Robert Spencer’s Connections: The James Jatras File

Within less than 48 hours, Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has labored to not only quasi-politely dismiss and marginalize Michael Totten’s reports from Kosovo in the comments section of (lest his positive, non-hysterical message prompt readers to question Spencer’s colorful portrayal of Kosovars as Talibans) but to also attack Glenn Reynolds for allegedly being a cultural relativist for even conceiving of non-Muslim religious activists possibly resorting to violence as a means to further their agendas given the right priming conditions— conditions which Reynolds himself ultimately traces back to the intellectual impotence of nothing but, wait for it, cultural relativism.

Spencer furiously denies any motivational or thematic connection between these attacks on the two prominent bloggers, yet his arguments are complementary sides of the same coin.

Totten is targeted as an impressionable naïve traveler who fails to recognize what Spencer believes to be the inescapable ideological vacuum within any not-yet-radical Muslim community —communities which, according to Spencer, despite any and all current pretensions of liberalism and Westophilia, are essentially unstable oxymoronic applications of Islam which are doomed to gravitate toward radicalism in the long run. Kosovo can be no exception, since a perpetual state of jihad is an inexorable core tenet of Islam. Here I will not dwell on the theological subtleties he employs to reach his conclusion (which I suspect Mr. Spencer would accuse me of misrepresenting anyway), but the bottom line of his dissatisfaction with Totten’s reports seems to boil down to Totten’s portrayal of Kosovars as an overall peaceful, progressive, Westward-oriented, and culturally modern people. To suggest that a population with a Muslim background could merit such positive characterizations (without casting apocalyptic doubts on their future sustainability) is heresy!

It is also heresy to point out, like Glenn Reynolds has, that not only Islam but also other world religions, notably Judaism and Christianity, are quite capable of fostering religious supremacy, bigotry, and violence. According to Mr. Spencer, Judeo-Christianity is fundamentally and qualitatively superior to Islam, so to suggest that there could be a degenerative least-common-denominator into which all three religions could converge under any conditions, reeks of cultural relativism, because it denies Judeo-Christianity’s irreducible superiority.

I can understand some of Spencer’s bias given that he is a Christian, but his position implies an astounding selective repression of common historical facts about Christianity in the West. As one of Instapundit’s readers put it so succinctly:

Robert Spencer writes:

“The most virulently fundamentalist Christian can find no sanction in Jesus’ teaching for the murder of his opponents any more than anyone else can.”

Maybe no one expected the Spanish Inquisition, but I would certainly hope that someone might remember it.

And lest we treat the Inquisition like a distant fairytale, let’s not forget about the very real death-threats and hysterical rallies originating in the US over John Lennon’s “bigger than Jesus” remark just a few decades ago.

But Spencer either doesn’t want to hear it or doesn’t care: Muslims cannot and must not under any circumstances be elevated in anyone’s consideration as civilized, peaceful, modern people, or as allies. Likewise, adherents of Judeo-Christianity cannot be conceived to ever, even under a real or hypothetical incentive structure that consistently rewards violence, lower themselves to acts of hateful aggression: That arena is supposed to be the theological monopoly of the “Religion Of Peace”.

Is it any wonder then, that Spencer’s own religious supremacy reflexively aligns him with “the Christian side” against “the Muslim side” on any complex world conflict where such dichotomy arises, without any internal need prompting him to further scrutinize the objective merits of the contenders or to study the contextual historical scenario of the conflicts? Sometimes even when the conflicts cannot be cogently redrawn along religious lines, as is the case in Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia, and Slovenia, Spencer seems to have no problem connecting nonexistent dots anyway and ultimately tracing the villains back to his favorite arch-enemy: Islam.

I find it deliciously ironic that Spencer’s official stance on Kosovo today is one of severe ‘skepticism’ and concern over Kosovar Albanians’ vulnerability to cooptation by Islamist extremists, while he himself has been indisputably co-opted by noxious and extremist Serbian Nationalist elements through his involvement with The American Council for Kosovo. From their website:

The American Council for Kosovo is an activity of Squire Sanders Public Advocacy, LLC, and Global Strategic Communications Group, which are registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act as agents for the Serbian National Council of Kosovo and Metohija. Additional information with respect to this matter is on file with the Foreign Agents Registration Unit of the Department of Justice in Washington DC.

The deceptively named American Council for Kosovo is in fact a front group for the Serbian National Council of Kosovo and Metohija, whose president for Northern Kosovo Milan Ivanovic was arrested by the UN administration (he took his sweet time to turn himself in after initially going into hiding) on charges of attempted murder (later dropped) and of leading a violent demonstration, during which at least one hand-grenade was thrown at the police (Ivanovic has been personally accused of this act but evidence was inconclusive for a conviction, hence the dropped charge of attempted murder), and 22 mainly Polish peacekeepers were injured. This is not the only violent demonstration Ivanovic is accused of orchestrating and his organized outbursts have even claimed innocent lives.

Ivanovic said he had not decided yet whether to surrender. “I’ll make a decision after talking seriously with lawyers and members of my family,” he said. He denied having been handed the indictment on 30 July, claiming he had instead been requested either to turn himself in voluntarily and “be locked up in the Mitrovica prison” or become a fugitive from what he termed “an Albanian” law.

Ivanovic described the attempt to arrest him as politically motivated and accused UNMIK head Michael Steiner of seeking to force the local Serb population to flee ahead of the 26 October local elections. He warned that the move to arrest to him “could have very grave consequences” and invited the authorities in Belgrade “to join in and discuss these things.” UNMIK dismissed Ivanovic’s claims.

The Serb National Council for northern Kosovo is believed to be actively supporting a vigilante organization known as the Bridge Watchers. The group operates in the industrial town of Mitrovica, divided between an ethnic Albanian south and a predominantly Serb north. It takes its name from the three bridges dividing the city. Despite UN efforts to make them hand over their weapons and submit to UN authority, the Bridge Watchers continue to act as a sort of parallel police force, claiming to be simply protecting local Serbs from ethnic Albanian attacks.

International officials accuse the group and local Serb leaders of staging seemingly spontaneous violent riots against UN police and NATO peacekeepers, but Serb leaders in northern Kosovo have rejected the accusation.

Opposing UN policies in Kosovo, the Serb leaders in Mitrovica prefer to keep close ties with Belgrade rather than recognize UNMIK’s authority in many areas.

Mr. Ivanovic is a hard-line nationalist by anyone’s definition, a staunch supporter of the neo-fascist Serbian Radical Party— an ultra-nationalistsmelting crackpot of greater scale and proportion than even its name suggests. For starters, the Party organized the recent rallies in Serbia to protest Radovan Karadzic’s arrest, in which the same Ivanovic was visibly involved:

Karadzic’s arrest means a termination of the Republic of Srpska and a kidnapping of Kosovo,” said Milan Ivanovic. “We shall never surrender neither the Republic of Srpska, Serbia, nor Kosovo. We shall never surrender Radovan,” Ivanovic exclaimed and called on the citizens to “fight the oppressors”.

Again, this is from a key leader of the Serbian group which the so-called American Council for Kosovo serves as a front for, in which Robert Spencer is an advisory board member.

The Serbian Radical Party (Srpska Radikalna Stranka — SRS) is an extremely right-wing nationalist organization. Its founder and director Vojislav Šešelj is currently on trial in The Hague, accused of war crimes and atrocities against humanity.

… … … … … … … … … …

The ultranationalist Serbian Radical Party — which once advocated union with Russia and Belarus, and is now tied for first place with a coalition of more pro-Western parties — could enter government alongside nationalist Prime Minister Kostunica’s DSS.

Enough about Ivanovic as I am sure you already get the picture.

At this point I hope you will all excuse my cynicism regarding Robert Spencer’s contorted statements of how no Christian exegete has ever interpreted any genocidal passages in the Bible as a plan for action against unbelievers in his own day, while he openly associates himself with violent genocide proponents/deniers (the typical combination) funded and supported by a Christian Orthodox bishop.

By law, all items distributed by the American Council for Kosovo include the following disclaimer:

“The American Council for Kosovo is an activity of Squire Sanders Public Advocacy, LLC, and Global Strategic Communications Group, which are registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act as agents for the Serbian National Council of Kosovo and Metohija, under the spiritual guidance of His Grace, Bishop ARTEMIJE of Ras and Prizren. Additional information with respect to this matter is on file with the Foreign Agents Registration Unit of the Department of Justice in Washington DC.”

…though the Bishop’s involvement is curiously absent from the otherwise identical notice posted on their website. Let’s close in on the rest of Spencer’s circle at the American Council for Kosovo. One of Spencer’s friends whom he has appointed as Advisory Board member at JihadWatch, stands out in particular. He is James/Jim George Jatras, Director of the American Council for Kosovo:

Where do I begin? In the above-linked-at comment, Spencer smugly concludes that I must have no idea who Walter Duranty is just because I found absurd his parallel between the Stalin idolizing propagandist and genocide denier (whose revisionist bile and fabrications were not sufficiently challenged due to overall lack of access to information/data regarding the USSR) and Michael Totten (who reports from a freely-accessible country with a strong international presence, and which anyone, including Spencer, can visit to see things for oneself).

Since he fancies himself a far more knowledgeable expert of Ukrainian issues than myself, I would assume Robert Spencer ought to know who Viktor Yanukovych is, but for those who do not know, he can be safely characterized as one of Vladimir Putin’s cronies: a Russian proxy embedded within the Ukrainian political system, a corrupt politician, often at the center of electoral-fraud scandals.

James Jatras is not only a proxy of the Serbian lobby, which he openly admits, but also, quite interestingly (though not the least surprisingly), a veritable stooge of Russian interests:

On March 7, 2003 Alex Kiselev signed a written agreement with the law firm of Venable, LLP to provide PR services to Mr. Yanukovych for the amount of $100,000. Alex Kiselev signed and initialed every page of the agreement acting on behalf of Mr. Yanukovych. On behalf of Venable the agreement was signed by Mr. Patrick E. O’Donnell and Mr. James George Jatras. Venable, LLP is tasked to work on improving the image of Viktor Yanukovych personally, rather than the country of Ukraine. Additional amounts are as follows:

– $ 10,000 for arranging a formal state dinner at the US Department of State, “with a success fee of an additional $ 10,000 if these efforts are successful.”

– $ 20,000 for arranging a personal meeting at the White House between Prime Minister Yanukovych and President Bush, “with a success fee of $ 60,000 to be paid if these efforts are successful.”

Since Mr. Yanukovych did not come to Washington in the spring of 2003 as was originally planned, no fees were paid for arranging a State Department dinner or a White House meeting.

… According to the US Department of Justice Supplemental Statement (Form CRM-154) for a six month period ending November 30, 2003, filed by Venable LLP, it is reported on page 5 that Alex Kiselev paid the total amount of $ 341,396.50 for providing PR services on behalf of Mr. Yanukovych. …beginning in March 2003, Kiselev paid $1,041,396.50 to PR firms in Washington to promote Viktor Yanukovych?! So do we have now to accept as true that it was a charitable contribution out of his own pocket?

Venable LLP is also the lobbying firm for The American Council for Kosovo, again through James Jatras.

James Jatras, a Greek American with a long history of pro-Eastern Orthodox and anti-Muslim activism in the Balkans and formerly senior foreign policy analyst for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee (1998-2002), signed the agreement between Venable and the Serbian National Council of Kosova and Metohija (SNV) on March 22, 2006. Far from being a neutral observer of Balkan affairs, Jatras is a paid lobbyist for the SNV and an Orthodox extremist with deep connections to the Serbian Unity Congress. Jatras has written numerous articles aimed at warning Americans about the threat of militant Islam in Southeast Europe, several of which appear in a magazine connected to Bosnian Serb groups called Chronicles. (Srdja Trifkovic, Chronicles’ foreign affairs editor, was formerly the official spokesperson for indicted war criminal Radovan Karadzic.) Jatras was the keynote speaker at the 9th Serbian Unity Congress (more on that later) and a principal in the Serbian-American-made propaganda film, “Yugoslavia: The Avoidable War” produced and directed by George Bogdanich. And during the Kosova war, it was Jatras, in his capacity as senior foreign policy analyst for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, who commissioned and circulated Yossef Bodansky’s outrageously spurious report in the House and Senate, entitled “Kosova: The U.S. and Iran’s New Balkan Front,” (more on the Iranian conspiracy theories later) in an effort to block Congressional support for intervention in Serbia’s war against Kosova and to discredit the Kosova Liberation Army.

From another source linked to above:

Chronicles magazine, which published Jatras’ rantings, is also cited by the film in support of its claim that Muslims blew up their own people to arouse international sympathy, and it is connected not only directly to the Bosnian Serbs but also to white Southern neo-Confederacy groups. The magazine is run by Thomas Fleming, who rose to prominence as an opponent of school desegregation in Rockford, Ill., and became a founding member of the right-wing neo-Confederacy group League of the South. Its foreign-affairs editor is Srdja Trifkovic, formerly the official spokesman for Radovan Karadzic and the Bosnian Serb government and a source whom Mr. Bogdanich interviewed for the film but apparently decided not to use.

But we heard enough about the man; let’s now hear from him. Some interesting positions of James Jatras, mostly in his own words:

James Jatras, former assistant to Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) and onetime defense witness for Slobodan Milosevic (that’s right), now directs the American Council for Kosovo, a pro-Belgrade lobbying organization based in Washington. In an interview with the Belgrade daily Vecernje novosti, Jatras advises the Serbian government to be “more aggressive” and to demonstrate its “seriousness” by holding military exercises along the border with Kosovo.

Serbia must stop looking at the United States as if they rule the world, what they like to present themselves as,” Jatras said in an interview.

Thursday for Belgrade daily Vecernje Novosti, when asked “how could Serbia be more aggressive without ending up even worse?”

They are but a paper tiger, stop treating them with the respect they do not deserve,” Jatras said of the United States.

“Washington behaves in this way because it believes Serbia will have to accept the fact that part of its territory is to be snatched from it,” he went on, stressing that Belgrade “had to make it clear that this was not the case.”

He added that Serbia shouldin no case join NATO,” (why, that would not go smoothly with Jatras’ master, Vladimir Putin, who is known to go as far as to invade and dismember former Soviet satellite countries in order to prevent them from joining NATO) and that the European Union “should be told clearly that Belgrade will suspend its association process in case Brussels decides to recognize Kosovo.”

I suggest that, come November, half a million people show up on the streets of Belgrade, protesting the U.S. policy. As a demonstration of how serious Serbia is, holding a military exercise in the south of the country should also be considered,” Jatras concluded.

Did I mention that James Jatras is Robert Spencer’s friend, a JihadWatch board member, but first and foremost, an American citizen, who has worked for the US government as the aide of disgraced Senator Larry Craig, but also as senior foreign policy analyst for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee? We are all too familiar with the self-loathing fetishes of Leftist moonbats, and the kind of seething anti-Americanism they are known to proudly sport. Let’s not, however, confuse suicidal cultural masochists with malicious puppets of foreign interests: the former tend to blow off their self-hatred in the “we” form, whereas stooges like Jatras make calculated statements in the “they” form. Jatras is not a self-hater because he doesn’t even identify with America, which is how he manages to come so close to advocating attacks on US embassies (which Serbs, catching Jatras’ drift, did indeed perpetrate) without batting an eye. He’s just a puppet of anti-American foreign interests to which he has whored out his citizenship.

Some more interesting tidbits before we get into what you must really be itching to hear about, his defense of Milosevic:

At the Serbian Unity Congress convention in 1998, Jatras is quoted as saying that the U.S. government’s policy toward Serbia “was criminal and worthy of being brought to The Hague tribunal.

In other articles, he downplayed Serbian massacres (he even placed the word in quotation marks) in Bosnia, claimed Bosnian Muslims killed their own people as a ploy to gain Western support and referred to “the myth of Muslims as innocent victims in the [Bosnian] war.” (source: The Washington Times, 7/20/97, page B5)

Milosevic’s witness James Jatras publicly denounced former governor and one-time Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis as a “pagan” because, while Dukakis is from a Greek Orthodox family, Dukakis’s wife Kitty (daughter of Harry Ellis Dickson, violinist and long-time conductor of the Boston Pops Orchestra) is Jewish.

And this provides a smooth segue way into his disgraceful appearance in Milosevic’s trial, because the prosecutors felt the obscure need to make an issue out of the witness’ bigotry, as if his factual testimony alone were not outrageous enough to discredit him.

The entire convoluted transcript of the hearing can be found here, but its gist is neatly summarized by Slobo’s fans at The claims made by Jatras are truly incredible and I urge everyone to scrutinize them. It all starts coming together now:

Jatras gave evidence about what was contained in U.S. Congressional reports regarding the Iranian arms transfers to Bosnia and Croatia.

Jatras pointed out that the congressional reports had concluded that the Clinton Administration’s scheme to facilitate weapons transfers from Iran to Croatia and on to Bosnia was a secret program, and that the administration had attempted to cover it up.

Interestingly, almost all of these insane conspiratorial reports which Jatras refers to as objective US inside sources happen to be either planted personally by Jatras himself, or originating from the office of Larry Craig, for whom Jatras was working as an aide. In any case, they are not US intelligence reports.

According to Jatras, the Clinton Administration had decided to attack F.R. Yugoslavia long before the indictment against Milosevic alleges that any “joint criminal enterprise” was afoot.

To bear this out, Jatras pointed to a report that he had written in August of 1998 predicting that Clinton would attack Yugoslavia over Kosovo (possibly because it was obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells what Slobodan was preparing to do in Kosovo?).

Jatras said that Racak was merely a trigger used by the Clinton Administration to launch its pre-planned attack against Yugoslavia.

He said that the occupation of Kosovo and the establishment of K-FOR had been planned out well before the bombing even started.

Oh boy…

Milosevic was just a pawn. The Clinton administration and other great conspiratorial powers set him up in order to cover up an arms trading intrigue. The Bosnians, of course, gracefully started killing themselves off to perfect the ploy and frame Milosevic. And the Racak massacre was a calculated self-inflicted “trigger” to get this whole party started.

Can you say crazy or just plain evil?

Jatras mentioned, as an interesting side note, a psy-ops campaign in the Krajina, where after Serbian radio facilities had been bombed, Croatian radio announcements were broadcast that instilled fear in the Serbian population and encouraged them flee from the territory.

Well, actually Mr. Jatras, on August 4, 1995, Milan Martic, the “president” of the “Republic of Serb Krajina” authorities, issued an order calling for the evacuation of all persons incapable of military service from the Knin, Benkovac, Obrovac, Drnis and Gracac municipalities. The decision indicated that the civilians should be evacuated toward Srb and Donji Lapac, with the U.N. base in Knin enlisted to assist with the evacuation. This account is corroborated by Milan Babic in his Hague trial. Segments of the Serbian press attacked Martic for ordering the evacuation and surrendering to Croatian forces without a fight. Others surmised that the Republic of Serb Krajina, Croatian and Serbian government authorities had reached an a priori agreement to surrender the area to Croatian government control.

The Croatian government actually encouraged Serbs to stay, albeit perhaps not entirely sincerely. A good number would have eventually had to leave in any case, because they were residing in the houses of the 200,000 Croatians ethnically cleansed from Krajina in 1992, who would be returning to claim their real estate.

In the specific context of the refugee debate, the Krajina exodus bears comparison with the flight of Palestinians during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, which brought about the creation of Israel. Croatia claims —as has Israel since 1948— that the refugees fled largely of their own accord, under instructions from their leadership, and those specific instructions have been well documented in both cases. Here is a detailed account of the Serbo-Croatian war for those interested.

And if anyone is wondering about the making of such a monster—how a Christian Taliban (in both ideology and appearance) came to be—let’s just say the apple did not fall far from the tree. Stella Jatras, the late mother of James Jatras, is a regular contributor to the anti-Semitic conspiracist site Her consistent praise of Karadzic, sympathy for Milosevic, denial of Srebrenica’s massacre, and overall lunatic revisionism on all Serb-related fronts, can give some insight into the kind of poison James must have been inhaling throughout his entire life. It is worth mentioning that the Jatrases are ethnic Greeks although they sound like Serbian ultra-nationalists. Stella and James Jatras are perfect examples of how ethnic chauvinism and religious supremacy can feed off of one-another in the minds of the demented, and jointly fuel a very predictable kind of hatred.

All that’s been unearthed here is but a whiff of James Jatras’ dark closet, some very rudimentary fragments of which my husband revealed on Robert Spencer’s site two nights ago through the comment sections, and which curiously elicited a defensive volley of verbiage from Jatras himself within just a few hours!

This man is obviously a professional propagandist, and I am actually surprised that the Internet is not littered with comprehensive reports on his outrageous activities and statements. I have no interest in rebutting his entire piece line by line as there are too many lies to counter and it would feel as futile as Don Quixote’s fight against windmills.

Certain claims I cannot ignore, however, nor should I be tempted to, as their debunking is a mere matter of correcting blatant revisionism by providing historical sources. I invite readers to check out his post linked-to-above so that they know exactly what we are talking about:

Regarding Jatras’ “point #1” (i.e. his allusions to jihadist Kosovar violence): So far I have noticed that the claims of Kirk in Human Events regarding attacks in Gjilan, Ferizaj and Prizren seem to all be echoes of earlier attacks by Serbs and then some retaliatory attacks by Kosovars, but as to shooting at KFOR or UNMIK, there is nothing to suggest that these attacks are anything more than old wives’ tales. Searching the KFOR site and The Daily Falcon, which is the newspaper published for the servicemen at Camp Bondsteel, there appears no mention of any hostilities by the Kosovars.

Jatras says:

Neither do the laptop bombadiers in the media, who, as they had in Bosnia, cheered on the great Kosovo “humanitarian intervention” in 1999 to stop a nonexistent “ethnic cleansing” of Albanians — and which led directly to the real eradication of more than two-thirds of the Serbian community, as well as Roma (mostly Muslim, some Orthodox Christian), Croats (Roman Catholic), Jews, and others.

It doesn’t seem like James Jatras ever met a psychopathic butcher he didn’t like, and if he came to Milosevic’s defense, equivocating Karadzic’s crimes is small potatoes by comparison. As is genocide denial… What nonexistent “ethnic cleansing” of Albanians? This one listed in great detail at the State Department? Was this also part of the propaganda and misinformation that the US planted to frame Jatras’ poor friend Slobo?

With all due respect to Mr. Jatras, well actually, wait a minute, I don’t owe him any respect; but I lived in Tirana in 1999 myself and I saw with my own eyes floods of people hosted in soccer stadiums, ravaged families, torn families, everyone looking for each others’ lost relatives feared dead.

And should Jatras contend that I along with everyone who was in Albania at the time were simply collectively hallucinating (nothing would surprise me from him at this point), the stranding of hundreds of thousands of refugees in Albania and Macedonia for months at a time is an indisputable fact, and I can assure Mr. Jatras that these people were not out on a picnic. Insisting otherwise is no less absurd than proposing that September 11th, 2001, was as Photoshop job.

Oh, and I almost forgot: His statistics about the displaced Serbs (who left un-coerced, which Jatras conveniently neglects to mention) are also bogus.

Jatras further says:

With respect to the nexus in Kosovo between religion (Muslim vs. Christian) and nationalism (Albanian vs. Serb), it needs to be kept in mind that sharia rule under the Ottoman Empire ended less than a century ago, in 1912, when Kosovo (then known as “Old Serbia”) was liberated during the First Balkan War. For the preceding centuries, Muslim Albanians had migrated at will over the mountains from Albania, taking over land from which Serbs had fled from reprisals following repeated unsuccessful revolts against the Ottoman caliphate. (That the Serbs are the original inhabitants in Kosovo is beyond question. There are no pre-Ottoman Albanian structures, no Albanian toponyms. There is not even an Albanian word for Kosovo itself, the Albanian term “Kosova” being merely their rendering of the Serbian name — derived from kos, “blackbird,” in reference to the famous 1389 battle — much as we English-speakers call München “Munich” and Roma “Rome.”)

Just like this British historian (one out of many) who is about to prove the factual content of every single clause of Jatras’ every sentence to be false, I do not even think ‘who got there first’ is particularly relevant in deciding the rights and wrongs of any present-day political situation. Still, since James decided to go there:

This is one of the chapters of Noel Malcolm’s excellent and extensively sourced book, Kosovo, a Short History, and it pertains to the issue of “origins”.

The previous chapter brought the political history (if such it may be called) of Kosovo up to the final period of Bulgarian-Macedonian rule, before the territory of Tsar Samuel was reconquered by the Byzantine Emperor Basil the Bulgar-slayer. Medieval Kosovo is often referred to in general terms as ‘the cradle of the Serbs’, as if it had been a Serb heartland from the outset; but the reality was rather different. Just over 800 years separate the arrival of the Serbs in the Balkans in the seventh century from the final Ottoman conquest in the 1450s: out of those eight centuries, Kosovo was Serb-ruled for only the last two-and-a-half— less than one-third of the entire period. Bulgarian khans or tsars held Kosovo from the 850s until the early eleventh century, and Byzantine Emperors until the final decades of the twelfth.

All the toponyms which Jatras has been desperately looking to avoid so he could claim their nonexistence are carefully referenced in the source I just provided. The Albanian name for Kosovo was Dardania, by the way, derived from the Illyrian/proto-Albanian word for “pear” because of the many pear trees lining the region. There is at least one town named Dardha (pear) in Albania today.

Is Kosovo Serbia?

Kosovo remained Ottoman territory until it was conquered by Serbian forces in 1912. Serbs would say “liberated”; but even their own estimates put the Orthodox Serb population at less than 25%. The majority population was Albanian, and did not welcome Serb rule, so “conquered” seems the right word.

So taking into account Albanians’ indigenousness in Kosovo which is exhaustively sourced by Malcolm in his book, as well as by many other independent historians, we have a classic case of projection with respect to Jatras’ statement:

By the same token, the prevailing attitude among Kosovo’s Albanian Muslims, even those with no discernable Islamic piety, reflects their sense of entitlement to mastery over the land and its rayah (essentially, “cattle”) inhabitants. The attitude is hardly different from those of Turks with respect to Constantinople or Arabs to “al-Quds,” no matter how secular they may be: “we” conquered it, and no one can take it back from us.

My husband has politely informed Spencer of Jatras’ connections, the most problematic of which (his defense of Milosevic) Spencer was already aware of and unbothered by. What seems to bother Spencer, to the point of calling me an Islamist agent in so many words (wait for him to squeal “Where did I write that!” as he’s been in a very literalist mood lately but doesn’t want to either eat his words or regurgitate them, but will instead twist them like worms), is when I set the historical record straight about what has happened in the Balkans, and when I condemned the genocide deniers/sympathizers and self-styled holy warriors with, among other epithets, those which the most flaming ones of them proudly self-describe by. For those new to this blog, I am a non-religious Albanian soon-to-be American, and my father is what Mr. Jatras would call a pagan, for coming from an Eastern Orthodox family himself and marrying my mother, a woman of Jewish descent.

I find it curious that Robert Spencer closes both eyes to atrocities perpetrated by Serbs, because if it had only been Muslims on their receiving end, I would understand now (but of course not justify it) seeing where Spencer is coming from, but Serbs have also fought against Croats and Slovenes —their fellow Christians. Yet he takes the side of the most historically aggressive representatives of his own “Religion of Peace.” Could it be that while ostensibly and quite irrationally denying any violence within Christianity, he in fact secretly and perhaps subconsciously admires violent Christianity?

What more is there to say? Going back full circle: no, I do not find any traces of relativism in Glenn Reynolds’ innocuous statement, nor does the outlook that produced his comment represent any hindrance to the West’s response to the jihadist threat. Quite on the contrary, the most significant drag in formulating an appropriate response stems from those Judeo-Christian supremacists such as Spencer and his associates, who discredit the anti-jihadist movement by overstating its scope (uncontrollably screeching “jihad!” even where none is involved) and who, most importantly, see the fight against jihad as a holy war of their own, in which they end up allying with the devil to further their agendas.

With his honest and balanced dispatches from the Balkans, Michael Totten has crippled these Serbian Nationalist front groups’ propaganda efforts just like he had earlier, along with fellow independent journalist Michael Yon, exposed the mainstream media’s coverage of the Iraq war for the self-serving doom-and-gloom panic mongering that it was.

Spencer has made various controversial and often self-mitigated pronouncements regarding Kosovo, but when push comes to shove his on-record position is one of only-time-will-tell “skepticism.” I don’t know how aggressively lobbying on behalf of an organization that seeks to revoke Kosovo’s independence, thus leaving Kosovar Albanians with no time at all to “tell” Spencer or the rest of the world anything, is possibly reconcilable with self-declared above-the-fray skepticism, but I have a more pressing question for Spencer:

What is his position on the Iraq war, and particularly on US efforts to build a stable, peaceful, and pluralistic democracy in the heart of the Middle East? If the prospect of sound self-governance by the liberal, if not nominal, Muslims of Kosovo is such a tough sell for Spencer, then what about the future of Iraq, whose population is incomparably more religiously conservative? Doesn’t intellectual and moral consistency dictate that if Spencer would rather see Kosovars “kept in check” by Serbia’s violent hand, then he should also prefer the “stability” that Sadam Hussein provided Iraqis with to the fanciful prospect of freeing them so they can govern themselves? Doesn’t intellectual and moral consistency dictate that Spencer be rallying it up with over the almost certainly wasteful loss of American lives and resources into as inherently unachievable, or failing that, at least unsustainable, a project as a Muslim democracy? Consistency is a beautiful thing but some of us feel no ethical imperative to be bound by it.

If there is a case to be made against Kosovo’s independence without resorting to revisionism, genocide denial, propaganda, and association with neo-fascist elements, then why doesn’t Spencer make it?

The question is, at this point, purely rhetorical.

Author: Kejda

Born: Tirana, Albania Residing: New York, NY University of Waterloo, Economics '08

27 thoughts on “Robert Spencer’s Connections: The James Jatras File”

  1. Just because the Kosovo Muslims are a moderate bunch does not mean
    there is any moderation in Islam overall. Wait until the Ummah has
    its way with the Kosovars, you’ll see.

  2. Mr. Jones, something is happening here and you don’t know what it is, do you? I have been going to the Albanian region since 1991 and the claim that radical Islam is going to take over Kosova is absurd. You are absurdly ignorant. You will not see because you cannot see. No moderate Muslims? Than what is the U.S. doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is Zalmay Khalilzad not a Muslim?

  3. Stephen, Tom Jones didn’t say that there are no moderate Muslims. He said there is no moderation in Islam, which is a completely different statement. It isn’t entirely inaccurate, especially considering the ‘Muslim world’ is continuing its spiral further into extremism. Turkey isn’t ‘gone’ yet, and even as recently as 30 years ago no would take a look at Turkey and worry for it becoming an Islamist state but that is the case now.

    I think we should continue to support the Kosovars, as well as a the new Iraqi state and our other Muslim allies, but that doesn’t mean we need to burn our bridges behind us, or engage in any white washing of what was done by either side in the Serbian/Albanian conflicts.

    If the Kosovars can put together and keep together a liberal democracy including all of the associated freedoms (freedom of religion sans poll tax included), and remain nominally Muslim then more power to them.

    However, like many Westerners, I will remain skeptical given examples like Turkey, and more importantly other formerly Soviet propped up, majority Muslim states that have become gradually more Islamist. Or even given the example of the Alawites in Syria, who are also Muslim, but just aren’t Muslim enough to please their religious fundamentalists and are being ousted little by little.

    I hope, for the sake of the people of Kosova, that the fate that awaits Syria’s “Muslim” rulers isn’t a prelude to what we may one day see in their corner of the world as well. That their will to remain a liberal democracy, with the rule of the laws of man rather than Shari’a is strong enough to survive. I am will remain, probably forever, a skeptic however. Religious fundamentalism is practically never healthy for a democracy, but especially so in Islamic majority nations. Even in ones that aren’t ‘Banana Republics’ like Turkey.

    I can’t speak for Spencer, or his associations, how he chooses them etc. However, I think that the proprietors of this blog (and their others) are a little too close to the subject matter to not see any skepticism or criticism of Albanians, Kosovars etc, as anything but lobbyists on the Serbian payroll.

    Trust me, that there are a lot of Americans, who aren’t from, and are not of a Serbian or Albanian ethnic background, who aren’t getting paychecks from Serbs, that will remain skeptical of the inevitable fate, and it has almost everything to do with Islam, and the historical precedent of the path taken by other Islamic states, in very recent memory.

    Surely not every “Christian state” has a spotless record, or has walked the right path, but listing the intolerance of Isabel of Castille is hardely very poignant in the face of what is happening toda, to the Alawite, and the Kemalists in other Islamic majority nations, with all of the veneer of modernity and ‘liberalism’ in a not too distant past.

  4. Scion9,

    Skepticism is an “only time will tell” above-the-fray attitude, which you along with anyone else, certainly including Spencer, is entitled to.

    One is not, however, entitled to claiming oneself to be a skeptic, while lobbying to “revoke” Kosova’s independence. That is not skepticism/agnosticism/open-mindedness.

    Spencer likes to have his cake and eat it too.

    I think you are being irrationally paranoid over this, but I do not think there is malice in your thoughts.

    I do, nevertheless, find ridiculous your contention that I am the one who is “too close to the issue” here, while the other side is composed of self-declared paid Serbian lobbyists, and that it is biased for me to point out what they truly are. Then isn’t everything coming out of their mouths/websites 100 times more biased since they’re even closer to the issue than I am?

    Finally, if after reading this extensive piece, you still don’t have an opinion about Spencer’s associates, or how he chooses, then I am amused that you get to have convinced opinions about anything else.

    The issues and the connections here are crystal clear.

  5. Honestly, I’m not going to fully agree with everyone, and I doubt you will find anyone who can make that claim in regards to politics.

    I retain the ability to agree with Spencer some of the time and disagree with him on others. I didn’t say I didn’t have an opinion, just that I couldn’t speak for him, as in I am not willing to further speculate on his motivations.

    I agree that lobbying to revoke Kosovo’s independence is not a matter of mere skepticism, and it certainly isn’t a ‘wait and see’ attitude that would sort of define a ‘skeptic’.

    In regards to ‘too close to the issue’ I wasn’t specifically referring to you in comparison to Jatras who is also clearly biased. I’m just saying that everyone who is for Serbia, or against Kosovar independence for any number of reasons isn’t automatically a Serbian stooge, or supportive of ethnic cleansing, or any other distasteful branding.

    I thought the piece was informative, but I also thought it portrayed a very black and white picture of all dissenters and not just specifically Jatras/Spencer and ilk.

    I apologize if I wasn’t clear in my previous post. I didn’t proof read it as well as I should have.

  6. Scion9,

    As an Albanian I can attest that the risk of a rising of an intolerant brand of Islamist within Kosovo remains a possibility. In fact there are a number of Kosovars who already would love to see more Islam in their government and everyday life. But they are very few in number, certainly a smaller percentage than the neo-nazi sympathizers in Western Europe or white supremacists in the US.

    Any careful and knowledgeable analysis would show that the chances of an intolerant Islam taking roots in Kosovo would increase tremendously if the Kosovars would have been forced to remain under Serbia.

    Whether one agrees or not with Kosovo’s right for self-determination that is another issue. However to maintain that Kosovo should be denied independence because of the Islamist danger is a contradiction in itself.

    I understand your concern about trend now familiar in many Muslim societies around the world. However, as global as it seems, Islamist movements are usually based on local conditions and interests, rather than on the influence of some universal religious values.

    I don’t have much to say about the Alawites, but in Turkey, the success of Erdogan was not based on his religious stance but in his ability to make common cause with democracy. The Kemalists are secular but that is not enough to win elections. Especially when secularity comes with failing public services, high corruption and an army that retains the right to overthrow a government that has been voted by the people.

    The Islamist government of Erdogan has fared very well compared to its predecessors, but he is not the first Turkish Prime Minister in the recent years who comes to power from a religious party. A few years back, the leader of the Welfare Party, Necmettin Erbakan, became Prime Minister and was thrown out by an army intervention who ignored the fact that the people of Turkey had voted for him.

    This intervention more than the cogency of the Islamists’ arguments has helped the Turkish electorate move closer to the religious forces. Had the army let Erbakan run its course as every government does eventually in a democracy, we would have not been so concerned today.

    I am a fervent supporter of Turkish membership in EU, but the Kemalists should understand that a country where the army has the constitutional right to trump the will of the people has no place in Europe and should never do. They should read better the vote of their nation in the last electoral cycles and reinvent themselves.

  7. Robert Spencer and his Jihad Watch web site cannot be taken seriously by anyone who has any shred of intellect. The Jihad Watch is run by non-Muslim extremists who expose Muslim extremists. Two Wrongs Don’t Make A Right, at least not in a political domain. Spencer’s web site is overly one sided. According to his logic, all Muslims are extremists and they should all be eliminated.

  8. On the other hand, we have James Jatras and his mom Stella, both on record as unrepentent Srebrenica genocide deniers with well established extremist leanings and war crimes-apologist agenda. There is really not much to say about these people. They have been discrediting themselves for the past 10 years. They are sad example of what hatred can do to people.

  9. Hear hear Daniel!

    Apparently though, these people have still not discredited themselves enough and they need to be continuously exposed as they try to reinvent themselves. Robert Spencer has earned himself considerable respect by just refusing to be bound by the chains of political correctness and voicing sound concerns over the rise of radical Islam. Impressed with that stance, people on the margins can come to treat him as an authority in every field. His connections must be exposed and discredited.

    The danger of radical Islam is a simple truth. It’s not rocket science. Neither is the necessity to steer clear of national supremacist fascist groups, in this case, Serbian Ultra-Nationalist elements, who subvert the anti-jihadi agenda for their own gain.

  10. Mr V,

    Thank you for pointing this out to me. There will be an appropriate response very soon. If you are interested, check my blog throughout this week.

    There is much more dirt on Spencer than I ever felt compelled to dig, but he has harassed me one time too many.

    Thanks again for drawing my attention to this,


  11. Spencer’s alliances with race obsessives and bigoted thugs is clear. You may be interested to know that he tide has turned against him at LGF. Looks like Charles is severing all links to Jihadwatch. No afore time, as they say here.

  12. I notice that you have removed the post that was linked under the reference “sock puppets,” whom you claimed had made “legal threats” against you.

    Fortunately for me, a friend permalinked both your long post and your reference, and both have been sent to my lawyer for legal action against you.

    Your claim in linking my original comment to you warning you as a friend that Schwartz might be using you — and if anybody is a sock puppet, it’s you — was that it contained no legal threats. It contained no legal threats whatever.

    Also, Robert Spenser had nothing to do with my post and knew nothing of it. Did Schwartz make that up? My guess is that he told you that so that YOU would print it and so that if anything went wrong with it — and it just has, what a stupid, naive dope you are — that it would be YOU who got sued for it, not him.

    And so you will, Kedji. So you will.

    I speak only for myself. I would suggest you do the same.

    Now, for the record:

    (1) I have always fully supported the Bosnian claims about Serb aggression. It is completely clear from all historical records that the Serbs started a war of ethnic cleansing. The mere fact that the Serbs would shell a defenseless Sarajevo for three years is more than enough proof of their intent.

    (2) Srdja Trifkovic is, in my opinion, along with Kostunica, part and parcel of the Serb “protectors” of war criminals, by sin of omission if not commission, as one of them was picked up in less than a month after they fell from power. What Srdja Trifkovic tried to do to Mustafa Akyol after it was PROVED to him that Akyol’s quotation of a SCHWARTZ article remaining on FPM was the source of a slander of Trifkovic is beyond the pale. An American friend of Mustafa Akyol’s had to straighten it out with FPM management, and it took her a solid week. Schwartz left the article on the FPM website (and FPM didn’t realize it was there) and Akyol quoted it, leading to a VIABLE accusation of libel. Schwartz’s article had claimed Trifkovic was involved with Milosevic, when Trifkovic had denounced Milosevic as early as 1992. Trifkovic’s defense of Stakic indicts him on some very bad associations, but, in fact, he was not a part of the Milosevic group and publicly denounced them. Trifkovic is a person that I do not agree with AT ALL, but he has been slandered by Schwartz. It took FPM four months to scrub off their comment area the lies about both Trifkovic and Spencer, the lies passed about both of them to a third party, who had quoted them in good faith. Trifkovic may be a racist ideologue, but a fight must be fought with truth, not lies. It seems to me that former communists have always to deal with two things, not one: not just the ideology, which they say they have given up, only to gravitate toward yet other male-dominated totalitarian ideologist, religious or otherwise; but also the tendency to employ Useful Idiots who think they are doing good for humanity, only to find that they are being used to spread lies in a way that the liar never has to take responsibility for it.

    (3) You may not Robert Spenser’s tone, but can you point to even one statement made by him about the Qur’an and the hadith and the operation of radical Islamists that is not correct? No, you can’t.

    (4) I have just read everything on the Jihad Watch board relating to this discussion. My opinion is that Robert Spenser has done nothing to harass you, but has only responded to your harassment of him. Now you feel “harassed.” Oh, please. Grow up. When you let yourself be used for ad hominem attacks on another, don’t whine and pull some adolescent self-righteousness number that you are going “defend yourself.” There is no defense whatsoever for what you’ve done.

    (5) My own opinion is also that you found yourself somebody with a little notariety and think you will ride his coattails to some kind of notariety of your own. No, you won’t. You will only find that you have smeared your own name, possibly for life. You will have lied about people, and you will be responsible for that.

    How easy it was for you to accuse me of being Robert Spenser’s sock puppet. Who told you to back off? Probably Schwartz, because Schwartz thinks that I am somebody I am not. But I do know the woman Schwartz probably THINKS I am, the one who is sitting on 7,000 emails that prove everything from his lies about Trifkovic and Spenser to his endless neurotic vendettas. It is a testament to how brilliant Schwartz is in some regards that he is able to get anything done while he tries to exterminate his “Enemies List” — Podhoretz, Spenser, Victor Davis Hansen, and a host of others. Schwartz thinks he is so smart, but then he gets taken in by somebody like Mustafa Ceric, whom he promotes for years, and who then betrays him, and who then the Saudis appoint to represent Balkan Islam at the Vatican last week. Yes, that was very bright indeed.

    You will, as the others before you, think you are “defending a good person,” but you are simply being used to shovel lies he has no intention of taking responsibility for and every intention of making you responsible for — on the hope, by the way, that when you realize you’ve lied on his behalf you will be too embarrassed to admit to yourself that you’ve been used, take responsibility for passing on bad information, and publicly apologize to the people about whom she’d inadvertently lied — like Morgaan Sinclair had to do on the FPM and JihadWatch websites. It’s interesting that the night before she published her apology, Robert Spenser wrote to her to tell her she didn’t have to embarrass herself that way. He was worried that she would be jumped by 10,000 people angry about what had been done to him in the preceding two years. She did it anyway. When the time comes that you have to do it, I wonder if you’ll have anything LIKE the kind of integrity and moral courage it takes to do that.

    Well, we’ll see. But my guess is you won’t.

    Meanwhile, Sinclair refuses, at present, to take Schwartz’s piece off the gameboard, though she most certainly could. She still feels that he can still do some good against the Saudis and that he can help give Sufis a voice in the American Muslim landscape, and especially help them gain some traction in Congress and the White House, outspent and outgunned as they are by the Saudis, who have everybody “over a barrel” with regard to Muslim influence in the United States.

    But it is unlikely that Schwartz, whose reputation is ruined in Washington from his endless cruelties, outbursts, and public rages, can effect anything. He spends more time trying to punish people who don’t agree with him that he spends working. Ask anybody who was around him at the NEA, and they’ll tell you all about it. How sick of him we all got!

    And his firings from Voice of America, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, the Jamestown Foundation — even the shock expressed by Washington Muslim groups over his treatment of non-Muslim critics at meetings in Washington where they pleaded, “Brother Suleiman, brother Suleiman… ” … trying to stop the screaming rages at public meetings that made so many of them turn from them — will not end until people who say they are his friends stop tolerating them in the name of “the cause.” Or some such nonsense. Schwartz has literally no idea how close he is to losing the remaining support he has among the neo-cons for whom he has been a sometimes brilliant help. Horowitz has already thrown him out. The Weekly Standard people are split about whether to keep him. And others on whom Schwartz depends for support are in possession of more information than Schwartz realizes.

    You should be very careful that you know the law in regards to everything he tells you to do, or asks you to do. Especially be careful if he asked you to put anything in an email to “frighten so-and-so.” That is illegal. And if he were to ask you to do that, it would be THE SOLICITATION OF AT LEAST TWO FEDERAL CRIMES.

    I have turned over the information to my lawyer about your false accusations. You falsely accused me of making a legal threat against you. You falsely accused me being a mouthpiece for Robert Spenser. And you did it on the internet, which makes it a violence both of conventional and internet-specific slander and libel laws.

    Maybe Morgaan Sinclair is willing to give this another six months, but you will get no such quarter from me. And she won’t like it, but I will compel her testimony if I have to.

    But all that said, I am mystified? Why would Schwartz allow MSA, about whom he has just written an article, to used his slander of Spenser against Spenser and Pipes most recently? Why do people who say they want a peaceful Sufism to replace the virulent radical Islam that threatens to destroy Islam itself engage in hate speech and libel and slander against those on the very side they CLAIM to be on?

    Pipes, whom Schwartz supports and who given Schwartz much more of a benefit of a doubt than he has ever deserved, has overtly said that there is NO DIFFERENCE between his views on the Islamic underpinnings of violence and Spenser’s. In fact, so far as I can see, virtually everything on Spenser’s site is a QUOTATION of how the Muslim bad guys are using Koranic quotations to justify violence. There is a job to be done here, and it is probably trying to get the leaders of the eight madhhabs to offically recant violence, which they will not do. While they are at it, they can also recant gender apartheid, hudud punishments, declarations of takfir and blasphemy to silence opponents, and all doctrines of apostasy used to prevent conversations and basic religious freedom and freedom of speech.

    That is the enemy. And if people like Schwartz don’t get off USING this issue to get into fights because they love being in fights with other males, then we will lose this fight to save the faith. In that way he has failed Islam, and by participating in it, so have you.

  13. Dearest troll,

    Despite not having the faintest idea who you are or what you are talking about, I eagerly await receipt of a court action notice by your lawyer. In the meanwhile, I cordially invite you to bite me. If you could pass along to Spencer that I said his desperation is showing, I would be most grateful.

    Very truly yours,

    Kejda Gjermani

  14. spencer is absolutely correct to call on totten who is full of bullshit. these “moderate” kosovars are presently wrapping up ethnic cleansing of serbs from kosovo. “moderate” my ass.

  15. This is just guilt by association nonsense. You haven’t made a convincing case that Spencer actually preaches or even believes the racist/nationalist claptrap of Belangs et al. It is patently ridiculous to imply Spencer is anti-semitic or racist.

    This sort of internecine feuding is all too common, and not infrequently involves Johnson. It is a trivial distraction.

  16. Robert Spencer is one of the few men, along with Hugh Fitzgerald (and a few others), in the Anti-Jihad movement who have put forward a strategy, and battle plane for defeating the slow conquest of Europe by Islam. I have yet to see anyone else put forward a plan that deals with this threat. The reason is simple: No one wants to identify Islam as the ideological enemy of the West. When Islam, I mean the traditional way Islam is put forward in the Islamic world, as both a religion and government, whose stated goal is the replacement all other religions and governments on this earth with Islam.

    The simple fact is Charles Johnson, Guftafs, Kejda, and anyone else related with LGF, have not forward any kind of plan at all to protect the west from Islamic aggression. They can’t even tell you who the enemy is, or why Islam is dangerous. CJ was a big supporter of the Iraq war, because he accepted the idea that Western Liberal Secular Democracy and Islam can coexist. That of course has been proven to be a false notion. The Iraqi constitution is subservient to the Quran. Islam has been brutally re-imposed throughout most of Iraq, even if it might not appear to us Westerners that it has. All you need to do is see the plight of the Iraqi Christians, and other Non-Muslims in Iraq as proof.

    I had a debate with Guftafs at Jihadwatch over this in the comment section. It is clear from that he does not understand the nature of the enemy. He does not have plan. More important, he does not have the will power to carry any kind of plan forward. I suspect the same is true with CJ. Kejda is too high in her ivory tower to descend to talk to mortals.

    So if Charles Johnson, and Guftafs, or Kejda (other than her support for a Greater Albania) has a better idea to defeat Islamic demographic and cultural conquest of Europe, that can work, plus takes into the account what Islam is, and why it is dangerous, than let us all know. There is nothing worst than a person who is critical of someone else’s plan, but have nothing to offer themselves for criticism.

    The debate about VB, and other separatist, and right-wing groups in Europe ok, are they racist or are they not, and if they are, is it a good idea to make temporary alliances with them or not. All those are valid points, but I would be insane to accept someone who has no plan at all. That is what CJ, Kejda, and Guftafs offer…which is nothing.

    One more thing, I have yet to see evidence that Mr. Spencer is a racist, or a fascist. He is not very computer and internet savvy. There is no doubt he is a little too trusting. Those are valid points, but that does make one a racist, as Charles Johnson claims. Charles Johnson, however, has proven himself to be very internet and computer literate, after all that is his expertise (as a programmer), however, he has proven to be a bully, afraid of debate, and uses the words racist, fascist, and bigot to describe anyone who disagrees with his utopian views of the world. He is not man to be trusted, and is loose cannon, that conservatives, moderates, or any movement and party, would never want on their side. With friends like CJ, who needs enemies…

    BTW: I bet my friends this will be deleated, I hope it will cost me a dollar, his guess is Kejda will not because she accepts the concept of free speech and debate…right Kejda?

  17. Kedja, I have posted this below so you can give it to your “daddy”…Charles Johnson. It is in response to what Charles Johnson has stated this at his blog. See the link below.

    Also let me know what you think….I like debate…bring it on….

    I am not advocating mass murder (nor has anyone else I support), I am not advocating mass deportation, however I am in agreement with those who feel severe restrictions should be placed on Muslim immigration into the West, if not the complete doing away with Muslim immigration all together. That is not racism, that is not bigotry, but that is called survival. The United States did not allow flaming Communist into the country during the Cold War, and members of the Nazi party were not allowed into the USA during WWII, so why is it so hard to understand why we should restrict members of Islam from coming into this country today?

    If I say “I hope Islam will be defeated one day”, is that “hate speech”? I hear atheist all the time hoping for the defeat of Christian dogma, yet I do not hear anyone say that is “hate speech”. I have heard people wishing for the death of all religions, yet no one calls that “hate speech”. It is not hate speech, or racist, to call for the death of an idea. That is what Islam is. It is an idea, a set of beliefs, a political ideology, and a value system. If I think that value system is disgusting, and wrong, do I not have a right to actively work to see it defeated, just as those who believe in Islam are actively working for the destruction of Western Civilization?. I want Islam defeated. I admit it. I do not feel ashamed in admitting it. Would an abolitionist feel shame in fighting for the destruction of slavery? The answer must be no.

    This gets to the heart of why I think Charles Johnson is wrong. I get the feeling that Charles Johnson does not understand that Islam cannot coexist with Secular Democracy. That is why he was such a defender of the Iraq War. That is why he attacked Obama for stating, even if Obama is lying, that he wanted to bomb Pakistan. He really thinks Islam is not at fault, and that Islam is not like Nazism, or Communism, but that it is just a group of “radicals” who have perverted Islam. He still thinks of it as a personal faith.

    If we do not restrict the immigration of Muslims, and at least restrict the teaching of Islam as a political system, we will have a civil war within my lifetime in Europe. One will have to change for the benefit of the other. One must admit it is wrong, and if both sides refuse to change, it will mean war. A real war, unlike that idiotic parade in Iraq that was called a war, means the killing of human beings so that one idea wins out over the other idea. History is filled with these things called “wars”. They are nasty things. In World War II, the United States bombed whole German cities in the name of defeating an idea, called Nazism. Many people died in those bombings, many of which were not members of the Nazi party, but still defended Nazism (for their own reasons) by resisting those who fought against Nazism. Does Charles Johnson (and his minions) think this was “mass murder”?

    My point is, if push comes to shove, I will have no problem doing whatever it takes to preserve freedom and liberty. That is my line the sand. I am not advocating anything other than that. Those who stand with Islam are themselves defenders of tyranny. Charles Johnson is right for being against mass murder, but Charles Johnson also seems to defend the idea that Islam is not inherently tyrannical. Charles Johnson’s politically correct, and selfish, tirade against Geert Wilders is all the proof we need that he does not understand the meaning of freedom, or how dangerous Islam is. The Anti-Jihad movement, by defending brave people like Wilders, has merely told what time of day it is…it is high noon. Charles still thinks it is 5 A.M., and has pushed the snooze button.

    So once again, if he thinks the Anti-Jihad movement is so evil, what the hell is his (and his minions) plan for defending the West against Islamic aggression? We are all waiting for an answer? I am sure it will be a hoot!

  18. Looks like James Jatras’ diatribes were being funded with stolen money from the Kosovo Church, money donated to repair the churches and for soup kitchens.

    “Part of the money for humanitarian funds went to pay lobby houses in the U.S. with whom they signed contracts worth over $ 600,000 and the money is paid Vilovski.

    For these purposes it is even used the money that is given by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew for the reconstruction of destroyed holy shrines in Kosovo. Diocese of Raska and Prizren has worked starting from 2006. Squire Sanders Public Advocacy”. The two houses in U.S. lobbying – at first, “Venable”, and then successor agency “Squire Sanders Public Advocacy.”

    James Jatras, did you know that the 800,000 Euros (over $1 million) was stolen money?
    How did the money make it to USA and in your bank accounts without violating money laundering laws?
    Did you it was stolen money?
    Did they pay anything else in cash or apartments in Greece?

    Do you feel guilty for taking money from poor people? Those soup kitchen is what they could count on. Would Jesus take $100,000 a month from poor people to lie?

    Bishop Artemije the hateful prick was fired last week for the missing money. Just search for “Artemije replaced” and you will find apartments in Greece, new cars, fancy trips etc. Computers were seized and email is being checked according to Blic.

  19. I do not know why you show a Greek coin when you try to talk about “Albanians” being indigenous to Kosovo. Just face it – you were not indigenous and you got there by illegal immigration. Kosovo is Serbia!! In any case, in Greek mythology, Dardanus (????????) was one of the sons of Illyrius. So perhaps Greeks have more right to be there than Muslims Skiptars??

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.