Saturday, December 19, 2009, 8:16PM ET - U.S. Markets Closed.

Charles Wheelan, Ph.D. The Naked Economist

Charles Wheelan, Ph.D., The Naked Economist

Pulling Up Terrorism's Economic Roots

by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D.

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story
Very Good (360 Ratings)
3.483334/5
Posted on Monday, November 12, 2007, 12:00AM

I settled into my seat for a flight a few days ago from Chicago to Washington, D.C., and opened my book: "What Makes a Terrorist." I now recognize that this probably wasn't the best choice of reading material for a crowded plane.

But it is a good read. The author, Princeton economist Alan Krueger, has written an accessible and interesting book on the causes of terrorism. (Disclosure: Krueger was my statistics professor in graduate school; I did badly in the class, which is why I now happily write articles like this that involve no math.)

Number-Crunching the Threats

The full title of Krueger's book is "What Makes a Terrorist: Economics and the Roots of Terrorism." His work (here and elsewhere) is a nice example of how economics can be used to examine issues far beyond interest rates and stock prices. After all, the point of economics is to explain why individuals and organizations do what they do, including people who blow things up.

More important, the findings outlined in the book provide some intellectual traction in the battle against terrorism. Krueger draws conclusions based on an array of data gathered on terrorist attacks around the world, including information on the terrorists, their country of origin, and the country targeted in the attack.

Experts need to study such data for the same reason that epidemiologists study public health data -- the findings often suggest a strategy for confronting a threat, whether it's heart attacks or terrorist attacks. Statistical analysis allows researchers to isolate the effects of certain factors, such as smoking in a public health context or religion as it might relate to terrorism. (I did well enough in Krueger's class to appreciate the importance of this kind of statistical analysis, if not necessarily well enough to do it competently.)

So what makes a terrorist? Here are Krueger's big findings.

Wealth, Education, and Terror

1. Terrorists are neither desperately poor, nor poorly educated.

Instead, "terrorists tend to be drawn from well-educated, middle-class or high-income families." (The 9/11 Commission came to the same conclusion.) But why?

Krueger hypothesizes that since terrorists are motivated by political goals, the more educated and affluent have a greater stake in changing outcomes. He draws a parallel to voting: "Having a high opportunity cost of time -- resulting, say, from a high-paying job and a good education -- should discourage people from voting, yet it is precisely those with a high opportunity cost of time who tend to vote. Why? Because they care about influencing the outcome and consider themselves sufficiently well-informed to want to express their opinions."

I would offer a complementary explanation, which is that affluent and educated citizens are more likely to be rankled by political repression, which appears to be a strong causal factor for terrorism. The citizens with the most stake in a society -- the educated and the affluent -- are bothered most when a newspaper is banned or opposition politicians are jailed. Who would take greatest offense in the United States if the government banned Fox News or NPR? Not the homeless.

Krueger, ever the labor economist, also points out a somewhat macabre explanation for well-educated terrorists: Terror organizations accept the most capable volunteers -- just like any other organization that cares about its success. The bunglers get turned away.

No Political Safety Valve

2. Political repression in a country is consistently associated with a higher level of terrorist activity.

This includes the suppression of freedom of expression, freedom to assemble, and other civil liberties and political rights. This should be fairly intuitive; when these rights are curtailed, the steam has no way to escape the pot. Krueger writes, "When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed, malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics."

To my mind, this finding presents the greatest dilemma for U.S. policymakers. Some of the governments that have been most helpful to the United States in terms of fighting extremist groups, namely Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, have also ruthlessly cracked down on domestic political freedoms. Thus, these governments are simultaneously fighting terrorists while breeding new ones.

Think Globally, Terrorize Locally

3. Like politics, most terrorist attacks are local.

The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks are an anomaly in this respect. The role that proximity plays can be observed based on the national origin of the foreign insurgents captured in Iraq. When Krueger controls for other variables related to the home countries of the foreign insurgents -- such as GDP and predominant religion -- being from the neighborhood turns out to matter a lot.

There are a host of possible explanations for this. Citizens from neighboring countries may have a greater stake in the Iraqi outcome. Or it may be easier for them to blend in. Or it may simply be easier (and cheaper) for them to get there. Whatever the reason, the data show that "distance seems to be a significant barrier to terrorism."

How Region and Religion Figure

4. Countries that are occupying all or part of another country are more likely to be subject to a terrorist attack. And countries that are occupied are more likely to be the origin of an attack.

Again, this is fairly intuitive, but it has significant implications for foreign policy, in the United States and elsewhere. It strikes me that there's a parallel with domestic repression: If we send forces somewhere to crack down on terrorists, we may be simultaneously creating the circumstances that promote such terrorism in the first place.

5. It's not a Muslim thing.

Countries with a high proportion of Muslims aren't significantly more likely to be the origin of terrorist attacks than countries with a high percentage of some other religion, once civil liberties are taken into account. In fact, international terrorism was less likely to occur between pairs of countries with different predominant religious groups.

Krueger writes, "My interpretation of these results is that religious differences are among the many potential sources of the grievances that lead to terrorism. They are not the only reason for such grievances, and such grievances are not specific to any one religion. Although the world's attention is currently focused on Islamic terrorist organizations, they are by no means the only source of terrorism."

Damage Done

6. The direct impacts of terrorist attacks are not huge.

This isn't meant to diminish the suffering of those directly affected by 9/11 or any other such attack; it's meant to put the scope of the attacks in perspective. The number of people killed in car accidents in 2001 was 10 times the number of people killed by terrorists (my observation, not Krueger's).

Krueger does make the case that economic damage caused by 9/11 was modest given the size and diversity of the U.S. economy. Even the psychological impact dissipated relatively quickly.

His point is that terrorism can only succeed by sowing fear and overreaction, not by destroying things and killing people. He posits that terrorists strike democratic countries more than autocratic regimes because public reaction matters more in open societies. For example, he points to evidence that terrorism has affected electoral outcomes in Spain, Israel, and the United States.

"What Makes a Terrorist" includes a wonderful chart showing the relative risk of dying from assorted causes. The lifetime risk of dying in a motor vehicle accident for the U.S. population is 1 in 88. The lifetime risk for dying of suicide is 1 in 120. The lifetime risk for dying in a terrorist attack is 1 in 69,000, which is significantly less than the risk of dying from a lightning strike. (To be fair, the average American is far more likely to die at the hands of a terrorist than from a shark attack; that lifetime risk is 1 in 3,700,000.)

The point is that terrorist attacks succeed because of the terror, not the attack. We should respond with that in mind.

The Most Reliable Weapon

Krueger's work and other studies like it have obvious limitations, beginning with the challenge of defining terrorism. The data are inherently hard to collect; the interpretation leaves a lot of room for ambiguity and interpretation. For example, should an attack on a McDonald's in Pakistan be treated as an attack on Pakistan or on the United States?

Still, the approach is spot on. Fighting terrorism begins by understanding it.

Email this Page IM this StoryBookmark this StoryAdd to your Del.icio.us accountDigg this StoryPrint this Story

Rate This story

Very Good (360 Ratings)
3.5/5
Sign-in to rate!

87 Comments

Showing comments 6-35 of 87<< PreviousNext >>
Sort: first to last

  • mike - Saturday, November 17, 2007, 2:41PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Right off the bat he uses poor grammar. It's " poorly," not "badly." What does this guy have anything to do with someone else's book? If I wanted to read this I could have gone to amazon.com.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, November 16, 2007, 4:32PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    I want this job! Get paid for summarizing the key points of someone else's book, while adding little to none of your own insight.

  • Feem O - Friday, November 16, 2007, 1:51PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Ah, another terrorist apologist. I love how he walks on eggshells to appease the sympathizers. He says that countries with a high percentage of muslims are not more likely to be the origin of an attack. That's meaningless. The country of origin is irrelevant. The *IMPORTANT* part is that it was a muslim who was doing the attacking, not where he was from. This elitist jerk needs to return to the ivory tower from which he came.

