Another provocateur

Robert

While you're at it, can you see to it that the other provocateur 'hindenburg' goes up in flames? I'm assuming that zeppelins are unwelcome here. S/he is less funny than Naseem, but still playing the same role.

Robert,
You are, of course, correct and this is your site so your rules apply.

However, it is not racist to express a view which is anti-Islam. As you have consistently held, Islam is much more than a mere "religion." It is, in fact, a total economic/social/political construct whose stated aim is the elimination of all other religions and total control of the world via sharia law.

Personally, I favor defending the rights and liberties given me by my ancestors. See Robert Ferrigno's fictional trilogy [two published so far] on what the U.S. might look like following a Muslim revolution. Thanks, but I'd rather not see it come to that. That means that I am perfectly content with the idea of defending me and mine against Islam, Muslims, Islamists, Islamofacists, etc., using any and all means legally available to me.

As I see it, the Muslims starting "slapping one cheek" in 638. I decline to turn the other, regardless of what the Old or New Testaments may say.

Speaking as an overzealous, downright fanatical, easily manipulated, all-too-frequent poster at JW/DW, I wonder why Ibrahim Hooper's operatives haven't quite managed to bait or trick me into volunteering for a pogrom or a "martyrdom operation" or a race riot; it's not like I'm not game for senseless, indiscrimate violence--I just don't get it; what, there aren't ALREADY enough incitements to that sort of thing? With all of that fat U.A.E. bankroll, can't they manage even the simplest "black ops"?

Robert the main argument with the CAIR/appologists types is asking what race is islam. the tool l have learned to use is recognizing their lame excuse of victimization by being muslim, and the left not recognizing that they are really being victimizied by having to accomodate these islamists thereby losing what freedoms the West has enjoyed.

/sarc

Is JW/DW monitored for posts from CAIR IP range?

Just a thought.

My view of islam is that it is not so much a "religion" as it is an ideology. Christianity and Judaism are also ideologies in my view as well as religions but they are of a similar cloth to one another and are non-threatening in that an individual has an “opt out” option.

As ideologies go, islam is particularly pernicious in what it advocates specifically beheadings, poll taxes, wife beatings, and destruction of anyone who does not agree with these practices; and “opting out” of this ideology is not an option.

Moreover, this ideology called islam like nazi-ism or communism, advocates that it is superior and must be forced upon the world as the prevailing and all embracing ideology. It is also an entire legal and governmental system which I find not merely distasteful – but dangerous to every ideal that I hold dear such as liberty, democracy within a republic, and freedom of expression to name a few.

CAIR must not be allowed to threaten or intimidate those who “insult islam” in their view, even if they have the funds to prostitute our legislative system against us.

Having said this I wonder what JW/DW will do should BO the “anointed one” come to office and impose the “fairness doctrine” not only for talk radio, but for internet outlets such as this one.

Will CAIR be allowed to effectively censor thoughts and speech with which it disagrees from sites such as this one all in the name of “fairness?”

Robert, since this is your site, you do have the right to have a set of rules of conduct. Keep up the good work standing up for the truth.

I have a question for you, Robert, if CAIR tries to bring false accusations of being a "racist", would you end up bringing up a possible lawsuit against CAIR?

Thank-you for your response.

Rounding up muslims? Genocide for Muslims? HELL NO!!! Are you CAIR babies reading my personal post? ABSOLUTELY-NO-NOT-NEVER. There is nothing life affirming in harming the sacred lives of ANY individual, regardless of what mythology they beleive-CAIR babies still reading me loud and clear? Good.
Quote me here too: Muslims should be humiliated for their belief in such a violent and hateful being as Allah. This god does NOT exist. Deductive reasoning resolves the Allah cannot be reconciled with the fundamental structure of this universe, the science of its function, the philosophies of it's action or the universally emotional connection we humans have toward the value of LIFE. If this universe we exist in was created, "Allah" had nothing to do with it. There is too much elegance here for such a roughshod and slapdash made up deity like Allah to have ANYTHING to do with this reality. Every like minded poster, beleiver in a creator or not, on this site has this absoute connection towards life, we all post here because the doctrine of Islam insults our universally felt reverence for all life. Islam rips this connection right out of its followers and distorts naturally unconditional love itself into a conditional weapon. Islams prophet is nothing more than a snake oil salesman who pulled off the most harmful lie in world history for the sake of his own ego...he has thus empowered the vacuous egos of all those who are equally gullible to follow the same path. Allah does not exist and Islam is the hurtful lie that life has ever confronted and needs to be routed out. You CAIR babies still reading? Probably not, your supremacist egos shut you down at around sentance #2.

CAIR, you dumb-asses!

I hope "mohammed-worshipper" is not on the verboten list. Yes, it is "provocative," but not pointless. Despite differing styles, Robert and Hugh have consistently, perfectly consistently really, been scrupulous in avoiding any formulations evoking anything less than a thoughtful, rational point of view.

I occasionally use "mohammed-worshippers" because I believe it describes what the tenets of islam actually require of believers, as opposed to what they say it requires; allah = mohammed; and for anyone who has read the koran, it is patently obvious that it was made up as mohammed went along. It is essential for Westerners to understand the precise nature of the belief system, it's soul, which is the soul of the world's most successful sociopath.

I realize that using a provocative phrase often will get one dismissed as a mere name-caller. And there is truth in that. But if there is also truth in the name being called, it has the potential to provoke enlightenment.

I spent a few days in NYC recently, and spoke to some folks. I love that city, and I love the folks who live there; they are charming, courteous and intelligent, mostly.

But oh, the fear and the mental bonds! They do not even realize it, but they have accepted the totalitarian preconditions of self-censorship and self-condemnation. They are so eager to wear their colored ribbons, to get daddy's approval. You can almost see the physical transformation when The Forbidden arises.

Many folks are actually scared if you speak with a level of conviction, and demonstrate some grasp of the matter, because somehow that seems as if it ought to be forbidden, too.

Astonishing and disheartening, but there are many, many Americans yearning to have their freedom removed, to have someone, anyone, a sociopath perhaps, tell them what to do, and what not to do, and literally how to think.

Doesn't CAIR have better things to do? How dorky can an organization get?

I can understand why they would (and do) rake and bake your books (over the proverbial coals), Robert, and Raymond--That's a duty, from CAIR's point of view.

To plant these over-the-top provocateurs in an anti-jihad forum is just silly.

So, CAIR, no guts, no glory, guys. Declare yourself, if you're going to post, and post honestly. Playing a "part" is disingenuous and cowardly. You fellas don't do a good job at it, either. Your vehemence is a dead giveaway.

Note to Moonzoo: not THIS New Yorker.

Since this is RS' house we must abide by his rules.
I have been deleted a few times myself.
Let's not let the interlopers dictate what is acceptable here though.
Freedom of speech is being snuffed out by moslems all over the world.

LOL, Vee, well, I did not meet you.

One conversation I had I wish I had recorded, I do not think Woody Allen could have captured the absurdity so well. I cannot do it justice but it went something like this (and I reiterate, these were intelligent folks), you can fill in the details:

Me: You should really read the koran and study islam.

Them: I don't hate anyone.

Me: Neither do I, and that is not what I'm saying. Moslems suffer the most under islam, but that's because of islam, not because of Moslems.

Them: The catholics were really the worst, I should know, I was a catholic, and I refuse to engage in narrow mindedness of any sort.

Me: How can it be narrow-minded to educate yourself on islam? Why not read the koran?

Them: A lot of my friends are gay and bisexual, and once you start persecuting people anyone can be persecuted.

Me: Good point, but what if you read that islam believes in persecuting people?

Them: Then I'm just helping people who spread hate. I know a lot of Moslems and every one of them is nice. I have never met a Moslem who was a terrorist. They explained it to me.

Me: No doubt. But the point I'm actually making, is that you should educate yourself on islam; I have, since 911, and I find much of it disturbing.

Them: So you know more than my Moslem friends?

Me: Impossible to say. But I know more than you, about islam anyway.

Them: So I'm just ignorant?

Me: Let me ask you a question. What is a good word for a person who expresses an opinion on a subject, but has not the slightest interest in actually reading about the subject?

Bartender: Bartender's prerogative. You're cut off.

LOL ... and so the long day drew on.

"Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour or the evil pagan Arab deity."

I mean, how obvious is that? Often the comments on here by so called supporters are so obviously written by people who are the exact opposite. What's the name for that sort of propaganda (other than taqqiya), is it disinformation?

When will the world wake up to how they are being played by these Islamists?

Let's not do anything to disparage the integrity of JW/DW. This is perhaps the most important website on the Net...the brain-trust of the anti-Jihad.

PS - For God's sake folks, Robert has spent reams of type over the years attacking the conflation of race and religion. His reference to "racism" was obviously geared to those who attack "Arabs", "Pakis" and others for their ethnicity.

Islam an Ideology? Maybe... I thnk it's a government in the guise of a religion. In fact, I firmly believe so.

Come...join the people of Landru. Enjoy the peace that joining Landru brings. Remember the Star Trek episode? I bleeb it was "The return of the Archons." You are not of the body! Get em'! Lotsa parallels there.

I no more blame Muslims for joining Islam than I blame the folks that joined Jim Jones and drank the Kool-Aid.

Brainwashed people deserve sympathy and compassion. They deserve truth and freedom. I cannot, will not hate those that have been deceived into believing the lies of Islam.

Now as for the sorry sacks o' crap that knowingly exploit the brainwashed and wish to brainwash more to further their political/religious power through terrorist acts, intimidation and torture,...they need to die. Using religion to gain power is so wrong...I can't find the words.

Islam is a lie and truth is killing it.

Alaskan:
Good one. Remember one of Spock's answers as he and Kirk were driving Landru insane: creativity is necessary for the health of the body.

"I no more blame Muslims for joining Islam than I blame the folks that joined Jim Jones and drank the Kool-Aid."

Those who drank the Kool-Aid killed themselves.
I blame Muslims who knowingly blow themselves up with the express purpose of killing many people and those who knowingly set bombs to blow others up. Brainwashed or not, they're killing us.
If they're brainwashed then a little intervention is in order, but that's not allowed, either.

PMK wrote:

"I no more blame Muslims for joining Islam than I blame the folks that joined Jim Jones and drank the Kool-Aid."

Those who drank the Kool-Aid killed themselves.
....................................

Jonestown may have been uglier than you remember.

Before the mass suicide, Congressman Leo
Ryan, who had come to Guyana to report on possible human rights abuses at Jonestown, was set to return to the US with a few cult members who decided to leave. Even though Ryan had said that his report would be positive overall, Jones decided he would not let him leave.

Armed followers killed Ryan and four others, and wounded 11 others, including future Congresswoman Jackie Speier.

Most of Jones followers did take the poison voluntarily, but also force-fed it to children, babies and some adults. Other adults who tried to flee into the jungle were pursued and shot down.

The incident at Jonestown was the greatest single loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster until 9/11.

Supporters of the pedophile "prophet" and his intolerant, misogynistic and imperialistic aim to subvert all non-Muslim cultures and nations in order to impose a global theocratic tyranny can be pretty thin-skinned.

One of the points I like about JihadWatch as a website is precisely that Mr. Spencer's position advocated is much more subtle and thought-out than the simplistic extremes of either "All Muslims/Arabs are bad" or "All Muslims/Arabs are good". Frankly I do not always agree with Mr. Spencer but he argues poignantly that Islam is better characterized as a political than a religious ideology. With this I emphatically agree, which is to say that Islam is BOTH-- but has a greater degree of one than the other.

Part of what I disagree with is Mr. Spencer's conclusions. For example, Judaism is called by outsiders a religion but it remains inherently our ancient Law and as such represents a form of government, thus making it political. (The concept of a common Judaeo-Christian culture is a Christian myth, glossing over stark differences.) Even calling Judiasm a religion at all is to a good degree a misconception; our Law just happens to deal with issues other societies would leave to "religion". (For example, a basic law is that For each and every Jew, H` is hat Jew's G-d; thus even an atheist Jew counts in a minyan if that atheist chooses to attend.) Thus, I do not think the advocation of redefining Islam as a political ideology rather than a protected religion within the US could possibly avoid also damning Judiasm.

To add fuel to this fire, our Law forbids imposition of that Law on others, traditional Christian understandings notwithstanding. If one asked if I want Israeli secular Law replaced by Torah Law, I would have to say that although Torah itself forbids forcing such a situation, if Israelis collectively decided they wanted to do so, it would be a good thing. Again, in principle Mr. Spencer's objections to Islam [assuming I understand them correctly] apply equally well to Judaism.

Nevertheless, I consider Islam incompatible with a free society in a way which Judaism is not and simply cannot be, even were Torah the law of the land. The difference lies not in the theory but in the substance. Torah Law [again Christans' misunderstandings and mischaracterizations over the years not withstanding] protects the lives and property of Jews and non-Jews alike; indeed to act against a law-abiding non-Jew is considered in many ways a greater crime than to act against a law-abidng Jew, because the latter at least has family to support them. Similarly women are granted rights in Torah Law which other societies did not recognize for centuries after, including the right to own property, the right to say "No" to any marriage, etc., and so on. Moreover, Torah Law is a living changing Law still being practiced and adjudicated today.

My point is that repudiation of sharia and its political aspects by Muslims is a distraction, attacking the form but not the substance. The issue lies in the denial of specific freedoms by sharia law and in the desire to forcibly impose sharia law on others. THIS is what is objectionable.

I live by a religious Law and think adoption of that Law by my country would be a good thing in and of itself, but I am fundamentally different than the jihadists in that MY religious Law forbids any attempt to impose that Law on others. Indeed, by that Law, I would have to do all I could to thwart such attempts at imposing Torah Law forcibly. Therein lies the real difference.

MosheC said " ...by that law, I would have to do all that I could to thwart such attempts at imposing Torah law forcibly."

I say "Bravo" to Moshe. I also see this problem in light of laws - those of my country. If I'm not mistaken this country was, in part, founded on the idea of freedom of religion. If it's true that the Qu'ran in effect says that infidels are expendable, and if it's true that "jihad" is a declaration of war on infidels then I think we can't become afraid to speak out for our freedoms and our laws.

I am Christian by the way.

I would just like a definition of "racist" as I was called that because I mentioned reading/ recommended Robert Spencer's books to a "devout muslim".

Guidance is always appreciated.

Hello everyone, this is "Globalist" under a different alias mainly because Mr. Spencer has disallowed me from posting my explanations under my original alias. I am deeply saddened by the charges that Robert Spencer, a person who I admire and have supported, has laid such a charge against me. If I may be allowed to defend myself (I mean, don't I have the freedom of speech?) then let me explain.

I am not working for CAIR or any other Mohamedan propagandists. If Robert had bothered to check my IP, you would have noticed that I'm accessing this website from Canada. However, I am not Canadian, but an American here for business-related and other reasons. Robert, I assume you could've confirmed this. But rather than give me a fair opportunity, I have, ironically, been labeled a Mohammedan myself. One working for CAIR no less! This is just pathetic.

Secondly, my comments are being taken out of context. I do not believe all Arabs are Satanic, only the Mohamedans (I don't think I need to refer you to their texts, their acts, and their role model Mohamed himself). The Arabs who are my brothers in Christ are clearly on the right side of God. I do not hate them and hence, I am not a racist. However, having read and understood the Mohamedan religion and the acts of countless jihad, I have come to appreciate a new world view. The view that it's us versus them.

I will not back down from my statements about Mohamedans. I believe, as I've stated before, that we tend to use the word "Islam" euphemistically. I recognize this and don't think we ought to. We ought to, as they say, call it like it is. The Mohamedans are a threat to our safety, especially in the era of global jihad. Anyone who denies this is only promoting their secret jihad and has already been subdued into dhimmitude. You are only helping the jihadis when you do this. It's dhimmi taqiyya!

It's unfortunate that Mr. Spencer has chosen to silence me. Be that as it may, I am deeply disheartened that Robert is being shortsighted when it comes to the Mohamedan problem. If my comments about "rounding them up" were found to be incendiary, then please refer to Michelle Malkin's book about the Japanese internment "In Defense of Internment". I think it would be a prudent policy based on the fact that Mohamedans turn homicidal in a matter of seconds. What other path ought the West to employ when our survival is on the line? Again, my comments were not genocidal. I have not asked for their indiscriminate death! But I do believe I'm acting as a mouthpiece for people here when I address these concerns to our safety. (How else are we to protect our families? Our children?!) Rather than debate this issue, Mr. Spencer has decided to label me a Mohamed and a 'provocateur' and dust his hands.

And I also stand by my comments about choosing between Our Lord and their pagan deity. This is merely a religious belief, however, and I don't expect others on here to necessarily agree with me (out of respect for the religious beliefs of other anti-dhimmis).

I am not here to find people who agree with everything I say. I'm here to express myself and learn from the deep knowledge and understanding that JW provides of the Mohamedan ideology. I never did ask anyone to agree with me, but rather I only expressed myself (something which is protected under our Bill of Rights the last time I checked).

Morevoer, regarding the comments you found 'provocative': within the context of my comments, I might have been referring to a certain group, namely the jihadis hellbent on killing us. (You'd agree that it's not my fault they are Mohamedan!) I cannot check my comments now since they've all been deleted.

I've commented again and again requesting for an explanation but apparently Mr. Spencer is not interested in providing the truth, but it seems he's just interested in insuring his readers that a "provocateur" has been stopped. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have also apologized in advance for offending anyone on these boards.

Mr. Spencer, being an advocate of free speech, you ought to have at least let the accused defend himself. Again, I am deeply disheartened by this posting.