[lit-ideas] Re: Amis Antithesis
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:27:21 -0700
Andreas:
I read you doing your short little angry jab thing but no presenting of
Civil Rights we had lost. Mike imagined the current law migrating into
someone coming out to San Jacinto to haul me off, but other than that I
don't recall any indication of normal Americans, i.e., Americans not
suspected of being involved with Terrorism being taken away. As to the
three Republicans opposing Bush, I'm not seeing that as a serious matter.
In his speech he said he proposed something and was willing to negotiate.
Now they will be negotiating. I'm failing to see a problem here. Thinking
maybe I missed something I read my morning paper on the subject and looked
at Google, but see nothing other than that negotiations are (about issues
not being divulged) going on. Once again the sky does not seem to be
falling.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-restarts-talks-on-interrogation/2006/
09/19/1158431710774.html
Not even the NYTimes has the sky falling:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/washington/19interrogate.html
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andreas Ramos
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:37 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Amis Antithesis
You, Lawrence, asked me what civil rights had been lost. I replied, and you
ignored my
reply.
So now you try to change it back to "militant Islam". "Wolf! Wolf! Lookie!
Wolf!"
That's your best argument: terrorize us. Threaten us with terrorists so you
can have your
race wars.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 7:13 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Amis Antithesis
> No, no. That isn't what we were doing. We were talking about the threat
of
> the Militant Islamists and several of you presumably because you had no
> arguments worth voicing decided to change the subject to something you
felt
> more comfortable with: Civil Rights, and so exalted the subject and
> neglected the original subject. Then you introduced this journalist who
> criticized our efforts by saying that what we ought to do is something we
> are already doing; so naturally I questioned his information. You were a
> little over anxious in wanting to produce a "gotcha" and got yourself.
And
> now apparently you are attempting to recoup your lost face (do pacifists
> worry about lost face or is that only Leftists?) by some innuendo that
> clearly misses any mark I'm aware of.
>
>
>
> I have written voluminously on the ideology of Militant Islam. If you
> missed something I'm sure the archives will help you. But what is it you
> want to know? If I won't be repeating myself to any great extent I'll
help
> you out. You seem a little off balance, but do your best.
>
>
>
> Lawrence
>
> _____
>
> From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Simon Ward
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 5:26 AM
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Amis Antithesis
>
>
>
> So you've deftly avoided the issue once again Lawrence.
>
>
>
> There we were discussing the ideology vs experience/perception issue, and
> then suddenly we're argiung about the attributes of one journo. Deft
> Lawrence. Really deft.
>
>
>
> So, just to take matters back a touch, I'll repeat the quote from your
> previous post.
>
>
>
> "Zawahiri's text is based upon Qutb, and it is going to help prepare minds
> to react and take offense in accordance with what Qutb and people like
> Zawahiri have prepared them for?"
>
>
>
> React to what Lawrence? Take offense to what? If it's all ideology, if the
> west is so evil, what is there to react against.
>
>
>
> Don't be shy Lawrence.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
>
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:14 AM
>
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Amis Antithesis
>
>
>
> Were you laughing? I guess my own laughter drowned it out. So that's
your
> answer: He doesn't live in a vacuum and knows by osmosis what everyone
else
> knows. And therefore knows this thing that he apparently doesn't know,
> namely that the Army Corps of Engineers continues to build and be
> appreciated by the local Iraqis -- but not it would seem by your osmotic
> journalist.
>
>
>
> Lawrence
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Simon Ward
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 5:14 PM
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Amis Antithesis
>
>
>
> Don't like being laughed at Lawrence?
>
>
>
> Anderson is an established journo writing for the New Yorker. These guys
> don't live in a vacuum. They have contacts, they write books, they get
paid
> for it. Sure this one might not fit in with your politics, but give him
some
> credit.
>
>
>
> At least he's been there. Have you?
>
>
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.5/450 - Release Date: 9/18/2006
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
