RIP: They died in Iraq

[rafacosta]

When the Nazi's initiated a pre-emptive war it was about expanding a fascist empire not self defense. 

 

BTW.  U.S. administrations have been worried about the threat of Iraqi WMD since the end of the last Gulf War.  The only difference between Clinton/Gore and Bush/Cheney on this issue that this administration acted on it.

 

Self defense??? BS! It's all about oil and $$$! Where in the world they are a danger to the US? They are a danger because they have WMD! Really? Where? In Mars?

 

Apu, i'm with you. Let's just give the RIP to the americans, the civilians that died they are Radical Islam and should all them die!

 

The way things are going...we will live always on war.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Who gives a s*** about your last 2 posts?

 

Your notion that anyone who has the least bit of concern for Palestinians must be anti-Israel is absurd, as is the idea that anyone who doesn't like Israeli policy is a racist.

 

Then after calling everyone a racist, you b**** about people resorting to name-calling.

 

Shut the f*** up.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I4E, the fact that not every Palestinian believes in Arafat does not seem to sink into your (seemingly empty) skull. Not every Israeli agrees with what the blood soaked thug Ariel Sharon is doing. I'm not about to make the statement that every Israeli wants the complete annhilation of the Palestinian people...as you are seemingly advocating. Arafat and his followers make up a fringe minority, just as the right wing Likud-niks do in Israel. I do not see you relaying the stories of Baruch Goldstein, who massacred scores of Muslims kneeling in prayer during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan -- or of Allan Goodman, who entered the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and started firing shots randomly at Muslims. You reap what you sow, I4E. I know many Jews that don't like the policies of the Israeli government. Does that make them anti-Semites? Or how about Jews Against the Occupation? And it's common knowledge that the Israeli "Defense" Force has inflicted numerous wounds that even Jewish human rights groups have found to be offensive in nature (shots to the back etc.)

 

As to your statement that Arafat must do more to stop terror. The basic assumption behind the Israeli claim that Arafat "must do more" to stop attacks on Israel is that the primary role of the Palestinian Authority is not to work for the security and well-being of the Palestinian people, but rather to guarantee the security and safety of Israeli occupation forces, settlers and civilians, even while Israel rules millions of disenfranchised Palestinians, and continues to seize their land by force.

 

Even if such an arrangement were politically tenable, the realities of the past ten years made it impossible. The Palestinian Authority is not a sovereign state, but a quasi-authority which at the height of its power was only given control over 17.2% of the Israeli occupied West Bank (so called "Area A" under the Oslo and subsequent accords). Even Israel with all its military and economic might could not guarantee its own safety when it controlled every inch of the West Bank.

 

Over the past 18 months, Israel has systematically attacked all the facilities of the Palestinian Authority, including police stations, prisons and intelligence headquarters, and killed and assassinated many Palestinian security officers. Hence while crippling and killing the Palestinian security forces, Israel makes the ludicrous demand that these same forces go out and work on Israel's behalf.

 

Israel has further undermined its own claim that Arafat is "in control" of all the violence, by continuing to demand that he act while he is a prisoner of the Israelis in two rooms of his Ramallah headquarters, with no outside contact, no electricity and barely enough food and water.

 

The suicide bombings which have followed the brutal Israeli re-invasions of almost every major West Bank town since late March 2002 prove conclusively that there is no level of violence or ruthlessness that either Israel or the Palestinian Authority can employ that will eliminate those determined to answer the suffering of millions of Palestinian civilians under decades of Israeli military occupation by inflicting suffering on Israeli civilians.

 

The only way to end suicide bombings and other kinds of Palestinian violence is to end the extreme violence of the Israeli military occupation which produces and fuels both Palestinian resistance against the occupation forces and violent attacks against Israeli civilians. Absent a political process explicitly designed to end the occupation, there is little reason to believe that such attacks can or will end.

 

And hey, I4E, here's a simple banner that will explain why Israel is getting attacked. It's from a Jews Against the Occupation rally in Israel.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

return -- by david rovics (a Jew, in case anybody is wondering)

 

i can't help it.

i don't care how far you think the analogy extends itself.

when i see you making that bus driver climb up and down

on and off the roof of his bus

for your amusement

for hours in the hot sun

i think of how we once had to dance and sing for them

while they shot our parents.

when i see you keep that woman

and her husband

at the checkpoint

while she's in labor

and you stand there

listening to her scream

watching as she gives birth

on the back seat of a taxi

i think of the walls around our own ghetto

and how we had to crawl through the sewers

looking for rats to eat

while we could hear their children playing

on the other side.

when i see you crush that house

and kill that woman

and her baby

with your armored bulldozer

because they didn't have a permit

i think of the way we were once forced to leave our homes

at the point of a gun.

and when i hear your general say

that in order to deal with the intifada

you must learn from the tactics of another general

one mr. stroop

in warsaw

i think of how they bombed our buildings

shot us as we fell from the roofs.

and i remember

how we wished we could kill their babies, too.

and i feel sick.

sick of your displaced anger

sick of your self-deception

sick of your attempts to deceive the rest of the world

sick of your accusations of anti-semitism

sick of your occupation

sick of your apartheid state

sick of zionism.

because standing here

in auschwitz, birkenau and warsaw

i see jenin, jaffa and rafah.

and i think of our ancestors

the jewish palestinians

who spoke so eloquently

in their arabic language.

but the dead cannot speak.

and now i find myself

again behind the wall of a ghetto

standing with millions of other palestinians.

and i find myself shouting

thawra! thawra! hatta al-naser!

tomorrow in jerusalem!

al-awda

return.

[kapkomet]

2. To be sympathetic to the Palestinians' cause is to also be for the destruction of Israel.

3. Thus, if one is sympathetic to the cause of the Palestinians' , and their cause is the elimination of Israel, then....

 

Boy, I must be late, only 12 pages so far..

 

So let me get this straight. If anyone thinks the COMMON EVERY DAY Palestinian, who crosses the borders into Isreal to work and feed their family, and go home at night and puts food on the table and just exists and turns around and pays taxes to ISREAL on his measily wages, supporting THOSE people to have a true "home" makes us racist?

 

Pass me the koolaid, please.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Excuse me.  I was mistaken.  It was that other rag named The New York Times. 

The New York Times is a rag. It's become nothing more than a place where the latest cause celebre' of the left is given a "mainstream" voice. I wouldn't waste my time reading it.

[Texsox]

1) Texsox has missed my point on numerous occasions, as have you. He is in essence saying, Hitler may have been an s.o.b., but some of the Nazis were okay. That's just wrong.

 

2) Apu quotes "sources" that are so radically anti-America/anti-Israel that they should only be classified as "Fiction". That's the section you'd find them in at Barnes and Noble.

 

3) When I mentioned all the media sources above, to contradict Apu's opinion, it was to demonstrate that all of the world's legitimate media sources know, and have reported that the Oslo Peace Accords broke down because Arafat turned down 99% of what he requested. It is as common knowledge as saying the Earth is round. Bill Clinton who sat in on Oslo has stated this on many occasions, but Apu (who to the best of my knowledge was NOT at Oslo), says differently, so he must be right!

 

You people are unbelievable.

Israel, you are in essence saying some Palastinians are bad, so all Palestinians are bad.

 

Hitler was evil personafied. Are you suggesting that all Germans are evil also? Since Hitler targeted Jews, can Israel live in peace with Germans? And why the hell would you even bring Hitler into this?

 

Can there be peace with Palestinians?

 

Based on your view, any leader from Israel who negotiates with the Palestinians in good faith must be an anti-semite. To negotiate in good faith you must believe the negotiations could reach a binding agreement that will be held by both sides. That would also mean the Israel leader would believe the Palistinians was capable of doing the right thing.

 

Take a look at the this link Fez Festival of World Sacred Music

 

I believe these types of events, that bring people together, and far more productive and will bring peace to the Middle East, faster that extreemist like yourself who preach hate for the other side.

 

Show me where * I * ever disagreed with your summary of the Peace Accords?

 

If your entire reason for calling me a racist is I believe there can be peace with Palastinians and not all Palastinians are evil, that is sad. You have accused me of a vile crime against an entire religion. And your entire reasons are I believe all humans are good and capable of good things. Is that an opinion that would be shared by all Jews or just yourself?

 

"You people are all unbelievable" Are you linking everyone together? Can't you read who writes each post? Please do not link me with anyother writer. My ideas a seperate from everyone else here.

 

You and APU are crazy. You two cannot give an inch and have jumped to extreems to prove your points. You two are amazing to watch. It is so nice that you two are so similar. I really cannot tell the difference sometimes, except APU uses more pictures. This is why under the present regimes, there will be no peace. You two are a real good representation of both sides. How could you two agree to live in peace?

 

And just so I am clear, the reason I am a racist in your view is I believe that not all Palastinians are evil. You have not posted one quote from me that I've said any racist comments towards Israel or it's people. And you wonder why I think you are an idiot :headshake

[Texsox]

Let see if you can understand what I'm trying to say, Professor.

 

1. The Palestinans' modus operandi is the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel.

2. To be sympathetic to the Palestinians' cause is to also be for the destruction of Israel.

3. Thus, if one is sympathetic to the cause of the Palestinians' , and their cause is the elimination of Israel, then....

 

Get it???

So every Palestinian is an enemy of Israel? If you believe some are not, does that make you an anti-semite?

 

If so, do you believe that every Palestinian needs to be killed before Israel can have peace?

 

Can you seperate a Palestinian "Cause" from everyday Palestinians? Is there an American Cause that every American agrees on?

 

If someone believes some Palestinians are good and sympathize with their plight, according to you, they are a racist against Israel.

 

If they agree with you, and claim since the Palestinian cause is the destruction of Israel and therefore they all are bad, doesn't that make them racist against Palestinians? Is there a way to not be a racist in your world? Orare you claiming it is ok to be a racist against Palestinians?

 

And just for fun Israel, find me one time I agreed with Apu. You seem to link us together. You accuse me of not being able to read. Or would you like to ignore that fact.

[israel4ever]

   

Nice picture, Apu! More Anti-Israel propaganda bulls***!

 

If it was "all about the occupation", why did Arafat and the PLO start terrorist attacks on Israel in 1963-4, 3-4 years before the 6-day War and the beginning of the "occupation"???

[israel4ever]

So every Palestinian is an enemy of Israel? If you believe some are not, does that make you an anti-semite?

 

If so, do you believe that every Palestinian needs to be killed before Israel can have peace?

 

Can you seperate a Palestinian "Cause" from everyday Palestinians? Is there an American Cause that every American agrees on?

 

If someone believes some Palestinians are good and sympathize with their plight, according to you, they are a racist against Israel.

 

If they agree with you, and claim since the Palestinian cause is the destruction of Israel and therefore they all are bad, doesn't that make them racist against Palestinians? Is there a way to not be a racist in your world? Orare you claiming it is ok to be a racist against Palestinians?

 

And just for fun Israel, find me one time I agreed with Apu. You seem to link us together. You accuse me of not being able to read.  Or would you like to ignore that fact.

Close to 70% of Palestinians polled in an Arab newspaper endorsed violence against Israelis, EVEN IF THEY WERE GRANTED THEIR OWN STATE!!!

 

That's 7 out of 10, aka a MAJORITY!!!!!

[israel4ever]

Okay Texsox...I apologize! You're not a racist. Not a rocket scientist, by any stretch of the imagination, but not a racist.

 

Now stop your weeping!

 

BTW I mentioned Hitler, because Arafat = Hitler. His greatest desire is the destruction of the Jewish people!

 

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Close to 70% of Palestinians polled in an Arab newspaper endorsed violence against Israelis, EVEN IF THEY WERE GRANTED THEIR OWN STATE!!!

 

That's 7 out of 10, aka a MAJORITY!!!!!

Ah, but you said Arab newspapers were propaganda machines and thusly not be believed. So that makes that whole statistic suspect. Or do you just get to pick and choose what you believe out of the source after you name it bulls***?

[israel4ever]

Apu...I will no longer address any of your postings, for the following reasons:

 

1) You are a "card-carrying" anti-Semite/anti-Israel, anti-America asshole.

2) Your postings are complete, 100%, unadulterated bulls***.

 

I feel sorry for anyone who buys into the b.s. that you sell.

[Chisoxfn]

List of all those who have died.

 

At my school I noticed today (Probably been there a few days knowing me) but they had drawn on chalk bodies all around the quad and it had names on them.

 

Finally I realized it had soldiers names on them and were there to show everyone how many people died in Iraq (US Casualties). On the bodies it had their name and how they died.

 

I still believe what we did was justified, but it is horrible that some have to die.

[Texsox]

Close to 70% of Palestinians polled in an Arab newspaper endorsed violence against Israelis, EVEN IF THEY WERE GRANTED THEIR OWN STATE!!!

 

That's 7 out of 10, aka a MAJORITY!!!!!

Israel,

 

And there is the root of the problem. I imagine after all the suicide bombers and violence against Israel that a majority in Israel endorse violence against Palastinians.

I have never believed these Arab newspapers and I am surprised that you do. Nest thing Apu will be believing Israeli newspapers. Maybe this is a start of a compromise.

 

You have mentioned that Arafat needs to be "taken out". I am certain you are not in the minority with that view. With both sides preaching violence, all you get is violence.

 

And we get to the same point I've made all along. Too many people on both sides believe the only way they will live in peace is if the other side is destroyed. Sadly, both sides may be right and the othe world isn't big enough for Israelies and Palastinians. If that truly is the case, imagine the bloodshed that will happen. If we have learned any lessons from the Holocaust, the world will no longer sit by and watch the systematic destruction of an entire race of people.

 

You and Apu are perfect representatives for both sides. Could you imagine you two trying to negotiate a peace agreement? I cannot. But that is the challenge facing the region. Many, many innocent lives depend on rational humans making decisions in the best interest of everyone.

 

No, I am not a rocket scientist. The hard sciences, like rocker propulsion, do not interest me as much as Psychology and English Literature.

[YASNY]

You and Apu are perfect representatives for both sides. Could you imagine you two trying to negotiate a peace agreement? I cannot. But that is the challenge facing the region.

 

Those 4 sentences speak volumns.

[Texsox]

Okay Texsox...I apologize! You're not a racist. Not a rocket scientist, by any stretch of the imagination, but not a racist.

 

Now stop your weeping!

 

BTW I mentioned Hitler, because Arafat = Hitler. His greatest desire is the destruction of the Jewish people!

 

Thank you for recognizing that. I find being called a racist something worth defending. To me it is a very serious allegation.

 

I was not weeping, but defending the Texsox name.

 

You are not a skycap by any stretch of the imagination. But hey, keep trying!

 

Seriously, I would be very interested to watch you and Sideshow try and come to a peace agreement. How would you two decide the path of history? How would you two create a world for your grandchildren's grandchildren?

 

Could you two even agree on a place to hold the meetings and say an agenda of 5 items? Instead of trying to outshout each other, could you listen enough to work out a peace agreement? Without one, both sides will live in fear, and that is insane.

 

So, do y'all want to keep fighting, and have your grandkids, grandkids fighting?

[israel4ever]

Thank you for recognizing that. I find being called a racist something worth defending. To me it is a very serious allegation.

 

I was not weeping, but defending the Texsox name. 

 

You are not a skycap by any stretch of the imagination. But hey, keep trying!

 

Seriously, I would be very interested to watch you and Sideshow try and come to a peace agreement. How would you two decide the path of history? How would you two create a world for your grandchildren's grandchildren?

 

Could you two even agree on a place to hold the meetings and say an agenda of 5 items? Instead of trying to outshout each other, could you listen enough to work out a peace agreement? Without one, both sides will live in fear, and that is insane.

 

So, do y'all want to keep fighting, and have your grandkids, grandkids fighting?

IF I were to try to negotiate a peace accord with Apu, assuming Apu represents the Palestinian people, it would be premised on 3 preconditions.

 

1) The Palestinians have to accept, and do everything in their power to facilitate, Israel's Right to Exist as a Jewish State. Declarations must be made stating so in both English AND Arabic.

 

2) All militant groups MUST be disarmed/incapacitated, with and/or without the assistance of Israel and the IDF.

 

3) There must be a period of at least 1 year wherein there is no homicide bombings or other attacks on Israelis, NOT ONE!

 

Then I would start negotiations!

[israel4ever]

Ah, but you said Arab newspapers were propaganda machines and thusly not be believed.  So that makes that whole statistic suspect.  Or do you just get to pick and choose what you believe out of the source after you name it bulls***?

Why would an Arabic paper deliberatly write something to disparage the "Palestinians", if it wasn't true? They don't want to make the "Palis" look bad; why would they want to do so?

[israel4ever]

An interesting article I read today...Enjoy!

 

"Satire-The Mass Media Guide on How to Become an "Activist"" by Steven Plaut

 

1. Murdering people makes you a killer or a terrorist. But if those murdered are Jews then you are an activist. You might also be a militant.

 

2. Crashing jet planes into buildings makes you a terrorist. But attempting to shoot down civilian planes landing in Israel makes you an activist.

 

3. Placing large bombs on trains in Madrid makes you a terrorist, but placing bombs on Israeli buses full of children makes you an activist.

 

4. Blowing up a nightclub in Indonesia full of Australians makes you a terrorist. But mass murdering Israeli children makes you an activist.

 

5. Snipers shooting innocent people in Virginia are terrorists. Snipers shooting Jews in the West Bank are activists.

 

6. People trying to ram soldiers with trucks and cars are generally terrorists, unless the soldiers in question are Jews.

 

7. Throwing rocks at civilians makes you a criminal and maybe even a terrorist, and if you do so off a California overpass you will get jailed. But throwing the same rocks at Jews in Israel makes you an activist and maybe even a professor at Columbia University.

 

8. Denying the Holocaust makes you a racist and a fascist bigot, unless you are an Arab, in which case it makes you a moderate, at least if you deny the Holocaust in grammatically correct English.

 

9. Hiding behind children when you shoot weapons at soldiers makes you a coward and a villain, unless you are a Palestinian or an Iraqi Baathist.

 

10. Murdering children makes you a fiend and maybe a Nazi unless the children are Jews, in which case you are an activist with legitimate grievances.

 

11. 9/11 and 3/11 terrorism has no underlying causes or root grievances, but Middle East activism in which Israelis get murdered does - because of Israeli insensitivity and because Palestinians feel occupied.

 

12. When Bosnians or Albanians in Kosova get mass murdered, that is a war crime. When Jews get mass murdered, this is their comeuppance for their insensitivity, and of course it is reactive activism.

 

13. When Americans assassinate al-Queda or Taliban leaders anywhere they find them, this is part of the war against global terrorism. When Israel shoots terrorist leaders, it is an obstacle to peace and is unjustifiably deactivating activism.

 

14. When the US jails hundreds of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay without trial, this is because the jailed are terrorists. When Israel jails people who have mass murdered Jews, this is undermining the peace process and antagonizing activists.

 

15. Firing mortars and rockets into civilian areas in the Balkans makes you a war criminal. Firing them from Gaza into Jewish homes makes you a militant. Protesting wearing of fur also makes you a militant, or maybe an activist.

[israel4ever]

   

If you want a different spin on the "occupation" from the one that Apu offers, I highly suggest you go to DanielPipes.org and read the article entitled, "It's Not About the Settlements". This article also appeared in the February 17, 2004 Sun Times.

 

Daniel Pipes

[LowerCaseRepublican]

If you want a different spin on the "occupation" from the one that Apu offers, I highly suggest you go to DanielPipes.org and read the article entitled, "It's Not About the Settlements". This article also appeared in the February 17, 2004 Sun Times. 

 

Daniel Pipes

Daniel Pipes? BWHAHAHAHAHA.

 

 

Daniel Pipes is a very controversial scholar who received a PhD from Harvard University in 1978. As his web page, www.danielpipes.org, states: "He spent six years studying abroad, including three years in Egypt. Mr. Pipes speaks French, and reads Arabic and German. He has taught at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, and the U.S. Naval War College. He has served in various capacities at the Departments of State and Defense, including vice chairman of the presidentially-appointed Fulbright Board of Foreign Scholarships." Mr. Pipes has followed his father in the study of history. His father was a Russian historian who discussed the Russian people in about the same way as Daniel does Muslims and the Palestinians.

 

His father's work has been critiqued by many. Numerous scholars believe that the work done by Pipes's father is nothing more than knee jerk anti-communist reactionism. In his books, he has extreme contempt for the Soviet people and many in the historical community doubt many of his assertions because of his strong biases. Some in the historical community have said that the elder Pipes's bias was that nothing that happened to the Soviet people were of any consequence because they were filthy communists. Substitute Islam in for communism and this is the type of ideology that has rubbed off on his son. He puts Palestinians in the same light. I could discuss a lot of Daniel Pipes's positions but I'd rather let his words do the talking for me.

 

 

The presence and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews. (Address to the American Jewish Committee, October 21, 2001)

 

I make the same point respectively to audiences of women, gays, civil libertarians, Hindus, Evangelical Christians, atheists, and scholars of Islam, among others, all of whom face 'true dangers' as the number of Muslims increases...(The Nation, November 11, 2002)

 

Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most. (National Review, 11/19/90)

 

Iranians and Pakistanis, to take two groups of non-Arabs, are at least as widely conspiracy-minded and as anti-Semitic as, say, Tunisians and

Kuwaitis. (Commentary, September 1, 1999)

 

...black converts tend to hold vehemently anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic attitudes. (Commentary, June 1, 2000)

 

...a well-established tradition of American blacks who convert to Islam turning against their country. (Jewish World Review, 2002)

 

Muslim population in this country is not like any other group, for it includes within it a substantial body of people...who share with the suicide hijackers a hatred of the United States. (Commentary, November, 2001)

"10 to 15% of Islam are potential killers" (Information Times)

 

This is from a Salon.com interview with Pipes:

 

PIPES: Now, they [CAIR] don't say that [they want to impose Islamic law in America] in black and white in their writings. I can't prove that to you. I can tell you that there are all sorts of intimations of it. I can tell you I can sense it. I can make this case, but I can't make it specifically for CAIR

 

SALON: Saying Muslims want to create a Muslim state in America, does that strike you as alarmist at all?

 

PIPES: How could that be alarmist when I can see signs all around? Look, I have a filter. I've studied Islam and Islamism for 30 years. I have a sense of how they proceed and what their agenda is like. And I see it. You don't When asked about a statement by an American Muslim leader who wanted to see a Muslim president by 2020, Pipes replied: It's like saying I want a fascist president.

 

The interviewer also asked Pipes about his recent statement recommending the vigilant application of social and political pressure to ensure that Islam is not accorded special status of any kind in this country." Pipes explained that their [American Muslim] acceptance would go beyond what I consider normal acceptance. They want the rules to be rewritten for them. They want a whole host of ways that Islam and Muslims have special status. Salon also questioned Pipes about his recommendation that officials need to scrutinize the speech, associations, and activities of potential visitors or immigrants for any signs of Islamist allegiances and keep out anyone they suspect of such ties. Pipes replied: Look, I like this country as it is and I don't want it to turn into something quite differentIf you want to see an Islamist country, then you will have the opposite view from mineThe danger is within He can make the case but he has no facts. Way to go, Mr. Pipes! Here comes the religious freedom train, last stop you.

 

The United States Institute of Peace (USIP), created by Congress in 1984 "to promote the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of international conflicts," has become the latest flashpoint in the philosophical dispute over how peace is defined and best pursued. Utilizing $16.2 million supplied by US taxpayers, the institute's 70 employees fund research, give scholarships, publish books, and even sponsor the National Peace Essay Contest for high-school students. The USIP will gain greater visibility when it constructs its new headquarters on the Washington Mall. Do you want Mr. Pipes to be in an Institute of Peace when he has said the following things? He even has no experience in conflict resolution or peace work.

 

Pipes Opposes Israel and Palestinian States Co-Existing

 

Instead, the President outlined his vision for a "provisional" Palestinian state and demanded an end to what he called "Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories." Both of these constitute very major benefits to the Palestinians; as such, they represent rewards for suicide bombings, sniper attacks, and the other forms of terrorism. (National Post, June 25, 2002)

 

These plans, of which the best known is the Bush administration's "road map," run the gamut from tough-seeming to appeasing. But they have two qualities in common. All of them give up on the Oslo-era assumption of Palestinian-Israeli comity as the basis for negotiation. But at the same time, all of them proceed from a fundamentally flawed understanding of the conflict and therefore, if actually implemented, would be likely to increase tensions it is a mistake to discuss "final-status" issues, i.e., how things will look when the conflict is over. (Commentary, February 2003)

 

 

Pipes Opposes US efforts to Revive Peace Talks

 

The Bush administration should take two steps to speed this process: Let Israel respond as it sees best, and stop bestowing undeserved gifts on the Palestinians (the latest: promises of a state in 2003). (New York Post, January 7, 2003)

 

For the U.S. government, this means halting counterproductive efforts at brokering a cease-fire... (New York Post April 2, 2002)

 

The new administration has already implemented two excellent policy changes concerning the Middle East: a focus on containing Iraq and a retreat from Arab-Israeli negotiations. (Wall Street Journal, March 30, 2001)

 

The premise behind these statements is that diplomacy plus compromises can end the Arab-Israeli conflict. (New York Post, May 6, 2002)

 

The short-term goal is not to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, but to enhance Israeli deterrence capabilities. (Jerusalem Post, December 6, 2000)

 

 

Pipes Is a Bitter Opponent of the Oslo Peace Process

 

Third, and most profoundly, the [Mitchell] report emphasizes getting the two parties back to the negotiating table, as though this were an end in itself. It seems oblivious to the important fact that negotiations over the past eight years did not bring the parties closer to a settlement but, to the contrary, exacerbated differences and had a role in the outbreak of violence. (Washington Times, May 30, 2001)

 

Thus have Israeli policies since 1993 brought the region closer to all-out war than at any time since the mid-1960s. (Jerusalem Post, January 31, 2001)

 

 

 

Pipes Advocates Israeli Military "Victory" Over

Palestinians

 

Palestinians need almost as much to be defeated by Israel as Israel needs to defeat them. (Jerusalem Post, April 25, 2001)

 

Talk-talk is always better than war-war, but in some cases an aggressor cannot be dissuaded by talk alone, and so war is a necessity. Sadly, that is the case with the Palestinians today. (Washington Times, May 30, 2001)

 

First and foremost, it means that Israel's enemies must be convinced that they have lost. Actually, not all its enemies, just the Palestinians. (Commentary, February 2003)

 

The implication is clear: if Israel is to protect itself, it must achieve a comprehensive military victory over the Palestinians (New York Post April 2, 2002)

 

History teaches that what appears to be endless carnage does come to an end when one side gives up. It appears increasingly likely that the Palestinians are approaching that point, suggesting that if Israel persists in its present policies it will get closer to victory. (The Only Solution Is Military, New York Post, February 25, 2002)

 

Encourage Israel to appear fearsome. (Jerusalem Post, December 6, 2000)

 

Thus all who hope for a resolution of the Palestinian problem should urge the Sharon government to squeeze the PA just as hard as it can. (Jerusalem Post, March 14, 2001)

 

 

 

Pipes Has Repeated Predicted That an Israeli Military Solution Is at Hand

 

History teaches that what appears to be endless carnage does come to an end when one side gives up. It appears increasingly likely that the Palestinians are approaching that point, suggesting that if Israel persists in its present policies it will get closer to victory. (The Only Solution Is Military, New York Post, February 25, 2002)

 

I predict that this round of the Palestinian war on Israel, now 19 months long, will collapse fairly soon - probably well before the end of this year. (Los Angeles Times, May 6, 2002)

 

The current campaign of Palestinian violence will end before long, probably by the end of 2002. (Slate, May 21, 2002)

 

Appearances to the contrary, Israel is defeating the Palestinians. (Israel is Winning, New York Post, August 6, 2002)

 

 

 

Pipes Is Opposed to Ending the Israeli Occupation

 

Israelis may well tire of keeping ultimate control over the West Bank and Gaza, but the just-deceased Oslo experiment in Palestinian autonomy (1994-2002) demonstrates that they have no choice. (Wall Street Journal, at April 15, 2002)

 

No more Israeli territorial concessions. (Jerusalem Post, December 6, 2000)

 

On the minus side, Sharon has indicated a troubling intention to reach a "long-term peace agreement" with the PA, something that is plainly unrealistic. (Jerusalem Post, March 28, 2001)

 

...the land-for-peace premise was false (New York Post, June 4, 2002)

 

 

 

Pipes Is Opposed to Israel's Withdrawal from Lebanon in Accordance with Security Council Resolution 425

 

The paralyzing divisions of the '90s have nearly disappeared, as have the self-hating "post-Zionism" themes (which ridiculed Israeli patriotism) and the defeatism (which prompted a unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon). (New York Post, December 17, 2001)

 

when Israel did the world's bidding and retreated from Lebanon, it disastrously reduced its own security. (Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2002)

Mr. Pipes and his supporters, however do not relay the stories of Baruch Goldstein, who massacred scores of Muslims kneeling in prayer during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan -- or of Allan Goodman, who entered the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and started firing shots randomly at Muslims. These are two American-Jews, among the thousands of illegal settlers who exported violence and terror from America to the Palestinian Territories.

 

Regardless of how many columns Pipes wrote on Islam, Muslims and Arabs, his writings lack an empathetic understanding of Muslims. He never explores Muslim or Arab feelings and perceptions. He writes from a position far away, looking down in disgust at them and obsessively looking for dirt to smear their image in public discourse. The tone is always accusatory, hostile and blaming, destroying any possibility of discussion, communication or dialogue. In his own words: "The Palestinians are a miserable people ... and they deserve to be."

 

Pipes' scholarship lacks an appreciation of Islamic traditions, history or culture. Rather, Pipes consistently attacks any positive portrayal of Islam, Muslims or Arabs, such as the positive portrayal of Islamic history and beliefs in public schools and the PBS documentary "Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet."

 

Pipes' boasts of a doctorate from Harvard, yet he falsely claimed that Muslims have no real religious attachments to the city of Jerusalem. When he cannot prove his wild accusations, he resorts to paranoia suspicions, claiming to have a special mental "filter" which allows him to detect those who want to "create a Muslim state in America."

 

Pipes claims it is "militant Islam" and Muslims he is attacking. However, he gives no measurable criteria to differentiate between a "radical Muslim" and a moderate one. More troublesome is that Pipes supports Mujahedeen-e Khalq, a group designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department. The MEK even attacked US forces in the 1970s. But, the MEK is in agreement with many of Pipes' policies because the MEK want to get rid of Iran's government. One gets the impression that if you disagree with his political views, you're a Muslim radical. He has even gone to the extent of creating a group called Campus Watch which collects dossiers on students and professors deemed critical of Israel or his anti-Islamist crusade (and the Crusade pun is intended).

[israel4ever]

Daniel Pipes is THE man!

 

He is also one of the first columnists to make the distiction between Islam and Radical Islam!

 

You and your bleeding-heart liberal pussy cohorts can bash him all you want; he speaks the truth!

[israel4ever]

Daniel Pipes?  BWHAHAHAHAHA.

 

 

Daniel Pipes is a very controversial scholar who received a PhD from Harvard University in 1978.  As his web page, www.danielpipes.org, states: "He spent six years studying abroad, including three years in Egypt. Mr. Pipes speaks French, and reads Arabic and German. He has taught at the University of Chicago, Harvard University, and the U.S. Naval War College. He has served in various capacities at the Departments of State and Defense, including vice chairman of the presidentially-appointed Fulbright Board of Foreign Scholarships."  Mr. Pipes has followed his father in the study of history.  His father was a Russian historian who discussed the Russian people in about the same way as Daniel does Muslims and the Palestinians.

 

His father's work has been critiqued by many.  Numerous scholars believe that the work done by Pipes's father is nothing more than knee jerk anti-communist reactionism.  In his books, he has extreme contempt for the Soviet people and many in the historical community doubt many of his assertions because of his strong biases.  Some in the historical community have said that the elder Pipes's bias was that nothing that happened to the Soviet people were of any consequence because they were filthy communists.  Substitute Islam in for communism and this is the type of ideology that has rubbed off on his son.  He puts Palestinians in the same light.  I could discuss a lot of Daniel Pipes's positions but I'd rather let his words do the talking for me.

 

 

The presence and increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews. (Address to the American Jewish Committee, October 21, 2001)

 

I make the same point respectively to audiences of women, gays, civil libertarians, Hindus, Evangelical Christians, atheists, and scholars of Islam, among others, all of whom face 'true dangers' as the number of Muslims increases...(The Nation, November 11, 2002)

 

Western European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene...All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most. (National Review, 11/19/90)

 

Iranians and Pakistanis, to take two groups of non-Arabs, are at least as widely conspiracy-minded and as anti-Semitic as, say, Tunisians and

Kuwaitis. (Commentary, September 1, 1999)

 

...black converts tend to hold vehemently anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic attitudes. (Commentary, June 1, 2000)

 

...a well-established tradition of American blacks who convert to Islam turning against their country. (Jewish World Review, 2002)

 

Muslim population in this country is not like any other group, for it includes within it a substantial body of people...who share with the suicide hijackers a hatred of the United States. (Commentary, November, 2001)

"10 to 15% of Islam are potential killers" (Information Times)

 

This is from a Salon.com interview with Pipes:

 

PIPES: Now, they [CAIR] don't say that [they want to impose Islamic law in America] in black and white in their writings. I can't prove that to you. I can tell you that there are all sorts of intimations of it. I can tell you I can sense it. I can make this case, but I can't make it specifically for CAIR

 

SALON: Saying Muslims want to create a Muslim state in America, does that strike you as alarmist at all?

 

PIPES: How could that be alarmist when I can see signs all around? Look, I have a filter. I've studied Islam and Islamism for 30 years. I have a sense of how they proceed and what their agenda is like. And I see it. You don't When asked about a statement by an American Muslim leader who wanted to see a Muslim president by 2020, Pipes replied: It's like saying I want a fascist president.

 

The interviewer also asked Pipes about his recent statement recommending the vigilant application of social and political pressure to ensure that Islam is not accorded special status of any kind in this country." Pipes explained that their [American Muslim] acceptance would go beyond what I consider normal acceptance. They want the rules to be rewritten for them. They want a whole host of ways that Islam and Muslims have special status. Salon also questioned Pipes about his recommendation that officials need to scrutinize the speech, associations, and activities of potential visitors or immigrants for any signs of Islamist allegiances and keep out anyone they suspect of such ties. Pipes replied: Look, I like this country as it is and I don't want it to turn into something quite differentIf you want to see an Islamist country, then you will have the opposite view from mineThe danger is within  He can make the case but he has no facts.  Way to go, Mr. Pipes!  Here comes the religious freedom train, last stop you.

 

The United States Institute of Peace (USIP), created by Congress in 1984 "to promote the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of international conflicts," has become the latest flashpoint in the philosophical dispute over how peace is defined and best pursued. Utilizing $16.2 million supplied by US taxpayers, the institute's 70 employees fund research, give scholarships, publish books, and even sponsor the National Peace Essay Contest for high-school students. The USIP will gain greater visibility when it constructs its new headquarters on the Washington Mall.  Do you want Mr. Pipes to be in an Institute of Peace when he has said the following things?  He even has no experience in conflict resolution or peace work.

 

Pipes Opposes Israel and Palestinian States Co-Existing

 

Instead, the President outlined his vision for a "provisional" Palestinian state and demanded an end to what he called "Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories." Both of these constitute very major benefits to the Palestinians; as such, they represent rewards for suicide bombings, sniper attacks, and the other forms of terrorism. (National Post, June 25, 2002)

 

These plans, of which the best known is the Bush administration's "road map," run the gamut from tough-seeming to appeasing. But they have two qualities in common. All of them give up on the Oslo-era assumption of Palestinian-Israeli comity as the basis for negotiation. But at the same time, all of them proceed from a fundamentally flawed understanding of the conflict and therefore, if actually implemented, would be likely to increase tensions it is a mistake to discuss "final-status" issues, i.e., how things will look when the conflict is over. (Commentary, February 2003)

 

 

Pipes Opposes US efforts to Revive Peace Talks

 

The Bush administration should take two steps to speed this process: Let Israel respond as it sees best, and stop bestowing undeserved gifts on the Palestinians (the latest: promises of a state in 2003). (New York Post, January 7, 2003)

 

For the U.S. government, this means halting counterproductive efforts at brokering a cease-fire... (New York Post April 2, 2002)

 

The new administration has already implemented two excellent policy changes concerning the Middle East: a focus on containing Iraq and a retreat from Arab-Israeli negotiations. (Wall Street Journal, March 30, 2001)

 

The premise behind these statements is that diplomacy plus compromises can end the Arab-Israeli conflict. (New York Post, May 6, 2002)

 

The short-term goal is not to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, but to enhance Israeli deterrence capabilities. (Jerusalem Post, December 6, 2000)

 

 

Pipes Is a Bitter Opponent of the Oslo Peace Process

 

Third, and most profoundly, the [Mitchell] report emphasizes getting the two parties back to the negotiating table, as though this were an end in itself. It seems oblivious to the important fact that negotiations over the past eight years did not bring the parties closer to a settlement but, to the contrary, exacerbated differences and had a role in the outbreak of violence. (Washington Times, May 30, 2001)

 

Thus have Israeli policies since 1993 brought the region closer to all-out war than at any time since the mid-1960s. (Jerusalem Post, January 31, 2001)

 

 

 

Pipes Advocates Israeli Military "Victory" Over

Palestinians

 

Palestinians need almost as much to be defeated by Israel as Israel needs to defeat them. (Jerusalem Post, April 25, 2001)

 

