Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → News and Events → Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain → Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
Today at 04:29 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 11:48 PM
New Britain
Yesterday at 11:27 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:29 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
Yesterday at 11:55 AM
Do humans have needed kno...
January 30, 2025, 10:33 AM
Lights on the way
by akay
January 29, 2025, 12:18 PM
Gaza assault
January 26, 2025, 10:05 AM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
January 20, 2025, 05:08 PM
News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM
Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
December 25, 2024, 10:58 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right

 (Read 19561 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #30 - August 15, 2011, 03:45 PM
    Did any else hear * bum bum buuuuummmm* when they read the last statement?   Cheesy

    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #31 - August 15, 2011, 03:48 PM
    Yeah I read it as a sort of 'I know what you did last summer' thing.
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #32 - August 15, 2011, 03:49 PM
    Yep, he's got my number - I am indeed a secret soldier of the global jihad - and an anti-semite of course.
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #33 - August 15, 2011, 04:33 PM
    It seems they are more concerned about people criticising Israel than anything else. Another reply to my post on jihadwatch:

    Hassan,

    Welcome to the blog. I hope to engage you in the future. I looked up your organization, Council of ex-Muslims, and you appear to me to be genuinely opposed to Islamist advancement. Interestingly, your founder, Maryam Namazie, opposes any legal recognition of Sharia courts, even if agreed to by both parties, a position I agree with.

    http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article3530256.ece

    She is adamant, though, that no form of Sharia should be allowed here. “It is fundamentally discriminatory and misogynist,” she says and is dismissive of the idea that people would be able to choose between Sharia and civil jurisdiction. Women could be railroaded into a Sharia court, she says. “This would hit people who need the protection of British law more than anyone else.”

    Given this background, it is difficult to understand your equating the self-defense of Israel with the aggressive acts of violence committed or tolerated by Hamas and its ilk. The most benign interpretation of Hamas' actions are that Hamas allows its territory to be used for shooting rockets into Israel. How is Israel supposed to respond?

    It is the absolute duty of any state to provide internal and external security for its citizens. Israel has the right, indeed the duty, to do everything in its power to stop the unprovoked attacks on its territory.

    Hamas, on the other hand, has abrogated its responsibilities to its citizens, assuming it ever viewed its governing responsibilities as precedent to its intention to wage holy war. Israel is not left with a lot of choices. Especially, since Hamas refuses to negotiate with Israel altogether on the basis of equal states. How is Israel to coexist as an equal state with partners openly committed to subverting and destroying Israel? This is what Israel should bet its security on?

  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #34 - August 15, 2011, 04:39 PM
    Fuck Israel.
    Formerly known as Iblis
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #35 - August 15, 2011, 04:53 PM
    Fuckin A Hassan and Maryam!  Afro Throwin down the gauntlet on these far-right fucks-- needed to be done, good fuckin job.
    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #36 - August 15, 2011, 05:12 PM
    I cant believe i used to read this man's blog vomit
    "I'm standing here like an asshole holding my Charles Dickens"

    "No theory,No ready made system,no book that has ever been written to save the world. i cleave to no system.."-Bakunin
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #37 - August 15, 2011, 05:12 PM
    Quote from: Hassan on August 15, 2011, 03:38 PM
    I stand by my charge of antisemitism in your repetition of false jihadist propaganda against Israel.

    If your organization had any decency or interest in truth, you would retract your charges against me, Geller, and SIOA/SIOE. But I do not think that you will, because I know what you are.

    Yeah, because "Stop the Islamization of America" has always been some great fountain of truth. Roll Eyes
    "Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well."
    - Robert Louis Stevenson
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #38 - August 15, 2011, 05:14 PM
    Robert Spencer has always been a stupid fuck. Even when i was at my most angriest and most anti-muslim I still considered him to be a shithead.
    Formerly known as Iblis
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #39 - August 15, 2011, 05:18 PM
    http://spencerwatch.com/
    "Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well."
    - Robert Louis Stevenson
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #40 - August 16, 2011, 09:57 AM
    Adam Barnett co-wrote the Enemies not Allies report for "One Law for All" - and did most of the research for it.

    Adam Barnett’s response to Robert Spencer

    Adam Barnett co-wrote One Law for All’s Enemies Not Allies: The Far:Right report. Here he responds to Robert Spencer’s statement on the report.

    Following the publication of ‘Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right’, our new report which investigates his and similar organisations, Stop Islamization of America director Robert Spencer has invited One Law for All to ‘substantiate [our] charges, or withdraw them and issue a public apology.’ One could simply recommend that Mr. Spencer read our report. Indeed, in his ‘rebuttal’, he writes as if he has answered all of these charges before. It’s therefore strange that he felt the need to reply to them at ‘11:53pm’ on a Sunday night, and to attempt to smear his critics as ‘racist anti-Semites’ and ‘supporters of Jihad’. One could be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Spencer hoped to prevent people from reading the report for themselves.

    In any event, I’m happy to list our main charges against his group and refer interested readers to the relevant citations in our report:

    - Stop Islamisation of Europe is the ‘expansion’ of a Danish anti-Muslim party, Stop Islamiseringen af Danmark (SIAD), which was itself the result of a split within a xenophobic lobby group. (p.36-37) It calls for a boycott of all ‘Islamic countries’, for the Qur’an to be banned, for the mass deportation of immigrants from Europe, and protests against the building of Mosques. (p.37, 44-46) SIOE’s leadership consider all Muslims to be congenital liars who have a ‘culture of deceit’, and never tire of announcing that they ‘do not believe in moderate Muslims’. (p.40-41, and here)

    - SIOE’s leaders have collaborated with and defended Julius Borgesen, former spokesperson for the right-wing extremist group Danske Front, which has ‘co-operated’ with Blood & Honour and Combat 18. Borgessen has reportedly participated in a march to celebrate Rudolf Hess, and was imprisoned in 2007 for calling for an arson attack against a Danish minister. SIOE insist that Borgesen is ‘in no way Nazi [or a racist], but is fighting for the democracy and freedom of Denmark’. (p.38-39) Further, there is evidence to suggest that other Danish neo-Nazis, as well as members of the BNP and the National Front, have attended SIOE and SIAD events. (p.38, 47)

    - Stop Islamization of America is the U.S. branch of the SIOE umbrella group, and was entrusted by its leadership to Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer in January 2010. Geller and Spencer have praised SIOE, endorsed its political programme, published its statements and expressed admiration for its leaders. (p.48-49)

    - SIOA’s leaders have surpassed SIOE’s defence of war criminal Radovan Karadzic, (which included offering justifications for his actions), by defending Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, denying Serbian atrocities including the Srebrenica genocide, publishing the work of professional apologists for the Milosevic project, and in Spencer’s case working on an institutional level with such people to oppose an independent Kosovo. Ms. Geller has gone so far as to say that Bosnian Muslims killed themselves in order to ‘manipulate media coverage’, and refers to the 1995 genocide as a ‘propaganda lie’ which was ‘manufactured [by] the international community’ as part of ‘the ongoing blood libel against the Christian Serbs’. (p.42-43, 53-54 and here)

    This is presumably what Mr. Spencer means when he writes of SIOA’s ‘opposition to the jihad in the Balkans and skepticism (sic) about some of the charges made of Serbian war crimes.’

    - SIOA’s leadership has supported, defended and praised the English Defence League, (without equivocation until recently), and has promoted their events, published their statements and attacked their critics. (p.55-59) Co-director Pamela Geller’s web log has featured conspiratorial articles regarding the President of America’s religion, his family, his sexual history, and the circumstances of his birth, and has likened his ‘stealth jihad on the White House’ to ‘an SS officer getting elected president during WW II’. (p.52-53) In 2010, Robert Spencer defended his and Geller’s ‘colleague’ Joseph John Jay, who had recommended the ‘wholesale slaughter’ of Muslim civilians, including children, on the grounds that he had been ‘misinterpreted’. Spencer maintains this still, and Ms. Geller has recommended Jay’s writings as recently as July 2011. (p.51-51)

    I could go on, but I ought to address Mr. Spencer’s direct challenge regarding a quote of his which we included. Here is the quote, published on his Jihad Watch site in 2005: ‘there is no distinction in the American Muslim community between peaceful Muslims and jihadists. While Americans prefer to imagine that the vast majority of American Muslims are civic-minded patriots who accept wholeheartedly the parameters of American pluralism, this proposition has actually never been proven.’

    Writing today, Spencer claims ‘what [he] meant was there is no institutional distinction, so jihadis move freely in Muslim circles among those who oppose them and claim to do so’. However, when asked by a commenter on the original article in 2005 ‘how distinctions can be made’, Spencer replied: ‘That’s simple. Let American Muslims renounce all attachment to violent Jihad and Sharia, refuse all aid from Sharia states (chiefly Saudi Arabia), and cooperate fully with anti-terror efforts aimed at rooting jihadists out of American mosques.’ (p.52) Having thus identified all Muslims as suspects who are guilty until proven innocent, Spencer does not specify how to treat Muslims who do not ‘cooperate fully’, or who fail to make the prescribed disassociations. But based on his record and the company he keeps, I’m glad we’ll never have to find out what it might entail.

