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

  • From: "Judith Evans" <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:04:52 +0100

>You haven't really proved the Likud predecessor was a terrorist organization 

The Likud was a terrorist organization but if you like, we can call it a 
non-terrorist
organization that did things terrorists do.  Would you call the Stern Gang 
terrorists?


(would you call the terrorist wing of the ANC terrorist?)

Judy Evans, Cardiff


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Lawrence Helm 
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:45 AM
  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Islam, Israel and the Code of the West


  Simon:  It doesn't mean I would support anything.  I have a position of 
Militant Islam.  You haven't really proved the Likud predecessor was a 
terrorist organization any more than you could prove that the French Resistance 
during WWII was a terrorist organization.  Who said the Irgun was a terrorist 
organization?  Someone from the Haganah?  That's why there was a split.  The 
pacifists didn't like the activists.  Big deal.  It was a different time in 
which nothing existed that corresponds to a Militant Islamic Terrorist 
organization.  But so what?  Why should I voice opinions about matters I'm not 
interested in to suit someone's deviant interests?  



  I continue to believe that Militant Islamic nations should be defeated, and 
the threat of militant Islamic terrorist organizations should be sanitized.  



  Lawrence




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
  Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 4:31 PM
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Islam, Israel and the Code of the West



  I feel fine Lawrence. It's a bit warm here, sticky almost, but apart from 
that, I feel fine.



  However, I'm not convinced that your position, what you mean, is supportable 
since it implies that you would support terrorist methods providing you thought 
the cause was right. 



  I also think that you were ready to defend Irgun until it became obvious that 
they were terrorists. Now you're convinced that they were terrorists you're 
miffed and want to restrict the discussion to militant islam. In itself, that 
precludes my first point, but it also suggests that you don't want to consider 
it because while you support the cause (an Israeli State) you don't approve of 
the methods that attained it (terrorism).



  For many, that provides Israel's inherent contradiction; it was a state that 
was founded on terrorism but which now abhors it. That's what I think by the 
way.



  Simon







  ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: Lawrence Helm 

    To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

    Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:18 AM

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



    Do you get to say what I mean or do I?  I'd like to think that I know what 
I mean.  I am not talking about all the groups of the past that might 
technically fit someone's definition.  I am talking about Militant Islam.  I 
don't need to provide an all inclusive statement each time I say "Terrorist."  
It should be understood, and is, that I mean "Militant Islamic Terrorist." 



    Militant Islamic Terrorist organizations should be exterminated.  There, do 
you feel better now?



    Lawrence







------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.1/390 - Release Date: 17/07/2006

Other related posts:

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