Mr. Shirk Cannot Stand by His Own Words, Too Cowardly to Name Loonwatch

First it was Hugh now its Roland Shirk?

Recently, we published a devastating exposé of the typical anti-freedom hate speech being pumped out everyday at Jihadwatch. I called out Mr. Roland Shirk for suggesting that all Muslims (without exception) should be forced into “enclaves” and endure various forms of religious discrimination. In case you think I twisted his words, he ended his piece with this Islamophobic call to arms:

Islam is a religion of fear and force, and its adherents can only be at your feet or at your throat.

Now, Mr. Shirk has responded to us (albeit indirectly) at Jihadwatch. Mr. Shirk gloats about how his writings have been picked up by various media outlets, including Loonwatch, who he refuses to name except with ad-hominem attacks (such as calling us “Islamic supremacists” or “stealth jihadists”). This follows a regular pattern of desperation at Jihadwatch, as Loonwatch has published numerous devastating rebuttals of Spencer’s hateful anti-Muslim conspiracy theories.

In this very weak response to Loonwatch, Mr. Shirk cites my offending passage:

Lately, Spencer has posted articles by the mysterious Roland Shirk, someone we know nothing about, probably because he is another one of Spencer’s pen-names (like Hugh Fitzgerald). Apparently, Mr. Shirk is a mouthpiece for JihadWatch’s more belligerent attacks on the constitutional freedoms of indigenous law-abiding Muslims.

Mr. Shirk has a problem not with my accusation that he wants to force Muslims into segregated, ghettoized communities or that he incites direct calls for violence against Muslims on the site. No, rather, Mr. Shirk is upset that I suggested he might just be another one of Spencer’s pseudonyms. His entire article ignores my central point: his “belligerent attacks on the constitutional freedoms of indigenous law-abiding Muslims.”

Mr. Shirk, I don’t care if you are Robert Spencer or not. That one line was not the point of my article. What I care about is that you write to dehumanize Muslims and deny their fundamental human rights based solely on Spencer’s deliberate self-serving distortions of Islamic religious beliefs. Only in the comments section, after someone else repeatedly called you out, do you attempt to address my point:

I never said anywhere the Muslims should be confined by the state to ghettos. I proposed that they should be politically neutralized, prevented from migrating into Europe, and prevented from using the European welfare state to breed at the expense of native residents. To do that, I proposed dismantling that state for everyone. At no point did I suggest that Muslims receive unequal treatment at the hands of the law.

This comment smacks of disingenuous insincerity. You never said anything about dismantling the welfare state for everyone. Your original piece argues clearly that MUSLIM immigration should be stopped, not all immigration. Your article decries the “demographic treason committed by Western leaders who admitted so many Muslims.” You never said anything about limiting Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, or other immigrants; only Muslims. Are you having a hard time swallowing what you wrote?

Second, no, you didn’t outright say Muslims should be confined to ghettos. You just strongly implied it by saying, “Islam is a religion of fear and force, and its adherents can only be at your feet or at your throat.” How you plan to make Muslims live “at your feet” without supporting unequal legal treatment is impossible. You want to force law-abiding people out of your country, take away their political rights, and impose austerity on them? Perhaps you do not understand that preventing lawful migration, forcing people to be “politically neutralized,” and denying welfare are three factors that form ghettoes.

Third, if you are going to write a hateful article against all Muslims, then at least stand by what you wrote instead of dishonestly pretending you were against immigration as a whole. We called you out and you have not responded meaningfully to any of our points.

Next time you want to respond to us, have the courage to address the substance of our points rather than veering off into the nether realm of obfuscation and semi-coherent apologia.

12 thoughts on “Mr. Shirk Cannot Stand by His Own Words, Too Cowardly to Name Loonwatch

  1. He can’t pull himself out of this one. It’s clear that he wanted a solution to the “Mooslim problem”, the problem of Muslims who can either be “at your feet or at your throat”. And that solution was to to force them to be at his feet.

    That’s interesting. JW has a tribute to “Tashbih Sayyed”, one of Spencer’s best buds who passed away, on the right hand side of their site. Was Sayyed at Spencer’s feet or at his throat? Should Sayyed’s neighborhood have been reduced to “to the condition of the Basques–midsized, deeply disgruntled minorities treasuring claims against our territory, without the power to do much more than disrupt the peace, and occasionally murder some policemen.”

    And despite admitting every thing was wrong with Islam to get friendly with Spencer, Sayyed was still unable to win over many JWers who wondered why he doesn’t just convert. You can never win with loons.

  2. Pingback: Tweets that mention Mr. Shirk Cannot Stand by His Own Words, Too Cowardly to Name Loonwatch | Spencer Watch -- Topsy.com

  3. Hello I have enjoyed this epic comment war between jw and lw. Im just curious so i can know who my commrades are what are your names at jihad watch? mines defender of islam {not to be confused with DefenderofIslam}

    • Doesn’t matter what our names were, we’ve been banned plenty of times. And when you change a name and post again, your IP address is banned. Then, when you use an IP-anonymising software to post again, a JW moderator waits for you to post and deletes it minutes later.

      It’s exactly what they accuse Loonwatch of. The end result is that my comments are littered around a few articles under numerous names.

      Evidently, my points were so devastating that they required the attention of JW writers, who felt that they could not refute what I said to them, only ban.

    • I wish you all the best in your mission to teach the JW some sense, but ultimately they will ban you. I was banned on my first day of commenting….

      If you know you didn’t say anything out of order, then consider your banning a victory.

      • JihadBob will be here quite soon to tell us of how LW censors his comments yet somehow it has allowed him to comment here for a few months, with the same name.

    • I think he’s in a coma from the overdose of reason that we gave him…

      😀

      By the way, nice try by changing your name, we know you’ve been allowed to post your nonsense here for months, whereas I was banned on my first day.

    • Once a douche, always a douche. Nothing to say about frumpy Debbie calling Muslims animals (albeit using the Arabic word for cattle *facepalm*)? Why would you when you think all Muslims are fascists and terrible people?

  4. I think I found ahnis name on Jihad watch it makes me laugh its morbereh, what an idiot . Why do loons miss use arabic words it just makes them look stupid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *