I think I will begin to call it The Mossadegh Fallacy. It's one of the great accomplishments in leftist propaganda in that I've heard it repeated hundreds, if not thousands of times.

If a nation is based on individual liberty, limited government, rule of secular law, consent of the governed, among the many concepts which built the modern world generally, but the United States in particular, the death of one leader will not cause a descent into barbarism and totalitarianism. The assassinations of Lincoln and JFK at critical points in American history didn't permanently alter the fabric of our nation.

Iran went from vehemently supporting Hitler to leaning towards Stalin. Mossadegh was no latter-day Jefferson, despite the amazing success of Communist propaganda which suggests as much. Only the Guatemalan United Fruit Coup has legs like Mossadegh.

Posted by: Beagle at September 3, 2006 12:29 AM

Another useful idiot.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at September 3, 2006 12:35 AM

This guy is a jackass

Posted by: max G at September 3, 2006 12:38 AM

The comment about Mossadegh is most peculiar. What does "weepy Mossadegh" or the coup against him have to do with Islam? The notion devoutly believed by some Iranians, and swallowed whole by Kinzer in his book on present-day Iran, that the coup organized by the CIA against Mossadegh, a coup that had been urged originally by the British government at the instigation, in turn, of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, explains the entire history of modern Iran, is the fons et origo of the Islamic Republic of Iran. According to Kinzer and those many Iranians on whose impassioned and indignant attempt to find fault with foreign powers and not with the malign power of Islam in Iran, the whole mess with Khomeini is to be blamed on Great Britain (the source of many Iranian conspiracy theories) and on its presumed puppeet, the United States. But this is nonsense. It is true that had the Shah been less vainglorious and stupid, and at the same time more ruthless, he might have suppressed Khomeini. A little support from the United States, then under the control of Carter and Brzezinski, suitably assisted by Gary Sick and others of that ilk, would also have helped the Shah survive. It is also true that had the line of Mossadegh, the line of leftist nationalists, the line, roughly, of Shahpour Bakhtiar, one of the very best of the Iranians (stabbed to death in Paris by an agent of Khomeini), prevailed, just perhaps there would, if everything had gone swimmingly, some kind of further development that might have prevented the revolt of the Iranian -- i.e. Muslim -- masses. But the country became unhinged by oil wealth. It unhinged the Shah, and the Shah's corrupt court (compared to what followed, the Shah looks more and more like Winston Churchill, or possibly Kerensky,and his court -- Hoveyda, assorted Tabatabais in the military, and so on -- look very good indeed). This business of Iranians always blaming -- as Muslims so often do -- the outsiders, the "Other" that when they arrive in the West, they then have the gall to insist is what the West is founded on (that "Other" we hear so exaggeratedly much about, as a putative sin of the Western world, but which in fact is central and indispensable to one belief-system, the belief-system of Islma that divides the universe between Believer and Infidel). Enough about the apparently limitless effect of the overthrow of Mossadegh, which has even been held up as responsible for, twenty-five years later, the rise of Khomeini. It's silly.

As for John Foster Dulles, he was perhaps wrong to overthrow Mossadegh, though the effect of that coup has been exaggerated, but he was far more of an ass in not understanding Islam, in abandoning the British and French during the Suez Crisis, and in regarding Islam in only one aspect, as a "bulwark against Communism," a misperception that has continued right up until the last few years, and has so damaged American understanding of Islam. Dulles's view was essentially that of the ARAMCO propagandists, complete with "staunch ally" Saudi Arabia. Foster Dulles was involved in the transformation of the Baghdad Pact into CENTO, which consisted of Great Britain and the United States, on the one hand, supplying money, materiel, and training to the armies of those "bulwarks against Communism" Iran (the Iran of the Shah), Iraq (which was then under the control of "strongman"--that was his Homeric epithet, Nuri as-Said), Turkey (naively believed to be permanently and increasingly secular), and Pakistan, a country which, of course John Foster Dulles favored over the Bandungish India of Nehru and Krishna Menon.

Better to ask the following of Dulles's ghost: why did you establish a policy, followed by so many successor American administrations, that failed to see that Islam was not so much a "bulwark against Communism" as an enemy of liberal democracy, and why did you not, early on, see Pakistan, see Saudi Arabia (another "staunch ally") as mortal enemies of the liberal democracies of the West, and why did you assume that, even in Turkey, Kemalism, or secularism, was here to stay?

As for the other matters, Robert has said all that needs to be said. There are posters here who, despite our best efforts, insist on making absurd and bloodcurdling and offensive remarks --the kind of remarks that CAIR rubs its hands in glee to discover. Such postings cannot conceivably be monitored, though if one is brought to the attention of those who run the site, they will promptly remove such postings. But it is absurd to hold the contents of the thousands of postings against the already harried staff of elves and reindeer, Rangifer tarandus tarandus, or that was our taxonomic designation the last time Donner and Blitzen and I all checked the dictionary.

Posted by: Hugh at September 3, 2006 12:40 AM

Robert:

Frauds like the emailer you wrote about will continue to criticise and insult you personally no matter what the commentators who "publish" here write. They will distort your words and intent, toss out stock sophistry, and ignore the facts. They aren't interested in debate at all.

No fact seeker is going to read your essays on jihad, and then decide he doesn't believe your Koranic quotes because some people are "spreading hatred" in your comments section. There are no fence sitters who are going decide in favor of jihad or deception based on that criteria.

This particular emailer obviously came here intending to attack you, and thought he came up with a novel approach to do so. He wants America to buy into the Edward Said brand of Islamic fables professor Ernst is pushing so he tried to discredit you.

There's more to Islam than magic lamps, genies, and bold sailors. America doesn't need any more hypocritical fables about racist Orientalism and Imperial Western culture colonizing Islam. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 3, 2006 1:04 AM

Robert,

I may read this site more than you do, and I can attest to some posters having what some may call "radical" views. I realise that you do the research, scan the links given to you, decide what to post, do media appearances, etc....you are quite a busy man. Believe me, I have learned as much about islam by following the links posted here as I have from your site itself, so I do appreciate that you have this unmoderated comments section.
On the topic of this posting, re the e-mail sent that you cite... noticed that he/she does'nt accuse you of spreading hatred or ignorance or even of misstating facts. That is reserved for us, the visitors to this site. By so doing, the site as a whole is smeared, and your sin is.....allowing free speech.
I waited weeks before posting my first comment, though several times I wrote, but did not post, a comment. Sometimes the facts about islam and the political realities we face can be shocking, and the emotional response reactionary, ranging from shock to anger to downright hate. Since these comments are indeed instant responses to immediate stimuli, the emotions reflected in the responses shouldn't really be that shocking. These posts, however, linger long after the emotions have ebbed, and may portray some of us in an unfortunate but understandable light.
These reactions to new and sometimes shocking news isn't even all bad. Consider it a light being turned on in response to a noise in the alley, or a dog barking at an unseen and not completly known danger. It is the flicker of knowledge, the sinking in of truth, and that is a good thing.

This is just my long winded way of saying you are right in your assessment of what your e-mailer has accused you of, and to leave this site open to unmoderated comments.
Those of us here long enough are able to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

The fact that more and more people are coming here looking for proof of hate or ignorance just shows that this site is gaining in popularity and influence.
Keep up the good work.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at September 3, 2006 1:04 AM

I think this guy is pointing out that although Robert and Hugh publish texts that could not be construed as hate speech, some of the posters do. And I have to agree. I have read some very disparaging comments about what to do with Muslims. I agree the best way to keep a flow of ideas is to have an unmoderated forum, but some of the posters hate Islam and Muslims with blood-curdling intensity. I guess these are the passions aroused in order to win the war.

Posted by: albion at September 3, 2006 1:06 AM

understanding comes to those who have a historical context not adequately provided in what I see of your work here.

Interesting. At the very moment he chastises for the alleged lack of adequate context provided by jihad watch, he admits his own limited, qualified context of judgement: "what I see of your work here." That oddly non-committal phrase, what does it mean? Does it mean he hasn't read any of Spencer's books? "what I see of your work here." Does it mean he's looked at three articles on the website? Just how inadequate is the context within which he judges Spencer? If the critic is going to attack Spencer for allegedly not providing historical context, and insinuate gross ethical shortcomings in Robert, isn't it odd that this should be done in a way that is itself careless about context? After all, the critic judges on a very limited-sounding basis, merely: "what I see of your work here."

Well, at least that phrase in effect admits he's not certain what he's talking about. There's honesty in that. And he puts together words pretty well.

Posted by: traeh at September 3, 2006 1:08 AM

Robert:

Frauds like the emailer you wrote about will continue to criticise and insult you personally no matter what the commentators who "publish" here write. They will distort your words and intent, toss out stock sophistry, and ignore the facts. They aren't interested in debate at all.

No fact seeker is going to read your essays on jihad, and then decide he doesn't believe your Koranic quotes because some people are "spreading hatred" in your comments section. There are no fence sitters who are going to decide in favor of jihad or deception based on that criteria.

This particular emailer obviously came here intending to attack you, and thought he came up with a novel approach to do so. He wants America to buy into the Edward Said brand of Islamic fables professor Ernst is pushing, so he tried to discredit you.

There's more to Islam than magic lamps, genies, and bold sailors. America doesn't need any more hypocritical fables about racist Orientalism and Imperial Western culture colonizing Islam.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 3, 2006 1:09 AM

Ok, I had another look, he doesn't put together words all that well.

Posted by: traeh at September 3, 2006 1:21 AM

Albion:

As an American, I have the constitutional right to "hate Islam and Muslims with blood-curdling intensity." Unless I'm on a University campus, of course. Punishing "hate speech" is the left's hypocritical way of suppressing views they dislike. censoring free speech is a form of tyranny. Do you want this site to adopt similar speech codes?

Just remember that doing so won't soften the stance of Spencer's detractors one iota.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 3, 2006 1:22 AM

Wanna know what I think is impressive about Hugh's posts?
I'm gonna tell you anyways.

Obviously, based on the number of grossly mis-spelled words, this is his first draft.

That this history and detail came from of the top of his head and (clumsily) onto the keyboard, without notes or reference.

I'm jealous.

Posted by: OneEyedJack at September 3, 2006 1:31 AM

actually Jeff, I was thinking how our 'hate speech' and their 'hate speech' are necessary functions of motivation. I recognize you have a constitutional right to say your peace, but the US also has a history of lynching black people through people declaring their freedom of speech, and I'll bet there are no european posters here that don't doubt that if you don't watch the 'radicals' the next thing you know they are in charge.
I'd be more interested in talking about how we can take a radical idea like 'there should be no muslims in the US', and implement it in a way that doesn't bring a US Hitler to power.

Posted by: albion at September 3, 2006 1:46 AM

Jeff; I'm still trying to figure out if I'm paying you. In either case I'm impressed.

Posted by: limes at September 3, 2006 1:52 AM

When I started at this site I would read the contributors remarks carefully. Now more and more I only read Robert's report and comments. My reason for this is that I too find some of the contributors' remarks to be agressive and proclaming violence of its own, which I find ironic.

I would read Hugh's remarks more, but apart from the time required to run half the comment through a dictionary, there is just so many words for relatively brief points. So I dont bother.

I read with particular interest however the remarks about my home country, Australia, as I find the commentators on here seem to think that what is happening here is sadly what is happening in Europe and USA. I suppose its an assumption some people need to make to feel better that everyone is in as bad soup as they are.

Posted by: payingattention at September 3, 2006 2:32 AM

Albion:

Anti-islamic "hate speech" isn't a tool of motivation, it's the result.

The vast majority of Blacks lynched in America were lynched by other Blacks. The majority of Blacks lynched by Whites were guilty of Murder or rape, not free speech. Blacks have killed far more Whites than the other way around, in any case. Using historical American lynching to frame a discussion about contemporary America is like using historical Christianity and Western culture to equate contemporary Christianity and Western culture with the depraved evils of islam.

Islam is not only a cult, its a political movement. As such, it contravenes the Constitution and espouses treason. That's the way to nail it legally. It'll probably take quite a few more successful major terrorist attacks to get the complacent public off its ass. Until then, the sleazebag politicians will continue to fight the jihadis with kid gloves.

Where's my check?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 3, 2006 3:06 AM

I'm Muslim, I read this site regularly, and I don't feel this is a hate speech site. Nor have I read anything in Robert Spencer's writings that incite or encourage hatred towards Muslims.

He does encourage education about Islam and free discussion of ideas. Some of the critiques here may be difficult to hear, but they will utimately lead to more effective communication and better relationships between Islam and the West.

Posted by: jehana at September 3, 2006 3:52 AM

"The Chorus of Useful Idiots"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4325

By Bruce S. Thornton
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 1, 2002

Posted by: Crows&Cows at September 3, 2006 4:01 AM

As far as Mossadegh and Iran goes, it seems that one tyrant gets overthrown so another can succeed him. These people were born to be ruled with an iron fist because they have no appreciation for the rule of law, human rights and limited gov't.

Posted by: Dumbo at September 3, 2006 4:49 AM

The following is by an Irani:

"Useful Idiots Are Islam's Best Soldiers
Aug 9, 2006
Amil Imani - Persian Journal"

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_17095.shtml

Posting few passages:

"But Islam is political to the core. In Islam the mosque and state are one and the same the mosque is the state. This arrangement goes back to the days of Muhammad himself. Islam is also radical to the extreme. Even the "moderate" Islam is radical in its beliefs as well as its deeds. Muslims believe that all non-Muslims, bar none, are hellfire bound and well-deserve being maltreated to the utmost.

No radical barbaric act of depravity is out of bounds for Muslims in dealing with others...

Muslims are radical even in their intrafaith dealings. Various sects and sub-sects pronounce other sects and sub-sects as heretics worthy of death; women are treated as chattel, deprived of many rights; hands are chopped for stealing even a loaf of bread; sexual violation is punished by stoning, and much much more. These are standard day-to-day ways of the mainstream "moderate" Muslims living under the stone-age laws of Shariah.

The "moderate" Islam has been outright genocidal from inception. Their own historians record that Ali, the first imam of the Shiite and the son-in-law of Muhammad, with the help of another man beheaded 700 Jewish men in the presence of the prophet himself. The prophet of Allah and his disciples took the murdered men, women and children in slavery. Muslims have been, and continue to be, the most vicious and shameless practitioner of slavery. Slave trade, even today, is a thriving business in Islamic lands where wealthy, perverted sheikhs purchase children of the poor from traffickers for their sadistic gratification.

It is a well-established fact that a Jew's word is his bond. The exact opposite is the case with Muslims. Muslims are taught deception and lying in the Quran itself, something that Muhammad practiced during his life whenever he found it expedient. Successive Islamic rulers and leaders have done the same. Khomeini, the founder of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, for instance, rallied the people under the banner of democracy. All along his support for democracy was not a commitment of an honest man, but a ruse of a true Muslim. As soon as he gathered the reign of power, Khomeini went after the Useful Idiots of his time with vengeance.

Beware of the Useful Idiots who live in liberal democracies. Knowingly or unknowingly, they serve as the greatest volunteer and effective soldiers of Islam. They pave the way for the advancement of Islam and they will assuredly be among the very first victims of Islam as soon as it assumes power".

Posted by: Crows&Cows at September 3, 2006 4:51 AM

I hate Muslims for the same reasons my parents hated the Germans and their parents hated the Russians: cause they are murderous Jew haters. When Islam decides to get into at least the 19th century, I will gladly give them another chance and re-assess. I am not a warmonger, as long as they leave us alone, we should leave them alone. Turning Iraq into some "model democracy" isn't worth the life of one cat in the pound.

Posted by: Dumbo at September 3, 2006 5:22 AM

WE will never be able to hate them like they hate us.

The Mohammedans suck in the hatred with the mothers milk! Mohammedans & the whole ideology of Islamic conquest is based on hatred of the infidel, of 'polytheists' and most of all the Jooozzzz...!

The Koran is full of incitement to kill, to mass-murder and to commit genocide until "all religion belongs to Allah.."
It is Islam and nothing but Islam & its followers that should be on trial, that should be exposed for the fraud it is and the criminal organization Muslims & their useful idiots are supporting, nothing else.

To be accused by useful idiots like this Carl Ernst supporter is plain silly. Sometimes I wonder whether such people are real or if they are motivated by Saudi dollars:
I have a personal friend who used to be very outspoken against Islam and all things Islamic until he got a major advertising contract from Dubai, now he's gone really quiet about it...

Like Oriana Fallachi I see nothing 'irrational' with hating this perverse cult. As a Jew I have a very legitimate interest in self-preservation and every Mohammedan I have ever met usually told me in no uncertain terms that he 'hates Joooozzzz' & wants Israel destroyed, and that Hitler was 'good but he didn't finish the job...'

I have a problem with that. Me thinks hating people who follow such an ideology is quite rational and justified.

No apologies!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 3, 2006 5:27 AM

There are a lot of blood curdling and insides liquefying incidents I have seen and heard from my grandparents & parents, heard their taqiyya talks followed by taqiyya remonstrations...that cannot be conveyed here.

I love myself and kindred people enough to never ever even toy with the idea of co existing with them.

Thanks to Jeff Burgholz & AmericaninGermany for busting another myth.This was what I was forcefed
to believe in.

"Freedom from the *known*" indeed, is liberating!

Posted by: Crows&Cows at September 3, 2006 6:29 AM

The person emailing Robert should note that the fiery rhetoric in the comments reflects a frustration I'm sure many of us here feel with the self censorship and distortions of the MSM.

For me, it's a decidedly visceral feeling logging into JW/DW - the huge relief from finally being among people aware of the real issue of the day, and the blunt, emotional responses that reveal that they too are frustrated by the total absence of acknowledgment and commitment displayed by the media and governments.

There are indeed comments here that I feel are racist and primitive in their hatred, but certainly not to the extent that they distract from the resourcefulness of the range of opinion and the educational writing that is predominant.

As to the claims in the email that people here are uninformed in their opinion of Islam, if this is so, the burden of proof is upon Muslims and their apologists to show us the real-world Islam that is democratic and non-jihadic, and that the extremists we discuss here are indeed a tiny minority, and that this mythical Islam has a snowball's chance in Hell of becoming the dominant strain. The very questions that Robert and Hugh repeatedly ask.

"WE will never be able to hate them like they hate us" - never were truer words spoken.

Posted by: anti-uffe at September 3, 2006 6:47 AM

payingattention
Paying attention to what? Since you find Hughs posts too dictionarious and you feel the visitors here are too aggressive and full of hate, you don’t read anything so you do not learn anything. So why should anyone pay any attention to what you post? I mean the nerve of some people here that they hate those who cut off the heads of little girls in the name of their religion. Have you ever thought of standing for anything? Are you afraid you might have an unauthorized emotion? I am proud to be a monster hater. I don’t see anything ignorant or irrational about that.

Posted by: tgusa at September 3, 2006 7:12 AM

Since this is at the bottom of the comments, I don't know how many will read this BUT IT ADDRESSES "MUSLIM HATRED".

(From the National Geographic Special on 9/11) ON SEPTEMBER 11 Atta and a companion checked in for the first leg of their flight in Portland. The ticket clerk said he thought if ever there was a picture of a terrorist, Atta was it. He then rebuked his thoughts and checked in Atta, no questions asked. When he heard about the Twin Towers attack, he even felt bad that Atta had been on that flight, he recalled, not suspecting even then that Atta was involved. Chalk that one up to Political Correctness. Suspicion is a survival instinct given to humans. P.C. has taken away our ability to think critically. I also think that as soon as a 90 year old blond, blue-eyed, Protestant Swede grandma starts a murdering spree with a huge international group of followers in the name of a church ,people with names like Jorgenson, who listen to ABBA, will be put on watch lists.

Posted by: 2joeymamma at September 3, 2006 7:22 AM

Mr Spencer is not responsible for American Foreign Policy and it is ridiculous for Carl Ernst to blame him for it.In fact Robert has quite often disagreed with President Bush's policies-we posters have often had disagreements with each other which is allowed under a Democratic system. Never at any time has Mr Spencer expressed hatred for Muslims.Believe real beef Carl & his cronies have with Mr Spencer is that not only does he have a longstanding knowledge & expertise of Islam but our Robert is a Best Selling Author.Also something of a Celebrity on Television and Radio.

Posted by: Morgane at September 3, 2006 7:28 AM

Robert & Hugh: just as you guys have the Dhimmi/Anti-Dhimmi awards, so could you compile some awards for "Most Frequent Posters." You could give awards for "Best Historical Accuracy" or "Best Grammar" or "Most Humorous" posters.

No cash prizes or anything but perhaps a free Koran. Or maybe a free trip to the Al-Farooq mosque in Brooklyn (complimentary framed picture of Shake Your Blind Abdel Rahman to be provided upon conversion). Personally, if I won something, I'd prefer a trip to the Saudi desert derby to watch Buraq run against Barbaro or Seabiscuit.

Seriously though - What's good about this person taking the time and effort to email Robert? It shows we posters have some non-JW readers out there. They know our numbers are growing and it bothers them a great deal. Hopefully we will continue to attract posters here - for there is strength in numbers.

Remember.... "no man is an island, but every man has a peninsula!"

- anonymous mullah

Posted by: MadrassasippiBurnin at September 3, 2006 7:33 AM

I am amused when Muslims make statements that suggest that Infidels hate Muslims because of statements made by Infidels.

The one statement that an Infidel could make, that would be most likely to foment hatred for Muslims, would be, "Read the Koran".

Reading the Koran is more than enough to inspire hatred for Muslims in the heart of any non-Muslim, not to mention the fact that 'Islam in Action' is even uglier than 'Islam in Print'.

The reason that Muslim-Hating is enjoying exponential growth around the world, is because of what Muslims are saying and doing.

The absolute goal of Islam, and all Muslims, must be... as it is stated in the Koran... the complete and utter conversion to Islam, enslavement, or murder, of every last non-Muslim human being on the planet.

This notion...that Muslims have the Divine Right to ride herd over the rest of humanity, is why an ever-increasing number of Infidels hate Muslims, and feel that the only solution to Islam, is to do unto Muslims, precisely and exactly what Muslims feel it is their Divine Right to do, to the rest of humanity.

Posted by: cheese_burger at September 3, 2006 8:34 AM

Robert, you should know better than to let these weasels put you on the defensive, so that you feel you need to distance yourself from other anti-jihadists. And they get you to do this, make your feet hot, by using the old standby - charge of racism.

And you fell for it. You quickly distance yourself from your own supporters.

That makes them smile.

Posted by: August22 at September 3, 2006 8:43 AM

"For me, it's a decidedly visceral feeling logging into JW/DW - the huge relief from finally being among people aware of the real issue of the day, and the blunt, emotional responses that reveal that they too are frustrated by the total absence of acknowledgment and commitment displayed by the media and governments."
-anti-uffe

I think for a lot of people, finding this site is like not realizing one has bad eyesight until getting fitted for one's first pair of eyeglasses.

Personally, I was delighted to find a place where people feel about mohammedanism the way I have since I watched those savages in Iran invade the embassy a quarter century ago.

Posted by: Eisenhund at September 3, 2006 8:57 AM

Don't read the comments if they bother you. Just read the articles.

Posted by: Borg at September 3, 2006 9:03 AM

Aug 22:

You say I have distanced myself from my own supporters.

I have done no such thing. Read Hugh's comment above. Carefully.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at September 3, 2006 9:16 AM

My comments here are always my own, not in any manner coerced by Mr. Spencer. If I happen to wax hateful and angry from time to time when it comes to the subject of Islam, that is the fault of Islam and its thriving terrorist establishment. Calling for the overthrow of my government, my culture, the deaths of my comrades, friends and family members tends to make me a little agitated. I'm sorry that the "terror" has not had the desired effect upon this infidel, but my genes are the product of a million years of survival and I fully intend on making sure that those I view as the "good guys" WIN this fight, so my genes can survive another million years.

Islam will not be so lucky.

It is good to hate your enemies: we are going to have to kill them.

Foehammer

Posted by: Foehammer at September 3, 2006 9:58 AM

"I would read Hugh's remarks more, but apart from the time required to run half the comment through a dictionary, there is just so many words for relatively brief points. So I dont bother."
-- from one poster above

"Hugh can post very wordy...posts..."
-- from another

Wordiness is one thing, Copia quite another. Copia leavened by the lightness of sprezzatura produce, both for the rhetor who wishes to move, to instruct, to entertain, and for that rhetor's reader, something just possibly worth the effort.

See Richard Weaver's "Language is Sermonic" and especially his essay on Milton.

And who would not wish to learn a new word or two or five each day?

Posted by: Hugh at September 3, 2006 10:32 AM

As long as you have a totally open forum there are going to be over-the-top postings. But, Robert has made this clear from the very beginning and repeatedly so.

I have read three of Robert's books, and for the most part I find them based on actual texts and verifiable sources. I guess this is why it is easy to accuse him of propogating hate when the texts themselves are full of hate and he is simply holding up a mirror.

And Robert again is correct in that this site has had the full spectrum of comments, from End of Days Let's Bomb em All types, to bible thumpers and Islamic apologists and marketers, and from just about every political affiliation.

It still comes back to the simple bumper sticker phrase "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." Until that changes, this site and Robert's work remain important. If you don't like the comments section don't go to it. Can you go to ANY internet board and not find ANY obnoxious comments?

Posted by: amana39 at September 3, 2006 10:51 AM

Re: Carl Ernst, unmoderated comments, and me

Robert,

This guilt by association nonsense re the posters is getting a wee bit tired. I note that you have tossed some of the emotion based anti-Muslim posters from the site (I think one was called "Muzzie").

Further, I am suspicious that some of the emotion based anti-Muslim comments I see here may be written by Muslims themselves and are meant to discredit you and the site. Neither you nor Hugh appeal to emotion on this site, it's strictly "the facts Ma'am, sir" with both of you. That's one of the reasons many folks like the site. It appeals to the mind-to looking at facts and expressing ideas and opinions based on facts and the use of the faculties of reason that God has granted to humans.

Posted by: Frank at September 3, 2006 10:52 AM

Re: Carl Ernst, unmoderated comments, and me

Robert,

This guilt by association nonsense re the posters is getting a wee bit tired. I note that you have tossed some of the emotion based anti-Muslim posters from the site (I think one was named "Muzzie").

Further, I am suspicious that some of the emotion based anti-Muslim comments I see here may be written by Muslims themselves and are meant to discredit you and the site. Neither you nor Hugh appeal to emotion on this site, it's strictly "the facts Ma'am, sir" with both of you. That's one of the reasons many folks like the site. It appeals to the mind-to looking at facts and expressing ideas and opinions based on facts and the use of the faculties of reason that God has granted to humans.

Posted by: Frank at September 3, 2006 10:54 AM

Re: Carl Ernst, unmoderated comments, and me

Robert,

This guilt by association nonsense re the posters is getting a wee bit tired. I note that you have tossed some of the emotion based anti-Muslim posters from the site (I think one was named "Muzzie").

Further, I am suspicious that some of the emotion based anti-Muslim comments I see here may be written by Muslims themselves and are meant to discredit you and the site. Neither you nor Hugh appeal to emotion on this site, it's strictly "the facts Ma'am, sir" with both of you. That's one of the reasons many folks like the site. It appeals to the mind-to looking at facts and expressing ideas and opinions based on facts and the use of the faculties of reason that God has granted to humans.

Posted by: Frank at September 3, 2006 10:55 AM

I was blocked because it said my post might contain "malicious" comments. So I waited and "post" and got the warning again. I think God may be validating my comment-LOL..

Posted by: Frank at September 3, 2006 10:57 AM

Fan-of-Hugh

As always.

Posted by: Borg at September 3, 2006 11:07 AM

In general, emotion based comments are the exception rather than the rule on this site, and that's especially true of most of the usual "handles" that post here. Again, your critics take the exception to the rule and try to make it appear as if it is the rule, but the malicious posters are no friends of this site whether Muslim or non-Muslim, and especially if they pretend they are friends of the site.

Posted by: Frank at September 3, 2006 11:20 AM

Foehammer-

Anger based in reason and expressed by giving reasons for resentment for being abused is human and healthy. Anyone who is abused and does not express resentment is not mentally well. On the other hand, having anger-hatred for persons because of who they are (Infidels, e.g.) is a symptom of madness-of mental illness.

Posted by: Frank at September 3, 2006 11:37 AM

Dear Mr. Ernst,

There are many of us who are regular contributors at JW/DW who suffer from a word that was coined in 1979; that word is "constipated rage." It results from a steady diet of abuse, humiliation, and physical attacks from true believers in a religion that preaches death to everyone who does not submit to it. We are ordinary people who are worried about the future of our children and grand-children and are further frustrated by what seems to us to be the impotence of our leaders to state the truth about your so called religion. If you are insulted by the words from me and others, I can only tell you that being insulted is a far milder injury than being dead. It this point in this war, the only weapons that I can legally use are words, while your people use bombs and bullets seemingly without consequence.

You have invited us to Islam; come to my or anyone else's front door and present that invitation personally. Then you will receive an anawer that contains more than just words.

If you read any hatred in my words, I suggest you review the atrocities perpetrated by your people beginning in 1979.

Posted by: Pelayo at September 3, 2006 11:39 AM

Too often the response by many Muslims to truthful criticism is one of indignation as expressed, for example, in charges of "islamaphobia" or other charges of Infidel insensitivity to Muslims. Indignation as a response to reason is all too human, but it has gotten our species in a lot of trouble in the past, and often results in very serious crimes against very good people. Indignation justified the crucifiction of Jesus.

"Indignation is the soul's defense against the wound of doubt about its own; it reorders the cosmos to support the justice of its cause. It justifies putting Socrates to death. Recognizing indignation for what it is constitutes knowledge of the soul, and is thus an experience more philosophic than the study of mathematics."

- Allan Bloom "The Closing of The American Mind"-page 71

Posted by: Frank at September 3, 2006 12:06 PM

some of the posters hate Islam and Muslims with blood-curdling intensity.

I’ll have to be counted among these, I hate is-lame with an incandescent intensity , but not without good reason.

I graduated in 1979 and went into the Army in August. Went to Basic Training at Ft. Sill OK and AIT at Fort Huachuca and Ranger Training at Ft. Benning. From there I was stationed in several places about the Pacific and the Middle East. In November of ’83 I was sent to Israel at my request (I lost a brother and 2 cousins in the Beirut attacks of 83) as special Liaison to Mossad.

I spent the next 2 years in various places about the Middle East and was taken captive by a force of 20 (there were only 15 left after the attack) in an attack on an unarmed convoy by paleo-simian terrorists. To make a long story short, my Mossad counterpart and I escaped two months later and made our way to Tel Aviv.

I’ve done everything in my power since then to bring the phoney “religion” of is-lame to the light of truth, and will continue to do so until I no longer draw breath.

BTW, I figure they twigged on my old signature here, the one I was banned “Death to Islam” will tick them off when nothing else will. They will even get more mad than they were about the Moe-Ham-Id (pork-brained Moe) cartoons.

Just thought this might help figure it out, if I'm not around anymore I've been banned again.

Posted by: Anti-Jihad-Crusader at September 3, 2006 12:19 PM

The critic obviously just visited the site once or twice, apparently (judging by his Mossadegh comments) at a time when the discussion topic was Iran. And he appears also to be one of those who insist that everything bad that happens in the world today is the fault of the West, directly or indirectly.

So the flimsy basis of his critique is twofold: 1) jumping to conclusions after shoddy research and 2) prejudice.

If you are a person struggling to understand the thought processes--within a balanced historical perspective--that give rise to, and that continue to fuel, today's conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, particularly if you are trying to interpret the motivation behind the violent acts and wild pronouncements of the bewildering array of Islamic terror groups acrross the globe and their noisy spokesmen and apologists, this site is the best thing going. But you cannot accomplish this edification on a 50-cent tour of the site. You have to tune in every day for weeks or months, read the articles and comments, and think. (Of course, this daily dose is only a starting point: one should also read Robert's books and the other books, by Bostom, Bat Y'eor,Ibn Warraq, etc. frequently discussed on this site.)

The reward is an epiphany that many here have experienced. You not only come to understand what is going on in various conflicts (sometimes even seeing "the next move" coming), but because you now have a conceptual vocabulary (jihad, dhimmi, taquiyya, abrogation, etc.) solidly based on genuine Islamic thinking and teaching, and bolstered by historical examples, you can recognize when deliberate deception is being used.

That some people (I am one) get alarmed when this light suddenly switches on is completely understandable--there is nothing wrong with being alarmed in the present perilous situation. Indeed, on the issue of Islamic ideology, an informed citizenry is crucial to ensure the very survival of our civilization. Our cloistered, narcissistic academia, clueless media, and venal government have totally failed us all in this regard.

For their tireless, patient, and honest work to get the unvarnished truth out about the mindset of Islam, grateful thanks to Robert, to Hugh, the JW/DW staff (not forgetting Marisol this time!), and all the posters who thoughtfully contribute here every day.

Thus ends the testimonial.

Posted by: Stendec at September 3, 2006 12:48 PM

Stendec-

You bet. I try not to chew gum in class when I come to the site-especially when reading a Hugh Fitz comment. No frivolity then.-LOL

You are right-on in your well said comment. This site is about thinking.

Posted by: Frank at September 3, 2006 1:03 PM

Ernst and his pals are anal retentive. In cases like theirs, mental constipation causes a back up of 'stuff' that gets into the bloodstream. When some of that 'stuff' reaches the optical nerve behind the eye, it causes a condition called 'opticalrectumitis', or a shtty outlook on life.
Muslims and their apologists share 'opticalrectumitis'. The 'mantra' "You love life, we love death", is proof that muslims do not have a healthy outlook on life. When a muslim or apologist, run out of things to say, they start accusing of hatred and or racism.
According to Dictionary.com...Hate..to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
It would seem to me that to hate Islam is a normal, even apropriate, reaction to those who understand it. The e-mailer seems to understand this which is why he qualified 'hate' with 'ignorant' and 'irrational' hate. 'Regular' hate is not good enough because it's understandable, so 'irrational and ignorant' have to be added. By adding these word magick helpers, the author tries to convey that Spenser and commenters are dangerously 'out of control'. Somehow I dont think that is the case. It's those with 'opticalrectumitis' who are out of control. Copious ammounts of truth,as provided by JW/DW and others erode away the 'stuff' that causes these blockages. Ernst and his fellow retentives should study up on the subject before making innane and accusatory remarks. Reading a few Islam friendly books does not make one an expert, nor do they provide one iota of understanding.

Posted by: duh_swami at September 3, 2006 1:13 PM

This test is easy. What he is saying, in a nutshell, in his email to Robert is to request this site to halt it's use of freedom of speach.

Simple. No speaking from the masses, just those who the state supports. Marx-ish IMO.

Challange . Write here as to where all this is hate, show us where the "masses" get it wrong, what is in error. Also, bring your armor.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 3, 2006 3:49 PM

Robert l see my post on this issue has been deleted.
l do not think l was hard on Hugh, l just said some of his posts are wordy, but good never the less. Where does a statement of wordy become negative? There seems to be a is a double standard. should l just keep on saying ditto, way to go..or can we openly debate points even when they differ from Hugh? l am justa working class person, my ilk make up the country's backbone, and are the ones who make the country work, l dont use very long words, but just want to bring in common sense sometimes. l asked a question about how do you evict a people, ie "muslims" out of your country without violence?
for that my post is deleted? l tend to agree with Aug.22 you seem to have distanced yourself from your supporters/

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 3, 2006 3:57 PM

Do muslims think they have a monopoly on hate? I heard an islamic cleric, with a broad smile on his face, tell an infidel reporter, "yes, I hate you because you are a kafir, but don't worry, I won't kill you." After making that comment, he invited the filthy one to "come to islam."

Hate is a destructive emotion and I make a concerted effort not to indulge in it, but I am human. When I read dozens of articles every day, some of them here and many from other sources, which extoll islamic perversities, hate, intolerance, hypocrisy, and supremacy while blaming the West for every problem in the islamic world, including terrorism, it's impossible not to become enraged and emotional. But I would never contemplate murdering muslims to vent my rage and frustration. I would never thoroughly inculcate my children with hatred for muslims or encourage them to die for any "cause", including God.

I would never immigrate to another country to exploit its superior economic opportunities if I hated and could not tolerate its government, culture, and people. Muslims provoke and encourage contempt. It is only natural for the indigenous people of any country to resent incongruous foreigners who invade their nations, express contempt for their culture, customs, and government, and threaten to destroy their way of life. How are we supposed to react to the overt hostility of immigrants who voluntarily chose to live in our country? Sorry, but I can't bring myself to love them. As far as I'm concerned, all muslims are the enemy, all muslims are potential terrorists. Their words, deeds, and religious doctrine clearly explicate their agenda. I'm sorry so many still refuse to acknowledge the truth about islam and muslims, and I am very thankful I'm not one of them.

We are incapable of the hate that comes naturally to muslims, but we do have survival instincts. If muslims are determined to persist with their world domination nonsense, I'm afraid they will learn just how nasty we can be. We won't bother with the flowery speeches or the elaborate threats, but you can bet we won't lose!

Compared to the hate expressed at hundreds of islamic websites, the posters on Jihadwatch are pussycats. The letter to Mr. Spencer was a clever ploy to try to silence islam's critics--us. What a shame that the magnificent, infallible, indisputable, immutable religion of islam cannot withstand criticism and scrutiny. You would think muslims had something to hide.

Posted by: Susanp at September 3, 2006 4:31 PM

Hugh I tried to filter your post at 10:32 through my dictionary but "Copia leavened by the lightness of sprezzatura " crashed my hard disk. To whom do I send the bill?

Regards

Posted by: payingattention at September 3, 2006 5:03 PM

Susanp your post was eloquent and to the point. yes we are all human. l know my attitude towards muslims have become less tolerant of their pressence. This is not due them being just different, as l do not have any problems with all other peoples. in fact some friends in high school were people of different races and religions, one was a Hindu girl,her father was a doctor, and she seemed to gravitate to our table at lunch time in high school, as no one else went out of their way to welcome here. at that time 90 percent of the kids were white Europeans. anyhow it is because of the violent actions of the muslims, their words in the koran, suras,and hadiths, the words from their immans, that have sharpened my views on them. in fact if l were younger l would inlist in the armed forces just to be more effective in the protection of my country. but l know l am now armed with information, l print up information and have left in places for many to see. l leave some at our local Staples lol. l dont know if the cleaning staff is fast at throwing them out, but if some happen to read them and learn, its great, a very small part, but adds up. l think the website with Robert at the helm is
doing a bang up job(no pun intended) and l pray for his safety, as l believe in a God, and know it does help.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 3, 2006 5:10 PM

Americaningermany:

What's especially ironic is that most of the crime in Germany is caused by muslims, and there are NO-GO areas there for native infidels. That's overlooked, but the imagined bigotry of White America is not.

Losers always try to feel better about themselves by tearing down a bigger man.

Your German pal would probably say "racists always say that" if you said "I have lots of Black friends." Of course, he doesn't see the contradiction in making authoritative statements about America based on hate tracts and a lying Black brother in law.

The hypocrisy and hatred of the left is as limitless as that of their jihadi allies.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 3, 2006 6:17 PM

Leftists often spew that story about the coup in Iran in 1953. We should be skeptical about every factiod of it. In the first place, the Shah may well have been a better alternative to the leftist government that replaced him. The same people who praise Mossadegh also praise Castro, who has been a disaster for the Cuban people. In the second place, Kermit Roosevelt, the alleged plotter of the 1953 coup efforts may have been a lying blowhard rather than the clever guy he claimed to be. The Iranian coup leaders denied everything but a small meeting with the guy. Wikiepedia in the past has had references that discredit Roosevelt's claims, but sadly the latest version in wikipedia tows the leftist line. And, of course, the third point about this story is that what happened in 1953 is irrelevant. Muslims want to kill people and dominate the world, because that's what muslim do.

Posted by: Pediomelum at September 3, 2006 6:27 PM

Hugh:

The posters who criticized your work are correct in their assessments. Sometimes less is more. Try to take it as constructive criticism.

If you think it's your duty to teach people 5 new words a day, I suggest you start with Prolix, priggish, pedantic, pretentious and sententious--because most people already know the definition of boring.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 3, 2006 6:44 PM

P.S.,

Well Hugh, after further reading it seems I should have written: "Rather than deleting critical comments, try to take them as constructive criticism."

Deleting comments on a post that deals with free speech is bad form, old boy. Do I have to point out that the jihadis use this unprincipled tactic regularly?

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 3, 2006 6:52 PM

You can find censorship all over the web these days, folks. It's rare to find openness, especially regarding the islamonazis.

This is because the islamonazis get in a snit whenever anyone "ofeeends" them by saying anything at all against them. Try saying a few things against them at hotair.com and see how fast you're banned.

Personally, I think we should ignore whatever these fool islamotards have to say, its nothing but a bunch of bluster anyway.

Posted by: Anti-Jihad-Crusader at September 3, 2006 6:54 PM

Keep digging.

Posted by: Hugh at September 3, 2006 7:03 PM

I just noticed this:

"Zena, I don't think it is Robert who is deleting them, I think it is Hugh who is so sensitve that he feels called upon sometimes to micro-manage free souls."

[Posted by: henry at September 3, 2006 04:25 PM ]

I neither read, nor deleted that posting. I have deleted no postings in the last few days. Several people possess that power. Nor do I attempt to "micro-manage free souls." I attempt, rather, to minimize the appearance of things which would be grist for CAIR's mill, which are perhaps graphically unsettling (ALL CAPS FOR EXAMPLE), which are part of some free-for-all involving attacks on, or defenses of, belief-systems other than Islam, conspiracy theories, those who are merely engaged in baiting one of the principals (a question always of duration, and degree), and of course, most importantly, those posters, whatever they pretend to be, who appear only in order to confuse and distract visitors to the site, by way of derailing both Orient Expresses and choo-choos of thought.

Posted by: Hugh at September 3, 2006 7:15 PM

I have never had a JW post deleted that didn’t deserve to be deleted. I am surprised that some here have bought in to this fly in the ointment strategy. It seems that Hugh is trying to broaden our horizons and we are having none of it. I read his posts and it is obvious he reads ours and formulates his posts in part with what has been posted. C’mon everybody, you know if you are writing a post that is on the edge and could be deleted. I occasionally respond to particularly offensive troll posts with nastiness. On occasion I am openly nasty and with those I sit back and see how long they will last. Others are more covertly nasty and they usually survive. Some posts will be misunderstood; I was once deleted for calling one extremely despicable poster an “ovenman” not really offensive but deleted just the same. I know we anti-jihadis here are all intelligent enough to write up a post that is on topic and is constructively offensive. There have been a number of posts in the past that I thought surely would disappear, yet they did not. Conclusion; in comparison to the rest of the internet, there is a minimum of censorship here at JW. If you write it right, it will stay.

Posted by: tgusa at September 3, 2006 8:06 PM

To the submitter of this letter,
I suggest you go here and read the Muslim texts (especially the Sunnah/Hadiths)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/

After reading the words, instructions, and actions of Mohammed, it should be very clear why people on this board sometimes post the way they do.

Please note the university's statment (and this is a leftist university):

"The Sunnah is the second source of Islamic jurisprudence, the first being the Qur'an. Both sources are indispensable; one cannot practice Islam without consulting both of them." (any emphasis is mine)

Read the Hadiths. Looks at the examples of Mohammed. The jihadists and devout Muslims merely follow his example. And what a frightening example it is.

Posted by: non-redneck at September 3, 2006 8:48 PM

One more time for reasons of clarity:

Censoring free speech on this site won't soften the stance of Spencer's detractors one iota. CAIR, Carl Ernst, and people like the unnamed emailer will continue to demonize this site no matter what is printed in the comments section. The comments section could be dropped, and the attacks would continue. The comments could consist only of glowing praise for islam, and the attacks would continue.

Catering to the sworn enemies of the truth concerning jihad by censoring intemperate comments would not only be futile, it would aid the jihadis and apologists for islam. They want all contrary voices to be silenced.

Nobody--and I mean nobody--is going to decide Spencer is promoting hatred because of what is written in the comments section.

As other commentators have pointed out, the mystery emailer is trying to get this site to censor itself. This disingenuous tactic is lifted straight from the "Rules For Radicals." The political left has been using it successfully for decades. Don't fall for it.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 3, 2006 9:44 PM

l can only imagine the stress imposed upon Robert by the muslim horde such as Cair's appologists, and we have seen how they handle critism. Robert must be right on the mark for them to be so vicious. l have heard Robert now on various radio shows, and heard him last on the best on Laura Ingraham(sp) and Robert was on the mark. Cair and their appologists realize their gig is up, and that Robert is reaching so many people that giant silent majority on non muslims are waking up to the threat from these monsters of islam. l think when we get upset is that people we know, especially within our own families are so blind, and are quick to label us racists or bigots, but then l think they are like most humans and dont want to rock the boat, as it is
unconfortable to find the truth. Robert like a few others are attacked personally but never on the content of what he says and writes. Robert is shining the light on this evil called "islam", and like all rats are nastiest when cornered with truth.
Robert has many guardian angels around him, l dont want to sound too religious, he is being protected more than he thinks.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at September 3, 2006 9:55 PM

It's ironic that Muslims and their admirers should talk of 'hate-sites'. How many expressions of contempt and hatred for unbelievers can be found in the texts of the Koran where its available on line? How many insults, and predictions of the unpleasant fate in store for them? How many instructions to attack them physically?

Posted by: wallyUK at September 3, 2006 10:50 PM

You are correct Beagle and an apt turn of phrase..The Mossadegh fallacy.

To which we can append the Bush fallacy..you see
Iran was (theoretically) a democracy in which the Prime Minister was popularly elected.. thus in 1953 Democracy was brought to Iran.

Fast forward to Iraq, it's election, it's Shari'a constitution and the much touted democracy that Bush brought to Iraq as juxtaposed to those other unacceptable "Democracies" where the "wrong guy" won the election..i.e. Hamas, Lebanon, Venezuela, Bolivia.

I guess some Democracies are more equal than others, this is starting to sound like Orwell's Animal Farm.

By the way for an Iranian view of Mossadegh (and the middle class condemnation of him) read Sandra Mackey's, The Iranians, Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation, in fact just read it anyway, along with her book The Reckoning, the Legacy of Saddam Hussen, and the Saudis, Inside the Desert Kingdom.

Posted by: Nariz at September 3, 2006 11:46 PM

I think this guy is pointing out that although Robert and Hugh publish texts that could not be construed as hate speech, some of the posters do. And I have to agree. I have read some very disparaging comments about what to do with Muslims. I agree the best way to keep a flow of ideas is to have an unmoderated forum, but some of the posters hate Islam and Muslims with blood-curdling intensity. I guess these are the passions aroused in order to win the war. Posted by: albion

I agree, however there is another problem with posters, which is that many are as intense a religious fanatic and irrational as the Muslims, and as self righteous and triumphalist as well, only they call themselves Christians.

And regardless of the subject, all too many take the opportunity to turn the subject into a political rant against some amorphous entity called liberal or left.. thus obfuscating THE COLD HARD FACT, that this country and it's government are run not by Liberals or Left, but by Christians, conservatives and right wingers with a fair representation of Zionists (both Jewish and Christian)..so if anything is wrong, and the shite hits the fan blame those in charge not on the sidelines.

Posted by: Nariz at September 4, 2006 12:11 AM

I've been called a sycophant for expressing my admiration and appreciation of Hugh's eloquent, informative essays, but I honestly cannot understand why anyone would be critical of his monumental contributions to this site.

I don't like to admit it, but I have consulted the dictionary on many occasions when reading his articles. Hugh is like a free college refresher course, or many courses, and I am grateful that he shares his encyclopedic mind with us. Why would anyone object to learning new words?

Hugh is a treasure, verbosity nothwithstanding.

Posted by: Susanp at September 4, 2006 12:48 AM

Zena:

It was I who deleted it indeed, but not because you said Hugh was wordy. You can say Hugh is wordy all day long, or that I am short and funny-looking, or anything you like.

Unfortunately I am traveling in the Badlands at the moment, working on a cumbersome laptop, making it impossible for me to find your post and explain why it was deleted, but I assure you, it was not for that.

Generally comments are unmoderated. When Hugh or Marisol or I see one that is genocidal, calling for vigilantism, threatening, racist, tarring all Muslims with a broad brush, or some such, we delete it. We make no claim to see and delete all such posts.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at September 4, 2006 1:40 AM

Thank You very much Henry! I too feel I have found plenty of my lost Relatives only after visiting this site.

Sorry for not replying soon as I don't have 24/7 access to Internet and uninterrupted power supply:))

Agree with you,ZenaWarriorPrincess,Duh_Swami,SusanP and all.

Henry,by narrating them I would be resurrecting the intense pain whose scars I carry.I have been muzzled with murderous rage manifold times in my life.Nevertheless, it was all a Blessing in disguise as I have no fear now but lots of POTENT RAGE (like Druid's Potion:))

Would we ever really be able to become violent and bestial savages like them? NO. Get rid of this guilt and spurn their specious verbiage with utmost contempt.

It is their centuries old acts of unmitigated violence (ever since its inception..it is no religion at all) that is boomeranging on them (these are just starters...full course is yet to be shoved down) with exponential virulence.

Pardon me for digressing .Though I am an indian(hindu) I have nothing but unalloyed admiration for all the Westerners I have come across for their lack of posturing, lack of hypocrisy,vibrant sense of humour,lack of "conscientious stupidity & sincere ignorance",committment etc.

I have met only one Jew in my life and words fail me in articulating how grateful I feel towards him. To ensure whether a pot of rice is cooked,one needs to feel only one grain!

This nariz is trying to dent our solidarity by wearisome claptrap(Christianity,Zionism).

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsar(Sage whose Disciple is Swami Vivekananda)once upbraided one of His devotees for buying a leaky mudpot.The crack had been cleverly concealed by the seller.

The disciple said " You only said God exists in everyone.So I bought it in complete faith".

The Sage angrily retorted " You idiot! The seller's job is to con and dump his ware on you.It is your job to use your brain and vigilantly inspect it.Does not the same God exist in you, illuminating your intellect?"

So let us listen to what our blood whispers to us.Our well honed, burnished instincts. Not to is-lame apologists. Not to protoplasmically spawned and nurtured infidel killers , haters and fulminators.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at September 4, 2006 3:27 AM

2joeymamma:

"Suspicion is a survival instinct given to humans. P.C. has taken away our ability to think critically".

Absolutely. Edgar Wallace has also echoed the same .... about the paramount significance of Instincts.

What a blessing we " (Non PC)fools seldom differ"!

Posted by: Crows&Cows at September 4, 2006 3:48 AM

To all the hand wringing "this is not.....,it stands for piece...oops ,peace...let there be more dialogue....concessions...yadayada,

In Mahabharatha(m),it is only *one* among the kaurava clan who disrobes Paanchali(Draupadi) with the rest egging/cheering/hand wringing/mutely watching/muttering this-is-not-ok-what-to-do-we-are-helpless yadayada.

Not an iota of clemency or amnesty is shown to ANY of those by Bhagawan in the Great War.

The War was waged and won by Bhagawan.

Hence, if you have anything to whine and harangue about, do so to your Allah who you claim to enjoy such proximity with and who you hold powwows with ,5 times a day.

Desist from flattering yourselves that people like me are interested or care.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at September 4, 2006 4:28 AM

ermm, who is this other Albion geezer? I am Albion, & I have posted here for many a year - has my name been hijacked?

I am the original English Albion - who is the other?

If you read this, & indeed if you are as I suspect American, please identify your self as American Albion to save confusion - & people emailling me saying I have posted here when I have not.

Thanks

Albion (English)

Posted by: albion at September 4, 2006 6:37 AM

Nariz wrote: "... this country and it's government are run not by Liberals or Left, but by Christians, conservatives and right wingers..."

The elected admininstration is not mandated or empowered to "run the country." Not all leftist ideas are insidious, but that one is.

That poisonous and totalitarian attitudinal foundation is the same one that Muslims everywhere embrace in pursuing their draconian goal of subjugating and ruling us all under Islamic sharia.

Posted by: Stendec at September 4, 2006 1:01 PM

Henry,
Thank You very much! Agree with whatever you have written above.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at September 4, 2006 2:04 PM

There are those who want to negotiate, and there are those who don't. Those who don't, want to kill, and those who do, want to kill them afterwards. Drop the bomb and then they'll negotiate; it'll certainly wipe-out all of those who have the knowledge of nuclear anyway.

Knowledge can only be added, but only death can take it away.

Posted by: Jeff at September 4, 2006 2:34 PM

Henry,

I am not sure what you were trying to say in your reply to my last post.

Just let me say that we--all of us--are the ones who "run the country." The government exists not to run us, but to serve us--to provide only those few essential services that we cannot reasonably perform for ourselves, like national defense.

Islam, like other totalitarian movements, wants things turned the other way around. The Constitution would be replaced by the Koran, the laws would be replaced by sharia, and our now meaningless collective umma lives would be lived purely in service to Allah's government. Every detail of our daily lives would be thus controlled by central authority.

Any movement that seeks to command our daily lives from the corridors of central power is fundamentally bad. That's why we (in the USA) evicted King George, after all.

I am sure you will agree. Have a nice Labor Day (that is, assuming you are from the USA; and if not, have a great day anyway).

Posted by: Stendec at September 4, 2006 4:04 PM

Henry:

"This is a great puzzle to me".

Ditto here. Further, most of their acts get described "dastardly/cowardly".

It is the absence of rage and relentless seeking of justice of the dhimmies that is dastardly/cowardly. Cowardice is given a patina of *magnanimity,compassion,forgiveness* blahblah.

Which gangrenous patient would trust a surgeon who refuses to operate invoking grandiloquent phrases like *ahimsa,non violence,kindness*....?

Supine, irresponsible, unpardonable apathy.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at September 6, 2006 3:10 AM

Methinks, forsooth, that free speech be alive and well on this forum. Alas, I too have been brushed off on occasions with digital liquid paper, but I respect the webmaster's decision to do so. There are many ways to skin a cat, but make sure it's dead first!

JW is the first forum I have participated in, so I had to learn something of the rules of the game. Still learning. So much to learn. But I am not entirely ignorant of human nature, human history (brrr, it's getting cold) or human frailties (that's better). I also have a reasonable grasp of the English language. When I read such phrases as "ignorant and irrational hate and fear" (from The Emailer), I suspect a cover-up. I also see a confession.

I base my life on the Headship of Jesus Christ, who tied the Old and New Testaments together. Both He and our Father (the God of Genesis, Moses, Abraham, you and me) are quite comfortable with hating certain things. We are expected to also hate these same things, so as to keep them far away from us. But take note that I refer to things and NOT people.

The two most difficult things that Man (generic, male and female) can undertake in life are:
1. to learn to separate sin from sinner and
2. to forgive those who sin against us.

Achieving these, even once, can save life, liberty and dignity. Achieving them under extreme duress builds character. Knowing how to achieve them is wisdom. I think you get the drift. The question I would ask is:

How can I distinguish the messenger from the message? Unlike some who post on this site, I am acutely aware of the 2 points just iterated and I would be happy to follow them with regards to Moslems. But How? To separate sin (the belief in the Q'ran) from the sinner (the Moslem) is nigh on impossible, by definition of the Islamic faith.

I have no choice but to hate what I know to be false teachings. But by my hating it, I do not hate you for embracing such teachings. My hatred of false teaching could not be based on ignorance, because then I would not know about such teaching. My hatred becomes "irrational" only if I allow it to overpower me, which simply isn't the case. I hate it because I can see the harm that such teaching inflicts on fellow human beings. Hatred, rather than mere displeasure, is the emotional consequence of witnessing true evil, that I hate the thing that triggers off such evil in human beings.

Posted by: maranatha50 at September 6, 2006 4:47 AM