Responsibility

February 6, 2006 at 11:07 pm | Posted in Hypocracy unmasked | 2 Comments

The newspaper that published the cartoons insulting and mocking the Prophet Muhammad has been defended by ardent supporters of free speech and free press.

But what if the newspaper, instead of being a showcase, was really a disingenuous, irresponsible, and two-faced media outlet instead? Would people still support them?

We’ll soon see. Because the following has emerged (via The Daily Background, via Technorati):

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten. Zieler received an email back from the paper’s Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: “I don’t think Jyllands-Posten’s readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.”

Now I actually think this was the right decision for a mainstream newspaper. But surely Muslims in Denmark, and around the world, deserve the same respect? Rather than depicting their Prophet as a murderer, a terrorist?

Of course, any violence towards any of these folks is deplorable. But while we rightly condemn the violence, we should also condemn the irresponsibility that leads to it.

Advertisements

JihadWatch prepares the ground for ethnic cleansing

February 6, 2006 at 9:03 pm | Posted in Hating Hate, Hypocracy unmasked, Taking Action | 3 Comments

From Watching JihadWatch:

Rarely does hatred manifest itself in such clear forms, particularly in our country. But leave it to JihadWatch Board Vice President “Hugh Fitzgerald”:

1) ending Muslim migration to Infidel lands, which Muslims consider Dar al-Harb, and thus they are settling behind what they regard as enemy lines. An ending of migration would also signal to Muslims already present that the tolerance for outright disloyalty to the Infidel nation-state has come to an end, and that removal of threats to the way of life and physical security of those Infidels whose countries, after all, are not simply open to all who feel like coming, no matter what their attitudes, or how unlikely it is that they will ever fully accept the legitimacy of the Infidel nation-state and the laws, customs, manners of the locals, will now be routine, rather than extraordinary. This should cause some to change their ways, and lessen their aggression; others to move back to Muslim lands. And the ground will have been prepared for further measures, should those prove necessary — of the kind the Czechs thought necessary in 1946, in dealing with the Sudeten Germans.

Wait a minute? Catch that last part? Let me repeat it:

And the ground will have been prepared for further measures, should those prove necessary — of the kind the Czechs thought necessary in 1946, in dealing with the Sudeten Germans.

For the historically challenged, here is what Wikipedia says happened in 1946 to the Sudeten Germans:

From 1945 to 1948 the Sudetenland was cleansed of ethnic Germans … About 3 million Germans, almost the entire German minority of pre-War Czechoslovakia, were expelled to Germany and Austria. As a consequence, 15 000 – 30 000 (according to the official German-Czech Committee of Historians) Germans were killed or otherwise died.

Get that? Ethnic cleansing. Which, for those not in the know, is defined by Wikipedia as:

a euphemism used to refer to various policies of forcibly removing people of one ethnic group. At one end of the spectrum, it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population transfer, while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide. … A similar term with the same intent was used by the Nazi administration in Germany under Adolf Hitler. … Ethnic cleansing is designated a crime against humanity in international treaties.

ROBERT SPENCER – will you now disassociate yourself and JihadWatch from “Hugh”? A person who has, on your own website and while an officer of JihadWatch, called for crimes against humanity, for population transfer, deportation, genocide against Muslims? I expect the answer is no. And that should be enough to prove the case. JihadWatch is not worth the electrons it is published with. It is a un-American hate site, no more, no less, preparing the ground for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims.

Spencer’s reply, and mine

January 19, 2006 at 7:03 am | Posted in Hypocracy unmasked | Leave a comment

Apparently, my comments have made the front page of the JihadWatch – promoted from just the comments section. The comments are quite interesting, including assertions that I am someone known as “King Tolerance” (who was banned previously from JihadWatch, it would appear), “Yalto” (no, but as indicated on some earlier posts, I have corresponded with him), a Muslim (why relevant? but no), and perhaps most bizarrely “Ibrahim H” (anyone know what that refers to?). “Hugh”, in his infinite wisdom, said “Can’t decide if he is a devout Muslim in Christian drag, or just exceptionally stupid.” To which, Anne, of Wikipedia fame, said: “I’ll vote stupid.” Apparently, I hit a nerve. Name calling is about at the level of most JihadWatchers…

In fairness, here is Robert Spencer’s reply to my questions. The summary is he said yes, he agrees not to hate and discriminate against people, including Muslims, except when he feels it is necessary.

My dear “RickS”:

No need to email me. I have not read this whole thread but a reader alerted me to your questions.

Yes, Hugh is against Muslim immigration into Western lands. He opposes this because of the abundantly documented fact that violent jihadists operate within Western Muslim communities and that those communities have made little or no practical effort to root them out. Vague condemnations of “terrorism” that do nothing to address jihadist theological arguments not only do not cut it, but by their vagueness and obvious inadequacy raise suspicions as to their overall purpose.

As long as all that remains true, what natural right do Muslims have to settle into Western countries? Must Western governments cheerfully aid in the importation of large groups of people among whom are significant numbers who wish to remake their societies to the grave detriment of women and non-Muslims?

I personally am not in favor of ending Muslim immigration. But I believe that renunciation of any desire to implement Sharia and similar statements should be a condition of residency, and that the continuation of that residency should be contingent upon adherence to those statements. Just as former Nazis, when discovered, can be deported, no matter how long they have lived here.

This is a matter of defending universal human rights. You, on the other hand, decry it as “racist,” saying, “Robert Spencer said that ‘he bans’ the ‘racists’ who visit his site. Both quotes from him.”

Incomplete and inadequate quotes, indicative of the inadequacy of the whole article. As I have said many times here, comments are unmoderated. I never see 90% of them. Unless somebody brings a post to my attention, I probably will not delete it. If you wish not to be adversarial but to help in this work, send me notice of such posts, and I will delete them.

You continue: “Now, I know there are many among you who will say ‘Muslim’ is a not a race. Clearly true, but the quote was in the context of people who are bigoted against Muslims. (To put this in context, the definition of Anti-Semitism in the M-W dictionary is: ‘hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.’ I’ll assume good faith in your statement and assume you meant the same, just replacing the word ‘Jews’ with ‘Muslims’).”

I am one who will say that Islam is not a race. It isn’t. It is a religious ideology. People of any race can and do hold to it. I am not interested in keeping white jihadists here and deporting brown jihadists. That would be racism; it would also be asinine. To say, on the other hand, that I don’t want those who want to impose Sharia law, which violates norms of human rights that are otherwise universally accepted, to be here, and that as long as a larger group does nothing to stop such people from living and working within it, that larger group is under suspicion, that has nothing to do with racism or bigotry. Bigotry is an irrational hatred of a group. I don’t hate anyone; I simply oppose a murderous ideology of supremacism and oppression. Your analogy about the Jews founders on the fact that there is no global movement of Jews working to impose Jewish laws on the rest of us. Nazi Jew-hatred was essentially racial: the Nazis had all sorts of race laws to determine who was a Jew and who was not. That, sir, is racism.

If, on the other hand, the Muslim communities in the West today proclaimed their renunciation of Sharia now and forever, and acceptance of Western pluralism and peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims, and full genuine equality of rights for women, and began to manifest the truth of such statements by their actions, well, I would be the first to welcome them by the planeload into our nation. But to assume that all who arrive here have already done that when there is so much evidence to the contrary — that is just foolhardy. And it is in that context that I read Hugh’s statement that you quote: “as a group, the Moslems are a threat to me and those I love.” If you read his whole article (it is not on this site, but I’m sure you can find it), you will see that he explicitly says that all Muslims are not terrorists, etc. But the problem is, again, this business of distinguishing. I have said many times that it is virtually impossible to tell a moderate from a jihadist Muslim. Some have seized on that as some kind of statement of bigotry. I can’t see why it would be. It is simply a statement of fact, confirmed by the strange life paths of Maher Hawash, Fawaz Damra, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the Lackawanna Six, and so many others. Where is the firewall? If there is one, why is it so spectacularly ineffective on so many occasions?

So finally, I will not dismiss Hugh from his position here, because he is not a racist, and because I (and he also, I am sure) would happily make, as you bid us to, “an unconditional statement that [I am] against those who hold or practice ‘hostility toward or discrimination against any religious, ethnic, or racial group, including Muslims.'” Self-defense is not hostility or discrimination. Awareness of the facts of the case is not hostility or discrimination. Let the Muslims in America begin to expel and expose jihadists, working with law enforcement, and teaching pluralism and the equality of rights of all instead of the hatred of Jews and Christians that Freedom House discovered in so many mosques just last year, and I will welcome them happily. Let them stop opposing sensible measures like the monitoring of mosques for radiation, and I will applaud them.

You also say: “I also don’t think that what is in the Quran is any worse than what is found in the Bible (esp the Old Testament).” You are quite wrong in this. The Qur’an contains open-ended statements calling for Muslims to wage war against all unbelievers. The Old Testament does not. What’s more, traditional Islamic theology holds those statements to be valid for all time. No Jewish or Christian group teaches anything similar on the basis of the Old Testament.

And you add: “All Muslims that I know believe in the Quran literally, but also have a very strong grasp of the concept of context – that much of the Quran was day to day instruction at the time it was revealed, while other partss were eternal mandates. Almost all of the verses quoted by those who want to demonize it fall into the former. I do dispute the idea that the quoted constitute a majority of the verses, and I doubt the motives of people, like Spencer, who emphasize that without a single mention of the more positive, and common, elements of the Quran.”

If you had read my books you would know that I discuss all this at great length, particularly in “Onward Muslim Soldiers.” In that book I discuss the Qur’an’s relatively tolerant verses and how traditional Islamic theology holds them abrogated. I am not the originator of this perspective. I just report on it. Here is a Muslim explication of it: http://www.islamworld.net/jihad.html

But at this point I am not writing this to you, because I can tell that you are not disposed to think anything but ill of me. However, I am writing it for unbiased observers who may be reading this.

You say: “I also know, from first hand experience being in the Middle East, that Jihadist ideology is not widespread amongst Muslims.” That is, alas, changing.

You say: “But I strongly believe that people like Hugh, who would easily be counted as an Anti-Semite if he had written the stuff he publishes about Jews instead of Muslims, are bigots of the worst kind.”

If Hugh had written about Jews what he wrote about Muslims, he would not only be a bigot; he would be a liar. But the fact that what can be truthfully said about one group cannot be truthfully said about another does not make it untrue, or bigoted. Especially when the group in question exists as a group because of its shared ideology. If that ideology has abhorrent features, that is simply a matter of fact. It must be dealt with somehow, and not allowed to continue because of fear of “bigotry” or “racism.”

You say: “And I believe Robert Spencer is trying to have it both ways – operating what I do consider to be a thinly disguised hate site while providing what I also consider to be valuable news and information about a real threat.”

In this you are like those who decried anti-Nazi efforts as “hatred of Germans” or anti-Communist efforts as “hatred of Russians,” and you reveal yourself as just another one of those whom the ones who wish to destroy us find so useful.

Cordially Robert Spencer

Two comments. First, Spencer’s claim that he is not in favor of banning Muslim immigration is noteworthy and important. I congratulate him on that stance. Second, his “self defence” argument is, in his words, asinine. Hugh has made it abundantly clear in his articles that he views Muslims as a group as the problem. He says there are good Muslims and bad Muslims, but that as a whole they should be punished. Spencer has made no calls against this, and in fact echo’s many of the sentiments. My reply to this message is below:

My dear “JihadWatch” –

How, from two short comments, can you possibly claim to know “I can tell that you are not disposed to think anything but ill of me.”

And how dare you claim “you reveal yourself as just another one of those whom the ones who wish to destroy us find so useful”. I reveal myself only as a person with deep beliefs in the principles on which this country was founded – liberty, equality.

Disagreement with your methods, tactics, and hatemongering does not make me a friend, ally, or sympathizer with Jihadists.

Of course, Guilt by Association is the way JihadWatch works.

It is convenient that there is rarely (if ever) any mention of the positive contributions of, or positive viewpoints of Muslim-Americans, on your website. But let me give a few examples. Analyst Peter Bergen recently said, based on extensive interviews “the American Muslim community has rejected the Al-Qaeda philosophy almost entirely”. An editorial page writer from the WSJ has written “So does the U.S. have a “Muslim problem”? If the data above are accurate, they strongly suggest we do not; on the contrary, America’s Muslims tend to be role models both as Americans and as Muslims.” And CIA operative Gary Bernsten said in a recent interview that the support of Muslim Americans in the War on Terror has been invaluable. That from a person who has really been living and breathing the war.

Your attempts to paint Muslim Americans with a broad Jihadist brush is the real problem.

Could it have something to do with the fact that you even refuse to recognize Islam as a real religion? From one of your books, published I believe 2 years ago: “Islam itself is an incomplete, misleading, and often downright false revelation which, in many ways, directly contradicts what God has revealed through the prophets of the Old Testament and through His Son, Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh”.

There is no disputing that there are problems. The Saudis, specifically, and their Wahhabist ideology, are the problems. And they must be dealt with forcefully. The Freedom House study you mention, for example, is entitled “Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques”. It reads in part: “Within worldwide Sunni Islam, followers of Wahhabism and other hardline or salafist… movements are a distinct minority. This is evident from the millions of Muslims who have chosen to make America their home and are upstanding, law abiding citizens and neighbors. In fact, it was just such concerned Muslims who first brought these publications to our attention. They decry the Wahhabi interpertation as being foreign to the toleration expressed in Islam and injunction against coercion in Religion. They… are grateful to the United States and other Western nations for granting them religious freedom.”

But you sir, and JihadWatch, have become part of the problem by making any serious conversation about these issues tainted by the evils of bigotry and hatred.

“If Hugh had written about Jews what he wrote about Muslims, he would not only be a bigot; he would be a liar.”

He, sir, is both. You defend him as a truth-teller. Intellectually dishonest presentation of selective facts and figures does not the truth make.

No reply from Robert Spencer has been made, as yet. Note, in particular, that there is no explanation of the JihadWatch refusal to acknowledge the positions of other recognized experts that I quote, about the positive impact and contributions of American Muslims. Not from a scholar who has spent 5 years writing about Islam – but from a professional, long time counter terrorism expert, a respected journalist, and a CIA operative who led the War on Terror. And, in fact, from the very report he quotes to rebut my arguments. His avoidance of the topic is interesting. But I them got promoted to a main article (for the 2nd time actually!). Just my initial response, with Spencer’s reply. No mention of my reply to Spencer’s. That article is also an entertaining and educational read. Let’s look at some of the comments, shall we?

Therefore, it is perfectly permissible to discriminate against those who hold death-cult type religious ideas, such as Mohammedans, but it is not permissible to discriminate against those of a darker skin hue than your own (or, indeed, discriminate using any of the attributes given to a person by virtue of the genetic mixing undertaken by his/her parents).

I believe my definition to be correct and it therefore follows that Mr. Fitzgerald cannot be a racist nor is it permissible to accuse him of being one.

I also endorse his idea about using Ralph-Nader-type consumer tactics against Mohammedans – something that I and my circle have been practising for some years. Stop trading with them and do not make them welcome in your communities on a social level.

and

RickS clearly has Jihad Watch on the brain, is working at the matter quite diligently (by no means only at this website, but at others as well, some of his own creation — oh, it’s quite an activity for him). Can’t decide if he is a devout Muslim in Christian drag, or just exceptionally stupid. You be the judge.

Anyway, he won’t be comin’ round our door to darken it again. At least not under that name. A foe’s by any other name is still the same damn foe.

Posted by Hugh. Does that mean I am banned? I can only hope…

You know, Rick, since you are the one who brought up the whole issue of race when we were all discussing religion, could it be that the racist you are looking for is with you right now?

Umm… no. Robert Spencer is the one who brought it up actually, as I mention in my original comment. In the St Pete Times, he said he bans “racists” who visit his site. His words…

RickS is probably a muslim – his reference to replacing “Jews” with “Muslims” to show that muslims are now subject to racist assault, falls in the category above.

Again that assertion! Why? What if I were?

To me what Hugh said is simply extreme. I can honestly say that I would rather risk terrorism than have a discriminatory policy toward a group based on their religion. That said I do think we need to allow things like monitoring mosques for radiation and implement measures that monitor closer but do not inflict harm on Muslims. However, there is no arguement that can convince me that we should allow a certain religion to be excluded entirely as Hugh proposes based on the fact that there are extremists within the religion who are not being exposed. Fortunately or unfortunately we are a free country and our founding fathers took a risk by making it so. So if you want to change to a police state contact your congressman.

Bravo, “Skeptic”. My point exactly. I have no problem with constitutional monitoring of anyone. Anyone at all. If you have the proper warrants, and it violates no law (as with the radiation monitoring) by all means.

By the way, in case you were curious, Rober Spencer and Hugh, both JihadWatch “officers”, responded to comments throughout the day. So the ones above, by not being removed even though they were seen, can be considered “approved”.

Questions for Robert Spencer

January 19, 2006 at 7:00 am | Posted in Hypocracy unmasked | Leave a comment

From Watching JihadWatch

Robert Spencer, on JihadWatch, again defended Hugh Fitzgerald (JW Board Member) and his assertions that we need:

“A complete ban on Muslim migration to the Western world (which needs to be undertaken in any case), and limits put on any contact between Muslims living in the West, who may already have obtained citizenship and — unless they are native-born converts — their countries of origin.”

“And the first way is to put a complete stop to Muslim immigration, and to find creative ways to deport all Muslim non-citizens. These two measures would be accompanied by the creation of an environment where the practice of Islam is made not easy but difficult.”

To “Understand how very useless is the concept of the “moderate” Muslim — because it is impossible to know when someone’s “moderation” is real or feigned”[5] and must take “specific moves to limit Muslim immigration. This can only take place if the Idols of the Age, about Diversity and Everyone Wants the Same Thing and Tolerance is Always the Only Conceivable Policy, are undermined, mocked, and shown up as the dangers they are.”

The defense? Well, he says, these were offered as an alternative to the “Nuke Mecca” suggestions by a certain Congressman. Oh! Well! That explains it! Ethnic cleansing and racial/religious discrimination is a better alternative! Of course. Why didn’t I think of that! That makes it all better! Here is my reply:

“Of course, there is always Hugh’s article “Islam for the Perplexed” – not written, as far as I can tell, as an “alternative” to Tancredo’s suggestion.”The second important goal is to stop all Moslem migration from Moslem lands, to the U.S., to Canada, to Western Europe. For obvious reasons, Moslems do not migrate to Eastern Europe and Russia. If possible, not only should migration be stopped, but life can be made more difficult, if not by the government, then by private individuals, so that Moslems will be discouraged from remaining. What do I mean? I mean that we, as private citizens, do not have to hire Moslems, we do not have to buy their goods, or make their lives, economically, more rewarding. It may seem mean, and many of you may be offended by it, and I am perfectly aware that there are nice Moslems, that there are those who simply ignore the main tenets of Islam. But as a group, the Moslems are a threat to me and those I love. Even the innocent ones, merely by being here, swell Moslem political power.”

In the St. Petersburg Times article that was recently linked to on JihadWatch, Robert Spencer said that “he bans” the “racists” who visit his site. Both quotes from him. Now, I know there are many among you who will say “Muslim” is a not a race. Clearly true, but the quote was in the context of people who are bigoted against Muslims. (To put this in context, the definition of Anti-Semitism in the M-W dictionary is: “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.” I’ll assume good faith in your statement and assume you meant the same, just replacing the word “Jews” with “Muslims”)

Seems that Hugh, “as a group, the Moslems are a threat to me and those I love”, qualifies.

Mr. Spencer: Will you a) clarify whether you also hold similar opinions to those above and b) ban Hugh from JihadWatch as one of the “racists” you claim to abhor?

Will you also make an unconditional statement that you are against those who hold or practice “hostility toward or discrimination against any religious, ethnic, or racial group, including Muslims”?

Thank you.”

I’ll keep you aware of any replies.

JihadWatch bans racists? Another lie exposed!

January 16, 2006 at 11:57 pm | Posted in Hypocracy unmasked | Leave a comment

From my new blog, watchjihadwatch.blogspot.com:

—-

Wow, the shameless lies continue.

And the fact checkers at the St. Petersburg Times must be on vacation. See their recent article “Are Bloggers Against Hate, or Feeding It?”. In it, Robert Spencer of JihadWatch is quoted: “Robert Spencer of JihadWatch.com said his blog sometimes attracts racists. He bans them, he said. But he won’t stop blogging.”

Noble man, that Spencer. Nice to see he won’t stop blogging. But can we at least ask him to tell the truth? Just a little?

Let’s look at the “racists” on his site. It is possible that Spencer is indulging in the sophistry common within the anti-Islam community, that “Muslim isn’t a race”, so the use of “Racist” to describe hateful comments and hostility towards Muslims as a group is incorrect. This is a common issue on the jihadwatch site. For example, this comment on JihadWatch.org from October 19, 2005: “I think it’s perfectly proper to be anti-muslim. Muslim is not a race, it is not a person, ‘muslim’ is a title taken by people indulging in a certain belief system.”

But, let’s assume for a second that Spencer is actually not being disingenuous in the article. Do we see evidence of the “racists” (let’s say “bigots” to make everyone happy) that he bans? Let’s look at just the past week, shall we? January 15, comments by one Sheik Yer’Mami:

“No Muslims, no Wuslims: Internment and Deportations instead!

No mosques, no madrassahs, no clerics, no Da’wa: No Jiziya. No assistance, financially or otherwise. Why should we be concerned when Muslims get hit with earthquakes and tsunami’s? Do they have any other interest than our destruction?

Disengagement from planet Muslim, that is what’s needed, massive counter-propaganda, exposing and ridiculing this perverse cult, and general, sincere education amongst the infidels as to what Islam is, what it does and how to destroy it.”

In November, we see the “Sheik” again:

“Anyway, its far from over and internment and mass-deportations haven’t even begun.”

Was he banned? Nope… we see him again on December 28, 2005:

“May the “Arab world” suffocate in its own filth: There is always Meccah-cola for you Nasseem, with lots of slaughtered goats and frenzied masses of Mobots who ‘stone Satan’ and trample each other to death while dancing around a monolith…” and, further down in the same post: “Islam is the religion of and for hijackers. You can’t ‘hijack’ Islam.”

Hmm… 2+ weeks not enough to ban someone? Maybe he just missed it?

Well, lest we think this is one isolated case, let’s look at (I’m not kidding) commenter KKK. Yes, KKK – this person chose KKK as a nickname (it is not, as far as he says, his real initials) KKK. He/she has posted comments at least 5 times, starting on September 5, 2005, and as recently as Jan 10 2006. Let’s look at what he said on November 5, 2005:

“Only Muslims can’t, as Quran-thumping groupies have prescribed some 24911 body-related hangups that translate into intellectual backwardness. Small wonder that the Muslim world is essentially a cesspool of mindless backwardness begining and ending with loot, rape, murder, and prayers all offered to a jealous, monochromatic deity called Allah !”

“Islam represents the rigor-mortis of a troglodyte culture system, fabricated by a cave dwelling rabid fanatic, rapist called Mohammed who terrorized Arabia 1400 years ago”, and “why should Muslims be allowed to live in non-Muslim majority lands ?”

On November 5, he unmasks his beliefs a little further:

“If Islam is racist/bigoted and barbaric towards non-Muslims, why can’t non-Muslims act the same way towards Islam/Muslims ?”

Surely, he must talso have been banned, given his expressed “racist/bigoted” views?

Nope. We see him again on Jan 9, 2006. In this classic comment, he calls for the following:

“First, don’t allow any new Muslim immigration to USA. NO, no, no, no ! ”

2. Second, place a technology embargo and no World Bank or humanitarian dollars ($) for these rotten cultures. Don’t give them any chance to get technologically sophisticated. That’s dangerous. Let them revert to ignorant and stupid, as they truly were donkeys some 1400 years ago. Let them reduce themselves to that.”

4… Listen to each and every damn conversation amongst Muslims.” “5. In USA, make constitutional amendments to deny Muslims their right to congregate in mosques… Ban wearing headscarfs and hijab. Declare these are threats to national security. Increase survelliance for bearded men of Islamic devotion.”

“9. Non-Muslim men and women CAN NOT convert to Islam. On the other hand, if non-Muslim and Muslim fall in love, they can marry but in either of the two ways: (a) The Muslim spouse checks out of Islam for good,

(b) they both check out of their respective religions.

Their offsprings CAN NOT convert back to Islam.”

Later on, he says:

“Muslims will live at the mercy of non-Muslims in a secular, sinful country like USA.”

How about “Mahdi Al-Dajjal” – author of the lovely statement, referring to the “followers of Islam” in September 2004.:

“Kill them all and lets finally rid the planet once and for all of this cancerous scourge which has been festering in the gut of civilization for well over 1000 years..”

Clearly, he must have been banned! Advocating mass slaughter (genocide!) of Muslims… clearly racist. And Spencer bans racists! He said so!

What’s that?!? He posted again on December 13, 2005?!? Actually, there are 119 postings by this person, according to Google. Shocking! I mean, Spencer says he bans the racists…
Actually if he did, he would have to ban the majority of people who comment on his website as this behavior constitutes the majority of his comments. People like “Dr. Pepper”, “IsabellaTheCrusader”, “Mr. ApePig”, “Alarmed Pig Farmer”, “Rebecca JW”, “Religion of Peas”, and “Hugh” are all bigots who regularly contribute the the JihadWatch site.

Why? Because JihadWatch itself actually encourages this hatred and bigotry! Want proof? Look at JihadWatch Board Member Hugh Fitzgerald’s (the “Hugh” from above) postings. (Spencer, by the way, calls this person “”one of the most brilliantly insightful commentators on the scene today”). Just a few examples of what he has written:

“…not only should migration be stopped, but life can be made more difficult, if not by the government, then by private individuals, so that Moslems will be discouraged from remaining.

What do I mean? I mean that we, as private citizens, do not have to hire Moslems, we do not have to buy their goods, or make their lives, economically, more rewarding. It may seem mean, and many of you may be offended by it, and I am perfectly aware that there are nice Moslems, that there are those who simply ignore the main tenets of Islam. But as a group, the Moslems are a threat to me and those I love. Even the innocent ones, merely by being here, swell Moslem political power.”

In another posting, he says:

“And the first way is to put a complete stop to Muslim immigration, and to find creative ways to deport all Muslim non-citizens. These two measures would be accompanied by the creation of an environment where the practice of Islam is made not easy but difficult.

and

“Understand how very useless is the concept of the “moderate” Muslim — because it is impossible to know when someone’s “moderation” is real or feigned.”

So, Hugh admits he views all Muslims as a threat, that he advocates violating their constitutional rights under the First Amendment, and that it is impossible to tell the “good ones” from the “bad ones”. Sounds pretty bigoted to me. Even more, this is not even a casual commenter. This is an actual officer of JihadWatch. Someone Spencer recruited into his organization, someone who speaks for his organization.

How can Spencer possibly expect us to believe that JihadWatch is not a hate site when his very own officers spew hate? He can’t, and we shouldn’t. JihadWatch is a hate site and hate group, plain and simple. We need to start treating them as such.

Personal Attacks and JihadWatch

January 14, 2006 at 11:41 pm | Posted in Hypocracy unmasked | Leave a comment

Poor Robert Spencer is always under attack. The “Politically Correct” forces seek to silence him. He NEVER attacks anyone. Why do people pick on him so? (heavy saracasm…)

Mr. Spencer was very kind to point us to an old article in which Stephen Schwartz skewers him. For those interested in the full article, it is here.

Mr. Schwartz says:

First, it is absurd to suggest that there is any effort underway by me to “silence” Robert Spencer, who has a very wide audience in the U.S. for his books and commentaries. Indeed, it may be argued that he has a wider audience than I do.

Second, the argument that in failing to answer his attack on me I was attempting to silence him is either the kind of politically-correct argument typically adopted by Stalinists, who say that if you don’t pay attention to them you are censoring them, or is simply paranoia.

Third, I do not feel compelled to reply to Mr. Spencer’s disquisitions on my religion because I not not consider him in the slightest manner competent to comment on my religion. He has a magpie knowledge of what he imagines Islam to be based on fairy tales and armchair reading. His obvious aim is to instill fear of Islam in Western readers who know even less than he knows about the faith of Muhammad. I do not in general respond to comments on Islam by non-Muslims, except when they are made by apologists for Wahhabism. I am more interested in convincing Muslims of the need for moderation, than in wasting my time trying to persuade biased non-Muslims that moderate Islam exists.

Fourth, I consider that Robert Spencer has disqualified himself from serious consideration on any matters having to do with interfaith relations by publishing the writings of Srdja Trifkovic, the well-known apologist for Serbian war crimes in Bosnia-Hercegovina, whose testimony at the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, in the Stakic case, was discredited.

Fifth, I have the right to decide who I reply to in any event, since this is the United States, not Serbia under the rule of Mr. Trifkovic’s friends, or Spain under the kind of inquisition the attitude of which Mr. Spencer exemplifies.”

Bravo.

Oh, the truth…

January 13, 2006 at 10:40 pm | Posted in Hypocracy unmasked | Leave a comment

So much for the truth… 🙂

In her whining article about not being able to get her way on the Robert Spencer article on Wikipedia, JihadWatch volunteer and contributor Anne said: “I myself am no longer involved in the discussion”

I guess she doesn’t count the half dozen or so edits she made since she posted her article? Including yesterday, the day before, the day before that? While her nemesis, Yalto, appears to have not made a single change or contribution since he said he would leave the discussion?
Clearly, she has learned well – lies and posturing are fine so long as they advance your agenda.  Which now apparently includes celebrating the death of 345+ pilgrims on the Hajj…

Yet, Amazon still enables and provides them with funding.

Ha!

January 11, 2006 at 3:40 am | Posted in Hypocracy unmasked | Leave a comment

Sorry, can’t help it. An anonymous editor seems to have reinserted the criticisms section of the Spencer page, and Anne, the jihadwatch wikipedia lurker, posted this “Note: Attempts to post responses to these criticisms or to show that they are without substance have been repeatedly removed by Wikipedia “editors,” demonstrating Wikipedia’s lack of objectivity.”

Pretty childish, don’t you think?

Note that the Yalto she singled out in her article at JihadWatch voluntarily removed himself from the article because he thought he was too attacked/close to the article to be objective. Pity Anne doesn’t have the ability to do the same thing and leave it to outsiders.

Amazon doesn’t care

December 12, 2005 at 9:46 pm | Posted in Hypocracy unmasked, Taking Action | Leave a comment

Thanks to Richard for passing this along:

“Greetings from Amazon.com Associates.

As my colleague has previously state, we can appreciate your
position with regard to the participation of www.jihadwatch.org in
the Amazon.com Associates Program. As previously mentioned,
Amazon.com does not take a position on the social or political
agenda of any of our Associates. In fact, our Associates include
prominent web sites representing all sides of the political and
social spectrum.

Thank you for choosing the Associates Program.”

So, I guess having an Operating Agreement doesn’t mean you should enforce it, so long as it is generating revenue for you?

I expect (although hope not to receive) a similar response to Islamic Paths – the people who justify suicide bombing. Will post it when it arrives…

Irony at SixApart

December 12, 2005 at 8:19 am | Posted in Hypocracy unmasked | Leave a comment

Nick Carr writes about the latest “Can’t we all get along” speech by Mena at SixApart.

Her speech is ironic, to say the least, because SixApart regularly allows racist, hate mongering groups to use their platform (including their blogging software and hosting services), in explicit violation of their terms of use. Jihadwatch, already noted in earlier posts, is one.

I have said in the past that they have responded better than most, promising to at least investigate. This is still true. But given Mena’s comments, you would expect more proactive and diligent action, no?

Ironic. Or, maybe hypocritical is a better word?

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.