USA Today has been terrible in its coverage of Islam and the Jihad. Not surprisingly, for such a product, even worse than the so-called serious newspapers (New Duranty Times, Bandar Beacon). This may have something to do with the worldview of its founder and generalissimo, a worldview detectable from his own appearances in print.

Posted by: Hugh at June 9, 2006 12:34 PM

A feminist's experiences as the wife of a Muslim in Afghanistan ---- Bwahahahahahaha!

Posted by: MP at June 9, 2006 12:36 PM

America's fishwrap, USA Today

LOL.

Posted by: US_infidel at June 9, 2006 12:40 PM

"we have all failed to influence mainstream liberal media and thinkers."

Apparently, the Thomas Friedmans, the Roger Fishers, and even the mislabeled "crazy" persons such as the Michael Bergs and the Cindi Sheehans seem to know some secrets about the purveying of their messages that the estimable Mr. Fitzgeralds and Mr. Spencers and Phyllis Chesslers do not. I wonder what that is?

Sometimes the obduracy of certain persons reminds me uncannily of the very European and American Media outlets they love to decry. I wonder why that is?

Posted by: jsla at June 9, 2006 12:59 PM

JSLA:

There's no secret, really. Our perspectives are ruled out of court a priori. That's all.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at June 9, 2006 1:32 PM

MP, THE FEMINST EXPERIANCE IN AFGHANISTAN.
I read about her life there afer she, a american feminst married an afgahni muslim. Her life became hell. her passport was taken away for "safe keeping". the US embassy couldn't help her. so she had to feign sickness to get out. she got out only because her father in law allowed it because he didn't want her there in the first place. this lady may be a feminist but she is ardent anti islamist.

Posted by: desidude at June 9, 2006 1:45 PM

The newspaper silence on the Islamic motive (most incredibly, the Toronto Star's unwillingness to say -- or even to imagine? -- what the Canadian conspirators had in common) reminds me not of the NY Times and Stalin's collectivation (in the culture's view, that's mere history) but of something that I read about at the time: the media coverage in eastern europe during the years of soviet domination.

it seems odd, even surreal, to live in a country whose press environment (for at least one subject) is reminiscent of stalinism.

Posted by: StillBreathing at June 9, 2006 1:57 PM

They wouldn't print the cartoons, and now even mentioning islam is verboten???? What's next?

Posted by: Mr Krabs at June 9, 2006 2:09 PM

This is not totally off-topic for the thread, as it concerns the Islamic dress codes, inspired by Muslim male hysteria*, that are imposed on women to keep them in their place. Besides, we all need a laugh.

From LGF:

Islam's idea of swimwear for women

* Nice pun, eh?

Posted by: Yojimbo at June 9, 2006 2:30 PM

"this lady may be a feminist but she is ardent anti islamist."
--desidude

That "but" in the above poster's sentence reveals a whole lot about the state of Western feminism today.

Posted by: rahel at June 9, 2006 2:48 PM

I find this sort of organized censorship of the most important issues of the day to be worse than a chilling effect into actually chilling. It would be one thing to print Chesler's column side-by-side with a response by a Muslim or Islamic apologist, but to cut the heart out of her argument isn't journalism. Not that I had any illusions about the New York Times to shatter, but this is serious.

Posted by: Beagle at June 9, 2006 2:51 PM

Oh heck, USA Today. NYT, USA Today, tomato - tomAto.

Posted by: Beagle at June 9, 2006 2:52 PM

Desitude - The lady no doubt is an ardent anti-Islamist with good reason. My derisive laughter is occasioned by wondering what exactly she expected when she 1.) married an Afghani gent, and 2.) moved to Afghanistan. The pathetic naivete of someone silly enough to do such a thing leads me to discount any of her other views. Now she comes back to lecture the rest of us, AGAIN. No doubt a multiculturalist, and/or cultural realtivist who had a rude awakening. And beer will make you drunk! WTF?

Posted by: MP at June 9, 2006 3:15 PM

Thank you for the response, Robert. I partially agree with you, but I don't think that's the whole picture. It's unsatisfactory, in my humble opinion, to simply fall back on explanations of "dhimmitude" or "craziness". I believe both explanations are deflections which opacify the issue when more clarity is needed. Two questions arise which need explanation:

What is the exact nature of the problem at 'court'? The 'court' seems to have most of the Western World in its thrall.

When Ms. Chesler says "we have failed", what is she referring to? Failed how?

Something fruitful may come from discussing those two questions much more thoroughly. And ignoring them may be part of the problem we face. Just some thoughts.

Posted by: jsla at June 9, 2006 3:17 PM

MP:

If you'll pardon me, I think you're being a bit unfair. Even after 9/11 and everything else, the realities of life for Muslim women are scarcely known in the West today; every day non-Muslim American women marry Muslim men, without having the slightest idea what they're getting into. This was even more true in the early 1960s, when Dr. Chesler went to Afghanistan.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at June 9, 2006 3:19 PM

JSLA:

I don't think it would be right for me to speak for Dr. Chesler. These views are my own: I personally think this failure was a foregone conclusion, because the media outlets are dominated by people who share a common ideology, and that ideology of multiculturalism and relativism rules out of order anyone who dares do anything to suggest that non-white, non-Christian peoples might be guilty of some wrongdoing. Only the West can do wrong in this overarching paradigm.

Unless and until the mainstream media is inhabited by sufficient numbers of people who reject this paradigm, people who hold such views will not get a hearing.

I have no expectation that that will happen soon or ever. That's why I write books and have a weblog -- they haven't yet managed to block such outlets. But I am not waiting by the phone for a call from CBS, or even USA Today.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at June 9, 2006 3:24 PM

I'm not sure why Dr. Chesler agreed to do the interview for USA Today. In the future, a simple "I will not grant interviews to dishonest reporters and editors" should suffice.

Posted by: Infidel33 at June 9, 2006 3:35 PM

Hi Robert - I'm sticking to my guns on this one. I feel that someone who makes such a major decision in ignorance must expect to pay a price if things go south. While her Afghani husband may have had a "when in Rome..." manner if they met and married in the United States, her plight shows a lack of due diligence on her part. Perhaps she expected some sort of Arabian Nights fantasy, or had the view that all cultures and religions are basically the same. There are few things worse than mocked expectations. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue. All the best, M.P.

Posted by: MP at June 9, 2006 3:56 PM

This is what the enemy collaborators at our msm are doing to us today.

Walter Duranty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Posted by: squire at June 9, 2006 4:10 PM

what the Canadian conspirators had in common) some answers for the newspapers.
1) they all have bad hair cuts
2) need more facial hair
3) all talk with a lisp
4) dont like women
5) have body ordor
6) walk with a spring
7) love fertizlizer, you would be
surprised what you can grow in an apartment!
9) really like those Nazi outfits
10) flinch when they see an English flag

Posted by: Lulu at June 9, 2006 4:19 PM

MP, wanted to note that I (perhaps you, perhaps others) have acted with naivete in past years and may do so again. love is blind, but sex is blind and stupid. if there something you've forgotten?

Posted by: StillBreathing at June 9, 2006 4:36 PM

If they did speak the truth Muslims would target their offices and journalists for murder, bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, etc. They are plainly afraid to speak the truth. Better to not risk offending anyone and live to sell more papers.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at June 9, 2006 5:05 PM

Squire, good link. On the other side, maybe an award should be created in the name of Lion Feuchtwan. He was an author who described the Nazi ideology even before they took over the German government. He wrote essays critical of Nazism even as the U.S. and European media and governments were still in appeasement mode.

A man for our times, and I can think of a few authors who would qualify for an award in his name.

Posted by: special_guest at June 9, 2006 5:08 PM

Oops, Fechtwanger.

Posted by: special_guest at June 9, 2006 5:10 PM

Robert: So it is written? Inshallah fatalism just won't do in the anti-Jihad! My Instincts trump my intellect here, because I firmly believe this entire topic isn't 'ready for prime time', to use a phrase, and this impedes its dissemination. I don't have the clearest notion about how to get it there though.

I once mentioned broadcast production which I recall you dismissed due to the paradigm mentioned above. There are great benefits to be had in that particular field. By whom? In what manner? I cannot say exactly. But there's hay to be made and fish to fry too.

Posted by: jsla at June 9, 2006 5:11 PM

She married a Muslim and her status became the same as a Muslimah which resulted in her becoming a piece of property rather then a full and equal citizen.

Had she compared Ovid or another great Western Writer to the equivalent Islamic one on women she may have avoided the whip altogether.

But then again that which does not kill you makes you stronger.

It would be nice if she found time to remind the world about the atrocities commited by Turkey against the Greeks, and the continued siege of Cyprus.

Posted by: NicephorusPhocas at June 9, 2006 6:53 PM

Some of you are perhaps being exceedingly unfair to Phyllis. A quick peek over at Amazon yields the following tidbit:

In chapter four, Phyllis Chesler tells the story of her captivity in Kabul as the wife of an Afghan national. Although an Orthodox Jewish American girl, she married her college sweetheart in the summer of 1961 in New York state.

Summer of 1961? Let's see - Jackie was still the New American Queen, both Jack and Robert were still flashing those million dollar smiles, virtually no Americans could locate Vietnam on a map, the Green Berets were brand new, Elvis wasn't fat yet, WWII vets still had their hair. Nobody had heard of the Rolling Stones or the Beatles. And, oh yes - Grace Kelly had entranced the world with her marriage to Prince Ranier of Monoco not long before. Not to mention some other nice American girl who married into the Nepalese royalty about the same time.

There were virtually no Moslems in the US. The Black Moslems didn't yet exist. What anyone had ever heard of Islam was a Hollywood movie or two about Lawrence of Arabia.

The few young moslem men who came here to attend uni were first and foremost not poor by a long shot. They displayed impeccable manners and charming smiles.

In 1961 nearly all young women who went to college were sent there to either "find a husband" or acquire the skills for some genteel career until they did manage to "catch a man."

Phyllis made a mistake. So did thousands of other young women of the era. (I'd say millions but I wouldn't want to be wrong if someone looked up the exact number.)

You live. You learn. You get old. You change your mind about some things. It will happen to you too. Give the lady a break!

Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 9, 2006 7:00 PM

"Phyllis made a mistake. So did thousands of other young women of the era."

Phyllis may be forgiven her 60s naivete. However, now in 2006 we continue to have millions of Leftists who persist in romanticizing Muslims as Che Guevara-type revolutionaries against the evil Western globalist Zionist Capitlalist Globalist Starbucks Imperialist enemy.

Posted by: Television at June 9, 2006 7:22 PM

PS: and when you have influential millonaires and billionaires like George Clooney and Sean Penn and the late Marlon Brando and George Soros and Brian Williams and Yvonne Ridley and Jack Straw and MIchael Berg and etc et fucking cetera on the side of the Revolution that insanely but lucidly thinks Muslims are on the same side...

Posted by: Television at June 9, 2006 7:26 PM

Phyllis may be forgiven her 60s naivete. However, now in 2006 we continue to have millions of Leftists who persist in romanticizing Muslims as Che Guevara-type revolutionaries against the evil Western globalist Zionist Capitlalist Globalist Starbucks Imperialist enemy.

For Sure. But then Che was quite in fashion in his day in certain circles in this country. As was Fidel. Some of what today we know were terrorist revolutionaries were once upon a time quite the In People. Mao, Ho, Lenin ....

That Phyllis has been a "mover & shaker" in the feminist movement for decades, has had the experience of living inside Islam and is now finally old enough to determine her own faults and misjudgements makes her someone worth listening to, even if you reject her ideas. All the smarts, money and current knowledge in the world can't buy the wisdom that comes with experience.
In short, she has just exactly the kind of credentials needed to speak to the liberal segment without being dismissed out of hand.

Note to the young: patience and wisdom always come with BAD experiences :)

Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 9, 2006 7:34 PM

PS: and when you have influential millonaires and billionaires like George Clooney and Sean Penn and the late Marlon Brando and George Soros and Brian Williams and Yvonne Ridley and Jack Straw and MIchael Berg and etc et fucking cetera on the side of the Revolution that insanely but lucidly thinks Muslims are on the same side...

Television, don't get your panties in a knot over this. Each and every war for the last 100+ years has been fought over the dead bodies of more than a few high profile loudmouths with more money than common sense.

You might recall the King of England who abdicated the throne to marry an American divorcee? He and his "princess" were very high profile Nazi collaborators prior to and during WWII. (Of course many have forgotten that the House of Windsor is not English. They are Germans.) HUGE problems these people caused.

Hollywood couldn't kiss the feet of the Socialist Revolution fast enough. Today we hear how awful those McCarthy Hearings were, but back then they were really very necessary if we intended to stay America instead of joining the USSR.

Somehow good old fashioned common sense seems to win. I think you'll find a cure or two for your malaise on the Jerusalem Post website.

Our Senate appears to be in need of across the board impeachment, but the House is on a roll! They have -

1.) Denied all funding to Saudi Arabia because of their promotion of hatred. Not even a close vote - 317 to 76 or something on that order.

2.) Cut the budget for Iraq, Afghanistan and "countries moving towards democracy" by several billion to meet needs here at home.

Not a whisper on a US site of course.

Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 9, 2006 8:02 PM

Glancing familiarity with reality also educates us that sometimes those who change their minds prove themselves more dedicated to the good fight. Such person's clarity and perspective is often unique and withering against their former allies.

Ever read FrontPageMag.com? It's run by a former Komrade who's dad and mom were also commies. This poor chap was steeped in Leftism and Marxism while in his diapers, and he burped and farted post-modern B.S. with the best of the pink pinko babies. Then, he changed his mind.

Now his extremism and radicalism is converted into zealotry against leftist zealotry. That's GOOD! He's one of the most insightful writers and speakers on the subject of the various Leftist malignancies which plague us today in the West. His name: David Horowitz.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/index.asp

This is an interesting and provocative site -- well worth reading -- very informative -- extremely helpful in unravelling and exposing the poisonous infiltration of Marxists and Leftists and post-modern a-holes of Academia.

There are MANY other examples of this kind of personal apotheosis and transformation. You can probably think of more.

I think persons such as Chesler and Horowitz deserve praise, not peevish anger. These persons have been redeemed.

In the end, isn't this what America is all about? People allowed to make mistakes and redeem themselves? Surely this has got to be one of the most magnificent treasures we possess as a people!

Of course post 9/11 it's difficult to have the same patience for "the other side". We are in peril, and to some degree the luxury we thought we once had to tolerate the Western-loathing constituency has been reduced. In fact, we discover after the fact that we let these loathsome haters and liars too much free reign in our domain. They are partially responsible for the predicament we find ourselves in today, with the exploding Muslims amongst us. But they are only partially responsible, not solely. I am of the mind that this constituency must be fought, not lethally, but with a similar vigor to that we're beginning to bring to bear against the horrid Muslims in our midst.

Posted by: jsla at June 9, 2006 9:12 PM

The problem with the media is this: they are all liberal. Get rid of the liberals and install true journalists, not propagandists, journalists like, like... Damn, there have been no journalists worth the title journalists, they have all been propaganadists coloring the news.

On second thought, we need propagandists who are anti-Islam...

Posted by: skald at June 9, 2006 10:30 PM

Mr. Spencer,

While I strongly disagree with you about many things, I have repeatedly stated that I applaud your work.

THREAT NOT THE SAME AS USSR

As William Buckley pointed out, the struggle with Islam simply does not even begin to approximate the struggle against the Soviet Union (which incidentally, is far from over in many ways). Whether true is or not, to most Westerners, this struggle still appears manageable as a law enforcement campaign.

PCNESS

I acknowledge, of course, that Pcness is somewhat of a problem. However, there is little critical discussion of all religions in the US. Discussing Islam freely would lead to a Pandora's box as it would mean that all relgions would have to be reviewed. With respect to the media, I can assure you that the NYtimes talk of “South Asians” gets past the readers. Calling them South Asians is a means of signaling that the media does not want to begin a hysterical campaign against the obvious culprits and instead, subtly issues the information. Since all but the dumbest among us get the message about how the attackers are, it becomes obvious that the problem is not really about failing to name the enemy.

IGNORANT READERSHIP; USA TODAY

You expect the readers of USA Today to learn about Islam? Most Americans cannot even locate all 50 states on a map in front of them, never mind a distant land like Afghanistan. Moreover, most of them are Christians who know little about their own religion. Now you want them to know the dangers of Islam? Mr. Spencer, they know enough: Muslims are bad. They don’t know why, but they can see it. They don’t need specifics.

SO GOES IRAQ

An additional complication is the folly of the Iraq war, which has become the centerpiece of the “war on terror.” We can see how badly it turned out.

APPARENT BIAS FROM THOSE EXPOSING ISLAM

The problem is also one of the messengers criticizing Islam. Please note that this I am not impugning your knowledge of Islam, or your character. In addition, I am not referring to you or other such messengers as personal figures, but rather the apparent bias of the all who had had the courage to write what you (and others) have written. Nearly all of you possess strong religions convictions, which do not trouble me so long as you observe them in your own life, and not attempt to impose them on others. However, the problem is that conservatives are themselves on the attack. As I mentioned on another thread (and supra), and whether rightly or wrongly, Americans are increasingly seeing the war on terror as W’s war. The conservatives criticizing Islam are also the same mean spirited persons that so many of us can plainly see today. They have shown their true colors and they are not that much prettier than Islam’s.

With respect to your own strong religious convictions, or those of other persons that thankfully criticize Islam, it is my belief, which I hope you can respect, that they weaken the message. Whether this bias I speak of exists or not, it can certainly be inferred from your writings (and those of others). Simply put, those who most strongly criticize Islam in the Western media today are almost exclusively devout Christians and Jews. Many seek to supplant Islam with another faith. They have every right to criticize Islam. And we should listen. The problem with criticizing Islam from this perspective is one recently pointed out recently in Asia Times recently: amazing hypocrisy. This is not a "relativist" argument, it is historically based. For instance, one cannot decry death sentences for apostasy when such were once common in Christianity. Rest assured I know that Christianity is reformed today, but it was not always so. In my opinion, secularists are the only ones who can take this torch from persons like yourself and defeat Islam. Even they will have resistance. I just hope there is time to save the West in the coming decades.

In addition, criticism from solely Christian and Jewish quarters plays into extremists’ hands too. It tells them precisely what they fear: they are coming to engage in a religious crusade. Secularist and non-Christians and Jews must take a far more vocal role in this struggle. Most importantly, the attack must come from Islam itself. I believe that reformations cannot be instituted from an outside force.

ATTACKS ON WESTERN CULTURE FROM THE INSIDE AS A RESULT OF THE “WAR ON TERROR”

Conservatives who have not been happy with the liberal state of the West have taken this 9/11 opportunity to begin to attack that which the terrorists are unable to do. In my own country, when many see this relentless attack on countless rights and our (US) beloved constitution, they increasingly associate the critics of Islam with an opportunistic attack on the very institutions that the terrorists seek to destroy. They see these same conservatives as trolls, which are even more dangerous than the terrorists. Thus, the conservatives ultimately lead to their own demise, as a backlash is inevitable. Ironically, as had been shown time and time again, the conservatives do not believe their own rhetoric. They have also unwittingly weakened the campaign against Islam.

IRRATIONAL REMEDIES OFFERED AS SOLUTIONS

Lastly, those who are criticizing Islam are advocating draconian and utterly impossible remedies: internment and expulsion. Neither of these solutions is even remotely possible in any Western country.

Mr. Spencer, you have been provided a phenomenal service, which I applaud. Please do not take my criticism as a personal attack.

Forgive typos, it's been a long week.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 9, 2006 10:39 PM

skald-

Since those whose cultural/political/theocratic 'oxen are gored' will always complain ...this group cleverly uses the "underdog cards" of 'racism' or 'prejudice'.

To gain sympathy from the knee-jerk naive,

It is part of our work, in confronting Jihadis and their "treason of the intellectuals" enablers, to also mock their confabulated b.s.

And deliver all nonsense about "Islamophobia" and their fantasy of a "religion of peace", back into their hands, calmly dissected.

They'll call anything spoken or written that opposes Islamic Imperialsm 'propaganda'.

Whether "Zionist, "Crusader", or "generic infidel" brand would depend on the audience.

Thomas Paine, too, wrote 'propaganda'.

And helped, with the his bit of common sense, to sow the world's first strong seedbed of liberty.

Call it anything, as long as it brings freedom.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 9, 2006 10:56 PM

Kafir Nonbeliever I suggest that you are the one who relentlessly interjects OT discussions of Christianity and other OT topics into the threads, not the operators of this site. In fact, they have consistently made an effort to prevent these threads from being driven into the ditch by this exact kind of introduction of personal pet peeves and pet agendas.

Obviously we all know by now about your sexuality, your fear of the Christians, your fear of the Conservatives, but what on earth does that have to do with Jihad???

Further, I say that you confuse and hamper understanding of Islamic Jihad and it's aspects by your constant and ridiculous conflations of those perils posed by Islam, and your personal antipathy towards conservatives, and Christians, and, I gather, the majority of Americans.

I challenge flamboyant assertions like: "Most Americans cannot even locate all 50 states on a map in front of them, never mind a distant land like Afghanistan. Moreover, most of them are Christians who know little about their own religion. Now you want them to know the dangers of Islam? Mr. Spencer, they know enough: Muslims are bad. They don’t know why, but they can see it. They don’t need specifics."

So why are you posting? What possible contributions can you make if the deals already sealed and the specifics are only window dressing?

Such statements are simply inflammatory and useless.

Posted by: jsla at June 9, 2006 10:56 PM

Hey, Kafir. You flip off Mr. Spencer while claiming you mean no offense, but I'm afraid I can't be so conciliatory when I tell you your argument is stupid. I DO take offense at your comments and you are free to feel similarly insulted.

I for one am tired of hearing how a religious perspective is poblematic in ideological discussion. You are quite apparently one of those leftists who believe the Taliban and Christian conservatives are of the same ilk.

Let me let you in on a little secret, Boris. We are all aware there are skeletons in our closets, but that is not what's wrong with the Islamists. We don't give a hoot about their religion or their past. The force of the argument against them from ANY perspective is not diminished one bit by the religion of the accuser. Christians are not at war with the entire world and they don't sleep with goats. When Christians and Jews start wearing Haloween costumes for home movies of the daily beheading of apostates we'll be interested in your theories.

Until then, wake up and smell the borscht. And give the "all religions suck" tirade a well-deserved rest.

Posted by: Haid Dasalami at June 9, 2006 11:46 PM

Kafir NonBeliever wrote: there is little critical discussion of all religions in the US. Discussing Islam freely would lead to a Pandora's box as it would mean that all relgions would have to be reviewed.

You could not possibly be more wrong. There is NO Pandora's box here. Whatever did or did not happen in the past, this is the present time.

Our country was founded on one basic guiding principle: I don't agree with you, but I will defend to the death our mutual right to disagree.

My freedom of speech does not exist if I deny you yours. My freedom of religion does not exist if I deny you yours. Simultaneously, YOUR freedom does not exist if you deny me mine - by word, deed or law.

Those who can not live by this principle, without paying lip service while they work to undermine it do not belong here - period!

Islam is quite fond of telling Christians and Jews that they share the same God. But I can assure you that this is absolutely and unequivically NOT the case. It is just this simple:

The very first time that Satan is mentioned in the Bible it is written "He is a Liar and the Father of Lies!"

When God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses, right there on the list it says "Thou shalt NOT lie!"

When the followers of Christ ask him what will be the signs of the End of Times, the signs of his return, the very first words are: "WATCH that you be not deceived!"

Turn to the Koran: When a follower comes to Mohamed and asks him if he can tell a lie, he is told that he can because the lie is for Islam.
LIAR - and the FATHER OF LIES!

Islam is our "brother?" Our god is the same? Then GIVE BACK ST. Sophia. This is the most famous church in all Christendom. It is a Christian Church - NOT a mosque. GIVE BACK Temple Mount! It has been the seat of the Jewish temple throughout most of recorded history. Islam has NO claim. This is stolen property.

"By their fruit you shall know them!"

Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 9, 2006 11:49 PM

I well aware of liberal Media Bias but that my not totally be the case with USA TODAY or newspapers in general. If one reads just about any current newspaper there is actually very little content of any real depth on any subject from any perspective.

Lifestyle and entertainment articles seem to be the main content of USA Today. This always has been a very mediocre newspaper and always will be. The only time I ever read it is when it is free at the Holiday Inn or someone at work leaves one laying around. Beyond any liberal bias there seem to be a real dumbing down of many things in our culture.Dealing with Islam is simply beyond the perview of our dumbed down newspapers and their dumbed down readers. They rather read about dieting, Bradgalina, and life after menopause.Even if view points such as those expressed here where published large segements of the public don't want to read it or hear about it. Out of sight, out of mind.

Posted by: abdulalshirk at June 10, 2006 1:05 AM

gallopinggranny -- I understand your sentiments, but I think responding to such posts by quoting bible passages to counter his non-arguments may be counterproductive, not least because it simply perpetuates the poster's desire to confuse and defame Western culture. It is the classic trick:

Tell me, Mr. Smith -- have you stopped beating your wife?

His self absorbed premise is absurd and completely rejectable without denying that you've ever beaten your wife.

The title of this thread is:

USA Today finds remarks about Islam and jihad unfit to print

What does his post have to do with that subject? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. But we are informed he's had a long week.

Posted by: jsla at June 10, 2006 1:05 AM

Television said

However, now in 2006 we continue to have millions of Leftists who persist in romanticizing Muslims as Che Guevara-type revolutionaries against the evil Western globalist Zionist Capitlalist Globalist Starbucks Imperialist enemy

Not sure if she was thinking of Che Guevara/Zionist Capitalist etc. etc. etc. or just the usual "1001 Arabian Nights" fantasy, but there was this story today, about a 16 year old girl in Michigan who was convinced to fly to Jordan to meet some man (unknown if he is an "activist" or "militant") without her parents' knowledge. Luckily she is back home with her family. We all make mistakes in love, but come on.

Posted by: special_guest at June 10, 2006 1:57 AM

And the guys nick was "Abdul-psycho" or something like that. She should have been allowed to go. It can't be very good having people like this reproducing!

Posted by: jsla at June 10, 2006 2:15 AM

Well, jsla, Kafir's post has a LITTLE to do with the topic LOL. Problem is, it's the same old connection--his pet agenda, as you put it. I reacted testily for that reason. I thought, here we go again with the denigration of Christianity.

But since you remind us of the topic, let me say that on that score Kafir is all too clear. You see, he does indeed find it counter-productive to identify the menace facing us as Islam or the tenets therof. In his worldview remarks about Islam and jihad are indeed unfit to print. And why is that? Well, if you can get beyond the horrid and unskilled prose, it's easy enough to understand him:

"The problem with criticizing Islam from this perspective is one recently pointed out recently in Asia Times recently: amazing hypocrisy."

Amazing illiteracy!

But hypocrisy?

You mean like lauding Mr. Spencer for his work while insinuating not too subtly that he lives in a glass house and so shouldn't throw stones? That's rich.

Recently I heard that recently Mr. Spencer declined to advance his religious views and recently there have been no recent comments on this blog about Christians having done no wrong either in the past or even recently. Oy. Your comments, Kafir, are therefore entirely offensive because your point that our Judeo-Cristian wordview cannot take the heat stacked up against Islam is as inane as it is irrelevant.

To Kafir we're all neo-cons stoking the flames of the conflgration. Well, certainly someone is stoking them, for the fire rages all around. If you're having trouble identifying the culprit or you refuse to do so, it's going to be difficult to take sides. And if you tell me I did the math incorrectly, you may be right or you may be wrong, but the fact remains there is only one correct sum.

And my religion or Robert's, so long as they are not threatening to destroy all civilization, will have very little to do with it.

Posted by: Haid Dasalami at June 10, 2006 2:57 AM

Nariz changed his name again?

Posted by: Gary at June 10, 2006 6:10 AM

I'm sure you are correct jsla - and my common sense usually reigns. However, even I have a temper - a rather formidable one that has made grown men quake in their boots. It does not escape often, but when it does .... well, you know the rest :)

Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 10, 2006 9:34 AM

If one reads just about any current newspaper there is actually very little content of any real depth on any subject from any perspective.

We have not bought our local paper - certainly not one of the names you would recognize - for a decade. There is literally no content. No reports about who went to court, got married and the like. No local "news" - took them 5 days to get around to reporting the collapse of a bridge a few years back. No police or fire log. There is a rather large sports section, mostly about the local teams. All of "world news" is usually a single page on the top of that section, half of which is advertising. When something "big" is happening in the sports world, world "news" moves to the back page. Virtually all of the opinion pieces are as ultra-left as you can get (there is a college in the area). In other words, a rag fit only for starting a campfire. I'd use it for TP in a pinch, but wouldn't want to dirty myself with the filth they spew.

Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 10, 2006 9:41 AM

"USA Today has been terrible in its coverage of Islam and the Jihad. Not surprisingly, for such a product, even worse than the so-called serious newspapers (New Duranty Times, Bandar Beacon). This may have something to do with the worldview of its founder and generalissimo, a worldview detectable from his own appearances in print."
Hugh

Well, Hugh. USA Today has set the standard for the rest of the press. Anymore, though, I think it is like styrofoam packing pellets...filling, but of a non-nutritional value.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at June 10, 2006 12:06 PM

MP, anyone in this day and age who would trust news outlets like USAToday to print verbatim all that you say, is being naive ;) I can remember when I was a pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli, naive halfwit about Islam. Even with the bombing of our Marines in Lebanon, the downing of PanAm, the murder of US Sailor Stedham, endless hostage crises, the bombing of Khobar Towers...through all of that, I remained stupidly in the camp of "Islam is a Religion of Peace", and I was only recently brought out of my ignorance on September 11th. So, it is with deep gratitude to Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, Martin Kramer, Charles Johnson, Hugh Fitzgerald and, oh yes...Phylis Chesler...that I consider myself more educated and chastened.

Posted by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah at June 10, 2006 12:22 PM

"For instance, one cannot decry death sentences for apostasy when such were once common in Christianity."

Besides the faulty logic here (can we not decry slavery because slavery once was "common" among us?), there are other problems with Kafir Nonbeliever's assertion.

Kafir Nonbeliever has a truncated and simplistic appreciation & understanding of the evolution of the West over the past 500 years -- an evolution from theocracy to secularism that has involved the most progressive development in civilization in the history of mankind. Kafir's simplistic view is one of

West used to be bad (religious) guys --> West became good by defeating its own bad guys.

Problem: if the West used to be bad (religious), where did its own internal reform come from?

No doubt KN would answer this with further simplistic logic, choosing among these alternatives:

1) in the history of the West, a small group of free-thinking pioneers just appeared out of the blue, magically free of any historico-socio-cultural connections to the matrix against which they were rebelling

2) in the history of the West, a small group of free-thinking pioneers had always been there, incubating underground in the form of heretics who bravely challenged the evil Church and evil Kings, and through some inexplicable chain of events including Revolution (or perhaps KN would have recourse to special Gnostic Keys to History (Hegel, Condorcet, Marx, Popper, etc.) to explain how this special nucleus of pioneers finally began to become dominant enough to free itself of the evil Church & Kings), they became dominant.

The more realistic framework for understanding the progress of the modern West is that it has been:

1) complex
2) paradoxical
3) symbiotic between religion and secularism
4) successful
5) imperfect
6) unfinished.

(Note to sophomores: #2 accounts for the fact that this process, whereby the West dismantled its own theocracy on its great adventure in civilization, was not without a great deal of argument, intellectual dissension, political strife, and social violence (and even wars) -- but this doesn't vitiate the other side of the paradox: that a great theocracy changed from within and has given birth or is continuing to give birth to a historically unique civilization that is an ongoing experiment in freedom and rationality -- an experiment that is on some levels dazzlingly disturbing yet on the whole wondrously successful. Simplistic detractors of the West's Judaeo-Christian heritage, like Kafir, or simplistic champions of it, like Lawrence Auster, ignore the more complex and actual voyage which the West navigates -- the paradoxical symbiosis of religion and secularism.)

Posted by: Television at June 10, 2006 12:38 PM

Can not the traditional class-enemy approach of feminism be invoked when Ms. Chestler's comments are suppressed?

Who could one call at NOW?

Prophet Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at June 10, 2006 12:47 PM

NOW is now a "has been" - been there, done that. Once upon a time, when Phyllis and I were young, NOW was most concerned with giving all women the free choice between the traditional path of wife/motherhood that many found so oppressive and the free exercise of our individual talents as professionals equal to our male counterparts.

We did succeed in moving the American women away from the traditional wife/mother role. Unfortunately, we did not achieve a choice - an OR - we achieved an AND. The role of women today is not to choose, it is to be a fulltime career woman while simultaneously taking virtually all the responsibility in the wife/motherhood department that our mothers and grandmothers held.

The entire debate over Women's Rights in this country had degenerated to a battle each January over Roe v. Wade.

Posted by: gallopinggranny at June 10, 2006 1:09 PM

Lion Feuchtwanger is best known as a novelist.

Posted by: Eliyahu at June 11, 2006 6:08 AM