[lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:01:54 -0000
Lawrence returns from literature land (a noble and worthwhile place) and the
desire to oppose him is already irresistable.
So be it, because Lawrence, for all his patriotism, seems willing to advocate
civil war against the Leftists, whoever they may be. And who they are in the
end becomes the valid point because they are expressed not in their own terms
but in Lawrence's terms. They are whoever Lawrence wants them to be and are
defined strictly by their viewpoint or attitude towards Lawrence's notion of
what is happening in the world. They may as well be anyone who disagrees with
Lawrence's standpoint and you can be sure that Lawrence knows more about their
views than they do themselves.
Who then is the enemy? Al Quaeda or The Leftists?
Perhaps they are allied; the fundamental religious believers and the athiests,
those who demand war and those who shout against it. Stands to reason doesn't
it, stands to reason that such a dichotomy is really a shadowy collusion of
interests and the Leftists are the ones who are financing the extremists, the
Leftists want to see a Caliphate, want to see Sharia Laws that would mitigate
against women's rights.
Of course these people are acting together. They share so much.
Lawrence, please, who are you trying to kid. You're spouting Orwellian
constructs that fall apart too easily. You have no clothes. None at all.
"I say that if they spend enough time siding with the enemy, the time may come
when those of us who are more traditional can no longer tell the difference
between them and our enemy."
Lawrence, I seriously think you're delusional.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
Irene hasn't read or perhaps hasn't understood the note she is ostensibly
responding to, the one in which I said I wasn't interested in quibbles about
how best to fight the war as long as we continued fighting it; so I won't abet
her unwillingness to understand by commenting upon her quibbles, but will
instead address some underlying matters.
There is considerable evidence that the "majority" of Islam (something we
have pursued here on Lit-Ideas from time to time) is fundamentalist.
Fundamentalists share the goals of the extremists except for the one involving
violence. It is simplistic to think we don't have to worry about an Islamic
Fundamentalist majority. It is from this majority that Al Quaeda and other
such organizations recruit. But it was never just the paramilitary Jihadists
that presented a direct threat to our interests. Several hostile Islamic
states hovered on the edge of just such directness: Pakistan, Libya, Iraq,
Syria, and Iran were the primary ones. Perhaps they have seen cause in recent
years to pull back slightly from that edge.
Many of the people referring to Al Quaeda don't understand them. Al Quaeda
did not expect effective opposition. Osama argued (see Osama's readily
available speeches, many of which were posted here) that the US would not be
able to stand against his fierce warriors -- that his Jihad was irresistible.
So it is absurd to say that it is only our resistance to Al Quaeda that causes
Al Quaeda. To say such things is to foster a mindless political slogan. It
doesn't take much study to realize how false it is. I wonder why more people
in this vaunted information age don't avail themselves of more accurate
information about Al Quaeda.
What is the danger of Leftism today? They represent a political position
that is largely anti-American. In any conflict, they side with the enemies of
the US. They make excuses for the enemy's excesses and find ways to blame the
US for them. Something the US did caused these enemies to be enemies. They
have abandoned the traditional American viewpoint that our nation is the best
that the human race has yet produced. The US is eminently worthy of being
defended. No other nation compares to it. If one is American, patriotism is a
good thing.
If people from some other nation disagree and favor their own nation, that is
only to be expected. It is a natural thing to do, but if citizens here in the
US abandon their patriotism and oppose the nation that nurtures them, that is
unnatural and represents something that can only be described as pathological.
If you are an American citizen, and seek America's defeat, you are suffering
from something pathological. If you don't want us to defend your nation but
instead side with its enemies, you are suffering from a pathological
temperament. Surely if this pathology spreads widely enough in our nation, it
will succeed in accomplishing its goal: the destruction of the body it infects.
But perhaps we are too strong to have to worry about a little national
sickness in some of our coastal backwaters? Perhaps. As long as they are back
there some place out of the way and screaming invective at those attempting to
perform their duty by opposing our enemies, they do little harm. It is only if
they were to come forward and swing around in front of us beside our enemies
that we might need to take them more seriously. They say that we have created
all of our enemies and should, they imply, not take action against them for
something we caused. I say that if they spend enough time siding with the
enemy, the time may come when those of us who are more traditional can no
longer tell the difference between them and our enemy. The time may come when
those on the front lines are told, "Don't worry about it. If someone shoots at
you, shoot back. We'll worry about which nation to bury them in later on."
Lawrence
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 6:53 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
Lawrence, the enemy isn't Islam. The enemy is al Qaeda. Al Qaeda thrives on
war and chaos, which is what we gave them. That old Leftist Herbert Bush
didn't invade because he knew exactly this would happen. Leftist Baker says in
so many words that he used to be repeatedly asked why they didn't go into
Baghdad, and he's no longer asked that. If you're going to point fingers at
"Leftists" you have to name names. So far, we have two: Bush Sr., James Baker.
Who else? You're looking ahead to 2008. How about 2002-2006? Leftists the
way you use it is tantamount to bogieman. Just a word that means "someone
messed it up". Bogieman, Everyman, Leftist. They're all synonyms, since there
are never any names attached to them. It's interesting that you say, "just as
long as you keep fighting". Fighting is exactly what al Qaeda thrives on.
That was the Baker Commission's point, the fighting is going nowhere ("grave
and deteriorating"). Time to start talking would you say?
Other related posts:
