[lit-ideas] Re: Max Boot

  • From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 02:22:24 EST

Patronization doesn't become you.
 
I see that I was not clear enough.
 
The sector of Iraqis who are/were hard-core Muslims, most likely to be  
veered towards Islamic militantism are the Shiites.
 
The Shiites were oppressed by Sadaam, who was contemptuous of the religion  
and very invested in the secular, as opposed to the religious.
 
The Sunni Iraqis who are far less religiously conservative (legalistic,  
bordering on or meeting the extreme -- i.e. Islamisists, militant Islamics,  
Muslim radicals, whatever term you choose), have  been relatively content  with 
Hussein's rule, as it did not require profoundly religiously rigid  laws.  They 
were those who escaped his wrath.
 
The Shiites were those he oppressed, tortured, killed (along, of course,  
with the Kurds).  
 
The Sunnis are angry and afraid because this latest development threatens  
their (relatively secular) freedom.  
 
The Sunni women don't want to have to wear Burkas every time they leave  
their homes.  They don't want to have to be escorted by a male whenever  they 
leave their homes.  They want to be able to drive.  Simple human  rights....
 
Suggesting, then, that Sadaam was an icon of "militant Islam" is hard to  
believe.  If that were posted to any Shiite, they would clean their ears  and 
ask 
you to say it again.
 
If this still makes no sense, I'll try again,
 
Julie Krueger

========Original Message========
Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: Max Boot  Date: 1/2/2007 12:48:04 A.M. Central Standard 
Time  From: _lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx)   
To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)   Sent on:    

Your first clause  doesn’t match your second.  It makes no sense.  Did you 
know  that?   
 
  
____________________________________

From:  lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 10:04  PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Max  Boot
 
I'm trying to figure  out in what bizarre sense Hussein was an icon of 
militant Islam, considering  that he was a secularist who oppressed the 
religiously 
conservative  Shi'ites.
 

 
Julie  Krueger

========Original  Message========       
Subj:  
[lit-ideas]  Re: Max Boot   
Date:  
1/1/2007 6:52:21 P.M. Central  Standard Time   
From:  
_lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx)    
To:  
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)    
Sent on:      
Simon: 
You have made a series  of assertions on a subject I’m not particularly 
interested in.  You imply  that intelligence would comprise my accepting your 
assertions unchecked.   Blind acceptance of unsupported assertions is not well 
known as a sign of  intelligence. 
    1.  For example, did the courts decree  that the Shia militia carry out 
the execution?  Were there  alternatives?  Who should have done it?  Who cares? 
 
    1.  Was his death filmed like some of  the deaths Saddam filmed?  Again, 
who cares? 
    1.  Was the judicial system under  Iraq’s control?  If so,  who cares 
whether it meets your standards of impartiality? 
    1.  You say Saddam was verbally  taunted and insulted – was that worse 
than you are verbally taunting and  insulting me or better? 
    1.  It took place during the Muslim  Hajj and the Sunni Eid, you say?  
Did it also take place at the end of a  legitimate trial?  
    1.  And you note that the US military was responsible  for the guarding 
of the living Saddam.  Was that before he was turned  over to the Iraqi 
Judicial system for trial?  I fail to see why this  should interest anyone.  
The US 
military has guarded virtually  everything in Iraq at one time or  another.  
    1.  You say the whole event can only  incite further hatred between the 
Shia and Sunni?  You imply that we  shouldn’t allow the Iraqis to execute one 
of the worst criminals in their  history because it might make someone mad?  Is 
that what you are  saying?  Shall we make this a principle:  Execute no one 
if it will  make someone mad.   In response to this possibility I did a Google  
search to find out who was being incited thus far.  So far it’s a few  
relatives and some people from his home town.  When is the rest of the  
incitement 
supposed to take place. 
7.a.   But you probably mean a lot of someone’s.  You probably quantify the  
holding up of an execution.  If a certain number will be made angry by the  
execution of someone, then the execution shall not take place – even if it 
means 
 we renege on our telling the Iraqis they have control over their own courts, 
 government, etc and are trying to turn everything else over to them as 
quickly  as possible?   
7.b.   Tell you what went perfectly?   Has someone established a standard for 
 perfection in Iraq?    
7.c.   However, I will say this.  In the war against Militant Islam, the Bush 
 & Blair administrations has done surprisingly well.  On the one hand we  
have the destruction of the World Trade Center.  We have also Osama’s  
speeches 
indicating that he believed the US too timid, too afraid of  the loss of life 
to mount an effective counter to his Islamist ideals.   Osama joined others in 
declaring war against the West, ala Sayyid Qutb.   Others joined in taunting 
and insulting the US and Britain. 
7.d.   The US  agreed that we were at war and eliminated Afghanistan as a 
Militant  Islamic threat 
7.e.   Influenced Pakistan to quit supporting  Militant Islam and support us 
instead 
7.f.  Influenced Libya in to abandoning its  nuclear weapon program 
7.g.  Removed one of the Icons of Militant Islam, Saddam Hussein by defeating 
his army  and arresting him 
7.h.  Saddam when turned over to Iraqis was executed. 
8.  The U.S. and its allies have a  good deal to be proud of.  The gauntlet 
was thrown by militant Islam and  was picked up and responded to.  We have done 
much better than Militant  Islam has done.  They operated out of prejudice 
and ignorance.  They  had a low opinion of our abilities and will have learned 
(if they can somehow  avoid reading Leftist analyses of these matters) that 
things are not going well  for them.  And what shall we do now?  Shall we 
listen 
to the Leftist  Chicken Littles who cry and tell us we must surrender for we 
have been defeated  when all the rest of the world including our enemies can 
see that we have  not?  Or shall we somehow learn who it is we’re fighting, 
and 
how we must  combat them?   Oh some of us know, but too many don’t – or as 
in 
the  case of the Leftists, won’t. 
Lawrence 
 
  
____________________________________

From:  lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 3:38  PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Max  Boot
 
Let's try it really slowly Lawrence,  your attempt at unintelligence is just 
too  convincing.
 

 
1. It's not the fact of Saddam's death  that's at issue, but the manner of it.
 

 
2. It was carried out by  the Shia militia.
 

 
3. His death was filmed in a similar  manner to some of the Islamist 
executions.
 

 
4. It took place with no attempt at  judicial impartiality.
 

 
5. He was verbally taunted and  insulted.
 

 
5. It took place during the Muslim  Hajj.
 

 
6. It took place on the Sunni Eid (Thanks  Judith).
 

 
7. The US military (responsible for  guarding the once living Saddam) must 
have given him over to his executors just  as they subseqently received his 
body 
from  them.
 

 
8. The whole event can only incite further  hatred between the Shia and Sunni.
 

 

 
Now tell me it went  perfectly.

Other related posts: