| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week continues to make apologists nervous, resulting in a slew of case studies in all the usual devices they use in hope of diverting discussions away from the elements of Islamic texts and teachings that fuel the jihad ideology: Fear of "backlash," denial of the connection between Islamic jihad doctrine and Islamic jihad violence, and, of course, good old slander.
"Commentary: On propaganda and Islamophobia in the US," by Abukar Arman, "a freelance writer who lives in Ohio," (whose writings have come under scrutiny at Jihad Watch before), for the Middle East Times:
The daunting reality facing people of conscience is the seemingly impossible task of controlling propaganda in a free society, and how the protected freedom of the perpetrators increases the vulnerability of their potential victims.
Interesting choice of words there: "controlling" propaganda. Not recognizing it, answering it, or critically engaging it, but controlling it. But the "control" of information and discussion is itself an exercise in indoctrination, propaganda, and the mark of a patronizing government that feels it knows better than the citizens whose consent gives it power.
In the past few years, while many positive things have happened to Muslims in America, dark clouds continue to gather over them as a result of relentless propaganda by certain special interest groups. All one has to do is to randomly listen to AM talk show radio to hear the overtly-expressed hatred that hundreds of thousands - or perhaps millions - in America internalize each day and night. And this, needless to say, makes the backlash of any terrorist attack in the US soil a nightmare scenario for all Muslims.
More on "backlash" here.
'But, these are mere words,' the proponents of the status quo argue. 'It's not like they're throwing Molotov cocktail bombs at Muslims' homes' they insist, in an attempt to minimize the power of words.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently made an observation about another common charge that is aimed at silencing criticism of Islam, namely, that noting the Islamic underpinnings of the jihad ideology creates more jihadists. Part of her response also applies here: "If we continue that reasoning, we’ll never scrutinize anything. Can we ever write? Can we ever criticize anything?"
Indeed, there is a difference between incitement to violence, and criticizing an ideology. That is, unless we're now going to treat all criticism and disagreement as a prelude to violence. I (Marisol) would disagree with that. (Uh oh. Duck!)
[...]
In this age of Reality TV where the real, the unreal, and the surreal are deeply entangled, few have the ability to decipher disinformation or propaganda for what it truly is. Few would ask themselves: is stereotyping a major religion in its entirety ethical or even prudent? Is there any historical or even a current trend supporting the so-called "Islamo-fascism" propagated by certain vociferous political and religious provocateurs?
Yes. If you like, we can just call it jihad, too. We're flexible.
And assuming their charges were correct, the question that begs an answer is: why are the millions of Muslims in the US not wreaking "fascistic" havoc? More importantly, why are these provocateurs and their Grand Wizards such as Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, Televangelist Pat Robertson, Daniel Pipes, and Steve Emerson, and the cottage industry of fear, online outfits such as FrontPage Magazine, Jihad Watch, and Little Green Footballs keep spewing hate speech that indiscriminately offends Muslims and only provides more fuel to the radical elements?
Hate speech is described as words uttered, recorded, written, pictured, or communicated in any other means (softly or loudly) that are "intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or a group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion."
But Arman does not bother to attempt to provide any quotation of something he finds "hateful" from any of the men he mentions.
However, as a result of the heinous aggression of 9/11 and the subsequent fear industry, a number of people have become desensitized to the dangers of Islamophobia and its mirrored image, anti-Americanism.
[...]
And in the political spectrum, early this summer, while being critical of how, in their first two debates, the democratic presidential candidates avoided connecting terrorism with Islam, one of the frontrunner republican candidate's, Rudy Giuliani, recently had this to say: "During their two debates, they never mentioned the word Islamic terrorist, Islamic extremist, Islamic fascist, terrorist, whatever combination of those words you want to use - [the] words never came up ... Maybe it's politically incorrect to say that. I don't know. I can't imagine who you insult if you say Islamic terrorist. You don't insult anyone who is Islamic who isn't a terrorist."
Now imagine if media routinely described the widely-reported sexual abuses committed by individual members of the Catholic clergy as 'Catholic-pedophiliac culture' and blamed everything on Roman Catholicism or the church doctrine. Or, imagine the Zionist brutal oppression of the Palestinian people being routinely referred to as Zio-Nazism or being blamed on Judaism and the teachings of the Torah.
Cheap shot. But here's the problem: Where does Catholic teaching endorse molesting children? Nowhere. It's a scandal which Catholics from the Pope to the rank-and-file parishioner have denounced forthrightly and want to eliminate with all the urgency in the world. Where does the Islamic faith demand the conversion, subjugation, or waging of war against unbelievers? Qur'an 9:29, for one.
Recently, however, realists such as Gen. John Abizaid, who have realized that the venomous rhetoric employed by anti-Muslim propagandists is in no way in the US' best interest, have also started to speak out.
"Adding the word 'Islamic' extremism, or qualifying it to Sunni Islamic extremism ... all make it very, very difficult because the battle of words is meaningful, especially in the Middle East to people," said the former commander of the US Central Command, adding that it was crucial to: "figure out how we don't turn this into Samuel Huntington's Battle of Civilizations, and we work toward an area where we respect mainstream Islam. There's nothing Islamic about [Osama] Bin Laden's philosophy, there's nothing Islamic about suicide bombing. I believe that these are huge difficulties that we need to overcome, this notion of Christianity versus Islam. It's not that, it doesn't need to be that."
In its true essence, propaganda is different than other forms of communication, as it consciously employs half-truths, falsehoods, and misleading information to manipulate feelings and attitudes. Propaganda mainly targets the emotions, precisely because they stir the targeted subject into a frenzy of impulsive actions.
Time to play the "Hitler" card. Never mind the continuing popularity of Mein Kampf in places like Turkey, Egypt, and other Middle Eastern countries.
Adolf Hitler clearly understood this. In his infamous Mein Kampf, he wrote: for propaganda to be more effective, it: "must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect. We must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public. The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous."
[...]
That said, Arman moves on to single out one of the aforementioned "Grand Wizards" as a "Jewish American conservative writer."
Ironically and, perhaps, while counting on the herd mentality of the frightened masses, this same propaganda machine is promoting Jewish American conservative writer and activist David Horowitz's spread-the-hate campaign, the so-called "Islamo-fascism Awareness Week," coming to a university campus near you.
And now, outright slander. It is a well-substantiated fact that the flyers Arman mentions next were produced as a smear tactic by students opposed to the event.
Horowitz and his affiliates' hateful mission was first unveiled in George Washington University, when students promoting the event plastered provocative fliers all over the university, the most despicable among them being a poster bearing the image of a Muslim man with Islamic attire that read "Hate Muslims? So Do We!"
A retraction would be nice.
Posted by Marisol at October 25, 2007 12:36 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
For crying out loud. I'll say it again, why don't you just sue them?
Posted by: Fanusi Khiyal![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 25, 2007 1:02 PM
One would like Abubakar Arman to explain to us what he makes, and what he thinks many Muslims make, and what he further thinks Infidels might reasonably make, of more than a hundred passages in the Qur'an (start with 9.29, start with any of those listed in the Calcutta Qur'an Petition), and hundreds of hadith, and then what he makes of the figure of the warrior ("war is deception") Muhammad, as described not only by such great scholars as Tor Andrae and Arthur Jeffrey and Maxime Rodinson, but also by the Muslim biographers and hagiographers? What does he think any ordinary person would make of those passages, those stories, that emulative figure of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil?
Does he, Abubakar Arman, want Infidels to find out what is contained in the texts, and what is inculcated by the tenets, of Islam, or would he be much happier if we were never to find out, and instead be dumbly content to accept the version of Islam, all taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, that is offered to us in all kinds of treacly and utterly phony interfaith gatherings, Mosque Outreach Nights, and all the rest of it?
Finally, what does Abubakar Arman think we should make of the highly intelligent and articulate people born and raised by Muslim families, living in societies and countries suffused with Islam, who found the courage to leave it, and who have found the further courage to publicly admit to their having left it, and have expressed, so memorably, what it is about Islam that is so menacing to non-Muslims, and so deeply limiting of the freedom, above all the mental freedom, of Muslims themselves? For it is Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan and Ali Sina and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and many many others -- all the best people, one might say, who have been born into Islam, and who in the West have the mental and physical freedom to declare their abandonment of this total Belief System that demands submissiveness and above all mental submimssiveness and punishes those who dare to defy that, dare to exhibit their own individual take on existence -- who are far more devastating to Islam than anything any Infidel could possibly offer.
When Abubakar Arman tells us what is wrong with what Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan and Ali Sina say about the contents of Islam, the teachings of Islam, the real views of Muslims expressed among themselves (as all of these apostates can testify) when they think Infidels cannot hear them -- then we might be getting somewhere.
Until then he remains the most obvious, and ineffectual, apologist for a mental system that diminishes the existence of those who are willing believers, or simply terrified "Muslims" simply terrified into remaining outwardly loyal to it, and that is a menace, as it has shown itself to be over the past 1350 years of Islamic conquest and subsequent subjugation of all non-Muslim peoples conquered (subjugated, and offered the possibilities of being killed, or converting, or enduring forever the status of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecuirty summed up in the word "dhimmi"), to all those who do not believe in this Total Belief-System.
Posted by: Hugh at October 25, 2007 1:03 PM
"Hate speech is described as words uttered, recorded, written, pictured, or communicated in any other means (softly or loudly) that are "intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or a group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion."
So what better describes the speech that goes on in Mosques and Madrassas all over the world, including in the West?
So what does Mr. Arman suggest we do about it?
Posted by: rational
at October 25, 2007 1:18 PM
Now imagine if media routinely described the widely-reported sexual abuses committed by individual members of the Catholic clergy as 'Catholic-pedophiliac culture' and blamed everything on Roman Catholicism or the church doctrine. Or, imagine the Zionist brutal oppression of the Palestinian people being routinely referred to as Zio-Nazism or being blamed on Judaism and the teachings of the Torah.
Not hard to imagine at all. For decades now we've been swimming in charges very much like this about Catholic priests. The only thing that's missing is any intelligent commentary connecting it to Catholic doctrine (for an obvious reason -- there's no basis for such a connection).
As for Zio-Nazism, the term is alive and used continually -- it is far from hypothetical, and is a common racial slander against the Jews throughout the middle east. I have seen some radical islamist websites that try to make a connection between Jewish teachings and perceived atrocities by Israel. It's a hard connection to make, but these folks are quite determined.
Google returns 40,000 hits for "zio-nazi" or "zionazi". It even returns close to 800 for "catholic pedophilia" even though it is not a term in use. Thus both terms are quite commonly used and part of the western lexicon. Apparently Arman believes they are hypotheticals. Not so.
But let us point out that westerners are not quite as dumb as he seems to believe.
As for the phenomenon of pedophilia among Catholic priests, this language is based on solid facts -- just like the language describing islamic extremists. Further, nobody (or maybe only some narrow-minded bigots) would think of tarring all catholics as pedophiles just because there is a big, well-publicized issue surrounding certain priests. I also know of noone who is seriously trying to condemn even the catholic priesthood, although I've heard somewhat intelligent comment about how the lifestyle imposed on priests may contribute to the problem. This is all perfectly analogous to the situation with jihadists except for one thing: Probably the ones fighting hardest to address the problem of pedophilia in the priesthood are catholics themselves. From what I see the church, after some initial reluctance, has grasped the problem by the horns and is at the forefront of dealing with it. When are we going to see the corresponding action by those who pretend to speak for muslims in the west -- taking the lead in the jihadist movement? I'm not going to hold my breath.
The business of "zionazis" is worth comparing to the business of jihadists for the exact opposite reason: Most of the charges of extremism behavior come from twisted and inflated versions of actions in which the State of Israel has carried out legitimate actions to protect themselves and those in their care from extremists. There are, among Zionists, various tiny extremist groups, who do nasty things, but the general charge of "zionaziism" most often ignores these and tries to tar the whole lot because of the actions of a few, and with plenty of trumped-up charges that turn out to be either entirely fictional or highly spun quasihistory.
No, Arman, your two "hypotheticals" are not hypothetical at all -- but yes, we can learn a lot by comparing the use of these terms to those used by the antijihadist movement.
Posted by: Archimedes2 at October 25, 2007 1:24 PM
If Mr. Arman doesn't like the freedom of speech here in the U.S., I suggest that he emigrate to a repressive country more hospitable to his own views. And if he's worried that a future act of terrorism in the U.S. might create a backlash against Muslims here, he might want to persuade his fellow co-religionists to tone down their own rhetoric.
Posted by: lakeside at October 25, 2007 1:29 PM
Great commentary, Marisol.
Posted by: Stendec at October 25, 2007 1:34 PM
Once again I will point out that Robert Spencer and any other of the 'Grand Wizards' have not incited anyone one to kill.
On the other hand Mr. Arman needs to self reflect upon his own religion, ideology and propaganda and realize the vast amount of killing that is taking place by his religion.
If Mr. Arman has not realized the killing that is occurring in the name of his religion then he is an idiot. If Mr. Arman does realize the killing that is occurring in the name of his religion and he chooses to ignore it and attack those onse that are addressing it then he is an accomplise.
Posted by: alaskan1000 at October 25, 2007 1:37 PM
Oh, I should add that Arman will be pleased to note that the zionazi slander is alive and well. But perhaps he already receives their newsfeed...
Posted by: Archimedes2 at October 25, 2007 1:43 PM
"Hate speech is described as words uttered, recorded, written, pictured, or communicated in any other means (softly or loudly) that are "intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or a group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion."
Under this definition, the Koran is hate speech. Which of course it is. Islam is an extremely supremacist, violence glorifying and other-denying religion. One need only read the news from Muslims or non-Muslim sources. One only need a short reading the authoritative Hadith (commentaries) to understand that Islam is a religion based not on mercy but on hatred.
This is the problem facing non-facist Muslims. While they emphasize the sayings from Mohammad's Mecca period when Mohammad said some beautiful stuff, they do not recognize that when Mohammad failed in Mecca he turned into a terrorists and gathered an army to impose his version of the truth by the sword. Non-fascist Muslims deny this obvious reality since to accept it would be to deny the inerrency of the Koran. They would need to radically reformulate or perhaps even abandon their religion.
As a Christian, I am aware of anti-antisemitism in the New Testament and within the commentaries. If there is something else that is contrary to the truth, I want to know it, because I am on a journey of truth. It appears Muslims are not on a journey of truth, because they prefer to threaten those who would expose the Koran to the harsh light of criticism. If this were not truth then why do most scholarly critics of Islam have to publish under false names. Why? Because so called truth loving Muslims will kill them.
If a religion is true it will survive its worse scholarly enemies. Christianity has done real well from Celsus to Nietzsche to the next enemy.
Islam can not bear any critics because it must be a lie. If not, let people have access to old versions of the Koran ... let people into archaeological digs. Let the truth be explored and exposed.
Posted by: James Martel at October 25, 2007 1:52 PM
"Hate speech is described as words uttered, recorded, written, pictured, or communicated in any other means (softly or loudly) that are "intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or a group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion."
Does this mean he is going to campaign against the Quran? And all the mullahs and all other hate spewing elements from the islamic world who bring it alive everyday? I guess not.
Its wonderful this one sided self-centric vision of muslim commentators and how they shamelessly peddle their victimhood, notice the focus on the backlash, the terrorist act itself doesn't concern them too much. How vulgar is that.
That goes with their ingrained sense of victimhood, the need to justify violence against non-believers and overlook the intolerance and wanton bloodlust of islamic nutcases and this constant 're-interpretation' of dis jointed global events to make imaginary lines to sustain it.
Posted by: raulb at October 25, 2007 2:16 PM
Good point on "controlling propaganda," currently the primary goal of the Muslim-left alliance -- and, considering the extent to which the MSM whitewash domestic jihad activity, one it has made great strides in achieving. (It should be noted that, being written rather than spoken, Abukar Arman's false and malicious assertion regarding the source of the "provocative fliers" at George Washington University constitutes libel, not slander.)
Regarding the remark by John Abizaid (which he made in a speech last month to the Center for Strategic and International Studies) about the necessity to "figure out how we don't turn this into Samuel Huntington's Battle of Civilizations, and we work toward an area where we respect mainstream Islam. There's nothing Islamic about [Osama] Bin Laden's philosophy, there's nothing Islamic about suicide bombing," several points come to mind:
1. How, pray, can "we" refrain from turning this into a "Battle of Civilizations" when the jihadist enemy long ago began just such a battle?
2. Just what is "mainstream Islam?" Is it an Islam that does not hold the Qur'an -- all of it, including verses 9:29 (fight the unbelievers until they "feel themselves subdued"), 9:123 ("let them find in you a harshness"), 48:29 (Muslims are "hard against the unbelievers, merciful one to another"), etc. etc. ad nauseam -- to be the eternal, uncreated word of God as transmitted to "the Prophet" Muhammad by the angel Gabriel?
3. If "there's nothing Islamic about Bin Laden's philosophy," why are he and his lieutenants able to so persuasively make their case for jihad by constantly citing Islamic scripture? (See Raymond Ibrahim's "The Al-Qaeda Reader" for a plethora of examples.)
4. If "there's nothing Islamic ... about suicide bombing," why has that execrable practice been approved by one of the Muslim world's most influential voices; the TV preacher Yusef al-Qaradawi?
Posted by: Papa Whiskey at October 25, 2007 2:48 PM
Question:
why are the millions of Muslims in the US not wreaking "fascistic" havoc?
--Abukar Arman
Answer:
the overtly-expressed hatred that hundreds of thousands - or perhaps millions - in America internalize each day and night. And this, needless to say, makes the backlash of any terrorist attack in the US soil a nightmare scenario for all Muslims.
--Abukar Arman
==================
The Muhammadan answered his own question!!!!
at October 25, 2007 3:00 PM
THE NOBLE KORAN
synopsis:
Hate speech is described as words uttered, recorded, written, pictured, or communicated in any other means (softly or loudly) that are "intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or a group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion."
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 25, 2007 3:02 PM
Is this the same Abukar Arman in Ohio as per following articles?
Columbus' Hometown Jihad -- regarding Abukar Arman
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=A65D20E5-1514-4797-970E-EBEEC0B73C5E
Hamas Victory Is A Victory for Democracy and Peace!
by: Abukar Arman
http://frogscorpia.blogspot.com/2006/01/hamas-victory-is-victory-for-democracy.html
and
Central Ohioans Against Terrorism:
Abukar Arman Identifies the Zionist Global Conspiracy
http://ohioagainstterror.blogspot.com/2007/07/abukar-arman-identifies-zionist-global.html
at October 25, 2007 3:09 PM
Another cry fest, happily enough for Spencer in a location far from the response of most critics. Seems that you manage to wine about something new on a daily basis now. Not having as good of a time as you thought you would, eh? At this point, psychologically the best thing to do is to find something to scare your supporters back to you.
By the way, I am sure that the retraction will come from the author when you retract the following (let's start with two to get you goin'):
1. Iran is going to blow up Israel on August 22! (Grand Wizards of Islam error)--you never recanted that one, just pushed it over to Bernard Lewis and said that you never really believed it in the first place. That's the recantation of a melted M&M.
2. The United Nations says that Israel struck a nuclear site in Syria (interpretor error)--you won't recant that one either because you'll say that the jury's still out and I'll give you that one and go with another, but at least on the fact that the UN was interpreted wrong.
3. The Holy Land Foundation is not guilty--you won't recant that one either because "they weren't not guilty, just a mistrial." Surely, you believe that evidence that the other side is not allowed to see nor scrutinize is a fair trial, no?
Also, I saw that Egypt has been patted on the back for being the country that is doing the most to fight FGM in Africa (ahead of all of those Christian majority countries where it is widespread and has nothing to do with Islam)...weird. I kept looking for your articles talking about the Grand Mufti along with the Coptic Pope going around from village to village talking about it as well as the string of books, TV shows, etc. that are countering the issue in Egypt as well as the well-made Ramadan serial about it, real grassroots stuff, exactly what you have been hoping for and then subsequently demeaning all these 6 years of your scholastic career. But the only thing I hear on this site is crickets....apparently MEMRI doesn't translate it and you don't speak the language, but that really isn't important in your line of work I guess.....
Just doing some thinking...
Posted by: An American at October 25, 2007 3:26 PM
The truth is the last thing on the mind of a Muhammedan da'awa doctor. What matters is Islam, nothing but Islam. You, we, all of us,
we are the other, we are the kuffar, the dar-ul harb and we are in a state of ignorance.
Only when we submit we will see the light...
But you got the ball rolling. Don't be surprised if it becomes an avalanche.
Its worse in once Great Britain as you can see here:
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/10/25/the-guardians-awful-muhammedan-agit-props/
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 25, 2007 3:33 PM
Hate speech is described as words uttered, recorded, written, pictured, or communicated in any other means (softly or loudly) that are "intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or a group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion."
So I suppose inciting violence against atheists would be ok...'Kill the Atheists', is not hate speech.
The key word is 'intended'. If your intent is to enlighten, by telling the truth, then it is not hate speech, no matter how much the truth hurts.
Arman's interest's are in obscuring and smearing, not enlightenment. That makes nearly his whole article an example of hate speech.
But since he is writing this for a MI audience, maybe hate speech is appriciated...
at October 25, 2007 4:04 PM
There's nothing Islamic about [Osama] Bin Laden's philosophy, there's nothing Islamic about suicide bombing.
"General Abizaid is president of his own international security consulting firm, JPA Partners, LLC, which advises corporations and public agencies."
http://www.northeastern.edu/president/abizaid/
I’d love to see the client list.
at October 25, 2007 4:12 PM
Don't criticize Hitler! (it will only turn more good, moderate Germans into Nazis).
Posted by: alexon at October 25, 2007 4:17 PM
If "mainstream Islam" wants to be respected, a good starting point would be the unequivocal condemnation of any and all attacks against civilians by groups that cite the Koran as justification.
Next, withdraw all funding from those groups.
Next, show others the same respect you demand for yourself. You can begin by giving others the same freedom to practice their religions in Muslim countries that you demand for yourself everywhere in the world.
What goes around comes around.
Muslims worry about "backlash of any terrorist attack in the US soil a nightmare scenario for all Muslims". How about worrying about the terrorists who are planning the attack? How about working with law enforcement to prevent such an attack? How about showing you want to live with others and treat them as equals?
It took a long time for Americans to "internalize" their suspicions about Islam. Many of us can trace the beginnings to 1979 and the Islamic Revolution. "Death to America" is hard to ignore. 9/11 ring a bell? Muslims (and all Americans) will be lucky if a future "backlash of any terrorist attack in the US" is on the scale of what happened after 9/11. The way to avoid that is to give up the idea of violent jihad and to eliminate it from your religion and to make sure all Muslims know it.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Posted by: PMK at October 25, 2007 4:18 PM
An American,
Good to see you again! I must say I'm amused that you keep coming back, especially since you never did get around to producing those Arabic texts that would have proved your case the first time you endeavored to expose my ignorance to the world. You remember those texts, right? The ones from your Arabic hadith that just happens to coincide with the citations on Wikipedia that contest the mainstream position about Aisha's age:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016333.php
And then there was the time when you informed everyone that I was completely misquoting Sura 9:29, which, you said, did not mention the People of the Book -- the only catch was that it does. That one is in the comments field here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017476.php
And now you're back again. I tell you, sir, if I were Meadowlark Lemon, I certainly would offer you a position on the Washington Generals.
Another cry fest, happily enough for Spencer in a location far from the response of most critics. Seems that you manage to wine about something new on a daily basis now.
Where exactly was I out of reach of critics? Was it at DePaul or the University of Rhode Island? Or Brown? You may want to consult the MSAs of those schools, as well as the Leftist groups, as they may dissent from your view.
And as for "wine" on a daily basis, in fact I haven't had a glass of wine in over a week.
Not having as good of a time as you thought you would, eh? At this point, psychologically the best thing to do is to find something to scare your supporters back to you.
I'm actually having just about exactly the time I expected. Scare my supporters? I would never do such a thing, unless of course the truth scares them.
By the way, I am sure that the retraction will come from the author when you retract the following (let's start with two to get you goin'):1. Iran is going to blow up Israel on August 22! (Grand Wizards of Islam error)--you never recanted that one, just pushed it over to Bernard Lewis and said that you never really believed it in the first place. That's the recantation of a melted M&M.
Seeing as how I never said this, I'm not sure I can retract it.
2. The United Nations says that Israel struck a nuclear site in Syria (interpretor error)--you won't recant that one either because you'll say that the jury's still out and I'll give you that one and go with another, but at least on the fact that the UN was interpreted wrong.
So you want me to retract something that may be true? I see.
3. The Holy Land Foundation is not guilty--you won't recant that one either because "they weren't not guilty, just a mistrial." Surely, you believe that evidence that the other side is not allowed to see nor scrutinize is a fair trial, no?
So you want me to say that a mistrial means they were not guilty? I'm not sure that would be very responsible.
Also, I saw that Egypt has been patted on the back for being the country that is doing the most to fight FGM in Africa (ahead of all of those Christian majority countries where it is widespread and has nothing to do with Islam)...weird. I kept looking for your articles talking about the Grand Mufti along with the Coptic Pope going around from village to village talking about it as well as the string of books, TV shows, etc. that are countering the issue in Egypt as well as the well-made Ramadan serial about it, real grassroots stuff, exactly what you have been hoping for and then subsequently demeaning all these 6 years of your scholastic career. But the only thing I hear on this site is crickets....apparently MEMRI doesn't translate it and you don't speak the language, but that really isn't important in your line of work I guess.....
Whoops. You missed these. A rule of thumb, my friend: before you excoriate someone for not talking about something, make sure he really didn't talk about it:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/017096.php
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/014199.php
Just doing some thinking, doncha know!
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at October 25, 2007 4:35 PM
....HA!...doncha know!..........
Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 25, 2007 4:53 PM
"a melted M&M."
-- from "An American" above
Those with long memories know that the theme of M&Ms has been adumbrated before at Jihad Watch.
at October 25, 2007 5:04 PM
Abukar Arman said
why are the millions of Muslims in the US not wreaking "fascistic" havoc?
They're not? Over 3 thousand people were murdered on Sept. 11. The WTC was car-bombed a few years earlier. A Muslim man shot and killed several people at the El Al Airline ticket counter in LAX. A Muslim man cut the throat of a Greyhound busdriver and jerked the wheel, causing the bus to crash. An Egyptian pilot "put his trust in Allah" as he steered his jetliner into the ocean. A student drove his SUV through the UNC campus trying to run over as many pedestrians as possible. Two Muslim men drove around in a car outfitted with a trunk that allowed them to fire sniper shots from inside it. A Muslim man drove around the San Francisco area in his SUV trying to run over pedestrians. A teacher attacked guards at an Airforce base in Florida. And these are just the ones off the top of my head.
This doesn't include cases like the anthrax letters that have not yet been solved, or cases in which the perpetrators' motivations are not released to the public. It doesn't include the many cases where attacks were prepared, but fortunately authorities intervened. Many Islamic fundraising organizations have been shut down for giving their money to terrorist organizations.
We are wanding elderly nuns at airports, and grandmothers have to take their shoes off, and nursing mothers are not allowed to bring bottles of milk onboard. National monuments are no longer open to the public. Government buildings have to be built to withstand car-bomb attacks. Extra police and guards are required to be posted at our sensitive infrastructures. Our buses and trains are now constantly monitored by cameras.
Abukar is right in the sense that we're not yet seeing the levels of havoc that we see in, say, India, or Lebanon, or Russia, or Thailand. The Muslims in the U.S. are not wreaking as much havoc as in those countries. Yet.
Posted by: special_guest at October 25, 2007 5:24 PM
An American said
At this point, psychologically the best thing to do is to find something to scare your supporters back to you.
Reading the Qur'an or the ahadith would be enough to scare anyone "back" (are we all reverts?) to the commonsense reality of Robert's books and JW/DW.
Posted by: special_guest at October 25, 2007 5:44 PM
Uh, sorry, not commonsense. Not common at all, unfortunately.
Posted by: special_guest at October 25, 2007 5:46 PM
The Koran is essentially hatespeech.
Posing as a "religion".
Too bad for Abukur A. that more and more people are reading it and finding out this hard truth.
Bluster won't work much longer in hiding it.
People see through such infantile behavior.
Having noted it in 2 year olds too often.
READ THE KORAN- spread the dread.
Posted by: profitsbeard at October 25, 2007 5:55 PM
Darn, the only melted M&M's I know about are the ones in my shirt pocket.
I have been thinking also, that the motivations of blustery, insulting challengers, that show up here, muslims or not, is not to learn anything, but to indulge in intellectual auto-stimulation at everyones expense, leaving their nasty droppings in a trail behind them. Same thing with the protesters at Emory, a public orgasm.
It may not be immediately obvious, but this behavior is highly sexual. As at Emory, coitus interuptus, happened when the speaker left the area. Had he stayed they would have built up to a physical attack, an orgasm of violence in their case.
The impudent challengers that show up here, are 'attempting' intellectual rape. They basically represent nothing but 'crude'. Even if it's fine articulate crude.
Well, I am going to stop thinking for a while, thinking this hard has given me a headache. Now I will sit back, pop open a can of Algores Love Brew, and watch the world go by...
at October 25, 2007 6:04 PM
In response to Jeffrey Imm above, yes, this is the same Abukar Arman.
The same terror apologist who was kicked off the Franklin County (OH) Homeland Security oversight board:
Terrorist Sympathizer Tossed from Homeland Security Panel
The same Abukar Arman who runs two Ohio taxpayer-funded charter schools (along with his buddy, CAIR national vice-chairman Ahmad Al-Akhras):
The same Abukar Arman who organized the HAMAS-fest at the Ohio Statehouse this coming Sunday:
The same Abukar Arman who published an open letter on his blog last week defending HAMAS and al-Qaeda:
Group Supporting Al-Qaeda Defends Ohio Statehouse October-terror-fest
An all-around terror-loving fool. Oh, who by-the-way isn't even an American citizen. Why is he still in the country again?
Plenty more on Abukar at Central Ohioans Against Terrorism
Posted by: scanderbeg at October 25, 2007 6:19 PM
Funny though isn't it? All this hub bub over one week of awareness to talk about Islamo fascism.As if it is a constant thing,but we must remember truth does hurt and this week of awareness must be just about killing those who for the sake of thier very own lives can't see the truth.Who gets to speak all the other weeks of the year?
Thier actions are pitiful. Too afraid of the truth to let anyone else speak.some look as if it's just a game to them in my view,or even possibly thier grade depends on it, with a go against the "man" mentality.screw everything else.
The term Islamo-fascist is so horrible as to make thier heads spin while they regurgitate slanders one after the other that make absolutely no sense and have no basis.There should have to be no stinking Islamo- Fascism awareness week. Just look at any sign displayed at any protest by those peaceful and loving muslims.What do they say?Did we write them out for them,make them carry them around?
Mr Arman loses credibility early on with his polishing in the first place but then really loses it with the old well look at the catholics and what happened there crapola.He is now a nobody in my book,just a polisher....another polisher.He didn't add nothing new that was good.He emulates Muhammad rather well i think.
The fact these people have to run in and shout down the speakers is enough to show thier worth,they offer nothing in exchange but slander,the surest sign of a weak and decrepit mind.
I agree whole heartedly with Horowitz that maybe we should start a scholarship to send these extremists loving nimrods to the islamic extremist country of thier choosing to live it up.Just don't come back....if you can.
I agreed with the one guy too,in the video, that there should have been a debate by whomever it was he was voting for to speak on his behalf. I wonder if the guy will go ask his mouthpiece why he won't do so?
If Islamo-Fascism awareness week is about to kill them then i say bring on the hard loving and make it a month.
To see the game some wamted to play all you had to do was watch the first video.The moron saying don't taze me Bro. I think he tazed himself and thats too HA HA funny!
Losers!
Posted by: Dar al-harb at October 25, 2007 6:33 PM
"why are the millions of Muslims in the US not wreaking "fascistic" havoc?"
Is that supposed to say something about the non-violent, peaceful nature of Islam? Their children and grand children could very easily wake up one fine day and start wreaking havoc on this country. All it takes is for another Muslim to introduce them to the true teachings of Allah and his prophet. Include in those teachings a vision of hell for those who don't wage Jihad against the infidels, and a vision of Paradise for those who die fighting against the enemies of Islam, and you'll have all the havoc you can stand.
Remember that the five London suicide bombers were born and raised in Britian, and when they found Allah, they murdered 53 innocent British citizens, proving that Muslims are time bombs, planted in our midst, and ready to explode.
And when we have millions more Muslims in our country, we'll, in reality, have millions more time bombs. Multiply that by children and grand children, and you're talking about hell on earth.
at October 25, 2007 8:17 PM
A retraction would be nice. - JW
If they have an ounce of rationality in their f..up neoro-wiring mechanisms they would not feed HS to their people all the time.
I wouldn't hold my breath too long waiting for a retraction. They are by all account 'virus' to the whole humanity.
Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at October 26, 2007 12:21 AM
lol @ topic,
Robert, did you & David expect anything less from such people?
Those in danger of being exposed as evil always pull such stunts to protect what they have left-it's called political damage control...and they know it.
They deserve a good laughing at, because unless people live under a rock, everyone with half a brain in onto their lies, fraud and deceit.
You & David dealt them a horrific blow in the world of idea(l)s...and the fallout has only just now started to fall.
I love it when a plan comes together!
;-)
at October 26, 2007 1:12 AM
"why are the millions of Muslims in the US not wreaking "fascistic" havoc?"
The second amendment is the best recipe against Islamofascism.
The US of all places is probably the one where you find a lot of people who would happily say "bring it on..."
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 26, 2007 2:15 AM
First of all, this "fear industry" is it listed on the stock exchange? Can we invest in it? Better yet, where can I apply for a job?
Second, you are not saying any of these things in Arabic so he must be mis-interpreting them.
I would like to see him tell UBL to his face that his views are not Islamic. Now there is a reality show we could all enjoy right down to the point that his head leaves his body.
Because the right to free speech is so ingrained in our country we will not allow you to call our ideas propaganda without defending your right to say stupid and hateful things, nor will we stop saying them or allow you to make them illegal.
PS ABC News just showed the harmless site in Syria by commercial satellite photo as wiped clean after the Israeli attack and suggested they were trying to hide evidence!
The media Does suggest that Catholic pediophelia is widespread all the time.
Posted by: Aunt Bea at October 26, 2007 8:16 AM
Actually, Aunt Bea...the "fear industry" is the reason many prices are as high as they are.
Commodities markets it's nicknamed a "terror premium", especially on such items as crude oil.
(I trade commodities quite a bit, and I swear, those jumpy idiots are as nervous as politicians at church in August with no air conditioning, lol)
And yes, there is clear signs they were frantically covering up the nuke site in syria-US saw it was unmistakably a north korean reactor design. http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ea_nkorea_10_25.asp
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4711
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/world/middleeast/26weapons.html?ex=1351051200&en=b519b2d5499c980a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
yep, that's pretty frantic excavation-nobody moves that fast unless they're desperately trying to cover something up...and no doubt who furnished the goods.
(and it wasn't brand new either-it'd been up for a few years, especially during the "no wmds! no wmds!" screeds-gee, what a shock)
I guess pelosi's pahblum-atic pals aren't too happy right about now...lol
at October 26, 2007 8:38 AM
"An American"-
You must feel SO humiliated! How CAN you stand it? These kuffrs keep embarrassing you, Muhammed #1, and your Allah.
What ARE you going to do about it? Are your friends and parents aware of your humiliation at the hands of a kuffr? What would they think of you now, so humbled and, well, small?
Posted by: Charles Bogle at October 26, 2007 1:51 PM
I think Robert should hire him as the resident court-jester...lol
Posted by: jcom972 at October 27, 2007 12:41 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)