Lunch with Daniel Pipes

August 25th, 2010 at 3:27 pm by David Farrar

Just returned from the Wellington Club where myself and around eight journalists had lunch with Daniel Pipes, who has authored more than a dozen books on the or . The Israeli Ambassador kindly hosted the lunch.

Daniel spoke on five broad topics, and we had a lively Q+A. I’ll go through them, off memory.

Iraq & Afghanistan

Pipes was very pessimistic for both countries, and said that the aim of transforming the countries into modern democratic states has and will fail. Worse, he believes they won’t even achieve the status of “a decent place to live”.

What makes his view of significance, if he was a supporter of the invasions of both countries. So he is saying, that the US has failed and will fail.

I asked whether the US were too ambitious trying to turn Iraq into a post-war Germany or Japan, and whether they would have been better to basically shoot Saddam, and the next ten in the line of succession, tell No 11 that he is now in charge, that he should leave the Kurds alone, and bring in some elections and basically pull out, leaving the infrastructure, the Baath party, the army etc intact.

Pipes basically agreed, and said that has been his long held position – that the US should have found a strongman, who was more palatable than Saddam, and left him in charge. It would not have achieved a secular liberal democracy, but it might achieve the country becoming a semi-decent place to live.

US Policy

Pipes made a strong case that in terms of foreign policy, there is very little difference between Bush and Obama. Obama at one stage had more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than under Bush. Also Obama has approved 50 attacks from unmanned drones, compared to 38 under the entire Bush presidency.

Obama’s outreach to Islamic states, with his Cairo speech did result in a more favourable impression of the US at the time. But a year later, the views of the US in the Islamic world have shrunk back to what they were under Bush.

Iran

Pipes thinks there is no doubt Iran is developing nuclear weapon – and that in fact it is a logical thing for Iran to do, as it makes you a military power, but in a far cheaper fashion than an increase in conventional forces.

He decried both the Bush and Obama strategy on Iran on the basis he has yet to work out what either of them is.

Pipes believes the threat of a nuclear armed Iran, under its current leadership, is so dangerous, that a military strike will be necessary.

I actually pushed back against this, on the basis that most Iranians want to get rid of their President, and an attack on their nuclear facilities is the one thing which will make his popularity soar, and guarantee the hardliners keep control for at least a generation.

Pipes said that he does think that Iran is the one country where the Islamic leadership is under real threat, and if left alone they are likely to be removed from power in the future. However he still regards the danger in the interim of an Islamic Iran with nuclear weapons to be so great, that he still thinks a strike is needed – but accepts the consequences will be a massive increase in terrorism etc.

& Palestine

Pipes is a pessimist on a diplomatic solution. He asserts that you only have diplomatic solutions after the war is over, not as a way to stop a war. Until one side “wins” diplomacy will not work.

His preferred course of action is to try and increase the proportion of Palestinians who accept Israel has a right to exist from 20% to over 50%. He says only when a majority of Palestinians accept they will not succeed with their desire to destroy Israel, will a diplomatic solution have any chance of working.

Islam and Europe

Pipes says the growing Islamic population in Europe is partly due to the indigenous populations not producing enough children to maintain population, and partly the desire of people in Islamic countries to move to places with a better standard of living.

He says that there are three possible paths ahead:

  1. Europe muddles through with peaceful co-existence. He says that he sees no evidence at all that this is the likely scenario.
  2. Over time Europe becomes more “Islamised” with Islam as the dominant religion in Europe, and wide-spread sharia law – even some Islamic states in Europe.
  3. A massive back-lash from the indigenous Europeans, with neo-fascist and even fascist parties gaining support across the Europe.

A vigorous discussion on this topic. Canada was held up as one of the few Western countries which has managed Muslim immigration, which has not been radical Islamists. I suggested that NZ has also been successful at having Muslim immigrants, with almost no radicalisation here.

Pipes suggestion for keeping it that way, is that one should not discriminate against Muslims who wish to migrate here, but that one should absolutely discriminate against Islamists.

He said many people do not get the difference between Islam/Muslims and Islamism/Islamists. He says Islam is a religion like Judaism, Christianity etc. Islamism is a political belief like communism, zionism, fascism.

Was a very interesting 90 minute lunch and discussion, even if somewhat depressing in terms of the outlook for key conflicts, and for Europe. Barry Soper commented that it made him glad to live in New Zealand – for which I have to agree.

Tags: , , ,

95 Responses to “Lunch with Daniel Pipes”

  1. Grant Michael McKenna (1,156 comments) says:

    I’m studying the drones issue right now, and can say that many, many more “attacks” have taken place- what was the meaning of attack? Operations outside of a war zone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,336 comments) says:

    I trust lunch was good and the Club’s excellent roast duck was on the menu.

    On the subject of the Islamisation of Europe, I suggest “America alone: the end of the world as we know” it by Mark Steyn. An outstanding book.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,810 comments) says:

    Kosovo II, the rematch.

    Second time round the Western powers decide to back the right party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    I think you’re living in a fools paradise David as the % of Muslims here is so small that they are only acting to according to Dawa and Taqiyya as Patrick Sookdheo has written about. Faith, Power and territory isbn 978-0-9547835-8-7
    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/10/15/1097784043403.html?from=storylhs
    http://www.barnabasfund.org/archivenews/text.php?ID_news_items=50
    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=7758
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Sookhdeo

    I agree with Pipes that Islam is an ideology not a religion but not with his view on Islamists and you’ll need to read in his archive where he talks about so called moderate Muslims need to do more to repudiate the Jihadis and Islamists.
    Where do Islamists come from?
    Muslims and Pipes own figures are that fully 30+% of Muslims support the Islamists and that increases according to location and age group.

    One could characterise Muslims in this way.
    1. folk Islam – incl a bit of paganism (jinns etc etc) bit like pew sitting christians
    2. Muslims – devout and growing in their faith, support sharia in word
    3. Islamists – convinced Muslims and wanting to grow Sharia throughout the world support in word and money and those who do by deed.
    4. Jihadists – bring the caliphate and Sharia to all of Dar al Harb no matter how.

    I don’t agree with Pipes in discriminating between Islamists and Muslims as it is the duty of all Muslims to pray and work for Sharia where they are.
    1. We could start off by making Sharia Law illegal – as it contravenes the UN human rights and our NZBora.
    That sends a clear message to Muslims to sort Sharia law out so it is acceptable to Western societal freedoms.

    2. Not allow any new Muslim immigration (or refugees) until we see evidence of the dismantling of Sharia, like new churches in Muslims countries and legal and constitutional Dhimmitude removed.
    Also stop NZAid to areas that exercise Dhimmitude on their populace.

    3. stop all Islamic funding/gifting to our educational institutions

    4. Ban the Niquab and burqa as in a liberal democracy ALL should be seen.
    http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/11/niqabs-and-burqas-as-security-threats

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. tvb (4,199 comments) says:

    A lunch hosted by the Israeli ambassador is the dead giveaway and suggests there is something to be suspicious of especially all that stuff about a strike at Iran and whether there can be peace between the Israel and the PA. We do not have much of a problem with Islam in this country because we have managed to keep imports of then very very low. I hope it stays that way. I found your summary very interesting, you are very good at getting to the heart of things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Daniel Pipes, eh? In b4 Luc Hansen calls him a racist neocon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Is he a neocon?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Murray (8,838 comments) says:

    Is Luc Hansen a drone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    Well Comrade Klark wanted to import an awful lot more folk with ‘Refugee, Dissident, or Displaced’ status.

    A number of reasons, but the main one was doubly securing the job she bought at UNDP with taxpayers money.

    Like UK ZaNuLabour, it was to throw the indigenous into even more confusion and alarm the majority, thus gain more power to abuse at her will.

    Champagne Socialists of the ‘Not ever been in the real World’ type think that they are just cute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. eszett (2,332 comments) says:

    He says that there are three possible paths ahead:

    1. Europe muddles through with peaceful co-existence. He says that he sees no evidence at all that this is the likely scenario.
    2. Over time Europe becomes more “Islamised” with Islam as the dominant religion in Europe, and wide-spread sharia law – even some Islamic states in Europe.
    3. A massive back-lash from the indigenous Europeans, with neo-fascist and even fascist parties gaining support across the Europe.

    I see MikeNZ has already fully embraced option 3. I especially love this one

    4. Ban the Niquab and burqa as in a liberal democracy ALL should be seen.

    No doubt he is completely blind to the irony in that statement. I wonder in motorcycle helmets will be outlawed as well.

    And what exactly do you mean by “ban Sharia Law”? How would you possibly achieve that?
    Last time I checked there was only one law in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. insider (1,000 comments) says:

    My reading of his analysis was interesting but nothing unusual for a and Israeli put up by the Embassy, but when I got to his three options for Europe well they just reveal him as barking.

    There is a quite obvious fourth option which he completely ignores even though it may be the most likely, that is that muslims integrate peacefully into European society, and their religion is increasingly observed only as a cultural relic rather than faith based – much like self described ‘catholics’ who only go to church on Xmas and Easter and for funerals.

    Just looking at the trends in muslim population in Europe shows his option 2 is so far off as to be irrelevant – 100 years to get to 25% of the total EUro population. And of course that will be highly skewed distribution because of the high ‘natural’ muslim populations in Russia, Turkey and the Balkans. That’s leaving aside changes in those trends, such as decreased fertility in muslim families. Pretty impressive that 25% of the population could conquer a whole continent culturally.

    Why on earth would you be depressed for Europe based on his shonkey analysis. As a statistician you shouldn’t have fallen for that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_in_Europe-2.png

    I wonder if he has similar concerns about the disporportionate Jewish influence on US foreign policy and domestic issues? Sharia law has nothing on that. And of course the stoking up of the fear of a crazy nuclear Iran (probably to justify an attack), yet no mention of the impact or potential misuse of Israel’s much larger nuclear arsenal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Ah yes, it appears he is. I just glanced through his Wikipedia entry and there is not a lot to either like or respect about the man.

    He was on the wrong side of the argument for both Iraq and Afghanistan, deluded as to the purpose and consequences of both, but nothing can reverse the damage wrought there.

    Since his preferred modus operandi is force, his stance on Iran is understandable and I was pleased to see DPF put forward a saner view. To call Iran a military threat to the West, whether nuclear armed or not, is risible.

    He seems to be unaware of the fact that much Muslim immigration into Europe and elsewhere is driven by the desire to escape conflict, including that initiated by the West. Europe is having more problems with these immigrants, and even more their offspring, because it has not paid enough attention to resolving their economic duress in those countries. We have been much more successful in welcoming these people into our economic activity, while also affording them the same freedoms we wish for ourselves.

    As always, the first step in reducing the radicalisation of young Muslims is withdrawal of all Western and non-Muslim troops from their lands. The second is full and unreserved engagement. The third would be Israel recognising the right of return and actively assist that to come about, including dragging their own from the Palestinian homes they stole from 1948 to the present.

    By the way, DPF, I see you named Barry Soper, but who were the other seven journos?

    [DPF: Nick Venter - Dom Post, Danya Levy - Radio NZ, David Cohen - NBR and others, Jeremy Rose - Mediawatch RNZ, Audrey Young - NZ Herald.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. eszett (2,332 comments) says:

    He said many people do not get the difference between Islam/Muslims and Islamism/Islamists. He says Islam is a religion like Judaism, Christianity etc. Islamism is a political belief like communism, zionism, fascism.

    Was a very interesting 90 minute lunch and discussion, even if somewhat depressing in terms of the outlook for key conflicts, and for Europe. Barry Soper commented that it made him glad to live in New Zealand – for which I have to agree.

    A bleak outlook indeed. However Christianity was once also a political belief and we have overcome that, religion now resting nicely in it’s niche. Most European states are secular and there is a distant possibility that most Muslims will value a secular society and peacefully integrate into Europe.

    Then again we have some Christians who have great difficulty integrating into a secular society.

    On the long run, New Zealand will have to face the same issues though, even if delayed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Chthoniid (2,027 comments) says:

    I’m afraid I’m only familiar with Pipe’s excellent academic work on the early Islamic conquests and the Arab army of that era. I’m not familiar with his later more political stuff. It must have been very interesting to get his perspective.

    @MikeNZ – your claim about all Muslims praying and working towards Sharia law is simply not correct. Many moderate Muslims oppose Sharia law because it over-rules the Qu’ran (theologically wrong) or the interpretation of the spirit of Islam received via imams or the broader (Sunni) community.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. jacko1390 (2 comments) says:

    Daniel Pipes is a very mis-informed individual, who masquerades as an “informed” source on Middle East politics. Nothing could be further from the truth. he consistently demonises Muslims and Islam, and will re-interpret different terms for his own use. He wouldn’t know an Islamist if it smacked him in the jaw. he also wrote an article in 2007 suggesting that then-Senator Obama may be a Muslim by virtue of some of his childhood being spent living in Indonesia. And what he says about the “Islamisation” of Europe is complete crap, played up by the far-right fringe parties that are xenophobic towards any minority.

    Pipes should not be taken seriously at all, and his views (previously listened to by the Bush Administration) is why the world is in such a mess with the Middle East, and why we are seeing the rise in homophobia across the Western world. Very worrying indeed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Gwilly (156 comments) says:

    NZ doesn’t have problems with Muslims (yet) because they make-up a very small percentage of the population compared to Europe, though their numbers have doubled here in the past 10 years, so we should be weary. We must avoid the mistakes of Europe. Islam is totally incompatiable with western society and the only possible outcome is conflict. A good website is – http://www.jihadwatch.org.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Great post Mike NZ.
    Islam is not a religion..this is where many westerners get tripped up..It is an evil murdering cult , a male arab supremacist cult and many other things besides but it is not a religion.
    In 1980, muslim leaders said ”We will not need to take Europe by the sword , we will take Europe with our children.” This is what they are doing worldwide and most certainly what they are doing in NZ. It is a demographic war and we are already losing it.
    Have any of you checked out your local women’s hospitals? Guess who is calling all the shots there? Muslim women who are having 8,9,10,12, 14…babies..all maternity care on the tax payer. There is another issue with muslims which some of you may be unfamiliar with..wherever they go in the west , they demand preferential treatment.. Goodgle it and you will see what I mean..They are getting preferential treatment in our local hospital and they are almost running the women’s hospital..no male nurses , visitors at all hours , about 15 at a time , two nurses at all times..etc etc..and all of you are paying for this. An elderly friend who used to be a hosp chaplain told me this but I experienced it first hand earlier in the year whilst over night at the womens hospital. I should have known to expect it but even so I was taken aback when I witnessed it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. jacko1390 (2 comments) says:

    Woops I meant to say is “Islamophobia” not homophobia in the last bit – the computer changed it. Obviously i don’t mean homophobia…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Viking2 (11,125 comments) says:

    Yep and just in the last few days Tauranga City Council have allowed them to purchase their own piece of cemetery for their burials.
    Would not allow the Brethern to do the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. tvb (4,199 comments) says:

    I am deeply suspicious this is part of a softening up excercise for opinion leaders on Israel bombing Iran. I hope Iran retaliates in return and Israel must expect this at least. Bomb will be met with bomb I am sure the Israelis would understand that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Kinda tough when Israel and Pakistan have nuclear arsenals and they, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt don’t want Iran running amuck, tvb. Just the kind of excuse they’d need to put the raving dog down for good, probably.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    They follow the same pattern everywhere they go Viking..lots of trouble now in Aussie unis..The only word they don’t like and seldom hear in western countries is No….this is what makes them seem really childish ..Most of us got No when we were two.
    Good websites…. Winds of Jihad
    Australian Islamist Monitor
    Jihad Watch
    Gates of Vienna
    The Brethern have a case to claim discrimination. On a very sad but relevant note , eight women were stoned to death in the Middle East this week.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    The poor response of aid to Pakistan is in my opinion a sign that the world has had enough of islamists.

    America. UK. Saudi Arabia. The top three donors.. ( Obligated )..

    The rest ??… Very little and very slow..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Joana
    It starts with the swimming pools, hallal meat, religious education and if they can slip in the buqa and niquab they do, then to Sharia finance, sharia for Muslims alongside local judicial system, Muslim enclaves, govt agency access through their imams/elders and so on.

    Insider
    that is that muslims integrate peacefully into European society, and their religion is increasingly observed only as a cultural relic rather than faith based

    You’re taking the piss aren’t you? well it is in poor taste.
    Everywhere in Europe they have follwoed the same pattern read Sookdheo, the isbn I posted earlier, he’s an academic and it’s a hard read but sets out the pattern.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Joana
    have you read Onelaw4all in the UK?
    I don’t subscribe to their complete secular position but obviously do on their primary premise to ban Sharia.
    As ex Muslims they have experienced it not just in their original homelands, but elsewhere as they moved around before getting to the UK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Manolo (13,336 comments) says:

    I would rather donate money to Whitirea Polytechnic Student Association before thinking of giving any dollars to the corrupt rabble Islamic Pakistan is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Bob R (1,335 comments) says:

    Lawrence Auster has a number of excellent articles critiquing Pipes on his search for moderate Islam.

    “Daniel Pipes sums up the heartening new realism in Europe and Australia about Islamic terrorism and jihadism, and the hardline statements coming from European and Australian politicians regarding “radical Islam” (a term that implies that there is also a moderate Islam) and “Islamists” (a term that implies that there is a peaceful, traditional Islam that is different from Islamism).

    If I mix good news with sour observations in the above sentence, it is because Pipes in recent days has made it clear that he is more strongly committed than ever to his false bifurcation between traditional and militant Islam. He did this by repeating in an article (and re-affirming in an e-mail to me) his widely quoted statement that “Traditional Islam seeks to teach human beings how to live in accord with God’s will; militant Islam aspires to create a new order.” This stunningly untrue statement would lead people to believe that traditional Islam was not, in addition to being a religion, a quasi-totalitarian movement to create a new order. No. For Pipes, Muhammadanism, which conquered and crushed peoples and civilizations across half the world, was and is merely a peaceful activity by individuals seeking God, and this “moderate” Islam remains the solution to “radical” Islam.

    It thus becomes evident that the clarifying debates of recent months and years, the important work of scholars such as Bat Ye’or, Robert Spencer, and Andrew Bostom to show the falseness of the “moderate Islam” thesis, not to mention my big article last January critiquing Pipes’s arguments in detail, and showing that he himself has implicitly acknowledged in several of his articles that moderate Islam has never existed, have made zero impact on his thinking. As I demonstrated, Pipes in the course of his many writings drifts from one formulation about Islam to another, contradicting himself with abandon; and yet, in the end, he always returns to his default position, that there was this benign, spiritual Islam that existed for 1,300 years, and then this nasty, terrorist, totalitarian Islam that has come into being in the last 100 years.”

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004017.html

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004960.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    No I haven’t read it Mike. You just reminded me I used to sometimes check out a good site for ex muslims..just recalled the name.. Faith Freedom International..these people have lost their families , former friends etc and of course many of them have risked their lives to escape islam.
    We have a small group here..NZers Against Sharia..In Europe , Us etc the organizations tend to call themselves Stop the Islamization of …. SIOE , SIOA etc..but we see sharia as the essence as this is their ultimate goal,. Some people posting on here seem to think the muslims want world wide sharia except NZ..unfortunately this is a fantasy. Geert wilders , Holland, is forming an international alliance of all anti islamist organizations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Repton (769 comments) says:

    Ok, this may be a dumb question: what is the big threat of a nuclear Iran? MAD worked throughout the cold war; India and Pakistan haven’t gone for each other’s throats. The Iranian leadership must know that if they (attempt to) nuke Israel, they’ll face heavy retaliation from just about everyone, with support from both left and right. Nukes would be great for Iran to deter any invasion from Israel or the US (or elsewhere), but so what? Leave them alone and maybe they’ll manage regime change on their own.. (and if they do, it’s mor elikely to be successful)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. noskire (831 comments) says:

    I’ve said it before on this blog, and on others, Islam or whatever you want to call it is the greatest threat to OUR society as we know it.

    Islam is now the 2nd most widely-practiced religion in France, and accounts for close to 25% of religious following in the world. India had close to a 15% Muslim population in 2001, and is projected to be the most populous country in the world by 2025.

    Ever tried to have a conversation with a Muslim taxi driver? Or maybe I should point you to a link showing how Muslim extremists like to saw off Westerner’s heads?

    And yep, Iran is a threat, but the US can’t do anything about them, apart from surgical strikes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. noskire (831 comments) says:

    Repton, I think this answers your question http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Let%27s%20Attack%20Iran.txt

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. ephemera (563 comments) says:

    @DPF: Given you are commenting on the difference between Islam and Islamism, have you revised your belief that Muslims are collectively responsible for 9/11?

    [DPF: Have you revised your belief that rape is fun? Don;'t invent beliefs for me, and I won't invent beliefs for you]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. reid (15,917 comments) says:

    It often surprises me that anyone thinks a neocon has anything worthwhile to say whatsover, given their track record from PNAC down.

    I mean crikey. You couldn’t find a more seminal example of leaving things a lot worse than when you’d found it than during President Cheney’s two terms.

    And yet people still go to hear their lamentably unsuccessful geopolitical perspectives the complete mentalness of which was amply demonstrably before the world stage not so long ago and which still reverberate today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Kris K (3,570 comments) says:

    Like many others have already said, I see little distinction between all the imaginary factions which make up the Islamic whole. Islam is clear in its aims and intentions as outlined in the Koran and Hadith, and as exemplified by those individuals who enforce their belief system once Islam becomes established as a dominant force. What is currently happening in Europe and the UK bears this fact out. Places such as New Zealand are still below Islamic critical mass – but this will change as Islam becomes more established here.

    I am surprised Daniel Pipes makes the distinctions he does regarding Islam.
    Nonetheless, it would have been very interesting to have heard him in person – thanks for sharing your take on his talk, DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    I , of course, agree with you Noskire. Our way of life is being constantly eroded , one chip at a time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. noskire (831 comments) says:

    reid, can I ask you to name one thing that you have personally contributed to society that has made it better than when you found it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. reid (15,917 comments) says:

    I’ve never been the POTUS, noskire and therefore my opportunities to do some good in the world haven’t been as great as were President Cheney’s, but nevertheless, I’ve done one or two things that I don’t care to mention for I don’t give a shit about whether you think they’re real or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    noskire

    I can show you a link showing how Westerners just love and exalt in blowing off Muslims heads – check out Wikileaks.

    DPF really needs to change his heading to be more truthful – “Fomenting ignorance, racism and Islamophobia since…”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    If at first you have no response, bang out the I-word as if it had any credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. reid (15,917 comments) says:

    “Fomenting ignorance, racism and Islamophobia since…”

    Luc that’s extremely harsh.

    Varied perspectives need hearing. Yes. Sometimes, they’re just so fucking nuts that you almost want to die laughing as the audience seriously listens, but who cares, I hear that every year at the annual Liarbore conference.

    Racism lies in the listener, not the speaker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. noskire (831 comments) says:

    Since when was Cheney POTUS…VPOTUS you mean. But hey, I’m being pedantic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Damn, what a bunch of wimps so many visitors to NZ are.
    Now that would be funny, a bunch of Muslims swimming ashore at the Hokianga to be meet by my mob, marinade at the ready.

    Onelaw4all, great site, lets chuck out all religious maniacs from this country, not peaceful doolins who only arranged a few bombing of children I hear.
    You do want ALL religions to be treated equally do you not ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. noskire (831 comments) says:

    Luc, I’ve probably seen the footage. A Barrett M-82A1 is very effective.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Racism lies in the listener, not the speaker

    Reid, that’s just crap. Ask the victims.

    This site promotes Islamophobia, and, by doing that, helps to spread the virus.

    If you swapped the word Islam for Judaism and Muslim for Jew, imagine the fuss!

    And these guys are all supporters of Zionism, and Zionism is rooted in racism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. reid (15,917 comments) says:

    “And these guys are all supporters of Zionism”

    Who are “these guys,” Luc. Am I included? If so, is that a good thing, or a bad thing?

    “Zionism is rooted in racism.”

    No it’s not. It’s rooted in nationalism of the most heightened kind driven and kept there by collective human emotion of an appalling and truly terrible magnitude, which drives them to do what they do.

    They’re not evil, Luc, they’re frightened, determined, and implacable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Who would have thought Luc would be so McCarthyite and derisive of the United Nations? He’s almost like of them neocons I hear so much about.

    I await your strong condemnation of this particular racist Islamophobe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    noskire

    I think you will agree there has been a heap more of your Barret’s killings than beheadings.

    But of course, the Barretts are only killing ragheads, aren’t they, so that’s OK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. TimG_Oz (915 comments) says:

    Gee – I’m jealous DPF. Is he coming to Melbourne?

    You get to go to all the good stuff! Great to see these kind of functions in NZ, attended by intelligent people to get an insight into what’s really behind the Reuters articles they read.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Repton
    daniel pipes has somewhere on his website an article referring to afterdinnermint’s fascination and commitment to the 13th Imam or the Mahdi.
    If there is a nuclear conflagration he and his group think it will herald the Mahdi return.
    so a MAD setup like between Russia and USA won’t necessarily work here.
    also Obama is a Muslim in that he is either one or an apostate so the USA probably won’t nuke Iran, assuming it would work.
    Israel can’t without USA permission as they control the air space over Iraq.
    One reason the Russians has put S300′s in Osetia is to monitor the northern route for the IDF to warn Iran.

    So it’s complicated as a Nuclear Iran can control the gulf through it’s proxies and because the USA can’t come to the little states aid so they will cave in to the pressure that will be put on them.
    The Iranians will then in time be able to umbrella Hezbollah and then Grumpy will have his wet dreams as 40,000 rockets enter Israeli airspace in days with at guess 200+ able to hit Tel Aviv/Haifa.

    appeasing the wolf only works for a time then he’s coming after your hands. You have to kill him. China and Russia have been protecting Iran to protect their Oil supply and the germans and North Koreans supplying high tech needs.

    It’s going to be interesting how they deal with Hezbollah prosecuting Afterdinnermints will all over the globe with their terror cells on every continent when they come into conflict over their energy needs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    I am surprised Daniel Pipes makes the distinctions he does regarding Islam.

    Kris,
    I did wonder at reading DPF whether it was the venue and hosts but then Pipes is fluent in Arabic and has studied all the Hadiths and other docs that are central to both the structure and history of Islam.
    It is as if he contradicts himself in calling for support for moderate Islam and on then other hand stating that the numbers of moderate Islam that supports Jihadist Islam is 300m + worldwide.

    He has never come out with a call to ban Sharia or even pointed out it is anathema to the UN Human rights statements which I find interesting as it is clear as day if you compare the central 5 Hadiths and the declarations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    reid

    without racism, Zionism could not have chosen Palestine as their target.

    And Hurf, I don’t need to follow your fetid links, thanks. And I certainly do condemn the UN for their complicity in the Zionist Palestine project.

    Of course, it can never happen again as the UN is now made up of a majority of ex-colonies. And the only reason Israel doesn’t get bought to account is that one, and only one, of the members of the SC prevent it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Hey Tim

    Did you catch Gwynne Dyer when he was in Melbourne?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Got a problem with Indian newspapers, Luc? What are you, racist? Your attitude repulses me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Always happy to repulse you, Hurf.

    Like I said, I don’t bother following your links.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. NeilM (370 comments) says:

    …that the US should have found a strongman, who was more palatable than Saddam, and left him in charge. It would not have achieved a secular liberal democracy, but it might achieve the country becoming a semi-decent place to live.

    Sounds so much like like the left wing opposition to getting rid of Saddam – “it really wasn’t so bad”. Semi-decent for the dictator’s/strongman’s friends no doubt.

    Strange how Pipes and the anti-US left have so much in common. But just as well fot Iraq Pipes was only a peripheral player in US politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Bob R (212) Says:
    August 25th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
    Lawrence Auster has a number of excellent articles critiquing Pipes on his search for moderate Islam.

    Thank you for this link. I’ve never seen it and I read frontpage semi regularly, I’ve pulled up all the pages for the article they make compelling reading.
    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=9781
    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=9780
    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=9778
    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=9777

    Bottom line for me is What is Dhimmitude and How does it work in practice and has in history where Islam has been resurgent or the conqueror.
    What does this tell us about the heart value of the Ideology and Muslims who allow it, even worship as part of Sharia and their aspirations for the globe.

    We hamper ourselves continually.

    Bat Ye’or, author of The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam and the soon-to-be published Eurabia, has said that our aim as Westerners should not be to save the soul of Islam but to save ourselves, our values, and our civilization. The approach she urges is primarily intellectual: we must stop closing our eyes to the reality of jihad, stop blaming ourselves for Muslim terrorism, and stop imposing crippling taboos on our own speech. Instead, we must openly discuss the Muslims’ jihadist beliefs, both among ourselves and with the Muslims.

    This is the crux of the issue with Islam and Sharia

    But the key point, from our perspective, is that Islam can only be “good” when it has no power. As soon as Muslims achieve power relative to non-Muslims, or feel that they are gaining such power or that they can gain such power, then the jihad aspect of Islam automatically kicks in. When we make a cult out of “moderate” Muslims, we are, in the long run, helping Muslims gain power. Their moderateness will revert, sooner or later, to militancy, but they will still have the power—and the moral sanction—that we gave them. The only way to keep Islam’s inherent tendency toward jihadism in abeyance is to keep Muslims in a situation where they have no influence over non-Muslims and no chance of achieving it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Good on you, Puke, gotta keep that Fabian bubble around your head inflated somehow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. reid (15,917 comments) says:

    “without racism, Zionism could not have chosen Palestine as their target.”

    Luc they didn’t choose it, it chose them.

    Israel 101 mate, and it’s fundamental.

    “But just as well fot Iraq Pipes was only a peripheral player in US politics.”

    Pipes was one of the main idealogue-philosophers, he wasn’t an activist

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Don’t be so simple, reid.

    Israel 101

    Indigenous Europeans want a place of refuge to escape persecution by fellow indigenous Europeans.

    Palestine is the Promised Land of the adherents (indigenous Semites, now folded into the Arab race) of Judaism in the Middle East.

    Ergo, we will go to Palestine.

    But it’s occupied by the indigenous people!

    Drive them out.

    I’ve left out the anti-Semitism of the British, and the domination of the fledging UN by European imperialist powers that fuelled the Zionist project, but you can look that up for yourself.

    No doubt you also believe the attempted ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims by the Serbs in Kosovo was justified blowback from the (real) conquering of the Serbs by the Ottomans some 600 years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. tom hunter (4,372 comments) says:

    Sounds so much like like the left wing opposition to getting rid of Saddam – “it really wasn’t so bad”

    Too true Neil. Back in 1991 all my leftie friends were outraged, really outraged, that GHW Bush had not gone down the so-called Highway of Death to take out Saddam.

    Many reasons for this were bandied about at the time, most of them being in sync with the standard tropes of the Cold War: that Saddam was another of the US’s thugs and would be allowed to stay for nasty, cold-blooded reasons of geo-political realpolitik. Nixon/Kissinger had never really left the stage and so forth. And then there was Iraq’s oil, the argument being that Saddam would pony up good deals to the big oil companies in return for the US letting him stay in power – just like the Saudi princes, etc.

    Perhaps the funniest reactions (in hindsight) were to a speech in 1992 by Cheney, who had been Secretary of Defense during Gulf War I. At the start of the speech he is asked why the US did not take out Saddam and he gives numerous reasons.

    My leftie friends were angry about this speech and they refused to accept any of those reasons, no matter how rational they might have sounded. To them they were all just cover for the real reasons described earlier. I was also very pissed off that Saddam was not taken out, and we cursed GHW Bush up hill and down dale. Still, I ground my teeth and acknowledged that Cheney’s reasoning was solid. My left-wing friends were not of that opinion.

    So what were Cheney’s reasons? He states that America would have been there effectively all alone. It would have been an occupation. It’s a volatile part of the world and when the central government was destroyed what would take its place? He talks about the potential of Iraq flying apart, with subsequent threats to Turkey from a Kurdish nation, of Syria perhaps grabbing a chunk of the country. He talks about how the conflict would degenerate into urban warfare, the additional dead Americans and the judgment that Saddam was just not worth it. In another interview a couple of years, in response to the same question, later he even mentions the word “quagmire”.

    Sound familar?

    By 2003 of course all of those reasons were emerging from the mouths of various Left opponents of the Iraq liberation. I was stunned at how many Kissinger clones had suddenly appeared in the Left anti-war movement. Cheney at least could claim that changed circumstances had changed his mind – I don’t recall any member of the Left explaining why reasons they had dismissed as pathetic apologetics and a false front in 1991 had suddenly become such rational and reality-based reasons in 2003. Perhaps it was that the reasons they had considered so “real” had turned out to be bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. reid (15,917 comments) says:

    Indigenous Europeans want a place of refuge to escape persecution by fellow indigenous Europeans. Palestine is the Promised Land of the adherents (indigenous Semites, now folded into the Arab race) of Judaism in the Middle East. Ergo, we will go to Palestine.

    Luc, attempted sustained annihilation, brutality, slaughter, rape, torture inflicted upon an extremely large proportion of the surviving population was the context.

    It’s not an excuse, it’s the real background.

    the question is, if you were a scattered nation at the time, what would you have done?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. tvb (4,199 comments) says:

    We are an Asian country economically and increasingly diplomatically. I cannot see any NZer lifting one figure on the security of Israel. They have sowed the wind and now they will reap the whirlwind. Maybe one day Israel will be bombed to utter destruction and I suspect most NZers will say they brought it on themselves. I think Israel is a failed state, run by its security apparatus. If I had my way I would send the Israeli ambassador home, and would never attend a function hosted by him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Nice to see the rational left, as represented by tvb, in full force here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Psycho Milt (2,258 comments) says:

    I am deeply suspicious this is part of a softening up excercise for opinion leaders on Israel bombing Iran.

    You’re right to be, because it is. It seems likely that there will indeed be a murderous surprise attack by an aggressive, religion-based state run by loonies, but it will be an attack on Iran, not by it. We’re right to be nervous about Middle East nutbars having nuclear weapons, but unfortunately it’s already happened – too late to bolt the stable door now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. tom hunter (4,372 comments) says:

    Actually Hurf I think we should applaud tvb’s honesty and forthrightness. Far preferable to all the faux nonsense about how nobody wants to see a second Holocaust….Sigh….but if the Israeli’s keep acting like this who can say…head shakes sadly

    I suspect most NZers will say they brought it on themselves.

    Yeah. That slut who’s always flashing her ass down in the bazaar. She’s kicked a couple of guys in the crotch – and I hear she carries a gun too. But all the same, one day she’s going to get it I tells ya’!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Why is racism being mentioned in a discussion about islam? Islam is not a race.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Repton
    Read this this morning and thought of your question yesterday.
    http://www.slate.com/id/2264064/

    Points 2 and 3 are germane in that the revolutionary Guards have for a decade now been building bases of operation on every continent to be able to project into American and western spheres or target areas.
    That this won’t happen is head in the sand thinking.
    read the first part of pt 2 again The “Revolutionary Guards,” who last year shot and raped their way to near-absolute power in Iran
    This is a group to whom there is no law and with Nuclear bombs will be released of the only constraint against them right now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. ephemera (563 comments) says:

    @DPF, in an earlier post you likened the establishment of a muslim centre in NYC to Germany putting a Bach choral society next to Auschwitz. The least one infers from that statement is that collective guilt is an acceptable position.

    I’m not making anything up. I am taking you at your word.

    [DPF: You can not infer that. I do not believe Germany has collective guilt for the Nazis and do not think Muslims have collective guilt for 9/11. You lie and smear when you suggest I do.

    ALl I have said is that it is insensitive to do certain things - like the Catholic church established by Aushcwitz. No one things Catholics have collective guilt for the Holocaust, but many think it was an insensitive thing to do - a position the Pope even agreed with]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. tom hunter (4,372 comments) says:

    The least one could infer from that is that it collective guilt is an acceptable position.

    Exactly, because when the Pope made those nuns close their convent next to Auschwitz we all inferred that Catholics felt collective guilt – and should do so.

    I’d call that ephemeral logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. ephemera (563 comments) says:

    @tom hunter: That wasn’t the analogy DPF used, He compared Islam to WW2 nation states,

    @DPF, I am not trying to lie or smear. I obviously have a viewpoint, but I also want you to be clear on what you mean.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. ephemera (563 comments) says:

    ..and, I really don’t want to derail the thread, but I think as this might be the only time my voice is heard on this blog, I’ll take the opportunity to say it:

    If you have visited metropolitan cities like New York or London, which I’m sure you have, then you will see just how sizable the muslim communities are there. ‘Sensitivity’ only seems to be an issue if you are looking at these cities from a distance and don’t understand quite how the social contract in these places might work. I refer to NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s speech today on the issue.

    Thanks for listening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Very good question, joana, and one that deserves a serious answer.

    The cancer of racism is a mutating one; as one mutation becomes muted, a new form springs up. Thus, racism can no longer be limited to being defined by skin colour. Its moved on.

    In my (developing, open to modification) view, the racist component of Islamophobia is discrimination against those that are loosely grouped as the “other”.

    Thus, the campaign of genocide against Bosnian Muslims (ethnic Europeans) by Serbs was racist. The European pogroms and Holocaust against Jews was racist. The ongoing programme of genocide against Palestinians is racist. If opposition to Zionism is based on anti-Semitism, then that opposition is racist.

    Western aggression against non-white countries can be clearly identified as racist. Non-Western (especially non-white) lives are less important. Thus, a man who descends from slaves can cheerily order the slaughter of dozens of civilians who are just trying to build a life, without any kind of due process, by the single push of a button on a computer console in the US.

    reid

    You are dwelling in biblical myths. I suppose you really do believe a fellow called Jesus turned water into wine. A simple read for you is “How and Why the Jewish Race was Invented” by Shlomo Sand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. ephemera (563 comments) says:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2010/08/24/bloomberg-on-mosque-a-test-of-our-commitment-to-american-values/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    The objections to the Muslim Community Centre in New York is an exercise in assigning collective guilt, of that there is no doubt.

    The thinking is that as Muslims perpetrated 9/11, Muslims collectively must atone in some way (never mind that well over a million Muslims have already died as a direct result of the revenge of the US of the 3000 dead). Part of that atonement is not building a community centre two blocks (and New York blocks are pretty big blocks!) way from the site of the attack.

    The best response would be for all to welcome this community centre, and use its proximity to Ground Zero as proof positive that the attackers failed in their ultimate goal, which was undoubtedly to ignite an all out war between the West and Islam, confident in the knowledge that Islam would prevail.

    So far, they would seem to have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. tom hunter (4,372 comments) says:

    Mike (and also Hurf and Repton)

    Awww. Poor old Slate and The New Republic (not to mention The Atlantic). Looks like their hero Barry, whom they worked so hard to get elected, is not going to save the ass of their favourite state. As I said some days ago, I’m convinced the US will not attack Iran, and I have my doubts that Israel will either. The “softening up” is not going to work post-Iraq. The pendulum has now swung in the opposite direction and we’re back to the same environment we had about Iraq circa 1989.

    You might also be interested in this piece (parts one, two, and three)

    He covers similar territory to that of Hitchens, but from a different angle:

    The Bushehr reactor itself is not, technically, the key to Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

    But Russia enabling Iran’s nuclear program at all is directly opposed to the substance of the UN’s demands to Iran, the sanctions on Iran, and US and EU policy. There is no question that Russia has chosen to take this step in the belief that the US and Europe will do nothing about it. What matters here is what mattered in 1936: the absolute clarity of the political decision point, and the expectations about who will do what.

    an Iran mobilized and empowered, and unchecked by the United States, will force on the whole Eastern hemisphere confrontations and decision points that are only latent today.

    With the reactor being fueled at Bushehr, and assuming – with Moscow and Tehran – that Obama does nothing about it, we are moving beyond the static assumptions on which Jeff Goldberg’s piece was based. The symbolism of Obama not stopping this event is far more important, politically, than the reactor itself.

    Everything is about to change.

    ephemera
    I’ll leave you to indulge yourself in navel gazing, argumentative, sophistry designed to establish (as ever) your superior hold on moral and ethical questions, rather than debating the real issue here. However I’ve put this next quote in because the possibility will set your leftie heart a flutter.

    …..a nuclear-armed Iran can and will squeeze the US out of the Middle East. She is right. An Iran empowered with a nuclear arsenal will upend the status quo irreversibly. Nuclear power deters us a lot better than it deters autocratic predators, and everyone knows that.

    I thought the last line was also appropriate:

    If you’re a praying citizen, now would be a really good time.

    Unfortunately I’m an agnostic so will just have to watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. tom hunter (4,372 comments) says:

    Oh and ephemera, aside from your voice you might also want to listen to these two pieces:

    Yes, Mr. President, this is America and you have fundamentally misunderstood the stakes in this discussion and the sentiments of the American people. Instead, you have focused on the very issue that the Islamist propagandists wish you to – the narrative that Americans somehow need lectures about Islam, Muslims, and religious freedom.

    Your message to Americans will be spun on Al Jazeera and by Islamists across the world that President Obama reassured a friendly global Muslim audience at the White House Ramadan dinner that he was going to remind Americans about the principles of religious freedom for Muslims since they seem to be trampling over those principles in the local dispute at Ground Zero in New York.

    Mr. President this is not about religious freedom. It is about the importance of the World Trade Center site to the psyche of the American People. It is about a blatant attack on our sovereignty by people whose ideology ultimately demands the elimination of our way of life. While Imam Faisal Rauf may not share their violent tendencies he does seem to share a belief that Islamic structures are a political statement and even Ground Zero should be looked upon through the lens of political Islam and not a solely American one.

    Sheesh. Who’s the right-wing fanatical wingnut making that argument?

    Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim and the president and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy issued the following statement.

    Oh.

    You can also listen to an interview with him here. Perhaps you need to think more carefully about whether the moderate Muslim that you’re siding with is actually “moderate”.

    Are you really as open minded as your self-satisfied ego thinks you are. This guy and his friends need the help of the Western Left in their desperate effort to reform Islam. but they’ll probably just get called traitors instead (cue Luc). They’re already being called apostates by their own side, which usually does not end well for said apostate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ephemera (563 comments) says:

    @tom hunter, you might have me confused with some other commenter. I’m not on here often enough to have an ‘as ever’ remark aimed at me.

    Also, arguing robustly for the cause of liberty over ‘sensitivity’ is not necessarily a left wing position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. tom hunter (4,372 comments) says:

    You’ve been here enough that I’m familiar with the stock pose.

    Also, arguing robustly for the cause of liberty over ‘sensitivity’ is not necessarily a left wing position.

    Yeah. I’ll remember that the next time I argue that the liberty of woman or gays or free speech trumps the “sensitivity” of various Islamic religious groups. You’ll be by my side of course..?

    ephemera…..?

    …ephemera….?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. ephemera (563 comments) says:

    @tom hunter

    Freedom is a messy business – everyone has rights, whether we agree with their beliefs or not.

    To paraphrase Jefferson, if no-ones pocket is being picked or legs broken, I don’t mind people believing what they like. Sensitivity be damned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. tom hunter (4,372 comments) says:

    Jefferson? Excellent. Could not agree more. You’d better watch it though – I hear that’s Glenn Beck’s response too, and I don’t think you’d want to be associated with him. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Tom

    Islam is not some monolithic construct where all opinions are filtered to deliver one overriding policy statement as, eg, the catholic church.

    Islam is a quite disparate religion, with many differing (often violently so) and competing interpretations and conclusions, and your Mr Jasser is fully entitled to his. However, he would appear to be in the minority of Muslims.

    This story has been grotesquely distorted, from the building of a community centre with an inter-faith chapel some distance from the actual Ground Zero site to a full fledged Mosque, complete with minaret and terrorist training camp AT Ground Zero. It’s being used to feed discrimination against Muslims rife since 9/11.

    I see many dress up their objection in the veil of “sensitivity” but that’s just sophistry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Repton (769 comments) says:

    Repton
    Read this this morning and thought of your question yesterday.
    http://www.slate.com/id/2264064/

    “Six more reasons why we can’t let Iran get nukes.”

    I didn’t read the whole thing, but I did get to the six reasons.

    (1) and (6) seem to boil down to: “because they promised they wouldn’t, and a broken promise is bad”. Which is an interesting point, and one I’d not thought of. But surely if they are trying to develop nuclear weapons, then they have already broken their promise?

    (5): “There will never be a settlement of the Israel-Palestine dispute” To be honest, this is a pretty safe long-term bet anyway :-(

    (3) and (4): “A nuclear Iran could do what it likes in the region.” This seems to boil down to two questions:

    (a) Would NATO intervene if a non-nuclear Iran invaded one of its neighbours, or (perhaps covertly) supported an insurrection?

    (b) Would NATO intervene if a nuclear Iran invaded one of its neighbours, or (perhaps covertly) supported an insurrection?

    If the answers are “yes” and “no”, then preventing Iran from getting nukes is a good thing. But I wonder if this is indeed the case. For a start, Iran is accused of supporting Hezbollah, with no consequences, so the answer to (a) might be “no” anyway. And as to (b), surely even a nuclear Iran can’t stand against NATO if it’s really serious. Unless they get support from Russia or China — and if Iran has support from Russia or China, then they’re already pretty much untouchable.

    Finally, reason (2) is that it would strengthen the political power of the current dictators. This may be so, but surely invading Iran will strengthen the current dictators even more? There’s nothing like a foreign invader to make people into patriots.

    Has regime change by force ever worked, anywhere in the world? (where “worked” means “the new political system is working properly and is supported by most of the local population”)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. tom hunter (4,372 comments) says:

    Islam is not some monolithic construct where all opinions are filtered to deliver one overriding policy statement…

    Luc Hansen on Master Mind: his topic – The Bleeding Obvious.

    However, he would appear to be in the minority of Muslims.

    Ya think?

    With the fecklessness of Western left-wingers like you he’s going to be even more in the minority in future. Why not just go the full Chomsky and call him a self-promoting apologist. You know you want to.

    It’s being used to feed discrimination against Muslims rife since 9/11

    Yeah. I’ve noticed the number of mosques being burnt to the ground in the USA, the mulims beaten and killed. Terrible. I guess the discrimination was always there (do I have to use the /sarc tag?).

    Still it’s nice to see you concede (even by accident) that something might have happened on 9/11 to spark people’s doubts about Islam. As of September 10, 2001 few in the West paid it much attention.

    The cancer of racism is a mutating one; as one mutation becomes muted, a new form springs up. Thus, racism can no longer be limited to being defined by skin colour. Its moved on.

    In my (developing, open to modification) view, the racist component of Islamophobia is discrimination against those that are loosely grouped as the “other”.

    Given the degree to which you have swallowed the intellectually bankrupt post-modernist way of looking at the world I don’t think there’s much point in listening to you talking about the veil of “sensitivity” or anything else. Who knows what definition you’ll be using tomorrow? Probably whatever will suit your ideological objectives. You don’t need to indulge in some pathetic, watered-down version of Deconstructing Literature 101 on the meaning of words when you could simply quote this:

    When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
    ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
    ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Simon J Taylor (31 comments) says:

    “Until one side “wins” diplomacy will not work.”

    … and when they “win” there is then no need for diplomacy. No! It has to be attempted now.

    “try and increase the proportion of Palestinians who accept Israel has a right to exist ”

    When will that be? This sounds to me like nothing more than stalling tactics; putting off a negotiated solution for the longest time possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    yep you’ve got it Simon.
    When the Arabs love their kids as much as the Jews do then they’ll build a society instead of war.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. tom hunter (4,372 comments) says:

    Repton

    Interesting answers until we get to the last one:

    Has regime change by force ever worked, anywhere in the world? (where “worked” means “the new political system is working properly and is supported by most of the local population”)

    Seriously? You’re asking a trick question here just to provoke and get a laugh. Surely? The alternative is core-of-Jupiter-dense ignorance, which is not what I got from the rest of your response.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. reid (15,917 comments) says:

    “When the Arabs love their kids as much as the Jews do then they’ll build a society instead of war.”

    Yes I think they probably do love them just as much, Mike. It’s just the Israelis keep killing them, that’s the annoying part. Perhaps they should just get over it, like all of us would, were it our children that were being killed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Great post Tom Hunter re Humpty Dumpty…it is amazing how some people feel they can just change the meaning of a word.
    No worries about precision there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Tom

    Wipe that spittle from your chin. If it’s grey, it could be what’s left of your brain!

    Joana, meanings don’t get changed by one person, they evolve.

    For example, just look at the origins of “anti-Semitism.”

    Asiatic Semites were the original population of the Fertile Crescent and beyond. “Semite” is a language group, not a race. Linguistically, there is no hint of Semitism in Yiddish. So one can’t be anti-Semitic as regards the indigenous European Jews, the Ashkenazis. They are not Semitic. But they cry anti-Semitism ad nauseum.

    That’s an example of evolution of language.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Wrong as usual, Luc Hands-on. The term antisemitism was coined by a German antisemite by the name of Wilhelm Marr. It was changed by precisely one person, it did not evolve. The technical meaning of “semite” was not relevant to him, he was only interested in hating Jews, and defined the term to his liking. And to this day there are people like you who fit the term, so the word retains its usefulness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. tom hunter (4,372 comments) says:

    Wipe that spittle from your chin. If it’s grey, it could be what’s left of your brain!

    Clap……clap……clap.

    In similarly powerful argument today Luc used the letter “a” five times in raaaaacist.

    Good to see that the far left is in such clever hands. Clearly a bright future awaits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    As I understand it, racism is not really a word..it was invented by a socialist in th 1930s…Now it is accepted to mean discrimination on the basis of race..The meaning of the word race hasn’t changed…I think this stretching of the meaning of the word racism is only done by socialista/ commies etc..It helps to underpin the marriage of convenience between left leaners and the muslims..I think you will find Luc that outside your own circle of the same political persuasion ,very few consider the word racism to have altered in meaning. If you are hanging around with the same crowd who all think the same , I suggest you get out and met a lot of other people….Broaden your world view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    Yes Reid if someone had lobbed 10,000 missles into your backyard after you had left the territory for them to develop.
    Simons comment still stands.

    Joana
    I can’t get over the lefts assertion that you can’t be a racist if you’re brown/black or a shade darker than white.
    Liberal white guilt my dad used to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. MikeNZ (3,234 comments) says:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/saved_from_islamophobia.html
    Moderate Muslims
    . Believe that it is important not to exclude any groups from their religion . . . therefore, Hezb’allah, Hamas, and the Islamic Resistance Movement are all considered legitimate “religious movements” within Islam
    . Believe, as supported studies show, that terrorists like al-Qaeda target only “political objectives” . . . codeword for “Western-influenced infidels” or anyone else on the planet who does not agree with or abide by Islamic ideology
    . Believe in separation of church and state . . . or conquering the state, since the only law that Muslims need exists already in the Koran and the Hadith. Separation shall promptly cease, though, when one goes on a good-will tour funded by the U.S. State Department or when rebuilding mosques overseas with US tax dollars. At that point, the church and state become joined at the hip

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/is_islam_compatible_with_const.html

    Why then haven’t liberals had the courage to propose a legal ban on the practice of Islam, since in its current form it clearly violates their sacred constitutional principle requiring the separation of church and state?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Magnanomis (138 comments) says:

    Thilo Sarrazin, a board member of the German Central Bank, has written a book on Germany’s supposed decline. In particular, he argues that Muslim immigrants are a drag on the German economy because of transfer payments and that Muslims are out-breeding the indigenous population (Germans) – “I don’t want the country of my grandchildren and great grandchildren to be largely Muslim, or that Turkish or Arabic will be spoken in large areas, that women will wear headscarves and the daily rhythm is set by the call of the muezzin. If I want to experience that, I can just take a vacation in the Orient.” He has previously said that Muslim immigration is making Germany dumber.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,713796,00.html

    Sarrazin has also called public servants “pale and foul smelling”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.