So you waste millions pandering to the agressive demands of a west hating minority until it becomes a dominant majority, complete with nuclear weapons(in some cases).

Or you look and seek and hunt for that elusive creature of western intellectual mythology: the unicorn of hope: the MODERATE Muslim (whom we know exists because polls say he does) and because certain muslims say that they are such(wouldn't lie would they?). But there is still no guarantee that the children of these moderates will be moderate(and in fact it seems to be the opposite as a rule).

Or we suddenly grow up as humans who are determined to save the western legacy and we ask them to leave: politely at first and nonpolitely if they refuse. If Muslim countries harbour or subsidise aggressive acts, they psay the price.

Or we just give up now and learn arabic.

I see no choice but submission or victory and no victory is won without bloodshed. Is the western legacy worth this? Just think of how many will die once the west succumbs to sharia law. Islam's idea of charity seems totally at odds with the western viewpoint and I fully expect 90% of the world to be dead of famine and disease within 20 yrs.

Posted by: MisIslamist at January 19, 2008 6:22 AM

“Saudi Arabia alone has spent nearly $100 billion in the last few decades, for mosques”

Don’t I know it! Going for my usual walk, I pass the Rey Fahd Mosque, a monstrosity that is located just a few hundred yards form the U.S. Embassy. Because I like to read as I walk, I happened to have my copy of “The Truth about Muhammad” in my hands a few days ago. There were a few Muslims milling about the entrance and I walked within 5 feet of them. Because the last thing I can afford to do is to bring attention to myself or start any sort of a row, I made sure that they would not see the orangey-yellow front jacket. As much as it turns my stomach to have to do such a thing, it was a necessary prudence, not an act of dhimmitude.

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 19, 2008 6:35 AM

Hugh,

American children are, for the most part, being taught in public schools to despise this country. All the evils of the world (throughout history) are being rewritten to make America responsible. Have you gone to any National Monument or historical site the last 10 years and seen how they are slowly removing crucial elements of true American history?

American children are being taught to be lovers of themselves and nothing else. Loyality is to self. Glory is to self. It is all about (me).

Add to that the mess of multicultural PC mush that is being pushed into childrens' brains (not to mention the mind altering drugs), and you have a civilization ripe for a take over.

Critical thinking is being killed in this country. It started in the schools and has naturally bled over into the media. We are devolving into a nation of people that either cannot or do not want to think for themselves- let alone challenge (intellectually) another person's point of view (unless of course it pertains to sports or who Brit is going to marry this week).

The children of our country have been (progressively and increasingly)indoctrinated to accept the ideas of 'new deal' socialism. Why aren't more people shocked and outraged when they see HAMAS run pre-schools teaching kids about killing Jews and dying as Shahid? Because we're teaching the kids in this country the same way! Mind numbing indoctrination--where the HAMAS goal is martyrs and America's public school goal is capitulation (for now).

The Islamists are on the move. You are correct to sound the alarm. They and their friends are in very deep.

People that believe "their kids" or "grandkids" will be fighting for their freedom are missing the mark. Those kids will be paying the jizya or 'enjoying' dhimmitude.

I wonder what the latest Brit saga/ headline will be to keep us placated in 5 years??

Probably a story about her loosing her head. Oh, that's right. It already was threatened.

Posted by: Agent Maxwell Smart at January 19, 2008 6:46 AM

Yes we automatically accept that if we make ourselves obvious to Muslims then we become a target. Everybody knows this, everybody accepts it. No one does anything about it except talk.

It may take a Stalin to beat this monster and if it does we only have ourselves to blame.

Posted by: MisIslamist at January 19, 2008 6:48 AM

“Everybody knows this, everybody accepts it. No one does anything about it except talk.”

Speaking only for myself, I can assure you that I do much more than just talk.

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 19, 2008 6:59 AM

I'm looking forward to your appearance at the next David Horowitz Islamofascisim Awareness Week in 2008, Hugh. You will be speaking, won't you?

If you haven't been asked to participate, I'll call the Horowitz Freedom Center and insist that you be invited. In fact, I can probably initiate a phone-in campaign at the University of Washington for your inclusion in the event.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 19, 2008 8:07 AM

As Maxwell said, "American children are, for the most part, being taught in public schools to despise this country."

So, if you aren't already home schooling your children, "Get Smart" people...it truly is "the toughest job you'll ever love..."

Posted by: wholebrainer at January 19, 2008 8:49 AM

Hugh-

It appears that in history there are two basic forms of Imperialism-Empire. One is based in "religion"-ideology (Pizarro in Peru, Arab Empire, Muslims invading Hindu India, Nazis in Russia, etc.) and the other is commercial in nature (Brits, e.g.). The "religious" rationalizations for domination are generally plunder-exploitation-genocide-mass-murder systems that sneer at indigenous cultures, indigenous peoples (Muslim invaders of Hindu India were Pizzaro style pigs). Commercial imperialism-domination systems usually (but not always) are more respectful of indigenous cultures-peoples.

Muslims sneer at the commercial nations-cultures as if the Muslim rationalizations for domination are somehow "pure". However, history shows that domination systems based on 'religion" or ideology often culminate in Darfurs. For that reason the age of "religion"-ideology systems for domination is coming to an end. Most cultures today have become very critical-self-critical of "religious"-ideological rationalization systems for domination. Only Muslims are uncritical of this "religion" that is at its core the engine of Arab Imperialism. That total absence of self-criticism is the problem. Islamic culture is as sick as the imagination of Nasralla.

Posted by: Frank at January 19, 2008 9:02 AM

Jeffrey Carr:

This latest attempt of yours to suggest -- I'm sure you think slyly -- that Hugh Fitzgerald and I are the same person made me smile.

In reality, no one would be more pleased than I if Hugh were invited to speak, and agreed to speak, at a college during the next Horowitz Center IslamoFascism Awareness Week. And if you can arrange to have the University of Washington invite him, so much the better. Please do initiate your campaign, and thanks for your help.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 19, 2008 9:13 AM

And if you can arrange to have the University of Washington invite him, so much the better. Please do initiate your campaign, and thanks for your help.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 19, 2008 9:13 AM

Brilliant, Robert, Brilliant!

Posted by: Alert at January 19, 2008 9:46 AM

Mr. Carr,

Let us suppose, just for argument's sake, that Robert and Hugh are one and the same.

How is this relevant? Why are you obsessed with this? Who cares? Perhaps I am Robert as well. Perhaps every poster on this forum is Robert having a conversation with himself, and you Mr. Carr, are the only poster here who is not Robert.

This is no longer even entertaining.

Posted by: cumulusnine at January 19, 2008 9:56 AM

Oh, brother. You can tell by their writing styles that Spencer and Fitzgerald are not the same.

"Carr" is delusional.

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 9:58 AM

This is no longer even entertaining.

Posted by: cumulusnine at January 19, 2008 9:56 AM

Because it's so dumb. Stupidity is never entertaining. It's just pitiful.

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 9:59 AM

"Over 1350 years, with a few exceptions (in Java and Sumatra, conversion of the rulers to Islam led to mass-conversion of their subjects), Islam spread by force."

Even in those cases, Indonesia, North Central Asia, West Africa, where the territories were beyond the reach of Muslim arms, local rulers found Islamic ideology a most useful tool for conquest. So even in these areas the "peaceful" spread of Islam is largely a myth. Once converted, these local rulers engaged in jihad against their neighbors.

Posted by: RBLA at January 19, 2008 9:59 AM

Hugh, your lecture should be Muslim Demographics.

Because they are out-of-control and "Majority Rules."

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 10:03 AM

Jeffrey, and especially Robert and Hugh, focus your keen intellects on the Islamic jugular. When a future opportunity presents itself, I'm confident the latter two will strike without a twinge of guilt.

Mr. Carr, I'm usually and like to think of myself as a good judge of character, and I cannot help but to imagine you hesitating, or just not giving one hundred percent of yourself to the effort of causing the demise of Islam, were the opportunity to present itself to do so. Then again, I can also imagine Jeffrey near this arena and, realizing what is about to happen, offering his own rhetorical pearls which adds an extra three or four kicks to the balls as we all assault the beast to its death.

Who knows?

Constructing platforms to massage the minds of future generations to render the words and rituals of Islam bogus in relation to a modern, sober and rational interpetation of what the intentions and will of a (The) Creator actually are ..., someday the pen will be mightier then the sword, for sure.

I myself absolutely, definitely want to be party to causing and then watching this beast fall in the future.

Posted by: k24anson at January 19, 2008 10:16 AM

People, order "Defeat Jihad/Jihad Watch.org" stickers, available on this site, put one on your vehicle and give the rest to friends (Order a 10-Pack).

Don't be a coward - do it. Let your immediate world see this message as you drive around town!

So far, not a soul has said a word.

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 10:17 AM

I myself absolutely, definitely want to be party to causing and then watching this beast fall in the future.

Posted by: k24anson at January 19, 2008 10:16 AM

Me too. And we're doing it right now! Can you imagine being WITHOUT JW/DW and other important sites such as thereligionofpeace.com, apostatesofislam, Sons of Apes and Pigs, etc etc?

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 10:23 AM

There is an Islamic proverb: The adulterated milk is useless.

I you look in the history, there was not a single strong wall that could not be scaled. Ancient Muslims knew that to win is to go out, and that to defend is not to win.

Macarthur went out and intent to finish the North Korean war, he was held back. Now, Syria and Iran have bought their Nuke technology; there is no return--the milk is spoiled.

America created the United Nations within its "wall," all foreign spies comes to stay as invited diplomats with full immunity. While they stay, they found the soft spot on the wall. This soft spot is its system of legislation. Now it's been exploited more than 50 years. This exploitation ranges from arrays of domestic to foreign policies.

Domestic exploitation: (1) Funding Anti-war Organizations, (2) Funding Education, (3) Rewarding Politicians at end of their term who favor American erosion, (4) and foremost important exploitation is LEGISLATION.

From the exploitation of American system of legislation, the inundation of counter-productive laws rendered every individual or any sincere leader powerless.

How can we be powerless?
Simple, we are a law abiding nation, and we abide to our own constrains.

Now, in education, parents have no full rights to their children due to constrains; teachers have no right to talk about moral due to constrains; text books contains no inculcation of patriotism due to constrains, etc. I cannot possibly continue this; it's endless.

Now, in commerce, enemies of America have rights to own a business vital to our national security due to free trade constrains; example, Dubai Port, and Chinese take over of high-tech company shares. All nations have quota for selling their products to American consumers because of free trade. Every nation can sell to America because they have their emigrants who know the system, but America cannot easily sell them anything because most Americans stay home where life is better, so we buy more than we sell.

Immigration: A friend of mine who finished schools we me in science quit his job and become an immigration lawyer. I told him that we worked hard for many years to get to where we are and that he just threw away all the hard work and qualification. He said, "A PhD in math is hell less than $80,000 a years, but B.S. in immigration law got me at least $200,000 a year from my private practice." Yes, folks, business is good in the importation of foreigners, and it's good for at least 100 years. The harder it gets to America, the higher the reward will be for lawyers. Can you see why we have more harmful lawyers than beneficial scientist? One more example: Congressmen make $170,000 a year, but they can make more than $1,000,000 legislating for enemy's interests. Then, how much should we pay our congressmen? They answer, "More please!"

If we know that the system of legislation is the problem, why don't we fix it?
Yes, we could, but now we cannot because we have been washed too far downstream. We are not fit as Salmon who can counter strong current. Please note: Though Salmon could go again strong current; they die of exhaustion at their destination.

The milk is spoiled!

Posted by: ssa at January 19, 2008 10:26 AM

Here's an even better idea. Just ask Robert if he'll switch roles with me for a while. Then I would get to be the master ventriloquist, putting words in the mouth of my "imaginary colleague." Sometimes Mortimer Snerd wants to be Edgar Bergen.

More amazing than a sustained act of ventriloquism that would tax a Vattemare crossed with a Pessoa, is the spectacle of someone unable to distinguish two such very different prose styles and two such very different mental make-ups. Such an inability deeply impresses. That is, makes a deep impression.

Posted by: Hugh at January 19, 2008 10:31 AM

... second sentence, second paragraph of my last post is edited to better read,"[r]ealizing what is about to happen, suddenly and to the surprise of all the good people at jihadwatch.org/, offering his own rhetorical pearls which, etc."

...

Posted by: k24anson at January 19, 2008 10:33 AM

Though trying to find a photo or photos of Hugh Fitzgerald on the internet is not easy, they do in fact exist.

I can assure you that Mr.Fitzgeralds appearance does not even come close to Robert Spencers.

Posted by: Mackie at January 19, 2008 10:49 AM

"that would tax a Vattemare crossed with a Pessoa," --posted by Hugh

Spencer would never say that.

Anyone know what it means, lol!

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 10:58 AM

Vattemare was a famous ventriloquist in the first half of the nineteenth century. He was famous from St. Petersburg to Paris, travelled and put on plays, in which he, Vattemare, would play every role (he was not a "ventriloquist" in the Edgar-Bergen sense, but in a different, older sense), and may even have met Pushkin. Later he helped to start the enterprise of trans-national (today "cross-cultural") exchange, helping to arrange for large numbers of French books to come to the Boston Public Library, and books from the American Republic to be sent to France.

Pessoa, was a Portuguese writer early in the past century, famous for his heteronyms, that is the individualized writers, all of whom wrote differently from each other, and each of whom was a creation of none other than Fernando Pessoa ("Person") names and personalities he created, and who "wrote" himself. A combination of the two would require a single person to possess both the heteronymic writing of Pessoa, and the heteronymic oral delivery of Vattemare.

A tall order.

Posted by: Hugh at January 19, 2008 11:17 AM

Hugh,

I had never heard of either of those guys. Now I am pleased to announce that both of them were actually me.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 19, 2008 11:19 AM

Hugh:

Your amazing retention of what you have read never stops to amaze me.

Though you may not be nearly as eccentric, you at times remind me of Thomas Edward Lawrence, and that is meant to be a compliment.

Posted by: Mackie at January 19, 2008 11:33 AM

Robert, regardless of my personal beliefs about the "Hugh" persona on this forum, I do think that he should have a larger platform to express his point of view. So on Monday, I'll call the Horowitz Freedom Center. If they'll agree to invite Hugh to speak during Islamofascism Awareness Week, I'll do my best to have the seminar presented at UW.

Also, while I'm on the subject, in spite of the fact that I find your point of view narrow-minded, I have no problem in your airing it. I think its important that flawed arguments should be exposed to the public, rather than kept to small forums like this one. Hugh, in particular, should really strive to increase his exposure. I'm surprised that you, as his friend and employer, don't do more to encourage that.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 19, 2008 11:40 AM

Also, while I'm on the subject, in spite of the fact that I find your point of view narrow-minded, I have no problem in your airing it. I think its important that flawed arguments should be exposed to the public, rather than kept to small forums like this one. Hugh, in particular, should really strive to increase his exposure. I'm surprised that you, as his friend and employer, don't do more to encourage that.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 19, 2008 11:40 AM

So funny! "small forums!" Oh, yeah, JW is "small," LOL! Just take a look at that sitemeter.

Oh, and what's an example of a "flawed argument" of Spencer's? I bet you can't furnish even one example.

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 11:45 AM

Mr. Carr:

Robert, regardless of my personal beliefs about the "Hugh" persona on this forum, I do think that he should have a larger platform to express his point of view. So on Monday, I'll call the Horowitz Freedom Center. If they'll agree to invite Hugh to speak during Islamofascism Awareness Week, I'll do my best to have the seminar presented at UW.

Yes, please do both. The Horowitz Center will be happy to have him speak, but there has to be a college that wants to have him -- the speakers at the last IFAW went where they were invited. So please arrange it at UW -- you will probably need to work with conservative groups that will be willing to sponsor IFAW on the campus there.

Also, while I'm on the subject, in spite of the fact that I find your point of view narrow-minded, I have no problem in your airing it. I think its important that flawed arguments should be exposed to the public, rather than kept to small forums like this one.

I'm still waiting for you to expose a flaw in any of my arguments, but I assure you, I am not in the least interested in limiting what I am saying to "small forums like this one."

Hugh, in particular, should really strive to increase his exposure. I'm surprised that you, as his friend and employer, don't do more to encourage that.

May I ask how you came by your information about what I have done to encourage that?

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 19, 2008 11:50 AM

For a man who supposedly steeps his focus in the ananlyst/intelligence world;

Mr. Carr who couldn't tell the difference b/t two writing styles, and fails to recognise that Mr. Spencer operates from a very large forum almost daily and far beyond Jihawatch with numerous speeches (some international), several books,articles,radio and televison interviews throughout the nation.

So I keep wondering what kind of skills you are using as you do your analysts of Mr. Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald?

Posted by: Mackie at January 19, 2008 11:57 AM

"As much as it turns my stomach to have to do such a thing, it was a necessary prudence, not an act of dhimmitude."

patagonianplato,

Of course it was prudence! You shouldn't think otherwise, if you intend (and I hope you do) to "live to fight another day".

Posted by: Abscedere at January 19, 2008 11:57 AM

"I think its [sic] important that flawed arguments should be [sic] exposed to the public, rather than kept to small forums like this one."
-- from a posting above

If that poster thinks that my "flawed arguements should be exposed to a wider public" why doesn't that poster help by putting a "JihadWatch" sticker on his car, and telling the horde of visitors who no doubt go to his website to visit www.jihadwatch.org so that they too can swell the ranks of those to be "exposed" to my "flawed arguments." And he should make sure to tell them to click on the bar at the top of this site, so that those directed visitors can read hundreds of past articles, and to wander through the "Archives" so that not a single one of my "flawed arguments" is overlooked. They have a right to know, to gawk, to mock, to laugh at all the flaws in those "flawed arguments"just the way that poster does.

Or, if he prefers, he could send me a bank check, Robert, and I'll show up to deliver my "flawed arguments" at a lecture-hall nearby. This special offer is being made because I have need of a portable computer, and I'm thinking of an Apple, with Leopard OS and all the trimmings, including a 17-inch screen. And once postage-and-handling for me (I'm a delicate package) is added in for my visit, the check should be rounded off to $5000, a special price, for a special person, today only. I'm sure he can come up with it, for the important goalof exposing those "flawed arguments" to a larger group.

In fact, if that poster could get me a hearing at the Pentagon, where he surely has tippety-top connections, being practically a secret agent and all (the Vattemare who does me also drops occasionally into Holden Caulfield), I would give a 10% discount. I'd have the money. And he would have the satisfaction of knowing that he had helped to expose, at the highest policy levels, my absurdly "flawed arguments."

We'd both be happy.

Posted by: Hugh at January 19, 2008 12:05 PM

Dear Mr. Spencer,

At a different site, another commenter recently took issue with my use of Qur’an vs. Koran. Because I am one of your faithful minions, I told him that if you spelled it that way then that was good enough for me. I was not able to give an intelligent answer to his question. He replied back that;

“I FAULT Spencer for using these newly-minted Politically-Correct spelling. It's a true act of SUBMISSION on his part, though perhaps unconscious.”

Why is it better for us to spell it Qur’an instead of Koran? I want a better way to respond in the future.

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 19, 2008 12:05 PM

Qu'an or Koran makes no difference if you are not Arab.

For English the divorce is pronounced dy-vorce, for American div-vorce.

Americans say "America," but Arabs say, "Am-ma-rik, kan."

English speakers say "Bus," but Chinese say, "Pass-Seh."

Big deal.

Posted by: ssa at January 19, 2008 12:13 PM

Abscedere

Of course it was prudence! You shouldn't think otherwise, if you intend (and I hope you do) to "live to fight another day".

You bet! I dedicated my life to the anti-jihad on 9-11 and as yet, “I have not yet begun to fight!”

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 19, 2008 12:14 PM

Robert writes:
"you will probably need to work with conservative groups that will be willing to sponsor IFAW on the campus there."

--- That should be easy enough to do. I'll contact the same group that sponsored the event last year.

"I'm still waiting for you to expose a flaw in any of my arguments, but I assure you, I am not in the least interested in limiting what I am saying to "small forums like this one."

--- Sorry, my fault for not being more clear. I mean't Hugh limiting his exposure, not you. You're quite well exposed as it is. :-)

--- And regarding my statement about you not encouraging Hugh to speak in public more frequently, I'm basing that on the fact that he doesn't appear on any of the seminar schedules that I've seen. I would think that your influence would have been a bit more successful than zero, which makes me think that you aren't trying all that much. Or perhaps I give your persuasive abilities too much credit.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 19, 2008 12:24 PM

How does one "integrate" an anti-Constitutional, anti-secular, anti-Universal Declaration of Human right ideology like Islam into the West?

Except the way a cancer is "integrated" into the body?

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 19, 2008 12:27 PM

Patagonian Plato,

That's absurd. This is not a matter of political correctness, but of accuracy in rendering.

The word is القرآن.

There is no agreement on how to render Arabic characters into English, but I think it is legitimate, and indeed useful, to distinguish ق from ك by rendering the former as a Q and the latter as a K.

Since Qur'an starts with a ق, I think it's simply a matter of accuracy to render it with a Q.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 19, 2008 12:30 PM

Mr. Carr:

I'll contact the same group that sponsored the event last year.

Good. Again, thanks for your help.

And regarding my statement about you not encouraging Hugh to speak in public more frequently, I'm basing that on the fact that he doesn't appear on any of the seminar schedules that I've seen. I would think that your influence would have been a bit more successful than zero, which makes me think that you aren't trying all that much. Or perhaps I give your persuasive abilities too much credit.

Actually, there are considerations involved here that have nothing to do with your fevered imaginings.

But again, I appreciate your efforts to get UW to feature a talk by Hugh. I look forward to your setting this up. I just wish I could see the faces of the conservative group there when you go to them and say, "I want you to invite this fellow Hugh Fitzgerald to speak." "Why?" "Because I don't believe he exists."

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at January 19, 2008 12:34 PM

I dedicated my life to the anti-jihad on 9-11 and as yet, “I have not yet begun to fight!”

see above

I have fought all my life under Islam. Christians in my Circle disappeared, and I arrived here with no one. My American friends think I am not worth paying attention to.

Dhimmi or no Dhimmi has been a question for centuries. Non-Muslims see their teritories shrinking to no end. I was never a Islam lover, but live as Dhimmi because we Christians are out numbered.

When I arrived here, I though I have become majority of non-Muslim, but "No."

Non-Dhimmi in America is a very small minority. People look at me as looney.

If anyone want to fight, please do, but I suggest they make it a career, such as that of Robert and Hugh. Unless you make money and pay the bill, people won't see you as worth listening to.

When you become majority, you will not be a Dhimmi, but you are not yet. You are only at the juncture.

When become a minority, you will understand why I was left with one choice, that was Dhimmitude, and I am the only serviving Dhimmi in my entire village.

Strike when the iron is hot.

Posted by: ssa at January 19, 2008 12:37 PM

Hugh, don't be such a naughty boy when I'm trying to get you a speaking engagement at the University of Washington.

I'm assuming that since you have no bio, no published books, and no resume available for any UW political club to read, that they should be directed to your archived posts here, and contact the Horowitz Freedom Center to request you as a speaker, is that correct?

And placing a sticker on my car or an ad at my site, would be an endorsement of you. I don't endorse you, or Robert, or David H, or this site. I find Islamofascism a repugnant term, I despise religious bigotry of any kind, and I think your ideas are counter-productive in the war against terror. But the best way to defeat these positions, in my opinion, is not to try to silence the speaker, but to let the negative message be heard by the widest possible audience. Hence my offer.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 19, 2008 12:40 PM

Dear Mr. Spencer,

Thanks for the lesson. Sorry to make you teach 101 on a Saturday. Least-ways, I can respond back intelligently and also tell him he is being absurd.

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 19, 2008 12:40 PM

"Because I am one of your faithful minions"

patagonianplato, Spencer doesn't have "minions," a pejorative term. Rather, he has supporters, champions, defenders, and advocates.

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 12:49 PM

"I find Islamofascism a repugnant term," --posted by Carr

Isn't that funny, considering it's Muslims who coined it? lol

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 12:51 PM

SSA,

I want to thank-you for your stirring post above. If it is possible for you to do so, I hope you will share more of your story here at Jihadwatch in the future.

Jiahdwatch is a force to reckon with and I am certain that this movement will grow regardless of all of the efforts of all of the Carrs of the world to marginalize us. I have faith in the American people. Their love for freedom and individualism will never allow them to become dhimmis.

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 19, 2008 12:56 PM

to let the negative message be heard --posted by Carr

lol. In our time, there has never been a more positive message than the truth about Islam and the call to save the Free West. Poor brainwashed Mr. Carr, so very much a part of the problem.

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 12:57 PM

Don't count on me. I have not put a dent yet in stirring the American's heart against jihad. People found Hollywood more entertaining the I am.

I don't have the influence or money.

If you are sincere to do the work similar to Robert Spencer, make sure you make enough money to pay for protection. Please note: There's fatwa issued for Robert Spencer's head. Assasins are coming from four winds.

Money is important. At least you need richmen to sponsor your fight.

Posted by: ssa at January 19, 2008 1:09 PM

Maybe Jeffrey Carr can enlist the support of University of Washington Professor Farhat Ziadeh: He is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Near Eastern Languages & Civilization at the University of Washington. As his blurb says: "Born in Ramallah, Palestine, in 1917, Professor Ziadeh received his B.A. from the American University of Beirut in 1937 and his LL.B from the University
of London in 1940. He was admitted to Lincoln’s Inn, London, and became a Barrister-
at-Law in 1946. In the last years of the British Mandate, he served as a Magistrate for the
Government of Palestine before eventually moving with his family to the United States.
He was appointed Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at Princeton where he taught
until 1966, at which time he moved to the University of Washington."

Recently, the University of Washington's Department of Near Eastern Languages & Civilization established a "Farhat J. Ziadeh Distinguished Lectureship", which is "dedicated to the promotion and celebration of excellence in the field of Arab and Islamic studies".

A recent lecture (2005) that was part of this Lectureship was "RESURRECTING EMPIRE: THE END OF YEAR II OF THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ", delivered by Professor Rashid Khalidi, and guess where he hails from? Yep -- Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies, Columbia University.

Anyway, I'm sure Emeritus Prof. Ziadeh or one of his supportive colleagues would be glad to help Jeffrey Carr in making Hugh Fitzgerald feel welcome.

Posted by: cantor at January 19, 2008 1:13 PM

Or, if he prefers, he could send me a bank check, Robert, and I'll show up to deliver my "flawed arguments" at a lecture-hall nearby. This special offer is being made because I have need of a portable computer, and I'm thinking of an Apple, with Leopard OS and all the trimmings, including a 17-inch screen. And once postage-and-handling for me (I'm a delicate package) is added in for my visit, the check should be rounded off to $5000, a special price, for a special person, today only. I'm sure he can come up with it, for the important goal of exposing those "flawed arguments" to a larger group.

Hugh, you might want to up your offer, given your wish list. $10,000 maybe? ;-)

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 19, 2008 1:50 PM

darcy,

We know "minions" is used as a pejorative by our detractors, but that is ticklishly funny, because when the Carrs, Marrancis, and "13 Martyrs" talk so extravagantly, luridly, and conspiratorially about Robert & Company, it's a backhanded compliment.

This comic menace they concoct is a hoot, a frolic! DO let them go on about our "worship," "personality cult," "virtual militia" and blind "fanaticism."

It does us all proud to be associated with this great enterprise through their belittling, semi-hysterical, downright paranoid remarks. I consider these snide swipes A Badge of Honor and a proof we're on the right side.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 2:03 PM

Mr. Carr,

I don't believe you when you decry "Islamophobia" and call Islamofascism Awareness Week an expression of religious bigotry.

What is bigotted about examining, carefully and critically, the social and political assertions that derive from Islamic belief, monolithic or not? Why is such examination any more bigotted or intolerant than, say, examining the religious basis or halachic implications of Israeli Jewish settler movements; or, perhaps, the social and political implications of Christian "Kingdom Theology," as Bill Moyers has done? Or the social and political influence of Evangelical Christianity?

Why not examine totalitarian, misogynistic, intolerant, and anti-semitic impulses within Islam? How can THAT, in itself, be seen as an attack on Muslims as persons?

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 2:24 PM

John C says "I don't believe you when you decry "Islamophobia" and call Islamofascism Awareness Week an expression of religious bigotry. What is bigotted about examining, carefully and critically, the social and political assertions that derive from Islamic belief, monolithic or not?"

--- Islamofascisim is considered a pejorative by most people, particularly Muslims. Let's assume that you are a Christian, and I called you a Christofascist because of the actions of Christian Reconstructionists (a radical minority Christian sect who believes that civil laws should be derived from biblical laws, among other things). Would you be offended? Of course you would.

--- If you want to hold a seminar on the teachings of Islam then call it Islamic studies, or more precisely, studies in radical fundamentalist Islam. But don't begin with an insulting name, and then expect to proceed from there with a "careful and critical examnination ...". That's never going to find a receptive audience except for the people who already agree with you.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 19, 2008 3:09 PM

John C says "I don't believe you when you decry "Islamophobia" and call Islamofascism Awareness Week an expression of religious bigotry. What is bigotted about examining, carefully and critically, the social and political assertions that derive from Islamic belief, monolithic or not?"

--- Islamofascisim is considered a pejorative by most people, particularly Muslims. Let's assume that you are a Christian, and I called you a Christofascist because of the actions of Christian Reconstructionists (a radical minority Christian sect who believes that civil laws should be derived from biblical laws, among other things). Would you be offended? Of course you would.

--- If you want to hold a seminar on the teachings of Islam then call it Islamic studies, or more precisely, studies in radical fundamentalist Islam. But don't begin with an insulting name, and then expect to proceed from there with a "careful and critical examnination ...". That's never going to find a receptive audience except for the people who already agree with you.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 19, 2008 3:10 PM

But the best way to defeat these positions, in my opinion, is not to try to silence the speaker, but to let the negative message be heard by the widest possible audience. Hence my offer.

The saying "Something beats nothing every time" comes to mind upon reading this. Carr, you and those who think like you offer NOTHING concrete or specific in the "war on terror" (a phrase I'll use out of convenience). You spout your generalities about "opposing religious bigotry" and blah, blah, blah, but it's all well and good until you actually start testing those generalities against the specific doctrines of Islam and jihad.

Just as "honest" Communists eventually had to condemn the Soviet Union, so "honest" tolerant ("tolerantists"?) people will eventually have to learn to be intolerant of Islam. It's the lesser of two evils, in the final analysis, to do what needs to be done to eradicate Islam from this plant (what are we really defending, ultimately, but the ravings of a desert bandit? Big whoop. I'd give up all of Islam for finding one lost Sophocles manuscript, for example). Eventually, every non-Muslim with a functioning brain cell will come to this conclusion and I'll be there waiting, saying "What in the hell took you people so long? Let's get down to business!". And that'll be that.

Posted by: venividivici at January 19, 2008 3:49 PM

Hola John C.!

I just got back from another 2 1/2 hour walk. I just can’t get enough of that beautiful minaret. It dominates everything around it and inspires awe.

Thanks for the post. I have been down that road and will not travel it again. It leads nowhere.

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 19, 2008 4:35 PM

Hello people, "bigoted" is spelled this way, not 2 "t's."

That aside, Muslims are the biggest bigots on the planet with their well-known hatred of Jews and Christians (see Qur'an).

You listening, Mr. Misguided Carr? Muslims are the biggest bigots on the planet. They hate everyone not Islamic. Have you read the Qur'an? No? I didn't think so.

Oh, and, as I said before, Muslims (Algerian) coined the term "Islamofascism," nimrod. You are uneducated and uninformed, Carr.

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 5:01 PM

Hola Mi Amigo!

Oh, and hello, Mr. Carr.

Your point is taken. I don't have occasion to use the term "Islamofascict" myself, and I didn't originate it (secularist Algerian Muslims did); but while it may not be the most fitting term, I do not see it as inherently offensive.

Let's make a deal (I'm sure this lines up with your purposes)--let people like me find and use better terms, and YOU stop using the intentionally pejorative neologism "Islamophobia, -phobic, -phobe," DEAL?

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 5:06 PM

OK, darcy--I usually have a sense for spelling.

I still think being called Robert Spencer's "minions," or whatever, is a great compliment.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 5:10 PM

I do not believe that Mr. Spencer has taken an alternate identity.

However, I do not believe that Hugh is really a "Hugh", much less a "Fitzgerald". I find it interesting that an Irish last name was chosen. Whoever he is, he is learned. However, he is frequently sanctimonious in his devotion to his pet subjects. And that devotion is clear to anyone who reads his work. Maintaining a pen name does afford him some scholarly immunity, but it also diminishes the gravitas that his writings could otherwise have. (It also makes for a good laugh when his bombastic rants inpugn the intelligence of others.)

One also wonders about the identity of "Spengler".

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at January 19, 2008 5:20 PM

John C.

Neologism: 1. a newly coined word, phrase, or expression. 2. A meaningless word or phrase coined or used by a psychotic. (American Heritage)

Please help me here John C. because I couldn’t even get Chucklehead correct. Which is it?

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 19, 2008 5:22 PM

Dear Mr. Carr,

You may call me a "Christian Reconstruction" if you really should happen to belive I was, and a "Christofascist" if you believe that that's what Christian Reconstructionists are; but what REALLY matters to me is what I believe, especially about myself. I should, after all, probably know.

Besides, I know that the "infinite" human capacity for self-deception applies JUST as much to YOU as to ME in the abstract.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 5:34 PM

Mr. Spencer wrote above:

"Actually, there are considerations involved here that have nothing to do with your fevered imaginings."

O.K., I am a "supporter" of Mr. Spencer (think minion, but only subliminally) so I hope that all will cut me some slack. That said, I have no further need to delve into this mystery. It is obviously on a need to know basis only.

Hey John C. Don’t be so cheap. Invest in a spell checker!

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 19, 2008 5:45 PM

paragonicplateau (why should DARCY have all the fun?):

Dear fellow, THAT'S the spendor of English--its infinitely nuaced ambiguity!

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 5:50 PM

Don't be funny--and that's"nuanced," BTW.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 5:56 PM

What in the heck is a paragonic plateau. At least I could Google that platypus thing. Heck, that other poster makes more sense than you!

Does anyone know if the ancient Greeks considered webbed feet to be a sign of wisdom? Truth be told, I made that up.

Btw, I still don’t know what neologism means. I thank I will try “English as a Second Language.”

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 19, 2008 6:02 PM

why should DARCY have all the fun?):

Because I know, John C.

"Minion" means "servile."

Unlike Mohammed's Minions, WE are not "servile."

Unless you count yourself, of course. A Sycophant.

No, "Minions" is NOT a "compliment."

Unfortunately, pp IS a "Chucklehead." LOL

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 6:05 PM

paragonic plateau.

LOL - that's fitting for anyone who dares call himself "plato!"

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 6:09 PM

Oh Darcy, at the risk of bringing your considerable wrath down upon me, what does "LOL" mean? You use it so often that it is about time I asked.

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 19, 2008 6:19 PM

Do you have any idea what kind of hot water you have gotten me into here John C.. John C. . . . ?

Posted by: patagonianplato at January 19, 2008 6:23 PM

Venividivici - I support the recommendations of the 2006 NIE. 3 RAND Corporation reports, and the current thinking of the Joint Chiefs on gaining the support of moderate Muslims, and I've covered all of those things at my site. You might consider doing a little leg work before jumping the gun next time.

Kafir nonbeliever - I'm glad to see at least one other person willing to admit that Hugh isn't Hugh. Hugh claims to be a "lecturer on the manipulation of language for political ends", yet there is no evidence of him attending a single conference as a speaker. Hugh also claims to be an "independent scholar of Islam", yet he remains unpublished in any peer-reviewed journal and has no hits on Google Scholar. Nor will he reveal his alma mater, even though doing so does not in any way reveal where he is or what he is now doing (assuming that he is looking to protect his privacy). The fact that the writing styles of Hugh and Robert are markedly different means nothing. Lots of writers have disguised how they normally write including the famous example of "Anonymous" who wrote the book Primary Colors. There are linguistic determinants that can be tested for but it requires a computer analysis and frankly the issue isn't important enough to warrant that. My only point has been that Robert, who does post under his own name, speaks at numeorus events, lists his alma mater, and has been published numerous times, has a "partner" who is not who he claims to be. In my world, that's suspicious. Perhaps in the world of Christian zealots fighting the spectre of Islamicfascism, it's perfectly normal.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 19, 2008 6:27 PM

moderate Muslims --posted by Carr

Hirsi Ali describes them as myths - like Nessie and the Yeti.

Please provide names of "moderate muslims." Names. Proof, not myth, Carr.

Don't have any, do ya? Nope, I didn't think so!

Oh, and "Christian zealots" aren't murdering and mass-murdering people worldwide, are they? If so, please provide proof - names, dates, location.

Can't provide any, can you? Nope, I didn't think so!

LOL!

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 6:38 PM

In my world --posted by Carr

Your world is delusion-land.

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 6:46 PM

That aside, Muslims are the biggest bigots on the planet with their well-known hatred of Jews and Christians (see Qur'an).

You listening, Mr. Misguided Carr? Muslims are the biggest bigots on the planet. They hate everyone not Islamic. Have you read the Qur'an? No? I didn't think so.

Oh, and, as I said before, Muslims (Algerian) coined the term "Islamofascism," nimrod. You are uneducated and uninformed, Carr.

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 5:01 PM

Repeat, for benefit of Mr. Carr.

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 6:50 PM

Jeffrey Carr sides with the biggest bigots on the planet, Mohammedans. So LOL!

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 6:52 PM

So funny! Carr hates "religious bigotry," yet he sides with the biggest religious bigots on the planet, Mohammedans!

Just how dumb and uninformed are you, Carr?

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 6:59 PM

Locked Carr in parking lot, lights on, motor running....

Posted by: Emerson Twain at January 19, 2008 7:03 PM

Jeffrey Carr wrote:
Perhaps in the world of Christian zealots fighting the spectre of Islamicfascism..

Boy talk about painting everyone here with a broad brush Carr does it again.

To him everyone here is a "Christian zealot".
Little does the little man know there is a mix of atheists, agnostics and Christians here.

Laughable and another example of bad thinking by Carr.

Then of course his aping of CAIR's arguments that Spenser and Hugh are the same person. Which is very bizarre.

He can't argue Spenser on Islam at all, hell he can't argue with anyone so he's left with insults and taunts.

What a genius.

Posted by: waltc at January 19, 2008 7:09 PM

Dear Darcy,

No, we are NOT servile--the humor here lies in the IRONY of that.

And, YES, to be associated with Robert Spencer--however snidely, and however negative enemies and detractors make that out to be--is a GREAT honor. Robert Spencer is a HERO in my eyes (and yours), even CHRIST-like in the face of derision and slander, and I'll gladly journey to Calvary [Golgatha] in his steps.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 7:11 PM

Spenser --Walt C.

Walt, it's spelled Spencer.

Otherwise, a good comment. Right, Carr hasn't replied because he has no reply. He supports the world's greatest haters and bigots - Muslims (See Qur'an). And these haters' and bigots' demographics are out-of-control. And they couldn't care less about a man named "Carr." - Hey, convert or be beheaded, Carr! Just like Mohammed did!

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 7:17 PM

MR. CARR:

Perhaps in the world of Christian zealots fighting the spectre of Islamicfascism...

That's a non-sequitur and a despicable low-blow, Mr. Carr.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 7:18 PM

waltc

Don't forget our Jewish and Hindu posters, among others.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 7:22 PM

So funny that Mohammed would give dhimmi Carr a choice - Convert or Beheading.

Of course Coward Carr would choose Conversion! Hey Carr - why don't you just convert to Islam now, as Mohammed would force you to do, or death?

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 7:27 PM

You know, Carr, your mother needs to turn you over her knee and give you a good spanking for insulting the brilliant and heroic likes of Robert and Hugh.

Mrs. Carr - please, don't hesitate. Your ignorant son deserves it. He's a worm.

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 7:34 PM

patagonian,

First, I know you know English as well as I do, and have recourse to the dictionary.

Second, the FUN is in making sport with you and in misconstruing your handle.

Third, humor is a universal balm, tension-buster and pain reliever. It furthers camaraderie and unit-cohesiveness in our corps d'elite, our "virtual militia."

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 7:35 PM

"Hugh, don't be such a naughty boy..."
-- from a poster above, employing a curious turn of phrase

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hw6r_o3GQE4

Posted by: Hugh at January 19, 2008 7:36 PM

Laugh Out Loud!

Deus vult!

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 7:40 PM

Jeff - has your mother given you that well-deserved spanking yet for being such an ignorant worm?

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 7:44 PM

I support the recommendations of the 2006 NIE. 3 RAND Corporation reports, and the current thinking of the Joint Chiefs on gaining the support of moderate Muslims, and I've covered all of those things at my site. You might consider doing a little leg work before jumping the gun next time.

Those recommendations are insufficient to the task at hand, which, as Hugh always states and I concur, is the preservation of the character of Western civilization against Muslim barbarism.

The assumption that "moderation" is sustainable within the Muslim communities in the West, over the long run, is wrong, yet it is integral to current Western strategy in the war on terror, as exemplified in the reports you cite. It is simply, fundamentally, poor strategic thinking. Heck, even Aristotle knew that moderation is uncommon, hence its place among the highest virtues. This was part of my original post's point, that all you offer are vague platitudes, which don't deal with the specifics of Islamic doctrine, but instead make some anodyne assumption that "moderation" means the same to Muslims as it does to modern Westerners. The fact that you can point to specific recommendations and say "This is what I support" doesn't mean there is any meat on the bones of those recommendations and that they aren't based on pie-in-the-sky wishy-washy thinking about the essential doctrines of Islam. If "moderate" Muslims are merely people who would replace violent jihad with demographic jihad, how does that distinction make any difference to me? When what we're really fighting is a war against dhimmitization, "moderate" Muslims remain a threat.

Even if we were to "tame" (I choose that word very carefully) the current generation of Muslim men and turned them into khaki-wearing, SUV-driving suburban dads, what possible guarantee can be provided that their sons will not regress to the Islamic mean, by which I mean Islamic supremacism and violent jihad, in order that Islam "dominate and not be dominated"? Let me be very clear: There is no set of words you, or anyone else, can string together that will convince me that there is any positive value to having Muslims in Western countries. Period.

Posted by: venividivici at January 19, 2008 7:48 PM

Darcy,

You realize, don't you, that when they call us "minions," they're projecting--LOL!

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 7:50 PM

Spot on, vvv!

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 7:53 PM

John C - patagonian used the word "minions," which is why I commented on it.

"There is no set of words you, or anyone else, can string together that will convince me that there is any positive value to having Muslims in Western countries. Period."

Posted by: venividivici at January 19, 2008 7:48 PM

Uh Huh. They belong in their own Islamic countries. Period. I mean, hello.

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 7:55 PM

Hugh, thanks for the link. Who doesn't love a good Quickstep or Swing?

John C - if my analogy about radical Christians doesn't apply to you or other posters here, then simply ignore it. Is that the only thing in my entire reply that you choose to make an argument over? Have you read the 2006 NIE that recommends we enlist the aid of moderate Muslims? Have you read any of the RAND reports that gives the names of moderate Muslim organizations in Europe and the Balkans? Can you not find anything of substance to argue with other than my Christian analogy? That's not very impressive.

Darcy - in case you haven't grasped it yet, I'm ignoring your posts. After reading your meltdown with PatagonianPlato the other day, you clearly need to seek psychological help.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 19, 2008 7:56 PM

venividivici - what do you propose that the U.S. government do about your and Hugh's perception of the "Muslim Menace"? What's your ultimate solution?

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 19, 2008 8:03 PM

Darcy - in case you haven't grasped it yet, I'm ignoring your posts. After reading your meltdown with PatagonianPlato the other day, you clearly need to seek psychological help.

Posted by: Jeffrey Carr at January 19, 2008 7:56 PM

So funny. You ARE a "meltdown," Carr!

Please, take your own advice and seek mental help - you are obviously in dire need!

Your mom walloped you, yet? Hope so! Go Mrs. Carr!

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 8:03 PM

Crazy Carr -

You do realize that Mohammed would give you two choices? Convert or die.

So, what, Crazy Carr, would you choose?

Convert, of course, Cowardly Crazy Carr!

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 8:06 PM

Newsflash, Crazy Carr:

Anyone who thinks RS and HF are the same is a resident of Delusion-Land.

That's you, Crazy Carr. A permanent resident.

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 8:11 PM

Locked Carr in parking lot, lights on, motor running....

Posted by: Emerson Twain at January 19, 2008 7:03 PM

So good, Emerson Twain.

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 8:18 PM

Crazy Carr -

Have you learned yet that Muslims coined the term "Islamofascism?" Yes, Muslims - the term you find so "repugnant!"

Wow, you are ignorant! As well as flip-city!

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 8:28 PM

venividivici - what do you propose that the U.S. government do about your and Hugh's perception of the "Muslim Menace"? What's your ultimate solution?

Stop Muslim immigration. Shut down all mosques preaching Islamic supremacism. Deport all Muslims found to be involved in terrorism. Offer payouts to Muslims willing to voluntarily leave. Make it illegal to practice Islam. Do everything short of actual physical violence to make them know that their ideology/religion will not be tolerated. The truth claims of Islam are absurd and there is assuredly no such entity as Allah, so I don't feel in the slightest bad about forcing Muslims to "cease and desist" all activities associated with Islam. For what they get in return, in terms of economic and medical well-being, from being in the West, is ample reward in this world for them to renounce all their mumbo-jumbo about the next world.

You know, it'd just kind of look like Saudi Arabia, in reverse and without the burkas and beheadings, and it would be Muslims on the receiving end of institutionalized discrimination, not non-Muslims. Give them a taste of their own medicine and see how they like it.

I can live with that for starters.

Basically, my only reason for wanting to deal with Muslims is to buy their oil. Arms-length transactions between two willing market participants. All the other crap is just that. Crap. If you actually had internalized anything from the history of Western culture (for example, read the Greeks, or even the existentialists, on human freedom and see why anything proclaiming that submission is the highest value, which Islam does, is inherently absurd), you'd understand that intuitively and not need me to lay it out for you.

Posted by: venividivici at January 19, 2008 8:35 PM

LOL - Crazy Carr will LOVE venividivici's "ultimate solution."

Doncha, Crazy Carr?

"The truth claims of Islam are absurd and there is assuredly no such entity as Allah" --posted above by venividivici

So right. And everything else you said.

Posted by: darcy at January 19, 2008 8:45 PM

John C,

Thanks! I can't understand how people like Carr can continue to adhere to the same assumptions over and over again in the face of the overwhelming evidence that Islam is bad news for all non-Muslims. At least the fifth columns in prior Western-Muslim clashes were relatively ignorant of the true nature of Islam and those people who acted as fifth columns for Islam also had legitimate grievances against the ruling cliques of the time. See this, for a good overview of prior fifth column assistance received by Muslims.

http://islamicexpansionanddecline.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-5-patterns-of-treason.html

Here we are, living in a time of relative peace and prosperity in the West and we go and let these fanatics into our countries. I know we need cab drivers here in the US, but this is ridiculous.

Posted by: venividivici at January 19, 2008 8:50 PM

Dear Mr. Carr,

Identification, not analogy.

Your argument is not with me, Sir; as you correctly note, I didn't wade into the debate about points asserted in National Intelligence Estimates or RAND reports.

I do take issue with you that we should accept Leiken's thesis, or view the Ikhwan as democrats or moderates, here or abroad. If we fail to recognised the Ikhwan as what it is, by its own principles, than Stephen Coughlin argument is demonstrably correct.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 8:57 PM

Dear Mr. Carr,

Identification, not analogy.

Your argument is not with me, Sir; as you correctly note, I didn't wade into the debate about points asserted in National Intelligence Estimates or RAND reports.

I do take issue with you that we should accept Leiken's thesis, or view the Ikhwan as democrats or moderates, here or abroad. If we fail to recognised the Ikhwan as what it is, by its own principles, than Stephen Coughlin's argument is demonstrably correct.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 8:58 PM

With respect to the Ikhwan al-Muslameen, the Muslim Brotherhood: By their fruits shall you know them.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 9:03 PM

It's so curious that so many of Robert's supporters are so extreme, and it's more curious that Robert does not condemn--but actually seems to encourage--the elements of Hate that seem to permeate his comments sections.

quote: "Make it illegal to practice Islam. Do everything short of actual physical violence to make them know that their ideology/religion will not be tolerated. The truth claims of Islam are absurd and there is assuredly no such entity as Allah, so I don't feel in the slightest bad about forcing Muslims to "cease and desist" all activities associated with Islam."

And we'll throw the once who refuse into the gas chambers! Heil Robert!

Posted by: ibrahimX at January 19, 2008 9:27 PM

I may offer no hard-and-fast formulas for dealing with "the Muslim menace," and no sinister "final solution"--but that doesn't mean I think the status quo is acceptable, or that we should ignore, much less deny the problem posed by this proposition: jihadists swim in a Muslim ocean.

Break dependence on petroleum. Secure our borders. Tighten immigration. Preserve our sovereignty--which proceeds from our people--and our inalienable rights, especially those of free speech and conscience. Counter and neutralize the Ikhwan in America, its networks and fronts, and its Salafist allies. Expose and curtail the Wahabist lobby. Strengthen our military, and use carrot-and-stick diplomacy in pursuit of policies consistent with our nation's principles and long-term interests--like the integrity and survival of our institutions and values. These would be worthy objectives to measure progress and effectiveness by.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 9:43 PM

Ibrahim--perhaps you should use the "Contact Us" link of this site to communicate your misgivings directly to him. It is certainly in order for you to seek clarification from him about your unease, and what Robert Spencer's stands are on such questions--which need restatement from time-to-time.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 9:52 PM

Oops! There's the "H" word again.

For the umpteenth time, we don't hate you, Ibrahim X, we just don't want you telling us how to run or lives and we don't want to live like you. We don't want you killing our girls, or working behind the scenes to overthrow our governments or laundering money through various charity organizations in our countries or not selling bacon to people at our stores that sell bacon because you are "offended" by it. We don't want you bringing your polygamy over here or sending your daughters who've grown up here back to the old country so they can be forced into a marriage that they don't want. We think your obsession with sex is pretty gross, especially when you go around with a holier-than-thou attitude, but then look for a younger wife to add to your collection when you tire of the first one. We don't want your madrassas on our soil pumping out little jihadi wanna-be's and we don't want to see that disgusting display of blood and guts when you beat and cut yourselves during the Ashura festival, especially when you do it to your babies. We think that cutting a little girl's private parts out of her when she's five or six because you are insecure in your masculinity is barbaric and quite frankly, makes you look like a real pathetic wimp.

There's no hatred here, just good old fashioned commonsense, respect for our own values and telling it like it is. If you want to lie and call it hate, feel free. If you want us to feel guilty and not tell the truth about it, tough. Why don't you call Hillary Clinton and tell her all about it, or better yet, call Bill. I'm sure he'd love to feel your pain.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at January 19, 2008 9:55 PM

Mr 'carr' wrote -

"...in the world of Christian zealots fighting the spectre of Islamicfascism..".

For his information - though I myself am a practising Anglican Evangelical (with Irish Catholics [some VERY lapsed], Danish Lutherans, German Lutherans, and English Methodists in my family tree) - among my favourite posters on this site (after, of course, that passionate intellect Mr Hugh Fitzgerald, self-professed agnostic/ atheist) are Jews (some Israeli, some not; some strongly observant, some not), Hindus (whose postings are always interesting - specially during the threads that covered the Bombay/Mumbai train bombings a couple of years ago), and at least one Sikh, 'gorkhali'.

Oh yes, and a self-professed pagan or two, and not a few red-hot atheists. I believe we have also had at least one Thai or Chinese posting now and then, mostly in relation to the ongoing Jihad against Thai Buddhists in southern Thailand - laesuwan, are you still out there?

Now and then we also have had posters identifying themselves as apostate Muslims (one had converted to Christianity, in Britain, and was therefore in hiding from her suddenly-murderous family who were bent on carrying out the prescribed Sharia punishment for apostasy, that is, death).

'Christian zealots'...???

The Third Jihad - whose opening salvoes one may, perhaps, date all the way back to the Partition of India, at least, that is one event that Jacques Ellul thought significant - is not a ghost; not the illusory product of some neocon's fevered imagination.

It is happening. Let 'Mr Carr' go talk to the families of murdered Buddhist schoolteachers and murdered Buddhist shopkeepers and rubber tappers and icecream vendors, in southern Thailand. Let him talk to the Hindu Pandits who have been driven out of their ancestral homeland, Kashmir, by the thousands upon the thousands. Let him visit the southern Philippines and talk to the families of the Christians there; or research what has been happening to the Melanesian Christians of 'Irian Jaya', that is, West Papua and, too, what the Indonesian Muslim occupiers and invaders did to the Catholic and animist East Timorese after Indonesia 'annexed' formerly-Portuguese-ruled East Timor in the 1970s.

Let 'Jeffrey Carr' talk to Sudanese Christian and animist refugees, in Kenya, in Uganda, in Ethiopia, in Israel, in the 'the West', and hear their first hand stories of how their villages were assailed by the Janjaweed, by helicopter gunships, by mobs of armed men howling 'allahu akhbar!' and carrying out pillage, mass murder, mass rape and mass abductions into slavery (and, by the way, the great Arab/ised Muslim genocidal assault on the southern Sudanese started happening at least forty years ago, before the term 'neocon' was even invented). Let our 'Mr Carr' talk to Malaysian Chinese Christians and Buddhists, and Malaysian Indian Christians and Hindus, and find out what has been happening to them as, steadily, Malaysia becomes more heavily islamised.

Let him google the archives here for 'Kafiristan' and 'Nuristan' and find out when, how and why a whole valley full of non-Muslims in what is now Afghanistan, were 'Islamised'.

