[lit-ideas] Re: Ideology vs Experience
- From: "Judith Evans" <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:24:34 +0100
Erratum:
1. delete "on US soil" given the reference to the USS Cole and to Beirut (where
241 US Armed forces personnel and 58 French paratroopers were killed)
But now I've deleted that: do current attacks on US troops in Iraq and UK
troops in Afghanistan not count?
----- Original Message -----
From: Judith Evans
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [lit-ideas] Re: Ideology vs Experience
Lawrence, I do not define "terrorism" as "a terrorist attack against the US
on US soil". It seems you do. You should be ashamed
Judy
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 5:01 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Ideology vs Experience
Simon, Simon, Simon. Didn't you know that anecdotal evidence is the
weakest kind? Allow me to illustrate: The War in Iraq has decreased
terrorism. How do I know? Well just look at the facts. The US was attacked
how many times before Iraq? Lots of times. There was the Cole. There were
241 Marines killed in Beirut. There was the first World Trade Center bombing
in 1993 and then the second that killed about 3000, but then we had the war in
Iraq and zip. Not one attack against the US; so it is pretty obvious that the
war in Iraq has decreased terrorism.
The rest of your note is a bit incoherent. What do "oil interests" have to
do with Iraq? American oil interests? What are you talking about? We get
only a small percentage of our oil from the Middle East. I think you are
remembering one of the earliest Leftist taunts; subsequently given up by most
Leftists because it is so absurd.
As to Pakistan, time passes. We needed cooperation in chasing Al Queda
because Pakistan ISI agents reported that Al Quaeda had two suitcase bombs; so
we threatened to bomb them into the Stone Age using Armitage and giving the
president deniability. But Musharaff picked his time, a time when it wasn't
possible for the US to bomb Pakistan into the Stone Age, a time when Bush
seemed to be on the defensive in regard to the war against Militant Islam and
blew the whistle: "do you know what Armitage told us? He said he would bomb us
into the Stone Age."
"What," Bush said. "Nonsense. Not me."
And so Musharaff exposes the threat and makes it difficult for the US to
initiate military action in Pakistan; which it has considered doing if it knew
exactly where Osama was.
I don't know how the subsequent meetings between Musharaff and Karzai went.
Musharaff has problems at home: lots of support there for the Taliban and
Militant Islam. I think the recent meetings were a good thing if they didn't
make things worse between Musharaff and Karzai. Both nations have problems,
but they aren't out of hand. Karzai continues to need direct US support.
Musharaff doesn't want US troops storming into Pakistan going after Al Quaeda
strong holds. India is laughing.
Lawrence
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:58 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Ideology vs Experience
It's not just the extremists in the middle east that are the problem. It's
also the home grown ones. How do I know there are more extremists. Because they
blew up trains in London and Madrid and because I've heard interviews with
muslims in Britain who cite the Iraq war as a major contributing factor in the
formation of their views.
And yes, there are moderate muslims all over the world. They're the ones
trying to explain that the extremists don't represent Islam, they're the ones
saying how they never knew that their friend was involved. But they're also the
same ones pointing at Iraq and saying how they understand why this is going on.
Whilst I can believe that there were undisclosed reason why the US went
into Iraq, I can't believe that if they hadn't been there, the decision
wouldn't have been made. And if there are reasons such as Saudi cooperation,
isn't it reasonable that there are reasons such as oil markets. As for
Pakistan, one of the people recently arrested in the UK decided to stop giving
evidence in court because the ISI were threatening his family. Work that one
through and then tell me that Pakistan is cooperating.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 1:56 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Ideology vs Experience
Assertions are cheap. They don't cost anything and if there isn't a hint
of rationale, they mean less. In one of my previous notes I described how
difficult it was to get information about whether there were some, many, or no
moderates in the Middle East, but you have no trouble in asserting that Iraq
has increased the number of Islamists in the Middle East. Upon what do you
base this assertion of yours?
I see you are assuming the existence of moderates in the Middle East. Do
you have any evidence that they exist? Quote me one moderate writer writing
from within the Middle East. If you can, you'll be one up on Omar.
That the war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 is simplistic. The same
person who told us we threatened to bomb Pakistan into the stone age (I
reported this while reading America's Secret War, by George Friedman in January
2005) reported that going into Iraq was absolutely necessary if we wanted to
get cooperation from the Saudi's in our pursuit of Al Quaeda members. At the
time the Saudis would not cooperate with us because they were more afraid of
Saddam than they were of us. Saddam's story was that he had backed down the US
so everyone in the vicinity needed to forget about the US and pay attention to
him. After we went into Iraq we got cooperation from the Saudi's. At the time
it was believed (Friedman is the source for this also) that Al Quaeda had two
suitcase bombs; so cooperation in tracking down Al Quaeda members was not
considered an option. That wasn't the only reason we went into Iraq, there
were many reasons, but it was an important reason not mentioned; just as we
never mentioned we got the cooperation we wanted from Pakistan by threatening
to bomb them into the stone age.
Lawrence
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 4:50 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Ideology vs Experience
Lawrence, my assertion is a simple one. The war in Iraq has caused
moderate muslims to be attracted to fundamentalist ideology. Because of the war
(which, it should be noted, had nothing to do with 9/11), there are now more
fundamentalist muslims than there were before. Because of the war in Iraq,
people died in Madrid and London.
Now, you'll be blaming Qutb for coming up with the ideology, but of
course, the moderates wouldn't be interested in it without them perceiving
western wrong-doing.
Do you accept that the war in Iraq has created more fundamentlists than
there were before?
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 12:13 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Ideology vs Experience
Simon:
You forget that this all stated with Judy quibbling over my reference
to Sayyid Qutb's ideology being the root cause of modern Militant Islam. What
on earth did I mean by "root cause," etc., etc. Well, I explained that. But,
said someone who hadn't read Qutb, what about what the West did to the Middle
East in modern times? Well, said someone who had read Qutb, Qutb deals with
that in some detail. So this quibble seemed to dwindle into whether there was
something the West had done to the Middle East that Qutb hadn't covered, but
you, who had not read Qutb persevered in asserting that there was much, much,
much that Qutb hadn't covered that the west had done to the Middle East that
had caused the Islamists to behave as they do.
Yawn
And then when I introduce something real, something not the vague
speculation you have hitherto engaged in, something going on right now in
Germany, you sniff, "sorry, but I'm not playing hypotheticals . . ." Gosh,
Simon, what do you think you have been playing? Not fact because you haven't
read Qutb and haven't all this time known what you were talking about.
Lawrence
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 3:57 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Ideology vs Experience
Sliding out of it again Lawrence? Wouldn't expect anything else, but
then I suppose I did give you the opportunity. More fool me.
Sorry, but I'm not playing hypotheticals and also reject you're
accusation of wishful thinking. Do you really think I'd be pleased to note that
the Iraq War has served to turn so many moderates into fundamentalists. I can
imagine how that might please you, but not me I assure you.
Simon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.4/449 - Release Date: 15/09/2006
Other related posts:
