Gene, September 12th 2010, 6:11 pm
Writing at The Propagandist before the September 11 anniversary, Ben Cohen drew a connection between two people who, on the surface, couldn’t appear more different:
[W]here [Pamela] Geller has “Islam” waging a war on “us,” [George] Galloway will flip it and roar that “we” are waging war on “Islam.” Some of his co-speakers at the 9/11 conference – like Cynthia McKinney and Wayne Madsen – will go one step further by claiming that the opening salvo in this war was actually an inside job, and that we should look to Mossad, rather than Al Qaeda, for answers.
Lost in all this is the salutary observation made by Jonathon Narvey in these pages yesterday that when western bombast touches off violence in the Islamic world, the majority of those left dead are more than likely to be Muslims. Lost, too, is the understanding that the potential clash of pathologies at Ground Zero could just as easily result in an embrace.
Take, for example, the record of both camps on the orgy of Serb nationalist violence in the Balkans during the 1990s. Geller has been outspoken in her defense of the late Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, the architect of ethnic cleansing, and Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb war criminal who directed the rapes and massacres in Banja Luka, Srebrenica, Gorazde and other Bosnian towns and cities. For Galloway, speaking on his show on the Iranian Holocaust denial outfit Press TV, Milosevic, Karadzic and his old buddy Saddam Hussein were set up as war criminals in order to hide the real war criminals (no prizes for guessing whom he is referring to.)
It may be true that one is motivated by loathing of Muslims and the other by a loathing of the United States and all its works, but what should that tell us? For one thing… that the semblance of division elides an underlying unity. For another – and this is perhaps a tad more important – that the lesson of Bosnia and Kosovo is that the United States is not at war with Islam, and nor is Islam at war with the United States, except in the heads of these demagogic popinjays.
Still not persuaded? Then consider this. Back in July, the Taliban congratulated the Dutch government on the withdrawal of its forces from Afghanistan. That little triumph, as Terry Glavin argued in a piece on the left and Afghanistan, “was handed to them by the right-wing populist Geert Wilders.”
Indeed one of the lesser-reported facts about Wilders and his Dutch Freedom Party is that they were among those who successfully clamored for the Netherlands to withdraw from the NATO contingent in Afghanistan. Given their anti-Muslim bigotry, of course, this position made perfect sense. Why spend blood and treasure helping to protect Muslims from other Muslims when, in the end, they’re all just Muslims?
Now Wilders is one of those heading to New York for the 9/11 commemorations, but whose event will he be attending? He’s speaking at Geller’s rally, in fact, but there is no reason why he should not, literally and metaphorically, cross the street later on to join Galloway in pressing the case that the Muslim girls and women of Afghanistan be left to the mercies of the Taliban. After all, if Islam is a monolith, then who cares what happens to its adherents?
Those of us who still cling to reason should remember that whether Muslims are killed in the name of isolationism or cultural relativism or anti-imperialism, they are still being killed – and that many non-Muslims, some in uniform, some not, will die alongside them. That is why I want to end by restating what, to us at any rate, is obvious. The ominous force which carried out 9/11 was that complex of reactionary beliefs known as Islamism, not the physical presence of Muslims in America or anywhere else.
Moreover, while the Gellers and Galloways of this world screech about what divides us, in the schools of Kabul and the voting booths of Sulaymaniyah, we are afforded a glimpse of what unites us. I’ve too much respect for the memory of those who perished on 9/11 to boil that down into a placard slogan to wave at Ground Zero, but it’s what I shall quietly think about.
THE ABOVE IS WHAT HARRY´S PLACE WROTE IN THEIR ATTEMPT TO TELL LIES ABOUT THE POLITICS OF ROBERT SPENCER AND PAMELA GELLER
IT IS REALLY SCANDALOUS. BUT THESE WRITERS ON HARRY´S PLACE ALSO TOLD LIES AGAINST THE SERBS, ESPECIALLY AGAINST MILOSEVIC AND KARADZIC. ABOVE ALL THEY WORKED TO CREATE THE SREBRENICA BIG LIE
This guy “Gene”, The Augean Stables will be very interested is an “alter Jew”!!!
That means in Richard Landes parlance, he is a Jew who is filled to his gills with political correctness.
(Extract from Wikipedia: Other contributors include Marcus, Gene Zitver (aka “Gene”) (who regularly deletes posts he disagrees with), David Toube, and more recently, Adam LeBor, Brett Lock, Brian Meredith and others.)
Gene is one of those founders on Harry´s Place who is holding the whole ramshackle operation together
The speed of the crisis, especially the way that the American people, in a truly mass sense, is moving against Islam not just in America, but internationally, is driving Harry´s Place founders into a tail-spin
It is a delight to watch.
The founders some years back were people in the circle of Oliver Kamm and Nick Cohen. But it would be wrong to think in terms of individuals. It was rather more a caste or cult in British society.
One of the factors was political correctness but there were others.
Two in particular stand out. There was a defense of Islam. In the case of Yugoslavia this was not really a defense of that will of the wisp “moderate” Islam, but the Islam of Izetbegovic, which was the Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islam of Hajj Amin el Husseini, the Islam of the Holocaust, yes that real Islam, which was the Islam that Herr Hitler found so appealing.
But that Islam wants to kill Jews, surely not! Oh yes, and that is why the phenomenon of those like Gene and David T is so puzzling but interesting
I mentioned two. The second was just plain old anti communism. those folk around Cohen hate that political line from Marx through 1917 to Trotsky, and they do not even recognize that there were differences between Trotsky and Stalin. In other words they distort history.
Did Galloway support Milosevic as gene says? Well it was a strange support because Galloway also supported Izetbegovic. Show us where Galloway opposed Izetbegovic. How could Galloway do that, he is pro Islam!
Pamela Geller supported the Serbs and Milosevic, also Karadzic, because she realized that the Serbs were fighting against the Jihad.
Look at the post above by “Gene” again. There seems to be something neurotic in the way he has swung back to Milosevic.
It is like a bolt out of the blue. These characters in harry´s Place are threshing about, in their political death agony.
And the viciousness against Pamela Geller, shown in his suggestion that geller and Galloway would have anything in common (LOL), shows how very dangerous some of these elements such as the founders of Harry´s Place really are.