In Selbourne's list "jihadwatch" leads, like Abou Ben Adhem, all the rest. But he apparently cannot distinguish between the principals and the odd (and some are very odd) poster who emotes, or goes on a tear about "liberals" or on the other side "Bush as a tool of the oil companies." There are irrelevancies; there is special pleading; there are hobby-horses to be ridden to Banbury Cross and back. That's par for the St. Andrew's course. There is nothing he says, either about matter or manner, that adequately characterizes what the principals at JW do, and write, and think, and he knows that perfectly well. Nowhere else, among all the websites devoted to the matter of Islam, is there such an un-pigeonholable site. Nowhere else has there been such consistent and deadly (because unanwerable) criticism of the war in Iraq and the man I have called twice in the last day Captain Queeg. Not exactly right-wing loyalists. Nor left-wing either.

But Selbourne feels that he has not been given his due, in all kinds of ways, it is clear from this and other evidence. This annoys him. And so he performs his act of lumping: lumping us in with other sites, lumping the crudest of posters with the principals. I'm not about to take those lumps quietly. I see you aren't either.

Posted by: Hugh at December 2, 2006 5:12 AM

Two articles have been devoted at this website to the subject of posters. One is about those who are "trolls" (a new meaning for an old word) attempting to distract or provoke posters at a website. The second answers the question "What Is This Website For?"

Here's the first:

"Many people come to Jihadwatch to read items garnered from the world’s press, television, satellite channels, about that most misreported, and underreported, of matters: those aspects of the ideology of Islam which make it a menace and a threat to all non-Muslims. Pieties about the “three abrahamic faiths” and the supposed benign links between the “three great monotheisms” obscure the fact that Islam is, in large part, a geopolitical program. The word “religion” tends to automatically confer a degree of respect, and sympathy, and to foster a continued, and dangerous, unwariness, in the minds of adherents of other religions.
It is this website that, along with others, brings together articles from disparate sources, that show how the impulse toward Jihad is demonstrated throughout the world, in both the dar al-Islam (the lands where Islam rules, and Muslims predominate) and in dar al-harb, the lands where Infidels remain, as yet unsubjugated). It further offers examples of what may be called “dhimmitude,” that is an attitude of abasement and appeasement, that in Muslim states was the lot of all non-Muslims (those that remained alive), but which can be observed, fascinatingly, in countries still under Infidel control, but where some Infidels, out of ignorance, sentimentality, or more sinister impulses, including hostility toward their own societies and countries, manage to display, even when not forced to, that same attitude of supine compliance with Muslim demands, and Muslim views, that are such an unattractive feature, for example, of the upper reaches of the E.U. bureaucracy. What began as a venal attempt to curry favor, so as to be able to “recycle petrodollars,” has become a habit of mind. Western media, used to doing the Arab bidding in their presentation of the Arab Jihad against Israel, have extended that behavior in their coverage – or non-coverage – of Islamic behavior directed at targets other than Israel.

This site bring informations about both Jihad and Dhimmitude. Simply by presenting varied items of news, and laying bare, in the occasional accompanying commentary, the ways in which dhimmitude can be expressed, and furthermore, the ways in which Jihad remains the central, most persistent and significant aspect of Islam, one which has to be thoroughly understood and that understanding assimilated – given the failure of so many to undertake the most elementary study of Islam and of Muslim history themselves, content rather to mouth platitudes, if no longer about “peace” and “tolerance,” then new platitudes about the need for a “dialogue of civilizations” that is simply the old nonsense and apologetics in new garb.

In addition, those who blog at each thread often supplement, with their own analyses or other links, or pasted-in quotations, some of them quite apposite in what they find in obscure places, often eke out, in amazing ways, the raw news items.

Manners maketh man. Polite posters, what might be called coquettishly, or etiquettishly, Emily-Post-ers, try to keep to the matter at hand, as best they can. They derive profit and pleasure from the observations of others, and try in turn to offer profit and pleasure. One hopes that those who do not visit will, in the future, by googling, wander through the cyber-archives which do not date and ought to be consulted – paper-writing students, please note -- along with the day’s fresh offerings. It is a good way to learn about Qur’an and Hadith and Sira, to find out what Taqiyya is and to be shown examples of such Taqiyya in practice. It is a good way to learn about Muhammad’s own behavior (the execution of the Bani Qurayza, the attack on the Khaybar Oasis, etc.), and about his significance, therefore, as the “perfect man” and permanent model to be emulated, through time and space.

One discovers here repeated mention of scholars of dhimmitude, such as the pioneering Bat Ye’or, about such articulate ex-Muslims as Ibn Warraq, about such websites as www.secularislam.org, and www.faithfreedom.org, and www.dhimmitude.org and www.nojihad.com. The United States, one is constantly reminded, is not the only Infidel target, but merely the most powerful and resolute among those targets. One is reminded that Christians and Jews are not the only non-Muslims who must be defeated and subjugated; worse fates are to be meted out, at least theoretically, to Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Confucians, and of course all atheists and agnostics.

One learns of the emphasis in Islam on the collective, and the severe limits placed on individual autonomy, and especially on freedom of conscience and belief. One learns that for a good Muslim, loyalty can never be offered the Infidel nation-state; that is a logical impossibility; it can only be offered to fellow Muslims, to the umma al-islamiyya. Some Muslims may choose to ignore this requirement; they are being, from the Muslim point of view, bad Muslims. From the Infidel point of view, they are less troubling.

Visitors to this site know that Jihad-conquest exists independently of any particular foreign policy or behavior. It exists independently of where Muslims live, or how much money they have, or how much education they have, or the degree of their exposure to the Western world. It exists independently of the degree of despotism they experience in the Muslim countries, or the degree of material and other success they find in the Infidel lands. For it is a matter of ideology – of what is contained in Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, which is to say, the entire belief-system of Islam.

It is here, at this website, that one learns about the many crushing burdens – economic, political, social – which, under the Sharia, are to be imposed on all dhimmis, a word which refers to those Infidels (chiefly Christians and Jews) who, though may be permitted to live, and not forced to immediately convert, are made subject to a regime of such enforced and permanent humiliation, degradation, and insecurity that vast areas of the Middle East and North Africa, once entirely populated by non-Muslims, have now become almost entirely Muslim. The same is true for large areas of black Africa, and in Asia – the numbers of Muslims rises, and the non-Muslims slowly, under oppression soft or hard, if not killed or exiled, decrease inexorably in numbers.

Why is it so important to understand dhimmitude? It is potentially the future for much of the Western world, beginning with Europe. One has to awaken first oneself, and then others, from this deep sleep of unreason. The canonical texts of Islam are fixed forever. They do not change. They are not subject to interpretation, for the “gates of ijtihad” (interpretation) closed a thousand years ago. The publicized efforts of some Bright Young Muslim Things who tell us that they can take care of all that, they’ll do all the necessary re-interpreting, merely prolong the complacence, and delay the right reckoning.

A great deal of information can be derived from the daily mental bread, the panem quotidianum, that is offered up, every morning, by some early-rising bakers at Jihadwatch. One hopes that more and more visitors will come, to discover that the apologetics in which so many indulge in the so-called major media, need not be parroted, nor accepted, and can be made subject to withering cross examination by Robert Spencer, and by others who, self-deputized to help the marshal with the gang that just rode into town, decided -- even now, while many terrified townsfolk still hide behind their doors – to awkwardly put on their badges, and lend a hand.

This whole matter is neither elementary particle physics, nor classical Greek prosody. It requires only that texts be understood, that trustworthy scholars be discovered and read, that the rhetorical tricks of apologists for Islam be analyzed and understood. It requires that bowdlerized versions of the Qur’an be mocked, that the inconsistencies within the Qur’an be recognized, and the way that Muslims themselves resolve those inconsistencies be clearly understood.

No one who comes repeatedly to Jihadwatch will suffer any of that confusion and mental désarroi that so many suffer from, and which derive from the failure of the press, of our leaders, of all those whose duty it is to instruct us, to forthrightly discuss Islam.

That is what Jihadwatch is for. That is what it attempts to do. That is its value.

It is not meant for people to be inveigled into trading insults with what are called “Trolls” – that is, those who appear at various threads only in order to distract, to waste precious time (and space on the thread), to bring out the silliest in everyone. Why collaborate with those who do not wish this site well? Whether hater of America, or anti-Semite, or fanatical Jihadist, the troll dangles the tempting bait of his, or her, own unhinged personality before would-be posters. It would be better not to take that bait.

But this distracts attention from other, more serious, matters. There is no real way to answer such people. Were you to pass on the street someone ranting similar stuff, the spittle streaming from the sides of his mouth and his eyes gleaming, would you not quicken your step, and simply leave him to his rant? Why should cyberspace be any different? It is flatly untrue that everyone possesses some core of logic, some ability to reason things out, to consider evidence presented by others. Evidence, logic, and so on have no meaning for such people. Either they are captives of a Total Explanation of the Universe, or they have, in order to make sense of the universe, mentally enslaved themselves to some Total Explanation that is their own creation. In their fantasy world, they keep rounding up the usual scapegoats as suspects, and there is no need for them to conduct a trial in the courthouse of their own minds: those scapegoats are always guilty as charged – America, the West, “the Jews,” etc.. It is silly to believe that all mankind shares a certain good sense, a shared residue of common humanity. All God’s chillum, the Family of Man, that sort of sentimental thing. It doesn’t and we don’t.

Those who are unhinged, and who enjoy playing trolls -- these trolling players, or strolling players, strutting their very poor stuff upon their own miserable stage -- need not occupy any of us at this website, whether we are groundlings or sitting with the gods. These are outpatients from the Laughing Academy. It is impolite for sane people to stare; they should walk briskly by, and quicken their step."

[Posted by Hugh January 18, 2005]

Posted by: Hugh at December 2, 2006 5:23 AM

Here's the second:

RS:

"Hugh recently had an encounter with a commenter who represented himself as a Roman Catholic and parroted many lines, as longtime readers can see, of apologists for Islamic terror. Of course, he doubtless was who he said he was, as there are useful idiots in every camp, but in any case, after receiving many substantive replies, he responded indignantly that he thought this was a place for the free exchange of ideas, and stalked away. Hugh asked me to post his rejoinder as an article, and I am happy to oblige"

HF:

"'I somehow mistakenly believed that this was a forum for trading ideas/facts/arguments back and forth.' -- from a posting by a wounded and disillusioned poster here.

"You were mistaken. This is in the main a pedagogic site, with occasional time out for paronomastic play and musings on language. Postings cannot be patrolled, though egregious examples of a lack of decorum will be removed when brought to the attention of the bouncer in the back, the one chatting up the hat-check girl. That some choose to trade insults with one another, to crudely or rudely emote, or to bite at the proferred bait of those trolling invitingly for unwary fish in McElligot's Pool, is not part of the site's intent, is not encouraged, is actively discouraged. And not only by the bouncer and that fetching hat-check girl.

There are many sites where people can "trade," as you put it, "ideas/facts/arguments" -- in short, all that Internet equivalent of the late-night discussion of such fascinating freshman dorm-room topics as "Is there a God?" and "Free Will and Determinism" and "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People" and "Why Good Things Happen to Bad People," and "Whether Pigs Have Wings." These are sites where no one really rises beyond a certain level. The cretins come to dominate, because they have the most stamina, while the intelligent, if they ever showed up in the first place, often drop out dismayed. True equality in the Great Democracy of the Internet is as much to be deplored as Democracy and Equality in any school or classroom, from that of the first-grade teacher in the hopelessly progressive school who has his charges vote on whether the next unit should be on dinosaurs or on Greek mythology, to the college teacher who glows as he tells you about how his students acquire the "Learning Experience" and complacently assures you that "I don't teach my students -- my students teach me. I learn so much from them."
Give me the sober atmosphere of the series of lectures on "Our Debt to Antiquity," delivered in 1903 by Dr. Zielinski of the University of St. Petersburg to the highest classes of that city's secondary schools, or Professor Nikolai Trubetzkoy in 1934 delivering lectures on Slavic phonology at the University of Vienna, or Dr. Yuri Lotman in 1977, in his Tartu exile, speaking on "Literature and Literariness in Pushkin" to rapt listeners who had arrived by train from Moscow and even Siberia in order to hear him speak. In each case, however passionately divine the icy intellect, human warmth heaved behind the glinting glasses. And a perfect internal thermostat, to be adjusted as needed, between that human and that divine. No nonsense, no sentimental "democracy in the classroom" or "learning" through trading of "ideas/facts/arguments," no voting by students as to whether they'd like to build models of a Triceratops this month or would prefer to draw pictures of Hercules killing the Erymanthian Boar. Spare us, please, all that yearning for earnest freshman-year exchanges of "ideas" and "arguments" -- as you optimistically call them.

There are many websites where you can engage, ad libitum, in those Yankee-swapmeets of "ideas/facts/arguments" in which you express such an interest. Your own postings offered little in the way of fact, or cogent argument, so one wonders. Exaggerated attention was given to such matters as the religious affiliation of your best friend, and the ethnic and religious identification of those to whom you are related by marriage, and you took great care to identify yourself (who cares?), more than once, as a "Roman Catholic." All of these inconsequential details -- conservative Jewish best friend, Lebanese Christian in-laws, Roman Catholic faith -- are apparently supposed to place your youth-wants-to-know disingenuous apologetics for Islam, no matter how lame or inane, as beyond criticism, because of that best friend who davens, that sister-in-law who cooks such fabulous kibbeh, and your own unforgettable if largely forgotten memorizing of the Baltimore Catechism when you were a kid and what you really wanted was to watch the Baltimore Colts on television. You have been semaphoring that not only are you most definitely not a Muslim (who cares?) but that you are surrounded by those who are most definitely not Muslims either, and that it must follow, therefore... -- therefore, what must follow?

At those thousands of sites where you can trade "ideas/facts/arguments" with the like-minded or unlike-minded, the kind of thing you have offered by way of ex-ungue-leonem sample would fit right in. And at the same sites, at no extra charge, you may exchange thoughts and feelings with others about what you think and especially what you feel, to your heart's content.

This site is not one of them."

[Posted November 12, 2005]

Posted by: Hugh at December 2, 2006 5:32 AM

Mr Selbourne please elaborate on how you think some of the more colorful and misguided comments on JW which are unmoderated by the way reflect the ideological views of Robert Spencer or other members of the JW staff.

Are we to take your criticism seriously when you use non-words such as world-endingness or you cherry pick statements from the comments section to try and smear those individuals who are working tirelessly to raise awareness of the global jihad and its implications for Western civilization.

You culminate in saying that London is not Londonistan yet you provide no evidence to support your claim. Why don’t you show all us lunatic posters how the demographic threat posed to Europe and the growth of Eurabia is just a conspiracy intended to mobilize the unwashed masses to initiate pogroms on the Muslim settlers now pouring in to the West.

As such your weak screed just provides ammunition to the Jihadists and their leftwing enablers. You wrote an informative article for the Times recently outlining 10 reasons why the West will loose to the Jihad. You can now add another one to that list.

Vapid commentators who rather than focusing on the real enemy berate the normal everyday man/women who have no other outlet for their frustration at creeping Islamism other than colorful posts on JW.

The article is a weak attempt to discredit your peers working in the same field who have achieved more success than yourself. From where I am sitting it almost looks like a case of sour grapes that the blogs you mention are doing a better job than yourself in raising awareness of this issue.

Posted by: km at December 2, 2006 5:49 AM

I think the article is accurate. Selbourne writes with a pompous British perspective, and Robert and Hugh, you may find that annoying, but he doesn't mis-quote you mis-assign comments to you. His readership recognizes the term 'blogsphere' as all of those general public contributors. And I think he accurately sums up the fault lines, and the degree of vitriol expressed by posters on this site. (I mean, when were the posters able to hold a decent debate on a theme with Nazeem or others?)

Posted by: protectalbion at December 2, 2006 5:53 AM

The self serving arrogance of people such as David Selbourne never ceases to amaze me. I love the fact he trys to distance himself from both "groups" as he sees them --especially the "left". Oh dear, he surely is not part of the "left"! Why he's just an honest journalist (who has a problem with grammar it seems). I on occasion have mispelled words on here as have others. But these are "comments" threads not national newspapers (where you have professional proofreaders look over copy several times supposedly).

What really bothers me is that Shelbourne completely ignores the fact that, as Robert Spencer has said, there IS a islamic jihad problem in London. And around the world! Oh and in my city of Toronto as well. Shelbourne, we had 17 muslims here try to bomb various places in the city but were intercepted by the RCMP. Did you know that? It was only this year. And there have been many such incidents around the world--luckily prevented by quick thinking police and federal agents.

The sad thing is Mr Shelbourne has so made up his mind about "us", about those scary "right wingers" (though we are not: all shades of political leanings seem to be represented here) that he has failed to pay attention, I mean pay serious attention to what we are actually saying. Have you read the Qur'an Mr. Shelbourne? Have you? I doubt it. Do you know what a hadith is? Shelbourne might answer: "well look all religions have their violent passages.." Unfortunately that overlooks the fact that not all religions are acting on them are they? ISLAM acts on them because the violent passages in the islamic writings are universal in nature and are commanded for all times for its adherents to follow and honor.

Finally, we do not 'hate' muslims here. Thats pure nonesense Mr. Shelbourne and you show your obvious bias against us by stating that, which of course is one step closer to calling us racists.
No its not MUSLIMS --its ISLAM. There are 'bad' muslims (ie good people) but 'good' muslims MUST as a matter of course follow the dictates of their faith. There is no argument about not following these dictates "literally" instead of metaphorically. The islamic writings, are straight forwared in their commands as to what jihad is, what apostasy is, what age Aeisha was when she married Muhammed (nine), what Muhammed did to those who were silly enough to trust his peace treaties. And as Robert Spencer has pointed out, since Muhammed is the 'perfect' example of man, its natural that his followers, his devouted ones, follow his example.

People like Shelbourne have no interest in real journalism or research. They like to see their name in the byline, they like to see themselves as "professionals". But they are anything of the sort. The don't have the courage or fortitude or honesty it takes to find out the truth (because the truth is often scary and not very politically correct). That is the real reason they hate Robert Spencer and others like him. No doubt it takes a great deal of courage to do what Spencer does daily on here, and to research and publish the books he does. Why does he do it Mr Shelbourne? The money? Really? He lives in the USA --do you think he could not have researched and wrote about something less...dangerous. Real jihadists have mentioned Spencer ON their videos.
And he has to practically live in hiding. So obviously its not the money. Perhaps its the fact that he researched a topic and found out the truth and, caring about Western Civilization, and the life we have in the free world he wants to warn us and inform us of a very real, a very serious enemy.
Mr Shelbourne its people like you that made deals with Hitler before WWII and came running back to England cheerfully saying "Peace in our time!" Am I being too harsh? Am I just some right wing "apple pie" (whatever the hell that is) fringe fanatic. Or am I saying the truth you do not like to hear? How many planes must crash into towers, how many beheadings , suicide bombinbs, how many subway bombings, how many riots before a person like you wakes up?
Even when Hitler was marching into Poland there were still many who wanted to appease him, who believed that the "right wingers" were wrong, they were overreacting. And we saw how that turned out. Shelbourne I suggest you start acting like a real journalist and actually pick up the Quran, and a book by Spencer or two. I suggest you open your eyes to what is happening around you. That you stop your smug and frankly idiotic belief in your own impartiality. Its a fantasy of a juvenile and angry mind. A journalist degree does not an honest reporter make. There is a very real threat of a very real war ahead Shelbourne. And this time it will be fought within the borders of the free world. We have a mad man in Iran who wants nuclear capability for alleged "peaceful purposes" even though he doesn't need it since his country is swimming in oil wells. A mad man whose belief in Islam tells him he MUST support a Islamic jihad on our Western civilization. Does he really have to get to the point where a nuclear warhead detonates in Israel before you "get it"? How about in dirty bomb in a suitcase in England? After reading your article and a few of your others Mr. Shelbourne I honestly think you will be one of those poor souls who will be in a bunker under a bed somewhere saying "problem what problem?" as Islamic chaos erupts around your country. You sir are the epitomy of a fool. And that is not an insult. Sadly, its all too true.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at December 2, 2006 6:12 AM

"(I mean, when were the posters able to hold a decent debate on a theme with Nazeem or others?"
posted by protectalbion

--
Decent debat? Naseem has never come on here and given anything remotely resembling a "decent debate". All she does is post demanding we immediately convert to Ahmadiyaa Islam since Islams domination is "inevitable". I should know. I was one of the posters she argued with for a long thread about that in which I told her since there was no chance of such a thing occuring why not call for Ahymadiyaa to be the new Islam (since it has no jihad apparently) but instead of "debating" she had nothing of value to add except to demand we all convert. How is that a rational position at all?

As for misquoting or missasigning comments to Robert Spencer, Shelbourne doesn't actually quote him at all yet accuses him of agreeing with comments that he has not stated support for. And that is worse then misquoting because you cannot defend against a general accusation that is not tied to a particular statement one can show was said or not said. Its a sophomoric and cowardly tactic used by Shelbourne.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at December 2, 2006 6:23 AM

This might tie in what Selbourne had to say about the internet. Last night on Mr.Savage's talk radio had a spoof concerning some journalist get together. These journalist were bemoaining their failures on reporting the news, and blaming the interent and talk radio. What escaped their assesment of the loss of audience from the papers and TV news, is that their reporting has become so slanted, and PC that people are disgusted with these news sources. The audience want real news, and the truth, and that is why we chose talk radio and the internet.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at December 2, 2006 6:26 AM

ZenaWarriorPrincess

I agree completely with that. As a matter of fact the book Shelbourne wrote, makes a big show of proclaiming to be 'impartial' and 'without political bias'. It's hilarious because every page screams bias. In the end he implies that Islam is growing because it's sure of it morality than Christianity in the West. And that Islamic fundamentalism has more to do with injustices against the Islamic world rather than the fact the time has come (as history always shows us) that Islam's ultimate political goal can be sought for now that the Islamic world has recovered from its defeats in the past. With Saudi money backing Wahhabism and Iranian madmen, and so on--Islamic conservatives see their goal as more viable in the current climate. Actually Shelbourne seems blissfully unaware that evangelical Christianity is the fastest growing religion in the world right now, not Islam. However media loves to ignore that fact. As for Islam its the second fastest growing but it achieves its growth artificially by threats, by Shiaria law (not allowing official apostasy) and by silencing critics even ones drawing cartoons for crying out loud. Becaus Shelbourne is very biased his book suffers for it, on so its pretense of being neutral is revealed to be a facade.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at December 2, 2006 6:44 AM

If I didn't know I was right, I might be offended by some of the mud-slinging at myself and other comments posters.

However, all I do is smile every time I read the following type of newsprint: "Yet blog-site contributors’ opinions, threats and predictions — expressed in large volume on such sites as jihadwatch, littlegreenfootballs or Daily Kos — merit increasing attention for what they reveal of the temper of our times."

Amidst the mishmash of comments you can find some real gems. I think anyone that thinks otherwise hasn't been reading enough here at Jihad Watch in the comments sections, has a bias coming in, or just isn't intelligent or patient enough to decipher what's truly being said and why.

My slant has been clear, educated and unwavering for the most part, though I openly admit my continued willingness to temper my own ideas when given new information. I'm in good company in that regard.

Islam is the enemy. If that statement offends someone, just think about what would be happening in this country if I couldn't say anything offensive to Islam. Now, think about how many groups are already trying/lobbying/media blitzing/staging incidents to make that possibility a reality (i.e. CAIR, the flying imams, etc.).

You can choose to disagree with me, but don't for one instant suggest that your opposite opinion is anymore correct than my own. History will prove which side of wrong and right I fall upon, and nothing else.

Enough said? Not even close, but enough for today.

Posted by: Foehammer at December 2, 2006 6:47 AM

"History will prove which side of wrong and right I fall upon, and nothing else."
posted by Foehammer

History--what people like Shelbourne fail to learn from.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at December 2, 2006 6:51 AM

THE ALLIES SHALL WIN wrote:

But these are "comments" threads not national newspapers (where you have professional proofreaders look over copy several times supposedly).

--

You would be shocked at how many reporters have a difficult time spelling and how many copy editors can not edit well. I once moonlighted for some college credit as a third-string copy editor at a major U.S. newspaper. I found errors in 90% of the articles that I received each and every day and I wasn't getting paid. Journalists are notorious parrots and Lois Lane's habitual misspellings is a condition rooted in fact, not fiction.

Posted by: Foehammer at December 2, 2006 7:07 AM

Foehammer. I worked for a book publisher and they were very meticulous --I guess-- a newspaper is different because it's here today gone tomorrow so their errors are forgotten quickly!

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at December 2, 2006 7:17 AM

PS I remember an interview of a DC Comics editor who said in the 1950s they had writer who worked for the Times and her editing was so sloppy that they had Lois emulate that. So you are right on lol. (It was a TV tribute to Superman and DC.)

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at December 2, 2006 7:26 AM

I was hoping that you wouldn't react to his article - it has been tossed around on a few other blogs. Selbourne has credibility - all he is doing with that article is a "Wow, look at this" commentary - on blog comments. He never talks about the post or about what the comments are all about.
Ridiculing the comments is a little insulting - ignoring the context is pointless.
I really don't know why he decided to deride blog commenters. But he seems a little bit egotistical with that article.
I guess he's having a difficult time coming to terms with the whole blogging thing - between the fauxtography and the AP inventing stories that blogs challenged - and won.

Posted by: madconductor at December 2, 2006 7:30 AM

If it was an article designed to say the obvious -- that when comments anywhare are thrown open and unmoderated, all kinds of things are likely to be said -- then that is obvious and did not need saying. It was more than that; such a clear distinction was not made and no attempt to make distinctions among these supposedly "all left all the time" or "all right all the time" websites was made. This website cannot be pegged quite so easily. And that disturbs many, including some former visitors here.

Posted by: Hugh at December 2, 2006 8:52 AM

protectalbion's criticism above of Jihad Watch for failing to engage Naseem in debate was written at 5:53 a.m., more than 20 minutes after Hugh's post further above definitively articulated the inappropriateness of such activities here.

Posted by: remote_control at December 2, 2006 9:23 AM

Nowhere else, among all the websites devoted to the matter of Islam, is there such an un-pigeonholable site. Nowhere else has there been such consistent and deadly (because unanwerable) criticism of the war in Iraq and the man I have called twice in the last day Captain Queeg. Not exactly right-wing loyalists. Nor left-wing either.

Unflappably unpigeonholeable and neither favoring the left wing nor the right wing, Jihad Watch soars above the rest.

Posted by: remote_control at December 2, 2006 9:25 AM

Peters later informs us that “as a believing Christian, I must acknowledge that there’s nothing in the Koran as merciless as God’s behavior in the Book of Joshua.” Sure, Ralph. That’s why there’s a global terrorist movement of Christians committing violent acts and justifying them by quoting the Book of Joshua.

What part of the above is it that muslims do not
understand?
Will they ever realise THEY are thier own worst
enemy , every atrocity committed and denial issued condemns them and strengthens us ?
Should we go into some sort of suspended
animation and wait for them to evolve ?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2482831,00.html

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at December 2, 2006 10:32 AM

"A little 'reason' from the 'expert' would have been welcome. But in this piece it was not forthcoming. Instead, we get yet another example of the shoddy work that passes for analysis all too often in the mainstream media." Posted by Robert

I agree. It comes across as having been very easy to write. Either Selbourne (or a junior such as a co-op student) visited the comments sections of a few blogs, copied the most outrageous comments he found, and then Selbourne strung them all together with some flippant "analysis".

My guess is that he already knew what his position would be and found quotes to support it. I could find quotes to support just about any opinion piece about the blogosphere: it's: left, right, racist, anti-racist, pro-jihad, anti-jihad, apathetic, highly educated, illiterate, etc.

It strikes me as lazy.

This is the kind of article that newspapers use as filler when they have an empty space. They can grab an article or photo that is not deadline-oriented and just plug it in. It's usually fluff.

Of course, the article quoted above is not innocuous.

Posted by: Josephine at December 2, 2006 10:58 AM

Wow, David! No one on the "right" can spell "fascist"? The "right's" spelling is "less good"?

What`s the very epitome of fascism?...ISLAM !
Islam is a fascist cult , not a religion.
I`m sorry but you have to call a spade a spade
and if you are taken in by Muhammad`s lies then
you are just an indoctrinated zombie !

FASCISM>>>>>
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

CULT>>>>>
a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside
of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at December 2, 2006 11:06 AM

Now I shall engage in the same thoughtful analysis that David Selbourne has undertaken regarding this site.

David Selbourne is an idiot.

Analysis complete.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 2, 2006 11:41 AM

Selbourne never defines "reason" and never states what it is good for. If we are in a war of survival, isn't it "reasonable" to want to fight back? And, to push the analysis back further, isn't it "reasonable" to consider a war in which an entire civilization has arrayed itself against ours as a "war of survival"? Therefore, assuming for the moment that Selbourne is correct in his characterization of blogs as either "left" or "right", whatever is said in the comments section of right-leaning blogs, an overall assessment of the situation has to conclude that the "right" blogs are fundamentally "reasonable" in their approach to the issue of Islam.

That said, Hugh is definitely correct when he says this site isn't right or left. It's Western or even ecumenical, in my mind. The idea that debates between the left and right in the West are, or could be, "existential" matters, e.g., in the same way that the "debate" between Sunni and Shia Islam is "existential", has been pretty much taken off the table over the past two centuries or so since the American and French revolutions, albeit not without a lot of blood being shed, including WWI and WWII. JW represents the intellecutal perspective of the "lessons learned" in those centuries of Western "civil war".

One of those lessons is the ability to recognize forces which would undo that progress, which Islam most definitely is. If the West were to succumb to Islam, we (i.e. the Western peoples) be thrown back into an era of perpetual war, which we've only just emerged from, sadly, as the diverging strands of Islam, unable to resolve their theological differences, unable to channel them into electoral processes and unable to "agree to disagree", continued their centuries-long battles in the streets of the West.

The irony of the current Western division over whether succumbing to Islam is even a possibility is that were this succumbing to actually take place or draw so close to taking place as to be a "fait accompli", Westerners would howl like banshees at the level of restrictions placed on them or about to be placed on them. Restrictions that would make the Patriot Act pale in comparison, of course. We'd also see that the fundamental differences at the source of these wars were BS, in the sense that it is of zero importance to the future of humanity which school of Islam has the correct interpretation of the Koran. But, it would be too late to act on that knowledge. The sad fact is that not enough Westerners can see the "end game" implied in the current scenario and thus play for minor stakes instead of the bigger picture.

I've been formulating a corollary to Santayana's dictum that "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it", which is that "Those who do not forget history are condemned to watch others repeat it". I make no strong claim to originality in this statement, only that it sums up my (and many posters on JW, from the comments I see posted here) current state of mind.

Posted by: venividivici at December 2, 2006 11:57 AM

I consider myself fortunate to have found JW via Daniel Pipes. I must confess I have never heard of this selbourne person. Of course I am one of those Americans that in my youth subscribed to several newspapers, I regularly received Time, Newsweek and what used to be my favorite US News and World Report among others. Some decades ago I began to realize that there was something wrong with their writings. I knew America was a great country but after I read any of these publications I was left feeling that maybe we weren’t. After careful consideration(20 or 30 seconds) I realized, these people think America is responsible for all the worlds problems, I don’t need to read this bologna, so out to the trash with it. In those days many had radios in their garages with witch we communicated but that was nothing like the Internet. Decades passed and I had no avenues to explore in the search for the truth. And then the Internet began to grow, at first I was hesitant and just read other peoples posts/articles/comments. I started to realize there were millions out there who were thinking the same things, asking the same questions I was. Sure I have encountered bad spelling occasionally, but I generally attribute that to the public school systems failures. I also use the traitor word here and there, I like the word, it cuts deep as you can see. I am 99.99% sure that the comment about our oil under their sand was a joke but not to him, wunderlick that he is. He and his were for decades Kings among all men, living in luxury where ever they traveled, sought after by all for what I saw as propaganda purposes. They were willingly used, would say anything, write anything they wanted to at the time, all for a buck. Now he is feeling marginalized with good reason, the Internet is making his opinion less relevant, if a little known msmer was ever relevant at all. I knew nothing about the particulars of their ideology when I first found this site and I thank Robert, Hugh, Marisol and every poster/contributor for my education. He did have the sense to list JW first and that is telling, considering the other two have their own private war going on. Debating naseem? I have tried but it never wants to engage me. I wonder why not? The Internet has opened up a completely new world for me, filled with people expressing through free speech their thoughts and ideas and he does not like losing a captive audience. Tough, get used to it, we will continue to grow as they descend deeper into thought control through the media. He doesn’t have a problem with others being less educated than himself, he prefers it. How better to misinform his followers without concern of being exposed for what he is? Keep up the great work everyone, as I have said and most already know, the net is the best weapon we have today.

Posted by: tgusa at December 2, 2006 12:04 PM

Selborne wrote that the right's spelling is less good than the left, and thus spells fascist as facist. However, a Google search reveals that DailyKos users make the spelling mistake or typo far more often:
3 Google results for facist* on Jihadwatch.org

349 Google results for facist* on littlegreenfootballs.com

7500 Google results for facist* on dailykos.com

Posted by: markjames at December 2, 2006 12:24 PM

There are pictures of people jumping from WTC on 9-11. They didn't have time to look up references or use spellcheck.net so that they could discuss what was happening to them using polite language and proper spelling.

Picture of man in mid air outside WTC

Which of the following statements would this man agree with? Which ones would he want to sign his name to? These are from the Selbourne column.

"There is a world, increasingly driven by unreason, in which voices in the wilderness denounce each other as ‘traitors’, cry out that ‘all I want is no more Islam near me’,"

" It is a world of which the ‘MSM’, or ‘mainstream media’, knows too little."

"Roughly speaking, the blogging ‘right’ is anti-Muslim (and not just anti-Islam), pro-gun and apple pie, anti-‘big government’ and ‘liberals’ in DC, and generally pro-British, anti-European and pro-Israel;"

"for most of this ‘right’, all-out war has been declared on ‘the West’ by Islam and its ‘terrorists’"

"as Islam’s political fortunes have advanced, irrationality in response to this advance has spread "

"They are variously said to be ‘dumber than dirt’, ‘godless savages’, ‘losers’, even ‘Koranimals’. As for Islam, or ‘Islamania’, it is (for example) a ‘misogynistic genocidal cult’ which allegedly worships a ‘false pagan moon-rock god of death’ and is ‘eating at the insides of every nation until it is dead’."

"To Montesquieu in 1748, Islam’s ‘destructive spirit’ spoke ‘only by the sword’; to Schopenhauer in 1819, the Koran was a ‘wretched book’ in which he had ‘not been able to discover one single idea of value’; to De Tocqueville in 1843, Islam was ‘deadly’, ‘to be feared’ and a ‘form of decadence’."

"A blog-poster declares that the ‘left’ and ‘liberals’ have ‘done nothing but grovel at the feet of Islamofascists’; another that the entire American ‘left’ — who are no better than ‘tares in the midst of wheat’ — are ‘killing this country’."

"For some, it is ‘the West’ which is done for. ‘We have allowed Islam in. We have sentenced ourselves to death’ is its voice. "

" London is no more ‘Londonistan’"

than New York is in the above picture.

Would the above man agree with the coverage on TV of 9-11 that day? Would he agree with all the PC statements? Why are PC statements good? Is it possible the man above would consider that PC statements on 9-11 were disrespectful of him? Would he think he deserved the truth to be said when people replayed the picture of him falling?

Did he think his photo would be the backdrop to some TV or MSM person saying polite PC things about the cause of his death?

Was he thinking, I hope no one says any of the things in quote marks above? Or was he thinking that he had been betrayed by the PC mindset, the MSM and the government?

Many victims just don't have the presence of mind to appropriately state their grievance in PC terms. What about people who are not as educated as Mr. Selbourne? Must they be mute? Can they not speak for themselves? Are their emotions meaningless or unimportant because they can't be expressed at the Selbourne level of indirection?

History is about change. Most of that change has losers, some are complete losers.

Most victims in history don't have time to look up a scholarly text to cite statistics. Most victims can't do a statistical test on how many people really are behind what is done to them. However, we do. So let's review some.

In 1914, Asia Minor or Anatolia was 40 percent non-Muslim. Now its less than 2 percent.

What about the statement of Talaat Bey during the genocide of the Christians in Turkey? How does that stack up on the Selbourne analysis?

From January 13, 1915 New York Times:

“Talaat Bey, the Minister of the Interior, has stated to the Councillor of the Greek Patriarchate that in Turkey henceforth there will be room only for Turks. While he was profuse in assurance to the Greek Minister regarding the cessation of anti- Greek persecutions, no real amelioration of the situation is perceptible.”

Does Talaat Bey's statement fall into the "lunatic fringe" category? Asia Minor went from 40 percent non-Muslim in 1914 to less than 2 percent today. Constantinople was over 50 percent Christian as Robert pointed out earlier and is now in the 1 to 2 percent range. So what Talaat Bey said happened.

Sometimes what the "lunatic fringe" says is what happens. How many times has that happened? Is it 1938? Did Talaat Bey really mean it? Or was he too educated and sophisticated to mean it?

Links with references on above stats and quotes

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 2, 2006 12:39 PM

Which witch is which? I do it as well! Yes I have a spellchecker but I never use it. The darn thing keeps capitalizing words I don’t want capitalized such as koran.
Microsoft word = dhimmi?
Hmmmm.

Posted by: tgusa at December 2, 2006 1:23 PM

Nice to see Selbourne indulge in exactly what he falsely accuses the "right" of doing with Islam; taking the most extremist statements by a few individuals and attributing them the entire "right". So somehow anyone that visits jihadwatch are believers in every unmoderated comment, but muslims, who are sworn to believe that every word of the Koran is the word of God and to imitate Muhammad the perfect man, don't believe in jihad against unbelivers? And anyone who visits any of these sites has the time to read all the postings, but Muslims don't have the time to read enough Koran and Hadith to be aware of the "pillar" of Jihad? Yeah, OK....

As far as Peters, I like parts of some of his articles (for example on assisting Kurds), but if he thinks America can curry favor with the Muslims by acting as their protector in Europe, Clinton already tried that. American body count since then by terrorists associated with the Serbs we bombed -ZERO. American body count by terrorists associated with the people we helped in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo- several thousand and counting... Every time I see Bush with Al-Maliki talking about building friendship with the Iraqi people I wince - does that mean we can look forward to Iraqis flying planes into our buildings like our other wonderful friends the Saudis?

Selburne is just ticked because we are not supposed to think for ourselves, but just think whatever he and the other idiots in the MSM tell us to think. But hey, he's a great speller!

Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at December 2, 2006 3:42 PM

Munich Debate October 1938

”
We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude which has befallen Great Britain and France. Do not let us blind ourselves to that. It must now be accepted that all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe will make the best terms they can with the triumphant Nazi Power. The system of alliances in Central Europe upon which France has relied for her safety has been swept away, and I can see no means by which it can be reconstituted.

The road down the Danube Valley to the Black Sea, the resources of corn and oil, the road which leads as far as Turkey, has been opened. In fact, if not in form, it seems to me that all those countries of Middle Europe, all those Danubian countries, will, one after another, be drawn into this vast system of power politics–not only power military politics but power economic politics–radiating from Berlin, and I believe this can be achieved quite smoothly and swiftly and will not necessarily entail the firing of a single shot. If you wish to survey the havoc of the foreign policy of Britain and France, look at what is happening and is recorded each day in the columns of the “Times…

We are talking about countries which are a long way off and of which, as the Prime Minister might say, we know nothing. [Interruption.] The noble Lady says that that very harmless allusion is–

VISCOUNTESS ASTOR: Rude.

MR. CHURCHILL: She must very recently have been receiving her finishing course in manners. What will be the position, I want to know, of France and England this year and the year afterwards?

Scroll to bottom for House debate October 1938

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Posted by: Old Atlantic at December 2, 2006 4:25 PM

Mssr's Fitzgerald and Spencer, I agree with protectalbion.. Mr Selbourne did not attack or criticize you, but his criticisms of the trolls and morons who infest the blogosphere is accurate...

As I stated many times. I'm a Goldwater Conservative, which makes me in modern terms a liberal, because those who call themselves conservative today are radicals, cum fascist, and in many cases fascistic theocrats.

And it takes a tremendous amount of will power to remain an aware anti Jihadi, indeed an "Islamophobe" just reading the responses of LGF'ers, FReepers and Jihad Watchers as they irrationally and childishly lash out in blanket form against "liberals" and "leftists"..

On another forum (This One I have had to contend with right wing Catholics and Christians who sympathize with and defend all muslims (HAMAS, Hizballah, Taliban, Iran, etc) because they share their anti secular, anti liberal, anti leftist views.

And in fact, on this forum there are few posters who agree with the Muslims and would align with them, (as Ann Coulter) does in pursuit of that divisive, ruinous and phoney culture war so beloved of the "Christian Right", the Falwells, Robertsons, Dobsons, Coulters, Oreillys, Limpballs..and in that direction lies ruination and triumph of the muslims.

Posted by: Nariz at December 2, 2006 5:35 PM

or goes on a tear about "liberals" or on the other side "Bush as a tool of the oil companies. Posted by Hugh

I would think that saying Bush is synonymous with the oil companies is more accurate than being a tool of the oil companies.. then again how can we forget his "Blue Ribbon" energy panel, put together by that other oil man ..Cheney and chaired by Len Lay of ENRON infamy..

Posted by: Nariz at December 2, 2006 5:44 PM

The paradox & irony about the Left and Right is that, while certain aspects of the belief system that underpins the Right tend to resemble Islamic puritanism more than the Left, it is the Right by and large (with a few glaring and troubling exceptions) that is leading the charge against Islam.

Bottom Line: it is a far more benign error for a Right-winger to sympathize -- if only vaguely and accidentally -- with certain aspects of the ethos of Islamic puritanism, than it is for a Leftist to bend over backwards (as too many of them do) sugarcoating and whitewashing the evils of Islam in the name of PC Multiculturalism and anti-Westernism.

Posted by: remote_control at December 2, 2006 5:52 PM

Selbourne is all wet. I was channeling Whitiker Chambers last night and he told me that Muslims were aliens from the planet Mus. They're here to suck the fluid from our eyeballs and collect our ear-wax. That's why they're so keen on chopping off heads. The religion thing is just a cover.

Gotta go. My sarcasm circuit is overheating.

Posted by: USBeast at December 2, 2006 6:10 PM

Nariz,

"And it takes a tremendous amount of will power to remain an aware anti Jihadi, indeed an "Islamophobe" just reading the responses of LGF'ers, FReepers and Jihad Watchers as they irrationally and childishly lash out in blanket form against "liberals" and "leftists""

So why not address the more substantive critiques of liberals and leftists? If you are so sure that leftist liberalism is the correct political ideology, it seems to me that the people you need to convince are the rightist ideologues who actually organize the right side of the blogosphere (e.g. Robert Spencer et al.) and provide a platform for the "lumpen rightotariat" to vent its "childishness" and "irrationality". If your characterization of the "irrational" and "childish" anti-jihadis is correct, they will be unable to organize effectively in the absence of their anti-jihadi leadership. Thus, your problem will be solved not by whining about comments at LGF but by convincing Charles that the left has something to offer in the debate about how to best deal with Islam, leading him to change the orientation of his site in a liberal direction. My guess is that you'll have a problem doing so because, frankly, Charles has probably thought longer and harder about this than you have, at least from what I've seen of your postings here versus Charles' commentary at his site.

This, I have come to see over the years, is very typical of leftists in general. All talk about how intelligent they are, but unable to persuade others of equal or greater intelligence.

Posted by: venividivici at December 2, 2006 6:41 PM

According to Selbourne, the "blogging right" is "generally pro-British". If only!

Posted by: JFGR at December 2, 2006 8:32 PM