Justin Elliott of Salon is hopping mad about the New York Times' slyly contemptuous piece against Pamela Geller: he doesn't think it contained enough venom, and is eager to supply it himself. And after the time-hallowed fashion of Leftist "media critics," the "truth" he offers is just more lies. "New York Times runs softball profile of Pamela Geller," by Justin Elliott for Salon, October 11:
The New York Times on Sunday published a big profile of Pamela Geller, the blogger and anti-Islam activist whose work we have documented, particularly her role creating the "ground zero mosque" controversy out of thin air.
Elliott here is doing what many in the mainstream media have tried to do: blame the entire controversy over the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero on Pamela Geller, then work to marginalize and discredit Pamela Geller, and viola! No more opposition to the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero. This tactic manifests their arrogance and disdain for the American people, 70% of whom oppose the mosque; Elliott and his ilk want you to believe that this opposition doesn't arise from genuine indignation at the calculated insult and declaration of Islamic supremacism that the mosque represents, but that it has been ginned up by manipulative "right wingers."
That in turn stems from their narcissistic inability to conceive of the possibility that an intelligent person could in good faith come to a conclusion different from theirs -- so they must ascribe any opposition to their point of view to a dishonest desire for gain or the effects of demagoguery. In this they resemble their Islamic supremacist allies, who likewise can't imagine the possibility that someone might oppose the jihad and Islamic supremacism out of the conviction that Sharia is harmful to human beings and societies, and not out of profiteering or a desire for power. In that, of course, the Islamic supremacists are simply following the lead of the Qur'an and Hadith, both of which consistently characterize unbelievers as knowing that Muhammad is Allah's prophet but rejecting him out of greed or a desire for power.
The Times story exhibits some of the worst tendencies of objectivity journalism. The reporters, Anne Barnard and Alan Feuer, do a middling job laying out some of the outrageous, and racist, things that Geller has written (though they miss a lot too -- more on this below)....
The charge of "racism" is extremely tired, but the Left is so intellectually bankrupt that Leftist writers can't think of anything else to say. Anyone who bothers to consider the issues here will realize after about five seconds that resistance to Sharia's denial of the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, and institutionalized oppression of women and non-Muslims, is not remotely racist (Islamic supremacists come in all races) and has nothing to do with race at all. But Justin Elliott hasn't thought about these issues for five seconds -- he is just following along with the other lemmings.
All of that is true -- Geller is neither a journalist nor a scholar nor a Washington insider. But none of that is as relevant as the fact that goes unmentioned by the Times: she is a conspiracy theorist, one with a long record of making demonstrably false statements. The best example, which is conspicuously missing from the Times piece, is the time Geller wrote a lengthy post laying out her theory that Barack Obama's real father is Malcolm X.
Note that for this Elliott links to Gawker, not to Atlas Shrugs. If this eminent media critic had bothered to do some fact-checking, he might have found this statement from Pamela Geller on the actual post in question: "The 'Atlas says that Barack Obama is Malcolm X's love child' charge has gone viral among leftards and lizards. The only problem with it is that it is false. I am not the author of this post, and I posted it because the writer did a spectacular job documenting Obama's many connections with the Far Left. The Malcolm X claim is one minor part of this story, and was of interest to me principally as part of the writer's documentation that Stanley Ann Dunham could not have been where the Obama camp says she was at various times. I do not believe that Barack Obama is Malcolm X's love child, and never did -- but there remain many, many unanswered questions about his early life and upbringing."
So let's recap: when famed media critic Justin Elliott says that "Geller wrote a lengthy post laying out her theory that Barack Obama's real father is Malcolm X," there are just two minor problems with the accuracy of his statement: Geller didn't write the post, and doesn't believe that Barack Obama's real father is Malcolm X. But give Elliott credit where credit is due! He did get one thing right: it is indeed a lengthy post.
(Geller also believes Obama's birth documents are forged. She regularly speculates that he is Muslim.)
Regarding the birth documents, this is a two-year-old controversy -- Elliott would have you believe that Pamela Geller is regularly posting about this, when actually she hasn't said a word about it in over a year. When she did, she offered detailed forensic analysis that was never answered except by a chorus of ridicule.
And as for whether or not Obama is a Muslim, her analysis proceeds from his actions, not from empty speculation about his inner dispositions. If you wonder how anyone could have gotten the crazy idea that Obama is a Muslim, which I am not sure Pamela believes or considers an important question in any case, consider this list of Obama's actions, which she published last June:
March 2009, Obama declares the "war on terror" is over despite a dramatic increase in jihad war ops.
March 2009, he floats the idea that he will talk to violent, genocidal Hamas.
March 2009, he demands, recruits and insists that more Muslim Americans work in the Obama administration.
April 2009, Obama tells Europe to admit Islamic Turkey into EU, much to the consternation of the Europeans.
April 2009, Obama demands non-Muslims respect Islam (despite our differences) in a speech in Turkey.
April 2009, Obama in a speech from Turkey: "We are not a Christian nation."
April 2009, Dalia Mogahed, the first hijab-clad senior adviser to Obama on Muslim affairs says in an interview with terrorist- and jihad-supporting Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi's website, "Many have claimed that terrorists have 'hijacked Islam'. I disagree. I think Islam is safe and thriving in the lives of Muslims around the world. What the terrorists have been allowed to take over are Muslim grievances."
In April 2009, Obama lays groundwork for a partnership with Hamas.
May 2009, Obama promises to offer his "personal commitment" to Muslims.
May 2009, Obama calls America "one of the largest Muslim countries on the planet."
June 2009, Obama invites the Muslim Brotherhood, violent global jihadist group whose sole objective is a universal caliphate, to his speech to the ummah (Muslim community) in Cairo.
June 2009, Obama makes a stunning speech to the Muslim world from Al Azhar University in Cairo. It defies explanation.
July 2009, Obama reaches out to the violent jihadists of Hezb'allah.
July 2009, Obama creates a new office at the State department, Outreach to the Worldwide Muslim community, reporting directly to Hillary Clinton.
July 2009 State Department Welcomes Hamas Mouthpiece, Al-Quds TV, to DC to Film Propaganda.
Obama promises to close GITMO.
Obama is rebuked when plans are revealed for CIA prosecutions for 911 interrogations: Seven Ex-chiefs of CIA Oppose Case Review: ALL Sign letter to Stop CIA Persecutions.
In July, Obama sanctions the brutal crackdown of those marching for freedom in Iran and sides with the mullahcracy. He stands silent about the Iranian regime's mass executions, mass rape and murder.
July 2009, Obama plans to slash US nuclear arsenal.
October 2009, Obama offers millions in Muslim technology fund.
November 2009, Fort Hood Jihad Cover up: Obama Urges Congress To Put Off Fort Hood Probe, Warns Against Turning Tragedy Into "Political Theater."
November 2009, Obama offers the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces, in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.
November 2009, Obama Reaches out to bloody Jihadis in the Philippines.
On Thanksgiving eve, Obama issues a special Hajj message to the world's Muslims.
December 2009, Obama's "Non-Religious" White House Christmas and No Christmas Gifts for his Kids.
February 2010, Obama names a Hafiz to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. "And as a hafiz of the Koran, [Hussain] is a respected member of the American Muslim community," Obama said in his message to the Doha meeting, using the term for someone who has mastered and memorized the Muslim holy book.
February 2010, Obama cuts US space program, orders NASA to work with Muslim countries.
February 2010, covering up for jihadists in the White House.
Obama's counter terrorism adviser, John Brennan, Involved in Obama Passport Breach.
March 2010, Obama Obsession with Islam: Calls 'entrepreneurship summit' with Muslims.
May 2010, Obama's Counterterrorism Adviser Calls Jihad "Legitimate Tenet of Islam."
June 2010, Obama equivocates on the jihad warship convoy (affectionately named a "flotilla" by the media): Obama "Expressed a Deep Regret Over Loss of [Jihadist] Life."
June 2010, Obama Administration to Support Anti-Israel Resolution at UN.
With a record like that, how could anyone get the idea that Barack Obama is warmly positive toward Islam, and may even continue to consider himself a Muslim, as he was registered in school as a child in Indonesia? Why, only a bigot, of course, in Justin Elliott's fanatically ideological idea of "journalism":
It's obvious to anyone who reads Geller's blog that she is, by the dictionary definition, a bigot. She has, for example, fantasized about Israel responding to Iranian attack by nuking the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. She has bought bus ads in several cities encouraging people to leave Islam. She believes the Dome of the Rock, an important Islamic holy site, "has got to go." She called for a boycott of Campbell's over the company's introduction of a Halal line of foods.
This paragraph contains a blizzard of distortions. But even Elliott notes that the imagined Israel strike should come after Iran has nuked Israel -- so does Elliott think that Israel should just lie down and die and not respond to the Islamic jihad that is explicitly bent on destroying it utterly? Given the increasingly open antisemitism of the Left, he may indeed think this. And as for the bus ads, they did not encourage people to leave Islam. They offered aid to people who were threatened, under Islam's death penalty for apostasy, for wanting to leave Islam. Do such people not have any rights? Regarding the Dome of the Rock, she was writing about how it is a triumphal mosque, meant to mark Islam's victory over Judaism in its occupation of the site of the Jewish Temple. She has said that Muslims should, if they're really interested in peace and reconciliation, voluntarily vacate the area. And she didn't call for a boycott of Campbell's because of its halal line in itself, but because its halal line is certified by a Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood front group.
Justin Elliott doesn't tell you any of that, because it wouldn't fit into his smear campaign.
He then concludes by quoting the Times' irresponsible and inaccurate claim that Pamela accused Rauf without evidence of having terror ties. Elliott, of course, ignored her response: "The New York Times said: 'And Ms. Geller said, without evidence, that the center's financing might be tied to terrorists.' We know that Rauf is a leading member of the Perdana Organization, the single largest financier of the Turkish terrorist group's jihad flotilla against Israel. Rauf and Daisy Khan have received funding from the Xenel Corporation. The connection between Xenel and al Qaeda, according to the Orlando Sentinel, was persuasive enough that the city of Orlando decided to cancel the contract it had previously awarded to Xenel. The involvement Bin Laden-tied Xenel led to the cancellation of a different 100-million-dollar project in Florida. If such ties would cancel a convention center, why not a 100-million-dollar Islamic supremacist mega mosque at the site of largest attack on American soil by these same players? And yet the Times says I have no evidence."
How contemptible are mainstream media reporters? I keep thinking they've hit bottom, but they keep surprising me.
" How contemptible are mainstream media reporters ? I keep thinking they've hit bottom, but they keep surprising me ".
There is no bottom to the outright lies, and slander, these " journalists ", will sink to, when it comes to spreading their propaganda.
And of course the dupes that read this trash, assume that they are being told the truth.
If it was printed, then it must be the truth, or it never would make it past the editor, right ?
Justin Elliot... another deceiver in an ocean filled with them.
"Leftist writers can't think of anything else to say"
John Meacham from Newsweek says there's an entire new class of folks out there earning a living from creating and perpetuating conflict. He was talking about scary bloggers & authors.
"Leo Rennert On The New York Times, Its Contortions And Distortions"
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/30154
Indeed the Dome of the Rock was not even built as a mosque but as a monument not only laying claim to the holiest site in Judaism but the outside of the structure is covered with Quranic verses mocking and damning Christians (who were the primary power and population in the region at the time of conquest). But what a beautiful building! Masterpiece of Islamic architecture -NOT. The architecture and design in every way is a lavish copy of a Byzantine original.
"Fitzgerald: The New York Times, and That Business At the Cathedral In Cordoba"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/04/fitzgerald-the-new-york-times-and-that-business-at-the-cathedral-in-cordoba.html
I await the left's latest charge - Pamela Geller was photographed taking candy from babies!
(sarcasm)
This was a black-belt level fisking of Elliott. It's clear that the nicest thing one can say about Elliott is that he is more than a bit lazy in his analysis, not to say overheated.
Robert, I'm a new reader and appreciative of much of the material you and Pamela present on this Website and the analysis that you bring to bear on these issues, but at times, the vitriol and the polemic strains all credibility and damages your cause.
The birth certificate issue? Geller hasn't mentioned it in "years?" What, TWO years??? Not even that long. Atlas Shrugged has plenty of postings on the topic, long past the expiration date of relevant discussion on this matter:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/07/obama-scrubs-the-web-of-all-birth-docs.html
Plus the Nazi photoshop of Elena Kagan because she referenced Werner Sombart in a college thesis thirty years ago (citing a book by Sombart written thirty years before he become a Nazi)? Come on!
Calling the New York Times' partisan prattle "objectivity journalism" is a real knee-slapper. The gray lady hasn't engaged in that sort of journalism since ... hell, has she ever? The egregious Walter Duranty comes to mind, and he "reported" in the early '30s!
Kingreg,
You seem to be part of a small group of folks here, who, while sympathetic to Jihad Watch, are also starting to question the insufficient level of scrupulous accuracy and/or professionalism that manifests itself here.
Kudos to you and the others who represent some regard for basic truth. Don't stop thinking and don't stop asking questions. But, I'm afraid, you need to be prepared that you're only looking at the tip of the iceberg, if you truly plan to make precision accuracy a cherished value. The problems here at JW are extensive.
Kingreg:
Thanks for your note. I overlooked the July 2009 Atlas Shrugs post, and have corrected my post above accordingly.
Incidentally, why were documents relating to Obama's birth scrubbed from the web?
As for Kagan, let me just observe that if I had favorably quoted someone who became a Nazi, even if I were not quoting his Nazi material, it would have become a staple of the CAIR attack material on me. Photoshopping Kagan that way is satire, and it is ironic that all of Pamela Geller's critics who ruthlessly satirize her turn po-faced and pretend not to understand the genre when she engages in it herself.
Fairuzfan:
I am gratified that you have turned from writing nostalgia books about old automobiles to fact-checking Jihad Watch. I suspect that the errors of fact you purport to find there are more differences in your ideological viewpoint from mine than actual errors, but bring them on. I'm ready to correct any actual errors, if you can find any. I doubt you really can, but am ready to discuss matters.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Salon is a hard core Leftist /Elitist online rag that has a reputation for smearing people it's editorial staff doesn't like. Take Gary Bauer who ran for president in 2000. Salon assigned a militant gay man as a reporter to follow him and try to infect him with his flu.
In addition since the only ones who read it regularly are Leftists, they already are against people like Spencer and Gellar.
No loss here.
I'm anxious for them to be "brought on" too! I just finished a long post about it but I see you have addressed everything I wrote yourself, so I'll skip it.
If the problems are so "manifest" as fairuzfan says, fairuzfan should be able to tick quite a few off just from memory in short order. I'm certain fairuzfan is busy at the keyboard as I write.
Looking forward to seeing that list!
To Mr. Spencer:
It is quite likely that you and Pamela are aware of this, but all of the MSM from CBS to NYT to Fox (Geraldo) are using Pamela as a caricature to try to ridicule people who are opposed to the GZ mosque.
ONE VERY ENCOURAGING EVENT SHOWING THAT THE MSM IS FAILING:
On the evening of Oct. 11, Bloomberg TV broadcast a debate in NYC as to whether Islam was a religion of peace. The people in opposition were Ayaan Hirsi Ali and a young guy (I forget his name). Both were extremely effective, intelligent, clear headed, respectful, and made no scatterbrained inconsistent emotional statements.
THEY WON THE DEBATE BY A HUGE MARGIN!! They shifted the opinions of undecideds against Islam, and they even shifted a big fraction of people who had initially thought that Islam was a peaceful religion. They did all this within the space of an hour or two. The total shift was about 30% or more of the audience, if I remember correctly. Not even the most skilled politician achieves that kind of shift with a single speech.
Bloomberg seems not to have whitewashed the debate too much, as far as I can tell.
If you have access to that video, you might want to post it.
THERE IS STILL HOPE!
This article is a massive indictment of the leftarded loons from the media and against the Mohammedan usurper in the White House.
And it doesn't even include the latest outrage, which is that the U.S. Embassy sponsors an Irish Muslim business conference: "Imam calls for Sharia Law in all business dealings"
An outrage, an unconstitutional crime that should break the Manchurian candidates neck!
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/10/us-embassy-sponsors-irish-muslim-business-conference-imam-calls-for-sharia-law-in-all-business-deali.html
Sharia-compliant burqa-clad Muslim superheroes kids' show coming to U.S.http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/10/sharia-compliant-burqa-clad-muslim-superheroes-kids-show-coming-to-us.html
Robert,
Thank you for your response. I have no idea why the Obama documents were allegedly purged from the Web, but it looks like Geller was still riding this horse in December of 2009 and February 2010
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/12/sarah-is-a-nirther-.html
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/02/john-brennan-involved-in-obama-passport-breach.html
As for Elena Kagan, I do not find the Photoshopped image of her as a Nazi to be very effective satire. It is pure political defamation. If you opposed her as a SC nominee, then simply say why you disagree with her judicial philosophy without calling her a Nazi for a perfectly legitimate academic reference in her senior thesis. This type of character assassination has its own chilling effect on free speech. In this regard, it would be easy to cite historical figures routinely named on this Website such as Voltaire, Burke, or Jefferson, and to castigate the blogger for referencing these anti-Semitic and racist thinkers.
Although I understand the fact that you have been subjected to personal threats and outlandish attacks, I do not think that this Website's highly personalized polemical tone against more or less "neutral" individuals serves your purpose very well. I admire this site most when it deploys a skepticism in the best Humean tradition (Hume was a racist, btw) to dissect the false claims made by apologists and whitewashers of Jihad, but part company with you when the focus becomes less about the TRUTH and more about personal vendettas.
Sincerely,
KingReg
Kingreg
I don't find either of the later articles you linked to be evidence of "riding this horse." They are bringing to the fore new information about Palin and Brennan -- particularly the latter post is of immense interest regarding Brennan's role as counterterror chief.
Re Kagan, on this we disagree.
Re "this Website's highly personalized polemical tone against more or less 'neutral' individuals serves your purpose very well," to what are you referring? I have no idea.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
I am not sure why, but this group seems to slip under the radar for the anti-Jihadi sites...
The Congressional Muslim Staffers Association was instrumental in helping Obama load the White House staff with four times as many Muslims as would be fair given their representation in the population... Just the World-Wide Arabionist Conspiracy?
I have been following them for a couple years now...
http://hereticscrusade.com/series/cmsa/
Robert,
From the December 2009 Atlas article on Palin: "She must have seen the analysis of the forged COLB (certification of live birth) at Atlas from June 2008."
From the Brennan piece in Atlas in February 2010: "This is before the birth certificate question."
I'm afraid we're beating a dead horse here(in so many ways), and so I apologize for wasting your considerable talents in identifying these chronological rectifications.
As for the question of character assassination, it seems that there are few boundaries between those who legitimately deserve the full force of your anti-supremacist scorn and those "neutral" individuals like Elena Kagan, who do not deserve to be called Nazis, Islamists, or anything remotely resembling those terms. Liberals may be naive, short-sided, and even stupid at times, but the caricatures that I read here defy belief. I applaud your efforts to protect the heritage of Western reason and rationality against the onslaught of Islamic tribalism, but you lose me when that very same tribalism begins to infect the discourse uttered here.
I submit to you that while there is the occasional screed by a commenter, the vast majority of comments here at JW are not infected by tribalistic sentiments, as you put it. I have been posting here for years and it is my conviction that Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, Marisol and literally dozens of regular commenters have provided just about the most knowledgeable and sophisticated assessments of Islam, and all the menaces it poses to free societies, that I have ever encountered.
And besides, are you saying that the occasional inappropriate comment or over-the-top statement should be censored? Or do you believe virtually all comments should be of the highest standard? This would surely be an unrealistic expectation, no?. Barring truly obscene, racist or genocidal comments, which Marisol has made a studious point of deleting as soon as they come to her attention, I would argue that everything else should stand as written, including the now and again lower common denominator comment---in the interest of free speech, one of the principal liberties that Islam is so opposed to.
Whatever faults Jihad Watch has, they pale in comparison to Islam's. By a mile.
Wellington,
Thank you for your response. You are correct that it is indeed overly optimistic to expect that a political blog would elicit only comments of the "highest standard." But is it really overly optimistic to think that a serious political blog would avoid characterizing a Jewish member of the Supreme Court as a Nazi? I'm not talking about censoring the blogs or the commentators. Far from it. Say what you want, but you will certainly lose independent readers (such as myself) if every opponent (whatever their affiliation or perceived offense) is labeled: a dupe, a thug, a liar, a slanderer, a crypto-Jihadi, or in this case, a Nazi.
Kingreg, if you believe Elena Kagan is "neutral" then you also believe in the tooth fairy and the spaghetti monster.
Kagan is an insufferable political plant with a subversive agenda, just like the Muslim POTUS in the White House.
Elliott here is doing what many in the mainstream media have tried to do: blame the entire controversy over the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero on Pamela Geller, then work to marginalize and discredit Pamela Geller, and viola! No more opposition to the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero.
..................
Elliott here implies that people's qualms with the Ground Zero mosque were entirely ginned up by Pamela Geller. In addition, he never wonders whether those with reservations about the Ground Zero mosque or the shady Imam Rauf *might be right*.
Here is a very, very similar piece, on a closely related subject:
"The War On Sharia Started Long Before You Ever Heard 'Ground Zero Mosque'"
Why would this author consider a "war on Sharia" to be a *bad thing*?
In the same manner as Elliott, Rachel Slajda *never* asks whether Shari'ah law is an actual danger—not only whether it represents a credible threat, but even whether full Shari'ah law would be a bad thing at all.
She contents herself with labeling anyone concerned about creeping Shari'ah as a "Neocon", which, as far as she is concerned, allows her to dismiss anything they have to say. Clearly, she believes her audience will agree.
She never addresses the increasing pressure to institute full Shari'ah law in the lands of Dar-al-Islam, nor the encroachments of Shari'ah in many parts of Europe. As a result, she hopes her readers will assume this fear of the "bogey man" in America has come entirely out of left field.
First and foremost of those "Neocons"? Uh, that would be Robert Spencer.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/the_war_on_sharia_started_long_before_you_ever_hea.php
Thank you for responding to my comment. I'm not quite certain what you mean by the term "opponent" or what constitutes one here at JW, but I share your belief that ad hominem attacks should be kept to an absolute minimum (of course, every so often, a real jerk deserves to be ripped apart). But again I would revert to my experience over the years here at JW, where disagreement is ordinarily engaged in in a civilized manner. The exception proves the rule, you know.
From post above...The birth certificate issue? Geller hasn't mentioned it in "years?" What, TWO years??? Not even that long. Atlas Shrugged has plenty of postings on the topic, long past the expiration date of relevant discussion on this matter:;
Sounds like a liberal to me...Maybe you don't realize that there are lots and lots of Americans who are still discussing Rasool Obama's legitimacy...In spite of your proclamations it is still a relevant issue...Sorry, you don't get to set the rules as to what is relevant and what is not...'Birthers' are not dismissed that easily...
Edwards must be a fan of 'loonwatch', his hit piece reads a lot like theirs...
Excuse me that's Elliot...not Edward
"...
those "neutral" individuals like Elena Kagan, ...."
bwahahahahahahahaha
"ANTI-FAMILY: Elena Kagan’s zeal for “homosexual rights” will taint her rulings on pro-family cases.
*ANTI-FAITH: Kagan has expressed hostility toward faith-based organizations and would limit their impact on public policy decisions.
*ANTI-MILITARY: Kagan opposes the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy and banned military recruiters from the Harvard Law School campus during a time of war in protest of such “discrimination.”
*ANTI-SOVEREIGNTY: Kagan’s views on transnational law undermine America’s self-rule and national sovereignty.
*ANTI-CONSTITUTION: Kagan has called the Constitution “defective” and shares President Obama’s view that we should have an “evolving” or “living” Constitution, thus marginalizing its ultimate legal authority. She has written about a supposed need to increase the power of the Executive Branch at the expense of legislative bodies."
Speaking of Xenel, the brother of the former Xenel CEO Abdullah Alireza was the subject of a book by Marianne Alireza.
Marianne Alireza, and American, married Ali Alireza, brother of Abdullah Alireza, and lived in a harem in Saudi Arabia before being divorced by her husband during a phone call.
http://www.amazon.com/At-Drop-Veil-Marianne-Alireza/dp/1568591020
Faithfreedom also covers the Marianne Alireza story.
Wellington, I rest my case concerning the JW "tribalists." Doesn't take long for them to rear their heads.
Kingreg Kingreg,
There seems to be an element of war involved in political blogging, on both Left and Right. War is about winning, truth means being willing to lose an argument if you are wrong. War involves a team-minded approach; you often defend a teammate against criticism, even if your teammate was wrong. You act like a phalanx, and let no daylight show between you.
In political blogging, isn't every blogger some mix of warrior and neutral truth teller? Robert Spencer is far more the latter than the former. His fundamental arguments about Islam seem impeccable.
I don't know why, but it seems that just about every political blog is to some extent warlike, not truth-motivated.
I worry about those guys over at 'Salon' ~ will they be the first newspaper to openly call for Islamic Shari'a law ~ in the US.
They are increasingly using stronger and more extreme language ~ to backup their views.
That's probably because with all they are saying to so-called back up Muslims/Islam ~ there are still those verses in the Koran that contradict what Muslims are saying about ~ what Islam is!
So when you don't find that the Koran is all peace and love ~ as the moderate Muslims are claiming ~ then you have to swing around to take another angle ~ that being all critics of Islam ~ must hate all Muslims ~ and therefore should be treated as some radical untouchable group.
That Islam's critics could be on TV, or featured in the NY Times ~ must feel like a defeat.
What will the Salon guys champion next ~ support for Islamic law against freedoms so Islam will never be criticized again in America just like it is forbidden to do so in the Islamic world !!
What are they aiming for over at Salon ~ the Koran is not going to change for them.
What you call tribalism is also to some extent a part of political blogging and political debate everywhere. Perhaps that's unfortunate, but there it is.
And you have to distinguish between comments we make here, and what Spencer says. Can't make Spencer responsible for the comments section.
Let the imperfection of the site be acknowledged; that doesn't change the fact that it serves an essential educative function. Don't abandon it. Improve it. If you see mistakes, correct them. And add your own "non-tribalistic" comments -- if you can.
IN THE EARLIEST MUSLIM BIOGRAPHY OF MUHAMMAD, on page 672 (992 in the Arabic) MUHAMMAD SAYS
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On page 222 (326 in the Arabic) of THE EARLIEST MUSLIM BIOGRAPHY OF MUHAMMAD, HE AFFIRMS THAT THOSE WHO DO NOT FOLLOW HIM WILL BE SLAUGHTERED
Here, here, traeh. If Kingreg Kingreg is really interested in searching out the truth, he will contribute and not just tear down. I would ask this of him: Do you know of a better site than Jihad Watch which more effectively addresses the issue of Islamic supremacist designs? If so, name it.
And again I would vigorously assert that whatever faults JW has, the faults of Islam dwarf it. Kingreg Kingreg knows this or should know it.
Salon?
Don't take this the wrong way or anything but- Is not a Salon a place where Women with too much time on their hands and too much money in their Purse go? Usually to steep their Gelatin in irrelevant gossip about all those not in the room. No doubt they all leave admiring the upgrade to their handiwork to notice everyone else who matters is still focused a bit higher up the torso.
By all means-never be involved in he damaging of the artwork for they tend to get really, really upset and you'll never hear the end of it.
Kingreg Kingreg
No apology is needed, but nor is any rectification. I stand by my earlier statements about this matter, which dealt with your objections.
Do you know what satire is?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Kingreg Kingreg
Do you know what satire is?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Reason's Hit and Run just ran what is essentially a hit piece on Pamela.
"Do you know what satire is?"
~Robert Spencer~
-------------
I think it's important, too, to draw a distinction between good satire and bad satire. For example, little my mini-blog, ER'sB, is really BAD satire, and I apologize for every ridiculous word.
http://eleanorruth.typepad.com/blog/2010/10/another-amish-terror-attack-paralyzes-lancaster.html
Robert,
Do I know what satire is? I believe I do. I will henceforth treat most of the material I read at Atlas as a joke. But better satire can be found on last night's Colbert Report, the piece on the "Muslim-threatdown" at 5:54 in the first clip.
http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/mon-october-11-2010-robert-reich
From the Salon post "(Geller also believes Obama's birth documents are forged. She regularly speculates that he is Muslim.)"
Pamela Geller actually made a posting that confirmed for me that the forgery story is a fantasy. She quoted a French intelligence type who stated that if it were true, the evidence of forgery would appear the moment Obama crosses the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
OK, this could be argued back and forth, and the story is not over. But knowing how leaky things are, I have to conclude the evidence would already be out if it existed.
I think that Pamela Geller has it way over Justin Elliott.
http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/mon-october-11-2010-robert-reich
That's funnier than you think @ 7:25.
Kingreg
You would be better advised to take jokes as jokes, and serious material as serious material.
But of course, in your reaction to the Kagan photoshop you have already demonstrated that you can't tell the difference, or else are hoping to obscure the difference for other readers in an attempt to discredit Ms. Geller.
Your game is up. Take it elsewhere.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
But of course, in your reaction to the Kagan photoshop you have already demonstrated that you can't tell the difference, or else are hoping to obscure the difference for other readers in an attempt to discredit Ms. Geller.
Your game is up. Take it elsewhere.
This.
Kingreg had no intention for coming here other than to take potshots at JW and Atlas. It didn't take long before he/she was exposed.
Hi Wellington.
He may genuinely not know it yet. Everybody was green once.
Rauf: "I condemn everyone and anyone who commits acts of terrorism, and Hamas has committed acts of terrorism."
Why does he refuse to directly connect the verb "condemn" with the noun, "Hamas"? "I condemn Hamas."
Why does he instead turn his answer into a syllogism, where he states only the two premises, and then leaves it to us to assume he is also making the deduction that he condemns Hamas? Why does he refuse to actually say he condemns Hamas?
It's interesting in this context to note that Ibn Taymiyyah, a Muslim thinker influential on the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahabism, and Salafism, thought that syllogism was an inferior and uncertain form of logic. By stating only those two premises, but refusing to state the conclusion, is Rauf telegraphing to Islamic scholars that he doesn't mean what he seems to be saying about Hamas?
In any event, I think Rauf's above statement is part of playing a double-game. By leaving the conclusion unspoken, he telegraphs to the world's numerous Muslim Hamas supporters that he is resisting actually saying it. He's telling them that he is answering under duress, but fundamentally still on their side. That's why he refuses to come right out and say it. But naive Westerners assume he is, like them, drawing the obvious deductive conclusion.
If I'm being overly suspicious, well, that's what Rauf deserves for refusing to speak simply and directly.
I checked out the comments following the Solon piece, at http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2010/10/11/times_pamela_geller/view/?show=all
One of the comments caught my eye, by YusefYK, who provides an extended comment about Jihad Watch. JW posters may remember YusefYK's short tenure here before being banned. Note: In his Salon comment he singles out particular posters by name for slander.
--------------------------------------------------
"As a moderate Malay Muslim with a family, I tried to use jihadwatch, her partner Spencer's site. Because of course I am concerned about violent jihad as well - hate it.
"Every comment I made on the site was responded with horrible words. I was called a wet fart, a child rapist, a sub-human. I was told that China should invade my country and "rape all the women" just like "my people" have done. They said Muslims should be mulched. Even in one absurd case, someone named "isabella the crusader" said she'd like to rape me anally with a stick for trying to "put a trash bag over her head." Funny thing is the story was about the burqa ban in France, which I SUPPORTED.
"I noticed today that same woman who threatened me with anal rape has a long post devoted to her honor on their front page. That is the commenter they support.
"I was called a "secret" American, a "secret" liberal, and my favorite, a "secret" Communist.
"One commenter stalked me in comments complaining that I "never answered his question about philosopher Hume" even though I did so. He called me a "taquiya liar" and worse.
"When I gave him a link to my post (and our long subsequent discussion) which was made two weeks prior, he did not bother to apologize.
"(Many of these comments might still be there under the username YusefYK.)
"I was eventually banned for loudly questioning the credentials of copy-paste essay master "Hugh Fitzgerald." He holds out as an expert on such topic as African and Arab History, Islamic Law, human psychology, military history and affairs, etc. Note he does have a wikipedia page but it just notes that "Hugh Fitzgerald" is the pseudonym of L. Frank Baum, the author of the Wizard of Oz.
"They were quite willing to have me as a target for vile attacks, but as soon as I started making valid points against them, they banned me. Never once did I threaten anyone in any way, just got banned for asking a question.
"These are the people you are talking about when you talk about Geller and Spencer. I just feel sad for them."
—YusefYK
Let me ask all: to please stop buying N.Y. Times and to never download articles from that magazine.
That is a newspaper that I would love to see go out of business.
Thanks for the info, Eastview, on Yusef YK relating to that letter of his, which is factually wrong and replete with self-pity. He asserts that "every comment" of his was met with "horrible words." This simply isn't true. I myself responded to his comments several times and didn't engage in making vile remarks. I did criticize Islam and Mohammed and criticized them severely because they deserve it. But going after him personally in any threatening way is not something I or many others did. If I remember correctly, the reason why he was banned is that Marisol gave him an opportunity to back up his inflammatory accusations about many who post here and he couldn't do it. Seems he's moved on to other places to continue his spinning a tale of lies and half-truths.
Relax dude. You don't need to take offense at the entire web site or at the blogger just because "birth certificate" is mentioned. Also, try to gain some appreciation for satire. It will always offend someone, some will have little or no reaction, and the rest will appreciate it. I liked Bush, so I laughed when he was depicted as Hitler because it couldn't have been further from the truth. I cringed when Obama was depicted as Hitler because although he is far away from Hitler, I see many of his policies as a threat to this country. He is not protecting the people as a President should be. However, I understand and am not offended by satire. You may have been trying to provide constructive criticism, I don't know, but your comments seem rather dry and pointless to me. If you ease up a bit you may get there. I hope this doesn't offend you.
If you want to treat everything you read at Atlas as a joke why bother commenting? Also, you should only go there to read when you want a few good laughs, right? That way you will never get anything substantive out of it. I hope you don't take this comment as a joke.
Wellington, YusefYK singled out a particular JW poster to slam in his Salon comment. I didn't check the JW archives, but I seem to recall that the same JW poster was the object of some sexual innuendo by one of the Muslim trolls who swing by here, and our JW poster responded strongly. Do you, does anyone, remember who the troll was?
Sorry, Eastview, but I don't remember. I do very much remember though a troll who tried to accuse me of having desires for child molestation because I brought up the fact that the Ayatollah Khomeini was a child molester, as well as Mohammed himself. He engaged in psychobabble, to wit, because I brought up the child molestation of others that that was indicative of what I wanted. It was the single most disgusting ad hominem thrown my way in all the years I've been posting here. It's the only time I suggested that someone be banned. But damn, I forget who that troll was. He was a Muslim though, of course. If I've learned anything about Islam it's that bunches and bunches of Muslims have a lot of stored up hate and venom in them which comes directly from their religion, contra any other major faith which rarely produces a hater who hates in the name of his faith.
To poetcomic1: "The architecture and design in every way is a lavish copy of a Byzantine original."
As does the Cordoba Mosque- design taken from the Byzantine architecture prevalent all over North Africa, since they were the civilization there at the time of the Arab conquest. The Arabs just copied it.
insufficient level of scrupulous accuracy and/or professionalism that manifests itself here.
I read a few of your comments last week and I almost changed my mind about you. I'm glad I wasn't too hasty. Based on what you wrote, I assume you converted to islam to marry a muslim woman. Since I'm a hopeless romantic, I found it quite touching that you sold your soul to the devil for the woman you love.
Regarding your snide comment above, you must be referring to the comments section because the articles posted here by Mr. Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, and Marisol are scrupulously accurate. The commenters state opinions and debate issues related to islam, muslims, and jihad. I don't know of any open blog on the internet that requires commenters to document their remarks with references or evidence. Comments are subjective thoughts and ideas, not academic treatise. Most people who frequent this site consider islam to be a despicable and evil ideology and you obviously resent the hostility and contempt, which pale in comparison to the seething, homicidal loathing many muslims have for all non-muslims. We don't assault, terrorize, or kill muslims (or anyone else) but there are millions of muslims just itching to annihilate all Americans.
Many people are quite frustrated with the festering islamic problem and while you may be a nice guy with no evil intentions, many of your brothers in faith are fanatical psychos. Maybe it's a bad time to be a volunteer muslim. They're not too popular right now, for obvious reasons that only muslims and leftists can't see. If you are unhappy with the 'lack of scrupulous accuracy' and uncensored, free speech, why torture yourself? I wouldn't subject myself to such cruel abuse; why do you?