Nir is unhappy

So I made a negative comment about his reference in a recent article by Nir Rosen. He wrote (to Amer and me) me this: "look you nitpicking grump, the point i was making was clear. it had nothing to do with progress or enlightenment or even freedom, it had to do with the level of comfort people had in public in baghdad. i specifically referred to "the random violence that once took anyone and everyone as its target" its the same point i make when i refer to new restaurants or people driving expensive cars, it has strictly to do with the level of security and the reduced fear of rampant criminal gangs. thats why i also say "women in immodest dress risked being killed while men sporting western fashions were asking to be beaten. Today men congregate in newly opened bars, a sign, at least, that vigilante extremists have stopped blowing them up." these are real changes that happened, and they do mean something, even if its a fragile and temporary change, as i make clear in the article". So Amer wrote this in response: "It is not nitpicking, it is actually a critique of your naive view of such matters: no Nir, it means nothing that there is an explosion in conspicuous consumption and that the newly rich in Iraq can now exhibit their wealth in walled neighborhoods. When the US and the Iraqi government want to promote a narrative that justifies their past actions and legitimizes their existence, they want you to only look at such phenomena and see in them a sign of some form of "success."" So Nir then wrote: "i mention that violence is down and people are able to move about with somewhat more freedom but the entire article is about how despite that all iraqis are traumatized, most of the millions of displaced iraqis are too scared to go home, sectarianism still persists among the security forces, torture and ransom are routine, the americans are still rounding up iraqis and even killing innocent ones, so i hardly think my acknowledgment that there is in fact a reduction in random violence in baghdad justifies anybody else's narrative if you read the entire article. i stress that point by adducing my friend who says "all of this is a lie" the article if anything is a tour of a traumatized iraqi population, which is why i say "Travelling around Iraq six years “after the fall”, as Iraqis say, one encounters a deeply wounded people. None were spared from the violence." and then i give examples. i dont think you read the entire article if you can misconstrue one line like that." I have the permission of both jerks to cite those responses.