Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (45338)	9/19/2002 12:22:26 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The problem with the Emerson Kepel comparison is that they are talking about two different but related topics. I only skimmed the Emerson so if my recreation is wrong, let me know. Kepel focuses on the ability of the Islamist movement to take state power in the ME; not on its ability to run terrorist operations. He tends to see the latter as only a part of the strategy and its tendency to increase as indicative of its decline. I can't argue the factual accuracy of these assertions since my knowledge on these topics is extremely limited. My guess is that you are in the same boat. Emerson focuses more on Al Q's success with terrorism. If I read the two correctly, Kepel might actually agree with Emerson in the following way. The increase in European and US terrorism on their part is indicative that their strategies in Afghanistan, Egypt (read the recent New Yorker piece by Lawrence Wright on this issue--quite good), the Sudan, and Pakistan failed so they are either driven to change their strategies to messianic kinds of goals or to a political strategy in which they wish to tempt the US into a showdown with them such that it drives more moderate Islams to their side. It's hard to say what's accurate and what's not. However, my continuing point is that Kepel is simply one voice among many; where there are disagreements, I'm not able to settle them on factual grounds. I instead revert to who is talking outside their expertise (Kepel-Lewis), or to ways in which apparent disagreements can be reconciled (Emerson-Kepel). To repeat, I've got a great distant to go before I can talk about factual issues with any abandon, the way, apparently, frank just did. Again, let me urge you to read Kepel. It's a completely different framework than the other reading you offered here. And, as a result, helps one rethink, shows up blind spots in thinking (certainly did that for me), and, by looking at Islamism as a political movement rather than simply a religious movement, changes my reading somewhat.