We are all Neocons now!

This is a guest post by The Arabian Neocon and is part 1 of a 2 part report.

******************

Where to begin with all this? While I unravel the issues here I implore you, gentle reader, to persevere. It gets good. Trust me.

Idrees 2Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is a snotty paranoiac doing a PhD at the University of Strathclyde. In his own words he is currently ‘researching the role of lobbies, think tanks and foundations in furnishing the propaganda for the war in Iraq’.

Now then, the crackpot theories of an overworked and undersexed postgrad do not usually merit much attention. But then, I discovered that Idrees has been going around compiling ‘wiki’ pages on all my friends for his new website ‘Neocon Europe’. It is the invasive nature in which he sought out that information that first brought him to my attention. The website supposedly aims to:

help people find out more about the Neoconservative networks operating in Europe. It is an attempt to monitor and publicise the sometime covert and not always visible activities of Neoconservatives attempting to internationalise their movement.

The problem is, they brand almost everyone from Martin Bright and Sunder Katwala to Irving Kristol and Leo Strauss a ‘neocon’. Almost all my friends have a wiki there. Idrees was behind most of them.

So I decided to look into the background of my new friend. After all, if Idrees is so keen to shine the spotlight on the rest of us – maybe we should shine it right back.

First, a brief bio: Muhammad Idrees Ahmad was born in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province. He likes to think of himself as a musician, writer and traveller and is also a lecturer at the Universities of Strathclyde, Glasgow and Stirling.

Last year he ostensibly reviewed a book called ‘Voice of Hezbollah: The Statements of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’ while actually offering us a remarkable insight into his own thinking on the matter. His piece, titled ‘there will be blood’ starts by explaining that Nasrallah is important because he ‘restored dignity and trust’ to the ‘Arab mind’. With Nasrallah Hezbollah has evolved:

…from its ragtag origins to [become] the world’s most effective resistance movement, twice defeating the vaunted Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) in battle. As a testament to [Nasrallah’s] intelligence and organization skills, Hizbullah has also developed an efficient and extensive social service network…

He goes on to tell us:

The modest Shia cleric is a living legend in the mostly Sunni Middle East.

For Idrees, Nasrallah is not a terrorist. Of course not. Firing rockets into Israel? Calling for the extermination of its people? It’s all just a misunderstanding!

Hizbullah remains a largely misunderstood phenomenon in the West where media demonology often conflates Hizbullah with al-Qaeda and Nasrallah with Usama bin Laden.

And the reason for that Idrees tell us is because:

Few in Europe or the US have heard Nasrallah’s voice.

He might have a point there – I’m told Nasrallah does a wonderful rendition of Auld Lang Syne at the annual Hezbollah jamboree. But now this new book gives us a chance to hear from the ‘modest cleric’ directly, about which Idrees tells us:

Nasrallah’s pronouncements are invariably thoughtful, nuanced and carefully worded, eloquence rarely giving way to rhetoric. At times fiery, they remain grounded in fact, and adversaries often ignore his promises at their own peril.

The thing is, Idrees doesn’t just write for ‘Neocon Europe’ – he’s also involved with another equally absurd website called ‘Spin Profiles’ which:

catalogues descriptions and details of PR firms, activist groups and government agencies as well as the criticisms that are made of these groups from different perspectives.

And what does Idrees do at Spin Profiles, I hear you ask? Well, he’s the editor of the Israel Lobby Portal which aims to be:

your guide to networks of power, lobbying and deceptive PR.

That must come in pretty handy considering he delivered an ‘academic paper’ on – you guessed it – the ‘Israel lobby’ at the University of Strathclyde in the department of geography and sociology.

You see a pattern developing here, don’t you?

After ploughing through piles of rote rhetoric, I finally found an article where Idrees didn’t pontificate about some global Jewish conspiracy conducted through ‘lobby groups’.

This time he turned his hand to Darfur – one of the most brutal genocides of our time. In the ‘Darfur deception’ Idrees laments the lack of coverage given to African conflicts by the Western press. He notes Darfur as an exception and credits the ‘Save Darfur Coalition’ (SDC) for getting it onto the news agenda.

They’ve been so effective that Idrees concludes their:

advocacy has been central to turning this into the biggest mass movement in the United States since the anti-Vietnam mobilization, bigger than the anti-apartheid movement.

And just who is behind this sophisticated campaign Idrees?

The SDC was established in July 2004 through the combined efforts of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and the American Jewish World Service.

Oh.

The apparent diversity of the SDC’s affiliates also obscures the fact that its agenda is mainly driven by Zionist organizations and the Christian Right.

But why Idrees, why?

Ned Goldstein has suggested in his investigation of the Zionist interests behind the SDC that Darfur is being deployed as a strategic distraction from Israeli crimes against the Palestinians

Aah, I see. All roads lead back to ‘that’ agenda, eh? Apparently so…

…the real interest of [the Save Darfur Coalition] is to perpetuate the conflict so as to continue using the image of the Arab as the perpetrator to distract from the regional reality of the Arab as the victim.

Got that? The Save Darfur Coalition wants to perpetuate the conflict!

What’s interesting is that Idrees says the US Holocaust Memorial Museum is involved in this SDC conspiracy. It completely shatters his hackneyed argument that he is ‘only anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic’. Of course, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum has nothing to do with Zionism and simply marks one of the darkest chapters in world history – the systematic and institutionalised attempt at exterminating an entire people. The museum is therefore active in promoting awareness, and trying to prevent, new genocides today. To any reasonable person that makes perfect sense. To Idrees it’s all part of a global conspiracy.

Next, the young Idrees turns to the Iraq war which he tells us was:

formulated by a small group of unaccountable neoconservative political appointees and rammed through in the face of strong resistance from career civil and military professionals in the State and Defence departments. The architects of the war in the administration were Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, who have no connections to the oil industry.

What, no oil connections?

Ritualistic denunciations of “Big Oil” are convenient and cost-free, and also eminently ineffective. Unless the real source of the war-agenda is identified and challenged, it is unlikely that the next war could be averted.

Ok, ok, so it’s not about oil. In that case, Idrees, any idea what could have possibly motivated them?

Their [Wolfowitz and Perle’s] devotion to Israel, however, is well established.

Silly me!

The same is true of Elliot Abrams and Douglas Feith, strong proponents of “Jewish Purity” and Israeli expansion and settlement policy…[they] cherry picked intelligence and used uncorroborated evidence to prepare talking points which were then passed on to the vice-Presidents office via Irving “Scooter” Libby – another Zionist zealot.

But how did they manage to wangle all that influence? Won’t you tell us Idrees?

Money plays an important role as close to 60% of the funds for the Democratic Party and 35% for the Republican Party come from pro-Israel Jews. But for every dollar spent, Israel receives $50 in aid.

Typical, eh? Those Jews don’t just run the world but also ensure a good return on investment.

Idrees is pretty much obsessed with Jews and Israel, a theme to which he returns with breathtaking regularity. He even signed this utterly bonkers petition:

We the undersigned ask Facebook to not allow users of Facebook who live in Jewish settlements in the West Bank to choose their country of residency so that it appears that they are from the State of Israel. Their resident status should be listed as what it is internationally recognized as: The Occupied Palestinian Territories.

While we’re on the topic of Facebook, that’s another place where Idrees tries to ‘educate’ those of us who just don’t realise that the whole world is run by a handful of powerful ‘lobbyists’. Even Obama has fallen for it:

[Obama] has offered the position of Chief of Staff to Rahm Emanuel, the son of an Irgun terrorist. Back in ’91 when the US was on its way to war with Iraq he volunteered for the military — not the US military, but the Israeli Occupation Force. This hardline Israel-firster also helped diminish the margins of the Democratic victory in 2006 by giving preference to pro war candidates over the more popular antiwar ones. Now he’ll be the gatekeeper for all Middle East policy, and the keys — once again — will be held by the Israel lobby.

It is also being suggested that Dennis Ross will get the State gig. This former AIPAC lobbyist had been accused by Aaron David Miller, one of his own Zionist surrogates, of behaving as ‘Israel’s lawyer’ in negotations over the Israel-Palestine conflict.

[...]

So, to sum up, while in the best US governments used to act as surrogates for Israeli interests. Now, Israeli interests are the US government.

Because that was taken from his Facebook page I can’t link to it – but you can click on this picture here for verification of what he wrote.

I think the Facebook groups Idrees has joined also reveal a lot about his politics. A brief glance through the 79 groups of which he’s a member reveals that he:

  • Supports Osama Saeed – of Scottish Islamic Foundation fame
  • Is a fan of the Iranian backed Press TV
  • Is against sanctions on Iran
  • Is a member of the “John Mearsheimer is my homeboy” group

But I digress. Idrees also thinks that the BBC has a

long tradition of relaying state propaganda while maintaining a veneer of respectability.

This was apparently evident during the Gaza conflict when, it was through sneaky ‘chicanery’ and:

…subtle – and not so subtle – manipulations of language that the BBC has shielded its audience from the ugly realities of Occupied Palestine. In the BBC’s reportage Palestinians ‘die’, Israelis are ‘killed’ (the latter implies agency, the former could have happened of natural causes); Palestinians ‘provoke’, Israelis ‘retaliate’; Palestinians make ‘claims’, Israelis declare. Schools, mosques, universities and police stations become ‘Hamas infrastructure’; militants ‘clash’ with F-16s and Apaches. ‘Terrorism’ is something Palestinians do, Israelis merely ‘defend’ themselves – invariably outside their borders. All debates, irrespective of fact or circumstance, are framed around Israel’s ‘security’. If the Apartheid wall is mentioned, it is in terms of its ‘effectiveness’.

Ok, so now that we know what’s really going on what should we do about it Idrees?

The [Israel] lobby, as one of its stalwarts colorfully put it, is like a “nightflower” which wilts in the sunlight. Those seeking justice for the Palestinians and accountability for the disastrous course of foreign and domestic policy under the lobby’s tutelage could do worse than to ensure constant sunlight.

Right, constant sunshine it is. Reviewing the sum total of Mohammed Idrees Ahmad’s writings (and there are many more not listed here) reveals him to be a poor man’s Asghar Bukhari; a rotten anti-Semite who sees conspiracy and intrigue everywhere.

Idrees 7There are several of these websites that Idrees is involved with. He loves to ‘watch’ people.

Just so you know Idrees – now we’re watching you sunshine.

The websites Idrees writes for are registered to Professor David Miller at the University of Strathclyde. More on him and his group of kooks later in the week.

This entry was posted in Antisemitism, Blogosphere, Israel/Palestine, Politics, UK Politics, Your View. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

117 Comments

  1. Watcher
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 1:37 PM | Permalink

    Arabian Neocon,

    You are not the only one watching Neocon Europe, I am as well. What with all these watchers, he might start getting paranoid.

    By the way, how do you translate “Auld Lang Syne” into Arabic?

  2. Dorothy
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM | Permalink

    Crikey!

  3. Khalid ibn al-Waleed
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 1:53 PM | Permalink

    Idrees doesn’t strike me as dangerous – but rather as quite a sad and pathetic figure. He’s clearly a lonely guy living some kind of online fantasy-life. After reading this I feel more sorry for him than anything-else.

  4. The Great Satan
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 1:55 PM | Permalink

    Shocking that this Idrees fellow is willing to trivialise the Darfur genocide just so that it can fit into his twisted worldview – he should be ashamed of himself…
    but something tells me he wont be

  5. Al-Qanaas Al-Masri
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 1:55 PM | Permalink

    Khalid – Before I read your post I thought that you were going to say something about Idrees and the Scottish Islamic Foundation (your favourite punch-bags). Are you going soft?

  6. The Great Satan
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

    ‘Idrees doesn’t strike me as dangerous ‘

    He’s definitely no danger, unless you consider the threat he poses to the value of a PHD – for a man with such a shockingly poor understanding of political theory to call himself a Dr. would be a huge blow to the credibility of that title. For Christ’s sake, he thinks that members of the Fabian Society (silly as they are) are neocons! I havent laughed that much in ages..

  7. The Great Satan
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM | Permalink

    al qanaas,

    I thought SIF were more your bag?

  8. Khalid ibn al-Waleed
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM | Permalink

    Ha ha. Definitely not going soft.

    I just feel that this dude just needs to get out more.

    “Hey Idress dude – grab a beer and chill out, y’know man, and stop stressing about the Joos.”

  9. Crapulent Charlie
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 2:03 PM | Permalink

    His website should read that it was set up to

    “help people find out more about the Jewish networks operating in Europe. It is an attempt to monitor and publicise the sometime covert and not always visible activities of Jews attempting to internationalise their movement.”

  10. Khalid ibn al-Waleed
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM | Permalink

    Great Satan – I think PhDs are already discredited. Think “Dr Evil”…

  11. Posted August 10, 2009 at 2:40 PM | Permalink

    Shocking revelations!

    Idrees, you’ve got issues dude. Serious, serious issues.

  12. martin
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 5:26 PM | Permalink

    Tragically, British academia has been infected with virulent anti semitism,
    often disguised as “concern for the Palestinians”
    They never tell us who was king of “Palestine” or where all the Gulf Arab muslims came from & where all the “Palestinian ‘ Christians went.

    Never mind though. It’s very fashionable to support Islam, even though if Islam
    took power in the UK, they would all be out of work, possibly dead.

    These ivory towered useful idiots were all communists 30 years ago, supporting Mao & Pol Pot .They just love self hatred, after all they don’t need to work – yet.

  13. tobias
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 9:58 PM | Permalink

    Will “The Arabian Neocon” come out and post under his/her real name?
    It’s not really that brave or clever to rant about others while concealing your own identity.

    Come out. If what you say is true, then you should have nothing to hide.

  14. The Great Satan
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM | Permalink

    hmmm, an interesting request from ‘tobias’. i have a feeling you know that the info is true – in fact its much more accurate than the majority of the info on your neocon europe site.

    This post has been edited by the Spittoon

  15. tobias
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 11:15 PM | Permalink

    “your neocon europe website”??

    It’s nothing to do with me.
    I just detest neocons. Don’t like any of them, I disagree with their politics but I believe they have a right to air that opinion no matter how odious I find it.

    [EDITED OUT]

    How on earth have you come up with these ideas?
    Is this your usual practice? Accuse people of belonging to a website/organisation they have never visited and then make an allusion to a relationship “islamists”?
    What next? Are you going to call me an anti-semite?

    Like, I said before. If what “The Arabian Neocon” says is true, then why should he/she mask their identity? Afraid of being taken to court?
    It’s not big, nor is it clever to call people names behind a mask of anonymity.

    BTW, Tobias is my real name.

    Both Tobias and The Great Satan’s posts have been edited. Both of you need to grow up and debate properly without threatening each other.

  16. tobias
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 11:23 PM | Permalink

    Edited out for reasons above. Play nice both of you – disagree, argue – no threats of any kind.

  17. Posted August 10, 2009 at 11:34 PM | Permalink

    Actually, as an administrator of this site, I edited it.

  18. Watcher
    Posted August 10, 2009 at 11:36 PM | Permalink

    “tobias,” you are a hypocrite. You come on this site and start laying into people for not using their name, yet you have just posted with your first name and thereby also concealed your full identity.

    If you have nothing to hide then why haven’t you posted your full name ? Is it that you are one of those “do I say, not as I do” preachers?

    You then question whether the post is accurate, when you can see that the Arabian Neocon has provided links to back up his claims. All you would need to do is click on the links and check. Why do you not simply do that?

  19. Posted August 10, 2009 at 11:44 PM | Permalink

    tobias. If you detest Neocons then do you also detest people who inaccurately apply that label and thereby diminish your legitimate concerns about the Neoconservative ideology? Would you agree that it is neither big nor clever to run around applying the label of ‘Neocon’ to people one happens to disagree with politically without any evidence of Neoconservative ideas?

    What do you think of the way in which Idrees, who tries to pass himself off as an academic and neoconeurope as an academic endeavour, has taken this article so personally that he has added yet more inaccurate smears to his wiki entry about the Spittoon? What do you think of the idea that Idrees continues to update neoconeurope’s article about the Spittoon even though he now clearly has a conflict of interests as he is personally (and, clearly, emotionally) involved in the matter he is writing about? Does that strike you as maintaining academic standards?

    And the worst you can accuse the Spittoon’s guest writer of is using a pseudonym. Well, it’s quite simple. Many people have real jobs and employers who would not be entirely happy to find out that their employees are involved in blogging about controversial issues. That is why I use a pseudonym and I imagine the same is true of the Arabian Neocon.

  20. Posted August 10, 2009 at 11:53 PM | Permalink

    Idrees, I know you’re now an avid Spittoon reader now so I thought I’d give you another helping hand.

    From your article about us:

    Its definition of anti-Semitism is so lax that in one instance it uses as evidence a book review[9] in which the reviewer mentions the claim made in the book (and confirmed by the organization’s website) that the Save Darfur Coalition was born through the joint efforts of the Holocaust Memorial Museum and the American Jewish World Service

    (1) Why so coy in mentioning that the reviewer was, in fact, you?
    (2) For the sentence to read properly you need to clarify what the “evidence” is of.
    (3) You are seriously misrepresenting what the Arabian Neocon said and you know you are.

  21. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 12:31 AM | Permalink

    I didn’t threaten anyone.
    It was The Great Satan who dished out the accusations.

    @Yossarian
    “If you detest Neocons then do you also detest people who inaccurately apply that label and thereby diminish your legitimate concerns about the Neoconservative ideology? Would you agree that it is neither big nor clever to run around applying the label of ‘Neocon’ to people one happens to disagree with politically without any evidence of Neoconservative ideas?”

    I agree with almost all of that. I don’t detest everyone who labels another a Neocon simply because they may not understand who/what they’re labelling.
    I don’t like the Neocons who are by their own admission and action are Neocon.

    “What do you think of the way in which Idrees, who tries to pass himself off as an academic and neoconeurope as an academic endeavour, has taken this article so personally that he has added yet more inaccurate smears to his wiki entry about the Spittoon? What do you think of the idea that Idrees continues to update neoconeurope’s article about the Spittoon even though he now clearly has a conflict of interests as he is personally (and, clearly, emotionally) involved in the matter he is writing about? Does that strike you as maintaining academic standards?”

    I don’t know too much about the guy. I’ve had a quick look at the websites, not long enough to make any erudite judgement.
    I wouldn’t know anything about academic standards, I’m not an academic. Only have a lowly Masters from Oxford.

    “And the worst you can accuse the Spittoon’s guest writer of is using a pseudonym. Well, it’s quite simple. Many people have real jobs and employers who would not be entirely happy to find out that their employees are involved in blogging about controversial issues. That is why I use a pseudonym and I imagine the same is true of the Arabian Neocon.”

    I’m sorry, but it’s with this bit I disagree. If you’re not going to say what you believe openly then don’t go around saying it a snidy way. Stand up for your convictions, the laws of this nation guarantee you the right of free speech.
    I don’t buy the ideas that we must temper our personal convictions or else we may hinder our economic situation. Does that also mean that you will stay silent if on an issue if I pay you enough?
    (You can say “yes” to that if you’re an MP!)
    Sorry Yoss, I’m not cowering for the fear I may lose money. I don’t think it’s in anyway a valid excuse.
    If you have an issue with someone then at least have the decency to say it to them rather than hide behind a pseudonym and sneer about them behind their back.

    One last not, will the moderator be “moderating” the comments of “Watcher”?? Because I don’t think calling me a “hypocrite” and accusing me “of laying into people” isn’t “playing nice”!

  22. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 12:41 AM | Permalink

    “……comments are removed if they contain language that incites violence or racial hatred.”

    I did neither. Nor did I threaten anyone.
    For what reason were my comments removed?

    In the interests of free speech, I ask of you not to delete this post but rather please elucidate for myself (and others) as to why my comments and the comments of “The Great Satan” were “edited”.

  23. Posted August 11, 2009 at 12:59 AM | Permalink

    Tobias:

    1. Have you considered that the Arabian Neocon might actually live abroad in a country where the kind of views expressed above are not exactly fashionable? Did it cross your mind that they may just be seeking to protect themselves from harassment in their locality. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that there are places where defending Jews/Israel can be a dangerous thing.

    2. This thread is here to discuss the issue at hand. If you wish to enter into a protracted discussion about The Spittoon’s comments policy then please email us.

    Thanks.

  24. Watcher
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 1:02 AM | Permalink

    One last not, [sic] will the moderator be “moderating” the comments of “Watcher”?? Because I don’t think calling me a “hypocrite” and accusing me “of laying into people” isn’t “playing nice”!

    I called you a hypocrite and of laying into people for very a very good reason: it is true. (I advise you to pay attention to your use of double negatives – I assume in this instance that you have made a mistake. A hypocrite making a mistake does not really surprise me.)

    Let us consider the previous sentence to the one where you suggest I should be moderated:

    If you have an issue with someone then at least have the decency to say it to them rather than hide behind a pseudonym and sneer about them behind their back.

    In this sentence you are attacking someone for hiding behind a pseudonym, yet you yourself do not give your full name. That is hypocritical!

    The whole tone of that post is an attack on what Yossarian has said. What you have done is laid into him.

    Quod erat demonstrandum.

    (If you do not know what that phrase means, look it up. I am sure someone who was awarded a bachelors degree from Oxford and subsequently got a freebie Masters with no further academic work required is capable of such basic research.)

  25. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 1:15 AM | Permalink

    @Watcher
    My apologies for the spelling/grammar mistakes. I tend not to pay too much attention when I’m posting on blogs.

    @Watcher – still calling me a hypocrite?
    Would it help if I gave you my full name? Tobias Ess. (I’m sure you can get the mods to confirm this for you)
    I’m also part German, would you now like to call me fascist or a nazi?
    I hope the hypocrisy debate now ends and that you now wouldn’t take such offense to anyone asking for “The Arabian Neocon” to reveal their true identity.

    @In this sentence you are attacking someone for hiding behind a pseudonym, yet you yourself do not give your full name. That is hypocritical!

    I’m not attacking anyone. Read what I wrote again (maybe you should read it a few times.)
    Maybe I can put it another way for you, if I have a problem with an individual I would not take the cowardly route and sneer behind their back. I would raise my issues with them.
    What’s wrong with that? The fact that I can stand up for my beliefs bothers you?

    @The whole tone of that post is an attack on what Yossarian has said. What you have done is laid into him.

    Grow up.

  26. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 1:25 AM | Permalink

    @Shikwa

    Tobias:

    “1. Have you considered that the Arabian Neocon might actually live abroad in a country where the kind of views expressed above are not exactly fashionable? Did it cross your mind that they may just be seeking to protect themselves from harassment in their locality. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that there are places where defending Jews/Israel can be a dangerous thing.”

    I had not considered that. Is this blog so popular overseas?
    Is it popular in the Arab world? I haven’t come across many foreign posters yet. It seems that this blog focuses MOSTLY on British topics. Seldom do we hear of the plight of mine workers in the Zambian copper belt or other international issues in which Britain has an interest.
    Forgive me if I’m wrong, but this article isn’t about “defending Jews/Israel”, this article looks like a personal attack on Muhammad Idrees Ahmad

    “2. This thread is here to discuss the issue at hand. If you wish to enter into a protracted discussion about The Spittoon’s comments policy then please email us.”

    I don’t want a protracted discussion. My comments followed the rules of the blog. If they do not break any rules, then please reinstate them.

  27. Watcher
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 1:37 AM | Permalink

    @Tobias Ess,

    Now you have provided your full name, I shall stop referring to you as a hypocrite on the point. Having dealt with that, of what benefit is it? Does it change anything about the validity of your previous posts? I think not. Whether or not I knew you as “Tobias”, “Tobias Ess” or “Humpty Dumpty” it does not really matter and nor does it matter that I am writing under the name “Watcher.” Providing that a poster in consistent in the name he uses in a thread and is not playing the sock-puppetry game, then the actual name is quite irrelevant. In the event that “Tobias” was an alias for Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, then it would be more of an issue, but assuming you are being honest about your name, this is clearly not the case.

    You state categorically that you are “not attacking anyone” but a few sentences later you have the audacity to tell me to “Grow up.” You said the following:

    My apologies for the spelling/grammar mistakes. I tend not to pay too much attention when I’m posting on blogs.

    I think it is not unreasonable to add logical fallacies to spelling and grammar mistakes that you do not pay sufficient attention to when posting on blogs.

  28. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 1:48 AM | Permalink

    @Watcher
    “You state categorically that you are “not attacking anyone” but a few sentences later you have the audacity to tell me to “Grow up.” ”

    Awwwww……poor baby.
    Don’t you know the difference between someone telling you to “grow up” and someone attacking you?
    Do you really deem any comment that does not correlate with your own, as an “attack” upon yourself?
    It seems quite apparent that you do.

    BTW, I can have as much audacity as I like. It’s none of your business how much audacity I have or how I use it!
    LOL.

    I’m still waiting for “The Arabian Neocon” to unmask herself/himself….

  29. Posted August 11, 2009 at 1:55 AM | Permalink

    @ Tobias,

    1. This blog does primarily focus on events in Britain. Again, did it cross your mind that the Arabian Neocon may have studied in this country before returning to their homeland? Or that they are on a secondment abroad? I will not be drawn into further discussion about the Arabian Neocon because it would be pointless to divulge more. Suffice to say that their work is posted above for you to assess. If you disagree with it, feel free to raise your criticisms, but learning of their identity would not change a thing.

    2. This blog is very popular abroad. We have readers from across the world – including places as far afield as Australia and Argentina.

  30. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 2:11 AM | Permalink

    @Shikwa.
    No it had not crossed my mind at all.
    I honestly thought it was someone from the UK masquerading as an Arab. I was gonna test out my rusty (very, very rusty) Arabic to see if they could actually were an Arab or simply a Britisher posing as one to look cool on the blogosphere.
    We have offices in the UAE, Saudi, Qatar, Egypt, Israel and a new one in Lebanon soon. I’ve yet to meet an Arab who’s pro-Israel.
    Even “The Arabian Neocon” doesn’t seem so pro-Israel as he/she is “anti-Muhammad Idrees Ahmad”.
    Since this piece is about Muhammad Idress Ahmad and not advocacy piece for Israel, what is there to fear? Is Muhammad’s reach and infleunce such that he could have “bad things” happen all over the world? Hardly.
    So let’s not play the “Muhammad Idrees Ahmad” is a threat to the lives of bloggers all over the world game.

    I don’t think there are any laws against blogging against any “snotty paranoiac” PhD student.

    Though, I think there are laws against defamation of character. I’ll confer with my lawyer at lunch tomorrow just to confirm that. Maybe that’s the reason why this campaign of sneer and smear coupled with screams of rage take place fake identities. (That’s just my opinion of the piece.)

    Ps.
    Have any figures for Australia?
    I could always ask my IT people in Australia to see how many hits your getting if you want.

  31. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 2:24 AM | Permalink

    I meant to say, “take place with fake identities”.

  32. Posted August 11, 2009 at 2:30 AM | Permalink

    Lawyers? Offices in UAE, Saudi, Qatar, Egypt, Israel and soon in Lebanon? IT people in Australia?

    Oooh, you are some kind of scary big man Mr Tobias.

  33. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 2:33 AM | Permalink

    Dear, oh dear.
    I’m just your standard evil, blood-sucking capitalist, city boy….

  34. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 2:37 AM | Permalink

    BTW you didn’t answer my question.
    How popular are you in Australia? How many hits are you getting? 10? 20? 50? 100?

    I’m sure that posters on this site would love to know that they have a vast international audience.

    LOL.

  35. Abdurahman Jafar
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 3:51 AM | Permalink

    Shikwa began editing comments by tobias stating:
    “Both of you need to grow up and debate properly without threatening each other.”
    yet this is what he said to me on another blog:
    “Hahaha, Jafar, you are an even bigger prick than you look in that picture!”
    http://www.spittoon.org/archives/2152/comment-page-2#comments

    Can you believe the people on this site (I would suggest no) – pure hatred, prejudice and deceit. A noecon view is intrinsically predicated on falsehood, deligitimising the victim with misrepresentation and prejudice that exploits the basest hatreds whilst denying the right to reply (usually by employing white phosphorous but here they got Shikwa instead).

    Are we really to believe The Arabian Neocon lives “abroad in a country where”…”defending Jews/Israel can be a dangerous thing” – if that were the case you’d think he’d be writing about that surely rather than a PhD student! Lol, every one on this site hides their identity, except Houraiya Ahmed in the editorial team who works for Douglas Murray a professional neocon who believes the West must discriminate against all Muslims, carry out pre-emptive nuclear strikes against countries like Iraq and that the progressive left must be crushed! If that’s one cat out of the bag can you imagine what the others revealing their identity would expose.
    This place stinks of hypocrisy.

  36. Posted August 11, 2009 at 4:00 AM | Permalink

    Jafar, come on, you insulted someone’s situation with his wife which provoked that comment. You should know better and, just under an hour ago you wrote here:

    “I understand that as Muslims we should never use words such as hypocrite and kafir, words so commonly used by HT when dominated by the likes of Omar Bakri Mohammad and Ed Hussain, against others and that to do so indicates a disease of the heart.”

    And now you’re accusing everyone here of being a hypocrite? Does this mean you have a ‘disease of the heart’?!

    You’re also saying I deny you the right of reply, but I am offering you guest posts!

  37. Abdurahman Jafar
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 4:39 AM | Permalink

    Shikwa,
    identifying a pattern of hypocritical behaviour, i.e. attacking individuals personally whilst hiding ones identity, which is an objective assessment, is worlds apart from calling someone a hypocrite, which in Islamic terms is a judgement of the state of their heart and soul and therefore impermissible for a Muslim to accuse another individual other than himself of.
    I repeat, almost every idea, behaviour and ideology presented by Spitooners wreeks of hypocrisy.

  38. Abdurahman Jafar
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 4:42 AM | Permalink

    BTW I did not insult someones situation with his wife, I asked you how yours was, given that you don’t reveal your identity how can that be insulting?

  39. Watcher
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 7:56 AM | Permalink

    The ridiculous thing is that this post is about Muhammad Idrees Ahmad and Neocon Europe. Those who do not like the truth from Arabian Neocon are not defending Idrees Ahmad but simply trying to divert the subject as to talk about why Arabian Neocon is using a pseudonym or any other subject that they fancy.

    Classic diversionary tactics.

  40. dawood
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 8:05 AM | Permalink

    I think this discussion is diverting the thread from the subject of the post.

    We were previously talking about the weird conspiracy theorist Muhammad Idrees Ahmad and his fellows at Strathclyde University. Can we please resume?

  41. Abu Wannabe Arab
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 9:06 AM | Permalink

    Jafar – what do you make of people who help kill millions of Muslims like JI did in Bamgladesh in the 70s? Does that make them neo-cons too?

  42. Clap Hammer
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 9:34 AM | Permalink

    BTW, Tobias is my real name.

    Oh. Mine is actually Francis.

    Do you …….?

  43. Clap Hammer
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    The Arabian Neocon

    Nice article. These weird sites are cropping up in ever increasing number.

    Part of the digital revolution.

    At some point we will all inure ourselves to not seeing them as we don’t ‘see’ many of the adverts blasted at us from all directions. Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is just one of many followers of the One True Prophet in the UK who would do better to go and live in one of the various Islamic paradises dotted around the globe.

    Afghanistan, Iran ……….

    They are wasted in the UK.

  44. Bangali
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM | Permalink

    Can brother Abdur Rahman please explain what neocon is for me?

  45. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

    @”BTW I did not insult someones situation with his wife, I asked you how yours was, given that you don’t reveal your identity how can that be insulting?”

    Does that mean that Shikwa is Majed Nawaz?
    Anyway, I’m still waiting on those Australia figures. Or maybe you could give the numbers you have for Argentina…
    LOL. Looks like you bragged a little too much this time.

    Shikwa (majid?), as I mentioned earlier please reinstate my comments for they broke no rules. Why must you censor free speech?

    @The Arabian Neocon – Oh, silent rogue. Come forth and unmask thyself….I’m sure you’re big and brave enough to do so. I’m sure you also recognise the cowardice of spewing pure poison about others behind their back.
    Maybe, it’s something you picked up from Arab Muslim family/friends.
    I think there are some rather clear guidelines provided by the Abrahamic faiths on the topic of character defamation.
    (If you’re an atheist, then I’m sure you can find guidelines in secular laws!)

  46. Abu Wannabe Arab
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

    Shikwa – you’ve been exposed now. The Islamist detectives have unveiled you, what are you going to do with yourself?

  47. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 11:11 AM | Permalink

    @Abu Wannabe Arab

    Maybe he wants to find another way of wasting away £1 million of taxpayer money….

  48. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 11:14 AM | Permalink

    Shikwa, where are all the foreign posters on this site? Surely, if you have “readers from across the world – including places as far afield as Australia and Argentina.”, then should they not be posting on this “popular” site??
    Hmm….something doesn’t seem right here. Maybe you can explain for us shikwa.

    Arabian Neocon…..where are you??
    Come out, come out wherever you are…..

  49. dawood
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 11:16 AM | Permalink

    @The whole tone of that post is an attack on what Yossarian has said. What you have done is laid into him.

    tobias ess:
    Do you feel Muhammad Idrees Ahmad’s selective “Islamophobia” and his overt hatred of “the Joos” is defensible or above criticism?

  50. The Great Satan
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 11:27 AM | Permalink

    oh dear, this thread has descended into total chaos. Toby – can you please at least make a comment on the actual subject of this blog? Give the other rubbish a rest, although it is good to see that this site has attracted the ire of Jafar and his friends (that means its working), it is getting quite boring for those of us who are interested in discussing the actual content of the post.

  51. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 11:34 AM | Permalink

    @dawood

    “his selective islamophobia”
    Whether it is selective or not, a hatred of another person on the grounds of faith is wrong. I liked Yahya Birt’s postint on this, I believe you can find it on this site.
    Islamophobia is wrong full stop.

    “his overt hatred of the joos”?
    What are you on about?

    He has said spoken about the Israel Lobby/pro-IDF/settler jews and I think his political objections are fair. They are no different to the ideas held by the a huge chunk of the British populace.
    Just look at the marches against Israel’s war on Gaza. The overwhelming majority of people I saw in London were of Anglo-Saxon stock! Even my Tory councillor was on those marches.

    Now, don’t lower this discussion by labelling anyone who doesn’t like Israel’s activities in the West Bank and Gaza as anti-semites. Most people, just want a peaceful resolution and withdrawal to the 1967 borders.
    No more settlements for the crazed, messianic settlers!!
    Just to clarify for some of you, that’s not an anti-semitic statement! I know that some of you were waiting to say that. That’s just my opinion of the people who choose to expand settlements, it is not reflective on the rest of the followers of the jewish faith/race. (If it was, I don’t think that my jewish lawyer would like me very much!)

    “We the undersigned ask Facebook to not allow users of Facebook who live in Jewish settlements in the West Bank to choose their country of residency so that it appears that they are from the State of Israel. Their resident status should be listed as what it is internationally recognized as: The Occupied Palestinian Territories.”

    I totally agree with this statement. In fact, I will now go and sign the petition.
    Anyone who doesn’t agree with the above paragraph, either fails to understand the basics of international law or they probably wish to portray their own, rather disgusting, opinion of the settlements as being the truth.

  52. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 11:40 AM | Permalink

    @The Great Satan

    back to the topic.
    I’ve read much of the claims, in the words of my American cousins they are all “weak, son!” It’s all a silly mish-mash of claims, spying and twisting the truth.
    the bit I found funniest was when the The Arabian Neocon claims that the petition is “bonkers”!!
    Is that the standard opinion on this site? Does everyone here support the israeli settlements?
    Even, David T doesn’t go that far! Just go and ask him, if you don’t believe me.

    So when will “The Arabian Neocon” reveal their true identity?

  53. The Great Satan
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

    “No more settlements for the crazed, messianic settlers!!”

    No, this is not an antisemitic statement, and in fact many of the settlers are Jewish religious fundamentalists. No one on this site has ever supported the settlements or their expansion.

    But the problem is that people like you who are willing to justifiably criticise the settlers are not willng to apply the same standards to Hamas. In previous thread, a commenter calling himself Abdurahman Jafar called Hamas a legitimate liberation movement, for which support is not condemnable. If people are willing to call some of the the settlers messianic nuts, they should also be willing to call Hamas what they are: genocidal Islamist supremacists for whom the very presence of a jew on any part of the region pollutes it and makes it dirty and impure.

    So toby, are you willing to condemn Hamas?

  54. The Great Satan
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 11:51 AM | Permalink

    you see, this is where the charge of antisemitism starts to flesh itself out. One has to ask themselves why some people are more than willing to condemn the acts of jews, while at the same time excusing similar, if not worse, acts carried out by Muslims?

  55. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 11:59 AM | Permalink

    @The Great Satan

    “But the problem is that people like you who are willing to justifiably criticise the settlers are not willng to apply the same standards to Hamas”

    I’m sorry, who are you? Do know you?
    I don’t think I do, so don’t you dare make horrid assumptions about me.
    If you are going to do so, then say it to my face or at least use your real name.

    Re: Hamas
    I don’t know much about Hamas. I do know that what you say is a lie though.
    After speaking with some people from the Eurasia Group about our company’s sub-group in Tel Aviv and their security status. I found it highly interesting when they told me that Hamas, are willing to accept the Arab Peace Plan which was re-indorsed in 2007, it is the israeli’s who want to keep building the settlements and not move back to the 1967 borders.
    (http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSL25407300)

    I spoke with Rachel Shabi not too long ago, she explained to me the notion of “the constant existential threat” that degenerates some Israeli minds. Everything for them ends us as an act of anti-semitism, a sense of perennial victimhood and always ends up with the destruction of Israel. I remember Antony Lerman speaking about such issues too, here is one of his (always brilliant) articles entitled: Must Jews always see themselves as victims? It is well worth a read.
    (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/must-jews-always-see-themselves-as-victims-1639277.html)

  56. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 12:03 PM | Permalink

    @”you see, this is where the charge of antisemitism starts to flesh itself out. One has to ask themselves why some people are more than willing to condemn the acts of jews, while at the same time excusing similar, if not worse, acts carried out by Muslims?”

    I see what you’re saying. But that’s not what Muhammad Idrees Ahamd has done. That’s not what I’ve done. That’s not what lots of other people who are labelled as “anti-semites” do.
    We condemn acts of murder, no matter who does it. Christian, Hindu, Muslim or Jew.
    The jewish acts of murder are no special case that are to be ignored out of fear that we may be called “anti-semitic”.

  57. The Great Satan
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 12:07 PM | Permalink

    so, do you condemn Hamas?

    Idrees has never done so

  58. The Great Satan
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

    and dont give me another MCB esque response of, ‘we condemn all acts of murder’ – thats BS and you know it. Get specific please

  59. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 12:11 PM | Permalink

    I condemn the loss of innocent life by Hamas operatives against Israeli civilians.
    Is that specific enough for you?

    So do you now condemn the IDF who have deliberately killed the poor, besieged Gazans? (Before you even begin to deny this, we already have statements from IDF troops).

