Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not strange. You will always find those...whether you call them "Uncle Toms" or "Self-hating Jews".
Ah, so now this fuck's true colors come out; anyone who criticizes islam and its violent methods is an "uncle tom"....no wonder islam has been stuck in the dark ages for about 1,000 years.
For the more sane and rational, read the UN's own reports on the lack of progress in the arab muslim world, which can easily be laid at the feet of islam:
http://www.arab-hdr.org/publications/other/ahdr/ahdr2002e.pdf
http://www.economist.com/node/1213392
Coyote's specialty involves an agitprop technique where she tries to inverse the relationship between hatefulness and reacting to the hatefulness. As in this thread, where she supports the terrorist position inherent in the website that is named after the mass murder of Jews, she tries time and time again to claim it is those who reject the terrorism who are actually hateful. This Islamist terrorist turnspeak of hers is quite intentional, it is well practiced, and she does not limit herself to this board by way of unleashing it with the frequency she does.
It is tantamount to claiming that those who opposed the Nazi ideology were no different than Nazis, thus the Nazis should have been supported in what they did.
It shows that you are anti semitic and a Jew hater because you believe islamonazi lies over the truth.
Actually...I think it shows you are an idiot because you can't seem to string more than a couple of words together without accusing someone of being a Jew hater or spewing "ISLAMONAZI" crap all over the board like an angry toddler spitting up.
So are you claiming that if one considers Pamela Geller's often debunked rhetoric to be hate speech and lies then one is an anti-semitic Jew hater? and that SPLC is "IslamoNazi"? Grow up.
If the cap fits wear it, but this is how the anti semitic Jew hatred of 1930's Germany started, and the people back then denied it just the same
Good point. That is EXACTLY how it started. And it's the same propaganda Geller and you are lobbing at Muslims. Interesting no?
Not propaganda but proven facts of atrocities on an industrial scale. Remember the words of the worlds leaders after WW2 when they were detailing the death camps, they said never again will we allow this to happen. And a few short years later muslims murdered 50 million Indians in their grasp for world domination and the world ignored it. Just as they ignored the mass murders of Africans in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's by muslims after more land to grab.
Is the beheading of hundreds by I.S. propaganda, the rape of girls forced into marriage. The bombing of civilians in Syria, the use of chemical weapons against them by their own people. So how can truth be propaganda.
Woah. Let's back up a minute. Muslims murdered 50 million Indians? I assume you are talking about the Partition of India. You might want do a little reading on the history of that event. For a starter - they were ALL Indians: Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and they were all killing each other in the mess you Brits made of things there. There was no "world domination" thing going on and there was no "50 million".
India-Pakistan Partition 1947
Partition unleashed untold misery and loss of lives and property as millions of Hindu and Muslim refugees fled either Pakistan or India. The violence in 1947 was exceptionally brutal and large in scale; but the underlying attitudes had long been in the making. Families were torn apart in a population exchange that uprooted more than 14 million people during the months after independence. By one account, over 8 million refugees poured across borders to regions completely foreign to them, whith other accounts state that about 7 million people migrated to Pakistan from India and vice-versa. By another estimate, Partition resulted in the forced movement of 20 million people (Hindus and Sikhs to India and Muslims to Pakistan). Most estimates of the numbers of people who crossed the boundaries between India and Pakistan in 1947 range between 10 and 12 million.
The migrations and the violence were regionally confined. They were not all-India phenomena. Partition brought, by one estimate, five million refugees from east Punjab to west Punjab after the British decided to leave their Indian empire in the hands of the successor states of India and Pakistan. While 5 million people left India for Pakistan, about the same number of people moved in the other direction. By another estimate, 4 million Hindus and Sikhs moved from West to East Punjab and 5 to 6 million Muslims moved from East to West Punjab. In the late 1940s, more than one-quarter of Punjab's population of about 19 million was made up of refugees. Sikhs, caught in the middle of Punjab's new "line," suffered the highest percentage of casualties. Most Sikhs finally settled in India's much-diminished border state of Punjab. Some though the Punjab disturbances were the direct result of Mountbatten's unwisdom in accelerating the date of partition, and that if Punjab had been given time, the terrible massacre of August, September and October could have been avoided.
The death toll of this terrible episode remains very much contested. Hundreds of thousands of people died, as Hindus and Sikhs fled to India, Muslims to Pakistan, and many others were caught up in a chaotic transition. A consensus figure of 500,000 is often used, but the sources closer to the truth give figures that range between 200,000 and 360,000 dead. By other estimates, Partition resulted in as many as 1.5 million deaths. The word genocide did not come to the minds of observers at the time, though there were genocidal aspects to what finally developed.
What you throw at the Jews are the same things the Nazi's threw at them fabrications, half truths and blood libels. Blaming them for being the only nation with property confiscation laws, claiming they are the only nation with immigration laws. That is propaganda that is blown out of proportion and embellished on
What specifically do I throw at Jews? What blood libel?
I never said they were the only nation with property confiscation laws. You do realize there is a difference between Jews and Israel?
You can call them whatever you want to, but the bottom line is that they respect Daniel Pipes, respect like that you will never earn in your lifetime by intelligent people like those two. Close your eyes to what is going on, but they are more in the know than you will ever be.Strange then that there are Muslims who speak up for Daniel Pipes.If you toss out insults, I'll reply in kind. Your mini-tantrums mean nothing to me and don't help your position at all.
It tells me you are wrong. At least one Muslim majority country is green, totally free and a number are yellow, partially free.
Who says anything about giving them a "pass"?
And your claim was wrong.
Daniel Pipes. Not exactly a scholarly or unbiased source. "Last Resistance" - "liberalism's worst nightmare"...oh I bet that's a scholarly source.
Pipes is a geostrategic analysis at a think tank. He is also a historian. PhD from Harvard. Director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. Board of directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace. He is an expert on the middle east.
Daniel Pipes - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Criticism of Pipes' views
In The Nation, Brooklyn writer Kristine McNeil describes Pipes as an "anti-Arab propagandist" who has built a career out of "distortions... twist[ing] words, quot[ing] people out of context and stretch[ing] the truth to suit his purpose".[18] James Zogby argues that Pipes possesses an "obsessive hatred of all things Muslim", and that "Pipes is to Muslims what David Duke is to African-Americans".[40] Christopher Hitchens, a fellow supporter of the Iraq War and critic of political Islam, also criticized Pipes, arguing that Pipes pursued an intolerant agenda, and was one who "confuses scholarship with propaganda", and "pursues petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity".[42]
Pipes's views gained widespread public attention when they triggered a filibuster in the United States Senate against his nomination by President George W. Bush to the board of the United States Institute of Peace.[12] Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) explained that he was "offended" by Pipes's comments on Islam, and that while "some people call [Pipes] a scholar... this is not the kind of person you want on the USIP."[43] While defending Pipes's nomination, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer distanced Bush from Pipes's views, saying that Bush "disagrees with Pipes about whether Islam is a peaceful religion".[35]
Pipes sparked a controversy when he was invited to speak at the University of Toronto in March 2005. A letter from professors and graduate students asserted that Pipes had a "long record of xenophobic, racist and sexist speech that goes back to 1990".[44] but university officials said they would not interfere with Pipes's visit.[45] Pipes later wrote an article about his experience.[46]
Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times compared and contrasted Pipes with Juan Cole. Kristof said that while both are "smart" and "well-informed", Pipes is less sensible, and consequently Kristof often disagrees with Pipes.[47]
Professor John L. Esposito of Georgetown University has called Pipes "a bright, well-trained expert with considerable experience", but accuses Pipes of "selectivity and distortion" when asserting that "10 to 15 percent of the world's Muslims are militants". In summation, Esposito complains that Pipes's equation of "mainstream and extremist Islam under the rubric of militant Islam" while identifying "moderate Islam as secular or cultural" can mislead "uninformed or uncritical readers".[48]
Allegations against Barack Obama
Pipes notes that many in the Muslim world believe Barack Obama is or was a Muslim.[49][50] Pipes alleged that Obama falsely claims that he had never been a Muslim,[51] and his "the campaign appears to be either ignorant or fabricating when it states that Obama never prayed in a mosque."[52][53] Pipes wrote an article for FrontPage Magazine entitled "Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam." According to Pipes, "this matters" because Democratic presidential candidate Obama "is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed", and as president this would have "large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world."[54] Ben Smith, in an article on Politico responded to these accusations claiming that they amounted to a "template for a faux-legitimate assault on Obama's religion" and that Daniel Pipes' work "is pretty stunning in the twists of its logic".[55]
Tashbih Sayyed, former editor of the Muslim World Today and the Pakistan Times (not the Pakistani newspaper of the same name), stated about Pipes, "He must be listened to. If there is no Daniel Pipes, there is no source for America to learn to recognize the evil which threatens it... Muslims in America that are like Samson; they have come into the temple to pull down the pillars, even if it means destroying themselves."[8] Similarly, Ahmed Subhy Mansour, a former visiting fellow at Harvard Law School, writes, "We Muslims need a thinker like Dr. Pipes, who can criticize the terrorist culture within Islam."[8]
Not strange. You will always find those...whether you call them "Uncle Toms" or "Self-hating Jews".
Islamic Terrorism Hits 23 Countries in 30 Days
Well, I agree with 99.99% of what Pipes and Geller say and I'll add Krauthammer to the fray.You can call them whatever you want to, but the bottom line is that they respect Daniel Pipes, respect like that you will never earn in your lifetime by intelligent people like those two. Close your eyes to what is going on, but they are more in the know than you will ever be.Strange then that there are Muslims who speak up for Daniel Pipes.Pipes is a geostrategic analysis at a think tank. He is also a historian. PhD from Harvard. Director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. Board of directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace. He is an expert on the middle east.
Daniel Pipes - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Criticism of Pipes' views
In The Nation, Brooklyn writer Kristine McNeil describes Pipes as an "anti-Arab propagandist" who has built a career out of "distortions... twist[ing] words, quot[ing] people out of context and stretch[ing] the truth to suit his purpose".[18] James Zogby argues that Pipes possesses an "obsessive hatred of all things Muslim", and that "Pipes is to Muslims what David Duke is to African-Americans".[40] Christopher Hitchens, a fellow supporter of the Iraq War and critic of political Islam, also criticized Pipes, arguing that Pipes pursued an intolerant agenda, and was one who "confuses scholarship with propaganda", and "pursues petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity".[42]
Pipes's views gained widespread public attention when they triggered a filibuster in the United States Senate against his nomination by President George W. Bush to the board of the United States Institute of Peace.[12] Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) explained that he was "offended" by Pipes's comments on Islam, and that while "some people call [Pipes] a scholar... this is not the kind of person you want on the USIP."[43] While defending Pipes's nomination, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer distanced Bush from Pipes's views, saying that Bush "disagrees with Pipes about whether Islam is a peaceful religion".[35]
Pipes sparked a controversy when he was invited to speak at the University of Toronto in March 2005. A letter from professors and graduate students asserted that Pipes had a "long record of xenophobic, racist and sexist speech that goes back to 1990".[44] but university officials said they would not interfere with Pipes's visit.[45] Pipes later wrote an article about his experience.[46]
Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times compared and contrasted Pipes with Juan Cole. Kristof said that while both are "smart" and "well-informed", Pipes is less sensible, and consequently Kristof often disagrees with Pipes.[47]
Professor John L. Esposito of Georgetown University has called Pipes "a bright, well-trained expert with considerable experience", but accuses Pipes of "selectivity and distortion" when asserting that "10 to 15 percent of the world's Muslims are militants". In summation, Esposito complains that Pipes's equation of "mainstream and extremist Islam under the rubric of militant Islam" while identifying "moderate Islam as secular or cultural" can mislead "uninformed or uncritical readers".[48]
Allegations against Barack Obama
Pipes notes that many in the Muslim world believe Barack Obama is or was a Muslim.[49][50] Pipes alleged that Obama falsely claims that he had never been a Muslim,[51] and his "the campaign appears to be either ignorant or fabricating when it states that Obama never prayed in a mosque."[52][53] Pipes wrote an article for FrontPage Magazine entitled "Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam." According to Pipes, "this matters" because Democratic presidential candidate Obama "is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed", and as president this would have "large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world."[54] Ben Smith, in an article on Politico responded to these accusations claiming that they amounted to a "template for a faux-legitimate assault on Obama's religion" and that Daniel Pipes' work "is pretty stunning in the twists of its logic".[55]
Tashbih Sayyed, former editor of the Muslim World Today and the Pakistan Times (not the Pakistani newspaper of the same name), stated about Pipes, "He must be listened to. If there is no Daniel Pipes, there is no source for America to learn to recognize the evil which threatens it... Muslims in America that are like Samson; they have come into the temple to pull down the pillars, even if it means destroying themselves."[8] Similarly, Ahmed Subhy Mansour, a former visiting fellow at Harvard Law School, writes, "We Muslims need a thinker like Dr. Pipes, who can criticize the terrorist culture within Islam."[8]
Not strange. You will always find those...whether you call them "Uncle Toms" or "Self-hating Jews".
Islamic Terrorism Hits 23 Countries in 30 Days
You keep closing your eyes to hate then because that is what people like Pipes and Geller promote. Pipes may have a lot of respect from some - but he also has a lot of detractors. Which is accurate?
These people do not make a distinction between extremists and regular Muslims - they attempt to promote fear and hate towards an entire religion. That is never a good thing.
Well, I agree with 99.99% of what Pipes and Geller say and I'll add Krauthammer to the fray.You can call them whatever you want to, but the bottom line is that they respect Daniel Pipes, respect like that you will never earn in your lifetime by intelligent people like those two. Close your eyes to what is going on, but they are more in the know than you will ever be.Strange then that there are Muslims who speak up for Daniel Pipes.Daniel Pipes - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Criticism of Pipes' views
In The Nation, Brooklyn writer Kristine McNeil describes Pipes as an "anti-Arab propagandist" who has built a career out of "distortions... twist[ing] words, quot[ing] people out of context and stretch[ing] the truth to suit his purpose".[18] James Zogby argues that Pipes possesses an "obsessive hatred of all things Muslim", and that "Pipes is to Muslims what David Duke is to African-Americans".[40] Christopher Hitchens, a fellow supporter of the Iraq War and critic of political Islam, also criticized Pipes, arguing that Pipes pursued an intolerant agenda, and was one who "confuses scholarship with propaganda", and "pursues petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity".[42]
Pipes's views gained widespread public attention when they triggered a filibuster in the United States Senate against his nomination by President George W. Bush to the board of the United States Institute of Peace.[12] Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) explained that he was "offended" by Pipes's comments on Islam, and that while "some people call [Pipes] a scholar... this is not the kind of person you want on the USIP."[43] While defending Pipes's nomination, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer distanced Bush from Pipes's views, saying that Bush "disagrees with Pipes about whether Islam is a peaceful religion".[35]
Pipes sparked a controversy when he was invited to speak at the University of Toronto in March 2005. A letter from professors and graduate students asserted that Pipes had a "long record of xenophobic, racist and sexist speech that goes back to 1990".[44] but university officials said they would not interfere with Pipes's visit.[45] Pipes later wrote an article about his experience.[46]
Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times compared and contrasted Pipes with Juan Cole. Kristof said that while both are "smart" and "well-informed", Pipes is less sensible, and consequently Kristof often disagrees with Pipes.[47]
Professor John L. Esposito of Georgetown University has called Pipes "a bright, well-trained expert with considerable experience", but accuses Pipes of "selectivity and distortion" when asserting that "10 to 15 percent of the world's Muslims are militants". In summation, Esposito complains that Pipes's equation of "mainstream and extremist Islam under the rubric of militant Islam" while identifying "moderate Islam as secular or cultural" can mislead "uninformed or uncritical readers".[48]
Allegations against Barack Obama
Pipes notes that many in the Muslim world believe Barack Obama is or was a Muslim.[49][50] Pipes alleged that Obama falsely claims that he had never been a Muslim,[51] and his "the campaign appears to be either ignorant or fabricating when it states that Obama never prayed in a mosque."[52][53] Pipes wrote an article for FrontPage Magazine entitled "Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam." According to Pipes, "this matters" because Democratic presidential candidate Obama "is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed", and as president this would have "large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world."[54] Ben Smith, in an article on Politico responded to these accusations claiming that they amounted to a "template for a faux-legitimate assault on Obama's religion" and that Daniel Pipes' work "is pretty stunning in the twists of its logic".[55]
Tashbih Sayyed, former editor of the Muslim World Today and the Pakistan Times (not the Pakistani newspaper of the same name), stated about Pipes, "He must be listened to. If there is no Daniel Pipes, there is no source for America to learn to recognize the evil which threatens it... Muslims in America that are like Samson; they have come into the temple to pull down the pillars, even if it means destroying themselves."[8] Similarly, Ahmed Subhy Mansour, a former visiting fellow at Harvard Law School, writes, "We Muslims need a thinker like Dr. Pipes, who can criticize the terrorist culture within Islam."[8]
Not strange. You will always find those...whether you call them "Uncle Toms" or "Self-hating Jews".
Islamic Terrorism Hits 23 Countries in 30 Days
You keep closing your eyes to hate then because that is what people like Pipes and Geller promote. Pipes may have a lot of respect from some - but he also has a lot of detractors. Which is accurate?
These people do not make a distinction between extremists and regular Muslims - they attempt to promote fear and hate towards an entire religion. That is never a good thing.
It shows that you are anti semitic and a Jew hater because you believe islamonazi lies over the truth.
Actually...I think it shows you are an idiot because you can't seem to string more than a couple of words together without accusing someone of being a Jew hater or spewing "ISLAMONAZI" crap all over the board like an angry toddler spitting up.
So are you claiming that if one considers Pamela Geller's often debunked rhetoric to be hate speech and lies then one is an anti-semitic Jew hater? and that SPLC is "IslamoNazi"? Grow up.
If the cap fits wear it, but this is how the anti semitic Jew hatred of 1930's Germany started, and the people back then denied it just the same
Good point. That is EXACTLY how it started. And it's the same propaganda Geller and you are lobbing at Muslims. Interesting no?
Not propaganda but proven facts of atrocities on an industrial scale. Remember the words of the worlds leaders after WW2 when they were detailing the death camps, they said never again will we allow this to happen. And a few short years later muslims murdered 50 million Indians in their grasp for world domination and the world ignored it. Just as they ignored the mass murders of Africans in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's by muslims after more land to grab.
Is the beheading of hundreds by I.S. propaganda, the rape of girls forced into marriage. The bombing of civilians in Syria, the use of chemical weapons against them by their own people. So how can truth be propaganda.
Woah. Let's back up a minute. Muslims murdered 50 million Indians? I assume you are talking about the Partition of India. You might want do a little reading on the history of that event. For a starter - they were ALL Indians: Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and they were all killing each other in the mess you Brits made of things there. There was no "world domination" thing going on and there was no "50 million".
India-Pakistan Partition 1947
Partition unleashed untold misery and loss of lives and property as millions of Hindu and Muslim refugees fled either Pakistan or India. The violence in 1947 was exceptionally brutal and large in scale; but the underlying attitudes had long been in the making. Families were torn apart in a population exchange that uprooted more than 14 million people during the months after independence. By one account, over 8 million refugees poured across borders to regions completely foreign to them, whith other accounts state that about 7 million people migrated to Pakistan from India and vice-versa. By another estimate, Partition resulted in the forced movement of 20 million people (Hindus and Sikhs to India and Muslims to Pakistan). Most estimates of the numbers of people who crossed the boundaries between India and Pakistan in 1947 range between 10 and 12 million.
The migrations and the violence were regionally confined. They were not all-India phenomena. Partition brought, by one estimate, five million refugees from east Punjab to west Punjab after the British decided to leave their Indian empire in the hands of the successor states of India and Pakistan. While 5 million people left India for Pakistan, about the same number of people moved in the other direction. By another estimate, 4 million Hindus and Sikhs moved from West to East Punjab and 5 to 6 million Muslims moved from East to West Punjab. In the late 1940s, more than one-quarter of Punjab's population of about 19 million was made up of refugees. Sikhs, caught in the middle of Punjab's new "line," suffered the highest percentage of casualties. Most Sikhs finally settled in India's much-diminished border state of Punjab. Some though the Punjab disturbances were the direct result of Mountbatten's unwisdom in accelerating the date of partition, and that if Punjab had been given time, the terrible massacre of August, September and October could have been avoided.
The death toll of this terrible episode remains very much contested. Hundreds of thousands of people died, as Hindus and Sikhs fled to India, Muslims to Pakistan, and many others were caught up in a chaotic transition. A consensus figure of 500,000 is often used, but the sources closer to the truth give figures that range between 200,000 and 360,000 dead. By other estimates, Partition resulted in as many as 1.5 million deaths. The word genocide did not come to the minds of observers at the time, though there were genocidal aspects to what finally developed.
What you throw at the Jews are the same things the Nazi's threw at them fabrications, half truths and blood libels. Blaming them for being the only nation with property confiscation laws, claiming they are the only nation with immigration laws. That is propaganda that is blown out of proportion and embellished on
What specifically do I throw at Jews? What blood libel?
I never said they were the only nation with property confiscation laws. You do realize there is a difference between Jews and Israel?
Oh please. Your very first line was an insult. Go back and re-read your post.
No need to, I know what was posted. YOU started the personal attacks, so GFY.
Ok, that makes two then. Quite a few live in partially free designations so maybe they are heading in the right direction.
Yeah, you're intelligent...NOT. FIFTY-SEVEN muslim countries, and ONE OR TWO free countries? That is some fucking track record there, Jim wow. The fucking jews have ONE WHOLE country, and its more democratic than ALL 57 MUSLIMS ones. Certainly a lot to be proud if you're a muslim these days...
Pointing out reality is not "excusing" behavior. When you understand that - it's easy to see why democratic reforms have flopped more often then not in the ME and in Africa.
You excuse it - over and over, trying to explain away monstrous behavior that HAS NOTHING to do with it, offering moronic sophistries. Where on earth does a group, whether they are tribal, clan, or whatever affiliation have that gives them the right to conduct terrorism, deny freedoms to themselves or others, etc? None, yet you offered that as an excuse, as if that would explain away their shit behavior. You're a fraud and a liar, because you claim to not be a terror apologist, and then proceed to do exactly that in your next post.
No one is saying it gives them the right. Pointing out reality is just that. Pointing out that the shooter in the Newtown School Shooting was mentally ill is not giving him the right to shoot kids. Ignoring that fact is ignoring reality.
Right. You've never dismissed sources have you.
Garbage, non-MSM websites, or non-scholars without generally accepted credentials or reputation in the field are to be dismissed, which include EI, jewwatch and other such scum. Same goes for turds like ilan pappe, chumpsky, and other such dung, whom you no doubt cite as "experts". Sorry, I'll take a sourced and facts-supported, accredited, reputable scholar like Pipes and day over that shit. Had you any brains, you would as well, but we know the answer to that, don't we?
In other words, you will dismiss sources you do not like such as Ilan Pappe who, I might add has credentials as well.[/QUOTE]I never said they were the only nation with property confiscation laws. You do realize there is a difference between Jews and Israel?
What difference is that, idiot?
Are you really so dense you need it spelled out?
Israel is a nation.
Jews are a people.
You can call them whatever you want to, but the bottom line is that they respect Daniel Pipes, respect like that you will never earn in your lifetime by intelligent people like those two. Close your eyes to what is going on, but they are more in the know than you will ever be.Strange then that there are Muslims who speak up for Daniel Pipes.Pipes is a geostrategic analysis at a think tank. He is also a historian. PhD from Harvard. Director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute. Board of directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace. He is an expert on the middle east.
Daniel Pipes - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Criticism of Pipes' views
In The Nation, Brooklyn writer Kristine McNeil describes Pipes as an "anti-Arab propagandist" who has built a career out of "distortions... twist[ing] words, quot[ing] people out of context and stretch[ing] the truth to suit his purpose".[18] James Zogby argues that Pipes possesses an "obsessive hatred of all things Muslim", and that "Pipes is to Muslims what David Duke is to African-Americans".[40] Christopher Hitchens, a fellow supporter of the Iraq War and critic of political Islam, also criticized Pipes, arguing that Pipes pursued an intolerant agenda, and was one who "confuses scholarship with propaganda", and "pursues petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity".[42]
Pipes's views gained widespread public attention when they triggered a filibuster in the United States Senate against his nomination by President George W. Bush to the board of the United States Institute of Peace.[12] Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) explained that he was "offended" by Pipes's comments on Islam, and that while "some people call [Pipes] a scholar... this is not the kind of person you want on the USIP."[43] While defending Pipes's nomination, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer distanced Bush from Pipes's views, saying that Bush "disagrees with Pipes about whether Islam is a peaceful religion".[35]
Pipes sparked a controversy when he was invited to speak at the University of Toronto in March 2005. A letter from professors and graduate students asserted that Pipes had a "long record of xenophobic, racist and sexist speech that goes back to 1990".[44] but university officials said they would not interfere with Pipes's visit.[45] Pipes later wrote an article about his experience.[46]
Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times compared and contrasted Pipes with Juan Cole. Kristof said that while both are "smart" and "well-informed", Pipes is less sensible, and consequently Kristof often disagrees with Pipes.[47]
Professor John L. Esposito of Georgetown University has called Pipes "a bright, well-trained expert with considerable experience", but accuses Pipes of "selectivity and distortion" when asserting that "10 to 15 percent of the world's Muslims are militants". In summation, Esposito complains that Pipes's equation of "mainstream and extremist Islam under the rubric of militant Islam" while identifying "moderate Islam as secular or cultural" can mislead "uninformed or uncritical readers".[48]
Allegations against Barack Obama
Pipes notes that many in the Muslim world believe Barack Obama is or was a Muslim.[49][50] Pipes alleged that Obama falsely claims that he had never been a Muslim,[51] and his "the campaign appears to be either ignorant or fabricating when it states that Obama never prayed in a mosque."[52][53] Pipes wrote an article for FrontPage Magazine entitled "Confirmed: Barack Obama Practiced Islam." According to Pipes, "this matters" because Democratic presidential candidate Obama "is now what Islamic law calls a murtadd (apostate), an ex-Muslim converted to another religion who must be executed", and as president this would have "large potential implications for his relationship with the Muslim world."[54] Ben Smith, in an article on Politico responded to these accusations claiming that they amounted to a "template for a faux-legitimate assault on Obama's religion" and that Daniel Pipes' work "is pretty stunning in the twists of its logic".[55]
Tashbih Sayyed, former editor of the Muslim World Today and the Pakistan Times (not the Pakistani newspaper of the same name), stated about Pipes, "He must be listened to. If there is no Daniel Pipes, there is no source for America to learn to recognize the evil which threatens it... Muslims in America that are like Samson; they have come into the temple to pull down the pillars, even if it means destroying themselves."[8] Similarly, Ahmed Subhy Mansour, a former visiting fellow at Harvard Law School, writes, "We Muslims need a thinker like Dr. Pipes, who can criticize the terrorist culture within Islam."[8]
Not strange. You will always find those...whether you call them "Uncle Toms" or "Self-hating Jews".
Islamic Terrorism Hits 23 Countries in 30 Days
You keep closing your eyes to hate then because that is what people like Pipes and Geller promote. Pipes may have a lot of respect from some - but he also has a lot of detractors. Which is accurate?
These people do not make a distinction between extremists and regular Muslims - they attempt to promote fear and hate towards an entire religion. That is never a good thing.
I never said they were the only nation with property confiscation laws. You do realize there is a difference between Jews and Israel?
What difference is that, idiot?
Are you really so dense you need it spelled out?
Israel is a nation.
Jews are a people.
They are also a religion and a race and refusing to accept that is racist. Just as refusing to accept the UN acceptance of Israel as THE Jewish state is racism and religious hatred.
Actually...I think it shows you are an idiot because you can't seem to string more than a couple of words together without accusing someone of being a Jew hater or spewing "ISLAMONAZI" crap all over the board like an angry toddler spitting up.
So are you claiming that if one considers Pamela Geller's often debunked rhetoric to be hate speech and lies then one is an anti-semitic Jew hater? and that SPLC is "IslamoNazi"? Grow up.
If the cap fits wear it, but this is how the anti semitic Jew hatred of 1930's Germany started, and the people back then denied it just the same
Good point. That is EXACTLY how it started. And it's the same propaganda Geller and you are lobbing at Muslims. Interesting no?
Not propaganda but proven facts of atrocities on an industrial scale. Remember the words of the worlds leaders after WW2 when they were detailing the death camps, they said never again will we allow this to happen. And a few short years later muslims murdered 50 million Indians in their grasp for world domination and the world ignored it. Just as they ignored the mass murders of Africans in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's by muslims after more land to grab.
Is the beheading of hundreds by I.S. propaganda, the rape of girls forced into marriage. The bombing of civilians in Syria, the use of chemical weapons against them by their own people. So how can truth be propaganda.
Woah. Let's back up a minute. Muslims murdered 50 million Indians? I assume you are talking about the Partition of India. You might want do a little reading on the history of that event. For a starter - they were ALL Indians: Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and they were all killing each other in the mess you Brits made of things there. There was no "world domination" thing going on and there was no "50 million".
India-Pakistan Partition 1947
Partition unleashed untold misery and loss of lives and property as millions of Hindu and Muslim refugees fled either Pakistan or India. The violence in 1947 was exceptionally brutal and large in scale; but the underlying attitudes had long been in the making. Families were torn apart in a population exchange that uprooted more than 14 million people during the months after independence. By one account, over 8 million refugees poured across borders to regions completely foreign to them, whith other accounts state that about 7 million people migrated to Pakistan from India and vice-versa. By another estimate, Partition resulted in the forced movement of 20 million people (Hindus and Sikhs to India and Muslims to Pakistan). Most estimates of the numbers of people who crossed the boundaries between India and Pakistan in 1947 range between 10 and 12 million.
The migrations and the violence were regionally confined. They were not all-India phenomena. Partition brought, by one estimate, five million refugees from east Punjab to west Punjab after the British decided to leave their Indian empire in the hands of the successor states of India and Pakistan. While 5 million people left India for Pakistan, about the same number of people moved in the other direction. By another estimate, 4 million Hindus and Sikhs moved from West to East Punjab and 5 to 6 million Muslims moved from East to West Punjab. In the late 1940s, more than one-quarter of Punjab's population of about 19 million was made up of refugees. Sikhs, caught in the middle of Punjab's new "line," suffered the highest percentage of casualties. Most Sikhs finally settled in India's much-diminished border state of Punjab. Some though the Punjab disturbances were the direct result of Mountbatten's unwisdom in accelerating the date of partition, and that if Punjab had been given time, the terrible massacre of August, September and October could have been avoided.
The death toll of this terrible episode remains very much contested. Hundreds of thousands of people died, as Hindus and Sikhs fled to India, Muslims to Pakistan, and many others were caught up in a chaotic transition. A consensus figure of 500,000 is often used, but the sources closer to the truth give figures that range between 200,000 and 360,000 dead. By other estimates, Partition resulted in as many as 1.5 million deaths. The word genocide did not come to the minds of observers at the time, though there were genocidal aspects to what finally developed.
What you throw at the Jews are the same things the Nazi's threw at them fabrications, half truths and blood libels. Blaming them for being the only nation with property confiscation laws, claiming they are the only nation with immigration laws. That is propaganda that is blown out of proportion and embellished on
What specifically do I throw at Jews? What blood libel?
I never said they were the only nation with property confiscation laws. You do realize there is a difference between Jews and Israel?
Maybe you should try a less biased source for you information. The muslims wanted everything again and resorted to terrorism to get it, the British just could not afford to fight them after losing so heavily in WW2 and being left bankrupt.
The muslims knew this and decided that the time was right to take over India, instead the British partitioned india in 3 parts and gave two parts to the muslims. In the take over the muslims started to ethnically cleanse their parts of all non muslims and this resulted in about 50 million deaths over a period of years. You forget the wars between Pakistan and Bangladesh that resulted in many deaths. The muslims forced the practise of burning the spouse with his partner, only they threw living people on the funeral pyres. The estimate was 50 million lost their lives in that dark period, mostly Sikhs and Hindus and it caused a hatred that is still alive today.
Yes I do as 20% of all Israeli's are not Jews
The many laws that Israel has that the US also has, you never miss a chance to demonise the Jews/Israel and always bleat when shown you are being racist that you knew other nations had those laws and you are not anti Jew or anti Israeli.
Oh please. Your very first line was an insult. Go back and re-read your post.
No need to, I know what was posted. YOU started the personal attacks, so GFY.
Ok, that makes two then. Quite a few live in partially free designations so maybe they are heading in the right direction.
Yeah, you're intelligent...NOT. FIFTY-SEVEN muslim countries, and ONE OR TWO free countries? That is some fucking track record there, Jim wow. The fucking jews have ONE WHOLE country, and its more democratic than ALL 57 MUSLIMS ones. Certainly a lot to be proud if you're a muslim these days...
Pointing out reality is not "excusing" behavior. When you understand that - it's easy to see why democratic reforms have flopped more often then not in the ME and in Africa.
You excuse it - over and over, trying to explain away monstrous behavior that HAS NOTHING to do with it, offering moronic sophistries. Where on earth does a group, whether they are tribal, clan, or whatever affiliation have that gives them the right to conduct terrorism, deny freedoms to themselves or others, etc? None, yet you offered that as an excuse, as if that would explain away their shit behavior. You're a fraud and a liar, because you claim to not be a terror apologist, and then proceed to do exactly that in your next post.
No one is saying it gives them the right. Pointing out reality is just that. Pointing out that the shooter in the Newtown School Shooting was mentally ill is not giving him the right to shoot kids. Ignoring that fact is ignoring reality.
Right. You've never dismissed sources have you.
Garbage, non-MSM websites, or non-scholars without generally accepted credentials or reputation in the field are to be dismissed, which include EI, jewwatch and other such scum. Same goes for turds like ilan pappe, chumpsky, and other such dung, whom you no doubt cite as "experts". Sorry, I'll take a sourced and facts-supported, accredited, reputable scholar like Pipes and day over that shit. Had you any brains, you would as well, but we know the answer to that, don't we?
So pointing out that muslims are taught violence from being born is not allowed because it is the reality of islam, but pointing out that Israel has laws that disenfranchise certain Islamic terrorists ( which nearly every civilised nation also has ) is allowed because it demonises the Israeli's
I never said they were the only nation with property confiscation laws. You do realize there is a difference between Jews and Israel?
What difference is that, idiot?
Are you really so dense you need it spelled out?
Israel is a nation.
Jews are a people.
They are also a religion and a race and refusing to accept that is racist. Just as refusing to accept the UN acceptance of Israel as THE Jewish state is racism and religious hatred.
You're jumbling a whole of stuff in here.
They are a religion.
It's up for debate as to whether they constitute an actual "race" - but defining "race" is often not clear.
"refusing to accept the UN acceptance of Israel as THE Jewish state is racism and religious hatred." - may or may not be racism or religious hatred. It depends on WHY they are refusing to accept it.
None of the above has any bearing on what I said. Criticizing Israel's policies and actions is not the same as attacking Jews nor does it mean a person hates Jews. What you keep doing is putting Israel on some kind of untouchable pedestal that no other country has and if that pedestal is rocked you scream "jooo hater".
If the cap fits wear it, but this is how the anti semitic Jew hatred of 1930's Germany started, and the people back then denied it just the same
Good point. That is EXACTLY how it started. And it's the same propaganda Geller and you are lobbing at Muslims. Interesting no?
Not propaganda but proven facts of atrocities on an industrial scale. Remember the words of the worlds leaders after WW2 when they were detailing the death camps, they said never again will we allow this to happen. And a few short years later muslims murdered 50 million Indians in their grasp for world domination and the world ignored it. Just as they ignored the mass murders of Africans in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's by muslims after more land to grab.
Is the beheading of hundreds by I.S. propaganda, the rape of girls forced into marriage. The bombing of civilians in Syria, the use of chemical weapons against them by their own people. So how can truth be propaganda.
Woah. Let's back up a minute. Muslims murdered 50 million Indians? I assume you are talking about the Partition of India. You might want do a little reading on the history of that event. For a starter - they were ALL Indians: Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and they were all killing each other in the mess you Brits made of things there. There was no "world domination" thing going on and there was no "50 million".
India-Pakistan Partition 1947
Partition unleashed untold misery and loss of lives and property as millions of Hindu and Muslim refugees fled either Pakistan or India. The violence in 1947 was exceptionally brutal and large in scale; but the underlying attitudes had long been in the making. Families were torn apart in a population exchange that uprooted more than 14 million people during the months after independence. By one account, over 8 million refugees poured across borders to regions completely foreign to them, whith other accounts state that about 7 million people migrated to Pakistan from India and vice-versa. By another estimate, Partition resulted in the forced movement of 20 million people (Hindus and Sikhs to India and Muslims to Pakistan). Most estimates of the numbers of people who crossed the boundaries between India and Pakistan in 1947 range between 10 and 12 million.
The migrations and the violence were regionally confined. They were not all-India phenomena. Partition brought, by one estimate, five million refugees from east Punjab to west Punjab after the British decided to leave their Indian empire in the hands of the successor states of India and Pakistan. While 5 million people left India for Pakistan, about the same number of people moved in the other direction. By another estimate, 4 million Hindus and Sikhs moved from West to East Punjab and 5 to 6 million Muslims moved from East to West Punjab. In the late 1940s, more than one-quarter of Punjab's population of about 19 million was made up of refugees. Sikhs, caught in the middle of Punjab's new "line," suffered the highest percentage of casualties. Most Sikhs finally settled in India's much-diminished border state of Punjab. Some though the Punjab disturbances were the direct result of Mountbatten's unwisdom in accelerating the date of partition, and that if Punjab had been given time, the terrible massacre of August, September and October could have been avoided.
The death toll of this terrible episode remains very much contested. Hundreds of thousands of people died, as Hindus and Sikhs fled to India, Muslims to Pakistan, and many others were caught up in a chaotic transition. A consensus figure of 500,000 is often used, but the sources closer to the truth give figures that range between 200,000 and 360,000 dead. By other estimates, Partition resulted in as many as 1.5 million deaths. The word genocide did not come to the minds of observers at the time, though there were genocidal aspects to what finally developed.
What you throw at the Jews are the same things the Nazi's threw at them fabrications, half truths and blood libels. Blaming them for being the only nation with property confiscation laws, claiming they are the only nation with immigration laws. That is propaganda that is blown out of proportion and embellished on
What specifically do I throw at Jews? What blood libel?
I never said they were the only nation with property confiscation laws. You do realize there is a difference between Jews and Israel?
Maybe you should try a less biased source for you information. The muslims wanted everything again and resorted to terrorism to get it, the British just could not afford to fight them after losing so heavily in WW2 and being left bankrupt.
What is biased about my source?
The muslims knew this and decided that the time was right to take over India, instead the British partitioned india in 3 parts and gave two parts to the muslims. In the take over the muslims started to ethnically cleanse their parts of all non muslims and this resulted in about 50 million deaths over a period of years. You forget the wars between Pakistan and Bangladesh that resulted in many deaths. The muslims forced the practise of burning the spouse with his partner, only they threw living people on the funeral pyres. The estimate was 50 million lost their lives in that dark period, mostly Sikhs and Hindus and it caused a hatred that is still alive today.
Suti is a Hindu custom. Given your complete ignorance of that fact, I suspect the rest of your claims are equally hogwash.
Yes I do as 20% of all Israeli's are not Jews
The many laws that Israel has that the US also has, you never miss a chance to demonise the Jews/Israel and always bleat when shown you are being racist that you knew other nations had those laws and you are not anti Jew or anti Israeli.
Really? What US cities require residency permits to live in and deny those permits to certain ethnic groups who subsequently become absentee landowners at risk for having their property confiscated? Are permits for expansion or construction routinely denied to certain ethnic groups while illegal housing of other ethnic groups routinely allowed to stand? Does the US allow underage children to be interrogated without a parent or guardian present?
Oh please. Your very first line was an insult. Go back and re-read your post.
No need to, I know what was posted. YOU started the personal attacks, so GFY.
Ok, that makes two then. Quite a few live in partially free designations so maybe they are heading in the right direction.
Yeah, you're intelligent...NOT. FIFTY-SEVEN muslim countries, and ONE OR TWO free countries? That is some fucking track record there, Jim wow. The fucking jews have ONE WHOLE country, and its more democratic than ALL 57 MUSLIMS ones. Certainly a lot to be proud if you're a muslim these days...
Pointing out reality is not "excusing" behavior. When you understand that - it's easy to see why democratic reforms have flopped more often then not in the ME and in Africa.
You excuse it - over and over, trying to explain away monstrous behavior that HAS NOTHING to do with it, offering moronic sophistries. Where on earth does a group, whether they are tribal, clan, or whatever affiliation have that gives them the right to conduct terrorism, deny freedoms to themselves or others, etc? None, yet you offered that as an excuse, as if that would explain away their shit behavior. You're a fraud and a liar, because you claim to not be a terror apologist, and then proceed to do exactly that in your next post.
No one is saying it gives them the right. Pointing out reality is just that. Pointing out that the shooter in the Newtown School Shooting was mentally ill is not giving him the right to shoot kids. Ignoring that fact is ignoring reality.
Right. You've never dismissed sources have you.
Garbage, non-MSM websites, or non-scholars without generally accepted credentials or reputation in the field are to be dismissed, which include EI, jewwatch and other such scum. Same goes for turds like ilan pappe, chumpsky, and other such dung, whom you no doubt cite as "experts". Sorry, I'll take a sourced and facts-supported, accredited, reputable scholar like Pipes and day over that shit. Had you any brains, you would as well, but we know the answer to that, don't we?
So pointing out that muslims are taught violence from being born is not allowed because it is the reality of islam, but pointing out that Israel has laws that disenfranchise certain Islamic terrorists ( which nearly every civilised nation also has ) is allowed because it demonises the Israeli's
You'd have a point if you had any connection with reality here. Muslims are not taught violence from birth.
I never said they were the only nation with property confiscation laws. You do realize there is a difference between Jews and Israel?
What difference is that, idiot?
Are you really so dense you need it spelled out?
Israel is a nation.
Jews are a people.
They are also a religion and a race and refusing to accept that is racist. Just as refusing to accept the UN acceptance of Israel as THE Jewish state is racism and religious hatred.
You're jumbling a whole of stuff in here.
They are a religion.
It's up for debate as to whether they constitute an actual "race" - but defining "race" is often not clear.
"refusing to accept the UN acceptance of Israel as THE Jewish state is racism and religious hatred." - may or may not be racism or religious hatred. It depends on WHY they are refusing to accept it.
None of the above has any bearing on what I said. Criticizing Israel's policies and actions is not the same as attacking Jews nor does it mean a person hates Jews. What you keep doing is putting Israel on some kind of untouchable pedestal that no other country has and if that pedestal is rocked you scream "jooo hater".
According to Geneticists Jews are a race as they show characteristics that other semitic people don't. They have far too many differences with the other semites, and far too many exclusive genes to be anything but a different race. Just as Iranians are a different race to arabs. So claiming that Jews share the same DNA structure as the arabs is demeaning and belittling Jews at a racist level.
They refuse to accept Israel as the Jewish state because they are still set on wiping out the Jews and stealing the land. Little do they know but that would spell the end of the Palestinians. You don't criticise Israels policies and actions do you, what you do is demean Israel and attack them for having the same laws as every other civilised nation. You single them out for your hatred which is a form of racism. I put Israel on the same height pedestal as all the other civilised nations, you try and undermine it so that they fall from grace. If I see 1930's Nazi Jew hate then I call the person spouting it a Jew hater because that is what they are.
Oh please. Your very first line was an insult. Go back and re-read your post.
No need to, I know what was posted. YOU started the personal attacks, so GFY.
Ok, that makes two then. Quite a few live in partially free designations so maybe they are heading in the right direction.
Yeah, you're intelligent...NOT. FIFTY-SEVEN muslim countries, and ONE OR TWO free countries? That is some fucking track record there, Jim wow. The fucking jews have ONE WHOLE country, and its more democratic than ALL 57 MUSLIMS ones. Certainly a lot to be proud if you're a muslim these days...
Pointing out reality is not "excusing" behavior. When you understand that - it's easy to see why democratic reforms have flopped more often then not in the ME and in Africa.
You excuse it - over and over, trying to explain away monstrous behavior that HAS NOTHING to do with it, offering moronic sophistries. Where on earth does a group, whether they are tribal, clan, or whatever affiliation have that gives them the right to conduct terrorism, deny freedoms to themselves or others, etc? None, yet you offered that as an excuse, as if that would explain away their shit behavior. You're a fraud and a liar, because you claim to not be a terror apologist, and then proceed to do exactly that in your next post.
No one is saying it gives them the right. Pointing out reality is just that. Pointing out that the shooter in the Newtown School Shooting was mentally ill is not giving him the right to shoot kids. Ignoring that fact is ignoring reality.
Right. You've never dismissed sources have you.
Garbage, non-MSM websites, or non-scholars without generally accepted credentials or reputation in the field are to be dismissed, which include EI, jewwatch and other such scum. Same goes for turds like ilan pappe, chumpsky, and other such dung, whom you no doubt cite as "experts". Sorry, I'll take a sourced and facts-supported, accredited, reputable scholar like Pipes and day over that shit. Had you any brains, you would as well, but we know the answer to that, don't we?
So pointing out that muslims are taught violence from being born is not allowed because it is the reality of islam, but pointing out that Israel has laws that disenfranchise certain Islamic terrorists ( which nearly every civilised nation also has ) is allowed because it demonises the Israeli's
You'd have a point if you had any connection with reality here. Muslims are not taught violence from birth.
Have you read the Koran yet in the manner it is meant to be rerad. Have you seen the imams teaching children the Koran using torture and violence. How the children show traits of mental disease brought on by the methods employed. Look at any video of muslim children being taught the Koran and they rock backwards and forwards like those suffering from ADHD and Bi Polar
No need to, I know what was posted. YOU started the personal attacks, so GFY.
Yeah, you're intelligent...NOT. FIFTY-SEVEN muslim countries, and ONE OR TWO free countries? That is some fucking track record there, Jim wow. The fucking jews have ONE WHOLE country, and its more democratic than ALL 57 MUSLIMS ones. Certainly a lot to be proud if you're a muslim these days...
You excuse it - over and over, trying to explain away monstrous behavior that HAS NOTHING to do with it, offering moronic sophistries. Where on earth does a group, whether they are tribal, clan, or whatever affiliation have that gives them the right to conduct terrorism, deny freedoms to themselves or others, etc? None, yet you offered that as an excuse, as if that would explain away their shit behavior. You're a fraud and a liar, because you claim to not be a terror apologist, and then proceed to do exactly that in your next post.
No one is saying it gives them the right. Pointing out reality is just that. Pointing out that the shooter in the Newtown School Shooting was mentally ill is not giving him the right to shoot kids. Ignoring that fact is ignoring reality.
Garbage, non-MSM websites, or non-scholars without generally accepted credentials or reputation in the field are to be dismissed, which include EI, jewwatch and other such scum. Same goes for turds like ilan pappe, chumpsky, and other such dung, whom you no doubt cite as "experts". Sorry, I'll take a sourced and facts-supported, accredited, reputable scholar like Pipes and day over that shit. Had you any brains, you would as well, but we know the answer to that, don't we?
So pointing out that muslims are taught violence from being born is not allowed because it is the reality of islam, but pointing out that Israel has laws that disenfranchise certain Islamic terrorists ( which nearly every civilised nation also has ) is allowed because it demonises the Israeli's
You'd have a point if you had any connection with reality here. Muslims are not taught violence from birth.
Have you read the Koran yet in the manner it is meant to be rerad. Have you seen the imams teaching children the Koran using torture and violence. How the children show traits of mental disease brought on by the methods employed. Look at any video of muslim children being taught the Koran and they rock backwards and forwards like those suffering from ADHD and Bi Polar
You mean like this?
BBC Hands Airwaves Over To Israel’s Minister For War
_________________________________________________________________________
SOURCE: electronicintifada.net
Submitted by Amena Saleem
Thu, 04/09/2015 16:32 pm
Moshe Yaalon poses for a photo with notorious racist blogger Pamela Geller. (Wikipedia) The writer and journalist Karl Sabbagh posed an interesting question this month. Writing on the current affairs website Al Araby, Sabbagh asked: “British journalists are among the best and most skeptical in the world. Why then, with a few honorable exceptions, do they fail to be skeptical when comes to Israel?”
The question was especially pertinent in light of an egregious interview conducted by senior BBC presenter Sarah Montague just two weeks earlier with Israel’s “defense” minister Moshe Yaalon.
Montague was interviewing Yaalon on the BBC’s flagship radio news program Today in the week of Benjamin Netanyahu’s election victory, a victory which followed his very public declaration that there would be no Palestinian state if he was returned to power.
But Montague didn’t probe and challenge Yaalon on whether his prime minister’s declaration has highlighted Israel’s contempt for international law, for the so-called peace process, and revealed a desire to remain indefinitely as an illegal occupier of Palestinian land. She didn’t ask him if Netanyahu’s admission means that Israel can no longer be viewed as a “partner for peace” by its Western allies. […]
READ MORE: BBC hands airwaves over to Israel s minister for war The Electronic Intifada
______________________________________________________________________________
Good point. That is EXACTLY how it started. And it's the same propaganda Geller and you are lobbing at Muslims. Interesting no?
Not propaganda but proven facts of atrocities on an industrial scale. Remember the words of the worlds leaders after WW2 when they were detailing the death camps, they said never again will we allow this to happen. And a few short years later muslims murdered 50 million Indians in their grasp for world domination and the world ignored it. Just as they ignored the mass murders of Africans in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's by muslims after more land to grab.
Is the beheading of hundreds by I.S. propaganda, the rape of girls forced into marriage. The bombing of civilians in Syria, the use of chemical weapons against them by their own people. So how can truth be propaganda.
Woah. Let's back up a minute. Muslims murdered 50 million Indians? I assume you are talking about the Partition of India. You might want do a little reading on the history of that event. For a starter - they were ALL Indians: Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and they were all killing each other in the mess you Brits made of things there. There was no "world domination" thing going on and there was no "50 million".
India-Pakistan Partition 1947
Partition unleashed untold misery and loss of lives and property as millions of Hindu and Muslim refugees fled either Pakistan or India. The violence in 1947 was exceptionally brutal and large in scale; but the underlying attitudes had long been in the making. Families were torn apart in a population exchange that uprooted more than 14 million people during the months after independence. By one account, over 8 million refugees poured across borders to regions completely foreign to them, whith other accounts state that about 7 million people migrated to Pakistan from India and vice-versa. By another estimate, Partition resulted in the forced movement of 20 million people (Hindus and Sikhs to India and Muslims to Pakistan). Most estimates of the numbers of people who crossed the boundaries between India and Pakistan in 1947 range between 10 and 12 million.
The migrations and the violence were regionally confined. They were not all-India phenomena. Partition brought, by one estimate, five million refugees from east Punjab to west Punjab after the British decided to leave their Indian empire in the hands of the successor states of India and Pakistan. While 5 million people left India for Pakistan, about the same number of people moved in the other direction. By another estimate, 4 million Hindus and Sikhs moved from West to East Punjab and 5 to 6 million Muslims moved from East to West Punjab. In the late 1940s, more than one-quarter of Punjab's population of about 19 million was made up of refugees. Sikhs, caught in the middle of Punjab's new "line," suffered the highest percentage of casualties. Most Sikhs finally settled in India's much-diminished border state of Punjab. Some though the Punjab disturbances were the direct result of Mountbatten's unwisdom in accelerating the date of partition, and that if Punjab had been given time, the terrible massacre of August, September and October could have been avoided.
The death toll of this terrible episode remains very much contested. Hundreds of thousands of people died, as Hindus and Sikhs fled to India, Muslims to Pakistan, and many others were caught up in a chaotic transition. A consensus figure of 500,000 is often used, but the sources closer to the truth give figures that range between 200,000 and 360,000 dead. By other estimates, Partition resulted in as many as 1.5 million deaths. The word genocide did not come to the minds of observers at the time, though there were genocidal aspects to what finally developed.
What you throw at the Jews are the same things the Nazi's threw at them fabrications, half truths and blood libels. Blaming them for being the only nation with property confiscation laws, claiming they are the only nation with immigration laws. That is propaganda that is blown out of proportion and embellished on
What specifically do I throw at Jews? What blood libel?
I never said they were the only nation with property confiscation laws. You do realize there is a difference between Jews and Israel?
Maybe you should try a less biased source for you information. The muslims wanted everything again and resorted to terrorism to get it, the British just could not afford to fight them after losing so heavily in WW2 and being left bankrupt.
What is biased about my source?
The muslims knew this and decided that the time was right to take over India, instead the British partitioned india in 3 parts and gave two parts to the muslims. In the take over the muslims started to ethnically cleanse their parts of all non muslims and this resulted in about 50 million deaths over a period of years. You forget the wars between Pakistan and Bangladesh that resulted in many deaths. The muslims forced the practise of burning the spouse with his partner, only they threw living people on the funeral pyres. The estimate was 50 million lost their lives in that dark period, mostly Sikhs and Hindus and it caused a hatred that is still alive today.
Suti is a Hindu custom. Given your complete ignorance of that fact, I suspect the rest of your claims are equally hogwash.
Yes I do as 20% of all Israeli's are not Jews
The many laws that Israel has that the US also has, you never miss a chance to demonise the Jews/Israel and always bleat when shown you are being racist that you knew other nations had those laws and you are not anti Jew or anti Israeli.
Really? What US cities require residency permits to live in and deny those permits to certain ethnic groups who subsequently become absentee landowners at risk for having their property confiscated? Are permits for expansion or construction routinely denied to certain ethnic groups while illegal housing of other ethnic groups routinely allowed to stand? Does the US allow underage children to be interrogated without a parent or guardian present?
If you need to ask then you are not very bright
Did I say it wasn't, I said that the muslims used it as a terror weapon.
All of them as most people who try and visit find out, Just as the UK does and the whole of EU Europe.
Then you ask for examples of your BIAS towards Israel.
