i lived there, gulf monarchies are financing construction of mosques all over the *stans, and are sending people to "study islam" in ... Pakistan and Bangladesh, where they are radicalized and brainwashed.
various conflicts in Causasus in russia - where caucasians were bankrolled and brainwashed via gulf money (dagestan and chechnya)
> Afghanistan was relatively open during US and USSR occupations
Coincidentally in both cases the administrations propped up by US/USSR were thoroughly corrupted, incompetent and abusive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi) so that even the Taliban became relatively appealing to most people.
> Iraq after occupation was relatively open, yet ISIS ideology took off
That was to a large degree just the extension of the whole Shia vs Sunni conflict/civil war which began immediately after the invasion.
Also I'm not sure what do you mean by "open" in all of the cases (besides post 2001 Afghanistan) the countries we ran by semi-secular authoritarian dictatorships which kept the Islamists in check. Most of the population would have (and eventually did) supported them if they were given a choice (like in Egypt).
The USSR was brutal autocracy. Us military occupation was also brutal and not free.
Iran was a brutal autocracy.
Egypt was a brutal military dictatorship.
Turkey is a great example, tbh. The level of radicals and terrorism there is far less than anything else we've described because it has open democracy. If anything, the big terrorists in Turkey are separatists which every nation, even European ones, has to fight.
Iraq after brutal military occupation? All of what you're talking about about are scenarios where brutal authoritarianism led to extremists gaining popularity because they are an excellent alternative to brutal one-man repression of an entire people.
> Turkey are separatists which every nation, even European ones, has to fight.
Generally only undemocratic/oppressive countries have to do that. e.g. violence in the Basque country, Northern Ireland etc. was solved by giving the local people a voice and stopping previous abuses. Escalation of violence was always the outcome of failures by the state rather than started by the "separatists".
Also Turkey only had or has "open democracy" to a very limited state. It was never more than a deeply flawed democracy at best.
> Iraq after brutal military occupation?
I don't think the occupation was even remotely more brutal than Saddam's reign in the 80s and 90s. Most of the casualties were the result of the civil war/conflict between Shia/Sunnis/other factions and general lawlessness. Much of that could have been prevented had the occupation actually been more brutal/oppressive (of course far from ideal either..).
Egypt had been a brutal autocracy for years which led to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and just when democracy finally peaked its head out, bam, back to brutal military dictatorship.
You may not believe in democracy, but I do. Democracies lead to progress in nations and balance in political systems around the world. Closed political systems lead to the rise of revolutionaries and in the Muslim world those are Islamic and often extreme
Gaza/Israel is not an open political system. They are subjects and born in a state that doesn't grant them the rights of people equally subject to and born in the same area.
My entire point was that closed political systems embolden radicals, Gaza makes that point extremely well. When you have zero chance of having a say in the government that controls all your borders, any and all food allowed into your area, any and all job prospects you have, etc. that's fertile ground for radicals.
If Israel were a democracy (e.g. open political system) instead of having the majority of its subjects unable to vote or move freely within the land, it's obvious there would be no Hamas.
Citizens of Gaza are not citizens neither subjects of Israel. Israeli citizens vote on Israeli elections, PA citizens vote on PA elections and Gaza citizens vote on Gaza elections. Israel doesn't occupy Gaza and doesn't control all the borders either — that's Israel and Egypt. And both of these countries decided to close borders and install maritime blockade only after Hamas stated indiscriminate attacks against civilians, which happened after it came to power.
They are not citizens (Israel considers them stateless) but they are subject to Israeli law and rule at every turn. Nothing can go into or out of Gaza, not even food, not even collected rainwater, without Israeli permission.
The point is, it's as closed a political system as it gets. No matter what the polity does, their situation cannot change because they have no rights in the government that controls their lives (Israel)
Palestine is not a country according to Israel and they do not treat anyone living there as a citizen of a separate country.
No country in the world has total control of any other country's electricity, food rationing, water rationing, import / export, ability to work, ability to depart and arrive from the country.
You constantly mention Egypt as if it somehow makes all the facts I've stated false. But it does not. If they cooperate to create the same situation the situation does not change. There are still 2 million stateless people whose electricity, food, water, internet, and basically all access to the outside world is controlled by governments they are not citizens of.
No it doesn't. Provide one example where this has happened?