| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"The university’s vice president for student affairs, Patricia Telles-Irvin, responded by sending a message to all students in which she called on those who put up the posters to apologize and said that the language on the ad 'reinforced a negative stereotype ... and contributed to a generalization that only furthers the misunderstanding of the religion of Islam.'”
How exactly? The jihadists are Muslims. The jihadists justify their actions by referring to Islamic teachings. The jihadists gain recruits by portraying themselves as the pure and true Muslims. The posters referred to "Radical Islam," not to Islam in general. Many have criticized that term itself for giving the impression that the jihadists are "twisting" or "hijacking" Islam's original peaceful teachings -- but now apparently even that term is off limits. While the jihadists act on their Islam, flaunt their Islam, and aggressively push their Islam among peaceful Muslims, non-Muslims must evidently see no Islam, hear no Islam, speak no Islam, and pretend that what is happening has completely different causes and motivations from what the jihadists themselves explain them to be.
At least Florida's attorney general is speaking out against this madness.
From Inside Higher Ed (scroll down; links in the original), with thanks to all who sent this in:
Florida’s attorney general, Bill McCollum, has sent a sharply worded letter to the University of Florida, saying that a vice president of the institution may have limited students’ free speech rights by criticizing posters put up last month to publicize a showing of the controversial documentary, Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West. Campus Republican groups sponsored the event, and their posters said: “Radical Islam Wants You Dead.” The university’s vice president for student affairs, Patricia Telles-Irvin, responded by sending a message to all students in which she called on those who put up the posters to apologize and said that the language on the ad “reinforced a negative stereotype ... and contributed to a generalization that only furthers the misunderstanding of the religion of Islam.” In the attorney general’s letter to the university (not yet released to the public, but posted on the Phi Beta Cons blog and confirmed by the university), McCollum said that Telles-Irvin “has chilled free speech” at the university and that she didn’t have the right to say, as official university policy, that the posters were wrong. “This may be the view of Dr. Telles-Irvin, but a great many Americans would disagree and argue that it is essential to the discussion and understanding of this war that the terrorists be properly and correctly labeled as radical Islamists who by their very actions clearly want us dead. Students and student organizations who hold this latter view should not be stifled in their free expression of it,” McCollum said. He urged the university to consider “appropriate remedial action” for what happened. A university spokesman said that Bernie Machen, the president of the university, and McCollum spoke on the phone Wednesday about the letter, but that he could not provide details of the conversation.
Posted by Robert at December 6, 2007 7:06 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"Radical Islam Wants You Dead"
...some people just refuse to believe the truth, and then some people are just ignorant of Islams war plans....The university’s vice president for student affairs, Patricia Telles-Irvin is such a person...
Posted by: exsgtbrown![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 6, 2007 7:27 AM
No stereotypes here. Like Pope Ben 16's comments, the painful truth hurts, doesn't it?
Posted by: Oiznop at December 6, 2007 7:40 AM
Makes it hard to have faith in the mythical "moderate" Muslim, doesnt it?
Posted by: Elric66 at December 6, 2007 7:41 AM
I am sick and tired of living in the United States of the Offended. No where in our fine Consitution does it guarantee a right not to be offended. This Patricia Telles-Irvin putz is an outstanding example of what is wrong with Wacademia today. If the University of Florida has some US Constitution courses on the menu, she should consider taking the time from her busy day, enroll in the course, and learn a thing or two.
The PC crap spouted by the likes of Telles-Irvin will be the death of us yet. Literally.
Posted by: Rick at December 6, 2007 8:18 AM
Ah, is this the intolerance and racial stereotyping towards muslims that forces them to become radicalised and thus want to kill us?
oh wait...does that mean the only action we are allowed is to pretend there are no radical muslims?
*rollback to 1943*
*** newsflash, Nazi feelings hurt by use of phrase 'nazi' claim. 'goosestepping through europe is part of our culture, why cant you naziphobes respect that?' shocker ***
Posted by: MrTommyAtkins at December 6, 2007 8:23 AM
"I am sick and tired of living in the United States of the Offended. No where in our fine Consitution does it guarantee a right not to be offended" --posted by Rick
Here's a great quotation from Salman Rushdie. Everyone should commit it to memory because it's a great tool to have when dealing with the PC MoonBat Enemy:
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it doesn't exist." --Salman Rushdie
I trot this little gem out quite often.
Posted by: darcy at December 6, 2007 8:31 AM
*** newsflash, Nazi feelings hurt by use of phrase 'nazi' claim. 'goosestepping through europe is part of our culture, why cant you naziphobes respect that?' shocker ***
Posted by: MrTommyAtkins at December 6, 2007 8:23 AM
Wow. You are soooooo right. Chilling.
Posted by: darcy at December 6, 2007 8:33 AM
Telles (pronounced Tay-es) was director of FIU’s Counseling and Psychological Services Center prior to her post as VP Student Affairs.
Nut cracker season.
Posted by: miira at December 6, 2007 8:47 AM
"Radical Islam" doesn't want us dead unless we refuse to do what it says. So there!
Posted by: sceptico at December 6, 2007 8:57 AM
Off Topic
EXPLOSION IN PARIS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2223250,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12
One person was killed and several others injured when parcel bomb exploded in Paris today, French media reports said.Posted by: Crusader
at December 6, 2007 9:05 AM
I wonder if it has occured to these intellectual giants that, if the right to free speech is curtailed, so will be the right to be offended.
To take offense is a right, dammit! The result of the offense should be more free speech from the offended. Back and forth--I think they used to call it "dialogue".
Do "radical Muslims" have the right to be offended? They certainly do. Do they have the right to kill over it? No way. The first person to use violence is the one who has run out of ideas.
As for the students who take a dim view of "radical Islam", good for them! They can still think independently!
They must be freshmen...
Posted by: Abscedere at December 6, 2007 9:07 AM
That's it, Robert!
See no Islam, Hear no Islam, Speak no Islam
The protest banner for the coming "hate speech" legislation to come.
Maybe it should be a banner running across one of the courageous websites busy bringing Westerner's educations up-to-speed.
Someone once suggested printing up business cards with the jihadwatch.org address, and leaving them 'round on public transit. Good idea. Print the above on one side; the site address on the other.
Posted by: Vee at December 6, 2007 9:12 AM
At this point who cares if the statement offends Muslims. From the same religion that cannot handle their own children naming a teddybear after their glorious profit.
Just another aspect of the Islamic agenda...
Posted by: SoteriA at December 6, 2007 9:14 AM
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it doesn't exist." --Salman Rushdie
Posted by: darcy
Certainly the Moslems take free advantage of this freedom: they're constantly offending people, and doing a lot worse than mere offending. But they seem to think that only they have this freedom. They think they can demonstrate by the thousands at rallies and marches calling for the death of Americans, the death of Britons, the death of Jews, the death of Christians, the death of cartoonists, the death of writers, etc; and then some of them carry out these threats, and that's all supposed to be o.k. But let someone put up a poster saying they want others dead, and that's offensive? What a farce!
VP Telles-Irvin could find things a lot more offensive than this poster if she visited the local Moslem students association office, or the local mosque.
at December 6, 2007 9:15 AM
Someone should complain to the vice Pres about the contents in the Qur'an
Posted by: Elric66 at December 6, 2007 9:22 AM
"He urged the university to consider “appropriate remedial action” for what happened."
I have a suggestion for the "appropriate remedial action."
First, a mandatory viewing by Dr. Telles-Irvin of the movie in question.
Then, to be certain she fully grasps the issues addressed by the movie (and didn't just roll her eyes and sleep through it), a 10,000 word research paper (approximately 50 pages, double spaced) about radical Islam's threat to the West. Some suggested topics to include: what is sharia and how does it coincide with or contradict the US Constitution (paying particular attention to the First Amendment's freedom of religion and freedom of expression clauses), what are the various interpretations of jihad and which appear more frequently (and how much more frequently) in the Koran/hadith, what is a dhimmi and how has dhimmi status affected non-Muslim populations of the Middle East, what is abrogation and how does that affect Koranic interpretation, what are the differences between the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam.
Last, said paper to be presented to a panel students, who shall determine Dr. Telles-Irvin's grade, which will, in turn, determine Dr. Telles-Irvin's future at the university.
Posted by: CJ at December 6, 2007 9:38 AM
Can anyone name any one single thing Islam has done for the country?
Posted by: sounder at December 6, 2007 9:45 AM
I'm offended that she's offended!
Posted by: Lori B. at December 6, 2007 9:52 AM
If Islam is so difficult and convoluted, that even the smartest of us misunderstand it, how on Earth are the Sudanese (avg IQ=72) and the likes are expected to understand it?
If the smartest of us all misunderstand Islam, it means that the rest of the world is destined to misunderstand it even worse!
Do we really have to respect and accommodate a theory, that is destined to be misunderstood by absolutely everyone? Oh, boy...
Posted by: Charles Martel at December 6, 2007 9:57 AM
The PC crowd is desperately trying to control the language because they know things are moving beyond their control. Every day it becomes harder to pull the wool over peoples' eyes. The Cartoon Jihad, the Teddy Bear Jihad, the Papal Comments Jihad, the various Flushed, Desacrated or Looked At Wrong Koran Jihads, they keep coming one right after the other. And more and more Infidels start asking impertinent questions.
Let's hope enough people wise up to the dangers of Islam before our Leftist PC Elite Useful Idiots takes over the cliff.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at December 6, 2007 10:02 AM
Rather than attack the radical Islamists who want to kill, they want to attack the harmless scholars who want to talk. Chickens.
Posted by: desert dweller at December 6, 2007 10:10 AM
Sanity from government ?
What a timely change.
Who's trying to kill our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan ? the Mafia ?
And it's not radical islam, it is islam, fundamental islam.
In this war, because they are trying to kill us, the best jihadi is a dead one.
Even when we have captured them in Iraq - we notice that where there has been a prison breakout (in 2004), some have been killed later when they returned to the battlefield (e.g. Zarquawi's 2nd IC)
If one cannot name one's enemy, one is lost.
Posted by: dgene at December 6, 2007 10:23 AM
I still say there's only one cure for people, especially women, like Patricia Telles-Irvin -- a two-three year sabatical in an Islamically dominated country, preferably the Muslim paradise of Saudi Arabia.
The problem with people like Irvin is that the university of Florida, like most American universities, allow them to barricade themselves against the reality of the world outside.
A couple years with the virtues police, and maybe a few floggings, might be exactly what she needs to snao her out of it.
Posted by: rational
at December 6, 2007 10:28 AM
He has been quoted many times here at JW.
I am paraphrasing: Everyone is created equal, some are more equal than others.
Today this is so true it's sickening. It's been a year or two since I was in college. Okay, make that at least a decade, and boy how things have gone downhill fast. Faster than that Italian skier, Tomba(?). I read Orwell in high school, maybe they should require it for college. But then with the level of leftist indoctrination going on at our campuses the message will be totally lost. If people want to be offended I'll give them the address for my father, a grand master of offense. The man can offend dirt. Our university system is a sham. It really makes me question whether or not to eventually counsel my children to go to college. At this point they would be better off as ditch diggers than to suffer this pile of bilious garbage. It's quite obvious that the left is the antithesis to education. So, instead of institutions of higher learning, they should now be called institutions of higher dhimmitude. Enough of my rambling for now.
darcy, thanks for that quote. I'll have to commit it to memory.
Posted by: Kevin at December 6, 2007 10:49 AM
Hi All,
Here are the UofF Student Affair POC's in case you want to share your thoughts with them on this matter:
tellesirvin@ufl.edu, kratzerd@ufl.edu, jeannam@housing.ufl.edu, gzdziarski@dso.ufl.edu, morgan@union.ufl.edu
----------
I am perpetually amazed at the willful ignorance, and compliant dhimmitude-by-default position these supposedly Progressives take. The very people who should be standing up for women, homosexuals, minorities, and victims of violence by opposing Islamic bigotry as sanctified by Sharia law are silent, and in some cases aid and abet Islamists.
What a shame. What a shame to see our academics, politicians, and an ignorant populace waste our freedom on the notion that if we're just tolerant of their intolerance they'll eventually change. It's a lie. It's self-deception. And it's a tragedy.
Posted by: antishock8 at December 6, 2007 10:57 AM
darcy, kevin:
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it doesn't exist." --Salman Rushdie
I trot this little gem out quite often.
________
They were planting the seeds for student "Code" speech as much as 25 years ago at my wonderfully progressive university.
Meanwhile, as we all trip over ourselves not to offend anyone, the truly Offensive pillage freely. Every college administrator should be required to spend 6 mos. a year in a real job. In the real world.
at December 6, 2007 11:13 AM
And if this sort of political correctness isn't bad enough, here's yet another frivolous lawsuit on behald of another 'off3ended' Muslim. God, when is the West finally going to kick PC into touch and grow a pair?
Muslim woman sues for being forced to remove headscarf in US jail
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/06/america/NA-GEN-US-Muslim-Headscarf-Lawsuit.php
Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at December 6, 2007 11:18 AM
Spirit Of 1683,
If she was such a devote Muslim, why is she in jail?
Posted by: Elric66 at December 6, 2007 11:22 AM
I believe I'm more offended that Radical Islamic Jihadists want to kill me....
Posted by: tanstaafl at December 6, 2007 11:23 AM
I shudder to think what will happen to my unprotected teddy bear....
Posted by: tanstaafl at December 6, 2007 11:25 AM
They are offended that we are figuring it out. One day they will figure it out that ALL muslims are called to be jihadists and if they can't stomach the fighting then they are to give to their charity which supports jihadists - old jihadists and the jihadist's families.
And when that happens they will know that we figured out that 'moderate' muslims is only a wish on our part.
Posted by: R_not at December 6, 2007 11:30 AM
I figure she knows a "nice moslem", why she even has lunch with this nice moslem. We have heard that one many times. One nice moslem = islam is good. Not the way it works.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at December 6, 2007 11:39 AM
The university’s vice president for student affairs, Patricia Telles-Irvin is such a person...
Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 6, 2007 7:27 AM
This in the university of Sami Al-Arian and the state of Ahmed Badir. How does one know if the uuniversity’s vice president for student affairs is not a jihad supporter?
Posted by: Alert at December 6, 2007 11:50 AM
They covered their bases by saying "Radical".
How much more PC do they want them to be?
How about:
Islam wants you converted, enslaved or dead.
Posted by: profitsbeard at December 6, 2007 11:53 AM
"They are offended that we are figuring it out. One day they will figure it out that ALL muslims are called to be jihadists...And when that happens they will know that we figured out that 'moderate' muslims is only a wish on our part."
Dead on right! R not, you hit the nail squarely on the head.
Spirit of 1683, your article is very interesting. Jameelah Medina is obviously a convert to Islam, probably of Mexican descent. She is a Ph. D student at Claremont Graduate University with a lawyer named Hector Villagra. Hmm...Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Southern California chapter of CAIR has reared his ugly head in this case. This whole thing is starting to stink like yesterday's garbage.
Oh, the other thing is, that the woman is a thief for having stolen a free ride on the train, but I guess if you are a "practicing" Muslim it is offensive to point out when a crime has been committed and to be expected to have to pay for that crime if you can complain loudly enough that your religious freedoms have been violated. Me thinks she dost protest too much.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 6, 2007 12:00 PM
Patricia Telles-Irvin makes this statement: “reinforced a negative stereotype ... and contributed to a generalization that only furthers the misunderstanding of the religion of Islam.”
She should be made to clarify her statements.
1-“reinforced a negative stereotype" explain this please what sterotype, and why is it negative?
2- "misunderstanding of the religion of Islam.”
How does the quote “Radical Islam Wants You Dead”, and the documentary Obsession "misunderstand" the Quran, and Hadith? Explain please. Lemonade out of lemons, because if she actually did the research, and sought answers to those simple questions, instead of spewing PC dogma she might change her mind.
at December 6, 2007 12:02 PM
"The university’s vice president for student affairs, Patricia Telles-Irvin, responded by sending a message to all students in which she called on those who put up the posters to apologize and said that the language on the ad 'reinforced a negative stereotype....'
How is Patricia Telles-Irvin, different from Bush parroting "islam is peace" or Muller giving "sensitivity training" to FBI? Patricia Telles-Irvin is only a reflection of the trend of giving in to jihad, set by white house and FBI... not that this dangerous jihad-supporter should not be kicked out by the board, immediately.
Posted by: Alert at December 6, 2007 12:05 PM
"see no Islam, hear no Islam, speak no Islam"
Rigit on, brother! You hit a BIG home run with this phrase.
Sound bites like this will get imbedded into the national dialogue, and will powerfully make the point that radical Muslims will do whatever they feel like, and you better just keep your mouth shut about it.
Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at December 6, 2007 12:28 PM
*
There will be no end to belligerent Muslims advancing on all possible civic fronts. They will complain at every occasion and protest each challenge or "insult" to Islam, no matter its truthfulness or basis in fact.
Before long we will not even be surprised by their tactics but we must work to prevent them getting that far.
How much political ground will they gain before enough of us say "No more!" and demand a change in attitude from our representatives and our governments? It will be a long slog.
*
at December 6, 2007 12:28 PM
Re: University of Florida: Saying "Radical Islam Wants You Dead" Offends Muslims
Why do Muslims find this truth offensive? Is the statement true or false? Bin Laden and others have made it clear that the statement is true.
This habit of deception addles brain patterns in terms of the mind's ability to see reality and think logically. The statement would be false if it said "All Muslims (or even most Muslims) want you dead". But it is clearly true that "Radical Islam wants you dead".
Permitting this crippling of logical thinking must be stopped or else we will become Fibrahim Hooper style retards in matters of truth and logical thinking. Such deception alters perception and is not in the self-interest of the person. The deliberate deciever wrecks their mind over time as they become Rev. Jim Nutters (who claims he was a Navy seal). It's a kind of retardation.
http://www.eleganthack.com/archives/seal-face.jpg
Posted by: Frank at December 6, 2007 12:29 PM
lol @ topic
Amazing how the plain and simple truth could be, of all things, offensive, to the same folks who live & practice it in the first place...
...or...is it the plain and simple fact that it's now out in the open, hmmmm? (rhetorical as the answer is obvious).
at December 6, 2007 12:31 PM
Good thing I am not a student there.
This past Tuesday, as some of you know, I presented my final project in the graduate philosophy course entitled, "Religion and Violence". Naturally, the syllabus was designed to focus of the evils of the West (crusades, manifest destiny, WWI, II, vietnam, iraq, civil war, slavery, etc.). I had a surprise, however. The thesis for my final presentation, "Fundamental Islam is a threat to American Way of Life". (similar to the title of the above story, is it not?) I actually refined my thesis dow from "Islam in Inherently Violent". I did not however, sugar-coat the contents. I in 35 minutes, I gave a brief overview of Mo's life, history of conquests, explanation of abrogation and it's significance in regards to violence. And reasons why everyone should be aware. Situation in europe, treatment of women, etc., etc. I finished with a video of Gaza Kindergarten Graduation. You could have heard the crickets chirping. My goal was to convince them to spend some time and research themselves. Hopefully there is at least one less potential dhimmi in that class.
I know I made an impact because another student (a Jewish girl who was going to prove that it was only a tiny minority of islamic extremists) declined to present and turned her project in in writing only. Said she did not feel well.
The professor was not extremely pleased, but he said my organization and presentation was excellent. Some things are more important that grades.
at December 6, 2007 12:36 PM
The left has no problem claiming the Republicans and the Presidant want you dead, why do they need to protect a religion?
Posted by: alaskan1000 at December 6, 2007 12:41 PM
Islam's advance into western society has been aided every step of the way by leftists like Patricia Telles-Irvin. And given that colleges routinely limits free speech and expression of the non-leftist/Marxist kind this behavior is to be expected.
The left will only stop this sort of crap when the country suffers more terrorist attacks and the people become enraged as a result and threaten lefties with massive bodily injury if they keep up supporting Muslims.
Posted by: waltc at December 6, 2007 12:44 PM
It appears some on the left have forgotten that "free speech" is guaranteed by the US Constitution. How many times have we been told by leftists that speech that offends is the speech that is in most need of protecting.Isn't it interesting that Islam appears to be the only religion that needs to be protected from "free speech" and "free expression".
Posted by: Roxane at December 6, 2007 12:56 PM
Thank you Robert for helping with my education. Your books were a major source.
Posted by: RecoveringHog at December 6, 2007 12:57 PM
interestingconundrum:
"I figure she knows a "nice moslem", why she even has lunch with this nice moslem. We have heard that one many times. One nice moslem = islam is good. Not the way it works."
Peaceful Muslim is, I'm afraid, a not very good Muslim, a "cultural" Muslim, or a sleeper cell.
at December 6, 2007 1:02 PM
Alaskan1000 said:
"The left has no problem claiming the Republicans and the Presidant want you dead, why do they need to protect a religion?"
Ain't that the truth. They have no problem spewing the most outrageous lies about Bush and Chenney but when they are presented with facts about Islam's true nature and intent and they start blathering about hate speech and all that PC crap.
Keep sticking your head in the sand, libtards. That just makes it easier for the Jihadis to behead you.
at December 6, 2007 1:03 PM
RecoveringHog:
Good on ya. Bet that went over like a fart in a spacesuit...
Posted by: JohnAdams at December 6, 2007 1:07 PM
The TRUTH does have that affect on people. I would rather offend you with the truth than lose my life or my freedoms or that of my loved ones. The more you're offended THE BETTER - must mean we're getting closer to the truth.
Posted by: champ at December 6, 2007 1:17 PM
As you know, there are many types of jihad. One of the most powerful weapons in the jihadist bag of tricks is, 'invisibility jihad'. A basic ingredient in 'lie in wait' jihad. 'You don't see em till they strike jihad'. Liberals like Patricia, Bush, Brown in Britain, etc are all aiding 'invisible jihad', by
trying to erase, or eliminate any negative reference's to it. Don't mention jihad, terrorism, Islam, or muslim, in the same sentence. Because if you do that they start becoming visible. If they become visible we have to do something about it. It's better to stick our heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away....yep that approach works just fine, if you are an idiot...
at December 6, 2007 1:35 PM
Well of course we don’t want to express the truth about radical Islam,--do we? Notice the words “radical Islam". This means that the Republican Students are not incompassing the entire Islamic religion or what is known as the umma in their comments about Islam. They are reflecting on a strain of Islam. And of course anyone that has bothered to open up the Qu’ran, or the hadiths will easily discover that these Republican students are absolutely correct as to what their poster says.
Radical Islam wants you dead if you are an infidel,if you are a kaffir,a non Muslim,an apostate,an adulteress, and a blasphamer of Mohammed or the Quran.
What part of that don’t you understand? Also did you somehow forget that these students are also intitled to free speech just as Patricia Telles-Irvin is.
Yes; if you so choose ,go ahead and continue to drink the kool-aid.
Posted by: Mackie at December 6, 2007 1:39 PM
This is the e-mail I sent to the Islamic student organization at the University of Florida, "Islam on Campus." I've provided their website below.
"Dr. Patricia Telles-Irvin has sent a free-speech-chilling message to the students at the U of F. She is discouraging the expression of not only free speech, but FACT. You are giving the distinct impression that your organization favors perpetuating radicalism much more than free speech. You are perpetuating your own stereotype!" And I sent the Attorney General's opinion along with it.
http://www.islamoncampus.com/?page=contact
Posted by: Moochie at December 6, 2007 2:06 PM
I don't know who is leading or advising the Campus Republicans, but s/he is a genius. There have been so many of these actions, each of them very well done, each of them exposing some hypocrisy. Kudos to all involved.
Posted by: special_guest at December 6, 2007 2:16 PM
There was this muslim girl in Canada who was denied a game of soccer because she was weraing hijab.
Then, as all professional victims, she claimed that her rights were violated. The press bought it and gave her publicity.
There is no right to play soccer wearing a headscarf. More, there is no right to play soccer. You are on private property, authorized to do certain things by the representative of the landlord.
This is the root cause of the problem with muslim: they arrive to our world without understanding the CONCEPT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY and assume that entire North America is whatever Somalia/Iraq/Afghanistan they have come from.
Is it time to educate them? Big time!
Posted by: Charles Martel at December 6, 2007 2:27 PM
Perhaps Dr. Telles-Irvin would be best served to brush up on the historical subjugation of non-Muslims worldwide from a source like say "History of Jihad" especially the chronology section of said website. Provided she would be willing to even consider clicking the link. Can lead a horse to water---but no harm in trying.
Posted by: kafir world at December 6, 2007 2:32 PM
'reinforced a negative stereotype ... and contributed to a generalization that only furthers the misunderstanding of the religion of Islam.'”
Tell that to the parents of those children who were shot in the back by muslims. Explain this to the families of those people whose head were slowly sawed off to the tune of "allah akbar."
This incident helps reinforce the negative stereotype of school administrators. I believe that school administrators have to take several basic skills tests as well as an I.Q. test.
If an individual flunks all the basic skills tests and has an I.Q. of -3.5 or lower, they are immediately qualified. If they pass one of the basic skills tests but still have an I.Q. of -3.5 or lower, they are given a provisional certification but must flunk all the basic skills test within one academic year from the time of their first test.
School administrators like this one should be forced to live in Saudi Arabia for one solid year!
Posted by: witness at December 6, 2007 2:37 PM
So, saying "radical Islam wants you dead" offends Muslims, now does it??
Hmmm.
That's odd since literally MILLIONS of Muslims march down the streets of Islamic cities such as Tehran, Beirut, Cairo and elsewhere screaming, chanting, and carrying banners that read "DEATH TO AMERICA!" virtually every day and Muslims generally not only seem to NOT be offended by this, they in fact seem to agree with it.
Does the University of Florida mean to tell us THESE Muslims in Islamic nations screaming and chanting "DEATH TO AMERICA" are "misunderstanding" Islam, too?? I mean, haven't these Muslims been practicing Islam their entire lives? Wouldn't they know by now what Islam teaches and what Islam stands for?
Let's be real here for a second.
Somebody might have a case officially classifying the University of Florida's vice-president, Ms. Telles-Irvin, as one of the real "misunderstanders" of Islam.
Posted by: pythagoras at December 6, 2007 2:44 PM
JohnAdams:
They were planting the seeds for student "Code" speech as much as 25 years ago at my wonderfully progressive university.
And those seeds had sprouted into saplings while I was in college, 15 years ago. But thinking back I don't recall having a professor that was so idealogically driven. Maybe I was just lucky. I don't know. The closest I came was one instructor who seriously disliked the Sociology and Education Departments. My diplomatic history professor, the most he went off topic was when he gave the title of a movie about that particular topic. The most I had to worry about was the hatred pointed towards the ROTC program b/c of the Clinton policy of "Don't Ask/Don't Tell." Otherwise it was pretty vanilla. You know, the standard, students handing out free condoms, the fliers for the cause of the week, save the whales, no nukes, etc. You know, I was damn lucky for I would have most assuredly have flunked out from butting heads.
Posted by: Kevin at December 6, 2007 3:04 PM
I think she should be made to attend some sort of diversity training session.
Posted by: tickertype at December 6, 2007 3:12 PM
Send her "Freedom of the Mind In Human History" by Henry Lea. Send her books by Alexander Meiklejohn on Freedom of Speech in America, and the history of the Englightenment. Make her find out about the nature, and fostering, of critical inquiry, the very thing that universities are supposed to encourage and not to crush with a police-state's thud. And then, once she has learned something, fire her. She has no business being in a university.
Come to think of it, the same could be said for so many in administrations, on faculties, among student bodies, all over the Western world. The usurpers have taken over.
Posted by: Hugh at December 6, 2007 3:38 PM
Saying "Radical Islam Wants You Dead" Offends Muslims
So.
You don't want hear it, then change it. Otherwise, be offended.
Posted by: RalphInfidel at December 6, 2007 3:39 PM
In the race to see who can express the most disgust with Patricia Telles-Irvin, don't forget Bill McCollum told her where to put her PC ideas.
Posted by: Pelayo at December 6, 2007 4:27 PM
I thought the name Bill McCollum was familiar. He's a former Congressman and a Rebublican.
Posted by: Pelayo at December 6, 2007 4:34 PM
Bill McCollum has just made a name for himself on the national scene. He's got brains AND gonads, something in short supply inside the beltway.
Posted by: Cornelius at December 6, 2007 4:36 PM
"There is no right to play soccer wearing a headscarf. More, there is no right to play soccer. You are on private property, authorized to do certain things by the representative of the landlord."
By that logic, someone could be denied access to private facilities simply because they're black.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 6, 2007 4:47 PM
A College Education seems to be nothing more than a privately funded form of Brainwashing. Willful Ignorance from subjects never covered. Raise them Clueless from 1-12 and keep them that way for another 4-6 years on their own Dime.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at December 6, 2007 5:05 PM
A College Education seems to be nothing more than a privately funded form of Brainwashing. Willful Ignorance from subjects never covered. Raise them Clueless from 1-12 and keep them that way for another 4-6 years on their own Dime.
There's a lot that can go wrong, but I still don't think higher education spells ideological doom. You mentioned grades 1-12; indeed, it's crucial from the start that parents are aware of what their kids' curricula teach about ethics, morality, and various schools of thought (even if those subjects are not taught explicitly, one can read between the lines in the texts).
But even if they're comfortable with what the school system has to say, it's ultimately up to them to cultivate the values and outlook that they want their children to have, not only for the values themselves, but so that the child has a starting point from which to compare other ideas, rather than accepting everything adults (or eventually, in college, older adults) tell him or her as equally valid.
That also lays the groundwork for being able to think critically later in life: One of the earliest exercises in critical thinking can be comparing what Mom and Dad think to what one heard at school or on tv, which is impossible if one doesn't know what Mom and Dad think. And having that foundation provides an alternative to being lost in a sea of relativism, or blinded by unchallenged dogmatic thinking and dependent on authority, rather than an idea's merits, to validate it.
A good school can certainly enhance critical thinking (as can a blend of the different, but complementary complexities of the hard sciences and liberal arts), but obviously, no one should wait until college, or even high school, to start along that path. And then, a student can make the tenured ideologues looking for empty vessels to fill sweat a little. Or a lot.
Posted by: MarisolJW at December 6, 2007 5:33 PM
"By that logic, someone could be denied access to private facilities simply because they're [sic] black."
-- a posting above
The comment shows a failure to understand that completely private behavior, on completely private premises, with no "state action" implicated, is not subject to government intervention. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, with the Equal Protection Clause explicit in the case of the latter, and read in, by the Court, in the case of the latter, are what are usually invoked to protect those belonging to one of the protected classes. But there still has to be some degree of "state action." True, that "state action" can be imaginatively discovered, or created, where no one would in the past have been likely to find it. But it still has to be there. The poster appears to believe that no discrimination is possible. Does he think Muslims have no right to bar non-Muslims from mosques and madrasas, for example? Does he think that he, or I, or anyone, is constitutionally obligated to allow Muslmis into our houses?
He appears not to understand that some behaviors if truly private, are not considered violations of the Constitution. Nor does he appear to have thought about the concept of "state action."
Of course you can deny access to your own genuinely "private facilities" to anyone you wish. But the Court will determine what constitutes "private facilities" and so far, while the individual's house is still his impregnable castle, once you hold yourself out to the public, as a restaurant, or a transportation service, you enter a different world. The Muslim cabdriver cannot deny service to Infidels clutching bottles of duty-free, nor guide-dogs on a leash. But he can certainly deny you the right to enter his home.
And sometimes, before equal-protection-clause cases got going, one could locate the government's power to regulate in other clauses of the Constitution. Take a tiny barbecue place in the south, many decades ago Give it a name. What about calling it Ollie's Barbecue, a place which admits blacks only for take-out, but allows whites only to remain to eat on the premises. That meat, those paper cups and plates, all arrive at Ollie's Barbecue by first moving through the channels of Interstate Commerce. And it is the Federal government that has the power to regulate Interstate Commerce (Art. I, section 8), et voila, Ollie's Barbecue will have to change its ways or face the music. Go from there, starting by googling "Ollie's Barbecue." And ask yourself, when you get to examining the Equal Protection Clause (Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments) what rights are absolute, and which ones are not, and what the current limits of those rights may be.
A little self-control would be nice, so that you do not necessarily comment on everything, or say something absurd out of ignorance that only leads others to wince in embarrassment. You might even consider limiting yourself to what you know you know. You are an American citizen. From the age of 12 you lived in America. You surely cannot be that ignorant of American constitutional law as to believe what your comment above implies. Or are you? If you are, perhaps you should give up the London study, come home, and enroll in Law School. Besides, the money is better.
Posted by: Hugh at December 6, 2007 5:33 PM
"A little self-control would be nice, so that you do not necessarily comment on everything, or say something absurd out of ignorance that only leads others to wince in embarrassment."
Posted by: Hugh at December 6, 2007 5:33 PM
He cannot and will not change.
at December 6, 2007 5:41 PM
RoobartSbunsar-
Ye inner pharisee is showing again. You have to do something about him, lad.
Posted by: Frank at December 6, 2007 6:16 PM
"The Muslim cabdriver cannot deny service to Infidels clutching bottles of duty-free, nor guide-dogs on a leash."
But they do. That's the problem.
awake: well, well--The Obsessed One has returned. I must admit I'm impressed--you went four posts without mentioning me.
Try to make it to five next time. You'll make it, buddy. Remember: small steps, eh?
at December 6, 2007 6:17 PM
(not sure what Ollie's Barbecue has to do with anything, however)
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 6, 2007 6:18 PM
There are fools, damn fools and then there are academic fools. Dumb, dumber, dumbest.
Posted by: Wellington at December 6, 2007 6:23 PM
For god's sake, can't you google "Ollie's Barbecue" and then start by reading Katzenbach v. McClung, and the go on from there? You can make pronouncements on everything under the goddam sun, but you can't then do the most elementary kind of research even when the whole thing has been practically handed to you on a platter? Better not go to Law School in that case.
I suggest you become a busker in the Underground. Wait for someone to discover you. Give it a decade or two. In the meantime, mind the gap.
Posted by: Hugh at December 6, 2007 6:32 PM
Hugh-
I know you are an atheist-so I tread carefully here. But I think RoobartSbunsar is being invited to be a non-pharisee. Only his pride stands in the way. Try "Ollie's Barbecue", Roobart. Don't let your mind be such a bully.
Posted by: Frank at December 6, 2007 7:04 PM
"Try "Ollie's Barbecue", Roobart. Don't let your mind be such a bully."
*sigh* very well, if you insist. But first things first: *pours himself a Scotch*
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 6, 2007 7:06 PM
Roobart, aka GetBornAgain wrote:
awake: "well, well--The Obsessed One has returned. I must admit I'm impressed--you went four posts without mentioning me.
Try to make it to five next time. You'll make it, buddy. Remember: small steps, eh?"
That's odd. I thought Hugh was "mentioning you first in this thread." I have gone more than four posts, or are you saying four posts that you have not cemmented on, usually every third comment or so. With your "work ethic" here, it is difficult to get around your presence.
In support of my statement, and via another shining example of how you can not control your mindless blathering here at this site, I offer a small snippet from another recent post, a quick exchange between yourself and Aunt Bea, provided just below.
Enjoy.
-------------------------------
"Roobart, I have a challenge for you. Would you just Try to go 48 hours without using a label?
Every time you use a label instead of thinking you close your eyes and your mind.
In other words you turn into George Wallace.
Your challenge begins now."
Posted by: Aunt Bea at November 16, 2007 8:07 AM
"Roobart, I have a challenge for you. Would you just Try to go 48 hours without using a label?
Every time you use a label instead of thinking you close your eyes and your mind.
In other words you turn into George Wallace.
Your challenge begins now."
"I'd be happy to do so if the conservatives on this site weren't bashing liberals almost as often as they bash Muslims (the said Muslim-bashing being fully justified, don't get me wrong)."
"Let me mention this: for several years, conservatives controlled all three branches of government in the States. What did they do to stop Jihad? Nothing."
"And yet people on this site blame liberals."
"It strikes me as grossly illogical."
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 16, 2007 8:10 AM
"Three minutes."
Posted by: Aunt Bea at November 16, 2007 8:20 AM
Funny stuff!!
Posted by: awake at December 6, 2007 7:11 PM
Learn something for god's sake. And while you are at it, learn something about world history so some of your views may, quite possibly, change. You are salvageable. Just.
Posted by: Hugh at December 6, 2007 7:12 PM
"With your "work ethic" here, it is difficult to get around your presence."
Why, thank you.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 6, 2007 7:15 PM
RecoveringHog - Good job! Few things in academe are as satisfying as the type of bravura performance you put on. Let us know what sort of grade you receive. Thanks for your integrity and courage.
Posted by: MP at December 6, 2007 7:17 PM
Why, thank you.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 6, 2007 7:15 PM
That was obviously not intended a compliment, but your response is entirely typical.
Roobart, formerly known as GetBornAgain, is here for a very few selfish reasons. His exchange abroad and his attempt at "higher learning" will do nothing to penetrate the malaise of liberalism that has now fully encompassed him.
He is here, overposting, and retorting to every other poster in search of attention, the kind that could easily be off-set by getting a dog or some other pet. I hear they are good listeners.
Roobart uses every opportunity to contradict other poster's comments, while cleverly and consistently toeing the requisite JW "Islamic jihad is bad" line. In reality it certainly is, but he assumes, and correctly to date it appears, that it gives him free reign to disagree on nearly every other possible topical position, normally held by people of a conservative tilt.
I know there are others here with more liberal views on government and people, et al, and that the community is far from cast from a single mold on so many levels, and that is a good thing, but Roobart is purposefully disruptive, to prove a point, a point that only he, himself can and will acknowledge and appreciate.
You or I, or even Hugh for that matter, can not reach Roobart, for he is pre-disposedly, purposefully unreachable, all the while mocking us and nearly everything we collectively hold as truthful and pertinent.
He has little to no regard for our gracious hosts here, those who have personally vested so much personal time and effort to educate us to the greatest abject threat we now face. He is just here passing time, valuable, valuable time.
Posted by: awake at December 6, 2007 7:52 PM
Anytime I see a woman with two last names I react as if a rattlesnake was lifting its head and shaking his tail. The PC garb comes with the feminist parcel behind which is a very hating person (usually of men first, one who in old age will be left alone, in a home, drenched in venom upon which no want wants to get near. Thus, the violence expressed through Radical Islam is akin to the spirit of vice Patty and thus to be protected in a motherly fashion as she has done.
Posted by: Briars at December 6, 2007 8:27 PM
You know what offends me? The fact that sites like Jihad Watch must exist because there are so many retarded idiots out in the world like Patricia Telles-Irvin who cannot recognize obvious truths regarding the cult of death, enabling it to grow stronger and more bold every day. It gets very old when the likes of this woman not only doesn't get it but demands those that do get it to be as ignorant as she is. Now THAT is offensive.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 6, 2007 8:41 PM
"Bill McCollum has just made a name for himself on the national scene. He's got brains AND gonads, something in short supply inside the beltway."
I finally agree with Cornelius on something.
Posted by: USorThem at December 6, 2007 8:51 PM
Saying "Radical Islam Wants You Dead" Offends Muslims
Mohamed, say it ain't so!
at December 6, 2007 9:13 PM
MarisolJW
I agree with all you say. Despite the baggage of the ifs ands and buts.
Front Page Mag. Covers much on this Subject and has done wonders to explain why my brushes with the Education system have made me feel the unease I do.
Old Liberals educated the Progressives of Today, and they go Hand in Hand with any Communist they can Import. Of the ones I know, Boy, do they love new programs. They need to fill these programs with the under achiever's they create.
You would need to know Service Retail to fully understand how bad things really are. I am not referencing Drive through Fast Food service either.
The Subject matter of this Site has a Snowballs chance in Hell's of being critically discussed in High School. While, at the University Level, it appears one needs Armed Guards.
Just where does one expect Critical thinking to surface when it is Shot on Site?
I some times think that the Kids who either didn't like or were not good at Dodge Ball, some how ended up in charge.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at December 6, 2007 9:18 PM
I think posters would be much more effective and informative if they contained direct quotes from the Koran and hadieth.
Saying that "Radical Islam Wants You Dead" -- no matter how true the statement -- can always be attacked as a bigoted ipinion of the true teachings if Islam.
There are more than enough scriptures in Islamic holy books to say exactly the same thing, and can be quoted chapter and verse.
Direct quotes also put Muslim apologists in the position of rejecting the verses, or trying to explain them away, but they cannot deny that they exist.
Posted by: rational
at December 6, 2007 9:54 PM
His name is Muhammad, and he.........is a Muslim!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JQXh20OuhIc
at December 6, 2007 10:30 PM
Prickzilla,
Priceless. Thanks for that. I got a good laugh before the tears welled.
Posted by: awake at December 6, 2007 10:35 PM
Thoughts about the video and its 'star'...
We'll pronounce Islam any way we damn well please.
The messes made by some Muslims that insist in washing their feet in bathroom sinks has included washing them in the toilet, and then leaving water all over the floor for someone else to clean up.
Apparently sanitation and consideration for us dirty "infidels" who wash their hands in bathroom sinks is of no consideration to them.
The Koran the greatest book ever?
Sure, if you enjoy commands of butchery, racism, sexism, and contradiction.
Otherwise, no.
Posted by: Prickzilla at December 6, 2007 10:40 PM
The clown was reading from a Que card. What a fake.
at December 6, 2007 11:00 PM
Re: “reinforced a negative stereotype ... and contributed to a generalization that only furthers the misunderstanding of the religion of Islam.”
"Shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion.”
--Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787.
It really is fun to have the moral high ground over Islamic apologists. Ignorance is bad, right? Right? Patricia?
at December 6, 2007 11:01 PM
Hey -- when you can't defend the indefensible, then all you can do is make jokes and teach the proper pronunciation for "Deathcult".
Qur'an is the greatest book ever, huh, and I'm the Queen of England.
Posted by: champ at December 6, 2007 11:08 PM
Vee, I am amazed at the stuff at Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_wise_monkeys
Posted by: Pelayo
at December 6, 2007 11:09 PM
"Direct quotes also put Muslim apologists in the position of rejecting the verses, or trying to explain them away, but they cannot deny that they exist."
-- from a poster above
Yes. And instead of making such claims as "want you dead" why not advertise a talk on "the nature and significance of Jihad" and then quote chapter and verse, and make sure to discuss not merely terrorism, but Da'wa, the Money Weapon, demographic conquest (and on the latter as a conscious weapon, quote everyone from Boumeddienne to a retired accountant writing in to the Pakistani English-language newspaper "Dawn").
And along with Jihad, start talking, more and more, about the collectivism of Islam, the indifference or hostility to the individual, the crushing of skeptical inquiry, the severe limits placed on artistic expression, including sculpture, most painting, and music -- all things that non-Muslims seldom bother to find out about, because they assume, like Bush, that "all religions are essentially the same." Not the Total System of Islam.
Posted by: Hugh at December 6, 2007 11:12 PM
The clown was reading from a Que card. What a fake.
Posted by: Prickzilla at December 6, 2007 11:00 PM
What gave it away for you? The constant looking off camera at the "cue card" or the AK-47?
at December 6, 2007 11:36 PM
Interesting that the AG of Florida would condemn the actions of Patricia Telles-Irvin, Vice President for Sudent Affairs, and it wondeful that he did...Our young people are getting their heads filled with the notion that we, as Americans, do not have any free speech to condemn those that are trying to destroy us..It's refreshing to read for a change...
Since when is this woman an authority on Islam & what it's ideology is, let alone be in a position to "guide" our youth.....Sounds like another educrate that has NO practical ability to think logically...
at December 7, 2007 12:22 AM
One more comment:
"Radical Islam wants you dead" is just a shortened version of the full thought...
According to the Koran, "Islam wants you dead, unless of course, you convert to Islam"...While you are making your decision, we will tax you, subjugate you, humiliate you, and of course take your dignity away...Did I miss anything? Any Muslims out there want to add to this thought, please enlighten me on more barbaric principles in your "Book Of Allah".
at December 7, 2007 12:34 AM
“The messes made by some Muslims that insist in washing their feet in bathroom sinks has included washing them in the toilet…”
Posted by: Prickzilla
In the TOILET? Really?? No sh*t!!!?
I am forever astonished and amazed by the things I learn at JW!
at December 7, 2007 12:45 AM
Me, APOLOGIZE?! For WHAT?! For telling the TRUTH?! No way! Ms. Patricia Telles-Irvin either sympathizes with IslamoFascism or is too lax in her knowledge of reality. "Apologizing" to those who have sworn to kill you and your family as well as take over your country is exactly what these creatures hope for. CAIR thrives on their "rights" our Constitution allows in the first amendment while pretending to be blind to Americans exercising that same right! I'm not putting up with rabble rousing murderers using my country's laws to allow them to carry out their promises to take over the USA and kill all natives who refuse to allow Sharia to prevail.
Posted by: AnnieOatmeal at December 7, 2007 12:56 AM
The term "radical Islam" is being used on the wrong group of Muslims(IMHO). Those following in Mohammed's footsteps(militants) are fundamentalists, those that do not(non-militant) are the radicals. Either way, the Qur'an needs a major overhaul.
Posted by: itsplayed at December 7, 2007 1:04 AM
They don't like the headline Radical Islam Wants You Dead? Ok, how about Qur'an Wants You Dead, is that better? Qur'an Chapter 9 Verse 5:
So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.Posted by: traeh
at December 7, 2007 1:52 AM
‘There Are No Moderates”
Of course not. The assassins, the suicide bombers, they are the Muhammedan stormtroopers. They are the ‘tiny, tiny minority of extremists’ and ‘we cannot tar them all with the same brush’ - right? Because Islam is a ‘Religion of Peace’- but when you draw a silly cartoon about the pedophile ‘profit’ Muhammad every Muslim will tell you that you have just insulted 5 gazillion Muslims and that they all have a duty to kill you, you filthy kuffar, how dare you!
But here is one good Muslim who doesn't beat around the bush, a 'sheik Haron' who is a prolific letter writer and uses his skills to inundate Australian politicians with Islamo-agit-prop, and doesn't shy away from telling the parents of fallen soldiers in Afghanistan that 'their son died in vain'-
read it and weep. Why don't we listen?
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/12/06/how-muhammedan-agit-prop-works/
Don’t call me radical. Don’t call me moderate. Call me Muslim.
Let me make something clear for you:
We do not have “radical” and “moderate” in Islam. Muslims are Muslims. Muslims are not divided to two kinds of “radical” and “Moderate”. These names and divisions are made by man, not by God or religion. Radical Muslim and moderate Muslim do not exist. Muslims are Muslims even if they have different interpretation of the religious texts. In Islam there is another division. 1. The Muslims who follow the Quran and practice the religion.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 7, 2007 3:37 AM
"I know there are others here with more liberal views on government and people, et al, and that the community is far from cast from a single mold on so many levels"
Nonsense. Absolute, utter nonsense.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 7, 2007 5:11 AM
Awake
I am still waiting for evidence of Roobart understanding who George Wallace was. With all his vaunted higher education, he should.
Back to the topic
I was under the impression there were NO radical Islamics in America. How then could they be offended?
Catch 22
BTW Roobart didn't get that one either.
at December 7, 2007 6:07 AM
"I am still waiting for evidence of Roobart understanding who George Wallace was. With all his vaunted higher education, he should."
George Wallace? "Segregation Forever" George Wallace? Yes, I do know who he was.
"I was under the impression there were NO radical Islamics in America. How then could they be offended?
Catch 22
BTW Roobart didn't get that one either."
Actually, I do get it--and it's an excellent question. Don't expect the Muslims to give you an answer anytime soon.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 7, 2007 6:25 AM
Folks, get a load of Robert Spencer tearing apart Steve Schippert in the latest FPM symposium. Our fearless leader at his best!
Posted by: Cornelius at December 7, 2007 8:03 AM
Maybe "Islamic terrorists want you dead" would be more acceptable?
Posted by: DJM at December 7, 2007 8:24 AM
Nonsense. Absolute, utter nonsense.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 7, 2007 5:11 AM
What? you think everyone here shares the same point of view on all things political?
Are you suggesting that everyone here is an American, pro-life, conservative Republican?
Do you think that we had to fill out a questionnaire in order to qualify to post here?
Your presence here debunks that theory, unless of course you believe you were purposefully granted privilages to bring balance to the forum, a unique character of sorts.
Posted by: awake at December 7, 2007 8:45 AM
"Are you suggesting that everyone here is an American, pro-life, conservative Republican?"
Everyone but me, it seems.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 7, 2007 8:53 AM
To RoobartSbunsar,
I'm socially liberal, pro-abortion, active duty military, zealously nationalistic, and I generally vote Democrat. The threat of Islamic Jihad, Islamic politics, and Islamic ideology is something that crosses all political lines. Anyone that cares about freedom and Western values should recognize this. So. There you go.
Posted by: antishock8 at December 7, 2007 9:40 AM
"To RoobartSbunsar,
I'm socially liberal, pro-abortion, active duty military, zealously nationalistic, and I generally vote Democrat. The threat of Islamic Jihad, Islamic politics, and Islamic ideology is something that crosses all political lines. Anyone that cares about freedom and Western values should recognize this. So. There you go."
Always glad to see a fellow liberal here, but it seems like you and I are the only ones.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 7, 2007 9:46 AM
"There is no right to play soccer wearing a headscarf. More, there is no right to play soccer. You are on private property, authorized to do certain things by the representative of the landlord."
By that logic, someone could be denied access to private facilities simply because they're black.
Posted by: RoobartSbunsar
Roobart,
I disagree with the logic you offer.
You're comparing an activity having limits, which are agreed upon by all parties in advance, to discrimination due to race, which is illegal, in the US.
There are safety issues to consider with the girl's hijab. There would be issues with her wearing a goth-style spiked collar, too. Hijab is not appropriate for playing the sport.
Additionally, I have to wonder if the hijab was allowed in practice games, or if it suddenly appeared, as a cynical use of Islamic custom enabling the girl and her family to play the victim card. For the most part, hijab is worn to cover a woman's head and hair. There's more than one way to skin a cat, though. Other headgear might suffice, for games.
The other case you put forth, a black person being denied access to the on-sight facilities, is a human rights issue.
There's a superficial similarity, but the two examples are not the same.
Posted by: Abscedere at December 7, 2007 11:21 AM
“The messes made by some Muslims that insist in washing their feet in bathroom sinks has included washing them in the toilet…”
Posted by: Prickzilla
In the TOILET? Really?? No sh*t!!!?
Posted by: Davegreybeard
Yes, Really! Preferably with no sh*t, but even with sh*t, it's o.k. It's ritual cleanliness that matters, not actual sanitary cleanliness.
at December 7, 2007 11:52 AM
So Islam DOESN'T WANT US DEAD? really? truly?
Well then, what's this passage from the Kuran telling Muslims to do in the following excerpt:
"And when the forbidden months have passed, slay the unbelievers everywhere they are found; besiege them, capture them, torture them, prepare every stratagem of warfare against them...."
IT'S TELLING MUSLIMS (aka FOLLOWERS OF MUHAMMAD) TO KILL THE non-MUSLIMS, THAT'S WHAT it's doing.
It's not only "radical" Islam that wants us non-believers dead--it's just plain Islam that does.
Posted by: pythagoras at December 7, 2007 1:14 PM
Antishock8,
"Always glad to see a fellow liberal here, but it seems like you and I are the only ones
posted by RoobartSbuns
Wow, antishock8, what a "fellow" to be grouped with! I can sense your elation!
Well, don't worry. The JW posters can be divided according to different criterions and Liberal-Conservative is only one of many guiding principles.
The other and much more significant division is into these two groups:
1. grown up persons, sensible, reasonably well informed and with an IQ well above room temperature.
2. None of the above, - inhabited by a giggling, narcissistic cretin desparate for attention. ANY attention - even mockery.
It is that classification which places you solidly among the rest of us and separates you effectively from that "fellow liberal".
So don’t worry, there is no way anyone here can associate you with him.
Posted by: thomas. h at December 7, 2007 1:51 PM
"Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 2: Belief Volume 1, Book 2, Number 7:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said: Islam is based on the following principle:
1. None has the right to be worshipped but Allah. "
Is there an inclusive, liberal way to interpret this Hadith?
Is there an honest way to reconcile this Hadith with Free Will, Freedom of Religion, or FREEDOM in general?
at December 7, 2007 9:55 PM
Here's what I wrote to U.Fla's top lawyer, Ms. Telles-Irvin, and the Jacksonville FBI field office.
Ms. Keith,
Recently at your University, Campus Republicans posted announcements for a showing of the documentary on Radical Islam entitled "Obsession". The announcements included posters which contained the statement that "Radical Islam Wants You Dead".
In response, your University's Vice President for Student Affairs - one Ms. Patricia Telles-Irvin - sent a message to all students decrying these announcements and calling for an apology.
Ms. Telles-Irvin began by noting that "Throughout our country, we have witnessed a rise in offensive behavior and actions taken against others, which has created greater divisiveness and misunderstandings among the various ethnic groups residing in our communities." Refering to the announcements, and yet ignoring the statements and actions of Radical Islamists within America and throughout the World.
Ms. Telles-Irvin goes on to say that the announcements "illustrate the importance of balancing freedom of speech with responsibility." Thus, she implies in one breath that:
a. the announcements are irresponsible; AND
b. are therefore unworthy of the protections of Freedom of Speech.
Of course, the most relevant (and patently offensive) statement of Ms. Telles-Irvin's Warning and Implicit Threat to Free Speech is included in her next paragraph.
Ms. Telles-Irvin states that, "The ads ... entitled 'Radical Islam Wants You Dead', offended many Muslim students on campus. Regardless of its original intent, the language reinforced a negative stereotype, created unnecessary divisiveness and contributed to a generalization that only furthers the misunderstanding of the religion of Islam."
Based on this statement, one of the following must be true of Ms. Telles-Irvin:
A. She cannot read, OR
B. she ignored the modifier 'Radical', OR
C. she is an Islamophobe, who equates all Muslims with "Radical" Muslims, OR
D. she defends "Radical" Islam as a legitimate religion, ideology, worldview, and attitude.
As you may or may not be aware, FBI Director Robert Mueller's statement on Domestic Terrorism before the U.S. Senate included the following:
"In 2006, successes in the war on terrorism and the arrests of many key al Qaeda leaders and operatives have diminished the ability of the group to attack the United States homeland. At the same time, the growing Sunni extremist movement that al Qaeda successfully spearheaded has evolved from being directly led by al Qaeda to a global jihadi movement that is able to conduct attacks independently.
As a result, the United States homeland faces two very different threats from international terrorism: the attack planning that continues to emanate from core al Qaeda overseas and the threat posed by homegrown, self-radicalizing groups and individuals—inspired, but not led by al Qaeda—who are already living in the U.S. While they share a similar ideology, these two groups pose vastly different threats due to their differences in intent and attack capability.
Al Qaeda
The United States has made significant headway in countering al Qaeda’s ability to execute attacks worldwide, including the U.S. homeland, but the group continues to pose the most serious international terrorism threat we face.
Despite the successes this year in depleting al Qaeda’s senior ranks and disrupting ongoing attack planning, the group has been able to rebuild itself and remain viable—finding new staging grounds for attacks, promoting from within, and using the skills and abilities of its seasoned veterans to continue its worldwide attack planning.
We assess al Qaeda’s strategy for conducting an attack inside the United States continues to include proven tactics and tradecraft with adaptations designed to address its losses and our enhanced security measures.
For example, we believe:
Al Qaeda is still seeking to infiltrate operatives into the U.S. from overseas who have no known nexus to terrorism using both legal and possibly illegal methods of entry.
We also believe, if it can, al Qaeda will obtain and use some form of chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material.
Al Qaeda’s choice of targets and attack methods will most likely continue to focus on economic targets, such as aviation, the energy sector, and mass transit; soft targets such as large public gatherings; and symbolic targets, such as monuments and government buildings.
Throughout 2006, al Qaeda made efforts to align itself with established regional terrorist groups, such as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, or GSPC, that may expand the scope of the threat to the homeland. In addition, al Qaeda is also finding it easy to attract individual members of these groups who align closer to Bin Laden’s ideology and crave a more global agenda. This strategy has been particularly successful in recruiting individuals from Pakistani and Kashmiri militant groups operating overseas, as was evident in the recently disrupted al Qaeda-related airline plot out of the United Kingdom.
In a recent and rare public statement by the director of the British Security Service, Eliza Manningham-Buller outlined the terrorist threat the United Kingdom is currently facing and cited some sobering statistics that highlighted the continuing threat to the U.S. and its allies:
According to the BSS director, the United Kingdom is tracking 1,600 individuals who are part of at least 200 networks that are actively plotting terrorist attacks against British targets, as well as Western targets overseas. She added the United Kingdom is following at least 30 plots as of November 2006, many of which are linked to al Qaeda in Pakistan and using British-born foot soldiers living in the United Kingdom in its attack planning.
Due to the stark differences in the history, the population, and the immigrant assimilation in our two countries, it is difficult to directly compare our terrorism threat to theirs. While in general, the number of subjects we are monitoring is proportional to the number of subjects BSS is monitoring—based on gross national population—we see relatively fewer active “plots” involving physical attacks within the United States, less defined networks of extremists, and less developed attack planning compared to those described by the BSS director.
It is also possible, however, that al Qaeda’s strategy for attacking the U.S. homeland includes using the U.K. as a stepping stone for al Qaeda operatives to enter the United States. We are working closely with our partners in the United Kingdom to counter this possible threat and to identify any U.S. connections to the U.K. networks currently being monitored.
Homegrown Threat
As I stated earlier, we face two different threats from international terrorism and when we look at the homegrown threat, in contrast to the threat from al Qaeda, it is critical to be aware of the differences in intent and capability in order to understand and counter the threat. This year, we disrupted several unsophisticated, small-scale attack plans that reflect the broader problem homegrown extremists pose:
Last year, we disrupted a homegrown Sunni Islamic extremist group in California known as the JIS, a.k.a. “Assembly of Authentic Islam,” operating primarily in state prisons, without apparent connections or direction from outside the United States and no identifiable foreign nexus. Members of the JIS committed armed robberies in Los Angeles with the goal of financing terrorist attacks against the enemies of Islam, including the U.S. government and supporters of Israel.
This past summer, we arrested Narseal Batiste, the leader of a group with intentions to wage jihad against the United States and that was seeking to create its own army and government. Batiste also recognized his resource limitations and sought to obtain material support or take direction from al Qaeda. The group was composed mostly of U.S. persons, many of them born in the United States, and their intentions were to attack inside this country.
Also in 2006, the FBI, along with other federal agencies and foreign partners, dismantled a global network of extremists operating primarily on the Internet and independently of any known terrorist organization. The leaders of this group, who were from Georgia, had long-term goals of creating a large network of extremists in preparation for conducting attacks, possibly inside the U.S.
The diversity of homegrown extremists and the direct knowledge they have of the United States makes the threat they pose potentially very serious. The radicalization of U.S. Muslim-converts is of particular concern. While conversion to Islam, in itself, does not directly lead to radicalization, converts appear to be more vulnerable and likely to be placed in situations that put them in a position to be influenced by Islamic extremists.
Radicalization
In 2006, al Qaeda and its sympathizers continued their attempts to make global jihad accessible to English-speaking Western Muslims by disseminating large amounts of violent Islamic extremist propaganda in English via media outlets and the Internet. Multiple Internet sites that are dedicated to the spread of radical Islamic propaganda deftly exploited any and all terrorist and political events, including the war in Iraq.
Al-Sahab, al Qaeda’s official media component, released 48 videos last year, the most al Qaeda ever released in one year. This acceleration in production is likely intended to mobilize the global jihad movement and demonstrate that al Qaeda remains relevant and its main ideological driver.
The Internet has facilitated the radicalization process, particularly in the United States, by providing access to a broad and constant stream of extremist Islamic propaganda, as well as experienced and possibly well-connected operators via web forums and chat rooms.
The Threat from other Terrorist Groups
While al Qaeda, its affiliates, and independent Islamic jihadist groups inspired by the global jihad remain the primary threat to the U.S. homeland, other groups, such as Iranian-supported Lebanese Hizballah, warrant attention due to their ongoing fundraising, recruitment, procurement, and capability to launch terrorist attacks inside the U.S."
What is most important to note is that the United States is involved in a War with "Radical" Islam. Regardless of what one may feel about our prosecution of this war and how it should proceed; the simple fact is that "Radical" Islam has been waging war upon the United States and our allies for many years. Whether the United States and its populace choose to engage in the war, or to even call it a war, matters not at all. In other words, regardless of whether one considers the United States to be at war with "Radical" Islam -- "Radical" Islam considers itself to be at war with us.
The term "Radical" Islam is a term which specifies those who are at war with the United States. There are other terms, including "Extremist Muslims", or "Islamo-Fascists" used to differentiate between those Muslims who wish to engage in war against America and its allies and those "Moderate" Muslims who do not actively engage in or support violence against America and its allies. "Radical" Islam, or "Radical" Muslims is often used as the least Politically Incorrect term to differentiate the Muslim enemies of America and her allies and the remainder of Muslims who are not enemies of America and her allies.
Ms. Telles-Irvin of the University of Florida states in her threat/warning against free expression that, the phrase 'Radical Islam Wants You Dead' "offended many Muslim students on campus." No Muslim who does not consider him/herself a "Radical" could reasonably be offended by this phrase. The phrase "Radical Islam" specifies a subset of Muslims who are the outspoken and admitted enemies of America and all that she represents. If a Muslim is offended by the statement that "Radical Islam wants you Dead", there are only two possibilities:
A. That Muslim is NOT a "Radical", but who has misinterpreted the purpose and truth of the statement that "Radical Islam Wants you Dead"; OR
B. That Muslim IS a "Radical" who is effectively using the political correctness of University Administrators to try to silence any opposition to their "Radical" goals.
Therefore, Ms. Telles-Irvin is guilty of one of the following:
A. Trying to shut down free speech and free thought based on a ridiculous misinterpretation of what has been said; OR
B. Trying to shut down free speech and free thought based on an intentional desire to hide the motivations of "Radical" Muslims on Campus, and to defend the goals of such "Radical" Muslims.
I do not know whether Ms. Telles-Irvin's attempts to squelch free speech among the students at U.Fla. is based on ignorance, stupidity, or an attempt to divert attention away from "Radical" Muslims on campus. However, the mere possibility that her motivation is to disguise and distract attention from "Radical Muslims" on the U.Fla. campus should warrant investigation not only by the U.Fla. Administration, but also by the FBI Domestic Terrorism unit.
I have copied the local FBI office on this e-mail, hoping that they will take this potential threat seriously.
Thank you for your time and attention.
- David Fuhs
Posted by: Eyas at December 8, 2007 12:45 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.)