Geert Wilders: The British government proved they’re “the biggest cowards in Europe today”
posted at 3:40 pm on February 12, 2009 by Allahpundit
Just a taste of a day-long tirade he’s been on about their appeasement of jihadists by denying him entry, the highlight of which was calling them “more Chamberlain than Churchill.” I was remiss in my post about this on Tuesday not to mention that Wilders himself is a book-banner, and therefore a rank hypocrite when it comes to free speech. Hypocrites abound in this controversy, in fact: Wilders himself, Gordon Brown and the supposedly “liberal” UK, and the biggest hypocrite of all, Wilders’s nemesis in Britain’s Parliament, Lord Ahmed. Have a look here and here to see whom he deemed more worthy of an invitation than the guy who made “Fitna.”
Wilders is already on his way back to the Netherlands. Exit quotation: “The film isn’t offensive unless you are a violent Islamist.” Click the image to watch.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Nice touch.
I think I’ll just make this a blog-free day.
wccawa on February 12, 2009 at 7:50 PM
Did you have something to say about the question I posed to Mr. Spencer? Maybe you could explain how a man stumbles into a sinister Facebook group, then blames the person who saw him do it for the blowback.
I’m honestly not trying to be unfair. Like I said, I can see how that could happen to someone not paying close attention – but placing the blame on Cato and Charles is the part I’m having a lot of trouble with.
capitalist piglet on February 12, 2009 at 7:50 PM
That is, starting tomorrow you mean?
awake on February 12, 2009 at 7:50 PM
You rather overrate the charms of that society. I’faith, for one thing, it does seem monstrous ill-tempered for any society, even a fringe one.
PercyB on February 12, 2009 at 7:51 PM
@wccawa
Why don’t you go back there and
whine some moreanswer some of the posts to you?NoamSayin on February 12, 2009 at 7:52 PM
But the article didn’t appear in the New York Times, it appeared in a blog that believes we are at war with the religion under consideration. This is the header at Gates of Vienna:
In that context, I think the piece was more an exercise of rabble-rousing than sober analysis.
RightOFLeft on February 12, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Then stop acting like Joe McCarthy.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Exactly. How can a man as intelligent as Robert Spencer fall prey to an internet scam so easily, that happened to be reported to the main Spencer critic, Charles Johnson, on the very same day, mere hours after his joining of this “sinister” group, in an embarassingly public domain?
Get a grip son, before I sell you the deed to a bridge.
awake on February 12, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Plus documents since released from the Soviet archives now prove that a lot of the people who he accused of being Communists were in fact fully paid-up Soviet agents.
“McCarthyism” is such a useful term to describe demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character of political opponents that it won’t go out of fashion soon.
But yes, ironically enough, Charles Johnson is more of a “McCarthyist” than Joe McCarthy himself.
aengus on February 12, 2009 at 7:54 PM
So, I guess the logical refutation of your position warrants you to simply ignore me. Trust me, you will have countless dozens following your sage advice going forward.
awake on February 12, 2009 at 7:56 PM
You? Go F yourself. It takes a “big man” with a keyboard, eh?
You may not recall, but it was not that many years ago when you and I used to engage in humorous little give-and-takes over there, and it was delightful. The tone has changed completely, sad to say.
However, I DO resent you following me back here for the mere purpose of insulting me.
I wish you the best. I won’t be returning there. I give you your space. Give me mine.
All the best…
wccawa on February 12, 2009 at 7:59 PM
Everything has a moral if only you can find it. I see that you did.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 8:00 PM
I said something nice about you over there wcc. I truly believe you’re trying to find the truth. I just felt you were going about it the wrong way.
I also found it kind of resent that you’d come by here and slag us with comments you made over there. over there. You had it coming, and you know it.
In any case, if you come back, I swear I’ll try to engage you in witty banter. But if you take a poke at me, I’m going to poke back, dig?
NoamSayin on February 12, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Now, for extra credit, what is the moral in the Ted Haggard comparison with Charles Johnson?
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Proofreading. Where would I be without it?
NoamSayin on February 12, 2009 at 8:05 PM
What I posted was WORD FOR WORD what I posted over there. I was trying to find context, trying to put this thing into terms I could understand. I was hoping for feedback and some illumination. I guess I failed.
But for Charles to suggest I was coming here for some “blessing” from Robert, well… that was way over the top.
I was a loyal Lizard for many years, but honestly, Noam? No more for me. I’ve had it over there. The tone is just too harsh there anymore. Plus, I have this really, really nasty handicap. I believe in God.
I wish you, and all the other real Lizards, the best.
wccawa on February 12, 2009 at 8:08 PM
The blog does not say that we are at war with Islam but rather that Islam is at war with us. The siege of Vienna was a defensive action against Muslim invaders.
It may sound to you like the invocation of some ancient grudge but it is not so odd-sounding when you look at it from the jihadist perspective.
Osama Bin Laden in one of his speeches after 9/11 cited the loss of “Al-Andalus” (Spain) to the Reconquista in the 11th (possibly 12th?) century as one of his grievances. Al-Qaeda have already bombed Madrid and they have still have sleeper cell networks in Britain and Europe. I do not think that jihadist terrorists would have a problem with this unusually long time-frame.
The article discusses Al-Qaeda networks waging this war. Given the added context of Osama Bin Laden’s own statements I provided above I think it is a credible piece.
aengus on February 12, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Oh no, I’ve run up against the master debater. I’m gonna need a bigger thesaurus.
RightOFLeft on February 12, 2009 at 8:08 PM
Then we’ll exchange witty banter here.
Hear the one about the Egg of Power?
Later, folks.
NoamSayin on February 12, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Aren’t we all just “big men with keyboards” here?
I wanna be a Keyboard Ranger,
Live the life of key pushin’ danger,
Keep me out of the drop zone,
I just wanna stay at home.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Roger that.
wccawa on February 12, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Uptight. Thank you. I have frequently been one of the American’s sniping at the U.K. (not in this thread–but in plenty of others)
But you set me right. You put up a mirror and I looked into it. Good points. Consider them taken by at least one of us across the pond, and consider me an ally who will watch his words a bit more carefully. /cheers
Montana on February 12, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Well actually, you may have come pretty close.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Hm I believe that would be the fact that Ted Haggard loudly condemned homosexual behaviour while engaging in it himself.
Charles Johnson loudly denounces people as fascists and white supremacists using dishonest fascist smear tactics.
aengus on February 12, 2009 at 8:14 PM
The Koran is yelling, “Juice are in the Theater!”
- The Cat
MirCat on February 12, 2009 at 8:14 PM
Give this man a cigar!
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 8:17 PM
The essay is introduced with:
I don’t know if the author shares that opinion – is it fair to say he probably does? – but that makes any equivocation about Al-Qaeda moot.
I take the terrorist threat seriously, but the whole no-moderate-Muslim implication I find on sites like GoV disturbs me. How would it look to an Iraqi soldier if he stumbled on that post? I don’t think he could read it as anything but a threat.
RightOFLeft on February 12, 2009 at 8:34 PM
The problem with Johnson isn’t that he hates nazis; hell everyone should hate nazis, and if he wants to be an evolutionist, that’s his God-given right. For the record, I don’t believe in the young-Earth ID stuff either, but I also don’t ridicule them ad nauseum every SINGLE day.
Of course, it’s his blog, and his rules. The real problem is, over on his blog, every commenter is as shrill as he is now, and so it’s like he’s talking to himself.
The LGF has become an echo chamber, and if you don’t agree with the lizard king or his schlock harpies , then you get the ban stick. If you DARE to ask the wrong question, you get the ban stick. If you make a humorous comment (Heh, now that there’s funny), you get the ban stick. So if you don’t parrot the lizard line, you are gone.
Charles Johnson is the past. He knows it.
john1schn on February 12, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Where are the moderate muslims standing up for Wilder’s free speech? Maybe they are all over in Iraq? Don’t seem to be any in Europe. Don’t seem to hear from many/if any of them when woman rape victims are lashed or stoned either. Maybe I need to get a hearing aid.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 8:47 PM
But can you not see the difference between moderate Muslims living in Iraq and Muslims in Europe? The latter do not have good reason to be moderate.
Islam mandates different behaviour based on different cirumstances Muslims find themselves in.
An expanding Muslims population in a foreign land is a de facto colonial project – so the attitude of Muslims who believe they are engaged in re-settling a new land for Islam is one of intense religious elation and aggression.
Islam is not as inherently dangerous if isolated in its own lands which is why I think immigration restrictionism is so important to Western survival.
IMO, policies like the nation-building project in Iraq do not make sense as long as millions are Muslims are allowed to come to the West.
Even if everyone in Iraq became mellow and moderate the Muslims in Michigan and Rotterdam would still be in an expansionist frame of mind and thus the West would still be in grave peril.
Of course if the Islamic colonisation of the West is ever dealt with then it is likely to cause lots of anger in the Middle East by Muslims who believe their brothers are being persecuted. This creates a double-bind for the West and so a world war could be the result.
aengus on February 12, 2009 at 8:55 PM
Attacking Allah’s credibility isn’t actually attacking him? Right.
STFU? So far, you’re the one who’s posted that twice. I haven’t posted it once. Transference isn’t healthy, jack.
As for who I attack, considering that this is a conservative site, anyone who attacks anyone else is attacking conservatives, so cry me a river, dickhead. The people I attack are either hopelessly devoted to a crappy RINO, reduce conservative credentials to dependency on a single social issue, spew Ronulan garbage, or are people like you. Oh, and they’re the minority, because I more typically attacked trolls like Vernon, right4life, St. Olaf, apacalyps, alphie, Red Pill, and so on.
You have this delusion that you know a thing about me. I hope I cleared that up for you.
MadisonConservative on February 12, 2009 at 8:56 PM
The Muslim Menace is real and can be observed wherever Muslims live in large numbers within a non-Muslim society be it Minneapolis, Dearborn, London, Paris or Mumbai. Islam constitutes a threat to all non-Muslim societies by actively seeking to dominate and eventually subjugate those that will not accept the pedophile as their God. Wilders and Spencer are champions of freedom and are on point in the struggle against the barbaric hordes.
dmann on February 12, 2009 at 9:09 PM
Charles the dancing clown just used the ban stick and deleted a post in a thread he titled “Conservatives’ Who Want to Ban Books”. Now that’s comedy gold.
john1schn on February 12, 2009 at 9:10 PM
MB4 if someone said they wanted to ban the bible would you be standing with them, moderate or not?
Aengus, why are you defending a blog that posts articles discussing if maybe genocide isn’t the right answer to Islamization of Europe?
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 9:11 PM
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 9:11 PM
genocide is
n’tthe right answer to Islamization of EuropeSomeone has to do it and if you think the threat isn’t real you are either clueless or a Muslim.
dmann on February 12, 2009 at 9:16 PM
I don’t know. Google it. There’s always an organization of somebody condemning something. It seems a little unfair, say, to go to a suburban Muslim in America every time some peckerless savage blows something up and ask them, “Aren’t you really appalled that someone you don’t know and you’ve never met is a peckerless savage?”
RightOFLeft on February 12, 2009 at 9:17 PM
Allah, Do you really want to leave posts advocating genocide on this site?
Isn’t that too far, even for Hot Air?
Y-not on February 12, 2009 at 9:19 PM
What is the answer then dmann? You seem to know a lot.
Is it hysterically demagoguing on the symptoms as the neo fascists in Europe are prone to do, or would it perhaps be something other than banning scarves and books?
If there’s a problem, shouldn’t they be working to root out the specific bad guys rather than foaming at the mouth over things that are all clearly unconstitutional in the US?
e.g. Can you ban scarves here? no? Can you ban mosques here? No? Can you ban books here? No?
Why is that, and don’t you think that’s more worthy of defense?
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Y-not on February 12, 2009 at 9:19 PM
Awhh…dmann is being mean…he needs a time out.
Its the alternative to assimilation. Did you get beaten up alot as a kid?
dmann on February 12, 2009 at 9:23 PM
South Park, in defense of free speech
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103230
http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103233
Hilarious stuff – some one send it to the multi culti pussies in the UK – Winston Churchill must be rolling in his grave.
nagee76 on February 12, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Geert Wilders’ rhetorical approach in challenging the Dutch legal establishment to apply their “hate speech” laws in a consistent fashion was not a serious attempt at censorship on his part.
Also the Koran is not equivalent to the Bible just because the former is ostensibly a religious texts. It is equivalent to Mein Kampf, as Wilders and others have said.
The article does not does not do that. The blog owners would not have posted it if they were as confused as some of the people here seem to be.
aengus on February 12, 2009 at 9:25 PM
I understand the context completely MB, probably better than you do. Replace “koran” with “bible” — would you still be standing beside him?
On the post, I understand… they were just “toying” with the idea so to speak. Just as Brussells Journal was when they were running BNP ads in their sidebar, and running anti semitic posts by Takuan.
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 9:29 PM
I’m sorry that Lady Thatcher lived to see this occur. A sad day for her and a sadder day for Britain.
Gohawgs on February 12, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Are you talking to me here or MB4? As it happens I don’t agree with banning the Koran, or the Bible, or Mein Kampf or any other book. If I thought Wilders was serious about banning the Koran I would be objecting to that just as AP is.
No. Nobody said anything about “toying” with anything. That’s your own opinion.
aengus on February 12, 2009 at 9:34 PM
I certainly have to agree with you there, hate laws are wrong. I would rather the racists, the extremist ideologues, and the nutballs talk freely instead of in code. That way you don’t have to dig and research to find out who and what they really are, you can know the evil when you see it.
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 9:36 PM
This is what you are advocating.
In my experience on this site, racist remarks and advocating violence usually brings a response from the moderators. If that’s no longer true, then HA has deteriorated considerably from where it was last summer. Too bad.
Y-not on February 12, 2009 at 9:37 PM
aengus – Toying is my characterization. You know the articles I spoke of, and you knew them without hesitation, that tells me all I need to know.
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 9:22 PM
The answer is found in the Constitution. No special treatment, no suspension of fundamental rights due to religious teachings and practices, no exceptions based on “theological” grounds, no heightened sensitivities. Let Muslims act as every other religious group, 1st you are an American, then you are a (insert deity of your choice) Pretty simple, not a lot of fancy steps needed. We are a Christian-Judao culture that welcomes and accepts all, don’t F with that.
dmann on February 12, 2009 at 9:39 PM
I disagree with your characterisation. As regards the “articles [you] spoke of” I was a discussing a single article with RightOfLeft when you joined the conversation.
aengus on February 12, 2009 at 9:44 PM
I’m not trying to be nasty here, I”m just challenging you to think. Isn’t some of what you just stated somewhat dissonant with your implied support of genocide in the comment you left above?
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Y-not on February 12, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Y-of limited intellect and hair-trigger sensitivities.
Look up irony and apply it to the recent protests we have witnessed in response to Israel’s Gaza operation.
You are a FASCIST!
dmann on February 12, 2009 at 9:48 PM
How am I doing that? I asked an honest question. Irony isn’t your strong suit, apparently.
capitalist piglet on February 12, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Well if I was in Saudi Arabia I would certainly be with them as I do not want to part with my head.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 9:50 PM
I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t think this rises to the level of the evidence I asked for.
P.S. I’m not surprised you have a bridge to sell.
capitalist piglet on February 12, 2009 at 9:51 PM
I don’t expect a continuous thunderous roar but an occasionally, “You know maybe Islam could use a little improvement” might be nice.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Good answer that demonstrates the religious tyranny in another country, but what if they were calling for it here? Would you be standing beside them to argue a fine point?
This isn’t the only somewhat demagogic statement that Geert has made, back in 2004 he was saying things like muslim women shouldn’t be allowed to wear scarves outside their houses. What if you instead of scarf said bonnet, and instead of muslim said Amish, would you support that kind of statement?
It’s easy to get fired up over Euro populist pundits, but really would you support his statements in the US? Is that America?
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 9:54 PM
So, I take it that you can still not posit an answer to my most simplest of questions?
Master debater? Just answer the frackin question!
awake on February 12, 2009 at 9:55 PM
Where are the posts advocating genocide on this site, Mr McCarthy?
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 9:57 PM
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Yes it is, thinking is a vague science and as such is used to provoke, stimulate and foster the exchange of ideas.
Extremes are used as control limits which are set to define rational discourse, it is our job to push-wait-respond and then re-define these limits. Rinse and repeat!
dmann on February 12, 2009 at 9:58 PM
Heck, we all know they could use a LOT of improvement, but is Geert accomplishing anything in that regard? I doubt it.
There are moderate groups in Islam, there are some even daring enough to call for Itjihad from tyranical countries, which is a scholarly reformation council. They need our support, and no matter how we froth about Islam, it’s not going to change unless they do it.
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Between the first amendment and the U.S. armed forces, I’m not too worried about Islamisation.
Back on topic, Europe could solve a lot of problems by adopting free-speech reforms. Europe’s speech codes have bottled up all these cultural resentments, and censored legitimate criticism along with the real hate speech. I think that’s the fabled “root cause” of radicalization in Europe.
RightOFLeft on February 12, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Sweetheart, I fully understand, but in America the burden of proof is on the prosecutorial side, contrary to your indoctinization. This is not a tribunal, is it? Who cares about what YOU call for?
I am avidly awaiting a single explicit example of proof to support your “argument”.
awake on February 12, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 9:59 PM
I work with several “moderate” Muslims and joyfully rock their world as they hammer mine. It is a very gratifying exchange and makes us all better Americans.
dmann on February 12, 2009 at 10:03 PM
That’s a long non answer, going to answer the question? Would you support banning bonnets on the Amish in the US if you thought they were hiding terror cells? Would that do much about the terror cells?
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 10:03 PM
I’m not for banning the koran but I would like to see one in every urinal.
deewhybee on February 12, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Good grief. Are you even following this conversation? I didn’t make an accusation. Mr. Spencer made an accusation. I asked him – quite reasonably, and quite fairly, I think – to provide some evidence to support his assertion.
I realize your knee is jerking and you can’t get in line to defend the man fast enough, but I am not attacking him. I am merely asking him to back up something he himself said.
And the sexist condescension is a nice touch, but that crap doesn’t work with me.
capitalist piglet on February 12, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Just make sure they’re your own, nothing wrong with that if they are yours and you think it makes a statement. You might be able to sell it as an art exhibit, who knows.
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 10:09 PM
You’re right. Every religion could use a little improvement, but especially Islam.
RightOFLeft on February 12, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Well you should be. Mass immigration tends to alter the political landscape after it has become a seemingly irreversible fact. By then your political representatives might be all too willing to treat the First Amendment and the rest of the Constitution like toilet paper.
The U.S. armed forces are the best in the world but if they need to be used to solve internal conflicts that would mean the US would have already undergone very destabilising changes. The FBI are already loath to shut down jihadist training camps.
That would only be the very beginning of a solution. Probably the whole superstructure of the EU will have to go in the end.
aengus on February 12, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Are you again asking if I would ban the bible here? I already implicitly answered you.
Can you give me a link, quoting what he said, in full?
But more importantly, do you think that I, or anyone else, have to support everything the man has ever said to think that he should have free speech?
I support the First Amendment.
Well, as long as we still have free speech, although that has been eroding for some time now, although not yet as much as in Europe, I would support his right to speak his mind . You haven’t read any reports that Wilder was going to Great Britain to collect up all the scarves have you? Was that the real reason that they arrested and deported him rather than he was going to talk about Islam and what is in the Koran? If so you probably want to send an email to Allahpundit with the link so that he can post it and get the scoop.
BTW, how many questions do you plan on asking me anyway? I have made quite a number of comments already and I believe that I spoke clearly.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 10:03 PM
The good of the many out weighs the (special) needs of the few!
Excuse me as I slip into the role I am far more comfortable with: When threat is implied the suspension of civil liberties is mandated, as such if there is actionable intelligence citing Amish bonnets, off they come. If the law states ones face must be visable in a license photo, ones face must be visable.
Cry me a river………..
dmann on February 12, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Well there sure seems to be Muslims who think he is or hadn’t you noticed?.
In medieval times, people created fairy tales and magical creatures to make sense of their world. One of the most endearing is the unicorn, a horse with a single horn that symbolized purity and wholesomeness. In our modern times, people in Europe and the United States consider themselves more sophisticated and rational than people from the Middle Ages, but we still create myths, albeit more subtle ones.
Daily we hear reports of violent acts committed by Islamic terrorists on every inhabited continent. We try to wish it away with the myth of the ‘Moderate Muslim’, telling ourselves the Islamic agenda has been’ hijacked’ by a ‘tiny minority of extremists’ and that soon the huge, silent, moderate majority of Muslims will take charge and change things. However, post 9/11 very few Muslims have condemned terrorist actions. We are still waiting for moderates to stand and deliver, identifying and removing extremist thugs from their mosques and their communities. Waiting for this self-correction is our modern version of unicorn searching.
Moderate Muslims will not be able to wrest control of the agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammed, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. No moderate can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the extremist things Mohammed himself did. Also, the Qur’an condones violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda. People whom we call moderates are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. Moderates will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be moderates in Islam but Islam itself is not moderate.”
Islamic expert Daniel Pipes and others estimate ten percent of the Islamic world to be militant. In 1933 when the Nazi party took control of Germany it had 2 million members, comprising only three percent of Germany’s sixty-six million citizens. A tiny minority of extremists can control a vast number of moderates, making them irrelevant.
Placing hope in ‘The Moderate Muslim’ is like searching for unicorns in the forest.
- “A_Plague_on_Both_Houses”
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 10:20 PM
I honestly don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.
RightOFLeft on February 12, 2009 at 10:23 PM
I think the real reason they banned Geert is because they are afraid. They see radical elements rising on both sides of the issue, and they see a firebrand coming with Geert. That makes neither they, nor he right in this issue. It’s a sad affair. Without his anti-mosque, anti-koran, and past anti scarf stances, Geert wouldn’t be as popular, but you also have to ask are those effective, or are they theater? I think the latter, although Geert certainly has cojones.
Islamic integration into Europe now that they are there is certainly a big problem, but in my book it’s not on the same scale as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Southern Thailand, and all of their assorted and allied terror groups. A lot of sound and fury in other words.
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 10:25 PM
You seem to have missed the main point here – Freedom of Speech is not without it’s opponents, so it’s proponents must defend it.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 10:26 PM
They do exist, few and far between, look for professionals who drive German cars and like good wine.
dmann on February 12, 2009 at 10:26 PM
Exactly, give an inch….?
dmann on February 12, 2009 at 10:29 PM
MB, can’t speak for yourself?
I see you are one of the ones who furthers Zawahiri’s takfirism: moderate Islam can’t work yadda yadda, if you try it you are takfir and not a real muslim so it’s ok if we behead you. Nice work there, and exactly what the real moderates don’t need to hear.
Would you call Zuhdi Jasser a moderate, or an apostate?
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 10:30 PM
They may well be afraid of Muslims. They have been known to put death sentences on people you know.
The old “moral equivalence” schtick – never have thought too much of that.
Well you seem to have dropped the “moral equivalence” now.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 10:35 PM
awake on February 12, 2009 at 10:38 PM
I know that fellow moderate Muslims call M. Zuhdi Jasser an apostate, just like Irshad.
awake on February 12, 2009 at 10:40 PM
I don’t have any ties to overtly white supremacist groups in Europe. Never have, never will. Charles Johnson is lying to you.
Robert Spencer on February 12, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Interesting wording, Mr. Spencer. Naturally, if they were covert, you would have plausible deniability. Also, it allows you to skirt that whole deal with defending the Gates of Vienna author.
My hat is off to your wordsmithery. Well played, and here’s a golf clap. The problem is that you have far too many sketchy connections for my liking and it damages the whole movement.
You, of all people, have to be above reproach to be taken seriously. The damage here is self inflicted.
Krydor on February 12, 2009 at 10:41 PM
The other background many probably do not know is that Geert is also flirting with forming an alliance of the Far right in Europe, like the past ITS group. It would include the usual pack of euro fascists, tribal supremacists,neo nazis, and past holocaust deniers. e.g. Attaka, Lega Nord, Vlaams Belang, BNP etc. etc.
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Go to muslimmatters.org and see for yourself.
awake on February 12, 2009 at 10:42 PM
Tark, can’t refrain from being ad hominem, not to mention vacuous?
If you will go over this whole thread you will find a lot of comments of mine with my own words. Feel free to read them as many times as you like, no charge. If I quoted someone with whom you agreed with would you say “MB, can’t speak for yourself?”? I rather doubt it. You must try to do better.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Tark
The assertion that Geert Wilders is contemplating an alliance with “euro fascists, tribal supremacists,neo nazis, and past holocaust deniers” etc. is pure fiction, defamatory fantasy, Charles Johnson-inspired libel. Utterly and absolutely false.
Robert Spencer on February 12, 2009 at 10:44 PM
ahh the old “moral equivalence” when none was stated.
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Don’t push; speculation is best left for tabloids and not “serious” blogs. Wilders has an agenda and so far the lunatic Islamists are playing right into his hand!
dmann on February 12, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Time will tell that tale will it not Robert?
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Another perfectly beautiful assertive comment, wholly devoid of substance.
Pick and present a single “sketchy connection” with substantiating proof, or back in your troll hole with you.
Just like US driver’s licenses, in the internet blogosphere, anyone can get one.
awake on February 12, 2009 at 10:46 PM
A couple of them just drove up to my house in a BMW and said they wanted to share a good bottle of wine with me and then take me for a spin to a nightclub. I let them in. What do you think I should wear to the nightclub?
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 10:48 PM
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 10:48 PM
A short skirt, heels and a tube top!
dmann on February 12, 2009 at 10:49 PM
Krydor:
Nice try at playing “Gotcha!,” but no cigar from Johnson for you for this one.
When I said I had no ties to “overtly white supremacist groups.” I was quoting you. That was your wording. You used the word “overtly,” I merely followed your wording. I have no ties to covert white supremacist groups, either. I have no ties to white supremacist groups of any kind.
The people with whom you think I am associated (not always the case — Johnson has me tied to some people I have nothing to do with at all) whom you think are questionable are actually the victims of defamation and libel on a large scale. Charles Johnson has a great deal to answer for.
Robert Spencer on February 12, 2009 at 10:49 PM
At 10:41, Tark states
awake on February 12, 2009 at 10:49 PM
I really have no idea what you are going on about now. Maybe I shouldn’t have drunk so much of that wine so fast.
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 10:50 PM
From Haaretz awhile Back Robert:
I’ll grant you that FN is probably out, but then they are so out of gas with Sarkozy in that they don’t matter, n’est ce pas?
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 10:51 PM
That was to someone else upthread Awake, missed a cut n’ paste quote section, scroll back up.
Tark on February 12, 2009 at 10:52 PM
I realize your knee is jerking and you can’t get in line to defend the man fast enough, but I am not attacking him. I am merely asking him to back up something he himself said.
capitalist piglet on February 12, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Charles acted with incredibly bad faith and contrary to his own breaking-story rules, by not waiting at least 24 hours and putting in a little investigation (oh, like actually emailing and asking Robert) before publishing an enormously libelous post about Robert.
However, I’m with you: how does Robert go from making a mistake to accusing/hinting Charles/Cato of setting him up? Almost seems as if Robert is “returning” the bad faith. Of course, Robert knows who invited him and possibly other info that could very well support a setup by Charles or CtE.
This whole think stinks; mostly because people are being led to believe that Robert Spencer is some sort of crypto-fascist with genocidal tendencies. Ridiculous.
-
deesine on February 12, 2009 at 10:52 PM
You failed to make a point here with the exception of contradicting yourself.
awake on February 12, 2009 at 10:54 PM
MB4 on February 12, 2009 at 10:50 PM
Finlandia and cranberry for me….woo Nelly! How ya doin with the tube top?
dmann on February 12, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »