I have several books on Pappy, and enjoyed his autobiography very much. For decades people have known to take it with a grain of salt, so just enjoy it for the way he talks and for those odd little moments when he pulls back the curtain and lets you see the real person. The man who spent most of his life controlled by alcohol didn't take his first drink until his mid-twenties, and started right off the bat with a full-on black-out. He tells the story so funny, but he and the reader know he just stuck his foot in a trap he'd be trying to get of for the next 50 years.
In the end, with all his faults, he was a gifted pilot and personally fearless, and it's as my dad always says, "It's guys like him who won the war."

Good perspective.

Bill, I usually agree with your (usually) evenhanded comments.

But esmay is wrong here, and more importantly, in bad faith. For example, the equivalence he draws between taqiyya and the protocols of the elders of zion: taqiyya, while not expressly articulated in the koran, does have a long history concomitant to islam. whereas the protocols (and i hope you'll agree with me here,) were abject forgeries, lies told about jews by non-jews.

IOW, esmay thinks that focusing on a practice ESPOUSED BY SOME MUSLIMS, no matter how small a minority, is equivalent to knowlingly publishing blood libels of the scale of the protocols?

Then there is the matter of his target. Remember that Esmay took some shots at Malkin and Allapundit, et al., not too long ago, without any supporting evidence, and got his teeth kicked in? Remember those scribbled rants against Malkin and Allapundit, et al., in which he made quite a few assertions that he failed to -attempt- to support?

So now, he's reduced to going after commenters. Oh, the irony is rich. I, for one, condemn categorically bigotry against persons based on any factor, including religious beliefs. So there.

But it's too freaking rich, too hysterically droll, for esmay to demand that charles johnson distance himself from his commenters when (to the best of my knowledge- prove me wrong, please...) an australian sheik is blaming western women for their own rapes, and makes no judgements about muslims who fail to similarly distance themselves.

AND, we might note, Johnson has, at points, distanced himself from particularly vile comments. Now, granted that it's easier for esmay to hold to this standard, as he gets about a quarter of johnson's traffic.

Nonetheless, Esmay might have a better position here if he were calling for muslims to distance themselves from apologias for gangrape a little more often.

I've tried to refrain from making really nasty personal attacks in this post, because the topic demands it. But really, it's hard to consider esmay's comments about the protocols/taqiyya as anything other than approaching the level of jews=hitler commentary. He ought to know better, and you shouldn't support him in this, bill. You really shouldn't.

sprry for the wall of comments, this just really got under my skin. i did resist the temptation to post a sockpuppet klansman screaming for jew-blood, and then time esmay's reaction, just for snarkiness. but only just barely.

jdubious -

I think that he got the tone right on that post, and despite your arguable logic association criticism of "taquiya = protocols," he has a good point: namely, that whenever good news comes from practicing Muslims who denounce terror, a host of commenters dismiss it as an evil trick. this conspiratorial thinking has very similar roots in various prejudices.

Furthermore, while I take your point about not being responsible for commenters, at a certain point, the proprieter of a site has to take stock at the sentiment being promoted and how individuals embrace it. While I don't condemn Charles Johnson as a racist, etc., as some are wont to do, and though I see his site as a valuable resource, when I see the comments on any given day at LGF, JihadWatch and other sites - numerous comments that essentially label all Muslims as inhuman "Orcs" and Islam as an immutable evil death cult - I get uncomfortable.

And that, I think, to one degree or another, is Dean's point. And it's not a bad one.

I gotta disagree on Dean too.

Taqiyya is understood by many Muslims to mean just that. Google taqiyya and check out the first, non-wickipedia result. It's a guy proving, proving, that taqiyya is in the Koran and it has stories showing that it's used to lie in everyday situations. That's a debate going on in Islam.

Dean thinks it's wrong to alienate Muslims who don't feel that way.

I think it's wrong to deny that many Muslims have a fundamentalist viewpoint that is incompatible with freedom.

My office had a community day. There were many booths with pamphlets and prizes and stuff. One was a Muslim society. I took a few pamphlets and a Koran.

In the pamphlets (from WAMY) it was made clear that the purpose of Islam is to control every facet of life. Every single one. They say that. Economics, gov't, laws, everything. This was in a pamphlet specifically designed to show a softer side of Islam. The pamphlets were also full of historical inaccuracies. In the section talking about the peaceful spread of Islam they actually mention Andalusia/Spain. As if the conversions there were peaceful and not by the sword.

What the attitude Dean has also ignores is the people who make excuses for the intolerants in Islam. Like the UC Urvine story on LGF right now. Or like the BBC defending that imam in Australia who compared raped women to uncovered meat.

If Pat Robertson had said, "The bitch was asking for it." people would go absolutely fricking crazy. Why does an important imam get a pass?

It's the soft bigotry of low expectations. I am an equal opportunity basher. I don't care who does it, I deplore certain things no matter who does them.

I don't disagree with much of your comment.

Taqiyya is understood by many Muslims to mean just that. Google taqiyya and check out the first, non-wickipedia result. It's a guy proving, proving, that taqiyya is in the Koran and it has stories showing that it's used to lie in everyday situations. That's a debate going on in Islam.

