[Type XXIII]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

So you are claiming this is false? An untruth?

Are you claiming it is true?

I was not claiming that in my post. I tried to remain objective and make an arguement for that JW is biased, not to attack their POV.

Please point out the "impartial judgements" and the "unfairness" of the articles posted.

It is not so much the articles that are biased as it is the selection of articles. Granted, I have only reviewed it casually, but it still appears to me that all their articles furthers their claims and views. You are apparently a frequent reader and might be able to point out examples that disprove my perception, but I think they're a minority.

Just imagine had they been called "NaziWatch.com".

I would still call it biased and read the articles with a critical eye.

This itself is absolutely untrue. They have numerous times quoted news articles, politicians, authors and religious personalities with contrary positions and have challenged those positions based on referential quotes and facts from extrenal sources, most often from within Islam itself.

So they disprove opposing views. Isn't this a method of proving their own views?

I do indeed see bias here but not in JW's posted articles. Look a little closer to home.

Again, most of their posts are based on external articles. When news items turn out to be false, JW immediately notes the fact. It has, however, been a rare event.

What I am saying is that Jihad Watch has an agenda, and this agenda is to prove the "concerted effort to destroy the West." The articles presented are argueing for this view.

There is nothing wrong about trying to prove your views, but it is biased, IMHO.