| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
From the American Thinker, more on the interconnectedness of jihad and terrorist organizations.
Here’s what the documents tell us:On February 26th, 1993 the first world trade center was attacked by al-Qaeda and the EIJ[Egyptian Islamic Jihad] (really two organizations that cooperated in 1993 and eventually merged).
A month later an official from EIJ was meeting with Saddam in Baghdad.
We have a document showing Saddam authorizing the IIS to “provide technical support” to the EIJ, and by extension, al-Qaeda.
And then al-Qaeda and the EIJ attacked the U.S. on September 11th, 2001 led by an Egyptian Jihadist, Mohammed Atta.
Now you have proof Saddam provided support to the EIJ and by extension al-Qaeda, both of which attacked us on 9/11.
I am less interested in the questions about Saddam than that we all keep firmly in mind that our enemies are part of a global movement. The documents referenced in this article, as well as these give you a window into this movement, where mujahideen network across Iran, Syria, Palestine, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Europe and elsewhere. The cartoon riots have shown us how skillfully these instigators can find and manipulate fellow travelers among their coreligionists.
Posted by Anne at February 20, 2006 12:04 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Admittedly OT, but a must see. Jesus kisses Mohmd khartoun:
As for Sadam, he claims that he warned the US about terrorism.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 20, 2006 12:31 PM
Now with this, the two generals and the rest of the information on those "Saddam" tapes, will the left finally back off on the "Bush lied people died" rhetoric?
Kafir as far as that cartoon link you sent, well I think that Christians should blow it off. It certainly is less offensive than many other "art" pieces depicting Jesus. Jesus would have kissed Mohammed if of course they walked the earth at the same time and Mohammed had followed Jesus or came before him needing forgiveness. He certainly would not have kissed him to honor him as a superior prophet because Jesus only answered to the Father and no others. Christians know that and shouldn't get all flustered over that cartoon.
at February 20, 2006 12:56 PM
Kafir Nonbeliever -
Pretty disgusting cartoon. Why do I feel like starting a fire?
Posted by: 00Buck at February 20, 2006 1:39 PM
Let me get this straight... In 1993 Saddam met with some militant Muslim lunatics and 9 years later some other Muslim lunitics take down the twin Trade Towers and that is the link proving Iraq should have been invaded?
That is indeed thin gruel.
Bush is an agressive facist that has used the United States armed forces to attack a non-beligerent state based on totally fabricated intelligence.
The whole purpose of attacking Iraq is to disgest it so Iran can assume control when the US occupation ends.
Rumsfield has already stated that the EU and US must rearm to fight the new Cold War! That is exactly as I predicted and even used my exact same language in various posts.
Just another brick in the wall.
CD 'Bar' Baric
Posted by: blazar-jet at February 20, 2006 1:50 PM
The apparent inexhaustible need to "prove" a specific Al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein connection shows a basic miscomprehension. There is no need to "prove" any such connection to justify the entry into Iraq to make sure that Saddam Hussein, the absolute murderous ruler of an absolutely murderous and aggressive regime, who was himself becoming more deeply Muslim by the minute, though his "secularism" was merely a way to lure into his own camp those locals who might, for a while, join with the Sunni Arabs under the pseudo-secular banner of Ba'athism in opposition to the most dangerous source of oppositioin to Saddam Hussein, the Shi'a who are 60% of the population. Ba'athism in both Syria and Iraq was not truly secular; it merely de-emphasized Islam so that in the case of Syria, the Alawites could continue to rule (a real Muslim regime would wipe them out) with support from nowhere-else-to-turn Christians and Sunnis eager to cash in by playing ball with the officer-caste of Alawite rulers. For one example, there is former Vice-President Khaddam, who over decades stole tens of millions but with those millions safely invested in French real estate, has now chosen to jump from the Alawite ship.
In Iraq, Ba'athism seemed to offer a way for Christians (Tariq Aziz), for some Kurds (not many in recent years, for obvious reasons) and for secular Shi'a (Allawi started his political life as a member of the Ba'ath Party) to appear to have a voice in a "national" movement; in reality, the regime was a Sunni dictatorship, run by and for Sunni Arabs, or rather by and for Sunni Arabs from Tikrit, or rather by and for Sunni Arabs from Tikrit and close friends or relatives of Saddam Hussein.
But the point is this: all Muslim regimes are potentially dangerous. All Muslim regimes, even a "Ba'athist" one, must be prevented, wherever possible, of acquiring nuclear weapons, or of being able to deliver them on missiles and planes.
The frenetic need to connect Al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein points up the failure of the Administration to educate Americans, to help them understand that there is a much more widespread problem. We all know that Libya was dangerous and were glad when, largely becuase of lack of progress, Khaddafy gave up his weapons program. But what if the state attempting to acquire such weapons were Egypt? Our "ally" or "staunch ally" Egypt? Could Egypt be allowed to acquire such weapons? No, and not becuase of any supposed Al Qaeda connection. What about Turkey, supposedly "secular" and "Kemalist" Turkey? Could the Americans and Europeans permit Turkey to acquire nuclear weapons? No. And the reason is that Islam is permanent, while attempts to constrain Islam are not, and require constant shoring up. No Infidel country can be indifferent to the acquisition of any major weaponry by any Muslim state.
That, of course, is exactly what the Administration does not dare to say, and apparently does not even dare to express in other, cleverer ways. So it is stuck, apparently, in this absurd there-was-too-a-connection mode.
One more example of geopolitical confusion, arising out of a failure to think things through, and then to express them properly.
Posted by: Hugh at February 20, 2006 2:16 PM
The apparent inexhaustible need to "prove" a specific Al Qaeda-Saddam Hussein connection shows a basic miscomprehension. There is no need to "prove" any such connection to justify the entry into Iraq to make sure that Saddam Hussein, the absolute murderous ruler of an absolutely murderous and aggressive regime, who was himself becoming more deeply Muslim by the minute, though his "secularism" was merely a way to lure into his own camp those locals who might, for a while, join with the Sunni Arabs under the pseudo-secular banner of Ba'athism in opposition to the most dangerous source of oppositioin to Saddam Hussein, the Shi'a who are 60% of the population. Ba'athism in both Syria and Iraq was not truly secular; it merely de-emphasized Islam so that in the case of Syria, the Alawites could continue to rule (a real Muslim regime would wipe them out) with support from nowhere-else-to-turn Christians and Sunnis eager to cash in by playing ball with the officer-caste of Alawite rulers. For one example, there is former Vice-President Khaddam, who over decades stole tens of millions but with those millions safely invested in French real estate, has now chosen to jump from the Alawite ship.
In Iraq, Ba'athism seemed to offer a way for Christians (Tariq Aziz), for some Kurds (not many in recent years, for obvious reasons) and for secular Shi'a (Allawi started his political life as a member of the Ba'ath Party) to appear to have a voice in a "national" movement; in reality, the regime was a Sunni dictatorship, run by and for Sunni Arabs, or rather by and for Sunni Arabs from Tikrit, or rather by and for Sunni Arabs from Tikrit and close friends or relatives of Saddam Hussein.
But the point is this: all Muslim regimes are potentially dangerous. All Muslim regimes, even a "Ba'athist" one, must be prevented, wherever possible, of acquiring nuclear weapons, or of being able to deliver them on missiles and planes.
The frenetic need to connect Al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein points up the failure of the Administration to educate Americans, to help them understand that there is a much more widespread problem. We all know that Libya was dangerous and were glad when, largely becuase of lack of progress, Khaddafy gave up his weapons program. But what if the state attempting to acquire such weapons were Egypt? Our "ally" or "staunch ally" Egypt? Could Egypt be allowed to acquire such weapons? No, and not becuase of any supposed Al Qaeda connection. What about Turkey, supposedly "secular" and "Kemalist" Turkey? Could the Americans and Europeans permit Turkey to acquire nuclear weapons? No. And the reason is that Islam is permanent, while attempts to constrain Islam are not, and require constant shoring up. No Infidel country can be indifferent to the acquisition of any major weaponry by any Muslim state.
That, of course, is exactly what the Administration does not dare to say, and apparently does not even dare to express in other, cleverer ways. So it is stuck, apparently, in this absurd there-was-too-a-connection mode.
One more example of geopolitical confusion, arising out of a failure to think things through, and then to express them properly.
Posted by: Hugh at February 20, 2006 2:16 PM
you guys forgot to report that the 1993 attack was on the ANNIVERSARY of saddam's surrender in the gulf war.
coincidence!? hardly.
remember: in 1991 saddam met with us amb. glaspie and admitted iraqw could not defeat or even attack the usa with traditional military measn, and then threatened retaliation with "arab men" and terror.
link here:
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2005/10/in-1991-saddam-directly-threatened-usa.html
baathism and jihadism are cousins, not unrelated enemies, not mutually exclusive.
Posted by: reliapundit - the astute blogger at February 20, 2006 2:58 PM
"Let me get this straight... In 1993 Saddam met with some militant Muslim lunatics and 9 years later some other Muslim lunatics take down the twin Trade Towers and that is the link proving Iraq should have been invaded?"
That is indeed thin gruel."
-Blazar
No kidding. In fact, I was adamantly opposed to attacking Iraq, so much so I was nearly frenzied when it happened. I can prove it, I protested, placed a placard up and did not at all believe the justification for the war. Why? I REALIZED THEN, AS I DO NOW, IRAQ IS NOT THE TARGET. Even then I mentioned Iran as the real target as friends and family members looked on at me as if I were deranged. Some told me that Khatami was a great reformer and that I had nothing to worry about. I read news reports about Iran every day (except when studying for the bar) since 1997. Iran was always the problem.
However, after the war started, when the lives of men and women from my country were on the line, I reluctantly accepted the war. Moreover, I hoped for quick US victory so that Iran would be encircled. Now the raw war is largely a moot point in every sense except that it is sapping vital resources. Our being bogged down is emboldening Iran. Iran is a mortal enemy. Our perceived weakness if causing our saber rattling to have little effect. We are spread too thinly because of this administration’s foolish belief that we would be welcomed as liberators ala post WWII France. Thin gruel indeed.
I am so disenchanted with the idiotic democrats that desire only to appease and dare not admit the problems we have today; if only we give more and talk more is their motto; people who do not understand the free market; people who desire to see Bush lose at any cost no matter the cost; people will grasp as PCness even when it can lead to their deaths; fools ALL of them. Until the Dems form a plan to ensure security to Americans, they will dwindle to nothing. Nothing is more important that security to any people. Simply criticizing Bush is far from enough.
With the Republicans I see dark-age religiosity; far too little respect for the constitution (hey we can give you much of what you want Bush, why don't you ask Congress huh?); medieval royal arrogance; feudal cronyism inside the higher echelons of power; a similar failure (see Dems) to fully appreciate the struggle with Islam (albeit less so); foolish foreign policy mistakes by an administration that sees everything through the cold war perspective.
This administration supports furthering the notion that demanding that democracy be expanded in the ME.
ME: Failing to punish nations that fail to provide human rights to their citizens; selling SA arms;
Asian failures: The inherited N. Korean debacle continued, not allowing Japan to arm itself to counter China; failing to sufficiently support a Taiwanese nation, failing to engage India until recently; supporting Pakistan, selling arms to Pakistan, making ourselves look like hypocrite fools around the world, for not punishing the Taliban until after 9/11.
Europe's: failing to correct Clinton's/Albright's mistakes of the Kosovo/Bosnia/Serbia and Moldova (oversight) problems; allowing Ukraine to slip away AGAIN, pretending Russia was our ally and not demanding more for our continued "jizya" to Russia; being overly antagonistic towards France at the expense of needed relations;
Mr. Bush, democracy often means majoritarian tyranny. It is not a panacea that you want it to be especially in certain societies. I read now that Mr. Bush wants to work with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
When they invaded Iraq, they believed that the Iraq’s sought to be liberated in the same way Poles, Czechs, Romanians and Latvians sought liberation. All of the European nations I just mentioned, and more, were brutally ripped away from their rightful place in Europe. It was natural that they long to embrace the US since they were never really the Soviets wanted them to be. Applying the same logic in the ME is absurd. The Central/Eastern European example was really an anomaly in history and people like Rice might have made more of it that it was. It was not a triumph of American democracy, as they might have perceived it. After all, the "new" Europeans shared roughly the same cultures, traditions, foods, language groups (with a few exceptions), and religions as the rest of Europe. Where once they were severed, now they felt whole. This is not the case in the ME. You cannot liberate people from Islam with "democracy", you can only humiliate.
at February 20, 2006 2:59 PM
blazar-jet:
It does nobody any good to call the President of the United States a fascist. And as for "non-beligerent state", I continue to be in awe of people that have such short memories -- Saddam was a mass murderer on a par with his idol Stalin. I suppose it's easier for some people to excuse away inaction when it comes to such monsters, but I'm not one of them.
We should have taken out the bastard in '91. But back then it was the Muslim and European nations that hamstrung us and forced Bush Sr. into a corner and so he backed off from finishing the snake when he had the chance.
I would also like to point out something that's so painfully obvious most people, again, fail to see the connection:
Kuwait Invasion by Iraq = U.S. Troops in Saudi Arabia = Infidels on 'Holy Land' = A very annoyed Osama Bin Laden = 9/11
So, you want to blame someone for 9/11 -- go right ahead and point a finger at Saddam Hussein.
He was the catalyst.
at February 20, 2006 3:07 PM
"So, you want to blame someone for 9/11 -- go right ahead and point a finger at Saddam Hussein.
He was the catalyst."
-Posted above
I am afraid not. The motivation for the hijackers was complicated and multi-faceted, but none of the reasons touch at all on Iraq except the US military presence in SA. 9/11 has more to do with the toppling of communism and the unipolarity of the world with the US at the helm of the world. That is also what Iran is about. That is also why Russia and China with their ambitions of making Iran a thorn in our side is about. Islam is being manipulated by China and Russia, don't you see that? Iraq was our ME lab experiment against Iran that went horribly wrong.
at February 20, 2006 3:17 PM
blazar
If you ever want to be taken seriously, you shouldn’t carelessly throw wild unsupported accusations around. I think you meant to say aggressive fascist, you have every right to disagree with our President, but when you start calling him a fascist or a Hitler, it only shows your ignorance with regards to our Constitution and the separations of powers. This being America, one can only assume that your ignorance is willful.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. ~ Daniel Moynihan (D-NY)
Posted by: Bar at February 20, 2006 3:22 PM
The motivation for the hijackers was complicated and multi-faceted, ...... 9/11 has more to do with the toppling of communism and the unipolarity of the world with the US at the helm of the world.
-Posted above
9/11 has nothing to do with that and everything to do with OBL and his fatwa, or declaration of war, in August, 1996. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.
The motivation of these terrorists is neither complicated or multi-faceted,
they hate Jews and we support Israel.
at February 20, 2006 3:53 PM
Saddam
In the early nineties I wrote a paper defending The Strategic Defense Initiative, better known as Star Wars -- One small piece of my defense (in a world claiming it outdated in the "post-communist" era) was a 1984 Saddam quote in which he point blank said that if he had nukes capable of reaching U.S. soil he would use them. Any other wrong he may or may not have committed to after that was simply extra incentive. We knew who and how he was -- it took us a long time but we finally took care of it.
Posted by: toleranceorappeasement? at February 20, 2006 5:05 PM
I too supported SDI, and continue to do so. However, while you state that Saddam was a threat that you removed, you fail to see that there are many threats to the US that are far greater. saddam was small potatoes. Ok so you took out Saddam, big deal. It was a largely contained country anyway. A far greater threat rests to the East of Iraq. For those that fell for the cold-war reverse domino theory that saw Iraq as being the new ME Peurto Rico, only to turn the tide on "radical Islam," all I can is good luck. As much as I hope for this policy to bear fruit, I highly doubt it will - even with 1 trillion invested and 25 years having past.
I am willing to let Bush try in Iraq, and keep on spending there since I don't want us to "lose", but the truth is there is nothing to "win" there.
Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at February 20, 2006 5:31 PM
Saddam should have been shot when found in his hole.
The lack of military initiative in this instance is disturbing.
All the soldier shooting him needed to say was: "I thought he had a grenade. Ooops. He didn't."
No trial. No grandstanding. No waste of money.
Osama needs to be captured, dressed in snazzy Victoria's Secret regalia, photographed as a cross-dressing clown, have to humnilating pictures posted online, then shoot him.
No martyrdom trial. No propaganda coup. Just a circle of special forces urinating on the unmarked grave.
And on to Zarqawi.
Unless the war is fought like a war, and not an opera bouffe, we lose.
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 20, 2006 5:33 PM
Fascinating look at Iraqi Kurdistan and their attempts to entice Iraq's Christians to migrate north.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001060.html
Posted by: Cornelius at February 20, 2006 6:47 PM
"Bush is an agressive facist that has used the United States armed forces to attack a non-beligerent state based on totally fabricated intelligence."
Iraq, non-belligerant? Tell that to the Iranians, the Kuwaitis and the Israelis.
Typical Left-wing myopia.
Posted by: Cornelius at February 20, 2006 6:55 PM
"Osama needs to be captured, dressed in snazzy Victoria's Secret regalia..."
-Above
Now that is a very sexy thought. Imagine the image posted on the tabloids. $$$ They say sex sells, why not feature Osama dressed like his niece, posing seductively? I'd buy it. But of course, since everyone knows I'm gay, some of you might jokingly be thinking, oh no, Kafir might buy the images for the "wrong reason". Au contraire, I'd buy it for my pin up to use on my dart set. This is not to say that Osama is not dashingly good looking.
Ten reasons why Osama would be considered a pin-up hottie:
1) You are a goat; or
2) You are a Sudanese woman who makes 32 dollars a year and you are told in your village about Osama's endless "bling"; or
3) You are an 11 year old "pearl" Pashtoon boy; or
4) You are into the "rugged" look; or
5) You don't mind a little musk; or
6) You are a casting director looking to cast for a Middle Eastern version of "Hair"; or
7) You like the "intellectual Mohamaden" type; or
8) You can't see (or smell) too well when you look through the mesh in your burqa;
9) You fantasize about doing it next to an Ak-47; or
10) You think you can help O's cave by decorating it things you saw on HGTV;
Here’s one extra:
11) You saw Osama dressed in a full burka (being rushed to Waziristan) when the US forces came to Afghanistan. It was a site not to be seen again until Michael Jackson did it recently. These events so excited you, you decided you simply had to have Osama for your own.
Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at February 20, 2006 7:22 PM
Bar said
The motivation of these terrorists is neither complicated or multi-faceted,
they hate Jews and we support Israel.
If there is one thing that I have learned from JW, it is that there is always an excuse for the jihad to continue. If Israel had been destroyed by her Arab neighbors in any of their five attempts (1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982) at annihilation, 9/11 would have been just as likely to happen, maybe more so.
Kafir Nonbeliever said
I REALIZED THEN, AS I DO NOW, IRAQ IS NOT THE TARGET. Even then I mentioned Iran as the real target
You are a far wiser man than I was. I swallowed the Administrations story on Iraq, hook line and sinker. I've learned alot since then, and don't intend to be fooled twice. But now we face an Islamic nation that really is building weapons of mass destruction, and we've squandered the goodwill support of the world that we had after 9/11.
Posted by: special_guest at February 21, 2006 1:26 AM
I personally believe the evidence that Saddam was tied to al Qaeda is flimsy, and completely unnecessary. JihadWatch opens itself to partisan attack by mouthing this line, which is a discredit to the good work being done here. Better to just make the case that Islam needs a secular democratic role model, and that Iraq was ripe for the picking. That is the true reason the neocons invaded Iraq, and everything else is smoke and mirrors. Props to Hugh for pointing out Saddam's murderous tendencies, but we're going to lose this war if it's about avenging evil, rather than doing good. It sounds saccharine, but its true. Optimism is America's greatest strength. We need to build a nation, and do it in the hornet's nest.
Posted by: alaric7 at February 21, 2006 4:15 AM
Kafir Nonbeliever wrote:
"I am afraid not. The motivation for the hijackers was complicated and multi-faceted, but none of the reasons touch at all on Iraq except the US military presence in SA."
none of the reasons touch at all on Iraq except the US military presence in SA.
You wash over that reason like it's a tiny one.
I had to laugh.
Do not underestimate Muslim intolerance of the infidel.
If you wanted to see this really in action, then let's ask for a squad of U.S. soldiers to drive down the road to Mecca -- and you think the Cartoon Riots are bad....
Posted by: Foehammer at February 21, 2006 4:34 AM
These events so excited you, you decided you simply had to have Osama for your own.
Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at February 20, 2006 07:22 PM
OH
DO YOU HAVE THE NEW BLOW UP ubl doll??
Yes the new sex blow up doll I heard it some where and I heard they were selling like hot cakes!!
I am amasiezed at how so many can see so much and still not believe what they see
Yes you Bush haters will get your butts shot off!!
You see when Japan hit HW we went after Germany to help our friends save what was left of Europe then we went after Japan full steam??
Bet you Bush haters are really bad Chess players seams you can't even play Tactics very well!!
9/11/2001 happened and islamic terrorist did it they hide and pretend to not be states but pick under that skirt it aint no girl??
Just like the MSM still didn't get the symblism of burning the Danish flag think about what that flag is made of????
So when we saw the Burning of the 3 flags in a row ask yourself the meaning simple??
American [Strength] Danish[Cross] Israel[Jews] they are declairing their holy war openling against the west and the reason that the ubl[YELLOW COWARD WHO RUNS AWAY] had to be re-relised was because not enough happened in the west but of course England has a problem because they have been a little wimpy at home..
Yes the 2nd admendent does make a difference and people in America are just waiting to yell GET THE HELL OUT OF MY COUNTRY!!!
You gotta love the Itis??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4727606.stm
Saturday, 18 February 2006
Italy cartoon row minister quits
The Italian reform minister who angered Muslims by wearing a T-shirt decorated with Western media cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad has resigned.
ALL BECAUSE OF A CARTOON
NOW IF YOU BELIEVE THAT I GOT A BRIDGE FOR SALE!!
OH YEA ALL THE BURNING IN FRANCE WAS BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS IT THE MULSUMS SAID??
When the French said kick out all mulsums it stopped??
The killing of a Flim maker was because of what??
NO it is the state sponcer terrorist the Dane claric BUT WAIT A MIN WAS HE REALLY A DANE OH NO HE WAS A PALI!!
AND WHEN DID HE GET HIS SUPPORT oh yea when he went on his trip around the big black rock??
OH it would be quit simple star taken out claric's seams mulsums follow what they tell them to do in mass??
NO
you Bush haters will get your butts shot off..
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 DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM GIVE THE WORLD COURAGE TO STAND TOGETHER TO FIGHT THIS EVIL AMEN
PS
A movie you might want to see might help you understand what is going on just a rose call by another name??
http://www.inthefaceofevil.com/
A movie worth seeing a rose by any other name is still a rose
AND SO to is evil by any other name is still evil !!!
PSS
I ALWAYS FIND IT FUNNY ABOUT THE BUSH HATERS AND HOW THEY DON'T GIVE A SH-T ABOUT THE 300,000 DEAD IRAQIS FOUND IN MAS GRAVES YES YOU NEED TO GET THIS MOVIE
at February 21, 2006 4:43 AM
(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.)