>I think a different analysis is required.
>
>The problem with the poverty theory is that the poorest nations
>do not produce the most terrorists. As a nation, in fact,
>the present terrorist-producing regions, like Saudi Arabia,
>are relatively well off. (Afghanistan, a truly poor country,
>is not being bombed because it sent terrorists to America,
>but because it is a truly poor country and the United States
>and its allies think they need to bomb something. It's a
>habit, I guess.) Nor do the present terrorists claim to be
>fighting because of poverty; the offenses they have complained
>of have been religious and political offenses. I believe
>those who want to think about them should take them seriously;
>people who were willing to exercise the degree of discipline,
>courage and cruelty which we have recently observed were
>probably serious about their beliefs.
read ObL's bio--Ian forwarded it here over the wkend I believe. If this bio and others I've read can be believed, it's a pretty pathetic story. for ObL it's about his pride: he wanted his troops to fight Hussein, not the US's. when his offer to fight the evil Saddam was rebuffed, he got pissed. Atta: see the flick Falling Down, or see "relative deprivation" thesis that explains religious fundamentalism among the middle strata of USers or see even Faludi's _Stiffed_.
also, 11 of the 19 didn't know they were going to die: they were lied to. i fail to see the courage in that, the rest of them probably didn't know they were going to die until the last minute. their choice was to smash a plane into a building or be killed by their organization. my guess anyway.
kelley