It came out in "Muslims nervous about King hearings," by Ben Smith and Byron Tau in Politico, January 18:
In a move that will come as a relief to Muslim leaders, King told POLITICO that he's not planning to call as witnesses such Muslim community critics as the Investigative Project on Terrorism's Steve Emerson and Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer, who have large followings among conservatives but are viewed as antagonists by many Muslims.King aims, he said, to call retired law enforcement officials and people with "the real life experience of coming from the Muslim community." Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to serve in the House and a critic of the hearings, will likely be a minority witness, according to both King and the Minnesota Democrat....
Possible witnesses, according to King, include Dutch critic of Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali and M. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of Arizona-based American Islamic Forum for Democracy. Jasser is a sharp critic of leading American Muslim groups, whose agenda he calls "Islamist."...
In "King Abdicates" in The American Thinker today, Pamela Geller explains what's wrong with this:
Based on this, it appears that this will be a show trial. Between Emerson and Spencer, the whole of it is covered. Emerson knows who all the players are and what groups and cells they are affiliated with. He knows who everyone is and what he's doing. For King to acquiesce in his marginalization is almost criminal. [...]Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison is infamous for his pro-Hamas rallies and his pilgrimage to the Hajj in Saudi Arabia, paid for by the Muslim Brotherhood. He is testifying, but Emerson and Spencer aren't? What can King achieve?
King is going to call Zuhdi Jasser and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Jasser and Hirsi Ali are perfectly lovely, but to what end? Jasser's Islam does not exist. He does not have a theological leg to stand on. His mosque threw him out. Whatever he is practicing, it's not Islam, and he speaks for no one but himself. Also, Jasser has done some strange things: in May 2009, he made a last-minute effort to quash Geert Wilders' appearance on Capitol Hill under the aegis of Senator Kyl, calling Kyl's office the morning of the day Wilders was supposed to appear and stating that while Jasser had been in the Netherlands, Wilders refused to meet with Jasser because Wilders "doesn't meet with Muslims." That never happened, according to Wilders.
And when I interviewed Jasser back in 2007, he referred to Israel as occupied territory in the last five minutes of the interview. He blew his cover....
Read it all. Geller is absolutely right that these hearings are shaping up to be a waste, and worse than a waste. King is apparently rattled by the full-court press of Islamic victimhood rhetoric from Islamic supremacist spokesmen and pressure groups, and is allowing them to set his agenda, acquiescing in their Alinskyite marginalization of Steven Emerson, a peerless antijihad researcher, and other antijihadists who have nothing to apologize for or be embarrassed about in their work to expose and resist the advance of the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, but who are targeted in ongoing Islamic supremacist defamation campaigns designed to discredit and sideline them (including myself). He is at the same time calling fox-in-the-henhouse witnesses like Muslim Brotherhood-linked Congressman Keith Ellison.
What happened to King? In October, he said that "it's not just people who are involved with the terrorists and extremists, it is people who are in mainstream Islam, leaders of mosques, leaders of Muslim organizations who do not come forward and denounce, officially denounce, officially cooperate with the police against those extremists and terrorists. So, it goes beyond the terrorists and the extremists and also includes those in what others call mainstream Muslim leadership." And again in December, he said: "When I meet with law enforcement, they are constantly telling me how little cooperation they get from Muslim leaders." And indeed, as Emerson's Investigative Project demonstrated, Islamic supremacist group MPAC's claim that Muslims broke up one-third of jihad terror plots is based on flawed and selective use of data.
Now King, belying his earlier statements about the non-cooperation of Muslim authorities in the U.S., says that in his hearings he is going to go to those selfsame authorities:
"The idea was to make the hearings have an impact," he tells us. "With all due respect, whether it is Steve Emerson, or me, or [Daniel] Pipes, or [Frank] Gaffney, people have heard from us before -- we are outsiders talking about the community. If I can get people from within the Muslim community to talk about the extent of radicalization, that is a lot more effective."
King in December said he was willing to be defamed as a "bigot" if that's what it took to expose jihadist sentiments and activity in the Muslim community in the U.S. Ellison apparently took him up on that, calling him a bigot and saying: "I'm willing to engage with Congressman King and say, 'Look, you want to talk about these things, let's do it responsibly.' Let's investigate this thing in the right way, let's talk about how we're gonna make America safer and enlist Muslim Americans to help safeguard our country and look at anybody that might get radicalized."
And that, apparently, is just what is going to happen in King's hearings. Does King not realize who and what he is dealing with in Ellison? Is he aware of Ellison's Muslim American Society-funded hajj, mentioned by Pamela Geller above, and of the Muslim American Society's connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, and of the Muslim Brotherhood's stated goal (according to a captured internal document) of "eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within"? If King is unaware of all this, and of the smear campaign of Brotherhood groups in America against people like Emerson -- a campaign he is now abetting -- he is dangerously clueless. If he is aware of it, but is bowing to the public pressure the Islamic hate machine has brought upon him because of his hearings, he is not only clueless but cowardly as well.
Either way, his hearings are shaping up to be useless, or worse.
Coward - and this Rep King is in the Rep Party?! No wonder, with that suspected Islamic infiltrator, Keith Ellison in the Rep Party - the Rep Party is doomed in 2012!
Kind of like Churchill was an "antagonist" of the Nazis??
Peter King's hearings on "radicalization" among U.S. Muslims: doomed to failure...
In a move that will come as a relief to Muslim leaders, King told POLITICO that he's not planning to call as witnesses such Muslim community critics as the Investigative Project on Terrorism's Steve Emerson and Jihad Watch's Robert Spencer...
.................................
Well, I'm damned sorry to hear this. King's hearings initially sounded very promising. I don't know if King has backed away from his original plans for political reasons, or if his intent was always so muddled.
That he is calling on Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a good thing—but I doubt she can carry the day all by herself. And the view of "American" Islam that M. Zuhdi Jasser presents is either Taqiyya—or, more likely, just wishful thinking—which will just muddy the waters further.
Peter King has been a disappointment lately, especially with this news. I was dumbstruck when he proposed legislation to curb gun ownership in the wake of the Tucson shooting.
Unless I missed another name, Hirsi Ali sounds like the only one offering any hope of calling it like it is. We'll see how much time and latitude she has to speak freely. If they have just one person offering such a perspective, it's easier to write them off, to manufacture an image of a "fringe" viewpoint. They can try to pigeonhole her as bitter and traumatized by a "cultural" misunderstanding of Islam.
Beyond that, what's the point of having hearings on an issue if all viewpoints are not given a fair hearing, but only the safe, carefully stated, palatable ones?
In that case, as Pamela Geller observed, it's a show trial.
Can you imagine if they conducted the tobacco hearings like this? After that iconic moment where every Big Tobacco exec affirmed he did not believe cigarettes are the health hazard they are proven to be, the committee would have said, "Well, that's a relief. Let's get lunch!"
I was afraid of this. There's been something a bit off about him from the get-go. I wasn't sure if it was political "correctness" or ignorance. Either way, he's useless.
This is just not acceptable. We have got to lean on him. I don't know if Pamela can get Allen West to help, what with him only being a freshman congressman. But surely he can help salvage this somehow, and there must be other allies.
At least there are hearings. Most Americans understand that legislatures make laws. There is another very important function of legislative bodies in a democracy. It is where we as a society hold our ultimate public discourse. Even though we have low expectation that anything of substance in the form of legislation will result from these hearings, it will be an important milestone in our national conversation about the nature and threat of Islam.
For the rest of us it means that we must keep on keepin' on. Continue reading, talking to family and friends, and never give up.
This is why Rep Allan West needs to be on the Homeland Security Committee. He was assigned to the Armed Forces Committee instead. He wouldn't be running the show but I'm sure he'd use whatever power he could to make sure the right people were called to testify and I'm sure he'd have a field day with K Ellison should Ellison testify.
This King is nothing more than a RHINO! After the shooting in Arizona he wanted to create a stupid law about not having people armed within a thousand feet of an elected official, like the shooter is going to care about breaking that law when he is killing people with his gun. Talk about a man out of touch with his people and common sense!
I just e-mailed Rep King's office to include both Robert Spencer and Stephen Emerson in the hearings. The point of the hearings should be to expose American Islam's ultimate goal of nationwide dominance through Sharia. Spencer and Emerson are well equipped to highlight the evil fascist sociopolitical system that Islam is.
Everyone needs to pressure King's office to include Robert and Steve !
Hi Joe,
Yes, Mr. King has shown to all that he is simply a NY Republicrat that, after being reelected, will beat feet toward the other side of the isle in governance.
I too was greatly disheartened with his statements as of late, and following the gun issue, I was pretty sure that he would cave on this as well.
Term Limits should be mandatory!
An addendum to the Politico story: '
CAIR’s inclusion on a list of unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Case was not formally lifted, as an earlier version of this story said; a court did later find that the designation was improper and violated CAIR’s rights.
Someone should set 'em straight.
In other words.......
A hearing into the Nazi party will include a certain Herr Schickelgrueber, along with Herr Goering and other members of the Third Reich Project. A neutral, Fraulein Leni Riefenstahl, will also be called, and maybe someone called Mr. Churchill will be allowed to loiter outside the hall to make things look balanced and fair. If necessary, Nancy Mitford will make a comment to give Her Schickelgrueber some moral support as he is clearly the victim in all this unseemly ant-Nazi conspiracy sweeping the globe.
Ah yes, the more things change, the more the stay the same.
I heard Zuhdi Jasser on the factor state he will raise his children as "True Muslims", and that should show him to be a fraud.
Perhaps his children at some later date will tell him he is a bad muslim, and he is subject to death, perhaps by their hand(s).
King needs to follow through, he needs to hear from all those concerned about this, tell him what you think.
To Mr. Spencer:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali should be a good spokesperson if she is allowed sufficient freedom to state facts. I wish they also had Wafa Sultan. Both of them speak from direct personal experience, and with a dignified compassion for the Muslims who are themselves the greatest victims of the mental poison of Islam.
Despite his enormous knowledge of relevant facts, Mr. Spencer has lost a little credibility before a mainstream, public, and initially neutral audience, because of the frequent use of sarcasm and adjectives (although I admit that I personally find them quite enjoyable). This approach builds a following, but is ineffective as a means of persuasion. Sarcasm and adjectives always give the impression that the speaker is in a weak and frustrated state of mind.
Also, if my memory is correct (and it may not be), I have the impression that Mr. Spencer in some of his writings seems to be coming from a pro-Christian or pro-Catholic point of view. This gives the impression that the speaker is coming from the viewpoint of "my god is better than your god," which immediately lowers the credibility of the speaker.
Mr. Spencer can regain credibility, and can become a national hero, by launching a nationwide campaign of prominently exposing a few devastating facts about Islam, in the manner I have explained in detail in my prior postings. The Wikileaks guy is a major international hero living in mansions with large monetary support.
Without SpencerMan and GellerWoman, it would just be a Kangeroo Kourt sort of thing.
I will also write a letter to King but I hope we choose do something much bigger than just sit and take this. Where is the voice of America? Isn't the responsibility of the US Congress to hear the people and not the enemy of the people? Where is the outrage here? Do we really know what this means to all of us? These politicians are deceiving themselves right into destruction. Isn't there such a thing as treason? How can you set yourself up as both judge and prosecutor? King is hand picking his battle for us all and the cards are stacked against us not Islam. We the American people are the true victims. I just can't seem to grasp the lack of intelligence in Washington, in the media, and even on the state level.
Just finished speaking to King's office. Then I called newly elected Congressman West's office. Yesterday I called West's office and asked that he join Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in condemning Obama Administration allowing the PLO to fly their flag over Washington. I called in on the Joyce Kaufman show in south Fla. yesterday about this. Joyce interviewed West later and brought it up. Maybe they need a little push from time to time. West did indeed speak out against the PLO flag in Washington yesterday. Sometimes a call to Capital Hill is worthwhile. I told Peter King's aid, we need a Churchill. Remember Churchill was called everything in the book - "war-monger, scare monger," etc, - when he warned of the Nazi threat in the nineteen thirties?
Maybe she did not appreciate that comment.
Arthur, you wrote: "Ayaan Hirsi Ali should be a good spokesperson if she is allowed sufficient freedom to state facts....."
I've got her book "Infidel" on audio. Her life is a compelling story. Sorry, Hirsi Ali, notwithstanding her compelling story, is not a scholar on Islam.
Arthur: "Despite his enormous knowledge of relevant facts, Mr. Spencer has lost a little credibility before a mainstream, public, and initially neutral audience, because of the frequent use of sarcasm and adjectives (although I admit that I personally find them quite enjoyable). This approach builds a following, but is ineffective as a means of persuasion. Sarcasm and adjectives always give the impression that the speaker is in a weak and frustrated state of mind...."
How can you argue sarcasm or humor is valid reason to keep Spencer from testifying before the Congressman King's Committee?
Arthur: "Also, if my memory is correct (and it may not be), I have the impression that Mr. Spencer in some of his writings seems to be coming from a pro-Christian or pro-Catholic point of view. This gives the impression that the speaker is coming from the viewpoint of "my god is better than your god," which immediately lowers the credibility of the speaker."
Spencer is a bit of a partisan for his church but truth be known, so am I for my faith and people. I think the Bible presents a pretty good standard for impartiality. There are much apologetics in today's Church, especially in regard to its record of historic anti-Semitism, anti-Judaism, etc. Much of it was adopted and disseminated by the Nazis in their dehumanization of the Jews. Without historic Church teaching (i.e., the Jews portrayed as Christ-killers and worse) the Holocaust would have been inconceivable according to historians.
British historian Paul Johnson wrote ("A History of the Jews"): "....the evidence against the Jews was all there in the Bible, which they had written themselves. Therein of course, lay a terrible problem for the Jews. One of their greatest gifts was the critical faculty. They had always had it....But they were not only critical; they were, perhaps above all, self-critical....They saw the truth, sometimes the ugly truth, about themselves, and they told it in the Bible. Whereas other peoples produced their national epics to endorse and bolster their self-esteem, the Jews wanted to discover what had gone wrong with their history, as well as what had gone right. That is why the the Bible is littered with passages with which the Jews are presented as a sinful people, often too wicked or obstinate to accept God's law, though they know it. The Jews, in fact, produced the evidence for their own prosecution...." (page 206)
And I might add, we produced the evidence for our own prosecution at the hands of the Church.
Arthur: "Mr. Spencer can regain credibility...."
In spite of the things you pointed out above, I believe Spencer should be brought before Congressman King's House Committee on Homeland Security. Don't you?
As should Steven Emerson. Shouldn't he?
I wrote to Rep King too. I also gave him a perhaps too long list of resources to look at. Maybe someone on the staff will look into it and see it is valuable information he can pass on to the Congressman.
I was just reading the CSP Team B (II) report. On page 20 it recommends listening to these ex-Muslims:
"Other insights can be obtained from those who were at one time part of the Muslim Brotherhood, but have chosen a new direction for their lives. For example, Walid Shoebat formerly with the Palestinian Liberation Organization or PLO), Kamal Saleem (former Muslim Brotherhood), and Mosab Yousef (former Hamas and author of Son of Hamas) are proclaiming to all who will hear them that the Muslim Brotherhood is in America to destroy our Constitution and replace it with shariah. These brave men are helping to define the enemy. Their testimony, taken together with that available from other sources, leaves us with no excuse for remaining ignorant of the truth."
Your opinions are not representative of the general puplic or the members of congress. Congress NEEDS to become educated and emboldened.
The public NEEDS to become educated.
We NEED people like Robert and Emerson at each and every hearing.
and WHUT? If your "memory is correct" about Spencer's writings, he seems to be coming from a "pro Christian" or a "My god is better than your god" stance????!!??! I can't speak for your memory but your perception seems to be a bit distorted.
aarrgghh!!!
Do us all a favor, please: Don't write to Peter King. Thank you.
I wonder if the editors of Americanthinker are also of the opinion that Rep. Peter King's congressional hearing on domestic security re. American Muslims is "doomed to failure" and will be a waste of time. But if they're of that opinion then why do they bother their national readership with this publicizing of the Peter King hearings?
If it's to be ignored they themselves would ignore it. If it's not going to be a waste of time then creating controversy serves to advertize it (and it might embolden certain Muslims to come forth and participate in the hearing and thus create political theatre attracting public interest). Peter King is a good man, in my estimation. He's my congressman, I know him.
Why is he afraid to have Emerson and Spencer testify? If he can have Ellison testify, why not Emerson?
I agree with many above comments that King is going a bit wobbly on the issue. Still, the level of political correctness and inability to face reality where radical islam is concerned is immense. The fact that King is even having a hearing on this subject should be seen as partial success.
Peter King has said what he wants to accomplish with these hearings. He is officially concerned with domestic security. He's chairman of the House committee on Homeland Security. Peter King also has many years experience and knowlege of NY City Police Dept. Security experts. The Security section of the NYPD rivals that of many nations.
I'm sure he personally knows alot about Islam as a religion as well. He's qualified to ask Muslims probing questions. He has said he wants to know why and how all these domestic homegrown terrorists manage to avoid being turned in by friends and relatives. That's the purpose of the hearing - not to expose and condemn the absolute evil of Islam which we do here at JW quite well every day. ( He might have a second stage of the hearings planned but unannounced wherein he will call Spencer and Emerson before Congress, after laying the groundwork establishing the fact of noncooperation of Muslims with American law enforcement people as the first stage).
Arthur,
Even if what you say about Spencer's "frequent use of sarcasm and adjectives" is true, these are hardly credible, relevant, or sufficient grounds for excluding one of the nation's top experts from these proposed hearings. The blame clearly lies with King and possibly others who may be pressuring him, not with Spencer.
Appologists for islam are terrified of the likes of Spencer and Emerson, for they have the truth with facts and therefore ammunition against islamists! where the islamists say it is against islam to kill "innocents" Spencer and Emerson can then say "who is regarded as "innocent"? We here at JW know the answers, so the public needs to learn as well as the politicians.
He caved to bullying tactics of the "stealth jihadists." Not good. If this continues, in the long run, America is finished. I see little hope for this once great nation. Americans elected this worrisome man in the White House and his ratings are going up because of a slick performance at ASU. Even Reagan's speech writer, Peggy Noonan felt tingle go up her leg. Americans have lost the will to fight, lead by our defeatist leaders. Half measures are not good enough. Either we fight to win or we give in to violence and threats of violence. Congressman King has no spirit. He let bullies beat him down.
Arthur,
I don't think Spencer's exclusion from some venues is based on the issues you cited. I think the problem is twofold: 1) Spencer is uncompromising in pointing out the totalitarianism of sharia and jihad and their deep-rootedness in orthodox Islam. Since most people are not informed enough about Islam to decide if Spencer is right, while large numbers of Muslims don't care if he's right and just want him to shut up no matter what, Spencer becomes vulnerable to charges of bias. If there is any truth in the charges you offer, Arthur, that is secondary to what I've pointed out, I think.
As to Peter King, I think we should wait and see. King has been an ally and a maverick on these issues up until this point. Let's see what happens.
I see Diana West posted an article on this topic a couple or so hours ago. Peter King caved to immoral pressure and bullying tactics, plain and simple.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2011/01/20/lame_hearings_on_islam_will_do_nothing
Diana West
Lame Hearings on Islam Will Do Nothing
excerpts:
Point One: King says he won't be calling a certain genre of witness to the hearings. Politico's term for this genre of witness is "Muslim community critics," and it includes Islamic terrorism expert Steve Emerson and Islamic doctrine expert Robert Spencer.
Let's start with Politico's terminology: "Muslim community critics."
"Community" is another shield word -- a warm and fuzzy term of misdirection that conjures up something communal and open -- something cooperative, maybe even picnicky and family-oriented. How mean of Steve Emerson and Robert Spencer to be "Muslim community critics"!
But imagine if Politico were less a prisoner of adversarial convention and more freewheeling in its mode of expression. Emerson would be better ID'd as a Muslim terrorism critic -- or, better still, a Muslim jihad critic. Spencer would be more accurately labeled as a Muslim law or Shariah critic......
Point Two: Politico prefaces King's white flag over the witness list by calling it "a move that will come as a relief to Muslim leaders."
That's interesting, particularly after we've unpacked Emerson and Spencer's specialties a little. Why would Muslim leaders be "relieved" that experts on jihad and Shariah aren't going to testify in open hearings before the American people? I think the answer is they don't want to see the doctrinal and historical and cultural links that bind jihad and Shariah to mainstream Islam exposed. Think of it: We've come almost a decade since 9/11 without even lame hearings (like King's unfortunately promise to be) on the links between Islam and jihad. Indeed, both government and media, beginning on 9/12, have increasingly self-censored themselves into decoupling Islam from jihad altogether. Here, all of a sudden, appears the possibility of a bona fide national discussion.
But no. Can't have that. And won't have that. King has banned the experts from the bench. Which makes you wonder what his game is really all about?
Thanks for the article from Diane West. Leave it to a woman to tell King what a wimp and disappointment he is.
Peter King is vacillating...He want's to limit real or in depth information about Islam, because it will look like he is attacking Islam...The vacillators have set that up so that everyone has to tip toe around it or be labeled a racist Islamophobe...
A vacillating politician is one who is most likely going to keep his job...Why the vacillators keep getting elected over and over is one of the worlds great mysteries, but they all know the political power of vacillation...
Andy McCarthy would make an excellent witness...Mr King...are you listening?
Bhobby, you wrote: "I'm sure he personally knows alot about Islam as a religion as well. He's qualified to ask Muslims probing questions. He has said he wants to know why and how all these domestic homegrown terrorists manage to avoid being turned in by friends and relatives...."
King is a "politician" who bows to immoral pressure. Over the years I have become more and more cynical of politicians and for good reason. Look at Congressman King. As far as I am concerned, King is unqualified to ask Muslims any probing questions. Congressman King had an opportunity to demonstrate that he is a statesman; that he has moral courage and integrity.
wildjew, Such a biased article - obviously you did not read the whole Bible with rationality, especially the NT! And you prefer the division of Jews and Christians to go on, and even blaming the Holocaust on Christianity despite that Hitler was a God-hating Socialist who loved Islam and that Christians all over Europe were also mass murdered by the Nazis; and thus Hitler as of Martin Luther, might have been inspired by the creator of Islam, the Arabic Pedophile rapist Mohammed, who’s systematic hatred and mass murder of the Jews, committed the first racial genocide of the Jews! Our Lord Jesus Christ was even 'born' amongst poor righteous Jews; so that means, Jews who are righteous, poor or rich, have special place in God's 'heart'. In the Gospel of Matthew(27: 22-25), it was about the denunciation of the elite class of the Jews, where due to their arrogance, have been blinded to God's truth and even collaborate with the barbaric pagan Romans and in the end, demanded Jesus to be crucified. Who were then the loyal believers of Jesus - the poor and oppressed Jews. Thus is the point of Jesus's 'birth' amongst the poor and oppressed Jews. Our Lord Jesus, a most loving and humble God in human flesh, came at first to save righteous Jews, especially amongst the poor and oppressed as He still honoured His covenant with Abraham.
Nevertheless, many Christians like myself including in my United Pentecostal Church in Germany here, in the service last two Sundays, where my Church pastor was honouring Jewish prophets, leaders and warriors as in Books of Hebrew 11:29-40 and Joshua 6:2; prefer to regard righteous Jews, whether poor or rich (as of any righteous people) in the highest esteem and love, following the example of our Lord Jesus Christ. We Christians are ever grateful, that due to the righteousness of the Jews from Abraham's days, until our Lord Jesus Christ was 'born' (God was honouring the covenant with the righteous Jews) amongst many righteous Jews including His “worldly family, Apostles and believers”, that we non-Jews i.e Gentiles, have also the chance to be saved, to ultimately know the only true God, renounce evil ways, and hopefully to join His Kingdom later on. Also thanks to the righteous Jews, and the great Jewish Prophet, Moses, Christians got the Ten Commandments that builds the foundation of modern Western laws and civilization (think about the savagery of the pre-Christianize Romans such as normalizing the most barbaric bloodsport with lions or gladiatiors), and our first written Bible!
traeh, I agree with you. I think Arthur has allowed the critics of Spencer to seep into his thinking. Much of what Arthur says is what Spencer's critics would say, but using sarcasm or adjectives in no way diminishes the truth.
katharina, why would you think I read and post on this site, if I did not ally with conservative Christian friends of Israel?
wildjew, I'm glad you say that. Mohammed and the Arabs has been trying to divide Jews and Christians - we need to ask why the God-hating Socialist Hitler loved Islam? Investigation need to be reopened with major Hollywood films including (films can educate the increasingly less-bookworm younger generation), on whether Hitler was actually advised or inspired by Mohammed and Islam! After all, the Arabs including the Palestinian Mufti of Jerusalem and the Muslim Brotherhood founder, Hassan al-banna, and the Turkish Ottomans were among or main Hitler/Nazi’s biggest collaborators or advisers. Christians and Jews cannot simply lay back and accept propaganda lies under Islam, that has surprisingly been going on long enough, by such Muslim fanatics and the Western Left, that has even misrepresented Hitler as Christian although he was a God-hating Socialist (he uses Christianity to brainwash the poor German masses) and that the Crusade was started by Christians despite that Mohammed’s army was conquering Judeo-Christian civilization in what is now the Middle-East and Turkey. We must not let Jew-hating Islam and Muslim fanatics get away with this evil Nazi-style propaganda – that will let such savage murderers become more free to commit their evil crimes against the Jews and Christians, including the destruction of Israel. The real truth in history which has been whitewashed is that the Arabic Pedophile rapist Mohammed was the first to SYSTEMATICALLY racialize the Jews and committed the first racial Genocide of the Jews, in order to create supremacist and savage Nazi-like Arabic Empire, hence creating Islam and its blood-thirsty god to justify such savage mass murder! Further, such history of Jewish-Christian Genocide by Islam in Medieval Middle-East/Europe and later on in Armenia by the Turkish Ottoman Muslims, and its involvement with Hitler/Nazis needs constant exposure since the Muslim fanatics are shouting falsely "anti-Semitism", to equate their so-called victimization with the Jews, including in the Jewish Holocaust, which they're successfully but deceitfully manipulating guilt-ridden Germans or collaborating with the still left-over Nazis especially from the Left (Hitler being a Socialist is being hidden by the Left!) who have always loved Islam, especially Hitler. I suspect, is one of the reason why that is why Muslim migrants especially arrogant ones from Turkey, are given preferential treatment in Germany.
katharina, let's be honest with one another. Can we accept that the Western nation-states, including America, are essentially Christian nation-states? America is the leading Christian nation-state in the earth. The clash today is demonstrably and increasingly between Islamic nations and Christian nations. But on one thing Christianity and Islam agree; that is on the destruction of Israel. Official Christian American policy has been the establishment of a Muslim-terror state, dedicated to Israel's destruction, for many decades. What has changed from antiquity? Granted, there are individual Christian believers who do not support this policy, but they are far and few between. The vast majority of Christians support Israel's destruction. Otherwise it would not be U.S. policy.
Rep. Peter King is on the local radio talk shows in NYC frequently, talking for ten or twenty minutes two or three times a week. The first I heard of his plan to hold hearings on what's wrong with the Muslim community's relations with Law Enforcement was a few weeks ago. Upon first hearing of this it did not occur to me that Rep. King would of course be calling Spencer and Emerson before his committee. I never thought that's what Pete King had in mind, based on how he explained what he wanted to do. Today is the first I have heard of this idea that Spencer and Emerson should of course testify to Congress. (Peter King has longstanding professional and friendly relations with NYPD Security experts and FBI agents who know just as much as does Emerson).
I believe ultimately the counterjihad will be conducted, for the most part, by governments of nation-states led by the U.S.A. Obviously that requires Pres. Obama no longer president before much of anything can be done. In the meantime we have the U.S. House of Representatives to lay some groundwork.
I voted for King last month for American anti-dhimmi of the year. I believe I made a mistake. If Congressman King is the best we can do among major American politicians in dealing with all the pathologies and hatred and intolerance and mendacity that are regular features of the Islamic faith but of no other major religion, then the road that must be traveled to being free at last from the monstrosity which Mohammed created is an even longer one than I previously calculated.
Holy Hell and little catfishes, what is it going to take for an overwhelming consensus to manifest itself, here in America and throughout the West, that Islam is not good, that it is profoundly screwed up---and malevolent---and an inveterate enemy of freedom? I shake my head in wonderment at times as this very well disguised form of wickedness continues to escape the scrutiny it by now should have received by large majorities of the body politic of every Western nation. It ain't rocket science here. It's merely a simple matter of observing rather than just seeing. Too many only see when they really should observe.
The vast majority of American Christians, wildjew, most definitely do not support the destruction of Israel and it is absurd and deeply counter-productive of you to assert such nonsense. Americans are overwhelmingly supportive of Israel in every poll ever taken and the vast majority of Americans are Christian. Do the math.
Though not religious myself, I know many, many Christians, including family members, friends and numerous acquaintances. All, without exception, are strong supporters of Israel and profoundly skeptical of Arab claims about so-called Palestine. My next-door neighbor is a German-American Catholic and is 100% behind Israel. My Italian-American plumber has, on the back of his work van, a bumper sticker that reads, "Fight Terroism. Support Israel." Southern Baptists and other Protestant congregations across America have demonstrated for decades now that they are about the strongest supporters Israel has anywhere in the world. You do a great disservice to American Christians when you maintain what you have. Yes, there are some loosey-goosey Main Line kind of Christians out there, some Presbyterians and Anglicans as examples, who have been stupid enough to embrace a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel stance, but these are the exceptions, not the rule. You know this or should know it.
For many months now, I've been trying to get Spencer on on or large central Fla. radio talk shows. The screener tells me it is not easy to book some of these people. But they've had Victor David Hanson, John Bolton, Roger Simon, etc., and most recently Clifford May to discuss his
"Jihad 101" column to incoming Congressmen and women; wherein May wrote, "Most Muslims do not embrace this (jihad warfare as a religious duty) interpretation of Islam or view it as appropriate for the 21st century."
The hosts of this station have on Wednesdays what they call "W Appreciation Day," in commemoration of the former president. I notice in Spencer's book "Stealth Jihad," he does not refrain from criticizing some troubling Bush administration policy that undermined our national security.
I wonder if this is not at least partly responsible for Peter King's decision to black ball Spencer. Maybe King and the Republicans want team players.
Correction: For many months now, I've been trying to get Spencer (interviewed) on one our larger central Fla. radio talk shows.....
wildjew, why are you not seeing the real enemy, which is Islam? Listen to the wise Wellington there. In the Bible, it was about lost arrogant elite Jews (we can see the same pattern with the specific elite liberal Jews on the side of Islam right now as obvious in the Haaretz or the Hollywood liberal circuit) as I quoted you, who betrayed our Lord Jesus Christ to be crucified. Further, the history of the first brutal and systematic racial Genocide of the Jews in history, that include the wiping out the last village of the Jews in 627AD in extremely sophisticated and wealthy Khaibar (that now became part of Saudi Arabia), is by the Arabic Pedophile Mohammed, in his goal to construct pure Arabian kingdom, through creating Islam and its false god, to justify such evilness – see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf15.html#23 or http://www.andrewbostom.org/content/view/25/1/ or in the book Dr. Andrew G. Bostom (Ed.), The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History, Reprint edition (Prometheus Books, 2008, New York).
Mohammed’s army (even after his death in 632AD) then went on to conquer Christian Kingdoms in 718AD until the 15th. century, in the Iberian Peninsula, of what is now Portugal and Spain – See http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/world/2876-when-christendom-pushed-back and http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?ParagraphID=ebv#1741. Later on, more Genocide of the Jews, by Mohammed’s Muslim army when “…hundreds of Jews killed between 1010 and 1013 near Cordoba, and other parts of Muslim Spain; of the massacre of the entire Jewish community of roughly 4000 in Granada during the Muslim riots of 1066…” – see foreword by Ibn Warraq, a former Muslim and scholar at – http://www.andrewbostom.org/content/view/25/1/ . The Jews were spared earlier as they were forced or exploited to be used as soldiers, intellectuals (I suspect Mohammed used the intellectuality and writing-skills of the Jewish intellectuals, where many were also forced to convert to Islam, to plagiarize from the Bible and the Torah) and skilled craftsmen, against Christian majority. Thus violent Arab-Muslims, is suspected to have sowed the seed for extreme hateful and racialized anti-Jew belief and attitude amongst the Christians, who have co-existed with the Jews, although amidst religious conflicts, before in ancient Europe.
Wellington, I recently bought a book entitled: "Saving Israel, How the Jewish People Can Win a War That May Never End," by (Senior Fellow of Shalem Center) Daniel Gordis.
Gordis wrote: "...there's no way to make sense of the euphoria in the Jewish community across the world that night (November 30, 1947) without recalling that the vote at the United Nations took place just less than three years after the liberation of Auschwitz in January 1945. The cloud of the destruction of European Jewry still hung heavily over Jewish life across the globe. The creation of the Jewish state, the first major positive turn in years, heralded, Jews hoped, an end to what had been one of the worst centuries in all Jewish history. They knew that VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE WORLD CONSPIRED (emphasis mine) to annihilate the Jews or permit their annihilation, all the while PRETENDING to be aghast. After all, FDR had closed the shores of the United States to Jewish refugees, as had Canada, and the United States failed to allocate even one bombing mission to the railroad tracks leading to Auschwitz. The British for their own internal reasons, had also prevented Jews who were fleeing Hitler to enter Palestine...."
How would you answer Dr. Gordis Wellington? How would you answer the blood of six million murdered that cries out from the ground because the Christian world either conspired to annihilate the Jews or permit their annihilation? In what way do you defend Christian Europe and Christian America? America is in forefront of this effort to establish a Muslim-terror state in Israel strategic heartland. God (if you will) has blessed America. Is this any way to repay God for all these blessings?
The top echelon of conservatives in America have people pulling them every which way. Many times they are pulled in the wrong direction. But my initial reply to you had to do with the rank and file of Christians in America and I would vigorously assert again that such rank and file overwhelmingly support the right of Israel to exist. In fact, Israel would be hard pressed to find anywhere in the world a greater group of supporters of the Jewish state than American Christians. Do you dispute this?
Michael Medved and Dennis Prager, religious Jews and radio talk show hosts as I'm sure you know, have regularly indicated their gratitude to American Christians in the aggregate (while also duly noting the fooish minority of Christians in America who have taken the Palestinian Arab side) for their strong support of Israel. Do you dispute these two men?
I don't mean to pick a fight, wildjew. It's just that I am flabbergasted that you might really think that most American Christians support the destruction of Israel. Your turn.
Examples, please.
None of us make any secret of our religious affiliations -- we're not under Sharia, so we don't have to. But our archives prove that Jihad Watch reports on the persecution of all non-Muslims and even minority Muslim groups.
You're welcome to present examples of excessive "sarcasm and adjectives" if you like. But if you don't like someone's style, you don't like their style. Still, I find the allegations about credibility to be... not credible.
What you're alleging there is an imbalance of style and substance that I just don't see. I know of no other person in this area who can quote not only chapter and verse of the Qur'an, but ahadith, Qur'anic commentary, classic Islamic biographies of Muhammad, and manuals of jurisprudence so fluently to support a point. That's credibility.
Wellington, I am convinced, the vast majority of Christians go to church on Sundays to hear a candied sermon about how "Jesus loves me" and that one's personal salvation is assured. "Jesus loves me, this I know....because the bible tells me so....." They read from the New Testament, ignoring the Bible (the scripture) that Jesus the Jew read, by and large. It's all about Jesus and how he saves the Christian believer from all his or her sins. It's about "me" and how I will go to heaven.... "Don't worry. be happy." Do you really think most Christians have a clue who Jesus was and is? Do you think American Christians could see Jesus today as a Zionist whose heart is with these Jewish men and women living in obedience and faith in Judea and Samaria? No Wellington, I submit to you and katharina, most Christians haven't a clue who Jesus was and is. That is why America is falling prey to the global and the domestic jihad; because American Christians (with very few exceptions) worship an idol; a false god. They do not worship the Holy One of Israel. A former Baptist minister once told me, were Jesus here today, most Christians would not recognize him.
Hi, Wellington - Answering your semi-rhetorical question: What is it going to take to achieve a consensus on the total danger of Islam and what to do? The only answer is mainstream TV networks have to get on board and systematically educate and edify the public about it for an extended length of time. We have a window of opportunity now, in the context of 1400 years of history, and if we human beings don't deal with it effectively now (during the next five, ten, twenty years) then we can all pack up and go home forever. It's going to take a whole lot more than what we've already accomplished via the internet and via the good work of Spencer and Emerson et al. It can only be done step by step. We shall see. Hang in there.
"Either way, his hearings are shaping up to be useless, or worse."
It's that little "or worse" part that I'm concerned about. Wildjew is right, King is caving. As soon as I saw the words "Muslim Community" in his rhetoric I knew his "hearings" were over before they began. Even if they wanted to (and they don't), muslims from within the "community" will not testify against their own people. And you know they're lobbying against folks like Spencer & Emerson, that's the last ting they want! Does King expect muslims to commit public political suicide? Quite the contrary, by eliminating the truth-tellers they'll use this as a stage to press the case that they're victims of "islamophobia." that "We just need to understand and respect them," that it's "just a few isolated cases,"
ad nauseum. This is the islamic claptrap we get every day--now he's setting-up to put a congressional stamp of approval on it? If he won't hear people like Spencer and Emerson, that's exactly the islamo-political theater we can expect. I would prefer he cancel his hearings to this outcome. If he can't man-up he should stand-down.
King is a politician and you can't separate politics from political correctness. Until it becomes "poitically correct" for an anti-muslim stance--or at least an objective view--politicians won't carry this fight. And politics, finally, is government. And as we watch King slowly wilt and cave, we're seeing again how that really works...
My answer to Dr. Gordis, wildjew, would be this: Jan Karski. Bet Gordis would have a very difficult time explaining this one in light of what he (Gordis) asserted. Since I can't do any better than directly quote the Oxford Companion To World War II, I will directly quote the Oxford Companion To World War II on "Jan Karski."
Thus: Karski, Jan (b.1914) Pseudonym of Jan Kozielewski, an emissary between the Polish Socialist party and the Polish government-in-exile in London. In November 1942 he reached London with details of the Final Solution. Having entered Belzec disguised as a guard, he gave an eyewitness account of it in action to, among others, (Anthony) Eden and Roosevelt. When he described the fate of European Jews to (Supreme Court) Judge Felix Franfurter (himself an American Jew) in New York, the judge's reply was typical of western reaction to the news of the Final Solution, which others had already reported: he said he did not believe him. When Frankfurter was assured that Karski was telling the truth he replied: "I did not say this young man was lying. I said I cannot believe him. There is a difference."
You see, wildjew, folks like Dr. Gordis, in full Monday-morning quarterback mode, can quite easily condemn someone like FDR and the Allies in general, all the while not noting that at the time reports of what the Germans were doing were simply not believed. Yes, some thought that such accounts may be true, but until the very end of the war, when Allied soldiers liberated the concentration and death camps (with five death camps specifically alloted for destruction of Jews), even high commanders like Eisenhower and Patton had no idea of what was really going on. All this was not indifference to Jewish suffering, wildjew, but rather a very human refusal to think that anyone, even Nazis, could be so barbaric. Yes, in the last days of 1944 and into 1945, Roosevelt and Churchill did have further confirmation of what was going on, but the death camps were located deep in Nazi-held territory and not subject to easy bombing. Both FDR and Churchill concluded that even if the worst reports were true, the best way to end the carnage of Jewish, Polish, Czech and others was to bring the war to a conclusion as quickly as possible. How easy to criticize, as Dr. Gordis has, when all the information is before you some half century or more after the event. This is how I answer Dr. Gordis, wildjew.
King has a duty to the American people to hear the expert testimonies of Emerson, Spencer and Gaffney.
His failure to do so, is an inexcusable withholding of information which is both pertinent and crucial to the intent of these hearings.
Pete, it's your call !
Domenick,
Veterans Against Jihadism
You paint Christians with a very broad brush, wildjew. Though not a Christian myself, I think you don't comprehend that a very large percentage of Christians are more subtle and understanding of broader things, including what Jesus was about, than many critics of most Christians maintain, including you. I think it a caricature of Christians, not an accurate depiction, contra the Baptist minister you spoke to, that the vast majority of Christians would not recognize Jesus were he to come back today. Yes they would I would vigorously assert.
In short, wildjew, I think you do most Christians a disservice. I hope you appreciate the irony that it has taken a non-Christian (i.e., me) to convey this to you. In all of this, I write with respect and I mean no insult to you. I "only" am engaging in avid debate. I trust you understand this.
What would happen if Rep. Peter King is able to demonstrate by means of congressional hearings open to the public that Muslims will not testify in any helpful real way against anyone within the Muslim community? If that can be dramatized and proven by prima facie evidence by means of artful conducting of Congressional hearings, then at least something has been accomplished. And that, in fact, is what Pete King has said he wants to do (so to speak) and, for the time being, nothing more than that. When Muslims either refuse to attend and give testimony, or give evasive useless testimony it will tell the U.S. public something about Muslims they need to know.
But I can only conjecture what exactly Pete King is planning to do. I will wait and see before judging the man. You can do what you do.
Robert Spencer, God bless him, will continue to do what he does so ably. No one's preventing anyone from educating and informing the public in ways they can.
'Radicalization' = 'recruitment for Jihad'.
I shall indeed hang in there, Bhobby. After all, what is the alternative? The one thing I will never do, and what I would counsel anyone not to do, is give up. Hell, what's the point? Might as well go down fighting than live as a slave, in this case slavic submission to the fictitious Allah. And, in the alternative, assuming for argument's sake that Islam is the true religion, then all those who prize their humanity and value liberty must, like Prometheus, defy the Islamic Zeus. Better noble and defeated than submissive and victorious. Live Free or Die as the New Hampshire motto has it (no Muslim at any time in Islam's sorry 1400-year history could have ever come up with a motto as enlightened as New Hampshire's and this in itself is a telling indictment of Islam).
In full agreement with you that much more has to be done, via the Internet et al. Robert Spencer and other intrepid souls (e.g., Pamela Geller and Stephen Emerson), who have been villified for speaking the truth about Islam, must, if victory for liberty is the end result, be "only" the vanguard of a mass movement against what I think may very well be the last, but strongest, totalitarian ideology to pose to mankind the choice between freedom and domination. The clock's ticking.
"No one's preventing anyone from educating and informing the public in ways they can."
Really? Well, I say that Peter King is preventing Robert Spencer and Steve Emerson form educating and informing the public, by effectively removing one of the "ways they can." And in a high-government proceeding (just where it's needed) in the very areas of their expertise, no less. I call that witholding information and cheating the public. I also call that caving-in to muslim pressure.
We'll see how it goes, I hope King proves me wrong, but from what I see already I won't bet the farm on it...
Submissive and victorious = something very Muslim and Mohammedan about that credo. On the other hand there is being noble and yet defeated = something very un-muslim about that, something almost Christian there, something Hellenic-Hebraic in nobility defeated.
Spencer and Emerson are "controversial" figures and their presence at the hearings would make it aboout "them" and offer another chance for supremist organizations like CAIR to cry victim. I see nothing wrong with King inviting ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Muslim Zuhdi Jasser to the hearings.Both are champions of free speech and equality both of which islamic supremists oppose.
I saw Jasser interviewed on O'Reilly where he condemned Pakistan's barbaric blasphemy laws.O'Reilly pointed out that CAIR had been invited to comment on the blasphemy laws yet they were "too busy" to come on the show.Jasser's organization was also among the first to set up a legal defense fund for any American who might be sued for reporting suspicious conduct in associated with the CAIR linked flying imam case.I think Jasser will be an impressive witness who will help put the focus on the responsibility of Muslims to step forward as citizens. Rather then whether or not King invited "islamophobes" to the hearing. I also read that King is set to be the first guest on Brigette Gabriel's show, doesn't sound like he's backing down to me.
Hi, WildJew - You've aroused my curiosity. You say there's a radio talk show in Florida which has a "W appreciation Day". That's hilarious. I wouldn't listen to it, myself. I'm a political conservative, and many of us always knew that "W" wasn't much of a conservative (putting it mildly). Here in the NY radio market, there's no such thing even wildly resembling W- Appreciation. The NY based talk show hosts - Mark Levin, Hannity, Steve Mallsberg, Glenn Beck, etc. have already phased out George Bush almost completely. NYC-style conservatism is virtually Bush-free, finally, thankfully. They started the phase-out during W's final year, little by little and the process is now pretty much done.
I hope you're enjoying the balmy weather down there.
If everyone here, on Atlas, etc., could phone, write, bitch and moan to King's office about his irresponsible behavior about the fact that he has whimped out, maybe something could change. How can we pressure him?
The vast majority of Christians support Israel's destruction. Otherwise it would not be U.S. policy.
Wild Jew, I respectfully disagree with both of these statements. I am a Christian and I don't personally know anyone, Christian or otherwise, who supports the destruction of Israel! Quite the contrary; all the Christians I know are avid supporters of Israel and understand the overwhelming obstacles Israel has faced since 1948. Every May when Israel celebrates its birthday, thousands of local residents participate in the celebration with the Jewish community. I live in the deep south, where we're all supposed to be incorrigible bigots and racists and where many would look first to find such enmity but if it exists, it is well hidden.
As for the U.S. government's position on Israel, nobody knows what Obama is doing, including Obama, and God knows I loathe the man and everyone in his Marxist administration, but I don't think he's out to destroy Israel as much as placate his muslim brothers. I believe the U.S. has been supportive of Israel over the last sixty years, some administrations more so than others. I realize an islamic state next door to Israel is not a desirable scenario but the maniacs are already there and they aren't going away. I certainly don't support a Palestinian 'state' for the muslims but there are forces bigger than all of us that will continue to demand one.
Perhaps I am naive or have somehow managed to tune out the endemic Jew hatred and anti-Zionism you see among Christians but I have never heard a Christian cleric espouse such sentiments from the pulpit, or utter an unkind word against Jews and Israel.
Katharina, Ellison is a Democrat, among other foul things.
To Marisol, and all the others who responded to my comment:
I absolutely agree with all of you that Mr. Spencer should be front and center, and the most important witness at Mr. King's hearings and all such hearings. I WOULD LIKE NOTHING BETTER THAN FOR MR. SPENCER TO APPEAR AND BE GIVEN FULL AUDIENCE AT EVERY MAJOR PUBLIC EVENT AND TELEVISED PRESENTATION ON ISLAM. I doubt that there is anybody in the world who is more knowledgeable on the subject. There is nobody who appears more dignified and rational on camera regarding Islam.
But I am talking about how reality operates and the public perception of images that get projected. Mr. Spencer's frequent off-camera use of descriptive labels and personal attacks (justified as they may be) don't sit well with an audience that does not know Islam in the level of detail that he does. Those labels and personal attacks have been used to paint an image of him (as well as Geert Wilders) as an irrational, rabid, Muslim-hater.
Even people like Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali are being painted as opportunists seeking to defame Islam for personal gain.
What makes me hopeful is the outcome of the debate that was shown on Bloomberg TV. There was a gigantic shift in public opinion against Islam when all the facts were presented. I have never seen such a shift after any public presentation.
The anti-jihad battle can be won, but it will have to be done carefully with a lot of thought.
Chins up, everyone. Things are going well. This is a process of education. Everyday, another liberal shakes their head in confusion wondering why their worldview no longer matches the world. So, continue to chip away at this multicultural shell of tolerance. Only through education and knowledge will they see the facts of the world today. That if you want to achieve the highest ideals, you must also defend them.
Beyond that, I support Rep. King and and I agree with Arthur about Robert Spencer testifying.
Arthur, I see you're still the full-of-shit, self-proclaimed expert jihad-fighter that you advertised yourself months ago here. YOU have all the answers, if only Spencer would listen to YOU. He has the wrong approach, uses the wrong words, blah, blah, blah. Recall when you were challenged that, if you could do it better, why not do it yourself? You responded that for some undisclosed "personal reasons" your identity couldn't be revealed. But Spencer had it wrong and YOU had it right!
Riiiight!
If Mr.Spencer needs your advice I'm sure he'll call, Arthur. That could be a very long wait, but at least it'll give you more time (clearly needed) to get over yourself.
Arthur, I see you're still the full-of-shit, self-proclaimed expert jihad-fighter that you advertised yourself months ago here. YOU have all the answers, if only Spencer would listen to YOU. He has the wrong approach, uses the wrong words, blah, blah, blah. Recall when you were challenged that, if you could do it better, why not do it yourself? You responded that for some undisclosed "personal reasons" your identity couldn't be revealed. But Spencer had it wrong and YOU had it right!
Riiiight!
If Mr.Spencer needs your advice I'm sure he'll call, Arthur. That could be a very long wait, but at least it'll give you more time (clearly needed) to get over yourself.
Apologies for the duplicate-post. It did that all by itself...
Arthur, I partly agree with you on one thing: I doubt it helps the anti-jihad cause when Spencer responds to vicious slander against him not merely by correcting the falsehoods, but also by pointing out the vicious characteristics of the slanderer. When Spencer does that, the average bystander, who doesn't know who started the fight or what it's about, perceives only two people in a brawl, is not sure whom to believe, and thinks "damn them both." Whereas if Spencer were to avoid pointing out the vicious qualities and behaviors of the slanderer, and in a dispassionate, almost scientific, fashion merely corrected the inaccuracies in the slander, he would come out of it looking as decent as he is, and it could be left to others to come to his defense and direct some critical fury at the slanderers' viciousness. Critical fury seems likely to be more convincing when coming from third parties. Spencer's goal presumably is to educate large numbers of people who don't know much about Islam. Many of them are in the position of the bystander who doesn't know or much care who started the fight or what it's about. A dispassionate and positive approach that avoids any focus on the vicious qualities of slanderers might better serve Spencer and the large numbers Spencer is seeking to teach.
But Spencer is Spencer, and perhaps he has fully-deliberated reasons for dealing as he does with slanders against him.
From Bhobby: "He has said he wants to know why and how all these domestic homegrown terrorists manage to avoid being turned in by friends and relatives."
This issue is also addressed in the CSP Team B (II) report:
"Too many Muslims, to borrow a metaphor from Mao, provide the sea in which the jihadis swim. By offering little meaningful opposition to the jihadist agenda and by meekly submitting to it, a large number of Muslim communities and nations generally project a tacit agreement with jihadis’ ends, if not with their means. At the very least, they exhibit an unwillingness to face the consequences of standing up to shariah’s enforcers within Islam. Such consequences include the distinct possibility of being denounced as an apostate, a capital offense under shariah."
Regarding Arthur's comments on Robert's sarcasm, I have never been to one of his presentations, but I have seen the video of last years FDI CPAC seminar, and he has been a frequent quest at ABNSAT's Jihad Exposed program. I would say that when "preaching to the choir", he does take some fun, good-natured pokes at Islam's idiocy, but when on a program with Muslims, I have observed nothing but the utmost respect and decorum. Of course, here at JW, most of his article prefaces are peppered with some sarcastic barbs, but, really, this is just minor fun - nothing to get excited about.
Wildjew, we cannot accept that Christians are united with Muslims in a common goal to destroy Israel. Modern-day Israel was born because of the pledge of the Christian nations to restore the Jews to their historic homeland. Movements against that in recent times are a part of the postmodern liberal-progressive alliance with the socialist political objectives of Islam. Furthermore, the destruction of Israel is not US policy. US support for Israel has suffered under the Obama adminstration. You can't base an entire paradigm on Dr. Gordis's conspiracy theory. Wellington's exposition is very articulate and well thought out. Your comments on Christian worship style also shows a lack of knowledge of the variety of attitudes in the multitude of Christian denominations. Telling us that we don't have a clue about Jesus is a remark that smack of the epitome of arrogance. Who are you to pass judgement on the educational experiences of millions of people that you don't know and have never met?
John, you wrote: "Who are you to pass judgement on the educational experiences of millions of people that you don't know and have never met?"
I have fifty eight years of living amongst and interacting with Christian friends and neighbors. I am too inquisitive; even with ministers I query them. What do American Christian ministers teach the flock on Sunday? Do they teach their flock, we are in a struggle for our survival? Recently, I asked a minister of a prominent local church (a friend attends the church), his view on the many prophecies (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah, etc.) about restored Israel and the "last days." That is a central theme in our prophets, wouldn't you agree? He told me he'd never given it much thought!
Behold John. Christian America likes our Muslim-born president who has deep sympathies for the world of Islam:
WASHINGTON — An overwhelming majority of Americans like US President Barack Obama....Half of those surveyed say he deserves a second term, and independents, whose support will be critical in 2012, are evenly divided on that question. Obama is getting the benefit of the doubt despite concerns about his policies, a reflection based in large part on his likability.....
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=204659
Maybe R. Limbaugh was not wrong when he told his listening audience, "I hope Obama fails." Could a Hitler be elected president one day by the American people?
Sorry, Wellington's exposition on the Holocaust did not satisfy me. But for a few "Righteous Gentiles" who risked their lives to save Jews from the Nazis, Christian Europe, Christian America, etc., stood idly by the blood of their neighbor, THOUGH the mass-genocide was well-known at least by 1942. Later, the Allies bombed Monowitz-buna. The bombers were only five miles from the Auschwitz crematoria. Winning the war against Germany about saving western democracies from murderous totalitarianism. Today we see the Christian nations allied with Islam toward the destruction of Israel at the hands of the jihad. It did not begin with Obama. It will not end with Obama. It is not inconceivable to me that one day (like George H. W. Bush did with Iraq in the Gulf War) some future US president could form a similar coalition of (Muslim and non-Muslim) nations to go against a recalcitrant Israel, as was foretold by the prophet Ezekiel.
Fow what it's worth, I have thought that Arthur's rare comments on this site have always been intelligent, thoughtful, reasonable and constructive. Or, at least, the few comments that I remember reading from Arthur.
We need to encourage posters like him to contribute. Instead what I see happening is some of us are misunderstanding his recent posts and crticizing him for trying to be helpful. Not a good way to build a coalition, eh?
What also needs to be said is that Jasser and Ali cannot adequately testify to the political, economic and military strategies being employed by Radical Islam and the organizational nexus between them.
If King wants to hold a philosophy class in the senate's chamber, Jasser and Ali would foot the bill. However if King is serious about getting down to business, he and the American people need Spencer, Gaffney and Emerson.
PERIOD !
Do your homework katharina. Kieth Ellison is a Democrat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Ellison_%28politician%29
Wildjew, most Christians I have met are very excited about modern-day Israel as a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. I think that is a major factor in strong support of Israel among the Christian community.
In an update on the situation at Pamela's site, she posted a more recent comment from Emerson stating that he supports King and apologizing for his "intemperate" language in his initial reaction.
Unless that's a hoax, it would seem that King must have explained to Emerson what he is doing; perhaps this is an initial hearing to expose the resistance/indifference/mendacity of "moderate" Muslims in America, to be followed by experts like Robert and Emerson.
We should give King a chance before condemning him; if his hearing turns out to be merely obfuscation and not the start of a thorough -- and honest -- examination of Islam, then let him have it.
Respectful pressure is always a good idea.
Just to throw my 2 cents' worth in: (re:posts w/Arthur, Marisol and the rest)
Arthur says:
"Mr. Spencer has lost a little credibility before a mainstream, public, and initially neutral audience, because of the frequent use of sarcasm and adjectives ... This approach builds a following, but is ineffective as a means of persuasion. Sarcasm and adjectives always give the impression that the speaker is in a weak and frustrated state of mind."
_______________________
With respect Arthur, I really think you should examine your posts more, before committing... to wit:
"Mr. Spencer has lost a little credibility...initially neutral audience,...use of sarcasm and adjectives..."
___________
Let's start with this, Arthur. How the heck do you know, or can you quantify a supposed "lack of credibility"?
___________
Next - the use of adjectives is extremely commonplace when we attempt to describe things, as you know. Sarcasm is not to be disparaged, either, in communicative purposes. Read Moliere, if you already haven't. A prominent poster on this site, Sean, has rightly encouraged the use of ridicule, mockery and sarcasm w/regard to Islam and Mahoundians. These are among our most valuable tools in our fight against Fascist Islam.
___________
Next - What the hell is an "initially neutral audience"? That is, kind sir, an oxymoron, I think.
___________
Finally, your prime assertion that the use of sarcasm and adjectives somehow weakens Mr. Spencer's position is just silly.
As Marisol says, "Proof, please".
"But on one thing Christianity and Islam agree; that is on the destruction of Israel."
What rubbish, wildjew. The majority of true Christians fully support Israel! And the small minority that don't? ...well, I would simply call their "faith" in Jesus Christ into question, nothing more than that; and as you stated earlier, Jesus was/is a Zionist, so on that we can both agree.
Also, Jesus Christ is Messiah as foretold by Isaiah the prophet ...
Please read this excerpt from the link below:
"Isaiah the prophet lived in Jerusalem about 2700 years ago, during the time in which the Assyrian Empire conquered the northern part of the Jewish homeland. The book of Isaiah contains many prophecies that are interpreted by Christians (including us at this web site) as being about the Messiah Jesus Christ. Today, we can see with our own eyes that many of Isaiah's prophecies have found fulfillment with the worldwide dispersion of Jews, the worldwide persecution of Jews, the recent worldwide migration of Jews back to Israel during the past century, the recent re-establishment and restoration of Israel, and the worldwide impact that Jews have had on the world.
100 Prophecies, explains how Bible prophecies have been fulfilled in history" ...
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/isaiah.htm
The above link provides the passages from Isaiah which describe Jesus Christ as Messiah to a T.
As a former Long Islander, I am extremely disappointed with Rep. King. He either fell down and hit his head or is a total sellout. From his whitewash of the downing of TWA Flight 800 by Al Qaeda to the hearings about radicalized Muslims with the predetermined outcome to the ridiculous and unconstitutional requirement of keeping armed citizens 1000 feet away from the "ruling class", he needs to sit down and take a deep breath. He's talking so much that not enough oxygen is reaching his brain.
You and I are in complete agreement, champ, that wildjew's assertion that Christianity and most Christians support the destruction of Israel is simply nonsense. The exact opposite of wildjew's contention is where the truth lies. Other than some anecdotal accounts wildjew has proffered, he really offers nothing in the way of proof that most Christians are anti-Israel. In fact, I'm perplexed that he would argue a position for which there is basically no evidence. I think wildjew has a bias against Christianity and this is the genesis of why he asserts what he does.
Hope you're doing fine in this damn cold winter we're having. My best to you and yours.
wildjew,
Your attempt to link Christianity to today's political calculations in service to jihad are absurd, especially when the politicians setting policy are predominantly God-hating leftists.
The push for a "two-state" solution by any actual Christians is motivated by a misguided sense of fairness founded on absolute, genocidal ignorance of Islam.
And Luther was no Hitler. His "little book" was a theological argument echoing Moses' own words -- YHWH's commands to faithful Israel -- in Deuteronomy 13, bookended by statements of love, respect, and genuine concern.
(No, I don't support Luther's recommendations or tone in that text, but he was not some sort of anti-Semitic proto-Hitler.)
Wild Jew wrote:
Sorry, Wellington's exposition on the Holocaust did not satisfy me. But for a few "Righteous Gentiles" who risked their lives to save Jews from the Nazis, Christian Europe, Christian America, etc., stood idly by the blood of their neighbor, THOUGH the mass-genocide was well-known at least by 1942. Later, the Allies bombed Monowitz-buna. The bombers were only five miles from the Auschwitz crematoria.
..............................
Wild Jew, I have a friend whose father was involved as a young GI with the liberation of Dachau concentration camp. They expected to find a labor camp with rather brutal conditions, but *no one* was ready for the horror they would see there. They were utterly shocked. Some in the West may have grasped the extent and full, genocidal extent of the Holocaust at the time, but the average American—even in the military—certainly did not.
Most Americans simply could not credit such motives before seeing the proof with their own eyes.
More:
Today we see the Christian nations allied with Islam toward the destruction of Israel at the hands of the jihad.
..............................
Firstly, as noted by several posters above, many Christians fully support Israel. The other issue is that many in the US simply fail to see Islam for the full, genocidal threat to Israel and the Jews that it is. This should not be a surprise—the whole point of the article above is that many Americans fail to see Islam as a serious threat *in general*.
Twenty-five years ago, I was a big supporter of the "two-state solution". Was it because I wanted to see the destruction of Israel? *God, no*. I was simply hopeful and rather credulous—although, even at that time some of the Muslim rhetoric I heard was starting to make me doubt "Palestinian" commitment to the "peace process".
Even among those critical of Israel, only a small and very ugly minority actually want to see the destruction of Israel. I have a number of very liberal friends and family members, and they simply *cannot believe* that Israel and the Jews are in any real danger, or that Muslims really want to see Israel's destruction. Even after hearing Ahmadinejad baldly threaten to "wipe Israel off the map", they are apt to chalk such statements up to "colorful" rhetoric, and not take it all that seriously.
For what's it's worth, they react in just the same manner to cries of "Death to America!"
This will, indeed, sound very similar to the case vis-a-vis the Holocaust—most Americans simply *can't believe that anyone could be serious about such things*. How can this be possible, post-Holocaust? Most Americans, out of a combination of historical ignorance and willful naiveté, choose to believe that the Holocaust was an aberration—a historical "one-off", and that no one but the Nazis could *ever* conceive of such horror.
Such ignorance certainly *could* lead to America failing to fully defend Israel, and has led to urging Israel to engage in pointless "peace talks with the Palestinians" and foolish policies like ending "settlement building" or loosening security policies, that can only weaken her.
Ultimately, such views are hardly benign—but they in no way constitute an *actual desire to ally with Islam toward the destruction of Israel at the hands of the jihad*.
I believe the situation is worse in Europe, where some actually do want to see Israel seriously harmed or even destroyed—and I certainly have been disturbed by the actions and attitudes of our current "Commander in Chief". But I believe that most Americans would be completely horrified by any such suggestion.
Arthur's comments on Spencer are unfounded; as I was discovering the truth about Islam after 9/11, one thing stood out about Robert's work, and I've stated this to others: If anything, Robert's TOO fair, TOO decent. He never fails to present the facts fairly.
Every example I've seen of Robert's use of sarcasm, etc. has been either a restrained response to Islam's apologists' destructive, vile, and murderous words or a gentle pointing-out of the absolute, suicidal absurdity of non-Muslims' defense of Islam.
If Arthur is sincere, he owes Robert an apology.
Rather than marginalized, Spencer ought to be the Secretary of State.
Hi, Wellington ...
I have also observed the bias over the years against Christians that you mentioned. This seems to have clouded wildjew's judgment in diligently, and honestly, pursuing the facts regarding his stated claim. The only thing that this cloud on his judgment has produced is fictitious garbage. More to the point, they are lies against the church of Jesus Christ, so thank you for defending what is true.
Hey thank you ...I too hope that you and yours are fine; and I am enjoying the nice weather here in SoCal with my windows open wearing nothing but a tank top and shorts. And call me crazy, but I loooove the snow! ...wish it would snow here :)
Wildjew, gravenimage, I fear has made up his mind about the WWII era (and other matters) and no amount of evidence contradicting his take on things is going to dissuade him. I have, on previous occasions, tried to demonstrate how Pope Pius XII's calculated strategy in dealing with the Nazis actually saved hundreds of thousands of Jewish lives. It does not matter to him since he sees one thing and one thing only on this matter---that Pius did not speak out forcefully and often enough against the iniquity which was Nazism, never mind that if he had he would not have rescued nearly as many people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, as he did. Ditto for the concentration camp issue. I gave a very specific explanation disputing his take on things, complete with a long quote from the Oxford Companion To World War II on the Jan Karski "episode," and wildjew simply ignored what I provided him in my 6:28 post from yesterday. He's determined to put forth his version of events, whether related to the past or present, with theory always first and foremost in mind, damn the facts if they contradict the theory.
gravenimage wrote:
"Most Americans, out of a combination of historical ignorance and willful naiveté, choose to believe that the Holocaust was an aberration—a historical "one-off", and that no one but the Nazis could *ever* conceive of such horror."
The more I learn about Islam and think of the similarities with the Nazis and Communists, the more I realize that evil is the same in every generation. The actors change, but the play remains the same.
I think about the calls to create a Greater Germany and the calls to create a Greater Islamic Caliphate. All the propaganda merely serves as an excuse to bring in totalitarian powers that use that power to violently control and abuse the people.
More:
"Such ignorance certainly *could* lead to America failing to fully defend Israel"
It has done more and worse. As a consequence, American is not defending Lebanon from falling to Hezbollah and Islam, and likely will not help South Sudan if attacked by the north. Carolyn Glick's recent column on Sudan talks about the British and French preferring Arab imperialism to their Christian and Jewish client states. I'm not sure what is the reason behind that:
Sudan Crossroads
http://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18620.xml
Amillennialist, you wrote: "Your attempt to link Christianity to today's political calculations in service to jihad are absurd, especially when the politicians setting policy are predominantly God-hating leftists...."
Was self-professed Christian, President George W. Bush a God-hating leftist in your opinion? Bush had the support of millions of conservative American Christians; as did his foreign policy.
Wellington, you wrote: "I gave a very specific explanation disputing his take on things, complete with a long quote from the Oxford Companion To World War II on the Jan Karski "episode," and wildjew simply ignored what I provided him in my 6:28 post from yesterday...."
I went to an on-line edition of the Oxford Companion To World War II. Wellington, you left out an inconvenient fact. There are more inconvenient facts that you left out. Your assertion "that at the time reports of what the Germans were doing (to the Jews were simply not believed" is contrary to the historical record Wellington.
Well then, wildjew, since you assert I left out "inconvenient facts," why not list them? What are they? And, still, how do you explain the Jan Karski episode I narrated? Are you just going to ignore it because it doesn't fit in with your theories? Remember too, that I said that by the last days of 1944 and into early 1945 the reports of what was happening in territory not easily accesible to Allied bombing had come to the attention of Roosevelt and Churchill and they both concluded that this was all the more reason to end the war as quickly as possible. How easy it is over a half century later for armchair historians to criticize those in the arena.
From Oxford Companion to World War II: "BECAUSE OF KARSKI'S EVIDENCE, the Polish government-in-exile made a formal appeal the Allied governments. On 17 December, they issued a formal DECLARATION 'condemning this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination', etc.
Why, Wellington, would the Allies issue this declaration in light of your view, no one believed these reports?
Perhaps because Karski's 'evidence' was further confirmation of massive evidence already flowing to the British Foreign Office, the Vatican and the U.S. State Department, etc., including that of Gehard Riegner (Aug. 1942): "Received alarming report that in Fuhrers headquarters plan discussed and under consideration all Jews in countries occupied or controlled Germany number 3½ to 4 million should after deportation and concentration in East at AT ONE BLOW EXTERMINIATED to resolve once and for all Jewish question in Europe...."
Back to Karski.
Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Richard Law: "...on the State Department's knowledge of German character and Nazi ideology it probably seemed to them that there was nothing intrinsically improbable about (Karski's) story."
British Foreign Office, Secretary Frank Roberts: "It occurs to me that this is not a very suitable moment to breathe fire and fury against Germans in connection with their treatment of the Jews, since Hitler has in his power our former friends in France (etc.).. It therefore seems to me inadvisable to irritate him (Hitler) more than necessary particularly on a JEWISH issue."
On the morning or December 2 (1942) both the BBC, and the Foreign News Department, telephoned the Central Department to ask what they should do about the 'story emanating from the World Jewish Congress', about the German Government's order 'for the extermination of the Jews in Eastern Europe'. They were told that the question of an official statement was being considered, 'and that meanwhile it seemed desirable to SOFT PEDAL the whole thing'. At the same time, the Central Department pointed out, they would not wish 'the impression to be given' that the Department 'were deliberately trying to kill the story'....
On the evening of December 2, 1942, Anthony Eden saw Soviet Ambassador Ivan Maisky, who gave his 'purely personal' approval of the idea of such a declaration, which might, he said 'GIVE THE UNHAPPY JEWS SOME COMFORT'. (Sir Martin Gilbert, "Auschwitz and the Allies: A Devastating Account of How the Allies Responded to the News of Hitler's Mass Murder")
The Polish appeal, wildjew, was issued by a government in exile that wanted to conclude the worst about a nation which had raped its country. As it turned out, the Poles in London were correct, but in 1942, with a myraid of information coming out not being able to confirm this, and with the Allies in full war mode thinking about the most efficacious course of action to eradicate the Nazi menace (as it turned out, first Operation Torch, then Husky, then Bay Water, then Overlord), it is the height of Monday-morning quarterbacking to fault the major decision makers, back in 1942, 1943, etc., with not being first and foremost concerned with reports about genocide of civilians deep in the heart of central Europe. Again, I would assert to you that with all the information that Churchill, FDR, King of Canada, DeGaulle, et al., were trying to deal with, to think that the first priority, above all, should be eliminating alleged Nazi genocide, when the Nazis were in a position to win it all, is exactly the kind of smug and comfortable historical revisionism that has led to a bastardization of history, one which plagues us to the present day and which allows, as an example, for regular excoriation of America and Israel while overlooking the far more egregious faults of freedom's enemies.
BTW, I wish you would finally grasp that had Pope Pius XII acted as you think he should have, it would have resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of more Jewish lives being lost during WWII. Among the great ironies of history, such as Beethoven going deaf and Napoleon having a dialect of Italian as his first language, is the fact that a Pope saved more Jewish lives than any other person, Jewish or non-Jewish, in history. Sadly, you remain clueless of this fact.
John wrote:
"Most Americans, out of a combination of historical ignorance and willful naiveté, choose to believe that the Holocaust was an aberration—a historical "one-off", and that no one but the Nazis could *ever* conceive of such horror."
The more I learn about Islam and think of the similarities with the Nazis and Communists, the more I realize that evil is the same in every generation. The actors change, but the play remains the same.
............................
I quite agree, John. While most Americans are quite clear-eyed about the evil of Fascism—especially Nazism—most seem largely unaware of the scope of the horrors under Stalin and Mao, as well as historical events like the Armenian genocide.
I believe some periods are worse than others, but there have been plenty of these evils throughout history.
One reason, I believe, that so many in the West remain in the dark regarding Islam is that from the ending of Barbary piracy in the early 19th-century until comparatively recently, that Islam has been largely defanged and thus limited in its capacity to cause large-scale harm outside of Dar-al-Islam.
As to the rest, I believe the United States in particular—and the West in general—has become too wedded to the concept of "stability", which in the case of the Muslim world too often means a state of Islamic oppression or worse.
I still believe it is far more often ignorance and inertia than any sort of malice that fuel most of our lapses. I fully realize that this is cold comfort when we fail to help the victims, though.
"As to the rest, I believe the United States in particular—and the West in general—has become too wedded to the concept of "stability", which in the case of the Muslim world too often means a state of Islamic oppression or worse."
One consequence I have read about this policy is that where there is repressive government, the attitude of the people is reflected by whether their government is an ally or enemy of the US. So where repressive governments hate the US, the population likes us, and vice versa.
"I still believe it is far more often ignorance and inertia than any sort of malice that fuel most of our lapses. I fully realize that this is cold comfort when we fail to help the victims, though."
Unfortunately, the consequences of the sin of omission through benign motives is just as harmful as through malevolent motives. I think we had a similar reluctance to recognize the threat both before WWII and the cold war. As you mentioned, Islam has been beaten down as a threat, so we are slow to perceive that a rag-tag band of AK47 toting militants is an existential threat to the world. I think that is part of the fear that people have of learning about Islam, because then it would mean we are on the verge of something serious (like Chamberlain pre-WWII era) rather than at the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.
You wrote: "BTW, I wish you would finally grasp that had Pope Pius XII acted (condemned Nazi atrocities) as you think he should have, IT WOULD HAVE resulted in literally hundreds of thousands of more Jewish lives being lost during WWII.....it is THE HEIGHT OF MONDAY-MORNING QUARTERBACKING to fault the major decision makers...." etc.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Monday-morning quarterbacking? I did a little catching up on my Jihad Watch reading. What I found re-affirmed my earlier statement, "on one thing Christianity (though by all means, not all Christians) and Islam agree; that is on the destruction of Israel."
"Exclusive: Archbishop Cyril Bustros clarifies his remarks at the Vatican Synod"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/exclusive-archbishop-cyril-bustros-clarifies-his-remarks-at-the-vatican-synod.html
Mr. Spencer: "....when I wrote about his remarks at the recent Vatican Synod, I was relying on incomplete and inaccurate press reports, and did not fully understand his position."
Archbishop Cyril: "We hope that this dialogue can bring us to work together to press those in authority to put an end to the political conflict which results in separating us and disrupting everyday life in our countries....recourse to the Bible cannot be used to justify political events.."
Translation: Though the jihad against Christendom and non-Muslims in general may indeed be religiously motivated, the jihad against Israel's Jews is a "political conflict," which (by means of the Jews' obstinacy), is resulting in a separation of Christians and Jews and the disrupting of everyday life in our (Christian and Muslim) countries.
Cyril: "Recourse to theological and biblical positions which use the Word of God to wrongly justify injustices is not acceptable... Israel cannot use the Biblical concept of A PROMISED LAND to justify its occupation of (Muslim-Arab) territory....We Christians cannot now speak about the Promised Land for the Jewish people....I also warned against the risk of Israel becoming an exclusively Jewish state....... Some of the Israelis based their return on the Old Testament theme of the Promised Land. But this does NOT MEAN THAT GOD IS BEHIND THEIR RETURN and their victory against the Arabs...."
I noticed Wellington, in the comments section, some Jihad Watch readers gave their imprimatur to this theologically-based justification for Israel's destruction.
Dr. Gordis wrote: "The creation of the Jewish state, the first major positive turn in years, heralded, Jews hoped, an end to what had been one of the worst centuries in all Jewish history. They knew that VIRTUALLY THE ENTIRE WORLD CONSPIRED (emphasis mine) to annihilate the Jews or to permit their annihilation, all the while PRETENDING to be aghast."
If, as Shakespeare wrote: "what's past is prologue," the entire world continues to conspire to annihilate the Jews or permit their annihilation, all the while (Wellington) pretending to be aghast.
Oh, I almost forgot:
The chosen people
Archbishop Cyril Bustros wrote: "As for the idea of the chosen people, it is clear, according to Christian theology.....after Christ there is no longer one particular chosen people!"
In an earlier piece, Robert Spencer wrote: "In 2006, Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros....said: "the doctrines of Islam dictate war against unbelievers." He pointed out that "the concept of nonviolence is absent from Muslim doctrine and practice." And he said that "peace in Islam is based on the surrender of all people to Islam and to God's power based on Islamic law. They have to defend this peace of God even by force."
"And yet at the recently concluded Vatican Synod on Christians in the Middle East, he contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council and echoed Islamic supremacist propaganda by saying that divine promises made to Israel according to Jewish and Christian Scripture "were nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people." He made no mention of the Muslim imperative to bring about "the surrender of all people to Islam" as being a possible contributing cause in the plight of Christians in the Middle East; instead, he blamed Israel only....."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/10/in-2004-emmanuel-iii-delly.html
Archbishop Cyril Bustros continues: "The chosen people was not a privilege, it was a mission: Israel was chosen by God in the Old Testament to live in holiness, to proclaim His name among the nations, and to prepare the coming of the Messiah...."
True enough. Israel was / is commanded to live in holiness.....
Yet Moses wrote: "The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples,
"but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." (Deu. chapter 7)
It was because of the oath which He swore to our forefathers that God chose Israel.
Moses says nothing about "mission" here. Nor did Moses warn that God would "nullify" this "everlasting" covenant which He made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as Archbishop Cyril Bustros declares He did. Where does Archbishop Cyril Bustros find this theologically-driven anti-Semitism Wellington?
One man does not speak for all of Christianity.
True, yet I haven't seen, read nor heard the Pope repudiate this 'one' man's anti-Semitic theologically-based position on Israel. Have you? Millions of faithful follow every word (and action) of the Pope. No?
The Pope is one man too, but he does have a lot of people who are supposed to agree with him.
And he has a lot of people who are afraid to question him, much less contradict him.
I do not believe that there is such a thing as a non violent muslim ! Why do I say that ? All one has to do is open the islamic holy book: Quran and Hadiths. What do we read ? Prejudice and hatred against all non muslims, especially Jews. One example that can be found in the Hadiths: "If you lift a stone in the desert and a jew is hidden underneath, kill him!"
Islam is fascism in my opinion, Hitler shared the same view, he said: "Islam is the only religion that I respect"