• ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I don’t think that’s actually what the problem is. The historical norm appears to be that even extremely brutal wars do not on their own radicalize the defeated population. Look at eastern Europe after World War II - the Soviet Union was quickly able to subjugate it despite having given so many people there ample reason to hate Soviet rule. A more recent example is Putin’s victory against an Islamist insurgency in Chechnya.

    My own impression is that radical Islamism causes wars, rather than the other way around (although I acknowledge that those wars create a feedback loop of more radicalization).

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Extremely brutal wars are one thing. Genocide is another. Islam does value martyrdom and fighting against oppression, but you still need said oppression.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      My own impression is that radical Islamism causes wars, rather than the other way around

      The irony trap in being anti-religious is that one tends to overestimate the power of faith.

    • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The historical norm appears to be that even extremely brutal wars do not on their own radicalize the defeated population.

      What about Germany after WW1?

      Maybe you’re right about wars overall but I think it’s quite different if innocent people were murdered en masse in an open air prison. The only way to stop the continued suffering is to overthrow the oppressor.

      That would require an independent Palestinian state but somehow that doesn’t seem likely.