• 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

VDH: Jihadists have “already cut a huge swath out of American free speech”

May 13, 2015 10:04 pm By Robert Spencer

Victor-Davis-Hanson“Apparently there is no longer a First Amendment as our Founders wrote it, but instead something like an Orwellian Amendment 1.5, which reads: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press — except if someone finds some speech hurtful, controversial, or not helpful.‘

“Cowardice abounds.”

Indeed it does — even among those once assumed to be strong. And because it is so universal, there will be more thuggery, more violent intimidation, and more threats. People think, “Oh, those right-wing nuts got a jihad attack because they provoked the jihadist by drawing Muhammad. Those idiots! We will be more polite, more respectful, more multicultural — and all will be well.” But the jihadis, emboldened by this lovely politeness, will start making more demands. Because it isn’t just jihadis, you know, that offend them. It’s Jews. It’s building new churches. It’s eating pork. It’s having a beer. When, oh when, will the West stop being needlessly and outrageously provocative, and cut out all these offensive behaviors?

“The First — and a Half — Amendment,” by Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, May 12, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Free speech and artistic and intellectual expression have been controversial Western traditions since the rise of the classical-Greek city-state. When our Founding Fathers introduced guarantees of such freedoms to our new nation, they were never intended to protect thinkers whom we all admire or traditionalists who produce beloved movies like The Sound of Music.

The First Amendment to the Constitution instead was designed to protect the obnoxious, the provocative, the uncouth, and the creepy — on the principle that if the foulmouths can say or express what they wish and the public can put up with it, then everyone else is assured of free speech.

Every time the West has forgotten that fact — from putting on trial cranky Socrates or incendiary Jesus to routinely burning books in the Third Reich — we have come to regret what followed. Censorship, of course, is never branded as extreme and dangerous, but rather as a moderate and helpful means to curb the hate speech of a bald, barefooted crank philosopher who pollutes young minds and introduces wacky and dangerous cults, or a hatemonger who whips innocent people in front of a temple in between his faked and hokey miracles, or traitorous Jews who scribble and call their first-grade art the equivalent of Rembrandt or their perverted sexual fantasies the stuff of Hegel. Banning free expression is never presented as provocative, but always the final act of an aggrieved and understandably provoked society.

Lately, the West in general and America in particular seems to have forgotten the free-speech pillar of Western constitutional government. In 2012 an obscure Egyptian-born videomaker, Nakoula Nakoula, made an amateurish Internet video criticizing Islam. Innocence of Muslims went global and viral. Violent demonstrations in the Islamic world followed. In an effort to placate Muslims, the Obama administration falsely blamed Nakoula’s video for the storming of the American consulate in Benghazi. Leading the Obama pack was the opportunistic secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who saw in Nakoula a convenient fall guy to explain away U.S. security lapses in Libya. In reality, the killing of Americans there was the preplanned work of an al-Qaeda terrorist affiliate that took advantage of absent-minded U.S. officials.

No matter. President Obama scapegoated Nakoula at the United Nations — a majority of whose members ban free speech as a rule — with pompous promises that the prophet would not be mocked with impunity in the United States of America. Nakoula was suddenly arrested on a minor parole violation and jailed for over a year.

No one seemed to care that the unsavory firebrand Egyptian had a constitutional right while legally resident in America to freely caricature any religion that he chose.

The IRS under career bureaucrats like Lois Lerner targeted non-profit groups on the basis of their perceived political expression. The best strategy now for stifling free speech is to arbitrarily substitute the word “hate” for “free” — and then suddenly we all must unite to curb “hate speech.” The effort is insidious and growing, from silly “trigger warnings” in university classes about time-honored classics that trendy and mostly poorly educated race/class/gender activists now think contain hurtful language and ideas, to the common tactic of shouting down campus speakers or declaring them to be dangerous “extremists” who traffic in “hate speech” if their politics are deemed insufficiently progressive.

Cartoons of Mohammed on display in Garland, Tex.

More recently, the anti–sharia law activist Pamela Geller organized a conference of cartoonists in Texas to draw caricatures of the prophet Mohammed — in the fashion of the Paris cartoonists who were killed at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

As in the French case, jihadists showed up to murder the cartoonists. This time, however, two brave and skilled local Texas policemen stopped their attempts at mass murder.

What followed the botched assassination attempt, however, was almost as scary. Commentators — both left-wing multiculturalists and right-wing traditionalists, from talk radio and Fox News to MSNBC and Salon — blasted Geller for supposedly stirring up religious hatred.

Geller, and not the jihadists who sought to kill those with whom they disagreed, was supposedly at fault. Her critics could not figure out that radical Muslims object not just to caricatures and cartoons, but to any iconographic representation of Mohammed. Had Geller offered invitations to artists to compete for the most majestic statue of the Prophet, jihadists might still have tried to use violence to stop it. Had she held a beauty pageant for gay Muslims or a public wedding for gay Muslim couples, jihadists would certainly have shown up. Had she offered a contest for the bravest Islamic apostates, jihadists would have galvanized to kill the non-believers. Had she organized a support rally for Israel, jihadists might well have tried to kill the innocent, as they did in Paris when they murderously attacked a kosher market.

Geller’s critics also do not understand that radical Islam has already cut a huge swath out of American free speech through more than a decade of death threats. Ever since 9/11, they have largely succeeded by demanding special rules for public discourse about Islam in a way accorded no other religion. Disagree, and one is branded “Islamophobic,” as that now-ubiquitous buzzphrase “hate speech” magically pops up. Of course, when other so-called artists have desecrated Christian images, they operated on the belief not just that they would not be harmed, but that, as in “Piss Christ,” they would actually be subsidized by the U.S. government.

One wonders what the current apologists would have said about Nazi book burning. Did not Freudian writers and modern artists grasp that their work would offend traditional National Socialists who sought only to bring back balance to artistic and literary expression? Why then would they continue to produce abstract paintings or publish Jungian theories about sexual repression, when they must have known that such works would only provoke blood-and-soil Nazis? And had Jews just left Germany en masse by 1935 or gone into hiding, would not Hitler have cooled his anti-Semitic rhetoric? Why did some Jews insist on staying in a clearly Aryan nation, when they must have known that their ideas — indeed, their mere presence — could only provoke Nazis to violence?

Apparently there is no longer a First Amendment as our Founders wrote it, but instead something like an Orwellian Amendment 1.5.

Apparently there is no longer a First Amendment as our Founders wrote it, but instead something like an Orwellian Amendment 1.5, which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press — except if someone finds some speech hurtful, controversial, or not helpful.”

Cowardice abounds. When artists and writers mock Mormonism in a Broadway play like the Book of Mormon or use urine or excrement to deface Christian symbols, no Christian gang seeks to curb such distasteful expression — much less to kill anyone. Every religion but Islam knows that its iconography is fair game for caricature in the United States; none sanctions assassins. Jihadists seek to make this asymmetry quite clear to Western societies and thereby provide deterrence that gives Islam special exemption from Western satire and criticism in a way not accorded to other religions. And they are enabled by Westerners who prefer tranquility to freedom of expression.

Among those who attack free expression the most loudly are progressives who do not like politically incorrect speech that does not further their own agendas. The term “illegal alien,” an exact description of foreign nationals who entered and reside in the United States without legal sanction, is now nearly taboo. The effort to ban the phrase is not because it is hateful or inaccurate, but because it does not euphemistically advance the supposedly noble cause of amnesties and open borders. Of course, the politically correct restrictionists have no compunction about smearing their critics with slurs such as xenophobe, racist, or nativist.

If a Christian cake decorator does not wish to use his skills to celebrate gay marriage — an innovation that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed until very recently — on a wedding cake, then he is rendered a homophobe who must be punished for not using his artistic talents in the correct way.

Note that we are not talking about nondiscrimination concerning fundamental civil rights such as voting, finding housing, using public facilities, or purchasing standard merchandise. Meanwhile, are we really prepared to force gay bakers to decorate Christian wedding cakes with slogans that they find offensive or homophobic? Or to insist that an Orthodox Jewish baker must prepare a cake for a Palestinian wedding featuring a map of the Middle East without Israel? Or to require a black-owned catering company to cook ribs for a KKK group? Instead, radical gays demand the exclusive right to force an artist — and a cake decorator is an artist of sorts — to express himself in ways that they deem correct.

Without free speech, the United States becomes just another two-bit society of sycophants, opportunists, and toadies who warp expression for their own careerist and political agendas. How odd that we of the 21st century lack the vision and courage of our 18th-century Founders, who warned us of exactly what we are now becoming.

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: Featured, free speech Tagged With: Pamela Geller, Victor Davis Hanson


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. sidney penny says

    May 13, 2015 at 10:25 pm

    “Because it isn’t just jihadis, you know, that offend them. It’s Jews. It’s building new churches. It’s eating pork. It’s having a beer. When, oh when, will the West stop being needlessly and outrageously provocative, and cut out all these offensive behaviors?”

    Robert, what about these things that offend.

    Buddha statues,Hindu temples,Synagogues,uncovered meat ( women showing skin),Israel,infidels,kafirs.

    I am sure others will add to these things that offend Muslims

    • Gufo says

      May 14, 2015 at 5:34 am

      Of course, everything offends muslims. As well as everything convenient at the moment was “revealed” to the pedophile prophet, everything is used by muslims to shift the blame onto the victims of their madness. I’m pretty sure even birds who fly without turning to mecca will be shot down for blasphemy, enraged muslims will be offended, and will therefore destroy, rape, burn, kill, torture, etc. BECAUSE they’re offended. Must be an incredibly contagious mental illness in all islamic countries..

      • Bantheburka says

        May 14, 2015 at 11:30 am

        Interbreeding doesnt help, low IQ and retardation is the effect.

    • Kasey says

      May 14, 2015 at 5:57 am

      Anything un-Islamic offends them in reality. The consequences of that mind-set, attitude and logic are in fact continuous confrontation and war between the World’s peoples who are not Muslims and all believers in Islam. And while Islam is as Islam does, and indoctrination in used to perpetuate it, that war will continue indefinitely until either Islam is destroyed or it forces the whole World submits to it.

    • Mirren10 says

      May 14, 2015 at 10:16 am

      A work in progress. The list of things that offend muslims.

      http://amboytimes.typepad.com/the_amboy_times/2007/02/the_list_of_thi.html

  2. awake says

    May 13, 2015 at 10:28 pm

    Amen to that, VDH.

    • Lia Wissing says

      May 14, 2015 at 4:30 am

      Thank you & congratulations, Mr Hanson!

  3. somehistory says

    May 13, 2015 at 10:55 pm

    This is all so very clear. And clearly written here. The usual stupid won’t be able to see or understand it. And the beasts of satan…in its many forms…will keep on victimizing and claiming special victim status.
    Until it’s all over.

    • somehistory says

      May 14, 2015 at 1:09 pm

      And the 1st Amendment was written….to protect the People when any of the People pointed out that the government was in the wrong, so that with the protection, the member of the People would not be arrested, jailed, killed for speaking against the goings-on of the government. The writers had come from places where one could/would be arrested, jailed, killed for speaking against the government.
      And to protect the People from being forced to take up a religious belief that they did not wish to take. And to make it possible for the press to let the rest of the People know what was happening in either of these areas of law.

      hillary said we could all be *shamed* into not saying anything against islam and then she helped to have someone jailed for saying something that muslims considered worthy of death. How far will the present situation go? It remains to be seen, but the beast will not stop on its own.
      (Revelation 17;19)

  4. celticwarriorcanada says

    May 13, 2015 at 11:20 pm

    What really hurts me and offends me , is that the koran and the hadith describe a man who murdered hundreds of people; in the most grotesque manner( beheading them) . Then he married a 6 year old girl,and had sex with her when she was 9 years old . How could I respect a person like this ! And I’m really offended that if I feel disdain for such a MONSTROUS INDIVIDUAL , I’m subject to death , labeled a racist Islamiphobic hater ! And I’m offended that any rational human being could even possibly imagine that this sick individual’s example should be followed because he is the most perfectly righteous person ! BUT,BUT,BUT obviously the NEW EXCEPTION CLAUSE ADDED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT applies only to THE FOLLOWERS OF ISLAM,BUT,BUT BUT not to people ,who see ISLAM for what It Is :a sick ,twisted , oppressive frenzy or hypnotic spell , well suited, for mindless followers,who cannot make their own decisions,nor take responsibility for their own actions.

    • DM says

      May 14, 2015 at 2:46 pm

      MILLIONS of “refugees” (LOL) will be coming in soon from the ME & Africa. They are mostly muslims, no Christians or Jews allowed because genocide is in progress and must not be stopped. Because they are “refugees” they will be citizens in four years. We can thank Catholic Charities (another LOL here) and other christian and jewish groups profiting from our demise.

      “Catholic Charities gets billions of taxpayer dollars for refugee resettlement and general immigration services, which puts it into the category of a smallish government agency. For example, in 2010, 62 percent of Catholic Charities’ budget was funded by the unwilling taxpayer. The feds and the Catholic bishops are partners.”

      http://www.vdare.com/articles/memo-from-middle-america-refugee-industry-profiteering-so-gross-even-time-magazine-has-noticed

      REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT WATCH https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/ Explore the site, the information will make your blood run cold. Remember it only addresses “so called refugees” not those here illegally of here ” temporally by the millions as students or workers that will NEVER go back to where they came from.

  5. mortimer says

    May 13, 2015 at 11:53 pm

    Cultural Marxist “progressives who do not like politically incorrect speech that does not further their own agendas”…

    … US philospher Harry Frankfurt explained someone who is more concerned with his agenda than facts or truth. He wrote a treatise about this phenomenon called ‘On Bullshit’.

    The cultural Marxist Progressives are merely bullshitters in the sense of Frankfurt…they have no concern whatever with ethics, truth or facts…they are only concerned with their ‘progressive’ or utopian agenda. They cut a swath through the truth and the facts.

  6. Michael Copeland says

    May 14, 2015 at 3:44 am

    Excellent article.
    If permitted, two small refinements can be proffered.
    The video “Innocence of Muslims” was not “criticising” Mohammed: it was just depicting him (not permitted by Sharia). The film is a faithful representation – without mocking – of incidents in his life as recorded in Islam’s source texts. It is its low-budget quality that Americans, spoilt by Hollywood’s grand productions, find a little bit insulting.
    At the time of the Benghazi attack, according to Robert Spencer, the video had not gone viral: it had attracted 37 views, and did not precipitate the attack. As Professor Hanson says, it was dishonestly blamed by the White House, who wanted to cover up their own shortcomings, and slip in an attack on the First Amendment..

  7. Owen Morgan says

    May 14, 2015 at 6:36 am

    I agree with almost everything Victor Davis Hanson has said here, but I’d pick him up on one important detail, because it unnecessarily diminishes his point. The “Innocence of Muslims” film may or may not have ever gone “global”, or “viral”, but it had certainly done neither before the Benghazi attack. This means that four entities are responsible for spreading word about the film: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and islam itself.

    The latter is crucially important, in the light of Charlie Hebdo and Garland, because this confirms not only the infinite capacity of islam to be “offended”, but its equally infinite determination to spread the “offence” far and wide. We saw this with the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.

    No disrespect to the Jyllands-Posten, but it’s seen by a small subsection of one of the smaller European populations. And it’s written, I assume, in Danish, a language which Icelanders make jokes about (Icelanders being the most likely people, outside Denmark, to understand Danish). Somebody went to a great deal of trouble to disseminate those cartoons in places where nobody can speak Danish.

    The cartoons themselves were so inoffensive that more, well, incendiary, ones were added to them, to ensure that muslims in Pakistan, Indonesia, London, blah blah blah, became appropriately offended. And let’s not forget the way in which so many offended Pakistanis were lucky enough to find Danish flags in their lofts, so that they had something to burn.

    When the Mohammed cartoons appeared, it took a few months for somebody to create and distribute the additional drawings (and all those Danish flags). Luckily for the would-be offended in the “Innocence of Muslims” case, the enthusiastic, but, all in all, pitiful efforts of the imams were augmented by the full power of Washington DC, which mechanically repeated the claim that the never seen film had somehow provoked the Cairo and Benghazi attacks.

    It’s quite clear that it did nothing of the sort, but I strongly suspect that the behaviour of Obama, Clinton and Rice in 2012 probably has cost the lives of many Copts since.

    • Angemon says

      May 14, 2015 at 9:34 am

      Owen Morgan posted:

      “Somebody went to a great deal of trouble to disseminate those cartoons in places where nobody can speak Danish.”

      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/10/denmark-muslims-stone-imam-who-regrets-stirring-up-muhammad-cartoon-rage

    • somehistory says

      May 14, 2015 at 12:53 pm

      You made some excellent points. Knowledge of the video, proliferation of Danish flags in pakistan, translation of the language. It’s really amazing sometimes how difficult it is to obtain news of current events of importance in other countries….one must have a desire to look for it, even with the web available…it would be more difficult I believe to obtain a foreign flag, much less a lot of them even here.
      I have a Danish/English dictionary and I would have to really wish to know what something said for me to take the time necessary to translate something like a cartoon.
      It was all just a little too orchestrated.

      • Michael Copeland says

        May 15, 2015 at 4:01 am

        It certainly was orchestrated.
        See “And Take Their Wives As War Booty”
        http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/6562-and-take-their-wives-as-war-booty

  8. Angemon says

    May 14, 2015 at 7:01 am

    Censorship, of course, is never branded as extreme and dangerous, but rather as a moderate and helpful means to curb the hate speech of a bald, barefooted crank philosopher who pollutes young minds and introduces wacky and dangerous cults, or a hatemonger who whips innocent people in front of a temple in between his faked and hokey miracles, or traitorous Jews who scribble and call their first-grade art the equivalent of Rembrandt or their perverted sexual fantasies the stuff of Hegel. Banning free expression is never presented as provocative, but always the final act of an aggrieved and understandably provoked society.

    Splendidly put.

    • DM says

      May 14, 2015 at 2:52 pm

      If you don’t use it (Freedom) you don’t have it.

      Mocking political or religious or even sexual beliefs is expressing opinion or fact. If you do not like the opinion or fact, ignore it and express your own. I am so sick and tired of all this BS about not saying what your think or believe because someone is offended. I have read the CONSTITUTION repeatedly and find no portion that gives me or anyone the freedom from being offended. If anyone finds it let me know. Our CONSTITUTION innumerate our God Given Freedoms, it does not grant us safe passage thru life or freedom from offense or hardship, nor does it invest our govt with providing us with anything of the sort.

      DO NOT SUBMIT! REPUBLISH the Mohammed CARTOONS EVERYWHERE.
      Here’s How.

      http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=2043

  9. Ron says

    May 14, 2015 at 7:18 am

    Free speech is a right of every American that should be preserved, but the author is completely wrong to say “the First Amendment to the Constitution instead was designed to protect the obnoxious, the provocative, the uncouth, and the creepy — on the principle that if the foulmouths [sic] can say or express what they wish and the public can put up with it, then everyone else is assured of free speech.”
    The free speech of the Founding Fathers and framers of the American Constitutional Republic would have said–and did say propositionally–that we are free to say what we want to say, but they also by their writings have clearly stated our speech is to be guided by other principles, specifically an acknowledgment of the Christian God of the Bible.

  10. Rev. Bill Romansky says

    May 14, 2015 at 8:38 am

    Excellent VDH.
    One addition.
    The Islamic terrorists founded by Jimmy Carter. Manipulated by Ronald Reagan. Encouraged by Bill Clinton. Friendly with the Bush Dynasty. Cousins to Hussein Obama.

    • PRCS says

      May 14, 2015 at 1:08 pm

      Bill, assuming that “terrorists” is the appropriate description, let me suggest that you call them “Muslim terrorists”.

      Or, to put a finer point on it, why not just call them jihadists?

      Not “Muslim” or “Islamic” jihadists, of course, as jihadists follow one “religion” and one alone.

      Just “jihadists”..

  11. FredvanH says

    May 14, 2015 at 11:01 am

    Quote.

    “Lately, the West in general and America in particular seems to have forgotten the free-speech pillar of Western constitutional government. In 2012 an obscure Egyptian-born videomaker, Nakoula Nakoula, made an amateurish Internet video criticizing Islam. Innocence of Muslims went global and viral. Violent demonstrations in the Islamic world followed. In an effort to placate Muslims, the Obama administration falsely blamed Nakoula’s video for the storming of the American consulate in Benghazi.”

    I distinctly remember that it was reported that, when the Benghazi attack took place on September 11 2012, the video had had some 76 views. You’d better get your facts straight.

  12. PRCS says

    May 14, 2015 at 1:52 pm

    Although VDH is generally knowledgeable–and writes well–here are two errors that a little research would have prevented:

    “…that radical Muslims object not just to caricatures and cartoons, but to any iconographic representation of Mohammed.”

    Radical Muslims? What in Hell is that, exactly? How about “truly devout, pious Muslims”, eh? Or Muslim “literalists”. What does a radical Muslim BELIEVE that a moderate Muslim does not?

    And, for those who parrot the notion that the offense taken by some Muslims is limited to iconographic representations of Muhammad, alone, it’s drawings and sculptures of anything with a soul.

    How much more annoyed–and worried–would our fellow “filthy unbelievers” be to learn that some Muslims might kill a human being for drawing a picture of a hamster?

    Start at about 4:10 in the following video:

    • DM says

      May 14, 2015 at 3:05 pm

      Wake up!

      STOP making any distinction between the so called moderate and radical muslims. It is a distinction of semantics if that. The radicals are 6/7th century savages that think nothing of beheading anyone who does not agree with them and that is just for starters. Moderates are those who either keep silent in fear or do not have the stomach to join the savagery and instead raise money for the doers and cheer them on.
      If as all our politicians keep telling us the majority of them are so called “moderates” then why do the “moderates” donate to orgs that promote terrorism? The answer is simple as most answers are. They want the terrorists to be successful and to do that they must be well financed and well armed. The U.S. govt is participating in this too. Do we not see ISIS armed with the most up to date U.S. military weapons? Ah yes they were left behind because it was not cost effective to ship them home. Who did our smart govt think would take them over? Explain how it is cost effective to arm the enemy to the teeth?
      islam, is a CRIMINALLY SAVAGE POLITICAL AGENDA masquerading as a religion. DMH 04/2014

      • PRCS says

        May 14, 2015 at 10:04 pm

        Were you directing that at me or the crowd?

        • DM says

          May 14, 2015 at 10:27 pm

          PRCS
          My comment is for anybody who reads the article and takes the time to read comments.

  13. Dag says

    May 14, 2015 at 10:13 pm

    I pubished an illustrated life story of Mohammed. Please pass it around to your favorite leftard media. http://www.amazon.com/Snootom-D-W-Walker/dp/0987761587

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

  • gravenimage on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • gravenimage on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’
  • Walter Sieruk on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • gravenimage on Uighur leader: ‘We’re actually quite worried’ about what Biden might let China get away with
  • James Lincoln on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship

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.