Re: Re:
Maxiton said:
rhubroma said:
Maxiton said:
rhubroma said:
It's important to remember what is useful, not expedient.
Almost all the terrorism is perpetrated from the sons of immigrants from the Magherb. The fathers conformed to non-acceptance under the circumstantial regime. Having been uprooted from the old colony of provenance, they unstoically molded their rancor on their sons. The sons, under the same conditions, didn't accept the holes in the soul their fathers were willing to put down against their will. Eventually they have found their "identity" among hacks and charlatans and the fatal consequences this presupposes.
I'm not buying. Look at what Attaturk did with, or to, Islam and Arabism and in vastly different times. He didn't have this problem, or not anywhere to this extent, anyway. (Likewise, on a smaller but no less potentially lethal scale, Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore.)
That was in the Muslim context...Lee Kuan Yew was Cambridge forged under circumstances not comparable to the inimical rapor between Europe and its Arabic ventures. I don't see a mass Singaporean ired class in the various banlieue around these parts. Context is of course everything.
I don't see how you can dismiss what Attaturk did with the simple sentence "That was in the Muslim context". It may appear to
us to be "the Muslim context" but just try posing that suggestion to the Muslims of his place and time. It's true that he did not succeed in fully modernizing Turkish Islam, but he certainly went a long way towards it, and secularized the state. As to your other objection, most of Europe's Arabic ventures, historically, have an Oxbridge source, or at least rely on Oxbridge expertise, just as in Singapore.
I don't think Islam is all that intractable, truth be known. Where it has regressed, or remains regressive, it does so for purposes other than its own.
You've missed my point and made an incongruent comparison.
Attaturk's agenda was pushed in a country with a long sovereign history of its own. Though under Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Turkey has certainly regressed. By contrast, the Magrheb nations were fabricated under colonial impetus. A colonial impetus that, for many factors, has in its wake contributed to fabricating monsters. The majority of terrorists in Europe are, as I have previously stated, the sons of immigrants from the Magrheb. This is a fact. It is thus a home grown phenomenon. These folks were never given, nor have they absorbed the cultural values of the places from which their parents came, but the rancor yes.
Not having been transmitted a solid foundation, an alive and serene culture - neither from their parents, nor from the ex-colonial occupier, now unwilling heir - they have from the slums been left to the streets, pure case, destiny. But this wasn't a fortuitous ontology.
In France immigration is one of the consequences of colonialization, which isn't the case with Turks. The immigrant population didn't benefit from recognition, nor was it given attention, but only the banlieues. Racism developed in enormous proportions, above all after the war in Algeria (1954-1962). The repatriated from Algeria suffered for the loss of what they considered their homeland. The nasty conditions and painful return to France, was thus accompanied by a sense of injustice and resentment. The immigrants, notwithstanding the work they performed, didn't receive a correct and dignified treatment. And they kept quiet. However the fathers did transmit the sense of defeat and impotance to their sons (and their sons, sons). Some of these latter, consciously or unconsciously, have desired to "vindicate" their fathers by killing innocents.
The vast magority of immigrant sons were transmitted this ontological insecurity, though despite this fortunately haven't take up jihad. Yet it is upon this facet that the "Islamic State" attempts to gain recruits through its diabolical propaganda. By promissing vendetta and death, in assuring a radiant future to these abandoned teens of Europe, it provides them on the one hand with a way out and, on the other, an objective that gives their lives a sense. It says: "You haven't found a sense to your lives, well then, we propose giving a sense to your deaths by fighting on the "Road to God" (
Fi sabilillah), which leads to paradise." At the same time it presents the West as purely materialistic, devoid of any spirituality and without those divine values it regards as the beginning and the end of humanity. Certain immigrant sons have taken to heart this sermon and were disposed to follow its calling to the bitter end.
Sniper's reference to an "industry" of jihad is thus not that far fetched. I'd say, among privileged Arabs today, the Oxbridge source is purely formal and instrumental in forging the future business class to the oppressive regimes. On a contrary note, however, I did recently meet two Saudi Arabian women traveling alone, without hijabs, secular and fully contemporary in the usual Western sense. Never having been to Saudi Arabia they said, when I asked, they probably represented about 10% of their population and that they needed to be very discrete and prudent with it not to get incarcerated.
PS. As far as the "Muslim context" goes its important to distinguish Turks from Arabs, the latter having also been inflamed, by now for decades, by what is regard as the Palestinian genocide.