Spencer interview: Why is the Islamic threat resurgent today?

Jihad - the only reason why leftards could actually take a 180º on their environmental stance and actually support the West's dependence on Saudi oil.

We also mustn't forget islam's incredible win in Kosovo.

With the West's assistance, the jihadic movement scored a major victory against Serbia, who was defending itself against islamic supremacism.

That had to have a positive morale impact on the muslim world.

A great interview, but hard to watch since it's broken into so many parts. I made it through about 12 parts and then just got tired of fussing with it.

Hi Robert. I've "read ahead" through the questions, and I'll say this is an excellent conversation. Though it's slow to listen to piecewise the format is helpful for linking to specific answers to questions.

In later segments there are a couple of places where you make statements or -- more specifically tacitly accept and appear to endorse statements by the interviewer -- that may be spun in unhelpful ways against you. They seem a bit out of keeping with your approach. I thought I'd mention them at this point so that you can clarify when you post the appropriate segments.

In one segment the interviewer asks if you would endorse the idea of separate security lines for muslims and non-muslims at airports. While you neither endorsed nor rejected the idea directly you did respond quite positively to the suggestion, listing some ways in which it would be a positive thing. As such a policy would seriously affect civil liberties, I think it would be wise for you to clarify your position on the matter.

I agree that, if such a separation could be done in the ideal it would resolve a big part of the airport security problem. But even if it did not create problems in the area of civil liberties it would be problematic in execution. For one, how to determine whether a person is muslim or not? Those most likely to be up to mischief would certainly be most likely not to self-identify as muslim if this could harm their chances of succeeding -- recall the behavior of the 9-11 attackers before their flights. Racial and country-of-origin profiling are possible, but unless we adopt identity cards with one's religion stamped on them, like most muslim countries have, there is no way to verify, in any legal sense, a person's religious identity. I would strongly object to any attempt to impose such a system, as it reeks of sharia, the fundamental premise of which is that one's religion places one into a particular legal category, and there is NOT one law for all. For that matter the "separate lines" idea is very much a sharia-type mechanism.

Seeing the reaction to body scanners by islamist groups, and the accommodations they easily win, it is not hard to imagine, in today's political climate, what would ensue. First, they would win a judgement that muslim women must not be scrutinized by kafirs. Then they would win the right to be screened in private areas, and only by fellow muslims, with no "kafir" oversight. After which it would be no surprise to see a sudden surge of muslims applying for airport security positions, for which the system would create a sudden demand. Political correctness would cripple any ability to properly screen applicants, and in the end the muslim community would have won a separate channel through security controlled entirely by their own community and at the whim of individuals potentially at odds philosophically with western ethos and not at all inclined to "rat out" fellow muslims with "an agenda".

(I've got a better idea: Hire Israeli airport security experts to overhaul and run the North American system, and give them free rein to implement measures as they see fit.)

In another segment the questioner describes Islam in terms of a virus metaphor, asking what it would take for the "virus" to be eradicated. Now I've no problem with metaphors, and this would is perfectly apt in some ways. However, I think you understand well the danger of adopting pejorative terminology that can be construed as "racist" (yes I know, for the millionth time, Islam is not a race!). While there is a clear distinction between a group of people and the ideology adhered to by that group, the distinction can be, and will be, blurred by those wishing to "change the narrative" of any conversation in which they are being used, and you'll find yourself expending far more effort defending your message than delivering it.

The old antisemetic slur about Jews being a disease is clear racism, whereas a statement that "Judaism" is a disease might well be part of a principled rejection of religion (a la Christopher Hitchens or Pat Condell, whom I by no means admire for this position, but I do concede that one can take that position without any animus toward the people holding religious views). We understand this distinction. But it is very easy in public discourse for statements of the latter type to be construed as the former. I believe it is of great value to avoid the rhetorical low road simply to not give one's opponents this strategic wedge.

Sorry for the long blather.

Robert Spencer - 26/04/2010 - Part 10: Why Islamic Threat Today? 1:42

ITV Living Scoop:

Do you think that Islam has been much more violent and threatening during the past decades because of the weakening of Western values or is it just one of the many cycles of Islamic conquest that today we are facing?

Robert Spencer:

Yes, it goes in cycles. But it's a cycle that is based on the strength or weakness of the Islamic world. And so, yes, we are seeing an increase because the West is weak. And that's a cultural and a spiritual societal weakness that the Islamic world can perceive easily and capitalize upon and they are doing so. And so, yes, the West is weak, and so the Islamic world is stepping up the attack. But also the Islamic world is greater, is gaining in strength. And that's because of the Saudi oil money and a variety of other factors. The victory of Khomeini in Iran and the continuance of the Iranian revolution which shows that Islamic supremacists can defeat a standing army and a sitting government and take power and hold it. And so, that kind of thing lends confidence to the movements all over the world. And of course with the Saudi oil billions and oil billions from other Muslim states they have the wear-with-all to carry forward the jihad in a way that they didn't a hundred years ago. And so, those factors have led to the present day resurgence in total, not just one of them or another.

One keeps looking for not only America but Western societies in general to have an awakening to the threat that is Islam and sharia, but it simply is not happening. Whether we are weak in spiritual or social matters it is the continuous ignorance of Islam's determinations that continue to plague Americans and EU countries.

We continue to remain so steeped in political correctness, and multiculturalism that the perversity of it handicaps our efforts to bluntly confront the ever growing threat that is Islam. We outrageously continue to be afraid of insulting the world of Islam to a point that we our undermining our own once flourishing American Culture(s).

Islam hides behind the charade that it is a religion when it is really a totalitarian ideology that reflects as much as 85 Pct.political behavior within the contents of sharia.

We are seeing once again numerous commentators in print and on television who as usual haven't exercised their collective brains to take just a little time to understand the jihad imperatives that drive the umma. They are still asking the same outrageous questions over and over again nearly 9 years after 9-11. What drove the Time Square bomber to do what he did? One article this morning went as far as to title their article "NY car bomb suspect cooperates, but motive mystery" See as just one of many samples while other writers speculated that it was more than likely some right wing fanatic from the tea parties. Then there was the airhead comments by the beautiful MSNBC leftwing loon Contessa Brewer yesterday on radio. Lately I feel like getting rid of all my GE appliances no matter what.

Sometimes I ask myself; what do they teach these so called journalists in Universities? How to spell, or how to put a sentence together? -- no research of the serious subject apparently-- and here is your diploma and your good to go.

Yes, the West has become weak, but I won't let it be said about me; and I try to educate everyone I know about islam's evil intentions, because the media sure won't ...

What's missing in Spenser's answer is the biggest part of what the answer should be: Namely, the Muslims, all of them have a bible named the Koran that is a perfect Bible, composed entirely by God, before all time begin, written down with any error whatsoever - and this Bible tells them to conquer the world in order to be in favor with God. It tells them that even out and out Murder is holy and good in order to accomplish this world conquering mission. When the world is conquered, there will be servants aplenty for the ruling class who will all be Muslims. That is the most important and number one reason they are forever dangerous. That Bible, the Koran, is our main enemy - it must be destroyed every way possible.

Erm- I think the whole "holy war" (albeit in reverse) argument is fraught with dangers- humanity could afford then in times of the sword or musket but NOT in the time of the WMD!

Terry

Re:"And so, yes, the West is weak, ..."
I would like to add that the West has made many strides in moral uplifting its moral values - equality of women, abolishment of slavery and child labor, enshrining the concept of freedom and democracy in national constitutions, education, free thought etc. This is a HUGE leap and makes for an open and increasingly transparent society. It is precisely this that Islam thinks is the weakness and feels it can occupy space here. West has, unfortunately, equated tolerance and forgiveness with acceptance of repugnant regimes and commands its citizens to respect them via state power. This is a BIG mistake. Educate and show patience to these deluded and confused newcomers, by all means. But, do not tolerate any attempts to undermine our values or overthrow what has been long, arduous struggle of ideas over 500 years since the start of Renaissance. I think that the West can be strong against the barbarism of islam if it chooses to be so, but only by sticking to and enforcing its progressive values.