• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

The Blaze: Media obligated to report on Breivik’s claim he wanted to destroy counter-jihad movement

Feb 21, 2014 1:32 pm By Robert Spencer

Anders Behring BreivikHere is an excellent report on what I wrote about here: the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik’s claim to be a Nazi, and to have fashioned his “manifesto” in order to ensure that the counter-jihad movement — and counter-jihadists including me — would be destroyed as the media blamed us for his murders. The media did blame us, but has been completely silent about his new claims that it was all a psyop. “Nordic Terrorist Makes Bombshell Claim — and the Media Missed It,” by Benjamin Weingarten for the Daily Beast, February 21:

Remember Anders Breivik, the Norwegian man who carried out terror attacks including the bombing of an Oslo government building and mass shooting at a Workers’ Youth League camp, killing 77 people and injuring 319 more in July 2011?

The most recent significant press on Breivik dealt with the fact that he threatened a hunger strike from his comfortable prison cell, demanding, among other things, a Playstation 3.

Much more important, and universally overlooked, was the news that came to light last month: Breivik released a letter to the international media indicating that he had intentionally portrayed himself as a counterjihadist and Zionist in order to trick the media into attacking these very people and to cover up his true allegiance to “nordicists” and “ethnocentric nationalists” (i.e. neo-Nazis).

In contrast with the heavily covered Playstation 3 letter, this prior one received little to no coverage in the American press beyond a Wall Street Journal article focusing on Breivik’s allegations of inhumane prison conditions. The Journal’s only mention at all of information even tangentially related to Breivik’s true motives came in the last line of their report: ”Mr. Breivik in his letter said the manifesto shouldn’t be taken seriously because it was “a cut and paste job” from other authors and didn’t necessarily reflect his intentions.”

The proprietors of the blog Gates of Vienna did the yeoman’s work to actually translate Breivik’s prior letter, leading to the aforementioned astounding but ignored revelations. Brevik stated:

“When dealing with media psychopaths, a good way to counter their tactics is to use double-psychology, or at least so I thought. The compendium [i.e. Breivik’s manifesto] was, among other things, of a calculated and quite cynical gateway-design (the 2+?+?=6-approach), created to strengthen the ethnocentrist wing in the contra-jihad movement, by pinning the whole thing on the anti-ethnocentrist wing (many of the leaders are pro-multiculti social democrats or liberalists), while at the same time protecting and strengthening the ethnocentrist-factions. The idea was to manipulate the MSM and others so that they would launch a witchhunt and send their media-rape-squads against our opponents. It worked quite well.” [emphasis added and formatting fixed]

The key to manipulating the media into covering his story, according to Breivik, was to explicitly disavow his ties to Nazis:

“I could have easily avoided excessive pathologisation by keeping the message short and by clinging to the already established ideological cliff of national socialism (its important to remember that this was at a time when all right wing radicals were labeled as nazis), but if they had been allowed to label me as a nazi, the ideological considerations and discussions would be over, and my court-speeches and propaganda performance would never be broadcasted world wide, during the trial.” [emphasis added]

On the topic of Zionism, Breivik argued:

“I know a lot of people will be disappointed when reading this, but my love for Israel is limited to its future function as a deportation-port for disloyal jews.”

As a brief aside, interestingly, one of those most cited in Breivik’s manifesto, Daniel Pipes, had hypothesized that this was all Breivik’s true intent back in June 2012.

The authors of Gates of Vienna feel that media outlets “chose to bury those portions of the text that would destroy the ‘narrative’ they had so painstakingly crafted over the past two and a half years.”

Further in their view:

“If there were any honesty and decency left among journalists, they would have immediately issued an apology for their previous blindness and stupidity, and a retraction of all the stories in which they had so faithfully promoted a false explanation for the deeds of a mass killer — just as the murderer himself had intended.”

The “narrative” to which the bloggers at Gates of Vienna are referring reflects the media’s attack on the so-called Islamophobes Breivik most frequently cited in his manifesto, who were critical of jihadists and Islam more broadly. Such counterjihadist bloggers and published authors as “Fjordman,” Bat Ye’or, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Pamela Geller were repeatedly harangued in the media, implying guilt by association if not culpability by those portrayed as anti-Islamic right-wingers in the wake of Breivik’s attack.

Here are a sample of some of the articles that ran in the wake of Breivik’s killing spree:

• The New York Times (July 24, 2011): Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S.

• The Washington Post (July 25, 2011): Anders Behring Breivik and the influence industry of rage

• Al Jazeera (July 26, 2011): Islamophobes distance themselves from Breivik

• The Daily Mail (July 27, 2011): ‘We could have another Timothy McVeigh’: U.S. authorities warned against anti-Islamic terrorism after Norway shooter ‘inspired’ by Robert Spencer and Unabomber

Headline in the Daily Mail in the wake of his July 22, 2011 attack. (Image Source: Daily Mail screengrab)

Headline in the Daily Mail in the wake of Breivik’s July 22, 2011 attack. (Image source: Daily Mail)

TheBlaze’s Buck Sexton wrote an article on August 1, 2011 titled, Why Does the Left Seem Determined to Call Anders Breivik a ‘Christian Terrorist’, where he questioned the narrative.

Spencer said in a recent post:

“English-language media has completely ignored this story, not even bothering to publish stories designed to shore up their earlier demonization of the counter-jihad movement, and claiming that Breivik is cravenly trying to obscure his counter-jihadist tracks, or simply delusional and crazy, as Greenfield does. Instead, no one mentioned it at all…Contrast that to the huge media barrage when Breivik’s “manifesto” was first discovered: I was on NBC for the first time in ten years, I was on the front page of the New York Times, I was on the BBC, and in a hundred other places — everywhere being blamed for the murders. But now, when Breivik says he was a Nazi and was not only not influenced by the counter-jihad movement, but was trying to destroy it?”

Whether Breivik’s letters merely reflect the rantings of a murderous psychopath or not (the court deemed Breivik sane in a controversial decision), the facts are clear. In the aftermath of Breivik’s attack, Breivik was portrayed as an anti-Islamic right-winger, heavily influenced by the counterjihadists Breivik cited, toxifying a group of people for their criticism of jihadism and Islamic supremacism. Now that Breivik claims that he manipulated the media, that in fact he used the counterjihadists to shield his true neo-Nazi allies, which he cites by name in the letter at hand, the media has gone mum.

Whatever the truth given Breivik’s questionable psychological state, serious damage has been done to the lives of those cited in Breivik’s manifesto, along with their associates. Does not the media have an obligation to report on Breivik’s newest writings in full, as a matter of equity to those damaged by his manifesto, regardless of whether or not it fits a narrative?

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: journalistic bias


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    Feb 21, 2014 at 2:08 pm

    The media aren’t obligated to do anything, at least not since the floor dropped out on modern journalistic standards. This with the help of the journalism schools at Columbia, Missouri and USC. They’ll do whatever they want to help advance the globo-socialist cause, and admitting that Brevik was one of them would hardly put them in a positive light. They’d need to explain their reporting “mistake” made days after the mass murder.

    It’s like when the Voter ID flap started and the media reported that hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania citizens didn’t have photo IDs. Then it was learned that it was maybe 10,000 who didn’t, and that a proposed law would provide logistical assistance in getting photo IDs in order to vote, for free.

    The media didn’t report that, which is why Holder and others can argue against photo ID voting laws with a straight face. That way they get the enhanced possibility of voter fraud, roughly of which about 100% pull the ballot for the socialist (aka Democratic) ticket.

    • Brian C. Hoff says

      Feb 21, 2014 at 6:52 pm

      Voter faud now is so rare in america election. The Presidental election of 2008 have only 88 cases of voter faud nationwide one half of the cases where not act upton as person accue was eldly who simple forgot they votely already either in early voteing which the racely GOP want to end as the wrong people are voteing(those who willnot vote for the GOP) or vote already that day. Over 100 million vote where cast that day.

      • WVinMN says

        Feb 22, 2014 at 1:03 am

        Voter fraud is an enormous problem in America, and it’s disproportionately committed by leftists not unlike yourself. Many elections are decided by less than 1% of the vote, and that’s when voter fraud can and does decide elections. You know this, and you also know that your side has been stacking the deck for a long time, likely over a century in places like Chicago. Organizations such as ACORN and Turn Texas Blue, not to mention the nearly 2 million DEAD PEOPLE that managed to register to vote in 2012, most certainly had an impact on more than a few close elections. And the vast majority of these crimes were never prosecuted. So marxists can keep claiming “it’s not a problem in the US”. And this doesn’t even address democrat led delays in counting absentee ballots from military personal stationed overseas (see, they tend to vote for conservatives…i.e., not democrats). And I have to wonder, Brian, why are you opposed to mandating that an individual present some form of valid ID if voter fraud is not a problem? I mean, you can’t even apply for an EBT card without presenting some form of ID, so why should someone be able to vote without verifying they are a legal US citizen? If voter fraud is nothing but right wing rubbish, what have you got to lose? If the response from persons like yourself is any indication, a lot more than “88” fraudulent voters.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368234/voter-fraud-weve-got-proof-its-easy-john-fund/page/0/1

        http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/371485/project-veritas-unmasks-fresh-dem-voter-fraud-texas-deroy-murdock

        http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/340174/voter-fraud-never-happens-keeps-coming-back-john-fund

        http://www.victoriataft.com/democrats-block-military-votes-in-another-close-election/

        • Sovereign Man says

          Feb 22, 2014 at 9:21 pm

          Just ignore that illiterate troll “Brian C. Hoff.” No point wasting any effort replying to his garbage, and it just encourages his bored, pathetic behavior.

  2. john spielman says

    Feb 21, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    So, I am confused with this neonazi mass murderer Breivik. Does he think that through Islam, his neo Hittlerite world will come into existence and is he willing to bow to the moon god Allah. Is he infavor of sharia law in Norway. Or is he simply psychotic, deluded, and mentally ill (despite what the courts said)

    • Bezelel says

      Feb 22, 2014 at 8:56 am

      I stick with the “simply psychotic and delusional” theory.You will be right either way.

  3. RodSerling says

    Feb 21, 2014 at 7:04 pm

    The withholding of information from the public on this story is exhibit #348725 that the msm is lying to us about Islam and Islam critics. They have the information, they have Breivik’s letter, and have had it, as I understand, for almost two months. They are not “reporters.” They are not “journalists.” They are ideologues who selectively present or withhold information, depending on whether or not it supports their theories, beliefs, and agendas.

    From Fjordman:

    “Breivik’s letter from prison was sent to a number of international media outlets. These included The Wall Street Journal, the largest newspaper in North America, Die Welt in Germany and Ekstra Bladet in Denmark. In January 2014, these publications acknowledged receiving the letter and stated that Breivik complained about “torture” in jail. Yet they were not honest enough to admit that he confessed that he had quoted anti-Islamic writers in order to harm them. The only outlet that stated this was the left-wing radical magazine Expo in Sweden, which is usually very hostile to Islam-critics.”

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/fjordman/breiviks-confession-and-the-medias-silence/

  4. ladybard says

    Feb 21, 2014 at 9:56 pm

    @John Spielman. Fact. Breivik’s lover in the years preceding his slaughter of fellow Nords was a Pakistani moslem who returned to Pakistan the previous year. Multiple witnesses to the shooting said the there were definitely two shooters, leading me to speculate that the shooting was a moslem suicide pact between the two weirdos.

    I’d like to see Breivik when he is NOT medicated! The whole ‘Knight’ thing was a disinformation construct giving credibility to the possibility of an mk ultra type status.

  5. holybacon says

    Feb 21, 2014 at 10:26 pm

    The new York times is not mainstream media anymore. Hasn’t been for over a decade. It is a niche publication serving a very specific group of social elites. Also that cowardly publication won’t accept comments anymore on the article cited. Why? Because they don’t want to read the fact that their journalism on this was complete garbage

  6. RodSerling says

    Feb 21, 2014 at 11:03 pm

    ladybard,

    “Fact. Breivik’s lover in the years preceding his slaughter of fellow Nords was a Pakistani moslem who returned to Pakistan the previous year.”

    Where is the evidence to support this claim?

  7. Lisa says

    Feb 22, 2014 at 9:44 am

    I see there’s confusion on this issue with Jihad Watchers.

    Here’s the thing: You’re a multicultural, non-racial movement (not necessarily good aspects in this war, I might add).

    Now, in Britain and Europe, there are deeply serious issues of race et al. We’re being wiped out, outbred, and humiliated, daily. And this is the reason we’re so weak and powerless. Also, its because we are natives of the original homeland, the White landmass, that we are intensely aware of what’s happening. You multicultural, non-racial anti-Jihadists see this as Nazism and Fascism, which consistently disappoints me. When you go in that mode, you resemble the ‘anti-fascist’ Leftist.

    We Nationalists are very much as anti-Islam as you; in fact, we’re far more so. But we are also fighting for literal racial survival in our own lands. They’re both connected.

    Hope I’ve cleared some points up. But I predict you’ll all call me a Nazi and a Fascist.

    Sorry.

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Feb 22, 2014 at 5:12 pm

      It’s not about whiteness or blackness or anything else. It’s about human (everybody non-Muslim) versus antihuman (Muslims who belong to a cult that actively seeks to erase their humanity and that of everyone else as well).

      Tsarnaev and a whole bunch of Chechen and Albanian mohammedans are “white” – and so are converts to Islam like Samantha Lewthwaite – and they are just as deadly as the black, brown and yellow (Uighur) variety of mohammedan.

      I have far more in common with a black Christian in Nigeria or an oriental Christian in China than I have with a white Anglo-Celt Aussie who converts to Mohammedanism. I have no solidarity with the latter, because he’s joined the Enemy: the Death Eaters.

      The war we currently face isn’t a war on ‘being-white’. It’s a war on *all that makes us human at our best* – a war on *pet dogs*, a war on ‘uncovered women’, a war on music, church bells, visual representation of living beings, a war on *wine* and *pork*, on *silk* (good grief, silk!). A war that intends to drag all of humanity, never mind our colours, down into a bottomless pit, enslaved to a cult of Murder, Lies, Slavery, Rape and Robbery: a cult that enables all the worst aspects of *any* human being anywhere. The second table of the Ten Commandments wasn’t written by ‘white’ people – it was written by Hebrews – but it sums up the basics of a decent *human* morality…and every clause in that second table is breached by Muslims – no matter what ‘colour’ or ethnicity they happen to be – every day.

    • RodSerling says

      Feb 22, 2014 at 7:48 pm

      Lisa,

      I’ve been reading JW for almost 9 years, and I’d say most here are not “multicultural” in their mindset when it comes to law and morality, equality, security, basic human rights and freedoms (I’ll call these things “the basics” of Western culture). You are right however insofar as most here see this as a struggle between Islam and non-Muslims, and that, if non-Muslims of different cultural backgrounds (including non-Western) can at least agree on the basics, then we can and should work together to oppose Islamization and jihad. Why should Westerners not work with Hindus and Buddhists, for example, provided they agree upon the basics? Why shouldn’t Westerners work with Africans, who are also struggling against Islamization, and who, along with Hindus, have been subjected to the worst atrocities over the longest periods due to Islam?

      There is a distinction between multicultural and multiculturalist. Whereas the former may simply be multicultural in fact, the latter insists that we (in the Western context) must be multicultural and that if we are not sufficiently multicultural, we must be made so by persuasion and/or by force. I think most JWers have no major problems with the former (as long as the basics are maintained), but would resist the latter to the extent that it erodes the basics that we have struggled so long and so hard, as a civilization, to achieve.

      Re ethnic nationalism, I would say most JWers are “ethnic civilizationists” insofar as they want to defend the West or at least the good aspects of the West (the basics) . Almost all JWers as far as I’ve seen would reject any racial requirement, as it is, narrowly, irrelevant to the cause, which is the defense and promotion of the basics for ourselves and everyone else–including for Muslims if they reject sharia and jihad. Moreover, actual racism (as a form of discrimination that favours some and limits or punishes others due to their pattern of biological characteristics) is something that I think most people, myself included, regard as wrong.

      Of course, the hysterical elements of the mainstream media mistake, or rather construe, all ethnic nationalism (when expressed by whites) as Naziism or racial supremacism, whereas ethnic nationalism is mainly a defensive and non-militant movement (or, less than that, an opinion). Polls show that most of the world’s people are (non-militant) ethnic nationalists in that they believe, for example, that current levels of immigration into their own countries are too high (no matter what the actual levels are), the core domestic culture should not be eroded due to foreign influences, etc. The Western media, most politicians, and post-modernist academics have no significant problem with any of this, except when these views are expressed by white people in Western countries in response to the mass-scale transfer of non-Western and mostly non-white populations into Western countries. I am not so sure that most JW commenters conflate ethnic nationalism with racism, but I think many are concerned about the perception or accusation of racism, and are therefore reluctant to talk openly about limiting Muslim immigration or removing Muslims who pose a serious danger to our societies (i.e., the basics).

      It’s interesting that modern Westerners for the most part would accept, for example, arguments made by non-whites that they have a right to preserve their biological distinctiveness. No doubt, the people in the modern West who would be most horrified at the prospect of one race being eventually wiped out by another (e.g., imagine if blacks were eventually replaced by whites in an African country), even through purely non-violent demographic means (immigration and high birth rates), are largely the same ones who are most ardent in defending multiculturalist policies, policies which they know will eventually lead to the elimination of whites, or at least to their reduction to a tiny minority. Among these politicians, and elements of the msm and academia, there is a strong tendency of racism or bias against whites. I mention this, because this is one of the major enabling factors in the current Islamization of the West. Post-modernist whites, and non-whites more broadly, in the West, constantly use false charges of racism against opponents of Islamization, even against mere critics of Islam or those who oppose Islamic terrorist groups. Charges of racism against whites are more often than not false (or overblown) and are used almost entirely with the aim of defeating the West’s basics. Thus, we see those on the far anti-Western left and those of the sharia- and jihad-supporting Muslims–heavily relying on the charge of racism in enabling Islamization, sharia, and jihad. Some of them are more anti-white than anti-Western per se, though most are anti-both. The two are heavily conflated because most Westerners–though barely most at this point in the history of the West–are white. All we in the anti-Islamization set can do is keep showing our true aims, which are to defend the basics for all people.

      Anyway, sorry for the run-on digression. The issue of accusations and perceptions about racism is definitely an ongoing problem. Any movement that has a racial requirement, or limits its membership to whites, is something that we need to clearly reject.

      • Lisa says

        Feb 23, 2014 at 1:38 am

        Dear Rod,

        Thank you for understanding, and thank you for your articulate, wise reply.

        I basically agree with all you’ve said.

      • voegelinian says

        Feb 23, 2014 at 4:06 pm

        I’ve been reading JW for almost 9 years, and I’d say most here are not “multicultural” in their mindset when it comes to law and morality, equality, security, basic human rights and freedoms (I’ll call these things “the basics” of Western culture).

        True; but simply being not multicultural about a whole panoply of non-Islam-related sociopolitical issues doesn’t guarantee that one does not have PC MC spasms and reflexes and instincts when the problem of Islam comes up.

        I have noticed, time and time again, from individuals who are otherwise stalwart “counter-jihad” and are quite politically INcorrect about a whole galaxy of other issues, suddenly exhibit signs and symptoms of PC MC with relation to Islam.

        I have documented, discussed and analyzed this phenomenon (which, for want of a better term — since nobody seems to care, much less even notice, this — “asymptotic”) at great length is dozens of detailed essays on my blog, The Hesperado, over the course of some seven years now.

        • voegelinian says

          Feb 23, 2014 at 4:08 pm

          P.S.: Not only have I diagnosed and analyzed this “asymptotic” phenomenon in the Counter-Jihad on my blog, but also in literally thousands of comments for nearly a decade — some more detailed than others — lodged here at Jihad Watch as well as over at the Gates of Vienna site (and to a lesser extent several other discussion forums along the way).

    • voegelinian says

      Feb 23, 2014 at 3:58 pm

      Lisa has articulated a clearer (though still incomplete) understanding of Breivik’s ideology than one can find either in the MSM or in the Counter-Jihad. Breivik’s “letter” fairly explicitly adverts to what he thinks are two “wings” of the Counter-Jihad — a liberal Jewish controlled wing, and a wing more conducive to his racialist-nationalist ideology. He pretty much explicitly has said that he was trying to sabotage the former, not the latter. I think Breivik’s perception that there are these two “wings” is roughly accurate. Unlike him and his more or less avowed (and/or closet) consanguines in the Counter-Jihad, I tend to find hope in the former wing — though not without considerable critical analysis clarifying what can, and should, be distinguished between useful and harmful derivations of the virtues the modern West has inherited from its great substance of Judaeo-Christian and Graeco-Roman virtues.

      • voegelinian says

        Feb 23, 2014 at 4:00 pm

        P.S.: In describing the former “wing”, I wouldn’t over-emphasize the “Jewish-controlled” aspect — and, by the way, neither does Breivik himself obsess about this as much as I have seen some in the latter “wing” do.

  8. gravenimage says

    Feb 22, 2014 at 11:40 pm

    The Blaze: Media obligated to report on Breivik’s claim he wanted to destroy counter-jihad movement

    Much more important, and universally overlooked, was the news that came to light last month: Breivik released a letter to the international media indicating that he had intentionally portrayed himself as a counterjihadist and Zionist in order to trick the media into attacking these very people and to cover up his true allegiance to “nordicists” and “ethnocentric nationalists” (i.e. neo-Nazis).
    ………………………………….

    Yes—moreover, he was willing to both work with Jihadists and adopt their appalling methods himself.

    Presenting him as an Anti-Jihadist has always been absurd; now it is exposed as being even more so.

    But the MSM doesn’t want to notice…

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Crusades Were Right on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • William Garrison on The Fantasy Islam of Rice University’s Craig Considine (Part 3)
  • Vladimir on Islamic Republic of Iran: Turkey’s Erdogan champions Islam only as a tool to further his own interests
  • John on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’
  • Vladimir on Muslim cleric: ‘We welcomed the takeover of ISIS because they wanted to implement the Sharia’

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.