Thursday, December 10, 2009

Daniel Pipes Neocon Islamophobe And The Stealth Jihad " Islamophobe 3.0 "

Professor John Esposito Characterizes Daniel Pipes views on Moderate Muslims as:

“In light of Pipes equation of mainstream and extremist[s] Islam under the rubric of militant Islam and his definition of moderate Islam as secular or cultural, uninformed or uncritical readers of this book will erroneously conclude that Islam, not simply militant (violent extremist) Islam, is a serious threat domestically and internationally.”
In comparing Islamic Sharia with Judaism's Halakha ...
...Daniel Pipes Brings Weak Sauce

Daniel Pipes brought up five points of criticism, yet each of these five points applies to the Halakha equally if not more so. How is it then that Pipes is so adamantly opposed to Sharia based on its supposedly “inescapably misogynistic” nature, but at the same time supports Halakhic courts? This double-standard exposes his profound bias and bigotry. It is this attitude–of selective “scholarship” and horrific double-standards–which actually typifies the approach of the Islamophobes in general, including Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, Bat Ye’or, and the rest of the goof troop.
Above quote from: Daniel Pipes Brings Weak Sauce: Sharia, Halakha, and Double Standards; Part 1 by Danios at Oct.5,2009

Daniel Pipes Neocon Islamophobe Says All Muslims Are Extremist
Speading fear and suspicion of any and all Muslims living in the United States, Canada or any other Non-Islamic country.For all his scholarship it all comes down to just another "Conspiracy Theory" based upon bigotry and racism. His hatred of all Muslims is quite palpable. His fear mongering about Muslims in America is contrary to our Western Values which he claims to be so concerned about. He and his "Fellow Travelers" are anti-multiculturalism, anti-pluralism, anti-diversity and is not interested in having a dialogue with the Muslim community or coming to some reasonable or rational compromise.

As we see below Daniel Pipes is against the establishment of Sharia law in any form yet he sees nothing wrong with other religions having their particular traditional form of law introduced into Western Nations. He for instance defends Jewish Law of Halakha and erroneously claims it is more rational and supportive of equal rights and especially the equality of women. Neither system the Sharia or Halakha are very supportive of women's rights or the rights of children etc. In fact Daniel Pipes appears to support the followers of the Israeli terrorist Kahane & the Kach Party and the new Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman who has been characterized as being a Fascist in favor of cleansing Israel of all Arabs and Muslims ( Ethnic Cleansing).

Daniel Pipes Neocon Islamophobe Says All Muslims Are Extremist-
Ingeniously he and other members of the Islamophobic Propagandists has joined the leftist/Secualr Humanists/Marxist liberal Conspiracy with that of the Islamic Jihadists to destroy and undermine the values traditions and economic system of Western Civilization. Pipes argues that institutions especially the universities in the West are sympathetic to the causes of the Islamic Jihadists. As the Religious Right, the Uberconservative Movement and Neocons have been for the last twenty years or more complaining that the Universities had been taken over by liberals and Marxist now the Liberals and Marxists have revealed their true intentions by joining forces with the Islamic Jihadists to advance their "Stealth Jihad" so theseIslamophobes argue . Of course with the election of President Obama they believe he is also involved in this nefarious Conspiracy to undermine Christianity, Judaism and Capitalism.

Daniel Pipes is also in favor of extending the Global War on Terror to Pakistan, Iran and all other Muslim states and like a good old Neocon like his "Fellow Travelers" is in favor of Israel and the United States using Nuclear weapons on these countries.

Daniel Pipes - The Modern Left and Islamic Fascism 1-2 -Nov. 5,2009

Anyway let's take a look at the scholar Daniel Pipes who is another member of the Islamophic gang . Daniel Pipes is not just concerned over Islamic terrorists and Jihadist but rather is worried about all Muslims living in the West. He argues that given the main tenets of Islam it is the duty of all Muslims in non-Islamic states to work towards making the states in which they reside into Islamic dominated states where Sharia law is accepted and eventually made the law of the land.

"Daniel Pipes, Islam 2.0 and Islamophobia 3.0" by Sheila Musaji at The American Muslim Nov. 27, 2009

Daniel Pipes’ views on who is or is not a “moderate Muslim” (basically no Muslim is really moderate in Pipesland) are not new. Back in 2003 he wrote an article “The Moderation of American Muslims” in which he found fault with a survey of Detroit area Muslims by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding called “A Portrait of Detroit Mosques: Muslim Views on Policy, Politics and Religion” which had found that “The vast majority of Muslim Americans hold moderate’ views on issues of policy, politics and religion.” What I found most interesting in this article was Pipes statement that: “But do the survey results actually say this? Emphatically not; Bagby’s results indicate anything but moderation, as some specific numbers suggest:

- By a ratio of 67 to 33, Muslims in the United States think “America is immoral.”
- About (the graph does not allow complete precision) 90 percent of Muslims favor universal health care.
- Fully 79 percent favor affirmative action for minorities.
- Asked about the job being done as president by George W. Bush, 85 percent of Muslims disapprove and a mere 4 percent approve.”

And, as I pointed out at that time:

“So, it would seem that in order to slip from the status of moderate to that of extremist or even Islamist Muslim one only has to:

- have moral qualms about some of the policies of the U.S. government, or concerns about some of the trends in society that may be considered a slide into acceptance of immoral behavior.

- want to see universal health care (perhaps like that other “extremist” group, the Canadians or like Dennis Kucinich

- want affirmative action for minorities (as do many other Americans), in fact another recent PEW study found that a majority of Americans support the general idea of affirmative action).

- or disapprove of the job President Bush is doing (in the most recent PEW Research study Bush’s approval ratings are slipping with the American public in general and disapproval rate is at about 53%).

This most recent update to Pipes moderation test makes me feel like a Muslim Alice in a neo-Con wonderland. In order to understand Pipes’ convoluted logic I have to refer to the article “Presidential Library Terrorist Connection” by Robert Jensen. In reading these and many other articles and statements made by Daniel Pipes and others over the past year it seems obvious that the definition of moderation is shrinking steadily over time — and now would seem to include only those who are ready to join the new “madhab of Daniel Pipes”.

As Professor John Esposito has pointed out:

“In light of Pipes equation of mainstream and extremist[s] Islam under the rubric of militant Islam and his definition of moderate Islam as secular or cultural, uninformed or uncritical readers of this book will erroneously conclude that Islam, not simply militant (violent extremist) Islam, is a serious threat domestically and internationally.”

In between these two paragraphs he goes on about all sorts of individuals all over the world, and says nothing about either Tariq Ramadan or Keith Ellison. He merely raises their names as dangerous individuals and says nothing about why he feels they are dangerous. He manages to smear these people by simply including their names in this article, and he attempts to rile up those who follow such blogs by suggesting that somehow, simply by virtue of being Muslims they “threaten civilized life” even more than bin Laden or al Qaeda. His suggestion is clear, ordinary “moderate” Muslims are really just softening up people and using their influence through Islamism 2.0 for the eventual takeover of the country as “Once in power, they can move the country toward Shari’a.” What exactly is he hoping his readers will do about this? It seems obvious that he wants ordinary Americans to view their fellow citizens who are Muslims as an enemy within and to fear them for no reason except that they are Muslims.

This is Islamophobia 3.0 and it is reprehensible. Ali Eteraz has the only answer we need to give to this sort of hateful, and ridiculous propaganda - Muslims should raise the other finger. It is the only reasonable response.


Daniel Pipes Brings Weak Sauce: Sharia, Halakha, and Double Standards; Part 1 by Danios at Oct.5,2009

In 2003, Islamophobes issued a code red, claiming that the Canadian government would soon “enforce Sharia” in Ontario. Immediately, some people began assuming that somehow democratic law was about to be overthrown and a draconian Taliban-style corporal system enacted. Islamophobes played up these fears, and applied pressure on the government of Ontario to outlaw Sharia.

The issue of course is that most people do not exactly understand what Sharia is, and conflate it with the term Hadud (Islamic corporal punishments). What the Ontario government was planning on doing was to allow Muslim arbitration courts, which would have absolutely nothing to do with Hadud. (For the record, moderate Muslims do not believe in the Taliban understanding of Hadud, contrary to what the Islamophobes insist. They have their own moderate and reformist understanding of Hadud consistent with the contemporary age. But, alas, this is not the topic of our discussion today, as Ontario never planned on enacting the Hadud anyways!)

Let us be clear then: Ontario was never going to allow any understanding of Hadud–”enlightened” or otherwise; rather, when people said that Sharia was going to be allowed in Ontario, the meaning of this was simply that Muslims could–if they so choose–settle their family, religious, and other civil disputes according to their religious beliefs. (And this only if both parties agreed to do so!) But the Islamophobes used the buzz word “Sharia”–which people mistakenly conflate with Hadud (a misconception popularized unfortunately by the Taliban)–to create controversy and fear.

In the second part of this article at Loonwatch (by Danois) the writer argues that Daniel Pipes and others are wrong in claiming Jewish Law Halakha is not as anti-feminist and anti-womens rights or as misogyynistic as Sharia.

Daniel Pipes Brings Weak Sauce: Sharia, Halakha, and Double Standards; Part 2 by Danios at loonwatch Oct. 14, 2009

...David Green, a right-winger belonging to Civitas, declared on BBC Radio that Islamic law is totally unlike Jewish law in that it oppresses women. Daniel Pipes uses similar reasoning, arguing that Sharia should be banned because it is–unlike Jewish Halakha–”inescapably misogynistic”:

…Ignorant, isolated [Muslim] females would submit to the inescapably misogynistic Sharia, a law code that [1] permits parents to marry off pre-pubescent girls,[2] men to marry multiple women, [3] husbands alone to divorce, [4] fathers automatically to win custody of children over certain ages, and [5] sons to inherit more than daughters.

Some more defense: Just as rabbis have prohibited under-aged marriage even though technically the Halakha allows it, similarly many Muslim leaders have fought to raise the minimum age of marriage to eighteen years old, and they do not think this is a violation of Sharia to do so; rather, they argue that in this time and age it is in fact in accordance with the objectives (maqasid) of the Sharia to do so. They also argue that conforming to international agreements is binding from a religious angle.

Red herring: Jewish law (Halakha) allows marriage of pre-pubertal girls, yet Daniel Pipes still supports allowing Halakha in the West. Of course, the entire matter is a red herring, since the religious arbitration courts of Canada were only permitted to act within Canadian law. This is a concept that many average readers did not quite grasp! In other words, if the religious law clashed with Canadian law, then the Canadian law would rule supreme; marriage of under-aged girls would never be tolerated in Canada, Sharia courts or no Sharia courts! So it is odd that Daniel Pipes would even mention this, but I guess it is a similar tactic that neoconservatives rely on to fear monger, such as the imaginary “death panels” that Sarah Palin invented.

[2] Polygamy

Defense: Opinions towards polygamy differ widely amongst Muslims of various persuasions. Reform-minded Muslims are inclined to consider polygamy as the exception, not the rule. According to the Sharia, a woman can forbid the husband from marrying a second wife by making such a clause in the prenuptial agreement (nikah contract). In any case, Muslims do not believe it is permissible to break the law of the land in this matter.

Does Jewish law forbid polygamy?
by: Rabbi Naftali Silberberg

The Torah does not forbid a man from having multiple wives. Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon are notable examples of biblical figures who wedded more than one wife.

...Practically speaking, polygamy is almost non-existent today even amongst Sephardic Jews, due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of them live in societies where polygamy is not legally and/or socially acceptable…

So technically the Halakha does not forbid polygamy, and to this day Sephardic Jews hold it to be permissible. And even the ban accepted by Ashkenazi Jews has a “loophole” in it, as Rabbi Silberberg adds in the footnote: “There is a loophole in this ban, allowing a man to marry a second wife under certain extenuating circumstances.”

Red herring: Once again, even if Sharia arbitration courts were allowed, polygamy would still be outlawed in Canada, so this is another red herring brought forth by Pipes.

[3] Husbands alone have the right to divorce

Defense: Islam allows khula (female initiated divorce). If a Muslim wife does not like her husband–and thinks it unbearable to live with him–then she is granted a divorce, even against the husband’s wishes. (For a detailed discussion, read this here, starting on page 69.)

Offense: says:

Inequality of the Sexes

The position of husband and wife with regard to divorce is not an equal one. According to the Talmud, only the husband can initiate a divorce, and the wife cannot prevent him from divorcing her. Later rabbinical authorities took steps to ease the harshness of these rules by…compel[ing] a husband to divorce his wife under certain circumstances: when he is physically repulsive because of some medical condition or other characteristic, when he violates or neglects his marital obligations (food, clothing and sexual intercourse), or, according to some views, when there is sexual incompatibility.

A peculiar problem arises, however, if a man disappears or deserts his wife or is presumed dead but there is insufficient proof of death. Under Jewish law, divorce can only be initiated by the man; thus, if the husband cannot be found, he cannot be compelled to divorce the wife and she cannot marry another man. A woman in this situation is referred to as agunah (literally, anchored).

In other words, in most situations, a Jewish woman–according to the Halakha–cannot obtain a divorce (get) from her husband unless he agrees to it, making it difficult to get out of emotionally abusive relationships. As Susan Weiss, an Israeli defense lawyer, says: “Rabbinical courts almost never compel a husband to give a get [i.e. divorce].”

...Daniel Pipes Brings Weak Sauce

Daniel Pipes brought up five points of criticism, yet each of these five points applies to the Halakha equally if not more so. How is it then that Pipes is so adamantly opposed to Sharia based on its supposedly “inescapably misogynistic” nature, but at the same time supports Halakhic courts? This double-standard exposes his profound bias and bigotry. It is this attitude–of selective “scholarship” and horrific double-standards–which actually typifies the approach of the Islamophobes in general, including Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Pam Geller, Bat Ye’or, and the rest of the goof troop. For example, in an interview with Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks, Pam Geller goes off on a tirade about how oppressive and warlike Muslims have been throughout history, yet when Cenk counters this by saying that Christian history has also been oppressive and warlike, Pam completely denies this fact. It is this sort of selective analysis which buttresses the Islamophobic ideology.

Daniel Pipes argues that the Jewish courts should be allowed to operate because–according to him–the system worked, and so why are these Mooslims now messing things up? Pipes wrote:

The system quietly worked. “If there have been any problems flowing from any rabbinical court decisions, I’m not aware of them.”

Yet, that’s not true at all; and again, it’s a case of selective analysis. A rabbinical court in London divorced a woman from her husband against her will on the grounds that she “dressed provocatively, worse than a common harlot.” In another decision, a London-based rabbinical court banned a child from a school on the basis that he was a non-Jew, rejecting his conversion to Judaism as unauthentic. A third example is of a man named Nick Lowenstein who kept his wife “chained” (agunah) for over fifteen years, refusing to give her a divorce that she desperately desired; the London-based rabbinical court refused to force the husband to give a get (Jewish divorce).

...Nowhere am I arguing that Sharia courts would not have similar mishaps. What I am questioning is Daniel Pipes’ claim–echoed by so many Islamophobes–that it is Sharia courts in specific that would be problematic, whereas Halakha courts–as he puts it–”quietly worked.” (They definitely worked quietly, just not sure if they quietly worked.)

It is this selective analysis–in which missteps by the Muslim community are put under the microscope whereas those of other communities are ignored–that bothers me. Can you imagine what great pandemonium would have ensued had such a child molestation scandal been going on within the Sharia court system? The Islamophobes would have had a field day; we couldn’t get them to stop talking about it. But suddenly they are as quiet as mice when it comes to these problems under the already existing Halakha court system.

Broader Conclusions

In the end, the anti-Sharia circus succeeded and the government of Ontario banned Sharia courts. However, in order to be fair, the Ontario government banned all religious arbitration courts, including the Halakhic-based ones. The government then announced that every citizen would follow the same law.

I have mixed feelings about the government’s decision. My view is that either you allow religious courts for every faith, or you disallow it for all. The government took the latter course, so what’s my problem? Well, the problem for me is that the other religions operated their own courts for many long years, and nobody said anything. It was only until some Muslims asked for the same privilege that suddenly the ban was put into effect.

Naturally, it seems that the ban was put into place due to the climate of Islamophobia. It is similar to the ban on hijab in France, legislation which was passed specifically to target Muslims, but which was then applied to Jews and Christians to some extent in order to give the illusion of fair play. Had religious courts been banned from the beginning, I would have had no problem. But the fact is that they were only banned when some Muslims asked for the same rights as people of other faiths.

I myself have reservations about religious courts operating in the West, be they of any religion. Having said that, I actually agree with Daniel Pipes when he says that the 1991 Arbitration Act (which allowed these religious courts) was “an enlightened, multicultural piece of legislation.” My only issue is that it really depends on who is running these religious courts: is it reform-minded Jews and Muslims who want to update their religious laws to deal with the modern reality, or are they ultraconservative traditionalists who live frozen in the past?

But my real issue with this whole fiasco was not at all whether or not religious courts should be allowed or not. I can see good arguments on both sides of this issue. My real problem is with the rhetoric and discourse that abounded at the time, the level of unchecked Islamophobia. There was a wholesale attack on Islam, singling it out as this heathen faith that must be fought tooth and nail. The reality, however, is that Islam is just like any other religion when it comes to these matters.


This article may have come across as harsh upon Jews, Judaism, and Halakha which of course was not my intention. I almost regret Daniel Pipes choosing Jews and Halakha as a counter-example to Muslims, Islam, and Sharia. I am not at all pitting Muslims against Jews. I don’t view the world in that way. I view the world as split between extremists and moderates. I see the extremists of all the different religions (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) as essentially being part of the same team, even though they hate each other. They are part of the same team because they have the same myopic mentality and binary view of the world.

Meanwhile, there is the rest–the great majority–who are the moderates of all the various faiths (or no faith at all), who just want to live and let live. Daniel Pipes created the comparison between Sharia and Halakha and I thought it necessary to shatter his argument that Muslims wish to enforce their views on others but not Jews. The reality is that there are zealots and nutters in all religions.

There are clearly Jewish reformers, who are working to make Halakha compatible with the modern day reality. Rabbis have come up with innovative ways of staying true to their religion but at the same time of removing injustice. For example, moderate rabbis have argued that couples should sign prenuptial agreements that would make it difficult for a husband to retain his wife against her will. In this article I only highlighted the problems that have arisen due to Halakha, but have not elaborated on the solutions that many practicing Jews have offered. Therefore, please do not use my article as something to bash Jews, Judaism, or Halakha with.

My purpose here was simply to illustrate that the problems (which were red herrings in the first place) that people have with Islam can be found in other religions, such as Judaism. Therefore, the singling out of Islam is uncalled for and inappropriate. The climate of Islamophobia has created a huge double-standard, where Islam is called to task for what other religions are not. More specifically, this article is directed to Daniel Pipes, exposing his hypocritical attitude: his worldview is not based on logic or facts, but a palpable hatred for Islam and Muslims which has blinded him.

Many of the critics of Sharia courts in the West are Islamophobes who expend 99% of their energy attacking Islam and Muslims, using “I also oppose other religions” only as a cheap disclaimer when questioned about their deep-seated hatred of Islam. Where was all their outrage for the last fifteen years when Halakhic courts were operating in the West? Were they questioning the right of Jews to live in Europe and North America as some are questioning the right of Muslims to live here? Were these critics pontificating about the improbability or impossibility of Jews integrating into society? Truly, the new adage is: one standard for Muslims and another one for the rest of humanity.

Daniel Pipes argues that the Islamic Extremists who are dedicated to the use of violence against their enemy are less dangerous than the non-violent law abiding Muslims who are involved in a Peaceful Stealth Jihad to make America and European nations into Islamic dominated nations which are under Sharia law.

"Islamism 2.0" by Daniel Pipes Jerusalem Post Nov. 25, 2009
To borrow a computer term, if Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Nidal Hasan represent Islamism 1.0, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (the prime minister of Turkey), Tariq Ramadan (a Swiss intellectual), and Keith Ellison (a U.S. congressman) represent Islamism 2.0. The former kill more people but the latter pose a greater threat to Western civilization.

...However, a review of the past three decades, since Islamism became a significant political force, finds that violence alone rarely works...Terrorism does physical damage and kills and intimidates but it rarely overturns the existing order

If the violence of Islamism 1.0 rarely succeeds in forwarding the Shari'a, the Islamism 2.0 strategy of working through the system does better...Once in power, they can move the country toward Shari'a.

Islamic leaders who once were pro-terrorism have renounced violence and this evolution from theorist of terrorism to advocate of lawful transformation echoes a much broader shift; accordingly, as author Lawrence Wright notes, his defection poses a "terrible threat" to Al-Qaeda. Other once-violent Islamist organizations in Algeria, Egypt, and Syria have recognized the potential of lawful Islamism and largely renounced violence. One also sees a parallel shift in Western countries; Ramadan and Ellison represent a burgeoning trend.

Lawful Islamism on the Ascent in Majority-Muslim Countries at Daniel Pipes Blog August 28, 2006 updated Aug 12, 2009

Daniel Pipes reconsiders whether or not Islamic Terrorism helps or not the progress of what he refers to as Islamization of the West.

"Piggybacking on Terror in Britain"by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun August 29, 2006

I have argued that terrorism generally obstructs the progress of radical Islam in the West by stimulating hostility to Muslims and bringing Islamic organizations under unwanted scrutiny. I must admit, however, that the evidence from Britain – where the July 7 terrorism inspired more self-recrimination than it did fury against jihad – suggests that violence can also strengthen lawful Islamism.

And here's another reconsideration: While I maintain that the future of Europe – whether continuing in its historic Christian identity or becoming an adjunct of Muslim North Africa – is still an open question, the behavior of the British public, that weakest link in the Western chain, suggests that it, at least, may be too confused to resist its Londonistan destiny.

Daniel Pipes argues that even non-violent Muslims are extremists who want to remake Western Civilization into an Islamic dominated region in which Sharia law is the law of the land. So the goal of most Muslims in the west is to undermine democracy and pluralism and to get rid of notions such as human rights. But isnt't this also what Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian want that is to create a theocracy where God's Law as found in the Bible is the Law of the land. But of course a Christian theocracy would be justified since it is in deed the one true religion or as we Daniel Pipes is in favor of such a theocracy in Israel under traditional Jewish Law Halakah .(see Daniel Pipes Elated over election in Israel of racist/fascist Avigdor Lieberman)

"How Terrorism Obstructs Radical Islam" by Daniel Pipes New York Sun August 23, 2005
...radical Islam has two distinct wings - one violent and illegal, the other lawful and political - and they exist in tension with each other. The lawful strategy has proven itself effective, but the violent approach gets in its way.

The violent wing is foremost represented by the world's no. 1 fugitive, Osama bin Laden. The popular and powerful prime minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, represents the lawful wing. Even as "Al Qaeda has more state adversaries than nearly any force in history," as Daniel C. Twining observes, political imams like Yusuf al-Qaradawi instruct huge audiences on Al-Jazeera television and visit with the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. As Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr skulks around Iraq, looking for a role, Ayatollah Sistani dominates the country's political life.

...for two main reasons, terrorism does radical Islam more harm than good.

First, it alarms and galvanizes Westerners

Second, terrorism obstructs the quiet work of political Islamism. In tranquil times, organizations like the Muslim Council of Britain and the Council on American-Islamic Relations effectively go about their business, promoting their agenda to make Islam "dominant" and imposing dhimmitude (whereby non-Muslims accept Islamic superiority and Muslim privilege). Westerners generally respond like slowly boiled frogs are supposed to, not noticing a thing.-

...Terrorism impedes these advances, stimulating hostility to Islam and Muslims. It brings Islamic organizations under unwanted scrutiny by the media, the government, and law enforcement. CAIR and MCB then have to fight rearguard battles. The July 7 bombings dramatically (if temporarily) disrupted the progress of "Londonistan," Britain's decline into multicultural lassitude and counterterrorist ineptitude.

Some Islamists recognize this problem. One British writer admonished fellow Muslims on a Web site: "Don't you know that Islam is growing in Europe??? What the heck are you doing mingling things up???" Likewise, a Muslim watch repairer in London observed, "We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" Soumayya Ghannoushi of the University of London bitterly points out that Al-Qaeda's major achievements consist of shedding innocent blood and "fanning the flames of hostility to Islam and Muslims."

Things are not as they seem. Terrorism hurts radical Islam and helps its opponents. The violence and victims' agony make this hard to see, but without education by murder, the lawful Islamist movement would make greater gains.

Ungratful Iraqis not pleased that their country was reduced to rubble and a million citizens killed while Saddam's torture chambers were replaced by American and Britisnh torture chambers.

American Chutzpah and arrogance and its FU attitude supported by Daniel Pipes and his "fellow Travelers" ie Neocons and Islamophobes and other anti-democratic racist and fascists.

First America destroys Iraqi infrastructure and then bitches about repairing and maintaining the infrastructure til qualified Iraqis can maintain the infrastructure themselves. Pipes never bothers to mention how so many ,hospitals, schools, water and sewage treatment plants were destroyed in the first place . The destruction of Infrastructure including highways, power stations, water and sewage treatment facilities , hospitals and schools according to International Law are not legitimate targets in a war and such destruction is deemed a War Crime. One can't expect a Neocon such as Pipes to care about such things since he too believes that such rules do not apply to the United States or her allies. It also doesn't bother him that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and therefore also counts as a War Crime and a Crime against Humanity.

Daniel Pipes blaming the victims that is the Iraqis who had their country invaded and occupied in a war of aggression by the United StatesUnited States Wasted U.S. Spending in Iraq: $53 billion and Counting by Daniel Pipes November 21, 2009

Since the ouster of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the U.S. taxpayer has been rebuilding Iraq and – for just as long – I have been complaining about this being unnecessary and even counterproductive.

So one might imagine that due to his hatred of Islamic extremists and his belief in democracy Daniel Pipes would be against all religious and political extremist but no he prefers Extremist Israeli Jews who want to rid Israel of all Muslims and all Arabs and an Israeli government that would have little tolerance for dissent.

Daniel Pipes is elated over the election in Israel of far right extremist Avigdor Lieberman who was once a member of the racist Kach party founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane.

Fascist Leaves Daniel Pipes “Elated” by Zingel at Loonwatch April 19, 2009

Avigdor Lieberman, founder of the ultra-right wing Yisrael Beiteinu party, the new Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Deputy Prime Minister of Israel.

Avigdor Lieberman’s past is troubling to say the least. He is reported by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz to have once been a member of the racist Kach party founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane. The movement which advocates violence against civilians has since been declared a terrorist organization both in the United States and Israel. He admitted to have been involved in at least two violent incidents against Arab students as a member of the student group Kastel.

Larry Derfner, senior writer and columnist with the Jerusalem Post, wrote that Lieberman is “a politician who, with his appeal to racism, militarism, fear of alien ’subversives’ and the yearning for a strong leader, fits the classic, textbook definition of a fascist.”

Israeli Labour minister Ophir Pines-Paz has stated that Lieberman was tainted “by racist declarations and declarations that harm the democratic character of Israel”.

British Investigative journalist, Robert Fisk, wrote about why Avigdor Lieberman is the worst thing that could happen to the Middle East drawing parallels between Avigdor’s language and that of the Serbian genocide masters, Mladic and Karadzic and Milosevic.

Avigdor Lieberman believes that Israeli Arabs are the enemy within, he does not believe in an open and free pluralistic democracy as the West understands and appreciates it; instead he envisions a state that would penalize citizens who did not agree with its (his?) idealogical disposition.

Avigdor and his party wish to socially engineer the demographic make-up of the state of Israel: reduce the number of citizens of Arab extraction by transferring them out, and increase those of Jewish extraction via increased immigration. In the true vein of fascism, Lieberman advocates mandatory loyalty to the “state” and a revocation of citizenship for those who fail to comply. He envisions Israel as a Jewish supremacist state not as a democracy.

“The vision I would like to see here is the entrenching of the Jewish and the Zionist state…I very much favour democracy, but when there is a contradiction between democratic and Jewish values, the Jewish and Zionist values are more important.” (Scotsman, October 23, 2006)

...In short, Lieberman’s extreme world view and disturbing rhetoric has left many observers around the world, including many Israelis, shocked and frightened.

Not so, Daniel Pipes. Avigdor has him “elated.”

Interestingly, he freely acknowledges the adverse reaction this man has had on moderate people. And yet in the same breath as if to finally admit his own extremism, he makes no attempt to hide his admiration or contain his excitement for Avigdor Lieberman. And so, the day after this dangerous and divisive supremacist delivered his first speech as minister, Daniel Pipes raced to his computer to warmly welcome the world’s newest fascist in a blog entry entitled “Avigdor Lieberman’s Brilliant Debut“:

Avigdor Lieberman became foreign minister of Israel yesterday. He celebrated his inauguration with a maiden speech that news reports indicate left his listeners grimacing, squirming, and aghast. The BBC, for example, informs us that his words prompted “his predecessor Tzipi Livni to interrupt and diplomats to shift uncomfortably.”

Too bad for them – the speech leaves me elated.
Also see:

Must U.S. Taxpayers Pay for Iraqi Electricity? by Daniel Pipes March 11, 2008 updated Mar 13, 2008

U.S. Fears Iraqis Will Not Keep Up Rebuilt Projects New York Times By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS Nov. 20, 2009

Avigdor Lieberman's Brilliant Debut by Daniel Pipes April 2, 2009

The Swiss Ban on Minarets: A Possible Turning Point by Daniel Pipes November 30, 2009

and so it goes,

No comments: