[lit-ideas] Re: Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 22:28:44 -0800
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
Other related posts:
