AP: "Anti-Muslim Backlash Immediate" -- but offers not even one example

Zowie! AP says that there has been "immediate" anti-Muslim "backlash" following the mass murders by an Islamic jihadist at Fort Hood! Good gravy, what happened? Did armed bands of furious Islamophobes throw molotov cocktails at mosques? Did ferocious white supremacists maul fragile little girls in hijabs on their way to school? Did angry bigots spit at pious imams quietly going about their business?

Has there been any report of any innocent, random Muslim being attacked in a "backlash" after the Fort Hood jihad?

Nope. Not one. Americans are decent people. Americans believe people are innocent until proven guilty. But Ibrahim Hooper and his fellow thugs at CAIR need hate crimes so that they can claim victim status for Muslims and deflect attention away from such small matters as the jihad at Fort Hood, and they have the clueless and/or complicit mainstream media in their hip pocket. And so we witness the strange phenomenon of stories of Muslims fearing a backlash far outnumbering actual incidents of backlash. In fact, the score is about umpteen to zero.

And in the AP story linked above, all we get after the promise of news of "immediate" backlash are various stories about mosques and Muslims asking for special police protection, etc. So in reality, the story should be headlined, "Muslims claim victim status in wake of Fort Hood jihad attack," or "Muslim victimhood whining immediate after Fort Hood jihad massacre," or some such.

But the only actual incidents of "backlash" that AP can come up with are incidents in which people like me call the Fort Hood massacre a jihad attack -- as if it is "Islamophobic" and hateful to note that a guy shouting "Allahu akbar" as he gunned people down, and who gave out Korans hours before he started shooting people, and who expressed sympathy for suicide attackers, may just have been motivated by the Islamic jihad doctrine of warfare against unbelievers.

If that's "backlash," I'm Barack Obama. That's actually something known as "honest reporting." But what would AP know about that?

Posted by Robert on November 7, 2009 1:43 AM | 95 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

Categories:

Tags:

« Previous Entry | Home Page | Next Entry »

95 Comments

Galadriels_Mirror | November 7, 2009 2:20 AM

I heard this kind of talk this morning on EuroNews.
"Muslim community prepares for backlash"
It makes one want to throw the remote control through the telly screen.
As usual, Muhammed kills and then claims that HE is the victim.
How can people in the free world buy this crap?

ImNoDhimmi | November 7, 2009 2:40 AM

Watching the coverage on several stations since this atrocity happened, I was disgusted by the reporters, desperately puzzled, searching for a possible "motive" for the killings.

One common thread seemed to be that the poor shooter was driven to it because he was ridiculed by his fellow soldiers, and may even have been called a raghead or a camel jockey. The horror!

There will be no "backlash" - but there should be!

martyr maker | November 7, 2009 2:44 AM

One headline in today's NYT is "Muslims at Fort Voice Outrage".

Is any comment really needed?

Alert replied to comment from Galadriels_Mirror | November 7, 2009 2:45 AM

America's 9/11 POTUS pissed on Americans on 9/17: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/gwbush911islamispeace.htm
.. and went on to lie to American congress, people and UN to start a fake 'war-on-terror' in Iraq, leaving his Saudi buddy Osama alone (after lying to americans that Osame will be hunted, dead or Alive' http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/14/bush-binladen.htm
.. instead went after Iraq (a sworn Saudi enemy), that had nothing to do with 9/11 or WMDs. In addition, Bush covered up for Saudis in 9/11 Interim Report, diverting world's attention to Iraq.
For more on Bush's 9/11 and other blunders, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prosecution_of_George_W._Bush_for_Murder

Electing and re-electing spoilt and corrupt POTUS has consequences, which Americans are suffering.

Cornelius | November 7, 2009 2:53 AM

As newspapers across the country scale back their national and international coverage due to declining revenue, they are relying more and more on news agencies like AP...and in case anyone is oblivious, AP has over the years become every bit as Left-wing and dhimmified as the New York Times.

We need a center/right news agency...something akin to FNC in print, to report objectively what the AP, Reuters and AFP won't.

Richard | November 7, 2009 3:13 AM

The backlash should be that this event opens people's eyes to the tru nature of jihad, instead of the 'inner struggle for peace' garbage we are fed daily. The backlash should be that we the people and our government start to recognize the advancement of Islam and its horrible effect on society and start to stop allowing its spread.

I'm shocked and amazed that this terror attack has so quickly lead to the media kissing Muslim ass in response.

Alexander Münch | November 7, 2009 3:51 AM

===" but the reaction to the suspect accused in the Fort Hood shooting was fast and furious. "=== http://ow.ly/Ab7f

===" (AP) U.S. mosques fearful of a backlash after the shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas are stepping up security. "===

Backlash ? Stepping up security ?

Who is the enemy ?!...

marken | November 7, 2009 4:27 AM

Coverage: the question is constantly asked, Why? Why? Why? No one who has read Ali Sina, Robert Spencer or many others asks this question. Instead they stand, watching others groping around as if in a dark room, hands stretched out asking why, why, why while somehow blocking out the constant reminder that the room is well lit and to simply open their eyes.

Henrik | November 7, 2009 4:30 AM

AP's got a point: A backlash is richly deserved, not only due to The Religion of Peace still piling up dead bodies, more so due to the systematic unwillingness of Islamic 'leaders' to condemn violence in the name of Islam and declare that each and every person committing violence in the name of Islam an apostate.

That, of course, would make such persons eglible for capital punishment by Muslims. Which in turn would create more apostates, and more capital punishment, ad infinitum :)

It's about time we see some real backlash against the infiltration.

Islam_Macht_Frei | November 7, 2009 4:35 AM

I heard a rumor that some guy in Arizona gave a burka babe a dirty look.

lkeevy1 | November 7, 2009 4:41 AM

with Muslims moaning about this "backlash" it is only natural for them to think this way as when muslim perceive some attack on islam they take to the streets with protests that turn deadly. so these Muslims cannot understand the West's maturity and naivety of not attacking muslims when muslims go on their rampage attacking non-Muslims. l assume they take the lack of backlash a sign of weakness by the West.

darcy | November 7, 2009 4:54 AM

"If that's "backlash," I'm Barack Obama." - RS

Oh Wow, I'm so glad you're NOT!

One of those is plenty, thank you.

ebonystone | November 7, 2009 5:09 AM

The police should be worried that other Moslems will be inspired by this guy, and carry out similar attacks. So they should be increasing surveillance of mosques and Moslem centers, rather that increasing security measures at them.

johndoe | November 7, 2009 5:22 AM

Here's an especially egregious article from Al-Beeb. Notice the repugnant statement: ''The shooting has hit Muslim soldiers at Ford Hood hard''. Unbelievable. The BBC isn't just facilitating and supporting evil. It IS evil and rotten to the core.

lkeevy1 | November 7, 2009 5:30 AM

johndoe it is perhaps possible for the Muslim soldier to be hit hard at Fort Hood, that is now the non-Muslim will be more aware of the so called religion of peace and actually start to read the kkkoran and understand its evil ways. and how do these muslim soldiers defend their death cult when others understand their koran. we in the West can read and many more will see the truth. it was for many of us after 9-11. so this murderous killing spree will wake up more people.

AnneCrockett | November 7, 2009 6:20 AM

I am fond of the headline I saw just moments ag, "Another attack leaves US Muslims fearing backlash"-- leaving out the key word. It should read "another attack BY A MUSLIM..." etc. etc.
In the same way, the attacker visited "radical" websites not, as an honest reporter would write it "radical Muslim websites"- heck, I would have even been satisfied with "radical Islamist websites."
I am not insensitive to the emotional attachment one might have to a religion, and if Doug Hooper is experiencing any buyer's remorse about adopting a rag-bag faith of plagiarized Biblical tales and Gnostic heresies woven together with Mohammad's revelations of convenience, he would be a better man if he directed his energies toward persuading his fellow Muslims that they must adapt their faith to a secular society rather than insisting we all live in his fantasy land of jihad by press release where Muslim attackers are victims, non-Muslim --or even insufficiently Muslim-- victims are aggressors, and the real purveyors of hate are not those who do these hateful things but those who speak openly about them.

duh_swami | November 7, 2009 6:29 AM

The cover-up started immediately...Poor Hasan...he was...
'troubled'...
He was/is NOT troubled...He is Mahoundian...It's not troubling for a pious Mahoundian to recognize Allah's enemies and take them out. Happens all the time... Allah after all demands it...
Those kufr who attempt the white wash job, are secretly working for Allah...I'm not sure of the pay scale, but in the end, Allah will reward them...Probably with the business end of his furnace shovel...How deserving they are...

The_Gentile | November 7, 2009 7:02 AM

During my stay here in Delaware on my course, I’ve been reading the hotel provided local News Journal. As expected, a taqiyya opinion piece popped today:

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20091107/OPINION07/911070321/1004/OPINION/Major+test+for+Muslims++U.S.

It was a nice attempt by Op-Ed Muqtedar Khan to gloss over the murderous act by Maj. Hasan. It didn’t take him long to point out that this act had nothing to do with Islam and play the victim card for the Muslim community. This pre-emptive strike to diffuse any serious discussion about how the religion of, as he stated, “…millions of peace-loving and hardworking Americans who are Muslims…” has Suras in the Qur’an and Hadiths of Mohamed which praise violent Jihad, the most applicable which would be, “I have been made victorious through terror.” (Bukhari 4:52.220)

The media has been very careful to only focus on the many unsubstantiated causes to blame the crime, not on the person, but on the environmental factors, which all come down to his inability to reconcile his religion with this duty to his country. But this doesn’t stop Mr. Khan from declaring, “Muslim organizations do not know how to explain this and the law enforcement agencies will be puzzling over how to understand it.”

When editorials such as this refuse to discuss the real reasons that “Islamophobia” (a made up word to deflect attention from the anti-social and violent cultural acts committed by and in the name of Islam, because it is part of their religion, of which infidels could never understand, so don’t even try) exists, and then forewarns that any attempt to do so would only “…resuscitate the prejudices…” the only result will be the status quo.

When CAIR, which has been tied to terrorist funding, is the quoted community representative of Muslims in America that the media goes to, it also makes it complicit in maintaining the stalemate of interfaith relations; which will never truly happen unless a reform actually occurs in Islam to make it remotely relativistic with Judeo-Christian values, of which are in the foundations of the republic.

I do agree with Mr. Khan’s call for this tragedy not to force Muslims to recede from the public sphere. But if Muslim organizations in the US truly wish end the “…struggle for understanding, for civil rights (which the US already has, so I don’t see the relevance in him stating it)…” they should start by completely renouncing violence and professing allegiance to the USA first before their religion. However, I have yet to see any demonstration for peace by any of them so far, only calls to prayer and to continue the “struggle.”

The_Gentile replied to comment from Islam_Macht_Frei | November 7, 2009 7:06 AM

Oh, My GOD! Will the cycle of hate never end?

“Dirty look!”

Next thing, the dirty kuffar will be called out for misunderstanding islam for hittin’ on their women folk by holding open the door for ‘em.

poetcomic1 | November 7, 2009 7:06 AM

What is hilarious is that as they bend over backwards to find a 'reason' the reasons themselves are offensive to any self-respecting Muslims if there is such a thing. To say that a trained psychiatrist is suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome just from HEARING about harrowing experiences from other soldiers who really have it makes Muslims seem rather.... sissy. Or that the thought of being sent to serve in a cushy post well behind the lines in Iraq made him 'snap' or that someone called him names made him slaughter 13 strangers makes Muslims seem as scary as the real Jihadist reasons.

Boston Tea Party | November 7, 2009 7:12 AM

From the NY Times editorial:
"...There were reports that some soldiers said they had heard him shout “God is Great” in Arabic before he started firing. But until investigations are complete, no one can begin to imagine what could possibly have motivated this latest appalling rampage."

This is like a Monty Python sketch---it's almost unfathomable that this view is so prevalent amongst the elites. Try to imagine that, if in 1943, a German-American US soldier named Hans Groebbler had suddenly pulled out a pistol and started shooting his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, while yelling "Heil Hitler!" and "Deutchland Uber Alles!" Do you really think anyone would have puzzled over his motive? The problem is that the leftist elites today can no longer even comprehend that everyone in the world isn't naturally a leftist. They can't comprehend that millions of people who are educated, not impoverished and not abused, will freely choose traditional Islam over the liberal West. They won't deal with reality, and it puts us all in great danger.


The_Gentile replied to comment from johndoe | November 7, 2009 7:15 AM

“The Arab-American Institute - which condemned the massacre - said it had received at least one threatening phone call, and expected more.”

Typical slant, “…expected more.” (Just you wait, we’ve got one, count ‘em ONE threatening call, but just you wait, we’ll be inundated with, uh, many more, maybe three by the end of the week…)

Compared to the vitriolic mail Robert gets on a regular basis, this part of the article by the bbc is typically lame.

savsiv | November 7, 2009 7:29 AM

Mohammedans are bunch of cowards and criminals. These same would go on a rampage and burn cars, loot and attack non Muslims. Mussalman are pathetic like their despicable Allah and Mohammad. They are the worst losers. This is the crap the rest of humanity has to deal. A screwed up religion and ideology that has given to uplift man but pain, misery and crimes a galore. These include rape, kidnapping, lies, bombing, mass shooting, pedophilia, honor killing, incest, slavery and successive dictatorial regimes with no form of democracy. Yet these thugs want to come to non Muslims nations and continue the destructive path of Islam.

Boston Tea Party | November 7, 2009 7:31 AM

What I'd like to hear someone say to these "moderate" Muslim groups who are condemning the attack is:

"Surely if you guys are really opposed to this type of extremism, and you think it goes against "true Islam", then certainly you must be involved in MANY ongoing, heated debates, arguments and conflicts with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranian hard-line clerics, the Saudi hard-line clerics---right? Why, you must be teetering on the brink of civil war within Islam, with the liberal representatives of the "true Islam" versus the "extremist misunderstanders" of Islam? Can you provide us with documentation of the heated debates between CAIR and the hardliners in Islam around the world? What are the details of CAIR's worldwide outreach program to promote a "liberal Islam"?

CAIR and other "moderate" Muslim organizations are just like our old buddy Yassir Arafat---one speech in English for the dimwits in the west, and another, completely different speech to his Arabic-speaking audience.

pulsar182 | November 7, 2009 7:34 AM

People are beginning not to fall for that everpresent Muslim whining of "I'm a Victim"....and that is good...

filthykafir replied to comment from AnneCrockett | November 7, 2009 8:12 AM

AnneCrockett: Excellent summary; thank you.

epistemology replied to comment from Boston Tea Party | November 7, 2009 8:25 AM

Dear Boston Tea Party, your comparison is very good. Indeed nobody would have pondered on the motives of a murderous Nazi. And he would never be seen as a victim. But this poor Mahoundian suffered from a Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, he was overstrained and nobody saw the obvious symptoms. You've got to put the blame on the army people in Fort Hood. This is law # 1: Never blame a Muslim, they're always victims, ask CAIR. BTW the number of dead victims was 14, there was a pregnant soldier among them, only to be precise.

uncleoinky replied to comment from pulsar182 | November 7, 2009 8:33 AM

More, but not nearly enough. It doesn't help when the media act as muslim apologists in an age where personal responsibility doesn't exist. I have read postings from several news sites where some posters are saying that they effectively deserved it because of foreign policy and or other justifications. Welcome to cultural suicide turncoats.
(note - posters do not attempt to excuse individual soldiers caught victim to the evil military, as they would readily excuse others)


AD 1975 - Serial killer
AD 2009 - Misunderstood, teased, oppressed = justification?

To add insult to injury is a PREEMPTIVE claim of backlashes. I would expect riots and property damage from certain groups at the minimum if the situation were reversed. Might get a few individual incidences, unlike a mob type attack from someone else.

Mackie | November 7, 2009 8:46 AM

WORTH YOUR WATCHING!

For those who may have missed this interview by Bill Orielly
of Retired Lt.Colonel Ralph Peters who has been the only one that I have heard call the attack by Major Hasan for what it really was. Even Oreilly tried to tone the interview down, but the passionate and determined Colonel Peters would have none of it.

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=11371009&referralPlaylistId=undefined

duh_swami replied to comment from Mackie | November 7, 2009 8:56 AM

The other side of that was the fool Jerry Rivers displaying his foolishness...Oreilly to his credit listened and then said BS...

flowerknife_us | November 7, 2009 8:59 AM

The Idea of one "hate" call from a Nation in excess of 300 Million disproves the articles point all by itself.

It is disgusting to see the Administration and the Media at large, do the Dog and Pony Show in their attempt to call this anything other than a Terrorist act. Perpetrated by someone suffering from Sudden Jihad Syndrome.

If there really was a "backlash" There is no doubt we would be hearing more about that than the actual attack itself.

Maybe part of the problem is the actual lack of calls to these Muslim organizations. Is there anything really wrong with calls being made, in a polite and respective manor. reminding the Muslim community the obligations they have under our Constitution?

Hasan is reported to have Publicly made his belief known that his loyalty was to Muslims over those of his Country. So the door is wide open to make it a central issue. Apparently "We The People" will need to turn on the lights despite others desire to wander in darkness,

DeadRecknoning | November 7, 2009 9:01 AM

This act was the "Greater" jahid of Maj. Hassan. If one reads the interpertations of Islamic Law, a great deal of discussion is devoted to the "Greater" jahid, and very little to the "Lesser" jahid which is the inner struggle that the Muslim community tries to sell us non-believers on.

Galadriels_Mirror | November 7, 2009 9:08 AM

Backlash Obama strikes again!
The fastest Islamic Whitewasher in the west.

Marisol replied to comment from AnneCrockett | November 7, 2009 9:11 AM

*Bows to AnneCrockett*

Well said.

As unsurprising as it is, the degree to which the media are bending over backwards to ignore and avoid Islam's role in motivating the massacre -- and portraying Muslims and even Hasan himself as a victim -- is just downright surreal. It's Orwellian.

At this point, I think I want to give my tv a Viking funeral.

Wellington replied to comment from Mackie | November 7, 2009 9:42 AM

Thanks for that link, Mackie. Missed it last night and glad I saw it today. Peters was terrific and put O'Reilly, a good guy himself (though still semi-PC on Islam), in his place. Would encourage all here who have not seen the interview to take the five minutes it lasts to watch it. Now if we can only get a dozen, two dozen, commentators like Colonel Peters on Western networks everywhere. Yeah, that won't happen, at least not yet, but in time I think it will. Meanwhile, I do believe that slowly but surely folks in one Western country after another are realizing that it's the Islam, stupid.

Battle_of_Tours replied to comment from Richard | November 7, 2009 9:44 AM

The backlash should be that this event opens people's eyes to the tru nature of jihad, instead of the 'inner struggle for peace' garbage we are fed daily. The backlash should be that we the people and our government start to recognize the advancement of Islam and its horrible effect on society and start to stop allowing its spread.

I agree, that this odious attack on uniformed personnel serving our country should open everyone's eyes to Jihad in its unpleasant true light, to conquer the infidel, especially those in uniform. MSM in its craven presentation is unusually guarded here because they fear their reading public, so will coo quietness at them, lulling them into a soft slumber. By keeping this horrid story excessively moot, they hope to stabilize what they fear could potentially be an explosive situation that quickly gets out of hand, something CAIR fears no doubt. The parody of the 'anti-Muslim backlash' exists only in their fevered imaginations, what keeps their guilt ridden hearts up at night, that throngs will come after them and lynch them. Nothing of the sort happens, nor is likely to happen for reasons mentioned, that Americans are a decent people who believe in "innocent until proven guilty".

What is happening, here and everywhere, is that it is no longer covered up that this was done by a Muslim who had become increasingly devout. There really is an Islam-Jihad connection Virginia, and Muslims can fall into an 'instant Jihad syndrome' with their nicest guys start mass killing. The mooing crowds are no longer pacified by empty platitudes of the 'peace' cooed their way, and they are beginning to stir. But there is no danger here, as long as they don't stampede as feared. The real danger will come when they awaken from their media induced stupor, and fall silent. Then we are dangerous.

ethoman | November 7, 2009 9:44 AM

I've got a song for the "lame stream" media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE9BpegPl1A&feature=related


Broad, is this sea
The salt, enters the wounds
My take, on you is simple
So heal, your fear
To heal, your fear
Time, spent wading off shore
The calm, before the storm
My take, from you is simple
So heal, your fear
To heal, your fear
You're such a comfortable liar
You're such a comfortable liar
You're such a comfortable liar
You're such a comfortable liar
You're such a comfortable liar
So calm
Cause I said wrong
You comfortable liar
You comfortable liar
You comfortable liar
You comfortable liar
Liar

Ole Sandberg | November 7, 2009 9:49 AM

I am not one of Bob Dylan's greatest fans, but I have to admit that he has something approaching a genius for capturing and exhibiting a sort of collective mindlessness never before seen. The best example is "Idiot Wind." I'd link to a Youtube rendition of the song if I knew how. Perhaps someone sharing my enthusiasm could link to it. The mindlessness must have something to do with the omnipresence of talking airheads on television spouting the same nonsense in every language known to man. Every time I turn on the TV I feel like that man in the ad for hurricane force stereo speakers with his ears flattened against his head. The gale force fatuousness takes your breath away.

smithers | November 7, 2009 9:56 AM

The backlash will be the renewed attacks on the separation of church and state.
More footbaths, more prayer rooms, more sensitivity training for law enforcement, laws will need to be changed.
Most disturbing how barbaric behavior has an elevating effect on this religion.

alleycat87 | November 7, 2009 10:23 AM

'Backlash' my posterior.
I agree with Battle of Tours' comment that the 'backlash' fear is due to subconscious guilt on CAIR's / the wider jihadist community's part, because they know deep down that what they do is despicable and that one day, in a perfect world, they'll face justice for it.

No justice for the victims of this monstrous attack though, or for the five British soldiers murdered in the same way by the afghan policeman they were trying to civilise - I mean train.
We have to stop putting ourselves, our soldiers and our societies in harm's way, treat these people with the distrust they've earned and keep them as far away from us as humanly possible. It's the only way to survive.

GrimReaperxxx | November 7, 2009 10:25 AM

The real question is what would be the result if this had happened in, say Saudi Arabia, and the shooter was a Christian and the victims were all Muslim?

The so called BACKLASH would be the Lashes on the shooter's back administered in the town square for the delight of throngs of screaming protesters.

Im.mad.as.HELL! | November 7, 2009 10:29 AM

I have heard many excellent rebuts and insights related to the aggressive attack by the Islamic community and their MSM lackeys.

I am not a good tactician or quick on countering these denials in reality (like Lt Col Peters). I am asking all of the wise and regular posters to suggest how we as a small unheard (and sometimes considered out-of-it) group can effectively counter these ideas put out by the enemy. It should be short and easy to remember. Maybe in a question form.

A comment or question that would counter the 'poor abused Muslims' slander. Or, something to counter 'Maj Hasan was abused and snapped.' Or, counter 'Islam is peace'

Do you see my point? I realize this blog is not were the fight will be waged. It does provide the ammunition however. We need to get smart and take advantage of the situation to correct this head-in-the-sand thinking. I am just thinking out loud, but say or ask, "Why do you assume that all of these Muslims think like you think?" or something like that.

Waiting for your reply, less AM

Eastview | November 7, 2009 10:30 AM

We've all heard, ad nauseum, the name of Maj. Nidal Hassan, that poor misunderstood victim of vicarious PTSD and verbal abuse who finally snapped.

Now, can anyone tell me the names of any one of those he murdered or severely wounded, or tell me about the real PTSD the several hundred in their respective families have been propelled into?

MrsJ | November 7, 2009 10:38 AM

Article about Muslim soldiers on this side of the Atlantic:

http://tinyurl.com/yztvdvp

Ole Sandberg replied to comment from pulsar182 | November 7, 2009 10:39 AM

Thanks Pulsar. Great version.

GrimReaperxxx replied to comment from smithers | November 7, 2009 10:43 AM

Nope

not that one,
everybody's got a band video now.

alleycat87 replied to comment from Im.mad.as.HELL! | November 7, 2009 10:50 AM

Hmm....a counter to the onslaught of PC-platitudes about the poor ickle muslims being so horrendously abused that it's OK for them to shoot people en masse.

Firstly, I would ask them if they think it's acceptable for any group, of any religion, race or gender, to take up arms and murder innocent bystanders because of a grievance, however small or large, real or imagined?
If they start muttering about 'context' and 'circumstances' it's essential to point out that these people - this man - live in a free society where if they feel hard done by, they're perfectly able to petition, protest, sue, or follow any other kind of legal / democratic recourse to fix whatever it is they are unhappy about, without the need to resort to violence. Goodness there are enough muslim interest organisations around that could take up their case, even if it means deserting the army and facing a court marshall (I'm still curious as to why he was OK with fighting fellow muslims in Afghanistan, but not Iraq??).

As far as the old 'islam is peace' chestnut goes, that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The religious tenets in islam demanding violence against non-believers or bad muslims in the name of 'allah' have not been challenged, debunked or rewritten in any way to make them less central to the goals and methods of the religion. All the factual evidence states that when muslims commit violence it is, by their own admission, because of islamic teachings. Teachings that aren't considered bad or irrelevant to modern society by such a significant minority in every country of the world that it constitutes a very security threat.

We have to make it clear that we're aware of where islamic loyalties lie - so much evidence of muslims only being loyal to one another and to islam rather than to a particular country, or funny abstract concepts like 'democracy' and 'universal human rights'. Ask them why they do not accept fundamental legal and social equality between muslims and non-muslims, and if they have no answer to this suggest that that's the main cause of tension - muslims simply don't see our lives being worth as much theirs and their 'brothers and sisters', so that means that every non-muslim is at risk unless muslims learn to admit that they might be wrong and therefore need to accept different ways of life and different standards of morality (or indeed, any morality), and (crucially) authority beyond islam.

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure everyone else can offer something more succinct and less rambly! :)

uncleoinky | November 7, 2009 11:15 AM

Just a small detour of the topic. Is there a community based forum or chat function (ie IRC) for JW? Although posting comments is enough for some, I would like to chat or do something real time.

Hesperado | November 7, 2009 11:21 AM

"Americans are decent people. Americans believe people are innocent until proven guilty."

I would go further than this: Americans and Westerners in general are, for the most part, decent people. And furthermore, Americans and Westerners in general are, for the most part, intelligent enough to come to the conclusion to apply a unique standard to Muslims, recognizing that Islam is a sui generis sociiopolitical entity with a unique propensity of deadliness for our socieities -- and the founding principle of that conclusion would be the very opposite of half of Spencer's factual description above:

Americans and Westerners in general are intelligent enough to believe that Muslims are in fact guilty until proven innocent, and yet we still would not go around perpetrating a "backlash" against Muslims.

We would begin to initiate the most orderly and peaceful policies in the history of the world to deal with a mass of people we will have decided have no place in our socieites. Once the West wakes up from its ridiculous PC MC fog and recovers its rationality (and it will though probably not until Muslims have slaughtered at least hundreds of thousands of us in various places throughout the West), we will see the most peaceful mass transfer of population -- total deportation of Muslims out of the West -- ever seen in the history of the world. Of course, the degree of orderly peacefulness of the transfer would be dependent on the behavior of Muslims -- to the extent that they might respond violently, we would have to respond in kind, but again, we would keep it at an extraordinary minimum, compared with other regimes in the past, and certainly compared with any Muslim polity anytime, anyplace. And at least at that point, in circumstances of any unavoidable violence that might attend that mass transfer of populations, with the West no longer dominantly PC MC, there will be no one -- no one not marginalized as a quaint minority, that is -- to accuse the West of what, for example, Israel has been routinely accused of for decades under the sociopsychopolitical regime of PC MC: excessive violence and "oppressive occupation" etc. when in fact Israel defends itself from a surrounding sea of murderous wolves in the most ethical way possible.

katt | November 7, 2009 11:29 AM

Well, they may fear anti-muslim backlash, but I fear muslim radicals. Maybe muslims could worry about these creeps instead of the rest of us who aren't practising jihadists.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/05/radicals.mosque/index.html

payingattention | November 7, 2009 12:17 PM

Americans are in deed "decent people". However Americans, more than we Australians, seem to want to find reasons for accepting guilt for what others do to you.

Don't let anyone force you to accept this stupid idea that he is retaliating for perceived or actual wrongs committed against him. I am particularly talking about your media here.

There is never a justification for killing anyone in cold blood. I have heard Islamists say "We don't kill innocents". Now Robert has pointed out that the definition of "innocents" can be variable amongst Jihadists.

What these Jihadists need to be taught is that it is unacceptable to kill anyone in cold blood. I am not referring to your capital punishment laws or actions that occur in self defence. I am talking about the reality that it is unacceptable to murder anyone, whether you think they are guilty or not. No matter what your "religion/political ideology teaches you". Anyone who thinks any cold blooded killing can be justified should leave the West while they can.

I was glad to see that the first description of this Jihadist on Australian TV was that he was "Muslim". We are less squeamish about identifying the root causes of problems. I encourage all countries to follow our lead.

djrz | November 7, 2009 12:31 PM

From the New York Times via MSNBC: Muslims at Fort Hood voice outrage.

A short passage:

But some of the men who had befriended Major Hasan at the mosque said the military should examine the policies that might have caused him to snap.

“When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal,” said Victor Benjamin II, 30, a former member of the Army. “But when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad.

Good point. LET US examine the policies that might have caused him to snap, shall we?

1. Where did Hasan get the idea that it was prohibited for Muslims to fight Muslims no matter what the circumstances?

a. Decadent Western society.
b. JOOOOOS!!!!
c. The Military.
d. Islam.

2. Where did Hasan get the idea that it is OK to advocate rising up against the U.S. Military because they are in Iraq and Afghanistan?

a. Filthy Kuffars.
b. JOOOOOS!!!!
c. Greasy Islamophobes.
d. Islam.

3. Where did Hasan get the idea that the honorable thing to do in this case was to shout "ALLAHU AKBAR" and kill as many unarmed military personnel as he could before he was killed (he hoped)?

a. Those blood-thirsty Methodists.
b. Fundamentalist Christians.
c. JOOOOOS!!!!
d. Islam.

I could go on.

Please submit your test answers by the end of the day.

Escovado | November 7, 2009 12:31 PM

Well...if they're expcecting an "Anti-Muslim Backlash," who are we to disappoint them?

/sarcasm

pulsar182 | November 7, 2009 12:40 PM

Lt. Col. Peters (retired), has it right....it is time to stop this PC crap and call Islam what it is......

And O'Reilly is correct the MSM won't put it out....Islam Is the Cause.....

Hesperado | November 7, 2009 12:47 PM

I'm not so sure Australia is that much freer from PC MC than is America, as the poster above claims. In fact, Australia began suffusing itself with PC MC values perhaps a little later than did Europe and America, but by the 1980s it became dominantly mainstream there as well. Don't tell me a good number, probably a majority, of white Australians don't feel handwringing bleeding heart compunction about their guilt at what they did to the aborigines, when in fact, the colonization of Australia and its progress through the 20th century, was the best thing that happened to aborigines. What does that have to do with the problem of Islam? Everything. The same sea change in worldview by which "racist" Australians became bleeding heart liberals is psycho-politico-culturally part of the same sea change in worldview by which the entire West has become PC MC about Muslims.

Part of that sea change was good: that's the problem. If it were all bad, it would not have affected so viscerally the hearts and minds of so many Westerners across all sociological categories (including not only those dastardly "Elites" but millions of ordinary people too).

That said, I am not trying to make a case for a monolithic uniformity of PC MC throughout the West. There are indeed some regions more, and some less, PC MC: and Australia can be said to be less PC MC than, for example, Canada. Similarly, one can say that Italy and Denmark are less PC MC than Holland or France; and so forth. But these differences in degree should not obscure the overarching problem of the mainstream dominance of PC MC throughout the entire West that continues to present a formidable barrier -- socially, politically, academically, legally, culturally -- to the rationality of condemning Islam and condemning all Muslims who support Islam (and what Muslims don't support Islam...?)

smithers | November 7, 2009 1:00 PM

To help understand the enviroment of harassment Major Hasan endured, look at where he lived. The owner of Hasan’s apartment complex is Jose Padilla(same name as the infamous dirtybomber) With all those returning veterns life must've made been intolerable.
“I cannot comprehend that the enemy was among us,” Padilla said, as he teared up. “I feel a little guilt that I was basically giving housing to someone who is going to do so much destruction.”
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/11/07/news/a9-hood24th.txt

Learning | November 7, 2009 1:03 PM

Why are you giving this murderer Jihad status? Yes he claimed to be muzlim but let's tell it like it is. He is a mass murderer, a treasonous bastard and an all around bigot. He didn't worry if he was killing Christians or Jews or Muzlims or Budists, all he wanted to kill was American Soldiers HEROS of the United States. Stop giving them some sort of status.

Learning | November 7, 2009 1:04 PM

Why are you giving this murderer Jihad status? Yes he claimed to be muzlim but let's tell it like it is. He is a mass murderer, a treasonous bastard and an all around bigot. He didn't worry if he was killing Christians or Jews or Muzlims or Budists, all he wanted to kill was American Soldiers HEROS of the United States. Stop giving them some sort of status.

raven_ | November 7, 2009 1:09 PM


I just heard an interview with a muslim American where he was applauding the attack by a "brother" and asked about the victims he said - they are army personnel and people will soon for get.

back in the radio station a pakistani American muslim community leader was asked to respond and he said that such sentiments do not necessarily mean that that person is not a patriotic American and that a lot of non-muslims felt like that.


Muslims can justify and rationalize anything without the community taking responsibility.

We are all worst off for having followers of this ugly ideology amongst us. I see nothing redeeming about Islam.

payingattention | November 7, 2009 1:21 PM

I would venture a guess that Hesperado has never been or spent much time in Australia. because his perspective seems to be one developed from a distance. He has a nice turn of words however, and "Don't tell me a good number, probably a majority, of white Australians don't feel handwringing bleeding heart compunction about their guilt at what they did to the aborigines.." while beautifully phrased, is just plain wrong. Most of us don't feel any concerns about alleged crimes (that may very well have happened) against Aborigines that happened more than 200 years ago. And here is why. What the British did 200 years ago was consistent with THEIR culture at that time. If it happened today in the 21st century then it would be something to feel guilty about. But it happened in accordance with the standards of that previous time. It is similar to our righteous shock at the conduct of Mohammed regarding Aisha. What he did then was in accordance with the primitive culture of his time. What is horrific is when that action is applied in today's world, and should be stamped out. So, there is no need for us to feel guilt about what those people did to others 200 years ago. The challenge is for us not to do similar things today...

The factor Hesperado has overlooked is that we had the Howard Government for 11 years. a government that set about clearly to minimise the plague of "political correctness" which was destroying our values. And by the end of his government's tenure, had even started attacking the beast itself "multiculturalism". It is no mistake that his government removed the word "multiculturalism" from the name of the immigration department, exchanging it with "citizenship". Now even though we have what Americans call a "liberal" (leftist) government in place, there are no calls to return to Multiculturalism. In fact, commentators in this country now call that " a discredited idea". The current view, amongst most people, is that we are a single culture, multi-ethnic nation. And that is a much healthier position. Has the USA adopted such an approach? My numerous visits to USA (12 X in 13 years) hasn't shown that to be the case.

Our society is not the tinder box of fear and self guilt that the USA is. Some commentator on CNN said that the "civil rights movement was 50 years behind in Australia". Well that's because we didn't have a civil rights movement, because we didn't need one. We also don't need to give special treatment to aggrieved groups. Apparently your affirmative action laws there ensure that the best colour of person gets the job. And you suggest we are more politically correct than you?

Hesperado, a nicely formed posting, though very poorly researched.

djrz replied to comment from Learning | November 7, 2009 1:24 PM

"He is a mass murderer, a treasonous bastard and an all around bigot."

Yes, he is all of those, but there are underlying motivations that DO connect him to the way of Jihad. Also, your descriptions are frequently apt for most deeply committed, devout Muslims who follow the most authentic teachings of the Quran and the Hadiths and live in non-Muslim majority countries, especially in the so-called West (Europe, the Americas, Australia, others?).

My theory is that Hasan had the idea that he could get away with taking advantage of free military medical training and somehow avoid being sent to Muslim majority countries. The real "breaking point" was when he realized that the military MEANT what it said about his obligation to serve and their authority to send him where they choose. Since Hasan was loyal to ISLAM in a fully political sense above all other political obligations, and he could not allow himself to violate the principles of Islam and Jihad incumbent on all Muslims, he had to act. This act was his "best" way to maintain his Islamic "honor."

jan douwe replied to comment from Hesperado | November 7, 2009 1:30 PM

Glad to see at least some Americans waking up on Islam. Europes in a bad shape because of politically correct mindset, US should not make the same mistake.

Im from the Netherlands myself, and in our small country the effects islam has on society are perhaps a bit more clearly than in some of the bigger countries. Unfortunately our government is indeed one of those extremely politically correct ones. However there is at least some hope for us as the anti-islam opposition party from Geert Wilders is now (in polls at least) the number 1 party of our country. We have woken up.

payingattention replied to comment from jan douwe | November 7, 2009 1:35 PM

Jan I hope your country is able to pull back from the brink. You need many more people like Geert Wilders there.

We all do..

Henrik | November 7, 2009 2:11 PM

I think we need the backlash - now!

And we need it in a clean and orderly way, with the authorities screening military staff & travelers based on religious beliefs and ethnicity, with particular focus on adherents of The Religion of Peace. See? I'm even being polite here.

We need our authorities (heck, we pay taxes, don't we?) to take care of this, firmly and without fear of the 'racist' stigmata.

Failing that, we will soon face some very real and very ugly backlash from less disciplined groups. I don't think we want that.

Wellington replied to comment from jan douwe | November 7, 2009 2:20 PM

Your Geert Wilders is arguably the greatest European of our time. Sensible Dutch should take a great pride in the fact that he comes form The Netherlands. If you get the chance to respond, what percentage, in your estimation, of your fellow Dutch have finally woken up to the fact that Islam, all of Islam, is a fifth column, a nefarious element in your nation?

dumbledoresarmy replied to comment from Hesperado | November 7, 2009 2:22 PM

Hesperado

the colonisation of Australia was the best thing that ever happened to Aborigines?

Really?

1788: pop est 750 000.

1900 - total est pop of Aboriginal people 93000.

(They have only just managed to scrape back up to toward the 1788 numbers by now).

Now you simply cannot pretend that that massive population collapse had NOTHING to do with anything that European people did; that there were NO mass killings, that there were NO dinners laced with strychnine or arsenic (or waterholes deliberately poisoned with same - there *were*); that there were NO punitive raids involving butchery of human beings as punishment for...spearing of cattle ); that there was no devshirme-style force of 'Native Police' trained in, and used for, plausibly deniable campaigns of mass murder; that there were NO rapes of Aboriginal maids (many of them little more than children); that there was NO virtual enslavement of aboriginal people (there was - see the Antislavery Society records for the 19th century).

Not to mention that the deliberate and systematic govmint embezzlement of Aboriginal wages and officially sanctioned forcible removal of Aboriginal children from their families (and no matter how hard it is spun, there is enough testimony to show that many of those children were NOT 'saved' from 'abusive' families, but were removed simply and solely with the intention of permanently separating them from their communities; there are documented cases of children being lied to, told that their parents had abandoned them, forgotten about them, even hated them, even while the person telling the lies had a file full of heart-wrenching, desperate letters written by that very parent, to that very child, c/o that lying official), went on right up until the 1960s.

To claim that Aboriginal people did not suffer any discernible harm as a result of European seizure of their land and forcible subjugation of themselves, is a nonsense. I'm sorry, but it's a monstrous nonsense.

To deny it means you have to deny and dismiss the agonised testimony of dozens of Christians who protested about what was being done ...*at the time* .

MrsJ replied to comment from jan douwe | November 7, 2009 2:23 PM

Jan, as a fellow European (British, and descendant of Dutch families), I know exactly what we face. Daily, it seems to get worse, and I wonder how much worse it can get before we have the backlash that Muslims seem to fear.

Two days ago, 15 of them beat up a young boy, hitting his face with a brick and stamping on his head (they seem to do that a lot). He almost died. No backlash, although many Muslims in that area of England protested they needed protection because they thought there would be one. THEY need protection? What about the non-Muslim families? Don't they need it?

boakai ngombu replied to comment from Mackie | November 7, 2009 3:09 PM

for what it's worth dept...

Mackie, i lack the special skill required to retrieve a vid off of Fox News. Alyson C. had a live interview with Col. Peters in the first hour of F&F Weekend (7Nov) and his statements were far stronger than those made during the interview with O'Reilly. the couch kids fell silent as he fully developed his view.

Wellington replied to comment from dumbledoresarmy | November 7, 2009 5:01 PM

You are correct, dda, as usual. As an American patriot, I would strongly assert that no one does America justice by denying its injustices over the centuries (ditto for an Australian patriot). For example, America's treatment of blacks and Indians cannot be excused. But a hallmark of the greatest of polities (religions and secular ideologies too) is that they have the capacity to acknowledge wrongdoing, including tremendous wrongdoing, and make amends for it, move on and try to create "a more perfect union." As Carl Schurz, a nineteenth-century German immigrant to America who became an American citizen and who rose to very high heights (a Union general during the Civil War, a US Senator from Missouri and Secretary of the Interior in the Hayes Administration), observed, "My country right or wrong. If right to be kept right. If wrong to be put right."

You said as much in your comment to Hesperado. And notice, as I know you and others have many times, that the Islamic world has shown no capacity to acknowledge its many egregious wrongdoings or a willigness to make amends for them. Demonstrative yet again, I would argue, of how inferior the entire Muslim portion of mankind really is.

dumbledoresarmy replied to comment from Wellington | November 7, 2009 5:55 PM

Thank you sir - well put. Entirely agree.

Boston Tea Party | November 7, 2009 6:25 PM

Very well said, Wellington.

uncleoinky replied to comment from dumbledoresarmy | November 7, 2009 7:37 PM

If you look throughout new world history, the biggest cause of indigenous population collapses is not deliberate, (although some might claim deliberate infection) but disease related. The Europeans were a disease ridden bunch (smallpox, measles, mumps, influenza, malaria - etc). The result was a complete decimation of native population numbers.

Your estimate of 750 000 for the initial aboriginal population is on the upper end, the lower end is 318 000.

This doesn't excuse sub human treatment of aboriginals in those times or today, but don't skew the level of it.

Hesperado | November 7, 2009 8:14 PM

payingattention,

It seems dda's post would bely your belief that Australians have nothing to be apparently ashamed about vis-a-vis treatment of aborigines. I know an Australian whose opinions I tend to trust, and he reports bitterly of the softening of the Australian character over the last 25 years.

dda,

I don't deny that whites did bad things, in Australia, and elsewhere in the Third World. You paint a picture so one-sided, however, it makes the Westerners who colonized Australia evil demons and the Australian innocent lambs. I doubt that was the case in any of the Third World regions the West penetrated -- whether it was Australia, central Asia, Africa, or America. In fact, I am convinced it was more on the side of the decency and superiority of the whites, vis-a-vis the natives.

Wellington,

The American Indians were savages who attacked each other, had cruel laws for the way each tribe treated their own, and attacked the white man in horrific ways. Does that mean the whites were perfect and innocent? Of course not. We are talking about degrees, and where one stands at the end of the day. The whites were better, they brought a better civilization, and the Indians were worse, backward, and had a worse culture.

The fact that even JW readers can't say these politically INcorrect things about the West's colonial legacy shows how deeply the rot of PC MC has infiltrated into the marrow, the blood, bones and nervous system, of most Westerners.

It is ironic how often JW readers isolate the PC MC virus to "Elites", when this kind of bleeding heart reading of Western history among JW readers themselves -- who are not "Elites" I wager - shows that PC MC is not merely the province of "Elites", and not merely the province of "Leftists" -- but to an extent even of anti-Islam JW readers!

That said, dda has obviously shown herself to be firmly and solidly anti-Islam. But I would say she's the exception that proves the rule: I.e., take most Australians who share her one-sided view of white guilt and aborigine innocence, and you would find them to be also pro-Muslim for the most part.

dumbledoresarmy replied to comment from uncleoinky | November 7, 2009 8:20 PM

I'm sorry. I don't believe the 'they all died of disease, so sad, it really wasn't our ancestors' fault, Act of God' explanation really lets anyone off the hook.

Any doctor who works with refugees and displaced people in the wake of civil wars, etc., can tell you that stressed, distressed human populations, forcibly moved off their home territory (Aboriginal people were), badly fed (Aboriginal people were: both because in many places their traditional food sources were destroyed whole sale and very rapidly, e.g. Aboriginal people in western Victoria depended on vast fields of the daisy yam or myrnong...guess what happened when hordes of sheep, hundreds of thousands of sheep, gobbled up all the myrnong in a matter of a few years, root, stem and branch - and also because once dependent on Europeans for food, in 'missions' and 'reserves', they were usually given rubbish food and not much of that, and in some cases deliberately given toxic addictive substances- indeed, in northern Queensland there were a lot of cases of Aboriginal workers being *paid* in..opium ash, not in money or even in decent food - are going to succumb to disease much more rapidly and severely than populations not subjected to such extreme stress. Oh, and let's not forget overcrowding: once 'concentrated' in 'missions' and 'reserves' (as most of the survivors were, from the mid-19th to mid-20th century; and they were NOT permitted to leave those places except as bonded labourers, they could be physically hunted down if they tried to flee), they were in atrociously over-crowded conditions in which disease could spread even faster.

There was a lot that Europeans did to Aborigines that would have made any group of people, so treated, likely to get sick and die like flies.

Not to mention the widespread infection of girls and young women with STDs..by marauding European males of both high and low degree. That wasn't an act of God; that was a result of deliberate human action; and even in the 18th century Europeans knew roughly how *those* diseases were spread. Or are you going to say that ALL indigenous women were whores by definition and that those poor widdle jackaroos and stockmen and station managers and so forth, who helped themselves continually (and often by main force) to what they called 'black velvet', just *couldn't* possibly have been even asked or expected to restrain themselves?

(And of course, women and girls who are surviving on a low protein low iron diet of tea [poor quality], sugar [poor quality], and bad (even rotten) flour (the people who provided 'food' for aborigines once they had mostly been 'concentrated' into places like Cherbourg and other 'reserves', seem to have consistently provided rations of the poorest quality), will have difficulty conceiving and difficulty producing healthy babies.

As i understand it, the 750 000 figure is what the archaeological record - one must remember that the evidence for the level, scale and depth of human occupation of Australia, pre-1788, is still being gathered - to date seems to suggest.

Wellington replied to comment from Hesperado | November 7, 2009 11:03 PM

I agree with your assessment that the Indians themselves were savage many times over, with one another and against whites. They also didn't live in harmony with their environment as is so often alleged. Per capita they were great wasters of the environment. Nonetheless, this doesn't exculpate white behavior towards them. Few if any treaties were honored that were made with them by the American government. Sam Houston was one of many great Americans who noted this. There's enough guilt to go around here for everyone. My only point to dda was to affirm the importance, indeed the necessity, of decent states to make amends for their past wrongdoings, irrespective of wrongdoings by their opponents.

We have here no real diference of opinion, Hesperado. I also agree with you that some cultures are superior to others. For example, the Iroquois were an impressive Indian federation and had qualities to be admired, but they were inferior to the British-American civilization that produced the Founding Fathers, democratic institutions, an ethic in the Judeo-Christian one that was (and is) superior to virtually any other ethical system ever developd by man and a technology that far surpassed anything the Iroquois ever developed. I'm not PC or MC at all. I just want to be thorough, accurate and fair.

jan douwe replied to comment from Wellington | November 8, 2009 1:17 AM

Wellington, we have a population of around 16 million.
Polls indicate Geert Wilders has support of around 2 million on average, making him the largest party in these polls. Its hard to say how many of us really no longer see islam as a peaceful 'religion'. On the internet at least, looking at popular (news) websites and forums, most of the commenters are "awakened souls" and those with PC MC are definitely a minority. How this relates to the general population i dont know. It is increasinly obvious tho that more and more are fed up with how islam is given special treatment, to the point where this is now the #1 topic in politics, dividing our population between groups that openly call Geert Wilders a racist, a threat to democracy and such, and groups that are fed up with islam (but definitely do NOT hate all muslims).

payingattention | November 8, 2009 1:21 AM

I normally agree whole-heartedly with Dumbledore. But on this occasion I still refer back to the observation that I am not responsible for the actions of other people hundreds of years ago. As unpleasant as it is, I would be marching in the street if such things were happening today. But they aren't. I agree to improve the lot of people who have been affected by it, but I don't think it should give anyone or any group perpetual victim status.

I also believe that some cultures are superior to others. I make no apology for having that view. And if what we have is worth keeping, we need to be prepared to stand up for it, in all ways required.

Spirit Of 1683 replied to comment from Learning | November 8, 2009 1:43 AM

Learning Nothing, yes it was treasonous and yes it was Jihad waged against US troops. The only way he would kill a US Muslim soldier is if he tried to bar this murderer's exit. Muslims try to avoid killing fellow Muslims of the same type. You have gone into typical PC mode. You merely see it as a crime and not as a Jihad being waged from within.

flowerknife_us | November 8, 2009 4:58 AM

1492 to Wounded Knee, a 400 year war against a Tribal Culture where neither side was willing to surrender to the other. Mans inhumanity to Man was working on both sides of the conflict. Both sides walked away from "Treaties" by those who did not feel it served their interests.

Today's conflict is little different from the past. We are just swapping Islam for Mother Earth. Only today we suffer from an imposed collective Guilt over winning. Spread by the same "Eastern Elite Mindset" that never understood the Western Frontier. Convenient positions for them to take considering "their" problem of the "Natives" was dealt with, in the same manor, several generations before them.

Battle_of_Tours replied to comment from Hesperado | November 8, 2009 8:29 AM

Americans and Westerners in general are intelligent enough to believe that Muslims are in fact guilty until proven innocent, and yet we still would not go around perpetrating a "backlash" against Muslims.

BLOOD, HONOR, AND ETHICS! Where is our Churchill?

They called the fight, we will finish it. A quiet mass deportation is the ONLY solution to removing these 7th century hateful barbarians from our midst. Let the West and America return to being a land where ethical goodness and honor prevails once again, where it is safe to walk the streets, or parks at night, where children don't have to fear bombs in school, or the market place. This should be our "backlash": Deportation to bring back civilization. That is the best end for a "decent people".

TL Winslow | November 8, 2009 9:02 AM

Yes, it's time the people got control of their govt. and used it to do what's needed, starting with stopping all Muslim immigration, then deporting all we can. Too bad, that means that Obama must go first.

http://go.to/islamhistory

Hesperado | November 8, 2009 9:16 AM

Wellington,

"Nonetheless, this doesn't exculpate white behavior towards them.. There's enough guilt to go around here for everyone."

While the subsequent remarks you made in the same post do not do so, what I quoted above tends to lead to Equivalencism between cultures and between ethical systems.

"My only point to dda was to affirm the importance, indeed the necessity, of decent states to make amends for their past wrongdoings, irrespective of wrongdoings by their opponents."

This reminds me of another remark you made earlier which I forgot to note:

"...a hallmark of the greatest of polities (religions and secular ideologies too) is that they have the capacity to acknowledge wrongdoing, including tremendous wrongdoing, and make amends for it, move on and try to create "a more perfect union." "

While this remark expresses a truth about a good thing, it does so without mention of a massive phenomenon that complicates that truth: a phenomenon throughout the West of taking this good thing to irrational, pathological, morbid, hectic excess, in the form first of a relatively marginalized (if sometimes vigorously competitive) Leftism, then more recently in the form of a dominant and mainstream PC MC.

Good things are good -- as long as balance is maintained. The goods which PC MC enshrines, protects and enforces through converting the minds & hearts of people often tend to become warped and deformed into no longer good things. The good of avoiding xenophobia; the good of self-criticism; the good of helping the other; the good of trying to transcend tribalism; the good of striving for equal treatment of all individuals; and so forth. These are all goods, but can become perverted by pursuing them in the wrong way. And one of the bitter and poisonous fruits of pursuing the Good by our modern West we see all around us in the hectic fever of excess health by which most Westerners cannot see the evil, unjust, anti-liberal and dangerous nature of Islam and of all Muslims who support Islam -- this blindness the result of decades of inculcation in the positive virtues of trying to transcend racism, trying to overcome xenophobia, trying to stamp out bigotry, learning to criticize ourselves more than others, wringing our hands about our crimes we committed in history while avoiding any condemnation of other peoples and their far worse crimes; and so forth.

Wellington replied to comment from Hesperado | November 8, 2009 10:50 AM

Thanks for your reply, Hesperado. As usual, you write well and make valid points. The one I most agree with you on in this last comment of yours is that white society has gone overboard in making amends for its wrongdoings. After a point it becomes stupid, craven and self-defeating. I forget who said that whites should not be forced to choose between white worthlessness and white racism. I agree with this sentiment heartily. Perhaps it was Fjordmann (spelling?) who observed this but whoever did made an excellent point. And for the record, I assert that Western Civilization is the greatest civilization of all time. It achieved more magnificent things than any other. It gave man democracy, the scientific method, the most efficacious form of capitalism, magnificent legal systems (e.g., Roman Law and Common Law), an extremely enlightened ethical code in the Judeo-Christian ethic and the greatest capacity of any civilization to find fault with itself in order to become something better, though again this last quality has been taken to excess by those who are riddled with PC, MC, ignorance and self-loathing.

Hesperado | November 8, 2009 11:12 AM

Yes Wellington, and let's hope the West will be able to rein in the excesses to which its own better nature has, paradoxically, given birth and continued nourishment.

dumbledoresarmy replied to comment from Hesperado | November 8, 2009 2:10 PM


Hesperado

I believe it is possible to remember, 'own' and celebrate the achievements of one's predecessors without falling into the appalling hubris of pretending that they were all entirely without sin.

In Australia and in the Americas Europeans were the initial aggressor. The natives did not come to Europe; Europeans went to *them*, crossing thousands of miles of ocean to do so. Arguments about the relative merits of the societies involved does not erase that simple fact.

There is something else, which I as a Christian find deeply disturbing, that soon becomes apparent if one reads the things that were said by quite a lot of people, at the time, on the cutting edge of the frontiers: it was not merely that they believed everything they did to the natives was right , because civilisation is superior to barbarism (some of them did believe this, of course). It was that many of them - too many - persuaded themselves that dispossessing, killing or enslaving the natives was of no particular consequence, or was actually to be celebrated, because the barbarians were not people at all. (In the late 19th century and into the 1930s in Australia, a crude social darwinism, assorted theories of race and eugenics, became immensely popular because they offered support for this awfully convenient view).

Those Christians who in Australia did try to evangelise the natives often became persona non grata, precisely because of their stubborn insistence that the natives - no matter how inferior their culture - *were* still people, capable of salvation, possessing souls, created by God in his own image just as the Europeans were. That they could not simply be swept aside with indifference, nor their deaths - whether from epidemics or mass murder - treated with callous complacency or, worse, celebration.

There may not seem to be much difference between saying that this man is a man with an inferior or barbaric culture, and saying that this man is, well, actually not a man but tantamount to a cow, a pig or an ape ...but it makes all the difference in the world. Because if one kills the former, whether it is done in fair fight or through ambush and massacre, one must still accept that one has killed a man; whereas to kill the latter, is merely to butcher an animal or eradicate vermin and one does not have to bother one's head about the Sixth Commandment (or, for that matter, the Eighth).

I commend to you and to anyone else here who might be interested in Australian history, the book "One Blood", by John Harris - priest, linguist and scholar - which is a monumental scholarly history of Christian mission to, and witness among, Aboriginal people in Australia, from 1788 to the 1980s. Harris has also written a more 'local' history focusing on the work of the Church Missionary Society in Northern Australia in recent times (1900-1970s), entitled 'We Wish We'd Done More'.

To grasp that the spread of Christianity is not dependent upon, nor even necessarily much helped by (and indeed sometimes actually *hindered* by) acts of imperial invasion, conquest and colonisation, even when those are carried out by 'christian' nations, I recommend Stephen Neill's "A History of Christian Mission" which covers all branches of Christianity in all periods. (Neill is a historian: he records when, how, by whom, and where, Christianity spread, using original sources as much as possible; his book is full of fascinating surprises, such as how it was that the church first took root in Korea...and curiously enough, colonisation and Empire had nothing whatever to do with it).

Hesperado | November 8, 2009 3:05 PM

dumbledoresarmy,

With all due respect, you begin with a statement that shows that you are not responding to me:

"I believe it is possible to remember, 'own' and celebrate the achievements of one's predecessors without falling into the appalling hubris of pretending that they were all entirely without sin." [bold emphasis added by me]

My last comment to you included the following:

"I don't deny that whites did bad things, in Australia, and elsewhere in the Third World. You paint a picture so one-sided, however, it makes the Westerners who colonized Australia evil demons and the Australian innocent lambs. I doubt that was the case in any of the Third World regions the West penetrated -- whether it was Australia, central Asia, Africa, or America. In fact, I am convinced it was more on the side of the decency and superiority of the whites, vis-a-vis the natives."

You thus in your latest comment set up the straw man and red herring of the "entirely without sin" claim, which I never made.

The bottom line is that no one is perfect, but that some are better than others. Secondly, because of the disease of PC MC, many events and activities during Western Colonialism are demonized when in fact they were on balance (again, imperfectly) beneficent for the natives of various regions colonized. Most Third World peoples, left alone, live backwards, regressive lives that, despite their being "in touch with nature" and other alleged virtues discovered by Leftist anthropologists of the West, would be, and were, and are, better off by being invaded and told what to do.

The revisionism that has occurred in the West over the past 50 odd years, concerning its history of colonization and the weight of guilt and shame thus attached to that history outweighing the pride, is directly related to why the West cannot deal rationally with this new Native People, this new Noble Savage, the Muslim.


dumbledoresarmy | November 8, 2009 3:18 PM

Anyway: back to the main topic, the jihad raid (ghazwa) at Fort Hood, and the reactions thereto.

I clicked on the link and read the whole story 'Mosques Up Security in Wake of Ft Hood: Anti-Muslim Backlash Immediate...' as it appeared in CBS news.

And I discovered that Jihadwatch gets a whole lot of free publicity.

First:
'the reaction to the suspect accused in the Fort Hood shooting was fast and furious.

"Jihad at Fort Hood?" read the headline of a post on the Jihad Watch blog just moments after Hasan was identified as the alleged perpetrator of a mass shooting at the Texas military base that killed 12 people and wounded 31 others.'

Then:
'Robert Spencer, the director of the Jihad Watch blog and the author of nine books on Islam and jihad, chastised the media for failing to point to jihad as a possible explanation for the shooting.

"No one, no one at all, in the mainstream media is discussing jihad as a motivation," Spencer wrote. "It's all about 'snapping,' 'not wanting to go to war'.... If this turns out to be a jihad attack, watch for the president to caution against 'backlash' and 'Islamophobia."''

And:
'The commenters on Jihad Watch were unforgiving in the hours after the shooting.

"The war on terror is over, and the war on Islam has begun," one wrote.'

Hi, AP reporters (I know you're lurking there, reading over our shoulders). Thanks for the publicity!

I wouldn't be in the least surprised if a *lot* of online readers of CBS, having had the name 'Jihadwatch' brought to their attention by that article, came a-googling, drawn here by sheer curiosity.

And indeed, if so be someone is reading this right now who has come here as a result of reading that story on CBS - welcome. Come in, sit down, relax, converse.

But before you read any further, please go up to the homepage and click on the link entitled 'Islam 101'. Read, slowly and carefully, what you will find there. Then come back and join the discussion.


dumbledoresarmy | November 8, 2009 4:57 PM

Hesperado

*I* don't see Muslims as 'Natives'. I equate them with Nazis or Marxists, as proponents of a lethal and aggressively expansionist ideology.

I can see quite clearly that the Ummah is the Empire of Islam and I agree with Anwar Sheikh's view that Islam is the Arab National Religion (or, perhaps, more correctly, the Arab Imperial Religion).

I don't want Australia gobbled up by the Ummah and subjected to sharia - because I know that that would be very bad for everybody here, whether for the Yolngu people of Arnhem Land or the whitefellas of Sydney! And everything aboriginal people have gained in two centuries of obstinately refusing to lie down and die, and persistently appealing to Christian principles to gain basic justice and recognition as human beings, would be lost - because Muslim imperialists are much more ruthless than English imperialists, though the latter were quite ruthless enough (when one looks at the recorded incidents) to turn any Christian's stomach.

I am well aware of the imperial ambition of the S E Asian Muslims to the north of where I live:

From VS NAIPAUL, Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey, 1981; 2001 paperback edition.

At a Muslim school in Pabelan in Java, Indonesia, sometime during the 1970s, V S Naipaul recorded the following exchange, initiated after someone observed, of one of the students, ‘He’s from Timor’.
“Prasojo was interested. ‘Which one?’ {i.e., from East or West Timor}.
‘Timor’, said Taufiq, and laughed. ‘Our newest colony. *Soon we’ll be colonizing Australia* {my emphasis added - dda}’
Prasojo said, ‘You mustn’t say those things’.” END QUOTE

Do you still think, Hesperado, that I am some kind of weak link?

Just because I - as a Christian - am deeply sceptical of Imperialism as such, no matter what high-minded rhetoric it might use. Islamic imperialism is the cruellest and most shamelessly amoral; but why should that let everyone else off the hook?

And I repeat, I know from history that imperial conquest is not the only or even the best method by which to spread Christianity.

You are setting up a false dichotomy: you seem to argue that the only alternatives for civilised people are to 1. leave the 'primitive' peoples alone in their misery or 2. invade, colonise, occupy and *make* them behave.

But what if good, transforming, life-giving ideas don't necessarily require occupying armies or floods of colonists to carry and establish them? Jesus had no army when he commissioned the disciples to 'go and teach all nations'.

Think of Ireland. The violent, head-hunting, illiterate, slave-taking, human-sacrificing Irish - more 'advanced' technologically than Australian tribes, but certainly much more primitive than, say, the Greco-Roman Christian high culture that had already built the Hagia Sophia - were not Christianised by being violently invaded and subjugated; they were transformed by the peaceful preaching of St Patrick and a small number of others. There was no 'foreign Christian' settlement/ colonisation of 5th-6th-century Ireland. The Irish converted; much of the most barbaric aspects of their culture disappeared; they stayed in possession of their land and went on speaking their mother-tongue (having added Latin for scholarship and liturgy) and practising their - revised - culture.

For another example, google 'Coming of the Light' and 'Torres Strait Islanders'.

Anyway, *why* do you seem to want to argue that if I criticise western imperialism, rather than celebrating it as 'the best thing that ever happened' to those on the receiving end [specifically, in this discussion, the Aborigines], I will be unable to condemn and oppose Muslim imperialism?

When you surely know from my entire posting history that I condemn and oppose Muslim imperialism?

Drop it, mate.

Let's concentrate on the case of Major Hasan and how to deal with the Mohammedan Fifth Columnists.

Wellington replied to comment from dumbledoresarmy | November 8, 2009 7:10 PM

For what it's worth, dda, you are no weak link as I see it. Far from it.

Hesperado | November 8, 2009 8:33 PM

dda,

"*I* don't see Muslims as 'Natives'."

I was referring to how they are seen by the dominantly mainstream PC MCs. And the PC MCs are not pulling this out of thin air, since the provenance of the vast majority of Muslims in fact is the Third World which comprises the regions where the West encountered and colonized what it symbolized as "Natives" and "Noble Savages" among other things -- these symbolisms later, under the reign of PC MC, to acquire very special meanings directly related to the West's morbidly excessive self-criticism.

"I equate them with Nazis or Marxists, as proponents of a lethal and aggressively expansionist ideology."

I wouldn't equate them with Nazis and Marxists: Muslims are far worse and deadlier. Nazis and Marxists had only a few decades of development, had no real connection to any country or history, and had limited international following; Muslims have a rich history of 1400 years and a global network of interlocking cultures, and are far more fanatical. Their fanaticism is also sui generis, and it can be a mistake to try to compare it to anything we know.

"Do you still think, Hesperado, that I am some kind of weak link?"

dda, I already wrote above in this thread:

dda has obviously shown herself to be firmly and solidly anti-Islam. But I would say she's the exception that proves the rule: I.e., take most Australians who share her one-sided view of white guilt and aborigine innocence, and you would find them to be also pro-Muslim for the most part.

Where does it show that I think you are some kind of weak link re: anti-Islam?

"Islamic imperialism is the cruellest and most shamelessly amoral; but why should that let everyone else off the hook?"

Because Western Imperialism was on balance a good thing. Why must good things be perfect in order to be accepted as good? Nothing is perfect in this life. Does that mean nothing is good in this life? That one thing cannot be better than another?

"You are setting up a false dichotomy: you seem to argue that the only alternatives for civilised people are to 1. leave the 'primitive' peoples alone in their misery or 2. invade, colonise, occupy and *make* them behave.

But what if good, transforming, life-giving ideas don't necessarily require occupying armies or floods of colonists to carry and establish them?"

This is to vastly oversimplify massive complex processes of history. Secondly, I am also talking about what has been done, not what could be if we only could have done x, y and z. Besides, humans are imperfect; and their imperfection becomes even more evident when they undertake monumental enterprises, like going out and helping millions of foreign people. To expect that could have been done, or even could be done today, in some idealistic non-violent respectful way -- at least in a way that would pass muster with expectations like yours -- is tantamount to utopianism (even if one with a more palatably Franciscan tonality).

"Jesus had no army when he commissioned the disciples to 'go and teach all nations'."

Disciples are incapable of organizing masses of people that constitute a civilization, without problems of imperfection arising, as in fact unfolded throughout the centuries of Christendom.

"Think of Ireland. The violent, head-hunting, illiterate, slave-taking, human-sacrificing Irish - more 'advanced' technologically than Australian tribes, but certainly much more primitive than, say, the Greco-Roman Christian high culture that had already built the Hagia Sophia - were not Christianised by being violently invaded and subjugated; they were transformed by the peaceful preaching of St Patrick and a small number of others. There was no 'foreign Christian' settlement/ colonisation of 5th-6th-century Ireland. The Irish converted; much of the most barbaric aspects of their culture disappeared; they stayed in possession of their land and went on speaking their mother-tongue (having added Latin for scholarship and liturgy) and practising their - revised - culture."

Yes, but time doesn't stand still. Ireland of the 7th century cannot remain 7th century; it grows like any living organism, gets more complex, progress happens, along with various imperfections that attend progress. That's life. That's history. Simplicity cannot be preserved in amber, if life is to go on.

"Anyway, *why* do you seem to want to argue that if I criticise western imperialism, rather than celebrating it as 'the best thing that ever happened' to those on the receiving end [specifically, in this discussion, the Aborigines], I will be unable to condemn and oppose Muslim imperialism?"

I said the opposite, in my quote I reproduced above, which I repeat:

dda has obviously shown herself to be firmly and solidly anti-Islam. But I would say she's the exception that proves the rule: I.e., take most Australians who share her one-sided view of white guilt and aborigine innocence, and you would find them to be also pro-Muslim for the most part.

dumbledoresarmy replied to comment from Hesperado | November 9, 2009 3:52 AM

Hesperado

This is a bit OT, but I am curious. On what sources precisely do you depend for information about Christian history, orthodox Christian theology (whether evangelical Protestant, believing Catholic [see Benedict XVI, Deus caritas] or Eastern Orthodox) and Christian practice and the ability of Christians and Christian organisations to survive in the big bad world?

What are *your* preferred books -the ones to which you keep returning - for information on Christians, Christianity and western history 100 AD - 1900AD?

The main point I wanted to make about Ireland was this: that it was an example of a barbaric tribal society, outside the boundary of the Roman Empire, that was nevertheless not converted by the process of having most of its population annihilated, and the survivors dispossessed, stripped of language and land, and forcibly 'civilised'. I wasn't indulging in notsalgia, or whatever else you thought i was doing.

Ireland is but one example of others I could name, to whom the Gospel came and among whom it put down deep roots, without being carried or imposed or subsequently supported or protected by imperial colonisers. I argued this because you seemed to think that the 'christian' Empires were *necessary*. They happened, yes. But it doesn't follow that they *had* to happen. Otherwise one starts arguing - with the Stalinists and the Leninists and all the other pleaders of High Necessity and the Greater Good - that omelettes cannot be made without the breaking of eggs, and that all the particular deaths (say, in the Belgian Congo) were unavoidable means to the good end.

I guess my bar for calling something 'good' is set a bit higher than yours is. And that still doesn't mean that I'm demanding perfection.

It's just that there really was so much that was completely NOT good in the general European expressed attitude and actual behaviour toward Aboriginal people in Australia, including things that remain seared in living memory, that for me to be asked to say that it was 'good' for the people who endured it, or that the good outweighed or somehow justifies or excuses the bad, is to be asked to say The Thing Which Is Not. No can do.

I'm going to be blunt.

You can't *make* me see everything in the world exactly the way you do. For one thing- are you a Christian? An orthodox practising, professing Christian attending a church? If you're not, then sorry, you *can't* make me share, for example, whatever it is that is your particular personal philosophy, because...it will, by definition, not be mine. You'll just have to disagree with me on a whole lot of things. My hope is not dependent on whatever it is that is *your* basis for hope; and there is a lot about me, qua Christian, that you are going to find blankly confusing or infuriating.

Now: here's what we can agree on.

I can agree with you that Islam is an evil ideology. I can agree with calling a halt to Muslim immigration, and I can agree on the need for deportations. In the meantime, rejection of any official recognition of sharia; and I agree with Ayaan Hirsi Ali's advice that the Mohammedans currently present in the West should not be permitted to have dedicated 'Islamic schools'; so, opposition to mosques and Islamic schools.

And I agree that for obvious reasons of practical prudence Muslims should not be employed as security guards, police, or soldiers in non-Muslim lands.

Despite the silly things being said in the wake of this Fort Hood shooting, I think the citizenry in the West (and, for that matter, in Thailand and in India and the Philippines) should cite -loudly and often - the case of Major Hasan when calling for No More Muslims In The Military.

Hesperado | November 9, 2009 6:32 PM

dda,

We have a lot to agree on. Everything you described in that regard I have no quibbles with, and it is greatly encouraging, and no real surprise from having read many of your posts over the months.

The other issue is related, in my view, in that it connects the current Western response to the problem of Islam. I would say you are in a tiny minority who feels that way about Western colonialism, while simultaneously taking the stand you do against Islam; and the reason for that is precisely that connection between PC MC and Western anti-Westernism. Again, you are likely in a tiny minority, able to criticize deeply, if not condemn, many aspects of Western history while simultaneously lauding Western civilization. So I can separate the two issues with regard to you, since you yourself separate them. But I cannot do so with regard to the dominantly mainstream paradigm under which the West labors, a paradigm built upon the fusion of those two issues, and coming, of course, to a conclusion about Islam and about Muslims rather opposite yours.

As for my pedagogy about Christianity and the West, and the questions you raise, allow me to dwell on that a while, and I will try to respond, if not here, in some other thread; for it is a rather complex bundle of questions.

FrontPageMag.com



Books by Robert Spencer



Pages
Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
— Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
— Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
— Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
— Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
— Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
— Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
— Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
— Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
— Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
— Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
— Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
— Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
— Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
— Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
— Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
— Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
— New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
— Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
— New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
— Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
— Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
— Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
— Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
— Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
— Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
— Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
— Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives

RSS Feed RSS Feed


Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Search

Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Links
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter