Put the seltzer bottle down and walk away slowly, mister.

Posted by: Shinoliite at July 9, 2006 12:57 PM

The silence from the Tribune in response to you will be deafening.

Not to mention, that is likely the best review you'll get. They've already butchered this movie on Wikipedia, among other places.

Posted by: Gary at July 9, 2006 12:58 PM

Obviously, all those islamo-murderbots killing with joy while reciting the koran, then the ordinary Muslims dancing in the streets to celebrate mass murder are no different than Pat Robertson railing against gays. Some people are clueless. This is sexist, but George Orwell was right: women's rejection of logic and reliance on simpleminded cliches and strong men makes them the ideal shock troops of any totalitarian movement. They can simply use sex to control most of the spineless males, who will agree with them, just for some sack time.

Posted by: Dumbo at July 9, 2006 1:15 PM

Michael Phillips must went to the same school thaught by that now retired Phonenix teacher, a product of the government run schools most likely. How on earth can they find anything from this film comical? The old media is totally out of touch from reality. The print media still does not get it. Thankgoodness for internet!

Posted by: Lulu at July 9, 2006 1:21 PM

The reviewer displays determined willful ignorance, obviously fueled by an ingrained multi-culti bigotry against western heritage. And, like the Islamic jihadists, he lets loose his rants using the same arrogant, triumphalist tone (and absence of facts) we have come to expect from the true believers of any such destructive cult.

Posted by: Stendec at July 9, 2006 1:28 PM

From the bottom of the review:

No MPAA rating (parents cautioned for anti-Muslim hysteria)

Posted by: Foehammer at July 9, 2006 1:34 PM

From the Chicago Sun Times review, opening paragraph [emphasis added]:

"Sept. 11, 2001 triggered a genre of films and books that all ask: why do they hate us? Because they are Muslims following in Mohammed's footsteps is the answer given by first-time producers-directors Gregory M. Davis and Bryan Daly in this alarmist documentary."

Robert, how does it feel to be the new Winston Churchill?

Posted by: Foehammer at July 9, 2006 1:39 PM

Well Done

Posted by: Clash at July 9, 2006 1:39 PM

Opening paragraph of the Washington City Paper review:

"It was practically the one patch of rhetorical common ground we had after 9/11: Right, left, or center, we could all agree—at least publicly—that the guys who took down the World Trade Center had nothing to do with true Islam. And that any war on al-Qaeda was in no way an attack on the Muslim people, who are innately peace-loving and law-abiding."

Now THAT is the funniest line of 2006.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I sure as hell was never concerned with making kissy-face with any Muslims and I never for a second believed any of that PC nonsense that so many were trying to shove down our throats. In fact, that's how I ended up becoming a reader of Jihad Watch. I went seeking the truth!

It's a damn shame that we have so many press people that are convinced of their own moral superiority because they would much rather smoke medicinal herb than pick up a Qur'an and read the facts for themselves. It's 2+2=4.

Posted by: Foehammer at July 9, 2006 1:46 PM

It's good to see that this film was reviewed . . .any publicity is good publicity. Perhaps a percentage of the folks reading the review will be curious and check out the JW/DW websites.

To those that have come here after reading that review . . .welcome, and do look around a bit. There is a wealth of knowledge to be gained within these pages.

I wonder, how well this movie has been attended in each of the three current locations?

Will this film become available for purchase or rental?

Posted by: miira at July 9, 2006 1:54 PM

From the Knight at the Movies review, opening paragraph:

"I don’t pretend to have more than a modicum of knowledge about it and as such don't wish to tread in such a current
events hot zone. I’ve read for years in the gay media about Islam's persecution of homosexuals and abuse toward women and
trust the sources of these reports. But a lot of religions, in one way or another, follow these same practices."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!

WRONG!

How many times must we correct people that make these outlandish attempts at moral equivalency?

When is the last time a non-Muslim executed a homosexual in a soccer stadium in front of a seated audience?

When is the last time that a non-Muslim woman was stoned to death?

When was the last time a non-Muslim woman was the victim of an 'honor killing'?

Give me a break.

Posted by: Foehammer at July 9, 2006 1:55 PM

On that same page, the same reviewer, Michael Phillips, also reviewed the movie "The War Tapes." And he absolutely raved about it, because it's an antiwar movie suggesting that the war in Iraq is all about oil and profits for Halliburton. There isn't any attempt at balance at all. He said,

"The War Tapes" goes deeper. It does not ridicule the men who believe in the war, even as its soldier-videographers pull together evidence--combat footage of alarming immediacy, rage and cultural miscomprehension on all sides--against it....

The film's most striking figure, Lebanese-born Sgt. Zack Bazzi, is fluent in Arabic, savvy with Iraq's dazed and confused citizenry and defiant of any simple categorization of warrior or ideology. "A good American will always love his country and be suspicious of his government," he says. At this grim hour for the press, with the administration doing everything it can to place The New York Times under house arrest, one wonders if even the plain-speaking warriors of this superb film--which is marred only by a melodramatic musical score--are safe from censure.

So what did you expect? Apparently the movie critic is a devotee of left-wing conspiracy theory nonsense about oil and Halliburton, and he only likes movies that confirm it. I'm sure he raved about "Fahrenheit 9-11" too.

Posted by: Steven L. at July 9, 2006 1:55 PM

Spencer! When can we buy the DVD? I'm affraid that there won't be many theaters over here that will show the film.

Posted by: Marvin at July 9, 2006 2:07 PM

I doubt that Mr. Phillips will thoughtfully respond to Robert Spencer. But, if he take the trouble to read this thread, may he please also have a look at hadith on martyrdom as well. For instance,

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html

Does Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism have authoritative scriptural sources that are even remotely analogous to the praise Mohammad heaps on fighting and death in battle for Allah?

Not only is there no analogy between Islam and other major religions on this score, as far as foundational scripture goes, teachings in other religions run utterly contrary to Islam: violence and death in battle for God are either forbidden or considered regretable.

Along the same lines, Mr. Phillips should contrast the conception of 'martyrdom' one finds in the hadith above with the example of Christ as a 'martyr'. This is not hard to do.

Posted by: JTF at July 9, 2006 2:30 PM

Robert,

This guy did publish the address of the site (jihadwatch.org.) in the review. He doth protest too much?

Posted by: Frank at July 9, 2006 2:35 PM

Don't expect Roger Ebert to review this film. As a liberal Jew, he is forced to side with the Left and with al qaeda.

Any review is good, though.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at July 9, 2006 3:20 PM

women's rejection of logic and reliance on simpleminded cliches and strong men makes them the ideal shock troops of any totalitarian movement. They can simply use sex to control most of the spineless males, who will agree with them, just for some sack time. -- Dumbo

I'm sorry you feel that way, Dumbo; with an attitude like that toward, I hope for your sake that you're not one very lonely dude.

News flash: genders encompass all types of people; I assume you're referring to Deborah Frisch above, but the best remedy for women like that is more women who aren't like that. And there are plenty.

Heck, I'm here, and I'm female, but am I trolling for booty and to advance my political agenda? No.

I think that about covers it.

Posted by: Shinoliite at July 9, 2006 4:11 PM

Typo above: "an attitude like that toward women."

Posted by: Shinoliite at July 9, 2006 4:11 PM

Robert-

As long as they spell your name right (and mention the website) you can't hope for more from those living in the Great State of Denial, the most massive non-geographical locale on earth.

(All of those Christian terrorists trying to overthrow governments worldwide or the plethora of Jews-beheading-gentiles websites must have them confused.)

The funniest line of 2006?

That would be:

Osama Bin Laden found in cave electrocuted by faulty dialysis machine.

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 9, 2006 4:33 PM

Those fools won't think your too funny if those things come to pass. They need their eyes opened. Before it's too late.

Posted by: freewoman at July 9, 2006 4:43 PM

Good job, Robert. I look forward to hearing the guys response, but something tells me I never will.

Posted by: pastorius at July 9, 2006 5:02 PM

Shinoliite - well said. Dumbo, get back in your cave.

That's two women who agree - is that worth one man?

Posted by: Interested at July 9, 2006 5:02 PM

no different than...

"From" not "than". Must be your hormones.

Posted by: Interested at July 9, 2006 5:04 PM

Phillips is dismissive of Islamic imperialism. He is negligent to the point of being dangerous. I have compiled many quotes from the Islamic texts dealing with Islamic imperialism here. (see Islam's Ultimate Goal)
http://islamwatch.forumup.in/about252-islamwatch.html

Posted by: Archimedes at July 9, 2006 5:19 PM

Yes the same Chicago Tribune that revealed classified information during WWII that US had broken Japanese codes. What can anyone expect from a mainstream press that has no sense of loyalty to America let alone judgement on threats to America?

My opinion is that giving type to the deluded anti-Americans and those in denial is a waste of time and energy.

I understand and sympathesize with defending oneself and against personal attacks on one's reputation by the deluded and those in denial. But I frankly think it is pointless. They are so far gone, they are beyond reach, and so is anyone who buys their nonsense.

Instead, I would focus on other Jihadist threats:

(San Francisco) NYC Bomb plot suspect saw Golden Gate Bridge as possible target
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/07/09/MNGGRJSBJ41.DTL

(NYC plot) A fetid breeding ground for fiends - Walid Phares: Ain el-Helweh refugee camp near Lebanese city of Sidon "is a base for all sorts of salafists [Sunni fundamentalists] and jihadists"
http://www.nydailynews.com/07-09-2006/news/story/433666p-365386c.html

(UK) July 7 ringleader linked to Tel Aviv suicide bombers
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2261775,00.html

(UK) MI5 unveils public warning system for terror threat
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YPZZW0Q1IPDBJQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/07/09/nterr09.xml

(Australia) Terror flourishes in websites
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19738699-29277,00.html

Somali Islamist militiamen raid wedding, beat woman
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50980

Etc., etc.

Posted by: jeffreyimm at July 9, 2006 5:47 PM

Haha! So let me guess Shamus is your Clown name then? You better take off those big red shoes it is against Shria Law you know.....

Oh and I will get a copy of the DVD when available so please put up a link to buy it :)

Honk Honk!

Posted by: Weatherob at July 9, 2006 5:48 PM

somethingaboutislam wrote, "Don't expect Roger Ebert to review this film. As a liberal Jew, he is forced to side with the Left and with al qaeda."

Roger Ebert is not Jewish. He is a (lapsed) Catholic.

Also, except for the likes of folks such as Noam Chomsky or a Norm Finkelstein, or other self-haters, you will not find many Jews that side with al-Qaeda.

http://www.adherents.com/movies/Film100.html

Posted by: MJ at July 9, 2006 5:58 PM

"Robert-

As long as they spell your name right (and mention the website) you can't hope for more from those living in the Great State of Denial, the most massive non-geographical locale on earth."

PB-

I think you are right. Many of these pc types deep-down know the unpleasant truth that Spencer represents-but they are actors who have to play a part (like Mr. Chicago Tribune-I'm-not-a-bigot-See?) to please an audience.

Robert is not an actor-so he gets a bad review for not being an actor. So what? The guy mentioned the sight for some reason. I think Mr. Chicago Tribune-I'm-not-a-bigot-See? will not answer because at a deep level Mr. Chicago Tribune-I'm-not-a-bigot-See? knows that Spencer is right on this issue. If he thought otherwise Mr. Chicago Tribune-I'm-not-a-bigot-See? would answer his question.

Posted by: Frank at July 9, 2006 6:25 PM

Foehammer:

Feel free to speak on my behalf anytime!
You do a better job of it than I do.

Who is paying these traitors? That would be interesting.

How can anyone still be so ignorant?
The MSM rarely even mentions some of the topics we read here, or else it usually distorts them.

Down here in OZ almost everyone I know hates the mo's. None of them spend any time posting like I do - someone has to do it!

People in NSW are sick of them. I know a few ex-pat Brits who have gone back to visit family and they are mortified at what they are seeing.

The message will take a long time to get out, I fear.

WELL DONE Robert!

Posted by: Gramfan at July 9, 2006 6:29 PM

Five reviews of the movie are viewable at the movie Web Site. Of the five reviews, only the writer for Knight at the Movies is willing to admit his ignorance about the subject matter of the film. The others quickly spout off expert opinions and advice for readers: film critics turned scholars in an instant. No time to read the Qur'an, hadith and sira. No time to read Bat Ye'or: she is 'polemical' and argues a 'conspiratorial thesis', you know. And where did that come from? A secondary source, the opinion of a friend or someone the reviewer 'trusted', or did the reviewer actually read the book? 'Alarmist', 'controversial', 'polemical', critics turn to vocabulary lists to offer expert opinions and dismiss the film.

Is there no time to read and think just a little? Or have we forgotten how? It requires silence, a little patience, a little discipline and honesty, and these are virtues lost in our culture. Conclusions first, premises later. But one always has the answer; especially reviewers of a 'controversial' movie who must have something to say, and who all have surely never read the Qur'an or any of the sources discussed in the film.

Posted by: JTF at July 9, 2006 6:41 PM

Sadly, the Chicago Tribune, once lead by a WWI US Army artillery officer, is today often mocked for it's self-proclaimed title of "The World's Greatest Newspaper".

Personally, I deny them funds by simply not buying their rag. In fact, when a recent fund drive was presented to me (buy Saturday and Sunday papers, get the whole week), I declined simply based on the Tribune's moronic anti-gun stance. I may not be alone, as the parent company is suffering recent financial troubles.

Knowingly/willingly supporting those that fight us is tantamount to helping them kill us. I will not knowingly/willingly do so. I tire of finding new enemies of freedom everywhere. But I am true to this, and I stay the course. We must steel ourselves against this corporate greed and ignorance that threaten our very well-being. Perhaps only then will these sell-outs understand that truth is important in the news.

- recalled

Posted by: recalled at July 9, 2006 6:55 PM

While violence has been committed by adherents of all religions, Islam is the ONLY religion whose main texts, the koran and hadith, COMMANDS its' members to murder and commit acts of terrorism and violence and COMMENDS them for doing so. The bible CONDEMNS those who do such things. BIG difference.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 9, 2006 6:55 PM

And one more thing. The meaning of 'polemical' has been bent beyond recognition in these reviews, and in contemporary discourse generally. To apply the adjective to a person should mean that the person is prone to 'fighting with words' and combative argument. The word has come to be used in a rhetorical sense that drowns out its proper meaning; a person can be called 'polemical', like Robert Spencer and Bat Ye'or, simply for pointing out uncomfortable facts, or espousing views that illicit harsh reaction. Robert Spencer, the king of quotation marks and plain argument, is hardly polemical, in my opinion. Spencer has shown no interest in verbal combat, unless it involves argument on important, relevant issues; he is simply looking for readers and interlocutors who care about primary source material. At least that's the way I read him.

Posted by: JTF at July 9, 2006 7:08 PM

As far as Ebert goes, as a good leftist, he refuses to recognize any danger that isn't aasociated with the old right. You don't really think he is an al-qaeda sympathizer. But he is like a good Arab in that he thinks any enemy of my enemy is my ally

Posted by: Dumbo at July 9, 2006 7:20 PM

This so-called review made me sick. Here is the letter that I sent Mr. Phillips. Granted, it's not the most eloquent thing I've ever written. But I was tired, having just returned from seeing the film. And then to go to the website hoping to see reviews and come up with this? I was furious.

And while it's great to write here, I would encourage everyone to write to the author directly. (His e-mail address is at the end of the article.) Maybe if enough people speak out it'll get his attention.

***

I just returned from the movie. I went to the movie website just to see if there was more new information posted, and noticed the review section.

Wow. The most pressing issue of our day (especially as today we mark the one year anniversary of the bombing in London) and it only merits two paragraphs?

True, the movie was dry. But I guess documentaries can be that way. What it lacked in style was made up for in content, and this was not even touched upon in your review. Could you not have at least addressed some of the issues it brought up? Here was point after point from speakers who know what they are talking about (ex: Mr. Shoebat is a former Muslim terrorist and Mr. Spencer has studied/written about the Islam for years). Here were examples directly from the Koran and Islamic teaching, here were clips of Muslims speaking on television, at rallies and even a sermon from a mosque at the end – none of the content of what was being said was worthy of mention? I don’t understand why that is so.

As for your comment at the end:

'Considering what has been done to whom in the name of other religions, that may well end up being the funniest line of 2006.'

Again, the specifics of what was explained in this movie are what I am getting at. Please let me know what other mainstream religion has teachings such as the Koran does, as explained in this movie.

Posted by: Mo at July 9, 2006 7:35 PM

Mr Spencer - truly, I am happy to see you finally post something about this film, to draw attention to it after months? of advertising the film at your site, and on the very weekend of its premiere. But why this post, I wonder? Why this way?

Without a doubt, the reviewer's statement (quoting you) that Islam mandates violence against non-believers - "may well end up being the funniest line of 2006" - will, in the end, prove the reviewer to be an utter fool, but what I don't get is why you never devoted one post to drawing anyone's attention to the premiere of this film in the first place, only finally reserving a post in the end for responding to an idiot who publically attacked you?

I just don't get it. If the film does in fact accurately describe Islam - and "What the West Needs to Know" about it, then I remain thoroughly perplexed as to why you haven't posted anything to draw attention to a film in which you apparently figure prominently (sorry - I don't live in the vicinity of the 3 cities and so haven't seen it) until now, with this post, taking issue with a reviewer's ignorant comment.

I really don't mean to be rude. I understand that you have a tremendous amount on your plate on any given day. But I just don't get it. It doesn't make any sense to me. And that's the very last thing I'm going to say about my puzzlement on this matter. You must have your reasons is all I can surmise..

Posted by: Caroline at July 9, 2006 7:37 PM

The reviewer is merely repeating conventional wisdom in the press. Christianity means "Salem witch trials, the Inquisition and intolerant haters of homosexuals".

Islam means "Mecca, camels and women wearing black bags". Oh yeah, and some confused Muslims are terrorists.

This is the LIMIT of most journalists' understanding. They don't care to investigate further because they think they have all the information they need.

Posted by: rafael699 at July 9, 2006 8:03 PM

Caroline,

I haven't the faintest clue what agenda you think may be behind my not mentioning this film as often as you'd like. After all, I have been advertising it here for quite some time.

I posted this item because it was a moronic comment espressing a common misapprehension, and because I thought it deserved a response. The response was absolutely serious, even though I did use it to strike a bit of a lighter tone on a Sunday afternoon. Nor was it personal, although the guy did name-check me. He could just as easily have attributed this to anyone else who is in the film, and I still would have found it worthy of comment. His sentiments are, again, moronic, yes, but all too common.

On Friday I had meant to post the press release about the film, but unfortunately let it slip. There are many more things I would like to post in any given day than I have time to do so. News Editor applicants welcome; email me at director@jihadwatch.org.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at July 9, 2006 8:06 PM

Mr Spencer - I apparently gave the unfortunate impression that I believed there was some "agenda" behind your failure to mention this film in a post on the weekend of its premiere. I assure you that nothing could be farther from the truth as I am not prone to "conspiracy thinking".

"On Friday I had meant to post the press release about the film, but unfortunately let it slip. There are many more things I would like to post in any given day than I have time to do so."

Yes, of course, there can be no doubt about that fact. And if my many clumsy posts trying to draw attention to the premier of this movie have left the wrong impression regarding my intentions, then I sincerely apologize.

Posted by: Caroline at July 9, 2006 8:38 PM

Took my lady to see it tonight. My critique:

1) Robert's analysis was excellent as expected.

You laid it all out comprehensively. It was so much more satisfying than seeing you interviewed on Fox News for example, where you're just about to get to the crux of the matter when you're cut off.

2) Walid Shoebat was great. His passion and the interjection of his personal story was a welcome respite from the otherwise scholarly discourse.

Shoebat was going on about the Quranic exhortations to kill the enemies of Allah, and asked rhetorically, "what part of 'kill' does the West not understand."

The comment got a laugh from the movie audience.

3) Trifkovich asked the compelling question towards the end of the documentary: what will inspire the West to rise up to the Islamic challenge.

"I don't really think people are going to lay down their lives to defend multiculturalism."

4) Bat Yeor spoke with an eloquence that was somehow only enhanced by her thick accent. Her words seemed prophetic as she tried to prepare the world for Europe's Islamic future.

It might have helped to have more news footage in the documentary. What was there was very effective; from the inane pronouncements of Bush, Blair, Clinton, Rice and Harry Reed that Islam is a surely a "RoP"....to the Iraqi terrorist whispering "Allah O Akbar" as he detonated a roadside bomb while an American convoy passed.

It could also have helped to have commentary from a Muslim apologist to provide just a hint of balance and more importantly, to exhibit the arguments of the apologists so that our experts could shoot them down.

Nonetheless, it's great that the movie was made. Question is, will it find its way to PBS and Times/Discovery the way the apologia has, or will it be blackballed?

Posted by: Cornelius at July 9, 2006 9:26 PM

Caroline-

You are a class act. It comes through your posts. Interesting Lady.

Posted by: Frank at July 9, 2006 10:17 PM

Robert, (and for Caroline)
Actually, I remember you DID mention the premiere of the film, "What the West Needs to Know about Islam", and followed it a few weeks later with viewer reactions...but it was 7 months ago. Why has it been mothballed since then? Why a second "premiere" now? I just assumed the most recent "premiere" was old news and that's why you didn't mention it again.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009607.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009813.php

Posted by: Xero G at July 9, 2006 10:26 PM

Kind of implicit with the advertisement in the left margin on the main page.

I just wish it were playing closer to the Dallas-Ft. Worth area-- looking forward to a dvd release!

Posted by: Shinoliite at July 9, 2006 10:36 PM

I saw the film on Friday. I was very surprised to see two muslim women at the showing. The documentary was informative, factual and frightening. It was well presented and outstanding.

I have been telling people to forget the global warming film. If they love their planet and children, this is the film to see.

I applauded at the end and a few others followed.

Posted by: ranoir at July 9, 2006 10:42 PM

Did anyone else notice that "ISLAM: What the West Needs to Know" was scheduled (on the movie website) to show in NYC at the otherwise good TwoBoots Theatre in Manhattan. Then a couple months ago that listing disappeared? It was pulled!!

I wonder what the combination was between clueless multi-culti pressure and intimidating muslim complaint, with its implicit threat of violence (the unofficial "6th Pillar of Islam").

Like by a pharmacist, different formulas of these ingredients can be mixed up and served to accomplish acts of censorship as has likely happened in NYC with this movie.

Galling, I was going to see it. This would have been a fine conversation starter for my favorite city. The conversation it needs SO badly. Oh well, instead people can focus on nervously explaining away last week's revelation of the bomb plot for the Holland Tunnel.

BTW, please check out and sign the petition here if you haven't:

http://www.twintowersalliance.com

Add your name and pass it on to friends and family. It's not too late to rebuild the Twin Towers properly. The design and rebuilding of the pathetic cowering "Freedom Tower" is mucho stalled.

Thanks,
WestwardHo

Posted by: WestwardHo at July 9, 2006 10:44 PM

Frank - the kind sentiment is much appreciated.:-)

Posted by: Caroline at July 9, 2006 10:48 PM

I went today with my dear mom to see "Islam". I couldn't agree more with Cornelius' comments regarding the film. The film was very well done, but I'm afraid that not enough Americans will see it to hear its message.

Posted by: HatLady at July 9, 2006 11:07 PM

Robert, thanks for letting us know about the review. Now I have another newspaper to add to my boycott list.

And if the film comes to my area of Texas, I would like to invite my fellow jihadwatch Texans to attend at my expense. Texican, Shinoliite, Texasinfidel, Michael (I know you log in twice a day, but I don't know your handle), Catherine (she of the painted toenails and 12-ga. shotgun), and, of course, Foehammer.

One of you might be able to suggest how we can establish contact, securely, without the possibility of infiltration. I know this can be done, and it must be done. Ideas?

Robert, thank you for all your fine effort in keeping us informed and educated. May God bless you and keep you safe.

Posted by: texan at July 9, 2006 11:22 PM

Mr. Phillips is, on the other hand, very fond of Michael Moore:

http://movies.zap2it.com/movies/movies/reviews/text/0,1259,---21980,00.html

Posted by: van der Ley at July 9, 2006 11:28 PM

Has CAIR issued its official condemnation of the film yet? CAIR can't afford for too many Americans to see this expose of Islam's most closely guarded secrets.

I expect to see CAIR's reaction very soon, as well as marching orders for the umma. Will CAIR tell the zombies to write, call, and threaten boycotts of sponsors, or will CAIR encourage them gather in large, threatening groups and express self-righteous indignation at this Islamophobic outrage. I guess we'll know in a day or two.

Posted by: Susanp at July 9, 2006 11:30 PM

http://www.google.com/trends?q=Robert+Spencer&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all

Interesting, very interesting.

Posted by: Bar at July 10, 2006 12:02 AM

Wow, Robert, who knew you were sitting on such a comedy goldmine?

I think you could parlay this into a weekly sitcom, in which Ted McGinley and Jason Bateman read actual passages from the Koran and the Hadith, with overdubbed laugh tracks. Call it Everybody Loves Allah.

Posted by: Jan III Sobieski at July 10, 2006 12:32 AM

Ooops - A retraction...

I posted above that "Mr. Phillips is, on the other hand, very fond of Michael Moore". The link I provided is a review of "Fahrenheit 9/11" on the Chicago Tribune by Michael... Wilmington! It was a bad case of tunnel vision. My apologies to all.

Posted by: van der Ley at July 10, 2006 1:05 AM

Jan III Sobieski-

That would be:

"Everybody Loves Allah- or else!"

Here's a possible TV Guide blurb:

"You'll laugh your head off at the Shariah shennanigans of the desert pedophile and his wacky band of burnoose-bound and burkah-bagged banditos!"
RATED PG-9 (so those little Aiyesha's in the audience can watch)

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 10, 2006 1:46 AM

TexasInfidel - Mo and Satan have been "skating" together now for some 1300 odd years, according to Dante's Inferno.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at July 10, 2006 2:05 AM

talking heads sounds a bit boring. Couldn't you have livened it up with cartoons clips featuring wolves in sheeps' clothing, weasels and a snake with hypnotic eyes (like in the jungle book)?

Posted by: wallyUK at July 10, 2006 2:31 AM

P.S. For an example of a weasel talking about a non-existent religion called 'Flimflam' check out:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Flimflam_discussion_group/

Posted by: wallyUK at July 10, 2006 3:26 AM

I wrote a review of the movie (See THIS), and along came a commenter who posted the review cited in this posting.

Later, along came another commenter, who wrote the following:

Yep we're all going to be ROFL as Muslims try to play Conquistadors to our Inca. And as they put us all into missions to work their cotton gins, converting us from our backward savage animistic beliefs, stealing our children and destroying our culture, we will be able to have a good chuckle about how wrong Robert Spencer was.

I saw the film yesterday. Very powerful! Too bad that it's playing in such a limited venue. But when it comes out on DVD, I'll be buying it and showing it to my classes of homeschoolers.

BTW, I got to drop several of "my cards" at the theater and around the neighborhood. My "cards" cite Jihad Watch as a source to check to combat the whitewash of Islam.

PS: Robert, don't be offended by my review. I chose to focus on Walid Shoebat, who is not as well known to my readers as you are. My focus on Mr. Shoebat in no way should be construed to minimize the work you do here. Stay safe!

Posted by: Always On Watch at July 10, 2006 9:57 AM

Bar, I cannot understand that Google trends page. It's all Greek to me. There are two boxes, some blue bars, and a few things listed as "A", "B", "C", and so forth. Nothing on that page explains anything used on that page.

Posted by: Television at July 10, 2006 1:32 PM

Dear Jihadwatch members,
I have long been simply reading posts and declining to post myself. Now however I feel the time has come to show the strength we together, united, can wield. Please comment on the story, send the guy emails (mjphillips@tribune.com) , send his boss (mjacob@tribune.com - tribune staff reporter) and generally raise hell. Wikipedia is a lost cause but if we can make an example of this ignorant fool we can finally show that our numbers are growing and that we will no longer stand by as cretinous cowards force the image of a peaceful religion and us as racist bigots upon the general public. Let our voices as one rise and put an end to these traitors.

Posted by: purgetheislamicstates at July 10, 2006 1:38 PM

Robert Spencer's line was accurate, despite Michael Phillips stupidity, but Spencer's article above proves that he does indeed have comic talents.

Posted by: traeh at July 10, 2006 3:19 PM

Television

It is very un-scientific, the blue boxed letters in the time line graph correspond with the links in the upper right hand corner and are news events that google deemed relevant to the query. Now google trends does not make a distinction between Robert Spencers, it includes all of them. So by using the boxed letters you can better guesstimate which Robert Spencer was being queried.

What I found interesting was Wash. DC was at the top of the query.

Posted by: Bar at July 11, 2006 11:41 AM