Irene, The terms used do befuddle Americans until they get used to them -- unfortunately some never do. "Militant Islam" includes the Islamists but it isn't limited to them. Secular Pan-Arabists have also been Militant. Nassar was perhaps the first Pan-Arabist and started the Baathist Party. Syria and Iraq became Baathist and for a brief period the three, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq were the United Arab Republic or very nearly so, but it rapidly fell apart because Nassar wanted to run things and the leaders of Syria and Iraq weren't inclined to follow Nassar as closely as he would like. Nevertheless Baathism advocated Pan-Arabism: the elimination of all borders in Arabia, one Arab entity. This of course is what Sayyid Qutb advocated as well but he put the matter in religious terms. Borders were artificial creations of the Colonial powers and meant nothing to the Ummah. Borders should be eliminated. Thus we see that both the Baathist and the Islamists intended to militantly advance the cause of Pan-Arabism (although the Islamists wouldn't use that term). We tend to focus on the Islamists because they have created terrorist organizations, but Baathist Iraq invaded Kuwait, and Baathist Syria invaded Lebanon. The Baathists' ambitions were more limited that the Islamists. They wanted a single Arabian state to rival the USSR and the US. The Islamists wanted to go on conquering additional nations world wide. Nevertheless "Militant Islam" must be seen to include both the Militant Islamists and the Militant Baathists. In regard to "elimination," you misunderstand me. I never said that individuals should be eliminated. I said that Terrorist organizations should be eliminated. Furthermore I quoted articles the same day wherein the authors said identical things. One said the threat of Terrorist Organizations should be sanitized. The other said Terrorist Organizations should be eradicated. Also, I didn't include the Wahhabis as a terrorist organization. I mentioned the Wahhabis in regard to the development of the Islamist ideology. They are at the beginning of the Islamist ideological development. They are Fundamentalist in nature, and while many Wahhabis may have sympathy for Terrorist organizations, and they may have helped fund Terrorist organizations, they are not a Terrorist organization but an Islamic Fundamentalist Religious sect. Lawrence _____ From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy Amago Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 6:49 AM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Hezbollah is here in U.S. We may have a competent U.S. military, but we'll never know because of the civilians who are running it, as the Constitution says they should. It wasn't a case of not being gentle, it was a case of acting out of a clueless ideological haze. Saddam was a counterbalance to Iran. We supported and armed him for a reason. That hardly inspires visions of gentleness. Saddam patterned himself on Stalin, hardly an Islamist. Even if Saddam supported Militant Islam, an assertion similar to the U.S. felling the USSR, Saddam supported the Islamists with what? Palaces? He had no weapons and the sanctions had him collared, even if at great expense to the Iraqi people, a time that was a paradise compared to what they have now. When asked about illegal aliens you once said "yawn". It's okay to change your mind. The Wahhabis are not nice people, but there are plenty of not nice people in the world. To run around exterminating them all is unrealistic and counterproductive. To even use the word exterminate is to ally yourself with Stalin or Saddam or anyone who advocates genocide. There's always a reason given for genocide. Our enemy is big business' ownership of Congress that insists on open borders; extreme debt and empty pockets that keep us beholden to others; tax cuts for the wealthy while the country goes sharecropper (Warren Buffett's words, not mine); a reliance on foreign oil (more big business ownership of Congress; our president is an oil man); and other things that the Wahhabis are a distraction from. Had we been fixing up our own country instead of running around the world trying to dominate it, things would be different. Do I sound like a Conservative? I guess I do. Also, we need a president who actually likes this country instead of putting his affiliation with the global ultra wealthy elite, a president who will spearhead programs to support the country instead of eviscerate it, like not giving away the treasury, like not insisting on tearing down SS, like reining in pharma instead of telling them to help themselves to taxpayers' m oney, and on and on. For Stan, I don't have time to read the article now but, yes, I have heard that Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are afraid of the fundamentalists. That's all the more reason to wonder why there was a military response instead of taking advantage of this fear and using it to mutual advantage. Stranger alliances have happened in the past. Did the military-solution-to-everything, don't talk, just hit, climate make it a desirable option? Or might it be part of the living out of a mythology, the Israelis as some sort of breed of superior warrior? Mythologies and ideologies are dangerous things. Forcing people to do things, even when it's possible, is much less effective than getting people to do things because they want to. That's stating the obvious, but obviously not so obvious since it is unknown to the powers that be. All right, that's it, gotta go. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: 7/20/2006 1:44:57 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Hezbollah is here in U.S. Irene, Prior to our invasion of Iraq, I discussed Sandra Mackeys 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 Saddams tyrannical abuse. Iraq was the shame of the Middle east and also, according to Paul Berman, the shame of Liberals who didnt support his removal. Yes, the Sunnis 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 forc e 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 dont 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 cant tell Israel not to defend itself. Irene. Good grief. Hezbollah was lobbing rockets into Israel. They invaded Lebanon to stop Hezbollahs 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 Syrias influence Lebanon backed out of the treaty that Lebanon and Israel signed. There wasnt 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 perpetrators 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 wont understand MILITANT ISLAM until you read its history, especially its ideologists. Reading these ideologists isnt going to skew you. It is going to tell you what every Militant Islamist knows and you dont. 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 hasnt 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 lets 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