[lit-ideas] Re: Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants

Oops.  What Andreas said ... (Mental note 365:  read ALL posts  before 
responding).
 
Julie Krueger

========Original  Message========     Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: Military Studies 
in the Jihad Against the  Tyrants  Date: 1/16/2007 1:08:29 A.M. Central 
Standard Time  From: _andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx)   To: 
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)   Sent on:    
Lawrence:

> Saddam not Islamic?  He  certainly was.  Do you think just because he
> subscribed to the  Baathist point of view which was a secular form of
> government that he  was not also Islamic?

Oh, Lawrence...

Saddam was publically  secular right up to the Kuwait War.

For six months, the US did nothing,  because they couldn't decide if there 
was any reason to 
invade. Margaret  Thatcher solved that issue by calling up Bush Sr. and 
telling him how this  
could be his Falklands War: a nice fake war that would make him look like a  
hero. So the war 
was on.

To rally the Arab world behind him against  the USA, Saddam promptly found 
that ol' time 
religion. He became a prayin'  man. Hollerin' "Sweet Jesus!" and "God 
Almighty!" all over the 
place. You  know the type.

His "faith" was political expediency, for the benefit of  the masses.

That's why Osama and others despise Saddam and wanted to  topple his 
government: he was a 
secular ruler in an Islamic  country.

The quotes that you offer are nothing more than what they are:  public 
statements for the 
press and the public. In other words,  propaganda.

Read about the Baath Party:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'ath_Party   It 
was a secular  
socialist party (Yikes! Leftists!). Of course, that's how it started, but  
after decades of 
power and palace turmoil, it became just a military  dictatorship.

yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com


-----  Original Message ----- 
From: "Lawrence Helm"  <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:  <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 10:28  PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Military Studies in the Jihad Against the  Tyrants


> Saddam not Islamic?  He certainly was.  Do you  think just because he
> subscribed to the Baathist point of view which was  a secular form of
> government that he was not also Islamic?  He was  Islamic at two levels.  He
> belonged to the Islamic Civilization and  he was also an Islamic Sunni.  It
> isn't hard to find the truth of  this matter.  Do a search.  You will find
> such comments as  "According to the translator in the February CBS 
interview,
> Hussein said  that his journey in life, including his eventual death, is 
left
> in the  hands of Allah, his God. He said, "Whatever Allah decides. We are
>  believers. We believe in what he decides. There is no value for any life
>  without imam, without faith."
>  http://courses.washington.edu/com361/Iraq/religion/saddam_political.html
>
>
>
>  I recall reading his speeches - very much religious in  nature.
>
>
>
> Actually what you list as one of my  favorite arguments isn't really an
> argument but an assertion the way you  have it.  But Assertions can be true
> and this one is.  Saddam  was an Islamic Militant, or we could say with 
equal
> veracity, he was a  Militant Islamic or a Militant Muslim.   I don't see why
> you  should have a problem with this.  I'm sure almost everyone else  knows
> this.
>
>
>
> And I wouldn't call some of  the rest of what you write anything I would 
say.
> Saddam was religious  but had a secular government (not hard to do.  Most of
> our  presidents were in that same situation).  He had Pan-Arabist  ambitions
> which would have disrupted the region had he achieved them -  much as Iran
> might do if it achieves its current ambitions; although  Saddam had a
> different approach to these matters.  He was willing  to use his army to
> achieve his goals whereas Iran seems to hope to get  nuclear weapons and 
then
> make certain demands it has described.   Preventing this from happening was
> of prime importance.  The Neocon  dream of turning Iraq into a Liberal
> Democracy may not be realized, but  that hardly turns Iraq into a disaster.
>
>
>
>  Certainly any rogue nation that manages to gain control over all the oil  
of
> the Middle East is a threat not merely to the West but to the  world.
>
>
>
>
>
>  Lawrence
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>  From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx  
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Andreas  Ramos
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 9:48 PM
> To:  lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Military Studies in the  Jihad Against the Tyrants
>
>
>
> From: "Lawrence  Helm"
>
>
>
>> Several here on Lit-Ideas have  expressed their disdain for logic,
> Aristotelian  thinking,
>
>> reasoning, etc.
>
>
>
>  Here's one of your favorite arguments:
>
>
>
> Saddam  was Islamic.
>
> Saddam was militant.
>
> Therefore  Saddam was Islamic militant.
>
>
>
> Where is the error?  You're being logical about a form, without seeing
> whether  the
>
> definitions apply.
>
>
>
> 1) Saddam  was not Islamic. He was secular. Look up the theory and history 
of
> the  Baathist
>
> Party.
>
>
>
> 2) You use the  word "militant" in two senses: using a military against his
> neighbors  and
>
> using a military against the West. He fits the first sense,  so you use that
> in the second
>
> sense. An attack on Kuwait  becomes an attack on Florida.
>
>
>
> Thus, the proper  argument is:
>
>
>
> Saddam was secular.
>
>  Saddam was a military threat only to his neighbors
>
> Therefore  Saddam was a secular military threat to his  neighbors.
>
>
>
> But you twist this  into:
>
>
>
> Saddam was secular.
>
> Saddam  was a military threat only to his neighbors.
>
> Therefore Saddam  was an Islamic military threat to the West.
>
>
>
> See?  By mixing up definitions, you produce a conclusion that is not
> supported  by the
>
> argument.
>
>
>
> We can test  this against reality.
>
>
>
> Bush has a new strategy:  escalation and Iraqification. He appointed an 
Iraqi
> to be in  charge
>
> of his strategy. Who is this Iraqi? One of Saddam's  generals. Yep:
>
> "Therefore Saddam was Islamic militant" turns  into "An Islamic militant 
(one
> of Saddam's
>
> generals) is  in charge of US strategy for Iraq." That's obviously
> nonsensical: the  enemy is
>
> in charge of our battle against the  enemy.
>
>
>
> In the 60 Minutes interview, Bush himself  had to swallow this bitter pill.
> The interviewer
>
> asked  him if Moqtada al-Sadr was an enemy of the USA. al-Sadr and his
> militia  are the
>
> political and military foundation of the Iraqi  government. His militia also
> attacks the USA.
>
> To put it  in plain talk, our main Iraqi ally is our enemy. By supporting
> Iraq, we  are
>
> supporting our enemy: giving him weapons and money so he can  attack kill
> American troops.
>
> Bush refused to say it in  plain words because it is a very bad idea.
>
>
>
> So,  Lawrence, why all this logic stuff? Well, that's  obvious.
>
>
>
> You lost on the facts: Iraq is a  disaster and even you've admitted it.
>
>
>
> You've  lost on the theory: the neocon project is in shambles and even its
>  neocon proponents
>
> attack it.
>
>
>
> So  what's left? The purity of logic. You're going to logically convince us
>  that you're
>
> right. Forget facts and theory. It's logic  now.
>
>
>
> Well, I just demolished your Aristotelian  logic.
>
>
>
> What's next? Abstract dance? You're going  to do an interpretive dance for
> us? Naked,
>
> swinging a  rooster?
>
>
>
> yrs,
>
>  andreas
>
> www.andreas.com
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation  on/off,
>
> digest on/off), visit  www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--


No  virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free  Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.12/628 - Release Date:  1/15/2007

------------------------------------------------------------------
To  change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest  on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: