[lit-ideas] It is Islam, Dummy
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 08:33:58 -0700
What of the concept "war on terror"? Since "terror" is a tactic, why did
Bush use that term? Of course he intended not what Andreas absurdly
suggests below but "War against those who use terror as a tactic." But even
so, why not "War against Islamic Fundamentalism," or "War against Radical
Islam," or "War against Militant Islam"?
I encountered a recent discussion of this although I can't quite remember
where, possibly in Selbourne's book. Bush was concerned about America's six
million Muslims, and he didn't want to use a term that was going to
antagonize them. He stated in the same context that the war wasn't against
Islam itself. He has in recent years used more descriptive terms.
One of the problems with defining the nature of our war is that it may be
against Islam. The only Muslims who don't side with the Militants in major
ways seem to be those who have taken a step or two toward secularism. Read
the following article by the Iranian-American Amil Imani, who may have taken
more than a step or two:
Amil Imani's article is from his web site and is entitled "It is Islam,
Dummy". The article is much too long for Andreas, Irene and Omar but the
first two paragraphs follow:
"The terror and death inflicted on humanity is not the work of radical
Islam, neither the political Islam, nor the militant Islam. It is Islam,
period. Get it? And the perpetrators are not fringe elements confined to
brainwashed Saudis, loony Taliban, or a know nothing Pakistanis who have
hijacked Islam and are now in the business of mass murder. The latest
project of the practitioners of the "religion of peace" aimed to blowing
planeloads of innocent civilians to smithereens in midair over the Atlantic
-- ought to finally drive the point home: it is Islam, dummy. Get it?
"How could people calling themselves sincere God-fearing religionists bring
themselves to even think of acts of such barbarity, yet plan them
methodically and cold-bloodedly proceed to execute them? The answer is
Islam. The life manual of Islam, the Quran, is a document of exclusion,
hatred and violence that shapes the Muslims' thinking and behaving. This
stone-age document is optimally suited for people of stunted development.
People who prefer to follow than to think for themselves, to hate than to
love, and to seek death rather than to celebrate life."
Those interested will find the entire article at
<http://www.amilimani.com/> http://www.amilimani.com/
If Imani's argument is valid, Bush was wise to use a euphemism in speaking
to the entire American public.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas Ramos
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:33 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Sustaining our Resolve
Lawrence writes
> Terrorism is after all a tactic.
After Bush declared the "war on terror", a number of US generals wondered,
so we're going to
fight against a tactic?
You can't fight a tactic any more than you can bomb a train of thought.
Lawrence is trying to redefine terror to be a tactic, so he can then say it
was okay for the
USA to use terror against the USSR in Afghanistan. It's kinda cool to watch
him change his
position in real time.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
Other related posts:
