Social issues don't only effect the poor and badly educated. I don't see why rage born from impotence over limited prospects for oneself and one's family/identity group -- and rage at horrors that have occurred to one's family/identity group for which there is no apparent effective recourse -- which are "social issues" that come from living in impoverished countries under brutal dictatorships, or having family that do -- would not affect the decently educated and relatively well-off. Indeed, in some ways, I'd expect them to effect those people more than those who are poorly educated and personally impoverished, so that their prime struggle is meeting the needs of survival.
This seems similar to me to the way that, where a participatory political system provides avenues for resolving some dissatisfaction, the educated and economically comfortable are often more politically engaged than the poor.
Looking further afield: Pakistan isn't significantly poorer than India, but contributes much more to international terrorism. Bangladesh is significantly poorer than Pakistan, but also contributes much less to international terrorism. When I lived in Bangladesh, it was devastatingly poor, but terrorism wasn't an issue. In 25 years, per capita GDP has quadrupled, and now it's only poor, but terrorism has become a much more significant problem.
I'd go so far as to say it's ethnocentric for Westerners to chalk terrorism up to poverty/lack of education. "Oh, these people are just poor dirt farmers, they don't know any better."
You are essentially saying that, among brutal dictatorships, they aren't particularly brutal dictatorships. Which may be true, but not all that significant.
> In terms of per-capita income, it hangs around countries like Peru or Ukraine.
Which are also substantial sources of terrorists, though largely internal rather than international.
> When I lived in Bangladesh, it was devastatingly poor, but terrorism wasn't an issue. In 25 years, per capita GDP has quadrupled, and now it's only poor, but terrorism has become a much more significant problem.
Which actually fits perfectly well with the point I made in the post you are responding to, that one would expect that violent solutions to problems for which the political system is not perceived to provide adequate avenues for solutions would, like political engagement on issues where the system is perceived to provide adequate avenues for solutions, be expected to increase as people reach levels where they are able to spend more effort dealing with things outside of immediate survival concerns.
> > I'd go so far as to say it's ethnocentric for Westerners to chalk terrorism up to poverty/lack of education.
And I'd go so far as to say its a strawman for you to take the suggestion that terrorism was a "social and economic issue" and instead argue against the idea that it is an issue of "poverty/lack of education", and similarly to take a suggestion about terrorism and respond to it with comparisons related to international terrorism.
Its like you've got an argument you are so keen to argue against that you can't be bothered to pay attention to what anyone else in the discussion is actually saying, you just keep repeating a canned counterargument whether or not the argument it counters is even being presented.
Education and money can only mitigate the injustice that surrounds to a certain extent.