They went in the direction they did partly as a result of the fact that the dictator fucking their lives up was the very definition of a decadent western guy. Dude flew in food from Paris for lunch like every day. Their movie theaters played more porn than actual movies. Their country had been turned into everything the Christian right said Hollywood and liberals were trying to do in the 90's. It's no wonder that they went very conservative when they overthrew him. When you push too far in one direction, you'll get a push back from the other. It's like that for motion and politics. Had they been a nation where Christianity was the major religion they would have made the tea party look like a bunch of atheists.
I'm not disputing our actions have consequences. I'm disputing the fact that you think actions have direct outcomes that one can isolate. And I think your kind of proving my point.
You point to the fact they viewed him as western and had Islam as reasons they went the way they did, how do any of the actions that followed rationally follow from that. Not everybody rejects western systems when the West interferes and oppresses them. What caused Iran to go one way but not India and Africa to follow in the same way? Is there not a exploration of the differences warranted?
Which is my point the US's actions aren't in isolation. On many criticisms It seems these are forgotten and the only reason Iran is they way it is because of US action. As if Iranians didn't choose to kill the leftist opposition, as if the masses of people weren't free to choose between who they supported, as if it was an automatic response to capture hostages in an embassy. These aren't automatic response. They're chosen. And while the US's actions (which also don't happen in a vacuum and are response to others actions look at egypt over the past few years and how US policy changes in response to egyptian developments)
can help set the stage you still need the script to be written.
Your view is incredibly naive on this. Yes, we are indeed to blame for Iran's lurch to extremism due to putting said extremism in power. Which we have done throughout the middle east. Comparisons to Vietnam and Chile are irrelevant given the religious extremism differences. Yes there are things beyond the US at play, but to deny that the US played a major role in antagonizing violence in the middle east for the last 60 years is to deny reality.
I notice a lot of liberals focus on Greenwald the person instead of his arguments and/or stories, which is convenient. Greenwald does indeed strike me as a prissy asshole but that has no bearing on the fact that he's right. And I'd imagine if McCain or Romney were president, Greenwald the person wouldn't prevent liberals from being more receptive to his work. But since it's aimed at Obama it triggers a defense mechanism.
Naive? Maybe if you misread my posts which you last sentence of the first paragraph clearly shows. I've never denied the US's actions have consequences. I'm denying the culpability (or at least exclusive culpability) of the extremism. Its absurd and ironically quite 'imperialistic' to claim the countries which the west interfered in 'had' to act in a certain way or respond as they did. The entire point of other countries is to show there are different responses. And your highlighting of the religious reasons is exactly part of my point!!! The US didn't create these ideologies they don't direct how people must react. They don't choose the actions of other nations. These need to be understood just as much as the US's role. Otherwise your ignoring a lot of people and saying their actions don't matter.
And you paragraph about greenwald is something you've repeated before. I think its clear this isn't an Obama defense but a general dislike of his ideology, which I've attacked. Its not ad hominem, at least in my case.
Sorry but I'm not sure I understand this response, when I already addressed it. Let me address it in another way. Yes the bad guys have agency. Yes there are zealot asshole pricks out there and yes they act of their own volition without America's input. They are just power hungry zealots piggybacking off the grand disillusionment with Americana among the middle eastern population. You can very well draw an extremely straight line with what's happening in middle east, especially Iran, Iraq and Gaza, the three central flashpoints with our intervention and policy. The 1979 revolution was a political earthquake in the Islamic world, which showed people that they can actually reject what "The Order" wants. Many of the groups have violent rejection of America in it's creed because of this. Israel is seen as just another extension of America's imperial designs on the region. It's like arguing who should get the credit for Bin Laden's death, Obama or the Seal Team 6. Answer is both, but Obama should get more credit because he moved the chess piece.
I think its profoundly disrespectful to say that people automatically respond one way or are just 'responding to disillusionment' or 'of course they would do this' when mentioning specific actions like support for suicide bombings, support for repressive theocracies, lack of equality for women, etc. The masses have agency and their support for certain actions isn't automatic or always a rational response to US policy. This doesn't make them evil or bad it just makes things complicated and finding causes difficult. My problem is the radical left (socialist left) seems to gloss over any kind of understanding and jumps to 'west's faults' and works backwards trying to find the line from some past action to the current situation.
If one thinks they can draw a straight line with not millions of other lines drawing into the main one I really don't know what to say. Its just not accurate.
People keep wanting me to say something I'm not saying. I'm not saying the US is innocent of everything.
There were suicide bombings because there was (and still today) the unfair domination of one group (shi'i) over another group (sunni). I think "causual" violence is as destructive as suicide bombing, our western sensibility just play a role here.
And yes, there is may be a particular point of view regarding martyr in Islam, more than with christianity. But let's not forget the diversity that comes with islam.
I think that's the point. And of course one shouldn't ignore the diversity in Islam. But its often pushed aside as if the underlying world view has no role to play. No Islam doesn't lead to suicide bombing, but to ignore branches of islam and certain ideas that have popped up and attached themselves to many aspects of the present day islam in the middle east is a recipe for never understanding them.
You have to look at economics, politics, health, narratives, and yes islam as a whole to begin to understand these attacks, political movements and terrorist groups. Sometimes it seems people want to wipe the last from the conversation.