    I think this meets Mr. Spencer’s challenge, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to bring all of this to people’s attention. I’m not sure how one squares the above with the claim that SIOA ‘stand for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for all people’. Perhaps Mr. Spencer will enlighten us.
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #41 - August 16, 2011, 10:06 AM
    I don't know why the last line has a strikethrough  Huh?

    Original found here:

    http://hurryupharry.org/2011/08/16/adam-barnetts-response-to-robert-spencer/
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #42 - August 16, 2011, 10:24 AM
    TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2011

    Robert Spencer should be more honest and own up to his far-Right politics

    Maryam Namazie.

    Robert Spencer has responded to One Law for All's report Enemies notAllies: The Far-Right by saying: 'If Maryam Namazie's One Law For All claims to oppose the jihad while attacking anti-jihadists and supporting the genocidal jihad against Israel, then it is simply a false-flag operation. He links to a press release of the Left Worker-Communist Party of Iraq posted on my blog as proof of ‘anti-Semitism’.

    On charges of ‘anti-Semitism’

    I find it interesting how Spencer uses the tactics of Islamists. Islamists will often say any criticism of Islam and Islamism is an attack on Muslims and racism in order to silence opposition and in fact bulldoze over the rights of Muslims and others. Spencer labels any criticism of Israeli government policies as anti-Semitism in order to do the same. Needless to say, it is ironic to see the far-Right oppose anti-Semitism – at least tactically for now - when anti-Semitism has always been one of its important cornerstones.

    The December 2008 press release of the Left Worker-Communist Party of Iraq that Spencer is referring to opposes the ‘brutal airstrikes of the Israeli government’ and its having ‘dropped more than 100 tons of explosives on Gaza in the deadliest bombing campaigns’.

    The press release goes on to say that:

    ‘Israel's bombing of Gaza is a barbaric act of state terrorism that must be met with outrage and protest. This is part of the on-going conflict between the State of Israel and the barbaric Islamic movement Hamas, which spares no opportunity to fire rockets at Israeli populated neighborhoods. The bombing is a vicious attack on over one million defenseless civilians living in Gaza. While it claims its aim is to eliminate Hamas military targets, the purpose of its vicious air campaign is to create terror in the region with the greatest possible destruction and death toll among Palestinians in order to impose its hegemony and power in defiance of all calls and cries of humanity to stop the massacre and to lift the economic blockade on the innocent people of Gaza. Our Party denounces the brutal bombing by the state of Israel against the people of Gaza and considers it as a crime of state terrorism and calls for its immediate and unconditional stop, and to bring those who ordered it to trial as criminals. The end of the brutal conflict between the forces of terrorism on the regional level and the world will only be achieved through the establishment of a Palestinian state with equal rights to the State of Israel, and therefore, put an end to terrorism, racism and fascism, and the religious Right-wing on both sides of the conflict. This is the task of humanity and the Palestinian Left and also the task of civilized humanity around the world.’ The press release ends with the slogans: ‘Stop the Barbaric Bombing of the civilian population in Gaza Now! Freedom and Security for the Peoples of Palestine and Israel! Yes to the establishment of a Palestinian State with Equal Rights to the State of Israel!’

    Claiming to ‘oppose the jihad while attacking anti-jihadists’

    Spencer also asserts that opposing him makes us ‘no more anti-jihad than Hassan Nasrallah'. Again, this is based on a false premise. Look, this is a question of politics. One Law for All wants to create a huge movement of people and groups with differing opinions. In fact, many of those involved in the campaign won’t agree with my politics in other areas, e.g. on the Palestinian question and worker-communism as I won’t agree with many of theirs. But that is the point of single issue campaigns and how many movements are strengthened.

    Just because the BNP, Stop Islamisation of Europe and America or the EDL are also claiming to be opposed to Islamism, it doesn’t put us in the same camp. We are opposed to Islamism because we want to defend rights, equality, secularism, citizenship rights. They oppose Islamism because it is their competition. Just because Bush invades Iraq to ‘defend women’s rights’ doesn’t make it so. And just because I am a women’s rights campaigner, doesn’t mean I must now support the US’ militarism across the globe.

    Marxism

    Moreover, Spencer says, ‘Not coincidentally, One Law For All is headed up by Maryam Namazie, a Marxist antisemite who claims to be anti-jihad’.   Suffice it to say that I know that anti-communism is a characteristic of the Islamists and far-Right alike, and that the end of the Cold War and a pathetic pro-Islamist Left have made it fashionable to attack the Left and Communism. But people seek out the Left because they demand justice as Mansoor Hekmat had said. Also, worker-communism has never supported the Soviet Union or the Gulags or whatever. If you really want to know what the Worker-communist Party of Iran (WPI) stands for there is ample information on it here.

    One Law for All and I are not one and the same

    Most importantly, though, my Marxism and worker-communism’s press release on the Palestinian question are not relevant to One Law for All since the campaign does not promote Marxism, nor does it issues press releases on the Israeli government’s occupation of Palestine. But again this is an attempt to muddy the waters in order to evade the questions raised about him and his movement in our report.

    Spencer has asked for an apology for labelling him far-Right.  He should not wait for one as none will be forthcoming. I have suggested, however, that he be more honest with himself and others and own up to his regressive and inhuman politics. It would be much more respectable.

    Look, if Spencer wants to challenge the One Law for All report, he will have to refute the evidence in the report, which is the result of a January 2011 seminar on the issue and months of research and not grab at straws.

    By the way, this is the last time I will address Spencer’s comments. I have better things to do with my time. The goal, after all, behind writing the report was because we wanted Spencer to have a change of heart but to persuade a majority that is against Islamism and Sharia law to also be vigilant against ‘their own far-Right’.

    http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #43 - August 16, 2011, 12:10 PM
    thank you hasan and maryam.

    i think (or at least i hope) this will go a long way in removing the stereotypes some muslims have about ex-muslims.
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #44 - August 16, 2011, 01:24 PM
    Quote from: olweasel on August 15, 2011, 05:18 PM
    http://spencerwatch.com/


    Hahaha.  Cheesy Thanks!
    "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
            Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

    - John Keats
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #45 - August 16, 2011, 01:58 PM
    Quote from: David on August 15, 2011, 03:29 PM
    His reply was rather good, apart from the snide last line.


    Who's? Spencer's?
    "In battle, the well-honed spork is more dangerous than the mightiest sword" -- Sun Tzu
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #46 - August 16, 2011, 09:56 PM
    And the saga continues - actually Spencer is only making himself look very silly - and all this talk of Marxist antisemitic "antijihadist" Leftist dhimmi blah blah blah... is pathetic and just shows him up for the utter crackpot that he is.

    ___________________

    Marxist antisemitic "antijihadist" from One Law For All responds feebly to Spencer's rebuttal of their false charges

    The Leftist dhimmi blog Harry's Place, which dabbles dilettanishly in counter-jihad poses while seldom missing an opportunity to denigrate and defame genuine counter-jihadists, has not surprisingly signed on to the Marxist antisemite Maryam Namazie's One Law For All hit piece on me, Pamela Geller, SIOA and SIOE. Now they have published a response from one of Namazie's accomplices, Adam Barnett, responding to my initial rebuttal to their attack piece, which Barnett cowrote. My initial response is here.

    The beginning of this "response," "Adam Barnett’s response to Robert Spencer," from Harry's Place, August 16, is simply bizarre, suggesting that Barnett read in my rebuttal what he wanted to see there, rather than what I actually wrote:

    Following the publication of ‘Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right’, our new report which investigates his and similar organisations, Stop Islamization of America director Robert Spencer has invited One Law for All to ‘substantiate [our] charges, or withdraw them and issue a public apology.’ One could simply recommend that Mr. Spencer read our report.
    A cheap rhetorical gambit. Anyone can play that game. I could easily, and, indeed, with more justice, charge Barnett with not actually reading my rebuttal -- as you will see as you read on.

    Indeed, in his ‘rebuttal’, he writes as if he has answered all of these charges before.
    I have no idea what this means. If I wrote as if I had answered all of those charges before, why did I bother to answer them in this context? But obviously, I did.

    It’s therefore strange that he felt the need to reply to them at ‘11:53pm’ on a Sunday night,
    This is the most bizarre portion of Barnett's piece. There is something wrong with replying on a Sunday night? 11:53PM PDT Sunday night is Monday morning in London, 7:53AM, just in time for Maryam Namazie and Adam Barnett and the Harry's Place gang to be tucking in to their fried bread with baked beans and black pudding and catching up on the morning news. What could be more convenient? Or is it that as a Marxist, Barnett has no work ethic and objects to my working so late on a Sunday night?

    The prosaic reason why I answered so late on a Sunday night is that I had a late meeting that evening, as I actually happen to have noted here, and after it was over I saw several emails that had come in that afternoon and evening notifying me about Namazie's hit piece. So I answered it. Is Barnett implying that I was trying to bury my rebuttal by publishing it on a Sunday night? Then why did I have it published at FrontPage today?

    I really have no idea why Barnett registered this weird complaint, or why it is echoed by a commenter at Harry's. Perhaps the Marxists-Have-No-Work-Ethic explanation is indeed the most cogent.

    and to attempt to smear his critics as ‘racist anti-Semites’ and ‘supporters of Jihad’.
    Note the sleight of hand and dishonesty: The phrase "racist anti-Semites," although it is in quotation marks, does not appear in my piece. I do call Namazie antisemitic, with good reason, and not a "supporter of Jihad" in general but a supporter of the jihad against Israel, but Barnett by placing these phrases in quotes is being either sloppy or dishonest.

    Namazie has echoed Palestinian jihadist propaganda designed to demonize and ultimately destroy Israel. As has been documented here and elsewhere on numerous occasions, the Israeli Army actually scrupulously avoids targeting civilians, while the Palestinian jihadists launch attacks from civilian areas in order to try to draw retaliatory fire that will kill civilians and that they can then use for propaganda purposes. Namazie, in echoing these Palestinian lies, is aiding and abetting the Palestinian jihad, which is inherently antisemitic, rooted in Islamic antisemitism.

    Notice that Barnett doesn't rebut the charges that Namazie is antisemitic and a supporter of the jihad against Israel. He just calls them "smears," as if that suffices for rebuttal.

    One could be forgiven for thinking that Mr. Spencer hoped to prevent people from reading the report for themselves.
    No, one could not be forgiven for that, given the fact that I have now published a link to that report at Jihad Watch and at FrontPage.

    Barnett then spends a considerable amount of time smearing SIOE; it's indicative of how weak his position is that he spends a third of a piece billed as a "response to Robert Spencer" retailing charges against an organization that I have absolutely nothing to do with. I have no role in running SIOE and no hand in formulating its positions. I have never called for or supported the mass deportation of Muslims or the banning of the Qur'an, or called all Muslims liars -- not that I accept Barnett's version of SIOE's positions. Stephen Gash of SIOE responds to Barnett and Namazie here and in the comments field at Harry's Place.

    - SIOA’s leaders have surpassed SIOE’s defence of war criminal Radovan Karadzic, (which included offering justifications for his actions), by defending Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, denying Serbian atrocities including the Srebrenica genocide, publishing the work of professional apologists for the Milosevic project, and in Spencer’s case working on an institutional level with such people to oppose an independent Kosovo.
    Actually, Pamela Geller posted a piece that said quite clearly: “I am not defending Radovan Karadzic...” And also, Geller has never defended Milosevic at all; she has only expressed skepticism about some of the claims made about Serbian concentration camps – a skepticism that many journalists and historians share. It's the same thing with my "working on an institutional level with such people to oppose an independent Kosovo" -- I have written that an independent Kosovo would be a jihad base in Europe, and that is what it is already proving to be. Given that Namazie so credulously accepts Palestinian jihad propaganda, it isn't surprising that her associate Barnett would decry those who don't accept Balkan jihad propaganda; but to equate skepticism with support for Serbian war crimes is the tactic of a smear artist, not an honest analyst.

    Also, Stephen Gash has sent me this:

    I take exception to this piece of wilful misinterpretation and flagrant hypocrisy:-
    Quote: “SIOA’s leaders have surpassed SIOE’s defence of war criminal Radovan Karadzic, (which included offering justifications for his actions), by defending Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, denying Serbian atrocities including the Srebrenica genocide, publishing the work of professional apologists for the Milosevic project, and in Spencer’s case working on an institutional level with such people to oppose an independent Kosovo.”

    Firstly, SIOE’s ironically entitled article “The extraordinary rendition of Radovan Karadzic” complained that Karadzic would not get a fair trial and had indeed already been condemned by both Western and Muslim media before his trial had even started. One Law for All’s claim about “justifying Karadzic’s actions” clearly confirms SIOE’s complaint. Justifying the need for a fair trial is justifying his actions?

    Secondly, it’s a bit rich to criticise SIOE for its “justifications” for Karadzic’s actions (800 years of Serbian history would not be allowed in Karadzic’s defence) then to mention an “independent Kosovo” as if this had nothing to do with Serbian history.

    If this is One Law for All’s notion of justice, it begs the question what “One Law” are they campaigning for exactly?

