B
badnewsbarrett
Guest
I’d like to point out that the continent of Africa has, for several centuries, been the number one place in the world for states that consistently have a status of “fragile” or “failing.” These failing states have sometimes affected Muslims, but just as often they have affected states with little to no Muslim presence, so there are many opportunities for meaningful comparison.This shouldn’t be too surprising to you.
The majority of these militant groups emanate from nations that are for all intents and purposes - failed states.
The Russians seem to think that the only way to govern places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria is through the “Strong-Man” model of government - but of course Putin would encourage that model given his own history. But they do so in the belief that it would be the only way to repress all of these militant groups.
There is a host of issues implicit in what your saying - the largest one being if a person who happens to be Muslim identifies themselves as a member of the political polity which they reside in.
This is where I should congratulate the Americans - as they lead the way in terms of integration of foreigners with differing cultural/ethnic/social/religious backgrounds… hence the reason why they as a Western nation are a much smaller contributor of people joining the ranks of the groups like ISIS.
Contrast this with the Europeans…and the Russians…
One of the primary issues happens to be what level of integration has occurred between the immigrant population and the their host country.
France is notorious for having these issues in terms of the the migrant population that are Muslim even BEFORE this current wave of refugees.
You can find 3rd generation Tunisians/Algerians/Moroccans, et al. who while having been born and raised in France with French as their primary language STILL feel shut out of the society which they supposedly belong to.
So if they can’t identify with the people around them, may draw their sense of Self from another type of community…
…and this is where the problems arise given the options presented to them.
And I notice that over these centuries and across a wide variety of religious groups that have been affected by this instability, this seems to be a pretty reliable formula.
“Failed state” plus “Non Muslims” equals internal and external displacement along with the horrible mistreatment of certain people-groups.
“Failed state” plus “Muslims” equals all of the above, along with the establishment of a terror network that can carry out attacks well beyond the borders of the failed state, and most likely some meaningful investment from a multi-millionaire Muslim who wants to make Death to America possible. Again, this is usually done without any known support from an actual state.
I basically agree with the rest of what you said, and thanks for the compliment to America. I will also add that the US has largely succeeded in being a secular society that is not overly friendly to any one form of religion while being, for the most part, reasonably friendly to religion in general. France is one big example where this has not been the case for the past century or so, maybe more. It’s very secular, but in a way that frequently makes religion- in the abstract- an enemy of the state. These ongoing attacks certainly do not help the issue, but in general, France would do well to try and be a secular society that has a better overall relationship between the state and religion on the whole.