Not only that, this is the exact same shit that Saudi Arabia did to get rid of a boat-load of their radicals. They urged them to go to Afghanistan, and then refused to allow any back.
I don't know if it's possible that I can blame them too much because they literally did it before while we watched, told us what we were doing, and have actively warned us when it became obvious that some of these guys they got rid of were a danger to us. Even the fucking Taliban did this.
Worse, as Iraq has seen with Iraqi 2nd generation immigrants returning to Iraq from Sweden, the Muslims coming back to the Arab world are more radical than the ones that Left, and they are trying to close their border to western Muslim migration. They know what's going on, they're trying to stop -themselves- from suffering the consequences for it.
Looks like Westernization has an acceptance:failure ratio. When it fails, it just strengthens preexisting ethnic chains, almost like a forging process while away from the "tribe."
Thus, the West has to be cognizant of the "ethinic chains" its importing, lest assimilation fail and they face a cultural-rebound in their face. They didn't do this, and its obvious now.
That being said, what is it about the West that makes this "rebound" even toxic to the original stock tribe/population, so much so that they would deny re-entry?
Is it the fact that individualism is so unique, that without the ancillary values of the West, it is destructive to LITERALLY any culture that embraces it?
Is there really something special about West's immune system to classical liberalism and individualism, that it is still able to mend it with pragmatism (social, economic, etc).
Its really interesting how only Europe and Some East Asian countries have been able to embrace these aspects, and thrive instead of dying. All the while, other countries have to reject these, or die.
Not only that, this is the exact same shit that Saudi Arabia did to get rid of a boat-load of their radicals. They urged them to go to Afghanistan, and then refused to allow any back.
I don't know if it's possible that I can blame them too much because they literally did it before while we watched, told us what we were doing, and have actively warned us when it became obvious that some of these guys they got rid of were a danger to us. Even the fucking Taliban did this.
Worse, as Iraq has seen with Iraqi 2nd generation immigrants returning to Iraq from Sweden, the Muslims coming back to the Arab world are more radical than the ones that Left, and they are trying to close their border to western Muslim migration. They know what's going on, they're trying to stop -themselves- from suffering the consequences for it.
Looks like Westernization has an acceptance:failure ratio. When it fails, it just strengthens preexisting ethnic chains, almost like a forging process while away from the "tribe."
Thus, the West has to be cognizant of the "ethinic chains" its importing, lest assimilation fail and they face a cultural-rebound in their face. They didn't do this, and its obvious now.
That being said, what is it about the West that makes this "rebound" even toxic to the original stock tribe/population, so much so that they would deny re-entry?
Is it the fact that individualism is so unique, that without the ancillary values of the West, it is destructive to LITERALLY any culture that embraces it?
Is there really something special about West's immune system to classical liberalism and individualism, that it is still able to mend it with pragmatism (social, economic, etc).
Its really interesting how only Europe and Some East Asian countries have been able to embrace these aspects, and thrive instead of dying. All the while, other countries have to reject these, or die.