The American Spectator

Pete Chagnon /p> p> I wonder why the GOP would spend money in Rhode Island trying for a Lincoln Chafee win, so what if a Dem wins. I don’t see where you would be able to tell the difference. Chafee is a Republican in name only and he needs to go. In fact all of the RINO’s that vote most of the time with the Dems need to go. br> — Elaine Kyle /p> p> BACK CLASH br> Re: William Tucker’s Overprivileged Children : /p>

William Tucker’s review of The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright was very well done, and I look forward to reading the book. However, Tucker makes a comment near the end of his review that calls for a response.

Tucker boldly states that “our conflict with Islam is not a war against a whole civilization. The jihadists are despised as much in their own countries as they are in the West.” I ask, where is the evidence to support this view? As Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, David Yerushalmi and others have persuasively argued, the ideology of jihad is rooted in Islamic theology, law, and culture. Unlike Communism, which Tucker analogizes to, “radical” Islam is not a purely intellectual construct but an organic outgrowth of Islam itself. Hence, whereas there was always a deep tension between communism and the pre-existing social and religious fabric of the countries that made up the Soviet Union, no similar tension exists between “radical” Islam and the Islamic countries where it thrives. Contrary to Tucker’s argument, “radical” Islam is not some alien ideology that is being foisted on the Muslim masses.

Speaking of these masses, the available evidence shows that they are quite sympathetic to the jihadists, and cheer each new act of anti-western terror. The notion that the average Muslim “despises” the jihadist is nothing more than wishful thinking on Tucker’s part.