[lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:11:43 -0800
No, that doesn't count. It was a mere statement of the obvious.
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:50 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
'"Saddam was Islamic, Saddam was militant, Therefore Saddam was Islamic
militant," wasn't an argument. It isn't the argument he fancies it is. He
claims I made that argument, but it doesn't sound like me and he doesn't
have it in quotes. I know it isn't an argument; so why would I claim it is?
I do recall asserting (and note that an assertion isn't an argument) that
Saddam Hussein was an Islamic Militant. I recall that several people seemed
to get confused when I wrote that thinking I was saying he was an Islamist
Militant rather than an Islamic Militant. But I wasn't saying that.
Whether everyone understood that I wasn't saying that, isn't clear to me.'
This is Lawrence on 9th January in a reply to Andreas in the thread entitled
'A Genuinely Useful Idea':
"I said the Baathist were Militant Islamics. They are Militant and they are
Islamics."
Does this count?
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 3:41 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The de-islamization of Europe
I used to get paid for doing this. People would submit something to me for
editing and expect me to change a word here or there or tell them in a word
what was wrong with what they wrote. I learned that just doesn't work. I'd
say, leave it with me, and then I'd rewrite it. Virtually everything is an
argument. We need to have clearly in mind what our objective is and then
build (describe it in our text) the evidence to support that objective. You
need to approve this change to the C-17? It is a good change because X. It
isn't acceptable to leave the airplane as it is because of Y. The argument
needs to be arranged just so, and if the Customer doesn't buy the change it
shouldn't be because anything in the argument was unclear, unsupported,
invalid or false.
So let's ask, what is Andreas' objective? We read his note and can't tell
immediately what it is. He seems to want to show that something I've said
is wrong, but I say so much I don't recognize it in his words and I'm not
sufficiently ambitious to go back through my notes to try and figure out
what he means. He produces something he seems to fancy is a syllogism but
it isn't one. As I wrote, but as he, and apparently Ursula, didn't
understand, what he wrote, namely "Saddam was Islamic, Saddam was militant,
Therefore Saddam was Islamic militant," wasn't an argument. It isn't the
argument he fancies it is. He claims I made that argument, but it doesn't
sound like me and he doesn't have it in quotes. I know it isn't an
argument; so why would I claim it is? I do recall asserting (and note that
an assertion isn't an argument) that Saddam Hussein was an Islamic Militant.
I recall that several people seemed to get confused when I wrote that
thinking I was saying he was an Islamist Militant rather than an Islamic
Militant. But I wasn't saying that. Whether everyone understood that I
wasn't saying that, isn't clear to me.
Getting back to what Andreas has written, after he puts my assertion in the
form of an argument he asks "Where is the error? You're not checking if the
definitions apply."
What does that mean? What error? What definitions? The fact that Saddam
Hussein was an Islamic Militant is a simple statement of fact. It isn't an
error. It doesn't require the checking of definitions. Saddam was the most
Militant leader in the Islamic world for many years. That is well known.
It doesn't need to be argued and I didn't argue it. I merely observed what
he was, an Islamic Militant.
I'll go on. He writes, "2) You use the word 'militant' in two senses: using
a military against this neighbors and using a military against the West. He
fits the first sense, so you use that in the second sense. An attack on
Kuwait becomes an attack on Florida."
Andreas is confused here. He thinks I've used the word militant in two
different ways. He thinks that if one directs one's militancy away from
ones neighbor toward someone else, the sense of the word changes. Is this
true? No. "Militant" doesn't change senses when one directs ones militancy
from one objective to another. Does a Jihadist become a Jihadist in a
different sense of the word if he has been attacking Afghan officials and
moves to Iraq to attack Iraqi officials? No. But is there some way to get
some sort of direction, some sort of sense out of what Andreas intends? If
he were an engineer who needed to come to some sort of agreement with me in
order to get his proposal submitted, I could brow-beat him until I got his
intention out of him, but there isn't enough to work with here.
What Andreas does next is produce what he fancies is a true syllogism: "A)
Saddam was secular. B) Saddam was a military threat only to his neighbors =
Therefore Saddam was a secular military threat to his neighbors."
Is this a syllogism? Well no. The conclusion is stated by its premises.
The conclusion isn't inferred from the premises; it is a mere repetition of
the premises. Well, fine, but are his assertions correct? Not really.
Saddam had a secular government but his speeches were religious in nature.
His appeals to his people were couched in religion; so one shouldn't go to
far in insisting upon his secularity. Nevertheless he didn't have a
Sharia-based government; so in that sense Iraq was secular. Was Saddam a
military threat only to his neighbors? No, that isn't true. He was also a
threat to the US who was allied to his neighbors. He was also a threat to
any nation dependent upon Middle Eastern Oil, China for example.
I did argue that Saddam Hussein was a threat to America's allies. He
invaded Kuwait and then threatened Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's fear of
invasion by Saddam was what caused them to invite the US into Saudi Arabian
territory. Also he believed in Pan-Arabism. Not only was Pan-Arabism part
of the Baathist political philosophy, but he voiced his desire in more
personal terms - as personal ambition. He wanted to lead such a Pan-Arabic
force. He believed it could become a major power right up there with the
US, the EU and China. And as we learned, Saddam was willing to take
Military steps to achieve his goals.
Between the time of the truce and the time of the resumption of the Gulf
War, Saddam's militancy was also evidenced by a great number of attacks
against British and American over-flights.
The militancy of the Islamic leader called Saddam Hussein is scarcely
anything to argue over; so, following my own advice, I hope to desist.
Lawrence
.html
Other related posts:
