Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
542
7 juillet 2004 — Marc Sageman est un ancien officier de la CIA devenu professeur, et auteur d’un livre récent sur le terrorisme (“Understanding Terror Network”). Le journal pakistanais Daily Times du 6 juillet fait rapport des conceptions de Sageman sur ce qu’on pourrait nommer la “sociologie” des terroristes.
Bien évidemment, comme dans toutes les grandes lignes officielles qui nous sont exposées aujourd’hui, la sociologie qui nous est offerte de terroristes fanatiquement religieux, éventuellement incultes parce que non-civilisés “à l’occidentale”, etc, s’avère complètement fausse, et le produit d’une démarche complètement idéologique, voire raciste. On retrouve le constat déjà fait après l’attaque du 11 septembre 2001 où il s’était avéré que nombre des membres du groupe qui réalisa cette attaque étaient des Saoudiens de bonne famille, de familles riches, élevées à l’occidentale, etc.
« According to Marc Sageman, now a Pennsylvania professor and author of a new book on terrorism, of the 400 members of terrorist networks from North Africa, the Middle East, Malaysia and Indonesia that he studies, 75 percent came from upper or middle-class backgrounds and most also from “caring, intact” families. Sixty percent were college educated and 75 percent could be considered professional or semi-professional. Seventy percent were married and most had children. Only half came from a religious background, and a large group raised in North Africa or France grew up in entirely secular communities, which “refutes the notion of culture, often cited as a factor encouraging terrorism.
» He told a meeting here last month, says a report in the Washington Times Monday, the idea that terrorists were “inherently evil” was false. “None of these guys, really, are evil -though their acts definitely were.” Neither are they mentally ill, he said. Of those studied, he said, only one percent had hints of psychological disorders - the same as the world base rate. “Most of (them) were the elite of the country,” he added.
» Many, his study showed, were sent abroad to study, became lonely and isolated from their communities and cultures, and sought friends among people like themselves. They often found them in groups based around mosques, even if they had little previous interest in religion.
» Seventy percent joined a jihadi group while away from their country of origin, Mr Sageman said, and a further 20 percent were second-generation immigrants. Sixty-eight percent had friends in the jihad and an additional 20 percent had close relatives who were already members. He described the fledgling terrorist at this stage as someone who feels excluded from society and resents this. The mosque provides reasoning to this emotional process: “Society is corrupt, cruel, infected by Western values.”
» He said this is where the notion of the Salafi comes in. He called the Salafi movement inherently a peaceful social movement, with about 30 million followers worldwide. He pointed out that more than half of the terrorists in his sample worshipped at only 10 mosques worldwide. Salafis, he explained, generally advocate the formation of a model Islamic society “based on fairness and justice” by non-violent means. But there is a violent strand, he added. This violent group develops “in-group love and out-group hate. It sees those standing in the way of the true Islamic community as “infidels who, according to distorted interpretations of the Quran, can justifiably be killed. Targets include Arab leaders viewed as oppressive or corrupt, such as the Saudi royal family, and, particularly in the case of networks such as Al Qaeda, the “far enemy,” or those Western countries seen to be aiding such leaders, chiefly the United States.
» The Washington Times report quoted Mr Sageman as saying that the social movement of the Salafi jihad developed over three stages — the first being in Afghanistan during the Soviet war. He rejected the widely-held view that the CIA “created” Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but conceded that “we encouraged indirectly the rise of an Islamist movement ... (and) transformed ... local insurgents against their own governments ... and made (the movement) global over time.” Many foreign fighters were unable to return home after the war in Afghanistan, he added, for political or criminal reasons. In 1991, they were expelled from Pakistan to the Sudan, where they became radicalised. After five years, the most militant returned to Afghanistan, he said, where Bin Laden was setting up his training camps. Within two months, Bin Laden had issued his first fatwa against the West. »
Ces remarques sont évidemment intéressantes, dans le détail sur divers sujets bien sûr, mais d’une façon générale, nous dirions : historique et philosophique.
Ce que fait Sageman d’essentiel, c’est d’écarter la religion comme facteur-clef du terrorisme, et, par extension, il contredit in fine la thèse selon laquelle le terrorisme représente des forces réactionnaires et obscurantistes lancées contre le monde civilisé. Sageman contredit également la thèse, complètement stalinienne et si en vogue chez nos libéraux postmodernes, des terroristes “malades mentaux” (nihilistes par exemple). (« [T]he idea that terrorists were “inherently evil” was false. “None of these guys, really, are evil -though their acts definitely were.” Neither are they mentally ill, he said. Of those studied, he said, only one percent had hints of psychological disorders — the same as the world base rate. »)
Au contraire, Sageman nous montre une typologie du terroriste relevant d’une situation née de la globalisation, d’une situation complètement postmoderne : émigration massive, rupture des liens de communauté et de culture, isolement de l’individu par rapport à son groupe social d’origine. La matière est fondamentalement psychologique, et culturelle à travers cette évolution psychologique. Cela implique que nombre de terroristes ne sont nullement des pauvres ni dans une situation sociale mauvaise ; mais ils sont psychologiquement et socialement isolés, c’est-à-dire confrontés à la névrose engendrée par le modernisme et l’individualisme de l’américanisme. (« Many, his study showed, were sent abroad to study, became lonely and isolated from their communities and cultures, and sought friends among people like themselves. »)
De cette façon générale, on peut voir combien le terrorisme n’est ni la résurgence d’une tension religieuse et raciste (le “choc des civilisations”) ni la résurgence d’un marxisme revu selon les thèses postmodernes et selon une géographie tiers-mondiste (révolte des pauvres et des nouveaux “damnés de la terre”). Il s’agit au contraire d’une révolte fondamentalement de notre temps, contre les perversités de la globalisation et de l’individualisme, contre ses caractères déstructurants et ainsi de suite. L’antiaméricanisme — c’est-à-dire l’attaque contre l’américanisme plus que contre l’Amérique — développé aujourd’hui avec la guerre contre la terreur est donc un phénomène complètement explicable par un lien direct de cause à effet et nullement un accident regrettable ou une conséquence indirecte.
-
