| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Tim Townsend takes the high road -- of willful ignorance and dhimmitude. "Post-Dispatch refuses to distribute DVD offensive to American Muslims," by Tim Townsend for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 22 (thanks to H.M.):
Despite the perilous state of American newspapers, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch advertising department took an ethical stand and refused to distribute the DVD of a film that for two years has troubled American Muslims. [...]In October 2006 (another election year) I wrote a story about how besieged the St. Louis Muslim community was feeling- the worst, many told me, since just after Sept. 11, 2001. A St. Louis screening of the “Obesession” [sic] movie featured in that story:
At the end of August, a thousand people — about half of them Jewish and half Christian, according to organizers — attended a screening of the movie “Obsession: What the War on Terror is Really About” at the Frontenac Hilton Hotel. The group’s sponsors promoted the movie with a provocative billboard featuring a dark-skinned man whose head was wrapped in a kuffiyeh and the words, “Confessions of a Terrorist.”
A "dark-skinned man" -- the not-so-thinly veiled message here, of course, is that resistance to jihad terrorism and Islamic supremacism is "racist."
The terrorist in question was Walid Shoebat, who said he was a former member of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Shoebat appeared in the hourlong movie and then spoke to the audience.Muslims who were there said they were horrified by what they believed was the movie’s inference that Islam, terrorism and Nazism were one and the same, despite a disclaimer that ran at the beginning and end of the movie that said “most Muslims are peaceful and do not support terror.”
The movie makes no such "inference"; indeed, it goes out of its way to rule out any such conclusion. And in any case, its very existence shows up the glaring absence, seven years after 9/11, of any Muslim anti-terror effort. Every -- and I do mean every -- effort at raising awareness of and resistance to the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism is met with claims from Muslim groups that all Muslims are being lumped together and labeled as terrorists, no matter how strenuously this is denied in the piece they're criticizing. We are supposed to believe that the Muslim groups that are complaining abhor jihad terrorism, but they resent that the presentation in question goes too far and tars all Muslims. I myself get this all the time, although I have never said at any time -- simply because it wouldn't be true -- that all Muslims are pursuing the Islamic supremacist agenda.
But if that were really true, it would be reasonable to expect that some of these anti-terror Muslims would produce something -- even one video or book -- that did right what Obsession and I and all the rest do wrong. In other words, it would explain clearly the difference between the Islamic beliefs of the terrorists and those of the peaceful Muslims, making a clear and sharp distinction between the two, and condemning -- not with weasel words and half-measures, but fully, honestly, forthrightly and wholeheartedly -- jihad violence and Islamic supremacism. Such a presentation, if it existed, would reassure many people and would be used as a model by anti-jihadists thereafter.
But it does not exist, and probably will not ever be made, and that in itself is extremely telling of the inadequacy and falsity of many of the assumptions people have today about the global jihad. People including Tim Townsend of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Far more upsetting, they said, was the reaction of the audience.Writing in “The American Muslim” two weeks after the screening, [Sheila] Musaji said those Muslims who attended were “still experiencing physical and emotional distress primarily due to the positive reaction of the audience — including applause and standing ovations — and to some of the hateful comments we overheard from individuals sitting around us.”
As I have spoken at several screenings of Obsession and taken questions from the crowds, I am skeptical about Musaji's description of the audience reaction here. And I have had good reason to doubt Musaji's veracity in the past.
But if her claims are accurate, well, you know, we all have to live with a certain level of physical and emotional distress. I still suffer physical and emotional distress when I think of September 11, 2001, or March 11, 2004, or July 7, 2005, and the people who died on those days, and of the people who die in jihad terror attacks around the world up to this day, such as those who died in the attack at the Islamabad Marriott yesterday. And I wonder why Sheila Musaji has never written an article about the physical and emotional distress that peaceful Muslims suffer when their coreligionists commit violence in the name of their religion, and why she has never called upon those Muslims to stop committing acts of violence and supremacism in Islam's name. I further wonder why these distressed Muslims were not distressed by the exhortations to jihad violence voiced by Muslim preachers in the film as much as they were by the audience reaction to the film.
Fatemeh Keshavarz, head of Washington University’s department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages, who was at the screening, said: “This was hate speech, pure and simple. … being in that room, I felt threatened.”
It would have been kind of her to specify what exactly in the film was "hate speech." The only obvious hate speech was the exhortations to jihad violence and hatred of the Jews coming from jihadist preachers. But they were on film, and were filmed not by the producers of Obsession but by TV cameras in their own countries, where their hateful messages were broadcast approvingly.
Posted by Robert at September 23, 2008 1:53 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Cowardice has now become a synonym for ethical?
Posted by: undaunted![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 23, 2008 2:09 PM
"... being in that room, I felt threatened.”
In other words,
"How dare you hold up a mirror to my face!"
"How dare you expose my agenda!"
"How dare you try to shake my faith!"
"I knew you infidels were out to get me!"
Posted by: Stendec at September 23, 2008 2:18 PM
This argument puzzles me: that there can be good and true Muslims that do not believe in jihad, and therefore quietly (or sometimes not) reject the overtures of their jihadist brethren. Can an anti-jihadist still be considered a true Muslim?
Posted by: Mannning at September 23, 2008 2:23 PM
So, now we know about the St. Louis Post Dispatch. It's not the only newspaper in the St. Louis coverage area. Anyone know if any of the other papers distributed the movie?
Posted by: Eastview at September 23, 2008 2:36 PM
Tim, aren't you familiar with telling the Truth by exposing evil? Guess he would rather protect evil by covering up the Truth. He's got the PC/MC mindset, alright. What a yellow-bellied coward!
Posted by: champ at September 23, 2008 2:39 PM
It is important to note that the St. Louis Post Dispatch throughout its history has always been with the Democrat Party 100%. It is 100% true blue liberal. During the 50's and 60's, before the law was changed, the Post Dispatch was registered as a Democrat newspaper. You would hardly find a Republican working there.
It is no surprise that they would not distribute "Obsession".
Posted by: Spot on at September 23, 2008 2:42 PM
I bet they have no problems with Michael Moore productions.
Posted by: Shawmut at September 23, 2008 2:52 PM
Muslims squirm because the truth is exposed, plain and simple. In India, they are now whining that police are questioning them about recent bombings. The usual tactic: claim victimhood when confronted.
Posted by: IndianTiger at September 23, 2008 3:00 PM
There was no distribution of this DVD in my area. How does one acquire a copy?
at September 23, 2008 3:09 PM
Ethics, shmethics. This is nothing more than pro-Muslim censorship, something the Post-Dispatch also enthusiastically engaged in during the furor over the Danish Muhammad cartoons. At Failure Magazine, David Wallis, editor of "Killed Cartoons: Causalites From the War on Free Expression," recalls that:
"At the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the paper's publisher took the unprecedented step of vetting all work about the controversy by staff cartoonist R.J. Matson. His first cartoon on the topic was a send-up of art schools that advertise on the back of matchbooks. The 'Fatwa Art Instruction School' — which tested prospective 'infidel cartoonists' by having them not draw Muhammad — failed to make the grade at his paper despite its lack of jihad-worthy images.
"As the violence overseas intensified, Matson started receiving angry letters from readers demanding that he draw Muhammad to 'stick it to the Muslims.' While Matson personally deplored the attack on free speech by extremists, he didn't approve of the Danish cartoons, viewing them as an unnecessary provocation. To express his ambivalence, Matson drew a self-portrait of himself straddling a pen-shaped missile.
"Initially, a cartoon entitled 'Suicide Cartoonists' was also spiked. But Matson persuaded his publisher to reconsider. He argued that he had a duty to address the biggest story about cartooning since Thomas Nast took down Tammany Hall."
http://www.failuremag.com/arch_arts_graphic_violence.html
Posted by: Papa Whiskey at September 23, 2008 3:11 PM
Spot on, thanks for the info about the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Funny how that crucial piece of information, or any hint of it, was absent from the original post. That explains it. But what about other St. Louis newspapers, or even regional newspapers, such as in Kansas City or Springfield or Nashville?
Posted by: Eastview at September 23, 2008 3:12 PM
Let me amend that: How does one obtain a FREE copy?
at September 23, 2008 3:12 PM
Bye bye Post Dispatch. And from what I am hearing about St Louis, bye bye St Louis. I used to live there and loved the area. The Post Dispatch is crapola.
Posted by: n.a. palm at September 23, 2008 3:12 PM
Mannning,
The "peaceful Muslim" must never question Allah's will. The stated will of Allah (in the Koran) is that Islam must spread over the earth until all humanity has submitted to Islamic law.
The means of this spreading is jihad. By the Koran, jihad is the primary duty of every Muslim. So all Muslims, peaceful or not, must without fail believe in jihad.
But jihad permits ANY kind of action--horrifically violent and destructive or no--that advances the spread of Islam. So for example, there is jihad by killing, kidnapping, raping, torturing, and ransoming. There are also the milder forms of jihad ("stealth" jihad), for instance by propaganda (dawa), subversion, "outreach," and apologetics (with copious helpings of taquiyya and kitman--that is, lying).
Apparently, it is a cardinal sin (that is, you will go to Islamic Hell if you trangress) to criticize or fail to aid a fellow Muslim, no matter what heinous act he is planning to do, or is doing, or has done--as long as his purpose for taking action is/was jihad. He is merely doing his Islamic duty as he sees it. Furthermore, whatever idea he came up with for his jihad, is something Allah must have put there! And if his violent (or other form) of attack is/was successful, then it can only be because Allah approved of the plan and backed him in the execution of it. Therefore, if you criticize the jihadist, you are "dissing" Allah himself!
The "peaceful Muslim" has chosen for himself some non-violent form of jihad as his own means of living up to his duty. But he must never, ever criticize anyone else's choice for jihad or the "results" achieved therefrom, unless somehow it can be shown that what was done worked against Allah's Big Plan--the spread of Islam.
Hence, amongst the Muslm rank and file there is total passivity and silence in the face of daily Islamic horror around the globe. What is happening is Allah's will, from start to finish. Dare not object! Or Hell awaits.
That's how the "logic" of it looks to me.
Posted by: Stendec at September 23, 2008 3:13 PM
St.Louis my hometown! Where I first learned about honor killing in 1989 when a Palestinian terrorist who was being secretly taped by the FBI was caught on tape murdering his daughter. Oh, and speaking of racism, what REALLY set daddy off was she was dating a BLACK man! (There wasn't time to save her). And mommy helped kill her - it's nice to see families work together.
See: Guarding The Secrets: Palestinian Terrorism and a Father's Murder of His Too-American Daughter by Ellen Harris
Posted by: poetcomic1 at September 23, 2008 3:15 PM
i have to wounder if t.a.m. and cair would like some ham and cheese on crackers with there whine
Posted by: ISLAMSNOTFORME at September 23, 2008 3:19 PM
As much as it pains me to say this, I agree completely that there is something about the Muslim ideology that makes it completely acceptable for Muslims to lie, cheat, steal or otherwise betray anyone they consider an "outsider". My greatest personal betrayals have been by Muslim friends and business partners.
For example, I had a Muslim friend whom I recruited as an equal co-founder for a startup. As soon as it looked like we'd be successful, from one day to the next (literally), we went from having family dinners together to him slandering me to colleagues and investor and his entire family, even his 8 year old son, refusing to speak to anyone in mine. The crazy thing was that this completely destroyed all value in the business. No sane person would act this way, and yet I hear the same story over and over when it comes to Muslims, especially those raised outside the US.
I personally no longer have any sympathy for Muslim complaints about mistreatment - you get what you give.
Posted by: kevin at September 23, 2008 3:21 PM
People can comment in the Post-Dispatch blog site using the first link in Mr. Spencer's comments above.
I'll be commenting and writing a letter to the editor. The Post-Dispatch is doing a disservice to its community and needs to reminded of that. Saint Louis is far more center-right and wary of 'what Islam's about' than the paper reflects--just like most other examples we see dissected in Jihadwatch/Dhimmiwatch about every day.
The old saying "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" needs to be updated for situations like this. High-minded scoundrels with low-level courage hide behind applause-seeking 'ethical decisions.'
Members of the advertising department in the paper I worked for were salespeople. They worked on commission selling space for advertisments and the major, if not only thing they considered was the amount of money they could get for the white space.
Why would Post-Dispatch ad sellers be any different? I could see them turning ad space down if they thought it would backfire and cause some kind of boycott from vocal minorities of activists... maybe that would stop them from selling as much ad space as possible. I'd like to hear a better explanation of why they'd choose to turn down good money at a time when the Post-Dispatch is cutting out copy from the daily issues, dropping content in non-essential sections and laying of 10% or more of the editorial staff. Refusing ads doesn't seem to make sense to willingly give up money during hard times for the paper. I don't think management would allow it to happen for any other reasons than
a) agreement in principle from management that the ideas and product should be kept out of the paper
b) fear that taking money and running the ad would backfire with some kind of advocacy action against management/paper.
Neither is high-minded or deals with ethics at all.
Ads for all kinds of offensive things are in the papers every day, and the post runs things offensive to members of its community all the time ( read the Letters to the Editor and blog posts) yet this movie, labeled offensive, is held to a higher ethical standard... by salespeople?
Cute but transparent. Nice try... but people in Saint Louis can see through that kind of smokescreen I bet.
Anecdotcally, some of the salespeople at my old newspaper were 'ethically challenged' in a way that didn't concern deliberation on weighty moral choices. I bought a CD player for my stereo system from a member of the staff and at least three people from the business office and editorial staff warned me to 'be careful' about giving up the $50. But that's just one case in a small paper no one reads anyway. :)
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at September 23, 2008 3:33 PM
may be the time has come to ask no demand why Sheila Musaji( tameditor@aol.com ) "has never written an article about the physical and emotional distress that peaceful Muslims suffer when their coreligionists commit violence in the name of their religion, and why she has never called upon those Muslims to stop committing acts of violence and supremacism in Islam's name"
if they don't approve of them its long for the silent majority of muslims to speak out
at September 23, 2008 3:43 PM
give me doughnuts;
The best way is not free. Goto www.claironfund.org . There it can be viewed, and purchased. Better yet, donate to help spread the word, and they will send you a copy of the DVD for your efforts.
Or, just wait and see if a copy makes it to you.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 23, 2008 4:10 PM
give me doughnuts;
Sorry, try www.clarionfund.org .
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at September 23, 2008 4:12 PM
But what about other St. Louis newspapers, or even regional newspapers, such as in Kansas City or Springfield or Nashville?
Posted by: Eastview
The Kansas City Star and the Springfield newspaper are less radical left but they are 100% Demmocrat. Only the rural small city newspapers here are conservative. Most people here know this and react accordingly. A Republican governor does not get much respect from these big city newspapers.
Posted by: Spot on at September 23, 2008 4:15 PM
Sheila Musaji is mostly concerned that her 'interfaith dialogue' efforts were all in vain. People like her get very irritated and , to use her own words, 'venomous', when the truth comes out.
Those who have been around here long enough know of course that 'interfaith dialogue' is a one sided affair that serves for the promotion of Islam.
Sheila does her obligatory da'awa, engages in lies, smears and defamation to vilify those critical of Islam. She does what all of these good Muslims do, but she feels right about it because she needs to do everything she can to 'protect' Islam from scrutiny while blaming somebody else for the evil Islam is.
That is usually the Jooozzz.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 23, 2008 4:15 PM
quote:"Fatemeh Keshavarz, head of Washington University’s department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages, who was at the screening, said: “This was hate speech, pure and simple. … being in that room, I felt threatened.”"unquote
Hmmmmmm ....... did she feel threatened by the exhortations by the jihadists, or 'fanatical Muslims' in the video? She should, because those 'fanatical Muslims' also believe that women should not work, or leave the house unaccompanied by their muhrim. (I don't believe her husband/son/male relative accompanies her every time she goes to & from work).
Or she picks and choose what is convenient for her as a Muslimah living in the West, closes her eyes to the verses in the Koran and the Hadiths that are the anti thesis of Human Rights and defends Islam as part of the ummah?
People who come to the US should be asked to abide by US laws above all others, including the sharia. If they don't agree, don't let them in!!!!!
Posted by: jasmine at September 23, 2008 4:28 PM
Regarding any "Muslim anti-terror effort",
absence of evidence = evidence of absence
Posted by: PMK at September 23, 2008 4:34 PM
If you go to "The American Muslim" you'll find that the writers there are absolutely hysterical over the Obsession dvd distribution.There's something written about the dvd there everyday. I think it is because the Muslims were out played by the distributors
of the dvd who managed to get it into 28 mil household before Muslims and their dhimmi friends could do anything about it.Their biggest fear is that people will watch Obsession and learn about Islam.Calling "Obsession" hate speech really doesn't work as the film has been shown on FOX and CNN and it is screened on college campuses. Now they are claiming the dvd was an attempt to influence the election with CAIR calling for an FEC investigation.There is nothing false in the dvd it just Muslims being Muslims. Islams biggest fear of course is that people will listen and learn.
at September 23, 2008 4:42 PM
They are already moderating and wiping comments from the dispatch.
