Fuck Ben Norton, I'm a "Jingoist" and Proud Of It!

[josephpalazzo]

to say shit like western foreign policy CREATED isis or similar is to be profoundly ignorant of the context and history of the middle east, simple as that. It is also a condescending view that sees all this world events as the result of western power and the local inhabitants as puppets with no will of their own. You just need to look a hundred years into the past to see how fucked up the region is and was independently of western action in many instances.

There were good things and bad things done by the West. Had the West gone into those areas with the intention of  just "civilizing" them, that would be fine. Bringing knowledge and enlightenment, that is far better than the reigning superstitions and bizarre rituals at the times. However, they also shameless took their natural resources, and that was not ok. And I agree with you, blaming the West for all the ills in that region is quite absurd.

[Baruch]

Agreed, both the john and the whore are responsible ... but there is "blaming the victim" ... and I don't see the john as the victim here ;-)

We could have civilized them, by providing them with books etc ... we don't have to land troops.

[peacewithoutgod]

Really?  For 300 years Spain and France tried to assist Ireland, and otherwise %&%^$ over the British at every opportunity.  Spain and France both landed troops at different times in Ireland ... and the British dealt with them most severely.

The gradual weakening of the Catholic forces from 1600 - 1900 is the only reason why Britain wasn't conquered or at least had its colonies removed, including Ireland.  You are completely wrong, if you think the Irish revolt started in 1916 or 1968.

While there was doublessly anti-Protestant rhetoric against England in Spain and France, both countries had better reasons than their Catholic differences with Britain to help Ireland against their common, and much older enemy.

[mauricio]

That is in 1914, just 101 years ago. Only two Muslim states (The Ottomans and the Persians) exist, with Arabia being there... but the only relevant or large city under Arab control being Riyadh. The rest of the countries were protectorates and colonies, and had been for years.

The Ottoman empire was on the decline, and like all empires on the decline it was struggling. But the Ottoman Empire for several hundred years was also a beacon of intellectualism, ingenuity, the sciences, the arts.  Likewise to the East was Persia, which has an absolutely beautiful and rich history of arts, sciences, architecture, philosophy, literature... a stable government that "brought civilization" to the region.

To point to the failing state of the Ottoman Empire and Persia is like pointing to the last couple hundred years of the Roman/Holy Roman Empire and blaming it's turmoil on Christianity; while "extremist" Christians certainly were on the rise and causing turmoil and hating science and all that good stuff, the reason they were an issue was because of the power vacuum left from the falling state.

The deaths of empires are long, bloody and unpredictably messy with ramifications that can take hundreds of years to be sorted out. And while radical Islam is definitely something that needs to be addressed and dealt with, it is not the cause of the problem as it is made out to be but rather a symptom of a much larger and complicated "disease". One of the largest problems is that we funded and exploited and continue to fund exploit the radicals for our own political gains, which is likely just going to drag out the whole situation.

Yes and I wanted to mainly point out that when those new countries appeared( for example pakistan and india) There was war due to ethnic and sectarian tension between groups, that creates a hatred that perdures through generations  and makes their society stability deteriorate and authoritarian governments as the blunt tools they are they just put a lid on it till it blows up when their unstable government finally falls. With the generational hatred between groups still fresh due to the events being relatively recent and the continuity of a cycle of  intergroup violence. The psychology of the people and the conditions of their environment were already primed for violent resolution. So how free is our will and how much is our condition. I don't know but people can still take a range of choices when confronted with circumstance. And I'm not convinced and I can simply rob them of their free will or responsibilities just because the circumstances were hard. You can always choose to be violent or peaceful and they both can easily take you to death depending on your individual circumstance. But my main point is that the western powers did not create all the conditions for war in the ME. I mean just look at the time for example. The fact that war is occurring right now is simply because this year is our point of reference in time and it is situated right on time to see the arab spring and the fall of many of this authoritarian regimes. This may be the last events of a long chain that has being going on for a long time in which both middle easterners and western people have a had a hand in. I don't use a collectivist mindset in which I simply divide this 2 groups in opposed of homogeneous group of contrary interests and then hold their lineages through history as guilty for the crimes done by their ancestors. So I cannot I bring myself to simply write "We created Islamic extremism" Addressing directly and holding completely responsible one of the sides, composed of many different individuals who are living right now, for the creation of this phenomena which is older and more complex. I would not describe the history of extremism in the ME like that at all. That's just a crappy clickbaity provocative phrase typical of shit tier publications like salon.

[peacewithoutgod]

Agreed, both the john and the whore are responsible ... but there is "blaming the victim" ... and I don't see the john as the victim here ;-)

We could have civilized them, by providing them with books etc ... we don't have to land troops.

You're the one who's supposed to know the history here, so I'm going to presume you weren't feeling right when you said you think any Christian culture, who they look down on. could have "civilized" those people. The only way that an Islamic culture could ever become more civil is when and if it wants to, and none of them still want to be.

[Baruch]

You're the one who's supposed to know the history here, so I'm going to presume you weren't feeling right when you said you think any Christian culture, who they look down on. could have "civilized" those people. The only way that an Islamic culture could ever become more civil is when and if it wants to, and none of them still want to be.

"Try" to civilize.  Whether books would have been enough, it is hard to tell.  Bayonetting their children doesn't work, that is for sure.