Les Jones: Root Causes of Al Qaeda Terrorism: Wealth and Education?

April 06, 2005

Middle East > Root Causes of Al Qaeda Terrorism: Wealth and Education?

People who really ought to know better keep trumpeting the line that poverty causes terrorism. As a recent example, San Francisco Theology Professor Sally Vance-Trembath said so when she was on The O'Reilly Factor the other night opposite Nashville blogger Donald Sensing. Video here.

If all countries contain poor people, why don't we see terrorists from all countries? If all countries contain uneducated people, who don't all countries produce terrorists? Bin Laden is a well-educated multimillionaire. Mohammad Atta, the Al Qaeda pilot of one of the planes that attacked the World Trade Center, was an architect. A new study dispels the notion that Al Qaeda terrorists are poor and uneducated. Via Jim Miller.

Dr Marc Sageman of the University of Pennsylvania has conducted an exhaustive study of al-Qa'eda's people. He collected the life histories of 400 individuals either in al-Qa'eda or closely linked to it, and found that traditional theories of what motivates a terrorist � poverty, desperation, ignorance � did not apply in al-Qa'eda's case. Indeed, some of them turned their backs on cushy lives to sign up for bin Laden's fanciful war against the West.
A majority of Sageman's sample were well-to-do: 17.6 per cent were upper class, 54.9 per cent were middle class and 27.5 per cent were lower class. For those individuals whose educational records were available, 16.7 per cent had been educated to a level less than high school; 12.1 per cent had at least a high school education; 28.8 per cent had some college education; 33.3 per cent had a college degree; and 9 per cent had a postgraduate degree. Only 9.4 per cent had a religious education and 90.6 per cent had a secular education.

This good schooling is reflected in their career paths: 42.5 per cent were professionally employed (as doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc.), 32.8 per cent had a semi-skilled job, and 24.6 per cent were unskilled.

The idea that terrorists are poor and uneducated is probably based on Palestinian terrorists. Palestinian groups recruit teenagers to become human bombs and reward their families posthumously, while the average age of Al Qaeda recruits is 26.

Posted by lesjones

Comments

So if terrorists are not poor and stupid, is it worthwhile to consider what motivates them, or should we continue to believe they hate us because we are/were free?

Posted by: hellbent at April 07, 2005

Nope, it's a useful thing to consider.

Why does Al Qaeda hate the US, and the Philipines, and Spain, and Italy, and all the different countries they've attacked?

I like Mark Steyn's theory that Wahabbism and Al Qaeda is essentially a Saudi Arabian civil war that's been exported. In this theory, Al Qaeda (which is a mostly Saudi organization) hates their own government, but it's easier to fight a proxy war and attack other governments.

I don't have an all-encompassing theory of my own, but I don't think you can discuss their motivations without addressing their envy of societies which are much more prosperous, free, and technologically and artistically advanced than contemporary Arab civilization. A civilization that can barely manufacture a light bulb is trying to destroy and subsume the civilization that created the light bulb.

Posted by: Les Jones at April 07, 2005

their envy of societies which are much more prosperous, free, and technologically and artistically advanced than contemporary Arab civilization

That's a funny thing to say about a society that essentially spawned modern civilization. Farming, mathematics, economics, music and poetry all have deep roots in the Arab world. Still, they do seem to have a problem with "Baywatch".

Jessica Stern's book "Terror in the Name of God" finds a common theme among violent religious groups from a variety of faiths. They all hate globalization. They dislike both the loss of local autonomy and the economic stratification that comes with globalized economies.

I like your Saudi civil war concept, and the conflict there seems to be between those profiting from Western income and influence and those exploited by it. Exploitation is perhaps nowhere as stark as it is in Indonesia, where native people are murdered and enslaved, ancient fisheries poisoned by industrial operations, and forests recklessly cut and burned. Nigeria and Venezuela are also hotspots.

Al Qaeda is not trying to subsume anybody. They are fighting back, saying "leave us alone". It's the light bulb manufacturers who are attempting to subsume labor and resources and cultures worldwide. An honest look at how global corporations and institutions like the World Bank operate is enough to piss anyone off, especially if you care about democracy and free markets, and not just lip service in the name of democracy and free markets.

Posted by: hellbent at April 08, 2005

"They are fighting back, saying "leave us alone". "

either way they are going to lose. 1 billion chinamen can't be wrong.

Posted by: cube at April 08, 2005

Its a pity that time and time again we find ways to defend those who committ terrorism by saying things like: "ah shame, they are impoverished and inequality is rife", as though this justifies terrorist attacks. such is the argument that liberals put forward almost as though they cannot condemn such attacks.

If islam was so instumental in developing modern civilizations, then why is it that they are holding back the entire world's prgressive development now? is it because they are afraid of autonomous globalisation, which is inevitable? we cannot for one minute excuse such horrendous attacks when in fact the root causes of terrorism are not inequality and poverty, but rather a simple distaste for all that is good and enjoyable in life.

Posted by: lawnmowerman at September 28, 2005