New York Times calls Brigitte Gabriel a "radical Islamophobe"

If the New York Times is calling Brigitte this then I know she's doing extremely well. God bless her.

And she's pretty damn hot too.

My recently-dropped subscription to the NYTimes now is 100% justified.

I guess, Robert, that non-reviews of your books may be better than hatchet-jobs done by the usual suspects. However, it does mean reaching a less-broad audience, and a much slower advance of your arguments.

Oh, and the title of the piece (The Crusader) says it all. One need read no further to see where Ms. Solomon and the NYTimes stands on these issues.

I just knew, even before reading the interview, that it would be oh-so-snarky. And snide.

Well the dozens of readers will be shocked and appalled Im sure.

Newspapers of course like catchy headlines but what does crusader implicate, ms Gabriel is/was an alien element in Lebanon she didn’t really belong there in what “rightfully” belong to Islam.

Islamophobe? Maybe one can talk about islamophobia in some western cases but a person that have grown up in Lebanon’s civil war and hands on seen “gods party” by barbarity and violence rise to prominence.

What about all the moderate Muslims who represent our hope for the future?

Doesn’t this question show “islamophobia”? is there something to fear from Islam and Muslims that require projection of hope on “moderates”?

I lived in the Middle East for the first 24 years of my life. Never once did I see any foot-washing basins in airports or public buildings. So why are they pushing them down the throats of Americans?

The link for her new book, "They Must Be Stopped." Gee, I wonder who the "They" is?

http://www.amazon.com/They-Must-Be-Stopped-Radical/dp/0312383630

Damn good interview if you ask me. Bridgette keeps it short and sweet. If only all of the anti-Jihadists were so succinct.

I think any reasonably informed reader of this "interview" will come away with a positive impression of Ms. Gabriel. The "radical islamophobe" labeling will backfire in their faces. I truly believe these media hacks are underestimating the intelligence of their readers (or perhaps overestimating their own intelligence). The rabid mad-dog attacks on Jerome Corsi have catapulted his book to the #1 spot on their own best-sellers list. Let's hope they do the same for David Freddoso.

So how did Deborah Solomon reach such a conclusion that enabled her to define Brigette Gabriel as a "radical Islamophobe"? What or who influenced her to define this Lebanese woman who has seen and lived with the horrors that make up Islam and jihadists ideology? Did she already have a preconceived opinion of Gabriel before she did the interview? Clearly Deborah Solomon does not have a clue whatsoever about the inner workings of those charming practioners of taquiyya, and kitman.

Comtemptible press bias. And, by the NYT model, the Holocaust survivors must then be "radical Naziphobes." And the Gulag survivors must then be "radical Communistphobes."

Good interview, and God bless her.

"radical Islamophobe"--guess that means there is a vast majority of "moderate Islamophobes"...?

The New York Times was, of course, the employer of Walter Duranty.

Walter Duranty who won the Pulitzer Prize for his work as the New York Times Moscow bureau chief from 1922 to 1936, famous for his highly favorable portrayal of Stalin, his denial of the Ukranian famine, and his uncritical coverage of Stalin's show trials.
When asked what he was going to write about the state-organised Ukranian famine he replied
“Nothing. What are a few million dead Russians in a situation like this? Quite unimportant. This is just an incident in the sweeping historical changes here. I think the entire matter is exaggerated. “
And this was at a time when peasants in Ukraine were dying of starvation at the rate of 25,000 a day.
He also wrote

"There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be."
--New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1
"Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda."
--New York Times, August 23, 1933
"Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin's program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding."
--New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6
"You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."
--New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18
"There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition."
--New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13

Those who opposed collectivisation should be "liquidated or melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass".

Stalin himself praised Duranty in 1933, saying that Duranty "(tried) to tell the truth about our country." And "the final fate of such enemies is death.".
Malcolm Muggeridge, the Manchester Guardian correspondent and Duranty's contemporary, described him as "the greatest liar of any journalist I have met in fifty years of journalism."

Another Muggeridge quote

Wise old [Bernard]Shaw, high-minded old [Henri]Barbusse, the venerable [Sidney and Beatrice] Webbs, [Andre] Gide the pure in heart and [Pablo] Picasso the impure, down to poor little teachers, crazed clergymen and millionaires, driveling dons and very special correspondents like Duranty, all resolved, come what might, to believe anything, however preposterous, to overlook nothing, however villainous, to approve anything, however obscurantist and brutally authoritarian, in order to be able to preserve intact the confident expectation that one of the most thorough-going, ruthless and bloody tyrannies ever to exist on earth could be relied on to champion human freedom, the brotherhood of man, and all the other good liberal causes to which they had dedicated their lives. ("Chronicles of Wasted Time," pages 275- 276.)
Most recently, a 2003 report recommended that Duranty's Pulitzer Prize be revoked, and the Times itself has distanced itself from Duranty's work. The Pulitzer Board ultimately declined to revoke the Prize, concluding that while Duranty's work fell far short of "today's standards for foreign reporting," there was "no clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception." This unsubstantiated claim has been disproven.

I sent an email, asking them for an explanation for calling her a 'Radical Islamophobe'. I have yet to receive a reply.

It doesn't hurt to ask, anyway..

The best-selling author and radical Islamophobe talks about why moderate Muslims are irrelevant, the lessons we should have learned from Lebanon and dressing like a French woman.

Was the byline: "Gutless Clueless, future victim?"

Brigitte Gabriel is a hero. Amazing that a woman who experienced the horrors of jihad is a "radical Islamophobe." The Muslim perpetrators of those horrors can't be called terrorists, but instead have become militants, then fighters, then gunmen and finally activists.

Those activists, like the ones bombing schoos in southern Thailand, aren't fed with hostility and hatred from birth by living in an area where Islam overwhelms every aspect of society; rather they come from places the Times likes to call "restive" where locals are angry about "lack of equal government funding" or where "the economy lags behind the rest of the country."

Never could it be that the "restive" people and failed economy have anything to do with Islam. And never should the NYT investigate if there really is anything truthful to the Muslim claims of lack of equal funds or "discrimination" by the non-Muslim government, which inevitably overreacts to any provocation from the tiny minority of extremists, fueling once moderate Muslims to become increasing radicalized. Just repeat the claim and let the pretext--there's always a supposedly legitimate pretext--form the entire motivation behind the Muslim behavior.

Would an interview with a PLO, Hamas or Hezbollah "activitst" ever label that person with a headline such as, "Anti-Semitic Jihadist explains why all Jews must be destroyed?" How about "Christian-hating terrorist says all non-Muslims must accept inferior treatment?" Or "Muslim Murderer tells why Infidel Buddhists, including children, have no right to live as equals in southern Thailand?"

"INTERVIEW CONDUCTED, CONDENSED AND EDITED BY DEBORAH SOLOMON"

Well, how about putting the entire unedited interview on the NYT website and let readers decide for themselves. Isn't that what websites are for...including content that doesn't fit the space for the printed story, yet could provide enlightening information to the reader?

Oh yeah, what am I thinking...NYT doesn't want her message getting out...that's why NYT labels her a "radical Islamophobe."

I'm surprised Deb Solomon didn't borrow from Sen. McCain and call Ms. Gabriel a "radical Islamophobic extremist."

The holier-than-thou tone of Solomon's questions reminds me of the Fox reporter, his cameraman and the cameraman's wife when the two men were released after being held hostage in Gaza. They talked about all the wonderful people in Gaza and the tradition of hospitality in Muslim society. Then they jumped into an armored car and raced across the border into Israel and didn't look back. Israelis are never praised for their hospitality or kind nature. But regardless of their devotion to the "wonderful people" in Gaza, actions speak louder than words. The Fox folks couldn't relax until they were surrounded by rude Israelis who they could trust would do them no harm.

I bet however much Deborah Solomon thinks her faith in "moderate" Muslims is an indication of her moral superiority, my guess is she feels far safer grilling an Infidel "Islamophobe" than interviewing a "moderate" Muslim.

Like the scene in "Spartacus'..........."I'm an Islamophobe! I'm an Islamophobe!..........I'm an Islamophobe!"

I'm guessing Ms. Solomon is Jewish. If so, why do so many Jews want to go to bat for these medieval Hitlers. These liberal Jewish women are proud of their religion's and sex's accomplishment yet they wnat to defend a bunch of animals who would destroy all that

If only Brigitte Gabriel was anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Western Civilization, then she could be fawned over by the New York Times like Edward Said or that trite Palestinian poet "in exile" (despite the fact that areas of "Palestine" have been under PA control for 14 years) who died recently in Paris.

If only Brigitte was an apologist for Islamic terrorism, she could have invented a phony radical persona without needing to have faced real danger or hardship, accepted every privilege yet portrayed herself as the ultimate victim, and been celebrated as a brilliant writer and thinker without having had to maintain accepted standards of scholarship, accuracy or logic.

Instead, she has been a courageous and patriotic American. Ms. Gabriel has received none of the perks of “street-cred” for her authentic Middle Eastern life experience, because she foolishly has taken up the wrong cause and made the wrong conclusions. She started with several strikes against her because she is a Lebanese Christian (in NYT circles, that means "right-winger") who doesn't promote the Islamic agenda like Said, Khalidi or Columbia's El-Haj.

Then she objectively compared her time in an Arab country with her years in Israel and made the obviously bigoted conclusion that the values of the Israelis are superior to those in the Arab-Muslim world. She should have known that had she reached the opposite judgment, she could have had a career path paved with gold and free of death threats.

Finally, she lost all credibility after Sept. 11, 2001, when she failed to see that the terrorists of Al-Qaeda were obviously a “tiny minority of extremists” who had distorted an otherwise peaceful religion. Gabriel shockingly examined and exposed what the jihadists believe, what is taught in their mosques and schools, what is written and broadcast in their media and what values shape their societies. She overlooked the most obvious motives that make men fly planes into buildings: poverty, lack of opportunity, poor education, Western imperialism or lack of freedom.

It's all so sad. She had so much potential. A dark-skin Arab woman, a female, someone who lived through the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, a native speaker of the Arabic language also fluent in French, English and Hebrew, a minority in the United States. She could have written her ticket to the good life in America with frequent op-ed pieces in the New York Times, uncritical praise from the faculty on college campuses, five-star book reviews in all the major newspapers and limitless financial rewards from Saudi financed think-tanks and public-relations firms.

Instead she had to go and ruin it all by writing in defense of America, sympathizing with the plight of Israelis and warning free Westerners about the goals of the jihadists. She stood up for our human rights, freedom of religion and freedom of speech. She didn't make the attacker a victim, putting the focus instead on his barbaric quest for Islamic domination in which no atrocity seemed beyond the pale. She made the mistake of thinking that whatever faults America might have, even the New York Times could see that it is worth defending against those who don't share the values the Times' claims to hold dear. She was sadly mistaken.

Dumbo wrote:

"I'm guessing Ms. Solomon is Jewish. If so, why do so many Jews want to go to bat for these medieval Hitlers. These liberal Jewish women are proud of their religion's and sex's accomplishment yet they wnat to defend a bunch of animals who would destroy all that"

Dumbo,

As a Jew, no question has caused me so much agony. I can't read a Jewish newspaper or website from some mainstream Jewish organization without becoming infuriated. It's not just women, it's Jewish male writers, Rabbis and politicians. It's like they don't have a self-preservation gene.

They are ignorant of Islam. They are so eager to been seen as fair that they bend over backwards to give Israel's enemies the benefit of the doubt. They are so committed to the idea of peace that they overlook the fact that Israel's enemies don't have peaceful intentions regardless of what policies Israeli government's pursue.

They say a liberal is someone who take the other side in a fight. Maybe that's the problem, but it is hard to imagine a people supporting those who would not only destroy them but stand against every value they believe in.

I am proud to be an islamaphob, as well as a naziphob, and a commiphob, and a fascistphob, as well as a KKKphob, and also a heaven'sgatephob, so much fear of evil beings and organizations. I am sure the NYslimes can put all my phobias to rest with easy explanations of why they are all irrational.

Standec has it right!

Brigitte Gabriel is an islamophobe. And you should be also! There is nothing "radical" about being an islamophobe. Anyone who knows anything about islam, should be an islamophobe.

Jewish survivors of the holocaust are Naziophobes. Any Jew who knows anything about NAZI ideology should also be a Naziophobe.

There is nothing wrong or unusual about an infidel being an islamophobe. There is nothing unusual or incorrect about someone being phobic about muslims or any group that asserts a right to eradicate you or your way of life!

The term "phobia" denotes a pathological condition of irrational,unreasonable FEAR. The trouble with applying the term "phobia" to Islam is that with Islam fear is NOT a pathological or irrational or unreasonable reaction (although Muslims who maintain that Islam is always beyond any and all criticism would have you believe otherwise). You see--

Islam ACTUALLY TEACHES FIRST DEGREE MURDER on a more or less unlimited basis (muclear attacks on entire countries is quite possibly acceptable in Islam). Unbelievers must be exterminated everywhere on earth (according to the Kuran, Surah 9.5); Honor killing is taught in the Kuran (I don't have the verses, but I have read them and know they DO exist). Mosques everywhere teach and preach destruction of non-islamic societies everywhere. Anything may be done to a non-Muslim to force him/her/them to convert to Islam including violence, warfare, enslavement and other such gruesome horrors. Beheadings anyone? Disembowelments? Slavery? Misogyny? Name your atrocity and Islam is probably doing it to someone somewhere.

What I am getting at here is that Islamic teachings are INHERENTLY threatening to human beings at a purely psychic level and for good reasons (especially that no one wants to be murdered; which as mentioned above committing murder is something Islam actively teaches Muslims to do). Fearing Islam and avoiding Muslims could actually save a person's life! This is NOT only non-pathological, fearing Islam and avoiding Muslims is HEALTHY and desirable--and maybe even necessary. I recommend it to everyone who wants to stay alive (and/or free!).

Everyone: when you see Muslims coming down the street, run and don't walk the other way to avoid them! They are playing al-lah's favorite tune: '5 BILLION people screaming at once as the earth goes dark...'

At least 50% of the population are "radical islamophobes". The rest are factaphobes.

"New York Times calls Brigitte Gabriel a 'radical Islamophobe'"

Why are we surprised? The New York Times is at least consistent. The newspaper is a rag that competes with the Enquirer. Psuedo intellectuals like the Times because the paper titilates by packaging the most counter intuitive theses in a veneer of educated facts. It likes to argue the antithesis of any self evident truth.

Defamation of Brigette Gabriel is not surprising. Defamation of Ms. Gabriel is consistent with abuse by the Times of its court granted freedom to libel. The Times has a long history of libel and even obtained a favorable court ruling in Times v. Sullivan in which the court said the New York Times could libel anyone in publication so long as the Times libeled someone without actual malice. In other words the Times could libel someone as long as it was not "actually malicious."

The fact that the Times does this to Brigitte Gabriel is a moral outrage. But such outrage is consistent with its too long history of moral indifference. But thankfully, reduced revenues of the Times, its financial problems and its broken monopoly of news is being ended by public boredom with it, consumer indifference, expensive prices and the internet. The Times keeps reducing staff, and increases its cost to readers. Hopefully, the consumer is losing interest in this rag.

We pray that the capitalist system that the Times consistently denounces as it profits from has a market solution to end for these scoundrel muckrakers their everyday activities.

It is nonetheless particularly outrageous what the Times have done to libel Brigetta Gabriel who is a survivor of islamic killing fields in Lebanon. Her story is profoundly moving. It can be heard in part at youtube or on her website:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8fa9yKQeTY&feature=related

4infidels:

Regarding your reply as a Jew to Dumbo's question, I, a traditional Roman Catholic, feel your pain and can entirely empathize. Outside of Father George Rutler of NYC who helped place bodies in rows in Trinity Church's small graveyard that fateful September 11th morning, and my own parish priest who allowed two soldiers about to deploy to Afghanistan to place their sword and Rosaries at Mary's Altar in our parish church (where they will hang until the soldiers return safely, pray God) I am at a loss to find very many manly men of God ready to defend their Catholic flocks without apology or equivocating. From the Philippines to India to Iraq to Europe we and our Christian brethren are under attack - both direct and indirect jihad -- yet some priests and bishops can only summon up milquetoast "explanations" for the violence or, even worse, worry about the fate of Christian Arabs in Israel!

The New York Times, radical Islamoasskissers.

Allah news that's fit to print.

bevc

what you wrote reminded me: the anniversary of September 11 approaches.

Perhaps New York City jihadwatchers (I've seen at least three of you posting here?) could arrange to get together at or near Ground Zero on the anniversary. It's a working day, so you'd have to do it before work, or after work, or during the lunch hour.

It might be appropriate to conduct a reading, or rather, a declamation, of Oriana Fallaci's "the Rage and the Pride" which contains her mesmerising account of the attack, and also contains a magnificent paean to New York City, to America, and to Western Civilisation.

Find an Italian who can declaim it and go through it paragraph by paragraph, Italian first, then English.

Take a bottle of good red wine, and at the end, drink a round of toasts to America, to Italy, to Oriana, to the City of New York, to New York firefighters and policemen, and to Freedom and to Life, and to Joy.

Catholics could pray the Rosary, Protestants could recite Psalm 23 and the Lord's Prayer, Jews might recite the Kaddish or whatever their rabbi thinks appropriate.

Record your 'commemoration event' and post it on youtube or wherever.

You could always have disks of Fitna and copies of Geert Wilders' wonderful speech in the Danish parliament on 1st June this year, ready to hand out to interested passers-by.

Perhaps jihadwatchers in the appropriate part of the country could hold a similar commemoration event on (or as near as possible to) the site where Flight 93 went down. Conclude with a memorial toast to the passengers - to those who fought back.

Washington jihadwatchers could surely arrange something to commemorate the victims of the attack on the Pentagon (a reading aloud, in a Washington park or other public space, of suitable portions of Stephen Coughlin's "To Our Great Detriment", or of John Quincy Adams' ruthless analysis of Islam, might be appropriate?).