Your analysis of ‘political Islam’ and its application seems to wholly ignore the overwhelming effects of ‘western’ colonialism in Islamic regions over the past 500 years. Western colonialism is not an ‘underlying cause’ - it is the main driver of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. The history of Islamic lands has been an almost perpe…
Your analysis of ‘political Islam’ and its application seems to wholly ignore the overwhelming effects of ‘western’ colonialism in Islamic regions over the past 500 years. Western colonialism is not an ‘underlying cause’ - it is the main driver of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. The history of Islamic lands has been an almost perpetual history of penetration and manipulation by first of all Europe and now Europe and the US. Much of the terrorism they now apply has been learned from the colonisers, and this responsibility can not be shrugged off as a ‘possible’ and mere ‘underlying cause’ - it is a huge presence in Islamic history. (You say yourself that in the case of Lebanon that it is “dominated by the interests of foreign powers”.)
The scenario you describe under ’throwing money at a problem’ is fair as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. The real problem with such endeavours is that they are carried out by people who have no real cultural understanding of any particular problem, no education as to what the problem really is, or why their understanding is faulty, and this is very often accompanied by ulterior motives which work against the actual goal. In short, the funds and directionality are held in the hands of outsiders.
Ultimately the ‘underlying problem’! is that much of the money in the world is held, distributed, used and profited from, by the ‘west’ - which too, has been and is warped by this very factor throughout its history.
Further, your dismissal of ‘underlying causes’ is, in my opinion, faulty. To illustrate, using your parable of the bridge, an underlying cause is very clear - the bridge was badly made. Further to that, it could possibly be the case that the bridge was badly made because the manufacturer worked, not in a society where workmanship and honesty were valued, but in one where profits and undercutting were the norm. That completes the analysis - in the case of the bridge there is no real need to go further into the causes of why the society is like that - the particular case is sufficiently described. This principle of ‘sufficient cause’ can be widely applied to prevent an unmanageable regression.
Well, read a history of the crusades, then maybe about the behaviour of the occupying French and English colonial regimes in Algeria, Syria, Iraq, etc. then go on to the war in Iraq and Abu Ghraib. The colonising powers used extreme torture, lack of respect for the lives of the indigenous inhabitants, bombed completely innocent villages from the air, etc. etc. Theirs was a policy of terrorism to keep the subject populations subjected.
Your analysis of ‘political Islam’ and its application seems to wholly ignore the overwhelming effects of ‘western’ colonialism in Islamic regions over the past 500 years. Western colonialism is not an ‘underlying cause’ - it is the main driver of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. The history of Islamic lands has been an almost perpetual history of penetration and manipulation by first of all Europe and now Europe and the US. Much of the terrorism they now apply has been learned from the colonisers, and this responsibility can not be shrugged off as a ‘possible’ and mere ‘underlying cause’ - it is a huge presence in Islamic history. (You say yourself that in the case of Lebanon that it is “dominated by the interests of foreign powers”.)
The scenario you describe under ’throwing money at a problem’ is fair as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. The real problem with such endeavours is that they are carried out by people who have no real cultural understanding of any particular problem, no education as to what the problem really is, or why their understanding is faulty, and this is very often accompanied by ulterior motives which work against the actual goal. In short, the funds and directionality are held in the hands of outsiders.
Ultimately the ‘underlying problem’! is that much of the money in the world is held, distributed, used and profited from, by the ‘west’ - which too, has been and is warped by this very factor throughout its history.
Further, your dismissal of ‘underlying causes’ is, in my opinion, faulty. To illustrate, using your parable of the bridge, an underlying cause is very clear - the bridge was badly made. Further to that, it could possibly be the case that the bridge was badly made because the manufacturer worked, not in a society where workmanship and honesty were valued, but in one where profits and undercutting were the norm. That completes the analysis - in the case of the bridge there is no real need to go further into the causes of why the society is like that - the particular case is sufficiently described. This principle of ‘sufficient cause’ can be widely applied to prevent an unmanageable regression.
"Much of the terrorism they now apply has been learned from the colonisers"
What do you mean by this?
Well, read a history of the crusades, then maybe about the behaviour of the occupying French and English colonial regimes in Algeria, Syria, Iraq, etc. then go on to the war in Iraq and Abu Ghraib. The colonising powers used extreme torture, lack of respect for the lives of the indigenous inhabitants, bombed completely innocent villages from the air, etc. etc. Theirs was a policy of terrorism to keep the subject populations subjected.