5 ms·

For anyone looking for a primer on jihad, and the influence of Saudi Wahhabism here is a great read: https://www.amazon.com/Future-Jihad-Terrorist-Strategies-ag

For anyone looking for a primer on jihad, and the influence of Saudi Wahhabism here is a great read: https://www.amazon.com/Future-Jihad-Terrorist-Strategies-against/dp/1403975116/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468842201&sr=1-1&keywords=future+jihad https://www.amazon.com/Future-Jihad-Terrorist-Strategies-aga... Walid Phares wrote 10 years ago that Europe was going to experience a wave of attacks, and also foresaw the Arab Spring.

retox 10y ago
To be fair a prediction of unrest in the middle east/Africa doesn't require much insight. I predict there will be unrest for the next 50 years at least.
- imglorp 10y ago
  It doesn't help there are 1st world influences mucking up the natural ecosystem there. For example, US attempting to overthrow Assad is not a natural process. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies...
  - varjag 10y ago
    Leaving aside how much of your statement is true, there is no such thing as natural process in international relations. The only concept approaching that would be social darwinism, but from that perspective it would be quite "natural".
  - jbooth 10y ago
    Dude. We talking about animals here? Their natural ecosystem? People deserve more respect than that.
    - trelltron 10y ago
      Ecosystem: a complex network or interconnected system.
      - hx87 10y ago
        There's hardly anything "natural" about human ecosystems, or human relationships for that matter.
        0xfeba 10y ago
        Depends on your definition of natural. The religious claim of 'special creation', esp. w.r.t. humans has it easy here: > existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature This definition really stems from man's early assumption that we are distinctly "different" from all other natural things. But reality tells us otherwise: People are a part of nature; they are natural. It's easier to discuss in terms of what isn't the same instead of what is the same. And that is, we are the smartest known species (being the sole species with self-consciousness is still up for debate). Therefore everything people do is natural.
        hx87 10y ago
        So either everything humans do is natural or nothing humans do is natural. Either way, it's incorrect to say that 1st world actions in the Middle East are any more "unnatural" than what the indigenous people do.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - imglorp 10y ago
      That was kinda my point. As long as they're being okay neighbors and keeping the human rights violations in line, IMHO countries deserve self determination without the superpowers bullying via overthrowing (Assad)--or just plain invading (eg Ukraine).
      - jbooth 10y ago
        That's a reasonable point (although it's not like Assad is short on human rights violations), but implying there's some sort of "natural line of development" that would have happened without interaction with the west really strikes me as (unintentionally) racist.
        imglorp 10y ago
        No, I was making an obtuse reference to non-interference. Perhaps a poor metaphor.
g8oz 10y ago
For those who don't know Walid Phares was a high ranking political official in a Christian religious militia responsible for civilian massacres during Lebanon's civil war. Now he's a favorite Islam "scholar" for right-wing reactionaries in the U.S.
- whoopdedo 10y ago
  He may be a demagogue. But is his analysis wrong?

retox 10y ago

To be fair a prediction of unrest in the middle east/Africa doesn't require much insight. I predict there will be unrest for the next 50 years at least.

imglorp 10y ago
It doesn't help there are 1st world influences mucking up the natural ecosystem there. For example, US attempting to overthrow Assad is not a natural process. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies...
- varjag 10y ago
  Leaving aside how much of your statement is true, there is no such thing as natural process in international relations. The only concept approaching that would be social darwinism, but from that perspective it would be quite "natural".
- jbooth 10y ago
  Dude. We talking about animals here? Their natural ecosystem? People deserve more respect than that.
  - trelltron 10y ago
    Ecosystem: a complex network or interconnected system.
    - hx87 10y ago
      There's hardly anything "natural" about human ecosystems, or human relationships for that matter.
      - 0xfeba 10y ago
        Depends on your definition of natural. The religious claim of 'special creation', esp. w.r.t. humans has it easy here: > existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature This definition really stems from man's early assumption that we are distinctly "different" from all other natural things. But reality tells us otherwise: People are a part of nature; they are natural. It's easier to discuss in terms of what isn't the same instead of what is the same. And that is, we are the smartest known species (being the sole species with self-consciousness is still up for debate). Therefore everything people do is natural.
        hx87 10y ago
        So either everything humans do is natural or nothing humans do is natural. Either way, it's incorrect to say that 1st world actions in the Middle East are any more "unnatural" than what the indigenous people do.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - imglorp 10y ago
    That was kinda my point. As long as they're being okay neighbors and keeping the human rights violations in line, IMHO countries deserve self determination without the superpowers bullying via overthrowing (Assad)--or just plain invading (eg Ukraine).
    - jbooth 10y ago
      That's a reasonable point (although it's not like Assad is short on human rights violations), but implying there's some sort of "natural line of development" that would have happened without interaction with the west really strikes me as (unintentionally) racist.
      - imglorp 10y ago
        No, I was making an obtuse reference to non-interference. Perhaps a poor metaphor.

g8oz 10y ago

For those who don't know Walid Phares was a high ranking political official in a Christian religious militia responsible for civilian massacres during Lebanon's civil war. Now he's a favorite Islam "scholar" for right-wing reactionaries in the U.S.

whoopdedo 10y ago
He may be a demagogue. But is his analysis wrong?