| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
It's the gala event of the year! The glitterati are all arriving in their limousines here at the Freedom Palace in beautiful downtown Secure Undisclosed Locationville...oh look, there's Brigitte Bardot -- and isn't that the guy who played Gimli the dwarf? And there's Myrna Loy, and Conrad Veidt...and look! Leslie Howard! Oh, this is so exciting!
The flashbulbs are popping, the stars are walking up the red carpet (Lizabeth Scott! Joey Bishop! Francis X. Bushman! Doris Dowling! And, oh, that fat man from A Touch of Evil!). Everyone is anxious to see the winners accept their Dhimmis (it's a little gold statuette of a cringing, simpering, bowing and scraping non-Muslim). The Anti-Dhimmi, of course, is a proud figure standing straight up, looking ahead, not ready to bow down to anyone.
And there's that little group of protestors across the street, carrying their signs and marching -- "BUSH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NOMINATED." "DOWN WITH YOU, ROBERT SPENCER, AND THE CAMEL YOU RODE IN ON." "TEXANS AIN'T DHIMMIS."
And now the triumphant moment has come. The crowd is hushed. Hugh and I, decked out in our shiny new powder blue tuxes ($49.99 at WalMart, but they look spiffy), stand at the podium. Hugh hands me the envelope...
The American Dhimmi of the Year 2005...RAMSEY CLARK!!
Dhimmi Internationale 2005...GEORGE GALLOWAY!!
And now comes the best part: the heroes of our age, the people who are standing in the breach, the catchers in the rye...the envelopes, Hugh?
Anti-Dhimmi Internationale 2005...ORIANA FALLACI!!
And finally...
The American Anti-Dhimmi of the Year 2005...TOM TANCREDO!!
Congratulations to all the winners...you are all such lovely people...I blow you all kisses! Thank you for coming! Enjoy the dance!
Posted by Robert at December 12, 2005 4:00 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Congrats to all the winners and a crooked grin to you, Robert, for dredging up all those ancient names. Scary thing is, I actually know who they all are, er, were. (I take it Clara Bow, Thelma Ritter and Sonny Tufts were taking the night off?)
Posted by: scaramouoche![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 12, 2005 5:11 PM
Will it be a Morris dance? :P
Posted by: Gary at December 12, 2005 5:11 PM
Surely what with all the outlets we could get a cable channel to pick up the black-tie awards banquet.
Whoops, forgot about the security concerns that always surround the Religion of Peace. You'd have to have a speaker phone of Robert Spence and Hugh Fitzgerald on the podium, extending heartfelt congratulations to a speaksphone being wheeled up on a cart to the podium.
Things are always peaceful in Secure Undisclosed Locationville.
Posted by: Duke Eudes at December 12, 2005 5:11 PM
I'd like to say just a few words in thanks. Forgive me if I'm crying here. I'm so overwhelmed.
First though I'll relate the story of my life: I was born at an early age....
What do you mean "this isn't about me?" Then what's the point?
Jihad and dhimmis? But what about my shoes? And my deepest thoughts on the Palestinians? My acting career? You people can be so shallow.
Posted by: sonofwalker at December 12, 2005 5:14 PM
Definitely, Gary!
I have twenty-four bells festooned to each leg, and a stick and a handkerchief at the ready!
Start the reels!
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at December 12, 2005 5:16 PM
Dhimmi Internationale 2005...GEORGE GALLOWAY!!
Yes! Yes!! Yes!!!!
Strictly speaking he isn't a dhimmi; he's a full blown Muslim - ask his ex - but it's good to see him getting any kind of award for being bad at anything. The Literary Review Bad Sex Award would do. Or the knobbly knees competition at Butlins. Or the Turner prize. Or Big Brother.
Curses on his moustache. Forever.
at December 12, 2005 5:33 PM
Congrats to all of the winners!
Posted by: WineDrinkingInfidel at December 12, 2005 5:37 PM
Perhaps the fat man from Touch of Evil knows that his Paul Masson spokesman contract will go pfffffft under sharia.
Posted by: Miss Moneypenney at December 12, 2005 5:43 PM
Great for Orianna Fallaci who will leave this earth in a blaze, in the most honorable way. I loved her latest speech (which Robert reported) where she let it rip about the "sons of Allah"
Posted by: dennisw at December 12, 2005 5:46 PM
Scaramouche,
Unfortunately, Clara Bow, Thelma Ritter and Sonny Tufts had a previous commitment and sent their regrets.
But Victor Jory, Marie Windsor, and William Phipps, who starred with Tufts in the deathless classic "Cat-Women of the Moon," enjoyed a sparkling evening of Morris dances and sarsparilla all around...
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at December 12, 2005 5:51 PM
Hey Robert, that was a big group of protesters ;)
Besides, How can a dhimmi invade a muslim country and dispose of it's government? Hmmmm...?
at December 12, 2005 5:53 PM
Kev,
Other people nominated him. I just recorded the Will of the People by putting him on the ballot.
Back to the Morris dances!
Cordially
RS
at December 12, 2005 6:00 PM
Robert --
You forgot to mention two of those for whom we took great care to roll out the red carpet this morning -- husky-voiced Joan Greenwood and double-taking Edward Everett Horton.
Posted by: Hugh at December 12, 2005 6:01 PM
Ha! They match my votes to a T (as in taqiyya)!
Posted by: Patrick at December 12, 2005 6:01 PM
Congrats to the Anti-Dhimmi winners, and to the Dhimmi winners, get a clue.
Posted by: pastor_matt023 at December 12, 2005 6:05 PM
Wonderful description!! I can almost visualize the ceremony.
Next year you could perhaps add another category, a la Claude Rains in "Casablanca", namely the Enabler (or Collaborator?) of the Year.
"I'm shocked - SHOCKED - to find that gambling is going on here!"
Posted by: TempeB at December 12, 2005 6:05 PM
You're right, Hugh.
And Joan Greenwood was so lovely, too. Such a gracious woman. And Horton: dignity personified.
It almost makes up for the rug burns I got on my knees, getting that confounded red carpet in place. I tell you, hang the expense: next year we're hiring some help.
Yrs
R
at December 12, 2005 6:07 PM
"How can a dhimmi invade a muslim country and dispose of it's government?..."
-- from a posting above
If that person "invades" to bring peace, tranquillity, prosperity and "democracy" which are all, he wishes us to devoutly believe, that we need do for the vast majority of tolerant and peaceful Muslims, and only worry about that handful of extremists, and if that person further does nothing signficant to prepare the way for diminishing OPEC revenues by taxation, by subsidies, by war-footing expenditures on other energy sources, and if further in every other area that same person -- whether promoting an idiotic "two-state solution" (or insisting rather grimly that Israel is somehow committed to this "road-map" which was never a treaty, and Israel is certainly not committed to, however much a flailing administration wishes to buy the temporary favor of Arabs and Muslims by pressuring the most obvious victim of such pressure), or dithering about the Sudan so that even Congress becomes outraged, and continues to tell us, without the slightest evidence, that if Iraq holds together, thanks to massive American efforts and sacrifices, this "democracy" will somehow end or limit the Muslim attacks on Christians, Hindus, and other non-Muslims and apostates from Islam trying to exercise the right of freedom of conscience in, inter alia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kashmir, Sudan, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Russia, France, Spain, England, Germany, and a few dozen other countries in, and out, of Dar al-Islam -- well, the absurdity of it all has become apparent to all but the Truest of True Believers.
Anyone who can use such misleading terms as "victory" or still worse "total victory" in Iraq, anyone who ignores the sectarian and ethnic fissures within Islam that Iraq offers on a platter for exploitation, is not capable, lacks the wit, to lead or rather "take a leadership role" in a world-wide counter-Jihad.
The responsibilites of rule are obvious. The failure to meet those responsibilities, out of obstinacy, ignroanc (when do you think -- at what point do you think, Bush became aware that there were canonical Muslim texts other than the Qur'an? At what point do you think he became dimly aware that for 1350 years Sunnis and Shi'a had been split, and that this split was reiniforced by the behavior of Sunnis during the entire 80-years of modern Iraq, and were not merely a matter of Saddam Hussein's particular brutality? When do you think he, and others in the Adminstration, began to grasp that the islamization of Europe would be unaffected by whatever happpened in Iraq?
Or do you think he perhaps still is unaware of Hadith and Sira, still doesn't know the depths of Shi'a resentment of Sunnis, and not only in Iraq (has anyone told him about the Shi'a in Saudi Arabia's eastern, oil-bearing province, or in Pakistan, or in Yemen, or Bahrain?), or has yet to understand that the Kurdish leaders in the Iraqi government are far more temperate in their demands for autonomy than the independence-minded people back in Kurdistan? And when do you thinnk Bush, Rice, and others began to realize that possibly a Kurdish state might encourage other non-Arab Muslims to see Islam as a vehicle for Arab imperialism, and that, in turn, might lead to welcome divisions within Islam that can only benefit Infidels?
Or do you think people high up in this Administration still don't fully comprehend, as their actions, and certainly Bush's speeches designed to lay out a plan for a pointless "victory" in Iraq that, were it to be successful, would achieve exactly the reverse of what Infidels should wish to achieve, not by doing anything at all, but by withdrawing, and letting the people in Iraq -- not the "Iraqi people" -- do what comes naturally.
Posted by: Hugh at December 12, 2005 6:16 PM
I just wanna give a big shout-out to the first runners-up:
American Dhimmi 2005: Noam Chomsky!
Dhimmi Internationale 2005: Jacques Chirac!
Anti-Dhimmi Internationale 2005: Ayaan Hirsi Ali!
(and what a tough category that was - winners all!)
American Anti-Dhimmi 2005: Michael Graham!
Posted by: Caroline at December 12, 2005 6:20 PM
Did George Galloway and Ramsey Clark thank the Academy or did they send some down-trodden, oppressed muslim to accept their awards? Was the audience subjected to a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli rant? What was Brigitte wearing? I can't wait to see the highlights!!!
Posted by: 3812Michelle at December 12, 2005 6:20 PM
'Next year you could perhaps add another category, namely the Enabler (or Collaborator?) of the Year.'
I second that motion, TempeB. There needs to be a category for people who have really crossed the line from 'useful fool' to outright traitor. (No prizes for guessing who I'm thinking of...)
Meanwhile, congrats to all concerned - especially Robert for organising the event and for his elegant intro!
Perhaps next year the announcement might be live-blogged on one of the Video-Blogs (from a Secret Location, of course)? Would help raise the profile and effectiveness of the Awards.
Posted by: BennyLux at December 12, 2005 6:34 PM
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/12/122005h.asp
...A former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations says a document found by Israeli military forces reveals that a U.N. agency has actually provided financial support to the terrorist group Hamas. Dore Gold has recently released the paperback version of this book Tower of Babel: How the United Nations Has Fueled Global Chaos. The former U.N. ambassador says he has included evidence that the United Nations has been financing several Hamas front groups. "I think the most devastating document that I put in the paperback version of Tower of Babel is a document that was found by the Israeli Army in a Hamas headquarters in the West Bank," the author explains. "It's a bank transfer from the Arab Bank in Jordan of several thousand dinars from the United Nations Development Program to Hamas, an international terrorist organization." Gold says giving money to Hamas is a violation of the U.N.'s own resolution. [Chad Groening]
Posted by: pastor_matt023 at December 12, 2005 6:37 PM
Regarding your two Dhimmi of 2005 awards:
I join with those who think that George Galloway doesn't deserve to be in the category. A dhimmi is a non-Muslim who practices deference to and/or acts as an apologist for Islam out of internalized fear or opportunism. Who believes that Galloway is a non-Muslim at this point?
As for Bush (being nominated, not winning): Do you think that any Muslim regards the non-Muslim head of a nation that invaded two Muslim countries as behaving as a good dhimmi? How many Americans/Europeans know what the term Dhimmi means? Should it mean someone that JW/DW doesn't agree with?
Bush, Condi, and Hughes have been serving too much of the ROP Kool-aid, and with a little too much enthusiasm for it to be just a ruse. Clearly in many respects they just don't get it.
That may make them dhummis but not dhimmis.
Having said that, there is a big difference between declaring that "our enemy is Islam" from behind a keyboard in Secure Undisclosed Locationville and making the same declaration from behind the desk of the Oval Office. Euphemisms are to be expected from people in that type of position.
I'm glad Bush didn't win because the Internet already has enough Bush-bashing sites. Now if Bush had been nominated for Dhummi of the Year I may have voted for him... (Hey I've voted for him twice before :^})... for his continued employment of two real dhimmis, Robert ("looking for a few good Muslims") Mueller and Norman ("don't frisk Mo' frisk your Ma") Mineta.
at December 12, 2005 6:52 PM
grrr have a look what the bbc are allowing muslims to post. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213236?thread=1698350 its so sick please complain about it to the bbc.
Posted by: werter5075 at December 12, 2005 7:10 PM
Oooooo Good Ones! I agree with them all. This calls for a happy dance!
Posted by: foreign devil at December 12, 2005 7:17 PM
"Euphemisms are to be expected from people in that type of position."
--- from a posting above
Ways of talking about the problem have been repeatedly offered at JW. The siimplest is to talk about "Jihad" and all the instruments of this "Jihad" but to pretend that one simply has no idea that this "Jihad" is central to Islam. Let Rice and Rumsfeld begin. Let them say something along the lines of:
"We are of course not fighting Islam. We are fighiting only those people who claim, in the name of Islam, to be conducting what they call a 'Jihad' to spread Islam until it covers the globe. To this end they will use any instruments of warfare that are available. They will use terror -- that is their most spectacular tactic, but by no means the only one. They will use money, tens of billions of dollars, to spread their doctrines and their hatred of all those whom they call "Infidels" -- and that of course will include those Muslims they disagree with. They pay for, and then fill with propaganda, their own network of mosques and madrasas. They buy up people in the outside world to perform public relations tasks for them, to hide their real malevolence. Of course, real Muslims have nothing to do with this. Real Muslims do not believe in Jihad-- how could they? For if they did, it would imply a permanent war of all Muslims against all Infidels, and that of course is ridiculous [give as much in this vein as you think appropriate]."
And so on.
But this is not what the Amdinsitration has done. And at this point, those who thought that they must know what they are doing, surely they know what they are doing, should by now be feeling distinctly uneasy about Bush, Rice, and company, including those unnamed "Middle Eastern advisors" they have who seem to be determined not to understand, much less come to grips with, what Islam is all about -- not the Islam of worship, but the other Islam, the geopolitical Islam, the part of Islam that makes it the perfect ideology to justifry, and promote, conquest, which is exactly how the belief-system no doubt came about in the first place.
Posted by: Hugh at December 12, 2005 7:18 PM
werter, I'm hardly surprised that the BBC would allow such a comment to be posted on their site. It all falls into their act of dhimmitude, that if they appease the muslims, that somehow they will be immune to their jihad. Of course, this isn't the case, muslims don't care who they hurt, maim, kill, etc, as long as they aren't fellow muslims (and by fellow muslims, I mean Shia/Shia, Sunni/Sunni, etc.). Expect more of this, not only from the BBC, but from media all over the world.
Posted by: pastor_matt023 at December 12, 2005 7:26 PM
Galloway married a muslim woman so he is a muslim man, their for he cannot be a dhimmie,
Posted by: KAOSKTRL at December 12, 2005 7:35 PM
I voted for Bat Ye'or, but I hope the honor gives Oriana a reason to smile today.
Posted by: Cornelius at December 12, 2005 7:56 PM
werter5705
I may be wrong but I don't think that post you linked to is written by a muslim. For instance---
"The answer is that it is the God of Israel who has raged fire in the heart and soul of the Muslims to wage war against a world which has lost its innocence and has revolted against the Commandments and the Word of God."
It would be an unusual muslim who would accept the existence of 'the God of Israel', while mention of the Commandments and the word of God is clearly a reference to the Christian God, as distinct from Allah.
My guess is this is written by someone who thinks of himself as a Christian. In any case, whatever religion he espouses he's clearly a confused individual.
at December 12, 2005 8:02 PM
Hugh said:
"...And at this point, those who thought that they must know what they are doing, surely they know what they are doing, should by now be feeling distinctly uneasy about Bush, Rice, and company, including those unnamed "Middle Eastern advisors" they have who seem to be determined not to understand, much less come to grips with, what Islam is all about ..."
Which is exactly why I voted for Rice for American Dhimmi, and why I was surprised at the complaints about the nominations of Bush/Rice. Just because a fox says it's a chicken doesn't mean it tastes good in soup.
at December 12, 2005 8:06 PM
Bravo Orianna!!
Posted by: rafael699 at December 12, 2005 8:09 PM
Hooray for Orianna, Long Live the Queen of Spades!
Posted by: JadeDragoness at December 12, 2005 8:48 PM
Do the winners get an official JW award notification?
Posted by: treehugger at December 12, 2005 9:19 PM
Hooray for Oriana a shining light of courage in these troubling times (man I can really be trite even if I don't try to be). I am however distrubed, to say the least, that Ramsey Clark won. The less said about him the better. But, hands down, running away with the award should have been that Senator Dick Durbin. Not enough words can be said about our honorable minority party Senate Whip who compares our great American Military with the Nazi's, Pol Pot, et.al., semi-apologizes the next day and the next day reiterates his blasphemy. Clark is less than nothing. Durbin deserved this award and I can guarantee that our troops in Iraq, Iran, and Gitmo would agree with me 100%.
Posted by: realwest at December 12, 2005 9:20 PM
oops - perhaps a peek into the future, but for now, Iran should have been Afghanistan. Sorry folks.
Posted by: realwest at December 12, 2005 9:22 PM
afraid only those of us not in France will be Dancing seams the French have closed their Dance clubs because of mulsum problems!!
But here is some news that will make us all hapy the Kids in Austriala still want to dance and have fun!!
I KNOW WHAT THE YOUTHS OF ASSIS LAND ARE PISSED ABOUT LET’S GET REAL??
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17551599-23109,00.html
Muslims say no to condom machines
From: Reuters
From correspondents in Chennai
December 13, 2005
WHERE IS AUSTIN WHEN YOU NEED HIM??
I TOLD ALL THE YOUNG WILL NOT STAND BY WHILE THEY ARE ATTACKED AND SOMEONE TRYS TO TAKE THEIR SKATE BOARDS?? GOOD SHOW!!
PLANS to install 500 condom vending machines in the capital of one of India's worst HIV/AIDS-affected states have angered Muslim groups so much they have taken to the streets to protest a "condom culture".
HELLO it aint even their country do not let them take over your country!!!
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17551578-23109,00.html
PRESIDENT Vladimir Putin, in a surprise morale-boosting trip to Chechnya today, declared the turbulent region was on the road to peace and said Russia would never surrender to religious fundamentalists.
OH YEA WHAT ABOUT IRAN???
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17551574-23109,00.html
750 insurgents killed in western Iraq
From: Agence France-Presse
From corrrespondents in Baghdad
December 13, 2005
YES WHEN YOU KILL THEM OR PUT THEM IN JAIL THEY CAN NO LONGER HARM THE PEOPLE!!
Very weird news we are seeing more of the Aussies in their shorts carring their flags then we saw of the mulsums in France roits and Burning France??
http://media.putfile.com/French-riots
And why did the Youth of France have to Roit because they closed their dance clubs??
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17548681-23109,00.html
Hacker disables Kremlin TV
From: Reuters
From correspondents in Moscow
December 12, 2005
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17548947%255E911,00.html
"All Arabs unite as one, we will never back down to anyone the aussie's (sic) will feel the full force of the arabs as one 'brothers in arms'," the SMS said. "Unite now lets show them who's boss 'destroy' everything gather at cronulla . . . spread the message to all Arabs."
LOOKS LIKE THE MSM GETS IT WRONG AGAIN??
Residents told how they watched in horror - many cowering inside with their children - as more than 100 youths descended on Maroubra Rd and Malabar Rd, targeting virtually every car in the street.
One man said he was threatened with a handgun and chased inside his home after going to investigate the commotion in the street.
"I was at the gate and this big guy came rushing toward me so I slammed the gate then the next thing another guy at the car pointed a gun at me and said 'get back inside'," he said.
"I ran inside and they chased us up the steps. It was terrifying."
Another resident, Niki Barr, said she was knocked to the ground after being smashed in the head by a thug with a baseball bat.
Upset residents claimed police were underprepared for the violence, with many adamant the violence only ended when the gang was chased away by members of the 'Bra Boys surf gang.
SO THE MULSUMS ATTACK CARS AND PEOPLE AND THE AUSSI SURFER BOYS COME TO SAVE THE DAY!!
First footage of police brief and raid
POLICE footage of the early morning raid that saw 16 terrorist suspects detained.
Source: News Ltd
November 8, 2005
Pirates hit luxury liner
PASSENGERS tell of their harrowing escape from the pirates grasp.
Source: Sky News
November 7, 2005
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/?from=ni_cover
HUNDREDS of youths chanting racial slurs attacked ethnic groups at Cronulla beach on Sunday.
December 12, 2005
Source: Sky News
HELL I DON’T SEE NO RACE ROIT JUST A PEOPLE PROTEST LOOK WHAT HAPPENED IN FRANCE ON THEIR VIDEO HELL GO TO ANY DEMOCRAT RALLY YOU WILL SEE FAR WORSE??
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17549789-1702,00.html
MOBS of men have damaged a number of vehicles in an outbreak of fresh violence in the southern Sydney suburb of Cronulla tonight.
Take a good look at the pictures don’t look like Whit kids to me look like mulsums AGAIN THE MSM GETS IT WRONG!!!
Lets's Dance!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM GIVE THE WORLD COURAGE TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THIS EVIL AMEN
ps
Earthquake in ubl[YELLOW COWARD WHO RUNS AWAY]land??
And why did Turkey al-fisla say ubl is no threat and has retiared???
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17551671-23109,00.html
25 arrested in French terror probe
From: Agence France-Presse
From correspondents in Paris
December 13, 2005
FRENCH police detained 25 people suspected of raising funds for Islamic terrorists in a series of raids in the Paris region early Monday, judicial sources said today.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17552130-23109,00.html
Quake rocks Afghanistan
From: Reuters
From correspondents in Islamabad
December 13, 2005
A 6.7-magnitude earthquake struck the Hindu Kush region of Afghanistan early today, the US Geological Survey said.
People in Pakistani Kashmir, where tens of thousands were killed by an earthquake on October 8, fled their homes when the quake struck, residents said.
Residents in the Indian capital New Delhi also felt the quake.
The quake occurred about 2.51am (8.51am AEDT) and was felt in Peshawar, Abbottabad, Mansehra, Muzaffarabad, Balakot, Lahore and Faisalabad, as well as the capital Islamabad, local television reported.
There were no immediate reports of casualties
More than 73,000 people were killed and around 500,000 left homeless in Pakistani Kashmir and the neighbouring North West Frontier Province of Pakistan when a 7.8-magnitude quake rocked the region on October 8.
NOW IF THAT AINT TELLING YOU SOME-THING??
at December 12, 2005 9:26 PM
Robert, thanks for the lovely event. Your classic Hollywood scene is terrific. The voting turned out very well, I thought, and reflects the intelligence of your readership.
Champagne all around!
Posted by: Dana at December 12, 2005 9:36 PM
I'm disgusted you awarded Galloway the d'himmi award. He is a full blown Quisling traitor, not some clueless liberal!
Posted by: Dumbo at December 12, 2005 9:56 PM
Well then, Mr. Spencer, you read my criticism. In my opinion, you add to the hail of rhetoric which constantly rains down on George Bush. In my opinion, our country has far too much emphasis on rhetoric, and far too little on reason. You are a very reasonable person, ordinarily, but your criticism of George Bush, in calling him a Dhimmi, is out of line. It is not a reasonable assertion to make.
Such rhetorical criticisms (name-calling vs. fact-based) become just another part of the white noise of hatred towards George Bush. It is not recognized as a specifically Conservative, or pro-American criticism. The net effect is you help to rob George Bush of political capital. That is a disaster.
When Bush doesn't have political capital to execute his policies, the War on Terror suffers. He has to make more "practical" decisions. He has to think, for instance, "At this time, is Israel the hill I want to die on?"
I have to wonder if the reason the Bush Administration has not been harder on Abbas is because of such considerations. I am quite sure it is. George Bush was much harder on terrorist supporters a year ago, than he is today.
Since you read my criticism, then you also know that I said, "I love Robert Spencer," and that I buy all your books, and that Jihad Watch is an important all-seeing eye trained on the Jihad. So, my criticism of you is on this particular issue. It is not with your site in general.
Posted by: pastorius at December 12, 2005 9:56 PM
Well then, Mr. Spencer, you read my criticism. In my opinion, you add to the hail of rhetoric which constantly rains down on George Bush. In my opinion, our country has far too much emphasis on rhetoric, and far too little on reason. You are a very reasonable person, ordinarily, but your criticism of George Bush, in calling him a Dhimmi, is out of line. It is not a reasonable assertion to make.
Such rhetorical criticisms (name-calling vs. fact-based) become just another part of the white noise of hatred towards George Bush. It is not recognized as a specifically Conservative, or pro-American criticism. The net effect is you help to rob George Bush of political capital. That is a disaster.
When Bush doesn't have political capital to execute his policies, the War on Terror suffers. He has to make more "practical" decisions. He has to think, for instance, "At this time, is Israel the hill I want to die on?"
I have to wonder if the reason the Bush Administration has not been harder on Abbas is because of such considerations. I am quite sure it is. George Bush was much harder on terrorist supporters a year ago, than he is today.
Since you read my criticism, then you also know that I said, "I love Robert Spencer," and that I buy all your books, and that Jihad Watch is an important all-seeing eye trained on the Jihad. So, my criticism of you is on this particular issue. It is not with your site in general.
Posted by: pastorius at December 12, 2005 9:56 PM
Oh yeah, and next time you quote me, please give me a link.
;-)
Posted by: pastorius at December 12, 2005 10:03 PM
Oh yeah, and next time you quote me, please give me a link.
;-)
Posted by: pastorius at December 12, 2005 10:03 PM
They're also partying in Riyadh:
Saudi Arabia announces record budget surplus
Saudi Gives $20 Million to Georgetown
Saudi Arabia Becomes 149th Member of WTO
Saudi Arabia indicates no need to change OPEC production quota
Posted by: Charles Martel at December 12, 2005 10:05 PM
Well at lest I got 1#1 Clark??
And if Caroline is right All others came in 2nd!!!
as for a real dimmi??
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/17/93029.shtml
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Thursday, Nov. 17, 2005 9:28 a.m. EST
Bill Clinton: Saddam's Aides Mostly 'Good, Decent'
Former president Bill Clinton praised Saddam Hussein's lieutenants and their underlings on Tuesday, saying they were mostly "good" and "decent" people."
"When [the U.S.] kicked out Saddam, they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure," Clinton told an audience at American University in Dubai. "Most of the people who were part of that structure were good, decent people who were making the best out of a very bad situation," he added.
While Clinton didn't name, names, Saddam's authority structure was dominated by his two murderous sons, Uday and Qusay, as well as notorious characters like Ali Hassan al-Majid, [aka Chemical Ali], Barzan al-Takriti, who ran the Iraq's brutal intelligence service, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, who governed northern Iraq during chemical weapon attacks in the Kurds, and Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash [aka Mrs. Anthrax], who was a member of Saddam's Baathist National Command.
Clinton offered praise for Saddam's lieutenants during the same speech where he criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq as "a big mistake."
While that comment received wide coverage, only the United Arab Emirates Khaleej Times noted his description of Saddam's underlings as mostly good and decent.
OH MY WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT DEMOCRATS NOT BEING A DANGER TO THE SECURITY OF THE NATION??
NOW ME I CALL THAT A REAL DIMMI!!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM GIVE THE WORLD COURAGE TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THEM AMEN
at December 12, 2005 10:10 PM
Charles Martel -
re: Saudi Gives $20 Million to Georgetown
Kind of makes sense now . ..remember last weeks Marriott rejection of anti-terror symposium?
