TeeJay said:
I have seen this argument used several times over the last few days.
Different people in different places end up fighting against who they see as 'the enemy' and against what they see as injustice depending on what kind of channels there are for them. There are all sorts of violent conflicts going on in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere, often with rebels, insurgents and terrorists fighting against governments or one ethnic group fighting against another.
Poverty and "imperialism" (ie foreign/great power intervention) are often key factors that continue to fuel these conflicts, and various ideologies - ethnic/nationalist/left/right - are held out as the "solution" - a way of recruiting, legitimising and organising insurgency etc.
Fundementalist 'Islamism' of the Al Qaeda sort is yet another brand. It may be the most explicitly anti-western in both thinking and tactics, but just like many other ideologies and 'struggles' it does feed off government corruption and violence, inequality and poverty, foreign interference, human rights abuses and a lack of democracy. It might be more affluent youths who take up the struggle but no doubt they will be motivated by what they percieve to be the suffering of the poor and oppressed. Instead of seeing western liberal democracy or socialism or secular ethnic nationalism as the "solution", they come to believe in 'Islamism' and sign up as their version of freedom fighters or soldiers, just like people join struggles or armies all round the world.
But you're not really addressing the issue, that grinding poverty exists in many parts of the world, and in many parts of the world is worse than it is in the middle east.
And yes, those people will often engage in guerilla warfare etc to try to get what they see as justice; the Sendero Luminoso, the Zapatistas, the Burmese rebels etc come to mind.
But there's a difference with these people who are fighting for economic justice. For one thing, they don't seem to be overeager to get themselves killed. They want a better life for their people, and it seems that they'd just as soon be around to enjoy it also.
Another difference. With true economic rebels, you can bargain with them. They have a list of demands, and they usually stop fighting once they're met.
What were the demands of the british terrorists?
To me, the minority of muslim fanatics who are doing these things are fighting a holy war. It's not about money. It's about infidels, and holy places, and islamic governments. It's been said before that the worst wars are wars of ideology, because people will kill and kill, they'll destroy and destroy, in the name of an idea. If they're fighting for land, or wealth, or what have you, they'll be a little bit careful about destroying the stuff that they're trying to possess.
With holy warriors, the rewards come in heaven, not on earth, so earthly destruction is of little concern.
