Dr. Pipes, you give the ostensible scholar, Maszka, too much credit...

Submitted by Bryan Taplits (United States), Apr 24, 2019 at 11:15

Dr. Pipes,

Maszka main argument (as mentioned in you opening paragraph), That the the war on terrorism is actually a war for natural resources, reminds me of the way USSR communists use to argue: They would divert attention rather than address the substantive issue. For instance: Who on who started the Cold War: The USSR would say, "the US did with its aggression." What was left oft by the communist's argument was that the US forays into other countries was always proactive or defensive, ie to protect ourselves from the USSR's aggression.

Maska's answer about why there the war on terrorism is really an attempt to acquire natural resources, is really an obvious (in my opinion) sortie by Maszka to divert attention away from Islamist terrorism.

This can be easily seen by his defining extremism, saying there are ideological extremists in the West also. Therefore, he concludes, extremism (notice he doesn't say "terrorism") is a "personal characteristic not a religious one."

In my opinion, such a argument is not only ridiculous when analyzing the War on Terror, but is tendentious in the extreme. His ignoring "terrorism" and using religion as a synonym for terroristic activities is, thus, artfully mendacious-and, like you say, leaves his analysis at: Less objective than objectionable.

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".