Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Dexter Filkins on ISIS as more death cult than political movement.

I like everything you say in the review, Riku, that's more or less my take too, but the quote in the updates makes me doubt Filkins' voice....something about it...it's the comparing with the West that does it, I think, so that you realise everything he says must come through that same filter. That's why I'm often disappointed by books striving to present an accurate portrait of one part of the world when written by someone from another...sorry, I'm not explaining this very well...

Fionnuala wrote: "I like everything you say in the review, Riku, that's more or less my take too, but the quote in the updates makes me doubt Filkins' voice....something about it...it's the comparing with the West ..."

The inauthenticity of the quote is attributable to me - selectively picking what I though was 'nice'.

Here is the same in context, much more honest, no sugar coating, the bitter with the bitter-sweet:

Masawi stood at the edge but did not step inside. He lit a cigarette and told me he’d been an importer of luxury goods, jewelry and the like, a prosperous man, he said, when the secret police had come to his door one night, blindfolded him and brought him here. Al-Hakemiya was a first stop in the Baathist detention network, a place where Iraqis were tortured and interrogated before being sent to prisons like Abu Ghraib. But the files strewn about the floors suggested something else. There were receipts for funds and stock certificates and bank ledgers. There were files of title certificates and change-of-ownership forms. Whatever else it was, Al-Hakemiya was a shakedown operation. Masawi’s family paid $ 25,000 to get him out. After six months.

“Being here gives me a doomed feeling,� he said.

It carried over, the trauma. There was a tendency among Iraqis to see conspiracy everywhere, to reject the official version of whatever was said—to never even believe their own eyes. I’d go to car bombings, and all the Iraqis would be screaming, and usually I could find the engine block from the exploded car right away, smoldering in its own crater. Then I’d start talking to the Iraqis, and one of them would say it was the Americans who had blown up the building; an Apache helicopter had swooped down and fired a missile. And then the answer would spread through the crowd like a fever and within a few minutes the whole crowd would be saying it: the Americans did it, the Americans fired a missile. After a time, the Iraqis started becoming violent, and I had to stop going to bombings altogether.

It wasn’t that the Iraqis were incapable of warmth or joy. Quite the opposite. There was no entering an Iraqi home, no matter how hostile your relationship with its host, without being embraced by a hospitality that would shame anything you could find in the West. Glasses of tea and sweets and fruits; your host would see you looking at something in his sitting room, a painting or a jacket hanging from a chair, and he’d pick it up and hand it to you. “A gift,� he’d say. It was just that the past always seemed to overwhelm the present. In those first months, anyway. Before the present became unbearable, too.

One of the most popular people after the invasion was Khalid al-Ani, the keeper of the files. Ani had been the superintendent of the secret cemetery at Abu Ghraib. The cemetery was surrounded by a fence. The guards would bring the bodies out at night. Always at night. Ani kept the death certificates.

When Saddam’s regime fell, Ani took all of his death certificates, hundreds and hundreds of them, to his home on Haifa Street in central Baghdad. And there, for many months after the invasion, Iraqis whose sons and daughters had disappeared lined up outside Ani’s house to see if there was something he could tell them.

Thanks for posting this longer quote, Riku - it does present a more nuanced version of Filkins' voice - a more neutral one.

Re your opening comment, I think Robert Wright offered the opposite hypothesis in The Evolution of God. He was talking about antiquity and medieval times, not the present. He said--I think--that it was under pressure that religions developed their aspects of getting along, and conversely that it was when they could that they took over new areas, forcibly converted, etc. I hope I don't have to reread this book but I may, since it's the second time I've tried to quote from it recently!

Jan wrote: "Re your opening comment, I think Robert Wright offered the opposite hypothesis in The Evolution of God. He was talking about antiquity and medieval times, not the present. He said-..."

He must be talking of the method-religions, with self-consciousness of being religions. But those codifications into a separate religions itself came only under pressure, or threat. Then under other pressures (trade?) they might revere that original pressure.

Have I fitted in with Wright? :)

I think more in terms of the Greek (pre-athenian), Hindu and even Egyptian and Babylonian religions, none of which were even exclusive... It is only from the time of Empire that "intolerant" religions should spring up, according to my conjecture here - not sure how far that is true ...

Riku wrote: "He must be talking of the method-religions, with self-consciousness of being religions. But those codifications into a separate religions itself came only under pressure..."

I can't quite get what you're saying, but the part about Empire, I think that would fit. So, in other words, it's religion and politics. When a group has power they will use it. But under the pressure to survive and cope with a more powerful group that could wipe them out, they develop attitudes of loving one's enemy and so forth.

