Standing out among among the spineless and gutless in the media snakepit takes a special kind of misanthrope. Meet Joseph Rose. I fisked him earlier this week here.
I advised Mr. Rose that I would be happy to put him in contact with rabbis, Coptic leaders, Hindu leaders, Sikh leaders or Jewish leaders who support our ads. How silly of me. Mr. Rose was not in the least bit interested in pretending to be objective or remotely even-handed.
This guy is particularly loathsome. His questions expose him.
Sponsor of 'Jihad' ad says, 'I am not anti-Islam' Joseph Rose
Pamela Geller, who runs the Atlas Shrugs blog and the American Freedom Defense Initiative, wanted a chance to explain a pro-Israel ad that has stirred protests and calls for boycotts on transit systems around the country.
Q: In the story, mosque leader and Intel engineer Shahriar Ahmed criticizes the ad for using the word "Jihad." (He says it is intended to stoke hate toward someone like him -- a Muslim who uses the word daily in his life as a mark of a spiritual struggle.) He says that is why he sees the ad as an attack on Islam. He wonders why the word "terrorism" wasn't used instead. Why not use the word terrorism instead of Jihad?
On a black background, the ad reads, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man." Situated between two Stars of David, the tagline declares: "Support Israel. Defeat Jihad."
It went up on Portland area buses and trains on Tuesday.
Here’s a quick email Q&A that I conducted with Geller about the transit ad campaign:
A: The terrorists themselves characterize what they are doing as jihad. See, for example, the terror group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. See also the Hamas Charter. The mosque leader and Intel engineer should take up his objection to the use of the word jihad with them, not with me.
Q: You are the author of Stop the book “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.” Many of your critics accuse you of being "anti-Islam." Is that a fair criticism?
A: I am not anti-Islam. I am pro-freedom, pro-free speech, pro-freedom of conscience, pro-equality of rights for all people before the law. I am against honor killings, genital mutilation, death for apostasy, etc. Moderate Muslims who reject all this should stand with me.
Q: Looking at your blog, Atlas Shrugs, it seems to mainly be a forum to promote the press that your transit ads are receiving and to sell T-shirts with the ad on them. What is the goal of your blog?
A: That is wildly unfair and demonstrates that you haven't looked at the archives at all. I have been blogging since 2005 and the ads have only been up for a couple of months. The blog is dedicated to preserving and promoting individual rights and defending them against encroachments, principally from Sharia. Look through the archives before making such a judgment.
The tee-shirt (sic) is but one link - an accommodation to the many requests for them. I encourage your readers to go to my site and also to read the hundreds of articles I have penned. Let them decide if your critique is even remotely accurate.
Q: Many people, including riders, TriMet and people on both sides of the Middle East debate, don't believe that putting a brief and arguably inflammatory ad on public transit buses, trains and benches is the best way to debate these deep-rooted, passionate issues. What do you think? And why do you think it's an appropriate forum?
A: I was responding to the anti-Israel ads that ran before. No one complained that they were too brief and inflammatory.
(Note: Geller is referencing the pro-Palestine ads purchased on TriMet by Friends of Sabeel North America, a Christian-based organization, Jewish Voices for Peace and Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights in late September. Local Jewish groups have protested the ads.)
Q: Of all the cities with public transit, why did you choose Portland as one of the handful of places to run this ad?
A: The anti-Israel ads are running there.
Q: Are there any other ads coming?
A: Yes.
Q: I received several emails from people, including those who identified themselves as your readers, unhappy with my coverage. Here's an example:
“Joseph Rose P L E A S E go suck on a 44 magnum. You leftist dumbass. I'm truly glad you don't live where I do because I'd just have to kick the stupid out of you. Okay..I admit it, I'd enjoy it. Try reporting news without putting your own opinions in it. It does not work for idiot infidels. Now, for some advice that you'll probably appreciate and sgree with. MOVE to a muslim country. Quickly. We'll all be happy if you move very, very soon. Get a job reporting news there and let us all know how it's working for you. Until then here in America...why not step away from anything to do with writing and reporting. You're just not any good at it but, in a muslim country you'll learn pretty quick how to do it . Can we depend on you leaving? We hope so. There you'll get on the job training. The training hasn't worked for you here has it?
Signed
Sick Of Leftist Crap”
Would you condone this type of rhetoric? Does it effectively promote your position?
A: I do not know the person who wrote this, and do not favor this kind of rhetoric. Your attempt to link this to me is reprehensible -- there are nutcases on all sides of the political spectrum, and no one holds Leftist writers or activists accountable for the excesses of the deranged. Nor should you.
At the same time, several readers from around the country called to remind me that it was Geller who once blogged Israel nuke Europe if Iran launches a nuclear strike.
More dishonesty from an uber-left tool. Of course Rose did not inquire or ask me about this. The only nuke mentioned in the post is Iran's. Obviously I only meant that Europe should be held accountable for aiding jihad terror groups like Hizballah. Any other interpretation is a contrivance of those leftists who have to resort to playing stupid "gotcha" games in their quest to destroy those who fight for freedom.
