Jihad Watch: Jihad Watch: Left or Right?

November 28, 2005

Jihad Watch: Left or Right?

I haven't wanted to do this, but I have been requested now to do so, as there is an ongoing partisan rumble in the comments field that detracts from what we are trying to do here as much as do the intemperate comments CAIR tried to hang me with (although I didn't write them) and the jihad apologists who also drop in from time to time.

The present conflict revolves around the assumption that because Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald's positions are not recognizably or currently of the "Right," they must be of the "Left." Or that if someone, anyone, is not part of the One, he must be part of the Other.

Beyond the question of Hugh's sense of direction, some are -- and have been for months -- continuing to try to make this site a forum for partisan wrangling, despite bans, threats to ban, mild entreaties, etc. This is as if I had set up a tent in which I could speak my mind, and others set themselves up at its entrance, pushing their own agendas. This is not a matter of free speech -- it is all happening on my nickel only.

In any case, please try to read without prejudice. Both Hugh and I -- Hugh much more eloquently and persistently than I -- have argued that the jihad threat demands a breaking and reconstruction of paradigms. The threat does not come from the "Left" or the "Right," and those hoary old methods of distinguishing the Good Guys from the Bad are now causing more confusion than illumination, more harm than good, more heat than light. They are not helpful. They are getting in the way.

Kerry was clueless. He wanted to give nuclear fuel to Iran. In saying that I must be a Republican, right? Bush is clueless. He continues to allow us to be dependent on the Saudis without making any move to free us from them. In saying that I must be a Democrat, right?

In March 2003, just before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, I wrote an article criticizing as unrealistic the President's plan to bring democracy to the Middle East. I have linked to it here many times. Alas, it seems to have been taken down, but here is a cached link.

I based my argument on the nature of Islam and the Sharia, saying that it was unlikely that Muslims in large numbers were going to forsake what they saw as the law of God for law based on human consensus.

Hugh has expanded on this point in many, many columns. Some have asked if I agree with them. I find the question astounding (which is why I have so far not answered it), since I gave him his position on the Board of this organization of which I am the founder, and I edit and post his columns myself. But from what I have seen, Hugh's position has been persistently misunderstood and misrepresented by those who cannot see out of the old Left/Right box.

Is the idea that the democratization of Iraq is the wrong way to go about defeating the global jihad a "liberal" position, since liberals oppose the ongoing Iraqi adventure for utterly different reasons? Only if your worldview is irremediably bipolar. Why? Speaking for myself, note that my March 2003 article touches on none of the contemporary Leftist concerns: no body counts, no quagmires, none of it. The war, you'll recall, hadn't even started when I wrote it. Yet it is not foursquare with the Republican program. Also, I have criticized Bush and Rice, and allowed them to be criticized in articles here, quite harshly for their persistent misapprehension of the problem we face.

So is all this "Leftist" or "Rightist"? If you answer one or the other, you're not paying attention. Is it possible? Could it be? Might a third alternative be possible -- even desirable? Might our survival as a nation and a civilization demand some new, courageous thinking, and a recognition that all -- all -- our parties and factions are threatened by this thing, threatened mortally, and that none of them -- none -- have yet come to grips with the implications of that? And that since none of them have done so, it is manifestly time for some new formulations?

Other issues? I refuse to discuss them. Are we going to argue about tax rates while the barbarians fly airplanes into our strongholds and use our own tolerance and good will to subvert us from within?

This is not to say, finally, that both sides are equivalent. While I have criticized Bush and Rice, I do believe that at this point the Right is generally less sold out to the jihad than the Left. This opinion is based on evidence, not emotion, and I make no apologies for it. The fact that my publishers are all of "the Right" is one indication of its being correct. I also devoted an entire chapter of my book Onward Muslim Soldiers to this fact. It was called "Everybody must get stoned: the strange alliance between radical Islam and the post-1960s Left." If, however, the Left began to see that its pet causes are mortally threatened by the jihad, and hence the value of defending Western civilization, no one would be happier than I.

Of course, all this will not sit well with partisans of either stripe. My negative reference to the Left in the above paragraph will no doubt soon induce some regular commentators to declaim, yet again, about the depredations of Bush, which supposedly outweigh 1,000 Leftist appeasers and fifth columnists. The fact that I have noted those depredations on many occasions will never be good enough.

All in all, Left, Right, and center, I am going to continue resisting the jihad, in the name of the equality of dignity of all people -- including the non-Muslims and women who would lose that equality in the Sharia states the jihadists want to establish.

And I ask you all to mute your partisanship and try to think of ways we can beat this thing instead of ways we can beat each other. Neither side of the American political divide has been or is perfect on this issue. So what? It is not time for recriminations. It is time for survival.

Posted by Robert at November 28, 2005 10:10 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

Comments
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

The views of Jihad Watch being neither left nor right is what has attracted me and keeps me coming back. You are focused on one thing and you present your views honestly. THANKS!!

Posted by: Seymour Paine

at November 28, 2005 10:31 AM

With all due respect to everyone who visits this site, we're all here for a reason. That reason isn't Republican, Democratic, or Independent, it is Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights...and the lack thereof demonstrated by Islam and it's stone age Shari'ah law.

We have Islamic skunks lurking and trolling. No need to feed them. They don't care if you're conservative or liberal, they care that you're non-Muslim.

There's no need to play any blame game with our idiot politicians. Idiots who just so happen to sit on both sides of the aisle. It's quite simple really...We're here, there's a caveman problem facing all of us, and we need to stomp a collective mud hole in it.

Thanks

Posted by: DCWatson

at November 28, 2005 10:35 AM

ha! and i was accused of being a traitor and a liberal for saying the exactly same thing as mr Spencer...

"Kerry was clueless. He wanted to give nuclear fuel to Iran. In saying that I must be a Republican, right? Bush is clueless. He continues to allow us to be dependent on the Saudis without making any move to free us from them. In saying that I must be a Democrat, right?"

Posted by: lord lucan

at November 28, 2005 10:42 AM

Eloquently put, Robert. There will be no left and right if Islam gets its way. We'll all be Muslim then, and our freedom and liberal democracy will be things of the past.

Posted by: Mark Alexander

at November 28, 2005 10:49 AM

The way I see it, we are all in it togethor. Race, nationality, political views, whatever. All Non-Muslims will eventually be in the same boat, no matter how much some people cower. No one is going to be spared.

Posted by: The Englishman

at November 28, 2005 11:02 AM

I have never had any problem with Hugh's thinking. He works hard to be fair to all sides of the issue. I understand he is secular/atheist and I have NO probs with that.

Mr. Spencer is... Mr. Spencer. I agree with him on most everything- especially on the issues of:

The hundreds, if not Thousands, of Academicians who interject their political philosophy into their teachings (no matter What the subject), and thereby twist minds and work to tear down my home country (the US).

That the issue of reconstruction/dominion is a Total Joke. And those who seek to compare Christians to muslims, (IMO) are only lending aid, comfort and morally equivalent arguments to the enemy.

There are several more who write for JW/DW who are mostly unsung. Hang in there guys! You will be remembered.

Posted by: Gary

at November 28, 2005 11:04 AM

I'm to the right of President GWBush and anti jihad. I've been well educated here about Muhammad's scams, lies, exaggerations and taqiyya

Posted by: dennisw

at November 28, 2005 11:06 AM

Vote in your respective western nationalist party, from Le Pen to the british national party and we shall be rid of this menace over night. let's use the democratic process, something which they hate, to over throw our ruiling elite and corrupt unelected imans.

Posted by: lord lucan

at November 28, 2005 11:09 AM

Hugh is harsh on the George Bush administration and the Iraq war. But he's always seemed to me to be of the right. Robert Spencer is more markedly so.

Hugh is often savaging the left wing academics who ally with Muslim apologists.

Posted by: dennisw

at November 28, 2005 11:09 AM

The problem with that, lord lucan, is that we are then stuck with a nazi party for government. And we all know where THAT leads. On the other hand though, I agree with a lot of le Pens sentiments. But the BNP are basically just a bunch of deluded racists I'm afraid. They hate everyone but themselves.

Posted by: The Englishman

at November 28, 2005 11:11 AM

As we try to understand and grasp the aspirations of fundamental Islam through Jihadwatch, and Dhimmiwatch as well as the many books, and articles that are recommended on Islam.
Only then can we much more easily compare, and define who we are and what we stand for and what we wish to preserve and defend against the totalitarian desires of fundamental Islam.

As the door opens to what Islam is all about, we can rightly so; make fair, and reasonable criticisms of those who do not understand the divisions between these two conflicting forms of civilizations, especially when it comes to our political leaders whether they be independents,democrats,or Republicans-- IE---right or left ETC.

"If you cannot define yourself,then you cannot defend yourself" ---You must know your enemy and know him well

General Douglas Macarthur

Posted by: Mackie

at November 28, 2005 11:15 AM

Thank you Robert, as always you are the voice of reason, I am of the right on most issues, I even supported the war in Iraq, at least to the point that Saddam is gone, but I realize that this threat to civilization makes no distinction between left and right and this is the forum to join in solidarity to win this struggle.

When the barbarians are at the gates let us not fight among ourselves because the issues at hand are not less important but can not acted upon if our culture is gone.

When Islamist have the knife at our collective throat I am neither left our right but a citizen of the free world.

Let us all join to set the agenda to will save and preserve our right to argue!

Posted by: El Cid

at November 28, 2005 11:15 AM

Orthodox Islam can be viewed as "extreme left" insofar as it resembles Communism and other totalitarian ideologies. And it can be viewed as "extreme right" insofar as it resembles Christian Europe before the Enlightenment (or some aspects of some Christian churches today).

I do hope that a basically secular and post-Enlightenment spirit reigns here. My one qualm about the "right" in America is a strong undertone of Christian bigotry (or perhaps just prejudice). That's what I was trying to raise in other comments. It's there. You are not all CATO types!

Real Americans and democrats are not too extreme in their views. The eclipse of thinking moderates due to the primary process is a major threat to our democracy.

And of course, the major threat is the Islamization of Europe, compared to which our partisan wrangling is nothing!

Posted by: Benjamin

at November 28, 2005 11:21 AM

Given the partisan inclinations of web-posters, you’ll have to re-link to this post many times to remind people. Most blog entries get buried. However, it became clear to me after a day or two that the focus of Jihad Watch was … well, the jihadist threat. It is not that hard to figure out what the focus is. It just takes sensitivity and civility.

I believe it is only proper to respect the rules of the house and conduct other business elsewhere. I’ve visited many people’s websites to discuss other matters and always invite others to visit mine.

Posted by: JasonP

at November 28, 2005 11:23 AM

The Englishman

i used to think like that, until london was hit very hard by real nazi islamists!

the BNP are not fascists, you are gravely mistaken and have been deluded by the left wing media. that's not your fault, just a criticism of our western values and culture. Nick Griffin of the BNP is actually in a court case, he could get 7 years for making a statement that when (this was before 7/7) the UK gets hit by bombs from muslims they will be home grown "british" muslims not over seas terrorists. and for this he is threatened with imprisonment!

here's a link to the BNP web site, http://www.bnp.org.uk/

there are some policies which i find a little dated but overall i'd rather live in a country where the british can freely walk the streets without getting mugged, battered, murdered and havce our ancient laws changed to placate islamist invaders.

Posted by: lord lucan

at November 28, 2005 11:24 AM

Robert - thanks for that reminder. When I attended the recent anti-sharia demonstration at Queen's Park (i.e. the Ontario legislature), I was pleasantly surprised that the overwhelming percentage of fellow demonstrators were either liberal or NDP (socialist) suppporters. If I sat down with them over a coffee I doubt we would agree on anything but the weather and that sharia law in Ontario must be stopped in its tracks.

Why was I "pleasantly" surprised? Because when you get a real cross section of political viewpoints opposing such a policy, I knew sharia in Ontario was doomed. You take your allies where you find them.

Posted by: johnb

at November 28, 2005 11:37 AM

Advocacy can be a grave mental disease, eating away at critical faculties and making it impossible to see beyond reflexive political loyalties. There are enough sites on the web that abandon critical reasoning in favour of blind political partisanship. Defeating the Islamists will require the most Herculean of bi-partisan efforts -- across the aisle and across the oceans.

Posted by: Charles Martel

at November 28, 2005 11:41 AM

I have a friend who is a staunch liberal and hates Bush with a passion. I often like to take the ‘devil’s advocate’ approach and take the Republican side (although I’m neither) and argue with him even if I don’t agree with my own argument …he’s just so fun to get wound up and watch!

Once I began down the path of jihad enlightenment, thanks to Robert and this site, I started introducing it to my friend who sees much of it through those left/right lenses and I tell him the exact same thing that Mr. Spencer points out: it’s not an issue of liberals or republicans, but an issue of our moral beliefs, our freedoms, our way of life versus theirs.

Part of the problem is that most people think that people are the same all over the world and that if one person likes music, for example, then everyone must like music. Therefore, most people have a limited imagination and understanding about the vast differences in thought the world over –when the planes crashed into our buildings, these are the people who wanted to know who was attacking us and why did they want to? The same applies to Liberals and Republicans because that’s what they’re exposed to and that’s why they believe that this issue has to be one or the other because they can’t even fathom there being anything else.

Slowly my friend is coming around. Every now and again he’ll twist things around to make it an issue of left and right, but I keep reminding him that it’s bigger than that. It’s bigger than our tiny politics will ever understand and that it’s about the survival of our culture against a barbaric 7th century belief system.

I find it extremely difficult to get across the religious fervor and hatred of ‘others’ that must be the mindset of the jihadist Muslims who commit horrific acts upon humanity to my friend (because, once again, we view the world according to our own beliefs and no one I know has such evil in them) but thanks to the information found on this site and others as well as Robert’s many books I’ve bought and devoured in no time, it’s getting easier. It’s also getting easier as they continue to destroy and kill and I can point a finger and say “Look, there’s another example” and slowly, I believe, everyone is coming to understand what their eyes are witnessed to nearly every single day as opposed to what they’re being told by the media and our own corrupt leaders.

Keep up the good work. Left or right be damned …this is about Islamic jihad verses everyone else.

Posted by: illustr8rg8r

at November 28, 2005 11:42 AM

You take your allies where you find them.

Johnb,I couldn 't agree more and thank you Robert. We really needed that. Someone famous said "united we stand, divided we fall" so I hope we can remember that when we get all worked up. Also, I think we should quit feeding the trolls, as tempting as it might be. Why encourage them? Just ignore them like you do my posts. that might discourage them a little.

Posted by: dms

at November 28, 2005 11:50 AM

The BNP are racists. Pure and simple.
Their website may look appealing. Beautiful children in St George T-shirts set against and background of heritage coastline. Who could fail to be beguiled. But their roots are in the old National Front. And before that they were the British Nazi Party. I remember Colin Jordan and his evil wife and their imprisonment in 1964 for torching a Jewish shop. It's no coincidence that the initials are the same.
They are indeed aware of the perils posed by Islam. So much so that (small) numbers of Jews, Hindus and Sikhs have formed an alliance of sorts with them. But when Nick Griffin holds up his arm, points to the white skin of his wrist and says "This is what defines me" then you know that you are in the presence of a racist. That's not a left wing delusion, its reality born of living amongs their supporters.

When you sup with the devil you need a verylong spoon.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax

at November 28, 2005 11:51 AM

Funny just to today I was slandered because I criticized Bush and Rice for giving Abu Mazen free passes for not adhering to his and the PA's commitments to the Roadmap, as undermining their policy of Democracy in Iraq and other places.
It was Rice who said that previous administrations had turned a blind eye to to despots in the interests of stability (which is exactly what she is doing with respect to the PA) and that it must stop.
If they deny the state of the PA then they either do not know what is going on or this is diplomatic perfidy and informing this makes the messenger guilty of something?
So now I'm a democrat? And not even an American; which makes it worse because then I must be an American hater from Europe.

In the past both Le Pen and Galloway went smooching Saddam Hussein and both come from opposite ends of the spectrum. So to criticise one is to automatically support the other?
No wonder there is such a preponderance of cursing given the poor communicating skills engendered all these years.

Posted by: Cynic

at November 28, 2005 12:05 PM

It is time we acknowledge that Bush made a mistake in sending us into Iraq and that he is spending all his political capital on Iraq when Iran is the real danger. Iran has always been the real danger. You are right in critizing his failed policies of nation building. Thank you for resisting evil.

Posted by: saw64

at November 28, 2005 12:06 PM

We must hang together..or we will hang separately. I am right-leaning , but I am not so partisan that I can't see truth. President Bush has dissappointed me in several ways, where did George Bush the Governor of Texas go? He is not stupid, but the words he speaks now are scripted, not his own.
------
Here is an article about Marxism in higher education.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/mikeadams/2005/11/28/176868.html

Posted by: Carolyn2

at November 28, 2005 12:14 PM

Trenchant observations, Mr. Spencer. I fear that you will have to post that column again and again as reminders.

If, however, the Left began to see that its pet causes are mortally threatened by the jihad, and hence the value of defending Western civilization, no one would be happier than I.

And I would be the second-happiest. Many liberals I know understand the truth about Islam. It is possible to make a liberal change their mind when we are wrong.

Carefully, reasonably, respectfully explaining the facts about Islam and its threat to the values that we hold dear is the key to making Leftists understand.

BTW.... regarding the Bush/Kerry note. If we did offer to sell Iran their fuel, they wouldn't accept it, because they want to build nuclear bombs. If we offered to GIVE them nuclear fuel, they would be either forced to accept it or admit that they had ulterior motives. I think offering them fuel for use in electricity-making reactors would be a good way to make them admit the truth.

They say they are refining Uranium to make electricity. If we, Russia, etc. offer them Uranium that can be used to generate electricity, but is not "weapons grade" and they will likely refuse it. Armed with this (an admission as it were) then we could go to the next step of sanctions.

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

I hereby avow to refrain from starting any political discussion. I will only answer assertions made by partisans. If anyone really wants to talk politics, I ask you to refrain from graffiti-ing this site and email me. I will be happy to give you the redass you so eagerly crave.

Which reminds me,

I have never had any problem with Hugh's thinking. He works hard to be fair to all sides of the issue. I understand he is secular/atheist and I have NO probs with that.

Good thing you don't. People that are unfettered with man-made psychoses designed to destroy us with imaginary shame often do find time to be scholarly and write. And we are often fair to all sides of the issue.

I agree with him on most everything- especially on the issues of: The hundreds, if not Thousands, of Academicians who interject their political philosophy into their teachings (no matter What the subject), and thereby twist minds and work to tear down my home country (the US).

Damn, it's funny you say that, as I have attended college for eight years, and almost finished my second degree, and never heard teacher say anything nice about Islam. EVER. And I attend the Univestity that hired Al-Aryan, and gave him tenure. AND worked to keep him on payroll AND worked to keep him out of prison.

But more to the point, do you agree with Spencer and Hugh on the issue of the Iraq War? Ie., is Bush wrong?

There are three things that bother me about injecting politics into the discussion of Islam. One is that I'm not going to stand by while people lie about me or my beliefs.

The other is this: Trying to join Islam and Liberalism is liable to actually make some liberals fight for Islam. Do you want to see Cynthia McKinnon (D-Crazy) become EVEN MORE popular? I don't. I love women, I love black people. I especially love black women (you too, Condi!) But Cynthia is crazy, and only serves to make us look bad. She's not always wrong, but wrong enough for me to not want her in my party. And her dad hates Jews almost as much as Hutton Gibson.

And finally: If the GOP loses in a major way, it will hurt the advancement issues which we should all care about, like of Jihad Awareness, Zionism, etc. For proof, just see the way that the Democrats losing in a major way hurt the advancement of issues which we should all care about... like social medicine, environmental protection, etc.

[We all love the environment. Some of us hunt, some of us hug trees. But we all love it; why should any of us not work to maintain it? We all get sick, and we're all (on average) paying 20-25% of all our money on healthcare. Why should we work to continue to reward the HMOs that kill us?]

The good news for my conservative friends is that there are several right-wing blogs to which you can go and bash liberals to with gay abandon! I promise you, I do not hang out at them and argue. Leave the discussion of Islam to those of us who's prime concern is thwarting the Muslim Agenda.

That the issue of reconstruction/dominion is a Total Joke. And those who seek to compare Christians to muslims, (IMO) are only lending aid, comfort and morally equivalent arguments to the enemy.

Gary, I agree with you on this one. Despite the best intentions of Mel Gibson, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, etc. there really isn't any world-wide movement to Christianize the whole world, or even any part of the world.

Judaica, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and to a great degree Communism, have all risen to a point where they can question themselves, question their sacred truths, and enter the enlightened age.

I have heard people (including college teachers) say that "all religions have their fanatics" and "well, every religion has people that twist the context to promote violence" etc. That's when you have to calmly, rationally, and respectfully tell them the truth about Islam. If you don't have time for a long, drawn-out discussion, just sum it up in a way that will FORCE them to re-think their premises. I usually say something like, "Well I'm a feminist, and I don't like what Islam does to women. You can say what you want, but Islam treats women worse than any other religion."

fanorollins@yahoo.com

Posted by: kj

at November 28, 2005 12:21 PM

The BNP are Fascists. Granny W is quite right. They are using legitimate concerns about Islam to further their racist agenda. They are right about Islam, but a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Islam is not a party political issue. The terms 'left-wing' and 'right-wing', insofar as they mean anything much at all, mean different things in different countries. Islam is a unique menace and requires a more original, unfettered approach than the traditional party political one.

The British quality press has traditionally been pigeon holed into Right (Telegraph), centre right (Times), centre Left (Independent)and Left (Guardian). However, a better barometer of commitment to liberal (in the old sense) values, is how well they understand Islam. So my classification would be:

1 Telegraph - excellent. Best there is.
2 Times - pretty good, most of the time.
3 Independent - poor.
4 Guardian - is it too early in the evening for an expletive?

Posted by: Interested

at November 28, 2005 12:22 PM

Hello all,

It's funny that the good people here only talk about right or left (as if its a march) as if only appiles to the infedel.

What about the stance of the muslim. Islam filters every aspect of our life (yours too by what I read) and is itself a very political movement....only it isn't nicely compartmentalised.

In Islam there are only snippets of left & right but Islam is predominately a centre ground organisation,.... with Allah (swt) in the centre....thus there can be no other...the question does not arise.

As for Infedel politics.. someone said "There's no need to play any blame game with our idiot politicians". Yes there is ...that is what it's all about....they dictate the policy....they decide more muslims or not.

Further this person said "It's quite simple really...We're here, there's a caveman problem facing all of us, and we need to stomp a collective mud hole in it".

You had me ROFTL with that one. If it was that simple it would have been solved by now....this is not a technical problem that you can throw dollars at....by saying this you are the caveman.

Smarten up...think...look at us in equality, think like they think to even understand where we are at before deciding on where we need to go to. You are not going to have this world without muslims and the concept of ummah....go there first and as Mr. Spencer implied:

"forget the left, or right think centre...think Allah.

Posted by: Naseem

at November 28, 2005 12:25 PM

KJ, there actually is an international Jewish conspiracy to put the world under the rule of a Jewish king. It was launched in Jerusalem ages ago, under the shadow of the Temple itself. It's called------Christianity.

Yes, there is a movement afoot to Christianize the whole world. However, Pat Robertson is not its leader, no matter how much certain parts of the media think he is. We Christians are a large and diverse bunch, and all attempts of Robertson, the recons, or whoever to try to become our "vanguard" only make the would-be vanguard look ridiculous.

Posted by: Kepha

at November 28, 2005 12:27 PM

Posted by: Kepha

at November 28, 2005 12:27 PM

kj~ maybe I need to be a bit more particular?

You (and myself) probably agree on Waaay more than you can imagine.

But there is still the matter of Degree to which some people go.

I have no probs with the goals you seek, I agree with many of them.

It will Always be the MEANS by which those goals are achieved.

I'd love to see an end to racism, sexism, and a whole host of other isms. But some of those who lead (on both sides) want those to continue. And they will, for Centuries, if these jokers have their way.

Only prob is, I see more of them on the Left.
I think the Right is moving in the direction you seek.
Only they are a bit more Glacial about it.
Slavey/racism have been around for 10,000 years. Isn't is safe to say that things like that are Always going to take time to finally be rid of?

But some WANT them to be an issue, for as long as it keeps them in power. That's the thing I oppose most of all- the continued Victimization of entire groups of people. Especially if they are long separated from those who committed the acts in the first place.

I still say you and I are on the same page. 'cept one reads Left to Right, and the other Right to Left :p

Posted by: Gary

at November 28, 2005 12:38 PM

The notions of Left and Right evolved out of secular poltics. By definition, when sharia states evolve, the distinction becomes meaningless.

Focus on the play, and execute. The enemy is global jihad, sharia, and the caliphate. The allies believe in secular partisan politics, even the moonbats and Europeans who don't know any better.

Posted by: Beagle

at November 28, 2005 12:51 PM

Many who impugn religion, and demean those who believe as superstitious fools, are not, IMO, always quite so tough on Islam and Muslims.

Perhaps it's the cries of victimhood that fool them.

And while I could be wrong, I believe that most of those folks do identify themselves as 'left-wing'.

And in the effort to educate others about the hatred and violence upon which Islam is founded, I have no problem reminding those folks that Islam represents, more than they may know, an issue they claim to oppose -- conservative bigotry.

And then I offer them one of my informative flyers.

And yes, I know that our president is not a 'left-winger', and that he doesn't get it either.

So I send polite letters to him, too.

Posted by: PRCS

at November 28, 2005 12:53 PM

Though this story from WORLD NET DAILY dates back to July 11th of this year,for me; it still remains the story that reflects my greatest of concerns for America.

As to whether it is a harbinger with complete validity, I cannot say. But one finds it hard to argue from the left, or right in the sometimes political maze that at times only detracts, and distracts from the real enemy of western civilizations.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203%20

Posted by: Mackie

at November 28, 2005 1:04 PM

We nonmuslims will hang together or we'll hang separately.

Posted by: American

at November 28, 2005 1:16 PM

Robert:

Perhaps you'd have fewer noxious posts if you revamped your disclaimer a little. Here's a sampler from the "Justify This" blogsite, written in language that might get through to frequent offenders:

Disclaimer : Do not use this blog to call for genocide, to troll, or to post warez/porn. If you are found to be abusing these rules (which can be updated at any time), your posts will be removed from this site without warning. note - I cannot be held responsible for anything written on this page that you disagree with. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

Otherwise, the left-right paradigm has long been an odd one, with politics making for very strange bedfellows at least since Hitler and Stalin signed their pact. (Same goes for the excuses made for totalitarian regimes of any end of the political spectrum, because they "bring stability" or have combatted illiteracy, etc. If people are only being permitted to read propaganda and barred from expressing their own opinions and otherwise live in misery, it's no accomplishment at all.) These days, it is terribly disheartening to hear from people who you imagine are against racism, sexism, compulsion in religion, etc. "forging" alliances with Islamic fundamentalists (Ken Livingston, c'mon down).

Posted by: waterdragon52

at November 28, 2005 1:18 PM

thankyou Robert for your words of wisdom. l do believe that the need for unity is now, there was a very short time after 9-11 when all world and country were behind the Bush administration. yes there were mistakes by Bush, but l feel he does see this as good vs evil, something that the other side of the ailse fails to comprehend. the methods are different, but history teaches us much, to ignor it are your own peril. l was thinking of this all morning... we would not be talking so much about the cult of islam, if Bush did not invade Iraq. If he like Clinton before him treated 9-11 as a court trial, and not military , everything would be swept under the rug. With Bush's words ringing out with more than threats and actually coming out with military, all the world can now sees the horendous evil coming from cult of islam! many more people are intuned to learning more of their koran. People like to blame Bush for most of the things they think is going wrong, but he has brought this evil cult up front. Even though Bush does not go far enough to actually say Islam is flawed,evil,etc., ordinary people can see it now! We cannot hope to educate most Muslims, as all their life they have been fed their lies by their immans, but we can educate non Muslims on the dangers of this cult of death. thankyou again Robert for this forum of open discussions. l have learned a lot from you all!

