Gaza Strip

[Gabrielle]

God save the Queen

[metadigital]

Well, on the flipside, you're right in saying that it is undoubtedly in the child's best interest to remove them from a life-threatening situation.  I mean, whether the boat is sinking or under atttack, it's not exactly like standing on dry land.

 

Anyhow, it's such an ugly situation that even most Americans give it a lot of attention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am also dismissing the corollory to your Gaza-born Jewish children hyposthesis: that the poor children born on the boat don't get the lottery of a birth country to use as an argument.

 

Or, to put it in more real terms, what do the Palestinian children get for their trouble? Born in a ghetto, so stay there?

 

It's just another unfair way to divide rather than unite.

 

People working together should be encouraged: those that want to kill each other should all be put together and allowed to ...

[Cantousent]

Does that mean it's all for the best to take something from someone and give it to someone else? Kind of like taxes, only with land, I guess.

 

The Isreali children have a home and the Palestinian children don't have a natural right to own it. I disagree with the notion that the Palestinians have more right to the land than the Isrealis. You may feel free to disagree. Hell, I can't stop you from disagreeing, but historical arguments concerning who should get what land just seem a little too convoluted for my tastes.

 

Using a boat analogy when we are, indeed, talking about actual human beings who live in an actual place and live under the threat from other actual human beings seems a bit ridiculous. The Israeli children living in the occupied territories have just as much right to the land as anyone else. Furthermore, they actually live there. I'm taking nothing from Palestinian children that they have in the first place.

 

Either someone will have that land or no-one will. In either case, there is no compelling claim the Palestinians can make that convinces me that they deserve the land more than the Israelis.

 

If the Palestinians weren't so busy making themselves the sworn enemies of the Israelis, then Palestinian children would have far more opportunity to reach beyond the ghetto. It's not the land that keeps the Palestinians in squalor, but the terrorists themselves, all of whom would rather see a seething, suffering Palestine than to lose the prospect of recruiting more terrorists.

[metadigital]

...

The Isreali children have a home and the Palestinian children don't have a natural right to own it.  I disagree with the notion that the Palestinians have more right to the land than the Isrealis.  ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... But you support the idea that the Israelis have more right to the land than the Palestinians? Careful, your bias is showing ...

...

You may feel free to disagree.  Hell, I can't stop you from disagreeing, but historical arguments concerning who should get what land just seem a little too convoluted for my tastes. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"It's too hard, so let's just forget it and make something up." Did I miss anything from your theory? Really, this is why mediation is so tough. It ain't simple. There is no magic wand to fix the problem, it will take dedication and sacrifice and compromise on both sides, and from the mediators. Otherwise the seeds are sown for more trouble, later.

 

This place has been in dispute since before the Persian Empire ended c.550BCE. This problem may take a little while longer to fix than the US has time to devote to it. Look at the peace process in Northern Island, and that has only been occupied by Britain for a couple of hundred years.

...

Using a boat analogy when we are, indeed, talking about actual human beings who live in an actual place and live under the threat from other actual human beings seems a bit ridiculous.  The Israeli children living in the occupied territories have just as much right to the land as anyone else.  Furthermore, they actually live there.  I'm taking nothing from Palestinian children that they have in the first place. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, the irony.

...

Either someone will have that land or no-one will.  In either case, there is no compelling claim the Palestinians can make that convinces me that they deserve the land more than the Israelis. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So the Israelis get the land by default?

 

Sound argument, that one: you have just elucidated a precedent for genocide. (After all, if the people are all dead, then there's no-one to argue the point, eh?)

...

If the Palestinians weren't so busy making themselves the sworn enemies of the Israelis, then Palestinian children would have far more opportunity to reach beyond the ghetto.  It's not the land that keeps the Palestinians in squalor, but the terrorists themselves, all of whom would rather see a seething, suffering Palestine than to lose the prospect of recruiting more terrorists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So much anger.

 

That's a pretty broad brush you're using to paint all the Palestinians with, don't you think?

[Cantousent]

Now I see why you resort to analogy as often as you do. It's easier to take someone else's argument and derive a message he did not intend. It simplifies your point. For instance, I write:

 

"[e]ither someone will have that land or no-one will. In either case, there is no compelling claim the Palestinians can make that convinces me that they deserve the land more the Israelis."

 

You respond with:

 

"...you have just elucidated a precedent for genocide. (after all, if the people are all dead, then there's no-one to argue the point, eh?)"

 

Your conclusion does not follow from my statement. In other words, you're responding to something I did not say. This is a sort of shell game, not a real argument. Mental gymnastics will only get you so far. Some-one will have the land or not. Perhaps, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis will own the land. Perhaps the land will go unused and yet neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis will suffer genocide.

 

I write:

 

"...historical arguments concerning who should get what land just seem a little too convoluted for my tastes."

 

to which you respond:

 

"'It's too hard, so let's just forget it and make something up.' Did I miss anything from your theory?"

 

Why, yes, meta, you did miss something. I'm not turning my back on a solution, just a solution based on convoluted, exaggerated, subjective, and often inaccurate historical arguments.

 

See, that's another example of the shell game. You make up an argument, attribute it to me, and then argue against your own shadow argument. Sure, it's a tried and true rhetorical tactic, but I would have thought better of you.

 

Now, I will address a couple of issues. First of all, I sympathize more with the Israelis than I do the Palestinians. I

[Calax]

I guess ender want's America to become a colony of England again. Ender seems to think that the isralis have a much better claim to the land than any arab does, simply because they were (biblicly) there first, This would give England dominion over america.

Huh? How is God giving Gaza to the jews similar in any way to France, Spain, and England conquering America?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wasn't using biblicly as a referance to god, just to point out that our history doesn't go back that far with any reliability.

[metadigital]

Now I see why you resort to analogy as often as you do.  It's easier to take someone else's argument and derive a message he did not intend.  It simplifies your point.  For instance, I write:

 

"[e]ither someone will have that land or no-one will.  In either case, there is no compelling claim the Palestinians can make that convinces me that they deserve the land more the Israelis."

 

You respond with:

 

"...you have just elucidated a precedent for genocide.  (after all, if the people are all dead, then there's no-one to argue the point, eh?)"

 

Your conclusion does not follow from my statement.  In other words, you're responding to something I did not say.  [1] This is a sort of shell game, not a real argument.  Mental gymnastics will only get you so far.  Some-one will have the land or not.  Perhaps, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis will own the land.  Perhaps the land will go unused and yet neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis will suffer genocide.

 

I write:

 

"...historical arguments concerning who should get what land just seem a little too convoluted for my tastes."

 

to which you respond:

 

"'It's too hard, so let's just forget it and make something up.' Did I miss anything from your theory?"

 

Why, yes, meta, you did miss something.  I'm not turning my back on a solution, just a solution based on convoluted, exaggerated, subjective, and often inaccurate historical arguments. [2]

 

See, that's another example of the shell game.  You make up an argument, attribute it to me, and then argue against your own shadow argument.  Sure, it's a tried and true rhetorical tactic, but I would have thought better of you.

 

Now, I will address a couple of issues.  First of all, I sympathize more with the Israelis than I do the Palestinians.  I

[Cantousent]

Ha! Touche, you dog. I can't come up with anything right now, but I'll mull it over and return to attack later. Maybe after some sleep. We'll solve all the worlds problems some day. hahaha

[metadigital]

 

Ah, shucks. :">

[Colrom]

The recent Israeli residents of Gaza claim they had a right to the land in Gaza because of a racial/religious priviledge laid out in the Bible.

 

I don't know why those who were given the land by Israel were priveledged above others of like kind.

 

Many of them were Jews recently from the USSR or the US. I don't think any of them were Israeli Arabs.

 

In any case the land was recently taken by Israeli force during a war from people who were mostly Arabs.

 

Efforts were then made to annex some of the land while dispossessing and banishing the Arab residents of that land.

 

This is immoral and illegal under most circumstances.

 

Those whose families lived in Gaza and owned the land before the Israeli occupation may make a modern and simple claim based on their recent prior ownership.

 

In the absence of identified ownership before the occupation it seems reasonable that the Palistinian authority which represents the people who lived there as well as those who were relocated there should arbitrate how the land is used.

 

It's the right thing to do.

[EnderAndrew]

They settlers were occupying Palestinian territory, they had no right to be there and their presence only served to worsen the conflict. And compared to what the Israeli have been doing to Palestinians, bulldozing their houses, moving them from camp to camp, internment etc. ; this is nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This seems to be one of the more common arguements I've seeing here now.

 

How did this land belong to Palestine? Palestine is not a unique state, but rather a group of people. This group of people from a purely legal standpoint is required to share land with the Jews. Both have a right to occupy Israel as a nation, as determined by the one (and faulty) lone world governing body we have today.

 

So how does that land belong to Palestine?

 

If you say a majority population in an area justifies forcible relocation, I will continue to call up incidents like forcible relocation or Kurds or Native Americans.

 

I though we learned centuries ago that this was a horrid mistake society wouldn't repeat. Yet the civilized world has no qualms with it today. (Then again opponents of the war in Iraq tend to ignore genocide and forcible relocation of Kurds as well.)

 

Why?

[EnderAndrew]

I wanted to throw in a comment from one of my friends living in Israel. I added in a few line breaks, but other than that, her comments are uneditted.

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 

A commonly used "point" used to back up the argument supporting Israel's withdrawal from Gaza is that Israel simply can not afford the cost of maintaining troops to guard the settlements. I don't think I have really talked about this much in previous posts, so I will do so now.

 

Before I begin, I must explain something. Most of the approximatley 9,000 settlers lived in Gush Katif, a block of several settlements located in the southern Gaza Strip. There was only one entrance to this block of settlements, which was well guarded and closed to Palestinians. Each settlement also had a guard post at the entrance and a perimeter fence, often including surveillance cameras. Furthermore, settlers are not completely reliant on the soldiers (this includes West Bank settlers). Many of them own weapons and they all keep an eye out for anything suspicious that needs to be reported.

 

In the West Bank I have seen the use of guard dogs attached to lines set up around the settlement's perimeter so that if a Palestinian were to approach from the outside of the fence to try to break in, the dogs would see and start barking. Settlers are in general very resilient, and while I am unsure whether the dog tactic was employed in Gush Katif (I didn't see it), I am quite certain other resources were used.

 

Next, do you really think it's reasonable to assume that the Israeli government will be able to spend less money guarding our borders now that we have thrown Jews out of their homes in the southern Gaza Strip? Absolutely not. The sad truth is that my government still will have to spend massive amounts of money on the task of defending our borders.

 

The fact that terror organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad have openly announced their intentions of moving their headquarters to Gush Katif, and of transferring hundreds of armed militants from camps in Lebanon, only INCREASES the necessity of guarding mainland Israel from the newly occupied (the Palestinians will now be occupying Jewish land) Gaza Strip.

 

The anti terrorism fence will also have to be extended to prevent further terrorist infiltrations and guard posts and surveillance units will have to be carefully manned. The military presence will not depart; it will simply shift to a new border, this time on the outside of Gush Katif. In addition, with militants now capable of shooting Kassam rockets from newly occupied territories in the Gaza Strip into CENTRAL Israel (including Tel Aviv), the threat to Israel's security has drastically increased.

 

The head of our military had to read about the eviction plan in the NEWSPAPERS the day after it was decided by Sharon. He was not consulted by Sharon before the decision was made. I'm talking about the man responsible for securing this nation's borders from all threats, and he was completely disregarded by Sharon before making such a historical decision! He later openly commented on the threat the plan posed to Israel's security.

 

Finally, I want to mention that all the talk of the millions of Arabs surrounding the thousands of Jews is another attempt to sidetrack the bigger issues. Israel is a tiny country of around 6 million citizens (not all of which are Jewish). On every side (except our border with the Mediterannean Sea, of course) we are surrounded by Arab states. We have peace treaties with only two of those countries, Jordan and Egypt. And even that "peace" does not negate the need for constant border surveillance and strict border controls. Especially with Egypt, which constantly allows militants and weapons to stream through, either through complicity or open neglect of security. The borders with Lebanon and Syria require even more careful monitoring, as Hezbollah not-so-infrequently fires rockets into Israel's northern parts and we have had many terrorist infiltration attempts from those borders as well. This is not a nation at peace.

 

This has NEVER been a nation at peace, and in my opinion this will never BE a nation at peace because we are a people that has a long and complicated past with the Arabs, many of whom will never accept the very existance of my country on the map. So I just wanted to point out that just because there is a minority in a region, does not mean that they do not belong there and should be thrown out. Israel is in itself a minority in a vast sea of Arabs. Should my entire nation be thrown into the sea, as Fatah and Hamas have so long proclaimed? Of course not.

 

My friends, just because something is commonly printed in the Associated Press or in other Western media outlets, or spewed by the Bush administration (or for that matter the Sharon administration), doesn't make it true. Use your minds. Critically evaluate the statements made by government officials. Look at the FACTS, educate yourselves about the details, speak to those who have been there in person if possible, and then formulate educated political opinions when necessary. But don't blindly accept, because the complicity of an uneducated populace is one of the greatest dangers to any democracy.

 

-T.

 

P.S. I apologize for this greatly unstructured and not-so-coherent mess of an argument. It's 4am here and I have had a long day. I assure you I am capable of making better arguments, especially in person. ;-)

[Kaftan Barlast]

If you say a majority population in an area justifies forcible relocation, I will continue to call up incidents like forcible relocation or Kurds or Native Americans.

 

 

You just made a pro-Palestinian argument there Ender.

 

 

Think about it, which of these two scenarios most resemble the heinious treatment of the Native Americans, The Kurds or even the Armenians:

 

 

A) Evacuating 8-9000 settlers from a hostile area where they only served to aggravate the conflict.

 

B) The forceful expulsion of 520 000

[Commissar]

Now, I will address a couple of issues.  First of all, I sympathize more with the Israelis than I do the Palestinians.  I

[EnderAndrew]

You just made a pro-Palestinian argument there Ender.

Given that the Jews were forcibly moved from their homelands in the first place by slavery, they were being given back their original homelands, and only when they no longer had any home after the Holocaust.

 

Given that they were forcibly moved, and had no place to live, it was a unique situation.

 

I have said repeatedly that two wrongs do not make a right. Regardless of the past, we have to accept what has been done is done and make the best possible decisions regarding the present situation.

 

Creating more victims doesn't fix anything.

 

I don't completely defend the decision to create Israel as it is touchy situation, but people keep saying that Israel illegally occupies Palestinian land. The two governing bodies of Palestine at the time (the UK and UN) formed Israel. So that is all legal.

 

The Gaza Strip never belonged to Palestine, so any legal arguement of Palestine owning it is just flat out silly.

[213374U]

God help them if they need to get over to the West Bank for some reason (like a dying family member); ten hours at an Israeli checkpoint, and then denied.  See, that's been the policy of the Israeli government in the settlements; they protect the handful of settlers, and as far as they're concerned, the Palestinians can screw off.

That's what you get when you support terrorists or fail to do everything in your hand to foil them.

 

 

And you wonder that they resort to terrorism.  What else are they going to do?  No jobs, no future, no security, God knows no education or insurance or pension...people in free societies do not blow themselves up.  A bookstore clerk doesn't blow himself up.  A soda jerk doesn't blow herself up.  The employed aren't suicide bombers.

Ah, excellent. Another "terrorism is very bad but I can understand it and they deserve it" discourse.

 

 

Authority: Language.

Edited August 21, 2005 by Authority

[Commissar]

God help them if they need to get over to the West Bank for some reason (like a dying family member); ten hours at an Israeli checkpoint, and then denied.  See, that's been the policy of the Israeli government in the settlements; they protect the handful of settlers, and as far as they're concerned, the Palestinians can screw off.

That's what you get when you support terrorists or fail to do everything in your hand to foil them.

 

 

And you wonder that they resort to terrorism.  What else are they going to do?  No jobs, no future, no security, God knows no education or insurance or pension...people in free societies do not blow themselves up.  A bookstore clerk doesn't blow himself up.  A soda jerk doesn't blow herself up.  The employed aren't suicide bombers.

Ah, excellent. Another "terrorism is very bad but I can understand it and they deserve it" discourse.

 

All I have to say to that is *************

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. It's much better to make absolutely no attempt to understand where terrorism comes from, how it can exist; much better to believe that we can actually win by shooting every terrorist we see, rather than attempting to do something about the root cause of terrorism itself. Because that worked in Alge...oh, wait. Well, at least it worked in Northern Irela...uh. Well. I'm sure it worked somewhere, right?

 

I can indeed understand terrorism. I can understand a lot of things without applauding them or even thinking that they're a morally worthy act. Americans working themselves up into a froth over terrorism doesn't solve anything; I simply realize that.

[Commissar]

Oh, and one other thing...you'd be hard-pressed to find "they deserve it" or anything resembling it in my statements. I don't, in fact, think the Israelis deserve to be targets of suicide bombings, but I understand why they are. I consider myself lucky to have been gifted with the ability to see the full visible spectrum, not just black and white.

 

Edit: And don't forget, they hate us for our freedom.

[EnderAndrew]

I'm cutting out all of Eldar's holier-than-thou shell game stuff with Meta...hope no one minds.

I love how criticizing murder suddenly became holier-than-thou.

Anyway, I decided I needed to throw a leg in here after all the talk of the poor children.  Nevermind that I thought I was on a Simpson's episode for a moment.  I have to ask...what's the big deal?  The kids are moving.  I moved at least eight times during my childhood, often against my will.  My own children will doubtlessly have to do the same.  It didn't scar me for life.

I love how you trivilize such things. They were given an opportunity to move. Sharon has made no statement that I've seen that the government is buying these people new homes. And they aren't just moving neighborhoods. These are kids whose lives are in danger every day, now suddenly being ripped from their homes forcibly by armed soldiers.

 

I'm sure you went through that in your childhood as well. If not, perhaps we can arrange it so you can compare the experiences?

Most of the people who did stay were protestors who came in from outside Gaza to, you know, protest.

Giving up the settlement was not only morally wrong, but I will bet money that it does little to prevent violence, while on the other hand it weakened Israel's defenses against terrorism. That's a win-win! Some justification for victimizing 9,000 people.

Eldar has more sympathy for Israelis than the Palestinians.  I could've figured that out without him saying it, since he's taking the side of roughly a little less than 1% of the Gaza Strip.

I've said it multiple times. Majority population is not justification for forcible relocation. Let's take Manhattan and its 52,000 people per square mile (denser than Mexico City's poorest areas) and take the smallest majority and just forcibly relocate them as well.

God help them if they need to get over to the West Bank for some reason (like a dying family member); ten hours at an Israeli checkpoint, and then denied.  See, that's been the policy of the Israeli government in the settlements; they protect the handful of settlers, and as far as they're concerned, the Palestinians can screw off.

Any nation dealing with DAILY terrorist attacks would protect their borders as much, if not more. Israel is routinely villianized for defending themselves. Why is that?

And you wonder that they resort to terrorism.  What else are they going to do?

No one here is defending terrorism?

Ender, getting incensed earlier in the thread, demanded to know why we were so against letting the Jews have a homeland.  I'm demanding to know why the Palestinians can't have one, too.

No one is denying them a homeland. Yet you are all for forcible relocation of innocent people that serves no real purpose.

[EnderAndrew]

I can indeed understand terrorism.  I can understand a lot of things without applauding them or even thinking that they're a morally worthy act.  Americans working themselves up into a froth over terrorism doesn't solve anything; I simply realize that.

Except that you don't understand terrorism. You link terrorism to unemployment.

 

Check the poorest countries in the world, and in most cases you won't find terrorism. But you will find terrorism camps in relatively wealthy areas?

 

Osama Bin Laden wasn't driven to terrorism because he was poor.

 

Terrorism is a result of zealotry, not unemployment.

[Commissar]

Edit: Couldn't fix the messed-up quote chains, so just went with this.

 

I love how criticizing murder suddenly became holier-than-thou.

Actually, he was criticizing Metadigital's rhetorical tactics.

 

I love how you trivilize such things.  They were given an opportunity to move.  Sharon has made no statement that I've seen that the government is buying these people new homes.  And they aren't just moving neighborhoods.  These are kids whose lives are in danger every day, now suddenly being ripped from their homes forcibly by armed soldiers.

 

I'm sure you went through that in your childhood as well.  If not, perhaps we can arrange it so you can compare the experiences?

Let's see...if the government told my parents to move when I was a child, gave them plenty of opportunity to do so, and yet my parents decided to stick around knowing full well what the consequences were, when I was in fact dragged from my house by armed soldiers I'd blame...my parents!

 

Giving up the settlement was not only morally wrong, but I will bet money that it does little to prevent violence, while on the other hand it weakened Israel's defenses against terrorism.  That's a win-win!  Some justification for victimizing 9,000 people.

Giving up the settlement is morally right, in my eyes. If the Israeli government has no intention of ever attempting to integrate Palestinians into its state - which wouldn't work, since neither Israelis nor Palestinians want Palestinians to be part of Israel - then it's obliged to move on out. As far as it not promoting peace, well...we'll have to wait and see, won't we?

 

I've said it multiple times.  Majority population is not justification for forcible relocation.  Let's take Manhattan and its 52,000 people per square mile (denser than Mexico City's poorest areas) and take the smallest majority and just forcibly relocate them as well.

If Manhattan were cut off from the rest of the country, being governed by Iran, since a thousand Iranians happened to live there, I can guarantee you that you'd be advocating for the Iranians to move on out.

 

Any nation dealing with DAILY terrorist attacks would protect their borders as much, if not more.  Israel is routinely villianized for defending themselves.  Why is that?

Because, as I've said many times, you cannot beat terrorism with pure force of arms. We're going to learn that, and the Israelis already have.

 

No one here is defending terrorism?

No, I'm explaining why terrorism occurs in the Palestinian territories. I never said it was a particularly good idea.

 

No one is denying them a homeland.  Yet you are all for forcible relocation of innocent people that serves no real purpose.

Forcible relocation of innocent people? Sounds a bit like the formation of Israel, now that you mention it.

 

If you're so positive on a Palestinian state, where do they put it? Israel decided it wanted its "historic homeland" or whatever, so why can't the Palestinians have theirs, by the same logic?

[Commissar]

I can indeed understand terrorism.  I can understand a lot of things without applauding them or even thinking that they're a morally worthy act.  Americans working themselves up into a froth over terrorism doesn't solve anything; I simply realize that.

Except that you don't understand terrorism. You link terrorism to unemployment.

 

Check the poorest countries in the world, and in most cases you won't find terrorism. But you will find terrorism camps in relatively wealthy areas?

 

Osama Bin Laden wasn't driven to terrorism because he was poor.

 

Terrorism is a result of zealotry, not unemployment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I link unemployment as one of the factors that contributes to terrorism, yes. It's downright fallacious to suggest that I named unemployment as the sole cause of terrorism. C'mon. Osama Bin Laden wasn't driven to terrorism because he was poor, but he's also not the one strapping bombs to himself and detonating them in a mall. And it ain't the millionaires who are doing that in Gaza, is it?

[Authority]

Please remain civil in both language and conduct, I dont want to have to close this thread.

[EnderAndrew]

If you're so positive on a Palestinian state, where do they put it?  Israel decided it wanted its "historic homeland" or whatever, so why can't the Palestinians have theirs, by the same logic?

They could have. The UN told them to share and play nice and Palestine refused.

 

But let us not punish the petulant child, let us punish the people who had no home and were victims of genocide. Palestine occupied that land because the Jews were forcibly removed from it in the first place. I love how people COMPLETELY discount that fact.

 

So let me ask you, how do you determine who has a right to the land? The people who lived in first or most recent? Because if you say first, then as the Muslims are a later branch of Judaism, the land belonged to the Jews first.

 

If you say current possession is 90% of the law, and we'll rule that if you occupy the land now that you own it, then you cannot justify forcible relocation.

[EnderAndrew]

I link unemployment as one of the factors that contributes to terrorism, yes.  It's downright fallacious to suggest that I named unemployment as the sole cause of terrorism.

You said:

The employed aren't suicide bombers.

You made the distinction there that employment makes or breaks a person as a terrorist.

 

McVeigh was employed, as were the 9/11 terrorists, and much of the IRA.

 

Your Jack-Thompson logic of "I saw a criminal who played GTA, so thusly criminals wouldn't commit crime if they didn't play GTA" doesn't work. You know why? Because places like Africa or Mexico City have horrible poverty, yet don't have terrorism.