"These jihad enablers have not hesitated even to plant comments here so as to allow others to tar us with them"

Moby can be proud of himself, to have lend his name to this phenomenon.

Posted by: Kim Hartveld at February 9, 2008 9:21 AM

"This is not a hate site, this is a site devoted to the defense of the West all non-Sharia civilizations, and of human rights, against Sharia encroachment."

I call it a "Truth site."

Posted by: darcy at February 9, 2008 9:25 AM

It is a lot of work, but you might consider comment moderation. You could probably form a group of trusted helpers (and I would voulunteer to be one of that group) that would filter comments, approve reasonable ones, and leave the questionable ones for you to delete or approve, as you see fit

Posted by: Don Singleton at February 9, 2008 9:41 AM

Just wanted to let you know that I was in Indianapolis a week ago and tried to access your site from the hotel business center computer. To my amazing eyes the site would not come up and it was further claimed by the internet provider to be a hate monger site....
I feel your site is informational and enlightening. thanks for all you do

Posted by: tasker at February 9, 2008 10:25 AM

"That headline is the entirety of a message I received in the Hate Mail Bag yesterday. Ironically enough, it came from a jihad apologist who has recently sent me 62 email messages claiming that the global jihad is a reaction to U.S. foreign policy (tell that to its victims in Thailand, Indonesia, Nigeria, etc.), and pointing out various alleged Biblical contradictions in contrast to the alleged perfection of the Qur'an. What's more, he has posted at Jihad Watch posing as a Jew ("jewwho") and as a bigot whose hateful messages could be used against this site ("Islamohater"). Get a life, indeed".

It might be Fibrahim Hooper himself.-LOL

Posted by: Frank at February 9, 2008 10:30 AM

I have sent three logical non-hateful letters to the editor of my local newspaper (Cincinnati) attempting to correct articles that deny that Islam is attacking every non-Islamic population not just the West. None have been published. I have noticed recently especially in Europe that mainstream news outlets have stopped referring to Islam inspired terrorism as Islamic but instead as just terrorism. Is the noose on free speech tightening?

This reminds me of Harry Potter and "he who must not be named". We now have "those who must not be named".

Posted by: NoGeehad at February 9, 2008 10:33 AM

Muslims pretending to non-Muslims posting comments must be very common given how significantly the number of admitted Muslims posting has dropped off. The Moby Tactic - singer/sampler Moby suggested discrediting consdervatives by writing fake posts - can work anywhere. Like the Arabs stage managing all the news from the Middle East, new realities are coming too fast for nearly anyone to keep up.

Notice how sharia courts popped up under the guise of "alternative dispute resolution." As if some immigrant from Somalia is going to understand that concept when she finds out about the "Texas Islamic Court."

So law professors who would never think of themselves as Islamofascist useful idiots will be pushing this bit in your face.

Posted by: Beagle at February 9, 2008 11:33 AM

Tasker--

Please let Robert know about the hotel blocking the site. We had a spate of similar problems over the summer.

Thanks for the info.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 9, 2008 11:34 AM

I think the old Turkish proverb most accurately describes the whole scene: "Whoever tells the truth is chased out of nine villages."
Please keep up the good work!
Doc

Posted by: Wayne at February 9, 2008 11:47 AM

Camel's - posterior - references off limits now?

Given the fact someone is sure to claim this is just the camel's nose, I thought it was an important point, not a reason to mention - ah - bottom?

Posted by: Beagle at February 9, 2008 11:50 AM

I call it a "Truth site."

From Darcy above.

'Truth' has become such a dirty word after the trufers came on the scene...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 9, 2008 11:53 AM

Beagle,

I just love camel analogies--let 'em fly!

I must just be another accursed Islamofauxb.

Adam Gadahn may have died in the CIA missile strike that killed al-Libi in Noth Waziristan. Way to go, dudes, TWO WITH ONE DRONE!!

Posted by: John C at February 9, 2008 12:08 PM

I wish there were comment moderation, or perhaps even no comments. I know I´m beating a dead horse at this point, but I think Spencer´s message would get farther if not for the atmosphere many of us, myself sometimes included, too often create in the comments section.

Posted by: traeh at February 9, 2008 12:26 PM

NoGeehad -

This is from Sacry Movie 4:

Henry Hale: I fear the presence of the outsiders will attract those of whom we do not speak.

Female Elder #2: But if you talk about those of whom we do not speak, have you not spoken of that about which we do not talk.

Henry Hale: Do not speak of that of about which we talk of not speaking... about.

That's not funny anymore.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 12:37 PM

I have never seen such a committed, relentless bunch of posters and bashers since I discovered stock forums years ago. typically only people who can profit off of something will work 24/7 with multiple screennames cutting and pasting, and insulting and threatening. I am referring to the entire internets.
Since these so called people aren't profiting, we can only assume it's a specific type of illness.

And a great example of what this site is designed to protect against.

Posted by: jusa at February 9, 2008 12:39 PM

I just love camel analogies

I don't. It's a stereotype that's in poor taste, and is bad for the site.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 9, 2008 12:41 PM

Mr. Spencer,
Do you post the hate mail you recieve? It might prove to lighten the mood of the site just a tad.

Blue

Posted by: Blue at February 9, 2008 1:35 PM

I am half-serious, Marisol. Folklore is replete with such. Everyone, practically, knows the aphorism about the camel with his nose in the tent--the rest of the camel follows. And Jesus' simile of passing a camel through the eye of a needle. Make case-by-case judgments, but be objective. (I confess to being obtuse and tasteless, every so often, but not knowingly malicious--I have no sympathy for those who are malicious, they deserve merciless ridicule and contempt.)

Unless we wish to be flexible, then we'll have to be rigorously consistent--what about PIG jokes? GOAT jokes? YAK jokes? WATER BUFFALO jokes? I ask you, IS THERE NO END?

Posted by: John C at February 9, 2008 1:44 PM

You're right, Marisol, the place here needs more class; knowhutta mean?

Maybe we gotta be more careful, choosy about the sorts we get in here--we don't want CAIR or Carl Ernst ta think we're a buncha lowlifes.

L O L !!

Posted by: John C at February 9, 2008 1:56 PM

There is comment moderation here. More than once I've posted something with a little too much heat on it and Robert's taken out the offending line, leaving in situ the articulate.

Several of us were here a few weeks ago hob-nobbing viz 'Adam the American' and when we got a little less than serious, we were reminded by the mysterious 'da swami' that it's okay to be a little irreverent sometimes, as long as we don't get carried away.

Amen.

Thank you, Robert.

Posted by: undaunted at February 9, 2008 2:16 PM

Robert,
With legends reading this site I am sure you will be notified quickly. I know I will. I don't know if the number of readers and posters are growing, my guess is that it is. You my set a reminder on your calendar to repost this thread, too remind the newbies of the ongoing attack the enemy is doing.

I don't want to sound like I am preaching to the choir but, care should be taken when we (as posters) react to the atrocities that people of this faith are willing to do. As far as the use of analogies they have there place but again care or context must be considered. {Getting of soapbox}

As an effective weapon to counter the spiritual aspect of Islam, I will continue to post appropriate and in context Bible verses in English and Arabic. This IMHO is one of the best ways to counter the false and lying clams of Islam.

Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is full of living power. It is sharper than the sharpest knife, cutting deep into our innermost thoughts and desires. It exposes us for what we really are.

لوقا 4:4
ويسوع له ، وقوله ، وهو مكتوب ، لا يجوز للرجل أن يعيش بها الخبز وحده ، ولكن قبل كل كلمة من الله.
العبرانيين 4:12
من اجل كلمة الله هي السلطة الكاملة للكائنات الحيه. ومن اكثر حدة من سكين حاده ، وقطع عميق في نظمنا اعمق الافكار والرغبات. وهو يعرض لنا لماذا نحن حقا.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at February 9, 2008 2:19 PM

Everyone, practically, knows the aphorism about the camel with his nose in the tent--the rest of the camel follows. And Jesus' simile of passing a camel through the eye of a needle. Make case-by-case judgments, but be objective

That's what I do. I'll thank you not to insult my intelligence by suggesting that I would delete every appearance of the word "camel." The cases which you mention above would obviously be ok. It is often the case that others are not.

And if you don't like they way I do my job, take it up with Robert.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 9, 2008 2:19 PM

Marisol,

I certainly mean no offense. I heatily support the work you do at JW -- I would, if I could, with my wallet and not just my mouth.

I merely restate the obvious. The examples I cite are EXACTLY what I meant by "camel analogies."

Besides, I'm grateful for the service you provide, and I try to help keep watch. As I said, I'm sometimes obtuse and tasteless myself, and I appreciate you correcting my mistakes, as it spares me embarrassment.

Yours most earnestly,

John C

Posted by: John C at February 9, 2008 2:37 PM

Typo: should read "heartily"

Posted by: John C at February 9, 2008 2:38 PM

I must say, Marisol, that I get perverse, impish delight in pricking folks with a "needle" here and in slipping a camel joke though "the eye" of such.

Posted by: John C at February 9, 2008 2:55 PM

On Dan Pipes site there is a delay before your comment is posted.
They must have a staff that screens the garbage out.

They (Islamist) do seem to be working over time to discredit you Mr. Spencer.

That is a good sign ,you are hitting them with the thing that really hurts.

What hurts?

"The Truth".

Ouch!

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at February 9, 2008 3:16 PM

Marisol,

I remember how well you countered Jeffrey Carr's arguments and bald assertions. I commend you.

Posted by: John C at February 9, 2008 4:15 PM

Marisol, you do an incrdible job keeping an eye on JW/DW, and I for one am thankful that you keep an eye on me. Sometimes my comments are removed and that's OK, because I am merely a guest and I believe in following the house rules - although at times I can be a miserable failure at following them. Keep up the good work!

Posted by: champ at February 9, 2008 4:17 PM

When you combine

1) the important flavor of Jihad called the "Jihad with the pen" (al-Jihad bil-Qalam)

with

2) Mohammed's dictum that "war is deceit" (from the venerable Bukhari hadith volume 4, book 52, number 269),

it is perfectly reasonable to assume that innumerable Muslims would be trying, in every conceivable imaginative way, to sabotage this site.

Posted by: cantor at February 9, 2008 4:34 PM

Re: the camel analogy, I have been fond of substituting that trusty pack animal of the Bovidae family for the proverbial one of the Elephantidae family, to rephrase that popular cliché about the one obvious thing that nearly everybody is failing to notice, thusly:

...the camel in the room.

(I'd wager that a camel in a room would -- at least in Occidental rooms -- stand out as a sore thumb as much as would an elephant.)

Posted by: cantor at February 9, 2008 4:48 PM

"y'all", he stole my word!

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at February 9, 2008 5:48 PM

" I heatily support the work you do at JW -- I would, if I could, with my wallet and not just my mouth."

Ooeer missus. Sounds kinky!

Oh Behave Leon the pig farmer!

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at February 9, 2008 5:50 PM

Aha! Sly one, aren'tcha Cantor?

"...At least in Occidental rooms--"

Posted by: John C at February 9, 2008 6:05 PM

I must confess I stand in awe of the Jihad/Dhimmi Watch team. I can't imagine any of you getting more that 4 hours sleep at night and I'd be surprised if Hugh didn't regard anything that separated him from a keyboard as howling nuisance. (I also strongly suspect that the reason we never see him is that he has two heads; one for reading, the other for writing.)

Robert, thank you. Thank you for what you do and the calm, reasoned manner in which you do it. Question: Do you have Kipling's "If" framed on the wall of your office?

Marisol and Gregg: Thank you for all your hard work. Your contributions to the cause are huge and I, for one, will do my best to post nothing that could be used as ammunition against this site and to notify you if I perceive such a post from someone else.

Please, all of you, take care of yourselves.

Very sincerely yours,

U. S. Beast

Posted by: USBeast at February 9, 2008 6:11 PM

"yall are stupid morons get a life"

I'm with Leonthepigfarmer! lol... As a Southerner, I can't abide it when people misspell "y'all"!

Posted by: Abscedere at February 9, 2008 6:12 PM

Never mind the quadrupeds--I still say we gotta keep the riff-raff outta here. They spoil th' atmosphere o' da'place.

Posted by: John C at February 9, 2008 6:12 PM

People trying to discredit this site by posting hateful comments are merely showing that their argument is flawed and that this site is right on the money. If it is an apologist then that is worse. For the apologist will say that what we say here is incorrect and that we are "misinterpreting islam", but to use a tactic like disinformation posts show that they themselves realise that they can never win the argument and must resort to some self appointed moral high ground. Along the lines of "well it's OK if I do it because I'm one of the good guys". How many times has that been the excuse for doing exactly what you accuse your "enemies" of doing?

Hitler would have been proud.

Posted by: DaveMate at February 9, 2008 8:05 PM

http://www.phonyrev.com/

Posted by: Unbridled at February 9, 2008 9:34 PM

From above: we got a little less than serious, we were reminded by the mysterious 'da swami' that it's okay to be a little irreverent sometimes, as long as we don't get carried away.

I said that? It must have been one of my wise moments. I don't have many of those...
The last one was 1956, but that's another story...

As the foes of freedom become more nervous, they will attack more, and maybe more creatively.
Vigilance is called for...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 9, 2008 9:35 PM

Robert, as much as your disclaimer is clear, visitors parachuting in will soon associate the off color and more fetid comments with your site as a whole as has been pointed out. You're thus tarred too, as though guilty by association.

I know moderating is onerous and perhaps the tarring is a small price you are willing to pay.

Meanwhile, while the overall moral macadamizing gets my thumbsup, I'd like to chip in a point about that bit about Thailand. The four southern states in Thailand with a Muslim majority were independent sultanates until the Buddhist majority Thailand government power based in Bangkok annexed it at the turn of the 20th century with one eye shut from the British colonial power.

Thus the current spate of insurgency can be seen as an attempt to wrest back their land by the Muslims.

That they rally around the call to Islamic Jihad is more a matter of being in step with the time or even a ready label attached to them rather than being their true first agenda which is more national or ethnic aspiration similar to the aspiration of the Aborigines in Australia in wanting their own homeland.

That they resort to violence is another issue which can be debated from both sides of the divide but let us not tar them with one jihadist brush. That is unfair and overlook other imperatives, as said.

Posted by: Zaharan at February 9, 2008 10:08 PM

John C, very perspicacious of you to pick up on my "Occidental" nuance. It reflects, nevertheless, the crux of the issue; and that crux is unavoidably Occidentocentric. If anybody can't see that the modern West is better than any other culture in the history of the world, they are not worth inviting into the dialogue -- much as we may, in the meantime, feel ourselves compelled to brown-nose and walk on eggshells worrying in our anxiety about what is thought of us by the fascist majority.

Posted by: cantor at February 9, 2008 10:28 PM

"That they resort to violence is another issue..."

Posted by: Zaharan [TypeKey Profile Page]

No. It's the same issue. Muslims have to stop beheading ice cream vendors and shooting elderly Buddhists in the back and setting fires to schools in Thailand. Period. Non-negotiable.

Posted by: cantor at February 10, 2008 12:01 AM

Seconding cantor, champ, us beast, frank and traeh (and - I think you guys generally do a better job than I do, of hanging onto your hats).

At times, true to my 'internet handle', I have spoken intemperately or hastily. Given my hot-headed Scots and Irish ancestors, I sometimes find it hard to keep my cool when confronted with some of the news items, or with some of the 'disruptors' who post in the comments field. If by an intemperate comment I have 'lowered the tone' , I am sorry.

It is easy to fly off the handle. I am in awe of Mr Spencer's overall patience, charity, humility and cool stick-to-the-facts approach - it makes his occasional flashes of anger and ridicule the more effective. Mr Fitzgerald gets angry, but he does it with icy lucidity. Both never, never lose sight of the facts.

I can offer only this advice for those like myself. DON'T post straightaway in the heat of the moment, when some peculiarly awful atrocity in the news items, or outrageous statement by a Mohammedan poster, has you sitting at the computer with steam coming out of your ears.

The beauty of the internet is that although we can talk in real time we can also slow things down. If you're really mad: go off to your 'letters to jihadwatch' scrapbook file, open up a file for your new comment, and write there. Leave it to cool off. More than the deep breath and counting to ten...walk away, sleep on it.

Look at your draft again next day and try for more detachment; edit, check spelling, grammar, remove bad language, and THEN post.

Once or twice, when fuming over something a Disruptor has said, I've left things alone, come back next day, and found that someone else has chipped in and made a much better response than *I* was contemplating. We really are a team here, folks.

Always, always remember the vast unseen audience of people who read, but do not comment; especially the new visitors. I need to think: if a teenage kid is reading this, and their teacher or parent looks over their shoulder, will my post pique that person's interest, or will they ban their kid from ever coming back here again?

If the general 'tone' of the site is governed by common courtesy amongst ourselves and even toward the enemy, and a refusal to give way to the (admittedly sometimes very strong) temptation to dehumanise the most aggressive pushers of Jihad and Sharia, then it will be easier to spot, and remove, the 'plants' that Mr Spencer described above, the fake hate speech, the 'false flag' over-the-top comments that are sneakily posted by Mohammedan provocateurs, or their fellow-travellers, in order to bring this site into disrepute.

The other effect will be that the good sense and courtesy shown by the Infidel posters to one another, and their icy courtesy toward even the worst of the Mohammedans, will show up - as nothing else could - the rank discourtesy, irrationality and aggression that explode into the discourse of some of the openly-identifying Mohammedans who do appear here, as soon as they encounter people who refuse to meekly believe their 'spin'.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at February 10, 2008 12:40 AM

Zaharan, They tar themselves with one jihadist brush. It seems the natural course for muslims to gravitate toward their basic belief system and it always includes jihad in one form or another.All of the lands you speak of were wrested from the (ab)original people who lived there. Please don't pretend that the "occupying" muslims who live there now were indigenous. Islam was brought to those countries and imposed by conquest.

Posted by: imamerican at February 10, 2008 1:14 AM

cantor,

There you go again. "...That crux is unavoidably Occidentocentric." I'll say.

Don't you know, you Occidental orientalist devil, that the crux is very offensive to pious Muslims everywhere. You irredeemable Christianist lout (pardon my French).

Given as you are to such provocations, I'll bet you fly the flag of St. George, with its odious crux (pardon my French) at soccer games and Muslim neighborhoods, right in the faces of those whom you wish to offend--and you're not even British, you cad!

Yours tongue-in-cheek,

John C

Posted by: John C at February 10, 2008 1:41 AM

First, I like Dumbledoresarmy's suggestion - it's good advice for all posts on all forums. And I second the praise offered by USBeast and others.

Second, "guilt by association" is a logical fallacy in most cases, and certainly is a logical fallacy in those cases highlighted by CAIR & others. I'm somewhat surprised to hear Mr. Spencer so obviously concerned about having this site, and his positions, slandered by suggestions that he is somehow responsible for all opinions offered in "open" comments.

Third, although I use hotmail, and I am not a routine poster (tho I have posted before), it has honestly never crossed my mind that the opinions I have posted could somehow be attributed to someone other than me, & only me. I won't give out other details, but if it helps to assess whether or not I'm posting for some ulterior purpose, my name is David Fuhs. I am 35, white, raised in an upper-middle-class home, etc, etc; and I am an atheist. I am not the kind of atheist who hates any & all religion, and I have always been very interested in religion of all sorts and from all cultures - including obscure religions and extinct ancient religions. I had read the Koran, and been suitably confused by it, but I never gave any extra particular attention to Islam..... until 9/11.

Fourth, The Point of the Post.
Mr. Spencer worries that he will illegitimately be portrayed - by virtue of posters' opinions: "simply as "haters," as "bigots" who for some reason simply dislike Muslims and Islam"

Disclaimer: THS IS MY OWN OPINION AND HAS NO SUPPORT OR AGREEMENT FROM ROBERT SPENCER OR JIHADWATCH.COM -- NOR ANY PRIOR KNOWLEDGE BY THEM AS TO WHAT I MAY THINK OR SAY.

I, personally, do not worry about being considered a "hater", or a "bigot". I hate Islam and, by virtue thereof, many or most Muslims. I am, in point of fact, "bigotted" against Islam and Muslims. I do not, as Robert puts it, "for some reason simply dislike Muslims and Islam". I believe that there are sound and ample reasons -- not just "some reason" -- to hate Islam and most Muslims. Further, I do not simply "dislike" Muslims and Islam -- I hate them.

As I said above, I do not hate religion, or religious people. Nevertheless, through study since 9/11, I have determined that Islam, solely and specifically, is an EVIL religion -- quite unlike any other modern religion (but not unprecedented).

[If you're interested, I can give two examples of groups of other unambiguously EVIL religions in human history: 1) Those of the Canaanites, Phoenecians, and Carthaginians; and 2) Those of the Incas, Aztecs, Maya, Moche, etc..]

There is, what I consider to be, a modern EVIL religion, intent upon global domination literally at the point of a sword. How could I not find hatred for this religion? How could I not be "bigotted" against it?

I do NOT endorse genocide. I have been careful to generalize about "many or most" Muslims; and not to imply that ALL Muslims are evil, OR that simply calling oneself a Muslim implies evilness. Nevertheless, the Islamic religion, as understood and practised by "many or most" Muslims must be eradicated from this Earth. This is neither "hatred" nor "bigotry", but simple self-preservation and the preservation of FREEDOM of thought and belief throughout the world.

So, ultimateley, no one should infer that Robert Spencer or Jihadwatch.com supports my particular point of view -- doing so would be (or should be) laughable. I HATE Islam! I am a Bigot against Islam, and many or most Muslims.

These are the views of David Peter Fuhs and no one else!

Posted by: Eyas at February 10, 2008 1:50 AM

(O, that lacrimatiously lamentable la croix; such a deplorably execrable symbol of Western imperialism it is!)

Posted by: John C at February 10, 2008 2:01 AM

Cheers, John C!! Have another Jameson - it's on me!

Posted by: champ at February 10, 2008 2:06 AM

As I have an unavoidably Christian worldview (I admire the subliminity of Scripture, though not thoroughly literalist), I must say say that I do not hate anyone, generally; though I do fear and detest Islam and particular values it imparts--the malice towards non-Muslim believers, its supremacism, its supercessionism over an original revelation that far surpasses that which would supplant it, its will to subjugate and supress so much of human freedom, innovation, and expression, its purposeful deceit and endless cosmic warfare--and am thus wary and distrustful of Muslims generally, but I don't hate them; I would, if I could, love them in spite of themselves. That's my piece. Peace be with you.

Posted by: John C at February 10, 2008 2:22 AM

Thanks, champ--but, hey, aren't British brown ale jokes verboten here? I suppose that goes for Irish amber, too. (Ordinarily, I never touch the stuff, but I'll make an exception on this occasion.) *quaff*

Posted by: John C at February 10, 2008 2:37 AM

Mr. Spencer,

I'm confused -- somewhat. What is so wrong with "hating" Islam? Islam is a destructive force. Why not acknowledge it as that and "hate" it for what it is?

Personally, I hate Islam -- everything about it -- and would like to see to its end. I'm not a violent person, but I don't see what is wrong with expressing my strong feelings against Islam.

I appreciate the fact that Jihad Watch exposes the truth about Islam. But as well as exposing the truth, why can't we express our hate -- here, at Jihad Watch -- as long as it is supported by the facts?

Evil is evil, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with expressing our hate for it.

Thank you.

Posted by: Stronghold at February 10, 2008 5:29 AM

Eyas (DPF),

Great post! I don't hesitate to express my hatred of Islam and the need to "remove" it from existence. I just find it troubling that, here, at Jihad Watch, this sentiment can be deemed to be offensive and, therefore, deleted.

Nonetheless, every non-Islamic person of the world must unite against Islam and confront it aggressively, whether that is to force education or reformation upon its followers -- or whatever the situation calls for. The point is that something has to be done. Hopefully, it's by peaceful means. I'm just not sure that there can be a peaceful solution to this, when you're dealing with a religion that espouses a judgement of death to "apostates."

If we don't deal with it as a unified force, I expect that it will destroy us, whether that is in body or mind, or both.

This is my opinion and, I suppose, not that of Jihad Watch.

Posted by: Stronghold at February 10, 2008 5:48 AM

Stronghold - I've said on a few occasions that I *hate* Islam, and Mohammed, and the Murder-Book called the Quran. And, I can furnish *many* reasons as to *why* I hate the aforementioned.

One reason: Islam considers Jesus to be a "slave" to allah. Yep, I really hate that total and complete, disgusting and revolting, falsehood about the Son of God. He is no one's "slave."

Another reason: Islam believes that one day Jesus, the slave of allah, will return to assist his master allah in destroying both Judaism and Christianity, to make the world "all for allah" (see Quran). Yep, I really hate that a goal of Islam is to annihilate my religion, and I have EVERY RIGHT to hate that Islamic belief.

Here's another: Islam's stated goal is world domination. Gee, I hate that. (See Q 8:39).

Another: Islam considers the "perfect man" to be Muhammed, when it's FACT that Muhammed was a mass-murderer of Jews and Christians, a slave-owner, a rapist, a caravan-raider (thief), a pedophile and a polygamist. No, that is not "perfect," and I really hate that such a large and dangerous group of people have fallen for that crap.

Oops, here's another: Islam believes that the Torah and the Gospels were corrupted by man, but that the Quran isn't, making it God's final book. Those lies (from Muhammed) about the Torah and the Gospels are sickening - and yes - I hate them.

Again: I hate that Islam has the temerity to proclaim that "allah" is the Jewish and Christian God. NO, ALLAH ISN'T! allah is nothing more than a pagan moon deity the Profit (spelling purposeful) used to make himself a "prophet." allah doesn't exist!

OK, another: I hate "taqiyya" that Muhammed started because that purposeful deception is still fooling our "leaders" - if you want to call them that.

Also: I hate that the primary theme of the Quran is "Kill the Infidel," yet our "leaders" are still calling it a "rop." As Walid Shoebat has said, "What part of Kill the Infidel do you not understand?"

Well, I hope that's enough reasons for you to understand why I hate Islam, Mo, Quran. I also hate Naziism. There are MANY things worthy of being hated in this world, and Islam, and Naziism, are two salient examples.

My suggestion: Be prepared to furnish factual reasons of why you hate and/or repudiate Islam, just as you would do with Naziism.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH! And that includes the right to hate and repudiate the many things in this brutal, cruel, and imperfect human world that are WORTHY of hatred and repudiation.

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it doesn't exist." --Salman Rushdie

(The above is one of my favorite quotations!)

Posted by: darcy at February 10, 2008 9:18 AM

"Hopefully, it's by peaceful means. I'm just not sure that there can be a peaceful solution to this, when you're dealing with a religion that espouses a judgement of death to "apostates." -posted by Stronghold

I believe 100% that there will be another 732 and 1683, i.e. WW3. Whether that will be nuclear, I don't know. But it's going to be something.

The storm is gathering every day.

Posted by: darcy at February 10, 2008 9:52 AM

John C,

"Don't you know, you Occidental orientalist devil, that the crux is very offensive to pious Muslims everywhere."

It's far worse than that: The majority of non-Muslim Westerners are, to one degree or another, Occidentophobic! (This is one key aspect of PC Multiculturalism, this excessive almost morbid self-criticism of the West, by Westerners.)

Posted by: cantor at February 10, 2008 12:03 PM

I hate Islam and, by virtue thereof, many or most Muslims. -- Eyas

I would put it this way:

"I hate Islam and I hate all Muslims who practice and support Islam."

(Of course, one big problem we Infidels face today in this regard is our insufficient ability to distinguish between

a) those Muslims who practice and support Islam -- and who therefore, we can rationally suppose, pose a potential threat to us --

b) and those Muslims who ostensibly practice Islam but who, in all likelihood -- for various complex reasons --, will pose no threat to us.

This problem seems insoluble; and so rationality would lead us to conclude that it would be counter-productive to our proactive self-defense to even try -- at least in non-trivial terms -- to make such a distinction as that between (a) and (b).)

I'm confused -- somewhat. What is so wrong with "hating" Islam? Islam is a destructive force. Why not acknowledge it as that and "hate" it for what it is? – Stronghold

Funny thing. I finally got around to looking up this word that Leftists and Muslims bandy around like confetti at a Mussolini Parade: "hate".

It turns out that "hate" and "hatred" semantically resolve down to a relation to an "enemy". The definition of "hate" may thus be articulated thusly:

Hate is the psychological, ideological and behavioral posture a person adopts in relation to a perceived enemy.

There is nothing in the dictionary definition of "hate" that necessarily includes bigotry or irrationally emotional states of mind.

Thus, whether or not one hates Islam hinges on whether or not one considers Islam to be one's enemy.

Posted by: cantor at February 10, 2008 12:21 PM

Hatred can be a waste of energy, even to the point of being a kind of self-injury (Seriously. Science tends to indicate that the chronically angry die younger). And why would you let anyone induce you to that? And with hate comes the prospect of unmanaged anger-- the kind of thing that leads to strategic mistakes that end up setting one's cause back anyway: mis-speaking, misallocation of resources, loss of perspective, etc.

Long story short, I think it's a tremendous oversimplification to assume we're all equally motivated by hate, especially of people.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 10, 2008 12:59 PM

Hey John C! Irish 'whiskey', my friend, not ale; and as my Irish ancestors say, Top 'O The Mornin'!(say it with an Irish accent :-)

Posted by: champ at February 10, 2008 1:49 PM

Marisol,

"Hatred can be a waste of energy, even to the point of being a kind of self-injury (Seriously. Science tends to indicate that the chronically angry die younger). And why would you let anyone induce you to that? And with hate comes the prospect of unmanaged anger..."

There is nothing in the dictionary definition of "hate" that necessarily includes such irrational emotions as you posit (cf. my post above for further details). I think you are assuming that "hate" necessarily includes rage (whether of the explosive variety, or of the slow-burning, bitterly seething variety). I propose that there is no basis (other than the colloquial, vulgar degradation of the meaning of the word "hate") for such an assumption.

Posted by: cantor at February 10, 2008 2:42 PM

Cantor--

I still take issue with the word "hate." We could split hairs on semantics all day, I suppose, but I simply maintain that hatred is not what drives me to pursue this line of work.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 10, 2008 3:14 PM

Robert;

Here in Britain, the moment we comment on this, or any other similar minded site, the national online press wont touch either our names or I.P. addresses, no matter to what subject we attempt to comment or interact.

Freedom of speech?.

Posted by: Stone Rose at February 10, 2008 4:37 PM

Funny thing. I finally got around to looking up this word that Leftists and Muslims bandy around like confetti at a Mussolini Parade: "hate".
It turns out that "hate" and "hatred" semantically resolve down to a relation to an "enemy". The definition of "hate" may thus be articulated thusly:

Hate is the psychological, ideological and behavioral posture a person adopts in relation to a perceived enemy.

There is nothing in the dictionary definition of "hate" that necessarily includes bigotry or irrationally emotional states of mind.

Thus, whether or not one hates Islam hinges on whether or not one considers Islam to be one's enemy.

Posted by: cantor at February 10, 2008 12:21 PM

That's good, cantor. Yes, I consider Islam/Mo/Q/ to be my enemy. As, I believe, we all do, here.

Posted by: darcy at February 10, 2008 5:54 PM

"I believe 100% that there will be another 732 and 1683, i.e. WW3. Whether that will be nuclear, I don't know. But it's going to be something." - Posted by Darcy

I agree, and I find it terribly troubling that our so-called leaders have allowed the situation to get to that point.

I genuinely believe that Islam has crossed the Rubicon and it is a matter of time before Europe is "overthrown." BTW, if I could spit in the face of (most of) Europe's so-called leaders, I wouldn't; they rather deserve a knock-out punch, the cowards!

What is going on, that we've allowed the global climate to come to this? that Islam has grown to become such an enormous threat (it's always been a threat, but not to this degree -- not as far as I've known, at least)?

BTW, Cantor, I do consider Islam to be my enemy -- the enemy of a freedom-loving, regular joe -- and, accordingly, I hate it in every sense of the word. If that makes me a bigot or what have you, so be it. I don't hate Islam for all the wrong reasons; I hate it for all the right reasons.

I appreciate JW and the fact that it educates the masses, but I suppose that I have to make it clear that these are my views.

Thank you.

Posted by: Stronghold at February 11, 2008 1:21 AM

"Thus, whether or not one hates Islam hinges on whether or not one considers Islam to be one's enemy."

I consider Islam to be my enemy, especially since 9/11 (may we never forget). I consider Islam to be my enemy just as I consider cancer to be my enemy. I currently don't have cancer, but that doesn't mean that the risk isn't out there.

Islam is a cancer on society, and the sooner we find a cure, the better our chances for survival.

Posted by: champ at February 11, 2008 1:41 AM