begins. We were saved by not police vigilance but by the terrorists incompetence. One day one of them will get through and murder thousands of my countrymen and the dam will burst, I am sorry this is off thread but I feel so impotent and frustrated I just had to talk to someone.
Political Correctness gone Mad
POLICE chiefs were last night under intense pressure to use racial profiling in the battle to prevent further terror strikes.
All the suspects in the latest failed attacks are young adults of Asian or Middle Eastern descent. But officers carrying out spot checks at key sites have been told not to target people based on their ethnicity or age.
It means searches are unfocused, with even elderly white couples being stopped. The policy has led to accusations that police bosses are more worried about upsetting minority groups than protecting the country.
One frustrated officer last night said: "In these extreme circumstances the rules need to be changed because otherwise we are wasting our resources."
Security has been stepped up at potential targets across the UK following the attempted car bomb attacks in London and at Glasgow airport at the weekend.
Political correctness is being put above the security of people in this country.
Tory MP Philip Davies
But police resources are already overstretched, with widespread spot checks at airports and other key sites resulting in major delays for many passengers.
There were urgent calls yesterday for an immediate change in tactics as fears grow that more terrorist attacks are being planned.
A senior police officer " among those carrying out the random checks " contacted this newspaper to explain why the policy is failing.
He said: "You can only stop a percentage of cars at any one time and once the cars have slowed down to a point where you can see the occupants it would make sense for us to be able to use profiling and stop people based on appearance.
"At the moment we are stopping middle class, white pensioners and while we are searching their vehicle another car with four men of Middle Eastern or Asian appearance goes sailing past towards the airport and we have missed them."
The officer, who asked not to be named, added: "The police on the ground want to do their job but we are being hampered by the rules.
"We are told that there is no intelligence to indicate what a bomber may look like. But you only have to look at all the people who have been linked to or convicted of terror-related activities in this country to see that there is a definite profile."
Tory MP Philip Davies said: "I agree with him completely. It makes my blood boil. In a nutshell, what police officers are being told is put political correctness above the security of people in this country."
Alan Gordon, vice-chairman of the Police Federation which represents rank and file officers, said: "I have supported the idea of profiling. It seems absolute common sense.
"Why are we having to stop cars with little old ladies in when we "currently have a profile of terrorist suspects?
"Some will say it is racist and that the terrorists may well decide to change their profile to overcome that. But it seems ludicrous that we are not allowed to use profiling to target the common risk in this "current climate."
Ian Johnston, the Chief Const-able of British Transport Police, faced criticism in the wake of the 7/7 Tube bombings in 2005 when he said his officers would not shy away from targeting those groups who posed the greatest threat. He said police checking passengers would "not waste time searching old white ladies".
Home Office minister Hazel Blears first backed his comments then said police should not use "racial profiling" just days later.
Muslim groups and campaigners warn that profiling simply plays into the hands of the terrorists.
But the senior police officer said: "Whether we like it or not, the terrorist threat at the moment comes from the Asian community.
"Of course, it is not all of the community but we must not be afraid of speaking the truth.
"We are stopping people we know could not possibly be linked to terrorism but once we have waved their car down we have to treat them according to the rules. That means interviews, searching the car, examining luggage. That can take up to 30 minutes and then there is 30 minutes of paperwork as well.
"It is a disproportionate response to the "threat" posed by a retired couple on their way to a holiday."
A spokesman for the British Transport Police said the policy of blanket searches acted as a general deterrent to terrorists by showing that anyone could be stopped.
And a spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police said it was vital that Britain"s anti-terrorist tactics did not become "predictable".
She said: "The problem is that this debate is taking place at the extremes " profiling on racial grounds alone or stopping everyone in some sort of misguided attempt to prove we are not being racist.
"Either approach, in isolation, is simply not sensible. Stop people merely because they are of a certain race and we play into the terrorists" hands " we become predictable and they change their tactics.
"Stop everyone, and again we play into their hands " they want to "terrorise us into suspending our freedoms. We must ensure our tactics are not predictable. This might suggest random searches mixed with targeted is the right approach."
Khalid Sofi, chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "Racial profiling would result in increased racism and has the potential to be predominantly used against Mus-lims and ethnic minorities.
"It would have an impact on the confidence in communities of the police. What we need and what we would want is an intelligence-based and evidence-led approach."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/view/12372/Terror-search-fiasco