What was most alarming in the stories last week about the uncovered al-Qaeda terrorist ring in London and Glasgow was the number of doctors involved in the plot. From sensational tabloid covers to news analysis pieces in the big dailies, reporters seemed most to marvel at what were assumed to be unusual backgrounds for a group of terrorists.
Even though, from our first awareness of al-Qaeda in the nineties, it was obvious that the source of its rage was not socio-economic but ideological, it’s still hard for us to accept that people with such high levels of education and upper middle-class incomes could be involved in terrorist actions. This newest development offers yet another chance to remind us that poverty does not figure into the equation. And it comes in a column in The Wall Street Journal that looks at the research of Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist. Krueger has found that, “The evidence is nearly unanimous in rejecting either material deprivation or inadequate education as an important cause of support for terrorism or of participation in terrorist activities.” Instead, Krueger’s research shows, terrorists are made when civil liberties and political rights are suppressed. “When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed,” he says, “malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics.”
Though he offers no iron-clad proof, it should throw some water on journalists who report with shock every time someone with money and education is implicated in terror.

Moronic Insight of The Day
Krueger’s research shows, terrorists are made when civil liberties and political rights are suppressed. "When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed," he says, "malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics."
padikiller rings the Reality Bell
You have GOT to be kidding me!...
These guys lived in ENGLAND, for crying out loud... The home of Tolerant Enlightnment and Freee-Sprited Discourse!... The birthplace of the soapbox!...
Terrorists THRIVE on civil liberties!... And exploit them to do their best to ELIMINATE them!....
When will the moonbats in this country simpy acknowledge the plain reality?... Namely that Islam is NOT a "religion of peace" but instead a religion founded upon violence, intolerance and bent on domination and submission of all other religions?!.. Or that the sympathies of the supposedly "moderate" or "mainstream" Muslims are more likely to lie with Osama bin Laden than with the families of 9/11 victims?...
WHEN will the reality sink in?...
When Disneyland gets hit with a dirty bomb?.... When Times Sqaure is covered in antrax dust?... When a chartered 737 hits the Sears Tower?....
WHAT will it take to get the daft liberal fruitcakes of the world to recognize the truth?....
Posted by padikiller
on Thu 5 Jul 2007 at 01:52 PM
Once again Padikiller, in the fervent need of making your political point, you ignore history:
"...The home of Tolerant Enlightnment and Freee-Sprited Discourse!... The birthplace of the soapbox!..."
That tolerant enlightenment was not felt by Catholics in the UK and Northern Ireland which led to the terror campaign of the Provisional IRA. And a little farther back, Hindu's in India, Native Americans here and Zulu's in Africa to just mention a few of Britain's more tolerant and enlightened campaigns.
"... Namely that Islam is NOT a "religion of peace" but instead a religion founded upon violence, intolerance and bent on domination and submission of all other religions?!.."
I guess that applies to the bloodthirsty, intolerant Catholic religion also, since they resorted to these same tactics, with the same goals. Right?
The British have a long and bloody history of conquering and oppressing native populations. British Muslims are much less assimilated than Muslims in the US and that drives much of the current home-grown radicalism.
You don't have to support terror as a form of political expression to understand where some of the motivation for it comes from. To deny the history is just foolish.
Posted by not the senator
on Fri 6 Jul 2007 at 09:05 AM
Not The Senator Wrote
Once again Padikiller, in the fervent need of making your political point, you ignore history... ...The British have a long and bloody history of conquering and oppressing native populations
padikiller's Historical Reality Quiz
In which city would a yound lady rather haul out her soapbox and deliver a speech in a halter top?
A. London
B. Mecca
C. Tehran
D. Damascus
In which city would a Muslim prefer to convert to Christianity?
A. Birmingham
B. Riyadh
C. Cairo
D. Islamobad
Who would be safer in speaking his mind?
A. A homsexual atheist anarchist in Trafagar Square?
B. A former Muslim apostate in Oman
C. A secular feminist in Baghdad
D. A Zionist in Tripoli.
Where would Salmon Rushdie rather hang out on a Friday night to offer his take on Islam?...
A. A Starbucks in Liverpool
B. A mosque in Kuwait
C. A KFC in Karachi
D. A public library in Casablanca
Who's got a greater likelihood of making it to see tomorrow?
A. A radical Muslim standing in front of Buckingham Palace who advocates the downfall of the Queen, the beheading apostates, the imposition of sharia law in England, and the domination and sujogation of all other religions by Islam.
B. Salmon Rushdie
C. Theo Van Gogh (Whoops!... Too late! Never mind....)
D. Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Posted by padikiller
on Fri 6 Jul 2007 at 08:21 PM