heh.

Posted by: counterjihadi at March 7, 2007 7:36 AM

I saw the film "Breach" last night -- a tribute to the worth of public service and the gravity of espionage. Chris Cooper's performance, as the extremely externally devout, but internally troubled Catholic spy Robert Hanssen, is nothing short of mesmerizing. In the last scene we see Hanssen on an elevator going DOWN.

Hanssen is an extreme example of the ever present unceasing work of God being hindered by the activity of man's fallen nature, by obedience to earthly passions. Such people breach the work of God upon their own souls.

Dinesh has taken a wrong turn and gotten on the elevator with Robert Hanssen.

Posted by: Malinois at March 7, 2007 7:57 AM

No one can deny the horror of Palestinian and Chechen attacks on civilians, but these have to be measured against the state-sponsored terror on the other side: the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, the shooting of stone-throwing teenagers, the obliteration of the Chechen capital of Grozny.

On the surface of things Darth is conflating two different conflicts by regarding Palestinian and Chechen attacks as "one side" and Israeli reprisals as "the other side". Apparently he regards Palestinians and Chechens as allies in a single battle.

I don't know if he regards the horrific Chechen attacks as being justified by the Israeli defensive measures, but the acceptance of these as common battlefronts in a single war in which there are "sides", as he puts it, to be identified can mean only one thing: that he accepts that we are, and have been for some time, in the middle of (and on the receiving end of) a global jihad that transcends national and cultural boundaries. Where does that leave his thesis that the jihad coming our way is a reaction against moral decay in the west?

If there was ONLY jihad against the wealthy, morally corrupt in the west one might think, hmm, maybe he's got something there. And our Islamist friends would just love to be able to claim some kind of moral high ground.

But this does not work with global jihad. Why are they attacking poor folks around the world who haven't the resources to raise a broken stick in their own defence? If the jihad, Dinesh, is global, and you accept the common rhetoric of the jihadists on this point, what is the explanation for, ... oh, let's just stick with Thailand for now.

It is telling that Dinesh cannot escape the conclusion that jihadism is a unified, albeit scattered and diverse, global movement, but refuses to address the glaring problems in his "explanation" of it.

Just as worrisome is his apparent turn from resisting jihad to attacking fellow scholars. Yep, we all want to be regarded as the tolerant one, and what better way than tarring everyone else as intolerant? An old hard-left ploy.

But even that is less worrisome than his apparent capitulation to dhimmi status. He now seems to be saying "he, it wasn't really all that bad under the Caliphate after all". He has misread his enemy's motivation, created entirely new enmity within antijihadist ranks, and now it appears he's ready to raise a white flag to the Islamists so that they bring in the morally pure and peaceful state that he so longs for.

Dinesh, you needn't wait around for this state to appear over here ... you'll find it in peaceful, tolerant Saudi Arabia today. Ever think of moving there?

Posted by: Archimedes2 at March 7, 2007 8:00 AM

No one can deny the horror of Palestinian and Chechen attacks on civilians, but these have to be measured against the state-sponsored terror on the other side: the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, the shooting of stone-throwing teenagers,

The bulldozing of homes is in direct response to terrorist bombings.

No bombs - no bulldozers.

Shooting of stone throwing teenagers?

Throw a stone at an armed man and expect to get shot.

Pretty simple cause and effect.

Maybe the problem isn't the Israelis or the Russians. Maybe the problem is the psychotic teachings of the clerics and parents.

Posted by: infidel! at March 7, 2007 8:04 AM

...You know about those Palestinian ceasefires...the ones where the rockets never stop flying from Gaza into Israel....

....and those childred slinging stones...well, one day they grow up and begin to sling lead....

...all to the tune of allllaaaaahhhh akkkkkkbaaaarr..

Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 7, 2007 8:13 AM

This guy never had any morals to lose. He is the worst type of humanity, an opportunist who lives for his own ego - he cares nothing about anything and only exists to boost his own pathetic self image.
This fundamental character flaw has now led him to support the enemy - his writings, if thats what you can call them give sustenance to the enemy cause and as such he should now be firmly treated as teh enemy.
He deserves nothing more than any other traitor to be tried and shot at dawn - and send the bill for the bullet to his family.

Posted by: johnmac at March 7, 2007 8:37 AM

Gee, and only last night I was thinking, "Say, I don't think Daniel Pipes has weighed in on D'Souza..."
How nice to hear from him.

Posted by: AnneCrockett at March 7, 2007 8:48 AM

The Chechen massacre of innocent school children in Beslan marks the time it dawned on me that maybe I just don't want Muslims in the U.S.
How this character can compare Chechen crimes to ANYTHING Israel has done to Palestinian thugs is truly amazing. When he stops being entertaining to toy with, let's please ignore him.

Posted by: Bingo at March 7, 2007 9:08 AM

The chorus in the caboose.

Posted by: Hugh at March 7, 2007 9:43 AM

Is Israel a litmus test for Pipes? In other words, had D'Souza not condemned Israel, but had restricted his barbs to the Russians, and maybe thrown in the Serbs and Indians as well, Pipes would have been okay with it?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 7, 2007 12:10 PM

I think Pipes hints at the possibility that, given what he has written and given his association with Norquist and Khan, D'Souza is a PAID spokesman for the RoP.

Posted by: sonomaca at March 7, 2007 12:34 PM

He never had any moral compass and that is the problem which has surfaced now. He is an analyst and one only can believe in their heart and D'Souza has only believed for his own ego a logical conclusion.

One can change their mind as D'Souza does, but one can not change their heart.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 7, 2007 12:48 PM

DNFTT

Posted by: Zenster at March 7, 2007 1:46 PM

Dr. Pipes has been consistently speaking out on such issues whether they have had anything specifically to do with Israel or not. IMO, Dr. Pipes is the sanest man on this planet, and possibly any other.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at March 7, 2007 7:32 PM

Dinesh D'Souza began exploring this "blame Muslim fanaticism on Western immorality" theme in chapter 5 of his book "What's So Great About America".

And yes, it is strange (i.e., stupid or dishonest) to cite Qutb's criticisms of the West when Qutb formed and wrote his opinions long before the trainwreck of the 60's. But then, Muslims were railing against the immorality of the West many centuries ago, not because of rampant pornography and fornication but because we allowed "our" women to appear in public and lead independent lives. I think that sex is to a significant degree an excuse while the real reason is fear of and hatred for women.

Posted by: pst314 at March 7, 2007 9:18 PM

"The Chechen massacre of innocent school children in Beslan marks the time it dawned on me that maybe I just don't want Muslims in the U.S. How this character can compare Chechen crimes to ANYTHING Israel has done to Palestinian thugs is truly amazing." -- bingo

Or perhaps truly anti-Semitic ;o)

Posted by: fishboy at March 8, 2007 2:26 AM

Is Israel a litmus test for Pipes? In other words, had D'Souza not condemned Israel, but had restricted his barbs to the Russians, and maybe thrown in the Serbs and Indians as well, Pipes would have been okay with it?
Posted by: Infidel Pride on March 7, 2007 12:10 PM

I presume that the last bit by Dinesh D'Souza about Israel may have been the proverbial 'final straw that broke the camel's back', causing Daniel Pipes to finally break his silence regarding his views on Dinesh D'Souza. It is not fair to put motives to a person's silence, though, like you, I wish that Daniel Pipes had condemned DD months back. In all fairness to Mr. Pipes, he has been quite active in condemning Islamic attacks on not just Israel but also many other countries (including India). In fact, he was one of the keynote speakers at a conference on Islamic Terrorism in Kashmir that we held in the Washington DC area over 10 years back (long before 9-11) and he spoke quite forcefully against the Islamic jehad that was being waged against Hindus.

Posted by: Razdan at March 8, 2007 11:45 AM

Razdan

You could be right, and I was wrong to bundle India in with Russia, which may have earned Pipes' disdain due to their support for Iran and Syria and opposition to Israel. And yeah, I shouldn't have assigned motives to his silence, but I guess that his faith in moderate Muslims being the solution to this problem is what leaves me rather wary not about his intentions, but about his judgment. Having said that, I do wish that he speaks out when Jihadis are supported, period, rather than only when Israel is opposed. Other than that, I tend to think rather highly of him.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at March 8, 2007 12:02 PM

but I guess that his faith in moderate Muslims being the solution to this problem is what leaves me rather wary not about his intentions, but about his judgment.

I, too, have a problem with Daniel Pipe's faith in moderate muslims rising to confront the militants amongst them. I'm not sure if he has taken this position for PC reasons or if he actually believes in that. There was an excellent article on this subject that came out in FrontPage Magazine; 'The Search for Moderate Islam', by Lawrence Auster. See:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16798

Excerpt from the article:
Pipes's meaning is undeniable: moderate Islam does not now exist. It must be created. Moreover, it can only be created by means of renouncing that which Islam has always been. But, on those terms, can the result still be Islam? In the culminating passage of his magisterial 1878 biography, The Life of Mahomet, William Muir, after noting the good things about Muhammadanism, speaks of the "radical evils [that] flow from the faith in all ages and in every country, and must continue to flow so long as the Koran is the standard of belief."[1] But the Koran, of course, is the basis of Islam and its highest authority, viewed by Muslims as the eternal, uncreated word of God. Muslims can no more give up the Koran and remain Muslims, than lions can give up their teeth, their claws, and their tawny coats, and still be lions.

Posted by: Razdan at March 8, 2007 1:05 PM

Pipes is indeed correct. Not only has D'Souza lost his common sense it would appear that he's lost his marbles as well.

Well, he can alway sling burgers somewhere at a roadside burger joint.

(Ain't this a great country or what??!!?).

Posted by: pythagoras at March 8, 2007 10:55 PM