Hard-Left SPLC defames SIOA as "hate group"

Hard-Left SPLC defames SIOA as "hate group"

Just another Leftist propaganda tactic -- go to the Daily News and vote in their poll here.
..................................

I realize you can never put too much stock in these on-line polls, but right now the voting is running 66% in support of SOIC, and only 32% against (2% don't know).

SPLC is a one-trick liberal pony. It rages exclusively against the right. It claims that illegal Mexican immigrants are treated badly in the USA, yet it completely ignores how Mexico treats illegal immigrants from Central and South America.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12549484
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/widespread-abuse-migrants-mexico-human-rights-crisis-2010-04-27
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-05-25-mexico-migrants_N.htm

Robert,

My take on this and other personal attacks at the efforts of common sense-minded Americans: if you're not being smeared by the left, then you're not doing your job.

When vilified by the left, wear it as a badge of honor.

Maybe if you all got off the snyde and the stupid "misunderstanders" BS others would take you more seriously.

I have just about had it with the tongue in cheek nonsense of this blog.

PLAY IT STRAIGHT UP AND MAYBE MORE PEOPLE WOULD LISTEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These "Watchdog" groups need to be brought to heel.

They include SPLC, Leonard Zeskind, Searchlight, and Expo.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36657587/The-Watchdogs-by-Laird-Wilcox

Spread the word.

SPLC the hard left group, was discussed a while ago on one of Glen Beck's shows, it is a really far leftist to the point of being a marxist group. the one thing with Obumbler in office all of these leftist groups come out of the wood work and are quite out in the open about their motives of destroying the US/West to bring about a marxist state. When their cover is opened, the people are repulsed by these self hating groups.

(OT)

This Muslim apologist (see link) is a lying shithead. Go get him. Straighten this liar out. Write a comment here:

http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2011/02/what_it_means_to_practice_islam/?message=Comment%2Badded&type=notice#comment69325

Shame on the impoverished southern poverty law center. Will Abe Foxman (head of Anti-Defamation League) have the moral courage to condemn SPLC?

I'm with Nika on this one. She made a short criticism of this site's use of sarcasm, and you start attacking her as an Islamic apologist? She didn't say ANYTHING about our anti-jihad message! She just took issue with our style, a sentiment that I and surely many others share.

Some of you are doing a real disservice to our cause by attacking and alienating anyone who doesn't completely agree with you about everything.

Nika, if you are anti-Jihad, stick around! We aren't all crazy!

Addition to my last post:

"Crazy" is actually a bad word. Rather, some of us have a tendency to be overly defensive, even when there's no reason to. So, Nika, if you're with us on the issue of Islam, as you clearly seem to be, I really hope you stick around.

I have found that the sarcasm has been effective in getting a message across - if only to me. The use of the term 'misunderstanders of Islam' at this site is a way of appropriating a term used by the Islamic apologists, which is an effective way of showing it to be void of all meaning and highlighting how absurd it is (as Marisol said). It isn't just random sarcasm with no purpose. I have also found that Robert's use of the phrase 'will the Islamophobia never end?' whenever Muslims do something terrible really drives home the message that it's not the counter-jihadists who are the troublemakers, it's the Islamic supremacists - an obvious message but one that the mainstream media hasn't seemed to pick up on; again, a situation which is absurd and totally laughable.

The way Islam is portrayed by Islamic apologists is in itself completely laughable - even without the sarcasm Robert often employs, it's hard to take some of the stuff this site reports seriously!

Nika, I doubt anyone but you is put off counter-jihad by the mild employment of humour here. I think most people would see past it to the core message if they didn't like it - you're the only one getting worked up about it.

