[lit-ideas] Re: Anarchism and Leftism
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 16:01:47 -0700
SW: "Which treaty are you reffering to Lawrence? The one signed but not
implemented in 1983? Israel eventually retreated in 2000 and a lot happened
between those two dates. Do you really believe that Israel retreated as a
result of signing the 1983 treaty?"
LH: The accord was approved by both parties, by Israel and Lebanon. Later,
Lebanon reneged. Is that reneging what you mean by "not implemented"?
SW: Of more relevance is UN resolution 1559, dating from 2004.
LH: Yeah right. After 1983 Israel kept a small buffer in Lebanon which was
especially important since Lebanon reneged on the treaty by leaving
Hizbollah in place. 1559 would have removed the buffer and made it that
much easier for Hizbollah to do what it ultimately did.
SW: Lawrence, you're being ignorant yourself if you don't believe Israel has
any motive past defending itself. And of course, you then go on to
misreperesent my position and that of the left in assuming an alliance with
Islamists. No such alliance exists except in the imagination of the US
Right.
LH: The evidence exists. Read former Leftist David Horowitz' book, The
Unholy Alliance. Your saying "no such alliance exists" doesn't make it go
away.
SW: No, yet again you're willfully misrepresenting. Yes I distrust Israel,
but that doesn't mean to say I 'prefer' a terrorist organisation. For one,
I'm not convinced Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation - the EU agrees with
me - for another I'm not so ignorant as to believe that Hezbollah is in all
ways bad. To turn your criticism back on you, do you suspect Hezbollah of
having alterior motives in providing social works to the local population.
LH: This is a well-known Islamist ploy. The Muslim Brothers of Egypt (out
of which Al Banna and Sayyid Qutb came) were noted for their good works --
as well as a few assassinations. In Algeria the Islamists did so many good
works the people voted them into office after which they declared that there
would be no further need for elections because from then on Allah would be
running the country. This is all available for you to read Simon. It is
part of the history of Islamism. And then "one man one vote one time."
LH >"Furthermore we should support any Liberal Democracy that wants our
help"
SW: Brilliant Lawrence. Yet the US under Bush imposes sanction on the
Palestinians for voting in the wrong party and you couldn't give a toss
about the declining value of Lebanese democracy in the face of Israel's
destruction of the country's infrastructure. The US under Bush supports
democracy providing it agrees with the victor and is happy to support
dictatorships where the dictator is an ally. It's not about liberal
democracy Lawrence, it's about market access.
LH: What part of "Liberal" do you not understand. Hamas is a terrorist
organization. Read about them. Read Andre Nusse's Muslim Palestine, the
Ideology of Hamas. She is French. She kind of likes Hamas, but you will
see they are a terrorist organization. The best she can say is that maybe
they can change, but have they changed? They have not. The remain opposed
to Israel's existence. They are not a Liberal Democracy. It is not
brilliant to support Liberal Democracy and oppose Terrorist and Islamist
organizations, merely prudent, merely common sense.
SW: More generally, you seem to think that it's all or nothing; that if
people don't support the US under Bush then they must be supporting the
Islamists. Sorry Lawrence, but that's rubbish. When set against terrorism,
Bush's response has been a strategy that has served to create more islamists
than have been killed.
LH: That's Leftist BS, Simon. Gore would have followed in Clinton's
footsteps and used diplomacy like the UN does, like the EU does which
accomplishes nothing. Clinton allowed the Sunshine policy to go forward in
North Korea, taking the North Koreans at their word -- that they wouldn't
develop nuclear weapons because South Korea was being so nice to them. No
that wasn't what we needed after 9/11. We needed someone to take the war to
the Islamists and the Bush administration has done that. You have no
evidence that more Islamists develop because we are fighting them. Evidence
exists to the contrary. There are much fewer Radical Muslims available to
fight us as a result of Bush's actions.
LH: For your information, evidence exists that the support of Islamism, of
Radical Islam, of Militant Islam is more widespread than was hitherto
believed. The vaunted "Islamic moderates" have been notable by their
silence to such an extent that one can't help but wonder if they are really
there. Yes there are Moderate Muslims, but not writing or speaking out in
the Middle East. They speak or write from the U.S. Bush didn't make the
Islamist cauldron in the Middle East, the Wahhabs, Salafists, Maududi, Al
Banna, Sayyid Qutb and Ruhollah Khomeini created it. Bush is remarkable in
not giving in to it like most of the Democrats, and most of the European
Leftists would like.
