Wondering on how the conclusion is drawn so quickly, on the link between poverty and terrorism, I have only concluded that it is a chain link to the ideology that poverty causes high crime rates. The United States has the highest rates of violent crimes of any industrialized nation (Eitzen and Zinn, 2003) and what sticks out as the major cause of this is the high rate of poverty and the very high degree of inequality in the US. But crime and terrorism, though both not a highlight of society, they are rooted in different places. For crime is often used for personal gain, like theft and murder, but terrorism is a reaction to ideologies and freedoms.
When considering the men who attacked 9/11, men who were well educated and well off, poverty does not explain these horrific acts and nor would trying to explain it in the way of poverty give it any more clarity. It was symbolic for them. It was an idea they were attacking what they thought was worth killing for, destroying for and dying for. The attacks of Mumbai were also not taking out for personal gains. They were attacks on places and people that represented economic and historical differences.
Poverty can be linked with crime, but it is harder to sell poverty and the link of terrorism since it takes those who encompass knowledge of governmental and political issues that causes rage enough to plan and infiltrate an attack. The abstract of Abadie, linking political freedom with terrorism, sheds a light on finding a thread that may help contact the threat of terrorism (Abadie, 2004). Concentrating on sending aid to those countries at higher risk with unstable politics may then be a successful way to counteract terrorism.

“Social Problems” D. Stanley Eitzen and Maxine Baca Zinn 2003

Asking the question of whether or not poverty leads to conditions which support or allow terrorism is a very different one than asking "Does poverty equal inchoate terrorism?" As a poster above noted, were that to be the case, sub-Saharan Africa would be the world leader in birthing terrorists left and right.

It seems that the correct question then, is the first one: "Do impoverished living conditions within a country roughly correlate to the prevalence of terrorist activity?" (I am not quite sure how you measure the second part, but setting that aside, it seems a more useful question.)

Poverty, to me, seems a much more likely enabler of all kinds of nasty behavior, especially when such poverty is seen as being brought upon one group by another. Indeed, it is largely poverty that drives Palestinians to acts of desperate, fruitless rebellion against Israel. The motivation for the actions really matter very little though, whether the desperate Palestinian (just to continue with the example) is impoverished and uneducated or is a wealthy professor, both are equally able of articulating their displeasure with Israel.

To me, the question of whether or not poverty and education directly relate to anecdotal scenarios in which we are asked to explain how national policies result in the actions of an individual or a group of individual is ultimately useless. I imagine, perhaps cynically, that the true use in programs that seek to alleviate poverty and provide educational infrastructure are largely symbolic. Which is not to say at all that they are unimportant. Just as acts of terrorism are symbolic as well as specific, building a school or implementing a program which aids a town or an area may pay dividends in the impression it gives the surrounding areas of those who built the school, or started the program. Just as terrorism is a salient issue even for US citizens who happen to not live in lower Manhattan, so may the beneficial effects of well-intentioned, effective programs be felt by the whole of the country in which they are implemented.

