Friday, January 11, 2008

pipe down

so anyway, one of the points of difference between me and s was that she insisted that nutjobs like Daniel Pipes should be considered reasonable sources of information. here's Pipes, fantasising about Obama being a Mussulman.

Pipes claims that Obama is an apostate (one reason to despise Pipes is that he's fully aware that you cannot be "born a Muslim"; no shahadah, no Musliminess). and Muslims don't like apostates at all. President Musharraf will probably behead Obama at the first opportunity, pace Pipes.

this is all bollocks, of course, but why would a "respected" "academic" like Pipes (for which read "longterm recipient of wingnut welfare") try to smear Obama?

two points spring to mind:

1 Obama has a chance of winning the presidency.
2 Obama is not virulently antiPalestinian and has talked vaguely about peace in the Middle East.

Pipes is the kind of ideologue who doesn't care about facts, but merely sees them as pieces to fit to his premade positions, as though he was putting together a political jigsaw (rather than understanding them as things you have to make sense of after you have gathered them). sadly, so was s. i wonder whether he also becomes hysterical when disagreed with?

1 Comments:

At 9:48 am, Blogger Father Luke said...

Seen the Onion's take on the election

Here is one: C L I C K

 

Post a Comment

<< Home