Resource for The Hesperado

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

The "ignorant nominal" Muslim and Zuhdi Jasser

In Zuhdi Jasser's first response to Spencer in this debate, Jasser pooh-poohs the notion that what makes harmless Muslims harmless is that they are "ignorant of their own Islam" or "nominal"

(of course, his argument is not entirely coherent, as he mentions how certain Muslims have been mindful of NOT wanting Islam to influence the state or laws -- why would they be so anxious to do that, if Islam is so great according to Jasser? etc.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihios1W7h0E

Sunday, March 18, 2012

In case my "February" Diana West comments get yanked

The following being a transcript of the comments fields to a March of 2012 Jihad Watch article pertinent to my contributions as "Lemon/Lime" re: Spencer and Diana West:

WhupTdue | March 16, 2012 1:20 PM | Reply

Take the above report of concealed reality in Afghanistan and multiply it exponentially. Read this thread from the "ArmedForcesJournal.com",

Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis, "How military leaders have let us down - Truth, lies and Afghanistan"

Then consider the following quote from MSNBC:

"“Browne told The Associated Press that his client saw his friend’s leg blown off the day before the rampage. Browne said that according to his client’s family, he was standing next to another U.S. soldier when that soldier was gravely injured.” . . . “Sources have told NBC News that he enlisted soon after 9/11, trained as a sniper and was based at Joint Base Lewis McChord, about an hour south of Seattle. He served three tours in Iraq.”. . .”He arrived in Afghanistan in December and was assigned to a village stability operation.“

Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis could confirm not a single instance of 'village stability' in the year he spent in Afganistan.

"Instead, I witnessed the absence of success on virtually every level."

Then consider:

Well-known Seattle defense attorney John Henry Browne is representing the "highly decorated 38-year-old" American soldier who was whisked out of Afghanistan reveals:

Afghan suspect's friend had leg blown off

""His leg was blown off, and my client was standing next to him," he said.
Browne said the incident affected all of the soldiers at the base. It isn't clear whether the incident might have helped prompt the horrific middle-of-the-night attack on civilians in two villages last Sunday.". . ."He and the rest of his brigade had initially been told they wouldn't have to go to Afghanistan, Browne said."

Military/CiC policy (RoE, RIF/"reduction in force", DADT), lack of brass integrity - each send a clear message to those in uniform that they have been, continue to be and remain expendable/collateral damage, even for political gain - resulting in nearly a decade of severe military attrition of the brightest most experienced talent fed-up with the level of ignorance factoring into the loss of blood and treasure. Attrition which ends up concentrating the influence of incompetence at the highest levels - levels which were unachievable for military careerists prior to that attrition.

Adding insult to injury, Panetta's shameful disarming of Marines in his presence illustrates the degree of insanity spilling over from the very top.

Obviously, it's not the soldiers in uniform that we worry have become irrationally deranged now, is it?

_______________

LemonLime replied to comment from WhupTdue | March 16, 2012 4:57 PM | Reply

WhupTdue,

What you document in your comment -- outrageous enough -- is but a minuscule tip of the iceberg. If one spends a few hours reading through the multitude of reports which Diana West has amassed on her blog going back years right up to this week (on both catastrophes -- the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war), one will then have a fuller grasp of that iceberg; and at that point, one wonders if the data about the sickening, nauseating, unconscionable, outrageous, unacceptable crap which our military Commanders-in-Chief (OBushma -- both Bush and Obama) and their Chiefs of Staff including every last one of those silver-haired Generals (the more stars, the more asininely PC MC) have ordered our men to endure is not bountiful enough to warrant actual, all-out, mass mutiny.

...

LemonLime | March 16, 2012 5:33 PM | Reply

Speaking of Diana West, this same report about this Feb 1 story is her latest entry on her blog; and guess what, as she reminds us, Diana West was on it way back on February 4.

A pity Spencer no longer communicates with her (whom long, long ago, he used to praise to the skies but has been ignoring for at least two or three years now, for some mystical reason we will apparently never know.

The Anti-Islam Movement -- operating like a well-oiled machine, with all its members in regular up-to-date communication with each other about important matters, and none of them ever letting their differences or squabbles (personal or professional) get in the way of the far more important ongoing obligation to help inform the public and wake the West up from its myopia to the metastasizing danger of Islam!

j_not_a | March 16, 2012 5:47 PM | Reply

This sort of treachery by "afghan allies" is depressingly not new. Six years ago, Canadian Capt. Trevor Greene was attacked from behind by an axe-wielding afghan while in a meeting with afghan "elders". The plan to do this atrocity was apparently known beforehand by these so-called elders and done with their tacit approval.

The following account is also a testament to the amazing fortitute of this man as he struggled to recover.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/02/attacked-by-an-axe-wielding-insurgent-in-afghanistan-trevor-greenes-recovery-has-been-slow-and-painful/

"Why is the Pentagon covering for Islamic jihadists?"

Incredible, but then again, not, because first there was GWB who proclaimed that "islam is a religion of peace" who fawned over and toadied up to the saudis before and after 9/11.

And to compound this insanity, there is a traitor to his country in the white house now who is so enamoured of, so infatuated with islam and muslims that there is seemingly no depth to which not he will sink in his acquiesence to all things islamic.

awake replied to comment from LemonLime | March 16, 2012 6:02 PM | Reply

LemonLime wrote:

"The Anti-Islam Movement -- operating like a well-oiled machine, with all its members in regular up-to-date communication with each other about important matters, and none of them ever letting their differences or squabbles (personal or professional) get in the way of the far more important ongoing obligation to help inform the public and wake the West up from its myopia to the metastasizing danger of Islam!"

Why are you sarcastically criticizing Spencer alone on his own site in this regard? Maybe Diana West had pertinent information on this revelation well-prior to this article posted here. If so, then give praise where it is due, but without the unfair and ucorrelated criticism of "letting differences or squabbles (personal or professional) get in the way of the far more important ongoing obligation to help inform the public and wake the West up from its myopia to the metastasizing danger of Islam!" as you sarcastically put it, squarely in Spencer's lap.

By the way, you are commiting the very same fault of your own pointed criticism here with that last statement. You do see that, no?

Anywho, I gathered from your many, many previous statements, here there, on the so-called anti-Islam movement, as being "still inchoate".

Has that changed, or do you now consider yourself not part of that anti-Islam group?

Kepha replied to comment from www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003546219302 | March 16, 2012 6:30 PM | Reply

Youssef, what can we expect when Europe prides itself on its emancipation from Christ, and looks on the lingering Christian piety of the Great American Desert as proof of its "backwards" character?

dumbledoresarmy replied to comment from Tom Billesley | March 16, 2012 7:21 PM | Reply

Tom

you wrote -

"The converse [to the 'rule' which I, dda, had reported from a sardonic comment in a British newspaper, on how to turn an Afghan into a Taliban] -

Q: How do you turn a Taliban into an Afghan civilian?
A: Shoot him."

Good one, mate. I'm putting that in my files.

It applies in many other theatres of jihad, too, most notably on the Israel front-line, for which I have just rewritten it:

Q : 'How do you turn a screaming Jew-hating allahu-akbaring local Arab Muslim jihadist, who is throwing rocks/ waving a knife/ firing a gun/ launching a rocket, etc., into an innocent civilian?

A: Shoot him."

SaleemSmith | March 16, 2012 8:44 PM | Reply

Joke of the night:

What is the difference between “moderate/dreamer Muslims” and “fundamentalist/jihadi Muslims” ?

Punchline-

The later are “real Muslims” that correctly understand Islamic doctrine and accept the necessity of subjugating and/or killing non-Muslims for the purpose of establishing full-on sharia law with all of its accompanying horrors.

The former are “apostate Muslims” either living in ignorance of or in denial of the reality of Muhammad’s sick cult of Islam.

Islam Undressed: Islam and Jihad:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_Undressed:_Islam_and_Jihad

164 Jihad Verses in the Qur’an:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html

>>>

We ex-Muslims dealing with Islam's formal and informal death penalty for apostasy know for certain that Islam is evil both in-part and on the whole.

Here is a recent statement from a group of Bangladeshi apostates living in the UK explaining the reasons why they have abandoned Islam:

"One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives (Qur'an 33:50). He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way...

The statement continues,

Muhammad was a narcissist, like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified."

>>>

Ex-Muslim Ali Sina's ongoing challenge to Muslims can be found over at Faith Freedom.org:

THE CHALLENGE

If you do not like this site and want me to remove it, instead of acting as a bully or as a victim, disprove my charges against Muhammad logically. Not only will I remove the site, I will publicly announce that Islam is a true religion. I will also pay

$50,000 U.S. dollars

to anyone who can disprove any of the dozen of the accusations that I have made against Muhammad. I accuse Muhammad of being:

a narcissist
a misogynist
a rapist
a pedophile
a lecher
a torturer
a mass murderer
a cult leader
an assassin
a terrorist
a madman
a looter

...You simply can’t disprove them because they are reported in Islamic sources and as such they are as good as confession...

http://www.faithfreedom.org/the-challenge/the-challenge/

Jerry | March 16, 2012 10:42 PM | Reply

American soldiers shot in the back by "Moderate Islamic Partners in Peace" while the fake Christian Userper in Chief in Washington still continues to hinder and delay the prosecution of Nidal Malik Hassan of the Fort Hood Massacre infamy, lest it may be judicially confirmed that he acted upon an Islamic Jihaddist motivation.

Jerry | March 16, 2012 11:44 PM | Reply

Bosch Fawstin | March 16, 2012 11:49 PM | Reply

My response to this latest Outrage: "allies"? ALL LIES http://bit.ly/wZ2YaK

Jerry | March 16, 2012 11:55 PM | Reply

Jihaddist: We can destroy the US from within!

Userper in Chief: Yes, we can! Yes , we can!

Kevin Vail | March 17, 2012 1:45 AM | Reply

I must have missed the story where Obama demanded an apology from Karzai and got it.

London Jim | March 17, 2012 2:12 AM | Reply

As others have said above, it is truly despicable that the killer has been released to the Afghan authorities whatever 'assurances' have been agreed. The cold blooded treacherous rat should have been tried by a military court and put before a firing squad. .nothing more, nothing less.
Lt Col Dycus Semper Fidelis . .may you make the journey home to the stars safely friend.

www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003546219302 | March 17, 2012 2:21 AM | Reply

Christians across the Middle East are expressing anger and frustration after the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia said it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” In Cairo and Beirut, the anger was loudest, but also through their calls were gestures of tolerance

Youssef

www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003546219302 | March 17, 2012 3:58 AM | Reply

Around 4,000 people gathered today in front of the National Constituent Assembly, calling for the implementation of Shariaa law in the new constitution.

Youssef

Mary | March 17, 2012 7:48 AM | Reply

According to Michael Yon (impeded ex-special forces journalist), the number of such deaths is more like 20. http://www.michaelyon-online.com/major-red-flag-military-cover-up-in-afghanistan.htm

Charles Griffith replied to comment from john spielman | March 17, 2012 7:56 AM | Reply

.....Re your..."The Taliban warfare is similar to the way the Japanese used suicidal attacks against the US Marines and Army in the Pacific theater of WW2."

Indeed it is, and we'll get absolutely nowhere "leading from behind".

I don't know what's come over us as a Nation......those of us of a certain age ( I was ten years old when Pearl Harbor was attacked...) have to wonder why we are pussey-footing around ten years after a similar (but not identical) surprise air attack by our Muslim/Islamic enemy in Manhattan and our nation's Capital in 2001, and an heroic, ad hoc effort brought down the last of those Muslim/Islamic hijacked civilian airliners into a Pennsylvania farmfield.

Because of my retained vivid memories of our intensive anti-Japanese feelings throughout the Pacific War, I can't express my bewilderment and disgust at the strategy/tactics applied today.

Granted, we've got a trans-border, un-uniformed, fragmented, and globally spread enemy in our multifaceted Muslim/Islamic enemy of today...however, it seems to this armchair strategist that a few judiciously and devastating attacks by us (i.e. Americans...as others have various reasons to distance themselves from us Americans.....that's another subject....) would get the message across that we're aware of the similar infestation, infiltration, and subversion of this era to that of the Japanese during the 1930's.

Moreover, we faced infestation, infiltration,and subversion from the Soviet Russians starting in the same period. We needed the Soviets to help defeat the Nazi's.....and they needed America's "Arsenal Of Democracy".

Afterwards, we reverted attention to the subversive aspects of warfare.

Somehow, we've permitted that asinine "political correctness" to govern (no pun intended) all of our reactions to Muslim/Islamic encroachment.....accommodating our sworn enemy at every juncture...abroad and here at home.

We're bending over.....waiting for more thrusts of that searing, red hot poker of Islam.

vnbushman | March 17, 2012 8:29 AM | Reply

This undertaking can not be successful until everyone in the legislator, the administration, military, Homeland security, the FBI, the CIA, the AFT, immigrations, and all citizen understand Islams ideology, goal, committment, motivation, funding, Sharia Law, and seriousness of the jihad against the world of non-Muslims.

The key word here is ideology because that is the backbone of Islam. Once we all understand these things then we can begin to be effective against killings. Within the ideology we find words like taqiyya, kaffir, jihadists, martyers, submission, law of Allah (the Sharia), and the word domination. All supposedly order by and from Allah thru Muhammad and no one else but Muhammad.

Of course the Qu'ran was written after Muhammads death. So the whole ideology starts at that point and ends at that point, trying to copy the ideals and likeness of Muhammad as if that would get all Muslims Allahs favor, and then to paradice (heaven) has two or three heads and directions. So this puzzel can never fit together.

The major problem then is that very few non-Muslims understand the ideology of Islam. We are told that we cause the killings, hatred, demontrations, and rioting by such things as burning the Qu'ran and so forth. That simply doesn't make any since at all because there has (to my knowledge) never been any such cause prior to 2001. We all know that Muslims have been murdering kaffirs for 1400 years. That includes the crusades, barbary coast, 9-11 and all the rest of it.

The Generals of the U.S. military have turned into kiss arses toward this administration, and Islam so of cause they aren't at all effective. They never have been and never will be.

These wars are a total waste of American lives and money. It's the ideology of Islam that has to change in order for peace to have a chance. Until then Muslims will always be poor neighbors and allis, because Islam isn't interested in in those two things. They are only interested in jihad so they can all realize paradice.

Our U.S. military will continue to melt down until the ideology of Islam is learned and then taught. It's the ideology of Islam that must change, in order for peace to have a chance. The United States can continue to appease, and apologize all it wants to, but it is a total waste of lives, money, and effort.

Most of Jihad Watch bloggers totally understand. But we can't do anything about it until the administration, military and the rest of government catches up. And they refuse to change course because it may upset Islam. So here we are the best military in the world, also the most ineffective military in the world. All in the name of appeasing Islam, first and formost.

LemonLime replied to comment from awake | March 17, 2012 10:24 AM | Reply

...you are commiting the very same fault of your own pointed criticism here with that last statement. You do see that, no?

I am not ignoring an important piece of information reported a month ago because of some mysterious rift I have had with Spencer which I never explain to the public; indeed, you consistently and regularly have chided me with precisely the opposite -- continuing to avail myself of Spencer's reportage for the purpose of informing and waking up the public. For the comparison to be valid, I would have to ignore a particular important report Spencer put up one day, and then a whole month later adverto to that same report and instead of giving a hat tip to the one who deserved it -- namely, Spencer -- I would give a hat tip to someone else. You do see that, no?

Also, I never claimed that Spencer necessarily knew about West's inestimable deftness in being on top of this story way back on February 4; rather, that he would have known about it, had he remained in the close touch he evidently obviously used to maintain with her way back in the mists of time years ago, before something happened to cause him to completely stop (for nearly three years now) mentioning how "inestimable" and "ever-perceptive" and "ever-insightful" she is with her "usual acuity and perceptiveness" as "[o]ne of the nist clear-sighted and brave columnists on the scene today" and frequently adverting to, and relaying here on the pages of Jihad Watch (and the now retired Dhimmi Watch), her "superb" columns (all quotes indicating Spencer's own words in extremely high praise of her; once, indeed -- way back in 2006 -- even going so far as to effusively gush "West for President!")

Anywho, I gathered from your many, many previous statements, here there, on the so-called anti-Islam movement, as being "still inchoate".

Has that changed, or do you now consider yourself not part of that anti-Islam group?

The logic of your question doesn't make sense. The anti-Islam movement being inchoate neither makes me consider myself a part, nor not a part, of it. Those two factors -- the anti-Islam movement being inchoate or not; and my considering myself a part of it or not, are two separate factors. I have no idea how or why you would be necessarily connecting them to each other; nor do I much care to plumb a muddled mind.

awake replied to comment from LemonLime | March 17, 2012 10:56 AM | Reply

LemonLime wrote:

"...I never claimed that Spencer necessarily knew about West's inestimable deftness in being on top of this story way back on February 4; rather, that he would have known about it, had he remained in the close touch he evidently obviously used to maintain with her way back in the mists of time years ago, before something happened to cause him to completely stop (for nearly three years now)..."

So, maybe he would have, but what is the point of that statement? It has no topical relevance here in this thread. If they had a falling out, then they did. Why exactly? I don't know for sure. I have my suspicions, but if you want to know, then why not ask him yourself?

Your statement above places a blame on Spencer that his evitable parting with West should have been avoided so Spencer could have reported this story much earlier. Now if that belief in your estimation derves a valid and important criticism on its own, then it might have merit. But since most sources reported this story yesterday, (Drudge, HotAir etc.), and none gave West source credit as far as I am aware, not just Spencer, seemingly weeks later, but everywhere. So your criticism of Spencer in this regard flies in the face of that reality, unless everyone I mentioned has a collective conspiracy against West. That's highly unlikely, and baseless unless proof is presented otherwise.

Anyway, your statement was overt in it's intent to paint Spencer as a rogue commenter in this movement and as one who regularly and without reason, burns bridges with those he once had acquaintance with. Everybody should be able to see that and if they don't, they can refer to your numerous articles essentially stating exactly such sentiment.

My "muddled mind",(because you say so)aside, has clarity enough to realize that you weaken all your arguments due to your persistent inclination to criticize Spencer's character, instead of the validity of the content he presents. That he allows you to continue to do that at his site no less, while a bit puzzling to me, seems to indicate Spencer being the bigger man of the two of you.

I notice that you didn't answer the question of whether you consider yourself part of this movement. Your blog would indicate that you do, and if so, then why prolong this avenue of commentary and criticism based on personal disaffection? To continue to do so only illustrates your hypocrisy of engaging in the very same behaviour you routinely try to take Spencer to task for.

David Dowse replied to comment from Bosch Fawstin | March 17, 2012 12:29 PM | Reply

Nice. Great work, Bosch!...as usual.

David Dowse replied to comment from LemonLime | March 17, 2012 12:46 PM | Reply

From your blog:

"Is he holding back on recommending to his readers “the inestimable” and “superb” and “ever-insightful” Diana West in this case because she, unlike him, is taking a bold stand in condemning the demonstrators, and he doesn’t want that point of view given any air time on his blog? Or have Spencer and West had a falling out that, like most important things that go on with our unofficial and unelected leadership in the Anti-Islam Movement, seems to go on behind the closed doors of its aristocratic Gentlemen’s Club?"

Question #1: Maybe - and so what? Perhaps Spencer had a different view on giving brainwashed Mohammedists a fighting chance. And by the way - this is Spencer's blog. What he does or has done with it is his business.

And a supposed "falling out"? Again - so what? Big deal.

People have fallings-out all the time - every day - over things various and sundry that are none of our business.
___________________________________________________________

I think your comment is loosely based on your own suppositions, and only succeeds in a sort of smear of Spencer.

Why is that necessary to do? Why is it so important to the real cause at hand, in general, and the topic of this thread, in particular?

London Jim replied to comment from David Dowse | March 17, 2012 2:45 PM | Reply

Hesperado's had a chip on his shoulder, somethinhg nagging him, since I can remember.. He could be Mr llttle green footballs himself, at a guess.

LemonLime replied to comment from awake | March 17, 2012 3:03 PM | Reply

"It has no topical relevance here in this thread."

This site is supposed to be reporting events in a timely way. Being a month late is not timely. And there's no good reason for that tardiness; likely a bad reason -- i.e., letting rifts (personal or professional) get in the way of the kind of constant back-and-forth flow of information which a healthy movement would encourage. But I already said all this. I guess with some individuals remedial repetition is required for comprehension (and even then, there's no guarantee).

LemonLime replied to comment from David Dowse | March 17, 2012 3:04 PM | Reply

"Question #1: Maybe - and so what?"

cf. supra.

awake replied to comment from LemonLime | March 17, 2012 4:08 PM | Reply

I see that you STILL have not answered the question of whether you consider yourself part of the movement. So be it.

Anyway, you wrote:

"This site is supposed to be reporting events in a timely way. Being a month late is not timely. And there's no good reason for that tardiness..."

Let's add the mortal sin of "tardiness" to the laundry list of problems LemonLime has with Robert Spencer. Should he be detained, suspended or drawn and quartered for this new outrage as you perceive, LemonLime?

More pointedly, West's article back on February 4th merely posited the question. The confirmation was revealed...yesterday...as I said and I provided high-profile sources to support that truth. You on the otherhand, have offered no sources as a counterargument.

I notice that this vital story, the question posed by West on February 4th, was also not commented on in any way by you before today as far as I can see. Maybe you deleted that thread from your blog? Now, now LemonLime, tardiness shouldn't and won't be tolerated.

I will not waste any more of my valuable time here redressing you on this thread, for I have far better things to do than engage in witless banter with someone so intellectually dishonest as yourself.

That said, going forward, expect me to respond in kind whenever I see your off-topic comments just to grief Robert Spencer on a personal level, no matter how baseless your criticisms are, which is becoming more apparent with each subsequent comment you make here. No, not expect, be cocksure that I will, for my goal here is expose your disingenuous behavior, which when rightfully called out, sees you scurrying behind some pre-fabricated victimhood status. You're beyond a caricature of yourself at this point in my estimation.

At least I am honest in my intentions. You on the otherhand, think that you are clever enough to disguise yours. You're not for your information, and I expect that comprehension to continue to grow here in this community, for you, and honest, respectful objective discourse are currently an ocean apart.

Good afternoon.

LemonLime replied to comment from john spielman | March 17, 2012 11:23 PM | Reply

john spielman,

"The Taliban warfare is similar to the way the Japanese used suicidal attacks against the US Marines and Army in the Pacific theater of WW2."

In fact, Islamic warfare for 1400 years has been like the Japanese suicidal attacks. Muslims have been using that tactic for 1400 years. We have to stop marginalizing the problem to just "the Taliban" or "al Qaeda" or the "Wahhabis" or the "Salafists" or the "Islamists" or the "radical Islamists" or any number of other terms used to avoid the Camel in the Room.

It's Muslims. Straight, no chaser. That's the problem. Until we get that, we will be at a grievous strategic disadvantage. And countless lives will be lost -- on our side, the only side that matters.

David Dowse replied to comment from LemonLime | March 18, 2012 7:06 AM | Reply

"Being a month late is not timely. And there's no good reason for that tardiness; likely a bad reason -- i.e., letting rifts (personal or professional) get in the way of the kind of constant back-and-forth flow of information which a healthy movement would encourage."
________________________________________

Well, pray tell, why didn't you bless us all with a timely scoop on the whole thing, then?

You're arguing out the side of your mouth, as usual, and for someone so bright, you sure waste a lot of time criticizing others for a supposed "shortcoming in reporting". You could have rectified your complaint with a simple, benign comment and a link. Instead, you chose the low-road; a smeary, personalized discourse that unfairly questions the motives of this site's administrator.

And by the way, if "there's no good reason for that tardiness", then there is, most assuredly, no "likely bad reason". There is only something other than "good", which, again, would be something approaching "bad".

LemonLime replied to comment from David Dowse | March 18, 2012 1:49 PM | Reply

"Well, pray tell, why didn't you bless us all with a timely scoop on the whole thing, then?"

You're making a comparison. For a comparison to pertinently and approprately apply, there have to be a sufficient number of correspondences of the relevant factors. Here, there are not.

a) I didn't once praise Diana West to the skies for years, then in the last approximately two to three years suddenly stop mentioning her at all (except once
briefly in May of 2010 in a comments section to leap in like a shark to complain about her "vicious attack" on me when all she did was maturely and intelligently disagree with me in defense of another colleague I had also cut ties with (whose last name is but for one letter exactly the same as the most famous city in Massachusetts) -- while in the meanwhile her work I once praised to the skies not conly has continued, but has gotten more productive and arguably better for the anti-Islam movement)

b) I didn't once regularly and frequently advert to her reports on my blog for years in the context of praising her to the skies, with direct links to, and quotes of, her articles, and then stop for the last three years (while meanwhile her work; cf. supra)

c) I was not apparently, given (a) and (b), more than a mere civilian reader of Diana West, but actually a friend and colleague in the context of the embryonic anti-jihad movement

d) I did not, beginning in February of 2008, start putting Diana West on my blog roll, only to take her off my blog roll approximately on March 31 of 2010 and keep her off ever since

and finally

e) I don't have a blog that reaches possibly millions to an important extent because I myself extend the influence of my name and work by flying all over the world all year long to various colloquia, onferences, debates and TV and radio interviews related to the ongoing anti-jihad movement; and by having had published several books some on the NY Times bestseller list -- and thus I don't have a blog anywhere near as important in the realm of commuication to multitudes high and low throughout the world, let alone throughout the West, by which the importance of maintaining the virtue of healthy cooperation (and, conversely, the vice of letting personal and/or professional squabbles get in the way of cooperation) amongst colleagues in the ongoing anti-jihad movement becomes that much more pertinent to point out, because that much more influential and hopefully effective.

LemonLime | March 18, 2012 1:56 PM | Reply

correction:

"...there have to be a sufficient number of correspondences..."

to:

"...there has to be a sufficient number of correspondences..."

David Dowse replied to comment from LemonLime | March 18, 2012 2:19 PM | Reply

I haven't the slightest idea what your post, above, means.

LemonLime | March 18, 2012 3:04 PM | Reply

David Dowse,

Fuck you, too.

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.

Thanks for signing in, LemonLime. (sign out)

You may use HTML tags for style.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Robert Spencer's apparent rift with Diana West

As I reported back in May of 2010, concerning Robert Spencer's mysterious kerfuffle with his formerly close ally and friend in the anti-Islam movement (such as it is), Andrew Bostom:

About Diana West, and her apparent fall from Spencerian grace, I have written two or three essays -- all conjecture, since I had no solid evidence of a rift between her and Spencer (and she even implied, perhaps merely being the graciously diplomatic person she seems to be, that there was no rift in a private email to me last year).

Now, this week, we see Robert Spencer exhibiting the wounded reflex of lashing back at Diana West by characterizing her sober analysis of the Bostom situation as a "vicious attack" and as a "smear campaign". Her sin, of course, was to disagree with Spencer. When we compare that petulantly hurt characterization of Diana West with all the praise Spencer heaped on her regularly and frequently in days of yore (as I documented in my essay The Persian Flu) --

"tell-it-like-it-is Diana West"

"Diana West has a superb column..."

"Diana West's superb proposal for recasting the "war on terror"..."

"West for President!"

"From the superb Diana West...

"With her usual acuity and perceptiveness, Diana West explains..."

"The ever-perceptive Diana West..."

"The ever-insightful Diana West..."

"One of the most clear-sighted and brave columnists on the scene today..."

-- and add to that the long-standing ignoring of Diana West by Spencer (as he had of late come to ignore Bostom, as well as Baron Bodissey and Bawer), it becomes clear that I was right all along: another falling out. But the explanation for this falling out remains in the darkness behind the locked doors and velvet ropes of the Gentlemen's Club. With the exception, of course, of that comment by Spencer about West's "vicious attack" and "smear campaign" against him -- albeit a comment rather tucked away in a comments field to a thread already at that point teetering on the brink of falling into the Chasm of Archives.

I tend to think it's not a coincidence that during the time that Spencer grew unprecedently frosty to West, she wrote many essays taking a stance diametrically opposite his on two important issues: Vlaams Belang, and the Iranian demonstrations. Nor does it seem a coincidence that during approximately the same period of time Spencer found a new friend -- Pam Geller -- whose romanticized idealism of the Iranian "reformers" caused her to swoon regularly and dramatically with hope. If I'm right, this means that Spencer's personal rifts are having a concrete effect on his role as a reporter and analyst for the anti-Islam movement.

[End of excerpt]

Also (with some repetition of details), as I reported back in 2009, in the context of those in the anti-Islam movement (such as it is) who seemed to be afflicted with the "Persian Flu" (i.e., extending effusively magnanimous support for and placing strangely idealistic hope in the "Persian people" who were revolting not against Islam, but merely against their government (an early premonition of the "Arab Spring" that would later erupt, and about which Spencer and Geller have suddenly had no problem being rationally cynical and suspicious, unlike the way they were with the Iranian events):

...he [Robert Spencer] has been curiously silent about the essays Diana West has written about the Iran Crisis. This is curious because in the past, over the span of many years, Spencer has often published articles highlighting a Diana West essay about this, that and the other thing relating to ongoing issues of Islam. And he has always warmly and with high praise introduced her to his readers.

For example, last year about the Sherry Jones novel about Mohammed story, he began his piece introducing West’s article:

Tell-it-like-it-is Diana West puts this story in better context.

Or, when in 2003 he recommended West’s take on the Vatican and Islam, he wrote:

This morning Diana West has a superb column on the Vatican's extraordinary new statement on Islam and dhimmitude...

Or, in his introduction to her article in 2006 on Bush and the war on terror, he wrote:

Here is the continuation of Diana West's superb proposal for recasting the "war on terror." Part I is here. West for President!

Or, in introducing a review by West of Bat Yeor’s Eurabia in 2005, he wrote:

From the superb Diana West in the Washington Times...

Or, in 2004, when he published an article by West on France and the veil, he wrote:

With her usual acuity and perceptiveness, Diana West explains what is really going on in France's ongoing headscarf controversy...

And Googling only yields more and more:

The ever-perceptive Diana West...

The ever-insightful Diana West...

One of the most clear-sighted and brave columnists on the scene today, Diana West...

Diana West has some acute and perceptive insights on Sharia and Iraq...

The inestimable Diana West once again speaks truth to the dhimmis in power.

And so forth.

Her absence in the halls of Jihad Watch during this entire Iran Crisis therefore becomes highly curious. As we noted, Spencer has apparently chosen to take his fastidiously gingerly non-positional position on the question of whether or not the Iranian demonstrators are worth endowing with anything other than the eminently rational distrust that should be accorded any group of Muslims who do anything that seems good. Is he holding back on recommending to his readers “the inestimable” and “superb” and “ever-insightful” Diana West in this case because she, unlike him, is taking a bold stand in condemning the demonstrators, and he doesn’t want that point of view given any air time on his blog? Or have Spencer and West had a falling out that, like most important things that go on with our unofficial and unelected leadership in the Anti-Islam Movement, seems to go on behind the closed doors of its aristocratic Gentlemen’s Club? If it is the latter, it would be most unfortunate for Spencer to translate some personal or moral or and/or ideological discord the two of them may have had into a stance that has the result of depriving his readership of, yes, in this case, the inestimable and superb Diana West.

Thursday, December 01, 2011

Spencer's rhetorical question about "Islamophobes"

One example of a rhetorical question Robert Spencer appends routinely and rather frequently to stories reporting Muslims behaving... Islamically:

Concerning Muslims in the Maldives government, Spencer reported:

Islamic Minister Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari told local media that “a tenet of Islam cannot be changed” and flogging was a hudud punishment prescribed in the Quran (24:2) and “revealed down to us from seven heavens.”

Then Spencer wryly asked:

They said it, they cited the same chapter and verse that we have noted many times. Are they Islamophobes?

Sunday, November 13, 2011

A deeper analysis of the sociopolitics of the modern West

The problem reflects two sociopolitical processes that characterize the modern West, increasing with each passing generation into our present:

1) A genuinely beneficent progress (not without faults, since nothing in this life is perfect, right?) unfolding out of the virtues of the Judeo-Christian and Graeco-Roman virtues of Western Civilization

and

2) An increasing influence of Gnosticism in Western culture, with a long history of incremental aggrandizement, beginning in earnest in the 16th century in the wake of the Protestant Reformation; given a jump-start in the 18th century with the Enlightenment; unfolding further throughout the 19th century experimentation and expansion into the new lands of the globe affording further freedom; exploding in the 20th century with actualizations of many of its logical consequences of revolt against the order of the ancien regime -- actualizations causing untold social dislocations, economic turmoil, and mass carnage in a world-wide war catalyzed and exacerbated by mass movements of Gnosticism in Communism, Fascism and Nazism.

Let's back up a bit and lay out schematically the actual complexion of the state of sociopolitics throughout the West in our time, keeping our eye on the ball -- i.e., the primary problem.

Sociopolitics throughout the modern West has been structured by a Left-Right polarity, with a spectrum of positions in between. That spectrum has not been static, but has at times acquired a dynamic flux, whereby the phrase "the Center (between Left and Right) has shifted to the Left" (or "to the Right") have become commonplace, along with innumerable permutations of "left of center" or "a left-leaning conservative" or "moderate liberal" or "liberal conservative"; etc..

This situation is not absolutely arbitrary and relative, however. Behind this ongoing situation has been a broader, deeper historical process of what might be called "Progress" throughout the West. Many of the features of this Progress may seem Leftish (or "liberal") to many conservatives; and indeed, most of the features of Western Progress are probably accepted, if not eagerly supported, by most Leftists (even if the more radical among them impatiently want faster and more radical progress).

This overarching process of Progress, however, is a sociopolitical phenomenon so broad and deep throughout the West, it becomes increasingly strained to attempt to demonize it as solely the fruit of Leftism corruption and/or darker machinations. There would seem to be, contained in Western civilization itself, the seeds of this Progress as an inherent entelechy unfolding over time, extrapolating the logical consequences of the insights of that civilization's four pillars -- Judaeo-Christian and Graeco-Roman.

Now, that is not to say that this process of unfolding extrapolation has been perfect and uneventfully peachy keen. Like anything in this imperfect life, it has been vulnerable to flaws and defects, emanating out of fallen human nature (I hate it when feel I have to point out painfully elementary truths).

One of the most damaging flaws that has occurred within this process has been the development of modern Gnosticism, which has had disastrous actualizations -- as in Nazism, Fascism and Communism -- as well as broader, less blatantly destructive sociopolitical agendas, typically simply labelled as "Leftism" (with its edgier manifestations being termed "Socialism").

Along with all this, there has been the usual melange of varying degrees of literacy and intelligence with regard to the general flux and structure of the phenomenon. Aside from puerile partisanship reflected in "Left vs. Right" (and vice versa) between obtusely staunch proponents of either side, there is for example the subtler, but no less shallow, misapplication of the term "liberal" as a term of vague condemnation; with attempts to salvage it by many with not much of a firmer grasp of things by recourse to the coinage "classical liberalism".

Interspersed among all this are varying degrees of sociopolitical apolitical apathy, ennui, anomie, quasi-nihilism -- all of which tend, ironically enough, to lean Leftward anyway. We may also notice thrown into the mix the aberrant eccentricity of "Libertarianism" as well as crotchets influenced by Ayn Rand. And, of course, a more serious hobbyhorse, with a potential for more serious consequences, is the vast growth, in varying viral forms, of "conspiracy theory" -- which itself is a kind of amorphous neo-Gnosticism, able to infect hosts on all points of the sociopolitical spectrum, and in the process sometimes finding strange bedfellows among its fellow travelers.

If I had the capacity on this blog to lay out visually a schematic figure, it may make my explanation easier to convey. For now, I'll do my best, by simply adumbrating all the relevant factors:

1. Virtues of Western Civilization founded in its four pillars, Judaeo-Christian and Graeco-Roman.

2. Seeds of "Progress" in #1, and over time unfolding and developing.

3. Perennial imperfections of human nature that impinge on sociopolitical existence.

4. Millennial incubation of Gnosticism from the very beginning of Western Civilization, over the centuries waxing and waning, but mostly kept suppressed until the modern era beginning in the 18th century, with the important catalyzing precursor of the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century.

5. The increasing influence of neo-Gnosticism from the 18th century forward becomes an important part of the dynamism of the ongoing development of Western sociopolitical progress --

a) having seemingly benign effects in such movements as Abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, and other sociopolitical idealisms by which to transfigure society -- if not into, at least toward, utopia -- efforts which may be less simplistically benign but at least not blatantly malevolent (e.g., increasing attempts to help poor and underprivileged through government programs; increasing attempts to translate respect for the Other in various forms of policy; attempts to make society reflect more "fairness" in general; etc.)

b) and manifesting blatantly disastrous and malevolent eruptions in the mass movements of Communism, Fascism and Nazism.

Before we move onto #6, it may be necessary to point out that in 5a, I am not asserting that all relatively benign sociopolitical progress we have seen in modern times is "neo-Gnostic": it is, rather, an inextricable intertwining of the progress latent as seeds in the virtues of Western Civilization with the influences of Gnosticism over the ages. (Whether or not Gnosticism is "alien" to Western Civilization, or a malignant part of it, is another matter which may never be definitively settled.)

6. Meanwhile, the sociopolitical virtue of Western Reason continues to thrive, amid all these challenges and crises that wracked the 20th century. While thriving, it did not necessarily conduct itself impeccably (pace #3 above), and often succumbed to specious degradations of its principles. Nevertheless, proof of its high degree of health is to be found in the spirited and energetic and self-sacrificing rallying of its forces to roundly defeat the outburst of violently virulent forms of formidably deadly Gnosticism in the form of World War 2.

7. While Western Reason won the war (both 20th century wars), its very form of winning in many ways represented a kind of acceleration of the process of Progress -- which, as we noted above, has been the unfolding of intrinsic features of the virtues of Western Civilization. Of course, it should also be noted that there exists, more or less latently, in conservatism a kind of resistance to, and resentment against, the very notion that those virtues even need to be unfolded at all. Thus: "Aren't they good enough by themselves? Why do we have to 'progress' any further? Any of this 'progress' business is really just regress, corruption, decadence -- a falling away from our former pristine Good Old Days handed down from God and from Socrates, respectively." In so many words. Needless to say, we may relocate such an attitude as being simply the silly mirror-image of its evil twin, the unthinking champion of Progress who doesn't really have a clear idea of where he's progressing to, and along with that bases his enthusiasm for progress on a childish demonization of the Bad Old Days when Mean Old White Men oppressed and exploited for their wicked ends all good people.

The truth, as is usually the case, lies somewhere in the middle. And it's in the middle where things get complex and resist the easy reduction.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

The reasoning behind why the "War of Ideas" must be through civil persuasion, not Civil War

The Problem:

Fact #1: The modern West is now (and has been for decades) whitewashing Islam and in the process enabling dangerous Muslims to become more lethal to our societies.

Fact #2: The lethal danger of Muslims pursuing their Islam is metastasizing.

Premise #1: The reason why the modern West is doing this is not because the modern West is a) evil, or b) stupid -- it is because the modern West has developed a worldview over the past half century that reflects an elaborate deformation of good Western virtues, which include respect for the other, and self criticism.

These two virtues are good -- but not when taken to irrational excess, such that our societies end up, with surreal irony in the very name of those virtues, effectively enabling and defending violent and hateful enemies of human rights (i.e., Muslims following Islam) while simultaneously crippling our ability to protect ourselves from them.

Premise #2: Most modern Westerners are relatively good, decent and intelligent people, because the modern West is, relatively, the healthiest collection of polities in all world history -- not just by a slight margin, but stupendously so.

Premise #3: Given our first two premises, the best way to proceed, given our two problems -- the Problem of Islam, and the Problem of Western Myopia to the Problem of Islam -- is through persuasion and education of our fellow Westerners who remain stubbornly stuck in the Box of PC MC.

Conclusion:

Such persuasion and education desperately requires an Anti-Islam Manual as its central guiding template.