Al-Qaida likely to attack US, intel says

As always, click on the title to see the referenced article.

I have spent a long time... many, many hours, trying to figure out what could or would be the possible benefit for "terrorist" groups to blow up innocent people, whether that be in the U.S., Iraq, Israel, or anywhere else, for that matter. Really, what are those folks trying to prove? "Do what we want or we will blow you up?" Does that make any sense? "Those people" (you decide for yourself who "those people" are) "are nothing but a bunch of violent, religious fanatics." Hardly. That logic doesn't make any sense, either.

I have finally come to a conclusion. My conclusion is, Terrorism, and, by that I mean suicide bombers, planes flown into big buildings, anything like that, is a Fund Raiser, in much the same way that some religious groups do mission/service trips.

For example, one of the way a church in this country may choose to raise funds is by doing some sort of "good work", like sending a group of people to New Orleans to help with clean up, for example. Before the actual trip takes place, the church may bring it up during collections or even by a direct mailing campaign to get people to contribute to this mission. This is how the trip is funded, and most of the money collected will probably go to the cost of the trip itself. While folks are down there working, there are pictures taken, and, usually, a minister will go with them. Then when they all get back, the pictures, which are pictures of people everyone knows from the congregation, dressed in hazmat suits shoveling muck in ruined houses, are published in the church bulletins, news letters, direct mailings, and anything else where the church can ask people for more money. This shows the people with the wallets what good work their church actually does, makes them feel good, and makes them want to be a part of that by contributing more money.

There is nothing wrong with this. This is how non-profit fundraising works, whether it is a religious organization, a charitable organization, or saving the whales. They ask their donors for money to do specific things, then they show their donors what they did, so that their donors will be more inclined to donate.

I am thinking, at this point, that we can view "al-Qaida", and similar groups, as "non-profit organizations". I think they are collecting money from donors, and then, when they pull off these big, deadly explosions and it makes lots of press, then their donors are more likely to donate again.

Now, I am not saying that blowing up people is morally the same as feeding hungry children. It is not. However, one of the Five Pillars of Islam is Zakah, or "alms-giving", and the amount given is based on the giver's wealth. So, my guess is that people who donate to terrorism see some benefit to themselves. Obviously, large numbers of very poor, oppressed, depressed people are going to feel angry at U.S. apparent affluence and conspicuous consumption. It is the rule in non-profit fundraising that the most amount of money comes from large numbers of small donations.

How about wealthy people, though? Who, among the world's wealthiest people, could benefit the most from a destabilization of the U.S. economy? This is a question that I don't have an answer for, but I would guess it has something to do with oil production. I am a religious scholar, not a macro-economist, and I will be the first to admit it.

However, I would be interested in hearing from people who ARE macro-economists. The bottom line here is this: In all things, follow the money.