OK, let me get this straight. You make fun of my sources and cites on Islamic fundamentalism, until I actually paste sections of them into a post, and then you say you knew it all along, even though what I paste contradicts what you previously posted.
So, that's clever...but essentially petty and dishonest.
And what is the point that you are trying to make? That there is no connection between Islamic fundamentalism and the 9/11 attacks? Or are you jumping in with Hakki's thesis that it is all a CIA/Mossad conspiracy? Who really controlled the airplanes? I knew there was another key to the ice cream locker...
Or is it possible to be critical of Islamic fundamentalism and still think U.S. imperialism is bad and the bombing only made matters worse. Why does it have to be an either or proposition?
And I looked back at your posts on Islamic fundamentalism, and think the articles I posted on the PRA web page make more sense. I don't have to make snide attacks on your sources to think mine are more persuasive. Why do you you think you and Hakki have a need to stomp on serious research to argue your ideas? What is this need to trash serious scholars and claim serious Marxists are not "real" Marxists?
-Chip
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Charles Jannuzi
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 9:16 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: RE: al-Qaeda and Taliban
>
>
> "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org>
> > Subject: RE: al-Qaeda and Taliban
> > Hi, > Oh, silly me, how could I be so naive as to rely on
> articles written
> by
> > people who have studied these matters for decades instead of being
> impressed > by superficial online unsourced keystroke ejaculations?
> >
> > Please enlighten me. What are the major flaws in the article:
>
> I'm not sure why I have to argue about an article I think I read last
> October except that I must be far sillier or naive than you
> could ever be.
> I might even have cited it myself then for crying out loud.
>
> If you want documented posts on the subject we were
> discussing, search the
> archives everyone is worried about. I posted plenty about the
> Taliban and
> Deoband.
>
> >. To them, Wahhabism is not a school of thought within Islam, but
> > is Islam. The fact that Wahhabism rejected a label gave it a diffuse
> > quality, making many of its doctrines and methodologies eminently
> > transferable. Wahhabi thought exercised its greatest
> influence not under
> its
> > own label, but under the rubric of Salafism. In their
> literature, Wahhabi
> > clerics have consistently described themselves as Salafis, and not
> > Wahhabis."
>
> Great. Tell me something I don't know. The fact of the matter
> is that the
> vast majority of Afghans of whatever affililiation,
> linguistic and cultural
> background, etc. REJECT Wahhabism. Certainly the Shia groups,
> but even the
> Sunni majority. Always have.
>
> > "Of course, neither Wahhabism nor Salafism is represented
> by some formal
> > institution. They are theological orientations and not
> structured schools
> of
> > thought.
>
> Something I noted far earlier on the list when discussing the
> differences
> between SA and Iran and SA and Pakistan. This is why just
> about anyone with
> an armed claque could claim to be a mullah.
>
> It's an all right article for an audience that knows nothing
> about the topic
> I guess. It tells me next to nothing about the situation in
> Afghanistan,
> which was one of the main thrusts of the exchange that was
> going before you
> deposited your load.
>
> Hi and goodbye oh ye great sociological cleric ye!
>
> Charles Jannuzi
>