| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
A few days ago you could have checked my biography at Wikipedia and found this:
Most have discredited Mr. Spencer's views on Islam due to oft-exaggeration. It must also be noted that Mr. Spencer's work is highly biased and influenced by his Jewish Ancestral viewpoints.
Of course, this has happened before. Jihad Watch News Editor Anne Crockett has noted here before that Wikipedia, since anyone can edit it, is absolutely worthless, and here is yet more evidence that she was correct: the Wikipedia editor above assumes that I speak about the roots of jihad violence within Islamic theology solely because I'm Jewish. That might make some small bit of sense except for one little catch: I'm not Jewish.
Reading this latest morsel of Wikipedia baloney made me think that this sunny Sunday afternoon here in Secure Undisclosed Locationville might be a good time for me to do something I have been meaning to do for a long while: answer some critics. Now, these are people whom normally I would consider not worth answering; for the most part they are rather self-evidently nutty and unhinged. But when I was in Holland for the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference last February, I got in a conversation with Daniel Pipes about Internet pests, and he recommended answering them. Otherwise, he said, the charges would remain accessible on the Internet, no answer would be available, and in such cases sometimes the charges are picked up by more reputable sources, circulate into cleaner and better-lighted corners of the Internet, and take on a life of their own. Thus, he said, it was better to have the truth on record.
I think that is good advice. So here, on this sunny Sunday, I offer a grab-bag of on-the-record and for-the-record replies to various hacks, nuts, ideologues, jealous lovers, and conspiracy theorists. If you are not attracted to this particular sort of train wreck, don't hesitate to move along to the next thread now. I am aware that probably the only person who would be interested in reading all of this would be my mother, but she is no longer with us. I'll even give away the ending for your convenience: I am not a Christian fundamentalist Jewish Zionist member of Opus Dei who denies Israel's right to exist. If you ever do run across such an animal, call the zoo immediately. In the meantime, on with the show:
We'll begin the clown parade with one Irfan Yusuf, who has written an utterly scurrilous piece about the Australia-Israel Jewish Public Affairs Committee that was brought to my attention by Jihad Watch reader Melmere. In it, Yusuf makes outlandish false charges against Pipes and Steven Emerson, and adds this about me:
AIJAC’s other source is Robert Spencer, whom, they describe as a “Middle East expert”. In reality, Spencer is an inveterate Islam-hater who is associated with a number of pro-Israel and/or Christian fundamentalist organisations from the deep-south of the United States. He is also known to be linked to Opus Dei, a catholic lay order whose supporters include a NSW MP named in the Australian Jewish News for his links to far-Right anti-Semitic individuals and groups.
Bravo, Yusuf. I think for that one you deserve the Tinfoil Hat Award of 2006. But anyway: I have never described myself as a "Middle East expert" or an expert on anything. I back up what I assert with evidence; take it or leave it. I do not hate Islam, but I do hate the oppression of women and religious minorities, warfare to subjugate non-Muslims as inferiors to Muslims, the murder of civilians, etc. I am not associated with any pro-Israel organizations, although I have been honored to speak to such organizations on several occasions. I have no association with any Christian fundamentalist organizations, although if any invited me to speak, I would accept (in fact, I'll speak to almost any group that invites me). I have no association with any organizations in the deep South, although I admire Yusuf's skillful alarmism in evoking Deliverance, Bull Connor, and the slaver's lash in one deft stroke. I am not linked to Opus Dei, and am not a member of that organization. And I don't know any Parliamentarians from New South Wales or anywhere else. As the Bard says: "With the storms ragin' round us,/And the winds a-blowin' gales,/I'd rather have drowned in misery/Than gone to New South Wales."
Anyway, note that even if all -- or any -- of the illustrious Yusuf's charges were true, it wouldn't prove that I am not a "Middle East expert." What he doesn't do, and can't do, and what no one has ever done, is prove that what I say about Islam and jihad is false. So instead they resort to making up outlandish charges, or misconstruing what I do say, or trying to tie me up in guilt-by-association attacks on others.
Which brings me to our next nut, the anonymous Watch Jihad Watch guy. This individual claims to be on a moral crusade to expose my supposed racism and bigotry, which he evidently finds more troubling than the jihad mass murder and victimization of innocents that I am dedicated to combatting. But he doesn't have the courage of his convictions, or simply the courage, even to identify himself; instead, he hides behind the anonymity of the Internet to sling outlandish and patently false charges. Here again I would never have thought him worth notice were it not for the fact that none other than Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR once contacted me about one of these false charges; evidently, however, even Hooper realized what thin gruel this anonymous coward is peddling: Hooper backpedaled furiously after I replied, and dropped the matter. Mr. Watch Jihad Watch, meanwhile, seems to have turned his attention to more pressing matters, although he is advertising for help; nonetheless, since his lies, half truths, and distortions remain on the Internet, I'll enter a reply or two here now.
Mr. Watch has taken me to task for not removing unmoderated comments from this website that were in fact removed. He has replied to my question, "Where are the Muslim anti-Osama rallies attended by tens of thousands?," by offering what looks like four links to such rallies, but which turns out to be three links to Moroccans protesting against al-Qaeda's killing of Muslims (they've never come out to protest the killing of non-Muslims) and one to a post-9/11 vigil in Iran, which everyone knows is a bastion of Islamic moderation, non-violence and tolerance.
But his favorite game is guilt by association, which he likes to play by posting Hugh Fitzgerald's words and then challenging me to repudiate them and Hugh himself. He took a post of Hugh's in which Hugh opines that eventually there may be, and possibly should be, population transfers involving Muslims in the West. Mr. Watch, like a hyperactive puppy, races on from there to claim that Hugh calls for ethnic cleansing and genocide.
This is the one Hooper asked me about. I told him that in fact, Hugh had not and had never called for ethnic cleansing or genocide, and asked Hooper if he was claiming that population transfers were ipso facto immoral. If he thought they were, I asked him, was he prepared to say that the Czechs' expulsion of the Sudeten Germans after World War II was wrong? In other words, did he think the Czechs were wrong to take steps against a recrudescence of Nazism? And if he thought population transfers were always wrong, was he prepared to call for the dissolution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which was created by such transfers, and its reincorporation into India? No world body or political leader condemned Czechoslovakia or India/Pakistan at the time of these actions. Nor has anyone done so to this day. Why not?
Hooper thereupon reminded me that the charges came from Mr. Watch, not from Hooper himself, and vanished. But Mr. Watch has kept it up, insinuating that I favor "ethnic cleansing, systematic boycotts of Muslims in America, violation of their civil liberties." He does grant, "Of course, Spencer doesn't say that in this article. But it has been suggested by other JihadWatchers, and it all stems from the quote above."
Here we come to another of his favorite gambits: holding me responsible for unmoderated comments. Since many supporters of the global Islamic jihad have posted here, if all the comments are taken to reflect my views I would be as schizophrenic as -- well, as a Christian fundamentalist Jewish Zionist member of Opus Dei who denies Israel's right to exist. If Mr. Watch thinks that some comments here really reflect my views, let him prove it from my own writings. But of course he can't do that, since I do not in fact support ethnic cleansing, systematic boycotts of Muslims in America, or violation of their civil liberties. So he resorts to this pathetic bit of guilt by association -- without, incidentally, even quoting the commenters here who favor such things, probably because he knows I would remove such comments if I saw them.
And now it's time to go out and enjoy the rest of this sunny day.
By the way, I was not involved in the Kennedy assassination either -- although I did shoot Liberty Valance.
UPDATE, May 7: Jihad Watch reader Junior has pointed out to me that Mr. Watching Jihad Watch has responded to the post above, and has just added more lies onto his ledger. So once again, for the record, here are some selections from his latest, and my replies. I am not going to reply to him every time he comes back, but I do it this one additional time so that his dishonesty and sleazy logic-chopping will be clear to fair-minded observers.
On to me. As many of you know, I have scaled back my activities on this blog recently due to some personal issues. So it was surprising to me when, all of a sudden, I started receiving death threats on the comment section of this blog. Looking at where these people came from, I found Mr. Spencer's article.
I very seriously doubt that this self-important fellow really received any death threats, but in any case it is characteristic of his general dishonesty for him to imply that he got the threats because of what I wrote about him above.
Let's address Spencer's charges one at a time, shall we? First of all, he states, to discredit me, that I am an anonymous blogger - he calls me Mr. Watch which, I suppose, makes him Mr. Jihad? Anyhoo... it is a strange accusation given that I have not hidden my name at all on this blog - it is Richard (Rick) Shaw; in fact, I believe I have even exchanged emails with Mr. Jihad at some point, and my name is perfectly clear there as well. (I cannot verify this at present due to an unfortunate coffee/hard drive incident, but if data recovery people are as good as they say they are, I soon will).
He is an anonymous blogger. Never until this post did he identify himself as "Rick Shaw." When he posted here, he posted only as "Rick S.," and possibly under another name as well. Neither "Rick Shaw" nor "Rick S." nor any other name appears in the author's profile section of his site. He has lied before about sending me emails; he has in fact never sent me even one, and thus we have never had any email exchange.
Ok, Mr. Jihad also objects to my attacks on him regarding unmoderated comments on his site. I do, in fact, do attack him for this. The reason I do so is that Spencer himself made them an issue - for example, in the infamous St Pete article in which he says he bans racists. I only point out, with examples, the fact that Spencer does not, in fact, do this, either meaning that a) he is lying when he claims he does and b) he does not find the statements to be objectionable. You make the call - Spencer does not actually say which one it is.
Mr. Shaw doesn't address that fact that I noted above: "Mr. Watch has taken me to task for not removing unmoderated comments from this website that were in fact removed." That is, again, indicative of his dishonesty. I remove them when I see them or when they are brought to my attention. He has excoriated me for comments that I removed, without bothering to tell his readers that they were removed. In any case, I repeat: "If Mr. Watch thinks that some comments here really reflect my views, let him prove it from my own writings. But of course he can't do that, since I do not in fact support ethnic cleansing, systematic boycotts of Muslims in America, or violation of their civil liberties."
Nor did I ever try to "associate [Shaw] with CAIR and Mr. Ibrahim Hooper." I merely reported that Hooper had sent me his material, and explained the incident.
Mr. Shaw spends most of his time again trying to argue that population transfers equal ethnic cleansing equal genocide. Leaving aside the fact that the Islamic jihad ideology is not an ethnicity, suffice it to say that his case is not made: recent history is full of population transfers that did not involve ethnic cleansing or genocide, and which were not only not condemned but were welcomed by the international community. I think many Czechs, Poles, Pakistanis and others and others would be quite surprised to learn from Mr. Shaw that population transfers are always ipso facto genocidal and immoral.
Anyway, I am through with this character. He clearly is not honest. Let him rave. He is apparently angrier with me than he is with the killers of Atwar Bahjat, and that bespeaks a moral myopia of monstrous proportions.
Posted by Robert at April 30, 2006 3:05 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
I don't think wikipedia is valueless, particularly for the mundane things that most of us use it for (ie: dates, birth and death information etc.). It is suspect and the controls are almost non-existent. Compared to a conventional encyclopedia it is poorly written.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 30, 2006 5:24 PM
Dear Jerry M:
I detest Wikipedia. I wouldn't trust it for anything. And since I only allow comments that show me "FAWNING RESPECT," I am going to remove yours forthwith.
(Just kidding.)
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at April 30, 2006 5:30 PM
Robert-- if you click the "edit" tab on your Wikipedia entry, you'll see there are a small number of people dedicated to keeping it clean and well lit, and who reverse attempts at vandalism on a fairly regular basis.
You are not unloved at Wikipedia.
Posted by: Shinoliite at April 30, 2006 5:31 PM
My bad-- that would be the "history" tab.
Posted by: Shinoliite at April 30, 2006 5:32 PM
Shinolite:
Thank you for the "FAWNING RESPECT."
Actually, seriously, I appreciate those efforts at Wikipedia very much. However, an encyclopedia that may or may not be trustworthy depending on whether or not the vandals have been repelled at any given moment seems to me to be pointless, at best.
But still, that doesn't mean I'm not grateful.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at April 30, 2006 5:36 PM
Wikipedia is OK if your researching movie stars or rock bands, even then you need to double check. It's not for serious inquiry.
Posted by: smitty at April 30, 2006 5:36 PM
Robert,
Just to read some of these comments that a number of "nutjobs" have put out makes even more valuable your work and websites, (JW/DW).
As far as wikipedia is concern, I try not to completely depend on it. I try to do a lot of website(s) research going to different sites because I tend to look at wikipedia with suspect. I tend to view both that site and the teensite mysite with distrust.
Otherwise the above article is good for a few laughs when it comes to the strange things people do.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 30, 2006 5:37 PM
A PS:
I tend to distrust sites that tend to create more problems then help provide info. That is why when I hear on the news when there is a new problem involving the "mysite", sometimes I tend to scream, shut that site DOWN!
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 30, 2006 5:40 PM
Robert: I go by the username "Dy-no-miite" (with apologies to Jimmie Walker) over at Wikipedia.
I figure as long as its there, it's not a tall order to look in on it from time to time and take out the trash.
I fully recognize, however, that the truly authoritative bio is actually at Uncyclopedia. (Peace be upon it!) ;)
Posted by: Shinoliite at April 30, 2006 5:44 PM
Thanks, Shine-o-liiite. I much appreciate it.
I hope you tell them that I'm the man who shot Liberty Valance.
Cordially
RS
at April 30, 2006 5:46 PM
Robert -
I wonder if it might be more effective for you simply to have a link on your main menu that addresses "Response to Critics" or similar phrase, and periodically just mention there is a new update in "Response to Critics" where the lunatic fringe could be addressed.
The lunatics manage to keep grabbing headlines by simply attacking people and spewing utter nonsense, and distracting from the main threats - that is their primary propaganda tactic to muddle the real news.
Not saying you shouldn't respond to such attackers who defame you, of course, but I wonder if giving them a thorough response on main page just gives them more of an audience and distraction from the jihadist threat to the lives of all civilized society. Just a suggestion of an alternative tactic.
The key mission is to educate on the truly impending dangers of jihad, and the dangers of it grow every single day with a totally determined enemy, which you do an excellent job on, and we are all grateful for your dedication and leadership.
Posted by: jeffreyimm at April 30, 2006 6:12 PM
Mr. Watch, like a hyperactive puppy, races on from there to claim that Hugh calls for ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Ethic cleansing and genocide? How about survival:
Mohammed said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' Whoever says this will save his property and his life from me."
--- Bukhard hadith Vol 9 Book 84 No. 59
Believers, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. Do not falter; become faint-hearted, or weak-kneed, crying for peace.
--- God's commandment to Moslems in Koran 47:33
God is not bound by any contract or treaty with non-Muslims, nor is Mohammed.
--- God's commmandments to Moslems in Koran 9:3
With respect to Monsieur Watch Jihad Watch, a few things:
1) What is a god doing entering into contracts? That's a pedestrian pursuit for a diety; could it be that Mohammed misrepresentated his god conversations?
2) Citizenship and resident alien status are contracts. If contracts with Infidels don't hold with Moslems, then the reverse is true.
3) Faced with a self-described mortal enemy openly planning our demise, expulsion is a reasonable, prudent, ethical, legal, and moral imperative.
at April 30, 2006 6:18 PM
RS,
I am glad you took the time to answer these cranks; I agree with Mr. Pipes. In the internet age, accusations stay out there, whether one likes it or not, but your eloquent refutations are as accessible as hollow aspersions. You are doing a very brave thing, speaking truth to dogma, and in the public eye no less. Character assassination is the least of my concerns for you. The charges never stuck in the mainstream press, to the extent that it has noticed your work (more and more). The only place they are of any effect is in the blogosphere, and even here they are weak, worthwhile only to those whose minds come pre-closed.
Sometimes I detect a hint of despair in the discussion forums. Every one of us should remember that the truth has a way of coming out, and reason wins in the long term. In this battle of wits, our enemy is unarmed; violence is their only true refuge. Skepticism and critical thought are blooming among Muslim communities all over the world, just like they did in Enlightenment Europe. The doctrinal headwind is a bit stronger, but we have Robert Spencer on our side, and that has to count for something. Keep dropping different weight spheres off towers, keep insisting the Earth revolves around the sun, keep on speaking about what the canonical texts of Islam, and its most virulent adherents, say. Here in unmoderated comment land, you are appreciated, and we know how important you are.
Posted by: Quijybo
at April 30, 2006 6:27 PM
I use Wikipedia for things like researching technical nautical terms, etc. I would never use it for researching pressing political ideological issues: for that, it's simply trash.
at April 30, 2006 6:34 PM
I also had to find out that some impostor is using "Sheik yer'mami to peddle porn on the internet.
I have registered that domain name for my music and my upcoming booklet with pic's and illustrations of the RoP and their activities. It is annoying when you have these parasites try to come along for the ride without paying for the ticket...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 30, 2006 6:37 PM
Folks, got a question. Are we getting close to having another full moon soon? Could it be why there are so many nuts coming out of the woodwork.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 30, 2006 6:41 PM
liberty valance was a bad dude thank you for taking him out
Posted by: campingman1 at April 30, 2006 7:10 PM
Wasn't Watch Jihad Watch RickS, the guy who condemned Serbs and Hindus for fighting back against Muslims, and was subsequently banned? If he wants to be anonymous, he should have thought of that from day 1.
I agree with the above posters - I use Wikipedia for quick references when I'm trying to remember something I had read in a conventional encyclopedia years ago. However, for follow-up info and research, I'd delve back into those types of sources.
That said, aren't all the encyclopedias nowadays, be it Britannica, Compton, Encarta, biased? Even National Geographic, 2 or 3 years ago, had an article on the Israel-Palestine conflict, where both sides were treated as moral equivalents, and the info on Israeli settlements in Judea & Samaria was based on Peace Now estimates.
In short, there is no one stop shopping for general info these days. No trustworthy one, that is.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 30, 2006 7:31 PM
FAWNING COMMENT
They have now included your middle name. Is that to distinguish Robert Bruce Spencer from the Moussaoui prosecutor Rob Spencer?
You're supposed to be successful on your 7th attempt (ref: Robert Bruce & the spider).
Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 30, 2006 7:35 PM
And the page previously dedicated to Hugh seems to have been deleted. Groan
Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 30, 2006 7:36 PM
Sheik Liberty al-Valance was a good and pious Muslim - a willing slave of Allah. He was also both my second cousin and my uncle. As you have freely admitted to his murder, know that there is now a blood feud between your tribe and mine.
Allahu akbar
at April 30, 2006 7:46 PM
I will never claim to be an "expert" on Islam. I'll leave that to Bat Ye'or or Ibn Warraq (Besides I hate the word "expert"). However I am not afraid to tell people that Islam is the cause of contemporary terrorism today. However in my attempts to talk to people about terrorism, I have recieved the following comments; "You're a biggot." "Extremists have hijacked the religion." "Islam forbids the killing of women and children." And my personal favorite "Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion." Knowing what I do now (which I've learned from a superb teacher who as witnessed it first hand...AND has no affliation with ANY religion.)I will say the follwing: It's people like Karen "Stretch" Armstrong, John Esposito, Stephen Schwartz, and the organization C.A.I.R that are more dangerous than the terrorist themselves. They are the ones who are taiming the sheep before the slaughter. It's people like them who make me hate myself. It's people like them who make me think that sometimes it's not worth it. It's people like them who make me want to give up. However it's people like Andrew Bostom, Ibn Warraq, Salamin Rushdie, and Daniel Pipes who inspire me not to give. I know if I give up then the bad guys have won. If Mr. Pipes, Mr. Bostom, and Mr. Warraq, along with many others, are willing to put their lives on the line for liberators and apologists alike then we must be willing to do the same.
Posted by: Patriot_1/17 at April 30, 2006 7:52 PM
Life was already hard before this. I mean, what with controlling the international banks, the media, academe and Hollywood as well as planning further terrorist attacks in Egypt, it really is tough to be a Jew. Being blamed for you is going to be the straw that'll break our backs, Mr. Spencer. Not that we mind, we'll just sit here in the dark, no one was going to visit anyway...
Fawning comment -
Since they're de rigeur today, I'd like to add mine to the pile. Thanks for dealing with these idiots so we don't have to, and thank you for the laughs at their expense.
/fawning comment
Posted by: libbysmom at April 30, 2006 7:54 PM
Ack! Apparently I used up my allotment of 'u's for the week, most likely from spelling things like 'neighbour' and 'humour', which is obviously why the first 'u' in 'de rigueur' went missing.
Either that or I'm just thick.
;)
at April 30, 2006 8:01 PM
I wish to add, that the catalog of Muslim argumentation methods, and Jihad can be found
in the Dictionary of Logical Fallacies, as well as their defense methodology. That is in addtion to lying and obfuscating for the sake of Islam.
There is virtually no argument of theres that can't be deconstructed by recourse to said Dictionary, as is evidenced in the charges laid against you, which include strawman and ad hominem (and ad hominem on those with whom they associate you by ad hominem).
Ad hominem on ad hominem and soon you have a pile of ad hominems that reach as high as the now non existing World Trade Centers.
Almost impossible to keep up with, trying to wrap your fingers around them is akin to grabbing hold of a baggie of Jell-0..
No sooner do you address one issue, and refute their absurdities, then they move the goal posts, and attack from another direction.. it is always attack, for offense is the best defense.
I've been dealing with these anti humans for over two years, and they wear one down, when they aren't playing tag team or ganging up on you.
at April 30, 2006 8:21 PM
I realized that Wikipedia was extremely limited in its value when I read the bio of Alex Jones. It made this nut case look like a learned, scholastic intellectual, which he ain't.
Posted by: Pelayo at April 30, 2006 8:23 PM
I do not hate Islam, but I do hate the oppression of women and religious minorities, warfare to subjugate non-Muslims as inferiors to Muslims, the murder of civilians, etc. Quote: Robert Spencer
Well I do hate islam, I have watched the entire world spin out of control since the late 60's, mostly because of the RoP® I am funny that way, I hate people who want to destroy my family and country.
at April 30, 2006 8:30 PM
Finally Mr Spencer, it is a compliment, a credit and acknowledgement of your force of reason and effectiveness, that so much effort is expended in an attempt to discredit you.
Effort is expended only against people and things that are considered to be obstacles and a threat.
Vast expenditures are made to move or tunnel through mountains, not because they are mountains, but because they are an obstacle to the need to get to the other side.
You worry them because you are effective. I worry them as well, as I have a crew of Muslims dedicated to keeping watch over me, down rating, trolling and attacking me on open forum.
No sooner do I post an article, than the usual suspects jump in with obfuscation, change of subject or the usual attack "he's a Jew", which only betrays their own hatred of Jews and amounts to projection of their own bias and hatred towards Jews.
Since they hate Jews (as their Koran mandates) then naturally in their world Jews must of necessity hate them, this ignores the legion of liberal and leftwing Jews who defend Muslims and Palestinians..constantly, be it Michael Ratner or (now dead) Lynne Stewart, or Steven Schwartz, whom by Muslim logic is still a Jew, because he was born of a jewish mother, well that is also Rabbinical Judaism and the Israeli Law of Return.
The Muslim definition of a jew is even more harsh than Hitler's, by why would a person have to defend themselves against the charge of being a Jew? Answer: Because hatred of Jews is entrenched, very entrenched in not only Islam, but in the west.
The equation from left and right:
Jews bad, rule the world, corrupted society and the world, control the money. Muslims are just another victim of the Jew. Enemy of my enemy is my friend, ergo (in their mind), poor Muslim victim, and as I've been told by some Brits, Scots and Welsh they are the new "niggers", the underdog.
That is a perception that needs to be changed, and Mr Spencer is changing that perception, slowly, and the Muslims feed off and get fat from that perception.. therefore Mr Spencer is an enemy that needs to be silenced, if not physically, then defamed and demonized by whatever means possible.
But they couldn't use the "you are a Jew" ploy, were it nor for endemic Jew hatred.
Sadly, AIPAC, ADL and the Holocaust Memorial Society don't help the case.. blatant special interests, while the special interests of Muslims, such as the Arab Anti Discrimination Committee (ADC), the AMS, CAIR and the Islamic Institute are more subtle and entrenched within the Republican National Committee..as Paul Sperry noted,.... the Islamic Institute (founded by Grover "Abdullah" Norquist) is the GOP arm of the American Muslim Society, and Baker Botts law firm (James A. Baker)has three clients, The Bush Family, the Saudis and Exxon Mobil and is the primary lobby for the Saudis as well.
Posted by: Nariz at April 30, 2006 8:45 PM
Since I have previously admitted to being a "fawning minion" of JW, it would be difficult now to deny that I have FAWNING RESPECT for Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald. However, I'm sure that if we were to sit down with a cup of coffee, there would be plenty of things that we would disagree on (abortion stuff, gun control, gay rights, whether domestic or imported wine is better, and so on). But what these critics don't yet understand, the ONE THING that JW readers (and a growing segment of the population) can agree on is that Islam is a clear and present danger to free, democratic, secular societies based on Judeo-Christian values. Not because of what our nations have done, but because of what their holy Qur'an (and the hadiths) mandate. On that ONE TOPIC, I agree with you wholeheartedly, and reaffirm my belief that Robert and Hugh are two of the best authors to be writing on the subject. You guys rock!
As for wikipedia, yes it is unreliable and biased, but so are traditional encyclopedias, and mainstream magazines, and non-fiction books, and all web pages. Fighting for the truth is apparently an on-going battle, never to be won, though one can temporarily be winning.
Posted by: special_guest at April 30, 2006 8:58 PM
Robert certainly is lucky to have enemies like these.
Irfan Yusuf is hilarious and I can see where this "Spencer-is-a-Sephardic-Jew" rumor came from. This guy needs to get his head checked. I wonder if he has any connection to Islamophobia Watch, which is another source of libsanity.
The Watch Jihad Watch blog is just boring. He misrepresents arguments, jumps to ridiculous conclusions, and for someone who "watches" this site regularly, is strangely mum on the hair-raising news reports from the Muslim world. This is a guy who thinks that JihadWatch is absolutely awful for its "alarmist" coverage of the motoon intifada, yet he doesn't seem phased at the lives lost and the carnage that these rage-filled Muslims produced. I guess it's more fun cherry-picking posts for "racism" then actually dealing with a murderous ideology that is threatening infidels all over the world.
Posted by: igor at April 30, 2006 9:00 PM
We know that islam is an entity that invades by stealth.It is very patient yet very determined.
OF course,here we recognise the Islamic terrorism is only the highly visable part.
A part the actually veils the others from our minds thorugh its ferocity.
thw word islamic terrorist implies that all others are peaceful and gentle, in the same way that the term Nazi implies that Germans were NOT genocidal.
Until we turn around one day and realise that suddenly , as is by magic, the most popular name at the registry of births is now Mahommed.
The muslim brotherhood is in my mind the foremost example of the advance by stealth.
At their annual conference at the University of Sydney in 1997, FAMSY presented Ahmad Elkadi, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. He was the secret leader of the underground movement from 1984 until 1994.
Elkadi explained the process of recruiting new members. It begins, he supposedly said, with small prayer meetings where the identity of the Brotherhood is not revealed. “First you change the person, then the family, then the community, then the nation.”
Famsy is typical it holds deeply exterminationist views towards israel and America and promotes its self as progresive ROP moderate organisation worthy of NGO status.
Just another Muslim Brothehood clone set up to deceive the infidel and indoctrinate non enlightened muslim youth.
Caveat Avernus!
at April 30, 2006 9:02 PM
chevalier de st george,
The Muslim community is in for a very rude awakening. The Christian community is seeing a boom of new believers in the global south, thanks to the missionaries sent from the west years ago. The global south pratices a Christanity back to its roots and are more traditonal. They are now even sending missionaries to the west. They are planting the seeds for a Christian revival.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 30, 2006 9:17 PM
Your egocentrisms, Mr. Spencer, are as asinine, boring and inane as Mr. Fitzgerald's priggishness.
You both are your own worst enemies, your personalities impeding your cause.
Only a couple of book sale phonies would attack what has been long discredited and such people could hardly be called genuine intellectuals.
There is nothing in Jihad Watch that cannot be learned elsewhere. Have some self-perspective.
Wonder no longer why Jihad Watch has not received broad acceptance.
Beware good and smart people.
at April 30, 2006 9:35 PM
Watch how that is deleted, folks.
Beware of these guys.
Posted by: Dr. Ashley at April 30, 2006 9:36 PM
Robert - I enjoyed your partial bio, and your sense of humor which is completely lacking in the detractors. When is the last time you heard a Mujahid crack a joke, use a little sublime satire, or even smile for that matter. Pretty dour blokes. As for the loony rantings, they're near indistinguishable from the standard Islamic apologist fare.
Posted by: Thumper at April 30, 2006 9:43 PM
Dear Dr. Ashley,
Sorry: your posts are not getting deleted.
This man, folks, is angry because I didn't post something he sent me.
I am posting this just as a reminder that I get over 500 emails a day, and am especially bad about emails I get while traveling with my balky laptop. That, unfortunately, is when Dr. Ashley sent me his emails.
The non-appearance of any story on this site at any time does not necessarily constitute any decision on my part that it is not worthy of posting. There is always more jihad and dhimmi news than I can get to.
Dr. Ashley: I apologize for overlooking your material, but there was no malice -- or even decision -- involved.
And when did I ever claim that there was anything on Jihad Watch that wasn't available elsewhere?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at April 30, 2006 9:49 PM
Dr. Ashley also wrote in an email to me:
"I will no longer advocate your site. In fact, I will actively denounce it and bring thousands with me. You and the prig, Mr. Fitzgerald, do not even know who your friends are or could have been. Fools!"
Dr. Ashley, I am small potatoes. I respectfully suggest that your time would be better spent working to awaken Americans to the global jihad threat.
But if you think bringing down Jihad Watch is more important than bringing down Osama bin Laden, have at it. Do your worst.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at April 30, 2006 9:56 PM
Only a couple of book sale phonies would attack what has been long discredited and such people could hardly be called genuine intellectuals.
Posted by Dr. Ashley
I suppose you are a "genuine intellectual" and you have written dozens of best sellers under a nom de guerre. I don't recall any recent bestsellers penned by a famous brain surgeon who is an equally famous author. Maybe you are a "doctor" of defamation who resorts to character assasination when all else fails.
Perhaps you could take the time to share with us "what has long been discredited", and by whom. I think we all possess enough grey matter to recognize true intellectuals when we see them.
Posted by: Susanp at April 30, 2006 10:09 PM
Susanp:
Dr. Ashley is in the process of sending me a series of abusive and threatening (as per his threat above to denounce this site to "thousands") emails.
He is, in short, not worth dealing with.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at April 30, 2006 10:14 PM
True Islam, in all its glory.
What Muslim parents teach their kids:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nadFX6T9N4s&search=crazy%20muslims
Enjoy.
Posted by: DCWatson at April 30, 2006 10:19 PM
Dr. Ashley excels in the field of autocranioproctology.
If you get my drift.
Posted by: Shinoliite at April 30, 2006 10:24 PM
Dr. Ashley seems to have skin as thin as the tin foil on his head.
Posted by: Television at April 30, 2006 10:44 PM
l had a good laugh reading your stories on the nutcases. this Crockete lady really needs to get a life and some anger management classes. perhaps she could go for a R&R in Saudi Arabia or join her friend the Hammas people. there she could really enjoy the love of muslim culture. and the good doctor, what material does he seem to think is so important? can't he/she get his own website, l think there is too much protest.
Robert and your board members keep up the good work. l guess l might be fawing too much. oh well..
at April 30, 2006 10:52 PM
Okay, I give. Who really shot Liberty Valance? And was he carrying the List of Adrian Messenger?
Posted by: Hugh at April 30, 2006 10:54 PM
It is ironic, and peculiarly fitting, that on a thread about nutcases the inimitable Dr. Charles A. Ashley, who has also posted here as "A Thinker," would show up.
For those of you who think that the life of a Jihad Watch director is all bon bons and bon mots, sunshine and roses and walks along the Riviera, think again. Not only does the Hate Mail Bag get filled up with misty-eyed missives from the mujahedin, but also with paranoid denunciations from the likes of Dr. Ashley, who is angry because I overlooked a story he thinks worth covering.
Friends, let me emphasize: there are many, many more stories that should be posted here. I don't have the time or the staff to get to all of them. My email situation is so far out of hand that, as Charles Johnson once said of his own, it's scaring the neighbors.
But in response to my explanations along this line to Dr. Ashley, I have received from him emails containing a threat ("I will no longer advocate your site. In fact, I will actively denounce it and bring thousands with me.") and abuse: "Fools!" "What you write is repetitive bullshit!"
I wrote this to him: "Your demeanor at this point is hardly one that will win friends and influence people. You can call me what you want, but you might want to keep in mind in dealing with others in the future that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, as they say."
He responded: "Your lack of appropriate behavior has not gone unnoticed. If you really want your site to be truly pedagogical, you might want to use some more honey. Mr. Fitzgerald has become fun and laughable parlor banter here. Ludicrous that you would think that you could teach a PhD in philosophy (specialty in philosophy of religion, by the way) a school boy's lesson." And later, also from Dr. Ashley: "You are nutjob!"
I'm glad to see a PhD in philosophy using such precise, descriptive language.
But in any case, Dr. Ashley has tonight become further confirmation, in addition to the people that I wrote about in this post, that there are a lot of nuts out there, and that they are essentially diverting attention away from what we should really be paying attention to, and thus hindering and disrupting the anti-jihad resistance.
I ask all sane Jihad Watch readers to be understanding and even indulgent if I do not answer your email, or post the story you want me to post. And to keep your eyes on our primary task.
Posted by: jihadwatch at April 30, 2006 10:54 PM
This man, folks, is angry because I didn't post something he sent me.
Robert
You haven't posted anything I ever sent you.
Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo (sob)
Getting 500 e-mails a day is no excuse. You should respond to each and every one of them.
Instantly.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 30, 2006 10:54 PM
Infidel Pride,
I am abjectly sorry. I don't even remember seeing any emails from you, ever.
Forget about denouncing me to thousands. Just hang me from the highest tree.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at April 30, 2006 11:03 PM
"Mr. Fitzgerald has become fun and laughable parlor banter..."
-- from an email by "Professor Dr. Charles A. Ashley, Ph.D. in philosophy (specialty in philosophy of religion, by the way)" but also, I suspect, Doctor honoris causa (Oxford, Cambridge, Sorbonne, Salamanca), doctor ex grege eundem (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, California Institute of Technology), Fellow of the Royal Society, Corresponding Member of the Academies of Science of Paris, St. Petersburg, Rome, London, Edinburgh, Fellow of All Souls College, Former Master, Trinity College, Cambridge, Former fellow of Peterhouse, winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature and Peace, Winner of the Balzan Award for Contributions to World History, Awarded the Templeton Prize for Reconciling The Claims of Religion with Those of Science, and other prizes that can be found at the website for Dr. Charles A. Ashley or, if you still read books, in the entry for him in Who's Who in America, Who's Who in the Western Hemisphere, Who's Who in the World, Who's Who in Philosophy, Who's Who in Religion (By The Way), Who's Who in Academia, and Who's Who in Who's Who.
Well, I should hope so.
at April 30, 2006 11:07 PM
Actually, Hugh, I was about to tell you who really shot Liberty Valance, but then a Warning Voice came to me saying: "I can't believe you're going to spoil that movie for those who have never seen it. There are people who have never seen it!"
Go rent it. Quickly. Quickly and slowly.
Cordially
Robert
at April 30, 2006 11:07 PM
Gosh, Robert, now you're showing me up. Just when I was trying to impress Dr. Charles A. Ashley, Ph.D. in philosophy (specialty in philosophy of religion, by the way).
Posted by: Hugh at April 30, 2006 11:19 PM
What people forget is J and D watch is also just a long running historical presentation of the daily news... Robert and Hughs veiws are not extreme, they are part of a widly held postion of many.
It's thanks to sites and writers such as these that we got the chance to get a bit of a grip and the chance to learn on what is happening to our society.
Posted by: meredith at May 1, 2006 12:26 AM
Speaking of a trip to the nuthouse, look at what an imam did to a 6 year old...
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
at May 1, 2006 12:30 AM
Dr Ashley writes..
" I will actively denounce you and bring and thousands with me."
Robert.. this guy has the gall to call you an egocentric! WTF is an egocentric if he isn't! What a putz..
at May 1, 2006 12:33 AM
I tried to post this from the non-nuthouse, but received the following (these guys really do not seem to be able to handle genuine criticism):
"Your comment has been received. To protect against malicious comments, I have enabled a feature that allows your comments to be held for approval the first time you post a comment. I'll approve your comment when convenient; there is no need to re-post your comment."
Has anyone ever noticed that Mr. Spencer and Mr. Fiitzgerald do not accept criticism well and, in fact, resort to the very kind of attacks for which they profess disgust?
I learned today that by calling attention to woeful inattentiveness on the part of Mr. Spencer that you will be called abusive and threatening, even if you are neither.
While he claimed these things, our email exchange proves the exact opposite.
For those of you that would like an enlightening copy between Mr. Spencer and I, please email me at:
videoman@netwurx.net
To any objective observer, Mr. Spencer was exactly what he claimed I was being, which, of course, I was not. He was very abusive and tried to deflect that by calling me the same. Crazy.
Mr. Spencer, the emails prove, cares more about German brothel postings than the plight of a U.S. academic.
Please report me to my ISP, Mr. Spencer. Let's give your asinine, boring and inane egocentrism a public whirl.
:-)
at May 1, 2006 12:35 AM
Robert,
Just another tree in the forest of "fawners"...wait, that doesn't make sense, let me start again....
DEER Robert,
I just wanted to say I'm with you 100%...Wait That's worse than the first one...
OK, ROBERT,
Good idea putting your rebuttals on record, your mom would be proud of you,(probably regardless) Keep beating them over the head with the truth. As I said to a friend today a 10yr old armed with the truth about Islamism in a debate with an Ayatollah is a TKO 1st round and the Ayatollah walked right into it...By showing up.
Regards,
WIDE AWAKE
at May 1, 2006 12:41 AM
Always question your alleged teachers people. Do not fall for the the self puffed up malarkey.
Posted by: DoctorCharles at May 1, 2006 12:42 AM
Only idiots treat Wikipedia as a real source of knowledge and those who argue against its foolishness are fools themselves.
Posted by: DoctorCharles at May 1, 2006 12:47 AM
WIDEAWAKE,
Mr. Spencer has hidden his attacks, duly not recorded here. The emails clearly show that he was extremely defensive when provided with the truth and then extremely offensive when he realized that he was very wrong.
Posted by: DoctorCharles at May 1, 2006 12:51 AM
Charles,
In the face of the daily world news round up presented here on islam, I think you will find Robert and Hughs vewis quiet normal amongst civilised people.
"Your comment has been received. To protect against malicious comments, I have enabled a feature that allows your comments to be held for approval the first time you post a comment. I'll approve your comment when convenient; there is no need to re-post your comment."
is an answer you will find on many blogs for a first time poster, this is probably to check to see if you are swearing your head off etc.
Posted by: meredith at May 1, 2006 1:00 AM
I am abjectly sorry. I don't even remember seeing any emails from you, ever.
Given that you did kindly respond to me on a couple of occasions, that's a real achievement. Now I'm even more awestruck by your talents then I ever thought I'd be.
Actually, that happened before your recent server meltdown, which is probably why you don't remember.
Forget about denouncing me to thousands. Just hang me from the highest tree.
Nah, how could I hang someone who responds properly to e-mails without even seeing them? Who among us wouldn't kill for such a talent?
Besides, for responding to this post, all is forgiven ;->
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 1, 2006 1:04 AM
Always question your alleged teachers people. Do not fall for the the self puffed up malarkey. Posted by: DoctorCharles
Consider yourself questioned. I won't fall for your self puffed up malarkey.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 1, 2006 1:16 AM
Infidel Pride asks: "Aren't all the encyclopedias nowadays, be it Britannica, Compton, Encarta, biased?"
Yes, they have been biased, for decades. I remember an article on capitalism from the Encyclopedia Britannica in the 1960's, which asserted that capitalism "labors under a fundamental disadvantage" compared to communism, because communism is "the system that invests more in people." (The late writer Ayn Rand clued me in to that one.) Whoever was editing the Encyclopedia Britannica back then was evidently more sympathetic to socialism than to capitalism.
But at least these hardcopy encyclopedias were published in carefully organized and edited yearly editions, preventing their contents from being randomly hacked the way Wikipedia is.
Posted by: Steven L. at May 1, 2006 1:27 AM
Googling "Charles A. Ashley" (I have got to get a semblence of a life) brings up an elementary school named for Charles S. Ashley, former mayor of New Bedford for 32 years, and who died in 1941.
There is also a Charles Ashley who is an assistant chairman of the Villanova Math Department. As he humbly puts it "This basically means I make out the schedule for our department, handle changes of student's schedules, and deal with complaints."
I'm not sure if either of these is related to the illustrious Professor Dr. Charles A. Ashley, Phd., but in all seriousness, DoctorCharles, you may want to tone it down a bit. You're starting to scare the children.
Posted by: special_guest at May 1, 2006 1:39 AM
Doctor Charles,
If you have a personal beef with Robert or Hugh, you should just email them and keep it off this board. However, if you disagree with their arguments then let's hear them. Many people on this board and outside of this board don't agree with all of their positions, but we don't resort to name calling. Let's keep it civil, ok?
Posted by: igor at May 1, 2006 1:40 AM
This thread reminds me of the movie 'Let it Be,' when the Beatles are up on the roof of the Apple recording studio, performing their impromptu concert, and a hand-held camera pans the gathering crowd on the street.
Just as John is scream-singing 'Don't Let Me Down,' the street-level camera focuses in on this poor, confused English-woman who looks like the tragic by-product of genetic inbreeding...and she says,
"it doesn't make any sense!"
Posted by: Cornelius at May 1, 2006 1:49 AM
From this point on you may all address me as:
Dr. Foehammer!
Foehammer is no longer good enough for me, and I have decided that if I am not referred to as Doctor I will throw a tantrum, otherwise known as an "Ashley", so don't say I didn't warn you.
Posted by: Foehammer at May 1, 2006 1:49 AM
Steven L. said
But at least these hardcopy encyclopedias were published in carefully organized and edited yearly editions, preventing their contents from being randomly hacked the way Wikipedia is.
Personally, I think the only thing that hardcopy encyclopedias have over Wikipedia is the beautiful leather binding with the embossed gold titles. But for amusement (like I said, time to get a life) I periodically read the Wikipedia entry for "Rachel Corrie" (aka. "St. Pancake", the activist who lay/fell down in front of an IDF bulldozer). The daily battles over that entry are, if not edifying, at least entertaining.
Posted by: special_guest at May 1, 2006 2:05 AM
It seems that those who are afraid of tbe truth, or have something to hide (the truth), resort to more lies, fabrications, inuendo etc. Truth does not become false because it is uncomfortable or is disagreed with.
Anyone who speaks truth against the great lie of Islam will be attacked by any means available--that is the very nature of the lie and the soul of the father of that lie.
at May 1, 2006 2:19 AM
The accusation of "hating Islam" -- or the more sophisticated-sounding "Islamophobia" -- is thrown up as sand in the eyes so that Islam itself may not, MUST NOT, be questioned or examined closely. It's a preemptive strike designed to strictly limit or forbid inquiry that might point to Islam itself as partly or largely to blame for all the violence committed in its name by followers around the world today (and long days past).
The simple idea is that hate, or fear (or both, ergo "Islamophobia") is behind all the wrong-headed and 'dangerous' criticism of Islam which is so unfair and unhelpful in clearing up all the "misunderstandings".
But the real underlying fear is what an open, honest, and free inquiry into Islam will uncover and bring out into the sunlight for all to see.
The dirty little secret that Islamophiles and apologists desperately want to hide is the fact that Islam is FULL OF HATRED for Non-Believers (Non-Muslims).
Posted by: alexon at May 1, 2006 2:37 AM
Remember the line in Mel Brook's Space Balls: "Funny, she doesn't look druish." Well, Robert does a bit. Remember one of the stars of Hollywood in the 30-40's Kirk Douglas passed as Christian. He did it so well that his own agent had not idea, until he insulted him=).
One of my favorite flicks--ok, it is a chick flick, is The Human Stain. How a black guy passes as a white guy to make it to the top of acadamia. Race is one area that people in our country have improved tremendously as a people over the past 140 years.
Arab looking men will always stand out in airports and the like--even though the 94 lady from Arkansas with a hip fracture will probably get "the full service." This is why I suspect further attacks will use Black or Hispanic American converts or Balkan born Jihadists.
It took a mighty war to end slavery, but look at the freedom we possess today. A qualified black . . . Colin Powell(without the Iraq backage)could have been elected. Now contrast the improvements in race relations/religious freedom/persacution within the US over the past 200 years and counting. Then contrast the same with any country with Islam domination. Be carefull, Turkey does not count since it's moving the profoundly wrong direction over the past six years. Egypt? Iran? the PA?? LOL. The temporary improvment in status in Afghanistan is solely due to our boots on the ground, and will revert as soon as those boots leave. I would call Iraq a wash. Under Sadam, he killed thousands of his enimies, now everybody is killing everybody else.
Posted by: biorabbi at May 1, 2006 3:09 AM
Spencer is a bald-faced liar!
From his continuous participation on this thread, you can see that he did not go out and enjoy the rest of this sunny day, as he originally claimed he would.
And that just goes to show you the relaibility of his remaining writings.
Harrumph!
Make that a double harrumph!
Posted by: Shy Guy at May 1, 2006 3:21 AM
'between Mr Spencer and I'
Surely a PhD should know better!
Posted by: Silvester at May 1, 2006 4:38 AM
Mr Spencer,
Though I admire your opinion after reading "Islam Unveiled" and visiting FrontPage everyday to see if you have posted a new article I have to disagree with your comments about Wikipedia.
Here is a note from the reputable British magazine New Scientist about scientific entries in Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica -
www.newscientisttech.com/article/mg19025452.400.html
The entries on Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak are also good.
We don't all have access to the books and commentators that you do and have to use the resources we can get. Wikipedia is a good guy even if it makes mistakes now and again.
Posted by: ThinkingOutLoud at May 1, 2006 5:00 AM
"Dr. Ashley" sounds more like a patient than a doctor.
But Shy Guy is right, Robert: You are a lier: You promised us and yourself to get some sunshine on you and you didn't! Hahaha!
As for me, I will also throw a tantrum (like the good 'doctor') if you don't post this:
The RoP killing Hindu's:
http://www.yahoo.com/s/135784/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060501/ap_on_re_as/kashmir_hindus_killed
at May 1, 2006 5:44 AM
Throw a rock into a pack of dogs and the one that gets hit yelps the loudest.
The truth is painful to some.
Keep throwing rocks. Love that yelping.
Posted by: cactus
at May 1, 2006 6:26 AM
People who have to specify that they have a doctorate prove at the very start that they are defensive. Many of the greatest scholars and scientists in history either had no degree or had one that had nothing to do with their eventual achievement. Samuel Morse and Louis Pasteur (and G.K.Chesterton) trained as painters (and conversely, the musician Borodin trained as a chemist). The historian Mommsen had a degree in law. Abraham Lincoln and Winston S.Churchill never spent a day in college, yet they count as two of the greatest orators and best educated statesmen in history - and Churchill was an outstanding historian, whose life of his ancestor Marlborough is still worth reading today. Dr.Charles Ashley, pipe down. I have not only had dozens of e-mails ignored by Robert, but, when I briefly tried to work as a moderator, he once or twice failed to notice severe censures I sent to him. On one occasion he did not notice a warning that one particular commentator was a Nazi. So, if I valued my precious darling posts so much, I should be screaming my head off at poor Robert this minute. The thing is, however, that most of us do not value our precious little selves quite so much, nor resent real or imagined slights quite as ferociously, as your high, learned and Doctoral self.
As for fawning and whatever, I disagreed in print with both Robert and Hugh, sometimes quite severely, and my diagnosis of the future of the conflict is different from that of both of them; which did not prevent either Robert or Hugh from showing unfailing politeness to my undeserving self, nor indeed prevented Robert from allowing me to take the responsible position of moderator - which I gave up for reasons that have nothing to do with either of them. In short, and I want this on record, my experience is that both Robert and Hugh are unfailingly polite to views opposed to theirs, and that they do not either demand or expect agreement.
Posted by: Paolo at May 1, 2006 7:38 AM
By the way, I agree with ThinkingOutLoud about Wikipedia. I found some of its historical entries very useful - probably the work of frustrated aspiring textbook authors. (That was not a disrespectful description. I am a frustrated textbook author myself. What I mean is that they were comprehensive, precise, and intruduced all manners of new directions to explore.) Of course, where the entries belong to areas on which the net in general is at war, Wikipedia also becomes a battleground; but that is as much the Net's problem as its own.
Posted by: Paolo at May 1, 2006 7:44 AM
Let's play the movie quotes trivia game. Who said to whom:
"Dreams, dreams always dreams with you, never common sense."
No cheating now!
Posted by: Shy Guy at May 1, 2006 7:49 AM
MORE FAWNING RESPECT warning..
I'm fully in agreement with the other posters here (with the exception of Doctor what's his name, you remember him, an expert on something or the other). Keep up the good work Robert, your work is very much appreciated.
"As the Bard says: "With the storms ragin' round us,/And the winds a-blowin' gales,/I'd rather have drowned in misery/Than gone to New South Wales."
New South Wales isn't that bad, just be wary of the occasional intifada though at Cronulla.
Posted by: Ozi_bloke at May 1, 2006 7:53 AM
Nariz says "Jews bad, rule the world, corrupted society and the world, control the money. Muslims are just another victim of the Jew. Enemy of my enemy is my friend, ergo (in their mind), poor Muslim victim, and as I've been told by some Brits, Scots and Welsh they are the new "niggers", the underdog.
That is a perception that needs to be changed, and Mr Spencer is changing that perception, slowly, and the Muslims feed off and get fat from that perception.. therefore Mr Spencer is an enemy that needs to be silenced, if not physically, then defamed and demonized by whatever means possible."
And it is true. That perception does need changing. People like those oiks he mentions who see Muslims as the new underdogs must be made aware that Muslims see anyone as fair game to murder simply for not being Muslim, just as they have done for 1,400 years. Do they know about Muslim depravations in Sudan and Nigeria, the beheadings of Buddhist monks or Indonesian Christian schoolgirls? Obviously not, because the media isn't interested in reporting anything that shatters their "Islam is a religion of peace" ideal and exposes it for its threadbareness. And when it comes to underdogs, there's nothing more "underdog" than a non-Muslim who has the misfortune to be born and raised in a Muslim country or society, like those said three Christian girls beheaded in Indonesia, Christians slaughtered at prayer in Pakistan, Iraq and Egypt and Zoroastrians persecuted in Iran, and enduring a miserable existence of humiliation at the whims of uneducated sullen men. Likewise women who suffer humiliation for being born female, and who know that being raped is effectively a death sentence - but not for the rapist. Try telling that to these Esposito-worshipping PC multicultists who are playing with fire and risking the destruction of our civilization and this same miserable existence upon future generations.
at May 1, 2006 9:07 AM
Robert, believe me, your hatemail could actually be worse.
When you're a woman, you get all that, and the sexual depravity, too. That's why Michelle Malkin closed comments on her site.
In any case, I've had emails from people like Dr. Ashley. They go back on their meds and disappear eventually.
Posted by: Meryl Yourish at May 1, 2006 11:07 AM
Let us settle this once and for all. I shot Liberty Valence. Here's what happened.
My pal, Ransom Stoddard was an attorney who believed in law and order, but refused to carry a gun. Meself, Tom Doniphon was a young gunslinger, who believed there is no law and one "needs a gun in these parts."
When the murderous Muslim outlaw Liberty Valance came to town, Stoddard found the only way to settle differences with Valance is through violence when he is challenged to a shootout.
Stoddard was completely unskilled with a gun and no match for the infamous gunfighter Valance. But in what seems like a miraculous shot, Valance is killed in the duel. However, the deadly shot was really fired by myself from across the street, saving Stoddard's life.
I let Stoddard and the public believe Stoddard was the shooter, but later told him the truth in private. Stoddard will forever be known as the man who shot Liberty Valance, and had to deal with the reputation, and his secret, as he tried to build a political career and civilize the west.
Liberty Valance: "You lookin' for trouble, Doniphan?"
Tom Doniphon: "You aimin' to help me find some?"
at May 1, 2006 12:27 PM
Is it possible that there are Muslim shareholders in the company that owns Wikipedia??
If so, that would explain the nature of this entire incident quite well.
Posted by: pythagoras at May 1, 2006 12:43 PM
Pythagoras,
I think people just write the entrys for wika, anyone in the public can. If so no one has done Irfan Yusef yet, maybe that article he wrote would be a good entry for him... hes vying for position here in Australia. Let him be seen for what he is a slanderous fool.
Posted by: meredith at May 1, 2006 1:26 PM
Uncyclopedia is a better factual source, and far more reliable than Wikipedia.
Posted by: Kristopher at May 1, 2006 1:27 PM
Always question your alleged teachers people. Do not fall for the the self puffed up malarkey.
Posted by: DoctorCharles
'self puffed up malarkey' being an official Ph.D. in philosophy (specialty in philosophy of religion, by the way) term.
(my first post here *yay!*)
at May 1, 2006 1:35 PM
JenBee said
(my first post here *yay!*)
Now, as a new member, you must repeat after me:
I pledge allegiance to JihadWatch, DhimmiWatch, Robert, Hugh, and Rebecca. May I never speak a word against them, nor carry a thought in my head that contradicts theirs. If I do, I will OF COURSE apologize, verbally and in writing, at FrontPage and JihadWatch. I pledge FAWNING RESPECT for all eternity. As a fawning minion, I pledge undying loyalty to Opus Dei, the Freemasons, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and all of the other secret organizations that Robert runs in his free time. Amen.
Posted by: special_guest at May 1, 2006 2:41 PM
This has got to be the funniest thread ever...Whenever I feel blue and need some cheering up , I go to the web site watchingjihadwatch, and get some laughs. I cant prove a thing, but I think that site is run by the 'former' poster King Tolerance, and I dont doubt Mr Jihadwatch is the same character. The same kinds of charges are made against RS and Hugh. Dr Ashley is just a clone, or maybe Kingky in disguise. They may be the same person. Have you ever seen them together in the same room at the same time??? See what I mean?
All bogus religions eventually die of the same disease, that of being 'found out'. I 'found out' about Islam without RS, or Hughs, help.
After I 'found out' about Islam, I started learning about it, RS and Hugh help with that, but are not my only sources.
I think it's perfectly acceptable to 'hate' Islam. Islam enslaves submitters, binds them with every kind of chain, creates psychotic episodes in muslims, and sends it's warriors out to do harm in Islams and Allahs name. It is more properly, 'The Religion of Harm'. The ruiner of millions. What is there to love? You dont need to be an Islamic scholar to 'see' that, all you have to do is look. Of course Islam does not want you to look. They want to pull the wool over your eye's which is why you have guys like Scwartz or Hooper ot KT or Dr Charles or Mohideen, or Naseem showing up carrying lots of wool...oh how we laughed.
at May 1, 2006 4:01 PM
Wikipedia is full of conspiracy theorists, like one of the so called experts in "radiation" that posts on the site regularly (and I suspect they edit their own article themselves, especially their unsubstantiated claim of being an expert in the field of radiation).
They claim that on September 11th, they detected radiation "thousands of times" stronger than background radiation with a Geiger counter miles away "down wind" from the Pentagon,
They then claimed on it was caused by a "Depleted Uranium war head on a Missile that struck the Pentagon"
A *slight* problem with that statement is however, that DU is only mildly more radioactive that the average Alpha particle emittor inside a common Fire Alarm, an expert in radiation, one would hope would know this.
You only have to sit and read the comments section on the 9/11 articles, or Iraq war to find an agenda by some of the contributors that then claim to be NPOV (neutral point of view) on the subject matter.
I read all articles, and then look for other sources, you can't trust something as a source, anyone can alter, especially as the edit maybe reverted without notice.
Posted by: xenophobic at May 1, 2006 4:29 PM
For every action, there is an equal and opposite critizism... Steven Wright
Posted by: Cerebulon at May 1, 2006 4:52 PM
Not to mention the fact that DU rounds are for penetrating thick armor, not causing explosive damage.
Oh yeah, its not used in missile warheads. Depleted Uranium (uranium isotope 238) is used mostly to make rounds for the main guns of tanks, as well as the 30 mm GAU-8 Avenger Gatling cannon on the A-10.
Of course, since when do conspiracy theorists let reality get in the way?
Posted by: Eisenhund at May 1, 2006 4:56 PM
Let's get real, Dr. Charles A. Ashley ain't his real name. Pelayo ain't mine either. I'm really Inigo Montoya, you killed my father; prepare to die.
Posted by: Pelayo at May 1, 2006 6:56 PM
Just a small correction to an earlier commenter - Churchill went to the Royal Military College in Sandhurst, England. It does actually provide a pretty rounded education - military history, theory, languages etc. If you're looking for a Brit who didn't go to college, George Orwell may be your man, and someone who should be esteemed by all Jihad watchers.
One other point - a British journalist, Nick Cohen, has a view on this point of being 'accused' of being Jewish:
I learned it was one thing being called "Cohen" if you went along with liberal orthodoxy, quite another when you pointed out liberal betrayals. Your argument could not be debated on its merits. There had to be a malign motive. You had to support Ariel Sharon. You had to be in the pay of "international" media moguls or neoconservatives. You had to have bad blood. You had to be a Jew.
My first reaction was so ignoble I blush when I think of it. I typed out a reply that read, "but there hasn't been a Jewish member of my family for 100 years". I sounded like a German begging a Gestapo officer to see the mistake in the paperwork. Mercifully, I hit the "delete" button before sending.
I'm just vaguely wondering if others of us who are 'accused' might follow this lead, and not treat it as something which has to be denied or 'admitted'.
Posted by: Lopakhin at May 1, 2006 9:57 PM
Lopakhin, I am aware that Sandhurst gives an excellent education to such as make the effort to take an advantage (somehow, I do not expect Prince Harry to have done quite as well as Churchill or as all those British generals who became classical scholars, archaeologists or scientists). My point is that Churchill's education did not qualify him to wear the Dr. title before his initials; at best, it entitled him to use Lieut. And yet he wrote major works of history.
Incidentally, there is a piece of delicious British reverse modesty in Churchill's biography. Churchill's rather patchy Army career ended with his being a Colonel - a grade he earned in the trenches in World War One after resigning because of Gallipoli. Twenty-five or so years later, he had to meet, on several occasions, Stalin, who had the rank of Field-Marshal in the Red Army. (He had actually been in charge of one of the southern fronts during the Russian civil war.) So, on more than one occasion, the cameras shot Stalin resplendent in his Red Army regalia, meeting Churchill wearing the comparatively modest uniform of a British Colonel. As if to say: a British army officer is the equal of any damned foreign dignitary whatever.
Posted by: Paolo at May 3, 2006 2:50 PM
(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.)