Daniel Pipes - 5
Jihad Khazen Al-Hayat - 01/07/06
Another day with Daniel Pipes and Islamist Watch.
Pipes’ Middle East Forum says Islamist Watch exists “to educate the government, media, religious institutions, the academy, and the business world about lawful Islamism. It focuses on the political, educational, cultural and legal activities of Islamists in the US and (to a lesser degree) in other historically non-Muslim countries, especially Western Europe, Canada and Australia.”
Among its activities is research, including monitoring lawful Islamists via the internet and periodicals, cultivating a range of sources, pursuing investigations and “perhaps engaging in undercover work”. Surely it is most worrying for Pipes to advocate the carrying out of such spying activities, by non-accountable non-governmental organisations.
Islamist Watch will also alert the public of its results in newspaper articles, internet sites including Islamist Watch’s own, congressional testimony and perhaps books and documentary movies. “Particularly dramatic findings will be conveyed via radio and television.”
In explaining the need for Islamist Watch, the Middle East Forum says one reason no terror attack has taken place in the US since September 11 may be that Islamists realise that violence is counterproductive. “The devastation of 9/11 (as well as that in Bali, Madrid, Beslan and London) led to a heightened public awareness of Islamism and slowed down the hitherto easy penetration by lawful Islamists into western countries. “To the extent that Islamists recognize the value of lawful methods, they will rely increasingly on legal and political means rather than on violent and terrorist ones. This implies that the work of Islamist Watch will likely become increasingly central to the preservation of Western values.”
In other words, Pipes manages to see something negative among peaceful Islamists, hinting they are even more deadly than terrorists.
The setting up of Islam Watch comes after years of attacks on Islamism by Pipes which have led him to be accused of Islamophobia. In 1990 the National Review published his article “The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!” He warned that European societies are not prepared for “the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene. Muslim immigrants bring with them a chauvinism that augurs badly for their integration into the mainstream of the European societies. The signs all point to continued clashes between the two sides…”
Pipes does not seem to realise that he could just as well be talking about Oriental (Arab) Jews who look the same as the immigrants he is warning against and who share with the immigrants the same food preferences and hygiene standards. A Jew with blue eyes and red hair is Aryan and not Semitic like us.
Since 1990 Pipes’ attitudes have increasingly hardened. For example in an article of August 23 2005 in the New York Sun he wrote of the two wings of radical Islam “one violent and illegal, the other lawful and political - and they exist in tension with each other.
“While terrorism does radical Islam more harm than good, it also obstructs the “quiet work of political Islamism. In tranquil times, organizations like the Muslim Council of Britain and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) effectively go about their business, promoting heir 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.”
In an article of December 28 2004 in the New York Sun, Pipes said that for years it had been his position that the threat of radical Islam implies an imperative to focus security measures on Muslims. “If searching for rapists, one looks only at the male population.”
The egregious comparison with rapist is Daniel Pipes and what he represents.
He admits a near-universal disapproval of this realism, because “leftist and Islamist organisations have so successfully intimated public opinion that polite society shies away from endorsing a focus on Muslims.” He traced this back to the internment of Japanese during World War II because of a “revisionist interpretation” of it. And he supports writer Michelle Malkin for her book “In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror.”
The Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Paul Campos was highly critical of Pipes’ article and his implication that the wholesale relocation of American Muslims to internment camps might be a good idea. Campos described Malkin’s book at “an odious exercise in revisionist history, with a distinctly fascist tinge. She defends policies that have long been considered completely indefensible, using arguments that are often absurd on their face.”
Pipes had already called in an article in the Jerusalem Post on 22 January 2003 for Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps to be watched for connections to terrorism, and for the same to apply to Muslim chaplains in prisons and the armed forces. He returned to the subject on June 14 this year in an article in Front Page Magazine under the title “Why Police Should Profile Terrorists”.
He is an apologist for Israeli terrorism. But he is blind to Israel and its crimes against women and children. He is certainly not a member of B’tselem whose figures show that Israel killed five times more Palestinian civilians than all the Palestinian groups killed of Israeli civilians. And of course spies and spy cases in US courts involve American Jews and other supporters of Israel, not any Arab or Muslim country.
Another day with Daniel Pipes and Islamist Watch.
Pipes’ Middle East Forum says Islamist Watch exists “to educate the government, media, religious institutions, the academy, and the business world about lawful Islamism. It focuses on the political, educational, cultural and legal activities of Islamists in the US and (to a lesser degree) in other historically non-Muslim countries, especially Western Europe, Canada and Australia.”
Among its activities is research, including monitoring lawful Islamists via the internet and periodicals, cultivating a range of sources, pursuing investigations and “perhaps engaging in undercover work”. Surely it is most worrying for Pipes to advocate the carrying out of such spying activities, by non-accountable non-governmental organisations.
Islamist Watch will also alert the public of its results in newspaper articles, internet sites including Islamist Watch’s own, congressional testimony and perhaps books and documentary movies. “Particularly dramatic findings will be conveyed via radio and television.”
In explaining the need for Islamist Watch, the Middle East Forum says one reason no terror attack has taken place in the US since September 11 may be that Islamists realise that violence is counterproductive. “The devastation of 9/11 (as well as that in Bali, Madrid, Beslan and London) led to a heightened public awareness of Islamism and slowed down the hitherto easy penetration by lawful Islamists into western countries. “To the extent that Islamists recognize the value of lawful methods, they will rely increasingly on legal and political means rather than on violent and terrorist ones. This implies that the work of Islamist Watch will likely become increasingly central to the preservation of Western values.”
In other words, Pipes manages to see something negative among peaceful Islamists, hinting they are even more deadly than terrorists.
The setting up of Islam Watch comes after years of attacks on Islamism by Pipes which have led him to be accused of Islamophobia. In 1990 the National Review published his article “The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!” He warned that European societies are not prepared for “the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene. Muslim immigrants bring with them a chauvinism that augurs badly for their integration into the mainstream of the European societies. The signs all point to continued clashes between the two sides…”
Pipes does not seem to realise that he could just as well be talking about Oriental (Arab) Jews who look the same as the immigrants he is warning against and who share with the immigrants the same food preferences and hygiene standards. A Jew with blue eyes and red hair is Aryan and not Semitic like us.
Since 1990 Pipes’ attitudes have increasingly hardened. For example in an article of August 23 2005 in the New York Sun he wrote of the two wings of radical Islam “one violent and illegal, the other lawful and political - and they exist in tension with each other.
“While terrorism does radical Islam more harm than good, it also obstructs the “quiet work of political Islamism. In tranquil times, organizations like the Muslim Council of Britain and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) effectively go about their business, promoting heir 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.”
In an article of December 28 2004 in the New York Sun, Pipes said that for years it had been his position that the threat of radical Islam implies an imperative to focus security measures on Muslims. “If searching for rapists, one looks only at the male population.”
The egregious comparison with rapist is Daniel Pipes and what he represents.
He admits a near-universal disapproval of this realism, because “leftist and Islamist organisations have so successfully intimated public opinion that polite society shies away from endorsing a focus on Muslims.” He traced this back to the internment of Japanese during World War II because of a “revisionist interpretation” of it. And he supports writer Michelle Malkin for her book “In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror.”
The Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Paul Campos was highly critical of Pipes’ article and his implication that the wholesale relocation of American Muslims to internment camps might be a good idea. Campos described Malkin’s book at “an odious exercise in revisionist history, with a distinctly fascist tinge. She defends policies that have long been considered completely indefensible, using arguments that are often absurd on their face.”
Pipes had already called in an article in the Jerusalem Post on 22 January 2003 for Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps to be watched for connections to terrorism, and for the same to apply to Muslim chaplains in prisons and the armed forces. He returned to the subject on June 14 this year in an article in Front Page Magazine under the title “Why Police Should Profile Terrorists”.
He is an apologist for Israeli terrorism. But he is blind to Israel and its crimes against women and children. He is certainly not a member of B’tselem whose figures show that Israel killed five times more Palestinian civilians than all the Palestinian groups killed of Israeli civilians. And of course spies and spy cases in US courts involve American Jews and other supporters of Israel, not any Arab or Muslim country.
posted by Khazen at 7:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home