[lit-ideas] Re: Islam, Israel and the Code of the West

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:51:17 -0700

Okay, I can buy that.

 

I am of the opinion that we have lost the sense of the concept ?enemy?
through our pluralistic desire to allow every possible opinion its
?free-speech? right.  But from two standpoints the idea of the ?enemy? is
important.  

 

1)       if we believe in traditional fashion that only the good old U. S.
of A. is right and everyone else is some degree of wrong, then the extremely
wrong, e.g., Iran, Hezbollah and Al Quada, are our enemy and we should treat
them as such.

2)       If there is no right or wrong, only different opinions, and if a
certain opinion (or acts derived from that opinion) intends us harm it
should be treated as being inimical, for our Pluralistic ideal permits
almost everything.  It excludes whatever causes us harm.  

 

In either case, Militant Islam qualifies as our enemy.  Islamic states based
upon Militant Islamic ideals recognize this.  In fact they consider
themselves at war with us and with our Western allies.  They do not want
peace.  They don not want peace with us or with Israel.  They want our
destruction.  It is naïve to think that if they succeeded in destroying
Israel, they would be satisfied.  They would be emboldened, just as Al
Quaeda was emboldened at the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan.  

 

If I gave the idea that I was only concerned that we be defensive, then I
misspoke.

 

Lawrence 

  _____  

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Paul Stone
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 2:17 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Islam, Israel and the Code of the West

 





LH: I dont agree with the implication of moral equivalence. 


I'm not talking about moral equivalence, I'm talking about the OTHER's
notions of what morality is. The "terrorists" {to use a Western Term}
believe that WE are evil and want to kill us. We think they are, and, *if
they attack us*, we want to kill them.

But the trouble is, more and more, the mere 'threat' or 'percieved' threat
is being legitimized as reason to be offensive under the cloak of being
defensive. I have no qualms with killing them all -- the Earth ain't big
enough for both of us, and since, I'm a member of 'us', let's kill 'them' --
in the words of Eric "annihilate, eradicate, wipe out, destroy" them; but
let's not pretend we are still acting from a defensive standpoint. "We"
clearly have an agenda and it is to kill those that _we_ have deemed
"terrorists".

paul



##########
Paul Stone
pas@xxxxxxxx
Kingsville, ON, Canada

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 07-2006