What is the economics behind terrorist attacks?

Answer 1

Now this is an interesting question and I'm glad you asked.

There are several approaches really, since economic goals are a means to an end in the terrorist calculus. It is believed by policy analysts that the point of terrorism is to discredit the government (or a perceived authority such as a corporation, politician, movement or even the capitalist system), and to do so by making it appear the government cannot take care of its people.

An economically-based terror attack then focuses on degrading consumer or investor confidence to the point that the system collapses due to abandonment. This is why oil pipelines are attacked (if you notice, it has only meant a more expensive price at the pump for consumers; the oil companies have reaped windfall profits), and why both food distribution centers and major highways are considered targets.

Israel suffers more greatly than the U.S. from this sort of devastation. Bombers go into shops and restaurants, with the implied intent of making Israelis not want to even venture out to eat or to work and demand their government end the crisis.

That policy won't be effective because the stated goal of at least some of the multiple terror organizations attacking Israel is the destruction of that nation and of the Jewish people. Hence, there is much popular support among Israelis for the perpetual occupation and military control of the populations whence terrorists are recruited. If the stated goals of the terrorism were to have Israel retreat and stay within some defined borders, you'd see much more support for a cease-fire.

There is also state-sponsored terrorism, but this is more limited. Indeed, even if a link can conclusively be proven between the House of Saud and Al-Qaeda, there is little incentive for the Saudis to wish to bring down the U.S. - they'd lose their largest customer! Suspected state-sponsored terrorism for the purpose of economic destruction has been identified in Georgia (the Republic, not the State), Uzbekistan and Krzygzstan.

There is also an economic question around the logistics of terrorism. Where do they get their weaponry. In "Economic Warfare" by G. Naylor (2004), there is discussed an extensive and somewhat frightening system of weapons trade, and often it is the same networks that supply terrorists as supply dictators such as in Zaire and Zimbabwe. These 'markets', so to say, involve varying levels of supply and demand specific to the arms in question.

For instance, there are a number of two-bit weapons traders involved in AK-47s, generally Chinese-made and very cheap. These low-quality weapons often pop up in the semi-professional armies of recovering states such as the DRC. The higher quality, but still inexpensive, Russian Kalashnikovs are a little more limited in supply, but have made their way from the Caucasus to the Balkans to the Bactrian region (mostly through Russian losses during the ill-fated Afghanistan invasion).

For higher quality arms, the suppliers become more limited. Whether this is through price competition (which would have to be murder in this market, pun intended), or simply the need for closer ties to military personnel, here you see dominance by organized crime, corrupt officials, and a handful of wealthy individuals who thrive in the financing and contraband portions of the global black market. For this reason, you often see drugs and human trafficking also flowing along these lines.

The method of payment is also interesting. Through a system whose Arabic name I forget, but which translates roughly to "trust", money is able to be sent in a well-disguised fashion from person to person across the world.

Here's how it works: say you have a terror financier in New York. He or she goes to a person with a connection to someone in a part of the world where it is easier to get in touch with terrorist elements. The financier pays the connected person $1,000. The connected person in New York orders $2,000 worth of goods from his or her connection overseas, and sends an LC (Letter of Credit - it's both dangerous and ineffective to send American checks to many places overseas) for $2,000 through an international bank, guaranteeing payment to the overseas contact for the purchase.

The overseas contact sends $1,000 worth of goods, marked up. This way, the paper trail begins and looks legitimate, and is even checked by customs.

This is a very difficult means to detect.

If you wish to know more, American Military University offers an online certificate in terrorism studies.

Answer 2

I'm assuming you mean, "How can the field of economics explain terrorist attacks?" The following is my layman's attempt to answer.

First, property rights are essential. My microeconomics teacher said that "90% of all social problems were due to the lack of clearly-defined property rights. Clearly, issues of territory in the Middle East have been raised by Al-Qaida and others. It is not necessary for you to agree with their claims or complaints. The point is that there are property rights issues (intellectual and otherwise).

Next, too many people mistakenly focus on competition when cooperation could explain a lot. Economics is not about competition, it's about cooperation. Individuals in this world are constantly cooperating in mutually-advantageous ways to further their own interests. When putting the terrorist attacks through an economic filter, one might see that terrorist attacks are anomolies when it's understood that, 90% of the time or more, these events don't happen because we are all cooperating to further our own interests.

The terrorist attacks were very costly suicides. I think it is safe to say that, considering free-market economic principles, suicide is just another example of disregarding the sanctity of the individual.

Most philosophies which disregard economics as an explanation for life's questions, fail to take into consideration how vital individual choice is. Every person pursues his or her own interest while cooperating with others. In hindsight, one consequence of terrorist attacks is that they cause people to cooperate in new ways. Since 9/11, the people who despised an American presence the most, now much watch America in Afghanistan and Iraq, with the possibility of war in Iran looming on the horizon.

There are so many economic explanations. Economics is not an exact science, but it's basic tenets, that people pursue their own rational self-interests and that they cooperate in ways to do that are unimpeachable.

Answer 3

the world range of pay is $1, to $1 billion, a fortnight's work - ie, from 1000th to a million times the average pay - an injustice factor of one billion - therefore a violence factor of one billion

extreme poverty stimulates to energetic efforts to get richer - extreme wealth stimulates efforts to get rich - the richer are attacked more because they have more, the poor are attacked more because they have less security - the rich rob the poor because they can, the rich rob the rich because they want more - the poor rob the poor because they can, and the poor rob the rich when they can

extreme overpay/underpay stimulates extreme grabbing - which aggravates injustice, inequality - it is a spiral, a vicious circle

wealth/poverty is like the poles of a battery - sparks fly in proportion to extremeness, and to closeness of the poles - where wealth and poverty are close, there is more violence

some terrorists are just thieves, bandits, some are patriotic, defending their countries against theft

limitation of fortunes, limiting wealth and poverty, and spreading overfortunes around everyone, would stop extreme violence

the greater the wealth and poverty, the more the wealthy want more, and the cheaper it is to find soldiers

the more egalitarian and just, the less violence - eg scandinavia, defense costs 2% of gnp - middle east: extreme poverty and wealth, defense costs 50% of gnp - [most army use is internal]

Answer 4

There ought to correctly be dancing in the streets of the total terrorist camps if he wins. What does that allow you recognize? An endorsement even from Hamas it extremely is a terrorist company? he isn't any doubt now no longer a terrorist fighter.

Answer 5

There are many reasons for terrorist attacks, but the economics of them are that the masterminds of them usually receive money as help for the people under their care, but they keep most of it for themselves, keeping their people in the misery and desperate enough to commit acts of terrorism. This is used by the masterminds either to blackmail other people and countries to stop acts of terrorism, or to keep getting money for social aid for their people, and keeping it.

Answer 6

I know the gas is going higher and higher. Like iraq has most of the control on gas tanks, terroist does not want america to succeed in that and not just that alone. United States stands by alot of commendmants and terroist does not, so to them the best thing to do is to destroy what they can't have controll on. God Bless /tricksie06

Answer 7

It more a matter of that is how they fight the war. These are their soldiers, but they are called terrorists by americans.

Answer 8

One death is repaid with 72 virgins.
But by now the cute virgins have been used up.
Some tard bombers are gonna be rewarded with some 80 year old who wasnt a virgin by choice.

Answer 9

a scapegoat for the scenario for the final world war which will produce the centralized world govt., army and monetary system called the new world order.

Answer 10

???why>?/?