Posted on Jan 26, 2016
Does Economic Growth mean less support for Violent Extremism?
3.98K
22
24
4
4
0
"If we want to combat extremism in the world, if we want to fight terror, one of the roads before us is providing growth and jobs. Lack of growth creates forces for terrorism. Unemployment creates soldiers for terrorists," Rouhani said.
What's RP's take on the latest commentary from Iran's president?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-europe-rouhani-economy-idUSKCN0V411Q
What's RP's take on the latest commentary from Iran's president?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-europe-rouhani-economy-idUSKCN0V411Q
Terrorism
Foreign Policy
Iran
Middle East
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
Yes, I think there is a lot of truth to it. When people have no hope and no sense of future for themselves or their families, it's easier to be recruited into extremist groups. I'm not saying lack of jobs are the cause of extremist groups... I'm saying that lack of economic hope makes it easier to grow them.
(3)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
PO3 (Join to see) - So you're saying that "where an area is economically advanced" it must "also have law and order"? That sounds like you're saying that if ISIS becomes economically advanced then it will have law and order? I disagree with that. I think that if ISIS became economically advanced, it would still be ISIS. I'm surprised to see you say that.
As far as why some foreign fighters come from well off families, it may be because most of the world lives off $1/day in income, and they can't afford to travel to Syria. The fact that people who self-select to travel to Syria have resources, should not be surprising.
Also, I agree that jobs will not turn hard core ISIS fighters into a different ideology. Just like no argument you read on RallyPoint will ever change your mind. It's because people do not change their ideology easily. However, what I did say above, and what I will say again, is if you not already in a terrorist organization and you have a nice house, a stable family, a two car garage, things you enjoy doing in life, a hope for your future, and a lot to live for, you are probably less likely to volunteer to go blow yourself up.
As far as why some foreign fighters come from well off families, it may be because most of the world lives off $1/day in income, and they can't afford to travel to Syria. The fact that people who self-select to travel to Syria have resources, should not be surprising.
Also, I agree that jobs will not turn hard core ISIS fighters into a different ideology. Just like no argument you read on RallyPoint will ever change your mind. It's because people do not change their ideology easily. However, what I did say above, and what I will say again, is if you not already in a terrorist organization and you have a nice house, a stable family, a two car garage, things you enjoy doing in life, a hope for your future, and a lot to live for, you are probably less likely to volunteer to go blow yourself up.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
LTC Yinon Weiss - No, you had predetermine the meaning of Law and Order. ISIS do have Law and Order, it is their Law and Order, beheading people that don't share the same belief and throw gay off roof. Same with Nazi, they too have law and order.
When the terrorist group become the institution, they are no longer a terrorist group, there are a Nation, in ISIS sense ... the caliphate. Once again, you also fail to see the ideologies behind it.
Yes, those that travel to join ISIS is from well off families ... that is my point. That is the whole problem with ONLY thinking about give them economical status. It is not about economical status, it is about belief.
I had just debuted your point of giving them a good life. ALL you did is to give them a reason to not be terrorist, and I stated clearly, It is the sense of purpose that drive them to death, not because of poor. It is the sense of belonging to a cause, that drive them to blow themselves up, not because they are poor. You still refuse to understand their belief. This belief is not only taught by ISIS ... that is where your argument fall apart. that is the reason why giving them economical status ONLY, will never solve the problem.
In someway, it is the same as why people join the US military? yes, there is a good push to join the military in US because of economical reason, but to die for the country? It is a belief, without it, very little sense to go die in a foreign land and only making a few bucks per hours. Not to mention if you are asked to blow yourself up.
You put too much faith on economical status ...
When the terrorist group become the institution, they are no longer a terrorist group, there are a Nation, in ISIS sense ... the caliphate. Once again, you also fail to see the ideologies behind it.
Yes, those that travel to join ISIS is from well off families ... that is my point. That is the whole problem with ONLY thinking about give them economical status. It is not about economical status, it is about belief.
I had just debuted your point of giving them a good life. ALL you did is to give them a reason to not be terrorist, and I stated clearly, It is the sense of purpose that drive them to death, not because of poor. It is the sense of belonging to a cause, that drive them to blow themselves up, not because they are poor. You still refuse to understand their belief. This belief is not only taught by ISIS ... that is where your argument fall apart. that is the reason why giving them economical status ONLY, will never solve the problem.
In someway, it is the same as why people join the US military? yes, there is a good push to join the military in US because of economical reason, but to die for the country? It is a belief, without it, very little sense to go die in a foreign land and only making a few bucks per hours. Not to mention if you are asked to blow yourself up.
You put too much faith on economical status ...
(0)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
PO3 (Join to see) - You mentioned a lot of things that are not related to my point. My point is the following:
"If you not already in a terrorist organization and you have a nice house, a stable family, a two car garage, things you enjoy doing in life, a hope for your future, and a lot to live for, you are probably less likely to volunteer to go blow yourself up."
If you don't believe there is truth to it, then we can just agree to disagree. That's ok.
"If you not already in a terrorist organization and you have a nice house, a stable family, a two car garage, things you enjoy doing in life, a hope for your future, and a lot to live for, you are probably less likely to volunteer to go blow yourself up."
If you don't believe there is truth to it, then we can just agree to disagree. That's ok.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Here we go again. We've heard this line before, right here in the good ole U.S.A. It is the reasoning of the Left used to justify government overreach into every aspect of our lives. The poor are naturally evil. Give them jobs. Give them equality. And all the ills of society will be cured. Well, to be fair, I've seen plenty of evil among the wealthy and nobility among the poor in my lifetime. However, the one constant is that an ideology that denigrates the individual and extols the collective almost always leads to trouble. You want terrorism? Teach children that the individual life is of no consequence, that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Socialism in its extreme variants, Communism and Nazism, murdered millions in the last century. Religion taken to extremes has a similar history though has never enjoyed the advantages of mechanized mass killing (although the Islamists are doing their level best to get their hands on the means). I don't speak for RP, but that's my take.
(2)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
CPT Jack Durish - Can you name a single substantial terrorist organization in the history of mankind which has thrived in an economically free and advanced society?
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
LTC Yinon Weiss - Of course not. What does that have to do with terrorists arising in nations where Islam is the dominant religion? Also, how about the "home grown" terrorists most of whom (I dare say all of whom) rise from affluent families? I think that it's time that we proceed carefully and make sure of what we're talking about. Again, allow me to summarize and you correct me where I'm wrong...
1. The origin premise: "Does economic growth mean less support for terrorism?" Specifically, it would seem that the Iranian president is postulating that if the developed nations help the undeveloped nations, then it will be harder for terrorists to recruit.
2. My first response: No. I don't believe that it will make any difference. The Islamists are not attacking the West because they are impoverished. They are attacking non-believers. For them it is a holy war. One of the basic premises that I attacked was the one that the poor are more prone to join extremist groups than the non-poor. As I originally stated, I have seen extremism rise among the rich as well as the poor, that many poor just as many rich may be noble.
3. Your response: You seem to believe that poverty is the breeding ground for terrorism (disagreeing with my response).
4. I have countered with the observation that home-grown terrorists have arisen from affluent families. For example, the European girls who took off to join ISIS were not from poverty.
Now, if you disagree with any of these points, please respond specifically so that I may follow your reasoning. If you think I'm totally off track, show me the way as you see it.
1. The origin premise: "Does economic growth mean less support for terrorism?" Specifically, it would seem that the Iranian president is postulating that if the developed nations help the undeveloped nations, then it will be harder for terrorists to recruit.
2. My first response: No. I don't believe that it will make any difference. The Islamists are not attacking the West because they are impoverished. They are attacking non-believers. For them it is a holy war. One of the basic premises that I attacked was the one that the poor are more prone to join extremist groups than the non-poor. As I originally stated, I have seen extremism rise among the rich as well as the poor, that many poor just as many rich may be noble.
3. Your response: You seem to believe that poverty is the breeding ground for terrorism (disagreeing with my response).
4. I have countered with the observation that home-grown terrorists have arisen from affluent families. For example, the European girls who took off to join ISIS were not from poverty.
Now, if you disagree with any of these points, please respond specifically so that I may follow your reasoning. If you think I'm totally off track, show me the way as you see it.
(0)
(0)
LTC Yinon Weiss
CPT Jack Durish - Sure. I'll go point by point.
1. I'm not postulating anything about the developed nations helping underdeveloped nations. So at least for the context of what I was saying, this point is not relevant, as I'm not speaking on behalf of anybody else.
2. Yes, extremism rises among both rich and poor. Leadership is often from the upper class, and it's easier to recruit when there are more people who have no hope for their future. My belief is that it's harder to recruit people to go blow themselves up when they are in a very comfortable lifestyle and have a lot more to lose.
3. I wouldn't use the term "breeding ground" - that is your term.
4. Of course terrorists can be either affluent or poor. There probably aren't broke poor girls in the US who can afford to fly to Syria, but that's not the point. Either way, using an example of a few terrorists who were affluent does not disprove that the majority of them are not. The leadership tends to be well educated and believe in the ideology. However, I think you will be hard pressed to find many terrorists blowing themselves up who had a comfortable lifestyle and a good income prior to doing so. Yes, it happens, but it is far more rare.
1. I'm not postulating anything about the developed nations helping underdeveloped nations. So at least for the context of what I was saying, this point is not relevant, as I'm not speaking on behalf of anybody else.
2. Yes, extremism rises among both rich and poor. Leadership is often from the upper class, and it's easier to recruit when there are more people who have no hope for their future. My belief is that it's harder to recruit people to go blow themselves up when they are in a very comfortable lifestyle and have a lot more to lose.
3. I wouldn't use the term "breeding ground" - that is your term.
4. Of course terrorists can be either affluent or poor. There probably aren't broke poor girls in the US who can afford to fly to Syria, but that's not the point. Either way, using an example of a few terrorists who were affluent does not disprove that the majority of them are not. The leadership tends to be well educated and believe in the ideology. However, I think you will be hard pressed to find many terrorists blowing themselves up who had a comfortable lifestyle and a good income prior to doing so. Yes, it happens, but it is far more rare.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
LTC Yinon Weiss - Very good. We seem to be communicating and our job is done here. Thank you. Illuminating.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google