Remember those Jewish terror plots? The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg equates resistance to Islamization with Nazism

Jeffrey Goldberg is an embarrassment to his people. But we've had our share of Jeffrey Goldbergs throughout our tortuous history, and then some. If that's been P. Geller's essential point about Goldberg, she is right.

Equating counter-jihad with antisemitism is sickening beyond belief, as well as utterly nonsensical.

These paleo-antisemites of early 20th century, who eventually evolved to nazis, had one written document - the Protocols of Elders of Zion, a dubious tome eventually proved to be forgery, showing no correspondence with reality, a complete nonsense. No Jew was running around Europe, wawing with Protocols and promising "Death to gojim".

Islam has volumininous libraries of books, all revolving around Quran and Sunna. Everybody can read them, and see there, black on white, eternal blueprint for all the nasty things happening in islam. The blueprint corresponds with reality closely, and muslims from around the World are jumping around, waving this Quran and promising "Death to kuffar".

Comparing anti-jihad with nazis is beyond critique. It is nauseating, it is idiotic, it is evil.

Jeffrey Goldberg is a Quisling in our time while Pamela Gellar is a Churchill. Charles Johnson is simply a wing nut as his blog site says. Let's be clear Islam is fascist. Its theology of conquest with the "Aryan super race" of the Nazis replaced by MANDATED (by the sword) supremacy of Islam. Judaism has NO theology of world conquest. The coonquest of Caanan was simply the Lord destoying and driving out the unfaithful evil Caananites with the Israelites minor assistance.Islam must dominate the world by force, other wise its theology is discredited.

http://newstime.co.nz/book-the-nazi-connection-to-islamic-terrorism-by-chuck-morse.html
(book) “The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism”
by Chuck Morse

Another mental lightweight, and a kapo at that.

"'Some of what people are saying in this mosque controversy is very similar to what German media was saying about Jews in the 1920s and 1930s,' Imam Abdullah Antepli, Muslim chaplain at Duke University, told the New York Times. Yes, we all recall the Jewish suicide bombers of that period, as we recall the Jewish yells for holy war, the Jewish demands for the veiling of women and the stoning of homosexuals, and the Jewish burning of newspapers that published cartoons they did not like."

I don't often see so much truth being told in such a small amount of words... That was absolutely brilliant of Hitchens.

Goldberg, a liar of Hitlerian proportion, with the tiresome
......"muslims are the new jews" drone
they are not,
not victims..No1 PERPETRATORS of anti-semitism,
sheesh talk about empty vessels making most noise

Orwellian, nothing else to say

The nearest analogy to the Nazi situation is to the mid 1930's, when Hitler could still have been stopped without major death and destruction, if the vacillating appeasers had listened to Winston Churchill, who had actually read Mein Koranpf and understood that Hitler meant exactly what he said.

Of course Hitler was a bit stupid, which is why he got beaten in the end. If he'd made Nazism into a religion, and claimed that Mein Koranpf had been dictated by God, there would have been no stopping him... http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2011/03/church-of-adolf-hitler.html

European Jews in the 1930s were fully-assimilated citizens of the countries where they lived and who actually CONTRIBUTED economically and culturally a great lot to their societies; unlike muslims, contributing extremely little and acting as an enormous burden on the societies where they live, both through what they get (legally and illegally) from welfare programs; rejecting secular legal systems in favor of that formula for the creation of cesspools known as sharia; being responsible for the overwhelming majority of criminal acts in countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, France, the UK and the Netherlands. Not to mention how they require that well-known ever-increasing surveillance in order to be "prevented" from (in the words of our gutless and cowardly political leaders, as if anything done by infidels could prevent this) "becoming radicalized"; or, in other words, follow islam as Mein Qurampf orders them to.

lets not forget the millions of westerners throwing themselves at the countrys of saudi-arabia, pakistan, and iran, begging for asylum.

Goldberg does not have the courage Ms Gellar.

The sight of himself in the mirror must cause him such shame.

Funny, I always equate Nazism with Islam.

Jeffery Goldberg and people like him are the same type who used to worship the communists.
Now that communism is gone they have found a new home in Islam.
This means that they are still, as Lenin used to call them,
"Useful Idiots."

Once again, another so-called journalist, this time Goldberg, who knows practically nothing about Islam, and who has a past history of hostility and wrangling with Geller and Spencer, now uses his platform to launch a personal attack against them. (Also see his recent blog entry where he calls Geller and Spencer "Jihadists").

Here's one previous encounter at JW:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/10/reuel-gerecht-on-pamela-gellers.html#comments

Here's Goldberg attempting to smear Pamela Geller by quoting one of her "followers":

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/pamela-gellers-followers-go-nuts-or-are-nuts-or-something/242688/

"Pamela Geller's Followers Go Nuts (or Are Nuts, or Something) International Jul 28 2011, 10:54 AM ET Please, nutty people, leave my e-mail inbox alone! I've been flooded with mail from defenders of Pamela Geller, the shrieking bigot who thinks all Muslims are evil, that Muslims live under her bed, that Muslims short-sheeted her bed at summer camp, and so on. Here is one such letter: "Pamela Geller is right, you want to see America and Israel destroyed. Why do you love Muslims so much? Are you a secret Muslim?" You got me! I am a secret Muslim. Well, not a secret one anymore. I'm actually known in Occupied Palestine as Abu Tsuris. I was a summer intern with Hamas (in the press office) and I'm hoping to get my M.A. in Shari'a from al-Azhar University, where I also play for the lacrosse team. It is amazing to me how Geller's followers think of Islam the way they believe Islam thinks of Christianity and Judaism. For the record: I'm a proud Jew, not observant enough, but trying, and I also admire many aspects of Islam. I don't believe this to be a contradiction. I love Islamic art and architecture and poetry, and I appreciate the manner in which Islam provides meaning and solace to its followers. I appreciate Islam's firm stand against idolatry, and I also find comfort in Islam's stunning diversity. Included in this diversity, of course, are streams of Islam I find disagreeable, and one or two I find repugnant. But Islam, like Judaism, and like Christianity, is a universe. It is not a monolith, as Pamela Geller and her ilk would have you believe. Some of the best people I know are Muslim, and some of the worst are Muslim. The same holds true for Judaism. Pamela Geller is a terrible bigot because she believes that Islam is an intrinsically evil system, and that everyone who adheres to this system is intrinsically evil.."

(my emphasis)

Note how Goldberg provides not one shred of support for any of his wild claims or beliefs about Pamela Geller. Also note his bizarre, disturbing, and frankly, downright fatuous endorsement of Islam's "firm stand against idolatry". (Not that Islam is monolithic of course!--I think Goldberg needs to get his story straight here). Indeed, Islam is not monolithic, and I doubt that Pamela Geller ever claimed it was. He neglects to mention or is unaware of the fact that in mainstream Islam historically those regarded as "idolaters" or polytheists were in many cases (i.e., millions) either slaughtered in imperialistic jihads or subjugated under Islamic rule simply because they were polytheists. As Will Durant noted, "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history." Goldberg may also be unaware of the fact that, again in mainstream Islam historically, Jews and Christians were treated as having committed a form of polytheism (i.e., shirk). Moreover, the Qur'an says as much (9:29-31), in the context of ordering Muslims to fight (q-t-l, kill) the people of the book until they either embrace Islam or pay the jizya in subjugation under Islamic rule. The policies are not limited to history but there are remnants of them in the world today, in countries where we can see clear evidence of Muslim persecution of non-Muslims (e.g., Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.).

At the very least, the Qur'an says that the idolaters will be punished in this world and the next, and goes into graphic detail about the tortures and fires of hell awaiting those guilty of polytheism and other forms of disbelief/disobedience. Is that what Goldberg is endorsing? It is truly a curious statement from Goldberg. He doesn't say he "appreciates" Islam's "firm stand" defending people of other religions including polytheists. Why doesn't he say that? There may well be a small percentage of Muslims somewhere who interpret a version of Islam in which polytheism is not viewed as a problem. (For example, there are some intermarriages between Muslims and polytheists in India. Probably more often it is Muslim males marrying non-Muslim females rather than Muslim females marrying non-Muslim males, but this does suggest that at least some Muslims, and thus their version or interpretation of Islam, no longer take the Qur'an's prohibitions in this matter to be binding or important). But that type of Islam isn't the type that Goldberg "appreciates." Instead, his statement certainly makes it look like he is endorsing the hard-line version which takes a "firm stand" against "idolatry," which entails an endorsement of some very nasty policies.

His choice here is also interesting because some Muslim spokesmen (and women) will claim that true Islam has a live-and-let-live policy toward idolatry (e.g., based on such verses as 109:1-6), or that Muslims should merely argue their case in a "better way" (16:125). But that's not a firm stand against idolatry. To live and let live and allow free open debate is to allow a "free market" situation where polytheism or idolatry can become the prevailing, dominant view, if that's what people choose. Hence, the later policy developed and expressed in the Qur'an and taken up in Islamic polity and law is that Islam must be the dominant religion, no matter how much the polytheists dislike it (9:32-33, 61:8-9), and the infamous 9:5, which orders Muslims to "slay the idolaters wherever [they] find them" if they don't surrender or embrace Islam. No doubt, Islamic extremists would appreciate Goldberg's appreciation of a firm stand against idolatry. None of that seems to trouble Goldberg. It seems highly unlikely, of course, that Goldberg appreciates that type of "firm stand" against idolatry. Then what does he mean? That he merely thinks idolaters or polytheists ought to fry in the tortures of hell for their "crime" of believing differently than he does? I'd like to see Goldberg asked publicly to explain publicly exactly what he means when he says he appreciates Islam's firm stand against idolatry.

In another blog entry, Goldberg writes (first quoting a reader):

"A Goldblog reader writes:
"You write that Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer should watch their words because their words might provoke violence. You're saying that they should censor themselves or be censored. You're crazy. You say this and you put us on the road to fascism. I bet you would never say the same things about liberal commentators demonizing Republicans."
No, I would. I would say this to anyone, liberal commentators, and also (and especially sometimes, given the rhetoric) to Fox commentators who portray the President, and others with whom they disagree, as enemies of America. But on Pamela Geller and the target of her demonization: I believe that the mass of Muslim Americans are loyal, law-abiding citizens, and that many of them came here, in fact, to escape extremism, fanaticism and violence. And therefore, I believe that Pamela Geller's broad-brush condemnation of people and their religion (remember, she thinks that Islam is intrinsically evil) can create conditions in which people could get hurt. Yes, she has a right to free speech. But she has a moral duty to keep herself from using language that could physically endanger her fellow citizens. When you state, over and over again, that Muslims -- all Muslims -- are followers of an evil religion, you create conditions in which innocent Muslims could get hurt."

I don't accept the premises here, but note the in-principle argument he's adopting: Again, by this logic, which has been used elsewhere many times before, Goldberg is encouraging violent and deadly attacks against Geller and Spencer with his continued, unhinged, over-the-top invective against them. (Meanwhile he is hypocritically advising others not to do this). A case could be made that what Goldberg is doing in his repeated attacks on Geller and Spencer poses a significant risk to them, since characterizing anyone as an enemy of Islam and so forth essentially paints, for the jihadists, a target on the backs on those so characterized. Geller and Spencer require bodyguards where they go to speak publicly in the U.S. They have enough problems as it is without Goldberg adding fuel to the fire. The Jeffrey Goldbergs, Scott Shanes, et al., do not require bodyguards, despite Goldberg's posturing about his fears of an American Breivik.

Another post by Goldberg (my emphasis and [brackets]):

"On Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Other Jihadists
National Jul 25 2011, 9:05 AM ET
I'm away, and it's hard to keep up with the news, but it seems as if my arch-nemesis Pamela Geller is in a bit of a pickle because she and her partner-in-Muslim-bashing, Robert Spencer, were favorites of the Norway killer. (Btw, I call her my arch-nemesis, but I'm grateful to her for calling me what I believe to be the best epithet ever, "Jewicidal Jihadi." Also, "Jihad Jeffro." All I've ever come up with to describe her is "shrieking bigot," which doesn't have the same power, or alliterative quality.) Here's The Times on Geller, and Geller's delightful response:
[The Times:] Mr. Breivik's declaration did not name Mr. Kaczynski or acknowledge the numerous passages copied from the Unabomber's 1995 manifesto, in which the Norwegian substituted "multiculturalists" or "cultural Marxists" for Mr. Kaczynski's "leftists" and made other small wording changes.
By contrast, he quoted the American and European counterjihad writers by name, notably Mr. Spencer, author of 10 books, including "Islam Unveiled" and "The Truth About Muhammad."
Mr. Breivik frequently cited another blog, Atlas Shrugs, and recommended the Gates of Vienna among Web sites. Pamela Geller, an outspoken critic of Islam who runs Atlas Shrugs, wrote on her blog Sunday that any assertion that she or other antijihad writers bore any responsibility for Mr. Breivik's actions was "ridiculous."
[Geller:] "If anyone incited him to violence, it was Islamic supremacists," she wrote.
Goldblog's position: Geller is a hatemonger, but she didn't pull the trigger. Free speech means free speech. But she should be aware now that violent people look to her for guidance, and she should write with that in mind. Which brings me to the subject of the Murfreesboro, Tennessee, mosque, the new "Ground Zero mosque" controversy. People like Herman Cain, who vilify this mosque (and other mosques) should think carefully about the ways in which their words are heard. I worry about a violent reaction to the Tennessee mosque more than I worry about any other terrorism target in America. More on this later, when I have better access to the Web."

Corrections:

In Breivik's manifesto, Pamela Geller is mentioned only once by name, by Fjordman in an article, in the context of Fjordman's complaint about how Charles Johnson treated numerous people, a list of people which included Geller.

Geller's site Atlasshrugs is referenced several times, by Fjordman. Breivik himself only cites it a few times in references (not "frequently"), and his only comment in the manifesto that mentions the blog is this:
"Document.no is a Norwegian right wing blog/site equivalent in content to BrusselsJournal.com, GatesOfVienna.blogspot.com, JihadWatch.org or AtlasShrugs2000.typepad.com"

As was found to be the case with Spencer, Breivik never quotes Geller as supporting any of Breivik's "revolutionary" (Breivik's term) views, values, methods, and objectives, etc. They are both concerned about Muslim immigration into Europe--as are the pluralities to majorities of Europeans polled.

The argument that Geller or others are responsible for Breivik's murders because they are cited in Breivik's manifesto is quite crude, a transparently lazy and superficial argument. I note that Goldberg above cited The Times to support his "argument". Breivik's manifesto also cited The Times, numerous times, including instances to support his arguments. Here's one example:

"In a British poll from February 2010, a massive 70% shows their discontent with multiculturalism and Islamisation:
3 out of 5 Brits believe that the UK has become a broken country due to multiculturalism.
Voters are deeply pessimistic about the state of Britain today, believing that society is broken and heading in the wrong direction, a Populus poll for The Times has found.
Nearly three fifths of voters say that they hardly recognise the country they are living in, while 42 per cent say they would emigrate if they could.
It suggests that 70 per cent believe that society is now broken, echoing a Conservative campaign theme of the past two years, while 68 per cent say people who play by the rules get a raw deal and 82 per cent think it is time for a change.[8]"

Source 8. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7020009.ece?&EMC-Bltn=CDNGQ2F

By the Goldberg-type of logic here, The Times is at least as guilty as Pamela Geller. Wikipedia (cited more than 400 times in the manifesto) may be even more guilty by Goldberg's method of assessment.

Breivik pasted in an Andrew Bostom article in which Bostom cited Bernard Lewis in The Atlantic (where Goldberg writes) several times. Is The Atlantic or the Atlantic Monthly, guilty, or is Goldberg guilty by association, because of these statements in an Atlantic article, in a Fjordman article, inside Breivik's manifesto?
“Writing about the collapse of nations such as Somalia, the Atlantic Monthly’s Robert D. Kaplan referred to the
“citizens” of such “states” as “re-primitivised man.”"

The September 2011 Atlantic print edition arrived in my home a few days ago. It included several articles related to the upcoming 10th anniversary of 9/11, and a short story by one Amy Waldman, whose protagonist is an Irish Catholic anti-jihadist whose brother was an FDNY firefighter killed on that day. Geller is depicted in the story as an "anti-jihadist activist" named "Debbie Dawson," (note the Gentilized name) described as looking like a "badly weathered Angelina Jolie" (meow! Jealous, Amy?- anyway, I think Angelina Jolie these days looks like a badly weathered Angelina Jolie) who works to exploit the protagonist's unfocused rage for her own benefit. There is little attempt to disguise who is being depicted. "Dawson" is a divorced woman with a distinct New York accent looking for ways to get her three teenage daughters through college (Geller has four daughters). Waldman attempts to depict anti-jihad activists as caricatures. Her own prose style is blunt, cliched, obvious, and about as subtle as the jihadist video depicting the decapitation murder of Nicholas Berg some years back. Waldman makes the abominable and untalented Joyce Carol Oates look like a sophisticated and deft prose stylist by comparison.