Leftist dhimmi Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic calls Spencer and Geller "jihadists." I guess he watched all the YouTube videos of our beheadings of Leftist dhimmis.
Paul Woodward at the antisemitic War In Context website cites a poster for a SIOA conference that uses war imagery to claim that our martial rhetoric incited Breivik to murder. Evidently he hasn't heard of the 9/11 attacks, or the many declarations of war against the West by Islamic jihadists, or of the use of martial imagery in metaphorical contexts, such as the war on poverty.
The hapless Adam Serwer in the Washington Post lies outright when he says that "most of Geller and Spencer’s blogging consists of attempts to tar all Muslims with the responsibility for terrorism....assigning collective blame for an act of terror through guilt-by-association." In ten books, hundreds of articles, and over 25,000 blog posts, I have never "attempted to tar all Muslims with the responsibility for terrorism," and challenge Serwer to prove his claim. In reality, I have stated on this site since it began in 2003 that "any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts."
Joost Lagendijk in Today's Zaman echoed Serwer's falsehoods. Do your own work, Joost! Do not copy off your neighbor's paper!
An unsigned editorial in the Los Angeles Times says the same thing, but tries to provide some evidence for the claim: "What Spencer failed to address is the fact that his site, and others cited by Breivik such as The Gates of Vienna, make a habit of blaming all Muslims for the actions of a minority of violent jihadists. As an example of Spencer's thinking, he wrote in November that the Transportation Security Administration should profile and give extra screening attention to Muslim males at airports, because this is the likeliest group to commit acts of terrorism. One could as easily argue that special attention should be paid to white males. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, the Unabomber's reign of terror, the Tucson shootings and, now, the mass murder in Norway, this population also appears prone to terrorist violence."
That's four white male terrorists, versus 17,000+ jihad terror attacks since 9/11 committed by Muslim males (many of whom were white, by the way) and a handful of females. To the LA Times, the existence of those four is sufficient to refute the commonsensical call for the TSA to address the actual source of its troubles and reason for its existence. And somehow also to call for the TSA to focus on the group that is responsible for the overwhelming majority of terror attacks is to blame all Muslims for jihad terror. But the logic of that is so serpentine that I cannot parse it.
Yousef Munayyer in Al-Jazeera claims that "while these writers and bloggers are now franticly [sic] trying to distance themselves from Breivik by claiming that they never advocated violence, they contributed to the horrors that took place in Norway by dehumanising an entire religion and its followers and advancing a fear-inspiring, cataclysmic us-versus-them mentality." Never mind the innumerable imams who actually do advocate violence, dehumanize Jews, Christians, and Hindus, and advance a fear-inspiring, cataclysmic us-versus-them mentality. As always with Islamic supremacists, the fault lies with those who call attention to this activity and disapprove of it, not with the hate preachers themselves.
Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic says that Geller, Mark Steyn and I are not to blame for the Norway murders (gee, thanks, Conor), but that we should nevertheless temper our "rhetorical excesses." Mine is that I exaggerate "the prospect of sharia law being implemented in the United States. Put another way, although there is no chance of it happening, he treats it as an imminent threat that requires a legislative fix." Ridiculous! Who could ever get the idea that such a thing was an imminent threat? Nobody thinks there is any chance of that happening -- except the 20 states that are considering anti-Sharia initiatives. And could they have gotten the idea from the fact that Sharia has been used in court cases in 23 states? Naaaah. It's just rhetorical excess! But as for Spencer, "luckily, few take him seriously" -- except, of course, for Conor Friedersdorf, who considers it worth the time to try (however ineptly) to refute what I say.
Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post takes exception to my comparing being blamed for the Norway murders to the Beatles being blamed for the Manson murders: "The comparison is absurd, of course. There’s nothing in 'Helter Skelter' about Sharon Tate or any of Manson’s other victims; the angriest line is 'You may be a lover but you ain’t no dancer.' Spencer’s oeuvre, by contrast, is all about how Muslims supposedly threaten all who love peace and freedom." The fact that some Muslims do indeed threaten all who love peace and freedom doesn't enter Robinson's mind. I will leave it to him to explain these and others like them (but of course he won't):
"We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. . . . Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah." -- Muhammad Faheed, Muslim Students Association meeting, Queensborough Community College, 2003
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." -- CAIR cofounder and longtime Board chairman Omar Ahmad, 1998 (denial noted and full story explained at link)
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future." -- CAIR spokesman Ibrahim "Honest Ibe" Hooper, 1993
"If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate." -- prominent American Muslim leader Siraj Wahhaj, 2002