Maybe it's related to why I think writing or debating in public brings out the best in me. I think the pressure of being visible to more people helps suppress the use of subtle manipulation--pushing people's buttons or the like--and supports using reason as best possible.

...I think I've stepped into deep water here, more than I want to continue with right now! :)

Jan wrote: "Riku wrote: "He must be talking of the method-religions, with self-consciousness of being religions. But those codifications into a separate religions itself came only under pressure..."

I can't q..."

Slightly different I would venture: When a group has power and is not threatened, or is not in contact and hence not threatened, it tends to not impose its religions/views/culture etc, ie tends to be 'tolerant', or maybe closer to not-concerned. That seems to hold for most cultures I have studied.

It is only when a group is threatened that they get paranoid about their religions/ideas/cultures and develop intolerance towards other religions. (unfortunately most of the dominant religions of today were once threatened religions and developed in this sense of intolerance and paranoia and "one god" and exclusion, etc - not trying to brand any religion here, but just going with the argument.)

Later when they come to power or when the world is a safer place, a different set of pressures such as trade might them make them more tolerant - but this tolerance is in self-interest and is self-conscious, while the original tolerance was without-thought.

I am just making this up as i go along, so pls do feel free to show me up...

The Fight of Their Lives: ISIS Vs Kurds

The U.S. wants the Kurds to do two potentially incompatible things: fight ISIS and resist seceding from Iraq. Dexter Filkins reports.

Glad I commented above, Riku, even if rather feebly, since it meant I got notification about Filkins New Yorker article - a very comprehensive analysis. Lots to think about - including the mixed blessing of outsider interference...

I just read the first New Yorker excerpt, and now heading off to read the new article. But, Riku, the feeling here was not how you imagine it, I mean triumphalistic. From nearly the 1st we were told "you break it you own it," and I can't say there was any feeling of success, except when the internal feuding slowed down--only temporarily, it's now obvious. The Iraq war was widely viewed as folly. I'm sure some Americans don't see people living in other countries as people, but not across the board, and if it's true of everybody for further-away people or people in different groups, then it's a truism. I hear your frustration, but it's hard to voice without oneself dehumanizing someone else, elsewhere.

And I'm still not at all sure of your opening hypothesis, now that I delve into the particularity of it, which seems to explain and justify the violence of some. There's something wrong with it. It's ad hoc, not rational.

No doubt I'm not the best person to try and voice such objections or the most knowledgeable so they are likely quite inadequate. The whole state of the world--of everything--just makes me very sad at the moment, reading this and trying to reply. Will go now and read the other article.

I read a couple of his long pieces yesterday. Really looking forward to reading this book. He can do political intrigue and on the ground reportage both exceptionally.

Jan wrote: "I hear your frustration, but it's hard to voice without oneself dehumanizing someone else, elsewhere."

Perfectly put. That is almost inescapable.

In fact, I meant the American govt, specifically the military strategists with my general term, but in context I think that is clear...

But as I said, your criticism is inescapable and I don't contest it. However, in a democratic country, the guilt might travel better from those in power to those who elected them?

Karl Jaspers in "The Question of German Guilt" (1947) distinguished forms of guilt and responsibility in order to clarify how the Germans should sort out their present situation in the wake of this disaster.

He discerned four categories of guilt:
1. criminal guilt (the violation of unambiguous laws),
2. political guilt (the degree of political acquiescence in the actions of the Nazi regime),
3. moral guilt (a matter of personal conscience formed in dialogue with one’s ethical community), and
4. metaphysical guilt (based on the solidarity of all humans simply as human and resulting in a condition of co-responsibility, especially for injustices of which one is aware and which one does not do one’s best to resist).

The last is a human constant I guess, but powerful countries in which the people have a greater say in the govt might move into 2 & 3 categories more often.

Jan wrote: "I just read the first New Yorker excerpt, and now heading off to read the new article. But, Riku, the feeling here was not how you imagine it, I mean triumphalistic. From nearly the 1st we were t..."

My opening hypothesis is a position of faith as of now.. will try to back it up as I get more material myself.

Riku wrote: "Jan wrote: "I hear your frustration, but it's hard to voice without oneself dehumanizing someone else, elsewhere."

Perfectly put. That is almost inescapable.

In fact, I meant the American govt, ..."

Oh my goodness, Jan gets bent out of shape once again! :/ --and :)

I am reading a short monograph on sophistry using some of Plato's terms, and when I finish maybe I can elaborate.

I don't separate the people from the leaders as in your reply. There has been a sea change in opinion here. Before the rise of ISIS, the mood was noninterventionist at some high rate, but now the support for the president's recent actions is around 70%. I don't look at the recent move as evil. Look, when decisions are lambasted whatever they are, that is not logic. It reminds me of (the first?) New Yorker article you posted, where even when the evidence of the suicide bombing was in plain sight, the people still said "America did it." I can understand their reaction better than yours, though, Riku. That's why I became emotional. But, if it's "damned if you do, damned if you don't," then there's nothing for it but to make the best decision on what is right. It's not that anyone is sure, but just that it seems to be the best decision.

I'm almost finished the longer New Yorker article. I take it but I don't think I'm near as fast a reader as you are, Riku, so I don't read everything in there, and thanks for pointing that one out.

Here is an article about Syria and Assad I reread several times back in January, trying to understand why America didn't/couldn't do anything then, when it seemed we should have.

Before the change in public opinion here, people were saying don't get involved, that people in Syria etc. were in the grip of "ancient hatreds" about which nothing could be done, and I remembered I read that those were exactly the same sentiments prevalent here about what was going on in Europe up to Pearl Harbor--at which point, so I understand, all such views changed in a day.

Also I just read the section on terrorism in Better Angels of our Nature--in particular the section on the Muslim world in "Where Angels Fear to Tread" at the end of "The New Peace"--pp 362-368 if you have the hard copy. While Pinker, generally speaking, loses objectivity at points in his book, his contribution is to put forth a lot of data and measure it, so that it resists the urge to moralize and truncate the facts to fit narrative plausibility--in other words, a story with a good guy and a bad guy and someone to blame and say they "caused" whatever.

Jan wrote: "Riku wrote: "Jan wrote: "I hear your frustration, but it's hard to voice without oneself dehumanizing someone else, elsewhere."

Perfectly put. That is almost inescapable.

In fact, I meant the Am..."

I don't understand. What argument of yours has been bent out of shape? Is it just a structuralist position that everything that happens in the world is too complex to assign blame? But what about responsibility then? Imaginary?

I admit it is difficult, which is why I provided the "scale of guilt" above. And public opinion is not the same as public action... There is always an option to do enough to effect a real change, esp in a democratic country with a free media.

You might not differentiate between people and leaders, but how do you justify that? Isn't that the same dehumanizing that you were critical of earlier? And how can the next sentence then point to differences between public opinion and executive action?

I am throughly confused... instead of "damned if you do, damned if you don't," you are advocating "not damned whatever you might do"?

Along with your doses of Pinker, might i suggest a small dose of Chomsky as well? I am not sure you would agree with him, but I detect too many contradictions and fallacies... and knowing you, I will just chalk it up to Pinker playing social scientist, and you being an exceptionally engaged reader.

By bent out of shape, I just meant reacting emotionally. I think we are somewhat at cross purposes now. As to "damned if you...," I meant that when a country (or group) is blamed for whichever course of action is taken, it's more about the blamers. So I'm talking about now--not acting earlier in Syria and acting, now. I hadn't realized before that the book under discussion here is somewhat older. I remembered hearing Dexter Filkins speak when he was on a book tour, so I looked it up and found it was this same book, back on Oct. 2, 2008. The support for the Iraq war started under Bush II was very low--the manipulation and lies to get us into it. The pulling us out of it as though it were over was awful, and Filkins touched on some of the consequences in the long article. Comparing those actions to Germany's guilt under the Nazis-- .

Jan wrote: "By bent out of shape, I just meant reacting emotionally. I think we are somewhat at cross purposes now. As to "damned if you...," I meant that when a country (or group) is blamed for whichever co..."

But when you talk of manipulations, aren't you separating the people from the leaders? And isn't it basic civic responsibility to take independent action despite any amount of manipulation, esp when free media and educational resources are available to you... (plus almost free internet) contrast that with an Arab country where propaganda and information-blackout operate simultaneously.

Is it the same to assign blame on both these contrasting groups (American & Arab), with different access to political and informational power?

Jan wrote: "By bent out of shape, I just meant reacting emotionally. I think we are somewhat at cross purposes now. As to "damned if you...," I meant that when a country (or group) is blamed for whichever co..."

Also, it is not just about course of action taken, but the way it is carried out... the democratic country cannot offer its people just a yes/no option! and demand - choose one and then never blame us if we do precisely what you say.

that would be closer to dictatorship. so no, it can't be just about the blamers. In fact the blame usually comes only when the botching up reaches large enough proportions.

It would appear (with the rise of ISIS, overblown as it is as a "threat" to the U.S.) that perhaps the U.S. might wish that everything that happened relating to the removal and death of Saddam Husein (all of course happening because of its rush to war) might be taken back. Of course he was a brutal dictator. But that in itself has never stopped such people from playing with the U.S., as Sadam himself did for many years before his foolish idea of invading Kuwait (presumably that particular sin involved messing with oil supplies, not simply aggression towards a neighbor).