I think that dire poverty (especially when accompanied by a very unequal distribution of income) is definitely conducive to terrorism. Certainly it would be over-simplifying the issue to say that poverty is the sole cause of terrorism, but I think poverty plays a huge role.
First, poverty has a clear relationship with the drug trade. Those who are economically disenfranchised are more likely to resort to drugs. A friend at my school who is from Kandahar tells me that he has seen many unemployed Afghans use opium to pass the time, and that some give opium to their children when they cry or complain of boredom. Some poor neighborhoods in the U.S. and Europe have serious drug problems, and many street gangs sell drugs to raise money. "Paco", smoked chunks of cheap and dangerous low-grade cocaine, plagues the slums of major cities in Argentina and Brazil. Obviously, rich people do drugs too, but poverty seems to increase the chances of encountering drugs. While many anti-drug campaigns might exaggerate the connection between drugs (especially marijuana) and terrorism, it is difficult to deny that the sale of drugs such as ecstasy, cocaine, and heroin help fund organizations with clear terrorist links. Many insurgent groups in Columbia, Peru, and Bolivia garner funds from the cocaine trade. East Asian criminal organizations, who probably would not have serious ethical problems with selling arms to Islamic fundamentalists from Indonesia or the Philippines, benefit immensely from selling and manufacturing ecstasy. Afghanistan has clear problems with terrorism, and both terrorist organizations and corrupt officials profit from the opium and heroin trade. In areas with opium farmers, the local Taliban will often tax the crops or buy and sell it themselves. According to an August 2007 U.N. report, "Afghanistan now accounts for 93 percent of the global production of opium, up from 70 percent in 2000." So, if there's more poverty, there's more drug use, which means groups with terrorist links profit more.
Second, many areas where terrorism thrives have serious poverty issues. The anonymous poster from Taiwan argues that terrorists are motivated by political injustice. He says, "If you want terrorism to end show justice to the Palestinians and the Kashmirs." I think that he is correct in his argument that terrorism is most likely when there's some perception of political injustice. I disagree with the Taiwan poster when he claims that "Terrorism has nothing to do with poverty." I think that a terrorist organization can only receive widespread popular support when a nation or people feel both economically marginalized and politically wronged. Most of the examples he cites pertain to people who feel a sense of political disenfranchisement, but are also poor. Palestinian refugee camps and some areas of Kashmir face considerable poverty. The tribal area of Pakistan has some of the poorest villages and highest unemployment rates in the entire country. Certainly, the territorial disputes in Palestine and Kashmir were the initial cause of tensions, but I think these economic circumstances greatly assist terrorist recruiters. This is because extreme poverty forces people to subsist with very few resources. When territorial disputes arise or a nation imposes economic sanctions on another, people who are very poor are more likely to feel threatened and wronged, because they are faced with losing a more significant share of what they subsist on.
Third, there are different kinds of terrorism. Income inequality has certainly contributed to the global jihad movement associated with Al-Qaeda. However, poverty can also contribute to more localized acts of terrorism. This localized terrorism usually means attacks on domestic government officials and buildings, and attempts to disrupt foreign investment. Of course, not all groups who do these sorts of things are necessarily terrorists, but some certainly are. The anonymous poster from Taiwan points out that if poverty were the greatest cause of terrorism, then sub-saharan africa would lead the world in the number of terrorist attacks. I think this ignores local terrorism in many African nations. Nigeria is one of the top five most developed nations in Africa, yet many workers in Nigeria's oil industry, such as my father, must commute in heavily armed convoys to avoid kidnapping or attacks. Many other nations in Africa face similar problems. Somolia has a dysfunctional state, but certainly if its people were less poor, it might be a less attractive haven for terrorists and pirates.
So I think that poverty seriously contributes to terrorism, both of the global jihadist and more localized varieties, because it adds to political tensions. Also, poverty is indirectly linked with terrorism because poverty is associated with a greater likelihood of resorting to hard drugs, and terrorist organizations profit from the drug trade, particularly the opium and heroin trade.

Previous comments suggest that the correlation of poverty and terrorism is too simple of an approach, but no one highlights what I believe to be the true roots of the problem: disenfranchisement. Poverty is certainly a symptom of these problems, but not a sole cause. I agree with the previous poster from South Africa that terrorism is turned to as a last resort. However, it is important to differentiate the forms of disenfranchisement in order to discuss possible ways to decrease terrorism. We need to look closely at the causes of terror even while acknowledging that we do not find it justifiable. I think there are three main types:

1. Economic disenfranchisement. This is the type most closely linked with the idea that poverty causes terrorism. We see this, as previous posters mention, in places such as Gaza, where the Israeli occupation has denied Palestinians employment opportunities and created a deeply impoverished population. It is thus not unfathomable to imagine that a lack of economic opportunities leads to terrorism but my next points will complicate that link.

2. Political disenfranchisement. When a group is shut out of the political process, they have few avenues open to them to express their needs and interests. Algeria is a good example. The 1992 election, in which an Islamist party won, was annulled. Algeria then spent the next decade embroiled in a civil war, characterized by acts of terror by Islamist groups. Weak democracies are most susceptible to violence – compared to strong democracies and autocracies – because dissent is not satisfactorily incorporated, nor completely suppressed (Barbara Harff, “No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust? Assessing Risks of Genocide and Political Mass Murder since 1955.” American Political Science Review 97.1 2003).

3. Cultural disenfranchisement. I think this area will be increasingly important as globalization accelerates. Turkey is an example. Kurdish culture and language have been historically suppressed by the Turkish government. Turkey has experienced many attacks by the PKK, classified as a terror organization by Turkey, the U.S. and Europe. Maybe the Kurds have been economically disenfranchised, but this would not be a good enough explanation. We should look at the cultural tensions that have developed since Kemal Ataturk established the republic as a secular, Westernized country in the 1920s.

We can see disenfranchisement at the global level as modern technology transmits knowledge of countries and societies around the globe. Poverty becomes inequality, the “Western injustice” that a previous commenter mentions. The dissemination of culture may also intensify feelings of cultural imposition. Underrepresentation in global institutions like the UN or IMF could be a global level of political disenfranchisement.

These examples beg the question: what now? As the original post implies, knowing the causes of terrorism is the first step towards prevention. Development programs are ripe with opportunity. Development is often simplified to simple poverty reduction, but it can touch other areas, seen in the UN Millennium Development Goals. These goals address poverty reduction (Goal 1), and areas of education (Goal 2). Education, like previous posters mention, may increase opportunities. Yet, although the MDGs are a step in the right direction, they are not sufficient. How do we decrease feelings of political and cultural disenfranchisement? This is the question I hope takes on greater attention in future discussions.