• 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

Donald Trump defends burqas and niqabs

Oct 30, 2015 8:26 am By Robert Spencer

“Then I saw women interviewed. They said, ‘We want to wear it. We’ve worn them for a thousand years. Why would anyone tell us not to?’ They want to! What the hell are we getting involved for? In fact, it’s easier. You don’t have to put on makeup.”

Yes, the burqa, the niqab and even the hijab are much easier for Muslim women. Just ask Aqsa Parvez, whose Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it; and Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab; and the 40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab; and Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain; and Amira Osman Hamid, who faces whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab; and the Egyptian girl, also named Amira, who committed suicide after being brutalized for her family for refusing to wear the hijab; and the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told that they had to wear the hijab or be fired; and the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab; and the women also in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab; and the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab; and the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab; and the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forced to wear hijab; and the women in Iran who protested against the regime by daring to take off their legally-required hijab; and the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab; and the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents, and all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab.

Who speaks for them? Who stands up for their rights? Not Donald Trump. Here is more of his Sharia compliance.

Donald Trump

“Why Is Donald Trump Defending Burqas?,” by Jillian Kay Melchior, National Review, October 27, 2015 (thanks to Larry):

In yet another demonstration of his unsuitability for office, Donald Trump extolled the wearing of burqas and niqabs at length at his rally in New Hampshire earlier this week.

The comments, delivered in Trump’s typical yuk-it-up tone, are so ridiculous that they’re worth printing in their entirety:

We want it where the women over there don’t have to wear the you-know-what. [Trump gestures across his face with his hand, an apparent reference to burqas and niqabs.] And then I said, “Oh, well that makes sense, that’s nice.” Then I saw women interviewed. They said, “We want to wear it. We’ve worn them for a thousand years. Why would anyone tell us not to?” They want to! What the hell are we getting involved for? In fact, it’s easier. You don’t have to put on makeup. Look how beautiful everyone looks. Wouldn’t it be easier? Bwah. Right? Wouldn’t that be easy? I tell ya, if I was a woman, I don’t want to . . . bwah, “I’m ready, darling, let’s go.” It’s true!…

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: dhimmitude, Featured, Sharia, women's rights in Islam Tagged With: Donald Trump


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. ich says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 8:31 am

    All along I have supported him.

    NOT ANYMORE

    Carson all the way??

    • Chabuco says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 8:50 am

      Ted Cruz President, Carson Vice-President 2016

      • Chabuco says

        Oct 30, 2015 at 8:54 am

        Carson President, Rubio Vice-President 2024

        • cjk says

          Oct 30, 2015 at 2:15 pm

          Reading what Trump said and in the context, then the article about it, I’d say Jihad Watch is shooting itself in the foot.
          Seems like our enemies are finally finding out how to beat us.
          This whole thing is BS and reeks of pettiness.

        • KnowThyEnemy says

          Oct 30, 2015 at 2:47 pm

          @cjk

          Women, whether Muslims or not, can wear niqabs or garbage bags whenever they want….. no one is stopping them. However, “Reading what Trump said and in the context” shows that he is completely *oblivious* to the fact that the niqab is forced on women by their misogynist religion, and that they are not given the choice to NOT wear the niqab.

          He is also oblivious to the role that the niqab plays in advancing Sharia. No wonder he thinks chuckling over it is the smartest thing to do (“You don’t have to put on makeup.”).

          Do we really want a man so ignorant of the tricks that Islam uses to subvert peoples’ freedoms and liberties, as POTUS? I say electing him would be shooting ourselves in the foot.

        • ARPANET says

          Oct 30, 2015 at 4:44 pm

          “Jihad Watch is shooting itself in the foot…“

          The cognitive dissonance and the lack of self awareness of Trump’s fluffers is only challenged by Pedohammedans themselves. Shooting is what happened at Garland, to use an euphemism for the mass murder planned, you sick fuck! And that’s what your candidate himself legitimized and apologized

        • cjk says

          Oct 30, 2015 at 5:07 pm

          You low sighted individuals are taking it out of context and are engaging in half truths.
          As far as fluffers go, you take the cake considering what site we’re on..

        • gravenimage says

          Oct 30, 2015 at 11:40 pm

          cjk wrote:

          Reading what Trump said and in the context, then the article about it, I’d say Jihad Watch is shooting itself in the foot.
          Seems like our enemies are finally finding out how to beat us.
          This whole thing is BS and reeks of pettiness…

          You low sighted individuals are taking it out of context and are engaging in half truths.
          As far as fluffers go, you take the cake considering what site we’re on..
          ………………………..

          The coerced wearing of Hijab is a major aspect of the Muslim oppression of women, and is linked to purdah and the inability of women to leave their home without the permission or accompaniment of a Mehram, as well as beating, imprisonment, and murder for those who won’t comply.

          Forced veiling is a major aspect of Shari’ah law.

          It is also linked to the approved rape of *unveiled* women.

          How can you imagine that these concerns are “pettiness”?

        • cjk says

          Oct 31, 2015 at 2:26 am

          The guy makes a quick almost sarcastic reply to something which I would think is currently not on his priority list. An article is written as if this were a formal policy statement !
          Ridiculous and you people have no idea how petty and deceptive you sound.
          The guy is the only one I’ve heard saying we should leave Assad alone.
          He is the only guy I have heard speak angrily about heads being cut off and Christian persecution
          He is also the only guy I have heard say he would consider closing mosques in the US

    • Christopher H says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 9:01 am

      WIN Ben WIN!!!!

      • cjk says

        Oct 30, 2015 at 6:07 pm

        Ben said he wouldn’t have shot St. Michael Brown and after the St. Trayvon incident, questioned whether neighborhood watchmen should be allowed to carry.
        In this case about Trump it looked like he was joking and even intimated that women in burkas are ugly, don’t need makeup.
        This was an off the cuff answer which is being blown out of proportion as if it was a policy decree or something! PLEASE! The credibility of Robert Spencer as a truthful speaker is being damaged.
        The stupid comment by Trump about Pamela and Garland were wrong, but this Trump bashing is excessive.
        My favorite candidate happens to be Cruz, but Trump has some guts unlike anything I’ve seen in quite a while.

    • mortimer says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 10:58 am

      TRUMP THE PITCHMAN…philosophically a MORON!

      Trump says, ‘Believe in the niqab…it’s useful, practical and time-saving.’

      He’s shallow. The fallacy of ‘usefulness’ means ‘believe this, because it is useful’, rather than, ‘believe this because it is true.’

      The real reason of the Islamic veil is to state that WOMEN ARE THE ABSOLUTE PROPERTY OF A MAN.

      Misogyny may be ‘useful’ Mr. Trump, but it is philosophically unacceptable.

    • spot on says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 11:11 am

      Come on everyone. Might we be getting a bit too politically sensitive here.

      The key word is “over there”. With Ben and all the other pro amnesty and so called “compassionate conservative” candidates, we will have them “over here”. That is the numero uno question. There was a time when we could pick and choose from a list of minor problems that each candidate would address. Today we get to pick from a list of major life threatening problems. I’m sorry, the burqa is not life threatening.

      By completely stopping all the influx of Muslims and uneducated third world people from entering this country, we should be able to live to fight against the burqa another day. Trump is the one and only candidate that will stop these third world people from invading and overtaking our country. A wall (with forces) protects Israel from these barbarian marauders and a wall (with forces) should protect us too. A Trump wall would be fine. Has any other candidate mentioned a wall? I keep listening but all I hear are crickets from the other candidates regarding any serious effort at really protecting our border, much less a wall. Their big donor and foreign money keeps telling all these candidates to keep quiet on a border wall and keep quiet on any other effective enforcement of the border.

      If Bush had left Saddam alone, Iraq and Iran would still be killing each other with rifles and cannons. Lets face it, Islamic people like to kill people, treat their women bad, …and they even force them to love wearing burqas. Reagan had this figured right but our “compassionate” conservatives have now gotten us deep into big trouble with almost everything. If we bring in lots of Muslims, we get burqas here too. Muslims are not going to change. Their women will wear burqas. Keep them over there.

      Maybe it is time to elect someone who will NOT listen to their big donor money and we can continue to live as Americans.

      • wildjew says

        Oct 30, 2015 at 11:31 am

        You make some valid points. Years back I joined a Yahoo discussion group called “Islam in the West.” I joined following the July 7, 2005 London bombings. It was mostly British Muslims posting on that site. Members were blaming the subway bombings on British foreign policy, the war in Iraq, etc. I remember this particularly outspoken muslima (Muslim woman) posting there. She fiercely and angrily defended the status of Muslim women under sharia. Her response was something like, ‘How dare you lecture us about how we are to live as women in Islam. We love our men. We love the way we are treated under Islam!’

        “How dare you!” indeed.

        • TeresaG says

          Oct 30, 2015 at 2:05 pm

          Thats all they have ever known. How could they know any better when they have never lived a free life. They have always had to live in those circumstances. Lots of people are afraid to live outside the box that they live in and are content to work at mcdonalds their whole life. Im sure she feels it attacks her identiy since she only has the identity that she was taught.

        • wildjew says

          Oct 30, 2015 at 5:07 pm

          Huffington Post wrote: ‘Prompted by a question on the rioting in France and Europe at the time, (Congresswoman Michele) Bachmann said “not all cultures are equal, not all values are equal,” letting it be known that she thought” people in the United States and the West have a better culture to that of the Muslim faith.

          I disagreed with former President Bush when he told the American people in a State of the Union address: “I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom.” I don’t think that is necessarily true.

          I tend to agree with Winston Churchill. Churchill did not believe all peoples and cultures are equal. All peoples are not the same.

          ‘

        • oldblindjohn says

          Oct 30, 2015 at 9:48 pm

          Tabari Vol 9, Number 1754 – “Treat women well, for they are [like] domestic animals with you and do not possess anything for themselves.” From Muhammad’s ‘Farewell Sermon’

      • ARPANET says

        Oct 30, 2015 at 12:26 pm

        “Come on everyone. Might we be getting a bit too politically sensitive here”—

        Indeed, that’s why we’re not gonna vote for the cuck Trump here. Go fool a fool, fool! Go fool a dolt like you who whitewashes mass murderous Sharia enforcement like your candidate did after the Garland terror attacks.

        • spot on says

          Oct 30, 2015 at 2:12 pm

          Scientists have proven that for many people, the brain does not function properly when discussing of politics. You are a perfect example of this political effect on the brain. Your mind is blown and makes no sense.

          Tell me how you propose to fight off hoards of barbarian Muslims as they settle in your town and mine the same as they are now doing in Europe today. They will have law enforcement behind them. Also tell me which other candidate other than Trump (and maybe Cruz) has pledged to stop this third world invasion. All other candidates dodge this very important question. Why do politicians do this?… because they do not want to offend their donors. They must have donor money to win elections so it is easier to sell you and me out. Trump has no need to sell you or me out. Cruz has only one very religious conservative donor ($38 Million) donor but no other candidate has this kind of donor. Candidates do what their big donors tell them to do.

          You don’t have an answer. You simply don’t like Trump because he didn’t take up for Pamela. Trump is going to build a wall to keep them out so we can continue as Americans. After that, we will have time to convince everyone that Islam is nothing but crap.

        • spot on says

          Oct 30, 2015 at 2:14 pm

          I love Pamela and everything she does.

        • cjk says

          Oct 31, 2015 at 9:02 pm

          Cuck? LOL! Trump is the antithesis of cuck and that’s why we like him.
          You’re the fool.

      • RonaldB says

        Oct 30, 2015 at 1:19 pm

        Spot on is right.

        Your posting came on as I was composing mine, and they overlapped. No matter.

        The point is that it’s not our business how the Muslims live, as long as it’s over there and not over here. Most (not all) of the other candidates would have our government involved in the Middle Eastern wars and rebellions. Once “our” side loses, there would be a pressure to allow “our” Muslims into the country to protect them from the “other” Muslims. Muslims are always killing Muslims.

        Even worse, it could be argued that our involvement in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries has actually destabilized them, facilitating the death and destruction they are now undergoing.

        As wildjew pointed out, Muslimas are emphatically NOT allies of freedom, even though they are oppressed by Islam. Muslimas in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, and other places used to be far freer and hijab-less than they are now, since political Islam caught fire. But now, a woman has to choose: leave Islam or be oppressed. And, it’s her affair and not ours. We can’t right every wrong in the world, and people have to take responsibility for their condition. If the women in hijabs really want to fight for their freedom, they can learn tactics from the terrorists, but use them against their real oppressors.

        • spot on says

          Oct 30, 2015 at 4:04 pm

          Ronald, We hire a President by voting for him but what he does is not to please us necessarily. He must please his donors first and us second. That is our Number 1, Number 2, and Number 3 problems in this country. Everything else is secondary. Trump has no donors, really wants to build a wall to establish 100% border control and make America great again by taking back jobs from China, Japan, and Mexico. It should be easy for him to do this since he is not taking money from these countries like the rest of the politicians.

          If you don’t believe this then what is K street with 30,000 lobbyists for. How are they funded and for what purpose. All foreign countries are represented by K Street. Without a border, our country disappears. Four more years of Obama or someone like Bush will sink us into third world status permanently.

          Muslims spend large amounts of money with K street lobbyists. They even have their own Muslim Brotherhood advisers to the WH. How can we voters win against this machine. Self funded Trump who owes no favors to anyone but us offers to give us this one chance to beat the establishment and change the way these things are done.

          Muslims will win over us if we do not stop Washington Marxists.

        • RonaldB says

          Oct 30, 2015 at 5:25 pm

          ” Four more years of Obama or someone like Bush will sink us into third world status permanently.”

          Well, I’m with you on what you said. Trump is not in favor of excluding all immigrants, though. He wants to allow high IQ, highly productive foreigners to immigrate. Whether or not you agree with this, it is important that any foreigners admitted under this view not be Muslims. Allowing Muslims to immigrate means contributing to a highly-organized interest group which has the goal of fundamentally changing our culture and political philosophy.

        • spot on says

          Oct 31, 2015 at 6:22 am

          Ronald, I agree with you. ALL Muslim immigration must stop. BTW, Pamela probably had hurt feelings from Trump’s early off handed comment. I can understand Robert sticking up for her. I can’t blame her but you and I see the bigger picture. Trump is focused on the big picture with his whole campaign. He sees the country going down. He thinks he can save it from oblivion. I see the same thing and that is why I am with him on his effort. Ben Carson will get eaten alive by the MSM when they decide to get him. So far they have coddled him to hit Trump in the polls.

          The MSM has chosen our candidate for years. This needs to stop or we are dead ducks.

      • Bonnie Winberg says

        Oct 30, 2015 at 11:42 pm

        Actually Dr. Ben Carson has talked about a wall along the border, but not with the vagueness of Trump. When Dr. Ben Carson visited Arizona he actually went to Yuma himself and saw with his own eyes a system that is working on the border in that area. If I recall correctly, He spoke personally with law enforcement to get their input on it and in the second Republican debate he mentioned it. Also as far as the issue regarding ISIS or Islamic terrorism is concerned regarding men, women or children, I also think Dr. Ben Carson is well informed and concerned about it and understands this is not something to ignore or become politically correct about. He is well aware that women and children especially do not DARE to speak up against the religious laws enforced on them as they would be severely punished for it. They are just as terrified as many North Koreans who must be so careful not to say anything negative when interviewed. So you cannot believe everything you hear and perhaps Trump simply isn’t aware of this yet?

        Although Trump is applauded for “telling it like it is” without fear of what people think, I am concerned he takes his speech a bit too far. Dr. Ben Carson won my respect, because he keeps his cool even with people he disagrees with. He is also smart enough not to say things he’ll have to regret later. If we are to win the respect of nations who disagree with us, we cannot be flying off the handle insulting their leaders or religion or culture. Won’t that merely add more fuel to their “fire”? We hardly need more chants of “death to America” brought on by insulted Muslims who hate our new President. We certainly don’t want to encourage the breeding of “home grown” ones by insulting them either. We need a strong leader and yes we can speak about our differences with respect and courage, but we need a leader that wins the respect of outsiders by keeping a cool head under pressure who can speak his views without insulting people. Its simply not wise to take cheap shots at people who don’t like us in an age of Nuclear capability and emotionally motivated terrorism among young people.

        • cjk says

          Oct 31, 2015 at 9:06 pm

          Ben said he probably wouldn’t have shot St, Michael Brown and also questioned whether neighborhood watch guys should be allowed to carry.

        • cjk says

          Oct 31, 2015 at 9:49 pm

          The neighborhood watch sentiment was expressed by Ben in regards to the patron saint of skittles, and knock out games, St. Trayvon.

    • ARPANET says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 4:42 pm

      “Jihad Watch is shooting itself in the foot… “—

      The cognitive dissonance and the lack of self awareness of Trump’s fluffers is only challenged by Pedohammedans themselves. Shooting is what happened at Garland, to use an euphemism for the mass murder planned, you sick fuck! And that’s what your candidate himself legitimized and apologized.

  2. Baucent says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 8:34 am

    What we are learning about Mr Trump is that he has an extremely shallow understanding of most issues, perhaps with the exception of casinos,hotels and beauty pageants.

    • john spielman says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 8:37 am

      Trump also has an extremely over exaggerated understanding of himself. BEN CARSON(or is it Carsen?) for president!!!!!!

    • Jay Boo says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 8:59 am

      His shallowness is why Democrats hope he will be up against Hillary so as to divert from Hillary’s gross shallowness in order to make her seem more “presidential”.

  3. Brian says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 8:38 am

    JW: You have not put forth anything definitive on the question of Trump vs Islamist Tyranny.
    “In yet another”… is not the talk of a news reporter, but of a propagandist sharpening his axe.
    “We want it where the women over there don’t have to wear the…” is in fact not pro-sharia; you commit the propagandist sin of showing white and saying “Look how black he is”.

    Please don’t do more to destroy your reputability as Jihad-Watch.

    • JawsV says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 8:55 am

      I totally agree with JW that on the subject of Islam Trump is ignorant. I hadn’t heard that Trump was defending the Islamic oppressive trash bags so I’m glad to know about it.

      • Brian says

        Oct 30, 2015 at 10:34 am

        Jay Boo: He wasn’t defending anything but the freedom or people to wear floor-length potato sacks if they want to. His statement is clear : “We want it where the women over there don’t have to wear the…” which is anti-sharia.

        Black/white is not a racist thought. You (JW) commit the propagandist sin of showing him as purple and then saying “Look how green he is” (when he isn’t green at all).

        “aspersions against the integrity of the author of the article” He screwed up on this one.

        Mirren: “No-one in a Western democracy should be allowed” is oxymoron. Have we the people passed a law against face coverings? No. “Should not be allowed” is extra-legal tyranny. Extrapolating what he said about “over there” to something horrible “over here” is defective reasoning. I’m anti-Islam, and anti-tyranny.

        • Mirren10 says

          Nov 2, 2015 at 6:09 am

          ”Mirren: “No-one in a Western democracy should be allowed” is oxymoron. Have we the people passed a law against face coverings? No. “Should not be allowed” is extra-legal tyranny. Extrapolating what he said about “over there” to something horrible “over here” is defective reasoning. I’m anti-Islam, and anti-tyranny”

          What crap.

          oxymoron
          [ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr-]

          Word Origin

          noun, plural oxymora
          [ok-si-mawr-uh, -mohr-uh] (Show IPA), oxymorons. Rhetoric
          1.
          a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”.

          There is nothing self-contradictory in saying ”no-one on a Western democracy should be allowed …”

          There are many things we don’t allow, which are illegal; incest, paedophilia, murder, theft and rape, to name but a few.

          France has passed a law against face coverings, and every European country should follow suit, and **enforce** it.

    • Jay Boo says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 9:11 am

      Brian
      In the beginning of your comment you seem like you are sincerely trying to make a point but then in your (white is black) metaphor you add ” he is” which suggests you are extrapolating further to cast an allusion of race into the mix as well as you make aspersions against the integrity of the author of the article. Why do you even — go there? I can think of no other possible reason other than to bait a trap.

    • Mirren10 says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 9:54 am

      To Brian.

      You have missed the point.

      Which is, the niqab *covers the face*. No-one in a Western democracy should be allowed to walk among, and interact with, free people who reveal their faces for all to see.

      From what Trump is quoted as saying, he doesn’t refer to this cover-up as it affects Western societies, but merely refers to ‘over there’.

      Trump isn’t even prepared to defend your laws and Constitution against shariah.

      If I was an American, voting for Trump would be as stupid and suicidal as those who voted for that cretin, obama, **twice**.

      • el cid says

        Oct 30, 2015 at 10:16 am

        Hopefully, Trump will not get the nomination but will use his considerable media exposure and experience to help whoever is nominated win.

    • voegelinian says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 1:42 pm

      Brian doesn’t seem to be a very careful reader.

      1) The main report here is not from Jihad Watch; it’s from National Review magazine — “Jillian Kay Melchior, National Review, October 27, 2015…”.

      2) Brian isn’t adequately parsing Trump’s typically sloppy (if not at times incoherent) diction

      The quote of Trump begins:

      We want it where the women over there don’t have to wear the you-know-what. [Trump gestures across his face with his hand, an apparent reference to burqas and niqabs.] And then I said, “Oh, well that makes sense, that’s nice.”

      When Trump there says “We” he means, generally speaking, America and the West, and the way we supposedly regard Muslim women & Muslim culture. Immediately following that two-sentence thought, he begins with the adverb “then” which this time (unlike at the beginning of the second sentence) qualifies the preceding two-sentence statement:

      Then I saw women interviewed. They said, “We want to wear it. We’ve worn them for a thousand years. Why would anyone tell us not to?” They want to! What the hell are we getting involved for?

      Here, he is disagreeing with the sentiment he characterized as the general one “We” all have. And he’s expressing that this is the result of a change of mind, after listening to what Muslimas said about their hijabs (the additional quoted speech is just a stupid joke plus some typically Trumpitudinal jibber-jabber, which doesn’t add much except that he’s digging himself deeper by making light of the horrible plight of Muslim women and if that isn’t bad enough, showing obtuse incomprehension of the reasonable conclusion we must draw that when Muslim women say they actually desire the hijab it is a manifestation of a profound Stockholm Syndrome that is one part of the fanatical ideological Islamic complex that is endangering all our lives)..

      3) Meanwhile, the opening critique by Robert Spencer heading the report above is based upon Robert Spencer’s unremarkable grasp of #1 and #2 — which demonstrates a reading comprehension which strangely eludes “Brian”.

      • RonaldB says

        Oct 30, 2015 at 5:19 pm

        ” when Muslim women say they actually desire the hijab it is a manifestation of a profound Stockholm Syndrome that is one part of the fanatical ideological Islamic complex that is endangering all our lives)..”

        Perhaps. I don’t doubt the presence of “Stockholm Syndrome” in some Muslim women. I also don’t doubt the presence of a deep commitment to Allah, Sharia, and jihad by other Muslim women, perhaps most of them.

        I’m surprised that you would discount a deep commitment to jihad on the part of Muslim women, a commitment fully equal to that of the men, and every bit as deadly.

        Women are NOT potential allies of anti-Jihadists. We should not take sides with what we think of as the point of view of Muslim women. That’s a mistake equivalent to thinking that once a Muslim is exposed to Western values and culture, he will see the barbarism of Muslim teaching, and take up democracy.

      • voegelinian says

        Oct 30, 2015 at 8:10 pm

        RonaldB says…

        Perhaps. I don’t doubt the presence of “Stockholm Syndrome” in some Muslim women. I also don’t doubt the presence of a deep commitment to Allah, Sharia, and jihad by other Muslim women, perhaps most of them.

        I’m surprised that you would discount a deep commitment to jihad on the part of Muslim women…

        The two – Stockholm Syndrome and deep commitment to jihad – are not mutually exclusive. As with all Western terms we use to try to make sense of Islam, “Stockholm Syndrome” is an imperfect approximation of what is going on, deeper psychologically and more of a mass phenomenon sociologically than anything the West has produced (except perhaps in a few exceptional cases – certain cults, etc.). One therefore expands these terms when one realizes that Islam breaks the mold on nearly every account. In a sense, I consider all Muslims to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, insofar as Islam psychologically and culturally is a kind of welter of mutual abuse & victimization, where all Muslims, through their zombification whereby Muhammad becomes, so to speak, their Id & Superego, abuse each other and are victims of each other; meanwhile this welter of psychopathic energy is translated outward to the Other As Enemy.

        (This is not to say that the psychopathy described has no gradations or diversity, but the underlying process is the same.)

  4. vlparker says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 8:49 am

    Trump is a moron and a buffoon.

  5. Jay Boo says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 9:16 am

    Trump’s flippancy is more tolerable than Chris Christies’ holier than thou defense of Islam but could be a sign that Trump intends to BS his way around dealing with Muslim maniacs.

    • vlparker says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 9:48 am

      +1. The guy can talk for 20 minutes and say absolutely nothing. He has no conservative track record. All that his supporters have to go on is his rhetoric, which from a politician is useless.

  6. Angemon says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 9:42 am

    zblockquote>Why Is Donald Trump Defending Burqas?

    No worries – if Trump gets enough blowback he’ll backpedal.

  7. Joseph says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 9:44 am

    “Then I saw women interviewed. They said, “We want to wear it.”

    Sure, because it cushions the blows that women receive from the males and in a pinch it serves as a body bag.
    _________________________
    ” You don’t have to put on makeup.”

    Sorry honey, no amount of makeup can make a horse’s ass look beautiful
    __________________________
    “Look how beautiful everyone looks.”

    Yes even the male suicide bombers look “pretty” while delivering their destruction.
    ___________________________

    Trump is slowly revealing his hand on his stance against Islam. He is steadily, by degrees revealing that he is no friend of the American public.
    As this election draws nearer I would like to remind everyone that the presidential vote will not be the most important vote you make, it is your local representatives. PLEASE do some research. You can do that here.
    http://votesmart.org/

  8. richie says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 9:52 am

    People seem to forget that Trump is a New York liberal, he flipflpopprf like Mitt Romney; so his defending the most oppfessive aspect of Islam makes me wonder if his being a conservative is all an act

    • voegelinian says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 1:47 pm

      “so his defending the most oppfessive aspect of Islam makes me wonder if his being a conservative is all an act”

      That would follow, if all conservatives and the Conservatism that makes them “conservative” ruled out any vestige of PC MC about Islam. Sadly, this seems to be not the case at all. Probably the majority of conservatives are egregiously PC MC about Islam. If we are to avoid the No True Scotsman Fallacy, we have to probe more deeply with our analysis of the Problem of the Problem.

      Or we can continue with our shallow, emotional thinking about this most exigent aspect of the crucial war-of-ideas phase of this world war we are in, as so many in the Counter-Jihad seem content to do.

  9. AnneCrockett says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 10:02 am

    Ugh- this is as ignorant as saying African Americans liked segregation.

  10. RonaldB says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 10:40 am

    Well, again you have to look at the context.

    Trump was talking about the “women over there…”, saying “What the hell are we getting involved for?”

    We know how oppressive and malevolent Islam is. But, our primary concern is to keep Islam, and Muslims, in their own countries and out of ours. In other words, the central question revolves around immigration. We already know, from observation, that once Muslims are in the country, they form numerous interest groups, designed to shield and promote Muslim religious practices and Muslim separation from American culture.

    We know Muslims and Muslim sympathizers are heavily involved in the financial affairs of establishment Republicanism.

    The necessary condition for limiting Muslim influence and penetration is to cut or stop immigration. Muslim immigration, in particular, should be stopped, but we know the majority of present-day immigrants vote leftist and promote the Democratic party, which openly favors legal and illegal immigration, including Muslims.

    Donald Trump is doing so well in the Republican polls for one reason: he absolutely opposes illegal immigration, including amnesty, and advocates restricting legal immigration…at least, his campaign platform does. He was the first and only candidate to make this a central plank of his campaign.

    Trump favors pulling back from detailed involvement in Middle Eastern affairs. Our involvement in Iraq, Syria, and Libya is a direct predecessor and likely cause of the vast dislocations leading to the surge in immigration. Of course, the refusal of European countries to protect their own borders is the largest cause by far.

    I grant that Trump had a shallow knowledge of Islam and its effects. But, the question for my own mind is, what candidate is most likely to lead to the effects I want: the end of Muslim immigration, the shrinking or elimination of Muslim political influence in the US, and the ending of all immigration which is alien to the central US culture.

    You can’t look for a President that shares all your views. It’s impossible with 350 million people. What you want is a President who is most likely to give your views a chance to prevail.

    • voegelinian says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 1:49 pm

      “We know how oppressive and malevolent Islam is. But, our primary concern is to keep Islam, and Muslims, in their own countries and out of ours. In other words, the central question revolves around immigration. ”

      If your barn already has wolves inside it, then the problem is not merely keeping wolves out of the barn.

      • RonaldB says

        Oct 30, 2015 at 5:12 pm

        Using your metaphor, which I don’t disagree with, the first step would be to close the door and prevent more wolves from coming in. I don’t see any other action as productive as that.

        • voegelinian says

          Oct 30, 2015 at 8:16 pm

          Sure. Meanwhile, the wolves within will likely become a more openly hostile presence — unless the same Westerners who closed the doors still stupidly think all their internal Muslims who seem to be friendly really are — in which case those seemingly friendly wolves-in-sheep’s-clothing would probably continue pursuing stealth jihad with an eye to more horrific terror attacks. Or, if those Westerners by the time they closed the doors had wised up to the inimical sedition of their resident Muslims, what then would they do with them?

      • Angemon says

        Oct 30, 2015 at 9:28 pm

        voegelinian posted:

        “If your barn already has wolves inside it, then the problem is not merely keeping wolves out of the barn.”

        Despite what you would have us believe, one can’t keep wolves out of the barn if the doors are wide open – a fact that strangely eludes you. Also, your analogy is very inapt, since arranging a “final solution” to the wolves inside the barn after closing the doors is no guarantee that you won’t have more wolves inside the barn, since the farmers inside the barn can become wolves by muttering a few words in Arabic.

  11. awake says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 10:46 am

    Much ado about nothing.

  12. Emma says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 10:53 am

    Makes me want to throw up.
    This world is doomed…good news when the ship sinks everyone goes with it…..

    • Vlad says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 7:35 pm

      M A D, mutually assured destruction.
      It did work with the communists in Russia, will it work with the moosleems?
      Don’t think so.
      Come back Pope Urban

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 12:33 am

      Please don’t preach surrender here. You can surrender if you want–but the rest of us here do not intend to.

  13. Thomas says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 11:25 am

    It doesn’t matter who wins the election because they are controlled by the Muslim brotherhood. Our days of freedom are slowly but surely coming to an end. Islam is out to conquer the world and the west is to STUPID to understand their goals. Sharia law for everyone.

  14. Brendan says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 12:52 pm

    That’s a no bueno Trumperino!

  15. William says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    The problem with all the Mohammedan dictates is allowing those dictates to exist in the West. I really don’t care what the Mohammedans want to do in the Middle East or wherever they belong. We in the West need to reject the imperative of changing the world to be like us. Leave the Mohammedans to their own innumerable proclivities and devices in their own lands. Relinquish the wish to change the world. If there are ideological missionaries among us with the zeal to be a light unto the world and to change the world, let them sacrifice themselves and go among the savages to try to bring civilization to them. Allow them do so on their own accord and at their own individual costs. If the Mohammedans desire filth and misery, good for them. But, don’t bring those pathologies into the West. Therefore, stop the importation of Mohammedans into the West and where they inhabit among us, do not tolerate their barbarity. Forbid it! Whether or not a woman wants to wear a burka or whatever, outside of the West, I could care no less. However, in the West, it must forbidden, period. It is not a matter of the freedom of the woman to choose, because it is not really about freedom. It is about coercion and subjugation. Would it be a legitimate claim to demand the freedom to choose whether to be a slave or not?

    • RonaldB says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 1:47 pm

      I mostly agree with you.

      I don’t think a woman (or anybody) should be allowed to wear a niqab or other face-covering mask, in public. It’s not safe. Government is instituted to promote security, liberty, and prosperity among citizens. Allowing niqabs causes security to deteriorate.

      There is another question of whether the government has a function in protecting the culture. The French banned the burka on the grounds that it was simply not acceptable to the principles of France, the country and the culture. The US mandates liberty, but it cannot be denied that the Western concept of liberty is rooted in European enlightenment (some people claim the principles came from reformed Christianity). If the Western cultural milieu is damaged or destroyed, there is no freedom. We got that lesson first hand when we tried the folly of introducing a liberal Western government in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan.

      So, we may have to modify our concepts of personal liberty to include the protection of the culture that makes liberty possible.

      I personally prefer to simply cut off the immigration of Muslims completely. I think that’s well within the Constitution. Of course, the same applies to other creeds and religions harmful to our freedom.

      • William says

        Oct 30, 2015 at 5:45 pm

        The burka and similar Mohammedan attire should be banned in part because of safety and security of non-Muslims. The burka and other such attire should also be banned because of what they represent. For the same reason, the Mohammedan religion and its practice should be banned in the West. It should be banned until it can be shown its religious practitioners to be no longer a threat to the peace and freedom of those who have no desire to abide by their strictures.

  16. epistemology says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    I’ve been against him from the very beginning. When he lambasted Pamela on account of the cartoon contest, I knew he’s unfit as president. Apart from behaving like an elephant in a china shop, he’s got no idea about history and he’s got some really weird ideas to say least about life in modern societies. I bet he’d ban Motoons if he became pres.

    Ben Carson is our man, he’s honest, smart and reliable and he knows about Islam. If I could I’d vote for him. G’d bless America

    • voegelinian says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 1:15 pm

      Carson is certainly better, but that doesn’t mean he’s ideal for the Counter-Jihad. His subtle backtracking from his “no Muslim for President” remark (along with his waffling on whether a Congressman could be Muslim), indicates hints of lacunae in his Islam 101.

  17. voegelinian says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    The combination of obtusely proud lowbrow intellectuality + pseudo-Trumanesque plain speaking which Trump sports around like his amber leather Ghurka Cavalier II duffel bag from airport to airport, as well as his ridiculously gold-plated Common Man persona he tries to sell, often results in putting his foot in his mouth. If the Garland faux pas didn’t shake enough Counter-Jihadists out of their inane admiration for the Donald, one hopes this latest one will.

    • voegelinian says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 1:13 pm

      Sorry, I should have said “from private heliport to private heliport…”

  18. cs says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    This guy goes with the wind, he is a proper demagogue, if one day he is to close some mosques next he is happy with the burqa. If tomorrow a lot of people are pro Hamas, he will be either. He has no point of view, nothing, he just want to be a WINNER.

  19. Davegreybeard says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 1:45 pm

    @Michael Laudahn
    “So much has changed, and much of it to the worse, and without a perspective to improvement. What have we done to deserve this hopeless development?

    Nothing has changed in 1400 years, Mike.

    It’s not what we have done, it’s what we have NOT done.

    That is confronted Islam full on and driven it into those dark cracks where the Nazis and Klan now live.

    We have not championed the truth and we will pay a steep price until enough of us do.

    Deus Vult

    • Wellington says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 12:36 am

      Well said, Davegreybeard. I would only add that what we have not done which we should have done is due in significant part to the twin idiocies of political correctness and multiculturalism (pc/mc), which disallow pride in Western Civilization, easily the greatest civilization in world history, but which do allow for a multitude of excuses exculpating atrocious behavior by societies aplenty as long as they are not Western. The decrepit, desultory, destructive and despicable Islamic portion of mankind is a sterling example of such suicidal and stupid exculpation.

      Hope you and yours are maintaining your sanity or even doing well in this increasingly bizarre world in which we live. Take care, my friend.

  20. cjk says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 2:03 pm

    The article seems to be more about Jihad Watch than anything else.
    I just hope this petty Trump bashing using deception and not telling the whole story stops because you are losing credibility.
    Trump was wrong to criticize the Garland event, but you people are almost jumping the shark in your retaliation and appear to be using some of the same tactics we all should be opposed to.
    Open your eyes and recognize that this crap is doing harm to this site and absolutely no good.

  21. Daniel Triplett says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 2:19 pm

    The two most important problems facing us are 1. Immigration 2. Global jihad.

    Trump entertains me, and I’ve liked him. I like his immigration stance, though believe he is naive about the 3987 mile long very easily breached Canadian border. With the new pro-Muslim Canadian PM, we all should be very concerned about the jihad threat from the North.

    I see no evidence Trump understands sharia or the Islamic threat. He has a lot of business interests in Dubai, and probably doesn’t want to offend them. What makes anyone think he will go on a Worldwide campaign to end Islam?

    Carson is a black doctor w no political or military experience. Yes, he’s smart and a nice, even-tempered guy. But would he be as popular if he was white? Can you imagine your own physician being CINC for WWIII? I can’t. What evidence is there that he gets it, and sees the mortal threat? Sure, he said he doesn’t want a Muslim POTUS, but right after said he’d be fine with a Muslim Congressman.

    The POTUS can delegate most of the nit-noid administrative duties and details to the policy wonks in his Cabinet. As Reagan did. But CINC is his most important job by far. He alone must visualize a strategic vision for our country and the World. He must communicate that vision to the American People and the Military. He must form International alliances. He alone must give military orders and objectives. He alone can order a nuke strike. He can’t delegate the CINC role.

    I’m a 21 year Military officer with 6 years war experience. Being a good military commander and understanding military culture and capabilities takes years and years of experience. Although not every military officer would make a good CINC, i.e. McCain, I nontheless can’t imagine myself or anyone else being POTUS without a military background, especially during a Wold War. Wouldn’t that be like being the head of a major neurosurgery department without even being a doctor?

    So I don’t see Carson as CINC. And Trump is no counter-jihadist.

    Unfortunately, we have no military war vets running for President.

    But of those on the stage, what’s wrong with Cruz, regarding immigration & global jihad? I like what I see and hear from him. Am I missing something? I know that many commenters on here are astute political observers. I’m interested in hearing whom you believe could best solve our two biggest problems, and why.

    For me, I’m backing Cruz, but I have an open mind if someone has better reasons to elect a different guy.

    • cjk says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 7:22 pm

      Actually I think our primary enemy is the one within. If they aren’t defeated we have ZERO chance of defeating the rest. I also like Cruz, who happens to be my favorite, but Trump is the one bucking the system and kicking the media in the azz.
      To see the ridiculous Trump bashing going on at a site like this is truly disheartening.

  22. Edward says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 3:34 pm

    Are the Muslim’s world cultural sensitivities that Trump is really concerned about?

    A big fat NO! Trump’s main preoccupation is to always maintain a bilateral respect with the Muslims. You know sharia law, Islam’s dress code and other Muslim’s idiocies. His personal #1 business objectives are to not antagonize a business process/business opportunities. HE WOULDN’T WANT TO SEE HIS PRESENT BUSINESS INVESTMENTS TURNED INTO DUST!

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/10/whats-wrong-with-donald-trump/

    “Trump has extensive holdings in Dubai. His golf club there was voted “the Best Golf Development in the Middle East.” Lawrence Glick, the executive vice president of strategic development for The Trump Organization, explained how Trump sees Dubai as a huge money-making opportunity: “When you take a look at our database, which is millions of customers that buy two-plus homes all over the world, one of the places they want to come to is Dubai. It’s kind of like a Beverly Hills meets Las Vegas.” – Pam Geller

    I would advise Mr. Trump if he is elected as our next POTUS is to look for a virginity belt metal-smith (that is if they are still business) to fashion him a stainless steel neck safety armor! Once all US portals are opened to Islam; that will eventually turn America into a theocracy nation his usefulness ends.

    Come to think about it: Rogue politicians always sucks-up to voters (even with the illegals) and some scrupleless businessmen will trade with anyone, including with Satan!

  23. Rev. Bill Romansky says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 3:35 pm

    I think he was saying women in burqas are ugly. The Donald being sarcastic.

    • cjk says

      Oct 30, 2015 at 7:23 pm

      BINGO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  24. katherine says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 4:33 pm

    I’ve been observing Trump for some time now and it’s getting obvious that this animal is without any scruples – he just wants to win – he supports whatever is convenient at the moment without any real understanding of issues. If necessary, he’d probably sell his mother down the river : there are already too many politicians of that ilk around and they have this common trait of selling out western civilization.

    It too quite a while to show his hand.

  25. bob says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 4:55 pm

    If Trump STOPS the Republican Establishment’s and the Democrats’ wanton ignoring of our immigration laws and sovereign borders, then we won’t have to worry about what Muslim women wear in this or any other country. I think that Trump has very little patience for Islamists in this country abusing women at all and should he be President and Muslim rape gangs started in on women here, he would crack down on them like a hammer.

    Perhaps someone should pose that question to him and then we will have more information with which to make a decision. We know the Cruz, a staunch believer and enforcer of the Constitution would crack down on such activity as would Carson.

  26. Matthieu Baudin says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 8:06 pm

    Hopefully he’ll be trumped in the battle to gain the Republican nomination because he’s drifting steadily into ‘spineless jellyfish’ politician territory.

  27. Rich says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 8:50 pm

    Robert, get a grip, man.

    Trump was clearly MOCKING Muslim women for wearing the burqa and niqab, not supporting them.

    Keep mocking Trump and we’ll have Hillary as President. Is that your endgame?

    Trump mistakenly insulted your friend, Pamela.

    Dude, grow up and get over it. WTF.

    You want Hillary as President? Keep it up.

    • gravenimage says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 1:02 am

      Rich wrote:

      Robert, get a grip, man.

      Trump mistakenly insulted your friend, Pamela.

      Dude, grow up and get over it. WTF.
      ……………………….

      We’re supposed to “get over” Trump enabling threats to our freedom of speech, and his condemning those brave people who dare defend it?

      Trump may indeed wind up being the best candidate–*by default*. But it is important that we know exactly what it is we are voting for.

  28. gravenimage says

    Oct 30, 2015 at 11:28 pm

    In fact, it’s easier. You don’t have to put on makeup.
    …………………………,

    We’ve heard this bs before–as if women in the West are forced to wear make-up.

    Yes, the burqa, the niqab and even the hijab are much easier for Muslim women. Just ask Aqsa Parvez
    …………………………,

    Yes–all too many women have been forced to wear Hijab–and beaten, imprisoned, or murdered if they do not.

    Does Trump want to see his own daughter forced into a Burqa?

    • mortimer says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 2:27 am

      Trump has no political philosophy except for exercising power. He has a series of pet peeves, but no philosophical explanation for them due to his shallowness. He’s an opportunist.

      Ronald Reagan stood for freedom. Donald Trump stands for Donald Trump.

      Educated in a military collegiate, Trump was prepared for a military career which he evaded.

      I would never vote for someone who evaded serving his country in a time of desperate need. Trump even had the temerity to criticize a man who served putting his life in danger and spent years imprisoned and tortured!

      Trump is an appallingly shallow, self-centered and ignorant man.

    • Justice Julie says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 3:49 am

      Under Islam/ Sharia Law, it doesn’t matter whether a woman wears the Burka/niquab or not, just because she is a woman she will always be at risk of being raped.
      The majority of Islamic men are Ignorant, they believe that women have the power of seduction, and that Muslim men are pure and are superior to women.
      Islam is a religion/law concocted up by a self loving, man to suit himself.
      The majority of Islamic Men have no guilt, no morals, no self control, they are obsessed with sex, sometimes even to the extent that releasing their sexual lust into an animal is acceptable, and yet somehow, they still remain pure, but the animal is now defiled and unfit for the Muslim Man’s family to consume.
      Islam … Impure, sex loving atrocious, Men.

  29. Dave J says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 12:37 am

    I have no problem with a simple head scarf but the full body bag is creepy, threatening and dangerous. Anything that interferes with identification by facial features should be illegal (except maybe on Halloween). It is the female equivalent of the balaclava facemasks worn by the ISIS jihadis to evade identification. And no nothing on the head for your drivers license picture, thank you very much.

    • ellen says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 8:02 am

      I am sorry – but this is unacceptable IMO. This is America and we do not walk around covering up our face and bodies. If you want to continue covering yourself please stay in your own Country. there is an old saying “when in Rome do as the Romans do”

    • W. Jones says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 1:45 pm

      With a burka, if you split up, you don’t have to get new pictures of ‘her’; they all look alike….BIG money saver…..

  30. Demsci says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 12:38 am

    I too say; Give Trump a chance, or at least a pass. Know who your REAL enemies are and reserve your ire for them. Build alliances with the “of course less than perfect others”.

    And there are more kinds of thinking than just one. One way of thinking is that we identify so-called “negative deviations”, like Islam, Muslim Immigration, ignorance of candidates etc, detrimental and yes, life-threathening, society-threathening, so alarming, always urgent.

    Then, after identifying them, focus on, and stick exclusively to, reducing and preventing the har, they cause, or threathen to cause. Fine, nothing wrong with that.

    But…. there now is positive psychology. That tries to focus on what goes well, the positive exception, and to promote that, in augmentation of reducing the negative deviations, mind you, not as pollyannish replacement (I say this to forestall that kind of nauseating criticism) of reducing threats.

    Positive Psychology also encourage people to formulate with what they want the perceived negative deviation to REPLACE with.

    In this case, with whom do we want to replace Trump? Who does better than him on the better alternative to an Islamic society? Who also has a chance to become president? I know I like Ben Carson and Ted Cruz better than Trump. So comparisons between all 3 I like, what I do not like is Trump-bashing without good alternative!

    By the same token positive psychology (of course in my opinion, hope I am not arrogant) seems totally fine with what everything Jihad Watch does, but “it” just misses the pointing out what is BETTER THAN ISLAM? What is a better choice of lifestyle or religion THAN Islam for humans and especially Muslims? Because now Muslims are only told to DITCH something they love. But substitution of something they love with something better to love may augment the already excellent strategy of Jihad watch, in my opinion.

    And to RonaldB; of course you are right to want to stifle Muslim immigration, but what kind of citizens do you want our democratic societies to have, when we know you don’t want Muslims?

    • BC says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 9:48 am

      BETTER THAN ISLAM? What is a better choice of lifestyle or religion THAN Islam for humans and especially Muslims?
      Are you serious? Look at any Islamic country, but particularly look at Pakistan and Bangladesh. These states, originally one, were created especially for Muslims. they had no existence before 1947. They should be utopias as all Muslims are such good people, in fact what Muslims aspire to, complete rule by
      obedience to Allah. In fact they are dystopias from which people try to escape all the time.

      • Demsci says

        Oct 31, 2015 at 12:29 pm

        Yes, this IS obvious, to you, me, many. But still, there is still also the possibility of Muslims converting to other religions and lifestyles. Adhering to positive psychology I like part of us at least part of the time pursuing this positive goal; conversion of Muslims, the smartest, brightest to begin with.

        And the dominant way seems to be from us to tell them how bad their beloved yet huge, thus succesfull and tenacious religion is and that they should ditch it. That is very hard for Muslims, who have aspirations to go to heaven, whose loved ones will shum him/ her and who knows of nothing better to do with his/ her life.

        The other way is for us to formulate precisely all the better alternatives to Islam in religions or lifestyles and then part of the time show them all elements of these, like better spirituality, more scientific, shaping better societies, charactes, better treatment of women etc.

        Tell the Muslims exactly what is BETTER THAN ISLAM in the world, even if it seems so obvious to you.

        • Radegunda says

          Oct 31, 2015 at 2:04 pm

          “But still, there is still also the possibility of Muslims converting to other religions and lifestyles.”

          Possibility is one thing; probability is another. The pattern in Europe has been that 2nd-generation Muslims have tended to become more dogmatic and radical, instead of adjusting to the Western lifestyle and habits of mind.

          Instead of hoping that we can persuade large numbers of Muslims to accept a better way, it’s much more realistic to KEEP THEM OUT of civilized countries, and generally try to quarantine Islam as much as possible, and let Muslims stew in the mess they’ve created — until they start figuring out for themselves that Islam is the problem.

      • Demsci says

        Nov 1, 2015 at 12:18 am

        Oh, I for one would love it, when Muslims were kept out of democratic countries,
        by telling them that it is their clinging to Islam that makes us refuse them citizenship,

        on the grounds that either Islam is incompatible with the democratic system of government
        or if that is forbidden by the left,

        maybe that simply too many Muslims, in the Ummah, inside and outside of the democratic countries, interpret an irresponsibly vague Islam as anti-democratic. The first of many reasons being that Muslims are exhorted by Islam, or Islam-interpreting clerics, to put the Shariah laws above man-made constitutions.

        If keeping Muslims out were possible (but that also is NOT PROBABLE), I would applaud it.

        Unfortunately until now Western democracies are being almost “betrayed” by too many political correct ignorant people, parliaments and governments. Or one might also say, when we want to preserve the rule of the majority, that majority seems bent on committing “suicide” of democracy.

        But when there are large numbers of Muslims already inside and many more let in, why then not augment our policy with the positive approach? I mean, we ARE under immense pressure.

        And it seems that not only do we not tell the Muslims what is BETTER THAN ISLAM, but that we cannot or will not even formulate that. And that we can only formulate what we hate, the negative deviation, Islam, not what we love, the positive exception, namely Enlightenment and the Democratic system.

        small wonder then that Muslims do also not see something BETTER THAN ISLAM.

  31. dajjal says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 7:18 am

    Would you cut off a snake’s rattles? Would you paint a skunk solid color? Then why prevent a Muslima from displaying her warning sign. Only ‘cuz the niqab is a security hazard, used to disguise robbers.
    Here is a video which explains the origin of the verse of hijab. No harm in letting the Ummah see it 😉

    https://youtu.be/PpVc8p2taoY

  32. Brent says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 7:21 am

    If you read this honestly you can see that Trump was being sarcastic!

    • Radegunda says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 2:10 pm

      Was he being sarcastic when he said emphatically that it was wrong for Pamela Geller to hold her “Draw Muhammad” event (to claim our free-speech rights over Islamic sharia) because it would “offend everybody”?

      No, he wasn’t.

  33. Bernice says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 8:59 am

    You don’t have to put on make-up???
    Have you seen thesewomen with only their eyes showing? They are wearing roughly a pound and a half of mascara and eye shadow!
    NO ONE has the right to come to this part of the world and tell us how to dress, or how they intend to conduct themselves, or, for that matter, how to conduct our citizenship ceremonies, as they’re doing in Canada!
    Ban face covering. It’s anti-social, and un-western. Let those who have to have it go and live in a place where it’s acceptable, not here.

  34. spot on says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 9:02 am

    Burqas in the ME are fine with me. Just keep them out of America, with a fence if necessary.

    There are prominent people out there that know exactly what is going on with Islam. Many of them also maintain a wide perspective audience. They don’t dwell on Islam every day but they know what we know. There are also many of the best and most successful no BS financial experts out there too. Most of these people would welcome being a consultant to a non Rhino, non Marxist, pro America President such as Trump. These people all have “skin in the game” here… in America… the same as Trump and most of us. They are not stupid like all the politicians. Actually, I do not believe politicians are stupid. Trump is being nice when he says that. I believe they only act stupid in order to cover for taking bribes. They tell us what we want to hear before election and do the opposite after election to please their big donors.

    Remember this…if someone gives you $10 million, they want something in return and they get it. Mass immigration is what most multinational and large corporations want. They don’t care about America. All they want is to get wages down. These people are the political donor class. Also with them are the rich Muslims and other countries who don’t care about America. They want our politicians to be more sympathetic to Islam or they want to screw us on trade. This is why all we hear is that Islam is a “Religion of Peace” and jobs are going overseas. They pay big dollars and they get what they want. Just look at that nuke deal with Iran as an example. This deal is long term mass suicide for Americans. The Rinos helped Obama do this to us. Big money and power can be like drugs. It can cause politicians to delude themselves and act against their own long term best interests. (Most politicians only look toward their short term interests anyway.) Some even sell out their own families. Others are not affected like this. We need to smarten up, observe what is really going on, and not be led by corrupt media. Reagan was the first in recent memory to break through media control to maintain popular support and Trump is the second. We need to advantage ourselves with this opportunity. (The corrupt politicians do a great disservice to the good loyal politicians and we all know there are some very good dedicated politicians.)

  35. BC says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 9:39 am

    Trump is sucking up to the Muslim voters just like Sanders hugging Muslim girls. By the way they are not supposed to even shake your hand.
    Disappointing I thought Big T was different but he is just another player.

    • cjk says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 9:31 pm

      Sucking up to Moslem voters? Do you realize how ignorant that statement is? If you’re going to base a vote on that thinking you are in the realm of low information voters.
      Immigration is probably the central aspect of infiltration.
      He is the only guy I see saying Assad doesn’t need to be toppled, that is the current golden prize for ISIS, Turkey, and Jihadist right now.
      He is also the only guy I’ve heard speak with anger and outrage over Mohammedan atrocities against Christians.
      If he wins and runs Mohammedans will be the top group of any size in the USA that will NOT vote for him as a percentage and I’ll give you 2 to 1 odds on that.

  36. spot on says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 10:15 am

    Carson says he is pro amnesty …like Rubio. This leaves me out with him. With amnesty we get democrat Presidents forever after. Also he will lose the general. The country will be on the same road as Europe forever.

  37. David says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 10:24 am

    Trump will regret this pandering. Since the leftist nuts will do anything to prevent Trump from winning the White House, we should fully expect some tent-covered ‘female’ jihadist to get close enough to Trump to send him to Allah in short order.

    Hopefully a Rubio/Cruz or Fiorina/Cruz ticket will put this country on the right track.

    Too bad Trump doesn’t have the balls of Carson to tell the truth.

  38. Megan says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 11:08 am

    Mr Trump was not “defending burqas and niqabs” so much as he was making the exact same case Robert Spencer has often made himself: we should not invade Muslim countries with the absurd idea that we can magically turn them into democratic utopias. He was mocking their barbaric customs as well as our fantastical idealism.

    We should not start wars to “free” Muslim women. Their oppression is not our problem.

    Really, enough with the Trump-bashing. There’s no other candidate in either party who’s strong enough and independent enough to put a stop to the illegal aliens, once and for all. If our first priority isn’t stopping the invasion, it doesn’t matter what our second priority is. The Islam-loving Democrats will import and legalize enough new “citizens” to finally establish full and permanent control.

    Good luck fighting Sharia then.

    • spot on says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 12:08 pm

      Megan, Very well said.

    • Radegunda says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 2:12 pm

      Trump also thought it was wrong to hold a free-speech event in TEXAS because it was offensive to Muslims (or “everybody,” in Trump’s words).

      • bobm says

        Oct 31, 2015 at 4:45 pm

        this guy is not “the ONE”

      • Megan says

        Oct 31, 2015 at 6:04 pm

        Yes, he did. It was a mistake and a bad one. I’d like to see him correct it.

        Surely they must have at least one contact in common. Couldn’t Robert Spencer reach out? Maybe send him one of his books?

        Trump’s immigration platform is largely based on the reams of evidence in Ann Coulter’s book Adios America. He asked her for it and she sent him an advance copy. Maybe Spencer could convince him too.

  39. bobm says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 11:38 am

    High stakes hustler … blowhard .. as I expected … this guy flies with the Mc Ducks .. $$ moves him into moral and intellectual ambiguity.. as to wedge issues like this; which establish a foothold … he’s more likely to be uncomfortable with the wedgy in his silk underwear… this is a simple basic opportunity to establish common sense…… Mr. Trump… you’re fired!

  40. Emjay See says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 12:20 pm

    No, I’m not defending burqas and niqabs, those folk who say they have been worn for over a 1,000 years are not accurate. I was in Turkey, Cairo and other ‘Muslim’ countries in the early 50’s. Yes some women wore them, but not all. Cairo, I saw lots and lots of women looking as though they had come straight from Paris, Parisian dress (women only), make up, perfume, as a mere red bloodied male I wanted to stay – the NAVY wouldn’t let me! Do a search for pictures of the past, 1950’s and see for yourself, forget all the Bulls Hit that;s going around

    • Jack Diamond says

      Nov 1, 2015 at 10:11 am

      Yes, that Muslim world was much more “moderate” and secular and Western then and for historical reasons. And Islamic dress was considered backward for much the same reason Jihad was quaint. Ataturk had forcibly removed Islam from the public square in “Turkey”. The Caliphate/Ottoman Empire had been the “sick man of Europe” and finally done away with. Muslim countries had been dominated by Western powers for centuries. The resurgence of Islam has also been historical and a return to form (we are talking fourteen centuries not merely the past three) due to or accompanied by resurgent wealth and power and advanced communications. Characterized by the return of Islamic dress and the return of Jihad. Which go together like birds of a feather.

  41. EventHorizon says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    When Reza Aslan says Jesus was a Jihadi, you need to find the motivating factor for such nonsense. Easy. Money. Of course Reza doesn’t actually believe most of what he says, that’s okay(to him). Truth is not his motivator.

    Robert Spencer has it much easier than Reza in that Islam is evil and Christianity is not. Spencer can easily hammer Reza with the facts all day. Not very difficult. That says something about Islam and Christianity, but not much about the two involved. They may in fact have the same motive(or not).

    Why would Spencer say Trump supports Sharia? If truth is not his motivator, than what? Easy. Money.
    This is all about Pamela Geller. Trump insulted her, Spencer will attack Trump(reason out the window).

    Geller has Spencer on a leash, they both seem happy that way. Spencer crowns Geller as the “world’s greatest freedom fighter” and Geller will be sure to continue supporting Spencer. They make an odd pair.

    Trump is an immigration reform trailblazer. He broke ground and said what needed to be said, bringing it to the forefront of the debate. He wants a wall. He said the refugee crisis may be the “biggest Trojan Horse” ever. He said he’d SEND BACK all admitted Syrian refugees and start CLOSING DOWN problem Mosques(Hmmm, I frink he like Sharia, NEE hee).

    The guy sounds like he’s ready for a fight. But, Spencer takes the fight to him. He works to divide Americans with the common goal of freedom from Islam. Hey, that makes Spencer a pretty good freedom fighter too.

    Robert, are you a sellout?

    • Radegunda says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 2:28 pm

      This is absurd. Spencer and Geller are both taking great risks to their personal safety and lives by standing up against the ongoing march of Islam in its 1400-campaign to take over the whole world.

      Trump has never done anything as courageous. His fans think he’s bold and gutsy because he likes to insult people — but meanwhile Trump has declared that it’s wrong for us, in America, to draw pictures and label them “Muhammad” because it offends Muslims (or because it might damage his Dubai business).

      When Trump fans find it hard to defend him, they sling insults at his critics — “RINO! Sellout!” It’s utterly preposterous to suggest that someone who doesn’t fully and uncritically support Trump is a “sellout” — especially when that someone has been unwavering in resistance to Islamic supremacism.

      Spencer and Geller are both highly independent, strong-willed people. To suggest that either is on anyone else’s string is ludicrous. Both of them started exposing and standing up to Islam long before Trump decided to make border control his big campaign issue.

      • spot on says

        Oct 31, 2015 at 4:47 pm

        Obviously you don’t like Trump. Why not leave it at that. Just say, I don’t like Trump over and over.

        Trump said some time ago that he sees the Syrian refugee crisis as maybe the biggest Trojan horse of all time. Who else beside Muslims could he have been referring to since he was talking about Syrian refugees. Trump will keep all unwanted immigrants out. All the other candidate will let in anyone that their big donors want, to lower wages. Trump is the only one that will not do that. He has staked his reputation on the border Wall and enforcement. Without a wall and getting complete control of the border, we will not be able to stop Muslim influx and future elections of Democrat candidates due to the watering down of our vote by unwanted immigrants. Democrats will bring there Muslim friends here in droves.

        We will never have the chance to stop Sharia if we have open borders. We will be like Islamo-Europe with rape squads protected by the government. Trump is the only one who will close our borders and keep America, America. He has no big donors to tell him what to do. He only needs to please us, his voters.

        Robert has obvious personal reasons for targeting Trump in a negative way (which I understand). We should leave it at that.

      • EventHorizon says

        Nov 1, 2015 at 7:00 am

        If you can’t reply what I’m saying, keep moving.

        Did I say Trump and Geller don’t take risks? No.
        Did I say Trump was more courageous than Spencer? No(but who’s in more danger right now?)
        Did I say anything about Spencer being a RINO? No.

        Looks like straw man arguments are the best you can do. Maybe you should wonder why.
        I did say that Spencer has motives other than truth when saying that Trump supports Sharia.
        You did nothing to refute any of my support for that claim. You just hid behind your straw men.

        BTW, many would love to see Trump get shot. He doesn’t need to risk it all, but he does. He’s standing up for America(and Israel) and against the Muslim invasion. This guy is needed NOW.

        ********************************************Go Trump***************************************************

        Spencer has lost his credibility at this point. That’s okay, Muslims and Catholics are saved by the same Creator according to his beliefs(Catechism 841). He can always ask Allah for forgiveness.

    • Angemon says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 4:38 pm

      EventHorizon posted:

      “This is all about Pamela Geller. Trump insulted her, Spencer will attack Trump(reason out the window).

      Geller has Spencer on a leash, they both seem happy that way. Spencer crowns Geller as the “world’s greatest freedom fighter” and Geller will be sure to continue supporting Spencer. They make an odd pair.”

      Have you read *anything* Robert wrote regarding Trump’s remarks about Garland?

      • EventHorizon says

        Oct 31, 2015 at 10:20 pm

        Of course I’ve read what he said about it. Please save any other stupid questions you might have for your imaginary friend.

        • Angemon says

          Nov 1, 2015 at 2:37 pm

          EventHorizon posted:

          “Of course I’ve read what he said about it.”

          I seriously doubt it, since you’re confusing your fan fiction with facts.

      • EventHorizon says

        Nov 2, 2015 at 8:35 am

        “I seriously doubt it, since you’re confusing your fan fiction with facts.”

        You speak like a child. You can’t reply to my points so you just sit in the corner and cry. You have “serious doubt” that I even read what Trump said. You’re an idiot.

        I seriously doubt the Muslim Brotherhood will be hoping for that Sharia supporting dhimmi named Trump.

        Again, if you can’t reply to what I’m saying don’t waste my time.

        • Angemon says

          Nov 2, 2015 at 7:16 pm

          EventHorizon posted:

          “You speak like a child. You can’t reply to my points”

          What “points” are you talking about? Your rambling about my alleged “invisible friend”? Face it – you lied, you were called out and you failed to deliver. You gave no explanation based on Robert’s posts regarding Trump and Garland to back your nonsensical “This is all about Pamela Geller. Trump insulted her, Spencer will attack Trump(reason out the window).Geller has Spencer on a leash, they both seem happy that way.” fanfiction. Hence your reliance on petty insults – maybe people won’t notice the hack you are if you insult others enough.

          “so you just sit in the corner and cry. You have “serious doubt” that I even read what Trump said. You’re an idiot.”

          Like I said, petty insults from a hack trying to save face after being called out and failing to deliver. Go ahead – is that all you got? Pffft, you got nothing on muslims and leftists.

        • EventHorizon says

          Nov 3, 2015 at 5:35 am

          “What “points” are you talking about?”

          Wow, do I really need to hold your hand?

          1)”Trump is an immigration reform trailblazer” Is that true? Yes. Does that sound like something that would be good for Sharia in America? No. That is a point.

          2)”He wants a wall” Would that make it easier for Muslims to infest America and impose Sharia? No. That is another point.

          3)”He said the refugee crisis may be the “biggest Trojan Horse ever” Does identifying the potential strategy of this mortal enemy sound Sharia compliant to you? What if a few “Trumps” had been running Sweden or France over the last 20 years? Would you see much Sharia over there? Let me guess, you don’t see the point.

          4)”He said he’d SEND BACK all admitted Syrian refugees” Now we’re really getting somewhere. Maybe you’re mad because that would defend against Islamic tyranny. Too bad. If you don’t see my point here, I can’t help you.

          5)”start CLOSING DOWN problem Mosques(Hmmm, I frink he like Sharia, NEE hee)”
          This may be the most important thing Trump has ever said. Stopping Islam starts with closing down Mosques. Did Trump say that? Yes? Does that sound like a dhimmi? No.
          That is my last point.

          Your response to all this?

          “Have you read *anything* Robert wrote regarding Trump’s remarks about Garland?”

          “I seriously doubt it, since you’re confusing your fan fiction with facts.”

          “What “points” are you talking about?”

          “Face it – you lied, you were called out and you failed to deliver.”

          You’ve gotta be the dumbest guy here.

          “Pffft, you got nothing on muslims and leftists.”

          Well, not to you I don’t. Centuries of rape and murder are nothing compared to what I’ve done. Yes, I admit it. I’m worse. Surely the millions of raped, murdered, tortured and enslaved infidels would agree.

          Maybe you should see a Doctor.

        • Angemon says

          Nov 3, 2015 at 3:21 pm

          EventHorizon posted:

          ““What “points” are you talking about?”

          Wow, do I really need to hold your hand?

          1)”Trump is an immigration reform trailblazer” Is that true? Yes. Does that sound like something that would be good for Sharia in America? No. That is a point.

          2)”He wants a wall” Would that make it easier for Muslims to infest America and impose Sharia? No. That is another point.

          3)”He said the refugee crisis may be the “biggest Trojan Horse ever” Does identifying the potential strategy of this mortal enemy sound Sharia compliant to you? What if a few “Trumps” had been running Sweden or France over the last 20 years? Would you see much Sharia over there? Let me guess, you don’t see the point.

          4)”He said he’d SEND BACK all admitted Syrian refugees” Now we’re really getting somewhere. Maybe you’re mad because that would defend against Islamic tyranny. Too bad. If you don’t see my point here, I can’t help you.

          5)”start CLOSING DOWN problem Mosques(Hmmm, I frink he like Sharia, NEE hee)”
          This may be the most important thing Trump has ever said. Stopping Islam starts with closing down Mosques. Did Trump say that? Yes? Does that sound like a dhimmi? No.
          That is my last point.

          Your response to all this?

          “Have you read *anything* Robert wrote regarding Trump’s remarks about Garland?””

          Ah, it’s not that you’re purposely acting like a jackass, it’s just that you’re a boor severely lacking in comprehension skills. I figured that you would comprehend, but alas, I though too highly of you. When I asked you about whether or not you had read Robert’s comments about Garland I wasn’t referring to your suckage of Trump’s genitalia, I was referring specifically to your childish fanfic regarding Robert and Pamela. I figured you’d get that because I specifically quoted it on my post:

          http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/donald-trump-defends-burqas-and-niqabs/comment-page-2#comment-1317806

          But, again, seems like I was expecting too much of you.

          Or maybe you’re not as much of a moron as you’re acting. Maybe you realized, somewhere down the line, that I was referring to that specifically, and now you’re trying to save face by pulling a strawman. So, do you have any evidence to back your fanfic about Robert and Pamela? Or are you being paid to fling crap on anyone criticizing Trump for whatever reason?

        • EventHorizon says

          Nov 4, 2015 at 11:35 am

          ” I wasn’t referring to your suckage of Trump’s genitalia”

          This comment tells me a lot about you. You shouldn’t be thinking about that sort of thing(even if it seems normal to you). Please save your perverted fantasies for that imaginary friend. You don’t belong here.

          Those things that you want to see as homosexual acts are actually facts. Big difference. Maybe you should move your computer out of your bedroom and stop watching so much harmful content online.

          “Have you read *anything* Robert wrote regarding Trump’s remarks about Garland?””

          Yes, I know that’s what you said. It was a very dumb thing to say. You just couldn’t believe that I had actually read what Spencer wrote about Trump’s comments. Why? The whole point is related to those comments. Again, you need(or want) someone to hold your hand(no thanks).

          “his opposition to freedom of speech in the wake of our American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI)/Jihad Watch Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas — arguably motivated, as Pamela Geller recently showed, by his extensive business interests in Dubai — renders him unsuitable as a candidate.”

          In your barren corner it matters not what Trump has said relating to Islam since that may reveal his true position, only what Spencer said about Trump after Garland. And you “seriously doubt” that even I read Spencer’s comments. That makes no sense. You’re becoming a case study you know.

          He’s talking about shutting down Mosques and the refugee crisis being a “Trojan Horse”. In spite of that, Spencer still says he supports Sharia(read the article). Oh sorry, you just can’t see how that’s relevant.
          The explanation for you is that maybe I’m being paid to write here. How deep does your delusion run?

          Anyway, go ahead and try to explain yourself. Just please keep your perversion to yourself next time.

        • Angemon says

          Nov 4, 2015 at 2:59 pm

          EventHorizon posted:

          “Please save your perverted fantasies for that imaginary friend.”

          Again with the imaginary friend talk? You’re really scrapping the bottom of the barrel, aren’t you?

          “You don’t belong here.”

          Not your website, not your call.

          “Yes, I know that’s what you said. It was a very dumb thing to say. You just couldn’t believe that I had actually read what Spencer wrote about Trump’s comments. Why?”

          Because you presented your fanfic as the reason of Robert’s criticism of Trump’s stance on islam. It’s simple, really.

          “And you “seriously doubt” that even I read Spencer’s comments. That makes no sense.”

          Well, son, try this formula from now on:

          crouch over keyboard – engage brain – read posts – use comprehension to gain understanding of the words contained within said posts – digest and process information – respond accordingly

          I say this because your current method of:

          skim read posts – mouthbreathe – type nonsensical drivel

          doesn’t seem to be going too well for you.

          “He’s talking about shutting down Mosques and the refugee crisis being a “Trojan Horse”.”

          And he backpedaled and admitted he had no idea if he could close down mosques or not, didn’t he? In any case, you’re purposely dodging the issue: Mr. Spencer explained clearly the reasons of his stance on Trump and you, with the smoothness of a drunken hippo on a china shop, pretended there was another reason for it – a reason for which you have given no evidence for.

          Again, you’re free to spit-shine Trump’s genitalia if you wish to do so. What I clearly asked you about was your claims. Here. let me refresh your goldfish memory:

          Why would Spencer say Trump supports Sharia? If truth is not his motivator, than what? Easy. Money.
          This is all about Pamela Geller. Trump insulted her, Spencer will attack Trump(reason out the window).

          Geller has Spencer on a leash, they both seem happy that way.

          Since you have yet to dignify your ramblings with anything remotely resembling evidence, I guess that’s all they are – the ramblings of a religious zealot who needs a donut cushion every time he sees someone not kneeling down in front of Trump.

    • cjk says

      Oct 31, 2015 at 9:46 pm

      Being a great admirer of both Mr. Spencer and Ms. Geller knowing their courage is unquestionable this stuff is very disappointing. Okay we ALL know his comments on Pamela and Garland were atrocious, but were they unforgivable?
      The man is obviously not up to par on everything going on concerning Mohammedanism.
      BUT…………..We finally have a guy who’s kicking azz and taking names as concerns the primary evil within!!!!!!
      Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

  42. UNCLE VLADDI says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    Ah, if only people would do some basic research every once in a while!

    Daniel Greenfield nails it, here:

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260532/hillary-wears-hijab-new-campaign-ad-daniel-greenfield

    • spot on says

      Nov 1, 2015 at 6:03 am

      Vlad, Ann Coulter is a big supporter of Trump. I believe it is mutual admiration with the two. Could any self respecting sane person actually believe that Ann Coulter doesn’t know and fear the evil of Islam?

      Now that I see the term “Liberal” being thrown around towards Trump here at JW, I can see the trademark of big donor money showing up here. Only a Rubio supporter, an idiot, or establishment conservative operative would ever call Trump a liberal. If he was, he would be the only liberal in the entire country that insists on having a wall at our border.

  43. UNCLE VLADDI says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 5:24 pm

    Trump isn’t very bright:

    Donald Trump strongly supports anti-Semite nazi-loving racist Al Sharpton

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq5pIw8Ctlk

    (So does Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton)!

    …….

    Trump says he loves muslims, would consider one for his cabninet:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-says-hed-absolutely-consider-muslim-cabinet-member_55feb151e4b08820d918f761

    …….

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/09/08/trump-hate-the-concept-of-letting-migrants-in-but-you-have-to/#comment-2247160332

    Trump is VERY liberal:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ6qqKXIEoI

    …

    Trump supported full Amnesty for illegals in a 20012 Fox news interview.

    ….

    From here:

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/10/whats-wrong-with-donald-trump/

    …

    and From here:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/04/donald_trump_pamela_geller_taunting_muslims_with_contest_to_draw_mohammed.html

    • Daniel Triplett says

      Nov 2, 2015 at 3:31 am

      This is all quite disturbing reading/watching for Trump fans. Thanks for providing it UNCLE VLADDI. Good stuff.

      Any Trump supporter should examine all of these links. They certainly extinguished any inclination at all I had to vote for him.

  44. Daniel Triplett says

    Oct 31, 2015 at 8:15 pm

    Believing we can simply “reason” Muslims to apostatize by showing them the truth and our way of life is naïve. It’s not that easy.

    They already know about Western life, our human rights, and civil liberties. For starters, they have Internet, TV, and Western movies.

    They have access to a number of great websites spreading the truth about Islamic jihad, including our favorite: jihadwatch.org.

    How many Muslims have you seen come onto JihadWatch and rejoice in the truth that Robert’s been spreading for over a decade, with thousands of essays and published articles? I haven’t seen one.

    In fact, every Muslim I’ve seen on this site comes on here to defend Islam, using one of two strategies: They either use all the various forms of Islamic sanctioned lying to mislead us into the “Tiny Minority of Extremists (TMOE) hijacking the Religion of Peace (RoP)” BS, or they openly tell us how they’re going to take over the World, saw off our heads, and rape our wives and daughters.

    The greatest accomplishment of Robert Spencer, in my view, has been to spread the truth about the Islamic problem to all the uninformed Infidels and Useful Idiots. He’s been greatly successful doing so.

    Robert Spencer is a modern day Paul Revere: “The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming!”

    Robert is the man on 6 DEC 1941 trying to warn us all that we’ll have big problems tomorrow.

    And let’s not forget about all the tragic Green-on-Blue deaths in Afghanistan. Even while working closely with Afghan troops: Training them, befriending them, discussing our way of life with them, and mistakenly trusting them; 1 out of every 7 US KIAs is the result of such an Afghan “friend and ally” turning his gun on us.

    No Muslim can be trusted, ever, for any reason.

    If Muslim Apostasy is simply a matter of exposing them to our righteousness, then all the hijrah Muslims already living in the West would just look around at us and say, “Good Lord, what was I thinking? I’ve been wrong all along. The West is correct, and Islam is evil. I’ll apostatize from Islam immediately.”

    But they don’t, because they don’t want to be like us.

    Most of us have seen the stats right here on JW, which clearly show the majority of Western Muslims supporting Islam & sharia. Any Muslim saying otherwise is just lying with Muruna.

    We must earn the Muslims’ respect. The only way they’ll respect us is through violence.

    The Muslims must witness Allied shock & awe violence delivered on a Biblical scale, leaving no doubt in their minds that the Allies are intellectually and technologically superior, and Allah will never save them.

    Although we can try to deport the Muslim Foreign Nationals, if we can find them, we can’t deport Muslim US citizens. Deportation won’t solve our problems anyway, as explained further below.

    The Muslims already within our borders must see that we’re dead serious about making the practice or promotion of Islam a capital crime, and will execute offenders in short order.

    Only then will they be receptive to alternative ideas like Western ideologies and Christianity.

    Remember, Islam is a criminal enterprise, with Sedition and Conspiracy to Murder being right at the top of the list: A list including scores of other crimes. So criminalizing Islam isn’t hard to do. It’s just a matter of telling the PC/MC crowd to STFU, then give The Religion of Peace the long overdue reclassification it deserves, to Capital Felony.

    Isolationism, as many suggest, is never going to work.

    Can we simply erect giant walls, then believe forevermore we’ll be safe from Muslims?

    I don’t think so.

    Were we supposed to let the Japanese Emperor and Hitler do whatever they wanted to do too?

    We were well isolated from the Soviets. Should Reagan have just left them alone?

    What if the Muslims take over the entire Eastern Hemisphere eventually, murdering all of our Allies, all while building or stealing nuke weapon arsenals? Is that how we Americans should treat our Allies? And do we really think sticking our heads in the sand like that won’t have fatal consequences for us in the long run?

    Isolationism doesn’t work. They will figure out ways to sneak in anyway, either in person, ICBM, or nuke on a container ship.

    Have you seen the new Dennis Michael Lynch movie, “They Come to America III?”

    He filmed an ice bridge between Canada and NY. On the Canada side was a mosque/madrassa the size of a large university campus. Hundreds of Suburban loads of Muslims were driving across into NY daily, completely out of sight and unopposed by US Border Patrol.

    So even if we built a SuperMax Fence along the entire 1933 mile Mexican border, they’ll just come through the easily breached 3987 mile Canadian border.

    Making this even easier for jihadists is the pro-Muslim Canadian PM Trudeau they just elected. So we can expect jihadist infiltration from the North in much greater numbers in the years to follow.

    And what are we supposed to do about the Christian and Jewish genocide occurring in the other hemisphere? Just sit back and say, “Not our problem!”

    Maybe that’s the answer for many, but I and many others feel like we as Americans have a responsibility to help them.

    I don’t agree with making our National Mission Statement, “Nation-building the Third-World into democracies.”

    But when evil Muslims are exterminating Christians & Jews, we have a special responsibility to intervene. What good are we if we don’t?

    • dajjal says

      Nov 1, 2015 at 1:00 am

      Inducing apostasy requires that the Muslim have a a vestigial remnant of morality sufficient for him to have a sense of shame aover being associated with evil. If he can read the stories of Aisha, Zainab, Safiya and Rayhana without a sense of shame, its going to be very difficult to shake his Iman.

      Joe Camel does not know that he is a Satan worshipper, you must show him. Enlist Ibn Sa’d & Imam Muslim to show him that Allah is Satan and Moe was demon possessed.

      Crusade? Ain’t gonna happen, there is no political will. You’d need Spencer in the WH, Geller at State and a congress full of Spencer clones. Fat chance.

      • Daniel Triplett says

        Nov 1, 2015 at 11:10 am

        “Joe Camel does not know that he is a Satan worshipper, you must show him. Enlist Ibn Sa’d & Imam Muslim to show him that Allah is Satan and Moe was demon possessed.”

        There are plenty of people, including prominent Apostates, all over the World; on TV, on the Internet, in books, and on social media, explaining the evils of Islam to the 1.6 Billion Muslims. Look at the all-out war happening on Twitter right now.

        The Muslims remain obstinate.

        Remember what the Muslim patriarch bin Laden said: “Muslims will always identify with the stronger horse.”

        Islam has been advancing, with great strength and success over the last several decades.

        In the Eastern hemisphere, Muslims are slaughtering Christians and Jews with impunity.

        The West looks weak to the Muslims. Because our leaders are weak. The West acquiesces to the Muslims’ advance on our territory, and assaults on our values, human rights, and civil liberties. And modern day Democrats and Socialists have not the foggiest idea how to fight and win wars. Obama’s withdrawal (surrender) from Iraq and Afghanistan had made all Americans appear like cowards.

        Islam is the stronger horse right now, attracting millions of additional adherents to its demonic cause, exacerbating the success of the jihad and hijrah.

        I’ve spent six years in the war in the ME. In long, protracted firefights with fearless groups of jihadists, one thing ALWAYS ends the stalemate, scaring the shit out of the enemy: A USAF B-1 flyby dropping JDAM Mk-82s on their position. The firefight ends immediately, with surviving enemy running away like scared schoolgirls.

        Most jihadist elements with AK-47s have the balls to confront a similar sized American element with M16s. But they will always fear and respect superior technology.

        Make no mistake, we are NOT the weaker horse. We just appear to be due to piss-poor leadership.

        No lecture from us, or any Muslim Apostate will convince Muslims that Islam is evil, Allah is Satan, and Muhammad was posessed.

        The only thing that will get their attention is an overwhelming display of violent Western technology. Only then will they listen to us, and be receptive to Western ideology and Christianity.

        As I’ve often said before, we don’t have enough time, money, military, or B-1s to scare 50 Islamic sovereignties and 1.6 Billion Muslims into Apostasy.

        No one wants to say it out loud, but unless and until we’re willing to use nuclear weapons to win, we will lose. The numbers just aren’t on our side.

        At 1.3 births per woman, the white race is going extinct, from America to Russia, and everywhere in between. We need 2.1 births per woman for break-even replacement. Meanwhile, Muslims have been breeding like cockroaches with 8 births per Muslima, intentional and by design (womb jihad).

        With 1 nuke strike every 3 days on a random Muslim target, I estimate we could force Worldwide criminalization of Islam within 6 weeks, for less than $10 Billion, without losing one Allied serviceman’s life.

        There is no other option. The sooner we all realize this, the better.

        Iran is just weeks away from nukes. They promise to kill us with them. If we dismiss this fact as mere rhetoric, we will suffer staggering and far-reaching consequences.

        ______________________________

        “Crusade? Ain’t gonna happen, there is no political will.”

        That’s because we don’t have the right leader.

        We need a Washington, Lincoln, FDR, or Reagan like never before.

        • dajjal says

          Nov 1, 2015 at 9:12 pm

          Washington, Jefferfson, Truman & Reagan died, they ain’t coming back. We need new leadership and we do not have 15 months to wait. We must pray hard and steer the primaries toward Senator Ted Cruz.

          Old Harry put the finish to Japan’s ambitions with two nukes, but with 1.3 B Muslims dispersed over the face of the earth, nukes alone will not do ther job even if the political will to deploy them existed.

          Nuclear JDAM Bunker Busters should be used on Iran’s nuke program. Pakistan should have a “nuclear work accident”. But that will not happen either.

          If Muslims could read, the Sira and hadith would turn many of them off. But most of them can not read, so it is necessary to dramatize the Sira & hadth, dub them into Arabic, Farsi & Urdu and distribute them globally. At least two screen plays sit on the shelf for lack of courage.

          In the meantime, Obamination Joe Bite Me & Hanoi John should be impeached and replaced.

          Every known ISIS and allied training camp should be carpet bombed with MOAB. . Each of their staging areas and convoyes should be strafed. Not doing that is treason and warrants removal from office & hanging.

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Nov 2, 2015 at 5:07 am

          @dajjal

          First of all, thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my posts.

          I’m well aware that the historical Presidents I mentioned are dead. In case you missed the simile, I was stating that we need a leader with such caliber of leadership abilities.

          I too like Cruz. Whether he can rise to the level of top 5 US Presidents remains to be seen. Of those running, I support him too. But I haven’t heard him describe to us the gravity of the Islamic problem, much less propose a counter-jihad solution to end the problem once and for all.

          If I was running, I wouldn’t play any games, and would come right out and say it now. Ted doesn’t appear to me to be the kind of man who says one thing to get elected, then does whatever he wants afterward. So since he hasn’t recognized the Islamic problem, or described a counter-jihadist strategy, he makes me think he neither sees the problem, nor has a plan to destroy Islam. I hope I’m wrong, because, like you, I believe he’s the best we have right now.

          Regarding your position on the efficacy of nuclear ordnance, I disagree with you. As a USAF pilot and 6 year war vet myself, I’m quite familiar with the capabilities of our weapons and equipment inventory.

          On one hand, you said that although Truman defeated Japan ultimately with 2 nukes, nukes alone won’t defeat 1.3 Billion (actually closer to 1.6 Billion) Muslims. This doesn’t make sense to me. Seems as though the greater the size of our enemy, the more likely our objectives would exceed our conventional capabilities, therefore requiring nukes.

          Then in the next paragraph, you said “nuclear JDAM MOABs should be used against Iran’s nuke program.”

          Nuke JDAM MOABs don’t exist. The MOAB is an extremely heavy, 22,600 lb conventional ordnance weapon, too heavy for a missile, and which must be dropped from a B-52 or B-1.

          The Iranians have studied the limits of our MOAB, and have dug their facilities deeper than the damage a MOAB can produce. So destroying some of the Iranian nuke facilities will require a minimum of a tactical nuke weapon. And those are just the facilities about which we know.

          And as impressive a weapon that the MOAB is, it isn’t useful for “carpet bombing,” as you suggest. To begin with, since it’s so heavy, we’d need an entire USAF Wing of B-1s to conduct such a strike, which is just about every B-1 we have in the inventory. That takes an enormous amount of logistics, and places our entire inventory of very expensive, irreplaceable B-1s at risk, along with our aircrews, all for just one mission. That ‘s just not a good plan.

          Carpet bombing missions are done with Mk-82s most often, and sometimes with JDAM Mk-82s.

          Moreover, the MOAB is a deep penetration weapon, designed to cause an enormous amount of destruction “underground.” So it wouldn’t be effective at all for destroying surface targets, or more importantly, scaring the enemy with the shock and awe affect that a nuclear weapon would. Scaring the enemy quickly into surrender, without exterminating everyone, is the main objective of the campaign.

          The only reason people are reluctant to use nuke weapons is purely a function of propaganda. In reality, it’s just a very large, efficient bomb. The bonus is that it’s a standoff weapon, attached to a missile, and doesn’t require the logistics and risk of sending a US aircraft and aircrew directly over enemy territory to put it on target.

          Here’s a quote from Gen Curtis LeMay, America’s longest serving 4-Star in history, and the father of Strategic Area Bombing, and later the Strategic Air Command. He is the one American credited with ordering the deaths of the most people, over 350,000 enemy soldiers and civilians:

          “I think there are many times when it would be most efficient to use nuclear weapons. However, the public opinion in this country and throughout the world throw up their
          hands in horror when you mention nuclear weapons, just because of the propaganda that’s been fed to them.

          As far as casualties were concerned I think there were more casualties in the first attack on Tokyo with incendiaries than there were with the first use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The fact that it’s done instantaneously, maybe that’s more humane than incendiary attacks, if you can call any war act humane. I don’t, particularly, so to me there wasn’t much difference. A weapon is a weapon and it really doesn’t make much difference how you kill a man. If you have to kill him, well, that’s the evil to start with and how you do it becomes pretty secondary. I think your choice should be which weapon is the most efficient and most likely to get the whole mess over with as early as possible.”

          LeMay also said: “There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn’t bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders. If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.”

          Here’s a quote from our allied friend, Sir Arthur Harris, commander of RAF Bomber Command during WWII:

          “The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naïve theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

          the aim of the Combined Bomber Offensive…should be unambiguously stated [as] the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilised life throughout Germany.

          … the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives, the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale, and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing, are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories.”

          The objective is not to exterminate Muslims, but to extinguish their Islamic ideology. In much the same way the World could live in peace with the Germans once we extinguished Nazism.

          We must begin a Worldwide re-education campaign concurrent with the force. They can’t be reasoned into surrendering Islam without the force. They need to see overwhelming shock & awe, broadcast all over social media. They must be made to feel intellectually and technologically inferior to Allied powers, and realize Allah is never going to save them.

          Nuke weapons are arguably the most humane, since death is instantaneous. Ultimately, it won’t be good enough to just destroy the Iranian nuke production facilities, the Pakistani nuke arsenal, and Raqqa on the Day One. Unfortunately, most Muslim societies will need to experience the wrath directed against their own countrymen, or see it used against a very close neighbor.

          Remember, even while Japan spent several years watching us level every German city, Japan’s aggression remain undeterred until they witnessed their own cities get razed. Why would Muslims in Indonesia be afraid, and surrender Islam just because we destroy some hardware in Iran? Randomness of our targeting will hasten victory, since every Muslim on Earth will believe he and his family could be next.

          Although we take no pleasure in doing so, killing Muslim civilians in this campaign will be necessary. But the objective is to kill just enough of them to force their surrender, and not one soul more. The Japanese and Germans loved their children, and didn’t want them to die. However, Muslims love death more than life, and murder their children. So we must be prepared, and have the stomach to inflict a proportionally higher number of casualties than we did in WWII.

          But hopefully by broadcasting the devastation on social media, we can quickly show the Muslims that defeat is a certainty, convincing them that Worldwide Dar al-Islam was never anything more than a demonic false fantasy, and Allah doesn’t exist.

          We simply don’t have enough gold or military to invade and occupy 50 Muslim countries. The problem is WAY too big for conventional airstrikes and carpet bombing too.

          Visualize the size of Dar al-Islam: It stretches from Indonesia to Morocco, covering most every piece of real estate in between. We must use nuclear weapons to win.

        • dajjal says

          Nov 2, 2015 at 6:12 am

          Given the scope and scale of the task, kinetiuc extermination would require nukes. But the political will is lacking. I doubt that it can be generated.

          An old artillery tube fitted with a suitable hard tip, TNW and guidance system could take out Iran’s centrifuge site.

          I have often stated that Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, KSA & Pakistan should have been vaporized immediately following the accursed abomination. The problem is collateral damage to adjoining nations and indigenous minorities.

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Nov 2, 2015 at 6:48 am

          @dajjal

          Yes, the political will is lacking (right now). Agreed. But that doesn’t mean we just surrender to the enemy and hand over the keys to our country to the Muslims.

          That’s what Presidents are for: To explain to the American people and Capitol Hill what the problem is, and why we need to go all-in for a war campaign.

          I didn’t say we need George Washington. I said we need a leader like George Washington, or lIke Abraham Lincoln, for example.

          Regarding a nuke strategy, please read the strategy I wrote in the following link. I’ve been broadcasting it on Twitter and other venues, with a 95% approval rate. It only takes a few minutes to read.

          I didn’t just pull this out of my ass. This is a strategy for defeating ANY enemy the USAF teaches all Majors and above.

          I plan to add much more detail to it later, when I have more time. Then I’m going to make sure all 536 in DC get it in front of their eyes, in addition to the GOP candidates.

          “Total War: Extinguishing Islam from Earth” @dantriplett

          https://medium.com/@dantriplett/islamic-jihad-is-total-war-for-all-marbles-6c858098b76e

        • dajjal says

          Nov 3, 2015 at 6:41 am

          Of the 16, Santorum knows most about Islam and has least chance of nomination. Our pols are too ignorant, which is why I wrote “Islam 101 For Politicians” but chances of anyof the aspirants reading it are near zero.

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Nov 3, 2015 at 9:35 am

          “Islam 101 For Politicians”

          @dajjal

          Send me the link. I’d like to read it.

        • dajjal says

          Nov 4, 2015 at 1:54 am

          Islam 101 For Politicians is linked in the top frame of my blog.
          http://islamexposed.blogspot.com/p/islam-101-for-politicians.html

          It is large and slow loading ‘cuz numerous large pdf files are embeded.

          Islam 101 For Clergy & Congregants has additional files of interest to Christians. It will load faster ‘cuz the pdf files are linked instead of embedded in it.
          http://islamexposed.blogspot.com/p/islam-101-for-clergy.html

    • KnowThyEnemy says

      Nov 1, 2015 at 3:30 pm

      Great post Daniel, and good observations though I don’t believe that violence should be “the only way” to gain respect. Anyway I would like to add my own observations and realizations here.

      When I first started debating with Muslims years ago, I was pretty sure that showing them the evils of Sharia and Muhammad will get them to ditch Islam. Unfortunately it did not work out that way and needless to say I was perplexed why Muslims could not see what is so apparent to others. I was able to find a few pieces of the puzzle that make up a Muslim’s psychology and I want to list them here.

      1) Loyalty: As most people already know, loyalty is as strong a component in Islam as it is in any other cultish/mafia organization. Muslims are taught that they must be loyal (to Islam and Muhammad) no matter what. So even when they find out that Mu committed ugly deeds, they stick with him because to do otherwise would be disloyal. Loyalty supersedes whatever it is that Muhammad did, no matter how bad!

      2) Islam is winning: When you are member of a group that keeps winning, keeps gaining, and keeps advancing one day after another then it is very hard to dump membership to this group. The alternatives are either join the losing group, or be an orphan. Needless to day, the human psychology is not wired to make people switch from the winning group to the losing group, or dump the winning group and end up be alone.

      But here is the most important thing that I have realized regarding followers of Islam, and unless this is taken into account, it would be impossible to defeat them (psychologically, that is) no matter how hard we try to implement other solutions:

      3) Tawheed (Monotheism): Muslims are taught that monotheism is most important. I recall Muslims debating on Ali Sina’s blog, and Ali giving excellent responses leaving the Muslims with nothing. Occasionally they would say this, “Ok we admit that Muhammad was as horrible as Ali says and that Islamic rules are mean and harsh…..BUT….. Islam teaches belief in **one God** and that is very important.” Muslims consider the trinity (of Christianity) or multiple facets of one God (Hinduism) as a violation of the ONE GOD principle. Monotheism is so important to them that they are willing to dismiss everything else regarding Islam and Muhammad. Put another way, to Muslims Monotheism **supersedes** whatever the degree of Muhammad’s derangement was and whatever the degree of Islam’s cruelty is.

      If we understand these few things regarding Muslims, it becomes easy to understand why Muslims stick to Islam no matter what. Also, this is where we know how we can put dajjal’s response into practice and exorcise Islam out of Muslims. (This is in addition to making ourselves the strong horse.)

      We need to point out to Muslims that even though it is correct that there is only one God, Satan too is one (to count). That is, there are not five or ten Satans out there, there is only ONE Satan. This Satan too demands total loyalty, and is smart/powerful enough to fool 2 billion people into following him! We need to explain to Muslims that even though Islam is strict about making people believe in ONE, it is making them believe in the ONE SATAN, not One God!

      ….. And as dajjal suggested, we need to show Muslims that Mu was demon possessed! THAT is what should make them see! Once again, this is in addition to making ourselves the strong horse.

      • dajjal says

        Nov 1, 2015 at 10:25 pm

        Most Muslims come from honor/shame based cultures. Since Islam conflates the spiritual and temporal, apostasy is treason: it gets one killed. For those living in Dar ul-Islam, that is a powerful deterlent. Apostasy dishonors the family, tribe & Ummah.

        Many Muslims threw shitfits over “Innocence Of Muslims” which exposes Moe and his cult. If they have any morality, showing them the reality of Aisha, Safiyya & Rayhana sould shake their Iman. But they believe that Allah is god, Moe was his messenger, and everything he did has Allah’s sanction. We can only penetrate that shield by exposing Allah.

        https://www.scribd.com/doc/246704147/Islam-is-Demonic
        https://www.scribd.com/doc/266598134/Allah-is-Not-God

        Ibn Sa’d, Ishaq and the two sahih collections contain the facts required. You can find the details in those two files. Now find a dramatic way to present them to Muslims.

        • KnowThyEnemy says

          Nov 2, 2015 at 2:48 am

          “….apostasy is treason: it gets one killed. For those living in Dar ul-Islam, that is a powerful deterent.”
          It certainly is hard to ditch Islam in dar ul-Islam, however Muslims stick to this cult in non-Muslim lands too! Plenty of western Muslims are decently educated, are fairly well aware of Muhammad’s deeds, and have spent time reading through anti-Islamic sites like JW. Also, apostasy is not even remotely as risky in non-Muslim countries as it is in dar ul-Islam (except in the case of women). Why do these Muslims stay in Islam?

          A fairly large number of educated Muslims support Sharia and Jihad. Many have become active jihadis. I can understand that Muslims who know that Islam is false/fiction might stay in Islam because of reasons of loyalty, honor and shame, but why in the world would they become jihadis and put their lives at risk, and why would they risk putting their future generations at risk? The fact that they do, indicates that they actually believe in Islam’s teachings and in Mu’s prophethood! Why would an educated person who has been exposed to anti-Islamic websites actually believe in Islam??

          IMO it is because of a combination of different things but primarily because of Tawheed, as I mentioned earlier. Educated Muslims think that since Islam has managed to retain belief in One God despite Muhammad’s weaknesses and Sharia’s cruelty , it can only be a true religion. This, in combination with other rewards that he receives for remaining a Muslim, keeps him enslaved to Islam.
          ———————-

          I looked through your scribd documents and they are great. Exposing the lord of Islam to be Satan is one of the very important things that we need to do. It does not even matter whether or not we believe in the existence of Satan. What matters is that Muslims do believe in [the existence of] Satan.

          The dramatic way to present them to Muslims is through social media and through posting challenges etc. I did exactly that earlier this year when I posted a challenge on my Google page and contacted Muslims through youtube comments. (Link to challenge page here). Unfortunately I have not gotten a chance to post more challenges so far.

        • dajjal says

          Nov 2, 2015 at 5:51 am

          We both failed to list one of the most important factors: denial. Believers will deny all the evidence we display to them. They will claim mistranslation, inauthenticity and swear that hadith are fake. Denial is their fact shield.

          We must not lose sight of the fact that Believers are heavily invested in Islam. It has been beaten into them throughout their lives and to them it is true. When we deny or revile Allah, we challenge a Muslim’s cherished belief and threaten to shatter his self worth. If Allah is Satan or an impotent idol, the Muslim is transformed into an idol worshipper. Joe Camel can not let that thought cross his mind.

        • KnowThyEnemy says

          Nov 2, 2015 at 1:34 pm

          Well in that case we need to figure out how to get the Muslims out of denial mode. We have hundreds of thousands of psychology graduates who can’t find jobs. We need to elect a President who would put them to work 🙂

      • Daniel Triplett says

        Nov 2, 2015 at 5:51 am

        @KnowThyEnemy

        Thank you also for taking the time to read and respond to my post. I appreciate your thoughts.

        Please refer to the reply I just posted for dajjal above, as most of it is relevant to my reply to you as well.

        Here is what I have to add for you though:

        I disagree with you that violence is unnecessary, and we can simply educate the Muslims into Apostasy if we can explain the psychology, and the finer points of monotheism to them.

        Mainstream Islamic law stipulates detailed regulations for the use of violence, including the use of violence within the family or household, the use of corporal or capital punishment, as well as how and when to wage war.

        Over 75% of the Quran, Hadith, and other Islamic texts are dedicated to violence against non-believers or hypocrites. It’s their go-to solution for just about everything.

        We’re talking about people who murder their own children for honor code violations, or to otherwise martyr them to please Allah. They don’t watch a lot of Dr. Phil, nor would they care what he has to say.

        How many Muslims have you personally reasoned into Apostasy? Probably not many, if any at all. Don’t you think that thousands before you have already tried?

        Thomas Jefferson himself tried to reason with the Imams in North Africa during his Presidency. The President with our highest IQ ever failed with those negotiations, resulting in the Barbary Coast Wars.

        So, for centuries, some very smart people have been trying to peacefully convince the Muslims of the same thing you’re proposing. They have all failed.

        Muhammad orders his adherents to wage violence. Muslims don’t get to pick and choose which verses of the Quran and Sunnah they follow. Jihad is mandatory, as is emulating their extremely violent prophet (the perfect man).

        Islamic texts are chock-full of quotes like this from Muhammad: “I have been made victorious with terror.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220)

        And we could go on, and on, and on with violent passages (directives)…

        Nothing you or I can do will change any of that.

        In any conflict, the rules are determined by the tactics our enemy elects to use. Our enemy elects to use horrific violence, with no regard whatsoever for the Geneva Convention.

        Talk is impotent with them. They settle their scores with violence, even though thousands of intellectual men over the centuries have tried to settle their differences with them through dialogue.

        It just doesn’t work.

        Civilization is at stake here. We just don’t have time anymore to experiment with peaceful measures that are doomed to fail. Not with Iran being within close reach of nukes themselves, promising to use them on us.

        Just look at how big a fool John Kerry is making of himself and the United States, in “reasoning” with the Iranians. How is that working out for us?

        The Iranians are laughing at us as the fools we are. At the same time they’re chanting “Death to America,” and building their nukes as fast as they can.

        Violence is the only answer, by our enemy’s choice, not ours.

        And if we really want to solve the Islamic problem once and for all, we need to go big, on a Biblical scale.

        We owe our children and grandchildren nothing less than a World without Islam. This is our problem and our responsibility, not theirs.

        • dajjal says

          Nov 2, 2015 at 6:22 am

          Its all fantasy football until we elect 536 competent and courageous statesmen who realize there is a war on and know who the enemy is.

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Nov 2, 2015 at 7:00 am

          No, we don’t need 536. We just need one strong POTUS with strategic vision, and a majority of the Legislature.

          Keep in mind, just one-third of the Colonialists supported the Revolution and Gen George Washington.

          One-third was indifferent, choosing not to participate or support either side.

          And the remaining one-third openly supported the King, and opposed the Rebels.

        • dajjal says

          Nov 3, 2015 at 6:29 am

          The war of revoluion predated the constitution. Declarations of war and appropriations for the defense budget require congressional majorities. Breaking filibusters requires 60 senate votes.

          Even Goldwater or Reagan could not win this war without congressional support.

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Nov 3, 2015 at 9:31 am

          “The war of revoluion (sic) predated the constitution. Declarations of war and appropriations for the defense budget require congressional majorities. Breaking filibusters requires 60 senate votes.

          Even Goldwater or Reagan could not win this war without congressional support.”

          @dajjal

          Did I say anything to the contrary? Where exactly do we disagree here?

          Neither you nor nor I are attorneys. If I’m ever POTUS, I’ll be surrounded by a team of accomplished lawyers.

          Obviously, to “Declare War,” a majority of Congress is required. A cursory review of my posts reveals nothing to the contrary.

          But If you’re POTUS, and your Intel guys tell you they’ve picked up SIGINT indicating an Iranian nuke strike within hours, how will you respond? Will you wait for Manhattan to get vaped? Or will you strike first?

          You have the authority to strike pre-emptively. Will you use it, and hammer Iran? Or would you prefer to go through the months-long Congressional War Authority Process?

          I would strike now.

          Therein lies the distinction between a “leader” and a bureaucrat. The safety of the American People is far more important than my reputation or the possible loss of my job.

          Furthermore, Congress has the authority to “Declare War” without the President. During such time of War, if the POTUS refuses to defend us, my understanding is that he can be removed, almost overnight, by Congress and the JCS. This has never been done before, so the details are a bit sketchy, but I’d say now would be as good a time as ever to “press to test” that Congressional authority.

          Iran will have nukes before Obama leaves office. They may be crazy, but they’re not stupid. They’ll launch Armageddon before Caliph Ohammad leaves the WH.

          My guess is that PM Netanyahu will strike Iran at the point in time that his Intel tells him that waiting any longer will result in an Iranian nuke strike against Israel. Bibi is the smartest leader on the planet. He won’t let Iran vape Israel.

          Netanyahu is on record saying that were Israel to go one on one in a conventional war with Iran, Israel could delay the Iranian nuke program by two to three years at most.

          So, even Bibi knows Israel must use nukes to destroy the Iranian threat completely.

          This will all go down before Obama leaves office, IMHO.

          Which begs the question: “What will the US do when Israel strikes Iran?”

          We already know Obama will offer no help whatsoever. So it will come down to the US Congress.

          If it’s post-election 2016 (pre-inauguration), and we know a Republican POTUS has won, then perhaps we just wait for the new President to take charge, and join Israel in the fight.

          But in the nightmare scenario that a Demoncrat, “unwilling to defend America,” wins in NOV 2016, and Israel is in a full-on war with Iran, then we’d better be prepared to use the Constitutional authority of the GOP Congress to usurp the authority of the POTUS, remove him (her) from power, and install someone in the Oval whose willing to defend America and the Free World.

        • dajjal says

          Nov 4, 2015 at 1:47 am

          If Iran nukes up prior to 1/1/17, we are up excrement creek. If Iran nukes up on the watch of a ‘crat or RINO, we are up excrement creek.

          If Bibi does Iran in the meantime, Obamination will probably try to interfere on the side of Iran if he learns about it in time. He is obligated to do so under the accursed deal.

          If Bibi does Iran after Jan. 20 ’17, either likely ‘crat president would condemn the attack and side with the enemy in the Security Council. I expect Christie, Weed, Graham, Pataki, Paul, Fiorina & Rubio would likely emulate the ‘crats. Santorum, Jindal, Carson and Cruz would more likely side with Israel. Trump is a wild card, the Joker of the deck.

          When the crap hits the fan, a good President is essentially necessary. In the non emergency situation, a good congress is needed to ratify his decisions.

          If we had a competent President & congress in 1979, we would not be in this fix.

          the use of fission weaponry is viewed as extreme, indiscriminate & inhumane and widely condemned. Israel would be a pariah and suject to international sanctions if not retaliation if she launched Jericho missiles on Iran. Surface blasts would not destroy the centrifuges or assembly plants. That woud require nuclear bunker busters. No doubt their uset would be condemned too.

          It is probably best not to speculate publicly on alternative tactics and weapons to be used against Iran.

          Before anything effective is done, political will must be ginned up. We need a President who, instead of “Islam is a great religion of peace.” & “tiny minority of violent extremists” will say: “Islam is perpetual war.” and exhibit evidence to prove it.

          We need a President who, instead of condemning “Innocence Of Muslims”, will encourage and promote production and distribution of a docudrama based on the sunnah.

          We need preachers who, instad of blathering about “interreligious dialog” , will read Surah At-Taubah from the pulpet and explain its meaning, confirming it with relevant ahadith.

          In the worst case, we do not have enough time. In the best case, we needed to get started more than a decade ago,.

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Nov 4, 2015 at 5:29 am

          @dajjal

          Your Islam Exposed blog is impressive. You really put some work into that. I envy your computer skills. I’m far less literate than you in website design and computer skills.

          I’ll probably do a video. Easier for me to understand. I’ll try to keep it under 7 minutes, to keep people’s attention. The shorter the better. I’ll throw in some visuals too. No one wants to watch a 30 minute video of someone rambling on and on.

          I have figured out how to use “Medium,” at medium.com to my benefit. It’s like Twitter, but without character limits. It also links in real well with Twitter.

          I agree with most of what you say in the post above here, with minor exceptions.

          Agreed: Publicly discussing weapons parameters and effectiveness against certain Iranian targets isn’t wise.

          Regarding defending Iran against Israel, as a condition of this foolish nuke deal, as a war vet myself, and knowing thousands of others, we’d resign or go to jail before we’d attack Israel. And there’s just not enough jail space or public support to throw hundreds of thousands of US Military officers in jail for refusing to attack an ally.

          I still think Congress should declare war now, whether it be against ISIS, Iran, or Islam altogether. ISIS and Iran (Muslims altogether really) have already declared war on us, so we may as well get with the program. Then when POTUS refuses to defend us during a “Declared” war, Congress and the JCS could legally depose him. Again, I don’t know the legal details of how that works, but I’ve seen large discussions between legal scholars about this subject online, and they believed such a strategy is possible.

          You’re right, we should’ve countered the Islamic threat decades ago.

          Now it’s late in the 11th hour though, and we just don’t have many options left. The problem has reached Biblical proportions. This won’t be solved conventionally.

          Yes, the propaganda campaign against the use of nuclear weapons has been quite successful over the decades. But if the choice is between Worldwide Dar al-Islam, or using 10 – 15 nuke weapons, the choice is obvious. We have no choice other than to use the nukes. We have the nuke weapon advantage now, but we won’t pretty soon, so we must act while we still have the advantage.

          If explained well to the American People, and with an Alliance with the other nuke armed states (sans Pakistan), I believe generating the political will for a six week nuclear campaign is more likely than the will for a 30 year conventional war, that we can’t afford or logistically execute anyway, and which would likely fail in the end.

          Let me put it this way: Trinity, the first atomic weapon test, was on 16 JUL 1945. The Hiroshima strike was less than 3 weeks later on 6 August.

          If our grandfathers had atomic weapons on 7 DEC 1941, do you think they would’ve waited 3 1/2 years, sacrificing 408,900 of our finest, bravest Americans before using them? Of course not. They weren’t stupid.

          We’re the ones who are stupid. We apparently think we’re intellectually and morally superior to our grandfathers. But they won, and we are losing…BIG TIME.

          PM Netanyahu is even more in tune with this dilemma. If it’s a choice between the Jericho or Jewish extinction, the decision will be easy for this war experienced wise leader.

          A President with strategic vision, and who has a firm grasp on reality, and has large balls will no doubt see that using Incremental Random Strategic Area Bombing is the only answer.

          “Incremental,” to minimize enemy casualties, collateral damage, and radioactive fallout; as well as giving the enemy time to rethink their loyalties to Satan.

          And “Random,” such that no one knows where to hide, convincing every Muslim on the planet he and his family could be next.

          We don’t know everything about Iran’s program. And, as Rumsfeld would say, we don’t even know what we don’t know. We can’t afford to be conservative with our attack strategy, then pay the price if we’re wrong by watching NYC or Houston or Los Angeles get converted to glass.

          As I said, Netanyahu knows a conventional plan won’t work. Not without a whole lot of help. And how many heavily armed nations do you see lining up to help Israel?

          Plus, we’re just talking about Iran here, which is the MOST important threat now because of their nuke program. The next two most important threats are ISIS, because of the massive hijrah and genocide problem they’re causing, and Pakistan, because they already have a nuke arsenal, ripe for use, or for sale, or for robbery.

          But the Islamic problem extends WAY beyond Iran, ISIS, and Pakistan. Dar al-Islam stretches from Indonesia to Morocco. That is a LOT of territory, full of people who want us dead. Plus, all the Muslims within non-Muslim borders already.

          This problem requires an unprecedented solution, both in size and scope. Islam altogether must end. We need a President who recognizes this.

          It’s not good enough just to take out Iran’s nukes and destroy ISIS. It’s just a matter of time before another Muslim group under some other name figures out how to build, buy, or steal nukes. Whether it be 1 year, 10 years, or 100 years, it will happen. We can’t keep passing the buck to the next generation. That may have worked for the last 1400 years, but it won’t work anymore. The stakes are too high to ignore.

        • dajjal says

          Nov 4, 2015 at 9:10 pm

          Botom line: in the age of WMD, the existence of Islam is impossible to tolerate. It must be brought to an end.

          Destruction of Iman remains the most potent non-kinetic strategy available.

          Video: screen shot of Allah’s promises of irreversible victory with voice over. Montage of serial defeats by Israel. Six week campaign, domestic and foreign, including social media distro.

          Kinetic: Hellfire takes out Baghdadi. Two A10s strafe his funeral procession. Subsequent funeral processions, too. Follow up video: where is Allah to protect you? Where are the angels he promised to send? Graphic scenes of the funeral procession being strafed.

          Kinetic: simultaneous Daisy Cutter attacks on all known ISIS & Al-Qaeda training camps and staging areas in the Levant. Apachies to strafe survivors and resulting funeral processions. Follow up Video: graphic scenes of exploding DC’s and strafings. Silence except for loud “Allahu Skatta” at the end.

          Disclosure: the redacted chapter of the 6/11 Report fully revealed, without redactions. Let the chips fall where they may.

          Kinetic: wherever the Muslim mobs march, A10s visit with cannons overheating.
          Video: animation based on Koranic descriptions of Jannah. 60′ houris gorging on grapes, wine, etc while being porked by shaheed with perpetual priapism. X rated, of cuss. See the houris become fat and engorged with unreleived excrement. See them explode. Gross, gory thought experiment exposing the impossibility of Allah’s reward for shaheed.

          Video: documentary of how Moe got his revelations, from Koran & sunnah with dramatization of his epileptic seizures and hallucinations beginning with the cave of Hira. Include dramatization of his telling Aisha that he has an attachment of devils. Include dramatized delivery of ahadith about bells and his receiving revelations through them.

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Nov 5, 2015 at 2:13 am

          @dajjal

          Thanks for your excellent suggestions on ideas I could use for the jihad problem, and the counter-jihad solution video I hope to finalize soon, broadcasting regularly on Twitter, Medium, PamelaGeller.com, and particularly to the 536 in DC.

          You’re quite creative, and it shows.

          ____________________________

          “Botom (sic) line: in the age of WMD, the existence of Islam is impossible to tolerate. It must be brought to an end.”

          Agreed. And if non-kinetic forms of Allied confrontation are our only option, your ideas are sound, and could be effective to a degree.

          The thing is, people in earnest have been trying various forms of non-kinetic strategies already, for centuries, and today, the Islamic problem has never been worse.

          As I’ve said previously, bombs dropped off target don’t scare people. They just breathe a sigh of relief. But nuclear bombs dropped on neighboring cities or countries scare the demons out of people, especially if they know they themselves are included on the target list.

          From 1942 through March 1945, Japan watched us completely destroy every major German city. They knew we had the capability to do so, and they saw plenty of Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) photos which clearly showed the deadly results of German resistance to the Allies. They saw from the BDA photos what was in store for them as soon as our bombers got within range of Japan. They knew they had no weapons or aircraft of their own to retaliate with such destruction.

          Did our devastation of Germany stop Japan or deter their aggression at all?

          No.

          Not until we took the Marianas and began our own bombing raids on Japanese cities in spring 1945 did they start to worry, even beginning kamikaze strikes on our Battlegroups. By the time we began the Incremental Strategic Area Bombing of Japan, we had already defeated Germany, and Japan was doomed. It was just a matter of how much destruction they were willing to endure to break their will to fight.

          Why would Muslims in Indonesia or Chad be scared into surrendering Islam and criminalizing its practice just because we destroy some hardware in Iran?

          They wouldn’t.

          The Muslims have already seen plenty of Heads up Display (HUD) video of us destroying thousands of Islamic tactical targets with airstrikes. They know what kind of conventional damage we can do. They even heard the story about how we raided their patriarch bin-Laden’s compound, using the classic “Mozambique Technique” to liberate his demonic soul to Hell. Did any of that slow them down?

          Hardly.

          The Muslims have seen all kinds of literature from counter-jihadists like Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, David Wood, and many others explaining the fiction of Islam, Allah, and Muhammad. They’ve explained all the atrocities that Muhammad committed, from pedophilia, to rape, to mass murder, to robbery, the self-indulgent lying, to the Satanic nature of his “revelations,” etc.

          None of this matters to Muslims. If Robert Spencer can’t convince Muslims they are the victims of the most massive hoax in human history, who else can? You? Me?

          I don’t think so.

          How much time do you think we have to attempt non-kinetic, conventional solutions, knowing that Iran is months, or perhaps weeks away from possessing the capacity to nuke us? Many Intel analysts believe Iran already has at least one bomb. But they’re just waiting to amass dozens of them and perfect their ICBM technology before launching Armageddon.

          If Israel alone strikes with nukes, and/or if the US joins them with such weapon attacks, the International outcry would be significant, as you’ve said.

          But really, who cares what the UN and the World thinks about us? What’s more important, maintaining our reputation as peaceful (Useful Idiots), or defending ourselves and our existence by whatever means necessary?

          Besides, if we’re able to ally with Israel, UK, France, India, China, and Russia, then any such World repudiation would be meaningless. The people with the nukes call the shots in the World. The nuke club is highly exclusive. The nations in the club must ensure no one else gains entry. Pakistan must be 86d from the club ASAP.

          In WWIII, individual non-Muslim states must decide if they’re with us or against us, and by “us,” I mean the Allies just mentioned. I don’t believe we’ll face any World condemnation anyway. I believe most nations will be clamoring to join the strong horse (the horse ‘coalition’ with the power to exterminate anyone at will). And who cares what anyone else thinks anyway when our survival is on the line?

        • dajjal says

          Nov 5, 2015 at 2:45 am

          Our threat analysis is not widely shared. China knows, but does not trust us enough to form an aliance. Russia is too heavily invested in Iran & Syria. Our own politicl elites are too heavily invested in KSA and the Emirates.

          Barring a miracle, kinetic action will not take place unless Israel deals with Iran. That is our only hope at present. It might buy enough time to get a psywar campaign prepared, if the political will existed, which it does not.

          Too little, too late.

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Nov 5, 2015 at 12:23 pm

          @dajjal

          What we need, but don’t have, is a POTUS, SECSTATE, & SECDEF who can see the World 10 years from now, and who wish to ensure America has a stake in its evolution and result.

          Back in 1935, a couple of guys like you and I postulating how the World would look in 10 years would likely have been quite surprised by the way the World actually did look in 1945.

          Who would have had the vision to see Europe and E/SE Asia succumb to tyrannical powers?

          Who would have imagined the extent of American involvement? Until the morning of 7 DEC 1941, most Americans were in denial and indifferent to the World collapsing around them.

          Who would have imagined we’d ally with Stalin, arguably the most evil man who ever lived, exterminating 20,000,000 of his own people alone?

          Who would have guessed the Soviet bloc would nearly double in size, with our alliance turning into a four decades long bitter, and often frightening Cold War?

          Who would have seen the massive Global conflict between Communism & Freedom? A conflict causing America to spend most of its defense money to win, and which would start two more bloody and costly wars in Korea and Vietnam.

          Who would imagine we’d one day have a man named Reagan with a strategic vision, whom would make his life’s mission defeating Communism? Then do it.

          In 1935, even though guys like you and I couldn’t see all of that happening, perhaps one man could: FDR.

          Americans didn’t even start to get a whiff of that vision until his “A day that will live in infamy” speech, and his Fireside Chats.

          Although FDR had his faults, and not every domestic decision he made was brilliant, we must give him great credit for his strategic vision. The man knew how to win wars and shape the World. And the Manhattan Project never would’ve happened without him, a project unknown even to Truman until two weeks before Trinity.

          Obama is no FDR.

          Since it’s been so long since we’ve had a brilliant POTUS with strategic vision, who loves America, and recognizes our greatness and unique leadership role in the World, it may be hard for Americans to have the confidence and esteem to see America as the World’s last great hope. It’s been a long time since Reagan was in charge. Most Millennials weren’t even alive.

          But that’s what we’re missing now. A leader who loves America, and believes in everything for which America stands. A leader who capitalizes on the remaining leverage we have left, to shape the World into an enduring legacy.

          As every empire has learned, from Greece, to Rome, to Spain, to Great Britain, to the Soviet Union, and now America, the “time in the sun” doesn’t last forever.

          The question becomes, what will we do with our time in the sun? Will we leave fear, despair, and hopelessness in our wake, as the Soviets did? Or will we make the World a better place, as the British did?

          So what will America do with our remaining time in the sun? Because it won’t last forever, and Obama is pissing it all away, suppressing American influence, doing everything he can to hasten the setting sun.

          The reason the Russians and Chinese don’t fear, respect, or trust America is because of Obama.

          We need leadership that can sit down with Russia and China to plan for a World without Islam, leveraging our combined military and nuclear authority to make it happen.

          The alternative is to just lay back, do and say nothing, stuff our pie-holes with Doritos, while the World implodes, with Russia and China grabbing everything they can, in a World that will eventually belong to the Muslims inside of 100 years (likely sooner).

          Neither the Russians nor Chinese like Islam any better than we do. But they know, as we know, that unless we all join together to end Islam, nothing will. They see no will at all on our end, and in fact only see a Muslim in our White House, whom Americans elected, who is facilitating the jihad and hijrah.

          So can we blame Putin and China for doing what they’re doing? Of course not. Putin is doing what he can to help and strengthen his motherland. As much as he possibly can, he wants to influence the evolution of the ME, and ensure Russia has a military and economic stake in it.

          I believe Putin would stab the Ayatollah in the back if we’d just hand him the knife, and give him the right incentive. Let’s let him annex Iran and its resources for Russia, in exchange for him helping us criminalize Islam and destroying the Iranian leadership.

          Putin would love to expand the Russian empire. Any superficial loyalty he may feel toward Iran would be squelched by the opportunity to have all that strategic, oil-rich, warm water access territory for himself. It’s a win-win for both of us. He gets Iran, and Israel and we get those crazy Iranian death-wish Muslims off our backs. Much better for Russia, or any non-Muslims for that matter, to control the ME rather than Muslims who want us dead.

          Similarly, in exchange for an Alliance to force Worldwide criminalization of Islam, we offer the Chinese a stake in the post-Islamic World with the right incentives. My goodness, they want more territory so badly that they’re building their own islands in the ocean from scratch, at enormous expense (a very smart move).

          This is all possible with the right American leadership. You can either elect me President, and I’ll do it, or we can try to find and elect a man who will.

        • dajjal says

          Nov 6, 2015 at 1:36 am

          Delaying until next November will be fatal. If we let the GOP nominate another RINO to run another pussilanimous campaign, Hitlary will be coronated with catastrophic consequences.

          Someone must prevail upon Senator Ted Cruz to nationalize the election with a new contract with America. He must seize the day by early announcement of his VP & cabinet picks and a full slate to replace house and senate RINOS.

          We need to educate our candidates and fellow voters so that the nomination will not go to the likes of Christie, Bush, Graham or Pataki.

        • Daniel Triplett says

          Nov 7, 2015 at 10:45 am

          @dajjal

          That’s a great idea. I’m mostly concerned with Rubio, Carson, and Trump. All of whom I’d vote in the General, of course, but none of whom I’d prefer.

          I bought Ted Cruz’s book, and am trying to find the time to go through it and really try to pin down his position on Islam.

          I haven’t seen anything in there yet where he just comes right out and says it, “Islam must end, ” like he has with Obamacare and other matters. But he does speak extensively on Iran and ISIS, openly hostile to them, and very supportive of Israel. He and Bibi have met. A trip to Israel was the first thing he did after he took office, and you can see in the eyes of both of them when they shake hands in pics, looking at each other that they share a deep admiration, trust, and respect.

          Ted and I follow each other on Twitter. The significance of that is that we can send Direct Messages to each other that no one else can see. I’m hoping to get in his ear for about 30 minuteso soon.

          I’ve been collecting essays that I’ve written myself, along with some works from others. I just need to condense 120 pages down to about 4. Then I’ll be prepared to speak with him.

          But I think you’re absolutely right about not being able to wait until November. And I’m pretty sure Bibi Netanyahu would agree. It’s pretty easy to speak with Bibi too on Twitter. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen his Twitter account, but it’s absolutely horrifying to see the amount of anti-Semitism/anti-Israel hostility directed to that fine man publicly on Twitter.

          About 95% of the Tweets written to him are hostile. So when someone like you or I write to him, particularly as a Westerner/American, I’m guessing he takes notice. Particularly since Obama is so hostile toward him, the Israelis really appreciate when we show them support on their Prime Minister’s public Twitter account. They write me back to tell me.

          Stay strong Brother.

        • dajjal says

          Nov 8, 2015 at 12:57 am

          While I am bothered by Senator Cruz’s use of the R word, I intend to vote for him March 5. I do not trust Trump. Rubio turns me off with his wet Back policies. Carfson’s advisor who admires Calypso Louis turns me off. Perhaps you can prevail upon Ted to drop the R word and tackle Islam head on.

  45. Jeremiah says

    Nov 1, 2015 at 2:20 am

    Its fair to say that Donald Trump is not that serious about religion. He doesn’t understand Presbyterianism, Adventism or any part of Christianity. Therefore it is not surprising he cannot understand the opposite – Islam. He actually does understand that you need to know your enemy. He therefore disqualifies himself. Keep reading Donald. You may get there but stop faking it for now.

  46. harbidoll says

    Nov 1, 2015 at 6:59 am

    He saves all his venom for Latinos, but Muslims? List what hes said bout them & sharia please- I don’t have a list but would like to. Ive heard a LOT bout the Latinos! who happen to be mostly Christian & seek mostly to assimilate.

  47. harbidoll says

    Nov 1, 2015 at 7:05 am

    Also not many Latinos in the Trillionairs club. The $audis also control the Media. So Ur saying “trust him hes really anti-sharia (banking)”. & after he wins there will be no deals he owes or has to pay back, right? Remember Christy?

  48. Dj says

    Nov 1, 2015 at 10:47 am

    It sounded like Trump was making fun of the women who are wearing burqas. It was his attempt at humor.

  49. EventHorizon says

    Nov 5, 2015 at 12:20 pm

    “You’re really scrapping the bottom of the barrel, aren’t you?”
    You feel compelled to associate your perverted fantasies with our discussion. Who’s scrapping the “bottom of the barrel”?

    “Not your website, not your call.”
    I didn’t say it was my call. Just an observation. I’ve never seem anyone else here stoop to your level. Sexually explicit comments do not belong here. You don’t belong here. Get it? Plus you’re dumb as a rock.

    “Because you presented your fanfic as the reason of Robert’s criticism of Trump’s stance on islam. It’s simple, really.”
    Here is where you really expose yourself. Spencer says Trump supports Sharia. I provide a list of quotes supporting why it is not reasonable to conclude that Trumps supports Sharia. I say he has a personal reason for saying that(defending Geller) as an explanation. If you can’t understand that, there is something wrong with you.

    “crouch over keyboard – engage brain – read posts – use comprehension to gain understanding of the words contained within said posts – digest and process information – respond accordingly”

    Again, you can’t defend yourself. You don’t say anything. You just want to pretend that you’re making sense. If only I had read the post that I quoted to you we’d agree you are right. Get off the glue. You’ve never even mentioned the specific quote after Garland to which you are referring . Or said a word about why that quote would prove my position false. It’s like you’re retarded or something. Maybe you should stop embarrassing yourself.

    “Mr. Spencer explained clearly the reasons of his stance on Trump”
    Ah, now I get it. It’s a bow to authority. Spencer said it so it must be right. You obviously can’t explain it for yourself, but that’s okay with you. See what happens when you let someone else do your thinking for you.

    “And he backpedaled and admitted he had no idea if he could close down mosques or not, didn’t he?”
    Finally you actually respond to one of those points I had to walk you through; albeit with a question. The answer is no, he did not backpedal. When told he couldn’t do that, he said “You’re going to have to certainly look at it.” Again, breaking ground. Of course he meets resistance, but he did make his point.

    So, if your actually going to defend your position that Trump supports Sharia, why stop there? Read my list of quotes(that you thought were meaningless) and give it a shot. Good luck.

    “Again, you’re free to spit-shine Trump’s genitalia”
    So you insist in sharing your perversion here at JW. Does it help make you feel better? You just want to spread your disease, right? This is not the place to discuss your homosexual thoughts. Get treatment.

    • Angemon says

      Nov 5, 2015 at 5:11 pm

      EventHorizon posted:

      “You feel compelled to associate your perverted fantasies with our discussion. Who’s scrapping the “bottom of the barrel”?”

      Well, you. Was I not clear enough?

      “I didn’t say it was my call.”

      And I didn’t say you said it was, did I? Don’t you get tired of replying to things that weren’t said?

      “You don’t belong here.”

      Again, not your website, not your call. Sheesh, it’s like we haven’t just gone through this. You’re really dense, aren’t you?

      “Here is where you really expose yourself. Spencer says Trump supports Sharia. I provide a list of quotes supporting why it is not reasonable to conclude that Trumps supports Sharia. ”

      No, this is where you expose your shallowness. You don’t counter Spencer’s reasons to state that Trump supports sharia. Hence why you accused Mr. Spencer of doing it for money, or being under Mrs. Geller leash. You still haven’t given anything to support that nonsense of yours, hence why you’re quick to insult – gotta draw attention away from your falsehoods, and what better way to do so than slide down to an insult fest?

      “Again, you can’t defend yourself. You don’t say anything. You just want to pretend that you’re making sense. ”

      Projection, thy name is EventHorizon!

      “You’ve never even mentioned the specific quote after Garland to which you are referring.”

      Should I have to? You stated you’ve read what Mr. Spencer wrote.

      “Or said a word about why that quote would prove my position false.”

      Your position is that Mr. Spencer criticized Trump for money or because he’s under Mrs. Geller leash. You have not given anything at all to back it up. And you won0t find any support for it in Mr. Spencer’s words.

      “Ah, now I get it. It’s a bow to authority. Spencer said it so it must be right. ”

      God, you ARE dumb. Dumb as a bag of potatoes. No, scratch that, potatoes are Nobel Prize winners compared to you. Spencer made his stance clear. You accused him of doing it for money. You did not rebut what he wrote, you simply flung crap, like a monkey with its feces. The only one bowing to authority here is you, to Trump.

      “The answer is no, he did not backpedal. ”

      He did.

      “When told he couldn’t do that, he said “You’re going to have to certainly look at it.” Again, breaking ground. Of course he meets resistance, but he did make his point.”

      No, when asked if he could do that he said “Well, I don’t know.“. Saint Trump ran his mouth without thinking and, when confronted, he backpedaled. You had to go and edit and re-write Trump’s response to pretend otherwise. There’s a name for that. It’s called “being wrong”, and it’s even more evidence that you’re a liar, probably for hire.

      “So, if your actually going to defend your position that Trump supports Sharia, why stop there? Read my list of quotes(that you thought were meaningless) and give it a shot. Good luck.”

      Let’s see what Trump said about the Garland exhibit:

      I watched Pam earlier, and it really looks like she’s just taunting everybody. What is she doing drawing Muhammad? I mean it’s disgusting. Isn’t there something else they could be doing? Drawing Muhammad? They can’t do something else?

      Trump is one of them but-heads: “I believe in free speech, but drawing muhammad is just wrong”. “I believe in freedom of expression, but not when it insults muslims”. And he’s groveling under sharia. Savvy businessman as he is, Trump didn’t make his fortune by taking a a set of principles and adhering to them scrupulously. Feel free to blow Trump’s trumpet as hard as you wish, or fling crap and insults to those better than you, it’s not going to change a damn thing – Trump is just as sharia compliant as he was when he decried the drawing of muhammad. And you should know this because you had to lie to pretend otherwise.

      • EventHorizon says

        Nov 6, 2015 at 12:15 pm

        ““You feel compelled to associate your perverted fantasies with our discussion. Who’s scrapping the “bottom of the barrel”?””
        “Well, you. Was I not clear enough?”

        Another childish response. You can’t justify talking about gay sex on JW, so you just pretend you don’t understand my point. Oh wait, it’s normal for you. Well, not for me. Keep it to yourself.

        “And I didn’t say you said it was, did I? Don’t you get tired of replying to things that weren’t said?”
        Why would you state the obvious by saying it’s not my call? Of course it’s not my call. Looks like you’re still working on it anyway. Let me know if you ever figure it out.

        “Sexually explicit comments do not belong here. You don’t belong here. Get it? ”
        You did not agree, I tried explaining it to you. Try reading the above a few times every morning and every night. Eventually you might get it.

        “No, this is where you expose your shallowness. You don’t counter Spencer’s reasons to state that Trump supports sharia.”

        Even after walking you through five points that I used specifically to counter Spencer’s reasons for Trump supporting Sharia, you’re still lost. You said “what points?”. I had to explain every point to you. That wasn’t enough for you. How much help do you need? Do you have a drug problem?

        1)”Trump is an immigration reform trailblazer” Is that true? Yes. Does that sound like something that would be good for Sharia in America? No. That is a point.

        2)”He wants a wall” Would that make it easier for Muslims to infest America and impose Sharia? No. That is another point.

        3)”He said the refugee crisis may be the “biggest Trojan Horse ever” Does identifying the potential strategy of this mortal enemy sound Sharia compliant to you? What if a few “Trumps” had been running Sweden or France over the last 20 years? Would you see much Sharia over there? Let me guess, you don’t see the point.

        4)”He said he’d SEND BACK all admitted Syrian refugees” Now we’re really getting somewhere. Maybe you’re mad because that would defend against Islamic tyranny. Too bad. If you don’t see my point here, I can’t help you.

        5)”start CLOSING DOWN problem Mosques(Hmmm, I frink he like Sharia, NEE hee)”

        Whatever is wrong with you is unfortunate, get help. Mental issues are real issues. You should try and face them.

        ““You’ve never even mentioned the specific quote after Garland to which you are referring.””
        “Should I have to? You stated you’ve read what Mr. Spencer wrote.”

        What part of specific don’t you understand? You don’t even know to what you are referring. You can’t even provide the quote. Yet, you’re still talking. Try defending your position or ask someone here for help. It seems like I’m dealing with a child.

        ““Or said a word about why that quote would prove my position false.””
        “Your position is that Mr. Spencer criticized Trump for money or because he’s under Mrs. Geller leash. You have not given anything at all to back it up. And you won0t find any support for it in Mr. Spencer’s words.”

        And still not a word about WHY that quote would prove my position false. There is something wrong with you and you need to think about what you are saying. I provided five reasons why it is not reasonable to state that Trump supports Sharia. Because you are incapable of being a big boy and replying to them, you keep pretending they don’t exist.

        ““Ah, now I get it. It’s a bow to authority. Spencer said it so it must be right. ””
        “God, you ARE dumb. Dumb as a bag of potatoes. No, scratch that, potatoes are Nobel Prize winners compared to you. Spencer made his stance clear. You accused him of doing it for money. You did not rebut what he wrote, you simply flung crap, like a monkey with its feces. The only one bowing to authority here is you, to Trump.”

        You still can’t explain it for yourself. You just hide. “Spencer made his stance clear” Is that all you have to say? Spencer said this. Spencer said that. That is a bow to authority. Again, too complicated for you.

        If you think some guy for shutting down Mosques is for Sharia, I can’t help you. He said “I don’t know” when asked if he could do it(based on religious freedom). Fine, he does’t know. Sounds like he’ll try. “You’re going to have to certainly look at it.” is what he said next. Again you need help with basic comprehension. I feel like I should be getting paid at this point.

        “I watched Pam earlier, and it really looks like she’s just taunting everybody. What is she doing drawing Muhammad? I mean it’s disgusting. Isn’t there something else they could be doing? Drawing Muhammad? They can’t do something else?”

        He saw it as a provocation. Is that so hard to understand? Does it mean he supports Sharia? No. Did he know much about Sharia at that moment? Who knows. Do his latter comments indicate support for Sharia? No. Clearly the opposite. Explain that.

        You seem to be having a hard time reading my supportive evidence for Trump not supporting Sharia. Walking you through them wasn’t enough. You still say I provided no such support. If numbering them 1-5 was not enough, not sure what else can be done. You need to respond to them. Before next time, have someone read them to you. And remember, no more thinking about gay sex while replying to me. You’ll just have to wait ’till after you hit “post comment”.

        • Angemon says

          Nov 6, 2015 at 1:44 pm

          EventHorizon posted:

          “Another childish response.”

          It was appropriate for a childish question.

          “Why would you state the obvious by saying it’s not my call? ”

          Because you didn’t get it the first time.

          “Even after walking you through five points that I used specifically to counter Spencer’s reasons for Trump supporting Sharia, you’re still lost. ”

          Except that they don’t. My guess is that you’re so busy blowing Saint Trump’s trumpet that you can’t figure out the obvious.

          1 – Those 5 points don’t counter what Mr. Spencer wrote about Trump complying to sharia by decrying the Garland exhibit.

          2 – None of those points prevents sharia from being enforced in the US.

          “1)”Trump is an immigration reform trailblazer” Is that true? Yes. Does that sound like something that would be good for Sharia in America? No. That is a point.”

          What does that mean to native American citizens pushing for sharia? Nothing, that’s what.

          “2)”He wants a wall” Would that make it easier for Muslims to infest America and impose Sharia? No. That is another point.”

          Yes, I’m sure the muslims coming in can’t figure out how to get past – or around – the wall. But, again, what does that mean to muslims in the US pushing for sharia? Nothing, that’s what – they are free to carry on, and Trump helps them when he decries events like the Garland exhibit.

          “3)”He said the refugee crisis may be the “biggest Trojan Horse ever” Does identifying the potential strategy of this mortal enemy sound Sharia compliant to you? ”

          Pffffttt. “Potential strategy”? Buddy, you’re living in the past – the strategy has been identified. Remember the documents brought up to light in the Holy Land Foundation trial? About using Western laws to push for sharia? “Destroy it by their hands”? What does preventing immigrants from coming is means for it? Nothing, that’s what.

          “4)”He said he’d SEND BACK all admitted Syrian refugees” Now we’re really getting somewhere. ”

          Not for dealing with the native American muslims pushing for sharia.

          “5)”start CLOSING DOWN problem Mosques(Hmmm, I frink he like Sharia, NEE hee)””

          When asked about if he could do that, Trump backpedaled.

          Again, none of those points counter what Robert Spencer wrote about Trump’s sharia compliance. You may refuse to accept reality, but reality won’t change for you.

          Also, it’s funny that nowhere in there Trump mentions sharia – I guess he’s so much against sharia that he won’t even name it?

          “What part of specific don’t you understand? You don’t even know to what you are referring. You can’t even provide the quote.”

          Ah, so you *don’t* know what Mr. Spencer wrote and you’re just shoehorning random points here hoping that they’re relevant. Which they’re not.

          “And still not a word about WHY that quote would prove my position false. ”

          What there isn’t is evidence that it’s true. And since burden of proof is on you…

          “There is something wrong with you and you need to think about what you are saying. I provided five reasons why it is not reasonable to state that Trump supports Sharia. ”

          No, you provided 4 points that prove Trump is against immigration and one that shows that he has no clue about what he can do or not. Adding “Yep, this sounds like anti-sharia to me” doesn’t make it anti-sharia. But feel free to blow Trump’s trumpet all the same – it’s clear you’re ill-equipped to handle facts.

          “If you think some guy for shutting down Mosques is for Sharia, I can’t help you. He said “I don’t know” when asked if he could do it(based on religious freedom). Fine, he does’t know. ”

          And you lied to pretend he said otherwise. Ergo, you’re a liar.

          “He saw it as a provocation. Is that so hard to understand? Does it mean he supports Sharia? No.”

          He certainly doesn’t support freedom of speech, and he’s for sharia restrictions – had Trump had his way, the Garland exhibit wouldn’t have taken place because it would “offend” or “provoke” muslims – ergo, sharia compliance.

          “ Did he know much about Sharia at that moment? Who knows. Do his latter comments indicate support for Sharia? No.”

          Did Trump said that sharia law and the American constitution are incompatible? Or is the lowly trumpet blower seeing things where they don’t exist?

          “You seem to be having a hard time reading my supportive evidence for Trump not supporting Sharia. ”

          You mean, your magical thinking that being against immigration is the same as not supporting sharia, despite meaning nothing when it comes to stop the push for Sharia from groups like CAIR?

          “Walking you through them wasn’t enough. You still say I provided no such support. ”

          Which you didn’t. You still have yet to provide evidence for the assertion you made regarding Mr. Spencer’s stance on Trump. That you had to be explained how you’re wrong and that your red-herrings are red-herrings is proof that you’re not fit to discuss the colour of grass, let alone other people’s intentions. But, of course, that will not prevent you from further displaying your ignorance. Feel free to carry on blowing Saint Trump’s trumpet.

        • EventHorizon says

          Nov 7, 2015 at 1:57 pm

          ““You feel compelled to associate your perverted fantasies with our discussion. Who’s scrapping the “bottom of the barrel”?””
          ““Another childish response.””
          “It was appropriate for a childish question.”

          I guess the “bottom of the barrel” has become home for you, enjoy.

          ““Why would you state the obvious by saying it’s not my call? ””
          “Because you didn’t get it the first time.”

          That is what you said the first time. Go back are read the post. You keep wasting my time with your idiocy.

          “1 – Those 5 points don’t counter what Mr. Spencer wrote about Trump complying to sharia by decrying the Garland exhibit.

          2 – None of those points prevents sharia from being enforced in the US.”

          Okay, so a week later you’re finally going to try and respond to what I said. You’re a little slow it seems, but at least you’re starting to listen. This exchange is probably a good exercise for you.

          Let’s look at 1 first. Uh oh, looks like you don’t even know that the above article is the one to which we are responding. Very disappointing(even for you). This type of comprehension failure is linked to habitual drug use and various types of brain damage.

          If Trump had never said another word related to Islam after Garland, I would not be supporting him. Though I would not be convinced that he made an informed decision to support Sharia; I’d just be backing Ben Carson at this point. Most people in North America unwittingly support Sharia. Most kafirs have no idea Nestle is funding terrorism. Nestle may have no idea they are funding terrorism. Are all consumers of their products supporting Sharia? Yes. Have they all made an informed decision to do so? No. It is unknown which ones would actually choose to submit and which ones wouldn’t. More information is needed.

          So you see, those 5 points are not meant to “counter’ what Spencer said about Garland. Those points contain additional information(after Garland) relating to Trump’s stance on Sharia. Do you think he got the attention of Muslim Brotherhood? Yes. Will they be supporting him? No. Would they like to kill him? Yes. You’ve unknowingly supported Sharia with money. Me too. Does that mean we submit? No. Did Trump knowingly support Sharia. Obviously not(based on his latter comments).

          On to 2. You tried using the term ‘straw man’ unsuccessfully in one of your earlier posts. Here is the meaning:
          Person A has position X.
          Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
          Person B attacks position Y.
          Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

          I’ve never stated that any of those points would “prevent Sharia”. I’ve used them to support my claim that Trump does not support Sharia as Spencer claims. Big difference. Sharia is already present in the US and will have to be removed by force.

          Your attempt at claiming my points do not indicate that Trump does not support Sharia is laughable. For months Spencer has wrote about the dangers of the southern border. Go back and read the articles.
          Trump wants a wall. Great. You say:

          “What does that mean to native American citizens pushing for sharia? Nothing, that’s what.”

          If it was hard to take you seriously earlier, it’s pretty much impossible now. The wall would be for keeping people out. Period. Do you think some Germans wish Trump built them a wall last year? Oh wait, Angemon has some advice on this. “What does that mean to native Germans citizens pushing for sharia? Nothing, that’s what.”

          You’re going to have to make a little sense once in a while to continue this exchange. I encourage you to try. If you were just sticking up for Spencer, I’d get it. But you’re making an absolute clown of yourself. The most basic rules of logic are not within your current grasp. The wall is not for the people already inside!
          You’re going to have to do a little better with 1 before we move on to point 2.

          There had to be an explanation for his defamation of Trump. I offered an unflattering one. After a week, you still don’t seem to understand I was responding to the above article. I did not write my comments after Garland. I wrote them after more information about Trump became available and Spencer continued to use his influence to unjustly tarnish him(see above article).

        • Angemon says

          Nov 7, 2015 at 4:55 pm

          EventHorizon posted:

          “Okay, so a week later you’re finally going to try and respond to what I said. ”

          (…)

          So you see, those 5 points are not meant to “counter’ what Spencer said about Garland.”

          Which was what I said – no point in answering to them because they are unrelated to what you wrote about Mr. Spencer’s motivations. Not sure why you’re admitting I’m right after all your red-herrings, but thanks anyway. As a token of gratitude, let me remind you of what you said before you went bats*** crazy about my alleged imaginary friend, and for which you have yet to provide any sort of evidence:

          Why would Spencer say Trump supports Sharia? If truth is not his motivator, than what? Easy. Money.

          “Those points contain additional information(after Garland) relating to Trump’s stance on Sharia. (…)

          I’ve never stated that any of those points would “prevent Sharia”. I’ve used them to support my claim that Trump does not support Sharia as Spencer claims.”

          The only mention of sharia in them is on your tacked-on comments, whose insane troll logic I already dismantled. Is Trump anti.immigration? Yes. Does that mean he’s anti-sharia, or that he even knows what sharia is? No. You may wish otherwise, but facts are facts, and they don’t change because you wish so. And he hasn’t gone back on what he said about Garland – had Trump had his way there would have been no exhibit as not to offend the muslims. Ergo, Trump complies by sharia.

          Anyway, for all your time and effort, it seems like you have nothing to back up your smears about Mr. Spencer criticizing Trump for money. Or are you so busy blowing Trump’s trumpet that you can’t keep track or the conversation? Tsk tsk…

        • EventHorizon says

          Nov 8, 2015 at 1:29 pm

          “”So you see, those 5 points are not meant to “counter’ what Spencer said about Garland.””
          “Which was what I said – no point in answering to them because they are unrelated to what you wrote about Mr. Spencer’s motivations.”

          You said those points don’t counter what Spencer said after Garland. I said they are not “”meant to “counter’ what Spencer said about Garland.”” You think that means you’re right. I can’t help you there.
          Maybe just try asking a friend to explain it to you.

          I say: “Though I would not be convinced that he made an informed decision to support Sharia”
          You say: “Yes. Does that mean he’s anti-sharia, or that he even knows what sharia is? No. ”

          Again you shoot yourself in the foot and don’t even know it. Your responses have become nothing more than attempts to peel the mud from your face. The funny thing is you keep coming back for more. That is what I’ve been saying the whole time. I do not think he made an informed decision to support Sharia. The word “informed’ is the opposite of “uniformed”. If Trump is uniformed about Sharia that means he is not making a decision to support it. Just like the uninformed going to KFC. No doubt that will all bounce off you thick head. But hey, at least I tried.

          “The only mention of Sharia in them is on your tacked-on comments, whose insane troll logic I already dismantled.”

          Yes, something is certainly dismantled, but it’s not my logic. You didn’t respond to my reference to Spencer’s articles about the southern border. Why? Because you can’t. You can only tell yourself that everything is okay. Spencer says ISIS is sending members through the southern border. Spencer says they need to stop that from happening. Trumps says we need a wall. Spencer thinks the US needs to secure the borders to help stop the spread of Sharia. You can’t see the connection. You’re still out to lunch.

          Here is an example of my “insane troll logic” getting dismantled by you.

          “”1)”Trump is an immigration reform trailblazer” Is that true? Yes. Does that sound like something that would be good for Sharia in America? No. That is a point.””
          “What does that mean to native American citizens pushing for sharia? Nothing, that’s what.”

          How can someone that informs himself on a daily basis of the dangers of Islam remain totally lost on what should be done about it? Look at Germany, is that not clear enough for you? As I said, would they be better of if Trump had been there? Can you answer that?

          He wants a wall, says the refugee may be the “biggest” Trojan Horse, and would send back all Syrian refugees. Oh wait, Angemon says that has nothing to do with Sharia. Those were just my “tacked on” comments and he “dismantled” all that. He says: “What does that mean to native German citizens pushing for sharia? Nothing, that’s what.”

          Okay, so he doesn’t understand the purpose of a wall. Don’t worry, he’s not actually retarded, just incredibly dense. Stopping Hijrah has nothing to do with Sharia according to our new genius. Just the kind of kafir the Muslims love. Sorry Germany, I tried to tell him.

          Try to take yourself a little more seriously.

        • Angemon says

          Nov 8, 2015 at 2:20 pm

          I see a lot of your childish and boorish chest-thumping, mud-flinging and strawman-building, but nothing to back what you said. Let me refresh your memory:

          Why would Spencer say Trump supports Sharia? If truth is not his motivator, than what? Easy. Money.

          Now, do you have anything to back this up? Anything that proves, or even implies, that Mr. Spencer’s motivation to say that Trump supports sharia (as it has been proved) is money? Of course not. Because there isn’t – you got offended because someone told the truth about Trump. But Trump’s trumpet must be blown, and you’re just the man for the job. And yet, if Trump had his way, there would be no exhibit of drawings of muhammad, whether in Garland or elsewhere in the US, because that would offend muslims – pure, unadulterated sharia compliance. Sharia compliance that *you* are defending and claiming it does not exist. Who are we going to believe: the insane troll logic of a proven liar (you) or our eyes and ears?

        • EventHorizon says

          Nov 9, 2015 at 11:46 am

          ” Look at Germany, is that not clear enough for you? As I said, would they be better of if Trump had been there? Can you answer that?”

          Guess not. That should tell you something.

          “The word “informed’ is the opposite of “uniformed”. If Trump is uniformed about Sharia that means he is not making a decision to support it. Just like the uninformed going to KFC. No doubt that will all bounce off you thick head. But hey, at least I tried.”

          Again, you can’t respond. But don’t let that stop you.

          “He wants a wall, says the refugee may be the “biggest” Trojan Horse, and would send back all Syrian refugees. Oh wait, Angemon says that has nothing to do with Sharia. Those were just my “tacked on” comments and he “dismantled” all that. He says: “What does that mean to native German citizens pushing for sharia? Nothing, that’s what.””

          What is your response here? No response, again. I see a pattern here.

          You just keep running from my questions. No surprise. You can’t possibly defend your ridiculous position.

          “Now, do you have anything to back this up? ”

          Listen idiot, read my post. If you can’t understand it go back to school. My position is that truth was not Spencer’s motivator. My points make that case. I offer a explanation. You cannot grasp. Do you need a map to get back home?

        • Angemon says

          Nov 9, 2015 at 12:15 pm

          EventHorizont postred:

          “My position is that truth was not Spencer’s motivator.”

          A position that you have repeatedly failed to support.

          “My points make that case. ”

          They don’t. You claim Mr. Spencer is allegedly being untruthful and that he’s being paid for it but you can’t even tell who’s allegedly paying him or why. You have nothing to offer that makes such a case.

          “I offer a explanation. ”

          You don’t. Where exactly is Mr. Spencer being untruthful? Who’s allegedly paying him, and why? I see no answers from you – whatever time you’re not spending blowing Trump’s trumpet, you’re running away from those simple questions. The truth is, had Trump had his way there would have been no Garland exhibit as not to offend the muslims – sharia compliance. That you refuse to acknowledge facts won’t make them any less valid.

          Now, you claim that Mr. Spencer is being paid to write that Trump supports sharia. Who’s paying him and why?

        • EventHorizon says

          Nov 10, 2015 at 2:15 pm

          “” Look at Germany, is that not clear enough for you? As I said, would they be better of if Trump had been there? Can you answer that?”

          Guess not. That should tell you something.

          “The word “informed’ is the opposite of “uniformed”. If Trump is uniformed about Sharia that means he is not making a decision to support it. Just like the uninformed going to KFC. No doubt that will all bounce off you thick head. But hey, at least I tried.”

          Again, you can’t respond. But don’t let that stop you.

          “He wants a wall, says the refugee may be the “biggest” Trojan Horse, and would send back all Syrian refugees. Oh wait, Angemon says that has nothing to do with Sharia. Those were just my “tacked on” comments and he “dismantled” all that. He says: “What does that mean to native German citizens pushing for sharia? Nothing, that’s what.””

          What is your response here? No response, again. I see a pattern here.

          You just keep running from my questions. No surprise. You can’t possibly defend your ridiculous position.”

          You STILL aren’t defending your position. You’re hiding, either stand up or shut up. You’re like a hamster on a wheel. If you can’t make sense of what YOU are saying, why should anyone take you seriously?

        • Angemon says

          Nov 10, 2015 at 2:28 pm

          EventHorizon posted:

          “You STILL aren’t defending your position. You’re hiding, either stand up or shut up. You’re like a hamster on a wheel. If you can’t make sense of what YOU are saying, why should anyone take you seriously?”

          This is exactly what I’m thinking. I’ve asked you many times to back what you said: you accused Mr. Spencer of being untruthful and receiving money to criticize Trump. Where’s your evidence for it? Who’s allegedly paying him and why?

          Also, has Trump retracted his words regarding Garland or does he still want to enforce sharia compliance?

  50. RossPoldark says

    Nov 17, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    2 Timothy 3

    The Dangers of the Last Days

    3 You should know this, Timothy, that in the last days there will be very difficult times. 2 For people will love only themselves and their money. They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful. They will consider nothing sacred. 3 They will be unloving and unforgiving; they will slander others and have no self-control. They will be cruel and hate what is good. 4 They will betray their friends, be reckless, be puffed up with pride, and love pleasure rather than God. 5 They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!

    6 They are the kind who work their way into people’s homes and win the confidence of vulnerable women who are burdened with the guilt of sin and controlled by various desires. 7 (Such women are forever following new teachings, but they are never able to understand the truth.) 8 These teachers oppose the truth just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses. They have depraved minds and a counterfeit faith. 9 But they won’t get away with this for long. Someday everyone will recognize what fools they are, just as with Jannes and Jambres.

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

  • Mount Zion on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • James Lincoln on Islamic Republic of Iran: Turkey’s Erdogan champions Islam only as a tool to further his own interests
  • James Lincoln on Canadian Mental Health Association studies Muslim women’s mental health due to ‘discrimination’ and ‘hate crimes’
  • terry sullivan on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Keith O on India: Police make first arrest for ‘love jihad’ under new law

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.