[lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
- From: "Steve Chilson" <stevechilson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:26:45 +0000
I would recommend, Lawrence, a book I just finished reading by Pamuk -
snow -
It won't equal Donal's Equation of people shitting and vomiting but it
might give you another variation on your themes of fundamentalist Islam.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:32:37 -0800, "Lawrence Helm"
<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> Irene hasn't read or perhaps hasn't understood the note she is ostensibly
> responding to, the one in which I said I wasn't interested in quibbles
> about
> how best to fight the war as long as we continued fighting it; so I won't
> abet her unwillingness to understand by commenting upon her quibbles, but
> will instead address some underlying matters.
>
>
>
> There is considerable evidence that the "majority" of Islam (something we
> have pursued here on Lit-Ideas from time to time) is fundamentalist.
> Fundamentalists share the goals of the extremists except for the one
> involving violence. It is simplistic to think we don't have to worry
> about
> an Islamic Fundamentalist majority. It is from this majority that Al
> Quaeda
> and other such organizations recruit. But it was never just the
> paramilitary Jihadists that presented a direct threat to our interests.
> Several hostile Islamic states hovered on the edge of just such
> directness:
> Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Iran were the primary ones. Perhaps
> they
> have seen cause in recent years to pull back slightly from that edge.
>
>
>
> Many of the people referring to Al Quaeda don't understand them. Al
> Quaeda
> did not expect effective opposition. Osama argued (see Osama's readily
> available speeches, many of which were posted here) that the US would not
> be
> able to stand against his fierce warriors -- that his Jihad was
> irresistible. So it is absurd to say that it is only our resistance to
> Al
> Quaeda that causes Al Quaeda. To say such things is to foster a mindless
> political slogan. It doesn't take much study to realize how false it is.
> I
> wonder why more people in this vaunted information age don't avail
> themselves of more accurate information about Al Quaeda.
>
>
>
> What is the danger of Leftism today? They represent a political position
> that is largely anti-American. In any conflict, they side with the
> enemies
> of the US. They make excuses for the enemy's excesses and find ways to
> blame the US for them. Something the US did caused these enemies to be
> enemies. They have abandoned the traditional American viewpoint that our
> nation is the best that the human race has yet produced. The US is
> eminently worthy of being defended. No other nation compares to it. If
> one
> is American, patriotism is a good thing.
>
>
>
> If people from some other nation disagree and favor their own nation,
> that
> is only to be expected. It is a natural thing to do, but if citizens
> here
> in the US abandon their patriotism and oppose the nation that nurtures
> them,
> that is unnatural and represents something that can only be described as
> pathological. If you are an American citizen, and seek America's defeat,
> you are suffering from something pathological. If you don't want us to
> defend your nation but instead side with its enemies, you are suffering
> from
> a pathological temperament. Surely if this pathology spreads widely
> enough
> in our nation, it will succeed in accomplishing its goal: the destruction
> of
> the body it infects.
>
>
>
> But perhaps we are too strong to have to worry about a little national
> sickness in some of our coastal backwaters? Perhaps. As long as they
> are
> back there some place out of the way and screaming invective at those
> attempting to perform their duty by opposing our enemies, they do little
> harm. It is only if they were to come forward and swing around in front
> of
> us beside our enemies that we might need to take them more seriously.
> They
> say that we have created all of our enemies and should, they imply, not
> take
> action against them for something we caused. I say that if they spend
> enough time siding with the enemy, the time may come when those of us who
> are more traditional can no longer tell the difference between them and
> our
> enemy. The time may come when those on the front lines are told, "Don't
> worry about it. If someone shoots at you, shoot back. We'll worry about
> which nation to bury them in later on."
>
>
>
> Lawrence
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Andy Amago
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:53 AM
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
>
>
>
> Lawrence, the enemy isn't Islam. The enemy is al Qaeda. Al Qaeda
> thrives
> on war and chaos, which is what we gave them. That old Leftist Herbert
> Bush
> didn't invade because he knew exactly this would happen. Leftist Baker
> says
> in so many words that he used to be repeatedly asked why they didn't go
> into
> Baghdad, and he's no longer asked that. If you're going to point fingers
> at
> "Leftists" you have to name names. So far, we have two: Bush Sr., James
> Baker. Who else? You're looking ahead to 2008. How about 2002-2006?
> Leftists the way you use it is tantamount to bogieman. Just a word that
> means "someone messed it up". Bogieman, Everyman, Leftist. They're all
> synonyms, since there are never any names attached to them. It's
> interesting that you say, "just as long as you keep fighting". Fighting
> is
> exactly what al Qaeda thrives on. That was the Baker Commission's point,
> the fighting is going nowhere ("grave and deteriorating"). Time to start
> talking would you say?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Steve Chilson
stevechilson@xxxxxxxxxxx
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
