Puisque les responsables de l’attentat de Boston ne sont pas des tea partiers poseurs de bombes, mais plutôt des islamistes, de nombreux médias se sont donnés comme mission d’excuser ce geste… Le sort a voulu que je tombe sur la chronique du pauvre Vincent Marissal, mais il est loin d’être le seul à vouloir responsabiliser l’occident plutôt que l’islam radical…
Ainsi donc dans sa chronique on peut lire:
En 2002, Jean Chrétien aussi s’était risqué à parler des causes des attentats terroristes contre les pays riches, s’attirant les foudres de certains commentateurs et du chef de l’opposition officielle, un certain Stephen Harper.
«Lorsqu’il y a des pays dans la misère extrême, ils deviennent des endroits d’où [émergent] ce genre de problèmes-là. On a une responsabilité d’aider ces pays-là à trouver un niveau de vie plus acceptable, où ces activités ne seront pas facilitées par l’environnement où les gens vivent», avait dit Jean Chrétien dans la foulée des événements du 11 septembre 2001.
Une manière détournée de dire que c’est de notre faute à nous occidentaux. Nous sommes trop riches et les gens riches doivent s’attendre à être la cible de terroristes…
C’est une idée largement répandue chez les gauchistes que la pauvreté, la misère et le manque d’éducation représentent un terreau fertile pour les terroristes. Malheureusement pour Vincent Marissal, si l’on se fie à la littérature scientifique, c’est faux, archi-faux !
Tout d’abord une étude publiée dans le Journal of Economic Perspectives:
The paper investigates whether there is a causal link between poverty or low education and participation in politically motivated violence and terrorist activities. After presenting a discussion of theoretical issues, we review evidence on the determinants of hate crimes. This literature finds that the occurrence of hate crimes is largely independent of economic conditions. Next we analyze data on support for attacks against Israeli targets from public opinion polls conducted in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These polls indicate that support for violent attacks does not decrease among those with higher education and higher living standards. The core contribution of the paper is a statistical analysis of the determinants of participation in Hezbollah militant activities in Lebanon. The evidence we have assembled suggests that having a living standard above the poverty line or a secondary school or higher education is positively associated with participation in Hezbollah. […]
Our review of the evidence provides little reason for optimism that a reduction in poverty or an increase in educational attainment, by themselves, would meaningfully reduce international terrorism. Any connection between poverty, education and terrorism is indirect, complicated and probably quite weak. No correlation was found between participation in violence and economic depression: violence seems to have increased when local economic conditions were getting better. […]
The evidence we have assembled and reviewed suggests there is little direct connection between poverty, education and participation in terrorism and politically motivated violence. Indeed, the available evidence indicates that, compared with the relevant population, participants in Hezbollah’s militant wing in the late 1980s and early 1990s were at least as likely to come from economically advantaged families and have a relatively high level of education as they were to come from impoverished families without educational opportunities.
We are particularly struck by Russell and Miller’s (1983) work in this regard. To derive a profile of terrorists, they assembled demographic information on more than 350 individuals engaged in terrorist activities in Latin America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East from 1966 to 1976 based on newspaper reports. Their sample consisted of individuals from 18 revolutionary groups known to engage in urban terrorism, including the Red Army in Japan, Baader-Meinhof Gang in Germany, Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland, Red Brigades in Italy and People’s Liberation Army in Turkey. Russell and Miller found that, “… the vast majority of those individuals involved in terrorist activities as cadres or leaders is quite well educated. In fact, approximately two-thirds of those identified terrorists are persons with some university training, university graduates or postgraduate students.” They also report that more than two-thirds of arrested terrorists “came from the middle or upper classes in their respective nations or areas.” […]
More educated people from privileged backgrounds are more likely to participate in politics, probably in part because political involvement requires some minimum level of interest, expertise, commitment to issues and effort, all of which are more likely if people are educated and wealthy enough to concern themselves with more than mere economic subsistence.
Texte publié dans le prestigieux journal Science:
Research by Krueger and Maleckova suggests that education may be uncorrelated, or even positively correlated, with supporting terrorism. In a December 2001 poll of 1357 West Bank and Gaza Palestinians 18 years of age or older, those having 12 or more years of schooling supported armed attacks by 68 points, those with up to 11 years of schooling by 63 points, and illiterates by 46 points. Only 40% of persons with advanced degrees supported dialogue with Israel versus 53% with college degrees and 60% with 9 years or less of schooling. In a comparison of Hezbollah militants who died in action with a random sample of Lebanese from the same age group and region, militants were less likely to come from poor homes and more likely to have had secondaryschool education.
Un autre article intéressant publié dans Foreign Policy:
Poverty, unemployment, and lack of education are serious problems in some of the world’s most populous Muslim countries. There is, however, no evidence of a correlation between these social and economic ills and terrorism. Terrorists are not always poor and prosperity does not end terrorism. In fact, in the world’s 50 poorest countries, there is little terrorism. It is too soon to dismiss socio-economic conditions completely, but studies have generally found that terrorists tend not to be from societies’ most deprived groups. Instead, terrorists are generally well educated and unlikely to be poor. In India, for example, terrorism has occurred in one of the country’s most prosperous regions, Punjab, and its most egalitarian, Kashmir (where the poverty rate is less than 4 percent, compared with a national average of 26 percent). The sub-continent’s poorest regions, such as North Bihar, have not produced any terrorist activity. In Arab countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as in North Africa, terrorists do not originate in the poorest and most neglected areas, but in some of the wealthiest regions and neighborhoods. […]
The survey of 14 Muslim countries found that respondents who reported having inadequate money for food were the least likely to support terrorism. By contrast, the study found that individuals with cell phones or computers (who are presumably more affluent) are more likely to support terrorism than those who do not own these items.
Pour terminer, résultats d’une étude de Gallup à propos de l’éducation et des revenus des musulmans modérés et radicaux:
Le responsable du terrorisme ce n’est ni l’occident, ni la pauvreté ni la misère, mais tout simplement l’islam politique qui empoisonne le cerveau de certaines personnes.
La prochaine fois qu’un gauchiste dira que le terrorisme c’est un peu de notre faute puisqu’il est la conséquence la misère et la pauvreté, vous saurez quoi lui répondre !