tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29566846.post8736981116371171163..comments2023-11-05T01:45:58.784-07:00Comments on The Hesperado: Spencer does a Bostom on Chesler?Hesperadohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29566846.post-43837148490868741302011-12-11T06:47:19.762-08:002011-12-11T06:47:19.762-08:00Well Hesperado -
It's easy come, easy go, or ...Well Hesperado -<br /><br />It's easy come, easy go, or so it seems in the volatile business of tacit JW endorsement for particular "presidential hopefuls".<br /><br />Mr Romney is definitely un-endorsed this time round, now it's all hail the new Newt:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/12/palestinians-outraged-by-gingrich-remarks.html" rel="nofollow">See this topic</a>.<br /><br />It's astonishing how JW has been moving from a public friendly center of anti-Islamic (pardon, -Jihad) scholarship and research, to expand its franchise with some kind of political platform, actually ramping up GoP candidates who provide the red meat soundbites for the gullible.<br /><br />Take care,<br />SagSaguntohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09757127844703829220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29566846.post-69066636558656315502011-12-11T06:17:56.361-08:002011-12-11T06:17:56.361-08:00P.S.:
Spencer is on record saying that he is &quo...P.S.:<br /><br />Spencer is <a href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/06/islam-what-the-west-needs-to-know-right-but-wrong.html" rel="nofollow">on record</a> saying that he is "not anti-Islam" -- nor, of course, Heaven forbid, "anti-Muslim" (see <a href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/robert-spencer-soft-on-islam-part-4.html" rel="nofollow">this essay</a>, for example, analyzing this at greater length).<br /><br />As long as Spencer maintains this position (and he never, ever changes his mind, apparently), how can he ever be a part of, much less a representative or leader of, an <i>anti-Islam movement</i>? <br /><br />Well, since Spencer is a master of professing a blatant contradiction and acting as though it's not a contradiction, I'm sure <i>he</i> could convince himself he can; and as he has a following of followers who would defend to the death Spencer's right to be self-contradictory without admitting he's being self-contradictory all the while vilifying as "attackers trying to undermine the Anti-Jihad" anyone who dares to point out the Emperor With No Clothes, he would be quite capable of failing to successfully fail at succeeding in leading such a Non-Movement Movement.Hesperadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29566846.post-31789417463193023482011-12-11T06:02:28.014-08:002011-12-11T06:02:28.014-08:00Sagunto,
I don't recall seeing that quote fro...Sagunto,<br /><br />I don't recall seeing that quote from Spencer in 2008, though it doesn't surprise me, as I documented and picked apart numerous other similar ones on my now retired blog, Jihad Watch Watch -- here's <a href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/contradiction-watch.html" rel="nofollow">one example</a><br /> just to pick one of many from out of a hat (and in a few essays there <a href="http://jihadswatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/transcripts-part-2-jihad-watch-readers.html" rel="nofollow">I quoted extensively </a>from a few Jihad Watch readers who also at the time had concerns about Spencer's weaselly language concerning the problem of Islam).<br /><br />From your quote, we have a quintessential example, within the span of two sentences:<br /><br /><i>...it is undeniable that most Muslims are not fighting today's jihad, or aiding it in any way. It is not illegitimate to make a distinction between them and the jihadists, as long as one understands that such a distinction is not readily or easily identifiable or quantifiable in the Islamic world.</i><br /><br />Apparently, for Spencer, the distinction is sufficiently quantifiable for him to assert the "undeniable" existence of a majority of harmless Muslims. <br /><br />Elsewhere, however, innumerable times Spencer has avowed the recognition of the fact that we can't tell the difference between the harmless Muslims and the dangerous ones. <br /><br />When you can't tell the difference between a loaded gun and an unloaded gun, you must treat both guns exactly the same -- as deadly weapons. To do otherwise is suicidally reckless. <br /><br />To add on top of such recklessness prevaricatingly muddled sophistry is evidence of intellectual confusion and incompetence. To add on top of such intellectual confusion and incompetence hypersensitive paranoia about enemies of the anti-jihad movement trying to undermine that movement by attacking the suicidally reckless, sophistically muddled, intellectually confused and incompetent person is, then, evidence of a strangely, if not dangerously inflated ego.<br /><br />But otherwise, Spencer is doing fine work for the anti-Islam (sorry, "anti-Jihad") movement.Hesperadohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10394374828751466705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29566846.post-32238500392982024082011-12-10T14:54:21.455-08:002011-12-10T14:54:21.455-08:00Hi Hesperado -
Clicked to stop by once again.
&q...Hi Hesperado -<br /><br />Clicked to stop by once again.<br /><br /><i>"the Anti-Islam Movement (sorry, I meant the "Anti-Jihad Movement")</i><br /><br />Yes, isn't that typical? Noticed that too, this focus on Jihad instead of Islam.<br /><br />I'd like to bring the following under your attention, slightly OT concerning the specific dispute you mention, but with regard to the "jihad/Islam" substitution, I think it's telling:<br /><br />Some time ago, RS seemed to be in the business of quasi-endorsing certain political GOP candidates.<br /><br />Back then, Marisol reported about an interview with Romney, and counted the talking points:<br /><br />"I asked Romney how he'd respond to Muslim complaints that his speech characterized Islam in entirely sinister terms. <b>His response surprised me</b>":<br /><br /><i>"I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam [one! - Marisol]. If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world's great religions [two] and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. [three]<br />[..]<br />It's by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.."</i><br /><br />Why the surprise, I ask?<br /><br />First the political establishment called it "radical" Islam, now it's the same old trick with "jihadism".<br /><br />***<br /><br />Here's Robert Spencer, with a qualified endorsement of Mitt Romney in 2008:<br /><br /><i>"Some people have dismissed Romney for using so many qualifiers -- "violent," "radical," "fundamental." On the other hand, I think it is refreshing to see him speak of jihad and Islam at all, and after all, it is undeniable that most Muslims are not fighting today's jihad, or aiding it in any way. It is not illegitimate to make a distinction between them and the jihadists, as long as one understands that such a distinction is not readily or easily identifiable or quantifiable in the Islamic world.</i><br /><br /><i>I used to use "radical" to denote those who were fighting it, until it began to be misunderstood by some as suggesting that there was a traditional, mainstream, orthodox version of Islam that didn't teach violence against and the subjugation of unbelievers. In any case, whether or not Romney grasps just how deeply rooted the jihadist impulse is within Islam, he at least recognizes that it's there, and is determined to resist it. That's a vast improvement over the present occupant of the White House."</i><br /><br />[Feel the ambivalence]<br /><br /><i>"Perhaps vagueness is to be expected in such a statement, but since George W. Bush has never shown any inclination to confront the jihad ideology at all, and that is the gravest and most multifaceted omission of anti-terror policy since 9/11, and since Romney appears at the outset to understand that this is an ideological struggle, <b>it's strange that his prescriptions are all financial and conventional, and not ideological at all</b>."</i><br /><br />***<br /><br />So, while Robert Spencer acknowledges in 2008 that terms like "radical" were used to promote the "tiny minority" meme, he nevertheless seemed to go along with the use of "jihadism" instead of Islam, knowing that it already showed some distinct promise of replacing "radical" to promote the same meme.<br /><br />I'm looking for a word to capture this attitude that borders on gullibility..<br /><br />Cheers,<br />SagSaguntohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09757127844703829220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29566846.post-92219321276915030762011-12-10T14:51:41.910-08:002011-12-10T14:51:41.910-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Saguntohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09757127844703829220noreply@blogger.com