Lawrence, this is just not true. Saddam did not strive to pan-Arabism. He was a tin pot dictator and nothing more. Also, these people are not insane. They don't just want to destroy the infidel. Maybe a few somewhere do, but we have our Timothy McVey's and militias in Montana too. They are not the U.S. The Islamists have political agendas and goals that they further through, among other methods, suicide bombings, yes, that's true, but killing the infidel is not the goal. That's just paranoia and a corollary to the democracy is on the march theme. Al Qaeda is a bunch of weirdos, but the U.S. doesn't care about al Qaeda. The neocons wanted the oil, not eliminating al Qaeda. Paraphrasing Ricks, the danger is that the people of the M.E. will become so sick of Americans and their spreading of democracy by destroying countries, that a pan-Arab leader may arise and unite what are very disparate groups. And of course the Israeli-Palestinian issue has taken on a life of it s own. If you're going to categorize people as nothing but Timothy McVeys, kindly supply evidence beyond rhetoric. Empty rhetoric is what this country runs on, and here we are. Did you see the movie Syriana? It's an okay movie, but there's a sense in it of what drives the suicide attack against corporate interests (read: Haliburton, neocons, etc.). The little guy, including the CIA operative and the little guy's safety (which is to say, you and me) in the form of missing missiles, are just pawns for corporate. The suicide attack was ironically the only blow that corporate got. It's an okay movie but it's a lot more realistic than they're all out to get the infidel. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence Helm To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: 8/10/2006 8:42:29 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: A Movie [longish] Omar, I don?t feel a particular urge to discuss this with you, and since you didn?t read all of my note your claim to want to discuss something is not to be credited.: 1) I discussed this in the note you are responding to; so you shouldn?t be asking this question. However I?ll elaborate a bit just to be sociable: Militant Islam has two main parts to it. The first, Islamism, is an ideology that has grown up around the teachings of Wahhabism, Salafism, Maududi, Al Banna, Sayyid Qutb and Khomeini. It advocates a Fundamentalist adherence to the Sharia, but most important for us and important in their thinking is the advocacy of the Jihad for the furtherance of their doctrine. They advocate violence against the governments of the nations they find themselves in for after all these are but remnants of Colonialism and the new leaders are worse than the old Colonialists. They advocate violence against those who do not adhere to the Sharia because such people are the same as infidels. They advocate violence against infidels. Killing Civilians is okay because all infidels deserve death. Killing infidels while blowing yourself up is a noble thi ng and individuals who do that are to be praised as martyrs. Within Islamism are activist organization like Al Quaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, but anyone is entitled to strap bombs to himself and blow up infidels. It is all good. The near-term goal is to reclaim all the land previously held by Islam including Andalusia. The ultimate goal is to claim the entire world for Islamism. The second part is Pan-Arabism. This ideology advocates the return of the Caliphate and an elimination of borders created by Europeans after WWI. There is but one ummah and there should be but one leader over the ummah. Nassar was the first modern Pan-Arabist who wanted to lead the Arabian Umma. Later Saddam Hussein sought to be that leader. With the elimination of Saddam Hussein, the Pan-Arabist aspect of Militant Islam has been largely neutralized. The weakest link, Syria, still exist as ostensibly advocating this view. 2) I discussed this in the note you are responding to so you shouldn?t be asking this question, but I?ll elaborate further just to be sociable: The numbers of militant Islam were discussed in the note you are responding to. I don?t understand what more you want. We are here dealing with a very backward people not much given to free speech, opinion polls, etc., so ?experts? can but guess. You and I debated this matter in the past. You felt the Moderates were more numerous than the Militants. I found no evidence from this. I only heard the Militants speaking out. There were no Moderates speaking out in the Middle East. So they are either numerous but silent or not numerous. The one estimate I saw is that 30% of the 300,000,000 Arabs were Militants, but I suspect the number is much larger. If the Majority were Moderates surely they would find some means of speaking their moderation and this hasn?t occurred to my knowledge. Some post-colonial governments oppose Islami sm but we hear the Islamists are barely kept in check in those nations. Moderates don?t even dare to speak out there -- in Egypt for example. 3) You didn?t read the rest of my note, did you? 4) What do I expect the rest of the world to do when? You obviously didn?t read my note. You and Irene both have a very bad habit of just reading a line or two and making an assumption about the rest of the note. That might be okay if you weren?t all so inclined to dash off a note asking for a response that is contained in the note you obviously didn?t read. This is always irritating and the older I get the more I am inclined to say so. Lawrence -----Original Message----- From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Omar Kusturica Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 4:58 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: A Movie [longish] --- Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Paul, > > > > I just turned on my computer and was surprised to > find 36 notes in my > Lit-Ideas inbox, this note (your initial note) and > 35 following. I > appreciated your note and read it twice. I didn't > appreciate the notes > following that attempted to take things off on a > tangent or quibble about > how many people you want to destroy. *Well, Lawrence, I am sorry to interfere in your exchange of ideological pronouncements with a new comrade, but there is a couple of quibbles here. If you are seriosuly proposing to 'eliminate militant Islam,' you should be able to explain at least: 1. What is 'militant Islam' ? 2. How many proponents does it have, and how can they be identified ? 3. How is 'eliminating' to be done, and by whom ? 4. What do you expect the rest of the world is going to do ? When that is clarified, we could perhaps discuss your proposal seriously. O.K.