Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Ah yes, the "root causes" crowd again

by Paul Wells on Monday, December 28, 2009 12:28am - 117 Comments

“The events of September 11, 2001, taught us that weak states, like Afghanistan, can pose as great a danger to our national interests as strong states. Poverty does not make poor people into terrorists and murderers. Yet poverty, weak institutions, and corruption can make weak states vulnerable to terrorist networks and drug cartels within their borders.”

— The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Sept. 17, 2002

Which just might help explain why, when a rich Nigerian banker’s son who could buy his suits on Jermyn Street and his mp3 player from Apple needed to buy some stuff to set an airliner on fire, he had to go to Yemen.

More by Paul Wells

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

The IRA was not a "Christian" terrorist group, their opponents were also Christian. They had one goal in mind that had nothing to do with Christianity – so they are similar to the Palestinians that way.

And those abortion doctors, I've never thought of them as terrorists, they're murderers. Terrorists target people indiscriminately, that's the definition of the word.

Gayle

Terrorism:
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

Sorry, but you are wrong about the definition, though it is a convenient one for you.

As for the IRA, it was one faction of Christianity fighting against another. I have known radical Catholics and radical Protestants – both who believe that only their faction of Christianity is the "true" Christian religion, and anyone who does not follow them will burn in hell.

The IRA, the "Christian" abortion doctor killers, the Taliban – they all have one thing in common and that is the use of their religious beliefs to justify their actions.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

You're going nowhere with the IRA. Everyone knows the history is political and historical just as much as it is religious.

I never said there was no Christian terrorists. One thing's for sure, there are a lot more Islamists that are terrorizing than anyone else. Anywhere in the world where Islamists border other religions, there is terror. For every Christian or Jewish or Tamil terrorist, there are 1000 Muslim terrorists, all over the world.

Gayle

The history of "Islamic" terrorism is also as much political and historical as it is religious.

As for your numbers – do you have a link to support them? Thanks

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

The history of "Islamic" terrorism is also as much political and historical as it is religious.

No it isn't. It's religious, because in most Islamic societies, there is no separation of church and state. Everyone knows this. Almost all Islamic societies have religious governments that do not allow the influence of anything other than Islam in their political affairs.

In Ireland, there is freedom of religion, and there are protestants practicing freely and peacefully all over the country.
Gayle

Islam has been around for centuries, and Islamic terrorism hasn't. Hmmm, do you think there might have been a political and historical trigger?

Do you remember the origins of the IRA?

Despite the fact that "everyone" knows the stuff you are posting, can I suggest you give us a bit more context and, you know, facts, to support your argument?

Thanks
monkey123

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Gayle

Thanks for the link to that completely objective and open minded site, but it failed to address the point.

Nice try though.
Tim

Closer to home where does the FLQ in Quebec fit. I would have to say they weren't that religous but they were of a similar demographic to this Nigerian kid.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

IMHO, the FLQ was similar to the IRA, Palestinians, Tamils, and so on, although the FLQ was a much smaller group and never produced the same kind of violence as these other groups. They were not fighting for their religion, but for political power and territory for their own particular ethnic group. In all these cases, the groups abandon peaceful political means to their goals (because of a lack of support) and instead resort to violence.
Gayle

I could not help but notice you have ignored the part about how Islam has existed for thousands of years, but Islamic terrorism is a modern creation.

Religion is just an excuse – and it is an excuse that is not exclusive to Muslims.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Islamic terrorism is a modern creation

What a laugh. Not it isn't. It's been going on since the creation of Islam. During some periods, it has been more prevalent than others.
Gayle

Acts of violence in the name of religion is not limited to Islam. But perhaps you can provide a link to where Islamic terrorism has been going on since the foundation of Islam.

I am well aware of mass murders in the name of Christianity, so would not be surprised of the same in the name of Islam – but then that only goes to prove my point. Religion is the excuse.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I'm just trying to get you to list a single Christian terrorist incident from last week, last month, last year, or even the last 5 years, to counter the thousands of Muslim terrorist incidents, but you seem to be incapable.
Gayle

You made a claim. I debunked it. Rather than admit you are wrong you decide to change the channel. The problem is that everyone knows that is what you are doing.

Not to mention the fact that I already gave examples of Christian terrorist incidents, such as terrorist acts committed by the IRA or Christians killing abortion doctors in the name of the Lord. I guess we could get back into that argument again, but I would prefer to just refer you to my earlier comments.

You then asserted Islamic terrorism has been a fact since the creation of Islam, and when asked to provide some evidence of your claim, you run away and hide. The truth is you have zero evidence that Islam involved terrorist acts from its inception. That would be because you are simply making things up. And again – everyone here knows it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HxsCxtzJEdM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HxsCxtzJEdM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
common man

Gayle, you seem to have a good grasp of the subject. Could you tell me why you think a peaceful religion like Islam has only recently shown that terroism is a viable option to achieve ??? whatever.
Gayle

Not sure why you are asking me this.

SCF here seems to think that terrorism is based on religion, and that Islam is the only religion upon which it is based. I suggest the problem is not religious in origin, but rather political and historical.

To that end, I point out that many terrorist acts, as well as other acts of violence, use Christianity as their excuse.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

SCF here seems to think that terrorism is based on religion

I never said that. Would you stop lying and misrepresenting me? Don't use my name in your lies.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Here's a sampling of last week's Muslim terrorism. Why don't you do the same and provide a round-up of last week's Christian terrorism?

Suicide Bombing in Karachi Kills 30
• Taliban Militants Linked to Attack on Shiite Muslim Procession on Key Holy Day

Iran opposition figures arrested as protests continue
• Second day of clashes between authorities and reformists
• At least nine dead, including the nephew of opposition leader

25 British-born Muslims Plotting to Bomb Western-Owned Airlines

Nigeria: extremists unleash new 'terror'
• 'Bauchi boils again as a Muslim sect known as the Kalikato-Maitastene unleash terror on all those that do not belong to their sect,' he says.
Gayle

Moving the goal posts now?

You claimed there are no modern Christian terrorists. I provided examples that demonstrated you were wrong.

Maybe try to stick to the point.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

That's not a roundup.

You claimed there are no modern Christian terrorists

No I didn't. It's quite easy to go back and read what I said, so I don't know why you'd be so brazen to lie like this.
Gayle

Here is what you said:

"People need to use McVeigh because they can't think of another terrorist "Christian" in our lifetimes."

I provided examples of Christian terrorists in our lifetimes. Now you are just trying to move the goal posts.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

?

Please re-read the sentence. There is a difference between:
-there are no Christian terrorists
-you can't think of a Christian terrorist

Can you understand the difference? It seems you cannot.

And funny enough, your examples were very weak, which means that you actually cannot think of a Christian terrorist, which means that I was correct. You gave an example of a group which has committed terrorist acts in many years (the IRA), you referred to "abortion" killings without referring to an actual incident, and then there is of course McVeigh's incident from 14 years ago.

As for the "goal posts", you are the one who responded to "Then they can say, that for every one of those 50 Islamic terrorist attacks, there are 50 Christian ones, McVeigh and the other 49 that I can't think of right now"

That is the statement you rebutted, which means you claimed there are just as many Christian ones as Muslim ones, or at the least you claimed there are plenty, or at the very least you claimed the numbers are somewhat comparable.

So who's moving the goal post?
Gayle

Sigh…

You talked about McVeigh and other acts of Christian terrorism "within our life times" and then say I may not refer to the IRA because they have not been responsible for an act of terrorism since 1998. I do not know about you (and I mean that), but I am older than 11.

I should also say that I lived in the UK while the IRA were active. I have a pretty good understanding of what terrorism does to people.

"That is the statement you rebutted, which means you claimed there are just as many Christian ones as Muslim ones, or at the least you claimed there are plenty, or at the very least you claimed the numbers are somewhat comparable."

Um, no, that is not the statement I rebutted, and even if it were, it doesn't mean what you say it means.

"…you completely ignored everything else in order to make this point, including the part where I said "for every one Christian terrorist, there are a 1000 muslim terrorists"".

Actually, I ignored this part because it is quite obvious that you pulled this number out of your hat – which is apparently where you find most of your "facts".

As for the rest, I stand by my response. I think it is pretty clear you meant what I said you meant.
http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

By the way, I'm still waiting for your list. Perhaps instead of last week, you could try to name a Christian terrorist incident from last month? Last year? Can you name any Christian terrorist incident at all?

I named five Muslim terrorist incidents from last week. I coud list thousands from the last few months, because there has been thousands, big and small, in dozens of countries.

Where's your list?
Gayle

In your vivid imagination – you know, the place where people actually allow you to move the goal posts when your thesis has been thouroughly debunked.

Take care now.

You Try Again…

"Terrorists target people indiscriminately, that's the definition of the word. "

That's like, the complete opposite of true.

Oxford English Dictionary: “A system of terror.

1. Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789-94; the system of the ‘Terror’ (1793-4): see TERROR n. 4

2. gen. A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized. Also transf. Cf. TERRORIST
''

Publically killing people who do a legal job into terrorizing others to not go into that job certainly seems like it would be `A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted'', yes?

WIkipedia: “Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.''. Killing people who do legal things to coerce others to not do those legal things certainly counts.

Random House: “1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.''

Nothing at all about indiscriminate killing here.

American Heritage Dictionary: “n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.''

Hmm. Still nothing about indiscriminate killing.

So you're like completely wrong — in fact, that's the definition of the word.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Geez, all I had to do was go to the first google link, wikipedia, to find:

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

And there's wikipedia in your comment, yet you conveniently omitted this. Hilarious.

Gayle

You are the one embarassing yourself.

The use of murder to try to prevent doctors from performing abortions, is the use of terror to try to stop doctors from performing abortions.

It is not that hard.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Why don't you scour the news and try to find as many references to this plane incident as you can, in which the crime is described as "attempted murder". Then you can claim that murder and terror mean the same thing.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Gotta love those looney lefties…always coming up with overly simplified answers to complex questions that just so happen to prove the validity of their ideology. You know, like Huntington's Clash of Civilizations and Fukuyama's End of History….

Oh wait….nevermind.
http://www.TennisVagabond.com Big Dave S

Paul
I frankly don't understand your post. Apparently 60 other commenters are better at reading your mind than me. I also don't know whether poverty is A root cause of Islamist terrorism (that is, if the Islamic world lived in Western conditions, would the same terrorism exist?).
Cosh's post, though, is silly. Whether or not poverty IS a root cause will not be debunked because some of the agitators are not poor. Jack Layton is not a poor man, but I see who he is TRYING to agitate for. Teddy Kennedy was not a poor man, but we knew who he was TRYING to represent. Che Guevera was a relatively wealthy doctor. Their backgrounds don't prove or define who they wanted to fight for (rightly or wrongly, smartly or stupidly).

The bigger question is if this terrorist's dad is that Nigerian millionaire who keeps emailing me.

http://www.TennisVagabond.com Big Dave S

Also, Al Gore is not a polar bear, but he fights for them.

Richard

Al Gore invented polar bears.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

My God, Dave, you've made part of the point I was going to make.

Gayle

I am not claiming that. Nice try though.

http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

Thousands of abortion Dr.'s murdered all over the world, by a growing movement of Christian terrorists. We have to change the way we fly because of the…Christian terrorists.

We see Christian abortion murderers chanting "Jesus is Great!!" on our nightly TV stations weilding crosses in one hand, and AK 47's in another.

Yes Gayle, SCF is the one making a fool of himself.

You, on the other hand are fully grounded in reality.

Gayle

"We have to change the way we fly because of the…Christian terrorists."

Nope – doctors just have to change the way they practice medicine because of Christian terrorists. This, of course, means fewer women have access to abortions.

But that is the goal, right? That is what terrorism is all about.

Anyway…

http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

Poverty may not be the root cause, but it most certainly implicated. It implicates wealth also as culpable. Without one there is not the other. Poverty allows the ideas the ground to grow, wealth permits the expression.

The root cause, I say with a slight of facetiousness, is ideas.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Poverty allows the ideas the ground to grow, wealth permits the expression

That is false. There are no examples of wealthy terrorists who escaped poverty. This plane bomber was wealthy and privileged from the day he was born.

http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

It seems really difficult for you to think abstractly.
Mike T.

You are doing very very poorly in this thread.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Poverty and inspired ignorance. It's everywhere …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Conspiracy_…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

These things can be tricky, it's true.
http://intensedebate.com/people/doug_rogers doug_rogers

No one has even approached discussing the mention of 'weak states' in the quote posted. What is the cause of a weak state?
John

There are many very poor countries in the world and they are not terrorists, they are simply poor. Monsters have to come to those countries to make them into launching pads for the evils of Islam. Islam has proved it is not a religion of peace. So get over it and get used to it.

Will be at war with Islam as long as there is a we. If we lose, them Islam will continue warring with itself, because that is what they do and its is all they know.