Destined for Greatness, In One Way or Another

I am simultaneously rereading Daniel Pipes' 1988 Greater Syria and reading for the first time his 2002 Militant Islam Reaches America, and the contrast of greatness in the eighties with self-caricature and self-plagiarism in the aughts is disturbingly like watching DeNiro's performances in The King of Comedy and Analyze That back to back. The main difference is that, unlike DeNiro, Pipes still has flashes of brilliance—at least enough brilliance to justify his inclusion in a $400-a-day boondoggle like the U.S. Institute for Peace. "Pipes's nomination sends entirely the wrong message as America seeks to convince Muslims worldwide that the war on terrorism and the war against Iraq are not attacks on Islam," says CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, who really needs to find a new antagonist.

Comments

[Gary Gunnels]

Has anyone reallly looked deeply into the links at Campus Watch? It proports to be a scholarly website, and the magazine they run out of it claims that it is also scholarly, but for the most part the articles they've got there are op-ed type pieces and the like.

Daniel Pipes has one big idea, and he's been trying to sell it for years - militant Islam must be crushed, no matter what the price. He's basically remarked that Islam is a threat to America because adherents might soon be influencing the political process, and that we shouldn't allow religious adherents to do that. My reply is of course why the hell doesn't he attack Christians for doing the same thing? Pipes I think sees Islam as the new USSR, and that we should attack it in a similar way until we crush it and make it more docile.

[Lazarus Long]

Gary:
"God is dead" for the most part in the West. Get with the times.

>>So my question is, why would Christian influence be allowed but Muslim influence not allowed?> I don't see Christianity as remotely benign, its got all the potential for intolerance, bloody massacres, etc. that it always had. Of course, I ain't very fond of Islam either, but I am honest and consistent in my criticisms.

[Lefty]

God might have been dead in the West 30 years ago but she's back now, embedded in all three branches of our government.

[omnibus bill]

"My reply is of course why the hell doesn't he attack Christians for doing the same thing?"

Because Christians haven't done the same thing -- attempting to impose a worldwide, draconian religious regime -- for about 500 years.

The whole Al Qaida = Moral Majority analogy is a wee bit overdone, don't you think?

[Gary Gunnels]

omnibus bill,

Not really. I've met my fair share of theonomists who are about as nasty as the Taliban in their desires, though in the US they would be imprisoned if they went through with what they actually believed. Furthermore, I was not comparing Al Qaeda to the "moral majority," I am damning Pipes because he thinks ANY muslim influence on the US political should not be allowed. So my question is, why would Christian influence be allowed but Muslim influence not allowed? Quite frankly, I would that there be no influence at all - but I am an atheist, so I view religious belief as irrational.

And, you are wrong about the five hundred years thing. Part and parcel with British imperialism went its religion - converting the savage "hindoos" and the like. It was not uncommon for British missionaries with the blessing of the British colonial regime to take Indian children from their parents and indoctrinate them in the ways of Christianity for example. I don't see Christianity as remotely benign, its got all the potential for intolerance, bloody massacres, etc. that it always had. Of course, I ain't very fond of Islam either, but I am honest and consistent in my criticisms.

[Karpf Josh]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 208.147.1.3
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 05:03:13
That which does not kill us makes us stranger.