he/she projects his own personal guilt-driven hate onto those in the developing world, but also those in America as well. We are all agents of hegemony, those who would destroy others. There was nothing compelling in this straw man argument. Does it contribute to the body of understanding? I think not, because it is entirely driven by unsubstantiated bias. What I would want to see is an article covering this topic that doesn't read like a spoiled brat's op-ed. I would want something with some scientific rigor, and with enough humility that the author would understand his biases and the unfounded characteristics the author is projecting on the rest of the world. I feel like the ideas present were basically childish. If you want to take a nugget from this article, then you want to know what really drives people to commit acts of terrorism. It surely isn't poverty, as the terrorists were all middle-class, and it surely isn't outrage over the "system," since none were economists...

From an intellectual standpoint, the article was disappointingly hollow, because it specifically lacked any sense of detachment or any sense of objectivity. There is a lot we can learn about why people undertake such actions -- why this phenomenon of terrorism seems so prevalent in modern times -- but gut, emotional actions are entirely the wrong approach to learning, as is approaching everything from a Western perspective. To imbue this issue with either the arrogance or the guilt of the wealthy creates a false argument that contributes nothing to our understanding of the issue. Sometimes being edgy is more a cry for attention than bona fide original thought. This piece is the former, the so-called original thought doing little more than recycling tired memes about "hegemony" as if the nature human response to hegemony is calculated murder of innocents. History has shown that it is not, save for in the sickest, most abnormal, outlier minds.