Iraq falling apart

[biffvernon]

I understand the old Hebrew should read something more like "Thou shalt do no murder." Immediately upon descending from the mountain with this commandment Moses put 300 of his men to slaughter for worshiping calves, which was not murder but a lawful punishment for idolatry.

Well he would say that, wouldn't he! Just went to show that bad stuff has always happened from the top.

[biffvernon]

Some not very polite stuff

No, they didn't.

Yes, they did.

But I did say "though the Cathars may not have been the aggressors" because, well, the Cathars weren't the aggressors. And I have never said "all religions are equally bad" because, well,, I think some religions are a lot nicer than others. The Cathars were probably towards the nicer end of the spectrum, what with being aginst killing and meaning it. But then I don't know what you are talking about.

[madibe]

Bugger the discussion of the Cathars in the 7th century.

Here we are now, in the now. What is important is the now and the future (not denying we can learn from the past of course!).

So getting back to our problem with Islam and to a lesser extent, fundamental Christianity, how is it to be tackled? Both globally and within our society and culture. Should we ignore the global, let them sort it out? Should we be concerned with infiltration of our culture in the west? Should we be concerned that this Islamic part of western society will not accept the views of others, be they Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Non Believers?

What is the motive in the middle east, and here in the west?

What effect can this have on global energy security, both immediately and in the longer term?

Ah... questions. It is all very un-PC. But these things need to be discussed. The main stream won't touch it, so will we?

[Little John]

Bugger the discussion of the Cathars in the 7th century.

Here we are now, in the now. What is important is the now and the future (not denying we can learn from the past of course!).

So getting back to our problem with Islam and to a lesser extent, fundamental Christianity, how is it to be tackled? Both globally and within our society and culture. Should we ignore the global, let them sort it out? Should we be concerned with infiltration of our culture in the west? Should we be concerned that this Islamic part of western society will not accept the views of others, be they Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Non Believers?

What is the motive in the middle east, and here in the west?

What effect can this have on global energy security, both immediately and in the longer term?

Ah... questions. It is all very un-PC. But these things need to be discussed. The main stream won't touch it, so will we?

Some cultures of the world are more or less backward/misogynistic/racist/superstitious/etc. Those parts of the world that are more culturally advanced should seek to positively cajole/influence the parts of the that are less so. But, should only do so with extreme caution. Firstly because of the law of unintended consequences and, secondly, because they may not be thanked for it. In an ideal world, those countries that are culturally at odds with our own should be just left alone to get on with it and develop in their own way and at their own pace.

The more culturally advanced societies should also seek to protect themselves from cultural pollution by limiting those aspects of other cultures that are in direct opposition to their most cherished norms and values. A reasonably uncontentious existing example would be current legislation that does not allow for discrimination against people of different race or sexuality on the grounds of religious belief. Consequently, as well as legally protecting such people, these laws have the additional important function of de-normalising racism and homophobia. Where this gets messy, though, is when the cultural norms to be legislated against also happen to correlate with racial groups due to accidents of the history of religions. At which point a great deal of liberal gnashing of teeth may be observed. But, I digress. The fact is, these countries and their cultures will never be left alone because they are sat on the oil and gas. Or, they are sat on strategically important transportation routes for the oil and gas. It's as simple as that. Consequently, their affairs will be meddled with until the oil and gas is gone. It is their curse.

As a result of 100 or more years of meddling by the industrialised West, these countries are a mess politically, culturally and religiously. I am not suggesting that the West is responsible for extreme, fundamentalist Islam. That strand of Islam has always existed, as it has always existed in Judaism and Christianity. However, what I am suggesting is that the relative strength of that strand and, it's cultural virulence in spreading around the world over the lest several decades is directly a result of our meddling. As I said, what the West should do is piss off out of their affairs and leave the hornet's nest to calm down. But the West will do nothing of the sort, because it can't and it can't because, if it does, the lights go out in the West and our societies fall apart.

So what happens next? The answer is that the West keeps meddling and, as a consequence, the social political and religious structures of those countries being meddled with become ever more fragmented, broken and extremist. This extremism bleeds over into Western countries via the anger of a large minority of people whose recent ancestry hails from that part of the world. A minority of people whose cultural/religious values have been in partial opposition to certain aspects of Western culture in any event. This, in turn, allows Western authorities to progressively demonize these people, in turn making it easier to justify and excuse the mess that has been created and will continue to be so over there. It's called a viscous circle and it wont end well.

The Islamic East and Christian West have always had a relationship that has ranged from uneasy to violently oppositional. Thus, integration of a large minority Muslim population into any Western society would always have been a tricky proposition in even the best of times. These, though, are not the best of times. The West has repeatedly, over the last 100 years or so, gone into that part of the world and re-drawn the maps of countries in ways that suit its own geo-political considerations, but which completely ignore historical boundaries based on ethnicity/religious denomination (when I say "the West" and "its" interests, by the way, I am referring to its economic and political elites. The rest of us in the West are, as ever, simply along for the ride). This has all further deteriorated in the last decade or two with the various military adventures in Afghanistan/Iraq.

Like I said, it wont end well.

[UndercoverElephant]

Bugger the discussion of the Cathars in the 7th century.

12th century.

So getting back to our problem with Islam and to a lesser extent, fundamental Christianity, how is it to be tackled? Both globally and within our society and culture. Should we ignore the global, let them sort it out? Should we be concerned with infiltration of our culture in the west? Should we be concerned that this Islamic part of western society will not accept the views of others, be they Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Non Believers?

What is the motive in the middle east, and here in the west?

What effect can this have on global energy security, both immediately and in the longer term?

Ah... questions. It is all very un-PC. But these things need to be discussed. The main stream won't touch it, so will we?

We have to start at home. There's not much we can do to provoke reform in the heartland of Islam, not least because the west has a long history of meddling in Islamic affairs (far predating the discovery of oil and gas). It doesn't work, and sometimes actually makes things worse.

At home is a different ballgame. Quite frankly, I think we should be clamping down on Islam so hard that many muslims are faced with the choice of either reforming their own brand of Islam, or leaving the country. I mean zero tolerance of anything which clashes with British law or normal British values. The justification for this? Our long history of fighting for freedom from Popery. Are we going to throw it all away? Are we going to defile the memory of all those people who fought to release us from the tyranny of the Roman church by allowing unreformed Islam to pollute our culture and poison the minds of young British people?

We also need to be vigilant to guard against any US-style Christian fundamentalist nonsense taking hold, although comparatively this is a much smaller threat.

[biffvernon]

Some cultures of the world are more or less backward/misogynistic/racist/superstitious/etc. Those parts of the world that are more culturally advanced should seek to positively cajole/influence the parts of the that are less so. But, should only do so with extreme caution. Firstly because of the law of unintended consequences and, secondly, because they may not be thanked for it. In an ideal world, those countries that are culturally at odds with our own should be just left alone to get on with it and develop in their own way and at their own pace.

It's easy to agree with all that. The tricky bit comes when one remembers that our 'culturally advanced' society is the one that invented the industrial revolution based on burning fossil fuel and an addiction to growth with finite resources, and is thereby endangering all cultures, good and bad, advanced and backward. It behoves us to change our own culture so that we may live sustainably on the planet and then demonstrate that it is a better way than that of other cultures.

[Little John]

Some cultures of the world are more or less backward/misogynistic/racist/superstitious/etc. Those parts of the world that are more culturally advanced should seek to positively cajole/influence the parts of the that are less so. But, should only do so with extreme caution. Firstly because of the law of unintended consequences and, secondly, because they may not be thanked for it. In an ideal world, those countries that are culturally at odds with our own should be just left alone to get on with it and develop in their own way and at their own pace.

It's easy to agree with all that. The tricky bit comes when one remembers that our 'culturally advanced' society is the one that invented the industrial revolution based on burning fossil fuel and an addiction to growth with finite resources, and is thereby endangering all cultures, good and bad, advanced and backward. It behoves us to change our own culture so that we may live sustainably on the planet and then demonstrate that it is a better way than that of other cultures.

It's also easy to agree with all of that. The tricky bit comes when one remembers that insofar as unsustainable growth goes, we already been there and done that. The majority of unsustainable growth is now going on in the far east and elsewhere and will continue to do so irrespective of what we do in places like Europe. Not that I am suggesting we should not begin the journey to a more sustainable future. In fact, it doesn't matter what I suggest, since that future is hurtling towards us where we like it or not.

Meanwhile, on the journey from here to there, every last drop of oil will be fought over with all of the attendant geo-political/economic/cultural collateral damage being discussed here. That's the world as it is.

[AndySir]

A little like the problem of aid dependancy, as a result of our interference the middle east now has a security dependancy. On a hundred year timeline you may say the best response is to cut them off and let the system normalise itself, but who but the most psychopathic of us could maintain their restraint when the inevitable images of children's bodies appear on the news?

Even without oil, 'leaving them to it' is politically tricky. Potentially a better solution is to focus our interference through international bodies: Red Cross / Crescent, Amnesty International, UNICEF etc?

[Little John]

A little like the problem of aid dependancy, as a result of our interference the middle east now has a security dependancy. On a hundred year timeline you may say the best response is to cut them off and let the system normalise itself, but who but the most psychopathic of us could maintain their restraint when the inevitable images of children's bodies appear on the news?

Even without oil, 'leaving them to it' is politically tricky. Potentially a better solution is to focus our interference through international bodies: Red Cross / Crescent, Amnesty International, UNICEF etc?

I agree. However, as I mentioned earlier, this won't happen because of the oil.

[biffvernon]

China seems to manage to not interfere yet still manage to import the oil it wants. Damn clever these Chinese.

[PS_RalphW]

Getting back to boots on the ground, it is , at the end of the day, all about oil.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014- ... sea-of-oil

the more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Little John]

China seems to manage to not interfere yet still manage to import the oil it wants. Damn clever these Chinese.

That’s because China has loads of energy of its own and has, hitherto, been a low wage economy. This has allowed its economy to grow at a remarkable rate, in turn leaving it sloshing with money that it is using to buy up most of Africa, for example. Good for them..at least for now. It also helps that they do not have the recent imperialist tendencies of a number of Western countries. That may be to do with the fact they built their empire around 5 thousand years ago.

[Little John]

Getting back to boots on the ground, it is , at the end of the day, all about oil.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014- ... sea-of-oil

the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Yep

[RevdTess]

Those parts of the world that are more culturally advanced should seek to positively cajole/influence the parts of the that are less so.
The more culturally advanced societies should also seek to protect themselves from cultural pollution by limiting those aspects of other cultures that are in direct opposition to their most cherished norms and values.

The interesting thing is that I'm sure ISIS/ISIL would say that's exactly what they're doing.

It's like the arguments among Christians right now between those who are anti-gay and pro-gay. Both sides believe they have moral superiority on the issue.

Ultimately the final and most powerful position in any argument is a moral one, whether we believe in an objective morality or not.

What's most disturbing for me about the actions of ISIS in Iraq is not even how grotesquely violent and cruel it is to its opponents, but how much their actions make sense from their cultural worldview - in which they have the superior morality, the Iraqi government is corrupt and western powers are decadent and morally lost. There are young idealistic men going there to build their ideal world with all the passion of a Che Guevara or western eco-warrior. It only takes a slight mental shift to believe that using force to achieve that is the right thing to do, and it's made even easier when those around you are saying and doing the same.

It's going to be very dangerous if the British Muslims who have gone to fight for ISIS find a way to come back here. They will not respect our culture in any way, and the first chance they get they'd carve out territory for their own culture and use violence to achieve it. And we'll use violence to stop them.

It's very hard to see how it can possibly end well.

[Little John]

Yes, Tess.

I should also clarify something here that did not come across well in my previous post to which you responded;

When I wrote more culturally "advanced", I agonised over that term a fair bit. there's plenty about Western culture in general and British culture in particular, to be sorry about. A lack of community or familial structures to start with, not to mention the commercial co-opting/commodification of sexuality and just about every other fundamental human instincts to an extent that is sickening, literally. That is to say, such commodification is bad for people's health.

On the other hand, there are aspects of Western secular liberal culture that are noble and worth preserving. The hard part is preserving these liberal aspects while not allowing the others mentioned above to wither. It does seem, sometimes, like there is inherent conflict between these two cultural gravitational forces.

There are some things, however, that I would argue clearly cross over a line. The general oppression and specific treatment of women as chattel, the treatment of people of different races and sexuality as lesser citizens, the enactment/enforcement of laws derived from religious/non secular doctrine etc. In relation to these things, at least, I think we can say our secular culture is superior and we should not be afraid to say it. That's all I really meant by "pollution". I just thought I should clarify that since it could be easily misconstrued, Not that I am for a moment suggesting you did.

And yes, a movement like ISIS, no doubt, would make a similar claim. In response to that I would make a couple of points. Firstly, while their claim may be the same in structure, in practice what they are trying to defend is, in part, those things that cross that cultural line I mentioned. And so, for better of for worse, that makes that them an enemy of my culture. Secondly, I think the MSM over here is making far too much of ISIS's involvement in the current uprising in Iraq. It is, for the most part, a Sunni uprising upon which ISIS have piggybacked, largely as a result of being forced out of the Syrian conflict. In other words, rebels without a cause. Thus, even assuming the Malaki administration is toppled, this will only represent the beginning of a deeper conflict between the liberals and conservatives that has yet to be played out.