Comments Are Open!

Testing

Hello, all.

Yyyyyyyyyyessssssssss!!!

How do you reply to a comment?

MrsJ-- this system is a lot simpler than IntenseDebate. There isn't any threading of comments that I'm aware of, but (big smile) there are so fewer things to go wrong.

There's the first issue, lol. I click 'Post' and it just sits there saying waiting, but unknown to me, it has been posted. I have to stop the page loading, and the only way I can return to the page is by editing the URL then clicking on the post title again.

Now I see I posted the same thing three times, and I can't delete them. :-(

Thanks, Marisol. I've never used Typepad before.

I'll try a different browser. For me, using Google Chrome, it's unworkable.

Trying FireFox.

FireFox is just the same.

Cleared cache and cookies. Hope it works this time.

No luck. Sending email to tech.

Can't sign in under my old name and PW.

Had to sign in using Atlas Shrugs name and PW.

No problems though, Jew_Lover at JW is Jew_Lover at AtlasShrugs.

Would be nice if comments were all visible on one page where we can use the search feature, instead of having to go through 25 pages looking for certain search criteria.

Text is too difficult to read, similar to MM's site. Can we make the text blacker so it's easier to read?

Does this mean IntenseDebate is now a 'blast from the past?"

Always the Infidel,

Jew_Lower

At long last, back to normal.... yipeeeee! :)

Thanks for everything Robert.

thank you, techies.

thank you, techies.

Glad things are back to normal. I always liked this old system better. I find it clearer to read and less cluttered. Thanks everyone.

Just testing!

Kinneddar:

Big-time ditto!

Boo!

Glad IntenseDebate won't be eating up the comments!

no more of the rate up circle jerking :'( but not more trolls dinging down comments either

give and take I guess

Please keep it clean.

Seems the old problem of multiple posts is occurring again with the reversion to TypeKey/MT. In my experience it's usually caused because submission of comments is so slow that the user starts to hit 'post' repeatedly in frustration.

I personally find the MT commenting system a little 'flat'. I really liked the functionality of Intense Debate - it was just poorly-implemented and buggy in my experience.

Is this the 'new platform' Robert was talking about, or a temporary rollback until something else is put in place?

What a shame about ID. Great idea, too many wrinkles waiting to be ironed out. Perhaps in 6-12 months it may be worth trying again if it's still around.

Ahh, I missed the old format. No dinging up or down, no goofy picture. Ees much bester now, Marisol!
Let's see how Chrome does with it....shouldn't be a problem, since Atlas and a number of other places I comment at uses Typepad...

As others have said this takes too much time to accept and post a comment.

Cherif Bassiouni is an illogical coward.

This was just a test

After watching ID go into a complete meltdown yesterday, it's no wonder people weren't commenting.

Great to have this system back! Thanks JW!

Woop woop! JW prevails!

Hello. Let's see how we go.

Movable Type. Yyyyeeeessss!

The red flags did make it easier to locate some of my favorite posters.

Thanks, unseen behind-the-scenes techies!

Nice to be remembered by Typekey.

Finally - I have my old screen name back!

Is this the ‘new platform’ Robert was talking about, or a temporary rollback until something else is put in place?

Un:dhimmi,

Yes, this is a temporary rollback until we’re ready to migrate to the new server and upgrade MT. — Tech Admin

I will miss the points system and the reply function. Actually prefer Intense Debate.

I will give this a try before I pass any Judgment.

Happy Days Are Here Again!

Beautiful!

Thank you! I'm so glad this is working again.

Incidentally, since whenever I email JW editors links to items of interest they never seem to be posted here, I've included the following link to a very interesting piece in this weekend's NYT Magazine; it contains a detailed profile of a female suicide bomber. Don't dismiss it without reading it because it's in the NYT. Although it contains some of the usual PC apologetics for suicide bombers, it also concedes that most of these female bombers are raised in fundamentalist and "jihadist" families, and it is extremely chilling reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/magazine/16suicide-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

It's good to see so many old friends (sheik, for one) with their old familiar screennames. It's like coming home again!

Now if only sonofwalker would post . . .

Yipee!!

(Testing from Kaohsiung....)

I hope this is a temporary fix only until such time as IntenseDebate gets "fixed." I rather liked the reply format and email notification of when posters replied to comments, allowing detecting replies that occurred on old stories. I liked the ability to edit comments after they had been posted, thus being able to correct typos. I didn't like the inability to unroll all the comments/replies in one swell foop, thus being able to search all comments to a story. (And of course I didn't like all the bugs.) But overall, I rather liked ID.

Thank you, techies, for restoring some sanity to our lives. I hope you are able to track down the source of the problems.

When someone accidentally "outed" me I realized there's no point in me announcing my physical presence at the public library every Thursday evening in Vancouver, Canada from 7-9:00 p.m. outside Blenz cafe in the atrium while not letting people know who I am.

Dag, Son of Walker!

No problems to report here with the switch back to TypePad. By the way, I commented as MorganLR when IntenseDebate was used for the comments.

Looks like I'm not the only one who is old fashioned here, am I?

Test, I too enjoyed the notifications of replies. Helps busy people stay on conversation and keep people engaged to the natural end of a discussion.

I am sending an email asking a post to be made where people can post their old ID nom de guerre and their typepad ID so it can be searched when someone is trying to figure out who is who.

Then if you want other to know who you are, you can have a permanent post out there with the info.

I can't access the comments on stories from the ID days. Does that mean that everything since February, when ID was instituted, are now unavailable?

Woof!

testing again.

28 secs before post appears.

testing

It's too bad we can't reply directly to other poster's comments anymore, and I know I for one have been absentmindedly looking for the "ding up" key for good comments, but I know i shouldn't complain.

My only real concern is whether there are still the security issues that sent JW to IntenseDebate in the first place.

In any case, thanks so much to the busy JW board and tech guys for fixing the problem!

MrsJ,

You have noticed that it takes noticeably longer for the server to accept a comment: This perfectly normal with TypeKey. You just learn to live with it.

One suggestion: Once you have composed your reply and are happy with it, highlight and copy the entire post to memory (CTRL-C). If the comment is lost, you can easily recover it.

This has happened many times to each of us familiar with TypeKey. It's not a perfect system, by far, but if your link "times out", you won't loose your comment.

Good luck. Oh, and BTW, the html tags work a lot better here than on ID.

I always liked this better anyway.

Reposted "Top Ten Reasons Why Guys Like Sharia Law" at "No Sex? No Chow".

Worked fine, but a bit slow. Print type being light makes it harder to read. Will miss the reply / numbers as community feedback.

BTW: if anyone knows some top-notch programers who would consider speculative work, I have a game-changing next generation blog format / blog comment concept that would make the current linear systems seem like Buggy Whips.
Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. SashlandJW@Gmail.com

Thanks for your fine work Robert, Hugh, Marisol, and team.

Functional simplicity trumps dysfunctional complexity.

It appears that the old is now the new.

So glad to be able to post again. Names that have "intense" in them bring up all sorts of red flags for software that filters porn sites. The word "typekey" is pretty innocuous. Now I can post away with out fear of being tagged as a porn site browser!

Seems to be working.

okie dokie

ROBERT SPENCER (on another thread): "there is no superior or inferior human beings"

I just got finished reading Daveed Garstein-Ross's 'My Year Inside Radical Islam'. One of the atmospherics that became apparent to him early on at the Islamic charity where he worked was that the discourse among Muslims favored the most radical statements...these were seen as the least controversial and the ones that were rarely if ever challenged.

I've noticed a similar dynamic here at JW. I occasionally defend working in concert with moderate Muslims abroad (I reject any assertion that there is a moderate Islam and I oppose Muslim immigration at home). Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting and dying alongside US troops. Muslims in Algeria and elsewhere are fighting and dying trying to stem the spread of Sharia. I think they deserve our support.

Many here have disagreed with me. That's fine. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. But just recently, I called out a poster for dehumanizing Muslims by calling them "sub-human".

Another poster objected to my objection; to him, it is ME who is being controversial. He accuses me of being PC and laughably suggests that the word "sub-human" imparts at least a degree of humanity.

JW is providing an indispensable service to mankind, chronicling the daily jihad that is wreaking so much havoc and misery in the world. I fear that on the day the UN gains control of the internet, this web-site will disappear. Until that day, I want to see it flourish...and comments like the one above are not only unethical, they are a tactical mistake, giving ammunition to those who want to discredit this great institution by branding it a hate site.

I like to think that our culture in the West is distinguishable from that of Islam by our ethics and our basic humanity. But I guess that doesn't apply to everybody.

Well done, Robert. Let's hope Intense Debate does not darken your door again.

Testing

I forgot I had a typepad account.

OK, so I've morphed. Figure out who I am :P

Cornelius - seconding your posting above [Aug 15 5.42 pm].

At times I become very angry - white-hot anger, so angry I can barely see straight - when confronted by some of the examples of atrocious sharia-sanctioned Muslim behaviour toward women and toward non-Muslims.

But like you I prefer not to indulge that anger by calling the perpetrators of such atrocious behaviour, 'subhuman', or 'vermin', or anything else of similar sort.

I prefer to simply call them what they are - 'evil people'. Or, alternatively, 'wicked people'. I liked the phrase that that Australian judge, Peter McClellan, used recently to describe and to dismiss a slithery Islamic apologist, Keysar Trad: he summed him up, fastidiously, as "a disgraceful individual".

The human capacity for goodness and marvellous creativity is astonishing. The human capacity for cruelty and all manner of wickedness and falsehood is also astonishing.

Eastview - I too have noticed that. I did a quick trawl back through the archives and it does appear that any comments posted during the IntDeb era have...disappeared.

But they are not entirely lost. Being the obsessive-compulsive that I am, I have on my computer a massive folder that contains articles I find interesting here, roughly sorted by topic, and filed in suitably labelled documents (for example: I have three large electronic files labelled with variants of the following title 'Islam's War on Women', tucked inside a folder entitled 'Muslim Minds'). And - copied and saved, with those articles that caught my attention, are such comments, made to those articles, that also caught my attention as 'adding value'.

This means that, if your worst fears are true, and all comments posted between February and August this year have - gone - then anything *I* read and kept during that period, is safe. Not easy to find, necessarily. But not 100 % gone.

In short: all sorts of interesting remarks and mini-essays that you, and Hugh, and Hesperado, and Gravenimage, and AlaskanInfidel and many other intelligent people have contributed over the past six months (Joe Blough's wonderful deconstructions of newspaperese, come to mind, too) *are* safely preserved in assorted files in my possession, tucked away next to the articles that prompted them.

And I make regular backups of what's on my hard disk.

Cornelius,

I know you have been posting here for many years, but given the day to day conduct of many Muslims I have a hard time feeling any sympathy for them. I'm reminded of the article posted here about the Christian teacher in the UK who was insulted by Muslim students. One of the children said "don't touch me you're Christian" as if he was soiled by the touch of a Christian.The same children also expressed their delight upon hearing about the injury of a non-Muslim child.What kind of "humans" act this way? There is also the case of the Christians who were recently burned alive in Pakistan by Muslims over a supposedly torn Koran.These are just two examples out of thousands that have occurred just since 9/11/01.Given the day to day violence, hatred and contempt shown openly by some Muslims to non-Muslims in the US, UK, Nigeria, Egypt, Thailand,Russia, China ect. I can't say I care if the occasional poster at JW refers to them as sub-human.

"For me, using Google Chrome, it's unworkable."

With a name like "Google Chrome", I'm not surprised...

Testing testing.......1,2,3....4?

Finally, I can post again. Please, please, don't EVER go back to the previous system..all my comments evaporated when I tried to send them. I just gave up. Months ago.
It's just so easy now - just as it used to be.

Roxanne, thanks for your input. I suppose our ethics are of a different nature.

Dores, like you, I struggle constantly with my hatred of this "religion" and the pernicious effect it has on its adherents. But I'm rational and objective enough to know that there are probably thousands if not millions of Muslims who have led more exemplary lives than mine.

There are times when sociological generalizations are justified...e.g., I support the same kind of religious profiling as that employed by the government of Tunisia, where tourists from Europe with Muslim backgrounds are given greater security scrutiny than non-Muslims.

On the other hand, "sub-human"??? What kind of rational discourse is that? We can wage the anti-Jihad without degenerating into raving hate-spewers.

I don't want to come off as the thought police here, but I care about the fortunes of Jihadwatch and Robert Spencer. I don't want to see his enemies accruing ammunition for their slanders from among the comments here.

Please folks, try to keep it within the bounds of basic civilized propriety.

I've said my piece. I'll shut up now.

The recent Intense Debacle system rewarded people who made many posts meaning that it encouraged some of the low quality postings that I believe were made mainly to raise that posters ID rating.

The new old Typepad system was immensely frustrating in the delay and consequent doubling/loss of postings. It still should be better than trying to wade through hundreds of mixed topic and aged comments that ID was offering.

And now a plea for the commentators: please make sure your comments provide some context for your comment: selective quoting or mentioning the comment to which you are replying helps. Now we are not on a threaded system, a post containing the equivalent of "Oh yes I agree wholeheartedly with the last poster.", may not be appropriate if someone you would disagree with has just posted "JW is a pile of lies and shite" seconds before you hit the Post button.

Is there where you say "I'M back, baby?"

So...much...to...say...so...little...time
Sorry, withdrawl kicked in,

So...much...to...say...so...little...time
Sorry, withdrawl kicked in.

I went through withdrawl- glad its over.

Guess it works, huh? A little slower than usual

Cornelius,

Muslim cleric Abu Hamza is on record as saying its a"religious duty" for Muslims to kill non-Muslims.Among the group of Muslim children who expressed their delight over the death of another child. One child was asked why, he replied because the dead child was English.Do you think the Muslims whether "cleric" or child in these two examples view non-Muslims as "human" or "subhuman"?Given this kind of conduct I'm not surprised someone would refer to Muslims as a group as subhuman, it's also not something I care about.

Okay, giving this a try.

Hey, I'm back to Josephine, instead of Josephine2!

Roxane,

When you are involved in a conflict with people who want to kill you, it is easy and somewhat natural to consider them “subhuman”. This makes killing THEM (which is sometimes necessary) easier.

But this is exactly like walking into a tree, condemning it as evil, chopping it down and then proceeding on to walk into the next tree in the forest. With this mindset, you will NEVER get at the root of the problem.

Not all Muslims are inherently evil, though without doubt SOME are, as is the case with members of all groups of human beings. The truth is that it is ISLAM that is evil, not Muslims in general.

To illustrate with past conflicts, it was not the individual German or Japanese soldier that was evil, it was the IDEOLOGY that drove them that was evil.

Islam appeals to and amplifies our worst tendencies as human beings. It guides people that would NORMALLY be peaceful, into brutal and murderous acts against their fellow human beings – THAT is the problem.

Dang... just when you get used to the new way, it's the old way again!

(Keep writing those ancient passwords down because everything comes back eventually.)

I preferred the ID threaded replies better, but if this TYPE works more efficiently for the site, c'est la vie.

Well I miss having a picture, but if this works better it's a small sacrifice.

Yes, I like not having my page scroll speed set to 'Molasses'.

--

May Islam die a natural death.

testing from my vacation....:)

Thumbs Up!!

Thumbs Up!!

Thumbs Up!!

Peace be upon TypePad.

nabi ZK (pbum)

Ahh....Back to the multiple posts.

:)

nabi ZK (pbum)

Am I in?

Thank goodness! Sanity returns to the comments section.

Yes! No more stupid intensedebate to worry about :) Great job, tech dudes.

Much better! Thanks!

Got my extra x back

kinda miss the avatars, but this works.

Thing I noticed was that intense debate seems to work on other sites without a hitch. I wonder if a hacker or two was the problem.

My guess is that it was Linda Douglass & Axlerod from the White House screwing up the site for obvious reasons. As Major Garrett observed to press secretary Gibbs that people have been getting emails from the White House that have not subscribed to that service. I know I got one just before Obama's Egypt speech, directing me to watch the speech and hyping the President's position (unsolicited)

Got to go. Need to adjust my tin foil hat, yes definitely Axlerod and Douglass.

Ahh why isn't this working for me?

So you freeze my CPU. Make my comments go poof, and I am supposed to be happy with you??? The words that I have we cannot print.

Cornelius, can we agree that some Muslims exhibit sub-human behaviour?

Although I would agree that gratuitous insults are unhelpful, I'm against being "PC" and not being able to call a spade a spade; if someone is acting in an evil way, wouldn't it then follow that they are, in fact, evil?

Happiness. TypePad is much faster. All the comments are on one page and easily saved. No more hidden replies. Much, much better. Thanks.

Test.

Pakistani Christians Forced into Refugee Camps

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090815/pakistani-christians-force-to-become-refugee-in-islamabad/index.html

Pakistan Christians' tent city

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYbqeF6K6dM

It is sick to teach a child to hate.

Normal parents, ones displaying [I]"basic humanity'[/I] teach their children to try and understand and accept all types of people-not so with muslims.

I for one feel very sorry for muslims- they are a pitiful group of people, brainwashed into a cult by satan himself using the quran and imam.

Hello world.

Testing

Testing TypePad.

MrsJ,

I have a problem with the word "sub-human" in ANY context.

As you insist, the behavior of "some Muslims" can indeed be described as violent, intolerant, barbaric, fanatical, and a hundred other adjectives. And yes, I do recognize Islam as a sociological evil.

"Sub-human" denotes something entirely different. First of all, the expression is factually incorrect; Muslim fanatics - however warped and twisted their behavior - ARE HUMAN BEINGS. As I've tried over the years to inculcate in my daughter an abstract love for humankind, I've also taught her never to underestimate the HUMAN capacity for evil.

Secondly, the expression stems from one of the darkest chapters in human history; Hitler labeled his victims - Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs - as "sub-human" in order to justify their extermination. We should avoid such language for both ethical and tactical considerations. And we should consider the impact of using such expressions on the reputation of Jihadwatch and Robert Spencer.

Finally, the context for the original offense was comprehensive: "Muslims are sub-human" was the quote. As I previously wrote, of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, I'm sure that among them are thousands if not millions who are better human beings than I.

I just can't believe that my entreaties on this issue are controversial.

Cornelius: "I just can't believe that my entreaties on this issue are controversial."

That's why I specified that some Muslims exhibit sub-human BEHAVIOUR.

I can see your point, but as Robert says, the comments are provided in the interests of free speech.

Tippy-toeing around what we think and feel is not free speech.

The original poster may not really think that every single Muslim is sub-human, and you were right to challenge him/her about such a statement, but I don't think you have the right to instruct the rest of Commentsville to be PC about their own comments.

"I don't think you have the right to instruct the rest of Commentsville to be PC about their own comments."

I'm just offering my opinion, which is my right. And how sad that suggesting the phrase "sub-human" is inappropriate in referring to other human beings...is considered "PC".

PS - Anyone familiar with my input here must be aware that I've been incessant in my attacks on multiculturalism and political-correctness. I've pulled no punches in my own exposition of the theological barbarism of Islam and the profound moral failings of the "prophet" Muhammad.

But the language of dehumanization is where I get off the train. At this rate, protesting the invocation of genocide will soon be considered PC among the commentators here at JW.

I do appreciate what Cornelius is saying but it is hard to feel much sympathy for the adherrants of such a mediaevil ideology which if practiced as written in the quran is so barbaric and inhuman as it actually instructs believers to terrorise and murder all unbelievers. In fact,it could be said, it is racist in a way as it teaches not to befriend any unbelievers and impose a jizzya tax on those who won`t convert thereby making lives a misery.
There does not seem to be many so-called moderate muslims who will denounce what the extremists do, or is it that they fear the consequences. Who knows!!

I do appreciate what Cornelius is saying but it is hard to feel much sympathy for the adherrants of such a mediaevil ideology which if practiced as written in the quran is so barbaric and inhuman as it actually instructs believers to terrorise and murder all unbelievers. In fact,it could be said, it is racist in a way as it teaches not to befriend any unbelievers and impose a jizzya tax on those who won`t convert thereby making lives a misery.
There does not seem to be many so-called moderate muslims who will denounce what the extremists do, or is it that they fear the consequences. Who knows!!

Cornelius,

I don't appreciate the thought police whether in the Obama administration or here at JW.You believe that using the word "sub-human" in connection with Muslims is wrong and you are free not to use that word. I do not care about the use of the word subhuman. What I do care about are the Muslims who actually on a day to day basis treat women and non-Muslims as subhuman.Actions rather then words bother me.

I agree with Cornelius.

A long time ago, I was trashed by some folks in the JW comment section for objecting to Muslims as a group being called dehumanizing names such as vermin or cockroaches. I was also trashed for disagreeing with the pro-BNP crowd. As a result, I pretty much stopped commenting here for a long time.

Boo hoo, no great loss for JW, I'm sure, but that's not the point.

I appreciate that those who disagree with Cornelius are being polite about it. We all have our opinions and some would draw the free speech line here rather than there.

Cornelius has the right to say if he thinks a line has been crossed. Others have the right to respond. The Jihad Watch administrators will be the judges of what will be allowed to stand.

Thanks to everyone at Jihad Watch. It isn't always pretty but it's great to read (and sometimes participate in) a debate. I appreciate that the administrators are still willing to take the time to make it possible.

Roxane,

I really DO get your point. I've often been amazed at the extent to which Charles Johnson over at LGF obsesses over the ideological purity of the anti-Jihad and the conservative movement, rather than concentrating on the evil perpetrated by the Islamo/Left.

Unlike Johnson, I don't give a damn about creationists, or whether or not a Belgian nationalist once attended a far-right book show. Like you, I care about fighting and winning against our real enemies.

But I'm an individualist. I march to the beat of my own drum, and I answer to the call of my own conscience. I choose carefully with whom I associate and why....and I'm certainly not going to fight one sociological evil by embracing another (even if, as you rightly point out, their respective threats to humankind bear no resemblance).

I simply can't countenance expressions like "sub-human" when referring to other human beings. Right or wrong, it's just the way I'm wired. But you and Mrs J are certainly right, it's not for me to tell others what they can or can't say; that's up to the webmasters here.

It's just now dawning on me that perhaps my time here at JW is coming to a close. I've tried - not always successfully - to avoid the inclination to just vent, and have made the effort to offer up positions - sometimes controversial - that stimulate discussion and the search for solutions. I've enjoyed my episodic discourse with Hugh, even allowing for the occasional acrimony.

Most of all, I cherish the work of Robert Spencer, who provides us with an example that I myself just don't have the internal fortitude to follow; someone who has put himself out on the front lines of this struggle without the comfort and safety of anonymity. The man is an inspiration.

Thanks for the support Josephine.

Testing also...

Well I'm glad the comments are back, but I'm kind of missing the features of intensedebate, a little bit. Yes, I know it was glitchy, but I liked the credibility ratings and the ability to respond directly to someone's post. I also liked how you could get an email response when someone personally responds to you.

I liked it when a Muslim troll would post, and you would know immediately who it was because they would have a red credibility score. Now, everything looks so neutral... everywhere. Plus, these trolls can change their name at any point to make it look like they are more than one person.

Cornelius,

When Muslim human beings, in seeking to do "something good for Ramadan", behead three little Indonesian girls and toss their headless bodies in a ditch, those Muslim human beings have effectively become subhumans.

Roxane,

"One of the children said "don't touch me you're Christian" as if he was soiled by the touch of a Christian..."

That's not just a vaguely amorphous psychocultural atmospheric that Muslims share about Infidels: it is specifically derived from the words of God, in the Koran --

"O Ye who believe! Those who practice Shirk are filthy!" (9:28)

Muslims believe that Jews and Christians practice Shirk (cf. 5:72-73 and 9:30) -- i.e., they have beliefs that compromise the Oneness of Allah (Christians and their Trinity, Jews according to the Koran by believing "Ezra" is the Son of God).

To Eastview and Dumbledore's Army--and, no doubt, many others who share the concern about the disappearance of your IntenseDebate comments--they are still accessible.

I had thought that most of us probably still had IntenseDebate accounts, and I was right. I did some Googling and found my account--as well as those of many other posters.

This is how to access:

http://s.intensedebate.com/people/

[after the final slash, type in your username]

In the six months or so that we used IntenseDebate, I posted over 2400 comments--I guess I'm pretty verbose.

Now, you can't access *everything*. If you try to link to the article you were responding to, it will link to the JW article, but the comments stream is missing. Likewise, it will tell you if someone replied to your comment, but you can no longer find out who commented or what the comment was.

Still, I hope this is helpful.

To Eastview and Dumbledore's Army--and, no doubt, many others who share the concern about the disappearance of your IntenseDebate comments--they are still accessible.

I had thought that most of us probably still had IntenseDebate accounts, and I was right. I did some Googling and found my account--as well as those of many other posters.

This is how to access:

http://s.intensedebate.com/people/

[after the final slash, type in your username]

In the six months or so that we used IntenseDebate, I posted over 2400 comments--I guess I'm pretty verbose.

Now, you can't access *everything*. If you try to link to the article you were responding to, it will link to the JW article, but the comments stream is missing. Likewise, it will tell you if someone replied to your comment, but you can no longer find out who commented or what the comment was.

Still, I hope this is helpful.

MrsJ,

"if someone is acting in an evil way, wouldn't it then follow that they are, in fact, evil?"

I would expand that to include all those who continue to support the system through which those who act evil derive their inspiration and their enablement to do those evil acts -- i.e., effectively all Muslims who support Islam (and what Muslims don't support Islam? and how would we know they really don't?).

Cornelius,

I agree with you and with Josephine. Calling people "subhuman" and "cockroaches" etc. is obviously (to some of us, anyways) unacceptable in the realm of intelligent and ethical discourse, and only hurts the Jihad Watch project and causes headaches for Robert.

Cornelius,

"of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, I'm sure that among them are thousands if not millions who are better human beings than I."

Insofar as all Muslims support the evil, dangerous and grotesquely unjust system Islam, the best of them are at the very least unconscionably ethically negligent, while innumerable others among them are worse to the degree that their passive enablement of that evil, dangerous and unjust system becomes more consciously defined.

Closely related to this ethical problem, we have the strategic problem that the continued enablement by all those hundreds of millions of Muslims of this global system that is increasingly threatening the free world with terrorist plots whose plotters one can reasonably assume are trying their damndest to acquire WMDs of one flavor or another (biological, chemical, radioactive) -- that continued enablement no matter how passive and "ignorant" it might be, nevertheless serves to empower that system and helps to maintain its worldwide reach, its social networking, and its relative respectability as a "world religion" of "moms and pops like the rest of us" -- and thus its dangerousness to us.

So no: of course not: among the total population of Muslims, there are not "thousands if not millions who are better human beings than" you -- even if we assume the best of any individuals among that number, they fail by their support, no matter how passive it might be, of that evil, dangerous, and grotesquely unjust system called Islam.

gravenimage, thanks for that info. I suspect that instantdebate might not keep that archive around forever, and I wouldn't be surprised if I tried to access it a month or two from now, my comments would no longer exist there.

Cornelius wrote:

It's just now dawning on me that perhaps my time here at JW is coming to a close.
..................

Cornelius, please don't go. Your posts are in the top five or so posters which I have always looked for--I "followed" your posts on the old IntenseDebate system. Your comments are almost always reasonable and insightful, and I'm sure many readers here at JW welcome your input.

I've hesitated to jump into this controversy, because I can see both sides--you always have to ask, how many acts of evil does a person have to commit to be an evil person? I've always felt that the concept of "hate the sin, not the sinner" only goes so far.

Eventually, with a man such as Osama bin Ladin and other Jihadists become *defined* by their evil.

That being said, I very much agree with you--certainly not every Muslim can be considered "sub-human". I also agree with you that the use of such terms can do little to help the position of JW, which is regularly accused of being "Islamophobic".

At the same time, I would not assume that anyone using the term "sub-human" is necessarily advocating doing indiscriminate harm to those so described--but I do very much agree that such language *has* been used to justify such acts.

Generally, I try to be measured in my responses, keeping in mind the impression my comments will make, especially on any new reader--although it is difficult at times, considering the horrors we are regularly exposed to in the often appalling stories that are covered here at JW.

I have long believed that yours is one of the most thoughtful voices commenting here. I hope to look forward to reading many more of your comments in the future.

Hesperado,

The quote was not "Muslims who behead Indonesian school-girls are sub-human"...it was "Muslims are sub-human".

Kinana,

Great moniker...but I hope your fate is far different than your name-sake.

Graven,

You're very sweet...(and overly-generous).

I might take off for a period of self-reflection, but in all probability I'll feel compelled to come back soon enough in order to comment on one issue or another...and meanwhile, I'll continue to check in here 4 or 5 times a day just to keep up on the news you can't get elsewhere.

Feels like home again.

Advice for the Christians present. We are told to pray for our enemies.

During Ramadan this year, for thirty days, Christians all over the world will join in unloosing a barrage of prayer against the spiritual strongholds of Islam.

Christians here present can find out how to join that prayer campaign.

http://www.30-days.net/

I would emphasise that such prayer does not mean that the person praying will not also be taking what practical/ poltitical action they can to prevent the Mohammedan infiltration and subversion of non-Muslim lands.

Those evangelical Christians who prayed for the salvation of the Chinese, during the Mao years, or for the preservation and renewal of the Church in Russia, during the darkest days of Stalinism, (and who often supported clandestine mission and witness within the communist bloc, and spoke up for persecuted Christians) also supported the practical, political defence of their own homelands against the encroachment of both of those tyrannical systems.

Cornelius,

The quote was not "Muslims who behead Indonesian school-girls are sub-human"...it was "Muslims are sub-human".

I know, but you have gone on to articulate a rejection of the term universally.

Ah, the JW of old.

Well looky-here. Mostly all the same old names. Had to scroll back to find where the comment system changed after posting on some later stories. Don’t know where and when I created a Typepad account, but apparently I had one.

Still waiting for info on my busy training schedule in days to come. My sister mentioned I should get my wife’s ring size memorized for when I get to Dubai to buy some cheap gold. Of course, I countered saying “why would I want to spend time in Dubai?” Apparently, as part of our de-stress period after our tour, they send us to Dubai for 3 days.

WTF?

After spending 9 months in an ilsamic armpit of ass-crack-istan, I have to spend 3 more days under the watchful Islamic yoke in Dubai to “de-stress?” WTF is wrong with a beach in Israel, or any other freakin’ place other than one of the 57 nations of islam?

Well, what can you do. I can’t wait to write about the reaction to my complaints about where I get to go on “furlough” after my tour to calm down after being in a part of the world where muslim are so keen to kill infidels, to a part of the world where they fund muslims to kill infidels, paid by infidels who come on vacation at government expense.

It’s a crazy-ole world, brought to you by the ReligionOfPeaceTM.

Cornelius,
I second the comments above of gravenimage.

You and Wellington offer some of the finest, most well thought out and insightful comments that JW has to offer. I’ll bet your fan base here is far larger than either one of you imagine.

Case in point, the “subhuman” quote and your commentary.

Firstly, there is a world of difference between noting subhuman BEHAVIOR as opposed to classifying a whole category of human beings as “subhuman” – some here seem confused at the distinction.

Secondly, the act of classifying a group of people as “subhuman” and the connection back to the Third Reich is right on target. By definition “subhuman” is irredeemable.
It is this classification of the Jews by the Nazis that gave them license to commit all manner of horrors, among them genocide and using them as “lab rats” for medical experimentation.

So I wonder if anyone here, after careful reflection on the comments above, really feels it is justified to classify all Muslims as “subhuman”. Are they really all irredeemable?
Many brave and articulate apostates prove otherwise.

Hang in there buddy, there are a few of us out here with our own drums also.

Cornelius,
I second the comments above of gravenimage.

You and Wellington offer some of the finest, most well thought out and insightful comments that JW has to offer. I’ll bet your fan base here is far larger than either one of you imagine.

Case in point, the “subhuman” quote and your commentary.

Firstly, there is a world of difference between noting subhuman BEHAVIOR as opposed to classifying a whole category of human beings as “subhuman” – some here seem confused at the distinction.

Secondly, the act of classifying a group of people as “subhuman” and the connection back to the Third Reich is right on target. By definition “subhuman” is irredeemable.
It is this classification of the Jews by the Nazis that gave them license to commit all manner of horrors, among them genocide and using them as “lab rats” for medical experimentation.

So I wonder if anyone here, after careful reflection on the comments above, really feels it is justified to classify all Muslims as “subhuman”. Are they really all irredeemable?
Many brave and articulate apostates prove otherwise.

Hang in there buddy, there are a few of us out here with our own drums also.

Davegreybeard,

"Firstly, there is a world of difference between noting subhuman BEHAVIOR as opposed to classifying a whole category of human beings as “subhuman” – some here seem confused at the distinction."

Cornelius himself confused them. He wrote:

"I have a problem with the word "sub-human" in ANY context."

So he is ruling out the legitimacy even of speaking of subhuman behavior.

Davegreybeard,

"Firstly, there is a world of difference between noting subhuman BEHAVIOR as opposed to classifying a whole category of human beings as “subhuman” – some here seem confused at the distinction."

Cornelius himself confused them. He wrote:

"I have a problem with the word "sub-human" in ANY context."

So he is ruling out the legitimacy even of speaking of subhuman behavior.

This is for you, KaffirKanuck, re. your heartfelt complaint above as to the idiocy of the Powers That Be and their choice of Dubai - Muslim Dubai!! - as an R & R destination for war-weary non-Muslim soldiers from the Predator Pit that is Afghanistan.

That really *is* awful.

And I agree with you, mate: if they *have* to send you guys to 'the Middle East' for R & R, *Israel* would be a much better choice.

Beaches; beer; and pretty girls who *don't* mind being ogled by handsome guys in uniform (since said pretty girls have all got brothers in uniform, and have even done their stint in uniform, themselves...many of the drones that hovered protectively above IDF soldiers in Gaza in January, were being directed by Big Sister and Jewish Momma).

The non-Muslim troops should start campaigning for 'R & R in Israel, NOT Dubai!' right now.

"This year in Jerusalem!"

Dave,

I appreciate the input and support. You and I (and Wellington) have almost always seen eye to eye.

Sometimes a person needs to retrench...and practice some introspection. I think I've reached that point.

I've never been one to believe that "what you don't know can't hurt you"...or that "ignorance is bliss." On the contrary, I firmly believe what you don't know can eventually bite you in the ass. This site is playing an indispensable role in public education and I support it with all my heart. But I've been troubled by some of the comments here for some time and need to work through it.

It's not only the use of dehumanizing words like "sub-human"...it's people who are so ideologically rigid that they've branded me MC/PC (a very real insult in my world-view) because I happen to support Iranians demonstrating against their oppressive government...and Muslim moderates in Algeria and elsewhere fighting to the death against Sharia groups. There is a mindset here that is uncompromisingly antagonistic to every Muslim in existence, regardless of their words and deeds. I don't happen to feel that it's realistic and/or helpful in furthering our ultimate goals.

But I don't take for granted that I couldn't be the one who is wrong on this. I just need some time to work it through in my head.

Test test....It's been a while since I used TypeKey/TypePad. Let's just see if it works.

has anyone seen comments by posters Sorrow01 or baseballmaven since JW ditched IntenseDebate? I hope they haven't been stymied by the new/old system.

On the other hand, it looks as though there are some old posters who are back. I assumed they had gotten busy or gone on to other matters, but it looks as though some people just weren't able to use IntenseDebate at all. Welcome back!

For gravenimage,
IntenseDebate was too loud for me. Uncomfortably loud. All pulleys, bells, whistles, colors, boxes, pictures, numbers, little hands up and down, it just seemed so gaudy, like a spoiled child’s playroom. It was too distracting, too busy. I hated it.
An age related consequence I think.

To IntenseDebate,

I don't like your product.

Respectfully,

Cornelius wrote:

"It's not only the use of dehumanizing words like "sub-human"...it's people who are so ideologically rigid that they've branded me MC/PC (a very real insult in my world-view) because I happen to support Iranians demonstrating against their oppressive government...and Muslim moderates in Algeria and elsewhere fighting to the death against Sharia groups."

As far as I remember, I was the only one who complained about not only Cornelius, but most others here for supporting the Noble Iranian People who Are Muslims and Who follow Mousavi the Evil Snake But Who Happen to Wear Blue Jeans So They Must Be All Right.

I.e., as far as I could tell, the majority here at JW were on Cornelius's side! If anyone should start feeling depressed about JW and need to take time out to "think", it would be ME, not Cornelius!!!

Well buddy, maybe you SHOULD take some time to think. I've been reading your blog today...and came across "DAMN" among other things.

You blast Robert for advocating something with little chance of success...a clarion call for Muslims to repudiate the worst features of their doctrine...and then you go on to advocate something even less remote. You actually believe the US government can be prevailed upon to begin rounding up all the Muslims in the USA - citizens and non-citizens alike - and forcibly deport them?...(I assume this includes Black Muslims who are native to this country)?

You actually believe this is a realistic proposal?

At least Robert's clarion call for repudiation, however unlikely to resonate among the enemy, carries a moral message that won't be lost on the fair-minded. Were he to share in your advocacy of a medieval mass expulsion, he would disappear into the great din of inconsequentiality (where you and I reside, my friend) and forfeit the impact he's currently having in the world with his almost daily appearances at universities, seminars, in the media, etc.

I give you kudos for even attempting to find solutions to incredibly vexing problems...and I don't necessarily object to them out of ethical considerations. It's their implausibility that makes them borderline comical.

Who knows though, historical processes can be accelerated by circumstance. I don't discount the possibility that there may come a day after some mega-terror event, when your mass-explusion scheme may become conventional wisdom. Should it happen, we'll all celebrate you as a visionary.

Until then, I'll offer some unsolicited but constructive criticism...I'd consider going back to the drawing board if I were you (which is, by the way, what I'm about to undertake).

should read: "more remote"

Cornelius,

Before you go back to your “drawing board” I cannot help but offer some unsolicited observations and opinions of my own.

I believe we are on course to a worldwide conflict, quite possibly as horrendous and bloody as WW II – except it will last far longer. As with all conflicts of such magnitude there will come brutal murder and atrocities - on both sides. We have seen the blood lust flow strong in our enemy, but we are not immune from this fever. As you have noted, if you watch and listen very carefully, you can see its beginnings – ever so faintly.

So once again our fragile ship of civilization is about to sail into the maelstrom. If we are to prevail, a brave and stalwart crew is needed on deck to deal with the furry of the storm. Yet more is required to prevail or all will be lost – moral ballast, to right our craft when a heavy blow “rounds her down”. Those that provide this ballast must be just as unyielding and clear of purpose as the frenzied crew above.

Cornelius,

"You blast Robert for advocating something with little chance of success...a clarion call for Muslims to repudiate the worst features of their doctrine...and then you go on to advocate something even less remote. You actually believe the US government can be prevailed upon to begin rounding up all the Muslims in the USA - citizens and non-citizens alike - and forcibly deport them?...(I assume this includes Black Muslims who are native to this country)?
You actually believe this is a realistic proposal?"

I've already integrated that problem into my arguments on my blog. I don't claim to be infallible or omniscient, but I have taken the trouble to present an argument, and expect those who take issue with it to present actual counter-arguments, rather than heaving emotional boulders of polemics.

"At least Robert's clarion call for repudiation, however unlikely to resonate among the enemy, carries a moral message that won't be lost on the fair-minded."

I've also addressed the problem of the moral dimension.

"Were he to share in your advocacy of a medieval mass expulsion, he would disappear into the great din of inconsequentiality (where you and I reside, my friend) and forfeit the impact he's currently having in the world with his almost daily appearances at universities, seminars, in the media, etc."

While I grant he has a toehold on the edges of the mainstream, he is not inside, and unfortunately in our sociopolitical world, that's all that counts.

However, as I have also argued on my blog -- even if he incrementally, over the next decade or two, inches his way closer inside the outer margin of the mainstream and climbs up to a place slightly less damned than, say, Ann Coulter, this still raises the problem of what will be happening during the meantime -- millions more Muslims relocating within the West, while the West is with achingly slow readjustment coming around to listen to Spencer: this will change the problem from what we have now: if at that point the West begins to entertain the mild measures recommended by Spencer, it will be a bandaid against a raging limb needing amputation. And in fact, such half-assed measures taken at that point will likely serve to inflame the increased millions of Muslims within the West and cause even more potential for violence, riots, insurrections, more terrorist attacks including random sudden jihad syndromes -- and as a consequence measures we will have to take which will make my D.A.M.N. seem downright humane.

Better, I say, for us to work for the more logical reconfiguration for the long-term, rather than the half-assed one that remains incoherent and sincerely "ethical" but bloody reckless.

Butterfly - re. IntenseDebate. I agree. It was too 'busy', too 'loud'.

I prefer this more sedate format. Somehow I find it easier to think, when reading and posting with Typepad.

Though as far as age goes...the one thing IntenseDebate did have going for it, for me (I who have had astigmatism and short-sightedness all my life, and have worn glasses accordingly, and find that at 45 the astigmatism seems to be getting somewhat worse) was that the comments all appeared in *black* type.

Typepad's grey-on-grey is perceptibly harder to read.

You are not signed in. You need to be registered to comment on this site.

Dave,

You're presupposing that we'll go out with a bang and not a whisper. I make no such assumption.

But this is one more reason I need some space from Jihadwatch (and I'm not referring to you here)...I'm weary of the literal eagerness so many at JW have for a cataclysmic show-down with Islam. I'd surely rather fight than surrender, but the ideal solution is not world war, but to facilitate revolutionary change in the Islamic world, by any and all means at our disposal.

My argument with the appeasers is even more pronounced. Their mistake is not that they want peace per se, but that their solution, the continued mass validation of Islam as a belief system, is in fact the greatest IMPEDIMENT to the long-sought but elusive societal reformation the Islamic world so desperately needs. I'm not suggesting here that Islam as a religion can be reformed. Our challenge is to help Islamic societies evolve away from the literalism that is at the core of its dysfunctionality.

It's an improbable outcome, but certainly no less so than suggestions that we quarantine the Muslim world (at a time when we're still dependent on fossil fuels and with non-Muslim entities like China, Russia and the EU eager to fill the void created by our departure)...and medieval mass expulsion schemes that will likely betray our own constitutional prerogatives and possibly bring about a civil war.

Don't get me wrong...I'd be pleased to see the Muslims go, every last one of them, but I just don't think there's a chance in hell it will ever happen.

Hesperado,

You're basically saying that lessor solutions won't even get under way until it's too late demographically, so let's advocate the most extreme solution now, with the expectation that when things finally implode, the groundwork will have been laid. An interesting theory, but one I can't subscribe to, simply because of its implausibility.

And however insignificant you may believe Robert Spencer's position is in the realm of mainstream respectability, I happen to feel he's making a very real splash, reaching young minds at the university level, enlightening government security experts, law enforcement officials and even military planners, and occasionally appearing on Foxnews to reach the uninitiated.

Finally, the moral question involved is not necessarily geared to Muslims (although that is a component). As things stand today in our own sociological environment, advocating mass expulsion schemes is a one-way ticket to political oblivion. We need Robert where he is.

Again, kudos for your efforts. Keep burning the oil, but I urge you to at least ponder alternatives. Realistically, your plan has little chance of ever being implemented. A mind as logical as yours surely must be entertaining a plan B.

Cornelius

Forgot to fill in the DOB on Typepad sign in and it locked me out. It stated I was under 13 and too young. Finally after much thought, I had to change to other computer to get in. I assure everyone that I am well over 13.

Both Intense Debate and Typepad have their unique problems and it is hard to figure which is better (or worse?).

Cornelius wrote:

"...the ideal solution is not world war, but to facilitate revolutionary change in the Islamic world, by any and all means at our disposal."

Such a revolution would be the bloodiest, messiest and most dangerous revolution in the history of the world.

Cornelius also wrote:

"It's an improbable outcome, but certainly no less so than suggestions that we quarantine the Muslim world (at a time when we're still dependent on fossil fuels and with non-Muslim entities like China, Russia and the EU eager to fill the void created by our departure)..."

I don't envision the West being willing to set mass deportation in motion until at least 50 years go by, but probably not before 100 years. By then, the fossil fuel problem re: dependence upon Muslim oil, will have likely been solved.

"...and medieval mass expulsion schemes that will likely betray our own constitutional prerogatives..."

Not if the danger is perceived as great enough, and having certain unique features that logically require mass expulsion.

"...and possibly bring about a civil war."

That depends upon the state of the public consciousness at that time. It seems likely that if the West will have evolved to a point where mass expulsion is seriously considered as an option, the surrounding public will be largely on board -- with exceptions that always pertain, though not necessarily rising to the threshhold of internecine insurrections. Only 50 years ago, the American public was overwhelmingly supportive of interning American citizens and their public pressure was one factor persuading a slightly grudging FDR to go ahead with that most unremarkably rational decision that was not ruled un-Constitutional then by the Supreme Court, nor ever has been since. The only thing that has changed in the intervening years is that the Supreme Court of Political Correctness has evolved. If such a sea change in consciousness can evolve into mainstream dominance in 50 years, it can devolve in another 50 years or so. And there is every reason to reasonably suppose that various outrageous expressions and actions by Muslims, along the way, will facilitate that devolution, or rather revolution -- revolving back to our former sanity.

Cornelius:

"As things stand today in our own sociological environment, advocating mass expulsion schemes is a one-way ticket to political oblivion. We need Robert where he is."

As I've said before, Spencer doesn't have to stand on the rooftops and condemn all Muslims and advocate their mass expulsion. All he has to do is not recommend, nor editorially imply recommendation of, concrete measures that would undermine the evolution toward the mass expulsion policy. I.e., I favor Spencer keeping his day job, which he does excellently, but I do not favor him going out on the moonlighting limb where he's on less secure footing. I think he can do the former without having to do the latter. Indeed, the former is what he does most of the time anyway. His ongoing tack of simply adverting to what is wrong in the Islamic orbit and tending to refrain from making pronouncements upon Islam itself and Muslims qua Muslims is fine -- as long as he consistently sticks to it and doesn't say other things out the other side of his mouth under his second hat that tend to contradict that tack and render his overall analysis incoherent. Unfortunately, he continues to do the latter.

CORNELIUS: "...the ideal solution is not world war, but to facilitate revolutionary change in the Islamic world, by any and all means at our disposal."

HESPERADO: "Such a revolution would be the bloodiest, messiest and most dangerous revolution in the history of the world."

RESPONSE: Not necessarily.

Tunisia, for example, has constructed a secular polity without an excess of violence. On the other hand, Algeria's experience has been very bloody. There's just no way to predict how the revolution/evolution of the Islamic world will proceed. But even if you turn out to be right, I'd rather the battleground between modernity and Islam be fought in Dar ul Islam instead of the West.

---------------------------------------------

HESPERADO: "I don't envision the West being willing to set mass deportation in motion until at least 50 years go by, but probably not before 100 years."

RESPONSE: By your own calculations, it may be too late by then. In 50 years, Muslims will have near majorities in France, Spain, Germany, Britain, Belgium and Holland. Under such conditions, it may be the opposite of what you anticipate; the native population will by then in all likelihood be emigrating en mass under duress.

In short, your timetable doesn't bode well for success, at least as it pertains to Europe. The demographic time bomb threatens to overcome the political maturation process you're counting on. By my estimation, the undertaking will have to commence within 20 years to have any hope of success...and you apparently feel they won't be ready.

------------------------------------------------

As for Spencer, I don't think you're allowing for any sort of nuance in his approach, which is - if I may be so bold - what I perceive to be one of your principle shortcomings as a strategist. For example, on your blog, you quote Spencer as writing...

"I have never stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...” "

YOUR RESPONSE: "What this means is that Spencer thinks that the interpretations of the fanatics DO NOT reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition."

RESPONSE: That's not necessarily what it means at all. Spencer is denying a quote that has been falsely attributed to him; it doesn't mean he believes the opposite.

Hesp, Robert lives in the real world. He has to choose his words carefully to maintain his bonafides so that he can continue to reach a mass audience. I think he's done pretty damn well in not having compromised his integrity or his beliefs in the process.

Cornelius:

"Tunisia, for example, has constructed a secular polity without an excess of violence."

It's a dictatorship that tortures people. It avoids violence in the sense of conflagrations by imposing violence and threat of violence in the sense of tyranny (the only way that secularism has been able to thrive in any Muslim polity, btw).

"But even if you turn out to be right, I'd rather the battleground between modernity and Islam be fought in Dar ul Islam instead of the West."

That will be increasingly untenable, the more millions of Muslims penetrate into the West. In fact, it's pretty much untenable now, given the number of Muslims in the West, if a "revolution" of that global import began to catch fire.

HESPERADO: "I don't envision the West being willing to set mass deportation in motion until at least 50 years go by, but probably not before 100 years."

RESPONSE: By your own calculations, it may be too late by then. In 50 years, Muslims will have near majorities in France, Spain, Germany, Britain, Belgium and Holland. Under such conditions, it may be the opposite of what you anticipate; the native population will by then in all likelihood be emigrating en mass under duress.

MY RESPONSE: You are imagining non-activity and non-evolution during those 50 years. Rather, it will be a process of growing crystallization, not 50 years of nothing and then a sudden decision. Secondly, the West is light years more sophisticated and superior to Islamic culture. When the time comes, even with 40% Muslims, it will be doable. It could have been much more easily doable sooner, and far less bloody, but it will be doable when the West wakes up. The only thing stopping the West is its ignorance. Once it wakes up, it will be lights out for Muslims. The end game will be the only rational option then. I just think that working toward that end game so that it dawns on the West sooner, rather than later, is more practical. Even sooner, it will still be much later than it should be -- but is that an argument for allowing it to be as late as possible and therefore as bloody and messy as possible?

YOU: For example, on your blog, you quote Spencer as writing...

"I have never stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...”

YOU QUOTING MY RESPONSE: "What this means is that Spencer thinks that the interpretations of the fanatics DO NOT reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition."

YOUR RESPONSE: That's not necessarily what it means at all. Spencer is denying a quote that has been falsely attributed to him; it doesn't mean he believes the opposite. Hesp, Robert lives in the real world. He has to choose his words carefully to maintain his bonafides so that he can continue to reach a mass audience.

MY RESPONSE: I appreciate you adducing actual evidence from my argument to present your counter-argument. You have presented here a turgid bundle of complications that have to be painstakingly picked apart.

First, the Spencer quote you cite is clear sophistry. "I have never stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...” Okay, so he has never "stated" that in so many words. The point is, does he or doesn't he believe it? And has he, or hasn't he, made numerous statements that logically lead anyone of a fair assessment of statements to conclude that he does?

More to the point for us -- why hasn't he stated such an unremarkably true opinion -- especially given the mountain of evidence he himself amasses on Jihad Watch that indicates the reasonablness of such an opinion?

In one of your layers of points turgidly bundled up you indicate a reason why: Robert lives in the real world. He has to choose his words carefully to maintain his bonafides so that he can continue to reach a mass audience.

So which is it? His quote is coherent despite other things he says and the mountain of work he is doing that goes against it? Or it's sophistically calculated to maintain his bonafides?

Frankly, I don't want to defend a West that has to rely on transparently incoherent flim-flam and card tricks and sleight-of-hand to maintain bonafides. Emperors with no clothes on cuts both ways. At the very least, I would hope Spencer just maintains a strategy where he won't need to deploy such shoddy maneuvers.

Nothing turgid about my response...it was brief and to the point. Spencer denied a quote that was falsely attributed to him. Why is that so hard to understand?

Furthermore, my guess is that while you maintain your sterling ideological purity from the comforting anonymity of your blog, you probably don't go around at your day job (if you have one) openly expressing such opinions to your peers and superiors. Robert doesn't have such a luxury. He's out in the open...and must conduct himself accordingly.

You seem to want ideological purity from Iranian demonstrators, purity from Robert, purity from one and all...and anyone who doesn't measure up to your vaunted standards is a sophist or PC.

Meanwhile, speaking of turgid, follow your paragraph starting with "You are imagining..."

The rampant speculation culminates in the hyperbole that "it will be lights out on Muslims." This confidence hardly conforms to existing trends. I see the great probability of an opposite outcome...of an aging, barren Europe passing the torch to a successor civilization. A rational analysis of the situation by any objective observer COULD conclude that your predictions are pie in the sky.

Furthermore, while the West is indeed "light years" superior to Islam, it is not necessarily more "sophisticated," at least pertaining to this great struggle. Just compare the effectiveness of Muslim interest groups in their adroit exploitation of our legalisms and openness...with our own inept, deluded attempts to comprehend and relate to Muslims.

You're an obviously intelligent man, Hesperado...and the most intelligent thing you've written on this thread is that you "are not infallible or omniscient". Perhaps you could further develop the practice of such wisdom and humility. Don't judge Robert and your other contemporaries too harshly; they're fighting an uphill battle, doing the best they can under extraordinary circumstances.

Cornelius,

"Nothing turgid about my response...it was brief and to the point."

It was brief, but it had complications enfolded within it -- hence my use of the word "bundle". I teased out the two most salient ones:

1) the role of the apparent sophistry of Spencer's quote and your continuing avoidance of it,

2) apparently contradicted by your appeal to Spencer's supposed tactic of maintaining bonafides with PC MC, an appeal apparently calculated to save the sophistry you otherwise seem to avoid acknowledging.

"Spencer denied a quote that was falsely attributed to him. Why is that so hard to understand?"

This once again establishes #1. I've already articulated the sophistry of Spencer's quote, and your defense of it only reinforces that sophistry, in defense of it, while simultaneously ostensibly denying it even exists (though, again, this denial seemingly contradicted by your argument for the merit of the "bonafides" tactic).

"Furthermore, my guess is that while you maintain your sterling ideological purity from the comforting anonymity of your blog, you probably don't go around at your day job (if you have one) openly expressing such opinions to your peers and superiors. Robert doesn't have such a luxury. He's out in the open...and must conduct himself accordingly."

This is irrelevant to our discussion. A person can be brave, but still mistaken in one or more points of their methodology. Conversely, another person can be cowardly, but correct in one or more points of their methodology. Why is it necessary for me to point this elementary logic out to you? It seems that reason is breaking down in your conduct in this discussion, since you don't strike me as so stupid you would fail to comprehend such elementary logic.

"You seem to want ideological purity from Iranian demonstrators, purity from Robert, purity from one and all...and anyone who doesn't measure up to your vaunted standards is a sophist or PC."

Whether I want purity from others besides Spencer is irrelevant to whether or not any given critiques I have of his methology are valid. Again, I must point out points of elementary logic in this discussion.

"Don't judge Robert and your other contemporaries too harshly; they're fighting an uphill battle, doing the best they can under extraordinary circumstances."

Anybody and everybody can benefit from criticism. The point always is whether or not any given criticism is cogent, then valid. And that has to be discussed with actual arguments, in a spirit as dispassionate as possible open to any and all criticisms that show themselves to be maturely proffered -- not fended off by bodyguards protecting the perimeter of their idol.

1) The "sophistry" you attribute to Spencer is a form of projection...you've filtered his answer through the prism of your own world view. Robert has been consistent on the issue at hand. He's never set himself up as judge and jury regarding the morality or even the defining content of Islam, his method has always been to establish that those committing violence in the name of Islam are using its foundational texts to justify said violence.

HESPERADO: "A person can be brave and still mistaken on one or more points of their methodology. Conversely, another person can be cowardly, but correct in one or more points in their methodology."

RESPONSE: In other words, you're saying "[even though I can't practice what I preach, I'm right in the abstract]."

Until you've walked in Spencer's shoes, i.e., until you've put yourself out their publicly in the service of the cause, your criticisms are flaccid and hollow.

Meanwhile, no response to paragraphs 5 and 6?

Cornelius said:
“You're presupposing that we'll go out with a bang and not a whisper. I make no such assumption.”

My assumption is that Jihadis of one group or another will attack Europe and the U.S. repeatedly (when they think the time is right). I also believe this will happen soon, in the next few years - because the Jihadis just can’t help themselves. I also believe that the attacks will be large enough and violent enough that the P.C. mindset of the West will be “blown away” overnight.

There was mention of the decision to inter the Japanese. This did not spring from rational thought – it was born of fear. Any decision to inter or deport Muslims will spring from that very same emotion.

So it is a very fine and genteel discussion you are having with Hesperado and I do appreciate the way you both articulate your points of view. As far as it goes, I tend to favor your arguments.

But change the game just a little bit, such as suicide bombers simultaneously hitting 3 targets on the same day in the U.S. the next day 4 and so on for a week. How would such events change these lofty and oh so civilized discussions? How would it change Hesperado’s 50 to 100 year estimate?

I am not eager for a “cataclysmic showdown with Islam” but I have a crystal clear appreciation for the fact that at least several million Jihadis will die to make that happen – and I do believe they will get their wish.

Cornelius said:
“You're presupposing that we'll go out with a bang and not a whisper. I make no such assumption.”

My assumption is that Jihadis of one group or another will attack Europe and the U.S. repeatedly (when they think the time is right). I also believe this will happen soon, in the next few years - because the Jihadis just can’t help themselves. I also believe that the attacks will be large enough and violent enough that the P.C. mindset of the West will be “blown away” overnight.

There was mention of the decision to inter the Japanese. This did not spring from rational thought – it was born of fear. Any decision to inter or deport Muslims will spring from that very same emotion.

So it is a very fine and genteel discussion you are having with Hesperado and I do appreciate the way you both articulate your points of view. As far as it goes, I tend to favor your arguments.

But change the game just a little bit, such as suicide bombers simultaneously hitting 3 targets on the same day in the U.S. the next day 4 and so on for a week. How would such events change these lofty and oh so civilized discussions? How would it change Hesperado’s 50 to 100 year estimate?

I am not eager for a “cataclysmic showdown with Islam” but I have a crystal clear appreciation for the fact that at least several million Jihadis will die to make that happen – and I do believe they will get their wish.

"his method has always been to establish that those committing violence in the name of Islam are using its foundational texts to justify said violence."

Unforunately, if accurate about Spencer, it makes him no different from those who forever distinguish the "extremists" who are trying to "hijack" the foundational texts, from those who are using those foundational texts for good -- for it only says they are "using" those texts to justify bad things; it says nothing about whether those texts actually justify them. Not only those foundational texts themselves, but the mountain of evidence Spencer has provided, as well as referenced from the studies of countless other wise men and women whether scholars or brave ex-Muslims, throughout the years, pointing to Muslims in the news today, in the last few years, and throughout centuries of history with millions of dead people in the wake, indicates otherwise so monumentally and fundamentally, it is a searing travesty to continue to mince words about this.

Dave,

I think your prognostications are much more plausible than Hesperados. A mega-terror event in the next decade may indeed transform the equation...although 9-11, as bad as it was, did little to alter the formal discourse about Islam, shrouded as it is in misconceptions and PC, though admittedly, it certainly DID alter public perceptions (repressed by the media) AND the geo-political landscape (two foreign invasions).

I see the 50-100 years timetable for the expulsion scheme as entirely improbable; the demographic tide - at least in Europe - will be irreversible by then. If Hesperado's method is to have any chance of success, it will have to occur within 20 years.

I'm not any more capable of predicting the future than anyone else. Both of you guys could end up being right.

Your central point Dave, that the Muslim penchant for mass bloodletting will facilitate policies considered unthinkable now, is a legitimate one. My hope, slim as it is, is that Darul Islam can be brought (kicking and screaming no doubt) into the modern age without a cataclysmic war.

But I'd certainly prefer war than surrender. I love freedom...as a concept AND as a way of life. I want to see it survive for my descendants.

Meanwhile, I concede that Robert Spencer IS constrained by what he can and cannot say. But this is no fault of his own, it is the culture we live in. He should be praised for skillfully pushing the envelope as far as he has...instead of castigated for not pushing it all the way and burning his bridges.

Hesperado,

You are picking at nits my friend, all the while missing the logic of Spencer’s strategy. When you say:
“Unfortunately, if accurate about Spencer, it makes him no different from those who forever distinguish the "extremists" who are trying to "hijack" the foundational texts, from those who are using those foundational texts for good -- for it only says they are "using" those texts to justify bad things; it says nothing about whether those texts actually justify them.”
You are both wrong and have completely missed the point of what is occurring.

It is one thing for a person to present facts to prove a point and then hammer it home by stating that same point – which is what you would have Spencer do. It is quite different for one to present facts that lead to a certain conclusion; yet scrupulously avoid stating that quite obvious conclusion. It is a tactic that is elegant in its purity in that the listener is in no way contaminated by the beliefs or prejudices of the speaker – and the speaker thus cannot be accused of guiding the listener to (in the case of Islam) a horrendous conclusion.

When you say that Spencer is “no different from those who forever distinguish the "extremists…" you have strayed very far from the truth. The people that speak of “Islamic extremists” NEVER shed light on the subject by presenting the actual texts and tenets of Islam.

Spencer, as we all would agree, does a tremendous job of educating the world as to the true nature of Islam. What he does NOT do is ram his own conclusions down your throat.

Cornelius latterly wrote:

"The "sophistry" you attribute to Spencer [in the quote "I have never stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...”] is a form of projection...you've filtered his answer through the prism of your own world view. Robert has been consistent on the issue at hand. He's never set himself up as judge and jury regarding the morality or even the defining content of Islam, his method has always been to establish that those committing violence in the name of Islam are using its foundational texts to justify said violence.

This is ostensibly vitiated by what Cornelius formerly wrote when, after quoting my exegesis of that Spencer quote -- "What this means is that Spencer thinks that the interpretations of the fanatics DO NOT reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition" -- he wrote:

“That's not necessarily what it means at all. Spencer is denying a quote that has been falsely attributed to him; it doesn't mean he believes the opposite.”

First of all, my exegesis did not reveal that Spencer “believes the opposite”: my exegesis uncovered the meaning of his statement by simply translating the negatives into positives. When someone says “I have never stated that abortion is bad” -- what is the point of such a statement other than that they do not believe that abortion is bad? It is pure lawyer-like sophistry to try to maintain that such a statement doesn't mean what is plain as the nose on one's face, by insisting on the strict superficial import of the semantics, while disingenuously affecting to deny their obvious implicit meaning.

The only possible point of such a statement is revealed by Cornelius’s exculpatory explanation for why Spencer would formulate something like that:

“Hesp, Robert lives in the real world. He has to choose his words carefully to maintain his bonafides so that he can continue to reach a mass audience.”

I.e., when he makes a statement -- "I have never stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...” -- that any reasonable exegesis would translate as meaning that in fact he has “never stated” that because he does not believe it, he can then fall back on Cornelius’s sophistical defense that “well, what I strictly said here is that ‘I never stated’ -- that doesn’t mean I don’t believe it” in order to placate both the PC MCs who would cast him into the outer darkness from his already sub-Ann Coulter position, and the Anti-Jihadists like Cornelius who are obviously easily placated and whose easy placation finds an implicit satisfaction in the likelihood that Spencer didn’t really mean what his words obviously imply.

Davegreybeard,

"It is one thing for a person to present facts to prove a point and then hammer it home by stating that same point – which is what you would have Spencer do."

No, I've already stated above that "As I've said before, Spencer doesn't have to stand on the rooftops and condemn all Muslims and advocate their mass expulsion. All he has to do is not recommend, nor editorially imply recommendation of, concrete measures that would undermine the evolution toward the mass expulsion policy."

"It is quite different for one to present facts that lead to a certain conclusion; yet scrupulously avoid stating that quite obvious conclusion. It is a tactic that is elegant in its purity in that the listener is in no way contaminated by the beliefs or prejudices of the speaker – and the speaker thus cannot be accused of guiding the listener to (in the case of Islam) a horrendous conclusion."

The speaker in fact can be thus accused, and Spencer gets accused of that practically every day of his life. When a person like Lawrence Auster, for example, devotes 60% of his time and energy putting up photos of black criminals and publishing stories of black murderers and rapists, the reasonable conclusion to draw is that he is clearly implying that blacks are more violent than whites and that this is an urgent problem that needs to be addressed through social attitudes, public policy and laws. The difference with Auster, however (in this regard at least), is that he doesn't pretend through using meticulously elegant disingenuity that he does not in fact believe what is clearly implied by his mission. He makes no bones about it, but articulates clearly that blacks in terms of degree present a social problem that should be remedied only by segregation.

But as I implied above, there is a third tack to take aside from these two binary choices -- either hide your implications in plain sight behind "elegant" disingenuity that anybody of basic intelligence can see through, or boldly stand on the rooftop and proclaim the implication: and that third choice is to avoid saying things that cause such problems. Thus, Spencer should never have said "I have never stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...” In that context, his interlocutor didn't even ask him whether he had said that; his interlocutor merely implied it indirectly -- so Spencer gratuitously offered that up and made it more visible when he didn't have to. A tactical mistake that can't be covered up by his acolytes coming along afterward and trying to convince people that the Emperor in fact has clothes. Now, let us hypothetically (but not improbably) imagine a scenario where Spencer is in a public debate with some Islam apologist, and that apologist turns to Spencer and asks him point-blank: "Have you not stated that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...”?" Spencer could in that kind of moment say "No, I have not," and leave it at that. But what if the apologist has an ounce of cleverness and intelligence -- which, again, it is not improbable to expect will arise some day? If he does have an ounce of cleverness and intelligence, he will pounce back with the obviously logical follow-up question: "Ah, ok, Mr. Spencer; but do you think that “the interpretations of the fanatics…reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition...”?"

At this point, I can recommend a way for him to navigate, without tap-dancing in overly transparent disingenuity. He can answer diplomatically:

"Well, from my studies of the foundational texts of Islam, as well as the writings of various Muslims throughout the ages up to the present, supplemented by the writings of various scholars on the subject, it is my opinion that interpretations of the fanatics do reflect the core values of Islamic faith and tradition -- but I do not necessarily expect anyone to accept my opinion as truth merely on my word alone, and rather expect at a minimum that they will try to familiarize themselves with the same evidence I have studied and come to their own conclusion."

Back to Davegreybeard:

"When you say that Spencer is “no different from those who forever distinguish the "extremists…" you have strayed very far from the truth."

I didn't say that "Spencer is no different from those who forever distinguish the 'extremists'." I said that if Cornelius's exegesis of Spencer is accurate, then Spencer would be no different from those who forever distinguish the extremists (from the non-extremists).

"The people that speak of “Islamic extremists” NEVER shed light on the subject by presenting the actual texts and tenets of Islam."

There are a few who do blatantly, like Daniel Pipes, who believes the majority of Muslims are not only not bad people, but are our only salvation from the problem their Islam is causing us. And yet Pipes remains a part of the Anti-Islam (woops! I mean Anti-Jihad) Movement -- as that Movement is informally and officially defined by its elites, that is. And then there are the others who do so continually by implication (such as for example Brigitte Gabriel, who is always so careful to delineate the problem as "radical Islam" and "radical Islamists").

cf. http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2008/09/asymptote-vs-asymptote-new-york-times.html

Well Hesperado, I think we've taken this thing about as far as we can go.

My final thoughts:

1) You abandoned all discussion about the improbability of your timetable, in particular the supposed sociological awakening that will render "lights out on Muslims" at the very time when Muslims will have achieved their status as a majority or a near majority in western Europe. You best fine tune that timetable of yours.

2) You neglected explaining your own discrepancy between word and deed. I've mostly found abstract truths to be empty phrases when they aren't translatable into reality. When you've gone public AS YOUR REAL SELF with your very justifiable animus towards Islam, your criticism of Robert will not wreak of hypocrisy the way it currently does.

3) If someone accuses me of saying "abortion is bad"...and I've never said it, even if I believe it and have implied it in my written or spoken words, I have the right to deny the accusation. I have the right to ownership of my own words, and zealously maintaining that right is a part of basic human integrity. Robert would be a fool to let his detractors set his agenda...or even worse, to choose his words for him.

Listen man, you're a good guy, most definitely fighting on the right side of the issue. But it makes little sense to devote yourself to excessive criticism of erstwhile allies like Spencer, Pipes and Gabriel, rather than to concentrate on the enemy (the Islamo-Left). Even though you and he operate on far different latitudes of the political spectrum, your approach reminds me of Charles Johnson, who prefers to attack fellow Republicans whom he feels are not sufficiently "enlightened"...than concentrating on the Democrats who are literally destroying our country.

I'm not going to be so proud or egotistical that I won't continue to consider your arguments here. I hope you'll do the same.

Thanks for the discourse.

Cornelius, it's getting tedious to try to have a discussion with someone who doesn't read what I've already written.

Hesperado,

Unfortunately, it is YOU who are tedious.

Try a very looonng look in the mirror, man and “reflect” on it. Then:

Try to focus on your enemies, not your friends.

This will be better for you - though you may not know it at the time.