• 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 hijab as a weapon of Islamization in Iran

Jun 23, 2014 9:15 pm By Robert Spencer

Don’t miss this riveting film. From Iranwire Videos, June 13, 2014 (thanks to WTD):

I worked in Iran for many years as a photojournalist and documentary photographer. Many of my photographs were never published for a variety of reasons, mainly censorship. Because of censorship, the real image of my country is always distorted. After moving to Norway in 2010, I decided to tell the stories of some of the photos I had not been able to publish before. Hejab as Weapon of War is one of these stories. The photographs were taken in different locations and at different times. This is my personal account of what I witnessed.

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: Iran, Sharia, women's rights in Islam Tagged With: featured


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Jhn1 says

    Jun 23, 2014 at 9:33 pm

    The Hijab is Muslim gang colors on the subjugated/compliant women.

    Then it makes sense. Islamic Supremacist Gang colors spreading through Islamic lands is the visible sign of those supremacists, just like Latin Kings or the Crips’ colors are the signs of their control of their “turf.

    • mortimer says

      Jun 24, 2014 at 8:22 am

      Good analogy. Women who wear the veil are examples of the Islamic Stockholm syndrome.

      • voegelinian says

        Jun 24, 2014 at 10:21 am

        All Muslim women suffer from Stockholm Syndrome — the unhijabbed (look for that word in the next edition of the O.E.D.) even more psychologically deranged than the ones who wear the enemy uniform of the hijab.

      • Annie says

        Jun 24, 2014 at 1:09 pm

        When I read, “Inside the Kingdom” (Carmen Bin Laden) I understood even more about how the “religious spirit” works, especially among women. Many of those women want to wear it, it makes them feel “holy” and indeed, holier than thou (you know how women are always competing w/each other).

    • BC says

      Jun 24, 2014 at 8:34 am

      The comparison with gangs is very apt. After all you are usually compelled to be a member and they kill you if you want to leave.
      Their methods are also very similar with casual killing being the usual way of enforcing control of their ‘territory’

      • voegelinian says

        Jun 24, 2014 at 10:23 am

        “gangs” is apt after a fashion, but doesn’t go far enough. The hijab is really an enemy uniform (and there is much wonderfully cultural diversity of enemy uniforms in the Umma). Islam is not just a gang — it is the Super-Gang of the world.

    • Jay Boo says

      Jun 24, 2014 at 8:51 am

      Outside of Islam the color black is often used as a counterbalance trim to accentuate a contrast with bright colors but notice how the black and white ‘jihad flag’ reflects the simplistic narrative of Islam which is mostly about darkness.

    • dumbledoresarmy says

      Jun 24, 2014 at 9:24 am

      Jihad tarts.

      Camp followers

      Gang molls.

      Wearing their Sharia Badge, the Slave Rag, which comes in various forms, beginning with the faux-demure Slave Hood, and progressing in degrees of sinister cover-up, all the way to the Slave Mask and Shroud.

      It’s got *nothing* to do with modesty, this garment. Nothing whatsoever.

      It’s the female mohammedan equivalent of the Black Flag of Jihad flown by the men.

      • Johnson Smith says

        Jun 24, 2014 at 6:56 pm

        Absolutely– the head scarf is more of a political statement than anything else. Proof? It it was worn for modesty, we wouldn’t see women wearing it along with t-shirts and ass-hugging jeans.

  2. Sam says

    Jun 23, 2014 at 10:23 pm

    When you start losing your freedom there will be no end to it. It will end with total slavery and death for masses. What a sick culture Islam creates. Shame on us that we allow it to even come ad breed in America.

  3. Concerned says

    Jun 23, 2014 at 10:47 pm

    Religion. It just sucks….This is what happens when the believers get in charge. Just like they used to in the West…

    • Salah says

      Jun 24, 2014 at 2:02 am

      Please stop comparing Islam to other religions. Islam is pure evil.
      Are you playing taqiya?

    • mortimer says

      Jun 24, 2014 at 8:21 am

      Islam is as much a religion as it is a political system, legal system, societal system, cultural system and military system. No other religion is comparable to Islam.

      Your blanket statements may be emotionally satisfying, but are off-topic in a forum concerned with analyzing political Islam.

  4. Jay Boo says

    Jun 24, 2014 at 12:32 am

    Veil of Airahs (Iranian flag)
    “In The Name Of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful”

    Three colors unfurl with “Allahu Akbar” woven on each between.
    Iran’s red scripted tulip on white unravels beneath Islamic green.
    This flag’s red tulip is a painful reminder against all they pretend
    yet, the regime rejects the message its symbol claims to defend.
    Ayatollahs entice Islamic vanity and ritual to collide.
    Worship on display only bows to the will of pride.
    “Allahu Akbar” Insults decency with all the contempt they conceal.
    Insisting to ‘assist’ the Almighty is Islamic lack of faith revealed.

    Ayatollahs aim one verse’s wrath at the peace of another
    as if to “speak” for Allah while in their shadow of sharia.
    Who do they think they are, to overlook such a blasphemous flaw?
    Willful delusion assaults truth behind sharia law
    and ritual violence feigns an honorable intent
    to snare justice into its web of blatant pretense.

    Feel the last hope of honor suffocate inside Islam’s raised self-righteous clench
    as regime religion surrounds the honor-killing pit with its pious stench.
    The accused sinner is bound and wrapped in burial white,
    like a “GIFT” offered to Allah, yet each grip claims the price.
    Satan’s sacrifice is lowered to elevate their pit’s veiled sin,
    as if, honor might rise unaware of what they truly intend.
    The first rock procured becomes seduced by a Quran’s deadly embrace.
    Her final breath assured when both weapons are fondled with eager disgrace.
    The first stone condemns, as remnants of truth remain silenced and bound.
    A knowing hush submits, freeing the others to convict with hideous sounds.
    Faith diseased, the tulip crafted from within sprouts a demonic weed
    Haunting screams cry unheard in the vast emptiness of Islam’s vile creed.
    Three colors unleashed, in a hellish pit, with praise to God defiled in between;
    Another bloodied white shroud writhing beneath the veil of Islam’s soiled green.

    The-Stoning-Soraya-M
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1320989/The-Stoning-Soraya-M-The-horrific-execution-scene-got-film-banned.html

    • voegelinian says

      Jun 24, 2014 at 10:31 am

      Re: the Stoning of Soraya, a woman once posted a comment on Jihad Watch many years ago:

      Recently my daughter and I took a Muslim friend of my daughter with us to see the movie The Stoning of Soraya M. The film affected my daughter’s friend quite deeply. On the way home she repeated several times, “But she was innocent! They stoned her to death for adultery, and she hadn’t even committed adultery. She was innocent.”

      She then added a very significant statement. “I’m Arab and I’m Muslim, and I believe in Sharia. If she had committed adultery, she should have been stoned. But she was innocent.”

      This is not a terrorist speaking, not an extremist, not a radical. It’s someone who is studying for an advanced degree at one of America’s best universities, and who will return to her country to become a well-respected university professor.

      And she believes that women in the year 2009 should be stoned to death for adultery. Why? Because she believes in Islam, and she believes in Islamic law.

      • voegelinian says

        Jun 24, 2014 at 11:06 am

        And speaking of that movie, The Stoning of Soraya, the star of that movie herself, Iranian-American actress Shohreh Aghdashloo, herself says that stoning has nothing to do with Islam but is only a “cultural” practice!

        http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/06/islamophobophobia-and-the-stoning-of-soraya-m

        That’s how Islam insinuates its sinister tendrils into the hearts and minds even of its “secularized” children throughout the world — and then they purvey camelshit like this, which reinforces the Stealth Jihad and the PC MC that is enabling the Stealth Jihad.

        • Jay Boo says

          Jun 24, 2014 at 11:49 am

          If it is true that she said “stoning has nothing to do with Islam but is only a “cultural” practice then that should be condemned.
          She had an important role in the film but I would not promote her as the STAR of the movie
          The JW link suggests that what you say is correct but the link to the JW source does not work! so I have no way to confirm if she was misquoted by the original source.
          Did she actually say “stoning has nothing to do with Islam but is only a “cultural” practice or did she say it was Islamic and cultural which is true to some extent, I wish I had time to research this some more.

        • voegelinian says

          Jun 24, 2014 at 2:25 pm

          Jay Boo wrote:

          The JW link suggests that what you say is correct but the link to the JW source does not work!

          When old articles have links to JW articles, they are usually dead links, even though the article still exists. Another problem left unfixed by the JW update. This is the live link:

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/06/stoning-of-soraya-m-actress-spreads-comforting-falsehoods-stoning-has-nothing-to-do-with-islam

          so I have no way to confirm if she [Shohreh Aghdashloo] was misquoted by the original source.

          Well, the first link I provided has Robert Spencer himself attesting to it. That should be good enough for JWers.

          Did she actually say “stoning has nothing to do with Islam but is only a “cultural” practice or did she say it was Islamic and cultural which is true to some extent…

          I don’t know what your distinction is supposed to do. Islam is a Super-Culture, meant to swallow up all culture and all cultures in its supremacist system. So any mention of “culture” in the same breath as the Counter-Jihad, unless rigorously and explicitly contextualized in terms of Islam’s supremacism, tends to enable the obfuscation that is killing us (and portends only worse mass murders in our future unless we stop dilly-dallying).

          Anyway, straight from the lovely camel’s mouth:

          “It has nothing to do with Islam. It’s under the category of superstitions and traditions, but obviously those who have hijacked Islam are manipulating people and using this as an Islamic law. It is not, really,” said Aghdashloo, who prepared for her role by watching a real stoning on videotape.

          And as Spencer summarizes in that second live link:

          “Aghdashloo makes a number of factually false statements in this article — not just false, but misleading, and ultimately enabling those who perpetuate the practice of stoning.”

          Back to Jay Boo:

          If it is true that she said “stoning has nothing to do with Islam but is only a “cultural” practice then that should be condemned.

          It’s also important how we condemn such statements. Our condemnation needs to be intelligent and ever alert to the nuances by which the nexus of PC MC/Stealth Jihad ends up being enabled, despite our sincere intentions to be all tough-mindedly “counter-jihad”.

          She [Shohreh Aghdashloo] had an important role in the film but I would not promote her as the STAR of the movie…

          While Aghdashloo didn’t play the stoning victim herself, IMDB under its page for the movie (The Stoning of Soraya M.) lists her first in the cast list, and she’s also the only thespian in the cast (other than actor James Caveziel, Jesus His Own Self — who plays the Iranian journalist, Freidoune Sahebjam, whose 1990 book is the basis for the movie) who has any notoriety in the West, and her career is on the upswing. Back in 2005, when the blockbuster TV show 24 was in full swing (and when it was still daringly dabbling in the depiction of actual Muslim terrorists before the show caved in various ways to PC MC pressure), she played a terrorist Muslim mother and wife, whose husband and son were also part of the terror cell plotting to attack America. Two years prior, in the movie House of Sand and Fog, she played the wife of Ben Kingsley, who together played Shah-supporting Iranian-Americans suffering terribly at the hands of stereotypically portrayed American bigotry.

          Since that time, she has been on several popular American TV shows — The Simpsons, Law and Order, NCIS, Will and Grace, ER, Grey’s Anatomy, House, etc. I see that she has four movies coming up; but I note with a frisson of dismay that one of them, “Rosewater”, about a female journalist detained and tortured in an Iranian prison, is directed by none other than comedian-cum-pundit Jon Stewart — who had the nerve to rebuff Salman Rushdie’s earnest appeal to him to disinvite Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) from his (Stewart’s) massively popular 2010 “Rally to Restore Sanity” in Washington, D.C. (more popular than similar rallies held by Glenn Beck and the Tea Party):

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/11/jon-stewart-unapologetic-for-being-a-useful-idiot-inviting-yusuf-kill-rushdie-islam-to-sanity-rally

          P.S.: I note that Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam in his 1990 book (upon which the movie The Stoning of Soraya M.) was based has descriptions of the source of the problem such as “an implacable, hard-line, reactionary Islam” and elsewhere in the book referring to the Muslims involved in the stoning as “known to be both lazy and filled with anger, men who had found in a new Islam the purifying element that gave a sense to their wretched lives”.

          No, Mr. Sahebjam: the problem is not a “new Islam”, nor an Islam qualified with various torturous adjectives like “hard-line” and “reactionary” (no better for our political science than “radical” and “extremist”), nor a generally amorphous social problem of “lazy” and “angry” men who suffer “wretched lives” and thus find in stoning a woman to death some “purifying sense”. The problem is Islam: Islam, the whole Islam, and nothing but Islam. Thus Mr. Sahebjam: yet another Persian expatriate reinforcing by enabling the Stealth Jihad, rather than with a clear eye (and a clear conscience) helping us to expose it.

        • gravenimage says

          Jun 24, 2014 at 9:42 pm

          Voegelinian wrote:

          And speaking of that movie, The Stoning of Soraya, the star of that movie herself, Iranian-American actress Shohreh Aghdashloo, herself says that stoning has nothing to do with Islam but is only a “cultural” practice!
          ……………………

          This is true. And while I have recommended “The Stoning of Soraya M.” many times—and will continue to do so, as it is a powerful film despite its occasional clunkiness—the film *itself* downplays the role of Islam. For instance, the cleric involved is portrayed as a fake—though it is vague on details, the implication is that this is not really Islam in action.

          In fact, the film is at considerable pains to exonerate Islam.

          And here’s an interview with Aghdashloo:

          “It’s been happening since the Stone Age, in Judaism, Christianity [of course, this is not true—GI], Islam. Other nations and religions have gotten rid of it, and all of a sudden, after 2,000 years of monarchy we’re facing it in Iran…[as though this has nothing to do with the fact that Iran is now an *Islamic theocracy*—GI]

          Aghdashloo stressed that stoning isn’t mentioned in the Koran. [but of course, it is mentioned widely in the Hadith—including being practiced by “the Prophet” himself—GI]

          “It has nothing to do with Islam. It’s under the category of superstitions and traditions, but obviously those who have hijacked Islam are manipulating people and using this as an Islamic law. It is not, really…”

          http://www.silive.com/entertainment/tvfilm/index.ssf/2009/06/movie_profile_shohreh_aghdashl.html

          What bs. This just shows that even brave and decent Muslims—as here—are so often desperately twisting themselves into pretzels to avoid saying anything bad about Islam.

        • Jay Boo says

          Jun 25, 2014 at 12:47 am

          @voegelinian
          Thanks
          The live link was very helpful. While her words by themselves are not technically untrue, the overwhelming impression is that she is trying dance around the elephant in the room Islam.
          The live link you listed had this quote
          “It’s been happening since the Stone Age, in Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Other nations and religions have gotten rid of it, and all of a sudden, after 2,000 years of monarchy we’re facing it in Iran. What makes me feel devastated is the fact that it’s happening there, the cradle of civilization,” said the actress.

        • Jay Boo says

          Jun 25, 2014 at 1:05 am

          @gravenimage
          I have come to expect so little of Hollywood and their like that when a movie comes out with a stoning scene and a cleric with a Quran, I am amazed. (an imam would have been better)

          You mentioned
          “the film *itself* downplays the role of Islam. For instance, the cleric involved is portrayed as a fake—though it is vague on details, the implication is that this is not really Islam in action.”
          Good catch, While it is very possible that there were fake clerics running around Iran back then, it is likely more of a PC move than part of the actual events.

          Of course, if the news media did not sanitize the news we would not need a movie in the first place.

        • Jay Boo says

          Jun 25, 2014 at 1:10 am

          @voegelinian
          When I said
          “While her words by themselves are not technically untrue, …”
          I was referring to the first sentence in the quote only

          “It’s been happening since the Stone Age, in Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Other nations and religions have gotten rid of it, and all of a sudden, after 2,000 years of monarchy we’re facing it in Iran. What makes me feel devastated is the fact that it’s happening there, the cradle of civilization,” said the actress.

  5. Jay Boo says

    Jun 24, 2014 at 12:52 am

    Reference to the caption on the intro page saying:
    “Enforcing the hijab is Iran’s way of proving its Islamization to the world.”

    What would the Sunni world think if Iran slacked off on Islam?
    When will this shackled dog, Iran wake up and stop defending its chain?

  6. Salah says

    Jun 24, 2014 at 2:05 am

    Another funny video from Iran: Getting arrested for wearing red sandals!!!

    http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2011/07/red-sandals-in-iran-des-sandales-rouges.html

  7. Peter Buckley says

    Jun 24, 2014 at 3:31 am

    As the Sunni jihadists try to wipe out the Shia government in Iraq, few people are aware that Iran is already executing Sunnis for no other reason than that they are Sunnis:

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4373/iran-ahmadi-execution-drawing

  8. Memridotorg says

    Jun 24, 2014 at 6:48 am

    The hijab is the weapon of islamization in the US. It’s the weapon this insidious system uses because it knows that non Muslims will temper anger at a woman (unlike actual Muslims) when thry see that as opposed to seeing a male in some overt symbol of the death cult. How many of CAIRs trumped up discrimination press releases are about some woman being denied the right to hijab. Religious freedom twisted to impose totalitarianism.

  9. BC says

    Jun 24, 2014 at 8:37 am

    The intention for USA is for it no longer to be the land of the free, but the land of submission to god and sharia.

    • john spielman says

      Jun 24, 2014 at 8:50 am

      I think you mean ” the god OF sharia” which is Satan, the god of this present world!

    • medina says

      Jun 24, 2014 at 1:26 pm

      You must not be an American, or like many low info voters here, have an understanding of how this nation was formed and who shaped it.

      Nothing worse that the occasional troll equivocators chiming in with “all religions suck.” There is abundant freedom in the United States, and every advantage to criticize any creed. Except Islam, that is. Somehow you blind b@st@rds think that if no other religions existed, Islam would not be a problem. The goal of Satan is to clear the playing field and we are witnessing it now.

      Do not say, “god and sharia;” Al’lah is the false deity to whom human blood sacrifices are made. The true God of Abraham may test our faith, but does not command rape, torture, and killing.

  10. Jay Boo says

    Jun 24, 2014 at 9:04 am

    @john spielman
    I suspect BC may be referring to religion in general as being repressive.
    This is a perfectly valid opinion and this topic lends itself well to express that opinion. I see no problem here (so far) as long as it does not drift into an attempt to imply that Islam is the same as other religions.
    However, I might add that BC’s moniker would seem to hint at a bias against Christianity in particular. It could just be a coincidence.

    • Mirren10 says

      Jun 24, 2014 at 9:49 am

      Did Robert appoint you as resident trollfinder in chief ? I hadn’t noticed.

      • Jay Boo says

        Jun 24, 2014 at 11:15 am

        Could you be more specific Mirren10
        Come out in the open and don’t hide

      • Jay Boo says

        Jun 24, 2014 at 11:31 am

        Voeg ,oops
        I mean Mirren10 You must be referring to smart guy who criticized gravenimage as not being anti-jihad enough and the went on use racist baiting like WhiteHomeland and smoothly sleazed in rambling off topic diversions criticizing Jews Catholics and Protestants like Ismail
        After the following page I defy anyone to defend SmartGuy’s TROLLING

        http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/isis-forces-iraqi-christians-to-pay-jizya-tells-them-to-convert-to-islam-or-face-the-sword/comment-page-1#comment-1080074

      • Jay Boo says

        Jun 24, 2014 at 11:34 am

        @Mirren10
        If you had any courage you would have spoken up on that thread with Smart guy instead of trying to be coy and sneak in here.

        • Mirren10 says

          Jun 24, 2014 at 12:53 pm

          ”@Mirren10
          If you had any courage you would have spoken up on that thread with Smart guy instead of trying to be coy and sneak in here”

          Oh, get over yourself, you self-righteous little wanker.

          I’ve been reading and commenting here for over four years now, and those that know me, know that I have taken on trolls many times, and wiped the floor with them. **Including** the idiotic ‘smart guy’.

          I don’t need any ‘courage’ to comment on an internet forum; what on earth are you drivelling on about ?

          ”trying to be coy and sneak in here” ???

          I am **never** ‘coy’, and neither do I ‘sneak in’ anywhere. I speak my mind, and say what I think. Don’t like it ? Too bad, how sad !

          And I certainly don’t need any ‘schooling’ from a wet-behind-the-ears little pipsqueak like you.

          Get stuffed.

        • gravenimage says

          Jun 24, 2014 at 9:59 pm

          Jay Boo, Mirren *did* take on “Smart Guy”, here:

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/isis-forces-iraqi-christians-to-pay-jizya-tells-them-to-convert-to-islam-or-face-the-sword/comment-page-1#comment-1080061

          and here:

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/isis-forces-iraqi-christians-to-pay-jizya-tells-them-to-convert-to-islam-or-face-the-sword/comment-page-1#comment-1080297

          She’s tough and plain spoken *and* brave.

          I consider *both* you guys staunch Anti-Jihadists.

  11. Jay Boo says

    Jun 24, 2014 at 11:22 am

    As much as I love to take on hypocritical atheists I must admit that not all are Christian hating rift raff

    • Jay Boo says

      Jun 24, 2014 at 11:52 am

      Jay Boo
      Out of office till after 12 PM EST

      • Mirren10 says

        Jun 24, 2014 at 12:55 pm

        Who cares ?

        Boy, do you have a hugely inflated opinion of yourself. 🙂

        • Jay Boo says

          Jun 25, 2014 at 12:13 am

          That should have read 12 AM twelve hours later not eight minutes later
          And you are right no one should care less with the exception of someone wishing to challenge my comments and then expecting a reply

  12. mariam rove says

    Jun 24, 2014 at 11:50 am

    This is by Caspian sea where my mom and dad grew up. I was there every summer with my grandma. When I visited Iran last year and went to Caspian sea to visit my extended family I went to the same beach this guy is talking about. It is depressing to say the least….m

  13. Patriot says

    Jun 24, 2014 at 3:02 pm

    The scary thing is they are trying to bring this to America http://redmillennial.com/2014/06/23/subversive-muslims-seek-out-global-caliphate/#respond

  14. gravenimage says

    Jun 24, 2014 at 11:31 pm

    The hijab as a weapon of Islamization in Iran
    …………………………..

    This was one of the first real moments of understanding I had of the true nature of Islam—the “Islamic Revolution” happened in Iran when I was a teenager.

    Oh, I’d noticed troubling things before: the bloody attacks on Israel, the hijackings, and the bombings; a general impression of Muslim violence from history and movies—but I hadn’t *really* connected any of these things to Islam as such—not in any meaningful way. It was possible to think of this sort of thing as just vaguely happening in “the third world”.

    But Iran was different—here was the Ayatollah Khomeini, loudly proclaiming that all of this oppression and barbarism was being done *in the name of Islam*.

    And for me, one of the most vivid of those oppressions was forcing women into Chadors…as well as the spectacle, which I could scarcely believe at the time, that many of those Muslimahs actually *embraced* their slave rags, and beat other women who tried to eschew them.

    “Iran: Women protest against forced wearing of hijab, 1979”

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/04/iran-women-protest-against-forced-wearing-of-hijab-1979

    And, of course, it is not just Iran—pious Muslims in Syria and Nigeria and Afghanistan are enforcing the wearing of the Hijab, as well.

    And, increasingly, we are seeing this on the streets of the West. They mob the sidewalks of Britain and Europe, and Infidel girls in the Banlieus and Tower Hamlets are harassed if they don’t wear headscarves.

    Until seven years ago or so, I had never once seen a Hijab in California. Now they are becoming increasingly common, and I saw the first Niqab here a couple of months ago…

  15. Mirren10 says

    Jun 25, 2014 at 6:55 am

    @ Jay Boo

    ”And you are right no one should care less with the exception of someone wishing to challenge my comments and then expecting a reply”

    I challenged your comment to me, all right, but I didn’t expect a reply, and I didn’t get one.

    So how about **you** show some ‘courage’, and reply to my comment ?

    Don’t be ‘coy’, and don’t ‘sneak in’.

    I don’t need an officious little twerp who takes it upon himself to issue ”TROLL ALERTS”, then parses what others say, sifting for anything he considers unorthodox. I’m quite capable of deciding for myself whether someone is a troll or not, as are the majority of commenters here.

    And if I disagree with what someone says, or consider that commenter to be a troll, I will reply, or not reply, as *I* choose, not in response to a self-important little twit’s ‘judgement’ that I’m a ‘coward’, a ‘sneak’, and ‘coy’.

    You owe me an apology. But I won’t hold my breath.

    • Jay Boo says

      Jun 25, 2014 at 8:48 am

      A ‘troll alert’ (on a separate post) is an extreme method that I would prefer not to use at all and only reluctantly use it as a last resort because many commenters who skim either don’t notice someone like stealthy ‘SmartGuy’ or chose not to care if the attack is on Christians or Jews or racist if that doesn’t affect them directly. Over time ‘SmartGuy’ trolls instigate commenters to either go back in forth at each other or vainly debate the history of Western Civilisation with excessively long paragraghs instead of the topic.

      I would not flatter yourself too much by graven’s defence
      Your first challenge to Smartguy was very timid and vague in reference to what he said for a four year veteran of JW and did not address his racist race baiting at all and only indirectly addressed his stealth assault on Christianity.
      Your ‘second’ challenge’ to smartguy was only slightly better but appears to be well after your original criticism of my ‘troll alert’ so it is irrelevant to claim it and a bit overgenerous of gravenimage to offer it.
      As far as you being a staunch Anti-Jihadist I will concede on that point
      Your timing at my comment to @john spielman was out of place and for you to expect an apology after starting this scuffle leads me to suspect (in your own words against me) a “hugely inflated opinion of yourself”

      • Mirren10 says

        Jun 25, 2014 at 9:43 am

        ”A ‘troll alert’ (on a separate post) is an extreme method that I would prefer not to use at all and only reluctantly use it as a last resort because many commenters who skim either don’t notice someone like stealthy ‘SmartGuy’ or chose not to care if the attack is on Christians or Jews or racist if that doesn’t affect them directly.”

        So it’s up to you, is it, to put them right ? Instead of posting a silly ”TROLL ALERT”, it would be more valuable to refute what the idiot says.

        ”Your first challenge to Smartguy was very timid and vague in reference to what he said for a four year veteran of JW and did not address his racist race baiting at all and only indirectly addressed his stealth assault on Christianity.”

        ‘Timid and vague’, eh ? I don’t think many JW veterans, who also knew me as Jan, would agree with your assessment. I don’t do ‘timid and vague’.

        http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/uk-government-paid-1000000-to-jihadi-seen-at-al-qaeda-terror-camp/comment-page-1#comment-1063791

        ” … did not address his racist race baiting at all and only indirectly addressed his stealth assault on Christianity”

        If another commenter (not you) has addressed something in a post, and I agree with them, I see no need to belabour the topic, unless I have something specific to say. I have **many** times addressed racist posters, and defended Christianity, although I am myself an agnostic.

        ”Your ‘second’ challenge’ to smartguy was only slightly better but appears to be well after your original criticism of my ‘troll alert’ so it is irrelevant to claim it and a bit overgenerous of gravenimage to offer it.”

        I couldn’t give a tuppenny damn as to your opinion, or critique of the value of my reply to ‘smart guy’. I ‘claimed’ nothing. I replied to ‘smartguy’ because I wanted to take the piss out of his idiocies; it had absolutely **nothing** to do with you.

        ”As far as you being a staunch Anti-Jihadist I will concede on that point”

        Well, that’s big of you. But I don’t give a toss **what** you ‘concede’.

        ”Your timing at my comment to @john spielman was out of place and for you to expect an apology after starting this scuffle leads me to suspect (in your own words against me) a “hugely inflated opinion of yourself””

        Your arrogance is amazing. My timing was out of place ?? I made my comment, because, as I said, I find self-important little jobsworths like you, who take it upon themselves to direct, as they think, how a discussion should go forward, and how people should reply to others, as a gross assumption of superiority, which you have in no way earned.

        ” …or you to expect an apology after starting this scuffle”

        My comment was ; ”Has Robert appointed you troll finder in chief ?”

        You responded by calling me a *coward, coy, and a sneak.** And you have the brass neck to say **I** started this ‘scuffle’ ?

        Get lost you silly little twat. Done here.

        • Jay Boo says

          Jun 25, 2014 at 10:00 am

          So it’s up to you, is it, to put them right ? Instead of posting a silly ”TROLL ALERT”, it would be more valuable to refute what the idiot says.

          That is clearly what I did and you did not “refute what the idiot says.” which surely you must know is what started this in the first place
          For you to boldly state otherwise knowing full well it is not in the least true is a bit disingenuous to say the least.

          Get over yourself

  16. Mirren10 says

    Jun 25, 2014 at 6:58 am

    graven, thank you for your kind words, and your defence.

  17. Mirren10 says

    Jun 25, 2014 at 10:29 am

    @ Jay Boo

    ”That is clearly what I did and you did not “refute what the idiot says.” which surely you must know is what started this in the first place”

    No, that is **not** ”what started this in the first place”.

    I asked you, somewhat caustically, I admit, whether Robert had appointed you ”troll finder in general”, not only because of your ”TROLL ALERT”, but also because of your comment about BC’s comment, in which you appeared to me to be sniffing for signs of ‘unorthodoxy’.

    Your response to me, instead of addressing my question, was to call me a ‘coward’, ‘coy’, and a ‘sneak’.

    Your lack of intellectual honesty is bathetic.

    **Definitely** done here.

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

  • 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’
  • Linda McGuire on UK: Muslim stabs two women in Marks & Spencer, one in the neck, cops search for motive

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.