Shahid Alam is the Northeastern University professor who compared the 9/11 hijackers to the Founding Fathers, and then falsely accused Jihad Watch, LGF and others of orchestrating "attacks -- many of them death threats" against him.
In a piece at FrontPage a while ago I explained why his remarks were objectionable. But the good professor took no notice, and now, in a new piece at CounterPunch explaining why he is refusing to go on Bill O'Reilly's show, "FoxNews Puts Me In Its Crosshairs," he still seems to believe, or to want his readers to believe, that no reasonable questions were raised about his remarks. And he repeats his smears of Jihad Watch and Little Green Footballs.
Like other Islamic apologists I have encountered, including some professed "moderates," Alam seems to prefer to characterize -- falsely -- any opposition to his views as personal attacks on him, rather than to address their substance in any way. His supporters are thus enflamed to respond to attacks on his "free speech," as he encourages them to do today at CounterPunch, but no notice is taken of the genuine questions raised by his writings. And certainly no attempt is made to engage in the "dialogue" so ballyhooed by his ilk.
All this is just a variant of the tactic used by American Muslim advocacy groups: smear as "Islamophobic" anyone who dares raise uncomfortable questions, thus attempting to rule the questions themselves out of the realm of acceptable discourse. If Shahid Alam succeeds in characterizing those who question his views as rabid hatemongers who are raving and threatening him, he will effectively silence them -- and certainly make the mainstream media afraid to question him.
It has worked many times before.
A reposting re Alam:
Shahid Alam has been churning out Jihadist defenses for some time. Physically, he appears to be the descendant of Brahmins -- one wonders what tortures were inflicted on them to make them "revert" to Islam. Mentally, he is quite a piece of work. He came to the United States in 1988, and managed to disguise, for a while, and only to the precise extent necessary, the full virulence of his views, in order to conduct his resistible rise through the ranks at Northeastern. He is the author of two Marxist accounts, of why "Imperialism" (European, not Arab -- the most successful of all imperialisms, that make a man from the subcontinent take on an Arab name, and worship the behavior, the Sunna, of 7th century Arabs) retarded economic development. He seems to be under the impression that when, for example, the subcontinent obtained its independence, all kinds of development took place that hadn't before -- exhibit number 1 would not be, one suspects, the current chaos and nightmare of Pakistan. Nor does he explain how the Arabs of the Gulf, who had no Europeans enter their domains save for the odd intrepid explorer, failed completely to develop economically or in any other way -- and now that they have received the largest transfer of wealth, and unearned wealth to boot, in human history, it becomes ever more implausible for M. Shahid Alam (website maintained by M. Junaid Alam) to blame "imperialism" and "colonialism" -- though colonialism, for the likes of M. Shahid Alam, doesn't die. It doesn't even fade away.
If his two overlapping and marxisant works of fifteen years ago (1999 and 2000) are hardly worth noting, what about the productivity of this "Department of Economics Chairman" since? Economists have no trouble producing dozens or hundreds of papers (cf. Alexander Gerschenkron). How is Alam doing? Once he had obtained tenure, it seems, things slowed down. In 1983, a 4-page paper; in 1984, a 5-page paper; in 1991 -- seven years later -- a 7-page paper (one page a year); in 1992, a 30-page paper; in 1994, a 22-page paper, and in 1995, a 16-page paper. Nothing related to economics in the last ten years has turned up -- but perhaps there is something).
But like Edward Said, whose interest in literature, like his interest in culture, was akin to that of Lunacharsky and Goebbels, Alam's interest in economics is as an extension of his hatred -- for that is what it is -- of the United States, the country in which, I have not the slightest doubt, he is secretly delighted to live in, and would hate to find out that he cannot, or that naive Infidels will not turn out to be quite so welcoming, given what they are learning, and what various acts reported in the daily press suggest, for the future of his children in this country he hates so very much, but insists on living in.
He might better combine the schoolgirl gush of his Calibanish riffs on Western literature (e.g. "About Saddam they were never wrong/The Oil Meisters..." and similar embarrassments), and his hatred of the West, by moving, lock stock and suburban barrel, back to Pakistan, possibly to assume a position in the government -- ghazals and all.
As for the little matter of how such a man managed to be awarded tenure, and what one is to make of the standards that apparently obtained -- at least at some time in the past -- for this non-productive and apparently now full-time Defender of the Faith -- well, that is a question for his embarrassed colleagues. They should not repeat the error, nor should faculty members in any other department, in any other university.
And what can be done about Alam himself? One hopes that the magic word "Tenure" is treated just as it was treated during World War II -- that is, ignored. For a good many people who had spouted pro-Nazi sympathies before the war promptly shut up (I can think of a teacher of German literature at Temple University, for example), or were shut up -- sometimes by losing their jobs. There is no absolute freedom of tenure. This is misunderstood.
While tenure itself deserves re-examination, not least because of the strange system by which people have to fret, and worry, and produce works that neither they nor anyone else actually have an interest in, and that this is now well known to one and all, and besides, it justifies all sorts of post-tenure idiocy that simply cannot be permitted, it deserves special examination because the enemies of the Western, Infidel world have found their securest purchases -- when not directly working for the Arabs -- in universities.
But until people understand what it is that people like Alam are defending -- that is, until they study the canonical texts of Islam, and read the testimony of ex-Muslims such as Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina, and understand the attitude in Islam that places such severe limits on artistic expression, scientific or indeed any free and skeptical inquiry, and supplies a belief-system that enshrines the mistreatment of non-Muslims once Muslim rule has been attained, in the system that we in the West now call dhimmitude (from "dhimmi" or, as in Alam's neck of the woods, "zimmi"), and much else in Islam that directly contradicts all that is best in Western civilization, without offering any compensating liberties (for a system that offers a Complete Guid to the Universe and Regulation of Practically Everything is bound to limit mental freedom and personal autonomy).
Northeastern administrators need to know that donors will no longer simply donate to it, or indeed to any university, that harbors people who, from what they regard as the safe perch of tenure, proceed to undermine the Infidel position, and to legitimize the Jihad. It may not, at this point, be possible to get their attention. They may huff and puff and insist that they will never interfere with a professor's "right to express himself." Oh, really? Then did they oppose the firings of tenured pro-German professors during World War II, or their being silenced? Why not? And if they found that understandable, what is the difference here? Is the difference one of not sufficiently understanding Islam? If that is the case, then some study of Islam is in order, so that the full outrage of what Alam preaches -- economics seems to have gone by the wayside, just like the biochemist who, upon getting tenure, spends his time taking photographs of wildflowers (we all know the stories).
What does one wish fellow faculty members, or university administrators, to do? There is the power of the purse. Why should the likes of Alam, publishing Muslim propaganda, be given raises? Why should his salary which comes out of the Economics Department budget, be transferred to others more interested in writing, and teaching, economics? Why should things be made easier for him, and not more difficult, in a thousand ways?
Perhaps the best way to handle this situation is for the Federal government to legislate a bit more in the area of federal funds. Here is the proposed legislation:
No federal funds may be given to an institution which knowingly retains on its faculty a person or persons who through his or her acts or deeds furthers the goals of those who would engage in the Jihad against the entire civilized world. Evidence of such acts or deeds would include financial or intellectual support for named terrorist groups or propaganda on their behalf."
Other clauses can be added; phrases re-worked. Legislative drafting can be done by those who know about such matters. But once in place, that kind of legislation will get the attention of faculty and administrators. Faculty members will not relish having to give up government support, and some, at least, will begin to see -- after the next big attack somewhere, or the next -- that the government is serious, and so are would-be donors, and it is time for the kissing to stop.
For there seems to be no other way to deal with the problem of those who have already, in a much more innocent, and indeed criminally negligent age, have passed out tenure not only to those who may be simply going through the scholarly motions until they have reached the paradise of permanent (and as they see it, wrongly, not-to-be-undone) employment, but those who, in far more sinister fashion, are helping those who would not for one minute permit our political, economic, social, and intellectual understandings and arrangements to continue -- for they are all contradicted by the Shari'a, all the product of Infidel misunderstanding of the proper, submissive role of Man.
Posted by: Hugh at December 30, 2004 05:52 PM
In the latest Counterpunch piece Alam says,
"What did I say in this essay? I made two points. First, that the 9-11 attacks were an Islamist insurgency: the attackers believe that they are fighting--as the Americans did, in the 1770s--for their freedom and dignity against a foreign occupation/control of their lands. Secondly, I argue that these attacks were the result of a massive political failure of Muslims to resist their tyrannies locally. It was a mistake to attack the US."
In the original article in Dissident Voice, I cannot find where prof. Alam ever says that 9/11 was a 'mistake'. On the contrary, 9/11 is depicted as a courageous, daring action by freedom fighting revolutionaries, who, by their courage, put a daring proposition to Muslims around the world to take action to shape their destiny. (And, of course, one might consider 9/11 a 'mistake' and yet justified; one might think that the US deserved 9/11, but that 9/11 is not the best means to achieve the legitimate goals of the 'Islamic revolution'. If Alam does hold that 9/11 is a 'mistake' [and he never says this as far as I can tell] this is the only plausible interpretation of what that means from the Dissident Voice piece.)
He does talk about 9/11 as 'horrors'. But this does not assert that 9/11 is not justified. That is the nature of warfare, after all, to inflict 'horrors' on the enemy, as the Alam's article acknowledges. The crucial question is whether or not one considers 'the war' justified, whether or not it is justified to inflict such horrors. From everything Alam says one can only conclude that he does consider Osama Bin Laden's war, the 'Islamic revolution' against America and Israel, as justified. Hence, the questions again: according to Alam what was so wrong with 9/11? And what would be wrong with another?
Is it hate speech to ask a professor whether or not he believes that the indiscriminate killing of American citizens is justified, when he has written things that imply just that?
This is almost comical. He feels threatened. I believe that the professor belongs to a belief system that calls for the death or subjugation of two thirds of the world's population and HE feels threatened? Of course we know that the old game of being the victim is part of the islamic tactic of using our own laws against us. I wonder if he can produce these "death threats"? I for one have not observed death threats here or at LGF in the posts. I see a lot of people who will not allow the destruction of our way of life, I guess that can be taken as hate by twisted minds. And come to think about it, I do hate those who want to beat me for not wearing a Hefty Bag. I do not want to see my granchildren under the heel of the most evil of religions that has ever been dredged up from the pit of hell.
Folks:
It's time to write a few more letters. I wrote one last time. Let's show Professor *spit* Alam that freedom of speech is a two way street!
And if Kennedy had been able to put his 'hate crimes' legislation thru...
http://www.slickdeals.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-35017.html
http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2004/aug5.html
"Nothing related to economics in the last ten years has turned up -- but perhaps there is something." The initial comment was based on an Internet search, not on an economics database. Such a database, Econlit, has now been consulted, and since 1974 under the name "Shahid Alam" 33 items have turned up. 31 years, 33 items: about one per year, as indicated. How many of these are books, or substantial contributions to economics, and how many are something else, will require more investigation. A 3-page book review, or a 50-page paper that analyzes some serious issue in economics. Is the paper, or book, produced something that, say, the editor of a Marxist biweekly in Islington or SoHo could not have produced? Is it the kind of thing that passes for analysis of "colonialism" and "imperialism" among the dimmer wits in that long-in-the-tooth brotherhood of Bandung, or is it something that a sober man, in a serious department of Economics, with all the time in the world might produce? No one is asking Alam to be a Gerschenkron, much less be productive in the Solow or Samuelson manner. Indeed, still less would one have him, or anyone else, mimic the hyperactivity and empire-building of the Irwin-Coreyish (Irwin Corey was a comic who billed himself as "world's greatest authority") Jeffery Sachs. But really.
Whenever someone in academic life is called to account for their absurdities (you know: the Holocast-denier, or who insists that slavery was a Good Thing), there is a reflexive tendency to cry "McCarthyism" and to gather the wagons. This is an error. "All is permitted" is what someone says in the Brothers Karamazov, and no doubt there are some who believe that to be true. But it isn't. Not in speech, not in act, and not even if one has that appetizing thing, tenure. It is not an all-purpose invisible protective shield. And given that the war of self-defense against the Jihad (a permanent feature of Islam), it is necessary for Infidels to inform themselves about the nature of Islam, and about those who, even in Marxist disguise, are essentially Defenders of the Faith.
One could start by googling "Ibn Warraq" and "Islam" and "Fascism" and finding out more about the remarkable similarities. Then cast a cold professional eye on the "economics" output of one M. Shahid Alam. And then take a look at what else he has produced in his decades of comfortable tenure. And ask yourself if he is just the man to introduce students to the study of developmental or "Third World" economics, or if he will deprive them of the possibility of understanding what many of them will need to understand.
The link to Counterpunch conveniently has e-mail links and addresses to the president of Northeastern as well as department heads. Take this opportunity to let your feelings be known to NE about Alam (be civil!).
Just sent an e-mail off to my local library requesting that they purchase several books, as recommended by Spencer. The books on islam my library has now are mostly white-washes. Takes only a few minutes, do this too!
I understand that the law allows individuals to use physical means to fight back against "fighting words".
I think I'm sure that this means that if a salamander like this muslim calls you a name or is hostile toward you because of your race or heritage (ie calling you a kaffur, or infidel, or islamophobe), you may knock his teeth into his colon and not get into trouble.
You know how muslims like this one behave, all arrogant and holier that thou. The "fighting words" legislature allows one to defend themselves against hateful verbal attacks if they're based on ethnicity.
O.T.
Foxnews.com story
German Rural Towns Draw Islamists
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146126,00.html
Yea But Look at this??
Like I said China??
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146129,00.html
Russia, China to Talk Security
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
MOSCOW — Russia and China will hold regular security consultations, President Vladimir Putin (search) and a visiting Chinese official announced Wednesday, moving to further strengthen close military cooperation between the two Cold War-era adversaries.
China's State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan (search) told Putin that Beijing does not have such a consultation mechanism with any other country. He called Russia China's "main partner for strategic cooperation."
"This is the first time ever that China is establishing a mechanism of national security consultations with another country," said Tang, who said he had discussed details of the initiative with Russian Security Council secretary Igor Ivanov (search) earlier in the day.
"We decided to establish such a mechanism with Russia because we have close positions regarding the international situation, key international and regional issues, as well as issues related to maintaining peace and helping global development," Tang said. "We have common strategic interests related to those issues."
Putin hailed an increasingly close cooperation between the former Communist rivals, saying that "relations in the political, economic and security sphere and in the field of military cooperation have been developing intensively."
Putin said that Moscow is looking forward to a visit by President Hu Jintao (search) set for May and a joint Russian-Chinese military exercise set for later this year.
The maneuvers, set to begin in August, were seen by many observers as Russia's response to the cooling of relations with the United States and other Western nations, most recently over the presidential election in Ukraine.
Gen. Vladimir Mikhailov, Russia's air force chief, said last month that Tu-22M and Tu-95 bombers will take part in the exercises, hoping to encourage China's interest in buying them.
China's air force has some older Soviet-designed bombers, but they have far lower capability than the Tu-22Ms and Tu-95s, which are capable of hitting distant targets with long-haul conventional or nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
After decades of rivalry, Moscow and Beijing have developed what they call a strategic partnership since the 1991 Soviet collapse, pledging their adherence to a "multipolar world," a term that refers to their opposition to a perceived U.S. domination in global affairs.
China has purchased billions of dollars worth of fighters, missiles, submarines and destroyers, becoming the No. 1 customer for struggling Russian defense industries
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146128,00.html
Official: Ukraine Sold Iran, China Cruise Missiles
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
KIEV, Ukraine — A senior lawmaker alleges that Ukraine sold nuclear-capable cruise missiles to Iran and China in violation of international nonproliferation treaties and is demanding the new government launch a full investigation.
The allegations were made in a letter — made available to The Associated Press on Tuesday — by lawmaker Hrihory Omelchenko (search) and addressed to President Viktor Yushchenko (search), a reformist who took office last week.
Yushchenko, who takes over from Leonid Kuchma (search), has promised a thorough investigation of corruption and misdeeds that allegedly flourished during his predecessor's 10 years as president.
Kuchma allegedly sanctioned the sale of sophisticated radar systems to Iraq in 2002, contravening U.N. sanctions.
In the letter, Omelchenko said an investigation launched last summer "proved that some 20 air-launched Kh-55 (search) and Kh-55M (search) cruise missiles with nuclear capability were exported to third countries" in contravention of international treaties.
"Six missiles destined for Russia ended up in Iran ... six missiles destined for Russia ended up in China" the letter said. It said the exports occurred during 1999 to 2001.
Omelchenko is an ally of Yulia Tymoshenko (search), who has been nominated as Ukraine's next prime minister.
Vyacheslav Astapov, a spokesman for Ukraine's Prosecutor-General, said the office began an investigation into the alleged sales last summer and "this year we received new information."
Astapov also said a top-ranking Iranian diplomat in Ukraine met with Prosecutor-General Svyatoslav Piskun, but he did not elaborate.
Iranian diplomats in Kiev were not available for comment.
Omelchenko also claimed that businessmen from several enterprises — including state-run weapons exporter Ukrspetseksport (search) and its daughter companies — companies in the United States, Cyprus and Iran and individuals from the Ukrainian security service shared hefty profits from several illicit defense deals that included sales of radar equipment to Eritrea.
Officials from the Ukrspetseksport and the Ukrainian Security Service were unavailable for comment.
American diplomats in Kiev were "aware of the reports" on illicit missile sales and took them "very seriously," a U.S. embassy spokesman said.
"Nonproliferation remains a key pillar in the global war on terror in which Ukraine is a close partner," the spokesman said on condition of anonymity.
The Kh-55, known in the West as the AS-15, has a range of 3,000 kilometers (1,860 miles) and is designed to carry a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead. It is designed for use on Russian-made Tupolev long-range bombers.
Iran's air force does not operate such planes, but some military analysts have suggested that its Soviet-built Su-24 strike aircraft could be adapted to use the Kh-55.
China operates about 120 H-6 medium-range bombers.
In the early 1990s, Ukraine renounced the nuclear armaments it inherited in the breakup of the Soviet Union and said it shipped all of its nuclear warheads to Russia for decommissioning under U.S. control.
The country remains a sizable producer of weapons, including missiles, aircraft and tanks. Exports are largely to other former Soviet republics, Asia and Africa.
Last year Ukrainian police arrested four men from Greece, Pakistan and Iraq on suspicion of attempted illegal weapons trade worth more than $800 million for an unspecified force fighting in Iraq.
Last March, former Defense Minister Yevhen Marchuk (search) warned that several hundred Soviet-built SA-2 surface-to-air missiles are unaccounted for.
Defense officials later claimed that these missiles from arsenals in former Warsaw Pact member countries had been brought to Ukraine for decommissioning and were lost due to "accounting problems" and "the absence of records."
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO VICTORY[FREEDOM] TO DEFEAT ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN
I want to believe that our movement is gaining momentum.
I want to believe that many more among us can see the evil that Islam is.
Yet when I talk with Australians it is mindboggling how ignorant they are with regards to Jihad, Al Jazeera (some of them don't even know what Allahu Akhbar means) let alone kitman and Taqkkya (See, even I don't know how to spell it correctly.)
Australians are more interested in ballgames then what actually affects their lives or the future of their country. The US is no different,- but sites like JW and DW are encouraging.
We need to get more organized, we have to get the message out there, for the average Jo to understand what this is all about. Less scientific, less academics & sophistication but instead slogans, catchphrases and a clear policy on how to move: Expose them for what they are, ridicule them for what they do and for what they are trying to achieve,
Daniel Pipes will be one of the guests on Bill O`Reilly`s Factor tonight.
adela
Thanks for the heads up. I will be tuned in.
Posted by: Terminator at February 2, 2005 06:46 PM
Most people are simple and don't need to know all the workings of a car to know how to drive??
This is sad but true!
One thing I find that helps is just telling the Evil deeds they do and throw in a funny once an awhile like did you hear about that in England they can't show swimsuits com. any more because of the Mulsums??
And did you hear about the Family in N.J where the Mulsums killed even the 8 yr old??
The storys about Van Gogh because he made a film that up-set mulsums then the details of his killing always gets them thinking Mulsums Hmmm? Evil deeds??
then move on to the weather or gardening??
Most people don't want to know how the Engine works just that when they turn the key it will start?
On dimmi watch there are many storys to tell without getting into the quran and why they do what they do if they ask just say it is in their book??
Those who want to know will ask where to go to learn if nothing else for their saftey and their Famliys??
as f.g. would say hope this is understood and not to confuss-en
Short Skirts worth Fighting For!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage to stay the course to Victory to Destroy ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Amen
Terminator, when I read your comments re: Australians I thought you must have meant Canadians! I feel your pain. In my teacher's lounge one not dare say anything that may be construed as negativism towards the RoP. Anything that bashes Bush is fair game, in fact encouraged. It is just not worth it to say anything to the contrary.
As much as I try, I'm at a loss to explain in any meaningful way what is going on. No one would have a problem with Sahid Alam's anti American ravings, much less his clearly antisemitic comments towards anyone Jewish. If I mention that we don't fight "terrorists", but "Jihadists" I get blank stares. All we can hope for is that courageous folk like Spenser continue to get the truth out, even at their peril. Eventually people will awake to what is taking place in their own backyard, and hopefully before it's too late.
The trouble with the West is that we're having to fight fifty years of "progressive" teaching in our schools and multi-cultural liberal bias in our mass media. Here in Britain we have been "taught" to feel guilty about our colonial past (in the same way that white Americans are made to feel guilty about slavery). It doesn't matter that today's generation are nothing to do with the British Empire we are still made to feel that we are "oppressers". Anyone who has brown or black skin must , according to this propaganda, be descended from "victims" of our Empire. Therefore, according to our media, only white people can be racist. This sense of guilt (which in many liberals has turned to a sad self-hatred where they loathe anything Western including their own race, culture and religion) means that anything from the "third world" must be somehow "good" because it isn't British or Western. This twisted thinking also gives a free pass to any cultural or religious beliefs that are seen as belonging to "oppressed" black or brown people. Thus, Islam which is perceived as being a third world "religion" is treated by the media, our cultural elite and our education system with kid gloves. It cannot be ridiculed the way Christianity is because that would be seen as "attacking" black and brown-skinned people (who are , according to the liberals always "victims"). This pathological cultural sickness by which we are forced to bow down with guilt over something none of us had anything to do with and accept beliefs that are dangerous and wrong merely because the majority of people who follow them are not white is, I believe, why the majority refuse to see the evil of islam. Unless we shake off this imposed feeling of guilt then the West will continue to turn a blind eye to the excesses of islam. If any of the crimes committed by muslims (Theo Van Gogh's murder, the slaughter of the Copts in New Jersey) had been done by white Christians then those crimes would have been front page news for months.
This conditionng is very deep - the liberals in our education system have done a "great" job in turning us against our own history, culture and religion - BUT the cracks in the conditioning are starting to show. each passing day brings new awareness to non-muslims across the world. Sites like JW are essential in spreading the word. We just have to all keep plugging away - at friends, relatives, workmates. This is a war we're going to win...
Alam has targeted Jihadwatch for one reason only---it is successful in informing the American public of the impending threat Islamic jihad or holy war poses to their continued existence. 9-11 was NO one-off. It was a carefully orchestrated act of war designed by mosque leaders around the globe to slaughter the maximum number of US civilians.
Islam offers no apologies to the human beings it murders and it never will. What Islamic leaders like Alam are going to do is play smoke and mirrors games to cover up Islam's dark nature--that is keep its intended victims in the dark by silencing its 'critics' (observers?)and use the public's subsequent blindness to strategic advantage. But, it is the nature of Islam itself that will lead to the ultimate failure of this professor's efforts and the efforts of those in his company. Islam's true nature as conspiracy to commit murder and genocide will surface in global and US affairs, and in our consciences, sooner or later.
There is a way to defeat this guy and Islam's propagandists. Beat him at his own game. Continue to expose the current conditioning of Islamic congregations towards hatred and killing. Who's 'phobic' now? Continue to use the historical record of Islam's unparalleled brutality towards the remainder of humanity. Cite the fate of Hindustan and Asia Minor at the hands of Islamic conquerors. Islam cannot hide from its own past, and while it can try to hide its true ideology, it will succeed at that with at best mixed results. 'Slay the infidels' is murder no matter how you slice it.
Islam has no real evidence to confirm its beliefs--yet continues to launch murderous pogroms against non-muslims everywhere it can do so-- despite the fact it is operating with weak empirical credentials. Non-muslims therefore reserve the right to resist Islam's attempts to massacre them and/or convert or subjugate them--successfully and using whatever means necessary to accomplish this. But first they have to know that there is an enemy out there seeking to obliterate them.
Finding the 'slay the infidels' mentality of islam an atrocity of unrivalled historical proportions is not prejudicial, it is a legitimate and eminently sensible response. Islam has earned bad karma in this case. It is really a matter of presenting this to the public in order to defeat Alam and his ilk.
I have a song that I recorded between X-mas and New-Years. I would like to post it on JW so that you can all listen to it. It's called 'The winds of Jihad' by ' Sheik Yer'mami'- I'll try to post it here but I'm not sure if it works. If it doesn't, please let me know what I can do to make it work, like Frankie's "Strangers on my flight"- that was a good one. Love it!
Sorry, I don't know how to do it. I tried to drag it into the box like an e-mail attachment but it won't let me do it. I mailed it to Robert Spencer perhaps he can open it and post it for me. Otherwise let me know how it can be done.
Thanks!
Although I agree with the Australians here who say that our fellow Aussies are ignorant about Islam, I also know many people who are waking up to the danger.
Most Australians I have spoken to would like to see Muslim immigration stopped - although they may be ignorant of such terms as 'taqyka' (I cant spell it either) and 'jihad', they know that Muslims have brought nothing but trouble to Australia.
We are now seeing things we have never seen before - like 'honour killings' and blood feuds. The average Australian knows who is responsible for the increased drug and arms traffic. Many Australians, especially those living in areas with a large Muslim population, have had very negative dealings with Muslims - they have been harrassed by Muslim thugs and seen Muslim intolerance closeup - and ask the average Aussie his/her opinion on Habib and Hicks.
The media also needs to do its part, and to stop whitewashing Muslim barbarity and going along with the lies spouted by local Muslim 'leaders'.
Although they may not know the terminology, I dont think the average Aussie is fooled by Muslim propaganda. Australians are hedonists in many ways, but they have tremendous commonsense (they elected John Howard even though the media and the local celebs instructed them to vote ALP). Their commonsense tells them exactly who the enemy is.
Like Terminator I was speaking to some friends on the weekend and we got onto Islam.I couldn't believe how uninformed my friends are about Islam and the anti-American sentiment they showed.My friends know where I stand on Muslims so I told them a couple of truths about the death cult,then came the"I have friends that are Muslims and they are really nice" so I asked my friends to ask the Muslims what comes first being an Australian or being a Muslim?I was then informed that I was a racist and what happened to my daughter 4 1\2 years ago(she was gang raped by 14 of the pigs)has affected me too much.They asked where I got my info about Islam from so I told them the Net then I was told that I must be going to anti Islam sites and to search for positive sites for Islam.Then I gave up and called them Dhimmis,end of conversation then I was asked to leave.
People just don't want to know the truth about Islam but at least I tried and now I consider them acquaintances not friends.
The biggest problem I find is the America hating.Something goes wrong blame the Yanks and good on John Howard for sticking up for America at that economic summit last week, Fuck Europe! Fuck Islam.
Agree Diana. People don't have to have an indepth knowledge of Islam, or understand the vocabulary. They go by the actions of the Muslim community. They're their own worst enemies, they produce their own bad PR - by their actions.
9/11 was bad enough, but I think the thing that really woke up many Australians was Bali. When Australians heard the words of those Bali bombers, saw their sneering smiles and happiness at the deaths of their fellow Australians - that was the worst bit of PR Islam could put out. Not only that they did it, for their Allah, but were happy about it. Who could forget the faces of the survivors who attended the trial, the look of total rage at the sneers of those brainwashed jackals, and the look of unbearable grief on the faces of the ones who could only sit there and weep. Great PR, Islam!
Oh, but we're "attacking" you for speaking of these things. Poor diddums, Alam. No defense, so you cry the typical Muslim cry: "Boo hoo, the nasty infidels are being mean to me, make them stop! boo hoo!"
For those who are interested, the Blog is up and can be accessed at www.co-jet.org
Notice Germany now has 5 MILLION UNEMPLOYED!Last time it was that high was in 1930's and we all know what happened then...Your average Teuton resents paying welfare to Muslims and next step will be to get rid of their unwelcome
guests. THE LESSONS OF HISTORY HAVEN'T BEEN LEARNED BUT WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THEY ARE REPEATED. WITH A SHRINKING CAKE,MULTI ETHNIC
IDEALS GO DOWN THE PLUGHOLE.
Morgane..
Who do you think are these 5 milion unemployed?
Probably 2/3 of these "Germans" are persons with a German passport, who barely speak our language because they spit on it...
I support Bush's Middle East policy. However, I have one concern about the entire premise on which this policy stands and would welcome comment:
As this article shows (and the one before it appearing in Christianity Today), Muslim extremism is alive and well--not only in the Middle East, but in Europe and the US.
The idea of spreading democracy in the Middle East is to combat extremism, among other things. If extremism is alive and well in Europe and the US, how can we expect to democratization of the Middle East to combat extremism?
gregoryscott:
Extremism is alive and well but it belongs to a small minority of people on the planet, though at times they appear somewhat dominate and that is because the focus is on them as well it should be. Their hateful ideology and terrorist acts get our attention everyday in the media and on websites like Jihad Watch. It reminds us of how much more attention and energy has to be given to the troubled child in the family rather than the child who is decent and respects the rights of others. But the parents,family, and friends have to keep trying in the hopes that they will succeed in salvaging these unfortunately misguided souls; which at times seems like a never ending work in process.
There is no necessary connection between "spreading democracy in the MIddle East" and constraining Islam (and not a "tiny minority of extremists") itself. It is a sentimental idea.
The misallocation of resources in Iraq -- of men, materiel, money ($300 billion by the end of the year), the morale of soldiers (only a few of whom share Bush's belief that the Iraqis will 1) pitch in and do what they should have done all along and 2) will be more than momentary grateful to Infidels, but will, having pocked huge sums and public works from Americans, who for some reason believe that despite having obtained debt relief -- not from the Arab countries mind you, but only the Infidel ones, another example of disguised jizya -- the Iraqi government must be given another $18.2 billion for "reconstruction." Why? Can't Iraq borrow against future earnings? Why should American taxpayers pay for this, especially when anyone connected with the disbursement of funds in Iraq knows how much is being handed out to buy evanesecent goodwill? What kind of goodwill does bribery buy?
"Democracy" is not a plant that can be easily grown in all soils. And besides, our aim should be to weaken Islam everywhere. If it can be shown that "democracy" does that, fine. But the historical record shows quite otherwise. The only quasi-successful attempts to constrain Islam (for the texts cannot be changed) have come from a few enlightened despots -- Bourguiba of Tunisia, Mohammad V of Morocco (whose grandson is unlike him), Shah Reza Pahlevi (whose vanity and corruption and insufficient ruthlessness and cunning caused his overthrow), and Ataturk (a Turkish nationalist who constrained Islam in order to keep Turkey from complete collapse, and whose legacy is being dismantled, day by day; Islam is forever, and without eternal vigilance, keeps coming back, like Rasputin.
The Iraq venture -- which was completely justified in its first stage -- now will cost so much, and lead to so many problems of morale, and will, for the Americans, all end in tears, and in fury, and in an unwillingness to carry on against the much larger problem of nuclear weaponry (Iran, possibly Egypt), continued payment of jizya (there should be no transfers of wealth from Infidel to Muslim countries except for the absolutely unavoidable -- the buying of oil, and that should be diminished as much as possible), and the demographic problem which may cause the islamization of Europe.
The last is far more important than Iraq: keeping major weaponry out of the hands of any Muslim people or polity, and keeping Muslim migrants out of the West, and making the Lands of the Infidels Muslim--hostile rather than falling all over ourselves trying vainly to "integrate" a population that with a handful of exceptions cannot be integrated.
But before that happens, more people in the West need to stop talking about Islmam as a "religion" and see it as a mental system that, if fully embraced, is a kind of Ur-fascism (coming in virulent and dormant strains), with a Total Explanation and Regulation of the Universe, opposed to art, music, science, and human freedom. There are those who like that Total Regulation; the fascist impulse is strong. But many still do not, and they have a duty to defend whatever civilizational legacy they may comprehend. The better they have educated themselves, the more aware they will be of what they have to lose.
Making much of, or even solemnly endowing with enormous significance the spontaneous embrace of one obviously pro-American, highly unusual, and most unrepresentative Iraqi (the woman who was invited as an honored guest at Bush's speech last night) of the mother of a marine who had died in Iraq, is typical of the sentimentalism that is killing us.
All that Family-of-Man, everyone is "basically good" and "wants the same thing," etc. It's nonsense.
I am afraid you are right, Hugh.
One Hopes President Bush is just being hopeful/covering all the bases. In the long run, he could look back and say he tried- but islam wasn't listening.
Better than being a defeatist, pessimist leftist.
The unaccounted for 9 Billion dollars disgusts me no end! I think the congress should throw the request back at the President and tell him until he accounts for the money already sent to Iraq!. I know so many cronically ill people denied the goverment assistance they desperately need because of 'lack of funds' or insane restictions imposed by the government.
That 9 Billion dollars could make the difference between existing in a living hell or being cared for millions of people here in the states.
I am opposed to sending my tax money overseas to people who don't appreciate it and lack the wherewithall to do for themselves. My tax money lines the pockets of criminals overseas! Screw helping some other countries citizens! The ungodly amount of money being pored into war effort should be going into Homeland Security and aid for the AMERICANS WHO EARNED THE MONEY TO BEGIN WITH. Social Security going bankrupt your say? It makes me veins bulging in the neck, frothing at the mouth angry!
f.g.
That should have read:
That 9 Billion dollars could make the difference between existing in a living hell or being cared for, for millions of people here in the states.
Hey Catherine!, I would like to see you in a short skirt.
Posted by: Ummagumma at February 3, 2005 12:33 AM
I bet you would would that be in high heels or bare feet??
Posted by: D.T. at February 2, 2005 11:17 PM
Pick you friends and know your foes a good thing to refer to is the links the storys in papers that all these storys come from?? They are some from the BBC hardly a consertive rag??
Wasn't their roits during the Iraqi Elections there show how the other mulsums who live in your freedom don't want others to have it??
Yes this is a hard war but remember we have been here before for most here just pushing it back again is not good enough I agree stay on the Offence!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her Amen
PS
February 3, 2005
http://www.beecy.net/frank/
For those of you who have just come to this form and have read f.g. words and comments about me saying I Support our military this is right but, when he talks about me calling them whooshes it is when the reporter got a guards member to stand up and ask Sec. Rumsfeld about armored HumVs that I defend Rumsfeld he [f.g.] did not like and [in the end] it Proved Me to be correct in that Fight! I think our Military are Brave and do a Very hard Job and need all the Support they can get this is why I end every Post in a Prayer for them and Others in this Fight!!
For me typing comes hard because I use 2 fingers so every word is thought and felt! Spelling has always been a fault of mine so when I type in the comments line I don’t have spell ck My mine works faster then my fingers. Typing comes Hard but Shooting is another thing [only need one finger]!! And I love music but play no instrument either!
I make no sorry’s I don’t need to I just want those of you to Know what f.g. was talking about??
And he Knows why Mr. Spencer lets me post here because I stand with this Fight against the Enemy and see who it is very clearly!! Not hard to tell I am not a writer or real fancy except when I go to a Black Tie event?? I am just an American Who loves her Country and see the Danger on our doorsteps??
And The names Is the lest of what the Enemy has to say they want to enslave us or kill us so I stand Strong With those who Fight and Hope to bring others in on our side?
I pull no Punches I see things in Black and White I believe the Gray area will get you killed? If you are hunting dangerous animals the twilight is when you have to be on your best guard??
I see what our Forefathers have fought and died for and the sacrifices that they made to give us what we have and I am willing to do the same. I believe that Freedom is not Free and will always have to be fought for in order to keep it! I am not prefect nor do I pretend to be and I do not know a person who is do you?? I see many lib’s who think they are but, when proven wrong they tend to do the same thing the Islamic Terrorist do just start calling names [bulling]? And do what they do best instead of coming up with a solution they start nitpicking on those trying to fix the flat we down here call that back set driving?? I will not go into what I am doing or giving for my country but will ask what are you willing to do for you Country?? I saw many Brave Iraqi People go out in the Face of Danger to have what is Called Freedom and the Left cried about the ink on their Finger not being all done right? I wonder how many Americans or other Westerns who Have Freedom would do the same or sit and whine it’s not safe? No I see things in Black and White!! I see the enemy and have no problem in calling a spade a spade do you??
I believe we all have our talents and those who have writing this is a great thing and help in the fight but to disregard those who don’t is not a good thing is the writer a machinist who can work on the engine of the car if it is broken or will he have been so smug to have bashed the only person who could have fixed the car so now he has to walk? And is in the desert with no water but has bashed the sheep herder who knows where the well is so in his arrogance he snubbed the man who could have quenched his thirst in his journey? So now with no car and in the heat with no water comes the coyotes and of course in his smugness laughed at the hunter when the animals came for him in their hunger who was there to save him but his smugness and that didn’t work so he was eaten??
After learning of the focus on Professor Alam by FOX News, and reading the statement by Bill O'Reilly regarding the Professor's work, I stumbled upon the jihadwatch.org website.
Saying that I am appalled at the strangulation of academic freedom, the smearing of those who do not hold to specific ideologies, as well as the outright twisting of those individual's works that dare seek out socio-political truths that deviate from "accepted" patterns of that search.
While I am unsure if this post will be "approved" by the site and posted along with other comments I wish to convey my disappointment and outrage at this attack on Professor Alam and to inform those that frequent this site, as well as the site owner, that those individuals who hold to the notion of academic freedom, in research, writing, and thought, will not submit to attempts to defame those who have the courage to speak the truth in the face of mass propaganda and fear.
I thank you for this website as it enabled me to obtain information on other individuals, like Professor Alam, who are critically focusing on these issues in order that I may lend my support to them. I hope that those who read of the statements made regarding Professor Alam actually reads his work and does not simply rely on others to interpret the works for them and draw conclusions based on others views.
Catherine,
I don’t know why you feel it necessary to post your response to me, well not even to me exactly, in several places rather than in the thread where this started. But here is my response again.
it is when the reporter got a guards member to stand up and ask Sec. Rumsfeld about armored HumVs that I defend Rumsfeld he [f.g.] did not like and [in the end] it Proved Me to be correct in that Fight!
So you still think that justifies calling our military such things and comparing them to the US military of WWII and finding them lacking? How can you defend what Rumsfeld said in response to that question? How can you defend it in light the real reason they weren’t getting the armor?
I don’t care how you try to twist things around Catherine your two-faced comments about the military stand on its own. Had you said, “I misspoke, I shouldn’t have called them those names.” it would be a different story. Your justification for it is wanting.
Hell, I know professional writers that ‘hunt and peck’ and it doesn’t seem to have held them back that much. However, I never have understood why they wouldn’t just take the few hours it takes to learn to type. The time and frustration saved on their part would more than payback the time invested.
they start nitpicking Suggesting that someone clean up their garbled communications in this day and age of free spell-checkers, grammar checkers, and whatnot shouldn’t be seen as suggesting an unreasonable or Herculean task. If you want to be understood rather than dismissed it seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Your stupid and thoughtless comments about the military piss me off for a very personal reason. You see, I know better. I fully support the military and anything they ask for to do the job. When a man dies because some idiot didn't order enough amour it is a criminal act. The military isn’t and never has been the problem. It is disconnected civilian leaders like Rumsfeld who should have stepped down a long time ago. He is also instrumental in putting us in this screwed up endgame because he nixed the military troop estimates needed before the war started. He is the architect of this fiasco for Pete's sake.
And you did twist that student story, drawing a clearly incorrect conclusion to suit your purposes. The hard truth is that those students were just plain ignorant about their hard fought for rights. My family, along with millions of others, including yours I'm sure, has shed its blood for those rights. I know their value, and it gets my dander up when ignoramuses start in with the “maybe free speech is too free” crap. Screw that.
I wonder how many Americans or other Westerns who Have Freedom would do the same or sit and whine it’s not safe? There you go again with the disparaging statements about your countrymen. I imagine Catherine that those of us vote now would vote then and many more who do not now. Americans rise to the challenge Catherine. That’s why we’re still here.
Your little story is cute. I get the picture. You’re the person who knows what she’s doing and I’m the ignorant smug person cutting off my nose to spite my face. That is a little more than conceited on your part. I’ve suggested that you try to improve your communication because I thought you might have something to say if you could just get it out. I figure you actually do want to communicate effectively, am I wrong? Hell, as of now, I really couldn’t care less what you do in that regard Catherine. By all mean, continue with pigeon English or whatever it is.
I don’t need you telling me who the enemies are Catherine, it’s pretty apparent who they are. I don’t consider you the enemy and never have so get off the he’s picking on me bullshit. You certainly don’t spare anyone your opinion of what they write on this board.
You get a gold star for effort if not for content.
f.g.
Andrea22072:
It is Shahid Alam who has defamed me, not the other way around.
He has suggested I orchestrated death threats against him. I expect he knows that this is false.
I challenge you to produce one statement I have made about Shahid Alam or his "academic work" that is false.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Mr. Spencer,
Thank you for your reply to my recent post; I sincerely appreciate the opportunity you have provided for dialogue.
I appreciate your statement regarding the suggestion of your orchestrating death threats as I have no evidence to the contrary and hope the views you express would be defended in the course of discussion and not simply in actions that would be considered reactionary. Likewise, I would hope that you appreciate the fact that there are many individuals that choose a reactionary method of response to his work regardless of where they arise (again, not stating that you have initiated these methods).
I never accused you of "falsifying" Mr. Alam's work; my statements indicate a misrepresentation of his ideas. After reading many of the Professor's works (only after becoming aware of the controversy) I was struck by the lack of focus on the thesis of his work by those that argue against it. In Mr. Alam’s article, “America and Islam” he raises fundamental and important questions to those Muslim extremists that I have yet seen raised by those who adamantly argue against his work. Your statement regarding those who use personal attacks against those whose ideology does not match their own is well founded; I would be eager to hear responses based on Mr. Alam’s actual premises and thesis instead of a few selectively chosen passages that have not been taken within the context of his argument. I have not, as of yet, found any argument against the Professor’s work that critically discusses the propositions contained within his work as opposed to the mere repeating of selected passages that could be viewed as inflammatory.
It appears (from your response to Alam’s article) that you rely on a “moral compass” to direct your research and writings. I am interested in this statement and would ask how you define “moral compass”. Your response misses the fundamental argument raised in Alam’s work – that the ideologies of the dispersion of “freedom” promulgated by the US and the ideology of Muslim extremists are more similar than different in their purpose to free their people of tyranny. I am in no way defending Sharia law just as I am not defending the US ideology based on specific premises. I am simply attempting to go outside both to examine the impact of Western actions on current situations and how Western actions, in large part, negatively impact the very situations that are trying to be remedied (by negative impact I mean by actually serving to exacerbate terror and further alienate those extremists who then pose a greater threat to Western ideals).
Aside from the specific controversy of Mr. Alam I am increasingly concerned at the attempts to silence those who are critical of current Western policies, especially within settings of academia. I do understand that it is very easy to sink to personal attacks, derogatory statements that do not address the issues raised, and threats of physical harm and it is this reason that misrepresentations are important. I am not proposing that you have been the source of these reactionary responses only that a selective focus on small portions of the works, while choosing not to discuss the premise and thesis contained in those works, serves to undermine discussion and discourse on the issues proposed.
Again, I appreciate your reply and your willingness to engage on these issues. I look forward to your thoughts.
Dear Andrea22072,
I think it is much more likely that those who would "choose a reactionary method of response" are those who oppose my work, not Shahid Alam's. Shahid Alam knows this to be true; that is, for example, why I do not publish my address or whereabouts, while his are readily available even now, after he has received these putative threats.
I respectfully disagree with your contention that I missed "the fundamental argument raised in Alam’s work – that the ideologies of the dispersion of 'freedom' promulgated by the US and the ideology of Muslim extremists are more similar than different in their purpose to free their people of tyranny." I confronted that argument head-on in one of the pieces about Alam that I wrote -- and you clearly have read it, since it is also the one in which I refer to a moral compass. But here it is, for your convenience: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16537
In any case, as for a moral compass, I believe in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The 9/11 hijackers, insofar as they believed in Sharia, did not. (For a precise elucidation of the differences between Sharia and the Declaration, cf. the Sufi Sheikh Tabandeh's critique of the Universal Declaration). Whatever you wish to say about how the West is, in your view, exacerbating terror, the Sharia is still the Sharia. To say that its adherents are trying to free people from tyranny is true from their own perspective; it is objectively false, however, insofar as the Sharia itself is tyrannical, and destructive. (Please pardon the reference if you do not believe in objective truth.)
As for trying to "silence" the professor, this charge is beyond ridiculous. Shahid Alams fill American universities and reign virtually unchallenged as they fill American youth with their ideas. If anyone has been silenced, it is the noble (yes) Orientalists of the past -- Jeffrey, Margoliouth, Muir, Schacht, Wansbrough, and others -- who did real academic work on Islam and Middle Eastern issues, in sharp contrast to the dreary politicized Saidist lockstep that reigns supreme today and of which Shahid Alam is but one of many, many representatives.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Shahid Alam (Professor of what?) is abusing the privileges of his host nation to insult, to deride, to falsely accuse and to poison the minds of gullible souls. There is nothing, absolutely nothing that can justify 9/11 or Bali or Beslan, and nothing it is that he, or any other of his ilk could offer to make his host nation a better place.
Could you imagine Robert Spencer holding speeches in a Muslim nation that would inflame "Islamic sensitivities" the way this Shahid is ranting about the founding fathers, 9/11 and the terror that his 'religion' stands for? Spencer would not live long enough to even open his mouth!
Anyone with the idea that Islam could be 'discussed' or 'debated' is already seen as 'blasphemy' and as we all know, the 'prophet' must not be doubted...
Hatemongers like Alam have no place in academia or anywhere else. They should be rounded up and exported with 24 hours notice. No exeption. The sooner the better. But what will it take to get there?