A little nuance would be helpful

Submitted by pratik (United States), Jul 22, 2007 at 22:11

We are all anxious and worried about the crazy islamists. Today the islamists have declared war on the west - and people like Daniel pipes are carefully analyzing their actions.

But just yesterday, the west supported the islamists and until 9/11 supported Saudi Arabia with its ugly wahhabist cult.

Lal Masjid first became radicalized during the Afghan jehad. Funded by the US and Saudi Arabia it was here that a multi-national force of jehadis was assembled, funded and trained by ISI and its Saudi and American sponsors to defeat the soviet infidel. But no one in the west found that objectionable; it didnt matter that the most violent and intolerant aspect of islamic culture was being modernized and globalized. That was fine, as long as the West's strategic objective was met !

The great Ronald Reagan said in 1985 on meeting some fanatic afghan mujahideen in the white house- these are moral equivalent of the founding fathers !! I still remember and scratching my head after seeing that on TV. And thinking - wow, this guy is really stupid and so must be all the people around him.

So there is a long history here, a history in which the west has often found it convenient to side with one faction or the other in middle-east, mostly to retain control over the resources of the region. It would help to frankly all of this, that the Lal Masjids of Pakistan were seen as an easy way to challenge the soviets, that the wahhabi saudis were seen as a barrier against the arab nationalism of nasser. ....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".