Cheap trick number 103.2
Write an analogy that looks good on the surface and hope no one will notice where the situations aren't analogous.
If Sarah had wanted the man arrested, she might be wise to cry 'rape'. If Officer Collins had wanted those men dead, he'd be wise to finger them as assailants -- maybe even shoot himself with their gun so as to be convincing in court.
Not really entering this discussion -- just couldn't help myself. Ursula
Lawrence Helm wrote:
But perhaps you didn’t know you were repeating the propaganda of the Islamists. Consider your statements:
1a) “Without 9/11 the Bush Administration wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.”
1b) “Without her having been raped Sarah wouldn’t have had her rapists arrested.”
1c) If officer Collins hadn’t been shot, he wouldn’t have returned fire and killed his assailants.
2a) “Without 9/11 . . the Bush Administration wouldn’t have . . . instituted the Patriot Act.”
2b) After she was raped, she had her locks changed, got a new phone number and insisted that the hotel clerk know the identity of anyone heading up stairs toward her room.
2c) Sheriff Dillon knew they were intending to rob another bank. Shoot, everyone knew it. The Judge gave permission to spy on them. “I’ve got money in that bank, Sheriff,” he said. “If they get my money, you’re in big trouble.”
“Growing anti-European Agenda”?????? You do have trouble getting things in the right order, don’t you, Simon? The Islamists bombed us and /then /we attacked them. Europe hated us and /then /we mistrusted them. Read /Anti-Americanism /by Jean-Francois Revel. One of the points he makes in the book is that Europe has learned nothing about America from 1971 when Revel wrote /Without Marx or Jesus/ until he wrote /Anti-Americanism /in 2003. Their hatred is unabated and irrational. It smacks of resentment. They too twist things. We saved them during two of their massive wars in the 20^th century. We rescued them with our Marshall Plan. We kept them safe from Communist Russia. We shielded them with our military; so what’s not to hate?
Don’t think they started hating us because of Bush. They’ve been hating us right along. What is new is that now that we’ve got our own security to worry about, their anti-Americanism is getting in our way; so we are choosing to ignore them. That’s our anti-European Agenda.
“the growing propaganda campaign against Islam (as opposed to the terrorists)” Is that what you think it is? Well that’s not what it is. It is recognition that it is extremely hard to tell where the Islamists leave off and the normal Muslims begin because they sound so much alike. Have I started a propaganda campaign here on Lit-Ideas by my search for Moderate Muslims? I have been searching and the only ones I’ve found have been in Europe or America, mostly the latter. So in the Middle East the moderates (assuming they exist) either agree with the Islamists, 2) are too intimidated to speak out, or 3) don’t care. Let me hear some Moderate Muslims speaking from the Middle East so I can tell. In the meantime I continue to doubt their existence.
“the clamour for restricting illegal immigration.”
A) “Restricting illegal immigration.”
B) “Restricting illegal rape.”
C) “Restricting illegal robbery.”
D) “Restricting illegal anything.”
There is nothing wrong with restricting anything that is illegal. But there is something wrong with permitting something that is illegal. And there is something terribly wrong with that segment of society which assumes that we ought not to restrict something that is illegal. If we shouldn’t restrict it we should make it legal, but what an absurdity to have a new law that says anyone who wants to can come in. That would be a good way to get rid of the European resentment. They would no longer have to resent us for being the most successful economy in the World.
*From:* lit-ideas-bounce@ freelists.org [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Simon Ward
*Sent:* Friday, May 05, 2006 11:40 AM
*Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: Is it any wonder...
But which consipracy theory am I to believe Lawrence? Was it the CIA, Israel, the State Department or Bush himself. The point is, as Paul suggests, that if all the answers had been answered satisfactorally, if the Bush Administration had not sought to impede the investigative process, then there would have been much less of a furor. Sure there would have been conspiracy theories, but nothing to the extent that exists. Of course, you might blame it on the internet, you might blame it on free speech, or you might just blame it on 'the enemy'.
What does make me laugh is that purely by virtue of raising the subject, I am automatically labelled an enemy. No doubt Goering would have had something to say about that.
PS I'm on the way out so I'll deal with your reply (assuming there is one) in a few hours.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Lawrence Helm <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
*To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Friday, May 05, 2006 7:25 PM
*Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: Is it any wonder...
Well, there you go, Simon. You have presented one of the more puerile Conspiracy theories being kicked around today, and indicated you believed it in the process. You have to ignore a lot of history to do that particular theory, but Conspiracy theorists have never balked at that. Most of us know, however, that the Islamists declared war upon the U.S. quite a long time before 9/11. It was just that we weren’t paying attention. We treated their war as criminal pin pricks. The great blind Omar despite all his heroic warlike efforts was locked up as a common criminal. The effect of 9/11 was that it finally got our attention. You have to ignore all those attacks prior to 9/11 to do your Conspiracy Theory and come out some place else. You have to ignore the avowed intentions of the Islamists who declared war upon us long before 9/11. All of that has to be dismissed. You have to have a tabula rasa on 9/11 for your conspiracy theory, Simon.
The implication of such conspiracy theories as these is that we who were attacked on 9/11 are to blame in some way. The ways are different but the effect is the same: the Islamists are not to blame even if they are to blame. The fact that Osama bin Laden took credit for 9/11 is ignored. It wasn’t caused by his Islamists. It was caused by 1) the CIA, 2) Israel, 3) the State Department, or 4) confused language that only makes sense if it was Bush himself. Also, despite the fact that Osama and his crew are innocent; those who were killed on 9/11 had it coming. Furthermore 9/11 wasn’t anything very much at all and the evil Bush blew it all out of proportion by using it as an excuse to attack the innocent Taliban and that pillar of Islamic virtue, Saddam Hussein.
Your arguments are used by the enemy, Simon. I just reread your note. I think I smell another weird coincidence.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html