Asad is our friend, Lakshmi is coming to house

The problem isn't poor people; the problem"or at least part of the problem"is poor nations. Terrorists may not be the poorest people in their nations, and they may not draw most of their support from especially poor people in their nations"but the nations they come from tend to be at the bottom of the world's economic hierarchy. Even the "poor nations" formulation is in a way misleading. Whether terrorists are middle class, like some of the hijackers, or lower class, like many al-Qaida foot soldiers, the ranks of the unemployed are prime turf for recruiting them. In nations, the private-sector outlet for creativity is so meager that a bright, ambitious young man might as well do graduate study in urban planning. If we want to know why people's interpretations of their own religious doctrines vary so much from decade to decade, we have to look at what is going on in the world around them. In the case of modern radical Islam, we find no shortage of explanations, ranging from economic stagnation to political repression to an American foreign policy that over the past few decades has paid roughly zero attention to Muslim opinion (unless you count the opinion of Muslims who happened to be in charge of armies or oil wells). What we don't find is any sense in which religion is an exogenous variable, an autonomous force that floats above the social landscape and, generation after generation, mysteriously bends the minds of men to its will. The social networks theory has several implications for policy. First, because commitment to jihad is rarely a cost-benefit decision, or an explicit decision at all, military deterrence will likely fail. Terrorists and insurgents forge loyalties that are difficult to betray, and like our own military units, many would prefer to fight to the death rather than leave their brothers. Second, under urban conditions of asymmetrical engagement, military missions almost inevitably entail civilian casualties. Military leaders must re-conceptualize the effect civilian casualties have on the populations surrounding the terrorist or insurgent. They are frequently interpreted by the population as offensive, and thereby engender an impulse to fight back. As one Palestinian told a reporter: "If we don't fight, we will suffer. If we do fight, we will suffer, but so will they."

Lastly, findings about the way in which people acquire beliefs suggest that a war of ideas will mean nothing unless it resonates emotionally with our targets. Emotional resonance only comes when the values we promote reflect our role in the local realities on foreign ground.

Originally posted by: shruthiravi

@Gayatri yes there are many complexities that binds people to religion. And you put one point. Resonating with emotional connect. The need to go to heaven, a place where you get everything without doing anything and people at your service is the motivation religions give to people. And it actually resonates with the greed of the human mind, just like Asad tells he would like to be in a family like that of Sinha's.

And if you look this greed is camouflaged under various other causes. The real players want control, absolute control on the resources on the earth. And these bali ka bakra are showed the carrot of salvation and asked to fight jihad, holy war, Dharm ki raksha whatever you call it.

And they, they don't even know what the real dharma or real knowledge is. It is like telling Bhagavad Gita propagates war because in it Krishna asks Arjun to fight.

Gita doesn't advocate blood shed. It only ask you to do your duty. And if the duty is on the war field of course you have to fight. Fight can be at various level. Even our moral conflicts are fights.

Same with every religion. If you read other religious books also no book teaches people to wage war. But what to do. All doctrines are manipulated and fed to youngsters.