• 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

Ohio Muslim arrested on terror charges: “We are all Islamic State citizens.”

Jun 19, 2015 6:50 pm By Robert Spencer

Amir Said Abdul Rahman Al-Ghazi“We are all Islamic state citizens. This isn’t some gang in the desert you’re fighting. This is WW3 the beginning has just begun,” said Amir Said Abdul Rahman Al-Ghazi.

Where did this convert to Islam get this idea? I suppose he was “radicalized on the Internet”? No one would dream of checking into who encouraged him to convert, or what they’re teaching at the local mosque — that would be “Islamophobic.”

“Man arrested on terrorism-related charges in North Olmsted,” by Jen Steer, Fox 8, June 19, 2015 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

NORTH OLMSTED, Ohio- A Sheffield Lake man was arrested on terrorism-related charges in North Olmsted Friday morning, according to the Cleveland Division of the FBI.

Amir Said Abdul Rahman Al-Ghazi, 38, was taken into custody without incident and is suspected of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. He changed his name from Robert C. McCollum earlier this year.

“It is clear that no area is immune from the influence of ISIL and its recruitment machine. We hope this arrest will serve as a strong message to others who may consider providing support to terrorists,” Special Agent in Charge Stephen D. Anthony said in a news release on Friday.

He caught the attention of the FBI in 2012, when his publicly-available Facebook profile contained violent extremist statements. The FBI said Al-Ghazi pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant, or ISIL.

“We are all Islamic state citizens. This isn’t some gang in the desert you’re fighting. This is WW3 the beginning has just begun,” Al-Ghazi wrote on Facebook, according to the FBI.

Al-Ghazi communicated with two people he believed were members of ISIL in the Middle East and expressed a desire to commit terrorist attacks on the United States, the FBI said in a news release. He also attempted to buy an AK-47 assault rifle….

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: American jihadis, converts to Islam, Featured, Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL, Daesh), Jihad in the U.S. Tagged With: Amir Said Abdul Rahman Al-Ghazi, Robert C. McCollum


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Angemon says

    Jun 19, 2015 at 7:04 pm

    Amir Said Abdul Rahman Al-Ghazi, 38, was taken into custody without incident and is suspected of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. He changed his name from Robert C. McCollum earlier this year.

    Any African (American or not) convert to islam is twice the fool.

    “We are all Islamic state citizens. This isn’t some gang in the desert you’re fighting. This is WW3 the beginning has just begun,” Al-Ghazi wrote on Facebook, according to the FBI.

    Well, Ghazi, remember how WWII ended – not with a whimper but with a bang. Two bangs, in fact.

    • Stardusty Psyche says

      Jun 19, 2015 at 7:19 pm

      Hi Angemon,
      “Well, Ghazi, remember how WWII ended – not with a whimper but with a bang. Two bangs, in fact.”

      Are you suggesting we should nuke IS?

    • Wellington says

      Jun 19, 2015 at 8:55 pm

      Well, Angemon, it looks like StarBoy is engaging in his sophistic debate tactics yet again, that is to say tearing down but proffering nothing of substance. He has, though, many times slyly endorsed what Obama has done, even though Obama, among other goofs, gave that brown-nosing and factually inaccurate speech in Cairo back in June of 2009, has co-sponsored a resolution in the UN with Egypt to criminalize criticism of religion, has endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere although even many Muslims are sick of the MB, has sucked up to Iran pathetically in nuclear talks with it (e.g., allowing Iran to keep up to 6,000 centrifuges which, on its face, is a carte blanche for the development of nuclear weaponry {North Korea only needed 2,500}), has ordered removed from all government agencies any reference to Islamic doctrine as a cause for Islamic terror, has quite pathetically said at the UN that the future should not belong to those who defame Mohammed, thus tremendously undermining free speech, moronically removed years ago from Iraq all US forces, thus giving ISIS a huge advantage, and has dissed Israel on numerous occasions, the only polity in the Mideast which is free and a true democracy.

      Yes, StarBoy, who regularly tears down people at JW, including Robert Spencer himself, has put in plugs for Obama on several threads. Hmmm.

      • Stardusty Psyche says

        Jun 19, 2015 at 9:15 pm

        Hi Wellington,
        ” He has, though, many times slyly endorsed what Obama has done”

        Hmm…you make it sound like I have been sneaky about it or something…I mean, I think I have been pretty clear about what I do and do not agree with with regard to Obama.

        “the future should not belong to those who defame Mohammed”
        One of our friends here at JW was kind enough to correct me on one of the words I had wrong in that quote, so I will continue that tradition by giving you the words Obama said:
        “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

        I agree with that statement and Robert Spencer seems to also agree because I have never heard Robert Spencer say an untrue thing about Muhammad.

        • cs says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 5:43 am

          IS and the whole muzzie horde of goat abusers are good people in fact, they just do what they do because of their culture who states we are evil doers because we do not follow the pedo prophet.
          They have a very egalitarian social phylosophy, that whoever is not from their horde should be submissive and pay taxes or else, be killed. And yet you propose lenience to these lovely proposal.
          Ok then.

        • duh_swami says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 9:14 am

          Starchild…“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

          I agree with that statement

          So what is the best way to make sure the slanderer has no future? Why the sharia death penalty fort blasphemy, of course…That you agree with this gives you away as a Mahoundian, or an idiot…it’s a toss up…

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 11:07 am

          Hi cs,
          “whole muzzie horde of goat abusers”
          Bigoted much?

          Ok, so the “whole” of “muzzie horde” are “goat abusers”?

          Uhmm, how about the women? Do your really think female Muslims are “goat abusers”

          “And yet you propose lenience to these lovely proposal.”
          I propose being better than they are, but your bigoted comments don’t show you are.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 11:21 am

          Hi duh_swami
          “Starchild”
          I like that one!!! Makes me feel young again 🙂

          …“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
          ” make sure the slanderer has no future? ”

          Those are 2 very different things.

          The first conveys a message that we must endeavor to construct our society such that control of our society does not belong to those who lie about Muhammad.

          The second conveys the message that we must somehow punish those who lie about Muhammad.

          “Why the sharia death penalty fort blasphemy, of course…That you agree with this gives you away as a Mahoundian, or an idiot…it’s a toss up…”
          I see that mind reading is a popular activity here on JW. First you invert and reword a sentence to totally change its meaning, then you read my mind based on that mangled straw man, and from that conclude I am not the atheist I have often said I am or I am an “idiot”…

          …one can only marvel at the tortured thought processes of yet another disjointed JW post, this time from duh_swami.

        • Mirren10 says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 11:34 am

          obama at the UN:

          ”The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam”.

          Under Islamic law (shariah), the definition of “slander” is very different than in the U.S.

          legal system. The Islamic book of law, The Reliance of the Traveller (or ‘Umdat al-Salik’) says that “Slander (ghiba) means to mention anything concerning a person (a Muslim) that he would dislike.” Likewise, the ahadith contain the following account :

          “Do you know what slander is?” They answered, “Allah and His Messenger know best.” He said, “It is to mention of your brother that which he would dislike.” Someone asked, “What if he is as I say?” And he replied, “If he is as you say, you have slandered him, and if not, you have calumniated* him.” — Sunan Abu Dawud

          obama went to a madrassa in Indonesia. He knows what slander means in islamic law.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 12:23 pm

          Hi Mirren10,
          “obama went to a madrassa in Indonesia. He knows what slander means in islamic law.”

          So what?

          In 2012 Obama was the sitting POTUS, who spoke in American English as a representative of the USA at the UN. He is also a former president of the Harvard Law Review, law professor, and US Senator.

          Where in all these American legal and linguistic attributes do you somehow get he was speaking from the perspective of Islamic law?

          And please don’t give me some fruitcake Obama conspiracy theory website regurgitations. I mean some hard textual evidence within his speech to back up your claim he was speaking from an Islamic legal perspective.

          Otherwise, you and all your Obama bashing buddies can take the Islamic law argument and put it where the sun don’t shine.

        • Angemon says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 12:43 pm

          Stardusty Psyche posted:

          “In 2012 Obama was the sitting POTUS, who spoke in American English as a representative of the USA at the UN. He is also a former president of the Harvard Law Review, law professor, and US Senator.”

          Your point being? Malik Hasan was a major in the US military. That didn’t stop him from shooting his army colleagues. Benedict Arnold was a general who fought for the American Continental Army. That didn’t stop him from defecting to the British side.

          Whatever qualifications Obama might have regarding American law, they don’t automatically exclude Mirren’s point. That much should be obvious to anyone engaging in honest debate. That you seem to think otherwise proves that you aren’t.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 1:00 pm

          Hi Angemon,
          “Whatever qualifications Obama might have regarding American law, they don’t automatically exclude Mirren’s point.”

          Mirren10 hasn’t provided any evidence for the speculation that Obama, as President of the United States of America speaking at the UN was somehow speaking from an Islamic law perspective.

          That is his claim and the claim of many Obama bashers, but no hard evidence is provided for that claim.

          Where in the transcript of that event does Obama say he is speaking from an Islamic law perspective?

          Here are some things our fine President did say
          “I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

          Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day — (laughter) — and I will always defend their right to do so. (Applause.) ”

          Here, I’ll make it easy for you,
          https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly

          Your Islamic law argument is preposterous, contradicted by the full text, and utter nonsense.

        • Angemon says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 1:11 pm

          Stardusty Psyche posted:

          “Mirren10 hasn’t provided any evidence for the speculation that Obama, as President of the United States of America speaking at the UN was somehow speaking from an Islamic law perspective.”

          And you tried to say he wasn’t because he is supposedly versed in American law, was a former senator and was the US president at the time. Like I said, that doesn’t exclude Mirren’s point.

          “Here are some things our fine President did say
          “I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.
          ”

          BTW, is the filmmaker still in prison, like Hillary promised?

          “Your Islamic law argument is preposterous, contradicted by the full text, and utter nonsense.”

          And what is exactly this “islamic law argument” you’re ascribing me? Like I said, I merely pointed out your fallacy – whatever qualifications Obama might have regarding American law, they don’t automatically exclude Mirren’s point. That much should be obvious to anyone engaging in honest debate. That you seem to think otherwise proves that you aren’t.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 1:23 pm

          Hi Angemon,
          The Islamic law argument is that Obama defined “slander” by its Islamic legal meaning in contradiction to its American English common meaning.

          That is an utterly ridiculous assertion for which there is no evidence within the text of that speech.

        • Angemon says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 1:27 pm

          Stardusty Psyche posted:

          “The Islamic law argument is that Obama defined “slander” by its Islamic legal meaning in contradiction to its American English common meaning.”

          So that’s what you claimed I was saying. Either show where I made such a claim or retract your words. Also, what I said still stands: whatever qualifications Obama might have regarding American law, they don’t automatically exclude Mirren’s point. That much should be obvious to anyone engaging in honest debate. That you seem to think otherwise proves that you aren’t.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 1:32 pm

          Hi Angemon,
          Ok, fine, so you agree with Obama and me.

          You and me against the JW world, bro…

        • Angemon says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 1:35 pm

          Stardusty Psyche posted:

          “Ok, fine, so you agree with Obama and me.”

          So not only you’re not going to retract your words and admit you lied, you’re also making assertions regarding what goes on in Obama’s mind.

          Like I said, show where I made the islamic argument you mentioned or retract your words.

        • Mirren10 says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 1:34 pm

          ”Mirren10 hasn’t provided any evidence for the speculation that Obama, as President of the United States of America speaking at the UN was somehow speaking from an Islamic law perspective”

          One doesn’t need to provide evidence for a speculation.

          spec·u·la·tion
          [spek-yuh-ley-shuhn]
          Submit
          NOUN
          1.
          the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity’s ultimate destiny.
          2.
          a single instance or process of consideration.
          3.

          a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify.
          4.
          conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.
          5.
          engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk but offering the chance of large gains, especially trading in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope of profit from changes in the market price.

          ”Here are some things our fine President did say
          “I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech”

          I’ll speculate ( 🙂 ) that ‘sp’ is referring to the video ”Innocence of muslims”.

          No. obama didn’t ban it; he just had the maker arrested. clinton promised the father of one of the murdered Navy Seals the filmaker would be arrested and prosecuted. And so he was.

          http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/oct/25/picket-audio-father-killed-navy-seal-hillary-told-/

          ”In 2012 Obama was the sitting POTUS, who spoke in American English as a representative of the USA at the UN. He is also a former president of the Harvard Law Review, law professor, and US Senator.”

          Then as a professor of American law, he should be aware, that under *American* law, one cannot slander a dead person. So why did he say it ? But ‘sp’ will never ask himself that question, any more than he will question the arrest and imprisonment of the maker of the video …

          ”Your Islamic law argument is preposterous, contradicted by the full text, and utter nonsense.”

          What is ‘preposterous’, and ‘utter nonsense’ ? If it is sharia, Islamic sharia describes slander as saying anything about a muslim, or to a muslim, they would dislike. It says what it says. I gave the full text from Umdat Salik, and also provided a hadith.

          If it is my *speculation* re obama ‘sp’ is referring to, a speculation is a speculation. The question remains however; why did an *American law professor* make such a statement ? When under *American* law, it is not possible to slander a dead person ?

          Also, as Angemon cogently points out, neither being an American, a President, or a law professor, prevents someone from being a murderer, a traitor, *or* a supporter of sharia.

        • Mirren10 says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 2:10 pm

          ‘sp’ also says, in reply to duh swami;

          ”The first conveys a message that we must endeavor to construct our society such that control of our society does not belong to those who lie about Muhammad.”

          So, that must mean obama wants to make sure muslims won’t control our society ? Since they’re busy lying about him every day …

          Odd, coming from a man who will stand with the muslims …

          The second conveys the message that we must somehow punish those who lie about Muhammad.”

          No. It conveys the message of punishment for those who *slander* mohammed. Under the sharia, the *truth* about mohammed is slander.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 2:26 pm

          Hi Mirren10,
          You have presented no evidence that Obama was speaking from an Islamic law perspective in this statement
          https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly

          I have presented evidence from within that very statement that Obama took a strong public stand firmly endorsing our First Amendment.

          Your Islamic law argument for interpretation of Obama’s use of the word “slander” is nothing more than crackpot conspiracy theory garbage.

        • cs says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 2:27 pm

          No, I am not bigoted against them, they are against me, it says at the Quran all the time.
          Just put on google : Islamic Antisemitism, or anti semitism on the Quran. Or against women. also google search Women rights and Islam, or misogynist Islam or any crap like that, Also research on what they are doing to Christian through their countries. don’t play the fool because my patience today is quite short.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 2:51 pm

          Hi cs,
          “my patience today is quite short.”
          Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.

          “No, I am not bigoted against them, they are against me,”
          False dichotomy, a third option is manifestly the case, you are bigoted against Muslims and the texts of Islam are bigoted against you.

          “Also research on what ***they*** are doing”
          Hence my charge of bigotry stands until you begin to use some limiting qualifier such as “fundamentalist”

          “IS and the whole muzzie horde of goat abusers”
          is unusually bigoted language even for a JW post.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 2:59 pm

          Hi Mirren10,
          “One doesn’t need to provide evidence for a speculation.”

          Ok, so you are just engaging in idle speculation absent support. Fine.

          In some parts of the country they call that talking out of your ass, but I would not want to stoop to such vulgarities.

        • cs says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 4:34 pm

          LittleStarBoy.

          You are quite a muzzie fan, I really could not care less what do you think of this or that, it is irrelevant.
          I use the language that suits the situation, you should not be shocked with my language, but with what they have been doing and for what they stand for in these 1400 years of history, their lovely contribution to science and welfare of this planet. Are you stupid or what? Regarding to my use of language, go and research of the “Tractatus logicus phylosophycus” by Wittegenstein if it is proper or not. For me they all bear perfect correspondence between object and quality.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 5:02 pm

          Hi cs,
          “Are you stupid or what?”
          What.

        • Huck Folder says

          Jun 22, 2015 at 1:21 am

          Also PJ, Sodomite Psycho, is using ‘slander’ in the moslem sense like his umma brothers.
          ANYTHING you say which THEY don’t like, which THEY consider in the slightest defamatory is ‘slander’, TRUE OR NOT.

          That probably goes in spades if you praise ‘The Zombie in Chief’ (mo, not obuMBoy) but are sarcastic.

          Interesting, I think someone could trip up lawfare cair quite nicely there, if they said something which cair was SURE was sarcastic but a judge wouldn’t buy it.

          Take them to the cleaners.

          It’s long overdue, MB watercarriers.

        • voegelinian says

          Jun 24, 2015 at 2:08 pm

          Stardusty continues to ignore the context of Obama’s declaration: the anti-Muhammad video which Obama and Hillary and others in his administration blamed for the Benghazi razzia and also attacked as offensive to Muslims. For Stardusty to make his case that Obama meant slander in the Western sense and not in the Islamic sense, he would have to show that that anti-Muhammad video made untrue statements about “the prophet of Islam”.

          Or Stardusty can continue to prevaricate, obfuscate, and tap-dance gingerlier than Ginger Rogers…

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 28, 2015 at 3:49 am

          Hy Vogie,
          :”For Stardusty to make his case that Obama meant slander in the Western sense and not in the Islamic sense, he would have to show”

          Americans generally speak American English. If you want to assert otherwise the burden is on you.

      • Wellington says

        Jun 20, 2015 at 12:46 am

        You are quite correct, PJ, respecting the impossibility here in the US to legally defame (whether by way of slander or libel) a dead person, though some sentiment has been generated in some states to change this (and I believe this will go nowhere). As to other nations, it is my understanding that you can defame the dead but I really don’t know much about this since I am an American lawyer.

        I had a thought while reading your post and it’s this: Obama is such an internationalist and one who does not think America exceptional that when he made that silly statement at the UN about how the future should not belong to those, blah, blah, blah, he may have been revealing (once again) his “world view” as opposed to what he should have been completely supporting and that is a strictly and solely American view about freedom of speech.

        Hope you’re doing well. Take care.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 1:11 am

          Hi Guys,
          Well, then that makes Obama’s statement pretty easy to abide by!

          But, beyond the strict legal sense slander of a historical figure in the context of American English is an untruth about that figure.

          Slander is an untruth as Americans ordinarily speak.

          The truth about Muhammad is quite sufficient to condemn him. Of course, Robert Spencer asserts the non-historicity of Muhammad, which is a minority opinion, but one I find increasingly compelling the more I listen to his arguments for it.

        • Mirren10 says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 11:40 am

          Hi , Wellington, hope you’re keeping well !

          ” As to other nations, it is my understanding that you can defame the dead but I really don’t know much about this since I am an American lawyer”

          You can’t defame the dead under English law, either.

          http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/wipit/can-you-defame-the-dead/

        • Angemon says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 12:27 pm

          Mirren10 posted:

          “You can’t defame the dead under English law, either.”

          I suppose that’s why, in Western countries, they’re trying to pass blasphemy laws under the guise of, for example, “incitement to religious hate”. Different name, same crap, like “global cooling” -> “global warming” -> “global climate change”.

        • Champ says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 6:48 pm

          Hi, Wellington. We are all doing very well, thank you; and I’m busy getting everything ready for tomorrow, so I would like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Father’s Day — a day early!

          Yes — mr. “Starboy” is an obnoxious pest, and yesterday I made the same observation, as you, and stated that his only purpose here is to drag down Jihad Watch. He is all over the place, and he certainly isn’t here for honest debate (and I feel most sorry for those that he lives with him).

          I hope you and yours are well, my friend. Take care! 🙂

      • Angemon says

        Jun 20, 2015 at 7:05 am

        Wellington posted:

        “Well, Angemon, it looks like StarBoy is engaging in his sophistic debate tactics yet again, that is to say tearing down but proffering nothing of substance.”

        Prior to WWI, Karl Marx predicted that the workers of the world would rise as one, united by class consciousness, overthrow national identities and bring about communism to create a paradise on earth, and war would be the trigger for that revolution. Well, “predicted” might be an understatement – “assured” is a more accurate term. It was a given that the workers of the world would rise against their capitalist masters and bring forth workers utopia on a worldwide scale.

        WWI came about, and so did the communist revolution… but only to quasi-feudal Russia, completely ignoring industrialized nations like Great Britain, Germany or the United States. The communist revolution in Russia did not bring forth the expected paradise on earth but a totalitarian, oppressive government who had its finger in all aspects of life. Karl Marx had been wrong. After WWI, in the mid 1920’s, a group of Marxist philosophers decided to get together and try to figure out what went wrong. To do so, they started an institute. It was meant to be called “Institute for Marxism”, in a homage to the Marx-Engels Institute (nowadays Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute), but the chosen name was “Institute for Social Research”. It was located in Frankfurt University, so it ended up being commonly known as “The Frankfurt School”.

        So what conclusion did the “smart” people in the Frankfurt School arrived to? The workers in capitalist countries were unable to answer the call of class consciousness because they were blinded by the lifestyle offered in capitalist countries like the US or Germany. Something had to be done about it. Meanwhile, there was another problem: Russian communism wasn’t the only totalitarian system in the wake of WWI. Nazism was on the rise in Germany, and communist sympathizers were not exactly welcome in Hitler’s 3rd Reich. So they moved from Frankfurt University, Germany into Columbia University, New City, USA.

        While in America (it would return to Europe in 1951), the Institute for Social Research had its breakthrough and changed its strategy: it separated Marxism from economics and attached it to culture. One of the fruits of that union was the Critical Theory. What is the Critical Theory? Well, it’s to criticize. To put it like that may sound underwhelming or downright silly, but that’s all there is to it. Criticism doesn’t have to be fair, or truthful, or based on well reasoned logical arguments. It doesn’t even need to offer an alternative or fix perceived errors or mistakes. It just needs to be criticism for the sake of criticism – what are “mere” facts when compared to an ideology?

        • Mirren10 says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 2:19 pm

          ”I suppose that’s why, in Western countries, they’re trying to pass blasphemy laws under the guise of, for example, “incitement to religious hate”. Different name, same crap … ”

          Yes indeed.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 2:35 pm

          Hi Mirren10,
          Unfortunately, other Western nations do not have the equivalent to our First Amendment and are in the habit of banning things legislatively that would not pass constitutional muster here in the USA.

          We are fortunate first and foremost to have our freedoms constitutionally protected, and also to have a fine president who will stand before the world body and tell the world how great our American way of free speech is.

          Thank you president Obama.

          “I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. And the answer is enshrined in our laws: Our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

          Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day — (laughter) — and I will always defend their right to do so. (Applause.) ”
          https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly

      • Champ says

        Jun 20, 2015 at 3:42 pm

        Wellington wrote:

        Yes, StarBoy, who regularly tears down people at JW, including Robert Spencer himself, has put in plugs for Obama on several threads. Hmmm.

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

        Exactly, Wellington. I observe the same strident behavior from”Starboy”, but SP will never admit to it.

        • Wellington says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 5:44 pm

          Hello, Champ. If you look at the many exchanges above between or about StarBoy and regular posters like Mirren, cs, Angemon, duh_swami, Philip Jihadski and yours truly, this person, who definitely has an exaggerated sense of his own self importance, is, as I have described him before, someone who likes to function in full sophistic mode, that is to say one who seeks to tear down the arguments of others while offering nothing of substance in its place, though pretending to do so many times.

          StarBoy is a narcissist who, I have no doubt whatsoever, thinks himself cleverer than all of us, including Robert Spencer, even though he contradicts himself many times, is clearly flat wrong on other occasions, or even makes no sense at all at times, as PJ and Angemon in particular have pointed out in several posts of theirs. His ultimate purpose here, I am convinced, is to discredit Jihad Watch (while building his ego up at the same time—–a “twofer” so to speak). He writes and thinks like one from LoonWatch. Fitting since he, like those at LoonWatch, are oblivious of the ironic fact that they are the true loons. Oh well, I guess it has to be expected that when fighting evil, some interference for wickedness will be conducted by looney tunes. I submit that StarBou is a real “contender” here.

          Hope you and yours are doing well, Champ. Now back to the fight, including dealing with fools like StarBoy who make it a bit more difficult to confront true evil because they run interference for it in one stupid way or another, often unwittingly. Take care, my friend.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 6:24 pm

          Hi Wellington
          “StarBoy … someone who likes to function in full sophistic mode, that is to say one who seeks to tear down the arguments of others while offering nothing of substance in its place, though pretending to do so many times.”
          Here is, I think, a better description of sophistry in the modern sense:
          “the term sophistry has come to signify the deliberate use of fallacious reasoning, intellectual charlatanism and moral unscrupulousness.”

          That would definitely not apply to me, since I do my utmost to avoid fallacious reasoning.

          “StarBoy…thinks himself cleverer than all of us, including Robert Spencer,”
          Not sure about cleverer if you mean IQ or something. Robert Spencer is orders of magnitude more educated in Islam than I am, but that alone does not make a person immune from error or criticism.

          “makes no sense at all at times, as PJ and Angemon in particular have pointed out in several posts”
          ROTFLMAO

          ” His ultimate purpose here, I am convinced, is to discredit Jihad Watch ”
          Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is the ignorant cursing bigoted hateful tirade posts that appear here so often and unchallenged are what discredit JW. I am doing my part to raise the level of anti-Mohammedanism.

          “like those at LoonWatch, are oblivious of the ironic fact that they are the true loons”
          That is indeed ironic of Loonwatch authors, of which I am not one.

          “dealing with fools like StarBoy”
          Actually I prefer Starchild, but I suppose Psycho, or Star Fukc will just have to do!

        • Angemon says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 7:08 pm

          Stardusty Psyche posted:

          “That would definitely not apply to me, since I do my utmost to avoid fallacious reasoning.”

          BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Great joke, mate!!! 😀

        • Champ says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 9:36 pm

          Hi, Wellington. We are all doing very well, thank you; and I’m busy getting everything ready for tomorrow, so I would like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Father’s Day — a day early!

          Yes — mr. “Starboy” is an obnoxious pest, and yesterday I made the same observation, as you, and stated that his only purpose here is to drag down Jihad Watch. He is all over the place, and he certainly isn’t here for honest debate (and I feel most sorry for those that he lives with him).

          I hope you and yours are well, my friend. Take care! 🙂

    • Shane says

      Jun 20, 2015 at 9:43 am

      Put this scumbag in prison, take away his citizenship and deport him to Syria when his prison sentence is served. WE should encourage Muslims like him to deport themselves and give up their American citizenship.

    • Huck Folder says

      Jun 22, 2015 at 1:11 am

      “We are all Islamic state citizens. This isn’t some gang in the desert you’re fighting.”

      Did I just hear this PRICK liken mo and his caravan marauding bandits, to ‘some gang in the desert’?

      And what says cair about this, and all the other recent arrests?
      No one understands islam like cair understands islam?

  2. Don McKellar says

    Jun 19, 2015 at 7:34 pm

    Geez — a slow day for homegrown Islamic terror in Obamaland. Only one story of a moslem monster seeking to terrorize the kuffar/join the Islamic State? Usually there are 2 to 4 such monsters popping up! Only one for the day? What is this– some kind of USA moslem holiday???

    • Don McKellar says

      Jun 19, 2015 at 7:36 pm

      “…This is WW3 the beginning has just begun,” said Amir Said Abdul Rahman Al-Ghazi.

      Holy Crap! He must have been reading my greasy Islamophobe posts on Jihad Watch to get that idea!

    • jihad3tracker says

      Jun 19, 2015 at 7:59 pm

      Hello again Don — Yes, a slow day in Obamaland.

      In the United States there are hundreds or thousands of Muslims planning violence, but they have not risen onto the radar.

      We can take comfort from the fact that anyone who SINCERELY holds the pathologically violent Qur’an as God’s word is too stupid to prevail over Pam Geller / Robert Spencer / Readers here at JW.

  3. R Cole says

    Jun 19, 2015 at 9:21 pm

    “We are all Islamic State citizens” ~ is development from the seemingly innocuous ‘ everyone is a Muslim ‘ i.e. ‘the individual doesn’t convert to Islam – they revert. ‘

    The idea of the religion and the state as one.

    Or more the state and the religion as one.

    Wherever Muslims show up in numbers – be it in Australia, Canada, the US and across Europe they try to establish an Islamic state.

    And by extension – to enforce Islam’s laws – and impose Islam’s religious norms.

    ::

    The assertion that everyone is a Muslim – is also a provocative statement. If you would face Mecca for a moment and understand it from an Islamic point of view – if this is taken as true – if everyone is considered Muslim but they are not acting like one – then you would be seen as being ignorant – and so should be told i.e. invited to behave like a Muslim / to convert.

    For example before Bin Laden attacked he invite America to Islam. [The more you look at it you can see how the idea of individual freedom doesn’t even – enter the picture.]

    Here is what Osama said in his ‘letter to America’:

    You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator.

    The [Islamic] Nation of victory and success that Allah has promised:

    “It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad peace be upon him) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam), to make it victorious over all other religions even though the Polytheists hate it.” [Quran 61:9]

    It’s an encampment of the mind. That is why if you leave Islam – Muslims view this as treasonous – even as it is not a physical state with an Islamic ruler.

    ::

    We have to be listening.

    What we being told that it is all ‘hate’ ~ but what are they really saying?

    Conversely what some might think is moderate language ~ is really the language of conquest.

    We have to know how hold the fort !!

    We can see what Islam brings after 1400 years ~ although we can be positive about some points ~ the question is do we want to live like that.

  4. mortimer says

    Jun 19, 2015 at 11:09 pm

    OHIO, USA … not Iraq…not Syria

    “This isn’t some gang in the desert you’re fighting. This is WW3 the beginning has just begun,” said Amir Said Abdul Rahman Al-Ghazi.

    Muslims have declared war against the world and ready to destroy it completely. This is surely the definition of INSANITY!

    In a nuclear war, everyone loses and the planet is destroyed.

  5. Gary says

    Jun 19, 2015 at 11:17 pm

    Winston Churchill 1899. “Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”

    If only the world would listen.

    If only muslims had the courage to face the truth.

    If only muslims had the freedom to walk away.

    If only….

    • Gary says

      Jun 19, 2015 at 11:20 pm

      “if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

      ….A big if.

      One muslims must face.

    • Michael Copeland says

      Jun 20, 2015 at 6:18 am

      Print your own Churchill on Islam wallet cards;
      “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world”
      http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/6066-churchill-on-islam-wallet-cards

  6. mortimer says

    Jun 19, 2015 at 11:17 pm

    Amir Said Abdul Rahman Al-Ghazi wants to bring on WW III, but didn’t Allah have foreknowledge of nuclear weapons…or was Allah a 7th century delusion?

    Didn’t Allah realize that for Muslims to take over the world, they would have to get nuclear weapons and that A-bombs would lead to the destruction of the entire planet?

    Didn’t Allah realize that a destroyed planet would mean that MUSLIMS LOST?

    If Allah encourage all Muslims to commit suicide and destroy the earth, then how could they take it over and make Islam rule over the world? There would be nothing left for Islam to rule.

    Allah didn’t know about nuclear weapons, therefore, Allah is not omniscient, therefore Allah is not ‘real’, therefore, Islam is false.

    • Gary says

      Jun 19, 2015 at 11:35 pm

      There are no detailed prophecies in the Koran. So you are correct, it’s all false.

      However; muslims must submit to allah. Therefore, allah reigns! Allah. The father of all lies…..

      “And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

      And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

      The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.”

      (Revelation 17: 6-8)

  7. No Fear says

    Jun 20, 2015 at 2:26 am

    “This isn’t some gang in the desert you’re fighting. This is WW3 the beginning has just begun”

    Well, yes it is a gang in the desert we are fighting, and don’t beginnings always begin at the …beginning?
    Retard. Next please…..

    • Stardusty Psyche says

      Jun 20, 2015 at 2:57 am

      HI No Fear,
      I would not be quite so dismissive of this enemy…

      No, they are not a mere gang in the desert, they are a state, a totalitarian state surpassing the internal brutality even of the National Socialists. They have armed forces and are actively seeking to develop, steal, or buy WMD. If acquired they will not hesitate to use them. They have already made some initial attempts to use poison gas, albeit ineffective thus far.

      His words were clumsy, true enough, but telling in that here is what I think he was trying to say.
      “This is (the beginning of) WW3 the beginning (of this long awaited event) has just begun (and is now come to reality by our hands)”

      This is no small boast to be dismissed out of hand. Nations as small as Israel, South Africa, and Pakistan have acquired nuclear weapons.

      • Sheila Novitz says

        Jun 20, 2015 at 9:32 am

        South Africa and Pakistan aren’t “small”, and South Africa does not have nuclear weapons. The only country about which you are entirely correct is Israel (small and nuclear), and Israel is the country least likely, in the entire world, to use such weapons.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 20, 2015 at 12:01 pm

          Hi Sheila Novitz
          “Small” is a relative term.

          All 3 countries I cite are small in size and global reach compared to USA, Russia, and China,

          My point was simply that it no longer takes the military industrial complex of a superpower to develop, buy, or steal a nuclear weapon.

          As for South Africa, they “acquired nuclear weapons.”, but later dismantled them. Of course, there is no prospect IS would peacefully dismantle a nuclear weapon if they acquired one, rather, they would almost certainly use it.

          “Israel is the country least likely, in the entire world, to use such weapons.”
          Israel has something called the “Samson Option” or “Operation Samson”.
          (link here or search, many sources available)
          http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/israel-deploys-nuclear-weapons-on-german-built-submarines-a-836784.html

          If Israel is overrun by a mass invasion by IS or other Arab/Muslim force, or if they are bombed by Iran or other future nuclear power, they will almost certainly counter attack with their submarine sea based nuclear strike capability.

          But, prior to that, if a large enough IS/Arab/Muslim force is coming over their borders such that collapse of the IDF is imminent Israel will almost certainly strike with nuclear weapons.

          “Never Again” will the Jewish people go down to slaughter passively. If they go down, they will take as many with them as their nuclear weapons will achieve, a la Samson.

  8. No Fear says

    Jun 20, 2015 at 2:38 am

    Interesting that he thinks that the “Islamic” State is trying to start WW3.
    Does he see similarities between Nazism and Islam?

  9. Sheila Novitz says

    Jun 20, 2015 at 9:25 am

    Well, at least Al-Ghazi is telling the truth about what Islam is actually set on achieving, which is more than most of our western politicians are doing. We will not win this terrible battle while politicians strive for their “political correctness”, lying through their teeth about everything in the process, and so intent on pacifying Muslims that they neglect the fears of their own people. When they name ISLAM as the culprit; when they monitor what is taught in mosques, madrases and Islamic schools, and thereafter openly challenge such teachings in western countries, THEN we will have begun the fight that must be fought. THEN perhaps everyone will understand that they are hearing the truth at last, and THEN we will be able to battle together against the horrible evil that is ISLAM.

    • John Stefan Obeda says

      Jun 20, 2015 at 5:34 pm

      Well said Sheila. I agree whole heartedly. May God grant the day to come when the leaders of our land and the people would be interested to tell and to hear the truth about Islam and then to properly deal with it before it’s too late.

  10. duh_swami says

    Jun 20, 2015 at 9:30 am

    And all this started when a naughty angel named Gabriel had an affair with a semi psychotic mortal named Mahound. Over their 22 year long affair, Gabriel whispered many fantasies into his ear representing them as reality…Gabriel had a lot of fun with this, which must have angered Allah because he made Mahound sick and eventually killed him…Those fantastic lies whispered, ended up as the ‘Holy Book’, that ISIS follows carefully, known as The Quran, the living words of the living God, Allah…or at least that’s what the naughty angel told him…
    But naught angel have been known to lie, just to get a reaction from humans…Look how well those lies have worked…

  11. Michael Copeland says

    Jun 20, 2015 at 9:33 am

    Islam’s “perfect man” owned, and traded, black slaves, and was disparaging towards blacks, referring to them as “raisin heads”. “Slavery is part of Islam”, says Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, Saudi scholar. Saudis look down on blacks, discriminating against them on the Hajj pilgrimage.
    http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/news-libertygb/6417-slavery-is-part-of-islam-muslims-speak

  12. Mirren10 says

    Jun 20, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    ‘sp’ says;

    ”You have presented no evidence that Obama was speaking from an Islamic law perspective in this statement
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly”

    I do wish someone would teach ‘sp’ how to comprehend the written word.

    I copied and pasted the definition of the word ”speculation”, just for him, but he ignores it.

    ”I have presented evidence from within that very statement that Obama took a strong public stand firmly endorsing our First Amendment.”

    And I do wish ‘sp’ would attempt to put his brain ( I use the term loosely) in gear, and attempt to engage his critical faculties, ( rather than just criticising with very little foundation, everyone here) supposing he has any.

    Firstly, why does an American law professor use the word ”slander” in referring to a dead man ?

    Secondly, if obama is such a firm endorser of the First Amendment, why did he have the maker of ”Innocence of muslims” arrested and imprisoned ?

    ”Your Islamic law argument for interpretation of Obama’s use of the word “slander” is nothing more than crackpot conspiracy theory garbage.”

    As previously stated, I was **speculating**. Again, why does an American law professor (this is getting tiring) use the term ”slander”. when referring to what has been said about a dead man ? Indeed, under American law, slander means a lie, so why does an American law professor use the term ”slander” in reference to mohammed, at all ? Unless of course, he considers telling the **truth** about mohammed to be slanderous.

    ‘sp’ was very vocal on the thread where he accused Robert ~

    ‘sp’ says;

    ”You have presented no evidence that Obama was speaking from an Islamic law perspective in this statement
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly”

    I do wish someone would teach ‘sp’ how to read and comprehend. I copied and pasted, just for him, the meaning of the word ”speculation”, but he has ignored it. Ipso facto, speculation doesn’t demand evidence.

    ”I have presented evidence from within that very statement that Obama took a strong public stand firmly endorsing our First Amendment.”

    I also wish ‘sp’ would put his brain (I use the term loosely) in gear, and exercise, (supposing he has them) his critical faculties.

    Firstly, if obama is such a strong supporter of the First Amendment, why did he have the maker of ”Innocence of muslims” arrested and imprisoned ? Secondly, why did an American law professor, use the term ”slander” in reference to a dead man, and why does he consider telling the **truth** about mohammed to be slanderous ?

    ”Your Islamic law argument for interpretation of Obama’s use of the word “slander” is nothing more than crackpot conspiracy theory garbage.”

    ‘sp’ was very sneering and vociferous on another thread, where he accused Robert Spencer of claiming to be a mind reader, but doesn’t apply the same criteria to himself. Apparently, he thinks he can read obama’s ‘mind’ ( again, a loose term, since I think obama is a deeply stupid man).

    • Mirren10 says

      Jun 20, 2015 at 3:28 pm

      Oops. I don’t know how that happened – I’m typing this on my tablet, which sometimes does weird things.

    • Stardusty Psyche says

      Jun 20, 2015 at 3:43 pm

      Hi Mirren10,
      “As previously stated, I was **speculating**.”
      I might respond to some of your points but they are only speculations and I prefer evidence based discussions

      • Angemon says

        Jun 20, 2015 at 3:49 pm

        Stardusty Psyche posted:

        “I might respond to some of your points but they are only speculations and I prefer evidence based discussions”

        From what I’ve seen, they’re to you what sunlight is to vampires.

      • Mirren10 says

        Jun 20, 2015 at 4:17 pm

        ‘sp’ says;

        ”I might respond to some of your points but they are only speculations and I prefer evidence based discussions”

        More mendacious weaselling, and claptrap, from this idiot. He won’t respond, because he can’t. And he doesn’t have the honesty to admit it. Typical leftard dishonest maneouvering, which he has demonstrated over and over, since we have had to endure his presence here.

        He prefers ”evidence based discussions” ?

        He certainly hasn’t demonstrated any evidence of that. 🙂

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 21, 2015 at 12:32 pm

          Mirren10,
          Evidence
          Look up “slander” in any American English dictionary. I have. They all require an untruth or false statement.
          “to make a false spoken statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone”

          Evidence
          The transcript of Obama’s address (again)
          https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly

          Evidence
          A listing of Obama’s American education and public service offices. Clearly, a speaker of American English

          It is reasonable to only speak the truth about Muhammad, which is what Robert Spencer does, and what Obama advocated.

          All the the cursing, speculating, and name calling from all the JW posters will not alter these evidences I have provided.

        • Mirren10 says

          Jun 21, 2015 at 6:31 pm

          ‘sp’ again fails to get to grips with several salient points, re his hero, obama.

          He says obama is an **American law professor**. OK, fine.

          So why doesn’t obama know a) the definition of slander in American law, and b) why doesn’t obama know it is not possible under American law, to slander a dead man, and c) if he does in fact know a) and b), why did he say at the UN, ”the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of islam” ?

          Surely obama must know, not only as an American law professor, but as someone who spent his young years in an Indonesian madrassa, some facts about the character and career of mohammed ? But according to obama, telling the **truth** about mohammed, is slander. Only if one accepts the sharia definition of slander.

          Further, if obama is such a strong supporter of the First Amendment, why did he lie to the American people that the video, ”Innocence of muslims” was the reason for the Benghazi murders, and why did he have the have the maker of the film, ”Innocence of muslims”, arrested and imprisoned ?

          ‘sp’ will not answer these questions, because he can’t.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 21, 2015 at 7:08 pm

          Hi Mirren10,
          ” But according to obama, telling the **truth** about mohammed, is slander.”

          You have offered no evidence for that claim, making it manifestly false, meant to defame, and itself a slander,

          President Obama speaks American English. The plain American English definition of slander requires it to be an untruth.

          We should not speak an untruth about Muhammad, thus Obama made a very good statement in that regard on that occasion.

        • Mirren10 says

          Jun 21, 2015 at 7:19 pm

          ”You have offered no evidence for that claim, making it manifestly false, meant to defame, and itself a slander,”

          Who has *slandered* mohammed ? No-one. We tell the **truth** about him.

          Why does obama, as a **law professor**, not know that in American law, one cannot slander a dead man ? Or did he just ignore that point of American law ? Why ?

          Why did obama lie to Americans, about Benghazi, and why did he have the maker of the video ”Innocence of muslims”, arrested and imprisoned, if he supports the First Amendment?

          Answer the questions, instead of ignoring facts that don’t suit you.

        • voegelinian says

          Jun 21, 2015 at 7:24 pm

          Stardusty Psyche [SP] says
          June 21, 2015 at 7:08 pm

          SP quoted Mirren10,
          ” But according to obama, telling the **truth** about mohammed, is slander.”

          then responded:

          “You have offered no evidence for that claim, making it manifestly false, meant to defame, and itself a slander,”

          SP is ignoring the context of Obama’s infamous declaration he made before the United Nations: specifically alluding to the Muhammad video which he and Hillary among others falsely claimed (speaking of lying) caused the Benghazi jihad attack on our embassy. I would invite SP to show us how the Muhammad video was slandering Muhammad, if I thought he were morally capable of being an interlocutor in good faith and not rather a snake of sophistry. Nevertheless, we can demonstrate that it is reasonable to infer from that context that Obama was indeed referring to that Muhammad video; and so again, that Muhammad video’s depiction of Muhammad would have to be shown to be untrue – in the sense of contradicting the Muhammad that is found in core Islamic texts of the Sunna, to be deemed to be slander.

          For the sordid story of Obama and Hillary’s lies and prevarications on the Muhammad video / Benghazi attack nexus, see these Google pages of report after report :

          https://www.google.ca/search?as_q=benghazi+muhammad+video&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jihadwatch.org%2F&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl#q=benghazi+mohammed+video+site:http://www.jihadwatch.org/&as_qdr=all&start=0

          And for a helpful dissection of the Muhammad video scene by scene and whether its allegations about Muhammad were backed up by Islamic texts or not, see:

          http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2012/10/innocence-of-muslims-dissected.html

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 21, 2015 at 7:57 pm

          “slandering the prophet” is common parlance in Islam, not elsewhere. The quote comes after other references in the speech to whom the future must not belong to–
          “those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt…those who bully women..the corrupt few who steal a country’s resources” –he is clearly referring to Muslims. Then as a sop to Muslims: “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.” He is talking clearly in the context of Islam and about Muslims. What is meant by slandering the prophet of Islam has been explained to you and it is not a matter of truth but whether Allah Muhammad and the Muslims would dislike it. To infer he means slander as understood in American law is absurd.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 21, 2015 at 8:11 pm

          He is also talking about slandering the prophet at the United Nations where the OIC has been hell bent on making it a criminal offense to “defame” the prophet (or “defame” Islam) with resolutions that are in essence imposing Islamic blasphemy laws on the rest of the world. Resolutions that have had the favor of this administration (Resolution 16/18 co- sponsored by the U.S. and Pakistan). Speaking of slandering the prophet at the United Nations, he knows perfectly well what he is saying and who is hearing it and how they are understanding it.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 21, 2015 at 9:10 pm

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          Thank you for at least making your points using documented evidence and rational arguments, as opposed to the adolescent practices of so many of the other posters here.

          Taken by itself, the more complete context you cite would indeed at least cast doubt on the president’s intent.

          However, with even greater context the plain American English meaning of “slander” remains applicable.

          This statement precedes the one so often quoted:
          “There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. ”

          The video might very well have contained falsehoods about Mohammad, thus making the common American English meaning of “slander” applicable throughout Obama’s speech.

          Since he set up the use of the word “slander” in the context of a video that might very well have contained falsehoods about Muhammad there remains no compelling argument as to why a man who ordinarily speaks in American English would suddenly switch to Sharia language.

          “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

          ” What is meant by slandering the prophet of Islam has been explained to you”
          I have explained to you that in American English “slander” is necessarily an untruth, which is why Robert Spencer explicitly denies that he slanders Islam, stating, rather, it is true.

          Clearly, Robert Spencer juxtaposes “slander” as opposed to “true”.

          Robert Spencer: “What I say about Islam is neither hatred nor slander; it is true”
          http://www.inquisitr.com/1018323/islam-jihad-and-democracy-the-inquisitr-interviews-robert-spencer/

          Why do you and the others here have such a hard time understanding my true statements when I explain them so clearly in demonstration of your errors?

        • Mirren10 says

          Jun 21, 2015 at 10:40 pm

          ”The video might very well have contained falsehoods about Mohammad, thus making the common American English meaning of “slander” applicable throughout Obama’s speech”

          Crap. The video used koran and ahadith, to illustrate mohammed’s life, and told no falsehoods.

          ‘sp’ is again weaselling frantically, in his attempt to avoid answering these uncomfortable questions.

          Why did obama, the ‘law professor’ use the word slander, when in American law, one cannot slander a dead man ?

          Why did he use the word slander, when everything said in the video was true ?

          Why did obama lie about the role the video played in Benghazi ?

          Why did obama, a ‘supporter of the First Amendment’, claim a truthful video about mohammed was slander ?

          Why did obama, a ‘supporter of the First Amendment’, have the maker of the video arrested and imprisoned ?

          ‘sp’ has, several times now, ignored these salient points. He will continue to do so, because he cannot answer them.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 21, 2015 at 11:12 pm

          HI Mirren10,
          He used to be a law professor, now he is the POTUS. He speaks in ordinary American English…

          Asked and answered so many times I have lost count, so, if you don’t get it, oh well

          As for the video, I might not have not seen it…not sure which one it is…I saw one that was kind of an animated thing, another that was a really badly acted piece, very campy…not sure

          The role in an embassy attack? Well, just about any little thing is likely to set off a Muslim mob someplace, what the exact connection is or isn’t between some video and that particular attack, I don’t know, but I am never surprised any more when a Muslim mob goes bizzerk over a cartoon or whatever..

          You want to dissect a 3 year old speech endlessly looking for clues that fit your crackpot Obama Muslim conspiracy theories..fine, go ahead, I have repeated the obvious fact of American English definition of slander..I can’t do much more for you on that…

          What did you say, something like “frantically”? Ok, whatever dude, and have a nice day…

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 21, 2015 at 11:08 pm

          There is no reason for him to even use the term “slander” except for the fact he is addressing Muslims and using it in a context Muslims will understand. They did, you don’t. And you do realize what “the future does not belong to” means to Muslims who believe those who insult the prophet should be killed? It is a death threat for slanderers.

          “There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.” He is referring to acts of violence by Muslims who feel “slandered” and therefore justified. He is not referencing American jurisprudence. I have explained what Muslims, what the OIC, call slander and defamation and would criminalize, and it is not uttering something untrue. It is the assumed desire to offend and insult and criticize and demean even with, and especially with, the truth. Robert Spencer does not slander Islam under American law (yet) but he does slander it under Islamic law (and more and more under European law). That is what should concern you.

          Obama is talking to Muslims when he talks of slandering of the prophet…no one should do that, likewise don’t deny the Holocaust and destroy churches; and so why on earth would it be assumed he means slander in a non-Islamic context when talking to Muslims? You think he doesn’t know the difference? You think Obama just means telling lies about Islam? Like he does all the time? He says it’s a religion of peace and jihad is not jihad. Does he have a future?

          You are the one missing the context of these remarks and the fact they were delivered at the United Nations, and if you think the video in question tells lies about Muhammad
          go ahead and name what it lies about. Aside from the crummy production values…did Muhammad marry a 6 year old and consummate the marriage when she was 9? do the hadiths report Muhammad conversing with a donkey? etc etc So, in what way is the video slanderous, as in untrue?

          “there remains no compelling argument as to why a man who ordinarily speaks in American English would suddenly switch to Sharia language.” Let me take you to Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009, also to a Muslim audience:

          “Assalaamu alaykum” (American english or sharia language?)
          “As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” (the use of Holy for the Koran, sharia friendly?) “It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.” (the Islamic narrative par excellence, followed by a narrative unbearable to repeat for its historical inaccuracy, its offense to Western civilization, and which fits only into the historical fantasies of Islamic supremacists). Then, “the Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as — it is as if he has killed all mankind. And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.” (American english or shariah language?)

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 21, 2015 at 11:50 pm

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          I don’t agree with you but thanks again for stating your views rationally and with textual evidence.

          Forgive me for skipping the 2012 speech, I have addressed that so many times I think my fingers are going to fall off!!!

          Please allow me to go to the Cairo speech. I was not aware of that speech so I will copy your quote and address some points in line.

          But first, please recall

          Ich bin ein Berliner

          It is customary when visiting a foreign country that our POTUS will use a line or lines in the language of the country he is visiting. That is good will diplomacy and conveys camaraderie with the people.

          It is also good diplomacy to try to find some common ground in the traditions, texts, and writings of the country being visited…some statements that are fairly benign that can be agreed upon. This is diplomatic connection building and it resonates with the people of the country being visited.

          “Assalaamu alaykum” (American english or sharia language?)
          “the peace be upon you” This is a traditional Arabic greeting. When I go to France I say bon jour. When I go to Germany I say guten morgen.
          Do your really think greeting an Arabic speaking crowd with Assalaamu alaykum means he is a closet Muslim or something?

          “As the Holy Koran tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” (the use of Holy for the Koran, sharia friendly?)
          It is respectful, like Holy Bible. It is an acknowledgement of respect for the fact that it is holy to the audience.

          “It was Islam — at places like Al-Azhar — that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.” (the Islamic narrative par excellence, followed by a narrative unbearable to repeat for its historical inaccuracy, its offense to Western civilization, and which fits only into the historical fantasies of Islamic supremacists).
          Actually, the Arab world transmitted the Greek texts to modernity. Copies of the Greek texts were stored in Spain during the Islamic occupation and from there were transmitted into the rest of Western and Northern Europe, which played an important role in preventing the loss of Greek knowledge. The Arab/Muslim connection did indeed play an important role in building upon the great works of math, science, and philosophy of the Greeks

          Then, “the Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as — it is as if he has killed all mankind. And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.” (American english or shariah language?)
          That is a factual quote from the Meccan portion of the Qur;an, and an excellent choice for a common ground acknowledgement.

          Very good diplomacy. Obama clearly represented the USA very well indeed.

        • Angemon says

          Jun 22, 2015 at 12:32 pm

          Stardusty Psyche posted:

          “It is respectful, like Holy Bible.”

          Has Obama ever refereed to the Bible as “The Holy Bible”?

        • Mirren10 says

          Jun 22, 2015 at 12:21 am

          As I expected, ‘sp’ is still frantically weasellling, and has answered none of the questions.

          He hasn’t seen the video, but thinks it may have lied about mohammed.

          He says nothing about why obama lied about its role in Benghazi.

          He has said nothing about the fact obama had the maker of the video arrested and imprisoned.

          ‘sp’ has demonstrated, once again, what a meretricious little weasel he is, and employed the usual leftard tactics to avoid answering straight questions.

          He really is a contemptible little idiot.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 22, 2015 at 1:28 am

          Hard to know where to begin with someone who never has heard of the Cairo speech and then lectures me what it all means. You said Obama was someone who only spoke American english and would not switch to “sharia language.” I showed you other examples of how he spoke “sharia language” quite readily when speaking to Muslims to reinforce the point–that he was using “slander” in the sense Muslims understand it.

          Endorsing the Islamic narrative of the universe and how Western civilization came to be (we owe it to Islam) is not being polite, it is abdication, it is a lie, and it is ultimately infamous if you actually understand Islam, its real tenets and teachings, its real history of blood and suffering and destruction and the mental shackles it puts on its slaves. This Cairo speech you know nothing about is where Obama packed the first rows of the audience with the Muslim Brotherhood. Should I explain the significance of that in the light of what subsequently happened in Egypt? This Al Azhar where Obama spoke and which he extolled; Al Azhar which produced the founder of al Qaeda, Abdullah Azzam, it produced the Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. It produced the scholar al-Nabhani, founder of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar until he died in 2010 was Muhammud Tantawi, famous for his antisemitic opus “Jews in the Koran and Tradition.” Would you extol a university which had bin Laden’s mentor as head of Qur’anic studies, as a “beacon of Islamic learning”? The Jihad conquests and dhimmitude of countless millions is nowhere in sight in Obama’s version of history, nor the obligation for that to continue until the Day of Judgment. But Al Azhar knows it well.

          Finally, stop pretending you speak with authority about the Qur’an. Surah Five (Surat Al-Ma’idah) is a Medinan surah, the last in fact, after the infamous Surah Nine. “Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.” This is cribbed from the Talmud and the next verse spells out exactly who’s slaying is NOT as if you had slain all mankind: 5:33 “the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.” Do you have any idea what they mean by waging war against Allah and causing corruption upon earth? It’s you, kaffir. You still want to argue that was representing the USA well indeed?

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 22, 2015 at 1:54 am

          Let me finalize this point. The most revered Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir says about 5:32 (whoever slays a soul, UNLESS IT BE FOR MANSLAUGHTER OR FOR MISCHIEF IN THE LAND, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men) “Sa`id bin Jubayr said, “He who allows himself to shed THE BLOOD OF A MUSLIM, is like he who allows shedding the blood of all people. He who forbids shedding THE BLOOD OF ONE MUSLIM, is like he who forbids shedding the blood of all people.”

          Ibn Jurayj said that Al-A`raj said that Mujahid commented on the Ayah… “He who kills A BELIEVING SOUL intentionally, Allah makes the Fire of Hell his abode.”

          They are not talking about the souls of non-Muslims. Do you fathom that?

          This is Ibn Kathir’s commentary on the next verse 5:33: (The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned) “Making war against Allah and his messenger: “here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways.”

          Disbelief is waging war against Allah.

        • Mirren10 says

          Jun 22, 2015 at 8:27 am

          Jack, absolutely **brilliant** posts.

          Wasted on ‘sp’, but very instructive for any lurkers or seldom posters – totally excellent.

          You can bet your boots, however, that the weasel ‘sp’ will never come back to this thread, and attempt to twist your points, as is his MO,because he has zero knowledge of islamic texts, and very much less than common sense, and knows he’s out of his league.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 22, 2015 at 8:56 am

          Thank you Mirren, much appreciated. I didn’t expect a reply, he didn’t reply to counter arguments on other posts. Since he represents a “type” I thought it worthwhile responding to him, more for the benefit of someone else who might be reading it.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 22, 2015 at 9:06 am

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          Well, that was a nice set of quotes and all, not surprising, I mean, MB, Hamas, IS, and all the rest are not pulling their ideology out of thin air…anybody can verify the sources they cite.

          How does reprinting a lot Islamic nonsense in any refute the points I made?

          If you can go to the actual content of the actual words I actually wrote and use rational evidence based arguments to refute the content of my words…fine.

          Reciting a list of stupid Muhammadan garbage is just smoke and mirrors with respect to the actual content of my words.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 22, 2015 at 9:25 am

          A pathetic response. Just admit you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to “Islamic nonsense” (which anyone can see). Then explain why you feel qualified to pompously lecture about it on a site called Jihad Watch?

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 24, 2015 at 3:11 am

          Hi Jr.

          “Well that IS just what America’s “Imperial” Potus Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. wants”

          How utterly stupid.

          Obama is crusader enemy number 1 according to IS
          http://media.clarionproject.org/files/islamic-state/isis-isil-islamic-state-magazine-issue%2B9-they-plot-and-allah-plots-sex-slavery.pdf

        • Mirren10 says

          Jun 22, 2015 at 5:35 pm

          Hi, Angemon;

          re obama and the ‘Holy Koran’ vs the ‘Holy Bible’.

          I googled, but couldn’t find any instances.

          He refers to ‘the scriptures’, the ‘good book’, and the ‘bible’, but does not, as far as I can find, refer to ‘the Holy Bible’.

          Teling, eh ?

        • Angemon says

          Jun 22, 2015 at 5:53 pm

          Mirren10 posted:

          “I googled, but couldn’t find any instances.

          He refers to ‘the scriptures’, the ‘good book’, and the ‘bible’, but does not, as far as I can find, refer to ‘the Holy Bible’.

          Teling, eh ?”

          Yup, that’s the idea I have as well – Obama consistently refers to the quran as “the holy quran” but rarely, if ever, addresses the Bible in the same fashion. It is also in line with what I stated before regarding SP: he’ll say whatever he deems necessary to make his point, truth be damned.

        • voegelinian says

          Jun 23, 2015 at 2:29 am

          Stardusty Psyche says

          June 22, 2015 at 9:06 am

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          Well, that was a nice set of quotes and all, not surprising, I mean, MB, Hamas, IS, and all the rest are not pulling their ideology out of thin air…anybody can verify the sources they cite.

          ************

          Yes, they’re not pulling their ideology out of thin air; they’re pulling it (not much effort involved in this “pulling”) from the same ideology that informs mainstream Islam (e.g., cf. Al Azhar and innumerable mainstream ulema around the world).

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 24, 2015 at 1:58 am

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          ” of how he spoke “sharia language” ”
          No you did nothing of the kind.

          You quoted Obama giving the Arab Muslim equivalent of “hello” to an Arab Muslim audience. Somehow in your mind you made the leap to Obama speaking from an acceptance of Sharia by virtue of this common greeting.

          What utter drivel.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 24, 2015 at 1:34 pm

          “Utter Drivel” should be your new moniker. Think about it.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 25, 2015 at 2:15 am

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          ““Utter Drivel” should be your new moniker. Think about it.””

          Ok, I think you have nothing of substance to support your attributions of “Sharia language” to our fine president Obama, so you have lowered yourself to a vacuous suggestion for me to make a moniker change.

        • voegelinian says

          Jun 24, 2015 at 2:35 pm

          Stardusty persists in ignoring the context of his Administration’s attack on the anti-Muhammad video. That was the context in which he made his infamous declaration about the future and the “prophet of Islam”. Absent that context, Stardusty may have a point. Factoring in that context, Stardusty is up a creek.

          I also note that several JW commenters here pointedly raised directly to Stardusty the problem of slander of a dead man (viz., Muhammad — not only dead, but ancient) — a problem Stardusty has studiously ignored.

          His avoidance of these two crucial points is obvious, and he has been trying to obfuscate it by poking and prodding JW commenters to arouse tangential pique & points which he hopes will help him with his smoke & mirrors. Stardusty is purposfully affecting an annoyingly supercilious tone with pointed jabs at various commenters — precisely to arouse their pique and thereby have them unwittingly assist him in the overall obfuscation which these dragged-out debates generate in the general reader.

          As with his previous incarnation on Jihad Watch years ago, “:Americana”, we can safely assume that everything Stardusty does — from his arrogant attitude to his pointed jabs to his affectations of ethical concern about human rights and freedom of speech, etc. —
          is calculated to help generate Profusion and Obfuscation, and muddy the waters à la Alinsky, Derrida and Baudrillard.

        • voegelinian says

          Jun 24, 2015 at 2:38 pm

          oops —

          “Stardusty persists in ignoring the context of his Administration’s attack on the anti-Muhammad video…”

          I didn’t mean to elevate Stardusty to President of the U.S.A. (worthy of a Hillarious shudder). I was referring, of course, as the context all around my comment massively imples, to Obama.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 24, 2015 at 3:52 pm

          Obama is talking about slander as understood by Muslims (to the video and otherwise) and their reactions to slander. He spits his disgust at the video (an “insult” to all Muslims and to America) while acknowledging in America we do not ban blasphemy. He puts the “future must not belong” declaration in with a litany concerning Muslims: “the future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt…the future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school”…

          To reinforce his use of ‘slander’: “those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.” Things Muslims do. Is the slander here blasphemy as understood by Islam, or is it slander that can only come from a false accusation?

          “I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well…here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs.

          “There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.“ Things Muslims do. How they react to slander, as they understand slander.

          If Obama meant slander in context of American law (which does not ban blasphemy)
          why would he make a statement he had to have known would be misinterpreted by Muslims? How and where did he establish the You Tube video was untrue, a false accusation, or libelous or tell us how you can slander a dead/mythical figure in American law? If the video is not slander in American law (which it clearly is not)
          what is is he referring to that the future must not belong to?

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 25, 2015 at 2:20 am

          Hi Vogie,
          “That was the context in which he made his infamous declaration about the future and the “prophet of Islam”. Absent that context, Stardusty may have a point. Factoring in that context, Stardusty is up a creek. ”

          Well, at least you managed to from some coherent, albeit misinformed, sentences.

          Slander is an untruth. We should not slander Muhammad. The truth is quite sufficient to discredit him;

        • Angemon says

          Jun 25, 2015 at 7:49 am

          Stardusty Psyche posted:

          “Slander is an untruth.”

          In islamic law, revelaing something one would like to keep as a secret is also a slander. The film “The Innocence of Muslims” depicted scenes of muhamamd’s life that muslims wouldn’t want non-muslims to know about. Hence the charges of slander.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 26, 2015 at 12:09 am

          Angemon,
          SP-“Slander is an untruth.”

          An0″In islamic law, ”
          So what? This is from a speech made by the POTUS who ordinarily speaks American English.

          Nobody here has show anything within the text of that speech that demonstrates Obama was speaking from “Islamic law”

          The “Islamic law” argument is crackpot nonsense .

          An-“revelaing something one would like to keep as a secret is also a slander. The film “The Innocence of Muslims” depicted scenes of muhamamd’s life that muslims wouldn’t want non-muslims to know about. Hence the charges of slander.”
          Again, so what? Americans typically speak American English. There is nothing in the speech that states Obama is speaking from an Islamic law definition.

        • Angemon says

          Jun 26, 2015 at 6:01 am

          Stardusty Psyche posted:

          “Nobody here has show anything within the text of that speech that demonstrates Obama was speaking from “Islamic law””

          Actually, they have, and that won’t change just because you refuse to acknowledge it.

          “Again, so what?”

          Let me explain that for you, again: the movie depicted muhammad’s life. Obama spoke of it as “slander”. The only possible way of it being slander is if slander is used according to what it means in islamic law. You’re not even flogging a dead horse, you’re flogging the wet dirt where the dead horse lay before being flogged into sub-atomic matter.

          “Americans typically speak American English.”

          And Bill Clinton said, in American English, that he never had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Your point being?

        • Mirren10 says

          Jun 25, 2015 at 8:19 am

          ‘sp’ is again displaying the typical MO of the leftard muslim apologist, the muslim, and the useful idiot.

          This is all he can come up with, in reply to Jack Diamond’s excellent points, in his previous posts. In understandable exasperation at ‘sp’s refusal to answer any of the points, Jack points out that ‘sp’s ”answer answerless” is utter drivel.

          This is how ‘sp’, who fantasises he is an intellect, replies.

          ”Hi Jack Diamond,
          ““Utter Drivel” should be your new moniker. Think about it.””

          Ok, I think you have nothing of substance to support your attributions of “Sharia language” to our fine president Obama, so you have lowered yourself to a vacuous suggestion for me to make a moniker change, so you have lowered yourself to a vacuous suggestion for me to make a moniker change.”

          The technique, of course, is to ignore, or misrepresent, or obfuscate, or weasel around everything Jack said, ignore specific points, and simply assert;

          ”Ok, I think you have nothing of substance to support your attributions of “Sharia language” to our fine president Obama, so you have lowered yourself to a vacuous suggestion for me to make a moniker change”

          See how easy that is ? ‘sp’ ignores Jack’s points, and simply asserts they ‘have no substance’. **Much*** simpler than providing a substantive answer to Jack’s points.

          In the same way, he has ignores the points made by myself, voeg, and Angemon.

          Of course, ‘sp’ doesn’t **have** a substantive answer, to any of our points, so he merely employs the usual leftard MO when confronted with points/questions they can neither answer or refute.

          ” … so you have lowered yourself to a vacuous suggestion … ”

          Oh, this is rich ! Coming from ‘sp’, who has *vacuously* suggested that gravenimage is thick and asinine, and that Kathy is in actuality a ”fat little boy typing in his mom’s basement”.

          Again, see how this works ? Ignore the insults and vacuous suggestions one has dealt out to others, seize on an exasperated comment from someone else, and slyly imply that moment of exasperation negates all the previous arguments.

          It’s so transparent. ‘sp’ needs to go back to Alynsky school.

        • Angemon says

          Jun 25, 2015 at 8:57 am

          Mirren10 posted:

          “It’s so transparent. ‘sp’ needs to go back to Alynsky school.”

          I doubt that will do him much good. His transparentness doesn’t help, but the main “problem” are the people he’s preaching to – they’re far too experienced and knowledgeable to fall for his trite.

          This reminds me of something that’s been true since FIDONet: if one’s “troll” ends up making people think he’s a blithering idiot, then it isn’t a troll, it’s just him looking like a blithering idiot.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 26, 2015 at 12:19 am

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          “To reinforce his use of ‘slander’: …Holocaust that is denied.””

          Indeed, slander is an untruth.

          To deny the occurrence of the holocaust is to speak an untruth.

          Those who condemn false statements against Muhammad should also condemn false statements about the holocaust.

          Thank you ever so much, Jack Diamond!

          It is good to have a fellow JW blogger like you support the fine consistency of our great president Obama 🙂

        • Stardusty Pscyhe says

          Jun 26, 2015 at 12:37 am

          Hi Vogie,
          “I also note that several JW commenters here pointedly raised directly to Stardusty the problem of slander of a dead man (viz., Muhammad — not only dead, but ancient) — a problem Stardusty has studiously ignored.”

          Well, you got it close…you just left out one little “non”, as in “problem”

          Slander, aside from its strict legal definition, is also a general term in American English for an untrue thing said about anybody, living, dead, or even fictitious…

          And all this parsing of some 2012 speech by Obama does what for the average JW poster? “Prove” Obama is a jihadi sympathizer or something?

          Well, ok, if by “sympathizer” you mean “killer” then I suppose you might have a point!

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 26, 2015 at 2:27 am

          Unfortunately for the case you are making there weren’t false statements made about Muhammad in the video, so you have no premise. Second, the Muslims he refers to
          (Holocaust deniers, Christian persecutors) do not understand slander of Muhammad or Islam as a matter of false statements, as you seem to vaguely comprehend with your Islamic law reference. There is no false statement about Muhammad in the cartoons about him, for instance, yet they are considered “slander” of the prophet. One person who does consistently make false statements about Muhammad and Islam is… Obama, which would make him the real slanderer here. If the video is not slander in American law or American english, what is he referring to that the future must not belong to?

          Newsflash, there has been a Jihad against free speech spearheaded by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation attempting to make “Islamophobia” a hate-crime. A crime not based on truth or untruth but only the intention to demean or cause offense (the latest variant, to incite). Obama supported Resolution 16/18. Are the kaffirs who’ve been prosecuted in France or Italy or Germany or Sweden or Britain for “hate speech” variants against Islam (Eurabia at work) prosecuted because they said things that were untrue or provably false? Of course not. It is slander (and hate speech) as defined by Islam that holds sway, whatever incites them to froth at the mouth and have to kill you.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 26, 2015 at 3:00 am

          Hi Jack Diamond,

          So, by your lights Obama is…what?
          A closet Muslim?
          Undermining America with stealth jihad?

          Obama wants a global caliphate?

          Obama wants the jihadis to win?

          Just exactly what do you think your parsing of that particular speech in 2012 demonstrates?

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 26, 2015 at 9:45 am

          Now why should I make your life easier by afixing one of your bumper stickers to my forehead? I don’t need occult knowledge of what Obama secretly thinks or wishes.
          I simply pointed out to you why what he said at the UN alarmed and outraged people,
          the same reason supporting Resolution 16/18 alarmed and outraged people, the same reason putting his support behind the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere alarmed and outraged people (and has proved disastrous). The same reason blaming Benghazi on a You Tube video, on free speech, as his narrative of choice, alarmed and outraged people. The same reason his obfuscation about Islam, about Jihad, alarm and outrage people and make it more difficult to protect ourselves from our enemy. Literally, with his banning of teaching actual jihad doctrine in military and FBI manuals. Or the appointment of such as John Brennan to head our CIA….et al.

          The things he has actually said and done are sufficiently damning.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 26, 2015 at 11:12 am

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          “Now why should I make your life easier by afixing one of your bumper stickers to my forehead?”

          Ok, so expressing your opinions would lend support to my positions, therefore you refrain from expressing them.

          :”The things he has actually said and done are sufficiently damning.:”
          While others are talking about stopping jihadis, Obama is killing them. He has formed a coalition with the entire Arab league, Western nations, and even a limited contribution by Iran in killing our enemies.

          Obama has led our security services to monitor and foil a very long list of attempted plots, and arrest those who have made it through the net.

          Obama has pulled the trigger on not only Osama bin Laden, but leaders and jihadis in many nations, including Pakistan. Under his fine leadership our special forces are conducting raids, coordinating, training, and spotting, while tens of thousands of ground forces remain in theater, we are stockpiling acres of equipment in Kuwait, selling arms to Arab kings who use them to kill our enemies, and attacking from our strengths of bombing, drones, and gunships…all at a relatively very low loss of our fine American fighting men and women.

          Indeed :”The things he has actually said and done” are the indicators that Obama is in the top tier of the greatest presidents our nation has ever elected.

        • Mirren10 says

          Jun 26, 2015 at 7:20 pm

          Ever more nonsense from ‘sp’.

          obama is a **liar**. Viz: his **lying*** attempt to portray the Benghazi horror as a result of a video.

          Intelligent people would ask themselves; if this man is lying on *this* point, what else is he lying about ?

          The ilk of ‘sp’ would, of course, never ask such a question.

          benghazi

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 26, 2015 at 9:54 pm

          Hi Mirren10,
          Benghazi was a tempest in a teapot, but I will help you out with Obama’s BIG lies:

          “Now let’s make two things clear:
          ISIL is not “Islamic.” LIE

          No religion condones the killing of innocents. LIE

          And the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. TRUTH

          And ISIL is certainly not a state. LIE

        • Angemon says

          Jun 27, 2015 at 7:50 am

          Stardusty Psyche posted:

          “I will help you out with Obama’s BIG lies”

          “If you like your plan, you can keep it”.
          “I didn’t call the Islamic State a ‘JV’ team”
          “Republicans have filibustered 500 pieces of legislation”
          “We’ve got close to 7 million Americans who have access to health care for the first time because of Medicaid expansion.”

          And many more…

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 27, 2015 at 4:59 am

          Stopping jihadis? stopping jihad? By killing a few high-profile targets? Tell us what you think the Muslim Brotherhood is and how we were stopping jihad by furthering their cause? How is it stopping jihad and making us safer to allow massive immigration of Muslims into America, from any Muslim country, let alone war-torn jihad-raging Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq or Syria? You seem to understand that the Islamic State and how it behaves is pure Islam. You seem to understand the basic teachings and tenets of Islam are not only incompatible with the values of free societies but at war with them. But you don’t follow this to any conclusions. You refuse to see how the actions of your great leader advance Islam (which means to advance both the Sharia and the Jihad, which
          is to say to advance Da’wa) and helps prevent Americans from understanding just those things which might protect them from Islam and the destruction it is incarnate.

          Suddenly the issue just becomes a matter on the battlefield of killing some jihadi leader.
          The fact that jihadi groups are just fingers of a hand, proxies of wealthy and malevolent Muslim States, goes by the wayside. The migration-invasion of Western Europe and its dhimmification by Islam, no big deal, no disaster for Western Civilization. What matters is taking down a label, like Al Qaeda. Ignoring what comes out of the mosques and madrassas all over the Muslim world week in and week out, from Riyadh to Ramallah to Dearborn, which gives the lie to your depiction of what The War is and who the Enemy is.

          The Obama Arab Spring is a magnificent triumph? Following the precedent set by the American ok’d overthrow of the despotic Shah only to see him replaced by something infinitely worse and infinitely more evil and (in their own words) at war with the United States…yep, why not continue with that disastrous approach and do more of the same? Overthrow or help topple more nominally secular if not western friendly despots and unleash an Islamic Pandora’s Box (oops I mean bring the light of democracy to the Muslim World and save it from itself).

          People in Egypt want to try Obama as a war criminal for his support of the Brotherhood in their brief and murderous reign. He is hated there. Obama intervened in Libya (for specious reasons, aka a Big Lie) and now owns the chaos there. It is a full-on jihadi playground and like Iraq and Syria, will never be put back together again. Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya…these are all abject failures. Do you really see the metastasizing of the Islamic State or the empowering of Iran as triumphs? Of course you do. Your Obama is a genius who will outwit, outfight and defeat both ISIS and Iran.
          In your dreams.

          Most of the Americans who died in Afghanistan did so under Obama. A great many directly as a result of his rules of engagement that put Muslim sensitivities ahead of the safety of our “fine fighting men and women.” How are things looking for us in Afghanistan? A bright future? About as bright as Iraq. About as bright as things look for Christian minorities in Muslim countries facing genocidal hate and violence with nary a word from the great leader (pointedly ignoring the religion of victims and of the perpetrators, that is to say, the actual and stated reason for all the hate and violence).
          This is your idea of a great president.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 27, 2015 at 10:27 am

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          Thank you for raising a number of very valuable issues and valid criticisms.

          “This is your idea of a great president.”
          Yes. A great president takes on a difficult situation, makes some improvements, makes some mistakes, but shows great leadership, depth and breadth, handles and improves upon a huge variety of problems with conflicting requirements. A great president leaves office, not with the whole world fixed, but rather, having kept the USA safe, led us to an improved economy, and managed a series of crisis with great skill. So yes, in my view Obama is a great president.

          JD-Stopping jihadis? stopping jihad? By killing a few high-profile targets?
          SP-Important, but not sufficient indeed. He has done a lot more killing than only that.

          JD-Tell us what you think the Muslim Brotherhood is and how we were stopping jihad by furthering their cause?
          SP-The people of Egypt elected MB, as did the people of Gaza. Democracy has its downsides.

          JD- massive immigration of Muslims into America, from any Muslim country,
          SP-We are not being overrun with Muslims. We have a First Amendment. Here an open carry crowd can protest a mosque peacefully (peace through strength). We are not Western Europe, which is waking up, let’s hope it’s not too late.

          JD- You refuse to see how the actions of your great leader advance Islam (which means to advance both the Sharia and the Jihad, whichis to say to advance Da’wa) and helps prevent Americans from understanding just those things which might protect them from Islam and the destruction it is incarnate.
          SP-Ok, maybe you mean the “nothing to do with Islam” lie. Yes , that is annoying, but it has little tactical impact in the USA and it is, in my view, a diplomatically necessary lie that has worked very well in getting the entire Arab league to support the fight against our enemies.

          JD– The migration-invasion of Western Europe and its dhimmification by Islam, no big deal, no disaster for Western Civilization.
          SP-That is a disaster indeed but the POTUS does not set immigration policy for Sweden and all the rest.

          JD-What matters is taking down a label, like Al Qaeda.
          SP-That “label” attacked New York City and the Pentagon. We invaded to overthrow the base for that “label” and Obama has recently agreed to a request by the Afghans to extent our longest war. Maybe pulling the trigger on Osama Bin Laden was a bad thing?

          JD-Ignoring what comes out of the mosques and madrassas all over the Muslim world week in and week out, from Riyadh to Ramallah to Dearborn, which gives the lie to your depiction of what The War is and who the Enemy is.
          SP-Don’t know where you are getting all that from. I mean, Islam is a monstrous ideology but mosques are protected by the First Amendment here unless there is specific criminal activity, and Obama can’t do anything about Mosques in Riyadh.

          JD-The Obama Arab Spring is a magnificent triumph?
          SP-Oh, there have been a few little bumps in the road! Knocking off dictators seems like a noble thing, but Americans tend to be foolishly idealistic about the supposed universal wonders of democracy.

          JD- Overthrow or help topple more nominally secular if not western friendly despots and unleash an Islamic Pandora’s Box (oops I mean bring the light of democracy to the Muslim World and save it from itself).
          SP-Yup, like Bush in Iraq for example…I agree, we need to chill on the dictator overthrow thing. But, Egypt is coming around with Al-Sisi arresting MB by the thousands and executing them by the hundreds.

          JD- Obama intervened in Libya (for specious reasons, aka a Big Lie) and now owns the chaos there.
          SP-A lot of people wanted Gaddafi dead, we’ll see how it ends up.

          JD- Do you really see the metastasizing of the Islamic State or the empowering of Iran as triumphs?
          SP-The Iraqi government is pushing back. IS has no governmental allies. IS is surrounded by enemies actively attacking and often gaining ground. It is a bit early to say they have metastasized.

          JD-Most of the Americans who died in Afghanistan did so under Obama.
          SP-Obama was handed that war.

          JD-A great many directly as a result of his rules of engagement that put Muslim sensitivities ahead of the safety of our “fine fighting men and women.”
          SP-Bullshit

          JD-How are things looking for us in Afghanistan? A bright future? About as bright as Iraq.
          SP-Bush and Bush. Yet again, a Democrat has to clean up the mess left by a Republican.

          JD-About as bright as things look for Christian minorities in Muslim countries facing genocidal hate and violence with nary a word from the great leader (pointedly ignoring the religion of victims and of the perpetrators, that is to say, the actual and stated reason for all the hate and violence).
          This is your idea of a great president.
          SP-So, a great president would stop Muslims from hating Christians…do you have the name of a candidate in mind who can do that? Please do share that name with us.

        • Angemon says

          Jun 27, 2015 at 12:27 pm

          Stardusty Psyche posted:

          “SP-Ok, maybe you mean the “nothing to do with Islam” lie. Yes , that is annoying, but it has little tactical impact in the USA and it is, in my view, a diplomatically necessary lie that has worked very well in getting the entire Arab league to support the fight against our enemies.”

          What enemies would those be? Certainly not “Death to America” -chanting Iran. Hey, remember how people in Egypt consider that Obama supports terrorism due to his support of the muslim brotherhood?

          “SP-Don’t know where you are getting all that from. I mean, Islam is a monstrous ideology but mosques are protected by the First Amendment here unless there is specific criminal activity, and Obama can’t do anything about Mosques in Riyadh.”

          Several independent reports confirmed that 80% of the mosques in the US are espousing the same ideology as al-qaeda or the islamic state and preaching hatred of America and non-muslims. The first amendment is not a safeguard blanket for everything passing itself as a religion. The first amendment was in place when polygamy was forbidden in Utah, despite it being allowed by the LDS Church.

          “But, Egypt is coming around with Al-Sisi arresting MB by the thousands and executing them by the hundreds.”

          Despite Obama, who openly supported the brotherhood.

          “SP-Obama was handed that war.”

          That’s not reason to let people die, is it? Nor is it an excuse to his poor handling of the situation. Also, from:

          “A great president takes on a difficult situation, makes some improvements, makes some mistakes”

          to

          “the other guy started it”

          If all else fails, blame the other guy for Obama’s failures.

          “JD-A great many directly as a result of his rules of engagement that put Muslim sensitivities ahead of the safety of our “fine fighting men and women.”
          SP-Bullshit
          ”

          http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/26/rules-of-engagement-bind-us-troops-actions-in-afgh/?page=all

          http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/5/increase-in-battlefield-deaths-linked-to-new-rules/?page=all

          Of course, I don’t expect SP to acknowledge he’s wrong.

          “JD-How are things looking for us in Afghanistan? A bright future? About as bright as Iraq.

          SP-Bush and Bush. Yet again, a Democrat has to clean up the mess left by a Republican.”

          Once again, from :

          “A great president takes on a difficult situation, makes some improvements, makes some mistakes”

          to

          “the other guy started it”

          If all else fails, blame the other guy for Obama’s failures.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 27, 2015 at 2:50 pm

          “So, a great president would stop Muslims from hating Christians…do you have the name of a candidate in mind who can do that? Please do share that name with us.”

          A typical recasting of what I actually said to make it sound ridiculous when what is ridiculous is your inference. Acknowledging Christians are being brutally murdered solely for their religion and by reasons of Islam and condemning it as any decent, let alone great, president would do, means asking a president to do something impossible, “stopping Muslims from hating Christians.” But at least you admit Muslims are obligated to hate Christians by their religion.

          Here’s what a great president would not do. After the barbaric beheadings of 21 Coptic Christians (on a beach in Libya keep in mind, where the Islamic State has metastasized thanks in no small part to Obama) the official White House statement made no mention of the reason those 21 men were martyred, their Christian faith. Avoiding calling them Coptic Christians by terming them just “Egyptian citizens” as if they were targeted for THAT reason. The statement did, however, deny Islam had anything to do with it. This is not just a denial of reality, it is an insult to the murdered victims and to all Christians.
          Yet this is typical of a president who tells Christians not to get on their “high horse” in condemning Islamic violence and would not send a U.S. representative to a UN Security Council conference on the genocide of Middle East Christians:
          http://www.copticsolidarity.org/media-news-events/news/3553-u-s-fails-to-attend-un-security-council-session-on-genocide-of-mideast-christians

          To say the least U.S. and Obama’s own policies have gravely impacted the situation of the Christians of the Middle East to the point the extinction of Christianity there is a real possibility. Not that Obama will own up to it, or call it by its right name, or even put these Christians in the forefront of immigration protocol…it remains Muslims first. Obama is importing countless future jihadis and jihad-enablers but that’s ok because we are not being “overrun” with Muslims yet.

          “getting the entire Arab league to support the fight against our enemies.” You need to broaden your idea of who our enemies are but I don’t have the time to wake you up (if it were even possible).

          “IS has no governmental allies. IS is surrounded by enemies actively attacking and often gaining ground. It is a bit early to say they have metastasized.” The Islamic State has metastasized to Pakistan, to Libya, to North Africa where Boko Haram has pledged allegiance. This should not be surprising since Boko Harem was founded with support of the government of Qatar, a government ally of ISIS as well. Why is it every would-be jihadi flocking from all over the world to join the Caliphate knew they could get in through Turkey? ISIS sells its oil to Turkey. ISIS even claimed to have opened their first diplomatic consulate– in Istanbul. Tens of thousands of Muslims from all over the globe going to the Islamic State, others acting on directives from the Islamic State in Europe and North America, also indicate “metastasizing”.

          “That “label” attacked New York City and the Pentagon. We invaded to overthrow the base for that “label” and Obama has recently agreed to a request by the Afghans to extent our longest war. Maybe pulling the trigger on Osama Bin Laden was a bad thing?”

          That label was embedded in 60 countries at the time of 9/11 and had the backing of Muslim States and institutions and charities at the highest levels. As for destroying the old guard leadership of al Qaeda, that was done by Bush. Long before bin Laden was finally eliminated. Read Abu Musab Al-Suri’s history of it “The Call to Global Islamic Resistance”. Al Qaeda was out of Afghanistan for all intents and purposes when Obama took over. Obama owns the casualties on his watch in an endless and aimless war. Obama, incidentally, used the Muslim Brotherhood as a partner to negotiate with the Taliban. True love, I would say. Your “bullshit” comment about Afghanistan reflects your ignorance of green on blue attacks and how they occurred and the rules he imposed on how our soldiers could and could not defend themselves. He got people killed and wounded. But he clearly won the hearts and minds of the Afghans, right?

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 28, 2015 at 2:31 am

          Hi Jack Diamond
          SP-“So, a great president would stop Muslims from hating Christians…do you have the name of a candidate in mind who can do that? Please do share that name with us.”

          JD-A typical recasting of what I actually said to make it sound ridiculous when what is ridiculous is your inference.
          SP-OK, fair enough. It was meant as a critical question, but I can see how you think I turned things around.

          JD-Here’s what a great president would not do. After the barbaric beheadings of 21 Coptic Christians (on a beach in Libya keep in mind, where the Islamic State has metastasized thanks in no small part to Obama) the official White House statement made no mention of the reason those 21 men were martyred, their Christian faith. Avoiding calling them Coptic Christians by terming them just “Egyptian citizens” as if they were targeted for THAT reason. The statement did, however, deny Islam had anything to do with it. This is not just a denial of reality, it is an insult to the murdered victims and to all Christians.
          SP-Ok, I am not familiar with the text of that particular statement. I hardly think the judgment of a president turns on such wording in a reactive statement.

          JD-Christians in the forefront of immigration protocol…it remains Muslims first.
          SP-Ok, so in your view Muslims are being given preference over Christians in immigration. Bullshit.

          JD-“getting the entire Arab league to support the fight against our enemies.” You need to broaden your idea of who our enemies are but I don’t have the time to wake you up (if it were even possible).
          SP-Our immediate military enemy is IS. Obama has formed a coalition to fight them because he is a great president.

          JD-“IS has no governmental allies. IS is surrounded by enemies actively attacking and often gaining ground. It is a bit early to say they have metastasized.” The Islamic State has metastasized to Pakistan, to Libya, to North Africa where Boko Haram has pledged allegiance. This should not be surprising since Boko Harem was founded with support of the government of Qatar, a government ally of ISIS as well. Why is it every would-be jihadi flocking from all over the world to join the Caliphate knew they could get in through Turkey? ISIS sells its oil to Turkey. ISIS even claimed to have opened their first diplomatic consulate– in Istanbul. Tens of thousands of Muslims from all over the globe going to the Islamic State, others acting on directives from the Islamic State in Europe and North America, also indicate “metastasizing”.
          SP-Ok, thank you for the word “metastasizing”. I somehow thought that meant “entrenched”, but it really means “spread”. My mistake.

          SP-“That “label” attacked New York City and the Pentagon. We invaded to overthrow the base for that “label” and Obama has recently agreed to a request by the Afghans to extent our longest war. Maybe pulling the trigger on Osama Bin Laden was a bad thing?”

          JD-(Obama) got people killed and wounded.
          SP-Armchair commander. Like you could send troops into the field and bring them all back home alive…

          JD-But he clearly won the hearts and minds of the Afghans, right?
          SP-So, you want our fine commander in chief to use more aggressive rules of engagement that place more emphasis on our troop safety, and also win the hearts and minds of the people we are less careful about harming.

          You want magic.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 28, 2015 at 11:41 am

          The most dangerous Muslims coming into America are doing so through the auspices of the United Nations, the UNHRC decides on refugees and Muslims dominate the application process. Christian refugees get short shrift. The refugee resettlement program to this country is guided by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees who decides on the 70,000 refugee allotment for the State Department and the taxpayer funded Volunteer Agencies determine to what communties they will go.

          The Refugee Admissions Program has admitted nearly 400,000 from states like Somalia, Iraq and Bosnia and soon, large numbers from Syria. So many are coming from failed states and background checks are virtually impossible. We already have had dozens of Somalis arrested for support of or left to join Al Shabaab or ISIS; we’ve had the Tsarnaev Brothers. Middle East Christians are discriminated against for not being in UNHRC camps, which have been dominated by Somali Muslims.

          The next demand is for taking in Syrian refugees. Of the original group of Syrian refugees brought in, 92% were Muslim. 17,000 more are in the pipeline of the UNHRC.
          Of the 843 Syrians allowed to resettle in the U.S. since the civil war started, 92 percent have been Muslim. Less than 7 percent have been Christian. In February, the State Department moved to ease the rules that protect the U.S. from accepting refugees with potential ties to terrorist organizations. The rules were seen as “too strict” by the refugee-resettlement groups.

          The State Department has rejected virtually all of the 20,000 asylum applications from Coptic Christians trying to escape Egypt since the toppling of its pro-American regime.
          Christian refugees from Syria are being denied visas.
          http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2013/December/Christian-Syrian-Refugees-Denied-Visas-to-West/

          The United Nations, working with the U.S. State Department, has already shipped approximately 115,000 Iraqis to American cities since Sept. 11. Another 100,000 Somalis have been resettled in the United States since that country devolved into civil war in 1993. The Somali refugees have been described as 99.9 percent Muslim by Somali-American leaders. The Iraqi refugees have also been majority Muslim.
          (Once here, Muslim families have vastly more children than the typical American family, the average Somali couple in Minnesota has six children).

          A preview of coming attractions:
          “Several refugees sent to Norway under the UN’s quota system turned out to have close links to the terror groups Islamic State (IS) and the al-Nusra Front, Norway’s Police Security Service (PST) has revealed.

          According to the service, between five and ten of the 1,000 Syrians chosen to go to Norway by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), were discovered to have links to the one of the two terror groups.” http://www.thelocal.no/20150602/un-quota-refugees-had-terror-links-norway-policegroups.

          Multiply that by thousands instead of 1,000 and you get the picture.

          “Bullshit” you say. Some Americans are going to get killed as a result of this “bullshit.”

          “Like you could send troops into the field and bring them all back home alive…”
          Many of them were killed in green on blue murders by “allies” often in situations/ ceremonies where they were not allowed to bear arms so they didn’t “offend” anyone. Soldiers could not shoot at a “civilian” planting an IED without permission from above lest they be charged with murder. But I don’t expect you to know any of this.

          Someone so ill-informed that he never heard of the Cairo speech or the White House response to the beheading of Coptic Christians or even knows the definition of metastasizing, someone who doesn’t know a Meccan from Medinan surah, should not be lecturing people here. Do some reading and studying in a spirit of humility.

          Now that would be wanting magic.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 28, 2015 at 1:22 pm

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          ” Christian refugees get short shrift.”

          So someplace in USCIS or the State Department there is an evil little man or committee reviewing applications and when the individual is a Christian they get rejected because of their Christian faith but if they are a Muslim they get preferential treatment? Or it is done by groups where the evil federal employee says “hell no, we ain’t lettin in no damn Christians, but all you Muslims, come on in!”

          Your evidence for this alleged anti-Christian bias is a bunch of selected anecdotes going back to 1993, with no data on total numbers of Christians and other non-Muslims who were given visas or green cards since 1993.

          And to support your charge of rules of engagement being dangerous to troops you have another bit of anecdotal “evidence”…oh, but Obama should also have won hearts and minds.

          American Magic Wishes:

          We should have lower taxes, higher spending, and lower budget deficits.

          We should have more aggressive rules of engagement that place less emphasis on civilian safety plus we should be less concerned about local customs and we should win the hearts and minds of the population we are being less careful about harming or offending.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 28, 2015 at 1:40 pm

          Learn to read. The refugees are being determined by the UNHRC with plenty of input from the OIC-related interest group. You are too ignorant and self-satisfied in your know-nothingism to bother giving you instance after instance after instance of green on blue killings that are anything but “anecdotes.” Anyone reading this “discussion” can see your ineptitude in refuting what I have said, beginning with the business about “slander.” This conversation is over.

          “So, you want our fine commander in chief to use more aggressive rules of engagement that place more emphasis on our troop safety.”
          Yep.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 28, 2015 at 3:42 pm

          UNHCR that is

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 28, 2015 at 9:22 pm

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          SP-“So, you want our fine commander in chief to use more aggressive rules of engagement that place more emphasis on our troop safety.”
          JD-Yep.

          Plus you want Obama to win the hearts and minds of those we are being more aggressive against.

          How exactly do you propose to achieve both goals at the same time?

          A little while back folks here were complaining that our planes were returning with too many bombs. Are you suggesting we should drop more of those bombs even if we are less sure of our intelligence that what we are hitting is actually the enemy?

          Obama just can’t seem to please all the people all the time because the left is saying he is being too aggressive, so much so that it is Obama who is being the terrorist against innocent civilians, and you want him to be more aggressive in his rules of engagement.

          According to this Obama’s overly aggressive tactics make him a terrorist.
          http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/19/noam-chomsky-obama-dedicated-increasing-terrorism/

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 29, 2015 at 2:14 am

          “Plus you want Obama to win the hearts and minds of those we are being more aggressive against.”

          Where did I ever say that? hmm? You like making things up, you really should just debate yourself. No kaffirs in a Muslim country are going to ever win hearts and minds. They will always be infidels. You’re just going to get them killed for no purpose. Our military should not be misused like they were in Afghanistan. They are very good at destroying an enemy, breaking his will to fight anymore, accomplishing a mission. Nation building in dar al-Islam, especially when you refuse to recognize Islam is the problem (such as letting the new governments in Iraq & Afghanistan embed sharia in their new constitutions) is a losing proposition.

          Don’t quote Noam Chomsky to me. That is not a reputable source.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 29, 2015 at 3:38 am

          “Jack Diamond says
          June 27, 2015 at 2:50 pm
          But he clearly won the hearts and minds of the Afghans, right?”

          then

          ““SP-Plus you want Obama to win the hearts and minds of those we are being more aggressive against.”
          JD-Where did I ever say that?… No kaffirs in a Muslim country are going to ever win hearts and minds.”

          Afghanistan is a nearly 100% Muslim country, So which is it?

          “Don’t quote Noam Chomsky to me. That is not a reputable source.”
          Chomsky is a walking encyclopedia. I don’t agree with some of his conclusions on certain subjects, but in terms of correct event facts, I don’t think one could reasonably call him a disreputable source.

          But that is beside my point. He is often considered the leading intellectual of the left, and as such he is continually hammering Obama for being a terrorist. And he doesn’t mean a Muslim closet stealth jihadi terrorist, he means Obama is an American military imperialist exceptionalist terrorist.

          My point is that Obama gets it from both sides…he can’t please all the people all the time.

          If he makes the rules of engagement more aggressive then he is a terrorist in the view of the left.
          If he makes the rules of engagement less aggressive then he is a stealth jihadi in the view of the right.

          Don’t trust Chomsky? Fine, what are your sources for the drone campaign? How many people has Obama killed with it?
          http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147
          According to that article Obama is killing with a very blunt instrument indeed, but he keeps hammering away at the jihadis and I will assert most of the dead were Muslims.

        • Angemon says

          Jun 29, 2015 at 5:00 am

          Stardusty Psyche posted:

          “I will assert most of the dead were Muslims.”

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/wife-of-france-jihad-killer-we-are-normal-muslims-we-do-ramadan/comment-page-1#comment-1259422

          “So many posters here simply say “Muslim” lumping all Muslims together as is typical of a bigoted ignorant stupid ass“

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 29, 2015 at 9:37 am

          “he clearly won the hearts and minds of the Afghans, right?”
          That was called irony. It was his goal not mine, to win hearts and minds.
          I’ll put sarcasm in parentheses for you from now on.

          Noam Chomsky is not an objective source for anything. He is a rabid hater of America,
          he may know something about linguistics but he is a political crackpot. He is a lover of third world totalitarians. He is full of crackpot statements such as the United States is the moral equivalent to Nazi Germany; the U.S. had an alliance with Nazi Germany. Everything bad that happens in the world is the fault of the United States. He may have the pose of a measure intellectual but he has the rhetoric of an intellectual thug and of course over and over he supports the political thugs of the world. As long as they oppose the United States.

          I have no problem with the drone campaign, which was not started by Obama. It is not a “blunt instrument” since it is much more precise than just dropping a big bomb.
          “If he makes the rules of engagement more aggressive then he is a terrorist in the view of the left.” He is Commander in Chief and responsible for the well-being of those under his command. Not the good opinion of the left.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 30, 2015 at 12:45 am

          Hi Jack Diamond

          “Noam Chomsky …. He is full of crackpot statements such as … Everything bad that happens in the world is the fault of the United States”

          Can you provide a link to your preposterous claim?

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 30, 2015 at 2:52 am

          If you had read Chomsky at any length or were familiar with his interviews you’d know these things. It is his theme. The fact you think it preposterous makes it impossible to take you seriously. Heard of “What Uncle Sam Really Wants”? Guess what it is–to rule the world and cause untold misery for the rest of the world. Anti-American, you think? How did the US achieve this Evil Empire? Using Hitler as an ally to kill Russians and hold them back. After the war using Nazi networks and methods to impose US tyranny. In “What Uncle Sam Really Wants” he says America “needed a kind of denazification.” “Legally speaking, there’s a very solid case for impeaching every American president since the Second World War. They’ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes.” The Pentagon is “the most hideous institution on this earth (and it) constitutes a menace to human life.”

          “The major thing that stood in the way of (America’s new nazi order) was the anti-fascist resistance, so we suppressed it all over the world, often installing fascists and Nazi collaborators in its place.” “In 1949…US espionage in Eastern Europe had been turned over to a network run by Reinhard Gehlen, who had headed Nazi military intelligence on the Eastern Front. This network was one part of the US-Nazi alliance.”

          An interview with Noam Chomsky by David Barsamian from “Secrets, Lies and Democracy”1994:
          “You’ve said that if a real post-World War II history were ever written, this would be the first chapter.

          NC: “It would be a part of the first chapter. Recruiting Nazi war criminals and saving them is bad enough, but imitating their activities is worse. So the first chapter would primarily describe US-and some British-operations throughout the world that aimed to destroy the anti-fascist resistance and restore the traditional, essentially fascist, order to power.

          “In Korea (where we ran the operation alone), restoring the traditional order meant killing about 100,000 people just in the late 1940s, before the Korean War began. In Greece, it meant destroying the peasant and worker base of the anti-Nazi resistance and restoring Nazi collaborators to power. When British and then American troops moved into southern Italy, they simply reinstated the fascist order-the industrialists. But the big problem came when the troops got to the north, which the Italian resistance had already liberated. The place was functioning- industry was running. We had to dismantle all of that and restore the old order.”

          “We’ve learned from the Russian archives that Britain and the US then began supporting armies established by Hitler to hold back the Russian advance. Tens of thousands of Russian troops were killed.” Larissa MacFarquhar, “The Devil’s Accountant,” The New Yorker, March 31, 2003.

          You get the idea? Here’s a few more.
          “Washington has become the torture and political murder capital of the world. “The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (South End Press, 1979), p. 16

          At MIT, Chomsky denounced America as “the world’s greatest terrorist state” and the U.S. military response against the terrorists in Afghanistan was a predetermined “genocide” that would kill 3 to 4 million Afghans. “Western civilization is anticipating the slaughter of, well do the arithmetic, 3-4 million people or something like that [in Afghanistan]… Looks like what’s happening is some sort of silent genocide… we are in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people…“The New War Against Terror,” Lecture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, October 18, 2001.
          {another lie. The American occupation of Afghanistan, according to UNICEF figures, indicated that the deaths of 112,000 children and 7,500 pregnant women would be prevented every year as a result. New York Times, February 1, 2002.}

          “This [9/11] is certainly a turning point: for the first time in history the
          victims are returning the blow to the motherland.”La Jornada, Mexico, September 15, 2001.

          “In comparison to conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.” Arch Puddington, “Chomsky’s Universe,” Commentary, October 2004, p. 67

          So yes, America is responsible for the evil in the world, America is like Nazi Germany
          and was allied with Nazi Germany and imitated Nazi Germany. And Noam Chomsky is a crack pot. “Preposterous claims”….now there is some drivel.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 30, 2015 at 6:36 am

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          “I have no problem with the drone campaign, which was not started by Obama”
          True, but it is Obama who has escalated it many times over.

          . “It is not a “blunt instrument” since it is much more precise than just dropping a big bomb.”
          “blunt” is a relative term. Relative to area bombing of population centers, the drone campaign is a sharp instrument. Relative to a sniper it is a very blunt instrument. But I was not considering either of those cases.

          My point is that the drones are a far blunter instrument than many people realize. We all see the footage of the guided weapons hitting their targets with impressive accuracy. What is less obvious is that the area of destruction and faulty intelligence leads to far more unintended deaths than actual intended killings So much so that the great majority of those killed by Obama’s “terror campaign” are not even the intended targets.

          “If he makes the rules of engagement more aggressive then he is a terrorist in the view of the left.” He is Commander in Chief and responsible for the well-being of those under his command. Not the good opinion of the left.”
          Exactly!!!
          To hell with the good opinion of the left, the right, you, me, or anybody else. Obama has the obligation to conserve the lives of our fine fighting personnel and he has shown great leadership in doing just that.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jun 30, 2015 at 7:28 am

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          Noam Chomsky is a scientist, a linguistics pioneer, and an MIT professor.

          If you want to understand his words you need to be able to read with the great precision with which he speaks.

          “So yes, America is responsible for the evil in the world”
          You have failed to produce that statement from Chomsky because he never said it. You are making that up out of thin air because you have yet to develop precise reading skills.

          , “America is like Nazi Germany”
          Yes, in some respects America has employed fascists for its own benefit. Noam Chomsky will also tell you how free America is. Both are true. The world is complex.

          “and was allied with Nazi Germany ”
          Noam Chomsky didn’t say that above. He defined his terms precisely. There was no Nazi Germany in 1949. Again, to understand Chomsky you need to read with precision, which you obviously are not doing.

          “and imitated Nazi Germany”
          Yes, in some ways America has employed fascistic practices through its proxies.

          ““In comparison to conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.””
          Yes, where the US used violence to impose tyranny people sometimes lived under brutal dictators we supported. If you want the details, Chomsky can provide them, but you will have to be willing to read with the precision of a scientist and globally respected linguistics professor.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 30, 2015 at 10:38 am

          Thanks for the laugh. Einstein was a genius scientist but his political opinions were the commonplaces of the time. One had nothing to do with the other. Same applies to Chomsky. Except Chomsky is a liar.

          Here are a few hundred of them: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf

          “in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.”

          The Truth: The communists murdered over 4 million people in Ukraine; 360,000 in Romania; 200,000 in Hungary; 185,000 in East Germany; 180,000 in Yugoslavia; 150,000 in Poland; 100,000 in Lithuania; at least 69,000 in Belarus; 30,000-40,000 in Bulgaria; 30,000 in Estonia;11 20,000 in Czechoslovakia; 15,000 in Latvia; and 5,000 in Albania. Other atrocities included the murder of over 500,000 POWs in Soviet captivity and the mass rape of at least 2 million women by the Red Army.”

          Practically a paradise compared to American Evil but maybe he meant something more
          scientifically precise by Paradise? The scientific precision of statements like the Pentagon is “the most hideous institution on this earth” the US is “the world’s greatest terrorist state” “Washington has become the torture and political murder capital of the world.” He raves just like any soap box hysteric in the park.

          NC: “The United States and Britain fought the war, of course, but not primarily against Nazi Germany. The war against Nazi Germany was fought by the Russians… you have to ask yourself whether the best way of getting rid of Hitler was to kill tens of millions of Russians. Maybe a better way was not supporting him in the first place, as Britain and the United States did.” Larissa MacFarquhar, “The Devil’s Accountant,” The New Yorker, March 31, 2003.

          The Truth: America fought both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan; Britain fought the war primarily against Nazi Germany. The Soviets were Nazi allies until 1941; America then saved them from the Nazi attack by providing massive military and economic aid.81 America and Britain did not kill tens of millions of Russians; the Nazi attack killed tens of millions of Soviet citizens, many of them non-Russians. Unlike the Soviet Union, America and Britain were never wartime allies of Nazi Germany.

          NC: “By Stalingrad in 1942, the Russians had turned back the German offensive, and it was pretty clear that Germany wasn’t going to win the war. Well, we’ve learned from the Russian archives that Britain and the US then began supporting armies established by Hitler to hold back the Russian advance. Tens of thousands of Russian troops were killed. Suppose you’re sitting in Auschwitz. Do you want the Russian troops to be held back?” Larissa MacFarquhar, “The Devil’s Accountant,” The New Yorker, March 31, 2003.

          The Truth: There is no evidence that America and Britain used Nazi armies to attack the Soviet Union and prolong the Holocaust. Chomsky has since denied saying this.
          The Truth: Chomsky’s assertion, as quoted in the New Yorker, was recorded on videotape.

          1942 not 1949.

          Your championing of Chomsky says a lot about you.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jun 30, 2015 at 12:31 pm

          “To hell with the good opinion of the left, the right, you, me, or anybody else. Obama has the obligation to conserve the lives of our fine fighting personnel and he has shown great leadership in doing just that.”

          The whole point of the discussion was that he hadn’t done that in Afghanistan. But one wearies of going around in circles with you. Islam is in advance not retreat. Europe is headed for civil war conditions with its Muslim invaders. Our Middle East policy is in shambles and the world a much more dangerous place thanks in no small part to the great leadership of this president. Nor can anyone speak the plain truth of the matter thanks to the leadership of those like this president who pillory anyone who does speak the truth and who repeatedly lie about Islam and about the source of the menace to civilization (and to the United States he is sworn to defend). I could go on but it’s like talking to the wall. Drones here and there are not going to do it, but then you’d have to know what “doing it” means.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jul 1, 2015 at 12:16 am

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          “Your championing of Chomsky says a lot about you.”

          I don’t champion Chomsky.. I disagree with many of the things he has said on various subjects..

          I also agree with many of the things he has said. I don’t have faith or allegiance to Chomsky or any other public figure. I have no intention of defending all he says. but he simply did not say ” Everything bad that happens in the world is the fault of the United States. ”

          The fact that you would state he did say this shows you are not reading his words with the required precision to get his true meaning.

          “Nor can anyone speak the plain truth of the matter”
          He said while plainly speaking his opinion of the truth of the matter.

          ” Drones here and there are not going to do it”
          Straw man. Nobody ever suggested any such thing.

          I can see why you tire of speaking to me, it can be exhausting to continually have your false attributions exposed discredited.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jul 1, 2015 at 1:11 am

          You really don’t have much integrity do you. Never did I quote Chomsky as saying exactly- those- words. I was summarizing his attitude which can be gleaned by any half-wit who reads his works and statements. “Washington has become the torture and political murder capital of the world” tells you what about the United States? After giving you the astonishing death toll resulting from Soviet occupation what does this: “in comparison to the conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise” tell you about what Chomsky thinks of the United States? Why would America need “a kind of denazification” if it weren’t the new nazi order he accuses it of being in What Uncle Sam Really Wants?

          “there’s a very solid case for impeaching every American president since the Second World War. They’ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes.” That’s his attitude towards America, precisely. Did he blame the genocide in Cambodia on Pol Pot or the United States? Go down the line, Bozo, there is no evil in the world he doesn’t lay at our door, he’s even clearly implied we had 9/11 coming.
          Now what is his “true meaning” what esoteric genius am I missing in his very clear words?

          Yes its tiresome speaking to you. You are obtuse. “I don’t champion Chomsky” you said after trying to use him as a reliable source. Then you say, in agreement with him:

          “America is like Nazi Germany”
          Yes, in some respects

          then:
          “In comparison to conditions imposed by US tyranny and violence, East Europe under Russian rule was practically a paradise.””
          Yes, where the US used violence to impose tyranny people sometimes lived under brutal dictators we supported.

          Chomsky’s statement wasn’t that the U.S. supported dictators the way you try to salvage his ridiculous claim, his claim was that US IMPOSED “tyranny and violence” made the totalitarian rule the Soviets imposed seem like a paradise in comparison.

          Do you endorse that precise statement or not, Professor?
          Actually, let’s leave that as a rhetorical question and not go round in another circle.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jul 1, 2015 at 1:40 am

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          ” I was summarizing his attitude which can be gleaned by any half-wit who reads his works and statements.”

          Well, we agree at last…any half-wit would summarize Chomsky’s attitude that way.

          If you were to understand with accuracy the totality of his statements you would never make that summary, but you don’t, so you did.

        • Jack Diamond says

          Jul 1, 2015 at 1:55 am

          I suppose that passes for wit where you come from. Does everyone who knows you want to strangle you? Take a poll.

        • Western Canadian says

          Jul 1, 2015 at 5:51 am

          This pitiable lout is pure fraud. He cannot formulate an argument, what he considers to be evidence is pathetic, and he cannot differentiate between up and down, let alone truth and falsehood. A tribute to the criminals who have turned american education into an oxymoron, and by doing so created ox like morons, like Dusted Psycho.

        • Stardusty Psyche says

          Jul 3, 2015 at 12:23 am

          Hi Jack Diamond,
          “I suppose that passes for wit where you come from. Does everyone who knows you want to strangle you? Take a poll.”

          Not that they have mentioned, but I get the feeling maybe you are the first!

          But, Jack, you are about the only person who has been kind enough to find any substantial errors in my positions, so I really do appreciate that…not being my usual smartass self…I mean really.

  13. Champ says

    Jun 20, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    “We are all Islamic state citizens. This isn’t some gang in the desert you’re fighting. This is WW3 the beginning has just begun,” said Amir Said Abdul Rahman Al-Ghazi.

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

    Indeed …

    And feckless obama’s response is to say that ‘we are not at war with islam’ …well, they certainly are at war with us!

    He is as they say ..a “lame duck president.”

  14. Al Fabeech says

    Jun 21, 2015 at 11:51 am

    Where did Mr. Robert C. McCollum (Amir Said Abdul Rahman Al-Ghazi) become familiar with radical Islam? Mosque? Prison? Is supporting Jihad a hate crime? Is supporting Jihad treason? This type of crime and criminal should not be introduced into a normal prison environment. That is only helping in breeding this type of ideology. We need new laws!

  15. William Lucas Harvey Jr. says

    Jun 21, 2015 at 10:42 pm

    “Ohio Muslim – We are all Islamic State citizens.”

    Well that IS just what America’s “Imperial” Potus Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. wants – who has made such OPEN Pro Islam, Pro Muslim Statements – seemingly Anti America, Anti Constitution, and Anti Christian, such as “Islam has always been part of America”, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation”, “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”, “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”, “Isis the Islamic State is not Islamic”.
    http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=15200 “40 Mind-Blowing Quotes From Barack Hussein Obama On Islam And Christianity”

    And in ADDITION Obama ‘thinks rule of Islamic law good thing’
    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obama-thinks-rule-of-islamic-law-good-thing/#IS9oJyOxHmsvw6dC.99

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

  • janicevanguilder on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Boycott Turkey on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Yogi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Hoi Polloi on Why so many Muslims can’t wait for Biden to get inaugurated
  • Hoi Polloi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe

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.