3 ms·

Highly recommend Fareed Zakaria's "Why they hate us", which explores the motives and evolution of ISIS: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/opinions/why-they-hate-us

Highly recommend Fareed Zakaria's "Why they hate us", which explores the motives and evolution of ISIS: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/opinions/why-they-hate-us-zakaria/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/opinions/why-they-hate-us-zaka...

dogma1138 10y ago
TBH the article is pretty shallow and has quite a few factual inaccuracies especially around the treatment of Jews and Christians in the Ottoman empire which wasn't particularly good during any period past the rule of Mehmed the 2nd, under Murat IV the treatment of Jews specifically became quite poor, they've already lost their place at the court for 150+ years, but under Murat they were pretty much exiled to the fringes of the Ottoman Empire. During the 18th and 19th century there were no shortage of pogroms against Jews in Ottoman Empire the the middle east at large, they intensified in the levant following the conquests of Muhammad Ali (pretty much every city that was "liberated" by his forces had a pogrom after party especially Safed and Hebron). The conclusion that it's all about that it's all about geopolitics and economics is also pretty much a "no-brainer", yes it's a major part of it, but it's not the only one there are plenty of countries around the world which have it as bad or worse than the average person living in the middle east and while there is quite a bit of violence in many of those parts it tends to take quite a different shape, form, and intensity. Boiling everything to economics simply doesn't explains everything (or nothing depending on how you look at it). Economics do not explain Osama Bin Laden which was born into one of the richest families on the planet, economics do not explain why 2nd and 3rd generations Muslims and converts from Europe drop from their degree programmes and join ISIS, and economics do not explain Syria which while had a household and average income considerably lower than anything one would expect in the west was still better off than India, Pakistan, Peru and was comparable (or higher) than countries like Moldova and Macedonia which are both EU accession candidates. The fight is not as much of a fight against Islam as a religion, but as it is against Islam as a political ideology so what we need is not as much of a reform as an almost complete decoupling and restructuring of the society and the religion itself, and that unfortunately is a task that will require a considerable amount of time and bloodshed to accomplish. EDIT:Just to make clear this isn't a poke at Fareed himself, while some of his editorials (especially outside of CNN) aren't that bad, the article in question is. It is the essence of the usual shallow article one can expect from CNN these days, it's the last news outlet that still does its best to try and not "offend" anyone but it does mean it employees fairness for fairness sake which usually means you get a very shallow and watered down content without any actual opinions that while it would be upto you to agree or disagree with would at least make you think.
- gkya 10y ago
  " During the 18th and 19th century there were no shortage of pogroms against Jews in Ottoman Empire the the middle east at large, they intensified in the levant following the conquests of Muhammad Ali (pretty much every city that was "liberated" by his forces had a pogrom after party especially Safed and Hebron). " Mind that such pogroms was by levantine and peninsular arab locals, not by the court. Ottoman jews weren't first class citizens, but not second class either. For centuries they were the biggest actors in trade in the empire, until the varlık vergisi of the turkish republic. Even in the worst of imperial times they're better of than european jews who were rogued for jewry. " The fight is not as much of a fight against Islam as a religion, but as it is against Islam as a political ideology so what we need is not as much of a reform as an almost complete decoupling and restructuring of the society and the religion itself, and that unfortunately is a task that will require a considerable amount of time and bloodshed to accomplish. " Nobody has a right to fight against anything but extremist terror. Christianity as a political ideology is present everywhere in Europe, in some countries the ruling party is called "christian democrats". Islamic rule is a right of a people that demand it, and as long as they aren't bothering anyone else, nobody but they have a say. And in Turkey, where I am, islam penetrates the laic state just like christianity does in christian-majority countries. That's what religion does, and is for. Today's islamic extremism is a direct result of european expansionism in the territory that actively continued untill WWII. The national state model was imposed on a territory that's under imperial control for millennia, and the states did not represent the populations. Most of these states were and some still are dictatorships or monarchies, and this adds to it as well. Only Turkey was well off as here we have a sound --although wrong-- turkish national ideidentity P.s. my intention was to counter your points, not to defend the article.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    It really depends on how you define "2nd class citizen". During the 13-15 century the Jews in the Ottoman empire enjoyed quite a bit of freedom, since then it went downhill from silly things like Jews were forbidden to wear silk cloths, to them being forbidden to own land in certain places, to excessive taxation, it really wasn't all peachy. And while I don't want to get into an argument about the role religion does or should play in a democracy, but I'll just say that I think Kemal Ataturk had the right idea. I also completely disagree with you about the source of Islamic Extremism and the cause of it, it's really not a clear cut case as you make it. It's also laughable to claim that only Turkey has a national identity, while it's true for some parts of the middle east (at large) claiming that Iran or Egypt for example do not have a national identity is absurd, and like it or not over the past nearly 100 years quite a few of them formed. You are looking at the middle east as some unique case it is not, many of the nations of Europe was as "young" as most of the middle eastern countries today when WW2 broke out. The German Empire was only founded in 1871. Turkey came out OK because it's mostly came out whole from WW1, and Kamel Ataturk built it into a modern nation, for the longest time it was kept in check by its army and by one of the only functional supreme court's in the region (well at least until recently, some of the things Erdogan did kinda put it now at odds), it also was lucky enough to join NATO which while being "western/european expansionism" really helped to stabilize it.

dogma1138 10y ago

TBH the article is pretty shallow and has quite a few factual inaccuracies especially around the treatment of Jews and Christians in the Ottoman empire which wasn't particularly good during any period past the rule of Mehmed the 2nd, under Murat IV the treatment of Jews specifically became quite poor, they've already lost their place at the court for 150+ years, but under Murat they were pretty much exiled to the fringes of the Ottoman Empire. During the 18th and 19th century there were no shortage of pogroms against Jews in Ottoman Empire the the middle east at large, they intensified in the levant following the conquests of Muhammad Ali (pretty much every city that was "liberated" by his forces had a pogrom after party especially Safed and Hebron). The conclusion that it's all about that it's all about geopolitics and economics is also pretty much a "no-brainer", yes it's a major part of it, but it's not the only one there are plenty of countries around the world which have it as bad or worse than the average person living in the middle east and while there is quite a bit of violence in many of those parts it tends to take quite a different shape, form, and intensity. Boiling everything to economics simply doesn't explains everything (or nothing depending on how you look at it). Economics do not explain Osama Bin Laden which was born into one of the richest families on the planet, economics do not explain why 2nd and 3rd generations Muslims and converts from Europe drop from their degree programmes and join ISIS, and economics do not explain Syria which while had a household and average income considerably lower than anything one would expect in the west was still better off than India, Pakistan, Peru and was comparable (or higher) than countries like Moldova and Macedonia which are both EU accession candidates. The fight is not as much of a fight against Islam as a religion, but as it is against Islam as a political ideology so what we need is not as much of a reform as an almost complete decoupling and restructuring of the society and the religion itself, and that unfortunately is a task that will require a considerable amount of time and bloodshed to accomplish. EDIT:Just to make clear this isn't a poke at Fareed himself, while some of his editorials (especially outside of CNN) aren't that bad, the article in question is. It is the essence of the usual shallow article one can expect from CNN these days, it's the last news outlet that still does its best to try and not "offend" anyone but it does mean it employees fairness for fairness sake which usually means you get a very shallow and watered down content without any actual opinions that while it would be upto you to agree or disagree with would at least make you think.

gkya 10y ago
" During the 18th and 19th century there were no shortage of pogroms against Jews in Ottoman Empire the the middle east at large, they intensified in the levant following the conquests of Muhammad Ali (pretty much every city that was "liberated" by his forces had a pogrom after party especially Safed and Hebron). " Mind that such pogroms was by levantine and peninsular arab locals, not by the court. Ottoman jews weren't first class citizens, but not second class either. For centuries they were the biggest actors in trade in the empire, until the varlık vergisi of the turkish republic. Even in the worst of imperial times they're better of than european jews who were rogued for jewry. " The fight is not as much of a fight against Islam as a religion, but as it is against Islam as a political ideology so what we need is not as much of a reform as an almost complete decoupling and restructuring of the society and the religion itself, and that unfortunately is a task that will require a considerable amount of time and bloodshed to accomplish. " Nobody has a right to fight against anything but extremist terror. Christianity as a political ideology is present everywhere in Europe, in some countries the ruling party is called "christian democrats". Islamic rule is a right of a people that demand it, and as long as they aren't bothering anyone else, nobody but they have a say. And in Turkey, where I am, islam penetrates the laic state just like christianity does in christian-majority countries. That's what religion does, and is for. Today's islamic extremism is a direct result of european expansionism in the territory that actively continued untill WWII. The national state model was imposed on a territory that's under imperial control for millennia, and the states did not represent the populations. Most of these states were and some still are dictatorships or monarchies, and this adds to it as well. Only Turkey was well off as here we have a sound --although wrong-- turkish national ideidentity P.s. my intention was to counter your points, not to defend the article.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  It really depends on how you define "2nd class citizen". During the 13-15 century the Jews in the Ottoman empire enjoyed quite a bit of freedom, since then it went downhill from silly things like Jews were forbidden to wear silk cloths, to them being forbidden to own land in certain places, to excessive taxation, it really wasn't all peachy. And while I don't want to get into an argument about the role religion does or should play in a democracy, but I'll just say that I think Kemal Ataturk had the right idea. I also completely disagree with you about the source of Islamic Extremism and the cause of it, it's really not a clear cut case as you make it. It's also laughable to claim that only Turkey has a national identity, while it's true for some parts of the middle east (at large) claiming that Iran or Egypt for example do not have a national identity is absurd, and like it or not over the past nearly 100 years quite a few of them formed. You are looking at the middle east as some unique case it is not, many of the nations of Europe was as "young" as most of the middle eastern countries today when WW2 broke out. The German Empire was only founded in 1871. Turkey came out OK because it's mostly came out whole from WW1, and Kamel Ataturk built it into a modern nation, for the longest time it was kept in check by its army and by one of the only functional supreme court's in the region (well at least until recently, some of the things Erdogan did kinda put it now at odds), it also was lucky enough to join NATO which while being "western/european expansionism" really helped to stabilize it.