As I noted here, the lengthy hit piece on me that the Council on American Islamic Relations recently linked to is frankly absurd, and virtually every assertion it makes about who I am, what I am doing, and what I am trying to accomplish is false -- although it is so far out that it is good for a few laughs. It would be unworthy of serious comment had not CAIR picked it up, leading some otherwise sane commentators to take at least some of its claims at face value.
So now Glen Reinsford of the excellent site TheReligionofPeace.com has very kindly taken it upon himself to write a detailed reply, "Spinning Spencer: An Analysis of the CAIR-Endorsed 'Exposé' of Robert Spencer." Reinsford demonstrates, just in case anyone has any doubt, how much of a transparent farrago this "exposé" is, and thus also how desperate and frightened CAIR has shown itself to be by posting it.
Thanks, Glen.
CAIR? doing and expose'? on Spencer???????
LMAO
That's as schizophrenic as Der Volkischer Beobachter doing an "expose'" on judaism! LOL
What's next? Karl Marx doing an "expose'" on how capitalism doesn't stand a chance??? LMAO
Like I said before, Robert...if those oxymoronic asshats had anything on you as they love to TRY and allued to, like they've been hopelessly TRYing to suggest in the eyes of the public (who don't even listen to the anymore) they'd have done it already...not commit to this clear and unmistakably desperate act of futility on their part.
CAIR's screwed, by their own hand, by their own hypocrisy, and by their own lies, fraud and deceit...we know it, they know it, they know we know it...and most importantly of all, the American public en mass knows it, too...and that's all that counts here.
Hey douggie!
Lan Astaslem!
;-)
...I have read the "reply" and I encourage all to click on the link and "read it all"...good stuff...
I wonder if the felonious Jim Sutter, to whom Glen Reinsford replies, is the same person as "David Mathews," who left about a dozen comments following the review by Derbyshire of Spencer's new book? The comments by "David Mathews" after the review seem to match Sutter's pattern: Mathews claims to be a Christian defending Muslims, and calls everyone who doesn't agree with him a genocidal bigot.
Traeh,
I was thinking the exact same thing. I am all but certain the "rev" Jim Sutter posts at FPM under the moniker "Lothianburn" as well. I call him out on that regularly.
Good reply. Shame myself that this idiot comes from Ohio. I promise you guys, most ohioans are decent and intelligent people. I assume Sutter is a transplant from say, Kerry's hometown...
awake,
Lothianburn, huh? Interesting.
"Mathews" was also posting tons of the same kind of raving comments at my site.
It would be nice if I could verify that Mathews is Sutter...I left a comment on the Anti-Sutter site linking to Da ve Mathews comments under the Derbyshire piece. Maybe the guy who does the anti-Sutter website will know if Mathews is the man.
I not too sure what CAIR's point is ?
Most of the factual articles are in fact..... FACT , but the way CAIR wraps them around their twisted perceptions for hate is like a Candy-coated mothball .
CAIR presents a candy offering as part of appeasing the taste buds to win you over as a buddy that falls for the scam where the poison is actually inside the candy and will kill you from within very slowly .
CAIR would be better off hiring people who can spell and know how to use the upper-case letters
for proper names and titles.
The Legal letter from the Lawyers to the YAF which protested Mr.Spencer's appearence was a classic example since a few proper names weren't given a capital letter , even if you hate the Government it is still a Title for a body and is afforded the spelling with a "G" and not the "g" that CAIR uses.
I not knit-picking the errors , just pointing out that there must be Lawyers in the USA that can spell and support the Whahabbi Islam aspoused by CAIR and their thugs .
good analysis ala-sux:
If I may supplement your take...put more simply...
(forgetting the fact that CAIR's point is that they don't HAVE one)...
The term sought is "factOIDs"...small factual parcels, normally intended to be assembled in their proper context, to form a factual conclusion.
Problem with CAIR is (just as ala-sux says) they twist those factoids to their liking, in classic fashion like political hyperpartisans do...
The simplest example is this...
1) cats eat meat (indisputable factoid)
2) dogs eat meat (another indisputable factoid)
Conclusion: all dogs are cats (implying indisputable fact)
WRONG!
That's the basic idea of their M.O....with which they've used with total recklessness, and with predictable results...the general public sees right through this moronathon of theirs and rejects it out of hand.
As for capital letters, you'll notice I don't capitalize many proper names and places...
iraq
iran
saudi
sadr
alqaeda, et. al.
that is not a typo-it's intentional-I personally deny them that for good reason...they're not proper, let alone Proper status, and don't deserve the respect normal people, places and things would be entitled to.
I give respect where respect is EARNED, like that EARNED by Robert, Hugh, and Marisol for example.
nuf sed.
Robert,
"Farrago"? Careful, your Hugh is showing.
I truly enjoyed the response but after getting through three pages of Sutter's ninth-grade research paper, I had to bow out. Sorry you had to read the whole thing.
I'm assuming this hasn't bitten much into your interview schedule for your latest book. Congratulations on that.
My husband, a bookseller, will gladly promote it. He puts your "Truth About Mohammed" over on the tiny little Islam shelf in the Religion section and faces it out. Looks nice next to the Qu'rans (almost all the shelf are Qu'rans). He gets a kick out of it.