Huh? The first non-Wikipedia link from Google that I get is this one, which includes such hair raising descriptions of taqiyya as this:

On the analogy [Qiyas] of these three cases, the scholars of Hadith have pointed out some other exemptions: for saving the life and honor of innocent person from the highhandedness of tyrants and oppressors if one finds no other way to save them.

and

"Concealing or disguising one's
beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from
physical and/or mental injury." A one-word translation would be "Dissimulation."

and

With the above in mind, it becomes evident that a better, and more accurate
definition of "al-Taqiyya" is "diplomacy." The true spirit of "al-Taqiyya" is better embodied in the single word "diplomacy" because it encompasses a comprehensive spectrum of behaviors that serve to further the vested interests of all parties involved.

Dorkafork, that's the link I was talking about. Notice it's the first page. I don't know how to navigate around it so I just changed the "1" at the end of the URL into a "2" and a "3" to see the other pages.

Here's part of what I meant
Some Sunnis assert that al-Taqiyya is an act of pure hypocrisy

And

The following exposition will Insha Allah demonstrate the existence
of al-Taqiyya in the Quran, Hadith, the Prophet's (PBUH&HF) custom,

That's the debate part that I was talking about.

and

"al-Taqiyya is the uttering of the tongue, while the heart is comfortable with faith." NOTE: The meaning is that the tongue is permitted to utter anything in a time of need, as long as the heart is not affected; and one is still comfortable with faith.

The definition of "need" is pretty elastic. As is shown below.

However, those who have been coerced, and as such uttered with their tongues that which their hearts did not confirm to escape persecution,

As is the definition of "persecution".

Abd Ibn Hameed, on the authority of al-Hassan, said: "al-Taqiyya is permissible until the Day of Judgment."

Telling of a lie is a grave sin but a Muslim is permitted to tell a lie in some exceptional cases, and this permission is given especially on three occasions: in case of battle for bringing reconciliation amongst the hostile Muslims and for bringing reconciliation between the husband and the wife. On the analogy [Qiyas] of these three cases, the scholars of Hadith have pointed out some other exemptions: for saving the life and honor of innocent person from the highhandedness of tyrants and oppressors if one finds no other way to save them.

So, in other words, you can lie to save a marriage (I swear he did not have sex with that woman, hell, Clinton should have converted) and once again, the definition of "honor" is elastic.

Go to page 3 for the real eye-opener
"Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers ratherthan believers: if any do that, (they) shall have no relation left with Allah except by way of precaution ("tat-taqooh"), that ye may guard yourselves ("tooqatan") from them....[3:28]"
He notes that those two words, tat-taqooh and tooqatan have the same roots as taqiyya.

And

Dr. al-Tijani wrote a short event where he was sitting next to a Sunni scholar on a flight to London;.....The Sunni scholar said: "The Shia must drop certain beliefs and convictions that cause disunity and animosity among the Muslims." Dr. al-Tijani answered: "Like what?" The Sunni scholar answered: "Like the Taqiyya and Muta' ideas." .... When they both got to London, the immigration officer asked the Sunni scholar: "What is the purpose of your visit sir?" The Sunni scholar said: "For medical treatment." Then Dr. al-Tijani was asked
the same question, and he answered: "To visit some friends."...Dr. al-Tijani
followed the Sunni scholar and said: "Didn't I tell you that al-Taqiyya is
for all times and occasions!" The Sunni scholar said: "How so?" Dr. al-Tijani answered: "Because we both lied to the airport police: I by saying
that I came to visit some friends, and you by saying that you are here for medical treatment; when, in fact, we are here to attend the Islamic
Conference!" The Sunni scholar smiled, and said: "Well, doesn't an Islamic Conference provide healing for the soul?!" Dr. al-Tijani was swift to say: "And doesn't it provide an opportunity to visit friends?!"

So one school of Islamic thought thinks that taqiyya is "for all times and occasions". Their lives weren't in danger. Their religious convictions didn't come under attack. They lied in order to go to a conference. While the one guy lied, he had a plausible explanation but the other guy surely thought that his religion made it okay to lie.

That's what I'm talking about. Dean can speak ex cathedra out of his butt for all of Islam, but they just won't stay on message.

The links refer over and over to proper uses of taqiyya in either a diplomatic sense ("white lies") or they stress the self-defense/preservation of life aspect. And I'm supposed to look askance at Muslims who denounce terror? This is supposed to make me presume their guilt?

The links refer over and over to proper uses of taqiyya in either a diplomatic sense ("white lies") or they stress the self-defense/preservation of life aspect. And I'm supposed to look askance at Muslims who denounce terror? This is supposed to make me presume their guilt?

Buh?

Where did I say anything like that?

Dean says that anybody who disagrees with him on Islam is a traitor. One way he does that is by, repeatedly, claiming that taqiyya is only for certain instances, such as fear of death. He actively ridicules anybody who disagrees, calls them traitor and worse and never, ever, ever responds substantively to anything that shows that maybe, just maybe there is a debate in Islam about these matters.

I just pointed out that there is a debate in Islam about what taqiyya is.

I've never said that I thought that some Muslim denouncing terrorism is practicing taqiyya.

I will say what I say, I hate the condemnations of terrorism that go, "Of course it's bad. But.... Israel ... America"

I like it when they say, "Terrorism is bad."

Note the placement of the period, it's before the "But..."

You said "I gotta disagree on Dean too.

Taqiyya is understood by many Muslims to mean just that."

That was the whole point of Dean's post and reference to taqiyya: the treatment of Muslims who denounce terror.

Also, I don't understand how exactly you disagree with Dean, except maybe the "traitor" talk. The link he put on "TAQQIYA!!" went to previous post of his on taqiyya that makes essentially the same points as the Google link.

I'm glad that you don't presume Muslims denouncing terror is taqiyya.

In point of fact I never once attacked Michelle Malkin, she attacked me. In a particularly vicious, below-the-belt way that was totally uncalled for. And when specifics were demanded of me, I provided them and got -zero- response.

Face it: people got mad at me over that not because I was wrong--I wasn't--but because I struck a nerve.

I was right then, and I'm right now, and everybody at Hot Air and Michellmalkin.com owes me an apology.

And in point of fact the Taqqiya libel is every bit as much of a vicious lie as the Protocols, inasmuch as it is a lie (very few Muslims believe in it, and of those who do it is a belief for protecting life, not routinely lying to unbelievers to justify terrorism) and it is used constantly to libel any Muslim who repudiates terrorism. It spreads hatred about over a billion people on Planet Earth and it is no less libelous than the Protocols.

By the way, it is also a lie--a baldfaced lie--to claim that I call anyone who "disagrees" with me on Islam a traitor. Wrong. I treat people who slander an entire religion with hateful lies as traitors. Because they're spitting on our allies and spitting on the thousands of Muslims serving in our armed forces. And because they're giving aid and comfort to the enemy when they do so.

There are all kinds areas where we can disagree in good faith about Islam, about Muslims, etc. without betraying our allies and betraying our brave fighting men and women.

By the way? I post links on Taqqiya all the time, to multiple sources.

So basically, "Veeshior," you're spreading a lot of lies about me. Thanks a lot.

Oh, and Allahpundit?

You despicable lying weasel. I never said one word about him.

(Urrr... that was not addressed to Allahpundit, whom I've never had cross words with that I can recall, it was addressed to the lie that I publicly attacked him. Really, though, why does it matter? When someone publishes a long string of lies about you, you might as well just let them keep going with more and more right?)

Yup, nice and reasoned there.

That's why I'm done with his site and why I didn't really want to get into this. I was not going to say anything and I shouldn't have.

Good luck with all that hate there Dean.

Oh, you make up a bunch of crap, and then you blame me for reacting to the crap?

Let's go over it again:

1) You falsly claimed I attacked Allahpundit. I never did, ever.
2) I didn't attack Michelle Malkin either. She attacked me.
3) You falsly claimed that I label anyone who "disagrees" with me on Islam. That's a flat-out lie Mike. I label anyone who slanders an entire religion with hateful and irresponsible generalizations a traitor. Please, try telling the truth.
4) You falsly claim that I "never, ever" point to information about debates within Islam about what taqqiya is and means and when it's appropriate, when in point of fact I've done so repeatedly.
5) There are several other examples but I'll stop now.

Let's face it, Mike old man: you've just spouted a bunch of hateful lies about me. Now you wish me luck with "all that hate?" It's all you're trading in.

If you're ever man enough to apologize and retract your lies let me know. Until then I'm glad to be rid of you.

I don't want to "debate" you here Dean and I won't be going to your blog anymore either.

But I will note that I never mentioned either Allah or Michele, I was talking about Brian Macker. As I made very clear in my last post on your site, I think you owe him a huge apology. A huge and very public one. You treated him very poorly and with irrational rancor (the hate I was talking about). Anybody who wants to find out what I mean, just go to Dean's site and search for "Brian Macker traitor" and see how Dean treats his serious, meticulously researched posts.

That's what I was talking about. I shouldn't have said, "anyone", but the list is pretty darn long. As others could attest.

Dean, I am not enough of a scholar on Islam to have a firm opinion on this particular topic, but I'll tell you this much -- your personal style leaves me utterly cold. I assure you, you are not convincing any rational, open-minded folks into adopting your position. The only impact your screeds are likely to have is add emotional conviction to the stance of the already converted that their position (the "libelous" one) is, in fact, correct.

In other words, you are most assuredly NOT doing your side any good at all. I am also quite sure that the sentiments of somebody you don't know from Adam aren't going to change your mind; but since I do agree with you that it's imperative to avoid unnecessarily antagonizing muslims who are at least putatively our allies, I wish you'd either shut up on the topic, or learn to argue it without Oliver Willis levels of invective.

Veeshir, aka Mike Fischer the anonymous coward:

Oh, I get it. You get to spread a bunch of filthy lies about me, such as the following:

1) I attacked Allahpundit, which I never did
2) I attacked Michelle Malkin, which I never did
3) I call anyone who disagrees with me about Islam a traitor, which I never have

But you get to spread these FILTHY LIES ABOUT DEAN ESMAY, because, after all, I was really mean to your buddy Brian Macker, aka Brian WhackJob.

Well let me tell you why your bigot buddy Brian Macker got what he deserved: he stated that no Muslim who truly believed in Mohammed could possibly be trusted, and that any Muslim who disagreed with him about the Koran was a liar.

So now you go ahead and agree with your hatemongering friend Brian WhackJob. But at least be honest about it, you filthy lying crapweasel: it's not my "attacks" you take issue with, it's my defense of Islam against hatemongers that you really take issue with.

So, you know, if I take issue with those who slander and libel the Jews you're on my side, but if I take issue with those who slander and libel the Jews, then you'll happily endorse any LIE about me.

Phil Smith: I am not enough of a scholar on your personal writings to say much except that I could not possibly give less than a shit about your position on my "style."

I call out bigots and liars when I see them. Mike Fischer, aka "Veeshir," has lied in multiple ways about me and when I have called him out on his lies he has chosen not to address them but rather to change the subject to other matters entirely.

So why should I give a shit about you and your criticism of my "style?" You defend vicious lies about me, and vicious lies about one of the most prevalent religions on the planet. Based on nothing but hearsay. So you know what? You can suck my dick, you apologist for slander and hate.

Correction:

So, you know, if I take issue with those who slander and libel the Jews you're on my side, but if I take issue with those who slander and libel the Jews, then you'll happily endorse any LIE about me.

I meant this:

"So, you know, if I take issue with those who slander and libel the Jews you're on my side, but if I take issue with those who slander and libel THE MUSLIMS then you'll happily endorse any lie about me."

Why should I give two shits about you guys' opinion of me? You both endorse lies and libel after all. Why don't you just admit it? It's not me you take issue with, it's just MUSLIMS that you hate.

And oh gosh, my style is so nasty. It has nothing to do with the facts I bring to the table, no it's my STYLE that's so wrong.

Cry me a fucking river. I will have no truck with white supremacists, Michael Moore apologists, terrorist apologists, or Islamophobic nutjobs. Sue me.

Still no official answer to my open letter, by the way. Oh these poor victims of my evil, evil call to consience. Dean is such a bad, bad man.

Bill: this is somebody you think worth linking? For real?

Dean: I underestimated you. You could teach Ollie about being foulmouthed.

And if you think I defended anyone, well, you're drunk.

Oh, I get it. You get to spread a bunch of filthy lies about me, such as the following:

1) I attacked Allahpundit, which I never did
2) I attacked Michelle Malkin, which I never did
3) I call anyone who disagrees with me about Islam a traitor, which I never have

You might want to look up above and notice that, as I said earlier, I never said anything about Allah or Michele. I also said that I was wrong about saying "anyone".

But that was a nice way to illustrate my point about all the hate.

I'll say it again as your anger and hatred are making you accuse me of something I never said,

I never said anything about Michele or Allah

And I also said that I shouldn't have said, "Anyone".

Geez Dean, calm down.

Just so you can call me names for what I have actually said, I will reprint what I said about you from above.

Dean thinks it's wrong to alienate Muslims who don't feel that way.

Yeah, I can see why that would make you angry. You'll have to explain why it's a lie though.

That's what I'm talking about. Dean can speak ex cathedra out of his butt for all of Islam, but they just won't stay on message.

I stand behind that.

He (Dean)_actively ridicules anybody who disagrees, calls them traitor and worse and never, ever, ever responds substantively to anything that shows that maybe, just maybe there is a debate in Islam about these matters.

I've already said, twice, that I shouldn't have said, "anyone" (I actually said "anybody" but I still retracted it), but I still stand behind the rest, especially as you have proven it in your responses.

Now you can call me names for what I've actually said instead of what somebody else said (jdubious is the one who said something about Allah and Michele so now you can call him names and attack him personally).

Sorry for bringing this here Bill. I knew I should have kept my mouth shut. Dean has gone over the edge on this subject, that's what drove me from his site.

Oh, and I replied privately to Dean's comment about
Veeshir, aka Mike Fischer the anonymous coward: because my reply for that was very rude and to the point. Two words as a matter of fact.

And the least you could do is spell my name correctly. There's no "c" in my last name.

"In point of fact I never once attacked Michelle Malkin, she attacked me."

LOL! Did you know that people can just go an look this up on your blog? They will see that you did indeed attack her and she responded in kind.

"But you get to spread these FILTHY LIES ABOUT DEAN ESMAY, because, after all, I was really mean to your buddy Brian Macker, aka Brian WhackJob.

Well let me tell you why your bigot buddy Brian Macker got what he deserved: he stated that no Muslim who truly believed in Mohammed could possibly be trusted, and that any Muslim who disagreed with him about the Koran was a liar."

Wow. Now you are talking about yourself in the third person. I guess it's alright for you to make false statments about me when you are in this alternate persona?

I didn't state the things you claim I did. Those are your own inane formulations. You can't deal with peoples true positions so you make up things and claim that they said them. It's quite despicable.

That is unless you've got some reading comprehension, memory or emotion problems. I'm not really sure what's going on in your head so I can't just call you a liar. Perhaps you hear voices? I do know that you tend to put words in other peoples mouths.

After reading what I just wrote you will probably say I called you a liar when in fact I didn't.

Quoted:

Dean says that anybody who disagrees with him on Islam is a traitor.

Stated by "Veeshior." This is a lie.

He actively ridicules anybody who disagrees, calls them traitor and worse and never, ever, ever responds substantively to anything that shows that maybe, just maybe there is a debate in Islam about these matters.

Once again, this is an outright lie. In fact I have linked Islamic commentary on this issue many times.

Jdubious said:

Remember that Esmay took some shots at Malkin and Allapundit, et al., not too long ago, without any supporting evidence, and got his teeth kicked in?

Liar. I took no "shots" at Allahpundit of any kind whatsoever. Did "Veeshior" or whoever defend me against that libel? No he didn't. It was false, it didn't happen, but "Veeshior/Veeshir" or whoever said not a word about it after having read me for more than 3 years.

More:

Remember those scribbled rants against Malkin and Allapundit, et al., in which he made quite a few assertions that he failed to -attempt- to support?

Once again, more lies. I stood up and with total respect to Michelle and her co-bloggers asked them to defend some of the stuff they've said, in total respect, and then got kicked repeatedly in the teeth for providing no specifics. But then when I DID provide specifics, I was accused of picking upon them. What a joke.

Then jdubuious says this:

AND, we might note, Johnson has, at points, distanced himself from particularly vile comments. Now, granted that it's easier for esmay to hold to this standard, as he gets about a quarter of johnson's traffic.

Yeah, I get more than 30,000 daily visitors. But I get "about a quarter of Johnson's traffic." What do you base that upon, except your own wishful thinking?

Nonetheless, Esmay might have a better position here if he were calling for muslims to distance themselves from apologias for gangrape a little more often.

What a pig. This little arrogant fuck assumes I've never done that, which I have done many times. Thanks so much, "Veeshior," regular Dean's World reader for more than 3 years, for not backing me up on that.

But then "Veeshior" comes in and says this:

"Taqiyya is understood by many Muslims to mean just that. Google taqiyya and check out the first, non-wickipedia result."

Bullcrap, Mike. Bullcrap. You didn't even try.

Google taqiyya and check out the first, non-wickipedia result.

I have. Multiple times. You're still full of shit, you liar. Dorka already humiliated you on that. But you don't even want to acknowledge it, or even note the Muslims who repudiated it. No, it's just MY flaw for pointing out that most Muslims don't.

Here's another hateful lie:

Dean says that anybody who disagrees with him on Islam is a traitor.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. A vicious, hateful lie. Bullshit. I call anyone who spreads vicious, hateful lies about Islam traitors, because such vicious hateful liars are slandering thousands of Americans who are serving our nation by being members of our Armed Forces, or are fighting alongside Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Phillipines, and other places. And that's all I've ever said.

I have yet to hear you deny my basic point, Mike Fisher, so here it is and I dare you to disagree with it publicly:

It is totally wrong to slander the faith of the tens of thousands of Muslims who are members of United States Armed Forces, and for the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who are fighting alongside of US Armed Forces all over the world, to state that they are a bunch of evil, lying scumbags when they repudiate terrorism and repudiate oppression of non-Muslims..

Agree with me on this point and then we are both basically agreed on the specifics beyond that.

"Agree with me on this point and then we are both basically agreed on the specifics beyond that."
I have yet to see anyone agree with you on that point. You've made it over and over. It's just plain silly even if I was "slandering" Islam. Being a traitor means something and not what you've defined it to be. Besides this formulation doesn't even apply to me.

The problem is that slander requires that I am not telling the truth and that's something you'd have to argue for instead of foam at the mouth about.

I'm the one you are calling me a traitor based on your silly theory and I never called Muslims "a bunch of evil lying scumbags". Where on earth do you get this stuff?

I had already stated prior to anything you ever said that the kind of lying advocated in the Qur'an is perfectly acceptable. I have no problem with it and think it is ethical. I stated this position on another blog in defense of a Muslim long before you started attacking me. I also clearly stated my position on your blog. So how exactly would agreeing with you on your point in any way justify you calling me a traitor?

Are you talking about me or some other victim of one of your tirades?

I know you don't understand this but I use reason to arrive at my positions. Not bigotry or hate or any other such nonsense. If someone claims the Qur'an does not say something and it in fact does then I call them on it. If I say that they “ either have not read the Qur'an, have been mislead, or are lying” then I mean exactly that. That is not the same as calling them a liar. Nor is it the same as calling everyone who disagrees with me a liar. You need to learn to make such distinctions. Don’t emote but instead think when you read something.

Veeshir, aka Mike Fischer the anonymous coward:

Oh, I get it. You get to spread a bunch of filthy lies about me, such as the following:

1) I attacked Allahpundit, which I never did
2) I attacked Michelle Malkin, which I never did
3) I call anyone who disagrees with me about Islam a traitor, which I never have

It's just rich that you are here complaining about someone else lying about you and you can't even get straight who said what on this thread. No wonder you keep claiming I said things when I haven't. You apparently can't distinguish between one person and another. Statements 1) and 2) on your list were not made by Veeshir.

I think you should take a deep breath and maybe consider taking a more charitable reading of what others write. You did in fact attack Malkin in the post he is referring to. You may not have meant to but that is the way it came out. Consider that before you go blasting away at others based on your misreading of the meanings of their writings.

It's especially ironic because your writing reads like "I mean this in the best possible way but your stupid". The first part of such a sentence does not mitigate the second part. I on the other hand tend to be very precise and use lots of specific examples.

Saying

"I'm publicly calling out Michelle Malkin, someone whom I often disagree with but usually respect. I hope she will think about it and respond thoughtfully and not angrily or flippantly."

is like saying "I mean this the best possible way". You then went on to attack her repeatedly in paragraph after paragraph. Mind you without specifics you make the claim that Malkin is supporting:

"I suppose such anti-Islam statements must add some moral clarity: oh, Muslims are the enemy. So let's just fight the Muslims. But that means you want to fight well over a billion people found in over 100 countries around the globe."

I asked you to provide specifics to support this claim you were making against her and you never did. You claim you did but you didn't. You then posted a full article later explaining why you don't respond to each and every commenter with specifics. You are just too busy it seems slandering people to support any of it with evidence.

I think when you start attacking specific commenters by name with slanderous claims that you owe them a few specifics about why you are making such claims. It can't be based merely on a disagreement either. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me a bigot, a traitor, a troll or any of the other names you have thrown at me.

If you don't stop lying about me I'm going to have to serve you up some more rationality, which is going to make you look bad once again.

Oh, now suddenly Brian Macker appears, and wants me to answer his shit. Okay, no problem:

Being a traitor means something and not what you've defined it to be.

Try to get away with it again, you fucking coward, but here it is again: slander the faith of thousands of of American service members, and slander the faith of even more people who are service members are fighting alongside to kill terrorists. Slander THEIR faith, and you are a TRAITOR.

I have yet to hear either you or the lying traitor coward "Veeshir" answer this point: if you slander the faith of thousands of American service members, and tens of thousands of people who are fighting alongside our service members, THAT is what makes you a traitor. And you're too much of a FUCKING INTELLECTUAL COWARD to acknowledge that point head on. Instead you whine and moan and pretend I'm just being irrationally mean to you, rather than confronting you HEAD ON for your slander of our fighting men and their allies.

Where on earth do you get this stuff?

Perhaps it was that part where you stated in my comments section that any Muslims who disagreed with you were "liars," and where you stated that any Muslims who really wanted to be respected should repudiate Muhammed and should repudiate the parts of the Koran you don't like, and called any Muslims who refused to do so liars.

What, I got you wrong? Okay, just deny that you believe any such thing. Go on, do it, and make a fool out of me by clearly stating that you repudiate such views.

Oh, but let's just quote Brian WhackJob the hatemongering pig again:

I had already stated prior to anything you ever said that the kind of lying advocated in the Qur'an is perfectly acceptable.

You lie again and state that the Koran advocates lying. It does not. Liar, liar, pants on fire you bigoted pig and you absolute traitor to our fighting men.

I know you don't understand this but I use reason to arrive at my positions.

Liar. You made a bunch of hateful and bigoted and stupid assertions about the Koran. Just as you did above. Then you simpered and whined like a little bitch when I called you out on it.

You did in fact attack Malkin in the post he is referring to.

No I didn't. Liar, liar, pants on fire.

found in over 100 countries around the globe."

I asked you to provide specifics to support this claim you were making against her and you never did.

Once again: liar, liar, pants on fire. I specifically explained that I was AVOIDING doing so because I didn't want to make it personal, but when challenged I DID provide specifics. Then when I provided specifics I was accused of "picking on" her.

Don't you get sick of lying so much, Brian?

You're a lying sack of shit, Bryan. So is Mike "Veeshir" Fisher. How dare me call you out on your public lies and hatred?

And let's just dispense with the biggest lie of all, okay?

Dean calls anyone who "disagrees with him about Islam" a traitor.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Dean calls anyone who slanders the faith of thousands of American service members, and the hundreds of thousands of soldiers fighting alongside American service members, traitors.

So stop lying, you fucking cowards. It's not about people who "disagree with me." It's about people who slander and LIE about our service members and their allies.

Tell the fucking truth, you fucking liars. It's not about disagreeing with you, it's about your LIES about our brave soldiers in the field and our brave allies. Tell the truth about that and we'll maybe have something to talk about. But until you tell the truth, and stop LYING by claiming that I merely call anyone who "disagrees" with me a traitor then I will continue you treat you both with utmost contempt, because you're fucking traitorous LIARS.

Stop lying about the thousands of Muslims who are serving in our armed forces.

Stop lying about the tens of thousands of Muslims who are fighting every day alongside our brave American service members to defeat terrorism.

Stop your LIES and SLANDERS about them and I'll stop being nasty to you.

And stop your PATHETIC COWARDLY WHINY "oh Dean was mean to me, I'm so a wounded dove!!!" bullshit.

Stop slandering our brave Muslim men and women in the field, and stop slandering the brave Muslims who fight alongside them every day with your Taqqiya Libels and your expressed HATRED toward the faith of their fathers.

Until you apologize for that, and repudiate that, then I'll continue to SPIT IN YOUR FACES as the FUCKING TRAITORS THAT YOU ARE.

And by the way, fucking QUOTE me.

You traitors.

[SPIT]

Oh, you know, I should let it go right here, but I just can't:

Brian Macker, would you please do me this favor? Deny for me if you would your assertion that any Muslim who disagrees with you about Mohammed or the interpretation of the Koran is a "liar."

And would you also please, Brian Macker, repudiate your statement that no Muslim can be trusted unless he repudiates Muhammed and broad swaths of the Koran?

And will you please state, unequivocally and for the record, that it's possible to be a faithful Muslim and still utterly repudiate terrorism?

My guess: you won't do any of the above. Know why? Because I think it's not terrorists you hate, it's just Muslims you hate.

No, I'm wrong? Go ahead and make the above repudiations.

My prediction: you won't do it because it's Islam you hate and not terrorism per se.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Amidst your pathetic efforts to paint me as the big bad bully for calling you out and demanding that you tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth I mean.

You poor pathetic victim of Dean's mean and truthful words.

Oh, and I will just note for the record:

This is the same poor pathetic victim Brian Macker who Dean has so unfairly maligned but noting his own words against him, but who recently quit his position as a QOAE.NET co-blogger. Why? Because my lovely wife said something humorously critical of North Korea. Why? Because BrianWhackJob does business with Koreans, and he was scared that someone might read an intemperate statement about North Korea.

So why is it that I think this pathetic coward would stop his slanders against Muslims if he actually had to do business with some Muslims?

Oh gosh, it's so mean of me to bring up facts and logic and stuff. I'm such a mean, mean man, bringing up facts and logic and stuff. I should stop doing that.

"Deny for me if you would your assertion that any Muslim who disagrees with you about Mohammed or the interpretation of the Koran is a liar."

Never asserted that and don't believe it. Don't know what I said that makes you think that since you don't provide either quotes or links.

"You lie again and state that the Koran advocates lying. It does not. Liar, liar, pants on fire you bigoted pig and you absolute traitor to our fighting men."

The Koran most certainly does allow lying. You are allowed to lie about your faith if you are a Muslim under very strict circumstances. Perfectly ethical and reasonable ones. Like when your life is in danger.

For instance if somebody were to give you a choice between idolatry and death you could lie and say you accept Mohammed as your profit. Especially if he was about to have your head chopped off and thrown in a trench.

Well not exactly that because many of the rules in Islam are double standards. They sound great in isolation but aren't really meant to apply to non-believers. Which is pretty clear because Mohammed doesn't follow these rules when the shoe is on the other foot. Nor do his proclamations which supposedly originate from Allah follow any sort of meta-ethical rules like avoiding double standards, contradictions and the like.

You'd know this if you would read the stuff yourself instead of relying on other to practice apologetics on you. Note that apologetics isn't neccesarily lying if the person believes it and hasn't delved deeply into their own religion or has approached the subject from a viewpoint of faith. People irrationally believe all sorts of things and it's not really lying if you tell something false that you believe to be true.

Sorry Bill, I knew I should have kept my mouth shut.

And yes, I did used to poke wasp's nests with sticks when I was younger. Why do you ask?

Dean I do business with Muslims too. I just think there is a difference between joking about nuking North Korea and defending oneself against the violence and intolerance in the Quran.

I'm prefectly willing to call North Korean leader Kim Jong an evil despot. I think he's worse than Mohammed in the short run. He makes no claims to having his rule grounded in some universal divinity (or does he) so I don't think there is any danger that his nonsense is going to spread round the world.

I have yet to slander any Muslims and the kind of things I have said just can't be taken that way. Attacking a religion is not slandering the followers no more than attacking Kim Jong I and II and their communism is slandering individual North Koreans.

That an atheist (and ignostic) would criticize a religion comes as no surprise does it? I've seen some of the nasty stuff you've said about Christianity and I approve. Does that mean you are a traitor? There are certainly Christians in our armed forces and we have Christian allies.

I would resigned as co-blogger if your wife had joked about nuking Indonesia also.

"And will you please state, unequivocally and for the record, that it's possible to be a faithful Muslim and still utterly repudiate terrorism?"

Of course that is possible. Never said it wasn't.

Perhaps you should inquire as to what my position is before you start jumping to conclusions. Just because I believe violent passages in religions texts endanger people they are directed at does not mean that I think someone can't reject them. Look at the Amish.

Of course, they have a much easier time because Christianity is structured differently than Islam. This doesn't mean at some future date some splinter group off the Amish might resume more violent interpretations of the bible.

"And would you also please, Brian Macker, repudiate your statement that no Muslim can be trusted unless he repudiates Muhammed and broad swaths of the Koran?

Never made such a statement. There are plenty of wahabbi Muslims that can be trusted in certain ways. I'm not going to trust them to stand up for my religious freedom or right to free association, or right to free speech. Why should I? They claim to believe in texts that deny me those rights.

Look I've made and I am making a sophisticated argument. I'm not just calling names. You are not capturing my position with your ridiculous statements.

I'm not motivated by what you think I am. I really find Islam to be an intolerant and unethical system. That's my true belief and I have arrived at it on a rational basis.

Oops, prophet. Oh well. My fingers do their own thing sometimes.

Damn, now I'm late for work and I'll have to stay late. This really is a waste. I wish you'd stop making false claims about me.

I should keep my mouth shut, Dean is doing pretty well making up what I said and arguing against it. It's sort of entertaining, in a horrible, "I can't believe he's making such an ass out himself" sort of way.

But..... You are saying that anybody who slanders the faith of troops is a traitor.
That's just beautiful. First off, I never slandered Islam, I linked to a web page and quoted what was said in there. I have never said that Muslims who disavow terrorism are practicing taqiyya, I said I hate it when they disavow terrorism without stopping before the "but... Israel... America". I linked to that page to show that Muslims are debating what taqiyya is, yet you keep saying that it means what you say it means. (prompting the "speaking ex-cathedra out of your butt" comment that I've helpfully highlighted once above and once below)
Second, even if I did, don't you believe in the First Amendment? The answer to speech you don't like isn't freaking out, acting like the worst Kos Kid and calling people traitors. You respond and explain why it's wrong. Accusing people of crimes they haven't committed isn't "debate", it's a child throwing a temper tantrum and it's unseemly.

How about you calm down, read what I wrote and respond? I'll repeat what I have written about you above so you can call me names for what I've done, not what your feverish, hate-filled imagination thinks I've done.

Dean thinks it's wrong to alienate Muslims who don't feel that way.

That's what I'm talking about. Dean can speak ex cathedra out of his butt for all of Islam, but they just won't stay on message.

He (Dean)_actively ridicules anybody who disagrees, calls them traitor and worse and never, ever, ever responds substantively to anything that shows that maybe, just maybe there is a debate in Islam about these matters.

Okay, for the third or fourth time, I shouldn't have said "anybody", but as can be seen above, the list is pretty long. And since you're bringing your wife up to attack Brian Macker (to whom you owe multiple, very public apologies), I'll just note that she agrees with me.

So have at it Dean Markos Quixote, try to call me names for what I've said and stop tilting at windmills.

And since you repeatedly call me a cowardly traitor, I'll be more than happy to call you a jackass who has let hatred and anger cloud what I used to think was a fine intellect containing an honest, fair person. I no longer think that. I'm a little embarassed that I've defended you so strenuously against the chuckleheads at your wife's site.

Once again: liar, liar, pants on fire. I specifically explained that I was AVOIDING doing so because I didn't want to make it personal, but when challenged I DID provide specifics. Then when I provided specifics I was accused of "picking on" her.
I asked for specifics about one issue. Your implication that Michelle wishes to have some kind of all out war against a billion Muslims at once. That you provided no specifics on. You have to make distinctions between different people. You need to provide specifics for every claim you make. That's a responsibility you have whether I ask for them or not. Otherwise you claims are unsupported.

Oh, now suddenly Brian Macker appears, and wants me to answer his shit.

Let me remind you who started attacking who in this thread. Remember I banned myself from your blog because you seem to only want a name calling contest. That is, I see no point in discussing any topics with you. I also told you that I would be defending myself against future attacks on my person.

I monitored your blog for a little while and you stopped attacking me so I didn't bother returning. The last comment I made on your blog was simply to identify a Kousa dogwood from its fruit. In other words I helped you based on my extensive knowledge of botany. That was the last time I visited to see if you were still calling me names. I was satisfied that you weren't so I left.

I was informed by someone that you started up again so I did a google search and found you were spreading misinformation about me here on INDC.

That's why I'm here. You are acting trollish towards me. I also see now that you attacked me several more times at your blog after I stopped monitoring your site. Those comment sections are closed so I cannot respond to your reckless mischaracterization of my beliefs and what you should by now know are lies about me.

I do see that you attacked me several times on an open thread here and I have this morning responded.

The reason you have to mischaracterize what I've done and what I believe is because what I've actually done is not objectionable to anyone with Western values.

I have no desire to make you look foolish but I'm going to have to respond simply because many people are not going to be able to tell that you are spreading misinformation.

Just idly noting that a comment linking to this chain of discussion over at Dean's World seems to have gone *poof* in the night - interestingly in a discussion thread where Dean tells people that it's okay to point out where he makes it clear he'd like people to call any BS he spews. My, what a shocking and curious turn of events. But then, a lot of us are traitors, so it doesn't matter what our opinions are.

Nice blog-thingie here. That link to the chicken harvester thing up ahove is kinda freaky and scary, wow. Glad I followed the link in that now-deleted comment to come over here.

So Demonic, in your opinion was that comment polite (as much as possible considering the topic) or was something that should have been deleted?

I see he deleted both of my comments.

I wonder if he is going to start altering my comments also?

I just tried to post a comment there and he has deleted my account without informing me. I guess my arguments were too obviously true for him.

He's not going to be able to provide the specifics I asked for because his claims are just not true.

I don't have a copy of the comment I posted but it was about how he treats his commenters. Silly him he started attacking one of his commenters again, me, and then posted an article titled "Comment Accounts".

So I joined the conversation and said that one reason people might be asking for anonymous accounts is the way he treats his commenters. I pointed over here and showed some snippeds of text from his interaction with Veeshir. I also mentioned how he attacked me.

I brought up the fact that he claimed he responded to my question about Michelle Malkin but didn't.

I think I am going to have to add to my list of reasons for wanting anonymous accounts that he won't let his commenters respond by deleting their posts and then their comment account without notice.

That comment didn't seem all that delete-worthy on being mean/rude/lying grounds. It was, if memory serves, a collection of quotations of things he had said with links to where he said them.

But God forbid you expose people to thoughts Dean doesn't want them to have. He's our self-appointed Muslim Thought Police afterall.

Funny thing was he said he was going to keep me around as an example of someone "on the Right".

"I hope you know I only keep you around to help emphasize my point: there are people on the Right who are fucking traitors, which is what you are."

Of course I'm not "on the Right". He gets that wrong too.

Yet now he erases comments and bans me without doing so publicly. I wonder if he is going to make the excuse that he isn't "keeping me around" because he discovered I wasn't on the right. I think however the water got a little too warm for him.

You know, I think I'm going to unfreeze my blog and write a devastating post about this whole issue of liars, and writing articles advising people not to call people liars, and calling people liars when they haven't lied, and calling lies what they are when they are used.

Perhaps some other articles too. Like the ethics of calling your opponents names and make false statements about them in an attempt to shut down discussions of issues.

Maybe I’ll write one on how not to treat your commenters.

Then perhaps I will actually advertise these posts to other people with more traffic that Dean has maligned with false charges.