The San Bernardino Shooting

One angle in the investigation of the San Bernardino Shooting was how the Farook's obtained the assault weapons.  It has been reported that they legally purchased the handguns.  But nothing much has been said about how they obtained the assault rifles.*

If this shooting was motivated by geopolitics and therefore terrorism, as now seems almost certainly the case on the basis of facts reported in news reporting, several things should be kept in mind.

1) This is one of the very few Islamist terrorist shootings to occur inside the USA since 9/11.  14 people were killed.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people are killed by auto accidents every year.  And I could go on with millions of other mostly preventable deaths.  There is no good reason for mass fear.  An average American's risk of death from terrorism is exceedingly tiny compared with other death risks which people generally ignore.

2) Since 9/11, and far before, the US has been killing people in the middle east.  The number is at least nearly 100,000 and possibly a million or more.  And that's not even counting deaths from chemical exposure to depleted uranium, excess deaths from water purification systems which were destroyed and/or subjected to sanctions, and so on.  Though senseless, this possible terrorist act is blowback on an exceedingly tiny scale.

3) Giving in to fear is exactly what "the terrorists" (and specifically ISIL) want.  They want non-muslims to overreact with fear and panic and lash out against ordinary non-extremist muslims, thereby radicalizing all muslims.  Above all we should not give in to fear and panic which only makes this situation worse.  The 1.5 billion muslims in the world are almost entirely peace loving people and want to have nothing to do with terrorism and are as unhappy about Islamic Terrorists as non-muslims if not far more.

4) The correct actions for western powers to take are all peaceable.  We should be trying to negotiate at all levels.  And also accepting all refugees.  And jawboning the Saudi's to cool down their Wahabi schools.

5) US action in Syria goes back to the 1940's when Truman's CIA got newly independent Syria's first democratic government overthrown and replaced by a US-friendly dictator.  Or perhaps you could go back further to count how we helped the Syrian independence movement defeat the French.  We're really responsible for much of went on during the Arab Spring because we supported and encourage opposition movements.  It is known that Syria did not use chemical weapons against rebels in at least one alleged incident, and quite possibly all such incidents.  Instead Syrian rebels got supplies through the "ratline" from Libya abetted by the US.  US is the party most responsible for chaos in Syria, and it is our moral duty to accept all Syrian refugees.  US has been trying to overthrow Assad for geopolitical rather than humanitarian reasons.  Precisely because Assad has been a client of Russia.

The long history of US intervention in Syria

It goes back to March 30, 1949, when the CIA assisted Colonel Zaim to overthrow the elected government of Shukri Quwatly.  Truman was alarmed by Quwatly having direct dialog with the Soviet Union.

Up until 1946, Syria had been a colony of France, and the USA pressured France to grant independence in the aftermath of WWII.

Zaim immediately did his master's bidding, approving the ARAMCO pipeline to pipe Saudi oil to the Mediterranean, banning the Communist Party, and jailing dissidents.  But Zaim was intensely unpopular, and was overthrown less than 5 months after his appointment.

And on and on it went.  The full story here.

Let Russia Defeat ISIL, all others go home

The genesis of the Syrian Civil War was in the so-called Arab Spring.  The Arab Spring should not be thought of as an entirely grass roots event.  It was backed by US and Gulf State support going back to  mid 2000's, backing rebel groups that opposed Assad for largely religious reasons.  The rebel groups wanted theocracy, as in Saudi Arabia, whereas Assad has continued the Baath tradition of secular pluralistic democracy.  We should put aside any notion of Syria as being any more "undemocratic" than, say, the USA--which itself is now declared by political scientists to be an Oligarchy.  Assad wins internationally certified elections with large majorities, large majorities that want Syria to remain a secular state.  Elections in the USA are not internationally certified and often called into deep question both inside and outside the USA.

Given that context, Assad's reaction was perfectly predictable and cannot be entirely--or even mostly--blamed on Assad but rather on the US and Gulf States who were the first actors.  Needless to say, the US has always wanted Assad to go precisely because he is a Russian ally and not a US client.

WRT chemical weapons, at least one (and probably more) uses of chemical weapons in famous attacks was not by the Syrian government but rather by an Islamist army, al Nusra, which was directly supported by Gulf states and indirectly supported by the US through it's support for the feckless Free Syrian Army whose soldiers and weapons often seem to end up in al Nusra.

So at least half of the fingers we point at Assad for being a tyrant or whatever who "must go" should instead be pointed right back at US.

Since we're not talking about forcible regime change in the US who was the largest actor in the start of this conflict, we should not be talking about forcible regime change in Syria.  Assad has never been a threat to any other country (very much unlike the US regime and others) and so it is none of the business of other countries.

But that appears to be the aim of all other actors in the region except Russia and Iran.  Only Russia and Iran are supporting the still sovereign government of Syria.  All other actors are invaders.

The genesis of ISIL was a direct consequence of several US actions, including the Arab Spring, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the de-Bathification of the Iraqi government.

There is no moral, ethical, or defense reason why western countries should continue their invasion of Syria.  Russia and Iran are perfectly happy to defeat ISIL without western "help" which is really imperial competition, and a proto world war.

A "moderate" friend of mine rationalizes it differently, though to the same end.  "Considering how much we've screwed this up from the very beginning, and then continued doing so until now, at this point the best plan would be to slowly back away and hope to be quickly forgotten."

Neoliberalism: Undoing democracy

This book looks great:

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/booked-3-what-exactly-is-neoliberalism-wendy-brown-undoing-the-demos

Comments on the newest violence in Palestine/Israel

I do not believe Israel is sustainable long term w/o imperial backing.*  Jews in the BDS movement feel similarly.  Zionists claim otherwise, but you can feel the fear.  And this is of course why they want to be surrounded by all friendly clients, as Egypt has become.  Not by friends but clients.  Friends may have concerns, Clients will move along.  That project isn't looking good (or maybe it is--for awhile).  (*I mean as a continuing Jewish Supremacy Colonial State continuing as it is--to the horror of all.)

Anyway it isn't going to have Imperial backing forever.  Eventually the winds will change in one way or another.  And many clients may flip to friends or even something else.

Changing those winds ought to be the hinge point for the peace movement in USA--the USA itself is behind this whole mess and continues to support it with resources and cover.  Second, and I realize this is fantasy now, but talking Zionists down out of the tree by talking sense about it.*  It is of course destroying Judiasm and Western credibility generally.  This has been our number one security issue since at least 1991, cost us Trillions so far.

(*Here is how I might put it.  The wrong path has been followed from the beginning.  Letting thugs instead of ambassadors do the work.  As the most educated and intelligent Americans and Europeans, Jews could have built a model multi-ethnic state, putting the USA to shame.  The end result of taking the low road is that the reputation of Judaism is destroyed in the long run.  Depending on how this works out, centuries to come Jews could be too embarrassed to admit they were Jews.  That is the likely long run outcome of a militaristic approach that endlessly grinds away at the indigenous population.  There is still time to turn back and do things the right way, following Jewish principles--treating their neighbor as best friend.  The USA did grant full citizenship to indigenous peoples in 1905.  Territories have been mostly stable (though some mining encroachment which has been awful).  Israel could do the same thing, and much more.)

So really what both sides should do, IMHO, is nothing.  Just wait it out.  Gradually work on the politics if possible in a positive way.  Or at least keyboard clicks instead of bullets.

For the Zionists this works like this: the cooler they are, the longer their Imperial backing will last.  And more perhaps is on the line than that, as I said above, the identity itself is at stake.

For Palestinians, job 1 is survival.  Intifada doesn't help that.

That's my chicken dove kitchen table opinion anyway, which I'm sure nobody will follow.  But otherwise, my feelings are not so "balanced" as this article.*  I believe that Palestinians have a right to defend themselves within their entire original territories, whose dispensation they never agreed to except in one agreement which was fraudulent (Camp David).  Meanwhile, until they withdraw from occupied territories and remove all settlements there and all blockades against Gaza, Israelis do not have a right to claim self defense as a justification for any violence they use.  They are an invading army/settler-colonial-state, and they have the right to peace only upon withdrawal and cessation of war activities including occupation and blockade at least to current international agreements (which were unfairly decided in their direction in the first place).  Or just give up the whole idea of a Jewish Supremacy State, that's now looking like the easier approach.  But meanwhile Israel kills far more Palestinians.

(*to be linked soon.  Typical mainstream both sides do it.  Or that was mainstream long ago.  Then it was those damn arab terrorists.  Now Israel itself is coming into mainstream US consciousness, more and more, not in a good way.  We've passed through both sides do it, and beyond perhaps.)

Critique of Alinsky Method

I like this critique of the Alinsky Method.

I've always thought that it must go that way, and Staughton Lynd describes from his own experiences as an Alinsky teacher.

Troll vs Contrarian

A Contrarian takes a position.  Specifically a position contrary to the other's (or the mainstream's) position.  Therefore a contrarian is subject to rhetorical attack both for their criticism and for their contrarian position.

A religious skeptic, for example, isn't just skeptical of religion, they adopt atheism.  That makes religious skepticism not trolling.

A concern troll need not take a position, though what they sometimes simply do is adopt the mainstream position, or the position of the group they are mingling with, without argument or defense.  Instead they focus all their rhetorical energy in attacking that very position indirectly by showing all the nuances that must be maintained in arguing about it, thereby constraining the argument ultimately to the advantage of an opposing position.

All arguments are deliberate falsehoods, in the sense of limiting the information to a particular set of ideas among a universe of others. Not the whole truth is an important aspect of truthiness, some sentences capture the whole truth better than others, but none can capture very much of it.  So we should not be surprised when all arguments can be in some ways shown to be false.  But there is no need to belabor the point.  The heart of an argument as an argument is primarily in it's capturing the primary essence, which if accepted means it becomes the most subject to qualification, not the least.