The Marriott rejects the People’s Truth Forum, due to the hotel chain’s belief that the counter-terror group is “too controversial” -- that if it allows the group to use its facilities on the Georgetown campus, young Muslims may riot and cause injury and destruction, as they recently did in France. Yet at the same time the Marriott has opened its arms to a group and an individual that are connected to terrorism and violence!Posted by: miira
at December 12, 2005 10:23 PM
pastorius,
I am an ordinary, reasonable person. I don’t feel the criticism of Bush is out of line at all. No one or thing should be above criticism. It leads a dark path. Jihad Watch allows a free exchange of views and I gave mine sincerely. I made a ‘reasonable assertion’ and I stick by it. It’s healthy.
at December 12, 2005 11:00 PM
Will someone please hand me a handerkerchief......I am getting a little choked up over all this.
Posted by: Johnathan at December 12, 2005 11:39 PM
Who stole my drink ?!?
Posted by: Gorkhali at December 13, 2005 12:00 AM
Butterfly,
I was talking about rhetorical criticism. It is perfectly appropriate to criticize George Bush for failing to come right out and say that Islam has not demonstrated itself to be a religion of peace, because that is demonstrably true, when you weigh the amount of terrorist attacks vs. the amount of Muslim demonstrations against terrorism.
But, really, I get the feeling you either didn't read my comment, or just don't care to make distinctions. I defined rhetorical criticism as name-calling. For instance, when a person calls Bush a Dhimmi, or an idiot, they are not being accurate. To call Bush the American Dhimmi of the year is so out of line with reality as to be laughable. George Bush staked his entire political life, and historical legacy on war against Islamic terrorism. there is a sense in which no one, other than Hirsi Ali has given up more than George Bush. For instance, though I love what Robert Spencer does here on Jihad Watch, the fact is, he is building a career on this. I buy his books as do many other people. He is a leader to me. But, I would never have heard of him, if it weren't for this site.
One of my points, which you seem to have missed is that this kind of name-calling against George Bush simply serves the interests of those who would tear him down. Because of this, it robs him of the political capital he needs to strongly wage the war against Islamofascism.
So contrats to you who know better than Bush. Because your name-calling helps to serve those who would render him impotent.
Posted by: pastorius at December 13, 2005 12:05 AM
I hate democracy. My ideas aren't turned into reality using the iron fist of force. This must change!
Posted by: Beagle at December 13, 2005 12:44 AM
We wuz robbed! With all due respect to Oriana Fallacio, we have a preferential system of voting in Oz and there could be enough preference votes to get Hirsi Ali over the line. Wait, didn't anyone vote for Edouard?
Posted by: islamophobic pride at December 13, 2005 1:08 AM
#islamophobic pride
Sorry man,
Hirsi Ali is Ok, and i wouldn't be disappointed either if she would have won, because she represents the other side, the immigrants who realize the barbarism of islam and rebel against it. But somehow I feel that she doesn't give (proportionally) as much of herself to the cause; she doesn't command the extreme indignation and the passion that Oriana puts into her writings.
I am so glad that Oriana Fallaci won.
Long live Oriana!
at December 13, 2005 1:18 AM
Dhimmi Internationale 2005...GEORGE GALLOWAY!!
And he would like to thank his wife, Uncle Yasser, Great Uncle Al Husseini the Mufti, his mentor, and his inspiration, both pictured here.
http://photos1.blogger.com/img/45/925/640/6.jpg
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at December 13, 2005 3:29 AM
Hey, speaking of awards..VOTE FOR ATLAS SHRUGS, BEST NEW BLOG!
Back to our regular scheduled dhimmi
Is there a most dangerous dhimmi of the year I nominate El Baradei
In from Al Jizz, mouthpiece of the Radical Islamofascist terror movement;
Ahmadinejad defends anti-Israel tirade:
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stood by his latest attack on Israel and asserted the world was "on the verge of change".
Elbaradei warns Israel on attacking Iran nuclear facilities
Mohammad Elbaradei warned the Zionist regime Saturday on any military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
He further called for nuclear states to set a good example for other nations.
Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohammad Elbaradei confirmed what Iran calls 'nuclear apartheid' saying this is the sameElbaradei_clown unequal security system in the region.
Speaking to CNN, Mohammad Elbaradei who won the Nobel Peace Prize said some nations tell others that nuclear programs are not good for you but at the same time they opt for continuation of their nuclear activities.
On a question on whether he believes in the existence of what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls nuclear apartheid in the world, he said "I call it an unequal security system."
"Iran is in a region where some nations are not its friends and this a reason that it feels unsecured."
He also referred to the latest inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities saying that there are still questions on Iran nuclear program, adding but "I have not found anything indicating that Iran is pursuing uranium enrichment to build nuclear weapons."
Huh? Is El Baradei nuts? If Israel has had nuclear weapons for two score years as is alleged, doesn't it say something that they have never used them despite being under attack for all those years? Doesn't it say something that Israel has never called for the destruction of any nation,any people, to the contrary..........Israel respects life, liberty and justice above all else.
ElBaradei is in collusion with these murderers, he is the penultimate dhimmi.
at December 13, 2005 4:44 AM
Islamophobic Pride - Oriana Fallacio???
Posted by: Interested at December 13, 2005 4:54 AM
And the anti-dhimmi winners (and runners-up) take to the dance floor as the band strikes up an old Tom Petty tune....
Well I won’t back down, no I won’t back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won’t back down
Gonna stand my ground, won’t be turned around
And I’ll keep this world from draggin’ me down
Gonna stand my ground and I won’t back down
Hey baby, there ain’t no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I won’t back down.
Well I know what’s right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin’ me around
But I’ll stand my ground and I won’t back down
Hey baby there ain’t no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I won’t back down
No, I won’t back down
at December 13, 2005 8:21 AM
Werter, this was in my email box this a.m., from the BBC :
"Dear BBC Reader,
Further to your complaint about some of the content on a BBC community site (reference number P5811311), we have decided that it does indeed contravene the
House Rules and have removed the offending material.
Thank you for pointing this out to us.
Best wishes,
The BBC Moderation Team"
So, whether it was a Muslim, Christian or a member of the Neturai Karta, it's gone. Complaining politely does work.
at December 13, 2005 8:44 AM
I guess that makes me inaccurate and so out of line with reality as to be laughable. That’s OK though, I’ve been laughed at before. Thank you for the reply pastorius.
Posted by: butterfly at December 13, 2005 9:01 AM
Libbysmom, You are a better woman than I am. I have never had any success with any complaint to the BBC, and not just on matters concerning Islam.
Respect !
:-)
at December 13, 2005 9:02 AM
Don't feel too sorry for yourself, Butterfly, I'm the little blogger that all you normally reasonable people are disagreeing with.
Posted by: pastorius at December 13, 2005 10:21 AM
And the Dance did get abit routy??
When the song started??
http://www.terrorists-suck.org/fight/winds_of_jihad.html
Posted by: Terminator
But things calmed down when the slow songs started playing and everyone loved the video the specieal effects were great!!
http://images.military.com/Shock/0,,SA_050527_AmarilloSong,00.html
WHO SAYS WE AINT WINNING!!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM GIVE THE WORLD COURAGE TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THIS EVIL AMEN
at December 13, 2005 10:23 AM
"Jihad and dhimmis? But what about my shoes? And my deepest thoughts on the Palestinians? My acting career? You people can be so shallow."
-- posted by sonofwalker
Haa haaa. Empty and shallow, cheap and tawdry intellectual sluts. Slattern of the pattern. You got it right, son-o. We're tabbing from on ego to the next, and their analysis ain't nothing but paralysis.
I'm thinking about moving to Oz.
Oops. Forgot, as a blue eyed white guy with an education and a high income they won't let me in.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 13, 2005 10:58 AM
I support the nomination of GW Bush but I agree that he shouldn't win. If I have to hear Bush talk about the virtues of the Koran once more, I'll scream.
Galloway should NOT have won the dhimmi award. He is pure evil. He is a co-conspirator, not a dhimmi. A dhimmi is a submissive. So someone more like Dominque DeVillipin.
Posted by: barneygumble at December 13, 2005 11:03 AM
Did any of you read about the $20 million grant that Saudi Prince Alwaleed, a grandson of the Saudi kingdom's founder, King Abdel Aziz, gave to Harvard and Georgetown Universities? See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/12/AR2005121200591.html
You may recall that Alwaleed is the same guy who tried to give $10 million to the Twin Towers Fund shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 2001. But then-New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani rejected the donation after the prince said in a news release that the United States needed to "re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause." Unfortunately, unlike Mayor Giuliani, Georgetown and Harvard Universities were only too eager to accept this grant.
Too bad there is no Dhimmi Institution of the year award. If there was one, surely it would go to these two Universities.
Posted by: Razdan at December 13, 2005 11:08 AM
I'm European and I'm proud of both International nominations, they are both excellent choices. Especially Oriana Fallaci as she has a moderate past, has impeccable credentials and has picked a specific problem to take issue with, "Islamofacism" and Eurabia.
George Galloway is the most despicable of men
However after reading about Tom Tancredo on wikipedia, he comes over as a racist and an over the top fascist, who is using the rise of militant Islam to justify his view on immigration.
Shame on you who voted for him, surely you have someone who is intellectually sound to nominate, Robert Spencer who runs this site would have been a better nominee, he balances his views with education instead of bigotry.
at December 13, 2005 11:43 AM
Moderation~ it has come to be the experience of many here, that Wikipedia is rather Badly open to people inserting all kinds of things that may or may NOT be true.
Most of us do not feel it is a reliable source of info on many things relating to this topic.
Posted by: Gary at December 13, 2005 12:22 PM
"... after reading about Tom Tancredo on wikipedia, he comes over as a racist and an over the top fascist... Shame on you who voted for (Tancredo)..."
-- posted by Moderation_is_key
So then, enforcing borders (i.e., preserving national integrity) is a racist plot.
Moderation seems to have devolved into a synonym for suicide.
SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT
Shame on *you*, Ahmed, for operating under a pseudonym like Moderation_is_key!
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 13, 2005 1:11 PM
Check the above link out, as my favorite MP - no seriously I respect him selling his services to Saddam Hussain and jetting around the world whilst spouting hate against the UK and its service men and women - George "Gorgious" Galloway gets an award...
Posted by: fido at December 13, 2005 1:33 PM
"However after reading about Tom Tancredo on wikipedia, he comes over as a racist and an over the top fascist...
-- from a posting above
For god's sake, Wikipedia is a guide to nothing and nowhere. Maligners, Muslim and non-, are having a field day (google "Siegenthaler" for more on this). The attempt to slander Robert for examle, through guilt by assocation, and that assocation happens to consist of phrases that are attributed not to him but to me, and which have been completely ripped out of all explanatory and softening context, making me seem -- and therefore Robert seem -- quite as Tancredo is made to seem, apparently, in his entry. Skip Wikipedia. It has no value. Anyone at all can add anything at all. And most people will not bother to respond or correct, for a determined campaign will not be dissuaded from reposting. That, by now, should be obvious.
at December 13, 2005 4:31 PM
Granny weatherwax,
I simply read the User Agreement, cut and pasted the two terms which had been violated, and then pointed out that by allowing Jihadists (yes, I used that term) to post such filth on their site, the reputation of the Beeb, even the British Isles themselves, were at stake.
:D
at December 13, 2005 6:55 PM
Interested
oops, Freudian typo or was thinking Falconio (OT news item)
Posted by: islamophobic pride at December 13, 2005 8:34 PM
Sorry I coulnt disagree more with Ramsey clark being dhimmi of the year. I actually think he is one of the few people on the left who is consistent. He is just guilty of holding the west to a higher standard. But unlike the other buffoons who cry human rights abuses and yet ignore what goes on in the Muslim world. I think he is a bit better than that. He supported Slobodan Milosevic, and he was absolutely right.
Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at December 13, 2005 8:34 PM
"Hugh" and "Gary" - Wikipedia is an excellent self moderating resource. Certainly people insert utter rubbish into the definitions which are addressed and quickly corrected. If you believe that the current summary of Tancredo is unfair please flag the article on him in wikipedia as biased and submit your complaints and the community will update it to include your alternate viewpoint this is how wikipedia works.
"Alarmed Pig Farmer" - (really charming sign in BTW) I've no idea who this "Ahmed" is, but from your inference I very much doubt that he is would make a posting supporting the damnation of Galloway, promote the celebration of the viewpoint of Fallaci, and then suggest that Robert is a intellectual as opposed to a bigot. I didn't infer that enforcing borders is a "a racist plot".
Apparently the actions of this celebrated man, Tom Tancredo, included the following the following course of action:
"[w]hen The Denver Post profiled an illegal immigrant high school student with a 3.9 grade point average, Tancredo tried to have the boy deported."
This is not the not the actions of a liberal minded person providing an objective view point on the dangers of militant Islam. Instead it is the actions of a man who 50 years ago may well have objected to blacks sharing busses with whites.
His is an extremist view of 'immigrants' in general and is not limited to the ideology of extremist Muslims; it includes poor Mexicans and other hard working economic immigrants on which your service industry is based.
For this reason his view point is not impartial, he is merely an extremist right wing politician cashing in on the fears generated by 7/11 to further his political view point.
I'm a big fan of this site and read the pages daily so that I may be informed on what I consider to be the biggest threat to our liberal democracies that we face today.
I agree with the intellectual assertions put forward by Robert they are sound, balanced and reasoned; but you lot that post comments on these pages - you are as often as bad as the alien believing, alarmist, conspiracy propagating Islamofascists themselves.
Chill out, be a little more moderate, love thy neighbor and all that good stuff. The highly polarized views of Bush and Tom are part of the problem, not the solution ... surely you can see at least an element of truth in this viewpoint?
at December 13, 2005 8:50 PM
"The highly polarized views of Bush and Tom are part of the problem, not the solution ... surely you can see at least an element of truth in this viewpoint?"
Well, after all that debate on whether Bush does or does not even deserve a nomination for dhimmi of the year, I confess to some curiosity as to your take on Bush's views vis a vis Islam as being in some sense "highly polarized", which I take to mean "extremist" in some way - and by extremist I have to infer that you mean towards the right rather than towards the left of the political spectrum. So please do elaborate. What do you mean by "the highly polarized views of Bush" (i.e. extremist...i.e. to the right) where Islam is concerned?
Posted by: Caroline at December 13, 2005 9:10 PM
pissedoffcanadian: "He is just guilty of holding the west to a higher standard"
I didn't vote for Clark for similar reasons, although I wouldn't have put it quite the way you did. This is the real world we live in and the not the utopian world of Clark's fantasies. Therefore, I would rephrase your point as, "He just hates the west first and foremost". Same as Chomsky. They're not dhimmi's in the true sense. They're more 'accidental' dhimmi's in the sense that the west's most prominent enemy right now just happens to be Islam. But they aren't apologists for islam per se in any sense, nor do they strike me as afraid or cowering before it. Suicidal in the face of the jihad possibly, but even that's just incidental. No, mostly they just hate the west as far as I can tell (and even that appears to be an intellectual exercise), apparently because they don't realize that we all actually just happen to live here on planet earth rather than in the fantasy world they apparently think we inhabit. Of course, the day the two of them move permanently to Saudi Arabia or Iran or anywhere but the west is the day I change my assessment of them both as hypocrites of the most vile sort. I'm not holding my breath though.
Posted by: Caroline at December 13, 2005 9:39 PM
"If you believe that the current summary of Tancredo is unfair please flag the article on him in wikipedia as biased and submit your complaints and the community will update it to include your alternate viewpoint this is how wikipedia works."
-- from a posting above
Wikipedia is worthless. It is worthless because it is created by anyone and everyone at all. This means that, however often one may correct evident falsehoods, that itself becomes a full-time activity, and nowhere is that truer than about anything to do with Islam. With gigantic resources, and tens or hundreds of milions of Believers, all of whom have been taught it is perfectly acceptable to practice taqiyya and kitman when discussing their beliefs, and the nature of Islam itself, and some of whose agents and operatives have shown a fondness for slandering others, it is unlikely that any entry on such people as "Robert Spencer" or "Tom Tancredo" can, even if an effort is made to get rid of falsehood and innuendo and misstatement and deliberate omission and ellipses and selective quotation, ripped out of context, and even if it succeeds, temporarily, one would have to keep monitoring the site, keep changing and rechanging things, and no one in his right mind can spend that time.
So the site becomes worthless, and is one of those problems -- the problem of what constitutes authority, what constitutes the truth -- that the Internet gives rise to. Why anyone should think there is a "commnity" of objective people to whom one can appeal, who will keep Wikipedia's entries within bounds, has not looked at other sites, such as that maintained by Amazon.com, where Muslims have been quite good at blackening those books that dare to tell something truthful about Islam, getting rid of sensible reviews, and continually putting in their own received version of events.
Intelligent people can see through this, if they are paying attention. Kids, doing their homework, and not knowing very much, may turn to a place like Wikipedia, accept whatever is written there, and it becomes engraven on their young minds and there it sits, and cannot be easily removed without invasive mental surgery.
Students need to be taught, rather, using some of the most egregious examples -- that of Seigenthaler in the news this week is one -- that Wikipedia is not to be trusted, and use of it as a source should call anyone's ability to weigh evidence or conduct something like research is immediately, and permanently, suspect.
Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2005 12:12 AM
Caroline good post. "They're not dhimmi's in the true sense. They're more 'accidental' dhimmi's in the sense that the west's most prominent enemy right now just happens to be Islam. "
I think you described those guys perfectly.
Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at December 14, 2005 12:28 AM
Caroline, as said above good post. The point I am trying to raise is simular. Tom is an "accidentical" anti dhimmini, because he appears to dislike "foreigners entering the country (stealing our jobs and our women?)"
The highly polarized views of Bush is more a comment on his charactor, an Oil man growing richer from the instabiliy he has put into the world (Oil prices), "God told me to do it", using stupid words like "Crusade", his abolute views on abortion, his attempts to enforce his right wing agenda on to America via the nomination of right wing Judges. He doesn't win hearts and minds, he just shouts "JUMP!". Would Clinton have gone into Afganistan, yes, would he have countinued into Iraq, I doubt it. Bush is a shaven monkey and living proof that the American people don't understand that Moderation_is_key.
Hugh, Wikipedia IS an excellent resource for exactly the reasons you mention, maybe you don't like other people having an opinon that is counter to yours. Could you comment on my central charge that Tom is more against all forms of immigantion than making a stand against Islam rather than simply rubish my sources?
Posted by: Moderation_is_key at December 14, 2005 3:54 AM
"Bush is a shaven monkey and living proof that the American people don't understand that Moderation_is_key."
Read this back and it is too harsh, many Americans didn't vote for this idiot son of an idiot son. My thoughts at time of writing would be better represented with the alternate statement:
Bush is a shaven monkey [I like that bit, I'll keep it] and living proof that the majority of American voters [better I like most Americans I've meet] don't understand that Moderation_is_key."
You cannot divide up the world into simple views points like he is "anti abortion", the rest of this ideas must be sound. As an international observer, this appears to be exactly what happened.
What difference is there between the clergy encouraging Christians to vote for Bush, and Imam telling Muslims to vote for psychos like Galloway?
What is the difference between stoning to death in public and a lethal injection with a private viewing? Very little.
If America wants to take the high moral ground get the church out of politics, ban the death penalty and stop it with the torture.
at December 14, 2005 4:06 AM
Moderation_is_key - thanks for clarifying. Obviously my misunderstanding that your comment about Bush's extremism was related to his stance on Islam.
Re Tancredo. I see the point you're making but I didn't vote for him on the basis of his immigration stance alone. I voted for him because he dared to publicly discuss nuking Mecca in the event of a WMD attack on the US. He was attempting to propose a plausible MAD deterrant. Whatever one thinks about the wisdom or effectiveness of his proposal (and Mr Spencer himself didn't think much of it), I admire that he had the guts to put it out there, in complete defiance of the usual PC considerations. No doubt you would view his proposal as extreme. Perhaps. But the intention of radical Muslims to nuke the U.S if given the opportunity is also pretty darned "extreme". So in that context, I welcome Tancredo's bluntness and willingness to address the subject openly.
Posted by: Caroline at December 14, 2005 6:59 AM
Hugh,
I am with you on Wikipedia. I have been using my spare time to work on the Robert Spencer article. And yet, even if I corrected it, what is to keep Joe Blow- or rather, Ousama Blow, to come along and say whatever he pleases next.
Although I did find myself humming Surfin' Sephardi for the next few days after Robert posted that.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009152.php
Posted by: AnneCrockett at December 14, 2005 9:03 AM
Anne -- any relation to Fess Parker?
Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2005 1:36 PM
Hi Caroline,
Thanks for providing your view point. Nuking Mecca is a obviously a stupid idea that wouldn't help anybody. But I would agree that as a devils adovocat agruement it's interesting to debate the very tortured arguement that justifies the cause. Because it helps expose you to the dangerous the sort of mentality that your radical Imam's use to justify their ends.
Fortunately we non-religous nutters are better than that. We don't think about things in absolutes where the cause always justifies the means (see issue with shaven monkey boy mentioned above). I hope that Tom was promoting debate rather than actually thinking that this was a good idea, otherwise is simply the mirror of Osma himself - not a "Good man" or someone that I would like to rally in support in my objections to Islam.
Wikipedia, wouldn't it be great if you could only have people with your own view point on it? Its these damn democratic processes that allow everyone to have a view point, so damn libral it SHOULD BE BANNED! I gets in the way of dictatorial enforcement of righteous indignation from jihad watch members!
There is only one article on Islamophobia, what a wonderful place where both sides of the argument are forced to reason with each other, make concession to each others arguments. I don't know where else such a debate could be held in such a gentle way between such radically polarized groups.
We in the West got where we have to the age of reason, don't turn your back on it now, you will do more good editing and arguing on the pages there than you will furiously agreeing with each other here.
Spread the love. Spread the knowledge. Never give up on reason. Never give up on words. It is the enemy of our liberal democracies that say: "the time for talking has past! now is the time for action!" - not us.
Ahmed outta here (joke)
Posted by: Moderation_is_key at December 14, 2005 3:14 PM
Moderation_is_key: "Thanks for providing your view point."
And thank you for providing so many classic textbook examples of moral relativism in so few posts.
Posted by: Caroline at December 14, 2005 9:28 PM
Or worse.
Posted by: Hugh at December 14, 2005 10:28 PM
I had to look up "moral relativism" to see what it means (can you guess where I did that?)
I'm happy with what I read and took it as a compliment.
Many thanks for reading my posts Caroline!
at December 15, 2005 10:58 AM
Hugh,
None that I know of. My friend was recently shocked to discover her 20 year oldish secretary had never heard "The Ballad of Davy Crockett." What is this world coming to?
Hey Moderation boy,
Wikipedia is nothing but a vehicle for Historical reWrites the likes of which have not been seen since Stalin. At Jihad Watch, we do have a dialogue. Unless you swear, spit, or frighten the horses, your comment stays. At Wikipedia, if you do not like what someone else said, you get to erase it and consign it to the archives page. What a sweet, sweet deal for those people whose failures in life do not mesh with the glorious, legendary successes of their imagination.
at December 15, 2005 12:35 PM
Moderation_is_key: "I had to look up "moral relativism" to see what it means (can you guess where I did that?). I'm happy with what I read and took it as a compliment."
Proof positive that a little learning is a dangerous thing.
Posted by: Caroline at December 15, 2005 6:08 PM
Hi Caroline,
I live in a country where being called a liberal isn't considered a slur on your character. If you want to insult me please be more specific, in return I'll not use a form of sarcasm.
As for little knowledge, have you ever travelled and seen the world and met any of these people that you happily demonize?
Don't believe everything that you read, here, on wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter.
Cheers!
Posted by: Moderation_is_key at December 16, 2005 7:21 AM
"Wikipedia is nothing but a vehicle for Historical reWrites the likes of which have not been seen since Stalin."
Surely Hollywood would be a more of recent and accurate comparison?
Posted by: Moderation_is_key at December 16, 2005 7:25 AM
Moderation_is_key - I assume this is the definition of moral relativism you saw posted at Wikipedia, which you took as complimentary:
"In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that it is meaningless for the moral or ethical judgments or acts of one person or group to be judged by another, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory."
You cannot possibly have thought this through or you would not have felt that it was complimentary. Unless that is, you have no moral objection to the practice of slavery, female genital mutilation, the murder of homosexuals, cannibalism, the stoning of adulterers, the Indian practice of Sati and so on, let alone your neighbor's desire to come over and have sex with your 5 year old daughter.
Sorry Moderation - but you're no liberal in any meaningful sense of the word (unless one means by that "anything goes"). Rather, you have elevated "tolerance" above and beyond all other values and you confuse that with what it actually means to be "liberal" in the classic sense. The consequence of valuing so-called tolerance above all other values is a willingness to tolerate evil. So no, calling you a moral relativist was not a compliment but neither is it my intention to be insulting. You seem sincere enough in your posts but also somewhat misguided. All reasonable people would like to be moderate and tolerant. The handle you've chosen suggests to me that you think you've stumbled across a great moral insight when actually it's just banal as hell. "Can't we all just get along?"! My recommendation is that you take your Give peace a chance comments over to some Islamic forums and see what kind of reception you get there. They are the folks in need of your moral guidance, I can assure you, not the posters here.
Posted by: Caroline at December 16, 2005 6:57 PM
Hi Caroline,
Thank you for taking the time to continue this conversation.
I was partly teasing when I said that it was complimentary, at first I thought that you were calling me a hypocrite. But I read the text and it makes absolute sense to me. Morals are relative, for instance didn't a 12 year old girl get married in Alabama? That disgusts me ... what about you?
"Unless that is, you have no moral objection to the practice of slavery, female genital mutilation, the murder of homosexuals, cannibalism, the stoning of adulterers, the Indian practice of Sati and so on, let alone your neighbor's desire to come over and have sex with your 5 year old daughter."
I looked outside my front door and didn't see of these things happening, you must live in a really rough neighbourhood ...
Of course there are countries where these things do happen, there always has been. Personally I don't visit them, I would like to say that I don't help them economically, but I do some, each time I put petrol in my car. If it weren't for this cruel twist of fate they would remain powerless backward hell holes.
"you think you've stumbled across a great moral insight"
I like this site, I read the news on it daily. I’m very concerned about what is happening in this world, I like to be informed. I’ve only just started to read the comments pages and some people here seem to be angry beyond all comprehension and have lost all sense of objectivity. Others haven’t and manage an intellectual discourse.
I think that you are just fired up on moral and righteous indignation.
Last year I visited Bali, I made friends with some Muslim girls from Jakaka. They were lovely nice people. One had a family and was out with the 'girls' for the weekend while the husband looked after the kids. None of them took their religion too seriously, but they still called themselves "Muslim". In fact we still exchange email on occasion.
Take a chill pill and calmly repeat:
“Not all Muslims are evil.”
Then I'd be happy you aren't an extremist yourself.
Posted by: Moderation_is_key at December 17, 2005 7:01 AM
"I looked outside my front door and didn't see of these things happening, you must live in a really rough neighbourhood ..."
And why do you think those things aren't happening outside my front door or yours? You certainly don't have moral relativists to thank for it.
"Of course there are countries where these things do happen, there always has been. Personally I don't visit them,"
Evidently you live in the west somewhere - probably Canada, possibly Europe. You don't need to visit countries whose practices you find abhorent. They're coming to you. I thought you were following the news at this site about what is happening in Europe (first).
"Take a chill pill and calmly repeat: “Not all Muslims are evil.” Then I'd be happy you aren't an extremist yourself."
I dare say that not a single poster at this site believes all Muslims are evil. It has been repeated ad nauseum that Islam itself is the problem. The fact that you personally met some nice Muslim girls from Jakaka is irrelevant to the big picture, namely the threat that Islam poses to the west. It is NOT extremist to recognize the seriousness of that threat. Rather, it is irresponsible to avoid the problem by imagining that if we were all just more understanding and "moderate", the problem will somehow take care of itself. If the rhetoric of the posters here is over the top sometimes, I imagine it's because they are justifiably alarmed and are trying to scream loud enough to be heard, in order to cut through the widespread denial and complacency.
at December 17, 2005 10:46 AM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)