Daniel Pipes, "studies" -Director the Middle-East Forum and a self-proclaimed expert on Iran seems a certain Gegenwindchen to blow in the face: On his home page, he writes under the title:
"Support Sarah Palin, Bombed Iran '":
My National Review Online column last week was the provocative headline: How to save the Obama presidency: Bombed Iran ', and that was provocative indeed.
Leftist of websites like ThinkProgress and DailyKos responded irascible and slightly crazy way, by presenting my argument wrong, even while they betitulierten me with unrepeatable names., The German paper Die Welt published an article in a translation, but got so vehemently that the editors my analysis withdrew under fire. "
Then he describes that he had learned from the US-rights which the consent and encouragement (including by Palin, Buchanan)
The following are excerpts from an interview with the TV channel Fox last Sunday with his declared favorite politician - the former vice presidential candidate U.S. Republican Reminder: Sarah Palin is a Christian fundamentalist (Pentacostal movement).
QUESTION: How difficult it will be to their opinion, to beat Obama in 2012?
PPALIN: That depends on several things. Let's say he would - and I have the Buchanan, I recently read a column by him - let us say, he would play the war card. Let's say he would decide to declare war on Iran or would really decide to step up and do whatever he could do to support Israel, which I would welcome. If it did, it would change the dynamics of what, as we can guess, between now and will happen in three years. Because I think if today would be elections, Obama would, I do not re-elected. But in three years, things could change if - at the front of the National Security ...
QUESTION: But you do not want to suggest but that he would cynically play the war card?
PALIN: I do not mean it. I'm just saying if he did, things would change dramatically. If he decides to harder by access and to do everything in his power to protect our nation and our allies, I think people would perhaps change their thinking something and would decide, 'Well, maybe he's tougher than we think that he is today. ' And you would be less passionate to ensure that he has no further term of four years ago.
Comment: I think women like Sarah Palin, absolutely manageable intelligence lack the imagination for "war" in and of itself. For the same reason it is also tragically obviously not able to imagine that the very country that they want to protect so special, is particularly taken by her so desired bombing of Iran in such danger. That does not seem to be for pipes in the realm of the imaginable. I feel people of his political persuasion in truth as the worst enemies of Israel ...
The FAZ was aware of the scandal surrounding the WORLD Online article by Daniel Pipes and brought the following comment:
FAZ, 09.02.2010, no. 33 / Page 29
Gloss feuilleton
Dr. Strangelove Pipes
Daniel Pipes has finally made true, what was recently called in a blog: "Criticism of Islam must be militant." Just in time for the start of the Munich Security Conference published Pipes in the online edition of the "world" contributed to the discussion of the real for a quick and non-bureaucratic, now militant solution advertised: "Barack Obama should bomb Iran." We did not really know what rhyme you could make it. Too many things sounded in the article of satire, especially the idea that the president could improve rapidly but his miserable poll numbers with the necessary firmness. Obama need, so Pipes, "a dramatic gesture to change his public perception as a lightweight, Tinker, ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he take the lead and where it can exceed expectations". A stable majority of Americans prefer the use of force now. Obama could kill two birds with one stone: With an attack he protected the home and send America's friends and enemies "a message". Only had the chance to be used: "Just as the Iranians improve their defenses and get the weapons production closer to the time window closes." But the satirical reading - as did a radical pacifist want to disavow by distorting exaggeration the concerns of the war party - can be not hold. Daniel Pipes is one of the most prominent critics of Islam, to show solidarity with the Dutch right-wing populist Geert Wilders he has recently called. But anyone who was looking for the article on "online world" yesterday, received only a laconic message: ". Perhaps you have followed an incorrect or outdated link, or you have mistyped the URL" No, no one had made a typing error. Only seem petty doubters have become afraid of their own courage even in the "world". The "explicit escalation," the publisher said yesterday on request, be gone "beyond the acceptable form of the usual expression" clear and "editorially unacceptable". There are still paragraphs 80 of the Penal Code, which does not threaten the preparation of a war of aggression by a custodial sentence of less than ten years. Reform would also here the order of the day.
Comment of the comment: It speaks volumes that the FAZ this criticism with satirical strokes of what the thing should probably take the explosive nature, feuilleton part houses, instead of the "foreign policy", where the subject belongs!
***
Eating out under me constantly copies of criminal complaints against THE WORLD / Springer Verlag / Mr. Pipes to which I collect and to which I shall return to this point in due course yet.
- Advertisement -
Tags: Daniel Pipes , The WORLD , Iran , Sarah Palin
The monstrous article by Daniel Pipes would have to be veröfftlicht - this is first of all "only" freedom of expression. However, the world would have had to comment on this article accordingly. But rather, the world has locked the Komentarfunktion for the reader to, thus preventing the democratic assault against such improprieties. This blocking of the comment function, and the distribution of articles in which not even the authors are gennannt, it strikes me and makes me suspect Schlimmtes!
as I said article of mr las pipes, I thought that the opinion of a man who wants to distinguish itself, a human being of other people is neither respected nor considers important.
that's one thing.
I also remember though, that such articles will be published as they influence, yes, but I just found it a pity that the world these items completely removed.
why?
simple;
on the one hand making it an "important" went document lost (calling to one aggression, war), (criminally incidentally relevant), on the other hand especially all comments are deleted, which I was happy personally, as almost all commentators inside expressed their mortification significantly .
this gave me in a way, hope to see that there are a lot of people who think for themselves, and these are also willing to show.
On the other hand,
I think sometimes those may not be published rushing.