Influential French economist Thomas Piketty is begging important questions this week after positing a theory that the rise of the Islamic State (or ISIS) can be attributed, at least in part, to extreme regional inequality in the Middle East fueled largely by oil wealth.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
We will never get an honest answer in that question.
It should become apparent that ISIS was funded by Turkey , The Saudis and their Western allies like the USA all along and from the very first. People will remember that the Western press started providing cover stories for where this money coming from very early on by publishing news stories that it was beng robbed from banks in Iraq a claim Iraq denied even as those denials did not make those news stories.
They also needed cover stories for the source of weapons so claimed they plundered from Iraqi soldiers that ran away from battle.
This shows some amount of planning went into the creation of ISIS and we were being set up with this phony narrative all along. Russia always knew this and after those provocations in the Ukraine and in South Ossetia decided they had enough and would expose the lies being told us.
Holy Ak-47s Batman! So poverty breeds anger and rebellion? I had NEVER thought of THAT!
We have created a new level of spiritual poverty, lower than a constant hunger, lower than sleeping under a bridge in the snow. The new abyss is when masses of people have become constantly in fear for their lives.
We have seen centuries of popular response to extreme poverty. For example, Ireland had a simmering rebellion against Britain for 400 years. Usually the rebels kill a few soldiers, the soldiers kill more than a few rebels and everybody weeps. In the 19th century people experimented with such things as assassinating heads of state and economic barons. Also, revolutionary France tried killing off all the nobility. Then Russia killed all of its rich people. China got rid of all of its rich and middle class people after the 1949 Revolution. Pol Pot scrubbed out every last non-poor person with a vengeance. In my opinion the civilized world has mostly learned that the people in power are simply people, and that nonviolent methods work better than blind violence.
Then came the carpet bombing king. The U.S. flattened Japan's cities for practice. They pockmarked Korea worse than Japan. They blasted and poisoned Vietnam worse than Korea. Iraq has been turned into a giant carcinogen. 1.3 million people died.
Then the U.S. reinvented human torture. The innocent and the guilty, mostly the innocent it turned out, were sexually shamed, wired with electrodes and waterboarded.
What we see in Syria now, we saw under the Khmer Rouge. A large group of soldiers, driven to a fury by the death and madness of a decades-long terrible war, by the killing of friends and family in practically every soldier's life, inflict death or sexual slavery on anyone and everyone in their way. It's not economic. It certainly isn't Bible, Torah or Koran-based. It's psychopathic.
Any sane person who has a handle on world history/geography knows that poverty, enslavement, mistreatment, and rampant inequality create discord and then violence when such conditions are left unchanged. No surprise.
The Irish armed revolution 1919 to 1921 was successful, the Russian revolution - not particularly violent until the western supported white Russians started a western war by proxy - was successful. The Cuban armed revolution was successful. Gandhi was successful becsaue there was also armed resistance. The Sandinista armed revolution - bloodless until the US intervened with the contras - was successful...
An analysis or almost every region might give similar results as Mr. Picketty, himself, has pointed out in his important work, 'Twenty-first Century Capital.' I'm certainly not against putting that lens on the Middle East but this article implies that this inequality is to be atributed to this region alone.
"Influential French economist Thomas Piketty is begging important questions this week"
Surely the writer meant, 'is raising important questions' and not the very different idea of 'begging the question.' Unlike grammatical errors that are easily overlooked, this matters because when a writer demonstrates a lack of awareness of English, especially at the beginning of an important article, as it can diminish confidence in the writer who has shown his or her inability to fully understand terms of art, nuances and other non-literal expressions. Some errors can be chalked up to hurried deadlines but to completely fail to grasp a well known phrase, sends a disconcerting message to the educated reader that could undermine the article itself.
This error is undoubtedly not that of Mr Picketty, who is a non-native English speaker, but that of the CD writer who one might think perhaps is native to English.
Editing alert. "Thomas Piketty is begging important questions this week ..." This is absolutely not what 'begging the question' means, and doesn't even follow the common expanded usage of the term, whereby one question leads to another.
For the sake of intelligibility, if for nothing else, please revert to the good old English usage: a person 'raises' a question.
Slowly, the world awakens to the West's subjugation of all things' Oil. Look at the "economics" of "society". Burn more--good. Burn less--bad. Tease out this through the markets. Keep the people scrambling (burning, burning, burning, keep on people burning--your-cide ). Build your own economic model (on reality) or die. Sorry to be a "spoiled sport".
Theory...Not...To frame the scenario in this manner is fallacious.
If one cannot secure Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, there will be revolt, and rightly so.
And it isn't just a problem in the Middle East.
Good to see that CD has corrected the phrase of "begging important questions' for the correct one: 'raising important questions.' Thanks for doing that.
An Alternative to Capitalism (since we cannot legislate morality)
Several decades ago, Margaret Thatcher claimed: "There is no alternative". She was referring to capitalism. Today, this negative attitude still persists.
I would like to offer an alternative to capitalism for the American people to consider. Please click on the following link. It will take you to my essay titled: "Home of the Brave?" which was published in the OPEDNEWS:
"Give me neither poverty nor riches"