  • Ian - Friday, November 16, 2007, 12:59PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Economists need to work on the image they portray to the general public -- this is an excellent example of a bad book review. Dr. Whelan may be a brilliant Economist but his ability to communicate clearly is atrocious......

  • WCS - Friday, November 16, 2007, 8:43AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    Interesting. Consider the KKK lynchings or other majorities vs minorities. Kurds -Turks smokers vs non-smokers

  • Larry K - Thursday, November 15, 2007, 11:54PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    great - another PhD. terrorist apologist comparing deaths on 9/11 to car accident victims.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, November 15, 2007, 3:12PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    "The point is that terrorist attacks succeed because of the terror, not the attack." And I suppose everyone would shake in their boots sans the attack? Not. In fact, if threats had worked, (ie, driven the US to behave differently) 9/11 would not have happened-- or so Bin Laden et al would have us believe. Try this definition on for size: Terrorism: a random act of violence intiated as a followup to threats, intended to instill sufficient shock and horror in a population so as to modify behaviour. As for the attack on the McDonald's-- treat it as an attack on a McDonald's. Fighting terrorism begins with stopping fear-- which does not require understanding terrorism--- it starts with getting the media and general public to put the relative risks into perspective.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, November 15, 2007, 2:38PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    "Countries with a high proportion of Muslims aren't significantly more likely to be the origin of terrorist attacks than countries with a high percentage of some other religion, once civil liberties are taken into account. " - Whoa, Nellie! This is the wrong question and the wrong answer. It's not the percentage of population that matters - it's WHO THE PERPS ARE, and they are predominantly Muslim. Not PC, but these are the facts! Also, it's silly to say well-educated middle class become terrorists because they're affected by the outcomes - if you become a suicide bomber, your OUTCOME is pretty much to become fertilizer for pig farms. All this tiptoeing to avoid "stereotyping" is ridiculous.

  • Jarjar - Thursday, November 15, 2007, 1:05PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Shallow, backward-looking analysis. Controlling for civil liberties and concluding that Islam is not responsible for a disproportionate amount of terrorism is fallacious; it does not take into account the fact that Islam's being a dominant religion in a country *causes* civil liberties to be repressed. Anyone with a brain would understand that the regulation of dress, "vice," etc., in places like Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, etc., are directly linked to Islam. It is therefore completely misleading to say one can "control" for Islam by only looking at the level of civil liberties in a country. To the contrary, this is just a PC way of saying that we can use "countries with low levels of civil liberties" as a shoddy proxy for "Islamic countries," which is what common sense would lead you to without all the "controlling factor" analysis. To wit, the reductio ad absurdum conclusion that one would come to for the "lack of civil liberties" thesis would be that we should expect a tremendous amount of terrorists to come from North Korea, the most repressive country in the world, and Cuba as well. What about China or Singapore? We don't see that, now, do we? Hmm, what do all these countries have in common? Oh, yes, a lack of Islamic influence. Anyone who tells you that Islam is not an important factor for determining who is a terrorist and who isn't is either a) a moron or b) lying. Finally, the "odds" of dying from a terrorist attack are a lot higher in places like airplanes than they are in the middle of an isolated prairie in South Dakota. The numbers you cite are backward-looking and can easily be skewed by a "long tail event" of a nuclear bomb being set off in a well-populated area. Again, anyone with a brain understands that the future risks outweigh the past statistical risk. Backward looking analysis for these types of "odds" are completely useless and don't accurately describe the threat from Islamic terrorists.

  • JohnnyAdam - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 11:59PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Terrorism has nothing to do with religion, race, or geographical area. What we call "terrorisim" today simply says "if you are not an organized army, you are terrorists" For example, Hizbulah in Lebanon attacks only Israeli military targets, but since they are not an organized army and they fight our freind Israel, they are designated as a terrorist organization! Of course, the "Mujahideen", now known as Taliban and Alqaeda were not an organized army and were NOT considered terrorist organizations. Oh, yes, thats because they were fighting the Soviet Union! Also, here in the West we tend to think killing with a 500lb laser guided bomb is a "civilized" thing. But a suicide bomber, thats terrorisim, even its target is military. I bet if these suicide bombers had an organized army and F16s, they would have gladly used them. Would that have made them "civilized" then?! Guerrella wars are conducted by the poor; and since they lack laser guided bombs they have to "guide" the weapons themselves! So whats my point? We must define "terrorisim" first. Terrorisim must be defined as "the killing of civilians" regardless of WHO is doing it and HOW. Many organizations and countries asked to define terrorisim, but our government refused to because they were afraid our ally Israel might be designated as a terrorist state, and who knows maybe us too! We like to define it as WE like. The life of all civilians must be valued equally. The murder of civilians regardless of how death is delivered, a fancy bomber or by a person, must be considered a crime. We MUST apply this as an American value for us to gain credibilty. World Peace

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 11:20PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Excellent article. Imagine this: Lets say some Hindus attack Texas and build a "Hindu" state because they believe Texas is sacred to them. As a "Hindu" state, most citizens must be Hindu; which means everyone else must be forced out of Dallas, Houston, Austin ..etc. Well, that would be a bloody and unbearable scenario for Texans, with millions of Texan families becoming refugees in surrounding states. Lets say, a refugee attacks the Hindus state that took his land and murdered his kids, would that Texan be a terrorist? Think about it. What if it was you. Your family murdered and you are kicked out of your house? That is exactly what is going on in Palestine. Example 2: If Iraqis attack us to save us from Bush, take over our technology related industries, and put an Iraqi-friendly government and they happen to kill some two hundred thousand Americans and injure triple that, would you say 1) "Wow, Iraqis are nice, they saved us from idiot Busg!" or 2) "These guys better get out of here or else!" Sounds like us being in Iraq. What is called "terrorism" is based on who defines it, and which side you are on.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 9:57PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    pretty interesting article. I wonder what data set that guy used. The available data sets with accurate information on terrorists are probably pretty darn small... Moreover, it's probably not a randomly chosen sample (for example, if you have a data set of 100 terrorists, and 12 of them are from 9/11, and 14 of them are from a captured Black September cell, etc... your analysis is probably skewed). Thus, I would be skeptical of the stats. Nevertheless, interesting stuff. Much more interesting than the typical yahoo post. Also, to the detractors out there. LRN 2 SPEL K GG THX BY for chrissakes. There is a spell checker in this post window.

  • mg - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 7:49PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    The major flaw in this article is the statement "2. Political repression in a country is consistently associated with a higher level of terrorist activity." This is highly inconsistent with the facts. Arguably the most repressive regimes in the world, such as North Korea, Iran, and Afghanistan under the Taliban, had no significant domestic terrorism. Not only do these highly repressive regimes not exhibit domestic terrorism, they are able to sponsor terrorism elsewhere in the world. This shows that authoritarianism is not linked to domestic terror movements.

  • JohnN - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 6:13PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Once again, convoluted, jumbled things, are made, if not more clear, at least less cloudy, when viewed in terms of economics. Certainly no reasonable person would argue that this answers all the questions, but it offers things to consider. That's a sight more than most of what I read and hear.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 3:40PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    I am a Hindu Indian I cam here as a immigrant and now a citizen of this country , I dont support this article , please invest in Indian stock market it can only go up and can never go down , Indian invented plastic surgery 3000 years ago.

  • Bigfoot - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 2:39PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    It is refreshing to see an objective treatment of this issue, which the book in question seeks to provide. There are some unanswered questions here as well. What exactly is a 'terrorist'? Does the alleged conduct of certain contractors in Iraq meet the definition? Also, I wonder whether the assessed costs of terrorism have been discounted to factor in the probability (however small it may be) of terorists using WMD? Surely that would change the implied conclusion that 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.' Still, this article is a big improvement over the usual blather I see in Yahoo Finance.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 1:27PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    While the article does say that Muslim countries "aren't significantly more likely to be the origin of terrorist attacks ", it follows by saying "once civil liberties are taken into account". Most of the comments I've read seem to ignore that second part. I imagine most would agree that _in general_ Muslim countries don't protect civil liberties as well as other countries. So in that regards his article could be considered consistent with all the comments about the prevalence of Muslim terrorists.

  • Ray - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 12:15PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    I'd recommend you read Gwynne Dyer's 'Ignorant Armies' for an insightful analysis of what makes a terrorist.

  • BrianB - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 10:00AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    The US corporatocracy is the largest terrorist in the world. How does that factor into the professor's statistics, since that organization consists of the richest and most influential people in the world?

  • Devendra - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 9:01AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 4/5

    US is the creator of terrorism with Pakistan being the physical factory. It is surprising to see that US is still supporting terrorism very much, by supporting Pakistan. Islam is anyway a big threat to the world, but US has backed Pakistan & thus backed terrorism for very long time.

  • Rex C - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 5:51AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    I love it. This guy puts a Phd at the end of his name but he repeats ideas of his professor. Yahoo considers this guy an expert? Phd's are supposed to form original thought. If he wants to learn something about the Economics of Terrorist read a highly regarded book (in securtiy expert circles) called "Terror Incorporated." by Loretta Napoleoni. She started researching terror funding years before 9/11..guess what..lots of it leads back to the U.S through Saudia Arabia and Dubia. But that's not all..notice how the poppy production went up while we are occupying Afganistan??? LOL..we talk like we're going to do something about it..but it never happends.. Doesn't that seem strange?? Trust me, read the book..she's a highly regarded international economist....her book will give you the real economics of terrorist..and it will scare the boots of of you when you find out just how rich and powerful they are.

  • gordonb - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 5:27AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    If you go back to the 60's-80's we can recall a few things. We can recall that our CIA planted a dictator in Iran (the Shaw of Iran) to violently replace a democratically (yes democratically elected by the people of Iran) Prime Minister (Mohammad Mossedegh) that was not cooperating with our oil interest. We also encouraged, backed, and armed Saddam's Iraq to fight Iran and kill HUNDREDS of thousands and up to a million Iranians (when our puppet Shaw was forced out after he violently pilferage Iranians). We also trained (with our money), armed, and backed Osama Bin Laden to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. All this should set off bells with Americans. Why? Because, when we entered that region with our arms and money, primarily because of our dire need to get back at the Soviets for Vietnam, grab oil resources and continue the pursuit of lots and lots of money and power, we stirred up a hornet's nest and caused backlashes that will remain with us for decades. If history is our guide we are no doubt training and arming hundreds of thousands of men in Iraq that will one day turn on us too, again. One reason Bin Laden turned on us and Saudi Arabia is that we provided the security and protection for SA during the first Gulf War. We entered their “holy land". Prior to that, BLaden (when he was still friendly with the US and SA and his family were best friends with the Bush family) submitted a very serious and respectful request to handle protecting Saudi Arabia (from Saddam). After doing such a good job in Afghanistan, he had become a professional warrior and wanted the job of protecting his homeland. He also wanted the money, arms, and the power (from the U.S and SA) that would have come with the job. It stood to reason that the "good son" would come home to protect a land that locals will tell you is not allowed to have "non-believers", with armaments, in it. They are even nervous when we work there! Saudi Arabia chose the U.S. over OSB and his men...that's when the radicals and their followers recoiled against us and the monarchy of SA. Especially since they were stripped of identity, denied transport out of Afghanistan (after years of fighting). That was our way of thanking them for decades of service and sacrifice. All that the detractors had warned and guarded against during decades of business dealings with us was about to come true (just like Iran and Iraq & look at them now)..because now the "infidels" were in their land with tanks, planes, arms and potential control. This outraged Islamics like Bin Laden. We are not always at fault for doing the things we've done in the Middle East. Most of what we did/do is with true foresight to be involved in an oil rich region that we badly need access to in order to maintain our authority and national security. So don't get me wrong. I am not against everything we do there. And, I'm not a pacifist. But, I do think we have a lot to learn from what we've done wrong. It’s ridiculous to ignore it. Unfortunately, that brings us back to the terrible 9/11. That was done by OSB not Saddam. We taught (with the CIA) OSB a lot of what he knows and now it's coming back to haunt us. We nudged him out of his own homeland, and he is pissed. Now that we are in Iraq, with questionable reasons and tragic results, his teachings have been able to spread like a virus. Hopefully, his crew will eventually be wiped out but many other enemies’ spring up daily in response to our convergence on Iraq. Something Bin Laden knew would play in his favor. I think of all those that died associated with 9/11 as hero's that have fallen in a war for our national security. Not just as victims in a horrible terrorist act. That is why Bush was correct to declare war on terrorist. If, we take an honest look at our involvement in the Middle East, we've been no saints. Terrorist have huge funds at their disposal..all ultimatly coming from the U.S. We are their creator.

  • Terrence E - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 2:08AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    trrashed.. i think u made some points. But don't oversimplify. As it pertains to America. I do not look forward to the day when the extreme right / "Christian Al Qaeda" rears its ugly head here in America. These people believe more in following their interpretation of God than in our country. Or for that matter those lefty militant environmentalists who love animals and trees more than humans. Don't be fooled America, there are plenty of motivated crazy people right here who do not believe in Allah. The only reason they have not struck with the same ferocity as the Muslims is they still feel most can affect change thru the political process (enter George W Bush). What happens when they no longer feel that way?

  • mysticcrow - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 12:52AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    i am impressed by your mentioning the correlation between oppressed, oppressive and occupied countries, and countries near said countries, being a primary source of terrorists. on an aside, that particular bit of information has been around since mid 2002 to early 2003. i forget his name but a social scientist got a hold of a lot of the data on known terrorists, analyzed it and found the correlation you mentioned between the above mentioned variables. said information was of course crushed in the US because the US didn't want to consider the option that 9/11 may have been a direct repercussion of US foreign policy towards the middle east over at least the last 3 decades. given what the US/Afghanistan relationship was during the cold war, specifically the pressures exerted on Afghanistan to ban certain individuals and parties from the country after the USSR invasion was thwarted, one can see where things went badly simply by reading. that aside i am disappointed that forgot the final portion of your correlation on religion that is only recently being explored. the correlation between religion and terrorism is not specific to a given religion, it is specific to fundamentalist sects of religions. think about it, if it is just religion you have no explanation for the likes of the IRA. taking fundamentalism into account makes this seemingly deviant case make a bit more sense (of course the lack of open lines of communication to voice grievances, amongst others, was also a major issue). oh, and speaking of statistics, i made an A in undergrad and a B in my master's level statistics respectively. lol, please don't misunderstand i'm don't believe i'm good at it myself. however i know i understand more than enough to follow serious statistical debate as long as it doesn't get to deep into some of the doctorate level analysis i've read.

  • michaelE - Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 12:40AM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 2/5

    The economic root of terrorism is simple 1. Oil - How do you convince a large group of poorly educated people that 90% of the oil wealth of their country should be held by a small unelected pool of elites. Answer religion. You fill them so full of hatred for the jew and the infidel that they don't have time to hate their leaders. You pay off the religious elite by funding their schools and so called charities. Now republicans are attempting to do the same here in the US. Concentrating wealth in the hands of a smaller and smaller # of people and distracting the masses with religion. Blind the sheep with religion. Then Rape the sheep.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 11:27PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 1/5

    Oh my, what a fool. It's not a Muslim thing? 82 wars in the world now, all caused by radical islam's inability to live with their neighbors and it's not a Muslim thing? Worse yet, he's still thinking and understanding the world in terms of countries as opposed to ideologies. That's been a broken way of thinking since we first started talking about the peace dividend (ha ha). Where does Yahoo come up with these experts. It just seems to get worse and worse.

  • Andrew - Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 11:04PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    As a somewhat anti US rhetoric Englishman, this was a breath of fresh air, as it shows that in order to fight the evils in society we must first understand their root causes. If more American's had the depth of wisdom that Wheelan has, firstly the US wouldn't have GBjnr and secondly it would be a more tolerant and informed nation.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 10:58PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    Too many people in the United States are fixated on "Islamic terrorism." The media really has gained control of you if that is your biggest fear. It's unbelievable how the 2008 election is going to come down to which candidate will eliminate the most amount of freedom in the name of security. I think people need to re-evaluate what they really want out of life. Do you want to become slaves to an authoritarian government while catching a few more terrorists, or live in freedom? The founding fathers would be disgusted with how many people would choose the first option.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 8:12PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 5/5

    This article and readers’ comments shows us how ignorant we average Americans are. We think Muslims are the only terrorists; they should be treated like Jews were treated in Nazi Germany. I can name a few terrorists groups of non-Muslim origin. Consider the Zionists in early twentieth century who used to blow up the hotels like today’s “Islamists” are doing in Indonesia and other places. IRA (Ireland), PKK(Iraq, Turkey), Shin Bet (Israel), Aum Shinrikyo (Japan), LTTE (Sri Lanka) are few other to name.

  • Yahoo! Finance User - Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 7:59PM ET  Report Abuse

    • Overall: 3/5

    Good article. However, I'm not quite sure why this is a financial article. This is more current events / political to me. The only thing I want to add here is I don't necessarily agree with the terrorist not being poor and uneducated. I think the most people who would commit violent acts for a cause feel they have little to lose. True the leaders may have grown up middle class and well read. But the followers are those who look at their lives and need someone or thing to blame it on. They do not/can not think for themselves and look to certain people like ministers and shiekhs and ayatollahs (so called learned people) for guidance. Enter radical Islam.. Enter even radical Christianity and Judaism. Before i go, to the point that all terrorists have not always been Muslim... Folks, don't forget the most famous and prolific American terrorist group of the 20th century -- The KKK and its splinter groups. Many of these groups had Christian backgrounds. Back in the day, the Klan was the ultimate terrorist group because they operated with impunity. Think Iraq's current sectarianism but in the South. Even when they were caught in the act, their fellow (white) citizens refused to punish them! And many of them used the Bible to defend their actions! So get off of the "Islam is the sole cause of terrorism" soapbox. Unfortunately for us Americans this matter is not that simplistic.

Showing comments 6-35 of 87<< PreviousNext >>
The columns, articles, message board posts and any other features provided on Yahoo! Finance are provided for personal finance and investment information and are not to be construed as investment advice. Under no circumstances does the information in this content represent a recommendation to buy, sell or hold any security. The views and opinions expressed in an article or column are the author's own and not necessarily those of Yahoo! and there is no implied endorsement by Yahoo! of any advice or trading strategy.

More From Charles Wheelan

Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science

An accessible and entertaining introduction to economics for lay readers, now available in paperback.

View more about Charles Wheelan.

The Chicago Tribune described Naked Economics as "clear, concise, informative and (gasp) witty."

Order Naked Economics today. Average customer review on Amazon.com: 4.7 out of 5 stars.

More from Yahoo! Sources

  • CNN Money
  • Consumer Reports
  • Kiplinger
  • The Motley Fool
  • Business Week
  • Wall Street Journal

Historical chart data and daily updates provided by Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). International historical chart data and daily updates provided by Morningstar, Inc. Fundamental company data provided by Capital IQ. Quotes and other information supplied by independent providers identified on the Yahoo! Finance partner page. Quotes are updated automatically, but will be turned off after 25 minutes of inactivity. Quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes. Real-Time continuous streaming quotes are available through our premium service. You may turn streaming quotes on or off. All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein.

Yahoo! Answers is provided for informational purposes only, and no Q&A is intended for trading or investing purposes. Yahoo! shall not be responsible or liable for the accuracy, usefulness or availability of any Q&A information, and shall not be responsible or liable for any trading or investment decisions based on such information. View Complete Answers Disclaimer.