Okay, willhelm, just a little while back you questioned the notion that I might know enough about the Middle East to know that Bush's (or rather, Bush's speechwriters') characterizations of Shiite and Sunni allegiances are wrong. In that case, I was talking about a political speech -- and as you know, political speeches distort facts all the time, so I don't think it's all that farfetched to claim to know better, even despite all Bush's advisors and committees and so forth (which he usually seems to ignore). In this case, though, I'll have to turn the question back on you. You actually think you have better qualifications to understand terrorism than Dan Benjamin, who's a nonpartisan expert ...

Okay, willhelm, just a little while back you questioned the notion that I might know enough about the Middle East to know that Bush's (or rather, Bush's speechwriters') characterizations of Shiite and Sunni allegiances are wrong. In that case, I was talking about a political speech -- and as you know, political speeches distort facts all the time, so I don't think it's all that farfetched to claim to know better, even despite all Bush's advisors and committees and so forth (which he usually seems to ignore). In this case, though, I'll have to turn the question back on you. You actually think you have better qualifications to understand terrorism than Dan Benjamin, who's a nonpartisan expert recognized all over the world and who's studied the phenomenon his whole life? What is it that makes him a ranting lunatic -- just because you disagree with his conclusions?

Of course I take stock of many opinions. I don't trust Dan Benjamin's opinion because he's Dan Benjamin. I trust him -- somewhat -- because I've read his work and it makes sense to me.

However, I do think that referring to the work of a respected and well-established analyst as "the ravings of a lunatic" without further comment, explanation or support is, shall we say, a pretty meager contribution to any discussion. Anyone who makes such unsupported, simple-mindedly negative remarks opens himself up to this sort of critique. To my mind, the only reasonable response to the comment that this represents "the ravings of a lunatic" is -- since you don't say why -- "who are you to say he's crazy...

Of course I take stock of many opinions. I don't trust Dan Benjamin's opinion because he's Dan Benjamin. I trust him -- somewhat -- because I've read his work and it makes sense to me.

However, I do think that referring to the work of a respected and well-established analyst as "the ravings of a lunatic" without further comment, explanation or support is, shall we say, a pretty meager contribution to any discussion. Anyone who makes such unsupported, simple-mindedly negative remarks opens himself up to this sort of critique. To my mind, the only reasonable response to the comment that this represents "the ravings of a lunatic" is -- since you don't say why -- "who are you to say he's crazy? Why should I or anyone else take you seriously in your condemnation, since you don't provide reasons?"

Okay, from the top ...

American foreign policy since 9/11, and especially the war in Iraq, has unquestionably cleared the way for the next attack on the United States.

That's the clip.

They both blame US actions for acts of terrorism

That's you.

Those are two fundamentally different claims, willhelm!

I'm not talking about gray areas. I'm talking about cause and effect. The fact is, the US has played right into al-Qaeda's hands repeatedly; we've handed them the best ammunition possible for propaganda and recruiting by using 9-11 as a rationale for invading a Muslim country generally seen as unconnected to any attack on US soil. You presumably think th...

read more»

Okay, from the top ...

American foreign policy since 9/11, and especially the war in Iraq, has unquestionably cleared the way for the next attack on the United States.

That's the clip.

They both blame US actions for acts of terrorism

That's you.

Those are two fundamentally different claims, willhelm!

I'm not talking about gray areas. I'm talking about cause and effect. The fact is, the US has played right into al-Qaeda's hands repeatedly; we've handed them the best ammunition possible for propaganda and recruiting by using 9-11 as a rationale for invading a Muslim country generally seen as unconnected to any attack on US soil. You presumably think the invasion of Iraq was justified, and maybe it was. But justified or not, it also provides the perfect ammunition to the people who'd like to marshal world opinion against us.

Does that mean it's America's fault if there's another terrorist attack? Of course not. Only a simpleton would think so. If terrorists attack America, it's the terrorists' fault. Presumably you agree. Presumably you can also understand, though, that US actions might help to increase or decrease the likelihood that such an attack might take place.

In fact, I can even imagine you, willhelm, might argue that if we did nothing in response to 9-11, and there were to be another attack, that it would be America's fault, even if no one in America had willingly contributed to the attack. And I might agree with you.

The point is, there's a difference between pointing a finger of blame at someone, morally, for a heinous act (on the one hand) and saying that they are taking the wrong course of action to prevent that act (on the other). Benjamin and Aslan are taking the latter position.

Let me try that again ...

American foreign policy since 9/11, and especially the war in Iraq, has unquestionably cleared the way for the next attack on the United States.

That's the clip.

They both blame US actions for acts of terrorism

That's you.

Those are two fundamentally different claims, willhelm!

I'm not talking about gray areas. I'm talking about cause and effect. The fact is, the US has played right into al-Qaeda's hands repeatedly; we've handed them the best ammunition possible for propaganda and recruiting by using 9-11 as a rationale for invading a Muslim country generally seen as unconnected to any attack on US soil. You presumably th...

Let me try that again ...

American foreign policy since 9/11, and especially the war in Iraq, has unquestionably cleared the way for the next attack on the United States.

That's the clip.

They both blame US actions for acts of terrorism

That's you.

Those are two fundamentally different claims, willhelm!

I'm not talking about gray areas. I'm talking about cause and effect. The fact is, the US has played right into al-Qaeda's hands repeatedly; we've handed them the best ammunition possible for propaganda and recruiting by using 9-11 as a rationale for invading a Muslim country generally seen as unconnected to any attack on US soil. You presumably think the invasion of Iraq was justified, and maybe it was. But justified or not, it also provides the perfect ammunition to the people who'd like to marshal world opinion against us.

Does that mean it's America's fault if there's another terrorist attack? Of course not. Only a simpleton would think so. If terrorists attack America, it's the terrorists' fault. Presumably you agree. Presumably you can also understand, though, that US actions might help to increase or decrease the likelihood that such an attack might take place.

In fact, I can even imagine you, willhelm, might argue that if we did nothing in response to 9-11, and there were to be another attack, that it would be America's fault, even if no one in America had willingly contributed to the attack. And I might agree with you.

The point is, there's a difference between pointing a finger of blame at someone, morally, for a heinous act (on the one hand) and saying that they are taking the wrong course of action to prevent that act (on the other). Benjamin and Aslan are taking the latter position.