Moderate Islam, especially Attaturk's version, needs to be encouraged,

Submitted by GWK (United States), Apr 8, 2009 at 20:57

KS-- Both before and immediately after 9/11, I knew about UBL. He was a far more immediate threat for a long ime than any leader in Iraq or Iran. He learned from the Beiruit bombings more than anyone else with as much wealth as he had. CIA knew this. CMC should have known this. Daniel Pipes knew this. But instead, the NSC chose to ignore the UBL threat. CIA dismissed AQ as irrelevant even after the USS Cole, Kenya and Tanzania and Khobar Tower bombings. Why? If anyone knows, please tell us here.

As to the allegation abt Iraq & Iran sending $ and people to AQ -- BS! At least not to any material respect. And there are lots of databases and archived files in DOD that show that the SO forces in Afghanistan's caves found nothing to support those charges. So it was political posturing, but it wasn't fact. Daniel Pipes knows this too.

AQ was UBL's creation and the tool of the muj's until UBL and Zawahiri took charge of the muj's for their own distorted purposes.

Now to your comments:

I don't know anything about your claim, that "Clinton said, 'Do not follow leads toward Saddam', after the 1993 WTC attack." -- I was 3 blocks away from the WTC that day, and I worked for an org that followed what happened closely. All leads point to AQ, and if you insist it pointed to SH, you have to show some convincing evidence. I was there.

On the comment that "Osama had help from both Iraq & Iran for his terrorist activities." I only can say that if the dollar I put in the Salvation Army Santa's pot goes in part to help some radical organization or some radical organizer, that's about the same extent that Iraq & Iran helped UBL. (OK, Iran had a truce with UBL and allowed AQ officials and recruits to travel through Iran. SH hated the SOB and grudgingly allowed jihadis to fly through Iraq.)

Help was provided by others only to the extent that a lot of charities collect $ from various sources and the international banking system helped AQ send $ from here to there.

But when GWB articulated his 'axis of evil' comment, he turned moderates in the muslim world, and especially in Tehran and Baghdad sharply against the USA and its cause.

I agree that Islam's tilt toward radicalism has a long history. Look at the wars of apostasy -- one of the most violent civil wars in theological history ever!

Then look to the hashassins -- aka the "assassins". Pretty grim group of theocrats if there ever was.

In Maimonide's age in Al Andalus (Spain), he was studying under one of the most liberal regimes known in his age when the Almohades migrqated up into Spain from North Africa, and their theocratic intolerance drove all the inetllectuals to Cairo and other parts.

So, you're right -- theocratic islam is universally antithecai to liberalism. It is a war of ideas and culture. But Islam's rationalism exists, too. It had been at points in its history, far more liberal than Christianity or whatever preceded it. Then at other times it was pretty intolerant, too.

Generalizations don't always apply. Moderate Islam, especially Attaturk's version, needs to be encouraged, not discouraged.

---

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".