[lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat

LH:

>>As to barbarism, my reading of history indicates that the barbarians over run 
>>the cities when the city folk lose the ability to defend themselves - not 
>>when the city folks are outside the city quelling threats.<<



What the hell is this in reference to?





>>Yeah it would be great if they could believe in Islamism in the same way 
>>Christians believe in Christianity, but their preachers are telling them to 
>>go out and kill infidels if they are really serious about their religion, and 
>>if they really want to reach paradise.<<



But in fact, Lawrence, you don't know the first thing about Islamism.  You've 
never studied the Islamic religion under an Islamist, you've never lived in 
that culture, you don't speak the language, you are, I believe, deeply bigoted 
towards Islamism.  All you know is what a bunch of men as ignorant of Islamism 
as you are tell you.  Sorry, guy, I just don't pay any attention to anything 
you say.  Nothing personal.



Mike Geary

Memphis



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lawrence Helm 
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 12:44 AM
  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat


  Well, see, because my notes as long as they are aren't books, there is always 
room to describe something I haven't addressed in an individual note.  I've had 
occasion to read about Saddam Hussein a lot, and he was, apologies to the 
Saddam lovers, a world class menace.  As to his association with the Islamists, 
he wanted to use them.  He began sounding like them in his speeches.  He had 
never given up the idea of a Pan-Arabic super nation under his control and he 
was anxious to use military means to achieve his goals. Now you guys who don't 
like or defend Saddam Hussein are back to defending him.  

   

   

   you don't really believe, that is, you aren't really a genuine believer, 
unless you are engaged in Jihad.    Our preachers, most of them, don't even ask 
us to witness anymore.

   

  Lawrence

   

  -----Original Message-----
  From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Mike Geary
  Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 10:26 PM
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat

   

  LH:

  >>There really is an ideology variously called Islamism, Islamic 

  >>Fundamentalism and a few other things.  It really was firmed up by Sayyid 

  >>Qutb and it has swept the Middle East.<<

   

  I agree with you, Lawrence.  Copy that sentence and frame it!   And, of 

  course, you recognize that people have the same right to believe in Islamism 

  as in Christian Evangelism and in Islamic Fudamentalism as in Christian 

  Fundamentalism.  Belief is no crime.  Only acts are crimes.  Only those who 

  commit crimes are our enemy, not those who cheer on the criminals (I cheer 

  on bank robbers), or wish they were themselves criminals,  only the people 

  who commit crimes are criminals.  It makes the world more complicated, I 

  agree.  But it separates us from the barbarism of people like Saddam Hussein 

  who would kill not just those who tried to assassinate him,  but all his 

  family as well.

   

  Mike Geary

  Memphis

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

   

  ----- Original Message ----- 

  From: Lawrence Helm

  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

  Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 12:00 AM

  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat

   

   

  You are doing it again, Irene.  People attacked us and it somehow in your 

  Leftist mind becomes our fault.  It is such an automatic reaction that you 

  probably don't even realize you are doing it.  It is America's fault, Helm's 

  fault - "Oh come on Lawrence."

   

  .  You want to get upset because Bush didn't come up with a better term in 

  the beginning?  I already conceded that.  Let's move on.

   

  You say "the fact is" and then you provide one reason for the invasion of 

  Iraq.  That's a rather naïve approach to decisions about this, don't you 

  think?  There were a number of reasons for this invasion.  Read some of the 

  many reasons in the Clinton appointee's Kenneth Pollack's The Threatening 

  Storm.

   

   

   

  Lawrence

   

   

   

   

  From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 

  On Behalf Of Andy Amago

  Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:37 PM

  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat

   

  Oh, come on Lawrence.  The whole thing is word game.  We went from War on 

  Terror to the Long War.  At the same thing we didn't and still don't know a 

  Sunni from Shia in almost all of Washington.  Please, it's all bellicose 

  nonsense.  The fact is, we beat up Iraq to teach somebody else a lesson. 

  One would think that first one plays catch up, then one goes to war.   We 

  did in reverse.  If it weren't so tragic, it would be downright funny.

   

   

  -----Original Message----- 

  From: Lawrence Helm

  Sent: Jan 13, 2007 12:21 AM

  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat

   

   

   

  If you want to play word games and blame the lack of a definitive coherent 

  Militant Islamic definition on us, that may make you feel good, but it won't 

  get you very close to understanding. We didn't make the Middle East up.  It 

  is what it is.  We are just playing catch up trying to understand it - some 

  of us and deal with that part of it that comprises a threat.

   

  Lawrence

   

   

   

   

  From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 

  On Behalf Of Andy Amago

  Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:05 PM

  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat

   

  We took out Iraq to teach the 9/11'ers a lesson.  That's pretty rogue. 

  Well, maybe botched rogue, a subcategory of rogue.  See, if we didn't botch 

  the job it wouldn't matter that Saddam had no WMD and no ties to al Qaeda. 

  But, we did botch the job.  Now Iran is a rogue nation.  Is that better or 

  worse than being a botched rogue nation?

   

   

   

   

  ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change 

  your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), 

  visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html 

   

   

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

  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: