There has been virtually no poverty in Saudi Arabia. They have universal free health care! Therefore poverty logically cannot be driving radicalism there. As for inequity, I can't imagine why someone who has a comfortable life would blow themselves up to kill thousands of other people in another country because they perceived inequity in their country. Some people claim wealth is inequitably distributed here. You planning to blow yourself and thousands of other people up?
So the question of whether I think everything is equitable there is irrelevant.
This is from a NY Times article shortly before 9/11/2001:
-------------------------------------------- ''There is an Arabic word, itikali, when you always want someone else to do something for you,'' said Prince Abdullah bin Faisal, 51, a nephew of the king and chairman of the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority. ''Like now, some Saudis don't want to take work. They became lazy, spoiled.''
Saudi Arabia has managed to lift virtually everyone out of poverty. But today, even with lofty oil prices, the petrodollars do not stretch as far, not least because they are being spread among more Saudi citizens. ----------------------------------------------------
Does that sound to you like a place where economic factors would be driving radicalism? If so then you can't be taken seriously.
"I never said ALL radicalism was driven by inequity, just a large contibuting factor down through the years."
No, it is driven by a bizarre ideology. Saudi Arabia is proof of that. What is the evidence that "inequity" drove any major acts of violence? Am I just supposed to take your word for it? Why don't you give me some actual facts that support your theory. I notice you keep using the word "inequity", rather than poverty. The idea of inequity causing people to blow themselves up doesn't even make sense, for the reasons I stated above.
Do you remember the London subway bombings? All four perpetrators were native Britons. However, they went to the same mosque:
<<Although the eight suspects in London's two subway bombings come from different backgrounds, investigators now believe that they share an important link: The notorious Finsbury Park Mosque in northwest London.
Long a hotbed of militancy, the facility had become known as London's "Jihad Central" before it was shut down last year. And according to Newsday, it was frequented by at least three of the suspected bombers who were involved in both the July 7 and July 21 attacks.
Mohammad Sidique Khan, one of London's four alleged July 7 suicide bombers, visited the mosque, where firebrand imam Abu Hamza al-Masri preached jihad until his arrest last year.>>
"Ilap, are there no doubt's in your mind at all?"
No not unless you can demonstrate that the weight of the evidence points to what you're saying. Plus, it has to make sense, which it doesn't. That's how I think for some strange reason. You're the one spouting off in a fact free fashion. Fact is I should be asking you that question.