Mass passivity and elite dissatisfaction may account for some of what has taken place with terrorist groups. They are the minority, and dissatisfied with the world. They are not the elite. Are the elite dissatisfied? It's hard for me to see this in that the elite usually are on a socioeconomic level that far exceeds that of the common man. Money doesn't buy happiness, but it sure makes life easier in many ways. Mass passivity I can see more clearly, but I see it with people that lack motivation. Those who are passive are not the kind to rise up and change the world. They often just don't care. (I may be seeing this too much from a US standpoint and not enough with a wider world-vision.)
Putting these two together, does it create an environment that appeals to terrorists or makes it easier for them to operate? I may be missing the point, but mass passivity will generally last until someone tries to take the right to that passivity away (though pohnpei397 makes a good point about a passive mentality allowing things to take place because they don't care).
As others have noted, there has to be some truth to "revolution" in the face of social inequality. We have seen it in the US and French Revolutions. I agree, too, that some people may think they speak for the masses, who don't necessarily agree with terrorist acts. This all seems to echo Margaret Mead's quote:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
Unfortunately, these committed "terrorists" are changing the world in ways most of us want no part of.