Iranian filmmaker: Holocaust never happened, Al-Qaeda and the Mossad worked together to pull off 9/11

>Islam was around even before, ...

Somehow, this huge, arrogant, lie the Mohammedans tell in order to legitimize Islam has to be put to rest.

Any suggestions on how to do that? Just keep rebutting with, "No, there was no Islam until Muhammed in the early 7th century AD?"

Who came up with the fiction that Judaism and Christianity have been altered/distorted, and so Islam came along to set things aright? Who is the origin of that lie?

Funny - he doesn't look like Oliver Stone.

So, he's a fan of Jimmy Carter, that explains a lot.

Nader Talebzadeh: When Islam appeared on the scene... Islam was around even before, but the Islam that we have seen in the past three decades has generated reactions throughout the world and is growing. It is like a landlord returning to his property.

Yep, with eviction notices in his hand.
Sorry, but we are not evicting.

"They [imprison] their intellectuals, experts, and researchers, such as Roger Garaudy and Robert Faurisson."
-- from the article above

Further detail may be welcomed by some.

Roger Garaudy was a French Commnist of the determinedly Stalinist kind, who later traded in his Stalinism for Islam. As a convert, he contineud to exhbit the vicious anti-Israel feelings, not distinguishable from antisemitism (but, in some morally dimwitted quarters, a socially acceptable vehicle for it).

Robert Faurisson is a crazed Holocaust-denier who was much in the news about ten years ago. His stoutest defender, and the author of an introcuction to his book, was the Sage of Generative Grammar, Noam Chomsky, who in his political vaporings -- done in a quiet voice, a voice of seeming sweet reason -- demonstrates that he is disturbingly akin to one of those cases of multiple personalities we all enjoy reading, and fantasizing, about. He may (or may not be) at a dead end with his myth of eternal recursion (see Everett, see possibly Pinker), but he is certainly cracked -- several smoots short of the figurative bridge that mimicks the real one near to his office -- as his becoming Faurisson's defender, and so much else, testifies.

That's Garaudy. That's Faurisson.

"Today, in America, the only people who dare to criticize Israel are Jews - you must be a [Norman] Finkelstein, a [Noam] Chomsky, or a Mark LeVine..."
-- from the article above

While Finkelstein, the child of survivors of a Nazi death camp, is merely a sad case of someone unable to mentally cope, and driven to a kind of consolatory madness, and while something of the sort may have happened to Chomsky, though he seems merely to be a run-of-the-mill leftist who locates the source of all our woe in the West, in America, and of course, in tiny Israel, LeVine is something else. He is one more eager, dumb, ill-prepared, comical self-promoter, cunning enough to be able to rise in the ranks, the most comfortable, least-demaning ranks, in the modern world, a near-sinecure, as an academic, teaching phonily in a phony field where other phonies will and do approve and will blow no whistles today or any other day.

He's much more ordinary than Chomsky, of course, more akin to that other careerist Ward Churchill, managing to scramble, scramble, scramble, into a position that he does not deserve, and to hold onto it. The universities are full of such usurpers and calibans, who have learned our language in order to curse.

Here's what I put up three-and-a-half years ago about Mark LeVine:

"Mark LeVine's own description of himself states:
Mark LeVine is an emerging leader of the new generation of historians and analysts of the modern Middle East and Islam.
... taught Qur'an to Muslim Brothers,

LeVine trusts no one, is suspicious of all sources and all authority. He is not afraid to tell the truth based on the facts and data he can personally confirm, and will challenge the actions and opinions of rulers and ruled, oppressed and oppressor alike.

His wide and deep knowledge of the politics and history of the entire region (from North Africa to Afghanhistan), its religions and its cultures, gives him unique insight into the broader dynamics that have produced the events that constantly dominate the news.

Need anything else be said?

Perhaps you thought that reading Qur’an and hadith and sira, accompanied by hundreds of articles and dozens of books, might help one to understand a belief-system that, unlike Mark LeVine, is not “suspicious of all sources and all authority” and indeed, is based entirely on “sources” and “authority.” From what do Sheikh Tantawi, Qaradawi, the “Sunni scholars” of Anbar Province, Ayatollah al-Sistani, Ayatollah Khomeini, and the imams with their khutbas in Saudi Arabia, receive their authority, if not from their familiarity with, and understanding of, the canonical texts? When, on a thousand websites, inquiring Muslims write in, asking for opinions on taxes and hairstyles and avoiding interest and the calculation of zakat and the possibility of permanent peace with Infidels, on what do those offering their opinions and formal rulings base them – if not the authority of the texts, and the commentators on those texts? Yet someone like Mark LeVine, who rushes about the wide world, who is a great believer in his own experiences – teaching Qur’an to Muslim Brothers, interviewing Hamas members, and whatever else it is that he has done (no need for boring book-learning in the stacks) – discounts all that. He, after all, is part of the “new generation of historians and analysts” who are suspicious of “all sources” and “all authority.” One wonders by what criteria he decides to stop being suspicious, and to accept any scholarly work by anyone. At what point, for example, would he say that Snouck Hurgronje or Antoine Fattal, to take two disparate examples, have passed all of Mark LeVine’s tests and need not be read with such a total refusal to accept “all sources” and “all authority”? It appears that Edward Said and Noam Chomsky are among those who, as “sources” and “authority,” have passed some Mark-LeVine-tests. What tests would those be? Perhaps others can apply the same criteria?

And who else meets the test? Does John Esposito? Does Ibn Warraq? What does Mark LeVine think, since he reads German, of Christoph Luxenberg? And since he reads Italian, this polymath, what does he think of the cofanetto of four works by Oriana Fallaci, all on the subject of Islam, and the Islamization of Europe? Anything? Nothing?

Mark LeVine believes that “the West” – or more specifically, America, or Amerika, is also guilty of “terrorism.” It is things that America has done that explain hostility to it. It has nothing to do with America being perceived as an Infidel power. Nor do the world’s Muslims bear any animus to anyone outside the West, such as Hindus and Buddhists (or the Zoroastrians of Persia), with whom they have always gotten along so swimmingly. And if a handful of historians, such as K. S. Lal or Sita Ram Goel or Francois Gautier, suggest otherwise, they are simply puppets of the BJP and Hindutva fanatics.

He believes that we all need a cooling-off period. There is nothing in Islam itself, as a belief-system, to worry about. Nothing about the behavior of Muhammad, and then of Muhammad as a model, to worry anyone. Nothing in the hadith, and of course nothing in the Qur’an, that might, just might, cause Believers to behave in a way that might represent a permanent danger to Infidels.

That is because Mark LeVine doth bestride the world like a colossus. He knows languages – many many languages (just try him out in a debate – try speaking to him in French, or Turkish, -- and of course he can also make out Ottoman script as well as modern Turkish – and Italian, and of course Arabic and Hebrew and Persian. A. K. S. Lambton, Bernard Lewis, S. D. Goitein – these people have nothing on him, and he is not about to submit to their “authority.” Goitein spent a few decades trying to understand the weight of the jizya on the Jews, and finally felt he had done so, after a lifetime of underestimating it as a burden. But Mark LeVine doesn’t have to know what Goitein learned, because he has traveled to the Middle East, and spoken to Hamas members, and even “taught Qur’an to Muslim Brothers.”

Did Goitein, did Snouck Hurgronje, did Margoliouth, did Joseph Schacht do that? Can anyone who hasn’t wandered through North Africa and the Middle East really and truly undrerstand it? Books are so overrated. The study of the past is so overrated. The study of immutable doctrines, and the hapless attempts by some “reformers” to overcome the immutability of those doctrines, is so overrated. What counts is Experience.

It is a little like Nabokov. He once regretted that he had, in his life, only been a writer, whereas so many American writers had been lumberjacks, soda jerks, oil field hands, taxi drivers, and short order cooks, amassing all those experiences which, of course, had caused their prose to be immortal and his prose – well, you can forget about him. And didn’t James Joyce also have a dozen different occupations as well?

So Mark LeVine indeed does represent the newest stage in scholarship: the scholar who doesn’t have to bother with scholarship. There is no past. The past exists only if we let it. Say No to the Past. Stick with the present. See what you can see. And since you cannot see into the minds of men, and do not know what it is – what texts, what sermons and societies and atmospherics and attitudes that are based on, or emerge from, those texts – that forms their minds, they will always be a mystery.

Did Arafat mention on at least four occasions the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya? So what? What is that supposed to mean?

And so what if Majid Khadduri wrote a book which many consider to be the last word on the subject – “War and Peace in the Law of Islam” – in which he sets out clearly the impossibility of any Muslim people or polity making a permanent peace with any Infidel people or polity. Khadduri explains that a “hudna” is to be used only in order to strengthen the Muslim side, or to rescue it from a currently untenable position. For example, it is clear that some members of Hamas believe that the Israeli counter-offensive has been quite damaging, and that Hamas needs a timeout. Yes, but why should Israel give it to them?

And it is also clear that many Muslims are now worried about Infidels learning just a bit too much, and becoming a bit too alarmed, about Islam – about its doctrines, about what Muslims believe, and about the future of Infidel countries where there are large and growing Muslim immigrants. Transparent attempts to protect Islam and Muslims from critical scrutiny, such as the invention, and widespread use, of the scare-word “Islamophobia,” are evidence of this fear.

The “Conflicts Forum” of Alistair Crooke, Patrick Seale (who has been in the business of supplying every – and I mean every – desire of Arab paymasters since he was throwing parties for important Arabs, and inviting some attractive young English girls of a special sort to his house in Eaton Square in the 1970s), and the propagandist and public relations adviser to Arafat & Co., Mark Perry, discussed elsewhere at this website, is another example.

And now comes Mark LeVine to embody this new mode of anti-academic academics, where deep familiarity with the texts can be dispensed with, as one can learn so much more from real life, in Beirut and Gaza, in Cairo and Damascus. Scholarship without scholarship – that is the new motto for a new age. And why not?

Perhaps you prefer Mark LeVine to Schacht, Margoliouth, and Antoine Fattal. Perhaps you think Mark LeVine’s understanding of the “hudna” is superior to that of Majid Khadduri. But why?

Mark LeVine must really tell us what it is about Snouck Hurgronje on Mecca and Islam in the Dutch East Indies, what it is about Fagnan and Dufourcq and Bousquet and Bat Ye'or on Jihad and dhimmitude, what it is about the Indian historian K. S. Lal and about Francois Gautier, Haish Narain and Sita Ram Goel and a dozen other historians of India under Muslim rule, and what it is about Rumanian historians of Islam (Maria-Matilda Alexandrescu-Dersca Bulgaru) and Bulgarian students (Bistra A. Cvetkova; Snegarov) and Greek historians (Speros Vryonis Jr. and Apostolos E. Vakalopoulos and Vassiliki Papoulia), and Serb historians (including the celebrated writer Ivo Andric, whose Ph.D. thesis, "The Development of Spiritual Life in Bosnia Under the Influence of Turkish Rule” has recently been published in English) that makes him so distrustful of all of them. Is it some internal inconsistency? Is it that they did not know the relevant languages? Is it that they had not had the life experiences, talking to Hamas members, teaching Qur'an to members of the Muslim Brothers, that Mark LeVine has had?

And how well, really, did Majid Khadduri know Arabic? And what did he know about how Muslims think of war, and peace, with Infidels? Did he talk to Hamas members? Or lecture members of the Muslim Brothers? Just how long had Majid Khadduri been studying Islam before he wrote his own book on “War and Peace in the Law of Islam”? Did he get on "Nightline"? Why not? And for that matter, did Elie Kedourie? Or J. B. Kelly? What about his views on Saudi Arabia? Do they have any resemblance to reality? Doesn't the Aramco Handbook tell us so much more, being written as it was for the edification of the real-life oil workers and engineers who spent years right there in Saudi Arabia -- even more time in the midst of Arab Islam than Mark LeVine, and so, presumably even greater experts than he?

And since Mark LeVine is apparently impressed with Edward Said and Noam Chomsky, those two lifelong students of Islam, could he explain what it was about each that made him trust in them as sources, and in their authority? Was there something about Said’s "Orientalism" that escaped the historian of British India Clive Dewey? Or that Ibn Warraq failed to notice in his own review of Said's work? Or Keith Windschuttle? Or Bernard Lewis in his celebrated reply to Said, “The Question of ‘Orientalism’”? And what was it that caused Mark LeVine to have such confidence in Said’s own “The Question of Palestine”? For example, was it the way Said used, or did not use, the testimony of Western travellers, beginning in the late 18th century, to the area known to the West as "Palestine"? Why, for example, does he quote Volney in his "Orientalism" but for some reason leave Volney out of "The Question of Palestine"? Anything about the use of sources there that got Mark LeVine's antennae quivering? What about the quotations, or lack of quotations, from the eyewitness accounts of the Holy Land, of which there were so many? Does Mark LeVine find at all strange the difference, for example, in how Lamartine and Chateaubriand and Mark Twain and Melville are quoted, or not, in Said's book, and how they are quoted in a book of equal length, Katz's "Battleground"?

And as for Chomsky, what with the Sandinistas and syntactic structures, has Chomsky ever had time to study Qur'an and hadith and sira -- or to take seriously a belief-system, and attempt to understand what prompts Muslims to see the universe as many do, by actually looking at the texts upon which that belief-system is so thoroughly based? Does Mark LeVine worry the least bit about a belief-system that offers a Total Explanation of the Universe, and divides that universe mainly into two groups -- Believers and Infidels? Or is this all a fantasy of Donald Rumsfeld, aided and abetted by such neo-con Likudniks as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the late Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, right-wingers all?

Yet, these criticisms surely must be unfair. For otherwise, how could Assistant Professor Mark LeVine possibly have concluded the following about Assistant Professor Mark LeVine: "His wide and deep knowledge of the politics and history of the entire region (from North Africa to Afghanhistan), its religions and its cultures, gives him unique insight into the broader dynamics that have produced the events that constantly dominate the news."

Mark LeVine is an updated academic version of Dickens' Mr. Podsnap in "Our Mutual Friend":

Mr. Podsnap was well to do, and stood very high in Mr. Podsnap’s opinion. Beginning with a good inheritance, he had married a good inheritance, and had thriven exceedingly in the Marine Insurance way, and was quite satisfied. He never could make out why everybody was not quite satisfied, and he felt conscious that he set a brilliant social example in being particularly well satisfied with most things, and, above all other things, with himself.
Thus happily acquainted with his own merit and importance, Mr. Podsnap settled that whatever he put behind him he put out of existence. There was a dignified conclusiveness – not to add a grand convenience – in this way of getting rid of disagreeables which had done much towards establishing Mr. Podsnap in his lofty place in Mr. Podsnap’s satisfaction. “I don’t want to know about it; I don’t choose to discuss it; I don’t admit it!”

Perhaps you trust Mark LeVine, who doesn’t want to know about all those scholars, doesn’t choose to discuss them at length, doesn’t admit the justice of their decades of scrupulous research. He knows better. He has been to the Middle East. He has talked to Hamas members and Muslim Brothers. They tell him things. What more does anyone need?

Perhaps you agree as well with Mark LeVine’s guiding motto, that mental bumper-sticker which tells him always to “Question Authority.”

Why should you?"

[Posted on December 13, 2004]

Robert,
Thanks for bringing Carter into the mix.
This useless excuse for a thinker and politician even brought us Mugabe and the economic meltdown in Zimbabwe.
The secret is out.
Socialism doesn't work.
Freedom and economic opportunity does.
Unfortunately with medicare, biofuel, excessive regulation (including in the bank and mortgage meltdown 'remedies') we unfortunately are about to relearn this primal lesson.
Also unfortunately,
Painfully.

(it is so apparent that one doesn't have to be a Cassandra or an Isaiah to see it)

Well, let's start with the gross stupity of this 'filmmaker' (dont we have our own, like Oliver Stone ?).

So this man, a film-maker, is quintessentially Muslim in his conspiracy-theory belief that Al Qaeda and Mossad must have collaborated -- Al Qaeda providing the manodopera, presumably, and Mossad the real brains of the outfit (this fits with the Arab Muslim excuse that "we Arabs couldn't have done this, it had to have been the diabolically clever Jews" when they are not hysterically cheering themselves for having carried it off and showed those Infidels).

All kinds of people, all over the world, are susceptible to conspiracy theories and crazinesses. So it becomes a question of how deeply are such theories held, and how frequently, and by what percentage of the population? And one finds, and one is not surprised to find, that in Muslim countries the entire political life consists of conspiracy theories, wild exaggerations, blame-the-Infidel for everyting views.

This too should come as no surprise. For if you are raised up in societies suffused with Islam, where Islam is the measure of all things, the reference point for all things, the guide for all things, the constant shared cultural source, the thing without which life makes no sense, the system of Total Regulation, the supplier of a Complete Explanation of the Universe, and if that total belief-system, Islam, also encourages, at every step, the habit of mental submission, and discourages, at every step, the spirit of free and skeptical inquiry, then naturally, as the night doth follow day, you will be susceptible to those conspiracy theories, those wild exaggerations, those blame-the-Infidel notions that sustain a steady, often quiet but sometimes noisy, hate.

See the phrase "Iranian film-maker" and you no doubt think that all "Iranian film-makers" must be dissidents, horrified by the Islamic Republic and, increasingly, by the power of Islam itself, and the way it has done so much damage to something greater than itself, which is Iran, Iranian civilization, that which existed before the Arabs brought Islam, and that which resisted the arabization that accompanied islamization, and that which has become again important, as an antidote to the Islamic Republic, for many Iranians.

Abbas Kiarostami he is not.

Whenever confronted with a holocaust-denier don't get side-tracked. Ask ONE simple question.

At the Nuremberg trials, particularly the Rudolf Hoess trial (he was commandant of Auschwitz) and other trials of major war criminals - NEVER EVER did these top Nazis even THINK to deny the full extent of the Holocaust "We were following orders"

NOT ONCE did they defend themselves by DENYING any of it and they were on trial for THEIR LIVES. Hoess described the Auschwitz set-up in matter
-of-fact and exhaustive detail with numbers and dates as have many other Nazis. Memories of survivors and numerous documents back up their statements.

Aren't the lies they tell themselves and others utterly amazing?! And laughable?!!

It takes a lot of effort, and a lot of lies to make Islam look good. Nice try, but we aren't buyin' it!

Islam be gone!

Another addition to the body of "well documented opinion".

Dorothy clicked her Heels to get out of OZ, not to get into it.

Hurricane ravished Kansas was still better than the land of make believe.

Thirty years ago, you could not find a single mosque there, but today, there are a In Los Angeles, there are hundreds of mosques,..

I counted 161 in the whole state of California, with only 15 being in Los Angeles, typical puffed up Islamic rhetoric that would make Bagdad Bob very proud.

Burgerboy-

WRONG! What with unregistered, storefront mosques (or second story over the storefront mosques) and home mosques there ARE probably hundreds.

"The fact that the West does not tolerate any criticism of Israel..."
-- from the article above

Not only does "the West" tolerate constant criticism of Israel, so it takes up, this mighty empire about the size of Connecticut, hard to discern on a map of the world, about one-third to one-half of the total debates and resolutions at the U.N. and many of its subsidiary bodies. Whole conferences seem to veer inexorably into the subject of Israel's perfidy and the greatest tragedy in the history of the world, that of the "Palestinians" -- whether it be a conference on racism at Durban, or on women in Cairo. And the Western world not only tolerates it, but sometimes joins in. Israel has been left virtually alone, save for a handful of states.

And as for the Western press, with the kind of drip-drip-drip of anti-Israel venom, that now courses through the veins of so many in the West, because the good doctors of The Guardian and the BBC and Le Monde and Agence France Presse and Reuters and a cast of thousands, with Robert Fisk in the lead but hardly alone, has misrepresented everything, has caused everything to be taken out of context, has promoted the notion of the "Palestinian people," has caused collective amnesia about the reason, and terms of, the Mandate for Palestine, has rewritten or ignored the true demographic history and the cadastral history, of that tiny sliver of land in dusty Asia, that had fallen into ruin and desolation, and that, if the Jews of the Middle East (the Jews of the Middle East whom we are supposed to forget about, as if they never existed) as well as the Jews whose mistreatment in Europe had its final apotheosis in Mr. Hitler and the still-unbelievable events of 1933-1945, that is those who belonged to the most persecuted tribe in human history, who returned (though some had never left, for there was a continuous Jewish presence, always, in Safed, Tiberias, Jerusalem, and even in Hebron until the Arab Muslim massacre of 1929), and re-established for the second time in 2000 years, a Jewish commonwealth. The incredible accomplishments in Israel, the magnanimity it has shown as well to its mortal enemies, have both been systematically ignored.

One may, or may not, agree with the celebrated Italian journalist and historian Indro Montanelli, who a few years before his death, in 2001, at the age of 90, wrote that the re-establishment of the State of Israel was "the greatest thing, possibly the only good thing, to have come out of the twentieth century." Montanelli could say this because, though not Jewish, he -- like Churchill -- understood what that meant, in world-historical terms, what it meant to the West.

This has been forgotten in that same West, the West where we are told by this crazed Muslim observer, criticism of Israel is not tolerated. Though the least deserving of criticism, in the West, as elsewhere, Israel has become an object of hysterical and ahistorical criticism, criticism that is spread, and finds favor, with two kinds of people: the usual group, some 10-20% of the population in any given Western country, that exhibits signs of that mental pathology we call antisemitism (and for whom Israel provides an "acceptable" outlet for their low-level hostility or hatred)and those who simply do not know, are ignorant of, the history of Israel, of the Mandate period, of the Mandate itself, of the rules of territorial adjustment after wars, of the history of the Middle East, of the history of Islamic conquest, of the demographic and cadastral history of the area that became modern Israel, of the texts, tenets, attitudes, and atmospherics, of Islam. And the less you know of these things, the more likely it is that you will credulously accept and pass on to others, the inaccurate and at times horrifically, and sinisterly unjust, reporting on events, and "making sense" of events, that takes place in the popular press and in broadcasting.

From Anthony Lewis, to Tom Friedman, to Robert Fisk, to Eric Rouleau, the misrepresenters of Israel, who have done so much damage, are many and various.

"Criticism of Israel" is not tolerated? There is an object of conceivable criticism that is, in many parts of the Western world, carefully protected from such criticism, but it is not "Israel." It does, however, share the same initial syllable. And that is about all it shares.

Is this Mohammed John Cleese?

BurgerBoy...I don't dispute any numbers, but Mosques are now being disguised as 'Muslim Cultural Centers, or 'Muslim Community Centers', etc.
This just makes them harder to count if your looking for an obvious mosque. There are probably small closet mosques all over the place...

poetcomic1...I didn't see your response to Burger Boy until after I posted. Had I seen it I would not have duplicated your work. Most people think of a mosque as a gleaming building, possibly with minarets (a phallic symbol). They are not considering that the home closet, spare room, living room, or even a large box truck (a rolling mosque) can be a mosque. Certainly there are many more invisible mosques than visible ones, but they all count...

Last year, Jimmy Carter portrayed this clearly in his widely discussed book, in which he wrote that it is very strange that... It is just like in the story by Hans Christian Andersen, in which the Emperor has no clothes, and it is a child who exposes this. Jimmy Carter said that nobody in the American Congress dares to criticize Israel in any way. Isn't this strange in a country that purports to believe in liberty?

Thank you so much, Dhimmy Carter, for standing up for those who respect democracy and freedom in the Middle East, and for condemning those who hate freedom.

Seriously, is Dhimmy Carter confused, or has he sold out? What do you all think?

When 9/11 took place, the FBI arrested five or six Mossad agents who were filming the building, and they were sent back to Tel Aviv that same day.

Any evidence of this, or is this yet another islamic fantasy conspiracy theory?

poetcomic1, duh_swami

I agree, it is possible.

My point was if this guy is correct there should be a way to prove it, I disproved it using a Islamic source.

http://islamicvalley.com/prod/entitySearch.php/t/09L

Burger Boy...I tried your link, it did not work.
We all know that mosques are multiple use facilities, and some of those uses are not legitimate(from our point of view). Mosques are magnets, they cause Islam to spread. 'If you build it they will come', applies here. Lots of them.
I am in favor of a ban on further mosque building, in the west, but even with that, there is no way to stop closet mosques. Only banning muslim immigration will slow that down, even then, I don't know that it can be stopped completely.

"Nobody else dares to speak out about it even in the media, let alone in Congress. It is an unwritten law. It is very strange that there is silencing of voices in a country that purports to be free and liberal."

Nader Talebzadeh is referring to the Holocaust, but he might just as well be speaking about the islamification of the West.

Laws against Holocaust denial are prevalent in Europe, but I'm not sure about the US.

In any case they would seem counterproductive. Roaches fear the light. As long as people are forbidden to deny the Holocaust their arguments can't be confronted. Laws that even appear to limit speech on this matter are the wedge in the door for people like this filmmaker. The same goes for all so-called hate speech. You have to bring these people out into the light before they can be confronted and their arguments shot down.

For those who don't regularly follow Gates of Vienna, here is a joke one of their readers sent in a few days ago:

A biker was riding by the zoo when he saw a little girl leaning into the lion’s cage. Suddenly the lion grabbed her by the cuff of her jacket and tried to pull her inside to slaughter her under the very eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumped off his Harley, ran to the cage, and hit the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain, the lion jumped back and let go of the girl. The biker then took her to her terrified parents, who thanked him profusely.

A reporter saw the whole scene, and addressing the biker, said, “Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I’ve ever seen a man do in my whole life.”

“Why, it was nothing, really,” said the biker. “The lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right.”

“I noticed a patch on your jacket,” said the journalist.

“Yeah, I ride with an Israeli motorcycle club,” the biker replied.

“Well, I’ll make sure this won’t go unnoticed. I’m a journalist with the LA Times, you know, and tomorrow’s papers will have this on the front page.”

The following morning the biker bought the paper to see if it indeed had brought out the news of his actions. On the front page was the headline:

ISRAELI GANG MEMBER ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH

"the reference point for all things, the guide for all things, the constant shared cultural source, the thing without which life makes no sense, the system of Total Regulation, the supplier of a Complete Explanation of the Universe, and if that total belief-system, Islam, also encourages, at every step, the habit of mental submission, and discourages, at every step, the spirit of free and skeptical inquiry"

--

Are you sure you're not talking about liberalism here?

A propos Roger Garaudy -

Jacques Ellul, who was thoroughly well informed as to the intellectual scene in France, particularly on the 'left', despised Garaudy.

On one occasion, in chapter 2 ['Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism'] of 'Un Chretien Pour Israel', Ellul dismisses Garaudy thus -

"la girouette Garaudy".

My 'learners' dictionary' of French informs me that 'girouette' means 'weather-vane' or 'weather-cock', and, if applied to persons, 'waverer'. I would be inclined to render it loosely into English, in this particular case, as 'turncoat'.

With this phrase Ellul seems to intend to Garaudy down to size by exposing his intellectual and moral emptiness - lacking foundation, blown by every passing wind.

Erratum in the above:

'seems to intend to Garaudy down to size' should read

'seems to intend to cut Garaudy down to size'.

"Are you sure you're not talking about liberalism here?"
-- from a posting above

If you mean the perversion of it, by usurpers who claim the name, yes. If you mean the real thing, the liberalism of John Stuart Mill, or of Senator Henry Jackson, no.

Since Hugh has just posted eloquently on the subject of Israel and antisemitism/antizionism, I would like to commend to all here an interview I saw this morning [Aussie time] in 'Jerusalem Post' online, with Israeli Jewish historian Benny Morris, concerning his latest book.

It appears that Morris has finally connected the dots. Indeed there were moments, as I read the interview, that made me wonder whether Mr Morris has been 'lurking' at Jihadwatch! Of course, if he hasn't, that makes it even more interesting.

I sent Mr Spencer the links in case he wished to feature the article as a whole - I'm not sure whether it would fit best under 'dhimmiwatch' or 'jihadwatch'.

But even if it doesn't get a spot to itself, it's worth reading.

"It was always a jihad".

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1207649985946&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

To paraphrase the immortal words of 'Enry 'Iggins' in the musical of My Fair Lady - "He's got it, he's got it, by G-d I think he's got it!"

Horowitz himself sums up thus: "Benny Morris's new book argues Islamic opposition to Jewish sovereignty catalyzed Arab hostility 60 years ago, just as it does today".

The Koran: Plan 8 from Outer Space.

A bit from the article on Benny Morris to which "dumbledore's army" kindly gives the link in a posting above:

"He recalls, for instance, the Muslim Brotherhood declaring in 1938 that 'To fight for Palestine was the 'inescapable obligation on every Muslim.'

He quotes King Ibn Sa'ud of Saudi Arabia telling US president Franklin Roosevelt, in a letter five years later, that Palestine 'has been an Arab country since the dawn of history and... was never inhabited by Jews for more than a period of time, during which their history in the land was full of murder and cruelty... [There is] religious hostility... between the Muslims and the Jews from the beginning of Islam... which arose from the treacherous conduct of the Jews towards Islam and the Muslims and their prophet.'

He notes that the mufti of Egypt in 1948 'issued a fatwa positing jihad in Palestine as the duty of all Muslims.'

In short, he insists, 'The jihadi impulse underscored both popular and governmental responses in the Arab world" to the UN's partition resolution and was "central to the mobilization of the 'street' and the [Arab] governments for the successive onslaughts of November-December 1947 and May-June 1948.'

As for the Palestinians, from the start, 'the clash with the Zionists was a zero-sum game. The Palestinian national movement's leader during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, Haj Amin al-Husseini, consistently rejected territorial compromise and espoused a solution to the Palestine problem that posited all of Palestine as an Arab state and allowed for a Jewish minority composed only of those who had lived in the country before 1914.'"

It's good that this kind of thing is published in the Jerusalem Post. For who needs to understand their situation better -- reality may be bleak, but is hardly hopeless -- than the people, and the government, of Israel?

He looks like Orson Wells. However Orson was a more entertaining actor than this wannabe. These fools have no originality. They are only following the leader. Their religion, thought life and culture is corrupt. The only thing that they are good at is devising new ways to kill and torcher people.

Hugh, Mr. Fitzgerald I presume, You write beautifully. Such mastery is always enviable and yet all the better and all the more to be marveled when one learns so much from what is penned. The work you and others do here on Jihad Watch is of vital import, and with no reply necessary, I just wanted to extend my appreciation and praise. -- Sojourner

Funny about the Mossad agents. Were they the same ones who helped MI-6, French Intelligence and the CIA kill Dodi Fayad and Princess Diana? Sounds like the same group.

There are always conspiracy theories in the Muslim world. They can't handle the truth.

"In my opinion, Al-Qaeda and the Mossad are a team. When 9/11 took place, the FBI arrested five or six Mossad agents who were filming the building, and they were sent back to Tel Aviv that same day."

Funny, the FBI being right there. Also funny that they missed the French team doing filming right inside the tower's ground floor. And the film shows no FBI that I could see, but perhaps I just missed them.

Check out the film "9/11" , to see if you see any being led away in cuffs. It clearly shows everyone has other things on their minds.

All I see in the film is the evil done to fellow people, in the name of allah.

As the heros of that day show through, one thing is crystal clear, islam is not one of them.

"In my opinion, Al-Qaeda and the Mossad are a team."

Osama Bin Goldberg?

separated at birth: Nader Talebzadeh and Michael Moore

In the brains of these backward savages, if they tripped over a log and broke their leg, it would be a Zionist log planted there by Mossad agents.

Back in the 60s at the heighth of the counterculture there was a joke that some right wing politicians saw communists under the bed.

The joke availed itself of the idea that such concerns were paranoia, compare that joke with the famous verse where trees and rocks call out to Muslims that there is a jew hiding behind them.

Sounds eerily like a form of paranoia, combined with delusions of grandeur.

But anyway, perhaps the jews through the women that they captured infiltrated islam at the very beginning, I don't mean to feed anyones paranoia (yes i do) but maybe the reason the Muslims find themselves so behind the rest of the world is that their religion was corrupted and the text was perverted, it sure would answer questions about differring versions and the irony that a book that is read is called the recitation.

So now that the iranian filmmaker has exposed that Islam is a jewish plot to subjugate the ignorant, will Islam en masse reconvert to Mithraism, paganism and all the other isms that they were before they were subjugated?

Iranian filmmaker: Holocaust never happened, Al-Qaeda and the Mossad worked together to pull off 9/11
...........................

A steep descent from Fellini and even Ed Wood
............................

Hmm . . . I agree, Plan 9 looked pretty straightforward, and even plausible, compared to this.

Still, there is a "method", of sorts, to this madness. What do Al-Qaeda and Mossad have in common? At first glance, absolutely nothing--seems like more random Muslim nuttiness. But neither Al-Qaeda or Mossad are Shi'ite--they are not Iranian.

This is just another attempt on Iran's part to try to gain hegemony throughout the Muslim world. This is rather like the Nazi Black Shirts accusing the Brown Shirts of secretly allying with the Communists.

It's an attempt, no matter how absurd, to denigrate their fellow jihadists.