<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: John Kerry&#8217;s Jobs Program for Would-Be Jihadists</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:30:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5291181</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Oct 2013 04:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5291181</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;He didn&#039;t defile the mosque that defiled the Temple Mount.&quot;
 
You might want to review the condition of the site on &#039;Umar&#039;s arrival in Jerusalem.  
 
&quot;Your narratives direct people to think that it&#039;s primarily in not exclusively a holy Islamic site, possibly also referred to as the Temple Mount, located somewhere over there, that was defiled by the dirty, evil, perfidious Jooh.&quot;
 
Incoherent and bizarre.  &quot;The dirty, evil,  perfidious Jooh?&quot;  Where do you get this stuff?
 
&quot;You make careful notes of every alleged reason to attack America and or the West but act completely naive and totally deny all evidence that Islamic Jihadis are actively trying to deceive the West in an effort to destroy Israel as the primary road block to the regional and then the global caliphate.&quot;
 
One wonders what you&#039;ve been reading and mistaking for my posts.  I&#039;ve done neither; you claimed that Muslims have little or no legitimate grievances, and I offered a few of them - hardly &quot;every alleged reason.&quot;  
 
&quot;And when caught, even in retreat you go in to damage control mode to maintain as much of the facade as you think possible.&quot;
 
Your take on the metaconversation is fascinating, no doubt, but has nothing to do with the topic.  
 
&quot;You are either completely deceived beyond help, or you are personally in on the deception campaign.&quot;
 
Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;He didn&#8217;t defile the mosque that defiled the Temple Mount.&#8221;</p>
<p>You might want to review the condition of the site on &#8216;Umar&#8217;s arrival in Jerusalem.  </p>
<p>&#8220;Your narratives direct people to think that it&#8217;s primarily in not exclusively a holy Islamic site, possibly also referred to as the Temple Mount, located somewhere over there, that was defiled by the dirty, evil, perfidious Jooh.&#8221;</p>
<p>Incoherent and bizarre.  &#8220;The dirty, evil,  perfidious Jooh?&#8221;  Where do you get this stuff?</p>
<p>&#8220;You make careful notes of every alleged reason to attack America and or the West but act completely naive and totally deny all evidence that Islamic Jihadis are actively trying to deceive the West in an effort to destroy Israel as the primary road block to the regional and then the global caliphate.&#8221;</p>
<p>One wonders what you&#8217;ve been reading and mistaking for my posts.  I&#8217;ve done neither; you claimed that Muslims have little or no legitimate grievances, and I offered a few of them &#8211; hardly &#8220;every alleged reason.&#8221;  </p>
<p>&#8220;And when caught, even in retreat you go in to damage control mode to maintain as much of the facade as you think possible.&#8221;</p>
<p>Your take on the metaconversation is fascinating, no doubt, but has nothing to do with the topic.  </p>
<p>&#8220;You are either completely deceived beyond help, or you are personally in on the deception campaign.&#8221;</p>
<p>Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5291170</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Oct 2013 04:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5291170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;That&#039;s the only way I can make Arafat &quot;secular&quot; for you.&quot;

 Did you think you needed to make Arafat secular for me?  What an interesting set of assumptions.  

&quot;Denial is a very powerful emotion.&quot;
 
In the sense you appear to intend, denial is a psychological defense mechanism, not an emotion.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;That&#8217;s the only way I can make Arafat &#8220;secular&#8221; for you.&#8221;</p>
<p> Did you think you needed to make Arafat secular for me?  What an interesting set of assumptions.  </p>
<p>&#8220;Denial is a very powerful emotion.&#8221;</p>
<p>In the sense you appear to intend, denial is a psychological defense mechanism, not an emotion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5291163</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Oct 2013 04:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5291163</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Why would anyone think any such thing?&quot;



That&#039;s the only way I can make Arafat &quot;secular&quot; for you.


Denial is a very powerful emotion.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Why would anyone think any such thing?&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s the only way I can make Arafat &#8220;secular&#8221; for you.</p>
<p>Denial is a very powerful emotion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5291155</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Oct 2013 04:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5291155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Trying to argue that the site is solely Jewish, and that the Muslim attachment to the site is illegitimate, is to assume as a given a matter still very much a matter of contention.&quot;



I merely implied that one could argue the mosque is not significant but in your example the mosque is not significant at all because he didn&#039;t visit it. He didn&#039;t defile the mosque that defiled the Temple Mount. But even if he did, your narrative would still be grossly deceptive.


Your narratives direct people to think that it&#039;s primarily in not exclusively a holy Islamic site, possibly also referred to as the Temple Mount, located somewhere over there, that was defiled by the dirty, evil, perfidious Jooh. You make careful notes of every alleged reason to attack America and or the West but act completely naive and totally deny all evidence that Islamic Jihadis are actively trying to deceive the West in an effort to destroy Israel as the primary road block to the regional and then the global caliphate. And when caught, even in retreat you go in to damage control mode to maintain as much of the facade as you think possible.


You are either completely deceived beyond help, or you are personally in on the deception campaign.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Trying to argue that the site is solely Jewish, and that the Muslim attachment to the site is illegitimate, is to assume as a given a matter still very much a matter of contention.&#8221;</p>
<p>I merely implied that one could argue the mosque is not significant but in your example the mosque is not significant at all because he didn&#8217;t visit it. He didn&#8217;t defile the mosque that defiled the Temple Mount. But even if he did, your narrative would still be grossly deceptive.</p>
<p>Your narratives direct people to think that it&#8217;s primarily in not exclusively a holy Islamic site, possibly also referred to as the Temple Mount, located somewhere over there, that was defiled by the dirty, evil, perfidious Jooh. You make careful notes of every alleged reason to attack America and or the West but act completely naive and totally deny all evidence that Islamic Jihadis are actively trying to deceive the West in an effort to destroy Israel as the primary road block to the regional and then the global caliphate. And when caught, even in retreat you go in to damage control mode to maintain as much of the facade as you think possible.</p>
<p>You are either completely deceived beyond help, or you are personally in on the deception campaign.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5291100</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Oct 2013 02:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5291100</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;You are a propagandist trying to pose as an objective analyst. It&#039;s not working.&quot;
 
One hopes that you research your other subjects a bit more thoroughly before offering public opinions.  
 
&quot;You seem to be totally unfamiliar or in denial regarding the vast evidence that he was the quintessential militant Islamic supremacist jihadi.&quot;
 
I am, I&#039;m afraid.  Completely and sadly unfamiliar with &quot;the vast evidence that he was the quintessential militant Islamic supremacist jihadi.&quot;  Perhaps you could point me to this vast trove of evidence?  I&#039;m always willing to learn, and so far, I&#039;m a slave to conventional academic and military scholarship and analysis when it comes to President Arafat. 
 

 
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You are a propagandist trying to pose as an objective analyst. It&#8217;s not working.&#8221;</p>
<p>One hopes that you research your other subjects a bit more thoroughly before offering public opinions.  </p>
<p>&#8220;You seem to be totally unfamiliar or in denial regarding the vast evidence that he was the quintessential militant Islamic supremacist jihadi.&#8221;</p>
<p>I am, I&#8217;m afraid.  Completely and sadly unfamiliar with &#8220;the vast evidence that he was the quintessential militant Islamic supremacist jihadi.&#8221;  Perhaps you could point me to this vast trove of evidence?  I&#8217;m always willing to learn, and so far, I&#8217;m a slave to conventional academic and military scholarship and analysis when it comes to President Arafat. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5291095</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Oct 2013 01:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5291095</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;His motives were 100% derived from Islamic imperialism and Islamic texts.&quot;
 
Eh?  Source?  Support?  Where&#039;d you get this?
 
You seem to be confusing &quot;Palestinian&quot; and &quot;Muslim.&quot;  The PLO comprised several member organizations - you might want to do some research on the leadership of the PFLP before posting this sort of silliness.

&quot;Free of infidels who dare to suppose they can subvert sharia.&quot;

Is that what Naif Hawatma and George Habash were fighting for?  
 
&quot;Even if one were serious about this possibility, you have no reason to present it with such confidence. You&#039;re peddling the deception as if it&#039;s the only possible narrative.&quot;
 
Arafat&#039;s not exactly an obscure figure, and it&#039;s not difficult to compare his stated goals to his actions.  If you believe you have some compelling reason to insist that Arafat was a closet religious fanatic, feel free to lay your reasons out.
 
&quot;They were NEVER PRO nationalist, they&#039;re anti-nationalist with a focus on destroying any non-Muslim sovereign on the &quot;Arab Peninsula.&quot;&quot;
 
Of course they were nationalists.  What may be confusing you is that in the timeframe the PLO was established, the dominant force in Arab politics was Gamal abd al Nasser, who was actively pushing the idea of Arab nationalism - that is, he eventual stated goal was a single Arab state.  This is not remotely linked to the religious idea of the Caliphate - Nasser was a secular leader, and the Ummah is intended to encompass all Muslims, not simply Arabs.  Nasser had even pulled off a short-lived unification of Syria and Egypt in pursuit of this goal (as the UAR), and had hoped to bring Iraq into the fold.  The PLO&#039;s founding charter is influenced by Nasser&#039;s ideas, but it is, nonetheless, nationalist in conception.  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;His motives were 100% derived from Islamic imperialism and Islamic texts.&#8221;</p>
<p>Eh?  Source?  Support?  Where&#8217;d you get this?</p>
<p>You seem to be confusing &#8220;Palestinian&#8221; and &#8220;Muslim.&#8221;  The PLO comprised several member organizations &#8211; you might want to do some research on the leadership of the PFLP before posting this sort of silliness.</p>
<p>&#8220;Free of infidels who dare to suppose they can subvert sharia.&#8221;</p>
<p>Is that what Naif Hawatma and George Habash were fighting for?  </p>
<p>&#8220;Even if one were serious about this possibility, you have no reason to present it with such confidence. You&#8217;re peddling the deception as if it&#8217;s the only possible narrative.&#8221;</p>
<p>Arafat&#8217;s not exactly an obscure figure, and it&#8217;s not difficult to compare his stated goals to his actions.  If you believe you have some compelling reason to insist that Arafat was a closet religious fanatic, feel free to lay your reasons out.</p>
<p>&#8220;They were NEVER PRO nationalist, they&#8217;re anti-nationalist with a focus on destroying any non-Muslim sovereign on the &#8220;Arab Peninsula.&#8221;&#8221;</p>
<p>Of course they were nationalists.  What may be confusing you is that in the timeframe the PLO was established, the dominant force in Arab politics was Gamal abd al Nasser, who was actively pushing the idea of Arab nationalism &#8211; that is, he eventual stated goal was a single Arab state.  This is not remotely linked to the religious idea of the Caliphate &#8211; Nasser was a secular leader, and the Ummah is intended to encompass all Muslims, not simply Arabs.  Nasser had even pulled off a short-lived unification of Syria and Egypt in pursuit of this goal (as the UAR), and had hoped to bring Iraq into the fold.  The PLO&#8217;s founding charter is influenced by Nasser&#8217;s ideas, but it is, nonetheless, nationalist in conception.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5291088</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Oct 2013 01:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5291088</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;The issue is that the message, the messenger, and the manner of the message&#039;s delivery were all deliberately provocative, and constituted a legitimate grievance for the Palestinians.&quot;



It was a response to specific and highly offensive series of political maneuvers by Arafat. If context is everything, your statements are nothing because you abuse the facts by selecting context to serve an agenda rather than to illuminate understanding of any kind of objective view.


You are a propagandist trying to pose as an objective analyst. It&#039;s not working.


And in the larger context of our conversation you tried to turn an example that perfectly illustrates my point in to something that would instead argue against my presentation about perfidious claims.


To continue the joke by acting like Arafat is clearly a secular nationalist as if there is no controversy...you make a joke out of any suggestion that you can discuss any of this objectively. I understand why some naive individuals might view Arafat as secular, because that was his pose for the West. You seem to be totally unfamiliar or in denial regarding the vast evidence that he was the quintessential militant Islamic supremacist jihadi.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The issue is that the message, the messenger, and the manner of the message&#8217;s delivery were all deliberately provocative, and constituted a legitimate grievance for the Palestinians.&#8221;</p>
<p>It was a response to specific and highly offensive series of political maneuvers by Arafat. If context is everything, your statements are nothing because you abuse the facts by selecting context to serve an agenda rather than to illuminate understanding of any kind of objective view.</p>
<p>You are a propagandist trying to pose as an objective analyst. It&#8217;s not working.</p>
<p>And in the larger context of our conversation you tried to turn an example that perfectly illustrates my point in to something that would instead argue against my presentation about perfidious claims.</p>
<p>To continue the joke by acting like Arafat is clearly a secular nationalist as if there is no controversy&#8230;you make a joke out of any suggestion that you can discuss any of this objectively. I understand why some naive individuals might view Arafat as secular, because that was his pose for the West. You seem to be totally unfamiliar or in denial regarding the vast evidence that he was the quintessential militant Islamic supremacist jihadi.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5291085</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Oct 2013 01:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5291085</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Think of secularism as a mode of Islamic totalitarianism.&quot;
 
Why would anyone think any such thing? ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Think of secularism as a mode of Islamic totalitarianism.&#8221;</p>
<p>Why would anyone think any such thing? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5291084</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Oct 2013 01:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5291084</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Arafat was a nationalist, not a religious fanatic, and the PLO probably got more inspiration and doctrine from Marx than Allah. I have no doubt that you can find the occasional religious language, but not in its underlying doctrine and nothing to indicate a root religious motivation.&quot;



Even if one were serious about this possibility, you have no reason to present it with such confidence. You&#039;re peddling the deception as if it&#039;s the only possible narrative.


He took the public posture of a &quot;nationalist liberator&quot; because that&#039;s what the communists taught him would work in manipulating naive Westerners. 


Anyone that analyzes what he actually did rather than only what he said to Western reporters and institutions would realize how absurd your position is. His tactics were derived from Soviet advice and propaganda. His motives were 100% derived from Islamic imperialism and Islamic texts. He wasn&#039;t even native to the locale they supposedly intend to build a state on. They were NEVER PRO nationalist, they&#039;re anti-nationalist with a focus on destroying any non-Muslim sovereign on the &quot;Arab Peninsula.&quot;


&quot;From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.&quot;

Free of infidels who dare to suppose they can subvert sharia. Failure to submit is considered a subversion of Islam. That&#039;s what motivated him in his life mission, which was not about building anything. It was about destruction of those who failed to submit.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Arafat was a nationalist, not a religious fanatic, and the PLO probably got more inspiration and doctrine from Marx than Allah. I have no doubt that you can find the occasional religious language, but not in its underlying doctrine and nothing to indicate a root religious motivation.&#8221;</p>
<p>Even if one were serious about this possibility, you have no reason to present it with such confidence. You&#8217;re peddling the deception as if it&#8217;s the only possible narrative.</p>
<p>He took the public posture of a &#8220;nationalist liberator&#8221; because that&#8217;s what the communists taught him would work in manipulating naive Westerners. </p>
<p>Anyone that analyzes what he actually did rather than only what he said to Western reporters and institutions would realize how absurd your position is. His tactics were derived from Soviet advice and propaganda. His motives were 100% derived from Islamic imperialism and Islamic texts. He wasn&#8217;t even native to the locale they supposedly intend to build a state on. They were NEVER PRO nationalist, they&#8217;re anti-nationalist with a focus on destroying any non-Muslim sovereign on the &#8220;Arab Peninsula.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.&#8221;</p>
<p>Free of infidels who dare to suppose they can subvert sharia. Failure to submit is considered a subversion of Islam. That&#8217;s what motivated him in his life mission, which was not about building anything. It was about destruction of those who failed to submit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5291081</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Oct 2013 01:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5291081</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;You can&#039;t mean that sentence and also insist that a &quot;quintessential modern Jihadi&quot; has his root motivation in the Qur&#039;an.&quot;



He&#039;s as secular as one can get while also being a pious  totalitarian Muslim. Think of secularism as a mode of Islamic totalitarianism. That&#039;s the secularism of Arafat. Which means it&#039;s deceptive to describe him as secular to a naive audience. You seem to swallow the BS or for some reason have no problem peddling it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You can&#8217;t mean that sentence and also insist that a &#8220;quintessential modern Jihadi&#8221; has his root motivation in the Qur&#8217;an.&#8221;</p>
<p>He&#8217;s as secular as one can get while also being a pious  totalitarian Muslim. Think of secularism as a mode of Islamic totalitarianism. That&#8217;s the secularism of Arafat. Which means it&#8217;s deceptive to describe him as secular to a naive audience. You seem to swallow the BS or for some reason have no problem peddling it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5290873</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 18:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5290873</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;But you wrote that only after I corrected you and slammed you for your deranged characterizations.&quot;
 
Your obsession with posturing is damaging your reading and writing.  The site&#039;s status as a Jewish holy site was irrelevant to the original context; when you complained about its omission, I was more than happy to confirm that, yes, the site is Judaism&#039;s most holy site.  I wouldn&#039;t characterize that as a &#039;correction,&#039; particularly given that our positions don&#039;t appear to coincide.  You still seem to be saying that its status within Islam is unimportant or chimerical, whereas I&#039;d stick with what I wrote above: to wit, that the site is holy to both.  In the context of Sharon&#039;s visit as a provocation, it&#039;s the site&#039;s status within Islam that is operational, and there&#039;s no inconsistency with either of my posts.  
 

&quot;Holy cow, you are a sore loser.&quot;
 
So you keep telling me.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;But you wrote that only after I corrected you and slammed you for your deranged characterizations.&#8221;</p>
<p>Your obsession with posturing is damaging your reading and writing.  The site&#8217;s status as a Jewish holy site was irrelevant to the original context; when you complained about its omission, I was more than happy to confirm that, yes, the site is Judaism&#8217;s most holy site.  I wouldn&#8217;t characterize that as a &#8216;correction,&#8217; particularly given that our positions don&#8217;t appear to coincide.  You still seem to be saying that its status within Islam is unimportant or chimerical, whereas I&#8217;d stick with what I wrote above: to wit, that the site is holy to both.  In the context of Sharon&#8217;s visit as a provocation, it&#8217;s the site&#8217;s status within Islam that is operational, and there&#8217;s no inconsistency with either of my posts.  </p>
<p>&#8220;Holy cow, you are a sore loser.&#8221;</p>
<p>So you keep telling me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5290867</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 18:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5290867</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;We&#039;re supposed to imagine that Sharon was put in deep freeze for almost 2 decades after getting caught murdering people and then when he returns the first thing he does is storm the &quot;Islamic holy site,&quot; the THIRD MOST HOLY!!! FOR NO REASON!&quot;

Who suggested that it was for no reason?  (Pardon - &quot;FOR NO REASON!&quot;) I thought I&#039;d articulated Sharon&#039;s reasons, and they were very savvy indeed.  
 
&quot;We are supposed to think of Sharon as the &quot;spitter.&quot; Sharon started it.&quot;

Sharon started what?  I offered the visit as an example of a grievance, not the underlying cause of all problems Israeli-Palestinian.  Your penchant for hysteria and hyperbole is interfering with your understanding.  

&quot;The fact is that Sharon went to visit THE MOST HOLY SITE in the Jewish world, located where he resides as a citizen, to demonstrate that he did not agree with the previous policies of appeasement...&quot;
 
According to a Likud Party spokesman at the time, he went in order to deliver the message that Israel would not negotiate on a matter of intense disagreement - that it intended to use its power position to dictate the outcome of the dispute.  If you&#039;re arguing that Sharon had the legal right to do so, that&#039;s not in dispute.  The issue is that the message, the messenger, and the manner of the message&#039;s delivery were all deliberately provocative, and constituted a legitimate grievance for the Palestinians.  
 
&quot;The spirit of Neville Chamberlain lives on.&quot;
 
Well, certainly, the example of Chamberlain is routinely invoked by those who are advocating a confrontational position with their bugbear-du-jour.  
 
Though even the example of Munich is probably not as clear-cut as many who casually invoke it assume.  Britain was in the late stages of a re-armament program in 1938 that would have placed her at a significant immediate disadvantage against the Germans in the event of an immediate war.  British rearmament was inspired by the German rearmament program, and lagged behind it.  One notable example was the Spitfire, the fighter that would re-establish British parity in the air - and the first production model of which did not roll off the lines until the middle of 1938.  

In short, the shallow interpretation of Chamberlain was that he was a naif hoping to &#039;appease&#039; Hitler; another is that he was playing for time, realizing that Britain was 1-2 years out from the culmination of its air and naval modernization programs.  Not that the analogy has any direct bearing on our conversation, but it&#039;s interesting that someone who insists that he understands the complexities of international relations would resort to such a banality.
 
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;We&#8217;re supposed to imagine that Sharon was put in deep freeze for almost 2 decades after getting caught murdering people and then when he returns the first thing he does is storm the &#8220;Islamic holy site,&#8221; the THIRD MOST HOLY!!! FOR NO REASON!&#8221;</p>
<p>Who suggested that it was for no reason?  (Pardon &#8211; &#8220;FOR NO REASON!&#8221;) I thought I&#8217;d articulated Sharon&#8217;s reasons, and they were very savvy indeed.  </p>
<p>&#8220;We are supposed to think of Sharon as the &#8220;spitter.&#8221; Sharon started it.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sharon started what?  I offered the visit as an example of a grievance, not the underlying cause of all problems Israeli-Palestinian.  Your penchant for hysteria and hyperbole is interfering with your understanding.  </p>
<p>&#8220;The fact is that Sharon went to visit THE MOST HOLY SITE in the Jewish world, located where he resides as a citizen, to demonstrate that he did not agree with the previous policies of appeasement&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>According to a Likud Party spokesman at the time, he went in order to deliver the message that Israel would not negotiate on a matter of intense disagreement &#8211; that it intended to use its power position to dictate the outcome of the dispute.  If you&#8217;re arguing that Sharon had the legal right to do so, that&#8217;s not in dispute.  The issue is that the message, the messenger, and the manner of the message&#8217;s delivery were all deliberately provocative, and constituted a legitimate grievance for the Palestinians.  </p>
<p>&#8220;The spirit of Neville Chamberlain lives on.&#8221;</p>
<p>Well, certainly, the example of Chamberlain is routinely invoked by those who are advocating a confrontational position with their bugbear-du-jour.  </p>
<p>Though even the example of Munich is probably not as clear-cut as many who casually invoke it assume.  Britain was in the late stages of a re-armament program in 1938 that would have placed her at a significant immediate disadvantage against the Germans in the event of an immediate war.  British rearmament was inspired by the German rearmament program, and lagged behind it.  One notable example was the Spitfire, the fighter that would re-establish British parity in the air &#8211; and the first production model of which did not roll off the lines until the middle of 1938.  </p>
<p>In short, the shallow interpretation of Chamberlain was that he was a naif hoping to &#8216;appease&#8217; Hitler; another is that he was playing for time, realizing that Britain was 1-2 years out from the culmination of its air and naval modernization programs.  Not that the analogy has any direct bearing on our conversation, but it&#8217;s interesting that someone who insists that he understands the complexities of international relations would resort to such a banality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5290853</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 18:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5290853</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;And why further try to demonize him for somehow violating Muslim sensibilities when he went to the JEWISH holy site that happened to have a victory mosque on a subsection of it that was not even on the itinerary?&quot;

Trying to argue that the site is solely Jewish, and that the Muslim attachment to the site is illegitimate, is to assume as a given a matter still very much a matter of contention.  One need not endorse the Muslim position to recognize that taking a public action intended to demonstrate that Israel will not negotiate the matter in good faith, but will use force to secure its position, is likely to spark protest.  

&quot;You are a liar even if somehow you are used to getting away with it. A half truth is a lie when it draws or is intended to draw the audience away from the truth.&quot;
 
You resort increasingly to ad hominem.  It&#039;s unseemly.  
 
&quot;You are so full of BS. Can you really not be aware of how weak your arguments are after the full relevant context is revealed?&quot;
 
&quot;Revealed&quot; is a telling and appropriate verb; despite your nom d&#039;foehn of &quot;objectivefactsmatter,&quot; your posts seem more to function on the level of revealed truth, and your display of churlishness when the message is not accepted as packaged Truth is somewhat reminiscent of Luther&#039;s anger at the Jews when they did not respond to the Reformation by embracing Christ as their Lord and Savior.  You&#039;ve offered your opinion that Sharon was within his rights, and that the Temple Mount is Jewish; that provides a good understanding of your point of view, but it&#039;s not the &quot;full relevant context&quot; of the events surrounding his visit to the site.  
 
&quot;Some controversial findings from decades prior, crucial to our understanding.&quot;
 
Actually, prior events &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; crucial to our understanding of who Sharon was and how his actions were perceived.  Jane Fonda visited Hanoi in the &#039;60s, yet even today, if she were to engineer a prominent visit to Arlington National Cemetery, it would spark a firestorm of protest from veterans and their supporters - her earlier actions have defined her strongly in the context of that situation.
 
&quot;...and now you&#039;re desperately trying to un-lose the argument.&quot;
 
You decided I lost, eh?  How demoralizing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;And why further try to demonize him for somehow violating Muslim sensibilities when he went to the JEWISH holy site that happened to have a victory mosque on a subsection of it that was not even on the itinerary?&#8221;</p>
<p>Trying to argue that the site is solely Jewish, and that the Muslim attachment to the site is illegitimate, is to assume as a given a matter still very much a matter of contention.  One need not endorse the Muslim position to recognize that taking a public action intended to demonstrate that Israel will not negotiate the matter in good faith, but will use force to secure its position, is likely to spark protest.  </p>
<p>&#8220;You are a liar even if somehow you are used to getting away with it. A half truth is a lie when it draws or is intended to draw the audience away from the truth.&#8221;</p>
<p>You resort increasingly to ad hominem.  It&#8217;s unseemly.  </p>
<p>&#8220;You are so full of BS. Can you really not be aware of how weak your arguments are after the full relevant context is revealed?&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;Revealed&#8221; is a telling and appropriate verb; despite your nom d&#8217;foehn of &#8220;objectivefactsmatter,&#8221; your posts seem more to function on the level of revealed truth, and your display of churlishness when the message is not accepted as packaged Truth is somewhat reminiscent of Luther&#8217;s anger at the Jews when they did not respond to the Reformation by embracing Christ as their Lord and Savior.  You&#8217;ve offered your opinion that Sharon was within his rights, and that the Temple Mount is Jewish; that provides a good understanding of your point of view, but it&#8217;s not the &#8220;full relevant context&#8221; of the events surrounding his visit to the site.  </p>
<p>&#8220;Some controversial findings from decades prior, crucial to our understanding.&#8221;</p>
<p>Actually, prior events <i>are</i> crucial to our understanding of who Sharon was and how his actions were perceived.  Jane Fonda visited Hanoi in the &#8217;60s, yet even today, if she were to engineer a prominent visit to Arlington National Cemetery, it would spark a firestorm of protest from veterans and their supporters &#8211; her earlier actions have defined her strongly in the context of that situation.</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;and now you&#8217;re desperately trying to un-lose the argument.&#8221;</p>
<p>You decided I lost, eh?  How demoralizing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5290827</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 17:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5290827</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Any honest and intelligent person would understand and respond to the obvious challenges regarding standards and expectations.&quot;

You resort to this construction with depressing regularity.  It&#039;s lazy and logically empty.  If I were to respond on your level, I suppose the obvious rejoinder would be &quot;how would you know what &#039;any honest and intelligent person&#039; would do?&quot;  Just make your arguments and save the preening for the peacocks.
 
&quot;Arafat secular? We&#039;re not talking about personal faith...&quot;
 
That&#039;s right, we&#039;re talking about the PLO, a secular terrorist organization.  Arafat was a nationalist, not a religious fanatic, and the PLO probably got more inspiration and doctrine from Marx than Allah.  I have no doubt that you can find the occasional religious language, but not in its underlying doctrine and nothing to indicate a root religious motivation.  By way of comparison, we often referred to WWII as a &quot;crusade&quot; without implying thereby that we were trying to extend Christianity by arms.  In fact, most young Palestinians who pursue a more religious course are attracted to Hamas, not Fatah.  
 
&quot;Arafat secular? Fine but he was also the quintessential modern Jihadi.&quot;
 
You can&#039;t mean that sentence and also insist that a &quot;quintessential modern Jihadi&quot; has his root motivation in the Qur&#039;an.
 
&quot;I hope you don&#039;t have a teaching role anywhere. A student taking such positions is sad but not shocking. A teacher presenting such a naive, one dimensional view derived from uncritical acceptance of the ridiculous propaganda served up to naive Westerners, well that&#039;s tragic.&quot;
 
Who are you - what is your profession, what is your background - that your opinion on the matter is of any consequence? 

&quot; And he&#039;s a liar that worked for the PLO trying to convince naive Westerners that they were merely a secular nationalist movement.&quot;
 
And here we are today, with Fatah more or less in charge of the West Bank, behaving very much like a secular nationalist movement.  How about that?
 
&quot;You can tell by all the effort that went in to preparations for running the &quot;Palestinian&quot; state.&quot;
 
Your argument is unclear.  Is this an accurate outline of what you are trying to say?:
1.  A secular liberation movement would have prepared for running the Palestinian state; a religious organization would not.
2. PLO did not prepare to run the Palestinian state.
3. Therefore, the PLO was a religious organization.
 
Is that a fair summary of your argument?  If not, could you make it explicit yourself?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Any honest and intelligent person would understand and respond to the obvious challenges regarding standards and expectations.&#8221;</p>
<p>You resort to this construction with depressing regularity.  It&#8217;s lazy and logically empty.  If I were to respond on your level, I suppose the obvious rejoinder would be &#8220;how would you know what &#8216;any honest and intelligent person&#8217; would do?&#8221;  Just make your arguments and save the preening for the peacocks.</p>
<p>&#8220;Arafat secular? We&#8217;re not talking about personal faith&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s right, we&#8217;re talking about the PLO, a secular terrorist organization.  Arafat was a nationalist, not a religious fanatic, and the PLO probably got more inspiration and doctrine from Marx than Allah.  I have no doubt that you can find the occasional religious language, but not in its underlying doctrine and nothing to indicate a root religious motivation.  By way of comparison, we often referred to WWII as a &#8220;crusade&#8221; without implying thereby that we were trying to extend Christianity by arms.  In fact, most young Palestinians who pursue a more religious course are attracted to Hamas, not Fatah.  </p>
<p>&#8220;Arafat secular? Fine but he was also the quintessential modern Jihadi.&#8221;</p>
<p>You can&#8217;t mean that sentence and also insist that a &#8220;quintessential modern Jihadi&#8221; has his root motivation in the Qur&#8217;an.</p>
<p>&#8220;I hope you don&#8217;t have a teaching role anywhere. A student taking such positions is sad but not shocking. A teacher presenting such a naive, one dimensional view derived from uncritical acceptance of the ridiculous propaganda served up to naive Westerners, well that&#8217;s tragic.&#8221;</p>
<p>Who are you &#8211; what is your profession, what is your background &#8211; that your opinion on the matter is of any consequence? </p>
<p>&#8221; And he&#8217;s a liar that worked for the PLO trying to convince naive Westerners that they were merely a secular nationalist movement.&#8221;</p>
<p>And here we are today, with Fatah more or less in charge of the West Bank, behaving very much like a secular nationalist movement.  How about that?</p>
<p>&#8220;You can tell by all the effort that went in to preparations for running the &#8220;Palestinian&#8221; state.&#8221;</p>
<p>Your argument is unclear.  Is this an accurate outline of what you are trying to say?:<br />
1.  A secular liberation movement would have prepared for running the Palestinian state; a religious organization would not.<br />
2. PLO did not prepare to run the Palestinian state.<br />
3. Therefore, the PLO was a religious organization.</p>
<p>Is that a fair summary of your argument?  If not, could you make it explicit yourself?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5290646</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5290646</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;You still seem unable to grasp that a disproportionate response to a grievance does not invalidate the grievance. If you spit in my face and I shoot you, my disproportionate and unreasonable response does not somehow render spitting in my face a reasonable action. It was still wrong, and still a grievance; my improper response is a separate action, to be judged on its own merits. Both actions would be deserving of censure.&quot;

1) I didn&#039;t deny that it was &quot;a grievance.&quot;  I claimed that it was presented in bad faith and was illegitimate.

