Because there is a difference between being poor and having your liberties taken away.

Americans enjoy American freedom at whatever economic level they exist. While the poor get screwed over more than the rich, it still isn't enough to justify a rebellion or terrorist activity.

When they find out their telephones have been tapped, their tv viewing habits registered and logged, their bank accounts, if any, looked at...that's when the guns come out.

Defining the cause of terrorism in terms of the poor, ill fed and clothed, etc. may not be entirely accurate. It is true that terrorism and revolution are often led by the upper middle class, as Lawmage pointed out, and that the teeming poverty stricken masses in countries such as India or Bangladesh do not seem to have spawned terrorism. The poverty stricken masses can be useful pawns, however, when led by the upper middle class intelligentsia. (see Russian and French revolutions, and the last three Chinese attempted and actual revolutions. The first Chinese revolution is interesting in that it was a rural peasant revolt that failed as a result of the government's brutal massacres in Nanking.)

I'm inclined to think that terrorism is a tool used by any 'class' that feels that their potential future power is being taken away--that their future happiness, as they define it, is in jeopardy.

Take, for example, the actions of the rich against their striking workers 100 +/- 50 years ago. One, of many, instances is calling in the Pinkertons to put down a strike (if I remember correctly at a coal-mine in Colorado) by raiding their tent city and throwing buckets of water on the strikers' families in sub-zero weather, leaving them to freeze to death.

Terrorism of the mid and lower classes by the rich and powerful is a response to a perception that their power may be slipping away rather than growing in accordance with their plans.

To be truthful LM, I don't know. The only thing I can think of is that American poverty is way better than poverty in let's say Africa.

well, SPM, you are correct in that we in America have a different idea of what constitutes poverty. However, I think a great bit of the difference in reaction has to do with perception. Dax touched on it a little. Even the most impoverished Americans do not chafe under a profound sense of injustice. Here is an interesting tidbit I have discussed previously in this forum. Even in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the bulk of the Palestinian terrorists are NOT poor uneducated people. They are what passes for upper middle class Palestinians. The psychologists who study these things through interviews with captured terrorists and failed homicide bombers have found that socio-economic status is not per se a motivator for terroristic activity but rather unmet expectation is a motivator. In many regards, these upper middle class palestinians are reacting to foiled expectations for their future and are lashing out at what they see as the source of that foiling. bad Bird touched on this from the other side when he spoke of power slipping away as a motivator for terroristic activities. In so far as it goes his observation is correct. It does tie in with the idea of unmet or foiled expectation though.

Terrorism is caused by even real injustice or preceived injustice. It is true that most injustice is expeienced by the poor uneducated classes. Yet most successful terrorist movements have been led by the educated middle class.

Surely this is not a contradiction, the poor have the cause for terrorism but the Middle class have the means to make terrorism successful.

I think your history is inaccurate, Aus. In truth, most terrorism IS NOT committed by the poor and uneducated. generally, the poor and uneducated provide soldiers for revolutionary causes and in the early stages such causes are sometimes called terroristic. However, most acts of terrorism have historically been committed by the middle classes NOT the lowest socioeconomic demographics. You are however correct in that real and percieved injustice is a component in terrorist motivations.

There is a very simple reason for this. The actual commission of terrorism requires a certain level of commitment to an ideological perfection. Poor people don't have time for ideology; they're too busy trying to figure out where the next bowl of rice is coming from.

This isn't in contradiction to Lawmage's general message regarding terrorism being more of a middle-class phenomenon rather than a reaction to mass poverty, but:

According to al-Jazeera ( http://tinyurl.com/blu6 ) there were 17 separate bombings yesterday in Ahmedabad India--resulting in 29 deaths--and 7 bombings the day before in Bangalore resulting in 2 deaths. Non-fatal casualties were very high as the bombs were shrapnel encased. During May, 8 bombs killed at least 63 people and injured hundreds more in Jaipur.

Speculation is that these were Pakistan-based or Muslim vs Hindu, but who knows for sure. More important is the driving force behind them; international politics, religious intolerance, or something else? Without "--the teeming poverty stricken masses in India--" would this be occurring?

I think so, BB. Most of these attacks are not launched by the poor because they are poor and lashing out. They are almost entirely based on religious friction and territorial friction. The religious friction is Muslim v. Hindu and the territorial friction is related and involves Pakistani-Indian conflict over the Kashmir region. I think it is interesting to look at India. There is indeed wide spread poverty but India is on an undeniable upsurge toward escaping that poverty. It will be interesting to see just who is found to be responsible for the blasts. I strongly suspect we will find, in so far as we find anything, that the bombers were NOT members of the impoveished masses.

Update: The death toll was raised today to "at least 45 with 150 injured."

The practically unknown "Indian Mujahidin" took credit 5 min before the bombs went off, so they are the likely culprits. The reason given was "Await 5 minutes for the revenge of Gujarat", an apparent reference to riots in the western (Indian) state in 2002 which left at least 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, dead." So, as you hypothesized, religious friction would appear to be the driving force. However, the Gujarat riots are described as "communal riots" between Hindu and Muslim communities and the escalating rioting seems to be more the result of atrocities perpetrated by both sides: rather a "Martins and the Coys" feuding rather than an ideological confrontation. Terrorists versus terrorists?

I do suspect, however, that we will find that the bombers WERE members of the impoverished masses. The brains behind the bombings were likely NOT impoverished, just using the frustrations of the masses to do the dirty work for them. Isn't that the way it is usually done? (e.g., Osama bin Laden).

You are correct in saying that there is an upsurge of hope in India, but I'm not so sure that it extends to the masses having much hope for escaping poverty. The upper classes are doing quite well and things are getting even better for them. The hope of coming to US after getting a higher education (especially in the sciences) seems to be rampant, but it is realizable only for those whose families can afford that level of schooling for their children.