Independent thought on jihad and Islam at the Daily Kos

The tide begins to turn.

Welcome to the resistance, Eric Allen Bell.

Nonetheless, I was intrigued by Bell's capacity for independent thought, which is such a rare commodity these days, ......

Independent thought! Could it be that the gates of liberal-left Ijtihad are opening? :)

But seriously, it looks like some on the clowns on the left are wiping off the slap-stick and becoming serious people.

Robert,what an inspiring article and inspiring day.Finalling a Leftist has seen the light.As for me I am simply for human rights.

You and I both condemn the human rights abuses of the Left and of the Right,of Communism and the Nazis and other rightist dictators.Bravo to you!

This article gave me more of a sense of "hope" than anything that I have read in a while.

Now that he has stumbled onto the truth of Islam, Mohammed, and the Koran's orders to subject the world to Islam, it's not hard to predict that Bell's posts will no longer be accepted at Daily Kos. Stated otherwise, the Great Bell Shunning has begun. And if he continues to have an influence then the shunning will be supplemented with vilification.

The following is often credited to Churchill. "During their lives most people at one time or another stumble across the truth. Unfortunately most simply get up, dust themselves off, and carry on with life as if nothing ever happened."

Now Eric Allen Bell is officially an islamophobe ultra hyper archi mega extreme right wing loon #loonwatchstyle

Is Danios still hiding under the bed? I think he is suffering from Spencerophobia.

Anyways, I'm glad to see Eric Allen Bell come out with these articles critiquing Loonwatch, and defending human rights and freedoms.

An Islamophobe is a non-Muslim who has actually read the Koran.

Good to see that one or two liberals have begun to notice the disconnect b/w what muslims in America and their apologists say what islam is and what muslims do pursuing the instructions found in the koran and in the horrid examples of human behavior as practiced by islam’s Perfect Man (Insaan-e-Kaamil), Mohammed himself.

Muslims prove Spencer’s points over and over again. Namely, that they are loyal only to Islam, and to nothing else. Explaining why Muslims can never be trusted and never be considered loyal Americans, British, French, Italian, Australian, and so forth. They represent an enemy living among us.

Here in America, as elsewhere, they are out for colonization and conquest. They cannot be considered Americans because of their adoption of Islam. Sharia (total government) and American constitutional principles (government contained/controlled by the people) couldn’t be farther apart. There is no such concept as a “Muslim American” or “Muslim Canadian” and so forth.

Consider this 1942 statement from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini:

Those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under Allah’s law (Sharia). … Islam says: “Kill [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter their armies.” Islam says: “Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors (jihadists)!” There are hundreds of other Koranic psalms and hadiths (sayings of the prophet) urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim. … Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.

Khomeini reiterated these views upon assuming power in 1979:

The great prophet of Islam [Mohammed himself, -ed.] carried in one hand the Koran and in the other a sword; the sword for crushing the traitors and the Koran for guidance. … Islam is a religion of blood for the infidels but a religion of guidance for other people. … We shall export our revolution to the whole world. Until the cry “There is no God but God” resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle.

Eric Bell et alia would do well to read the koran and the hadith. They will find confirmation of why muslims act as they do. Spencer and Geller and Emerson and others are simply playing Paul Revere in all of this.

Finally, an RS posting at JW that leaves me feeling good! I found Bell's comments fascinating, so thanks to him for allowing them here at JW.

Michael Moore, please come to us!

This is refreshing but, quite frankly, not all that surprising since facts are very stubborn things and those crying Islamophobia are invariably ignorant of or actually hiding the facts about Islam. Expect more on the Left to finally come to the realization that Islam has doctrines in it that, unlike any other major faith, are a mortal threat to freedom and equality under the law. Add to this that over 18,000 documented Islamic terrorist attacks have occurred just since 9/11 and terrorist attacks done in the name of any other religion are almost non-existent, and it becomes something very nearly approaching inevitability that vast majorities in one Western nation after another will finally get their fill of Islam.

In any case, I say to Eric Allen Bell, welcome on board but do very much expect villification of you not to wither on the vine anytime soon. Those who castigate us who criticize Islam for the numerous troubling doctrines it has, such as death for apostasy and death for one who dares criticize Islam or Mohammed, can't refute us but they can, and they will, demonize us. But that's all they got and, long term, that won't be enough.

Eric Bell has essentially three options at his disposal...

1) repent his heresy and be accepted back into the leftist fold

2) fall silent and become a non-person

3) stay true to his convictions, endure the ex-communication from the political left that will inevitably accompany his heresy, and find his way to a new home on the center-right of the spectrum. He'll be stunned to find out what a big tent the conservative realm is and that unlike on the left, there is a surprising diversity of opinions. People actually agree to disagree on the right, instead of invoking wide-eyed hysterics trying to maintain the sanctity of sacred cows.

Should Eric choose #3, his time of the Huff-Po will likely be short-lived.

Happens to everyone sooner or later if they familiarize themselves with Islam enough. It is unavoidable, really. Islam is Islam. Sure you can say, ok yes, it is this way, but poverty, interference, etc etc causes Jihad and Islamic supremacism.

But the truth is still there regarding Islam. No way around it really, unless you become a Muslim and accept the Orwellian brainwashing, (better known as Dawa). Peace=War Freedom=Submission Justice=Inequality and so forth.

I waded through 241 comments on the Daily Kos and must say that I seldom have seen such close-minded drivel. Disparaging remarks about Bell ranged from from Islamophobia to the Crusades, with a liberal sprinkling of overall negativity toward religion and attempts to morally equate Islamic violence with Oklahoma City and other non-Islamic events (Jayna Davis' work on the OKC bombing notwithstanding).
Mr. Bell was slandered at every turn and one or two even took umbrage with the substance of his article and asked for statistical evidence of his assertions on Islamic violence. He, unfortunately, chose to take a somewhat tongue-in-cheek approach to the vitriol and did not have facts ready to respond. This only further inflamed the commentators and elevated their level of vitriol.
I am guessing that he will definitely be banned from that site soon. I certainly do not agree with all his expressed beliefs; however, I am overjoyed to see that he was inquisitive enough to check the facts.
How sad that the overwhelming majority of those that commented at DK chose to shoot the messenger rather than carry on a rational discussion of the material.

Eric Allen Bell is to be commended for revealing the inherent visciousness in Islam in the highly charged arena that is the Daily Kos.

The nearly apoplectic attacks against him on his diary/blog reveal ignorance (so typical of leftists) of history as well as a willingly blind refusal to acknowledge the abject horribleness inherent to the Koran and the Hadiths. The attacks are numerous , ad hominem and nearly infantile, but Eric is handling it well.

I think that Bell's very honest realization that Islam is fundamentally horribly flawed thus prompting it's exposition in the Daily Kos and his strong subsequent defense of his position are a textbook example of the possibilities that even leftists can ultimately be brought around to the truth, especially when it's about the hell-hole that is Islam. This should be instructive for many others.

I commend Robert Spencer for encouraging this much needed dialogue with the likes of Eric Bell.

Eric Allen Bell here -

The Liberal lemmings of DKOS will not be swayed by reason or statistics or an appeal to human rights or logic or anything else. Like so many on the far right they are rigid and incapable of entertaining or even understanding ideas that are foreign to them or make them uncomfortable.

I will not back down. To DKOS's credit, after numerous people have demanded I be banned, I have thus far not been. I will continue to use the platform to speak about human rights.

Peace,

Eric

I watched the documentary, "Islam: What the West Needs to Know" and wanted so badly to prove wrong what I had seen and heard - but I could not.

Kudos to Mr. Bell for not choosing the route taken by ignorant islamophiles like Wired's Spencer Ackerman, who tries to discredit critics of islam by banging on the "these allegations are so absurd that they can only be bogus" drum in the face of the fact that the arguments from those critics, such as Robert Spencer, are solidly based on mahoundian texts and tenets.

Here is another example of a leftist who also decided to study islam for himself, only to find out as well that his belief in TRUE human rights could not be squared with support for 7th-Century bedouin fascism.

The Arab Spring has put fundamentalist Islam front and center. There had been all this high-pitched hope for a wonderful outcome [The Arab Spring! The Arab Spring!] - but instead they got an amplification of what the blogs had been saying was present in the Islamic world all along.

Eric Bell focuses on the Loonwatch site - but a significant portion of the media seems to focus on only those parts of Islam or life in the Islamic world which fits into the politically correct version of Islam. [Its a misrepresentation by omission.]

Its seems there is an effort to jump for the political doggy treat, when you say all the 'right' things about Islam, versus that firm pull on the leash when you start talking about its reality. No doggy treat for you!!

Bell seems to going about doing this in a way that he can explain to the Left. In Europe many people who are uneasy about the effort to impose Islam on European society are not on the Right - but it is one of the reasons for the massive shift to the mainly Center Right that we have seen all over Europe.

As Bell points out - that the problem with the support or arguments for Islam or the Islamic religion - is that the Koran doesn't back up these. And like Loonwatch, anyone who doesn't support these views - is labeled as .... [a bunch of made-up names].

He talks about McCarthyism, but I think of Sir Thomas Moore and freedom of conscience. Though McCarthyism is probably more Islam specific, as to protect Islam, we become like the thing we protect. And in the Islamic world to question or to challenge Islam is seen as treasonous. The current sentiment is leading us this same way.

When I was in the Islamic world some people were arrested for leaving Islam - and most of the people I talked to - were in agreement with this. So in this sense when we say we support Islam - what are we saying that we support.

I think it is safer to say - we support people. And the rights of all man.

We are trying to wade through religious waters - that we don't understand.

Excellent news!

Two simple facts makes me alert about Muslims-

1 The Muslims are irrational;
2 The have weapons

There isn't that much more to grasp, other than to find out why are they are irrational?

The answer should be obvious - the Quran puts them into an everlasting trans, hence they are unable to make any judgement of the reality they are surrounded by, for example, they call us Islamophobic without any justification. If anyone fears Islam, it is them. I don't give a crap about Mo. They dare call him the son of a beach he is. My rationality sensitive antenna tells me I am not phobic about Islam. They are terrified of Mo.

So who is Islamophobic? NOT ME!!!

correction - one sentence should read "There isn't that much more to grasp, other than to find out why are they irrational?"

Bell is one of the more honest ones on the left.

But what's coming down the road, I think, is something that we're going to see from the less honest leftists. As the problems with Islam against the West get worse, to the point where the reality of Islam becomes undeniable, there will be..(I'm coining this term here) "THE GREAT DENIAL". This is where suddenly all the leftists "of course knew all along that Islam was extreme" and "never supported multiculturalism" and "never attacked anti-jihadists like Spencer" and "always bravely stood up for liberal values when they were threatened by Islam".

Recall that KOS has a book on "The American Taliban" trying to equate Islam with Christianity and especially conservative Protestantism with Islamism.

The book is stupid and argues a stupid claim.

It seems remarkable to me that he has allowed Bell's posts and has not driven him off.

Yet.

Perhaps some people on the left are becoming aware that in reality, death squads, limitations to liberty, summary executions, elimination of free speech , group think, rabid mob behavior, authoritarian government, social coercion towards uniformity and supremacist rule (things rightly to be feared and detested by the left),are things which in truth the characteristics which describe precisely islam.
Inevitably the anti-jihad net will capture those who are genuinely honest and especially astute people of conscience such as Mr. Bell. It does not take much study to realize the great toll and carnage left behind in the wake of islams march across time and territory.

I have full respect for Robert, Robert’s background, Robert’s knowledge, and Robert’s work. Without doubt. Robert has done great things to provide a very good public service.

That said, the only thing that is "extraordinary" here is what continues to go on between "Right" and "Left". The self-righteousness and continual preaching-to-the-choir is also quite “extraordinary” as is the complete disconnect between the constant assertions about the “Left” not being a part of the counter-jihad vis a vis actual reality. These are really the ONLY things that are "extraordinary" here.

The Brussels Journal recently ran an EXCELLENT series of articles (see links below), entitled “Surviving Islamism ... And Right/Left Politics: Churchill's Principle”, by an apparently quite well-placed, highly knowledgeable individual, Peter Carl, that address exactly the problems and disconnects with reality evidenced both by Robert’s posting here above and Mr. Bell’s articles and letter.

Part I: The Conversation - ( http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4867)

Part II: Right v. Left - ( http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4869)

Part III: Breivik v. Hitler - ( http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4872)

Part IV: On Politics & Nazis - ( http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4875)

Part V: Winston's Wars - ( http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4881)

Part VI: Back from the Brink - ( http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4886)

Basically The Brussels Journal articles show quite clearly that all of the self-righteousness and ideological bashing between the Left and the Right is truly, each and every day, cutting the throat of the counter-jihad movement and, thereby, placing the ENTIRE WEST beyond an ability to turn back Islamization.

How? Well, by focusing on the “Left” instead of human rights or, as the article defines it, our “Common Freedoms”. Postings such as Robert’s (and as some comments here also reflect) – characterized by uselessly constant unending attacks on the Left’s ideology (instead of making the argument from and about what we have in common, our human rights and Common Freedoms) – has done and is doing far more damage to the counter-jihad movement and the future of the West than good.

Why? Because by constantly whining and screeching about the “Left” we merely paint the ENTIRE counter-jihad movement as being FULLY RIGHT-WING (which is read by the general public as meaning Nazis, Fascists, etc.). Great, right? Everybody in the counter-jihad movement wants to be seen as being a Nazi, right? Meanwhile then, we all, quite ironically, continue to complain that the mainstream press continues to label the ENTIRE movement as RIGHT-WING nutjobs and Nazis. (Hmmmm. If we don’t want to be continually painted as being RIGHT-WING, it would probably help if we quit: 1) bashing the Left at every opportunity (and recognize the actual statistics that say that the Left is already a part of the counter-jihad); and 2) quit being so self-righteous about the Right (which itself is also affected by PC)). No one should be under the illusion that we are doing the movement or ANY of our counter-jihad political parties or the future of the West the least bit of good. We’re only slitting our own throats, hurting the movement, and, most tragically, cutting the throats of counter-jihad political parties (and the West) by alienating massive numbers of people (voters) from the Center, Left, and even the Right – because the RIGHT-WING label STICKS due to our own thoughtless writings and behavior. Don’t believe me? Remember Breivik’s ravings about the Left? By raving about the Left here, we only feed the view that we in the rest of the counter-jihad are like Breivik. Will that bring us success…or absolute failure? Take a guess.

The Brussels Journal articles show that the evidence and statistics show clearly that, contrary to what is generally asserted, the counter-jihad movement is ALREADY made up of the Right and Left. Denmark is evidence of this. Germany is evidence of this. The EDL is evidence of this. Vast numbers of them are from the Left. Read the articles and see for yourself. If you want to argue the opposite, then your arguments having nothing to do with reality or political statistics from across Europe. Besides, The Brussels Journal articles also show that PC and support for Islamists FULLY affects a large part of the Right as well, as we can see in a number of the US Republican presidential candidates and in political parties across Europe.

All that said, what is written in The Brussels Journal articles is EXACTLY confirmed by what Eric Allen Bell has written to Robert in the letter above and in his articles. In addition, the contents of Peter Carl’s articles also perfectly reflect what “Minoria” has written above in his comment, when he writes: “As for me I am simply for human rights. You and I both condemn the human rights abuses of the Left and of the Right, of Communism and the Nazis and other rightist dictators.” Exactly. That is the winning argument: the freedoms we all have in common and believe we are each protecting, Right and Left. If we want the Left (and Center and PC Right) to tune out and simply deligitimize our message simply continue to blame Islamization on the "Left" as opposed to on Western PC and the unconvinced individual's well-meaning desire to defend human rights. The winning argument is to convince them that we are fully protective of human rights and "Common Freedoms" and that by not accepting the counter-jihad view of Islamization, all Western human rights and freedoms will be undermined. NO ONE on the Left or Right can argue with that - especially when put together with all of the Islamist craziness going on across the world.

Postings such as the above could accomplish far more for the counter-jihad movement and the West if, instead of bashing the Left in full self-righteousness (and thereby painting all of the counter-jihad movement as self-righteous “Right-wing” extremists), such postings actually presented the Bell articles and letter, instead, as a confirmation of points in common held by the Right and Left. In fact, an opportunity has been wasted with the above posting; it could have been used to get the unconvinced and the Left to pay attention; instead, it merely attacked the Left (once again) and deligitimized Bell within the Left. As The Brussels Journal articles show quite well, those on the Left (and the Right and Center) who see the counter-jihad movement as a danger actually have very good intentions. They think they are protecting the HUMAN RIGHTS, RELIGIOUS RIGHTS, and MINORITY RIGHTS. We all believe in protecting these, whether we are from the Right or Left. Thus, the Left's actions and behavior is not caused by their "Leftism"; the Left, like all of the rest of us, is concerned about human rights. And they merely see our counter-jihad movement (much due to our ravings about the Left and the Left's attempts to protect human rights) as being "Right-wing" fascists and bigots who oppose human rights.

Accordingly, to convince the unconvinced one needs to convince the unconvinced (whether Left, Right, or Center) by facts and every day news (as Robert otherwise does quite well) that they are actually unintentionally undermining all of the rights they claim to be fighting so hard to support. It has nothing to do with anyone’s supposed Leftist ideology; it has to do with their desire to protect human rights – and their well-meaning belief that they are doing so. Get the unconvinced, by confirming your own commitment to human rights to them and by showing them how supporting Islamism and Islamists actually undermines all Western freedoms, to understand that you are NOT a RIGHT-WING extremist who is opposed to human rights, and you can win the support of the unconvinced from the Center, Left, and PC Right. Continue, however, with bashing the Left and, if you do that, everyone (Center, Left, and PC Right) will continue to think you and everyone in the counter-jihad movements and our political parties are a bunch of RIGHT-WING extremist nutjobs. In such case, the West is and will be truly lost.

The Brussels Journal articles lay it out excellently with links to facts, statistics, and articles from all across Europe and the West. Definitely recommended reading. For any who follow the EDL, they have been very well received there as in many other places. Fact is, if we don’t begin to understand the points these articles make and follow the recommendations there, the West will soon be irreversibly lost to Islamization - and our self-defeating, self-sabotaging attacks on the "Left" will be very much responsible for our failure to ever become something more than a "Right-wing" movement.

A real Liberal woke up~ If you read the book by Jonah Golberg
Fascists Liberals, you will not note that the real "Classical Liberal" would go against islmaists. and you will understand what ties socialists, marxists, nazis, islamists.. it is fascism! l am thrilled this man has finally woken up and realized how sincere Robert Spencer really is about freedom for all!

The left knows damn well that Islam is what Islam is; violent, supremcist, expansionist etc. (They must at least have a visceral inkling of it, whether they say it out loud or not.) They just think in their 'infinite wisdom' that they stand between the rabid Muslim mobs and the rabid American mobs and they MUST protect the poor backward Muslim, especially since Muslims in America and Europe are, mostly, not Caucasian. (This comes in handy with their empty 'racism' charge against us and makes them feel good about how non-'racist they are! Hmph! lol)

They think everyone who is not on the far left is stupid and 'redneck' (as they love to call people that, it seems) and only THEY are cultured and reasonable and can prevent this clash. What self-importance they place on themselves!

But I do feel that many leftists view themselves in this way. Why, they are the learned authorities and they will solve this situation with the bullies through dialogue and seeking to reason with the bullies (Muslims) and the victims just should stand quiet and let their superiors handle this delicate situation. For they surely will! In time...soon..they're working on it....let's have another inter-faith dialogue! SIGH! *smh* It's funny when you think about it. Yet, the global situation regarding Islam is not funny, and so must be stood up to, with the truth!

Leftist starts to 'get it' shock!

Reading some of the comments below in his piece, one finds the usual PC, leftist, multi-culti nonsense. Like the old classic "were you reading the koran in english, or the original arabic". Great stuff. That is to say, the koran is the only book in the history of the world that can't be translated into english, apparently. Fancy that? Who'd have thought? The ONLY one...And funny how they never mention that the other two volumes in the islamic doctrine trilogy, the hadiths and the sira, have no such problem being translated into english.

Eric Allen Bell, I can relate to your awakening. I am a pro-choice liberal Dem who after 9/11 was mugged by reality. Besides 9/11, I credit my awakening to the Internet and the availability of information. I started to read and read some more, and was exposed to many different viewpoints which opened my eyes. Though I am still pro-choice, I did not vote for Obama and will vote for the Republican nominee.

Loonwatch and Free Speech

One of the most obvious differences between Loonwatch, and Jihadwatch is their respective treatment of free speech.

At Jihadwatch, one can, within limits, have their comments posted, and engage in dialogue.

On the other hand, Loonwatch is ridiculously over "moderated", and their lack of commitment to free speech goes far beyond the comments section of their website.

During a recent visit to Germany, Robert Spencer reportedly faced thousands of hecklers who drowned him out, while throwing ice, and feces at him.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/06/thousands-protest-robert-spencer-in-germany-it-was-like-looking-into-the-pit-of-hell/

Loonwatch thought this was fine, and I am left with the impression they would be perfectly happy with this kind of thing happening here. This is not in the Western tradition at all, and is more suited to a foreign culture.

Here is yet another example from Loonwatch star writer, Danios holding forth on what he calls the "South Park Controversy".

This is the "controversy" that started when Comedy Central censored South Park after receiving veiled threats from "Revolution Muslim" which included an audio recording of Anwar Al-alaki preaching that it was permissible to kill people for mocking Muhammad.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/04/south-park-controversy/

One would think that the issue of freedom of speech would naturally occur in a 4,000 plus word essay about this "controversy".

However, Danios has surprisingly little to say about this, and in fact, the phrase "freedom of speech" occurs only 4 times, and even then, only in passing on way to the author's real concern - freedom of religion for Muslims. This is very revealing.

This link is from a Loonwatch re-posting of a New York Times article written by Yasir Qadhi.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/10/yasir-qadhi-anwar-al-awlakis-killing-illegal-and-counterproductive/

Yasir Qadhi is another of those wacka-do Muslims.

Here you will find Qahdi denying the Holocaust, defending Hitler, etc.
http://hurryupharry.org/2008/11/13/sheikh-yasir-qadhi-i-became-a-racist-by-mistake/

But, more to the point, here is another link where Yasir Qahdi articulates what the plan is; a self imposed censorship. (@2:10)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH3Tijd7KPE

In an effort to keep up with Jihadwatch's steady stream of reports of Muslim aggression, and atrocities, Loonwatch is reaching with this post about a coloring book.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/911-coloring-book-influences-kids-with-islamophobia/

What's wrong this coloring book? It shows an Army Ranger shooting bin Laden. Do we really need to be outraged, and protected from this? I think Loonwatch's sympathies are misplaced, and consistently misplaced. However, they are consistent with CAIR. Surprise!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDJkb3n6_Qg

There is no discussion at Loonwatch about the Organization of Islamic Cooperation's progress on criminalizing criticism of Islam.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/secretary-of-state-clinton-says-state-department-will-coordinate-with-oic-on-legal-ways-to-implement.html

And, there never will be. Because this is not their focus. They are about exposing "Islamophobes", that is individuals they disagree with, and defaming them in the name of Islam.

This is something Eric Allen Bell now knows better than I.

Thank you for telling the truth, and paying the price. Please keep going.

Muslims and their left-wing (and a few on the right, too) friends & apologists will ALWAYS try to paint the anti-jihad as "ultra-right nutjobs." Hell, they'll say and do anything, ANYTHING to discredit the opposition and especially, to suppress the truth. But the truth is all that's important here. And the more that truth comes to light, the more the muslims and their left-wing appeasers will smear us with all sorts of odious labels. That's because they're frightened, and playing dirty is all they have--and they know it.

Let them ("moderate" muslims and their multi-culti left-wing, dhimmi friends) call us whatever they want--and you can be sure they will. That's only to be expected from people who are morally bankrupt and intellectually destitute. We will win this struggle despite them, not because of them. And, where islam is concerned, there's no shame in being in the right--I mean that literally and figuratively...

I don't know whether Mr Bell has ever heard of this lady.

But her story - up to and including what she is doing now, in her grand old age, in the very last years of her life - cries out to be turned into a short documentary film.

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/23329

Wednesday, 30 September 2009
The White Rose: An Interview with Mrs. Susanne Zeller- Hirzel

"Mrs. Suzanne Zeller – Hirzel is one of only two survivors of the White Rose Society.

"She is a member of the Peoples Movement PAX EUROPA” (BPE) that opposes the Islamization of Germany and Europe. "...

'Adams: You are now involved in the “Peoples Movement PAX EUROPA” (BPE) in Germany. We understand this to be one of the more important anti-Jihad organizations in Germany. What prompted you to get involved in the anti-Islamist movement?

'Zeller – Hirzel: I read many, many books on the subject; especially the books by Mark Gabriel (see “Islam and Terrorism”). So I realized that one must not simply accept these things passively but also do something about it. One must support this cause by necessity.

'Adams: Do you see similarities between Islam and Nazism? If so, what are these similarities?

'Zeller – Hirzel: The fanaticism, the absolute claim of possessing the only truth and the spiritual simplicity are very similar between Islam and the Nazism.

{It should be noted that when Churchill wanted to describe what kind of book 'Mein Kampf' was, he compared it to the Quran, calling it "the new Koran of faith and war"; and that both Karen Blixen and Jung, in statements that can still be read today, remarked upon the similarity between the Nazi movement, and Islam - dda}.

'Adams: Do you view opposing Islamization as the same battle you were fighting when the White Rose fought Nazism?

'Zeller – Hirzel: Not quite yet. Critics of the Nazi ideology were then immediately arrested. We have not yet reached that point.

'But if we do nothing, it will come back to that. Then they might lock up the critics of Islam.

'Adams: In your view why is it so difficult to explain the threat of Islamization to the public? What is stopping us from getting our message across to the public? What can we do better?

'Zeller – Hirzel: The general indifference to religious matters make it difficult. The public believes we to have to be "fair" to everyone. That is counterproductive. Additionally, there is general prosperity with a relatively high standard of living that makes people lazy. I say: Only education can help. Education can aid...".

Bell is a semi-convert, who is almost there, but not quite, and it is indicated by the following comment: "In my own defense, the anti-mosque crowd in Murfreesboro, TN were a very nasty bunch"

The so-called "anti-mosque" crowd were simply defending themselves, their community, and their country from the ever-encroaching jihad threat. War is supposed to be hell and deceit, so yeah, people at war tend to get nasty. But as long as the good guys win, that is all that matters.

No one should ever apologize for opposing Islam and for calling it what it is.

ERIC BELL: "To DKOS's credit, after numerous people have demanded I be banned, I have thus far not been. I will continue to use the platform to speak about human rights."

Mark my words, Eric. One or two more essays on the malevolent strands within Islam, and you'll be booted.

Quote: "They can't actually refute them."

I find that many people actually think that name-calling IS refuting!

Here's my cartoon on the Loons at Loonwatch http://bit.ly/yB3Wbc

Mr. Bell should come to work for jihad watch after the Kos fires him for being a rational thinker. It would be nice to have an atheist on jihadwatch. Fyi: i'm an atheist who enjoys your work.

Looking forward to your new book as well. Will i be able to get it on my nook?

Looking forward to your new book as well. Will i be able to get it on my nook?

It would have been nice if Bell had consulted opposing views BEFORE he produced a documentary, but better late than never I suppose.

As a recovering liberal myself, I regard the ideology as almost entirely false. Libs purport to be the friend of women's rights, but welcome large numbers of Muslims to our country, some (many?) of whom prefer to import their violent customs rather than assimilate to American equality. Liberals claim to support working people, but similarly campaign for open borders to flood the country with future statist Democrats, despite the immediate and long-term harm to citizens.

he is just like all ignorant infidels who become "enlightened" to the "true" face of islam.

maybe he has also learned to look for the facts himself instead of waiting to be spoon fed. you would think he would have learned that in journalist school wouldn't you. just another reminder of the dreadful state of our so called media these days.

he is just like all ignorant infidels who become "enlightened" to the "true" face of islam.

maybe he has also learned to look for the facts himself instead of waiting to be spoon fed. you would think he would have learned that in journalist school wouldn't you. just another reminder of the dreadful state of our so called media these days.

Cole wrote: We are trying to wade through religious waters - that we don't understand.

********************

This, I have long believed, is one of the major issues crippling a positive American response to the jihadist threat. There are vast swathes of the American elite who believe that any traditional theology is nonsense on stilts; and for whom the abandonment of the ancestral theology is an all-but-necessary rite of passage. This is why we have knee-jerk reactions spouting the moral equivalency of Islamic jihadism and the Evangelical pro-life movement.

But, as a professional swindler--oops, High School social studies teacher--I have another thought.

In some ways, our technological culture has made us stupider than our forefathers. Yes, we have a lot of technical know-how (which in itself is a wonderful thing), but we can no longer digest information in any form larger than the sound bite. Proud of our multi=tasking skills, we cannot interact with extended, serious discourse on any subject. It's all the worse when the heavy reading homework requires us to interact with something like theology (whether that of our own ancestors or that of the "other"--forgive me for using Said's term--which our whole [mis-]education has taught us is a babbling irrelevancy. Hence, while I never visit Loonwatch or Daily Kos, I can easily imagine a young, technically savvy crowd of posters there who are uncritically hooked by whoever got their attention first.

To his credit, Robert Spencer has worked at coming to grips with Islamic theology and theological ethics, while at the same time retaining a grasp on the one he has inherited.

**************

DDA:

Glad to meet someone else who has a lot of respect for Jacques Ellul.

**************************

Mr. Bell:

As resident Christian fundamentalist "loon", I add my welcome to that of Wellington (my net-friend who isn't so sure that the God whom I worsship exsits). But in doing so, I would beg you to consider that the anti-mosque people you met may possibly be guilty of nothing more than waking up to some unpleasant truths about Islam a little earlier than you did. Consider as well that--if they are indeed typical Bible-belters--they represent a culture that really isn't as easily led and manipulated by "groupthink" as a lot of people on the Left would have you think. If they were, there wouldn't be 100 different denominations represented among them.

I strongly suspect that if you dug a bit deeper into their ranks and were willing to give them a sympathetic hearing, you might even find a number of them who, before 09/11/01, thought that Islam, while certainly "false religion", had adherents with whom we could still live with as neighbors. There're probably some of them who may even have travelled in Africa and Asia and would be quick to admit that they'd received kindly treatment at Muslim hands and even now would admit that there are many, many Muslims for whom they have high regard as people--regardless at how strongly they object to their religion.

We really aren't bogeymen.

It is very encouraging to see a liberal with an open mind. Opposing Sharia and Jihad is really something that everyone who cares about human rights should be united about. It should not ever become a wedge issue.

BTW I think I can understand, possibly, the issue that Eric Allen Bell has with Pamella Geller. I really do appreciate the work that she does. However, if she could possibly refrain from name-calling on her blog it would go a long way to improve her credibility in my opinion. I doubt that she cares about my opinion and of course she is free to express herself any way she wants.

A quick look through the comment section of Eric's article show that he is just one of few on DailyKos with his viewpoint. Probably the only ones who "get it" are people from Jihadwatch visiting to read his article.

He now joins the ranks of those on the left like Bill Mahr who "get it" with regards to Islam, but are also villified by the leftists.

Either way I welcome Eric to read Jihadwatch as well. I've found this site to be rather enlightening and the people here are generally respectful of each other and their viewpoints.

FYI, I am neither a rabid Christian or a right winger. I am more independent (socially more liberal and fiscally conservative).

Loonwatch.com: Created by Loons for Loons.

Welcome to JW and welcome to the cold hard truth about Islam.

Spread the word.

Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.

Eric Allen Bell here:

I stand behind my documentary "Not Welcome" (http://www.NotWelcomeDocuementary.com) 100 percent.

Until a violation of the law occurs, the Muslim community has a Constitutional right to build a house of worship.

My portrayal of nearly foaming at the mouth Evangelical hate-filled fanatics was accurate.

That said, my recent articles on Islam were prompted mostly by events overseas and the realization that Loonwatch.com is slowly brainwashing well-meaning but gullible Liberals into thinking that Islam is nothing but wonderful.

What motivated the documentary is what motivated the articles and that is a concern for human rights. It's easy for any of us to get angry, but hard to feel the incredible sense of heartbreak around how badly people on this planet can treat each other sometimes.

Islam is radical Isalm and it is cancer on this planet that is metastisizing right before our very eyes overseas. My involvement with the Occupy Movement has nothing to do with thinking some people need to pay more taxes or that the wealth should be redistributed. I feel that the people are being victimized by the power elite, being lied to badly by Obama and his bosses at Goldman Sachs. It is with that same spirit of social justice and a strong desire to stop those who would cause harm to innocent people that I oppose, very strongly, Islam.

I supported the buidling of the mosque in Murfreesboro, TN because I support liberty. Government does not give us liberty, in fact it generally stands in the way of it. I simply oppose oppression. Is that really a Left Wing or Right Wing point of view?

As for the articles on Islam and Loonwatch.com - I won't back down.

Peace,

Eric

http://www.Facebook.com/EricAllenBell

Wellington -

Human rights are not a Left vs. Right issue.

Those terms are divisive when trying to work together toward a common goal of exposing the tyranny that is Islam.

Peace,

Eric Allen Bell

I am sorry about the repeated comments - something went wrong during the transmissions, I kept receiving error messages.

This is "wow, wow, wow!" stuff. Fantastic!

I had my own run in with the odious Danious of Loonwatch in Oct '09 here:
http://thebattleoftours.blogspot.com/2009/10/rifqa-bary.html

So glad to see someone of the Left "get it" and get onto them...

Congratulations on your posts Mr Bell, and welcome aboard!

It reminds me of a friend in London who, 10 years ago, was voting for far-left parties and thought I was racist, and paranoid for being suspicious about the now-infamous Finsbury Park Mosque (hideout of the "Captain Hook" Abu Hamza). He was also VERY anti-Bush, the Iraq war and most things conservative! 10 years later, I'm not sure about his views on Bush or Iraq, but he comments "Robert Spencer's awesome"!

Those against the Jihad are a broad group - including Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, ex-Muslims, gays and religious nuts - all concerned with the rise of Islam, although maybe with differing views on other issues... I agree with you that we should put those issues to one side and concentrate on Islam - indeed, maybe this is crucial to the success of opposition to Islam.

Last but not least, in the words of an ex-Muslim commenting on Jihadwatch, "if there were to rank what is the place to and learn about Islam, this site would be number one". I think there are many commenting who will agree - and perhaps THIS is the reason for why the likes of Loonwatch like to discredit it...? I would recommend looking around the archives. Also the book "Son of Hamas" by Mosab Hassan Youssef, and the videos of Pat Condell on youtube. And many other sources, too numerous to mention.

Peace.

Positive remark:
There are some very astute people writing here. One Of Robert's more interesting posts and especially the comments. Thank you for taking the time to share. Wish I had greater time and attention span to read ALL the links. Thanks once again to Robert Spencer for all his great and hard academic work and for providing this forum.
In some small way I feel vindicated as when I do take the time to comment here I often point out the self-defeating strategy of vilifying the left (however that is defined and it seldom is). HUMAN RIGHTS IS NOT A LEFT VERSUS RIGHT ISSUE. Just as Mr Bell's thinking seems to have expanded so I hope Robert Spencer's will also refocus on what I respectully perceive to be his achilles tendon of demonizing the left (however that is defined and it seldom is).

Negative remark:
Wellington, you are not one of the astute and you would do well to rethink your ideas. In deed, your first post is laughably ironic. You wrote:
"I would suggest to Tolerance Lives, and to everyone, that they consider this hypothetical: Imagine that over the past ten years as many people on the Left would have come to a proper understanding of Islam as those on the Right? Would we be anywhere as deep in denial as we still are, respecting Western societies as a whole, and in as much trouble respecting Islamic expansionism as we are at present? I highly doubt it."
YOU HIGHLY DOUBT IT? In other words, you have absolutely no substantive proof to support your thesis on this left vs right (however defined and it seldom is) thing. Therefore, kindly stop regurgitating it. It's not convincing or helpful.

You go to say:
"Pointing false fingers of accusation never enlightens an issue. Doing so can only obscure it. I submit that this is exactly what TL has done, irrespective of how well intentioned this person is. Any gooey, non-factually based, kissy-face, huggy bear, can't we all get along plea must collapse in the face of something much more resilient and important---the truth of things. And the truth of things should tell everyone who has a ruthless pursuit of the truth that the Western Left has been as much of an obstacle to rooting out the truth about Islam as have Muslims themselves. Perhaps even more so."

You HIGHLY DOUBT it and now PERHAPS even more so than the
(undefined) left has been an obstacle in rooting out the truth! How ironic that after poking fun at your perceived adversaries as "non-factually based" huggy bearS, you then present no evidence to support your claim that TL or the "left" (however that is defined) has been more of an obstacle to rooting out truth about Islam than Muslims themselves.

In my humble opinion, it those like Wellington who continue to willy nilly vilify the left with no real factual basis to do so (at least none presented)that really makes outing Islam more difficult and for all the reasons explained by Tolerance Lives. It bears repeating.
HUMAN RIGHTS IS NOT A LEFT VS RIGHT ISSUE.
Those terms are divisive when trying to work together toward a common goal of exposing the tyranny that is Islam.

In the way of a footnote, I would also extend my comment above to include what I perceive to be a miscalculation in JWatch's approach to resolution of the mideast conflict between Jews/Israel on the one hand and the nascent state of Palestine/Arab nation states/Islamic Jihadists on the other (to the extent a cohesive policy has been articulated).
Specifically, too often the absolutely deserved antipathy for the anti-humanitarian total belief system, euphemistically referred to as the religion of peace, creates an inability to analyze Israel's conduct accurately. This failure to analyze Israel's conduct critically creates an imbalance in assessing and resolving the human rights of all who are involved in the mideast war (and war it surely is) including the anti-semitic, supremacist, totalitarian theocracies/monarchies that deny Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state .

Israel is not just negotiating with Muslims and jihadists. It is negotiating with world opinion. If it succeeds with the latter it can have secure borders and remain a Jewish homeland. Reasonable people can disagree, but hackneyed as it sounds, Israel must give up land for peace. I, for one, think it should return to the 1967 borders (more or less), pay some reparations to those Arabs who forfeited property in the 1940s in exchange for a waiver of any right to return. Jerualem should be governed as originally contemplated by the UN partition, as a separate city state like the Vatican.
Peace.

I'm a first time commenter on this site after following it for several months. I've been remiss in taking so long to congratulate Robert for his service and courage in bringing this information about Islam to the world. Since this if my first post, please forgive me if I ramble a bit and share some general observations

Before reading Jihad Watch, I had a nagging suspicion that something was amiss in the media coverage of violence by Muslims, I always thought that the usual media explanations including, cultural traditions, reaction to American imperialism, resistance to Westernization, poverty, lack of education, and even recently "foul language" by American serviceman, and rude Facebook postings, to be missing the point and did not make much sense. Thanks to JihadWatch and other sites, I now understand that roughly half of Islamic teachings deal with harsh treatment of non believers and a third deal with jihad.

i'm finding it a much useful lens to look at violence by the Muslims as motivated primarily by their religious scriptures, and laugh at the length newspapers such as the NYT go to to avoid this simple and direct link.

I applaud Eric's courage in speaking out and incurring the wrath of the true believers at the Daily Kos. In some ways he could be viewed as an "apostate" from liberalism, and although the commenters are not threatening to kill him, they would certainly like to stifle his first amendment rights.

My hope is that by continued thoughtful efforts and information, more Americans like Eric will see the true nature of Islam and eventually we will reach a tipping point where even the liberal media and government will come around to see the truth.

I think there is a benefit in pushing though the labels of right and left talk radio places upon us and reaching out in civil dialogue as some commenters have suggested. Since we are in effect "preaching to the choir" when we comment on JihadWatch, I have been trying when time permits to follow the article links and comment at the original sources, such as the NYTimes, MSNBC, the Huffington Post etc. Hopefully if enough of us continue to do this we can overcome the Islamic propaganda and convert more and more Americans who get their news from these liberal sources to the truth. (Sometimes I seriously wonder if the Times is financially supported by Islamic sources, due to the laughable misinformation and omissions concerning any Islamic related stories. Like to seriously imply recently, in the case of Afgan soldiers firing on American soldiers that (non english speakers) are offended by foul language and english language Facebook postings.)

I'm not affiliated with the Political Islam site, but one link I like to quote on my forays into the liberal media comment fields is I find very objective and informative is http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/category/statistical-islam/. This offers a statistical analysis of mentions of things such as jihad, treatment of non believers, woman etc. This is a useful tool because it very effectively refutes the flowery verses from Mohammeds early days in Mecca that Muslims usually trot out to cloud their predominate ideology.

This is a very hopeful time for our community and I would appreciate any other suggestions for things we can do to spread the word and make more Americans realize how fundamentally at odds with our basic human rights Mohammeds teachings really are.

Are there any human rights documentaries in progress we could support, such as the UK documentary about the woman in Afgan prisions that was recently censored by the EU? Unfortunately we are not as much of a nation of readers as we used to be, so if there is any way we could get this message out in a movie format, I believe we could further win the opinion war.

Erics message is a very hopeful sign. Lets keep up the good work!

Thank you, CGW and DD for speaking up to Mr. Wise Man from the East. Just to make one further point:

The reason this thread even exists is because
Robert offerred an olive branch to Mr. Bell.
Not only that, but virtually all the ensuing comments rightfully applaud Mr. Bell for his courage in seeing the truth & speaking out about it. Mr. Spencer's actions, and the positive responses of our good posters, make a sham of this self-appointed professor's arguments that we're all Right-obsessed. My experience here is that ANYONE who gets it about islam is welcome here. In fact, people who DON'T get it dont' get censored here, provided they're civil about it, and sometimes
even when they're not. There's no Left/Right lithmus-test for commenting here. But anyone who comes here had best be prepared for some unpleasant truths. No one here is responsible for those who can't handle those truths, least of all Mr. Spencer.

And, speaking of changing minds: After 9/11, after 18,000 muslim attacks since 9/11, with all that muslims are responsible for EVERY DAY? And those folks who STILL don't get it are going to be moved by what's said HERE? Get serious!

And, BTW, the "professor" could learn something from Wellington. He's able to make his points concisely, without 10 paragraphs of broken-record, condescending logorrhea. The prof, on the other hand, sounds like one who talks and talks, just for the love of hearing his own voice.

So, "Professor," go lecture the nice folks over at Loonwatch. They're definitely pursuing the wrong strategy by not reaching-out to us Far-Right, Islamophobic, extremist anti-Jihadis...

By the way, and just as an addendum, abortion is perfectly legal and is not societally stigmatized in Dar al Islam.

My students and colleagues there confirmed to me, on many occasions, that their belief is nearly identical to so-called "leftist", pro-choicers here in the West - in that the thing growing in that woman is "not, actually, human" until 40 days have passed of "pregnancy".

I find this rather, darkly comical, and ironic, since my daughter was born in Riyadh and conceived in Beijing. Take-home pregnancy tests are ubiquitous in Communist China with its One-Child-Only policy - yet, try to find a take-home pregnancy test in Riyadh for sale. Good luck. So, the question begs, "When did the 40 day limit actually begin in Dar al Islam - when one happened to "feel" pregnant?

Pffft.

Good golly - has anyone read the KOSite comments on Eric's articles? I read many before I had to give up lest my head explode; is there anyone on that site who is capable of thinking rationally? It seems the site is packed full of Arctic room-temperature IQs, with as little reading comprehension as a bowl of rocks.

Judaism is NOT a RACE...it is a culture, a religion, a way of life, but NOT a RACE, since Jews come in black, white, orange and other colors ;-)! Martin Luther King was a Zionist, who scolded his "liberal" friends for anti-Semitism, which is the SABE and anti-Zionism. While open anti-Semitism is not popular among politically correct folks, anti-Zionism is a rage among those concerned with "Palestinian rights".

One cannot have "rights" when one teaches their children to murder Jews. Palestine was a wasteland in 1869, as described in Innocents abroad by Mark Twain (available on line), until Jews started moving in and made land livable again. Most of those Arabs that Newt rightly calls "invented people" came to Palestine because Jews made it livable again.

Marx and Engels had a very poor opinion about Turks and Algerian Muslims, expressed in their newspaper articles in mid 19th century. They said that in comparison with those Turkish and Berber mobs, the old Rome mobs were gentlemen. Islam was and staid the "most perfect religion", invented by the last great FINAL prophet, who was an illiterate pedophile polygamist and murderer, who would nowadays be either sitting for life in jail of disposed of in our courts of law for raping the minor and for multiple murders.

Islam itself is the root cause of terrorism around the world and Koranic and Hadith teachings are incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, thus most Muslim countries refused to sign this UN document of 1948. There is no place on UN for those countries, which had been defaming Israel, with the help of former Nazi, Kurt Waldheim from 1972-1981. There is no space for another terrorist state around Israel, especially since Egypt and Syria may have fallen to Jihadists whose sole purpose is annihilation of the Jews, a Second Holocaust. The Arabs from West Bank and Gaza should move to properties left by the Jews in many Arab countries, who had to flee Arab countries from 1920ies to 1967, and they should leave West Bank and Gaza, unless they are willing to live in peace with Jews. Only then will the Arabs give up their nasty desire to murder all Jews.

The fact is that the "left" as a group has served as the biggest impediment to the anti-jihad movement, especially in the propaganda front; blogosphere, media and public forums. This is the truth and the truth is the truth. Hurray to Wellington, and applause to CGW.
I rejoice when someone from the liberal sphere, such as Mr. Juan Williams of NPR fame or Mr. Bell, inevitably by experience and good conscience , are forced to convert away from the orthodox liberal establishment cloister. All the attacks against their heresy along with their banishment will certainly grow their character.
I'd like to believe that we are all self-enlisted citizenry joining this cause on account of conscience and a sense of survival. Because of this, not all those who try to jump in with other agendas are useful or helpful. Racists, for example, will be rejected. Broad yes , but with some limits, and always speaking the truth as Wellington attested in his accustomed educated and erudite fashion. Naturally, lies will be contested.

It would appear that many wish to blame the 'leftists' for all that is pro-Islam. I am way out to the left, am not at all happy with capitalism and consider 'sustainable growth' to be an oxymoron. Many of my friends feel the same, but we are all 1000% anti Islam and 1000% in favour of Democracy, free speech and genuine religious tolerance. We also Agree with Ronald regan's "Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction. We do not pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It had to be fought for, cherished and passed on for them to do the same.

Please do not blame the left for everything. Right-wing predsidential candidates say little in opposition to Islam because it is not politically correct and advantageous to do so.

Eric Allen Bell again:

On this left vs. right preoccupation - this is a ridiculous waste of time. The issue that has universal meaning and can reach a lot of people, especially when it becomes non-partisan, is HUMAN RIGHTS.

And for the record, for what it's worth, I am pro-life.

Peace,

Eric

As I have said before the left react to truth exactly as vampire react to light;
they hiss and curse but don 't dare face it.

For any who have been paying attention to past history you'll know this may well be the end of Mr Bell's acceptance by the left. These phony preachers of tolerance have absolutely NONE for those who express deviations from their cult of delusion.

This scene has played out over and over in the annals of libofascism - a few examples:

The excellent writer George Orwell was one of, if not THE, preeminent name in the leftist group of literary figures back when they were almost equal to movie stars. He was, with most all the rest, an apologist for the marxism that was sweeping "intellectual" circles in the 30's and 40's.
But as the true nature of marxism was revealed, he, (unlike his peers) faced it, researched it, and to his honor, began to expose it and write about how evil it was. This ended his celebrity and crashed his career.

A more recent example
would be Steven Mosher the author of "Broken Earth". This leading scholar from Stanford University was chosen because of his ultra leftist ideology to go live in Red China. What the "liberals" (cough-choke) could not have seen coming was the fact that this guy had integrity (something so rare as to be laughable amongst the leftist elite).
Well ol' Steve was appalled by the vicious callousness he witnessed in the institutionalized murder of millions children in China and he had the unforgivable temerity to write about it! (What a cad!)
He was attacked, thrown out of Stanford, and every attempt was made to destroy him.

History is full of such examples, most of which we'll never hear about because the victims of this bigotry and intolerance are not famous.

Thousands of profs who have been robbed of tenure because they showed the slightest bit of conservative leanings due to a love for the truth and personal honor.

It is certainly true that serious conservatives will not accept leftist ideas either but you'll be very hard pressed to find examples of libs being persecuted and their livelihoods threatened for having some silly leftist idea. The reason for this is that conservatives tend to rely on facts and evidence rather than peer group pressure and feelings.

Oh FFS, Dowse, shut your trap for three seconds before you start typing out hysterical replies and THINK. You're making as ass of yourself.

David -

I thought I did anwswer your question about the killing of the unborn. It is a major human rights violation. It is murder. The victim of this murder has rights under the law as well as morally and when an abortion is performed out of lifestyle convenience, in other words it is not medically necessary, this is homocide.

As to the left vs. right thing - clearly when I say "liberal lemmings on Daily Kos" I am referring to those on DKOS. I can point you to any number or sites where you might find some Conservative lemmings as well - the 700 Club being a perfect example - the other side of the coin in many ways.

My personal feeling is that the ideal political system takes into consideration that us humans are both competitive and cooperative, that we should have maximum personal liberty but with some degree of collective accountablity. That said, central planning always ends up being a problem so governments are really corrupt by definition - and in light of that my sense is to have as little government interference into our lives as possilbe. We will never evolve so long as we have a parental figure telling us what to do, from whom we think we are owed something. And for that matter, they should not be owed very much.

With the exception of my being very pro-life, my social views are extremely liberal - but only out of a philosophy around personal liberty - meaning you own you.

Eric

I just noticed Eric's note before mine.
I think a few words are called for on this issue as it dovetails nicely into my previous comment historically.

Let's clear up this leftist created and perpetuated "left vs right" delusion shall we?
(Here is an excellent short vid - http://is.gd/xxy8EK)

A brief review of the official Nazi Party political policies are virtually identical to the Democratic left policies in the US today. The so call "left" has for decades fallen prey to the illusion that fascism is the opposite of communism when they are nearly identical twins. Hitler even gave credit to Marx as the inspiration for Naziism. The actual differences between the two are so minor as to be irrelevant. Some sources try and create "definitions" that emphasize differences but they only stand until someone knocks them down with facts. They are both extreme amoral systems that end in tyranny...all for our own good of course.

The fact is these terms (left/right) were the result of the physical placement of these two nearly identical groups on opposite sides of deliberating bodies in various European government assemblies due to their propensity for violence, which was usually focused on each other due to the fact they were both selling essentially the same bill of good.

The romance with the so called "left" side is primarily the result the Hollywood and media's fascination with the marxist uprising against Spain's Franco.
Luminaries such a
Paul Robeson
Dashiell Hammett
Lillian Hellman
Gypsy Rose Lee
Dorothy Parker
Pablo Picasso
Sam Yorty
Helen Keller
Ernest Hemingway
Woody Guthrie
George Orwell,
spoke out for the "poor downtrodden marxist's who would have almost certainly created a worse Spain than resulted in their loss.
Regardless this was the big lie and our partnership with Stalin, after Hitler's paranoia caused their cooperation to end, was jumped on and packaged by Hollywood to the American public for the purpose of winning the war.
Only the poorly informed Americans fell for this load of crap as pretty much every US soldier who ever saw the Russians or how they acted was clear on who they really were. Also at this time the American media was not uniformly delusional and anti-western. Much of them realized we were the greatest nation in existence and that the world would be hell w/o us.

(NOTE: Orwell, one of the very most respected of the "intelligentsia" was some time later to come to realize how very evil marxism was and saw his career smashed as soon as he began to illuminate the horrors inside the USSR.)

And just as minor, short term, and overblown as the McCarthy Hollywood blackballing was, the opposite is true of the very real blackballing that started back in Orwell's time and still goes on today in Hollywood and higher education especially.
Only the very powerful and established dare to speak out as conservatives or they will stop finding work, or never get tenure.

And thus the delusion is perpetuated from generation to generation. Inspiring the pseudo-intellectual left to call conservative 'fascist' every time they disagree with them. But this is just another ad hominem fallacy just as their calling us phobic for disagreeing with perversion, and racist for disagreeing with Obama.

HERE is a great short video that will show the actual political spectrum as it is, and will always be regardless of the names men give it:
LINK: http://is.gd/xxy8EK

For all those here carrying on about left and right, I contend that both sides have good points.

The left, it must be said, has no appreciable voice of activism in the anti-Islamist movement. When it comes to Islam, most people from the left who speak up echo the kinds of sentiments that have vilified Eric on Daily KOS. That's what most of us hear from the left.

But Eric and Tolerance Lives have excellent points as well. Consistently characterizing the fight against Islamism as a right-wing movement is like cutting the throat of that movement. It's not about Christianity or Hinduism or Republicans or whatever else; it's about human rights, and that's an all-inclusive issue. Leftists aren't protecting Islam because they're genuinely in favor of its worst precepts, but because they think they're protecting a minority under threat of persecution, and one of the quickest ways to do away with that misconception is to stop demonizing them, whether they dismiss every criticizer of Islam as an Islamophobic right-wing nutter or not. Let them. When people here stop frothing about ridiculous things like Obama's birth certificate, the less fuel Islamophobe-criers have.

And really, it's not surprising. Consider the people protesting the moque in Murfreesboro; that's the same kind of crowd that cried "wolf" about giving women the vote, and cried "wolf" during WWII when we literally robbed and imprisoned thousands upon thousands of loyal American citizens because they were of Japanese heritage, and stopped letting Jews emigrate from Europe. They cried "wolf" during the civil rights movement, and again when gays marched for social and legal acceptance. Are you really THAT surprised by so few people willing to come running when "wolf" is being shouted at Islam?

For many reasons, not the least of which because it's so much more overrun by Islamists than we are in North America, Europe is about 5-10 years ahead in this debate, so Peter Carl's essay series is especially relevant (thank you, btw, Tolerance Lives; I hope people actually read it). We would be wise to pay attention and make the leap to where they are, saving ourselves a lot of trouble in the process.

For example, in Britain, there is some real cross-political partnership starting to happen, as demonstrated by the One Law for All campaign dedicated to getting rid of the Sharia courts, and taking legal measures to make sure Sharia courts and their ilk are banned from becoming part of British Law or permitted to function in Britain ever again.

In a juxtaposition to this particular forum, Douglas Murray found himself in that campaign with a bunch of leftists anxious to control the movement and exclude conservative elements, and had this to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBC1U2h4qlY

He was so, so right, and the thing is that you could reverse his situation and take every instance he said "left" and replace it with "right" and it would still be dead-on.

In his words, I hope we can do a bit better than that. Thank you.

"Consistently characterizing the fight against Islamism as a right-wing movement is like cutting the throat of that movement. It's not about Christianity or Hinduism or Republicans or whatever else; it's about human rights, and that's an all-inclusive issue. Leftists aren't protecting Islam because they're genuinely in favor of its worst precepts, but because they think they're protecting a minority under threat of persecution, and one of the quickest ways to do away with that misconception is to stop demonizing them, whether they dismiss every criticizer of Islam as an Islamophobic right-wing nutter or not. Let them. When people here stop frothing about ridiculous things like Obama's birth certificate, the less fuel Islamophobe-criers have."

Thank you, Edna. SO TRUE

- Eric

To David Dowse, CGW, and George…and Everyone Else Too:

Wow, a guy leaves the keyboard for a few hours and…. ;-) Glad that so many have chimed in for comic relief (“Big Dave” a/k/a David Dowse, CGW, George); you’ve achieved your goal. I’m sure there are many of us laughing. Perhaps actually more shrugging their shoulders and scratching their heads – like me, for example, after I quit laughing. :-) Sadly, though, it’s a serious topic.

There’s a lot going on here, to say the least. Unfortunately none of it bodes well at all for the counter-jihad movement or the future of the West. What we see written here is exactly why the counter-jihad movement will likely not succeed in halting Islamization. For those here who do not spent much time in Europe or know the situation there very well, Europe is already pretty much finished. And yet, we have the mess we have here in these comments. Peter Carl is fully correct - http://www.brusselsjournal.com/blog/21099 - and what is written here proves it.

In order to succeed, we need to move QUICKLY. That is why I have written that Peter Carl’s proposals are the ONLY solution. Not because I’m trying to push my point of view on anyone or because I think I know better. Nice try Big Dave, Georgie, and CGW; but you missed the mark. I write what I have written because we simply DO NOT have the TIME to waste on fighting amongst ourselves over Right/Left ideology. Doing so has four (4) effects: 1) it wastes time; 2) it can not succeed (people generally don’t change their ideologies); 3) it alienates not only the Left, but the Center and PC Right as well; and, worst of all, 4) it damages the movement immensely by confirming in the minds of the general public (Center, Left, and Right) and the mainstream press that the counter-jihad is simply a place of and for the “extreme-right” bigots and neo-Nazis of our time.

That will lead us ALL to nowhere but failure. Big Dave may not “give a rat’s ass” about that – but the rest of us should.

And, no, people won’t be “mugged by reality” before Islamization becomes irreversible (especially if Right/Left polemics continue): Birthrates (our own and Muslim), immigration, and our own lack of defenses to jihad and stealth jihad mean it will be over for us long before the unconvinced (of the Left, Right, and Center) will EVER be awoken by the horrors of Islamization. When “white flight” started in the 60s from what became black neighborhoods, did whites hang around to experience the discomforts of the ghetto? No. I know Europe and Southern France quite well; people are leaving cities so they don't have to experience a "mugging". They leave so that they don't have to experience the discomfort. That does not change their minds. Once out of sight, forever out of mind. Once in non-Sharia suburb one merely need to turn the channel to avoid the jihad. And that ethnic European flight is already taking place all across Europe and in the United States as well. Consider Dearborn only. It will be long over before ANYONE is ever AWOKEN by this. Thus, the Right/Left polemics, as numerous Liberals have confirmed in these comments, must stop. Not only to bring in the Left. If you think that is the sole reason, you’ve understood nothing. It must end to quit alienating everyone in the Center and the Right as well – and it must end to quit confirming the impression that the counter-jihad is simply made up of “right-wing” whackos and Nazis.

That’s the point. And, no, my opinions aren’t “merely opinions” like any other; the reason I have written as I have is because I’m not merely an “armchair warrior” – I actually work at a sufficiently high level (federally and internationally) in matters related to these questions. AND I KNOW THIS APPROACH WORKS. Why? Because, by avoiding all terms of ideology and sticking to HUMAN RIGHTS, I have CONVINCED the UNCONVINCED and caused people similar to Mr. Bell, for example, to see the logic behind what Peter Carl terms the “Counter-Jihad Argument”. I have done this all without EVER questioning or discussing a person’s political or ideological color. Many here, Conservatives, Liberals, and Centrists, have expressed agreement with the idea that in combating Islamization we need to put aside ideology and ideological labels and labeling. As Green Infidel puts it, “I agree with you that we should put those issues to one side and concentrate on Islam - indeed, maybe this is crucial to the success of opposition to Islam.” One could hope so.

But, before moving on to more relevant issues, let’s look at some of the helter-skelter postings we have here before coming to more interesting things. When I read some of the posts, I’m thinking we should probably be concerned about a few of these. We plunge from whackjob bravado and threats of violence from CGW to brain-chill from Big Dave. CGW, for example, writes:

“We don't need to ‘win hearts and minds’. There are other, more direct ways to win this war against islam. Some of us are prepared to go there. [….] Those of us in favor of action will leave all the self-righteous pontificating to armchair warriors such as yourself. Enjoy the ride. Converse and persuade until you're blue in the face while the rest of us do the dirty work. [The unconvinced] have sold their better judgement to the twin gods of PC/MC. It can only be repurchased with force. (Interpret "force" as you will.)”

[NOTE TO ROBERT AND THE FEDS: Seems we have a Breivik Jr. candidate on our hands here. Foams at the mouth as to the Left and clearly advocates violence (“dirty work” and “action” that by his own words he tells us is the opposite of weak-minded conversation and persuading.)

So, ok, CGW, let’s cut to the chase. Why don’t you tell us all about your big plans. In the future, the rest of us will stick to “pontificating” and “conversing” and “persuading”. Things that we weak people who believe in democracy do. No worries. So, please, why don’t you tell us all now a bit about your great plans for “going there” and the “ride” and “action” your going to give us all and the “dirty work” you have in mind that will be “repurchased with force” by you. Let’s hear about your plans and thoughts on how all of that is going to play out. Does it involve weapons? A coup d’etat? Is Breivik your role model in thinking through your plans? Please explain. You can be certain that we are all ears and just waiting to hear what kind of “dirty work” you’ve got in store for all of us. Please. If you have any backbone at all, you will not be afraid to share with us the details, again, of “going there” and the “ride” and “action” you have in store for all of us and the “dirty work” you have in mind that will be “repurchased with force.” Step up. Let’s hear it now…show us all what your intriguing code words mean and what your intellect is made of….

And then, of course, as “birds-of-a-feather,” we’ve got CGW’s “friend and admirer”, “Big Dave”, who says he prefers “...going to fight for [the] right to villify any damned person I wish, if I find their views in opposition to mine...." Great approach, Big Dave. Hey, is that anything like what George claims the “left-wing” does when he writes: “Hell, they'll say and do anything, ANYTHING to discredit the opposition and especially, to suppress the truth.” I guess that’s kind of like Big Dave’s “…right to villify any damned person I wish, if I find their views in opposition to mine...." That’s ironic, isn’t it? Isn’t that the same? In contrast to, for example, being bothered by taking the time to listen to or consider the thoughtful remarks and postings of our Liberal friends like Mr. Bell or others here, who tell us that, if you want to convince anyone not a part of the Right, the answer lies only in forgetting political antagonisms and ideological polemics and, instead, concentrating on HUMAN RIGHTS. I’m not the only person to say this. They too have said it. But, of course, we understand. As you’ve declared in your own words: “I don't give a rat's ass who I convince here. And I don't give a burro's behind whether people think I'm a right-wing loon or not.” Great.

Since you’ve already told us what your “right to vilify” means as well as something about “rat’s asses”, Big Dave, well, we no longer need to wonder any more about that. Thanks for the insights. (By the way, you’re doing great with your efforts to pull-off that loon role….) ;-) We can see that instead of actually discussing the issues here in a lucid and rational way that would in some way ADD to actual thought about the serious questions and issues brought up by many great and serious contributions here, we see Big Dave wants to draw his clever stick figures. Big Dave, personally, I’m really not sure what those drawing are. Why don’t you describe for all of us here what these things are and what they mean? Please. Show us where your intellect hides when it doesn’t want to actually be bothered with the troublesome details of thinking and considering facts…. We are all waiting to hear what your little stick figures mean…and why you drew them, as opposed to, for example, considering the serious issues at hand and the genuine points made by the vast majority of other thoughtful people here? Please. We’re waiting….

Like me and some others here, contrary to CGW and Big Dave, Mr. Bell is open to thinking through new ideas and is equally able to look critically at both the Left and the Right. He writes of individuals on the Left at the Daily Kos being as closed-minded as many on the Right. He wrote, they, “Like so many on the far right they are rigid and incapable of entertaining or even understanding ideas that are foreign to them or make them uncomfortable.” Even if he is capable of doing this, it does not mean that he has “converted” or needs to “convert” to anything. And he understands that, when discussing Islam and Islamism, we should check all ideological words and labels at the door: human rights is the only issue in question.

Part of the problem, I think, lies in some of the complicated things we see going on in these comments. We notice, for example, many complain about a condescending attitude liberals take to “the world” and the Right. But I’m certain that our Liberal friends writing here also feel a certain amount – if not A LOT – of condescension being poured on them and their ideology by the commenters here and by the counter-jihad movement. It appears, I’m fairly certain, to them that we here self-righteously believe the counter-jihad movement “belongs” to us. I don’t think Denmark’s Socialist People’s Party or its Social Democratic Party or the German Social Democratic Party would agree with you. Their leadership and, especially in the case of Denmark, their membership is staunchly counter-jihad - and they did not "learn" it from the Right. As a number of us here have tried to point out, Left and Right have NOTHING to do with understanding or supporting the counter-jihad. PC affects EVERYBODY from Center, Left, and Right to a great extent. Again, look at Roberts writings on the Republican presidential candidates. Understanding and supporting the counter-jihad has ONLY to do with HUMAN RIGHTS. That’s it.

So no one “converts” from anything to anything else – other than to simply come to the insight that supporting HUMAN RIGHTS can not include tolerating intolerance and that, yes, a religion can be intolerant. That’s it. That is the only change that has to take place in ANY person’s mind, whether from the Center, Left, or Right. The position is not inherently of the Right, Left, or Center and it is not the discovery of nor DOES it belong to the Right, Left, or Center. That is where, as I initially wrote, an opportunity here has been wasted. Mr. Bell’s insights could have been presented here by Robert and we who comment here as something that the Right and Left can agree on. By placing the counter-jihad as something existing within the Left (which it, in fact, does), that would have caused the Left to have to react more to this and to have a discussion of these issues - on its own. Instead, the opportunity has been wasted here, and it has been painted as if Mr. Bell has “converted” to something from something. That simply means, as most of the comments here suggest, Mr. Bell (though not the case), has somehow “joined” the Right, which means he's implicitly no longer a part of the "Left", which is not true either.

As Mark54 writes, “In some ways [Mr. Bell] could be viewed as an "apostate" from liberalism” and that hopefully “…we can…convert more and more Americans who get their news from these liberal sources to the truth.” Senatortombstone writes: “Bell is a semi-convert, who is almost there, but not quite there…” Wakingwest writes: “I rejoice when someone from the liberal sphere, such as Mr. Juan Williams of NPR fame or Mr. Bell, inevitably by experience and good conscience , are forced to convert away from the orthodox liberal establishment cloister.” Cornelius says Mr. Bell may “…endure the ex-communication from the political left that will inevitably accompany his heresy, and find his way to a new home on the center-right of the spectrum. He'll be stunned to find out what a big tent the conservative realm is…”

For one, Mr. Bell has not left behind his “Liberal” or “Leftist” ideas – nor should he nor does he need to. Other commenters here, like Shewholives, characterizes herself still as “…a pro-choice liberal Dem…,” but she’ll vote for a Republican and understands the counter-jihad. That does not mean she’s “converted” to anything. It’s the same with a number of others. We have Wri7913 who is “…neither a rabid Christian or a right winger. I am more independent (socially more liberal and fiscally conservative)….” Tom Davis says: “I consider myself an old early 1960's liberal: pro civil rights, etc. I have not changed most of my opinions since then, but by not doing so I am now labeled by others to be a 'right winger'.” Then he adds quite correctly, “These easy categorizations are not helpful in making the world a better place.” Mr. Bell expresses the same thought when he writes, “Human rights are not a Left vs. Right issue. Those terms are divisive when trying to work together toward a common goal of exposing the tyranny that is Islam.”

As I mentioned earlier, the counter-jihad belongs no more to the Right than it does to the Left. It depends nothing at all on Left or Right ideology; it is merely a simple insight that requires an understanding that tolerance of intolerance kills all tolerance and human rights – and that a set of religious ideas is capable of teaching and creating intolerance.

As a final point, Green Infidel noted that “Robert Spencer wrote – ‘However, I do not now and never have considered my work 'right-wing': if defending civilized values against institutionalized violence and religiously justified savagery is 'right-wing,' the Left has a great deal to answer for.’" Green Infidel then asks, “Where exactly does Robert claim it's a left/right thing?!”

To start with, as I stated initially, I have full respect for Robert, Robert’s background, Robert’s knowledge, and Robert’s work. Without doubt. Robert has done great things to provide a very good public service. That said, Robert is also a stand-up guy who is open to and welcomes criticism and critiques of his work and actions. And he always comes out looking perfect – except on the issue of Right/Left polemics. If he took into consideration what Mr. Bell, Green Infidel, and others have suggested – putting away ideological labeling and focusing on human rights – his work would be perfect. Not only would it be perfect, it would achieve maximum affect. By concentrating on the ugly facts of Islam and his deep knowledge of this religion while avoiding ideological distractions, he would quit alienating the unconvinced of every political stripe and also quit painting the movement world-wide as a “far-right” phenomenon. He has a big soapbox, therefore, he is capable of causing great damage.

That brings us to Green Infidel's question about “Where exactly does Robert claim it's a left/right thing?!” Peter Carl, in his second essay ( http://www.brusselsjournal.com/blog/21099 ), “Surviving Islamism ... And Right/Left Politics: Churchill's Principle - Part II: Right v. Left,” writes as follows:

“Mr. Spencer, in the initial quote cited above, also wrote there that he has ‘…never taken a public position on any other issue besides jihad and Islamic supremacism.’ That would have been very helpful to our Counter-Jihad Movement and our political parties were it fully and consistently true. However, when one regularly and continually labels and blasts a political ideology held by a very large portion of the electorate (the ‘Left’), in the U.S. and abroad, it is incorrect to say one has ‘never’ taken a public position on politics.”

The reason why numerous people in these comments, including Tom Davis and Mr. Bell, have said things like, “These easy categorizations are not helpful in making the world a better place” and “Human rights are not a Left vs. Right issue. Those terms are divisive when trying to work together toward a common goal of exposing the tyranny that is Islam,” is that they are very earnestly trying to help us in this movement to understand HOW to get the attention of the MAXIMUM NUMBER of the unconvinced (of EVERY political color). As Peter Carl says, if one daily screams “Left this” and “Left that” there can be no doubt where one stands and one has quite explicitly “taken a public position” on issues of politics. This is especially the case, for that matter, if one daily insults and alienates - on issues of human rights that are independent of ideological politics and with fully nothing to gain - those whom one labels. That, I think, we can and should all understand.

It’s merely a question now of dropping the categorizations. It will take some practice for ALL of us. We all have a tendency to bash some political point of view or other. As relates to the counter-jihad movement, however, we do not have time for these debates on ideological politics or, for that matter, abortion, as some have suggested. We need to back off on our self-righteousness and understand that we simply need people to understand that tolerance of intolerance kills tolerance and human rights. I’ll close with a quote I provided before from a commenter to Peter Carl’s article at The Brussels Journal. That conservative commenter got it all quite right:

“Thanks to the author for these very substantial articles. It is possible that Counter-Jihadists need to anticipate a long-term struggle, like the struggles for the abolition of slavery and for the abolition of abortion. To some, it is obvious that Islam is inimical to Western civilization and should be excluded from it to the greatest possible extent, as soon as possible. But it is not obvious to most. For the feelings of the majority to change to the point where they can compel politicians and officials to follow their views, counter-jihadists must put aside their contempt for those who don't get it and humbly and tirelessly work to overcome the ignorance, ideology, interest, and indolence that prevent anti-Islamic measures from being put into effect. In effect, to be a successful counter-jihadist, one should set aside right and left ideologies and focus on the immediate practical harm….”
( http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4872#comment-36200 )

I’ve written enough here for the time being. There are others here who see what I'm trying to say and who can express my points of view in better terms. Thanks for reading. May we find success together. All the best.

TL

I do not believe in an omniscient, omnipotent god as religious Jews, Christain, and Muslims do. Does that ipso facto make me a leftist or a right winger?

I favor the capitalist form of economic model over a communist/socialist one - does that make me a right winger?

I realize that abortion is a difficult issue for those who believe in such a god. I believe in woman's right to choose. Does that ipso facto define me as a leftist?
If so, how do you explain my POV on the death penalty (I'm for it), traditionally the position of the right?

There has been much heated debate whether it helps the anti-jihadist movement to vilify the left as apologists for the Islamic belief system. I submit it not only does not help, but that those labels are overused and ill-defined descriptions of a person's attitudes on various issues including his position on Islam.

For those who have not accessed the link to Peter Carl's series of essays in the Brussels Journal I recommend spending some time reading his work. It sheds light on these issues in a very convincing and unifying way. I urge you to give him some time.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4867

We may disagree on economic systems, the existence of god, abortion rights, the death penalty, graduated income taxes, gay rights, immigration policies, domestic entitlement programs, US foreign policy around the world, etc. However, at this site at least, the commonality of our opposition to the tyranny of Islam should take precedence over internecine squabbles on other issues. Let's keep the discussion of how to best achieve our common goal civil.

Kepha -

I'm not here to convert anyone or to speak for the Left.

To compare TN to Turkey strikes me is a bit of a stretch. But by own fairly civilized American standards, the radical Evangelical movement that opposed the mosque construction in Murfreesboro, TN was characterized by cruelty and profound ignorance. The new mosque construction was largely opposed on religious grounds as many of the Southern people believed that America is a Christian country and many actually though it said this in either the Constitution or even the Bible.

We have our own radical element here at home with end time Evangelicals. My sense is that when it comes to religion however, it is very hard to make accurate generalizations about the Left. Many of them are religious.

For me belief in a deity is counter-intuitive. I do not try to convert anyone but have had countless people attempt to impose their superstitious belief systems on me. Even using the word "superstitious" as I just have tends to offend many people yet a lot of those same people don't really consider how much they offend others by telling them that they are going to hell.

I am pro life so I cannot defend the Left's position on abortion as I feel it to be indefensible. But the perception within the Left that the Right is cruel is unfair for the most part, in my view, but when it comes to interfering with consenting adults decisions about who to marry I do feel that this is matter of personal liberty and one that should be nonpartisan. Most people on the Right who oppose gay rights do so because of their religious beliefs - beliefs that should not be imposed on others.

- Eric

Independent thought on jihad and Islam at the Daily Kos
.......................................

Glad to hear it, Mr. Bell. Welcome!

The fact is that *everyone* who stands against the tyranny of Jihad and Shari'ah is branded "right wing"—even someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is a liberal African feminist atheist.

I am in many ways quite liberal—I am a vegetarian who is in favor of gay marriage—but I am frequently considered "right wing" nonetheless.

This has never made any sense to me. Islam threatens political and Christian conservatives—but also women, children, ethnic and religious minorities, gay people, freedom of speech, the free practice of art, literature and music—all of which are frequently considered liberal causes.

Robert Spencer wrote:

Jihad Watch is not a religious apologetics site, but a non-sectarian site seeking to provide the context for a broad coalition of people of all perspectives -- atheists, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims of conscience -- who are threatened by Islamic jihad.
.......................................

Very true. Anyone who reads here for any length of time will find stories about the threat of Islam to all these groups—to all Infidels, to apostates, and to minority-sect and moderate Muslims.

There are some on the left such as Bill Maher and Bruce Bawer who have come to understand the Jihad threat.

It is important to understand that Jihad makes no distinctions—we are *all* "filthy Kaffirs"...

I've read a piece or two by Danios.
Quite enough for me!!

"fat, ugly, stupid, and evil"?

He must have been looking in a mirror.

What I don't understand Robert, is how he could possibly have ignored your signature amiability! ;)

My word, could you possibly be any more tiresome? You certainly love to blather. I'll respond, albeit only relatively briefly, to your long-winded comment, but let's agree to leave it at that. This is serving no purpose except to gratify your own sense of purpose and self-worth. I, unlike you, don't feel the need to convince a single soul of my ideas. I am among friends here, and in my greater community. I have all the support I need, including and not limited to, my comrades [with]in government.

I want to preface this by saying that you are typical of many internet posters in your tendency to take things at face value, without considering broader implications. It's laughable (and even humorous) to see how you've attempted to "analyze" me, my background, my situation, my motivations, and my methods. I'm not going to dispute each and every one of your theoretical assertions, but I will say that your tendency to evaluate what I say on such a superficial level is naive at best.

"I understand, then, that those with whom you “are legion” have formed or informally see yourselves as having formed some form of militia. I also understand that the ”force” you said you would use in your posting yesterday has now been defined, in your own words, as being carried out ”by whatever means necessary.”"

"Understand", or rather assume, whatever you will. Please make the extra effort to consider ALL the possibilities, that is, if you have the intellect and imagination to do so.

"The oath to which you are referring and to which you yourself have sworn reads in full:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). ( http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html )

What you have done here is that you have intentionally deleted or neglected the first part of the oath which requires you to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States….” That requires you to submit to the U.S. Constitution and all of the laws and each of the institutions and democratic processes implied, created, and existing under that Constitution. That means that you – and the military itself – are sworn to submit to and obey the orders, decisions, and instructions – and only the orders, decisions, and instructions – that arise as a result of and within our duly and democratically elected civilian government. The military answers solely to the executive branch – and the executive branch is elected by the people."

Here you presume to assume that I have sworn such an oath in an official capacity. I never stated that I had, only that I prefer to defend "my country", (and yes, it is MINE as well as OURS) against such enemies. A similar ideal can be upheld by members of the "system" (even in an official capacity) other than the military.

"You should be aware that, both by law and for those of us who insist on our democratic rights and freedoms, it is a duly and democratically elected American government – and only a duly and democratically elected American government – that determines, for we who are sworn to uphold and protect that Constitution and the democratic institutions existing under it, that can or will name and define this country’s “enemies, foreign and domestic.” You, CGW, or your Breivik-like “legions” of co-conspirators are not somehow – as you clearly imagine – free to determine this matter for all of the rest of us. You said, as if this country in your mind belongs to you, “…I prefer to defend my country.” You should be aware this is not YOUR country, this is OUR country. WE determine TOGETHER what our polices and priorities and laws are and will be and, by our elected leaders, we also determine TOGETHER who we deem to be OUR “…enemies, foreign and domestic.” You, it is clear, do not agree with this; you believe that you and your “legion” can and, as you say, “will” determine these matters unilaterally for us all and do this ”by whatever means necessary.” Or has your backbone weakened, perhaps, and you now wish do declare otherwise?"

LOL, once again you naively assume too much - "You, CGW, or your Breivik-like “legions” of co-conspirators". Could there be any other plausible group of citizens to which we belong? Naivete, pure and simple. That's OK, that's how we want it. Makes our job easier.

My backbone could never be weakened by the likes of you. After all, you find me "scary".

"You say, you are “…no more prone to violence than, say, the U.S. miltary.” That is clearly not the case, however, since you state that you will act “…to deal with the incursion of the evil ideology.” Aside from the fact that you can not speak for the U.S. military (the President does that, the Generals implement), generally the U.S. military is not called in to, as you state it, “…deal with the incursion of [an] evil ideology….” It’s called in only to deal with military threats and then, generally, not domestically. So it is rather clear here that you are saying that you will – and are advocating – that the “ride”, “action”, and “dirty work” you wish to carry out in peril to the rest of us in order to battle what you (or the co-conspirators in your “legion”) yourselves will define as “all enemies, foreign and domestic” you clearly do not envision as being carried out by and under the authorization of a duly and democratically elected and appointed American government or state and local law enforcement. Among those domestic “enemies” you envision these would clearly include masses of Americans who are as yet unconvinced by the counter-jihad movement and who, therefore, would see you as an extreme danger to our country and HUMAN RIGHTS and resist you. (Especially – and rightly so – in light of your postings here over the past two days.)"

The above-paragraph is just too ridiculous to accept as valid. I do not "speak FOR the US military (my emphasis)", however, I re-affirm my commitment to protect the US (my country, your country, our country) from its enemies to the very best of my ability and in whatever ways possible. The enemy is defined differently within different circles, yes, even within different government agencies. (We are "at war" with China economically but not militarily. Don't use this as a point of argument, it's just an example of how language can be construed.) You stated, "you clearly do not envision as being carried out by and under the authorization of a duly and democratically elected and appointed American government or state and local law enforcement . . ." Clearly? Again, you assume too much. "Among those domestic “enemies” you envision these would clearly include masses of Americans who are as yet unconvinced by the counter-jihad movement . . ." Again, your assumption, not my assertion.

"I’m guessing that you have a military background but not active duty, so the part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), that would likely apply to you is Chapter 1, Article II, which reads:

“(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000802----000-.html

In addition, Chapter X, Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) states that:

“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;

(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000894----000-.html"

You certainly have a high regard for your personal powers of discernment. I have noticed that you assign a very literal and one-dimensional interpretation to words and their meanings. Try to analyze across a broader spectrum.

"Needless to say, because of your statements and ideas about “enemies, foreign and domestic” and how Islam “will” or can be defeated within the West, you face some serious challenges – potentially even already to your own freedom. Homeland Security is keeping a good eye on people like yourself and your “legions”. And Robert here, having suffered a brutal backlash with respect to the Breivik massacres (as all the Left bashing quite obviously predicted and resulted in for the whole movement smeared-“extreme-right” when Breivik-types strike), is also growing more sensitive to these issues and person like yourself. So far, however, not sensitive enough so as to prevent further black-eyes and back-lashes for the entire world-wide counter-jihad movement in the future by backing off of ideological polemics and focusing on the core issue of HUMAN RIGHTS. In any case, to the extent that you are not military or former military, you will be prosecuted for these same activities under the Homeland Security Act and anti-terrorism laws."

LMAO. DHS? Are you serious? Can you point to one actionable offense that I have committed? I didn't think so.

The Second Amendment cuts ALL ways. Enough said about that. Your rambling there is odd and rather pointless.

"I can assure you, for reasons I won’t share here, but which you yourself will interpret as “pompous” anyway, I understand Islam and Islamists and the dangers of both on so many levels better than you ever will; theologically, historically, socially, politically, and in every other way. Sorry to be so “pompous”, but sometimes people simply have knowledge or experiences that you, for example, very likely do not. I recognize that myself; sometimes other people just know or have experienced more in certain areas than I have. Not really so pompous, as you accuse, after all." Wow, what an ego. I don't presume to be the ultimate expert but apparently you do, without having any idea about my background or life's work. Wallow in that. It seems to comfort you and bolster your self-esteem. I'm content to see which methodology emerges victorious in the end game.

"If you feel you know who the enemy is (and I think all here agree that Islam is clearly an enemy to not only the United States and the entire West), you will need to express that and achieve that through our democratic institutions and processes." Who are you to say that I am not doing just that?

"You should also note that that we’re not in 3rd grade – there is no “tattling” and nobody “starts” anything." Obviously, the irony was lost on you. You just made my point, although you had to "spell it out". I'll try to make things more "plain" for folks like you in the future.

Re Edna Pierce, you are just being hyper-critical. I evaluate the Left based on my own experiences. How do you know that I don't have "inside knowledge" as a former adherent of that particular ideological strain? Of course, you really don't have any knowledge about me at all except for an extremely superficial, naive and one-dimensional interpretation of my writing.

I'd like to insert here that you have a very peculiar way of taking apart what people say and defining them according to your own prejudices - EXACTLY what you accuse me of doing. Your final few paragraphs about the Right/Left divide and the non-existence of any objective "reason" or "logic" are just ranting. I will make no substantive reply because there is no "substance" to your comments, just a lot of "opining". I am astonished, frankly, at your hypocrisy.

If you care to respond at all, please do so BRIEFLY and SUCCINCTLY. Contrary to your own elevated opinion of yourself, you are not the skilled debater you imagine yourself to be. I am not claiming that distinction for myself, BTW. But don't tell people how to think and behave, assuming that you know better than they themselves do, and not expect a backlash from those of us who consider ourselves (although not in your opinion) your intellectual equal.

I find it amusing that someone who purports to know how to "influence and convince" others cannot see how objectionable his/her own approach is. Here's hoping that you have better success with our adversaries of all stripes.

George, my friend, I'd like to second every word of your post.

Best regards,

CGW

Please note:

The lengthy post above was directed at Tolerance Lives. For some reason the "Reply" feature did not work as intended.

I had no idea that it was double-posting. My apologies!

Hey CGW, Georgie, GI, Champ, Wellington, et al.!

I certainly am guilty of having hogged this thread the other day. Sorry, but I'm really feisty about the abortion thing and kept at it to get an admission (or at least, a clear explanation of Bell's/TL's position) re: abortion/Human Rights.
_____________________

Anyway - how the hell are we to interpret his/her last posting to CGW?
_________________________________________________________

I gotta' say after all the thinking I've done on this since Saturday, then reading the above, just now, that...

I don't have a f***ing clue what is going on in that person's head (TL).
__________________

I give up. You guys are gonna' have to take up the slack for me, cuz I've argued to my absolute intellectual limit!

That's all I got, and it ain't much...LOL!

Cheers, all.

D
Sonora

Don't sell yourself short, buddy. This would try the patience of a Saint, which we also know you are not . . . (just kidding!) ;-D

Don't sell yourself short, buddy. This would try the patience of a Saint, which we also know you are not . . . (just kidding!) ;-D

To CGW (and his pals),

Merely because a person does not respond does not mean that your response was somehow so impressive so as to make a response unnecessary. A lack of response can mean the opposite; it can mean that what is being written here is so loony, so narrow-minded, or, alternatively, so self-congratulatory that there is no point in responding. I think you can assume that the failure to continue to post of all of the other thoughtful people above who had provided thoughtful considerations otherwise during this thread – with the sole exception of you and any auto-pilot lemmings behind you – shows that few of us, myself included, saw any need to continue to post.

As to those who rightly inferred that I was raising questions of civility, they were correct. On that note, I’d say I have dealt with everyone as civilly as the rest of us have written to one another and, in the case of CGW and “Big Dave”, I have written in a manner far more civilly than they have dealt with me (and many others) in these JW pages. As to CGW and “Big Dave”, well, you should not come back and blame people for being “uncivil” or being a “bully” when, over the course of a thread, you have quite intentionally failed to do so yourselves and, besides that, when you act like intellectually immature imbeciles by drawing childish stick figures or making accusations of “tattling” or “starting it” or, worst in all cases, when you make statements that constitute legally actionable incitement to and evidence your own intent to commit violence. Both of you have shown us here at JW what you are and the level of your intellect. It’s here in black and white for all to read.

In any case, I’m glad that you are laughing, CGW, because at least that way you don’t feel bad about the fact that your response itself was laughable seeing that it fully failed to actually address or take up any of the points or issues I raised. You failed, among other things, to address:

1) Despite your overflowing bravado and “backbone”, you failed to provide us with any more detail as to all of the “dirty work” and “methods” of “force” by “whatever means necessary” you see as lying before you and your co-conspirator pals?

2) You fail to explain how or why you feel you and any of your co-conspirators have any right or authority to use violence outside of the manners and means authorized under our Constitution and by our government?

3) You fail to explain how or why you and your co-conspirators would not be liable for sedition or terrorism?

4) You fail to discuss or address how when you step across that line, you will be met by not only the arms of the U.S. military but by other U.S. citizens who honor the Second Amendment?

5) You fail to discuss or address how you, by what you own by the Second Amendment, will provide any significant threat to the technologies and materiel that is owned and will be used by the U.S. military on those like yourselves who intend to unilaterally define enemies within this state?

6) You fail to discuss or explain how or why you will have not become an enemy yourself of the U.S. Government (and perhaps already are) in making such statements and in, as you said you “will”, taking up arms within this country against any “enemy” not then so defined by the U.S. Government?

7) You have failed to distinguish between yourself and your thoughts and “methods” and those advocated and carried out by Anders Behring Breivik?

Yet you allege you have answered my previous post. And you use the word naïve. That, my friend, is the only thing that is laughable here – aside from imagining you sitting in a cell in a little orange jumpsuit in a federal prison. And the only thing naïve here are your own thoughts of inciting violence and raising arms against the United States and its citizens. You and your co-conspirators sharing that cell. Cute. That image and the naïveté of your own thoughts and actions that will bring you there, these are the only things that I find laughable or naïve here. You might try to concern yourself far less with how much I write (which seems to disturb you) and more with the actual contents of what I and so many others have written here. I know it challenges you at many levels. Sorry for challenging your thinking and reading comprehension skills. Sorry also that I can type and think quickly and all at the same time.

Let’s be clear here. And EVERYONE reading this should be clear about what CGW has written in two of his posts. What CGW has written here is actionable incitement to violence. [NOTE TO ROBERT AND THE FEDS: It’s all in black and white here.] Here’s what you’ve written, CGW Breivik:

“We don't need to ‘win hearts and minds’. There are other, more direct ways to win this war against islam. Some of us are prepared to go there. [….] Those of us in favor of action will leave all the self-righteous pontificating to armchair warriors such as yourself. Enjoy the ride. Converse and persuade until you're blue in the face while the rest of us do the dirty work. [The unconvinced] have sold their better judgement to the twin gods of PC/MC. It can only be repurchased with force. (Interpret "force" as you will.)”

You wrote in your next post:

“I prefer to defend my country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

And:

“My point was that there are a number of us - and we are legion - that will deal with the incursion of the evil ideology by whatever means necessary to ensure the survival of Enlightened Western Civilization. ”

And in your next post:

“I advocate a number of ‘methods’ that can successfully deal with the islam problem. It will NEVER be "too late" to ‘reverse’ the islam situation.” (Emphasis original).

NO ONE reading here should be confused or find CGW’s words to be ambiguous: by your words you are calling any reader here to join you in committing violence, you have said that you have and will coordinate with others, and you have evidenced your own express commitment to carry out violence at any point in time and to any extent necessary. It is clear by your words that you believe that “methods”, as you put it, exist to be used and “will” be used by you when and by “whatever means” you see fit. CGW, your words show us that there is no difference between you and Anders Behring Breivik. The only difference is that one has already acted on his words of violence and sits in prison and the other – you – have provided us with these words so that we can await the outcome of your “wisdom”.

It’s ironic that you call me an “armchair warrior”, but you yourself admit that you yourself have not taken the military oath posted above in any “official capacity”. That means you may have then taken it, as you seem to imply, in some “unofficial” capacity (whatever that means) and, in all cases, that means that you do not understand that oath. As a result, in your ignorance you think, then, that you can disregard the first part of that oath about upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States.

In relation to this point, you state that: “The enemy is defined differently within different circles, yes, even within different government agencies.” Actually, no. “Enemy” is a defined term as referred to in that oath. Who is and is not an enemy is determined by congressional declarations of war or by executive (presidential) decree. Agencies may use the term enemy loosely when dealing with economic matters, drug enforcement, etc., however, those uses do not necessarily refer to enemies as defined by the legislative or executive branches. So, once again, the fact that YOU think that YOU (or any of your co-conspirators) will define – outside of the democratic institutions and processes that fall under the Constitution – who or what is an “enemy” of the United States or its citizens shows only that you believe yourself to be entitled to disregard these democratic institutions, democratic processes, and our Constitution contrary to the rights of the citizens of this country. At that time, that which you also fully fail to understand here, is that when you advocate violence or take up arms against these democratic institutions, democratic processes, and our Constitution contrary to the rights of the citizens of this country then YOU YOURSELF become an “enemy” of this country and its citizens who, themselves, are armed by the Second Amendment. There is, CGW Breivik Jr., no rebuttal to that. Your words are clear.

My words are also clear. That you are not a part of the military is irrelevant. If not an actual government employee or military serviceman, as I stated previously, you can be prosecuted under other laws. For example, sedition is a federal crime in this country under 18 U.S.C.A. § 2384 (1948), a statute that makes seditious conspiracy actionable, and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2385 (1948), which makes it unlawful to advocate the overthrow of the federal government by force. Where a person makes statements that create a clear and present danger to rights that the government may lawfully protect, he or she may be punished for sedition. (Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 (1919)). This is complemented by the Smith Act (18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2385, 2387), a statute aimed at providing further remedies for sedition and seditious conspiracy. The latter statute was upheld by the Supreme Court in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951). In addition to these, as mentioned in my previous post, the Homeland Security Act and ant-terrorism laws govern similar conduct and actions.

All that said, as I wrote previously:

“Basically everybody here continually regurgitates the same preach-to-the-choir, pat-ourselves-on-the-back, feel-good dribble that causes NO ONE to ever think about anything. Most people writing within these pages are merely writing and responding on auto-pilot. They are here to hear what they want to hear and disturbed by hearing what they're not used to hearing. It is laughable all of the references to the Left having an "open mind". Read the above. We here in the counter-jihad movement could be well served by opening our tightly closed minds a bit as well.”

Take a look at your comments above. CGW, “Big Dave” (David Dowse), “Georgie”, Wellington, etc. All the same people, all the same preach-to-the-choir, pat-ourselves-on-the-back, feel-good rote thinking. You seem not to have noticed that after your violence-inciting postings, CGW, all others (including myself) lost interest in what had been and interesting and open exchange of thoughts and ideas across ideological affiliations, yet which we all had within our commitment to the counter-jihad movement. You can be certain that the sudden loss of interest was because of the whackiness of your violent Breivik Jr.-like statements which truly informed all of the rest of us about the types of nutjobs we sometimes find ourselves dealing with here within the counter-jihad movement (including all of the preach-to-the-choir, pat-ourselves-on-the-back, feel-good dribble that would mindlessly (and unlawfully) support someone like you…).

This, as I also have mentioned before, should make all who read the insightful comments above (as well as the scrambled violence-inciting thoughts of CGW above) to understand that, as Peter Carl writes in his very insightful essays at The Brussels Journal ( http://www.brusselsjournal.com/blog/21099 ), we really, absolutely do not have any time to waste.

Hope you look pretty in orange, CGW. Robert and I stand ready for the day when we will be called to appear at your trial as witnesses for the state. All the best.

TL

P.S. - To "gravenimage": I've never used the words "not astute" in any of my postings here. Not sure exactly what you may be referring to. The only individuals to use the word "astute" in these postings have been yourself, Darmanad, and Wakingwest - and none of have done so in a way disparaging of Wellington.

Yo TL - brevity is the soul of wit.
Long comments get fewer readers.
If you want to reach more people, edit yourself....

BTW - I am tolerant too, but not to the point of tolerating intolerance, be that in the form of Nazism, Islam, the Klan or any other...

Salaam,

IMF

To CGW,

Yeah, right.... I'm the "nutjob".... Since you can't answer assertions, facts, or law you attack the person; we all see through that game. Now we're all laughing.

To help you on the definition of "nutjob", it may not have occurred to you, however, that I am not the one writing here about determining on my own who is or is not an enemy of the United States, killing people using "methods" of "whatever means necessary," things "only" being able to be "repurchased by force", and generally advocating and working to usurp the rights of the United States government or its citizens. Your many words are very clear.

I and all of the rest of us here will take your most recent postings as an absolute and full inability to answer any of these points. (Or, after having read the laws now, as a sudden and real loss of backbone.) We see where you stand, CGW. And it's not a good place.

In the mean time, my good friend, you might want to work on that "civility" thing a bit, eh? You will find it helpful both in and outside of prison. ;-) Also, it is a requirement here at JW.

TL

BTW, I feel no compunction to answer your ridiculous "assertions". I consider myself bound by certain, uh . . . "rules" of discretion and confidentiality.

Something has got your panties in a bunch, though, and it ain't me and my fellows here at JW. You've got some serious psychological/mental/emotional issues there, buddy.

Unless there's some new, valid, contributory-to-the-counter-jihad point made in furtherance of this issue, I'm done dealing with your hysterical, unbalanced attacks. You're wasting our time.

Tremendous Lies ...

a more fitting nom de plume.

"You can be certain that the sudden loss of interest was because of the whackiness of your violent Breivik Jr.-like statements which truly informed all of the rest of us about the types of nutjobs we sometimes find ourselves dealing with here within the counter-jihad movement (including all of the preach-to-the-choir, pat-ourselves-on-the-back, feel-good dribble that would mindlessly (and unlawfully) support someone like you…)."

TL is wholly arrogant and delusional. Not only did he twist CGW's comments into something that they weren't, but now he claims to know WHY the dialogue has ended here; and most notably, that he's the ONLY sane adult in the room. Someone slap a straitjacket on this guy and stat.

When does this comments thread close?

Testing.

Testing.