Debanjan, here is the "justification" of my statements

Submitted by Leonid Tokman (United States), Apr 11, 2010 at 04:26

Frankly, I am tired of this discussion because we all know that no logical argument from anyone here is going to change your perception of reality -- you simply filter out all information that does not fall in line with your beliefs (and that's why Robert Fisk and Noam Chomsky are your idols).

But I'll answer your questions.

Please justify your statement with proof that I am a bigot. Emotional outburst like this one is unjustified without any proof from you. I am rational as anyone.

The proof is all over your postings, but to be more specific, even your completely false statements about U.S. doing fighting for Israel or Israel being an apartheid state are clear examples of your deep-seated resentment of Israel and Jews. And your respect of Noam Chomsky or Avram Burg is not proof to the contrary -- one of the favorite statements of many antisemites (especially the "enlightened" kind, like you surely are) is that they have some Jewish friends or that they are not anti-Jewish, but anti-Israel, etc., etc., etc. It's those "coarse and rough" bigots like Hitler or like many of your co-religionists who openly and honestly state that all Jews must be annihilated. The "enlightened and sophisticated ones", like yourself, prefer to masquerade their hatred under the mask of liberalism, faulting Israel and Jews for all sins of the mankind and singling out Israel as the worst nation on the planet, while ignoring horrible injustices all across the globe (the number of U.N. anti-Israel resolutions far exceeds the combined number of all other resolutions related to massacres and human rights abuses in Africa, Asia, etc.).

Like, Martin Luther King Jr. has correctly noted: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism"

Noam Chomsky is a perfect example of a self-hating Jew. Therefore, he hates Israel and thus has earned your respect.

" I challenged you to provide a name of at least couple of mainstream , conservative Western intellectuals who has as much intellect or genius about middle east such as Robert Fisk or Noam Chomsky"

Well, Daniel Pipes has at least as much knowledge of the Middle East history, languages, culture, and politics as Chomsky and Fisk combined. He may not be a mathematical linguist, like Chomsky, but I don't think that's a prerequisite for understanding the history of this region. The only problem, as far as you are concerned, is that he is not nuts like Chomsky and is not a liberal antisemite, like Fisk (see the above paragraph again about liberal antisemites).

"See , you need to understand the viewpoints of someone like Robert Fisk or me. See Bin Ladens do not grow in a vacuum. There are significant political grievances between the West and the Muslims. There needs to be some understanding from the Western viewpoint about these grievances. See neither me nor Fisk nor Chomsky support terrorism. I personally condemn atrocities like 9/11 or suicide bombings in Israel or Russia. But what people like Fisk wants to investigate is that what motivates the young men and women in the Muslim world to take up a heinous suicide bombing like this "

A couple of points here.

First of all, how many anti-"Muslim extremism" events (demonstrations, forums, etc.) have you seen, say after 9/11 or after Daniel Pear's beheading or after killing 300 Russian schoolchildren or after Mumbai? And how many have you personally attended/participated in? Can you tell me that after Mumbai you were as appalled by the people of your own faith who have committed this heinous atrocity as you were by "the apartheid" Israel in your posting here? Have you posted messages on Muslim websites condemning those Mumbai crimes?

I am pretty sure you have not. Most of the "enlightened liberals" like yourself, start out by saying that they are against these murders, but then right away start looking for a "rational explanation", and find the other side at fault. Rather than unequivocally stating that killing innocent people is wrong, you find justification for people like Bin Laden -- Muslims are oppressed, Muslims have been hurt, etc. "Enlightened" people like you sympathize with the extremists, and thus silently approve of their actions (at the very least by keeping silent)! That "silent support" creates a good breeding environment for the small fraction of extremists willing to commit the atrocities!

You say that Muslims have grievances with the West. Well, why then are Muslims murdering people in India? Or in the Philippines? Or in Sudan?

Last I checked, those places are not exactly "the West".

See, it looks like, according to you and Robert Fisk, Muslims are always the victims, and therefore there is a justification for whatever they do. It's like allowing a spoiled child to get away with more and more serious misdeeds, only to make him a more spoiled brat.

There are a lot of other nations and ethinic groups who have been hurt throughout history and who have grievances, but we see 99% of today's Mumbai-like violence coming only from Muslims. Why is that?

Maybe, if you and Robert Fisk were more honest and brave, you would state that the problem stems from a religious philosophy that divides the world into the "house of Islam" and the "house of War". This philosophy justifies killing infidels -- women and children among them.

Maybe this religion needs "a reformation", similar to what other religions have gone through.

Maybe then Bin Laden and his friends will no longer find supportive audience throughout Asia, Europe, and even the U.S.?

Maybe then you and the other 1.5 billion Muslims will realize that the existence of this small piece of land inhabited by 6 million Jews is not the root of all evil in the world and the reason for all Muslims' problems?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".