[lit-ideas] Re: Dutch support killer of van Gogh
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:17:05 -0800
I think I understand your views, and if "the majority of Muslims who are not
fundamentalists" is a large number (say, large enough to win a free
election) and not merely a minority, then perhaps you are right, but I
haven't been able to find support for such a view, and I've looked - as much
as I can here in San Jacinto with a substantial book-buying,
journal-subscribing, and computer purchasing budget. This is a key issue
and I understood it to be so back when I first began studying Islamism.
There are individuals who oppose the Islamists and of course there is a
sizeable vocal majority opposing Islamism in Iraq and Afghanistan, but one
looks in vain for it elsewhere in the Middle East.
One would think that it ought to be visible in secular Turkey where Ataturk
established a secular government, but the Islamists have been growing there
over the years and have even sought to take over the government a time or
two and have only been prevented from doing so by the military.
In Pakistan Musharaff is being encouraged by Bush to have democratic
elections, but if he were to do so that might very well result in an
Islamist government. Pakistan is a benign military dictatorship (at least
in our view). There are others in that category, but in a perfectly free
election would there be a "majority of Muslims who are not fundamentalists"
voting in a non-Islamist government in those nations? I don't think so. I
might hope so, but I have seen evidence to the contrary. In perfectly free
elections in Iran, Algeria, and Palestine, the Islamists won.
Militant Islam at the time we were attacked on 9/11 included Iraq, Libya,
Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan. I know Europeans would rather talk than
fight, but we were attacked and our response was to fight. That's what
we've done. I know you've got your reasons why we shouldn't have attacked
Iraq, but we've got our reasons why they were part of our problem. They
were regularly attacking our planes flying overhead. They were avoiding the
effects of the sanctions; they were supporting militant actions against us.
They had a well known interest in WMDs. Note, we never declared war against
Al Quaeda but against "Terrorism," which we have called variously Islamism,
Miltant Islam, Fundamentalist Islam, and a few other things hoping for more
clarity. Depending upon what we call it might color who it is we think we
are fighting. Fukuyama chose to call it Jihadism which meant only those
actively attacking us - groups like Al Quaeda. But we know (at least I do)
that there is a vast core of support in various parts of the Middle East -
perhaps most of it. We began our counterattack with Afghanistan and
continued with Iraq - both nations supportive of Militant Islamic action
against us.
The nation presently in our sights, perhaps, is Iran. They are the
presently the largest supporter of Militant Islamic groups and they are
developing nuclear weapons. No sort of dialogue is going to influence Iran
as far as anyone has been able to tell. The EU and the UN have had their
dialogic go at Iran and have come up empty. Is, as has been said, a
"nuclear Iran unthinkable"? I have been going over that idea in my mind,
and have attempted to make it "thinkable." The best I can do is to imagine
scenarios in which we might effect or encourage a regime change that gets
rid of the Mullahs and hawks like Amadinejad, but what would we be risking
if we let Iran get its nuclear weapons before we managed such a regime
change? Iran might feel emboldened to be more hawkish if they felt we
wouldn't dare mess with them for fear they might set off one of their nukes.
Amadinejad declares that he will bomb Israel, Britain, and U.S. forces in
the region. People, some of them on Lit-Ideas, say that's just bluster and
we ought not to worry about what he says. Christopher Hitchens said
Amadinejad is just a puppet and can be safely ignored (the other day on
MSNBC's Scarborough Country), but if I were living in Israel I doubt I would
be listening to this fellow with equanimity. I might very well be hoping my
government was planning another Osirik.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 4:30 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Dutch support killer of van Gogh
You're still missing my point Lawrence. It matters little what the
ideological history is, what matters is now, and what matters most is the
views of the majority of muslims who are not fundamentalists. These people
listen to and experience the words and actions of both sides. They hear the
extremists telling them that the US and the West are bad and that they're
going to destroy the Islamic culture. They watch Iraq being invaded and
start to consider that perhaps the extremists are right. And as a result,
the fundamentalists get stronger and a few of them resolve to die in an act
of terrorism. If the words of the extremists weren't born out by actions of
the US (and Britain) what would be the reaction of the Muslim majority?
Now turn it on its head and ask what the US stands to gain by propogating
its war? What does the existence of the fundamentalists mean for the
attainment of US foreign policy in the Middle East? Bin Laden and Al Queada
are an opportunity and that's what's really frightening.
Simon
PS. I live in Britain.
PPS. I may disagree with your views, but you do take a damn good photo.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 11:46 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Dutch support killer of van Gogh
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.
Other related posts:
