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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (77823)	2/26/2003 3:14:56 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, this passage in Daniel Pipes' most recent essay stumps me: >>All three alleged terrorists succeeded in talking the academic talk, fooling nearly everyone. Shallah wrote in 1993, in his capacity as director of WISE, that the organization's long-term goal is "to contribute to the understanding of the revivalist Islamist trends, misleadingly labeled 'fundamentalist' in Western and American academic circles." Almost any North American academic specialist on Islam could have written those same sneering and duplicitous words. Many do.<< danielpipes.org I don't know enough about Islam to understand whether, or why, "fundamentalist" vs. "revivalist" matters. Nor do I know enough about Pipes to understand why he seems to be arguing that one cannot be, at one and the same time, a genuine scholar and a supporter of terrorism. Do you?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (77823)	2/26/2003 3:36:45 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But they also tried a logical case that Saddam was really a menace. I think we are in agreement that they would have been much better off if they had taken Pollack's arguments, with an exception or two, and made them the center pieces of theirs. So I must confess to never having seen something I would label "a logical" argument from them. What we haven't seen is any logic from the protesters, just a general denial that there is a problem. That's definitely a consequence of demonstrations. But it's not because demonstrators, in some sort of massive declaration, are saying there is no problem. Rather, to repeat myself much too often, it is because they are saying, Bush hasn't offered a serious case. No demonstrations, or at least not large ones when we attacked Afghanistan, because the case was made.