D'Souza plays perverted game of 'good cop' 'bad cop' presents Al Qaeda as having socially redeeming value

Submitted by Ben van de Polder (United States), Mar 8, 2007 at 09:04

Dinesh D'Souza goes over to the dark side and off the deep end.

D'Souza has devoted pages of writings to justifying why Islamists have good reason to hate America and the West and their loathing is understandable. There is obviously a pathology at work (schizophrenia combined with abject stupidity?) which makes him present himself as a conservative and then tell Americans that they deserve to be blown up because Islamists rightly find their way of life "digusting".

His position at the Hoover Institution reflects their lack of of moral compass as well. Here is a random quote form D'Souza published (in of all places) the conservative NRO! A paen to Sayid Qutyb arguing that his ideas are no different from that of classical philosphers.

Perhaps the NRO decided to publish his screed -( which would have been more at home in Counterpunch or ZNet) just because D'Souza presents himself as a conservative. It is also a sorry commentary about the carte blanche aka affirmative dhimmitude/paternalism shown to anyone who is of 'non Western' background that is perceived to be on 'our side' even if they are wacko conspiracy theorists or total idiots whose only goal is to promote themselves.

In the case of D'Souza it is far worse then just crass opportunism-he is using his position to justify the critique of the West made by radical Islamists , hurting those who are promoting him and harming their cause in the process. D'Souza is playing a perverted game of 'good cop' 'bad cop' and presents Al Qaeda as having some "socially redeeming value". When we he be ostracised for the fifth columnist and crackpot that he is?

Excerpt:

How should we in America evaluate, and answer, Qutb's critique? We need to take Qutb's views seriously, partly because they are taken seriously in the Islamic world, and partly because for all his vehemence, Qutb is raising deep and fundamental questions.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/dsouza200407020030.asp

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".