Posted by: Lulu

at November 28, 2005 1:19 PM

Jihad Watch will attack anyone that is supporting Jihad, left or right it dosen't matter

Posted by: JadeDragoness

at November 28, 2005 1:19 PM

"forget the left, or right think centre...think Allah.

Posted by: Naseem at November 28, 2005 12:25 PM

Think Allah? Allah, you mean the psycho Muhammad's make believe friend? Look at you in equality? Well, that's been attempted, only you have a holier than thou attitude. Perhaps you are the one that needs to smarten up....

If we all thought like you think, Fred Flinstone and Joe Rockhead would be our next door neighbors. Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by: DCWatson

at November 28, 2005 1:21 PM

The notions of Left and Right evolved out of secular poltics. By definition, when sharia states evolve, the distinction becomes meaningless.

That's a very good point, Beagle. Even phrases like 'the Christian Right', or the 'Islamofascist' Left show that religion and politics are two separate spheres in our Western mindset. This idea is deeply ingrained. But it is alien to Islam. There is no 'political Islam', as distinct from 'religious Islam'. Islam is politics. Recognition of the political nature of Islam would help in tackling it head on. At the moment it hides behind the veil of religion and people treat it with kid gloves.

Posted by: Interested

at November 28, 2005 1:22 PM

As for Infedel politics.. someone said "There's no need to play any blame game with our idiot politicians".

Meaning that we're already facing a mess with this stuck in reverse cult, and laying blame is not worthwhile or productive as we deal with it.....Ummmkay, apologist?

Posted by: DCWatson

at November 28, 2005 1:25 PM

"As for Infedel politics.. someone said "There's no need to play any blame game with our idiot politicians". Yes there is ...that is what it's all about....they dictate the policy....they decide more muslims or not."

Posted by: Naseem at November 28, 2005 12:25 PM

Good point, Naseem (as is the one you make about using the caveman approach to dispatch cavemen). In the wake of last July's bombings in London, I recall reading a comment attributed to a person from some Arab/Muslim country to the effect that what are western governments thinking when they allow preachers of hatred whose activities aren't condoned in their home country to settle in our midst, and even live off the the taxpayer. Talk about a suicidal policy!

Posted by: waterdragon52

at November 28, 2005 1:26 PM

I think that partisanship masks discussion of issues, that clearly do need to be discussed and not in shouting matches. One of those is Iraq, but of course there is Jihad across the globe as well.

One of primary problems is that many of the news stories on global Jihad are buried or not reported by the mainstream US news media, and that is why a combination of blogs are trying to provide context to this. The key to intelligent discussion is in understanding the big picture, and that the big picture is certainly not only centered on Iraq, or the result of Iraq. Mainstream US news misses that important point.

Another very difficult challenge is to assess history on a frame-by-frame basis in real-time, that is while history is occuring around us. Very ambitious idea, but to assume that we can see not only the big picture on Jihad, and also to assume that we can judge today what will really be the "right" or "wrong" approaches to fighting Jihad, is really somewhat over ambitious, since obviously we don't have the context of our own history (that we are living) to judge by.

I think it would be worthwhile, if JihadWatch is going to keep such discussion groups, to ask the question as to whether or not Iraq is a good approach to fighting Jihad or not. That is not to doubt the learned and educated positions of the posters here. But I think the Iraq issue is still a work in progress, and there is some value to public dialogue on this. What we do see now, as typically represented by partisan leaders is that Iraq War is either all wrong or all right.

Neither is likely to be completely correct.

But since we are looking for answers to fighting jihad, perhaps the first place is to start with discussing what is right AND wrong about any strategy, rather focusing on either all the right aspects or all the wrong aspects of any given anti-Jihad strategy.

Posted by: jeffreyimm

at November 28, 2005 1:33 PM

This issue of Left and Right is arising more frequently as we get further along in time, and the question is important to address immediately because it could deflect from our mission regarding jihad if we veer off into fighting political and ideological battles among ourselves at the risk of ignoring those who would kill us outright, not Leftist and Rightwingers but Muslims. It pays us to focus on our enemies rather than on our friends.

My understanding of our situation is that we can wipe out Islam in the West in a matter of weeks, and wipe out Islam in the world in a matter of months if we were resolved to do so philosphically and as a determined culture of people who share universal and modernist values. We fight among ourselves over the nature of Islam, not Islam as it is but Islam as we think it must be, and Islam as we think we want it to be in our own minds. Spencer and Hugh and others show clearly daily in depth and width the truth about the nature of Islam, and some of us get it and some of us don't. But even for those of us who do understand Islam as a threat to all we hold dear we find ourselves incapable of combating it because we still hold other values dear, and those values hinder our fight against Islam. We hold dear the ideas of democracy and tolerance of other people's right to privacy. Our failing is in the mistaken belief that all dissent is good, and that all privacy is valid. We advocate democracy, and then fall into the trap of "the tyranny of the majority" that Mill warns against. We demand tolerance of others in our democracies but we fail to see the tyranny of culture. We see others and think they are free to choose their privacies, but we fail to see the slavery of traditions they cannot break free of. We mistake neglect for tolerance, charity for compassion, incitement to hatred and violence for civil rights, fascist collectives for groups of individuals.

I think we must sort out our own ideas of what we want and what we hold dear from what we assume we want and what we assume others are in favor of. I believe that as a general culture of the West that we are totally confused about the nature of our democracies and our paths to progressive Modernity. I think it's clear that once we examine the history of our ideas, particualrly those from 1789 in reaction to the French Revolution, that we will see how we have naively incorporated many ideas at the same time of the Counter-Enlightenment, and that we are in many respects naive fascists with the best of good intentions.

Below is a link to a piece by a liberal Leftie, Paul Berman, a man who is seeing through some of his past illusions of Left dhimmi fascism, and confronting a friend who hasn't seen the light at all. I argue that we must all examine our assumptions about what the Left is and how the Left and the Right mean nothing any more, being conflated, the same thing joined at both ends. I suggest that the Left and the Right come down to nothing more today than a seating arrangement, and that the concepts that arose in 1789 are worn out and worthless.

There is a problem in involving ourselves deeply in the struggle against naive fascism in the West, and that is that it does distract us from jihad and the threat of Islam. But, I also argue that without understanding our positions toward it, without understanding why we are against it and why some of our leaders and our intelligentsia are dismissive of our concerns, then we will forever fight a losing battle to change the course of our struggle to overcome Islam and jihad and dhimmitude in the West. If we see why some say they think Islam is a religion of peace, then we can show why they think so and why it is not, and we'll have solid ground on which to stand in defence of liberty and democracy and universal Human rights against the false understanding our own have regarding democracy and Islamic practivce in a pluralistic society. If we see that there is no Left and Right in classical terms any longer we can focus more effectively on our struggle against Islam rather than duping ourselves into thinking we're doing something wrong in criticizing Islam and jihad.

But, as someone here wrote long ago, (and a comment I've forgotten long since,) I'm a Rightwing religious bigot, so I leave it to you to decide if any of this is valid or if it's simply my Rightwing biogtry and religious fanaticsim at work.

http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/2005/10/whats-left.html

Posted by: sonofwalker

at November 28, 2005 1:39 PM

Hear, hear, Granny Weatherwax. Our fathers and grandfathers didn't lose their lives in the war for racists and fascists of either side (the BNP or Islamofascists) to gain political power and influence in the UK.

Posted by: londongirl

at November 28, 2005 2:29 PM

The way I address this problem is to forget about"left" and "right" or even "right" versus "wrong." We are witnessing a primal struggle between "good" versus "evil." Some refer to it as "Armaggeddon."

Islam is ostensibly 'evil' in its distilled, most pure form. I maintain that it is in fact a human sacrifice cult that originated (or at least first appeared to man) in Babylon about 5000 years ago and its 'god' is none other than "Marduk" (some say it is the idol called"Sin" which could also be the case). And it has spun into uncontrollable proportions that now threatens humanity's survival. I also maintain that Islam has disguised itself as an "Abrahamic" faith and by using that disguise to its fullest advantage has proceeded to make a mockery of every important message in the Judeo-Christian Bible and slaughter perhaps over a half-billion human beings mercilessly in the process. With Islam, in short it is the KILLING that is the core of the religion the ideology comes later and has little effect on its nature. Slaughter is what has propelled Islam throughout history. And this is what most people have failed to look at squarely and in neglecting to do so they have failed to come to terms with it (even when they despise it as much as I).

Babylon's "Marduk" (or "Sin") aka Islam's "allah" have unleashed this unfathomable horror upon the world and may reasonably be seen as the anti-God in view of this.

After all, Satan was JEALOUS of Yahweh, and doesn't jealousy USUALLY manifest itself in hateful ways? What better expression of that hatred Satan possesses for Yahweh is there than the hate Islamic imams instill in their brainwashed zombie/subjects every Friday toward the rest of humanity? Especially if such hate results in the extinction of Yahweh's creation earth? For example, Islam targets for extermination the followers of the Judaic faith (which actually IS Abrahamic) for unspecified reasons--perhaps for merely believing that killing for reasons OTHER than self-defense is contrary to the wishes of God? Calling for extermination of all those who mean no harm to others fits my idea of 'evil' to a 't'. And even use NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO DO IT AS Iran's mullahs are threatening.

Virtually the rest of humanity (with a few exceptions of coourse) falls into the opposite of 'evil' category. I include (most)followers of virtually every other faith in this category and the secularists and atheists and agnostics and.

It doesn't occur to anyone I know to exterminate any people as a whole (least of all to me). I have never personally known anyone to harbor such vileness. When persons at this or other site express such views against Muslims it is usually as a REACTION to the savagery Islam possesses in its core beliefs. There is something that appears to me to be almost non-human about the depths of Islamic fanaticism and hate. I have never believed it all comes from a guy named Mahomet. When Islamic terrorists appear to be almost completely devoid of anything left of their original humanity I think that Mahomet was not sufficiently imaginative (and evil as he was ) to come up with THIS. Maybe I am just imagining things. But I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind rejoicing in the slaughter of civilians (as Muslims have often done throughout history). And this is what we are really fighting. This is the source of jihad--HATE. Satan's hate perhaps?

Where do left and right, Republican and Democrat come in on any of this? They don't of course. Please tell Hillary or Bush and Condi and Rummy or anyone in the US government this.

That's right. It all boils down to "G versus E."

Islam has done one GOOD thing for Americans (by accident) whether they know it or not: it has exposed the bankruptcies of such political labels as 'liberal' and 'conservative'.
It is time we moved on from this point and confronted the evil stalking us collectively. So why is it not happening in America?

p.s.--I have witnessed islamic executions on videos that leave no doubt in my mind this is a human sacrifice cult similar that of the Aztecs' and Mayans' or Babylonians' (Babylonian 'ziggurats' were used for human sacrifice ceremonies and actually bear a striking resemblance to Aztec and Mayan stepped pyramids--which also incidentally were used for human sacrifice ceremonies to idols).

Posted by: pythagoras

at November 28, 2005 2:31 PM

Surely the very essence of Democracy is being able to state an opinion without getting 'blown up' by fanatical supporters of opposing views and
creeds?
Whether we are to the Left/Right or Centre doesn't matter WE ARE AGAINST JIHAD AND DHIMMITUDE.
Don't think Hugh is anymore in favour of Iraq war than I am but that doesn't make us 'traitors to the cause' - only thinkers and presume we are allowed to think.
Uncritical adherence to any cause is not Democracy : Debate and reasoning spiced with wit are our tools to
win hearts and minds.

Posted by: Morgane

at November 28, 2005 2:31 PM

When the UN actually stood for something and was not just simply a puppet of the Islamists, they came out with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Here it is if you have never read it:

http://www.un.org/rights/50/decla.htm

Try articles 18 and 19 out for size and try and find a Muslim who would agree that these are good principles:

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

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

The UN used to get a smidgin of respect from me. Now it gets almost none. It is in practice becoming an enemy of freedom as is evidenced in its attempts to try and control the internet.

Posted by: Mentat

at November 28, 2005 2:34 PM

The defeat of jihad about being of the left or of the right. Unfortunately, it's been framed by those on the left as an issue which only engages the right. In a column not long ago on how galloping Muslim demographics are likely to swamp the non-procreating non-Muslims of Europe, Mark Steyn (a writer who IS identified as being of the right) quoted a "charming" email he'd received. "You sh*t-for-brains right wingers always think it's always about the jihad," said the impassioned emailer.

We wait--in vain, perhaps--for people on the other end of the spectrum to clue in about the perils of the jihad and how it threatens us all--left, right and everyone in between.

Posted by: scaramouoche

at November 28, 2005 3:19 PM

The defeat of jihad is not about being of the left or of the right. Unfortunately, it's been framed that way by many on the left. In a column not long ago on how galloping Muslim demographics are likely to swamp the non-procreating non-Muslims of Europe, Mark Steyn (a writer who IS identified as being of the right) quoted a "charming" email he'd received. "You sh*t-for-brains right wingers always think it's always about the jihad," said the impassioned emailer.

We wait--in vain, perhaps--for people on one end of the spectrum to clue in about the perils of the jihad and realize how it threatens us all--left, right and everyone in between.

Posted by: scaramouoche

at November 28, 2005 3:21 PM

Republican and Democrat politicians are both recipients of Saudi money. It is a credit to yourselves that you are not turning a blind eye to either.

Posted by: unaha-closp

at November 28, 2005 4:33 PM

I was definitely one of the clueless ones until I read Robert's book, the Politically Correct Guide to Islam. Until then, all my attempts at analyzing and understanding the daily Middle East lunacy and its wider implications left me profoundly confused and even turned off from frustration. The crystal clarity of Robert's expose provided a welcome conceptual relief, but it also curdled my blood in horror at what all of us--left, right, middle, and don't care--are up against.

At the risk of being skewered for naivete, let me suggest a project that might help bring left and right together against the civilizational threat from Islamic jihad. Knowing what I now know, I yearn to do such a project myself as a public service, but do not have the smarts, journalistic knowlege, credentials, or financial wherewithal to pull it off. So here goes (You can sharpen your spears now).

We should publish an annotated copy of the Koran, Sura, and aHadith: call it the "Politically Incorrect Koran," or "Koran Unveiled," or some such. The text would be the most precisely correct version that could be found (Robert has the bead on this issue). The font and layout would be carefully chosen to make the text easy on the eyes (for my benefit, if no one elses!).

The "annotations" would be of two kinds:

First, certain Koranic verses would be highlighted with either bold print, or red print, or whatever will make them clearly stand out. Depending on how the rest of the annotation requirements work out, there might need to be some small variations in the bolding scheme in order to make a point.

The second part takes some more explaining. This Koran would have an appendix that consists of a numbered list of all the Islamic concepts we are (thanks to Robert and Hugh and others)familiar with: jihad, dhimmi, taqiyya, kitman, "other," terror (yes, terror), jizya, sharia, and so on. Each term would have a concise, unemotional, and matter-of-fact (but carefully precise and unexpurgated), definition consistent with actual Islamic writings.

There would also be a separate one-page appendix that defines a simple series of letter codes which categorize the weight, in terms of Islamic obligation, of a particular Islamic verse. For instance, code D might mean an individual (d)uty binding on all Muslims, code E might mean a Mohammedan life (e)xample that all Muslims are expected to (e)mulate, and code L might mean an Islamic sharia (l)aw meant to supersede any conflicting secular law.

Now, back to the highlighting part. Off to the right of each bolded (highlighted) verse, would a number pointing to the Islamic concept that it supports and a letter code indicating its obligatory nature.

Finally, like a thesaurus, the numbered appendix of Islamic concepts would contain, for each item there, a list of page numbers for the relevant bolded (highlighted) verses.

For the basic publication, that is all. No dissertations, no explanations, just an expose of what is written there for all to see.

More ambitious add-ons that might be of use would be 1) an appendix consisting of the articles of the U.S. Constitution, and 2) an appendix listing the articles of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.

By some similar cross-referencing scheme, Islamic verses that contravene or are otherwise incompatible with the articles in these documents could be flagged.

Maybe an electronic version (a searchable TPF file) is the better publishing approach for such a project. Of course, someone might already have done this kind of thing. If so, does anyone out there have a URL to point me to it?

So there it is. Now you can throw your spears.

Posted by: Stendec

at November 28, 2005 4:56 PM

Stendec - check out Skeptic's Annotated Quran.

This covers some, though by no means all, of your suggestions.

Posted by: Interested

at November 28, 2005 5:02 PM

Thanks Robert.....your post was great.

I long for the days when I did not know what LEFT or RIGHT meant in American Politics. Today I am just an independent person who loves America and every other decent human in the world.

Posted by: rumoret

at November 28, 2005 5:15 PM

neither left nor right - rather slow-joe observational:

this little piggy went to market, being an encounter with various piggy things over the past couple of days:

'Once,' said the Vali [Turkish provincial govverner - early C20th] ... 'I was a very young man, and went for a ride with my old father. I was foolish then, and my head was stuffed with silly notions and liberal ideas ... I told my father we ought to reform our constitution, systemise our administration, purify our family life, educate our women, introduce liberal ideas, and imitate Europeans. And my old father answered never a word. So we rode on along the banks of the Bosphorus. At last we came to a Christian village, and round the Christian village were many pigs. Then my father said to me, 'My son,what seest thou?' I replied, 'Pigs, my father.' 'My son,' he said, 'are they all similar in size and colour, or do they differ?' 'They differ, my father. There are big pigs and little pigs, white pigs and black pigs, brown pigs and mottled pigs.' 'But they are all of them swine, my son?' 'All, my father.' 'My son,' he said, 'it is with the Christians even as with the pigs. There are big Christians and little Christians, Russian Christians and English Christians, French Christians and German Christians; they are all of them swine, and he who wishes to imitate the Christians, wishes to wallow with the swine in the mire.' .... I was very young then, and my brain was full of nonsense - so I thought my father was a fool. But now that my own beard is getting grey - by God, I think the old gentleman was right!'

Turkey in Europe, Sir Charles Eliot, 1908, from The Middle East Today, 5th ed., Don Peretz, 1988.

'this little critic went to market' from London's Sunday Telegraph, 27 November 2005. The extraordinary story of a film-maker, Ben Lewis who received a tattoo (crucified Mickey Mouse with Minnie Mouse weeping at the base) at the same time by the same artist, Wim Delvoye, in the same room, on the outskirts of Beijing, as a pig. The pig will be slaughtered and stuffed, and probably fetch $40,000 on account of its status as a work of contemporary art. An expert at Sotheby's was unable to put a value on the film-maker's skin, however, and Ben Lewis concludes that the artist, Wim Delvoye, had succeeded in making a pig more valuable than a tv presenter. [the film of this episode, Art Safari, will screen on 8 December on BBC4]

third and final piggy-tale: Amelia's Magazine, 04, November 2005, London, has a feature on how to make a model out of a wooden-log entitled: 'Let's make a Boar-Devil Beast-Pig' by Zeel. Tips are also given on how to make a model giraffe.

Posted by: slowjoe

at November 28, 2005 5:16 PM

Everybody's talking 'bout rightism, leftism, thisism, thatism...
All we are saying
Is RESIST THE JIHAD!

Posted by: islamophobic pride

at November 28, 2005 5:42 PM

"Our fathers and grandfathers didn't lose their lives in the war for racists and fascists of either side (the BNP or Islamofascists) to gain political power and influence in the UK."

how dare you compare a democratic british party to islamofascists, the BNP are the fourth largest party in the UK!!

The BNP have never called for global jihad, they have never bombed or attacked british subjects nor has any of their idealogies called for armed violence. your response im afraid is extremely ignorant and possibly reflects your exposure to too much british media, ie the BBC, this is in no way an insult merely an observation.

The BNP are not anti semetic, many members come from the jewish community, they even have a jewish councillor!!!!

You have really insulted all their members, their supporters friends and family with that derogatory comment, many of the BNP supporters fought hitler and lived through the blitz and you call them fascists????

They are not a fascist party but a nationalist party! try and remember that. Britain for the British, anyone that chooses to live in the UK is not a citizen but a guest. where is the racism in that?

would you allow your guest to move into your house, and then find them trying to burn down your house because they disagree with your lifestyle?? you'd throw them out! well not if you were the british labour party, then you'd give them an extra room, build them a gym and a mini youth center and bribe them off in case they do it again!!

www.bnp.org.uk

Posted by: lord lucan

at November 28, 2005 5:50 PM

Here, here..
I am a lifetime dem, outside agitator, civil rights worker (60's), ex-aclu, vietnam protestor, but voted for Bush TWICE (how could I vote for a guy who thought Clinton would go down in history with FDR, Jackson, LIncoln, Washington etc >>> GORE, and Kerry lost my vote the isnatant he said the GWOT was an issue for intelligence agencies and the police)

The issue of our times is NOT right or left, repub or dem.

The issue is that some people believe it is their personal religious responsibility to strike my neck if I refuse the call to Islam, do NOT agree to Jizya, and resist dawa. The issue is to ensure ALL AMERICANS UNDERSTAND what is at stake and that tomorrow is NOT guaranteed. The issue to be certain those people are not taken too lightly as crazy crackpots who, while they might damage us, cannot win.

Make no mistake, they have identified that to beat us, WE MUST BEAT OURSELVES, and they are about it along with violent attacks.

If this is a right left issue, I just don't understand how.

It is 1937

Posted by: epaminondas

at November 28, 2005 6:08 PM

An excellent point, Robert. It should be stated in regard to politics generally. The notion of a political spectrum is ridiculous and has long been so. Waterdragon reminded us of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 when Stalin and the Soviet Union gave the green light to the German attack on Poland, and thereby helped start World War 2.
Political science needs new thinking, a new way of classifying political categories. The left-right notion mainly serves to confuse people and give rascals an advantage over the friends of civilization.
As far as the "Marxist Left" is concerned, there was a time when they used to claim that every issue must be seen as a "class issue." Of course, that was ridiculous. But during the period of the Nazi-Soviet Pact [Sept 1939-June 1941] the Communist parties in Western countries called for peace with Hitler and the Nazis. Today, they support jihadists who are the equivalent in many ways of Nazis. By the way, Haj Amin el-Husseini, the British-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, argued in a speech to troops of the Bosnian Muslim SS division, called the Handschar, that there was much in common between Islam and National Socialism. From the horse's mouth as it were.

Getting back to the "Marxist Left," nowadays they barely give lip service to class issues. After all, the workers are often victims of jihadists. Likewise, the poor are more often than not the victims of the mass murder suicide bombers. Who rides the buses? Who shops in the open air market in Jerusalem [Mahaneh Yehudah] in the middle of the afternoon on Friday before the Sabbath, if not the poor? Yet, Mahaneh Yehudah has often been the target of terrorists. And "leftists" defend those who murder the poor!!
On the other hand, both Repub and Dem presidents have been loyal to oil, and good friends of "our good friends, the Saudis."

Posted by: Eliyahu

at November 28, 2005 6:09 PM

All we are saying
Is RESIST THE JIHAD!

Posted by: islamophobic pride

Yes, you are correct. We need to resist Jihad in all of its manifestations. But, the pre-requisite to effectively lead others, against Jihad, is to lead yourself first and to truly lead yourself, you need to truly know yourself and know what you believe in and stand for.

You can only truly know yourself, if you know what your purpose here on earth is and that will only be revealed once you acknowledge your creator, who is the creator of the universe, who is YHWH.

Whether you like it or hate it, the bottom line is this: our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Therefore, no one at JW/DW, or anywhere else on the web, or on our planet, can successfully take a stand against the devil's schemes, including Islam, on their own, ie without putting on the full armor of God!

Until we all drop our humanistic arrogance and admit that we are mere tiny perishables in the vastness of Gods creation, even our greatest individual concerns and efforts will hardly register on the radar screen of eternity's events.

Posted by: DiscipleofJesusChrist

at November 28, 2005 6:18 PM

They are not a fascist party but a nationalist party! try and remember that. Britain for the British, anyone that chooses to live in the UK is not a citizen but a guest. where is the racism in that?

Well, technically we're subjects not citizens. But for practical purposes we are citizens, with rights and also with obligations and duties. This applies whether you or your parents were born here, or whether you acquired citizenship. (Nobody has it thrust upon them.)

My "other half" is Jewish - his grandparents came to this country to escape the Russian pogroms. Is he a 'guest'?

The BNP are not the solution to the problem of Islam. Islam is not a matter of race - white British converts to Islam are just as dangerous. The problem is one of ideology.

Lord Lucan, if you just want to promote the BNP, please make like the real Lord Lucan and disappear.

Posted by: Interested

at November 28, 2005 6:20 PM

Islam is not a matter of race - white British converts to Islam are just as dangerous. The problem is one of ideology.

excellent argument, this is indeed very correct.

yet it is the very environment that we in the west have created, a fertile breeding ground for radical islam, a continual degrading of values in the west, such as our family structure, respect for the police and authority which glued our society together. the 1960's heralded in a new era of social experimentation, the break down of the nuclear family and the promotion of anti-authority. This has led to a left wing socialist intellectual infrastructure whom control everything from the media and politics. anyone that stands in their way are either fascists or rascists, or the new catch phrase, "islamophobic"!

personally i'm not here to merely promote the BNP, but I have to say that after the islamofascists murdered my people on 7/7 then I feel that there are only 2 choices left , the one which i dont agree with, but im sad to say may be forced upon us, is to take to the streets or secondly we take the easy way out and give the ballot one last try and overthrow this marxist government in a free and democratic election!

I'm interested to see how else we can end this jihadist menace? what other alternatives are there for us! any ideas?
we, on this web site, are the last real free thinkers out here and we need to mobolise fast!

Posted by: lord lucan

at November 28, 2005 7:10 PM

I noticed that some talk like there is only right and left, then nothing else.

At minimum there is atleast also centre.

In my country there is 7 elected parties all quite different.
Starting from left with the communist 3% vote, socialists 6-7 %, then one of the major parties the socialdemocrats with 25-35 % vote and a huge difference internal from left wing of the party to the right wing really.
Then we have social liberals which have 9 % vote ( we used to have 2 more centrist social liberal parties - one that broke out of Social democrats and one which had christian roots )
Then we have conservatives which again is one of those parties where there is big variation, some are close to center some are extremely to the right, they are not big now a days, 8 %.
Then Liberals which here are the most rightwing party and have around 25-35 % also, thus currently the other of the two big parties.

We also have a nationalist party, it originally split from the most rightwing party there which actually don´t get votes anymore. This party is moving towards the center while maintaining strict immigration policy, national konservatism and stronger law and order ( more police longer terms in jail and exit with criminal immigrants )

Posted by: TBH_1

at November 28, 2005 7:11 PM

Interested and Nassem:

Thanks for the citations on the annotated Koran. I had a quick look-see. By now, I thought I had seen the worst of Islamic ideology. No way. Every day my horror increases. How can anyone excuse or respect this vile movement? Our MESA academics especially have failed humanity and civilization by ignoring what is right in front of them--have they no integrity?

Posted by: Stendec

at November 28, 2005 7:47 PM

Mr. Spencer:

Thank you so much for that beam of insightful light which pierces the partisan fog into which we've become trapped. We need to divest ourselves of all the baggage that we bring with us, and focus here on the issue at hand, which is the insidious nature of Islam and its innate conflict with Western civilization.

I'm not even sure if I'm left or right any more. Sure, I came of age in the 60s and 70s, so by default I developed a very liberal outlook. But then when Ronald Reagan came along I found a lot of what he stood for to be quite compelling, and I rebelled against the liberal outlook. It caused a lot of conflict in my family relationships. I've since evolved into what I believe to be a genuine neo-conservatism: liberal on many social issues, but fiscally conservative and overtly patriotic. However, I could not bring myself to vote for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and I was shocked when I realized who I really wanted to vote for: Pat Buchanan, a man whose beliefs I previously found repulsive, but who now was the only one who was being honest about our failed immigration policy, and our ludicrous exercise in nation-building in Iraq.

I check several news websites every day: FrontPage, largely to read your articles and those of Daniel Pipes, even though some of their other articles I find revolting; Andrew Sullivan, whom I admire tremendously; Arianna Huffington's website, which always has something compelling, even if much of it is also delusional drivel; Lucianne.com for the links, and also to infuriate myself by reading the feedback; Slate.com for quality articles; Fark.com for the wackier side of the news, plus top-notch debate. Then there are the usual online papers: New York Times (and I do so miss reading Tom Friedman, now that he's been imprisoned in the pay-per-view cage), New York Times, Washington Post, New Yorker, New York Post, and an assorted selection of others.

In sum, I'm not left, and I'm not right. Given the choice, though, or rather, being forced to choose, I sway a bit more to the right. I just don't want to be forced to make that choice, and no one else should be forced to do so.

I sincerely hope that the recent election has taught us all a lesson in the dark side of partisanship, and that we'll stop this ridiculous Red vs. Blue mentality. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people whose livelihood and whose validation are dependent on maintaining those divisions, and I despair that common sense will not prevail.

Each side has plenty of bad behavior to apologize for. The Right complains loudly about liberals embracing multiculturalism without making any differentiation between what is worth of embracing, and what should be questioned. The Right also complains about liberals allegedly coddling illegal aliens. However, the Right refuses to admit that Bush and his cronies have completely sold our immigration policy out to the Fox administration in Mexico, and to the greedy and short-sighted American industries whose lifeblood is dirt-cheap disposable labor.

The Left complains about conservatives being racist, about neo-cons being hypocrites, and about Republican policies being detrimental to poor people. However, the Left refuses to acknowledge the fact that Americans should be proud to be Americans, and that Western culture should take pride in its accomplishments, instead of brow-beating ourselves for "oppressive" and "racist" pasts.

Both sides need to look at themselves honestly. Conservatives need to condemn the racists and anti-Semites in their midst. Liberals need to stop condemning white people and Americans for everything under the sun that isn't perfect, and they need to acknowledge that allowing millions of people to rush into this country is very detrimental to our survival.

Posted by: TempeB

at November 28, 2005 8:45 PM

Of course, JW/DW, the organization, the site, should not, for a variety of reasons, adopt or endorse either a 'left' or 'right' position.

And, too, jihadists don't care whether their next attack takes out 'leftists' or 'right-wingers'. Only that it takes out plenty of infidels.

But people and organizations are, in the real world, legitimately labeled and do describe themselves as left, center, right, liberal, and conservative. I know what reporters mean when they describe the president's speach in Tucson today as an attempt to shore up his 'conservative' base. And when someone refers to John Kerry as a 'liberal', I know what that implies, too.

So, the left/right issue, to me, isn't whether JW/DW should be left or right. And it isn't about a jihadist's political leanings. It's about how others, in my small sphere of influence, view issues like religion and politics, and how their beliefs impact my efforts to inform.

I'm not sure that a Western 'leftist' or a Middle Eastern 'right-winger' can be convinced that Islam is a bad thing.

And just a note to DiscipleofJesusChrist--as an agnostic, I hope you'll understand that I won't be wearing God's full armor as I take my stand against Islam.

Posted by: PRCS

at November 28, 2005 8:52 PM

Left, center, right....With Jihad, it all boils down to this:

Incitement Watch: Krauthammer Says Quran 'Inspires Barbarism'

INCITEMENT WATCH: KRAUTHAMMER SAYS QURAN 'INSPIRES BARBARISM'

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/400rhqav.asp

The norm, however, is how the majority of prisoners at Guantanamo have been treated. We give them three meals a day, superior medical care, and provision to pray five times a day.

Our scrupulousness extends even to providing them with their own Korans, which is the only reason alleged abuses of the Koran at Guantanamo ever became an issue.

That we should have provided those who kill innocents in the name of Islam with precisely the document that inspires their barbarism is a sign of the absurd lengths to which we often go in extending undeserved humanity to terrorist prisoners.

And: INCITEMENT WATCH: CAL THOMAS - ISLAM A RELIGION OF SATAN?

http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=56

"One would like to see those Muslims, we are repeatedly told are peaceful, rise up to expose those who are not, but we continue to wait for that day to happen. Any religion that justifies the killing of innocent civilians, especially children, is a religion of Satan, not God. Such a twisted religion deserves not just condemnation but isolation.

The West had better realize that such people will not be deterred with niceties uttered by US officials. They must be defeated and shown that nothing they do will cause us to surrender to their barbaric ways or change our policies to match theirs."

Two well known names...with large audiences....

Posted by: DCWatson

at November 28, 2005 8:54 PM

(SIGH)

No one will get to my comment (past 60 and counting) but want to comment anyways. :)

Although I didn't start recent left vs. right argument, I did add a long comment to the debate, and probably helped precipitate Spencer's post.

Here is what I gleaned from his post:

Spencer: "there is an ongoing partisan rumble in the comments field that detracts from what we are trying to do here as much as do the intemperate comments CAIR tried to hang me with"

wow - I didn't think the partisan rumble detracted that much...as long as it was related in some way to islamism. Certainly if people started discussing random Dem and Repub issues, they should be somewhere else. Robert, I figured it was mostly fighting "within the family". Certainly the communists and the evangelicals here would drop their squabble to end the islamist menace...it is what we all have in common here.

Spencer: "This is not a matter of free speech -- it is all happening on my nickel only."

I couldn't agree more. Viva capitalism.

Islamism is, among other things, a philosophical stance, as is Left or Right, so it will take a smart and reasonable person to know when they have crossed the line. Certainly one might talk about convervative or liberal values in the context of Islam, which is different than the "partisan bickering" that I know Spencer and the rest of us want to avoid.

I am mostly an assumption challenger, and a student of philosophy. An assumption that passes a test, in the mind of the reader, is a more solid assumption than it was previously. Perhaps people think that when I challenge the assumptions, I am not loyal to the cause. In fact, I want to make the cause stronger, to go through another truth iteration.

An example: if I question the value and motives of religion in general, and I am ALSO anti-Islam, will the evangelicals pack up and leave the site? I wouldn't think so.

If I suggest that socialism and islamism have as a common root - the heinous idea of "collectivism", and I am ALSO anti-Islam, will the socialists here pack up and leave the site? I would hope not.

I think JWers are a smart buch of people - but then again I don't know how much bitter vitriol the editors have to sift through in the raw comments. Perhaps there are more than I see that misinterpret, that don't see arguments in context, that see only "us and them".

That being said, I need to support all the editors, because I would not know what to do without my daily fix of JW.

Posted by: VoiceOfSkippy

at November 28, 2005 9:33 PM

pythagoras:
All modern religions, virtually all, have roots in or are actualizations of pagan cults, including Christianity, only here the sacrificial creature/lamb is Christ himself, whose body and blood the faithful ingest in communion/the Eucharist (by the by, tonight, in Eastern Christianity, is the night before St. Andrew's feast, a sort of Halloween, when ghouls and vampires come out of the graves and wreak havoc in communities, with a tinge of humor--they first go at each other...)
So there it goes. What matters is what these cults have become and what they stand for now. For many reasons (I'm no partisan, I'm agostic, mine is as rational an assesment as I can make) Christianity is far superior to Islam, and that has to do with the core and the details of Christian belief, and with the evidence shown in history, about which Hugh and Robert have written extensively. Islam has produced little but death, subjugation, warfare, women and infidel spectral lives, poverty, disease, stulted minds (can anyone find in any other religions questions like those a Muslim faithful addresses the Imam, like can I pray while wearing a short-sleeve shirt (which is one of the milder ones)?

As to right and left, I've sworn to myself never to be regimented and follow the party line again, ever.
That's why Hugh's and Robert's work mean so much to me.

Posted by: ovidius_naso

at November 28, 2005 10:08 PM

One word of caution for those of you who may go out in search of exotic, Saint Andrew Eve's vampires and revenants: they will ignore you at first; they go after each other and quarrel at crossroads (the pagan idea of a forum/chat room, I suppose), spewing venom, fire, cursing and swearing. It's all a battle of words. Tonight evil is kind of tamed and humorous. This same night tricksters are said to roam the countriside in search of devils and ghouls to bag in sacks and beat until they can talk no more. The tricksters become heroes in the community.
Follow suit, Jihad Watchers. It's the battle of our lives.

Posted by: ovidius_naso

at November 28, 2005 11:10 PM

ovidius_naso

eloquently written but are riddles the only weapon that we have at our disposal to fight an idealogical war against this jihadist menace?

look: Giant mosque for 40,000 may be built at London Olympics
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1892780,00.html

How are we to resist this??? with riddles?

Posted by: lord lucan

at November 28, 2005 11:28 PM

Some helpful clarifications of terminology:

Left and Right are not synonymous nor interchangeable with Democratic and Republican.

Leftist is not the same thing as liberal in the classic sense. In fact, these two terms have become almost opposites in many respects.

In the same spirit, liberal in the classic sense does not necessarily conflict with conservative in the classic sense.

The term liberal in the classic sense is not synymous nor interchangeable with Democratic.

It is psychologically impossible for a true liberal in the classic sense to whitewash Islam and vilify critics of Islam.

While a true liberal in the classic sense may have to evolve from a point of naive ignorance of Islam to an intelligent critique and condemnation of Islam, that is only due to an impoverishment of an educational and cultural milieu that has been deformed by anti-Western currents which, in turn, have been in large part engendered by Leftism (or Leftism is another name for this strange anti-Western movement in the West).

Every person who comes quickly (after the facts have been digested over time) to criticize and condemn Islam is, ipso facto, a liberal in the classic sense.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper

at November 28, 2005 11:39 PM

Robert I'm glad you actually focus on pressing issues instead of the classical trick question. How is there a majority out of 2 parties anyways?
I wish both parties could just cancel eachother out and the people who actually care could be in office. Politicians and beauracrats these days dillute the positive goals of the people more than they stop the evil ones.

"armed digital surveillance is the answer for a western generation failing to produce kids."

Posted by: parainvesta

at November 28, 2005 11:46 PM

Pythagoras, Ovidius and Disciple of Jesus Christ,

Your posts are thoughtful and thought provoking. Robert is correct. We need to forget about right or left because walking down those paths just wastes time and gets us on tangents that lead down the wrong fork in the road. Then we waste time back tracking and use up precious energy arguning with each other.

It's lots of fun to debate here but, again, what is our purpose here? To fight a foe that will destroy all our different ways of life. Do I believe that there are specific steps we can take to be the most effective? Yes I do.

Jesus said that some demons can only be eradicated through prayer and fasting. I know in my own life when I was going through a very difficult time after I got a divorce I took a month to pray and fast, I mean really hardly eat anything. And I was spiritually strengthened in a way I never would have believed. I was able to deal with a form of pain that I'd never experienced before, I was able to see a clear path through it and I was able to help others when shortly before I couldn't even help myself.

If this is a fight between good and evil, and I believe it is, then we can't use the normal means to fight it. We have to search for other methods. If Islam is fueled by Satanic hatred, (you will know them by their fruits,) then the weapons will not be the typed word, they will not be the sword or even a machine gun. We are being called to rise above the sewer, not to roll around in it with those who cannot raise themselves out of it. And we have an obligation to offer a hand to help those who can't help themselves, climb out. A tall order, indeed. How will we ever accomplish this seemingly impossible task. Well, the only way I know is to ask God to help us and believe that He will. Now for those of you that don't believe in Him, do you believe in me? I post here quite often, and I'm not lying to you when I tell you that God has created many miracles in my life and in the lives of those I've asked help for. He saved my son's life when he was seemingly hopelessly intertwined with drugs. My family suffered deeply and for a long time because of that one. My dad who didn't believe in God his entire life converted to Catholicism in his 74th year. My good friend, St. Jude, healed my friend's dad who was on dialysis for two years. I prayed for a new kidney which came to him one day later but wasn't neccessary because when the doctor went into disconnect his old kidneys, they both started working again.

Those are just a few of the things that have gone on in my life. How about the battle of Lepanto which I have posted before but no one bothers to discuss here? The whole of Europe was threatened by Islam in 1571 and the Christians destroyed the Moslem Navy with less guys and inferior weapons. Look it up.

Or how about when the Spanish padres introduced the Blessed Mother to the Indians living in what is now Mexico? Before you tell me how all the Spanish did was annihilate the Indians, take a look at what was going on when the Spanish arrived. The place was running rampant with human sacrifice, sometimes as many as 10,000 warriors a day would be slaughtered and sacrificed to feed to the serpent god. (Serpent god?!! Interesting!) Within 3 1/2 years of Our Lady of Guadalupe being introduced to these people, human sacrifice stopped completely. And it is no coincidence that the picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe shows her standing on a crescent, half moon, symbol of Islam. And this happened in the first third of the 16th century, in the same century Islam threatened to take over Europe. (One of the times, anyway.) Coincidence? I don't think so.

If we are going to look past the left/right issue we also need to look past the Christian/agnostic issue. If the atheists and agnostics have a good idea how to combat this evil, I am willing to listen and try what works. Until then, I've got to share what I know works and hope that you will seriously consider it as a weapon to be reckoned with.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader

at November 28, 2005 11:56 PM

I like this website because it is commited to jihadwatch, not partisan politics.

I am convinced that there are many people both on the right and the left who are combating the forces of jihad each day.

A Jihad is a political and spiritual battle that occurs on a variety of different fronts.

Some Muslims fight for jihad on moral or religious grounds, while for others the jihad is a cultural march that is out seeking to control and dominate the lives of the infidel.

But I take comfort in knowing that the light of truth will always overcome the darkness of untruth.

Islam will never rule the world because it is not a religion that is based upon authentic spiritual truth.

It is Jesus Christ who liberates the darkness of sin and reveals the truth, not Muhammad.

The march towards freedom from fear is far more powerful than the march that leads towards the fear of freedom.

"Our hearts are restless until it rests in thee"
-St. Augustine

Posted by: Johnathan

at November 29, 2005 12:19 AM

Everyone and his uncle knows that JW is an ultra-leftist website. The left-liberal slant has gotten unhide-able now. The rabid right wing shows up trailing islam by just a whisker as evil incarnate. Liberal thoughts permeate all the space between every two letters in every word written here..... etc etc etc.

/sarc off

Posted by: voletti

at November 29, 2005 12:24 AM

I believe the left/right arguments keep popping up in discussions of Islam and jihad because the left/liberal worldview has become one of secularism, open borders, multiculturalism, diversity, moral/cultural/religious relativity, and an "anything goes" attitude. Liberals are Islam's most enthusiastic apologists, not necessarily because they know the first thing about it, but because they simply adore anything and everything that is diametrically opposed to Western culture, which they hate and wish to destroy. And I'm not referring only to Liberal politicians and government leaders, but to Liberals in general.

By the way and much to my consternation, GWB IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE. I once thought he was, but he is a miserable disappointment in most respects. So are many putative Conservative Senators and Representatives. The lines between liberal and conservative have become blurred and fuzzy in the political arena. The voting public, you and me, have a lucid set of convictions and values by which we live and we elect people who share them to represent us in government. I happen to believe that most of our elected representatives have failed us miserably.

Every administration in my lifetime has kissed the Saudis' asses, both Democratic and Republican. Bush is not unique in that department. I voted for Bush both times and I would do it again given the same choices. But I abhor almost everything he has done since he took office with the exception of his war against Islamic terrorism, which could be more aggressive and less politically correct, and his tax cuts.

Iraq was a mistake. There were and are more serious threats to our security, namely Iran. Progress and modernization in the Middle East will not materialize by creating "democracies" in which muslims "elect" people to impose Sharia. Bush's entitlement programs and education reform reek of socialism; the federal government has grown and the bureaucracies have expanded, their behemoth, labyrinth layers so deep and dark that even the employees are lost. Efficiency and competence are non-existent.

My biggest complaint with liberals/leftists is their dislike, sometimes overt hatred, of America. I don't think GWB hates America, but he has done it plenty of harm nonetheless. It's bad enough to screw things up with good intentions, but it is unforgivable to denigrate, vilify, and berate everything about one's own country, yet continue to live in it and reap the rewards. Many on the left do exactly that. The war we are engaged in now shouldn't be a left/right issue and both sides are guilty of ignorance, arrogance, misconceptions, and blatant incompetence.

I know there are both Conservatives and Liberals who frequent this website, and I have the utmost respect and admiration for everyone who has acknowledged and wishes to address the serious threat of global jihad and fanatical muslims. That is our mission and we should certainly adhere to it, putting aside our political differences and disagreements. I don't know if ideological disparities can be easily reconciled, but I'll certainly try.

Posted by: Susanp

at November 29, 2005 12:32 AM

"Serpent god?!! Interesting!"

Indeed, Isabella. See Romans 1:22 & 23

Posted by: islamophobic pride

at November 29, 2005 12:35 AM

I cannot disagree with DiscipleofJC's...apocalyptic analysis; this is, in essence, a spiritual struggle. Strongly Christian communities (as was my country 100 years ago)are better equipped to repel this Islamic menace. Don't the jihadists know it! The Westerners have largely abandoned their spiritual roots (Christianity). We are.. whats that REM song?.. Losing My Religion. Other things we stand to lose include democracy and freedom. That includes freedom for agnostic Westerners to turn to Christ, or to turn to another faith, or to remain agnostic. To retain these freedoms, we must resist the jihad.

Posted by: islamophobic pride

at November 29, 2005 12:57 AM

Interested

Even phrases like 'the Christian Right', or the 'Islamofascist' Left show that religion and politics are two separate spheres in our Western mindset. This idea is deeply ingrained. But it is alien to Islam.

Exactly. We don't use terms like "the most Christian King of France" any more. The concept of royalty, for the most part, is gone (thankfully). Divine rights of kings and divine rights of the clergy are mostly gone. These 'divine' rights were always applied to the most mundane aspects of temporal life as well as the spiritual.

Just as we're (the 'West' - democracies with individual rights) breaking out into the light, along come... our "Allies in the War on Terror" (TM), the Saudis, the most corrupt theocratic oligarchy on the planet, which just so happens to be the center of Islam (floating on oil). They export Wahhabism with each drop of oil we purchase.

Nearby Iran is run by a council of