Melanie Phillips author of the book "Londonistan" is another rabid anti-Islam anti-Muslim agitator who characterizes the majority of Muslims as potential terrorists. Like her " Fellow Travelers" in America such as Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, Pam Geller , Glenn beck, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham,Bridgette Gabriel et al she believes that the left and liberals in Britain and in the United States and throughout Europe have joined to undermine Western Civilization and Christendom as we know it. The Islamists and leftists are anti-democracy or democratic institutions but have infiltrated these institutions from the Churches and Government funded schools and Universities and the Media pushing their own ideology based upon relativism, multiculturalism, diversity, pluralism, socialism and tolerance to remake Western Civilization .
Are these conspiracy theories about Islam a conscious or unconscious rationalization and cover for irrational feelings, anxieties and fears which translate into racism, xenophobia, Uber-Nationalism.
The suicide bombings carried out in London in 2005 by British Muslims revealed an alarming network of Islamist terrorists and their sympathizers. Under the noses of British intelligence, London became the European hub for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamist terror and extremism - so much so that it has been mockingly dubbed 'Londonistan'.
In this ground-breaking book, Melanie Phillips pieces together the story of how Londonistan developed as a result of the collapse of British self-confidence and national identity and its resulting paralysis by multiculturalism and appeasement. The result is an ugly climate in Britain of irrationality and defeatism, which now threatens to undermine the alliance with America and imperil the defence of the free world.
"Melanie Phillips’s Londonistan is a last-minute warning for Britain and for much of the free world ... This book is powerful and frightening, but also courageous. In dictatorships, you need courage to fight evil; in the free world, you need courage to see the evil."
From Natan Sharansky's Review of British political and social commentator rabid anti-Muslim Melanie Phillips
: " Book Review of Melanie Phillips Londonistan" Pub. 2006 Encounter Books US & Gibson Square UK.
"Muslims who support overturning the British Government to impose Sharia is anti-Democratic: Londonistan - Melanie Phillips Feb. 26,2008
What Has Mad Mel Been Smoking?
How Britain is creating a terror state within by Melanie Phillips- Part 1 Sept. 18, 2009
In this next article commentator Ed Husain says Ms Melanie Phillips ( like David Horowitz & other Neocons)went from the radical left to eventually landing in the camp of the radical right. She is radical in that she believes that the only Muslims and Non-Muslims who are to be trusted or listened to are those who not only condemn Muslim Extremists but must support Israel unconditionally . That is to say that any criticism of Israel in her view is an attack on Israel's right to exist and by extension is an attack on all Jews throughout the world. Given her extremist position where is there room for resolving these issues. So she like her counterparts in America condemn and treat as the enemy any who dare criticize Israel or who dare to defend the rights not just of Palestinians but of all Arabs and all Muslims.To her President Obama who might actually be a secret Muslim is not just an appeaser but is an enabler of Islamic terrorism.
"The personal jihad of Melanie Phillips" by Ed husain, guardian.co.uk,Oct. 31, 2009
In her McCarthy-style paranoid parallel universe, the Spectator columnist views every Muslim a potential Islamist terrorist
Melanie has gone from being a tree-hugger during her Guardian days to ranter about climate change "totalitarians". And worse, seeing conspiracies and dangerous links where there are none. What else explains her suggestion in last October's Spectator magazine that President Barack Obama "adopts the agenda of the Islamists" and is "firmly in the Islamists' camp"?
Such ludicrous, illogical lines of thought led her to address to me last December the following remarks, after I dared suggest that Palestinians had been victims of much injustice:
"To repeat for the nth time: Israel was never the Palestinians' 'homeland'. It was never taken from them 'by force'. On the contrary, they tried to take the Jews' homeland from them by force – and are still trying. It was the Jews alone for whom historically 'Palestine' was ever their national homeland."
David Ben Gurion and most Israelis would disagree. History itself cannot be wished away, Melanie.
In Melanie's world, anybody – non-Muslim (Barack Obama) or Muslim (me) – who opposes her views on Israel is either an Islamist or "in the Islamists' camp". I reject Islamism on grounds of principle, experience, faith and political philosophy – and I refuse to pass the "Israel First" test. That is a perfectly coherent, normative political stance.
Upset over criticisms of Israel- Israel is never wrong
Infantile leftism that the first world can not doing anything good and that the 3rd world can not do anything wrong
Post-moral, Post-rational
British Intelligensia
Folly of embracing U.N. trans-nationalism: Melanie Philips on the Left's psychological warfare
Melanie Philips explains how the West is succumbing to the global Left's psychological warfare of U.N.- centered, trans-nationalism which exploits Israel as its unifying scapegoat. Exclusive video filmed live by DemoCast.TV in Jerusalem.
also see: another rationalization for fearing and hating Islam and all Muslims according to Melanie Phillips only Muslims who support Israel and all Jews can be called a moderate Muslim and therefore one with whom Jews and other Non-Muslims can associate with. But her argument is really about unconditional support of Israe's government, its military all facets of its society and of all Israelis. This is like telling other nationalities that if they disagree with their government they are therefore disloyal, traitors who are aiding and abetting their country's enemies. So an American citizen who criticized President Bush or President Obama's policies in any way is UnAmerican.
So Ms Phillips argues that any hostility towards Israel would include criticisms of the way its military operates or that prisoners in Israeli jails are abused and tortured or the massive bombing of Gaza and the cruel Ghettoization of Gaza and of large parts of the West Bank or the Arab side of Jerusalem. But of course we have to make allowances for someone like Melanie Phillips who may know very little about the oppression of Arab Israelis, Christian Israelis and Palestinians in the occupied (NOT Disputed) territories. So to show any sympathy for the citizens of Gaza or the West Bank or Arab Jerusalem is by definition to be anti-Israel and by extension anti-Semitic.
In her article she complains about political correctness, diversity and multiculturalism in relation to the media and Obama's response to the massacre. There is also certain distinctions to be made about such actions shootings, bombings etc. There are those typical terrorist acts in which there is a conspiracy by two or more people and /or under supervision of a larger organization to commit an act
of violence on civilians or on soldiers not on the battlefield in these cases we have suicide bombers or shooters who then shoot themselves or engage against a superior force hoping to get killed .
The other way of separating out terrorist is by differentiating between the foreign terrorist and the home grown terrorists. Again if the home grown terrorist is in contact with a terrorist organization and has his plans approved or given to him by members of the terrorists groups then it is an official act of terrorism connected to a terrorist organization. If some organization knew before hand about Tim McVeigh's plans they would be culpable for the crimes committed. But if he acted on his own and the action was meant as an act to show his disapproval of the government or aimed at a particular group because the color of their skin , their religion etc. it is an act of terrorism and is not just some guy going off the deep end .
The shooter at Fort Hood Maj. Hasan is at the least a mass murderer guilty of thirteen murders but was the action authorized by or planned by other individuals or a group. If the main motivation was to commit an act which in his mind was divinely approved then it is an act of Islamic terrorism. The targets he chose were US soldiers about to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan and staff who were helping these soldiers to get ready to deploy and therefore in his mind legitimate targets and he therefore saw the situation in Fort Hood Texas as being part of the war against Islam. In this sense he was a Jihadist killing in the name of his religion and believing that he would be rewarded in the after life by Allah. Yes he is a terrorists but he is also the lone-gunman type of which America has had many.
"My moderate-Muslim test/An absence of hostility towards Israel and Jews is the key" by Melanie Phillips at JC.com, Nov. 12,2009.
I do indeed think that the issue that defines true Muslim moderation is the absence of hostility towards Israel and, by extension, the Jewish people.
There are some Muslims who have zero prejudice towards Israel and the Jews. I have met a few of them — and there are indeed only a very few. They are excessively brave people.
They have to be — because even among Muslims who would never have any truck with sharia law or Islamist violence, theologically-based prejudice against Israel and the Jews runs very deep indeed.
Those who are free of such bigotry have the integrity to reject that theology. They are true moderates because, in supporting Israel’s defence against those who want to extinguish it as a Jewish state, they are on the side of truth against lies, justice against injustice and freedom against murderous tyranny.
Those who don’t support Israel’s self-defence — such as Ed Husain — are on the wrong side of the fight to defend civilization. No-one — whether Muslim, Christian, atheist or anything else — can be considered to be a “moderate” person if he or she is bigoted towards Israel or the Jewish people. You cannot be a moderate bigot.
Jewish community leaders who are engaged in outreach to the Muslim community are making a heroic attempt to build bridges. But unless they make their friendship conditional upon rationality towards Israel and the Jews, such initiatives are likely to be as conducive to communal health as an auto-immune deficiency to the body’s natural defenses.
Note how Melanie uses the disease analogy concerning Muslims which is similar to that used by anti-Semites including Hitler and his Nazi Part.
"Melanie Phillips and her columns" by Sunny at Pickled Politics.com,November 2, 2009
Melanie Philips’s zealotry and ignorance frighten me. How did we produce a public commentator filled with such anger, venom and hatred, asked Ed Husain over the weekend. Good question. But that’s like asking how long is a piece of string. The sheer stupidity of the articles Mel writes for the Spectator knows no bounds.
Ed carries on:
In Melanie’s world, anybody – non-Muslim (Barack Obama) or Muslim (me) – who opposes her views on Israel is either an Islamist or “in the Islamists’ camp”. I reject Islamism on grounds of principle, experience, faith and political philosophy – and I refuse to pass the “Israel First” test. That is a perfectly coherent, normative political stance.
…
The Israel First test, which she seeks to impose on British Muslims (as well as an American president), reeks of racism. Why is Israel more important than any other country in the world? With leading British Muslims increasingly supporting a secular state, democracy, women’s rights, gay rights and liberal pluralism, and opposing Islamist extremism – then still be attacked as “extremists” or “Islamist” because they don’t support Likud’s plans for Israel is bullying and uncompromising in the extreme. How dare she?
-
"From Iron Curtain to knuckle-duster" by Melanie Phillips at melaniephillips.com Daily Mail, November 9 2009
But as communism slowly crumbled, those on the far-Left who remained hostile towards western civilization found another way to realize their goal of bringing it down.
This was what might be called ‘cultural Marxism’. It was based on the understanding that what holds a society together are the pillars of its culture: the structures and institutions of education, family, law, media and religion. Transform the principles that these embody and you can thus destroy the society they have shaped.
This key insight was developed in particular by an Italian Marxist philosopher called Antonio Gramsci. His thinking was taken up by Sixties radicals — who are, of course, the generation that holds power in the West today.
Gramsci understood that the working class would never rise up to seize the levers of ‘production, distribution and exchange’ as communism had prophesied. Economics was not the path to revolution.
He believed instead that society could be overthrown if the values underpinning it could be turned into their antithesis: if its core principles were replaced by those of groups who were considered to be outsiders or who actively transgressed the moral codes of that society.
So he advocated a ‘long march through the institutions’ to capture the citadels of the culture and turn them into a collective fifth column, undermining from within and turning all the core values of society upside-down and inside-out.
This strategy has been carried out to the letter.
The nuclear family has been widely shattered. Illegitimacy was transformed from a stigma into a ‘right’. The tragic disadvantage of fatherlessness was redefined as a neutrally-viewed ‘lifestyle choice’.
Education was wrecked, with its core tenet of transmitting a culture to successive generations replaced by the idea that what children already knew was of superior value to anything the adult world might foist upon them.
The outcome of this ‘child-centred’ approach has been widespread illiteracy and ignorance and an eroded capacity for independent thought.
Law and order were similarly undermined, with criminals deemed to be beyond punishment since they were ‘victims’ of society and with illegal drugtaking tacitly encouraged by a campaign to denigrate anti-drugs laws.
The ‘rights’ agenda — commonly known as ‘political correctness’ — turned morality inside out by excusing any misdeeds by self-designated ‘victim’ groups on the grounds that such ‘victims’ could never be held responsible for what they did.
Feminism, anti-racism and gay rights thus turned men, white people and Christians into the enemies of decency who were forced to jump through hoops to prove their virtue.
This Through The Looking Glass mindset rests on the belief that the world is divided into the powerful (who are responsible for all bad things) and the oppressed (who are responsible for none of them).
This is a Marxist doctrine. But the extent to which such Marxist thinking has been taken up unwittingly even by the Establishment was illustrated by the astounding observation made in 2005 by the then senior law lord, Lord Bingham, that human rights law was all about protecting ‘oppressed’ minorities from the majority.
None of this is to say there has been a giant, organised conspiracy to undermine Britain in this way. Admittedly, some Left-wingers did so conspire, but many others bought into these ideas for different reasons.
"The personal jihad of Melanie Phillips" by Ed husain, guardian.co.uk,Oct. 31, 2009
In her McCarthy-style paranoid parallel universe, the Spectator columnist views every Muslim a potential Islamist terrorist
Melanie has gone from being a tree-hugger during her Guardian days to ranter about climate change "totalitarians". And worse, seeing conspiracies and dangerous links where there are none. What else explains her suggestion in last October's Spectator magazine that President Barack Obama "adopts the agenda of the Islamists" and is "firmly in the Islamists' camp"?
Such ludicrous, illogical lines of thought led her to address to me last December the following remarks, after I dared suggest that Palestinians had been victims of much injustice:
"To repeat for the nth time: Israel was never the Palestinians' 'homeland'. It was never taken from them 'by force'. On the contrary, they tried to take the Jews' homeland from them by force – and are still trying. It was the Jews alone for whom historically 'Palestine' was ever their national homeland."
David Ben Gurion and most Israelis would disagree. History itself cannot be wished away, Melanie.
In Melanie's world, anybody – non-Muslim (Barack Obama) or Muslim (me) – who opposes her views on Israel is either an Islamist or "in the Islamists' camp". I reject Islamism on grounds of principle, experience, faith and political philosophy – and I refuse to pass the "Israel First" test. That is a perfectly coherent, normative political stance.
An Israel First mindset is about supporting Israel regardless of whether its behaviour is right or wrong, whether it is victim or oppressor; it also involves holding political activists hostage with accusations of antisemitism and/or Islamism in seeking to gain unconditional support for Israel.
The Israel First test, which she seeks to impose on British Muslims (as well as an American president), reeks of racism. Why is Israel more important than any other country in the world? With leading British Muslims increasingly supporting a secular state, democracy, women's rights, gay rights and liberal pluralism, and opposing Islamist extremism – then still be attacked as "extremists" or "Islamist" because they don't support Likud's plans for Israel is bullying and uncompromising in the extreme. How dare she?
I support Israel's right to exist, but not its brow-beating tactics in dealing with its neighbours. Britain and America are committed to a two-state solution – so are, one hopes, most British Muslims. Why can't Melanie accept and rejoice that rather than poke fun at Muslim individuals and organisations that are on a journey to moderation?
Melanie's most recent outburst is not against al-Muhajiroun extremists, but individuals and groupings trying to oppose them.
Phillips and others have repeatedly asked why the MCB and its affiliates do not oppose extremism. Well, this weekend, a leading affiliate, the Islamic Society of Britain, and a prominent leader of the MCB, Inayat Bunglawala, will, once again, oppose extremism. Rather than welcome this much-needed shift in protecting Britain's national security, setting the right tone among activist Muslims, Melanie imagines a grand conspiracy lying behind his actions. Even when he is right, he is wrong. Inayat, with all his faults, has risked much among entrenched, dinosaur Muslim "leaders" by publicly supporting gay rights, freedom of speech for Salman Rushdie and Geert Wilders, and challenging conventional narratives on creationism. Holding him to account for comments made in 1993, from which he has since very plainly distanced himself, is neither fair nor humane.
But do fairness and humanity matter to Phillips? After all, Obama was, apparently, being "tactical" in his Christianity:
"We are entitled to ask precisely when he stopped being a Muslim, and why. Did Obama embrace Christianity as a tactical manoeuvre to get himself elected?"
To that demented mindset, whatever Muslims do, right or wrong, principled or otherwise, we will always be subject to Robert Spencer's brigade of trolls who will shout "taqiyya" to our supposed hiding of Islamist loyalties.
I have hope for British Muslims. The journey ahead is tough, risky and fraught with danger. But with the right interjections, alliances, encouragement and guidance from Muslim and other thought leaders, British Muslim communities can become shining examples of hope, prosperity and progress. Melanie Phillips and her ilk need to decide whether they want to help or hinder. It's not too late. She can always travel back to the centre.
Ed Husain versus Melanie Phillips by Mehdi Hasan New Statesman
Oct. 31,2009
Former Islamist stands up to Islamist obsessive
She once described the ex-Hizb ut-Tahrir activist and self-confessed one-time "Islamist" Ed Husain as a "brave Muslim", who should be "applauded for his courage . . . intellectual honesty and guts", before turning on him for opposing the Israeli war on Gaza and accusing him of adopting "the very narrative and rhetoric that are driving Muslims to mass murder". But now Melanie Phillips has had a taste of her own bilious medicine in the form of a harsh, biting and brilliant takedown from Husain himself in a piece entitled "The personal jihad of Melanie Phillips".
Husain slams the Daily Mail columnist and Spectator blogger for her "zealotry and ignorance . . . anger, venom and hatred" and "ludicrous, illogical lines of thought", before accusing her of travelling on a "journey into darkness and ignorance".
