Oil quotation excluding Dollars: should we save the USA, Iran or the world?

[Obamot]

This is obviously a complex reality, but Obamot is right to point out that it is not simply an accommodation of certain features of modernity by an archaic structure. This is something reactionary in relation to a modernity to which access is forbidden because of the non-competitiveness of the countries of the periphery (this is valid on a smaller scale for the "técis") in relation to the technological advance of the central countries. This impossibility results in the condemnation of the object of desire and its prohibition in the name of Islamic values ​​which is the ideological shell available to shelter this thwarted mimetic desire. Admittedly, this does not prevent the use of the products of modernity, nor financing by oil revenue, with the dollars of Western countries, but none of this is opposed to preaching moral radicalism in the private domain. ..
The analysis of Jean.caissepas is very relevant: radical Islam tries to recreate the human links lost by the subject of the commodity which mediates its relations through things. There is an interesting quote that I deliver to your attention: "Western values ​​are Western values, Islamic values ​​are universal values." Mahatir ibn Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Not if we consider that its actors were necessarily FIRST addicted in their childhood / adolescence to technologies, smartphones, computer video games, doing in the "m'a-tu-vuisme" as "fashion victims", beautiful cars, big brands, beautiful watches, crazy dreams, the search for success to display it and compete at all costs with the image of an idealized father...

Not really:

But answer Ahmed then...?

This makes me immerse myself in the reflections of the time, a perilous exercise. But have there been any major changes since then?

Ahmed had posted on 30/01/15, 02:37 this other quote:

But in reality capitalism has no head, no regulatory center, it is only partly driven by conscious intentions and the conspiracy theories which are multiplying today are, paradoxically, desperate efforts of reason to keep (in the imagination) control over processes that escape him.

Bertrand Méheust, P.48, in "The nostalgia of the occupation".

societe-et-philosophie/comment-les-usa-dirigent-le-monde-video-t12212-180.html?hilit=Abou%20Bakr%20al%20Baghdadi#p282436

Is it according to this principle that Jihadism was born? (Also read my post which preceded his, it was messy at the time...) The thread being locked, I answer here,

Taliban:
Birth of the movement
Originally, the Taliban were the pupils of the Deobandi religious schools created in the refugee camps in Pakistan. During the Soviet withdrawal, they extended their activity to Afghan territory. They provide a few volunteers to the mujahideen, but still only play a minor role. According to the tradition of the movement, it was in 1994 that Mullah Omar and his students took up arms to protect the local population, following two attacks: the rape and murder of two young girls by a gang leader, then the death of a young man disputed between two gang leaders. They receive the support of the Pakistani ISI and the powerful corporation of truckers, who appeal to them to put an end to banditry on the road which connects Pakistan to Central Asia.

(wiki)
Not really the "top" of modernity or "fashion".

Yes and no, it's true but rather no. If you are talking about Sunnis.
(I wouldn't want to answer in Ahmed's place, but I'm trying to answer), you don't consider the Salafists.
The Taliban, which means “students”, incarnate well by their very name, this aspect of modernity. Why?
Jihadism is a neologism (which predates 1994 since it appears in the 80s).
It was completely new and a diversion of meaning, since basically jihad does not mean “holy war” (how could a war be “holy” anyway?) but means a fight against oneself (against his own demons?)

From there, from this “dogmatic recovery”, the Taliban become ideological victims, sacrificial in the sense of “cannon fodder” to defend the “cause” superior to the height of their own existence — this kamikaze aspect, quest for the ultimate sacrifice is highly sought after (hence the suicide attacks) because it would give the sacrificed a VIP ticket to nirvana. It's perfectly new and a diversion of ultra archaic values ​​at the same time. It is the historical movement, with an archaic foundation but more than modern in its deviant formulation.

I'm afraid once again that your ignorance of the files has led you to a hasty judgement, it's an observation, not a criticism.

