Please explain the contradiction as best as you can. Also, although this isn't saying much, this was the best of your sources.
> And what is the point that you are trying to make?
That when Chip drops a 'scholarly' load in a thread it becomes worthless?
That there is no
> connection between Islamic fundamentalism and the 9/11 attacks?
No, a point I've never made-- ever. I did say, however, that even most Islamic fundamentalists don't believe that suicidal, murderous rage is a basic tenet for conducting themselves in the world. It's going to take more than that to explain what happened.
>Or are you
> jumping in with Hakki's thesis that it is all a CIA/Mossad conspiracy?
I wouldn't be shocked that something the CIA was doing got infiltrated and that the Mossad would sit on this info. The Kurdish side of the anti-Hussein efforts got infiltrated. Why not the ME Arab side of it, too?
Who
> really controlled the airplanes? I knew there was another key to the ice
> cream locker...
No, like why in the f- were these guys allowed so easily into the US without hardly a single one raising any suspicion whatsoever? It wasn't because they deployed from Afghanistan wearing black turbans for crying out loud! They didn't stick out because young men from the near ME were routinely going to the US for pilot and military training, that's why. What I want to know is just who did they present as their official sponsors when they got in? Again, it wouldn't surprise me if they were being backed by the CIA to go to the US to get ready for the anti-Hussein campaign that's coming.
>
> 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.
Sounds like you trying to deal with your cognitive dissonance, not me.
Why does
> it have to be an either or proposition?
So you can win your own self-adulatory pseudo-discussions? Please, give me a hint if I'm wide of the mark.
>
> And I looked back at your posts on Islamic fundamentalism, and think the
> articles I posted on the PRA web page make more sense.
Be specific. I'll be damned if I'm going to do all the work here.
I don't have to make
> snide attacks on your sources to think mine are more persuasive.
No you just make snide attacks at and about list participants.
Why do you
> you think you and Hakki have a need to stomp on serious research to argue
> your ideas?
Because try as we might neither I nor Hakki take you seriously in anyway whatsoever probably, though I can only truly speak for myself.
>What is this need to trash serious scholars and claim serious
> Marxists are not "real" Marxists?
When the so-called serious scholars become list participants, then I'll read them on LBO List. Until then it just seems like you trying to take over a thread you know next to nothing about. So sign up one of your sources to LBO list and let them waste their time with you.
Charles Jannuzi