AFDI/SIOA Islamorealism ads up in New York!

The West needs to recognize and deal with Islamoreality before it becomes bits of Islamorealty ruled by Islamoroyalty.

hi wellington. I am having a hard time reading what ot says under the number in white. can you or someone here help. sorry my eyes are shot.
M

Miriam, the sign says

*19,250
DEADLY ISLAMIC ATTACKS SINCE 9/11/01
*AND COUNTING
IT'S NOT ISLAMOPHOBIA
IT'S ISLAMOREALISM

I'm not sure where the count came from: it is significantly higher now. But keeping it up-to-date would be like painting the Forth Bridge, a job which is never complete.

*19,250

Deadly Islamic attacks since 9/11/01

*140 countries.

It's not Islamophobia

It's Islamorealism.

I don't think anyone can read the final line in red.

thank you
m

Final two lines of small type read:

PAID FOR BY THE AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE INITIATIVE
ATLASSHRUGS.COM SIOA.US JIHADWATCH.ORG

An easy-to-read jpeg of the ad at Pamela's:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2012/07/we-must-run-these-pro-israel-ads-.html

I am now going to the N/R/Q station on 49th and 7th to see for myself. if it not there i am walking to 42nd street station. stand by!!!!!! woo hoo!!!
M

sorry. it is raining like a mother now here in the city. I will go as soon as it stops raining.
M

Saleem-

Always good to hear from those who left the Religion of Peace. I am curious what distinguishes those who develop the independence of mind to see through the propaganda they are fed their entire lives, and those who majority who accept what they are told. I think it takes considerable independence of mind and spirit to realize that everything you are told is part of a Big Lie.

Nonie Darwish addresses this issue in passing in her book, "Now They Call Me Infidel". She found, growing up, that she just didn't feel right about some of the lessons she was supposed to internalize. As such, she was impressed, attending a school run by Catholic nuns, that the nuns never expressed hatred for anyone (Nasser corrected that oversight by nationalizing her school after she graduated). When she came to the USA, she met Jews, and realized what she had been told about them in Egypt was a big lie. Nonie, of course, is one of the best know Muslim apostates today.

Victor Bilenko, who piloted a MIG fighter jet out of the Soviet Union en route to defecting to the West, made the following observation. He was taught that, among America's other sins, members of the Communist Party USA faced discrimination in employment (for example, they couldn't teach in public schools in some states). But that got him thinking- they even have a CP-USA? That would be like having a Capitalist Party in the USSR. Dangerous thoughts indeed!

You probably have more insight into what distinguished those who find a way to think for themselves as opposed to the majority who either accept what they are told or just learn to go along to get along. I'd be interested in what you think on the subject.

I can't speak for Sallem, Larry, however I do know, even from bitter personal experience, that when a grain of truth finds a corner, a foothold of fertile soil in the mind, there is no looking back, come what may.

My daughter's riding instructor's husband, the day before 9/11, in suburban Twin Cities, MN, filled up his car with gas and was paying at the register inside. A man of Middle Eastern appearance was behind him in line. The clerk made chit-chat about what kind of day the man was having:

"How's your day going so far?"

The guy behind in line piped up:

"I hear it's going to be REALLY HOT in New York tomorrow."

The Minnesotan and the clerk looked at each other, thinking that it was an extremely odd and off-topic remark to make, but just shrugged it off and went on with the transaction.

9/11 happened the following day.

Police were called and they investigated. Results are unknown.

Remember, Zacarias Moussaoui, the failed "20th hijacker" because he was in jail, was caught in MN.

LemonLime, I commiserate with you, if it's any salve for you.

Hey, LL

Hmmmmm, I read the back and forth between you and K of K, as well as Robert's comment, and I must say I am very surprised. Robert is without fail, IMO, completely supportive of freedom of speech, in all its forms, so him banning you seems out of character. And there were some things that K of K said that smacked of censorship. More or less, "you can say that, BUT there's a point you can't cross......" and it's the BUT that bothers me (though I don't agree with ad hominem attacks). I actually enjoy the bluntness and alacrity of your posts, much the same as ala sux and buraq, and look forward to your no-nonsense take on the topic of the day. I haven't scoured the archives for your previous posts, but why bother? To tell you to "tone them down?" From what I have read so far, you are an ardent anti-jihadist, and that's good enough for me. I look forward to your input in the future. Cheers.

