Who is Daniel Pipes?

Well, having lived in Tripoli, Libya, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia,and Karachi, Pakistan,and having visited Afghanistan, Iran, Dubai,Q'atar, Jordan and Turkey, I would have to again disagree with you. Once again, I wonder where you get your information. To be honest, I think that you are a troll, albeit an unsuccessful one. This forum is wonderfully free of animosity.
I wonder if perhaps you are merely noticing what may be the decline of Christianity in general?

'S funny, this kind of thing, isn't it? I mean, like i said, i'd never even heard of the guy. The krauthammer article was probably the first thing you read about him, too. Yet here we are, all of us, with google and a webforum in our hands, and within a day we know more about him than about most other people of his stature, & are reasonably able to make some kind of considered conclusion about him. How did we even cope before internet, huh? Just imagine the time you would have had to spend in 1990, to find out even just the above - the trip to libraries, requesting back issues of newspapers and magazines, asking for leaflets from campus-watch, cair ...

Anyway, you seem a changed man - you just admitted changing your opinion! Don't remember you ever did on your previous stay here. I'll remember that next time I turn out to be blatantly wrong or conspicuously misguided ... ;-)

Nimh wrote:

I'll remember that next time I turn out to be blatantly wrong or conspicuously misguided ...

In your world you would never be blatantly wrong or conspicuously misguided-----it must be wonderful to be amply endowed with wisdom at such a young age.

Perception=Troll

Ignorance is being blissfully blind. Therefore, you can never be wrong.

Hobit - and, if I remember, the crusades were also a way to get second and third sons off somewhere else, since primogeniture was what ruled. And all the fiefdoms fighting for power. Looking for riches. Religion was sort of an excuse, but the bloody wars and massacres and slayings that took place along the route to Jerusalem. All in the name of Christianity.

Over in Portugal and Spain, where I've spent a lot of time, there are historical reminders of the Moors all over. And so much of the real cruelty, the bloodshed, seems to date from the time of the Spanish Inquisition, which succeeded in driving out the Jews and the Muslims.

I think, too, Hobit, it was you who mentioned early 20th century German reading. Mein Kampf is illuminating.

Which is a short way of saying that I think almost anything having to do with organized religion is based first on fear, which then becomes the prime tool for power. And no religion has a monopoly. The early pantheistic animalism religions may even have offered more, in the end.

Perception - the acquisition of knowledge and understanding doesn't have age boundaries. Sometimes people who are older haven't gotten there yet, and may never.

Hatred and bigotry never seem far away. this is why it is the duty of an informed citzenry to keep track of what its government is doing, and whom it appoints to what councils. Having been the victim of a racially motivated attempted attack following 11th September, I am particularly concerned about this issue.

Well, we certainly welcome you here, hobit, and I, for one, am enlightened by what you share with us.

I am concerned about this issue, too, and learned so much about the history and influence of the Moors from a European look. My particular interest was the ceramics, and through that, many other fields. We have always had narrow-minded people, and always will. I have five grandsons, and feel it is my bounden duty to broaden their horizons as much as possible. Which I do at every available opportunity (usually a dinner table). Since we are a loud family, there's a lot of noise, but my grandsons' friends are many and varied, and all are welcome. And education - the only true gift ever.

Keep going.

Oy! I've often enough expressed where I changed my mind or where I thought my "opponent" had a really good point. Or where I made a stupid mistake (I remember accusing georgeob1 about saying something he never even did ... <blush>). That's why I was pleasantly surprised to see you do it, this time, too. I wished more people around here did ...

<grumbles> try to pay someone a bleedin' compliment ...

hobitbob, thank you for posting that reading list. Most of us here are just ordinary folk, and with day jobs at that, so i'm afraid you cant really expect us to work through this "short reading list". But it does clearly show that you know a lot about the subject, and your expertise will be extremely helpful here. There's been a number of threads about Islam and the Middle East going on here, might be worth to use the search page to find some back!

What do you know about Mr. Pipes?

Hi, Nimh. I'm afraid that most of what I know about Mr. Pipes has been culled from similar sources as those presented on this thread. The Rocky Mountain News re-ran an editiorial from the Washington Times calling for approval of his appointment , and praising his efforts to protect western civilization from the evil underbelly of the blah blah blah, etc... Anyway, the piece was horribly bigoted. I, and about ten otehrs that I know of, sent letters protesting the opinion to the Wash Times and the RMN, but they were never printed. Two letters to the RMN PRAISING the piece WERE published. This scares the living smurfiness out of me! It is beginning to look like anti-Islamic sentiment is the newly acceptable bigotry. It has had quite the headstart in Europe, in the Turkish/German interactions, and the N. African/French interactions. I don't know how things are in teh Netherlands. I know that Fortuyn was a fairly vocal anti-immigration politician, but I don't know how popular he was.

Here is the edictorial and the letter to the editor I wrote, which, of course, never saw publication.Newly Acceptable Bigotry

Very popular indeed, for the short while that it lasted. He got 17%, out of nowhere, with many more sympathisers among other parties.

The appearance of Islam as the xenophobes' new bugbear has allowed the far right here to cloak itself in the liberal language of defending tolerance, modernity, gay and women's rights. Against the "backward", conservative, intolerant Muslim fundamentalists, you see. <grins>. They're even up in arms about defending "our" Jews against them, now.

It's always heartwarming to see new recruits to the causes of cultural tolerance, women's emancipation and the fight against anti-semitism, of course (there were web-posters circulating in support of Fortuynist local councillor Michiel Smit that said, referring to the Somali/Ethiopian practice of female circumcision, "if you love your clit, vote Michiel Smit"). But this new twist to the profile of the extreme right has provided it with wholly new electoral horizons.

Back in the eighties / early nineties when it was Turks, Moroccans, etc, that politicians like Schoenhueber and De Winter railed against, their appeal seemed still restricted to certain "ceilings" of popular support, indicating the size of the xenophobic niche. Now that it's Muslims they're warning against - even though its still about the same people, of course - their re-branded market seems just that much bigger. It provides the petty anti-immigration agenda with a fearful global context (9/11) and the "big theory" (i.e., the 'Clash of Civilisations') it was lacking.

Right now the "List Fortuyn" is in the doldrums, but there could always be a follow-up. Anyway, I once posted a thread about all the Fortuyn stuff (Elections in the Netherlands (again)), and put the resulting narrative online as "from pillarisation to poldermodel to fortuyn: Dutch politics in three steps". Long read, tho.

That link doesnt seem to quite work.

Sorry, with the forum moving, it is being more Lewinsky like than ever (i.e.: functions appear to have gone down). Does anyone know when it will be bcak at 100%?

A editorial in the Washington Times that was picked up by the Rocky Mountain News: Washtimes
Debunking political correctness


By Diana West


It may be not be harmonic convergence exactly, but the coincidence is still worth flagging: Last week, just about the time a Senate committee was failing to muster the quorum necessary to vote on Islamic terrorism expert Daniel Pipes' nomination to the U.S. Institute of Peace ?-thrilling the Islamic groups that apologize for such terrorism ?- the Pew Research Center was releasing a new poll finding that 44 percent of Americans now believe that Islam is more likely than other religions to encourage violence among its believers. This number is up sharply from the 22 percent who in March 2002 had begun to notice jihadis in Sudan and Nigeria and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and the Philippines and the Palestinian Authority and Malaysia (and ? Italy, France and Lackawanna) poking out from behind the smoother ranks of the "Islam is peace" PR professionals.
What does kicking the Pipes nomination under a Senate rug have to do with an eye-opening Pew poll? Mr. Pipes, a scholar and prolific author steeped in the history and languages of Islam, is a knowledgeable and trenchant voice on Middle Eastern affairs ?- one of a handful of experts, incidentally, who, long before September 11, identified the grave threat that militant Islam, or "Islamism," posed to the United States. An advocate of Islamic reform and modernization, Mr. Pipes is nothing like the "Islamaphobe," bigot, or bogeyman his most virulent detractors, led by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), like to depict. In fact, when Mr. Pipes tells us "militant Islam is the problem, and moderate Islam is the solution," I'd say he's being not only reasonable, but also more than generous with the old benefit of the doubt, considering the absence to date of religious movements of moderation within Islam worth writing home about.
But back to the Pew poll, which indicates that more Americans are maybe now wondering why it is that flags flying over Islamic nations carry those wicked-looking scimitars. (And, if they're really paying attention, maybe also why CAIR tries to pass itself off as a mainstream group with, as Daniel Pipes has noted, a chairman, Omar M. Ahmad, who says suicide bombers are not terrorists, an executive director, Nihad Awad, who supports Hamas, and a spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, who is not at all averse to an Islamic government in the United States.) Just as more Americans are starting to understand that unreformed Islam and, by extension, the law (sharia) that flows from it, are indeed more likely to encourage violence than other religions, a serious scholar who has long applied himself to devising ways to defuse such deadly fanaticism is slowly being undermined and even marginalized in the U.S. Senate.
Based on what? The CAIR-led anti-Pipes blitz would seem to have scored some direct hits. With the words "provocative" "highly controversial" and "decidedly one-sided," Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, dismissed Mr. Pipes, careful scholarship and reasoned analysis, in the end belying the senator's own ignorance of, let's say, the provocative, highly controversial and decidedly one-sided centuries of jihad Mr. Pipes has studied. Sen. Edward Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, denounced the nominee because of a 1990 phrase Mr. Pipes has said he wrote about European attitudes toward the massive influx of Muslim immigrants onto the continent?-"brown-skinned people cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene." Whether this is or was a European attitude, it is objectionable to political correctionists not because it isn't true, but because it is indicative of difference, of foreignness?-which, in today's world, is about the only thing left that dares not speak its name.
Are peoples all the same? Are religions all similarly inspired? I hope Messrs. Harkin and Kennedy ?- and their committee colleagues, including, fellow Democrats Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Patty Murray, Christopher Dodd, Independent James Jeffords and Republicans Judd Gregg, Bill Frist, John Ensign, Lindsey Graham, John Warner and Sam Brownback ?- take note of the Pew findings. They indicate that a growing number of Americans may finally be seeing through the political correctness that blinkers so much of the government's perspective on Islamic militancy. This is the same political correctness that searches my 75-year-old mother-in-law or Al Gore as much as it searches young male Arab or Muslim airplane passengers. It is the same political correctness that, as retired FBI special agent Don Lavey recently told WorldnetDaily.com, still inspires "the continued reluctance on the part of the entire FBI to ever use 'Islamic' and 'terrorism' in the same sentence."
And it is the same political correctness that Mr. Pipes, through serious study and forthright truth-telling, has long labored to debunk. Which is all the more reason that Mr. Pipes should be confirmed without further delay once Congress reconvenes in September. Anything less is nothing less than a victory for our deadliest enemies.



My letter to the editors, which I am willing to bet never gets published:

Sirs,
I am writing regarding the column in the Tuesday, 5 August print edition of the RMN entitled, "Scholar Should Be Confirmed", witten by Times writer Diana West. This piece, which sings the praises of Daniel Pipes, the US nominee to the Institute of Peace is one of many examples recently whence I awaken wondering If I have left the real world for some bizarre alternate universe. The theme of the author's piece is the threat posed to "civilization" by Islam. She repeatedly refers to Islam as a violent religion,a and comments, "Are all people the same? Are all religions equally inspired?" In addition, she endorses and excuses Pipes' comments about "...brown skinned people cooking strange foods and not maintaining German standards of hygiene."
To address the first assertion, that Islam is a religion of violence (a frequently heard comment), one should perhaps look into the history of the other triumphalist, proselytizing western faith, Christianity. Christianity has proven itself to not be "a religion of violence" through such endeavors as the pursuit of heretics from roughly the second century C.E. through the late seventeenth century. Examples that stand out include the Iconoclastic incidents in the Byzantine East, The Levantine Crusades of the eleventh through thirteenth centuries, the Albigensian Crusades of the Thirteenth Centuries, the Reconquista in the Iberian Peninsula of the tenth through fifteenth centuries, the mass persecutions of the Jews in Christian Europe from the fifth through the twentieth centuries, the witch persecutions in early modern Europe, the wars between Catholics and Protestants in the early modern period, the Protestant on Protestant violence in sixteenth and seventeenth century Germany, Holland and Belgium, the systems of encomienda in the New World, and the missionary movements in the Far east and Africa. The list goes on and on.
Regarding those "brown skinned people cooking strange foods," what Diana West ignores is that those very people she mentions are the subject of violence and discrimination in Europe today. Far from being the aggressors, Middle Eastern and North African immigrants to Western Europe are often harassed, beaten, and murdered with very little efforts made by the authorities to stop these acts. Perhaps those who leap to place the blame for society's ills on some foreign "other" should first look to their own society and take responsibility, rather than place blame elsewhere. I am struck by the similarity of comments of those like Ms. West and the anti-semitic literature popular in Germany in the 1930s. then, as now, "scholars" and newspaper editorial writers sought to warn the public about the threat from these mysterious "outsiders" whose rituals an religions differed from those of the "Herrenvolk." The acceptance of such overtly racist commentaries in ostensibly mainstream newspapers as the Rocky Mountain News, and Washington Times, should send a chill through the spine of anyone who claims to embrace the commitment of the United States for those final words of the pledge of allegiance: "With liberty and justice for all."

Robert L. Welch

_________________

On this forum alone there are three threads running using Pipes' articles as their base. The real problem is that, like many crazies, he seems legitimate at first, until you begin to dig. Then the full on bigot is exposed.

Diana West. Opinion writer for the townhall media group, a conservative group that includes newsmax.com, and frequently publishes stuff by Ann Coulter, too.

Here is another article by West from townhall, in which she defends the yellowcake-uranium-Iraq references as true.

ttp://www.townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/dw20030721.shtml

So always consider the source.

I like the Rocky Mountain News. Bring it up to read every so often.

In true monica fashion, the link function is....

Daniel Pipes is an imperialist through and through. His work reads like its straight out of the nineteenth century, especially in his defense of Israel. He is completely oblivious to the fact that Zionism is a feature of European colonialism and imperialism and--as the Revisionists took over the Zionist colonization of Palestine--fascism. He doesn't stop to question the legitimacy of Israel, and the arrogation of Palestine by the Zionists, and the arbitrary granting of "a Jewish homeland" to those Europeans by imperialist Great Britain. Who was Great Britain to grant anything in the Middle East to any European?

It is easier to deal with a demonization of the peoples one subjugates, than to own up to one's responsibility for the sty they had a direct hand in creating.

the "h" in the "http" is missing. just copy/paste her link into your address bar and insert h in the beginning, click enter, & presto.

Egads! I never noticed. I guess I see what I think I'm seeing. Thanks, nimh.

The Neo-cons must be desperate to haev this guy approbed. There was a reprint of yesterday's Wash Times Krauthammer peice in today's RMN. Certainly makes me wonder what is in the planning stage that they feel they have to have this guy on the council for.