More self-inflicted muslim 'hate' crimes?

Why is there never any mention in the public arena of the 'it's okay for muslims to lie about/for islam' tenet of their 'faith'? You know, once a liar, always a liar. Any public discussion about islam doesn't get around to the fact that, as a supposed 'Abrahamic faith', the 10 Commandements are nowhere to be found in the koran. And let's completely forget about the 'turn the other cheek' New Testament stuff.

Posted by: Rick at February 20, 2008 11:41 AM

They got LGF yesterday, so, your assumptions are most likely correct.

Posted by: An_Arbreshe at February 20, 2008 11:44 AM

Reminds me of the leftards at George Washington University who, absent any evidence of real hate speech from those they opposed, simply created it and received international attention. And then like cowards, when they were exposed, they tried to laugh it off as a "hoax" and "satire."

Ironic too that the people so ready to cry foul will never engage in any debate that forces them to confront the fact that the Koran itself is "hate speech."

And of course these little incidents shoot right into the MSM machine, while another peaceful Buddhist being burned alive in southern Thailand--a country well outside of the supposed US imperialist conspiracy--goes completely unnoticed.

Posted by: JohnAdams at February 20, 2008 11:54 AM

"Wal-Mart apologizes to Muslim woman"

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/wal-mart-apologizes-to-muslim-woman/20080220092109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Posted by: darcy at February 20, 2008 11:57 AM

i would not be surprised if some of the more radical members of cair are trolls on JW and doing every thing that they can to discredit the site
but when we look at history muslims have never been good at axceping criticism

Posted by: doglover at February 20, 2008 11:59 AM

JohnAdams,

The unfunny part about that is how the GWU President threatened expulsion of the perpetrating "right-wing Islamophobes" only to back-track after he discovered it was the 'left-wing loons" who want to suppress free-speech and honest debate.

Posted by: awake at February 20, 2008 11:59 AM

Can you check the IP address to see who is posting it?

Posted by: Borg at February 20, 2008 12:07 PM

What you need to do Robert is just discontinue the blogging on your articles. It can be used too easily to discredit you and your staff. If people really feel like they need to comment then let them send e-mails to you and the Jihad Watch staff.

Posted by: Patriot_1/17 at February 20, 2008 12:17 PM

False info planters and hackers are dorks.

Everybody knows that Islam is completely incriminating in and of itself, simply by reading the Qur'an and Hadiths. You don't need to have anyone plant false info or insults - all of the claims to divinely-inspired terrorism, murder, and human rights violations are written right there in their 'holy books.'

You've included links to ALL of these, right on this very site, to allow people to look it up for themselves. Unfortunately, I don't think that many have availed themselves of these links, or else there would be some serious discussion about what to do about Islam, other than 'how can we accomodate them today?'

Good grief.

Posted by: Lori B. at February 20, 2008 12:19 PM

Patriot - The site clearly makes a distinction between what is posted by the administrators and the comments made by the rest of us. I've learned a great deal from readers who post. Why should we self-censor just to please CAIR?

Posted by: MP at February 20, 2008 12:21 PM

Posted by: Patriot_1/17 at February 20, 2008 12:17 PM

Disagreed.

Posted by: awake at February 20, 2008 12:23 PM

"I am accumulating evidence that such comments are planted here by provocateurs, so as to discredit this site".-Robert

I know for a fact that Robert is very careful on these matters. About six months ago (+/-) he deleted one of my comments. He sent reprimanded me via email and said he had "enough trouble getting out the truth" and did not need such comments that could be misinterpreted and used by people with an agenda. I e-mailed him that he is right. He is right. And no one should take any such "deletes"personally.

Posted by: Frank at February 20, 2008 12:23 PM

I really think the answer is to go to moderated comments

Posted by: Don Singleton at February 20, 2008 12:24 PM

What you need to do Robert is just discontinue the blogging on your articles. It can be used too easily to discredit you and your staff. If people really feel like they need to comment then let them send e-mails to you and the Jihad Watch staff.

Posted by: Patriot_1/17 at February 20, 2008 12:17 PM

Oh, the Mohammedans would love that! Uh Huh, let's silence ourselves, people, just because of a few, a very, very few, inappropriate comments!

Patriot - you're not a patriot in your obvious desire to muzzle our freedom of speech on this site. You're Mohammedan.

Posted by: darcy at February 20, 2008 12:27 PM

Patriot and MP--

For us to self-censor in an effort to prevent those few actual haters from expressing themselves (and they are FREE to do just that) is exactly what the "hate speech" Marxists envisioned when they began introducing these fascist, free-speech limiting ideas on college campuses 30 years ago.

Posted by: JohnAdams at February 20, 2008 12:28 PM

I really think the answer is to go to moderated comments

Posted by: Don Singleton at February 20, 2008 12:24 PM

I do not agree. People?

Posted by: darcy at February 20, 2008 12:29 PM

The link above to the Walmart story just might have something to do with that comment. They will be all over the news talk tonight blasting the incident and will use the planted comment to prove that speech needs to be curtailed like it is in England. Watch for it tonight.

If comments are stopped they will be winning one of their battles - won't they?

Posted by: Borg at February 20, 2008 12:30 PM

When Muslims take extreme comments from our site to discredit us, it seems very reminiscent of when American troops treated enemy combatants badly, and our country was discredited in the eyes of the world.

The only way we are going to win a war of ideas is if we operate on a higher moral standard than our opponents. Otherwise, how can our ideas be better?

Posted by: Johnson at February 20, 2008 12:31 PM

I've learned a great deal from readers who post. Why should we self-censor just to please CAIR?

Posted by: MP at February 20, 2008 12:21 PM

Oh, yes, have learned so much from others' who regularly post here. Thank You! Plus, we get a good idea of how strong our community is concerning the threat of Islam by our comments.

Oh boy would CAIR and the many other Mohammedan groups around the country just love to see us muzzled and amorphous.

Posted by: darcy at February 20, 2008 12:34 PM

"I really think the answer is to go to moderated comments" Posted by: Don Singleton

Yep, I agree. Just one little obstacle. Who's going to put up the money to pay moderators?

After all, we don't have a JihadWatchArabia to fund it.

Posted by: Sounder at February 20, 2008 12:36 PM

"The only way we are going to win a war of ideas is if we operate on a higher moral standard than our opponents." --johnson

We do.

Plus, your example is such a poor one, and for so many reasons.

Posted by: darcy at February 20, 2008 12:37 PM

Hey darcy, did you read the last paragraph of that Walmart article?

"We applaud Wal-Mart for taking appropriate action to resolve this incident," said Yasser Moten, executive director of the council's Nevada chapter. The group doesn't have an office in Utah.

EVERYBODY, LET'S MOVE TO UTAH! (Mormons probably wouldn't cut off my head if I refused to convert, cover my head and/or give them extortion, er, protection money, er, Jizya 'tax' ...)

Posted by: Lori B. at February 20, 2008 12:37 PM

darcy-

It might be a good idea to require names, addresses and tel#'s of anyone who wants to post-and confirm all data. That might be one way Fibrahim Hooper and Co. can have an honest "dialogue" with JW. I think that there are provocateurs who post-no question about it.

Posted by: Frank at February 20, 2008 12:40 PM

Johnson says:
“The only way we are going to win a war of ideas is if we operate on a higher moral standard than our opponents. Otherwise, how can our ideas be better?”

Well, we might start by the simple courage to believe ‘our ideas are better” in the first place. Self hatred at the altar of multi-culturalism is largely to blame for our current predicament - not trumped up charges of "Gitmo atrocities" and “water-boarding”.

