samboct
Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007 Status: offline
|
To the OP I think Lenin said it best. "The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize." In terms of the Princeton article- well, clearly I'm not an economist and in this case, the cobbler should stick to his last. Looking for economic motivations in terrorism is silly- it's a lousy framework. There are a couple of conflated questions going on here- 1) How is a terrorist made? 2) What are the uses of terrorism? Let's look at how terrorist are made: First and foremost- a terrorist- i.e. someone who is willing to blow stuff up or kill to accomplish a goal has two main drivers: one, honor, and two, takes joy in destruction. Whether it's Timothy McVeigh, angered by the FBI's attack on Koresh's compound in Waco, to the Japanese samurai assassinating Prime Minister after Prime Minister in Japan in the 1920s (I doubt if any political figure in Japan could get life insurance at that time.) to the minions of Osama Bin Towel (I will not dignify that individual by using his name....), the motivations of these people are all pretty similar in terms of framework- the specifics do differ. All of these people were driven by honor- the Japanese have just codified it the most clearly with the code of Bushido. The rest are just not as well trained or educated in the art of terrorism. For terrorism to flourish, there has to be injustice, and a personal exposure to it. So poverty- especially poverty where there are examples of great wealth, is a great garden for terrorists. Humans are driven by fairness- if everybody is living in a mudhole, then you don't worry about it. But when a few people have houses on stilts, and you see that some people are living in a mudhole with feces around, while others live in clean air- this inequity generates anger in a lot of people. Anybody who's walked down the streets of a city and come face to face with a homeless person may have felt this. I certainly do- why should he be homeless and not me? Those who blame the homeless person for his straits probably also don't get terrorism. The inequity that is pointed out can be either nationalistically based or religiously based. I don't think it matters. Humans like to generalize, so we tar the religion or the nationality with the same broad brush. Those guys come from the same country as those nuts who killed themselves and the prime minister- or they have the same religion as the guys on the airplane that flew it into the towers. It's similar behavior on the part of the terrorists and the terrorized. In terms of joy of destruction...well, that's pretty common. When I was a kid, I watched a buddy of mine fly a glider he just built. It landed on a basketball court, and one of the kids playing basketball deliberately dribbled a ball onto it- destroying it. My buddy went and beat the kid up for a few dollars so he could get another kit. I watched the kids playing basketball take the carcass of the airplane and stuff it into a basket. Humans take joy in destroying another humans possessions. The greater the effort in construction, the greater the joy in destruction. It's a common human trait, and this joy is something that I'll lay long odds drives most terrorists deep down. So to make a terrorist you need two things- honor- a desire to write a perceived wrong, and a joy of destruction. Not surprisingly then, terrorists have to be educated people. Indigent individuals are far more focused on their own survival, honor goes out the window when you're scavenging from a garbage can. But terrorists have to see something that angers them- and that injustice is generally linked to poverty. I think that's how terrorists are made. How terrorists are used is a different question, but it clearly has a lot to do with achieving political goals. If you can't convince people that you're correct by rational discussion, then terrorism becomes a viable option. There are two ways that rational discussion fails- either the other side holds all the cards and won't listen to you (Menachim Begin was certainly called a terrorist by the British), or your goal is antithetical to the multitude, so you have to cause them to fear you. (Lenin.) Sam
|