It’s sign of our media times that the lofty Guardian has seen fit to attack the blog of a “mere” Dartmouth undergraduate. (Congratulations to Joe Malchow who did a pretty thorough job discrediting the fuddy-duddy British behemoth.)
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
A sign of the times?
Merely belonging to a anti-Semitic organization doesn’t even rate a raised eye-brow, in fact, admitting an organization is openly about hating Jews is apparently just fine with law enforcement in the UK.
It’s no surprise that the Muslim leadership thinks they’re in charge and they’ll live to see the flag of Islam in the British parliament.
Look for this dog and pony show to be coming to a town near you real soon…
http://reelcobra.blogspot.com/2005/07/jihad-dhimmitude-and-hillary-rodham.html
Whoops, posted that in the wrong place. Sorry.
Cobra:
It’s not actually off topic. Not grasping or accepting who your your enemy is and picking a small defenseless other party to attack instead is all part of the same problem.
I usually agree with most everything VDH says, but I am still holding out hope that there are indeed many practicing Muslims that are viscerally opposed to the Jihad movement. I think they continue to stay quiet and on the sidelines mostly out of fear, and because their obsession with dignity and saving face, etc., (i.e. their deep seated inferiority complex) keeps them from being able to admit such fear and rise up against it.
It’s not surprising to me that the “moderate Muslims” are acting in a more terrorized state than the principal direct victims of terror acts (liberal loons aside). They understand much more intimately what the terrorists are, what they stand for and what they are willing to do to anyone that stands in there way. In the long run, if the MM’s don’t act against it, then it may be necessary to start viewing them as ordinary citizens within Nazi Germany who become complicit by failing to act against the evil. But I’m not there yet.
“Merely belonging to a anti-Semitic organization doesn’t even rate a raised eye-brow….”
Inasmuch as The Guardian is an anti-semitic organization, this is hardly surprising.
Hanson’s a fine military historian, but a scholar of Islam? Daniel Pipes, who is, or should be, hard-line enough for anyone on this blog _ he’s certainly been attacked by all the right people _ has gone out of his way more than once to say that Islam, as such, is not the enemy. Since he’s probably forgotten more about Islam than I’ll ever know, I’d rather defer to him until much better evidence is in.
(The Chicago Tribune reports that “the nation’s largest association of Islamic legal scholars” plans to issue a fatwa against terrorism and extremism. Well, it’s a start.)
‘but I am still holding out hope that there are indeed many practicing Muslims that are viscerally opposed to the Jihad movement.’
Unfortunately hope is not a plan. Until I see some evidence that Muslims actively oppose the terrorist mass murder cult then it’s up to us.
The Guardian is apparently unaware of Dartmouth College’s outsized contribution to, er, alternative media.
WE really have to stop this wishful thinking! Look at pewglobal.org July 15, 2005 report. They only report by country, but if you add up the 6 major muslem countries the average is over 43% of Islam supports violence. The report breaks it down, but the fact of the matter is that support of often to rare is the samething. Some form of violence is supported by 43%. So the BIG LIE IS only 1% use violence, when the real truth is over 43% support violence. That means the 1% is hidden, supplied and financially supported by 43%. I want to scream when I see and hear the BOGUS 1%(of Islam is violent) baloney!
“Daniel Pipes, who is, or should be, hard-line enough for anyone on this blog _ he’s certainly been attacked by all the right people _ has gone out of his way more than once to say that Islam, as such, is not the enemy. Since he’s probably forgotten more about Islam than I’ll ever know, I’d rather defer to him until much better evidence is in.”
Knowing Islam as he does, he knows a thing or two about taqiyah. What exactly is he going to say? As long as Islam exists it will always remain a menace to other cultures? That doesn’t leave you much in the way of tactics.
The whole “moderation of Islam” business is merely kicking the can down the road (for very good practical reasons, I might add.)
As far as the recent noise about Muslims against terror, we’ll see. Action is much louder than words, and if those Free Muslims Against Terror event crowds don’t increase by a order of two-three magnitudes real soon, things are looking grim indeed.