Daniel Pipes Hates America

I found Pipes' comments about his campaign against Almontaser and peaceful Muslims incredibly troubling. He told the NYT that this battle has "really just begun" and added:

“It is hard to see how violence, how terrorism will lead to the implementation of sharia. It is much easier to see how, working through the
system — the school system, the media, the religious organizations, the
government, businesses and the like — you can promote radical Islam.”

Is he for real? Is every American free to practice their religion, so long as they are not Muslim?

Contrary to what passes for current wisdom, America has an indigenous culture.

This culture is protestant Christian.

The teachings of the Qur'an and the hadith are essentially set in stone and are remorselessly hostile to all non Islamic cultures.

Ms Almontaser is either dangerously disingenuous or breathtakingly stupid.

It is a coin toss which.

To maintain the public peace in America it is advisable that all hostile aliens be gently but firmly sent back to their nations of origin and that all hostile faith systems be prohibited.

fifty years ago America did not have these problems.

seventy years ago Muslims lived in the middle east, mexicans lived in Mexico, Indians lived in India and................. well, you get the drift.

Americans have been very patient with their fractious, disloyal, unprofitable and frequently violent hostile alien minorities but one thing should be remembered: When pushed into a corner, nobody does violence better than Americans.

 think about it.

why this wasn't a private school?  It sounds like it should be set up as a private religious school.  Wasn't this aspect a part of the controversy?

The founding principal of this school certainly isn't the problem, and perhaps Pipes chose the wrong "evidence"-- such as quotes taken out of context-- to create a movement against the establishment of this school-- but the fact remains that he is partially correct.

The founder claims that her intention was to create a school of global citizens--
not citizens of one supreme world power, the United States-- and to
give students exposure to various aspects of Islamic culture and to
give all students fluency in Arabic that will serve as an educational
asset to them, in addition to making them, as she says, "citizens of
the world."

Sounds good to me, in theory. The problem was and
remains that the school, like many Islamic organizations that claim to
be moderate, is actually a breeding ground for Islamic Fundamentalism.
Take a close look at her board members-- almost 100% religious Muslims
that are affiliated with various political organizations that are well
known for being terror sympathizers and even funders, among other things. Almontaser can have great intentions-- and I mostly believe that she does-- but one familiar with the education system is well aware that a school's board has potential to hijack the purpose of an institution-- especially in this case. The
school's supporters claim that regardless, the school would not preach
Islam or anything political.

That isn't enough for me, and
it's certainly not enough for the self-proclaimed opposition to the
school, composed of thousands and thousands of people. How will courses
taught in Arabic,  many by religious Muslims that are affiliated with
extremely horrific political organizations, be monitored? How will we
be certain that students are learning about history rather than Global
Jihad? The answer is that we WON'T be.

The school's supporters
raise the issue of other NYC public schools with a dual language
theme--- there are several schools, though this would have been the
first Arabic-language school. Why should KG International School be
treated any differently?

They should be treated differently
because its supporters and its board are linked to dangerous political
organizations and many have publicly made use of Islamic fundamentalist
rhetoric. The entire Western World has an enemy, and we are at war.
That enemy has a few names-- some call it Islamic Fundamentalism and
Global Jihad. Some just call it terrorism in general, and some call it
Islam. Whatever you call it, we have to protect our students, our
families, our cities, and our education system. In order to do that, we
need to completely disassociate ourselves from anything that may spread
dangerous, anti-western, pro-Jihad rhetoric in a publicly-funded forum. Yes, freedom of speech is real, but that doesn't mean that we have to create schools to serve as a breeding ground for rhetoric that has led to the deaths of many people in the city in which the school is situated. It's that simple. If
suddenly the French were responsible for a global assault of even HALF
of this intensity, I'd support shutting down French schools supported
by the State, too.

The fact remains, though, that although the
vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists--and many Muslims don't
support terrorism in general-- all terrorists (minus a FEW notable
exceptions) are Muslims, and either come from Islamic nations, learn in
Muslim schools, and/or attend a mosque with a militant
philosophy. They don't come from Spanish language schools, Greek
Orthodox Churches, or Canada. It's not racist, it has nothing to do
with hatred of Islam in general, for most-- it's a matter of calling it
as we see it, even if we have to be less than PC. All terrorists have
something in common, and we have a right to keep that ideology OUT of
reach in order to protect ourselves by any legal means possible.  A private school? Sounds great to me.  Once the school, its founder, and its board prove their intentions to be the reality of the school itself, it becomes a great idea that is worthy of public funding.

Cori C

http://cori-c.blogspot.com

coriac@gmail.com

If you are so  sure that "Palestine, the country, goes back through most of recorded  history", I expect you to be  able to answer a  few basic questions about that country of Palestine:
When was it  founded and by whom?
What were its borders?
What was its capital?  
What were its major cities?
What constituted the basis of its  economy?
What was its form of government?
Can you name at least  one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
Was Palestine ever recognized by  a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for  interpretation?
What was the language of the country of Palestine?  
What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
What  was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history and tell what was  the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary unit against the  US dollar, German mark, GB pound, Japanese yen, or Chinese yuan on that  date.
And, finally, since there is no such country today,  what  caused its demise and when did it occur?
You are lamenting the "low  sinking" of a "once proud" nation. Please tell me, when exactly was that  "nation" proud and what was it so proud of?
And here is the least  sarcastic question of all: If the people you mistakenly call  "Palestinians" are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over --  or thrown out of -- the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic  identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never  try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in  the Six Day War?

I hope you avoid the temptation to trace the modern  day "Palestinians" to the Biblical Philistines: substituting etymology for  history won't work here.

The truth should be obvious to everyone who  wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of  destroying Israel; they still cherish it today. Having time and again  failed to achieve their evil goal with military means, they decided to  fight Israel by proxy. For that purpose, they created a terrorist  organization, cynically called it "the Palestinian people" and installed  it in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. How else can you explain the refusal by  Jordan and Egypt to unconditionally accept back the "West Bank" and Gaza,  respectively?
The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria  have much less claim to nationhood than that Indian tribe that  successfully emerged in Connecticut with the purpose of starting a  tax-exempt casino: at least that tribe had a constructive goal that  motivated them. The so called "Palestinians" have only one   motivation: the destruction of Israel, and in  my book that is  not sufficient to consider them a nation" -- or anything else except what  they really are: a terrorist organization that will one day be dismantled.

In fact, there is only one way to achieve peace in the Middle East.  Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in their war  against Israel and, as the losing side should, pay Israel reparations for  the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited on it. The most  appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their  terrorist organization from the land of Israel and accepting Israel's  ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria.
That will mark the  end of the Palestinian people. What are you saying again was its  beginning?

Naftali-

If you mean to say that no public school should offer a particular linguistic/ cultural curriculum, then you'd be right in saying that KGIA should be private. We should then close down the Harvey Milk school (for gay kids), and any number of public schools which offer intensive coursework in Hispanic or Asian language and culture. No one has suggested doing this, at least very forcefully.

Only 25% of the enrolled kids were Arabic and religion was to be taught only to the extent that the religious aspects of a culture are routinely taught in such settings. "The Bible as Literature", that sort of thing. So no, there was no resemblance to a private religious school. 

Insisting that all public schools be identical is a coherent point of view, but the fact that it was mobilized in this case by the same bunch of right-wing Zionists who dine well to the degree that they convince Joe Public that every cabbie and felafel-slinger in NYC has friended Osama Bin Laden on his MySpace should make the even minimally aware vertebrate suspicious.

The moronic Cori C provides a useful case in point, but her remarks are so stupefyingly bereft of even the tiniest shred of well-formed argument that they deserve no comment. Hey, Cori....Boo! We're here, we're swarthy, get used to it.

There were two very long, very articulate posts right after mine, about the things we usually fight about--and you are responding to my two questions. I would refer you to Cori C--who knows more about the school than I do.

Why don't you go after Cori or Yashiko? (Now I'll actually read your comment).

First of all, I asked questions, didn't make a statement. But the school sounds as though it should be a private religious school. Arabic could be part of a magnet school specializing in--oh, let's say international studies. If I recall, and you really should respect Cori C, the school was doing things most public schools are not allowed to do, such as segregate kids based on sex.

But yes, I would say that public schools are not for singular cultural studies, that is for private schools.

Schools aren't allowed to teach 'Bible as Literature'--colleges are, private schools are. Of course, I say all of this not living in New York, the rules could be different up there. Looks like we need the bylaws of the public school district to determine this. And if district bylaws were violated and the school should not have been closed according to those bylaws, then a lawsuit should clear this up pretty quickly.

But this is an old story--I mean it took place months ago. Why it's being brought up now, perhaps we should pitch in and get Daniel a watch and calendar. I hear in New York you can get a Rolex for like 10 bucks.

If you could, since you are so well-versed on the the right wing Zionist conspiracy, tell us all how to be more efficient, because I think getting oil down to 20 dollars a barrel would be in our interests and we can't seem to make that happen. Any suggestions?

But once again, you dismiss Cori C for making inane somewhat racist statements, and you are the one throwing out the Zionist conspiracy stuff.

Cori, Ismail.  Ismail, Cori.  

Jewcy gets yet another black eye by going after a sterling academic, Daniel Pipes who has made no error in his coverage of the infamous woman and her support for tax-payer funded "Intifada" T- shirts.

The public is assured "SHE IS NOT TECHNICALLY A TERRORIST!!"--as if only those who detonate the bombs are the problem.  Technically, she is not a terrorist. Daniel Pipes did not make that accusation and he is so obviously not an enemy of this nation--what kind of chutzpah leads someone to even contemplate such an insult to our intelligence--what kind of depravity?  

On another thread, the author throws his poison pen at another person but it is apparent it is only a contortion of his own petty, narrowmindedness:

Isn't there a point at which you pull back, think about what a
laughingstock you've made yourself, and just sort of scurry away? Tho'
I guess a complete suppression of any sense of shame or embarrassment
is a precondition for writing in the manner of Infantile Gassy....

 Debbi A was fired for cause and blasting Daniel Pipes for merely referencing the dispute is the kind of prejudice no one deserves--especially a man as distinguished as Daniel Pipes.

"I would refer you to Cori C--who knows more about the school than I do."

What makes you say this? Do you mean that you know lots about the school and Cori knows even more? Or do you mean (and I suspect this alternative is the right one) that you don't know much about it and defer to Cori's expertise?

If the latter, the obvious question arises; if you're not up to speed, with reference to what do you credit Cori's account? How do you know what she knows? Could it be that it's because her subclinical paranoia comports with your own views?

I noted several specific falsehoods of hers in my earlier comment. And you....segregating kids on the basis of sex? Not to my knowledge. But you may find out more about this matter by referring to last week's front page piece in the NYT, which did a decent job recapping the whole sad story. I suspect this article's appearance is why Daniel chose to remark on the saga now.

No conspiracy, naf (though there's your paranoid bent rearing its head again). Just a group of Muslim haters openly trying to legalize their prejudices. If the NYT still has the videos on its website, you really need to get a load of the reptilian Pipes squirming in full duplicitous mode. The NY Post referred to the school, insanely, as a madrassa. Pipes was happy to repeat this often and loudly. When asked if he had evidence that "madrassa" was in any way an accurate depiction, he agreed it wasn't, then mushmouthed some non-apology, acting as though his gleeful, frequent and deliberate repetition of this lie was an oversight. Filthy swine.   

But even if I were tossing out conspiracy theories, this would have no bearing on Cori's racism or her even more profound inanity.

 David Friedman-

Lay off drinking from the Well of Stupidity. Please provide citation for Almontaser's "support" of jihadwear. Trick request-you can't because it doesn't exist. She was asked about the offending shirts, which were produced by a woman's art collective that shared an office suite with her and to which she didn't belong. Good pedagogue that all agree she is, she took the opportunity to educate her interlocutor about the meanings of the word. Foolish soul, benighted beneath her hijab-she didn't realize that Daniel Pipes has exclusive rights to Arabic semantics.

Technically, she's not a terrorist? This suggests that she is one in some other sense. Please advise which sense this might be, if you can get up from all fours, quit licking your balls and place your paws on the keyboard.

I know, I know. Technically, you're not a mangy, dumb, ill-tempered cur.     

Ismail, you are surely joking and I have noted that this is the style of leftists who offer no good faith in debate. 

You want me to post a legal brief --I am not a lawyer and this radical woman has been exposed and is not on trial and many of her exploits have been documented--I will not take the time and trouble to document them to you since you are not moved by established facts.  Citations I quote will somehow be questioned and your anger and bias is overwhelming.  If she has legal standing in this country, she is free to remain as a citizen--I do not know that particular fact.  If not, surely, the State Department has her number and she should be quickly deported.

"Citations" and legal briefs concerning how guilty and how much of a radical she is should not be the question on a civil blog.  The question is how can she draw any sympathy and how could the good guy, Daniel Pipes, be smeared by reporting about her firing, radical activities, terror associations and refusal to stand for interviews?

Of course, now you are attempting to smear me as well.  Alas, I would like America to survive--this is my crime and I don't like people who have the gall to take taxpayer funds to tear down this nation.  Why do you support this radical, Ismail?   

The argument put forward by her supporters is that technically she is not a terrorist--the facts demonstrate that she has a whole heck of a lot to be worried about in her activities.  Perhaps you might refrain a little from your name-calling and angry insults to post some support for this person.  Is the only support angry bashing of people who would prefer that we do not enshrine Islamic terror in our school system?

It seems that if you have a point you might want to defend her in terms of how she has been somehow misunderstood since Daniel did such a poor job of doing it--trying to portray good people as filth only lamely attempts to change the topic. I regret to say that Daniel Pipes is not on trial and neither am I.  

If you'd like to discuss and challenge specific ideas, I'm game.   If you'd prefer to utilize time, which I'd previously defined as precious but you've clearly proven me wrong, to attack me personally and showcase your rather childish methods of dismissing opposing views-- cool. Enjoy. You won't trap me here in a thread of little substance.

Cori C

http://cori-c.blogspot.com

coriac@gmail.com

David, Cori, I will refer you back to Pipes' NYS piece, in which he readily admits to knowing nothing about Almontaser apart from an unequivocally commendable response she gave to September 11, which he doctored to make it appear as if she said the opposite of what she said. Whether his attacks on her character were accidentally accurate or actionable libel (the latter, as it turned out) was immaterial to his sweeping racist condemnation of Arabs. It's not to Almontaser in particular that he objects, but pre-emptively to any Arabic-immersion school run by an Arab, because Arabs are well known to be Untermenschen scheming to corrode society from within.

Daniel writes:  regarding the objection to Islamic radicals:  pre-emptively to any Arabic-immersion school run by an Arab, because Arabs are well known to be Untermenschen scheming to corrode society from within.

This is a well-founded concern given the stated goals of Islamic radicals.  It would be called antisemitism when directed at Jews since Jews have nothing at stake in conversions en masse and readily applaud righteous Jews and Noahides who fulfill their best lives as non-Jews.  By contrast, unless we convert, we are infidels and unless we conform to shariah law--we are doomed in the eyes of Islamicists.

This puts quite a burden on Muslims of good will to demonstrate they want to simply be included in the American landscape--and such a stand is readily accepted by tolerant America.  Radicals such as the person applauded by Daniel and Ismail want to remake our nation on Islamic terms and such a stand is objectionable. 

Hmm.

A: <irony>Arabs are well known to be Untermenschen</irony>

B: This is a well-founded concern.

Um, I'm hoping that's not what you meant to say. 

You can't just take the simplest explanations, can you? 

First, my initial comment was a question.  Why isn't this a private school?  I recall that during this controversy--when it first arose, there was gender separation.  But I still asked a question about it--which means...that I didn't recall the answer.

Why do I assume that Cori knows more about the school?  Because...I assume that everyone writing for Jewcy lives in NY.  And in NY it's a local story.  Is it really a stretch to assume this is a NY publication or weblication? 

So, again, here is the one and only Ish going for the most convoluted and dare I say, paranoid explanation of my comments, while accusing me of....can you guess?  By now everyone can play along.   

"Why do I assume that Cori knows more about the school?  Because...I assume that everyone writing for Jewcy lives in NY.  And in NY it's a local story.  Is it really a stretch to assume this is a NY publication or weblication?"

 Compare to: "Why do I think HRC knows more about gas tax holidays? Well, she lives in the US and it's a local story" and "Why do I think BHO know more about gas tax holidays? Well...", etc., etc.

See the problem? 

Plus, Cori's Jewcy bio says that she's recently made aliyah (since you appear fatigued by even the scantiest research, I'll tell you that this means immigration to Israel). Hence, even by your incoherent standard that the opinions of locals must perforce be correct, Cori's not your gal. 

You will also learn that she's serving in the IDF Spokesperson Unit. Doing a fine job for them, too, judging from the calumnies and deceptions she's peddling.

Hey, Cori-want specifics? OK, how's this?  

"The problem was and remains that the school, like many Islamic organizations that claim to be moderate, is actually a breeding ground for Islamic Fundamentalism."

Here you make a serious and unequivocal charge. KGIA is actually a breeding ground for Islamic Fundamentalism (I like the caps on that last word). What possible evidence do you have for this very specific claim? Perhaps you got your hands on the curriculum? No? What, then? Is it just the charge that the board includes folks "well-known" to be affiliated with terrorist groups? Well-known to whom? The odious Pipes, already revealed to be a serial liar?

"How will courses taught in Arabic,  many by religious Muslims that are affiliated with extremely horrific political organizations, be monitored? How will we be certain that students are learning about history rather than Global Jihad? The answer is that we WON'T be. "

Tell me, how do you know anything at all about the faculty? You don't, of course. And despite your demurral, your views are profoundly bigoted. You're saying that vetting by the Board of Ed, a long history of interfaith dialogue and cooperation and an explicit, public curriculum are insufficient to warrant the  good faith of Almontaser and her board. Just because they are Muslims, they must be monitored and doubted. Quite sickening.

I don't know if you're naive, paranoid or duplicitous, but parroting charges about well-known terrorist links and imminent takeover of a public school in Brooklyn by bombthrowers without feeling the need to provide shred one of evidence must stem from one of these states. 

David- No legal brief required. Could it really be news to you that the convention among us humans when we make a serious and non-obvious claim is to make some effort to provide the reason we believe the claim to be so? 

Daniel is far more patient than I (why, I don't know-he's gotten positively medieval upon the asses of some whose sins of argumentation were far less mortal); blockheaded, unprincipled attacks that cost innocent people their dreams make me kind of uncharitable.

"I regret to say that Daniel Pipes is not on trial and neither am I."

You and me both. 

The Hillary analogy doesn't even hold gasoline. And you should know that. But you're right, perhaps Cori wasn't the expert I thought about the school, which doesn't mean she isn't more expert than I, just means I don't know. That doesn't absolve you of the obligation to address her point by point with some respect.

Although, right now, I've got about two to three windows open following my favorite baseball team even though I haven't lived in that city nearly half of my life. They are still my team, my local team. My heart is right there with them every game.

And don't even begin to criticize my research or I'll give you an hourly rate and start billing you for all the follow-up work I have to do on your posts. And since I love the work so much I'll charge lawyer's rates.

Dear Mr. Koffler

Your attack on Daniel Pipes in re Debbie Almontaser is despicable.  You refer to Daniel Pipes' "lackeys" -- in your post-graduate, exalted state, you apparently did not consider it worthwhile to learn that I am one of Dr. Pipes' supporters on this matter, having published an article in THE WEEKLY STANDARD (www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/968cekhc.asp) showing the relationship between Almontaser and CAIR. 

Further, as an experienced newspaper reporter and former secretary of a Newspaper Guild branch, I advise you to keep your filthy hands off issues like "actionable" dishonesty, about which you are obviously pathetically ignorant.  There is no such thing as "actionable dishonesty" in journalism.  There is libel, it is clearly defined in law, and Daniel Pipes has not engaged in it at any time. Little boys like you, fresh out of college, have no business trying to rewrite the law on the fly, and your behavior is an example of the "triumph of the amateur" in the webiverse, which is destroying the integrity of American and global media.

I would like to remind you that I was very friendly to JEWCY and did a considerable amount of serious work for your cenacle of diaperless infants.  I was rewarded by having most of my pieces rewritten against my wishes by your cadre of unprofessional twits.  I was also almost never paid.  At the end of 2007 I received a Form 1099 stating that I had been paid the princely sum of $100 for work for you.  This seems a kind of insult, and came after I underwent the ridiculous experience of having one of your ex-associates deluge me with hysterical demands for short-deadline coverage of issues he considered urgent, but which in reality were neither pressing, substantive, nor worth my time.

I consider the entire JEWCY enterprise to be "actionably dishonest" in that you solicited work from me on the promise of payment, did not pay me, and have embarked on a career of reckless defamation of Dr. Pipes.  Look up the libel law, Mr. Internet Philosopher.  You use the term "soi-disant" to describe the expertise of Dr. Pipes in Middle East affairs.  You, however, and your cohort, are "soi-disant" media commentators without the expertise, experience, maturity, knowledge, education, or competence to be taken seriously by anybody.  You have libelled Dr. Pipes and other critics of Debbie Almontaser, but it appears not to be worth the time and effort to initiate a libel action against you; since you cannot be bothered to pay your contributors it is doubtful that a libel judgment can be collected against you.

Nevertheless, I consider your wretched defense of Almontaser to be sufficient grounds for me to go public in revealing the unethical, irresponsible, and disreputable behavior of the JEWCY clique, and to warn others away from any participation in your efforts.

Sincerely

Stephen Schwartz

Hmm, that's pleasant.

Now, I'm no lawyer, but I have laid my filthy hands on some Quine, so while I'm aware that true synonymy is rare if it exists at all, I'm also pretty confident that 'actionable dishonesty' is reasonably good proxy, indeed, perhaps almost a partial definition, of 'libel'.

Here's an example of libel. Take a quotation in which someone condemns the perpetrators on the September 11 attacks. Doctor it to make it appear as if she's a 9/11 denialist. Publish the doctored quote in a widely read newspaper in the biggest city in the United States. And on the seventh day, rest.

Daniel is uncovering the true agenda of the radical Muslims in our midst. Mr. Pipes doing a great service to our country considering the risks and threats he's had endure.  He's a brave and courageous man!

 Ismail is an Arab terrorist supporter who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the ass.  He's a defacto spokesman for the blod-thristy terrorist group hamass.  Ismail is obsessed with the Jews and needs to get a life.  Loser doesn't even begin to describe this lunatic.

Quine, swine, it doesn't apply here.

Libel is defined in law and media operates by law, not by the pseudo-philosophical musings of post-teenagers.  There are no "reasonably good proxies" or "partial definitions" of libel.  This is why you and your bunch should go back to college and stay out of media, and, as far as I am concerned, should never be employed or published in any serious media outlet. 

Your confidence is neither pretty nor valuable.  JEWCY consists of people who solicit serious work, promise payment, and do not fulfill their promises.  Look that up in Quine.  Ordinary people consider such behavior fraud, pure and simple.

Stephen Schwartz

Great comments and facts about the real history of the Middle East.  The truth is on our side and we will win.

Thanks Stephen Schwartz for speaking on the topic--perhaps Daniel and Jewcy editors will take all of these negative comments to heart regarding smearing good people and exalting supporters of radicalism. 

I also refer interested readers on to Yuseff Ibrahim's writing on this subject from last year in which he wrote, "Islam's Trojan Horse" and America fully understands what is happening in Europe and will not happily allow that to evolve in America.

If you want to respond to Mr. Schwartz, you need to provide complete, unedited quotes from all parties involved. And then you are going to have to go the article that Mr. Schwartz linked to, and treat it with seriousness. You've done this before on other topics and in a reply to one of my comments, and I am baffled as to why it isn't your normal fare.

But that is your choice or some kind of editorial policy of which I will never understand. Right now--it's time to really do some writing.

Quine, swine, it doesn't apply here.

Libel is defined in law and media operates by law.

Hmm, that first sentence is definitely false and the second true but irrelevant. Whatever it is that makes language work in general makes what Pipes did satisfy the definition --- informal, journalistic, legal, whichever way you please --- of libel.

Here's the legal definition:

An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community.

Let's review again. Pipes doctored a quotation in order to portray Ms. Almontaser as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and published the doctored quote in a major newspaper (there's your untruthful statement published in writing) which led to her widespread demonization as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and worse, led to her losing her job, and her professional ambitions being destroyed (thus the injury to her reputation and/or standing). See, easy as pie.

Also, I'm not looking to provoke, but I'm also not fond of being the target of hysterical insults, so I'll gently point out that I'm pretty sure you're a post-teenager too (otherwise, logically, you'd be a teenager or pre-teenager, right?) so that doesn't seem to me the most effective term of abuse. And then walk away.

(Naftali, the Pipes doctoring job is quoted in the body of the piece, with links to his NYS column and the recent NYT article to confirm.) 

I'm saying present the raw data. I'm suggesting that you go beyond the Sun and the Times and try to get the full quotes, primary sources. And then you have to examine the article by Mr. Schwartz and look at his sources--the key is accuracy. And it is also important to treat Mr. Schwartz' writing very seriously. You'll either be correct or not, but that is a long secondary to being accurate.

Not to mention finding out if Jewcy owes him money and paying him if you indeed owe him. That's important enough to be a commandment--that we just read last week, coincidentally.

I finally looked through Mr. Schwartz's piece. It's not about Debbie Almontaser. It's a fairly tendentious account CAIR's protest of the NYPD making use of Silber and Bhatt's Radicalization in the West, an account that doesn't even attempt to argue that CAIR's complaints are unfounded, but rather takes that as a given and concludes that anyone who disagrees is a radical Islamist. Okay.

On to the matter at hand. The facts about Ms. Almontaser are explored  in one paragraph, which includes a reprinting of several discredited charges against her, including that she and her colleagues at KGIA "were accused of trying to establish an 'intifada academy.'" That's an incredible locution; yes, she was so accused after the New York Post deliberately warped her remarks. The people leveling those accusations should be ashamed of themselves, tho' it's probably too much to hope that they're capable of feeling shame. More to the point, this is an illustrative token of Almontaser's ample grounds for numerous libel suits. Pipes' and the Post's original deliberate untruths --- untruths to the effect that Almontaser is just about the single most reviled thing anyone can be in America, an Islamist --- get reprinted and recirculated without attribution, through passive constructions, thereby (rather self-evidently, I should think) causing profound injury to her reputation and standing in the community.

Anyway, this is Mr. Schwartz's contribution to the case against Almontaser:

Her involvement in CAIR's counter-attack on the NYPD demonstrates otherwise: her assignment in dealing with NYPD was to organize an online discussion group for input into the Community Statement.

Right. So she organized a discussion group, and...that's it, give or take some pathological projection. E.g., "Debbie Almontaser appears to be a classic 'stealth Islamist,'" --- love the scare quotes by the way --- because what about organizing a discussion group doesn't positively scream Islamist! (Or rather, "stealth Islamist"; it's unclear if the term is co-referential with "practicing Muslim," with the epithet substituted for the ordinary term, presumably to wring some fright-value out of its connotations.)

Which leads to this helpful proposal:

Debbie Almontaser should quit her masquerade as a moderate and her non-Muslim enablers should end their naïve defense of her alleged mainstream outlook.

Of course, it's just that simple! Having committed the unpardonable crime of organizing a discussion group and being the target of some 18 months of slander and libel, the obligation certainly falls on her shoulders to falsify her own biography to appease her slanderers.

I kinda feel like organizing a discussion group for CAIR myself after all this --- anybody got their number?

 I have done research re: the faculty and the board, and I am by no means defending Pipes.  I agree that he took quotations out of context and painted a picture that was entirely inaccurate re: Almontaser, whose intentions I believe could be nothing but good.

Re: the faculty and board, the overwhelming majority are self-proclaimed devout Muslims, and if the fact that I chose to move to Israel and that I work for the spokespersons unit can destroy any remote credibility that I might have had, then certainly you can understand the concern that their religious backgrounds (in addition to the funding of various political organizations that the fund-- currently compiling a list, as it's all public info) could and will influence the curriculum.  

When I called the school a "breeding ground for Islamic Fundamentalism", I didn't mean to imply that they've already "bred" terrorists-- should have explained it more fully.  What I meant was that it was a potential forum for these militant ideologies due to the fact that the courses can't be observed and monitored in the same way that most NYC public schools are (periodically and randomly), and the fact that the board and the faculty doesn't seem to have too many checks and balances.

Cori C

http://cori-c.blogspot.com

coriac@gmail.com

Daniel, that's the problem with research, and you know this. It's hard to pick your way through secondary sources, which is what most layfolk see, to get to the primary source.

You use the NY Sun and the NY Times. Still dicey. But at least you now have legitimate questions to ask Mr. Schwartz about sources, methods, etc.  And of course, the best way to refute him, if you choose to, is from primary sources.

So, Pipes aside (and Pipes is perfectly capable of defending himself), what is a public school doing with a Board? The most we have for public schools is the PTA. Private schools have boards. Is this normal up there? And what would be the function of this board? Or is 'board' the NY synonym for PTA?

None of these facts are fitting together into a coherent picture.

Cori,

Look at Ismail as spokesperson bootcamp. I'm sure he would be proud to know that he is making the IDF stronger. :-D

I think that on the topic of Islam, Stephen Schwartz would be considered a primary source--which is why one should respect him. 

Yes, interesting, isn't it?

spokesperson bootcamp-- I like it.

Cori C

http://cori-c.blogspot.com 

coriac@gmail.com

And salaam to you, Cori.

Your claim seems to boil down to this; Almontaser's probably OK, but her "board" is likely to cause mischief, loaded as it is with well-known terror-symps. You know this because of the research you've done.

OK, here's my research.

This is the school's advisory council (not "board", by the way):

1. Rev. Dr. DanielMeeter, Old First Reformed Church

2. Rev. Dr. Calvin Butts,Abyssinian Baptist Church

3. Rev. Dr. Charles H.Straut Jr., The Riverside Church

4. Rev. Khader N.El-Yateem, Salem Arabic Lutheran Church

5. Rabbi Andy Backman,Congregation Beth Elohim

6. Rabbi MelissaWeintraub, Rabbis for Human Rights

7. Rabbi Micah Kelber,The Bay Ridge Jewish Center

8. Lisel Burns, BrooklynSociety for Ethical Culture

9. Imam TalibAbdul-Rashid, Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood, Harlem

10. Imam Shamsi Ali, 96thSt. Mosque, Manhattan

11.Imam Khalid Latif, Chaplain, NYPD

Scary bunch, eh?

The school's main support organization? The Arab American Family Support Center. Note the soothing linguistic notes: "family", "support"-very cagy, these murderous Islamists. And don't be fooled by the fact that the Center's main funders are the US Government, the American Jewish World Service and (shudder!) the Christian Children's Fund. How troubled must your sleep be, holding the fort against such fanatics! Brave Cori!

Funny, your "research" (totally without specifics or citations) and mine (see above) don't appear to agree. What do you make of that? 

Glad that you don't defend the scumbag Pipes, but your tiny slap about out-of-context quotes and mischaracterizations seems a little tame. How do you feel about these remarks ?:

"...learning Arabic in [and] of itself promotes an Islamic outlook."  (This from an article in the Washington Post).

How about,

""The next step is to get the academy itself canceled", this from the NY Sun. Guess it's not just the"board" or the principal after all.

"Re: the faculty and board, the overwhelming majority are self-proclaimed devout Muslims"

First, if you want to be a shill for an occupying army, you've got to learn to craft your lies with a little more prima facie credibility. As the list above shows, 3 of the 11 "board" members are Muslim (maybe 4, if you count the crypto-Lutheran with the jihadi name). I can't speak for their level of devotion, because I don't know. Of course, you don't, either, do you? Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you can tell me where to find the self-proclamations of these devout Muslims. 

So, were you mistaken?  Or, like Pipes, do you sling fictions at whim, expecting no one to check?

Now, you may be right about the faculty; I couldn't find a thing on them. Perhaps you can direct me to a list of the faculty and their religious affiliations, including degree of devotion. I'll wait. Or, alternatively, you could admit to making stuff up.

Second, and far more important, is the fact that, despite your implications, there is nothing whatsoever gamy about being a "devout Muslim". This comment of yours reveals the bigoted core of your position. We are to suspect, monitor and harrass folks on the basis of their faith. 

 "...if the fact that I chose to move to Israel and that I work for the spokespersons unit can destroy any remote credibility that I might have had, then certainly you can understand the concern that their religious backgrounds..."

Well, no. I wouldn't dream of questioning your reliability on the basis of your religious background. Unlike you, I adhere strongly to the principles of liberal modernity and refrain from suspecting folks because of which funny hat they wear when they address their imaginary celestial buddy. I suspect your credibility because you've chosen to perfume the infamies of brutes. By the way, here's the policy when a Palestinian child is assassinated, in order:

1. Deny that child was killed.

2. Claim child's death due to bad Arab parenting, i.e., allowing kid to live at home with her family, who callously try to deflect Israeli shell with child.

3. Acknowledge Israeli hand in death, empathize with soldier's tough mission.

4. Investigate soldier. Find him blameless.

There. You may now skip your orientation session. 

"When I called the school a "breeding ground for Islamic Fundamentalism", I didn't mean to imply that they've already "bred" terrorists-- should have explained it more fully."

No, you should have refrained from uttering a baseless lie. Using a phrase like "breeding ground for Islamic terrorism" isn't a failure to explain fully-it's deliberate, rabble-rousing demagoguery, straight from Pipes' playbook.

"What I meant was that it was a potential forum for these militant ideologies due to the fact that the courses can't be observed and monitored in the same way that most NYC public schools are (periodically and randomly), and the fact that the board and the faculty doesn't seem to have too many checks and balances."

Gee, things are even worse than you suspect. After all, who will monitor the Arabic classes? Have to be an Arabic speaker, right? Where shall we find a trustworthy one? I know! Perhaps an IDF translator! That's it! Let's get an Israeli in there to monitor them Arabs!

Also, please advise re the regulations you cite. Where did you learn that KGIA would have no oversight? And what is the nearly meaningless "...the board and faculty doesn't seem to have too many checks and balances" supposed to convey? Journalism 101 again; do they have some checks and balances, but not enough to please you? Which do they lack? And does this anarchy "seem'" the case, or do you assert that there are specific and typical rules which don't apply to KGIA.

These questions aren't mere niceties. Without specifics, your main claims are simply unfounded assertions, designed to incite.

Your piece is straight out of the "Protocols of the Elders of the Caliphate". You should be ashamed.

Now go show this to your handlers. They will provide you some help in crafting a response, which will also be false.

Where did you find the list of Advisory Council? Because I found a list too. I'm wondering if we found it in the same place. It was part of a very long chronicle of the history of the school, from March 7, 2007 (thereabouts) to last week. Lots of events and quotes and sources. Now the picture makes sense. Took me a long time to read it.

But I'll let Cori work her way through your mine field.

If she can't get through it, then I'll post a comment. I read carefully for 45 minutes. I'll give you the time it took me to find the source as a gift. But you still owe me $300.00. Like I said, lawyers rates. And I didn't even get to the IDF part of your post.

“Diaperless infants” isn’t the kindest way to refer to Jewcy, but we are indeed a young company and our operations are not immune to error. We’re currently working with Stephen Schwartz offline (i.e. not in our comments section) to make sure he’s been remitted fairly for his work. And over the past month we’ve been overhauling our invoicing system to make sure writers don’t slip through the cracks.

I don't know Craig, all we can see is a headshot...

There are a few issues here...first--and one that I think is valid--is the issue of religious (though cultural-religious..but religious nonetheless) schools being funded by the public. I think that objecting to this is certainly reasonable, though as Ismail notes you must be consistent in those objections (the Jewish charter schools that have popped up in Florda recently certainly come to mind...non-religious, yet teaching Hebrew and cultural history). Though correct me if I'm wrong, but part of the point with the school was precisely that it wasn't Islamic per se, as much as it was Arabic.  Thus it is conceivable that it could teach about all different types Arab religious groups from a cultural perspective. Personally I am a little muddled on this topic as I don't think there is anything wrong with cultural schools anymore than charter schools like Bronx Science and the like. But I do think obviously some oversight is necessary to monitor religious and state separation.

But then there is a seperate issue that seems to be popping up here that is quite troubling; namely the idea that the school deseves to be under a finer microscope precisely because it is Arabic. And this certainly is scurolous and reeks of McCarthy-esque tactics at the least, and offensively racist at the most.  The idea that the NY City Public School system--with all its bureaucratic oversight--would unwittingly fund a radical madrassa is alarmist at the least. Our public school system for years have most certainly taught propaganda of any number of ways (anyone read a history text book about Reconstruction as a kid?).  The irony that our public school system is being held as the standard against such actions is fairly laughable.  Moreso it is this type of baiting that unfortunately marginalizes, angers and isolates those who are working for constructive dialogue.

Ishmail wants to ask, concerning the people associated with the scandalous school evoking a "soft intifada" is the people on the advisory council are "scary."  Sure there is plenty to be afraid of.

Just a quick search for Iman Talib Abdul-Rashid--and this is obviously a bad guy and no "moderate"--from his own bio:

Allah is our goal
The Prophet Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah is our leader
The Qu'ran is our constitution
Jihad is our way
And death in the way of Allah is our promised end.

A reality check must be very cognizant of the violent threat posed by Islamic radicals this woman was very obviously fired for justification.   Again, they want us to follow Europe down the sewer of radicalism. Daniel Pipes Hates America!!!  What a sick joke.  These people uniformly hate America as a Judeo-Christian country and pointedly want to change it.  It is a clear threat.

Your "research" re: the board is completely false. Later, when I have more time, I'll be happy to post specifics.

RE: The IDF, can't wait to respond.  Where is that information from, Noam? Norman? Any other re-writers of policy?   

Cori C

http://cori-c.blogspot.com

coriac@gmail.com

The government should not be funding religious schools of any religion, Muslim, Jewish or Christian. The Jewish charter schools in Florida included.  However I am a New Yorker and this Khalil Gabril School is in my backyard, so I am most concerned with it.

    She promotes an Islamist agenda, operates in an environment populated by radical Muslim organizations and individuals, holds extreme leftist political views and aims to use the KGIA as a tool of indoctrination.

    Almontaser has a close working relationship with Linda Sarsour, a radical Islamist activist with a power base in Brooklyn's Bay Ridge district. Sarsour is the director of the Arab American Association of New York, a provider of social services including immigration assistance and legal aid to Arab community. She along with Almontaser are board member of the AAA's Dialogue Project and Sarsour is the Co-Chair of the Dialogue Project's Interfaith Events program.

    This relationship poses a serious challenge to those who blindly maintain that KGIA is just another New York City charter school, because Linda Sarsour is tied to the terrorist organization Hamas as well as other radical causes. Deepening the concern, the community from which Sarsour operates shares her views as well as her support for Islamism.

    In a 2004 piece by Sarmad S. Ali, "Kerry Drew Disenchanted Arabs in Bay Ridge" published in the Columbia Journalism Review, Linda Sarsour matter-of-factly documents her family's ties to Hamas as depicted in the Arab language terrorist newspaper that she is reading while being interviewed:

        "As the presidential election grew near, Linda Sarsour sat in her small office at the Arab-American Association in , Brooklyn, looking at the photos of two thickly bearded young Arabs on the front page of an Arabic-language newspaper.

        The paper carried fervent slogans calling on young people to become martyrs in the conflict with Israel.

        Sarsour, a 24-year-old Palestinian-American, sighed. One of the men, she said, was a cousin who has been in Israeli jails for 25 years. The other man, she said, was a family friend serving a 99-year prison sentence in Israel. Her brother-in-law, she said, is also serving a 12-year sentence, accused of being an activist in the Hamas, the religious militant group, though, she said, he was secular in his beliefs."[source http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/election/2004/minority_ali01.asp]

    She continued, as if the deportation proceedings against her Palestinian husband whose brother was a jailed Hamas member had no wider implications.

        "Despite those concerns, she said, she was more worried these days about her own future in America, She said she had been questioned by U.S. authorities, and her Palestinian husband, after seven years in America, faced deportation proceedings…"

    Brooklyn harbors one