[lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:23:47 -0500
I appreciate that they are an undervalued threat. When Saddam was in Iraq,
however, they were not there, certainly not out in the open. Saddam patterned
himself on Stalin, the antithesis of religion. What in the world was the
advantage to invading Iraq? The next question is, now that they're there, how
are we better off? Also, Afghanistan is not finished, not at all.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 1/20/2006 10:55:57 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
Irene, I?ve studied this matter at considerable length and have mentioned some
of the books that bear upon it. It is easiest to understand the Terrorists
with the bombs and the Islamists who crashed into the towers. It took a bit
more imagination to see us going into Afghanistan not simply because Osama and
the bulk of Al Quaeda were there, but also to liberate Afghanistan and remove
the Taliban regime. After that the situation confused a lot of people but the
information was there for the curious and the energetic.
Islamism is a powerful religious ideology. It had its roots to some extent in
Wahhibism which was an Islamic Fundamentalist religion founded in Saudi Arabia
in the 18th Century. The Wahhabis influenced the Muslim Brothers of Egypt out
of which Sayyid Qutb became the greatest Islamist ideologue. Qutb wrote hugely
and advocated a return to the Sharia and a revitalization of the Islamic
advance which stalled after the Righteous Imams were superseded by the
Unrighteous. Qutb argued that a return to the proper righteousness and an
adherence to holy war against the infidel would achieve the manifest success
that Mohammad sought.
Qutb was not simply a religious fanatic. He read widely. He was influenced
(according to the Islamic scholar Youssef Choueiri in Islamic Fundamentalism)
by the Fascist writer Alexis Carrel who wrote Man the Unknown. Choureiri
argues convincingly that Islamism is not simply a religious sect. It is also
political fascism. This is not simply speculation. We have seen it at work in
Afghanistan under the Taliban. We have seen Islamist strategy applied in
several nations in the Middle East.
The war against the Islamists would be counterproductive if they were not a
threat to us -- if they were peaceful and our actions were stirring them up.
But there is no evidence for such is the case in either their writings or in
their actions.
Iraq isn?t strictly speaking a breeding ground for Islamists. It is extremely
important to the Islamists that they defeat us there. Islamists are going
there from far and wide because if they lose in Iraq they are in serious
trouble throughout the Middle East.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 7:24 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
It's not that. It's that this war is clearly counterproductive except to those
who are committed to a my country right or wrong policy. If that's your
position, or another position, then certainly as an American you are entitled
to it. We need to agree to disagree, that you think Iraq is the right place to
be, and others think Iraq is a breeding ground for Islamists, and let it go at
that. Regarding what these organizations think, I don't remember your posts on
them. Regardless, even if a year ago they supported the invasion, times have
changed, seeds have sprouted and born fruit. It would be interesting to know
their position today, especially in light of the fact that this war is turning
into an internal hemorrhage for the country. But I'm not rattling your chain,
honest. I'm really glad to see you back.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 1/20/2006 10:12:14 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
Summarizing would take a bit of time but Ive done it before seems like Ive
done it several times. Feels like my chain is being pulled.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 7:05 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
Can you summarize any of this into your own words? Not what ought to be,
oughts and shoulds are a dime a dozen, but what is and how we're now better off
than before and what our next steps should be?
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 1/20/2006 9:54:54 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
Osama bin Laden and the Islamists understand how important Iraq is. They are
opposing us there with all they have. It is complicated, but I could refer you
to several books on the matter if you are interested. For example, the founder
of Stratfor, the private organization that provides Intelligence info to
companies and other interested in international affairs, George Friedman in
Americas Secret War, Inside the Hidden Worldwide Struggle between America and
its Enemies, describes how the removal of Saddams regime was important in the
war against the Islamists.
See also, Kennet Pollacks The Treatening Storm, the Case for Invading Iraq.,
The Reckoning, Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein by Sandra Mackey, and The
Pentagons New Map, War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Barnett.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 6:29 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
I completely fail to understand how opposing the Islamists has anything to do
with attacking Iraq or ousting Sadaam. He was a secularist, and what we have
done is open the country to waves of Islamists who have footholds and bases for
their agendas. If you support the war on Iraq for other reasons, fine. But I
don't think you can make the case that attacking Iraq was an opposition to the
Islamists.
Julie Krueger
========Original Message========
Subj:[lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
Date:1/20/06 8:04:47 PM Central Standard Time
From:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent on:
We have an enemy: the Islamists. The Islamists want to conquer us. We need to
oppose them.
If you disagree you should logically argue that we dont need to oppose them or
that they dont want to conquer us.
If we arent opposing them as well as we ought, that doesnt detract from the
argument that we ought to oppose them. Although I did mention it as an aside,
the people are being provided with faulty information by the media. I blame
the media and the people for that. The media for being perverse and the people
for being gullible, but I am not surprised by any it. We will (as a people)
eventually learn that the enemy is to be taken seriously that he does want to
conquer us. It took a lot of blood to get us into both World Wars. We
probably need to bleed a bit more before we develop enthusiasm for this one,
but notice that Osama does intend to make us bleed.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:44 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
Okay, let's cut the leadership some slack. It's all the people's fault that we
lost this war. Let's blame them instead. It wasn't Napoleon's fault that he
lost (or won). It was the French people, right? So let me get this straight.
This is a necessary war, but not an important one. Is that right? And kindly
point out the bothersome non sequiturs.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 1/20/2006 8:38:47 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
You are giving me a headache with your non sequiturs. I didnt discuss the
importance, but I do believe it is a necessary war. It can become more
important if we dilly dally and let them win more than we ought to let them
win. You have introduced several tangents which dont seem important. We have
an implacable enemy. We may or may not be fighting him as enthusiastically as
we ought. From the fact that so many people want us to withdraw prematurely
from Iraq (to the delight of Osama) it is clear that millions dont understand
the importance of fighting this enemy. So perhaps the people you refer to
as not doing something right ought to be given some slack for not fighting them
as well as they might.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 5:25 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Text of bin Laden Tape
Well, if it was such an important war, why wasn't it fought more seriously?
Why did the Army have to laugh at their proposal and insist on a larger army
than what Rove & Co. wanted, and still be nowhere close to what was needed?
Why was there no plan for after Baghdad fell? Why did we go to war with the
army we had instead of the army we needed (a paraphrase)? Why cut taxes when
the money is needed for military spending to fund the army to fight this war
that we need so desperately? Yadda yadda. In short, why was it not waged as
if it was an important war? If you say it was the Democrats' fault, then
you're passing the buck. The Republicans run the show and he had everybody's
approval in any case.
Other related posts:
