Fallaci: "This is what I write about Europe..

[gunner]

What non sequitur?

You attacked Apo who isn't even here, and R.O.P pointed out that he is a frequent punching bag as well. No non sequitur that I can see, especially inasmuch that I have seen him referenced in third party terms before, too.

Because of course your snow white...

Paul

 

[Gardener]

Because of course your snow white...

Paul

You didn't finish your sentence.

My snow white what?

 

[Djoop]

You do know that that post is a year old, don't you?

So, you’re a year older now?

I am looking for the specific quote, but here is his critical, if sad, assessment of the fairly unhinged state of Fallaci at the end of her life:

When someone becomes obsessed with the hygiene and reproduction of another group, it can be a bad sign: Oriana's conversation (actually there was no conversation, since she scarcely drew breath) was thick with obscenities. I shall put them in Italian—brutto stronzo, vaffanculo—and omit some others. As to those who disagreed with her, or who did not see the danger as she did, well, they were no more than cretini and disgraciatti. It was like standing in a wind tunnel of cloacal abuse. Another bad sign was that she had started to refer to herself as "Fallaci." From Vanity Fair 2006

Even Christopher Hitchens, born-again Islamophobe, recognised Fallaci's inability to write rationally about Islam.

Your summary surely isn’t mine, but I’ve read the article in full.

All her life she had denounced clericalism and fundamentalism in every form, yet now her loathing and disgust for Islam had driven her into the embrace of the Church.

Now there’s the Hitchens you know and love.

If you ask specifically what is wrong with Islam, it makes the same mistakes as the preceding religions, but it makes another mistake, which is that it’s unalterable. You notice how liberals keep saying, “If only Islam would have a Reformation”—it can’t have one. It says it can’t. It’s extremely dangerous in that way.

While I'm sure Hitchens wouldn't accept the epithet of Islamophobe, that's a part of his make-up in my assessment. That's not damning his entire work. I like the guy in general, I particularly enjoy his take on atheistic ethics. This is just great. Why the drafters of the OT failed so badly with the 10 Commandments when he did so much better a job, I don't know.

So, you see Djoop, you can be critical of one aspect of a person and be impressed by another part of their make-up. It's known as subtlety and balance.

Not only would he not accept it, he would have little trouble showing how it says more about you than him. It’s the subtlety of understanding that criticism consists of more than a slanderous, unsubstantiated epithet like ‘born-again Islamophobe’.

 

[Andalublue]

Your summary surely isn’t mine, but I’ve read the article in full.

Well what would yours be?

Now there’s the Hitchens you know and love.

You know what, Djoop? You might be right and I may be wrong. I don't think Hitchens necessarily IS an Islamophobe. Perhaps I've been too hard on him, because my initial reactions to his stance on Islam came from others, mainly neo-cons, who recruited him into their gang of Clash of Civilisations fan club. The more I read of his writings, the less I'm convinced that he has drunk the Kool Aid. He's no Nick Cohen, or Andrew Anthony.

I still can't agree with him at all on the issue of Islamophobia when he writes:

A stupid term—Islamophobia—has been put into circulation to try and suggest that a foul prejudice lurks behind any misgivings about Islam's infallible "message."

Well, this idiotic masochism has to be dropped. There may have been a handful of ugly incidents, provoked by lumpen elements, after certain episodes of Muslim terrorism. But no true secularist or even Christian has been involved in anything like the torching of a mosque.

There has been more than a handful of ugly incidents, and they continue to this day. He may think they are lumpen elements, but they are being led by elected politicians and are gaining electoral support for far-right parties. What does it matter that 'no true secularist, or even Christian has been involved'? The attacks are happening, against people with no connection whatever to terrorism, and those attacks do, in my book, signify that Islamophobia is indeed a real phenomenon. That he rejects it, seems unsubstantiated and glib to me.

Having said that, I think his perspective is far, far more sophisticated than I've given him credit for, and 100x more rational than the latter-day writings of many, Fallaci especially.

Not only would he not accept it, he would have little trouble showing how it says more about you than him. It’s the subtlety of understanding that criticism consists of more than a slanderous, unsubstantiated epithet like ‘born-again Islamophobe’.

I think it says something not-too-flattering about him that 'Islamophobia' can only be said to exist if the intelligentsia and the establishment demonstrate it. That's sloppy thinking. But you know what? I take back the epithet as I applied it to him and, as if he'd care, I'm sorry I used it without have read deeply into his body of work on the subject.

 

[Grant]

I don't think Hitchens necessarily IS an Islamophobe. Perhaps I've been too hard on him, because my initial reactions to his stance on Islam came from others, mainly neo-cons, who recruited him into their gang of Clash of Civilisations fan club. The more I read of his writings, the less I'm convinced that he has drunk the Kool Aid. He's no Nick Cohen, or Andrew Anthony.

Is it your argument that there is no "Clash of Civilizations" taking place? Should we ignore photographic evidence? If so, then it seems clear enough that this is an avoidance of reality.

Here's is an article by Hitchens with an accompanying photograph. Londonistan Calling | Politics | Vanity Fair

Have you every seen any non Muslim group holding up signs saying "Behead those who insult the EDL"? Or Christianity or the Jews?

Of course not! And why is that? Any Christian, Jew or member of the EDL who did such a thing would be, quite rightly, roundly condemned.

So why aren't Muslims condemned for the same thing? One of the reasons might be is that the Left doesn't really expect much from Muslims. They are considered a little inferior so they should get away with behaviour that would otherwise be highly criticized by every civilized person. And of course they will respond that "not all Muslims are terrorists", that pointing out such behaviour is "Islamophoboic" or "racist" or segue to the American Indians.

Judging from those signs in the photo. and there are many more similar ones, the problem isn't Islamophobia which, judging from those signs being held would be a natural response, but a hatred of anything non-Muslim. That Muslims, and Islam, cannot be criticized and, if it is, there will be very serious consequences.

So who is the aggressor between Muslims and non-Muslims? It seems that only one side is making serious physical threats, and have acted on them, while the other side is being condemned for wanting to discuss immigration reform. This would all be quite amusing of it weren't so serious.

Having said that, I think his perspective is far, far more sophisticated than I've given him credit for, and 100x more rational than the latter-day writings of many, Fallaci especially.

Rather than condemn Fallaci without any apparent justification, why not point out where you think she has gone wrong. I know she was a feminist long before it became a popular movement, and we also know how Europe has let women down.

Feminism's multicultural blind spot

The European habit of talking in symbols rather than looking seriously at the issues will not serve them well over the long term. It is in a rapid state of decline, and no amount of obfuscation can stop it. It will be impossible to turn things around until the real issues are looked at and discussed openly and honestly.

 

[Djoop]

Well what would yours be?

I think her alignment with the Vatican provoked his criticism, that's why I quoted part of the article that critices just that. One would have to know Hitchens...

You know what, Djoop? You might be right and I may be wrong. I don't think Hitchens necessarily IS an Islamophobe. Perhaps I've been too hard on him, because my initial reactions to his stance on Islam came from others, mainly neo-cons, who recruited him into their gang of Clash of Civilisations fan club. The more I read of his writings, the less I'm convinced that he has drunk the Kool Aid. He's no Nick Cohen, or Andrew Anthony.

Well, I'm glad you still have room for doubt.

I still can't agree with him at all on the issue of Islamophobia when he writes:
There has been more than a handful of ugly incidents, and they continue to this day. He may think they are lumpen elements, but they are being led by elected politicians and are gaining electoral support for far-right parties. What does it matter that 'no true secularist, or even Christian has been involved'? The attacks are happening, against people with no connection whatever to terrorism, and those attacks do, in my book, signify that Islamophobia is indeed a real phenomenon. That he rejects it, seems unsubstantiated and glib to me.

We may want to call things by their name, refer to racism towards muslims as racism, rather than a fear that's simply not there. I reject the term islamophobe either way, but you can use it whenever you feel it applies.

Having said that, I think his perspective is far, far more sophisticated than I've given him credit for, and 100x more rational than the latter-day writings of many, Fallaci especially.

I'm glad you're being rational about this.
Fallaci may not paint the world as I see it, but I think fear would be a bad way to describe her emotions. Cause if she proved anything, it was her lack of fear that made her a person worth discussing.

 

[Andalublue]

I think her alignment with the Vatican provoked his criticism, that's why I quoted part of the article that critices just that. One would have to know Hitchens...

No, I don't believe that. I think it was her fanaticism, referring to herself in the 3rd person (isn't that as worryingly odd in Dutch as it is in English?) and her inability to engage in dialogue rather than giving a diatribe that caused him to worry. I'm sure the adoption of religion by someone formerly sceptical but now close to death would have chimed further.

Well, I'm glad you still have room for doubt.

Don't you? The day you cease to have room for doubt you become a robot or an Ayatollah.

We may want to call things by their name, refer to racism towards muslims as racism, rather than a fear that's simply not there. I reject the term islamophobe either way, but you can use it whenever you feel it applies.

Well, I think that -phobia applied well to the phenomenon of paranoid thinking that occurred after 9/11 and 7/7. People were frightened, and when people are frightened they don't necessarily analyse accurately the source of the real or imagined threat. In that period many, many people - politicians, journalists, agitators, even comedians - became blinded to the vast variety of one fifth of the world's population who are Moslems. Being a Moslem was sufficient to turn you into a potential suicide bomber, you need not behave in a threatening manner, you need not even be Moslem to be suspected of being a jihadist. That IS Islamophobia. I suspect Hitchens has been out of Britain so long he's not noticed that happening.

I'm glad you're being rational about this.
Fallaci may not paint the world as I see it, but I think fear would be a bad way to describe her emotions. Cause if she proved anything, it was her lack of fear that made her a person worth discussing.

That is a very fair point. In her case I think I'd refer to it as Islamomania.

 

[Djoop]

No, I don't believe that. I think it was her fanaticism, referring to herself in the 3rd person (isn't that as worryingly odd in Dutch as it is in English?) and her inability to engage in dialogue rather than giving a diatribe that caused him to worry. I'm sure the adoption of religion by someone formerly sceptical but now close to death would have chimed further.

Yes, it is. Maybe even more, we dutchmen seriously don't like people who talk in the third person.

We could ask Hitchens himself, I still believe his anti-theism got the beter of him. I know Hitchens, contary to Fallaci.

Don't you? The day you cease to have room for doubt you become a robot or an Ayatollah.

I don't, I don't believe in absolute wisdom. Try to catch me on an absolute statement; I prefer to ask questions.

Well, I think that -phobia applied well to the phenomenon of paranoid thinking that occurred after 9/11 and 7/7. People were frightened, and when people are frightened they don't necessarily analyse accurately the source of the real or imagined threat. In that period many, many people - politicians, journalists, agitators, even comedians - became blinded to the vast variety of one fifth of the world's population who are Moslems. Being a Moslem was sufficient to turn you into a potential suicide bomber, you need not behave in a threatening manner, you need not even be Moslem to be suspected of being a jihadist. That IS Islamophobia. I suspect Hitchens has been out of Britain so long he's not noticed that happening.

Watch his latest debate with Tariq Ramadan before you draw that conclusion. I'm sure you'd agree with Tariq but it might be interesting to view Hitchen's rebuttal.

That is a very fair point. In her case I think I'd refer to it as Islamomania.

Counting my blessings here, I can only hope you will make it more difficult for me to criticize your comments.

 

[Andalublue]

We could ask Hitchens himself, I still believe his anti-theism got the beter of him. I know Hitchens, contary to Fallaci.

You know him personally? I once had lunchtime drinks with Fallaci at the UN in Geneva during the Bosnian war peace talks. No one got much to say except her. It was entertaining though.

I don't, I don't believe in absolute wisdom.

I think you meant you do - have doubts, that is.

Watch his latest debate with Tariq Ramadan before you draw that conclusion. I'm sure you'd agree with Tariq but it might be interesting to view Hitchen's rebuttal.

I am just going to go and have a look at that now.

Counting my blessings here, I can only hope you will make it more difficult for me to criticize your comments.

I'll do my best.

 

[Djoop]

You know him personally? I once had lunchtime drinks with Fallaci at the UN in Geneva during the Bosnian war peace talks. No one got much to say except her. It was entertaining though.

Nope, but I've read everything he has ever published. I got my title on the Bosnian war, and I know every detail. I've worked on the cases off many balkan psychopaths. Unfortunately, I never got the credits for my work on Slobodan, but at least he died.

I think you meant you do - have doubts, that is.

I do.

I am just going to go and have a look at that now.

Good. Whatever your conclusions, he's certainly not 'born again', and his fear for Islam refers to the dealings of a certain mr. Rushdie. Like him, you may not agree with my stance on Islam, but I don't deserve death theats because of it.

 

[Andalublue]

Nope, but I've read everything he has ever published. I got my title on the Bosnian war, and I know every detail. I've worked on the cases off many balkan psychopaths. Unfortunately, I never got the credits for my work on Slobodan, but at least he died.

Oh, that's interesting. What do you mean 'I got my title'? You mean you got a doctorate studying it? I made a documentary programme on the peace talks and interviewed Radovan Karadzic, Iliye Izetbegovic and several others. Quite an experience.

Good. Whatever your conclusions, he's certainly not 'born again', and his fear for Islam refers to the dealings of a certain mr. Rushdie. Like him, you may not agree with my stance on Islam, but I don't deserve death theats because of it.

Very good. I've just finished it. I enjoyed it very much. He is very sharp, very intelligent and fairly self-aware. I liked his acknowledgement that atheists can often be dogmatic. It didn't stop him being dogmatic, but at least you know that he knows he is.

I thought Tarik Ramadan was excellent too. He made so many good points (and so did Hitchens) but the ones that stick in my mind are:

• When I say something people agree with they say, "yes, but you are such a lone voice in the Moslem world". When I say something they disagree with they say, "Well there you are, even the great majority of moderates believe this stuff".
• The voices of violence and conflict are always heard above the voices of peace and moderation, even if those peaceful voices are more numerous.
• Sharia in the minds of most western Moslems is the synthesis of the law of the land in which you live and the dictates of your religious beliefs. Of course western Moslems want to obey the law, but they also want to behave like good Moslems.
• The problem of the Qur'an is not the book, it's the reader. The book may be untouchable, but the interpretation of the book will never remain the same.

The two are diametrically opposed, but both made a lot of sense. The first thing I took from it that surprised me was the fact that it was George W. Bush that raised the issue in the first place. He was the one, straight after 9/11 that went to a mosque and declared that Islam is a religion of peace. As Ramadan pointed out, the phrase is a nonsense. It means nothing. A religion must have something to say on peace and violence, on every aspect of life.

 

[Djoop]

Oh, that's interesting. What do you mean 'I got my title'? You mean you got a doctorate studying it? I made a documentary programme on the peace talks and interviewed Radovan Karadzic, Iliye Izetbegovic and several others. Quite an experience.

No, it was my thesis (dunno the english word for it) before graduating. Reading the countless eyewitness reports still causes me sleepless nights.

Very good. I've just finished it. I enjoyed it very much. He is very sharp, very intelligent and fairly self-aware. I liked his acknowledgement that atheists can often be dogmatic. It didn't stop him being dogmatic, but at least you know that he knows he is
The two are diametrically opposed, but both made a lot of sense. The first thing I took from it that surprised me was the fact that it was George W. Bush that raised the issue in the first place. He was the one, straight after 9/11 that went to a mosque and declared that Islam is a religion of peace. As Ramadan pointed out, the phrase is a nonsense. It means nothing. A religion must have something to say on peace and violence, on every aspect of life.

They're both experienced debaters, you can give them a nonsensical subject and they still manage to get applause. I particularly like Hitchen's style, the in-your-face with British accent, his sarcasm and his wit. Not too fond of Ramadan but that doesn't prevend me from watching his debates.

The question whether Islam is a religion of peace or not is subjective. I wouldn't say it, but I can imagine why GWB did at the time.

He made so many good points (and so did Hitchens) but the ones that stick in my mind are:

• When I say something people agree with they say, "yes, but you are such a lone voice in the Moslem world". When I say something they disagree with they say, "Well there you are, even the great majority of moderates believe this stuff".
• The voices of violence and conflict are always heard above the voices of peace and moderation, even if those peaceful voices are more numerous.
• Sharia in the minds of most western Moslems is the synthesis of the law of the land in which you live and the dictates of your religious beliefs. Of course western Moslems want to obey the law, but they also want to behave like good Moslems.
• The problem of the Qur'an is not the book, it's the reader. The book may be untouchable, but the interpretation of the book will never remain the same.

To me the first two are actually quite meaningless. I can remotely relate to the sentiment of a moderate muslim in this day and age, but it's not an argument in itself. I think Hitchens covers this by suggesting he doesn't need Tariq to tell him muslims are humans.

The third point is a good one in my view. You have to understand and respect opposing views, challenge people to put them up for debate. The war on terror hasn't been helpful in that sense, we tend to criminalise muslims who are simply very conservative, make up laws that limit their civil rights. It shows little confidence in our 'western' values.

The problem with the fourth one, which I'm sure Hitchens adressed, is the fact that a different interpretation tends to be quite dangerous in islamic countries. Many muslims are quite proud the Qu'ran remains unaltered, whereas the bible changes from sect to sect. Hitchens merely points at the lack of moderation, not the lack of moderates. It's not that Islam needs 'pope-type' figures, Tariq missed the point. Hitchens criticizes the fatwa issuing ayatollah, Hamas, the representatives of large muslim countries like Egypte. He's quite specific and it's not about trivial things, nor about the individual believer who minds his own business.

 

[Ben K.]

I'd be interested to see Hitchens expand on what it means when he says Islam can't have a reformation. There are varying denominations of Islam already and political Islamism and the practice of Sharia law is different from state to state. Does he go into that?

I feel Hitchens can all too often avoid answering questions with an irrelevant quote due to being well read, garnished with a bit of wit and a side order of strawman. The laughter he gets from the audience makes him an entertaining debater, but also allows him to obfuscate with style over substance and makes it hard to call him an honest debater.

 

[Andalublue]

I'd be interested to see Hitchens expand on what it means when he says Islam can't have a reformation. There are varying denominations of Islam already and political Islamism and the practice of Sharia law is different from state to state. Does he go into that?

I feel Hitchens can all too often avoid answering questions with an irrelevant quote due to being well read, garnished with a bit of wit and a side order of strawman. The laughter he gets from the audience makes him an entertaining debater, but also allows him to obfuscate with style over substance and makes it hard to call him an honest debater.

I agree. In that debate and elsewhere he sometimes throws out provocative statements that are completely off-topic and hence he doesn't get challenged on them. There were a few times when what he says is playing to the audience, like in the debate with Ramadan when he gets all huffy that Ramadan reminded them that an Arab life is worth the same as an American. He was offended, but there are plenty of people who see an American life worth more than an Afghan life. Just look at the debate over the shooting of the US soldiers in Germany and the killing of 9 Afghan kids. Hitchens does that, the audience loves it, but it adds nothing to the debate. He IS a great performer, however just not always a subtle one.

 

[Djoop]

I'd be interested to see Hitchens expand on what it means when he says Islam can't have a reformation. There are varying denominations of Islam already and political Islamism and the practice of Sharia law is different from state to state. Does he go into that?

I feel Hitchens can all too often avoid answering questions with an irrelevant quote due to being well read, garnished with a bit of wit and a side order of strawman. The laughter he gets from the audience makes him an entertaining debater, but also allows him to obfuscate with style over substance and makes it hard to call him an honest debater.

2:11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-Dt5AgtfnE

 

[mbig]

Qaddafi's Empty Boast » Publications » Family Security Matters
Qaddafi's Empty Boast
Daniel Pipes - 4/18/11

Oriana Fallaci interviewing Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi in his tent in 1979.

Oriana Fallaci died almost five years ago but her writings live on. She won fame especially for the knowledge, cunning, and feistiness of her interviews with world leaders such as Yasir Arafat, Robert Kennedy, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Ariel Sharon, Lech Walesa, and the Dalai Lama. A collection of some of the best are out this month in a new book in English, “Interviews with History, Conversations with Power" (Rizzoli, New York).

I mention this collection because it includes an interview with Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi from 1979 with a paragraph (on p. 148) notable at this moment when NATO is making war on him and declaring he must go. With her trademark verve, Fallaci asked him, "You're not very humble, are you, Colonel?" to which Qaddafi replied with exasperation:

“I can survive the attacks of the whole world. And because my Green Book has resolved man's problems, society's problems. America can wage war against us, the West can torment us, it doesn't matter: the world has my Green Book. All we need to defend ourselves is the Green Book.”​

Judging by the operations currently underway, Qaddafi finds himself in needs of more protection than what his Green Book provides.
[...]

 

[Andalublue]

I wouildn't take too much notice of what Pipes says about anyone - Falacci or whoever - this is what Christopher Hitchens thinks of him...

Daniel Pipes is not a man of peace. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

Pipes... employs the fears and insecurities created by Islamic extremism to slander or misrepresent those who disagree with him.

 

[Djoop]

I wouildn't take too much notice of what Pipes says about anyone - Falacci or whoever - this is what Christopher Hitchens thinks of him...

Daniel Pipes is not a man of peace. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

The question is whether he's correct, not if he's a man of peace. From the article you quoted:

I am not myself a pacifist, and I believe that Islamic nihilism has to be combated with every weapon, intellectual and moral as well as military, which we possess or can acquire. But that is a position shared by a very wide spectrum of people.

Do you share Hitchens conviction, or are you a 'man of peace'?

 

[Andalublue]

The question is whether he's correct, not if he's a man of peace. From the article you quoted:


Do you share Hitchens conviction, or are you a 'man of peace'?

No, I don't entirely share Hitchens world view, as you well know. We've discussed this, and him, several times. I do agree with him on his analysis of the nihilism inherent in the Wahhabist Islamist creed, however. I just don't share his somewhat broad-brush approach to moderate Islam. To him, it appears to me, all Moslems are potential Islamists and that Islam is, by its very nature, incapable of peaceful co-existence with the non-Islamic world. I reject that idea.

My point in posting this article was to show that even amongst the most vociferous critics of modern Islam and Islamism, people such as Hitchens are pointing out that people such as Pipes are "dangerous and unreliable". Just as not all Moslems are a homogenous lump, nor are all their critics. There are the rational ones, such as Hitchens, Nic Cohen etc, and the irrational ones such as Pipes and the late, lamented Falacci.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

All of these posts about "Meds" are TROLLING and don't have a place here.
"Thanking" them, just as Ignorant.

The article quoted in the OP is trolling. It's full of emotional rhetoric and very short on facts. It's a bunch of drama.

Trolling OP gets trolling replies.

Go figure. :shrug:

 

[Simon W. Moon]

And yet the stupid trash here dare to mock her.

You're certainly doing your part to elevate the discussion away from the level of trolling.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

There is virtually no ideological or philosophical similarity between Islam and Fascism/Nazism.

There are some superficial similarities.
Not enough to render the term accurate or meaningful. It's less accurate than it it is mis-leading.

 

[Andalublue]

There are some superficial similarities.

I disagree. There are some superficial similarities between Nazism and Islamism but even there I'd suggest that to focus on the Goodwin aspect of the matter is to misunderstand reality and misdirect the efforts needed to be taken to combat violent Islamist activity.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I disagree. There are some superficial similarities between Nazism and Islamism but even there I'd suggest that to focus on the Goodwin aspect of the matter is to misunderstand reality and misdirect the efforts needed to be taken to combat violent Islamist activity.

Islamism is what I meant. Sloppy reading.
I agree that the term is more misleading than useful. But, I suspect the word wasn't coined to be helpful, accurate or informative.

 

[Djoop]

No, I don't entirely share Hitchens world view, as you well know. We've discussed this, and him, several times. I do agree with him on his analysis of the nihilism inherent in the Wahhabist Islamist creed, however. I just don't share his somewhat broad-brush approach to moderate Islam.

Very nice but that wasn't really my question. Do we have to combat islamic extremism?

To him, it appears to me, all Moslems are potential Islamists and that Islam is, by its very nature, incapable of peaceful co-existence with the non-Islamic world. I reject that idea.

Every person is a potentiaI islamist.. relativism always works. What is moderate Islam other then a term we invented to separate muslim extremists, and even then you could argue that one extremist differs from the other.

My point in posting this article was to show that even amongst the most vociferous critics of modern Islam and Islamism, people such as Hitchens are pointing out that people such as Pipes are "dangerous and unreliable". Just as not all Moslems are a homogenous lump, nor are all their critics. There are the rational ones, such as Hitchens, Nic Cohen etc, and the irrational ones such as Pipes and the late, lamented Falacci.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn't dream of wasting your time by suggesting that dangerous, unreliable people like George Galloway couldn't make a true statement. Pipes 'article' consists for 90% out of quotes, the only opinion it contains is about the quality of Fallaci's work.