Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer (left) with archconspirator Daniel Pipes at the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference in The Hague last week
The Arab European League (thanks to BV) has discovered the culprit behind the Muhammad cartoons:
The mainstream media coverage of the anti-Islamic racist cartoons ignores the fact that the publication of the images was a "calculated offense" commissioned by a Zionist "Danish" colleague of the Zionist neo-con ideologue Daniel Pipes and was meant to incite violence and promote the Zionist "clash of civilizations" between Muslims and Christians.
Bad timing. On the same day the AEL's fanciful report was published, Pipes himself published a refutation of the assertion that he had anything to do with the cartoons at all:
Did you know that I had a hand in the Danish cartoons of Muhammad?No? Well, neither did I until I found this out in early February on a conspiracist website. To clear the record, I’ll start with the facts, then outline the conspiracy theory.
What actually happened: Flemming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, sent me an e-mail on September 29, 2004, introducing himself and requesting an in-person interview during his U.S. trip. I agreed and Rose came to my Philadelphia office on October 25, when he spent about half an hour asking me questions. His article on me, “Truslen fra islamismen” (or “The Threat of Islamism),” appeared on October 29. It is a standard journalistic piece in which Rose provided some biographical information about me and had me explain my views on radical Islam. (Both the Danish original and an English translation can be found on my website, www.DanielPipes.org.)
After that meeting, I had no further contact with Rose. To be more precise: we have since then not met, talked, or written to each other. I learned only from the press of his decision, nearly a year after our meeting, to commission and publish the cartoons.
The AEL, of course, says nothing of the violent and irrational worldwide Muslim reaction to the cartoons. They seem to take it for granted that such a reaction to the cartoons was justified. Perhaps this entire absurd conspiracy theory about Pipes and Rose is designed to deflect attention away from that reaction.
The AEL is a cancer in the heart of Western Europe. It has almost no support among muslims, in fact during the last elections in Belgium they only got a few thousand votes in Antwerp.
Abu Jahjah was so disappointed he wanted to leave Belgium, too bad he did not follow up on his promise...
Let's not forget there ARE muslims who just want to live their lives, like we do. It is the rotten apples that screw up for them and us.
Robert,
Is the Pim Fortuyn memorial conference held every year?
And could you give me details of what you discussed?
Daniel Pipes has gone really grey since I last saw a picture of him only a few months ago.
The mainstream media coverage of the anti-Islamic racist cartoons ignores the fact that the publication of the images was a "calculated offense" commissioned by a Zionist "Danish" colleague of the Zionist neo-con ideologue Daniel Pipes and was meant to incite violence and promote the Zionist "clash of civilizations" between Muslims and Christians.
a "calculated offense" .... whos taking offense here? Or if offence is meeaning insult, which is more insulting drawings or slaughter?
that photo clearly shows that its not a worldwide zionist conspiracy - its a worldwide bearded conspiracy!
look out - bearded people control everything!!!
Robert, nice picture . . . you look like the cat who just ate the canary! Pipes defended himself well.
Rob, you truely look like a jew in that picture :D
Your hair looks like a kippah :D
Typical muslim reaction - blame someone else.
"Let's not forget there ARE muslims who just want to live their lives, like we do. It is the rotten apples that screw up for them and us."
-- from a posting above
How many such "rotten apples" are there? And does the metaphor hold? For "rotten apples" can easily be detected, whereas it is impossible for Infidels to detect those among the Muslims who desire entry into their countries the ones who are, as you soothingly put it, "rotten apples"?
And what, in these terms, would constitute a "rotten apple"? Would it be someone who, at the moment, assures us -- and even seems -- to wish merely to "live their lives, like we do"? Do we have any evidence that such people often are capable of going to work, smiling, being almost oleagineous in their desire to outwardly please, and yet may possess an inward mental life that makes them at the very least defend Islam by omitting much, and lying about the meaning of a good deal of the rest, whether out of embarrassment and filial piety (must reject attacks on Islam) or out of motives more sinister.
And if many Muslims -- and who has not had the astonishing encounter, early on, with someone -- possibly a colleague at work -- whom until then you had assumed was a sensible, "moderate" Muslim who would speak the truth, and who had in fact gone out of his way to demonstrate his affability and friendliness, in a fashion that you now realize was a just a bit over-eager, just a bit suspect, but did not at the time.
And then you broach the subject: Islam. You assume he will denounce terrorism and Bin Laden. You assume he will be perfectly willing to describe the texts of Islam as you, having now studied them, know them to be. You assume he will not defend the fanaticism of Muslim mobs, will deplore inshallah-fatalism, will have no desire to defend the mistreatment of women, and so on. Yet you soon realize that he views the world through the prism of Islam, and cannot even conceive, for example, of permitting people who have been born into Islam to freely choose to leave that faith, for another or none at all. On the subject of Israel he goes into a remarkable rage. On Muslm behavior, he starts talking about the sins of the West. On the Lords of Misrule in the Muslim world, he has nothing to say about Islam and its location of legitimacy not in people but in Islam itself, and the Holy Law of Islam, the Shari'a. He will denounce "killing civilians" and then add, as always "but." That "but." And then more "buts," followed always by an attempt to draw attention away from Islam to something else, to the sins of everyone else. Just try to discuss with a Pakistani the 60-70 million Hindus killed under Muslim rule, or to ask him to consider under what conditions his own Hindu ancestors were forced to convert, to avoid either death or the onerous conditions of life under Muslim masters, to Islam -- and suddenly a feral fury will be exposed. Let it be exposed. See what really is so close to the surface.
And talk about what the word "jihad" means, and wait for the usual nonsense about it meaning a "spiritual search." Ask your non-rotten apple, the one in whom you have placed such faith, what the word "dhimmi" means? Then wait for all the nonsense about the "tolerance" of Islam, and the Pact of Omar, and how good it was to treat these Christians and Jews as "protected people." Protected from what, you should ask innocently?
And don't even dare -- or yes, do dare -- to mention Asma bint Marwan, the Banu Qurayza, the Khaybar Oasis, Abu Akaf, and of course Aisha. Wait, for this last, to find out that "she really wasn't 9 but 19" and that "in any case, everyone married young in those days so it needs to be seen in context" and then, finally, that "well, women do mature at different rates and Aisha had matured."
This handful of "rotten apples" business reflects an eagerness to believe, quite wrongly, that most Muslims do not take Islam seriously. Anyone, anyone at all who takes seriously, and accepts, or who can in a state of mental disarray "return to Islam" (a born-again Muslim, like that Intel engineeer Mike Hawash, now in Federal prison for 27 years) and newly accept, the tenets and attitudes that are so clearly expressed in Qur'an and Hadith, is a permanent threat to the safety and wellbeing of Infidel institutions and individuals.
It is not a case of a few "rotten apples." Most Muslims accept the idea that "war is deception" and that "Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated." And we have no way, we Infidels, to distinguish the true "moderates" -- who reject so much of Islamic doctrine as really to be "Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims. We cannot bet our lives, our laws, our political institutions, our art, our science, our customs, our ways, our everything, on a sure-fire detector of which, among the Muslims wishing to live in the Lands of the Infidels, there are those capable of permanent, and unfeigned loyalty to the Infidel nation-state, who are not merely practicing deception (outward affability is easy), or susceptible to change, slow or sudden, and reversion to the real thing at a later date. It is not our problem. It is the problem of Islam itself. Let Islam itself, and all those Muslims who keep pretending to themselves that it is not Islam that explains the inshallah-fatalism, the discouragement of free and skeptical inquiry, be confined to itself, contained as much as possible, so as not to export even more of its own disarray and danger, and wait for the day when Muslims, like Communists in Soviet Russia, finally figured out that the problem was their own system, and it had failed in every way.
Couldn't that be a cartoon . . . I can't draw, but you'd have a Judge banging the gavel stating 20 years Muhamed, do you have anything to say for yourself? to wit the prophet(PBUH) replies, "She looked 19 your honor."
Robert,
Thanks for this posting. Yes, I did take a brief look at the recent Daniel Pipes article about the acussation of him being involved with the Mohammed cartoons. It would not suprise me if this is being done to tarnish Mr. Pipes good name. Thanks also for this picture.
that photo clearly shows that its not a worldwide zionist conspiracy - its a worldwide bearded conspiracy! - posted by Archduke
Good beards vs. bad beards, Archduke, the latter being the ungroomed, Santa Claus-envy type beards sported by the likes of Zawahiri, Muqtada al-Sadr, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, etc.
The devoutly ungroomed beard says "I'm @#%$ing nuts," or on college campuses, it may be merely indicatative of a benign slob.
The well-groomed beard says "I have my @#$% together."
One must also note with some pride that our intrepid leader is a snappy dresser.
"Indicatative." I thought that looked strange. Trust me, it's "indicatative" of a need for coffee, not a lack of edumacation. ;)
Great picture, Mr Spencer. I'm not surprised that Daniel has been implicated in this mess.
Keep up the excellent work.
Personally, I am looking forward to our host elaborating more on the issues raised in this post at Israpundit (titled "The Lights are Going Out All Over Europe")- about the conference which Mr Spencer recently attended in the Netherlands.
http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=182
Pipes and Spencer sounds like a snazzy sartorial store.
You could start with a line of quality T-shirt shoppes showing full-color images of Mohammad from Islamic medieval art, including Persian, Turkish- (like the "Zubdat-al Tawarikh" manuscript), Afghan & Moghul miniatures, etc., to appeal to high culture, and expose the hypocrisy of the Muslim 'iconoclastic excuse' for their violent Cartoon Jihad.
The "Islam Pictures Mohammad" collection, perhaps?
See:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/
You know it's a funny about those rotten apples. They're so detectable after they've gone bad but it only takes one to cause the rotting of the many and then they're only good for one thing.
You can always catch the ones which are most obvious (usually on top of the bag) but then there's always one hiding on the bottom which you miss, only later to find out that it worked it's way up through the bunch and then they all got to go! So why wait?