[lit-ideas] Re: Dutch support killer of van Gogh
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 15:46:16 -0800
Best evidence in the world: The ideology was developed initially by the
Wahhabis who probably hadn't heard of America. It was refined in the 20s by
Al Banna of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers. Were we messing with Egypt in the
20s. I don't think so. It was firmed by Sayyid Qutb. Now Sayyid Qutb did
have it in for America because he want to a College in University and
thought America depraved and decadent. But that had to do with what America
is/was and not what it had done.
Osama bin Laden was taught by Sayyid Qutb's brother. His Jihad is against
the infidel. He wants to continue Mohammad's Jihad as Sayyid Qutb urged.
It is good strategy to draw in the Left as temporary support by pushing all
its buttons, but the Islamist are not attacking the West for Leftist
reasons. It isn't about poverty, Simon.
Now we did do something in Iran. We got the Shah reinstalled after he was
ousted in a coup, and the Shah kicked Khomeini out of Iran; so Khomeini had
it in for us as did the revolutionaries supporting him. Since then, a lot
of those revolutionaries, like Sourash, have changed their minds. Sourash
teaches over here nowadays.
Blaming America for the Islamists who attack the West is hogwash, Simon.
Those who attacked us are to blame.
You should read Osama's speeches. I have. He wants us to leave the Middle
East - get out utterly, and quit supporting Israel. However, he doesn't
really care because he thinks (thought?) we are too cowardly to stand up to
him. If we lose a few troops we are sure to run away as we did in the past.
Militant Islamists on the other hand are willing to die for the advancement
of Islam. That is why Islam will eventually conquer the world.
You've got this "intervention" all wrong. We did as much as the USSR during
the Cold War, but after that we were intent upon taking our peace dividend.
We were engaged in Afghanistan until the USSR left and then we left as well.
We were in Saudi Arabia because the Saudis were afraid of Iran and Iraq.
Osama called us interventionists and wanted us out. The Saudis soon asked
us to leave as well. They were more afraid of Saddam Hussein than they were
of us. So we left. But we were at war so we came back.
A war was declared against us by Militant Islam. We were attacked several
times - more times than you realize, and we dealt with those attacks with
considerable restraint. After 9/11 things changed. We were attacked in
such a way that it became very clear to us that we were at war. Most of us
here in the U.S. understand what it means to be at war. .
Lawrence
Ps, I forget where you live.
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 2:47 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Dutch support killer of van Gogh
Lawrence,
Unfortunately, I'm not going to go off on a trawl for evidence. I have my
view and if it fits with the likes of Fukuyama, then at least its not a
wildnerness view. And if I choose to 'analyse' you, I do so because I see
you as representitive of the views of Bush and his Neocons.
My biggest bugbear, and one that I'd like you to address, is your prevailing
view that Islamists act in isolation, that their actions are not influenced
or prompted by the actions of the US. This is where I disagree vehemently.
The following link is a review article in today's Guardian. Have a read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Books/reviews/history/0,,1728122,00.html
For those who don't wish to I'll draw out a couple of quotes.
' The man sitting opposite me in the hotel room in downtown Baghdad was
adamant. His group did not ever combine forces with al-Qaida. They had never
done so and they never would. "We met some of them, but we have refused to
work with them because it is too dangerous," he said. "They are really
bloodthirsty people. They do not care if they kill honest Iraqi people. They
are crazy, I tell you."
The man was an Iraqi civil servant who had taken up arms against coalition
forces in the summer of 2004. He had been fighting ever since. A Sunni, he
did not know how many American soldiers he had killed because, he admitted,
it was difficult to tell who had been wounded, who had died outright after
one of his group's attacks and who was just lying down. But one thing the
man did know was that he was not "al-Qaida". "They are terrorists," he told
me. "We are freedom fighters."'
And later...
' As Michael Scheuer, a former CIA agent and Bin Laden expert, has said:
"Western media have made no consistent effort to publish Bin Laden's
statements, thereby failing to give their audience the words that put his
thoughts and actions in cultural and historical context ... Bin Laden has
been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of
the reasons has anything to do with our freedom, liberty and democracy but
everything to do with US policies and actions in the Muslim world." '
Scheuer makes my point. Al Quaeda are not seeking to conquer the US or
Europe, they are using terrorist methodology to seek a change in US policy
towards the Middle East and the wider Muslim world. In other words, US
actions have an influence, a significant one, on the mindset of
fundamentalist Muslims. And if the wider Muslim world share the view that
the US are infringing upon their culture, yet do not choose to confront the
matter with bullets and bombs, then that's understandable. But the real
point is that the US won't change this view by maintaining an
interventionist policy, all that does is make the situation worse.
One of my first posts on Phil-Lit was in response to one of yours Lawrence.
I remember saying that the real battle was about influencing the minds of
the vast majority of Muslims. It's about showing them that the US and the
West in general does not wish to intervene in their culture. Invading Iraq,
an action that had nothing to do with Al Quaeda and everything to do with US
energy policy, hardly fit the bill did it.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 12:28 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Dutch support killer of van Gogh
I don't accept your view that the problem Muslims are not numerous. This is
the viewpoint of Fukuyama which I discussed elsewhere. He followed the
viewpoint of Gilles Kepel and Olivier Roy, but most of the writers I've read
described a few activists, but a vast reservoir of Fundamentalist Islamists
who share their viewpoint and agree with them but don't wish to become
activities themselves. It is not their calling, but they do support the
activists.
If you Kepel, Roy and Fukuyama are right then we have little to worry about,
but if all the others I've read are right then we are at war and our
opponent is formidable and serious. It would be nice if you were right, but
I don't think you are.
I'll challenge you as I have some others. Provide some evidence of this
vast peaceful majority that does not share the viewpoint of Fundamentalist
Muslims. I have looked for this evidence as I have remarked in several
notes in the past and haven't found it. And when you want to analyze me
rather than the evidence, facts, and accounts I'm presenting, I'm fairly
certain you haven't found it either.
Other related posts:
