Here is the notorious exercise in “hate speech” that Left-fascists did their best to shut down. Will any of them find any actual “hate” in it? Of course not. Last Thursday evening, I spoke at Truman State University in Kirksville, Missouri. When they heard that I had been invited, Left-fascists first called for me to be physically attacked, and then tried to get university officials to cancel my appearance. The university placated the fascists by inviting Faizan Syed of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to speak just before I did. Syed gave a canned dawah presentation filled with half-truths, deceptions, and detours, along with a liberal amount of the usual defamation and ad hominem smears against me that feature in Hamas-linked CAIR and Leftist “Islamophobia” fearmongering rhetoric.
Syed’s speech was enthusiastically received by the audience, which was filled with members of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) and many non-Muslim students (including males) wearing hijabs in solidarity with their supposedly oppressed Muslim friends. (I wonder if they would doff those hijabs in solidarity with Aqsa Parvez and the other Muslim women and girls who have been murdered for not wearing the hijab. Somehow I doubt it.)
Just before I began speaking, Truman State University officials turned up the heat in the room, which had been perfectly comfortable during Syed’s address. They refused to turn it down when we requested that they do so, so the room was sweltering by the time I began and much hotter still by the time I finished. The audience was almost completely hostile. They didn’t disrupt my remarks, as the MSA had instructed them not to; for which I would thank them except that I believe it should be taken for granted that unpopular and unwelcome opinions that are nonetheless based on sound reasoning and evidence should be given a fair hearing on university campuses. They did ask a series of hostile questions, rolling their eyes, shaking their heads, and chuckling at my answers. This video, alas, is cut off, and doesn’t contain the full Q and A period.
Unfortunately for the Truman State students, Faizan Syed with all his slick falsehoods and character assassination, and all their contempt and hatred for me and the truths I tell, will not make the realities they deny go away.
Diane Harvey says
“Truman State University officials turned up the heat in the room, which had been perfectly comfortable”
The purpose being to show that global warming aka climate change is caused by Islamophobia.
mortimer says
A dirty trick… turning up the heat… in order to distract people from the evidence supporting the JIHAD DOCTRINE.
The ad hominems of Hamas operative Faizan Syed are NOT evidence. His ad hominems are an admission of his LACK of EVIDENCE.
The primary source texts of Islam, the canonical commentaries of Islam and Islamic history PROVE that the JIHAD DOCTRINE is the authentic, CANONICAL Islam of the Islamic ‘consensus’ and therefore normative for ALL Muslims.
BC says
My understanding was that the venue was off campus, so would it be that the university ‘authorities’ that
would turn up the heat?
Robert Spencer says
The event was on campus.
Lauri Heikkilä says
Good speech.
JawsV says
You have to pity today’s youth. They are completely brainwashed and they don’t even know it.
Shmooviyet says
Agreed, JawsV.
Do they actually know WHAT they are rolling their eyes, shaking their heads and chuckling at??
All rude, childish and predictable responses from the oh-so tolerant trained chimps. Did they think they were going to hurt Robert’s feelings, forcing him to cut short his program?
Amazed they graduated from ninth grade…
JawsV says
Ninth grade? How about sixth?
dumbledoresarmy says
Do we know whether those who asked the question and did the exaggerated eye-roll responses, etc, were the *Muslims* or their nicely-suckered fellow travellers?
mortimer says
Robert Spencer has written 15 books, delivered umpteen speeches and written many hundreds of articles and STILL, the CRITICS OF SPENCER have not found or quoted a SINGLE HATEFUL COMMENT in half a million of his words!
The claim that Robert Spencer has spoken or written hate speech is WITHOUT EVIDENCE. It is for the CRITICS of Robert Spencer to show WHERE, WHEN and HOW ANY of his comments have expressed ‘hate’, otherwise, they must be exposed as FRAUDS.
CRITICS of Robert Spencer’s accusations are merely libelous slander without merit or basis in fact.
mortimer says
Correction: CRITICS of Robert Spencer make accusations that are merely libelous slanders without merit or basis in fact.
epistemology says
Couldn’t agree more, Robert only talks about facts, whereas the hatemongers are the muzzies and their apologists.
Westman says
Denial is always greatest before a signal event occurs which changes the common perpective from populism to reality. That is when the true heroes, consistently working in plain view, are “suddenly” discovered.
Mr. Spencer is a watchman who has sounded the alarm while slumbering youth are still caught up in the fabrication of dreams that will never materialize. Looking back, what older person was not that ideologist of yesteryear?
Aside from accelerating the speed of life, modern technology has bound human kind into a frenzy of unfiltered communication that leaves few societies outside the looking glass nor affords governments the singular voice. Who paid attention to Islam in 1965 other than experimenting hippies? Now its fruits daily grace all media to an extent that a positive image will be impossible to maintain without reformation.
Islam is its own detractor in this modern age; forced to discredit its own ummah within its immense spectrum of competing factions – which all claim to be the “real” Islam. And how wide is that spectrum! From the illiterate who can yet recite the Quran to the professional ranks who are distancing themselves from the lower ummah. From murderous ISIS and a host of other terrorists to the slick apologists who cover up Islam’s attrocities and do nothing to change appalling ideology.
Eventually, many of Truman College current students will say, “Spencer was right!”. What event will cause that defining moment is unknown. That Islam’s ideology will create it, is assured.
mortimer says
Westman has a good point: “Denial is always greatest before a signal event occurs which changes the common perpective …”
Such an event occurred when pacifist Great Britain watched helplessly as Hitler invaded Poland, breaking his treaty made with appeaser Neville Chamberlain.
There is an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that such a ‘POLAND EVENT’ will occur with regard to Islam that will permanently change the view of Western APOLOGISTS for and APPEASERS of Islam.
There will be yet another attack on the scale of or greater than the 9/11 attacks that targeted the White House or congress, the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. When that attack occurs, the world will no longer resist learning about the JIHAD DOCTRINE.
Monty says
The great tragedy is that you are probably right. It is rarely the leaders who suffer. It is those that they are supposed to lead and protect who bear the brunt of Islamic violence. Leaders know how to protect themselves. Who can afford a personal bodyguard 24/7? Not so many. Meanwhile the fiddling goes on while Europe smoulders away, ready at any moment to burst into flames.
Diane Harvey says
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” – Mahatma Gandhi,
PRCS says
+1
Pong says
Few people were more appeasing islam then Gandhi. His “pacifism” resulted in two moslem states and deaths for millions of hindus.
gravenimage says
Westman wrote:
“Denial is always greatest before a signal event occurs which changes the common perpective …”
………………………
Exactly, Westman. And Mortimer is correct that this same sort of denial was widespread about Fascism in the years leading up to WWII.
Greyhound Fancier says
Technology is indeed a double-edged sword. Critical thinking is needed to filter sources and allegations in media. Youth lack at least one element of critical thinking, i.e. experience. They may think they have knowledge, but if what they’ve been taught is foolish, they lack both knowledge and experience.
Since leftist students know more than the professors, unless they want a drunken interlude to postpone responsibility, why bother attending college?
gravenimage says
*Excellent question*, GF. Students only “know more” than their professors and parents in most cases if you are talking ideology rather than knowledge.
Mark Swan says
There was a bumper sticker years ago that said “Hire A Teenager, While, They Still
Know Everything”.
gravenimage says
Very funny, Mark. And great to see you posting again.
Mark Swan says
Thank you gravenimage, I have been reading the Articles, and comments, I am
still around.
gravenimage says
Glad to hear it, Mark.
VRWC member77 says
“Technology is indeed a double-edged sword. Critical thinking is needed to filter sources and allegations in media. Youth lack at least one element of critical thinking, i.e. experience. They may think they have knowledge, but if what they’ve been taught is foolish, they lack both knowledge and experience.”
***************** Perfectly said ***************
mortimer says
In US law, MALICE is a key factor in determining defamation.
Actual malice is shown when someone lies, on purpose, to hurt another person. When famous people sue over lies, they must prove that the defendants fibbed on purpose.
Police have looked through Robert Spencer’s writings and have failed to find a single example of ‘hatred’.
Critics of Spencer should be warned that they will not be able to find ‘hate’ in Robert Spencer’s words, and therefore, they should cease and desist from making false statements about Robert Spencer.
Guy Jones says
I can only applaud your courage, steadfastness and sense of dignity, Mr. Spencer, in the face of what can fairly be described as jackboot thuggery and abject infantilism.
We should ponder the larger implications for American society (and, Canadian society and British society), in which speaking unpleasant truths about a transparently fascistic ideology is vilified, while heaping praises upon that same ideology, is lauded and encouraged.
The Left’s intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt trifecta of Islamo-victimology, Islamo-flattery and Islamo-Revisionism/Re-branding must be stopped.
ECAW says
Robert Spencer’s talk was so clear and supported by facts and Islamic texts that you would think it would get through to most reasonable people. I was pleased that some people clapped at the end and hope that some others will take the message home and think about it.
The second questioner had a point though. There are regularly comments here calling for lead injections of Muslims or even nuclear war. It is not good enough for Robert Spencer to say “Anyone can say those things”. It is his blog and he has to take some responsibility for what appears on it. Gates of Vienna screen out all violent comments. Why does Jihad Watch not do so?
JawsV says
I haven’t seen any comments on JW exhorting violence. It’s the Moslems who are violent.
ECAW says
You’re kidding, surely.
JawsV says
Nope, not kidding. Again — it’s the Muslims who are violent.
ECAW says
Next time I see one, if you’re around, I’ll draw your attention to it.
JawsV says
Fine. Draw my attention to the latest slaughter of “Infidels” by Moslems, too. Never mind — the whole world will know about it.
ECAW says
Bizarre that you imply that because I point out the calls to violence in some comments here that I am unaware of or am avoiding Muslim violence around the world.
JawsV says
Why don’t you stop with the nothing burger and pay attention to the real problem — Islam.
ECAW says
I do pay a lot of attenton to islam. It’s not either/or.
JawsV says
Yes, Islam and JW comments are either/or.
gravenimage says
JawsV, ECAW is correct that you find the occasional call for violence here in the JW comments threads. They are quite rare, and more likely to come from agent provocateurs as from the odd legitimate poster feeling frustrated.
But these calls for violence do not reflect well on Jihad Watch. They are not “nothing burgers”–they can be used by those who are fighting opposition to the Jihad to ludicrously claim we are violent just as are Jihadists. That’s what a questioner tried to do at this speech.
Examples should be reported when found so they can be deleted. Jihad Watch does not condone them.
gravenimage says
And JawsV, ECAW is a staunch Anti-Jihadist. Your idea that his concern over Jihad Watch maintaining its integrity somehow weakens the fight against Jihad is not the case.
JawsV says
graven image — why does E bring that up at all? it’s a non sequitur. The topic here is Spencer’s recent talk at Truman State. So, yes, to bring up something unrelated and inconsequential is a nothing burger. In addition, I’ve never seen any and if so who cares? After all the Moslems have done to us I couldn’t care less. It’s the murderous Muslims who are the problem and who must be stopped. E’s non sequitur is a nothing burger. Finally, JW has plenty of integrity, no worries.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the reply, Jaws. I certainly agree with you about Jihad Watch’s high integrity.
Robert Spencer says
ECAW:
This is a matter of resources. I remove them when I see them, but I don’t usually have time to read all the comments, and so some slip by me. If you could get over your rage at my pointing out the collapse of the UK long enough to send me a heads-up when you see them, I will remove them forthwith. Thanks.
Pong says
Not sure if it is worth doing. JW is one of the very few sites where ideas are the most important and posts like “kill all moslems” are not welcomed not only by you, but by most of your supporters. Let free speach to be free, even the stupid one.
This wasn’t your best presentation. May be the heat and the audience didn’t provide the best atmosphere.
When I hear words “peaceful muslims” my ears start to hurt. Obviously, not many moslems go through pain of reading koran and suna, but it is there. Mohamed states clearly that a moslem, who doesn’t participate in jihad will die as a hypocrite (Sira). There is no islam without jihad and as a result – a peaceful moslem is an oxymoron. Not all of them will take up the arms. Mohamed was clear about it as well. Some will participate with the money, some with activism, but it will be in support of the same goals, which make some of them to take up arms. Insisting for special privileges for islam is not a peaceful action, it is jihad and as such should be resisted with the same vigor as stash of arms at a mosque.
gravenimage says
Pong, I don’t think leaving posts calling for violence up helps. Enemies can use that against Jihad Watch, as here.
Why should Robert Spencer have to host views he find repugnant on his own blog?
ECAW says
It’s a shame that you should conflate this with the long gone issue of whether Britain is finished or not. I protested at your continually effectively telling Britons they might as well pack it in because Britain is finished. When you stopped doing it I stopped protesting. Rage didn’t come into it.
As for comments advocating violence, they are not few in number and I never see them removed so I assumed it was your policy to allow them. You must notice who those who call for violence are. You could stop them at source but you don’t. I am not even suggesting that you should, just pointing out that claiming “Hey, it’s nothing to do with me” is disingenuous.
JawsV says
Here comes the nothing burger of JW comments again.
Meanwhile, Britain is appeasing the crocodile (Islam) hoping it will eat him last, as Churchill remarked. Due to the sheer numbers of Moslems in Londonistan England is indeed finished. The most popular boy’s name is Mohammed. A Moslem mayor of London. Who would have ever thought. Robert Spencer not allowed but backward and barbaric Islamic savages allowed. PM Theresa Sharia sports a hijab and she’s not a Muslim. The appeasement is worthy of Chamberlain. Muslim rape gangs ignored so as not to appear “islamophobic.” Muslims idiotically referred to as “Asians.” And so much more. Yes, England’s pretty much done. It will be Islamic someday. Blair, Cameron and May are all responsible. Melanie Phillips’ “Londonistan” (2006) is right on the mark.
Everyone should read “Londonistan” by Melanie Phillips. If moonbat Mary’s still around she should start reading and eschew the Muslims’ lies and deceptions.
Robert Spencer says
ECAW:
You’re lying, of course, on all counts.
Such comments are not numerous.
I do remove them whenever I see them.
And as for you, you have consistently shown that you’re far more offended by my saying “Britain is finished” than by the fact that it is. And that is one small reason why it is.
ECAW says
Robert Spencer – I can understand you saying I’m mistaken but lying? Not so…why would I do that?
I haven’t been offended by you saying Britain is finished for months, since you stopped saying it in fact. It was you who brought it up again. Presumably you changed your mind on that count but here it is again. For what it’s worth, and I would have been happy to let the matter drop, Britain is no more finished than America and rather less than several European countries. Are you deliberately trying to tell Britons there is no point them trying and they might as well just wait for the end, because that is what the word “finished” means where I come from.
ECAW says
By the way, since I have your attention, could you please clear up a small matter which has been puzzling me? Why do you take such a definite stance on what the jihad verses mean, for instance that “Smite the unbelievers” means all unbelievers everywhere and for all time, while also believing the Koran to be effectively fictional? It seems to me that you are looking in opposite directions at the same time.
Thanks.
gravenimage says
ECAW wrote:
As for comments advocating violence, they are not few in number and I never see them removed so I assumed it was your policy to allow them.
………………………………….
ECAW, this is not the case. While these ugly comments are rare, I have reported several score of them in the ten years I have been here. They have *always* been removed if brought to JW staff attention.
More:
You must notice who those who call for violence are. You could stop them at source but you don’t. I am not even suggesting that you should, just pointing out that claiming “Hey, it’s nothing to do with me” is disingenuous.
………………………………….
ECAW, these comments are not always by the same posters. Many of them are by posters I have never seen comment previously. Those who regularly post calls for violence get banned.
There were ten new stories posted at Jihad Watch today–some days there are even more. Some stories get well over a hundred comments, sometimes spread out over days or even weeks. The idea that anyone–especially someone as busy as Robert Spencer–could easily keep track of every single one of these comments is simply not realistic.
As I noted, posters here *can help*. If you want to report an ugly post, you can do so using the “Contact Us” box on the right-hand side or bottom of the page (depending on how your screen is configured).
More:
By the way, since I have your attention, could you please clear up a small matter which has been puzzling me? Why do you take such a definite stance on what the jihad verses mean, for instance that “Smite the unbelievers” means all unbelievers everywhere and for all time, while also believing the Koran to be effectively fictional? It seems to me that you are looking in opposite directions at the same time.
………………………………….
ECAW, I realize that you asked this of Robert Spencer and not myself, but I hope you won’t mind if I weigh in.
I don’t believe that this is contradictory at all. For one thing, Spencer is noting how *Muslims* have interpreted these verses, especially revered Islamic clerics.
Then there is the general question of clarity–the Qur’an’s many calls to violence are abundantly clear.
One need not personally believe that the Qur’an is the word of God in order to see that its tenets are in most cases quite unambiguous.
ECAW says
Graven
I posted something like this earlier today but it has not appeared so here it is again.
Firstly, I do not suggest it is realistic that Robert Spencer can effectively police the comments. It came as a surprise to me that he objects to violent comments at all, given the number I see here. But since he does I am surprised that he and Marc haven’t come up with a simple, time-saving solution. Just as an example, does he not have trusted long term supporters, such as yourself, Wellington, Mortimer etc, who he could give access so they could delete the bloodthirsty comments when seen?
Secondly, I welcome your response re. the Koran. Yes the violent verses are abundantly clear but the intended targets of that violence are not. No one could disagree with “noting how Muslims have interpreted these verses, especially revered Islamic clerics” but he goes further than that and clearly interprets them in the same way. Here is an example:
“The fighting that the Koran commands must continue until the entire world is under the rule of Islam….however Muslim spokesmen in the West explain these [verses] away as applying only to the 7th century….”
gravenimage says
ECAW wrote:
Graven
I posted something like this earlier today but it has not appeared so here it is again.
Firstly, I do not suggest it is realistic that Robert Spencer can effectively police the comments. It came as a surprise to me that he objects to violent comments at all, given the number I see here.
……………………….
ECAW–with all respect–given that Robert Spencer has *never* advocated violence, I find that hard to believe.
More:
But since he does I am surprised that he and Marc haven’t come up with a simple, time-saving solution. Just as an example, does he not have trusted long term supporters, such as yourself, Wellington, Mortimer etc, who he could give access so they could delete the bloodthirsty comments when seen?
……………………….
I have never asked for such access, ECAW. And while I am a frequent poster here, there is no way that I could read every comment here, either. I do have other things I need to do in my life, as, I’m sure, do Wellington and Mortimer.
More:
Secondly, I welcome your response re. the Koran. Yes the violent verses are abundantly clear but the intended targets of that violence are not.
……………………….
Thank you for your reply, ECAW. I’m afraid I disagree that the targets are not clear. The Qur’an rails against Jews, Christians, and unbelievers in general.
The calls for violence are not just against, say, the Pagans of Mecca.
Further, there are open-ended Qur’anic passages such as Verse 8:39, which reads, “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion will all be for Allah Alone”.
More:
No one could disagree with “noting how Muslims have interpreted these verses, especially revered Islamic clerics” but he goes further than that and clearly interprets them in the same way. Here is an example:
“The fighting that the Koran commands must continue until the entire world is under the rule of Islam….however Muslim spokesmen in the West explain these [verses] away as applying only to the 7th century….”
……………………….
ECAW, Muslim spokesmen never say this *to Muslims*–just to Infidels, to lull them into a false sense of security. When preaching to Muslims, it is quite clear that pious Muslims understand these passages to apply for all time.
JawsV says
gi — Are you aware that the topic is Spencer’s Truman State talk?
gravenimage says
Yes I am, Jaws. The only reason the question of calls for violence occasionally left at Jihad Watch came up at all is that a questioner at the event asked about them, indicating that they reflected badly on JW.
JawsV says
Yes, that occurs at the very end of the video. The moonbat millennials are trying to find anything they can to discredit Spencer and JW while Muslims are slaughtering innocent people worldwide. It’s absurd, utterly absurd. No one has anything to fear from a follower of Spencer. From Muslims? Be afraid, be very afraid, their “religion” says to kill us. The moonbat millennials should have been asking about Jihad. But, that would have been “islamophobic.” The JW comments subject is a mountain from a molehill, a tempest in a teapot. It’s ridiculous.
gravenimage says
Very true, Jaws.
gravenimage says
If you find a comment exhorting violence here–as I have a few times in the years I have been here at Jihad Watch–you can report it to Robert and Marc at the “Contact Us” box, and it will be deleted.
Jihad Watch does not have the staff to review every comment–but good readers and posters here can be their eyes and ears.
ECAW says
A few times over the years? Come off it graven. They appear regularly and do not get taken down from what I have noticed. I do not feel inclined to act as class snitch when Robert Spencer doesn’t put a disclaimer at the top or stop them at source.
JawsV says
What’s your problem? Get off the nothing burger of comments and start addressing the serious and dire situation of the 21st century resurgence of Islam. It’s calamitous, maybe you’ve noticed.
ECAW says
Nothing burger? Does that mean something?
Yes I’ve noticed the problem of Islam but thanks for reminding me. I hadn’t thought about it for at least ten minutes.
JawsV says
Why don’t you look up the phrase? It means “insignificant.” The problem is Islam, not JW comments.
ECAW says
Have you not noticed, you are paying far more attention to it than I did. I’m just responding to other people’s comments addressed to me. Is that ok by you?
JawsV says
E — you brought up the insignificant subject and have continued expounding upon it as though it’s important. See Spencer’s comment above at 9:02 am.
ECAW says
Not so. I raised it as a minor point and have since been just responding to challenges directed toward me. I reserve the right to do that. If you were to drop the matter you would hear nothing more about it from me.
JawsV says
It’s a major point with you.
Let’s concentrate on Islam.
ECAW says
No it is not a major point with me. I just mentioned it once as an afterthought in another post. It is the response of yourself and others which has blown it out of all proportion.
JawsV says
E — you have mentioned it many times and are the one who’s blown it out of proportion.
Islam is the problem, not JW comments.
ECAW says
This is becoming more than tedious now. you take over.
JawsV says
Heh! Fine, focus on Islam.
gravenimage says
ECAW wrote:
A few times over the years? Come off it graven. They appear regularly and do not get taken down from what I have noticed.
………………………………….
I have reported many of these and they are always taken down if brought to JW attention. But no; they are not a regular occurrence. I have never kept track of them; as an estimate I would guess I see about two a month, out of literally tens of thousands of posts over that same period. Of course, there are certainly some comments I miss.
Most posters here would never leave such comments; and most posters, in fact, have a great deal to contribute here. I have learned a great deal from posters here, as well as from Robert Spencer and the other official contributors.
More:
I do not feel inclined to act as class snitch when Robert Spencer doesn’t put a disclaimer at the top or stop them at source.
………………………………….
Good grief–the idea that hoping in some small way to uphold Jihad Watch’s values makes one a “class snitch” is just ludicrous. What are we–twelve?
Greyhound Fancier says
Advocates to engage the jihadists on all fronts seek to defend their civilization. Self-defense is just war in Christian doctrine. Christians are being crucified, burned, enslaved, sex trafficked, and otherwise hideously oppressed in the Middle East – by whom?
So far, lower level responses have not worked. Talking, negotiation, and patience hasn’t stopped the jihad.
Please reveal your strategy to rid the world of the jihad – we are anxious to hear!
ECAW says
Same as Robert Spencer’s, to try to publicise what is actually in the Islamic sources and tie them to the actions of jihadists, both violent and civilisational. If you think that approach insufficient why don’t you take it up with Robert Spencer?
Daniel Triplett says
“ War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. ”
–William T. Sherman, Gen, USA
“ Let me tell you what war is about. It’s about killing people. If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.
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.
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. ”
–Curtis E. LeMay, Gen, USAF (longest serving 4-Star in US history)
Thank God you finally came along to school these Generals and the rest of us who’ve worn America’s uniform in combat for God & Country.
Apparently, we’ve all been fools in believing the best way to secure a swift victory in war against our enemy is with overwhelming violence.
Fortunately, the World can now live in peace because you’ve figured out a way to wage war without using violence against our violent enemies. Please articulate for us war fighters how to fight wars.
I’m relieved to know not only are you an expert in warfare, you’re also the self-appointed decider of what’s allowable speech and what isn’t. Instead of being the Hall Monitor nerd who runs to the principal anytime anyone says anything offensive to you, how about confronting your offender directly?
We have this thing in America called the First Amendment, which many Patriots have given their lives to defend for you. Free speech and debate is what makes America unique and alone in the World.
You come on Robert’s website to condemn Muslims and Islamic governments with their Sharia Police who execute people saying anything offensive to Islam. Then you try silencing everyone saying anything offensive to you. How is that any different?
Without American free speech, the Free World is finished.
ECAW says
There you are Dr Strangelove. Good to see you, but I have to point out that you are wrong on all counts. What you say, or what the other advocates of more localised violence say doesn’t offend me nor do I try to silence you. As it happens I think nuclear war is very likely although I would hope it can be avoided by a sea change in the thinking of people in the West. That is what Robert Spencer is aiming after all. Why don’t you point out the error of his ways directly to the notorious peacenik Robert Spencer?
Daniel Triplett says
I hadn’t realized before you’re British, but your attitude makes sense to me now.
You know not how it feels to truly be free; to be an American. You bow to a monarch simply because she’s related to a foregoing monarch, who’s related to another foregoing monarch, and so on. You know nothing of free speech. You have no concept of possessing your own firearms to defend yourself from both those who wish you harm, and from your own government.
Americans bow to no one. We shake our President’s hand, and our Lord Jesus embraces us with His open arms. We possess 370 Million firearms which guarantee no one, including our government, will ever force evil upon us.
My grandfather, John Howland, was an Englishman who boarded a ship called the Mayflower in 1620, bound for a faraway continent to create a new civilization, fleeing inasmuch as possible the reigns and persecution of a king. He was 1 of just 43 survivors; co-establishing, with his signature, the Pilgrims’ first rules and regulations with the Mayflower Compact.
I thank God he had the balls to escape your island, because I wouldn’t want to live my life in your shoes.
“ There you are Dr Strangelove “
With all the important things you could be doing now, you’ve chosen instead to insult every Field Grade and Flag Military Officer of your closest ally with a flippant and unfunny smart ass remark.
Besides, if you want to use that movie metaphor, I wouldn’t be the Peter Sellers character. I’d be the Slim Pickens character—a USAF Pilot who puts his country and mission before self, putting nukes on target on time at all costs. But since you’ve apparently never served, you couldn’t relate to this paramount principle.
At least you’re speaking to me directly instead of complaining to the principal. You’re beginning to grow a pair; I’ll give you credit for that.
Yes, I advocate using nuclear weapons to reconcile our conflict with the Ummah. Through a combination of Professional Military Education, 1500+ Intel briefs, studying our enemy for 22 years, and serving 6 years in combat, I’ve concluded that nuclear weapons are our only viable solution.
I didn’t pull the strategy I advocate out of my ass. I learned it in the USAF. The US has taught every Field Grade Military Officer the same strategies for 242 years. The only thing that’s changed is the efficiency of weapons we use to fight. The strategy we must use now to extinguish Islam is nearly identical to the strategy our grandfathers used to extinguish Nazism and Shintoism. Would you insult them with condescending metaphors too?
Dar al-Islam is a 3000-mile-wide swath stretching from Morocco to the Philippines. The OIC has 57 states. The US conventional military campaign (with your country’s help) has spent 16 years, $6.5 Trillion US, and sacrificed over 6500 Patriots trying to control just 2 of those 57 OIC states. And those two states are worse now than the day we first set foot there.
We don’t have the military, gold, time, or the WILL to invade, conquer, and indefinitely occupy 57 Muslim states. Let’s get real. It’s not going to happen.
This leaves just one option: Nuclear weapons.
“ 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 naive 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. ”
Do you know who said these words?
Your very own, very wise Sir Arthur Harris, Commander of RAF Bomber Command during WWII said them.
What in the Hell happened to you guys since?
The United Kingdom formerly ruled the World, the sun never setting on its territory. Excepting a brief time during Maggie’s era, your empire has been in steep decline ever since the days Winston Churchill and Arthur Harris called the shots. No longer a Superpower, the UK is a white dwarf star whose brilliance is extinguished. So sad. Your country desperately needs no Muslims and far fewer Useful Idiots.
Robert is right when he says the UK is finished. What evidence is there to the contrary? You all are going in the wrong direction at 90 mph. How about grabbing the steering wheel and hitting the brakes? Nigel Farage can’t do it all by himself.
And no, America is not finished; you couldn’t be more wrong. We have a new sheriff now. Britain is much further gone. Your incompetent leadership is stupid and you have no up-and-coming Geert Wilders’ or Marine Le Pens’ to take over, because your country is full of Useful Idiots. Sure, you have some smart subjects to your Queen, like Nigel Farage, but not nearly enough to counter the cast of fools. And God help you if dimwit Charles becomes your king. I do have great respect for William and Harry though.
You said: “ I have to point out that you are wrong on all counts. What you say, or what the other advocates of more localised violence say doesn’t offend me nor do I try to silence you. “
Your transparent attempt to walk back your censorship remarks isn’t working.
You also said this: “ It is not good enough for Robert Spencer to say ‘Anyone can say those things’. It is his blog and he has to take some responsibility for what appears on it. Gates of Vienna screen out all violent comments. Why does Jihad Watch not do so? “
“ I haven’t been offended by you [Robert Spencer] saying Britain is finished for months, since you stopped saying it in fact. “ So, as long as Robert keeps his mouth shut on his own website, you’ll do him a favor and stay unoffended.
” I do not feel inclined to act as class snitch when Robert Spencer doesn’t put a disclaimer at the top or stop them at source. “
“ No it is not a major point with me. I just mentioned it once as an afterthought in another post. It is the response of yourself and others which has blown it out of all proportion. “ Then why are you speaking about this at all? Stop digging when you’re in a hole.
See my point? Do you think I or anyone else reading this is stupid? Of course you see yourself as the self-appointed decider of approved speech, demanding everything offensive to you be censored. Free speech isn’t in your British lexicon.
You said: “ I think nuclear war is very likely… “
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Did you propose something violent? Shame on you for not censoring that offensive remark.
You said: ” I think nuclear war is very likely although I would hope it can be avoided by a sea change in the thinking of people in the West. “
A sea change in the thinking of people in the West?
You also said your strategy for victory against the Ummah’s jihad is: ” Same as Robert Spencer’s, to try to publicise what is actually in the Islamic sources and tie them to the actions of jihadists, both violent and civilisational. “
I won’t speak for the wise and venerable Robert Spencer, but I’m quite certain he doesn’t believe this is a total strategy to extinguish Islam; only part of it. No war in history has been won without violence. Robert isn’t stupid, and he’s no ” notorious peacenik, “ as you disrespectfully, foolishly, and incorrectly describe him. The only peacenik I see here is you.
Yes, educating Kaffirs is required, but only as a prerequisite to gain the support needed for the requisite use of nuclear weapons to win this war. No one’s better suited to educate Kaffirs than Robert.
Per your strategy, let’s assume the impossible: Tomorrow we convince every Kaffir Useful Idiot that Islam is evil and must be extinguished. What next? Are we all going to fight our way into Dar al-Islam, to colonize, occupy, and babysit Muslims forever? Will you fight on the front lines, spending years of your life in an Islamic shithole? Will you volunteer your children to fight a never-ending conventional war? Will you use your wisdom to peacefully show Muslims the error of their ways, explaining to them what Islamic source texts really mean, and how this whole jihad thing is a gross misinterpretation?
That will never work. Not to mention, with Iran within a few months of amassing their nuke arsenal, we simply don’t have the time to experiment with anymore non-nuclear options.
The Islamic conflict will only be reconciled with nuclear weapons. We can either take it to Dar al-Islam first, or we can be the stupidest humans in the history of the World, and retaliate only after the Ummah glasses Tel Aviv, Manhattan, and/or DC first, as they promise to do.
You said: ” Why don’t you point out the error of his ways directly to the notorious peacenik Robert Spencer? “
Robert needs neither I nor anyone else to point out to him the error of his ways, because Robert isn’t in error. You are.
If you want to know a military strategy that will work, read the following. It’s essentially an abstract for a book I’m writing, and although it’s a work in progress, you’ll get a good idea how it works. For what it’s worth, I’ve poll tested it on Twitter half a dozen times: Hundreds vote, and 75 – 85% of readers always vote yes to the question, “Do you agree with my strategy?”
“Total War: Extinguishing Islam from Earth”
by Daniel Triplett
https://medium.com/@dantriplett/islamic-jihad-is-total-war-for-all-marbles-6c858098b76e
You know, American servicemen, just like me, have spilled their blood rescuing your countrymen from tyranny and your nation from extinction twice in the last 100 years. And if your sovereign survival is at stake again, I’ll drop everything I’m doing in a heartbeat, risking my life to come help you. We’re each other’s best friends on Earth. Perhaps you could show us a bit of respect.
ECAW says
Daniel – Your bombastic lecture cut little ice with me. Let me put you right on a few of the foolish assumptions you make about me and about Britain.
I have little love for the monarchy but I do admit it is good for tourism and helps to harmlessly siphon off some of the glory which would otherwise attach to politicians thereby magnifying their power. It comes under the heading of “checks and balances”. We have been extraordinarily lucky in the current monarch but when that prize twit Charles takes over I’m for storming the barricades.
I know something of free speech but increasingly only as a memory, just as it is in your country (in practice, despite your 1st Amendment).
I agree with you about possessing firearms though. As I understand it the right was curtailed 100 years ago not for the protection of the people, as was claimed, but for the protection of the government from the people. The politicians then used the Dunblane massacre 20 years ago to strip them completely. We are left defenceless against criminals and in the forthcoming violent struggle for dominance which will likely kick off seriously when the Muslim percentage of the population reaches a critical point. At a current 5% we have the grim luxury of watching the real thing starting now in France with 10%. I hope we can take the necessary lessons from whichever European country is lost to full scale violence first, France, Germany, Sweden or Belgium, and take effective action for self-survival. In fact I doubt that we will and think, given the feeble appeasing of our leaders and the PC brainwashing of the young, that submission is more likely than the other option, civil war. But it’s not a done deal yet!
Not only do I think on the larger stage that nuclear war is likely but by no means necessarily the worst of all options. I can quite see how strategic nuking of Mecca, Medina and the Gulf oilfields could have a salutary effect on the mindset of the ummah. But I do not call for it. Nor does Robert Spencer even though you are certain he agrees with you. Why not ask him?
My problem is not with Dar al-Islam at all but with the survival of Dar al-Harb. I wish to see a sufficient change in Western thinking to cause us to isolate ourselves from Dar al-Harb and to drop off somewhere in it any Muslims who do not clearly renounce the dictates of Shariah regarding infidels and infidel lands.
Regarding violent posts, such as yours which are the most violent of all here by numbers, all this started from a misunderstanding on my part. I see violent comments so regularly here that I assumed that Robert Spencer has no objection to them and was surprised to learn otherwise. I have never responded to a violent post as far as I can remember nor ever mentioned them in a comment but just skip over them, although feeling puzzled at why he allows them since they are such a gift to the opposition. It turns out that he doesn’t allow them but I’ve been here two or three years and have never seen any indication of that, not even a warning at the top.
I will now go back to ignoring your comments as I do the more low level “lead injection” type ones. The field is yours.
By the way, since you didn’t seem to realise it, my use of the term “peacenik” was meant ironically to highlight the difference I see between Spencer’s approach and yours.
Daniel Triplett says
ECAW
Robert is right, again. You are a plant. He figured you out much sooner than I did, but I can see it now too. There are so many things wrong with your post, but I won’t waste anymore of my time articulating it, and I won’t waste anymore of my time with you.
I will say for the record, I’ve never once proposed targeting Mecca, Medina, or Gulf oilfields with Allied nuke strikes. You’re not simply being naive about nuclear warfare strategy; you make obvious you’re either a Muslim or Muslim sympathizer trying to kick the hornets’ nest to motivate the Ummah. This, in addition to the points Robert articulated in his post to you below.
Also, for the record, I’ve never believed, said, or claimed that Robert Spencer agrees with one word I’ve ever written in any post I’ve made in history on his website. And no one should assume Robert agrees with any word I’ve ever said just because he doesn’t delete my posts.
Robert Spencer is a wise man. He doesn’t need me or anyone else telling him what to believe, what to say, or when to say it.
Finally, 100% of my communications with Robert Spencer are private. I’ve never and will never use the public “Comments” forum of his website to speak with him or solicit his input. I’d suggest no one else do it either; it’s bad form. If anyone wants to speak directly with the man, do him a big favor and use the “Contact Us” link in the right margin.
BC says
Many of the comments are from ill informed and ignorant people who mostly just want to vent their spleen. It is often even worse on Pamela Geller’s site, I have complained but nothing is done.
Maybe they are just too busy but software is available to screen out certain expressions.
carol says
If verbal “violence” is personal or abusive or designed to oppress with no hope of reprieve then perhaps an occasional tug on the leash is in order. But I see no need to hamper the forthright emotions exhibited on this site. It’s refreshing and to our credit that there’s really no need for a censor’s rinse cycle (muslim trolls should strive to do a fraction so well).
Today, however, I did ask myself if I had become an insensitive tyrant when I found myself actually enjoying the thought of COMPLETELY stamping out any trace of Islam. I’d been flattered by hearing the like-minded IQ al Rassouli – a recent link he posted had him discussing the enormous EVIL of Islam and how it would take the combined cooperation of Russia, China, and the U.S. to WIPE IT OUT as none of them individually would be able to accomplish this wonderful feat. I then thought of Daniel Triplett’s sweeping plans to wipe out the enemy. There’s no harm in dreaming.
Daniel Triplett says
” Daniel Triplett’s sweeping plans to wipe out the enemy “
That enemy being Islam, not Muslim people.
As in Nazism, not German people.
And Shintoism, not Japanese people.
Pal says
Brilliant, Robert Spencer, Brilliant!
Heat jihad to counter the Counter-jihad. Jihad’s Useful Idiots!
Steve Klein says
I always look forward to the question and answer session at the end of the talk. Only two questions? Or were there more?
Robert Spencer says
There were many more. The event went on for an hour and a half. Unfortunately, the video is cut off.
Steve Klein says
That is too bad. ): Nice lecture.
‘The Terrorist-Sympathizing Women’s March Organizer Is So SAAAAAAD That We Killed Terrorists’
http://www.chicksontheright.com/terrorist-sympathizing-womens-march-organizer-saaaaaad-killed-terrorists/
gravenimage says
Yeesh. Thanks for that, Steve.
PRCS says
Robert Spencer,
From a “lessons learned” perspective, perhaps you could ask whomever does the video/audio recording to assure you that they have enough power and video resources to record the entire event, and that the audio quality will be sufficient clear for online viewers to understand.
I, too, enjoy the q&a segments.
mortimer says
QUESTIONS FOR TRUMAN STATE BOARD OF GOVERNORS: Equality or INEQUALITY at TSU?
1) Whenever a MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD-affiliate is speaking at TRUMAN STATE, will ROBERT SPENCER be called in to give ‘BALANCE’ to their claims and opinions?
2) Is the intrusion of a HAMAS-affiliated speaker (Faizan Syed) into Robert Spencer’s scheduled speech an example of UNEQUAL TREATMENT (i.e. superior treatment) for ISLAM at Truman State?
3) DOES TRUMAN STATE’s Board of Governors believe that Islam SHOULD HAVE SUPERIOR RIGHTS greater than other groups on campus?
4) Will TRUMAN STATE’s Board of Governors in future grant opponents of discriminatory Sharia law to SPEAK AT EVENTS of Sharia proponents?
Joe Smith says
There are people out here in the world that value your work and think you’re doing a good job Robert, even if we can’t make it to Missouri to counterbalance a hostile crowd. Don’t let those fascists get you too down. It’s astonishing how these fools are dying to give away freedoms won for us through blood and sweat by our forebears, but there it is.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
A model of lucidity.
gravenimage says
Seconded, Mr. Fitzgerald.
Pal says
Own helper with camera needed at such events!
dumbledoresarmy says
yes.
Mary says
I would like to point out that Truman State officials did NOT turn up the heat in the room in VH 1000. The thermostat is actually located at the front of the room, up by where Spencer spoke, in the corner, where one of his security guards were stationed all night. It got hot in the room probably because there were SO many people in such a small space for such an extended period of time. As a Truman student who regularly has attended chapter meetings for her sorority in the exact same room at 8pm at night,VH can be sweltering hot for no reason at all. Accusing Truman of making the room uncomfortably hot while you speak is borderline ridiculous.
Robert Spencer says
How interesting, then, that there were several people up front with me noticing how hot it was before I started to speak, and the young lady who introduced me said she would get the heat turned down. She went to speak with another student who nodded and promptly left the hall. She came back a few minutes later, after asking some official if the heat could be turned down. The heat was not turned down. She was told that the official had refused and told her that Truman had some policy regarding heat in the rooms after a certain hour. It was obvious what was going on.
If you’re a Truman student, I can understand your embarrassment at being associated with a university that coddles those who issue threats of violence against those with whom they disagree, and that is attended by so many students with a resolute determination to ignore obvious facts and demonize those who point them out. I understand that. But let’s not sugarcoat reality.
Mary says
I don’t think that young woman or the officer knows how heat or the thermostat works in VH. I do apologize for the temperature conditions though, sincerely. Even students who showed up in white were incredibly concerned when they started seeing the security guard directly to your right have to take off his tie, because it was sweltering. Thank God faculty came out with water bottles for all involved.
I do want you to know though, that the young woman who tweeted a violent threat against you is no longer a Truman Student, as she had dropped out before the semester began. I thought I would mention that just for clarity.
That being said, I want to draw a parallel between the solution you offered to a young student (I am forgetting, who, I apologize) who asked how you believe the Muslim community should counter jihadi terror and the solution that the proceeding speaker said the Muslim community was already doing and continue to do – offering education, etc.
I am very eager for Truman to make the full videos of both speakers public as they have promised to do in the near future so that your followers and followers supporting the alternate speaker can see that both of you have the same ideas about how to combat terrorism from the inside out of Islam. I think that alone is a reason to be hopeful and it’s clear that unity can be established, we just need to work together.
Robert Spencer says
If you think Faizan Syed has a sincere desire to combat terrorism, I have a bridge to sell you.
PRCS says
Dear Mary,
“That being said, I want to draw a parallel between the solution you offered to a young student (I am forgetting, who, I apologize) who asked how you believe the Muslim community should counter jihadi terror and the solution that the proceeding speaker said the Muslim community was already doing and continue to do – offering education, etc.”
In your opinion, regarding such education, which unabrogated Qur’an passages should Muslims be told to ignore, renounce or denounce?
Does the Muslim community>/i> include these folks?
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=afghan+muslims&FORM=HDRSC2
gravenimage says
Faizan Syed has, absurdly, said that those on the political right are a greater danger than Muslim migrants.
Never mind the Boston Marathon bombers were Muslim migrants, the Chattanooga shooter was a Muslim migrant, the New York and New Jersey bombings were carried out by a Muslim migrant, a Muslim migrant attempting to blow up Times Square in 2010, one of the San Bernardino shooters was a Muslim migrant; the Minnesota Mall stabbings were perpetrated by a Muslim migrant, the Ohio State University attacks were carried out by a Muslim migrant, the UNC SUV attack was perpetrated by a Muslim migrant, the Ft. Hood shooter was the son of Muslim migrants, as was the perpetrator of the Orlando Pulse Nightclub massacre, the worst shooting in US history.
There are probably a number of others; this is just off the top of my head.
And this is just in the US–the situation in Europe is even worse. Claiming that Muslim migrants are no threat is just dishonest nonsense.
Pong says
Jihad is an integral part of islam. Lesser jihad (to advance the cause of islam by any means) is 97% of it. Take it out and there is no islam. The only way to resist jihad is to recognise that islam is a political movement and to stop treating it as a religion. Koran should be treated the same way as Mein Kamph. The battle with hate speach should start with islamic texts.
Mary says
PRCS –
I think that understanding the historical/social context of the Qur’an is critical so that those passages can be understood the way that they were intended to be. I can’t personally speak for the Muslim community regarding what passages of the Qur’an should be disregard.
However, I can speak for the Catholic community. In Luke 19:27, Jesus states “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me” (New International Version). Obviously, there are other equally troubling passages in the Bible, advocating for rape, subjugation of women, violence, etc. However, “my” understanding of Catholicism/Christianity is nonviolent and peaceful and as stated by the speaker who preceded Spencer, 99.99% of Muslims also understand their faith to be nonviolent/peaceful.
I hope that at least partially answers your question. I would recommend going to a Muslim mosque directly and asking an Islamic leader in your community, they might have a more adequate answer.
Robert Spencer says
Mary, have you ever actually looked up that passage in Luke’s Gospel? If you have, you would know how brutally Faizan Syed wrenched it out of context and misrepresented its clear meaning. It has never been understood by any exegete at any point in the history of Christianity as being a mandate to kill anyone.
Mary says
Repsectfuly, Mr. Spencer, I believe that was Syed’s point. Cherrypicking verses from any religious text and removing them from their context can make any religion seem violent.
I know Christianity has been used as platform/excuse to kill many, many people, such as during the Crusades, during the reign of Queen Mary in England, etc.
All I’m saying is that people have been misinterpreting religious texts for years and using them to justify war, slavery, and deplorable crimes against humanity. I don’t think Islam is unique in that respect.
Robert Spencer says
I’m well aware that that was his point. My point is that his point was both dishonest and fallacious. While Christians have certainly been violent, no Christian leaders or exegetes have ever invoked that verse to justify violence. By contrast, it is incredibly easy to find Muslim leaders and Qur’anic exegetes invoking Qur’an verses to justify and call for violence. So for Syed to equate the two was simply an exercise in deception.
Mark Swan says
Mary there is a difference between describing violence and prescribing it, that is the problem with the Quran it gives mortals permission to use violence, read the Quran,
and think for yourself, it is a dark work.
When Christ talked of a worldly Lord, he showed how a human, using human reasoning, would behave.
JawsV says
The Quran is a license to kill. The Bible is not.
gravenimage says
Mary wrote:
However, I can speak for the Catholic community. In Luke 19:27, Jesus states “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me” (New International Version).
……………………………..
Mary, this is Jesus telling a parable about a king. These are not Jesus’s words directly.
Saying they are is like saying you are a murderous betrayer if your were to read Macbeth aloud, including the lead character’s lines.
More:
…as stated by the speaker who preceded Spencer, 99.99% of Muslims also understand their faith to be nonviolent/peaceful.
……………………………..
This is not true at all. The “Prophet” is considered the model for every male Muslim, and he was a violent warlord and conqueror.
Support for the imposition of brutal Shari’ah law is very high in the Muslim world–in Afghanistan, it is 99%.
How about Jihad terrorism? 90% of Palestinians approve of attacks on American troops, as do 83% of Egyptians, and 72% of Jordanians.
And Jihad terror groups? 49% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hamas, as do the same number of Nigerian Muslims.
What about killing civilians? Majorities in Egypt (63%) and Libya (61%) supported the 9/11/2012 attacks against American embassies, including Benghazi.
30% of Palestinians support attacks on American civilians working in Muslim countries, and 24% support the murder of Americans on U.S. soil. One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children.
How about in the West? 42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified, as do 35% of young Muslims in Britain, and 29% of young Muslims in Spain.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx#terror
How do *any* of those figures support your assertion that “99.99% of Muslims also understand their faith to be nonviolent/peaceful”?
More:
I hope that at least partially answers your question. I would recommend going to a Muslim mosque directly and asking an Islamic leader in your community, they might have a more adequate answer.
……………………………..
And Infidel inquiring would probably get a load of Taqiyya. What do Imams preach in their own Mosques?
Here is a learned Muslim cleric preaching robbing and murdering Jews and Christians in the United States:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mXbp5sTiM0
Imams preaching violent Jihad is the norm.
Why don’t you tell him that he is entirely mistaken about his peaceful creed?
Michael Ray says
Luke 19:27 is the conclusion of Jesus’ parable about Himself and His kingdom. He was making clear to his disciples that their assumptions about Jesus establishing His throne in Jerusalem at that moment were wrong. He was leaving after death and resurrection and there would be a period of stewardship for his followers. That He would return as the King and Judge of the earth was never in question. Jesus never deflected His role as final Judge of every human life. No right thinking Christian writer/preacher ever uses this passage to foment violence. The violent nature of the passage itself refers to the ultimate judgement and triumph over evil by God Himself.
I, for one, eagerly await that day.
PRCS says
No, Mary, your response did not answer my questions.
It should be obvious that all + billion members of the worldwide Muslim community are NOT being taught which Qur’an passages to ignore, renounce and denounce.
Quite the contrary.
An example:
Qur’an 5:33 (Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,
This photo makes clear that some unknown number of individual Muslims–worldwide–do understand that passage as it was intended to be.
http://tinyurl.com/lgq296v
JawsV says
Mary, that’s Jesus relating the “The Parable of the Ten Minas.” They aren’t Jesus’s words — they are the king’s in the parable. Let me guess, the Muslim tried to sell you a bill of goods that those were Jesus’s words. Advice: Don’t believe the Mohammedans, they are permitted to lie to the Infidels (non-Muslims, including you). Deceiving unbelievers is universal in Islam.
Yes, your face should be red for believing Jesus (God) would say such a thing. You’re also ignorant about the Crusades. I suggest you read Spencer’s book on the subject instead of listening to your alt-left professors.
I’m so glad my college experience wasn’t ruined by 21st century Muslims, Islam, Jihad.
Greyhound Fancier says
Honey, please read the context. Jesus told a parable about a nobleman who assigned his servants to use the harsh man’s resources while he was away on a trip to get royal powers for himself. Jesus quotes this hypothetical man after he returns from his trip and learns that some of the servants had done well and others not so much.
In other words, if God were like the harsh nobleman, he’d return from the trip, take away what little the foolish servants had, and have them killed. Jesus didn’t endorse that, as in other parables Jesus used an earthly example to explain a heavenly truth.
Jesus did not want to be an earthly king. It’s a parable.
Michael Ray says
On Easter weekend we have so much confusion about Jesus. In trying mollify the passage for current consumption you have basically denied the deity of Christ. If you return to the context yourself you will see that this kingdom parable is instructive of the timing of Jesus ascension to His throne in Jerusalem, not whether He would. He of course is an earthly and Heavenly King at once.
Zec. 9:99
“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your King is coming to you;
He is just and having salvation,
Lowly and riding on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey
.Rev. 1:5
5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.
Rev. 19:11
11Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war.
At precisely the moment we need the Omnipotent Warrior King to return and put an end to this diabolical madness, christians are busy taking words out of His mouth, and stripping Him of His rank.
This is how we combat jihad?
gravenimage says
One more point–Mary wrote:
PRCS –
I think that understanding the historical/social context of the Qur’an is critical so that those passages can be understood the way that they were intended to be. I can’t personally speak for the Muslim community regarding what passages of the Qur’an should be disregard (sic).
……………………………
Even if one could argue that the ‘proper’ interpretation of the hideously violent commands of the Qur’an is that they are not to be taken literally in their “historical/social context”, how would you convince pious Muslims–including Muslim clerics, it should be noted–of that?
The fact is that Jihadists all over the world are citing the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the model of the “Prophet” Muhammed as inspiration for slaughtering unbelievers all over the world. Are you going to convince them they are wrong?
Terry Gain says
Mary
Re Luke 19:27. A Muslim lied to you about your own religion and you didn’t know enough about it to catch the lie. It’s no wonder that that you’ve been so easily deceived about Islam.
FYI says
“I can speak for the catholic community”
No,no, you do not.
And neither,in fact, does the current man in Rome,pope francis who has demonstrated his theological ignorance and astonishing blindness regarding islam (apart from being condemned by his own cardinals and faithful Catholic groups for.. heresy).
As for your reference to Luke: a course in Hermeneutics needs to be taken in your case before you are sufficiently endowed with the ability to actually interpret the Gospel.
The koranic teachings are commands of allah which are either totally in conflict with God’s commandments or are equivocations.
The difference between the Bible and the koran,God and allah is that allah himself either openly advocates the breaking (or equivocates on) God’s commandments.
I recommend you go to a mosque and ask the iman
(1)for a formal,enumerated list of God’s commandments and
(2)for a chapter and verse reference to these all important official laws of God in their koran
(3)Ask him to explain HOW is it possible -and WHY-are they missing.
(4)why does allah -himself-encourage his followers to break them?
(4)And in whose interest was it for them to be omitted?Certainly not God’s.
carol says
Mary said…”However, I can speak for the Catholic community. In Luke 19:27, Jesus states “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me” (New International Version). Obviously, there are other equally troubling passages in the Bible…”
This is a clear attempt to see if she can get away with misleading less informed readers. She makes no reference (as she “cleverly” does AFTER Mr. Spencer corrects her) to…”Repsectfuly, Mr. Spencer, I believe that was Syed’s point. Cherrypicking verses from any religious text and removing them from their context can make any religion seem violent….”
This is insincere boilerplate nonsense.Besides this I really resent cultural babies or Islamists and Islamophiles who try to conflate British motivations, drives and history with the supreme irresponsible garbage that is radical (or not-so-radical) Islam. We all know by now that the Crusades were a matter of long-delayed defense and honour after centuries of Islamic brutality; we all know that the Tudor era (with its flaky Mary) was a time of Reformation and religion was about the only “glue” that held a country together. Nothing in British history is at all comparable to the obscene blanket Islamic predators with their extraneously vicious brutalities and rapes that has anything at all to do with the mindset of other fundamentally decent cultures – particularly not Western or Jewish ones..
August West says
Mary just a couple of points about your post:
1) The statement “99.99% of any given population agree with x” is impossible to prove. There is no way to sample the global muslim population to get this level of accuracy. There are several Pew polls, however, which give more believable data regarding the beliefs of the global muslim population. Others on this thread have also pointed this out to you. You should be aware of both basic statistical sampling methods and the basic data available to you before you make an absurd statement like that.
2) Your argument is a very common argument which is used to defend Islam. It is called the “moral equivalency” argument. It is a weak argument because it actually concedes your opponents premise, and then attempts to justify.
Consider….
Dr West “Islam is violent”
Mary “so is the Bible”
You have conceded that Islam is violent while giving me the ability to branch in several directions.
I can directly compare the contents of the Koran + Sunnah to the Bible.
I can compare historical and current facts about the violence of Islam vs any other religion.
I can also argue that all religion is violent but Islam is worse.
At no point are you able to pivot back to show that Islam is not violent.
There is an excellent debate on this topic between Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ramadan. You can find this on YouTube. Judge Ramadan’s moral equivalency argument for yourself.
3) Lastly you made a comment about not knowing which koran verses to ignore. There is a well accepted doctrine used by islamic scholars for this. This is called the doctrine of abrogation. In areas of conflict koran verses that were revealed later in time take precident. You should familiarize yourself with this concept and it’s implications.
Spencer quoted koran verses in his talk which have not been abrogated.
If you want to understand the difference between the koran and Bible simply ask:
Where is the sword verse in the koran?
Where is the sword verse in the Bible?
Why does the Koran have a sword verse?
Lastly look at a map of the world today and note areas where Islam borders non islamic populations. Read the news coming from those places.
Then ask why does Islam have bloody borders?
You need to learn more about islam.
Guest says
These are the words of the ignorant and the oppressive! You are a hero Robert Spencer.
Gail says
I find it interesting that once the Q&A session revealed threats from Spencer’s followers it was immediately cut off. The Q&A session went on for another twenty minutes with various interruptions, refusal to cite sources, and general rudeness on the part of Spencer. It’s almost as if it was purposefully cut off so as not to put Spencer in a more realistic light.
Robert Spencer says
You’re lying, of course, and it’s convenient for you that the video isn’t complete. If a complete one becomes available, I will post it. In reality, I was disappointed to see that this one wasn’t complete.
As for threats from my “followers,” the person who threatened Bella Waddle here at Jihad Watch had never commented here before. You have no evidence that the threatener was a supporter of my work, and I have plenty of experience with people who post comments here pretending to be on my side but actually trying to discredit the site. If this person had been a regular commenter here, I would concede that he or she was a “follower.” But that remains unproven.
As for interruptions, I stopped one fellow to answer his first point before he went on to make others, so that, as I explained, I wouldn’t forget them all. I then invited him to continue, and he did. As for refusal to cite sources, that is an outright and outrageous lie, as I several times gave my email address for people who wanted the documentation of what I was saying: the question was about the studies that showed that poverty didn’t cause terrorism. I cited the Rand study and said there were others I couldn’t remember but would supply the information to anyone who emailed and asked (no one has). That’s hardly a “refusal to cite sources.”
And as for rudeness, it was entirely on the part of the Truman students — as evidenced by your lying here. You’re a fine example of the Left-fascists with a hatred for the truth who are apparently quite common at Truman State University. I find it quite interesting that the Left-fascists at Truman State are apparently so embarrassed by their behavior throughout this whole incident that now you’re resorting to lying about some fictional meltdown I had at the end and conspiracy to cut the video short. That’s really pathetic.
If anyone has the full video, please send it to me at director@jihadwatch.org and I will post it forthwith.
Mary says
Mr. Spencer, the University filmed the entire event & will be posting the videos in the next few days. I will send you the full videos once they become available. I am very happy Truman recorded the event, although I wish they would have also had a camera pointed at the audience as well. I think full transparency regarding what did/didn’t happen is critical and I think those videos will provide that transparency.
gravenimage says
I’ll look forward to seeing it, Mary.
Ahem says
Despite Mary’s claims to be a Catholic, I believe she is most probably either a devout muslim liar or, even worse, a devout leftist muslim apologist.
Devout muslim or devout leftist. It amounts to the same thing.
Mark Swan says
gravenimage, Mary, here, is up to mischief, she is full of guile and contempt.
http://occasionalplanet.org/2017/04/10/tension-mounts-islamophobic-speaker-scheduled-truman-state/
gravenimage says
Thanks so much for that link, Mark.
Mark Swan says
Yes indeed, you are very welcome gravenimage.
gravenimage says
Bravo, Robert Spencer!
JawsV says
Sad to see how eager the leftist millennials are to believe the deceptions of the Mohammedans.
Davegreybeard says
Once again Robert, an excellent battle with militantly ignorant!
Thank you for all you do, you are an inspiration to those of us “in the trenches” striving to shine the light on Islam, one Infidel at a time.
Is the Quran you use in your lectures still available? I have looked for it online and have not found it.
Davegreybeard says
@Mary:
“I think full transparency regarding what did/didn’t happen is critical and I think those videos will provide that transparency.”
Great Mary, here at Jihad Watch we’re all about “transparency,” particularly in regard to Islam.
So, since you were there and have firsthand knowledge of the event, would you generally agree with the comments of “Gail” above?
Mark Swan says
Mary’s writing speaks for itself:
http://occasionalplanet.org/2017/04/10/tension-mounts-islamophobic-speaker-scheduled-truman-state/
JawsV says
It’s amusing how Mary is so interested in transparency while the Mohammedans’ goal is deception.
“War is deception.” — Muhammed (Hadiths)
Michael Ray says
Thank you Mr. Spencer for your courageous work.
Relic says
Boss
john ledingham says
Anyone who has researched the subject has to include Mr. Spencer’s extensive knowledge and I am personally avid follower.
Anders Larsen says
Thank you robert
Baucent says
A good speech, probably fortunate to be able to speak after the CAIR guy. But a speech grounded in undeniable facts. It is very difficult to support the argument that CAIR would offer that Jihadists have somehow misunderstood the Koran. And Robert demonstrated that by anchoring his argument in the authority of Islamic scholars themselves. Any undecided listener has to decide is this really just bigoted “racism” or is there really something sinister in these religious teachings that needs to be exposed. Hopefully some eyes have been opened.
ECAW says
Yes, hopefully.
pennant8 says
Wait, what? The Muslim Students Association has a chapter in Truman State University, a school located smack in the middle of the heartland, and a school whose name doesn’t show up in the press very often. Who knew?
JawsV says
Islam is insidious.
Florida Jim says
He is fearless and deals only in facts which terrifies muslims.
Jan Aage Jeppesen says
Of course ot does, because Islam is the biggest fake news of all time. 😉
dave says
I always look forward to your talks, but frankly could not get beyond the beginning of this one. Surely there are other examples of Americans hesitating to report suspicious Muslim activity besides the ten-year-old video store story. Obviously, giving talks at many venues necessitates repeating ones self, but reaching this far into the past could be taken to mean “this used to happen, but doesn’t any more”.
JawsV says
I disagree. I enjoyed Robert’s talk at Truman (video). As for the 2007 Ft. Dix attempted Jihad that’s major. Ten years ago isn’t “old.” It’s not “reaching far into the past.” Neither is referencing 9/11 in 2001.
The 6 Mohammedans’ goal was to “kill as many soldiers as possible.” If the young video store worker hadn’t overcome his PC indoctrination it would have been a massacre of more Americans by Muslims. Robert’s point is that the “islamophobia” BS is so insidious that otherwise intelligent people don’t realize they’ve been infected by the propaganda.
Another example is the neighbors in San Bernardino who failed to report the suspicious activity by the Muslims next door in December 2015 which Robert included. No, Robert’s message is NOT “it doesn’t happen anymore.” Quite the opposite. It’s happening now and will continue to happen as long as people remain brainwashed about Islam, such as the moonbat millennials at Truman State.
Politicianphobia says
Mazim Abdul-Adhim an imam at a mosque in London,Ontario when questioned about the hadith that says Isn’t the witness of two women equal to that of one man. The woman said yes. He said this is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind. Allah says
Don Foss says
At 6:30 the story of Progressive thought capsulized.
Stan says
I am curious about Robert using the term fascist to describe the idiots attending his lecture. Fascism is always associated with far right political orientation. I see the one party totalitarian aspect of the leftists, but that’s all. I trust his intellect and judgment so it’s important to understand.
gravenimage says
You find Fascist tactics on the Left, as well.
August West says
Just a heads up to those interested.
Both of the books that Mr Spencer refers to in this video are available inexpensively at amazon.
I think my copy of reliance of the traveler was $30.
I have purchased both and find them to be very valuable.
Of course I don’t keep them with my real books. I keep them in the floor where they belong.
The following documents are also good references, and are much better read with reference to Spencer’s koran and reliance of the traveler:
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran
Hamas Covenant
Ottoman Jihad Fatwa dated November 1914
Islamic threat doctrine is readily available and very easy to comprehend.
Politicianphobia says
Mary, I decided to ask some questions at the local mosque in 1984. I walked in, opened the first door I came to and saw a man sitting on a stool. He was surrounded by women sitting on the floor–all their heads were covered. The man promptly came to the door and abruptly escorted me to entrance. He was extremely rude and told me never to come there again. I was surprised at how rude he was. I was also surprised to see the women sitting on the floor. The next day I spent hours in the library reading about Islam. I have spent years reading about Islam. Thank God for Robert Spencer. If you go to the mosque remember to cover your head or you will be in trouble and do read the Qur’an before you go.
JawsV says
1984? Wow. Who thought about Islam in 1984 and visited mosks? I learned about Islam on September 11, 2001, and have been learning since.
You got the rude treatment at the mosk because you’re an Infidel — non-Muslim.
gravenimage says
In 1984 most Infidels had no idea that Islam was a threat. Good for you.
David wilson says
It’s very easy to be among the throng, for the cowardly. Stay strong Rob.
Ren says
Kudos to Robert for getting out there to spread the truth.
mgoldberg says
I watched the video, remembering that you were forced to swelter, and wondered how the crowd felt about all that. Your speech was crisp, cogent, gentle and without problems from the naysayers… but I would love to hear the bunch of supercilious questions and your responses. Also I wonder if you asked the crowd..’you feel the temperature around you.”” It is a purposeful encumberance, upon myself and yourselves… why do you think this was done to you, me and this discussion?
Anyway…. a sober delightful and wonderful lecture, which may have changed a few minds, but I imagine that few would be so bold as to be clear and responsibly educated on a college campus.
JawsV says
The listener also enjoys Robert’s dry wit and humor!
carol says
Mr. Spencer knows his stuff. In this July/16 interview with Stephen Bannon on the subject of Iran all his knowledge seems right there at his fingertips.
Robert Spencer on Breitbart: The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran
Daniel Triplett says
Brilliant.
Exactly the kind of brain trust we need in the West Wing: Steve Bannon and Robert Spencer. Trump, Bannon, and Spencer would be the Dream Team NSC.
Kushner and McMaster are like naive children playing with matches. They have no business being anywhere near the White House. Unfortunately, because of his wife, Kushner is there to stay, so Bannon must walk the tight-rope.
It’s a relief to know Steve Bannon personally knows, trusts, and respects Robert Spencer, consulting with him for all matters Islam. At least we know Robert is getting to the President through Steve.
Robert Spencer says
ECAW
“By the way, since I have your attention, could you please clear up a small matter which has been puzzling me? Why do you take such a definite stance on what the jihad verses mean, for instance that ‘Smite the unbelievers’ means all unbelievers everywhere and for all time, while also believing the Koran to be effectively fictional? It seems to me that you are looking in opposite directions at the same time.”
While I have your attention, let me note: you’re lying in many ways. You’re lying about the frequency of violent comments here, you’re lying about my disposition toward them, you’re lying about your obsessive tendency to bring up my saying “Britain is finished” (by the way: Britain is finished): you constantly bring it up on posts where I did not say it, and constantly remind people of my saying it, as if it were something heinous, which it obviously is for you, or rather, you hope people will think it will be. It isn’t. It’s a statement of fact. If you dispute it, instead of constantly whining, do something to show me wrong and turn things around there.
And now this. I am increasingly convinced that you’re a plant, a clever and skillful one but a plant nonetheless, determined to discredit this site. That’s fine. Have at it. I’m just going on record here that I know what you are. What convinced me was your question that I quoted here. It’s such an elementary distinction that any fool knows the answer, and the only people who have ever asked me the question or claimed inconsistency on my part before were Islamic apologists and supremacists. Interesting!
Anyway, here’s the answer. Why do you take such a definite stance on what the jihad verses mean, for instance that ‘Smite the unbelievers’ means all unbelievers everywhere and for all time, while also believing the Koran to be effectively fictional?
It is not I, but Islamic exegetes and commentators on the Qur’an, such as Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qayyim and many others, who say that “smite the unbelievers” takes precedence over other, more peaceful verses and is valid for all time. I merely note that fact. I also note the fact that Muhammad is effectively fictional based on the historical record. That doesn’t mean that Muslims don’t believe he was real, and so we need to know what he is believed to have said or didn’t say. That doesn’t mean that those accounts of his words and deeds have historical value. We can, in a rough analogy, speak quite definitely about what Shakespeare’s Macbeth said and didn’t say, but that doesn’t make him a historical character.
ECAW says
Robert Spencer
It would be “such an elementary distinction that any fool knows the answer” except for the fact that you don’t just note what the exegetes say but clearly take the same view as them, as shown here:
“The fighting that the Koran commands must continue until the entire world is under the rule of Islam….however Muslim spokesmen in the West explain these [verses] away as applying only to the 7th century….”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knryaTzu9nM
As for the rest, I am sorry to see you lashing out at friends and foes alike. I suspect that you have been under pressure from all your real enemies too long and it is beginning to take its toll.
I will get out of your hair now since my genuine challenges seem to annoy you inordinately.
Best wishes to you.
Robert Spencer says
ECAW:
Your claims, once again, are false. For one thing, you shifted the goalposts. “Any fool knows the answer” was in reference to my saying that Muhammad says this and that while also noting that he is of doubtful historicity, not about the Qur’an’s doctrines of war.
I do not believe your self-description as a “friend.”
Goodbye and good luck. Britain is finished.