[lit-ideas] Re: A Movie [longish]
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:50:21 -0400
Lawrence, this is just not true. Saddam did not strive to pan-Arabism. He was
a tin pot dictator and nothing more. Also, these people are not insane. They
don't just want to destroy the infidel. Maybe a few somewhere do, but we have
our Timothy McVey's and militias in Montana too. They are not the U.S. The
Islamists have political agendas and goals that they further through, among
other methods, suicide bombings, yes, that's true, but killing the infidel is
not the goal. That's just paranoia and a corollary to the democracy is on the
march theme. Al Qaeda is a bunch of weirdos, but the U.S. doesn't care about
al Qaeda. The neocons wanted the oil, not eliminating al Qaeda. Paraphrasing
Ricks, the danger is that the people of the M.E. will become so sick of
Americans and their spreading of democracy by destroying countries, that a
pan-Arab leader may arise and unite what are very disparate groups. And of
course the Israeli-Palestinian issue has taken on a life of it
s own. If you're going to categorize people as nothing but Timothy McVeys,
kindly supply evidence beyond rhetoric. Empty rhetoric is what this country
runs on, and here we are.
Did you see the movie Syriana? It's an okay movie, but there's a sense in it
of what drives the suicide attack against corporate interests (read:
Haliburton, neocons, etc.). The little guy, including the CIA operative and
the little guy's safety (which is to say, you and me) in the form of missing
missiles, are just pawns for corporate. The suicide attack was ironically the
only blow that corporate got. It's an okay movie but it's a lot more realistic
than they're all out to get the infidel.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 8/10/2006 8:42:29 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: A Movie [longish]
Omar, I don?t feel a particular urge to discuss this with you, and since you
didn?t read all of my note your claim to want to discuss something is not to be
credited.:
1) I discussed this in the note you are responding to; so you shouldn?t be
asking this question. However I?ll elaborate a bit just to be sociable:
Militant Islam has two main parts to it. The first, Islamism, is an ideology
that has grown up around the teachings of Wahhabism, Salafism, Maududi, Al
Banna, Sayyid Qutb and Khomeini. It advocates a Fundamentalist adherence to
the Sharia, but most important for us and important in their thinking is the
advocacy of the Jihad for the furtherance of their doctrine. They advocate
violence against the governments of the nations they find themselves in for
after all these are but remnants of Colonialism and the new leaders are worse
than the old Colonialists. They advocate violence against those who do not
adhere to the Sharia because such people are the same as infidels. They
advocate violence against infidels. Killing Civilians is okay because all
infidels deserve death. Killing infidels while blowing yourself up is a noble
thi
ng and individuals who do that are to be praised as martyrs. Within Islamism
are activist organization like Al Quaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, but anyone is
entitled to strap bombs to himself and blow up infidels. It is all good. The
near-term goal is to reclaim all the land previously held by Islam including
Andalusia. The ultimate goal is to claim the entire world for Islamism.
The second part is Pan-Arabism. This ideology advocates the return of the
Caliphate and an elimination of borders created by Europeans after WWI. There
is but one ummah and there should be but one leader over the ummah. Nassar was
the first modern Pan-Arabist who wanted to lead the Arabian Umma. Later Saddam
Hussein sought to be that leader. With the elimination of Saddam Hussein, the
Pan-Arabist aspect of Militant Islam has been largely neutralized. The weakest
link, Syria, still exist as ostensibly advocating this view.
2) I discussed this in the note you are responding to so you shouldn?t be
asking this question, but I?ll elaborate further just to be sociable: The
numbers of militant Islam were discussed in the note you are responding to. I
don?t understand what more you want. We are here dealing with a very backward
people not much given to free speech, opinion polls, etc., so ?experts? can but
guess. You and I debated this matter in the past. You felt the Moderates were
more numerous than the Militants. I found no evidence from this. I only heard
the Militants speaking out. There were no Moderates speaking out in the Middle
East. So they are either numerous but silent or not numerous. The one
estimate I saw is that 30% of the 300,000,000 Arabs were Militants, but I
suspect the number is much larger. If the Majority were Moderates surely they
would find some means of speaking their moderation and this hasn?t occurred to
my knowledge. Some post-colonial governments oppose Islami
sm but we hear the Islamists are barely kept in check in those nations.
Moderates don?t even dare to speak out there -- in Egypt for example.
3) You didn?t read the rest of my note, did you?
4) What do I expect the rest of the world to do when? You obviously didn?t
read my note. You and Irene both have a very bad habit of just reading a line
or two and making an assumption about the rest of the note. That might be okay
if you weren?t all so inclined to dash off a note asking for a response that is
contained in the note you obviously didn?t read. This is always irritating and
the older I get the more I am inclined to say so.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 4:58 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: A Movie [longish]
--- Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Paul,
>
>
>
> I just turned on my computer and was surprised to
> find 36 notes in my
> Lit-Ideas inbox, this note (your initial note) and
> 35 following. I
> appreciated your note and read it twice. I didn't
> appreciate the notes
> following that attempted to take things off on a
> tangent or quibble about
> how many people you want to destroy.
*Well, Lawrence, I am sorry to interfere in your
exchange of ideological pronouncements with a new
comrade, but there is a couple of quibbles here. If
you are seriosuly proposing to 'eliminate militant
Islam,' you should be able to explain at least:
1. What is 'militant Islam' ?
2. How many proponents does it have, and how can they
be identified ?
3. How is 'eliminating' to be done, and by whom ?
4. What do you expect the rest of the world is going
to do ?
When that is clarified, we could perhaps discuss your
proposal seriously.
O.K.
Other related posts:
