Antisemitic pseudo-scholarly fraud calls Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs "extremist."
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
Just for the record, I'd sure be interested to know how many Muslims have taken Robert up on his offer since 2003 to, join the fight for freedom and to denounce dhimmitude and violent Jihad.
There may be many newcomers here who, in light of the recent bombing and shooting spree in Norway, have come to Jihad Watch to learn about who Robert Spencer is.
I have followed Jihad Watch for years. I have read all of Robert's books. I have watched all of his debates online... I have never ever read or seen anything from Robert which could have been twisted to endorse or advocate the kind of senseless murder we saw in Norway.
Robert is a passionate, kind-natured, and articulate defender of human, individual, and women's rights and human freedoms... He is a strong advocate of freedom of speech and of expression. He is someone who cares deeply about others and who has a profound respect for human life and human dignity.
Those who would attempt to vilify or demonize Robert for having some part in this senseless killing spree are making a false and extraordinarily lazy moral equivalency.
Let us please attempt to have some perspective.
Do not let these senseless attacks by Anders Breivik, who is clearly a sick psychopathic individual, blind you to the truth.
Radical Islam (not all Muslims, obviously) is an ideology of hatred, misogyny, and bigotry, and has been the number 1 purveyor of worldwide human rights abuses in the last 10 years.
In fact, lest we forget... there have been at least 17,500 individual acts of terror since 9/11:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Some estimates put the number of victims in the hundreds of thousands. In the past five years, according to the documentary film "Killing in the name" (nominated for an academy award last year), over 88,000 people have been killed by Islamic extremists in the last 5 years alone:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1684897/
While the Norway attack was horrific, and tragic, and despicable... (and immediately denounced by virtually everyone on "the hard right" including Robert Spencer) it simply does not hold a candle to to the kind of violence, and hatred, and misogyny that we have seen by radical Islamists since 9/11.
And Robert, I think I speak for many here when I say that we stand behind you, we are grateful for your sacrifice and your commitment to truth, and we thank you for being who you are: A strong, determined defender of human rights, and a true American patriot.
The Islam-loving Socialist Left is equally evil to the Muslim fanatics/Islam - and I will keep on saying that (don't ever forget, Hitler was an Islam-loving Socialist no matter how much the Left wants us to forget that)! They don't mind bombing Jewish children, just to please Islam and their savage Muslim comrades! See - http://europenews.dk/en/node/41655
NORWAY: SOCIALIST LEFT PARTY TO VOTE ON MOTION CALLING FOR BOMBING ISRAEL IF IT ACTS AGAINST HAMAS IN GAZA
Tundra Tabloids 29 March 2011
It’s come to this. The junior partner in the Norwegian government, the Socialist Left Party of Kristin Halvorsen, (Sosialistisk Venstreparti), plans to vote on a measure calling for military action against Israel if it decides to act against the Hamas in Gaza. Norway, Israel and the Jews blog informs the Tundra Tabloids of the following:Socialistic Left dubious moral tradeoff for bombing Libya: Use armed force against Israel.....
Im sorry to bother but I have a question, maybe some of the knowlegeble people here could help me out?
I often read that Youssef al Qaradawi supporths the killing of civilians in Israel, but I have also hered from some islamic apologists that he forbids the killing of civilians even in Israel.....
While I havnt looked around much I never saw anything were Qaradawi said something about the targeting of Israeli civilians.....
Any idea were islamophiles could get this from?
This is the reality of the Nazi background of the Muslim Brotherhood, from its foundation until today (the Arab Muslims including the Palestinian Mufti of Jerusalem and the Muslim Brotherhood founder, Hassan al-banna, and the Turkish Ottomans were among or main Socialist Hitler/Nazi’s biggest collaborators or ADVISERS), particularly through its (and Islam) main spiritual adviser, Yusuf al-Qaradawi who made this evil call to mass murder the Jews, recently: at – http://europenews.dk/en ; In - http://www.investigativeproject.org/2315/moderate-qaradawi-defends-hitler-and-nuclear
“Moderate” Qaradawi Defends Hitler and Nuclear Terror
IPT News
November 9, 2010
….According to excerpts of a speech that aired on Al-Jazeera in January 2009, Qaradawi called on Muslims to put Jews in “their place” as Hitler had done...“The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hands of the believers.” At a January 2009 “Gaza Victory Rally” in Doha, Qatar, Qaradawi prayed for the opportunity to kill a Jew before his death. “The only thing that I hope for is that as my life approaches its end, Allah will give me an opportunity to go to the land of Jihad and resistance, even if in a wheelchair. I will shoot Allah’s enemies, the Jews, and they will throw a bomb at me, and thus, I will seal my life with martyrdom. Praise be to Allah.”……
*Public Service Announcement*
I repeat here CGW's words of wisdom on the other thread:
CGW | July 26, 2011 7:38 AM |
"Please, people, don't feed the trolls. It gets old fast, seeing their same fatuous arguments repeatedly in the same comments thread and from thread to thread. Ignore them and they go away, I promise."
["Spencer responds to smear charges, found guilty in NBC News report"]
###
Unknown998 is likely Caesar1; please don't be a trollophile.
Not to sound smug or condescending but doing a search on www.youtube.com would yield some results.
The first to check out is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HStliOnVl6Q
Then check out, 3:24 minute mark it gets more interesting...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teqeraQvO-w&feature=related
This is the man in his own words.
Demonisation of anti-Islamists is the flavour of the day here in the UK, and it would appear that troublesome things such as facts will not stand in the way of mainstream media outlets and politicians across the West from attempting to use the Breivik case as a pretext for shutting down criticism of Islamisation. Witness the hostile interviewing of the English Defence League's Stephen Lennon/Tommy Robinson in this video of yesterday's Newsnight in which Jeremy Paxman attempts to insinuate a non-existent link between the EDL and Breivik: http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2011/07/stephen-lennons-latest-newsnight.html
Lennon/Robinson acquitted himself pretty well, rebutting Paxman's baseless allegations. Is the Breivik case the multiculturalists' equivalent of the Reichstag fire? There do seem to be certain similarities. Enter Brevik as Van der Lubbe!
What astonishes me is the seething hatred by Qaradawi for a small group of people (17 million Jews is small compared to 1.4 billion Muslims). That 1.4 Billion Muslims harbor such hatred for a small group like this just blows my mind. If they were to channel this hatred into something more positive and constructive and get a life, they might actually produce a civilization that would be worthy of praise. Instead they have gotten very good at lying, indoctrination, and warfare.
What a waste.
Didn't Breivik state in his 'manifesto' that he planned his attacks for 9 years - so, shortly after 9/11, and one year before JihadWatch started? Is that confirmed?
I can't think of a nasty enough word to describe the perversions and depravity of the 'journalists' listed...
They are all propagandists worthy of an award from Pravda...
There is something wrong with the mentality that buys into these lies, and accusations...
These people are Robert Ford's graduating class... You remember Robert Ford...he was the dirty little coward, that killed Mr Howard, and shot Jesse James in the back...
Today's Ford graduates don't shoot people in the back they stab them instead...A degree in back stabbing cowardice can get you a job at the NYT, and other propaganda sources as listed......
The hatred stems from jealousy. Just imagine, there are 1.5 billion Muslims and only 14 million Jews. However, the Jews have accumulated 129 Nobel prizes and the Muslims 7!
Now, why would there be such a massive imbalance? Could it be something to do with the fact that Islam is anti-science, Luddite in temperament, and has spent 1,400 years invading other cultures and claiming their intellectual successes for its own?
Check this out. It's only 1 minute 28 seconds, but explains a a helluva lot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YOV1AOaxgA
You could just post news source articles on Islamic jihad attacks and supremacist actions and words verbatim from the Islamic jihadists and not even make a single comment and they would say they same thing. They want you to shut-up, period. What's next? No reporting of Jihad attacks or Islamic supremacist actions and words, by any news source? Will they accuse the AP of being extremist for reporting the news? I mean, c'mon! It's ridiculous.
(Though I would not doubt that the left would like it that way. They pretty much try to cover for Islamic supremacists' attacks and conduct already, by saying things like 'ethnic conflict", "restive area", etc.)
Obviously the left have no real concern about human rights. It's all lip service, and their politics come first.
TS this is what happened to Geert Wilders. He quoted Muslims in their own words yet he was charged with Hate speech against Muslims and brought to trial. Silly isn't it?
'I have been made victorious with terror'
On the subject of guilt by association, isn't anyone who seeks to emulate Mohammed as 'the perfect man' actually emulating the original role model for all terrorists... http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/islam-terrorism.html
I of course know of all this speeches as well as of Quaradawis arguing that killing of civilians in Israel is alowed.
I just wonder on what basis Islamic apologists say that he forbids the killing of Israeli civilians?
When you live in a country where half of the population polled last July 4th didn't know that the US declared independence from Britain, being informed about Islam is extreme.
Thanks for this extremely informative post and all the extraordinary work you do, Robert.
Liberals know how to do three things well:
1.) Blame everyone but the culprit. Remember what happened in Tucson, where the left blamed everyone but Jared Loughner?
2.) Fail to follow their own advice about not jumping to conclusions, especially when those same leftists whined about not jumping to conclusions shortly after Fort Hood while blaming the Tea Party for Tucson and smearing the Duke lacrosse team for that bogus "rape."
3.) Ignore or never mention Islam if a culprit is Muslim, like Carlos Bledsoe or Nidal Hasan.
A good article of a conservative journalist at the New York Times. Don't be turned off by the "A right wing monster" title.
HERE it is
sorry:
here it is:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/opinion/25douthat.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
Some time ago,one of my mentors cautioned me to never attribute to maliciousness anything that can be attributed to stupidity or, by extension, ignorance. This maxim is, upon quick reflection, nothing more than a corollary of Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation tends to be the most accurate.
I bring this up because it seems to me that the behavior of the media can be adequately explained as being dominated stupidly smug complacency rather than active involvement in conspiracy or collusion. The press corps, frequently the product of training that promotes a particular slant, lives in its own world just as many other professions do and self-regulates with a type of group-think. It seems reasonable to suggest that the type of complacency that such "journalists" demonstrate must be marketable in order for their respective media to sell advertising space. Thus no conspiracy required, just the desire to remain smugly self-assured.
Even when a 9/11 comes along it's possible to see how it is the lazy route rather than the conpiratorial route is adopted by the press. A public wanting desperately to go back to sleep can be assured that a quick solution can be found if only we "bring freedom" here or there. There seems to be little discussion of what that means in terms of the cultural milieu to which the "freedom" is to be transported. Once again, this lack of discussion is not necessarily a conscious conspiracy but more likely the product of training, years of unexamined inculcation that at heart all cultures are alike, and that it certainly isn't nice to criticize other folks for their rellgious background.
I believe that this is the issue: In the media we're dealing largely with useful idiots rather than fellow travelers of the jihad. The Ikwhan Muslimin most certainly DOES have an agenda and is almost certainly manipulating the media to its own ends. The influence of Saudi money is also very difficult to ignore. Yet the noise arising in the media could be the croaking of so many bull frogs in the swamp, marking their self-righteous territory. Although this behavior sounds relatively inane when expressed this way, who wants to live in a swamp? And that's why this problem of the media's abdication of their responsibility must be addressed.
In the short term it doesn't matter if the reputations of Spencer, Geller and the rest are smeared as the result of targeted character assassination or as a result of being trampled by a stampeded herd. But in the long term the solution to such damage depends very greatly on where the efforts are placed. Whether in cahoots with the enemy or, as I tend to believe, treacherously lazy, our media are sick (and here's a special shout-out to you, Rupert). The solution to this malaise has got to come from the consumers. Us. We set the standards.
Passive single-outlet consumers of news become entrenched in the editorial positions of those outlets. Active engagement at multiple news outlets conversely provides an opportunity to open up discussion for all, i.e. in the absence of censorship. And then that too is springboard to widespread public discussion.
If the public talks about the entire story, the media will have no choice but to follow, if they are sheep as I believe them to be.
This is my first post at Jihad Watch.
People might remember me from my Youtube channel (StoneThatRolls)?
I posted hundreds of comments on Youtube defending Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I also had a few videos of her interviews I posted on my channel. I had my Youtube channel from about 2006 to 2010. I also posted lots of comments on Robert Spencer and Atlas Shrugs videos defending them.
The attacks people post against Ayaan Hirsi Ali are always almost the same attacks against Robert Spencer and Atlas Shrugs. It is the same old thing over and over again. People know the names Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Robert Spencer and Atlas Shrugs, but they don't take the time to find out what they are saying. People with no knowledge of who these people are, will attack them based off something they had read or heard from someone else. And the incredible thing is, it is journalists that are attacking them. If there is something that the journalists don't like about what Robert Spencer has said ? Why don't they debate that ?
Robert Spencer is only speaking facts of events that are happening in the world. If people don't like those facts, then the problem is with the facts and not with the people speaking about the facts.
There is no Christians or Conservatives cheering what the madman Anders Breivik has done. Anders Breivik is a sick twisted madman.
What Anders Breivik has done, still doesn't take away the facts that there are thousands of radical Muslims that plan terrorism everyday.
Some unaware people claim there is no such thing ? There are hundreds of islamic militant jihad training videos on Youtube. I had complained to Youtube about the channels and nothing happened. Youtube is just a small part of the problem. There are lots of other problems. If people are unaware of the problems, it doesn't mean the problems are not there. They are still there.
Robert Spencer, Atlas Shrugs, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and others are speaking about the problems. If speaking about the problems is a crime, then I think there is huge problem in the world.
JENS STOLTENBERG'S RECORD OF ABOMINATION:
April 20, 2002, Hitler's birthday: a huge crowd of Pakistanis, Palestinians and their local, hard-left, white, blond, blue-eyed Norwegian groupies WAVE NAZI FLAGS WITH SWASTIKAS cheering the speaker demonizing Israel: none else but Jens Stoltenberg, then former prime minister, AND NOW AGAIN PRIME MINISTER. And those aiders and abetters of genocidal Islamo-Nazi jihad now self-righteously accuse Robert, Pamela, Bat Ye'Or of "hate speech".
AND THIS VERY JULY, JUST BEFORE BREIVIK ACTED: Stoltenberg vehemently demanded to break Israeli blockade intended to prevent smuggling weapons to the murderous Hamas jihadis. He also loudly endorsed the Hamas-Fatah unity government and vowed to recognize "independence of Palestine" under this terrorist government.
We should slam the hard facts about aiding murder right into the faces of Norway's ruling sociopaths.
Ruslan Tokhchukov.
my politicks are to the left and I hate Islam. so I am not sure where you are coming form with this?
M
I guess we have to be tactical.
Let's start by doing something that I tried to do 9 years ago (ironically, at LGF): cease using the terms "islam" and "muslims" and tie their vile cause to the founder of their imperial and murderous cult.
If I had my way the cult would be referenced as "muhammadanism," and the brainwashed followers would be called muhammadans. Since anti-jihadis believe that the arab-quaran is pure concoction built around actual events, caused by the concoction, let's label the "recitation" (quran): the "muhammad-fabrications" (quran).
Increasingly, Euros are applying "hate" laws against the effects of subjecting muhammadans to scrutiny.
The upshot of the Oslo-Pagan-Massacre could be that any muhammadan claim - no matter how specious - of feeling "hated," will mean a conviction under "hate laws."
Hate law convicts are generally barred from any use in public or private of computers. Search "hate" on this page, if you want to understand the future of law enforcement if CAIR continues to succeed in planting muhammadan-tyranny (sharia) on free soil.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/Search/Search.aspx?txtS3archA11=&txtT1tl3=%22Criminal+Code%22&h1ts0n1y=0&ddC0nt3ntTyp3=Acts
You people scare me. Your kinda like the baby of Charles Manson and Hitler, the scariest baby I've ever seen. Please don't bring about the 4th Reich.
Your Jihadi friends are trying to bring something worse than the Fourth Reich. Of course, had Breivik murdered Israeli youngsters instead, he would be your hero.
why are you surprised? look a country 6-7 milion people(israel) that is surrounded by some of the most hostile and yest the most pathetic people is one the welthiest country on earth!! one of only 20 countires in the world whose citizen mahe over 30K a year! the look at Joradn, PLO, Hamas, Egypt, syria, one more patheitc than the other. they have to blame some one for thier misery. so why not the Jews?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
re: to katharina: "my politicks [sic] are to the left and I hate Islam. so [cap] I am not sure where you are coming form [sic] with this?"
All of what? Details, please.
AFTENPOSTEN'S RECORD OF ABOMINATION:
Aftenposten is the Norwegian rag that accused Robert, Pamela, Bat Ye'Or and Fjordman of hate speech.
Now, here's Aftenposten's own track record in this department:
December 16, 1998: a cartoon in Aftenposten shows Clinton and Arafat looking in shock at the White House Christmas tree: The Jews had replaced the Christian star on its top with a Jewish star. On that very day, "good" Clinton bombed Baghdad, killing thousands. And he just forced Serbia to pull all troops from Kosovo under a threat of air war. The rabidly racist, sadistic, genocidal Kosovar Albanian KLA terrorists immediatelly moved into the vacuum kidnapping hundreds of Serb civilians. As we know now, they took the healthiest capive young men and women to Albania and butchered them for organs, at that very time.
April 5, 2002: a cartoon shows 3 Israeli tanks scoring a direct hit on the Star of Bethlehem that shone when Jesus was born, pulverizing it.
April 10, 2002: The Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in a Nazi Storm Trooper uniform down on his knees, strangling "poor innocent victim", the terrorist leader Arafat (the common theme in the entire Norwegian media). But instead of "good" Clinton, next to them stands "bad conservative" Bush dressed as a Wild West sheriff, and instead of a badge, he has a Jewish star on.
And here's an account of the rabid, bloodthirsty hate attitudes in Norway by Bruce Bower, who has lived there for years:
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=217194
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Re: "It seems reasonable to suggest that the type of complacency that such 'journalists' demonstrate must be marketable in order for their respective media to sell advertising space."
One would think there would be such a public outcry against these rags that they would find fewer and fewer advertisers willing to sully their reputations by doing business with them. I wonder how much funding these pamphleteers are receiving from Islamists, making advertising revenue irrelevant?
Just for the record.
1. Walt and Mearsheimer are Jewish themselves.
2. Jihad Watch I would consider somewhat extremist.
3. It's already known that the Authorities see this place as a Domestic Terrorism breeding ground.
I am firmly of the belief that this site amongst others did help create one of the worst Terrorist acts that Norway has ever experienced.
It is for that reason that I am glad the authorities are finally looking into sites like this.
Yes, I believe in free speech - but not all of your readers are interested solely in debate and politics.
Keep that in mind.
DAGBLADET'S RECORD OF ABOMINATION:
The use of Christmas/Christian imagery to demonize Israel and the Jews is a favorite tack in the practically totally non-religious Norway. As columnist George Will put it: "the Europeans ditched Christianity but kept Christian anti-Semitism".
Here are some of the "journalistic pearls" from the hard-left Dagbladet, pracically the "party organ" of the ruling Labor Party now "mourning" and pompously decrying "hate speech":
Christmas Eve, Dec. 24, 2001: a huge front-page headline, mocking the birth of Jesus: "A CHILD WAS SHOT IN BETHLEHEM".
January 16, 2002: a cartoon depicting Sharon as a Nazi concentration camp warden, shouting at his prisoner, Arafat.
April 4, 2002: A Nazi Storm Trooper Sharon carrying George W. Bush, reduced to a bawling infant, under his arm. And trampling Arafat with his knee-high boots. In a Nazi uniform with the Nazi Iron Cross hanging from his neck, the cross replaced with the Jewish star.
Even by European standarts, the Norwegian media stands out as particularly brazen in its anti-Semitism. With one exception: at around the same time, England's The Independent featured a cartoon depicting a naked Sharon devouring a Palestinian baby. Contemptuously brushing aside Israel's civilized protests, the British Cartoonist Society awarded the cartoonist the prize for "the best political cartoon of the year". When an American reporter asked the President of the Society why didn't anyone depict Arafat eating a baby, he immediatelly spilled out the reason: "If someone depicted Arafat this way, the Muslims would get angry. Fatwas can be issued by ayatollahs and such like. The catroonists can suffer death, can't they? It is rather different".
Bingo! Cowardice is the root of it! The sociopaths, Norwegian or English, or Swedish know that Israel or Jews will not go after them for insulting them. And the added benefit is that it will please the Muslims, whom the sociopaths fear. So, they consistently take the safe road, the low road, the coward's road.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Oh and please, for the love of all that is good, do not link to other conspiracy theory or 'friendly' sites as sources.
A true source is material that is unbiased, or even unfriendly to the original object.
There is a reason as to why when applying for certain positions, especially in the public service, you CANNOT use friends or relatives as sources/references.
Too biased!
The use of Christmas/Christian imagery to demonize Israel and the Jews is a favorite tack in the practically totally non-religious Norway. As columnist George Will put it: "the Europeans ditched Christianity but kept Christian anti-Semitism".
Huh? Jewish people do not believe in Jesus. Nor do they affirm the second coming or divinity of Jesus.
I think you're mixing the two when they are not the same.
Judaism is an active religion, their messiah has not come and they do not consider Jesus their messiah.
"Miriam" ....Is your facade cracking? Other people are also seeing the cracks....Quack! Quack!
Ceasar1 states:
"Walt and Mearsheimer are Jewish themselves."
True. Consider these facts:
1. Spanish inquisitor Torquemada, among others, was of Jewish origin.
2. Karl Marx was born a Jew, baptised a Lutheran at age six, and wrote material loaded with a seathing hatred of Jews and Judaism.
3. Many of the Soviet Bolshevik aparatchiki were born Jews, yet worked tirelessly to destroy Judaism in all its manifestations, helped Stalin exterminate the once-vibrant Yiddiah secular culture, and were virulent exponents of hostility to the people among whom they had been born and raised.
4. Some Jews, i.e. ghetto policemen, Judenrat functionaries, etc., collaborated with the Nazi Germans in the destruction of their own communities.
5. Many death camp functionaries, called kapos, connived in the murder of fellow Jews in an attempt to save their own lives.
6. Today, the modern inheritors of the above anti-Jewish "traditions" are busily at work deligitimizing the State of Israel's physical and cultural existence, work tirelessly to enable the Islamo-nazi inheritors of the German Nazi goal of exterminating Jews, and blindly follow the forces that seek the destruction of the very Western values and traditions that allow them to work freely in the guise of the very freedoms their Islamo-fascist darlings would love to destroy.
Consider that.
Trying to argue that a person's hatred of his own people is somehow a legitimization of that person's viewpoints is disingenious at best.
"I am firmly of the belief that this site amongst others did help create one of the worst Terrorist acts that Norway has ever experienced."
How very convenient for you!
The reality is that this site does not advocate violence and never has. It simply presents the facts and people of like mind (the informed ) gather together to discuss them. As on any site there is the odd "thrashing at the mouth" interloper or lefty in sheep's clothing or muslim antagonist who might drop in but in general the majority here are very intelligent and well read and are looking for solutions to a massive and permeating problem.
Jihad Watch is nor more responsible for the Norway attacks than me watching a violent film that showed people murdering their irritating neighbors would be if i chose to do so. Every individual is completely responsible for their own choices whatever their motivation. No one here or at any anti-jihad site that I'm aware of was coaching this man to commit murder. He decided that on his own.
Nice try though and you are entitled to your opinions no matter how erroneous or contrived..
Robert Spencer encourages violence against Muslims? What violence against Muslims? Those were Norwegian Leftists killed, not Muslims.
The two that are being demonized the most by the press and the jihadist enablers, are Robert and the EDL, obviously they seem to feel threatened by them both the most.
Tommy Robinson has also been shooting them down in interviews despite none being onside.
I had a discussion with a very active so called moderate muslim last night who has in the past been very onside, having never mentioned Robert before went after him with a vengeance, I asked him what exactly had Robert said that was untrue, and all he could say was he was a hatemonger refusing to cite one example.
They just don’t get it, we really do have a point and calling us racist won’t make it go away.
Leftist immigration policies are fueling ethnic tensions, end of story. And it will get progressively worse in the years and decades to come.
Come to think of it, the paper press is on a strong downward spiral. But is this format being propped up with money from vested interests beyond the legal ownership? Who knows? It's possible of course and great concern for that very reason. Given the operating costs of a paper press it's plausible that cash infusions via guaranteed advertising revenue might be at play. But there I go! Off into the realm of speculation and one step away from conspiracy theorizing. I want to stay away from conspriacy theories. I just don't want to go there. I don't think that any of us want to go there.
My belief is that the concerned public can itself raise the standard of reportage. Speculations are good only insofar as they are followed up ASAP by confirmation or refutation. Challenging the pundits and editors on their stances is can be directed by means of speculations concerning their motives or information. But the danger of challenging too much at once is to be relegated to the conspiracy theory/urban myth heap.
Marshall McLuhan's obsservation that the media is the message was not one that made him happy. I believe that the present trouble in journalism factors into his concerns. A solution might be for us to make ourselves to some degree the media. The blogosphere is one way of doing so. For those of us without that degree of dedication, educated response and directed challenges to the editorial stances pervading traditional media might be useful if applied in great enought numbers.
re: "the danger of challenging too much at once is to be relegated to the conspiracy theory/urban myth heap."
Says who? You are not an American, I take it.
Bury their platforms in toto, and without reservation.
"3. It's already known that the Authorities see this place as a Domestic Terrorism breeding ground."
BWAHAHAhAHA!
You're going out on a limb now.
What's amazing is that not once do you leftards ever consider that it's your policies, forced pc/mc rhetoric and cries of racism that are the cause of any "attacks" real and imagined (mostly imagined or out right lies) against mohammadans.
You're really coming across as a tinfoil hat wearing screech monkey now, Caesar.
3. It's already known that the Authorities see this place as a Domestic Terrorism breeding ground.
Already known? Interesting. By whom? On what basis do you make this claim? What element of the USIC do you work for? TFI, INR, AFISRA?
More's the pity. I was hoping to keep my evil, neo-Orientalist world domination scheme a secret for a while longer.
I hope I don't have to make a sarc tag. I'll assume you get it.
"I am firmly of the belief that this site amongst others did help create one of the worst Terrorist acts that Norway has ever experienced."
And what site did help create idiocies you emit? Or may be you didn't need help? After all idiocies come natural to idiots.
"You people scare me. Your kinda like the baby of Charles Manson and Hitler, the scariest baby I've ever seen. Please don't bring about the 4th Reich."
And people like you scare me. You're like the people who told Churchill he was a hate monger when he tried to tell them they should take the war to the nazis rather than letting the nazis bring it to them.
People like you who say "it's just a few extremists" and "they just want to have freedoms here they don't have there!" Are exactly like the people who thought "it's just a few extremists in the German heirarchy" and "they won't want to attack us, they are reasonable and can be negotiated with."
And guess what? The people like you won with your cries of hate mongerring and scare tactics and Churchill's hands were tied.
Then Germany invaded Poland...
Sorry, when*pigs*fly
My last comment was a reply to caesar.
Juliet,
I'm thinking you really didn't intend that comment for when*pigs*fly. At least I hope not...
"More's the pity. I was hoping to keep my evil, neo-Orientalist world domination scheme a secret for a while longer."
*GRIN*
Can I join? I'll be the Pinky to your Brain.
SNARF!
It was pretty obvious from yesterday's thread that caesar is a conspiracy kook. He gleaned all his "truths" about the Templars, almost word for word from wiki.
Now he's advanced to making his own conspiracies!
Will he give all of us hate mongers here at JW credit for creating a creative conspiracy kook (him)?
1. Spanish inquisitor Torquemada, among others, was of Jewish origin.
2. Karl Marx was born a Jew, baptised a Lutheran at age six, and wrote material loaded with a seathing hatred of Jews and Judaism....
Well that's funny. It's hard to say how Ceasar1 bollocksed the thing. Maybe it's double reverse neo-essentialism. But I thought lefties left essentialism behind long ago.
George,
It is quite late here (Denmark) and being a bit tired I made a mistake. But I am sure W*P*F must have figured out what has happened.
Time to go to bed.
Take care.
In fact Jeffery Goldberg and Paul Woodward help the spread of JW readership.JW will find more and more inquisitive new readers around the world.
Will he give all of us hate mongers here at JW credit for creating a creative conspiracy kook (him)?
Probably not.
I was late to your show yesterday. You're a master. You ran it down to the end. After a while, Mr. Caesar had no points to make at all. It reminded me of a long thread here on JW where Hezbollah champion, Dave742, just had to tell us that he was a wife-swapper. Now that was desperate exchange.
I didn't think that Caesar1 would show up again. I suppose it's a way true believing, hard-core lefties, get their own kind of zabiba.
I have places to go and things to do this morning.
Namely, a Mothers' Union service (with eucharist) at our church, with the Bishop, and then morning tea, and then lunch.
But before I head off to that I will pause to extend a hearty greeting and welcome to all new non-troll posters and lurkers who may have googled or be googling their way in here, as a result of hearing names like 'Robert Spencer' and 'jihadwatch' in the Press and deciding to do their own research and make up their own minds.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.
Take a stroll through the archives. I recommend using the search engine to look for essays by one 'Hugh Fitzgerald' (but make sure you have a dictionary handy to look up the words, Hugh takes no prisoners in the matter of vocabulary, he has used words that even I, with a PhD in English Lit behind me, have had to look up , or look at twice) and I also recommend that, on the home page, you read what you will find under the heading 'Islam 101'.
Check out the book-list. I have read a reasonable number of the books on it and they are all worth reading.
I particularly recommend two little books by an Australian linguist, Anglican priest and human rights campaigner, Rev Dr Mark Durie, entitled 'Revelation: Do We Worship the Same God? Jesus, God, Holy Spirit in Christianity and Islam', and "The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude, and Freedom".
To any visitors who may be here from Norway, reading this over my shoulder: my deepest condolences and you are assured of my prayers for the comfort of the bereaved and the recovery of the injured.
From my bird's eye view of what is happening in the United States since after 911; /(…the groping in the dark to see what had hit them so hared that very day) I see that the logger-head point of debate between Robert Spencer and all popular News out-lets of the Western society; and of course, the Media in partnership with all political begets, is that they wouldn't know where to burry their heads, if they should own-it-up without a fight - their lateness in discovering that Islam originally came to America to destroy her civilized "kingdom".
Well, - in the shadows - not really to destroy it, because Islam is a religion of (peace) …sorry for the typographical error.
But Americans should know that the pyramids in Egypt and many more under ground – being discover by their Google inventions, are the exhibit that Civilization was given to us – (sic) by God as the statue of Liberty was given to them by France.
GRRRROOOOO!!! We are here and must take her back.
Back to the point, it has become ironical that Arab Spring is developmental and pro-liberty. But America-awaking is but a killer-cide of America her self. It is like a nail on America's head. By her own very children who suppose to protect her – lead by the Media.
The debt increase trillion dollar-bill question is =WHY=?
I think that it is semi natural that the square headed main Media don't want to let the World know that the great media society of the West is just waking up. What a lumber. Sleeping from – July 4, 1776, to the 11th of September 2001.
They fear that they will be seen in the eyes of posterity as having swallowed the spider of their own Silvia and ignorance. (…that 85% of Islamic principles are totally anti-civilization). After-all, Civilization would not have in the first place, departed from them.
Non-the-less, I appreciate their effort in this regard, it is natural. And, I have no doubt that they in-ward ly thank people like Robert Spencer for this American-Awakening.
They should also, thank their goodness for have been given the divine opportunity of living or having grown up in a society like the United States of America; where Islam is presently is having a tough time to completely adulterate. Even as her Head Quarter is polluted.
Let the Media and all their paid syndicates called politicians in the West, take our wake-up call.
In the horizon, we there is this thing that looks like a coffin that has come to take home such a beautiful slogan, such as "God Bless America"
The writer Breivik mentions the most is "I" - 4051 times.
His manifest consist of a copy & paste ideology, a manual to make a bomb, and a diary. He comes across as a self-centered person with traces of a narcissistic personality disorder. A cottier on the outskirts of Europe who takes on the role of a Knight Templar.
His hobby is hunting. Nowadays you don't hunt to acquire food. Hunting is about killing. Breivik enjoys killing.
Not your everyday person. Why journalists associate him with conservative politicians and opinion leaders is beyond me.
Spencer claims that he's not painting all Muslims with the same brush. He claims that he's not demonizing Islam but rather factually reporting on topics pertaining to it. He claims himself a "warrior of justice and freedom" who is simply exposing the "bad" side of Islam to the people of Western countries in order to warn them of the dangers Islam presents.
If this is indeed the truth then why after authoring thousands of articles has he failed to include one that portrays Islam in a positive light? Why hasnt he committed one article to show the "good" side of Islam? When an "academic" dedicates his life to something, you would assume that he would research that topic in a complete and unbiased manner.
Out of a billion Muslims comprised of many nationalities spread out to all corners of the world surely he could have found some thing "good"
I think its fairly conclusive that Spencer is selectively reporting on Islam, focused completely on the negative to manipulate, incite, and mold the minds of his readers into believing that all Muslims are the same. Terrorists!
I really have to hand it to you, "Real Jew;" You may be an idiot...but at least you're a consistent idiot. Nothing you've said here so far has made any sense--and you're keeping that streak alive!
But, answer me this, if you will: Since you say that Spencer is such a hateful man and we're a bunch of stupid (your word) racists:
Then why do you continue to hang around and post here?
Well??
No worries, Juliet.
Excellent post.
re: "Bury their platforms in toto, and without reservation"
I'll just try explaining this point one more time, then I'll just let it go.
"Burying" defective news platforms may serve to suppress propagandizing, but it does absolutely nothing to serve the needs of the citizenry for accurate information and still less to promote thoughtful discussion, the type that democracies need.
I believe it is still possible to work with the platforms we have because I believe that they are more likely to be oblivious than malicious, while remembering that an oblivious mind can itself be a most wonderfully dense and inert medium. Although holding the presently existing news media to account for its reportage cannot be done by an individual it can be done with the wider readership/viewership if enough within that group raise simple questions that cannot be ignored or brushed off. Claiming that this or that person or organization is in the pocket of a special interest group is meaningless without evidence and the more evidence the better.
If the media are not complicit in suppressing the full news, then they may yet be aroused by properly demanding public. And a demanding, pro-active and educated public is just the thing that is needed in this fight.
What could possibly be any more American than that? :)
Welcome , and yes , you're right "There's a huge problem in the world."
If this is indeed the truth then why after authoring thousands of articles has he failed to include one that portrays Islam in a positive light? Why hasnt he committed one article to show the "good" side of Islam?
Does Islam, putative lamp to the world, final revelation for the rightly guided through the last messenger Muhammad, indeed have a positive light? (Well, putative to certain Muslims in any case.) The answer is, no. Read the Qur'an. Pay close attention to the attributes of God in that book - even in the famous Mecca verses - the peaceful ones, the Qur'anic God is a horrible character. There isn't a good thing in him, and his messenger is just as bad, if not worse, since so many believe he is the supreme example of submissive manhood.
But in no way does that mean that there are no Muslims of goodwill and humanity. Or course there are. And they are better than their book, their religion, and their hideous clerics. There are decent people who happen to be Muslims; but there is no good Islam; and there never will be.
" I think it's fairly conclusive that Spencer is selectively reporting on Islam, focused completely on the negative to manipulate, incite, and mold the minds of his readers into believing that all Muslims are the same. Terrorists ! ".
What's been demonstrated, time, after time, after time, is that there is a pattern to the seventeen thousand ( plus, and still counting ), jihad attacks that have occurred since 9/ 11/ 2001.
Maybe you would feel better if Spencer reported on how many chocolate chip cookie baking contests that Muslimahs have won, since 9/11 ?
And Spencer has NEVER said that " all Muslims are the same. Terrorists ". Back up what you say, with evidence.
You won't be able to, of course.
Because you are a liar. You are a character assassin.
I think that's a fair conclusion.
Welly, welly, welly, welly, well. It appears that the de facto "Real Jew" is at it again in another thread.
I never expected that, just kidding.
Actually, the "real Jew" will press nonsensical issues until we here at the JW community are mercifully relieved of his presence for good, at least under his current moniker.
Now, now, "Real Jew", I maintained my promise on our previous discussion on an earlier thread. Actually, I bit my tongue, but I did promise and I for one, am a MAN of my word, (thought you'd appreciate the caps. That luxury was of course, explicitly stated, and exclusively on that thread, so I feel no contractual need to meter my responses to you here on THIS thread, (caps are cute aren't they?).
Let me begin the exercise again by refuting all your explicit words on this thread, though I am a bit crestfallen that Paul Hoffman beat to the intitial punch.
Real Jew wrote:
"If this is indeed the truth then why after authoring thousands of articles has he failed to include one that portrays Islam in a positive light?"
Well I don't explicitly know, but basic logic belies that a critic of Islam, Islamic communities, and Muslims in general, as they existed historically and as they currently exist today, doesn't warrant such balanced reporting as you would posit.
I mean really, "Real Jew", would an article about a rapist require the balancing obligatory statement that the rapist used to cut his Grandma's grass? I think not. Robert Spencer reports about the Muslim violence worldwide, and the Islamic doctrine that supports and propogates the very same.
In your estimation, Robert should then likewise comment on the sanitary value of wiping one's ass with a stone, (if there is one), but quite frankly, who cares?
There is no necessity in that, but there is a necessity in reporting about the words and actions of Muslims who semmigly perpetuate Islamically sanctioned violent jihad and their desires for the implementation of violent Islamic sharia.
Even your small mind should be able to process that.
The issue with you is simple, as Mr. Hoffman stated. You are an intentional griefer, and directly, an overt liar.
You cannot debate your position because endorsing Islam, in reality, is an obvious losing position.
Before you attempt again to take THIS, (God, I love C-A-P-S), off-topic again, with your assertions that the Jews control the world, I must ask you:
If Spencer wipes his ass with a rock, will you cease and desist?
Bwahahaha! Sorry that last line was merely for mine and the forum's collective enjoyment only.
Tick-tock, tick-tock, time's-a-wastin'...
Ruslan:
You wrote:
"April 20, 2002, Hitler's birthday: a huge crowd of Pakistanis, Palestinians and their local, hard-left, white, blond, blue-eyed Norwegian groupies WAVE NAZI FLAGS WITH SWASTIKAS cheering the speaker demonizing Israel: none else but Jens Stoltenberg, then former prime minister, AND NOW AGAIN PRIME MINISTER. "
Do you have any original source documentation for this? If you do please share it, it could be important.
"I was late to your show yesterday. You're a master."
Thank you, that really means a lot to me coming from you. I was just having a good day yesterday. Caesar is nothing special, just a run of the mill relativist. Debating with them is like going to a knife fight with a gun.
"You ran it down to the end. After a while, Mr. Caesar had no points to make at all. It reminded me of a long thread here on JW where Hezbollah champion, Dave742, just had to tell us that he was a wife-swapper. Now that was desperate exchange."
I remember that one. It became surreal when he mentioned "my wife and I commit adultary all the time." Wri and Wellington gave him a good go around. I was out as soon as he started with the 9/11 troofer garbage. Tom Davis also pointed out dave's postings on scribd and I did read them and it really shed some light on his frame of mind so I knew it would only be a matter of a few more pokes and he'd have a meltdown.
"I didn't think that Caesar1 would show up again. I suppose it's a way true believing, hard-core lefties, get their own kind of zabiba."
Caesar is a whole different breed than dave. Dave is just a nutter. Caesar is relativist with an agenda. His type usually has a zabiba on their lips from all the arse kissing they do. They will "brag" about how much dialoguing they do with muslims and that's what we should do too. However, their type of dialoguing is nodding their heads and not asking any difficult or uncomfortable questions.
They are also smug in their own sense of moral superiority and will never back down. Hell, he thought he was king of the hill last night by declaring his prowess at "proving" that the website that the friends of global jihad who first claimed responsibility for the Norway tragedy did not exist.
I and another speaker (New user who seems to be an Arabic speaker) gave him the link and he is STILL claiming that the website does not exist and therefor all of us, Mr. Spencer included are islamophobic liars.
Classicus, you strike me as a very profound, thoughtful and intelligent person. Please, tell me, or show me something that lets me know that the world has not gone completely mad and there's still hope for us.
All is not lost, right?
Kudos to you Istanbul_Chick. You are indeed, most righteous, and your abosolute destruction of "Caesar1" will be well-documented in the annuls of JW history.
You should be proud.
When you read a person like Jeffrey Goldberg, you suddenly realize you are reading the ramblings of someone who is willing to accept at face value the words of a lunatic and psychopath over the scholarship of someone like Robert Spencer.
Frankly; I find that is quite scary.
Great post, awake! But the best punch line ever was:
"If Spencer wipes his ass with a rock, will you cease and desist?"
I will be sure to remember that one for a long time to come.
"Kudos to you Istanbul_Chick. You are indeed, most righteous, and your abosolute destruction of "Caesar1" will be well-documented in the annuls of JW history.
You should be proud."
Thank you, Awake, but I mentioned earlier that caesar was too easy of a target. I really did feel like I was in a knife fight with a gun. Nay, with a grenade launcher. And he was armed with a rusty butter knife.
Maybe some of it was my fury over him accusing, very smugly and rudely, Mr. Spencer of being responsible for the Norway tragedy.
I gave up on "real" Jew when I realized he wasn't what he claimed to be but it's nice to see you give him the old one-two and a haymaker!
Glad you're around to mete out righteous, retributive justice here at JW, Istanbul_Chick.
We desperately will need it, though my public reputation here is that of a crass, threatening, internet bully.
So be it. Thanks for the kind words, anyway.
Peace.
Fake Jew said "If this is indeed the truth then why after authoring thousands of articles has he failed to include one that portrays Islam in a positive light?"
--------------------------
Robert doesn't need to show Islam in a positive light. Islamic doctrine has been studied and found to be wanting. The Islamic texts as left by Mohammad and the commands he left to Muslims are what we focus on. The political doctrine of Islam (Sharia Law) has an effect on what happens to non-muslim so it is there that we focus.
There is no need to show Islam in a positive light even though there are many Muslims who are generally good people (and that tends to be the case when they are not following Islam piously). Many of us on these boards are friends with Muslims or ex-muslims with direct experience of Islamic doctrine. We are quite well aware of what Islam's goals are and how it threats the West. That is where we focus our efforts.
If you want to portray Islam in a positive light, then please, provide some examples. Feel free to show us what we are missing. I will tell you that it will have little effect because our focus is on what Islamic Doctrine is all about and how it has affected history for the past 1400 years. Showing us Positive Muslims won't change what we know about Islamic Doctrine and its overall goals.
Has anyone in the MSM ever blamed Mohammad or the Koran for the actions of those jihadis who quote them - accurately- and follow thier teroristic tenets -fundamentally?
The media blame game is apparently only for use against those who fail to kowtow to the multicutlural erosion and ultimate extermination of the West.
Not against those who aim to destroy the West, negate human liberty, mock decency, scorn equality, jeer at freedom of thought, who will not allow the individual conscience, and who finally will extinguish any other religion but Islam.
Why these Western suckers want to abet their own ultimate extinction at the hands of terroristic, intolerant, misogynistic, patriarchal, homophobic, imperialistic jihadis is the mystery.
Maybe they just forgot to read the Koran.
I have long been puzzled as to why Robert would have said, "any Muslim who renounces violent jihad and dhimmitude is welcome to join in our anti-jihadist efforts".
Since Muslims are encouraged by their religion to lie to protect themselves and to spread Islam, a Muslim could renounce violent jihad and dhimmitude without meaning it, giving him the opportunity to enter an organization dedicated to fighting against radical Islam and to work against it from within.
Furthermore, Robert has personal experience dealing with a perpetrator of this form of deception (a Trojan Horse): his debate, moderated by Andrew McCarthy, with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.
Dr. Jasser had infiltrated Brigitte Gabriel's organization Act for America by claiming to be against radical Islam and the Muslim's efforts to conquer America and the world and his true colors were revealed in the aforementioned bebate.
Please understand that in making this comment, I am not attacking Robert Spencer; this was just a question that I felt begged an answer.
As for Robert Spencer or any of the other fine people involved in working against violent Islamic jihad bearing any responsibility for the crimes of the insane shooter in Norway, such charges are not only ridiculous but intentionally malicious; those who have accused him of being responsible are the types who believe in letting no crisis or disaster go to waste.
@ Real Jew
You wrote: He (Robert Spencer)... is simply exposing the "bad" side of Islam...(and) Why hasnt he committed one article to show the "good" side of Islam?
You are a clown! There isn't a good side of Islam. It's all bad. Islam denies freedom of speech, human rights, denigrates women and openly states that all Muslims should 'fight until all religion is for Allah'.
That's supremacist, nazi-like rhetoric.
That's why JW exists. To warn people and educate them.
There is absolutely NOTHING 'good' to report about islam, NOTHING!!! It is an evil, predatory, supremacist death cult, the enemy of civilized people. It subjugates women, promulgates hatred for all of humanity except muslims, sanctions rape, torture, genocide, pedophilia, incest, sodomy, FGM, wife beating and abuse, slavery---did I forget any of islam's other virtues? Oh yeah, apostasy is punishable by death; honor killing is encouraged and condoned; rape victims are criminals; homosexuality is a crime also punishable by death; beastiality and sex slavery are preferable to 'illegal' sex, as is sodomizing young boys. Temporary marriages, a form of legal prostitution to satisfy male lust, are a-ok, even to little girls. Islam is vile, despicable, EVIL!
If muslim immigration had never been permitted for the simple and logical reason that muslims are incompatible with our culture, laws, and religions and are taught that they are the rightful rulers of the world, superior to non-muslims, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Muslims do not belong in the West any more than non-Muslim Westerners belong in dar-al-islam. Our cultures are INCOMPATIBLE, multiculturalism be damned! Muslims are in the West to spread their vile religion and eventually conquer it; they are colonists, seditionists, a fifth column, and therefore a THREAT. No, not all of them are terrorists but they are all potential terrorists.
Now you tell us why we should celebrate the muslim invasion and why we should tolerate the intolerable.
The budding romance I'm witnessing between Asleep and Chick is inspiring. Exchanging internet high fives with each other for spewing nonsensical prattle from that dumpster u call your mouths.
As for u Asleep, Its quite obvious (and embarrassing) that I must have upset u so much during our last quarrel that u feel compelled to challenge me again. I'm afraid the results this time will be no different.
Now, in your attempt to "refute all my explicit words" what u foolishly failed to realize is that they weren't my words at all. I simply repeated the claims of your holy savior , robert spencer. The claim that he doesn't put all Muslims in the "same boat", so to speak. It's a little curious that he never mentions normal non-terrorist Muslims. Now why is that?
For somebody who always cries !!EVIDENCE!! I assumed u would have no problem in providing me with evidence that "refutes" my words, hypocrite. But we both know u can't provide a damn thing in that regards.
I can always tell when I say something and u can't counter cuz u immediately begin to pout and whine. Very ineffective. Haha
U really think that your "intellectual superiority" is gonna scare me away? Shut me up? Have me running to the closest synagogue?
Not a chance Kimo Sabi!
I enjoy f*****g with u clowns too much!
We vdo have intellectual superiority over a hate-filled and vulgar mental cripple like yourself. Now go back to your Pakistani sewer, troll.
"Yes, I believe in free speech - but not all of your readers are interested solely in debate and politics.
Keep that in mind."
Regardless... freedom of speech is an unalienable and natural human right, to be expressed about whatever a free man or woman wishes to express an opinion about.
It's always work -- when faced with the sort of crap that RS cites and quotes above -- to figure out how much is stupidity, how much is laziness, how much is recitation of dogma and how much is plain lies.
Sometimes you just can't tell, try though you may. It's all quite filthy, really.
===========
One does see some fallacies repeated though.
* The collectivist idiocy -- To damn one, or some members of a group is to damn them all.
This is a product of collectivist thinking. A product of the collectivized mind.
Groups are real, individuals are not. Anything you say about any member of a group applies to all members, because individuals only EXIST as members of the group. So when you speak about members you implicitly speak about the group.
* The idiotic conflation of doctrine & adherent -- The doctrine IS the believer and the believer IS the doctrine.
Because the doctrine and the believer are one and the same, you cannot criticize the doctrine without criticizing the believer.
Ergo, you cannot criticize the doctrines of Islam without damning Muslims. Muslims are indistinguishable from Islam.
It's hard to say what this might stem from -- or whether it might not simply be an empty, cynical debating tactic with no actual belief behind it at all.
In some cases it's probably an offshoot of the collectivist idiocy. Muslims are members of a group with common beliefs. So in criticizing the beliefs (or some of them) you criticize what defines the group. Flakey, but I suppose possible.
It might also stem from a notion of total mental passivity. We passively absorb beliefs from our environment, with no choice of our own, and from that moment forward we are identified by the beliefs we have absorbed -- they are a set, passive aspect of what we ARE, as opposed to something we choose to do.
So if people can't help what their beliefs are, to criticize the beliefs is to criticize the people who have been passively stamped or colored with them, so to speak -- through no choice or fault of their own.
Very victim-like. Very primitive. But quite plausible I think.
================
Mostly I think the writers RS cites come at the task with the presumption that RS, Geller, et al are to be condemned ... period. And the task is to figure out what they might be condemned for.
From there on in they are just making stuff up as they go along -- trying to satisfy that requirement.
They're just not very good at it. And you wouldn't expect them to be. Nor do they really need to be to accomplish what they are after. That being a paycheck and/or the approval of like minded folks.
It's just filthy work having to refute them constantly.
Thank God we have people like RS, Geller and company who have the belly for it.
I have just a few minutes to comment now, but I just have to say a little : I'm more than annoyed that Pam and Robert are taking such a bad rap- chances are these writers etc. are all leftist and just overjoyed at this opportunity to make Pam , Robert and others like them look bad.
And why are we not mentioning Geert Wilders here ? Are you all just focusing on reactions over on this side of the pond only ?
Holy heaven- poor Geert- he's been mentioned 30 times in Ahders Breivik's manifesto and I've read at LEAST 50 articles mentioning his name. Talk about DEMONIZING a person ! Will he ever manage to get away from persecution ?
Lets make a prediction : 1- he will be shunned and forever associated with that Norway incident , so do bad in the next election in Holland OR 2: he will be upheld as a leader who helped Europe become aware of Islamization even more than he was before the attack. That would be because the incident itself will draw attention to the Islamism problem- if that makes sense .I wonder-
@Wri7913 wrote "That 1.4 Billion Muslims harbor such hatred for a small group like this just blows my mind".
I can confirm to you that your statement is quite right, even Moderate Muslims hate Israel and USA. I have saw comments in the local news comments here in Indonesia, usually when there is news about men committing horrible murder, some readers will left comments like "How come he committed such horrible act, he is no different with those Jews".
A female employee of mine who I know not a devout muslimma, often visits discotheque, on one occasion when we discuss about Iranian president Ahmadinejad's visit to Indonesia, her admiration toward ahmad clearly shown on her face and she told me: 'This is the brave man who dare to against Amerika(USA) and Yahudi(Jews)'. And this is the opinion of the majority of Muslims in Indonesia, that's why I never show my alignment toward USA and Israel to any of my Muslim friends.
Watched, and thought Tommy was pretty damn good, actually. He didn't let slimeball Paxman fluster him, he stuck to the point, made some *excellent* points, and didn't let Paxman get away with his 'is that a threat ? It sounded like a threat.'
Way to go, Tommy ! I think Paxman thought that because Tommy is working class, didn't go to Uni (as far as I know), and doesn't have an upper-class accent, he'd be able to walk all over him. Tommy showed him he couldn't.
BTW, I tried to comment on your site, and would like to follow it, but it wouldn't let me. How do I do it ?
It certainly does explain a hell of a lot. Really, islam is not only *our* worst enemy, it's *theirs* as well. Ay de mi.
Real Jew wrote:
"I'm afraid the results this time will be no different."
Agreed. You were soundly thumped out of the gate, yet again. On the last thread, the assertion was that since pro-Israellobbies exist, the Jews run the world. On this one, Spencer's reporting on the atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of their religion is invalid because he doesn't post feel-good stories about nice Muslims. Laughable, illogical and you were soundly refuted by many commenters on this thread.
Real Jew wrote:
"Now, in your attempt to "refute all my explicit words" what u foolishly failed to realize is that they weren't my words at all. I simply repeated the claims of your holy savior , robert spencer."
Really?
"If this is indeed the truth then why after authoring thousands of articles has he failed to include one that portrays Islam in a positive light?"
Those aren't your words? By the way, you contradicted yourself in the same sentence, for YOUR words, which I quoted above, are your words not a repetition of Spencer's words.
Real Jew wrote:
"It's a little curious that he never mentions normal non-terrorist Muslims. Now why is that?"
It's not curious at all. It's normative actually. Pro-life sites do not meter their positions by including a balancing pro-choice stance. You can apply that logic across the board. What you are demanding is illogical, unprecedented and preposterous.
Real Jew wrote:
"For somebody who always cries !!EVIDENCE!! I assumed u would have no problem in providing me with evidence that "refutes" my words, hypocrite."
Actually, this goes back to the last thread. You made an audacious claim abut Israel and the pro-Israel lobbies without providing any substantiating support for your claim. On the contrary, you made the claim and declared it a fact, unless the claim was refuted. Nonsense. You make a claim and then transfer the burden of proof to others to refute something you never remotely established in the first place? Absolute rubbish.
Real Jew wrote:
"I enjoy f*****g with u clowns too much!"
This is good. We need more of this and less of your supposed arguing "prowess." It will help speed things along.
This is a prime example of the bi-polar nature of your commentary pattern that I am beginning to notice. It seems to slide back and forth from delusional, self-aggrandizing fantasy to outright sadistic ad hominem.
Have u been drinking this early in the morning? Are u really trying to convince your little buddies on JW of something that Spencer himself claims in this very article. And I quote
"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"
Ouch! That hurt. That one quote relegated your entire post irrelevant. As for Spencer, where is the evidence for these claims? Surely out of hundreds of articles and thousands of blogs he could point to one that can substantiate his claim.
So your self defeating tactic of criticizing the technicalities of my post rather then the points I'm addressing shows how shallow your arguments really are. And for God's sake stop crying about previous posts which apparently have caused you PTSD
Real Jew quoted Robert Spencer:
"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"
Real Jew then wrote:
"As for Spencer, where is the evidence for these claims?"
Again, we see the assertion that Spencer's words are not genuine and again we have an unfounded accusation by Real Jew, who thinks that the burden of proof is immediately and correctly transferred to the target of his accusation in order to refute his unfounded assetion.
That is plain-ol'-bat-shit-crazy.
If you think Spencer was being disingenuous when he stated:
..."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"...,
Shouldn't YOU provide a single example of where he did in order to validate your initial baseless assertion?
What kind of demented cognitive functioning aloows you to believe that your baseless assertions are initiallty proven as factual unless otherwise disproven?
Here let me help you along a bit. Take Spencer's explicit statement:
..."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"...
Now, provide concrete written examples where you believe he did just what he said he has never done.
I feel a growing sense of pity arising in me...
You're right. What do I know?!?
;)
You are a complete and utter hypocrite. You're constantly winning about my lack of supportive evidence yet you fail time and time again to provide any for your own "unfounded accusations".
As it so happens I do have evidence of my claims. How about the entire jiihad watch website genius! Every single article is evidence of this. I don't see one example where Spencer distinguishes between Islamic terrorists and regular Muslims. Not one. He doesn't even so much as mention regular American Muslims who aren't involved in Jihad-ism.
It's not pity growing inside of you. It's hatred of an American Jew who calls you out on your bulls***.
Real Jew wrote:
"You are a complete and utter hypocrite. You're constantly winning about my lack of supportive evidence yet you fail time and time again to provide any for your own "unfounded accusations"."
Yes, I am constantly "winning". I made no unfound accusations, for I am merely responding to and calling you out on your own unfounded accusations.
Real Jew wrote:
"As it so happens I do have evidence of my claims. How about the entire jiihad watch website genius! Every single article is evidence of this."
Now that's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Besides the logical impossibility of your "evidence" , Spencer does not do what you accuse him here on this very thread.
This is evident with his statement, "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."
Read the rest in the FAQ that Spencer linked, which I will provide again below:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/about-robert-spencer.html
Real Jew wrote:
"It's not pity growing inside of you. It's hatred of an American Jew who calls you out on your bulls***."
Nice try...but why don't you jusr call me an anti-Semite and speed this along?
You're not an American Jew. You're not American and you're certainly not Jewish. We weren't born yesterday. We're familiar with trash like you who come every now and then to troll articles and spread complete tosh on these boards. You are a primitive know-nothing who is incapable of stringing two coherent sentences of English together, or any language for that matter. And you are a vicious antisemite to boot. You'd be cheering it to the rafters if the victims were Jewish, because thats the way you are. You are living proof of the abject fauilure of the education system you came under. You obviously haven't learned more than the average snail during your lifetime - and it shows.
Tom Davis and everybody:
My source is "Preachers of Hate" by Kenneth Timmermann. A must read. An enormous amount of valuable information is packed into this small book. Besides providing the complete anathomy of the abominable state of the nation of Norway, its hate government and elites who actively aid the Global Jihad, it presents intriguing facts that are even more important:
No one in the US and the entire Western world knows about Iran than Timmermann. And what he had learned from his Iranian sources about the initial reaction to the 9/11 attacks from Iran and Hezbollah leaves NO DOUBT OF THE TOTAL INVOLVEMENT OF IRAN IN 9/11.
Our cowardly US government is covering it up, because if this fact becomes widely known, the US will have to go to war on Iran. And for that, our cowards-in-chief, Republican and Democrat, have no guts.
For more reasons than one, for more reasons than two, for more reasons than 100, I highly recommend this book to everyone. It is a treasure.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
A typo in the previous post. I meant:
No one in the US and the entire Western world knows MORE about Iran than Timmermann.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
mike ryan:
A few more examples to support your point:
1) Moshko Blank, Lenin's great-grandfather on the maternal side. Converted to Christianity, not because he valued Christian faith, but out of hate for his own Jewish people. Devoted the rest of his life relentlessly petitioning the Tsarist government of Russia to ban the Jewish religion and customs throughout the Empire. Even Tsarist Russia who relentlessly oppressed and persecuted its Jewish population was not abusive enough to his liking!
2) Jacob Brafman, another Russian Jew who converted to Christianity out of hate for his people. He, too, devoted the rest of his life publicly inciting hate for the Jews. All those pogroms were not enough for him!
3) Jonas Wolk, a Jew who volunteered to aid the infamous Julius Streicher to incite hate, murder and genocide of the Jews in Nazi Germany.
There have always been, and still are anti-Jewish Jews in the world. We have Norman Finkelstein, Peter Lippman and Noam Chomsky in the US, Avrahom Burg and Israel Shahak in Israel.
I personally think "Real Jew" is, indeed, a Jew. An Israel-hating Jew. A Zionism-hating Jew. A Jew-hating Jew.
Those are refuse og the Jewish race. The best Jews are the glorious Zionists of Israel.
Ruslan Tokhchukov.
Awake, let me ask u a question, because Im positive a self proclaimed "intellectual" such as yourself would apply some logic in answering. Do you think Spencer, or anybody who has a career in the public's eye, is stupid enough to openly express even a shred of prejudice or discrimination? Ya think he would show up at NBC and say all the world's Muslims are savage terrorist?
Of course he wouldn't because that would be throwing his entire reputation and career down the toilet. Therefore, quoting one statement he's made referring to normal muslims and providing one link to a biographical Q&A does very little to persuade anybody.
However, being the MAN that I am, even though u proclaimed yourself my nemesis, I give credit where its due. And you did indeed find me one reference to non terrorist Muslims.
I stepped out for a while and am not caught up on all the comments to this story. I have a question which, if it has already been addressed, I would be grateful for being provided the link.
The background: The murdered Norwegian "children" were from the families of elite politicians, presumably those who in some way are responsible for shoving the Norwegian immigration and multicultural policies down the throats of an unapproving population. The "kids" were on the island for some sort of political education retreat, again presumably approved of by their parents.
The question: Does anyone know anything about the contents of the education program the "children" were being subjected to? Was the retreat something like one might imagine the Harvard and Yale political class sending their children to in order to make sure they would be prepared to step into the shoes of their parents? Anyone have any information on this?
EastView,
I have only now spotted your comment. I will try to write to my Norwegian contact. I hope he will have time to find out and answer.
cheers
Real Jew wrote:
"Awake, let me ask u a question, because Im positive a self proclaimed "intellectual" such as yourself would apply some logic in answering."
Full stop, I never declared myself an intellectual. Provide a comment of mine, other than declaring your assertions as intellectually deficient due to lack of support for your assertions. If you have a comment of mine where I did declare myself as an intelectual, then please quote it in your next reply.
Real Jew wrote:
"Do you think Spencer, or anybody who has a career in the public's eye, is stupid enough to openly express even a shred of prejudice or discrimination?"
Full stop. You recently declared that Spencer considers all Muslims as terrorists, supported by every post here at JW, even though you still have not provided a single explicit example yet, but now insinuate that Spencer is not stupid enough to show his bias towards all Muslims?
That is wholly illogical. Which is it, Real Jew? Does he show his bias against "all Muslims" in everything he has written to date, or as you stated, shrewdly avoiding even a shred of bias of the same? You can't have it both ways.
Real Jew wrote:
"Ya think he would show up at NBC and say all the world's Muslims are savage terrorist?"
No, I don't. That's because he has never espoused that sentiment, with your qualifier of "savage" being totally uneccesary in your unfounded charge. That said, he did indeed show up on NBC nightly news on Monday to defend himself from the false claims of the leftist media who DID correlate his reporting on Islamic jihad as an impetus for Breivik's actions. In fact, that is precisely your opening angle, as weak a reed as it is to support your initial assertion.
Real Jew wrote:
"Of course he wouldn't because that would be throwing his entire reputation and career down the toilet. Therefore, quoting one statement he's made referring to normal muslims and providing one link to a biographical Q&A does very little to persuade anybody."
Well, I perceive that whole last statement of yours as "playing both sides of ther coin" again by you. He wouldn't show bias on NBC, in public because it would ruin his career, as you put it, yet you maintain that he does the very same on every public post here at JW in your estimation. Again, an illogical presumption and one I wish you would clarify your position one way or the other. Riding bot sides of the fence is not a viable option in my opinion.
In addition, the Q and A, the biography, along with the stated mission of "why Jihadwatch" makes Spencer's position crystal clear. In this regard, I am quite confident that everybody who peruses these forums understands and accepts that stated premise, with obvious minority opposition from the likes of you and a few others.
The challenge before you still remains, and is still unfullfilled. let me give you credit by acknowledging a single reference that you put forth to support your assertion that Spencer has summarily declared all Muslims as terrorists.
As conflicted as you appear to be, the ball is back in your court. I would like to have a respectful, honest debate on this matter with you, Real Jew, but I fear your willful intentions are less than savory, to say the least.
Pull up your socks Mr. Spencer!
If after years of "incitements", thousands of articles, quite a few books and many thousands of readers all you have to show for, is one tin pot Norwegian murderer that got it "wrong" by targeting non-Muslims, you have failed miserably in your "endeavours".
The fact that we, Jihad Watchers, have not scored at least one Muslim each by now is a monument to our mental inability to get your message; what a bunch of morons we are!
But wait, there is a silver lining; with all our limited mental capacity, we still have a long way to go before we reach the stupidity of the NYT editors, let alone those who believe the crap they put out.
Ok that post is way to long to reread but from what I gathered your shockingly still confused on whether I believe Robert Spencer's work portrays all Muslims as terrorists.
The answer is undoubtedly unequivocally YES!!
And I'm sure as hell not the only one. As a matter of fact, aside from Jihad Watch and Atlas Juggs, support for Robert Spencer and his ideology is almost nonexistent. He has been rightly condemned across the board ranging but not limited to academics, politicians, theologians, the media, political analysts , and journalists
And if you want some evidence you don't have to look far. Simply Google his name and tens of articles, books, political websites and much more are available for your consumption. But I'm sure you already knew that
Coming back to the main question. If u didn't constantly take my words out of context to suit your arguments I wouldn't have to explain this. When I said Spencer is not dumb enough to openly admit his discrimination I was referring to the biographical interview u provided a link for.
When Spencer is asked directly about Islamic stereotyping and discrimination, there's no way in hell he would go on record for the obvious reasons I mentioned before. So what's the next best thing to do, create a website to slander, demonize and incite hatred for Islam by selective reporting.
Evidence of Spencer's selective reporting can be seen when u consider the massive amounts of quotes from the Quran he uses to portray Islam as a violent. Yet he has never mentioned any of the peaceful quotes of the Quran. Which is kind of odd considering there is twice if not 3 times more peaceful quotes in the Quran then there are violent.
If that's not selective reporting then please tell me what is. I'll wait
Which is kind of odd considering there is twice if not 3 times more peaceful quotes in the Quran then there are violent.
Have you read the qur'an?! It is a manifesto of perpetual war against unbelievers and there are at least 109 verses that call muslims to war against non-muslims! Islam's two other canonical texts, the sunna and hadith, are even worse than the qur'an in the demonization and hatred of non-muslims. The verses that do not promulgate hate, war, pillage, plunder, and muslim supremacy are absurd fables resembling fairy tales with an Arabic twist; contradictions; and islamic 'science', pure asininity. Much of what is written is unintelligible, totally senseless and meaningless. Since we are discussing the extreme violence that permeates this ideology, I won't even touch on the historical distortions in islam or the fact that it didn't exist during the time of the prophets it claims as its own. Islam is a bad joke but it sure isn't funny.
The 'peace' you refer to in the qur'an applies only to muslims and then only if they emulate the perversions of their vile prophet. It also refers to the ultimate, delusional fantasy of supremacist islam---the utopia that will exist when islam conquers the world, a truly nauseating prospect. The 'peace' of islam will putatively prevail when the entire world is muslim, ruled by a caliphate under sharia, which is amusing since muslims have been killing each other with wild abandon for centuries over small, irrelevant disagreements about muhammad's successors; profound minutia but enough to justify violent conflict to quell their insatiable thirst for blood when there are no convenient infidels to butcher. Hate, murder, genocide, torture, rape, and slavery are islam's gifts to those who reject the savage, pedophile prophet muhammad and his alter ego, allah. Most of the so-called 'peaceful' verses were abrogated and are ignored unless it is necessary to deceive ignorant infidels, at which time they are copiously quoted.
Istanbul_Chick, there is hope for us, for other people in the world who love freedom, for the West in general, and for America in particular. All is not lost. There is always hope.
If you're talking about the dedicated leftist, that last sentence may be a little sanguine, but I don't believe that Islam will ever conquer the West.
For one thing, more and more Americans are learning about Islam, perhaps far later than many would like, but they are learning about Islam all the same, and they do not like what they see. The Internet has made it easy to compare to the various translations of the Qur'an side by side and to find Qur'anic verses and the Hadith sayings in the rantings of Islamic clerics and the cowardly defenders of Islam who are determined to have their Caliphate. Americans, and others, are learning from writers like Robert Spencer, Bat Ye Or, Raymond Ibrahim, Mark Durie, Ibn Warraq, Steve Emerson and Bernard Lewis inter alia, what devout, fanatical Muslims think of non-Muslims, and what these fanatics have in mind for the people they hate. Americans will react accordingly but wisely. I don't think we will have the kind of big battle show-pieces like the Battle of Lepanto or the Seige of Vienna.
Some Europeans are beginning to re-examine the assumptions of multiculturalism. They are seeing that their tolerance of an intolerant, religiously tinged ideology, is working against them. Among the leadership there, Angela Merkle, David Cameron, and Nicolas Sarkosy have made public statements about that most recently. I don't think the horrible killings in Olso will dissuade them either. They are leaders of states, they see what multiculturalism is costing their states in lives and in money. They have aging populations drawing pensions right along with restive immigrants who are in no hurry to integrate. The economic contributions of these Muslim immigrants will not be sufficient to fund those pensions. That's why Sarkozy is trying so hard to reform the French rules about work and to make France more open to the entrepreneur. It's quite an irony that though the word "entrepreneur" is French, a French entrepreneur has a very difficult time.
As I think I may have written to you before, one of my French cousins, an old-time liberal, who marched in the Paris demonstrations of 1968 and also in protests in Metz and Strasbourg, has finally come around to see that the European way of life is under threat, and that the liberty and freedom he has enjoyed is not loved or understood by many of the millions of Muslim immigrants living in France. He is not alone and there are others like him in other parts of Europe.
Another thing that makes me hopeful is the number of Muslim apostates everywhere. Smart, literate, former Muslims, like Ibn Warraq, will continue to influence Muslims who have questions about Islam that the imams cannot answer.
Western scholars of Islam, like the researcher who writes under the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg, are shattering the claims of Muslims who say that the Qur'an is pure and unadulterated, handed done from Muhammad's time to the present day complete and in tact. A good number of ordinary Muslims are going hear some bad news. One way or another, Muslim clerics will have to read and try to refute what scholars like Luxenberg have written. This new scholarship will eventually hold sway. The theologians of Mecca and Qom will not be able to stop inquiry and the results on the truth claims of Islam will be devastating.
There are a few other things that make me optimistic, but this post is becoming long and the hour is late now. Perhaps further discussion will fit another thread.
One more thing. Your kind comments flattered, but embarrassed me a little. They also brought to mind two things, the phrase, "two out of three," and that quip “No man is a hero to his valet." I can’t claim two of those compliments so I'll accept, one out of three - only just. When I remember to treat strangers with kindness ( I don’t always); or if I remember the birthdays of my family and friends, or when I remember to write thank-you notes, as my parents taught me to do, then, I just might deserve to be called thoughtful. Intelligent? Well I certainly don’t feel like a genius when I lose money; but I can walk upright at least some of the time. Since I don't have a valet, the mirror tells me every morning that what will prove to be profound about me is the collection of wrinkles that are beginning to show. I'm fairly sure that there will be a deep map-face in my future. Nothing heroic about that.
I'll look for your new posts with all their quick and sometimes caustic wit.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Classicus.
You did mention your relative before and I remember thinking of a die hard, old time *EUROPEAN* liberal can wake up to the reality then there might be some hope.
I also take heart in the fact that India has not submitted despite centuries of attempts both externally and internally to throw the yoke of islam around their necks.
On an even more happy note I just spent the past hour chatting with my 13 year old niece. She recently returned home from camp and was retelling me an encounter she had with an older (18) girl. They were discussing the influx of immigrants, mainly Hispanic, into North America. My niece said that she posited the question "What is a better use of our resources? Teaching 360 million natives to speak Spanish and languages of other immigrants or teaching 20 million immigrants of many languages to speak English?
The older girl's reaction was to scream "you're all idiots (at my niece and her friends)! I learned the Czech language!" and stomp off.
My niece asked me "Why would she act like that?" To which I explained to her that when a person has a weak argument rather than explore other options they walk away from or attack those who do have a better argument and more useful options. This then allowed me to explain to her that this girl was a product of culutral and moral relativism and that she (my niece) will be assaulted with it when she hits high school.
All is not lost, as I type she is telling me about one of her teachers who is teaching them about communism. She just told me, "We will all be Boxers if America becomes communist." Yes! I have hope! There is at least one teacher trying to undo the damage of the hard, hard, hard left indoctrination!
Please accept my compliments proudly! I admire people like you who can express in a more cogent and thoughtful way what I am thinking. I am a short tempered Irish harpy and my mouth reacts quicker than my brain can eloquently catagorize and organize what's "on it."
Never forget: every wrinkle, every grey hair tells a damn good story.
"To which I explained to her when a person has a weak argument rather then explore other options they walk away or attack those who have a better argument and more useful options" what!
Clearly anybody who reads your nonsensical prattle would agree this is a perfectly accurate description of your behavior. Bwahahaha!
"Clearly anybody who reads your nonsensical prattle would agree this is a perfectly accurate description of your behavior. Bwahahaha!"
Stop projecting.
I am not running away from any debates, real unclever mohammadan.
I do, however, ignore obfuscators, and historical revisionists like you.
StoneA Roller wrote:
This is my first post at Jihad Watch.
..............................
Welcome, StoneA Roller! It sounds as though you are already a staunch anti-Jihadist. Glad to see you here.
So—what is the ultimate purpose of this grotesque and false demonization? the answer is complex, but at its simplest, I believe it is fear.
If those most concerned about the terrible threat of Jihad can seem to be discredited, then perhaps they can convince themselves that *there is no Jihad threat*.
If they can convince themselves that the only people who are alarmed by Jihad are kooks—or that *they themselves are a threat*, then they let themselves off the hook from considering what we really face.
This is hardly new.
After all, if Winston Churchill was an old-fashioned fool, an alarmist, or a even a needless warmonger, then *he* could be denounced.
If, however, the Nazis *really are a threat*, what then?
This is the question those in denial will go to almost any lengths to avoid asking themselves vis-a-vis Jihad.
Perhaps it helps to see what role Robert Spencer plays, Real Jew.
There is a huge process ongoing and Robert is prosecutor. He is not the judge or the jury. Painting the positive aspects of Islam is the job of the lawyer of the accused, Islam.
We, the readers, the Western people and also the Muslims, are the ones who considers both parts of the argument.
Awake, I for one see and admire, enjoy AND prophit from your logic!
Unlike you, I see Real Jew not as dumb but as intelligent. But that makes you all the better for answering him/ her so well. And I think it is very important that he/ she poses the challenge and persons like you answer them well, so we of JW can emulate you when we in everyday life get confronted with the same arguments Real Jew presents.
I agree with you that Real Jew places the burden of proof wrongly. What with all the factual and logical material Robert presents all the time, there is now massive evidence for his assertions of the goals of Islam and it's adherents and their effects on: the whole democratic system, and many individual victims of the Islamic totalitarian ideology worldwide.
Durotrigan
you wrote - "Demonisation of anti-Islamists is the flavour of the day here in the UK, and it would appear that troublesome things such as facts will not stand in the way of mainstream media outlets and politicians across the West from attempting to use the Breivik case as a pretext for shutting down criticism of Islamisation.
"Witness the hostile interviewing of the English Defence League's Stephen Lennon/Tommy Robinson in this video of yesterday's Newsnight in which Jeremy Paxman attempts to insinuate a non-existent link between the EDL and Breivik"
and you posted the link.
Thank you. I took the time to watch it.
I *like* Tommy Robinson/ Stephen Lennon. Feet firmly on the ground! Paxman was **incredibly hostile** and sneering horribly.
Lennon whacked every ball for six. Right into the stands. Didn't lose a single stump.
He's a brave man. And he has his woman and his two kids (one only a baby). And presumably he's working to support himself and them. **And** he's leading a grassroots movement that's trying to raise the alarm about the Islamisation of Britain and what it's doing to ordinary non-Muslim people on the ground.
There's a lady I know - we correspond regularly - who used to post here in the past as 'Esmerelda Weatherwax' or 'Granny Weatherwax'. She's English, working-class London background, church-going Christian, member of the Mothers' Union. And she's been to quite a few EDL rallies, or observed them from the sidelines, and spoken with their rank and file members, and she vouches for them. That's good enough for me.