Probably in this context, "reasonable" should be interpreted as shorthand for "people of goodwill who happen to be poorly informed"

Cheers, Robert

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at August 2, 2007 8:33 AM

Goodluck with that honest debate Mr Spencer, they dont want it. Islam and apologists cant defend their positions with facts so they will continue to sit back and hurl lies at you.

Posted by: Elric66 at August 2, 2007 8:34 AM

I am not so sure if I like this "Bring it on" mentality you are showing now, Robert. You are not behaving like a good dhimmi!

Posted by: Crusader at August 2, 2007 8:37 AM

Advantage Robert, already:

Remember Robert...
1) 81% already have a bad, if not really harsh, view of CAIR to begin with.
2) The same people know CAIR doesn't "debate" anything-they heckle like brownshirts and we see that.
3) The vast majority of Americans already know CAIR is simply the "pot calling the kettle black".

Any harshness/nastiness on their part will immediately echo throughout the entire country, and CAIR knows that, so they're sticking with words to the extreme...it's their mindless minions I'm concerned with-American variants of "RageBoy".

I agree on giving kudos to the reporters helping to shed light on those cockroaches of calamity:
islamists can't stand the light of REAL truth-they lose every time.

Oh, and I know you're reading this, hooper:
Be warned, douggie the druggie hoopty...we'll be watching.

Posted by: jcom972 at August 2, 2007 8:45 AM

CAIR's bullying itself can be produced as purveying hatred of free speech, in the debate.

Posted by: proud-hindu at August 2, 2007 8:45 AM

I just posted this on a thread below, but the thoughts apply here too. The "poisoning the well" fallacy of reason that CAIR practices is one among many habitual fallacies of reason they practice. It is a kind of intellectual violence and terrorism they engage in in "poisoning the well", and in their other habitual practice of fallices of reason.
------------------
"Were Hooper interested in honest dealing, he would have noted that, as well as the fact that the comment he quoted was deleted, and not attributed it to me".-Robert

Robert's mind is a mind that has a great respect and love for veracity-fact-truth. That will-to-truth added to a disciplined and logical mind makes it increasingly difficult to fall into fallacy of reason as time goes on and also to readily recognize when others' thinking is crippled by fallacies of reason. In some ways Spencer's mind reminds me of the operation of Lincoln's mind in that regard.

I doubt Hooper would recognize that he engaged in the fallacy of "poisoning the well" in attempting not to address the truth or falsity of Robert's logical propositions but by attempting to make it so that people will not listen to what Robert says. The real fear with regard to people like Robert with Hooper is that other Muslims are going to see that he and others like him are speaking the truth. So Ibby and others like him must poison the well.

The problem with the habit of fallacious thinking (Ibby, e.g.) is that it tends over time to compromise the ability to think clearly and warps perception of reality. That is not in a person's true self-interest. Lincoln was once asked why he was adamant re fact-truth and answered, "I do not want to lose my best friend-myself". Hooper cannot perceive reality clearly because of his habit of thinking in fallacies. It's very unlikely he would see that he is poisoning his own well in doing that.

Posted by: Frank at August 2, 2007 8:24 AM

Posted by: Frank at August 2, 2007 8:50 AM

It's obvious that we have been played for fools by CAIR, and we are fools indeed.

This organization needs to be grabbed by the balls and sent to where it belongs.....Pakistan.

Every day they use our laws, they use our freedoms, they use our tolerrance against us and every day we giv ein a little at a time.

The Bush admin has been hoodwinked, sorry to say but Bush has now lost the plot.

Posted by: Joe Bananas in Pajamas at August 2, 2007 8:56 AM

As CAIR knows all too well, freedom of speech is a two edged sword. They, of course, only want the sword to cut one way - against our necks.

Let CAIR understand that an informed citizenry, which enjoys freedom of religion and the freedom to change that religion at any time and in either or multiple directions, cannot and will not tolerate a religion which does not allow such freedom. Let us, those of us who read and heed "Jihad Watch" and "Dhimmi Watch", lead the charge to insure that free, unfettered, public discussion is and always remains possible concerning religion. We cannot allow any individual or group to claim that, because their religion forbids members to criticize or suggest changes thereto, no other person, group, or organization should be allowed to inspect and discuss in open forms the values of that religion.

Yes, CAIR will be able to fool all of the people some of the time, or at least try. It is up to us to make that more difficult.

Posted by: spinoneone at August 2, 2007 9:15 AM

Joel Mowbray should be ashamed of himself for those loose comments suggesting that there might even be a kernel of truth to what dissenters say about you and Jihad Watch.

Disappointed, again.

Posted by: awake at August 2, 2007 9:18 AM

Robert,

The issue here, of course, is not how ‘reasonable people’ may interpret you, your message, or valuable work at Jihad but much a more subjective one in that people simply hear what they want to hear – truth or lie be damned.

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at August 2, 2007 9:20 AM

Hi, My name is Tonya Greipenweiner, and I majored in Middle Eastern Hystrionics, but I also minored in Arab Hubris Studies, so I like, know what I'm talking about. K? So Robert Spencer was totally dissing my professor Omid Safi, who everyone knows is way cuter AND smarter than Robert Spencer, who everyone knows is a Jew and for the oppression of Palestinian victims of Israeli world domination and victimizationism. I say we should be totally like in total opposition to him and his league of Jewish World Domination. CAIR is just exposing his lies and stuff, and everyone knows it, and that's why he is like, so totally scared of ppl like Omid Safi and Ibrahim Hooper, cuz he is a LOSER and would be pwned by tehm if he wasn't afraid of honest debate.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 9:22 AM

The "poisoning the well" fallacy is a species of Ad Hominem attack, but whereas other Ad Hominem attacks are often based in an immediate response of fear, "the poisoning the well" fallacy is always deliberate, based in premeditated malice. It is intellectual violence and a practitioner this fallacy of reason will later engage in physical violence against their reasoning opponent if they get the opportunity to do that, have the power to do that.

One of the aspects of Islam the appears most repulsive is the tendency to fallacies of reason. It's like a Fallacy Gone Wild with many Muslims as they become practically immune to logical reasoning. It's a very disturbed way of thinking and if fallacies of reason become a habit of thought violence will not too far behind with such a person/persons.

Girls Gone Wild are much better than Islamic Fallices Gone Wild.

Posted by: Frank at August 2, 2007 9:31 AM

Hey ya,‘Tonya Greipenweiner',

You certainly are a whiner and ‘ah....like’ pretty weird – ya know? So 'I like' think yer just a bit of a jew-o-phobe too! Is that 'right like'?

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at August 2, 2007 9:38 AM

"Girls Gone Wild are much better than Islamic Fallices Gone Wild."
Why Frank, you know just what to say to make a Wild Woman melt at the knees! Did you mean Felatrices or Fallacies?
...sorry Robert, I couldn't resist. But you know, given the current atmosphere of Press Water Carriage....I mean, press coverage, by the Relic Press, one could easily confuse the two words.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 9:39 AM

To the dreary and humourless descendant of the crusader, and really, who on this thread isn't...please reread the drivel I posted again. This time...with a grain of salt on your tongue ;)

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 9:43 AM

To the Jauhara Al-Kahirah,

I was not trying to be “humour’-full (sp?), though you may have mistaken it as such, and yes I would consider it your initial post as ‘drivel’ - thank you!

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at August 2, 2007 9:55 AM

Jauhara wrote:
"To the dreary and humourless...and really, who on this thread isn't"

I take offense to that. I am quite humourous, so I am told by friends, family and colleagues. It's just that the subject matter here isn't that funny. :)

Regards,

awake

Posted by: awake at August 2, 2007 9:55 AM

Perhaps Joel was attempting to be "even handed." (?) But, really, it's similar to saying that "reasonable people" would (or should) take offense whenever someone (such as a Robert Spencer) expresses outrage upon hearing of the murder of innocents. It's actually the contrary -- that is, it is unreasonable people who take offense with Robert Spencer. (These are the ones who seem to think that there's nothing "wrong" with declaring open season (Jihad) on all and sundry -- from homosexuals to women to innocent by-standers. Reasonable people should (must) protest.)

Posted by: J.S. at August 2, 2007 10:10 AM

My God, I missed that law firm's letter yesterday because I was busy fighting Islam on another site (d'Souza).

I'm going to e-mail those piece-of-caca lawyers.

What happened to freedom of speech?

You're still giving the talk, aren't you, Mr. Spencer?

Posted by: darcy at August 2, 2007 10:12 AM

Au contraire, Mon Frère! The absurdity of the legal intimidation against YAF and the slanderous but refutable accusations against Darth Batman are exactly what makes this so worthy of ridicule.
NOT laughing at the Perpetually Outraged Offended Poseurs (CAIR) would be a missed opportunity!
In fact, the texts of Islam are so humourless and unimaginative, we hardly wonder that the followers of the Prophet Who Must Not Be Named are themselves missing their funny bones and joke glands.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 10:15 AM

Joel Mowbray's comment on "reasonable people" shows how extremist beliefs affect public discourse. There's a tendency to split the difference between A and B; nevermind if A is a repressive supremicist willing to deceive and B is illuminating the reality.

Posted by: StillBreathing at August 2, 2007 10:24 AM

Joel Mowbray's comment on "reasonable people" shows how extremist beliefs affect public discourse. There's a tendency to split the difference between A and B; nevermind if A is a repressive supremicist willing to deceive and B is illuminating the reality.

The Big Lie is afoot in the world.

Posted by: StillBreathing at August 2, 2007 10:24 AM

Now now, boys...be nice to miss gripenweiner.
Where are your manners?
Offer her some cheese to go with that whine.

After all, she's obviously a mindless college student whose take amounted to nothing more than name-calling and insults, in direct mirroring of her heros she mentioned, who do the same thing...so much for "knowing what" she's "talking about, k?"

LMAO...sounds like the typical brats from berzerkely...or the moron mill at colgate.
But that aside...mind your manners, boys...even for the functionally-challenged such as miss gripingweiner (sounds more like a symptom by a disgruntled customer in a whorehouse than a name, lol).

Snot-nosed brats like that are just trying out their new-found ignorance, in their eternal search of that ever-elusive goal of finding:
A LIFE

(nothing like swatting flies like this in the morning)
;-)

Posted by: jcom972 at August 2, 2007 10:25 AM

In the Merciful Name of Allan, Please read my post. Just. One. Question: If I say my name is Tonya Greipenweiner, and post as Jauhara al Kafirah....oh never mind.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 10:32 AM

Jauhara Al-Kafirah-

I think I learned a word today. My education is a work in progress, but I don't give up.

BTW, re: "Why Frank, you know just what to say to make a Wild Woman melt at the knees"! I really like that imagery. Such a woman would not be disappointed with me. I don't know if I'm smart, but I am honest.

I better be careful because I can a bit raunchy and this is a high class place.

Posted by: Frank at August 2, 2007 10:32 AM

Oh, Frank! *smiling, with just a hint of chuckling*

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 10:34 AM

jcom972,

Ah, yes, well said indeed! There’s nothing like ‘swattting flies’ [smell of napalm?] in the morning!

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at August 2, 2007 10:37 AM

All,

Jauhara certainly is an odd bird, but you do know her postings are completely tongue-in-cheek, right?

Posted by: awake at August 2, 2007 10:41 AM

I guess a little knowledge IS a dangerous thang.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 10:46 AM

“Hi, My name is Tonya Greipenweiner, and I majored in Middle Eastern Hystrionics, but I also minored in Arab Hubris Studies”

Sorry, dear, that I missed the ‘homour’ in your initial post! :)

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at August 2, 2007 10:46 AM

"Hooper cannot perceive reality clearly because of his habit of thinking in fallacies. It's very unlikely he would see that he is poisoning his own well in doing that." Posted by: Frank

-- That was spot on, Frank!

"Hi, My name is Tonya Greipenweiner, and I majored in Middle Eastern Hystrionics, but I also minored in Arab Hubris Studies..." Jauhara Al-Kafirah

-- Loved it!

Posted by: Josephine at August 2, 2007 10:48 AM

When I first read the letter, I was astonished that members of the bar could be so ignorant of the first amendment, but then I went to their listing at Martindale-Hubbell and found that the firm specializes in campaign financing law, generally representing Democrats, which is another way of saying that they specialize in suppression of free speech.

Posted by: Seamus at August 2, 2007 10:50 AM

awake -- I'm pretty sure Jauhara Al-Kafirah's sentence was meant to be read as:

"descendant of the crusader, and really, who on this thread isn't..."

Meaning: who on this thread isn't a descendant of a crusader.

As I read it, his (or her) piece was satirical.

Posted by: Josephine at August 2, 2007 10:59 AM

Mr. Spencer, you need to share some of your backbone with the Europeans and Canadians! I admire you. Being called names by these characters isn't easy to take sometimes but you realize that they are the ones who don't have anything substantial so the first thing they do is call you a name. Most of us know when we listen to you, and then to CAIR, who is the one that is full of hate and name calling.

For the life of me I cannot figure out why our government lets CAIR even get away with being any kind of an institution in our land. It is the same as if the USSR funded an organization in our lands during the Cold War. But, we haven't defined this war, our enemy, and until we do - we will get this sort of thing.

As for the writer of the article - I would just ask him what he meant. Confront him. He might be confused as many might be because of people like D'Souza.

I wish more people would dig further to find the truth. If they find you questionable, there are so many books out there written by ex-muslims, or those who have fled muslim lands who were dhimmi, or free people fleeing their lands now riveted with muslim violence, etc. Or even read the history of mohammed - geesh, that would kill any idea that islam is a religion of peace, or even it being associated with Christianity and Judaism. Heaven forbid that they pay attention to all the muslim violence on this globe today and wonder why all those 'peaceful' ones do nothing to stop that while only worrying about their image!

I am long winded today, but I want to thank you again, Mr. Spencer. I have gotten some people to pay attention to what is happening now, and I use your websites to 'teach'. (I also use sheik yermami's website too.) If they don't want to buy the books, then they can read the websites. I am hoping they will look further and buy some books and read them. But, I can only lead them to the water - I can't make them drink.

Posted by: R_not at August 2, 2007 11:00 AM

"--Loved it!"

So did we Josephine.
"Arab Hubris" studies, the redundncy that such a term IS, was hilarious, as well as anyone who would call themselves "gripenweiner" lmao

But the brats of such ditzy mentalities like "griping weenies" I do deal with every day so this one was amusing to play along with morning coffee...nothing like the great taste of coffee, nicotine and napalm in the morning.

Actually I've dealt with middle eastern hubris for decades now...so I'll leave the middle eastern "hystrionics" experts like douggie hoopty to Robert Spencer, who tears them apart like a paper tiger. lol

But "jauhara", knowledge isn't a terrible "thang", the saying goes: "a MIND is a terrible thang".
But...that's another story...lol

Posted by: jcom972 at August 2, 2007 11:04 AM

Does this mean that you like me, you really like me, then? Are we all good, now?

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 11:07 AM

With CAIR obviously heating up the "Spencer=hater/bigot" boilerplate, one wonders if it's in anticipation of Conyers HR 1592 (Thought crime bill) passing.

"Make no mistake about it, the Democrat House is trying to make thought a crime. In the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, they try to give it innocuous cover by claiming that the legislation is only meant to:

To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.

This is an insidious bit of legislation meant to create special laws to legitimize homosexuality and make a crime anyone attempting to advocate for a Christian worldview. This bill makes activism against the homosexual agenda, among other things, subject to prosecution as a "hate crime" because the definition of "hate crime" is being expanded to include sexual orientation.

The bill lies right from the beginning with its opening remark that, "The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem."

Posted by: justamomof4 at August 2, 2007 11:11 AM

But "jauhara", knowledge isn't a terrible "thang", the saying goes: "a MIND is a terrible thang".
But...that's another story...lol

A mind is a terrible thang to baste...especially early in the morning, jcom

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 11:12 AM

The article linked describes the increased protections homosexuals will assume under the new law. The law is ambiguous enough to offer extended protections for race, color, RELIGION, national origin, etc.

It's the religious aspect that raises alarms here. The specific wording includes "perceived" motivation.

The sudden increase in CAIR's lambasting Robert and this legislation is of concern.

Posted by: justamomof4 at August 2, 2007 11:18 AM

I just hope that everyone understands that I was being sarcastic when I said that Omid Safi was way cuter than Robert Spencer. Everyone knows that isn't true at all, and if the slander against professor Safi's cuteness should wind up in court, I am sure that the jury would find that MICHELLE MALKIN is way cuter than Robert Spencer...I'm just sayin' is all.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 11:18 AM

Regarding Joel Mowbray's description of Robert as a "genuinely provocative figure with whom reasonable people can disagree", there are two ways to take it, depending on how you view the glass.

It's positive (half-full) if you realize that being provocative is not all bad. You make people think. You make them notice what you are saying and what Muslims are doing. That you are someone "with whom reasonable people can disagree" means your arguments are not being dismissed out of hand.

It's negative (half-empty) if you think that truth has become so rare that one who speaks it is considered provocative.

We are in a feel-good world and saying anything remotely disapproving of any group or culture will be considered provocative. Maybe it should be taken as a badge of honor and not an insult.

Posted by: PMK at August 2, 2007 11:19 AM

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/08/protected-victims-vs-right-to-desecrate.html

Here is a good, in-depth analysis of the fraud that is multiculturalism. We also should remember the Catch the Fire Ministries trial in Australia as a precedent for this sort of legal assault.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 11:28 AM

Josephine wrote:
awake -- I'm pretty sure Jauhara Al-Kafirah's sentence was meant to be read as:"descendant of the crusader, and really, who on this thread isn't..." Meaning: who on this thread isn't a descendant of a crusader."

"As I read it, his (or her) piece was satirical."

Josephine,
Possibly, or that everyone here is due to the seriousness of the problem, not for comic relief, hence humourless. that distinction is not important however.

I assure you, the satire was obvious to me, right from the get go.

Posted by: awake at August 2, 2007 11:29 AM

I might be stating the obvious, but I was just thinking - this could all be a part of the plan by CAIR to try to change islam's image. Take apart people like Mr. Spencer and spread disinformation about islam - and mingled with the ignorant - viola! zombies.

Posted by: R_not at August 2, 2007 11:35 AM

Victimizationism is as real a word as Islamophobia.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 11:36 AM

People are 'reasonable' untill they are not.
It is not possible for 'reasonable' people to 'debate the Quran, or jihad. One side must be 'un-reasonable' or there is no basis for a debate. So it's reasonable people on one side and 'not so reasonable' people on the other. So the only thing to decide, is who is reasonable, and who is not.
Is Robert more reasonable, than say Hooper, or less reasonable than Hooper?
What is this 'reason' based on? RS bases his 'reason', on demonstratable facts of Islam. Islamics and their dhimmi supporters base their reason on lies, distortions, and diversion, with truth slipping off the side, and plunging into the abyss of dis-honesty.
Reasonable people dont indulge themselves with self serving dis-honesty. Robert is innocent of those charges. Robert then, is 'reasonable' and his critics are not.
What is 'not reasonable'(Islam) will eventually fall to the wayside, and truth will prevail.
RS has the correct sand paper, just keep sanding and the yellow scum of lies will wear off, and let the truth shine forth. CAIRS panic shows the sanding is working...

Posted by: duh_swami at August 2, 2007 11:40 AM

Victimizationism is as real a word as Islamophobia. from Jauhara Al-Kafirah

What are you refering to when you write that?

Do you mean when the muslims who start the killing then find out that their victims are tired of it start firing back and then they claim 'victimhood'? And it seems to fly in the face of the facts because the left wing media gobbles up that type of news given by the muslims who were the ones who started the violence. And if they were not the ones who started it - they certainly do nothing to stop it, but in fact dance and ulalate if the ones who do start it kill enough non-muslims.

Or do you mean that Mr. Spencer is the victim of muslim disinformation in order to improve islam's image?

Posted by: R_not at August 2, 2007 11:46 AM

PMK,

"Plenty of reasonable people can take serious issue with Spencer—and plenty do—"

That speaks volumes. There is no "glass half-full" in that loose statement. It is akin to validating blanket criticism of Robert without examples of where he supposedly errs, just like those nameless, facelss, reasonable people Mowbray alludes to.

Robert writes books based on the truth of the Islamic texts and how the modern day Islamists use the religion to justify their words and actions each and every day. JihadWatch is a site dedicated to providing the very same news that we can not get from supposedly reputable MSM sources.

It is not however, equivalent to "courting" controversy.

Posted by: awake at August 2, 2007 11:54 AM

Robert,
Very sensible comments. People who criticize JW should engage in intellectually honest debate. Smearing and obfuscation will not lead us anywhere. How many newspapers in USA can publish images of mohammad?(I am talking about plain images here). You are sticking your neck out for a rational debate. How many people have the guts to do it? Instead of smearing and demonizing JW, vanguards of multiculturalism should engage and encourage honest debates. Criticism is not bigotry. Keep it going.

Posted by: Desi at August 2, 2007 11:56 AM

Sorry, R_not. I meant my earlier satirical post further up the thread. I had made up a word "victimizationism" and used it in my thread referring to Israel. Of course it isn't really a word, but we dance to the piper's tune when it comes to Islamophobia. We need to stop giving that word any credibility at all. It isn't a real word.
When you think of the shrieking emotionalism on one side of the debate aisle, think how the left-wing academiacs and their ilk use loaded words to shut down any kind of meaningful debate. Words like racism are hurled at people who are decent and smart, in order to villify and prevent them from saying something the hate-speech industry doesn't want anyone else to hear, and because no one wants to be perceived as a racist, hate-filled bigot, they would rather suppress themselves than have people hate them. It really turns the word hate on its head.
Another reason Islamophobia needs to be vigorously debunked is that other precedent from the Glory Days of Communism: Making dissident opinions a psychiatric condition. If Spencer can be successfully sued for spreading "Islamophobia", then is it a leap of imagination to believe that anyone with lesser credentials could be committed to a psych ward for the same mental crime?

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 12:02 PM

Having read a lot of Mowbray, I believe that privately, he agrees with almost everything that Robert says. However, he doesn't have the testicular fortitude to come out and say it.

Posted by: Hubert the Friar at August 2, 2007 12:03 PM

R_not wrote to Jauhara:
"What are you refering to when you write that?"

It is neither. Jauhara is refuting the validity of the use of the term Islamophobia, with the qualifier that if it can be thrown around against infidels then victimizationism, the game the islamists are guilty of playing all the time, is equally valid.

If infidels are Islamophobes, then Islamists are victimizationists.

Jauhara,

Methinks your moniker is providing undue attention to yourself, especially if people are not reading the posts in order and in context.

Posted by: awake at August 2, 2007 12:04 PM

Josephine wrote:

"descendant of the crusader, and really, who on this thread isn't..."
Meaning: who on this thread isn't a descendant of a crusader.
As I read it, his (or her) piece was satirical."

But, in fact I am, my dear Josephine, a true 'descendant' of one Sir Robert Fowler de Foxley who was knighted by Richard I beneath the walls of Acre in 1190 AD. Thank you :)

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at August 2, 2007 12:11 PM

Jauhara Al-Kafirah, thanks. Yeah I agree with you about what is happening though with words. I don't think that Islamophobia will be gone too soon though. The appeasers and muslims have hooked onto that word and won't let it go.

Posted by: R_not at August 2, 2007 12:14 PM

Dearest Tonya/Jauhara,

I, for one, think you're just aces. Thanks for the very funny post.

Warmly
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at August 2, 2007 12:21 PM

And that is why we must ridicule the word and those who use it as a serious debating tactic. Read Andrew Bostom's article on what happens if you simply point out the obvious, concerning the Koran:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5F4591B6-B04C-4F16-9C66-C2A22E149399

It really doesn't matter how gingerly we try to avoid hurting the feelings of the followers of the Religion of Peace™
They are never happy. They will always find offense. Always be angry. Always be the whiny victims we let them be.
So we need to stop making consessions now, and just sally forth, knowing that we are going to anger a lot of folks by telling them the uncomfortable truth. We just need to stop caring about it.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 12:25 PM

I was thinking more on this word, islamophobia. How to spin it to be more positive. I looked up phobia: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation. That didn't help out too much but with English adding new words and meanings all the time - it is about time we did the same to phobia.

I claim to be an islamophobe because I know islam, its current and past history of violence; its 'prophet'; what it means when the masses of so-called 'moderates' start inhabiting our infidel countries; etc. And that means I am an explicable and logical islamophobe. They chose to put the phobe/phobia at the end of the word - I chose to give it my own meaning.

Posted by: R_not at August 2, 2007 12:28 PM

"Dearest Tonya/Jauhara,

I, for one, think you're just aces. Thanks for the very funny post.

Warmly
Robert Spencer"
Posted by: jihadwatch at August 2, 2007 12:21 PM

Otay, Batman....

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 12:29 PM

"...that other precedent from the Glory Days of Communism: Making dissident opinions a psychiatric condition."
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah

-- Yes, good point.

"...I am... a true 'descendant' of one Sir Robert Fowler de Foxley who was knighted by Richard I beneath the walls of Acre in 1190 AD..."
Posted by: descendantofacrusader

-- As someone who is an avid family historian, I am impressed that you are able to trace your roots so far back. What a wonderful heritage. I'm stuck at 1800 for most of my lines. I am the descendant of common labourers and farmers, all of whom were pioneers.

Posted by: Josephine at August 2, 2007 12:32 PM

"A mind is a terrible thang to baste...especially early in the morning..."
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah

I baste my mind in coffee every morning.

Posted by: Josephine at August 2, 2007 12:36 PM

"-- As someone who is an avid family historian, I am impressed that you are able to trace your roots so far back. What a wonderful heritage. I'm stuck at 1800 for most of my lines. I am the descendant of common labourers and farmers, all of whom were pioneers."

Josephine, my husband can trace his ancestors back to 1748! Even before he was born, there was a thorough compiling of the family's histories, with one particular story of the lone surviving son who was the first Union soldier to cross the bridge at Antietam. He survived the Civil War, his 3 other brothers having died in that war. He survived minus a leg and an arm, managed to marry and have a large family, thus making it possible for my husband to exist! And on top of it all, he didn't gripe and whine about his victimization.

We should learn from our elders...especially the heroic ones.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 12:49 PM

Gee whizzer, some of the posters here need to have their funny bone checked. You should be able to catch sarcasm and levity quickly.
Funny posts, Jauhara Al-Kafirah
From the Gates of Vienna -
The Koran is a political document.

Karl Marx That’s right: it’s not holy scripture or a religious book. It’s an instruction manual on how to establish and maintain through brutality and slaughter a totalitarian political regime that masquerades as a religion.

BTW, Typekey is acting up again...maybesomeone trying to silence us?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 2, 2007 12:55 PM

The primitive intellect functions best in the arenas of violence and sex. Islam is a violent sex cult, with images of 72 virgins, and pure as pearls little boys, in exchange for violence and death.
Gee, I really hate to hurt anyones feelings, but does that not make Allah, a pimp?

Also, we have now discovered Allahs real name...'Allan'...used twice by posters, this AM, and yesterday. 'Allan' the purveyor of sex for murder.

Jauhara Al-kafira...'In the merciful name of Allan...' And another one:

"My question is, how much innocent blood will make your [false] god, allan, happy?" Posted by angryeagle Aug 1.

The secret is now out, thanks to these two posters.

'Allan' the true god of Islam...now aint that a pip...wonder where he lives?

Posted by: duh_swami at August 2, 2007 1:01 PM

Oft wonder how many "reasonable people" have actually read the Koran. To hear the many who try to re-interpret the writings to support some sort of multi-cultural understanding is pathetic. It is as if they believe that the book's admonitions are not taken seriously by those who follow Islam. Rather than refer to said individuals as "reasonable people" I think a more appropriate term would be "ostrich". I'm quite certain those Jihadists who take their direction from that book will be more than happy to re-educate those in denial as to the seriousness of the issue.

Posted by: Chief1942 at August 2, 2007 1:06 PM

"-- As someone who is an avid family historian, I am impressed that you are able to trace your roots so far back. What a wonderful heritage. I'm stuck at 1800 for most of my lines. I am the descendant of common labourers and farmers, all of whom were pioneers."

At the risk of continuing a very OT sub thread, I too am of common folk stock with the rare exception of this one royal dignitary. However, it is with the knowledge of our past heritage, be martial, commoner, or otherwise that we may and should draw strength and resolve to smite this vile enemy who would destroy all that we of the West hold dear.

http://nffowler.com/fowler.aspx

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at August 2, 2007 1:07 PM

"...my husband can trace his ancestors back to 1748..."
Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah

He's so lucky!

Posted by: Josephine at August 2, 2007 1:22 PM

"...it is with the knowledge of our past heritage, be martial, commoner, or otherwise that we may and should draw strength and resolve to smite this vile enemy who would destroy all that we of the West hold dear.
Posted by: descendantofacrusader

I couldn't agree more.

Sorry for the OT sub-thread.

Posted by: Josephine at August 2, 2007 1:24 PM

I suspect what was meant was that it was possible for reasonable people to disagree amicably with Spencer, who is very gentlemanly in the way he debates. That some reasonable people disagree on some points I do not doubt. I and others have noticed some distance between Spencer and Pipe's view of precisely how the problems of Islamism and Jihadism are rooted in Islam itself, but none of this prevents them from having an amicable working relationship. I imagine when they get together to chat they have a few points of disagreement and they do so over a beer without raising their voices. It is possible to see a crack between Hugh's attitude to solutions in terms of immigration policy and Spencer's, which seems to focus more on the responsibility muslims to get more serious about true reform. Sure there is a great deal of common ground but here and there there are nuances of difference. I am a great admirer of Spencer but I would count myself as one who differs on some minor points. I would have given his latest book a different title, and maybe the "most intolerant religion" one that came before it too -- I regard the titles as unnecessarily provocative; they give the impression that Spencer will be degenerating into talk-radio style polemics, a false characterization of his sober, scholastic writing. But I think Spencer and I can safely and amicably disagree on such things.

Reasonable people can disagree with Spencer's take on islam and Jihadism because not all reasonable people are well educated. But those who have taken the time to learn about these issues, and hear him out, have much more difficulty disagreeing. His analysis is very clean -- I have never found any holes (I don't set myself up as the definitive arbiter, however). I would still allow that some reasonable person could disagree and still be well informed about the issues -- but I don't see any such list, so it's fatuous to say that "many resonable people" do so. Sadly, I think Spencer's guess as to who Joel might have in mind is probably accurate. I hope Joel takes a careful look at the analyses of, say, D'Souza and Spencer and decides who is being sensible here. One is characterized by wishful thinking, the other by precise scholarship.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at August 2, 2007 1:38 PM

Archimedes2,

"Plenty of reasonable people can take serious issue with Spencer"

The quantifier of "serious" does not portray an amicable disagreement by clooeagues over a suds or two, but that is just my opinion.

Posted by: awake at August 2, 2007 1:48 PM

Cant get over the Sandler Reiff letter.

That there would be such a flagrant attempt to intimidate, - revealing.

That the Sandler Reiff firm represents CAIR, the MoveOn crazies and the DNC - priceless.

The confluence of the far left and the islamists - quod erato demonstravit (sp).

The smoking gun.

Why Jewish people and Black people would support the Dems is beyond one.

Come on good people, wake up.

Posted by: dgene at August 2, 2007 2:05 PM

"Spencer will be degenerating into talk-radio style polemics", by Archimedes

Is this an attempt to try to say talk radio has no validity? It seems that a lot of people out there are really bothered that some news sources really suck while others, such as talk radio, have gained. hhhmmmm, I wonder why is that? And then the jealousy arises while those who are losing just can't seem to figure out why.

I listen to talk radio and would rather do that than read the alphabet soup news, CNN, MSNBC or PBS on TV and the radio - and I stopped buying the newspapers due to their obvious slant (except for Humanevents). I get really tired of people denigrating me and what I stand for while they think they are god's gift to mankind.

Posted by: R_not at August 2, 2007 2:11 PM

@duh_swami

I tend to think of the fiend muhammad as the pimp and allah as his little imaginary bitch.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at August 2, 2007 2:57 PM

I tend to think of the fiend muhammad as the pimp and allah as his little imaginary bitch.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2

It could work that way, maybe who's on top is interchangable. It may very well be that 'Allan' has a confused sexual identity...

have a good day

Posted by: duh_swami at August 2, 2007 3:07 PM

but I would count myself as one who differs on some minor points. I would have given his latest book a different title, and maybe the "most intolerant religion" one that came before it too -- I regard the titles asunnecessarily provocative;. . .

Rather, I find the contents of such innocuously titled books as "Qur'an" which conveniently conceal the teachings of a prophet depicting jews as apes and pigs far more provocative. Hiding in plain site is proving more dangerous than inducing others to the challenge of discovery.

Posted by: justamomof4 at August 2, 2007 3:12 PM

R_not...when they do away with talk radio, it's time for clandestine radio. I always wanted my own radio station, and now thanks to liberals, I might just get one...small, but potent...for any secret agents out there, I'm only kidding...

Posted by: duh_swami at August 2, 2007 3:16 PM

(And if telling the truth is "courting controversy," then I plead guilty.)

Thank your lucky stars you don't reside here in the UK Robert. It is now stated here that, in legal (criminal) matters regarding race or religion (but only one religion), 'Truth is no defence'.

Posted by: Alan(UK) at August 2, 2007 3:37 PM

"Reasonable people"?

CAIR likely doesn't know any. And by definition, that phrase leaves out most (if not all) followers of the Islamic death cult.

As for CAIR's claims of 'bigotry' at least he isn't calling for the slaughter of other human beings as does that so-called "Abrahamic faith" called Islam.

Posted by: pythagoras at August 2, 2007 3:57 PM

"Reasonable people"?

CAIR likely doesn't know any. And by definition, that phrase leaves out most (if not all) followers of the Islamic death cult.

As for CAIR's claims of 'bigotry' at least Robert Spencer isn't calling for the slaughter of other human beings as does that so-called "Abrahamic faith" called 'Islam'. (Neither does Mr. Spencer stoop to calling targeted peoples "the descendants of apes and pigs" as does that so-called "Abrahamic faith" calling itself 'Islam').

Posted by: pythagoras at August 2, 2007 4:00 PM

...It's possible that reasonable people can agree for different reasons. When it comes to the Quran/Islam, un-reasonable people become reasonable when they realise they cant out debate, or out knowledge Spenser. That's why Hooper et/al will not debate him. That's a reasonable position for them to take.
That does not mean they give up. They just change shirts, and continue on as un-reasonable people, in a different mode.
The un-reasonable. We hear from them a lot. CAIR as a group, detractors, defamers, liars, scapegoaters, accusers, demonisers. The level of 'irrational' hate' leveled at RS and comp, by un-reasonable people, over time, would fill a garbage dump, and should fill a garbage dump.
I suppose I see 'reasonable/un-reasonable' as black and white. One is either reasonable or one is not. Like it would be un-reasonable for me to try to debate RS. I may be duh, but I am not that duh.
You cant be 'sorta' reasonable. Like being sort of pregnant, or 'sorta' dead. I take back the 'dead' one, I do know some people who are sorta dead.
No, most of them are not physically ill, they are local liberals, they jog, and jump around a lot...but thats another story...

Posted by: duh_swami at August 2, 2007 4:22 PM

Robert,

I hate to say it but you're sounding a little testy lately.

I recommend a week on the beach with no internet, a big stack of Rex Stout and a fridge full of beer and noshies.

The war will still be here when you get back.

We love you.

Please, take care of yourself.

Posted by: USBeast at August 2, 2007 6:04 PM

"He survived minus a leg and an arm, managed to marry and have a large family, thus making it possible for my husband to exist! And on top of it all, he didn't gripe and whine about his victimization.
We should learn from our elders...especially the heroic ones".

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 12:49 PM

Yes. If we are to be happy we have to find something to do, someone to love and something to hope for. The victimization hustle puts people in chains. The something to do must never involve intellectual violence or physical violence against other human beings. All real power is restrained and it can will to create good out of nothing.

Posted by: Frank at August 2, 2007 6:06 PM

Allan be praised?

Steve or Woody?

Or Funt?

Posted by: profitsbeard at August 2, 2007 6:41 PM

When the "something to do" involves the use of force to control other humans, it has to be stopped-often by force. The "something to do", to be creative, cannot involve force or control of other human beings. We must will the "something to do". We must will good, create. It's not easy. But it must be done. It's work.

Posted by: Frank at August 2, 2007 6:43 PM

DearUSBeast,

Come on. This is serious business. These people want to intimidate us into silence.

What good would a week on the beach with no Internet, a big stack of Rex Stout and a fridge full of beer and noshies accomplish other than make the author a suitable candidate for Congressional office?

Posted by: monk at August 2, 2007 7:18 PM

I've been listening to Michael Savage this evening.

Savage just told his listening audience that CAIR is attempting intimidate Young America's Foundation into cancelling an "author's" appearance before the group.

Why doesn't Michael Savage name the author?

Posted by: monk at August 2, 2007 7:42 PM

Monk,

Yes, this is serious business and it's going to get even more serious.

Robert is a key player in this serious business and needs to take care (not CAIR) of himself.

Taking care of one's self includes downtime when one can detach, kick back and formulate the square root of sweet f**k-all. Hence my recommendations.

We and world can survive a week without him and just imagine his return as a giant refreshed.

Posted by: USBeast at August 2, 2007 8:08 PM

"Allan be praised?

Steve or Woody?

Or Funt?"

Posted by: profitsbeard at August 2, 2007 6:41 PM

Yes.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at August 2, 2007 8:24 PM

Looks like Joel has done a MAJOR rewrite of his piece at FrontPage. MUCH better! Now everyone who didn't see the original will be wondering what the fuss is about.

Good work folks for setting him straight :-)

Posted by: dry_heavz_4_alla at August 2, 2007 9:06 PM

to Archimedes2:

I like how you've elaborated and clarified on this issue. There are a range of views on Islam that overlap, yes, but also have important separate nuances.

I lean closer to Pipes; I'm ambivalent about Spencer (and have briefly discussed this with him on a couple of occasions); while I view Fitzgerald as a bigot (and have also tackled him on this on a couple of occasions). I'm a mere internet nobody so my "debates" with Spencer and Fitzgerald simply petered out. Why would either of them bother with a nobody? I have no influence on the world of ideas and they are smart to save their efforts for someone of greater political substance.

Still, I wish to register (or recall) my existence here and count myself as one who does take issue with some aspects of what Robert does. I would not characterize that "taking issue" as seeing Robert as plain "wrong", the wording he seems to have drifted towards in the last paragraph.

I have no idea how many others there are "out there" who feel as I do so I can't comment on the "plenty" in the Joel remark.

I'd be happy to debate yet again with Robert but not on a comment thread that descends down into oblivion. I'd prefer a more gentlemanly and old-fashioned format like a public exchange of letters, perhaps once or twice a week, with some reasonable word limit set on each letter.

Debate or no, as I've said before to Robert, I wish him well in the important work that he does.

Posted by: Arizona at August 2, 2007 9:23 PM

"The confluence of the far left and the islamists - quod erato demonstravit (sp)."

dgene [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 2, 2007 2:05 PM

>>quod erat demonstrandum

which essentially means, "see above!"

Posted by: boneshack at August 2, 2007 11:22 PM

Arizona,

Go to the doctor. Ask him to change your meds. There is yet still hope for you, just not in your current state.

I agree wholeheartedly that you are indeed an "internet nobody", presently. People can change if the inner desire is present, coupled with a heavy influx of medication.

Best of luck to you, Sir.

Posted by: awake at August 3, 2007 12:16 AM

Jauhara
I agree with Josephine....Loved it. Thanks

Posted by: lokelau at August 3, 2007 12:31 AM

Thanks for the tip dry_heavz_4_alla. It certainly made my night.

Posted by: awake at August 3, 2007 12:35 AM

Folks,

The link to the FP article leads now to a substantial revision by Mobray and/or FP.

Excerpts:

"[...]Spencer, who heads JihadWatch.org and is the author of the recent bestselling book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, is a top-notch scholar who backs up his work on Islam with careful and meticulous research that is founded on Islamic sources. How does this compare, in any way, to some of the characters who have headlined CAIR conferences?"

"CAIR's primary objection in its attempted legal blackmail is that Spencer is “a well-known purveyor of hatred and bigotry.” But how is one a "purveyor of hatred and bigotry" when all one does is reveal and demonstrate the teachings that are inherent in Islam? And if CAIR really objects to “purveyors of hatred and bigotry,” why would it feature a neo-Nazi at several of its conferences?"

"[…]Why is CAIR concerned with Robert Spencer -- a scholar who has dedicated himself to isolating those features of Islam that inspire Islamic terror? Shouldn't CAIR be concerned with the same thing and be thankful to Spencer? Isn't Spencer doing a tremendous service in arming Muslim reformers with the crystal-clear information they need to confront Islamic extremists? Won't reformers in this way stand a better chance at the enormously difficult challenge of modernizing and democratizing Islam?[...]"

End of Excerpts.

This not only gives a more accurate portrayal of Spencer to those who might not be familiar with his work, but also makes a better case in illustrating CAIR's bully tactics, i.e., that they would attack a "top-notch scholar" whose "meticulous research...is founded on Islamic sources."

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis at August 3, 2007 1:42 AM

OT but short...and late
Josephine...My sister traced our ancestory as far back as a guy named Darnell O'Sullivan who lived in Ireland in the mid 1500's...

Posted by: duh_swami at August 3, 2007 3:36 AM

What is CAIR so afraid of? This non-profit organization reported less than 2000 members yet has an operating budget of over 30 milliion dollars. Interesting where they actually get their money from.
http://theottoshow.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/13/778809-islam-in-america-who-cairs

High ranking CAIR officials need to clean up their own backyard first.

http://www.americansagainsthate.org/cw/profiles_cw.php

CAIR'S goal appears to intimidate and or slander anyone who speaks the truth about their tactics as well as exposing the true tenants of Islam.

Mr. Spencer along with others speak out with research and facts exposing CAIR who does neither

Posted by: patts at August 3, 2007 9:40 AM

What is CAIR so afraid of? This non-profit organization reported less than 2000 members yet has an operating budget of over 30 milliion dollars. Interesting where they actually get their money from.
http://theottoshow.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/13/778809-islam-in-america-who-cairs

High ranking CAIR officials need to clean up their own backyard first.

http://www.americansagainsthate.org/cw/profiles_cw.php

CAIR'S goal appears to intimidate and or slander anyone who speaks the truth about their tactics as well as exposing the true tenants of Islam.

Mr. Spencer along with others speak out with research and facts exposing CAIR who does neither

Posted by: patts at August 3, 2007 9:40 AM

What is CAIR so afraid of? This non-profit organization reported less than 2000 members yet has an operating budget of over 30 milliion dollars. Interesting where they actually get their money from.
http://theottoshow.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/13/778809-islam-in-america-who-cairs

High ranking CAIR officials need to clean up their own backyard first.

http://www.americansagainsthate.org/cw/profiles_cw.php

CAIR'S goal appears to intimidate and or slander anyone who speaks the truth about their tactics as well as exposing the true tenants of Islam.

Mr. Spencer along with others speak out with research and facts exposing CAIR who does neither

Posted by: patts at August 3, 2007 9:43 AM

"...My sister traced our ancestory as far back as a guy named Darnell O'Sullivan who lived in Ireland in the mid 1500's..."

duh_swami -- Wow, that is amazing! Your sister is a whiz!

My Irish ancestors came to Canada in the early 1800s. No ship passenger lists, no birth, census or death records, no family Bibles and, for the most part, no tombstones exist to tell me what part of Ireland they came from or even who their parents were.

I tell my daughter she's lucky she was named before I was into genealogy or one of her given names might have been McGlinchey!

Posted by: Josephine at August 3, 2007 3:05 PM

Yippeee stand up to CAIR...BRAVO BRAVO. What a delight.

Posted by: herself at August 3, 2007 4:03 PM