    And dont give me another British Board of deputies of Jews-esque response of, ‘we condemn all acts of murder’ – thats BS and you know it. Get specific please.

  60. The Great Satan
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 12:31 PM | Permalink

    do you condemn Hamas as a terrorist organisation?

    of course i would condemn tactics used by the IDF – although it has been acknowledged by top military commanders, not israelis, that that the IDF has in the past taken unprecedented steps to minimise civilian casualties.

    I also condenm the messianic rabbis who are involved with the IDF, they are a disgrace

  61. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 1:02 PM | Permalink

    @do you condemn Hamas as a terrorist organisation?

    Yes and no.
    I condemn their attacks on civilians.
    Hamas are by no means a monolith (I believe Adam Shatz did a wonderful review of the leadership in the London Review of Books), it is ignorant for anyone to think so.
    The fact they are willing to accept 1967 borders, shows me that they are willing to negotiate for peace. It is Israel, that refuses to work with that plan.
    I have no problem with their charitable arm either and their embrace of deocratic politics shows that there is light on the horizon, if the IDF and israeli’s back down from their ultra-right, “no negotiation with terrorists” views.
    That said, there is no excuse for Hamas or israel to kill each others civillians. No tit for tat crap, no justifications.

    Regarding terrorism, I am always reminded of the words of Nir Rosen’s article from Dec 2009:

    “Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what the Other does, not what we do. The powerful – whether Israel, America, Russia or China – will always describe their victims’ struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan – with the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and terrorising them was the purpose. ”

    @”of course i would condemn tactics used by the IDF – although it has been acknowledged by top military commanders, not israelis, that that the IDF has in the past taken unprecedented steps to minimise civilian casualties.”

    Acknowledged by the very same military commanders who ordered the use of white phosphorous in highly-populated areas, including schools, hospitals and UN buildings.
    Forgive me, the IDF propaganda team fails to convince me (and much of the rest of the world).

    I’m off to have lunch with my Jewish lawyer now! Speak soon.

  62. The Great Satan
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 1:19 PM | Permalink

    no no no, that simply will not do. Anyone who knows about Hamas will tell you that the best they are willing to accept is a 10-20 year hudna. Yes Meshaal has said he will accept the 67 borders, while at the same time saying that he:

    -refuses to accept israel’s right to exist
    - refuses to denounce the genocidal founding charter

    I am sure you are aware of the quartet agreement, they refuse to accept some of its most crucial aspects. So, western countries are willing to deal with a terrorist group, so long as it accepts the right of a UN member state to EXIST – something Hamas has so far failed to do. Why is this??

    this means that they are willing to be flexible on their strategy, but not on their ideology – which, in the long term, is based around the destruction of Israel and either the removal of a jews from the region of the dhimmification of jews in the region. This is what they say as a organisation.

    Have you ever watched their official channel, al-Aqsa TV? – in the shows where they encourage children to become martyrs and kill jews the words ‘zionist’ and ‘jew’ are interchangeable. Much of the programming is NOT about returning to the 67 border, but about the Islamist objective of destroying the entire country.

    You should read an article by Mattew Levitt on the ideological rigidity of Hamas – http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=3103

    Also, the Nir Rosen quote is one of the shining examples of shameful moral relatavism. ‘Al Qaeda flying planes into the twin towers with the express intention of killing as many people as possible is the same as a stray american bomb falling into a market place’ – rubbish. I make no excuses for the stupidity of the US armed forces, but it is not the same as strapping a bomb to yourself and walking into a group of school children with the full intention of killing as many as possible as they have done in Iraq. If you can draw a moral parellel between the two, then there is something wrong with you.
    Surely you must know who is responsible for the vast majority of deaths in Iraq, I dont need to spell that out for you. Jihadism is not a REACTION to anything, rather an aggressive, fascist and expansionist ideology which has no problem with intentionally killing civilians.

  63. Koppers
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 2:16 PM | Permalink

    Crikey, can there be such a thing as a poor man’s Asghar Bukhari?

  64. Koppers
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 2:32 PM | Permalink

    Now, don’t lower this discussion by labelling anyone who doesn’t like Israel’s activities in the West Bank and Gaza as anti-semites. Most people, just want a peaceful resolution and withdrawal to the 1967 borders.

    The armistice lines of 1948 (i.e. the 67 borders) never have been and never will be the borders between Israel and Palestine. Lord Carradon, chief drafter of resolution 242, described them as:-

    “We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.”

  65. Abu Yusuf
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 4:42 PM | Permalink

    of course i would condemn tactics used by the IDF – although it has been acknowledged by top military commanders, not israelis, that that the IDF has in the past taken unprecedented steps to minimise civilian casualties.

    The Great Satan,

    Lol. Are you serious? “Top military commanders” have acknowledged that, have they? So I suppose that means that any retaliation from Palestinian civilians is completely unjustified.

    Right. Have you read the news lately?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8186905.stm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7952603.stm

    http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/03/18/idf-soldiers-admit-shoot-to-kill-orders-against-gaza-civilians/

    It took me about 50 seconds to find those three links. Let me know if you need more information.

  66. Abu Wannabe Arab
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

    Does Israel not have a policy of ‘collective punishment’ which simply equates to state sponsored terrorism.

  67. Abu Yusuf
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 5:22 PM | Permalink

    More examples of IDF’s recent “unprecedented steps to minimize civilian casualties”:

    Dead Palestinian babies and bombed mosques – IDF fashion 2009 (March 20, 2009)
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072466.html

    Family of Injured American Activist Demands Israeli Investigation (March 23, 2009)
    http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/03/23/family-of-injured-american-activist-demands-israeli-investigation/

    31-year old Bassem Abu Rahmeh was killed in Bil’in (April 19, 2009)
    http://mitchellplitnick.com/2009/04/19/death-in-bil%e2%80%99in-end-soldiers%e2%80%99-violence-at-west-bank-protests/

    Israeli Peace Activist’s Head Slammed into IDF Jeep During Anti-Wall Demonstration (August 4, 2009)
    http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/08/04/israeli-peace-activists-head-slammed-into-idf-jeep-during-anti-wall-demonstration/

    IDF troops wound 9 at boy’s funeral in West Bank (August 31, 2009)
    http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1006972.html

    The Great Satan,
    That took me about 5 minutes, all links from the first two pages of google. Do you need any more?

  68. The Great Satan
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 5:42 PM | Permalink

    here’s one, a British Colonel, not a tool of the IDF and with no incentive to make excuses for Israel:

    http://www.mesi.org.uk/ViewVideo.aspx?VideoId=135

    I am not saying the IDF is beyond reproach, but to say it is their policy to kill civilians (that is Hamas’ policy) is wrong. As you will also see above, I am very critical of the rabbis who have tried to turn this into a religious war, they have been well documented.

    Abu, I would be very interested to see documented proof of that policy if you have it

  69. Abu Yusuf
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 5:47 PM | Permalink

    The Great Satan,

    I did not say that it is “their their policy to kill civilians”.

    Rather, it was you who said that IDF take “unprecedented steps to minimize civilian casualties”. The onus is on you to prove this. I don’t have to prove anything.

  70. Posted August 11, 2009 at 5:50 PM | Permalink

    Idrees Ahmad links to this comment about me on the Socialist Unity authored by the weird and nasty crank, Bob Pitt. Pretty extensive work on Neocon Europe!

    It’s funny that Idrees should look to Socialist Unity blog for damining evidence on me. But he fails to mention that Andy Newman, owner of the SocialistUnity blog downplayed the violent Chinese repression of the Uighurs because he feels that the unity of the PRC was more important than the fate of the uighur nation and, in his words, “necessary for developing and improving the living standards of their 1.3 billion population”. Instead he put the blame on the Muslim Uighurs as a symptom of their “fictitious pseudo-history”.

    It looks like, as far as I can tell, if you’re part of the far left-Islamist nexus you can support state repression of Muslims and you won’t be collared with the Neocon jibe and you won’t get an entry on Idrees Ahmad’s pathetic one-sided wiki.

    Or am I to understand that the repression of the Uighurs, like the repression of the people of Darfur, does not constitute Islamophobia? But why is that? I don’t discern any signs that the Uighurs repression is, as Idrees claims of Darfur, “being deployed as a strategic distraction from Israeli crimes against the Palestinians”.

    Unless of course you’re less interested in the plight of Muslims than you are with the culpability of the “Israel Lobby”.

    What exactly is the qualitative difference between Muslims in Palestine and Muslims in Darfur and Xinjiang?

    Lets not forget that the stretch-limo afficianado Abdurahman Jafar and Hamas cheerleader Daud Ibrahim have both shared a platform against “Islamophobia” with the members of the far-left represented by Andrew Newman and his high-profile confréres George Galloway, Seumas Milne etc.

    Will we get an explanation why Daud Ibrahim, Abdurahman Jafar, George Galloway, Seumas Milne and Andy Newman don’t have entries on Idrees’ sad little wiki effort?

  71. The Great Satan
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 5:59 PM | Permalink

    Abu Yusuf,

    my request was to Abu Wannabe Arab.

    I have backed up my claim with the video which i link to in my previous comment. The point here is not that IDF soldiers have behaved badly, which thay have, but that the IDF did take steps that have never been taken before by a military, to minimise the civilan death toll as much as possible, sometimes to the detriment of the actual mission. This is a fact, no other army has ever tried so hard to minimise civilian casualties as the IDF did in Jan 2009.
    Consider also that the fighting is happening in densely populated areas where Hamas use human shields.

    We are now veering too far away from the subject of this blog, and dear old Faisal is doing his best to steer things back on course, so lets allow him to do that.

  72. Abu Yusuf
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 6:03 PM | Permalink

    The,

    That’s what you get for calling me Abu.

    Anyway, it’s pointless trying to defend IDF’s treatment of Arabs. More than anything, it resembles the pitiful sight of an Islamist trying to defend suicide bombing.