Talk-talk is always better than war-war, but in some cases an aggressor cannot be dissuaded by talk alone, and so war is a necessity. Sadly, that is the case with the Palestinians today. (Washington Times, May 30, 2001)

 

First and foremost, it means that Israel's enemies must be convinced that they have lost. Actually, not all its enemies, just the Palestinians. (Commentary, February 2003)

 

The implication is clear: if Israel is to protect itself, it must achieve a comprehensive military victory over the Palestinians (New York Post April 2, 2002)

 

History teaches that what appears to be endless carnage does come to an end when one side gives up. It appears increasingly likely that the Palestinians are approaching that point, suggesting that if Israel persists in its present policies it will get closer to victory. (The Only Solution Is Military, New York Post, February 25, 2002)

 

Encourage Israel to appear fearsome. (Jerusalem Post, December 6, 2000)

 

Thus all who hope for a resolution of the Palestinian problem should urge the Sharon government to squeeze the PA just as hard as it can. (Jerusalem Post, March 14, 2001)

 

 

 

Pipes Has Repeated Predicted That an Israeli Military Solution Is at Hand

 

History teaches that what appears to be endless carnage does come to an end when one side gives up. It appears increasingly likely that the Palestinians are approaching that point, suggesting that if Israel persists in its present policies it will get closer to victory. (The Only Solution Is Military, New York Post, February 25, 2002)

 

I predict that this round of the Palestinian war on Israel, now 19 months long, will collapse fairly soon - probably well before the end of this year. (Los Angeles Times, May 6, 2002)

 

The current campaign of Palestinian violence will end before long, probably by the end of 2002. (Slate, May 21, 2002)

 

Appearances to the contrary, Israel is defeating the Palestinians. (Israel is Winning, New York Post, August 6, 2002)

 

 

 

Pipes Is Opposed to Ending the Israeli Occupation

 

Israelis may well tire of keeping ultimate control over the West Bank and Gaza, but the just-deceased Oslo experiment in Palestinian autonomy (1994-2002) demonstrates that they have no choice. (Wall Street Journal, at April 15, 2002)

 

No more Israeli territorial concessions. (Jerusalem Post, December 6, 2000)

 

On the minus side, Sharon has indicated a troubling intention to reach a "long-term peace agreement" with the PA, something that is plainly unrealistic. (Jerusalem Post, March 28, 2001)

 

...the land-for-peace premise was false (New York Post, June 4, 2002)

 

 

 

Pipes Is Opposed to Israel's Withdrawal from Lebanon in Accordance with Security Council Resolution 425

 

The paralyzing divisions of the '90s have nearly disappeared, as have the self-hating "post-Zionism" themes (which ridiculed Israeli patriotism) and the defeatism (which prompted a unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon). (New York Post, December 17, 2001)

 

when Israel did the world's bidding and retreated from Lebanon, it disastrously reduced its own security. (Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2002)

Mr. Pipes and his supporters, however do not relay the stories of Baruch Goldstein, who massacred scores of Muslims kneeling in prayer during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan -- or of Allan Goodman, who entered the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and started firing shots randomly at Muslims. These are two American-Jews, among the thousands of illegal settlers who exported violence and terror from America to the Palestinian Territories. 

 

Regardless of how many columns Pipes wrote on Islam, Muslims and Arabs, his writings lack an empathetic understanding of Muslims. He never explores Muslim or Arab feelings and perceptions. He writes from a position far away, looking down in disgust at them and obsessively looking for dirt to smear their image in public discourse. The tone is always accusatory, hostile and blaming, destroying any possibility of discussion, communication or dialogue. In his own words: "The Palestinians are a miserable people ... and they deserve to be."

 

Pipes' scholarship lacks an appreciation of Islamic traditions, history or culture. Rather, Pipes consistently attacks any positive portrayal of Islam, Muslims or Arabs, such as the positive portrayal of Islamic history and beliefs in public schools and the PBS documentary "Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet."

 

Pipes' boasts of a doctorate from Harvard, yet he falsely claimed that Muslims have no real religious attachments to the city of Jerusalem. When he cannot prove his wild accusations, he resorts to paranoia suspicions, claiming to have a special mental "filter" which allows him to detect those who want to "create a Muslim state in America." 

 

Pipes claims it is "militant Islam" and Muslims he is attacking. However, he gives no measurable criteria to differentiate between a "radical Muslim" and a moderate one. More troublesome is that Pipes supports Mujahedeen-e Khalq, a group designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department. The MEK even attacked US forces in the 1970s.  But, the MEK is in agreement with many of Pipes' policies because the MEK want to get rid of Iran's government.  One gets the impression that if you disagree with his political views, you're a Muslim radical.  He has even gone to the extent of creating a group called Campus Watch which collects dossiers on students and professors deemed critical of Israel or his anti-Islamist crusade (and the Crusade pun is intended).

I personally agree with EVERY one of Pipes' commentaries on the Israel/Palestinian situation.

 

I have met him on several occasions, have read his books, and heard him speak. I believe that he is the worlds' foremost authority (NOT APU, SORRY!!!) on the subject.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Daniel Pipes is THE man!

 

He is also one of the first columnists to make the distiction between Islam and Radical Islam!

 

You and your bleeding-heart liberal pussy cohorts can bash him all you want; he speaks the truth!

Yes...Daniel Pipes speaks the truth You know, the truth if you're a right wing Zionist. His comments are thinly veiled racism.

 

And way to deflect dealing with any of the actual claims made by calling me a "liberal pussy". I guess you learned a lot about the structure of debates.