The Making of a “Terrorist”

There’s a lot behind this headline, for those who care to listen and learn:

Bomb suspect came from elite family, best schools

This is the story of a young man who grew up in a priviliged lifestyle, who somehow opened his eyes to the plight of the less fortunate,

“[the] youngster [chose] to give 50 pounds to an orphanage rather than spend it on souvenirs in London.”

And found direction through religion:

“Abdulmutallab was a “very religious” and a “very obedient” as a boy in the well-to-do banking family.”

When the ruling class lives beyond the reach of the rule of law, balance will be achieved from beyond the rule of law.

The United States has committed international war crimes, and refuses to prosecute those responsible. They are, by virtue of their station, beyond the reach of the rule of law. But we live in a representative democracy, and are thus collectively accountable. We, the people, are paying, and will continue to pay, for allowing a ruling elite to exist beyond the reach of justice.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

16 thoughts on “The Making of a “Terrorist”

  1. BnF,
    This is the first account that have seen that reveals his upbringing and family life. A perfect example of ‘Still waters run deep.’ His privileged life made him more vulnerable to radical influence.

  2. I hadn’t heard of the man’s background either. A life of privilege gives one many opportunities, and he chose radical religion.

    Religion can be a truly corrosive thing.

  3. At some point, he realized the disparity of wealth. He also realized the system is not designed to address its inherent injustice. If you think about it, what got Christ killed was his railing against the system – his turning over the tables of the money changers. In his case, he was railing against the profiteering within his own church. But the power structure is the same.

    The power structure refuses to be changed without acts of violence. Even non-violent protesters are subjected to acts of violence. To blame religion per se is to miss the point. Extremists use religion to justify acts of violence to their followers. But, and this is important, those same acts of violence can be justified using logic.

  4. Note, I’m not justifying acts of violence here, just pointing out that they are inevitable for as long as manunkind maintains a heirarchery in which the very few control the vast majority of wealth at the expense of the impoverished masses.

  5. The vast majority of wealth is controlled by the very few because these very few have found the expertise in getting to that wealth. The very few had, and still have, brilliant and innovative minds. That creates, and whets, competition which leads to socio-economic progress as a result of which everybody’s happy – some more, others less. As you may know, happiness is relative.

  6. Hiya Dimitar,
    Haven’t seen you for a while. Man, I kinda wish you hadn’t said this, just the way you said it.

    The vast majority of wealth is controlled by the very few because these very few have found the expertise in getting to that wealth.

    Most of the “expertise” going on lately, (say the last thirty years or so), has been the result of politically gained tax breaks and illegal offshore secret bank accounts. The last ten years have been especially disastrous, with banking deregulation creating this “casino” atmosphere on Wall Street. It seems that if someone knows how to play it right, there’s no downside. Those that don’t know how, swindle from others. No one cares to lend money to real brick and mortar businesses anymore, because they can fail. Entrepreneurship, once considered the fertile playground of those with, as you put it, “brilliant and innovative minds”, has no place in our future. Someone might get lucky, become the next Bill Gates, and elbow their way into the “old boys club”, becoming a threat to the entrenched power of dynastic wealth.

    Even Bill Gates isn’t all he’s cracked up to be, rather than compete on a level playing field, he’s tried to stack the deck in his favor, and been sued and beaten in courts repeatedly. Also, he would rather find his talent in other countries, and lure them here, so he won’t have to compete against them, but that leaves qualified Americans jobless.

    Oil companies use government subsidies to fund research on new ways to produce energy, not to better mankind, but to obtain the patents to keep technology off the market, until they’ve exhausted the profits from fossil fuels.

    Competition? Look for it in the sports pages. Big business has just about done away with it everywhere else.

  7. To your surprise, I suppose, I agree with you 99%, if not entirely. That’s why there has to be proper regulations – ones that would regulate extreme greediness – and have the appropriate people out there as regulators. Now, I am not a lawyer, and am not sure whether Briseadh na Faire actually practices this area of the law as well besides plaintiff’s side on affirmative action cases, as he mentioned months ago but this is what has to be looked at and fixed.

    The reason why I put my comment was because “the very few controlling the vast majority of wealth” is usually mentioned by people who advocate more distribution of wealth just for the sake of equality between the people in a way that everything becomes affordable to everybody with income which, sadly, cannot be. I am not saying that Briseadh na Faire really thinks so, neither do I deny it. In fact, I don’t know his opinion on this. However, the way he expressed himself sounds just like what I explained above, and thought that I’d better see what he actually means. I apologize if there was any miscommunication.

  8. Thanks, Dimitar. I hope you didn’t feel like I was going off on you, but I was, kind of. That was my reaction to free-market, laissez faire capitalism.

    I feel better now. I’m not a lawyer either. I’ve been both a boss and an employee, and I prefer being a fairly compensated employee.

    Maybe BnF will weigh in too.

  9. “The vast majority of wealth is controlled by the very few because these very few have found the expertise in getting to that wealth.”

    Actually, I tend to agree with that assessment, bypassing, for now, those who are born into wealth and thus lack the expertise to hang onto it.

    Sadly, the expertise necessary to acquire vast fortunes is by not “playing by the rules.” Greed begets ruthlessness, money begets power begets more money begets more power. Money and power tend to build on each other, consolidating into fewer and fewer hands. At some point, the concentration becomes too great, and revolution ensues. As Orwell noted, the wealthy are then deposed, and a new group of faces becomes the ruling class.

    The masses are continually duped into doing the bidding of either the ruling class, or those aspiring to become the ruling class. When you begin to see defections in the ruling class, this current individual, for one example, Osama bin Laden, for another — those are signs that the ruling class is beginning to lose its grip on power. As individuals like bin Laden grow to icons of hope within the masses – hope for more than a destitute lifestyle, there will eventually be a tipping point, triggered by some catalyst, and massive civil unrest will ensue across the globe.

  10. ” The very few had, and still have, brilliant and innovative minds.”

    Brilliant and innovative minds do not always equate to immeasurable wealth. If so, there would be no “starving artists.” Granted, enterpreneuers may still build a better mousetrap, but much more is needed. The current economic policies favor monopolies, making it difficult, if not impossible, for innovation to see the light of day.

    The “brilliant and innovative minds” that reap the greatest economic returns are those whose innovations are towards the next great scams. It is the capitalist con-artist who plunders and absconds with the money, leaving the taxpayers to pick up the pieces and repair the damage done to the country; those are the “innovative” minds who are experts at getting to wealth.

  11. “That creates, and whets, competition which leads to socio-economic progress as a result of which everybody’s happy – some more, others less. ”

    The innovaton model of capitalism is non-existent at this point in time. The monied interests are too invested in maintaining the status quo, and innovation always upsets the status quo. Because of the wealth and power of the U.S. energy industry, other countries will likely develop viable alternatives to fossil fuels before we do.

    The U.S. automobile industry is a prime example of what I’m talking about. It resisted gas-mileage regulation for decades. Entrenced in making profits in a manner unchanged since the 50s-60s, the industry learned too late that consumers wanted cars that needed less repairs and got better mileage. Even after the shock of the Arab Oil Embargo of the 70s, the American automobile industry put its efforts into gas-guzzling SUVs. And they managed to get the federal government to give consumers a tax break for buying them, thus artificially generating demand for the behemouths. Then, when gas soared above $4.00 a gallon, and consumers had to choose between going to work or paying their credit cards – the entier economy collapsed.

    Our current business model is not leading to socio-economic progress. Quite the opposite. The ruling class is overwhelmingly “conservative.” By their very nature, they are opposed to socio-economic progress.

  12. “That’s why there has to be proper regulations – ones that would regulate extreme greediness – and have the appropriate people out there as regulators.”

    Agreed. Unregulated capitalism is doomed to failure.

  13. ““the very few controlling the vast majority of wealth” is usually mentioned by people who advocate more distribution of wealth just for the sake of equality between the people in a way that everything becomes affordable to everybody with income which, sadly, cannot be. ”

    There, I disagree. There can be a leveling of the field, an eliminating of the very rich as well as the very poor. Sweden has done just that.

    And equality does not mean that “everything” is affordable, regardless of income. It does mean that everyone has an equal opportunity. Right now, because of the happenstance of one’s parentage, some are “more equal” than others. The Estate Tax was designed to level that playing field and prevent family dynasties. We all know that is under attack. But even without that, the ruling class has devised ways to shift vast amounts of wealth off-shore, and create perpetual trusts, with spend-thrift clauses, which ensures their family’s wealth will pass down through generations untold.

  14. “However, the way he expressed himself sounds just like what I explained above, and thought that I’d better see what he actually means. ”

    I mean I have already seen the entire Eastern Seaboard of the United States in flames. A revolution is coming, and millions will die. It is the price we must pay for our collective inhumanity towards one another.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s