Danish Cartoonist Editor is a big Neocon !!

[AntiFascist]

I don't know if this has been posted already, but it bears repeating. The Danish cartoonist's editor who sparked the riots in the Middle East because of his inflammatory cartoons involving Islam has clear ties to the well-known neocon Daniel Pipes, as reported by Christopher Bollyn for the American Free Press:

Rose traveled to Philadelphia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes, the Neo-Con ideologue who says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military victory. Rose then penned a positive article about Pipes, who compares "militant Islam" with fascism and communism.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=84976

Kurt Nimmo, also reporting on this at his blog, cuts right to the heart of the matter:

So if terror attacks do indeed occur during the Olympics in Turin, we can point an accusatory finger quite naturally in the direction of the Straussian neocons, linked to Operation Gladio terrorism through Michael Ledeen, who is connected to Francesco Pazienza and the P2 Masonic Lodge responsible for the CIA-NATO sponsored Strategy of Tension terrorism campaign in Italy (an Italian criminal court convicted Pazienza in 1985 of political manipulation, forgery, and the protection of criminals and terrorists, among other offenses, in relation to the Gladio bombing of a Bologna train station, killing more than 80 people; see Jeff Wells’ Rigorous Intuition).

<snip>

In the same way, the Straussian neocons, taking a page from the P-2 provocation playbook, are attempting to convince Europeans and Americans that Muslims are “violent and dangerous” by “helping make it so,” as Bollyn’s revelations about Flemming Rose’s role in the inflammatory publication of the anti-Muslim cartoons in Jyllands-Posten and other newspapers make obvious.

THERE'S MORE....

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=211

On edit: I guess my posts need an editor. :blush:

[redqueen]

1. You don't say...

*sigh*

I wish I could say I was surprised by this.

[KittyWampus]

40. he also refused to run cartoons depicting Christianity even though he

claims the Muslim cartoons were intended to open dialog on religion.

[greyl]

2. Too bad Fleming Rose isn't one of the cartoonists. nt

[greyl]

3. and another thing, the Americans upset about the cartoons

are playing right into the real neocons' hands.

All of a sudden some progressive liberals are against freedom of the press?
All of a sudden they side with those using threats and intimidation to quiet dissent?
That's bullshit.

[AntiFascist]

7. Freedom of the press is one thing....

a coordinated effort between the media and governments to incite violence and stir up public opinion to fight the violence is quite another. I wouldn't be surprised if certain Saudis were involved in this. Also, we've been stirring up the Muslims for decades, no wonder there is such hatred.

[greyl]

13. Freedom of the press is one thing, whined G.W.Bush,

appeasing fanatics is what a dictato--er democracy is all about."

[pretzel4gore]

8. the issue is who benefits from running up this story....

every single day in some part of the world, someone claims to be muhammed, jesus, napoleon and casper (weinberger)...madmen in stinkydress fashion suits do drawings of 1) jesus making love to king kong 2) the pied piper eating a rat 3) bush's tiny dick springing to attention 4) a wart on muhammed arse 5) muhammed as jesus christ 6)muhammed as a stick man 7) muhammed as a puppy 8)a naked wench named muhammed.... etcetera
yet no one says a damn thing!

[Ms. Clio]

15. You do know that Danish law makes blasphemy a crime?

You are aware that several European nations prohibit speech that denies the Holocaust, and punish it with fines and prison terms?

I hope you are equally incensed by these rampant violations of free speech. But the Europeans don't follow our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Shocking, I know.

I also hope you are aware that the same rightwing newspaper refused to publish offensive Jesus cartoons because they would cause an outcry.

Oh, those brave heroes of Free Speech!

[tocqueville]

47. OK read here so we discuss facts

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1894686,00.html

So it shows that those laws if they still exist are not applied

exactly the same than in the US

In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees a relatively unlimited right of free speech, although some US states still have blasphemy laws on the books. Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws states, for example:

Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

However, the US Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v Wilson 1952 held that the New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy

But I know that the Muslim fundies want a blasphemy crime written in the Norwegian constitution.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

"But the Europeans don't follow our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Shocking, I know."

OK take it easy, even if you are ironic

our Constitutions can be far more elaborated than yours because they have been rewritten those last 220 years (and not by judges, God beware). Most of them incorporate the UN declaration of human rights, which the US doesn't. Compare for example the European RIGHT TO PRIVACY with the "penumbra" of the US constitution...

Have you ever tried to read them ?

Holocaust denial is hate speech. What's wrong in prohibiting hate speech ? OOh I know it's far more important to prohibit the 3 s appearance of a covered nipple at the SuperBowl...

Breasts are evil... but denying the Jews their recent memory is OK ? When every one knows that THIS is used as the recent base of antisemitism...

Please, no lessons, if they were any intended, please

[Ms. Clio]

48. Depicting all Muslims as terrorists, as several of those cartoons did

is also hate speech. Or both of them are examples of speech that is stupid and offensive, but should not be subject to governmental interference. One or the other, or you have to be a hypocrite.

And you are completely ignoring this fact, so let me try again: (In Denmark) "Mogens Glistrup, a tax protester turned xenophobe, was imprisoned for 20 days last year for a racist speech. He compared Turks to rabbits."

Clearly somebody didn't get the word that the laws are just "on the books."

[glitch]

4. The article says he is the editor who commissioned the cartoonists. nt

[greyl]

5. Yeah, I know who he is. The title of the OP isn't true. nt

[AntiFascist]

10. It is now n/t

[Igel]

11. "Commission" is an ok word;

"solicited" would be better. He didn't specify anything but how they viewed Muhammed, and contacted something like 40 of them. 12 responded; all 12 were published. The content, beyond that, was up to the cartoonists: after all, at least one shows a cartoonist drawing Muhammed furtively, in fear. That's inflammatory, or should be.

[tocqueville]

6. your source is "antizionist", says it all, QUOTE IT ALL

Date: Friday, 3 February 2006, 10:52 a.m.

In Response To: How "Jewish" Zionists Fuel Hostility to Muslims *PIC* (ChristopherBollyn)

EUROPEAN MEDIA PROVOKES MUSLIMS
TO INFLAME ZIONIST "CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS"


http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=84976

quoting from that crap :

Rose told the international paper owned by The New York Times that "he would not publish a cartoon of Israel's Ariel Sharon strangling a Palestinian baby, since that could be construed as 'racist.'" (how awful of him :sarcasm:)

Asked why he was protecting (!!!!) Sharon, a known war criminal, while abusing Muslims and their Prophet in the name of free speech, Rose told American Free Press that he had been "misquoted" in the Times article.

Rose traveled to Philadelphia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes, the Neo-Con ideologue who says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military victory. Rose then penned a positive article about Pipes, who compares "militant Islam" with fascism and communism.

Fact is that Pipes is right about the latest. And if a journalist meets a neocon, it doesn't turn him into a neocon, unless in some extreme leftwing fantasy.

I found exacly tyhe same stuff in the paleoconservative libertarian antiwar, the trotskyites and the communist Pravda...

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=158687

says it all

[AntiFascist]

9. Well that just makes them big socialists then, doesn't it?

:sarcasm:

As I've mentioned before "Zionism" can have multiple meanings.

[jim3775]

14. Here are the guy's thoughts on mossad

It's the standard BS.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Arumormillnews.com+%2Bmossad+%2BChristopherBollyn&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=

[jim3775]

12. The source of your story is nuts

He thinks the hook 'em horns hand symbol bush uses is a secret "satanic hand gesture".

http://tinyurl.com/7842z

Edit: Fixed URL

[AntiFascist]

17. Well it didn't take much to "inflame" certain DUers, did it?

If you haven't figured out by now that Bush is satanic....

Even if rumormillnews.com is a nutty site, you haven't properly refuted the allegation that Rose may be a defender and supporter of Daniel Pipes.

The bottom line, and it seems all too obvious to me, is that this whole media fiasco involving the Muslims was a coordinated effort to spark a bigger dispute. If anyone is falling for anything it is the Muslims that are rioting who are falling straight into the neocon trap.

[Ms. Clio]

18. See above

"Daniel Pipes is right."

This about the man who has said: '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'.

I have read nearly identical statements here this week, by supposedly "progressive" Duers.

[jim3775]

19. I am not disputing the allegation directly, others are doing that

I am just saying 'consider the source'. This guy has reported that a common texas sports fan gesture is a satanic-masonic symbol, I'm sorry but that is just stupid.

[AntiFascist]

23. Maybe so, but I really don't want to start a gigantic sub-thread..

discussing the issue because it is not directly relevant. The fact that was reported, and I don't care who reports it, if it is true, was that Rose penned a positive article about Daniel Pipes. And I totally agree with Ms. Clio, many of the neocons like Daniel Pipes are clearly racist and would like nothing more than to start a holy war against all of Islam.

[tocqueville]

24. guilty by association?

Jyllands Posten is a LIBERAL (SOCIAL LIBERAL, FDR TYPE NEWSPAPER)

I read the interview (it's on Pipes site) : Flemming Rose reported what Pipes said to him, without comments

big deal


quotes from Pipes

"The Islamists' agenda is way different from that of communists or fascists. It is about belief, and as opposed to communism and fascism, they don't have large countries such as the Soviet Union or Germany behind them; but if you look at their methods and their goals, the likenesses are striking," Daniel Pipes says. "All three ideologies are radical utopias which, at their core, have a theory for how the human race can be improved. No more, no less. All three are dominated by a small, chosen elite that shall bring substance to the great idea. They are ready to resort to all conceivable means; they are true believers, fanatics, and they don't hesitate to resort to force and brutality to accomplish their project. They do not respect other perspectives and wish to control all areas of life. Once they have succeeded in one country, their ambition is to extend their control to other ", he adds. "It makes sense to look at the current conflict between the civilized world and militant Islam in the light of the two earlier confrontations with communism and fascism. One we managed to defeat in a total war over a relatively short period of time, whereas the other conflict, the Cold War, lasted for decades. In this third confrontation, militant Islam is the challenge. The core of militant Islamic ideology is hidden in the expression "al-Islam huwwa al-hall", which means: Islam is the solution. No matter the context - education, upbringing, romance, work, public or private matters - Islam has the answer. This is a recipe for a totalitarian ideology."


Pipes criticizes Bush

Pipes thinks that it is misleading to speak of the current conflict with Islamists as a war against terror. He points out that wrong definitions and terms lead to erroneous proposals for a solution. When President Bush cites the numbers of killed Al Qaida leaders to state how well the war on terror is going, he misses the point. "It does not say anything - or at least very little. It is a euphemism, a paraphrase, to speak of a "terror threat" or a "war against terror". Terror is a tactic, not an enemy. We don't say either, here in the U.S., that the Second World War was against sneak attacks. It was a war against fascism", argues Pipes.

Pipes : it's not against all muslims

He stresses that the conflict is not directed at Islam as a personal belief, but at militant Islam, an aggressive political ideology striving for the establishment of Islamic law, sharia, throughout the world. This difference bears in it the seed of the conflict's solution. "If militant Islam is the problem, then the opposite, namely moderate Islam, must be the solution," Daniel Pipes concludes.


http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3362

quotes of above are mainstream in Europe

oooh HORROR we are are ALL NEOCONS !

google a little Flemming Rose and Pipes : wow here they are prisonplanet, indymedia, trotskyites etc...

[Ms. Clio]

25. You are absolutely wrong about the paper, and here are two sources

that prove it:

Rotten judgment in the state of Denmark

The Danish paper that printed the cartoons wanted to stir up trouble -- and the government wanted a culture war. They got more than they bargained for.

By Jytte Klausen

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish paper that originally published the 12 caricatures, has a circulation of about 175,000 and is Denmark's largest paper. The paper's main offices are in Aarhus, the country's second-largest city, on the outskirts of town in an area zoned for industrial use. The building resembles a well-kept small manufacturing plant, but inside everything is white and pleasant. It is where I grew up, and in my family the paper still sits on our coffee tables. But don't let the blond wood deceive you. Jyllands-Posten is a conservative paper and it has always minded the religious and political sensitivities of its readership, the Lutheran farmers and the provincial middle class.

In Denmark the national papers have historically been associated with the main political parties and the movements that formed them. Jyllands-Posten is associated with the prime minister's party. In English, Fogh Rasmussen's party is referred to as the Liberal Party; in Danish it is "Venstre," meaning "the Left." But the party is neither left nor liberal. The names date back to the days of limited suffrage, when the Conservatives were "the Right" and there were only those two parties.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/02/08/denmark/

And from Wikipedia:

Jyllands-Posten ("The Jutland Post", full name: Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten (help·info)) is the largest-selling daily newspaper in Denmark. It is based in Viby J, a suburb of Aarhus, and has a circulation of approximately 150,000 on weekdays<1>. Since 2003, it is published by JP/Politikens Hus after the merger with Politikens Hus, although Jyllands-Posten and Politiken continue as separate newspapers.

As specified by the Jyllands-Posten Foundation since 1971, Jyllands-Posten is an independent newspaper that is liberal (in the traditional sense of the word, not the contemporary American sense). Until 1938 the paper supported officially the Conservative Party. Since then the paper has regarded itself as an independent right wing newspaper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten

[tocqueville]

26. yep but even a fucking "liberal" in Europe...

is a blackblue conservative here and a communist in the US

besides Right wing doesn't mean the same thing :

Chirac is a right wing conservative by all European standards (may the freepers heads explode), Angela Merckel is to the right of Chirac, etc... Helmut Kohl was a conservative.

Jyllands Posten doesn't print other stuff than the WP or the NYT would print in the US. Or Le Figaro, or Dagens Nyheter (Sweden), Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Daily Telegraph. Jyllands Posten is by noway a neocon organ.

in Europe if you are not a socialist or a social democrat you are a "liberal". And if you say that you are a liberal (in the US sense), you are a neocon.

Jytte Klausen is wrong (even if she speeks Danish)

I think that a lot of the misunderstanding here on DU has to do with the American approach to religion. If a major US paper would produce blasphemy in form of cartoons against Jesus, part of the nation would explode violently, even if the paper would be protected by the 1st amendment and defended by "liberals".

In Europe caricatures of Jesus are common and even worse shows up now and then, and nobody gives a fuck. And if somebody protested violently, he'll turn the population against him.

We beheaded our clerics, you didn't.

And that's why blasphemy (or measures like the scarf law) in the US has to be "explained" by "racism". It was the WH first reaction regarding the cartoons. They sided with the Mollahs. And mumbled something about the 1st amendment, as if they have ever read it...

Explain to me why out of the 6 million "outraged Muslims" in France, only 1000 demonstrated in Paris ?

I'll give you the answer : they don't give a fuck

[Ms. Clio]

30. Obviously caricatures of Jesus are not so acceptable

If the same paper previously refused to print some.

I honestly don't know what you are driving at with the "we beheaded our clerics" line and that entire paragraph, really?

[tocqueville]

37. The French Revolution was anticlerical

because the clerics sided with the Aristocracy. And the feeling was very much shared afterwards in the rest of Europe.

it's obviously difficult to understand :

I meant that the general US mindframe is not set into a REAL separation of Church and State like the US. I don't know of any President of Parlamentary leader in Europe that would swear an oath of office on the BIBLE !!!!!
It's unthinkable, it would be illegal, it would shock people. Maybe Ireland.

Americans still believe in God. Europeans do it to a far lesser extent. Religion is more a matter of rites here.

Many Americans didn't understood the scarf-law, they saw it as oppression of religion. The Majority of the French including the majority of Muslim Women saw it as a sign of LIBERATION from oppression.

The rioting last fall in France was depicted in the US media as an "intifada". In reality it was a combination of social outrage and a show of force from criminal elements. It had nothing to do with religion. Very much like the black riots in the US.

Danemark is not the whole Europe. I don't know if the paper refused caricatures of Jesus. But I can assure you that caricatures of Jesus (not to talk about the Catholic Church - that's the crude ones) are very common in many countries and I don't think denmark is an exception. Even on TV. Stuff like the "former pope has no difficulties to masturbate since he has Parkinson"...

Which is true is that there is less caricatures of Jews, since they are easily considered antisemitic. But theere can be not so positive cartoons including a Jewish flag like Sharon loosing his "roadmap" or driving into a walll etc...

Having a cartoon of Moses and the ten commandments is no problem, the Jews are the first to laugh...

[Ms. Clio]

41. Okay, yeah, that makes a bit more sense, thanks

Of course, the U.S. Founding Fathers were also products of that anti-clerical ferment, and clearly intended a real separation between church and state. I don't think swearing on a Bible is such a big deal; as an American, I am much more surprised that Denmark actually has a law against blasphemy or even that pathetic idiots like Holocaust deniers can be locked up.

I actually have no problem with the scarf law in public schools, if it is applied to all and enforced fairly. And I tend to agree with your take on the French riots, although I would emphasize the "social outrage" over the "criminal elements" -- certainly black riots in the U.S. primarily result from deep and pervasive racial problems in this country.

[KittyWampus]

43. The paper is NEO-Liberal which means NOT REGULATING CORPORATIONS

[AntiFascist]

28. A HA ! a French neocon....

just kidding!

Even if he was only quoting Pipes, he is still airing his propaganda, and he doesn't seem to raise any strong questions.

The main problem I have with Pipes, and with Bush for that matter, is that they often try to frame the Islamic religion as an ideology that is a primary threat to the West and which must be defeated. They always start to get to this point, where they think they almost have public opinion on their side, then they will suddently revert back to the old "well its really only militant Islam that is the problem and we can tolerate moderate or secular Islam." This also totally ignores the fact that in the West we have an even much more utopian, world vision from our own religious right which views the Middle East as the potential seat for a worldwide Christian theocracy. I don't see too many people pointing this out in the mainstream, except for journalists like Seymour Hersh.

Here is what Daniel Pipes once said in the more conservative Front Page Magazine, which totally contradicts his views quoted above:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles//Printable.asp?ID=3158

Pipes: No, we need to avoid the "Espositan eagerness" that discerns and then trumpets specious differences among Islamists. Whether they work on the front lines of jihad, its logistics train, or in the back-offices of its bureaucracy, all Islamists are part of the same effort to build a totalitarian regime world-wide. Whether they engage in immediate violence or hold off until later, they all must be fought, using appropriate responses to the case in hand. (Just as the U.S. government, for example, used different tools against Italian and Soviet communists).

In other words, he's saying all Islamists are the same, and they all need to be defeated, just like the commies. By the way, what are those "different tools" that he speaks of? Sounds like P2/Gladio tactics if you ask me.

[tocqueville]

33. Pipes is a neocon yes and he has an agenda...

but the quotes from the interview are not very controversial. It's an accepted standpoint in most European circles that RADICAL ISLAM is a threat. Of course there is a risk for "guilty by association" here too, but the Europeans are actively backing the secularist, "enlighted" movements within Islam.

Your quote is obviously out of context

We need to weaken and contain militant Islam, to work with our allies to eradicate terrorist movements. But it stops there. Islamic fundamentalist movements that operate within the system are not our business.

Pipes: No, we need to avoid the "Espositan eagerness" that discerns and then trumpets specious differences among Islamists. Whether they work on the front lines of jihad, its logistics train, or in the back-offices of its bureaucracy, all Islamists are part of the same effort to build a totalitarian regime world-wide.

with Islamists he means what we in Europe call Fundamentalists. And he only means that there is no real difference between an Iranian shiite Khomeini type and a Saudi Sunni Whahabite. Both have the same totalitarian view.

I agree that there is a risk of confusion, and you are doing it "backwards". For example the US has considered environmentalists, social-democrats as "hardcore commies" when they weren't. Thus the horrors in Latin America.

the US has historically a tendency to see things in black and white. FDR didn't see the difference between De Gaulle and Pétain. So he chose the later because he was the "legal" representative. Until CHurchill twisted his arm.

What I meant in previous posts is that Europeans in general don't see "muslims" as a threat, but FUNDIE muslims as a serious one like the fascists were. They hit us first, far before 9/11. And Jyllands Posten isn't a neocon voice, the cartoons are not part of a neocon agenda. And most European muslims don't give a fuck about that story at least regarding the religious side.

but if there is an agenda with the cartoons, it's obviously a Syrian-Iranian one.

You cannot imagine the debate here in Europe about freedom of expression and religion. But the racistic agenda is generally dismissed.

[Ms. Clio]

34. I don't give a rat's ass what Daniel Pipes thinks about anything

He is not a credible source on any subject. This is the man who has an academic hit list. He's a racist pig, no different than Rush or Savage.

You just keep ignoring the fact that there is plenty of censorship of "free speech" when it suits the powers that be -- blasphemy laws in Denmark, laws against Holocaust denial in several European nations.

When a small, immigrant minority asks for equal protection under those laws, why should they be denied it?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ms. Clio]

45. Well perhaps you should know that

Article 140 of the <Danish> Criminal Code allows for a fine and up to four months of imprisonment for demeaning a "recognized religious community."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/02/08/denmark/index1.html

So is this Danish person mistaken about her own laws?

Is she lying about this?

"Mogens Glistrup, a tax protester turned xenophobe, was imprisoned for 20 days last year for a racist speech. He compared Turks to rabbits."

According to statistics readily available on the Web, Muslim immigrants and their children comprise no more than eight percent of the Danish population. That is considered a minority population by any standard.

And the newspaper did not want to debate religious freedom. They refused to print similarly offensive cartoons about Jesus three years ago. That is a fact, printed in The Guardian. So get off it with the free speech, it's just not convincing.

[KittyWampus]

42. It isn't "Liberal" as we use the term in the US. It is NEO-Liberal which

is how the rest of the world understands the term "liberal".

NEO-liberal means against regulating corporations/facist.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

29. and Christopher Bollyn is a bloody anti-semitic nazi who writes for the

American Free Press (owned by Willis 'What Holocaust' Carto).

[greyl]

16. An interview doesn't equal "clear ties" as implied.

Does everyone who's ever interviewed George Bush or Saddam Hussein have "clear ties" to them - in the way this article implies?

[AntiFascist]

20. The much more "clear tie" is the article that was penned.....

in support of Pipes. Is this part true or not?

[Igel]

22. That would be the author's responsibility to check,

and unless you're calling the author into question as well, you're pretty much giving us grounds to infer that you think Rose "penned" a Pipes-supporting article.

The difference between that and merely explicating what Pipes says is, for many people, less than academic.

[Igel]

21. I would agree that the worst of militant Islam is

on par with fascism and communism.

Rights are subservient to the powers that be; an ideology that controls the press, social interactions, and the economy is imposed without regard to the individual. And there's no compunction about the use of force to maintain control. All the rest are details of implementation, and the precise kinds of rules that are enforced. It's precisely what medieval Christianity would have produced in modern society, lest anybody think because I'm only talking about the matter at hand I don't think it applies to other religions. One must equally diss Xianity when dissing militant Islam, otherwise the assumption is that you're racist--don't quibble with me about the non sequitur, it's not mine. In any event, the fascism that would result from militant Islam makes Soviet communism look mild, because it's far more encompassing.

As for "of a certain persuasion." I haven't heard that bit of racist double-talk for quite a while. I hadn't associated the name "Rose" with any particular ethnicity. I hate the kind of wimps that uses that sort of euphemism.

Then again, it's up there with guilt by association and taking quotes out of context: you interview a person you must share his philosophy.

[AntiFascist]

36. "the fascism that would result from militant Islam makes Soviet communism

look mild"

Another big problem is that Condoleeza Rice and Bush are now going around trumpeting how Iran and Syria are somehow going to bring about this worldwide fascist regime. How is this possible?

They are totally ignoring the underlying economic arguments, because fascism just doesn't work without economic control. Iran is about to switch to the oil bourse, which may undercut the petrodollar, which would then threaten America's oil imperialism. This is the real threat from Iran.

Also, what Islamic seat of power has the global corporate means to take control of the world. Is it Syria? Is it Iran? No, its Saudi Arabia which also happens to contain the holy centers of Islam. Coincidence? And we should also be aware of how closely in bed together the Saudis are with our own government. I fear that there is much more to be learned from the Abramoff set of scandals.

[entanglement]

27. I wouldn't at all be surprised if a big scoundrel like Pipes

had a hand in this matter

[Domitan]

31. Here's a better source to support your point

Kurt Nimmo is too far out there for many people, but Justin Raimondo, a credible conservative columnist has this to say:

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8512

let us examine the venue – a newspaper that today describes itself as "liberal" in the classical sense, but yesterday openly supported fascism – and particularly the man most responsible for starting this ruckus: Flemming Rose, the "cultural editor" of Jyllands-Posten, who commissioned the cartoons and now is at the center of a rapidly-escalating controversy.

Here is his Wikipedia biography, which states that he has "links with U.S. neoconservatives," but lacks citations. Rose is apparently a big fan of Daniel Pipes – the controversial anti-Arabist appointed by George W. Bush to the U.S. Institute of Peace – and authored an entirely uncritical profile of Pipes, originally published in Jyllands-Posten and translated here.

Pipes is the founder of Campus Watch, an organization devoted to stamping out any and all academic treatments of Middle Eastern affairs that don't conform to his narrow strictures, which might be mildly described as fanatically hostile to Islam, Arabs, and anyone who opposes his extreme Israeli nationalism. Campus Watch is engaged in compiling blacklists of professors who refuse to spout the pro-Israel party line, and actively encourages students to spy on their teachers and report miscreants.

None of this is mentioned in the profile authored by Rose: instead, we are given a long disquisition on his subject's view of "militant Islam" as a threat supposedly on a par with communism and fascism – again, uncritically, in spite of the lack of proportion evinced by such an extravagant claim, to say nothing of the lack of evidence marshaled by Pipes.

[FreedomAngel82]

32. So they're doing this on purpose perhaps?

[Behind the Aegis]

35. Seems Bahrain and Iran agree...

...:eyes:



Akhbar al-Khalij, January 29, 2006 (Bahrain)
As the Islamic world reacted with anger to caricatures of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper, this cartoon claimed the controversy was a result of “The Penetration of Zionism to Denmark.” The cheese, shaped like a Star of David, is labeled “Danish products.” The text on the far left reads, “Boycott it!”



Al-Wifaq, February 6, 2006 (Iran)
Translation: The Jewish\Israeli devil is saying: "I don't admit the limits of freedom of speech except the Holocaust."

[AntiFascist]

38. I don't agree with the anti-Zionist position that Israel should be...

eliminated or boycotted, if that is what you are ultimately implying. I only take issue with radical or Christian zionists.

[KittyWampus]

44. It seems Bahrain and Iran have a point

[Jim Sagle]

46. Bollyn and Nimmo are both notorious nazi filth.

What is an antifascist doing linking to profascist rubbish?

[pinto]

49. Locking.

The numerous citations from bigoted and/or biased web sites in this thread aren't condusive to objective discussion of the issue.

For more info on DU's posting policies, please contact an Administrator here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html