  73. tobias
    Posted August 11, 2009 at 11:36 PM | Permalink

    @This is a fact, no other army has ever tried so hard to minimise civilian casualties as the IDF did in Jan 2009.
    Consider also that the fighting is happening in densely populated areas where Hamas use human shields.

    Oh please.
    Yes they the IDF forced the entire Samouni family into one house and the repeatedly shelled it.
    The IDF command new what what happening. It’s simply pathetic propaganda to claim the IDF tried “so hard to minimise casualties”.
    Did they try that when they were bombing hospitals? Or schools? Or Mosques? Or the UN buildings?
    Face facts the IDF have no real concern in minimising civilian casualties. And you can find that in the testimony of its own soldiers who bear witness to the fact IDF command encouraged them to behave in such a way.
    It’s a well known fact that the settlers/those of a settler mentality make up a chunk of the IDF. For them, Palestinians are nothing but “Goyem” right?
    Is that the correct term?

    @”Anyone who knows about Hamas will tell you that the best they are willing to accept is a 10-20 year hudna. Yes Meshaal has said he will accept the 67 borders, while at the same time saying that he:

    -refuses to accept israel’s right to exist
    - refuses to denounce the genocidal founding charter”

    This I find strange. Anyone who knows Hamas? Who does know Hamas? Not you or I, and certainly not the Israeli politicians.
    The funniest bit about all this is the Israeli politicians are attempting to force Palestinians to accept a state that continues to steal their land, while they Israeli’s fail to recognise any existence of Palestine ever!!! The Judaic-revisionist history has gone so far now , that many prominent Jews claim there were no people in Palestine when they arrived!!
    See Melanie Phillips as the perfect example of this. She seems to be the most ardent supporter of Israel in the British media and she’s claimed that the Palestinian people are a fiction!! Apparently they all lived around Amman and Petra, then they suddenly see the Jews arriving by the boat load and then these Jordanian Arabs come to the coast and decide to live there!!! WTF!?
    Such a story would be laughable if it were not so disgusting.

    Hamas refuses to accept a state that steals its land, that bombs it people and refuses to even acknowledge their historical roots to the land….and you want want Hamas to accept Israel after this?

    Let’s call for parity here. Hamas to recognise Israel if Israel recognises a state of Palestine and withdraws to the 1967 borders.
    Palestine gets to maintain its own airspace, borders and shores just as any other nation-state would. Palestine is not to be demilitarised (as so many Israeli’s want it at their mercy), but rather it shall have it’s own armed forces to defend it self from foreign attack. Palestinians can democratically elect anyone they want without foreign interference.
    That seems fair to me.

    Now try and get Netenyahu/Livni or Barak to support that fair deal. Both you and I know it’s not gonna happen. The Israeli’s don’t want a fair deal, they wand as much land as they can get.
    They myth of “Eretz israel” is still strong amongst some Israel’s and Jews.

    @refuses to denounce the genocidal founding charter”
    I believe the charter has been changed. Well, that’s what the boys at the Eurasia Group told me a while ago.
    Anyhow, let’s not forget the Israeli’s, have they changed their attitude since their founding:

    Or

    “Blowing up a house is not enough. What is necessary is cruel and strong reactions. We need precision in time, place and casualties … strike mercilessly, women and children included. Otherwise, the reaction is inefficient. At the place of action there is no need to distinguish between guilty and innocent.”
    ~ (David Ben-Gurion), January 1, 1948 — Independence War Diary

    Or how about:

    “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”
    ~ David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff.

    Seems to me that everything Ben Gurion said is still being done the Israeli’s!!
    The Israeli’s don’t renounce Ben Gurion and they certainly don’t renounce his ways.
    Some things never change, eh??

  74. tobias
    Posted August 12, 2009 at 12:03 AM | Permalink

    Shikwa/Majid, are you going to reinstate my statements (The Great Satan’s too!)??
    We’ve already established that they did not contravene the blog’s rules. So be a good chap and bring them back.

    Also, how many hits are you getting from Australia/Aregentina?
    I am very curious about this vast international audience that you speak of.

  75. Abdurahman Jafar
    Posted August 12, 2009 at 1:12 AM | Permalink

    The IDF tried to minimise Palestinian civilian casualties in the same way the Nazi’s did to the Jews – i.e. it is a propaganda stunt. The Nazi’s produced wonderful videos of places where they kept Jews for their own safety and security. They prevented any journalist or camera’s from going anywhere near the concentration camps – sound familiar? But the one thing the Nazi’s did that was different from the Israeli’s was that they sought to hide their attrocities from their own population, the gas camps were kept secret outside Germany. In Israel however zionists set up dinner tables around Gaza and ate meals as they watched and celebrated the burning of children in Gaza.
    Why does Great Satan not divert his energies to exposing Zionist facism instead of banging on about how people who may have read a Maudawdi book in the past are “facists”? The only conclusion one can draw is that not only is he not concerned about racism and facism at all, rather he is a racist and facist for supporting Zionist supremacy and racial apartheid.

  76. Posted August 12, 2009 at 4:51 AM | Permalink

    Jafar

    Whilst you’re here, can we have your thoughts on why you are a member of a political group whose members think the People’s Republic of China were justified in brutally cracking down on the Uighurs for the last 20 years, and that the Uighur’s side of the story is only a “fictitious pseudo-history”?

    You once said:

    “There’s a very clear linking between those who carry Islamophobic narratives and those who support war in Iraq, in Afghanistan. In other words a neoconservative agenda.”

    Tell us, Jafar, why only Iraq and Afghanistan? Why isn’t genocide of Muslims (Darfur), or denied democracy by repressive governments (Iran and China) not considered worthy of your attention? In fact, why are Muslims in Iran, Sudan, Bangladesh and China so off your radar that you form alliances with people who support (and have supported) for their repression and mass murder (Andy Newman, George Galloway, the IFE to name a few)?

  77. Abu Wannabe Arab
    Posted August 12, 2009 at 8:53 AM | Permalink

    The IDF forces, or elements within them, are no worse than Al Qaeda. They believe that they are engaged in a theological struggle to protect God’s chosen people. Many stories of the deliberate targeting of civilians have emerged through the years. We should all have the courage to condemn this if we are to be consistent in our criticism of extremism.

  78. The Great Satan
    Posted August 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM | Permalink

    Abu Arab,
    I hope that wasnt a pop at me, if so:

    I have done precisely that, if you see above i refer to the IDF rabbis who were exposed during the 2009 conflict as framing the conflict in crazy religious terms. See this for example:

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1058758.html

  79. The Great Satan
    Posted August 12, 2009 at 10:41 AM | Permalink

    Jafar,

    What’s the point in responding to you? You have already made it quite clear where you stand on fascist supremacist groups – you support them as long as they’re Muslim.

  80. tobias
    Posted August 12, 2009 at 11:17 AM | Permalink

    The Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, Insurgency
    - http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n05/mamd01_.html

    Genocide in Darfur?
    I know that killing has taken place but is it at the level of genocide?
    Hhhmmmm……

    BTW the Save Darfur Campaign which had made millions ($15 million by 2007) has donated NONE of it to Darfur.

    —————————————————————————————
    “When I was in Darfur in 2008, I asked a UN humanitarian officer how much of the $15m Save Darfur had raised in 2007 had really found its way to Darfur. He said none. When I returned to New York, I called a contact in the Save Darfur head office in Washington DC and asked him if this was true. His response was that Save Darfur was not an aid agency but an advocacy group.

    Save Darfur began in 2004 and comprises 180 associations – at the start, mainly religious (particularly Jewish) and evangelical movements – and can mobilise 130 million people. Save Darfur advocates claim that President Omar al-Bashir’s government has been waging genocide in the west of Sudan since 2003. Through repeated pressure and media and political networks, the movement succeeded in getting the US government to repeat the charge in 2004 (1).

    But the knowledge base of this claim does not withstand scrutiny, starting with the question of how many died in Darfur, especially at the height of the violence in 2003-4. In 2006 the Government Accountability Office, the US Congressional audit agency, asked a panel of 12 experts to evaluate six different estimates of excess mortality in Darfur during this period, ranging from a low of 70,000 by the World Health Organization (WHO) to a high of some 400,000 by Save Darfur associated researchers.

    The panel agreed unanimously that the high-end estimates were the least reliable, based on unwarranted generalisations from selected samples, and that the most reliable estimate was by a WHO-linked research lab in Belgium, CRED (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters), which put the mortality figure at 118,142 (2). Also, violence was only one of the two major causes of death – responsible for 35,000 of the deaths according to CRED’s report. Drought and desertification had also played a deadly role. Not only had Save Darfur publicity inflated the numbers of the dead, but it had misleadingly implied that all who died had been killed. And, although on 4 March 2009 three International Criminal Court (ICC) judges upheld the indictment against President al-Bashir for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, they did not accuse him of genocide (see Darfur, the history).

    http://mondediplo.com/2009/08/06darfur

    An agency that makes millions off a disaster and then gives not a single penny to the cause it so ferociously speaks for, seems like an untrustworthy organisation for me.

  81. Posted August 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM | Permalink

    Tobias, please will you provide us with five examples of what you would consider to be genocides. Would you include Israel-Palestine on that list?

  82. The Great Satan
    Posted August 12, 2009 at 12:10 PM | Permalink

    Yossi,

    of course he think Israel-Palestine is a genocide – just look how he minimises the mass raping, macheting and murder of darfuri women and children. Only al-Bashir apologists , like al Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood, now deny that Darfur is a genocide

  83. tobias
    Posted August 12, 2009 at 12:11 PM | Permalink

    Awww….poor baby.
    Can’t dispute the truth? I’m sure someone can find a way of twisting it though.

    I’ll give you guys a a few hints…
    How about you blame the North Koreans for instigating Darfur in order to weaken US resolve on their border. They did so by working in coalition with Bin laden, Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and Berlusconi!!
    Why Berlusconi? Because he wants the world to look over his sexual indiscretions.
    Trust me guys, the more people you label as “bad guys”, the more believable your argument will be.
    But don’t ever mention the influence of AIPAC on Congress, because AIPAC are a humanitarian organisation that care for al humanity and not the secial interests of a self-proclaimed “chosen people”.
    Yay, all “bad guys” = virulent evil (Berlusconi included) who are destroying darfur, and “good guys” = America, AIPAC and the Save Darfur Campaign who “raise money for Darfur”.

    LOL. Now if I saw that in the paper, I would buy two copies!!
    Please note, that it all tongue-in-cheek it’s meant to be a joke.

    But on a serious note, I’m surprised no one’s going to dispute the facts that I’ve posted.
    I’m sure “The Arabian Neocon” who refers to Darfur as “most brutal genocides of our time” has some relevant facts.

    Let him/her come forth.
    I’m still waiting for him/her to reveal their identity.

    We can do the list of genocides, when I can be bothered. Maybe I can have guest post on this site?!
    I think you would agree that it’s best that we address the topics “The Arabian Neocon” has brought up for the time being.

  84. tobias
    Posted August 12, 2009 at 12:13 PM | Permalink

    @

    Yossi,

    of course he think Israel-Palestine is a genocide – just look how he minimises the mass raping, macheting and murder of darfuri women and children. Only al-Bashir apologists , like al Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood, now deny that Darfur is a genocide

    I spoke to soon!
    It was only a matter of time before the right-wing nut in you came out.
    Let’s talk facts and not the opinion of the American-israel advocacy groups.

  85. The Great Satan
    Posted August 12, 2009 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

    Toby,

    On darfur, I suggest you check out a heroic charity called ‘Waging Peace’, they are by miles the best group who work on the Darfur genocide.

  86. Posted August 12, 2009 at 12:14 PM | Permalink


    Genocide in Darfur?
    I know that killing has taken place but is it at the level of genocide?
    Hhhmmmm……

    Perhaps not formally genocide but even from the quote you have pasted into your comment:

    In 2006 the Government Accountability Office, the US Congressional audit agency, asked a panel of 12 experts to evaluate six different estimates of excess mortality in Darfur during this period, ranging from a low of 70,000 by the World Health Organization (WHO) to a high of some 400,000 by Save Darfur associated researchers.

    By any estimate, 70,000 to 400,000 deaths is a lot of dead people which you seem so ready to write off.

    Is this because they have been killed at the hands of Omar al Bashir’s regime and no Western actors are around you can offload some of the blame onto? Or because you think the numbers are too low for concern?

    I’m asking because I would still like to know what the qualitative difference is between Palestinian Muslims and Sudanese Muslims.

  87. The Great Satan
    Posted August 12, 2009 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

    oh, and they’re not run by Jews. Just thought i would preempt you there

  88. tobias
    Posted August 12, 2009 at 12:17 PM | Permalink

    Speak to y’all soon. Busy day today.
    Will have to respond to later.

    Come out with some facts and sound reasoning.
    I won’t be responding to any accusations, emotive language, mendacious rhetoric or lies.
    (Guess, that rules out responses to the “The great satan” and “shikwa” then!!)

    I shall sign off by saying,

    One Love!

  89. Posted August 12, 2009 at 12:32 PM | Permalink

    And I shall sign off by saying
    One Heart!

  90. Abdurahman Jafar
    Posted August 12, 2009 at 4:17 PM | Permalink

    Dear Faisal what led you to believe I don’t condemn the attrocities against the Uighurs or Darfurians? I do and wholeheartedly. Whether what is happening to them is a genocide may be arguable but it is not irrelevant – what is relevant is that it must be stopped.

    The reason why Palestine is different is because, unilke the aforementioned, the genoicide against the Palestinians, i.e. prosecuting war crimes with an intent to kill a race, is supported by our own Government, remember our foreign secretary’s reluctance to condemn the IDF during the Gaza slaughter, the BBC’s refusal to play humanitarian adds, Blairs attempts to prevent a ceasefire in Lebanon in 06 … the list goes on and on.

    Great Satans attempts to appear balanced are superficial as they are unconvincing. It is like saying he condemns the catholic priests who supported the Nazi campaign but protects the actual Nazi war machine. The reality is that the people of Israel elect a government which announces it’s desire for a “Holocaust” against the Palestinians. In that way Israel exceed Nazi Germany in popular racism, the Nazi’s had to disguise their racism and deny it to their people to an extent. Of course Great Satan or Spitoon won’t talk about this and our governments support for it. They support it.

  91. Posted August 12, 2009 at 5:18 PM | Permalink

    Dear Faisal what led you to believe I don’t condemn the attrocities against the Uighurs or Darfurians? I do and wholeheartedly. Whether what is happening to them is a genocide may be arguable but it is not irrelevant – what is relevant is that it must be stopped.

    Dear Jafar, with respect, that’s only half an answer.
    You haven’t explained why you think China’s state repression of the Uighur peoples is *not* an example of Islamophobia.

  92. Abdurahman Jafar
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 1:06 AM | Permalink

    Faisal – I can’t believe you write for the Guardian – what made you conclude I “think China’s state repression of the Uighur peoples is *not* an example of Islamophobia”? Of course it is. China uses the same sweeping neo-con inspired arguments promoted by you lot on Spitoon – it says it is against “Islamist terrorists”! Every oppression of Muslims, including in Somalia, Philipines, Thailand, Russia etc uses the same argument to crush legitimate claims to equal rights – they have the right to crush Muslim people because they are “Islamists”. Thanks you people like you this false narrative is unquestioned and provides blanket cover for the worlds most egreious violations of human rights, the starkest and most persistent and systematic of which can be found in Israel. This in turn feeds oxygen into Al-Qaeda type thinking. The sooner we get normal Muslims involved in the debate instead of short sighted bigots going on and on about about irrelevant dead people like maududi et al the better.

  93. Bangali
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 3:12 AM | Permalink

    I think if there is a disease for a condition where one undertakes random art reaction attacks on art; maybe joophobia where people are afraid of Jews ruling the world, it could well be a psychological disease, maybe we should start treating these people?

    Just to clarify, I am not in favour of the neocon method of treating it through waterboarding them in hot climates sun as Cuba! Whether our intelligence people approved or not is not the criterion, it is scientific effectivity, which judging from Begg’a recent support for killing Jewish women and children through advocacy of such joophobic speakers as Awlaki proves it is not effective.

    Though the condition may well be treatable, if at first we can acknowledge it.

  94. Bangali
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 3:37 AM | Permalink

    Sorry, I have to ask, which branch of neoconservatism does Chinese communism fit into?????!!!!!

    Bro, come on. The Chinese state is a repressive state that has nothing to do with neocon Jews and the like! The propaganda that it uses is what suits them. Just like the Iranians use their own to repress the Muslims in their state. Except that Ahmedinajad and the Iranian state machinery are justified through religion, though we know Islam does not justify political repression, though this must be some Iranian Jew controling the state imposing a neocon style repression against Muslims? Or is it a neocon Iranian fringe and clerical faction that is causing the trouble? Those pesky neocon mullahs!

    No, by far the worse neocons are the Islamist Sudanese government; those bloody Jews in Sudan, killing people in Darfur.

    J, you are named after one of the great scholars, and great grandsons (in line) of the prophet, a descendent of Sunni and Shia patriarchs from Abu Bakr and imam Ali, a persecuted but noble lineage, teachers of Sunni scholarship of the likes of Imam Abu Hanifa, yet you appear to be a shame to the great mans name, named after the cousin of the prophet who fought alongside a just Christian King to secure religious freedom and maintain the King in power – how contradictory to the mad Islamist, sectarian, ranting excuse for the Islamist tyrants you are is quite a shame.

    Please give us your understanding, an exhaustive and exclusive understanding of neoconservative ideology, and how you identify them and what your problem is with it. Just being against Islamism, is not a good enough criterion as that included 90% of Muslims and most of their scholars.

  95. Abdurahman Jafar
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 3:52 AM | Permalink

    Now Bengali – you are someone I have no doubt does not recieve a penny in blood money – an amoeba does a better job at expressing themselves then you. No, you are just one of those sad first generation fuckwits who still can’t get their bearings coming off the banana boat and can’t shake off that accent, didn’t give a damn about your kids education, fed up with your eldest turning to drugs, daughter getting pregnant and your youngest turn to Al-Muhajiroun ala Ed Hussain (don’t know which is worse) you turn to your mind numbing “traditional Islam” and feel secure in your wife beating which you can do just dandy and be accepted by British society just so long as you continue to heep scorn upon Modern Islam and its “Islamist” expressions. YOU ARE JUSTIFYING TORTURE – get the fuck off our planet. Well done Spitoon – you really know how to cultivate the liberalism in the community!

  96. Posted August 13, 2009 at 5:28 AM | Permalink

    Jafar:

    Faisal – I can’t believe you write for the Guardian – what made you conclude I “think China’s state repression of the Uighur peoples is *not* an example of Islamophobia”? Of course it is. China uses the same sweeping neo-con inspired arguments promoted by you lot on Spitoon – it says it is against “Islamist terrorists”! Every oppression of Muslims, including in Somalia, Philipines, Thailand, Russia etc uses the same argument to crush legitimate claims to equal rights – they have the right to crush Muslim people because they are “Islamists”.

    You’re being disingenuous Jafar and I believe you know it. Since it is you and your fellows at RESPECT, the MCB and IFE who have formed an alliance with ideologues of the far-left. And they have repeatedly dismissed or downplayed the extent of repression of Muslims in Darfur, Xinjiang and Iran. And you know who I mean.

    You know Andy Newman, don’t you? He’s one your mates from KAFA. What are your thoughts about his statement that the repression of Uighurs is “necessary for developing and improving the living standards of their 1.3 billion population”? As you know, he put the blame on the Muslim Uighurs as a symptom of their “fictitious pseudo-history”? Have you given this any thought at all or chosen to ignore it? Consider what your reaction would be if a “neoconservative” had said the same thing about Palestinian or Iraqi Muslims. I think you would be making appropriately angry noises and getting ready to denounce the author of the statement, wouldn’t you? So why the lethargy when it comes to Andy Newman?

    You’re an intelligent man Jafar. How do you square this inconistency in your “Islamophobia” thesis? Is it because your political associates are never guilty of Islamophobia even when they clearly are or because your judgement is seriously impaired by your political ambitions or is it because you don’t regard Muslims from Xinjiang as Muslims?

  97. Effendi the Librarian
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 7:25 AM | Permalink

    Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

    RESPECT Party’s Abdurahman Jafar makes this disparaging remark about Muslim immigrants to the UK:

    “you are just one of those sad first generation fuckwits who still can’t get their bearings coming off the banana boat and can’t shake off that accent”

    Is this the same Abdurahman Jafar who claims to stand up for the “justice of Muslims”?

    Jafar likes to think himself as representative of British Muslims, particularly those in London’s East End but does he have the guts to insult a first-generation Bengali immigrant by saying this to their face? I doubt it.

    No wonder RESPECT is a disgraced political party if this statement is representative of the sentiments of one of its high-profile Southasian Muslim members. This is pure and simple bigotry and just because AR Jafar is Southasian does not diminisn the racist nature of this statement. It just underlines his own self-loathing.

  98. Abdurahman Jafar
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 8:20 AM | Permalink

    Faisal, in the words of another Spitoon commentarot you really are a boring old fart. Is you next question going to be “Jafar you haven’t condemned the Boer war yet you war mongerer”?

    Of course Andy is wrong – but not because he is Islamophobic, many people are clouded in their views because of a sense of political loyalty. I object to many on the lefts seemingly blind deference to human rights abuses by nominally socialist countries, it was the same with Bosnia. People are entitled to their views and if they are reasoned and not compelled by discriminatory prejudice then they’re entitled to their views although I may not agree with them – so?

    But what about you Faisal – what makes you support Israeli genocide? I can’t fathom why anyone would support the systematic violation of another race for a purely racial purpose, they belong in the dustbin of history. And what about Islamophobia Faisal – tell us what you think about it’s mainstream legitimization in the guise of the “anti-Islamist” narrative?

    And erm, no Effendi, identifying the insecurities that are prevalent in people in MY community who support torture (and who incidently are attracted to the atavistic ideals regurgitated by Spitoon) is not racist. But notions held by Spitoon, the rights of all adherents to a particular religion accross the board should violated, are discriminatory to the highest degree.

  99. Posted August 13, 2009 at 9:19 AM | Permalink

    Abdurahman Jafar, I am intrigued. You are familiar enough with Mawdudi to say that you are not his supporter. Which means that you know Islamism exists and, at least in its Mawdudist form, you reject it.
    1) Why then do you conflate being against Islamism and being against Islam?
    2) Why do you hang out with Bungles who, I believe, has written about how reading Mawdudi got him into Islam in the first place?
    3) You talk about how false accusations of Antisemitism have been used to defend Zionism, do you not think the same happens with accusations of Islamophobia and Islamism?
    Of course, the disgraceful ‘Casuals United’/EDF protests against ‘Muslim Extremism’ were, in reality, anti-Muslim protests, but not every person who is against extremism (in particular extremism from people who happen to be Muslims who subscribe to an Islamist ideology) is also against Islam. Especially when (as with the majority of the writers at Spittoon) the people criticising Islamists are also Muslims.

  100. bananabrain
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 9:20 AM | Permalink

    But what about you Faisal – what makes you support Israeli genocide? I can’t fathom why anyone would support the systematic violation of another race for a purely racial purpose, they belong in the dustbin of history.

    the trouble is that your view of the conflict is so astoundingly tendentious that it makes it virtually impossible to talk any sense about it. genocide, indeed. only someone who had never been to israel and didn’t know the people that live there and the people related to the people that live there could hold views so at variance with the reality. you don’t understand the first thing about israel, the IDF, or zionism, let alone jews. if all your acquaintance is through the left-wing and islamist media alone then i am sure you will think that israel is solely populated by messianic settler rabbis and their military bullyboys, but as convenient as this fiction may be for you it does not reflect the truth, let alone the complexity of the situation. lest it be thought that i am apologising for the aforementioned religious loonies and thugs, let me make it abundantly clear that i am not. nor do i subscribe to the view from the portion of the other side that refuses to recognise palestinian legitimacy, grievance, pain and suffering, let alone aspirations for peace. people like you are no friend to the palestinians. you are doing nothing to help them in any real sense. no palestinian will suffer less, eat better, sleep better or live better or more honourably and happily as a result of your actions. all you are doing is using them as a flag to wave to excuse your own ignorance and prejudice. you would do far better to rethink your position on this issue and come back when you have matured beyond this pathetic partisanship.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  101. Posted August 13, 2009 at 9:25 AM | Permalink

    On another note, Abdurahman Jafar, the Spittoon is against Islamism (and other forms of extremism) but this does not mean that we call for the rights of Islamists to be violated. For example, I have heavily criticised Hizb ut-Tahrir on a number of occasions but I do not think it should be banned and I have criticised commenters here at Spittoon who, it appeared to me, were making light of the treatment Hizb ut-Tahrir members have received at the hands of the Turkish state.

  102. Mikey
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    To try and get back to the topic of this thread, can one of the Neocon Europe website supporters tell me what they think a neocon actually is and what it is not? i.e I would like some kind of definition from the supporters of the site of a neconservative.

    .

  103. Abu Wannabe Arab
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 11:23 AM | Permalink

    Gosh, Jafar is still here. I thought he had signed off never to return. Must be addictive.

  104. Effendi
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 11:32 AM | Permalink

    The sooner we get normal Muslims involved in the debate instead of short sighted bigots going on and on about about irrelevant dead people like maududi et al the better.

    It isn’t normal Muslims who are hung up on “irrelevent dead people like maududi et al” it is the Jamaat-e-Islami who base their ideology on Maududi. And since the IFE is a UK front for the Jamaat, and as a member of the Muslim Security Forum, you partner with the IFE are representatives of Muslims in London!

    It is Islamists like you and your IFE fellow travellers who are the ideological progeny of maududi. So who do you think you’re fooling?

  105. dawood
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

    Did the Labour Ilford South MP Mike Gapes accuse Abdurahman Jafar of a “devious stunt” or of being a “devious cunt”?

  106. Watcher
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

    Part of the problem is that Maududi simply loathed the West and everything associated with it – including the Western view of human rights. He argued that women must be kept secluded unless they have a specific and valid reason for leaving home. In so far as the education of a female, this is what he stated:

    If a woman is prepared to acquire the knowledge meant for the man’s field of activity this will not only be disastrous for that woman but also for the rest of humanity and there is no room in Islam for this.

    This of course contradicts the tradition of the Prophet that seeking knowledge is a compulsory duty for Muslims irrespective if they are men or women.

    Maududi also quite prominently quotes selected versus from the Koran to try and demonstrate the superiority of Muslims to non Muslims and to argue that Muslims and non Muslim communities should be separated. He accepts that non Muslims should be humiliated by the payment of a jizyah.

    Any group that use the work of Maududi as a basis of their ideology means that they are encouraging the idea of a conflict between Islam and the West. This cannot possibly be good for peaceful relations between Islamic states and Western countries. Moreover followers of this type of ideology in Western countries such as the UK encourage a hostility between British Muslims and the rest of British society. I see this is a substantially problematic, the sad thing is that followers of Maududi do not.

  107. Abu Wannabe Arab
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

    And that is exactly what the MCB types are doing. They are further radicalising young British Muslims and are largely responsible for creating much of the radicalisation we see today.

  108. Romford Rudeboy
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 2:20 PM | Permalink

    Dear Mr Arabian Neo-Con.

    When are we getting the next entry on Muhammad Idrees Ahmad? I’m interested to know what more is to come. Apparently he thinks that Mother Teresa, Jimmy Carter and Neil Armstrong were also neo-cons.

    I’m sure that Idrees is looking forward to seeing the entry as well. It will also give him something to do in that he will have to update his entry on Spittoon again. :-)

  109. Bangali
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 4:03 PM | Permalink

    How about addressing the points you clever law graduate you! I see you are building up your good deeds leading up to Ramadhan!

    Seriously, though come on, is that the best you can do?

  110. Ibn Khaldun
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 4:51 PM | Permalink

    Both ‘Islamism’ and ‘Neo-conservatism’ encompass a broad range of movements who do share core characteristics but also differ in a number of key areas. I think we need to explore these terms and related movements in much more detail before using them.

  111. The Great Satan
    Posted August 13, 2009 at 5:31 PM | Permalink

    bananabrain

    brilliantly put, but i fear all of your efforts will be wasted. lets see what sort of response this will provoke from Mr. Jafar of the Muslim Safety Forum. Jafar, the floor is open sir.

  112. hina
    Posted February 19, 2012 at 5:42 AM | Permalink

    hey idrees

  113. Posted September 14, 2014 at 12:34 AM | Permalink

    I was suggested this web site via my cousin. I am now not
    sure whether or not this post is written by him as no one else know such unique about my difficulty.
    You’re incredible! Thank you!

  114. Posted October 9, 2014 at 1:10 AM | Permalink

    Hello, every time i used to check weblog posts here in the early hours in the
    dawn, as i love to find out more and more.

  115. Posted October 10, 2014 at 8:16 PM | Permalink

    Tonight’s show saw Jillian meeting with a woman named Debra whose starting weight is
    239.

  116. Posted October 17, 2014 at 2:16 PM | Permalink

    Hello, this weekend is good designed for me, since this moment i am reading this wonderful informative article here at my home.

  117. Posted November 11, 2014 at 3:06 PM | Permalink

    Not forgetting the large consequence this would have
    upon someones financial situation. This will provide you with a
    great base to develop your beat on. However, you want the ability
    to import drum beats as well.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Subscribe without commenting

  • Categories

  • Archives