Beware, how do you know if we were talking about the Taliban / Al Qaeda or Daesh (Salafism)? — which is a competing Islamist brood and composed essentially of enrollment of “foreigners” in these movements (except at the very beginning), such as Abdelhamid Abaaoud, or Salah Abdeslam, not at all Taliban (=students) at the base. I was thinking of them here:
societe-et-philosophie/uniondesdroites2022-eric-zemmour-va-gagner-la-presidentielle-2022-t17104-440.html#p491163 (and I was just giving an example to challenge your semantic reversal)

Moreover, those who enlisted, did not know in which branch they were going to end up, sometimes they changed branches along the way... Finding themselves sometimes with Daesh, sometimes Al Nusra... And it was not something "arrested" since to top it off, they were fought by Shiites from Iran, coming to lend a hand to the Sunni forces of Bashar, even though the Taliban would be of the same origin.... The jihadists sometimes did not know not where they were either, they sacrificed many of their people on the altar of their confusions...

There are different theses on the origins of the Taliban or the jihadist ideology. The Americans are behind these movements, they don't even hide it anymore (see my post from the time), it is also not clear who their leader really was, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Mossad agent or what whether... It remains controversial.

I would end by saying that the Taliban are nevertheless also “modern” since they are “neo-fundamentalists”, even if in both movements, the stigmata of a certain archaism are present.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

The Taliban are Salafists and mostly Pashtuns (at first). These guys live like in the Middle Ages and owning smartphones doesn't change that. The Taliban are at the origin of the Islamist attacks and even if they were "created" by the CIA to piss off the Russians, "the creature" quickly freed itself from its creator. Today reigns in the Islamist movement, a mess not possible.

[Obamot]

So if even your links say the opposite of what you post, you fall into contradiction.

Besides, you didn't read me well and not with the kindness required.

And that benet from Végaz who voted for you...

It's cool who you attract: izentrop, Végaz, hats off!

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

So if even your links say the opposite of what you post, you fall into contradiction.

I posted links? Is that so...

[Obamot]

The Taliban are salafists

So if even your links say the opposite of what you post, you fall into contradiction.

I posted links? Is that so...

Not really:

Taliban:
Birth of the movement
Originally, the Taliban were students of religious schools deobandi [...]

(Wiki)

1C8C328E-49B4-4708-8556-251255A11EBB.jpeg (369.62 Kio) Consulté 1067 fois

QED.

[Ahmed]

I do not really believe that it is wise to persist in discovering the historical sources of these movements, insofar as there is what is claimed and perceived by the interested parties and the underlying and unconscious reality which moves them. . This is what my previous messages referred exclusively to: why should radical Islamists be more aware of this than the Western subject, who is also subject to the form of market society?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

No, but Obamot is right, I messed up writing Salafist. Stupid mental confusion since bin Laden was a Sunni. I don't know why I wrote it, sometimes it happens.

Ps: Salafism is a Sunni current.

[Obamot]

Ah, you're doing like Végaz now, you stop at a detail to hide the gaps. And now to make me look like an idiot, when the demonstration wasn't about that, we're only talking about your procrastination and assertions, but
whether jihadism “was a modern current or not?"

As a reminder,
today at 17:23 you wrote taken from wikipedia

Originally, the Taliban were students of religious schools deobandi

today at 19:30 p.m. I answered you this, I mean:

Yes and no, it's true but rather no [...] If you're talking about Sunnis. you don't consider the salafists.

today at 19:36 p.m. you answered this:

The Taliban are Salafists

Today at 19:47 p.m. I answered you this:

So if even your links say the opposite of what you post, you fall into contradiction.

Well then since you say it now, why didn't you say it before? Before you posted “deobandi”
It's simple, because in the meantime you've made inquiries to post this and make me look like an idiot...

As I already said at: 19:30 p.m., clearly.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Aren't you tired of gesticulating in your paranoia, by force?

[Obamot]

Gesticulate? And making others look like idiots with .gifs and then a little nutty text isn't it gesticulating?

There is however a difference betweena Sunni school of thought” and its harsh application in Salafism!

To be correct (referring to your late remarks) it was necessary to write from the outset: “Originally, the Taliban are Salafis”.
And it would still be to check with the dates you give.
Because you gave 1994, but it's not the beginning: if Hekmatyar joined the Taliban in 1992, it's because they existed before. 2nd error.