My Brief Exciting Career in Genocide Incitement

broken-telephone

The internet makes games of broken telephone a lot of fun. In 2011, Farha Khaled, who has done work for Saudi and Iranian media outlets, wrote a rambling attack on “Islamophobes”.

The apparent target of the attack was the Gates of Vienna site, but after exhausting the Breivik stuff two paragraphs in, headed south to attack blogs that Dymphna, a co-owner of Gates of Vienna posts comments at, including yours truly.

Daniel’s postings regularly dehumanise Muslims, and are filled with anti Islam screeds which he fabricates on whim, not unlike Ned May.  He also has a Torah Parsha blog and this video shows him in a debate about New Media. In a common theme amongst neo cons, Daniel complains there is a plot to destroy the US military by Obama.  In one blog post ‘Winning the War on Terror‘ he suggests genocide:

‘We would have to be willing to kill millions, directly or indirectly, while maintaining an alliance that would defy Russia, China and the First World nations that would accuse us of genocide. The real name for this war might well turn out to be World War III. It would take a Churchill or a Roosevelt to launch something like that, and while the world would be radically different afterward, it might well turn out to be radioactively different too.’

There’s barely a theme there except that Farha was running short of material and throwing in everything but the kitchen sink and ended with a quote snipped of some rather important context. But variations of the piece reappeared on other Muslim sites dedicated to fighting the grave threat of  Islamophobia which has thus far killed almost as many people as Y2K.

As the game of broken telephone continued, I was somehow associated with the Religion of Peace site, a site I would love to take credit for, but have nothing to do with, and denounced as a “genocide inciter”.

And so in the Sydney Morning Herald, one Randa Adbel Fattah, wrote an editorial titled ‘Free speech’ used to mobilise hatred of Muslims‘.

Paul Sheehan stoops even lower, however, by then relying on the website thereligionofpeace.com as a credible source of statistics on terrorist attacks.It is alarming that Sheehan would cite this website, given the website’s association with Daniel Greenfield, who is on record for inciting genocide in a blogpost, “Winning the war on terror’ (April 30, 2009), in which, discussing the pros and cons of ‘killing them [Muslims]‘ he argued: ‘We would have to be willing to kill millions, directly or indirectly, while maintaining an alliance that would defy Russia, China and the First World nations that would accuse us of genocide.”Is it the standard of Australian journalism that fringe websites associated with vapid haters and genocide inciters be relied upon as credible sources?

While Randa links to a number of sites, she carefully avoids linking to the source of that quote. The reasons for that are obvious. The quote isn’t in support of genocide. It’s in opposition to genocide.

In discussing the pros and cons of various options n the War on Terror, the fifth one postulates a scenario in which, “Any nation hosting Islamic extremists would have a year to take care of the problem, or we would take care of them. No nation building, just massive destruction aimed at their technological and transportation infrastructure reverting them back to 19th, if not the 18th century.”

The scenario doesn’t involve demographic extermination, but large scale bombings similar to those carried out against Nazi Germany aimed at destroying infrastructure, rather than exterminating people.

But the quote used by Farha Khaled and Randa Adbel Fattah comes from the Con section which is an argument for not doing it. Not for doing it.

Cons: We would have to be willing to kill millions, directly or indirectly, while maintaining an alliance that would defy Russia, China and the First World nations that would accuse us of genocide. The real name for this war might well turn out to be World War III. It would take a Churchill or a Roosevelt to launch something like that, and while the world would be radically different afterward, it might well turn out to be radioactively different too.

In other words, Farha Khaled and Randa Adbel Fattah took an argument for not bombing Muslim countries, stripped out the context and tried to pass it off as a call for genocide.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Since when hasn't taquiyya-driven speech been their "norm"? And on which planet is there anything resembling an "Islamphobe", a made up out of whole cloth bugaboo, one which CAIR (the Brotherhood's propaganda mouthpiece) and the left coined?

    In other words, the reds and greens attempt to hold the rest of us captive to doublespeak, but that doesn't mean we have to oblige – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/03/25/redleftists-m

    Time to beat that at their own game! And if copping to a "genocidal" role moves things along, so be it! Fair is fair…

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • Stephen_Brady

      I hear you, brother, and agree!

  • Flowerknife_us

    Islam provides all the wet work it can handle.

  • Herb Benty

    Read the dammed coran…. I did!!! I got a few of them from the library and that book is a childish attempt to denigrate the Jewish and Christian Scriptures and to clear the path to destroy Jews and Christians- nothing more. Muslims come here for one reason only, to commit filthy demonic "jihad". Open your friggin eyes!

  • onecornpone

    … took an argument for not bombing Muslim countries, stripped out the context and tried to pass it off as a call for genocide.

    And most troubling is that their strategy works with the lo-info crowd, no matter their religious bent.

    As unsophisticated as Islam seems, the promoters and defenders are anything but. Very good Alinsky they employ against you sir.

    By now we understand, when we are defending, it is almost impossible to move forward.
    .

  • gee59

    Daniel – if it weren't for lies and invented quotes the anti-Semites would have nothing to post

  • Drakken

    The muslims call warfare genocide because the little inbred savages know that us westerners will bring back that time honored way of fighting wars called the total war concept, and it is very effective. So they screech and call us infidels names and try to cover up their complicity in jihad. Well, war is coming muslims so take care of your jihadist or us infidels will do it for you and if your cities come to ruin, so be it.

  • RUI

    And why do you even go on the defensive on this tripe, Mr Greenfield? Two muztards took your words out of context to pour their genocidal bile on you? Shocker!

  • Bronson

    Daniel you should take this up with the paper. A few years back one of their Muslim contributors (Irfan Yusuf) who normally writes reasonably sensible pieces accused Daniel Pipes of much the same thing, i.e. of advocating and and gloating over the prospects of Muslims being slaughtered when he said nothing to that effect (maybe except, as with you, to point out how it would be the logical outcome of a certain policy which he advised against, I can’t recall). The paper published a retraction and apology.

  • knowshistory

    any risk of muslims being genocided is due to one thing, and one thing only: the long history of muslims genociding everyone else. some day, those evil infidels may wake up and smell the genocide. until the infidels wake up and start scoring some genocide of their own, islam will continue to genocide any infidels who are unwise enough to allow muslims to gain the upper hand. infidels dont have a book telling them to genocide people. they have books that tell them to do unto others as they would want to be done unto, but no prescriptions for genocide. if those horrible infidels learn to genocide muslims, they will have learned it from the holy islamic scriptures. wake up and read the scriptures, infidels. not just your own. read the islamic scriptures condemning you to death. you might learn something useful in those holy islamic scriptures.