    It is certain that many of One Law for All’s supporters consider the Iraq War to have been started on a false premise (by saying this One Law for All will no doubt assert that SIOE claims the war was started on a true premise such is the way communists manipulate other’s statements). They may be interested to know that some Germans, at least, consider that the bombing of Serbia began with a lie.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjP_9LOyBuk Documentary in 5 parts

    Back to Barnett:

    Ms. Geller has gone so far as to say that Bosnian Muslims killed themselves in order to ‘manipulate media coverage’, and refers to the 1995 genocide as a ‘propaganda lie’ which was ‘manufactured [by] the international community’ as part of ‘the ongoing blood libel against the Christian Serbs’. (p.42-43, 53-54 and here)
    This sounds absurd, and Barnett wants it to: he had to lie about Pamela Geller's statements in order to create the absurdity. Did she actually say that "Bosnian Muslims killed themselves in order to ‘manipulate media coverage’"? Of course not. If you look at the actual post to which Barnett is referring, you will see that Geller is not saying that Bosnian Muslims committed suicide in order to manipulate media coverage, but killed their own in order to create the illusion of Serb attacks on civilians and thereby manipulate media coverage. The Palestinians do that, so why wouldn't jihadists in the Balkans? But of course, Namazie retails that Palestinian propaganda, so it is not surprising that her colleague would be a stooge for the jihad in the Balkans as well.

    This is presumably what Mr. Spencer means when he writes of SIOA’s ‘opposition to the jihad in the Balkans and skepticism (sic) about some of the charges made of Serbian war crimes.’
    "Sic"? Apparently Adam Barnett is so parochial and ignorant that he doesn't know that skepticism is the correct American spelling of the word. He is even more of a dim bulb than I thought.

    - SIOA’s leadership has supported, defended and praised the English Defence League, (without equivocation until recently), and has promoted their events, published their statements and attacked their critics. (p.55-59)
    Regarding the EDL we have always been consistent: we support them insofar as they reject racism, neofascism, antisemitism, etc., and root out such people from their ranks. When Barnett says "without equivocation until recently," he is simply lying, as our support has always come with that caveat, as it does for all groups and all individuals anywhere and everywhere.

    Co-director Pamela Geller’s web log has featured conspiratorial articles regarding the President of America’s religion, his family, his sexual history, and the circumstances of his birth, and has likened his ‘stealth jihad on the White House’ to ‘an SS officer getting elected president during WW II’. (p.52-53)
    Pamela Geller's criticisms of Obama are well documented in the book The Post-American Presidency -- substantiated with over 400 footnotes. Pointing out Obama's failures and nefarious alliances is not racism; her criticisms are accurate. Everything she wrote in that book has come to pass: Obama is busy earning his place in American history as our worst president. Pamela Geller never wrote about Obama's sexual history, but made an offhand statement in response to an oft-repeated rumor after Sarah Palin had been abused and lied about by the media for the umpteenth time. Here again, Barnett is lying in order to paint a dishonest picture of Geller's work.

    In 2010, Robert Spencer defended his and Geller’s ‘colleague’ Joseph John Jay, who had recommended the ‘wholesale slaughter’ of Muslim civilians, including children, on the grounds that he had been ‘misinterpreted’. Spencer maintains this still, and Ms. Geller has recommended Jay’s writings as recently as July 2011. (p.51-51)
    Here is where I wonder if Barnett, while charging me with not reading his smear piece, did not read my rebuttal. In it, I reported that "John Jay does not actually have any role in or position with SIOA, but be that as it may, the report is lying about him. In reality, he has written, in his inimitable fashion, 'i do not advocate carte blanche killing one’s liberal relative, nor all muslims. to assert differently is a lie.'"

    I could go on, but I ought to address Mr. Spencer’s direct challenge regarding a quote of his which we included. Here is the quote, published on his Jihad Watch site in 2005: ‘there is no distinction in the American Muslim community between peaceful Muslims and jihadists. While Americans prefer to imagine that the vast majority of American Muslims are civic-minded patriots who accept wholeheartedly the parameters of American pluralism, this proposition has actually never been proven.’
    Writing today, Spencer claims ‘what [he] meant was there is no institutional distinction, so jihadis move freely in Muslim circles among those who oppose them and claim to do so’. However, when asked by a commenter on the original article in 2005 ‘how distinctions can be made’, Spencer replied: ‘That’s simple. Let American Muslims renounce all attachment to violent Jihad and Sharia, refuse all aid from Sharia states (chiefly Saudi Arabia), and cooperate fully with anti-terror efforts aimed at rooting jihadists out of American mosques.’ (p.52) Having thus identified all Muslims as suspects who are guilty until proven innocent, Spencer does not specify how to treat Muslims who do not ‘cooperate fully’, or who fail to make the prescribed disassociations. But based on his record and the company he keeps, I’m glad we’ll never have to find out what it might entail.

    This vicious little smear is, in fact, entirely baseless. There is nothing sinister about calling upon Muslims or anyone else to obey the laws of this country, and his insinuation that some terrible evil must be what I have in mind for those who do not comply is not substantiated and cannot be substantiated by a single scrap of evidence from anything I have ever written. In my first rebuttal piece, I noted two of many instances in which I affirmed that Muslim in the U.S. are innocent until proven guilty (contrary to the explicit claim of his report); Barnett doesn't mention that. In the last chapter of my 2008 book Stealth Jihad I make a number of recommendations for what can be done about the problem of stealth jihad and Islamization -- none of which involve anything but working through legal channels to enforce existing laws.

    So Barnett's vicious insinuation only masks the fact that he has absolutely nothing to go on. I knew Harry's Place was full of clueless and complicit Leftist dhimmis, but even they should be ashamed of running a piece that contains a libel of that order.

    I think this meets Mr. Spencer’s challenge, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to bring all of this to people’s attention. I’m not sure how one squares the above with the claim that SIOA ‘stand for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for all people’. Perhaps Mr. Spencer will enlighten us.
    Done. Now will Adam Barnett have the decency to retract and apologize, both for his report's smears and his new ones? I doubt it. After all, Namazie yesterday responded to my request for a retraction by saying: "This is politics. Yours is far-Right; why not own up to it. Much more respectable!" In other words, "I don't like your politics, so I feel free to lie about you." And lie she does, as does Barnett.
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #47 - August 16, 2011, 10:00 PM
    Again I don't know why lines are struck out at the end  Huh?
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #48 - August 16, 2011, 10:43 PM
    It's because of this:

    I'm not sure how one squares the above with the claim that SIOA 'stand[s] for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for all people'. Perhaps Mr. Spencer will enlighten us.

    The lower case s in square brackets is forum code for strikethrough. If it is necessary to quote something that uses that format, edit it to use standard brackets:

    I'm not sure how one squares the above with the claim that SIOA 'stand(s) for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for all people'. Perhaps Mr. Spencer will enlighten us.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #49 - August 16, 2011, 11:44 PM
    Quote from: Hassan on August 16, 2011, 10:06 AM
    http://hurryupharry.org

    Interesting-looking site. Thanks.

    Named after this?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2xdCvhvyqY
    Weeeee're going down the pub.
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #50 - August 17, 2011, 07:12 AM
    So I thought I'd ask:

    Robert,

    Thanks for the reply. I'm curious about one thing. What do you mean by the words: "I know what you are" ?

    Hassan
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #51 - August 17, 2011, 07:13 AM
    His reply:

    Hassan:

    You're an apologist for a Marxist antisemite engaged in character assassination of those who actually resist the jihad you profess to oppose.

    I don't think there is any part of that statement that can reasonably be disputed in light of all the above.

    Cordially

    Robert Spencer
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #52 - August 17, 2011, 07:36 AM
    I bet he doesn't think a lot of things. Smiley
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #53 - August 17, 2011, 04:18 PM
    OK, well I couldn't resist replying - and got another reply - and so posted another reply.

    Robert,

    1. It's true Maryam is a Marxist. However those are her personal views (and not ones I share). More importantly they have nothing to do with "The Council of Ex-Muslims", which is an issue driven organisation and are in no-way connected to the personal political views of members (which vary from left, right and centre). We are an issue-driven organisation - to help and support Ex-Muslims. First and foremost we formed to break the taboo on leaving Islam and to make a public declaration of this as a stand against those who wish to impose the death sentence on Apostates, or subject them to violence, intimidation and abuse. We also campaign against Shari'ah Law, and on many other issues of Human Rights and Freedom. (Our manifesto on our website.)

    2. Throwing the term Antisemite at Maryam for criticising Israel invasion of Gaza - regardless of how you might disagree with it - only only undermines the term "Antisemite" and does no service to those who suffer from Antisemitism. By all means argue against what it is you disagree with. But to call an Antimsemite because of it, is frankly absurd. (btw her comments on the invasion of Gaza were NOT in her capacity as Spokesperson for CEMB)

    3. You may regard the report produced by "One Law For All" as a character assassination on you, Pam Geller, and SIOE/E, EDL and others, but that is your opinion. The report is there for all to see and read and people can make their own minds up. For myself I say again I congratulate One Law For All for making a clear distinction between CEMB who oppose Islamists without making sweeping generalisations about Islam and Muslims, and organisations and individuals like yourself, Pame Geller, SIOE/A, EDL and other groups.

    On a personal note, leaving Islam was enormously difficult and I have huge empathy for Muslims. I know how hard it is for them to look at Islam objectively and rationally because of their deep emotional attachment. They are not to blame for being born into Islam nor for the emotional attachment, blinkered and selective vision that it leaves them with. Anyone who understands the power religion can have over people who are born to a faith will know that from a very early age it forms their whole identity, place in the world, meaning to their life and comfort zone. Rejecting it is not simply an intellectual process, but one that tears your whole world apart. It means losing your identity and meaning for life, it means losing family and friends and it means depression and emotional trauma - not to mention abuse intimidation and even death threats in some cases. I left Islam not because I hate Muslims - I love Muslims - and I love all humanity - we are all the same underneath. The only thing I hate are the things that divide us all. I try to reach out to Muslims with compassion and understanding. I am not interested in bashing them over the head or making sweeping generalisations about them that I know are not true. The vast majority of Muslims are decent, loving, kind and generous individuals - just like most human beings are. As I said before if you do truly care about humanity - all humanity - you need to seriously re-think your approach.

    Best wishes,

    Hassan.


    ________________

    Hassan:

    These are my parting words to you also: "As I said before if you do truly care about humanity - all humanity - you need to seriously re-think your approach."

    I also think it is interesting to point out that I am the same in public in private. You, on the other hand, are quite civil in your approach here, and only call me a "lying fuck" on your own bulletin board:

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=17131.0

    People are on to you.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer


    ______________________



    Robert,

    I'm disappointed that your only response to my last post was to post that quote.

    I not any different in private as I am in public as you insinuate. The CEMB Forum is a public forum that anyone can view. And yes, I say all sorts of things, some of them foolish and embarrassing and some intelligent and thoughtful. I have always worn my heart on my sleeve. It got me in trouble as a Muslim and it gets me in trouble now. But that's me - warts and all.

    I came here to try and engage with you, perhaps naively. However if you don't want to, I shan't bother you anymore.

    However, one last thing, you say "People are on to you" - again, I'd be interested to hear what you mean by that? However if you do want to know about me I have written about my life and how I came to reject Islam here:

    http://abooali.wordpress.com/2008/11/30/welcome/

    and I have also made several videos critiquing Islam that you may find interesting.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CHm2xigkBc

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpu4UkT-Rl8

    Best wishes,

    Hassan.
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #54 - August 17, 2011, 04:28 PM
    you are a glutton for punishment hassan  Tongue I liked the way you handled it.
    So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
    My political philosophy below
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
    Just kidding, here are some true heros
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #55 - August 17, 2011, 04:29 PM
    lol... I know  grin12
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #56 - August 17, 2011, 05:27 PM
    Quote
    Hassan:

    These are my parting words to you also: "As I said before if you do truly care about humanity - all humanity - you need to seriously re-think your approach."

    I also think it is interesting to point out that I am the same in public in private. You, on the other hand, are quite civil in your approach here, and only call me a "lying fuck" on your own bulletin board:

    http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=17131.0

    People are on to you.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer


    Some people's ignorance mixed with stubbornness amazes me.from the way he replied it sounds like he knows he is wrong but he doesnt want to admit it, so in order to save his face he resort to bitchy reply by quoting your words and taking it personal.
    "I'm standing here like an asshole holding my Charles Dickens"

    "No theory,No ready made system,no book that has ever been written to save the world. i cleave to no system.."-Bakunin
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #57 - August 17, 2011, 05:57 PM
    Shame. In his first reply his agenda was obvious, but he did at least seem to be stating his case.

    Then, strangely, the more clearly you stated your case, the more dismissive and evasive he became.

    Perhaps he doesn't want to keep an open mind.
  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #58 - August 17, 2011, 06:31 PM

    Mr Spencer sees virtue in being unwavering.

    Frankly, he won't change.



    "we can smell traitors and country haters"


    Quote from: arX on May 01, 2011, 03:33 AM
    God is Love.
    Love is Blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.

  • Re: Enemies Not Allies: The Far-Right
     Reply #59 - August 17, 2011, 07:20 PM
    I didn't expect him to change, but I really had expected a bit better from him than this.
  • Previous page 1 23 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »