| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Extremely combative
The Italian magazine Polizia e Democrazia interviewed me for their August/September 2008 issue, in which they describe me as "un neocon americano che ha raggiunto una notevole notorietà con i suoi libri (sette) e un sito estremamente combattivo aggiornato quotidianamente." That is, "an American neocon who has gained remarkable notoriety with his books (seven) and an extremely combative website updated daily."
Neocon. Extremely combative. You get the idea. Here is the English text of their questions as I received them, and the answers I sent them. This was an email interview, so bear in mind as you read it that all the questions were sent to me beforehand in the order in which I answered them -- none were formulated in response to anything I answered. So the question about whether my gay or feminist friends ever suggest I build bridges was not talking about Chesler or Bawer, but about the hypothetical gays and feminists appalled by my work that the interviewer had in mind.
In your website you say you are from the muslim world and that you were impressed by your own grandparents tales. Could you tell more?My grandparents were exiles from the Ottoman Empire. They used to describe their life there in glowingly positive terms. My grandmother spoke of the beauty of the muezzin’s call to prayer when she heard it in the early morning. These stories fascinated me and awakened a hunger in me to know more about that part of the world.
How this childhood memory impact your actual work?
It led to my study of the region in general and ultimately to my study of Islam.
If you can say, what is actually your faith, if you have one?
I am a Melkite Greek Catholic.
Have you ever thought in the past that the jihad/Islamic problem was going to become so important? Were there in the past some warning signs even you didn’t read?
In 1979, during the Iranian hostage crisis at the US Embassy in Tehran, I was a freshman in college. This was the first indication I had that the inchoate political forces (as I understood then) that had led to my grandparents’ exile may have had something to do with the dominant religion of the region as well. It appeared to me then that this problem was very large and was going to grow. But I did not at that time fully grasp the import of this “warning sign” or others that occurred in those years.
Were you, in the past, interested by other kinds of religious fundamentalisms?
I was and remain interested in religions in general.
You speak a lot about “moral equivalence”. Could you better describe what you mean by that?I do not believe that the teachings of all religions are equal in their capacity to inspire violence – or in their capacity to inspire anything else, for that matter. Yet it is a common claim that the problem we face is one of “fundamentalism” in general, not of the Islamic jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism in particular. Yet where is the Christian Al-Qaeda? The Christian 9/11 hijackers? The Christian preachers exhorting their followers to murder? That is what I mean by moral equivalence. It saps our will to face the real challenge and diverts our attention to problems of far less importance and scope.
Can you drive a distinction between groups and individuals who says every religion can be right-wing and totalitarian but do nothing against it and those ones who actually denounce and fight against all kinds of religious extremisms?
I don’t believe, as I just stated, that all “religious extremisms” are equal in their capacity to incite their adherents to violence and mayhem. There have been over 11,000 violent attacks worldwide committed in the name of Islam and jihad since 9/11. How many violent attacks have been committed by other “religious extremists”?
What are your personal opinion about antiabortion terrorists or about Hindu extremists?
I oppose them, and observe that they are useful in promoting moral equivalence arguments that distract people from the reality of the global jihad. The disparity is particularly glaring in connection with the murders of abortion doctors, when one puts the handful of these murders and the universal condemnation of them by Christian leaders against the thousands of jihad attacks and the vague and loophole-ridden condemnations of terrorism (not jihad or Islamic supremacism) by Islamic leaders, and claims that both are examples of equivalent “religious extremisms.”
Do you support the separation of religion from politics and if so do you support it only when Islam is involved or in any case?
It depends on what you mean by the separation of religion from politics. If you mean the banishment of all religious principles per se from the public debate, I do not support that when it comes to any religion. In a pluralistic republic religious people should have as much right as anyone else to put forward their views in the public square. If, however, you mean that the state should not establish a particular religion, I very strongly support the principle of non-establishment of religion as enunciated by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In the particular case of Islam, there is no traditional sacred/secular distinction, and a denial of the proposition that government should be organized along anything but religious lines. This is a threat to the principle of non-establishment of religion, which I believe has been uniquely valuable in enabling people of differing views to live in harmony with one another without trying to establish hegemony over one another or do violence to the other’s way of life. It should be recognized as such.
You say you want to protect the judeo-christian civilisation. May I assume you don’t like so much secular states or you just think secularism is not strong enough?
I like secular states, i.e., ones in which there is no governmental establishment of religion, very much. This idea in itself is a product of Judeo-Christian principles going back to Jesus’ saying “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.” It is no accident that this principle did not take root in the Islamic world except under Western influence. I have written that Westerners, even atheists and secularists, need to regain an awareness of their being the children and heirs of a civilization – a Judeo-Christian civilization – that has value and is worth defending and preserving. In contrast, if by “secularism” you mean the thoroughgoing relativism and cultural self-hatred that pervades so much of the West today, then yes, certainly, I do not believe it has the slightest chance of standing up to the Islamic supremacist challenge.
Many people and among them many politicians, expecially catholics and evangelicals are re-descovering their faith identity now. Do you think it’s genuine gesture or just another way of mixing religion with politics, a sort of “my identity against your identity”. Wouldn’t it be better if religion was just an intimate personal thing?
It is impossible to generalize without knowing to which politicians you are referring. In any case, the main obstacle, albeit still generally unrecognized, to religion being “just an intimate personal thing” is not Western identity politics but the Islamic supremacist ideology.
What do you think about the French strict secular laws? At least you can admit the islamist problem there is less strong than in Holland or in the Uk.
I don’t think that would be an accurate admission at all, given the simmering violence of French “youths.” France’s strict secular laws have done nothing to end that violence – although the failure of France to deal adequately with this problem actually has nothing to do with French secularism as such.
Do you believe that human rights are universal?
Yes.
From the comments on your websites you accuse women’s and gay rights supporters of being busy with “petty causes”. Why equal pay at work, child care, reproductive freedom or civil unions should be petty causes? And, once again, wouldn’t be more positive to incite these movements to broaden their agenda without giving up the domestic issues?
Since that is not language that I use and I don’t recall saying it, I just did a search at my websites for the phrase “petty causes.” It does not, in fact, appear in anything I have written.
Do you have feminist friends?
Yes.Gay and lesbian friends?
Yes.
If so what do they think about your work?
They are uniformly supportive. Allow me to refer you to the work of my friend and pioneering feminist Phyllis Chesler. In her book The Death of Feminism she offers a harrowing personal narrative and a unique feminist perspective on women and Islam. She and I cowrote a monograph last year, The Violent Oppression of Women In Islam. I was also deeply honored to count as my friend the great Oriana Fallaci, who was a feminist in the truest and best sense. For a gay perspective on Islamic jihad supremacism, I can recommend the work of Bruce Bawer, especially his maginificent book While Europe Slept. I do not know him well, but he and I have been in friendly contact over the last few years after meeting at a conference in The Hague, and I am a great admirer of his work.
Do they ever suggest you to build bridges?
Feminists and gays who oppose resistance to Islamic jihad supremacism do not realize how much it will victimize them.
Do you support reproductive freedom for women? I mean, after all in almost all Islamic countries abortion is illegal or severely limited, pre and post natal care is not well funded, contraception is not widely known and maternal health is poor.
What I find very strange about this issue is that the same people (Vatican, evangelical groups) that denounce Islamic extremism ally themselves with Islamic states at the Un conferences just to keep abortion illegal. Is this issue so important for them that they forget everything and lie with the enemy?
What is your opinion about all this?I oppose abortion, but I believe that the survival of free societies is at stake, and have not hesitated to ally with those who support it in defense against the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. The groups that ally with Islamic countries to defeat abortion initiatives may be entering into similar alliances with those with whom they disagree on other issues. In any case, Western abortion advocates are whistling in the dark if they think they will be able to convince large numbers of Muslims to get abortions if Islamic authorities forbid it.
It’s been a decade or so that Islam is all the time in the media. Whetever in a positive or negative light everyone is obsessed by islam. Why so?
Because there are violent Islamic supremacist movements dedicated to the subjugation of non-Muslims as inferiors all over the globe, from Indonesia across Asia and into Africa (particularly Nigeria), and of course Europe.
Religion and cultural journalists also write about it all the time. One can ask if there is anything else worth of importance. Why what a muslim girl says is considered more important or newsworthy than, for example, a Mennonite girl or a Lutheran lady?
Because there are no armed Mennonite or Lutheran groups around the world dedicated to the subjugation of non-Mennonites or non-Lutherans under the rule of Mennonite or Lutheran law.
Don’t you think that this importance of the so-called Islamic world has been shaped, at least in part, by western media?
No. In fact, the mainstream Western media has done everything it could to downplay or ignore altogether the Islamic element of jihad violence.
Speaking about the Islamic world, do you really think this is a sort of monolithe?
No, and I have never claimed otherwise.
Moderate muslims. Once again I would say the press is to blame. Journalists and experts talk all the time about moderate muslims but no one has ever come up with a definition of sort. Why?
Because all the orthodox sects of Islam and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. What, then, is a moderate? Someone who is not waging jihad at the moment? A jihadist who is practicing Muhammad’s dictum “war is deceit” and trying to lull infidels into thinking there is no jihad threat? A lax or nominal Muslim who doesn’t care to wage jihad? An ignorant Muslim who doesn’t know about jihad? A genuinely reformist Muslim who rejects the violent and supremacist elements of traditional Islam? Most journalists and experts use the term “moderate Muslim” imprecisely and without definition because they don’t even know enough about Islam to ask the proper questions of these “moderates” or even to know what they should expect from them?
Personally I like more progressive muslims. It’s not simply a matter of words. In my own experiences with them as a journalist they really are genuine and concrete.
What do you think about them?You’d have to give me a specific example of whom you have in mind.
In the forum of your website left-leaning people and progressives are attacked all the time. While it’s true many progressive are now inconsistent some actually are. So why throwing the baby with the water?
I have stated many times that the anti-jihad resistance is not a liberal or conservative, Right/Left issue, but a matter of civilizational survival. However, the leftist/jihadist alliance we see in many places, and the general “progressive” refusal to see any problem beyond “American imperialism” has been noted.
Even in politics democrats are depicted as bad guys far more often than republicans.
Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosy and Edwards, for example, have a perfect record on Israel. What’s so wrong with them?None of the people have mentioned have demonstrated any awareness of the larger jihad threat.
Speaking about politics I assume you like McCain.
You assume wrong.
Did you like Clinton?
No.
And why not Obama. If he was so dangerous for Israel would ever have he been at Aipac? Many jewish who consider Israel important support him.
I don’t think Obama has any greater awareness of the global jihad threat than McCain (or Clinton).
Besides that what would be the good running mate for both of them? [This interview took place before the running mates were chosen.]
I don’t have any interest in this, and have no answer for it. Neither party in the U.S. has shown that as an entity it has any understanding of the global jihad, or any comprehensive plan to deal with it. No candidate does either.
Let’s talk about the Middle East. Why the Islamic religious factor is so rarely taken into consideration by experts and diplomats? And why what is a low-level conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is considered the most pressing issue in the world?
I suspect that most experts and diplomats don’t take the Islamic religious factor into account because they don’t understand the nature of religious appeal in general, and so they underestimate its power in the Islamic world. The importance of the Palestinian issue in world politics is a tribute to the massive propaganda effort the Palestinian Arabs and the Islamic world has undertaken with immense focus and intensity since the 1960s.
Why people who really suffer such as darfuri people and indigenous tribes all over the world receive so little attention? How Palestinians have become “the victims” who deserve all the attention and support?
The Darfuris are victims of jihad – a jihad by “authentic” Arab Muslims against black African cultural Muslims. The victims of jihad have no advocates – the UN is in the hip pocket of the OIC, and the West doesn’t want to antagonize the Islamic world further by saying anything about Islam or acting on behalf of its victims, even if they themselves are Muslims. The Palestinian Arabs, on the other hand, are the focus of a vast and immense, decades-long propaganda effort that has been undertaken by jihadists to further the cause of Islamic jihad.
Is the Pro-Israel movement becoming effective? Or sometimes it’s over suspicious and paranoid?
I don’t think it has been very effective in recent years, but would not accuse it of over-suspicion and paranoia. It is facing an extremely sophisticated, well-heeled, and little-understood opponent.
Palestinians have the support of the entire Islamic world and number matters. Same goes with the jihadist activities or Islamic movements. One can say: “It’s the numbers, stupid!” What can be done to block or make less dangerous a way of thinking that has so many followers?
First: expose it. Show Westerners what is happening. What to do then will follow from that.
You got a lot of e-mails from muslims themselves. Aside from the hate-filled ones and the supporting ones, what the others say?
Hate-filled on the one hand and supportive on the other covers it fairly well.
Did you ever get hate mail from non-muslims?
Yes.
Have you ever experienced dangerous situations?
Yes.
Is your safety protected?
Usually I have a guard or two with me when I speak.
How is affecting your personal and family life?
I do not speak about my personal and family life in public.
And, above all, is it worth it?
Of course. It isn’t as if I am not going to die if I don’t do this. Have you ever heard of the adage, “Give me liberty or give me death”? Have you ever heard that the signers of the American Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to their cause? Have you ever heard that Dr. Martin Luther King stated that if you have nothing for which you are willing to die, you have no reason to live?
How, according your experiences, are the ways of reacting to the islamist problem of atheists and agnostics, of conservative Christians, of progressive Christians, jewish and believers of other faiths. Do you see a similar reaction from each distinct group?
Atheists and agnostics generally tend to think it is a generalized problem of fundamentalism, and are indifferent to it or think it can all be solved by adjustments of U.S. foreign policy. That goes also for progressive Christians and liberal Jews.
Conservative Christians and Jews, with some notable exceptions, generally have a greater awareness of the threat.Speaking about policy makers in Europe. Why they are so obsessed in accommodating radical muslims demands? Sometimes they go even further than islamists themselves. Is it a state of mind or what?
They see the writing on the wall. They know what group will have electoral majorities before too long.
Going at the foreign policy level, Islamic states can dictate the law because of oil and oil is an issue rarely mentioned by anti-islamists activists. Why?
I mention it all the time. We have to get free of it. There should have been a Manhattan Project to find alternative energy sources begun years ago.
Do you support the spread of renewable energies? Recently Israel is going in that direction. Good for the environment and good for our safety. Wouldn’it be perfect?
I am in favor of anything that would free the West from dependence upon oil.
Aside from fighting against Islamists, are there other issues dear to you? Which ones?
No other issue is as important to me, and I don’t spend any time working on any other issue.
Could you describe your typical day?
Typing.
What are the things in which you find solace?
I like music very much, although I no longer play.What is the opinion you have of Italy, according to news reports you get?
The situation there is dire, as it is all over Europe, but not as bad as it is in northern Europe.
What are the states that give you the most hope in the western world and the ones that make you despair? Choose the best and the worst from the Islamic world too.
It would be oversimplifying to the point of inaccuracy to provide any such continuum for either the West or the Islamic world. There are currents that are encouraging and discouraging all over – for example, in Turkey secularism is gravely threatened, but there has also been a significant demonstration of support for it.
Are police forces answering correctly to islamists? Is there a difference between police officers who are on duty and see the real things and the upper police establishment? Do you see trends? What would you suggest?
In general law enforcement officials do not recognize this problem and are learning from appeasers and stealth jihadists. The officers on duty in general have a better awareness than do their superiors. The trend in this, if anything, is toward even more political correctness and unwillingness to face the reality of the problem. I would suggest that law enforcement officials gain the courage to face reality, however politically incorrect it may be – and fire all their advisers on this issue, replacing them with people who actually know what is going on and will tell them.
Posted by Robert at October 13, 2008 8:16 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Bravissimo!
Posted by: Pilgrim![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 13, 2008 9:04 PM
Robert, God bless you and your courage to stand up for what is right. I can reccomend that the more adversarial your interviewer is in their heart of hearts, the more juxtaposing and defined your righteousness becomes. Without the darkness, your light would become more and more difuse.
Posted by: enough is enough at October 13, 2008 9:04 PM
The filter through which the questions came was very obvious - a common set of misconceptions which Robert neatly skewered. I suspect quite a few readers will have had the veil lifted from their eyes by Robert's responses.
Posted by: Brett_McS at October 13, 2008 9:15 PM
Sir
that was, to quote Ron Weasley, "b*****y brilliant!"
They laid out a minefield for you and you did not step in a single one.
In so doing, you explained what you are all about, with a clarity that is beautiful to behold.
No rational human being, reading this, could ever conclude that you are racist, or a 'hater'.
My fellow jihadwatchers - this interview is a 'keeper'. Copy, keep, and share with anyone who asks, 'well, what's this Robert Spencer fellow all about, anyway?'.
The statements on jihad and dhimmitude on the homepage of this website are excellent, but this interview, with its somewhat hostile leading questions, is brief and dramatic, without leaving out anything important.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 13, 2008 9:20 PM
And this is the kind of thing the Italian press wants to know? Did they ask you whether you preferred boxers to briefs, Robert?
I stopped reading right after the inquiries about your gay and lesbian friends. What an inane bunch of questions, and, can't they afford a translator?
You were wonderful, but the exercise was, in my opinion, pure crap.
Posted by: Abscedere at October 13, 2008 9:24 PM
"They laid out a minefield for you and you did not step in a single one."
Dumbledoresarmy,
Yeah, what you said!
at October 13, 2008 9:28 PM
And, above all, is it worth it?
Of course. It isn’t as if I am not going to die if I don’t do this. Have you ever heard of the adage, “Give me liberty or give me death”? Have you ever heard that the signers of the American Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to their cause? Have you ever heard that Dr. Martin Luther King stated that if you have nothing for which you are willing to die, you have no reason to live?
Robert, you humble us all, this world needs more people like you.
at October 13, 2008 9:55 PM
Samurai swordsmanship!
Posted by: poetcomic1 at October 13, 2008 10:04 PM
There's that orange shirt again. What is the hidden meaning?
Posted by: Stendec at October 13, 2008 10:04 PM
The tendentious interviewer, Gianni Verdoliva, begins with some preliminary remarks, designed to frame the q-and-a, or more accurately, the botta-e-risposta that follows, so that readers will "receive" it all in just the "right" way, the way that Gianni Verdoliva wants them to.
Here are those remarks, untranslated, in which repeatedly, and idiotically, Robert Spencer is referred to as a "neocon" as if he had ever been enthusiastic about the sentimental messianism of bringing "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in Iraq or elsewhere in the lands ruled by Muslims:
"Presentiamo Robert Spencer, un neocon
americano che ha raggiunto una notevole
notorietà con i suoi libri (sette) e un sito
estremamente combattivo aggiornato
quotidianamente. Personaggio più che
controverso e discutible, la sua campagna
contro l’estremismo islamico non conosce
sfumature. Fra i candidati alla presidenza
non simpatizza né con Obama né con MacCain
,“Ti invito ad accettare la Bill of Rights ed a entrare nella fratellanza di Thomas Jefferson e James Madison. Il mio invito non riguarda la mia religione anche se lo estendo anche a quella, ma ad uno stato di diritto in cui le persone di fedi diverse possano vivere in pace, armonia e rispetto reciproco, a patto che nessun gruppo coltivi ambizioni di supremazia per sottomettere gli altri”. Questa è stata la risposta di Robert Spencer, autore di sette libri sull’Islam, all’invito ad aderire all’Islam che gli era stato rivolto nel settembre del 2006 da Adam Gadahn, portavoce di al-Qaeda. Non poteva che essere altrimenti visto che Spencer si è ormai buttato a peso morto a combattere l’estremismo islamico. Accusato di essere razzista ed islamofobo, Spencer cura il sito Internet Jihadwatch, il cui obbiettivo è documentare ed esporre tutte le attività, dalle più violente fino alle poco manifeste ma insidiose, degli islamisti. Una sorta di rassegna stampa quotidiana antislamica, con tanto di commento e di forum. Sicuramente non si può negare a Spencer di conoscere la materia. I versetti del Corano sono da lui snocciolati ed identificati con precisione certosina. Quello che colpisce è l’atteggiamento assolutista, condiviso da tanti altri neo-con statunitensi ma non solo. Spencer infatti divide il mondo in due parti: da una parte l’occidente e dall’altra il mondo islamico. Aderendo cosi’ alla visione manicheistica del mondo propugnata dagli islamisti. Ovviamente il posto dei buoni e dei cattivi cambia ma lo stile di pensiero improntato allo scontro “noi contro loro” rimane.
Colpisce inoltre il fastidio mostrato quando si prova a ricordare che, più spesso di quanto non si pensi, gli odiati islamisti fanno affari ed alleanze con gli odiati occidentali. Ad esempio per quanto riguarda il petrolio. Certamente Spencer e i suoi sostenitori possono desiderare l’indipendenza energetica ma a livello di azioni concrete in tal senso non si riscontra l’energia che invece tale tematica dovrebbe avere. A livello poltico, anche se questo è un appunto che si può fare più ai suoi sostenitori che a Spencer stesso, i politici democratici sono quasi sempre criticati in maniera feroce. Poco importa se invece abbiano mostrato coraggio e leadership in questioni delicate. Come è il caso della speaker della Camera dei rappresentati Nancy Pelosi che, nel suo ultimo viaggio in Medio Oriente, aveva chiesto a gran voce la liberazione dei soldati israeliani rapiti ed aveva indossato le loro targhette durante gli incontri con i diplomatici giordani e sauditi. E, ultimamente, durante il congresso di Hadassah, l’organizzazione delle donne ebree sioniste, ha ricordato a chiare lettere come il pericolo del nucleare iraniano non sia affatto da sottovalutare. Viene quasi il sospetto che la Pelosi non piaccia solo ed esclusivamente perché democratica e progressista.
In un altro caso Spencer dimostra la stessa incoerenza di cui accusa gli altri. Mettere sullo stesso piano il fatto che lui faccia alleanze con gruppi progressisti che sostengono l’aborto legale con l’alleanza fatta da gruppi cristiani con gli islamisti che uccidono gli apostati, le adultere, gli omosessuali, ecc., lascia francamente perplessi. Detto questo i contenuti del sito, specie quelli legati all’attualità, sono comunque degni di nota. Sicuramente è innegabile che molti politici occidentali si piegano alle richieste degli islamici. E che la campagna di violenza islamista non conosce tregua. Grazie anche, questo è davvero opportuno ricordarlo, ai proventi finanziari del petrolio.
L’intransigenza dell’autore rischia però di allontanare possibili simpatie, anche parziali. Le mie domande irriverenti sono state giudicate “ostili” nel corso dello scambio di mail che ha preceduto l’intervista. Inoltre il suo lavoro spesso assume davvero i contorni di un’ossessione e di una crociata nella sua monotematicità. Come se la povertà ed il riscaldamento globale fossero delle questioni insignificanti. O come se gli integralismi religiosi non islamici non esistessero. Infatti Spencer stesso riporta questa espressione tra virgolette nelle sue risposte e si mostra infastidito nei confronti di coloro che lottano contro tutti gli integralismi, senza fare sconti a nessuno. Fatte le dovute premesse Spencer è comunque un personaggio interessante ed il suo sito, sostenuto dalla David Horovitz Freedom Center, un’associazione conservatrice, merita certamente attenzione."
at October 13, 2008 10:06 PM
Comments...
1) Absolutely riveting, oh fearless leader. Your brevity and succinctness are awe-inspiring; those of us here that tend towards the long-winded - (me included) - can learn a helluva lot from you in areas beyond Islam.
2) The quotes were great. I wanted to offer another from Martin Luther King, Jr that Libs were fond of invoking during the Apartheid era in South Africa, but are completely uninterested in now, when women, gays, religious minorities, and Muslim reformers are in such peril throughout the Islamic world:
"A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
2) One wonders the extent to which this interview will be "edited" before going out. It sure would be nice if we could get word from one of our Italian friends.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 13, 2008 10:11 PM
The interviewer, Gianni Verdoliva, would hardly give Indro Montanelli a run for his money. Such questions as "do you have gay or lesbian friends" as if the answer to that, yes or no, tells us anything, reveal a mind of disturbing banality and coarseness. He senses, he cannot deny, a problem with Islam, but how ardently he wishes that it were not so, or that Robert Spencer would demonstrate comical illogic or unacceptable “racism” or some other grave defect, so that he could be dismissed, and we could all be like the interviewer himself, substituting our favorable impressions of a handful of careful and plausible those Muslim acquaintances or friends who can serve as a substitute for knowledge both of the texts and tenets of Islam, and of the history -- over 1350 years -- of Muslim conquest of vast areas, and subjugation of many different non-Muslim peoples.
Verdoliva put out as many rhetorical banana peels as he could, but Spencer simply marched ahead, his feet at every step planted firmly on the spaces between the deliberately-planted peels, and there was not a single misstep.
at October 13, 2008 10:21 PM
A brother Greek Catholic!
I like you even more now.
Posted by: A Simple Sinner at October 13, 2008 10:34 PM
PS - There's that orange shirt again. At least it's not pink.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 13, 2008 10:35 PM
“Give me liberty or give me death”
its all right there in a nutshell. Robert, God bless you
at October 13, 2008 10:35 PM
"how ardently he wishes that it were not so, or that Robert Spencer would demonstrate comical illogic or unacceptable “racism” or some other grave defect, so that he could be dismissed"
Doesn't matter what Spencer says. The interviewers have made up their mind long ago.
at October 13, 2008 10:58 PM
*****************ACTION ALERT!!!******************
Hi guys, we need your help.
Dr. Steven Choi of the Irvine City Council who was attacked by CAIR for calling them a "dangerous Islamic organization" at a council meeting back on September 18th asked me this evening if I could attend tomorrow night's meeting at 6:00pm at the City Council Chamber, Irvine City Hall (One Civic Center Plaza, corner of Alton and Harvard). Another activist suggested showing up at 5:30pm to get your name on the list to speak before all the CAIR weenies sign up.
Is there anyone in Orange County or even L.A. who could show up tomorrow night to support Dr. Choi? It will probably be pretty fun since the CAIR folks think they are going to go in an harass Dr. Choi into resigning. You can read the letter they sent him here:
http://www.anti-cair-net.org/press_013_08
Wouldn't that just be too bad if real American patriots were there to counteract CAIR's nonsense? Let's get a group of freedom fighters to go and support the good doctor. I've already contacted the ACT! for America Chapter in Orange County and they are planning to be there.
Thanks everybody,
Isabella
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 13, 2008 10:59 PM
I was struck at how the questioner never seemed to build upon Mr. Spencer's answers in follow-up questions. After a while I got the sense that he was talking into a well. So tiring and depressing. No real communication, despite all the words. That's probably the scariest part of it -- that those with whom one may disagree on such important maters simply cannot hear what one says. Maybe it's the affliction of every dogmatist. And then perhaps it was just a function of the mechanics of the format. I'd like to think so.
Posted by: bugsey at October 13, 2008 11:19 PM
An "extremely combative" interview...
An extremely good outcome was more like it...
Verdoliva put out as many rhetorical banana peels as he could, but Spencer simply marched ahead, his feet at every step planted firmly on the spaces between the deliberately-planted peels, and there was not a single misstep.
Posted by: Hugh
That's called footwork...A skill that has to be developed. RS has shown more than once that he is an adept...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 13, 2008 11:22 PM
Excellent work, as always, Robert.
However, are not the black Sudanese animist and Christian, and NOT predominantly Muslim? I thought this was the reason that the Arab Muslims were not only making war upon the South, but running a black slave trade. It would, presumably, be bad form to enslave fellow jihadis, I mean Muslim brothers.
Posted by: Cyril Lucar at October 14, 2008 12:48 AM
Good job Rob. You are very patient to explain these basics over and over again, but its so necessary and no one does it better. Bravo!
Posted by: Jane at October 14, 2008 12:52 AM
Combative? That's hilarious! You are politely assertive and you can be brutally sarcastic when sarcasm is appropriate, but combative? No!! I have often marveled at your ability to remain calm, focused, and unflappable in your contentious debates with muslims and apologists, as well as in your books on the subject of islam. You never lose your composure or sense of humor and that is truly an amazing feat.
I don't understand why a person's confidence in his convictions and knowledge is considered by many as reactionary or aggressive. Islam is what it is and you explain it better than anyone. Your political and/or religious beliefs are irrelevant to the nature and exegesis of islam and you are scrupulously objective, albeit candid and unwavering. You're just too confident, consistent and determined, qualities that today's moral relativists and cowards will never understand.
I guess you'll be an unyielding islamophobe until you accept the requisite vague and specious but politically correct explication of islam. Please don't ever change!
Posted by: Susanp at October 14, 2008 1:07 AM
HHAHAA!!!
This reporter tried so hard to corner you with a gotcha moments they even threw in the old homosexual hook.
This interviewer should have just gave up half way through and said "out of my league" and walked out.
Posted by: revparadigm at October 14, 2008 1:14 AM
Cyril Lucar,
Southern Sudan is mostly animist/Christian. Darfur (western/southwestern Sudan), a separate region, is muslim. Both areas are mostly, ethnically, Black-African. The conflicts are distinct, although in each case, the Arab or Arabised-African central Sudanese government has attempted to subjugate the local populations, which themselves are split into various factions. A peace agreement nominally ended the southern animist/Christian rebellion against the central government, several years ago, with nominal power sharing, which hasn't worked very well. There have also been ineffective agreements between Darfuris and the central Sudanese government. However, it is important to realize that the words and example of the so-called prophet of islam include "War is deceit" and that negotiations and truces are a strategy of war, rather than a strategy for peace.
Posted by: del at October 14, 2008 1:20 AM
When the Spirit is in a person, his words blaze with truth -- well done, Robert Spencer
Posted by: jewcat at October 14, 2008 1:37 AM
Great answers to the interviewers question, NOT in the least combative though I think they were talking about your daily website.
I agree with everything Robert stated, except I go one step further & feel all three of the desert dogma religions need to go on the book shelfs with Greek mythology, but strongly desire to start by eliminating Islam. And I'm also pro-choice on abortion & support the current laws as it stands.
Keep up your great work in educating the public on Islam & it's true motives. I read the email daily.
Would be nice if you were in a political position or consultant to the law makers to make the necessary changes to protect USA interests, TODAY.
I'm for a "match" in violence against Muslims with a focus on Afghanistan, Iran & Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Kauaikit at October 14, 2008 1:41 AM
"This interviewer should have just gave up half way through and said "out of my league" and walked out."
Most Journo's are 'out of their league' when it comes to Islam and the global jihad. Unfortunately they're too dumb to walk out.
What's infuriating is that they display a resistance to learning...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 14, 2008 3:47 AM
Man, I wish I hadn't read that drivel that Hugh posted that they place before the interview in print. Ugh. First, he praised Nancy fn Pelosi for asking SAUDIS AND JORDANIANS (?!?) that abducted Israeli soldiers be returned, but said nothing of her consistent efforts to sell Israel and the Serbs down the river at every opportunity or of her meeting with Iranian leaders - in a Dark-Age Nazi slave rag while under no physical duress - at all and without preconditions. Then they invented some sort of inconsistency in order to basically imply that he was a whore in his 'alliance' with others in the anti-jihad movement regardless of their other politics (which is actually pretty typical of European politics and especially Italian politics, which are always extreme and radically opposed to each on issues like capitalism and democracy, basic stuff that's a given in America), as if everything he did weren't held together by a basic respect for human life generally. He also flat-out called Robert a whore to the David Horowitz Freedom Center at the end and said he was propped up by them, but at least he was thoughtful enough to contradict himself by mentioning the 7 books he's written. Then he referred to some pre-interview letters which of course Robert couldn't rebut and which he didn't cite, saying that Robert said the questions were hostile, like he's not used to that and doesn't know how to deal with it. Then called him a racist and said that he completely ignores all the Muslim-corns who readily integrate into free-world society. Oh, and he said that Robert divides the world in two, as if Italians weren't more guilty of that than anyone, and as if the world actually weren't divided into the Free World and the Islamic World. Yeah, there are isolationist China and North Korea too, I guess, but do they matter for any reason besides with whom they ally themselves? And then he of course implied that Robert was heartless and that he ignores the stated-as-fact that poverty breeds terrorism, so he has obviously never read JihadWatch. And his Italian was about as good as his English, with interesting constructions like 'Come e',' which should be 'Com'e`.' Ugh.
Glad to see Hugh back, though.
Posted by: jdamn at October 14, 2008 3:56 AM
Cyril Lucar, Darfuris are preodminantly Muslim. Racism trumps 'principle.' The Arabs have already killed off, driven out, or enslaved most of the Animists and Christians. They're doing it because they are racist. Islam is incredibly racist. Arabs were white before they decided that raping African women was their favorite pasttime. Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacy. Nothing more. The evil, intolerable, creepy, cultish practices are just means. What's good for Arab supremacy constitutes Islam's sick hypocritical, narcissistic notion of 'morality.' Your ignorance is frightening.
Posted by: jdamn at October 14, 2008 4:07 AM
I guess the "Melkite Greek Catholic" Wiki page got quite a few hits lately.
Posted by: Kim Hartveld at October 14, 2008 4:13 AM
Well, I guess Robert Spencer has to become a bit more combative in the future to live up to nutroot -journo expectations...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 14, 2008 5:55 AM
ROBERT: "I like music very much, although I no longer play."
Guitar?
Posted by: Cornelius at October 14, 2008 6:21 AM
What was exposed in this interview was not Robert Spencer's 'combativeness' as the interviewer's had hoped for but rather the interviewer's own biases and stupidity.
Posted by: Razdan at October 14, 2008 6:49 AM
Why is it that neo-intellects (code for idiots) always use the word "neo-cons" (code for thinkers)?
A real puzzler.
Posted by: dgene at October 14, 2008 7:33 AM
An outstanding interview!
Have you ever heard of the adage, “Give me liberty or give me death”? Have you ever heard that the signers of the American Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to their cause? Have you ever heard that Dr. Martin Luther King stated that if you have nothing for which you are willing to die, you have no reason to live?
Hear, hear!
Now, if we could only get our leaders to understand and to take action!
I suppose that the interview was "combative" because you told the unvarnished truth.
at October 14, 2008 7:34 AM
Robert Spencer your keyboard is more lethal than all Al-Qaeda's arsenal combined. Expect another invitation from Adam Gadahn
at October 14, 2008 8:09 AM
Talk about verbal bombs! Whoa! Unfortunately, even real ones would not wake up this "journalist" and his ilk. Even asking the question: "Why has Islam been so much in the news the last decade?" shows how clueless he is. And, the answer ("Uh, because they are trying to enslave and kill us") probably escaped his nuanced and relativistic view of the world.
Posted by: tkap at October 14, 2008 8:15 AM
I thought the interview questions were pretty fair and they gave you a chance to make your point. They write for an audience that includes a lot of people who are hostile to anti-jihad efforts, given Italy's fascist and colonial past maybe. What I notice about the small minds who incessantly carp about the media is the childish view that unless some interviewer is tossing you questions in a way to promote your agenda. they are out to get you. Reminds me of some smug dimwit like Sarah Palin (and the saps who love her so much), a politician and journalism major, complaining that the elite (anyone not stupid and common) media is not asking her the questions she needs to promote the platform (which even she seems to have little handle on)/
Posted by: MorrisMinor at October 14, 2008 9:32 AM
My compliments to you, Robert, on a very fair, and even response to questions designed to entrap. And a very good demonstration of a Christian attitude which is even more important.
Douglas Reed
Posted by: OolongChung at October 14, 2008 9:46 AM
u. Reminds me of some smug dimwit like Sarah Palin (and the saps who love her so much), a politician and journalism major, complaining that the elite (anyone not stupid and common) media is not asking her the questions she needs to promote the platform (which even she seems to have little handle on)/
Posted by: MorrisMinor
Also from Morris on another thread...Duh,
duh swami, what does your partisan post have to do with the topic at hand?
So Morris, what does your partisan post have to do with the topic at hand?
Posted by: duh_swami at October 14, 2008 10:15 AM
If the interviewers were as bad as some of the saps here believe, would they ask a question like"
"Speaking about policy makers in Europe. Why they are so obsessed in accommodating radical muslims demands? Sometimes they go even further than islamists themselves. Is it a state of mind or what?"
Note to media whiners: turn off Rush and go to the library once in a while!
Posted by: MorrisMinor at October 14, 2008 10:17 AM
Say...UH Morris, would you care to identify the 'saps' that are here? Is everyone posting other than yourself a 'sap'? Or just the people you disagree with...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 14, 2008 10:38 AM
Strange, I agree fully with you! I could not guess it. I am fighting against Jihad (and I do not hesitate to ally with anybody) and I do never hesitate to ally with Muslims to fight abortion.
Posted by: Coaltaxopeuh at October 14, 2008 10:51 AM
Morris,
The problem with the questions that the MSM has asked Palin is the double standard compared to interviews of VP Candidate John Edwards 4 years ago and Obama today; i.e., nothing but softballs.
If you don't happen to believe the MSM is in the tank for Obama, your powers of perception are seriously limited.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 14, 2008 10:57 AM
A poster just above would have us believe that "the interview questions were pretty fair." The same poster declares with comical self-assurance that "[w]hat I notice about the small minds who incessantly carp about the media is the childish view that unless some interviewer is tossing you questions in a way to promote your agenda....[they are unfair]"
Let's see if the interview questions were "pretty fair" and that, therefore, those whom he describes as "small minds" that "incessantly carp about the media" are, in this case, wrong.
Here are examples of those "pretty fair" questions:
1.
Can you drive a distinction between groups and individuals who says every religion can be right-wing and totalitarian but do nothing against it and those ones who actually denounce and fight against all kinds of religious extremisms?
2.
What are your personal opinion about antiabortion terrorists or about Hindu extremists?
3.
Do you support the separation of religion from politics and if so do you support it only when Islam is involved or in any case?
4.
You say you want to protect the judeo-christian civilisation. May I assume you don’t like so much secular states or you just think secularism is not strong enough?
5.
Many people and among them many politicians, expecially catholics and evangelicals are re-descovering their faith identity now. Do you think it’s genuine gesture or just another way of mixing religion with politics, a sort of “my identity against your identity”. Wouldn’t it be better if religion was just an intimate personal thing?
6.
What do you think about the French strict secular laws? At least you can admit the islamist problem there is less strong than in Holland or in the Uk.
7.
From the comments on your websites you accuse women’s and gay rights supporters of being busy with “petty causes”. [This is a complete fabrication, so the question itself, and what follows, are -- directed at Spencer -- irrelevant and silly]. Why equal pay at work, child care, reproductive freedom or civil unions should be petty causes? And, once again, wouldn’t be more positive to incite these movements to broaden their agenda without giving up the domestic issues?
8.
Do you have feminist friends? [Point being?]
9.
Gay and lesbian friends? [Point being?]
10.
If so what do they think about your work? [Implied, and completely false, point being?]
11.
It’s been a decade or so that Islam is all the time in the media. Whetever in a positive or negative light everyone is obsessed by islam. Why so?
12.
Religion and cultural journalists also write about it all the time. One can ask if there is anything else worth of importance. Why what a muslim girl says is considered more important or newsworthy than, for example, a Mennonite girl or a Lutheran lady?
13.
Don’t you think that this importance of the so-called Islamic world has been shaped, at least in part, by western media? [the Loaded Question]
14.
Speaking about the Islamic world, do you really think this is a sort of monolith?[the Doubly-Loaded Question]
15.
Personally I like more progressive muslims. It’s not simply a matter of words. In my own experiences with them as a journalist they really are genuine and concrete.
What do you think about them?
Now that just some of these tendentious questions have been posted in their reply-less context, one may be better able to judge whether "the interview questions were pretty fair" and whether the same poster who describes critics of the interviewer's questions as "small minds who incessantly carp about the media" has a point, or whether the interview questions are, in fact, so often so ludicrously ireelevant, or so single-mindedly reductive, or as laughably loaded as a circus clown's fake gun, as to deserve the criticsm, and then some.
at October 14, 2008 11:06 AM
Verdoliva (green olive...nice name by the way)is a typically clueless and wilfully ignorant drone of the Italian left, more than likely an reconstructed Marxist, Gramsci devotee and supporter of Rifondazione Communista. These are people who still hold sacred the hammer and sickle logo and wax sentimental over the glory days of Stalin. These are the people who Oriana Fallaci correctly identified as traitors and dhimmis, willing to give their country away. These are the people who are incapable of learning, who are hopelessly blinded by cultural relativism, moral equivalence and fanatical multiculturalism. They are beyond rational discourse and mentally ill.
Considering all that, Robert's answers to such thinly disguised nastiness were masterful and erudite. Bravo!
at October 14, 2008 11:06 AM
That should be 'unreconstructed'
Posted by: johndoe at October 14, 2008 11:11 AM
Let me set you saps straight, those questions are mainly legitimate ones and they gave him plenty of room to answer them. As far as Palin goes, she was put there to pander to ignorant, redneck fundamentalist saps who are offended by anyone smart who doesn't swallow the party line, hook line and sinker. She is every Bubba's fantasy hunting partner. She is a dimwit, period. You can argue that the some people in the media were unfair to her, but her stupidity and incompetence shines through even when the glad-handers at Fox interviewed her. People who whine about the media bias all the time are really upset about their crackpot views and petty attacks are not being accepted as fact. I am so sick of the way people play the media victim card when things don't go their way, it is so childish. People don't have to agree with you one hundred percent.
Yes indeed, if people want to accomodate more religion in politics( providing it is good old fashioned Christianity of course), then it makes it that much easier for Muslims, in a pluralistic democracy, demand their shariah be represented in law too. That is why I support secularism in public life, along with some intellectual and moral integrity.
Posted by: MorrisMinor at October 14, 2008 11:22 AM
Q: "How, according your experiences, are the ways of reacting to the islamist problem of atheists and agnostics, of conservative Christians, of progressive Christians, jewish and believers of other faiths. Do you see a similar reaction from each distinct group?"
A: "Atheists and agnostics generally tend to think it is a generalized problem of fundamentalism, and are indifferent to it or think it can all be solved by adjustments of U.S. foreign policy…"
Robert: As much as I admire your efforts and accomplishments (as I have so indicated elsewhere), when it comes to "atheists and agnostics" you have a blind spot, which is impeding progress on your important work.
We "atheists and agnostics" sum to at least 20% of all humans (think China, Russia, most of Europe, and more than 10% of the rest of the West, including India). It's therefore difficult to make any "general" statement for all of us, but "generally", we are vehemently opposed to Islamic (or any) supremacists.
I urge you to read (or if appropriate, re-read) "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris or "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. Even read my own book, at http://zenofzero.net/ . Also, I'd recommend that you go to my blog at http://zenofzero.blogspot.com/ , there, proceed to the listing for "the Atheist Blogroll" (bottom of the left column), which lists approximately 1,000 atheist blogs, and from that list choose a random sample. If you will carefully consider the recorded opinions of we "atheists and agnostics", I'm sure you'll begin to see "our (general) position" more clearly and more accurately.
Posted by: nick222 at October 14, 2008 11:25 AM
Great job Hugh.
"laughably loaded as a circus clown's fake gun"....
...where do you come up with this stuff? I'd like to pinch that line for a song I'm working on...if you wouldn't mind?
Posted by: Cornelius at October 14, 2008 11:27 AM
Hugh,
maybe they were pitching those questions so they could give Spencer a chance to refute them? You can't deny that many people think that way of Islam's critics. So they are legit questions as well as the fact that they mixed a lot of other ones in their too.
at October 14, 2008 11:27 AM
MORRIS: "That is why I support secularism in public life, along with some intellectual and moral integrity."
Your bigoted preconceptions of a large segment of middle America, "ignorant, redneck fundamentalist saps"...is the furthest thing from "intellectual and moral integrity".
You obviously think you're pretty damn special, don't you?
Posted by: Cornelius at October 14, 2008 11:32 AM
"Let me set you saps straight, those questions are mainly legitimate ones and they gave him plenty of room to answer them."
-- from a poster whose charges have been held up for inspection and, consequently, mocked
That poster. instead of telling us exaclty how "those questions [by the Italian interviewer] are mainly legitimate ones" when so many, clearly are not, does not bother to answer the evidence I supplied above. Instead, he simply asserts, yet again, with his wonted crude insults, that this is not true, and then he promptly veers off into a banal rant against Sarah Palin who was not responsible for the interview questions under discussion.
Palin's own way of dealing with some questions deserves criticism, but not here, not at this website, and so too does the way of dealing with difficult or embarrassing questions, and their insufficient or incorrect or misleading responses, by -- inter alia -- Joe Biden, John McCain, and the more glib, but not more satisfactory or less misleading and often confused, Barack Obama.
The poster's irrelevant rant about Palin at this website, with its defined focus that is meant to keep out the political free-for-all irrelevant to the matters (Jihad, Dhimmitude) at hand, is merely a version of Tu-Quoque, offered at a shrill and offensive pitch by someone caught out, and then caught out again.
Posted by: Hugh at October 14, 2008 11:36 AM
You obviously think you're pretty damn special, don't you?
Posted by: Cornelius
So you noticed that also...everyone is a sap except himself...Now that's funny if you have a warped sense of humor...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 14, 2008 11:48 AM
Hey JW guys & others who are sick and tired of leftist who conflate islamophobia with homophobia.
Here is a gay website that really gets it:
Posted by: Pavlov's dog at October 14, 2008 11:50 AM
Cornelius: From a fellow ignorant redneck (who thinks Sarah Palin is far shrewder, tougher and possessed of more common sense and character than Barack Obama) thanks for taking on MorrisMinor. MM is clueless about the role of religion in public life as exampled in American history by such documents as the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance.
Though an agnostic myself, I am often perplexed why so many don't understand that removing religion entirely from the public sector is both unnecessary and unwise. Not one of the Founding Fathers of America ever expressed the sentiment that religion and morality should not be part of what is infused into the body politic. Quite the contray in fact. And there never was a wiser generation of human beings than the one which began the American nation.
As for the interview of Robert Spencer by a snide Italian, I read with admiration the way Mr. Spencer handled the questions with the skill of a mountain goat treading a cliff side with perfect balance. It was a beautiful thing to read. A beautiful thing to behold. Kudos to Robert Spencer yet again.
Posted by: Wellington at October 14, 2008 12:02 PM
MorrisMinor's an asshat. What you guys may not understand is that this is a very far-Left publication and it's a joke to 95% of Italians. Italians are typically honest to a fault and the majority of them are as blatant and real about Islam and the jihadist threat as I am, even in their MSM. That's why they voted in Berlusconi. Islam isn't even recognized as a religion in Italy. This was the far-Left playing ignorant dhimmi to suit their agenda and discredit Robert. Italians don't buy it. Dante called Muhammad a 'sower of discord' and so Muslims are just that to them. It was prophecy and they see all of Dante's prophecy come true every day. He hasn't been wrong yet. And Italians understand that Muslims will never embrace Israel, repudiate jihad/genocide/terrorism, and they know that it's a vehicle for Arab supremacy. The reason Islam isn't recognized as a religion is because for almost 7 years Muslims have been unable to convene a representative council of 6 of them who will repudiate jihad/genocide/terrorism, acknowledge and support Israel, and agree to conduct services in Italian. What worries me about Italy wrt jihad is the Judeophobic undercurrent which is so 'normal' to the Left, but they can't officially repudiate Israel (Italy enforces that and they actually punish treason) but they can support the 'poor, underpriviledged Muzzies' who will of course normalize Judeophobia. This interview, this publication are way Left of the mainstream. This is propaganda. Italians are in many ways smarter than Americans, Canadians, Australians, and most Europeans. They see it for what it is, regardless of their typically extreme political leanings and divisiveness (yeah, they're a little supremacist too, hence the enforcement of religious services in Italian, which is in itself Florentine supremacism, but that's another diatribe).
Speaking of which, I just told my mother and sister I'm done with them if they vote for Obama and I called them 'Nazis.' And I'm only half-Italian.
Posted by: jdamn at October 14, 2008 12:40 PM
Wellington,
As always, our views coincide, my friend; I couldn't agree more with what you've written above about religion in the public square....not to mention the profound wisdom of the founding fathers.
Funny, my adolescence was that of a pot-smoking head, as contemptuous of "rednecks" as Morris is now. The difference is that I finally grew up, realized how haughty and bigoted I was, gave up herb for suds (a fair trade), and now accept the moniker of "Joe six-pack" without a trace of shame.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 14, 2008 12:47 PM
Thanks PR Cal Dude!
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 14, 2008 1:11 PM
Mr. Spencer: Since you are a Christian, I guess you won't mind if I say "BLESS YOUR HEART!" Your message of strength and courage comes through loud and clear in your answers to the interview. I for one, am humbly impressed by all that you have been through - hated, persecuted and scorned!
Would you consider running for PREZ sometime? No one in Washington understands the threat of Islam like you do.
Posted by: angryamerican at October 14, 2008 2:22 PM
You are a rational, thoughtful, and articulate person. I think it is a positive thing that these leftist journals are interviewing you. Once the Islamic supremacist reality is demonstrated to those on the left, some will come around. These are the folks that can then challenge fellow leftists to open their eyes.
Posted by: James Martel at October 14, 2008 2:27 PM
""generally", we [atheists,agnostics] are vehemently opposed to Islamic (or any) supremacists." -nick danger
Pardon my Arabic, but bullshit. Every time I run into an agnostic or atheist (and I'm agnostic myself) and the topic comes up, they take one of two positions: 1) Christianity (and "Zionism") is more dangerous than Islam or 2) "all religions" are dangerous. So sure, you can find a few agnostics/atheists who appear to be condemning Islam, but they fall into the no. 2 slot, they must bring down all other religions at the same time. If I had a nickel for every time I've encountered or read an agnostic/atheist who condemns Islam appropriately without dragging all other religions down with it, I wouldn't be able to buy a cup of coffee.
at October 14, 2008 3:23 PM
DenverRodeo:
Well, we certainly have had different experiences: I've never met a atheist/agnostic (better, scientific humanist) who has held either 1) that "Christianity (and "Zionism") is more dangerous than Islam", or 2) that "all religions are dangerous" (although I have met many who consider all religions to be unwise). But in any event, even your own experiences seem to support the statement quoted, namely, that "generally, we [atheists,agnostics] are vehemently opposed to Islamic (or any) supremacists." So, given your claim that you detect some B.S., you might be well advised to check the soles of your own cowboy boots.
Posted by: nick222 at October 14, 2008 3:51 PM
"Every time I run into an agnostic or atheist (and I'm agnostic myself) and the topic comes up, they take one of two positions: 1) Christianity (and "Zionism") is more dangerous than Islam or 2) "all religions" are dangerous."
-- from a poster above
Now let's see if atheists (or agnostics) whom we have heard about fit that description. Let's select some atheists well-known for their grimly realistic comprehension of Islam.
Here are some of those atheists: The late Oriana Fallaci. Ibn Warraq. Ali Sina. Wafa Sultan. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The late Pim Fortuyn. Geert Wilders. And so many others, "too numerous -- or numinous -- to mention."
What does the poster make of these atheists or, of the contributor to this website who is, and has been since he could puzzle things out, a perfectly contented atheist?
Posted by: Hugh at October 14, 2008 4:13 PM
Atheists of those (and your) kind get very little voice in the MSM. They are not part of the liberal cultural identity that so many youth align with.
Your logic is strong, and your solidary on such an important issue is invaluable, but it doesn't change the fact that the vast, vocal, public-spotlighted majority of atheists are of the typical leftist, relativist, "extremism is the cause", allying with the muslims type. They simply have no great awareness of the threat.
Posted by: Kelana at October 14, 2008 6:03 PM
Hitler was an Atheist. Some role Model.
He saw the light, then everything became very HOT.
Free will has its price. As the saying goes, nothing in life is ever free.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at October 14, 2008 8:35 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009007.php#c143577
Posted by: Hugh at October 14, 2008 8:51 PM
flowerknife_us:
Hitler wasn't an atheist.
Hitler had a mustache.
Stalin had a mustache.
Therefore, what?
And Kelana, perhaps you'd profit from looking at:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistactivism/p/BigotsAtheists.htm
Posted by: nick222 at October 14, 2008 9:20 PM
Question: "Could you describe your typical day?"
Answer: "Typing."
Made me laugh out loud with this one.
Fortunately, your dedicated and incessant "typing" is a potent force due to the man behind the keyboard.
Robert, Thank You for all you do in defense of Western Civilization (what's left of it) against Islamic Supremacism.
at October 14, 2008 10:08 PM
alexon - that answer made me laugh, too.
However: judging from the recent pictures I've seen - I hope this is not being too personal, but Mr Spencer at 45 or thereabouts is starting to look just a little portly. Too much sitting at the keyboard is not good for the figure or the heart rate and blood pressure, etc.
So I do hope he is getting away from the keyboard every now and again for a nice leg-stretching constitutional (if necessary, accompanied by a bodyguard or at the least, a very large and protective dog). It will do the counter-jihad cause no good at all if he puts on a bit too much weight and develops health problems as a result.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 15, 2008 7:33 AM
From Hugh's post I grant those 8 intelligent atheists. But the others too numerous to mention need to be named before I can take comfort in their numbers.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at October 15, 2008 12:49 PM
I know, am related to, come from a long line of, perfectly happy atheists. Not one has any trouble understanding what is wrong , what is especially and unusually wrong, and that distinguishes it from all other faiths, with Islam.
Posted by: Hugh at October 15, 2008 10:29 PM
That makes me feel slightly better, but not as much as I'd like to feel.
at October 16, 2008 1:54 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)