BW: healthy skepticism, checking our assumptions, detaching from mere local interest - all of the above are surely not among the things that cloud our eyes in the search for the truth. However, assuming away the idea that there is such a thing as "truth" surely does hamper such efforts.
It is one thing not to take who's good or bad for granted, and at the same time realize our own eyes may be tainted (as they surely are).
It is a completely different idea to start waltzing between clear instances of evil, always "putting them in context", when that context itself is always put into context (that could obviously continue indefinitely).
But let's forget the abstract stuff for a while. Let's talk about What we know, the limits on that, what it might indicate - and what it might not.
There's this (natural?) tendency to assume that, as we can't know everything - not everything happens in front of our eyes (and then there are those who exploit that fact to operate in the shades) - in fact we know nothing, or what we think we know is essentially so twisted, we simply cannot afford to use it, and have to replace it (via some "independent" measure? or otherwise - there are suggestions galore).
But that is nonsense. That has to give way too much credit to some external, god-like forces, and diminish our own, whether personal or collective POVs, to an inconsequential level. That has to be self defeating: does it not deprive you from the right to judge (anything) in the first place? let alone the fact that, we just don't see it this way - we don't go by the intuition that "since there's much we don't know; and as we've seen what you see is not what you get; thus we know nothing".
Isis? Iraq? surely we could point a finger at so many wrongs that happened there, and helped bring about this mess (excuse me, Jones, for using this word. It's not intended in a pejorative way - it's just a huge mess: we don't seem to be able to make sense of it all, try to fix it, or even agree on basic factual matters). Western agencies do and have been meddling with affairs in the region trying to promote their own interests (not just western; not just in the region; etc. But let's leave that for now).
But to start thinking of all that happens there as something they actually intended (beyond the uninteresting "they knew they would destabilize" or "cause unrest", rock the boat, etc.) is not so credible. It sometimes involves such beliefs like: "do you really think the CIA did all that without knowing/intending that X will fall/come to power/ make us money". etc. I personally believe that they (CIA just an example)have indeed meddled and caused much harm - but I don't tend to hold them in such high esteem as knowing WTF was going to happen. In fact I don't trust most of them, governments, intelligence agencies, what have you, to locate their left testicle in a clear sunny day. Harmful they may be (even extremely so), omnipotent - hardly.
Which all points back to where my problem with all the preceding seeming over intellectualizing of matters: intention does matter. We are not [size=medium]morally [/size][size=medium]worthless, and not everything of significance is beyond our ken. Mystery and conspiracy theories, though not to be excluded as possibilities, tend to saturate and blur such discussions, as they undermine our intuitions and the validity of the direct, "naive" - but also naturally realistic - perception and intuition. [/size]
[size=medium]Some really angry dudes harmed by (too many to count), who are in some (crazy) way inspired by, and believe they are affiliated with Islam, react in an irrational (for us), violent way, and spiral out of control. Nobody's able to stop them. They sit on some lucrative assets, and are supported by like elements (with heavy assets of their own). They quickly grow to scary dimensions, and become a world problem.[/size]
[size=medium]They are able to inflict harm "back on those who harmed them", and so they do. monstrously.[/size]
[size=medium]Sounds to me like the story has enough colors as is, I'm not looking to embellish further. I wonder why anyone would. Not falling victim to naivety or simplicity is one thing. Trading common sense and intuition for intricacy, supposedly in the name of curiosity, well, that's another. Dubious step, AFAIC.[/size]