SW: Perhaps you could explain just how my position on US policy equates to
supporting terrorist organisations.
LH: I'd be happy to. If Bush is doing everything he can to oppose Militant
Islam including the creation of a democracy not hostile to the U.S. in Iraq,
and you oppose him, then you join Al Quaeda in that opposition and you join
Iran, for they are doing everything they can to thwart the US's efforts in
Iraq. It won't do to say that you can oppose the US efforts in Iraq without
reference to the Militant Islamists fighting tooth and nail to oppose us
there. If you oppose our efforts in Iraq then you are helping (unwitting
though you might be) Militant Islam. If you oppose Israel's right to defend
itself and in any way favor or think Hizbollah or Hamas might have the right
of things, then you are supporting Militant Islam. Both Hizbollah and Hamas
have sworn Israel's destruction. They, neither of them, recognize Israel's
right to exist. Let Hizbollah or anyone over there recognize Israel's right
to exist and then ask me to consider good things they are doing.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 2:15 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Anarchism and Leftism
Ignoring the initial hyperbole we have:
"Israel signed a treaty with Lebanon which required the removal of any
extra-governmental organizations from Israel's border. Lebanon signed the
treaty. Israel returned home. Lebanon did not keep the treaty and allowed
Hezbollah to stay on Israel's border. Israel did nothing until their border
was breached."
Which treaty are you reffering to Lawrence? The one signed but not
implemented in 1983? Israel eventually retreated in 2000 and a lot happened
between those two dates. Do you really believe that Israel retreated as a
result of signing the 1983 treaty?
Of more relevance is UN resolution 1559, dating from 2004.
Until more information comes to light, I don't accept that it was Israel's
border was breached. There remains the possibility that Israel enacted the
initial incursion.
"And yet you feel a need to examine Israel's motives; but then so does every
good Islamist. As the British historian David Selbourne has so eloquently
written in The Losing Battle with Islam, it is a common ploy with the
Islamists to attack someone and then blame the attacked for the attack.
That is precisely what was done in the case of the Hizbollah/Hamas attack on
Israel."
Lawrence, you're being ignorant yourself if you don't believe Israel has any
motive past defending itself. And of course, you then go on to misreperesent
my position and that of the left in assuming an alliance with Islamists. No
such alliance exists except in the imagination of the US Right.
"You distrust Israel, the only Liberal Democracy in the region and give the
benefit of doubt to a terrorist organization. Do I have that right? I
thought so. "
No, yet again you're willfully misrepresenting. Yes I distrust Israel, but
that doesn't mean to say I 'prefer' a terrorist organisation. For one, I'm
not convinced Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation - the EU agrees with me
- for another I'm not so ignorant as to believe that Hezbollah is in all
ways bad. To turn your criticism back on you, do you suspect Hezbollah of
having alterior motives in providing social works to the local population.
Can Israel do no wrong in your eyes?
Picking out the odd comment from the rest we have:
"Furthermore we should support any Liberal Democracy that wants our help"
Brilliant Lawrence. Yet the US under Bush imposes sanction on the
Palestinians for voting in the wrong party and you couldn't give a toss
about the declining value of Lebanese democracy in the face of Israel's
destruction of the country's infrastructure. The US under Bush supports
democracy providing it agrees with the victor and is happy to support
dictatorships where the dictator is an ally. It's not about liberal
democracy Lawrence, it's about market access.
More generally, you seem to think that it's all or nothing; that if people
don't support the US under Bush then they must be supporting the Islamists.
Sorry Lawrence, but that's rubbish. When set against terrorism, Bush's
response has been a strategy that has served to create more islamists than
have been killed.
"If by scorn you mean my warning that you are supporting an ideology that
considers the freedom you enjoy anathema to it, consider scorn to have been
heaped."
Lawrence, I disagree in strong terms with the policies of the US under Bush.
That does not mean I support fundamentalist Islam in whatever form. I don't
even believe in god (for god's sake).
Perhaps you could explain just how my position on US policy equates to
supporting terrorist organisations.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
Other related posts:
