Were the campus and city police there to maintain order? If not, why not? And if they were, why did they not promptly evict any and all of those attempting to disrupt the gathering? The government should think about establishing a special police task force whose sole task will be to ensure that Muslim attempts to harass or intimidate or shout down speakers will be met not only with removal from the site, but removal from the student rolls and, if they turn out to be non-citizens, from the country. If this is done often enough, behavior -- though not attitudes and desires, which will remain the same -- will change.

Posted by: Hugh at October 23, 2007 9:13 AM

There's a mystical basis for theses students' behavior that gives them the inalienable right to drown out any speakers whose facts make them uncomfortable. It's called "Academic Freedom." All of our wars were fought to protect this right and this right alone. It has no corollary in Islam, but nevermind.

Posted by: ChristianRepublic at October 23, 2007 9:16 AM

The guy in the front row gnashing his teeth and the one behind him seem to be iranians. Also, too many head scarves in the audience for comfort.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at October 23, 2007 9:20 AM

Folks, you are seeing the enemy at work in a very behind-the-scenes-way.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at October 23, 2007 9:27 AM

"They restricted their chanting about racism -- an absurd charge to hurl in any discussion of Islam and jihad, but particularly inappropriate to shout at a former inmate of the mullah' prison cells"

Ah, the irony. So thick you could put a collar on it and call it Fido.

Posted by: ewha1 at October 23, 2007 9:40 AM

Courageous and much needed Mr. Spencer.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at October 23, 2007 9:41 AM

Robert,

Perhaps for upcoming events, you can have someone transcribe while you or others speak and have your words appear on screen with the speaker's face in a corner. I'm sure the intolerant will try to find a way to block the written message but at least you won't have to shout so much and whatever physical action the intolerant take would make security act.

Posted by: 3812Michelle at October 23, 2007 9:47 AM

The content of the speech was very appropriate to the university setting. It was mostly a reasoned appeal to simply be heard. I guess you have to start with the basics in an atmosphere like that.

Although it's pretty sad that the content had to be dumbed down to the most basic points in what's supposed to be an institution of higher learning. I guess you gotta start on step #1 with people who are already propagandized, and there's no point in skipping ahead to "preach to the choir" if you will lose the rest of the audience right off the bat.

Posted by: Jan Sobieski at October 23, 2007 9:48 AM

What happened to the openmindedness when Columbia had I'm-a-nut-job speak? The willingness to hear the other sides view.

I am so glad I don't have children in College these days. Apparently dialog has been replaced with propaganda.

Posted by: Aunt Bea at October 23, 2007 9:52 AM

Hope springs eternal: Wisconsin's Ward Churchill was brutally heckled during Horowitz's speech last night;

Badger Herald: Horowitz rips left, defends war

Conservative author David Horowitz attacked Muslim extremism and anti-Iraq war movements, calling liberals “unable to add two and two and get four” Monday.
=====
Former UW lecturer Kevin Barrett — who attracted national media attention to the university for promoting his belief that the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon were an inside military job — was in attendance and voiced opposition, disrupting Horowitz’s talk near the beginning of the lecture.... Barrett, who was booed by the crowd after he interrupted the speech, left the Memorial Union Theater shortly thereafter in the midst of a popular UW football tradition — the “asshole” chant.

Daily Cardinal has more.

Posted by: Terp Mole at October 23, 2007 9:55 AM

Classic reminiscence of hitler's sturmabteilung of the 1930's...
...do they even realize how their very actions like this prove their "infidel" detractors correct?
...don't they realize how their shills completely neutralize & overshadow their claims of "islam is the rop".
...thus, don't they realize what hypocrites they make of themselves when they pull this infantile insanity?

So I ask these self-proclaimed, but seemingly hypocritical ROP'ers one question, again:

Is your position, your very religious doctrine, THAT baseless, THAT far "without foundation" that it cannot withstand scrutiny, or even simple discussion???

Since we KNOW you're monitoring this site based on your hysteria, which tells the tale:
Here, in the REAL world:
Common sense says people who are secure in their beliefs don't act like this...as truth withstands scrutiny and stands on its own without help.
But people who are INsecure,
UNsure,
and to be blunt, people with something exceptionally grave to hide, act like this.
Your claims of R.O.P. vs this behavior of you and your peers are in direct and absolute conflict.

This is not the work of ANY "religion of peace".
This is the work of someone with a lot to hide.
The results of your actions are having the opposite effect as you'd hoped...
...you can drown out a voice, but you canNOT drown out REALITY.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 23, 2007 10:02 AM

Robert, thank you for being a voice of sanity in the din of ignorance. Thanks for standing up for truth and putting up with fools. You are the point of our spear.

Posted by: angryeagle at October 23, 2007 10:10 AM

Blackfive attended Horowitz lecture and offers play-by-play.

...The crowd both right, left, Muslims, Jews, Christians all decent people began the perfect chant. A**hole, A**hole, A**hole. He [Kevin Barrett] was browbeaten from the theater, deemed beneath the dignity of the proceedings.

Sweet.

Posted by: Terp Mole at October 23, 2007 10:11 AM

"There's a mystical basis for theses students' behavior that gives them the inalienable right to drown out any speakers whose facts make them uncomfortable. It's called "Academic Freedom." All of our wars were fought to protect this right and this right alone. It has no corollary in Islam, but nevermind.

Posted by: ChristianRepublic "

...."academic freedom" in no excuse for rude civil disobedience,bad behaviour,and loud shouts to drown out the speaker...did the "student" come to listen to what the speaker had to say or did they just come to create trouble....

.........their "inalienable right to drown out any speakers" automatically gives the police or security the inalienable right to remove these people from the room.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 23, 2007 10:17 AM

And folks aspire to send their kids to college why?
Save your money and send them to trade school-we can always use more plumbers, mechanics, electricians and less brainwashed and politically correct graduates who seek to "better" the world by destroying it.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 23, 2007 10:21 AM

...were the students actually afraid they might accidently learn something from a guest speaker?....one does to college to learn....thugs on the street corner can resort to shout downs...thugs on the street corner have no life or future and will never solve any problems...

...if a student wants to shout out his displeasures...he can join the thug on the street corner and do so....

...if a student wants to learn...he will listen to all speakers....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 23, 2007 10:22 AM

The English had a descriptive word for these people. Cannon fodder. Give them to the jihadists and see how long they last. Those of us who would stand up for our beliefs would fair better than those fools.

Posted by: ironman at October 23, 2007 10:23 AM

Robert, at FrontPageMag. today.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=FDD13E54-41C7-4C89-A482-58159E9435A5

Posted by: awake at October 23, 2007 10:23 AM

The English had a descriptive word for these people. Cannon fodder. Give them to the jihadists and see how long they last. Those of us who would stand up for our beliefs would fair better than those fools.

Posted by: ironman at October 23, 2007 10:23 AM

"And folks aspire to send their kids to college why?
Save your money and send them to trade school-we can always use more plumbers, mechanics, electricians and less brainwashed and politically correct graduates who seek to "better" the world by destroying it.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS "

....the way the world is going....send them to a military school....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 23, 2007 10:32 AM

ironman,
communism had a word for them too: "useful idiots"

Posted by: jcom972 at October 23, 2007 10:32 AM

Too many Rop® in the audience for my liking. They should be at some superior university in the middle east....why aren't they?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at October 23, 2007 10:48 AM

.....there aren't any???

Posted by: interestinconundrum at October 23, 2007 10:50 AM

"communism had a word for them too: "useful idiots"

Posted by: jcom972 "

......Male Muslims had a name for the males and it is "Rage Boy"....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 23, 2007 10:54 AM

(exsgtbrown: I hope you know that I was being facetious. It seems like you took my sarcasm seriously. Sorry that I am so smooth as to have confused you...)

From http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/CultureAndMedia/?id=1.0.1449270797 (linked by www.thereligionofpeace.com)

“Hina Saleem, who dressed in western clothes, worked in a pizzeria in the northern town of Sarezzo and lived with her Italian boyfriend was found with her throat slit buried in the garden of her family home, her head facing Mecca in August 2006. Her father Mohammed confessed to her slaying.” [END]

At least her head was facing Mecca, further demonstrating her dad’s piety. I don't want my daughter shacking up either, but c'mon.

There were two groups of opponents at the love fest responding to Robert’s talk at DePaul, liberals and Muslims. Robert is lucky the liberals weren’t throwing custard pies, since he deserves such treatment due to his "intolerance."

Whether they know it or not, honor killing as described above, among other atrocities, was what the liberals in this audience were defending, of which they are either oblivious or careless. I wonder how many of the liberal young "ladies" in the audience so enraged by Robert's presence are shagging their boyfriends. Would they get a pass under Sharia?

On the other hand, the ReligionOfPeaceniks in this audience know that Hina Saleem got what she deserved under Sharia, and yet there they were trying to intimidate and harass someone merely describing (letting the cat out of the bag about) Sharia. “Hmmm…. He’s telling people what we believe and do… we had better stop him before too many people catch on to what we have in store for them.”

We must restore order before things get out of hand. We must treat Muslims like Muslim nations treat non-Muslims:

1. End Muslim immigration.
2. Close down all mosques.
3. Declare that Islam is not a religion but a bandit code.
4. Remove First Amendment protections for Islam and Muslims.
5. Make illegal the promulgation and practice of Islam.
6. Deport Muslim troublemakers to the Islamic paradise of their choosing.

I guaranty that they, or something like them, will be implemented eventually in western nations including the USA. Those nations that do not implement these (or similar, or better) measures will cease to be western: they will come under Sharia sooner or later, or at best, life will become intolerable for all concerned during a long descent into anarchy.

The airheads and Allahists in Robert’s audience were asking for one of two things: their measures imposed on us, or these measures imposed on them. Whether they are fully cognizant of the implications of either is irrelevant.

Unfortunately, there may be hundreds if not thousands of deaths of innocents due to terrorism as employed by Muslim “evangelists” before (or procedural to) these measures’ enactment. We can make this choice preemptively, or we can await the possible death or maiming of our neighbors and children before mustering the guts to defend ourselves. Those with better ideas should please chime in. I’m teachable.

Posted by: ChristianRepublic at October 23, 2007 10:58 AM

It’s painful to hear Robert call for Muslims to come up with “reasonable” alternative interpretations of the many violent and Western-values negating verses of the Koran in order to reform or transmogrify traditional Islam. I’m sure the Muslims in the audience and in general think this absurd; these texts of the Koran are too direct & clear anyway. IMO most “moderate” Muslims are simply passive Muslims pretending that Islam is compatible with the West in order to live and prosper in the Infidel land. They can easily rationalize that Allah does not requite them by pointless violent acts to get imprisoned while living here. They have a much better plan.

The real plan is just to sit tight and wait for the demographic takeover while militating against the likes of Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mark Steyn and others calling them bigots and hate mongers (getting the sucker liberal infidels to go along) before they wake up too many infidels. There’s no attempt (except by a very few nuts) to reform Islam from within. It’s just a matter of waiting & prospering while the amazingly stupid infidels allow their numbers to grow & grow through immigration & high birth rate. That’s the one thing the West can't seem to do much about – any self-defensive actions would be called racist, illegal religious profiling and Nazi fascism and Americans & Europeans can be counted on to recoil from this. A few moderate Muslims can garner points for the Umma by publicly deploring the useless acts of unnecessary terrorism, and never worry about politicians getting wise - they know them as overwhelmingly stupid, spineless & corrupt sellouts. For smart “moderate” Muslims, patience alone & dependable infidel stupidity will bring dar Al- Islam & sharia everywhere.

Posted by: FM at October 23, 2007 11:04 AM

The stupidity of women in America who are muslim. Do they think that if the muslims get their way that their life would be as good as it is now under our laws?! Sometimes stupid is the only word I can use for their behavior.

Posted by: R_not at October 23, 2007 11:06 AM

DePaul University is a "Catholic" university with big sympathies and tolerance for Islamic causes. They were hiring Muslims professors in their religion dept. 20 years ago. If I remember correctly, a part time instructor was let go because he 'hurt' the feelings of a Palestinian student that he disagreed with about Israel. Among the additional charges was that he made her feel threatened. I guess those concerns don't apply to guest speakers.

Posted by: maryrose at October 23, 2007 11:09 AM

It’s painful to hear Robert call for Muslims to come up with “reasonable” alternative interpretations of the many violent and Western-values negating verses of the Koran in order to reform or transmogrify traditional Islam. I’m sure the Muslims in the audience and in general think this absurd; these texts of the Koran are too direct & clear anyway. IMO most “moderate” Muslims are simply passive Muslims pretending that Islam is compatible with the West in order to live and prosper in the Infidel land. They can easily rationalize that Allah does not requite them by pointless violent acts to get imprisoned while living here. They have a much better plan.

The real plan is just to sit tight and wait for the demographic takeover while militating against the likes of Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mark Steyn and others calling them bigots and hate mongers (getting the sucker liberal infidels to go along) before they wake up too many infidels. There’s no attempt (except by a very few nuts) to reform Islam from within. It’s just a matter of waiting & prospering while the amazingly stupid infidels allow their numbers to grow & grow through immigration & high birth rate. That’s the one thing the West can't seem to do much about – any self-defensive actions would be called racist, illegal religious profiling and Nazi fascism and Americans & Europeans can be counted on to recoil from this. A few moderate Muslims can garner points for the Umma by publicly deploring the useless acts of unnecessary terrorism, and never worry about politicians getting wise - they know them as overwhelmingly stupid, spineless & corrupt sellouts. For smart “moderate” Muslims, patience alone & dependable infidel stupidity will bring dar Al- Islam & sharia everywhere.

Posted by: FM at October 23, 2007 11:10 AM

I listened to the speech very intently. As usual, Robert was composed, articulate and succinct.

But as I listened to his furtive call for an open, honest dialog, I couldn't help wondering if Robert himself actually believes it could ever result in the achievement of his stated aim: That Muslims en-mass would voluntarily reinterpret their foundational texts in a way that would mitigate the ample intolerance.

Somehow I doubt it. I debate Muslims constantly on Left-wing blogs...and my experience is that no amount of gentle persuasion will ever compel them to abandon their fidelity to the either the spirit OR THE LETTER of their religion.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 23, 2007 11:21 AM

FM and Cornelius:

There can be more than one reason to ask for something. One may ask for something in order to get it. OR one may ask for something because the very act of asking puts the focus, for all observers, on the source of the problem -- which few are willing to acknowledge.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 23, 2007 11:32 AM

The MSM chose to downplay the fact that a vocal group of Iranian-American ex-pats came out to protest Ahmadnutjob's speech at the UN.

They implied that the only protesters were Jewish groups (sounds like anti-Semitism), which were opposed by anti-Zionist Jews.

Posted by: CTYankee at October 23, 2007 11:35 AM

Attending college in the mid-1980s while a midshipman on a Navy ROTC scholarship had its moments, but nothing like today's colleges and unviversities of the absurd. If these students are so concerned about academic freedom, etc., then why don't they attend a university in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. A truly culturally awakening experience awaits them - especially for the women.

These are the same students that will attack a Christian group on campus as being "extreme or fundamentalist", but bend over backwards for the Muslim extremists among them. Unbelieveable.

And I continue to be awed by Mr. Spencer's (and others) continued struggle to speak before such hostile groups.

Posted by: HOV Dummy at October 23, 2007 11:45 AM

CTYankee,
You talkin' about these folks?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REERy0C1sKo&eurl=http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REERy0C1sKo
Interesting.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 23, 2007 12:14 PM

More wacademia wailing & whining todays;

Berkeley: College Republicans’ Event Kickoff Draws Protest

Harvard: Just Say ‘No’ to Bigotry

Iowa: Swift Boating Islam

Oregon: A plea for a balanced approach

Tufts: Looking beyond the Islamofascism rhetoric
Tufts

Posted by: Terp Mole at October 23, 2007 12:24 PM

Robert,

Perhaps for upcoming events, you can have someone transcribe while you or others speak and have your words appear on screen with the speaker's face in a corner. I'm sure the intolerant will try to find a way to block the written message but at least you won't have to shout so much and whatever physical action the intolerant take would make security act.

Posted by: 3812Michelle
--------------------------------------------------

IslamoFascism is a subject of great concern to many of my deaf friends. However, I do not have the necessary ability to accurately interpret oral or audio/video offerings on this subject. Providing a written interpretation within these mediums, would greatly enhance their understanding of this important subject. It would certainly benefit those of us whose hearing has simply worsened through the years, as well.

Posted by: tsarbomba29 at October 23, 2007 12:40 PM

The target of this action is not really muslims, but rather everyone else. It is useful because it provides a challenge and highlights the bad behavior of our opponents. Only the intellectually bankrupt must resort to shouting. the more bad attitude and behavior from our enemies the better. People are starting to wake up. We must keep talking and acting. Bravo Zulu, Mr. Spencer.

Posted by: MP at October 23, 2007 12:45 PM

Sigh~

I know what I'm gonna get for posting this here.

http://queermuslimrevolution.blogspot.com/

Read through the blogz and check out some of the links @ the bottom of the page.

In addition to these, there are regular gay "habibis" here in NYC and other cities, including Beirut. Good food, good music, belly dancing boys.

I subscribe to a "gaymiddleeast" e-mail group where, at the risk of their lives, gay arab men cruise each other in places like Jiddah and Mecca.

Change IS possible.

I'd love to hear from Robert about the gay muslim scene in Brussells, but that's not what he's there for.

Posted by: skevin at October 23, 2007 12:49 PM

Fatwa issued against tie.

Posted by: Shy Guy at October 23, 2007 1:02 PM

ChristianRepublic
We must restore order before things get out of hand. We must treat Muslims like Muslim nations treat non-Muslims. Those with better ideas should please chime in. I’m teachable

First off, CR, let me say that I agree with every one of your six points. What I’m at odds with is your use of the term “we”.

I assume that you mean “we” as in the nations of the West. While agreeing with your points, you have to be realistic - geo-political strategic factors and economic concerns will always force governments to seek compromise rather than confrontation. I don’t believe that any Western government - regardless of political persuasion - would ever realistically consider implementing such measures until it was far too late.

I’ve always been more interested in what we - as in supporters of the counter-jihad - can achieve. What are our realistic objectives? (We all know what needs to be done, as in your six points, but none of us are in a position to do those things or influence government policy in order to bring them about).

I think the Brussel’s Counterjihad Summit was an excellent step. Bringing together some of the major voices in the CJ to exchange experiences and information will help the flow of ideas and give direction to what, until now, has been an enthusiastic but frustratingly disjointed movement.

Another point. Our Governments stress that the problem is not Islam, but a handful of individuals “misrepresenting” themselves as Muslims.

We have to continue stressing the opposite - that the problem is not individual Muslims, but Islam itself, and for a very good reason.

Even here in the UK, Muslims are still something of a rarity in everyday life, outside of the Islamic sections of the big cities and a few of the larger towns. Society is polarized, and for most people, the only social contact they’ll have with Muslims - if any - is through the workplace. Muslims who work are likely to be Westernised in dress and behaviour, and so it becomes very difficult for non-Muslims to equate the view put forward by the CJ with their own experiences. For sure, they’ll say, there are a handful of extremist Muslims, just as there are a minority of Christian or Jewish religious whackos, but most are perfectly ordinary - just like Ahmed or Naseema in the office.

We have to find ways of raising the consciousness of such people about the Islamic threat without alienating them. If we can’t do that, then we fail and Islam wins. It’s as simple as that.

Posted by: Matamoros at October 23, 2007 1:34 PM

"It was hard to be heard at less than a shout level during the book signing after the event, when the peaceful, tolerant folks' moronic chanting made it almost impossible to carry on a conversation".-Robert

Excellent talk. The "spiritual terror" tactics used by the Islamofascists (and folks such as Fibrahim Hooper, e.g.)are not new. People should not forget that in the Arab Mid East Mien Kampf is second only to the Quran in popularity. Islam is the engine of Arab supremacism and Muslims generally bow toward really racist, really apartheid Saudi Arabia, which continues to deny the ethnic, racial and other discrimination evidence presented by Amnesty International. (Why are Muslims so silent re that?)

The Islamofacists shout, intimidate, slander, and project their real racism (they don't practice what they preach) in a country that is freer and more pluralistic than any Arab country. It's ironic.
-----------
Hitler (from Mein Kampf) on the methods he learned in Vienna on how to silence critics: "I understood the infamous spiritual terror which this movement exerts, particularly on the bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor mentally equal to such attacks; at a given sign it unleashes a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most dangerous, until the nerves of the attacked persons break down and, just to have peace again, they (the PC in media and govt, e.g.) sacrifice the hated individual(s).
However, the fools obtain no peace.
The game begins again and is repeated over and over until fear of the mad dog results in suggestive (PC, e.g.) paralysis.........Conversely, they praise every (PC) weakling on the opposing side (who appease them), sometimes cautiously, sometimes loudly, depending on the real or supposed quality of his intelligence".

In regard to the "spiritual terror" tactics of Hitler (noted above), William Shirer (page 23, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) said: "No more precise analysis of Nazi tactics, as Hitler was eventually to develop them, was ever written".

Posted by: Frank at October 23, 2007 1:44 PM

Hugh suggested:

"The government should think about establishing a special police task force whose sole task will be to ensure that Muslim attempts to harass or intimidate or shout down speakers will be met not only with removal from the site, but removal from the student rolls and, if they turn out to be non-citizens, from the country."

"The government announces a special police task force whose sole task will be to ensure that right-wing racist attempts at displaying opposition to multicultural diversity facilitators will be met not only with removal from the site, but removal from the student rolls -- and, if they turn out to be named,"Fitzgerald", from the country."

Posted by: Zeno at October 23, 2007 2:10 PM

I sat in the 5th row of the audience next to a group of militant student types. The clean-cut looking young American student next to me was wearing a shirt with some slogan in Arabic script... and spewing abrogated verses from the Quran. Others sported red star shirts, the ever-present Che Guevera shirts, and various islamic garb. My business suit and American Flag lapel pin got me an immediate "racist" epithet from the students, some of whom were self-described dropouts from various universities around the globe.

The air was thick with the smell of moral relativism and moral equivalence. One commenter had to draw parallels between radical "extremist Christians" and islamic fundamentalists. I guess to a godless heathen, they all look alike.

Only the self-righteous indignation at hastily erected strawmen arguments seemed to eclipse the directionless amorality. The contrived, preachy indignation and abundant ad homs expressed by the audience questioners was entertaining if not edifying.

The audience seemed evenly divided,although Robert Spencer and Iranian dissident Amir Abbas Fhakhravar received the largest applause. The respectful, clean-cut, neatly attired Depaul Conservative Alliance members contrasted sharply with their loud, rude, slovenly counterparts on the Left. Chicago political pundit Jeff Berkowitz had his hands full managing the "exuberant youths" who queued up... allegedly to ask questions, but mostly to lecture Robert for his various "sins". Their hypocricy was not wasted on this observer.

Robert skillfully defused the talking points of DePaul professor Scott Hibbard, who seemed to know little about the current situation on the ground in Iraq or Iran, but acknowledged much of what Amir had to say. Despite language differences, Amir Abbas Fhakhravar won over the crowd with his passion and reasoned descriptions of the Iranian Mullah's regime and its actions.

The event was definitely worth the two-hour trip through rainy Chicago rush-hour traffic to get there.

Posted by: donchicago48 at October 23, 2007 2:11 PM

They're still livid over super-dhimmiwit norman finkelstein getting his long-overdue booting from there, so their pseudo-rage would be a given.
(the staff did it ONLY under fire from realityland, not because they felt NF was out of line at all)

lol

Posted by: jcom972 at October 23, 2007 2:16 PM

I met suspended DePaul Adjunct Professor Thomas Klocek as we milled about after the event. He was a speaker, along with David Horowitz, at another DePaul Conservative Alliance event last January. Some may recall that Prof Klocek was suspended a couple years back, ostensibly for his political views vis a vis the "suffering Palestinians", after an on-campus encounter with palestinian apologists two years ago. His case is still winding through the Crook County Courts. I advised him to seek a change of venue.

Posted by: donchicago48 at October 23, 2007 2:37 PM

lol @ "crook county courts"

That's what my relatives there call it too.
Ah, tradition!...lol

Posted by: jcom972 at October 23, 2007 3:19 PM

jcom972-

It is interesting that after our JW conversation re Lucy/Oster and Ultra (I know a little re the two anti-Nazis) I keep running into this Bonhoeffer guy in reading re Lucy, etc. In fact, I open up my e-mail today and there (leading off) from Amazon is a book offer of "The Cost of Discipleship" by Bonhoeffer. (I guess that outdoor cat Fitzgerald would call it serendipity. However, I'm not so sure it's so favorable.) It's funny how Lucy opened the door to Bonhoeffer. I know nothing about him either, other than superficial knowledge.

One of the problems with knowledge (plumbing, history, medicine, science, music, practical work, etc.)is that there is so much of it. We really have to be specialists, grasp one field, not to remain almost totally superficial. And yet, in grasping one field (look at doctors) we often become total amateurs in the rest of life.

In any case, we've all learned a little about Islam at the JW school. We've also learned the teachers are a little at risk as they teach their specialty. However, it looks like Bonhoeffer did not have it easy either. (Bonhoeffer's idea re cheap vs. costly "grace" reminds me of the saying "cheap rent, cheap renters".)

Posted by: Frank at October 23, 2007 3:41 PM

bigcatgirl13106, you said:

Folks, you are seeing the enemy at work in a very behind-the-scenes-way.

Do you remember when the Soviet Union died, how most of the Western propaganda for communism dried up and disappeared? Sure, a lot of that disappearance was simply natural given the circumstances. But some significant part of the disappearance was also a result of the end of the support -- moral, financial, and other -- emanating by secret channels from the Soviet State itself. The Western debate about communism -- fostered by Westerners who argued it wasn't really so terrible and was perhaps at least morally equivalent to capitalist democracy -- was to a degree a trumped up sham emanating by secret channels of support from Soviet agents, KGB, etc. It also seems that the KGB, undercover in the Arab world, intentionally spread vicious lies about the Jews and Israel. Such lies found fertile soil, since Islam was already notoriously anti-Semitic, as demonstrated by well-documented Palestinian alliances with the Nazis to further the Final Solution.

The same sham-aspect present in the old Western debates about Soviet communism is surely present also today in the Western debates about Islam. A significant portion of the support for the Muslim side of the "debate" (often really just a disinformation exercise) arises through discreet channels that lead back to Muslim totalitarian or fascist governments. In other words, the debate is partly an illusion given artificial life by tyrants and their servants working behind the scenes to exert influence. But there is a large distinction between this situation and the one with the Soviets. In the case of Islam, not just government agents, but some significant percentage of ordinary Muslims are eager to collude, passively or actively, with the deceptions and disinformation that give false apparent life to the Western "debate" about whether Islam has been hijacked or not. Of course it has not been hijacked, but the trumped up aspect of the debate helps buys more and more time for Islamic infiltration of the West.

Posted by: traeh at October 23, 2007 3:59 PM

Mr. Spencer,

Maybe I don’t fully understand your strategy or how it could work but who is your primary target audience? If it’s the “moderate” Muslim, then I would think they know the “source of the problem”, as you say, but are comfortable with the grand strategy of letting the activists smear truth tellers like you with nasty labels while waiting for the demographic takeover. If your primary target audience are non-Muslims then what are your proposing they do? Outreach & Dialogue? That just plays into the Islamic grand strategy involving stringing the infidel fools along. For the non-Muslim audience, it seems to me, what really is needed are more eloquent experts like you but arguing for severe control of Muslim immigration – including seeking out those who simply overstay their visas – and for monitoring of all mosques with criminal indictments, deportation, and possibly even the revoking of citizenship of imams who preach jihad. Education, yes, is the first step and you have been great at this but quickly something further is needed to effectively thwart their demographic takeover. Who is working toward this obvious goal?

Most Muslims don’t really want Dialogue; I think they know their Koran’s intolerance & jihad ideology well enough. They would just play games – although I think a fair number of them are closet apostates or could be reasoned out of this pretty obviously bogus cult. IMO it is mostly the non-Muslim citizens that need to be educated & aroused to the self-defensive necessities of thwarting this long range demographic takeover, and keep in mind that for that takeover to happen a majority population of Muslims is not necessary, only a large enough voting block.

Regards,
FM

Posted by: FM at October 23, 2007 5:03 PM

Robert, in the presence of a leftist audience, you might try a different tack. I noticed you kept referring to Iran as the exporter of jihad, but perhaps that does not play too well with liberals, considering that Bush has no love for Iran as well. Perhaps if you tell them about Saudi Arabia, a nation liberals associate with Bush, you might have a more receptive audience.

Let's face it. Iran is a small player in the global jihad. It is Saudi Arabia and the oil dollars that fund the mosques worldwide. It is Saudi Arabia that produced 15 of the hijackers. And the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia can rival anything found in Iran. It is as if Iran is the backer of the war on the Little Satan, while Saudi Arabia funds the war on the Great Satan. Would you agree that is reasonably accurate?

You can make the same points about jihad with respect to Saudi Arabia as you can with Iran. But with SA, the liberals in the audience will associate better with your message if you condemn the oil weapon, Bush's phony war on terror, and our far too friendly relationship with that state. Those are talking points liberals can nod their heads to. They are like Pavlov's dogs. Say the right word, and they can come to life.

Once you get them on your side in that respect, then you can deliver the rest of your message. As it is, they just dismiss you as a talking head of the neocon Haliburton war machine, warning us about Iran, preparing us for war. They mentally tune out. Of course, they were tuned out when they walked in, but say a few choice words for Saudi Arabia and its relationship with Bush, and you may interest them in hearing more.

I honestly think many of those people hate Bush more than they love islam. If you can connect islam with Bush, and that is easy, you can make a connection in their minds that islam = Bush and, in their minds, anything associated with Bush has to be bad. You can get a lot of mileage out of that.

Posted by: jihadwatcher at October 23, 2007 5:36 PM

Jihadwatcher:

I had been asked to speak about Iran, and about the Pope's Regensburg address.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 23, 2007 5:47 PM

"If it was easy, everybody would do it."- Gene Autry.

Kudos to Mr. Spencer, and all who stand up for our Civilization against this threat of a retrograde theocratic tyranny... (which cloaks itself in the "oppressed minority" / "insulted victim" mantle -for cunning Fifth Column purposes- and thus succeeds in suckering the compassionately gullible).

The hard work is still to come.

But such groundwork must be done.

Keep up the fight, Robert.

Honey and lemon for the throat.

And quips from Ambrose Bierce and Mark Twain and Winston Churchill and Will Rogers to have handy some for good, shut-down-the-stupid rebuttals to the predictable drivel spewed by your "progressive" audience members.

Posted by: profitsbeard at October 23, 2007 5:59 PM

DePaul University -- is this not a Roman Catholic University?

What does that have to do with anything?

EVERYTHING!

Posted by: witness at October 23, 2007 6:14 PM

Keep up the good fight, Robert. You are a national treasure!

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at October 23, 2007 6:47 PM

El Roberto-

Re: Syconicity-

The final straw today re Bonhoeffer (note post above) has been someone giving me his book The Martyred Christian-160 readings-selected and edited by Joan Winmill Brown. Published London-forward copyright 1983.

My immediate thought was that Robert has received some e-mail threats recently and that they should be taken seriously. Robert-you are intended to be around for a long while. If my hunch is right, I think you should alert somebody you know about them. One of these e-mails is from a really bad person-really sick. (It might be Fibrahim Hooper-LOL.)

Posted by: Frank at October 23, 2007 7:06 PM

Allah me arse, pal. Oriana Fallaci and a couple of other angels are watching over Robert.

Posted by: Frank at October 23, 2007 7:50 PM

Robert

Kudo's, my man. BTW, loved your book "The Truth About Muhammed". Stellar stuff. I read it while deployed to the wonderful world of the religion of peace.

As a former resident of Academia, I wish I could say that I am suprised by the reaction of the crowd. The muslims I knew in college and grad school, though intelligent people, suddenly degenerated into idiocy whenever questions concerning the truthfulness or veracity of their religion were brought up. They were quick to heap up accusations and charges against the Bible, or Western civilization (though why many of them came to the US to study if what they said was true never crossed their minds), but could not stand questions about the Q'uran or their fake prophet without throwing a temper tantrum. I attended one debate between Shabir Ally and a Kuwaiti Christian from Answering Islam and their behavior was hilarious (the muslim lost...badly).

But what galls me the most is the behavior of the liberal lemmings who can't say enough good things about Islam. I asked those that I knew if they really wanted to live under Islamic law. Having spent plenty of time in the Middle East and seeing the oppressive effect of it on economic development, academic achievement and technological advances, I can't begin to fathom why any self-respecting liberal would side with Islam (particularly the fems). I mean, you think Christianity is bad, go to Afghanistan and check out how wonderful the religion of peace has helped that country. It just shows you how intellectually vacuous secularism/liberalism really is. But this is not meant to be a book.

I'll just say, I love your work, your heart and I recommend your work/website to everyone I can. You are definitely in my prayers.

Posted by: dabney at October 23, 2007 7:54 PM

I graduated from a private University.

I am so ashamed of the current students in that University now. The dhimwits. The little undergraduate dhimwits. Brainwashed.

Ashamed. Not from my time, but now - yes.

Posted by: darcy at October 23, 2007 8:50 PM

Perhaps for upcoming events, you can have someone transcribe . . .-Posted by: 3812Michelle -------------------------------------------------

IslamoFascism is a subject of great concern to many of my deaf friends. However, I do not have the necessary ability to accurately interpret oral or audio/video offerings on this subject. Providing a written interpretation within these mediums, would greatly enhance their understanding of this important subject. It would certainly benefit those of us whose hearing has simply worsened through the years, as well.- Posted by: tsarbomba29

Transcript of Robert's videotaped portion of this event:

Robert Spencer @
Depaul University
for
"Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week"
Part 1 (via Freedomfolks.com/blog)

Robert Spencer at the podium. Applause
****

"Thank you. Thank you for coming. It's a great honor for me to appear here tonight with the hero of our age, Amir-Abbas Fakhravar, and I hope you all heeded his words and will consider them very carefully. I'm here tonight to discuss some of the larger issues and implications involved in the conflict, which is almost certain to come, and in many ways of course has already begun and has gone on since 1979 between the United States and Iran.
Nick, in his introduction, made a reference to Pope Benedict XVI and his notorious address at Regensberg. One of the things that the Pope said in there was actually a quotation. The quotation was this: "One does not need a strong arm or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death, to convince a reasonable soul ."
"One does not need a strong arm or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death".

Those were the words, ironically enough, the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus whom the Pope quoted in that Regensberg address. And of course, he also quoted some other words that Manuel II Palaeologus said about the Prophet of Islam which touched off worldwide riots, indicating that there are some people in the world today, and I think that we can very clearly assign the Iranian regime to this group, that are not interested in any kind of reasonable dialogue or exchange, but only into making people conform to their will by force. And this is really the heart of the matter. Whether we are going to be able to have reason and rational dialogue or whether we are going to submit to intimidation, whether peaceful or violent. . .whether carried out by means of smear tactics or by means of guns and bombs. . . or whether we are going to be able to discuss things with mutual respect.

The conflict, I think, was summed up most vividly in the murder of the Dutch film-maker, Theo Van Gogh, in Amsterdam, November 2nd 2004. Theo Van Gogh you may know was a relative, a decendant of the great painter. He was a gadfly. He had alientated virtually everyone. He made public statements insulting Jews, Christians, and then he made a twelve minute video, "Submission" , about the oppression, the mistreatment of women in Islam and the video featured images of battered women wearing see-through robes with verses from the Qur'an written on their bodies. That was enough, for Theo Van Gogh.

Bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam back in 2004 was A man named Mohammed Bouyeri wearing traditional Islamic clothing began to shoot at him. After Theo fell off his bike, Bouyeri ran up to him and began slitting his throat, attempting to be-head him. In his agony, Theo Van Gogh uttered his last words which were, "Can't we talk about this?"

Well, obviously he couldn't. Obviously he couldn't and obviously many others can't today.

In Iran, you try to talk about this and you end up in prison like our friend. All over the world, even in the western world, you try to talk about these issues and you get vilified, smeared, lied about, condemned without fear.

Bouyeri, of course, replied to Van Gogh's intriguing "Can't we talk about this?" by stabbing him repeatedly and finally leaving a knife stabbed into his body on which a note was attached containing verses from the Qur'an and threats to other Dutch public figures.

At his trial, Bouyeri was absolutely un-repentant and absolutely clear about why he murdered Van Gogh. He said, "I did so, purely out of my beliefs. I want you to know . . .", he said "that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan or felt insulted. If I ever get free I would do it again. "

And finally he summed it all up. "What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his Prophet. "

"Can't we talk about this?"

"I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his Prophet. "

That is the heart of the conflict that we face in the world today. On the one hand there is a determination to talk, to negotiate, to accomodate, no matter what the provocation. On the other side, there is fury, intransigence, absolute conviction and an absolute unwillingness to budge.

All pervasive in the West, all pervasive, here in this group, I'm sure, is the assumption that everyone wants peace and is willing to compromise and negotiate to get it. And that everyone will be willing to meet an opponent half way. And that everyone shares this conviction such that we can all, if we can work hard enough, work through every problem peacefully. Oh, I wish it were so. I wish we could talk about this. I've been trying to talk about this for years. And if you'll permit me a personal note, for years now, I have been trying to speak about the origins and the derivations, the causes of the violence committed in the name of Islam, by Muslims who justify it explicitly. You read, for example Osama bin Laden's recent address to the people of Pakistan. He quotes ten Qur'an verses and he explains those verses in the context of, say that the first loyalty of the muslims is to the umma and therefore Musharaf, in collaborating with the Americans, has betrayed the umma and every Muslim because of his relgious beliefs has to rise up against that regime. And he's doing it, he quotes Qur'an, he makes voluminous use of the Islamic traditions of Islamic law. THis is, of course, nothing new. You read any statement from anyone who shares his ideology and constantly there is this appeal to the purity of Islam, to what they represent as being the true Islam.

Now, what I have done, over these years, these last few years, publicly and for considerable time before that in other studies was to call attention to the elements of Islam that are being used by the jihad terrorists to justify violence and to support a supremacist agenda such as we see also from Ahmadinejad in Iran today, who has said very clearly, and repeatedly that Islam will dominate not just Iran, not just the Islamic world but the entire world at large and that this is something he sees as a manifest destiny, something he sees as an inevitablity that it will be fulfilled and it's his religious responsiblity to carry it out.

Now when I first started to speak about these things publicly, I thought that what I had hoped to have seen, what I hoped at that time to see, was a reasonable dialogue. Because there is no reform of anything without admitting there is a need for reform. There is no fixing a problem that you won't admit is a problem. If I had a brain tumor and I say I have a headache and I take a couple of aspirin and I'll be fine, will I get better? No.

In order to solve a problem, you have to diagnose a problem. If the jihadists, if Mahmud Ahmadinejad, if Osama bin Laden, if jihadists around the world are appealing to core texts and the teachings of Islam then it is incumbent upon peaceful Muslims and all people of good will, Muslim and non-Muslim, to work against that and to find reasonable ways to reinterpret those passages to counter those teachings and to stand up for human decency, for the universality of human rights, for the equality and dignity of men with women, of women with men, for the freedom of conscience, for all these things that are threatened by this ideology.

But there was no dialogue .

Many of you are probably here tonight because you've heard all sorts of terrible things about me or about Amir-Abbas Fakhravar, or about both of us, or about terrorism awareness week or about Islamofascism awareness week and so on. Now this is exactly the same problem that we see, "Can't we talk about this?" or I have to behead anyone who insults me.

Is there going to be reasonable dialogue with people who disagree with you or is there going to be violent intransegence and smears? I leave that to you.

But in a larger sense, the regime that imprisoned Amir-Abbas Fakhrava and that threatens the world today - and yes, it does threaten the world today - is not in the least interested in dialogue, not the least interested in discussion, not the least interested in debate. And if it were in charge here tonight, then, we would not be doing this. We would be sent to prison for even attempting to do it.

Mahmud Ahmadinejad holds to a political and religious ideology that needs to. . . .fade out
***

Robert Spencer @
Depaul University
for
"Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week"
Part 2

continued . . .

fade in . . .

***
. . .for his own actions and the for actions of the regime which he represents. For example, he recently has spoken on several occassions about human rights abuses in the West, most of them more fictional than fact, not all, but most of them. Even with the United Nations, The Islamic Republic of Iran has registered complaints about human rights abuses particularly concerning Muslims in France and elsewhere in Europe.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, right now, there are eight women awaiting death by stoning for the crime of adultery.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran right now, there are eight women . ..They sentenced just last week, a young mother, sentenced to death by stoning .

You never hear the leaders of the Islamic Republic discussing or even manifesting any willingness to discuss the ideology that underlies this because they believe that this ideology is founded in divine revelation and thus cannot be questioned, cannot be possibly, ever, subjected to critical scrutiny.

But as the Byzantine emperor said so long ago, that as the Pope said last year, "to convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm or weapons of any kind or any other means of threatening a person with death".

It's the same thing, even internally in Iran, with this kind of coersive law that violates so many principles that are universally accepted around the world, or almost universally accepted as being intrinsic to the rights of every individual.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, promulgated by the United Nations in 1948 guarantees the equality of rights of all people, regardless of gender, regardless of creed. And it guarantees the freedom of conscience, the right to change ones religion or to have no religion at all, to discard religion.

Now, of course, this goes against some very deeply held principles in Islamic tradition. Muhammed, the Prophet of Islam said that if anybody changes his religion, kill him. That is in the hadith recorded by Bukhari in several places. It has become, unfortunately, a foundation of Islamic law that is taught by all schools of Islamic jurisprudence. That the male who is of the age of reason or is at puberty, if he leaves Islam is subject to death.

The idea enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of the freedom of conscience is rooted in the principle of the equality and dignity of all people and of the value of the human person. That is fundamentally a Judeo-Christian principle that comes from the idea of all human beings being created in the image of God, as taught in the bible.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, this and many other principles annuciated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were challenged by Sheik *** in the Islamic critique of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights published in 1970 in which he said that a avowal of the freedom of conscience is obviously a denial of the express wishes of Muhammad. Muhammad, is uswa hasana, the excellent example of conduct as articulated by the Qur'an in chapter 30 verse 21, his words were normative in this and could not be questioned.

Now here there are two competing principles. How are we going to determine how we can live together with these principles or which one is going to take precedence. We cannot do that except through a rational dialogue, a reasonable discussion without coersion or force. And of course, this is a very vexous thing because with coersion and force are precisely what is directed, what one believes to be directed, then it becomes very difficult to maintain this kind of dialogue. But this is the choice. This is the dilemma that we face in the world today.

One hundred thirty eight muslim scholars from around the world, representing every sect, every school of jurisprudence, every group within Islam, writing to the Pope and to a large number of other Christian leaders and appealing for peace, saying the future of the world, the peace of the world depends upon us being able to get along as Muslims and Christians because together we comprise, what was it, almost half the world's population and together, if we cannot get along, thus the world will be plunged into chaos.

Now this was a very welcome statement and one that represents perhaps a different spirit and just the kind of spirit of dialogue that we need to have.

Unfortunately, it did not touch upon, and I would have liked to see it touch upon some of the teachings of the Qur'an and of Islamic tradition, about perhaps the Sunni tradition of the return of Jesus, when he would rape all the crosses and Islamize the world. Or the idea in Chapter 5 Verse 17 of the Qur'an that Christians are unbelievers if they believe in the deity of Christ or that they are under the curse of Allah as outlined Chapter 9 Verse 30 of the Qur'an for believing that Jesus is The Son of God.

Now, of course, these are statements that can be subject to a variety of interpretations, a variety of understandings, but we cannot possibly achieve a reasonable dialogue, and come to some kind of a common understanding unless they're discussed openly and honestly, without the villification of one part or another - just for bringing them up.

And so, the fanatical intrangesense can some, that Mahmud Ahmadinejad and his regime represent, and that many others from around the world represent today including Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo Van Gogh - that is what is the primary enemy of every human being, Muslim and non-Muslim today who wishes to live in peace with his neighbors and wishes to achieve some kind of a foundation by which we can possibly have a harmonious coexistence of people of conscience who in their all their faiths come to differing views of the world . This cannot possibly happen unless we heed the Pope's call in the Regensberg address for reason and rational dialogue, or listen to Theo Van Gogh in his last words, as ironic as they were back in the occassion "Can't we talk about this?"

So, if we are going to understand that to convince a reasonable soul, one does not need strong arms or weapons of any kind or any other means of threatening a person with death, to conduct the genuine dialogue of cultures and religions that is so urgently needed today and which underlies the conflict between the United States and Iran.

We have to be honest and engage not just in criticism of others, not just in shouting slogans and calling for other people to be silenced, discussion, even when that discussion must touch upon unpleasant aspects of ones own tradition. For dialogue to be fruitful, for dialogue to be even possible in any genuine sense both parties have to respect one another enough to lay aside cant and sloganeering and deal with one another honestly and forthrightly. I had hoped to see this dialogue in the past. I don't any longer. I've been disappointed.

Can't we talk about this? Maybe we can, but one side can't do all the talking or all the listening. The West is still looking for a force in the Islamic world with the courage, with the generosity of spirit, with the openness of intellect and the foresight to be a willing partner in this dialogue.

Thank you very much.

Applause.
***end***

Posted by: justamomof4 at October 23, 2007 11:09 PM

Robert was superb at DePaul university, using Iran as an example to express the common Islamo-fascist ideology as a foundation to his frank discussion about Islam and the need for meaningful dialogue about the problem we here at JW, know all too well.

The intrepid Nonie Darwish on the otherhand, had a much more difficult time.

http://www.zombietime.com/darwish_berkeley/

Posted by: awake at October 24, 2007 12:39 AM

A suggestion.

I read the blog about the events and it was pointed out that at Mr. Horowitz's talk it was far quieter. At his event, photos of victims about to be executed were held up.

Perhaps at future talks, similar photos of executions, etc could be put on display. I'm sure that this wouldn't quieten down even the most loose lipped of hecklers. Maybe even a 10 minute video could be shown before the whole shindig starts could also be shown, film of beheadings, etc.

I'm sure it'd help to focus the minds wonderfully.

Just a thought.

Posted by: ewha1 at October 24, 2007 4:28 AM

A big THANK YOU, justamomof4.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at October 24, 2007 4:38 AM

awake, I clicked on your link about Nonie Darwish.

Poor Nonie Darwish, surrounded by American terrorists and fascists. My God, the utter and complete imbeciles. I'm not only ashamed of American universities, I'm ashamed of America.

Leftist America is suiciding us.

Posted by: darcy at October 24, 2007 8:41 AM

"A big THANK YOU, justamomof4."

justamomof4,
Thank you so much, for providing the transcript of Mr. Spencer's speech. I am truly grateful.

Posted by: tsarbomba29 at October 24, 2007 11:47 AM

3812Michelle,

Perhaps for upcoming events, you can have someone transcribe while you or others speak and have your words appear on screen with the speaker's face in a corner.

That, my friend, is an excellent idea.

Posted by: philmon at October 24, 2007 11:48 AM