CAIR defames me, Jihad Watch yet again

So, sue them. Air the differences and smoke them - they have deep pockets.

Put them on the stove for a change. I would think there would be some high profile lawyers who would take this.

Sue them I agree. Fight fire with fire

OT Micheal Vick being sued for supporting al-Qaeda

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293268,00.html

Great questions, Robert. Just don't hold your breat waiting for a straight answers from these clowns. I expect they will just call you an Islamophobe for daring to ask these impertinent questions.

CAIR will never answer -- they have too much to hide.

CAIR will never answer -- they have too much to hide.

Cair need no worry about what Robert and the mysterious Hugh think , they need to worry about the rank and file Americans and Europeans who have had their fill of Islam and jihad.

Excellent response, Robert. I too have often watched incredulously as CAIR and their ilk react with a charge of "islamophobia" every time a non-muslim gives any kind of meaningful analysis of jihadism, islamic spremacism, and imperialism.

Yet commentators such as yourself are scrupulous about not tarring the entire Islamic community with this brush, leaving room for moderates, peaceful muslims and those with a tolerant, pluralistic view toward others.

By failing to recognize this difference CAIR makes it clear that it is THEY, not YOU, who have great difficulty distinguishing between tolerant, peaceful muslims and the jihadist, supremacist sort. Why is that? (A rhetorical question, though I'd love to hear "honest Ibe" field an answer to it.)

This failure by CAIR to distinguish between violent and peaceful, between tolerant and supremacist Islam and muslims is not alleviated by their ostensibly anti-terrorist "fatwa". Actions speak louder than words.

Look at the long list of foreign speakers, explicit supporters of terrorism, and so on in whom they have invested their resources to bring to North America and spread their poison. Look at the terrorists they have spared no expense in an attempt to extract from the justice system, and to portray as peaceful and harmless. Look at the roots of their own organization.

It is evident why they cannot allow a clear distinction between peaceful muslims wishing to contribute to our society and violent ones wishing to overthrow it: because there remains no question on which side of that divide they would find themselves.

Since Hugh Fitzgerald did not call for the expulsion of all European Muslims, but only of -- as you can see from the excerpt below -- "jihadists and Sharia supremacists," the question itself is manipulative and leading, rather like "When did you stop beating your wife?" Hugh hasn't done what they say he has, so I can hardly do something "similar." In any case, no, I don't support the expulsion of U.S. Muslims.

I accept your contention that neither of you want all Muslims to be expelled from the US.

However, for those who are guilty of what CAIR accuses you of, it begs the question: how does one distinguish Jihadists and Sharia supremacists from the rest of the Muslim population? Anyone? Even CAIR? Muslim American Society? And if there isn't a good filtering mechanism, why is it wrong then to actually be guilty of what CAIR has alleged - namely that one wants all US Muslims expelled?

Now, there are 4 types of Muslims in this country:

1. Muslim citizens genuinely not interested in subverting US e.g. Amir Taheri
   
2. Muslim non citizens genuinely not interested in subverting US
   
3. Muslim citizens interested in subverting US
   
4. Muslim non citizens interested in subverting us
   

However, even under your own criteria of what shouldn't be tolerated, how on earth would you deal with #3? You'd have to re-define Islam as a political ideology that can be classified as treason under certain circumstances (just as Communism was during the 50's). Only in that way can this be dealt with. Once such a recognition is universal, then #2 becomes something where just as a person's primary loyalty has to be to the US, similarly a person's loyalty to Islam can disqualify him/her from remaining in this country.

But given the above difficulties in distinguishing between the Jihadist and non-Jihadist categories, why not simply state that you are guilty as charged, given the impossibility of distinguishing peaceful Muslims from Jihadists (and that includes the potential of peaceful Muslims later becoming Jihadists or Shariah advocates).

CAIR will never answer -- they have too much to hide.

In a court room with perjury hanging over their heads - they will answer. Hooper is far from a martyr. The idea of being in prison defending his islamic virginity from any number of bubbas will have him squealing like a pig.

Fibrahim Hooper and CAIR practice "spiritual terror" and the "big lie" of attribting to their enemies (Robert, e.g.) the very tactics and methods they emoloy. (Nice "spiritual terror" move with the Der Strumer crap, FIbby. Hitler would approve.) Heil Hooper!

Hitler (from Mein Kampf) on the method to silence critics that he learned in Vienna: "I understood the infamous spiritual terror which this movement exerts, particularly on the bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor mentally equal to such attacks; at a given sign it unleashes a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous (Robert, e.g.), until the nerves of the attacked persons break down and, just to have peace again, they (the PC in media and govt) sacrifice the hated individual (Robert and others).
However, the fools obtain no peace.
The game begins again and is repeated over and over until fear of the mad dog results in suggestive (PC) paralysis.........Conversely, they praise every (PC) weakling on the opposing side (who appease them), sometimes cautiously, sometimes loudly, depending on the real or supposed quality of his intelligence".

4. The expulsion of large numbers of people for national security reasons, and large-scale population exchanges, have numerous historical precedents. The Benes Decree was just one of many post-World War II dislocations of peoples. Another was the massive population exchange of Hindus and Muslims that accompanied the creation of what are today known as Pakistan and Bangladesh. Does CAIR oppose the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh? Does CAIR oppose the later expulsion, in all cases for stated reasons of national security, of 400,000 Palestinians by Kuwait, more Palestinians by Libya, and one million Yemenis by Saudi Arabia? Does CAIR believe that the UN and international human rights bodies were wrong not to oppose or condemn most of these large-scale measures?

Posts like above, specifically those detailing historic context as quoted above, are the precise reason I come to JW/DW on a daily basis.

There are none better than Spencer and Fitzgerald(stated with an enormously satisfied grin).

Spencer & Fitzgerald . . .presents quite the dignified intellectual trademark - don't ya think?

I forgot that Amir Taheri is Paris based - scratch the example. However, my point remains.

I have not read all the comments; so, I hope I'm not repeating anyone.

The questions that Robert asked are the kinds of questions that represent the fact that CAIR will never, ever be a plaintiff in a lawsuit. For y'all in Hobbs, NM that means that they will never sue anyone.

Under the scruitiny of the discovery process, CAIR will be shown to be the fifth column that it is.

More and more people from around the world must be listening to, and learning from, Robert Spencer.

I think CAIR is afraid that Muslims and non-Muslims alike are starting to open their eyes to all types of jihad, creeping sharia, etc.

Godspeed, Mr. Spencer, and thank you.

To the "mysterious" Mr. Fitzgerald: May your pen never run dry.

OT, but not really.

NYPD warns of homegrown terror threat

NEW YORK - Average citizens who quietly band together and adopt radical ways pose a mounting threat to American security that could exceed that of established terrorist groups like al-Qaida, a new police analysis has concluded.

"The New York Police Department report released Wednesday describes a process in which young men — often legal immigrants from the Middle East who are frustrated with their lives in their adopted country — adopt a philosophy that puts them on a path to violence.

"The report was intended to explain how people become radicalized rather than to lay out specific strategies for thwarting terror plots. It calls for more intelligence gathering, and argues that local law enforcement agencies are in the best position to monitor potential terrorists."

NOW THE KICKER:

"Kareem Shora, legal adviser for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, called the findings faulty and potentially inflammatory.

"'Police 'paint such a broad brush,' Shora said. 'It plays right into the extremists' plans because it's going to end up angering the community.'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070815/ap_on_re_us/nypd_terror_threat

Ooops! Forgot to mention:

I'm pretty sure the above post means Armenians and Israelis when they mention "legal immigrants from the Middle East."

....i love this stuff...great feedback rs...

Who is Hugh? ....ha ha

He could be that guy sitting at the next table over from where you are seated..

He could be that guy walking behind you or beside you down the street.

He could be the guy whose taxi you take to your snake den.

Perhaps you sat next to him on a plane a train or a bus.

He could be the new face that visits your mosque and other mosques to see what you peaceniks are up to.

I am not so sure that the face of Hugh is all that important for you to know.What is important for you to know,MR. Hooper,is that we all know you and CAIR and all your other little evil snake dens,what you are up to and how you plan to do it.

You freedom phobes have no buisiness in the West.

Robert and Hugh and a host of others may not say that ALL muslims should be put on a plane with a one way ticket back to thier islamic paradise BUT I DO.

I have no use for Islam.It offers nothing but spilling of blood,raping women and molesting children mind body and spirit. Islam brought nothing but evil and inhumane.Islam has given NOTHING to the civilized world and it never will.

You can call me racist and islamophobic because i do not care.Why? Because you are witnessing one Man that couldn't give a rats ass about Political correctness nor that multicultural BS.

Like i said MR. Hooper i know who you are and what you are about and how you plan to go about it.

You are just a show for the moment that i choose to watch,a freak show MR Hooper.One that soon will be taken off the air because GOOD will always win over BAD,Mr. Hooper.

Now put your pacifier back into your mouth and stop crying,Mr. Hooper and act like a man.

Allah is not welcome here and any forceful attempt to do so is not advisable.

This is all food for thought.Mr Hooper.

"The test of any man is in his actions"

What I don't understand, and I would like someone to enlighten me is this: If islam is a force come to destroy us and is the majority of muslims adhere to islam, then why do we have to entertain them?

It is stupid for us to allow them to us use our system of social control in an effort to destroy it. I have no problem with the expulsion of muslims from the USA. Indeed, I support the notion.

History is on my side. In each and every single instance where islam is ascendant, non-muslims are destroyed without a second thought. If we refuse to allow them into out midst, we have made a big leap in saving our culture. Let them in, and we go the way of so many other cultures.

It is a delight to observe Robert turning CAIR's defamation back on itself. Definitely, if there is a legal case, sue them. And ask these questions, and many others, in discovery. That would be sweet.

Bravo, Robert!

It is a pity that Muslims decided to come to the West, and then tried to force the Islamic agenda on Westerners. The default position of the West is to critically examine any idea or thought that comes before it. This examination, particularly by Robert Spencer, has led to the revelation of what the Koran and Hadiths constitute, and the thoughts, actions, and the depravity of the founder of Islam.

Public interest in Islam as a consequence of 9/11, has led all this to become public knowledge, where previously it was the preserve of scholars. A case in point - the Crusades are now regarded, and correctly so, as a desperate defence of Christians and Christian lands, from repeated and eventually successful Muslim invasion.

None of what we see now would have happened if Muslims had not come to the West, or just lived like Hindus and others. Now the cat is out of the bag.

The perverted nature of Mohammed has been revealed. Inevitably, this has led to the caricature of Mohammed, and given his lamentable character, ridicule. And not just to Westerners, but also to tens of millions of Muslims, who otherwise would have continued to be good Muslims. But now they know. And no matter what they do, the seeds of doubt have been planted in Muslim minds, even in Muslim nations.

None of the contempt of Mohammed and ridicule heaped on him would have happened if Muslims had stayed in Muslim lands. Islam would still have had respect in the West, born of ignorance albeit, and Muslims in Muslim lands, would have been content in ignorance as well.

The problem for Muslims now is how to wipe out the contempt, caricature and ridicule that have been heaped on Mohammed. This is what this fatwa is about. There are only a couple of choices

1. Accept reality. In which case the caricature, ridicule etc, stand for posterity.

2. Fight back. The only way the caricature and ridicule etc can be expunged is for Muslims to conquer the Western world, and make it Islamic. Then and only then, will Mohammed's honour be avenged, and the shame erased.

Of course, the last means that Muslims will have to conquer the West with bloodshed. Unlikely. It is more likely that the reverse will happen. Islam will then be erased. If OTH they don't do anything, the canker of contempt etc, will sit there in the Islamic world, and eventually destroy Islam. This is the dilemma that Muslims have put themselves in.

Hard choice.

"I do not support expulsion of muslims who are U.S. citizens and in good standing." from posting above.

Chapter 3 of the 9/11 Commission reported the following:

[quote from report]:
Terrorist Entry and Embedding Tactics, 1993 to 2001

The Landmarks Plot, June 1993. Note: Because most of the conspirators in this plot
were married to American citizens they were able to obtain legal permanent residency
status or citizenship. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security declined to
provide us with copies of their immigration files, citing the Privacy Act.

Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali, the mastermind of the plot, married an American.
Mohammed Saleh, who provided fuel from his Yonkers gas station to make bombs,
obtained legal permanent residency by marrying an American. Ibrahim Ilgabrowny
passed messages between conspirators and obtained five fraudulent Nicaraguan passports
for his cousin, El Sayyid Nosair, and his family.28 Nosair, convicted of conspiracy,
married an American in 1982 and became a citizen in 1989. He was also convicted of a
gun charge in the killing of Rabbi Meir Kahane in 1990. Amir Abdelgani picked up fuel
and helped determine targets; he, too, was married to an American. His cousin, Fadil
Abdelgani, mixed explosives; he overstayed his 1987 tourist visa and obtained legal
residency by marrying an American. Others who had married Americans included Tarig
Elhassan, who also mixed explosives, and Fares Khallafall, who bought fertilizer for the
bombs.29 Biblal Alkaisi initially filed an application for temporary protected status, using
what turned out to be a fake Lebanese birth certificate. He then filed an application for
political asylum but failed to appear for the interview.30 Matarawy Mohammed Said
Saleh was supposed to get stolen cars for the plot; he married two American women in an
effort to gain legal permanent residency.

[end quote]

Also, there was a footnote which noted that none of the marriages appeared to be fraudulent.

Yes!

"Sharia Supremacists"

Keep using that term over and over again.

Obviously, CAIR won't answer to the kufar. CAIR, who doesn't represent almost anyone, should be called to deal with questions above, and should condemn in no uncertain terms Hamas and Hezbollah

In regard to the "spiritual terror" tactics of Hitler (noed above), William Shirer (page 23, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) said: "No more precise analysis of Nazi tactics, as Hitler was eventually to develop them, was ever written".

Hitler asserted it was important to claim the status of victim while accusing the truthful critic of the very tactics being used to silence them, the "barrage of lies and slander" being used against them. Hitler counted on the stupidity of "the masses" in the matter and the fanaticism of supporters. Hitler said, "...in the ranks of their supporters the victory achieved (the silence, the intimidation of critics) seems a triumph of justice of their own cause, the defeated adversary in most cases despairs of the success of any further resistance".

Hitler said that the point of "spiritual terror" was to isolate the critic, to get the "weaklings" to abandon him, to not listen to him. Hitler said it was important to praise "the weaklings" for their moderation and "intelligence" as they sacrificed the truthful critic.

This whole issue with Hugh is another manufactured diversion and attack to divert attention from any truth being spoken by critics. FIbrahim Hooper and CAIR are engaging in Hitler's "spiritual terror" tactics. Their method and its root have to be exposed.

Why don’t you ask them how many Jews still live in what are now muslim neighborhoods in the USA? Why not ask why the muslims were in bed with Hitler? Why not ask why they are still in bed with Hitlers ghost? Why we see muslims marching with signs reading Hitler was right or we will finish the job Hitler started etc, etc? If you are with Hitler in the first place any Hitler comparisons must be considered an attempt to make friends. Therefore, I think they secretly like you, maybe they find you attractive and Hugh, well the mysterious Hugh (tall dark and mysterious?) has their dirty little minds working overtime.

CAIR and all those who support Sharia law are bigots and must be treated as such. Who cares if they want to do it by peaceful means. The Islamic law code treats anyone who is not a Muslim like dirt (or worse) and puts women in a state sexual slavery. How dare they call those who point this out bigots. They are the bigots and sexist.

Sharia Supremacists! Fight Sharia Supremacism!

Free humanity from Islamic oppression!
Free humanity from Islamic slavery!

See the left is not the only one who can use these phrases!

These are well thought out methods being employed by Hooper and CAIR. The tactics are right from Mein Kampf. Hitler asserted that most people would not believe such tactics being used were in fact being used to silence/intimidate critics because they are not conditioned to such blatant lies in their own lives. He asserted that for that reason "the masses" (in his "Table Talk") were most likely to believe the most outrageous lies because they could never see themselves doing such a thing. The bigger the lie-slander, the more likely it is to be believed simply because of its outrageous nature. Now, it appears the "big lie" will involve Hugh as Robert's "alter ego".

Hitler never engaged any critical analysis of "the movement", it was a matter of the triumph of the will, it was about the will to power with him. In like manner, CAIR and Heil Hooper are not concerned about any truthfulness of Robert or Hugh's analysis, they must crush them. Hitler said the stupid "supporters" would see such a crushing as a triumph of "justice".

This is ugly stuff. It has nothing to do with the intellect, with precise fact-truth, but the "triumph of the will". This is a "spiritual terror" campaign being waged against Robert, Hugh, JW, and any critic of these CAIR fascists. And they are very adept at plying "victim" as they engage in "spiritual terror".

sue them ..........

I would love to give the name to MR. Hooper of the muslim who not too long ago gave his opinion that ALL muslims should be asked to leave.But for the life of me i cannot remember it.

The one muslim i would invite to stay and even start a group to do the job that CAIR has never intended to do.

The problem here with people like Robert (and Himself) is that they are looking for a Lincoln-Douglas debate. They keep looking for a Muslim Stephen Douglas. But their opponent is Hitler using the tactics of "spiritual terror" Hitler outlined. It's obvious that CAIR is using these tactics.

Anyone with two functioning braincells to rub together who reads Hugh's quoted article will understand exactly what he is saying (why not deport those who oppose a secular democracy and who do not renounce the violent calls in the Koran?), and will recognize the fatuous distortions of his meaning by these CAIR-less propagandists.

It behooves me to say they have shot themselves in the hoove.

Dar al-harb:
[quote:]
From MEMRI.ORG email July 10, 2007, "Arab Liberals on the "Terrorist Doctors" Plot in the U.K."

Khudayr Taher: Europe and America Should Deport All Muslims – Including Myself

Khudayr Taher, an Iraqi Shi'ite writer living in the U.S. and a regular contributor to the liberal Elaph website, had a quite illiberal suggestion – he asked why Europe and America shouldn't deport their Muslim populations. He wrote:

"Countries have the right to defend themselves and assure their citizens' safety from terrorism. Likewise, it is clear that the source of the terrorist crimes in Europe and America is the Muslims who live in these countries.

"The security services cannot know people's intentions and sort out who is the noble immigrant and who is a terrorist criminal. [But] wherever there are Muslims, their presence has produced crimes of terrorism and murder.

"Among those Muslims in Europe and America who do not practice terrorism, most of them do not have loyalty and sincere attachment to these countries that have offered them all of the means of life in dignity – housing, studies, work, and citizenship...

"The legitimate question is this: Since the security services cannot sort out the good immigrant from the bad terrorist... why don't these countries deport all Muslims, of all races, from Europe and America, and [thus] find rest from the danger of terrorism, and protect their peoples?

"I, as an Arab Muslim immigrant, sincerely call on the countries of Europe and America to deport all Muslims from their territories – including myself, despite my love and my sincere attachment to the U.S..."(4)
[end quote]

Good article! Good questions! But i's add a few more questions:

6) Does CAIR believe the Constitution should be replaced with Sharia law?

7) Does CAIR believe women have half the intellegence as men?

8) Does CAIR support the execution of Apostates?

9) Does CAIR believe suicide bombers are martyrs, who are rewarded with entry to paradise for their actions?

There are many questions CAIR should be answering.

J.S.-

God bless Khudayr Taher.

(And I don't mean Allah.)

An honorable man, for a RARE change.

(Diogenes can blow out his lamp.)

Hitler compared "the masses" to a woman. He said that they are ruled by emotion and that the truth-facts do not matter. What matters is the complete silencing/intimidation of all opposition. He (and Gobbles) actually thought "the masses" are stupid, but he said they would see the triumph, the crushing of the critic as "justice". He said the "spiritual terror" method (including the praise of "the weaklings") would work with "mathematical certainty".

We shall see about that. Remember that Hitler thought that Russian resistance at Stalingrad was only "local resistance". It was a lot more than that as the Russians proceeded to destroy the Nazi 6th Army (BTW, they were the same sneering Nazi forces that overran France and that we see marching through the Arc-De-Triumph). His judgement (because of his delusional lies) was not grounded in reality. In the final analysis, Hitler was the well deserved "victim" of his own lies.

Mr Spencer,

CAIR fears you and Hugh. They know you are very knowledgeable about Islam. No one can pull the wool over your eyes.

callmeinfidel-

You bet. I don't want to elaborate on my views of CAIR or Robert will delete my post and I'll get another reprimand from him-LOL.

CAIR needs to think logically on this. The supposition is that if you have an ideaology, which by divine right grants its members the right to kill, rape, torture, and dominate people from other creeds ... then there will be trouble. The idea of internment and deportation of cultists that believe God wants them to convert the world to Islam, and Shariaa law ... by genocide or any other tactic is a good one in my opinion. Would the folks at CAIR call me a terrorist against Islam for having my opinion about this? Or would they dispute the fact that within the tenents of Islam are the justifications for genocide in the name of the spread of Shariaa law and the Islamic faith.

The lying, libel, and defamatory remarks on the part of CAIR is actually a good thing. It reveals their desperateness and anxiety about being exposed. It is a common phenomena among criminal and "shady" groups. They start out, become exposed, get desperate and things start to happen. Somebody gets arrested, commits suicide, has a breakdown, people leave or any variety of manifestations that would indicate instability in a group supporting unstable ideas and practices. CAIR will go even further and I bet something shocking or unexpected will happen with them soon. At the very least, their lies will become even more wild.

That's rubbing their faces in the mud!!
Now all they need is the dogsh*t sued out of 'em!!

Hitler's tactics of "spiritual terror" are not just limited to CAIR. They are being used (mostly by the political left) to silence anyone who has a valid argument. The "barrage of lies and slander" Hitler recommends to intimidate critics are well used by many groups who position themselves as "victims". Hitler said it was import to be portrayed as the "victim" in the process. A lot more attention should be paid to Hitler and Gobbles in these matters. The individualistic political right in America is somewhat naieve re these methods.

Folks, these are well thought out tactics that come from Hitler and Goebbels. They need to be studied more and exposed. The process needs to be analysed.

Hugh is the "secret weapon" feared by CAIR and islamist appologists. Hugh is the faceless but very prolific writer who exposes the truth about islam and its deadly deads against humanity and animals alike.

Horst Wessel was a good example of the supposed "victim". Gobbles manufactured his supposed victim-hood, his martyrdom into a big lie event. Hooper is a small scale Gobbles with his lies/slander and search for "victims".

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:0V4Bv1KsdwkJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Wessel+horst+wessel&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

'Who is Hugh? ....ha ha

He could be that guy sitting at the next table over from where you are seated..

He could be that guy walking behind you or beside you down the street.

He could be the guy whose taxi you take to your snake den.

Perhaps you sat next to him on a plane a train or a bus.

He could be the new face that visits your mosque and other mosques to see what you peaceniks are up to."

. . . . . . . .
Very nice! Hugh is the Conceptual Original John Doe!

. . . . . . . .

A rhetorical question. Has CAIR ever given RS a straight up answer to any question?

My hunch is that Hugh is a teacher and doesn't need CAIR threatening his family. Look what they do to Robert. I don't blame him.....

http://www.thechiefsource.com/hello/804228/640/kitten-2005.04.12-08.22.00.jpg

This is bound to be expected...after all, when a terrorist supporter (by any other name) like hoopers oxymoronic CAIR claims others defame him & his unindicted co-conspirator cronies, while at the same time, their own partners-in-crime make clear and unmistakable claims to the contrary, like taking over the world, exterminating all jews, murdering everyone opposed to them...it's bound to happen he and his ilk would make more outrageous claims like they've done against those, especially against Robert Spencer, who have effectively exposed him, them and the entire islamofascist network for the murderous thugs they really are, their imminently murderous intent...and frantically scurrying to make claims in order to do one thing...damage control, which theirs has proven stunningly ineffective.

Classic goebbel-esque remarks on their part...they're lashing out in desperation, and they know it...and now, they know we know it, too.
;-)

It's a good idea to continue documenting further examples of CAIR's attempts at defaming/libel against Spencer.

Those anxious to 'sue' CAIR may want to be a little more patient.

The trial for the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) continues in the Earle Cabell Federal Building and Courthouse in Dallas, and valuable details continue to unfold, details which may prove quite useful to a future suit against the, as of now, unindicted co-conspirator, CAIR.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/08/cair_youngest_member_of_hamas.php

Patience.

“There will not be a miracle. Luck is always on the side of him who has earned it, and history in the end has always sided with those fighting for high ideals who are not willing to give up. Mr. Churchill is not such an idealist. He represents a rotten and corrupt world. He is a man of the 18th century who drapes himself with the symbols of the 19th century, hoping thereby to win the battles of the 20th century. This is a world of unlimited individual profiteering at the cost of other people and nations. It has been replaced in Europe by new ways of building nations. The future is theirs. A believing, sacrificing youth is gathered under its banners. This youth will win not only because it is well armed; it will win because it is young, because it represents a revolution, because it has mobilized powerful and dynamic forces that can no longer be resisted. The wheel of history can not be held back, not even by Mr. Churchill. In his more rational moments, he probably realizes that he is fighting for a lost cause, that his time is past, that he has no hope of catching up.” Joseph Goebbels ex Nazi moron.
Here ya go Frank, gobble Goebbels to your hearts content.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm

tgusa-

Good site to study the lies, even those accusing Churchill of the "big lie". Thanks.

The "officials" at the Council of American-Islamic Relations seem to believe that they are above the law in the United States. They, after all, are Muslim and bound only by the laws of al-lah (thinks they!).

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Jihad Watch sued these people for the prosecutable offenses of defamation and libel--and WON??? I wonder if the terrific folk at Jihad Watch realize that they could turn all this slander by CAIR into a liability for Islam in the USA and an advantage for Americans. I think they could.

CAIR is not impervious to the machinations of American law as long as they live and operate here. If these islamic folk refuse to abide by American law and infringe on our rights we have recourse against this conduct and it is time Robert Spencer and others made the US Muslim community aware of this.

Give CAIR some credit here. It is just their thoughtful contribution to pushing Roberts Book.

Keep the Pot boiling while denying the Kettle it is in, isn't Black.

That tired old song goes off key real quick.

Islam is an all-encompassing belief-system, quite different from those other monotheisms which, for obvious reasons while they are still a small group in the West, Muslims like to have "so very much" in common – that"three abrahamic faiths" pitch that once went over well, but nowadays appears to attract only the most muddle-headed or those who, while supposedly being Christian or Jewish clergymen, have brought their art of self-preening or cravenness to such a level that they become Defenders of the Faith – that Faith being Islam.

But Infidels can no longer be stopped. Once they begin to realize that the texts of Islam are not hermetic, and can be studied; that a knowledge of classical Arabic is not essential to learning about Islam, not least because80% of the world’s Muslims know not a bit of Arabic, classical or otherwise, and that even many Arabs have difficulty understanding classical Araabic and certainly the text of the Qur’an (see Christoph Luxenberg on the 20% of the Qur’an that is inexplicable, in his view, until one recognizes an Ur-text of Syriac – that is, the Aramaic of Edessa). So Infidels are now free to read the immutable texts of Islam -- Qur'an, hadith, and Sira – read, and re-read, and study with growing understanding, but not necessarily growing delight or pleasure. They can find out about the interpretative doctrine of “naskh” or “abrogation,” by which – as in the common law --- the texts deemed later cancel out, or abroage, the texts deemed to have been set down earlier, and those later texts, presumably from the “Medinan” period of Mohammad’s existence, are far harsher than the softer, “Meccan” verses from the period when Islam was still weak. Infidels can do so many things. They can find out, as apparently George Bush was incapable of finding out or being told, why 5.32 cannot conceivably be misunderstood without the context of the succeeding verse, 5.33. They can learn the real meaning, the meaning that Islam and Muslims assign to the seemingly benign Qur’anic observation that “there is no compulsion in religion.” They can find out what is Halal and what Haram in Islam, they can find out what Muslims are taught to think of sculpture, of paintings depicting living creatures, of music. They can find out what Muslims think of free and skeptical inquiry, and the possibility of someone born into Islam being permitted to choose for himself whether to remain a Muslim, or abandon that faith for another, or for no faith at all. They can find out They can find out the details of Muhammad’s life, and consider what is the likely effect of those details – the beheading of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the attack on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, the satisfaction taken when he heard of the assassinations of Abu Akaf and Asma bint Marwan, the “treaty-making model” of Al Hudaibiyyah, and of course the business with little Aisha – on Muslims who are taught to regard Muhammad, a warrior who took part in 78 military campaigns, 77 of them offensive, as the Model of Conduct, the Perfect Man -- uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil – for all Muslims, and for all time.

The Qur’anic text is available on-line, a click away, with several different translations set out synoptically.. The Hadith are too, and so is the Sira. More and more studies by the great Western students of Islam, from the period of genuinely free and uninhibited study, roughly 1860 to 1960, are being gathered int sourcebooks (such as Bostom’s “The Legacy of Jihad”) or republished (especially in accessibly cheap Indian editions). More and more people have uncovered what the Great of the Past had to say about Islam, writing as they did in a period when no punches had to be pulled, and one could speak or write one’s mind. What did that great religious reformer John Wesley write about Islam? And the most learned of nineteenth-century American statesmen, John Quiincy Adams? What did that wise student of men and events, Alexis De Tocqueville, write about Islam, based on his wide knowledge, including his observations in Algeria? What did Gladstone have to say about the Turks, and about their role in Europe, and about the Bulgarian Wars? What di Winston Churchill, with his knowledge of history, say about Muslims and Islam?

And above all, we know have the phenomenon of “defectors” from Islam, the apostates from Islam, who in the Western world are no longer fearful, and are willing to speak from their own lifetimes of experience of being born into Islam and then choosing to abandon it, some for Christianity (Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish), and some to be resolute freethinkers, such as Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, and so many more. Some have been Iranians, some Pakistanis, some Arabs, some from still other backgrounds. Muslim spokesmen would prefer that you pay as little attention to these keen observers as possible, and attempt on every occasion to shut them up or shout them down. But up or down, those Muslim spokesmen and enforcers have not succeeded, for when someone such as Ibn Warraq writes “Why I Am Not a Muslim” and Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes her own stirring testimony in “Infidel,” or when Ali Sina, with a growing army of fellow apostates, conducts his own lucid campaign from the heights of www.faithfreedom.org, and Muslims in this country cannot, as they would in a minute in a Muslim country, shut such efforts down – then we, the Infidels, are the beneficiaries of such valuable witnesses, such indispensable temoignage.

It seems a century ago that we were willing to engage in those phony “dialogues” which always end up being sinister apologies for Islam, with the non-Muslim clergymen willingly or unwillingly inveigled into participating into a farce of supposedly symmetrical fault-finding, a farce that relies heavily on Infidel ignorance of Islam, and willingness to assume that if some belief-system is called a “religion” then of course it must be a force for good, must be beyond criticism, and only that “handful of extremists”
-- but “extreme” about what? If Islam is in its essence so unthreatening, so peaceful, so tolerant, so good, then why should someone who is fanatically in favor of that something good be a threat to Infidels?

Those “interfaith candlelight ceremonies” that were all the rage just after 9/11/2001 ring hollow today, especially with the list of all those Muslim clerics who appeared, to utter all kinds of soothing words, and then were discovered in the past, or at the same time, or later on, to have been heard, even recorded, making quite different statements when they thought no non-Muslims were around. It has been quite a revelation, too, to discover the Islamic websites that counsel Muslims in how to talk to Infidels, telling exactly the things that should be said and the topics that should be carefully avoided, even explaining that one should “let the Sisters talk” if the subject is Islam and the Treatment of Women. And there are those Muslim websites that inform parents just how to wangle special treatment – prayer rooms and suchlike – from teachers and principals. It’s down to a science, all written out – and eventually someone is going to put all that advice for fellow Muslims together, and publish it, but as a warning to, and for the edification of, Infidels.

No Infidels need any longer accept the word of tireless apologists as to what those texts say, or what their "meaning" is, especially when we have all been treated to example after example of Tu-Quoque-and-Taqiyya, sometimes by omission, sometimes by deliberate misinterpretation for the limitlessly naive. Furthermore, we have the long historical record of Jihad-conquest, and the texts, written by Muslims themselves, on the subject of the necessity of Jihad, and the rules of Jihad -- see Bostom's sourcebook, "The Legacy of Jihad." We have 1350 years of such a record, and are entitled to study that record, from Spain in the west to what is present-day Indonesia in the east. We can study how non-Muslim populations slowly or quickly were reduced in size: what happened to the Copts of Egypt? What happened to the Jews and Armenians under Shah Abbas II in Iran? What happened to the Christians and Jews of the Arabian peninsula? What happened to the Christians of North Africa, where Tertullian and St. Augustine once lived? What happened to the Hindus of India under Muslim rule? Was it all wonderful, or is there reason to think that K. S. Lal and other Indian historians are right in their claim that between 60 and 70 million Hindus lost their lives? What was the historical record of Arab Muslims and slavery in Black Africa? Splendid? A tale of Muslim Wilberforces, long predating the English one? When was slavery formerly abolished in Arabia, and why? And is there any evidence of the continuance of slavery in Arab Muslim countries? And is there any evidence that Muslim scholars today have written about the continuing, indeed permanent, legitimacy of slavery, because it was recognized and accepted by Muhammad?

And these are not the only questions that need to be examined, studied, discussed. One wishes to know what happened to the Hindus of Pakistan and Bangladesh -- why did their numbers in the populations of those countries drop so precipitously, while the Muslim population of India has gone up, both relatively and absolutely? What has happened to Buddhists in southern Thailand, and why? What happened to the Christians of East Timor under Muslim rule? What has been happening to the Christians of the Moluccas? Or Iraq? Or Lower Egypt? Or in Lebanon over the past fifty years? What has happened to the French peres blancs and the Italian monks who tried to help the Muslims of Algeria, and for their pains were murdered? What is that history all about? What happened to the Armenians, and why was it that when Turks and Kurds killed those Armenians, they took pleasure in calling them "gavours" (Infidels), and were delighted if Armenian priests and their wives were among the victims, as recorded by eyewitnesses?

And here is yet another question that needs to be considered, to be discussed, to be pondered and not only in the corridors of power. What are the instruments of Jihad? Bush has focussed, quite monomaniacally, on "terror" as if he cannot bring himself to see the use of the Money Weapon, carefully-targetted campaigns of Da'wa, and of course a demographic conquest that has been openly discussed by Muslims, from Boumedienne at the U.N. in 1974, to mild-mannered Pakistani accountants in the letters pages of "Dawn" (see that for December 5, 2001 for example), to the Muslim websites where these developoments are openly discussed -- as they are by all kinds of Muslim posters at this (see "Naseem") and other websites.

Is it illegitimate for inhabitants of the Western or larger non-Muslim world to study these matters, and to raise these issues? Why? Is it illegitimate to discuss the proposition that one has a perfect right to defend the legal and political institutions that one's own society has received as a legacy, that others before one helped to create, over time, and that in every respect are flatly contradicted by what Islam inculcates? Is the individualism of the West, are our individual rights, those enshrined in the Bill of Rights, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to be simply swept away, or to be subject to incessant attack by the adherents of a collectivist faith who do not believe in free speech, or in freedom of conscience, including the freedom to leave one faith for another, or to have no faith at all? Are these illegitimate questions?

And is it illegitimate to point out how frequently in history states and peoples have felt it necessary to expel others in their midst, and that it is a bit hasty to denounce all such efforts (though many certainly should be denounced), especially when one considers the reasons, the historical context, of the Benes Decree, which was adduced not as a model to follow, but as a case to study and ponder.

We in the West have an obligation to defend a civilizational legacy, even if many of us, individually, have not exactly proved ourselves worthy of it. And that includes considering measures that others have undertaken, to see if they provide lessons, any lessons at all, for us at this point in our endangered history.

And that is hardly illegitimate. It it the very least we should ask of ourselves, and of those who presume to "lead" us, or rather, in the cant of this cant-filled age, presume to "take a leadership role." Many people in this country have gone far beyond their so-called leaders, Democratic and Republican, in their understanding of Islam. And that is a good thing. That is a necessary thing.

Mustang say, TRUTH is... never having to hang up on adversary.

Must see video this guys sums up why Islam hates the USA very well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp4ESLj-bKI&mode=related&search=

Excellent analysis Hugh, especially the last two paragraphs. Truly inspired, and more importantly, irrefutably true.

C.A.I.R.
Can't Abate the Integrity of Robert

I prefer
Covert American Islamic Revolution

Hugh, that is one of the best-written articles yet. So many historical references, so many excellent points, every one of them right on target.

Wow.

Well said Robert.

Does CAIR want a photo of Hugh to hang out on their top 10 list of most wanted fatwas?

Robert, listened last night to your interview with Laura Ingraham and it was very insightful. I do believe the new book will go a long way in bringing the truth out about the Christian faith being much more peaceful.

If someone finds the Khudayr Taher article in the archives, please post it. I couldn't find it, but I know there was a full-page article.

Found it!

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017374.php

Dear Mr. Fitzgerald,

The law is an ass and as such more capricious than a homosexual judge who believes that 'one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter'-

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Anti-Terror-Watch/Threat-of-terrorism-overblown-says-Kirby/2005/03/21/1111253958610.html

Much to my regret I must tell you that my personal experience with fighting the global jihad has been devastating, since I received little, if any support from anybody and the powers that be have perverted everything thats good and just, in order to subvert and to dishonor those who object to the multi-culti politically correct new age religion, which has been force fed to our children by the far left turds that control the media, schools and the universities.

After considerable amounts in legal fees, multiple death treaths and repeated smears in the local fishwrap and thousands of dollars in legal fees I'm still prepared to battle on, but the lack of understanding in the greater community is frustrating....

The "officials" at the Council of American-Islamic Relations seem to believe that they are above the law in the United States. They, after all, are Muslim and bound only by the laws of al-lah (thinks they!).

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Jihad Watch sued these people for the prosecutable offenses of defamation and libel--and WON???

Muhammedans appear particularly fond of poetry . . .and such a win would simply be poetic justice. However, the folks at CAIR are beginning to see that they are not above the law:

CAIR Files Amicus Brief in Texas Muslim Charity Trial

Listing of 300 Muslim individuals, institutions called ‘unconstitutional’

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
....
“The Fifth Amendment was violated because the public naming of the unindicted co-conspirators damaged their reputation, good name, and economic well-being, without offering a forum for vindication, and without a legitimate governmental reason for doing so. The First Amendment was violated because the governmental action of publicly naming the unindicted co-conspirators chilled the expressive associational activities of the unindicted co-conspirators and the government does not have a substantially related compelling interest for their action. . .

Patience. It's a virtue.

I think this quote from Mahatma Ghandi (1869-1948) is appropriate here. I haven't had time to read all the comments but I would like to thank you, Robert, for this excellent article. It is a wonder to me how CAIR carries on. One would think SHAME would shut them up...

Ghandi's quote below:

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it...always."

And no one at the time, and no one since, has thought what the Czechs then did was immoral -- save for a handful of German revanchists and those who have a particular soft-spot, one that deserves to be examined, for the treatment of Germans after the war.

Except for a few people like George Orwell's British publisher, Sir Victor Gollancz, who said of the expulsions of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe: "So far as the conscience of humanity should ever again become sensitive, will this expulsion be an undying disgrace for all those who remember it, who caused it or who put up with it. The Germans have been driven out, but not simply with an imperfection of excessive consideration, but with the highest imaginable degree of brutality."

As an example of this brutality, Gollancz specifically described the situation of a number of Sudeten Germans who were crammed into a Czechoslovak concentration camp: "They live crammed together in shacks without consideration for gender and age ... They ranged in age from 4 to 80. Everyone looked emaciated ... the most shocking sights were the babies ... nearby stood another mother with a shrivelled bundle of skin and bones in her arms ... Two old women lay as if dead on two cots. Only upon closer inspection, did one discover that they were still lightly breathing. They were, like those babies, nearly dead from hunger ..."

If, with such few exceptions as Gollancz, no one in 1946 or since has condemned the ethnic cleansing of the Sudeten Germans, it can only be because they don't agree with the Nuremberg Charter that "deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population" constitute crimes against humanity.

One "Seamus," whose appearances at this website are almost entirely devoted to sinister attacks, sly but transparent (it is his hobbyhorse, it is virtually his only theme), and easily collected, attempts to do what he can to prevent my point from being made about the Benes Decree.

And what was that point? It was not, after all, to say that the Benes Decree should be followed in all respects. It was not to say that the way that the Benes Decree, or that decree which led to the expulsion of nearly 3 million ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia, was executed was beyond criticism or above reproach. It was not to say that a certain policy had to be followed. It was merely an attempt to suggest that history offered examples, and recent examples, of highly civilized and tolerant nations, judging by their own experience and by common sense, could n0ot only entertain but put into practice measures which those who do not know any history, may assume is simply beyond the range of legitiimate contemplation. To those people one has to ask: do you object to the Benes Decree in principle? Do you think of Eduard Benes and Jan Masaryk, son of Tomas Masaryk, as evil beyond-the-pale figures? Do you think that General Svoboda, and the poet Jaroslav Seifert, and Aleksandr Dubcek, and Pavel Kohout, and so many others, were wrong to support, and not to attack, the relevant Benes Decree? What about Winston Churchill, Harry Truman, and every other statesman of that age?

It does not vitiate my point at all to have Victor Gollancz, the famous leftist publisher and founder of the Left Book Club, trotted out to display his self-preening Higher Morality, as a Jew defending, in 1946, Germans. Almost everyone else, those who were not self-preening, saw it otherwise.

I have, in previous postings, noted that when Vaclav Havel went to Austria, he expressed to the Austrians -- possibly out of a sense of current realpolitik -- some misgivings, not about the Benes Decree itself, but about the way it was carried out. One coud, after all, agree with it, or with other measures like it, and still be critical of those who would do it too hastily, or too over-inclusively (some German-speaking Jews, who clearly would not have been given the same privileges as "Volksdeutche" as were the ethnic Germans, were expelled as well), and there may have here and there been things to criticize. But so what? There are things to criticize about the way the United States and England conducted some of their military operations in World War II, but one assumes that no one would criticize their decision to go to war and to fight as hard as they could against the Axis -- or does "Seamus" think otherwise?

His transparent attempt to muddy the waters by adducing, not a major political figure, but Victor Gollancz, and to confuse the criticism of the execution of an administrative order with how that order is carried out in some places, and thereby to prevent people in this country, and in Western Europe, from even examining such measures -- not to mention all the examples of expulsions engaged in, during the last few decades, by the Muslim Arabs, persecuting or hounding or directly expelling from the lands they controlled not only non-Muslims, but also many non-Arab Muslim populations.

All one wishes is for people to know about, and to comprehend the reasons for, the Benes Decree, and to begin to learn a little history, before they make dismissive assumptions about what can or cannot be contemplated, when a civilizational and physical threat, of the kind posed by Islam to the non-Muslims of this world, presents itself.

Dear CAIR:

You can push only so far before you all will be martyred by those who have no patience for the rule of law. So do as you will, using our laws to try to defeat us. But the last word you will here from US, will be our collective refrain; NO!
From there, we will not look back other than to teach our children to be wary, and will move forward just as we have always done.

His transparent attempt to muddy the waters by adducing, not a major political figure, but Victor Gollancz, . . .

I'm sorry, but I was responding to your statement that "no one at the time, and no one since, has thought what the Czechs then did was immoral -- save for a handful of German revanchists and those who have a particular soft-spot, one that deserves to be examined, for the treatment of Germans after the war."

I see now that what you were really saying was that "no major political figure at the time. . . ."

I'll try to read your real intention better in the future, and stop assuming that when you choose certain words, they express your meaning.

Since there is never a case of literally "no one" thinking something, or supporting something, as we all know, the phrase "no one" means something like "no one of political significance" or simply "no one of any significance" or "no one considered to possess generally-accepted moral sense."

Here are some examples:

"No one could seriously maintain that Shakespeare was a Muslim" (but of course a few crazed Muslims do maintain this).

"No one supported Churchill at the very beginning of his lonely efforts" -- but of course there were a handful who did, but they were completely unknown, and hardly mattered, so that back in 1933 his warnings about Hitler went unheeded.

"No one in the West could have predicted that the Bolshevik Revolution would end up with a mass-murderer like Stalin" -- but of course one or two, who knew someting about Russia, did say this, but no one paid the slightest attention and indeed, some of those warnings came to light only much later.

"No one could have predicted what would happen in Iraq, or why the venture there could become an American 'victory' only if the Americans promptly withdrew as soon as Saddam Hussein and his regime's pillars were captured or killed, and exploited the pre-existing sectarian and ethnic fissures which in any case were not to be stopped" -- but of course, some one did, didn't he, but did so at a website, not from a position of the commanding heights.

To me, that is a perfectly accepted and reasonable meaning to assign to the use of the phrase "no one" in ordinary speech, written and spoken.

And again, there is a great difference between bringing to the aention of Infidels, a bit befuddled and thoroughly sentimenalized, and inhibited from free and uninhibited discussion of what is licit and has recent historical precedent and makes sense, and what does not -- in this case, raising the matter of the Benes Decree, and suggesting the circumstances in which it was issued and put into effect should be carefully studied to see if that example holds any lessons for us now. Studied, pondered, considered every which way, not necessarily jumping for joy and deciding that it is just the ticket, and should be emulated, and passed and then put into practice exactly as happened back in 1946. That's not what was meant, and you know that perfectrly well. For those are two different things.

And no one could disagree with that.

Although Hugh seems to believe that if you are not a "major political figure," then you are, if not literally, then for purposes of his discussion, "no one." But I might point out another figure who, then and since, regarded the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans as immoral was Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who for many years was European correspondent for National Review, and whose book "Leftism Revisited" was published by Regnery Gateway, the same house that published Mr. Spencer's "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades" and "The Truth About Muhammad." Kuehnelt-Leddihn also fails to share the view that Benes was a "tolerant, advanced statesm[a]n," as can be seen from this selection from his book:

"Benes, to prevent a restoration of the Habsburgs in Vienna, secretly negotiated with the Nazis and encouraged Mussolini in his anti-Habsburg stand. . . . It was difficult for this little man of narrow political horizons to shed the ideological tendrils of his National Socialist Party. Nor could he appreciate the true meaning of this earlier wartime determination to prevent an early peace and thus end the senseless slaughter. 'Any compromise with Vienna in the summer of 1917 would have been unmitigated disaster for us,' he later shamelessley confessed.

"Why did this spiteful and puritanicalman -- a man who having helped build a synthetic country then waged a suicidal policy that led to its sovietization -- gain such prestige in the West? For a variety of reasons, among them his anti-Catholicism . . . . Another reason was his posing as the liberator of Czechoslovakia from myriad evils- -- the Habsburgs, the Viennese bureaucracy, the alien aristocracy,' big landowners, Pan-Germanism -- all of which were excoriated by those prejudiced in ignorance. . . . In the depth of his heart this petty man despised the West, longed instead for Russian cooperation. He condemned Britain more than France, for he regarded England as but a future colony of the United States, and 'there is no greater impertinence than the American one.' . . .

"But the most fatal aspect of his activity lay in his absolute determination to prevent a Habsburg restoration, even if the alternative were the Anschluss -- and with it the encirclement and the end of Czechoslovakia. Better the Nazi flag over the Hradcany in th3 Prague than Otto in the Hofburg in Vienna! . . .

"When, after his exile in London, Benes returned to a Czechoslovakia under Russian auspices, this leader of the Czech National Socialist party proved a most docile pupil, of Hitler as well as Stalin. Personal freedom no longer seemed to interest him. While still in exile he had held Hitler up as an example in many ways. In an article in the January 1942 Foreign Affairs . . ., Benes said that Hitler ought to be hailed as a 'forerunner of minority settlements.' He repeated this thesis in March 1944 when he spoke about the 'grim necessity' of transferring populations. In practics terms this meant the total expropriation and deportation of fully one-third the population of the historic countries belonging to the Crown of St. Wenceslas (Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia). Dr. Benes, being a good democrat, believed in majority rule. But as the entire German population this area was sure to vote, it would dash all hopes of the solid majority needed for radically left experiments. The logical conclusion was quite simple: the German-speaking population had to be expelled. . . .

"Voting aside, Benes might have been persuaded that these German-speaking Bohemians and Moravians had in some way been 'disloyal.' But since Messrs. Wilson, Lloyd George, and Clemenceau had handed over there areas against their wishes to the artificial state of Czechoslovakia, why should its inhabitants, people of German extraction, be loyal to the nationalist government of the Czech people. The Slovaks, the Hungarians, the Poles, the Ruthenians who had to join this curious state without being asked, had not been loyal. . . .

"But Dr. Benes was a democrat, not a liberal. This comes through clearly in his tirade against freedom of the press in July 1945. 'Unbridled freedom to publish newspapers must not be reestablished,' he declared. 'We all say that one of the factors in public life that is, above all, subject to today's socializing trends, is journalism. HOw to harmonize this fact with freedom of speech is another matter. But here, too, the principle that the freedom of the individual has to be subordinated to the freedom of the whole holds good.' Liberalism goes out, socialism comes in. Dr. Benes headed a National Socialist, not a National Liberal party."

But perhaps Hugh will respond that Kuehnelt-Leddihn, but presenting these views, proves himself (like Victor Gollancz) to be "no one considered to possess generally-accepted moral sense," or on the level of one who argues that Shakespeare was a Muslim. If so, then he must be doing so by defining "considered to possess generally-accepted moral sense" as "generally agreeing with me on moral issues," as I don't recall that the editors of National Review or Regnery Gateway regarded Kuehnelt-Leddihn as a moral idiot.

I have seen Kuehnelt-Leddihn's name at National Review, but never read anything by him that has stuck in my mind. He's not Josef Pieper, and he's not von Hayek. As to the Benes Decree, as distinct from Eduard Benes (the series of tendentiousassertions about him, by Kuehnelt-Leddihn, hardly endear him to me, but that is a differnt matter from putting forth for public consideration the example of an advanced, tolerant state, and its leaders, doing something which they felt justified by past, present, nad possible future behavior of the ethnic Germans who had been included into the Czech state after the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) that decree was supported by the above-reproach Jan Masaryk (who was married, at one point, briefly and bizarrely, to the duaghter of the unattractive American millionaire Charles Crane), by General Ludvik Svoboda, by everyone of note in Czechoslovakia. And similar measures that were undertaken in Poland, though not of quite the same size, were not deplored at the time, or since by any Pole of note. Indeed, if anyone can find me a remark by Czeslaw Milosz or Zbigniew Herbert or Wislawa Szymborska or Bronislaw Geremek that indicates they think the expulsion of ethnic Germans by Poland was unjustified, or a bad or deplorable thing, I will eat my hat. The hat is right here, along with a fork, a knife, and four little packets of ketchup.

So now by "no one" we mean, not "no one," not "no one considered to possess generally-accepted moral sense," but "no one of the ethnicity of the country carrying out the expulsions."

Would we find it similarly conclusive if we could find, for example, no prominent Turks who oppose the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians in 1915, no prominent Albanians who oppose the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs from Kosovo since 1999, no prominent Croatians who oppose the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs from the Krajina, no prominent Algerians who oppose the ethnic cleansing of the pied-noirs from Algeria since 1962, no prominent Russians who oppose the removal of the German Tatars or the Chechens during World War II, no prominent Greeks who oppose the expulsion of the Turks from southern Cyprus, or no prominent Turks who oppose the expulsion of the Greeks from northern Cyprus? Of course not, because people often have a moral blind spot when it comes to actions carried out by their own group.

I'm not sure why you are taking such pains to defend the expulsion of millions of people from the land their ancestors had lived in for centuries, solely on the basis of their ethnicity, in what, by the standards of the Nuremberg Charter, was a crime against humanity. If, as Mr. Spencer said in the initial post, your concern is not to "call for the expulsion of all European Muslims, but only of . . . 'jihadists and Sharia supremacists,'" you hardly support that cause by defending the expulsion, not merely of "Nazis and German supremacists," but of everyone found behind the borders of Czechoslovakia and Poland (in Poland's case, borders that were deliberately redrawn in order to give Poland large territories inhabited by ethnic Germans) who was so unfortunate as to have German ancestors or to speak German as a first language.

If you want to defend the expulsion of "jihadists and Sharia supremacists," you ought to find a closer analogy. You might look, for example, at the deportation of Communists and anarchists (such as Emma Goldman) from the United States in the 1920s.

Again, you miss the point. The Benes Decree (or rather, that decree, one among many, that dealt with the population of ethnic Germans known as the Sudeterners) is presented as an example of a recent, rational, defensible policy, instituted by rational and, especially, notably tolerant and civilized statesmen, who in turn were supported by other such statesmen, and by their own population, which has not been taken to task, nor made to feel that it did something terrible. And, furthermore, I said that several other countries in Europe had done the same thing, after World War II.

I might have added many other examples, but I don't think the example after example of Arab or Muslim states that have repeatedly expelled, overnight, large populations -- as Saudi Arabia did with one million Yemenis, or Kuwait with 400,000 "Palestinians" men of an older, possibly more sensible European -- given the nature of those regimes and those peoples, any emulative weight.

I know what the doctrines of Islam teach. I know what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. I know what every defector from Islam -- see what Ali Sina says at www.faithfreedom.org, says or Ibn Warraq, or Wafa Sultan (see her remarks to "The Australian" put up today at Jihad Watch) or Ayaan Hirsi Ali all think about the Muslim presence in the West. They don't see how it can continue, or be tolerated as is, without Infidels endangering their own political and legal institutions, their social arrangements, and -- this I would emphasise -- their varied means of aristic expression, their encouragement of free and skeptical inquiry without which the enterprise of science, and a good deal else, becomes impossible. And only a fool would, in one Infidel land, not look over at other Infidel lands further along in the growth of the local Muslim population, and see what has happened to the Infidels in that country or countries, and not draw some conclusions about the fate of his own country. Why should someone in the United States not look at what has happened in Great Britain or in France, in Denmark or in Sweden? And why do you think, as things get even more dangerous and unsettled and unsettling in Western Europe, and more and more people realize that the large-scale presence of Muslims leads to a situation that is, for Infidels, far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically insecure, than it had been before, than it otherwise would be, that they will not draw some obvious conclusions, and might at least be presented, for consideration, not as an exact model to follow but as an example of which they should be aware, of what is taken by most people to be a widely-accepted case of expulsion of those who had given, before and during the war, largely en masse, signs of being willingly used by Hitler in his scheme to reduce Czechoslovakia to manageable size (with all of its bristling fortifications along the Vistula surrendered), so as to go in for the kill.

Are you suggesting that there are no conditions in which Infidels would have a right to take measures to protect themselves? Are you suggesting that the texts of Islam do not call for Muslims to participate in Jihad, and by that I mean the "struggle" to expand the lands where Islam will dominate, and Muslims rule, by working to remove everything which is taken to be an "obstacle" to the spread of Islam, and we all know what the very capacious definition is given to that word "obstacle."

Are you suggesting we do nothing, but observe what happens in Western Europe with equanimity or perhaps indifference, and not inform ourselves more fully, and take the most obvious steps to protect ourselves?

Surely you are not. Or, if you are, then I think it reasonable to conclude that the series of posts you have put up, which I can easily retrieve and which, as you are well aware, are almost always intended not to discuss the actual nature of Islam, of the origin, scope, goal, and instruments of Jihad, nor the many examples of dhimmi-like behavior, and the imopsition, even absent the full Shari'a, of onerous demands on non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled lands, that show that the legal status of non-Muslims always tends to the conditions laid down in early Islam, and given a legal expression in the Shari'a (see Antoine Fattal, "Le status des non-Musulmanes en pays d'Islam") but rather to remind visitors, with a glancing comment, of one thing and one thing only -- to wit, the ineradicalbe sins of Israel, that mighty empire that doth bestride the poor and helpless Arab lands, and to show a tender solicitude for, and stout defense of, those who have been conducting, and will forever be conducting, given what Islam teaches,a Lesser Jihad against Israel.

Indeed, your transparent desire to prevent people from considering the case of the Benes Decree is of a piece with much else that you propose. You are keenly interested in preventing any lucidity in the analsysis of the nature of Jihad as a doctrine, or of any history-based discussion of examples of Jihad, or of ways to begin to think, beyond the idiocy of Tarbaby Iraq, of ways for the Infidels of this world to deal with the problem, in a way that does not rely on sentimentalism, denial, wishful thinking, or wilful ignorance.

I'm not making any argument of any kind about jihad. I'm making an argument about the example you put up. I confess almost complete ignorance about the Moslem theology of jihad. What I don't confess complete ignorance about is European history.

But I really admire the way you keep shifting the ground of discussion. First, you say that, "save for a handful of German revanchists and those who have a particular soft-spot, one that deserves to be examined, for the treatment of Germans after the war," could regard the Benes decrees as immoral, and when I point you to one who found them immoral and didn't fall into either category, you fault me for not having found a "not a major political figure" who believed they were immoral.

When I point out that what you said was that "no one" found the Benes decrees immoral, you responded that what you obviously meant was "no one of political significance" or simply "no one of any significance" or "no one considered to possess generally-accepted moral sense." I then pointed to another commenter who, even if you are unwilling to acknowledge that he was "of political significance" or "of any significance" (though of course you'd have to argue against William F. Buckley, who obviously thought he was of enough significance to give him a platform for decades in the pages of National Review), can't reasonably argue was "no one considered to possess generally-accepted moral sense."

At that point, you shift again, arguing that no one "of note in Czechoslovakia" said the Benes decrees were immoral, nor did "any Pole of note" object to the expulsions of Germans from east of the Oder-Neisse line. I then pointed out the inadequacy of that test as an indicator of the morality of *any* ethnic expulsions. You then make your final shift, and attack me and my motivations.

But on at least one point you are right. You say that you "think it reasonable to conclude that the series of posts you have put up, which I can easily retrieve and which, as you are well aware, are almost always intended not to discuss the actual nature of Islam, of the origin, scope, goal, and instruments of Jihad, nor the many examples of dhimmi-like behavior, and the imopsition, even absent the full Shari'a, of onerous demands on non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled lands, that show that the legal status of non-Muslims always tends to the conditions laid down in early Islam, and given a legal expression in the Shari'a (see Antoine Fattal, "Le status des non-Musulmanes en pays d'Islam")." I don't know about the "series of posts," but on this particular thread, you are quite correct that I had absolutely no intention of making any point about "the actual nature of Islam," about jihad, about "dhimmi-like behavior," or about the imposition of sharia. My only point was to refute your bad arguments about the Benes decrees, and to point out where your factual claims about opposition to those decrees were demonstrably incorrect.

I have, in previous postings, noted that when Vaclav Havel went to Austria, he expressed to the Austrians -- possibly out of a sense of current realpolitik -- some misgivings, not about the Benes Decree itself, but about the way it was carried out.

Actually, Havel's actual words strike me as more than simply an expression of misgivings "about the way it was carried out." They strike me as a direct disproof of Hugh's assertion that "no one at the time, and no one since, has thought what the Czechs then did was immoral -- save for a handful of German revanchists and those who have a particular soft-spot, one that deserves to be examined, for the treatment of Germans after the war":

"Only days after his election, President Havel visited both German states and apologized for the postwar expulsion of nearly three million Sudeten Germans from Czechoslovakia. Havel was faithful to what he stood for as a dissident. In November 1989 he wrote to President von Weizsacker: I personally, like many of my friends, condemn the postwar expulsion of the Germans, which struck me as a deeply immoral act, inflicting heavy damage not only on the Germans but perhaps even more on the Czechs, both moral and material. To respond to evil by committing another evil does not eliminate evil but allows it to go on forever." Jacques Rupnik, "Europe's New Frontiers: Remapping Europe," Daedalus, Summer 1994, p. 11, quoting Vaclav Havel, "Letter to R. von Weizsacker," 5 November 1989, Czechoslovak Documentary Center (emphasis added) (available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3671/is_199407/ai_n8721228/pg_11 )

Or perhaps Hugh would argue that, when Havel used the words "deeply immoral," he meant something other than "immoral." Or perhaps he would change the subject and, instead of admitting that he was mistaken, say that I have sinister motives for pointing that fact out.