Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Myths about Myths on Terrorism

posted at 6:48 am on September 14, 2007 by see-dubya
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Princeton Prof Alan Krueger lists five “urban legends” about terrorism for the Washington Post.

Here’s Myth Number 3:

3. Terrorists are likely to cross into the United States from Mexico.

This is a favorite chestnut of some activists and politicians keen to tighten immigration and build a fence on the Mexican border. But the historical record doesn’t bear it out. Of course, the past may not be a good predictor of the future, but terrorists have rarely crossed into the United States from Mexico. In a recent Nixon Center study of 373 Islamist terrorists, Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke concluded: “Despite widespread alarms raised over terrorist infiltration from Mexico, we found no terrorist presence in Mexico and no terrorists who entered the U.S. from Mexico.” By contrast, the authors found “a sizeable terrorist presence in Canada and a number of Canadian-based terrorists who have entered the U.S.” For example, Ahmed Ressam, the Algerian terrorist who tried to blow up Los Angeles International Airport in December 1999, was caught trying to cross the border from Canada into Washington state.

Hmm, that’s funny. That’s not what this guy says:

Texas’ top homeland security official said today that terrorists with ties to Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaida have been arrested crossing the Texas border with Mexico in recent years.

“Has there ever been anyone linked to terrorism arrested?” Texas Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw said in a speech to the North Texas Crime Commission. “Yes, there was.”

McCraw identified the most notable figure captured as Farida Goolam Mahomed Ahmed, who was arrested in July 2004 at the McAllen airport. She carried $7,300 in various currencies and a South African passport with pages missing. Federal officials later learned she waded across the Rio Grande.

According to federal court records, Ahmed pleaded guilty to improper entry by an alien, making a false statement and false use of a passport. She was sentenced to time served and deported to South Africa. Other details of the case were sealed.

But on Wednesday, McCraw described Ahmed as having ties to an insurgent group in Pakistan and whose specialty was smuggling Afghanis and other foreign nationals across the border.

McCraw also said that since March 2006, 347 people from what he called “terrorism-related countries” have been arrested crossing the border in Texas. The number of Iraqis captured at the border has tripled since last year, he said.

Don’t forget that Farida had a buddy, also a South African, arrested in Mexico about the same time. And of course it was a long time ago, but that’s how the Duka brothers–of Fort Dix Six fame–came into the country as well.

4. Terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims.

Wrong. No religion has a monopoly on terrorism. Every major religious faith has had followers involved in terrorism. (Sri Lanka, for instance, has grappled for decades with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a separatist group that pioneered suicide bombing as a terrorist tactic and hopes to create a homeland for the country’s mostly Tamil minority, who are largely Hindu.) Although radical Islamic terrorists are the worry du jour because of 9/11 and Iraq, the data show pretty clearly that the predominant religion of a country is not a good predictor of whether its people will become involved in terrorism.

He goes on to mention McVeigh, and point out that most terrorism is local. And he’s technically right, if you consider exactly what he says: countries like Colombia and Peru are Catholic and have their people involved in terrorism–so if you look at all such “nations involved in terrorism” you can reach the answer he gives.

It’s also a question of the sample size: if you think about the last few decades and think about how many of the incidents were committed by the People’s Revolutionary Army of Wherever, the global rise in Islamist terrorism fades into the background. But the recent frequency, scale, and violence of such incidents suggest that something has changed in the world that has spurred militarized Islamists to engage on terrorism on a global scale.

We’ve also been preventing who knows how many of Islamist terror attempts that never make it into Dr. Krueger’s statistics.

Statistics aside: even if he’s right about worldwide numbers, so what? Common sense says that if you live in Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers are a daily threat to individuals and to the polity. But for most readers of the Washington Post, especially those in the Pentagon, the threat comes from a fairly obvious, well-publicized, not-at-all counterintuitive direction.

Sometimes, you know, the conventional wisdom gets it right.

(hat tip to Patterico’s DRJ for the McCraw article.)


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

“Despite widespread alarms raised over terrorist infiltration from Mexico, we found no terrorist presence in Mexico and no terrorists who entered the U.S. from Mexico.”

Didn’t look very hard did they.

boomer on September 14, 2007 at 7:13 AM

Even if a Muslim has not yet committed a terrorist act, his religion and thusly his ideology promotes it. This fact makes all of them, if not de facto terrorist then certainly potential terrorist.

TheSitRep on September 14, 2007 at 7:25 AM

Another lefty academic apologist for Jihadists and the open borders crowd. These ‘experts’ are sooo predictable.

infidel4life on September 14, 2007 at 7:31 AM

I knew I was in for a load of baloney as soon as I read “Princeton Prof”.

bbz123 on September 14, 2007 at 7:34 AM

Princeton economist Alan Krueger ably debunks the crumbling myth that poverty causes terrorism, and then, breezily ignoring the jihad ideology, constructs his own alternative myth. – read the rest at Jihadwatch archive

heroyalwhyness on September 14, 2007 at 7:36 AM

I knew I was in for a load of baloney as soon as I read “Princeton Prof”.

Indeed, this is the school that hired Peter Singer.

radjah shelduck on September 14, 2007 at 7:38 AM

these people must stub lotsa toes walking around with their eyes closed so much….

trailortrash on September 14, 2007 at 7:40 AM

A professor…

It’s funny, I’m finally finishing up my degree now on Uncle Sam’s dime, most of the students aren’t much older than my own kids. The indoctrination is amazing. I’ve heard about it, I’ve seen stories about it, but after seeing it first hand I’m sickened.

Just last night, while discussing Puritan writers, I heard one reference to Gitmo and 2 comments on Bush’s “lying speech” (Thursday).

In a Business and Technical writing class, I listened to a mini-speech about how the college was not diverse enough, the town the college was in was too white, and an anecdote about how conservative bumpkins in Maine are intolerant.

reaganaut on September 14, 2007 at 8:17 AM

Wrong. No religion has a monopoly on terrorism. Every major religious faith has had followers involved in terrorism. (Sri Lanka, for instance, has grappled for decades with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, a separatist group that pioneered suicide bombing as a terrorist tactic and hopes to create a homeland for the country’s mostly Tamil minority, who are largely Hindu.)

Except the Tamil Tigers are marxist and likely atheist as a result so I’m not sure why he’s trying to dump it on hindus who are notoriously apathetic. Furthermore, just because no religion “has a monopoly on terrorism” does not mean that terrorism isn’t “largely perpetrated by muslims”. In fact, “largely perpetrated by muslims” itself implies that while muslims are the #1 perpetrators, they’re not the only ones.

Darth Executor on September 14, 2007 at 8:19 AM

Then there’s the Fort Dix Six, 3 of whom were here illegally after crossing the Mexican border. But I guess they’re an anecdote, while McVeigh is a trend.

Pablo on September 14, 2007 at 8:32 AM

Perfesser Al might like to read the McCaul Report to bone up on some of the info he seems to have missed. It’s got pitchers ‘n everything.

Items have been found by law enforcement officials along the banks of the Rio Grande River and inland that indicate possible ties to a terrorist organization or member of military units of Mexico.

A jacket with patches from countries where al Qa’ida is known to operate was found in Jim Hogg County, Texas by the Border Patrol. The patches on the jacket show an Arabic military badge with one depicting an airplane flying over a building and heading towards a tower, and another showing an image of a lion’s head with wings and a parachute emanating from the animal. The bottom of one patch read “martyr,” “way to eternal life” or “way to immortality.”

ahem on September 14, 2007 at 8:34 AM

worry du jour…

Same thing they said about the commies. Only 100 million dead, no big deal.

reaganaut on September 14, 2007 at 8:37 AM

It’s a great example of propaganda. He doesn’t lie and can back up every single point he makes but it’s not the full story and I’m sure he knows it. It reminds me of two things. For the Star Wars fans, when Luke finds out Vader is dad he whines to Obi wan. “But you said Vader killed my father.” Good old Obi wan responds with something like; “From a certain point of view he did.” It also reminds me of a work incident when at a meeting someone asked a VP if we were going to have a layoff. He responded, “I can sit here and tell you with a straight face that there will not be any layoffs in the foreseeable future.” The next morning over a 1000 people were let go. When the VP was accused of lying he said he did not. He only said that he could sit there with a straight face and say there wasn’t going to be a layoff and if you wanted to interrupt that as there would be no layoffs then that was your problem. Like the VP this guy has a very straight face.

Before 9/11 few of us knew Islam even existed. Six years later we are falling all over ourselves to install foot baths, pray rooms and special rules as to what one can carry around Muslims. Some people blame the US for the terrorism and from a certain point of view they are correct. We are to blame because we along with Europe have shown that terrorism does work and works well. Bin Laden must be jumping with joy because he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. Who would have ever thought that the murdering of 3000 people would elevate the religion of the perpetrators to a protected place of honor in our society.

jmarcure on September 14, 2007 at 8:39 AM

Without the need to debunk nearly everything the MSM says, the internet would be just blogs and pron.

JiangxiDad on September 14, 2007 at 8:45 AM

Move along now folks nothing to see here.

sonnyspats1 on September 14, 2007 at 8:54 AM

Well in the Peruvian case, those terrorists were Communists, and their religion wasn’t Catholic, was, well, Communism.

mile66 on September 14, 2007 at 9:32 AM

One wonders if he’ll say the same things when a gun is pointed to his head and he’s being ordered to convert or die.

Mommynator on September 14, 2007 at 9:40 AM

It used to be that all “professors” were respected as “educated men” (and women, starting in the 20th Century) of arts and science.

Now, that pool of “respected, educated” academia has shrunk to mostly men and women of science (excluding “environmentalists”) whose work and theories can be checked against the Universe itself, because mathematics, chemistry, physics, etc., are apolitical and not subject to political relativism.

I call them the “hard” sciences. The late and not lamented Lysenko, whose purity of marxist thought got him appointed to being in charge of science in the USSR, notwithstanding, was unable to apply the Dialetic to high energy physics and other hard sciences, because the laws of physics and math are impervious to marxist dogma, as they are to capitalism, Catholicism, Protestantism or Islam.

This is neither the case for the “soft” sciences nor the “liberal arts” studies. The insights derived are entirely lodged in the politico/cultural zeitgeist of the researcher.

Princeton Prof Alan Krueger is NOT a “hard” scientist. He is the “Bendheim professor of economics and public policy,” whatever that is. But I will bet donuts that his work is inevitably tied to his political outlook. And I’m guessing, from reading his piece in WaPo and his “public policy” chair, that he is just another academic who is, like most of them, left of center.

I won’t say that he doesn’t know jack squat about the subject. Just that what he considers to be “myths” relies more on cherry-picked concepts and accepted dogma than on reality. And he is paying homage to the “terrorism is an acceptable nuisance” school of liberal revisionism in this article.

georgej on September 14, 2007 at 10:06 AM

This professor needs to get his hands a copy of Robert Spencer’s recently released book, Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t, . A discussion of which takes place at FrontPageMag here.

He can also benefit from contextualizing the history of jihad . . .

It’s also a question of the sample size: if you think about the last few decades centuries and think about how many of the incidents were committed

The Jihad against Arabs (622 to 634)

The Jihad against Zoroastrian Persians of Iran, Baluchistan and Afghanistan (634 to 651)

The Jihad against the Byzantine Christians (634 to 1453)
The Jihad against Christian Coptic Egyptians (640 to 655)
The Jihad against Christian Coptic Nubians – modern Sudanese (650)
The Jihad against pagan Berbers – North Africans (650 to 700)
The Jihad against Spaniards (711 to 730)

The Reconquista against Jihad in Spain (730 to 1492)
The Jihad against Franks – modern French (720 to 732)

The Jihad against Sicilians in Italy (812 to 940)
The Jihad against Chinese (751)
The Jihad against Turks (651 to 751)
The Jihad against Armenians and Georgians (1071 to 1920)
The Crusade against Jihad (1096 – 1291 ongoing)
The Jihad against Mongols (1260 to 1300)

The Jihad against Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh (638 to 1857)
The Jihad against Indonesians and Malays (1450 to 1500)
The Jihad against Poland (1444 to 1699)

The Jihad against Romania (1350 to 1699)
The Jihad against Russia (1500 to 1853)
The Jihad against Bulgaria (1350 to 1843)
The Jihad against Serbs, Croats and Albanians (1334 to 1920)
The Jihad against Greeks (1450 to 1853)

The Jihad against Albania (1332 – 1853)
The Jihad against Croatia (1389 to 1843)
The Jihad against Hungarians (1500 to 1683)

The Jihad against Austrians (1683)
Jihad in the Modern Age (20th and 21st Centuries)The Jihad against Israelis (1948 – 2004 ongoing)
The Jihad against Americans (9/11/2001)
The Jihad against the British (1947 onwards)
The Jihad against the Germans (1945 onwards)

The Jihad against the Filipinos in Mindanao(1970 onwards)
The Jihad against Indonesian Christians in Malaku and East Timor (1970 onwards)
The Jihad against Russians (1995 onwards)

The Jihad against Dutch and Belgians (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Norwegians and Swedes (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Thais (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Nigerians (1965 onwards)
The Jihad against Canadians (2001 onwards)

The Jihad against Latin America (2003 onwards)
The Jihad against Australia (2002 onwards)
The Global Jihad today (2001 – ongoing)

The War on Terror against Jihad today (2001– ongoing)

heroyalwhyness on September 14, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Great, now I have to view those Kung Fu Monks of China with equal suspicion to the guys screaming “Allah Ackbar!”

Thank you, crazy media guy, for opening my eyes to the terror. Simply because terrorism is a subjective term, anyone can be a terrorist. I’ll need some kind of “go code” for the askew hatted skateboarders.

Krydor on September 14, 2007 at 10:34 AM

profitsbeard on September 14, 2007 at 10:04 AM

You know, I’m a guest here too, but I’m going to guess that wishing anyone a “Daniel Pearl moment” is going to be utterly uncool with management.

see-dubya on September 14, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Don’t do it see-dubya! I would hate to see you banned (and this used against Hot Air).

mram on September 14, 2007 at 11:49 AM

see-dubya-

I meant having the figurative realization (that I’m sure Pearl had upon his capture) of: “I trusted these maniacs… how could I have been that catastrophically naive?”

Not the literal removal of the apparently non-functional organ attached to said professor’s neck.

profitsbeard on September 14, 2007 at 12:22 PM

It’s a great example of propaganda. He doesn’t lie and can back up every single point he makes but it’s not the full story and I’m sure he knows it. – jmarcure

I agree that it’s propaganda, but he is lying and doesn’t back up every point he makes. He says that “most terrorists are Muslim” is a myth, but he does nothing to prove it. He only provides a couple of examples of non-Muslim terrorists (who, btw, are not motivated by their religion like most Muslim terrorists).

Islam does not have a monopoly on terrorism, but most terrorists are Muslim, and almost all terrorists who act on the basis of religion are Muslim.

forest on September 14, 2007 at 12:24 PM

OK! I guess this means I won’t be listening to anything said by Prof Alan Krueger ever again. Nothing like someone in high places of academia writing a report that contrasts polar opposite views of all those who walk in broad daylight with their eyes open.

Joshua P. Allem on September 14, 2007 at 12:31 PM

I read over Krueger’s column again and noticed further dishonest argumentation. In trying to prove that most terrorists are not Muslim, he says:

“…the data show pretty clearly that the predominant religion of a country is not a good predictor of whether its people will become involved in terrorism.”

The question is about religious belief of individual terrorists, not the predominant religions of countries. Look at Thailand, the Phillipines, and most European countries. The predominant religion in these places is not Islam, but almost all of the terrorism that occurs there is committed by Muslims in the name of Islam.

Krueger is being intentionally dishonest in his arguments. Even the WaPo should be ashamed of printing this garbage.

forest on September 14, 2007 at 12:54 PM

radical Islamic terrorists are the worry du jour because of 9/11 and Iraq

No, actually radical Islamic terrorists are the “worry du jour” because they keep on committing acts of terrorism against everyone who doesn’t agree with them, and because they keep on telling us that more is coming.

jimbo2 on September 14, 2007 at 1:09 PM

… the history of Jihad … heroyalwhyness on September 14, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Pretty sad that there are only 3 responses by the “infidels” to the 40 Jihads perpetrated by the Muslims.

C’mon, fellow “infidels”, we are dropping the ball here!

jimbo2 on September 14, 2007 at 1:14 PM

The Jihad against Nigerians (1965 onwards) .. heroyalwhyness on September 14, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Back around 1984 I attended a church service in which the speaker was an ex-Muslim from Nigeria, now a Christian evangelist. He confirmed that the Nigerian Jihad was ongoing, and was an attempt by the Muslims to kill off enough non-Muslims to allow the Muslims to become the majority group, thereby seizing power “legally”.

jimbo2 on September 14, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Krueger is being intentionally dishonest in his arguments. Even the WaPo should be ashamed of printing this garbage.

forest on September 14, 2007 at 12:54 PM

I really hate to sound like I’m defending him but I don’t think he is being dishonest. I do think he is being selective in his examples as well as not providing all the facts. His myth, “4. Terrorism is mainly perpetrated by Muslims”, points out the recent plot bust in Germany but as I recall they were Muslim. He tries to paint them as home grown like McVeigh which is very misleading. It’s as if their religion was meaningless because they were German citizens. The whole article is very misleading but I still don’t think he lies. I wonder what prompted him to write it in the first place. Is he is just being a good dhimmie?

jmarcure on September 14, 2007 at 2:40 PM

If I were to give him the benefit of the doubt on being honest, then I’d have to conclude that he’s stupid. Some of his arguments just don’t apply to the point he’s trying to make – and it’s obvious.

I think he’s motivated by a desire to prove that Islam does not promote violence. The idea that over a billion people believe in an ideology that condones intolerance and violence is just too much for some people to take. So they do all kinds of intellectual gymnastics in an effort to convince themselves and others that it’s really something else.

forest on September 14, 2007 at 3:43 PM

The professor may be right in a certain sense. If Islam weren’t around, some other group would be doing mass murder. It could even be Christian, like the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda.

The overall problem is that too many people wish to be “tolerant” of bad behavior. If we don’t want terrorism–if we want to survive as a species as the ability to destroy increases as technology increases–we will have to come down hard on bad behavior. Our soft response to the rudeness of the Code Pinkos only leads them to worse and worse behavior. We will have to adopt Giuliani’s broken window theory to public discourse. Right now, we can probably cure the barbaric behavior of most of the Code Pinkos with a week of solitary confinement. I advocate this punishment for anyone who wants to act like a jerk at a political event. Stop them before they decide to toss bombs.

thuja on September 14, 2007 at 3:47 PM

I wonder what prompted him to write it in the first place. Is he is just being a good dhimmie? -posted by
jmarcure

Hugh Fitzgerald provides this perception regarding Middle East Studies (aka MESA)
and coined the term

“MESA NOSTRA”

. . .

MESA, or as it is more accurately known around here, MESA Nostra (the Middle East Studies Association) in 1970 had a membership consisting of perhaps 5% Muslims. Now the Muslims among its members constitute 60%. But that is not the only important thing. Non-Muslims must work with and attend departmental meetings with these Muslim colleagues. How awkward it would be to be in the same department with people who will bear an eternal grudge against you if you dare say one word about Islam that they find is not to their liking, if you dare to present Islam as anything other than something wonderful, and if you dare to suggest that the Muslim and Arab view of the universe is not always and everywhere to be endorsed. Non-Muslims must rely on Muslim colleagues, who have and will always have power over them — whether for obtaining grants as a graduate student, or on a doctoral examination committee, or vetting your thesis, or recommending that one’s thesis be published by a certain press, or later giving one teaching assignments, and then voting on tenure. Many are not deemed suitably compliant, insufficiently “collegial,” as that curious criterion is now officially deemed important in judging one’s fitness for academic promotion and tenure — an absurdity that would have appalled Joseph Schacht and Franz Rosenthal and so many others. This is, of course, part of the simpering sentimentality that would have kept out so many great teachers and scholars, and favors the careful-to-offend-no-one mediocrity. Thus are whole departments ruined, degree by degree, appointment by appointment.

heroyalwhyness on September 14, 2007 at 7:25 PM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.