Riku wrote: "But when you talk of manipulations, aren't you separating the people from the leaders? And isn't it basic civic responsibility to take independent action despite any amount of manipulation, esp when free media and educational resources are available to you... (plus almost free internet) contrast that with an Arab country where propaganda and information-blackout operate simultaneously.

Is it the same to assign blame on both these contrasting groups (American & Arab), with different access to political and informational power?
"

I meant when actions are taken it doesn't make sense to separate the people/country from the government. And as to blame, I think that's the causality-seeking characteristics of human beings--trying to make a simplistic story out of a big complicated mess--and pass judgment.

It sounds like you are saying it's not fair to blame the Arabs so it must be the Americans' fault. Because they didn't know enough or fix things. So if they didn't try to do anything at all, wouldn't you still blame them? It becomes just a matter of venting, blowing off steam. Why didn't some of the other Arab countries fix things? Why wasn't the sectarianism overcome? Why didn't the onset of Islam in the 7th century unite them? What happened in the 16th & 17th centuries that they lost steam in intellectual advancement when they had been so far advanced? Why does America not blow apart similarly, with all the polarization we have? What makes us remain intact as a civil society, so far, anyway? Is there anything the whole world can do to help the Arab societies decide to behave similarly? As I understand the tribalism has been an issue for a long time--not "caused" by America, but simply never yet overcome, as it was in the West, more or less. It seems pretty complicated, something one can actually think about instead of pointing fingers. I agree as to no immediate physical threat here, but should we just stand by and let things go back to the middle ages with mothers bringing their children to have lunch at public executions, as I heard on an NPR interview? There's a complex of motivations, not absent of altruism. So maybe the current gov't did a better job of getting the public behind the action than Bush, or, alternatively, maybe there are better reasons. ISIS helped.

Jan wrote: "Riku wrote: "But when you talk of manipulations, aren't you separating the people from the leaders? And isn't it basic civic responsibility to take independent action despite any amount of manipula..."

I never said it is not fair to blame the Arabs. I said the type and degree of blame would be different. That was the whole point of invoking those 'types' above.

Would you really debate that the degree (and type) of blame is different between these two groups (Americans & Arabs).

Jan wrote: "I meant when actions are taken it doesn't make sense to separate the people/country from the government. And as to blame, I think that's the causality-seeking characteristics of human beings--trying to make a simplistic story out of a big complicated mess--and pass judgment."

So when should we separate? Before actions are taken? At decision stage?

And if we cannot assign blame, then what do we do? Pass no judgement at all? How else do we go about it?

Riku wrote, "...And if we cannot assign blame, then what do we do? Pass no judgement at all? How else do we go about it?"

Tell a different story. A different kind of story. Bigger.

Jan wrote: "Riku wrote, "...And if we cannot assign blame, then what do we do? Pass no judgement at all? How else do we go about it?"

Tell a different story. A different kind of story. Bigger."

What about action? What do we do once the stories are told? (A bigger story in which no one is blamed, I presume... and if no one can be blamed, on what do we base any proposal for a change from the status quo?)

Blame so often is about people's pulling themselves together. The indispensable enemy and all that. Maybe there's a place for it, but even if so it's grossly overused. Let me stop this though and see if I can write up something soon on the little monograph I read. I'm pretty sure you know everything I'm saying, and, anyway, I'm hungry. I'll be back. :)

Riku wrote: "... I detect too many contradictions and fallacies..."

Me, too, and wasn't expecting to. That's what really discombobulated me ("bent me out of shape"), and I had to come to terms with it. But it's always there. People can see things entirely differently.

The first point was your opening hypothesis, against which I could hold up Robert Wright's. ...But now the Jewish Wars in the first and second centuries CE come to mind. That came after being "under pressure." But eventually their leaders convinced them that if they didn't stop rebelling they were going to be entirely wiped out. Centuries of "quietism" followed--which I guess goes along with Wright. So another factor is size and power. The fundamentalist Islamists (or whatever term you prefer) don't at this point see coming up against any force that could stop them, so they can go on feeling that God is behind them (being "messianic").... And then, second point, your statement at the end of the first part about all the rest of journalism, and your closing statement about a triumphalistic America, and I just felt that was getting your jabs in. Or when I do that, I think it's that. When I do it I don't think it's helpful, either. At any rate, I'm probably being redundant but possibly clearer.

