Once Again Mr. Spencer, you bring an open eyed fearless look at the War against Islamofascism, its soldiers, and the guiding principles by which our enemy lives, breathes, and dies.
Thanks for the link. Excellent interview. I'm glad John Gibson kept plugging your book. Should help in keeping it on the bestseller list for a longer time.
Another small but important step towards the day when goodwilled people all over the world feel comfortable saying out loud, "I am indeed wary of Islam, not because I am a bigot, not because I wish any group ill, but because for 1,400 unbroken years this ideology has waged war against its neighbor and sought only a peace of their complete subjugation."
It means a lot that Spencer is taken, rightly so, as a mainstream authority.
That was a great appearance. Purely from a TV standpoint, I'd imagine you'll get more invitations. I'm not sure how Fox politics works, but your analysis was a breath of fresh air.
The site has apparently updated, or your FOX interview is on another page on the site- right now when I click the link, it gives a bio of you, and the CNN/Zawahiri video clip.
Robert, in that segment on Fox you mentioned Zawahiri's plans to establish his version of Sharia in Iraq, yet you and others on Jihadwatch advocate a withdrawl from Iraq immediately. But how can it be in the Wests interests to leave when there is a chance that Dr. Zawahiri and his ilk take power, similar like they did in Afghanistan?
Hugh and others here always mention that a withdrawl will precipitate a civil war, which would be in the Wests interest. But what about the possibility of Zawahiri and his sunni allies taking power? Must'nt that be prevented at all costs?
A second an related question: Even though Islam is a menace to the West, dont Zawahiri type Muslims pose a much greater threat to the West than, say, the millions who voted in the previous electons in Iraq? (as u seem to have implied on Fox). And if Zawawhiri is more dangerous, as seems to be the case, then how would a withdrawl before the security forces are prepared to fight be in the wests interests?
I think the way to put it is that, given a choice between
1) wasting more of our money, materiel and human lives in the pursuit of that impossibility called "Muslim democracy"
and
2) leaving Iraq to its natural internecine instability,
the latter will at this juncture be more beneficial for non-Muslims. If we left, it is doubtful that al Qaeda could suddenly take over without any opposition from other factions of Infidel-hating Muslims: the place is obviously a nexus of Shiite-vs.-Sunni violence, and that will continue if we leave (maybe even get worse: all-out civil war).
Note: this is only the case because we are not permitted to wage a politically INcorrect war (which would be to conquer Iraq definitively (air power, shutting down all mosques, curfews, Muslim profiling, commandeering all domiciles and Muslim women's sensibilities be damned, etc.) and straighten it out MacArthur style before releasing it to a local, relatively enlightened Western-friendly despot to rule for us).
"Hugh and others here always mention that a withdrawal will parcipitate a civli war, which would be in the West's interest. But what about the possibility of Zawarhari and his allies taking power? Mustn't that be prevented at all costs?" from a positng above.
A sectarian civil war will gain us at the very most, a temporary benefit. As various factions fight one another, they will be distracted from hostilities directed at us, so the reasoning goes.
As Dimmiwatch in Canada points out, this strategy actually happened in Afganistan. There were years of civil war between various Mohammedan forces with the eventual victor as we all know, being the Taliban.
This policy is the equivalent to sponsoring a pitt bull fight. The dog that wins and remains standing is guaranteed to be the most violent, vicious and dangerous. And so it would be if we leave the fate of Iraq to be determined by a jihad tournament.
No, we must step back and recognize that there is another more important civil war already taking place. It is not between Sunni and Shia, or Kurd. It is between those who wish to be ruled by Sharia law and those who do not. We must support this civil war as we can, for its outcome will effect us and the entire ME greatly. For those who favor Sharia law are more ruthless, fanatical and determined than their more rational, peacful counterparts. We must negate this advantage.
"we must step back and recognize that there is another more important civil war already taking place. It is not between Sunni and Shia, or Kurd. It is between those who wish to be ruled by Sharia law and those who do not."
--- from a posting above
This is nonsense. The new Iraqi government, the one which the Americans made possible, and which they are protecting by fighting the two kinds of Sunni insurgents -- the local Ba'athists and other Sunnis who do not want to lose power to the Shi'a, despised or merely disliked, and the outside, Zarqawi-supporting Sunnis from everywhere, who see the Shi'a as Infidels, as Rafidite dogs.
It is true that the outside Sunnis are the most fanatically Muslim, and oppose the Shi'a on religio-political grounds, viewing them as Infidels, and we all know what is supposed to happen, in the Muslim world-view, to Infidels.
But the other much larger group, the local Sunnis, in fact are more, not less secular, than the major Shi'a groupings. When the 10-15% of the population (at most) that could be called, in the terms used above, "secular" in a limited sense -- that is opposed to the the Shari'a either directly imposed, or used as the model and final authority, consists mostly of those Sunnis whom the Americans are now suppressing. Allawi may be Shi'a, but his distaste and worry over Islam and the re-imposition of its requirements (as has already occurred all over the Shi'a-ruled south) have made him the ally, and preferred candidate of, the local Sunnis who think, possibly, that they can still hold onto political power through some kind of appeal to the most secular, and "nationalist" (i.e. willing to support an "Iraqi" nation) Shi'a and even Kurds.
The notion that we are supporting the "secularists" in Iraq against the others is flatly wrong. The Shi'a now ruling things thanks to American-imposed head-counting, the Shi'a not in the Allawi line but of SCIRI and DAWA and the Ansar al-Mahdi of the trogolodytic Moqtada al-Sadr, with his appeal to lower-depths resentments by the poorest and most primitive Shi'a, are the least secular people among all the Iraqis. The only ones more fanatically Muslim are the Zarqawites, that is the Sunnis largely arriving from outside Iraq.
Perseverance combined with talent works. Now Robert Spencer is reaching millions instead of just thousands. His message needs to be told. However, there is an aspect to the problem that is under-emphasized here, which is that many Muslims are decent enough people who do not really understand Islam. A recent trip to India made this clear to me. It greatly complicates the situation.
"The notion that we are supporting the "secularists" in Iraq against the others is flatly wrong."
There is ovbiously a difference between the Sharia system that Zawahiri and Zarqawi types are fighting for, and the more limited type Sharia that the Shia and the Kurds negotiated and eventually enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution.
The point of the poster above is not that America is protecting secularists vs others who want Sharia, but rather that some Muslims in Iraq--ie Zawahiri and Zarqawi--are more dangerous to the West than other Muslims there. From this it logically follows that the more dangerous types must be prevented from taking power. If a precipitous withdrawl may have the unintended consequence of the more dangerous type Muslims taking power after the civil war ends, then it follows that a premature withdrawl will, in the long run, create more problems than it solves.
Wonderful, Robert, I think this is was an excellent interview. I love the way you stressed that Zawahri sees himself as upholding traditional Muslim methods in the long and well documented method of Jihad .
He is not an aberration, or a radical manifestation or perverter of traditional Islam but the embodiment of everything is Islam and It's pursuit of terror.
He is not perverting a religion of peace but the practical consequences of Islamic teachings.
I am glad that someone as coherent as yourself had the chance to tell the truth and I'm glad that you book had a great plug.
You seemed intelligent and reasonable and your explanations had a scholarly touch, Thank you Mr Spencer, keep up the good work.
I can only imagine how frustrating it is to speak so quickly and not given a chance to give concrete information. The format on FOX is terrible. A few words do not make for a debate or even much information being exchanged. Nonetheless, given the severe limitations of the program, you did an astounding job. FOX news, like all American news I have seen is horribly moronic and terribly superficial newsertainment.
Although I prefer Euro style round table discussions, like the ones on the BBC (or elsewhere in Europe)- discussions which sadly never take place in the US - FOX deserves kudos for at least bringing Mr. Spencer on and allowing him to give a little information and plug his book, which hopefully, will lead a few watchers to read the information contained therein.
Amusingly, the “good” BBC discussions I watched overseas for months certainly have the format I prefer, but the BBC is so worried about not offending Muslims, that the debate is terribly stifled. I have watched hours and hours of (BBC) debates over the course of many months on such topics as wearing the Higab, the 'wrongful' nature of the war in Iraq and the dislike of the US/Blair administrations due to “war crimes” committed by coalition soldiers. All seem to have been edited (twice) by Muslims.
Memo to John Gibson:
Having guests on your show who are more articulate than you, could be detrimental to your news-anchor position.
Memo to Robert Spencer:
Who would have known that the premier authority on exposing the dark side of Islam through the print media was not just another pretty face behind a typewriter? Let’s hope we see/hear more of you in the live media…did J. Gibson pass your business card to O’Reilly?
Once Again Mr. Spencer, you bring an open eyed fearless look at the War against Islamofascism, its soldiers, and the guiding principles by which our enemy lives, breathes, and dies.
Excellent Interview, Here's to many many more.
Thanks for the link. Excellent interview. I'm glad John Gibson kept plugging your book. Should help in keeping it on the bestseller list for a longer time.
Great interview!
Another small but important step towards the day when goodwilled people all over the world feel comfortable saying out loud, "I am indeed wary of Islam, not because I am a bigot, not because I wish any group ill, but because for 1,400 unbroken years this ideology has waged war against its neighbor and sought only a peace of their complete subjugation."
It means a lot that Spencer is taken, rightly so, as a mainstream authority.
Score for the good guys!
That was a great appearance. Purely from a TV standpoint, I'd imagine you'll get more invitations. I'm not sure how Fox politics works, but your analysis was a breath of fresh air.
Thank you Alex Porter for providing the means, via this video link, for me to see and hear Mr Spencer for the first time.
I can´t see Fox News, I saw it, from Internet, CNN is disgusting, hajj aggg.
The site has apparently updated, or your FOX interview is on another page on the site- right now when I click the link, it gives a bio of you, and the CNN/Zawahiri video clip.
Gary,
It works for me. You have to go through about a minute or two of material on the Zawahiri tape before I come on.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Robert, in that segment on Fox you mentioned Zawahiri's plans to establish his version of Sharia in Iraq, yet you and others on Jihadwatch advocate a withdrawl from Iraq immediately. But how can it be in the Wests interests to leave when there is a chance that Dr. Zawahiri and his ilk take power, similar like they did in Afghanistan?
Hugh and others here always mention that a withdrawl will precipitate a civil war, which would be in the Wests interest. But what about the possibility of Zawahiri and his sunni allies taking power? Must'nt that be prevented at all costs?
A second an related question: Even though Islam is a menace to the West, dont Zawahiri type Muslims pose a much greater threat to the West than, say, the millions who voted in the previous electons in Iraq? (as u seem to have implied on Fox). And if Zawawhiri is more dangerous, as seems to be the case, then how would a withdrawl before the security forces are prepared to fight be in the wests interests?
Dhimmiwatch in Canada,
I think the way to put it is that, given a choice between
1) wasting more of our money, materiel and human lives in the pursuit of that impossibility called "Muslim democracy"
and
2) leaving Iraq to its natural internecine instability,
the latter will at this juncture be more beneficial for non-Muslims. If we left, it is doubtful that al Qaeda could suddenly take over without any opposition from other factions of Infidel-hating Muslims: the place is obviously a nexus of Shiite-vs.-Sunni violence, and that will continue if we leave (maybe even get worse: all-out civil war).
Note: this is only the case because we are not permitted to wage a politically INcorrect war (which would be to conquer Iraq definitively (air power, shutting down all mosques, curfews, Muslim profiling, commandeering all domiciles and Muslim women's sensibilities be damned, etc.) and straighten it out MacArthur style before releasing it to a local, relatively enlightened Western-friendly despot to rule for us).
Does anyone know where we can give a feedback to Fox News?
We need to see more of Spencer, Pipes, Ali Sina to alert the naive masses.
"Hugh and others here always mention that a withdrawal will parcipitate a civli war, which would be in the West's interest. But what about the possibility of Zawarhari and his allies taking power? Mustn't that be prevented at all costs?" from a positng above.
A sectarian civil war will gain us at the very most, a temporary benefit. As various factions fight one another, they will be distracted from hostilities directed at us, so the reasoning goes.
As Dimmiwatch in Canada points out, this strategy actually happened in Afganistan. There were years of civil war between various Mohammedan forces with the eventual victor as we all know, being the Taliban.
This policy is the equivalent to sponsoring a pitt bull fight. The dog that wins and remains standing is guaranteed to be the most violent, vicious and dangerous. And so it would be if we leave the fate of Iraq to be determined by a jihad tournament.
No, we must step back and recognize that there is another more important civil war already taking place. It is not between Sunni and Shia, or Kurd. It is between those who wish to be ruled by Sharia law and those who do not. We must support this civil war as we can, for its outcome will effect us and the entire ME greatly. For those who favor Sharia law are more ruthless, fanatical and determined than their more rational, peacful counterparts. We must negate this advantage.
"we must step back and recognize that there is another more important civil war already taking place. It is not between Sunni and Shia, or Kurd. It is between those who wish to be ruled by Sharia law and those who do not."
--- from a posting above
This is nonsense. The new Iraqi government, the one which the Americans made possible, and which they are protecting by fighting the two kinds of Sunni insurgents -- the local Ba'athists and other Sunnis who do not want to lose power to the Shi'a, despised or merely disliked, and the outside, Zarqawi-supporting Sunnis from everywhere, who see the Shi'a as Infidels, as Rafidite dogs.
It is true that the outside Sunnis are the most fanatically Muslim, and oppose the Shi'a on religio-political grounds, viewing them as Infidels, and we all know what is supposed to happen, in the Muslim world-view, to Infidels.
But the other much larger group, the local Sunnis, in fact are more, not less secular, than the major Shi'a groupings. When the 10-15% of the population (at most) that could be called, in the terms used above, "secular" in a limited sense -- that is opposed to the the Shari'a either directly imposed, or used as the model and final authority, consists mostly of those Sunnis whom the Americans are now suppressing. Allawi may be Shi'a, but his distaste and worry over Islam and the re-imposition of its requirements (as has already occurred all over the Shi'a-ruled south) have made him the ally, and preferred candidate of, the local Sunnis who think, possibly, that they can still hold onto political power through some kind of appeal to the most secular, and "nationalist" (i.e. willing to support an "Iraqi" nation) Shi'a and even Kurds.
The notion that we are supporting the "secularists" in Iraq against the others is flatly wrong. The Shi'a now ruling things thanks to American-imposed head-counting, the Shi'a not in the Allawi line but of SCIRI and DAWA and the Ansar al-Mahdi of the trogolodytic Moqtada al-Sadr, with his appeal to lower-depths resentments by the poorest and most primitive Shi'a, are the least secular people among all the Iraqis. The only ones more fanatically Muslim are the Zarqawites, that is the Sunnis largely arriving from outside Iraq.
Perseverance combined with talent works. Now Robert Spencer is reaching millions instead of just thousands. His message needs to be told. However, there is an aspect to the problem that is under-emphasized here, which is that many Muslims are decent enough people who do not really understand Islam. A recent trip to India made this clear to me. It greatly complicates the situation.
"The notion that we are supporting the "secularists" in Iraq against the others is flatly wrong."
There is ovbiously a difference between the Sharia system that Zawahiri and Zarqawi types are fighting for, and the more limited type Sharia that the Shia and the Kurds negotiated and eventually enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution.
The point of the poster above is not that America is protecting secularists vs others who want Sharia, but rather that some Muslims in Iraq--ie Zawahiri and Zarqawi--are more dangerous to the West than other Muslims there. From this it logically follows that the more dangerous types must be prevented from taking power. If a precipitous withdrawl may have the unintended consequence of the more dangerous type Muslims taking power after the civil war ends, then it follows that a premature withdrawl will, in the long run, create more problems than it solves.
and think of the great free advertising for your book!! mentioned twice .:):)
A Sunni opinion of Shi'a
More of the same from Allahu Akbar.net
Oh heck just google Ibn Saba
They believe that Shi'a was created by a Rabbi name of ibn Saba.
Wonderful, Robert, I think this is was an excellent interview. I love the way you stressed that Zawahri sees himself as upholding traditional Muslim methods in the long and well documented method of Jihad .
He is not an aberration, or a radical manifestation or perverter of traditional Islam but the embodiment of everything is Islam and It's pursuit of terror.
He is not perverting a religion of peace but the practical consequences of Islamic teachings.
I am glad that someone as coherent as yourself had the chance to tell the truth and I'm glad that you book had a great plug.
You seemed intelligent and reasonable and your explanations had a scholarly touch, Thank you Mr Spencer, keep up the good work.
I too must complement your performance.
I can only imagine how frustrating it is to speak so quickly and not given a chance to give concrete information. The format on FOX is terrible. A few words do not make for a debate or even much information being exchanged. Nonetheless, given the severe limitations of the program, you did an astounding job. FOX news, like all American news I have seen is horribly moronic and terribly superficial newsertainment.
Although I prefer Euro style round table discussions, like the ones on the BBC (or elsewhere in Europe)- discussions which sadly never take place in the US - FOX deserves kudos for at least bringing Mr. Spencer on and allowing him to give a little information and plug his book, which hopefully, will lead a few watchers to read the information contained therein.
Amusingly, the “good” BBC discussions I watched overseas for months certainly have the format I prefer, but the BBC is so worried about not offending Muslims, that the debate is terribly stifled. I have watched hours and hours of (BBC) debates over the course of many months on such topics as wearing the Higab, the 'wrongful' nature of the war in Iraq and the dislike of the US/Blair administrations due to “war crimes” committed by coalition soldiers. All seem to have been edited (twice) by Muslims.
Memo to John Gibson:
Having guests on your show who are more articulate than you, could be detrimental to your news-anchor position.
Memo to Robert Spencer:
Who would have known that the premier authority on exposing the dark side of Islam through the print media was not just another pretty face behind a typewriter? Let’s hope we see/hear more of you in the live media…did J. Gibson pass your business card to O’Reilly?