| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Lately it seems to have become fashionable to attribute to me or to Jihad Watch positions that I don't hold. In a way this is a tribute to the success of our work, as we have become a symbol of something, although no one seems exactly sure of what. Recently, Dinesh D'Souza, Karen Armstrong, the Asia Times columnist who calls himself "Spengler," and Cathy Young, a columnist for the misnamed "Reason" magazine, have indulged in this sport. And now National Review's born-again atheist, John Derbyshire, has joined the fun. At "The Corner" this morning, Derbyshire adds this aside in the course of an otherwise worthwhile observation about Nation of Islam members being included in the Pew Research Center poll of Muslims in America:
Solution-wise, none of the policies proposed by "separationists"—for example, bribing foreign Muslims to leave the U.S.A., preventing further Muslim immigration—is relevant. Nation of Islam is here, and has no place to go.
The word "separationists" links to Jihad Watch. Now search for the word "separationists" at Jihad Watch. Nothing. "Separationism"? Nope, nada. All you'll turn up is this post itself. Apart from the merits or lack thereof of "separationism," which I believe is a proposal advocated at some other sites, it is strange, is it not, that the site Derb chose as his sole link for it has never mentioned it at all, until now?
Derb then explains "separationism" as involving "bribing foreign Muslims to leave the U.S.A." and "preventing further Muslim immigration." The first of these is absurd, and I have never heard of anyone advocating it, though someone may. I certainly don't. As for the second, it is eminently sensible, since no Muslim group anywhere in the world has pronounced takfir on Osama bin Laden and his ilk -- that is, ruled them out of Islam -- and so there is no reliable way to distinguish peaceful Muslims from actual and potential jihadists. But at the same time it is fraught with difficulties, some of which I discuss here. In any case, before it can even be discussed intelligently in the public sphere, there has to be a significant increase in public awareness about the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism, and if anything, at this point we're generally going in the opposite direction on that.
So Derb, in sum, attributes to us a label we do not use and a position that we do not hold. Of course, this is the guy who invoked Muhammad Atta as an example of how religion did not ennoble one in the middle of a discussion that was otherwise completely about Christianity, and who thinks Karen Armstrong's fantasy-ridden and hagiographical biography of Muhammad is worth reading, so perhaps I shouldn't expect better.
UPDATE: In a new Corner entry, Derb quotes a secondary source to establish positions held by Hugh Fitzgerald about Muslim immigration, although that is not remotely the point of controversy here, since I call immigration restrictions "eminently sensible" above. Since he has had his own conflicts with that source, it is peculiar that he here relies on his summary as accurate. He also goes on to suggest that Hugh, and I also, I guess, ought to believe in bribing Muslims to leave the West even if we don't, because he, Derb, thinks it follows from what we do believe. That's what passes for high-level analysis these days, I suppose.
Posted by Robert at May 23, 2007 11:17 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Robert,
So many people can't comprehend jihad.
Is it any wonder they can't comprehend what jihadwatch is about?
Posted by: LoneRanger![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 23, 2007 11:49 AM
Mr. Spencer sir, the reason they are linking you to seperatism is a much more clever plan.
This generation of Muslims in the west now seek what certain African Americans like Farrakhan were after in payments to either stay or leave America. It is deliberate to link it to Jihad Watch as therefore since you represent a "right wing" type of following the right wing will sign off on this trillion dollar plan.
It is extortion in pure form. If the west doesn't want Muslims, then the west can pay them each a few million dollars so they can live in luxury.
This is akin to the worship tax, but is quite sadistic in wanting to bankrupt the west, take the west's money and then they will once only infidels remain use nuclear weapons and murder the rest.
You are the target as they know very well these "writers of propaganda" shilling for globalist cartels that if Jihad Watch has signed off on paying Muslims to leave then Keith Ellison only needs to sponsor a bill and voila it is al Qaeda policy.
This should show up in the next Zawahiri tape in addition to Helter Skelter of Black Americans there will be a new Islamic call for blacks and all Muslims to be paid trillions as reparations and sufferage payments.
at May 23, 2007 11:54 AM
See posting by Lawrence Auster:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html
Posted by: Infidel33 at May 23, 2007 11:54 AM
"...Recently, Dinesh D'Souza, Karen Armstrong, the Asia Times columnist who calls himself "Spengler," and Cathy Young, a columnist for the misnamed "Reason" magazine, have indulged in this sport...."
...but of course, these are the types of people who love the sound of their own voice....
at May 23, 2007 11:55 AM
Yep, nobody said the fight for Good or Truth or Love would ever be easy.
And yet, if we don't fight for any of those things, what kind of people are we? The purveyors of lies that wish to make themselves "feel good today", are just cheapening themselves, little more than literary whores, and to them I simply say this:
Souls understand their own failures.
Posted by: Foehammer at May 23, 2007 12:04 PM
I just saw the Auster link. If they were honest, they would link to Lawrence Auster's site instead of J Watch. In fact, I remember a little scuffle between Mr Spencer and Mr Auster a few months back. But that is life as a scholar outside the mainstream. Hopefully it's not too lonely for Mr. Spencer.
Also, I sense that some people may secretly agree with Mr. Spencer but don't or can't say it out loud since a so-called right winger (Mr. Spencer a right winger? Never!) is treated like they have leprosy, and to agree with a right winger is the worst thing possible for them.
Posted by: wrathofasma at May 23, 2007 12:08 PM
"bribing foreign Muslims to leave the U.S.A."
Yes that is a new one. Nobody who runs this site ever pushed such a silly idea. In fact I have never seen a comment (which is saying something) on this site has said something so stupid.
Has he even looked at the site except to get the link?
In fact this is the first time I have ever heard anybody (anywhere) say such a thing. Considering the sites I have trolled that is saying alot.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 23, 2007 12:17 PM
"bribing foreign Muslims to leave the U.S.A."
....would that be like Don Corleone making them an offer they cannot refuse?...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at May 23, 2007 12:22 PM
If we give them free Korans to return to Mecca, is that considers a "bribe"?
I prefer "emolument".
Or "compensation".
Bribe sounds so... Mohammedan.
Like "jizya" (the bribe which infidels must pay to Muslims for "protection"... from Muslims).
If a bribe would work, I'd be all for it.
Because they are not compatable with a secular state.
By virtue of their expansionistic, imperialistic, terroristic dogmas.
Ensconced in the "undoubtable" (under threat of death) Koran.
Suras 9:5, and others, specifically.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 23, 2007 12:26 PM
Mr Spencer, I thought - given the 'born-again atheist business - this might be a good idea to sound your opinions on what has been termed 'The New Atheism'. Because it seems like some of these characters are valuable allies.
I mean, what do you call someone who is in favour of income redistribution, gay marriage, and extending the role of the state - and also says 'We are at war with Islam', and is harshly critical of it in, of all places, the Huffington Post?
Well, Sam Harris actually.
Here is one of his quotes:
"It is time we recognized—and obliged the Muslim world to recognize—that “Muslim extremism” is not extreme among Muslims. Mainstream Islam itself represents an extremist rejection of intellectual honesty, gender equality, secular politics and genuine pluralism."
And here is some of his stuff in the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions-ii_b_8683.html
The fact is that anyone who reads his book - The End of Faith - will have his illusions about Islam brutally shattered. And because he is a leftist, he reaches audiences that, say JihadWatch, might not.
So, I would very much value your views on this.
Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal
at May 23, 2007 12:28 PM
Scripture warns us to seperate from Muhammadans:
"Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.""
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2021:10-14;%20Galatians%204:22-30
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 12:31 PM
Robert,
You wrote: "And now National Review's born-again atheist, John Derbyshire, has joined the fun."
Derbyshire is not an atheist. He calls himself a "Mysterian", and says he believes in a "Critical God." He is "totally agnostic" on the question of an afterlife. He expresses what appear to be features of agnosticism and deism. He's certainly not an atheist.
In the article to which you linked regarding his Atta quip, Derbyshire wrote:
"...My God is at, or possibly just is, one pole of the great two-poled mystery of everything: the origin of the universe, which passeth all human understanding. He is the Creator. Since He was present in the cosmos then, I assume He is now (or “now,” since He is obviously outside spacetime); and since I can apprehend Him, I assume He is aware of me. The two poles of mystery, the Him and the Me (I mean, the invidual human consciousness, the I, the Me — that’s the second pole) are in contact somehow, and may actually be the same thing, as is hinted at by some by some religious teachers outside Christianity. I am, in short, a Mysterian."
Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 23, 2007 12:45 PM
Fanusi Khiyal:
In the Jihad Watch FAQ, which is here ( http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/ ) I say this:
"I envision Jihad Watch as an opportunity for all the actual and potential victims of jihad violence and oppression -- Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, secular Muslims, atheists, whatever -- to join together to defend universal human rights. There are many things about which we all disagree, but at this point we need to unite simply in order to survive. We can sort out our disagreements later."
I stand by that. I don't object to Derbyshire's atheism in the context of Jihad Watch, but only to the moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam he implied with his invocation of Atta. As I explain in my forthcoming book, I believe such moral equivalence to be counterproductive to our defense against the jihad.
Khaybar:
Sure, a "Mysterian." Whatever.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at May 23, 2007 12:51 PM
I do think we should be separate, a culture that is determined to inflict it's 7th century beliefs on everybody else should be contained. The qur'an teaches that moslems are superior people, and the "other" are to be subservient. How can that be allowed into free society? It is a recipe for disaster...just wait until they have the population advantage, then we will see sharia applied little by little (frog, pot, boiling water?). Why is self-preservation a bad thing these days?
Posted by: interestinconundrum at May 23, 2007 12:55 PM
More scriptural support for seperationism (from muhammadans)
11 The angel of the LORD also said to her:
"You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him Ishmael, [a]
for the LORD has heard of your misery.
12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."
http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Genesis+16&version=31
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at May 23, 2007 1:00 PM
John Derbyshire said
bribing foreign Muslims to leave the U.S.A.
I, a mere poster unassociated with JW/DW, have posted in the past, not on JW/DW but other unrelated pro-Israel blogs, advocating that it would be financially cheaper for Israel (with the help of the Arab world, UN, EU, etc.) to pay for the humane repatriation of the "Palestinians" living in Israel. Considering the billions that are getting paid to support the "Palestinians" in situ, a one time payment to allow them to get back on their feet and live productive lives in their countries of origin makes sense, to me (a lifelong Democrat and apparently an "extreme right-winger") at least.
Maybe that's what Derbyshire meant.
Posted by: special_guest at May 23, 2007 1:42 PM
Robert,
I've noted before that National Review has proven itself to be at best anti-anti-jihadist, and at worst pro-jihadist. It's sad to say that this formerly conservative magazine is now harmful to our country and conservatism in general.
First, NR ousted Anne Coulter for saying that we should attack terrorist countries, kill their leaders and convert them to non-jihadist religions. You might think their concern was Catholic, an unjust war and unjust killings. But they're bloodthirsty and whole-heartedly endorse unjust wars. No, they were upset that Coulter opposes jihad.
Second, NR jumps when Hamas-aligned CAIR says leap. They pulled book ads from their site because an organization with proven links to Islamic terrorism asked them to.
Third, they shamelessly pushed the bitterly anti-American views of Dinesh D'Souza, giving him endless space to push his teaching that America should relax in the War on Terror, and that Islam poses no innate threat to us. This was one of the worst offenses by NR.
Fourth, most recently, Derb admitted that the NR writers are Islamophiles.
In sum, NR has proven itself hostile to those who oppose terrorism, and has willingly acted to make our country more dangerous. The best of the crew there are surrender monkeys, believing we have no choice but to buckle before the terrorists because the number of muslims worldwide is too high. The worst are actively working to deceive, aid and abet. Derb, Lowry, et al. should be ashamed of themselves.
Menetheos
Posted by: Menetheos at May 23, 2007 1:52 PM
There is a radical difference between the method of thinking that goes on at JihadWatch, and that which prevails in the precincts of punditry.
Proper theory formation requires reasoning either,
-- deductively, back from the hypothesis to the observable facts, or
-- inductively, forward from the observable facts to the factors which connect them and capture their essential character.
... and in either case, following the rules of logic rigidly at every step along the path of reasoning.
What goes on at JihadWatch is proper theory formation. Dead right every time? Unlikely. Everyone usually has to review and reformulate things from time to time. Predominantly accurate and verifiable. Absolutely and reliably.
What goes on in the prettified precincts of punditry is reasoning from what are called floating abstractions and anti-concepts.
For those who don't already know, a floating abstractions is a concept that is not based on, nor can it be tied to the relevant and essential facts of observable reality in a logical way. It may sound reasonable. It may be related to some facts.
An anti-concept is a word which classifies a bunch of loosely related or even unrelated ideas under a single heading, and ties them together into a meaningless package -- normally for the purpose of making one of the elements of the package look bad by association.
Separationism is a fair example of an anti-concept. (And is much like "isolationism", "unilateralism", and "extremism" as a phony, thought-distorting idea).
As a thought try defining any of those terms in a rigorous sensible way.
As quoted above, "separationism" is a package of wanting to bribe mohammedans to leave the country and wanting to limit mohammedan immigration.
Two ideas, that can separately be debated on their merits, have been artificially tied together. This allows the speaker to argue against the more sensible, practical idea, limiting immigration, without actually mentioning it -- by attacking the less practical idea, bribing mohammedans to leave America.
It's a bit of intellectual slight of hand.
And it has nothing to do with the pursuit of the truth or the determination of right action.
Posted by: joeblough at May 23, 2007 3:24 PM
I don't really understand why the JihadWatch team is so scandalized by Derbyshire's comments. Separation is the most humane way of dealing with believers for whom the mainstream teaching is constant strife against others.
And Hugh, in particular, has been forthright in prescribing immigration limits and reversals.
There's a lot of activity in making small distinctions. Yes, you say, decent Muslims should find religious arguments against jihad, if such arguments are possible. But... (you suggest...) even the decent are clinging to a tradition that is itself a danger. Further, the JihadWatch team repeatedly mentions the inability to distinguish between moderates and non-moderates, given the tendency to lie and the likelihood of changed attitude, especially by young Muslim males or by Muslims having personal sadnesses.
So... you don't believe in separation?
Somewhere in here is why I still don't really understand men like Susser or the Muslim on the JihadWatch board. Either you see Islam as inherently dangerous or as reformable or as correct in all its supremist splendor.
I have the distinct impression that Robert and Hugh believe that Islam is inherently dangerous, though you write some words about the unlikelihood -- but possibility -- of reform.
You don't believe in separation? I think you do, more or less.
at May 23, 2007 3:28 PM
The British National Party runs on a platform of giving positive incentives to leave England. Not a new idea. And Hugh has repeatedly mentioned Benes.
Separation is a good idea, not a vile one.
Posted by: StillBreathing at May 23, 2007 3:32 PM
I must admit to a bit of confusion myself on JW/DW's position on what Derbyshire calls "separationism". Reading Robert's postings here (not today's), I sometimes feel that Robert, like Daniel Pipes, is hoping for some reformation within Islam that will save it. Reading Robert's books, that feeling is dispelled.
If Islam realistically will not be reformed, and if we are reading the same Qur'an that the Muslims read and that the jihadists quote from, I don't see how an open society such as ours can be compatible with the teachings of Islam (here's one small example of why).
I'm willing to say more openly that Islam's core values are not compatible with a free, democratic society, and that Islamic core values are in fact a danger to free, democratic societies. But that's not my name on the banner at the top, JW is not personally associated with me, I'm not posting under my real name. Robert is. I perfectly understand and respect Robert's desire to avoid getting too far ahead of the discussion. Plus, I think he's a genuinely caring and optimistic person, who hopes for the best in people.
But, it is the ideology that we're (no, I speak only for myself, make that "I'm") against, not the people. Just as many in the U.S. were against communism in the 1950's; that was not "racism" against Russians; it was a stand against an ideology. Unlike some posters here (and the current Administration), it's not my goal to bomb Islamic countries until they submit and become democratic Christian nations. They're free to live in unadulterated pure sharia for all I care. I just don't want sharia coming here. They can blow each other up all day, I just don't want them blowing us up, or flying our planes into our buildings. I don't want to turn our nation into a police-state, with a huge bureaucracy set up to spy on Muslims. I don't want us to start taking on the values of the jihadists in the vain hope that then they'll like us and stop attacking us. I simply reject their ideology. I don't want genocide by either side. The best and most humane solution for two incompatible belief systems, one of which demands that it violently supress the other, is separationism, to use Derbyshire's nomenclature. If there is a better solution (and not one based on wishful thinking), I'm open to hear it; if not, there should not be any coyness in stating it.
Posted by: special_guest at May 23, 2007 3:49 PM
I do not believe that the question at issue is whether keep some separation between mohammedan and non-mohammedan populations, or to what degree or by what means.
All those questions can be debated in their own right.
The question is the method of argument employed by the author quoted at the top.
at May 23, 2007 4:29 PM
Absurd. Either way, it won't work.
Is there any historical precedence that an enemy -and Islam is undoubtely our sworn enemy,- has been bribed or paid off to retreat?
Could anyone imagine during WWII that paying off the Nazi's to leave Poland or any other land would have done the trick?
Could anyone in his right mind imagine to bribe the Muslims to get out of Kosovo and go back to Albania or Bosnia or to Arabia?
The Germans, more than a decade ago, tried to pay off the Turkish invaders (euphemistically called 'guestworkers') with their accumulated pension 'benefits' by doubling them. Many took the money to go back to Turkey.
Most of them came back and brought more Turks with them.
An idiotic undertaking. Don't make that mistake again: Either we conquer them or they will destroy us...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 23, 2007 4:49 PM
Derb is just another spin master -- he wishes to lump all those who do not favour rampant Muslim immigration into the West as "separationists" -- the term is offensive and insulting. It's the equivalent of calling Israelis "apartheidists" because they build a fence to keep out the Arab/Muslim murderers. It's the typical smear tactics in lieu of argumentation. Just another form of name calling. (Where's "the nuance", that oh so cherished liberal value, Derb?)
Of course, people such as Derb won't normally have difficulties in discovering and accepting the fact that 25 percent of young Muslim "Americans" support suicide terrorism while simultaneously alleging that "They're Assimilated! Ja!!" As if political mass murdering in the name of a "g-d" is a long-standing American "value." Sorry, Derb, you'll only find that one in that wonderful, modern-day Religion of Barbarism aka Islam...rapidly being imported into Canada, the United States, UK, etc.
It really is the lack of an educated imagination which hamstrings the Derbs of the world. They just can't picture a local mall, school bus, playground, or theatre being the focus of a jihadist terrorist attack. It's beyond their limited mental comprehension.
Posted by: J.S. at May 23, 2007 4:56 PM
No smear, merely a word that is a shorthand description. Separation. Apartheid. Everything in its season. And the season is likely to be only after disaster, and Derb can picture it quite well.
Posted by: StillBreathing at May 23, 2007 5:06 PM
ok, stop yelling. apartheid has a racial tinge, a specific kind of separation. i take that one back.
Posted by: StillBreathing at May 23, 2007 5:07 PM
ok, stop yelling. apartheid has a racial tinge, a specific kind of separation. i take that one back.
Posted by: StillBreathing at May 23, 2007 5:07 PM
sheik yer'mami said
Most of them came back and brought more Turks with them. An idiotic undertaking. Don't make that mistake again: Either we conquer them or they will destroy us...
Paying them to leave may or may not be idiotic. Letting them come back, and bringing more with them, is definitely the idiotic part. That makes no sense, to pay them to leave, and then let them come back, with more.
What does it mean to "conquer" them? To overthrow their government? And replace it with what? One that is pro-Western and anti-Islamic, and that has the support of none of it's people? Then what happens the second after we leave?
Or does "conquer" mean going door-to-door, forcing each Muslim to give up their centuries-old religion? How do you do that? And even if you could, given that their religion allows taqiyya, how can you believe them when they say they've given it up?
Instead of us spending our time and money trying to make them like us, I'd prefer to spend our time and money making sure they can't attack us, and making sure that their values don't come here. If you want to go on some soul-saving mission to make them good people (according to our moral structure), then good luck, but first at least make sure we're safe. Which we're not. We're so busy saving the Iraqis and Afghanis, and meanwhile welcoming in more jihadists to our flight schools and truck-driving schools, and hiring them as security guards and baggage handlers and government advisers. That is also idiotic.
Posted by: special_guest at May 23, 2007 5:07 PM
I don't like the term "separationism." btw, Samuel Huntington had quite a bit to say about what the U.S. should be doing with respect to preserving U.S. culure and immigration...it was in "The Clash of Civilizations." I don't have the text handy...did he call it indigenization?
Posted by: J.S. at May 23, 2007 6:04 PM
"bribing foreign Muslims to leave the U.S.A."
Throw the s#!ts out.
They dont need bribing.
at May 23, 2007 6:05 PM
It's not so much about "separating" as it is a re-affirmation of indigenous values -- and either adopt to the indigenous values, or get the hell out! (and also, as others have noted, to Heck with the "conquering" b.s.) Let them live in their Islamo-lands all 56 of them or whatever (i don't care what they want to do there), just don't come over here.
Posted by: J.S. at May 23, 2007 6:14 PM
Is this something like separating 1st degree murderers from the general population?
I'm for it.
at May 23, 2007 6:19 PM
NO!! That's called "incarceration"...which can apply to immigrants or citizens...NUANCE!! NUANCE!! (what? you want to give the media yet another PC term to describe criminals? next, we'll be reading: "Mr. So-and-so has been convicted of first degree murder and will be separated from ordinary folks for the next little while, at tax-payers expense, but he will be appealing his "separation" and pleading for his need to "re-connect" and "normalize")
anywho, it's about Indigenous Rights. (not "separation").
Posted by: J.S. at May 23, 2007 6:34 PM
What does it mean to "conquer" them? To overthrow their government?
No. To conquer them means to destroy them, to crush them economically and ideologically. To seize the oilfields. To destroy their belief-system with relentless massive counter-propaganda. To Intern and to deport all Islamic clerics. To intern and deport every man woman child who believes in jihad. To shut down the mosques and the madrassahs, at once.
To separate physically from those who's alliance is with 'Allah' rather than with the infidel nation state.
Strange that I have to spell it out. How did any nation conquer her enemies in the past? By paying them to leave?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 23, 2007 6:41 PM
Open Secrets
Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth
1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611
2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611
3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611
4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611
5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611
6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611
7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611
8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611
$590,633,924 to $984,469,183 Voted Yes S. 2611
or abstained on S. 2611 out of just the first 8 senators.
S. 2611 is last year's immigration amnesty guest worker bill.
A Nation of Lou Dobbs Democrats
The above is what we have to fight.
Call your senator. Each day there is a new amendment. Call about the new amendments and to say to vote against the final bill. Right now is the fight. This is not a drill as Paul Nachman has commented. We are actually fighting right now for the big one.
Amendments with action this week or next
Posted by: Old Atlantic at May 23, 2007 7:25 PM
BTW this is a good time to donate to Jihad Watch and other organizations in the fight.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at May 23, 2007 7:28 PM
lol @ derbyshire...
he's as irrelevant as jimmy carter.
lol
at May 23, 2007 7:34 PM
Islam teaches first degree murder as part of its 'religious' doctrine via Kuranic verse.
Where is there 'straw' in that?
Where is there 'straw' in calling attention to that?
Or is the world playing a game of "hang the messenger" (in which the 'messenger' unfortunately is Jihad Watch).
Posted by: pythagoras at May 23, 2007 8:00 PM
A big tent means that extremely talented and creative people like Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald are able to operate as they see they should. They are doing a great deal and their own side should not be heckling them.
Everyone in this fight come to it because of their own inner vision and need to be able to follow that. They have their own view on how to take the next step, and in a big tent should be allowed to do so as they wish.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at May 23, 2007 8:05 PM
I realize someone linked it above, but...
# 1. Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.
# 2. But we cannot destroy Islam.
# 3. Nor can we democratize Islam.
# 4. Nor can we assimilate Islam.
# 5. Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.
These are the elements of "Seperationism" from Auster's website.
I have searched the web (google) and cannot find any mention of this term in the context of Jihad or Islam before Auster's use of the term. I therefore think it correct to say Auster "coined" the term.
I tend to agree with Still Breathing above. Given this definition ( no mention of bribing muslims) of Seperationsim, your writings seem to support it.
For purposes of discussion, and realizing that you do not necessarily seek to associate yourselves with the label "Separationism", Robert and/or Hugh, which, if any, of these elements would you reject as not being a view you hold about Islam?
+
at May 23, 2007 10:19 PM
sorry sp error "Separationism"
Posted by: Leave Iraq Now at May 23, 2007 10:21 PM
"...Dinesh D'Souza, Karen Armstrong, the Asia Times columnist who calls himself "Spengler," and Cathy Young, a columnist for the misnamed "Reason" magazine, have indulged in this sport".
Robert-
Except for Spengler, my hunch is most (particularly Armstrong) are "indoor cats". These are people who grasp to institutions (Armstrong, Ernst, e.g.) and live on a safe shelf. You are a moving target, not influenced by institutional style thinking, and are not afraid to stand out on the limb of some tree. It can be very scary to this type to deal with you. Their pose of indignation is a cover for their fears re themselves. Most of your critics belong in an institution, are in institutions.
Posted by: Frank at May 23, 2007 10:25 PM
Robert,
"Khaybar:
Sure, a "Mysterian." Whatever.
Cordially
Robert Spencer"
My post was to point out that Derbyshire is not an atheist, though you did (and still do) call him an atheist in your article above. I would have corrected it, but it's your call.
Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at May 23, 2007 11:26 PM
Here is a link to an early article I saw discussing a plan to separate Muslims in the West from the West.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/051127_buyout.htm
The web sites the author, Steve Sailer, posts at are www.isteve.com and www.vdare.com. His usual beat is race/IQ/statistics.
at May 25, 2007 5:00 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)