Is Islamic Jihad Not “Savagery”?
At Frontpage today, Jamie Glazov interviews Pamela Geller about the hypocrisy of the media uproar over her use of the word “savage” to describe Islamic jihadists:
FP: Pamela Geller, thank you for joining FrontPage interview today.Pamela Geller: Thank you, Jamie.
FP: Pamela, you have placed ads nationwide saying: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.”
These ads have attracted a great deal of controversy. How Come?
PG: Jamie, this ad touched off a nationwide firestorm, with pundits and activists all over the country excoriating me for using the word “savage” to describe Islamic jihadists and supremacists. Leftists and Islamic supremacists denounced them as “racist” and “offensive.” For example, Ahmed Rehab of the Hamas-tied Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently denounced the ad on Chicago television, saying that since jihad is central to Islam, therefore “Defeat Jihad” means “Defeat All Muslims.” Then he says that because the ad refers to all Muslims, it is racist. These are two immense leaps of logic. We’re always told that the vast majority of Muslims reject jihad violence, but now suddenly when it comes to my ads, to refer to jihad means to refer to all Muslims. And of course Islam is not a race, and Muslims are not all members of a single race.
Rehab was not the only one. Dhimmi Jewish groups joined in as well. Leftist Christians and Jews put up counter ads. And most notoriously, CNN “journalist” Mona Eltahawy attacked the ad and my associate Pamela Hall with a can of spray-paint in the New York subway. She has since then stoutly defended her action on the grounds that my ad was “racist.” After her little act of fascism she had the gall to claim that she was merely exercising her freedom of speech.
However, recently the hypocrisy and double standards of the leftists and mainstream media has become clear. It turns out that using the word “savage” is not always racist and offensive.
FP: Really? When is the word “savage” not racist and offensive?
PG: Last Wednesday both the New York Post and the New York Daily News ran cover photos of “Palestinian” Muslims dragging the corpses of accused Israeli collaborators behind their motorcycles. Both used the caption “Savages.” And that wasn’t all. In Tunisian citizen Souhir Stephenson’s “Tunisia, a Sad Year Later,” published a week earlier in the New York Times, she wrote: “Tourism is dwindling. Who wants to vacation among bands of bearded savages raiding embassies, staking their black pirate flag over universities or burning trucks carrying beer?”
“Bearded savages.” This appeared in the Times just six weeks after the paper ran a piece calling my American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) subway ads “potentially inflammatory” and quoting Muneer Awad of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) calling me “a bigot and a racist” for the ad.
FP: What is the difference between the New York Times’s use of the word savage and your use of it?
PG: Or Hillary Clinton’s, for that matter? In a statement on September 12, she used the same word to characterize those who had attacked our consulate in Benghazi and murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American officials: “This was an attack by a small and savage group — not the people or Government of Libya.”
FP: Why is Clinton’s use of the word savage inoffensive but your use of the word is “racist”?
PG: It’s clearly hypocritical, Jamie. In all of these instances, we are all describing the same barbarians: Islamic jihadists who glory in violence and murder. So why is my ad unacceptable, but no one is angry with the New York Post, the Daily News, Souhir Stephenson or the Secretary of State?
My use of the word “savage” has been widely decried as “racist” and “dehumanizing.” Critics have invoked the use of the term to describe Native Americans and others in attempts to prove that any use of it is clear evidence of racist and even genocidal inclinations. But is any and every use of the word “savage” really some kind of thinly veiled call for genocide? Nonsense. Franklin Delano Roosevelt called the Nazis “savages.” And they were. Would Muneer Awad call him “a bigot and a racist” as well?
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0xTkZHGAnE] The original song 
From Ian: Latma: Muhammad aDura lives and other PR victories [youtube 
Saudi Arabia's al-Yaum newspaper has a brief article about the Je 
From Ian: Khaled Abu Toameh: Why Doesn't the EU Condemn Palestini 
Excitement is growing in the Arab world over the upcoming TV series Kh 
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av5l36pcXGY] Their earlier vid 
Here's Soccer Dad's Middle East Media Sampler for Friday, Ma 
Eugene Kontorovich asks some important questions about IRS scrutiny of 
Still believe that BDS is only about stopping the 'occupation 
Haaretz is heartbroken. With all of his other faults, Yesh Atid leader 
Textbooks paid for by the Saudi government teach high school students 
A Zionist shark attacked Gaza on Thursday, and a 'Palestinian 
Google and Facebook are in a bidding war for Waze, an Israeli startup 
US Secretary of State John FN Kerry has brought some new ideas with hi 
The Foreign Secretary of the country that did more than any other to p 
In both Jerusalem and Ramallah on Thursday, US Secretary of State John 
{ 4 comments }
That the word ‘savages’ is now in common use by the press, as well as by Clinton and others – AND that it’s being used specifically to characterize radical Islamists – is largely due to Pamela Geller’s campaign. The revival and popularization of the term is a direct response to her. And it’s a good thing! It confirms that our self-appointed arbiters of taste now believe that she was justified in using it! But what these news outlets and pundits really need to do is acknowledge this in print and on TV. They need to publicly apologize to Geller for slandering her as a racist and bigot. They need to state, in no uncertain terms, that not only is Geller not a racist or bigot but she in fact has proved prophetic, ever since her campaign to prevent the building of a mosque at Ground Zero.
If anyone still thinks that mosque was an innocent suggestion by moderate Muslims who love America, let me direct them to http://www.libertiesalliance.org/ and the fight to prevent more mosque-building in Europe [see http://lawandfreedomfoundation.org/ and the video by Gavin Boby [http://www.libertiesalliance.org/2012/07/17/gavin-bobys-speech-at-international-conference-for-free-speech-and-human-rights-9-july-2012/].
Pamela Geller deserves our admiration, gratitude and support. Luckily, more Americans are gradually coming out of our collective stupor. Hopefully, it will not be too late.
Greetings,
Why do you waste such an incredible intellect on the Islamic issue when we should be concentrating on the International Banking Cartel that is really running American governance. The Islamic issue is nothing but a false flag for the dull and ignorant society we are saddled with, as terroist are much more interesting for those who have no intellectual interest.
@Olddog,
We have discussed on this forum previously how Islam and the influx of out of control Muslim savages is a false flag operation.
However, it does not mean they are not a problem that we have all dealt with in one manner or another a daily basis.
“The international banking cartel”– where did I hear that before?
” [waging] jihad against the cursed Jews, and pursuing and fighting them wherever they are found, is one of the most important duties and greatest virtues – for they have corrupted countries, killed many Muslims and fought the Muslims everywhere. They are undoubtedly the leaders of the infidels in this age, and nobody can compete with them [for this title]. Allah said: “Fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, no oaths are [sacred] to them. [Koran 9:12].”
Comments on this entry are closed.