• 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

France: Conviction overturned of woman prosecuted for insulting Islam

Dec 25, 2014 3:44 pm By Robert Spencer

Christine-Tasin-IIThe French decline to adopt Sharia — at least for now. The jihadis will keep trying to persuade them.

“Court of Appeal Overturns Conviction of Woman Prosecuted for Insulting Islam,” by Oliver Lane, Breitbart, December 22, 2014:

A French woman who protested a temporary tent-abattoir set up in a car-park near a hospital to ritually slaughter animals for Eid has had her conviction overturned, after she appealed a €4,500 fine and three month jail sentence for calling Islam a “cesspit”.

Retired school-teacher Christine Tasin, 58, was convicted under an 1881 law after the prosecution argued criticism of Islam was the equivalent of inciting violence against Muslims, and that in addition to the normal punishment of a fine and imprisonment, Tasin should also be stripped of the right to hold public office.

Her subsequent appeal was supported by Dr. Daniel Pipes’ American-based Legal Project, an advisory and funding body established to “protect the right in the West to freely discuss Islam, radical Islam, terrorism, and terrorist funding”, who have also backed Dutch Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders after his prosecution for criticising Islam.

Overturning the conviction last week, the court confirmed that Islamophobia and blasphemy was not a crime in France, despite the claims made by some Muslim groups after her initial conviction in August.

Speaking exclusively to Breitbart London, Tasin said of the verdict: “Last Thursday was a great day for freedom of expression in France. I said, in Belfort, in 2013, before the mobile Eid abattoir that “Islam is sh*t” to Muslims who had recognized me and attacking me because I claim my Islamophobia.

“I was sentenced to a fine of €3,000 including €1,500 suspended after the Belfort court considered that I had incited hatred against Muslims. The [appeal] court in Besançon has now acknowledged that one has the right to express opinions and I did not encourage hatred against Muslims, and I can think and say that Islam is a threat to France, that it is a freedom of expression.

“The Resistance to Islam and all those who, in France, fear that freedom of expression is disappearing, and that blasphemy has become a crime again are relieved”.

A video of Tasin, taken by a group supporting the abattoir, formed part of the evidence brought against her in the original trial. In it she criticises the slaughterhouse, erected to enable Muslim men to cut the throats of goats and sheep for the Islamic religious festival, for being cruel and unsanitary, but is accused of being an “Islamophobe” for her comments.

Rather than backing down, she wears the label with apparent pride, replying: “Yes I am an Islamophobe, so what? It’s Normal! I’m against Islam that causes problems. I don’t find it normal to torture animals, I don’t find it normal to veil women. I’m talking about a serious problem.

“This must not happen in a public space, it is outrageous that everyone has to eat Halal without knowing it… sixty percent of animals killed in France are killed ritually in line with Islam, and people eat Halal without knowing it”….

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: anti-dhimmitude, blasphemy, France, free speech, Sharia Tagged With: Christine Tasin


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Neil Jennison says

    Dec 25, 2014 at 3:56 pm

    Good on her!!!!!! We need more cases to go to the ultimate courts so it becomes well established in legal precedent that pointing out Islam is an evil religion, a religion that supports paedophilia, suppression of women, and subjugation of infidels is not a criminal offence.

    • Neil Jennison says

      Dec 25, 2014 at 4:03 pm

      Not that I am asking for anything special for Islam…..I am perfectly happy for Muslims to criticise Catholicism and Christianity in general.

      The more the debate is open and honest the better………

      • Kurt L Hanson says

        Dec 25, 2014 at 6:00 pm

        Everyone should build a discussion on the relationship of Aisha, Mo, and the Creator. And how valid could Mr. Spencer make of the age of Aisha during her consummation of marriage with Mo? If she was really between nine and thirteen years of age during her sexual moments with Mo, certainly the Creator who intentionally, deliberately designed children to be non-sexual must have been, shall we say perturbed with Mo such that a revelation of sorts was warranted. Why no revelation from the Creator to Mo is the central theme of this idea. Certainly Mo had a most favored status by the Creator, so much so to have received the many other revelations inside their book, but for the Creator to remain silent in respect to Aisha strikes me as odd. Either the Creator approved of Mo’s conduct, or Mo never did have an intimate relation with the Creator, so much so that revelations were transmitted.

        How valid are those hadiths of Bukhari and others with Aisha? For a novice in Islamist thought such as myself, for me to even know this about Mo and Aisha makes me believe 1200 years of past Islamist scholars found those transmissions valid enough to keep them through the passage of time up to the present day.

        This train of thought needs work. When finished, it could be one of many future, lethal stab wounds to the Beast. Mr. Spencer should work on it. Employ it in future talks. He really needs to change his presentation, and then to be more effective.

        • dlbrand says

          Dec 25, 2014 at 8:40 pm

          “How valid are those hadiths of Bukhari and others with Aisha?”

          In brief: they are solid sound, authentic, reliable, and deemed so by, as they say in Islam, the people of knowledge.

        • earstwhile says

          Dec 25, 2014 at 9:24 pm

          Kurt,
          Aisha was 6 when mohorrid married her and 9 when he raped her. 9 is the age when a child is considered old enough to bear the weight of a man. (As if.)
          You really need to do your homework on islam before criticising Robert Spencer who has done his research.

        • Know Thy Enemy says

          Dec 25, 2014 at 11:28 pm

          Muslims believe that the Creator (Allah) not only fully approved of Mo’s conduct, but actually commanded believers to see Muhammad as perfect role-model! The Pakistani Islamist Junaid Jamshed posted on facebook in urdu (translated here) –

          “A community that does not feel pride in the conduct of its prophet…. what right does such a community have to expect respect from the world….”

          (Source: https://www.facebook.com/JunaidJamshedFansPage/posts/278600985575627 )

          Apparently, Muslims already know that Aisha was only nine when Muhammad ‘consummated’ the marriage with her! …. And they feel pride in this conduct of Muhammad!

      • BC says

        Dec 26, 2014 at 4:47 am

        The victim card is always played by Muslims but the number of Christians abused, raped falsely accuse an murdered in large numbers far exceeds any harm done to Muslims by Christians

    • Betty says

      Dec 26, 2014 at 8:24 am

      WELL SHE SAID IT ALL WHEN SHE CALLED IT A CESSPIT.,

  2. Isabella says

    Dec 25, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    This is a victory over an accusation that should not have existed in the first place. Madame Christine Tasin I congratulate you for your courage and because you have not caved in to the intimidation. Bravo.

    • dlbrand says

      Dec 25, 2014 at 8:41 pm

      “Madame Christine Tasin I congratulate you for your courage and because you have not caved in to the intimidation. Bravo.”

      Amen to that.

  3. Angemon says

    Dec 25, 2014 at 4:50 pm

    Overturning the conviction last week, the court confirmed that Islamophobia and blasphemy was not a crime in France, despite the claims made by some Muslim groups after her initial conviction in August.

    (…)

    The [appeal] court in Besançon has now acknowledged that one has the right to express opinions and I did not encourage hatred against Muslims, and I can think and say that Islam is a threat to France, that it is a freedom of expression.

    “The Resistance to Islam and all those who, in France, fear that freedom of expression is disappearing, and that blasphemy has become a crime again are relieved”.

    Hooray! The system works (for now, that is).

  4. zebo says

    Dec 25, 2014 at 5:06 pm

    I would have given her 10 years prison for insulting cesspits with islam 🙂
    At least Cesspits are usefull and do no harm(as long as ypu are not a nose.

    But that’s once again proof that islam is specially treated.
    If i call christianity a cesspit … nothing would happen.
    But calling satans religion a cesspit=crime.

    To learn
    who rule over you
    simply find out
    who you are not allowed to criticize

    (voltaire)
    And right know there are two groups common people are not allowed to criticize!

    And voltaire(one of the smartest human beings ever) did aot research about islam-and he was spot on almost 300 years ago.

  5. Bartender says

    Dec 25, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    Halal meat should be outlawed in the western countries because it is extremely cruel to animals. If they want to eat that they should need to go to a shiriah country. That is the kind of government they want anyway, right?

    • celticwarriorcanada says

      Dec 25, 2014 at 5:50 pm

      HATS OF TO CHRISTINE AND STANDING OVATION ! Recently during a business transaction a Muslim showed my partner and I pictures on his selfie of some deer he had wounded and ritually slaughtered .I’m not sure why he recorded this . Perhaps he needed something to masterbate to later on ! He then offer my partner some meat, sensing my obvious disdain . Kind of hope he returns and offers me some, so I can explain my refusal though he may have mean’t well. I NEVER THOUGHT I’D BE ON THE SIDE OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS PEOPLE . For the past year I’ve tried to boycott HALAL as much as possible . thus no more Donairs.Though I purchased one a month ago because the business owner was COPTIC CHRISTIAN . It might have been HALAL, but there was no sign indicating so . What really bothered me about the man who offered it to me was the way he bragged about the RITUAL SLAUGHTER being part of his religion .I HOPE OTHERS WILL FOLLOW CHRISTINE’S BRAVE EXAMPLE .

      • celticwarriorcanada says

        Dec 25, 2014 at 6:05 pm

        CORRECTION : It was not the COPTIC CHRISTIAN who BRAGGED;BUT the MUSLIM WITH THE SELFIE RECORDING !

        • zebo says

          Dec 25, 2014 at 6:32 pm

          The problem with ANIMAL RIGHTS PEOPLE
          is the same like with GAYS&
          LESBIANS &
          &FEMINISTS
          &ENVIRONMENTALISTS

          They are so extremly sensible about the slightest things and feel offended no matter how small the “offense” is-they all will criticize the hell out of you for next to nothing.

          But as soon as they find out that you are a muslim they and their demanding agenda collaps faster than poo that fells from a big dogs as.
          Than neither women rights,nor gay rights,nor animal rights nor the nature exist.
          They simply don’t care.Animal,homosexual and female rights obviously only matter if you live in the west AND not a muslim(they don’t even give a shit about female or homosexual rights if you live in western countries but are muslim=this is 100% racist when gay and female rights only exist for a special group.

      • dlbrand says

        Dec 25, 2014 at 8:44 pm

        “I HOPE OTHERS WILL FOLLOW CHRISTINE’S BRAVE EXAMPLE .”

        Indeed.

  6. Salah says

    Dec 25, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    “I don’t find it normal to torture animals, I don’t find it normal to veil women. I’m talking about a serious problem.”

    Time for this beautiful french song again:
    Quand la Femme est Grillagée (the Fenced Woman)

    http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/11/quand-la-femme-est-grillagee-pierre.html

  7. Myxlplik says

    Dec 25, 2014 at 6:25 pm

    Muslims/Islam openly threatens to destroy our cultural heritage, and the freedom to govern ourselves. A mellinium European philosophy which has lead to the greatest achievement in the history of mankind. Western Civilization.

    If that’s not something to fight for, then I don’t know what is.

  8. Henry says

    Dec 25, 2014 at 7:03 pm

    I remember there was a video of this woman bravely speaking up against the Muslims traders, I recall she said ”Islam is filth”to the threatening men. I couldn’t locate the video on You Tube.

  9. Alicia says

    Dec 25, 2014 at 7:05 pm

    Why are Muslim preachers and civic leaders allowed to incite violence against everyone with impunity?

    • dlbrand says

      Dec 25, 2014 at 8:46 pm

      “Why are Muslim preachers and civic leaders allowed to incite violence against everyone with impunity?”

      Because doing so is part of their “religion.”

  10. Georg says

    Dec 25, 2014 at 9:14 pm

    “…prosecution argued criticism of Islam was the equivalent of inciting violence against Muslims.”

    Holy _______ this is getting far from freedom of speech/though… Thank you France, and thank YOU all the verdict was just. Cheers.

    • Georg says

      Dec 25, 2014 at 9:16 pm

      speech/thought*

    • Godwin says

      Dec 25, 2014 at 10:00 pm

      In the first place she should not have been convicted. The judge who convicted her is a dhimmi, just like many of the French n UK leaders.

  11. France is finished says

    Dec 25, 2014 at 11:56 pm

    France does not quite get what they they have imported. This lady makes a good point. The first point of recovery should be eradicating “halal certification”. For France, unfortunately, it is too late. Once the muslims get to the 20-25% population figure in France it will be too difficult for the meek little French to resist. France is already a welfare state on the point of collapse…imagine another 10% of their population claiming benefits because Kafirs and their society should not be respected. Even if Le Pens’ party gained power I think it is too late for France to reclaim their country. I give France 50-100 years and then its all over, red rover.

    • Cicero says

      Dec 26, 2014 at 7:27 am

      It is not just in the country of France that their civilisation wil collie when the Muslimulation reaches 25ercent

      This is already happening in Indian States such as Uttar Pradesh and Kerala and Jammu.there the Muslim population is 25 percent or more. There the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhsts and Jains are attached for practising their faiths and their places of worship are attacked and destroyed.

      Son all of France,s cultural heritage and archicture will similarly be erased from them
      And of France

      A very blessed and peaceful Chrsitmas and a happy and prosperous and triumphant New Year!

  12. Ramon says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 12:21 am

    I finally got to reading the Quran…and I was shocked to read the violence, hatred, superstitions, sex etc….

    Instantly I knew why this Islam is the most evil of religions…poor Muslims, who have been had by the Muslim prophet…

    Quran, the Arabic literary masterpiece…? NOT!

    • jay says

      Dec 26, 2014 at 1:06 am

      I do feel sorry for the generations of brainwashing and cultural integration that cult has for so many people. Muslims are the biggest victims of Islam next to us dirty Kafirs they’ve been programmed since birth to focus all their rage on. Humankind needs to be freed of this poison but I don’t see that happening with anything short of a global catastrophe that wipes out most civilization.

  13. jay says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 12:59 am

    So America saves France again (I kid, I kid). But really, no European legal group exists like this? That’s depressing and telling. But props to the court that reversed it. I can’t believe I’m watching blasphemy and censorship laws being enforced like this, it’s frightening. All I foresee for France is a Lebanon type situation, only I also see a sharp rise in white nationalistic parties in response, so who can say how this will play out.

  14. voegelinian says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 1:02 am

    On a related note:

    France embroiled in free speech row after Islamophobic TV presenter is sacked for saying Muslims ‘should be deported to prevent civil war’

    Interview with Éric Zemmour prompted outrage among French Left
    Asked if he could deport Muslims, he said: ‘History is often surprising’
    He added: ‘Muslims inside French people will lead us to civil war’
    Controversial author dropped from 11-year chat show stint by iTELE

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2883275/France-embroiled-free-speech-row-Islamophobic-TV-presenter-sacked-saying-Muslims-deported-prevent-civil-war.html

    If they could, would the Counter-Jihad Softies assist the mainstream in naming and shaming such intrepid canaries-in-the-coalmine as Zemmour; or would they be supportive…? If Jihad Watch comments over the last several years is any barometer, the answer looks dicey, if not bleak.

    • RonaldB says

      Dec 26, 2014 at 1:33 am

      Vogelinian,

      As usual, you pull a hypothetical question as your basis for attacking JW readers as “Jihad Watch softies”.

      “If they could, would the Counter-Jihad Softies assist the mainstream in naming and shaming such intrepid canaries-in-the-coalmine as Zemmour; or would they be supportive…? ”

      Let’s just say, the big battle, much more winnable, and much more important than getting agreement to deport Muslims who are already citizens and who have no record of supporting criminal actions, is to totally stop Muslim immigration. The US administration is actively planning to increase Muslim immigration and extend stays in the US of non-documented aliens.

      http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/u-n-sending-thousands-of-muslims-to-america/

      With the Obama administration actively flooding the US with more immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, who the hell cares about arguing for deporting Muslims? Stop importing them. There is a much better constitutional case to be made for stopping Muslim immigration, than for deporting citizens.

      And yes, I support the total cessation of Muslim immigration…not that I care if you approve or disapprove. I do not support screening Muslim immigrants for membership in terror groups. I support total exclusion of Muslim immigration.

      • Richard James says

        Dec 26, 2014 at 9:07 am

        Nevertheless, Voegelinian’s repeated observation that all muslims must be expelled from our societies, and indeed from all non-muslim societies, is correct.

        Merely stopping further muslim immigration is not enough.

        Islam as scripture, as laws, as a collection of traditions is not in itself the problem, those things are on their own inert. What most Jihadwatchers fail to face is that muslims themselves are the problem.

        It doesn’t matter that some of them may be decent human beings, they have chosen to be agents of a religion that not only instructs its followers to extort, attack, and murder us but that also instructs them to lie to us about their methods, aims, religion, personal feelings and intention to murder us.

        That means we can’t differentiate which are the murderous deceivers and which the decent and non-murderous: we have, for our own safety, to assume they are all murderous deceivers.

        Get this clear – muslims are the problem because they embody the otherwise inert texts and laws of Islam and give Islam agency.

        The only solution, regardless of practicality, present legality, or western moral squeamishness, is to remove all muslims from our societies, regardless of their age, sex, criminal history or history of humane behavior, and regardless of their country of origin, place of birth, ethnicity, or ancestry.

        They must not be allowed to remain in our societies even if they can prove – say – in France that they have purely french ancestry reaching back to the Gauls. A Thai buddhist just minutes off the boat from Thailand is welcome to stay here, a white european muslim convert is not.

        To permit a single Muslim to stay is to risk the re-growth and metastasis of Islam through our societies.

        We have expelled them before and not only must we do it again but sooner or later we will.

        The longer we leave it, the greater will be the injury to our civilization.

        Voegelinian is right – most of you are softies.

        • RonaldB says

          Dec 26, 2014 at 10:01 am

          I have two points in response.

          Number one is that once you have gotten Muslim immigration cut down to zero, the other problems (at this point) become manageable. Once we break down the chains of political correctness, and actually address the malevolence and viciousness of canonical Islam in the public media, a small Muslim population may be a nuisance, but not a fatal condition.

          So, why not try for a goal which is constitutional, theoretically attainable, far easier to implement, and will solve the critical problem, rather than a goal which is only marginally better, totally unconstitutional, and far more divisive? To me, it’s simple logic.

          The second point is that we may actually be better off with a small Muslim population. The presence of a small number of Muslims will keep us on our toes. It’s like children, who are actually less prone to disease when they have pets. Pets generally harbor more bacteria, but the presence of pets stimulates the immune system of the children, and they become better able to cope with outside bacteria.

          Sweden, as a case in point, was an extremely mono-cultural society until they began importing refugees, probably in the 1960’s. Now, the pressure to conform and fit into society works against them, as harsh social pressure is brought against anyone questioning the current rush to oblivion due to the unconstrained importation of Muslims. A bit of diversity in a society is actually healthy, not because it makes us morally superior, but because it keeps us on our toes about the extremely hostile elements trying to get in.

        • voegelinian says

          Dec 26, 2014 at 4:12 pm

          Every once in a blue moon I see a comment here on Jihad Watch that goes beyond the usual anti-Islam formulations to pierce through to the next level: the problem of Muslims. Richard James has done a good job articulating the point with scintillating verve.

          The Counter-Jihad in many respects has been evolving (though some people, like Robert Spencer, seem to have an eternal state of mind that never changes on this issue but has always held the same constellation of principles). One example of this evolution has been the fact that the concept of the “moderate Muslim” now arouses only derision and disdain and is (rightfully) dismissed out of hand; where a decade ago some (if not many) in the Counter-Jihad would weave it sincerely into their arguments, as though it was a viable idea.

          A more stubborn hangover, however, that continues to exert a retardant effect on the movement’s learning curve, is the notion (usually only semi-consciously assumed, rarely lucidly argued) that the problem is only Islam, not Muslims per se. This ill-formed axiom (or given or shibboleth) is part of a larger, not entirely coherent psychological and cultural nebula in the hearts & minds of many (if not most) in the Counter-Jihad, which springs into action whenever someone like me raises deportation. The net effect of this axiom, its contextual nebula, and the reactions that are triggered, is to defend Muslims in the West (such as, for example, RonaldB’s “Muslims who are already citizens and who have no record of supporting criminal actions” — an example I could multiply by the hundreds by other stalwart no-nonsense Jihad Watchers over the years (and by the silence of those who ignore those who attack me for criticizing this Softness). Of course, the typical Counter-Jihad Softy will protest with wounded feelings and piqued irritation that he is not defending Muslims; but he is thereby showing his inability to distinguish his mushy feelings from the effect of the logic of his words. In some ways, the stalwart, no-nonsense Jihad Watcher who regularly trumpets his or her braggadocio is that much more annoying than the typical PC MC from the mainstream; if only by virtue of the obtuseness they display in their obstinately self-righteous incomprehension of the glaring cognitive dissonance (if not hypocrisy) manifested by the chasm between their Counter-Jihad rhetoric and their hostility to those who defend total suspicion of all Muslims.

        • Angemon says

          Dec 27, 2014 at 11:10 am

          voegelinian posted:

          “The net effect of this axiom, its contextual nebula, and the reactions that are triggered, is to defend Muslims in the West (such as, for example, RonaldB’s “Muslims who are already citizens and who have no record of supporting criminal actions” — an example I could multiply by the hundreds by other stalwart no-nonsense Jihad Watchers over the years (and by the silence of those who ignore those who attack me for criticizing this Softness).”

          Translation: if you don’t agree with what voeg posts, or if you don’t defend him from those who criticize him, then you’re defending muslims. So get on defending him from critics, even if you disagree with him. Because, as it is written in the Holy Voegan, chapter 2, verse 216:

          “But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And voegelinian Knows, while you know not.“

        • Angemon says

          Dec 27, 2014 at 10:18 am

          Richard James posted:

          “They must not be allowed to remain in our societies even if they can prove – say – in France that they have purely french ancestry reaching back to the Gauls.”

          How would you tell a muslim who claims he’s not, or ever was, a muslim from someone who’s not a muslim? And where would you deport them to? Drop them from a plane over a muslim country hoping that they wouldn’t parachute them back?

        • Steakman says

          Dec 27, 2014 at 10:58 am

          As a Canadian who sees things much as you do, I am 100% in agreement. Islam must be eradicated from Western Civilization. Period.

          If we do not move on this – we become subsumed and consumed….willingly aided and abetted by the left wing morons in our societies.

        • voegelinian says

          Dec 27, 2014 at 12:57 pm

          Steakman says

          December 27, 2014 at 10:58 am

          “As a Canadian who sees things much as you do, I am 100% in agreement. Islam must be eradicated from Western Civilization. Period. ”

          I said nothing about Islam being “eradicated”. As I have said before in different comments threads on Jihad Watch (and elsewhere), I think it’s a serious mistake for us to set our sights on such an unrealistic goal, what with 1.2 billion people concentrated in over 50 nations around the planet and also dispersed in the millions in dozens more countries, including nearly every country of the West. What’s that old song…? “Softies to the left of me, genociders to my right — here I am, stuck in the middle with you…”

        • Angemon says

          Dec 29, 2014 at 3:12 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “I think it’s a serious mistake for us to set our sights on such an unrealistic goal, what with 1.2 billion people concentrated in over 50 nations around the planet and also dispersed in the millions in dozens more countries, including nearly every country of the West.”

          Steakman said “islam”, voeg replies with “muslims”. Can you say “strawman”?

        • Champ says

          Dec 27, 2014 at 4:05 pm

          Voegelinian is right – most of you are softies.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          I disagree. Most of us are at a loss about how to *lawfully* deport muslims under our current U.S. Constitution and administration …

          And many posters have repeatedly asked voeg to formulate a course of action to deport muslims–that is lawful, but he has failed to make any plans known to us. Personally, I don’t think he has a “plan”. Instead, he engages in friendly fire ad nauseam.

        • Know Thy Enemy says

          Dec 27, 2014 at 5:12 pm

          @Champ
          You are right- Under the current US Constitution and administration, it is impossible to deport Muslims.

          So the solution is- Change the administration, and modify the Constitution (by adding amendments etc). Then deport the Muhammadans!

          And before anyone tells me that it is not possible to modify the Constitution, let me assure all that once the public understand the malevolence and viciousness of Islam and the danger that Islam poses to the US Constitution itself, it IS then easily possible to do anything! So for example, an amendment can be added that since Islam is primarily a State, a person holding membership (read citizenship) of this state is NOT to be recognized as a citizen of US!
          ————–

          I don’t know about voeg’s plan, but I can tell you my plan: Deport a small percentage of Muslims (since their primary citizenship is to the state called Islam). The rest will ditch thier Islamic citizenship out of fear and would not need to be deported 🙂 This plan is easily feasible!

      • voegelinian says

        Dec 26, 2014 at 2:25 pm

        “Let’s just say, the big battle, much more winnable… is to totally stop Muslim immigration.”

        I’ve already addressed this canard several times, including in this essay:

        Closing the barn door – not after the house has got out, but after the wolves have gotten in
        http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2009/10/closing-barn-doornot-after-horse-has.html

        (And, on a related rant, see:
        http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2012/01/jihad-watchers-still-schizophrenic-i.html)

        “…and much more important than getting agreement to deport Muslims who are already citizens and who have no record of supporting criminal actions…”

        Spoken like someone who has obviously not fully digested the full horror of the mountain of data about Islam and about Muslims (which includes the problem of the stealth jihad, which in turn includes the problems of taqiyya, false assimilation, and the False Moderate) which Jihad Watch has been reporting day in and day out for weeks, months, years.

    • RonaldB says

      Dec 26, 2014 at 5:10 pm

      I’m not really addressing Vegelinian, as his “replies” never really address the issues that are brought up in response to his assertions. I am, however, addressing people who might be reading the exchanges and analyzing them with a critical eye.

      Vogelinian asserts that people who object to the mass deportation of Muslim citizens “defend Muslims in the West”, that these people do not take into account ” the problem of the stealth jihad, which in turn includes the problems of taqiyya, false assimilation, and the False Moderate)”. In other words,Vogelinian assumes that those who object to mass deportation feel they can distinguish non-violent from violent Muslims, and that they feel non-violent Muslims do not present a danger to society. And he never changes his accusation, regardless of the arguments presented to him. He never addresses the argument that with Muslim immigration stopped, we will be faced with a nuisance, rather than an existential threat.

      Vogelinian further asserts “the problem of the numbers of Muslims within the West is only going to increase as the years go by, through a combination of continued immigration and high birth rates “. Vogelinian ignores the fact that continued immigration is just what the argument is about. In other words, he never addresses the real arguments against his position at all. He never looks at them. The link he gave us is a simple restatement of his initial position, that the numbers of Muslims will increase even if immigration is stopped, because of continued immigration. Yes, the argument is that dense!

      The major problem with doing ANYTHING right now is the overwhelming blanket of political correctness that forbids the mention of Islam at all, except in passing. If we could get a deportation of all Muslims, the problem of objective discussion of Islam would surely have been solved. On the other hand, if we could stop all Muslim immigration, the problem of objective the lack of objective discussion would surely have been solved, and with further Muslim immigration stopped, there would be no problem at all observing and debating any need for further steps.

      So, the question Vogelinian never examines, never addresses, never considers, and never takes into notice is, given an extremely difficult battle you are likely to lose, and a battle that gives you 95% of what you need, and which is far more likely to be successful, why would you choose the more difficult battle, and take every opportunity to denigrate people who have been extremely effective in laying the groundwork you need for the easier battle?

      • Know Thy Enemy says

        Dec 27, 2014 at 1:30 am

        @RonaldB,

        Let’s review the two battles that you talk about-

        Battle 1) Deport ALL Muslims (except Ex-Muslims of course), AND ban all Muslim immigration.

        Battle 2) Ban all Muslim immigration, but don’t deport anyone.

        In your two posts here, you emphasize that “The major problem with doing ANYTHING right now is the overwhelming blanket of political correctness that forbids the mention of Islam at all, except in passing.”

        IMO if we can “break down the chains of political correctness, and actually address the malevolence and viciousness of canonical Islam in the public media“, then either of those battles are fairly likely to be successful!

        So why do you say that Battle 1 would be extremely difficult but Battle 2 would be far more likely to be successful?? Why would Americans have a problem deporting all Muslims once they understand the malevolence and viciousness of canonical Islam??

        • RonaldB says

          Dec 27, 2014 at 10:28 am

          Know thy enemy,

          Thank you for a reasonable response. I don’t agree with your points or conclusion, though.

          1) I didn’t say deport NO Muslims. Once we come to our senses and argue the merits of Islam rationally and openly, it will become apparent that Muslims with a dual citizenship who that advocate sharia law or support Muslim groups that promote terror or actively support sharia law, which is the same thing, should be deported. Why fight it out now? France deports fanatic imams.

          2) But most importantly, stopping of immigration and deporting non-criminal citizens are an entirely different things. It’s not simply a matter of a) convincing the media and public to debate Islam and b) decide to deport all Muslims.

          My argument is once you begin an open debate, you’ve gone most of the way to stopping immigration, which will solve most of your problems, at least in the US. Your argument is, it will be just as easy if you advocate deportation. I disagree. It will be far easier to get a hearing with a constitutional objective than a non-constitutional objective.

          And by the way, I do have to confess. I do not advocate or support the massive deportation of Muslim citizens who have in no way actively supported terrorism, jihad, or the imposition of sharia law. I do not think they are benevolent, and I recognize they are a dangerous presence. At their present population percentage, I’m willing to tolerate them because I support the US Constitution and because I don’t think they will be able to be a threat once there is an open debate.

        • Angemon says

          Dec 27, 2014 at 11:00 am

          RonaldB posted:

          “I support the US Constitution and because I don’t think they will be able to be a threat once there is an open debate.”

          Same here. If the average guy/girl on the street knew what islam has in plan for non-muslims, what it mandates for the world and what means muslims are allowed to use, perhaps they would think twice before considering muslims in the West as “underdogs” or “persecuted”.

        • Darren says

          Dec 27, 2014 at 12:18 pm

          Maybe the first step would be to get islam labeled as a subversive harmful political ideology, Yes I know it’s a religion despite it being 80% politics and 20% religion, but no one can deny the political aspect to islam. In WW2 we didn’t allow the German American Bund to operate freely and openly in this country. The ideology of Nazism was recognized for what it was and steps were taken.

          Despite having freedom of speech we still cracked down on the ideology of Nazism. I also agree, that we have to do it by degrees. Even the radical left as opposed to working class true liberals, understands that to implement their dystopia it has to be done in increments, well we should use the same tactics, but our goal isn’t to usher in a dystopia it is to simply protect western civilization and innocent lives who are at risk due to this intolerant and hateful ideology/religion.

          The first step is to simply spread the truth and maybe even get converts on the left like Bill Maher. Despite my dislike of the man he is serving a useful purpose on opening up a debate and shining light on this issue. If someone like Mr. Spencer talks about islam he is automatically dismissed as a hateful bigot, but if one of their own brings up the issue, they might initially say the same thing of on of their own, but others sit up and take notice. If our side ever gets to have a civil rational debate without being shut off we will win, the facts and history speak for themselves.

          Getting the truth out to other groups is an important first step. Going to liberal bastions in social media armed with the facts and some good debating skills and out debating the opposition until more and more public opinion is on our side is about the most many of us can do, still it’s better than nothing. If the movement is big enough maybe over time we can help effect public opinion on the issue.

          Getting liberal converts to the cause is very important, since we need the help of the left as well, and this is a bipartisan issue. Ironically the Islamic State did more to help the cause of raising awareness of the evil ideology of islam than anything any of us could have ever done. You are 100% correct Ronald we need a clear realistic strategy. Simply saying deport all muslims despite the political environment making such action impossible does nothing. We need to set realistic goals and implement them.

          We also need better marketing, since for some reason and not just on this issue our marketing seems to be lacking in comparison to the other side. I’m just a simple blue collar shmuck and not some great thinker or tactician, so maybe people smarter than myself can think up some better ideas. I wish I could honestly do more than simply spread the word and get as much attention to this issue and debate stealth jihadist trolls on social media, sadly I’m just a nobody. I’ll keep trying to do my part though despite how seemingly useless it is, I guess tilting at windmills is in my DNA.

        • Know Thy Enemy says

          Dec 27, 2014 at 4:37 pm

          @ Darren and others

          “Ironically the Islamic State did more to help the cause of raising awareness of the evil ideology of islam than anything any of us could have ever done.”

          Correct. It happened because the brutality of IS went straight to affecting people’s emotions. Emotions have a far stronger control on the human brain than rationality and logic etc. At JW we present arguments based on their being reasonable, rational, and logical, but we end up losing to our opponents because when they call us bigots, and haters, their message goes straight to people’s emotions. People [in most of non-Muslim world] have been taught from young age things like “It is WRONG to be a bigot”, “It is WRONG to be a racist”, “It is WRONG to hate”, etc, and such feelings have taken home in our psyche. I am sure there are people out there who cannot find logical/rational errors in our arguments, but they fear supporting us because as I said, emotions have a stronger control on us, and no one wants to be “racist”, “bigot”, or “hater”, no matter how rational our arguments are.

          What about Muslims? Lots of them are appalled by the actions of IS, Taliban, and other jihadists, but they don’t blame Islam. Why? I have had chats (alongside other Islamorealists) with Muslims who ultimately were reduced to relying on Pascal’s Wager to justify why they would stick to Islam. Ali Sina provided a very rational response to Pascal’s Wager but even that failed to make them ditch Islam. Why? Again because of how strongly emotions control us. Muslims fear being disloyal to Islam, they fear to fail what they think is a test from Allah (to see if they can maintain their deen)! They fear that Shaitan is trying to trick them with his tools called rationality, logic, and reason!

          Add to that that whoever of influence that they come across, not only does not question Islam, but actually praises the religion and supports its followers. A staunch Nazi might ditch his ideology when he sees how little support his group has in the world. (Our emotions make us stay away from weak, vilified groups). But why would a Muslim leave ummah when everyone of influence actively supports them?

          This brings us to the original topic of this sub-thread: Deportation of Muslims. I support deporting them (every single one of them), unless they leave Islam! I support it because only the fear of deportation will reach their emotional brain! Only this fear will be strong enough to compete with the other fears they have (mentioned above)! Only this fear will make them see the reason, rationality, and logic in our arguments against Islam. Only then will they quit Islam!

          Of course once they have quit Islam, there would be no reason left to deport them. However, whatever few Muslims refuse to quit Islam, WILL HAVE TO BE deported, so the world knows that we are serious about our warnings of deportation.

          Hence, anyone who thinks we are going to be able to defeat Islam without the threat of deportation, is imo ignorant of the role of emotional component of human psychology. If deportation of Muslims is not constitutional, then we will have to somehow MAKE IT constitutional!

          (Note: I am not a psychologist but I am sure that readers with expert understanding of psychology can present my argument better. I invite them to do so and will appreciate them for it.)

        • RonaldB says

          Dec 28, 2014 at 10:27 am

          To “Know thy Enemy”:

          I know it’s rather late in the thread to make a reply, but you make a rational argument for deportation, and I think it deserves a reply.

          “This brings us to the original topic of this sub-thread: Deportation of Muslims. I support deporting them (every single one of them), unless they leave Islam! I support it because only the fear of deportation will reach their emotional brain!”

          You argue for deportation of Muslims because it will overcome the imprinted fear in them resulting from mindless repetition of Islamic creed and abusive upbringing (I’m extrapolating your arguments), and cause them to leave Islam, which is what will really alleviate the danger they pose.

          You recognize that such a step is unconstitutional, and advocate changing the constitution to allow it.

          Let’s examine two points: the horrific consequences of such a move, and whether our country and culture is survivable without such a drastic step.

          First, deportation of all Muslims would represent a significant deterioration of our heritage and rights as Americans. It would lay the precedence for deporting US citizens on the basis of their beliefs, without having to prove a crime, or even the preparation for a crime. Can you think of a surer recipe for a totalitarian government? Can you imagine a more competent Obama, holding his same beliefs, with the power to deport his critics?

          Second, deportation would be horrific to the people involved. Where would they go, if they didn’t hold dual citizenship? Muslim countries are not about to accept outside Muslims. Look at what happened with Lebanon, which gave the Palestinian refugees free access. The Palestinians tried to take over Lebanon, supported terrorism against the Christians, and shifted the traditional balance of power. They did the same thing in Jordan, where they revolted against the king who protected them. The Muslims are far too familiar with Muslims to give them free access.

          So, you have millions of people you want to deport, and nowhere to send them. The only alternative would be to send them to some failed state unable to defend its borders, where most of them would be killed by warlords or bandits. And these are people who have committed no crimes.

          The second part of the question is, would we be able to survive as a society without the horrific step of being responsible for the death of millions of people, most of whom have committed no crimes?

          I think the evidence is that we could, as long as we take steps to protect ourselves from infiltration of our institutions. Many of the anti-Communist laws of the 1950s would serve as a model, where people are excluded from immigration or government posts on the basis of holding certain beliefs counter to our tradition of free government. The Supreme Court found these laws to be unconstitutional, but I think that judgement was questionable, and could be revised without affecting our base constitutional liberties.

          In other words, once we activate our internal defenses against the threat of Islamic takeover, we can avoid the horrific consequences of mass deportation, both to our liberties, and to the people facing deportation. As Vogelinian points out, this depends on how soon we implement an immigration shutoff.

        • Darren says

          Dec 28, 2014 at 2:32 pm

          That leaves us with the question what do we do? As history as shown time and time again when the muslim population reaches a certain percent bad things happen. Anytime a country becomes majority muslim all hell breaks loose for the infidel. Some European countries will become majority muslim over time, and this will lead to civil war. Lebanon and Serbia are modern examples of this. How do we coexist with a people whose religion says to kill or subjugate us?

          What steps do we take to defend ourselves and how much is too much. I am also thinking long term on this issue since conquest by demographics is a long term strategy. A lot of Europe this century is in real danger of islamic demographic conquest. Even with the their numbers now look at all of the no go zones in Europe. What’s worse this conflict will never end and will only get worse and worse, these people are like the terminator they won’t quit. They have declared eternal war on us. There has never been a religion or ideology like this in the history of humanity. What do we do about the eternal war that won’t end?

        • Know Thy Enemy says

          Dec 28, 2014 at 4:55 pm

          @RonaldB,

          “It would lay the precedence for deporting US citizens on the basis of their beliefs, without having to prove a crime, or even the preparation for a crime.”

          Islam is not simply a belief system. It is also a State. A Muslim’s first and primary loyalty is to this state.

          Canada and UK are states too. And so was Soviet Russia. Now whereas a person can hold a dual US-Canadian citizenship, or dual US-UK, have you ever heard of someone holding dual US-Soviet citizenship? I never have! The US govt never permitted such a thing. A person was either a US citizen or a Soviet citizen. Whoever overstayed their visa was deported!

          Would you say the US was wise to deny dual citizenship to Soviet Russians? If you ask me, I say yes, it was a very wise thing to do!

          The deportation of Muhammadans would not be because of their beliefs, or because of their having committed crimes. It would be because they are not citizens of the US. A person whose primary citizenship is to the state called Islam has to be removed from our country!

          As for such a step setting a precedence for bad things to happen, sometimes you have to put trust in people’s intelligence and wisdom. People are wise enough to realize that very harsh measures are only for very harsh situations. The US dropped atomic bombs on Japan during WW2. Did it set a precedence for throwing atomic bombs on whoever we do not like? Do Americans openly call for throwing atom bombs on others every other year? No, they don’t. People are wise enough.
          ——————-

          “Second, deportation would be horrific to the people involved. Where would they go, if they didn’t hold dual citizenship? Muslim countries are not about to accept outside Muslims.”

          Yes I know that….. And the Muslims know it too! That is why I said that fear of deportation will make them see all the bad things that Islamorealists point out in Islam.

          As for the few who would absolutely need to be deported, we need to realize that we are in a WAR! We did not start this war (Muhammad did!), we don’t want this war, but we will suffer serious consequences if we don’t fight in this war.

          ….. And bad things happen in war! That is the nature of war….. there has never been a way around it!
          ——————-

          Shutting down immigration alone will not save our countries from Islam if there are Muslims living in here. Islam itself needs to be declared an enemy (just as Communism and Nazism were) and steps taken accordingly!

        • Know Thy Enemy says

          Dec 28, 2014 at 5:12 pm

          @Darren

          “What do we do about the eternal war that won’t end?”

          If you can’t deport them (because the Left/progressives won’t let you) then there is only one solution that I can think of:

          Be eternally ready for war! That is, become a Sikh. A Sikh is religiously required to stay prepared to face conflict throughout his life. Whatever else a Sikh does, he has to be ready for a fight too!

          If you do decide to become a Sikh, I strongly suggest that you fight only to save your own community. Do not fight to protect the Leftists and progressives. They will only pull you into their stupidity and make it harder for you to fight effectively! Stay away from them and let them suffer the consequences of their stupidity.

      • Angemon says

        Dec 27, 2014 at 10:24 am

        RonaldB posted:

        “I’m not really addressing Vegelinian, as his “replies” never really address the issues that are brought up in response to his assertions.”

        Precisely.

      • voegelinian says

        Dec 27, 2014 at 2:53 pm

        I’m not really addressing Vegelinian, as his “replies” never really address the issues that are brought up in response to his assertions.

        Speaking of “assertions”, this is an assertion by RonaldB – one which he hasn’t justified with an argument or even any evidence.
        RonaldB goes on to write:

        “I am, however, addressing people who might be reading the exchanges and analyzing them with a critical eye.”

        Then immediately following that, he strawmans me:

        “Vogelinian asserts that people who object to the mass deportation of Muslim citizens “defend Muslims in the West”…”

        That’s not exactly what I said. I said these types of Counter-Jihadist I was referring to (the so-called “Counter-Jihad Softies”) say things that have the logical import & purport of defending Muslims; and that reveals why they tend to push against the Total Deportation meme. RonaldB’s crudely simplistic characterization of what I described thus conveys a subtly wrong impression.

        RonaldB goes on to write:

        “…that these people [i.e., the Counter-Jihad Softies] do not take into account “the problem of the stealth jihad, which in turn includes the problems of taqiyya, false assimilation, and the False Moderate)”. In other words,Vogelinian assumes that those who object to mass deportation feel they can distinguish non-violent from violent Muslims, and that they feel non-violent Muslims do not present a danger to society.”

        I already provided evidence of this from RonaldB’s own words. He apparently has a very short memory of what he himself wrote:

        “…much more important than getting agreement to deport Muslims who are already citizens and who have no record of supporting criminal actions, is to totally stop Muslim immigration.”

        RonaldB is, by the patent logic of this locution of his, obviously regarding these types of Muslims in the West as sufficiently harmless that we can continue to allow their ongoing presence in our societies.

        RonaldB goes on to write:

        “And he never changes his accusation, regardless of the arguments presented to him.”
        RonaldB provided no argument to show that his locution does not effectively defend the Muslims who are already in the West – i.e., defend those millions of Muslims from our rational suspicion of an indeterminate number among them as deadly dangerous (with the combination of indeterminacy and the horrific potential of the danger — each factor being a reasonable assumption – rendering them all equally suspect regardless of ostensible differences).

        RonaldB goes on to write:

        In fact, I do, and I have. In my previous comment, which RonaldB is evidently blithely ignoring, I linked to my essay –

        Closing the barn door – not after the house has got out, but after the wolves have gotten in
        http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2009/10/closing-barn-doornot-after-horse-has.html

        — which presents the rather simplex argument against the meme of halting immigration alone (of course I support halting immigration of Muslims; but I oppose a meme of pushing for immigration that expressly opposes a linkage with its necessary corollary, deportation).

        RonaldB goes on to write:

        “He never addresses the argument that with Muslim immigration stopped, we will be faced with a nuisance, rather than an existential threat.”

        “Never”? In fact I have, many times; including in the above-linked essay. The argument is simplex; there are already enough Muslims (how about motherfreaking millions?) inside the West, infiltrated into nearly every sociopolitical, socioeconomic and cultural institution conceivable (not only as taxi drivers and 7-11 clerks, but also in law enforcement, the legal system, various parts of the business world, in politics, academe, popular culture (e.g., as writers, editors, grips, producers, directors, actors in television and Hollywood), schools, hospitals, clinics, power plants, food processing plants, airports (including baggage handling and airport security); et freaking cetera…). Does RonaldB really think that taking such an overtly hostile action as halting immigration will not be tantamount to prodding the hornet’s nest of the Muslim’s already volatile and inflammatory sensibilities? One supposes he must consider the resident Muslims to be just passively inert and somehow magically different from their fanatical co-religionists abroad.

        RonaldB goes on to write:

        “Vogelinian further asserts “the problem of the numbers of Muslims within the West is only going to increase as the years go by, through a combination of continued immigration and high birth rates “. Vogelinian ignores the fact that continued immigration is just what the argument is about. In other words, he never addresses the real arguments against his position at all.”
        Again, in fact I have addressed this many times, including in the above-linked essay. The reason I say that

        “…the problem of the numbers of Muslims within the West is only going to increase as the years go by, through a combination of continued immigration and high birth rates…” is because of what I immediately follow up with in that same above-linked essay:

        “It is eminently reasonable to suppose that neither Diana West’s proposal nor Auster’s similar proposal [and RonaldB’s similar proposal] is going to be implemented for years—if not decades—from now.”

        If RonaldB doesn’t think that’s an eminently reasonable supposition, he just hasn’t been reading the dismally dismaying mountain data reported at Jihad Watch (and elsewhere, such as at the Gates of Vienna blog) of the PC MC quasi-dhimmitude that is rampantly prevalent and mainstream throughout the entire motherfreaking West on so many levels. The West can’t even honestly condemn Islam yet; how in the world are we going to take such a blatantly discriminatory action as halting immigration in time to prevent the currently open spigot of influx to continue, leading to millions more streaming into the West? And this isn’t to mention the dominant meme of “cultural enrichment” in the West with all its attendant axioms & attitudes that tend to favor the neo-Wilsonian Western Man’s Burden of helping all these Third Worlders through, in great part, letting them immigrate (with the aforementioned factor, for those among the Counter-Jihad with extremely short attention spans, of the irrational prohibition of honest criticism of Islam (much less the condemnation it so richly deserves) rendering the Muslim immigrant an especially protected class). And if all this isn’t enough, RonaldB’s logic is predicated here on presuming that the millions of Mohammedans already in the West do not already represent a deadly dangerous powderkeg which will only get worse as we begin with incremental timidity to tighten up our measures against them (viz., increased surveillance, increased critical hostility to their religion, increased restrictions on immigration).

        RonaldB goes on to write:

        “The major problem with doing ANYTHING right now is the overwhelming blanket of political correctness that forbids the mention of Islam at all, except in passing. If we could get a deportation of all Muslims, the problem of objective discussion of Islam would surely have been solved.”

        My argument, unlike RonaldB’s, is not predicated on the notion that we can do this day after tomorrow. It’s predicated on the realistic assumption that it won’t happen for decades — but that it has to be pushed for, like all major sociopolitical paradigm shifts (such as the century-long movement for the Abolition of slavery in the 18th-19th century). The paradigm shift is less likely to happen if nobody pushes for it; and it’s dispiriting to see such resistance even from within the Counter-Jihad, the one place where one would expect to see some outside-the-box thinking on this. Dispiriting, but not hopeless; which is why I keep beating my head against the wall here (and suffer mockery and abuse – from most of my erstwhile allies here, when I’m not passively ignored by them).

        RonaldB goes on to write:

        “So, the question Vogelinian never examines, never addresses, never considers, and never takes into notice is, given an extremely difficult battle you are likely to lose, and a battle that gives you 95% of what you need, and which is far more likely to be successful, why would you choose the more difficult battle…”

        Once again, I have addressed this many times; RonaldB just hasn’t been paying attention. a) I don’t think the deportation goal is “likely to lose”; so that’s not “given” (it’s just assumed by RonaldB). In fact, I think the West will do it – not because it wants to, but because Muslims will metastasize so horribly over the next few decades, they will force the West to do it (which indicates, once again, that the Counter-Jihad Softy mentality does not really think Muslims are that bad, that they are somehow a relatively static problem that is not spiralling and metastasizing out of control and that the shit is not headed for an international hitting-and-spattering of worse potential than the first two world wars). The only question in my mind is not whether the West will deport – but when — before, or after, millions of our men, women and children get mass-murdered by Muslism in various locations throughout the West. The sooner the West gets around to deporting, the less costly, the less messy, and the less bloody will be the process. The longer it dithers (including with mental and psychological obstacles thrown up by the likes of RonaldB, Wellington, Philip Jihadski, Angemon, mortimer, gravenimage, Champ, et al.), the costlier, the messier, and the bloodier will be the process. Silly me, but I want the West to try to minimize the cost, the mess, and the blood of a process which the nature of Mohammedans (& and their Mohammedanism) lead us reasonably to suppose will be inevitable.

        RonaldB goes on to write:

        “…and take every opportunity to denigrate people who have been extremely effective in laying the groundwork you need for the easier battle?”

        I’m not “denigrating” those who have laid the groundwork. I am criticizing the logic of those who pronounce upon the problem of Islam.

        • voegelinian says

          Dec 27, 2014 at 2:54 pm

          Note: the very first sentence of my comment is, of course, a quote from RonaldB.

        • voegelinian says

          Dec 27, 2014 at 2:59 pm

          For those playing along on the home game: I left out a quote from RonaldB in my comment, right before I wrote that

          “RonaldB goes on to write:

          In fact, I do, and I have. In my previous comment, which RonaldB is evidently blithely ignoring, I linked to my essay…”

          It was in response to this quote from RonaldB which I intended to insert there:

          “And he never changes his accusation, regardless of the arguments presented to him. He never addresses the argument that with Muslim immigration stopped, we will be faced with a nuisance, rather than an existential threat.”

        • Angemon says

          Dec 29, 2014 at 5:17 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “That’s not exactly what I said. I said these types of Counter-Jihadist I was referring to (the so-called “Counter-Jihad Softies”)”

          “Counter-Jihad Softies” being the blanket term voeg uses to describe those who disagree with him, criticize him or ask him about specifics. Here’s a more colourful description:

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/12/german-finance-minister-people-are-right-to-fear-islamist-terrorism-but-not-islam#comment-1169313

          “Western idiots (such as the CJ Softies)”

          And yet, voeg whines when the people he calls “Western idiots” don’t defend him after being insulted by another “Western idiot”.

          “say things that have the logical import & purport of defending Muslims;”

          This is a blatant lie, and it’s no coincidence that voeg fails to provide any example. Here’s my experience from when Voeg accused me of “defending muslims”, in a nutshell: voeg claims the only solution is to deport all muslims, even if it means bloodshed, I asked him about how would he go about doing it considering the current rule of law, and he accused me of defending muslims. Defending the principles that made the Western civilization what it is today, including the rule of law, is not the same as defending muslims. Voeg is no stranger to false assertions, strawmen and flat out lies- in fact, it’s his bread and butter.

          “and that reveals why they tend to push against the Total Deportation meme”

          By “push against”, voeg means “inquire about its legality under the current law and constitution”. Think about it: voeg defends his meme not by explaining how he would implement it if he could, or by explaining how his idea can stand before the law and constitution, but by saying that people who ask him about it “have the logical import & purport of defending Muslims“. This is the kind of behaviour found in totalitarian regimes – when Lysenko was questioned about the efficacy of his methods, the media questioned the motives of his critics. What voeg is doing is no different in essence than calling Hirsi Ali or Pamela Geller “racists” because they criticize islam – why bother answer an uncomfortable question when slandering the authors is much more simple and effective?

          More from voeg:

          “RonaldB is, by the patent logic of this locution of his, obviously regarding these types of Muslims in the West as sufficiently harmless that we can continue to allow their ongoing presence in our societies.”

          For context, and since voeg only saw fit to cherry pick a part (probably attempting a crudely simplistic mischaracterization of what RonaldB stated in an attempt to convey a wrong impression – a.k.a. strawmaning) here’s what RonaldB said:

          “Let’s just say, the big battle, much more winnable, and much more important than getting agreement to deport Muslims who are already citizens and who have no record of supporting criminal actions, is to totally stop Muslim immigration.”

          RonaldB said that totally stopping muslim immigration would be a much more important, and much more winnable, battle than what voeg proposes. What voeg says about RonaldB considering anyone harmless is just a textbook example of a strawman.

          More from voeg:

          “RonaldB provided no argument to show that his locution does not effectively defend the Muslims who are already in the West – i.e., defend those millions of Muslims from our rational suspicion of an indeterminate number among them as deadly dangerous (with the combination of indeterminacy and the horrific potential of the danger — each factor being a reasonable assumption – rendering them all equally suspect regardless of ostensible differences).”

          Voeg provided no argument to show that RonaldB was trying to do that voeg accuses him of. Another strawman.

          More from voeg:

          “RonaldB goes on to write:

          “He never addresses the argument that with Muslim immigration stopped, we will be faced with a nuisance, rather than an existential threat.”

          “Never”? In fact I have, many times; including in the above-linked essay.”

          Now this is a classic voeg response – “I’ve already answered that elsewhere and plenty of times”. Let’s just say that voeg’s “responses” are about as on-topic and informative as saying “the grass is green” is helpful and informative to someone who asks “what time is it?”.

          More from voeg. And this one is a doozy:

          “Does RonaldB really think that taking such an overtly hostile action as halting immigration will not be tantamount to prodding the hornet’s nest of the Muslim’s already volatile and inflammatory sensibilities? One supposes he must consider the resident Muslims to be just passively inert and somehow magically different from their fanatical co-religionists abroad.”

          Voeg describes RonaldB’s suggestion of stopping muslim immigration as being “overtly hostile” and “tantamount to prodding the hornet’s nest of the Muslim’s already volatile and inflammatory sensibilities“. Consider voeg’s alternative: deport all muslims from western countries.

          Now, which is more overtly hostile and more likely to cause a violent reaction? This just goes to show that voeg uses a dual set of standards – there’s his meme, which apparently will solve everything in a satisfactory fashion, and there’s everyone else’s suggestion, which apparently are to be derided and ridiculed because they’re not voeg’s meme.

          More dual-standard bigotry from voeg:

          “The West can’t even honestly condemn Islam yet; how in the world are we going to take such a blatantly discriminatory action as halting immigration in time to prevent the currently open spigot of influx to continue, leading to millions more streaming into the West?”

          Now, if the question that pops into your mind after reading that is “so if the West can’t bring itself to stop muslim immigration then how can it possibly bring itself to kick all muslims out?” then you’re out of luck – voeg will never answer that.

          More from voeg:

          “RonaldB’s logic is predicated here on presuming that the millions of Mohammedans already in the West do not already represent a deadly dangerous powderkeg which will only get worse as we begin with incremental timidity to tighten up our measures against them”

          Nope. As I explained above, what voeg claims regarding RonaldB’s logic is a strawman.

          More from voeg:

          “My argument, unlike RonaldB’s, is not predicated on the notion that we can do this day after tomorrow. It’s predicated on the realistic assumption that it won’t happen for decades — but that it has to be pushed for, like all major sociopolitical paradigm shifts ”

          “Realistic assumption”? Is that what voeg is calling an idea that goes against the core of Western values and is in fact the hallmark of totalitarian systems? Not to mention that he once again misrepresents what RonaldB said – he didn’t said that voeg’s meme needed to be done today or tomorrow, or that muslim immigration needed to be stopped today or tomorrow. Either voeg has comprehension issues or expects everyone else to have. In fact, voeg’s false assertions have been corrected on several occasions by the authors of the articles themselves. For example:

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/06/reza-aslan-claims-anti-fascist-pope-pius-xi-was-a-fascist#comment-1078602

          “

          Robert Spencer says

          June 19, 2014 at 4:32 pm

          Uh, Voeg, the Pius XI/Pius XII typo in this post is Aslan’s, not mine. That’s the whole focus of the post. Maybe you should read it again.”

          As someone else commented:

          “

          awake says

          June 19, 2014 at 7:08 pm

          Ouch, that’s gonna leave a mark, especially on one who routinely criticizes other “allies” for not reading carefully, and inexplicably, continues to frequent this site, while dedicating an entire blog criticizing Robert and many other JW commenters as well.”

          More from voeg:

          “I keep beating my head against the wall here”

          No one is forcing you to stay here. In fact, weren’t you banned several times?

          “(and suffer mockery and abuse – from most of my erstwhile allies here, when I’m not passively ignored by them).”

          Are your erstwhile allies the same people you called “Western idiots” for not supporting your deportation meme? You have a funny way of treating your “allies”…

          “I don’t think the deportation goal is “likely to lose””

          Yes, you don’t think. That’s probably the source of your problems.

          “the Counter-Jihad Softy mentality does not really think Muslims are that bad”

          Once again, voeg derides those whom he expects to come to aid him when his ideas are being discussed.

          More from voeg:

          “The sooner the West gets around to deporting, the less costly, the less messy, and the less bloody will be the process.”

          Remember, voeg has chided RonaldB’s suggestion of stopping muslim immigration as being “overtly hostile”. And he’s here suggesting that his “alternative” would be a costly, messy and bloody process.

          “ The longer it dithers (including with mental and psychological obstacles thrown up by the likes of RonaldB, Wellington, Philip Jihadski, Angemon, mortimer, gravenimage, Champ, et al.), the costlier, the messier, and the bloodier will be the process. ”

          By “mental and psychological obstacles thrown up” he means “honest discussion of how his meme could be implemented and its consequences”. And that list of him is ever growing. One thing to note is that voeg spends more time deriding and arguing with counter-jihadis than with islamic apologists. In fact, recently there was an increase in muslim trolls and voeg was nowhere to be found. Now, the people on his “softies” list are the ones who regularly debunk islamic apologists and leftist trolls, who explain islamic doctrine to neophytes and newcomers who are told “islam means peace” or “you can’t criticize islam because you’re racist”. When a paradigm shift comes – not if, when – it won’t be because a raving lunatic tried to ice-skate uphill insulting those who were not part of his sycophant posse. It will be because the average joe on the street know what islam has in store for non-muslims, no thanks to a cretin looking for his daily fix of narcissistic supply.

        • Angemon says

          Dec 29, 2014 at 7:32 pm

          voegelinian posted:

          “it has to be pushed for”

          Like you often try to push the idea that the people in your “softies” list are working to defend muslims? Keep repeating a lie long enough and everyone buys into it?

      • RonaldB says

        Dec 28, 2014 at 1:54 am

        Vogelinian,

        You laid out your position clearer here than in any other writing of yours I’ve seen (including your Hesperion article that YOU linked to in the original comment here.

        I have no objections to your arguing for the deportation of Muslims, whether I agree or disagree. I may argue against you, and would at this point.

        Let me say that most of the hostility towards you, as opposed to disagreement, comes from the fact that you attack people rather than positions:

        “(which indicates, once again, that the Counter-Jihad Softy mentality does not really think Muslims are that bad”

        I say, go ahead and make your arguments. You paint a scenario where the closing of Muslim immigration is delayed to the point where Muslims will rise up in physical rebellion if immigration is then closed to them. So, everything depends on whether immigration can be stopped in time. My feeling is it will take a lot longer to stop immigration if you tie it to the idea of mass deportation. In other words, you just made your critical job that much harder. I may be wrong. Go ahead and make your arguments. Like I said, you generate any hostility against you all by yourself, not by your arguments, but by your characterization of people with whom you disagree.

        I think it’s time to start a political action committee against specifically Muslim immigration, PACAIM. This is actually the sine qua non of taking any action, other than a vague call to arms in a public opinion forum. We’re all guilty of that.

        • Champ says

          Dec 28, 2014 at 3:03 am

          RonaldB wrote:

          Let me say that most of the hostility towards you, as opposed to disagreement, comes from the fact that you attack people rather than positions …

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          Yes, this is exactly what I observe, RonaldB.

        • Darren says

          Dec 28, 2014 at 2:45 pm

          Vogelinian is right though, we all know how this ends finding ways to minimize the eventual bloodshed on a massive scale should be the priority. I agree with deporting muslims, but I understand the realities on the ground dictate that at the moment this solution is impossible. How do we get to the point where we have enough political capital to make this happen is the real question. I personally don’t think we ever get there until it’s too late and there is mass bloodshed on an epic scale.

          People really hate addressing unpleasant realities instead of facing them and will try to deny a problem exists until the pain makes the denial undeniable. Look no further than the economic crisis in the West. Everyone knows how the game will end, and instead of addressing the problem now and dealing with some pain we would rather kick the can avoid the pain now only to suffer much worse in the future. The reality is rather dark when it comes to this issue, and so are the solutions. Despite what the haters say I doubt anyone here wants to do what needs to be done, I feel no joy in writing any of this, but something does need to be done the sooner the better.

          “We can deny reality, but we can’t deny the consequences of denying reality.”

        • voegelinian says

          Dec 29, 2014 at 6:42 am

          “I agree with deporting muslims, but I understand the realities on the ground dictate that at the moment this solution is impossible. How do we get to the point where we have enough political capital to make this happen is the real question. I personally don’t think we ever get there until it’s too late and there is mass bloodshed on an epic scale. ”

          My point is that your gloomy scenario (which, by the way, is not inevitable, since no one knows the future) is more likely to happen if nobody pushes for deportation. Sociopolitical movements — particularly ones fighting an uphill battle against the mainstream grain — don’t just happen by themselves. They are organic processes of people changing their minds, people thinking thoughts, people discussion goals, people getting active.

          Way to go Counter-Jihad, doing everything you can, apparently, to impede this process, rather than grow it.

        • voegelinian says

          Dec 29, 2014 at 6:43 am

          “people discussing goals”

        • Angemon says

          Dec 29, 2014 at 5:25 pm

          RonaldB posted:

          “Like I said, you generate any hostility against you all by yourself, not by your arguments, but by your characterization of people with whom you disagree. ”

          Indeed. No one is forcing him to reply to questions regarding his ideas with derision and insults.

  15. Coolio says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 1:05 am

    Mes felicitations Madamme Christine Tasin! You are, fortunately, not a martyr but a heroine!

  16. Fr. Basil` says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 2:19 am

    \\Retired school-teacher Christine Tasin, 58, was convicted under an 1881 law after the prosecution argued criticism of Islam was the equivalent of inciting violence against Muslims, and that in addition to the normal punishment of a fine and imprisonment, Tasin should also be stripped of the right to hold public office.\\

    Mahometeans commit violence against Christians in France all the time. Furthermore, mahometanism insults our Lord,God, and Savior Jesus Christ in all it says.

    Why are mahometans not prosecuted in France?

    • Charli Main says

      Dec 26, 2014 at 5:04 am

      @ Fr. Basil
      As a Christian, I deeply resent being forced to risk the eating of meat that has had Satanic Muslim prayers muttered over it.
      The European Union should be forced to clearly identify all Halal meat, so that Christians and other non Muslims don’t unknowingly eat meat defiled by Satanic incantations.

  17. Keith says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 2:46 am

    France will be a Muslim country in another generation, making them twice as worthless as they already are…

  18. cs says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 3:44 am

    We must be able to say out loud that Mohammed, was a pedophile, rapist and caravan robber, Jew hater, and I say this every day, at least once, so I could potentially go to jail, many times a day.

  19. Tommo says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 5:57 am

    After years of protest about unlabelled Halal meat being sold in our supermarkets to unsuspecting consumers, a small change has been made and in the UK meat will now have to state how the beast was slaughtered. This small concession was made to those who protested on the grounds of animal welfare and not religious slaughter to meet Islamic demands. There is still a huge problem getting anyone in the RSPCA to agree that the Halal method of killing animals induces huge amounts of ‘fight and flight’ toxins to be released into the blood of the dying animal which can be found in the meat and considered very harmful to humans.

  20. wally says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 6:58 am

    Some non-Muslims think Islam deserves even more respect than it currently gets from the bien pensant classes. Apparently not content with inventing moden science, music and literature, it seems Muslims first came up with free market capitalism as well, bequeathing it as one more gift to Europe.

    http://www.amazon.com/Early-Islam-Capitalism-Benedikt-Koehler/dp/073918882

  21. Coolio says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 7:20 am

    I think we’ll be knocking over a few more of Sayyid Qutb’s ‘Milestones’ in 2015.

  22. pongidae rex says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 8:30 am

    Exactly 100 years after the beginning of the mindless slaughter of WW!, Europe is again marching lockstep into social chaos. EU immigration and human rights laws today are directly analogous to the interlocking web of mutual defense treaties that were in effect then. Europeans are trapped in a legal web of their own making that again dictates ruin to European civilization.

  23. Rudy from Canada says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 9:19 am

    Good to see some good news coming out of Europe.
    Maybe the tide is turning.
    Vive la France!

  24. Bonnie Loranger says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 9:56 am

    Felicitation Christine. Well done.

  25. Ivan Bogdanov says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 10:32 am

    We need more Celtic Warriors in America. Can Canada ship us some?

    More Later….

  26. GKP says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 11:58 am

    Its terrible to be punished for saying truth.
    Quaran should be banned as its teaching are serious offence against humanity.

  27. wallace says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 12:05 pm

    Trying to get my head around the way the world operates today, potus says we should not kow-tow to little fat Korean despots, show and be damned Sony. Well said golfer in chief. But I am supposed to curb my tongue and show respect to a bearded lice infected madman that may or may not have existed 1,500 years ago. I want Sony to release a film with mo riding on half horse, half human winged creatures with a peacocks ass. Then when all the mozzies go that funny way they do , I want Barry to get out of Budgie the little helicopter and say “we are free thinking people ,sorry you are a bit upset , but tough tittie

  28. Angry says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    So, under political (in)correctness law, devised by a marxist left-winger, non-muslims are forbidden to criticise islam, while under the same fascist law, muslims are allowed to criticise Christianity (and ALL other faiths except islam)?

    Also, under the same fascist law, if a non-muslim burns a mosque down, it’s considered a ‘racist’ attack, but if a muslim burns a church down, it’s call a ‘hate’ crime?

    I don’t know who’s worse, the fascist EU and their politically (in)correct left-wing supporters, or religiously and culturally bigoted muslims!

    Either way, both MUST be taken on in order to rid the evil that exists within Western society!

  29. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 2:45 pm

    Legal Jihad is in Minnesota, too

    They’re trying to persuade us, too. A lawsuit was just filed by six aggrieved Moslem car cleaners against Hertz, which alleges the six were fired from their jobs at MSP International Airport for religious discrimination. “The lawsuit claims that managers walked in on their prayer services to take attendance and repeatedly held them to a higher standard of conduct and more stringent discipline than their nonpracticing Muslim co-workers of East African heritage. Five of the plaintiffs are Somali-American, and one is of Ethiopian heritage.”

    Their allegations are bolstered by a memorandum issued in May by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) asserting that the workers were “harassed and terminated” because they were black and/or Muslim and were fired in retaliation for opposing discrimination.

    Said one aggrieved fired employee, “The manager would come into the prayer room … checking everyone’s badge,” he said. “The prayer room is only for praying people. In my religion, when I am praying, I am not supposed to be distracted by anything.” In addition, “the manager wore shoes in the prayer room, against Muslim practice, he said.”

    The discrimination occurred in 2007, but the aggrieved Moslems were awaiting the results of the EEOC inquirty.

    So, Hertz hired them knowing they were Somali Moslems, and gave them a prayer room. But then the company began entering the prayer room (company property) to check for company ID badges (routine company security policy). They held the Moslems to a higher standard by providing them with a prayer room on company property and used on company time. Non-Moslems were given no such consideration by Hertz. When Hertz issued a new prayer policy demanding precise times of prayer, the Moslems refused to sign it. A manager allegedly told one Muslim, “Your religion is lying. The Qur’an is lying. You’re a liar,” and “Your religion is stupid.”

    So, the case will revolve around whether Islam is stupid when the issue should be whether it is a religion at all. The federal judge who will be assigned the case to deliver monetary damages to the aggrieved Moslem car cleaners will find that all the alleged “we said, they said” are credible, and the stockholders will lose some money. In addition, other companies will be cowed into compliance with Sharia on company time.

    The crooked Infidel judge will not rule on whether Islam is a stupid religion.

    All the fired ex-car cleaners are cab drivers now, still working at the airport, which apparently is a natural fit for them.

    • noellsq says

      Dec 26, 2014 at 6:41 pm

      Are these the same gentlemen(?) who refuse to pick up people with handicap dogs or carrying alcohol.

  30. Terri says

    Dec 26, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    A win in France for free speech! Wonderful! If we don’t stop Islam, which is nothing more than a barbaric, satanic cult, we will lose all our freedoms! Now, France start turning your Country back into the Country it was, and get rid of Islam!

  31. Richard says

    Dec 27, 2014 at 2:10 am

    The cornerstone of western civilization is the freedom of speech and expression . Live free or die. What did all those innocent people die for fighting the Nazis in ww2 ? What were our grandfathers fighting for ?
    FREEDOM . Freedom to speak out against injustice ,freedom to share and discuss differing opinions . These are the things that are worth fighting for, and dying for if neccessary .
    Islam is an ideology, a legal system, and an enabling religion , last. There isn’t any reason why anyone should bow down one inch to grant it any privelidges that conflict with the constitutional rights of citizens of western nations.

    • Angry says

      Dec 27, 2014 at 7:34 am

      I’m still waiting for the apologists and defenders of islam, and their religiously and culturally bigoted followers, to tell each Western/European nation, why islam is beneficial in a civilised and democratic society; that our grandfathers/great grandfathers fought and died for.

      While islam is allowed to spread by our dhimmi leaders, we of today are getting to know what it was like living under hitlers dictatorship, oh and stalins!

  32. bracket says

    Dec 27, 2014 at 3:09 am

    Which holiday is Eid? Is that the one where they have all their friends and families over for tea and to chant, “Allahu Akbar! Khameini is the leader! Death to those who oppose the Rule of the Jurisprudent! Death to America! Death to England! Death to the Hypocrites! Death to Israel!”

    Islam is a peach.

  33. hammar says

    Dec 29, 2014 at 9:47 am

    Obama who is the worst president we as a country ever had, apologized to pig stinking muslims over the film that described the false prophet mohammed and false moon god allah after the killing of our ambassador in Benghazi. mohammed never was a good man but a killer and thief and that is their prophet and had a six year wife. He was also insane and sexual deviant.

  34. Alain says

    Jan 6, 2015 at 9:24 am

    A little precision about the, as raised by Christine Tasin herself about being “stripped of the right to hold public office” : not only she hasn’t been stripped of anything, but she retired from teaching, and had to move home, due to death treats, which incidentally continue on a practically daily basis. But Christine is a very courageous woman who does not let those get in the way of saying and doing what has to be done and said about that death-cult.

    And by the way, what those screaming hyenas during the trial didn’t boast about, was that during the Belfort episode, hadn’t it being filmed, Christine would more than likely being attacked, and one of the scums adept of that saloperie actually told her she was lucky their “youths” weren’t around, which I’m pretty sure is also on tape somewhere.

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

  • SKA on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Eva on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic
  • Eva on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic
  • Infidel on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic
  • Eva on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic

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.