Time Magazine defames and demonizes counter-jihadists

There is no such thing as 'Islamophobia', just as there is no 'Lionophobia' or 'Tigerophobia' . A phobia is an irrational fear. Fear of Islam is rational and well justified... http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/islamic-awareness.html

This sort of remarkably biased and one-sided piece may help explain why young people I talk to are remarkably brainwashed about Islam. When I try to simply discuss facts - what is Islam, what does it stand for? What is life like in Islamic countries? How do the legal systems of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, etc. treat women, minorities, gays, converts - they refuse to discuss facts. All discussion ends - with instant anger, as if to merely discuss facts about Islam is equivalent to the vilest racist or anti-gay slurs!

Yes, we know the truth - that the values these young Americans are attempting to uphold are in direct conflict with the beliefs, the holy book, and the laws in these countries...but, facts are not allowed.

My question is - why? Who is supporting this brainwashing? I don't believe it is Iran or some Saudi prince. It must be Americans, and they must be doing it for some huge financial gain. But whom, and why? Can we walk back the cat, and find out who is supporting this? I understand why the clown who wrote the article did it, but he is merely a pawn. Of whom? Isn't time we named names?

Oh, so Ground Zero Mosque is an "inaccurate moniker", is it, Ishaan Tharoor? Well, don't take our word for it. Here are some comments on the subject from best-selling author Dan Simmons, who refers to the equivalent of the Ground Zero Mosque in his latest novel, "Flashback".

We also get glimpses that tell us that the Global Islamic Caliphate -- only a fervent fever dream now in a billion or so minds -- is real enough in the post-Die-Ought-If days of Flashback. The Global Caliphate is a giant crescent, its central curve and core and capital in the Mideast where the triumphant states of Iran and Syria struggled toward mere regional hegemony in our own day. It seems that they succeeded. And then some. The northern horn of the Caliphate crescent stretches from the heart of the Mideast (Mecca and Medina, no longer part of the dead state Saudi Arabia at the heart of this heart) across Turkey and eastern Europe and all of Western Europe with the sharp tip of its crescent ending in Canada.

Europe, in our not-so-far-away Flashback future, is -- more than anything else -- old. Evidently it had neither the heart, stomach, energy, or armies for struggle. The E.U., save for the convenience of the euro in parts of the continent, has ceased to exist. Most of the nations of Western Europe -- as nations qua nations -- have similarly ceased to exist. What the hell -- most of them had long since been embarrassed by anything so crass as patriotism or "nationalism". Those ideas belonged to a bloody and dusty past.

So the Global Caliphate is vital across Western Europe and the U.K., allowing islands of "autonomy" for the remnants of the old nations occupied mostly by old men and women. The Global Caliphate, in contrast, is young. And filled with the energy of more than two billion True Believers who are seeing their faith's dream come true.

In Flashback we see these places and events as through a mist . . . or through a veil. Professor Emeritus George Leonard Fox has been married three times and we hear that his grown daughter in his second-marriage was wed in France and "went under the veil". He's not heard a word from her in the decades since.

The southern horn of the Global Caliphate's crescent sweeps triumphantly -- following the curve of Islam's first great expansion in the 7th Century -- across northern Africa, across the Atlantic into parts of Central America, with its sharpened horn buried deep in southern Mexico.

Canada, used to dividing itself into smaller parts to appease ethnic groups, languages, and claims to prior ownership, now divides itself gracefully into parts of the Umma and scores of local Canadian enclaves, many run by First Peoples, others by gangsters and terrorists, some by both groups combined. Ottawa's seat of government has control over Parliament Hill -- on a good day -- but little more. The most common baby name in Canada in the time of Flashback is Mohammed. (Way back in 2010, this was the most common baby name in Sweden.)

We learn in Flashback that jihadist terror in the United States is widespread, but the violence tends to be lost against the backdrop of chaos. Cities, states, and Americans are making a separate peace whenever possible.

In the first draft of Flashback, more than seven months before I heard the first news or whisper or rumor of this reality, I had written that Muslims had demanded that a mosque be built on the site of New York's Ground Zero -- the site of the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center. I wrote this because of my study of the habit of expansive Islam in the Middle Ages -- and after the Middle Ages -- so frequently building mosques on the sites of great military victories over the infidels. (Christianity, of course, had done similar things, building churches and cathedrals over "pagan" sites -- but most of these sites were ancient ruins or druid stones.) Islam built its trophy marks more quickly and with little subtlety.

"Hagia Sophia" is Greek for "Holy Wisdom" and the Christian cathedral to rise on that site in Constantinople was dedicated in the Fourth Century A.D.. Hagia Sophia was formally consecrated and dedicated in the name of logos -- "discourse" or "reason" or "knowledge", as in the idea of "Word" from the opening of the Gospel according to John --" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Besides dedicating the cathedral to reason, it meant dedication to the Holy Spirit who is the bringer of Grace and source of human reason.

From 260 A.D. to 1532 A.D., the Haga Sophia served as the central Constantinople Cathedral for both Orthodox and then Roman Catholic faith. The story is told that in May of 1532, as Ottoman Turks under Sultan Mehmet II broke through siege defenses around Constantinople, up to 50,000 Christians rushed to the great square outside Hagia Sophia and then pressed into the cathedral itself, where priests and bishops were saying Mass, the Holy Liturgy, and the Prayer of the Hours around the clock -- begging God the Father, the Holy Spirit, and especially Jesus Christ to deliver them from the infidel.

But the infidel - or in these infidels' particular view, the enemy of all infidels, the followers of the Prophet -- prevailed that May day in 1532. The sultan had promised his men three days of unrestricted looting and pillage if they succeeded in taking Constantinople, and Mehmet II was as good as his word. The thousands of Christians cowering in Hagia Sophia -- including the bishops saying Mass until Muslim troops beat them into silence or killed them -- were fair game for such pillage. The cathedral was deliberately desecrated and looted and the men, women, and children praying there killed on the spot -- except for the thousands who were dragged off in chains as slaves.

When Mehmet II entered Hagia Sophia, he immediately ordered it converted to the Ayasofya Mosque -- as per the tradition of raising mosques to praise Allah after great victories. Hagia Sophia remained a mosque from 1532 until 1935 when the first Turkish president and founder of the secular Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, ordered the mosque turned into a museum.

So this is why -- seven months before any news of the debate about the mosque at Ground Zero hit the media -- I had written in my first draft that in the near-future of Flashback time, over the hole at Ground Zero, rose the Sharid al-Haram -- the largest mosque in North America. Sharid al-Haram means something like Martyrs of the Holy Place, or so young Val learned in school in Los Angeles, the mosque eternally (and quite correctly, according to young Val's teachers) memorializing the martyrdom operation of September 11, 2001 -- the day, the teachers explained, when the American Hegemony and illegal occupations of Islamic holy lands finally began to break.

September 11 is one of the days in the novel and Val and his grandfather hear not only the AK-47 shots of the faithful echoing around Los Angeles in celebration of the day, but also most of the church bells in L.A. ringing in peaceful and sympathetic support of the Islamic holiday.

Then, in my second draft, I took out the Sharid al-Haram mosque. I felt it was just too cynical. Muslims, especially American-born Muslims, I felt, would never be so completely insensitive and overbearing as to demand a mosque on the very place that jihadist Islam -- with the terrorists screaming Allahu-Akbar! as literally the last things the men, women, and children in the hijacked aircraft would ever hear -- had attacked America. And if they were to be so outrageous, I thought as I removed those Sharid al-Haram paragraphs from the second draft, New York and American politicians would never allow such an outrage to get beyond the talking stage, no matter how dedicated to religious freedom were are in this country. Building a mosque at or near the Ground Zero site would be like . . . well, like raising a huge mosque on the foundation of the great Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Instanbul. Raising it literally on the bones and bone dust of the slaughtered.

Well, imagine my surprise. Reality does that to me. And frequently.

While I have the chance I'd like to recommend "Flashback", which is an exciting "dystopian" novel and murder mystery, and in which Simmons skewers not only Islam's Caliphate dreams but Obama's bankrupting of the US, the "reconquista" fantasies of so many illegal immigrants, the "green" economy, and other leftard PC/MC sacred cows.

The campaign to justify Mrs. Clinton's and the OIC's pet "blasphemy law" project proceeds apace, this being just one more contribution from the Caliphate dreamers. We must let these censoring Big Brother wannabes that we will not be silenced, not by their libels and slanders, and not by their unconstitutional laws if it comes to that.

Our crowd on 9/11/10 was indeed restrained and polite, especially considering how much screeching abuse we were getting from the assorted muslim and marxist agitators around us, including that fool who kept circling the block screaming "Nazis!" at us. Not that such behavior would disturb Mr. Tahoor, though he no doubt would have preferred shahids with scimitars for the purpose of teaching us "respect".

Sorry, the html did not work properly. The quote from Simmons ends with the words "And frequently". The rest of the comment is from me again.

Another day, another liar, this time in the form of Ishaan Tharoor (plus the Time editor(s)). Not sure if his is a lie of the reckless-plus-bias-plus-haste kind, or a straightforward calculated deception, but here is the now all-too-familiar lie:

"The writings of Robert Spencer — an organizer of that rally and an anti-Muslim polemicist routinely accused of hate speech — were cited 64 times in Breivik's manifesto, according to the New York Times."

Robert Spencer is not anti-Muslim and was not cited 64 times in Breivik's manifesto. (Apologies to those who've already read me harp on this point about the fabled "64" "quotes/citations").
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/horowitz-the-character-assassination-of-robert-spencer.html#comment-807394

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/07/killings-in-norway-spotlight-anti-muslim.html#comment-811665

Through this same type of "analysis", Time magazine and Time-Life are cited numerous times in Breivik's manifesto, as was the New York Times.

"Muhammad" is cited 233 times (and more when you count alternate spellings) in Breivik's manifesto. Breivik even quotes Muhammad's famous "War is deceit" approvingly; Breivik's use of deception was a central feature of his attacks.

I find that Breivik has much more in common with the so-called "politically correct cultural marxists" than he has with anti-jihadists. For example, Breivik wants to shut down freedom of expression in regards to Islam. Breivik also has much in common with militant jihadists, including recommending forced religious conversions. These are just a couple out of many major examples which run absolutely counter to anything Spencer has advocated.

I felt so sick when I read the Time article.I went to the website of Time to post a comment but they do not have a comment section

I bet they dont because they are afraid people will start quoting the Koran.

I AM AGAINST MUSLIMS

I am against them...BUT only those Muslims who are against Human Rights

In Pakistan 80% are for Killing Apostates according to 2 Pew Research surveys

Of course I am against those Muslims.

IN THE SAME WAY I AM AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE

But only those who are Racist,since they are Against Human Rights

"Why shouldn't they now also be held to account for the terrors incubated by their own appalling ideology? "

What an outrageous statement. Incubated? Appalling ideology?
How inexcusably ignorant this person is.

Now I usually like to watch Fareed Zarkawi's GPS on Sunday. Today he had the real estate developer who is building the ground zero mosque in to give his side of the story. Fine, but is Fareed going to give Robert Spencer his moment of sunshine as well? He aught too. I believe Fareed also writes for Time magazine which is now quite pro Islam. There needs to be a reconning and and accountability.

Watch how CAIR and Muslims hijack the mass slaughter and pain of 9/11 to make the attack about THEIR feelings and how the post-9/11 anxiety Muslim suffer.

I really doubt that if a lone nutcase flew a 747 into the Kaaba during Haaj to murder 3000 muslims....that Imam's would call for calm and then plan to build a church and Synagogue in Meekah as Cultural centre's to educate Muslims and build bridges or tolerance.
After what we saw from a few cartoons, I expect that about 500'000'000 muslim globally would go Jihad to try and murder all 5'500'000'000 non-muslims for the actions of one criminal.

Again, watch for the mass-slaughter to be about the pain of the innocent Muslims.

To Mr. Tharoor:

I will give you some food for thoughts: In July 2011, there was supposed to be a rally in Strasbourg, France that I wanted to attend and I was not able to because the rally had to be canceled because the French authorities could not guarantee the security of people like me who believe in freedom of speech and talk about the truth and the threats that are emerging in the Western world. When a city cannot allow a peaceful gathering to happen, from which source the potential violence was coming from?

Intimidation is the trademark of Islamists, otherwise, this rally would have happened, no problem. I am disgusted by your article and your piece of trash will not stop the truth to continue to be spread.

Tharoor is a case of intellectual blindness.Have you ever heard of Henryk Broder?.He is the most famous Jewish intellectual in Germany,very,very anti-Islam.
He pulled a FAST ONE a few years ago when he made a fake conversion to Islam as a sarcsatic joke on Muslims....and they believed him

READ

http://www.antisharia.com/2011/08/08/the-false-conversion-to-islam-by-henryk-broderthe-most-famous-jewish-intellectual-in-germany/

Tharoor refers to "Anders Behring Breivik, the man behind the massacre in Norway...."

What a strange choice of words! Breivik was the perpetrator of the massacre, the killer himself, not some shadowy Mr. X operating behind the scenes. Or does Tharoor believe that somebody else, acting under Breivik's guidance or inspiration, actually killed the 70-odd people on that island? One can describe Al Capone as the "man behind" the Valentine's Day massacre. Or one can speak of some unknown "man behind" President Kennedy's assassination. But it's incorrect to apply the term to Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin himself.

Twisting facts, intentions and reality Tharoor is comparing and trying to show double standards. And he appeals to the so-called fair-minded neutral intellectuals in Democratic societies. And these arguments he uses will be used a lot by them, and it is intended yet again to shut real deep comparison and real meaningful dialogue down.

By all means hold both the Islamic ideology and the writings of the Wilders' and Spencers both to account as both are and must allowed to be published. But hold into account also the huge difference in intentions.

It is shown by Wilders-Spencer-counterjihadists that Muslims do violent, oppressive deeds, violating human rights and democratic principles, in opposition to democratic governments, people, interests, laws and values. And Islam is connected in a way that is on aggregate detrimental to many real victims, mankind, democracy. And there is the threath of it making many more victims.

And what can victims and concerned observers do in reaction to these demonstrated facts and their causes, even if they are only perceived? Accept it and let it go on or react violently OR try to change society worldwide by using freedom of speech, stopping short of inciting violence. And that is what the counterjihadists are doing.

And it can be argued that some of their readers take part of their message to heart and get desperate, or were inclined to violence to begin with, and use that message as inspiration to violence.

But the long-term overall aims and results of the freedom of speech-road that counterjihadists take are vastly more positive. Providing mankind with a non-violent reaction to unjustice, violence, even if only perceived. In order to progress towards a more peaceful society.

And it works too; statistics show that huge differences and injustices are resolved peacefully and that casualties of violence and war per capita are declining.

But the intention of prejudiced apologists like Tharoor are to downplay the original violent intentions and acts of Muslims-inspired-by-Islam and to censor somehow the peaceful dialoque-reaction to them by using the threat of more violence in reaction to it. So ignoring the vastly bigger dividends this dialoque-reaction will yield also. He in effect wants mankind to fall back on only the reactions of either submissive acceptance or violent reactions to violent, oppressive, evil deeds and their causes.

From amongst the article's numerous absurdities, this gem:

"the supposed insensibility of Islam to Western values"

Reality, however, is not as he would have others believe.

Per the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

In specific contrast:

Per the 1990 "Declaration of Human Rights in Islam":
"All have the right to freely express their opinions in a manner that does not run counter to Shariah law.”

There's nothing supposed about it, Mr. Tharoor.

Have read the 'Time' article. Tharoor's a clown. Lots of sweeping statements, nothing to back them up. For example, the 'appalling ideology' of Spencer, Geller, Wilders et al; not one example given.

A badly written polemic appearing in a magazine with an illustrious past.

I sent a letter to the editor saying as much.

I gave up reading Time after I repeatedly got the impression that in any political article they build ambiguities into almost every sentence so that a conservative might see in a sentence what the conservative wants to see, and at the same time a liberal might see in the very same sentence what the liberal wants to see. It was sneaky surreptitious triangulation driven by conformism and the desire to sell the maximum number of issues. It was revoltingly spineless and mealy mouthed. But that was Time on politics. In the case of Islam, Time's craven conformism shifts them further left, because in the Islam debate, one must be to the left in order to give no offense to the greatest possible number. Time often seems intentionally to be brown-nosing the most conventional and trite wisdom, what "everyone" at the moment "knows". Time often plays the idiot sycophant courtier who congratulates the naked king on his lovely clothing.

PRCS, I liked your response to Tharoor's denial of the

"insensibility of Islam to Western values."

I'll add this.

Human Rights and Islam

Check out these pie charts from the international human rights organization Freedom House. Scroll down to the regional pie charts. The pie chart for the Middle East/North Africa -- the core Islamic region -- shows the most unfree area in the world. However, one country included in the Middle East/North Africa pie chart is listed as "free." Can you guess which one that is? (Hint: It's not Islamic.) Islam also has a remarkable record on honor killings.

This Ishaan Tharoor chappie is somewhat of a curio. .I've been reading-up about his old man, Shashi Tharoor, and have come away with more questions than answers. Apparently Shashi is a Hindu, and although he was born in London, the family have their roots in the Indian state of Kerala (where shiney new mosques stare across the beaches at the poor but proud and tough Kerala fishermen). Shashi is a legendarily hard worker, and is a big name at the UN. This is where the plot thickens. He led the UN peacekeeping force in their mission to Yugoslavia in1996, and more recently been instrumental in conducting the debates of anti-semitism AND 'Islamophobia' (citation needed). You see what I mean now abov things just not adding up? . .and now this weasely.worded kettle of tripe from Yale boyIshaan. Dunno 'bout anyone else, but the rather alarming thought just skidded through me 'ead that the whole clan could be in the OIC's voluminous back pocket. Perish the thought. Hold your horses Jimboy, that's verging on a libelous accusation. Shtum.

We must give Joe Biden credit for verbal economy. He smeared counter-jihadists with a handful of words. (See? Joe the Communter can construct complete sentences when pressed. Who says he's mentally challenged and his mouth takes a shoe-size ten?) However, we must deduct marks from Ishaan Tharoor's TIME essay, for it is several hundred words long and accomplishes the same thing: the libeling of Islamaphobes. Notice the hearts-and-violins photo that accompanies Tharoor's article, of the Muslim woman looking at the mountain of flowers in Norway. Is that a veil she's wearing, or a burqa? Or is it a woman at all? Perhaps it's a photoshopped composite. Or a blonde Norwegian wearing a bedsheet posing for the picture.

When you don't have a good argument the best thing to do is to demonize your opponent. We have seen this again and again. To "demonize" Muslims doesn't include telling the truth about what they believe or what they do. Under "freedom of speech" it is permissible to "demonize" someone. But to tell the truth isn't irresponsible, it is required in a free and democratic society.

People still read Time?

I once counted on Time as a major source of news and analysis but I stopped reading it midway through the 2004 campaign. I let my subscriptions to Time and USN&WR lapse and haven't missed either one since.