[lit-ideas] Re: The torture graph
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 14:06:06 -0400
I said life imitating art is medieval. Depending on a movie with a guaranteed
good ending as a blue print for fighting this war on terror (Clint Eastwood
showing us how it's done in Dirty Harry), is life imitating art in the same way
that the Code of Chivalry, a quintessentially medieval concept, is life
imitating art and is arguably the foundation of Islamic Fundamentalism. It is
arguably also the cause of their backwardness. Maybe you didn't notice these
statements in my post because you act as if I said something else. Is there no
way to rescue innocent victims other than killing them? On the other hand,
these are the New Middle Ages, so in fact asking Dirty Harry to show us how
it's done might be appropriate in today's world.
Regarding the people who supported the Soviet Union now bemoaning the "war on
terror", who are you referring to?
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 4/7/2006 1:36:20 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The torture graph
Your note is just more of the same. Anything that supports the U.S. is to be
criticized. Taking care of innocent victims is medieval????? What is medieval
is the Islamist and Islamic Fundamentalist ideology. That is ewll documented.
Only to someone hostile to the U.S. would think rescuing innocent victims is
Medieval. And it has been document by others that those who supported the USSR
up to the end mourn its loss. They hate the U.S. the more as a result.
Think about it Irene. You call the rescuing of innocents medieval but YOU DO
NOT CALL THE MEDIEAVAL ISLAMISTS MEDIEVAL. Why?
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 9:06 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The torture graph
Lawrence, your first premise concerning the Soviet Union is unsupported
emotional conjecture. As far as comparing the global problem of terrorism to a
movie with Clint Eastwood, that has a medieval ring to it. Are you suggesting
that life should imitate art, like applying the Code of Chivalry to real life,
when in fact the Code of Chivalry was an illusion, a self-contradicting
fantasy? We should model our behaviors on movies with guaranteed good endings?
I think an argument can be made that the treatment of women by Muslim
Fundamentalists is in fact the Code of Chivalry taken to its logical
conclusion. Can you clarify the thinking that is going into your statements?
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 4/7/2006 11:12:25 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The torture graph
Eric,
Well, we are at war and Im impatient with hearing the same anti-American
plaint. After being away from the discussions for a few days and not willing
to strain my eyes unnecessarily, I merely skimmed the notes but it was enough
to see a pattern. The pattern of most of the notes was one of hostility toward
the U.S. I expect our enemies to be hostile toward us; so it is reasonable and
logical for Islamist and Islamic Fundamentalists to be hostile toward us. It
is also logical for those who supported Soviet Russia during the cold war to be
hostile toward us. Just because the USSR lost the Cold War doesnt mean that
its supporters are automatically going to fall in love with us.
Doesnt a pattern of hostility toward the U.S. on a given matter coupled with
no hostility toward an enemy engaged in far more egregious examples of the same
matter indicate a predilection? It strikes me that it does. I cant claim to
have charted his notes, but it seems to me Omar exhibits such a pattern.
Doesnt he cherry-pick the news looking for articles especially hostile to the
United States, our military, our administration etc. One he just referred me
to compared our government and military personnel to Nazis.
What do people think when they see Dirty Harry? When I watched that movie I
saw the San Franciscan government as crippled. It wasnt equipped to deal with
the killer holding the city captive. In every case the mayor and chief of
police did what was legal and politically correct, and the killer kept on
killing. Dirty Harry did what was necessary (including some torture if I
recall correctly) to stop the killer and save as many innocent lives as
possible. Omars author would call Dirty Harry a Nazi engaged in evil, but
the people who admire Dirty Harry obviously wouldnt. They see the SF
government as coddling criminals and neglecting citizens. They admire Dirty
Harry for doing the right thing. If you were in that kind of trouble would you
want the Chief of Pol ice or Dirty Harry looking out for you? And since you
are in that kind of trouble would you prefer Al Gore or George Bush looking out
for you?
Lawrence
Other related posts:
