| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald profiles one of the contemporary scene's leading dhimmis, London mayor Ken Livingstone, and his friend Shiekh Qaradawi:
Ken Livingstone, who presumes, has always despised America (although that does not keep him from hiring an American expert to make those underground trains run on time). And of course he is also a great beater-upper -- ca va sans dire -- of Israel. Like "Gorgeous George" Galloway, the Glaswegian hireling of Saddam Hussein (whose money many believe helped Galloway buy his modest vacation retreat in Spain), Ken Livingstone has earned his own moniker: Red Ken.Red Ken, or Redken as some prefer to call him, when not being mayor of London, is also a well-known shampoo. One can only wish that London voters will wash that particular shampoo right out of their hair. And then vigorously apply some anti-Jihad conditioner.
I just bought shampoo (the brand is “Marc Anthony” -— it was not so much the reduced price as the hint of Shakespeare’s paraleptic Roman that clinched the sale), and the bottle promises that its contents will, like a passing beauty who leaves one hot and bothered, “soulève, gonfle, et épaissit” (lift, volumize, thicken). And this brings relevantly to mind, in regard to that not-so-odd couple, the Mayor and the Muslim, those unforgettable lingerie ads that line the walls circumjacent to the escalators – those that go up, and those that come down -- of the London Underground.
Now as Ken Livingstone proudly showed his honored guest round and about old Londinium, did he by any chance show off that Underground, and therefore those lingerie ads, or was it limousines all the way for the Salon Bolshevik and the Quran-quoting Qaradawi? If Red Ken, in the same spirit as the Commissars who in the 1930s liked to bring Western tourists to view the gleaming Moscow Metro (“But where are the trains!” those tourists would ungratefully point out), did offer Q. such a tour, one would like to know how Monsieur Q. reacted to those advertisements, which can leave even an unaccustomed American blushing and flustered. Perhaps if his furious reaction were to have been translated, Red Ken might have looked a bit more closely into the previous protests of women’s groups, might have found out more about Qaradawi’s strictures on women’s dress, and women’s behavior, and the need for women to submit to their Qur’an-designated superiors, that is to say -- men.
And even if R. K. and Q.-q. Q. did not visit the Underground together, possibly they had a chance to take in the National Gallery. It would have been fascinating to hear Q. explain to K. through a seamlessly-bowdlerizing translator why all the statues needed to be broken or defaced if they were even to be permitted to continue to exist at all, and why, under Islam, all the paintings other than landscapes, all the depictions of famous personages, and of course anything that had a Madonna, with or without a bambino in her lap, would have to go, along with all paintings showing a saint, or a Biblical figure, or a king, or a general, or a nobleman, or any historical personage, or any non-historical figure not being held up to ridicule, because such depictions are haram, haram, haram, and don't you forget it. Perhaps Q. could then have given K. a copy of his own guide to righteous Quran’ic living, What is Halal and What Haram, even pointing out the passages that explain this unassuagable hostility toward sculpture and portrait paintings in great detail. Of course, Ken, you dimly recall what happened to the Bamiyan Buddhas, and to the frescoes formerly on the walls of the Byzantine churches of Constantinople, and to those tens of thousands of Hindu temples, and to churches all over North Africa, and Mesopotamia, and Syria -- or do you? Perhaps Ken Livingstone, a compleat homo politicus (which makes any Jack a dull boy) is not fond of art himself; he may see it as a luxury item, after all. And much of Western art, as the Kens of this world see things, corresponds to the taste of rich patrons only trying to immortalize or flatter themselves, in their commissioning of paintings and sculpture and furniture and garden follies, all paid for with the loot, as seen through the narrow lens of a narrow Ken Livingstone, accumulated through the exploitation of the working class, or the exploited colonials beyond the seas. Just look at that arch-connoisseur Kenneth Clark’s family fortune, no doubt the result of Lancashire girls spinning thread from dawn to dusk, or the liquor-store fortune of Bernard Berenson, or of course those impossible and intolerable Medicis, all those sinister Lorenzos and Cosimos. What decent human being (I quite agree, Ken) -- what decent human being can even stand to look at the paintings and sculptures that were produced for those Medici, those rich Florentine swine?Yes, Ken, on second thought, probably you and Q. would have had much to nod in agreement about, as you walked through the National Gallery, or the Tate, or any of those other decadent centers of intolerable Western art. And Ken, wasn't it your favorite Russian writer who said that a good shoemaker was worth more than Pushkin, than everything that Pushkin had ever produced? Isn't that a world-view, isn't that an aesthetic creed, Ken, expressed so memorably and succinctly, that makes you a brother under the skin of Q-q. Q.?
And since Islam is now the vehicle of choice for those wishing to express their fury at their own perceived marginalization (psychic or economic), their own often self-induced alienation and hatred of Capitalism, of The System, of The West, of Amerika with a “K”(shudders of dismay may be inserted here), Mr. Q. came to the right place, and was made much of by the right host. Indeed, we are told that you liked Mr. Q. so much that you have invited him to return, any time he feels like it.
Ken, Redken, Mr. Livingstone, Lord Mayor of London, turn again, like Dick Whittington, if you possibly can. There may still be time. Think of those sculptures and those paintings. Do you really want Qaradawi and his ilk to have their way? Think of the freedoms built upon, and enjoyed, by those who now live in Old Londinium. Think of Bracton. Think of Coke. Think of Locke. Think of of John Stuart Mill. Think of Harry Lauder, and Al Bowlly and Jack Buchanan and Elsie Randolph. Think of Vera Lynn. Think of Sigmund Freud, and Lucien Freud, and Emma Freud, and any damn Freud who comes to mind. Think of Peter Sellers. Think of Frank Muir. Think of the Goon Show. Think of My Word, and all the gentle people who listen to My Word. Think of Alastair Sim and Alec Guinness. Think of The Bells of St. Trinian’s. Think of Wee Geordie. Think of 23 Laburnum Grove. Think of Dennis Potter -- think of Pennies From Heaven, and The Singing Detective, and Lipstick on Your Collar. Think of Keats on Hampstead Heath. Think, Ken, even of those buying bespoke at a tailor's on Jermyn Street, or the Burlington Arcade. Think about what London means, or should mean, to you, and think about the London that would exist if the likes of Sheikh Al-Qaradawi, and his followers, now well-ensconced, were to have their way – in London, in England, in Europe, all over the world. Forget about what you think about Bush, or what you think you should think of him. Think about what Q.-q. Q., if he had half a chance, would do to everyone and everything in free-spirited, silly, often deplorable, sometimes lovable London, over which you preside.
Forget about contriving always to act so as to annoy the Americans, the London Board of Rabbis, the leader-writers on The Telegraph. Try to have some gratitude to the Great Dead who created the civilization of which you and those who live in London are inheritors. Not one of those Great Dead (of England, of Europe, of the Western world)would have lasted a minute under Islam, under the likes of Al-Qaradawi and his grim little world of the shari’a, his Total Regulation, his manichaen assignment of everything to one or the other column: Haram over there, Halal over here. You owe those Great Dead of the Western world something. You owe Q-q. Q. nothing.
Please, Ken, please Mr. Livingstone, please Mr. Lord Mayor, turn again, even if that means you will have to turn against every cliché and received idea in the seemingly-immutable bolshevist banality of your mental universe. Get With the Program. And that program, if you need a hint, is not “Friends” but, rather, “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”
Yet after a terrorist attack by Muslims, for Muslim causes, prompted by the teachings of Islam that are to be found in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, Ken Livingstone yet again decided to welcome Sheikh Qaradawi to London. He, Redken, was not in the slightest apologetic about this. The trip was cancelled, at the last minute, but not because of Ken Livingstone.
He proceeded to tell us that there is a moral equivalence between Hamas, a group of terrorists who shoot their weapons and scream with hysterical joy whenever news of some great "victory" -- say, the shooting a pregnant women in her car, and the murder, one by one by one by one, of her four little girls -- comes across the wires. Such behavior is just par for the Hamas course, and the Likud, a political party that has the temerity to suggest that Israel has a considerable legal (the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine), historical (the buying of land, steadily, from both the Turkish authorities and absentee landlords, and the inheriting of the nearly 90% of the land that was owned by the Ottoman state, then by the Palestine Mandatory authority, and then by its rightful and intended successor, the State of Israel), and moral (about this, if Ken Livingstone knows nothing of the history of the Jews, nor of the Muslim conquerors, nor of what happened to those Jews who remained, as dhimmis,under Muslim Arab rule, or who left to live in Europe, then he knows nothing) right to exist.
So he did not turn again, like Dick Whittington. Not worth a whisker on Dick Whittington's cat is Redken, now the mayor of the largest city in still-as-yet-incompletely-islamized Europe. But he is a portent of things to come. And how he is regarded by people in London, in England, in Europe, will tell us much about the willingness of the Infidels not to "stay the course" of appeasement and dhimmitude, but to change the course, to recover their senses, to become quick studies when it comes to Islam, and to rescue themselves, their children, and the cultural and civilizational legacy that their ancestors left them with -- and so far too many have proven to be complete ingrates.
Some gratitude please. Some common sense. Some sense of self-preservation. A modicum will do.
Posted by Robert at July 21, 2005 7:19 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Readers from Britain - Is there any hope to turn Ken? Is there any other leaders out there who may seek the London's mayor office that has or is able to remove their blinders? When is the next mayoral election?
Red
Posted by: reset![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 21, 2005 7:48 AM
Ken Livingstone is back in fantasy land
By Matthew d'Ancona
(Filed: 21/07/2005)
With his nasal whine, love of newts and Pearly King persona, Ken Livingstone has always reminded me of a Peter Cook character. So it was striking yesterday morning to hear the Mayor of London explicitly invoke the spirit of Cook's greatest creation, E L Wisty: the self-styled "tadpole expert", defender of those with "spindly legs" and founder of the "World Domination League".
Alas for Mr Livingstone, his stab at humour on the Today programme went disastrously wrong. The mayor's point was that the media should end their fixation with what he called "the most minority strand amongst the Muslim community, people whose followers are numbered in tens, not even hundreds". The militants, he said, represented mainstream Muslim opinion no more than E L Wisty's World Domination League "represented the English People".
This was in answer to a question about pictures on the front page of yesterday's Daily Telegraph. The two Muslims depicted were Anjem Choudary, a former leader of the Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, who has declined to condemn the London bombings, and says that "the real terrorists are the British regime and even the British police"; and Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, the founder of the same group, who says that the British electorate is to blame for the attacks because it "did not make enough effort to stop its own government committing its own atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan". Mr Livingstone scorned the press for giving undue prominence to "serial fantasists".
Well, where to start? First of all, the World Domination League had only two members: Wisty himself and his friend Spotty Muldoon. I think it is a safe bet to say that more than two British Muslims sympathise with the analysis put forward by the Islamists pictured on yesterday's Telegraph front page (three of them, after all, blew themselves up on July 7).
Second, it seems to me not only reasonable, but essential, to shine as bright a light as possible on "minority strands" in Muslim opinion at the moment, only a fortnight after the adherents of one of those "strands" killed at least 56 people. The implication of Mr Livingstone's remarks was that the wicked press is irresponsibly focusing on a handful of militants - the "few bad apples", as police spokesmen used to say - when it should be concentrating on moderate Islamic opinion. To which I can only say: leave it out, Ken.
One of the many reasons to feel pride in the past fortnight has been the general restraint with which the media - like the readers and viewers they serve - have responded to a terrorist outrage that, in many other developed countries, would have led to civil strife and disorder. One should not tempt fate, of course. But the mayor's suggestion that the press is behaving badly in its coverage of militant Muslims was cheap.
The shame of it is that, in the immediate aftermath of the bombings, Mr Livingstone's performance was nothing short of magnificent. In Singapore, hours after he had learnt that London was to host the 2012 Olympics, he said, without equivocation, that the attack was "mass murder" and that "it was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners".
It seemed, for a moment, that the mayor was letting his socialism get the better of him: as if an attack on middle-class Londoners would have been somehow less horrific. But I don't think that is what he meant. His point was that the bombs had slaughtered ordinary Londoners on their way to work, an indiscriminate attack on the most culturally diverse city on earth.
At the vigil held in Trafalgar Square on July 14, Mr Livingstone warmed to his theme. "Those who came here to kill last Thursday had many goals," he said, "but one was that we should turn on each other, like animals trapped in a cage, and they failed, totally and utterly." With tears streaming down his cheeks, he quoted Pericles, and in homage to John F Kennedy's famous call - Lass'sie nach Berlin kommen - the mayor declared: "Let them come to London!" On that day, only the most churlish would have denied that Mr Livingstone spoke to, and for, his city.
So it was all the more depressing to hear him revert to type yesterday as he spouted the fatuous Left-wing mantras for which he earned his notoriety in the 1980s. While claiming that he felt no sympathy for the suicide bombers and (naturally) that "killing people is wrong", he resurrected the pernicious old doctrine of moral equivalence, beloved of the Left in the Cold War. "I don't just denounce the suicide bombers," he said. "I denounce those governments that use indiscriminate slaughter to advance their foreign policy" - by which he meant Israel, and, one presumed, America.
So, too, he deployed the whiskery argument that western imperialism is at the root of all evil. If we had only left the Arab nations alone after the First World War, the mayor said, "and just bought their oil, rather than feeling we had to control the flow of oil, I suspect this would not have arisen". This was Dave Spart at his most repugnant and most juvenile. Does Mr Livingstone really think that the legacy of the Great War is what drove the Leeds terrorist cell to commit their atrocities?
Is he truly blaming the murder of 56 commuters on the Balfour Declaration, and the 1920 San Remo Conference? And would the mayor be willing to tell the bereaved relatives of Shahara Islam, the 20-year-old from Plaistow who was buried on Friday, or of James Adams, 32, from Peterborough, and Monika Suchocka, 23, a Pole who was living in north London (both of whom were named as among the dead on Tuesday), that their loved ones would still be alive if not for the Treaty of Versailles?
This was the shabby, reptilian side of Mr Livingstone, the old-fashioned socialist playing to what he imagines to be the gallery. As it happens, I doubt there are many takers for this kind of drivel. "It's a complete lie, of course," said E L Wisty of one of his own political claims, "but you can't afford to be too scrupulous if you're going to dominate the world."
There is part of Mayor Livingstone that still aspires to world domination, or at least a much greater role in national political life.
But - as his pitiful behaviour yesterday showed - the bigger he tries to be, the smaller he gets.
Matthew d'Ancona is deputy editor of The Sunday Telegraph
at July 21, 2005 7:54 AM
- and I've got a few quid says he gets elected again by a landslide
Posted by: goesh at July 21, 2005 8:05 AM
The story Hugh mentions of the murder of the pregnant woman, Tali Hatual and her four daughters (11,9,7,2) is in the JW archives at http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001790.php
The next mayoral election is 2008. The other candidates in the last election were at best ineffectual and uninspiring. Well lets say they didn't inspire me, although I managed to find someone other than Mad Ken to vote for, it was nearly a case of none of the above. If the scandal of his beating up his girlfriend (or is she his second wife now, I don't care enough to keep track) in public, his insults to the Jewish reporter and the hated congestion charge have not yet brought him down, this business is our last chance.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 21, 2005 8:05 AM
Ken "denounces governments that use indiscriminate slaughter to advance their foreign policy"?
Well, then, he denounces most of the islamic nations of the world. Maybe not the Sudan, though - that's merely domestic slaughter. Or maybe Saudi aid is contingent on such slaughter? Then at least, it would also be considered "foreign policy", in a way.
Bravo for Ken! =) He's right, without knowing how, or why.
Imam Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at July 21, 2005 10:46 AM
Geoff,
For those who consider Israel an "occupation", the Sudan should logically not be considered a "domestic" problem of violence, since Muslims conquered that region centuries ago.
Secondly, I'm a little fuzzy about the recent history of the Sudan region, but I think even into the 20th century (if not more recently) there was imperialistic expansion on the part of Muslims with regard to that area.
at July 21, 2005 12:16 PM
Having voted against RedKen in the last two elections, I doubt that the tide will turn against him.
But watch out for him in parliament again at the end of this term as mayor... I have a strong feeling he will do a Galloway and try to get elected (based on his political outlook) to the strongly Muslim constituency of Brent East. Just wait for it.....
Posted by: misguidedjihadi at July 21, 2005 1:34 PM
Hugh says about his new shampoo: "...the bottle promises that its contents will, like a passing beauty who leaves one hot and bothered, “soulève, gonfle, et épaissit” (lift, volumize, thicken)..." and I say: Ugh! Hugh, French is so-o-o-o passé these days; and what does your small fantasy have to do with the subject of Ken & Qaradawi anyway?
We, or at least I, would like to see the articles authored by Jihad Watch taken seriously. We shouldn't have to shovel for the content.
But that aside--yes, Red Ken is definitely a PROBLEM.
at July 21, 2005 2:17 PM
corax,
Hugh may have been alluding to the sexual insouciance of modern Western society (which he mentions elsewhere pertinently & relevantly in his essay) which Red Ken either apparently doesn't know is execrated by Muslims, or he knows and actually approves of their fanatically totalitarian puritanism because it makes him feel Red all over.
at July 21, 2005 2:30 PM
"at least I, would like to see the articles authored by Jihad Watch taken seriously..."
--- from a posting above
The little extra thrown in is exactly what is indispensable if it is to be something more than the tired policy prescriptions, conveyed in a drone, at some Washington Conference of Policy-Makers, full of backscratching, hollow humor, and the limited lexicon that causes officious brains in think-tanks everywhere to shrivel up.
Islam itself, all by itself, is exceedingly boring, and the whole primitive threat posed by those who deeply believe what Islam teaches them is depressing beyond belief. In a Sursum-corda spirit one has to liven things up a bit.
If that livening comes from endowing with new, and lubricious meaning, a few French verbs that were in fact found on a Marc Anthony shampoo bottle (France may someday be passe, but the French language never, not as long as La Fontaine and Chateaubriand remain alive d'outre-tombe -- oops, there I go again with that pointless French), or from similar Product Placements in the past (some may recall the M&Ms, and the Underwood Typewriter, which did not result in free boxes of M&Ms, or a complimentary Underwood Typewriter, respectively; I am not holding my breath for the shampoo people to come through, though if they had a sense of humor they would shower me with the stuff. I plan in the future to say something nice about the Lexus (my car is on the fritz), and about the Russian oil industry, and I will let you know if I am rewarded with either a big car or a tiny oilfield in Siberia, one I can call my own. By the way, don't you agree that a Macintosh G5, with all the trimmings, is something everyone should have?
Some people do take these articles seriously. Fit audience though few. As I recall, that worked for someone else.
at July 21, 2005 2:58 PM
Sickening, absolutely sickening...I just followed that old link to the brutal pregnant women murder story....and there you see it...poster called "Ahmad" trying to justify the acts. Anyone of us "racists" who can tolerate such BS after such an incident deserves praise of being "tolerant" just for sparing that motherfucker's life. Or it doesnt perhaps serve him well, as Jannat would do him better, dying as a shahid in the cause of the Phantom Allah.
Posted by: Tushar Saxena at July 21, 2005 3:17 PM
Hugh - excellent. Ken Livingstone is pond slime.
Seems like a minor point here, but you're digression into shampoo related jocundity is a wonderful illustration of why Western civilisation is superior to Islamic desolation.
A sense of humour is an indication that someone has a sense of perspective and a moral compass.
Well put it this way, do you think Mohammed had many laughs?
Posted by: Interested at July 21, 2005 3:29 PM
Sir William Muir describes him in his "Life of Mahoment" (the one-volume edition) thus:
"he could yet take pleasure in cruel and perfidious assassination, could gloat over the massacre of an entire tribve, and savagely consign the innocent babe to the fires of hell."
(p. 536).
He does not seem to have been moved to mirth for any other reason. He had no taste for satire or displays of wit. To borrow the term that George Meredith used in his "Essay on Comedy," Muhammad was not given to laughter; he was an agelast.
Posted by: Hugh at July 21, 2005 4:28 PM
Mohammed had no sense of humour.
And I bet his wives never laughed again.
at July 21, 2005 4:32 PM
Yes, besides the sexual insouciance of the modern secular West there is that other virtue execrated by Muslims: the sense of humor.
"The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."
-- Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted by Amir Taheri (Spirit of Allah, 1985) (which Khomeini said apparently during a rant on why music is bad).
at July 21, 2005 4:53 PM
More on Islamic Puritanism and Laughter:
"The Muslim faith encourages laughter to the extent that it is a religion that seeks to achieve human well being. There is however a specific concern with "excessive laughter" since it "deadens the heart" spiritually. There is a marked intolerance of satire which may be considered and treated as blasphemy." -- Khaled Nusseibeh in the unintentionally uproariously titled "Is Laughter Banned in the Holy City?" (2000).
Then islam-qa.com has this advice about "excessive laughter":
“Our gatherings with friends and colleagues are filled with too much laughter, and it goes to extremes. This phenomenon is becoming ever more widespread. What is the solution?”
In response, the solution to this problem has two aspects: theoretical and practical. The theoretical aspect may be further broken down into two points:
Firstly, we should know how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) conducted himself when it came to laughter, and he is the best example in this as in all other things.
It is reported in a saheeh hadeeth that his laughter was never more than a smile... According to another hadeeth, he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to remain silent for long periods, and laugh little...
‘Aa’ishah, may Allaah be pleased with her, said: “I never saw the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) laughing so heartily that his back teeth showed..." [!! ha ha ha!!]
According to a saheeh hadeeth, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not laugh too much, for excessive laughter kills the heart (i.e., spiritually).”...
According to another report, he said: “… too much laughter corrupts the heart.” After knowing this, if a Muslim laughs to excess it is as if he is undertaking a journey that he knows will lead to his doom.
...
...the [practical] problem which we are discussing here – excessive laughter – has a number of bad effects, including the following:
It makes gatherings explode with guffaws and echo with raucous laughter.
The believer’s heart is spiritually corrupted by too much laughter, and he opens his mouth too wide, instead of being serious and of sound character.
It leads to daa’iyahs (Islamic workers) making people laugh as a means of winning them over and having an influence on them, or so they claim. What they do not realize is that people gather around them only for the sake of laughter, and they do not benefit from them at all.
...
...the problem of excessive laughter, which can be dealt with in the following ways:
Remembering death, the grave, the Last Day and its reckoning, the bridge over Hell (al-siraat), the Fire, and all the other terrors of the Hereafter.
[another way to get serious and stop laughing excessively:]
Thinking about the situation of the Muslims and how they are suffering because they have strayed from their religion... [and are] subject to the plots of international conspiracies. [!!! ha ha ha ha ha!!]
http://www.islam-qa.com/Books/Shakawa/english.shtml#Excessive%20laughter
at July 21, 2005 5:18 PM
Laughter is the human spirit bubbling up and reaching for the skies. Irreverent jokes are what keep people from becoming pompous, overbearing, and ultimately tyranical. Whether one is religious or not, laughter is the ultimate gift.
A religion that supresses laughter is just evil.
Women's laughter, above all, is anathema in Islam. But the human spirit is reslilient. Maybe, just maybe, Mohammed's wives laughed their heads off at his bad breath, his sonorous and decamatory pillow talk, and his teeny weeny penis.
I hope so.
Posted by: Interested at July 21, 2005 9:19 PM
That's right, Interested: it is part of Islamic theology that women should not laugh in public because hearing their lovely voices sounding out glee and mirth, just as much as showing skin, will incite lust for them.
Islam is sheer lunacy -- but what is almost worse than that sheer lunacy is the mind-boggling idiocy of Western defenders of Islamic culture.
Posted by: metaxy at July 21, 2005 10:36 PM
(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.)