maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:32 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Churchill, Hitler, and Islam plus other Pipes posts
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:35 am 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 14355
Reputation points: 9532
Quote:
Churchill, Hitler, and Islam
by Daniel Pipes
Jul 24, 2017
Cross-posted from National Review Online
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2017/07 ... -and-islam

Share: Facebook Twitter
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Winston Churchill disparaged the impact of Islam on Muslims in his 1899 book, The River War:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy."


Adolf Hitler admired Islam, as quoted by Albert Speer in his 1969 book, Inside the Third Reich:

You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?


Comments:

(1) The arch-enemies of World War II agreed in their perception of Islam as a martial faith – except that Churchill rued its "fanatical frenzy" and Hitler admired its representing the opposite of "meekness and flabbiness."

(2) These positions echo in the West today. Paul Weston, a right-wing candidate for the European Parliament, took a stand by reading publicly from of The River War, leading to his arrest. Fascists still admire Islam's perceived ferocity and want to ally with it: "I offer my most sincere best-wishes to those who wage holy Jihad against the infrastructure of the decadent, weak and Judaic-influenced societal infrastructure of the West" wrote August Kreis, an Aryan Nations leader, sounding like Hitler.


Paul Weston arrested after publicly reading from Winston Churchill's "River War."
(3) Today's Left sees Muslims not as bellicose but as victims exploited by capitalism, tormented by Zionism, and victimized by "Islamophobia." This marks a new understanding, one with no World War II precedent.

(4) How Westerners see Islam and Muslims can say more about them than about Islam or Muslims. (July 24, 2017)

Related Topics: Conservatives & Liberals, History, Islam
The above text may be reposted, forwarded, or translated so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information about its author, date, place of publication, as well as the original URL.

_________________
Merry Christmas to all


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Churchill, Hitler, and Islam plus other Pipes posts
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:39 am 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 14355
Reputation points: 9532
Quote:
Another Turkish Ambassador Confronts Me
by Daniel Pipes
Gatestone Institute
July 18, 2017
http://www.danielpipes.org/17793/anothe ... nfronts-me

Share: Facebook Twitter
Be the first of your friends to like this.
In February, Turkey's ambassador to Israel told this author to stay away from his country; at least he did so diplomatically. In June, Turkey's ambassador to Bulgaria treated me in a remarkably rude and undiplomatic manner.

The occasion was a talk I gave, "On Turkey and Erdoğan – a partner or a threat," for the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies think tank in Sofia. After mentioning my connections to and affection for Turkey, I explained that strongman President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's inability to reconcile three competing priorities — Islam, Turkey, and Erdoğan — and the resulting contradictions are likely to doom his regime. By the end of the event, Amb. Süleyman Gökçe confirmed that prediction.


The event.
He came early, sat in the front row, and jumped up when the question period began. Ominously saying of me, "we know him very well in Turkey," he went on to accuse me of cherry-picking facts and being an essentialist and an Orientalist. My record of "distortion, deflection, and delusion" prompted him to say, "I do not agree with any of the points you have raised."


Amb. Süleyman Gökçe was among the first to arrive.
Gökçe's threats took two forms: first, stating that no one with a Ph.D. credentials "should have the freedom" to forward allegations such as mine; second, accusing me of espousing the views of the "Fethullah Gülen Terror Organization" – Erdoğan-speak for the non-terrorist Hizmet movement founded by Fethullah Gülen, Erdoğan's once-close ally whose members he now hounds, ostracizes, purges, and jails.

My reply to the ambassador concluded by asking him twice if he could assure my safety going to Turkey. He twice ignored the question. Then he stomped out of the room. That did not quite end his distress, however.

Repairing to Twitter, he responded to eight old tweets of mine concerning Turkey, replying dutifully to each of them, calling me "extremist," "marginal," "pathetic," and "biased." When I replied that "Erdoğan has turned his diplomats into clowns," Gökçe lashed out with yet more insulting tweets.

This incident offers several insights.

Petty intimidation is not normal diplomatic practice. In my own experience, regimes far worse than Turkey's are cleverer. Saddam Hussein sent an ambassador to Washington, Nizar Hamdoon, who advanced his monstrous leader's interests through politeness, self-criticism, and logic. The Islamic Republic of Iran recently hosted this analyst on three of its media in one week: the English-language television (Press TV), the English-language newspaper (Tehran Times), and the Arabic-language news service (MehrNews). Erdoğan's incompetence in this arena is doing him great damage.

Gökçe's antics put off others too. A fellow panelist at the Sofia event, journalist and scholar Steven Hayward, wrote that his "was an astonishing performance from someone in a formal diplomatic post." Ilian Vassilev, the former Bulgarian ambassador to Moscow, also present at the event, called Gökçe's behavior "highly irregular." Eric Edelman, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, characterized this show as "all-too typical" of Erdoğan's diplomacy. Richard Pipes, a professor of Russian history (and my father), asked if Soviet diplomats ever harassed him like this during the Cold War, replied, "No, never. They simply ignored my public appearances in the West. And in the USSR when I spoke they disagreed politely."


The CBBSS panel, from the left: Steven Hayward, Daniel Pipes, Alex Alexiev, Daniel Mitov.
Gökçe's behavior in Sofia brought to mind British Prime Minister William Gladstone's celebrated "bag and baggage" speech of 1876, regarding what were known as the "Bulgarian horrors":

Let the Turks now carry away their abuses in the only possible manner, namely, by carrying off themselves. Their Zaptiehs and their Mudirs, their Bimbashes and their Yuzbashis, their Kaimakans and their Pashas, one and all, bag and baggage, shall, I hope, clear out from the [Bulgarian] province they have desolated and profaned.


Gladstone's "bag and baggage" quote in context.
Gladstone updated might read:

Let the Turks now carry away their abuses in the only possible manner, namely, by carrying off themselves. Their Diyanet and their TIKA, their DOST and their THY, their Erdoğan and their Ambassadors, one and all, bag and baggage, shall, I hope, clear out from the country they would again desolate and profane.

Sending an ambassador to demean and threaten an analyst at a private educational event is the non-violent equivalent of Erdoğan's bodyguards beating up peaceful demonstrators in Washington. Both are integral parts to suppressing dissent against an increasingly megalomaniacal leader. Erdoğan's officious diplomats inadvertently make enemies for the regime, bringing closer the day when, bag and baggage, they will wear out their already frayed welcome.

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2017 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

July 18, 2017 addendum: Gökçe responded to this article by blocking me from his Twitter account.

Related Topics: Daniel Pipes autobiographical, Iran, Turkey and Turks
The above text may be reposted, forwarded, or translated so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information about its author, date, place of publication, as well as the original URL.
As I predicted Turkey is changing from a secular nation to a Islamic state.

_________________
Merry Christmas to all


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Churchill, Hitler, and Islam plus other Pipes posts
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:52 am 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 14355
Reputation points: 9532
Quote:
Reframing the Arab-Israeli Conflict
L'Informale (Italy)
July 17, 2017
http://www.danielpipes.org/17794/refram ... i-conflict

Share: Facebook Twitter
Be the first of your friends to like this.
Introduction and interview by Niram Ferretti.

Daniel Pipes recently visited Israel to introduce at the Knesset Israel Victory Caucus, which now joins a Congressional Israel Victory Caucus inaugurated in Washington. Both groups are based on a concept explained in a seminal article Pipes wrote in January 2017 published by Commentary as "A New Strategy for Israeli Victory."

After a successful presentation event at the Begin Center in Jerusalem, organized by the Middle East Forum, during which Martin Sherman, Melanie Philips, Richard Kemp, Einat Wilf, among the others, all gave insightful speeches about the Arab-Israeli conflict, l'Informale met up with Professor Pipes in Tel Aviv.

[The Italian version is at "Daniel Pipes: 'I palestinesi hanno perso ma vogliono ancora rimpiazzare Israele'."]



A fantasy map of Palestine, with the PLO flag's colors.
Please explain to the Knesset Israel Victory Caucus and its main aims?
Its main goal is to convince the Palestinians that the war they have waged against Zionism, the Yishuv, Israel, and Jews is over – and that they lost. It is time to see that this conflict has reached its end and to close it down. As an American, I hope that the present or a future American president will tell the Israelis, "Do what you need to do within political, moral, legal boundaries to convince the Palestinians that they have lost." I hope the Israelis will then do exactly that. Then we can focus on the Middle East's real problems, such as the Syrian civil wars.

Have the Palestinians indeed lost?

Yes, they have lost. They live in a fantasy world. They promote the map of British Mandatory Palestine that disappeared 69 years ago, they believe UNESCO'S verdict that the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron is a Palestinian historic site, they depend on foreign assistance to fund their economy, they celebrate suicide bombers as heroes. They inhabit a crazy world that has continued too long, doing damage to Israelis and Palestinians alike, killing the former and distorting the latter. Once they acknowledge defeat, they can move on and construct their polity, economy, society, and culture.

In the fifty years since the Six Day War, the Arabs (with invaluable assistance from the Russians) built a persuasive narrative depicting Palestinians as victims and Israelis as oppressors. Has Israel been deficient in combating this propaganda?

Yes, quite so. Who a hundred years ago could have predicted that Jews would be the great warriors and Arabs the great publicists? The Palestinian narrative of victimhood and misery has generally overwhelmed the Israeli one of, to quote Abba Eban, "joyous creation, of sovereignty restored, of the people gathered in, of a land revived, of democracy established."


Abba Eban in 1958, when he spoke on American television the words quoted here.
The election of Donald Trump created an expectation in Israel of major changes. Other than a friendlier attitude, this Administration seems to be pursuing the old policies, especially pressuring Israel to negotiate as equals with the Palestinians. Do you agree?
Major changes have taken place at the United Nations where Nikki Halley has rapidly become an extraordinary spokeswoman for changing America's UN policy concerning Israel.


In terms of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, yes, there has been a return to the usual "peace process," but its substance is unclear. It differs from Obama's, but does it also differ from George W. Bush's and Bill Clinton's?

We don't know, for the administration is still formulating its policies. As we speak, Jason Greenblatt is spending three days in Israel in consultation with the America ambassador, the Palestinian Authority, and Government of Israel, working on policy. I expect the new policy is quite different from the prior ones.

Yasir Arafat interpreted the Oslo Accord as a sign of Israeli vulnerability, so he incited violence against it, culminating in the Second Intifada. Isn't it clear by now that the Palestinians see negotiations as another way to fight Israel?

Yes, and this is by now clear to a significant majority of Israelis. It is not clear, however, to much of the outside world. Many observers think that on September 13, 1993 Arafat and the Palestinians accepted Israel, therefore the outstanding problems concern details; if diplomats would just work harder, those will be resolved.

But that's wrong: What Arafat did at Oslo was a pretense. The great majority of Palestinians, about 80% of them, still do not accept Israel. The Palestinian leadership, both in Ramallah and Gaza, does not try to reduce that number. To the contrary, it wants to increase rejection of Israel to 100%.

It has not fulfilled its part of the Oslo bargain but continues the hapless fight for "revolution until victory." Its maps in Arabic almost always never show the West Bank next to Israel but rather a British Mandatory Palestine instead of Israel. In short, it wants to pretend Israel does not even exist.

Is the Arab-Israeli conflict part of a wider clash between Islamism and the Western way of life?

Four distinct movements have inspired the Arabs against Zionism: in chronological order, they are pan-Syrianism, pan-Arabism, Palestinianism, and Islamism. So, only part of the Arab-Israeli conflict is connected to Islamism.

The Islamist movement began in Egypt, Iran, and India in the 1920s; you won't be happy to hear this, but Mussolini was an important inspiration, especially in Egypt. The dream of reviving ancient splendor through state power and militarism inspired many Muslims. This project has steadily been gaining strength during the past century.

It is an "ism" in the same way as socialism, fascism, and liberalism. It is a modern form of Islam; it has antecedents but it is modern. In economics, for example, traditional Islam has only rudimentary notions, for medieval Muslims did not dwell on this topic. Islamists turned simple regulations into elaborate treatises. Islamic economics is a innovative aspect of Islam.]



Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University.
In an interview, Mordechai Kedar rejected the distinction between Islam and Islamism is artificial. "Muslims" he said, "are divided into two kinds: those who believe in Islam for Muslims only and those who try to impose it on others." Do you agree?
It's a novel and useful division, but it doesn't replace the crucial distinction between Islam and Islamism. Islamists wish to go back to the glory days of one thousand years ago when Cairo, Baghdad and Damascus were leading cities and when Muslims were the richest and most powerful people.

For Islamists, applying Islamic law is the way to get there. ISIS is the ultimate example of this phenomenon. Other Islamists pursue the same path in less extreme ways but with the same goal. Erdoğan in Turkey follows the ISIS path more cautiously and slowly but even he threatens beheadings. Of course, not all Muslims are Islamists, meaning they do not see the application of Sharia as the way to become rich and strong. Anti-Islamist Muslims are the hope for the future.

Islam divides the world in two opposite and conflicting spheres, Dār al- Islām and Dār al-Ḥarb, the House of Islam and of War. Given this premise how can Muslims coexist with the West?

From a modern point of view, Islam has many problematic aspects. Two of the greatest are Muslim relations with non-Muslim and male relations with females. In both cases, from today's vantage point, Islamic ways are intensely backward.

The good news is that all religions, being human constructs, change over time. Islam is what Muslims make of it. In the words of an Egyptian philosopher, "Islam is like a supermarket, you can take from it what you will." Islam changes all the time. In my career, I have seen Islam going from more moderate to more extreme; that implies that it can also become even more moderate.

We non-Muslims need to work against Islamists and help anti-Islamists. That takes up much of my work. As my slogan goes, 'Radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution."

I see the Islamist movement peaking in 2012 and facing deep problems. Yes, it still has plenty of successes, particularly in Turkey, but it is unpopular with the people who live under the system, plus Islamists are fighting each other. These trends are best shown in Egypt, with the revolt four years ago, and Syria, with Sunni and Shia fighting each other. Like the other modern totalitarian movements, I expect Islamism will fail.
Pipes is pure smart, don't agree with all his conclusions, but he's always worth a read.

_________________
Merry Christmas to all


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Churchill, Hitler, and Islam plus other Pipes posts
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 23994
Reputation points: 16925
Gladstone on the Turks:

Quote:
Let the Turks now carry away their abuses in the only possible manner, namely, by carrying off themselves. Their Zaptiehs and their Mudirs, their Bimbashes and their Yuzbashis, their Kaimakans and their Pashas, one and all, bag and baggage, shall, I hope, clear out from the [Bulgarian] province they have desolated and profaned.


What a beautiful piece of oratory! Completely apt today as well.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Churchill, Hitler, and Islam plus other Pipes posts
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:35 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 23994
Reputation points: 16925
Paul Weston, a right-wing candidate for the European Parliament, took a stand by reading publicly from of The River War, leading to his arrest.

Arrested for reading from Chruchill....man, that is pathetic

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Churchill, Hitler, and Islam plus other Pipes posts
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:52 am 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 14355
Reputation points: 9532
Quote:
A Palestinian Victory at the Temple Mount

by Daniel Pipes
Wall Street Journal
July 26, 2017
Send
http://www.danielpipes.org/17813/a-pale ... 5-33664049

Share25
Comment
[WSJ title: "Why Israel Removed the Metal Detectors"]

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah Party announced Saturday that the "campaign for Jerusalem has effectively begun, and will not stop until a Palestinian victory and the release of the holy sites from Israeli occupation." Fatah demanded the removal of metal detectors and other security devices from the entrance to the Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount. A week earlier two Israeli policemen were killed by terrorists who had stashed their weapons inside the mosque.

The Fatah statement was illogical and hypocritical. Many mosques in Muslim-majority countries use the same security technology to protect worshipers, tourists and police. Yet Mr. Abbas managed to force the Israeli government to remove them. He did it by deflecting attention from the policemen's murders and stoking fear of a religious conflagration with vast repercussions.


Like other visitors, the author had to go through a metal detector when visiting the Sheikh Zayed Mosque in Abu Dhabi.
The Temple Mount crisis highlights with exceptional clarity three factors that explain why a steady 80% of Palestinians believe they can eliminate the Jewish state: Islamic doctrine, international succor and Israeli timidity. ...

[For further reading, please click here; a subscription to the Wall Street Journal not required.]

July 27, 2017 updates: (1) Izzat Risheq of Hamas tweeted that Palestinians achieved a "historic victory" in the just-concluded Temple Mount confrontation. He's right.

(2) A Channel 2 poll found that 68 percent of Israeli adults agreed with the decision to install the metal detectors and 77 percent saw the Netanyahu government capitulating when the detectors were removed.

Related Topics: Arab-Israel conflict & diplomacy, Jerusalem, Palestinians
Related Articles:
"The Jews Are Going, the Arabs Are Coming"
How Many Arabs and Muslims Accept Israel?
Where are the Arab ‘brothers' now?
receive the latest by email: subscribe to daniel pipes' free mailing list
The above text may be reposted, forwarded, or translated so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information about its author, date, place of publication, as well as the original URL.

_________________
Merry Christmas to all


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Churchill, Hitler, and Islam plus other Pipes posts
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 4:01 am 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 14355
Reputation points: 9532
Here comes 1984 via google.
Quote:
Silicon Valley Censorship
by Sam Westrop
The Gatestone Institute

July 26, 2017
Send
http://www.meforum.org/6844/silicon-val ... 3-33664049

Share16

Google's latest project is an application called Perspective, which, as Wired reports, brings the tech company "a step closer to its goal of helping to foster troll-free discussion online, and filtering out the abusive comments that silence vulnerable voices." In other words, Google is teaching computers how to censor.

If Google's plans are not quite Orwellian enough for you, the practical results are rather more frightening. Released in February, Perspective's partners include the New York Times, the Guardian, Wikipedia and the Economist. Google, whose motto is "Do the Right Thing," is aiming its bowdlerism at public comment sections on newspaper websites, but the potential is far broader.

Perspective works by identifying the "toxicity level" of comments published online. Google states that Perspective will enable companies to "sort comments more effectively, or allow readers to more easily find relevant information." Perspective's demonstration website currently allows anyone to measure the "toxicity" of a word or phrase, according to its algorithm. What, then, constitutes a "toxic" comment?

The organization with which I work, the Middle East Forum, studies Islamism. We work to tackle the threat posed by both violent and non-violent Islamism, assisted by our Muslim allies. We believe that radical Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution.

Statements rated as "toxic" by Google's Perspectives software.
Perspective does not look fondly at our work -- see selections at left. No reasonable person could claim that saying "radical Islam is a problem" is hate speech. But the problem does not just extend to opinions. Even factual statements are deemed to have a high rate of "toxicity." Google considers the statement "ISIS is a terrorist group" to have an 87% chance of being "perceived as toxic." Or 92% "toxicity" for stating the publicly-declared objective of the terrorist group, Hamas.

Google is quick to remind us that we may disagree with the result. It explains that, "It's still early days and we will get a lot of things wrong." The Perspective website even offers a "Seem Wrong?" button to provide feedback.

These disclaimers, however, are very much beside the point. If it is ever "toxic" to deem ISIS a terrorist organization, then -- regardless of whether that figure is the result of human bias or an under-developed algorithm -- the potential for abuse, and for widespread censorship, will always exist.

Why does Silicon Valley believe it should decide what is valid speech and what is not?

The problem lies with the very concept of the idea. Why does Silicon Valley believe it should decide what is valid speech and what is not?

Google is not the only technology company enamored with censorship. In June, Facebook announced its own plans to use artificial intelligence to identify and remove "terrorist content." These measures can be easily circumvented by actual terrorists, and how long will it be before that same artificial intelligence is used to remove content that Facebook staff find to be politically objectionable?

In fact, in May 2016, the "news curators" at Facebook revealed that they were ordered to "suppress news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network's influential 'trending' news section." And in December 2016, Facebook announced it was working to "address the issue of fake news and hoaxes" published by its users. The Washington Free Beacon later revealed that Facebook was working with a group named Media Matters on this issue. In one of its own pitches to donors, Media Matters declares its dedication to fighting "serial misinformers and right-wing propagandists." The leaked Media Matters document states it is working to ensure that "Internet and social media platforms, like Google and Facebook, will no longer uncritically and without consequence host and enrich fake news sites and propagandists." Media Matters also claims to be working with Google.

The most serious problem with trying to censor offensive speech online is not its efficacy, but the very premise.

Conservative news, it seems, is considered fake news. Liberals should oppose this dogma before their own news comes under attack. Again, the most serious problem with attempting to eliminate hate speech, fake news or terrorist content by censorship is not about the efficacy of the censorship; it is the very premise that is dangerous.

Under the guidance of faulty algorithms or prejudiced Silicon Valley programmers, when the New York Times starts to delete or automatically hide comments that criticize extremist clerics, or Facebook designates articles by anti-Islamist activists as "fake news," Islamists will prosper and moderate Muslims will suffer.



The Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) directly funds the radical Islamist Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Relief.
Silicon Valley has, in fact, already proven itself incapable of supporting moderate Islam. Since 2008, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SVCF) has granted $330,524 to two Islamist organizations, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Islamic Relief.

Both these groups are designated terrorist organizations in the United Arab Emirates. SVCF is America's largest community foundation, with assets of over $8 billion. Its corporate partners include some of the country's biggest tech companies -- its largest donation was $1.5 billion from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. The SVCF is Silicon Valley.

In countries such as China, Silicon Valley has previously collaborated with the censors. At the very least, it did so because the laws of China forced it to comply. In the European Union, where freedom of expression is superseded by "the reputation and rights of others" and the criminalization of "hate speech" (even where there is no incitement to violence), Google was ordered to delete certain data from search results when a member of the public requests it, under Europe's "right to be forgotten" rules. Rightly, Google opposed the ruling, albeit unsuccessfully.

But in the United States, where freedom of speech enjoys protections found nowhere else in the world, Google and Facebook have not been forced to introduce censorship tools. They are not at the whim of paranoid despots or unthinking bureaucrats. Instead, Silicon Valley has volunteered to censor, and it has enlisted the help of politically partisan organizations to do so.

In the U.S., Google and Facebook haven't been forced to censor. They volunteered.

This kind of behavior sends a message. Earlier this year, Facebook agreed to send a team of staff to Pakistan, after the government asked both Facebook and Twitter to help put a stop to "blasphemous content" being published on the social media websites. In Pakistan, blasphemy is punishable by death.

Google, Facebook and the rest of Silicon Valley are private companies. They can do with their data mostly whatever they want. The world's reliance on their near-monopoly over the exchange of information and the provision of services on the internet, however, means that mass-censorship is the inevitable corollary of technology companies' efforts to regulate news and opinion.

At a time when Americans have little faith in the mass media, Silicon Valley is now veering in a direction that will evoke similar ire. If Americans did not trust the mass media before, what will they think once that same media is working with technology companies not just to report information Silicon Valley prefers, but to censor information it dislikes?

Sam Westrop is the director of Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.

Will they be able to force censorship on "Maddogsdrivethru.net'?

Time to use another search engine.

_________________
Merry Christmas to all


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Churchill, Hitler, and Islam plus other Pipes posts
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:14 pm 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 14355
Reputation points: 9532
Quote:
Join Daniel Pipes' trip to Dubai & Abu Dhabi, Nov. 4-11. Click HERE for details.
Lion's Den :: Daniel Pipes Blog
Latest Posts | Archive |
Academic Malfeasance: Another Mangling of Views about Islam

by Daniel Pipes
Aug 5, 2017
Send


Share20
Comment
Michelle Sandhoff, an assistant professor of sociology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, has written a book titled Service in a Time of Suspicion: Experiences of Muslims Serving in the U.S. Military Post-9/11 (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2017). In it, she interviewed 15 Muslim service members who, according to the publisher, "talk about what it means to be Muslim, American, and a uniformed member of the armed services in the twenty-first century. These honest accounts remind us of our shared humanity."

In the book's early pages, Sandhoff devotes a long, error-rich paragraph to describing two contrary ways of seeing Islam:

Among those who write and teach about Islam there are, broadly speaking, two camps. One side, exemplified by Karen Armstrong, presents a generally positive view of Islam and considers Islam to be a religion equivalent in scope and effect to other religions. At the other extreme are authors such as Daniel Pipes, who preach a doomsday scenario of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy the West. The latter camp often begin [sic] their discussion in terms of Islamism (a political movement), but quickly devolve into an association of all Muslims with fundamentalism, violence, and terrorism. This perspective takes the stance that Islam poses an existential threat; in his book Militant Islam Reaches America, Pipes writes, "The preservation of our existing order can no longer be taken for granted; it needs to be fought for." The form of this threat is often proposed to be "creeping sharia," the idea that religious accommodation and multiculturalism will lead inexorably to a world in which "sharia law" (i.e., Islamic law) dictates the behavior of both Muslims and non-Muslims. This perspective is also marked by the belief that all Muslims are suspect, and that profiling is a justified and effective technique to combat terrorism. Pipes writes, "All Muslims, unfortunately are suspect." Perhaps most troubling is the assertion from this camp that Muslims regularly practice taqiyyah, a form of deception believed by this camp to be pervasive. This allows them to dismiss any Muslim who speaks against them on the assumption that they are lying.

Problems abound in this paragraph:

Note that Armstrong just has views but I am at the extreme.
I reject the idea of "an Islamic conspiracy to destroy the West." Conspiracy implies some central agent making plans, which does not exist.
"Camp" is singular, so a camp begins. It's a good idea to get basic grammar right, especially when writing a book.
I do not associate "all Muslims with fundamentalism, violence, and terrorism." To the contrary, I am known for saying that "radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution" – and was quoted only yesterday to this effect in the Wall Street Journal. Nor is this view just an abstraction: I actively support anti-Islamist Muslims intellectually and financially.
I do not use the term "creeping Sharia."

Not Daniel Pipes' Twitter account or website.
I understand that taqiyyah is reserved for specific religious circumstances (such as Shi'a passing as Sunnis) and never deploy this concept to dismiss what Muslims say about Islamism.
Comments:

I recently wrote an article on 9 errors about me in 3 pages so, even by American academic standards, 4 mistakes in 1 paragraph is impressive; What's ahead, 2 errors in as many words?

I keep wondering: are professors who disagree with me purposefully mangling my views or just not bothering to check what those are? Either way, the result undermines their only currency – a reputation for sound scholarship. (August 5, 2017)

Related Topics: Academia, Muslims in the United Kingdom
Related Articles:
Academic Malfeasance: Nine Errors in Three Pages
The Problem with Middle East Studies
The Alawi Capture of Power in Syria
receive the latest by email: subscribe to daniel pipes' free mailing list
The above text may be reposted, forwarded, or translated so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information about its author, date, place of publication, as well as the original URL.
"I keep wondering: are professors who disagree with me purposefully mangling my views or just not bothering to check what those are? Either way, the result undermines their only currency – a reputation for sound scholarship. (August 5, 2017)" Danial Pipes.

These authors aren't worried about accurracy, The facts aren't important, the message is.

_________________
Merry Christmas to all


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Churchill, Hitler, and Islam plus other Pipes posts
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:20 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 26976
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 16223
Is there a link to the above article (or is it there and I cannot see it).

Thanks

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Churchill, Hitler, and Islam plus other Pipes posts
PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:45 pm 
Offline
buck private
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am
Posts: 14355
Reputation points: 9532
chijohnaok wrote:
Is there a link to the above article (or is it there and I cannot see it).

Thanks
Yes, http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2017/08 ... bout-islam
:oops:

_________________
Merry Christmas to all


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group