

Ancient Nimrud Ruins 'bulldozed' in Iraq - Libertatea
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31759555

======
swombat
It's interesting to think about why it is that we are so much more incensed
(as we are) by this wanton destruction of historical artefacts than by the
destruction of human lives - beheadings, mass murders, etc.

I think both actions, the murders and the destruction, are designed to sully
us all, to drag us down to their level of blind hatred. The reason why the
destruction of historical artefacts is more effective at achieving this is,
perhaps, because while we feel some distant sympathy towards "some foreigners
that I don't know" being murdered, we feel personally insulted by what we
regard (rightly) as our collective, human historical heritage being destroyed.
We feel this affects us personally - I know I feel I do, anyway. It feels like
a much more personal and intimate insult.

Ironically, the fact that this is such an effective way to get people upset
(and thereby polarise them) guarantees that IS, the Taliban, and other
extremist groups that depend on global polarisation will continue to destroy
priceless historical artefacts everywhere they find them. They depend on the
cycle of getting remote people to get emotionally enraged, getting those same
people to mistreat muslims local to them, thereby causing more muslims around
the world to feel disenfranchised by western society, thereby making ISIS's
recruitment work easier.

As one article pointed out after the Charlie Hebdo shooting, the major issue
that ISIS has with the west is that the vast majority of the muslims here have
zero interest in what ISIS is doing. By letting ourselves be provoked into
making generalist statements about whole population (e.g. someone who reads
this, gets pissed off, and then goes and votes on tougher laws against Islam
in their country), we do ISIS's work.

I suggest responding to this with sadness rather than anger.

~~~
tomtoise
I always though the reason I found this more enraging than the beheadings was
because human life, at risk of sounding callous, is 'expendable' in that there
are billions of us, with new humans being born every second, but these
artifacts are literally irreplacable.

I had a conversation with my SO with regards to the destruction without
mentioning my view on why it affects us so much more and she pretty much came
to the same conclusion.

~~~
shiggerino
And from a utilitarian point of view it teaches us that there are more points
of view than just Islam. It might save a few lives in the future knowing that
one group doesn't hold the monopoly on the truth.

------
dimillian
I'm so revolted inside, and I can't do anything. Can I? They literally destroy
history in order to bend it to their will.

~~~
thomasatethose
We can work on digitally archiving everything, and distributing it to save the
knowledge at least I hope. Maybe something like google books but for history.

~~~
United857
Over 15 years ago, Stanford did a project to 3D scan statues of Michelangelo.
[http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/mich/](http://graphics.stanford.edu/projects/mich/)

Sad to see this isn't something common nowadays given the proliferation of the
3D ecosystem in general.

------
mirimir
For context, I recommend [http://www.newstatesman.com/world-
affairs/2014/11/wahhabism-...](http://www.newstatesman.com/world-
affairs/2014/11/wahhabism-isis-how-saudi-arabia-exported-main-source-global-
terrorism)

~~~
shiggerino
I fail to understand their conclusion. IS is not an atavistic return to a
primitive past because it's based on Wahhabism, an atavistic return to a
primitive past?

I also think she is severely underestimating their support in the ummah. It's
easy to superficially condemn the destruction of museum pieces, because hey,
museums are pretty neat and educational. But it's very hard to condemn on a
deeper level IS' fight against idolatry when the prohibition on idolatry is
such a central tenet of your faith, the Shahada.

~~~
mirimir
I recommended it because it seems to cover the history well. It also seems to
have less of an agenda than either
<[http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-
isi...](http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-
wants/384980/>) or the Intercept's counter
<[https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/20/atlantic-
defin...](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/20/atlantic-defines-real-
islam-says-isis/>).

What's modern about ISIS, she argues, is mass killing. And then there's the
GTA vibe, and the glamorization of mass killing. But destruction of idols is
hardly unique.

I do fear that the Wahhabis have gamed the Infidels well. They used their
petrodollars to proselytize the ummah. Then they incited fear and loathing
through terrorist attacks. They sucked the Neocons into invading Iraq, and
creating the chaos needed for expansion. Time will tell.

------
speakeron
Everything ISIS do seems designed to outrage western liberal sensitivities.
And, indeed, I'm outraged.

When I think about it a bit more the question is: who's yanking my chain so
perfectly?

------
shiggerino
I guess Baghdadi doesn't just want to be the next Abu Bakr, but also the next
Qin Shi Huang.

