Lunatic warmongerers: review of a review of a book
http://online.wsj.com/articles/book-review-a-time-to-attack-by-matthew-kroenig-1403220920
The link is to a WSJ review of a book written by an apparent trigger happy lunatic. The book in question is called 'a time to attack'. Clue no. 1 about the psychiatric help that the author needs.
How should one read this?
1. The conclusion is the title, why read the rest of the book? who wants to read a story without any suspense? who reads a story backwards? The answer is, the ones who are in agreement, but are either in conflict with self over that position or want to be able to convince others.
So the book is obviously not for people who want to figure things out or understand the very complicated situation that we are in. (Why not 'the Iran problem'/ 'the nuclear question')
It is for the ones who are too impatient to appreciate complexities and want simple 'final' answers. People who seek vicarious fulfillment in abstract far away conflicts in a bid to not face the real challenges of every day failures. 'There are final solutions out there, unlike my unemployment/ obesity/ falling apart relationships.'
'I am too impotent to actually affect change in my real life. So let me rage about something that obviously (they told me) is a threat to me.'
So he/ she would read this only to rationalise his/her hunger for violence. But that is for Americans, what about me who also read it?
2. what does it mean that I read this WSJ article on Mint newspaper in India?
The allies must declare their allegiance!
that the global subjects must believe in US. War is peace.
What does Mint (an Indian news paper) outsourcing its voice to US's propaganda machine mean?
3. Books tend to have a lot of words. The assumption is the volume of words are good indicators of thoroughness of research/ logic. Now one would assume a book like this, on a serious topic of crucial importance would be in the least be 'well informed'. "If it's in a book, it must be correct (or atleast from a perspective higher up than mine)."
How can any argument be considered well informed if it only takes into account one side of the story. The review gives an impression that the book concludes with a finality about attacking Iran, without ever trying to understand Iran. The logic, the people quoted are all American. Could it atleast name a few Iranians?
US has Robert Gates, Obama, Kroenig .. people with names. Iran has continuously revolving cenrifuges, ICBMs and crazy mullahs. Its the classic gambit of imperialists conquering the 'orient'. The other is not human - the other is a threat, a bomb, crazy fanatics. Genocide rationalization 101.
The distance from which the lunatic writes this is astonishing.. In the age of internet there really is no reason why one can't understand another people, their concerns or plans of better tomorrow. The only reason for this 'expert' to not include the 'other' point of view is to rationalize the impending genocide.. to make the attack look justified to the humans of USA. The distance is crucial to numb you of impending violence.
The military complex can't afford a decade without a major war. (Initiating civil wars just doesn't give as much growth to the bottom line.)
4. Whom should we trust? acts and facts or fatwas and guesses?
Who has been consistently violent with one engineered coup after another? Who has been the most vicious user of Nuclear bombs ever? (Why did it take 2 nuclear bombs in Japan to end the war? why not one?) Who has systematically subverted international tribunals and who has systematically refused to sign treaties to reduce weapon stock piles?
The link is to a WSJ review of a book written by an apparent trigger happy lunatic. The book in question is called 'a time to attack'. Clue no. 1 about the psychiatric help that the author needs.
How should one read this?
1. The conclusion is the title, why read the rest of the book? who wants to read a story without any suspense? who reads a story backwards? The answer is, the ones who are in agreement, but are either in conflict with self over that position or want to be able to convince others.
So the book is obviously not for people who want to figure things out or understand the very complicated situation that we are in. (Why not 'the Iran problem'/ 'the nuclear question')
It is for the ones who are too impatient to appreciate complexities and want simple 'final' answers. People who seek vicarious fulfillment in abstract far away conflicts in a bid to not face the real challenges of every day failures. 'There are final solutions out there, unlike my unemployment/ obesity/ falling apart relationships.'
'I am too impotent to actually affect change in my real life. So let me rage about something that obviously (they told me) is a threat to me.'
So he/ she would read this only to rationalise his/her hunger for violence. But that is for Americans, what about me who also read it?
2. what does it mean that I read this WSJ article on Mint newspaper in India?
The allies must declare their allegiance!
that the global subjects must believe in US. War is peace.
What does Mint (an Indian news paper) outsourcing its voice to US's propaganda machine mean?
3. Books tend to have a lot of words. The assumption is the volume of words are good indicators of thoroughness of research/ logic. Now one would assume a book like this, on a serious topic of crucial importance would be in the least be 'well informed'. "If it's in a book, it must be correct (or atleast from a perspective higher up than mine)."
How can any argument be considered well informed if it only takes into account one side of the story. The review gives an impression that the book concludes with a finality about attacking Iran, without ever trying to understand Iran. The logic, the people quoted are all American. Could it atleast name a few Iranians?
US has Robert Gates, Obama, Kroenig .. people with names. Iran has continuously revolving cenrifuges, ICBMs and crazy mullahs. Its the classic gambit of imperialists conquering the 'orient'. The other is not human - the other is a threat, a bomb, crazy fanatics. Genocide rationalization 101.
The distance from which the lunatic writes this is astonishing.. In the age of internet there really is no reason why one can't understand another people, their concerns or plans of better tomorrow. The only reason for this 'expert' to not include the 'other' point of view is to rationalize the impending genocide.. to make the attack look justified to the humans of USA. The distance is crucial to numb you of impending violence.
The military complex can't afford a decade without a major war. (Initiating civil wars just doesn't give as much growth to the bottom line.)
4. Whom should we trust? acts and facts or fatwas and guesses?
Who has been consistently violent with one engineered coup after another? Who has been the most vicious user of Nuclear bombs ever? (Why did it take 2 nuclear bombs in Japan to end the war? why not one?) Who has systematically subverted international tribunals and who has systematically refused to sign treaties to reduce weapon stock piles?
Comments