Modest Proposals

"I will teach you differences."
Ludwig Wittgenstein
I am curious as to whether peace can be negotiated in the Middle East without the indigenous populations voting on their own borders. I’ve been reading a book on Syria, and plan to finish it this weekend, and I am astonished at how much sectarian strife has come about through the definition of national borders based on Western interests (especially that of French—for Syria, for instance). It seems that if this is not the sole cause, then it is a central cause of the ambiguity that has occurred in the 20th century between lines of ethnicity, religion, and political affiliation (especially, again, in the Middle East), and the identification of the three with locality.
A more recent example, one that is taking place right now, is the pressure the US is putting on the Kurds to stay within Iraqi borders, whereas the Kurds are much more interested in being their own entity (and it seems as if peace is a much greater prospect for this option). From what I can tell, at least, it is the largest ethnicity to not have a national affiliation. 

"No matter where the name "Khorasan" came from, its easy to see why it could be a positive for U.S. officials to use it. For one thing, by avoiding using the name al-Qaeda, the U.S. doesn’t remind the world that after more than a decade of the "War on Terror," al-Qaeda is still an operational force. It also allows the U.S. to avoid mention of strikes on Jabhat al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda group that enjoys a large amount of support in Syria and opposes both the Islamic State and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Finally, there’s the simple fact that Khorasan is a new and evocative name. Frankly, it’s something for the U.S. public to latch onto.”

(Source: Washington Post)

[Defense Department does not believe that ISIS has] the capability right now to conduct a major attack on the U.S. homeland.

— Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby, last month

A breakdown of the missile strikes today in Syria:

What happened: The Pentagon says U.S. forces launched 47 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles from warships in the Red Sea and North Arabian Gulf. Maybe 20 Islamic militants were killed. The Assad regime was warned of the attack, hours before it happened. The US has spoken in the past on Syria’s formidable aerial defense, a defense latent today—perhaps because the United States did not attack any major contemporary ISIS strongholds in Syria, but mainly empty buildings.

What was the justification? No congressional vote, no UN resolution. It was a unilateral act of the Obama administration.

What was the reason? “First it was to protect U.S. personnel inside Iraq. Then it was humanitarian. And now it’s an imminent threat of a new group that it was only Thursday that was being talked about. Our intelligence agencies have been saying that there is an imminent threat to the United States, so this is yet another justification.” Yes, the more recent specter of imminent threat has been debunked by the Obama administration itself:
"White House press secretary Josh Earnest acknowledged during a Tuesday briefing that "the United States is not aware of any active plotting that is underway to attack the homeland" — a statement that echoes those made by several agencies in recent weeks."

Well, isn’t it sad, Amy, that the day that the world should be coming together to say, “How do we address the climate chaos that can really destroy our entire planet?” instead, the eyes will now be on the U.S. bombing campaign in Syria. And let’s remember that the climate crisis, the U.S. is so responsible for, so let’s think about the timing of it. Also thinking about the timing is that the U.S. and the Obama administration is doing a George Bush. It’s saying, “Now, we are coming together to say there’s a fait accompli,” and that’s the bombing, “and you’re either with us or against us.” Look at the coalition it brought together, among the most repressive governments in the Middle East—Bahrain, that’s been repressing its nonviolent, democratic uprising; the Saudis, who provide the financing and the recruits for so many of the extremists. This is the diplomatic success of John Kerry. Instead of coming to the U.N. to say that we have the world coming together to stop the recruiting and the financing and the buying of the oil that ISIS has, we have the accomplishment of having repressive Arab regimes joining us in bombing another Arab state.

—Medea Benjamin, making brilliant connections between the US’s moves in the Middle East and political issues surrounding climate change. See full transcript here:

I’m not sure whether this “standing up to” ISIS is a “standing for” human rights and democracy (since America continuously has a bad record for human rights and international law violations).

Or whether this non-war/war with ISIS is an act of historical revisionism: whereby “erasing” ISIS will erase the political alliances, funding, bombings, and general power moves of the United States in the Middle East that has created the conditions and provided the impetus for a group like ISIS. Whether this non-war/war will, if it succeeds, guarantee, at least in the United States’s mythology, that history will be written by the powerful, by the victors, that the instances in which the United States has breached its very principles (democracy, liberty, etc.) will be interpreted as enactments of these principles.

In Aristotle, there is but one theologian, God. And theology is the manner by which God possesses himself. In the Middle Ages, grace opens to all men the theology that God alone possessed in Aristotle.

—Levinas, God, Death, and Time, p. 137 (via spiritandteeth)

(via theoretical-and-philosophical)

jayshana:

flawlesstitties:

otherbully1:

internetsgreatesthits:

cutebeam:

softboycollective:

postracialcomments:


A Texas man is under arrest after gunning down a SWAT team member as the officer quietly tried to climb in through the apartment’s window during predawn hours.
Police State USAreports  that a resident fatally shot Detective Charles “Chuck” Dinwiddie as the officer climbed in through a ground level window as part of a “no knock” raid. The officers were there due to suspicion that residents were in possession of controlled substances.
Upon hearing a noise, resident Marvin Louis Guy, 50, opened fire on the unidentified officers, shooting three others as well, although only one fatally.
Guy is currently being held on capital murder charges in connection with Dinwiddie’s death, even though it’s unclear how Guy was supposed to know that the men crawling in through the window were police officers since they hadn’t identified themselves.
The evidence sheet lists a laptop, a safe, a pistol, and a glass pipe, but no drugs were found. Given the evidence, why did police deem it necessary to seek a “no knock” warrant and why did a judge sign off on it?
Very little is known about Mr. Guy, but Dinwiddie left behind two children, all because his SWAT team went creeping into a home where the residents didn’t even have any drugs. Is that the best use of law enforcement tax dollars?
Guy’s bond has been set at $3 million dollars.

Source
Thank you lieutenantnorals!

"cop breaks and enters with state approval, gets his ass shot"

brah………………. BRUV……………………..

this happened in Texas where it is perfectly legal to shoot and kill someone who is breaking into your home

Literally everybody knows that in Texas you can open fire on someone who comes onto your property without permission. What in the hell did they expect??

Where the NRA at? In the largest pro-gun state of Texass, those second amendment rights only apply if you’re white.

Oh no stand your ground for the homie right???? NO STAND YOUR GROUND FOR THE HOMIE RIGHT????!????!!!!

jayshana:

flawlesstitties:

otherbully1:

internetsgreatesthits:

cutebeam:

softboycollective:

postracialcomments:

A Texas man is under arrest after gunning down a SWAT team member as the officer quietly tried to climb in through the apartment’s window during predawn hours.

Police State USAreports  that a resident fatally shot Detective Charles “Chuck” Dinwiddie as the officer climbed in through a ground level window as part of a “no knock” raid. The officers were there due to suspicion that residents were in possession of controlled substances.

Upon hearing a noise, resident Marvin Louis Guy, 50, opened fire on the unidentified officers, shooting three others as well, although only one fatally.

Guy is currently being held on capital murder charges in connection with Dinwiddie’s death, even though it’s unclear how Guy was supposed to know that the men crawling in through the window were police officers since they hadn’t identified themselves.

The evidence sheet lists a laptop, a safe, a pistol, and a glass pipe, but no drugs were found. Given the evidence, why did police deem it necessary to seek a “no knock” warrant and why did a judge sign off on it?

Very little is known about Mr. Guy, but Dinwiddie left behind two children, all because his SWAT team went creeping into a home where the residents didn’t even have any drugs. Is that the best use of law enforcement tax dollars?

Guy’s bond has been set at $3 million dollars.

Source

Thank you lieutenantnorals!

"cop breaks and enters with state approval, gets his ass shot"

brah………………. BRUV……………………..

this happened in Texas where it is perfectly legal to shoot and kill someone who is breaking into your home

Literally everybody knows that in Texas you can open fire on someone who comes onto your property without permission. What in the hell did they expect??

Where the NRA at? In the largest pro-gun state of Texass, those second amendment rights only apply if you’re white.

Oh no stand your ground for the homie right???? NO STAND YOUR GROUND FOR THE HOMIE RIGHT????!????!!!!

(via wilwheaton)

One of the best and worst ideas to come out of pragmatic American philosophy intersects in the same concept: “context.”

The good: A word (phrase, sentence, etc.) has meaning only as it is used in a context.

The bad: Nobody talks about the fact that the limits of a context are arbitrarily defined and therefore are “instituted” by the critic, by the philosopher, who is questioning the meaning of a thing or language.