Ima

LL, you know I love ya, buddy.

If I had any real pull with Robert, I'd use it now, believe me.

If it's any consolation at all, I admire your stance and posts and don't think you should be banned. I don't want to speak for other JWers, but I'll wager that many of them feel the same.

CGW, .... wow!

That is ... totally believable, and frightening.

I have a pretty good memory, and on 911, I remember LOTS of stories about London muslims jumping out of their sidewalk cafe chairs and CHEERING when 911 was announced on the news.

Waklngwest

you wrote - " we must all do what we can to freely inform the public. Using banners, signs, symbols let's all let the world know about jihads murder count."

You forgot bumper stickers.

"I haven't scoured the archives for your previous posts, but why bother? To tell you to "tone them down?" From what I have read so far, you are an ardent anti-jihadist, and that's good enough for me."

I appreciate that. But it's not as difficult as you think. Just do an advanced Google search for my name specifying the Jihad Watch site.

Or, I spared you the trouble. Here's the Google results, several pages worth (at least 10 pages if not many more).

I dare anyone to comb through and be able to substantiate Kinana's claim that even 50% (let alone even 10%) of my comments are not even mildly interesting and useful (if not neutrally benign) nor that, at the very least, they are as he claims in his plaintive near-tears complaint "anarchic" or bad for JW in any way:

http://www.google.ca/search?as_q=lemonlime&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jihadwatch.org%2F&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=

But who needs actual evidence and arguments based upon evidence, when they can just rely upon claims in their absence?

If it counts for anything, LL, I've no gripe with you either. Your posts are normally packed with good and interesting research and talking points.
Sure, you can be annoying, same as us all, at times, and you have ruined my happy memories of National Geographic magazine. Guess I can forgive you for that. .it's a wild world, and I know you'd stand my corner when the s**t hits the fan.

DO YOU WANT TO HELP DESIGN AND DISPLAY A SIMILAR AD IN THE AREA WHERE YOU LIVE?

jackarandarainbow@btinternet.com

NEITHER WILL ALL THOSE WHO POST HERE. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE YOURSELF AS A FREEDOM FIGHTER? WAIT, DON'T TELL ME, I CAN FIGURE THE ANSWER MYSELF - YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING, RIGHT? A BIG FAT ZERO - ALL TALK AND NO DOING.

DO YOU WANT TO HELP DESIGN AND DISPLAY A SIMILAR AD IN THE AREA WHERE YOU LIVE?

jackarandarainbow@btinternet.com

LG, a timely, pertinent and superb reference you supplied there. Thanks, I had missed it....

Given the regime of lies, felons, cocaine, deceit, incompetence, self serving lack of integrity and ethics, and corruption, America, with Ryan joined in the fray, now has a relevant valid alternative, to choose from that will hold high, America's brilliant Founder's heritage, with virtue.

Sure, Jack Rainbow. It's been on my mind a long while too, and I've got some ideas up my sleeve. I'll email you to arrange a meet, if you're in the London area.

If you want to bother LL, look at K o K's swan song (K o K, Aug 5th 5:57am) and my subsequent entry (NO4u, Aug 5th 8am) demonstrating her absurd, self-contradictory accusations levied against you.

K o K’s support for JW was predicated on the condition of our acceptance of her often agenda driven, Christian=Islam equivalency supportive arguments. K o K is unable to stay with the cause and fight shoulder to shoulder with those of us who despite our disagreements and arguments, are still able to appreciate everybody elses contributions.

LL may be sometimes stubborn, may occasionaly foul, will annoy somene, but often times he is the only commentator who unabashedly cuts through the thick PC paradigm with his incisive perspective which few of us can do as well.

My support, admiration and gratitude towards Robert Spencer is absolute, I hope that my minor dissent does not detract from this fact.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/08/bahais-arrested-in-iran----for-being-bahais.html

"AND notification to some muslim children in New York NOT TO GO INTO NYC SCHOOLS THAT DAY." And the same people spread the false rumour that the Jews not showing up at work to WTC on that day.

I would tend to go along with that, LJ, but Robert is the boss here, and a worthy one at that, who knows what degree of 'professional quality and conduct' tone is desired. In my estimation, Robert is foremost a Professional at this most important work.

I don't care for general use of blatant baser references, however, as it tends to bring down the bar of general higher level discourse and purpose, as is exemplified by hussein and his accomplices, among the basest of all.

Following for illumination, I've included a recent excerpted survey results on cursing at work, like 4 letter words, etc.:

...'According to a recent survey from CareerBuilder. They do this (cursing) even though most bosses say such behavior, ahem, "speaks" badly and could lead to a missed opportunity to advance within the company....despite the fact that many of those same bosses admit to letting loose with profanities on the job. In addition to calling such behavior professionally inappropriate, many employers say they associate cursing with a lack of control and even a lack of intelligence. So the best rule of thumb remains: When in doubt, find a kinder, gentler way to express yourself. Nearly 2,300 U.S. hiring managers and human resources professionals and 3,900 U.S. workers took part in this research.

Cursed Assessment
64% of employers say they'd think less of an employee who repeatedly uses profanity.

Stuck in Place
57% of bosses say they're less likely to promote someone who swears in the office.

What Swearing Says About You
• Questionable professionalism: 81% of employers
• Lack of control: 71%
• Lack of maturity: 68%
• Diminished intelligence: 54%

Do as I Say ...
25% of bosses admit they have cursed at their employees.

Not Just a Guy Thing
54% of men say they curse at work, compared with 47% of women.

Youthful Restraint
58% of employees aged 35 to 44 curse at work, compared with 42% of workers aged 18 to 24

Cursing Capital
Washington, D.C., is the top market for in-office profanity, with 62% of workers there saying they swear at work.'

End of survey, excerpted

And please note the last result above, of the Cursing Capital, which is DCA!

I tend to wince on some of my own harsher commentary, myself, and question my own use of an occasional asterisked remark, on infrequent occasion. I tend to be passionate, on certain principles, but try to contribute, in my ways on a higher literary plain, when able.

In this day, when even Fox News announcers occasionally don't know basic facts and definitions, or grammatical literary structure, let alone most other so called journalists, I know and see there has been a massive failure of our educational system, in America.

I've appreciated remarks and contributions served well here, from many diverse sources, and contextualize each contributor, including LL and KofK. I particularly enjoy remarks from some literary and scholarly classics. Mostly, I don't enjoy remarks that refer to base words and acts, personally.

On topic, I consider the term "Islamorealizm" to be worthy and excellent, and seems like a valuable meme, in these modern times!

Forgot to ad, regarding the advertisement, I thoroughly share in the thoughts of the first few commentators here, 'OUTSTANDING', sums it up....

And I do like the TV production concept, also, mentioned later in thread....although I wonder how to make it draw and appeal, while educating. Security could be enhanced though use of skype style hookups, of a disseminated nature. And possibly using the Beck model, or modified, might be an approach.....Free access, would be essential, however.

And in conclusion, I have appreciated the bulk of Lemon Lime's commentary.

No4U,

Still continuing with the baseless and hostile allegations I see, huh? Interesting that you have taken such an interest in my departure.

"If you want to bother LL, look at K o K's swan song (K o K, Aug 5th 5:57am) and my subsequent entry (NO4u, Aug 5th 8am) demonstrating her absurd, self-contradictory accusations levied against you."

First of all, for your education, the "Kinana" in question refers to a male. Your erroneous assumption tells me that you need to learn more of the Hadith and Sira.

Second of all, what you "demonstrated" in your comment is that you are quite comfortable hurling unsubstantiated allegations. You haven't demonstrated that any of your allegations there or here are correct. You're just making stuff up.

"K o K’s support for JW was predicated on the condition of our acceptance of her often agenda driven, Christian=Islam equivalency supportive arguments."

That's a complete fabrication. I don't assume Islam and Christianity are equivalent. Nor do I have any such requirement that people adopt my view of religions. I wouldn't have hung out at Jihadwatch for seven years, or read and recommended Robert's works, or indicated that I would continue to recommend Robert's work and site, if what you are claiming is true.

"K o K is unable to stay with the cause and fight shoulder to shoulder with those of us who despite our disagreements and arguments, are still able to appreciate everybody elses contributions."

This again is clearly contradicted by what I actually wrote, which is that I will be devoting time to projects focussing on educating the public about Islam. I'll work with any reasonable, knowledgeable, trustworthy, conscientious individuals who are interested in working with me. In fact, I have already done so on at least one project involving three others at Jihadwatch; only Hesperado refused to work with us and complained about the project the whole time instead of doing anything productive.

This has nothing to do with disagreement. The issue with Hesperado that I mentioned has to do with his persistent misrepresentation of my comments over a period of years. That's an issue of basic communication and understanding. These are prerequisites for any argument or debate that follows. And that's not even the reason I'm leaving, which has to do with where and on what I spend my time. Hesp's conduct just edged me to leave sooner than I would have otherwise.

"LL may be sometimes stubborn, may occasionaly foul, will annoy somene, but often times he is the only commentator who unabashedly cuts through the thick PC paradigm with his incisive perspective which few of us can do as well."

I disagree. He hasn't ever said anything significant and valid about PC in regards to Islam that someone else hasn't said.

"My support, admiration and gratitude towards Robert Spencer is absolute, I hope that my minor dissent does not detract from this fact."

Then why are you defending the person who harassed him and made bogus allegations against him and misrepresented his views for over seven years, and who devoted much of two blogs to those negative endeavors? If you want to do something to show your appreciation for Robert, why don't you pry your friend Hesperado off of his back? That's what I (and a couple of other commenters) tried to do, years ago. It didn't work, at least, it didn't work for long. He was back to his negative obsession with Robert in short order. Maybe you and some of the others might have better luck with him.

Kinana responds to "No4U" by saying:

"You're just making stuff up."

-- in addition to asking "No4U" to back up his or her claims.

Then Kinana turns around and does exactly what he accuses of:

"In fact, I have already done so [worked on a project educating about Islam] on at least one project involving three others at Jihadwatch; only Hesperado refused to work with us and complained about the project the whole time instead of doing anything productive."

Kinana provides no evidence of this outrageous claim about me. He's just making stuff up. I didn't "refuse" to work on the project. All along the way I expressed my difficulty with time constraints, as well as my difficulty with finding what I felt had to be suitable data to substantiate the particular sub-topic I had chosen to work with. I finally had to abandon my participation for those reasons, which I made clear throughout in communications with the others in the project. In Kinana's strangely distorted memory, I'm "refusing" to work with him and the others and I'm "complaining the whole time" about the project. I did have reservations about the project's viability, given the difficulty in pinning down what I felt was suitable data to make our case in various ways, but in Kinana's mind, a participant in a project has no right to voice misgivings, and if it's LemonLime, it must all be destructive criticism, not constructive.

Also, in the other thread which "No4U" links to above, "No4U" criticizes Kinana --

"An unfortunate aggravating factor that has edged me to leave a bit sooner than I might have, otherwise, has been commentators such as k of k who force me to contest a seemingly endless series of incorrect contestable points which almost always arise from a tendency to attempt to steerJW's central mission by way of his/hers personal agendas."

Kinana quotes this, then writes:

"Examples, evidence please."

But if the reader scrolls down a ways, he sees Kinana write:

"One of the main problems with Hesperado/LL concerns misrepresentation. Don't just take my word for it; he's been doing that to Robert for years as well--even more so to Robert than to me."

Again, Kinana is doing exactly what he accuses "No4U" of doing -- making charges but not providing evidence for them. And he does this rather often, at least when he's dealing with me. He has some strange bug up his ass about me. And he accuses me of being obsessed about him! More projection. Very strange. I could speculate about his psychology, and conjecture that the interior pressure in his mind of coming more and more to the conclusion that Muslims really are as dangerous as I've been insisting all along, but recoiling from what he thinks this has to mean in terms of responding to that problem (because, perhaps, of a needless paradox he indulges between his ethics and the magnitude of the problem of Muslims) is causing him so much psychological discomfort he tries to exteriorize it and takes it out on me; but I think I'll refrain from such speculation for now.

LL,

The difference there is that No4U is making an accusation about my comments as Kinana of Khaybar. If what No4U is claiming is correct, he can easily obtain examples to support his allegations from the JW archives. (Somehow I doubt that "No4U" is the sort that will bother).

Anyways, in contrast, the evidence for my brief summary claim (i.e., that you refused to work with us and complained about the project the whole time) was in the comment threads that Islam-Watch deleted a long time ago, as you well know. Unless someone's kept copies of those threads, we won't have evidence of what you said there, besides what people recall. I have however kept copies of my draft rebuttals and other resources which I produced, as well as copies of draft rebuttals produced by the other two. You did not produce a draft rebuttal.

"but in Kinana's mind, a participant in a project has no right to voice misgivings"

Not true. We went in as I understood as four equals working on the project, and you left the project early on. "Voicing your misgivings" as I recall constituted most of what you did. I will acknowledge however that you participated in the initial start-up phase, and though you chose not work on that Handbook project, at least you also later championed the idea of such a Handbook or one like it.

If you want to continue this pointless discussion, I suggest you do it on your blog. I'm not interested, and Jihadwatch doesn't need this.

Tom

you wrote - "I'd be tempted to stencil "Korans" under the "Trash" slot."

I wonder whether someone enterprising *will* do just that?

I wrote, in replying to No4U's allegation,

"In fact, I have already done so [worked with others on a project regarding Islam] on at least one project involving three others at Jihadwatch; only Hesperado refused to work with us and complained about the project the whole time instead of doing anything productive."

That was my response to No4U's charge that I was not able to work with others, whereas, he claimed, Hesperado was able to work with others. I cited an example that directly addressed this charge, citing a project where I worked with others with whom I disagreed on some things, whereas Hesperado left that same project involving those with whom he disagreed.

LemonLime/Hesperado claims I'm making stuff up when I say he "refused" to work with us on our Handbook project:

"Kinana provides no evidence of this outrageous claim about me. He's just making stuff up. I didn't "refuse" to work on the project. All along the way I expressed my difficulty with time constraints,"

Well, on second thought, after reading that, I recall that there is some indirect evidence at least (see below*), but let me first give a general summary of what I recall about Hesperado's refusal/ declining to work with us.

I don't recall Hesperado expressing, to us, any particular overriding problem with time constraints at the time that would stop him from being able to work on the project. Perhaps he did, but as I recall that certainly wasn't a major factor in why he decided not to work on the project. All of us had time constraints, but we continued to work on the project. I personally made major sacrifices in time for the project. The main point of contention for Hesperado is that he didn't agree with the way we were going about the project. That's fair enough in theory. I have no problem with someone leaving a particular project with which they have some substantive disagreement.

But in this case, the four of us had agreed to some basic elements of the project. Each of us, including Hesperado, agreed we would each do a rough draft rebuttal of at least one or more PC Islam apologetic lines. The topic (i.e., the Islam apologetic myth) Hesperado chose to rebut was "Jihad is primarily an inner struggle." After some time, he reported to us that he had run into some difficulties with this project. I can recall we discussed, with him, his difficulties at length. It came to the point where we were neglecting our own work on our drafts to basically try to coax and persuade him, and encourage him to try to start his first draft. The draft (being a draft) did not have to be perfect or final or complete; the point of producing this kind of rough draft at that stage was to get some hands-on experience and knowledge in producing a rebuttal, and to show one's model or vision of what a rebuttal ought to look like, and to receive constructive critical feedback from others in the group. This would pave the way for more and better rebuttals. This was Hesperado's chance to show us, with a real example, how he thought a rebuttal should be done. Anyways, I know I spent several hours of my time, just in one occasion out of several discussions with Hesperado, attempting to help him get started on his chosen topic, actually doing research on his topic, including the usages of the word jihad in the Quran, and including studying multiple online tafsirs for numerous instances of the word jihad. That attempt and other attempts, discussion, etc., didn't work in helping to get started. In being apparently stuck or stumped on this topic, Hesperado could have chosen any of numerous other topics, as we had compiled dozens of popular and important topics at that time. We suggested that he try another topic if he was having too much difficulty with the "inner struggle" topic. He did not do so. The bottom line is that despite our attempts to help him produce something, and our lengthy discussions with him, he chose not to work with us on our project. Fair enough. And fair enough to describe that as a "refusal" to work on our project. (If Hesperado would prefer some other phrasing to avoid the word refused, that's fine with me, as long as it accurately captures the fact that he didn't want to work on our project, despite our help and despite our attempts to persuade him and offers to help him to continue. He could have chosen a sufficiently easy rebuttal to draft in his own way, but he did not do so).

As it turned out, it was not such a bad thing that Hesperado left. I was able to get more work done without having to spend time dealing with Hesperado. I produced draft rebuttals of several major Islam apologetic lines. I have these to build upon. I do remember being a bit annoyed that, of the time he did spend on the project, he didn't actually get his feet wet or his hands dirty producing a rebuttal. All he seemed to want to do was argue and criticize. At one point, we did even propose that he continue on as a critic, but even then he still did not continue on the project. We did not exclude him from the project; he could have returned at any time. He chose not to return to work with us.

*Anyways, Hesperado (LemonLime) now suggests that he told us he didn't have time to work on the project and implies that that was the major factor in his discontinuing his participation. However, the evidence of Hesperado's own posting history indicates that that claim is dubious. We (myself and two others) worked on the project between late August 2006 and approximately June 2007. During this time period, Hesperado did have time to continue writing on his blog regularly (producing at least 50 blog posts at his blog as well as responding to commenters) and continuing as a regular and prolific commenter (under various monikers at least including remote control and Television). Why then, could he not cut down a bit on blogging and commenting and work on the project? The obvious answer is that, whatever he may argue, the evidence shows that he chose instead to spend his time on these other time-consuming activities, blogging and commenting. Again, that's no crime at all. But it does make clear that his claim of not having enough time to work on the project with us isn't credible.

(And as I noted previously, Hesperado does get some credit for at least promoting the idea of a Handbook-type project, which he did in a few posts. However, almost all of his comments and posts during the 2006-2007 period in question--and since then--didn't deal with the Handbook project).

"...as well as my difficulty with finding what I felt had to be suitable data to substantiate the particular sub-topic I had chosen to work with."

Let's recall that his chosen topic was to refute the claim that Jihad is primarily an inner struggle. Also note, again, that the draft did not have to be complete in every respect. A rough draft rebuttal, or even the detailed outlines of one and what it should contain, could have easily been useful as an object of discussion for presentation to the other group members. And again, if he couldn't do it for that topic, he had the option to flexibly move on to another of the many other topics available.

"...I finally had to abandon my participation for those reasons, which I made clear throughout in communications with the others in the project. In Kinana's strangely distorted memory, I'm "refusing" to work with him and the others"

He had many options within the project, but he opted out of the project. We invested time and effort initially in trying to get him to continue on the project, and when he left, we left the door open for him to come back, even as a critic. He declined/ chose not to continue. I.e., he refused. Again, that's not a description of a crime. It is simply a reasonable and justified description of what happened.

"...and I'm "complaining the whole time" about the project. I did have reservations about the project's viability, given the difficulty in pinning down what I felt was suitable data to make our case in various ways,"

Again, part of the process of doing a rebuttal was to get one's hands dirty and get some experience and knowledge, including of the limitations. Hesperado quit early on, before really getting much of a direct sense of what's involved in producing such a Handbook.

"...but in Kinana's mind, a participant in a project has no right to voice misgivings, and if it's LemonLime, it must all be destructive criticism, not constructive."

That's false. As Hesperado knows, there were major lengthy discussion threads about the project in which he expressed his criticisms and objections with us. We tried to help him on his topic. When he had trouble, we suggested the option of trying another topic. When he left the project, we even kept the door open for him to contribute as a critic if he didn't want to produce a rebuttal. He declined, did not accept, refused these offers.

p.s., from Hesperado's blog, he explains why he left the project:
http://hesperado.blogspot.ca/2006/10/infidels-enchiridion-proposal.html

Hesperado writes:
“I was a part of their team at the beginning of their project; however, I found their methodology to be far too florid for my taste. Although they have developed a structure in some respects similar to the one I propose above, their exuberant styles, in my provisional estimation, sufficiently outweigh and overpower the benefits of such a structure.
Their handbook, in my estimation—given what I have seen of it thus far and given their repeated defenses of their methodology—will end up being virtually indistinguishable from the mountain of literature that already exists out there in the form of thousands of hardcopy books and website articles, and will not be an enchiridion in the truest sense:
A handy arsenal with ready-made, compact, streamlined ammunition to be fit into the guns of our ordinary interactions with the plethora of sugarcoaters and whitewashers of Islam we jihadwatchers encounter on a near daily basis in one form or another."

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

1. I think it's fair to say that the above constitutes a refusal or rejection. Again, nothing wrong with refusing or rejecting; the point is LL/Hesperado has accused me of misrepresenting his departure by calling it a refusal.

2. In this explanation, he mentions nothing about time limits being a deciding factor. That doesn't mean time wasn't a factor; it was a factor for all of us. But there in 2006 in noting the deciding factor for leaving he suggests that he doesn't like what he perceives to be our approach.

The problem with his (2006) stated reason for leaving the project, though, is that he didn't have to write out long essay-type rebuttals like those of two of the other participants did for their initial drafts. (Moreover, one of the other participants, whom I'll call C, had done considerable research, and could have modified her rebuttals to get rid of excess prose and highlight the evidence. The rebuttals at that point were by no means set in stone; rather, the intention was that they'd be changed and improved). Indeed, the rebuttals weren't supposed to be long essay-type articles, but that is what two of the participants produced on their initial attempts.

As we kept telling Hesperado, he could have produced a rebuttal just the way he wanted. In fact, his proposal (in the above-linked blog article) for the format or template of Handbook rebuttals is pretty much the same as the prescribed template we'd already made. I found his criticisms to be vague, unrealistic, and off the mark, at least in regards to my own rebuttals, because my own rebuttals weren't the "florid" essay type. Most of my rebuttals consisted of presentation of the relevant data, e.g., with short comments where appropriate explaining why a particular quote was relevant and how this addressed the apologetic claims. No doubt there was plenty of room for improvement. However, the point is, Hesperado had the chance to demonstrate exactly the sort of rebuttal he wanted. He could have chosen a suitably easy topic for that. He tried only one topic, and barely even got started before chosing not to continue within our project. He has never gone through the process of researching and producing even a draft rebuttal himself. I suspect he wanted to play the role of editor-in-chief (just like he tries to be editor-in-chief of Jihadwatch), but this wasn't possible in a group of four equals. Even so, as I mentioned in the previous post, we left open the option for him to play a role as critic within the project, but he did not continue.

Anyways, I don't have a problem with Hesperado leaving the project. I do have a problem with his inaccurate, misleading, and unfair criticism of the project. And I do have a problem with the inaccurate and misleading way he characterized his departure from the project.

typo: "reaonable" should be reasonable.

And as for my claim that Hesperado has been attaching himself to my posts for years even though I've essentially told him to get lost, here's one example in 2009:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/09/feminist-leader-naomi-wolf-howls-as-her-justifications-of-islamic-misogyny-are-exposed.html#comment-599260

I wrote: "Hesp,
I think you protest, and presume, way too much. The last thing I want to do when I come into the comments section here is get tangled up with you over some nit-picking complaints, unsubstantiated assertions, etc. I have neither the time, nor the patience, nor the interest, to engage in the sorts of discussions you seek."

Here's another examples, which also notes yet another one of Hesperado's misrepresentations (two for the price of one):

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/03/us-military-struggles-to-teach.html#comment-864231

I wrote:

LemonLime,

You are beyond stupid. I didn't claim or assume that Afghans want American laws. I don't assume the majority of Muslims, in Afghanistan or elsewhere, want "what's best for them" according my criteria. It's your imagined, projected premise, not mine. My comment addressed the apparent moral relativism of Fayzal, whose comment was apparently removed.

Also, if I refrained from addressing anyone who might in their reply twist my words or gist I wouldn't be commenting at all, and I certainly wouldn't be commenting to you, given that you are one of the worst offenders in that respect that I have ever encountered in any venue (and that includes Muslim interlocutors).

Lastly, Hesperado, you were banned several times, as you rightly should have been, particularly in the last case. You claimed that Muslims were not human. You should be banned for coming back once again. Get lost, you pest.