[lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:37:56 -0000
Here's the quote in context:
"I went all through this misunderstanding with Irene. I said the Baathist were
Militant Islamics. They are Militant and they are Islamics. The threat isn't
just from religious Militants. Baathism was intended to achieve Pan-Arabism,
bringing all the Arab nations under one head. It was begun by Nassar who was
assassinated. Saddam liked the idea as well. He was just as much of a threat
with his Pan-Arabism as Khomeini was with his religious revolution. They both
wanted the same thing, and then they fought."
Argument or not, it certainly sounds to me as though it was intended to be a
logical inference. I think what's needed is a definition of 'militant', does it
mean an indivdual or group with miltary capability, or does it mean an
individual or group with extreme views.
My understanding of militant islamics has always been of the latter; an islamic
whose view of the religion is extreme. I doubt that Saddam's version of Islam
was at all extreme. I doubt it was very seroius at all. Conversely, Lawrence's
version of the term suggests to me that it concerns an individual or a group
with a military capability.
Perhaps he could clarify.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 6:11 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
No, that doesn't count. It was a mere statement of the obvious.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:50 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
'"Saddam was Islamic, Saddam was militant, Therefore Saddam was Islamic
militant," wasn't an argument. It isn't the argument he fancies it is. He
claims I made that argument, but it doesn't sound like me and he doesn't have
it in quotes. I know it isn't an argument; so why would I claim it is? I do
recall asserting (and note that an assertion isn't an argument) that Saddam
Hussein was an Islamic Militant. I recall that several people seemed to get
confused when I wrote that thinking I was saying he was an Islamist Militant
rather than an Islamic Militant. But I wasn't saying that. Whether everyone
understood that I wasn't saying that, isn't clear to me.'
This is Lawrence on 9th January in a reply to Andreas in the thread entitled
'A Genuinely Useful Idea':
"I said the Baathist were Militant Islamics. They are Militant and they are
Islamics."
Does this count?
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:41 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
I used to get paid for doing this. People would submit something to me for
editing and expect me to change a word here or there or tell them in a word
what was wrong with what they wrote. I learned that just doesn't work. I'd
say, leave it with me, and then I'd rewrite it. Virtually everything is an
argument. We need to have clearly in mind what our objective is and then build
(describe it in our text) the evidence to support that objective. You need to
approve this change to the C-17? It is a good change because X. It isn't
acceptable to leave the airplane as it is because of Y. The argument needs to
be arranged just so, and if the Customer doesn't buy the change it shouldn't be
because anything in the argument was unclear, unsupported, invalid or false.
So let's ask, what is Andreas' objective? We read his note and can't tell
immediately what it is. He seems to want to show that something I've said is
wrong, but I say so much I don't recognize it in his words and I'm not
sufficiently ambitious to go back through my notes to try and figure out what
he means. He produces something he seems to fancy is a syllogism but it isn't
one. As I wrote, but as he, and apparently Ursula, didn't understand, what he
wrote, namely "Saddam was Islamic, Saddam was militant, Therefore Saddam was
Islamic militant," wasn't an argument. It isn't the argument he fancies it is.
He claims I made that argument, but it doesn't sound like me and he doesn't
have it in quotes. I know it isn't an argument; so why would I claim it is? I
do recall asserting (and note that an assertion isn't an argument) that Saddam
Hussein was an Islamic Militant. I recall that several people seemed to get
confused when I wrote that thinking I was saying he was an Islamist Militant
rather than an Islamic Militant. But I wasn't saying that. Whether everyone
understood that I wasn't saying that, isn't clear to me.
Getting back to what Andreas has written, after he puts my assertion in the
form of an argument he asks "Where is the error? You're not checking if the
definitions apply."
What does that mean? What error? What definitions? The fact that Saddam
Hussein was an Islamic Militant is a simple statement of fact. It isn't an
error. It doesn't require the checking of definitions. Saddam was the most
Militant leader in the Islamic world for many years. That is well known. It
doesn't need to be argued and I didn't argue it. I merely observed what he
was, an Islamic Militant.
I'll go on. He writes, "2) You use the word 'militant' in two senses:
using a military against this 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."
Andreas is confused here. He thinks I've used the word militant in two
different ways. He thinks that if one directs one's militancy away from ones
neighbor toward someone else, the sense of the word changes. Is this true?
No. "Militant" doesn't change senses when one directs ones militancy from one
objective to another. Does a Jihadist become a Jihadist in a different sense
of the word if he has been attacking Afghan officials and moves to Iraq to
attack Iraqi officials? No. But is there some way to get some sort of
direction, some sort of sense out of what Andreas intends? If he were an
engineer who needed to come to some sort of agreement with me in order to get
his proposal submitted, I could brow-beat him until I got his intention out of
him, but there isn't enough to work with here.
What Andreas does next is produce what he fancies is a true syllogism: "A)
Saddam was secular. B) Saddam was a military threat only to his neighbors =
Therefore Saddam was a secular military threat to his neighbors."
Is this a syllogism? Well no. The conclusion is stated by its premises.
The conclusion isn't inferred from the premises; it is a mere repetition of the
premises. Well, fine, but are his assertions correct? Not really. Saddam
had a secular government but his speeches were religious in nature. His
appeals to his people were couched in religion; so one shouldn't go to far in
insisting upon his secularity. Nevertheless he didn't have a Sharia-based
government; so in that sense Iraq was secular. Was Saddam a military threat
only to his neighbors? No, that isn't true. He was also a threat to the US
who was allied to his neighbors. He was also a threat to any nation dependent
upon Middle Eastern Oil, China for example.
I did argue that Saddam Hussein was a threat to America's allies. He
invaded Kuwait and then threatened Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's fear of invasion
by Saddam was what caused them to invite the US into Saudi Arabian territory.
Also he believed in Pan-Arabism. Not only was Pan-Arabism part of the Baathist
political philosophy, but he voiced his desire in more personal terms - as
personal ambition. He wanted to lead such a Pan-Arabic force. He believed it
could become a major power right up there with the US, the EU and China. And
as we learned, Saddam was willing to take Military steps to achieve his goals.
Between the time of the truce and the time of the resumption of the Gulf
War, Saddam's militancy was also evidenced by a great number of attacks against
British and American over-flights.
The militancy of the Islamic leader called Saddam Hussein is scarcely
anything to argue over; so, following my own advice, I hope to desist.
Lawrence
.html
Other related posts:
