Another week has rolled around, and the Stanford Daily is filled with more hit pieces denouncing me, trying to shame the College Republicans into apologizing for inviting me, and above all, trying to keep people from attending my scheduled lecture tomorrow evening. In The Coming of the Third Reich, historian Richard J. Evans explains how, in the early days of National Socialist Germany, Stormtroopers (Brownshirts) “organized campaigns against unwanted professors in the local newspapers [and] staged mass disruptions of their lectures.” These Stanford students are the true children and heirs of the Brownshirts.
In this open letter from the Muslim Law Students Association and the Stanford Advocates for Immigrants’ Rights at Stanford Law School, we see the common Leftist tactic of presenting statements that are perfectly true as if they were self-evidently false. No refutation is presented, just the statement, as if any sane person would see that it was false. This is manipulation, not rational argumentation. Is this the kind of standard for research and evidence they teach at Stanford? Probably.
This letter also contains outright false claims about what I have said and positions I have taken, and the usual twisting of reasonable statements to make them sound nutty. It’s a slick tactic, but why must Stanford students resort to such tactics at all? Why not simply present evidence that what I say is false? Because that is the one thing they cannot do.
Did these students protest the appearances at Stanford of jihad mass murder apologists Aarab Barghouti and Mads Gilbert? Somehow I doubt it.
I detail the full extent, and dangers, of this moral inversion in my new book Confessions of an Islamophobe. Preorder your copy here now.
“The College Republicans promote hate and disinformation,” Stanford Daily, November 13, 2017:
Dear Stanford College Republicans:
We are writing to condemn Robert Spencer’s hateful views and your choice to legitimize them by inviting him to Stanford. Mr. Spencer is a propagandist who promotes fear of Muslims. By having him speak at your “flagship event of the year,” you have thrown your support behind the anti-Muslim policies and discourse that are increasingly accepted within the Republican Party. We respect your right to bring Mr. Spencer to speak on campus; however, we condemn your decision to endorse his bigoted ideology, which targets Muslims, immigrants and people of color across the world, including your fellow classmates and community members here at Stanford.
Opposing jihad terror and Sharia oppression “promotes fear of Muslims” and “targets Muslims”? Interesting!
Mr. Spencer’s anti-Muslim agenda is well documented. He directs a blog called Jihad Watch, which spreads inflammatory and conspiratorial views of Islam[1],
Can we get an example? Of course not.
and he co-founded the Stop Islamization of America campaign, whose name speaks for itself[2].
Do the writers of this letter want stonings, amputations, honor killings, female genital mutilation, women having to get permission to leave the house, wife-beating, and the other features of Sharia societies, in the U.S.? Do the readers of this letter want those things?
Here’s a sampling of his views:
- Spencer said that Americans needed to consider “very seriously” the possibility that then-President Obama was a jihadist agent carrying out jihad against the United States.
I didn’t say that, of course. What I actually said was that Barack Obama’s policies were actively weakening the United States, and that given his position, he had to know that. I stand by that.
- He stated: “Immigration is a core Islamic principle…. [T]he idea of immigrating to a new place to conquer and Islamize it, and that’s exactly what we’re seeing…. They set up these Sharia enclaves and then because their birthrate is so much higher than that of the non-Muslim population those enclaves will inevitably grow and continue to grow until finally that’s all there is.”
Uh, yeah. Look at what’s happening in Europe. And see Qur’an 4:100 for the idea of emigration for the sake of Allah being a core Islamic principle.
- He described as “hogwash” then-President George W. Bush’s statement that Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful,” because, according to Mr. Spencer, “Islam is the only religion in the world that has a developed doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates violence against unbelievers and mandates that Muslims must wage war in order to establish the hegemony of the Islamic social order all over the world.”
Yep. Evidence here.
- He wrote that “[m]ulticulturalism is a heresy” and that “[d]enigrating and ultimately destroying the Judeo-Christian West” is the “point of the whole multiculturalist enterprise.”
Uh huh. Read the whole article.
- He has repeatedly defended the baseless assertion that at least 80 percent of the mosques in the United States are actually controlled by extremists.
Note that while my remarks are linked, the word “baseless” is not. Interesting! Four separate studies since 1999 all found that 80% of U.S. mosques were teaching jihad, Islamic supremacism, and hatred and contempt for Jews and Christians. There are no countervailing studies that challenge these results. In 1998, Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a Sufi leader, visited 114 mosques in the United States. Then he gave testimony before a State Department Open Forum in January 1999, and asserted that 80% of American mosques taught the “extremist ideology.” Then there was the Center for Religious Freedom’s 2005 study, and the Mapping Sharia Project’s 2008 study. Each independently showed that upwards of 80% of mosques in America were preaching hatred of Jews and Christians and the necessity ultimately to impose Islamic rule. In the summer of 2011 came another study showing that only 19% of mosques in U.S. don’t teach jihad violence and/or Islamic supremacism. Specifically: “A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshiper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite guest imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.” That means that around 1,700 mosques in the U.S. are preaching hatred of infidels and justifying violence against them.
- When Justice Elena Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court, Mr. Spencer said that she would “knowingly and wittingly abet the advance of Sharia.”
And this is false in what way? Leftist multiculturalists think Sharia is wonderful and have worked actively against anti-Sharia measures in U.S. cities and states. I’m sure Kagan approves.
- He has called into question the existence of ethnic cleansing against Rohingya Muslims by Myanmar security forces, suggesting that “Islamic jihadis and supremacists may be fabricating atrocities against the Rohingya in order to sway public opinion.”
Yes. I am by no means the only person saying that.
Your group has attempted to justify inviting Mr. Spencer by highlighting that he espouses “beliefs that many of the staff in the White House hold.” You’re right about the White House: As a candidate, President Trump called for a “shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” and his travel ban aims to make that promise a reality. Unfortunately, it’s not just the White House. For example, the Republican leadership has failed to denounce the anti-Muslim views of Senate candidate Roy Moore, who has referred to Islam as a “false religion” and argued that Representative Keith Ellison should not be allowed to serve in Congress because he’s a Muslim.
I don’t think Ellison shouldn’t be in Congress because he is a Muslim. I think Ellison shouldn’t serve in Congress because he is a Muslim Brotherhood operative.
In other words, the fact that a Republican president promotes anti-Muslim policies and beliefs is not reason for Stanford Republicans to promote anti-Muslim views on campus. Rather, it is reason for you, as young Republican leaders, to take a stand and steer your party away from the path of intolerance and discrimination.
Note: these students are claiming that opposing jihad terror and Sharia oppression is “anti-Muslim.” That reveals more about them than it does about me.
Confronting Islamist terrorism is one of the greatest challenges of our lifetime. We must better understand and counter extremist groups that have claimed far too many lives. For those genuinely interested in learning more about Islamist terrorism, however, Mr. Spencer has no credibility on the topic. Rather, he has exploited the threat of terrorism to demean and vilify Muslims.
Do they provide an example of my demeaning and vilifying Muslims? No. Can they? Of course not.
Moving forward, we urge you to use your position of power as representatives of the Republican Party at Stanford to combat — instead of promote — Islamophobia, hatred and fear.
Sincerely,
Muslim Law Students Association – Stanford Law School
Stanford Advocates for Immigrants’ Rights – Stanford Law SchoolContact the Muslim Law Students Association and Stanford Advocates for Immigrants’ Rights at mlsa.sair ‘at’ gmail.com.
[1] Due to its hostility towards Muslims, JihadWatch.org is classified as an active hate group by both the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center. [2] The Anti-Defamation League describes Stop Islamization of America as follows: “Consistently vilifying the Islamic faith under the guise of fighting radical Islam, the group has introduced a growing number of Americans to its conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda.” [3] Another statement by the Stanford College Republicans asserts that views like Mr. Spencer’s “are held by many of the highest government officials making national security decisions on behalf of our country[.]”
And the SPLC and ADL are reliable sources on this because…?
boakai ngombu says
May you well confront the slaves of the allah god of islam (unknowable; the best of all deceivers) with your typical good humor and God-given honesty.
jihad3tracker says
TO EVERY JIHAD WATCH READER — The Stanford Daily makes it very easy to comment on that article, with Facebook, Disqus, and other ways.
PLEASE TAKE 5 MINUTES FROM YOUR BUSY SCHEDULES TODAY — and DO write some pushback.
There might be many respondents, however, so be patient if what you write temporarily disappears for moderation.
AND OMIT HOTLINKS OR EVEN URL ADDRESS — the staff cannot risk possible porn or malware which could be in them.
Our experts on the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira should give plenty of citational passages to blow those victimhood-peddling students’ claptrap away.
meturaf says
Facebook monitors and censors. I already called them on this issue and of course my posting never appeared.
Sons of Liberty says
As young Republicans , ” steer your party away from the path of intolerance and discrimination ” . ????? , Seriously ? You can’t GET MORE INTOLERANT and DISCRIMINATORY …than ISLAM ! This is a college of higher learning , Stanford ? Are you KIDDING ME ? Why don’t they pick up a copy of the Qur’an or READ some real HISTORY about ALL THE ATROCITIES and KILLINGS of Muhammad and all his followers since the late 7th Century AD . Read about the Armenian Christian GENOCIDE starting in 1915 by the Ottoman Turks. These Muslim Turks were SO DESPICABLE that they even TRIED to collect on LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES taken out with American insurance companies by the Armenian Christians THEY MURDERED ! These Stanford students are just plain stupid or too LAZY to do some real research into the HISTORY OF ISLAM . Stanford University BWHAAAAA …WHAT A JOKE of a university.
gravenimage says
We are supposed to tolerant of Jihad terror…
mortimer says
Agree with Sons of Liberty. Why do they not read the Koran, hadiths and Sira and find out the NAMES as well as the contents of Islam’s primary source texts? It would be more INTELLECTUAL for college students to actually READ THE BOOKS THEY ARE GOING TO CRITIQUE! That goes for Mr. Robert Spencer’s 17 books about jihad! How can Stanford students know what is in those 17 books (and thousands of articles) PRIOR to reading them?
Answer: they cannot know either about Islam or Robert Spencer without reading the books of those authors. Those prejudiced Stanford students are intellectual frauds.
Norger says
“And the SPLC and ADL are reliable sources on this because…?
Because if you can simply dismiss Spencer as a purveyor of “hate,” you don’t have to actually address the substance of anything he says. Taking an unflinching look at Islamic orthodoxy is simply not acceptable on our college campuses.
mortimer says
STANFORD STUDENTS ARE UNCONCERNED WITH FACTS! It is all about subjective feelings!
Leftist students at Stanford appeal to three fallacies that are similar:
1)Fallacy of the Appeal to Ignorance: since there is no evidence to the contrary, it must be true.
2)Fallacy of the Appeal to Self-evident Truth: The fallacy is in the implied claim that the argument needs no evidence or explanation because it is “self-evident.” People often confuse their own subjective feelings and interpretations with self-evidence.
3)Fallacy of ‘Truthiness’: Truthiness is something you feel is true, even if it isn’t supported by fact. Truthiness is a quality characterizing a “truth” that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively “from the gut” or because it “feels right” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
Solution to the Weakness of these Fallacies:
1) By appealing to ignorance, it is easy for students to simply CHECK THE FACTS. They refuse to check the facts, because Robert Spencer is a supporter of universal human rights. The Leftists resolve this problem shouting louder and staying away from evidence that contradicts their assertion.
2) By appealing to self-evident truththe students must constantly repeat the assertion that Robert Spencer is an enemy and a bigot, even when no evidence from any of his 17 books or thousands of articles can be provide to support the false assertion.
3) By appealing to ‘truthiness’, students at Stanford show they are intellectually incompetent and/or lazy. Leftist students at Stanford use three similar fallacies:
1)Fallacy of the Appeal to Ignorance:
2)Fallacy of the Appeal to Self-evident Truth: The fallacy is in the implied claim that the argument needs no evidence or explanation because it is “self-evident.” People often confuse their own subjective feelings and interpretations with self-evidence.
3)Fallacy of ‘Truthiness’: Truthiness is something you feel is true, even if it isn’t supported by fact. Truthiness is a quality characterizing a “truth” that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively “from the gut” or because it “feels right” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts. Stephen Colbert said, ‘You don’t look up truthiness in a book, you look it up in your gut. “We’re not talking about truth, we’re talking about something that seems like truth – the truth we want to exist.”
mortimer says
Correction:
STANFORD STUDENTS ARE UNCONCERNED WITH FACTS! It is all about subjective feelings!
Leftist students at Stanford appeal to three fallacies that are similar:
1)Fallacy of the Appeal to Ignorance: since there is no evidence to the contrary, it must be true.
2)Fallacy of the Appeal to Self-evident Truth: The fallacy is in the implied claim that the argument needs no evidence or explanation because it is “self-evident.” People often confuse their own subjective feelings and interpretations with self-evidence.
3)Fallacy of ‘Truthiness’: Truthiness is something you feel is true, even if it isn’t supported by fact. Truthiness is a quality characterizing a “truth” that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively “from the gut” or because it “feels right” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
Solution to the Weakness of these Fallacies:
1) By appealing to ignorance, it is easy for students to simply CHECK THE FACTS. They refuse to check the facts, because Robert Spencer is a supporter of universal human rights. The Leftists resolve this problem shouting louder and staying away from evidence that contradicts their assertion.
2) By appealing to self-evident truththe students must constantly repeat the assertion that Robert Spencer is an enemy and a bigot, even when no evidence from any of his 17 books or thousands of articles can be provide to support the false assertion.
3) By appealing to ‘truthiness’, students at Stanford show they are intellectually incompetent and/or lazy.
These students simply concentrate on their feelings and subjectively work themselves up over a perceived wrong. In so doing, they are merely making a straw man, calling it Robert Spencer and hanging him in effigy. The real Robert Spencer has little or no resemblance to the straw man.
What is ‘TRUTHINESS’? Stephen Colbert said, ‘You don’t look up truthiness in a book, you look it up in your gut. “We’re not talking about truth, we’re talking about something that seems like truth – the truth we want to exist.”
Truthiness is a concern then about subjective feelings. ‘Factiness’ would be a concern about objective facts that contradict unsupported feelings and emotional intensity.
Stanford students may not find FACTS very much fun, but that is the reason they are supposedly at university… to SEARCH FOR FACTS and not to play childish, emotional games.
Shmoovie says
“Factiness”.
Thanks for that lol.
Yep… since RS ‘doesn’t have qualifications’ to speak on islam and is just hating to-boot, keep him away and instead get the facts about islam from SPLC–self-proclaimed arbiters of truth– and the MLSA.
mortimer says
Thanks, shmoovie.
If supposed facts do not stand up to intense scrutiny and testing they cannot be received as ‘reliable’ facts.
SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS simply avoid entirely any scrutiny and require no research or defense apart from SHOUTING LOUDER.
The Stanford student Leftists would not last a minute in a scheduled debate with Robert Spencer.
gravenimage says
Yes, Mortimer–I like “factiness”, as well. 🙂
Rebecca says
I’m sure the students have ruined the meaning of self-evident truths. We certainly don’t have the same truths the Founders had when writing the Declaration of Independence. The Muslims and Marxists were on the same side in WWI and WWII and they threatened WWIII. It seems the Marxists running the schools in America today have invited in their buddies the Muslims to help them take over the country, and get rid of Christianity and Capitalism for good.
brane pilot says
To be a speaker of unpleasant truths is to be a ‘hater’ in the new Orwellian landscape of discourse.
In seven years of following this site, I have not one single time encountered what I would consider an article based upon ‘hate’. That is more than I can say for the Washington Post or New York Times.
If I had, or if it ever happens, I would dump this site like…
But it hasn’t.
Not yet.
mortimer says
Regarding the right to ‘hate’ injustice. Those who hated slavery in the 19th century (whom we now call ‘Abolitionists’) were subjected to a great deal of virulent, angry denunciations and physical attacks by slavery Retentionists.
Islam is a form of enslavement. Islam enslaves first the mind and closes it to science, logic, ideas, morality and critical thought. The kindest think we can do for Muslims is to liberate them and the world from this backwardness and servitude to a 7th century slave cult, violence cult, misogyny cult and rape cult.
Kay says
+1
mike9a says
+2
gravenimage says
Fine post, Mortimer.
Benedict says
Here is non-sense:
“Consistently vilifying the Islamic faith under the guise of fighting radical Islam, the group has introduced a growing number of Americans to its conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda.” –
Here is how it makes sense:
“Consistently vilifying the anti-Islamic faith under the guise of fighting radical Islam, the group [ADL] has introduced a growing number of Americans to its conspiratorial Muslim agenda.”
“He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.“
Matthew 12:30
Emilie Green says
Spencer isn’t vilifying the Islamic faith.
Rather, he’ describing it.
Doing so using Islam’s core texts and long-standing Muslim practices.
And for being a modern day Paul Revere he’s pilloried. But he continues to stand strong because he’s gpt the truth behind him. Islam is everything he says it is.
mortimer says
Agree with Emilie.
I say that Robert Spencer is a modern William Wilberforce who advocates the liberation of enslaved minds and bodies from the oppressive servitude of a barbaric 7th century death cult and slave cult called Islam.
Winston Churchill called Islam the most ‘retrograde force on earth’.
One must be amoral and mentally comatose to defend Islam.
Wyldeirishman says
Amoral and mentally comatose, unfortunately, describes much of 21st century self-important North America.
Kyrie, Eleison…
Norger says
“Spencer isn’t vilifying the Islamic faith.Rather, he’s describing it.”
Indeed. It’s uncanny how any critic of Islam who buttresses his (or her) assertions with references to authoritative Islamic sources is invariably accused of “hate.” Quite literally, the messenger is blamed for the (obvious) hatred in the source material. It’s just incredibly twisted.
Diane Harvey says
Spencer has also pointed out this inane situation. He has numerous examples. If an imam quotes from a pulpit in a mosque Sura 9,29 as proof that Islam is intended to be supreme over the kaffir, no problems from any legal authority or from any leftist. If Spencer cites the same verse for the same purpose as the imam – as proof that Islam claims to have supremacy over the non-believer – hate speech.
Can Stanford students see the difference?
mortimer says
Norger wrote: “any critic of Islam who buttresses his (or her) assertions with references to authoritative Islamic sources is invariably accused of “hate.”
The critics of counterjihad NEVER ADDRESS THE ISLAMIC TEXTS themselves, because they are almost ENTIRELY UNREAD and UNSTUDIED in the primary Islamic texts.
They are arguing on a political MARXIST basis which is all about VICTIMOLOGY.
The Leftists merely AVOID THE ISSUES. They concentrate on the only area where they feel they can win: VICTIMOLOGY. However, the Muslims are not VICTIMS, but the PERPETRATORS of JIHAD TERRORISM. Jihad is nothing but extreme religious bigotry.
Shmoovie says
Agreed–
No liar or thief wants his cover blown.
And screaming ‘racism’, ‘supremacy’ or fill-the-blank ‘phobia’ at truth-tellers has been such effective cover.
mortimer says
Shmoovie, the Left is concentrating on VICTIMOLOGY, but there is no evidence that Muslims are being victimized by discussion of the jihad doctrine.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Emilie.
Jayell says
If muslims are supposed to believe in the supremacy of the holy ‘Sharia’ Law of Allah (as fabricated by Mohammed & chums) and not in the democratic Western ‘Law of Man’, why are these duplicitous jokers apparently wasting their time and money in a Law School studying something that is supposed to be forbidden to them? Perhaps I’ve answered my own question with the word ‘duplicitous’ – you ingratiate/infiltrate your way into the machinery of society, then start throwing spanners into the works and corrupt it to your own purposes. Then you take over the show. And if anyone looks like they’ve rumbled your ‘clever’ skulduggery and starts blowing the whistle, grab whatever nonsensical or irrelevant garbage you can to throw at them and con all the useful idiots in the vicinity to help you with your dirty work. Very imaginative! No, not very imaginative, because, looking at this ridiculous open letter cobbled together with unsubstantiated, contrived, second-hand PC hype, we can all see through it.
I notice that there are no names at the bottom of the letter but it is signed ‘sincerely’. Strange. I thought that in Islam ‘sincerity’ was strictly ‘haram’ – or ‘verboten’, as the brown shirts would have had it.
Keep up the good work, Mr. Spencer. To judge from this hysterical little epistle, you’ve probably got them on the run.
I wonder about leftists says
i wonder who are the students in Stanford. Are you our future generation? You will not know what you are saying now, You do not understand what is happening. Do you think that we will agree with murder, beheading, raping, stoning, lying, telling us what to wear, what to eat, and when to eat it, and it is not telling, it is dictating and then to apply Sharia laws, polygamy, praying on the streets, forcing our young pupils to pray on a mat Islamic prayers in public schools, you know what it means “public schools” payed for by taxpayers? People don’t pay for public schools to have their children educated in Islamic prayers. Like an Imam preached again: to say : Merry Christmas is worse than murder ! Where do you get the guts from ,to order us around and wanting to conquer the western world?
May be you could not get your own countries in order, as you were always fighting among yourselves and now you are parasitising on us.When I read the qua’ran, I was really horrified. You are a death cult and there has never been a prophet who propheted all those horrible killings, slavery and all the other stories. And Robert Spencer only stated everything out of your own qua’ran.
You know, we will never agree on religion and the way you have behaved and still do. Imagine, you won a football match (the moroccans) last night and as a victory you started to destroy things. Are you mad?
But that is what it is everything is fighting, playing the victim. You got everything from us, and ho do you dare to implant your sharia laws on us? Even, when you became an American, Canadian or whatever, that does not mean you can apply your laws here!. You will have to abide by our laws, so do we and everybody.
We will never be able to live in harmony with you, YOU ,YOURSELF BLEW IT,YOU REALLY BLEW IT.
You took away our freedom of speech, you do not let anybody who has a different opinion speak out.
And you cal us Nazis and Islamophobia. You beat your wives, your wife i half a man, you mutilate your young girls and have them married by 9 years old.
A prophet is somebody who only prophets for the good of mankind and the peace, but a real prophetical never have been your Mohammed, impossible. But you can not think the same way because the whole Islam would fall apart and that would be devastating for you. Imagine, all your clerics, sheiks
and imams would be without a job and probably be shamed and you could not hold it together. That is too why you have to fight constantly and don’t kid yourselves, you are not above anybody, there is nobody above anybody. And you even kill people who want to leave your faith. Christianity has the love for people in its religion and how to become a better person. And it helps people and they do more.
I absolutely hate a religion which is so violent and this religion is so violent !
And I wonder how you will receive Robert Spencer, but I would “appreciate it”, no I demand ,that you do
let him speak as a normal human being,
And pls. don’t raise your children the next generation with this hate,because you conquering this world will NOT happen not now, not ever and nobody will conquer this world any more, those times are and must be over and will be.
Bezelel says
As a matter of fact islam is a false religion. The leftists are are trying to assert control over the Republican org. That is not how a two party system works. Don’t they teach these idiots anything? Are they they house broke?
Kay says
My hopes for Robert’s Stanford visit:
1. That NO antifa presence is allowed.
2. That many students hear him, in spite of any efforts to dissuade them from attending.
3. That in addition to the Republicans becoming better informed, many minds are opened to see historical facts and current events and the written teachings of Islam. Most especially that the young people who currently cannot even hear Robert because of their own internal defense of individual Muslims can begin to see the jihad in the world as more than isolated aberrations.
Benedict says
https://www.stanforddaily.com/2017/11/13/the-college-republicans-promote-hate-and-disinformation/
“Confronting Islamist terrorism is one of the greatest challenges of our lifetime.”
Sincerely,
Muslim Law Students Association – Stanford Law School
Stanford Advocates for Immigrants’ Rights – Stanford Law School
—
How on earth did
Muslim Law Students Association – Stanford Law School
Stanford Advocates for Immigrants’ Rights – Stanford Law School
happen accidentally by chance to slip in the typographical error “Islamist” in front the word “terrorism” — ? What has terrorism to do with Islam, the word “Islamist” being derived from the word “Islam”?
Could Robert Spencer please explain?
mortimer says
Universities receive US government monies, subsidies and tax breaks. They have a duty to enforce the FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ENSHRINED IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
MFritz says
This will break Stanford’s back in the end. Same story happened at Evergreen. Less people will come, less public money will flow.
mgoldberg says
Once again, I hope that all these letters furiously besmirching R Spencer, his ideas, the false representations of what he purportedly wrote, said, advocated will be made available, along with the responses Robert posted to all of them.
It is eye opening indeed, to see the letters of incrimination, and how false, how distorting they indeed are when responsibly replied to with facts and real evidence. the whole circus of bad scholarship of the writers at Stanford is evidence of how poorly researched and thought out their beliefs are, and how they refuse
debate, discussion and any vigorous examination, but rather, prefer invective, false evidence and worse conclusions.
mortimer says
Agree with mgoldberg. The letter writers are merely building a STRAW MAN EFFIGY of Robert Spencer and burning it and declaring victory.
However, none of their leaders would last one minute in a formal debate with Robert Spencer, because they have no argument upon which to build their case.
SHOUTING LOUDER is NOT an argument.
Bezelel says
“SHOUTING LOUDER is NOT an argument.” I read that, debating a muslim is like playing chess with a pigeon, They knock over all the pieces, crap on the board and claim they won.
mortimer says
Bezelel, that describes my debates with Muslims quite well. They begin by false words of friendship. They then discover that you know more about Islam than they do and that you have found the flies in the ointment. They are shocked and horrified, but quickly turn to threatening the kafir with hellfire. When you point the amorality and obscurantism and flight from factuality of the Muslims, they become abusive and enraged making wild accusations and throwing ad hominems. I calmly retort that cursing and ad hominems are not arguments, and that formally, the Muslim has no argument to advance in the defense of Islam and therefore, he thereby automatically loses the debate, because without an argument to advance, he is even not debating. They usually go silent at this point or curse some more.
gravenimage says
True, Mortimer.
David says
Go to the Stanford admin daycare office & pass out free tissues paper to snowflacks!
mortimer says
Stanford University is allowing the campus to be made into a safe space for jihadists and neo-Marxists, and an ECHO CHAMBER for them where no real debate of ideas and learning takes place.
So-called ‘safe spaces’ are nothing more than ECHO CHAMBERS where pseudo-intellectual snowflakes can be surrounded by likeminded people who will not challenge their unsupported claims, thereby insulating everyone inside such chambers from any thought or evidence that contradicts or disproves their claims or assertions.
A so-called ‘safe space’ is actually just a DEBATE-FREE ZONE or PROPAGANDA-INDOCTRINATION ZONE where no real education takes place. A ‘safe space’ is just an excuse for Marxists or Jihadists to indoctrinate everyone and not have to defend any proposition or claim they make.
Goutam says
“Accuse the other side of the crime that you are guilty of.”
One the key strategies of Joseph Goebbels, the infamous high priest of the fine art of propaganda. The pseudo-liberal charlatans have learned this skill to the depth and playing it to perfection for the last several decades.
gravenimage says
Stanford students promote hate and disinformation in claiming Robert Spencer promotes hate and disinformation
…………………
Grimly, this sums it up.
Lydia says
In a nutshell!
Great comments, can’t think of a thing to add today!
: D
ronyvo says
We are in an era of information via internet (social media). Wrong and false information as well as true one. It is up to the individual to use common sense and some ability to analyze. Also, we are at war with Islam. Muslims are using this new technology to their advantage deceiving the simple minds and playing the game of poor victims, on one hand and terror on the other. They are very successful in playing this extremely dangerous game in order to invade our countries. We supposedly to be the smart intellectual ones. However, they over smarted us via takyya (deception).
When will the West wake up????
solange silverman says
The comparison of the Nazi model to these young punks is very appropriate, all the more so when you consider who is financing them and the programs that program them, true fascists like George Soros, a kapo who loves Nazis and their regime, and who wants to revive it, not only here in the U.S., but worldwide.
Cheer Bear Girl says
I can’t pity people too stupid and lazy to read the Quran and the Hadiths for themselves. If they did they would be horrified to the fact that Jihad is an essential doctrine in Islam.