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at February 20, 2008 12:47 PM

If comments are stopped they will be winning one of their battles - won't they?

Posted by: Borg at February 20, 2008 12:30 PM

Their primary goal is to stop free speech. Every single website that exists gets "trolls" sometimes.

Posted by: darcy at February 20, 2008 12:48 PM

Here is why it happens from seemingly nice people - the threat of some kind of violence, revenge, or something - fear.

There is nothing offered for anyone to do to counter the muslim onslaught - in our schools/universities, government, CIA/FBI, etc.

The politicians are not listening, the Universities are obviously not that intelligent outposts of our society, the media is too lazy to report accurately, etc. All are more interested in money - the bottom line.

So some people lash out in the only way they know how on the internet. And I am not talking about the 'plants' who are indeed trying to cause trouble. They say/write things out of fear without thinking.

I am going to retire and become more active in this area - but even at that most are not retiring and most don't have a clue as to what they can do to stop it all. Muslims are clustering in certain areas around this country. And people move because of different reasons leaving open houses so muslims can move in, but there is probably an increase of muslim on non-muslim violence to accelerate that moving trend. And when the muslims have enough numbers they start their demands with the threat of violence, and now with some saying they want to make sure muslims get into our institutions within the next 10 years to start the process of us being as bad off as Europe - what can people do?!

We already see some in Congress - and I don't trust Obama - if he weren't a muslim after being born a muslim - there would be fatwas against him and NOT the support of muslims for him to be president! And congress people have access to top secret docs. As we have just recently learned that a muslim in the Pentagon got the boot - just think of what he had access to.

Remind people what they can do. I say this to you because you are in control of this website, and you probably have way more ideas than I do.

Posted by: R_not at February 20, 2008 1:07 PM

Robert:

If you don't, perhaps you should log the IP Addresses of posters, even if you don't make that information public.

You should rejoice at this though. That means that you are winning the intellectual war and these people have no cogent rebuttles to the truth. Now, we just need to step up the PR War because, unfortuantely, they're winning that (with complicity of the MSM).

Posted by: Canadian Christian at February 20, 2008 1:22 PM

Frank said

It might be a good idea to require names, addresses and tel#'s of anyone who wants to post-and confirm all data. That might be one way Fibrahim Hooper and Co. can have an honest "dialogue" with JW.

I've seen the sort of "honest dialogue" that the jihadis have with kufirs. Theo Van Gogh comes to mind.

I try not to say anything as an anonymous poster that I would not say openly in public, but there is no way I want the jihadis to have a list of names and addresses of people who are aware of, and oppose, the jihad.

Posted by: special_guest at February 20, 2008 1:24 PM

Darcy provided a link to a story about Walmart, which contained this quote:

"Please don't stick me up," a cashier told the shopper [who was wearing a burqa]

Oh my G*d. The backlash has begun. This was worse than 9/11. Worse than the UK Tube bombings. Worse than Spanish train bombings. Worse than the Thai man today who was shot and then burned alive.

Yes, CAIR, let's keep the focus where it belongs, on those poor, poor, Muslims.

Posted by: special_guest at February 20, 2008 1:30 PM

Right now I got this dialogue with a muslim on a Catholic website. It is real easy to rebuttal him after reading Mr. Spencer's book 'The Religion of Peace?...'. And along with the info on this website and dhimmiwatch, I have my references all handy!

I can hardly wait until the blogging the koran is done too - that adds to my arsenal. I have read the koran but the blogging the koran certainly puts it in a better perspective.

But, while I rebuttal this muslim on the Catholic website - many are reading the post and asking questions and backing me up. I give them websites and books to read to get even more honed up on the subject.

A good book I am reading now, 'A Never Ending War', by Michael Cappi helps too.

Posted by: R_not at February 20, 2008 1:36 PM

I think it would be helpful if Spencer wrote a clear, concise and specific manifesto which would be available at all times up on the Jihad Watch marquee -- a manifesto that:

1) lists all the different types of speech that are not welcome at Jihad Watch

a) quotes verbatim a couple of actual examples from the past (the Hooper one particularly should be quoted verbatim)

b) exhausts all the types: doesn't leave it vague and incomplete as advocating "the violent suppression of those with whom you disagree", or "comments that are genocidal, advocating vigilantism, racist, etc." -- where the "etc." begs for more definitive and exhaustive spelling out.

2) presents articulated arguments defending either:

a) why each of the types of speech detailed in #1b that are subject to debate (e.g., "vigilantism") is not welcome

b) or, with certain non-negotiable universally repudiated offenses such as "genocide", articulates what precisely constitutes an expression of genocide.

3) re-iterates and summarizes the overall problem of moderation and the virtue of free speech, providing links to all the previous times Spencer has had to address this issue.

Once this manifesto is written and published permanently on the JW marquee, Spencer need not do anything more in the future -- other than simply to cite the manifesto any time somebody tries to smear JW with reference to the existence of offensive comments.

Posted by: cantor at February 20, 2008 1:43 PM

"When Muslims take extreme comments from our site to discredit us, it seems very reminiscent of when American troops treated enemy combatants badly, and our country was discredited in the eyes of the world."

Posted by: Johnson at February 20, 2008 12:31 PM

Oh boy, that was a classic. Nonsensical and baseless, but a classic notheless. This "Johnson" appears to be a "tool", indeed.

Posted by: awake at February 20, 2008 1:46 PM

P.S.: Addendum to my #2 above:

c) reminds the reader of the manifesto that the argumentation defining types of offensive speech, along with the concomitant operation of identifying actual instances of speech that comport with the definitions, is not an exact science, and that sometimes it is difficult to determine if a given written expression fits the definition.

The difficulty reflects not an Either/Or situation -- Either it is so difficult and ambiguous there is no point in trying to articulate a list of definitions; Or an articulated list can and must be perfect. Somewhere between these extremes lies the most fruitful path, and the attempt to clarify and tighten up, definitively, the definition of what is "not welcome at JW" would be most welcome.

Posted by: cantor at February 20, 2008 1:52 PM

special_guest-

I was being sarcastic about Fibrahim and Co. I am joking that with their names, #'s confirmed, they might be honest for a change. However, that is not likely in any event.

As for names, etc. of posters-that could be info held by Robert and Hugh-and not a public matter. It would be cheaper to do that than have a heavy-handed moderation. For example, they would know who "Special Guest" is and not need heavy moderation of "Special Guest". The mere requirement that R and H have names, #'s, addresses, would scare off a lot of the phony posters. A lot of them appear to be hit-and-run skunks and they don't want honest folk to know where they live.

Posted by: Frank at February 20, 2008 1:56 PM

I have personally seen this on Myspace groups. I was a part of one called "a world without Islam", where some Muslims joined, trying to bait people into saying something violent by starting threads called "how many Muslims would you kill?" and others saying Israel should be destroyed...with the usual charges of racism [against a religion...go figure]. Of course many of us recognized this sorry attempt and immediately exposed it for what it was.

Except it still worked.

The group was deleted by Myspace control, and the group leader's account was deleted also. the games Islam-o-fascists play...

Posted by: SoteriA at February 20, 2008 2:03 PM

OK I give up,

I am not allowed to say what I think

I am not allowed to think what I think

I am condemned for thinking outside the status quo

I am not allowed to read anything outside the status quo or question it.

I am a racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semite. I support FGM, honor killings, mass murder, suicide bombings and the destruction or subjugation of all those who oppose my beliefs.

Naseem

Posted by: ericthekuffar at February 20, 2008 2:07 PM

Thanks, cantor! That is a great idea, because I often question some of my own comments; and a more concise outline would really help us all.

Robert stated these as offensive: "genocidal, advocating vigilantism, racist, etc"

I understand what comments would be "genocidal & advocating vigilantism", but I'm a little unclear on what is "racist" and especially what falls under the category of "etc".

For instance.....

Is the term "Mohammadean" a racist comment? It is used quite a bit on this forum, so that would be one term that I need some clarity on.

Thank you!

Posted by: champ at February 20, 2008 2:07 PM

For the record, after a number of years of reading and commenting on this site, my understanding of the nuts and bolts of Islam have increased a hundred fold. I have never seen what I consider hate speech coming from Robert, Hugh or any staff person. There have been comments like that, but they are usually quickly removed. For the record and if Ibrahim is reading, one thing I learned from Robert is that violence, and threats are NOT the way to approach Islam. As a result of my over all knowledge and attitude about Islam, I believe is it is not death that needs to be created, it is apostates. I realize that most muslims would not like that either, but it is a civilized, non lethal, and workable plan in the long haul.
It is already working from what I read about people leaving Islam in good numbers. When enough apostate, the balance will be breached, and Islam will start shrinking...We only need violence as a means of self defense when attacked. Otherwise create an apostate, should be the goal of all informed infidels. The slogan should be, 'have you created an apostate today'? The answer should be, 'yes, several'...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 20, 2008 2:10 PM

Believe me; should these Dhimmis start a problem over this site that is probably the only recourse a lot of people have, I will fight alongside you tooth an nail

Posted by: ericthekuffar at February 20, 2008 2:10 PM

At this very moment we may, and I am sure we do, have guests reading these comments. These guests may be CAIR, MSM reporters, FBI.

In any instance, we should do what we would ask the same of our guests to do in their business, 'police each other' and ask for accountability.

Robert and Hugh cannot be everywhere at once, so we can all report inappropriate posts.

So, we would also ask our guests such as MSM reporters, when is the last time you camped out on a blog and whatched the comments? I am sure you have never done so to a Liberal Blog, Muslim Blog, CAIR, or even comments posted to your own publication. Why the hypocrosy?

The FBI, I am going to assume views alot of these blogs and comments posted to blogs. Welcome to Jihad Watch, sit back read some articles and learn things that are happening that CAIR does not want you to be aware of.

As for CAIR, I know I glad to see the internet traffic that you direct towards conservative sites. Hopefully, people that visit these sites will stay a while and learn more of what is going on in the world.

Regarding what Robert S. has posted, I agree with him. The planting and harvesting of 'hate comments' is so quick, that you had to be aware that it was going to happen. I hope that if there is a group behind the 'manufacturing of hate comments' there is an investigation and prosecution.

There are laws against 'hate', but are there laws against 'provocateurs'? I guess we would have to answer that by looking at the MSM, they have never been prosecuted yet.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at February 20, 2008 2:18 PM

Special_Guest-

I share your concern re giving out such info to any site. No one wants to be getting emails or mail, calls etc. from some guy named Otis from Arkansas. Personally, I am very guarded on such matters. Very guarded. However, I think this is one of the few sites that can be trusted.

Posted by: Frank at February 20, 2008 2:30 PM

Cantor-- the closest thing we have to a guide on unacceptable comments can be found by Googling "Komments Kraziness" and "Jihad Watch."

I know my schedule is much more open than Robert's, so I'd be more than willing to come up with a brief list of things I delete.

I would be the absolute last person in favor of closing comments, which one person suggested above. It would be a victory for the jihadists and their active and passive enablers to silence the comments, and the productive and informative discussion that occurs there: People know they're not alone, and the process of writing one's thoughts and sharing ideas and concerns refines them. It also lets us know we're not alone out here, in our respective Secure, Undisclosed Locations. I think that to end comments would give the appearance that most of our supporters are so unstable and unreliable that not even we ourselves want to associate with them.

That is simply not the case. I read the comments whenever possible, and I delete things, but for the most part I enjoy reading them and interacting with other commenters, I learn some things myself, and occasionally laugh out loud.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 20, 2008 2:32 PM

Hi Marisol,

Is the term "Mohammadean" a racist comment? It is used quite a bit on this forum, so that would be one term that I need some clarity on.

Thank you!

Posted by: champ at February 20, 2008 2:36 PM

What would be helpful (I think) is a special location where all these removed comments can be kept. A link could be added from Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch so that anyone can access and read them with the reasons they were deleted. It is needed as a preemptive method to show that they are planted by provocateurs and assorted verbal assassins.

I would show evryone the specific types of coments that are not allowed.

Just an idea.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 20, 2008 2:40 PM

Is the term "Mohammadean" a racist comment? It is used quite a bit on this forum, so that would be one term that I need some clarity on.

Thank you!

Posted by: champ at February 20, 2008 2:07 PM

Hi champ. I prefer "Mohammedan" as I'm called an "Infidel" in their "holy" book. Therefore, I couldn't care less whether they like Mohammedan or not.

In addition, as there is no allah but the pagan moon deity that doesn't exist, these people actually worship Mohammed, who dictated the Koran.

Hope you're doing great. See ya.

Posted by: darcy at February 20, 2008 2:41 PM

Champ--

I haven't deleted it, and I haven't seen it deleted. But I'll ask.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 20, 2008 2:45 PM

Calls for total moderation are exactly what our enemies want - an increase of the cost of fighting this war. It would be a full time effort that would require one or two salaried employees.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 20, 2008 2:51 PM

I have had comments of mine deleted for the use of the word that rhymes with fuzzy. That's OK, but I consider "Mohammedan" a word that indicates a Muslim who places extra emphasis on the sayings and actions of the Prophet. A Muslim male who wears "highwater trousers," refuses to wear a gold colored watch or gold ring, or a silk necktie is a Mohammedan.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 20, 2008 2:58 PM

CAIR practices Taqqiyah to a "T"

Posted by: Silly Allah at February 20, 2008 3:02 PM

Highwater trousers? Ah, my image of a Mohammedan has just been spoiled. LOL!

Hi Darcy! I'm well, thanks, and you?

Thanks, Marisol! I'll take that as a green light. For now anyway. :-)

Posted by: champ at February 20, 2008 3:05 PM

Pelayo

As I mentioned to IbrahimX the other day, at least I use the term 'Mohammedan' to convey the impression that I recognize Muslims as members of a cult. In addition to that, it's also been historically used, such as in Sir Winston Churchill's famous passage on the mindset of 'the votaries of Mohammedanism', so if it were banned, Robert or Marisol would have to spell out whether Churchill would have been disciplined in these pages for daring to use such terminology.

I know why Muslims hate it, but the term itself is harmless, but conveys to Infidels what Muslims and Islam really are - a cult of Mohammed. Not offending Muslims is no reason to ban it - next, Muslim posters would be demanding that we use abbreviations like pbuh, saw, swt, et al when using the terms 'Allah' and 'Mohammed'.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 20, 2008 3:12 PM

The word "Muhammadan" (or "Mohammedan") -- meaning "of or related to Muhammad or Islam" has been part of the English language since 1680 -- what could possibly be "racist" or "offensive" about a perfectly useful and desriptive adjective or noun with a solidly established usage?

Posted by: John C at February 20, 2008 3:18 PM

Champ, there is a hadith or two (or more?), cited by some internet purveyors of Islamic opinion, where Mohammed said that a man's trousers should not cover their ankles.

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=15766

gold:

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=15766

Silk:

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=15766
http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=617

Oh, and beards:

http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=617

As long as Muslims consider Mohammed the perfect man and follow his every saying and action, they are also Mohammedans.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 20, 2008 3:23 PM

Like I said, none of us have deleted it. But I did check on it just to be thorough.

Confirmed: No problem.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 20, 2008 3:24 PM

Moreover, as an adjective, what other way would I explain Mohammed as an exemplar? The role and example of Mohammed is Mohammedan--or is this mythic man's persona so subsumed by the creed he professed that his individual identity is effaced?

Posted by: John C at February 20, 2008 3:29 PM

Islamic newspeak disallows the word "Mohammedan" because of its detached objectivity -- besides, it doesn't accommodate honorific appendages. Thus, its use is strictly haram and is mischievous and oppressive when used by kuffr--ya dig?

Posted by: John C at February 20, 2008 3:43 PM

Hi Marisol,

Is the term "Mohammadean" a racist comment? It is used quite a bit on this forum, so that would be one term that I need some clarity on.

Thank you!
Posted by: champ at February 20, 2008 2:36 PM

Um, seems to me "mohammadean" would refer to a follower of Mohammed, which would be an adherent to the faith of Islam. Islam is not a race. So how could a term referring to Islam, a religion not a race, be a racist term? Just askin'...

Posted by: reine.de.tout at February 20, 2008 3:48 PM

...would give the appearance that most of our supporters are so unstable and unreliable that not even we ourselves want to associate with them....

I nabi ZK, nabi to the mohametan trolls, wise, munificent, etc., hereby resemble that remark.

As was pointed out by the wonderful people at

http://www.youtube.com/muhammadsquran

islam means simply submission to the God of Abraham, which is one thing, like the hannif and so on, while mohametan islam is the same, but twisted up with a perverse obsession with mohamet ("uswa hasna al insan al kamil", aka "you have an insane camel", kind of like a dances with wolves thing, but I digress) and everything about him bordering on worship. Some would say that they do worship mohamet and hence the term mohametanism.

I have dutifully used mohametan in place of muzzie since the last time we visited this issue some time back and will continue to do so unless advised that this practice has somehow touched off lethal riots in Lahore or perhaps worked the fearsome "rage boy" into a lather. Please keep me advised should anyone observe these effects.

Thank You

ZK out....

nabi ZK

...be a nabi in only 10 easy lessons or half your money back!...

Posted by: zonie kafir at February 20, 2008 4:00 PM

If I wrote how I really feel about Muslims and especially their residence in the USA, then my comments would be deleted, too, I guess.

Posted by: Bingo at February 20, 2008 4:00 PM

I searched these sites using "Mohammedan" and Mohammadan" and found nothing concerning the usage of that word.

http://islam.tc/ask-imam/index.php

http://islamqa.com/index.php?ln=eng

http://www.islamonline.net/livefatwa/english/Browse.asp?hGuestID=lI2P2A

Posted by: Pelayo at February 20, 2008 4:02 PM

“When enough apostate, the balance will be breached, and Islam will start shrinking...We only need violence as a means of self defense when attacked. Otherwise create an apostate, should be the goal of all informed infidels. The slogan should be, 'have you created an apostate today'? The answer should be, 'yes, several'...”
Posted by: duh_swami

Right on target, swami.

It cannot be repeated often enough, that truth and light are the way to defeat Islam. Islam will self destruct when enough people know who Muhammad was and what he did and when enough people know the true tenets of Islam – from the Qur’an, the Sirat and the Hadith.

The comments section of this site is invaluable in spreading knowledge and clarity about Islam. This is exactly what is needed to counter this self-destructive ideology.

It is somewhat ironic that the greatest danger to Islam, is Infidels spreading the unadulterated truth about this religion - and the greatest favor you can do for a Muslim, is to help free him from his religion.

Kill the Jihadi - educate the Muslim.

Deus Vult!

Posted by: Davegreybeard at February 20, 2008 4:03 PM

So how could a term referring to Islam, a religion not a race, be a racist term? Just askin'...

Posted by: reine.de.tout

I agree with you. Another poster on a different thread raised this question by claiming that the word Mohammedan WAS a racist term, so I was merely trying to get an answer to their objection.

Posted by: champ at February 20, 2008 4:04 PM

Reine and others--

I only checked with Robert and reported back because a couple people had asked. There's no problem with the term.

Posted by: MarisolJW at February 20, 2008 4:04 PM

Try this one also

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

Powerful stuff.

nabi ZK

Posted by: zonie kafir at February 20, 2008 4:12 PM

As Robert well knows, this is a common tactic among the enemies of free speech. You are probably familiar with the case of the dirtball "human rights" lawyer in Canada who posted vile, obscene racist and sexist remarks on a conservative blog so he could then haul the authors of the site into one of Canada's "HRC" kangaroo courts. Just google "lucy warman"

Posted by: Infidel33 at February 20, 2008 4:22 PM

AHMADINEJAB is a patently offensive name!!

Posted by: John C at February 20, 2008 4:22 PM

AHMADINEJAB is a patently offensive name!!

From now on, I insist we use the term, MALIGNANT ENTITY, instead.

Posted by: John C at February 20, 2008 4:26 PM

Like the imams creating their own versions of the Mohammed cartoons in order to incite violence, we see this tactic by many who claim to be on the side of "right". The fact that CAIR et al jump on these so quickly just before interviews etc. is further proof that they know you are correct in your assessment of the Islamic threat Robert.

Can you imagine if someone went on a muslim site and posted disinformation which Robert jumped on and used in an interview? They would all scream about the "fact" that your argument held no water and that it was obviously a false post. Of course that doesn't work when they do it.

This situation clearly shows that you are right on the money Robert. We must all work to identify these false posters.

Posted by: DaveMate at February 20, 2008 4:37 PM

Oh, and Thug-in-Chief to designate MALIGNANT ENTITY'S title and office.

Posted by: John C at February 20, 2008 4:38 PM

Well I'm not going to check the koran every time I post a comment in case it offends the Islamic religion. I can't. I don't have a koran. BUT...they seem to be offended by anything, so CAIR could conceivably (sp?) muzzle us all. Even "good morning" could offend them somehow.

We are a good bunch on here, no one is offensive that I can see. I've learned a lot from here, and so have my friends.

I laugh out loud here too, maybe that's offensive to them, but they can't hear me ;o)

Posted by: gymgal at February 20, 2008 4:42 PM

I don't believe one inch in disabling the blogging on articles. The debates here frequently bring up interesting points and new information, and disabling them would be a loss of a very important forum. Free speech benefits those able to speak sense and discredits those speaking hate. It's good.

As for that 'White pride' thing that has wasted quite a few bytes on American blogs this winter, we Europeans largely shake our heads. There is no such great secret movement gathering monumentum here in Europe. The idea of it is mainly libel on the part of left-wing extremists like EXPO who exploit the scare to implement more totalitarian legislation.

As for any links to anti-Jihad activists in Europe, it gets even more ridiculous. Anti-Jihadists are usually free-market conservatives, 'Rule of law people' and people who take interest in ideologies, not in skin colour. Who cares if someones' skin looks overtanned? Stupid idea. What matters is ideals and behaviour.

If one reads Liberal Fascism, it will be very clear that being a conservative is the diametrically opposite of being a fascist. Which leaves one obvious conclusion: Blaming conservatives for being fascists is libel, perfectly mirroring the approach of Stalin against his opponents.

Now, the US seems to have quite a thing with percieved or claimed racism. And honestly, I have a feeling that this whole debacle about White Pride movements in Europe has been an unhealthy transfer of an unfitting American mindset to Europe.

Anti-Jihadists frequently get that 'racism' charge. Since Islam is an ideology and/or a religion, this charge is patently stupid. I have made a habit of countering the charge with a charge of 'libel'. That usually does the trick, and the mud-slinging subsides.

One may then ponder why this becomes an issue at all, and why it bears any relevance ot anti-Jihad activites. I think it does. The charge of undue discrimination against Muslims has been used even during the time of Muhammad himself, and it has caused much confusion and uncertainty amongst his opponents.

It still does. As one can see in the "Battle of the Trench", Muhammad and the Muslims knew very well how to sow dissent among their enemies. They still do - just watch how the Arabic countries have managed to dissuade us from supporting our natural ally Israel. It's sickening.

Personally, I think we need to learn how to handle various kinds of smears, and not least how to make them backfire. A charge of libel (not necessarily a lawsuit) seems to work well. Documentation is always important. The ultimate solution, of course, is to discredit those who perpetuate the libel.

One needs to develop many skills doing these activities. This one certainly took me by surprise.

Posted by: Henrik at February 20, 2008 6:31 PM

We are already self-censoring. The stink they raise has had a chilling effect.
It is a very sad day when the freedom of thought and expression is muzzled by those who have been in this country such a short time.
Ezra Levant is standing up to them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n3SdV2cwn4
We are going to have to decide just how far we will be pushed.
Are the thought police going to drag us into "interviews" too?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at February 20, 2008 6:32 PM

I've seen only one post that was totally out of character for us as a bunch. It was some crap about waking up Muslim families in the middle of the night and dumping them in the desert with a ham sandwich. No one responded. It was if a leper had suddenly appeared in our midst. No one wanted to have anything to do with him or his post.
Whoever it was elaborated on the thought and apparently waited for some kind of affirmation, which they did not get,...then was gone. No more weird posts.

In retrospect, some one of us, myself included, might shoulda set the beggar straight. On the other hand, I/we might have just been feeding the troll to do so. Now I know to report weirdness of this kind.

As for me personally....I have zero hatred for Muslims. Radical Muslims however, the ones that want so desperately to kill you and I for Islam...those I tend to have a problem with.

I'm not a Christian or a member of any other religion and I have no problem with folks that worship...whatever the hell they want to. I could not care less. It's when your religion calls for me to be put to death because I won't submit to the edicts of your religious leaders...that I'm gonna have a problem with that religion.

I know when someone's been duped by a false religion or cult. Do we blame the people that Jim Jones led to their deaths for their fate? Their faith in a "revered religious leader" sealed their doom. Do we blame Christianity for their deaths? I don't. I blame Jim for perverting it for his own ends. I blame evil Imams and Ayatollahs for seeing Islam as a means to an end, and not a religion. (But then...that's what it was made for...) Islam is, absolutely, the perfect tool for those seeking power over others.

Islam is not the only religion out there that was invented by someone for their own personal benefit. However, the other ones don't call for death to non-believers. They are not a direct threat to my personal freedoms. Islam, by it's very nature, is.

It is a government disguised as a religion. Nothing more. A government that offers nothing and takes everything. Particularly, ones freedom.

Posted by: Alaskan at February 20, 2008 6:34 PM

Well said, Alaskan. Excellent post. It's posts like yours that keep me coming back ;o)

Posted by: gymgal at February 20, 2008 6:38 PM

ašhadu an lā iblis illā-llāh, wa ašhadu muh ammadan rasūlu-iblis

Can you be sued for what I just said?

Posted by: ssa at February 20, 2008 6:39 PM

ssa - perhaps you could translate for our English speaking audience. Did you state: "there is no illah but Allah, and Muhammad is his last prophet"

Is that what you stated?

Posted by: champ at February 20, 2008 6:54 PM

I testify that there is no devil but Allah, and I testify that Mohammed was his apostle.

Posted by: ssa at February 20, 2008 7:03 PM

My only reservation about "Mohammedan" is that it can look like a surrogate term of bigotry even to fair-minded visitors (potential allies) who may stop by to see what the folks against jihad and Islamic supremacy are all about.

To me it's a gray area between "Muzzie" and "Muslim" which should be avoided, not least because -- as others have said -- part of our goal should be to help wavering, conflicted Muslims escape from Islam. [Just imagine trying to escape from Islam if you were born into it?!] If they come here and see "Mohammedan" this and "Mohammedan" that (a term they would not use themselves) then it would probably close them off immediately to what else we might have to say. I worry it may have the same effect on non-aligned visitors as well (more potential allies).

On the other hand, if it's ok with Robert then so be it.

I agree with those who say that closing the comments here would be a defeat for 'Freedom of Voice' against jihad and Islamic supremacism. We need to keep speaking out. We also need to be smart about the words we use so that we are most effective. Many times more people read these comments than post here. The ones who aren't posting are often on the fence. Let's pull instead of push.

Posted by: alexon at February 20, 2008 7:06 PM

Thanks, ssa.

iblis = devil

Got it.

Posted by: champ at February 20, 2008 7:16 PM

Oh, people - and especially after reading all of the above comments - Mohammedan Mohammedan Mohammedan!

After all, they view Mohammed as the "perfect man," so, what could be the offense?

When they take "Infidel" and "Unbeliever" and "Sons of Apes and Pigs" out of the Koran, then, and only then, might I stop saying "Mohammedan."

End of story.

Posted by: darcy at February 20, 2008 7:34 PM

I'm a woman and I sign in here, isn't that offensive enough?

Posted by: Ernst at February 20, 2008 8:08 PM

I'm a woman and I sign in here, isn't that offensive enough?

Posted by: Ernst at February 20, 2008 8:11 PM

Mohammadan is okay, check.

Can we still write marauding, caravan raiding, warmongering, wife-stealing, sex-obsessed polygamist, pedophile, sadistic torturer, slave-owning, thieving, dismembering, mass-murdering, rapist, supremicist, conscious religious imposter?

Thanks.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at February 20, 2008 9:07 PM

"part of our goal should be to help wavering, conflicted Muslims escape from Islam. [Just imagine trying to escape from Islam if you were born into it?!] If they come here and see "Mohammedan" this and "Mohammedan" that (a term they would not use themselves) then it would probably close them off immediately to what else we might have to say."

That's not part of my goal. My goal is to defend non-Muslims from Islam. Period.

If Muslims are so sensitive and thin-skinned and child-like that they get all flustered seeing the term "Mohammedan" on a website devoted to critical analysis of the problem of Islam, then they, as far as I'm concerned, are part of that problem, not part of the solution. Why are you treating Muslims as though they were precious little children in special medical biospheres, alexon?

Too much is at stake for us to walk on eggshells all the time -- not to mention that it insults the intelligence we the West have spent centuries of blood, sweat and tears to build up.

Posted by: cantor at February 20, 2008 9:16 PM

re use of the term Mohammedan, which I also sometimes employ - I concur with the reasoning of darcy, pelayo, John C, and Infidel pride.

It conveys clearly the obvious meaning of 'follower of Mohammed', that is, one who follows or attempts to follow Mohammed's teachings and example; compare terms such as 'Maoist' or 'Stalinist', 'Aristotelian' or 'Confucian', which may be used as adjectives describing things or persons affected by a given ideology or philosophy, or on their own, as proper nouns to designate the persons who practise that ideology or philosophy.

As for offensive comments: Marisol and other official members of the jihadwatch team, have my full permission to delete any posting of mine that crosses the danger line, and to let me know why.

I acknowledge that in a year and more of posting at this site, I may sometimes have given way to anger and harsh language; it is a measure of the fact that the jihadis and their ghastly dream of a planetary caliphate, the whole world hideously remade in the image of Somalia, Gaza, Afghanistan, KSA or Persia, threaten so much that I love.

As wife of a chorister and mother of two budding visual artists and of a daughter who definitely could be called a 'songstress', the strict Islamic ban on music and visual arts makes me shudder, because it directly assails my own family.

Islam's perpetual and persistent, amply documented, explicitly theologised and sanctified practices of physical and psychological violence against women and non-Muslims (as, for example, in sharia, the rape law about four male witnesses, as also the devaluing of the testimony of women and of non-Muslims, and the valuing of the life of a non-Muslim at less than the life of a Muslim ) - grossly offends my sense of justice and of compassion.

I see a mountain of contemporary evidence that a great many people within the Ummah worldwide are determined to institute precisely this system of oppressive violence wherever and whenever they can, either by force or by fraud, unless they are resolutely resisted.

The very thought of the cultural treasures of Europe being destroyed like the Bamiyan Buddhas, like so many other beautiful things destroyed by the Empire of Islam, on three continents, chills me to the bone. I cannot endure the thought of the Sistine Chapel, the Botticellis, the Rembrandts, the Titians and Raphaels, the Pieta and the David or 'St Teresa in Ecstasy', the Rodin 'Burghers of Calais' and 'The Kiss', or the Great Rose Window of Notre Dame de Paris, being smashed or burned or melted down in a delirious orgy of fanatical vandalism. I know that within the Muslim world there are many who would not hesitate to carry out just such acts of vandalism.

From a practical, prudential, political POV - the obvious, often demonstrated fact, that it is virtually impossible to distinguish an aggressive jihadi Muslim [in infiltration mode] from one who is truly unaggressive, and that the latter does at times unpredictably transform into the former - I have concluded that Hugh is right: Infidel polities, in order to preserve the common good, 'the greatest good for the greatest number', should be severely limiting or ending Muslim immigration and may be forced, in sheer self-defence, to consider evicting many of the Muslims already in their midst.

However, I do generally try, in my own mind, to distinguish the ideology - Islam - from the human beings who are more or less entangled in it; recognising that every apostate is one more free, happy human in the world. Every Friday I pray fervently for the defeat of the Jihad - and for the liberation of Muslims from the chains of Islam.

So: to Davegreybeard and duhswami - thank you for the reminder.

Let us give thanks for the long-ago patient, faithful witness of people like Samuel Zwemer; let us be thankful for the unknown persons who helped encourage Bp Nazir-Ali's parents to leave Islam, and others, at a university in England, who assisted in the conversion to Christ of one Patrick Sookhdeo, now Bishop.

I would much rather that Muslims permanently abandoned jihad and sharia, or apostasised altogether, than that the jihadis of both kinds (stealth or open combat) kept pushing and pushing until the non-Muslim world, in sheer self-defence, was compelled to use devastating force against the jihad practitioners, plotters, preachers and enablers.

(But if devastating force becomes necessary for our self-defence, so be it; we had to use such force to defeat Nazism. I am very thankful for the defensive force employed by the Knights of Malta in 1565, the charge of Jan Sobieski and his Polish Hussars at Vienna in 1683, the force employed by the Greeks to free themselves from the Ottoman oppressors, and the Israeli victories in 1949, 1967 and 1973).

The example of the Bahai'i appears to show that it *is* possible for people to maintain some of the elements of Islam - its abstract monotheism, for example - while not practising jihad and sharia. It is probably for that reason that Mr Spencer (perhaps quixotically) continues to urge Muslims to reshape their faith into a non-aggressive form.

However, given that there is little sign of anything like that happening anytime soon, it's best for Infidels to try to maintain and defend large sharia-free, non-dhimmified regions, places to which the defectors from Islam, the Ibn Warraqs and Ayaan Hirsi Alis, Abdul Rahmans and Lina Joys, can flee if they need or want to; and, over the fence, to keep on resolutely telling the truth, no matter what.

PS - I'd feel terribly deprived if comments were closed. I agree with gymgal and marisol - I enjoy the comments of many who post here, people give each other good ideas for the counter-jihad/ counter-dawa campaign, and there's a lot of very useful information-swapping; as a rule we keep each other on track and on our toes, even if at times, in response to some peculiarly awful or bizarre news item, people do resort to black (and sometimes vulgar) humour.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at February 20, 2008 9:40 PM

I was pleased to note Marisol's assurance that we will not be taking down the comments section any time soon.

I agree with many of the comments posted here. In the year or so since I discovered JW (from a link off of foxnews.com) and signed up to have JW/DW sent to my in-box, I have had my eyes opened to the nature of Islam and jihad. Much of that has come from Robert and Hugh, but much more from the many knowledgeable and passionate posters here. Like several of you, I have learned, and I have laughed. I have also cried and I have raged. And I have made an effort to learn more, and to share with my family and friends.

Only recently have I mustered up the courage to 'sign in' and post my own messages. (Hugh, darcy, and dumbledoresarmy welcomed me the first day I posted! Imagine my euphoria!) Alas, after posting, then reading some of my entries, I have been embarrased at my clumsy attempts. (I believe I unintentionally insulted AI, for example, who I respect greatly, and who has provided valuable insight into the jihad being waged in India and China.)

And I know that I insulted a Muslim poster a couple of weeks ago (Hamas says it's ok to lie thread). I started out calling the Hamas charter "filthy", then got a little carried away. I checked, though, and the post is still there, so I'm assuming I didn't break any rules. Still, I regret hurting 'enlightener's feelings. I will try to avoid tirades like that in the future. (Kudos to Awake on that day going into the lion's den [or should I say jackal or hyena's den?] I saw how you took him on over at muslimmatters.)

Long winded, I know, but I wanted to share how important I believe this work is, and the postings in the comments have been a tremendous help and encouragement to me no less than the articles being commented on.

Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at February 20, 2008 10:08 PM

I've been a long-time lurker. This site and its work is important, and so is not being intimidated.

Trying to recall the quote about fooling all of the people all of the time. Trying the same trick simultaneously on LGF, this site, Gateway Pundit, and probably unknown others, is likely to backfire.

It may fool some of the credulous, who are ready to believe any negative assertion about a conservative site. But it will get the attention of thinking people, particularly if it is well documented, and convince many that such maneuvers indicate something to hide. Manufacturing evidence is certainly not evidence of high moral standards, or an ethical approach to "relations".

Not only does it not say anything positive about the religion of those doing it, it is also likely to alienate many who are trying to remain open-minded. Insulting the intelligence of those you desire good "relations" with is not productive, nor is an obvious conspiracy.

In the long run, whose opinion is more valuable? The woolly-thinking individual who gets excited about victimhood, or the independent thinker? Personally I would rather influence the independent thinkers, because they are more likely to be influential themselves. Of course this is more difficult - it requires either sincerity and good reasoning, or that you have something they want.

Posted by: jodetoad at February 21, 2008 12:00 AM

Cantor, that's ok with me if part of your goal isn't to support nominal Muslims trying to become Ex-Muslims. I actually agree with you that job #1 is to defend Non-muslims from Islam. I think that's the primary goal of most everyone here. Rightly so.

But just as the jihad has different facets and points of pressure on us, so should we in the counter-jihad have different facets and points of pressure against them, in my opinion.

We can strive to crush armed militants on the battlefield, demoralize their supporters at home, expose and root out fifth Column jihadists in Non-muslim lands, reduce or eliminate altogether immigration from Muslim countries, monitor and punish sedition from mosques in Non-muslim lands, and -- yes -- encourage nominal Muslims to break free from Islam. All at the same time! Why not?

Cantor, you continue: "If Muslims are so sensitive and thin-skinned and child-like that they get all flustered seeing the term "Mohammedan" on a website devoted to critical analysis of the problem of Islam, then they, as far as I'm concerned, are part of that problem, not part of the solution. Why are you treating Muslims as though they were precious little children in special medical biospheres, alexon?"

Because they are! Though "special medical biosphere" would not be my description, it does convey to some degree the dense fog of submission and mind control Islam smothers its followers with. It's such an all-encompassing domination that many Muslims have nothing but... Islam.

So, yes, many of them cling to it like frightened little children fearing the obliteration of everything they've ever known and trusted. And with good reason, because that is exactly what it means to break free of Islam! It's not something one wakes up one morning vowing to check off on the "To Do" list later that day. It is a long and difficult journey.

I'm not saying that a great number of such journeys begin with a visit to jihadwatch.org, but hopefully a few do. It's not hurt feelings that concern me, but rather an atomosphere of unrelenting hostility which makes no distinction between Islam and those who are simply (sadly) born into it and know no other way.

Believe me, I struggle with this myself too, not unleashing the hounds of hell against all things Islam or Muslim. [Against armed militants, by all means unleash the hounds of hell!]. It's damn hard to control the anger when one is aware of all the horrible crimes committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. But most Non-muslims aren't aware of the extent of these crimes, which brings me to my main point:

I'm actually I'm even more concerned about Non-muslim visitors who stop by to see what we're about here. If they just read a topic or two and then click on the comments section they may well be taken aback and turned away by the level of hostility towards all things Islamic and Muslim.
The "Mohammedan" descriptions may appear especially odd as they are encountered virtually nowhere else, and nowhere used here with anything but contempt. I just don't want us falling into the trap of those trying to marginalize us as bigoted "Islamophobes" by us sounding the part.

Posted by: alexon at February 21, 2008 3:19 AM

nabi ZK here...

The nabific one has certainly been guilty of using the term "mohametan" with contempt, as is only appropriate. We must not fall into the trap of conveying any respect any all for the evil mohametan system which by definition considers us as inferior and to be brutalized. I am sorry to say but contempt is what I feel in this instance. Let the others Kowtow if they want but I spit into the face of allen and will never patronize his cursed snackbar.

ZK out...

nabi ZK

Posted by: zonie kafir at February 21, 2008 5:08 AM

ssa, you happen to be referring to the 2nd meeting at Al-Aqabah where the Muslims at a secret meeting deep in the night pledged that they would wage war against all mankind, no matter how evil their circumstances?

Satan was, according to Islamic scripture (Al-Tabari) present at that meeting.

Posted by: Henrik at February 21, 2008 8:20 AM

"Only recently have I mustered up the courage to 'sign in' and post my own messages. (Hugh, darcy, and dumbledoresarmy welcomed me the first day I posted! Imagine my euphoria!)" --Lt. Presley O'Bannon.

Thanks for the mention, Lieutenant. I'm flattered you remembered!

P.S. Thanks for protecting our great land - so very appreciated.

Posted by: darcy at February 21, 2008 8:49 AM

"If they just read a topic or two and then click on the comments section they may well be taken aback and turned away by the level of hostility towards all things Islamic and Muslim." --alexon

Gee, I wonder why that is, the level of hostility! Let me think really hard now!

"The "Mohammedan" descriptions may appear especially odd as they are encountered virtually nowhere else, and nowhere used here with anything but contempt." --alexon

That's not true. I have seen the description "Mohammedan" in many, many places all over the 'net. Next, I use the term Mohammedan because they actually worship Mo since allah the pagan moon god is non-existent. As far as "contempt" goes, I *am* contemptuous, scornful, skeptical and disdainful of Islam for many, many, many good reasons. Why shouldn't we be contemptuous of an evil ideology that promotes the killing of everyone else so as to achieve world domination? I mean, hello!

Third, I couldn't care less if some imbecile considers me an Islamophobe!

Finally, methinks you sound suspiciously like an Apologist, alexon. You're just going about it a bit more subtly than Nauseum (Naseem), with all your proclaimed "concern."

"nabi ZK here...

The nabific one has certainly been guilty of using the term "mohametan" with contempt, as is only appropriate. We must not fall into the trap of conveying any respect any all for the evil mohametan system which by definition considers us as inferior and to be brutalized. I am sorry to say but contempt is what I feel in this instance. Let the others Kowtow if they want but I spit into the face of allen and will never patronize his cursed snackbar."

ZK out...

nabi ZK

Posted by: zonie kafir at February 21, 2008 5:08 AM

Right on, nabific one!

Posted by: darcy at February 21, 2008 9:05 AM

You're welcome, Darcy.

I really appreciate your thoughts and some of the links you provide. Keep up the noble work!

Posted by: Lt. Presley O'Bannon at February 21, 2008 11:44 AM

Thanks darcy

Had to be said.

nabi ZK

Posted by: zonie kafir at February 21, 2008 12:32 PM

"Gee, I wonder why that is, the level of hostility! Let me think really hard now!" -- Darcy

You read only what you want to read Darcy. I know EXACTLY why there is such hostility and contempt here! I share in the hostility and contempt!

But I'm also aware of the FACT that many people who come to this site are not steeped in the knowledge of all the crimes committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, both today and throughout history.

My goal is to EXPAND the awareness and anti-jihad alliance by being smart about how the language used here can affect new visitors who are NOT already on board.

You and some others here seem content to have an angry echo-chamber of club members who reinforce and intensify each others views and passions. And so the passions boil and swirl and everyone in the club feels the solidarity and strength of like-minded fighters.

That's all well and good up to a point if it makes us feel stronger, more committed etc. But the danger is that we lose out on a MUCH larger pool of fair-minded, effective, but UN-committed people who visit here and are turned away by the hothouse atmosphere and rash polemics which do flare up with some regularity. Of course there are plenty of quality posts and posters too who make this site an invaluable resource in the anti-jihad resistance. And yes some of those posts are angry too. It's all about how the anger is best applied, and language most effectively employed, to further the cause.

"Finally, methinks you sound suspiciously like an Apologist, alexon. You're just going about it a bit more subtly than Nauseum (Naseem), with all your proclaimed "concern."

Darn it all Darcy, you have unmasked me. Yes, Naseem is one of my wives and I am actually a "Mohammedan" apologist based in Saudi Arabia.

Darcy, you may not be an Islamophobe but methinks you are certainly an imbecile.

Posted by: alexon at February 21, 2008 3:36 PM

Keep imagining you are furthering the cause if it feels good.

Posted by: alexon at February 21, 2008 3:38 PM

alexon, I agree, and disagree, with your argument in terms of degree.

When comments become more Little-Green-Footballish, then I agree that can have the effect of dismaying and alienating potential allies, people whose minds are still capable of being open and who are on that journey probably most of us already have gone through, that journey out of the PC MC box we all assumed was the right way to frame this whole issue.

On the other hand, I think you are casting the net too widely. The kinds of anger and emotion that I see on Jihad Watch only rarely, it seems to me, cross the line into the LGF-ish chest-thumping stridency and near-hysteria. And therefore, to me, 98% of those JW posts that exhibit "rage and pride" (in the Oriana Fallaci sense) will not alienate anybody of reasonable intelligence and good will -- and the majority of posts don't even exhibit that anyway. Another subcategory of possibly alienating posts are the kind of winking, cliquish wickedly light-hearted jabs at Islam and Muslims too often, in my view, coming off with rather lamely embarrassing humor: when there are too many of these, and when they pop up too frequently on too many different threads, they have an aggregate effect of conveying the impression that those who participate in the Jihad Watch community are something of a glib rabble who express their thoughts & feelings against Muslims in a way that resembles, superficially, the way white racists talk about blacks, etc. I wouldn't want to force people not to express themselves in this glib fashion, but I wish they did it less often.

Posted by: cantor at February 21, 2008 4:25 PM

Cantor, I have to agree with most everything you've said this time. I've never actually visited LGF (tried once and found the interface was disagreable to me).
From what I've heard you are right that LGF has many times the amount of vitriol found here. And by comparison to that I probably am casting the net too widely, and overstating the amount of hostility here. Of course it depends on what's in the news that day. As I've said before, I can be plenty vitriolic myself when stirred up. Islamic atrocities do often qualify for appropriate (not hysterical and counterproductive) anger. Hopefully something beyond venting though that's not a bad thing either necessarily, depending on the particulars.

I also agree with you about the other "subcategory of possibly alienating posts" which you describe so perfectly that I could not hope to improve on it.

My only small caveat with what you've said is your estimate that "98% of those JW posts that exhibit 'rage and pride' ... will not alienate anybody of reasonable intelligence and good will." I do think the percentage is a bit lower than that, but not significatly so, and your point is well taken.

You are right that the much higher percentage of alienating posts to people of good will and reasonable intelligence will come in the form of those winky, clubby, high school level posts that add nothing of value to whatever is on topic, and in fact have the opposite effect on most intelligent viewers. But I also agree that they should not be banned. A few reminders to try to stay on topic, and with substance, might be in order though occasionally from the powers that be.

I'll check in later tonight or tomorrow to field the personal attacks which are probably coming my way from Darcy and friends.

Posted by: alexon at February 21, 2008 7:15 PM

nabi ZK will take that as a personal attack. A terrible fate may possibly await you in the next world. And then again maybe not.

ZK out

Posted by: zonie kafir at February 21, 2008 10:11 PM

Touche ZK.

Posted by: alexon at February 22, 2008 1:11 AM

Well, we've got to ban something. How about "LOL" ?!

Posted by: alexon at February 22, 2008 1:14 AM

alexon, nabi ZK believes in mocking those who will not be mocked. And so from merely zonie kafir, I, nabi ZK, have become nabi ZK, nabi to the mohametan trolls, founder of the "Famous Nabi's International Correspondence School" where you can be a nabi in onlyten easy lessons.

All this was in response to one of our more frequent trolls. who has been consistently predicting our future lives as mohametans. Of course this troll is not a prophet, according to mohametanism, since mohamet was the last. So by the mohametan belief system the troll has no way to know the future and can not refute this fact from within the belief system.

Also this claim of nabiwat on my part is a contradiction of the mohametan system and by making it I, nabi ZK, am implicitly showing that I do not subscribe to mohamet's claim. I am saying that this belief system is bunk and he is no more a prophet than I. Of course, I am not a real prophet, but I play one on the internet. And so this has become too much fun to stop.

On the flip side, I have seen one person, an American convert, apparently abandon mohametanism under the influence of the various posters here, so your point is well taken that it might be possible to influence peoples thinking here. It is possible and it happens every day that someone learns something useful here. I do believe that the best information is in the articles and also some of the posts by Hugh and others, who are both expert and eloquent. People will respond to that if anything.

People understand that the comments section is subject to yahoo's. Who, besides CAIR while trying to attack the integrity of the site, would attribute the comments to the site owners. It is clear that the comments are open for anyone at all to contribute and so yahoo's are to be expected. Again, most people will understand that.

Also, we do not see calls to mass murder of mohametans in this forum. Not only have the hosts made it clear that this is not appropriate, but the regulars are in agreement. There are no Nazi's here. And there is no hate speech directed at causing hatred, or god forbid violence, towards mohametans, who are after all the first victims of this evil cult system.

nabi ZK

...a nabi you should trust...

Posted by: zonie kafir at February 22, 2008 3:09 PM

Nabi ZK,

Nice. Well said.

And trust the nabi...not a Wahabbi

Posted by: boneshack at February 22, 2008 10:41 PM

Nabi ZK,

Nice. Well said.

And trust the nabi...not a Wahabbi

Posted by: boneshack at February 22, 2008 10:42 PM

"ZK believes in mocking those who will not be mocked"

I do know where you're coming from. The notion that Islam is of some special status which exempts it from questioning and criticism is both absurd and infuriating. And yes, it makes an even more inviting target because of it.

Awhile back I too decided that mockery was a very effective weapon in this fight. I posted about "Oolah" and lots of other stuff like that. It's like, You know how precious your Religion of War and Aggression is to me? It's Nothing! It's Crap! Fvck You!!

A lot of the time I still feel that way but I've reduced my indulgence of it here. Why? Because I worry that in volume it turns away serious, substantive Non-muslim visitors who could add real firepower to our ranks) who might otherwise stay and join our cause. And it probably invites non-serious visitors to stay and join in.

This is not a dig at you ZK. I still think mockery is a fun and effective tool. It's just the quantity of it here in the comments field I question. I say No More Laughter! [No, just kidding, I'm not saying that].

You're right that "the best information is in the articles and also some of the posts by Hugh and others." Is the substantive output by those "others" diminishing though? I've been here a few years now and it seems to me that it is diminishing. In other words, are the "Yahoos" you mention, crowding out the substance?

LOL! ...no, not really LOL. that's part of the problem. Ban LOL! no, not really that either.

Before I depart for the night I will leave with a follow-up (or is it a foul-up?) to one thing I said in an earlier post where I talked about how many Muslims are indeed like little children. "Frightened little children" no less. Not a bad way of putting it, but in the case of those little adult/child Muslims with AK-47s and suicide belts and mortars etc., I don't give a damn how childish their attachment to Islam is, kill them before they kill us. In other words, I'm making no excuses or special allowances for anyone with a black heart and murder in mind. It's kind of like those old horror movies with little "Chuckie" the red-haired mini-terror. Yeah he's just a child, sort of, but if he's hacking away at your ankles then something needs to be done about it. LOL! no. go.

Posted by: alexon at February 23, 2008 2:54 AM

Thank you nabi boneshack for the positive feedback on my rantings. Perhaps one day I, nabi ZK, will have a cool cult like mohamet and then I, nabi ZK, will for sure be getting, like, all the chicks then.

nabi ZK

...go ahead and ask me for a fatwa...I, nabi ZK, dare you...double dare even...

Posted by: zonie kafir at February 23, 2008 2:32 PM

Given the Islamic obsession with their prophecy-less 'prophet', it would actually seem that the word 'Mohammadan' would be in order. They talk a *lot* more about Muhammad than about Allah.

I've written a commentary about the resurgent Muhammad cartoon crisis at EuropeNews.

It looks like Denmark is in for another round of escalation. Now they teach children to kill cartoonists!

My conclusion: ANY aid to any organisation in the Palestinian area should be made contingent on stopping this kind of vitriolic hate. This is, honestly, on the level of HitlerJugend.

Posted by: Henrik at February 26, 2008 9:38 AM