Root Cause Discussion
 

yup. poverty is THE MAIN ISSUE. There are absolutely no poor people living peacefully anywhere in the world. Appalachia is recruiting for an insurgency.

I hate analysts.

Well, I read it multiple times thinking I must
be missing something. Not much I agree with.

He doesn't prove his theory to me. Is this information
supposed to convince me that poverty is "the MAIN factor"?

He's a lib.

Like CRad

poverty could be an issue.

Certainly that article has some "different" ideas of what are root causes. It is too difficult to argue about that when we have not even agreed on the definition of "root".

I don't think that people need to be rich to live in peace. The issue in the article is globalization. If the hillbillies of appalachia (such as myself) were to suddenly be forced to exist in a globalized economy, it would be interesting to see how long the peace would last.

I realize that most people don't accept that some people hate them for no valid reason. But I also don't think that Hisham Whateverist, the Palestinian, fails to be effected by inequity in the world.

I suppose that most here do not believe in the efficacy of perceptions. But isn't it true that we are seen as a sophisticated military empire by those who would do harm? Envy is a kind of poverty.

Wow. We've hit my two least favorite 'root causes' in one thread on one page.

I envy Tiger Woods and that dude what sleeps with Sara Evans, but I am not waging jihad against them...yet.

What's your favorite root cause?

Jimbo, at this point I am of course interested in what your favorite 'root causes' might be.

Can we take terrorists out of it, since that is just no good. Insurgents are often motivated by political-economic factors. Why would you envy that dude who sleeps with Sara Evans when you do not even know her? It aint as simple as saying the global market has room for all of it. Sara and Tiger are personas.. it gets alot more difficult when it comes to energy or natural resources.

Racism.

TR

Mine too. Damn libs hate Condi Rice just because she's black! LOL

Racism? I'll need more please.

"Racism is prejudice or discrimination based on the belief that race is the primary factor determining human traits and abilities. Racism includes the belief that genetic or inherited differences produce the inherent superiority or inferiority of one race over another. In the name of protecting their race from "contamination," some racists justify the domination and destruction of races they consider to be either superior or inferior. Institutional racism is racial prejudice supported by institutional power and authority used to the advantage of one race over others."

Common practice and usage:

Any behavior by another race, ethnicity, religion, or identifiable feature which bothers me or my group is based on racism. Just ask any liberal.


Middle East Wars Against Israel? Racist (Religion).

Bosnia? Racism (Ethnic).

Kosovo? Racism (Religion).

Rwanda? Racism (Tribalist).

Somalia? Racism (Tribalist).

Afganistan? Racism (Religion/Tribal/Ethnic).

Iraq? Racism (Religion/Tribal/Ethnic).

See a pattern?


I/my group is not in charge. Must be a root cause for my loss of dominance, other than numbers, lack of wealth, power, etc. Blame the dominant group and accuse them of racism. Class warfare, haves against the have nots. Seek friendly external group with grudge against dominant local group and gather support from them. Goal? To get our own noses into the trough, and persecute different groups who would/have challenged us.

Use external threats from racism to drive racial/tribal/ethnic nationalist fervor and focus attention OUTSIDE of our internal problems.

Just a thought.

TR

Ok. Thank you.

My favorite root cause is assholes motivated by power. Not to get too psychobabble, but there are some people whose situation in life has produced a high need to control the events in their lives. This often leads to seeking power to impose their will on others.

That, and massive social inequality where their either is no means to change or the means to change are blocked by those in power.

Why do you want to take terrorists out of a discussion of the root causes of terrorism?

I take it your assertion that insurgents are motivated bu political-economic factos can be supported?

As to the rest of your post, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Racism and the will to power. I'm good so far.

My impulse to do that was because of that article. gut feeling was that the article used the word "terrorism" improperly.

There is already a thread on root causes for insurgency on the other forum, though, and this thread has become a place for people's ideas on root causes of terrorism, so thats good.

Jimbo, massive social inequality is an economic factor. assholes motivated to power is a political factor.

So aparthied was an economic factor? How about caste systems?

Assholes are usually a sociological/psychological factor. The fact that such individuals enter the political world is after the fact.

Thanks for the good examples of social systems.

I'm not in the mood for a fight- I'm sick today. There is very little chance that I will say anything that you will understand.

"An American's hatred for a fellow American is far more virulent than anything he can work up against foreigners"

Is there / can there be a difference between the 'root causes' of the leaders of insurgencies and the 'root causes' of the lower-level insurgents?
It seems to me that while poverty itself does not feature in the former group, it could concievably be used to motivate the latter into supporting the leadership's goals.

Solid

Add to this TR's racism as motivating/manipulating functions and the egoism of those who think that they have the right to dictate how others should live plus excuses to not take responsibility for their actions and what I think are the root causes are covered.

Btw, in my opinion, more and more Democrats are getting closer and closer to being perfect root material for terrorists.

Isn't that taking it a bit far? If that is going to be the case, how far are we from a one party system? If the other side is the enemy, than the only logical conclusion would be a single party system.

Would that be good or bad for our democratic republic?

The root causation seems almost too simple. Those that despise us hate the fact that we medle in their regious affairs for the benefit of our foreign policy goals. They can point to our dispersment of cash to many states, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel... The enemy hates that we have interest in their region and seek to influence one side over another to further those interests.

Last I checked the only stated reason that AQ is attacking us and our interests is because we have "boots on the ground" and we support regimes they do not. So, assuming we dissolve those things, they would also still hate our need for their resources and in so doing being a major player on whatever policy our enemy would like to put in place.

It's set up as a lose lose scenario by our enemies. We pull out and don't give any money to the regimes we support, we pay $100 a barrel for oil, IF they (our enemy) let us buy it.

They are deluded if they think we will ever allow that to happen. No matter what our enagements. The entire western system would collapse, by their design, if they succeed in their adventure in Iraq. I can only hope that we will all, US and UK, stay the course in Iraq and win the day. The alternative is frightening.

The world is a petro-chemical system. There is no denying that fact. The middle east will be pacified with reason and diplomacy or by force. It seems they are now choosing the later.

My only hope is that the nation has the same resolve that we all do. The coalition is that in name only. We must keep the will alive to further our goals on all fronts. Most of the population has already forgotten that Afghanistan even exists. The only reason is the body count, not the importance of winning the GWOT. I hope that someone can come on board and explain to the people exactly what we are doing. Almost all of us here understand it, yet the American people do not.

That would be the best move in the GWOT that we can make right now. Letting everyone know where we stand and where we are going.

So, when the Whigs disappeared we went to a one party system? After all, that is the only logical conclusion...

Suggest you rethink your statement.

I agree, something needs to be done about CRad immediately.:D

Seriously though, I do agree with you and the only thing stopping the more virulent variety of the species from heading to the hills now is they are stupid. Most of them don't know what they are mad about or why they are protesting. The protests in san Fran are a delight to watch.

Ian, when are you kids going to learn to quit contradicting GH? He'll eat you guys alive at this stuff - he's trained.

And many are professors in universities, like Berkley.

I have a hard time distinguishing between the parties these days, perhaps it is just me.

What about my statement should I re-think? The oil part, or the theory that people would love democracy in that region?

It does always fascinate me when people think up global strategies based upon what we THINK people will feel or do.

Ooh! Ooh!, Let me GH!

ALL strategies are on what the strategist thinks side B will do when side A moves.

How the hell else do you think a strategy is formulated? Why do you think we spend so much time talking about the fog of war? Why do you think the strategy HAS to be a living thing?

As far as the two parties being the same - we are in an election year, so you what you see is a shift to center to get elected. That means they understand that the majority is not extremist -hardly surprising that most people are "normal"!

You saw a glimpse of the differences during the Democratic Primary - Howard Dean, but where is he now? You don't see it much on the Republican side right now because there is no primary.

Doesn't do much good to go after the hardline on the left or right during an election - they have those votes already mostly. The center is what determines who wins.

Once the election is over, they'll go back to appealing to their own sides. That's why voting for someone for how they campaign is so dangerous, that's not who they are, its who they need to be to win. Look at what they did and said when they were in mid term. You think the hard right knew Bush was going to push for the illegal immigrant legalization? LOL