His central criticism of the swivel-eyed Phillips revolves around her obsession with Israel, and the "Israel First" test that she sees fit to impose on self-described Muslim "moderates":
In Melanie's world, anybody -- non-Muslim (Barack Obama) or Muslim (me) -- who opposes her views on Israel is either an Islamist or "in the Islamists' camp". I reject Islamism on grounds of principle, experience, faith and political philosophy -- and I refuse to pass the "Israel First" test. That is a perfectly coherent, normative political stance.
An Israel First mindset is about supporting Israel regardless of whether its behaviour is right or wrong, whether it is victim or oppressor; it also involves holding political activists hostage with accusations of anti-Semitism and/or Islamism in seeking to gain unconditional support for Israel.
The Israel First test, which she seeks to impose on British Muslims (as well as an American president), reeks of racism. Why is Israel more important than any other country in the world? With leading British Muslims increasingly supporting a secular state, democracy, women's rights, gay rights and liberal pluralism, and opposing Islamist extremism -- then still be attacked as "extremists" or "Islamist" because they don't support Likud's plans for Israel -- is bullying and uncompromising in the extreme. How dare she?
Bravo! I've had my own disagreements with Ed Husain in the past but, on this matter, I cannot help but nod, agree and applaud. He is right to call out Melanie and others on their own "jihad" against British Muslims, be they "moderate", "extreme", "secular or "Islamist".
My one humble piece of advice for Ed would be to use this opportunity to take a long and hard look at those he calls his friends and allies. He has, belatedly, dumped Phillips. But does he have the wisdom -- and the guts -- to dump the rest of the liberal-left, Israel-first, pro-war hawks who have gathered around him in recent years? I suspect he will never have real credibility in Britain's Muslim communities until he does so.
and so it goes,
GORD.
End Notes:
Published 2006 by Encounter Books in US and Gibson Square in the UK.
"From Iron Curtain to knuckle-duster" by melanie phillips at melaniephillips.com Daily Mail, Nov. 9, 2009
"Melanie Phillips and her columns"
by Sunny at pickled Politics.com 2nd November, 2009
"My moderate-Muslim test/An absence of hostility towards Israel and Jews is the key" by Melanie Phillips at JC.com, Nov. 12,2009.
"Do You Have the Will (balls) to Defeat the Fascists? Or Are you Helping Them?" by The Cynic Librarian, aug. 31, 2006
"Dutch Lawmaker (Geert Wilders) Brings His Anti-Muslim Spiel to U.S." by Sonia Scherr -Hate Watch at Southern Poverty law Center, Oct. 20,2009
"LoonWatch Explores the Underworld of Anti-Muslim Blogging" by Devon Moore at DailyKos.com Aug. 24,2009
Lou Dobbs Resigns
"UPDATED: So, what really happened to Lou Dobbs?" Media Matters.org by Karl Frisch, Nov. 12, 2009
"Lou Dobbs for president! The former CNN host sounds like he's running for office -- and if so, he's a GOP nightmare" By Joe Conason at Salon.com, Nov 12, 2009
"Statement by SPLC President Richard Cohen on the Departure of Lou Dobbs from CNN" at Southern Poverty Law Center, Nov. 11, 2009
Islamophobes Inc., Robert Spencer and Geert Wilders
"Robert Spencer Rejected by Academics: Still Supports Geert Wilders" by Garibaldi at loonwatch.com , July 13,2009
also see; "Temple University Rejects Geert Wilders" by Barbel at loonwatch.com,Oct. 18, 2009
Robert Spencer: "Jihad Watch"
M. Cherif Bassiouni Rips Fake Scholar Robert Spencer (from our friends at Loonwatch), Aug. 9, 2009
Robert Spencer "Jihad Watch"
"Update: Robert Spencer Whines and Whimpers After Being Exposed" by Garibaldi, July 24, 2009
"Robert Spencer: Loonwatch, One-half of the Leftist-Mooslim Alliance " by Garibaldi, Aug. 27,2009
"Jihad Watch Facebook Robert Spencer"
CAMPAIGN FOR THE ‘RECONQUISTA’ IN ANATOLIA!
"Robert Spencer Joins Genocidal Facebook Group" at littlegreenfootballs, Feb 11, 2009
David Horowitz Organizations:
David Horowitz Freedom Center.
David Horowitz's FrontPageMagazine, NewsRealBlog.com,
DiscoverTheNetworks.org
"Why Is It That Even Accurate Commentary About Islam Seems To Involve A Disclaimer?" Horowitz at NewsRealBlog.com, November 14, 2009
"Andy McCarthy Identifies the Problem with Prosecuting Terrorists as Civilians: It Empowers the Jihad "by David Swindle at Newsrealblog.com, Nov. 14, 2009
Alinsky, Beck, Satan and Me by David Horowitz at David Horowitz Newsrealblog 2009 August 16
Fifth Column from wesite Fifth Column
at Rightwing website DiscoverTheNetworks.org
"At (Civil) War with the Idiots he Created" by Emperor at Loonwatch.com, April 29,2009
Selections from Muslims Against Sharia
"(Non) Muslims Against Sharia" at Chasing Evil, March 9,2009
"Islamists who want to destroy the state get £100,000 funding"
Britain , October 25, 2009
"UK Muslims to challenge compulsory sex education"David Sapsted, Nov. 13,2009
(Non) Muslims Against Sharia at Chasing Evil March 9,2009
MAS presents themselves as religious Muslims who wish to reform Islam “away from the evil and into good.”
What made me suspicious of this site? First, for religious Muslims, they use a tremendous amount of obscenities in commenting on other sites. Secondly, they do not use the required “pbuh” (praise be unto him) when referring to Muhammad, as religious Muslims do. Third, they want to – and are in the process of – rewrite the Qur’an, a holy book delivered from God to an angel to Muhammad. One does not do major rewrites to the word of God. Lastly, the anti-Muslim rhetoric is too almost identical to sites run by anti-Muslim and neo-Nazi extremists.
Let’s take a look at who is really behind this site (and all their periphery sites.)
QUOTES FROM MUSLIMS AGAINST SHARIA:
Sharia
Sharia Law must be abolished, because it is incompatible with norms of modern society.
Outdated practices
Any practices that might have been acceptable in the Seventh Century; i.e., stoning, cutting off body parts, marrying and/or having sex with children or animals, must be condemned by every Muslim.
Outdated verses
The following verses promote divisiveness and religious hatred, bigotry and discrimination. They must be either removed from the Koran or declared outdated and invalid, and marked as such.
Outdated words & phrases
Use of the following words and phrases or their variations must be prohibited during religious services:
• Infidel / Unbeliever: these terms have negative connotation and promote divisiveness and animosity; Islam is not the only religion
• Jihad: this word is often interpreted as Holy War against non-Muslims
• Mujaheed / Holy Warrior: no more wars in the name of Islam
• American (Christian / Crusader / Israeli / Zionist) occupation: these terms promote bigotry; at this point in time, Muslims living in non-Muslim lands have more freedoms than Muslims living in Muslim lands
The Crusades vs. The Inquisition
While the Inquisition was a repulsive practice by Christian Fundamentalists, the Crusades were not unprovoked acts of aggression, but rather attempts to recapture formerly Christian lands controlled by Muslims.
(My note: Of course, the quote about the Crusades is true only if one completely overlooks the Crusades against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes. (Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Oxford History of the Crusades New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 0192853643.)
Conclusions: Who is behind “Muslims Against Sharia”? Pam Geller (the shrieking harpie from NY), Ted Belman (Canadian member of a terrorist organization), and others that will be identified in future articles.
Joe Kaufman had previously been identified by multiple sources as part of MASh.
but he claims not to be.
Joe Kaufman was offered the opportunity to disavow his affiliation with or participation in MASh when I sent him a very polite email offering him the opportunity to do so. I promised him that if he wished to make such a statement, I would include it in all of the MAS articles on the Chasing Evil site.
Mr. Kaufman did respond and stated: “I have never had anything to do with that organization.” (emphasis mine) Mr. Kaufman’s statement should be kept in mind when reading articles about his affiliation with Muslims Against Sharia.
Read about Pam Geller:
http://www.chasingevil.org/2009/01/supremacists-in-space.html
Read about Ted Belman:
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Belman_Ted_388009983.aspx
http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/2009/03/ted-belman-of-israpundit-meir-weinstein.html
http://www.stageleft.info/2008/01/15/quotes-from-the-scholars-at-muslims-against-sharia/ (WARNING: ADULT CONTENT)
http://freethinker.co.uk/2007/09/24/non-muslims-against-sharia/
More info here: http://freethinker.co.uk/2007/09/24/non-muslims-against-sharia/ showing Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs and Ted Belman of IsraPundit as members/authors. Belman is a self-admitted member of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), a terrorist organization of which we’ve previously written. http://www.chasingevil.org/2006/12/jdl-kahane.html
No comments:
Post a Comment