I consider myself a fundamental leftist and I am the first to admit that labeling SIOA as a hate group but not CAIR is a complete joke and severely strains SPLC's credibility. So you know, there are plenty of us on the left who see the proponents of Shariah/Islamic jihad for what they are: extreme right-wing religious conservatives who share nothing with the left-wing/liberal/progressive agenda. The right-wing nature of Islamic politics, of course, explains rather well why conservative American administrations and corporations have been so supportive of even the most extreme and oppressive Islamic political movements and governments over the past 60 years. That is, with American conservatives somehow thinking that having god and economics in common were a good enough political starting point for sending *trillions of dollars* of American wealth, weaponry as well as our military into the region to destroy secular governments in Iraq and Afghanistan to the benefit of extremist Islamic movements which have now replaced them.

The sooner we on the left remember what our political foundations are (i.e. not hocus-pocus multicultural gobbeldygook, but rather, human liberation and individual freedom) the sooner we can dissolve this current left-wing/Muslim shotgun marriage of stupidity. Sadly, many of my fellow left-wingers are under the spell of the proverb "my enemy's enemy is my friend" when in reality we should understand that my enemy's enemy is usually my enemy as well. It is OK to disdain the conservative American agenda AND the Islamic political agenda simultaneously. Multitasking *is* possible.

Fortunately, I see signs all around of my fellow left-wingers starting to wise up, and soon enough conservatives will again be the natural allies of Shariah/Islam supporters... against China, Europe, American Liberals or whatever other atheist and secular “evils” that lurk out there...

PS: I used to live in Saudi Arabia and frankly the Republican Party - and the Tea Party Taliban in particular - are two sides of the same coin, and I look forward to seeing all of them being swept into the dustbin of history over the course of the 21st Century.

PS: My book about being a gay American in Saudi Arabia should be out later this year. Keep your eyes open!

PS: Hey Spencer! I love this website and have been a fan for years. Keep up the good work!

I VOTED! And, of course, sounded off. Here is a copy of the comments I posted at NY Daily "News". I had to break it up into segments because it was too long for their character-limit. Sorry if it less than eloquent. I was fast & furious.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Quoting myself:

This article is loaded with blantantly FALSE 'information'. I don't know whether it is intentional dishonesty or innocent ignorance. Either way, it is incredibly irresponsible of the author and the publication.

CORKY SIESMASZKO:
PLEASE do your homework, before sounding off. You are doing yourself and your fellow citizens a great disservice with misinformation... including the peaceful Muslims you claim to protect.

LIE OR ERROR #1:
Geller's bus ad, in NO way, "urged" Muslims to leave Islam. Have you even read the ad???  If so, you would know this:
It was an ad for a *Help Line* for those Muslims who have ALREADY LEFT Islam (and for those who PLANNED on leaving) and were afraid BECAUSE THEIR OWN FAMILIES AND UMMAH HAD THREATENED THEM. Please try to get your facts straight, and report honestly.

LIE OR ERROR #2:
SIOA is a "hate group"??  Anyone who would make such an assertion knows nothing about their work.  Study up. The only "hate" you will find is that which they expose in the Islamic Supremacist agenda.

SIOA is NOT anti-Muslim. It is anti-Islamic Supremacy in America. Do yourself a favor and learn what "Islamization" means. Learn about the Islamic Supremacist agenda. Learn their objectives, plans, goals (and progress thus far) in the supremacist's OWN WORDS. Yes, THEIR OWN WORDS.

I can't comment on the rest of your inaccuracies without turning this into a frickin' book.  Speaking of books, you should read a few.

Then you should print a retraction, correction and an apology to Pamela Geller. And thank her for all her hard work in trying to protect you from the effects of radical Islamization.

What is with you so-called "liberals"?  You spend years fighting for equality and fairness. Vehemently advocating for WOMEN'S RIGHTS and GAY RIGHTS.  Now you are undermining your own efforts by defending a radical doctrine which has NO respect for women or gays.  DOES THIS EVEN MAKE ANY FRICKIN' SENSE whatsoever????  Please explain this.

The Stupid Putz Law Center is probably in cahootz with Ramsey Clark, who recently went on a cheerleading tour of Hamastan.
Don't those idiots understand that Islamic groups like ISNA, CAIR and the MSA are associated with the fascist Muslim Brotherhood, an organization which rivals the Klan in hatred and supremacism?
It's a case of the firefighters defending the arsonists.

Not my 'dirty' jokes, but just to lighten the mood a little why not serve 'em on up...

~~~

A man walks into a sex shop in Jerusalem looking for a sex doll.

Clerk: So what kind do you want? Jewish, Christian or Muslim?

Man confused: What's the difference?

Clerk: The Muslim one blows itself up.

~~~

The Imam calls in his two wives, Fatima and Ameena and their goat Farook. He looks at them with a tear in his eye and says to them that it was not Allah's will that a man should have more that two wives.

"Oh right then," Fatima replied, "I'll pack my things. I guess Ameena can feed Farook."

~~~

Q: Why do they call camels the ships of the desert?

A: Because they are full of Arab 'seamen'.

~~~

Ayesha comes to Khadija Bibi,and confides with her "Today I enjoyed the pleasures of the flesh. Mohammed came to me and told me that I had the gates to Heaven here between my legs. Then he said that he had the key to Heaven, and he put it in the gates."

"Bastard!" cried Khadija Bibi, "For years he told me it was Gabriel's trumpet and I have been blowing it."

~~~

Q: Why aren't there any Muslims in Star Trek?

A: Because it's set in the future.

"Though always left of center, the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) once had a reputation as a fairly objective civil rights group. Founded by direct-marketing millionaire Morris Dees and partner Joseph Levin Jr. in 1971, the SPLC made important and honorable contributions to many of the historic civil rights gains of the 20th Century. According to its own materials, the SPLC was "internationally known for tracking and exposing the activities of hate groups."

Alas, "power corrupts," as it goes, and the SPLC, having amassed tremendous power and wealth over the years, has regrettably become corrupt to its core. By way of an ever-escalating wave of "us-versus-them" money-grubbing schemes, Today's SPLC has morphed into a far-left political activist outfit, famous for promoting a panoply of extreme liberal causes.

The real problem lies in the fact, however, that the SPLC holds itself out as an objective monitor of potentially violent or subversive hate groups. It presents to municipal, state and federal law enforcement, regular "intelligence files" and an annual "Year in Hate" report. Ostensibly, these reports contain facts — even actionable intelligence — aimed at helping law enforcement officials prevent and/or monitor potentially violent criminal activity.

Then? Perhaps. Now? Not so much.

In recent years the SPLC reports have been utterly tainted — weaponized and used against the leftist group's ideological and political adversaries. This is a despicable, bad faith abuse of others' good will, and of the SPLC's past reputation.

Case in point: Recently, the SPLC came under fire for comparing the "Tea Party" movement and other grassroots conservatives to "terrorists." Potok slandered "Tea Party" goers, suggesting that "they are shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism," and are widely linked to "hate" and "vigilante groups." Of course there are always a few nuts in any movement, but clearly Potok's intent was to defame tens of millions of patriotic "Tea Partiers," simply because he disagrees with them.

It was earlier reported that Janet Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security relied upon similar reports by the SPLC in preparing the DHS' own slanderous — now infamous — "Right Wing Extremist" report. You may recall: it painted pretty much all conservatives with that broad, multi-colored brush of "domestic terrorism." (The report was later pulled, and Napolitano forced to apologize in shame.)

You can only cry wolf so many times before people begin to ignore you. Today, the SPLC's "hate group" reports have begun to resonate almost exclusively within a far-left echo chamber. Newsflash: Moveon.org wants Bush tried as a "war criminal," Charlie Sheen thinks the U.S. government was behind 9/11 and, yes, the SPLC has once again awarded its now meaningless "hate group" distinction to yet another conservative organization with which it is admittedly — in every way — both politically and ideologically opposed. Who would've thunk it?

Don't get me wrong. Again, in the past, the SPLC has actually done some good by identifying and monitoring real hate groups such as the KKK, neo-Nazis and Skin Heads.

But now, regrettably, the SPLC has traded in its limited usefulness for radical left-wing activism. It has become much like that which it previously sought to expose. Today it uses the very tactics employed by white nationalists and other bona fide hate groups to malign large groups of people whom the SPLC most decidedly "hates."

It's nauseatingly transparent. With empty, ad hominem attacks and pejorative "hate group" smears, the SPLC strives to politically marginalize its ideological opponents. It's a cynical "guilt-by-false-association" scheme, through which the SPLC hopes — in the public mind's eye — to equate Christians, "Tea Party" conservatives and other traditionalists to the KKK and neo-Nazis.

But, as they say: What's good for the goose... Let's try it on for size. It's a "hate group," mudslinging good time! In exercise of the SPLC's trademark "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" criterion for arbitrarily determining "hate group" status, I hereby declare the Southern Poverty Law Center an "anti-Christian, anti-conservative hate group." There, it's official. Try it. It's fun!

Heck, for that matter, so would the U.S. Armed Forces, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FDA.

Of course, like any bully, the SPLC only goes after those it believes it can push around. But really, it confers a badge of honor upon every legitimate Christian and conservative organization it so disingenuously mislabels "hate group." It's a tacit admission by the SPLC that these groups represent a political threat; that their activities undermine the SPLC's not-so-thinly-veiled, left-wing agenda. (Kind of like winning a conservative Grammy.)

Indeed, I can't speak for the many conservative and Christian organizations and ministries with which I'm associated. And of course I hate absolutely no one. Nonetheless, I'd like to officially request that the SPLC add my name to its spurious "anti-gay hate list." It's good for one's conservative and biblical bona fides."

(Hater Matt Barber hatefully sits on the hate-filled board of the official SPLC "hate group" Americans for Truth.)

© J. Matt Barber"

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/100325

I voted, for what it's worth.

This world gets more upside down and inside out by the day.

What did evil little Muhammad do to the Muslim that defied his authority and questioned the truth of his prophetic claims?

Why he had the disobedient apostate killed, of course.

These 'watchdogs' need to be handed over to PETA so that they'll know what to do w/ them - start w/ neutering, and then go on to...

OT

Sex, brothels and the REAL tyranny threatening the Arab world: Islamic fundamentalists are already imposing their own brutal puritanism

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360799/Sex-brothels-REAL-tyranny-threatening-Arab-world.html#ixzz1F2BetqBu

No, apparently you haven't had enough. You keep reading a website you find objectionable, then writing comments complaining about it. You remind me of people who read "Penthouse Letters" then write angry responses about the obscenities. Don't like our tone? Go read the Qur'an! It has the proper level of "seriousness" you might appreciate.

I believe nika has a very valid and helpful point. I also tire of the "misunderstanders" approach too many people will either take it at face value of think you are not serious. It's always helpful to get this kind of feedback

To be clear, I think Nika could have and should have been more tactful. But regardless of HER style, I do very much agree with her initial statement. Granted, no amount of sarcasm leveled at Islam would be too much for me, but I do feel that this site (and it's supporters, and it's various companion sites) needs to run a better PR campaign.

I mean, whether we personally like the sarcastic presentation of JW or not, Nika is TELLING us that it bugs the hell out of her. If she's already on our side (double-agent/troll theories notwithstanding), just imagine how a fence-sitter feels. Add to that the political Left v. Right division found in this site's editorials and postings, and I think we are scaring away millions of potential allies.

3 years ago, I had absolutely no knowledge or opinion of Islam. You know what brought me to JihadWatch? Facts. A brutal Koran verse here and an unsatisfactory explanation there. When I started paying real attention to world news, paying attention to the plight of women in Muslim countries, the plight of victims of Islamic brutality, and when I began to personally read the Koran, Haddiths, and the biography of Mohammad, I began forming my OWN conclusions. Then I stumbled upon JihadWatch and, lol and behold, I realized that Spencer's conclusions about Islam matched mine to the very letter.

How did you all come to the site? Did you just read a few posts and hop aboard? Of course not. Something disturbing made you think twice about Islam. You researched. You learned the facts. And when you realized that this was a lighthouse in a sea of bull**** you stuck around.

Frankly, I don't think the site's current style and structure is very accommodating to EDUCATION, and education is what's going to let us win this worldwide clash.

Also, we can't underestimate the importance of public image. It might seem trivial since everything we say about Islam is instantly verifiable in Islamic texts, history books, and speeches, but sadly, some people are either too lazy, too busy, or too disinterested to really research the topic and see that we're the good guys.

Our opponents are literally taking every opportunity possible to publicly smear us as either bigots or lunatics, and a major part of our campaign should be countering that. In my opinion, sarcasm always carries a hostile, belligerent subtext if you aren't the one using it, and that, I fear, may be hurting us.

Which do you think would invite more serious consideration from a fence-sitter or a naive pro-Islamic Liberal?

1) "Misunderstanders of the Religion of Peace killed forty Shiites today. Muslim Tolerance Alert! This, of course, is based on the Koran's endorsement of murdering perceived heretics and apostates, and Mohammads explicit approval of such acts. [Insert verses.]"
2) "Forty innocent Shiite men, women, and children were murdered today by Sunni Muslim terrorists. The suicide bombers shouted "Allahu Akhbar" immediately before the attack, and indeed, religious fatwas had been issued in the community calling for the death of Shiite heretics. This seems to contradict the verse in the Koran that teaches against murder, but it appears the terrorists found justification with these verses regarding apostasy, dying for Allah to guarantee oneself paradise, and even the teachings of Mohammad himself. [Insert verses.]"

I prefer #2. It allows the reader to piece together the two-piece puzzle himself - a mundane but necessary step - and it heads off the response of pseudo-liberal terrorism-supporters and moderates right off the bat.

I have a real problem with that "poll". It was obviously written by a PR hack as stealth propoganda. It isn't really asking people what they think. In fact it's specific audience are people who are not decided on the matter. It is subtly tyring to influence what they think without them realizing.

The choices:

"Yes, the group's message is disturbing." The two parts of this sentance don't belong together. The second part of that sentance is not logically related to the question. It is however something that the PR hack who wrote the poll WANTS people to associate with SIOA.

"The groups message is disturbing" does not mean it is a hate group. In fact it doesn't actually mean anything. It's vagueness could not have been by accident.

It does not mean the message is untrue. It means the message is uncomfortable to those who pick that choice in the poll. The PR hack wants people who participate in that poll to be "disturbed" by SIOA. But if they said that it would not sink in so they are trying to sneak around peoples cognitive functions and plant it in their semiconcious.

Furthermore the assertion of disturbing does not specify at all what is disturbing about the message. If it had been more specific it would have been acceptable. It is an intentional invocation of the unknown. People fear the unknown and whoever wrote that "poll" knows that. So to suggest something is unknown (such as an unspeicified disturbing message) means you want people to have a primitive fear or aversion to it.

And let's not forget it is the whistleblower who's message is disturbing.

Let me reiterate:
1.Disturbing does not equal untrue. (usually the opposite)
2.Disturbing does not equal hate.
3.Newpaper people KNOW THAT.
4.The poll was not written by a jornalist or editor.

It looks like by asking that question the way they did they want spark a semiconcious fear and thus a negative opinion of SIOA.

The 2nd "choice" was what made me suspicious in the first place.

"No, that's just another attack from the left."

If I chose that I would be identifying myself as right wing. It implies that only a right wing person would think "from the left". It is meant to give the impression that SIOA's issue is a right wing one (when it is not right wing at all)-

It also conjures up implications of a skewed perception (everything is left/right, us/them), calcified world view and rigidity of thought ("just another attack"). If you think they aren't a hate group it is because you have those negative cognitive qualities. IF you do think they are a hate group then you don't have those negative qualities and are mentally and emotionally superior to someone who doesn't think they are a hate group. If you think SIOA is bad they you have positive qualities. And if you think they are good it is because you must have negative qualities.

It is also trying to trick people into thinking it is a right/left or conservative/libral issue AND to equate right with conservative and left with libral on this issue. But we know that is not the reality. SIOA and similar groups have supporters from a wide political spectrum and are concearned about a threat to their shared libral ideals. The group they are concearned about is the very definition of Conservative Radical Right Wing.

If that poll had an objective purpose it would have read similarly to this:

Do you think SIOA is a hate group?
Yes, They are trying to make people to hate all muslims.
NO, They are presenting and reacting to an accurate picture of current events that has been caused by specific individuals but have exibited no animosity to the entire group to which those individuals belong.

But the pole was not written that way...

It would not be a waste of time to investigate who wrote that poll and at whose request.

oopsy. I just realised I blew the whole thing out of proportion and it was just tounge in cheek- but then I noticed what the poll was titled.

"Stop the Hate?" is not an objective choice of for the title of a poll. The writer is telling the poll takers that SIOA is a hate group even before asking them their opinion on the matter.

Definatly look into this Siemaszko Schmucko (and his name even sounds like schmuck - how perfect is that?)

Nika, Islam is so sickly ridiculous, sometimes you just have to laugh in its face, and mock it; and the uglier it gets, the more mocking it needs.

The ongoing saga of the Motoons is proof enough how much humour is needed, simply because they hate it. The problem some of us have with producing motoons (especially extended ones) is coming up with story endings/pubnchlines that won't get the cartoonist arrested if they don't live in the US.

SPLC is the biggest hate monger on the internet bar none. They have several ego motivated prolific bloggers who literally gang up on comments made by unsuspecting victims having an oppinion contrary to their own, then congratulate themselves for doing so. Moron is one of their favorite words charecterizing people who opine on their blog threads. What class !

Just voted. The poll is running 71% in favor of SIOA.

Nika, you seem to be a fairly recent commenter on JihadWatch. Veterans are well familiar with the mildly sarcastic tone adopted in the headlines, but almost never in the body of the stories, since the very beginning of the blog. It's mostly directed at deflating the self-important pomposity of certain high-profile Muslims, and is at its finest in exposing hypocrisy, such as with the "misunderstanders" at issue here. Other types of humor sometimes appear, such as the photoshopped picture of Ayman al-Zawahiri's to include some of Robert's book. That one has been used in several stories going back a number of years, and is greatly appreciated by most of us who understand the symbolism and juxtaposition of the various elements in the picture.

Gotta comment about the SPLC: It is firmly in the camp that draws from the lexicon of the Left, where those with whom they disagree are described in negative terms: racist, bigot, hater, etc. If nika finds the occasional and somewhat mild sarcasm of Robert objectionable, I wonder how she would characterize the vocabulary of the Left?

Like all decent, well-informed, reasonable, and intelligent people, the SIOA and all of its supporters hate: deceptive lies; rationalization of abuse and murder for personal gratification and revenge; the selfish demand for special privilege and impunity for crimes against those of another faith; the selfish demand for the "right" to plunder those of another faith and their governments, societies, and institutions; the imposition of the belief that women are inferior to men and that men have the right to abuse, dominate, control, rape, and murder women at will; the idea that women are merely property of men and men can beat them if they disobey men; the sick demand for child brides; the idea that it is perfectly acceptable to lie to those of another faith in order to lure, seduce, and/or destroy them; the ignorant assertion that passively submitted to Islam/Sharia law means peaceful; the lazy idea that appeasing aggressors buys peace; the demand for accommodation of and imposition of Sharia law on all; and the idea that most Americans are too selfish, stupid, and lazy to care about knowing the truth about Islam.

One more thought.

I see some like the sarcasm & I see some don't. I think a solution could be reached by simply toning down the sarcasm. Perhaps when people are killed by jihadists we should take a somber tone, and when jihadists are arrested or killed before they carry their attack out we can be condescending and sarcastic.

That would work for me.

People who claim to be "vets", or in complete accord with Jihad Watch, but can only complain about "sarcasm" are full of it.

There is no reason to take them seriously. I would put them in the same category of people as those who when faced with criticism of Islam change the subject to criticism of Christians.

Commenters like John, nika, and DisabledOEFOIFvet, are behaving like trolls. Why are you diverting attention to yourselves, and your trivial concerns?

Start your own websites devoted to ridding the world of "sarcasm". Call it "Sarcasm Watch" if you want, but don't kid yourself that this has anything to do with the counter jihad movement.

I'm not buying it. When he says something like -

"All the "humor" and sarcasm really should have no place in exposing the jihadists/muslims. This is not a topic where "funny" is appropriate."

I think he sounds like a Muslim, or a dhimmi.

Robert Spencer is putting himself at risk by not just reporting the headlines but, giving background to the stories.

And, what do the trolls have to contribute? They don't like the jokes; it's not respectful.

This is exactly what they are accusing Jihad Watch of doing, trivializing what is important.

If someone wants to degrade the honor of being a vet by coming here and grandstanding, and talking junk that's their business, but I'm not saluting this.

Some people here are pushing the hypothetical that less snarcasm and attitude would permit Jihad Watch to draw a larger audience. Perhaps. It's easy to come up with theories about how to improve a site like Jihad Watch. It must be a whole lot harder to actually become the top counterjihad website in the world. That's surely what Jihad Watch is. One critic, who meant well and supports Jihad Watch but not its tone, "lost it" a bit because he was tired from work. He did not offer much more than personal sentiments in support of his theory about how to improve the site's message. The majority of potential readers might or might not agree with his sentiments. Even if he were offering extensive empirical evidence on the question, he could still have been a little more humble and less aggressive. But I don't mean to rub that in, as he seems to have reconsidered his approach here, and anyway, I've made my own mistakes.

Another thing some people are not taking into account. Different teachers have different gifts, inclinations, styles. Maybe if Robert Spencer were to adopt the suggestion that he alter his style this way and that way, it would be like a top athlete altering his posture on the advice of a reckless coach. The athlete's performance might suffer. Be careful when you fiddle around with a finely tuned machine. For all you know, if you could compel your advice to be taken, it might even work like Stuxnet in the Iranian centrifuges, some of which spun themselves apart, I gather.

Furthermore, we need different kinds of leaders with different styles to reach different kinds of audiences. We need a wide range of approaches. Some people can be a little snarky. Others can be more in the mood of Christian tough love to Muslims (see, for example, the brilliant David Wood and some of his associates, or Father Zakaria Boutros). Still others can adopt other approaches. One size does not fit all. This is the West.

Spencer has the ear of some significant sections of the elites in the government, military, and intelligence. The site gets millions of visitors. Does it make sense to get worked up about how he should do things differently so he can be "successful"?

Criticism should be welcomed, but venting of one's own undigested frustrations and rages, in disregard for others and for the character of the larger situation, should be kept to a minimum.

http://www.facebook.com/preservejuly4th?sk=wall#!/photo.php?fbid=1912491971520&set=a.1525931987762.2071141.1218524955&theater

Hi, my name is Mr. Mxyzptlk, and I represent the 5th dimension.

Jihad Watch is actually MY website, but in a series of events too complicated to go into now, Jihad Watch fell into the control of Robert Spencer, and now I want it back.

I totally believe in the values of Jihad Watch (why not it’s mine), I own a dog, but I am REALLY bugged by this. If you don’t return Jihad Watch to me, I, and the rest of the 5th dimension will continue to sit on the fence instead of joining the counter jihad movement.

If you really cair about fighting jihad, you will do the adult thing, and return Jihad Watch to its rightful owner. This is your final warning before I sit on the fence HARD.

That’s all - Kltpzyxm!