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: Ilaine who wrote (55390)	10/29/2002 11:49:55 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You may well be correct, but isn't it always the case that ideas have consequences? CB, I'm going to try to say this calmly. In this country, last time I checked, no one argued that academics and their families should be targeted for their ideas. I assume you are opposed to targeting abortion providers on websites who are later killed. The same applies here. Pipes thinks we are at war with a certain ideology, and he thinks that there are apologists for this ideology who are teaching it to students who are too young, naive and ill informed to understand what is happening. I don't think that's true; I think, in this instance, he thinks he is at war with Said. And that he can use 9-11 to settle old grudges. Different focus altogether. But let's assume, for discussion purposes, that your picture of his motives is correct. There are innumerable public forums around the country in which those issues can be discussed including creating websites. Perfectly fine. But we are not, again the last time I checked, a country in which it is permissible to target your ideological opponents for the possibility of serious physical violence. "Outing" the opposition during times of war has a long, checkered history -- think of fifth columns and Quislings. If we have the academic equivalent of Tokyo Rose and Lord Haha taking refuge behind the tenure system, we should at least know about it. I can't think of anything serious to say in response to that one. It's so far over the top that I'll have to take a long, deep breath before I continue on. . . . . There, that's better. So, should they be safe to tell lies to our children? Because that's what you're arguing. No accountability. Now, we are back to the assumption that Pipes and his crew are unalloyed conduits for infallible truths and their opponents are evil folk who deserve to be targeted. Where in the world do these ideas come from? Yes, it's unpleasant to contemplate, but the alternative is also unpleasant to contemplate. I prefer a society in which we all debate our ideas in the open without fear of physical attack. The alternative is unpleasant to contemplate.