Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Re, Stanley Fish, Ayers & the Manson Family



Now, now.  You have everything wrong as usual.  I’ve listened to the parole hearings for those former Manson terrorists and reputable testimony provides evidence that many have turned their lives around.  Don’t you believe in repentance?  Heck, some of the Manson girls are more repentant than Ayers and Dohrn – which wouldn’t be hard since they aren’t repentant at all.  As to associated them with Ayres and Dohrn, Bernardine did that herself.  Listen to Bernardine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn):


“Dohrn has been criticized for a comment she made about the recent Charles Manson led Tate-LaBianca murders in a speech during the December 1969 "War Council" meeting organized by the Weathermen and attended by about 400 people in Flint, Michigan: "Dig it! First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in their bellies. Wild!" Dohrn also charged that her fellow left-wingers showed themselves to be scared "honkies" for not burning down Chicago when Black Panther leader Fred Hampton was killed, and urged her audience to arm themselves and be "a fighting force alongside the blacks."[9] Dohrn's husband, Bill Ayers has written that Dohrn was being ironic when she made the statement:[10]” 


Well, yeah, Ironic.  Aren’t we all?


As to the Vietnam war you say I still haven’t a clue about.  It was part of our “containment policy,” the policy originated by Kennan and Acheson during the Truman administration.  The policy credited with winning the Cold War for us.  The Vietnam war was part of that ongoing policy of resisting Communist aggression wherever we could.  Of course we made no secret about this policy.  The Soviets knew as much about it as we did, maybe more, because they launched a very effective campaign against our containment policy.  They were at their best during the Vietnam war convincing countless brainless Americans that they should oppose America and support the Soviet cause.  They did a really good job of it, those Soviet propagandists, because the Americans who were caught up by that propaganda still believe it 40 years later.  Listen Dohrn hoping for a new and better communist future for America.  She’s still opposed to the American Liberal Democracy.  So is Ayers.   And I am suspicious of anyone who calls these two respectable. 


Lawrence Helm



steve klein said...

Hi Lawrence. I read your review "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria. I cannot say I find much fault with your assessment of Islam, radical Islam and the global threat of the jihad. Since the book is supposed to be more about the rise of India and China, I wonder if you find any merit in the book. I am thinking of listening to his book on audio.

Beyond that, the following was a little surprising to me. Can you explain the importance of the Saudis in our war against the global jihad?

You wrote: "But if, as many have argued, the war against Islamism is serious; then Saddam Hussein was a major impediment: He intimidated nations such as Saudi Arabia that we needed in our pursuit of Al Qaeda members, and he supported terrorism."

Steve Klein

Lawrence Helm said...

Hi Steve. Yes, Most of those who attacked us on 9/11 were Saudis. Osama bin Laden was a Saudi who had a lot of support in Saudi Arabia. After 9/11 when we wanted support in tracking down members of 9/11 Saudi Arabia wasn't very cooperative. They were more afraid of Saddam Hussein then they were of us. Then, their biggest contribution to terrorism was their brand of Islam, Wahhabism; which was and still is the fountain head of Islamism. Rich Saudi Arabia has founded Wahhabi madrases throughout the Middle East and elsewhere.

The Muslim Brothers of Egypt are said dot be the founders of modern Sunni Islamism, but they got their impetus from the Saudi Wahhabs.

So one might say that all the Islamism and all the Terrorism had its beginning in Saudi Arabia and not be far wrong. (Yes, Maududi in Pakistan and Khomeini in Iran, I know, I know, but the most serious threat had its beginning in Saudi Arabia.)

But what I had in mind, when I wrote the portion you quoted, was that the Saudi leadership, not hard core Wahhabis, showed reluctance to cooperate with us in our pursuit of Al Quaeda members with the threat of Saddam looming. They were more afraid of Saddam at that time than of us.

Saddam claimed that in the first gulf war that he drew back to Baghdad for the "mother of all battles" and we ran away. Many if not most in the Middle East believed him. So Saddam was an impediment in regard to our pursuit of Al Quaeda.

Lawrence Helm

Lawrence Helm said...

Oh, one more thing, Steve. If you go back to the beginning of the Blog there is a search utility. If you type in Zakaria, you will find that I discussed his book to some extent in six or so of my notes. The chief discussion was in the note entitled something like "Post-American Zakaria."

steve klein said...

OK, You wrote: "I read Fareed Zakaria’s The Post-American World. A lot of what he has written is interesting and useful, but I have two areas of disagreement. The two are connected..."

That is what I was looking for. I'm not interested in reading Zakaria for his insights on Islam. For that I will read Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, Andrew Bostom and others.

I am interested in his insights on China and India in particular.

If you are a Bible believing Christian, I am sure you are aware America will gradually decline as a world power. The prophets are clear. The nations that seek to divide God's land will suffer judgment.

As it stands now, America is in the forefront of this effort. Maybe Islam -- I prefer Islam over "Islamism" -- is part of God's judgment?

It seems to me Wahhabi Islam (Muslim Brotherhood, etc.) is authentic Islam. It's the pure Islam the prophet taught. Why should we delude ourselves -- as Mr. Bush has done -- into believing these jihadists have hijacked a peaceful religion?

Lawrence Helm said...


Yes, you will find an interesting discussion of China and India in Zakaria's book. If you are interested in the idea that China might one day supersede the U.S., Samuel P. Huntington believed that as well. You can read his argument in "The Clash of Civilizations." Zakaria and others thinks India is our natural ally.

Lawrence Helm

steve klein said...

I would hate to see a day where China is world military power like the U.S. is today, given the barbarism I've read about in China.