Foreign Affairs Magazine is the problem here

Submitted by Richard H. Shulman (United States), Jun 23, 2012 at 10:12

Dr. Pipes,

I agree with you. It is unfortunate that certain academics and officials, such as Mr. Waltz, assume and assert without substantiation. It is doubly unfortunate that certain publications do not make a debate out of it, which would give readers balance and perhaps facts. Some publications let in a couple of readers' points, but that does not suffice for an article that makes many misleading statements. The New York Times is more censorious,, whereas Commentary Magazine carries many debates.

I find the Wall St. Journal picking up the pro-Arab terminology and Arabs' unchallenged propaganda in its reporting on Israel. I have not been able to get my critiques through to them. Now the Journal is taking up the theme and methods you have debunked on your site, that the Arab and Turkish regime changes are democratic and their editor, Mr. Kaminsky, repeats Muslim Brotherhood propaganda without your admonition that the Brotherhood tells Westerners what they want to hear, but conspire to gain totalitarian power.

Please expose the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamist strategy for the Mideast, in the Wall St. Journal.

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".