Let him go through the archives here and find out how many Jihad plots, just in the past two or three years, have been foiled, often more by good luck than by good management, before they could come to fruition. Had all of them succeeded, there would have been multiple instances of mass murder of unarmed civilians, by Muslims, in at least a dozen non-Muslim countries.

Mr 'Carr' may choose to dismiss every single last one of these foiled plots, and the resulting criminal trials of assorted Muslims (both born muslims and converts, originating from all over) as frame-ups/ false-flag ops, as part of some huge global conspiracy...but in that case he had better go make himself a tinfoil hat and be done with it.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 19, 2008 9:57 PM

IbrahimX,

The quote you cite is a stand directly opposed to First Amendment rights, not to mention the universal rights of conscience and belief. The last that I heard of it, they were still firmly in place in America.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 10:01 PM

It's so curious that so many of Robert's supporters are so extreme, and it's more curious that Robert does not condemn--but actually seems to encourage--the elements of Hate that seem to permeate his comments sections.

I assure you that Robert has never encouraged nor discouraged me in the formation of my views and comments. I am absolutely, completely non-emotional on the topic of Islam and my motivations stem from pragmatism and a thorough enjoyment of all the cultures and religions of the world, with the exception of Islam, not hate. I'm a multiculturalists whose brain hasn't ceased functioning.

Now, to answer your feeble-minded post directly:

And we'll throw the once who refuse into the gas chambers! Heil Robert!

When criticizing someone, it is helpful to actually criticize what they say, not some fanciful interpretation of what they say. For those who refuse, put them under 24-hour surveillance. When they fall afoul of the strictures on Islam, and they will, drawn to jihad like a moth to a flame, deport them.

If Muslims really love America and the West, they'd voluntarily give up Islam, given, as I said and continue to say, that there is no such entity as Allah and Mohammed was not a prophet.

One thing to consider if you wish to respond is that you should really react to my exact words and you should realize that I have not one sympathetic bone in my body for Islam, nor do I feel any guilt for the conclusions I have reached regarding Islam. For a non-Muslim who doesn't believe in Allah and who is interested in the least in becoming a Muslim, Islam offers nothing but suffering and humiliation and I am not nearly masochistic enough to give Islam any of my precious sympathy.

If this were my own blog and I had complete license, I'd add some choice words to let you know what I thought about the audacity you display in insinuating that I would erect some sort of death camp system to deal with those who would try to put themselves outside of the laws I'd like to see, but I know that the Jihad Watch staff likes to keep it clean.

Oh, and by the way, if you really want to take the moral high ground, you might consider that my recommendations are only in reaction to what I perceive as a threat. Muslims do those same things to non-Muslims as a matter of course. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Posted by: venividivici at January 19, 2008 10:06 PM

One small rewording: where I wrote 'as part of some huge global conspiracy' I should have written 'as part of some huge global conspiracy by Infidels to slander the poor innocent peaceful Muslims'...

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 19, 2008 10:06 PM

Ibrahim,

I do not presume to know how you think, feel, or live; know, though, that I want the same things for you, and for your own sake, as I do for me and for my sake.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 10:06 PM

I don't think any sane person would dispute such inalienable rights as freedom and conscience, but here on Robert's blog, there are many who argue that Muslim Americans should be stripped of THEIR inalienable rights, for no other reason than being Muslim. It seems that Robert-Hugh is more interested in demagoguery than actual analysis, and with every posting of the latest terrorist incident, one can't help but note a suggestion (easily picked up by hordes who comment here) that all Muslims are complicit in such an atrocity. This is more a Hate site--akin to American Renaissance--than one of reason. The message seems to be: Muslims are bad and evil. The audience? Christian glad to demean a popular religion and bigots eager to be politically incorrect by condemning peoples/cultures in fashions that are deemed impolite by modern society. I am a Somali immigrant and I believe in and admire the West, but the message of this website is inhuman. Every time Robert asks "why don't Muslims condemn such and such" I wonder why he himself doesn't condemn the Hate and Intolerance in his comments section.

Posted by: ibrahimX at January 19, 2008 10:09 PM

IbrahimX,

The quote you cite is a stand directly opposed to First Amendment rights, not to mention the universal rights of conscience and belief. The last that I heard of it, they were still firmly in place in America.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 10:09 PM

No hate and intolerance, sweetheart. Who said anything about stripping you of your freedoms? It's YOU stripping me of mine that I'm interested in preventing. If you keep it up and your found guilty of treason then, reasonably, you would be stripped of yours.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at January 19, 2008 10:12 PM

Ibrahim,

I do not presume to know how you think, feel, or live; know, though, that I want the same things for you, and for your own sake, as I do for me and for my sake.

Posted by: John C at January 19, 2008 10:12 PM

quote: "Oh, and by the way, if you really want to take the moral high ground, you might consider that my recommendations are only in reaction to what I perceive as a threat. Muslims do those same things to non-Muslims as a matter of course. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it."

Of course. It's perfectly natural to commit evil action against god knows how many innocents just because you are afraid. If Muslim regimes do it, it must be tit for tat!

Posted by: ibrahimX at January 19, 2008 10:16 PM

quote: "No hate and intolerance, sweetheart. Who said anything about stripping you of your freedoms? It's YOU stripping me of mine that I'm interested in preventing. If you keep it up and your found guilty of treason then, reasonably, you would be stripped of yours."

The problem is that it often seems Robert's fans want to consider practicing Islam to be an example of treason. Anyway, I'm an agnostic merely horrified
by the crowd that Robert draws out.

Posted by: ibrahimX at January 19, 2008 10:21 PM

I don't think any sane person would dispute such inalienable rights as freedom and conscience, but here on Robert's blog, there are many who argue that Muslim Americans should be stripped of THEIR inalienable rights, for no other reason than being Muslim.

Sorry, but rights are alienable when the individual in question professes an ideology diametrically opposed to the document which enshrines those rights. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" and all that. Nothing I'm suggesting goes beyond what are reasonable implications of that fact, although they could be debated and people less committed to rationally thinking through to the endgame of Muslim immigration can disagree. Having studied history, I can see very clearly where all this is going.

You really haven't thought these things through, have you?

I don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam. I could care less about Muslims as individuals. If you can't understand that elementary distinction, I can't help you and you can walk away from this exchange thinking that I'm a horrible bigot. I don't really care. You've done nothing to convince me that my position is intellectually incorrect.

Posted by: venividivici at January 19, 2008 10:21 PM

Jeffrey Carr writes: 'venividivici - what do you propose that the U.S. government do about your and Hugh's perception of the "Muslim Menace"? What's your ultimate solution?'

vvv has replied.

My solution? A hard hitting report for UK based Policy Exchange written by Munira Mirza 'Living Apart Together' recommended engaging with Muslims as citizens. An end to multiculturalism. No giving Muslims special status. No giving into demands for sharia.

We have to confront Muslims when Islamic beliefs are incompatible with the tenets of respect for others and for social cohesion.

This requires tact - I think that is your point? But it also requires firmness and moral clarity. It is uncomfortable to say this, but some of their beliefs are simply wrong. Such as their totalitarian xenophobia. Muslims must agree to accept other cultures as equals and the pluralist secular model of the privitisation of religion.

Posted by: devorgilla at January 19, 2008 10:26 PM

Of course. It's perfectly natural to commit evil action against god knows how many innocents just because you are afraid. If Muslim regimes do it, it must be tit for tat!

Actually, tit for tat is the most successful game theory strategy, so, yeah, I'm fine with tit for tat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

Again, if Muslims just renounce Islam, I'll have no beef with them. I think that should be the tradeoff for letting them partake of the fruits of Western civilization. The hard-won, potentially easily-lost fruits, almost certain to be lost if we let Muslims, with their theological mumbo-jumbo about Islamic supremacism, continue to wage jihad against