2) Your presentation was extremely biased in order to portray this grievance such that someone might find reasonable or acceptable. Just a coincidence we&#039;re supposed to think.

We&#039;re supposed to imagine that Sharon was put in deep freeze for almost 2 decades after getting caught murdering people and then when he returns the first thing he does is storm the &quot;Islamic holy site,&quot; the THIRD MOST HOLY!!! FOR NO REASON! Just to &quot;spit in their faces.&quot; Just to provoke violence! You more or less said as much.

Then in your example you use the analogy, &quot;If you spit in my face and I shoot you...&quot; but again you try to place Sharon at the beginning of the &quot;conflict.&quot; We are supposed to think of Sharon as the &quot;spitter.&quot; Sharon started it.



The fact is that Sharon went to visit THE MOST HOLY SITE in the Jewish world, located where he resides as a citizen, to demonstrate that he did not agree with the previous policies of appeasement nor did he agree with Ehud Barak&#039;s over-the-top offer to Arafat to divide Jerusalem or to bend over backwards even further vis-a-vis Temple Mount access or sovereignty.


So who started this? Sharon is placed in your narrative as the provocateur when in reality all he was doing was peacefully demonstrate that in his view, abject appeasement is not the route to peace. It&#039;s the route to submission if you live in the middle east.


But &quot;extremist&quot; Jews are not allowed to show their faces. At some point the same limits are applied to all infidels as Islamic sovereignty grows.


The spirit of Neville Chamberlain lives on.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;You still seem unable to grasp that a disproportionate response to a grievance does not invalidate the grievance. If you spit in my face and I shoot you, my disproportionate and unreasonable response does not somehow render spitting in my face a reasonable action. It was still wrong, and still a grievance; my improper response is a separate action, to be judged on its own merits. Both actions would be deserving of censure.&#8221;</p>
<p>1) I didn&#8217;t deny that it was &#8220;a grievance.&#8221;  I claimed that it was presented in bad faith and was illegitimate.</p>
<p>2) Your presentation was extremely biased in order to portray this grievance such that someone might find reasonable or acceptable. Just a coincidence we&#8217;re supposed to think.</p>
<p>We&#8217;re supposed to imagine that Sharon was put in deep freeze for almost 2 decades after getting caught murdering people and then when he returns the first thing he does is storm the &#8220;Islamic holy site,&#8221; the THIRD MOST HOLY!!! FOR NO REASON! Just to &#8220;spit in their faces.&#8221; Just to provoke violence! You more or less said as much.</p>
<p>Then in your example you use the analogy, &#8220;If you spit in my face and I shoot you&#8230;&#8221; but again you try to place Sharon at the beginning of the &#8220;conflict.&#8221; We are supposed to think of Sharon as the &#8220;spitter.&#8221; Sharon started it.</p>
<p>The fact is that Sharon went to visit THE MOST HOLY SITE in the Jewish world, located where he resides as a citizen, to demonstrate that he did not agree with the previous policies of appeasement nor did he agree with Ehud Barak&#8217;s over-the-top offer to Arafat to divide Jerusalem or to bend over backwards even further vis-a-vis Temple Mount access or sovereignty.</p>
<p>So who started this? Sharon is placed in your narrative as the provocateur when in reality all he was doing was peacefully demonstrate that in his view, abject appeasement is not the route to peace. It&#8217;s the route to submission if you live in the middle east.</p>
<p>But &#8220;extremist&#8221; Jews are not allowed to show their faces. At some point the same limits are applied to all infidels as Islamic sovereignty grows.</p>
<p>The spirit of Neville Chamberlain lives on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5290639</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5290639</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;In my post immediately preceding this claim:&quot;


But you wrote that only after I corrected you and slammed you for your deranged characterizations. You originally wrote:



&quot;Sure. Sharon was an extremist politician, associated with hardline stances against the Palestinians and whom the Israeli government&#039;s own Kahan Commission found bore personal responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacres. Sharon&#039;s visit wasn&#039;t just an ordinary citizen visiting an ordinary site; it was one of the most polarizing figures in the Arab-Israeli conflict visiting one of Islam&#039;s holiest sites. That itself is provocative, but there was further political subtext. Sharon visited with a massive security element, and Likud&#039;s own spokesman acknowledged that the underlying purpose of the visit was to make a statement that the Temple Mount was going to remain under permanent Israeli control, a position contrary to the site&#039;s legal status and certainly in fundamental opposition to the Palestinian political position.&quot;



OK..so if I give you the benefit of the doubt, you&#039;re a true believer dupe that &quot;uses the force&quot; to come up with your narrow anti-Western declarations BUT you really mean well and consider yourself to be objective. You FEEL objective. Great.


I mean I didn&#039;t even get to half of the issues. You cited the perfidious claims as if they were uncontroversial and you used it as an example of a &quot;legitimate grievance.&quot;


Holy cow, you are a sore loser.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;In my post immediately preceding this claim:&#8221;</p>
<p>But you wrote that only after I corrected you and slammed you for your deranged characterizations. You originally wrote:</p>
<p>&#8220;Sure. Sharon was an extremist politician, associated with hardline stances against the Palestinians and whom the Israeli government&#8217;s own Kahan Commission found bore personal responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacres. Sharon&#8217;s visit wasn&#8217;t just an ordinary citizen visiting an ordinary site; it was one of the most polarizing figures in the Arab-Israeli conflict visiting one of Islam&#8217;s holiest sites. That itself is provocative, but there was further political subtext. Sharon visited with a massive security element, and Likud&#8217;s own spokesman acknowledged that the underlying purpose of the visit was to make a statement that the Temple Mount was going to remain under permanent Israeli control, a position contrary to the site&#8217;s legal status and certainly in fundamental opposition to the Palestinian political position.&#8221;</p>
<p>OK..so if I give you the benefit of the doubt, you&#8217;re a true believer dupe that &#8220;uses the force&#8221; to come up with your narrow anti-Western declarations BUT you really mean well and consider yourself to be objective. You FEEL objective. Great.</p>
<p>I mean I didn&#8217;t even get to half of the issues. You cited the perfidious claims as if they were uncontroversial and you used it as an example of a &#8220;legitimate grievance.&#8221;</p>
<p>Holy cow, you are a sore loser.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5290635</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5290635</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Commission did find that Sharon bore personal responsiblity for failing to perform his duties properly&quot;



Let&#039;s examine the text. Not that it matters much. He was corrected by a official government institution. Why isn&#039;t that enough? Was justice not served those decades prior?


And why further try to demonize him for somehow violating Muslim sensibilities when he went to the JEWISH holy site that happened to have a victory mosque on  a subsection of it that was not even on the itinerary? And you characterize this purely as an offense to Islam as if he was not in Israel but invading the &quot;third Kaba?&quot; Context means a lot. You lie with context. You are a liar even if somehow you are used to getting away with it. A half truth is a lie when it draws or is intended to draw the audience away from the truth.


Sharon&#039;s an offensive person. He had no reason to be there. He did it to provoke the poor oppressed secular jihadis. There was no legitimate reason for Sharon to be there and this was a legitimate grievance Muslims acted upon.


You are so full of BS. Can you really not be aware of how weak your arguments are after the full relevant context is revealed?


Some controversial findings from decades prior, crucial to our understanding. Arafat who? Camp David Clinton parameters rejected? What could that have to do with it? 


You&#039;ve cited an ideal example to prove my point about contrived grievances and perfidy and now you&#039;re desperately trying to un-lose the argument.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Commission did find that Sharon bore personal responsiblity for failing to perform his duties properly&#8221;</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s examine the text. Not that it matters much. He was corrected by a official government institution. Why isn&#8217;t that enough? Was justice not served those decades prior?</p>
<p>And why further try to demonize him for somehow violating Muslim sensibilities when he went to the JEWISH holy site that happened to have a victory mosque on  a subsection of it that was not even on the itinerary? And you characterize this purely as an offense to Islam as if he was not in Israel but invading the &#8220;third Kaba?&#8221; Context means a lot. You lie with context. You are a liar even if somehow you are used to getting away with it. A half truth is a lie when it draws or is intended to draw the audience away from the truth.</p>
<p>Sharon&#8217;s an offensive person. He had no reason to be there. He did it to provoke the poor oppressed secular jihadis. There was no legitimate reason for Sharon to be there and this was a legitimate grievance Muslims acted upon.</p>
<p>You are so full of BS. Can you really not be aware of how weak your arguments are after the full relevant context is revealed?</p>
<p>Some controversial findings from decades prior, crucial to our understanding. Arafat who? Camp David Clinton parameters rejected? What could that have to do with it? </p>
<p>You&#8217;ve cited an ideal example to prove my point about contrived grievances and perfidy and now you&#8217;re desperately trying to un-lose the argument.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: objectivefactsmatter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5290621</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[objectivefactsmatter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5290621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;At this point, I can&#039;t even begin to guess what you&#039;re raving about. Arafat&#039;s dead. I couldn&#039;t stop him from going anywhere even if he were still alive. Nor is it clear how anything in the conversation to this point would have called for anyone to evaluate or discuss Arafat&#039;s actions. &quot;



You are quite the propagandist. Any honest and intelligent person would understand and respond to the obvious challenges regarding standards and expectations.



Arafat secular? We&#039;re not talking about personal faith or what posture anyone takes before Western media and dupes like you. He unquestionably used Islamic texts and doctrines for his guiding ethos, citing Islamic texts a great many times, occasionally even letting it slip out talking to Western media.


Arafat secular? Fine but he was also the quintessential modern Jihadi. We&#039;re not talking about personal faith, which I guess might be interesting at some point, but the man used Islamic texts and doctrines to guide his life mission and to martial resources.


And he probably did believe in Allah. But not according to his English language business cards. Well that&#039;s a relief.




I hope you don&#039;t have a teaching role anywhere. A student taking such positions is sad but not shocking. A teacher presenting such a naive, one dimensional view derived from uncritical acceptance of the ridiculous propaganda served up to naive Westerners, well that&#039;s tragic. It&#039;s like having another Rashid Khalidi walking around. And he&#039;s a liar that worked for the PLO trying to convince naive Westerners that they were merely a secular nationalist movement.


Sure. You can tell by all the effort that went in to preparations for running the &quot;Palestinian&quot; state. You know, all those secular governmental institutions that states need. Like militias and front organizations for bilking stupid Western governments.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;At this point, I can&#8217;t even begin to guess what you&#8217;re raving about. Arafat&#8217;s dead. I couldn&#8217;t stop him from going anywhere even if he were still alive. Nor is it clear how anything in the conversation to this point would have called for anyone to evaluate or discuss Arafat&#8217;s actions. &#8221;</p>
<p>You are quite the propagandist. Any honest and intelligent person would understand and respond to the obvious challenges regarding standards and expectations.</p>
<p>Arafat secular? We&#8217;re not talking about personal faith or what posture anyone takes before Western media and dupes like you. He unquestionably used Islamic texts and doctrines for his guiding ethos, citing Islamic texts a great many times, occasionally even letting it slip out talking to Western media.</p>
<p>Arafat secular? Fine but he was also the quintessential modern Jihadi. We&#8217;re not talking about personal faith, which I guess might be interesting at some point, but the man used Islamic texts and doctrines to guide his life mission and to martial resources.</p>
<p>And he probably did believe in Allah. But not according to his English language business cards. Well that&#8217;s a relief.</p>
<p>I hope you don&#8217;t have a teaching role anywhere. A student taking such positions is sad but not shocking. A teacher presenting such a naive, one dimensional view derived from uncritical acceptance of the ridiculous propaganda served up to naive Westerners, well that&#8217;s tragic. It&#8217;s like having another Rashid Khalidi walking around. And he&#8217;s a liar that worked for the PLO trying to convince naive Westerners that they were merely a secular nationalist movement.</p>
<p>Sure. You can tell by all the effort that went in to preparations for running the &#8220;Palestinian&#8221; state. You know, all those secular governmental institutions that states need. Like militias and front organizations for bilking stupid Western governments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5290618</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5290618</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Listen you unhinged lunatic...&quot;
 
You seem to be responding emotionally, not &quot;objectively.&quot;  Perhaps a bit of a break is in order?


&quot;Which even if we should care about that, is a small part of the Temple Mount that he did visit. Which is the most holy Jewish site, a fact you failed to mention.&quot;
 
In my post immediately preceding this claim:
 
&lt;blockquote&gt; The Dome of the Rock is the third most holy site in Islam.  &lt;strong&gt;It&#039;s also the most holy site in Judaism.&lt;/strong&gt;  Both of those statements are true. &lt;/blockquote&gt; (emphasis added)
 
&quot;Then why do you try to present deceptive narratives that serve that end?&quot;
 
I don&#039;t.  You still seem unable to grasp that a disproportionate response to a grievance does not invalidate the grievance.  If you spit in my face and I shoot you, my disproportionate and unreasonable response does not somehow render spitting in my face a reasonable action.  It was still wrong, and still a grievance; my improper response is a separate action, to be judged on its own merits.  Both actions would be deserving of censure.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Listen you unhinged lunatic&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>You seem to be responding emotionally, not &#8220;objectively.&#8221;  Perhaps a bit of a break is in order?</p>
<p>&#8220;Which even if we should care about that, is a small part of the Temple Mount that he did visit. Which is the most holy Jewish site, a fact you failed to mention.&#8221;</p>
<p>In my post immediately preceding this claim:</p>
<blockquote><p> The Dome of the Rock is the third most holy site in Islam.  <strong>It&#8217;s also the most holy site in Judaism.</strong>  Both of those statements are true. </p></blockquote>
<p> (emphasis added)</p>
<p>&#8220;Then why do you try to present deceptive narratives that serve that end?&#8221;</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t.  You still seem unable to grasp that a disproportionate response to a grievance does not invalidate the grievance.  If you spit in my face and I shoot you, my disproportionate and unreasonable response does not somehow render spitting in my face a reasonable action.  It was still wrong, and still a grievance; my improper response is a separate action, to be judged on its own merits.  Both actions would be deserving of censure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hiernonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/john-kerrys-jobs-for-potential-jihadists-program/comment-page-1/#comment-5290613</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[hiernonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Oct 2013 08:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=206211#comment-5290613</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;Not necessarily, but appeasement and antisemitism are often behind the need to blow it out of proportion and present it totally out of context as you do.&quot;
 
&quot;...are often behind...&quot; are weasel words.  If you want to make an accusation, make it and support it.  Given that  the Kahan Commission &lt;i&gt;did&lt;/i&gt; find that Sharon bore personal responsiblity for failing to perform his duties properly in regard to Sabra and Shatila, and that his association with those massacres was very much part of the incendiary nature of his visit, it&#039;s hard to understand how you could argue that I&#039;ve either blown the event &#039;out of proportion&#039; or taken it &quot;out of context.&quot;  Nothing that Sharon was a polarizing figure who took a provocative action is not antisemitic.  Did you have a rational reason for intimating as much, or was that simply another ad hominem?  






&quot;Oh my. An Israeli commission found him indirectly accountable in some way. Obviously the man is satanic. Why was he allowed to go free? Why not crucify him at the local mosque?&quot;

 

The commission recommended that he be dismissed as Defense Minister, and following protests by Israelis, he resigned.   I&#039;m not sure that qualifies as &quot;Satanic,&quot; but that was your (rather shrill) characterization, not mine.  

 

&quot;You do agree that he&#039;s evil, don&#039;t you? That&#039;s how you characterize him.&quot;

 

That&#039;s a very different question from &quot;what else would you expect from an evil Jooh?&quot;   The latter was simply a petulant and irrational comment.

 

I think Sharon has done some evil things.  He&#039;s also done things that I wouldn&#039;t characterize as &#039;evil,&#039; but were self-aggrandizing to the point of violating his duties.  An early such example occurred in the Yom Kippur War, when Sharon was ordered to seize a bridgehead across the Suez Canal and hold it in order for a fresh follow-on unit to pass through and exploit the breakthrough.  Sharon violated his orders because he knew that being the commander to penetrate past the Suez would be a politically valuable asset in postwar Israel, and he already had strong political ambitions.  As a retired military officer myself, I&#039;m not sympathetic to officers who jeopardize the mission for their own gain.

 

I believe Sharon showed similar disregard for the good of his country while engineering his election as PM.  I think the man&#039;s brilliant, and showed real political savvy in manipulating both Arafat and his own media, but the path he took cost lives and ultimately resulted in the strenthening of Hamas&#039;s position in the PA (and Hamas, unlike Fatah, &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; a religiously-oriented organization).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Not necessarily, but appeasement and antisemitism are often behind the need to blow it out of proportion and present it totally out of context as you do.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;are often behind&#8230;&#8221; are weasel words.  If you want to make an accusation, make it and support it.  Given that  the Kahan Commission <i>did</i> find that Sharon bore personal responsiblity for failing to perform his duties properly in regard to Sabra and Shatila, and that his association with those massacres was very much part of the incendiary nature of his visit, it&#8217;s hard to understand how you could argue that I&#8217;ve either blown the event &#8216;out of proportion&#8217; or taken it &#8220;out of context.&#8221;  Nothing that Sharon was a polarizing figure who took a provocative action is not antisemitic.  Did you have a rational reason for intimating as much, or was that simply another ad hominem?  </p>
<p>&#8220;Oh my. An Israeli commission found him indirectly accountable in some way. Obviously the man is satanic. Why was he allowed to go free? Why not crucify him at the local mosque?&#8221;</p>
<p>The commission recommended that he be dismissed as Defense Minister, and following protests by Israelis, he resigned.   I&#8217;m not sure that qualifies as &#8220;Satanic,&#8221; but that was your (rather shrill) characterization, not mine.  </p>
<p>&#8220;You do agree that he&#8217;s evil, don&#8217;t you? That&#8217;s how you characterize him.&#8221;</p>
<p>That&#8217;s a very different question from &#8220;what else would you expect from an evil Jooh?&#8221;   The latter was simply a petulant and irrational comment.</p>
<p>I think Sharon has done some evil things.  He&#8217;s also done things that I wouldn&#8217;t characterize as &#8216;evil,&#8217; but were self-aggrandizing to the point of violating his duties.  An early such example occurred in the Yom Kippur War, when Sharon was ordered to seize a bridgehead across the Suez Canal and hold it in order for a fresh follow-on unit to pass through and exploit the breakthrough.  Sharon violated his orders because he knew that being the commander to penetrate past the Suez would be a politically valuable asset in postwar Israel, and he already had strong political ambitions.  As a retired military officer myself, I&#8217;m not sympathetic to officers who jeopardize the mission for their own gain.</p>
<p>I believe Sharon showed similar disregard for the good of his country while engineering his election as PM.  I think the man&#8217;s brilliant, and showed real political savvy in manipulating both Arafat and his own media, but the path he took cost lives and ultimately resulted in the strenthening of Hamas&#8217;s position in the PA (and Hamas, unlike Fatah, <i>is</i> a religiously-oriented organization).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1333/1438 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-29 17:31:48 by W3 Total Cache -->