On a side note, even Muqtader Khan cannot ignore the reality and speaks plainly about it at altmuslim:
http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2817/
Posted by: awake at September 23, 2008 4:46 PM
It is a terrible thing when people lie, to cover the lies of others. Especially when individuals who are knowledgeable on a subject know they are lying.
2 lies do not make a truth. Or 3 or 4...
Posted by: flowerknife_us at September 23, 2008 5:35 PM
Fatemeh Keshavarz, head of Washington University’s department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages, who was at the screening, said: “This was hate speech, pure and simple. … being in that room, I felt threatened.”
As long as there is one infidel left alive on the planet speaking out against the intolerance and imperialism and racism and sexism and homophobia of islam, people like this woman will always feel "threatened". Muslim reactions to this film, cartoons, etc. and lack of reaction to atrocities perpetuated in the name of their vile belief system say more than any film ever can. May the gods bless the Hell's Angels in Denmark who are making muslims in so called "no go" areas feel ACTUALLY threatened.
Posted by: Rick at September 23, 2008 7:28 PM
The Post-Dispatch removed this post from the blog less than five minutes after I put it up:
Moderate Unicorns
at September 23, 2008 8:35 PM
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 wand 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 mosques and their communities. Waiting for this self-correction is our modern version of unicorn hunting.
Moderate Muslims will not be able to wrest control of the agenda for several reasons. Mohammed, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. How can any moderate legitimately tell another Muslim not to do what 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.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at September 23, 2008 8:36 PM
give me doughnuts...
Watch it for free here, also other stuff...
http://www.jihadhotline.blogspot.com/
Posted by: duh_swami at September 23, 2008 8:40 PM
A-Plague-On-both-Houses
You are so right about St. Louis as a whole (the Metro area) being center right 2.6 million about in #...St. Louis, the city propper with its circa 1890 boundaries is ca 398,000 folks of whom I'd estimate about 80% are Democrats after living here 44 yrs. The remaining largely are center-right as you said and the PD isn't at all interested in their views. David Broder, Tom Friedman, Paul Krugman et all are the daily fare, Michelle Malkin banned yrs ago...the PD knows about ACORN & the shenanigans at St. Louis polls in '00 and '04 with closing times vastly extended etc and nary a peep. Pro lib every time...Phyllis Schlafly had no less than 10 full time law professors turn there back on her last Spring on stage when she was INVITED AS AN ALUMNUS to give the general commencment ..point..Washington University community has the same philosophy as the PD in my opinion so no surprise as the Obsession dvd getting short shrift from these "intellectual" bastions
Posted by: nodak at September 23, 2008 8:56 PM
The Post-Dispatch removed all three of my comments. I was civil in everything I wrote.
Shame on the Post-Dispatch. I'll still write the letter to the Editor. If I have to say something positive, at least they're consistent in blocking ideas they don't agree with. Saint Louis deserves better.
at September 23, 2008 9:52 PM
My wife and I attended that showing as well as my mother (in her 80's) and brother who flew in from out of town for other reasons.
There were no standing ovations, there was no offensive language and there was no reason for anyone,Muslim or not, to be in the slightest way afraid or uncomfortable. It was a subdued, reflective, quiet crowd in a very cramped room where it was impossible to be over-reactive
The comments made by those who say that they were offended in no way reflect the way I recall that evening.
I can tell you that had the author of the article been in attendance he would have no basis to write the article.
Maybe he should have done his job and attended.......
at September 23, 2008 10:01 PM
Awake
A comment that I posted at the P-D site where I noted how some comments were disappearing..... disappeared!
Posted by: USorThem at September 23, 2008 10:35 PM
Posted by: USorThem at September 23, 2008 10:35 PM
Obviously, another Zionist conspiracy.
Posted by: awake at September 23, 2008 10:47 PM
I meant to post this on the comments section of the article, but it did not stick:
I live in Saint Paul, MN and do not subscribe to this paper. In fact, I was not even aware of its existence until today when I was referred to this article from another website.
I doubt that the Minneapolis Star Tribune or Saint Paul Pioneer Press would allow this DVD to be inserted into their paper, even though MN is a potential swing state in this presidential election.
I am sorry to hear that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has feigned taking the “road less traveled” by refusing to allow the documentary to be included in the paper.
I would highly recommend St. Louis Post-Dispatch subscribers to two things:
1) cancel your subscriptions to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
2) Purchase a copy of the documentary or download it off the internet; either way, watch it!
Anything about Islam that its apologists seek to censor is worth finding out about.
I have had the opportunity watch the entire documentary a couple of years ago when it was initially released. At the time I had been studying Islam for about a year, but had not yet acquired that acumen that I now possess. This made watching the film somewhat confusing. If Obsession has any flaw it is that the documentary only contains examples and anecdotage of Islamic terrorism, but fails to explain the theological foundations that inspire Islamic terrorists to commit their atrocities and cause non-terrorist Muslims to support those terrorist acts and to hate non-Muslims. If you are looking for a good starting point to learn about the theological foundations and justifications behind Islamic terrorism, the less graphic “Islam: what the west needs to know” is an excellent starting point. I recommend that newcomers to Islamic terrorism what Obsession first, then watch “Islam: what the west needs to know,” and then re-watch Obsession. It will all make much more sense to you then.
The first thing that you see in when you watch this documentary is a disclaimer telling the viewer that the film is not about all Muslims and that most Muslims are peaceful. How many more disclaimers should there be? At which number and frequency would so-called moderate Muslims be satisfied with? Even in an interview at Frontpagemag, one of the producers refused to state that Islam is an inherently violent religion (which about as accurate as the disclaimer).
As for bigotry and incitement to hate, who else but imams and masses of angry Muslims were hateful and incited others to violence?
Who was the target of that hatred and violent incitement? Was it Muslims or non-Muslims?
How can reasonable and intelligent person think that a 90 minute documentary consisting of clips of Muslims chanting death to America, Jews and infidels be inflammatory against Muslims?
at September 23, 2008 10:52 PM
In the interests of free speech, student associations affiliated with 'ACT for America' might consider holding 'video evenings' on or off campus at which people get together to view 1. Submission 2. Fitna 3. Obsession and 4. Islam: What the West Needs to Know.
Copies of Mr Spencer's books and of the Qur'an and Sira to be available afterward for consultation during discussion (or a computer with internet hookup set up, so that sites such as jihadwatch, MEMRI, and faithfreedom, and Islamic sites such as dawa.net and ask.imam, and the U S California treasure trove of online Hadith and Quran translations, may be accessed at will on the spot.
Handouts -
1. Robert Redeker's article about Islam, from Le Figaro, which attracted death threats and caused him to lose his job
2. Copies of the notorious 'Danish cartoons', and a short summary of what has happened to Mr Kurt Westergaard, 73, since he drew the picture of 'Turban-Bomb Mohammed'
3. Copies of Geert Wilders' speech in the Parliament of Denmark on June 2 2008.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 23, 2008 10:54 PM
Re: Disappearing posts:
It is entirely possible that the St. Louis newspaper in question has a Muslim (or several Muslims) on staff. Perhaps, then, his personal jihad is to defend Islam by scrubbing posts.
That's what one would expect, at any rate.
No institution in our society is safe from jihad.
at September 23, 2008 10:58 PM
Spot on, Stendec!
Just like Fareed Zakaria and the subversive nutroots at Newsweep.
Infiltration is the name of the game.
at September 23, 2008 11:11 PM
For those in St Louis who wish to obtain a free copy, I do want to note that it will be available.
The Conservative Leadership Association, a student group at Washington University that I am the Event Manager of, will be giving away copies throughout the month of October. Free Obsession DVDs will be available to students, staff, and community members during various distribution times, which remain to be determined. We intend to get started on October 2nd during the VP debates, which our school is hosting, and will continue at least through the end of IFAW III, which the CLA is our first major event of the year.
While we can, and will, order additional copies if the demand exists, we are starting out with just 1000 DVDs. So, if you want to get additional information about when we will be handing out the DVDs, want one set aside for you, or would like to be informed about IFAW III events being hosted on campus, you can send me an email via the contact form on my blog:
http://calebposnerarchives.wordpress.com/contact-me/
Do note though that we are based in St Louis. Thus, non-local residents should disregard this comment, as we cannot afford to mail out DVDs.
Posted by: Caleb Posner at September 24, 2008 12:07 AM
The terrorist in question was Walid Shoebat, who said he was a former member of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Shoebat appeared in the hourlong movie and then spoke to the audience.Apologies for being somewhat OT, but this business of Shoebat being a former Jihadi has now been called into question. While nobody doubts his support for Israel and that he's an apostate, his claims of being a former Jihadi terrorist has been challenged in this Debbie Schlussel column. Granted, she has her own beef with him over his plagiarizing her work, but point is that he's never provided any proof of his claim of being a former terrorist - something that few are likely to question.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/09/walid_shoebat_w.html
Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 24, 2008 12:12 AM
This news about Shoebat saddens me. Whether or not his life story is a fabrication may never be known, but his behavior towards Debbie is totally unbecoming of him.
Is he really a Christian, was he ever a muslim, is he an apostate?
Posted by: senatortombstone at September 24, 2008 1:00 AM
I sent the writer of the article the following email:
To: ttownsend@post-dispatch.com
Hello, Mr. Townsend
I just finished your article “Post-Dispatch refuses to distribute DVD offensive to American Muslims,” and felt compelled to ask you the following questions:
1) What do Muslims find so “troubling” about Obsession? Is there anything in the documentary that is verifiable false?
2) Why do Muslims holler accusations of bigotry and incitement of hatred, instead of engaging in truth seeking, constructive dialogue anytime someone tries to objectively disseminate the motivations of Islamic jihadists ?
3) Why is it that whenever there is a barbaric act of Islamic jihad that Muslim apologists find it necessary to lecture increasingly wary and suspicious non-Muslims about how peaceful and tolerant Islam is? Shouldn’t they be lecturing the Muslims who are “misinformed” about their religion and committing violent acts of jihad in its name?
4) You quote Florida CAIR director Altaf Ali as saying “we feel that it’s going to incite more hate and bigotry against our community.” There are too many examples of hatred, incitement to violence, and bigotry made by Muslims against non-Muslims to count. Do you care to elaborate on some specific examples of this alleged incitement of hatred towards Muslims within the documentary?
5) If there were a resurgence of white supremacist terrorism sweeping through the South and the NAACP made a documentary covering it, would that make the NAACP bigots inciting blacks to hate whites?
6) During the last seven years, has it been Muslims or non-Muslims that have rioted and murdered over “offenses” like documentaries, caricatures and comments made by the Pope?
7) Why do you mention –with the seeming intention of discrediting him - Daniel Pipes as the “founder of the conservative Middle East Forum think tank,” but left out the fact that CAIR not only has ties to the terrorist group Hamas, but that it is currently designated as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Dallas trial charging the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) with providing material support for Hamas? Don’t you think that people may not take CAIR’s allegations against the documentary as serious in light of these facts? Don't the people have a right to know?
8) You mentioned that in October 2006 you wrote a story about how besieged the St. Louis Muslim community was feeling. What exactly is causing them to feel so “besieged?”
9) Will you ever write a story on how besieged Coptic Christians in Egypt must feel when their daughters being kidnapped, raped, and forcefully converted to Islam?
10) Will you ever write a story on how besieged Buddhists in southern Thailand must feel with over 2,000 of them having been violently and gruesomely murdered by Islamic jihadists during the past few years?
11) Will you have write a story on how besieged Ayana Hirsi Ali must feel having to have around-the-clock protection, lest she be murdered by one of those misunderstanding, Islamic jihadists?
12) Can you enumerate some of the allegedly many legitimate threats that are supposed to exist against the lives and security of Muslims in America?
Mr. Townsend, I could ask 1,000 more questions of you, but I will end it at a dozen, as I think I have made my point. You and the rest of the crew at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch are welcome to continue feigning nobility by taking the “road less traveled” by refusing to allow the documentary to be included in your paper. However, I do not view you as noble or well-intentioned. All the hard facts - which presnt a far different and opposite picture than what you and other apologists present - on Islam are readily available in the library, bookstore, or on the internet. The entire Koran and hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim, as well as exegete, and Sharia law manuals can be accessed with relative ease by anyone. As a member of the press it is your near-sacred obligation dig for the facts and present them to the people without apology or polemic. In this endeavor you and your paper have failed miserably and treasonously. If a person like me can take the time out of my life to research Islam and learn what I have learned from Islamic sources, just think what someone in your line of business could learn. You could have been a defender of human rights against the growing encroachment of jihad and sharia. Instead you have chosen to be a sellout for Islam, trading free thought for cognitive dissonance.
Mr. Townsend, I and thousands of other liberty minded, anti-jihadists are not fooled by your apologetics and evasions.
We will continue to expose the truth that you and the rest of the MSM treasonoulsly hide from the public.
at September 24, 2008 1:01 AM
Good job, Caleb. Good luck! Be sure to report back to Mr Spencer and his team and give a full account of what happens and what kinds of feedback you get. You may inspire others.
Is there any way you can try to get in touch with people on Australian, British and European university campuses?
If anyone reading this is currently on faculty or studying or researching at an Australian university, agrees with Mr Spencer's warnings as regards the danger of Jihad and Sharia Creep, and believes that students at Australian universities need access to all the historical facts about Islam, you should consider doing what Caleb and the "Conservative Leadership Association, a student group at Washington University" are doing.
You could also go a little further and try organising some informal workshops.
Have a look at my earlier posting where I suggested viewings not only of 'Obsession' but of 'Fitna', 'Submission' and 'Islam: What the West Needs to Know'.
A 'workshop' format in which interested people get together for a day, 9 to 5, and view the shorter films, then (as someone has suggested above, I think, first 'Obsession', then 'Islam: What the West Needs to Know', then 'Obsession' again), with time in between to chill out/ discuss/ ask questions and consult documents, web sites, and source books, with some informed help, would be the ideal way to do it.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 24, 2008 1:01 AM
STL county is about 60-70% democrat. A good chunk of them are the old FDR/Kennedy democrats. Lots of blue collar dems but WashU represents the more Green type radical left. The fruit loops at WashU are unbelievable. There are a good number of Republicans in the county, where the money mainly is and normal people would want to live. St. Louis proper is kind of crappy actually. It has suffered from years of over taxation and massive corruption, nepotism like you wouldn't believe. The public school system here is more corrupt than a wagon load of rotten fruit. We live in the shadow of the Chicago political machine and trust me, its a machine. Unlike other places, the property values by and large in the city ae fairly low, so there is little incentive to tear down old buildings and build new ones.
St Louis is also the home of more Bosnians than anywhere else on the planet save Bosnia. Most Bosnian Muslims are fairly secular. There has been an influx of more ardent Muslims from Samolia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. in the last five years or so. St. Louis is major federal relocation center for refugees.
Also of note, about a year or so ago, the FBI busted a cell of Islamic Jihad in south St. Louis operating out of an African goods store I believe on South Grand at Gravois. Its been closed ever since.
You aren't going to get a fair shake from the Post Dispatch so don't expect any. They won't get it till some nutjob nukes an American city and even then I am not sure.
Posted by: American_Palamite at September 24, 2008 3:19 AM
"Fatemeh Keshavarz, head of Washington University’s department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages, who was at the screening, said: “This was hate speech, pure and simple. … being in that room, I felt threatened.”
Maybe she has the mistaken notion that Americans riot and lynch people at the drop of a hat, like her fellow Muslims do, so she was half expecting that.
Posted by: DenverRodeo at September 24, 2008 3:56 AM
Good luck and God Bless, Caleb Possner.
Posted by: jasmine at September 24, 2008 4:09 AM
Citizens should take the ethical stand - and boycott the St Louis Post.
Posted by: Stefcho at September 24, 2008 6:05 AM
Awake, I see that Muqtader Khan got labeled a 'Mr."Muslim Kissinger" wannabe' for his noting of the jihadi connection with Ramadan.
Surprise, surprise. Not.
Posted by: Vee at September 24, 2008 9:58 AM
Obsession is an understatement of the Islamic jihad and agenda. It is still trying to be politically correct. Islam is much worse than it is portrayed in Obsession.
Posted by: American at September 24, 2008 10:20 AM
Posted by: Vee at September 24, 2008 9:58 AM
I saw. That was by the infamous "Dr.M" who blames EVERYTHING on the Jews. He posts all over the place and has little standing even amongst fellow Muslims. My personal favorite is his proclamation that freedom of speech is a farce. Just another dutiful slave to Allah.
Here's a look in to his demented mindset:
Posted by: awake at September 24, 2008 12:57 PM
Stendec;
Thank you for your response. The implications of this are that Muslims in general actually support jihad against the West, just not in violent ways--yet.
That was the unwritten premise of my post. It may be apparent that I am not into the subtleties of Islamic rhetoric, nor into the apologists for Islam in our midst. Thus, most of the posts I read are likened unto debating how many angels one can place on the head of a pin.
What I see is a clear and present danger to our nation and our way of life if Islam is allowed to continue to expand and penetrate our every institution. Once it is apparent that Islam is such a threat, any sensible person should treat it just as they would an invasive cancer--destroy it, all of it in the body, by any means possible--without destroying one's self, of course!
Posted by: Mannning at September 24, 2008 3:46 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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 Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)