[lit-ideas] Re: Is it any wonder...
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 13:06:44 -0700
Simon,
I assumed Paul had his tongue in his cheek.
I think you mean Goebbels and not Goering.
The thing is, you didn't raise the subject. It was raised by Anti-Americans
of one kind and another before you. It was raised by the Militant
Islamists. You are repeating it not raising it.
You demean your earlier effort as merely "raising the subject," but you
neglected to include it so we could see if those words match what you said.
Here let me help you. Here is what you wrote, ". . . is it any wonder that
there are conspiracy theories about 9/11 considering the extensive list of
wierd absences and coincidences involved, let alone the 'opportunities' that
it offered.
"Without 9/11 the Bush Administration wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and
Iraq, it wouldn't have instituted the Patriot Act, it wouldn't have been
able to increase the Defen[s]e Budget to the extent it has. And without 9/11
we wouldn't have experienced the growing anti-European agenda, the growing
propaganda campaign against Islam (as opposed to the terrorists), arguably,
we wouldn't see the clamour for restricting illegal immigration.
"In short, 9/11 has enabled the Bush administration to advance its own
agenda to a degree that wouldn't have been possible without it."
Simon, would you repeat that theory if you didn't think it plausible? I
wouldn't. I think it absurd and so would never repeat it unless I prefaced
it with something like, "as an example of some of the most hateful
unbelievable nonsense being propagated by the Islamists and their Leftists
Fellow travelers, they are asking, is it any wonder . . . " But you didn't
feel a need to distance yourself from it. Only when I point that out do you
lightly declare, "I only raised the subject."
Goebbels is the one who said if you repeat a lie often enough, people will
believe it. The Islamists and their Leftists are doing that; so are you
with them or are you merely a dupe? I only raise that question.
What they are saying draws attention away from what they are doing, blowing
things up, killing people, advocating a medieval solution to modernity,
attempting to move the world backward in time, threatening, beheading and a
host of things not mentioned by these Islamists and Leftists.
Is it any wonder I suspect certain people of being in bed with the enemy
when they speak as though they dressed in the same closet?
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 20th 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.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@ freelists.org
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 11:40 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
Simon
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 <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: 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.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
