FBI busy purging its training materials of all traces of truth about Islam and jihad

Spencer Ackerman would have invited Josef Goebbels to oversee FBI training during World War II.

“FBI Purges Hundreds of Terrorism Documents in Islamophobia Probe,” by Spencer Ackerman at Wired, February 15 (thanks to all who sent this in):

An internal FBI investigation into its counterterrorism training has purged hundreds of bureau documents of instructional material about Muslims, some of which characterized them as prone to violence or terrorism.

Good. Only the greasiest of Islamophobes would ever, ever have gotten the idea that any Muslims at all, anywhere, had any interest in violence or terrorism.

The bureau disclosed initial findings from its months-long review during a meeting at FBI headquarters on Wednesday with several Arab and Muslim advocacy groups, attended by Director Robert Mueller. So far, the inquiry has uncovered and purged over 700 pages of documentation from approximately 300 presentations given to agents since 9/11 “” some of which were similar to briefings published by Danger Room last year describing “mainstream” Muslims as “violent.” And more disclosures may be forthcoming, as the FBI continues its inquiry and responds to Freedom of Information Act requests for the documents themselves.

FBI spokesman Christopher Allen confirms to Danger Room that the bureau found some of the documents to be objectionable because they were inaccurate or over-broad, others because they were offensive. Allen explains that the documents represent “less than 1 percent” of over 160,000 documents reviewed by the inquiry, which was prompted by a Danger Room investigation in September.

The FBI purged documents according to four criteria: “factual errors”; “poor taste”; employment of “stereotypes” about Arabs or Muslims; or presenting information that “lacked precision.”

As judged by whom, from what perspective and with what knowledge? There are no factual inaccuracies in my books, but the Islamic supremacist smear machine energetically insists that they are — who is the judge, and on which side of the fence is he or she on?

Danger Room uncovered several such documents in the fall, including some instructing FBI counterterrorism agents that “mainstream” Muslims sympathized with terrorists; that the Prophet Mohammed was a “cult” leader; and that the more “devout” a Muslim was, the more likely he would be to commit a violent act. Some documents even purported to graph the correlation. The FBI initially said the instruction occurred “one time only.” But when Danger Room uncovered additional anti-Islam materials “” in briefings that compared Islam to the Death Star; in books on the shelves of the FBI training library at Quantico; and in pages hosted on internal FBI websites “” the bureau began an extensive internal review….

Are mainstream American Muslims “likely to be terrorist sympathizers”? Certainly all the mainstream Muslim organizations condemn al-Qaeda and 9/11; however, some of the foremost of those organizations, such as the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, the Islamic Circle of North America, the Muslim Students Association, and the Council of American-Islamic Relations, and others, have links of various kinds to the jihad terrorist group Hamas and its parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated to imposing Islamic law around the world. A mainstream Muslim spokesman in the U.S., the Ground Zero Mosque Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, refused to condemn Hamas until it became too politically damaging for him not to do so; another, CAIR”s Nihad Awad, openly declared his support for Hamas in 1994. Another mainstream Muslim spokesman in this country, Reza Aslan, has praised another jihad terrorist group, Hizballah, and called on the U.S. to negotiate with Hamas. Other mainstream Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. such as Obama’s ambassador to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Rashad Hussain, and media gadfly Hussein Ibish, have praised and defended the confessed leader of another jihad terror group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad: Sami al-Arian.

Do these men and organizations represent a tiny minority of extremists that actually does not express the opinions of the broad mainstream of Muslims in this country? Maybe, but if so, they simply do not have any counterparts of comparable size or influence who have not expressed sympathy for some form of Islamic terror.

Was Muhammad a “cult leader”? Certainly one definition of a cult is that members are not free to opt out if they choose to do so — and it was Muhammad who enunciated Islam’s notorious death penalty for apostasy by saying, –Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari 9.84.57). Also, there are several celebrated incidents in which Muhammad lashed out violently against his opponents, ordering the murder of several people for the crime of making fun of him — including the poet Abu “˜Afak, who was over one hundred years old, and the poetess “˜Asma bint Marwan. Abu “˜Afak was killed in his sleep, in response to Muhammad’s question, “Who will avenge me on this scoundrel?” Similarly, Muhammad on another occasion cried out, “Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” One of his followers, “˜Umayr ibn “˜Adi, went to her house that night, where he found her sleeping next to her children. The youngest, a nursing babe, was in her arms. But that didn’t stop “˜Umayr from murdering her and the baby as well. Muhammad commended him: “You have done a great service to Allah and His Messenger, “˜Umayr!” (Ibn Ishaq, 674-676).

Is it true that “the more “˜devout” a Muslim, the more likely he is to be “˜violent,– and is it also true that “moderating process cannot happen if the Koran continues to be regarded as the unalterable word of Allah”? While certainly not all devout Muslims are terrorists, virtually all Islamic terrorists are devout Muslims. In recent years, not only Osama bin Laden but also devout Muslims such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, would-be Times Square bomber Feisal Shahzad, Arkansas jihad murderer Abdulhakim Muhammad, and other jihad terror plotters such as Khalid Aldawsari, Baitullah Mehsud, and Roshonara Choudhry, among many others, reference Islamic teachings to justify violence against unbelievers. Detroit underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab declared in court that Muslims should only be judged by the Qur’an.

Once the State Department, always the State Department
Colorado student quits high school choir over Islamic hymn proclaiming "There is no truth except Allah"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    Muslims have a real problem.

    They can’t expunge the knowledge of Islam and Muslim behavior, as they follow their prophet’s instructions and his example, from the heads of knowledgeable people.

    So I’ll be whistling while I work going about the business of spreading factual information about islam.

    As Chico Marx once said, “Who are you gonna believe, me or your own [lyin’] eyes?”

  2. says

    USA is digging its own grave.

    We have a saying here which when loosely translated means, when an animal knows it is dying, it walks to the abattoir itself.

    This is what USA is doing to itself by shutting down free speech, restricting freedom of expression, disarming the security agencies, disallowing truth-telling because it hurts feelings etc etc.

  3. says

    Yah, the beast from the east has loved us for 1400 years.

    Get a copy of HUAC’s (US Congressional committee) “Facts on Communism” for an exemplary of objective treatment of an enemy. A similar book should be out there on the subject of islamonazism. Questions about the true nature of the current enemy are now deferred to front-line elements of that enemy. Imagine, if Communism was allowed to be colored by the US Communist Party. Impartiality and objectivity are becoming thought crimes.

    Muzlims present a worse threat than Nazism and Communism combined. In the name of “freedom” we are subsidizing brazen aggression. In the name of “liberty” we indulge subversion.

  4. says

    I expect there will develop esoteric training to counterbalance the exoteric, if by no other channel than the disconnect that many agents will feel between what they are told, the way are told it and what they actually observe in the field.

    If the recruitment standards are kept were they have always been, the FBI will continue to have many intelligent, patriotic people working within it. They’ll know when they’re being fed a load of codswallop.

  5. says

    From the Ackerman piece:
    “Salam al-Marayati, the executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, attended the FBI meeting. He came away worried that the volume of anti-Muslim training documents hands al-Qaida an unnecessary win.”

    “”People will report criminal activity to the authorities, that’s been proven time and again,” Marayati tells Danger Room.”

    The big lie. The wall of silence is evident. Almost no plots, if any at all, have been reported from within the Muslim community here in the U.S. And always with the veiled threats. “If you call us violent, we’ll show you by…err…killing you.”

    Muslims, primarily Arabic looking ones, albeit non-Arabic Muslim appearing types as well, perpetrate almost all acts of intended jihad here in the U.S. and the good old American, Salam al-whogivesacrap tells us that profiling is useless.

    Internal Mosque investigations have uncovered an alarming rate of anti-American vitriol and the Muslim community demands that these places remain obscured from law enforcement.

    Sharia is not dersired by Muslims in America, but CAIR and their ilk fight against anti-sharia legislation at every opportunity.

    Useful dhimmi Ackerman aside, you can see by the comments that the populace is not fooled by these strong-arm, liberal PC tactics and the lies put forth by both Muslim front groups and Islam apologistas alike.

    Everybody realizes this every time they pass through airport security.

  6. says

    Robert Spencer wryly notes that “Spencer Ackerman would have invited Josef Goebbels to oversee FBI training during World War II.”

    Then quotes from the article that:

    An internal FBI investigation into its counterterrorism training has purged hundreds of bureau documents of instructional material about Muslims, some of which characterized them as prone to violence or terrorism.

    Then wryly remarks:

    Good. Only the greasiest of Islamophobes would ever, ever have gotten the idea that any Muslims at all, anywhere, had any interest in violence or terrorism.

    However, the report implies that what is of concern to the Bureau here (the same concern that motivates PC MCs everywhere in the West) is the what may be called the “tarring with the same brush” problem, or the “lumping innocent Muslims in with the guilty” problem:

    Discussing the many documents purged by the FBI from its training materials, it reports:

    …the inquiry has uncovered and purged over 700 pages of documentation from approximately 300 presentations given to agents since 9/11 ” some of which were similar to briefings published by Danger Room last year describing “mainstream” Muslims as “violent.”

    Also note that the aforementioned description which Robert Spencer wryly skewered did not say what he characterized it to imply. Thus, Robert Spencer took —

    …instructional material about Muslims, some of which characterized them as prone to violence or terrorism.

    — where it is only using the phrase “about Muslims” without qualification — and turned it into

    …the idea that any Muslims at all, anywhere, had any interest in violence or terrorism.

    This latter locution is a negative qualification, by which “Muslims” without qualification — which could be easily construed to be any given Muslim and hence, by logical extension, all Muslims — is subtly transformed into “no Muslims at all” could possibly have any interest in violence or terrorism.

    The overarching point here is that the Bureau, in having this concern — the what may be called the “tarring with the same brush” problem, or the “lumping innocent Muslims in with guilty” problem — is only following the logic that is plainly articulated by something Robert Spencer solemnly wrote in 2006:

    “Islam is more multifaceted than Nazism, and involves many beliefs, some good, some bad. You are comparing a huge 1400-year-old tradition over many nations with 12 years of Germany. If you met a Nazi in 1938, you would know what he thinks. But the fact is that when you meet a Muslim today you can have no certainty about what he thinks or knows. This does not mean that I think there is some sect of Islam that teaches indefinite peaceful coexistence as equals with non-Muslims; there isn’t. But Islam has meant many things to many people at different times. There are Muslims that know nothing of what I am saying here. This is a fact that must be reckoned with.”

    All the Bureau has done is “reckoned with” the “fact is that when you meet a Muslim today you can have no certainty about what he thinks or knows” — which was obviously not meant by its writer to mean that any given Muslim is sufficiently suspect to deemed potentially deadly; but, it appears, quite the reverse, for he contrasts that situation with Nazis in 1938. (The fact that the writer of that quote has numerous times over the years — including in this very article here! — effectively contradicted his own logic articulated in 2006 does not vitiate the fact of the logic (nor redeem its deficiency). This is in fact another fact that has yet to be reckoned with.)

  7. says

    Spencer, as quoted by Hesperado:

    “This does not mean that I think there is some sect of Islam that teaches indefinite peaceful coexistence as equals with non-Muslims; there isn’t. But Islam has meant many things to many people at different times. There are Muslims that know nothing of what I am saying here. This is a fact that must be reckoned with.”

    In an effort to try to offset Hesperado hijacking another thread with his tedious single-issue critique of everyone else in the world besides himself, let me first analyze what I referenced in his quoting of Spencer:

    “This does not mean that I think there is some sect of Islam that teaches indefinite peaceful coexistence as equals with non-Muslims; there isn’t.”

    As a standalone statement, this could not be more cogent, direct or unambiguous in my estimation. Essentially, it is summed to there may be moderate Muslims. but there is no moderate Islam.

    “But Islam has meant many things to many people at different times. There are Muslims that know nothing of what I am saying here. This is a fact that must be reckoned with.”

    A logically obvious statement that cannot be otherwise. To have any argument devoid of irreproachable logic, is a witless exercise in ideological utopianism. It is obvious that a billion plus Muslims are not monolithic, but the crux is what Hesperado deems to be the deficiency in Spencer’s position based on an inarguable reality that Spencer himself posited originally, which now Hesperado tries to reclaim as his own formulation.

    That there is no feasible way to verify “good” Muslim from “bad” Muslim, for man cannot know the hearts of all other men.

    Still there is no argument. Hesperado just wants everyone to fall in line with his position that since “A” is true, with A being the aforementioned fact that since we can’t discern Muslim from Muslim in their intent, we must therefore logically conclude “B” and nothing else.

    The devil is in Hesperado’s details of exactly what encapsulates “B”. He claims to err in the side of caution of the non-Muslim populace and therefore; all Muslims are potentially problematic and all need to be punished indiscriminately and in totality. The base assumption is that Hesperado supports by whatever means necessary, the mass deportation of all Muslims in predominantly Christian countries in the West and a complete moratorium on Muslim immigration to any western country going forward.

    It is not an outlandish claim, given his disposition, but he puts forth no actual framework to accomplish this, and merely engages in arguments and critiques based on intangible ideological purity. In my estimation, there really is no problem for Hesperado to express his opinion in order to rationalize why he spends so much time trying to drop-kick the Pacific Ocean as I see it. That is not the issue. What is the issue is his amazement that everyone is not lining up on the beach behind him to engage in similarly futile behavior in order to rid ourselves of our collective deficiency as charged by Hesperdo himself.

  8. says

    Muslims are celebrating everywhere at FBI’s action. Let me see if they are distributing sweets among themselves? Slowly they are succeeding in taking our defenses out. when those who have swore to protect this country start attacking us from within what recourse do we have left??

  9. says

    Silly Robert! Your greasy Islamophobia has caused you too overlook one thing. This isn’t “jihad and Islam” this is “radical Islamism” no real Muslim from the time of Muhammad and since the modern era has EVER subscribed to the Islam you claim, Mr. Spencer.

    Uh-Huh.

    Imam al-Tahawi said: “Hajj and jihad under the leadership of those in charge of the Muslims, whether they are right or wrong-acting, are continuing obligations until the Last Hour comes. Nothing can annul or controvert them.” (at-Tahawiyyah)

  10. says

    I do not trust or respect ANY muslims. None. Nada. Not even the non-violent ones because they have chosen to be a muslim, and to identify themselves with muhammad: one of the vilest criminals known to man. So anyone who thinks that this perverted, evil man was a prophet from God clearly believes a lie and they’ve conjoined themselves with this evil man. I mean Hello, what is there to trust or respect? …clearly nothing.

  11. says

    “While certainly not all devout Muslims are terrorists, virtually all Islamic terrorists are devout Muslims.

    Well you certainly can never tell when Sudden Jihad Syndrome is going to occur…Whenever a Muslim gets caught in a terrorist plot or a murder charge his family and co-Muslims will assert…”He’s a good boy….never had a problem….prays every day….yadadada” Never an indication of the terror that lies within…latent terror ingrained with years of Islamic prayers and sermons heard at the mosque just waiting to that inner signal that turns on the Sudden Jihad Syndrome…a time=bomb that has always been there…It could be ignited by a cartoon, a youtube video, a long admired terrorist who was taken out by a drone, some perceived injustice, the sight of Christians praying, the sight of non=Muslim icons, the sound of a Swiss yodeler mowing his lawn whilst the prayer calls are sounded atop the minaret….even the most trivial self perceived affront to Islam will ignite Sudden Jihad Syndrome…

    Are all Muslims terrorists? Probably not…but you never know…

  12. says

    So despite what everyone thinks – they are being ordered to do otherwise.

    FBI – I can’t put my finger on it – but there is something up with that Islam – we will just go through all these ideas – yeah – Death Star, whatever idea – bring it on!!

    ::

    The youngest, a nursing babe, was in her arms. But that didn’t stop “Umayr from murdering her and the baby as well. Muhammad commended him: “You have done a great service to Allah and His Messenger, “Umayr!” (Ibn Ishaq, 674-676).

    I thought, this dedicated follower of Muhammad – waited until she had finished nursing the baby, then put the sword through her chest – for criticizing Muhammad.

    Never mind – that’s as Al-Awlaki told it – on one his famed ‘hate speech’ recordings – where he recited the Islamic Hadiths, chapter and verse, both in Arabic and English.

    I think I did feel like I was being hypnotized too!!

    I think he was saying kill the Muhammad Teddy Bear guys – through these verses.

    What do we know – could have got that idea from anywhere!!

    Who knew – Islam had all that in it!

    ::

    It might just be Islam’s time to fall. Or at least lose the grip on its people. Muslims get the full brunt. You should be allowed to leave the religion freely. And be given a choice of what to do with your life – over its laws – enforced either through terrorism or religious tyrannical governments.

    Up against what we believe, that can never be right. It can’t always be said, but we can believe it.

  13. says

    “Only the greasiest of Islamophobes would ever, ever have gotten the idea that any Muslims at all, anywhere, had any interest in violence or terrorism.

    Muslims are working very hard at getting free speech and truth in reporting tossed out when it comes to anything Islamic. Muslims want to make it a crime to criticize Islam. In their own culture they have achieved this. Just look how often someone is charged (usually on accusations only) with blasphemy…Muslims are literally frightened to death to criticize their own religion…and there is a lot about their religion that needs criticising…For example…women’s rights…Some Muslim women are starting to speak out but they have a long hard road ahead of them…but the 21st century is still young. Another example is Islam’s intolerance for other religions. Islam keeps doling out one injustice after another and is provoking an inevitable all-out religious war…and as ole Saddam used to say “The mother of all battles is approaching”.

    Muslim apologists will say that all these terror plots are carried out by just a minority of determined radical Jihadists….Well I say, “A jihad is the sum of all the little jihads and the ‘minority of determined radical jihadists’ is actually much larger than the apologists want you to know about.”

  14. says

    Ooops a daisy. A couple of spelling errors and omissions.
    Hey champ, thanks. Let’s keep pushing this theme. To me, it’s the answer to the question that some people keep asking as to whether they are violent or “peaceful” or shades in between. They are all the enemy of our civilization because they aid and abet Islam even if they appear to be nothing more than breeders. Perhaps I can say this: the vast majority of muslims (men, women, children) are enlisted in combat service support functions.

  15. says

    Come to think of it, my comments seem to imply that Islam is at total war with the West. I like it and that why we cease immusgration and start deportation.

  16. says

    “awake” wrote:

    …since “A” is true, with A being the aforementioned fact that since we can’t discern Muslim from Muslim in their intent, we must therefore logically conclude “B” and nothing else.

    Well, given that A is a fact not only logically, but also repeated innumerable times by Spencer himself, then no one of common sense would disagree that we must conclude that something has to be done about it. And some somethings may be more effective than others. Should there not be a discussion about what something we are going to do about this most pressing, urgent, emergent problem? Part of “discussion” is for Peter to articulate his two cents, then Paul either agrees or disagrees, then John and Susan pitch in with their own take; etc., etc. But to “awake”, apparently, “discussion” means “I don’t like Hesperado’s style, therefore he’s full of shit and needs to be mocked, denigrated and vilified as inimical to our cause.”

    And to clarify, I would characterize this “A” more precisely than “awake” did, as:

    our predicament that we can’t tell the difference between the harmless Muslim and the deadly Muslim, with the crucial corollary fact that the deadliness in question is not minor but is a) extreme; b) international in scope and networking; c) difficult to predict; d) fanatically motivated; and e) metastasizing)

    “awake” continues:

    The devil is in Hesperado’s details of exactly what encapsulates “B”. He claims to err in the side of caution of the non-Muslim populace and therefore; all Muslims are potentially problematic and all need to be punished indiscriminately and in totality.

    That all Muslims are potentially problematic was already “encapsulated” in A, to which “awake” agreed. Unless he advocates doing nothing about the predicament of A, he must advocate doing something. The question is what? Whatever that something entails, it would have to treat Muslims “indiscriminately”, given what A “encapsulates”, with which “awake” himself agrees. The very definition of our predicament of not being able to tell which Muslim is deadly and which is harmless is that we cannot discriminate among them = hence, “indiscriminate”.

    The question is not whether or not we have to treat Muslims indiscriminately (we’ve already agreed to that in “A”); the question is, given A, what our treatment of them will consist of. But “awake” mangles and mushes these two distinct things together… indiscriminately.

    “awake” continues:

    The base assumption is that Hesperado supports by whatever means necessary, the mass deportation of all Muslims in predominantly Christian countries in the West and a complete moratorium on Muslim immigration to any western country going forward.

    This is correct, except for one odd inclusion there — “in predominantly Christian countries”. In all my writings about our need for total deportation, I’ve never specified “Christian”, I have simply said “from the West”. (This odd phrase makes one wonder, are there Western countries that are not predominantly Christian countries? Or are there any that are…? This is a peripheral issue, related to sociology and the history of the dissolution of Christendom and the development of modern secularism, etc., but unrelated to the matter at hand: protecting the West from deadly Muslims.)

    “awake” continues:

    …he [i.e., moi] puts forth no actual framework to accomplish this [i.e., total deportation of Muslims from the West], and merely engages in arguments and critiques based on intangible ideological purity.

    It’s not my job to put forth an “actual framework”. It’s the job of the people who serve us citizens in the free West — i.e., our politicians and all their agencies charged with protecting us.

    I am simply setting forth an argument based upon

    1) the mountain of data that indicates that

    a) Muslims are deadly to us and that

    b) we cannot tell the difference between deadly Muslims and harmless Muslims

    and

    2) the logic which #1 leads us to, if we want to protect our societies. I’m not stopping anyone else from proferring their own suggestions for how to protect our societies given #1; nor am I stopping anyone from critiquing my particular suggestion (presented in excruciating detail in my essay, An Iron Veil). In fact, I’d love it if someone did, instead of just sideline sniping at it, as “awake” tends to do.

  17. says

    P.S.: Taking a look again at my essay An Iron Veil, I see that I certainly did take a stab at putting forth a “framework” at least of what the project would entail. But I did not go into detail about exactly what to do to get it done (hence, the word “awake” used, “accomplish” it).

    I.e., I didn’t present a budget for all this; nor a description of what new federal and state agencies may be required to oversee and manage it; nor did I present detailed itemized lists of all the land vehicles required to transport all the Muslims we will have identified and located (nor, for that matter, how we would go about identifying and locating them); nor of the temporary detention centers wherein they would be processed; nor of how to process them; nor of how to marshal the requisite ships and/or planes by which to finalize the last leg of their Bon Voyage back home to their Dar-al-Islam hellholes.

    All these latter details of the “framework” — their planning, concrete implementation, and “accomplishment” — I reiterate, is not my job, but the job of those who politically serve us citizens in the free West.

  18. says

    Meanwhile, here’s some brainless moral equivalence from left-wing Care2 [sorry to post the whole article”if I link, the site displays my name]:

    “Bishop Calls For Violent Opposition To Birth Control Mandate”

    At least one Catholic bishop has decided simply whipping the Republican leadership into a frenzy over birth control coverage isn’t enough. Walker Nickless, the Bishop of the Diocese of Sioux City is warning whoever will listen that the contraception mandate in health care reform is literally a plot by the Devil that required “violent opposition.”

    The comment came on a webcast hosted by the conservative Family Research Council.

    The interview was first flagged by Right Wing Watch with the video on their website. In the webcast the Bishop continued “[T]he power of evil, the devil, is certainly looking everywhere where the power of evil can make a difference.” “And that’s why we’ve got to stand up and violently oppose this,” he added, “we cannot let darkness overshadow us.”

    I will give Nickless the benefit of the doubt here and suggest that he’s merely employing a rhetorical flourish than calling for actual violent uprising in opposition to women’s health. But even so, this is yet another example of conservatives using violent rhetoric and suggestions of violence as the solution to women seeking access to affordable health care services.
    ………………………………

    I don’t believe even these politically correct yoyos really believe that the Bishop is actually calling for violence”as they pretty much acknowledge in the last paragraph.

    Meanwhile, though, they all but ignore genuine Muslim violence. Madness.

  19. says

    As if a purge of intel wasn’t bad enough . . .via Washington Post:
    FBI officials say they are willing to consider a proposal from a coalition of Muslim and interfaith groups to establish a committee of experts to review materials used in FBI anti-terrorism training.

    Groups at the meeting included the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Interfaith Alliance, and the Shoulder-to-Shoulder campaign.

    “The FBI views the Muslim community as a useful partner in stopping terrorism, and we appreciate the cooperation they’ve given us,” Allen said.

  20. says

    As usual, Hesperado takes his beating like a dainty lady. He re-affirms everything I have iterated about his position, albeit one wholly arrived at by the tutelage of Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch, for he has not posited a single unique position on Islam that he was not indoctrinated and obliged to think from the very said source he perpetually criticizes. He has to date, ignored that criticism and offered nothing as a counter-argument. This is simply because he cannot.

    In addition, Hesperado has used friends and foes alike, namely “Infidel Pride” and “Wellington”, as puppets in his obnoxious “sarcastic” return responses here in the commentary. Especially considering his overt belittling of commenters here as beneath him for not recognizing his initial, and quite frankly unfounded, recent criticisms not only of Spencer but everyone in his estimation as superior, yet fair criticism.

    I challenge any commenter here to directly put to Hesperado, the question; “Is everyone besides yourself as stupid as you deem them to be?”

    In Hesperado’s warped world, he will parse and obfuscate and deter by any means necessary to prop himself up and lay all others low, including the author and owner of the intellectual property of this site. His mentor, who he deems, and not without personal vengeance, is unworthy of the task in his mind. Hesp ran off the reservatrion long ago. Lawrence Auster aside.

    Hesperado has asserted responses to all my challenges in this thread. His conclusion is simply that I am Robert’s lap-dog, because he does not offer, nor did he ever offer, any suitable counter-argument to my claims against him.

    Hesperado is a vengeful, close-minded, arrogant welp. He always has been. Everybody knows that. If he were a learned man, he would not have been dismissed, previously, or dismissed recently from the many sentient posters here at JW.

    In summation. Hesperado is a useless non-entity. He is valueless in this fight. Attacking supposed friends at every turn for boisterous claims about himself, does nothing to further this most important cause. He has had several years to convince 1000 people in the room that 999 are wrong and he is right. By his own admission, he has failed miserably in that task, with his own posting as a clarifier for his self-admitted 3.5 readers of his site. I’d link it as substantiation, but it’s not important enough to do so. Everything Hesperado says has been parroted here, ad nauseum.

    Pay him no further mind in his short shrift here, and continue like NONE of you have, to peruse his site, which is nothing more than a regurgitation of Robert Spencer, with constant obsessive criticism of the same sprinkled in regularly.

    I hope he is a happy soul, I really do. One full of love and life and friends, but I must admit against hope that an unremarkable suicide is out of the question…no wait..Hesp loves himself way too much for that.

    Hesperado hates facts. He does however, thrive in selective grammatically correct responses.

    Hesperado demands of others what he cannot do himself. Sure he recommends mass forced deportation of, and a total moratorium of Muslim immigration to the West. It’s a nice concept, but the framework is still abhorrently lacking in my estimation, but remember. Robert Spencer is guilty for not actualizing a policy that he put forth to Hesperado that Hesp now, in hindsight, agrees with.

    A useless moron Hesp is, with a typical useless ideological utopian discussion about the problem of Islam, and more importantly, a solution, minus an equipped flamethrower on the backs of about a million soldiers in his estimation.

  21. says

    Hesp wrote:

    “I.e., I didn’t present a budget for all this; nor a description of what new federal and state agencies may be required to oversee and manage it; nor did I present detailed itemized lists of all the land vehicles required to transport all the Muslims we will have identified and located (nor, for that matter, how we would go about identifying and locating them); nor of the temporary detention centers wherein they would be processed; nor of how to process them; nor of how to marshal the requisite ships and/or planes by which to finalize the last leg of their Bon Voyage back home to their Dar-al-Islam hellholes.”

    A lofty utopian goal, as if the world could do this quickly, as if global life was a video game. Maybe you can unlock the game “cheats” you have for this vision Hesp?

    Hesp:

    “All these latter details of the “framework” — their planning, concrete implementation, and “accomplishment” — I reiterate, is not my job, but the job of those who politically serve us citizens in the free West.”

    The important line in the sand has been drawn by you Hesp. The only cogent, logical, tangible line in the sand right?

    Yes, better leave that unfortunate mess to others, I mean, after all, it’s obvious policy now, right? All talk and no action Hesp. That’s what we all are accustomed to. Let me clarify. If we all need some baseless criticism, I think we all know where to go now.

    Honestly, I would take advice from my 6 yo daughter over you in just about any life situation. You are such a moron. Do you have any children? I would estimate no, but then again, I could be wrong. I was once, quite awhile ago however.

  22. says

    The above comment by “awake”, that I’ve posted below–where he hopes that Hesperado might commit SUICIDE, goes beyond the pale of what’s humane and acceptable for this or any forum:

    awake wrote:

    “I hope he is a happy soul, I really do. One full of love and life and friends, but I must admit against hope that an unremarkable suicide is out of the question…no wait..Hesp loves himself way too much for that.”

    I reported this abusive comment to Robert and Marisol, and awake should be banned for making this comment. Last year he threatened Hesperado with physical harm on Jihad Watch, but awake received a pass for posting that abusive comment. Now he’s making even more egregious comments, by hoping that Hesperado might commit suicide? …and I hope that I’m wrong, but I suspect that awake will get another pass for making this outrageous remark. And I know that Hesperado has made a lot of enemies on this forum, but that should not cloud the issue for Robert and/or Marisol to do the right thing and ban awake this time. Just recently poster “Courreges W” was banned for using the B word. That comment by awake is wrong, and everyone here knows it …

  23. says

    pss …

    Okay if awake tries to minimize this comment by claiming that he didn’t mean it QUITE that way; that he doesn’t *literally* hope that Hesp might commit suicide, blah, blah, blah, then consider more carefully the last part of what awake wrote here:

    “no wait..Hesp loves himself way too much for that.”

    This is where awake clearly defines EXACTLY what is meant by his remark. So if it is perhaps a little unclear in the first part of his comment–due to how outrageous and shocking his comment is to your sensibilities, then the second part of that sentence makes it abundantly clear!

  24. says

    Personally, all this over intellectualism seems tedious and and unnecessary…I like to keep things simple…Islam is evil…and that can be demonstrated…Seems pretty simple to me…How many angels can dance on the head of a pin seems sort of irrelevant, especially when there are bombs going off all over the place…
    The FBI is shutting the barn door after the horses got out…Most agents already know what the FBI does not want them to know…

  25. says

    “That there is no feasible way to verify “good” Muslim from “bad” Muslim, for man cannot know the hearts of all other men.”

    No, but you can know what is in their literature that they are obligated to believe in, and act on…According to that, ‘all’ Mahoundians are ‘obligated’, as a ‘duty’ to Allah, to participate in jihad or die a hypocrite, it is not an elective…There are no hypocrites in Allah’s Paradise…

  26. says

    “At the operational level, you have groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaida. Like teeth in a shark, it is irrelevant if you take one group out,” Gawthrop said during his lecture to the New York Metro Infragard at the World Financial Center in downtown Manhattan. (my bold)

    The only good Muslims are their Apostates. Forget the rest, either active or complicit in their neo-Islam Jihad to bring back their “golden age” glory days of power. Islam’s worst enemy is its growing army of Apostates. Encourage them, and Islam goes the way of all other historical Cults, quietly out, and Islam goes toothless.

    Islam is a dying Cult of Mohammad’s creed to Allah, a violent primitive creed to his favorite Moon-god, taken over after his death by eager Caliphs who saw the powerful potential of a theo-political creed to enslave all humanity by violence and craft, and how to squeeze maximum returns from its slaves (true believers), pseudo-slaves (dhimmies), and yet-to-be conquered slaves (infidels).

    Islamic Jihad is today gaining extra breath with neo-theo-political violence incensed by imams and mullahs; but this resurgent Jihad will be defeated by their textual primitive idiocy, their administrative ineptitude, their suicidal imperative and incessant infighting, the vast wide open information on Islam available today, and their moral decrepitude when faced with advanced societies of freedom and human rights. The FBI understands where lies the threat and will act on it, even if they maintain ‘media silence‘ while in counter-jihad operative actions. Whether or not they “purge” internal educational materials makes little difference; or perhaps as much difference as any other ‘prohibition’, which merely stimulates greater curiosity and attention. Put them (Islamics) out quietly so not to attract too much attention, IMO. Scream and protest all they want, Islam is on its way out. Grease the skids by making that fact better known. Educate the public is job one.

  27. says

    Clearly a very important topic of consideration. I increasingly wonder if there is a place to firmly raise the question about the usurpation of the logical spirit of a verifiable verse from the Qur’an by a Hadith.

    256. Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error; whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

    (The Qur’an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 2)

    Narrated ‘Ikrima:

    Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to ‘Ali and he burnt them. The news of this
    event, reached Ibn ‘Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have
    burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with
    Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of
    Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

    (Hadith, Bukhari Vol 9)

    There is ONLY ONE such reference in all of the Hadith and it is a second hand point of reference. It is claimed that these Hadith have been vetted by the best of the earliest scholars but when placed in the divine balance how can just one Hadith trump a verse from the Qur’an?

    Admittedly this will not win major affirmation from traditional Muslim schools but did not Luther begin a reformation of the Christianity by standing up for such perspectives? In this case how did the power of truth and the lack discernible verifiable quotes from Christ in support of the evolved traditions of the Catholic church, such as purchasing salvation of souls?

  28. says

    Robert wrote to me last night (below) in response to my reporting awake’s abusive and vile comment, and he agreed that awake’s comment went “beyond the pale”, so apparently awake thinks that Robert’s reading comprehension is poor as well.

    Robert also wrote awake explaining this to him …here, I will provide Robert’s brief response to me:

    “I wrote to him, telling him this was beyond the pale.” — Robert

    Seems that awake didn’t appreciate receiving a message from Robert–which I imagine was much more detailed and direct than the brief one Robert sent to me. Oh, and awake could have chosen to do the right thing, here, by at least admitting that he was wrong for making that egregious remark, and perhaps even offering up an apology; but no, instead he denies any wrong doing, and attacks me like a coward instead.

    And he can fight w/Hesperado all he wants–I really don’t care. But even Robert agrees that that specific part of his comment went beyond the pale, which is what Robert and I have taken issue with here, not awake’s overall opinion of and/or comments to Hesperado. awake is entitled to his opinion, but he is NOT entitled to hope that someone commit suicide. And then awake claims that he was merely being sarcastic. Oh my God, this is just too much. Again, Robert didn’t find it sarcastic and or funny. Even awake’s response to me here goes beyond the pale of lieing.

    Again, here is awake’s egregious remark:

    “…but I must admit against hope that an unremarkable suicide is out of the question…no wait..Hesp loves himself way too much for that.”

  29. says

    awake is essentially claiming that if I read The Hesperado and study his blog more carefully, that I will somehow agree with his egregious remark. Or if I consider the attacks against Robert more carefully, etc, etc, that I am going to agree that it’s OKAY to hope that another human being commit suicide. If awake wrote that horrible comment to anyone I would report it. Period.

    And awake was not being sarcastic since we’re all familiar with the history of hatred that awake has vehemently expressed towards Hesperado over the years, so that is powerful proof that he isn’t simply being sarcastic; and further proof lies in the fact that he once threatened physical harm to Hesp a couple of years ago on Jihad Watch.

  30. says

    (Before I quote “awake”, I’d like to say that the reason I put quote marks around his nickname is not to use them as sneer quotes, but simply because he chose a nick that is an ordinary word — uncapitalized, to boot — and unless one puts quote marks around it, sometimes a reader of these comments who doesn’t know the players might get confused what’s being talked about as the discussion gets more heated and complex.)

    “awake” wrote (In quoting him I will, of course, leave out the irrelevant mockery and insults which are as rife and unpleasant throughout his commentary as are the shriveled raisins of an uneaten Christmas fruitcake in July, and which have no relation to the substance, meager as it is, therein):

    He re-affirms everything I have iterated about his position…

    Since “awake” doesn’t explain how I “re-affirm everything” he iterated, the reader has no way of knowing whether this bald assertion is true or not — unless the reader goes back painstakingly to compare the two sets of writings. If a reader did come to agree with “awake”, though, he’d have to present an argument explaining how, so that other readers would be able to see whether this bald assertion is true or not. But I suspect “awake” isn’t concerned with persuasion through argument, but is content simply to browbeat, using words not as tools for reason, but as tire-irons and ballpeen hammers.

    “awake” continues:

    …albeit one wholly arrived at by the tutelage of Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch, for he has not posited a single unique position on Islam that he was not indoctrinated and obliged to think from the very said source he perpetually criticizes.

    Aside from employing the same browbeating tactic of brute assertion without argument or evidence, “awake” is also developing a curious theory here: All my content simply repeats Spencer and Jihad Watch? And what exactly then am I complaining about in my numerous critiques, if I am simply parroting exactly what Spencer and Jihad Watch say? “awake” needs to clarify this most curious phenomenon. Brute assertion with a claw-hammer will simply not do.

    “awake” continues:

    He [i.e., moi] has to date, ignored that criticism [i.e., the criticism “awake” has put forth of me] and offered nothing as a counter-argument.This is simply because he cannot.

    This is sheer projection. I have scrupulously, exhaustively, in excruciating detail dozens and dozens of times in various exchanges with “awake” over the years done exactly that — namely, offering counter-argument after counter-argument to his ill-formed attempts at critical arguments against the various windmills he imagines are standing before him as the collective apparition of some nemesis named “Hesperado” who is viciously attacking his hero as obsessively revered by him as the still living Elvis is to a haunted Elvis fan who travels to and fro Vegas and Graceland.

    “awake” continues:

    In addition, Hesperado has used friends and foes alike, namely “Infidel Pride” and “Wellington”, as puppets in his obnoxious “sarcastic” return responses here in the commentary.

    Another assertion without a shred of evidence offered — and bizarre and bristling with bafflingly seething hatred to boot.

    “awake” (unfortunately) continues:

    In Hesperado’s warped world, he will parse and obfuscate and deter by any means necessary to prop himself up and lay all others low, including the author and owner of the intellectual property of this site. His mentor, who he deems, and not without personal vengeance, is unworthy of the task in his mind. Hesp ran off the reservatrion long ago. Lawrence Auster aside.

    Ditto. And now compounded by an escalation into a blathering tantrum.

    “awake” continues:

    …because he does not offer, nor did he ever offer, any suitable counter-argument to my claims against him.

    Ditto; cf. supra.

    “awake” continues:

    Hesperado is a vengeful, close-minded, arrogant welp. He always has been. Everybody knows that. If he were a learned man, he would not have been dismissed, previously, or dismissed recently from the many sentient posters here at JW.

    Cf. supra the supra.

    “awake” continues:

    In summation…

    There is a God…!

    “awake” continues, referring to:

    …his own posting [on my blog, The Hesperado] as a clarifier for his self-admitted 3.5 readers of his site. I’d link it as substantiation, but it’s not important enough to do so.

    Finally, that brought a smile to my face: the sheer, abysmal obtuseness demonstrating an ability to appreciate a mildly, charmingly circumspect and self-effacing dash of irony about as well as could a flint-hammering Neanderthal, saliva dripping from his tumid lips as the sweat of earnestly primitive sincerity clouds his unibrow.

    “awake” continues… Damn! There may be no God after all; or it’s the age-old problem of theodicy again.

  31. says

    “awake” continues, first quoting me:

    “I.e., I didn’t present a budget for all this; nor a description of what new federal and state agencies may be required to oversee and manage it; nor did I present detailed itemized lists of all the land vehicles required to transport all the Muslims we will have identified and located (nor, for that matter, how we would go about identifying and locating them); nor of the temporary detention centers wherein they would be processed; nor of how to process them; nor of how to marshal the requisite ships and/or planes by which to finalize the last leg of their Bon Voyage back home to their Dar-al-Islam hellholes.”

    Then writing:

    A lofty utopian goal, as if the world could do this quickly, as if global life was a video game. Maybe you can unlock the game “cheats” you have for this vision Hesp?

    I never said it would or could be done “quickly”. But in the 1950s, I’d bet “awake” would use similarly dismissive language about the project of putting men on the Moon.

    Qutoing me again —

    “All these latter details of the “framework” — their planning, concrete implementation, and “accomplishment” — I reiterate, is not my job, but the job of those who politically serve us citizens in the free West.”

    “awake” asks the rhetorical question:

    The important line in the sand has been drawn by you Hesp. The only cogent, logical, tangible line in the sand right?

    I’ve already said multiple times that I offer my suggestion into the conversation about what to do about the problem; and I have repeatedly expressed my eager expectation for someone to offer critiques in the form of counter-arguments to my suggestion. What point would there be for me to formulate every sentence with extra padding of words indicating things like “This is only my opinion, and I’m just one guy, and anyone else’s opinion may be just as valid, and I eagerly await their articulation and welcome their critiques of mine, and please forgive my tone of voice if it sounds to you like I think I’m the only one with the right answer — here. please have a seat and have a piece of cherry pie and a cup of coffee…”? Aside from needleesly cluttering up my analyses (which are already lengthy and detailed enough without having to bog readers down), such padding would only serve to comfort the hyper-sensitive sensibilities of people like “awake”.

    But aside from that, “awake” is projecting again. It is he who demands lock-step agreement — and he accuses anyone who does not follow his position with being a demander of lock-step agreement. A curious habit he indulges in, in this regard; has a whiff of the Muslim mentality to it.

    The rest was even less substantial (if that’s conceivable) than what I’ve quoted thus far, so I’ll end here.

  32. says

    Thanks again champ. Not only do I appreciate your support, but you’re the only person here with the guts to do so (not only in this instance, but in past instances where similarly egregious (and needless) fireworks began to fly, with “awake” and with that other pompously psychotic person — Morgaaaaaan Sinclair — who thankfully no longer comes around here anymore).

    Not that I’m asking for people to support all my opinions; just to show me the respect I show them would be, apparently, asking too much.

  33. says

    How funny this reads after I just saw the latest news of another Misunderstander of Islam, a 29-year old man from Morocco with an Arab name, who just got arrested for another bombing plot. This time the story goes on to say the would be bomber was not affiliated with al-Qaida but does not identify how he became radicalized. He was from Alexandria, VA so the odds are he may have attended that terrorist inspiring mosque there. Will have to wait for the forthcoming details but not in the mainstream media. Just a quick check via Human Events says the suspected mosque is the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va., is owned by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), an entity formed by the Muslim Brotherhood and an unindicted co-conspirator in a terror funding trial. Dar al Hijrah has been publicly linked by investigators to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and Fort Hood… and Anwar al Awlaki.

    Terror suspect arrested near Capitol in FBI sting
    By NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press

    WASHINGTON – A 29-year-old Moroccan man was arrested Friday near the U.S. Capitol as he was planning to detonate what he thought was a suicide vest, given to him by FBI undercover operatives, said police and government officials.

    Amine El Khalifi of Alexandria, Va., was taken into custody with an inoperable gun and inert explosives, according to a counterterrorism official.

    El Khalifi came to the U.S. when he was 16 years old and is unemployed and not believed to be associated with al-Qaida.

  34. says

    An as an aside, can you two take this mutual admiration love-fest somewhere else? It’s nauseating to have to witness, cluttering this otherwise informative thread.

  35. says

    I’ve read the entire latter part of this comments thread with such a sinking feeling of deja vu”and not the good kind.

    I like and respect all the posters involved. I consider Champ a friend and a sister”Champ, I hope your daughter-in-law is OK!

    I respect Awake”although I very much agree with Champ that the “suicide” comment”which I had missed the first time ’round”was indeed entirely beyond the pale, no matter how “ironically” it was meant.

    I also respect LemonLime”Hesperado”and have defended him in the past in these pages. I often read his blog The Hesperado, which is often useful and occasionally brilliant”at least, when he is not going on about the shortcomings”real or imagined”of Jihad Watch and its posters rather than on the terrible threat of Jihad itself.

    This divisive infighting is *not* helpful. I will stand with *all of you* against Jihad.

    I feel that we are all in the proverbial foxhole together, but that some of us are wasting our energy kicking each other’s ankles.

    Bleah…

  36. says

    Intersting turn of events. Champ has achienved on one thread, the previously estimated inachievable.

    First, she has not succeded in her petition to Robert to have me banned. This post should suffice in substantiation of that cold, hard fact.

    Second. She has aligned herself with the camp of the eternal Spencer detracters in Hesperado. A tenuous position to be in, in my estimation.

    Third, and most importantly, she maintains that her support of the anti-Spencer commenter, (the more than thrice banned Hesperado), will come to her aid in her dire time of need.

    What a fool.

    Unfortunately, it won’t be so. Hesperado only has use of people when it suits himself, and I guess that he is indesposed at the moment. In a sane world, how much support does Champ want to show to Hesp on this forum of Spencer, one where her idol is the main detracter of the host himself?

    Champ obviously hasn’t thought her posts through, as opposed to myself, who stands by everything I posit and have put forth to date.

    Oh, and btw, I’m pretty sure Darcy “appreciated” your outing of her on this forum as well. That is sarcasm, again, for I don’t suppose that you actually understand the concept.

    So be it. That’s your problem, and not mine. I won’t report you to Robert for self-perceived slights in your previous posts, as again, that is your m.o., not mine.

    You’ve made your bed. Are you still willing to lie in it?

  37. says

    Unlike you, I have never had any personal problems or arguments with LemonLime, aka Hesperado, so of course I stand by everything I’ve written here – what a silly question. And just because you hate Hesp, doesn’t mean that I should. Also, most posters already know that Courreges W and darcy were one in the same person; so no, I did not out her. Where have you been? ..asleep?

  38. says

    champ, I’m surprised to say that I’m surprised that darcy was banned for the B word. In fact, I’m speechless. There must have been something else behind it. I.e., darcy must have said something else to rankle the Powers that be. The B word? Come on Marisol, I know you’re not that prudish, for fuck sake.q

  39. says

    The FBI is descending into willful, suicidal denial”yet Hesperado still believes that the ‘real problem’ is that Robert Spencer is not philosophically turgid enough. *Sigh*.

  40. says

    Me too champ.
    An army in the battlefield falls into three functional categories: combat, combat support, and combat service support. That covers anyone in Allah’s Army, regardless of function, who calls himself/herself a muslim.

  41. says

    “You should be allowed to leave the religion freely. And be given a choice of what to do with your life – over its laws – enforced either through terrorism or religious tyrannical governments.”

    Where you been man? Islam ain’t a Religion of Peace, it is a Piece of Religion and much more military and political. Apostasy in Islam is desertion in face of the enemy during war. That’s why they kill you.
    You’re in Allah’s Army now and the chain of command tells you what to do. Question that chain of godly command and you’re up on blasphemy charges.

  42. says

    “An army in the battlefield falls into three functional categories: combat, combat support, and combat service support. That covers anyone in Allah’s Army, regardless of function, who calls himself/herself a muslim.”

    …this analogy is spot on!

  43. says

    Hey champ, thanks. Let’s keep pushing this theme. To me, it’s the answer to the question that some people keep asking as to whether they are violent or “peaceful” or shades in between; they are all the enemy of our civilization because they aid and abet Islam even if they appear to be nothing more than breeders. Perhaps I can say, that the vast majority of mulims (men, women, children) are enlised in combat service support functions.

  44. says

    David,

    My suggestion — that we deport all Muslims and stop the immigration of all Muslims — is just that: a suggestion. How to go about doing it concretely is the “framework” by which to “accomplish” it.

    The latter is what “awake” is expecting from me, and if he doesn’t see it from me, he thinks that’s reason enough to reject the suggestion I make. That kind of logic is more deserving of a “Huh?”, I’d say.

    (See my P.S. for more details on this.)

  45. says

    ps …

    And it’s one thing to engage in a heated debate–which awake and Hesp have done many times in the past–but quite another thing to hope that your opponent might commit suicide. That comment really stunned me; it is so evil and cruel.

  46. says

    Thanks champ.

    “I reported this abusive comment to Robert and Marisol, and awake should be banned for making this comment. Last year he threatened Hesperado with physical harm on Jihad Watch, but awake received a pass for posting that abusive comment. Now he’s making even more egregious comments, by hoping that Hesperado might commit suicide? …”

    I appreciate that champ, and on one level it is entirely reasonable; though even I wouldn’t want “awake” banned nor call for his banning, because I believe in free expression — even of noxious tissues of tortured attempts at trying to overcome one’s half-throttled, semi-repressed recrimination and guilt at failing to measure up intellectually which tend to choke the life out of what might have actually been embryonic instances of actual arguments; and which, perforce, require seething, dripping hatred for their interlocutor to steam and ooze and drip from nearly every sentence.

    I also doubt your correspondents will even come close to entertaining heeding your request — not for my reason, but for less seemly reasons. For, unlike him and his hero and his hero’s editrix, I have, apparently, a deeper respect and appreciation for free expression. Any one of them or all three of them could, on my blog’s comments sections, write anything they want about me or about the humanity of Muslims as the day is long indefinitely ad libitum, and I would never dream of banning them — and in fact, in addition, I would more often than not show them the respect (which they rarely if ever reciprocate) of presenting actual counter-arguments — with only the mildest forms of wry sarcasm as occasional spice shaken here and there in the direction of their preciously sensitive feelings and brittle egos — to what I think may be flaws in their comments.

  47. says

    Re Bp. Nickless:

    The right of resistance is a doctrine worked out by a number of Roman Catholic and Reformed writers of the 16th and 17th century. As a God-bless-King-Billy Presbyterian myself, I see the Obama administration’s attempt to force birth control funding on unwilling religious institutions as a probe in a planned assault on the Free Exercise Clause. The movement to force acceptance of homosexuality (establishing a special category of “hate crimes”, for example) is another such approaching threat.

    Here, perhaps, Nickless is also taking a leaf from the Islamic playbook. Note the kid glove treatment of Islam from the mockers and scoffers of the media and from liberal judges. The reason isn’t any real solicitude for religious liberty, but cowardice in the face of people whom they know might get violent towards them.

  48. says

    Champ,

    This will be my first and last response to you. I think you need clarification since it seems that the only thing weaker than your reading comprehension skills, is your judge of character in my estimation.

    The entire comment was dripping with sarcasm and an intentional mockery of Hesperado. Contained within the same sentence was a mockery of Hesperado for essentially a valueless contribution to this movement. Based on that, most sentient people would feel a sense of emptiness or despair, and in that regard an unremarkable ending of one’s life is certainly not out of the ordinary.

    But, also within the same sentence was the second jab, when stating that that particular result could never be arrived at by Hesperado due to his overt and overwhelming narcissism. That was the intended target, to profess what a self-absorbed and deluded loon he is. To think that his mere annoyance of an exsitence here could ever warrant a true desire to wish such an end, especially in light of the explicit comment itself, is quite a stretch in my opinion. It is akin to your repwetitive claim that a comment to teach someone some manners over an internet keyboard is an overt physical threat, a claim which was not substantiated.

    If you hold his work in such high regard, how come I see you noticably absent from the comments field on his site? That’s a rhetorical question, so don’t bother answering as I won’t respond.

    Anyway, why not go over to his site and read his post in which mocks you and others upon his deceitful return to JW, his intentional fire-starting, which was misconstrued by you and others until he was outed by DDA, and then back to business as usual in attacking Robert, and the commenting community in general. You’re part of the punchline there.

    Anyway, a word to the wise gouing forward as I wish you well in all your endeavors. When advocating for someone’s dismissal, try not to advocate for, and on behalf of, an official detractor of the very person that you are petitioning.

    That just seems like sound advice to me.

  49. says

    “The entire comment was dripping with sarcasm and an intentional mockery of Hesperado.”

    Oh, it was dripping, all right; but with far more hazardous materials than sarcasm and mockery. Marisol ought to put up one of those haz-mat symbols on the Comments sections; at least as long as “awake” continues his obsessive vigil here.

  50. says

    LemonLime,

    I agree with your response to, awake; and especially with this comment:

    “But I suspect ‘awake’ isn’t concerned with persuasion through argument, but is content simply to browbeat, using words not as tools for reason, but as tire-irons and ballpeen hammers.”

    And he fails to see that his comments are just downright mean-spirited and unprodutive. Frankly, his hateful and egregious remarks are boring and thuggish, and are better suited for brawls at the local bar. Also, he claims to care so much about Robert, and yet he leaves egregious comments like that one on Robert’s forum–which only serve to lower the standard and morale around here. Hey and you were not ugly in response to him, but instead you managed to make good humor out of his nastiness.

  51. says

    “Robert wrote to me last night (below) in response to my reporting awake’s abusive and vile comment, and he agreed that awake’s comment went “beyond the pale”…”

    But at least it wasn’t “sideline sniping”; so, as the kids say, “it’s all good”. :)

  52. says

    You’re welcome, LemonLime …

    Oh and I just typed a response to you and then *poof* it disappeared once I touched the wrong key on my laptop. I HATE when that happens. I’m gonna break for lunch and then I’ll rewrite it …

  53. says

    Hesperado wrote:

    “Not that I’m asking for people to support all my opinions; just to show me the respect I show them would be, apparently, asking too much.”

    Ah, he is asking for respect. This is from a man who’s first offering on this thread was a wholly dedicated criticism of the author himself, which is indicative of and supported by consistent behavior on an outside blog that was dedicated exclusively to the same. He uses the entire FBI procedure of this story to show a mirrored flaw in the author of this site, while not excusing the FBI’s behavior, but simply condemning the behavior of the author of this site simultaneously.

    Hesperado asks for respect, while he regularly engages in this sort of “intellectual criticism”, and is aghast that he doesn’t receive it from this site’s author. In fact, Hesperado has openly stated his disdain for the value of the author of this site on his blogs, both on an intellectual and a personal level. This is not projection. This is a fact.

    Though he has been banned several times here at this site by the administrators, he re-emerged recently and initially spouted intentionally inciteful comments to draw a heated response, which he stated on his blog that it was amusing to him. Many commenters misconstrued his sarcasm, since he came unannounced, and took him as an Islam apologist. Subsequent to him being identified, he composed his blog entry criticism of “Jihad Watchers”, which if I’m not mistaken, he is once again…?

    I summarized his position in my first response on this thread, that since Muslims can’t be differentiated from one another that the only response is compete isolationism of all Muslims from non-Muslim western countries and societies. He agreed, affirming what I had estimated. I also stated that he has, does and will continue to criticize, the author of this site for not committing occupational suicide and publicly endorsing the complete cessation of Muslim immigration to the West AND the forced deportation of all Muslims from the West. I guess this is the sort of respect that Hesperado requires.

    He has not put forth any substantive framework for this lofty, yet quite unattainable goal at the moment, but remember, he doesn’t have to. It’s not his job. It’s the government’s job and of course, It’s Robert Spencer’s job to parrot his claim for all to see.

    To not do so is simply another affront to the respect that Hesperado so desperately believes that he deserves.

  54. says

    Yikes! …my daughter-in-law just called who’s sick, and she needs a ride to the doctor, so I’ll be gone for a couple of hours. I’ll write you later; since I definitely want to respond to your last comment to me :)

  55. says

    Hi, Gravenimage, thank you very much! I consider you a dear friend and a sister, too! Wow, what a wonderful thing to say! *heart* And my daughter-in-law will be fine; she has the flu, so she was too weak to drive to the doctor for antibiotics.

    I also respect LemonLime, aka Hesperado, and I always have. And hes always treated me with respect, so what’s not to like, right? And as far as his relationship with Robert, or others here–well, those issues are between them. I can’t fix those issues, and I wouldn’t even want to try, since I can only fix myself. Take care, dear friend :)

  56. says

    “This divisive infighting is *not* helpful”

    I’m not fighting. I am merely bringing up critiques of methodology. For some strange reason, this causes certain people to behave like monkeys throwing their feces around the room. It’s not my fault my critiques trigger their synapses to have brain seizures.

  57. says

    “I appreciate that champ, and on one level it is entirely reasonable; though even I wouldn’t want ‘awake’ banned nor call for his banning, because I believe in free expression” …

    You’re welcome, LemonLime; and I support free expression, too, so on that we can both agree; but now awake is getting yet another pass for this really horrible comment, and then on top of it, he has minimized his remark, just as I suspected that he would, and hes insulted me as well. And it’s very magnanimous of you not to want him banned, especially since you’ve been banned for what are truly MINOR comments compared to what hes just written.

    And then just last month I received an email from “Courreges W”, aka darcy, notifying me that she got banned for using the B word; so I find it really unfair that the B word is worthy of banning, but threats of physical violence and remarks about suicide are not? Yes, this is wholly unfair; that said, I do support Robert banning whomever he chooses, but I still don’t understand his decision.

    “Not that I’m asking for people to support all my opinions; just to show me the respect I show them would be, apparently, asking too much.”

    I wholly agree! …and this is exactly why I treat you with respect.

    Take care, dear friend :)

  58. says

    “Ah, he is asking for respect. This is from a man who’s first offering on this thread was a wholly dedicated criticism of the author himself”

    Criticism is not necessarily a show of disrespect. Only a non-Westerner, or a Westerner who hasn’t been properly educated in his own civilization, would indulge in such a crass assumption.

  59. says

    awake, in his mental devolution, is starting to misspell words at random; another interesting trait he seems to share with many Muslims who come onto these comment threads.

  60. says

    Hi LemonLime, yeah that’s all darcy mentioned in her email. I was stunned that she got banned and so was she! …and if there was more to it than the B word, then she certainly didn’t mention anything more to me. And I miss her, too.