Smear media in action: Eigil Söderin

Unfortunately, too many people will answer 'yes' to the last question. They would rather go along to get along. And, after all, when you don't particularly care about religion and have no real attachment to religious doctrine, then you figure there's no harm in 'submitting'. Too many people think the First Amendment (or Europe's version of free speech) will protect them.
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Too many people will answer YES!

"Whoo Hoo Pam, reminds me of Muhammad Ali, smack smack.
Best knock-down, drag-out I've heard in a long time."

I'd hardly characterize saying "No" full stop to the question "Do you want to deport Muslims?" a smackdown of her interrogator.

We probably agree, but hard to tell, blogs are a blunt instrument for defining precise thought, a sentence has to do where perhaps a whole book would be insufficient.

I don't know anyone who's as adamant as I am on the islam problem and it's frustrating when even the anti-jihad leaders pull their punches, advocate half-measures and blindly fall into the PC traps and snares that the Leftists and Islamists set all about us or when our anti-jihadists fail to see the problem as clearly as I think they should, but give Pam credit, I applaud Pamela Geller for responding with the truth and doing it so concisely and forcefully (almost) every time Eigil tried to slant and lie and manipulate and smear and trick her.

Anyway, deport?, it might be a good first step, but where would you deport muslims to?, back to Egypt or Algeria or Iraq? These were all Christian or Jewish lands at one time and were only made islamic at the point of the sword. Why re-inflict islam upon those lands a second time, and why acquiesce in the crime of islamic conquest of these so-called "islamic countries" and why create even more problems for the long suffering Christian and Jewish and Hindu minorities who are still trying to survive in these so-called "islamic countries"?. Even deportation is not the total answer. Islam itself is evil and must be made to disappear.

Respectfully...

Your logic is unassailable. It is like math.

I like that you pose this question:

"We should ask them what they plan to do with non-Muslim Westerners (deport us, imprison us, what?)."

The issue of deportation of Muslims, in my opinion, needs to always reinforce the notion that Islam's capital punishment for apostasy reveals that Islam and the Islamic Ummah is more like a national interest than some secondary private benign religious belief. Someone who becomes French can be told to emigrate immediately, without transforming a deportation order into an endless debate about religious supremacy/victimology.

DIALOG: "So, you have chosen to become Muslim. So what. Now leave, just as if you had become French."

Pamela needs to get a legal education on both immigration law and First Amendment litigation to change her answer below:

Eigil Söderin: Do you want them deported?

Pamela Geller: No.

She must feel skittish. No solution is sufficient without answering "Yes." A legal education would help to replace the skittishness with confidence, in answering "Yes, Deport!"

Vlad,

Hugh Fitzgerald used to suggest a population exchange to address the concerns you raise. As I recall of his proposed scheme, we deport Muslims from the West to Muslim-majority countries, and then allow Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. from those same countries to immigrate to our countries.

"Islam itself is evil and must be made to disappear."

Perhaps an end-goal is to defeat Islam as a political, legal, cultural ideology and system. However, that won't happen if the West dies. The West will probably die in the later part of this century and will be replaced by Islam. The only viable and relatively harm-reduced way that I know to stop this from happening is to stop Islamic immigration and deport massive numbers of Muslims (either most of them, as I propose, or all of them, as others have proposed). We either do this, or we accept that the West will fall to Islam and that in the slow process tens of millions of Westerners will be killed, raped, subjugated, enslaved, etc., and many others will be "converted" under pressure to Islam, as they and their civilization are extinguished by Islam.

Therefore the primary goal must be to save the West from Islam. This is not to say we shouldn't be opposing Islam everywhere else--of course we should. We should also be working on alliances with non-Muslim groups outside the West in order to undermine Islam. But our priority in the West must be to save the West. Without a strong West to oppose Islam, Islam will indeed achieve it's ultimate goal of bringing the whole world under sharia.

"Islam will indeed achieve it's..." [excuse the typo; I meant its]

"...I applaud Pamela Geller for responding with the truth ..."

Well, if you agree with her that we should not deport Muslims, of course you applaud her.

@Kinana of Kaybar
"Save the West from Islam"
"stop Islamic immigration and deport massive numbers of Muslims"

I agree. You'll get no argument from me. It's just that I don't see how you're going to change the policy of the US and the EU. It's a long way from what I want to making that the policy of the West. Wishing won't make it so. We're in the fix we're in because there are titanic forces at work that got us here.
The hope of JW is that we may come up with a persuasive argument that will change the policy of the West, it's a faint hope.

To halt muslim immigration and deport those already here you'd have to change the policy of the US at the highest levels.
It would require such a drastic change in policy that most people are horrified at the thought.
I'd like to see the US recognize that islam is an existential threat, declare war on islam and begin to implement a plan to win the war, deportation would be one of the first steps.
A second step that would go a long way toward winning the war would be to take the oil fields.
This would have to be done in agreement with Russia, China, Japan and Europe, otherwise we'd have WW3 on our hands.
Taking the oil fields could have been done deliberately already, if we had far sighted politicians who understood the existential threat of islam, but we don't.
No one will probably believe this but there were US military contingency plans to exterminate the Saudi population and take the oil fields in the 70's, it was in the WSJ, but I can't find a link and I don't have access to the archives.
Still, taking the oil fields might happen sooner than anyone thinks, by accident, if the Middle East blows up over Syria or Iran, the oil fields could be under new ownership tomorrow morning, and the new owners might not be the US or EU but Russia or China.
Without oil a recently resurgent Islam would lose much of it's troublemaking power and OPEC could no longer blackmail and bribe the leaders of the EU into taking in millions of muslim immigrants, in fact, they'd be in no position to object if we returned all the ones we already had.
If fact, without oil money, Saudi Arabia would no longer have access to its "white slaves" and wouldn't be able to bribe treasonous American politicians into betraying American citizens by allowing the advance of Islam in America.

But again, getting the policy makers to recognize the threat of islam is the problem, how do you do that?

Under the "current political setup" it's hard to see our leadership changing their policy just because of our persuasive arguments.
I'm afraid that the problem won't be solved until there is a breakdown in the "current political setup".
A major war in the Middle East might destroy the EU and return Europe to the free and independent nation state status that prevailed in the 19th and 20th century.
A return of European twentieth century nation state wars, but with twenty-first century weapons, might quickly sweep all of islam out of Europe, for good, but at a cost in human lives similar to that of WWII.
I'm afraid that's where our current political leadership is taking us.

Submission to Islam is not a solution.

I think that further unrestricted muslim immigration into Europe will result in a breakdown and fragmentation of Europe and the kind of sectarian warfare and ethnic cleansing that we see today in Syria or that we saw in the Balkans involving Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia etc.

Vlad,

I think one of the ways forward on policies is to replace this current crop of politicians with more like Geert Wilders. The current crop will dig us further into the hole if we don't get rid of them. Mercifully, most of them can't stay in office for more than about 4 years at a time. Over the next 20 years or so, we will have at least a few opportunities to make some changes.

Despite the dark picture I lay out above, there is room for optimism. I can think of a few points off the top of my head at the moment:

-the popularity of Geert Wilders with the general public (despite the hostility from the media, academics, and other politicians), who was talking forthrightly and strongly about stopping Islamic immigration and deporting large numbers ("millions") of Muslims.

-the rise of parties such as the British Freedom Party

-the work of people like Michael Coren and Ezra Levant at Sun TV in Canada

-of course, the work of scholars and activists such as Robert and Pamela, and many others, who are fairly popular with those in the general public who've heard of them (despite the media's overall hostility toward them)

-the general antipathy of Westerners toward mass immigration and multiculturalism policies that erode the core culture. Consistently over the past few decades, polls have shown that the majority of people in Western countries oppose the radical and corrosive mass immigration policies that their governments are engaging in. Only in recent years have the percentages dropped somewhat, probably because the people who oppose such policies are dying off and are being replaced with the immigrants who benefit from such policies. (This again highlights the critical importance of timing; we need to press these ideas into actionable policies soon, otherwise the resistance to Islamization will dwindle too much).

-the fact that the majority of Danes (or was it the Dutch?) consider mass immigration of Muslims to be the worst thing to happen to the country since WWII.

-the fact that large majorities of non-Muslims in numerous major Western countries oppose sharia

-the fact that a significant percentage of the populations of Western countries have a negative view of Islam (these percentages vary depending on the country and the wording of the question)

We can build on all of this. We can continue to present the evidence to the general public to show them the long-term danger Islam poses to their societies and the rising pro-sharia attitudes of Muslims. This will help inspire more future Geert Wilders's who, once they are into office, can begin to enact the sensible policies needed to get us out of this mess.

p.s. "...the general antipathy of Westerners toward mass immigration and multiculturalism policies that erode the core culture."

For that matter, polls show that the majority of people in the vast majority of the countries of the world oppose mass immigration into their countries.

One of the best things that we could do now, imagine, what would the US policy toward Islam look like if we could write that policy?
Write it up as an amendment to the Constitution.
Find a congressman to propose that amendment.
Work to get the amendment ratified.
And then stand back and watch the fireworks.

It would be a useful intellectual exercise, to think things through as clearly as required.
Finding agreement, even amongst ourselves, on what that policy would be if we had to put it into "black and white" would be difficult, at least.
Marshal the arguments necessary to gain any support from the less informed public.

Developing this policy might give a future leader the roadmap he needs to implement such a policy.

"there were US military contingency plans to exterminate the Saudi population..."

That's preposterous.

"...it was in the WSJ, but I can't find a link and I don't have access to the archives."

Until you have actual incontrovertible evidence of that outlandish claim, best not to type it or utter it.

One angle missed here about a possible deportation (repatriation) of muslims (or other foreign people to their home countries). The thing that will happen, and actually already has happened (Sweden returning Iraqi citizens I think it was) is that the receiving islamic country will refuse to accept their returning citizens. What then? In the case of Sweden-Iraq, they just flew the Iraqi citizen back to Sweden for a lifetime of social salary paid by the Swedish tax payers.
Yet another aspect; what definitely will happen once the muslims gain power is genicide and massacres of non-muslims, and possible civil war. If people still are free to move within EU at that time, there will be plentyful of jihad-"warriors" coming to aid their muslim friends in the country where the war is.

Juan,

"What then? In the case of Sweden-Iraq, they just flew the Iraqi citizen back to Sweden for a lifetime of social salary paid by the Swedish tax payers."

Yes, but keep in mind that my proposal assumes we have elected Geert Wilders-type politicians to power with a mandate for deporting large numbers of Muslims and cutting off almost all if not all Muslim immigration. If we get to that point, we generally won't be taking anyone back in, because a different set of policies will be in effect.

There may be numerous legal hurdles to my proposal. I am mainly pointing out the nature of the choice we will have to make. A combination of mass deportations and cutting off of Islamic immigration appears to be the only reasonable solution. Some alternatives would end the Islam problem in the West but would be too harsh; other policies that are less disruptive and coercive than the proposal would not be as effective and would not give the long-term safeguarding of Western civilization which we require.

"Yet another aspect; what definitely will happen once the muslims gain power is genicide and massacres of non-muslims, and possible civil war. If people still are free to move within EU at that time, there will be plentyful of jihad-"warriors" coming to aid their muslim friends in the country where the war is."

Indeed. This is why we will have to enact the proposal (1 and 2) soon, to avoid this type of scenario. As Paul Weston has suggested, by approximately 2030, in the U.K. (and probably several other major European countries) there will be as many Muslim males of fighting age as there are non-Muslim males of fighting age. Partly due to this reason, I suspect we have at most about 20 years to enact the proposal. After that, due to demographic changes and other factors it will be very difficult to get a political mandate from the electorate to implement the proposal. I estimate that we have on average across the Western countries about 4 election cycles in which we can get the change we need at the national government and leaderhip levels. That is, politically, in terms of democratic elections, we (non-Muslim Westerners) have about four chances to get this right. If we don't, then most of our countries (with the exception of the U.S.) will be beyond the point of no return (i.e., highly improbable recovery), on average, between approximately 2030-2040.

I'm completely with you on this one, LL.

islam may exist long enough to cause a good bit of trouble, but it doesn't have the remotest chance of survival, much less dominance, over the long term. Eventually, Enlightened Western Civilization will bring about the eradication of islam.

LemonLime/Hesperado continues with more false attributions:

"I think he (and Juan) are strangely underestimating the sophistication and superiority of the West vis-a-vis the invading Muslim hordes."

False. I believe the West is as sophisticated as all get-out and is overall better than any other culture. (And that's why I want to save it, and am guardedly optimistic for the reasons I noted above in a later post). But that has nothing to do with the facts and considerations I've laid out above in the earlier post, which deal with basic facts and trends regarding Islam, the West, and the respective demographics.

"Muslims in their attempt at conquering the West are not simply overrunning some backward Third Water waterhole"

Again, you are falsely attributing to me an absurd assumption that I don't hold and which has nothing to do with the issue and facts at hand.

Kinana of Khaybar (KK) writes:

LemonLime/Hesperado continues with more false attributions:

then he quotes one sentence from my post:

"I think he (and Juan) are strangely underestimating the sophistication and superiority of the West vis-a-vis the invading Muslim hordes."

then reiterates:

False.

First of all, KK is cherrypicking.

Second of all, "false" is not the correct word to use here, even if he disagrees. I didn't write: "KK believes in X"; I wrote (to paraphrase the pertinent gist in this regard): "I think KK is underestimating X". At worst, this would be a matter of my impression being deemed to be mistaken or incorrect or inaccurate. After properly characterizing my flaw as such, then, KK would then have to present an actual artument -- if he wants to persuade his rational audience, that is -- showing how my impression is actually mistaken or incorrect or inaccurate.

Now that we have that mess on aisle 9 mopped up, let's proceed to the meat and potatoes of the problem KK has created with his impetuously anxious riposte.

KK goes on to write:

I believe the West is as sophisticated as all get-out and is overall better than any other culture.

My argument was not based on an impression that KK did not think, speaking in broad generalities, that the West is sophisticated -- even as all get-out -- but that in his concerns about the threat of expansionist Muslims, he did not, apparently, include one important feature of the civilizational sophistication of the West: nsmely, that it has evolved strong and healthy societies whose strength and health are not the simple virtues of some strong and healthy farm community in 18th century Finland defending their homestead from a pack of wolves but which, rather, reflect a complex richness of superiority on all levels of both technical and sociopolitical infrastructure -- and that, given that, Muslims in their long-term goal of conquest of the West will not be able to traverse from point A (as they are now throughout the West) to point C (actual conquest), without going through the stage of point B. It is at the moment of transition from point A to B where the theoretical problems arise as we conjecture about the future. And by "moment" I don't of course mean an instant in time, but a pivotal juncture in history, which may take decades to unfold.

During this moment of the transition from point A to point B, it is my reasonable conjecture that

1) Muslims will press their issue of aggrandizement within the West in ways that will be more vividly aggressive and intrusive than heretofore, and that all their speech and actions heretofore have enjoyed the fudge factor of ambivalence, whereas when they begin to press their issue of aggrandizement past a certain point, they will perforce behave in ways (including violence that qualitatively and quantitatively will make 911 seem like a fireworks display in a parking lot, as well as including beheadings in broad daylight on the streets of Paris, London, Toronto, Las Vegas, etc.) that will arouse the West -- including the majority of fence-sitters and non-Left PC MCs -- from its torpid myopia;

and that

2) as intimated in my final phrase in #1, the West will be roused as it had not been roused before; and that, once roused, it will begin to join action against Muslims.

At that point, it will be too late to follow KK's sound pre-emptive advice of stopping immigration and deporting most Muslims in any clean and orderly way -- for at that point, there will devolve a breakdown, and military & police actions will necessarily become involved.

This moment, of 1 + 2, will then likely initiate a concatenation of events that will devolve into something tantamount to more or less generalized civil unrest and insurrection from the Muslims, and forceful violent counter-reactions from the West. (And, of course, as part of the mix, the non-Muslim West will not be perfectly unanimous in its self-defense, but will likely go through some internal dissensions and disagreements, if not a few cases of outright treason).

We can call this concatenation of events a #3 after 1 and 2.

My argument rests on the reasoned assumption that a #3 is inevitable, given that both 1 and 2 are reasonable assumptions; and given a trust that the West is sophisticated in the sense that it will not let #1 go on steamrolling into conquest of the West by Muslims without putting up a concerted fight.

#3 then links up to a #4 -- another reasoned assumption: namely, that once the West is roused to see the problem and to fight back (helped enormously by Muslims no longer able to control themselves and dropping the mask en masse as they smell blood and think the time is ripe for them to really make a go for outright conquest, rather than continue their long game plan of deception combined with tactically minimal terror attacks here and there), the West will -- and will be able to (given, remember, its sophistication, astronomically superior on all levels to Muslims by comparison) -- do what it has to do to finally put out the lights of Islam and its agents, Muslims.

(My perpendicular argument which I've been articulating for ages here and on my blog is that, were the West to wake up now, rather than to wait until it's ridiculously almost too late (remember, I say "almost" too late), the West could by deporting Muslims ASAP (where "as possible" of course must deal with the obstreperously obtuse reality of Westerners yawning and stretching and squinting in the soft morning sun in their comfy PJs as they slowly wake up to their house on fucking fire) pre-empt that cataclysmic crisis coming up like a preposterously massive train-wreck. But, if the West, as is likely, given most indications of the continuing resilience of PC MC, does wait until it's almost too late, then it will have to deal with Muslims in much more horrific ways -- you know, approximately like we did to the Japs and Krauts in WW2).

Now, I said I would deal with the "meat and potatoes", and I saved the filet mignon for last:

In his original post to which I responded (triggering KK's subsequent complaint about me supposedly making "false attributions"), KK wrote:

Islam is rapidly increasing in size, strength, and fervor in the West, while Western civilization is rapidly declining and weakening. Muslim populations are youthful and strong, non-Muslim Western populations are old and weak. The continuation of these trends if not countered by powerful opposing forces, policies, and actions will probably result in Muslim majorities by the mid to late part of this century, which will probably involve the imposition of sharia law on the remaining non-Muslims. In the meantime, life for non-Muslims in the West will continue to become more and more dangerous and precarious.

Then, a little later, wrote:

Since it is also highly improbable that those in positions of power will ever adopt any significant form of policies (1) and (2), the Islamization of the West to the point that sharia becomes the law of the land in several major Western countries by mid- to late-century is practically assured due to factors a-f, above.

(KK's a-f factors may be summarized thusly:

a-b-demographic disparity: Muslims growing in population in the West, Westerners dwindling

c-Islam and its Muslims are not reforming, but showing signs of becoming more virulently un-reformed

d-Westerners are doing little if nothing to counter a-b-c, while more often indirectly facilitating a-b-c

e-Western MSM is pro-Islam

f-Western academe is also pro-Islam, and both e and f greatly influence (negatively, obviously) the West's intellectual capacity to respond to the problem of Islam.)

And now for the money quote from KK:

Regardless of what Soderin et al. think, Canada, most of Europe, and Russia will probably become Muslim-majority and under sharia law by the later part of this century, unless the powerful Islamic demographic and ideological trends are opposed

We have a choice: We can either

A) Act soon and take the relatively harm-reduced options of cutting off Islamic immigration and deporting (or otherwise encouraging the exit of) large numbers of Muslims from the West,

or

B) We can accept that the West will be under sharia with a Muslim majority in several decades time, and that massive numbers of non-Muslims will be slaughtered, raped, tortured, terrorized, plundered, subjugated, and enslaved in the process of Islamization, and that our civilization will be erased from history as Muslims complete their process of conquest.

So, the problem with KK's position as I see it (and now I'm articulating it in more detail than in my too brief former comment), is that, after rightly assessing the various factors of the problem of Muslim aggrandizement in the West (which, of course, already rightly assumes their unique evils and dangers), and after rightly assessing current and ongoing Western myopia ineffectively dealing with this aggrandizement, KK assumes that, unless the West soon takes the forceful actions of "cutting off Islamic immigration and deporting (or otherwise encouraging the exit of) large numbers of Muslims from the West", the West will be taken over by Muslims.

In laying out his projection this way, KK appears to be ignoring the reasonably expected possibility I described in my #2-#3 above. But, as I see it, Western sophistication, while it may involve many other qualities, also involves the fact that Westerners, even after letting Muslims get away with penetrating their aggrandizement further, will not let them get away with this process after a certain point where the evil, injustice and danger of Muslims becomes clear as it has not yet become clear due to the fog of PC MC.

And "not letting them get away with this" means that generalized insurrection and civil unrest will devolve, concomitment with Western counter-measures, leading to something resembling a civil war (except that the Enemy in this case will not be Western, but will be a foreign virus inside our Body Geopolitic). And, consequent upon the first point which KK is apparently ignoring, he is also apparently ignoring the reasonably expected possibility that the West will win this coming "civil" war.

Of course, it is highly likely that the whole thing will be a horrible bloody mess, and a lot of the horror and blood and mess could have been avoided were we the West to follow KK's prescription -- cutting off Islamic immigration and deporting (or otherwise encouraging the exit of) large numbers of Muslims from the West -- but that doesn't mean, as KK apparently thinks it means, that not following his sound prescription will lead us and force us automatically to go straight to Islamic Hell, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Take a Card, and Give Up Your Hotels On Marvin Gardens and Park Place.

While you do accurately summarize my points a-f, nothing in your post supports your two ludicrous accusations which I pointed out in my previous post.

"...not the simple virtues of some strong and healthy farm community in 18th century Finland defending their homestead from a pack of wolves but which..."

Laughable. Again, this is simply an absurd strawman.

Nothing in your post explains how the aspect of Western sophistication you vaguely allude to ("...a complex richness of superiority on all levels of both technical and sociopolitical infrastructure...") is going to result in us implementing 1 (the common sense-sensible policy of cutting off Islamic immigration) and 2 (peacefully and prudently deporting most if not all Muslims). Moreover, due to demographic factors, Muslims are increasingly occupying that "technical and sociopolitical infrastructure" among other things.

Instead, you are suggesting the Islam problem in the West will not likely be solved by 1 and 2, but rather by defeating Muslims in a civil war, triggered by some larger-than-ever terrorist attack carried out by Muslims. This is not realistic or prudent for at least two reasons: One, the past 11 years have shown that Muslims have not carried out an attack in the West on the scale of 9/11, and any planned attacks approaching or possibly exceeding that scale have been foiled. The pattern then is that the attacks that do manage to get through to completion and reach the public attention tend to be small. This has the unfortunate effect of habituating and desensitizing non-Muslims to such attacks. (This is to say nothing of the Islam-saving public conduct of our media and authorities of all kinds in response to such attacks). Two, even if Muslims did destroy a major city or two, the response of the Western authorities (of the present type) will probably not be significantly better (as regards to dealing with the problem of Muslims in the West) than what Bush and Blair and co offered us following 9/11. They will call together a meeting of religious leaders and imams at a major mosque, declare that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the perpetrators of the attack were a tiny minority of extremists who don't reflect the vast majority of peaceful. They will then launch massive military campaigns against whatever Islamic countries supported the attackers, and then install mildly differently flavoured sharia governments to replace the ones they removed, and blow more money and lives on nation-building and winning hearts and minds.

Mind you, again, I'm talking about a projection based on past behaviour and assuming Bush/Obama/Blair/Cameron-type politicians were still in power. If we had Geert Wilders-type politicians in power, the projection is very different: In response, we would likely solve the Islam problem in the West. Indeed, we would probably avoid such an attack in the first place by carrying out policies 1 and 2 and having more effective intelligence capabilities. Geert is not generally any more "sophisticated" than other politicians; he simply has the right combination of knowledge and attitude in regards to this particular problem.

We are sophisticated now. We've had 9/11, Bali, 3/11, 7/7, Beslan, "cartoon crisis," endless foiled terrorist plots, massive costs, increased overall danger and risk levels, massive crime rate by Muslims, seemingly endless reports of targetted rape and child rape of non-Muslims, day-to-day street harassment and violence from Muslim "youths", torching of automobiles in the tens of thousands...in 11 years since 9/11, none of this has led our authorities to examine the evidence about Islam globally and historically and then come to conclude that the policies of either 1 or 2 should be carried out. Indeed, our present crop of authorities would be horrified by the mere mention of the prospect of policies 1 and 2 and would be more likely to try to have arrested those who express those ideas publicly.

I don't believe the out-and-out civil war scenario you describe could plausibly happen until Muslims have reasonable odds of winning it (say, roughly, anywhere from about 30% to 70% chance). If the civil war scenario you describe happens within the next 20 years, then there really won't be much to argue about; we will then be battling Muslims militarily and otherwise, whether we like it or not. Whether or not we win a civil war depends on manpower, not just weaponry; the large-scale weaponry that the West has will be of little use in a civil war, unless we want to destroy our own countries. The other factor is timing: if it doesn't take place within the next approximately 20 years, we are probably going to be outnumbered in fighting-age males. Therefore, it is unwise to rely on winning a civil war, since Muslims are probably not going to attempt it until our odds of losing it are considerably higher.

But what I believe is likely is what is supported by precedent, and that means two more decades of the same shite, only increasing steadily as the Muslim population increases steadily (and the non-Muslim population declines steadily).

"Muslims will press their issue of aggrandizement within the West in ways that will be more vividly aggressive and intrusive than heretofore, and that all their speech and actions heretofore have enjoyed the fudge factor of ambivalence, whereas when they begin to press their issue of aggrandizement past a certain point, they will perforce behave in ways (including violence that qualitatively and quantitatively will make 911 seem like a fireworks display in a parking lot, as well as including beheadings in broad daylight on the streets of Paris, London, Toronto, Las Vegas, etc.) that will arouse the West -- including the majority of fence-sitters and non-Left PC MCs -- from its torpid myopia;"

What if they don't manage to carry out such a huge attack? I don't like the fact that the response you suggest, of the West becoming roused against Muslims generally in response to such an attack, depends on us passively waiting for such a huge attack to happen. Outside of warfare, sudden attacks that do massive damage and kill massive numbers of people within a short period of time are extremely rare. Although the odds of such an attack occurring increase with the increasing Muslim population size, I do not find it likely that Islamic terrorists will do this within the West within the next 20 years--not through their lack of trying, but because they can't likely put together the means to do it within the West, and our counter-terrorism has at least been fairly effective thus far. The scenario you describe involving such a massive attack, which might involve portable nuclear devices, surely depends on a massive intelligence failure on the part of the West, and I think you are underestimating the West's abilities in this regard, at least over the next decade or so. These abilities will probably decline with time; yet as the Muslim populations in the West increase, the desire to engage in large-scale attacks will decrease and Islamic groups will focus more on cultural and propaganda jihad, all the while attempting to assure victory through high birth rates and mass immigration.

"...at that point, there will devolve a breakdown, and military & police actions will necessarily become involved."

Again, demographics and timing need to be considered. The police and military already have a minority of Muslims, and the proportion of Muslims within these vital institutions is increasing, while the proportion of traditional Westerners in them is declining. Even with a terrorist attack of mega proportions, the response depends in part on the percentage of Muslims in these institutions and in positions of authority.

The thing we have to remember--and I'm not suggesting LL doesn't accept this--is that the West we want to preserve and protect first and foremost consists of people, i.e., Westerners. While some aspects of the West may carry on in the form of ideas and institutions (such as those adopted elsewhere with some degree of success such as in Japan, India, and other countries), the West itself as a coherent body will live or die depending on the demographic outcomes of the next approximately 100 years. If there are no more Westerners, then there is no more West. If Westerners are reduced to a minority within the historical-geographical West--which could very well happen and is projected by some to happen (even without consideration of Muslim demographics specifically) possibly within 100 years.

Even if LL's scenario--which he apparently believes is the most likely of the variations--played out within the next 20 years, defeating Islam and expelling the remaining Muslims from the West, what then? The West (as defined by people known as Westerners) may continue its demographic demise while continuing non-Western non-Muslim immigration, so that eventually you end up with a multi-ethnic divided society no longer run by a majority of Westerners or Western-minded people that is not in a position to resist the advances of ever-persistent Islam, in terms of a reopening to Islamic immigration. Again, the Westerners presumed to fight off the Muslims in LL's scenario will themselves for the most part die off within decades, leaving culturally divided and probably politically Balkanized peoples in their wake, and thus vulnerable once again to Islamic invasion.

Any discussion of defeat of Islam within the West that does not take into account the issue of long-term demographic decline of Westerners is analogous to discussion of winning a brawl on the Titanic when it is already sinking.

A couple of corrections:

I wrote: "If Westerners are reduced to a minority within the historical-geographical West--which could very well happen and is projected by some to happen (even without consideration of Muslim demographics specifically) possibly within 100 years."

The completion of that sentence should have been "--then there will be no more West".

Another completion [in brackets]:
"They will call together a meeting of religious leaders and imams at a major mosque, declare that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the perpetrators of the attack were a tiny minority of extremists who don't reflect the vast majority of peaceful [Muslims]."

Preposterous?

That's What James Akins, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, thought - before he got FIRED!
And it's exactly that kind of thinking that got us into the fix we're in today with respect to Islam.

from "The Thirty-Year Itch" in Mother Jones.

In 1975, while Akins was ambassador in Saudi Arabia, an article headlined "Seizing Arab Oil" appeared in Harper's. The author, who used the pseudonym Miles Ignotus, was identified as "a Washington-based professor and defense consultant with intimate links to high-level U.S. policymakers." The article outlined, as Akins puts it, "how we could solve all our economic and political problems by taking over the Arab oil fields [and] bringing in Texans and Oklahomans to operate them." Simultaneously, a rash of similar stories appeared in other magazines and newspapers. "I knew that it had to have been the result of a deep background briefing," Akins says. "You don't have eight people coming up with the same screwy idea at the same time, independently.

"Then I made a fatal mistake," Akins continues. "I said on television that anyone who would propose that is either a madman, a criminal, or an agent of the Soviet Union." Soon afterward, he says, he learned that the background briefing had been conducted by his boss, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Akins was fired later that year.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/03/thirty-year-itch

READ THIS PDF ! - "Seizing Arab Oil"
Kissinger had the right idea, he could have written todays headlines fourty years ago.
go here - download this PDF
www.thefez.net/etc/articles/Harpers_SeizingArabOil_Kissinger.pdf

This is the policy we should be following today ( with appropriate modifications to a fourty year old plan ).
The problem we have today (IN SPADES) is the same problem that Kissinger forsaw fourty years ago.
The only thing not forseen, or not mentioned, in "SEIZING ARAB OIL" was that failure to seize that oil would result in the re-surgence of Islam, really a raging infection of Islam throughout the world, which is exactly the problem we are dealing with here at JW.
The solution that Kissinger advocated in 1975 is a big part of the solution to the Islamic problem we have today.

The reference above just scratches the surface, but it's a start.
This is all public knowledge, the history on this subject is voluminous, someone should write a book about how the policies articulated by Kissinger and Schlesinger and others in the 70's apply to, and had they been adopted at the time, could have prevented our current difficulties with respect to Islam, unfortunately "the margins of this blog are too small to contain" it.

I mean no offense, I just have to go hyperbolic for emphasis, to make a point.
I appreciate all the thoughtful comments by everyone here at JW.

"...not the simple virtues of some strong and healthy farm community in 18th century Finland defending their homestead from a pack of wolves but which..."

Laughable. Again, this is simply an absurd strawman.

It's not a strawman because I didn't claim you said it; I implied that you imply it. Perhaps there is another explanation in your mind for why the West will roll over and accept Muslim conquest, other than that the West is actually that unsophisticated as to a) allow it, and b) not wake up and rally itself to stopping it before it's too late. My phrase about the Finnish farmer was just an imaginative way of putting that; I obviously don't think you literally think the West's strength and health is like a literal Finnish farmer.

So you're the one indulging in the strawman of my argument.

The part that was, and remains, preposterous is that any US official -- Akins, Kissinger or otherwise -- advocated the "extermination" of the Saudi people, as you alleged. That was the phrase I quoted in my comment to you; and, interestingly, in your response back to me, you completely ignored that one word "extermination".

That part was in the newpaper article, of which there were many at that time. The one I read was in the NYT or WSJ and was published in the late 90's or early 2000s, probably about the time that the records of the 1973 oil embargo were release from the British National Archives.

Documents Show U.S. Considered Using Force During Oil Embargo
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ
Published: January 1, 2004 NYT
"The memorandum was one of hundreds of documents released by Britain's National Archives under a law that makes government papers public after 30 years."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/international/middleeast/01CND-DOCU.html

which stimulated a whole flurry of revelations about just how serious the '73 situation actually was.

So no, I don't still have that newspaper article and I can't find any link to NYT articles from the late 90's. I'm recounting an article from memory, but as you can imagine when I saw the offending phrase I was as shocked as you were and I did a double-take, triple-take. The memory of reading that article is very clear and very distinct. How reliable that reporter was I can't say. But I've looked at many of the www links that are still available and have found a lot more information that supports the general tenor of that article. For example, President Nixon at the time of the '73 oil embargo put the US military at DefCon3. That's right at the edge of nuclear war and the British were very upset about that, but the idea that the situation brought the whole world to the risk of nuclear war makes any drastic action that might have taken place in Saudi Arabia seem almost trivial.

There were other statements by Kissinger and Schlesinger that support the idea that they were advocating drastic action in Saudi Arabia.
For example, after all, over two million Cambodians had just lost their lives in part due to policy decisions made by Henry Kissinger and Nixon about the war in Vietnam.

Anyway... that's not the point, the point is that we are going around in circles being very ineffective in dealing with Islam when the decision was made in 1975 to not do the one thing that could have solved the whole problem, take the oil, and to do the one thing that has aided and abetted the advance of Islam ever since, that is to ally ourselves with the Saudis and allow them to bribe us and blackmail us and spend the last fourty years slowly spreading Islam throughout the whole world.

Please read this PDF by Miles Ignotus ( Henry Kissinger ).
His arguments are still as cogent today as they were fourty years ago and they are the clearest explanation for what's going on with Islam today and his advise for what to do about Islam are still the best I've found.
www.thefez.net/etc/articles/Harpers_SeizingArabOil_Kissinger.pdf

Sorry, vlad, I can't believe such a grave charge without actual proof.

LL,

It appears to me that in response to my comment you are wrangling for the sake of wrangling and are adding various false, absurd, lampoonish, irrelevant, and unsubstantiated accusations, and are not really interested in addressing the important substantive issue. I addressed your comment because, first, you addressed my comment and made at least a couple of false and unsupported allegations about my views and assumptions. Naturally I wanted to correct your mischaracterizations--which I view as red herring anyways--for the few others who may still be reading this and who aren't familiar with me as a commenter. Second, the issue of what to do about the massive and increasing Muslim population in the West, and the increasing danger that poses, coupled with the decline of the population of Westerners in the West (and other factors), is an important topic relevant to the thread which needs to be discussed, so I was attempting to address that for the few readers of this thread who may still be interested in this discussion.

A claim, or variously a belief or a hunch, among some counter-jihadists is that Muslims are eventually going to carry out some sudden cataclismic massive attack(s) in the West, killing hundreds of thousands, or millions, of Westerners, and this cataclismic event is going to fully wake up the Western Giant which will then respond with various tough actions resulting in there no longer being any Muslims, or any significant numbers of them, in the West, and thus the Islam problem in the West will be for all practical purposes solved (or kept at bay for a few years). I believe the chances of such a large-scale attack are very unlikely*, and I have touched on some of the reasons for that in a previous post. Those who pin their hopes (of saving the West from Islam) on what they assume will be our successful response to such a cataclismic attack need to at least consider how we are going to get the proposal (with policies 1 and 2, see above) implemented if such a large-scale cataclismic event does not occur.

*By unlikely I don't merely mean less than 50%. I mean more like less than 5%--enough for our intelligence agencies etc. to be working to prevent, but certainly not enough on which to pin the long-term hopes of saving the West. We not only need to plan for what could happen in terms of remote or improbable massive cataclismic attacks, but we need to plan to counter what is currently happening gradually and which seems more likely to continue long-term based on current trends extended forward, i.e., we need to prevent Muslim pluralities and majorities from occurring in the West.

typo cataclismic should be "cataclysmic"

Kinana, you haven't read my carefully enough. Until you do, it's pointless to engage you further, and a waste of my time.

LL claims: "...But it is the last."

That's an interesting claim coming from someone who has been harassing me and others in the comment section for years--and that is to say nothing of your unhealthy obsession with Robert Spencer. Your claim is of no help, unless you are going to explicitly commit, and follow the commitment, of not responding to or commenting on my comments. You would have heard nothing from me in this case, but you specifically chose to comment about my post and make absurd, false, baseless allegations about my views. For example, you refuse to provide any evidence or argument as to how or in what respects I am underestimating the West's "sophistication" or how this is relevant to the issue I addressed.

You have already shown that you are apparently incapable of responding to the substance of my remarks and that you can only make false accusations, introduce red herring, mischaracterize my comments, resort to crude insults and swearing, accuse me of doing what you are doing, and various other childish antics, etc., etc. Seven years of your mischief, dishonesty, hostility, and/or neuroses, and it gets a little tiring for me. I could of course ignore it, but when you are posting as much as often as you do, the JW comment section has enough LL/Hesperado wallpaper covering it that I'd practically have to ignore the comment section altogether.

Even with all that Hesperado wallpaper, though, I could skim past it. In fact I do skim past most of it. However, in that wallpaper there are cases where you are actively attempting to undermine my comments. Note the sequence of events above: I posted a comment, and then you responded to my comment. You will note that for the past few years I don't respond at all to your comments unless they are some kind of an absurd attack on or shot at me specifically, or a counterjihadist, or a fellow commenter. I generally avoid your comments because you produce the same repetitive stuff over and over again, and you are writing as someone who has a basic orientation and motivation of hostility toward (a) the main author of the site, (b) the (former) moderator, and (c) many if not most of the commenters, myself included. Anyways, if you honestly find this exchange with me in this thread to be a waste of your time, then don't engage in it. Don't initiate or engage in any discussion with me, don't comment on my posts or try to (mis)characterize them. But don't absurdly and childishly claim that I am wasting your time when you are voluntarily participating in an exchange that you initiated by explicitly addressing my comment and making an absurd characterization, and are continuing by making various absurd and unsubstantiated claims about my views.

At least, unlike you, I take responsibility for the fact that if my time is wasted in an exchange with you, it is because I chose to spend/waste my time on it.

This is all probably academic or at least history now anyways, because, as I'm going to announce for my fellow commenters in another thread, I'm going to be leaving the comment section. Mainly, I don't have time to comment here anymore. Yet over the years I've continued to comment anyway, and this has (a) taken time away from other things and (b) it is probably more beneficial and more effective for me to reallocate the time I spend in the JW comment section to address the Islam problem in other fora. Certainly the additional aspect of having to comment in a corrective manner to a particular poster (who habitually latches himself onto my comments and tries to spin them as meaning something other than what I intended, or who claims/suggests I hold beliefs or assumptions that I do not in fact hold) makes my decision easier. In addition, I believe you were banned for good reasons before, and that it is unfortunate that you've been allowed to come back, as that creates a situation where, at least from my perspective, it simply isn't worth the hassle of trying to post a comment if you are present and doing what you do in the comment section. I will provide more detail on this in my announcement.

There isn't proper free expression on a site when one commenter has endless amounts of time at his disposal to harass others and misrepresent their views. It isn't free expression, it is anarchy, which quickly becomes a dictatorship of whoever is most determined to harass others and has seemingly endless amounts of time at his disposal for that.

Actually, you weren't criticizing my ideas or methodology above, or in most other cases. You were misrepresenting them, and in the above case introduced some red herring claims for which, as I have pointed out, you have not yet provided any substantive support. My objection to your continued presence here has nothing to do with argument. I'm more than willing to engage in substantive argument with anyone who is willing to do so, i.e., with fair-minded people of good will. You are neither. I will not waste my time with someone who is arguing in bad faith with ulterior hostile personal motives, who provides no substance, and who is wrangling for the sake of wrangling.

As for your multiple bannings over the years, by Robert and/or Marisol, I wasn't the cause of any of them. I've advocated that you be banned in regard to one instance: You returned as a banned commenter, after an instance in which your banning by Marisol and Robert was in my view justified. That was the case where you claimed Muslims were not human. I had nothing to do with you getting banned in that case. My point is that rightly banned commenters should not be allowed to return, especially when they reaffirm the views the expressed that got them banned in the first place. You have reaffirmed multiple times since your return your view that Muslims are not human, and have attacked various strawmen and thrown out various red herrings and distractions in defense of yourself. There are venues in which you can express such views, but I don't think it is wise for Jihadwatch to allow itself to be one of them. Moreover, I suspect that only a commenter who wanted to damage the site, and cause problems for it, would post such comments. Again, you have been hostile toward Robert and others at the site for years. You have a long-standing grudge against and obsession with Robert.

You believe Jihadwatch is that place which should be a venue for your view that Muslims are not human. In other words, Jihadwatch as a site must subvert its freedom of expression and editorial oversight to enable yours. (And you call me a fascist). And that's yet another reason, to add to a long list of reasons, why I am ending my commenting here: I'm not continuing on a site that allows such a commenter to return.

Robert,

Thanks. I didn't want to bother with you with this, but here we are. I realize the main reason he's still here is the fact that it is essentially a hassle to deal with him, including the possibility that he may return anyway. The other issue for me though is that I really need to cut down on the amount of my commenting, here and elsewhere, and that issue has nothing to do with the Jihadwatch comment section per se or the conduct of one particular commenter. So whether or not he's banned, I'd either be not posting or only posting occasionally. Still, in my opinion, he should be banned.

He will no doubt complain that his "mature, intelligent" comments are not being appreciated, and so on. Here are a few relatively recent examples from him which are neither:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/05/can-we-shut-down-the-tsa-now-al-qaeda-doctors-trained-to-implant-bombs-in-humans.html#comment-879291
LL: "Go fuck yourself."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/saudi-judoka-who-got-olympic-rules-changed-so-she-could-wear-hijab-got-special-invitation-to-compete.html#comment-895009
LL: “…even jerking off to a National Geographic magazine would be a more productive, nobler endeavor than spending a nanosecond worrying about "women from Muslim countries").”

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/saudi-judoka-who-got-olympic-rules-changed-so-she-could-wear-hijab-got-special-invitation-to-compete.html#comment-895372
LL: "...I have yet to see a Jihad Watcher come close to damning Muslim women the way I do...”

--------------------------

He is bad for the comment section.

Anyways, regardless of what you do in his case, I continue to recommend your site and your works.

Respectfully, as always,

Kinana

LemonLime,

Your moniker suits you well. Your acerbic comments will not be missed by this long-time JW poster.

Re: Hesperado's banning for claiming that all Muslims were not human.

Here is Marisol's notice to him in 2010:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/video-surfaces-of-taliban-stoning-woman-in-northwest-pakistan.html#comment-714307
(You can follow the link from Marisol's comment back to Hesperado's comment in that thread)

Hesperado claims this banning was unfair. However, Hesperado would have known full well that posting that type of comment in particular would lead to banning at Jihadwatch. In 2008, Robert wrote in reply to one of the questions from one commenter:

"4. Anyone who comments here who holds such positions -- that Muslims are subhuman etc. -- is not in accord with my views, and is not welcome here. When we see such comments, we remove them and ban the person who made them. However, comments remain mostly unmoderated. I refer you to the statement at the top of each comments field for a handy guide to how any given comment may relate to my own beliefs.
Cordially
Robert Spencer"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/04/watch-out-for-those-negative-facts.html#comment-525616

We can establish that Hesperado knew this because he has read and commented on the above exchange in which Robert made that statement. Hesperado wrote about it on his blog Jihadwatchwatch. He cited the question from the commenter [my brackets]:
"[Does being Muslim]... mean you cannot be considered a full human and must be deemed a sort of demon?"

Spencer's reply was

"No."

Hesperado disagreed, and said the correct answer was yes:

"The correct answer, which Spencer failed to provide would be: Insofar as Islamic culture deforms the humans who follow it and through that deformation so profoundly perverts all the basic indicators of humanity, inducting its members into a darkness that partakes of a demonic darkness, the answer would be “Yes”. This affirmation, however, does not speak to ontology: Muslims are not subhuman or demonic ontologically speaking: they become so through psycho-cultural deformation—and that deformation is subject to the rule we spoke of earlier: The less a Muslim follows Islam, the less deformed he is; though the corollary to this is that he will never wholly free himself of that deformation until he cuts the cord and apostasizes definitively."

http://jihadswatch.blogspot.ca/2008/04/get-smart.html
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
------------------------------

The above makes clear that Hesperado understood that pressing his view that Muslims are not human on Jihadwatch was bannable. Yet he went on to Jihadwatch, knowing the rule, made the ban-worthy statement, and got banned.

When you are participating in a website comment section in good faith, you are agreeing to the site's comment policies.

Hi LemonLime ...

You wrote:

"Kinana quotes the JW reader 'champ' as thanking Spencer for banning me at the time. She too has changed -- over the ensuing years, champ became a friend of mine, and has always been very supportive of me."

Absolutely true, LL! ..you have many friends on JW that have come to respect your contributions, honesty and character - something sorely lacking in KofK.

The fact that KofK posted a 6 year old comment of mine - knowing full well that you and I have since become friends - demonstrates such poor character on KofK's part. Yeah posting that old comment of mine was such a cheap shot and a new low, even for KofK.

Hey that was then, but this is now, right? ...since NOW you and are friends and that's all that matters! Take care, my friend! :)

Champ,

You are friends with someone who has been attacking, insulting, harassing and mischaracterizing Robert for years, and who continues to do so? You are friends with someone who treats other commenters like inanimate objects that are here for his amusement? That reflects badly on your judgement.

You object to my quoting you in 2006 as an example of a commenter who found Dr Pepper's (Hesperado/LemonLime's) comments to be "pesty". I personally just found your quote to be ironic and informative. It shows that when you were more objective in regards to him, you correctly identified his posts as a nuisance to the site. If you were now looking at his comments in light of what is best for the Jihadwatch comment section, you'd still say he was detrimental to the comment section. Instead, you're biased in his favor now, rather than looking at the larger picture of what's best for this site.

He is a banned poster and a pest. As I noted above, he clearly and knowingly violated a major rule at the site, by using the comment section to promote his view that Muslims are not human. He does not belong on the site and has been told repeatedly by Robert that he's not welcome here.

Yes, I am proud to be friends with LemonLime and I make no apologies for having made that discovery ...

I've gotten to know LemonLime/Hesperado in personal emails over the years and I've learned that he is a genuinely very nice person and he's NEVER treated me with disrespect, so of course I am friends with someone like that. While Robert, on the other hand, has NOT treated me with the same measure of respect in personal emails; in fact; at times he's been downright rude to me in those emails, so you clearly don't know from whence you speak. And Robert once wrote to inform me, "I am not a cult leader, so you can be friends with whomever you choose" ...and he wrote this in reference to my being friends with LemonLime, so even he would disagree with YOU. Oh, and you definitely need to stop seeing Robert as some sort of demi-god that you need to protect at all costs and stop kissing his ass. It's disgusting to see a grown man kiss another man's ass like you have done to Robert. Robert may own Jihad Watch, but he does not own our opinions, etc, or whom we choose to be friends with. I would think that an intelligent man like yourself would realize this fact.

In summary ...

Robert and LemonLime have had their own problems, but that is between them, not me. This is simple to understand, but perhaps very hard for YOU to understand. LemonLime treats ME with respect so of course he's my friend, whereas Robert does NOT treat me with respect. See, I told you that this was simple.

Hey and speaking of ironies, I find it very ironic that you consider LemonLime to be a pest when YOU are a pest to me, and you have been for years. And YOU are primarily why I left Jihad Watch altogether. You're a dirty rat whose used old comments of mine more than once against LemonLime, so you're one to talk about being a pest - yeah it's hilarious that the pot is calling the kettle black! Oh, and it's also ironic that you find LemonLime obsessive over Robert when you obsess over LemonLime. The time you've spent and the record keeping on LemonLime rivals that of an encyclopedia, so pull out a mirror and have a look, since you are guity of being obsessive yourself. Funny how you spend so much time taking his inventory, but have you taken your own?

Okay so go fly a kite, or stick it where the sun don't shine 'cause I really don't care. You're an ass, and I didn't even want to have this conversation with the likes of you; but I saw this an opportunity to defend my friendship with LemonLime and explain why I no longer defend Robert or post on Jihad Watch. You are an unprincipled man and I want nothing further to do with you. And I won't be back to read your response so enjoy having the final word. Done here ...

Thanks Champ.

And I think, now that you mention in your summary, kite-flying would be an excellent hobby for KK to cultivate, to put some of this excessive time he seems to have on his hands to some more profitable use. With his luck, however, on his first run with his new box-kite, the winds may shift unexpectedly, and a rival monster kite, green and yellow reminiscent of citrus fruits, would swoop over and entangle its lines in his, ruining his outing amongst the sunny skies; and he'd have to raise his purpled fists to the cloudless aether and fall on his khaki-shorted knees, wailing "Damn you LemonLime! Accursed Hesperado! O Woe is me! Will Robert come save me in his Sopwith Camel, all goggles and tight WW1 helmet and bearded smile to the rescue....!?"

Good God, that was very funny!

A shame it has gotten so bitter. Many of us know that LemonLime/Hesperado is a particularly sharp and original contributor to the discussion here, one who clarifies issues essential to the counter-jihad in ways that would without him remain befogged and enmucked. His acerbic way just comes with his fighting spirit. IMO, he'd totally be missed and he definitely shouldn't be banned.

WestwardHo,

He wasn't banned in previous cases for merely being "ascerbic". Lots of posters are "ascerbic".

You aren't really addressing the key issue with regard to his previous banning. It is abundantly clear in the most recent previous case that he was banned for using the site to promote his view that all Muslims are not human. The evidence indicates that he knew that that was bannable (see my quotes above). He said it, got banned, then came back again as a banned commenter.

I'm not sure if he's banned now or not. Obviously, he's still posting at least a few days after Robert's notice, above.

If he is banned, and you really seriously want him back, I would imagine you would have to address his claim that all Muslims are not human, and convince Robert that the explicitly stated rule regarding those types of dehumanizing statements should be changed so that Hesperado can come back or that a special exception to the rule should be made so that Hesperado can continue to post and continue to promote that particular view. In other words, you are asking for some kind of special favour, that rules be bent and so on, so that your "friend" can continue to post. Note that Hesperado in other contexts has decried instances of what he perceives as others getting special favours at Jihadwatch. Apparently he has no qualms advocating that special favours and exceptions be made in his case, or that the rules don't apply to him.

And as for his "funny" post, e.g., portraying me as asking "Will Robert come save me..." etc., you should know that he had to imagine that, because I never asked Robert to help me.

The funny part is that it in reality it is Hesperado who is running around demanding that others jump in to defend him and to plead to bring him back.

He apparently can't accept personal responsibility for knowingly violating the site's rules in a way that would get him banned.

typo: "ascerbic" should be acerbic.

I thought you were leaving, to do "something productive" (which I wish you success with, genuinely).

Again, it's a shame it's gotten so bitter.

You seem to be cherry picking a statement - out of hundreds - that exceeded a line. In most venues, that warrants a censoring of the said comment, perhaps with a decorum rules reminder. Not altogether silencing a participant who participates in good faith for good reason. I've criticized Hesperado myself at some point for being too hard on Robert about the boundaries of his jihad criticism. But I recognize that LL's insight is still worthwhile, and it's a discussion that "jihadwatching" naturally leads to whenever tolerant people are confronted by jihad, especially stealth jihad. It therefore has a place here. Kindly don't silence that discussion either here or within your own inner dialogue. Hard examination is warranted (and inevitable).

WestwardHo,

"You seem to be cherry picking a statement - out of hundreds - that exceeded a line. In most venues, that warrants a censoring of the said comment, perhaps with a decorum rules reminder. Not altogether silencing a participant who participates in good faith for good reason."

It's not just one statement. As I touched on above in previous posts which merely cite some aspects of the tip of the iceberg, he is engaging in a long-term pattern of hostility against the site. There are many more examples that could be cited. We are talking about a guy who's been banned numerous times over the years.

His all-Muslims-are-not human claim is crucial in this case. That's partly what got him banned in 2010. It is a valid representation of his views as expressed on and off the site since at least 2008. (In another case on JW he defended another commenter's claim that Muslims were subhuman, though did not come out and assert it himself, and was not banned in that instance). I focussed on the claim in question because it's a clear-cut case where he (as Hesperado) knowingly and intentionally violated the site rules.

If he is sincere, his only logical defense in regards to the banning is to argue that Jihadwatch's policy is incorrect and that it should be changed to allow apparent counterjihad commenters to state that Muslims are not human.

Champ made a misleading allegation that I feel I should address, before I wrap things up here. Hopefully, if there are no more contentious claims by Hesperado and his defenders on the site, I can complete my final post here.

I frankly don't think many people will see this or be interested in it, but I wanted to set the record straight as I see it and provide the links to the threads having what I believe to be the only instances relevant to what Champ is alleging about me being supposedly a major pest to her.

Champ wrote:
"Robert and LemonLime have had their own problems, but that is between them, not me. This is simple to understand, but perhaps very hard for YOU to understand."

In fact, in these quarrels between Robert and Hesperado, in recent years Champ as a partisan third party has jumped into these disputes and defended Hesperado in making allegations against the site and Robert. In addition, in the last year-and-a-half or so Champ, again as a partisan third party, has jumped into two disputes between Hesperado and me, again defending Hesperado and attacking me. (I will cite evidence for my claims below)

Champ wrote:
"Hey and speaking of ironies, I find it very ironic that you consider LemonLime to be a pest when YOU are a pest to me, and you have been for years."

As far as I can recall, I've only been involved in two disputes involving Champ. In both cases, Champ initiated a discussion with me by inserting herself into a dispute on behalf of Hesperado. I will provide the links for the disputes.

First dispute: Champ jumps in to defend Hesperado.

Early in the New Year, 2011. A thread (started in late 2010) is derailed off-topic because a long-time commenter Cornelius introduced the subject of one of Hesperado's bizarre allegations against the JW site, where Hesp accused Spencer of going through comments and cutting out the name Andrew Bostom wherever people mention it. Champ comes in to defend Hesperado. I make some comment on the absurdity of Hesperado's allegation (but not addressing Champ). Champ and I are apparently on good terms at that time, and we politely wish each other a happy new year. (I can't recall having any significant exchanges with Champ before this). However, Champ, advocating on Hesperado's behalf, initiates an argument with me about Hesperado, and eventually suggests that Marisol and/or Robert allowed a commenter (awake) to make a threat against Hesperado. Champ insists that I look into this issue, as if somehow it matters what I think of it. I indicate that I don't wish to pursue this. Champ repeatedly insists that I look into these allegations of a threat, which she then characterizes as a death threat (or two death threats). When I find the relevant quote that Hesperado is calling a death threat, it appears to be little more than angry bluster where awake is saying he might like to look Hesperado up and "teach [him] some manners". That's not at all surprising because Hesperado and awake have a long history of hostile banter back and forth. The thread goes on, with me probably wasting far more time than I should have looking into this issue of the so-called death threat. I perhaps spent that much time due to the seriousness of the charges Champ and Hesp were making against the site and the commenter. Another commenter comes in to defend the claim that awake made threatening comments (but not specifically a death threat), but again, to me, the comment he cites and the "manners" comment don't indicate a serious threat. Eventually Champ and Hesp seem to back off on the death threat claim, though by then Champ is furious with me for not agreeing with her and for finding problems in her's and Hesperado's accounts. Meanwhile during the whole process Hesperado makes insulting and hostile remarks against me in multiple comments and posts at his blog.

In summary, Champ and I start out on good terms in the thread. She then insists that I look into this threat allegation. I find I disagree with her interpretation and that there are problems with her presentations. By the end of the thread, Champ is furious with me and makes numerous statements thoroughly demonizing me.

Here's the thread. Be forewarned it is very lengthy.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/12/robert-spencer-at-voice-of-the-copts-international-human-rights-day-conference-december-16.html#comment-743688

Second dispute: Champ jumps in to defend Hesperado.

I'm having a dispute with Hesperado (LemonLime) over his suggestion or implication that the counterjihadists and their rhetoric are somehow responsible for Brievik--a suggestion he apparently denies when I confront him on it. (This was after he initiated the dispute by disagreeing with my comment wherein I argued that the counterjihadists such as Robert Spencer and Fjordman, et al., have an ideology that is different from that of Breivik). Among other things, I note ironically that Hesperado himself has engaged in far more extreme rhetoric than the people he's accused and who he's said must dial down the rhetoric. I cited an example of his extreme rhetoric from the JW archives, involving a controversial and (so I thought) memorable incident where Hesperado endorsed an outlandish comment by a poster named Spirit Wolf. Hesperado claims to have no idea what I'm talking about and apparently doesn't even lift a finger to make the quick and easy google search. Then Champ jumps in and tries to defend Hesperado, by citing a quote of Hesperado's stated denial of having endorsed Spirit Wolf's comment (or claiming he thought Spirit Wolf's comment had said something other than what it did say). I then cited evidence of the comment itself, Hesp's endorsement, and that Hesperado clearly knew he was endorsing a comment that was in clear violation of the site's rules, and that Champ herself commented at the time referring to genocidal comments. Further on the extreme rhetoric point, I also cited the example of Hesperado getting banned from JW for claiming that all Muslims are not human. (Champ wouldn't answer me as to whether she agreed with that statement or not).
Here's the thread, where Champ jumps in to attack me and defend Hesperado:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/norway-mass-murderer-breivik-reveals-his-true-inspiration-we-have-drawn-from-al-qaida-and-militant-i.html#comment-873903

Here's one of my responses:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/norway-mass-murderer-breivik-reveals-his-true-inspiration-we-have-drawn-from-al-qaida-and-militant-i.html#comment-873948

The dispute was later carried over to another thread, when awake and I addressed a hostile comment by Hesperado (LemonLime) directed at Robert. The dispute carried on, and then Champ jumped in to defend Hesperado and attack me.
Here's the thread where Champ jumps in:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/robert-spencer-time-to-stop-treating-muslims-like-children.html#comment-875103

If you follow the thread down, you'll see my response to Champ and another of my responses to another commenter regarding Champ's behavior.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/robert-spencer-time-to-stop-treating-muslims-like-children.html#comment-875111
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/robert-spencer-time-to-stop-treating-muslims-like-children.html#comment-875276

You will also eventually find a comment by Robert about LemonLime/Hesperado:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/04/robert-spencer-time-to-stop-treating-muslims-like-children.html#comment-875653

Let's now return to Champ's allegation above:
"Hey and speaking of ironies, I find it very ironic that you consider LemonLime to be a pest when YOU are a pest to me, and you have been for years."

To recap, Champ and I were apparently on good terms and I really don't recall much about her until the dispute, regarding Hesperado's allegations, in early 2011. That was about a year and a half ago. The second dispute (extending over two threads) occured earlier this year. In both cases, Champ initiated by jumping in to defend Hesperado and attacking me. On the basis of this, Champ claims I've been a "pest" to her "for years."

Champ says: "And YOU are primarily why I left Jihad Watch altogether."

I don't find this claim to be credible. In the context of the rest of her comment, above, I'd have to say it can be chalked up to her extreme anger clouding her judgement. Anyways, if it's truly what she thinks, it certainly doesn't seem to be justified based on what I've shown here.

Even in the case of my own fed-upedness with Hesperado/LemonLime over a period of several years, as I noted, it is not at all the primary or decisive factor in my leaving.