Mr. Spencer,

I appreciate your comments about trying to minimize the hateful things said about Muslims on this site. While I don't keep track of such things, I see plenty of abusive language in the comments section of this site. And your own provocative headlines and links only encourage such abusive behavior. Perhaps more sober, less alarmist headlines and interpretations could help settle down the haters out there. The one example I can provide is your posting a few weeks ago that the sale of Qat is funding terrorism. The article you linked to make no such assertions and the law authority quoted said there is no evidence that the sale of Qat is funding terrorism. This kind of misleading stuff only encourages the nutters.

http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/

Posted by: 13 Martyrs at December 29, 2007 10:47 AM

13 Martyrs:

Thanks for your kind note. With respect, it would be easier for me to take your advice if you told the truth.

Let's look at the record. The JW post in question is here:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019221.php

You assert: "The one example I can provide is your posting a few weeks ago that the sale of Qat is funding terrorism. The article you linked to make no such assertions and the law authority quoted said there is no evidence that the sale of Qat is funding terrorism. This kind of misleading stuff only encourages the nutters."

But in fact, the article in question is this one:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=175143

Its headline: "Somali drug may fund terrorism."

Its two lead paragraphs:

Terrorist groups may be funding their activities through khat, an illegal stimulant smuggled daily into Canada, says a newly released intelligence report.

The report by the Canadian government's Integrated Threat Assessment Centre says "some part of the proceeds involved in the global khat trade possibly finances terrorism."

Then you say: "The one example I can provide is your posting a few weeks ago that the sale of Qat is funding terrorism. The article you linked to make no such assertions and the law authority quoted said there is no evidence that the sale of Qat is funding terrorism."

Let's sum up. You are accusing me of misrepresenting an article by claiming that it links qat to terror financing, when actually it denies such a link. But the actual article speaks of this link as a real possibility. So it is in fact you, not I, who misrepresent the article.

I'm happy to admit mistakes and print retractions. I've done it before. But in this case, I represented the article correctly, and it says just the opposite of what you claim it says.

Just what are you trying to do? Why not just tell the truth?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at December 29, 2007 10:59 AM

13 Martyrs who says:

"Oswald (born a Christian) kills JFK. Ray (born a Christian) kills King.
Chapman (born a Christian) kills Lennon. Hitler (born a Christian) kills 6
million Jews. So much for the religion of peace."

People, there's an astute post from "13 Martyrs" from a few days ago.

You're the "nutter," 13 Martyrs. Among other unsavory things. Wow, really sorry to have had to read that insulting comment about Jihad Watchers. My God.

Posted by: darcy at December 29, 2007 11:00 AM

"13 martyrs", aka Rob Wagner and his brand new blog and community of noone, is the latest disingenuous loon to join us here at JW.

This author of over 20 books, to which none are referenced on his blog, is trumpeting the same old song that Robert should either not report on jihadist activities or try to put a positive spin on these activities.

Yeah, OK. Enjoy your short stay here, Mr. Wagner.

Posted by: awake at December 29, 2007 11:07 AM

Robert- Your caveats about the use of 'gneocide', and even hyperbole, and are indeed, worthy of consideration.

However, I would disagree with some of your comments, specifically, about 'incarceration'.

This doesn't have to perforce, be a vulgar pejorative to 'all muslims' but in fact, as Michelle Malkins discusses, with the Japanese in the US during WW II; an eventual necessity, that however disturbing it is, and was, helped win a war against a terrible enemy. And was not a concentration camp, but an internment camp.

Now, the Budo, is not evil, many people enjoy and find many fascinating and interesting aspects to that philosophical stream which unfortunately, lead to the half a world conquering aspirations of Japan in the 30's and 40's.

The ideology, the political, social, and religious ideology of Islam, does in fact represent something very close to the nazi ideology, except it's not one nations, but 22.

It has been stated and restated, by muslims, about the need to submit the infidels, slaughter and kill, and the taqquiya and kitman in concert with those murderous, submitting aspirations that have killed 10,250 some odd people just since 9/11, are an obloquy to the source and site of the religion and it's founder, and it's history-then, and now. If they weren't trying to submit and homicide us for 1400 yrs, we'd have no need to even consider the issue.

So... will 'incarceration' be a real possibility in the context of a terrible war if one comes to us.

And I remind you that that war will come unless we do fight the Jihad, and do name Islam as the direct perpetrator of the desire to submit, terrorize, homicide, and which revels in such, against the entirety of all the earth's inhabitants.

In which case, there will likely be such necessity and rightness to some kind of 'incarceration', in defense of our western liberty and federal republic. The use of the term, while certainly a difficult one to use, and or advocate, is not by mere mention, in context, one to be lumped with hate speech or bigotry.

I thus take some exception to the generalization you posited about using such words as 'incarceration' as automatically pejorative, evily disposed, or hateful, and worthy of having removal of the commentator. I hope my comments won't be expunged, as I'm discussing the problems of language here with you, and hope that others will not jump to conclusions.

Hopefully, we can shut off the oil and jizya source that funds the jihad, name the Jihad as Islam's scourge, and so aided by appeasers and others in our western judeochristian world, and prevent such 'necessity's' as incarceration.

I for one, feel now, that we should have executed about 100 or more of the Guantanamo homcidists, who were caught homiciding people, civilians, and other noncombatants, and who deserve just that, after review of the facts, in military trials.

I am not any kind of provocateur and the events that we are dealing with- the hateful malevolent, jihad, which can be viewed in the televised calls to such, all over the Islamic world, evidence just how provocative the Jihadists themselves are, and what a truly terrible enemy they have been for 1400 yrs.

Mark

Posted by: mgoldberg at December 29, 2007 11:11 AM

Furthermore, anyone who calls others' "haters," as though people don't have the right to hate evil things in this brutal, cruel, imperfect world, has no credibility. None. How stupid!

For example, you love Nazis, 13 Martyrs? NO? Why, you're a HATER!

Hi awake - how you doin'? A Happy New Year to you!

Posted by: darcy at December 29, 2007 11:13 AM

Here, another tool:

http://marranci.wordpress.com/2007/09/09/diatribing-islamo-fascism-an-open-civilised-debate-or-at-least-we-hope-so/#comment-624

An Italian 'Antropologist'- praised by the Bunglawala-wussie, another tool in the defense of the indefensible. He wants to debate you, Mr. Spencer.

Sample:

"Fascism is a nationalist movement, based on the strong leadership of a Dux. It has an autarkic and protectionist view of economy, and is very suspicious of any form of religion, which should be controlled partially by the state. Fascism is an arrogant, strong belief in a superiority of the Roman, thus western, civilisation over any other."

Good luck with this wakademic sympathizer!

And then there is this turkey here who compares Spencer to Joseph Goebbles:

http://hatewatchhallofshame.blogspot.com/2007/06/spencers-spin.html

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 29, 2007 11:34 AM

Sheik:

Thanks. I hadn't seen that first one before. It is patronizing, but I may answer his questions if time permits at some point. One glaring problem is that he ignores my many statements about how many, if not most, Muslims have no interest in waging jihad, and pretends that I think most or all do.

As for the second one, it is so full of lies there is nary a true statement in it. This guy -- a pathetic and mendacious thrice-convicted felon -- even posts pictures of other people and claims they are me in order to link me with unsavory activity. He wouldn't know the truth if it hit him in the head.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at December 29, 2007 11:44 AM

Awake,

You can find many of Mr. Wagner's books here:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/102-9472624-1001746?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Rob+Leicester+Wagner&x=20&y=24

They include Kings of the Road: A Pictorial History of Trucks; Style & Speed: The World's Greatest Sports Cars; Cadillac: A Century of Excellence; Hot Rods; Classic Cars; Pick-Up Trucks; Fabulous Fins of the Fifties; Red Ink, White Lies: The Rise and Fall of Los Angeles Newspapers 1920-1962; Toy Tractors (with Vincent Manocchi); Fire Engines; and Sleeping Giant: An Illustrated History of Southern California's Inland Empire.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at December 29, 2007 11:49 AM

I'm afraid that we are letting PC overcome the reality on the ground.

No, not every muslim is the enemy. Nor was every German the enemy in WWII. I've seen estimates that only 10% of Germans were Nazis.
But given the circumstances, we had no choice but to treat them all as Nazis for our own survival. Moreover, those who silently support a great evil are morally implicated by their silence.

We haven't reached a tipping point yet with Islam, but we could. I hope that is not the case, and we are able to reach a peaceful rapprochment. The alternative is terrible, but given the right circumstances, it is not unthinkable.

Just ask the Japanese.

Posted by: treehugger at December 29, 2007 11:51 AM

13 martyrs would like to see us simply lie down and enjoy the rape of our civilization. "Moslems are no more violent than Christians" blah, blah, blah.
Mr. Wagner, are you a revert? Do you want the world to be under the rule of 7th century Sharia? Is that what you want?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at December 29, 2007 12:02 PM

"For those who so foolishly believe that no one is paying attention to the growing number of exposes' on hate speech and how it supports the enemy, consider that Spencer's Jihad Watch site has, in very recent days, been blocked or banned by: City of Chicago, Chicago Police, Bank of America, Fidelity Investments, Site Coach (an Internet filtering program), GE, JP Morgan Chase, Defense Finance and Accounting Services, U.S. Government, MSNBC, AFSCME, Marriott Corp., and American Airlines. More to come!"

Is this true or is it CAIR like propganda?

Posted by: Elric66 at December 29, 2007 12:06 PM

13 martyrs would like to see us simply lie down and enjoy the rape of our civilization. "Moslems are no more violent than Christians" blah, blah, blah.
Mr. Wagner, are you a revert? Do you want the world to be under the rule of 7th century Sharia? Is that what you want?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at December 29, 2007 12:09 PM

Elric,

It was true, because this guy himself engineered it by writing to various Net filtering services, used by the companies you named, and telling them we were purveying hate speech. It took awhile, but we have now been in touch with all the filtering services involved, and have had all the blocks removed.

This guy is a real menace, and an illustration of how much damage one evil character can do. You can read more about him at www.phonyrev.com.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at December 29, 2007 12:11 PM

Jim Sutter is an Utter Nutter whose lie-filled propagandistic tracts belong in the Gutter.

BTW, that article of his is from June and no comments -zero- accompany it! Doesn't that tell you something, Utter Nutter Sutter?

He really is a menace, as Spencer just said. Of course the irony is that HE is Goebbels-like.

Posted by: darcy at December 29, 2007 12:17 PM

Robert,

Thanks for the information as I stand corrected. In my defense, the books were listed near the bottom of the page and once I scrolled down to Mr. Wagner's selected blogroll, I simply could not continue.

Regards.

Darcy,

I am good, and a happy and safe new year to you as well.

Posted by: awake at December 29, 2007 12:19 PM

"...and once I scrolled down to Mr. Wagner's selected blogroll, I simply could not continue." --posted by awake

Is that because the contents were too revolting and appalling, awake?

Posted by: darcy at December 29, 2007 12:26 PM

Revealing is more like it. It is obvious that Mr. Wagner has no interest in getting the very simple message that is put forth here at JW.

Posted by: awake at December 29, 2007 12:32 PM

One of the things this site does is expose the disingenuous debate tactics of the the jihadis and their sympathizers. I never knew what a 'strawman' argument was before I started coming here.

As more people become aware of these tactics and start to study the tenets of Islam our society will eventually break out of it's fuzzy thinking. It is obvious to the intelligent and informed that the attacks on Robert Spencer and this site are unsubstantiated and malicious.

Keep up the good fight and tell people about this site and have them explore the links on the left. Eventually, I believe there will be a critical mass of islamocognizant people.

Knowledge is the key and this site leads the way.
Thank You JihadWatch

Posted by: tjhawk at December 29, 2007 12:34 PM

Robert and sheik yer'mami:

I read the article on the "Hatewatch hall of shame" blog on Robert, and one hardly would know were to began with the lies and misleading comments being made by its author.

I also noted that the infamous so called Reverand James Sutter is a contributor to the Blog. as well.

Mackie

Posted by: Mackie at December 29, 2007 12:36 PM

13 martyrs doesn't have the decency to answer questions posed to him, he just drops his smears, then leaves.
That is what the Left does. They think they are so superior to the average man and woman that they won't have a dialog, we are beneath them for having a different viewpoint. Tolerance only goes one way.
They say they are anti-war, but would go to war with us in a heartbeat. They are not anti-war, they are just on the other side.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at December 29, 2007 12:45 PM

I think we can go back into the Jihadwatch archives over the past couple of years and find many interactions with this fellow Reverand Jim Sutter.

Posted by: Mackie at December 29, 2007 12:45 PM

13 Murderers:

Ha,ha,ha!Shudda' been happy w/ your disingenuous BS you were leaving on Debbie Schlussel's site,but noooo,ya' got greedy for more attention.

Mr. Spencer & sharp readers here have exposed you for the "nutter" that you are.

Posted by: billybob at December 29, 2007 12:51 PM

"13 Murderers:"

Exactly, billybob. Good one.

Posted by: darcy at December 29, 2007 1:06 PM

hello good readers, I wanted to comment on how right tjhawk is, in my begining years of studing islam I found myself getting rilded up when debateing the dangers of islam. But through the years of reading here, watching Mr. Spencer's discussions, reading other great authers I have come to the level of calmly discussing the finner points of differences between islam and most other faiths.
For me this is key since I have just become a teacher this year and I have to find ways to discuss islam with other teachers and try not to come off as a nut. So the type of language that Mr. Spencer is trying to aviod here is correct for our own sake, partly because of the kneejeck reactions of many people to point out an offenssive statement rather than look into the context of said statement.
So in the end I would like to give thanks to all regular posters here, I have been reading your posts for years, to Hugh for his clear and clever writing style that has made me want to excell my own style, and most importantly to Mr. Spencer for being a guiding light in a fog filled world of denial and deception.
happy new year to all.

Posted by: 19thgenamerican at December 29, 2007 1:19 PM

"That is what the Left does. They think they are so superior to the average man and woman that they won't have a dialog, we are beneath them for having a different viewpoint. Tolerance only goes one way" --posted by interestedconundrum

My younger brother, who is a PC Liberal MoonBat to the core (I'm sorry to say), does not even bring up the subject of Islam and Terrorism even though he knows it's my biggest interest and concern. He comes over and sees my "Remember 9/11" print (which I ordered from crusaderguy.com)hanging on the wall and makes no comment! He's mute! He sees my various books on Islamic Terrorism and Islam and makes no comment. Yet, he tells my husband when I'm not around that he wishes I wouldn't visit "those hate-filled web sites. (i.e. Jihad Watch etc) As "they are nothing but pure hate." He actually said "pure hate." Look, I love my brother, he's a good person, BUT - concerning Islam, he is ignorant, completely uninformed, YET thinks he's superior and so won't have a conversation!

Well, he's coming over this afternoon for a visit and I now have "Mohammed Bear" sitting on the mantel! (ordered from cafepress.com). I will tell you, I am curious to see whether he will acknowledge the presence of Mohammed Bear!

Posted by: darcy at December 29, 2007 1:20 PM

Dear Mr. Spencer,

Thank you for the response and note. Always glad to help.

Posted by: John C at December 29, 2007 1:54 PM

Hi 19thgenamerican. I am a teacher also. I don't bring up the topic with other teachers very often because I don't want to be thought an obsessessed fanatic. I do, however, enter in when Islamic topics are already broached. I am definitely the counterpoint to the majority, but using Robert as my guide and trying to stay level headed, I think I have succeeded in getting a few people to take a deeper look at their assumptions.

Darcy, I know the frustration of having love and respect for people who for some reason just can't get their heads around the Islamic issue. Keep after it. I love your Mohammed Bear idea, but I don't think I will do that in the teacher's lounge.

Posted by: tjhawk at December 29, 2007 1:55 PM

Good luck, darcy.
My own family, even the in-laws, are beginning to understand the threat. We really don't have to say much, just point out the latest bloodshed in allah's name. One of my elderly relatives calls him "old ollie" heh heh.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at December 29, 2007 1:55 PM

In the US Army, only about 10% are directly involved in firing weapons at an enemy. The rest are involved with feeding, housing, supplying, transporting, training, and paying the 10% who are the actual trigger-pullers.

Does this mean that the US Army is non-violent?

Similarly, if 50% of the Muslim world approves of Jihadist activities, then that would indicate that some significant percentage will provide aid and comfort to Jihadists, if only by sending money to "charities" that provide aid to terrorist groups

Posted by: PapaBear at December 29, 2007 2:01 PM

Will do. I should have fired off an e-mail last night, but my trajectory was down and out.

Posted by: Beagle at December 29, 2007 2:01 PM

Arrogance and foolishness aside, it's probably a good thing that the "13 Martyrs" out there read this site, and even comment here and have their views--such as they are--scrutinized. To move a mountain, you have to shift a mass of morons.

Posted by: John C at December 29, 2007 2:17 PM

Robert said

the recent poll in which 46% of Muslims in Pakistan expressed a favorable view of Osama bin Laden, and by the Al-Jazeera poll that put that support among Muslims worldwide at just under 50%.

OBL is Sunni. 20% of Pakistani Muslims are Shi'ite. If those 20% disapprove of OBL, it does not follow that they disapprove of the concept of violent jihad. Same goes for the worldwide figures. Too often we, or our leaders, assume that if one group of Muslims doesn't support a particular Muslim leader (OBL, Ahmedinijiad, Sistani, Saddam Hussein, take your pick), that they therefore are tolerant peaceniks yearning for democracy. That is wishful thinking.

Does this mean that 50% of Muslims are or ever will be active jihadists?

Less than 50% will actually strap on the suicide belt, or pick up a Kalashnikov, or drive their SUV through a crowd, or cut a sniper hole in the trunk of their car, or steer the jetliner they are co-piloting into the ocean, or cut the throat of the Greyhound busdriver, or put a bomb into the sole of their shoe, or shoot up the El Al counter at LAX, etc. But more than 50% would agree with the goal of a worldwide caliphate, and the end of the corrupt influence of the Great Satan (the U.S.) and the end (complete destruction) of the Little Satan (Israel). Maybe they disagree with some of the methods of the overt jihadis, but agree with their goals. More than 50% would donate to a fund at their local mosque that goes to the overt jihadis (until the kaffirs shut the funds down). More than 50% would turn a blind eye to the overt jihadis in their midst, and fail to alert the kaffirs of an impending attack. More than 50% would agree that insulting Mohammad and Allah should not be allowed, even in an open democratic society.

The problem is not a tiny minority, nor even a minority.

Posted by: special_guest at December 29, 2007 2:23 PM

So, it comes to light at last -- Robert Spencer is from another planet, by Jove! No news here--we coulda told 'em that, eh, Kevin? [Hey, Kevin--oh, I forgot; vacationing in the Great Red Spot.]

Posted by: John C at December 29, 2007 2:33 PM

'Well, he's coming over this afternoon for a visit and I now have "Mohammed Bear" sitting on the mantel!'

Darcy, I love you! You are too much, girl!

Patient, persistent, relentless application of the truth. It's working and we are making a difference.

BTW Miss Darcy, it is easier for your brother to pull his head out of the sand and accuse you of reading "hate" sites and then stick it right back in than to actually take a look at the truth and have to do something about it. He probably senses there is something wrong but in his PC world he would be ostracized and singled out if he stood up and told the truth. Some people aren't up for that yet. The ones that are never up for it go dhimmi.

I'm guessing being related to you, your brother is really a conservative who just hasn't been mugged yet.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 29, 2007 2:55 PM

Venividivici,

Very interesting post. How does one fight an enemy who doesn't mind killing himself to kill you? We dealt with that with the Japanese during WWII. They had no problem ramming their gas filled airplanes into our battleships, and taking themselves out while killing our guys. We eventually decided it was us or them and acted accordingly. We also effectively ended the war and saved hundred of thousands of lives in the process.

I don't think we have to worry about that this time around. Our fearless leaders will give the barbarians the keys to the city and offer to have us all bend over for easier beheading before they figure out that we have a problem and it's the end of western civilization as we know it.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 29, 2007 3:44 PM

I don't think we have to worry about that this time around. Our fearless leaders will give the barbarians the keys to the city and offer to have us all bend over for easier beheading before they figure out that we have a problem and it's the end of western civilization as we know it.

Isabella,

I posted a comment yesterday to the effect that even many Western philosophers of the pessimistic school of thought have asserted that the average man wants a master, to relieve him of the burden of self-rule and that the West found itself in a situation where all of the would-be masters among our own people have been discredited as part of the general rebellion against authority of the past century. Say one thing about Muslims, they have no problem asserting authority over others, which seems to be precisely what some want. Think of how much relief all those "lost souls" of the West (Hugh's "psychically and economically marginal") would feel under the Islamic thumb. Yet, these are the same people who, e.g. in Britain, would be anti-monarchy! Not that I'm not also anti-monarchy, but I would much prefer the rule of the British royals, buffoonish as they are, to that of the traditional Islamic despot, were those my two choices and self-rule not an option.

Wouldn't it be ironic if those who felt this need for a master most acutely are precisely those who go into politics and academia in the West, hence their willingness to "bend over"?

Posted by: venividivici at December 29, 2007 3:58 PM

I should be banned now, then, if saying that all Muslims are a threat is not allowed on this site.

I believe all of them are a threat. You cannot call yourself a Muslim and not believe in basic Islam and what Islam is on a basic level. The analogy of Germans vs Nazi's is not valid because not all Germans were Nazi's. A Muslim is not a member of any race, nationality, or political persuasion. A Muslim is a believer in Islam. And if they are a believer in Islam, they are a threat not only to unbelievers, but to other Muslims who don't believe and act as they do.

There is ample proof of this and I am sick and tired of it being denied.

Islam will win in the end because even people like Mr. Spenser care too much what others say about them than what is the truth that needs to be spoken.

But I guess that's how politics works. And that is very depressing.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at December 29, 2007 4:03 PM

Jaynie,

Robert is a rational and temperate man, and quite objective, too--no one's fool. Advocating indiscriminate violence is NOT the same thing as voicing general suspicion against Muslims on demonstrable grounds. I know EXACTLY what intemperate, unreasoning comments Robert has in mind.

Posted by: John C at December 29, 2007 4:10 PM

venividivici said

the patience of a Robert Spencer or the intellect of a Hugh Fitzgerald

Or the intellect of a Robert Spencer and the patience of a Hugh Fitzgerald; either way works.

We're a democratic republic; we'll do everything possible to avoid confronting a problem head-on. When all other options have been exhausted, we'll do the right thing. But as you suggest, I doubt we'll get there without some heartache along the way.

Posted by: special_guest at December 29, 2007 4:16 PM

I just read that "hatewatch" article. Man if that was being said about me I would sue his nuts off.

How can people post such lies with impunity.

Posted by: payingattention at December 29, 2007 4:35 PM

Robert,

Thanks for the info. I would have contacted the companies listed and let them know my concerns; especially Bank of America since I bank with them.

The guy is a menace. The guy will slander you all he wants without fear of reprisal. You really should consider suing him for libel.

Posted by: Elric66 at December 29, 2007 4:36 PM

I also have reservations about banning comments about "incarceration".

The separation in WWII America of ethnic Japanese, as well as quite a few ethnic Germans and Italians, was done, as I understand it, in a large part because it was difficult to tell who the 5th columnists were within those populations.

The same is the case with mohammedans, as has often been stated on this site and elsewhere. One can't tell by looking, and sometimes not even by extended observation, exactly who the jihaddis and their collaborators are.

While the internments of WWII are debated to this day, and there are many plausible, even convincing arguments that they were unnecessary, unjust and wantonly destructive, the book is not closed on the issue.

And I think it remains valid to question whether such measures might not become necessary again.

Do I consider it likely? Not especially.

Do I think it's a wonderful idea? Not especially.

But do I think it's outside the boundaries of possibility, reason and decency? No.

This has nothing to do with assuming that all mohammedans are jihaddis, or even supporters of the jihad.

And it has less than nothing to do with some pathological passion for mass murder.

But it has everything to do with the difficulty of identifying jihaddis and collaborators among the mohhamedan population and the necessity of protecting ourselves from the jihad.

If you can't tell whether the friendly looking folks next door are harboring a murderer, or helping to promulgate the ideology of murder, I think it remains legitimate to ask whether you need to physically isolate them to protect yourself.

We've been fantastically lucky and effective in protecting ourselves from another mass murder so far. But the fight's not over yet. And we know that there are people out there trying to slaughter us at this very moment.

=============

And I will add that I have yet to see a conclusive and fully convincing statement of how we are going to fully defeat the jihad.

So I have no basis to assume that the threat is going to vanish anytime soon.

Posted by: joeblough at December 29, 2007 4:41 PM

Jaynie59 said

if saying that all Muslims are a threat

Never say "never", "none", "always", or "all". All Muslims? How could you know that there isn't one in Poughkeepsie that is a swell guy who would never hurt a flea? It isn't required that every single Muslim be a threat before we can take actions to protect ourselves. Don't make your own argument into an easily-disproven strawman.

Robert Spencer is extremely courageous, and advocates points of view that few others would dare even mumble from an anonymous login; he has been mentioned, by name, by Al Qaeda. Who could disagree that he is brave? More importantly, he also has the ability to back up his views with hard evidence. And yet he still fails to impress? It's easy to set the bar ever higher, if you're not the one who has to jump over it.

Posted by: special_guest at December 29, 2007 4:48 PM

Wouldn't it be ironic if those who felt this need for a master most acutely are precisely those who go into politics and academia in the West, hence their willingness to "bend over"?

Venividivici, man your post really gives me the creeps. But I think you are on to something.

I remember hearing a very interesting talk on the radio by a women who had been a former Nazi youth leader. She was brainwashed as a child and very poor, living with a foster family. Being chosen as a Nazi youth leader was a great honor and meant she could go to school past the 8th grade. She did become a leader and excelled at her position.

After the war she escaped from a Russian slave labor camp and made her way to close to where the Americans were. She had been brainwashed to believe that Americans would shoot Germans on site and when she made it over to the American side, and had contact with them, she found that they weren't at all what she had been taught to believe and she became a huge advocate in her later years for the American military. I don't know if she is still alive but her name is Hansi and she used to go around to all our posts and bases and give talks to the military wives.

I will never forget something that Hansi said about why people can be brainwashed into believing crazy things. She said that when human beings refuse to discipline themselves, in an interior way, that they will be forced to be disciplined by an exterior source. In other words, the more we choose not to mind out manners, not respect other peoples' property and relationships with their spouses, the more we will have exterior controls put on us, as we are seeing now in the form of restrictions. Because we refuse to regulate ourselves, we are being regulated.

I don't smoke but I think it is ridiculous to try and criminalize those who do so in public places. There are those out there who feel it is their duty to stick their nose in everybody else's business and tell them how to run their lives. If I want to smoke and kill myself, that's my affair. If I want to wear a fur coat I don't need some idiot over at PETA throwing red paint on it because they BELIEVE that it is wrong for me to do so. I disagree with abortion but I'm not going to force someone to do things my way. We all have choices and we all suffer the consequences of them. Those consequences should be enough of a motivator to change behavior that doesn't work. But in these times where kids can't be told that they are not good enough to be on the team because it might hurt their feelings and affect their self-esteem or when everybody gets a good grade, even those who haven't earned it, we are sliding down a slippery slope. There is an order to the world and if we don't want to follow it, something else will step into out places.

Perhaps our leaders and college professors feel the need to be overpowered and mastered because of their collective guilt in not doing right by the people they lead and teach. In which case we feel the effects of a double whammy in putting up with their abusive leadership in the first place and, secondly, by them selling us up the river. But man is not limited by his leaders. He is limited by his own fear and unwillingness to do the right thing. That is why we have always admired those who are courageous and willing to do the right thing. We may be in trouble right now but we are not down and out.

I'm leaving now. I'll check back with you later. : )

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 29, 2007 4:52 PM

I hold to the statement, the words I have said before, in that the real enemy is the ideals, the teachings that is islam itself. Islam is the enemy, even to those who follow it.

I never speak against those who follow it, as most, nearly all, were raised, forced to follow the "faith", or taught it from their first days. It is the teachings of islam that start the followers down the path, that has lead the world to this conflict, one that has been fought for generations. Satan has mislead many, and feel that this is what islams purpose is.

I can hate a ideal, and can think those who follow it are mislead, brainwashed, forced, into following the teachings from this "faith", the one known as islam.

If it is in error, this focus of mine that islam is the enemy, the heart of the conflict, then the error is mine to carry.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at December 29, 2007 6:16 PM

Many here 'get it', and there are many newcomers who also 'get it' and are now realizing that we are dealing with genocidal lunatics who do indeed want to kill us, murderous zombies who are happy to blow themselves up in the process, which for the Muhammedan is the only guaranteed expressway to the 72 virgins (and don't forget them 24 boyz!)

No, not everybody who is born into this madness is a jihadist, of course not. I have friends in Indonesia who are very worried about where this is all going, (in the highest levels of society, in business and even in government) but as you can imagine, they would never speak out publicly, because that would be a death sentence for them. You may compare that with speaking out against the Nazi's or openly working against the USSR during the time of the cold war, but I think its actually worse. The Nazi's were not total believers, and even die-hard commies would harbor some doubt re their political system. But Muhammedanism, being the criminal cult that it is, you can never trust anybody since a true believer will have to kill you if he thinks you are kufr (unbelieving) An awful, awful situation.

30 years ago you wouldn't see a hijab or any other Islamic costumes anywhere in Indo.. The spindoctors from the MSM who call Indonesia 'moderate' or 'practicing some mild, tolerant form of Islam' are doing us all a great disservice. Islam is Islam, and Indonesia is coming into the fold. These people are making life hell for themselves.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 29, 2007 6:18 PM

Papa Bear

I do like the Army analogy.

It is unfortunate that last summer's Pew Research Poll didn't ask more pointed questions that would haved help analyze the attitudes of muslims living among us in the U.S. There were disturbing numbers about suicide bombing and support for Osama bin Laden.

But what would be the most important question to ask in the next poll, if ever conducted, is this:

Do you wish sharia law to be adopted in this country?

Last summer Robert was on Laura Ingraham show with Dr. Esam Omeish, president of the Muslim American Society. Dr. Omiesh admitted that he would prefer that sharia law be adopted in the US, IF it approved by popular vote. Now that is a completely absurd notion to think we would ever get to the point of a referendum on adopting sharia, but it tells us about Omiesh's value system. When one understands the values sharia incorporates it is easy to see why anyone advocating for its adoption is a danger to freedom and democracy.

It matters not that Omiesh never advocated violent jihad on that show. He as a citizen of this country, has the right to vote. In my opinion, with that right to vote and with that view of the supremacy of Islam he is a dangerous person, regardless of his views against "terrorism" and Osmama bin Laden. If he or any other U.S. citizens' beliefs are similar to Omiesh than they are my enemies.

Omiesh and many other muslims like him who show no outward violent tendencies but are not satisfied with our constitution as it now exists are as dangerous to me as the suicide bomber who wants to blow up my family if it means furthering the spread of Islam. Their weapons are the powers to vote and to exercise the right to free speech.

It should not matter what percentages of the ummah share these views. Whether the final count ends up being 100 million or 1 billion muslims, the test should be: do you wish for, and do you support the spread of Islam until it dominates the world? In the U.S. the test is whether one accepts the Constitution or wishes it to be replaced by the sharia. If you support sharia, you are my enemy.

I support any law that isolates such believers away from the away from rest those citizens who accept and respect the existing constitution. If internment or deportation are the only tools then so be it. If denying basic rights to those who prefer sharia means a denial of the right to vote or exercise of free speech then once again, so be it.

In this poll 76% of Pakistanis say they want strict sharia as their law.

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf

If that is the case are not 76% of Pakistani's saying that they believe Islam should be the dominint religion throughout the world? Are all those 76% active or violent jihadists? No, but I say what difference does it make. If that percentage is reflective of the Pakistani population as a whole then 76% of Pakistanis are my enemy. As Papa Bear's analogy shows, one need not bare arms and be actively killing people to be part of a dangerous force.

So, whoever said that Robert claimed 650 muslims are jihadists, I say to you, what difference does it make whether 650 million 100 million or 1.3 billion? Whatever the percentage of the ummah believes that Islam should become superior to all other religions or belief systems, and whether that superiority can be achieved by violent or non-violent means, that percentage is a threat to all freedom loving people, they are our enemies, no matter how militant or peaceful they present themselves.

Posted by: USorThem at December 29, 2007 7:07 PM

USorThem,

The MAS is, you probably know, a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, and anything said publicly by an Ikwanist spokesman is sugar-coated poison. Omeish wants Sharia in America, PERIOD. Every IF and BUT is conditional on present circumstances--he'd be for anti-Jewish, anti-Christian riots HERE, if it were as advantageous to them as it is desirable.

Posted by: John C at December 29, 2007 7:50 PM

There are many tactics of jihad, not all of them violent. I don't think all muslims are violent, but I think they all do participate in jihad.
If that is not the case, how do muslims reconcile their refusal, or inaction in jihad, with the often quoted 'obligation' to jihad incumbant on all able bodied muslims? Muslims can participate in the on going dar al-harb, dar al-Islam jihad in ways that are not violent, and don't support terrorism.
A muslim who supports Islamic world dominance by religious, or political non violent means, is engaging in 'ideology jihad'. 'Vote jihad', is a non violent, long range plan to use democracy to destroy democracy, and install an Islamic government by vote. Immigrate, multiply, capture the vote, presto, The American Islamic Republic, complete with Sharia lite at first, but after power is consolidated, Sharia heavy. I have had people tell me that won't happen, but no one has said how to prevent it.
As a supremacist ideology it is hard to imagine finding a muslim who is truly humble before an infidel. You can't have true brotherhood with someone who feels superior to you. 'Different but equal', must be a hard concept for the average muslim to accept. So I find that there are muslims who are not violent, and may be moderate, even likable, but I have never found a muslim who was not a muslim.

Posted by: duh_swami at December 29, 2007 8:02 PM

I had a discussion about Islam, over a few beers with some of my son’s friends. They are typical of much of today’s almost apolitical American youth and pretty much ignorant of Islam. Two phrases that I used that they seemed to “get” are:

“There is no “moderate” Islam, there are only moderate Muslims.” And
“The only good Muslim is a bad MUSLIM”

This generation operates on sound bites. These seemed to work pretty well for the occasion and to get them thinking a bit more.

I believe I heard these phrases here. I’m sure some might take offence at them (hate speech) they are both truthful and quite effective.

Posted by: Davegreybeard at December 29, 2007 8:22 PM

Giving offense does not hate speech make.

Posted by: John C at December 29, 2007 8:38 PM

Giving offense doth not hate speech make.

Posted by: John C at December 29, 2007 8:39 PM

'Well, he's coming over this afternoon for a visit and I now have "Mohammed Bear" sitting on the mantel!'

Darcy, I love you! You are too much, girl!

Patient, persistent, relentless application of the truth. It's working and we are making a difference.

BTW Miss Darcy, it is easier for your brother to pull his head out of the sand and accuse you of reading "hate" sites and then stick it right back in than to actually take a look at the truth and have to do something about it. He probably senses there is something wrong but in his PC world he would be ostracized and singled out if he stood up and told the truth. Some people aren't up for that yet. The ones that are never up for it go dhimmi.

I'm guessing being related to you, your brother is really a conservative who just hasn't been mugged yet.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 29, 2007 2:55 PM

Luv you too, Crusader Isabella! Actually, younger brother is still here, we've just finished a nice meal that my husband cooked (! - you gotta love that!) and my brother DID remark earlier on Mohammed Bear. He said, "I see you have a Mohammed Bear." To which I replied "Yep, I got a Mohammed Bear." He said "Is that the original one?" - which is funny, actually, so I laughed and replied that I don't think that bear exists anymore! My husband interjected with "That one's beheaded," -LOL! And that was the end of Mo Bear conversation. Which didn't go too badly!

Isabella, I hope you will have a fabulous New Year!

Posted by: darcy at December 29, 2007 8:42 PM

"It isn't required that every single Muslim be a threat before we can take actions to protect ourselves." --posted by special_guest

That's it. That's the response to PC MoonBats who think an argument is "Well, every Muslim isn't a Terrorist."

Posted by: darcy at December 29, 2007 8:58 PM

Oh, people - I got my rectangle-shaped stickers from JW today - a pack of ten. The sticker says "Defeat JIHAD" and underneath, "JihadWatch.org." One will be put on my vehicle tomorrow! (Oh, navy blue lettering on white - very attractive. It's too bad that we have to have these in the early 21st century - but, we do.)

Posted by: darcy at December 29, 2007 9:14 PM

Miss Darcy,

Right back atcha, girlfriend! Happy, happy New Year. (And Merry 5th day of Christmas!)

I see now this is your little brother, so he gets cut some slack because he's probably in that age group that didn't get any kind of respect for America lessons taught to him in school. My daughter works with some older teenagers, one from some Muslim country, who continually bitches and moans about how horrible the United States is. She doesn't complain about the gifted classes she's in at school or the new laptop she got for the infidel holiday called Christmas. But these younger folk first need to be debriefed and then like drops of water, hit with some facts, then more, then more. It will start coming together for your brother. My nieces looked at me like I had two heads when I started telling them about this stuff a few years ago. Now one spouts the JW/DW party line and is educating her sphere of influence. My friends who use to snicker and change the subject when I brought up da' jihad, now discuss it openly. Progress. (I can't believe I've been doing this for four years now.)

The points made up above about what constitutes my enemy and what steps should be taken are very good and thought provoking. What if we tried a different twist in our conversations with our dhimmi-lemming friends? What if we took a poll and asked them, without saying anything about Islam, if they felt homosexuals should be executed for committing sodomy in the U.S.? After the howling dies down, ask them their opinion of unmarried people living together? Is it okay? Is it not? Is it a sin? After they stop looking at you like you are from Mars, ask them if they think their teenaged daughter should be severely punished for sitting in a car with a boy she's not married to. Ask them if Lynn Spears (I think its Lynn) should be killed for getting knocked up at the age of 16 years. Next, ask them if they think that women who wear short skirts or sleeveless tops should be considered whores and be raped as a punishment.

I know, I know. These people will be looking at you incredulously with looks of horror on their faces and trying to back out of whatever establishment you are sitting in with them. But if they answer any of the questions honestly, show them the articles like the one for Aqsa Parvez up in Canada, who was strangled by her father because she wouldn't wear the hijab. Show them the pictures of the two homosexual teenaged boys in Iran who were executed by hanging off big cranes. Be sure to point out that Stinky Ahmadinejad says there is no homosexuality in Iran and then show them the pictures again. You get the picture.

How will they deny it when the evidence is right in front of them? How can they continue to defend Islam when the evidence of it's actions against the human race are so plentiful and prevalent? I have one good friend who was on the manhunt prowl for the past five or so years. She finally got a good one and didn't want to hear about this stuff because she was too busy planning her next trip or fun event with this guy. One time I told her that I know everyone will not stand up in this fight so I feel I have to do it, for myself and my kids but also for my family members and friends who just won't ever get it. You know what? It is even starting to sink in with this girlfriend. She makes comments once in a while and sends me e-mails pertaining to Jihad, so I know it is getting through. She's also really ticked about illegal aliens so I can use the old, "Al-Qaeda can get through our porous borders" to make an impression.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 29, 2007 10:45 PM

Jaynie59 said

if saying that all Muslims are a threat

Never say "never", "none", "always", or "all". All Muslims? How could you know that there isn't one in Poughkeepsie that is a swell guy who would never hurt a flea? It isn't required that every single Muslim be a threat before we can take actions to protect ourselves. Don't make your own argument into an easily-disproven strawman.

Posted by: special_guest

I know what you are saying, but Jaynie59 is correct in a way that he may or may not have meant. While an odd Muslim in Poughkeepsie may indeed never hurt a flea, what he does do, albeit inadvertantly, is increase the numbers of those proclaimed by Islamic supremacist groups as adherents of Islam. While we all know that different Muslims lose no time in denouncing other Muslims who disagree with them as un-Islamic, they are nonetheless all too eager to count in their ranks anybody from these un-Islamic groups when it suits them. For instance, just look at how they tout Abdus Salam - an Ahmadiya - as one of their own for winning a Nobel prize, even as they do everything possible to prevent them from being recognized as Muslims. End result is that you have groups like CAIR proclaiming Islam to have 8m adherents in the US, as opposed to the 2.3m in the Pew poll.

In other words, even these completely innocent Muslims do contribute to the demographic jihad against our bilad-ul-kafir, and therefore should be recognized as threats. Therefore, while you are right that all, or even most, Muslims don't have to be overt threats, that shouldn't imply that those who aren't should be welcomed with open arms, until they do what the apostates have done - renounce Islam completely. After all, we all know that it is not difficult to stop being Muslim, the way it is to stop being Black, or Hispanic, or Asian, or ______.

Having said that, just because they are to be recognized as threats doesn't imply that vigilante violence against them is justified. Robert is right in banning the above characters if they posted genocidal comments. However, stating that all Muslims are enemies is imho not tantamount to stating that they should all be eviscerated: all it implies is that they should be regarded with suspicion, rather than welcomed with absolutely no reservations.

If this is what Jaynie was implying, I agree with him/her.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 30, 2007 2:30 AM

Yes, Infidel Pride, well put. Me too.

Posted by: special_guest at December 30, 2007 3:32 AM

As for this Jim Sutter, the 'personal profile' at the top of the page says it all:

The "Reverend" Jim Sutter of Parma, Ohio
Tax Evader, Convicted Felon, Navy Seal Imposter, Bogus Academic, Fraudulent Combat Medals Claimant, Pathological Liar, Phony Minister and perhaps even worse...

So why is this man controlling what you see on the Internet?

Hardly someone you'd trust around your daughters, is he?

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at December 30, 2007 6:41 AM

Darcy

Is it not amazing how some are so judgmental of the things they know nothing of. So quick in their bantering of "hate" as to close off any hope of their re-education.

To think that those who at one time professed that " the truth would set you free" are now empowered to insure that the Truth is the last thing one would ever be exposed to.

I have a young employee who left Journalism School because of the level of debasement that "truth" would be subjected to to do her Job.

As ugly as the term is, we will need re-education camps before we will interment ones.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at December 30, 2007 9:50 AM

"But these younger folk first need to be debriefed and then like drops of water, hit with some facts, then more, then more. It will start coming together for your brother." --Isabella

It's morning, Isabella, my brother spent the night in the guest room snuggling with our cat. Now, we've been sitting on the sofa drinking coffee, and I'm wearing my "Bring Back The Crusades" much-worn sweatshirt. Brother has not remarked on the sweatshirt! That's OK - it's a "drop of water," as you so eloquently put it.

"Sister" (that's me) is not stupid - Brother knows this. More water.

Those are some great examples of the barbarism committed against females and homosexuals in Islam. Oh yeah - just trot those out, you've won the argument. Nothing more effective than EXAMPLES.

It's Jamie Lynn Spears, age 16. The mother is Lynne Spears. What's your opinion about Jamie Lynn's pregnancy at 16?

Posted by: darcy at December 30, 2007 10:06 AM

I want to clarify my point about all Muslims being a threat. What I say now is based not on any formal knowledge of Islam. I've read a lot of the Koran and Hadiths but I read it all online. I did not take notes and I did not "study" it at all. I just read it. I don't know how much of it I read. For about 2 1/2 years I read a lot, but there is a lot of repetition and I don't know if I read 27 different versions of something, or the same one 27 times. So my opinion of Muslims and Islam is not based anything in the texts alone.

My opinion of Muslims and Islam comes from a combination of four things: Reading the texts, reading the FAQ's and Q&A's of pro-Islam sites, discussions with people who claim to be Muslims on anonymous message boards, and reading the news.

From those experiences I can say with all certainty that there is no such thing as a "moderate Muslim". In my opinion, there are two types of Muslims: those people who call themselves Muslim but are ignorant about basic Islamic dogma and blame all the "other Muslims" for terrorism, and knowledgeable Muslims who know enough that they can't blame the other guy without claiming the other guy isn't a Muslim.

That's it. The ignorant claim it's not Islam, and the knowledgeable use a combination of excuses, justifications, and word usage to explain away all of the violence Islam calls for.

In my opinion, Muslim converts are the most dangerous and the biggest threat. If you talk to a "Muslim born", as some call themselves, you don't get nearly the certainty that you do with converts.

Maybe I'm just too dense to see the difference between a belief and it's believers. But as far as I'm concerned, there is no way to tell the difference until it's too late. And it's unfortunate that saying that makes me a bigot.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at December 30, 2007 12:32 PM

Spirit of '83,

Add "Agent Provocateur" to the list of Sutter's attributes. He has trolled BOTH sides of the fence in his efforts to stir controversy.

Posted by: John C at December 30, 2007 12:33 PM

Jaynie59,

Yet there are a few, a precious few, who honestly profess to be Muslims, who know what orthodox Islam holds, and yet reject these conceptions of Islam in favor of a modern, universally-informed, reformed Islam. These few who insist that they, too, are Muslim, and who genuinely profess universal brotherhood, drawing upon the whole of salvific history, not abrogating it, ARE our true friends and allies. "Muslims Against Sharia" are a genuine example of these.

Posted by: John C at December 30, 2007 12:53 PM

Jaynie59

Robert Spencer's late friend Tashbih Sayyed is another excellent example (see the left sidebar of this site).

Posted by: John C at December 30, 2007 12:58 PM

Hi everybody! As usual Robert Spencer is right. No bad words and offenses, genocide and stuff like that on the forum. I fully agree: we must only say the truth, even if the truth can be more harmful than abusing words. What I learned about Christianity and Islam is as simple as that (but is not an offense, I hope):
Christianity, grown on the roman-greek culture, is good and preaches goodness. Christians are often bad, or very bad (Inquisition, persecutions, Galileo and bla, bla, bla), but when they follow the principles of their religion, they become good.
Mohammed is evil, Islam is evil and preaches murder.
Muslim are often good, very good (I have many Muslim friends), but when they follow the principles of their religion, they become evil, terrorists, jihadists.
Therefore we must fight the wrong ideas and the bad people, not the people in general. Otherwise what is the difference between us and them? I'm Italian, my father was Italian too and a real nice person; he was a Doctor, he was saving lives, he was a convinced catholic but he was a fascist!!! Why I'm telling you this (in a language not mine)? Because I think we must judge the people by their actions not by their believes. It was true to fight the fascism and to convict the active fascists after a trial for their deeds, but it would have been wrong to persecute all the Italians, the majority of which was just going along with their businesses even if they were declaring themselves "fascists".
I hope to have explained my position; in other words we should be careful in generalizations, the Italians, the Germans, the Americans, the Fascists, the Nazis, the Catholics, the Jews, the Muslims, meaning "all" of them. There are bad guys and good guys everywhere and we must know and see the differences and judge them by what they do and what they preach, otherwise we risk to become fundamentalist ourselves and not very different from Muslims chasing the infidels.
God bless and happy new year

Posted by: Buraq at December 30, 2007 1:47 PM

I believe I heard these phrases here.
Yes, Davegreybeard, you did.
I am happy to claim authorship of “The only good Muslim is a bad MUSLIM”.
Now isn't it ironic that it had to be me? (you of course know why.

Posted by: thomas. h at December 30, 2007 2:28 PM

test

Posted by: Haid Dasalami at January 1, 2008 12:34 AM