I sent this email to the reporter at the WSJ:

Ms. Holmes:

First, thanks for exploring the topic of Islamic terrorism in your article, Linking Terror on the Trail. My I suggest that you look beyond American politics when trying to determine the appropriateness of “Islamic” as a prefix for whatever is being described (-fascism, -terrorism, -etc).

A good place to start is with the Sunni fundamentalist themselves. Al Qaida has a document out there called the “Management of Savagery.” It’s their long-term plan.

It is translated into English here:

http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/olin/images/Management%20of%20Savagery%20-%2005-23-2006.pdf

(Please look past page 1)

It concludes with this:

In concluding this article, we want to stress that our battle is a battle of tawhid against unbelief and faith against polytheism. It is not an economic, political, or social battle. However, we must not forget that it is sharia policy when addressing weak souls among the different classes of people to promise to reclaim our wealth and our rights, even to plunder the wealth of God which evil people have taken. We do not think that promises like this motivated the Companions of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him); rather, it was a distraction for them and a motivation for the weak souls among the people to accept Islam. Afterwards, it is clear that these weak souls improved their condition by living among the people of faith and the furnace of battle, and their motivation was for the sake of tawhid before all else [the same point is made on pages 48-49]. Therefore, we find that God, praised and exalted be He, directed the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to address the captives of the enemy by saying: "O Prophet, say to the prisoners in your hands: ‘If God knows of any good in your hearts He will give you better than what has been taken from you, and He will forgive you; surely God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.’” (Qur'an 8:70)
I beseech God to grant us sincerity in speech and action and to strengthen this Umma through obedience, which is the key to all good. Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds.

Now then… either they typed up a 200+ page document in Arabic for their own entertainment, or they actually believe this stuff.

Given that it seems they believe they are being motivated by religion, which of the people in your story appear to be correct:

"To continue to harp on the idea that Islamo-fascism is the source of terrorism is to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists," Mr. Halperin said.

Actually the term Islamofascism doesn’t suggest all Muslims are terrorists any more than Germany Nazi suggests all Germans were NAZIs , or Italian Fascists meant that all Italians were Fascists.

"Jihad" is an Arabic word found in the Quran that roughly translates to mean "struggle." What that struggle is, or how it should be carried out, is less clear. Terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, use it to refer to holy war, or religious struggles to purify Islam. Many Muslims prefer a more peaceful definition, representing a quest for self-betterment.

Well then perhaps the Muslims holding to the peaceful definition should direct as much criticism to those Muslims who hold to the violent definition as they do toward non Muslims who are only using the terms the Terrorists use for themselves.

He did so in that instance to say Republicans were making a mistake by using rhetoric that could frame the battle against terrorists as a war of civilizations.

But then that’s exactly the conflict we’re in. They seek to destroy our way of life and system of law and replace it with Sharia with no compromise. To label this conflict in such a way as to obscure the goal of global Islamic Sharia Imposition is to be totally unaware of the war that has been thrust upon us.

Please do look into these matters more carefully… we need more people to tell the American people the truth and the scope of this conflict.

Thank you.

Posted by: Vince at October 30, 2007 10:57 AM

Robert: your questionnaire should have been more extensive:

1. What is your (the reporters) religious affiliation ?

2. What is your educational background (schools and courses attended) and sexual orientation ?

3. What is your experience in the world outside journalism (jobs, ventures, travel) ?

4. What does all this crap have to do with the issue at hand, such as objective and honest reporting and the danger to us that fundamental islam poses ?

Posted by: dgene at October 30, 2007 11:18 AM

I wrote as well, taking more of a Hugh Fitzgerald line, perhaps, but using the subject line "Your disregard for Robert Spencer."

Others should write, respectfully and in their own words.

****

Ms. Holmes,

Here's the claim: Islam is not a terrorist organization, but is a supremist organization, with specific ideas on how to rule non-Muslims. The dhimmi laws and the requirement to struggle (conduct Jihad) against the "injustice" of those
who disagree are mainstream Islamic teachings.

Why not give more play to Robert Spencer's insistence -- and the reasons for his insistence -- that we tell the truth about Islam? Jihad in our time has many angles -- from immigration to the use of the legal system to silence infidels to the use of soft words to hide the reality of Islam to the conversion of
prisoners.

We are admitting and accepting a fifth column, not a private religion. At least some of the Republicans can smell the hummous.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018614.php

Posted by: StillBreathing at October 30, 2007 11:25 AM

OT:

CAIR reflects on the HLF case in "Fighting imaginary terrorist threats" -

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-mistrial_thinkoct28,0,6992056.story

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at October 30, 2007 11:34 AM

http://www.lumponablog.com/?p=348"> The CHAMP Act Threatens Viability of Physician Owned Hospitals

Posted by: Lumpy at October 30, 2007 11:36 AM

The CHAMP Act Threatens Viability of Physician Owned Hospitals

Posted by: Lumpy at October 30, 2007 11:38 AM

The amazing thing about these media people is that if someone said 'I want to kill people because they are gay', or 'I want to kill people because they are black' the media would have no problem taking them at their word.

It is the blind spot that the media has when people say, 'I want to kill people in the name of Islam, here are the Islamic texts that justify it, and I am a true Muslim'. It is like someone says 'water is wet' and the media says well not all water is wet because ice is solid and water vapor is gas. Reporting truth goes out the window when it comes to Jihad and the media. Thanks Robert for reaffirming that water is indeed wet. Maybe the media will concur at some point. But I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: ThackerAgency at October 30, 2007 11:49 AM

Have you ever received valuable responses to these kinds of questions or are they more of a symbolic action which further prove the severe bias and disregard the media observes?

Posted by: deseeded at October 30, 2007 11:50 AM

ROBERT: "I'll let you know if I get any answer."

Don't hold your breath, folks.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 30, 2007 11:56 AM

Generally the WSJ is a smart Republican paper that gets it, so I'm surprised they would have this idiot journalist working for them. Please post her response as I'm very curious as to how she will reply, but I think you've probably stumped her Robert, being that she's most likely a tree hugger with not a whole lot going on upstairs.

Posted by: Bonniea at October 30, 2007 12:03 PM

Who owns the Wall Street Journal these days? Remember this one?

A Saudi prince who owns shares of the Fox News Channel claims he persuaded network chief Rupert Murdoch to change a screen banner during a broadcast that identified the recent unrest in France as "Muslim riots."

http://whatshappeningatcnn.blogspot.com/2005/12/saudi-part-owner-of-fnc-had-coverage.html

Posted by: pez at October 30, 2007 12:09 PM

Dear Mr Spencer ,
You are clearly an Islamophobe ,have a nice day.
Cordially
Elizabeth Holmes

Posted by: GrennBeck at October 30, 2007 12:12 PM

I wrote Ms. Holmes also. I invited to answer Robert's questions and challenged her, respectfully, to prove his analysis incorrect, if she could.

Posted by: USorThem at October 30, 2007 12:15 PM

Investor's Business Daily is a better paper for stock pickers and coverage of Islamism/jihad/sharia.

Posted by: Beagle at October 30, 2007 12:26 PM

BONNIEA: "Generally the WSJ is a smart Republican paper that gets it, so I'm surprised they would have this idiot journalist working for them."

You'd be surprised of the extent to which political-correctness has permeated even what passes for conservative media.

The WSJ's editorial page is mostly conservative, but its hard-news section could pass for any liberal paper in the country. Perhaps things will change now that Murdoch has bought it (perhaps not).

Someone close to me has a friend on staff at WSJ. This person wrote an email identifying Islam as a unique threat in the annals of human history. The response - so disheartening - was that Jihad was no more an example of religious extremism than Bush's crusade in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 30, 2007 12:49 PM

From what I hear by talking heads, the WSJ Editorial Board is conservative. The News side of things is as lefty as the rest of the MSM.

Posted by: Vince at October 30, 2007 12:52 PM

Robert said

4. Do you yourself believe that if terror groups take names like "Islamic Jihad" or "the Party of Allah" (Hizballah) or "The Islamic Resistance Movement" (Hamas), that non-Muslim officials and writers have the responsibility to find other names by which to refer to them, so as to obscure the Islamic content of their message and appeal within the Islamic world? If so, why?

The spelling of "the Party of Allah" (Hizb'Allah) by mainstream media as "Hezbollah" strikes me as a deliberate obfuscation.

If it's a simple misunderstanding, due to the multiple ways that Arabic can be transliterated into English (it can), would anyone mind if we start referring to "Ollah"? Oh, that's right, that would be sacriligious and would trigger murderous riots around the world by the Religion of Peace.

Posted by: special_guest at October 30, 2007 12:53 PM

A decade ago, the major newspapers were free to selectively quote (or not) as they saw fit, and could stonewall any request for clarification with impunity. Where else could people go to get the unadulterated news?

The world has changed, the message is no longer under their strict control.

[Robert, did you try contacting the ombudsman at the WSJ? They might be more helpful than Bob in PR.]

Posted by: special_guest at October 30, 2007 1:01 PM

Had to share with you all part of a discussion I'm having with a classic (non-muslim, I think) Spencer-ophobe over at Amazon.com, concerning his book ROP. This fellow admits,

Spencer avoids "hateful" language to look "reasonable" and "objective," ... Spencer, like the serpent in Eden, sounds very calm and reasonable, but the vitriol about Islam in the 5-star reviews of his books shows his real message -- and his readers are getting it loud and clear.

I offered a much simpler take on the matter: Maybe Spencer sounds reasonable and objective ... because he is! (And I point out that he is only responsible for his own words, not those who write about his work.)

His explanation for Qur'an 9:5 takes an interesting turn:

He doesn't mention the context in which it was supposedly uttered, either...I say "supposedly uttered" because the Qur'an was written down after Muhammad died by people remembering things he said, hence the overly repititiousness of the text.

Hmm, where to start? (i) Assertion that the Qur'an is the word of Mohammed, not Allah; (ii) contention that it was probably badly transmitted, possibly a later insertion, but certainly in doubt; (iii) attribution of the careless construction of the Qur'an to haphazard collection techniques instead of some supernatural poetic structure too hard for us to understand... (iv) tacit admission that, if the verse is accurate, it would be problematic (I point out that whether it is accurate or not makes little difference to Spencer's case ... only whether muslims regard it as so.)

The fellow is beginning to sound a bit like an islamophobe!

Thought you'd all get a chuckle anyway.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at October 30, 2007 1:16 PM

No surprises. This is the same Wall Street Journal that is promoting "Sharia" securities:

September 27, 2007:

DIFC and The Wall Street Journal launch Islamic and Ethical Finance Conference
http://www.ameinfo.com/133277.html

Posted by: jeffreyimm at October 30, 2007 1:20 PM

Robert, send a carbon copy to the board of directors at WSJ as well as the editorial department. This is based on what other posters have noted about the political structure at WSJ and if it is true.

I will write them a note as well.

Jeremiah 9:5-6
"They all fool and defraud each other; no one tells the truth. With practiced tongues they tell lies; they wear themselves out with all their sinning. They pile lie upon lie and utterly refuse to come to me," says the Lord

إرميا 9:5-6
"انهم جميعا غبي والاحتيال على بعضها البعض ؛ لا أحد يقول الحقيقة. مع مارست الالسنه يقولون الاكاذيب ؛ ارتداء انفسهم انهم من اصل بكل ما لها من الاثم. انها كومة كذبة على كذبة وترفض تماما على المجيء الى منى ، "يقول الرب

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at October 30, 2007 1:43 PM

Robert

It seems that you have, as Bill O'Reilly might say, Elizabeth Holmes and Robert Christie '... hiding under their desks ...'

Are FACT and TRUE forbidden four letter words to them?

Posted by: getrealnow4 at October 30, 2007 1:54 PM

It is probably impossible to underestimate the ability of people with money to influence what is written in the print media. This is particularly relevant in a time when most news papers are owned by large conglomerates. The "kingdom", Dubai, Kuwait, etc. have plenty of money and hence many allies in the world of finance and the media. 'Taint always them pesky Jooz who control what you read.
/just doing some thinking...

Posted by: MP at October 30, 2007 2:09 PM

Someone close to me has a friend on staff at WSJ. This person wrote an email identifying Islam as a unique threat in the annals of human history. The response - so disheartening - was that Jihad was no more an example of religious extremism than Bush's crusade in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by: Cornelius

I just lost all respect for this paper because of what you wrote and their response's to Robert in regards to his interview request. They have lost their credibility for intelligent reporting and have become a member of the liberal MSM. I suppose they'll next be endorsing Hitlery for President.

Posted by: Bonniea at October 30, 2007 2:13 PM

Rupert Murdoch should be informed of all this. He may not have a thorough grasp of the texts and tenets of Islam, being so busy in the real business of living, which apparently consists nowadays in the uninterrupted making of money. But there is reason to think he can learn about those texts and tenets and attitudes, and he should start some in-house seminaring to make sure that any reporter or columnist who is going to be discussing Islam actually knows something about it -- and not by reading what the armstrongs and espositos and others in the small army of Western apologists for islam have on offer.

It's not much to ask of him, or much of him to ask of his staff at the Wall Streen Journal. It's the absolute minimum.

Posted by: Hugh at October 30, 2007 3:04 PM

Hugh -
I am sorry but I doubt that Murdoch cares, especially when his company is promoting Sharia-compliant securities.

Posted by: jeffreyimm at October 30, 2007 4:07 PM

Robert....if you were a fly on the wall in Bob Christies office, I am sure that you would have heard several explitives upon opening your email.

Bob Christie is right now putting his hands over his eyes and saying to himself 'I don't see Robert Spencer, I don't see Robert Spencer'.

And as far as the comment 'the story speaks for itself', yes, it does. It says that one is willing to produce an article but not willing to produce a good article or one called a job well done.

I wonder if Bob Christie in journalism school ever turned to a professor and said 'my homework speaks for itself'. Society/consumers, like school will issue a 'grade' on your work. Filling space on a news stand may be good for the editor, but if it is not 'a job well done' then it is not fit to print.

And Bob Christie......do a good job. That is all we ask. Don't be content or contempt.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at October 30, 2007 4:33 PM

10 to 1, this is one of many of their "last hurrah"s.
Rupert Murdoch recently bought the WSJ, the unholy alliance is livid,
the higher ups like the editor(s) (and probably some *ahem* "commentators") know their contract probably won't be renewed,
they're frantic as their propaganda monopoly's shattered,
...this isn't the only area where the MSMs PAP police are frantic, or livid (as I posted elsewhere), just look at paul krugman's screed at the NYSlimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
(implying terrorism is a figment of a "neo-con" imagination- vis-a-vis, if you believe islamofascism exists, then you're this "neo-con". Ironic term, since it was made up by a neo-COM, but that's another issue).

...and recently, the BBCs recent diatribes (see other threads here)...

This isn't coincidence, this is a propaganda version of a military offensive, and appears everyone but sorosistas (the 5th column, enemy within) are this "enemy" targeted for attack.

this is likely their endgame-they've nothing left to lose, aka, if "I go down, I'm gonna make damned sure I take as many of my enemy with me as possible!".
It's called desperation...such a bogus, lame, & inane attack against reason and the PC's mortal enemy: reality (and common sense),
especially when this veil of theirs isn't even hard to decipher, is a clear and unmistakable sign that their power & control racket they've used to run interference for their puppetmasters, shows to be cracking severely...

...and the PAPaganda ministry is not happy about anyone exposing their blatantly biased vitriol.

Robert Spencer did a lot more than just shine light of truth upon islamofascism, he also shone light upon the cockroaches who are really foremost behind this CAIR charade, and the propaganda masters behind them (that most of us know better as the 5th column)...
...the effects of which, we are only beginning to see come to light.

I love it when a plan comes together!
lol
;-)

Posted by: jcom972 at October 30, 2007 7:18 PM

I will always support the freedom of the press, but I have concluded that most journalists are yellow bigoted and misuses this freedom.

This said, you can not trust the media but you can get your message out sometimes. We need creative protest against Islamic fascism in order to get the common person to explore the issues. When they do, they will conclude that Islam is an inherently violent and supremacist religion.

Posted by: James Martel at October 30, 2007 7:39 PM

Reporters, like this dodo bird, get paid by editors to build another nest to protect their utopian dreams of a world without conflict, a world where all ideas, all religions, all cultures have equal merit, and all people seek the highest, unifying goal of peaceful coexistence.

Yet, if the religious background of R. Spencer compromises his opinions on the subject of jihad, then, would it not follow that the opinions of muslims claiming there is not logical connection between jihad, Islamic terrorism and the bloody,global struggle for Islamic dominance be subject to the same disqualification?

Of course, this would never occur to dhimbulbs, whose collective wattage is insufficient for shedding any real light on the problem of Islam, jihad and Islamic terrorism because they are hard at work obscuring the truth from the average man on the street. Yet, however, hard the MSM tries to propagandize to the contrary, average people do understand that this jihad is not just an internal, individual struggle to submit to a religion which advocates it followers deceive, conquer or kill.

If the Democrats' favorite candidate can rise to power on the contributions of impoverished Chinese dishwashers and laborers, then, how much more desirable are the contributions of Islamist-terrorist sympathizers here in this country who can bestow their gratitude and votes upon she who will make it easier for them to operate here without interference, like the Chinese operatives who pillaged our nuclear warhead technology during her husband's reign? A very interesting article in IBD, brought to this reader by Michael Savage's reading room...

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278550826699767

Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 30, 2007 8:01 PM

burkas'
if ya think that one was bad, this one will knock your socks off...lol
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278291149224647
by the way, the NYSlimes & paul krugman (yep, same committed leftists covering for the unholy alliance & their islamicommie left, H-A-T-E IBD...and we can see why, lol)

The truth is like surgery...
it hurts, but it usually cures, too.
lol

;-)

Posted by: jcom972 at October 30, 2007 8:28 PM

Just another example of advocacy journalism - not to stereotype all journalists.

Posted by: jewdog at October 30, 2007 8:34 PM

If you do a Google search on Elizabeth Holmes, you find one of her namesakes. Elizabeth Holmes the journalist should learn about the Islamist reasons for the tragic death of Elizabeth Homes the 9/11 victim.

http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/VictimInfo.asp?ID=2928

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at October 30, 2007 9:08 PM

According to Elizabeth Holmes the journalist, Elizabeth Holmes the 9/11 victim must be just another "little Eichmann."

http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/VictimInfo.asp?ID=2928

http://terroristattack.com/messages.php?id=1310

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at October 30, 2007 9:10 PM

Yet again, the intellectually bankrupt left has no cogent response to an intelligent, articulated rebuke of their assertions.

Their position is that of a house of cards that needs to be smashed.

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at October 30, 2007 10:45 PM

Seems like somebody at Investors Business Daily reads Jihad Watch. At any rate the IBD seems not bad on the subject of jihad.

Posted by: traeh at October 31, 2007 1:58 AM

Elizabeth Holmes' and Bob Christie's replies reek of officious punctiliousness and patronizing put-down.

Allow me to read between the lines:

"Oh!--The impudence of that Robert Spencer, to question the motives, second-guess the judgments of his social betters, Their Excellencies, the Nabobs of Pusillanimity--Why, it's enough to make one absolutely indignant!"

Posted by: John C at October 31, 2007 2:27 AM

"--We are not amused."

Posted by: John C at October 31, 2007 2:30 AM

Robert,

Up The CounterJihad! Keep on bein' uppity!

Posted by: John C at October 31, 2007 2:38 AM

Robert,

About the relevance of your personal affiliations, let me say this:

In order to accomplish the nefarious, insidious machinations ascribed to us, it is imperative that we Catholic apologist judeophile Christian pro-feminist humanist natural-law Islamomisiasts unite, actively recruit, stay on-message and maintain our distinct identity, working from within the system until we are strong and numerous enough to effect change culminating in the collapse of this rotten structure, the destruction of the Infamous Thing, and in our inevitable Global Triumph. Deus vult, Dude!

(And sweet dreams, Ibrahim Hooper!)

Posted by: John C at October 31, 2007 3:33 AM

Unfortunately people like Ms Holmes, I suspect, know the truth all to well but are rendered impotent by the fact that the owner of the WSJ calls the shots in the end. Ms Holmes has become a coward by her need for the all important paycheck. I don't blame her directly I think there are many people who have forgotten what it means to be a JOURNALIST.

It takes
GUTS
love of the truth
and
GUTS

The only other possiblity is the Ms Holmes is honestly ignorant of the truth. I doubt that very much since she (and the WSJ public relations) were both eager to reject an interview with Robert Spencer.

Cowardice and Need (of the paycheck) has made cowards of many otherwise good western journalists.

I bet Ms Holmes has no trouble sleeping at night. I'm sure she has more important things to take care of after making sure her job is secure. The husband or kids or pet and then there is that restaurant she wants to try out and that shop she wants to visit (applies for male journalists). Meanwhile our enemies laugh and laugh as they plan and carry out their schemes.

Ms Holmes how many Americans and other innocents must die before you realize your job is not just a 'job' but a sacred calling to TELL THE TRUTH even if it means risking your paycheck? It all comes down to that doesnt it Ms Holmes? I sincerely doubt you don't know the truth. Perhaps you have convinced yourself of the misinformation you write is true. That makes it easier.

Ms Holmes do you believe in duty?

Ms Holmes do you believe in God?

You bring shame to your forefathers and grandparents who looking down on you.

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at October 31, 2007 1:17 PM

Posted by: special_guest wrote:
The spelling of "the Party of Allah" (Hizb'Allah) by mainstream media as "Hezbollah" strikes me as a deliberate obfuscation.
If it's a simple misunderstanding, due to the multiple ways that Arabic can be transliterated into English (it can), would anyone mind if we start referring to "Ollah"? Oh, that's right, that would be sacriligious and would trigger murderous riots around the world by the Religion of Peace.

Special_guest:
Grammatically speaking, the noun, Hizb, in the beginning of a phrase must have a damma suffix (ou sound) such as in the example, Allahu Akbar, the famous Islamic battle cry of Allah is the greatest. Therefore, Hizbo-allah is a good enough transliteration.

Posted by: have_mercy at October 31, 2007 4:50 PM