Brilliantly, sadly observed

[Mark Thibodeau]

Well, I am neither an apologist for Islamists (or Islam for that matter),
nor do I put all the blame for Mideast strife on Western interference
(although the history of, say, the Iranian revolution, is incomprehensible
without taking it into account).

On balance, I think that, by being so cautious about laying ANY blame for
the current global realpolitik on the West, you're erring on the side of
error, more than just caution. But that's just my opinion.

J

On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 5:41 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:

> And I take issue with the apologists for Islam, including the government
> in the US, that is bending over backward and walking on eggshells, and, as
> recent discussions of the word "terrorism" suggest, trying to control the
> language, and the debate.  It is obvious enough that religion is a major
> contributor to the violence in the Middle East, and that it is spilling out
> into the world. Muslims in the US and in Europe, the refugees,  need to be
> protected and supported, but supporting "moderate factions" in the region,
> investing in moderate Islam, to counter Puritan Islam, will backfire. Islam
> is at the heart of the problem. That has to be admitted because the problem
> can be addressed.
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 5:29 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Iraq had WMD and used them. This is not debated by experts and is not
>> controversial.  But it has been made controversial because W Bush invaded
>> Iraq under false pretenses, he invaded and toppled the government after his
>> cooking up an imminent threat and using propaganda to connect Iraq with the
>> attacks of 11 September. This too is not controversial. However, the West
>> didn't force them on Iraq any more than it forced Iraq to develop a nuclear
>> or biological weapons program. And Iraq was and is, while never the threat
>> W said they were so he could justify his war crimes, a threat to the region
>> and the world. Now, one can continue to blame that threat on W and the
>> West, so on, and there is much to support this thesis, and, as I said from
>> the start, I agree with it in spirit, and on lots of facts and history, but
>> I disagree with the apologists, who put all the blame for the regions wars
>> and conflicts on the US and the West.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Mark Thibodeau <jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ish, now HERE is where I believe you might be falling prey to the kind
>>> of think tank white paper wishful thinking that passes for "rational
>>> discourse" re: whether or not Iraq was a WMD threat to, or in, the region.
>>> EVERY professional NGO boots on the ground operator with the experience and
>>> know-how to determine such things (including many in the US's own state
>>> department and even her military intelligence divisions) contradict this
>>> assertion of yours. They did so before the cowardly shock and awe
>>> terroristic invasion, and their "predictions" (more like flat statements of
>>> observable fact) were borne out. That's just a historic fact at this point.
>>> A bunch of twisted rhetoric won't change that.
>>>
>>> J
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:27 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now, before you accuse me of defending Bush for his stupid invasion of
>>>> Iraq, or apologizing for US and Western policy, Iraq, as I stated, or a
>>>> group like ISIS that might take control of the weapons, was more of a
>>>> threat after W pulled his boner, but the threat was there and is there. Not
>>>> simply because of what we do and what we have done, but because of what the
>>>> nations and factions in the region do. To treat the region as some sort of
>>>> white man's burden is patronizing, dare I say paternalistic and oriental.
>>>>
>>>> They are big boys too. They are not super like us, but they so most of
>>>> the fighting and killing all by themselves.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 10:19 AM, ish mailian <ishmailian at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Your critique of the US and Western policies is sketchy, at best, a
>>>>> gloss of the complexity and the history, but it is with your apology for
>>>>> the regions wars and the policies of the nations and factions in the region
>>>>> that is most in need of correction.
>>>>>
>>>>> You apologize for Syria's government, for Iran's government, for
>>>>> Iraq's government, Pakistan's,  for Afghanistan's, for ISIS and so on, you
>>>>> excuse all their incompetence, all their use and abuse of Islam, of
>>>>> terrorism, because you are so blinded by your thesis, that the problems and
>>>>> conflicts are never self-inflicted, not a product of religious conflict,
>>>>> not something inherent in Islam, nor products of the complex integration of
>>>>> resources, geography, politics, internal revolutions, but are all caused by
>>>>> external pressures by the West, or the Cold War etc....so you blame anyone
>>>>> else but the religious groups in Syria that are waging war, Muslims killing
>>>>> Muslims. You blame the Iran Iraq War on the US, and apologize, again, for
>>>>> the governments, for the killing of Muslims by Muslims.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basic knowledge of that protracted war would tell you that most of the
>>>>> killing and dying was down to incompetence and arrogance and a primitive
>>>>> belief in the religious warrior. Though Iraq had clear military advantage,
>>>>> Iran had more religious motivation, and Iran used that Religious motivation
>>>>> with better strategy, though both were essentially primitive armies
>>>>> organized and directed by idiots and zealots who knew little of how to wage
>>>>> war against their enemies. .
>>>>>
>>>>> There was also fortune. Recall that the Iranians, after the
>>>>> Revolution, could not get US equipment, parts, intelligence, and they
>>>>> condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, so they had to scramble, to
>>>>> wait for Reagan's deal etc, but in the meantime, the General Dynamics
>>>>>  fighter planes, built and contracted for Iran, were sold to Israel, who
>>>>> used them to knock out Iraq's French built Nuclear Program in Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of these debates in the press, over, WMD, for example, are not
>>>>> controversial at all. The French built a Nuclear Program in Iraq, the
>>>>> Soviets supplied the means of delivering a nuclear weapon. Countless
>>>>> nations provide the region with chemical weapons, so we know, as our
>>>>> soldiers who were damaged by them know, that WMD were in Iraq. Was Iraq a
>>>>> threat to use them against the US? To sell them? to be toppled by a new
>>>>> extreme group, like ISIS and then use them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well I was clearly wrong in my memory of the verifiable timeline.
>>>>>> Still, if, as the article indicates, it is widely believed in the region
>>>>>> that we did Ok the Iraqi attack, and it is known that we then did support
>>>>>> this war. The effective message combined with other US actions are that
>>>>>> power is achieved with war. Not that we invented this particular idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The thing that I see is the parallel between Wahabi notions of divine
>>>>>> war of the faithful, and our notions of being appointed to bring the true
>>>>>> way through strategic bombing. Both sides seem to have found good reasons
>>>>>> to think of the other as demonic. They are beliefs that are equally insane,
>>>>>> and equally violent and destructive  in their net effect.  I don’t know
>>>>>> what will work but check out this interview with a captive of ISIS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151205/80d4fa3b/attachment.html>