Modernism was touted by the Ba'athists, and the Nasserites, and the pan-Arabists for a time.
There is no one more keen on acquiring modern implements of destruction than terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, but that doesn't prevent them from desiring a return to pre- medieval times.
The remark most often made whenever another Yankee cap-wearing, boombox-carrying, seemingly "modern" Muslim goes on a self-immolation mission that results in the deaths of scores of his purported countrymen-the humans that live in his adopted nation, a nation that has embraced him, but which he has rejected-is how conflicted he was before finalizing his kamikaze mission.
It is an irreconcilable internal conflict.
Don't trust me, read Dalrymple.
And I have no idea what you were implying in your previously posted comment.
Are you seriously implying that we should normalize diplomatic relations with Iran or Syria?
I don't know if this has dawned on you, but we tried the "engagement" strategy with both of those nations-especially the IRI-and it was a miserable, unmitigated failure.
Absolutely not. They are lost causes. But they demonstrate what happens when we severe our opportunities to provide a positive influence. Those countries are moving backwards while the rest of the Middle East moves forwards. Severing ties wasn't our choice or our fault. And I believe both Syria and Iran should pay the penalty for breaking away. But in the meantime, they remain the regions greatest incubators of anti-western nutjobs, while countries like Bahrain sponsor Formula 1 races, and the UAE sponsors tennis and golf tournaments. Clearly, our "engagement" strategy with those countries is working just fine.