At one point, Riku, you said that dehumanizing somebody else in return for the perception that they had done so first was "unavoidable." But if it's unavoidable, what's the point? It's all about nothing but power plays--one's own to make up for "them" doing it. Then one's own group (or one's client group) has nothing better to offer, no better way; nothing better than for me (or "my side") to survive at "their" expense. That's the position I would like to reject.

Jan wrote: "The first point was your opening hypothesis, against which I could hold up Robert Wright's. ...But now the Jewish Wars in the first and second centuries CE come to mind. That came after being "under pressure." But eventually their leaders convinced them that if they didn't stop rebelling they were going to be entirely wiped out. Centuries of "quietism" followed--which I guess goes along with Wright. So another factor is size and power. The fundamentalist Islamists (or whatever term you prefer) don't at this point see coming up against any force that could stop them, so they can go on feeling that God is behind them (being "messianic").... And then, second point, your statement at the end of the first part about all the rest of journalism, and your closing statement about a triumphalistic America, and I just felt that was getting your jabs in. Or when I do that, I think it's that. When I do it I don't think it's helpful, either. At any rate, I'm probably being redundant but possibly clearer. "

Not contradictions - I don't contradict myself anywhere in this disc, right?

1st point - It is a general assertion - won't hold up everywhere, but in general it does.I will come back to this.

2nd point, on Journalism - mainstream journalism does indeed behave this way. I don't know why you think this is not correct. Exceptions might be there, but much of what we hear is what our govts wants us to hear.

3rd point - As I already made clear, I meant the American govt and decision makers. But I do assign a gradation o blame even to the people (and to the world at large - but the key word is gradation)

Jan wrote: "At one point, Riku, you said that dehumanizing somebody else in return for the perception that they had done so first was "unavoidable." But if it's unavoidable, what's the point? It's all about nothing but power plays--one's own to make up for "them" doing it. Then one's own group (or one's client group) has nothing better to offer, no better way; nothing better than for me (or "my side") to survive at "their" expense. That's the position I would like to reject. "

I never said that. You made a point that to talk about two groups always means that an element of collectivisation is present - and I acknowledged it. The 'Other' exists. We have to deal with it. But it exists for both parties. You are rejecting a position I never took, explicitly or implicitly. I am saying that we have to allocate responsibility of the past - and thus responsibility for action - for the future.

Jan wrote: "The first point was your opening hypothesis, against which I could hold up Robert Wright's. ...But now the Jewish Wars in the first and second centuries CE come to mind. That came after being "under pressure." But eventually their leaders convinced them that if they didn't stop rebelling they were going to be entirely wiped out. Centuries of "quietism" followed--which I guess goes along with Wright. So another factor is size and power. The fundamentalist Islamists (or whatever term you prefer) don't at this point see coming up against any force that could stop them, so they can go on feeling that God is behind them (being "messianic")...."

OK! this scares me. Let me break down what you are really saying:

- Only people with power turn to violent means
- They will quiet down if they are suppressed
- SO we should escalate violence whenever any group turns violent.
- A good example is ISIS who are too powerful and hence indulging in violence - we have to oppose them with greater force so that we move towards 'quietism'

I think your line of reasoning is what has led to most wars and continue to do so. It is the conservative reactionary way of looking at a crisis - "we are as much the victims here!"

My stand is:

- People/Religions under pressure resort to violence and rally under their religions - we prefer to look after our own lives as much as possible, until we are left with no alternatives Usually religion is a force for social order, not for violence - no such religions exist in the world
- They will increase their violence even more if suppression is increased
- So the best way to stop the religious violence from escalating is to remove the original source of suppression that is putting pressure on them and forcing them to turn violent.
- For ex, ISIS is not violent because they are too powerful - but because they have endured a long rule under a foreign-backed repressive govt that excluded them and denied them political and human rights. Now they are trying to reclaim their lives and the right to run their own lives = their methods are very very wrong, but they were not the only party in this result. The developed countries are even more complicit.


+++

Historical disc:

- You mentioned Jews - they were violent under Roman oppression; then they were basically destroyed as a society and we had the quietism you spoke of - is that the solution we want to employ with all troublemakers - destroy them? Iraq & Syria too, I guess...

- on the other hand, the great empires always allowed plurality to exist - here i am talking only of religious plurality, violence might still happen for expansionary/economic purposes, but not with religion as a prime motive. Ex: Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Mughal Empire (until a personal anomaly entered it), British Empire, etc.

expansionary violence is part of any empire building refer my review here for more on that, but it is not religious: /review/show...

Riku wrote, first: "Not contradictions - I don't contradict myself anywhere in this disc, right?" (and your points 1 and 3)

I was considering fallacies. Your position looks to me like an ideology beginning with some assumptions, rather than arriving at them through study and observation. Articles of faith, in other words. I'm speaking of conclusions that the U.S. is "the bad guys." (I'm not familiar with your usage of "disc," so I just took it to mean what you'd written.)

2nd point, on Journalism.... In America multiple groups believe the media is biased against them. Conservatives sometimes call it the "LMM"--liberal mainstream media. It can't be biased against opposing views all at the same time. I don't think the government is running or controlling the media. I think what everyone is seeing is best viewed as the impact of certain conventional ways of thinking. The media can't appear crazy so they tend to adhere to certain ways of thinking. At the same time I think there are multiple writers and journalists pushing at the edges and enlarging what can be written. I don't think you and I and Dexter Filkins are the only ones doing so. And I think it's even further out to make a blanket judgment about the media in another country.

I said, "At one point, Riku, you said that dehumanizing somebody else in return for the perception that they had done so first was "unavoidable...," and you wrote, "I never said that. You made a point that to talk about two groups always means that an element of collectivisation is present - and I acknowledged it. The 'Other' exists. We have to deal with it. But it exists for both parties. You are rejecting a position I never took..." You've translated into some terms I don't understand. I don't want to treat you in ways I would find dehumanizing, and if I were to do that, what would I gain? What would all of us gain? I hear you not wanting to be identified with that position but it looks like those are the implications of judging some group's motivations corrupt and evil from the get-go, basically because they are the other side, in your view.

You said, further, "OK! this scares me. Let me break down what you are really saying..."

I think you may have added to what I said rather than clarify what I was really saying, but I think it's fair to ask me if that's what I intended to imply. I don't see anywhere in that paragraph that I said what ought to happen. Rather, I was trying on what did happen in terms of Wright's hypothesis (as I remember it). I was thinking about what did happen. I wasn't saying what happened was a desirable outcome, and I wasn't writing a prescription for dealing with ISIS.

There is an ISIS and other outbursts because of change in the world, and people suffer, but I think the issue is the dealing with change, not making it go away. I am not making an apologetic argument that all the motivations of the US, or the west, have always been or are perfectly pure or altruistic, but I don't think this current intervention is out of pure evil, either. I think, yes, their own governments were perceived as corrupt and more about enriching certain rulers, and, yes, the US didn't go rescue people from Assad until the groups were causing trouble outside Syria--but if they had, that would have been regime change like in Iraq, right?

The empires allowed plurality because they were feudal systems where each group was static and had its own role to play. That wasn't so idyllic either. I'm being sarcastic. I don't think they were really considered people, just roles, unless they were the aristocracy, of course. The way I understand it is that in open, democratic, commercial societies there has to be some common culture so there can be mobility within it. That's what I'm understanding so far. We wouldn't want to return to the feudal system. So far I understand that they could only enrich themselves by expansion, not by trade or knowledge etc. I'll check out your link tomorrow.

Now I'm tiring fast but a few more thoughts. With ISIS some (not you) would bring up whether they are "terrorists" or "freedom fighters," and would say how come there could be an American revolution that people "like" but not a revolution for the ISIS fighters? Some of my reading shows Manifest Destiny not so different from ISIS now. Or knights in the middle ages. On the other hand some interventions by the US protected from such scenarios--Bosnia, Rwanda. I hope some good can be done and ISIS can be stopped. Was there anything to have been done in the Syrian civil war before it came to this?

Jan wrote: "Riku wrote, first: "Not contradictions - I don't contradict myself anywhere in this disc, right?" (and your points 1 and 3)

I was considering fallacies. Your position looks to me like an ideology..."

OK I am just going to drop this discussion, Jan. No disrespect to you - but we have now reached a stage where we are debating each other's motivations rather than any real issue.

A few clarifications:

- I never characterized any party as evil - I never will, ever. The concept of evil is not there in my interpretation of anything. It is a religious concept and does not apply outside of it.

- I made it clear that the secure empires had violence - just tended to have less 'religious violence.' So I never advocated a return to empire, but only a return to security (well, not even a return - a provision of security to insecure areas)

- When I said 'let me breakdown what you are saying' I should have written 'the implications of that line of thought'. That came across badly. I am sorry for that. But in the next para i had tried to explain it as a problem with the line of reasoning (extended by others, not you). But my apologies, nevertheless.

- Journalism: I was not making a judgment about media only in the US, i was talking about all media everywhere. Just because people recognize it doesn't mean the media doesn't try - just like govts. That is because corporations and organizations do not have morality. They are very efficient at what they are created to do - and that might include acting against the interests of the society.

- On the other hand, you refuse to tell me what are the implications of your line of thinking. Ok, so we refuse to blame anyone. Then how do we allocate responsibility for solving the issue? For me the idea is not to characterize anyone as evil, but too isolate a good mechanism for allocating responsibility.

- Lastly, the assumptions I have stated in the review are indeed from what study and observations I have done - I built on them in this short review - it was not a thesis, you know. :)

Anyway, both of us are reading and thinking hard about solving the problems of the wold. I dont think of that as a light-hearted quest and sometimes we will contradict each other and get 'bent out of shape'. Let us pick this up again in some fresh disc (means discussion!) and try again to see what comes out?

Thanks for challenging my thoughts here - always a pleasure.

Thanks, Riku, and I'll reread more thoroughly later. I had confused "blaming" with designating as "evil," I believe. And I too was going to suggest stopping, for after all it's your thread, and I had voiced my qualms.

Hey I was enjoying reading along!

Ted wrote: "Hey I was enjoying reading along!"

What were your thoughts? :)

Riku wrote: "Ted wrote: "Hey I was enjoying reading along!"

What were your thoughts? :)"

Well, they were positive, not negative, I can say that easily. Beyond that ... I don't know, it occurs to me just now that perhaps it almost seemed like I was reading a conversation in a novel.Not that the characters or their views didn't seem real, rather that the experience I was having was like that of a reader of words, not an eavesdropper on a conversation.

And look, that's what I did say (as he points to #31)! You two were having a talk/dispute/argument (very polite and all) and I was reading the words, not listening to them. I probably would have been underlining if I could have. 8}

I did feel sorry we stopped the discussion after all. I ended up unconvinced, even of one of your last points, Riku--that morality can be separated out from blame, as used in our discussion. Thank you for the discussion as far as it went, though. It's unusual, more's the pity. It seems I usually learn something even when I don't think the other party is abiding by "the rules of engagement." In fact, could it be really discussing a controversial issue will entail that reaction from all parties? :/
Thanks for reading along, Ted! :)

Jan wrote: "I did feel sorry we stopped the discussion after all. I ended up unconvinced, even of one of your last points, Riku--that morality can be separated out from blame, as used in our discussion. Than..."

You're welcome Jan, I glad I did! ;}

Jan wrote: "I did feel sorry we stopped the discussion after all. I ended up unconvinced, even of one of your last points, Riku--that morality can be separated out from blame, as used in our discussion. Than..."

I don't think were playing by any rules here. That happens. If it was easy to have a strictly constrained discussion, the issue would have been solved long ago.

When we get into a discussion like this we should know that we are getting into a tangled mess. :)

Jan wrote: "I did feel sorry we stopped the discussion after all. I ended up unconvinced, even of one of your last points, Riku--that morality can be separated out from blame, as used in our discussion. Than..."

Anyway, I this I should make this a bit messier! If I add climate change to the equation...

Suppose that climate change (induced by western development) is one of the prime causes of much of the conflict in the middle east/the maghrib.

If you accept that premise, would the considerations of blame and responsibility shift at all?

(view spoiler)[(i was not trying to separate morality from blame, but was trying to bring the idea of responsibility into the simple equation of morality & blame. i am now introducing the concept of climate change here only to see if that helps us clarify things. pls accept my premise and give an answer. :) ) (hide spoiler)]

A quote that Hend just Liked:

“There are no innocents. There are, however, different degrees of responsibility. � Stieg Larsson

Ted wrote: "A quote that Hend just Liked:

“There are no innocents. There are, however, different degrees of responsibility. � Stieg Larsson"

Indeed. /review/show...

Yes. I just added that because when I saw it I thought hey that's exactly what Riku says. Support for you from a popular author.

Ted wrote: "Yes. I just added that because when I saw it I thought hey that's exactly what Riku says. Support for you from a popular author."

More pithy too. Thanks!

Riku wrote: "i was not trying to separate morality from blame, but was trying to bring the idea of responsibility into the simple equation of morality & blame. i am now introducing the concept of climate change here only to see if that helps us clarify things. pls accept my premise and give an answer. :) "

Is the discussion on again, then?

It was when you took issue with the term "evil," relegating it to the realm of religion, that I thought you wished to distance yourself from morality (but not blame).

I always heard, "No one is guilty but everyone is responsible," I think it goes, and I thought it came from someone more erudite than Stieg Larsson. But I can't find it. Once we say that some are more responsible, I'd say we have entered, with Larsson, the realm of judging good and evil. I loved his books but I did notice characters were in one camp or the other. But turning a historical event into a morality tale is like putting history into a Procrustean bed, including assigning causality after the fact. (Is the way history gets told or written what we mean by 'historiography'?) There's a new book out called The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind: How Self-Interest Shapes Our Opinions and Why We Won't Admit It that may relate.

I'm not sure I have the energy or inclination this discussion deserves any longer. Trying to study plus have some writing projects. Riku and Ted, the Muller book I've been on for so long purports to look at what philosophers left, right, and radical have had to say about economics over the last three centuries. After I make it through the basics I may then be ready to look at some Chomsky and why he says what he does. Apropos of some other comment up the line, Pinker isn't the opposite of Chomsky. His position is probably best described as "scientism." In a sense he's written two books in Better
Angels, the first promoting his "religion" of scientism, but in the second providing a lot of data. So it's possible to cite some of the data without being a "Pinkerite," which I'm not!

...Here it is!
“Few are guilty, but all are responsible.�
� Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets

You didn't answer my question on climate change...

Anyway, here is some free helping of Chomsky: What links ISIS, Gaza, World War 1 and nuclear catastrophe? Noam Chomsky's must-read explains:

All in good time. :)

I am studying Marcuse (in Muller) now, and in doing so I see my youth flashing before my eyes! One-Dimensional Man resides these many years on a nearby shelf.

He (Marcuse) rails at "capitalism" for living off enmity, yet he doesn't notice himself living off enmity. It's all about having the right enemy, it seems, not about stopping enmity. Chomsky is so reminiscent of this!

And the circle goes on. Only nowadays it's climate change and its alleged promulgators.

Look, I can't rev up the requisite hate and blame of the culprit du jour. That's not accurate; just an international version of the trials in the media that we do over here--just plucking one strand from the ball of yarn over which to have a hissy fit. And it's never oneself but always some "other" guy. No, no, no! Make it stop! :)

Sorry no response for so long but God willing will sometime soon complete Muller and Pinker and work on some hard reviews.

Jan wrote: "I am studying Marcuse (in Muller) now, and in doing so I see my youth flashing before my eyes! One-Dimensional Man resides these many years on a nearby shelf.

He (Marcuse) rails at "capitalism"..."

Jan, I don't think you get Chomsky at all. If one needs to characterize his writings as picking an "enemy" to flail against, the best way of describing such "enemy" would be any entity which exercises power over the individual without the individual's (at least tacit) consent.

Thus in the Mid East, the Palestinians on the West Bank are utterly controlled by the expanding settlements, completely without their consent. It's pretty hard to describe a comparable issue of "control" which said Palestinians exert on any one. But the situation in Palestine, which Chomsky makes no doubt about how he analyses, really is only of a type, and not a main concern of his..

He has always said that his main concern is the power which entities in his own country exert over people without their consent, and in some cases without even their realization that this power is being exerted.

Ted wrote: "Jan wrote: "I am studying Marcuse (in Muller) now, and in doing so I see my youth flashing before my eyes! One-Dimensional Man resides these many years on a nearby shelf.

He (Marcuse) rails at ..."

Yes, it is all a question of power and the resultant capacity for responsibility. Stories can be twisted as we want, of course. But that is fruitless hand-wringing, and brings no benefit to the world...

Jan wrote: "I am studying Marcuse (in Muller) now, and in doing so I see my youth flashing before my eyes! One-Dimensional Man resides these many years on a nearby shelf.

He (Marcuse) rails at "capitalism"..."

Jan, I am also interested in which Chomsky essay/book you refer to.

And about the bit on climate change, what is the 'bigger story' there? :) I think it is as big as it gets for this planet!

Riku wrote: "Jan, I am also interested in which Chomsky essay/book you refer to."

It is the one you posted in comment No. 43.

Ted wrote: "Jan, I don't think you get Chomsky at all. If one needs to characterize his writings as picking an "enemy" to flail against, the best way of describing such "enemy" would be any entity which exercises power over the individual without the individual's (at least tacit) consent.

Thus in the Mid East, the Palestinians on the West Bank are utterly controlled by the expanding settlements..."

Ted, we already had a thread on which we were attempting to discuss Israel and Palestine, Riku's other (Chomsky) thread, and that didn't continue. I'd characterize what you just wrote as a narrative, too, an excessively simplistic one, but let's not get into that again here, at least at this point.

On Chomsky and other similar writers I'd prefer to be specific and not speak in generalities, which is why I had been holding off and studying further, first. He is an activist. He has an ideology that he believes captures what is wrong with the world. And he has predictions, sometimes, I think, of the hindsight is 20/20 variety. There are other thinkers that have nearly opposite views, don't they? Although I did venture a comment, hopefully I can do better after I finish my one book in particular and struggle with reviewing it. Not Pinker; the other one, Muller. If I eventually read more Chomsky and, as Riku thought could happen, don't see eye-to-eye with him, well, that won't necessarily mean I don't "get" him.