Please bring flags, not signs, to the 9/11 rally against the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero

Jeff Spicole | September 1, 2010 1:26 PM | Reply

Reported. Say goodbye.

Jeff, could you clarify a little further please as your turn-of-phrase is somewhat unfamiliar. Thanks.

Wish I could be there holding these flags, side by side ...

http://www.amerisraelfund.com/USIsraeliFlag.jpg

Thanks awake, just twigged.

To Mr. Spencer:

I don't understand.

WHY WILL YOU BE CONFISCATING SIGNS? Isn't that another suppression of speech?

I suspect that the real reason behind the NYPD decision against large poles is not for public safety, but rather to suppress banners that may be incendiary. What do you think?

It is possible to have large banners without large poles, e.g. with ropes, or with people standing on chairs, etc. Will those be confiscated? Why?

ISLAM MUST BE MET HEAD ON -- lots of flags and "my feelings are hurt" just won't do the trick. The Muslims also claim their feeling are hurt, and they carry flags too. There are more Muslims who can claim that their feelings are hurt than there are families of the victims. What do you say when they argue "forgiveness," one of the highest virtues of the Christian tradition?

Please respond to my postings (over last couple of days, since your "Stand with us" posting) with some logic, not directives.

"Please bring flags, not signs, to the 9/11 rally"

Very smart move.

This will limit the dhimmi, dummy, ding dong media to purposely underestimating the size of the crowd and reporting "their" number as fact, and trying to get someone at the rally to say something they can use to portray the American majority as bigots.

Give them nothing.

Remember, they're hyenas.

@Arthur.
It's a matter of DIGNITY

So all the good-guys make it home safe that day...

http://freemendo.typepad.com/undaunted/2010/06/read-hereabout-boeing-guards-who-somehow-let-twelve-or-was-it-fourteen-handguns-be-stolen-from-a-storage-locker-at-the-he.html#tp

To Mr. Spencer and other readers:

Please look at my lengthy postings and arguments under Mr. Spencer's post from Aug. 31 entitled "Help us stand for freedom against Islamic supremacism on September 11."

Please explain how Mr. Spencer can win with the intellectual elite by relying solely upon flags and feelings.

@London Jim: Please explain what is undignified about large banners proclaiming fundamental facts about Islam, incendiary as they may be. There is never any bigotry in stating facts.

Bigotry is evidenced by name-calling, empty colorful adjectives, sarcasm, etc. Remember that neutral people who are not knowledgeable about the facts of Islam cannot easily see where all the adjectives and name-calling are coming from.

The media need facts shoved in their face. The media are today in the same position regarding Islam as the media were when Darwin came out with his theory of evolution, or when Galileo came out with his ideas. The media doesn't know if it is safe yet to talk about Islam.

We can talk about the Aztec religion of human sacrifice, or about the Christian atrocities of burning and torturing (likely) millions, but we cannot talk about the facts of Islam. We can criticize the nonsense in the Bible, but we cannot criticize the Koran in the media. THIS HAS GOT TO CHANGE.

We will be confiscating signs? From my cold dead hands you will. This is America, Robert. We are not under sharia law nor are we under a police state. SHAME ON YOU for even proposing this!

Another small point: Speeches can always be distorted by selective editing of sound bites. Clear, unambiguous, accurate signs stating facts cannot be distorted.

Emotion can never defeat Islam. For those of you haven't traveled to the mid-East, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA AND CANNOT EVEN CONCEIVE OF HOW POWERFUL THE EMOTIONAL BOND IS BETWEEN MUSLIMS AND THEIR RELIGION. (Probably as powerful as the emotions for Jesus at the time of the first Christian martyrs in the first few centuries C.E.) This is why there is an endless supply of Muslim suicide bombers.

Islam can be defeated by facts. THERE IS NO WAY FOR A MUSLIM TO HOLD HIS HEAD UP WHEN FACED WITH THE FACTS. HIS ONLY OPTION IS TO TELL LIES.

I respect Mr. Spencer so much for his courage that I would not say "shame on you" to him, but I do think HE OWES IT TO EVERYBODY TO EXPLAIN WHY HE WILL BE CONFISCATING SIGNS, AND WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY LOGIC.

Wish I could bring some signs with comments from your very own site printed on them.

"Let's fill the sprinklers of the mosque with pig's blood and light it on fire!"

"How about some good old-fashioned torches and pitchforks?"

"Islam is like Malaria!"

"Mahoundians are the devil!"

@arthur.
The sole fact that the media will be left to convey to their diminishing audience is the sole fact that we will put across. On our backs and in our, with our numbers our resolute spirit. Get the message.

@traeh:

But even if the people against the GZ mosque don't bring signs, WHAT IS TO STOP THE OTHERS FROM PLANTING GENOCIDAL ANTI-MUSLIM SIGNS IN ORDER TO GAIN SYMPATHY? Your argument makes no sense to me.

We have been having endless days of solemnity and mourning. Have you read what Rauf said regarding the 9/11 victims? Very emotional and very moving.

IT IS TIME, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THE FACTS ABOUT ISLAM HONESTLY AND OPENLY.

I THINK THAT SEPT. 11 SHOULD BECOME AN ANNUAL "EXPOSE ISLAM" DAY.

The stereotypical "peace-mobiles" of the Left are covered with "progressive" bumper sticker slogans, but now is the time to use their "tactic" against them. I hate to say it, but people everywhere, especially in the NYC metro area, should have bumper stickers on their cars stating their opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque. Here and here are some good options. We've got one on both our cars, and I live in the Southwest U.S.

I will be but one face in the crowd...with a flag...I can live without signs...strength and solidarity...

Freedom can be lost only by those who let it go...

Re: "Arthur".

Again, we see here at JW, another relative newcomer, "Arthur" who is so inclined as to direct the commenting community, and all reading, as to what behavior should be exhibited at the 9/11 rally.

He is not bashful, in his pleading for a public response by Robert, to answer his "logical" questions about expression of free speech, and how, in "Arthur's" estimation, Robert should proceed.

I do not know "Arthur", as I or anyone else really does not know anyone on the internet under anonymity, but his recent posting lends me to believe that he is also a plant, placing himself here to compel rally attendees to display signs directly attacking Muhammad, which will only aid and abet the media coverage against SIOA, and fuel the false argument that protesting this mosque displays bigotry against Muslims and promotes the phantom charge of "Islamophobia".

This smear campaign has already started and "Arthur" would have us all believe that he currently exists in a vacuum, and is unaware of all the national media coverage, mostly negative against SIOA, in spite of national popular support for their position.

Another insidious tactic displayed here by "Arthur" is his insinuation that if the rally doesn't proceed as directed by him, a mere coat-tail rider under the best of circumstances, that the rally will be deficient in some way. This demand for declared ideological purity is not foreign as a "criticism" here. It has been presented by select, but regular JW commenters, as well as some all-talk-but-no-action conservative bloggers like Lawrence Auster.

As others have aptly stated, the message on 9/11 should be about tactful remembrance of the fallen, those killed by the explicit doctrinal mandates of Islam. Those doctrines are still not accepted or even known by a vast majority of the US populace, but despite that, "Arthur" demands that all the chips be thrown on the table here and now.

If I believed that "Arthur" was genuine, which I do not, I would posit to him as to why he did not address his initial questioning of Robert's intentions directly, via email, which we all know, is not a national secret in any way.

No. "Arthur" seems hell-bent on trying to make this a public debate between "he" and Robert on JW, and has done so consistently, all in his very brief time here commenting.

To be perfectly honest, I was disappointed in Robert's request. To request that people not bring signs is one thing; to insist that those who do will have them confiscated is quite another.

Having said that, Robert Spencer has - in my estimation - earned a few hundred benefit-of-the-doubts for all the good he's done in this lifetime.

This has less to do with Arthur, although he makes some valid points. This has more to do with an extremely unfortunate worded directive by Robert Spencer.

Robert, I will bring the Dutch flag, Israeli flag or any other flag or sign I wish to bring to the 9/11 protest. This is not about you.

I'm a avid reader and obviously support your and Pamela's cause, but don't ever tell us how to protest again.

This is America.

Well given the number of British victims of 9-11 ( around 200 I believe) I suppose UK people have some "locus" as the lawyers say.

So I would like to say I agree with Arthur to a large degree, or I think it would be worth exploring why flags and not phrases.

Emotions are easily manipulated. Anyone can wrap themselves in a flag - and the Taqiyya Shariah gang will do so if necessary. What people need is some education as to the nature of Islam: its claims, its laws ,its history and its ambitions and - in this case - also about Rauf & El
Gamal...their statements/actions/associations/convictions.

People need to know that Islam has always and still does wish to conquer the whole planet either militarily or by peaceful means. They need to know about Mohammed's life and that his deeds in life are considered perfect examples for all Muslims (well men, at least). They need to know about Islamic history e.g. that victory Mosques were nearly always built over Churches and Temples and that Muslims set great store by building Mosques that dominate the local surroundings. They need to hear some of the blood curdling quotes from the Koran and the Hadith.

Then they will understand why this Ground Zero Mosque must not be built and that the aims and objectives of its promoters are entirely anti-constitutional.

IN CORE ISLAMIC TEXTS, JIHAD IS NOT JUST FOR SELF-DEFENSE; MUHAMMAD SAYS FIGHT AGAINST, AND DEMAND PAYMENT FROM, THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE IN ALLAH
From one of the canonical hadith collections is a hadith that tells of three choices for non-Muslims:
Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4294

...the Messenger of Allah [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him)...would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war...When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [polytheists to Muslims includes Christians because of how Muslims understand the Trinity] invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. [1] Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ...[2] If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. [3] If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...

"No signs"

Does that include t-shirts?

http://rlv.zcache.com/islam_sucks_tshirt-p235458008333951455trlf_400.jpg

IN CORE ISLAMIC TEXTS, MUHAMMAD GOES TO WAR TO SPREAD ISLAM
In Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical of hadith collections, Muhammad said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah."

In other words, Muhammad says that if you are non-Muslim, your right to life will not be sacred to Muslims, nor your right to property.

Mr Spencer said it's because it's a solemn day. He's right, we should all bring american flags, it would be very beautiful and show increadible unity, if no one balks, Author.

IN CORE ISLAMIC TEXTS, MUHAMMAD REFERS TO HELP FROM TERROR, HIS RIGHT TO BOOTY, AND HIS MISSION TO ALL MANKIND

In one of the two most canonical hadith collections, Sahih Muslim:

Book 4, Number 1062:

Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him) said: I have been given superiority over the other prophets in six respects: I have been given words which are concise but comprehensive in meaning; I have been helped by terror (in the hearts of enemies): spoils have been made lawful to me: the earth has been made for me clean and a place of worship; I have been sent to all mankind and the line of prophets is closed with me.

traeh,

In your defense of the "no signs" proposal against Arthur's position, you wrote:

"...the adversary would like to plant people with racist and genocidal signs at the rally."

The problem with this argument is that it would apply to all future rallies by the (still inchoate) anti-Islam movement (I long for the day when I will no longer have to encumber my sentences with "still inchoate"...).

Imagine if finally, some time in the near or not-so-near future (perhaps ten years from now would not be unrealistic, given the continuing retardation of the general public), the people and their unofficial representatives in the (still inchoate) anti-Islam movement successfully amass a Million Man March on Washington against Islam. Your logic in defense of "no signs" would apply there as well.

Frankly, I'm not sure I care to defend a society where a mass demonstration by the people, which is their Constitutional and moral right, must walk on eggshells for fear of stupidity.

IN CORE ISLAMIC TEXTS, MUHAMMAD, WHO WAS POLYGAMOUS AND HAD MANY WIVES, WAS IN HIS FIFTIES WHEN HE CONSUMMATED HIS MARRIAGE TO AISHA, WHO WAS NINE YEARS OLD.

Here's just a few of many canonical Islamic sources:

1. AISHA, NINE YEAR-OLD BRIDE OF MUHAMMAD IN HIS FIFTIES
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:

Narrated Hisham's father:

Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

*****************************************************

2. AISHA, NINE YEAR-OLD BRIDE OF MUHAMMAD IN HIS FIFTIES
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:

Narrated Aisha:

The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, "Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck." Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3. AISHA, NINE YEAR-OLD BRIDE OF MUHAMMAD IN HIS FIFTIES
Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3309:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house at the age of nine. She further said: We went to Medina and I had an attack of fever for a month, and my hair had come down to the earlobes. Umm Ruman (my mother) came to me and I was at that time on a swing along with my playmates. She called me loudly and I went to her and I did not know what she had wanted of me. She took hold of my hand and took me to the door, and I was saying: Ha, ha (as if I was gasping), until the agitation of my heart was over. She took me to a house, where had gathered the women of the Ansar. They all blessed me and wished me good luck and said: May you have share in good. She (my mother) entrusted me to them. They washed my head and embellished me and nothing frightened me. Allah's Messenger (, may peace be upon him) came there in the morning, and I was entrusted to him.

*****************************************************

4. AISHA, NINE YEAR-OLD BRIDE OF MUHAMMAD IN HIS FIFTIES
Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3310:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

***************************************************

5. AISHA, NINE YEAR-OLD BRIDE OF MUHAMMAD IN HIS FIFTIES
Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3311:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

****************************************

6. AISHA, NINE YEAR-OLD BRIDE OF MUHAMMAD IN HIS FIFTIES
Sunan Dawud, Book 41, Number 4915:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr's version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

********************************************

7. AISHA, NINE YEAR-OLD BRIDE OF MUHAMMAD IN HIS FIFTIES
Sunan Dawud, Book 41, Number 4917:

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:

When we came to Medina, the women came to me when I was playing on the swing, and my hair were up to my ears. They brought me, prepared me, and decorated me. Then they brought me to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and he took up cohabitation with me, when I was nine.

I was finally able to send $100.00 US via Paypal thanks to a tip I received from when*pigs*fly, thank you.

Every day after I come home from work the first thing I do is read all the new postings and comments, for hours.
Only got onto Jihad Watch a couple of months ago and have a lot of catching up to do.
Reading the postings and seeing what's happening in the world in regards to Islam, how dangerous and, at least in the west, how sneaky they are, and to what extent they've already penetrated the western society, is truly scary.

I send links of some of the articles and videos to all my Address Book contacts with instructions to pass it on to theirs. We have to inform the uninformed. Knowledge is power, and at the moment the only defense we have.

I'd like to thank Robert and Pamela for keeping up the good fight and for keeping us informed, because the mainstream media, well, we all know.

Wish I could be there with all of you on Sept. 11, but I live on the west coast of Canada, a little far.
Good Luck.
Edua

Yes, this is America, BUT ...

Were this just another ordinary day, then Robert & Pamela would not be making this "request". And I am not under the impression that this request is some *pc* move out of respect for muslims & company, but this request is being made out of reverence for those that were murdered on 9/11, and for those of us left behind to grieve their loss. Sure, we as Americans have the right to bring signs to the rally, but is it right to bring them on such a solemn day?

Hey, we don't want to come across like another group currently insisting on their American "rights", now do we?

From a webpage at Glenn Beck's site:

We request that you not bring the following:

• Signs political or otherwise
• Aerosols
• Laser pointers
• Mace and/or pepper spray
• Helium balloons
• Sticks or poles
• Pocket or hand tools, such as “leatherman”
• Packages, large bags, duffle bags, suitcases
• Animals other than service/guide dogs

I post this merely to show that Glenn Beck asked people not to bring signs. I'm not saying that because Beck did that, it follows that no signs should be brought to the anti-GZM rally. I back Spencer's request for the other reasons I've mentioned.

To clarify my last post for people just now dropping in: Glenn Beck's request referred to his rally, not the anti-GZM rally.

I think it's the verb "confiscating" I have a problem with. There is no legal authority to confiscate people's property. End of story. It is America not Arabia.

Robert can make the polite request, he can't police what people carry. Or maybe he can, but then he is acting illegally I would say. And if he's doing it in collusion with NYPD, so much the worse.

The whole point of this demo surely is that it is about opposing Shariah "law" - which is really just a cover for pretty arbitrary rule by a Caliph or his representatives.

I think Robert and Pamela have maybe been spooked by CAIR. The most important thing is not to have an "offence-free" demo but to have a demo with as many people present as possible - that's all the media are really interested in.

Offer a "reasonable time place and manner" substitute.

A sign fest will be held on date X at place Y . . .

Or, create a web site to post sign suggestions, and have folks vote up or down on them, and rank them.

I to am concerned with this statement: "We will be confiscating signs." I am a long time reader of JW and occasionally I comment. I can undertsand a request not to bring signs, but I really do not like the idea that you would confiscate someone's private property, and quell what clearly would be political free speech as guaranteed under the first amendment.
I am sorry, But I think you should stick with requests, and not authoritarian threats.
Will I be called a collaborator as well for speaking my opinion on this article? Fire when ready.

With or without the Mosque we could face what the Europeans face every Friday. A huge mass of Muslims gather at designated locations on public property, like a street, and displace all other people and block entry to (and thereby intimidate) any business that tries to operate during the Friday gatherings. Mr. Rauf could try to do the same, every Friday, at any site he chooses, anywhere near the twin towers -- without a mosque.

A mass gathering at any such site (any designated Muslim-only Friday gathering site) by non-Muslims would displace the Muslim-only folks and announce to them that the space remains a public space. This 9/11 protest, on public space, serves notice that it is not reserved exclusively for Muslims. Will Mr. Rauf organize a Friday Muslim-only gathering at the same location on some future Friday? If so, a significant test would be whether non-Muslim folks could gather on a specific Friday -- or every single Friday -- so as to displace the Muslim-only folks, so as to (re)claim the space as a public space.

Body count seems more important than rhetorical skill, at least on 9/11. (. . . and endurance.)

Well I personally would not have chosen 9-11 for this demo because I think that does tend to impose restraints.

For me 9-11 is a pretty sacred day - like our 11-11 in the UK (marking the Great War and subsequent conflicts) - you wouldn't go organising a protest on 11-11. And the fact Robert feels obliged to mention the GZM people's intention to use the same anniversary perhaps betrays a degree of unease.

Personally I would have left 9-11 alone to commemoration and perhaps chosen some other date...

The joke is apparently on all (most) of us.

Robert publicly asked:

"Pamela and I respectfully request that those of you who will be attending our protest against the Ground Zero mega mosque bring American flags, not signs."

As far as the supposed subsequent "threat" by Spencer, as if somehow, he and Pamela morphed into some type of "Orwellian thought police", is a bit misplaced in my estimation.

Robert barely has the power to protect himself from the denizens of "the religion of peace" at this rally, let alone the power to "confiscate" signs from potential supporters.

What it seems, which nearly everyone has missed, is Spencer's PUBLIC statement, that they respectfully request flags instead of potentially vitriolic signs, as "Arthur" has suggested. In that, Spencer and Geller have officially distanced themselves from the comments sections of their respective sites.

That PUBLIC statement, coupled with JW's overt disclaimer should protect Robert, and by extension, Pamela, from the inevitable ensuing attack by the media, subsequent to the rally.

In my opinion, Robert and Pamela are well aware that these signs will indeed appear at the protest, but they are savvy enough to distance themselves from any particular sign, whether offered by friend of foe.

The comment section at JW, explicitly states that comments are allowed only in the spirit of free speeech and no particular comment expresses the position of JW and/or the authors of this site (I am paraphrasing).

Let's face it folks. You got duped. Spencer has publicly stated that he and Pamela do not want want, nor need any signs at this rally. Spencer has preempted all subsequent responses and relegated comments as immaterial, whether by "Hesperado", "Cornelius", "Traeh", "Champ", "duh-swami" or myself, for that matter, for example's sake, due to the disclaimer.

Those who expect Robert to respond directly to their criticisms on this thread, "Arthur" comes immediately to mind, about his PUBLIC statement about his and Pamela's respectful request about signage at the 9/11 rally are in store for a long, cold Siberian winter, in my estimation.

The fact remains, that we, as commenters on JW do not speak for Robert, or Hugh, or Marisol. And quite frankly, we mean nothing in contrast, to Robert's or Pamela's publicly stated position does.

Deal with reality, and support them or don't. But to all those "Austerian" talkers-with-no-actions who try to support their keyboard criticisms, just shut the up already, and thank Robert for the free education your received, one which you yourselves, were not willing to, or capable of, accomplishing on your own, about Islam, and honor their public request.

Or else...put up, instead of rightfully shutting up.

Hold the next big protest on All Souls' Day, November 2nd: the Day of the Dead.

Use the Day of the Dead to draw attention not only to those who were mass-murdered on September 11, but to *all* the 'Tears of Jihad', the guesstimated 270 million souls - many of them from Africa and South Asia - whom Islam has ritually human-sacrificed in the course of its bloody journey through history. Not to mention the millions enslaved and the millions raped and otherwise abused.

Use *that* day to educate specifically and in detail, about Jihad, Sharia, Dhimmitude.

By only bringing flags you do 3 things:

1) Show some class and patriotism. This is 9/11. It will also piss off the liberals, and MSM like nothing else.

2) Avoid giving the media their pound of flesh when you show up with a idiotic and insulting sign. IOW zero leverage for the dhimmis at the NYT, Newsweek, Faux, etc.

3) It's the best PR move you can do. You'll click with more folks this way.

Walt -

You don't reach them by waving a flag. Next time they see an Imam waving a flag they will be thoroughly confused. You have to educate. Signs are part of the education process.

I saw that recent demo that Robert was a bit rude about...all the signs seemed fine to me.

I am with Arthur and others: there is no warrant in the American constitution for unauthorised confiscation of goods and we education is more effective than flag waving.

awake insists, for the second time:

"There will be no "unauthorized" confiscation of signs at the rally. It was merely a public statement by Spencer and Geller, and a call for tact"

Spencer wrote above a clear unambiguous sentence:

"We will be confiscating signs."

awake is grasping at straws trying to defend the indefensible. Geller and Spencer made a faux pas. It would be nice if they issued a statement clarifying that 1) they were mistaken in the first place to declare that; or 2) what they really meant comports with awake's tortured eisegesis.

3) Or, they could put it up for vote.

(#1 and #3 would afford the benefit of demonstrating that they respect their following.)

4) Or they can just ignore this whole thing because it's just the insignificant buzzing and murmuring of the hoi ochloi down here in the Comments Section.

A reasonable alternative to the GZ mosque, from Mike Adams, at Townhall.com:

"I propose building a mosque at Never Land ranch, the former home of Michael Jackson. I would then defend the building of the mosque by reminding opponents that people have been making pilgrimages to Never Land in order to worship a mentally deranged pedophile for years. Putting a mosque there would not change things substantially."

Some comments are attacking me for allegedly trying to help the mosque supporters by making the rally look bad. (Too bad there is so much paranoia around everything having to do with Islam.) If that were my intention, I would have called for heavily emotion-laden signs like "Lock up all the Muslims," or "Send them all back where they came from."

I am completely against such types of signs. If a speaker sees such a sign, or something with vulgarity, he or she can simply denounce it and say that it does not represent the speaker's viewpoint. I also think that every speaker should speak with compassion for Muslims, as Wafa Sultan always does.

I am asking for gigantic, clear, accurate, factual signs that expose the enormous mental and emotional sickness that is within Islam, along with an accurate citation in smaller print to the Islamic source. (Such signs can be cheaply painted on bedsheets stitched together.)

THERE IS NOTHING BIGOTED ABOUT MY REQUEST, although I admit that it is incendiary.

Islam will self-destruct due to its own insanity -- all the outsiders have to do is to expose that insanity in a way that cannot be avoided.

TO MR. SPENCER: I don't know whether you realize it, but this rally could wind up in the history books if you handle it right. If it turns into another flag-waving sob-fest, you will accomplish little. We have been having those for years. The onus is on you to raise the debate to a higher level.

Taking self-contradictory positions like "I started the Freedom Defense Initiative" and I strongly support "freedom of ideas" along with "we will be confiscating signs" makes you look like you are coming from an emotion-driven state of mind. This is not too different than the logic of "we are a religion of peace" and "we will kill anybody who says we are violent."

MR. SPENCER, PLEASE RESPOND WITH SOME LOGIC. PLEASE RECONSIDER YOUR POSITION, AND ADOPT MY POSITION, WHICH WILL "KICK IT UP A NOTCH," so to speak.

As far as it goes...

If I could be there I'd bring the American flag, hoisted upside down to signal my "distress." In addition, I'd paint over it with the "NO" sign (/) and a black outline of some obscure mosque.

Look, let's just everybody who can possibly manage to be there, go to this rally, go with Mr Spencer's and Ms Geller's suggestions re what to bring (they're the ones doing the hard yards to make it happen: organising, getting speakers, for heaven's sake, **Geert Wilders** is going to be there), and try to get as many warm bodies as possible out there on the street.

The bigger it is the harder it will be for any red-blooded journalists we've got left out there, to ignore. It might even wake up the long-buried instincts of those who've 'lost the plot' but, long ago, did have that 'newshound' vocation.

This is not going to be the first, the last, or the only rally, I am absolutely certain.

If I calculate correctly, it's the third: the first was on June 6th, then there was another rally organised by a different cohort of Resisters, and this will be the third. There should be many, many more.

People are working it out as they go along. The main thing is to keep moving, keep networking, keep bringing new people in, and, if at all possible, to make sure that each rally against the mosque, no matter who organises it or how it is done, is bigger than the one before it.

You want a *million* people turning out to say, NO!!!! LAN ASTASLEM! before you're finished.

Nothing to stop jihadwatchers who attend from having their back pockets stuffed with fliers and brochures and business cards with the jihadwatch and SIOA and ACTfor America web addresses, to hand out to those with whom they get into conversation on the day, who are agin the mosque but don't clearly, consciously know why. Keep an eye open for interested and sympathetic passersby - the people who just happened to pass by, but whose attention has been caught. They're the ones you want to inform: person to person.

Arthur,

I don't really think you're a troll here. But you do come-off as a high-handed know-it-all.

Are you so arrogant as to think Mr. Spencer is going to discuss strategy and tactics with you--in this public venue? No chance!

If you have suggestions for Mr. Spencer, how about submitting those directly to him? Let him decide if he finds them useful. Or, if you have all the answers, perhaps you should start your own movement? Personally, I'm put-off by your talking-down to him. His ass is on the line here. Yours isn't.

May I respectfully suggest that you get over yourself and support Mr. Spencer's endeavor.
I'm not crazy about no signs, either, but it's HIS gig and I think he's more-than earned the right to do it HIS way. And, if you know better than he how this should be done...go try it yourself...

OK?

To George and others:

Mr. Spencer doesn't post an e-mail address, so I have no way to send these ideas to him privately.

I agree that it is his work and his risk, and of course I greatly value what he has done over the years. In the past, he has been very firm about exposing Islam.

But now, both he and Pamela Geller are taking a "feelings-based" approach that I think is a big mistake.

MUSLIMS ARE ABSOLUTE MASTERS AT MANIPULATING EMOTIONS. They can convince thousands to kill themselves for Allah, and they can convince intelligent Westerners that they are actually the victims, all the while supporting murder around the world. There is a reason why there are over a billion Muslims.

No Americans or Europeans can defeat Islam by manipulating feelings. MR. SPENCER SHOULD UNDERSTAND THIS BETTER THAN ANYBODY.

FACTS, FACTS, AND MORE FACTS WILL BE THE END OF ISLAM, AND ALL MUSLIMS KNOW IT. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE SO AFRAID, AND ARE TRYING TO PASS U.N. RESOLUTIONS. Mr. Spencer cannot succumb to dhimmitude. He is already getting death threats, and I don't think my ideas will increase them.

I really think Mr. Spencer should respond, especially after saying that he will be confiscating signs. (I don't think that is legal on public property.)

Some of you are sounding like Imam Rauf.

This is not a freedom of speech issue. This is a human compassion issue. We will be at Ground Zero on September 11. It is a solemn day. It is not a day for inflammatory rhetoric. Daisy Khan said (though she now denies it) that the mosque would break ground on September 11, 2011. We are reclaiming the day from the Islamic supremacists. But have some respect. It is not a day for in-your-face confrontation.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

To Allah Snackbar:

I apologize for coming across as a know-it-all. I am regularly accused of that, and probably for good reason. You don't know my background (several of the highest degrees available from the best universities in the U.S.), and I really do not want to sound arrogant.

I generally keep my mouth shut unless I feel that somebody at a critical point is making a wrong turn, and nobody is giving him any warnings.

I have a lot of respect for Mr. Spencer, who I think can potentially be one of the most influential people anywhere on this issue.

But I think it is very important to be able to SEIZE THE MOMENT at the right time. I think the right time is now. You've already got 70% of adults on your side, which is hundreds of millions of people, so another 20K flag-wavers with solemn faces won't do much.

You/we are losing in the media, and losing with a large fraction of the decision-makers. THAT IS WHERE THE CHANGE NEEDS TO HAPPEN. People like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich are simply considered jokes. Even Glenn Beck (who I hardly ever watch) apparently has created this artificial monster called "radical Islam" which he separates from all the so-called good & moderate Muslims.

I've already made this point, but the reason that Obama, Bloomberg, Paterson, etc. can get away with their nonsense is because it is easier for the media to look away from the facts than to expose them.

THE BIG EFFORT NEEDED NOW IS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE MEDIA TO IGNORE THE FACTS. The politicians will follow the media, not the other way around.

Wow, Mr. Spencer is up late!

I AM NOT SUGGESTING CONFRONTATION AT ALL!

I am suggesting statements that are true and will make the Muslims mad and the media very uncomfortable.

THE TRUE DIGNITY OF THE OPPONENTS OF THE GZ MOSQUE WILL BE SHOWN WHEN THEY MAINTAIN A CALM, DETERMINED, RESPECTFUL DEMEANOR IN THE FACE OF RABID, NEARLY INSANE MUSLIMS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS!

Watch the movie "Gandhi" again to understand what I mean, especially the part where the protesters are being beaten with sticks, and they do not raise even their arms in self-defense. That is when the NY Times reporter calls in to say that the British have lost the struggle.

I AM ASKING FOR AN EXTREMELY HIGH MORAL ROAD THAT WILL DEFEAT DHIMMIS LIKE BLOOMBERG, WHO ARE PUTTING ON AIRS OF BEING SAINTS.

Gandhi did exactly the type of thing I am suggesting. His term was "civil disobedience."

He did things to make the British mad (e.g. making salt when it was illegal), and resolutely refused to buckle under or become violent when they became brutal.

arthur, for all your shapeshifting declamations, it's hard not to perceive you as a guy who 'divebombs' in the shallow end of a public swimming-baths with a shit-eating grin on his face. Be careful. . .there are Olympiad lifeguards monitoring the scene who are more than capable of teaching you to 'go down the pegs', as-it-were.

Think again: it is not numbers so much, but behavior that will get the attention of the media.

IMAGINE WHAT THE MEDIA WOULD DO IF MUSLIMS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS BECOME RABIDLY INSANE, WHILE THOSE WHO OPPOSE THE MOSQUE REMAIN STEADFAST, CALM, RESPECTFUL, AND PEACEFUL!

Arthur,

Nobody doubts your passion and logic. However, on 9/11, as one who lived through that awful day near Ground Zero, we should be respectful and thoughtful for those we lost. We have 364 other days when we can expose Islam for what it is and what the practitioners of the "religion of peace" are.

The media will spin this as a racist demonstration no matter what we do. If there are no signs they will twist the words of the speakers, all described as "FAR RIGHT WING" of course. They will have a field day with Geert, who is the most rational and dignified of speakers, just by parroting the smears that have been attached to him by the MSM already.

We are counting on the reason and decency of irrational leftist partisans. But at least they will look even more foolish than usual as they try to paint several blocks full of American flags and a memorial service as "hate".

That being said, SIOA is organizing the rally and I'm not, so just flags it is. It will make it easier to clear out the libtard-islamic plants and that is a major plus right there.

I hope there is singing at this rally

God bless America,
Land that I love,
Stand beside her and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above;

From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans white with foam,
God bless America,
My home, sweet home.
God bless America,
My home, sweet home.

Arthur...I am suggesting statements that are true and will make the Muslims mad and the media very uncomfortable.

Robert...It is not a day for in-your-face confrontation.

You are not wrong, Arthur, you are just in the wrong place at the wrong time...When you organize a rally/demonstration, then implement your plans...Until then, a poster above tagged it perfectly...'This is Roberts gig'...

And this Arthur...You don't know my background (several of the highest degrees available from the best universities in the U.S.), and I really do not want to sound arrogant.

Well, that does sound arrogant...No one here is interested in your formal education, and except for the ability to be articulate, and write a complete sentence, it has little value here, unless there is something in your education that pertains to the subjects and goals of this site...I worked for years in a Cal mental hospital where I regularly 'strapped down', well educated people who were capable of reading and writing, 'to the bed'...
And this may not pertain to you, but...A good education and lots of degree's does not guarantee a decent human being...

This is welcomed change of plans for the protest. I think this reflects positively on our anti mosque movement. The 9/11 families have requested this to be a solemn occasion without protests, and this is what’s it going to be. This still gets the message out to these Muslims that we are out there and we are showing our patriotism. There could be another day for protest but not on 9/11

Hesperado wrote:
"awake is grasping at straws trying to defend the indefensible. Geller and Spencer made a faux pas."

That's an assertion, not an argument. You have not begun to argue as to why it is a faux pas in your estimation, especially in light of Robert's subsequent clarifying comment.

Since I am certain that you cannot see the future, at best, you can only suggest that in your opinion, Robert's request was a faux pas.

Robert, thanks for accommodating us from outside US. Here's my modest contribution of $50 (CDN) (as I am currently unemployed).

I will be thinking of you on the 11th. Wish I could be there.

To all JW attendees of the 9/11 rally, I've designed a t-shirt in protest of the mosque, check it out.

awake wrote:

"do I believe that Spencer, and Geller for that matter, have the right to retain absolute sovereignty over their words and actions, specifically in the forums which they are the sole owners of the intellectual property put forth? Yes I absolutely do."

That's not the issue. Red herring. The issue is, once they embark upon being leaders of a popular movement, the question of intellectual and procedural input from that populum becomes important to consider -- unless one wants it structured demagogically. It seems inauspicious that at this historical moment of the transition of Spencer from Communicator to Leader, one not only sees no apparent mechanisms in place to solicit and organize such input; one sees no apparent desire for such.

As for awake's favorite term by which to caricature and then castigate any and all who disagree with him -- "lockstep" -- one has only to read his post to which I had responded before to see a classic example of precisely someone who is having a tantrum because he is not seeing the "lockstep" agreement he wants.

sorry for the double

add ... and besides, should there be trouble and NYPD must use crowd control, banners and signs really get in the way when your eyes are full of tears

There still being time to order, need to know: are Bosch's t-shirts OK to wear at the memorial?

Unfortunately I am not able to be there but I am sure Mr Wilders will give a good speech. I do not agree with him on every issue and tactic but he will speak on my behalf (I voted for him last elections)

Being from Europe and a former teacher mathematics I am a little bit confused about the units Robert is talking about.
I suppose he is not talking about flags of 9 x 12 inch that would be ridiculously small.
If he is talking about flags 9 x 12 feet I cannot imagine what to do with them without big poles!
Well I am partly joking here, it must be 0.9 X 1.2m, but what about the poles? Is there no way to use a material (bamboo, some flexible plastic) that can not be used as a weapon (the reason why the police objects I suppose). My Israel flag is on the "pole" I took from an old children's bicycle, it held a flag to make the little bike visible from a longer distance because of the waving caused by the movements of the bike. Maybe that does the trick.

And of course I am with all the wise people here on the issue of signs vs flags: Robert could have phrased it a little bit different but of course he is definitely right AND deserves lots and lots of credits.

Some of the commenters write about some "million men march" in the future: I count on you that september 11 will count a million people already!

Robert is probably under a lot of stress, so perhaps we can forgive him his threat of confiscation of people's property.

Some others of you need to lighten up though I think.

I was struck once to read about how the Apollo Mission worked. Insiders who worked on the Mission said it was a success because it was marked by free discussion. Everyone was able to put forward constructive criticism and raise issues. It wasn't run on Soviet lines.

For the Stop Shariah movement to be successful, it needs I think to employ similar principles of free and open discussion. I didn't feel Arthur was being unhelpful in his criticism. He was putting his view forward. If the movement becomes the Robert and Pamela show it will fail - without a shadow of doubt.

As for those who say "this is Robert's gig", remember that Robert wasn't slow to criticise someone else's gig - the recent construction workers' demonstration! He certainly didn't apply that principle to the other demo.

I see the Stop Shariah movement as a v. broad one - and we should be able to discuss things freely. A move to prevent people carrying signs at a demo is a very big one. I agree
essentially with Arthur's view that a flag-based demo will be subject to manipulation by the pro-Shariah lobby, not least because they also can wrap themselves in a flag. I think the signs carried at the recent construction workers' demo were actually v. good at getting the message across.

Personally I think the 9-11 date for a demo was a mistake precisely because it does place pressure on you to make your demo more like a memorial and less like a protest.

We will see how thing go...as others have remarked the most important thing will be the size of the crowd.

Arthur and I may be completely wrong, but please, let's not have unproven allegations of being Rauf-apologists (that was most unbecoming of Robert I think). Rauf is completely pro-Shariah and has misled the American public adn El-Gamal's criminal record is enough to make your eyes pop.

notoshariah wrote (I add a numbering system for clarity):

1) Some others of you need to lighten up though I think.

2) I was struck once to read about how the Apollo Mission worked. Insiders who worked on the Mission said it was a success because it was marked by free discussion. Everyone was able to put forward constructive criticism and raise issues. It wasn't run on Soviet lines.

#1 and #2 can tend to contradict each other. You can't have healthy & free discussion without people not being sufficiently "lightened up" for one's fastidious taste.

I'd love to say I understood your point Hesperado, but I think the quasi-double negative ("without people not") got in the way! LOL

If you mean I am being overly fastidious, I don't think so.
Particularly since, as I have made clear, I am arguing for a broad, populist anti-Shariah movement. I could argue Robert was being over-fastidious when he split some hairs over the construction workers' demo.

I do think he has been partly spooked by CAIR and you can see how that happens. Robert has to be extremely careful what he puts in print in order to avoid offering CAIR any ammunition since we know how they will manipulate and distort people's comments if they are given half a chance. But he seems to have carried that caution over to the demo.

But I really don't think you should or could exert that sort of detailed control over a mass demonstration. If the MSM want to put the knife in they will...they will find someone in the crowd who will come out with some sort of genocidal or bigoted oral statement whcih they will use. Or, if necessary, they'll just edit it all into what they want.

However, this is where I agree with Arthur - the demo should be part of an educative process. And when all is said and done MSM media types are NOT followers of Islam or friends of Shariah...As much as the general public, they need the facts shoved in their face so they begin to see the need to ask Rauf and co some difficult questions. They need to be woken up from their dogmatic sleep. And wrapping yourself in the American flag will not wake them up.

Hesperado - should you return to this thread, could you please expound on the following:

"Just being against "hate" is meaningless. It depends on what generates the emotion."