[lit-ideas] Re: Hezbollah is here in U.S.
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:44:56 -0700
Irene,
Prior to our invasion of Iraq, I discussed Sandra Mackey's book. She argued
that Saddam kept the Shiites and Kurds dominated with domestic terror and
that if we conquered it that would be our greatest challenge -- to create
something that would work as well. She argued that the Shiites might take
the opportunity to get even for the years of Saddam's tyrannical abuse.
Iraq was the shame of the Middle east and also, according to Paul Berman,
the shame of Liberals who didn't support his removal. Yes, the Sunni's are
the resurgents. Yes, they did much better when Saddam was running things.
Yes, they would like to be in control again. Yes, some of them feel they
have nothing to lose by fighting on. Yes, many of them are happy Al Quaeda
is helping them. All this is well known. Nevertheless, Saddam was a major
force in Militant Islam. For many reasons he was a prominent player.
Removing Saddam was a blow to Militant Islam.
I notice that right after a note in which I indicated that I favored
diplomacy you say "war as a first resort, which of course you favor." Do
you wonder that I say you don't pay any attention to what I write? (Or is
this your split personality at work?)
The U.S. using Israel to attack Iran? This is the sort of thing an extreme
Leftist or an Islamist would say. In their conspiracy theories they spend
half their time saying that the U.S. runs Israel and the other half that
Israel runs the U.S. It is all nonsense Irene. If you want to say Iran is
running Hezbollah you would be onto something. The U.S. can influence
Israel up to a point, but they can't tell Israel not to defend itself.
Irene. Good grief. Hezbollah was lobbing rockets into Israel. They
invaded Lebanon to stop Hezbollah's attack. There was a treaty that
specified that Lebanon would not allow a terrorist organization on its soil
to do just what Hezbollah is doing. Through Syria's influence Lebanon
backed out of the treaty that Lebanon and Israel signed. There wasn't
anything Israel really wanted to do about it until Hezbollah attacked them.
Israel has a policy of trying to get their soldiers back at all cost, but
the primary reason for the invasion is that Hezbollah has been bombing the
heck out of Israel with rockets.
Iran is already in the regional conflict. Iran created Hezbollah. They
armed it and financed it.
You talk about my understanding being skewed. What is the superior
standpoint from which you make that judgment? I have heard very little
about your reading. How is it that you know the truth while I struggle
along in my skewed ignorance trying to read one expert after another only to
be deceived time and time and end up skewered by Irene?
Back to reality: get your focus off of 9/11. We are at war not with the
perpetrator's of 9/11 but with MILITANT ISLAM! You denigrate the ideology
that began with the Wahhabis, but when you do that you cut yourself off from
understanding. You won't understand MILITANT ISLAM until you read its
history, especially its ideologists. Reading these ideologists isn't going
to skew you. It is going to tell you what every Militant Islamist knows and
you don't. It will tell you why they are dead set on conquering first
Arabia (Saddam was an ardent Pan-Arabist) and then moving outward conquering
all the land that they lost to the infidel and then outward still until the
entire world bows its knee to Allah
You think we are militarily incompetent? You live in a world of Leftist
denial. We have the most competent military that has ever existed and this
can be demonstrated by any objective standard. Our wars in the Middle East
were models of text-book efficiency. What you want to criticize is our
mistaken gentleness with the survivors. Although you would almost certainly
be criticizing something else if we were ruthless with them. The
administration probably thought it was the politically correct thing to be
gentle and give them a chance to join the Iraqi democracy. That gentleness
hasn't born fruit.
Also, you overrate stability. A stable Iraq and Afghanistan bent upon doing
us or our allies harm is far worse (from our strategic standpoint) than an
unstable Iraq and Afghanistan incapable of doing us harm.
As to our borders, I hear terrorists are entering our country over our
borders. And in previous notes I said let's close them off! You commented
about that Irene. You accused me of changing my mind, but now you say "yet
you see none of this." Was it one of your split personalities who commented
upon my earlier note, remarking that I had changed my mind and a different
personality which now says I am opposed to preventing terrorists entering?
You say you are going to stop "with reality." Irene, I am quite convinced
that you are stopping well short of that.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:35 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Hezbollah is here in U.S.
Lawrence, Iraq is in civil war. We have 56,000 troops in Baghdad and they
can't keep the peace. The whole strategy is completely wrong. We're
approaching it as if the problem were an insurgency, when the problem is a
civil war. An insurgency strategy is exactly the way to fan the flames of a
civil war (an insurgency is united; a civil war is factionalized).
Something like 19,000 Iraqis have been killed in sectarian violence in the
last six months, and adding insult to injury, Iraq had nothing whatsoever to
do with al Qaeda before the invasion. Invading Iraq has been a boon for
Iran and it's also loosened the restraints against anything goes over there,
meaning war as a first resort, which of course you favor. By diplomacy, I
meant that the U.S. has stopped with the saber rattling with Iran, the
reason most likely being that the U.S. might be using Israel to attack Iran
for them. Hezbollah may be just an excuse. Nobody goes to war over two
captured soldiers. Bush has never spoken to Iran. Whether Iran will allow
itself to be drawn into a regional conflict is unknown. Most likely they're
too crafty for that. How it shakes out for Israel has yet to be seen.
Lawrence, in the beginning I learned from your writings about the Wahhabis,
but it's increasingly clear that there's a skewed quality to your thinking
that makes your writings almost inapplicable to understanding what's going
on. The world is amazingly complex, yet you see only one thing, the
Wahhabis. It's the same type of skewing that goes into claiming American
credit for the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I know for a fact that the
SU caved from within, yet you give Reagan and the neocons the credit.
That's downright misinformed, it's hubris, yet you stand by it as fact
because your fellow Conservatives believe it.
The U.S. broadened the ME mess exponentially. The Wahhabis didn't do that.
We invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and turned it into a
cauldron of breathtaking instability, then we stay the course as if more of
the same will make it better as it slides deeper and deeper into hell. We
abandoned Afghanistan and now they're heading to the Iraq model. We proved
ourselves militarily incompetent. We put big business ahead of securing our
borders resulting in literally anybody being able walk into the country and
disappear. What are the chances they haven't taken advantage of our
largesse in favor of both big business and terrorists? There's almost a
philosophical issue there, i.e., both big business and terrorists are
unconcerned with creating victims. Yet you see none of this. Everyone has
their own way of dealing with reality. I guess that's the way you deal with
it, take an orchestra and reduce it to one instrument, even one note. I
think I'm going to stop with the reality and go read some nutrition.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 7/19/2006 11:26:46 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Hezbollah is here in U.S.
Irene,
I talked about the Hezbollah before the Hezbollah began firing missiles at
Israel causing Israel to defend its people by invading Lebanon to destroy
Hezbollah. I talked about Hezbollah in relation to several books I read
about Iran. I described how Iran had armed the Hezbollah. I probably
described how Hezbollah has attacked the U.S. on several occasions, but this
is so well known, I might have skipped that. This is old news to anyone who
has studied the history of Iran or American Foreign Policy.
Diplomacy? You have asked me this several times recently, and I have
restrained from saying anything, but I said several times when you were
saying that Eric and I were favoring bombing Iran that the Bush
administration was going to be using diplomacy (my prediction). I said this
several months ago over a period of time in several messages. Now you are
presenting me with his diplomacy as though that were some how proving me
wrong about something.
You didnt listen to me about Hezbollah, and you didnt listen to me about
Diplomacy. And you havent listened to me about Iraq. Militant Islam is
what we are fighting. It goes by several names and has several forms but
two very potent elements of Militant Islam have been neutralized:
Afghanistan and Iraq. They were militant and they were hostile against us
and our allies. They arent any more. Breeding ground for terrorists?
Nonsense, Irene. Outsiders are going to Iraq to join the insurgency and
getting killed. You should like them getting killed over there rather than
coming over here and blowing themselves up in your mall.
Do you live on the border, Irene? Every terrorist killed in Iraq means one
that isnt going to cross our borders and come after you. Dont knock the
efforts in Iraq. The main war in Afghanistan and Iraq is over but the war
against Militant Islam is far from being over. Militant Islam has its
representatives just about everywhere. Two French experts on this matter
(Roy & Kepel) say Europe is the breeding ground for terrorists. Breeding
ground for terrorists strikes me as a nonsensical term. At the very least
it is used inappropriately. Militant Islam is an ideology. It derives from
Wahhab, Salafist, Maududi, Al Banna, Qutb, and Khomeini primarily. It is
taught and has been accepted throughout the Middle East. The place where
the term would be valid if used is The Middle East, not some particular
region where you can bash Bush with it. The whole Middle East has been
indoctrinated by Militant Islam and a huge percentage loves it. That is the
breeding ground for terrorism, and it has been exported to various places
throughout the world.
I dont know why I tell you this stuff Irene, in a few months youll write
me and say, Okay, Lawrence, How about Militant Islam being taught
throughout the Middle East. You didnt think about that, did you?
Lawrence
Other related posts:
