Archive for LoonWatch

Loonwatch Wins Brass Crescent Award

Posted in Anti-Loons with tags , , , , , , , , on November 22, 2010 by loonwatch

The Brass Crescent Award 2010 wrapped up this past Friday, LoonWatch was nominated for several awards including Best non-Muslim BloggerBest Blog and Best Blogger. Loonwatch won the Brass Crescent Award for Best non-Muslim Blogger, and our very own Danios received honorable mention for Best Blogger.

The category of Best non-Muslim Blogger was accompanied by the question, “Which blog writen by a non-Muslim is most respectful of Islam and seeks genuine dialogue with Muslims?” The category included such luminaries as Glenn Greenwald and Richard Silverstein, genuine writers who have made a tremendous contribution to the fight against Islamophobia while at the same time striving for true understanding in matters that effect us all. We would love to share this award with them since this award is in some respects a recognition of them, individuals whose articles we have featured and utilized.

One point that must be made in relation to this award is that Loonwatch is a cooperative and not a solo venture which the title of the award, “Best Non-Muslim Blogger” may confuse, in our case “Best Non-Muslim Blog” may have been more appropriate. We have writers from a diverse background including Muslims, Christians, Jews and even agnostics and it is this team that continues the tremendous work of “deconstructing the lies” and inanities that is the anti-Muslim blogosphere and machine.

We would also be remiss if we did not once again include our heartfelt thanks and recognition to all the Loonwatchers on our site and beyond who make Loonwatch the finest and most professional anti-Muslim exposing site out there.

 

Robert Spencer of JihadWatch Becomes Desperate Against LoonWatch

Posted in Feature, Loon-at-large with tags , , , , , , , on November 20, 2010 by loonwatch
Robert Spencer

Hate-blogger and career bigot Robert Spencer issued an open challenge to debate numerous times on his vitriolic site.  LoonWatch accepted his challenge.  It has now been officially 155 days since Spencer has avoided the debate.  By Spencer’s own logic (whereby anyone who dodges a debate is a chicken), this makes him a big fat chicken.  This is why I recently published an article entitledJihadWatch Afraid to Debate LoonWatch.

Instead of taking up his own challenge to debate, Robert Spencer now tries to take the chicken’s way out and has started throwing out wild Glenn Beck style accusations against LoonWatch.  Of course, this is no different than his normal M.O., which involves saying absolutely outlandish things and then simply repeating them over and over.  And so, Spencer now calls LoonWatch an “Islamic hate site.”  Next thing you know, Glenn Greenwald will be an “Islamic supremacist” and “stealth jihadist” to JihadWatch!

To give “proof” that LoonWatch is an “Islamic hate site”, the best Spencer can do is reproduce a comment posted by a random reader of our site by the name of Mosizzle.  Amazingly, Mosizzle (whoever he is) is not even a part of the LoonWatch team, nor has ever worked for us, nor has anything to do with us!  He’s just one of the thousands of people who read our website and decided to post a comment under one of our articles.

Is Robert Spencer to be held accountable for what every commentator on his site posts underneath his articles?  OK, let us apply this standard to him.  Even in the blog post itself (the one in which he decries Mosizzle’s alleged “threat”), we see the crazy minions on his site saying completely absurd things, like this (posted by the always classy SaleemSmith):

Muhammad was an insane goat and camel f**ker.

Will Robert Spencer condemn SaleemSmith for saying this?  And is it now fair to say that “JihadWatch calls Muhammad an Insane Goat and Camel F**ker”?

The sheer number of hate-filled comments on JihadWatch is in fact astounding.  One does not need to dig far to find them.  Simply clicking on the comments to any post will do.  For example, just yesterday, we have one dedicated JihadWatch reader (by the user name of dumbledoresarmy)advocating ethnic cleansing of Germany:

evict from Germany, back to various parts of dar al Islam, all known Muslims (including native German converts to Islam; converts have shown a distressing tendency to involve themselves in Jihad plots).

How to reduce the danger of raids carried out from outside?

Don’t let any more Muslims into Germany. Not students, not tourists, not businesspeople, not diplomats, no nothing.

No Muslims allowed on German soil, would make life much more difficult for planners of jihad raids.

Another JihadWatch reader takes offense at this comment, arguing that it should be extended to all countries, not just Germany:

Could we not amend that fine premise to ‘No molsems allowed on non-moslem soil.’?

The next commentator (by the name of TJ) weighs in with a possible solution, arguing that Mecca should be nuked:

I believe a decent leader should prevent an attack by issuing threats that islams capital would be nuked (mecca) is theres a single attack in the country.

Another JihadWatch reader cheers on, likening Muslims to animals:

Do NOT surrender to these animals.

One has to scroll halfway down to find anyone who criticizes the “nuke Mecca” option offered by TJ.  In this case, it is a user by the name of Roland, who takes issue with nuking Mecca…Except only because it would mean destroying the oil that America so desperately needs:

TJ please do not spread such vile mischief. Believe it or not, America cannot use nukes against any land that is filled with oil, it will be slow suicide.

Ronald could care less that millions of civilians would be killed.  He cares about the oil over civilians, like all good neocons do.

The next commentator after Roland (by the name of El Cid) voices his support for ethnic cleansing, arguing for a policy involving “throwing them all out.”  The next commentator after him decides to go back to the “nuke Mecca” option, and prays for an earthquake to destroy Mecca.  (Why nuke when you can pray for an earthquake to do the same thing?)

Then R.K. MacUalraig decides to give his two thumbs up to the idea of ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Germany, saying:

Yes! Staright talk, straight solutions.

The poster after him also extends his support to the “throwing the Muslims out of Germany” solution (remember how the “throwing the Jews out of Germany” thing worked out?).  Then, he says:

Fortunately, slowly but surely, we are getting to that stage.

“That stage” refers to the Final Solution, i.e. ridding Germany of Muslims.

Then finally, we have someone who opposes this Final Solution to Rid Germany of Muslims idea.  Ahh, the voice of reason on JihadWatch.  Of course, the same poster offers his own solution which involves “dropping a load of old shoes over the grand mosque and kaaba stone of mecca”.  He argues that this is a “perfect solution” because it would “be pure insult and humiliation.”  He also notes that he has many other such ideas which are even more insulting than this, and then encourages the other readers to come up with “their own creative suggestions.”  So, this is the voice of reason on JihadWatch, the only user who actually opposed the Final Solution idea in the entire thread.

The next poster isn’t having any of it, and says:

I think it is time for a mass roundup and deportation, There is plenty of room in the sands of Arabia for all of them.

The commentator after that decides to give his own “creative solution”, arguing:

Pig parts, pig blood and perhaps waste towels from the bath houses of the lower east side (Village) NYC could be dropped on the holy land.

Then we have the last commentator on the page, the same one who came up with the idea to ethnically cleanse Germany of Muslims, chastise Ronald for being against the “nuke Mecca” idea.  In Ronald’s defense, however, it should be noted that he never claimed we shouldn’t nuke Mecca because it would kill filthy Muslim civilians, but because of the oil.  So c’mon crazy JihadWatch readers, cut him some slack!

Dumbledoresarmy addresses the crazed JihadWatch crew with the words “ladies and gentlemen” and then explains why nuking Mecca is a good idea.

And that’s the last post in the article.  Thirty-five comments by JihadWatch readers, and not a single one who opposed the idea of ethnic cleansing of Germany (or the entire non-Muslim world) and the nuking of Mecca on ethical grounds (with the notable exception of Ronald who thought that it would mean losing the oil reserves and another user who thought there are more creative ways to deliver “pure insult and humiliation” upon Muslims).  Not a single commentator on the thread opposed either of these two ideas on moral grounds.

Not a single peep from the ever vigilant Robert Spencer or any of the other moderators on the website either.

If Robert Spencer is claiming that LoonWatch must be held responsible for the solitary comment by Mosizzle, then by this logic, Spencer and JihadWatch are to be held accountable for the above comments advocating ethnic cleansing and genocide of Muslims.  Notice that JihadWatch has a disclaimer at the bottom saying:

The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.

If Spencer can use this defense of his site, then why does not the same apply to LoonWatch?  Therefore, even if–hypothetically speaking–an “Islamic supremacist” were to post a threat against Spencer on our site, it would not be (by Spencer’s own logic) attributable in any way to LoonWatch.  After all, JihadWatch commentators had threats against not just one person but against an entire religious group!

Having argued that point from a hypothetical standpoint, the reality is that no threat towards Robert Spencer was ever posted on LoonWatch.  Mosizzle’s comment was simply:

Like all cancers, this one needs to be cut out before it spreads.

Anyone who has ever spent more than three minutes of their lives on the internet well knows that people are “proverbially speaking” when they say such things.  For example, when the Huffington Post says “Jon Stewart Destroys Fox News…” or Fox News says that “O’Reilly Destroys Eminem and Media Matters”, nobody actually seriously thinks that Fox News has actually literally been destroyed or that Eminem or Media Matters are actually dead.  Or when someone says “Stewart Rips Maddow”, nobody actually thinks that Maddow has been literally ripped into little pieces.  Or when someone online says “Maddow eviscerated [someone]“, nobody actually thinks that the person has beenliterally eviscerated.

Mosizzle’s comment, in the context of epic blog language, is the most normal thing in the world.  In fact, the “[blank] is a cancer that must be cut out” phrase has been used only just a million times on the internet, never once being interpreted as an actual death threat.  For example, this neocon clownasks “Is Progressivism a ‘cancer’ that must be cut out of the American system?”  I am a progressive in the American system; should I claim that I have been threatened?  Glenn Beck also uses the “[blank] is a cancer that must be cut out” phrase.  Maybe Glenn Beck is not a good example (because he is nuts), but the point is that most people would not think that Beck is actually advocating physical violence by such a phrase.  Interestingly, the “Islam is a cancer in America that must be cut out” is very familiar and Spencer never seems to object to it.

In any case, Mosizzle himself clarified his statement, by saying that he was “just implying that we must refute Spencer’s lies now before he become more influential…”  So, it is exactly as I initially thought it was: it was not a threat of physical violence at all.  Instead, it was a call to refute his lies before his influence spreads.  The phrase was used in the same way “destroys”, “eviscerated”, etc. is used in blog talk.

Robert Spencer, on the other hand, physically threatened me (Danios), calling for me to be lashed 100 and 101 times on two different occasions respectively, saying about me (“the slick liar”):

The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 100 lashes

And:

The slick liar who penned that piece ought to get 101 lashes

Calling for someone to get lashed 100 or 101 times cannot really be understood as “proverbially speaking” nor is it a common saying. (Admittedly, I think it was nothing more than him just losing his temper…) So basically on the one hand we have on LoonWatch a comment using a phrase most commonly used in the proverbial sense by a random reader of our site who is not even a part of the LoonWatch team…(Nowhere in the quote by Mosizzle is violent action called for.)  And on the other hand we have a threat that explicitly says I should be lashed, a threat issued not by some random reader of JW, but by the main man himself!

Furthermore, this entire idea of “the commentators on my site don’t reflect on me at all” is a bunch of baloney.  The fact that JihadWatch attracts so many crazy bigots speaks volumes about what JihadWatch is all about.  It’s food that fuels the bigots, and that’s why so many of them are there.  We at LoonWatch have some crazies who roam our site (which website on earth doesn’t!?) but unlike JihadWatch, they are just a tiny percentage.  Not only that, but someone will challenge a person if he says something crazy like that.  As for Mosizzle’s comment, I am sure that most loyal readers thought like me that his comment was proverbial in nature.  And Robert Spencer knows that.  The fact that he’s forced to use the words of random visitors to our site–and superimposing it upon us–tells us very clearly that he knows he has got nothing on us, so he must rely on indirect means. How desperate is Spencer to get at us, and how truly far he has to go to find something against us!

Remember I told you that Robert Spencer is a liar?  He feels no compunction in misleadingly titling his article: “Islamic hate site says Spencer is like a ‘cancer’ that must be ‘cut out.’”  Yet, our website never said that. It’s not just poor form to write like this; it’s outright lying and libel.  This from the man who keeps crying about people supposedly doing that to him.  He can dish it out, but he can’t take it.

The way Robert Spencer tries to superimpose a “threat” on the words posted by Mosizzle show how truly desperate Spencer is to get a death threat.  In the deranged world of Islamophobia, the more death threats and fatwas you have against your head, the more cred you have and the more books you can sell.  No wonder the cover of Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) is emblazoned with a death threat against Spencer made by some crazy internet Islamic extremist, and no wonder it boasts “[Robert Spencer] lives in a Secure, Undisclosed Location.”  And yet in an interview available to the whole wide world to see, Spencer reveals his “undisclosed location” as “New England.”  If his life is really in such great peril from the Bad Guys (which no jail but Gitmo can stop apparently), why is he revealing his location?   And then why is he simultaneously printing books claiming that his location is “Undisclosed”?  All of this shows his sheer fraudulence.  It’s all histrionic theatrics and sensationalism designed to sell books.  The whole “I-have-death-threats-against-me-for-this-book” thing is as trite as the “Warning: Images too graphic for some”…These are just gimmicks designed to entice the viewer.  Oh, you’re getting death threats?  Then I must read your book to find out what you say!

Again, if Spencer wants to attribute one singular comment (that too which is simply proverbial in nature) to LoonWatch, then all those ethnic cleansing and nuclear genocide quotes are attributed to JihadWatch.  Having said that, it is not right to strike some sort of equivalency here.  LoonWatch has never advocated physical violence against Robert Spencer or the people who run his site.  On the other hand, Robert Spencer has himself advocated the same things that dumbledoresarmy and TJ did.  Dumbledoresarmy called for a ban on all Muslim immigration, which Spencer himself advocates:

Officials should proclaim a moratorium on all visa applications from Muslim countries, since there is no reliable way for American authorities to distinguish jihadists and potential jihadists from peaceful Muslims. Because this is not a racial issue, these restrictions should not apply to Christians and other non-Muslim citizens of those countries, although all should be subjected to reasonable scrutiny.

Reduce all this to its essence and you have exactly as dumbledoresarmy said: “No Muslims allowed on German soil.”

As for dumbledoresarmy’s support for ethnic cleansing, Robert Spencer was caught joining a white nationalist genocidal facebook group that advocated the same exact thing that dumbledoresarmy did on JihadWatch: ethnically cleansing a country (Turkey in this case) of all Muslims.

As for nuclear annihilation of Muslim lands, Robert Spencer posted a video advocating the nuclear annihilation of Pakistan.

So there can be no equivalence between the singular comment found on LoonWatch and the countless comments on JihadWatch.  Had anyone actually threatened Spencer, we would have called him out as a loon.  Will Robert Spencer strongly condemn as loons those people who post on his site calling for ethnic cleansing and nuclear genocide against Muslims?  We’re not asking just to reject what they are saying, but to clearly say that any who say such things are nutjobs.

The truth is, however, that such people characterize the vast majority of JihadWatch’s loyal readers.

Anyways, it is amazing how Robert Spencer chooses to focus on one teeny-tiny comment from someone who is not even a LoonWatch writer, instead of tackling the hefty arguments I have thrown his way.  Quite telling.  Also interesting is the fact that Robert Spencer and his minions mine our site looking for stuff to use against us even reading our comments section (whereas I would blow an aneurysm were I to read the comments section of JihadWatch for longer than a few minutes!), and yet Spencer still can’t get himself to say the name of our website.  How truly juvenile.  In that regard, I dedicate this song to him.

In the above article, I eviscerated Robert Spencer–proverbially speaking I assure you.

 

LoonWatch: Best Islam-Releated Website in the WORLD?

Posted in Anti-Loons with tags , , , , , , on November 10, 2010 by loonwatch

Voting is now open for the annual Brass Crescent Awards, “that honors the best writers and thinkers of the emerging Muslim blogosphere (aka the Islamsphere).”  LoonWatch and its writers were nominated for multiple award categories, including Best Blog, Best Non-Muslim Blogger, and Best Writer.

We issue a fatwa declaring the obligation for you to vote for us in all three categories: LoonWatch for Best Blog and Best Non-Muslim Blogger, and Danios of LoonWatch for Best Writer.  Cast your vote here:

The Seventh Annual Brass Crescent Awards

Allow me to be a bit sensationalist and over-the-top with this:  our site is one of the finalists for thebest Islam-related blog in the entire world. I think this really speaks to how effective our site has been.  Our opponents have tried (quite unsuccessfully) to minimize our importance, hoping that people will ignore us.  But the Muslim masses have spoken, and have given us a clear mandate and their vote of confidence.

I was nominated for Best Writer.  Aside from basking in the glory of this and using it to stroke my already overblown ego, this has some serious importance.  Robert Spencer, king pin of Islamophobia on the internets, issued an open challenge to debate any “Muslim or liberal” spokesmen.  When I accepted his debate challenge, he issued a “haughty refusal” and tried to minimize my importance.  Does a nomination as the Best (Islam-related) Writer in the WHOLE WORLD, as voted for by the Muslim masses themselves, qualify me as relevant enough?

Some random haters comment on our website, saying that they will debate me, asking why should Robert Spencer accept to debate me when I don’t accept to debate them?  They try to strike some equivalence between themselves and myself.  Yet, there is absolutely no correlation.  Nobody reads the random haters’ comment rants (half the time not even myself).  On the other hand, so many people read my writing (and that of other writers on LoonWatch) that I (and our site) have been nominated for BEST (ISLAM-RELATED) WRITER (AND BLOG) IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD.

Robert Spencer is widely known as the most prolific anti-Islam blogger, and I am in the running for Best (Islam-related) Writer.  It only makes sense then that he and I are meant for each other, and that he and I should debate each other.  Shouldn’t the Best Anti-Islam Blogger and the Best Islam-related Writer not duke it out (proverbially speaking)?  Why does Robert Spencer agree to debate so many Muslim and liberal spokesmen out there but refuse to debate the one who is in the running for Best (Islam-related) Writer, at least in the eyes of the Muslim masses?  We can only conclude that he is scared to debate me.

Anyways, I’d like to thank everyone for nominating us.  We do appreciate the support.  Go cast your vote (don’t vote twice since it tracks IP addresses and invalidates cheaters), and let the best blog win (unless of course it’s not ours).

 

JihadWatch Afraid to Debate LoonWatch

Posted in Feature, Loon Blogs with tags , , , , , on November 1, 2010 by loonwatch

JihadWatch, a vitriolic hate site run by pretend scholar Robert Spencer, has propelled itself to the forefront of the Islamophobic movement in the United States.  The fear-mongering Spencer has used his hate site to demonize Islam and Muslims.  To bolster his credibility, Robert Spencer had long ago issued an open challenge to “Muslims and leftists” to debate his ideas.

I accepted Spencer’s challenge to a debate on June 17th, 2010.  Since then, several influential Muslim-American spokesmen have expressed their interest in such a debate between Spencer and I.  This includes Ahmed Rehab (Executive Director of CAIR-Chicago), who issued a scathing statement against Spencer.  However, it has now been over 135 days since I accepted Robert Spencer’s challenge.  JihadWatch has generated excuse after excuse as to why this radio debate cannot take place.

The latest set of excuses was that I must reveal who I am before a debate can take place.  Spencer issued this pre-condition knowing full well that I value my anonymity too much to do that.  He naturally thought that this was a creative way to get out of a debate with me while at the same time saving face.  Said Spencer:

Sorry, I don’t debate fictional characters or pseudonyms. “Danios of Loonwatch” can go debate Scot Harvath or Harold Robbins.

This is of course strange since Hugh Fitzgerald, the Vice President of JihadWatch since 2004, himself operates under an anonymous pseudonym.  Fitzgerald is a co-administrator of the site, alongside Spencer.  Is Fitzgerald then a “fictional character” who is only worthy of debate with Scot Harvath or Harold Robbins?

If that is the case, I challenge Hugh Fitzgerald–co-administer and Vice President of JihadWatch–to a radio debate.  The topic will be Jihad, “Dhimmitude”, and Taqiyya (Stealth Jihad), namely chapters 1-4 of Robert Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).

Hugh Fitzgerald of JihadWatch uses a pseudonym like myself, and he remains completely anonymous like myself.  Surely two “fictional characters” are worthy of debating each other, right?

Now what excuse will be generated by JihadWatch to avoid this debate with LoonWatch?  I can just see Robert Spencer’s brain churning in order to generate a reason to get out of this one.  The truth is that JihadWatch is a bully, and as soon as someone steps up to a bully and delivers a solid punch to the mouth, the bully backs down like the coward he is.

 

Internet Sociopath Robert Spencer Scared of Debate

Posted in Feature, Loon-at-large with tags , , , , , , , , on October 24, 2010 by loonwatch

Robert Spencer, the notorious anti-Muslim hate blogger, issued an open challenge to a debate:

The list of the Leftist and Muslim academics and apologists who have refused my challenge to debate is very long; they know they can’t refute what I say on the basis of evidence, so they resort to broad-based smears and personal attacks — and haughty refusals to debate.

He has issued similar challenges on numerous occasions, steadfastly claiming that he would be willing to defend his ideas in debate.  I had accepted Spencer’s challenge to a debate, saying:

I accept your challenge, Spencer.  I agree to a radio debate with you on the topic of jihad and “dhimmitude”, namely chapters 1-4 of your book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades).  It will then be seen if you can defend your own writing, which I argue is a load of sensationalist crock.

Will you accept my challenge to debate or cower in fear?  My guess is that you “know [you] can’t refute what I say” and will “resort to…haughty refusals to debate.”

It’s been 129 days since I accepted Spencer’s challenge, yet he continues to dodge taking me on.  That’s no surprise to most of our readers, since I have written several articles refuting his book and ideas, which he has failed to respond to.  It is well-known that my articles have stopped Spencer in his tracks, and finally he has been effectively silenced on those issues.  For the first time ever, someone managed to spend the time necessary to respond in a thorough fashion.  That’s why Spencer is avoiding a debate with me at all costs, even if it means going back on his open challenge to “leftists and Muslims.”

Even so, this doesn’t stop Spencer from claiming that other leftist or Muslim spokesmen are scared of debating him and can’t refute him.  Spencer claimed that Muslim-American spokesman Ahmed Rehab “ran from debate with me [Spencer].”  Rehab responded, saying:

Spencer, I never agreed to debate you in the first place, and it is highly unlikely that I ever will.

Rehab then mentions Spencer’s hypocrisy, pointing out that Spencer has been dodging yours truly (Danios of LoonWatch) for quite some time:

And now for some irony. Spencer, you are claiming you are ready to debate anyone but that alas no one wants to debate you because no one can. But, is this actually true? Does the name Danios of Loonwatch ring a bell Spencer? You may be burying your head in the sand hoping no one will notice, but a simple Google search on “Robert Spencer debate” reveals your hypocrisy. How come you are ignoring an invitation from another blogger who has challenged you numerous times and whose articles shredding your arguments to pieces are all over the web without a peep of a rebuttal from you? Are you conceding defeat? Are you “running away?”

Of course, this got Robert Spencer worked up in quite the tizzy, and he blogged a furious response.  In it, the sociopath Robert Spencer starts ranting about the Soviet Union and Stalin, something all delusional right-wing nut jobs are prone to do some time or the other.

The irony of Spencer’s response cannot be understated.  His post is entitled “CAIR’s Ahmed Rehab and the use of ridicule,” and he complains of how Rehab supposedly resorts to “adolescent ridicule and abuse rather than substance.”  It is truly special that Spencer can say this with a straight face while at the same time lampooning the very same opponent by posting a photograph of Ahmed Rehab with a caption accusing him of wearing lipstick and eye shadow.  His readers take great delight in this picture, gleefully snickering at this “adolescent ridicule and abuse.”  The photograph is likely photoshopped, but even if it is not, what relevance does it have to do with the debate at hand?  Here, Spencer has lowered himself to the lowest possible schoolyard tactic: accuse your opponent of being gay.  To an extremist Catholic apologist like Robert Spencer being called “gay” is a very bad insult.  Of course, to a proud “leftist” progressive like myself, I don’t find it a slur to be labeled “homosexual”, which is clearly what Spencer is hinting at.  Even if Ahmed Rehab really did wear make up like gay popstar Adam Lambert, so what?  What’s your point?  Other than expose your underlying homophobia?

Let me be clear though: we here at LoonWatch don’t mind adolescent ridicule.  To wit: Robert Spencer is a fat slob.  His belly is so protuberant that he can’t see his feet.  (Watch Robert Spencer cry about “personal attacks” when he himself has been doing the same to Ahmed Rehab!)

Have you noticed how Spencer has a thing against what he calls “meterosexual guys” like Ahmed Rehab and Reza Aslan?  Do I sense jealousy?  Both Rehab and Aslan are fairly good-looking guys.  In fact, Rehab was involved with the current Miss USA and Aslan with Jessica Jackley.  Maybe Spencer’s antipathy towards these chic Muslim spokesmen is that they are too damn good-looking.  Compare Spencer’s frumpy body with Rehab’s toned body.  That could also explain Spencer’s burning hatred of Dr. Tariq Ramadan, as one user on his site complains about “his handsome lying face.”  I wouldn’t be surprised if Spencer’s burning hatred is a reflection of his own inferiority complex…He certainly wouldn’t be the first loser to embrace a hate-filled ideology to boost his own inner lack of self-worth.

The issue is not Spencer’s “use of ridicule”, but his hypocrisy: he cries that leftist and Muslim spokesmen–Ahmed Rehab specifically here–resort to “adolescent ridicule and abuse”, which is what Spencer himself engages in on his hate site, against Rehab no less!  He cries about “adolescent ridicule” and in the same post say that Rehab and Aslan “richly deserve lampooning.”  So you can’t use adolescent ridicule, but lampooning is OK.  Does pointing out how fat and ugly Spencer is fall into the former or the latter?

Anyways, back to the point: I had long ago accepted Robert Spencer’s open challenge, agreeing to a radio debate.  So why does Spencer dodge me?

Spencer needs to generate excuses and a way out from debating me.  His first attempt was to minimize my importance, which somehow does not fall under “haughty refusal to debate.”  He can no longer rely on this excuse, since Ahmed Rehab himself, the Executive Director of CAIR-Chicago, messaged me: “You are amongst the top writers on this topic, far more effective and relevant than 99% of the countless Muslim writers out there.”  That’s high praise from the man whom Spencer considers an adequate spokesman for Muslims.  Will Spencer refuse to debate someone considered in the top 1%?  I suspect so.  Spencer says of me:

Debating such a compromised and dishonest individual would be a waste of time

Isn’t that the exact same reasoning that Rehab gave for refusing to debate you, Spencer?  The same reasoning you were so opposed to and called cowardice?

Spencer needs another excuse to weasel out of a debate with me.  What will it be?  Aha!  It will be my anonymity!  As many of you know, I write anonymously under a pseudonym.  Spencer and his fellow fans desperately want to know who I am.  Some of them are convinced I am XYZ, and others that I am ABCD.  Some have even engaged in textual analysis, trying extremely hard to find out who this cursed Danios is.  My question is: who cares?  Deal with my arguments, not who I am. Spencer says:

…Since Rehab invokes [Danios] and others have referred to his site [LoonWatch] recently, I am willing: if “Danios of Loonwatch” reveals his real name…

Spencer places this condition on me, knowing full well that I will refuse to reveal my name, since he knows that I like writing anonymously.  Spencer asks:

What is “Danios of Loonwatch” afraid of?

Do I have to be “afraid” of something?  I enjoy writing anonymously.  Having said that, I do plan on eventually “coming out of the closet” (will Spencer now accuse me of being gay too [although for the record I am not]?), but not just yet…When the time is right and of my own choosing. And when I do come out, I am sure that Spencer will attack my “meterosexual looks”.  Ah, why o why was I cursed with such handsome looks?

More importantly, I am currently a post-doctoral fellow at an Ivy League university and instructor at a state university.  Coming out of the closet at the present time would pose some logistical problems for me, which is why I have chosen to do it at a later date.  Does this answer your question, Spencer?

Then Spencer places his second condition:

I am willing: if “Danios of Loonwatch” reveals his real name, finds a university willing to host the debate and contracts an impartial moderator, I’m ready when he is.

So (1) I have to reveal my real name, and (2) the debate can only be at a university.  The second condition is odd, considering that it is Spencer who has no affiliation to any university.  In fact, Spencer failed to respond to this point by Rehab:

Spencer claims to be a scholar of Islam, Islamic Law, and Theology but holds no degrees in any of those subjects and has never even published a single peer-reviewed paper.

Why, in your epic rant, did you not respond to this argument against you?  How is it, my portly friend, that you consider yourself a “scholar of Islam”–which your site so claims–when you do not even have a single degree in any subject of Islam, let along a single peer-reviewed paper?  Exactly what type of scholar are you, then?

Anyways, Spencer’s second condition is tied to the first: a university debate can only be arranged if I reveal my true identity and university affiliation, which he knows that I am not willing to do just yet.  Spencer concludes:

But I won’t be holding my breath.

I’m sure Spencer was actually holding his breath, for fear that I might accept his two pre-conditions, and then how to avoid the challenge!?

Of course, Spencer’s two conditions–both of which involve revealing my identity–are completely bogus.  I have offered to debate Spencer on the radio.  Does Spencer not do radio interviews?  In fact, Spencer has appeared on the radio countless times, doing interviews for Jawa radio, Spirit Catholic Radio, Western World Radio, etc. To completely negate Spencer’s generated excuse, here we have Spencer himself saying how he engaged in a radio debate with a CAIR spokesman:

In April 2007, I participated in a heated hour-long radio debate with CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush…

So why does Spencer agree to a radio debate with Hussam Ayloush but now he doesn’t agree to the same with yours truly?  What’s that sound?  Oh, it’s the sound of a chicken.

UPDATE:

One of our readers Jack raised a great point:

Isn’t Robert Spencer great friends with Bat Ye’or? That’s not her real name… Does Spencer require of her to dispense with the nonsense (everybody knows her real name by now). Does Robert Spencer refuse to quote ‘Fjordman’? ‘Baron Boddissey’? And so on and so forth.

Not to speak of Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, and countless other fellow anti-jihadists (read: Islamophobes).   The truth is: Robert Spencer is scared out of his wits.  He will continue to generate excuse after excuse…

 

LoonWatch Calling all Bloggers

Posted in Feature, Loonwatch Updates with tags , , , , , on October 12, 2010 by loonwatch

Over the past few months LoonWatch has grown phenomenoly and this has led to an expansion of our efforts. We have launched two new websites, Spencerwatch.com andWhatIfTheyWereMuslim.com. We have assembled a great team of bloggers but this expansion requires us to scour the net and find those gems of talent willing to expose Islamophobia and the anti-Muslim Movement.

In light of this we are making a general casting call for individuals who would like to participate, mainly for WhatIfTheyWereMuslim.com and Spencerwatch.com but depending on our evaluation of your abilities also LoonWatch!

Are you a LoonWatcher who has been following our site for quite some time, have you left comments with the thought that “I should write for LoonWatch?” Well, this is your opportunity!

Email us at: info@loonwatch.com

Include your name, how you learned about LoonWatch, why you would like to write for LoonWatch and any samples of your writing. If you are a frequent commenter on LoonWatch or any of the other sites mention that as well.

 

WhatIfTheyWereMuslim.com is Here

Posted in Feature, Loonwatch Updates with tags , , , , on October 8, 2010 by loonwatch

Loonwatchers make the Loonwatch world go round. Your comments, tips, suggestions and critiques help make our site better. One of the types of articles that you guys have responded to favorably and for which we get the most tips has been the running segment “What if they were Muslim.” It is a segment where we bring to light the double standards and hypocrisy of both media and popular culture in the way Islam and Muslims are portrayed.

In the segment we highlight the absurd hypocrisy of those who attempt to link every misstep, misdeed or crime committed by a Muslim to his or her faith. Would the same crime, if committed by a Christian, be treated in a similar fashion if the perpetrator were Muslim? The preponderance of the evidence would suggests otherwise.

Now we have created a website, WhatiftheywereMuslim.com, that compiles and publishes all the “what if they were Muslim” stories in one place.

From the website,

Here at What if they were Muslim we question what would happen if a Jewish, Christian, Hindu, ______(insert religion of choice) were to commit a crime in the name of their faith. Would it be treated the same way if a Muslim committed the exact same crime? Would very little emphasis be put on the perpetrators religion? Would it be stressed that the act is an aberration, a misrepresentation of the religion? Would the religion be mentioned at all?

WITWM is not a site that opines on the “what if” scenario of your favorite Hollywood star being a Muslim. It has nothing to do with Angelina Jolie or Johnny Depp, etc. It has everything to do with the double standards in both media and pop culture that perpetuate the myth that Islam is inherently more violent than other religions or the root cause of misdeeds by Muslims.

We hope that our faithful Loonwatchers who have made this site such a success will continue to provide their support by also visiting WITWM and commenting and sharing the pieces.

 

Loonwatch Under Maintenance

Posted in Loon-at-large with tags , , on September 4, 2010 by loonwatch

Dear Loonwatchers you may have noticed that the site was down for a few hours, we are sorry for the inconvenience as the site was under maintenance. We are now open for your reading pleasure!

Some Want Loonwatch to Be Silenced

Posted in Feature with tags , , , , , , , , , on August 23, 2010 by loonwatch

Loonwatch is obviously being attacked by rogue hackers who want to silence the anti-hate, pro-freedom voice. The hackers present themselves as Arabs from Egypt or Morroco, but an investigation into their IP’s casts doubt on where the attacks are really originating.

We have seen in the time since we started publishing online that those who proclaim to be “freedom lovers”, standing up for “freedom of speech” and “Western civilization” have turned out to be the biggest hypocrites.

This is exposed by their malicious attack on our site. They do not wish to play by the rules of the game, sincere and factual criticism backed up by a plethora of evidence scares the “beejezus” out of them and so they resort to dirty tactics such as these.

Is it surprising that they chose to attack us on our highest traffic day? Someone out there wants Loonwatch to be silenced.

 

LoonWatch Radio Interview

Posted in Feature with tags , , , , , on June 8, 2010 by loonwatch
Peace, tolerance, and coexistence. The creed of LoonWatch.

The ever elusive and reclusive LoonWatch recently came out of the woodwork to give a radio interview on KZUM 89.3 FM for a show called American Muslims Today.  Listen to the audio broadcast:

http://go-amt.net/components/com_showspeaker/media/Loonwatch%20interview.mp3

If you are unable to view the icon above, click here or here.

 

Muslim American community finds Arizona law “appalling”; LoonWatch agrees

Posted in Feature, Loon Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on May 2, 2010 by loonwatch
The fight against illegals...The fight against illegals…

An op-ed in The Washington Post reads:

Arizona’s draconian new immigration law is an abomination — racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust.  About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.

Brewer, who caved to xenophobic pressures that previous governors had the backbone to resist, should be ashamed of herself. The law requires police to question anyone they “reasonably suspect” of being an undocumented immigrant — a mandate for racial profiling on a massive scale. Legal immigrants will be required to carry papers proving that they have a right to be in the United States. Those without documentation can be charged with the crime of trespassing and jailed for up to six months…

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon — who wrote an op-ed in The Post calling proponents of the law “bitter, small-minded and full of hate” — hopes to file a lawsuit against the state…

How are police supposed to decide whom they “reasonably suspect” of being in the country illegally? Since the great majority of undocumented immigrants in Arizona are from Mexico, aggressive enforcement of the law would seem to require demanding identification from anybody who looks kind of Mexican. Or maybe just hassling those who look kind of Mexican and also kind of poor. Or maybe anyone who dares to visit the Mexican consulate.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued the following statement on behalf of Muslim Americans:

CAIR-AZ Condemns Signing of Anti-Immigrant Bill

(PHOENIX, AZ, 4/28/2010) — The Arizona chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR-AZ) today expressed disappointment at the signing into law of Senate Bill 1070. CAIR-AZ and other civil liberties groups say the law legitimizes suspicion based on appearance and will result in racial profiling and discrimination.

“It’s natural for the Muslim community to find this new law appalling” says CAIR-AZ Chairman Anas Hlayhel. “The Quran instructs Muslims to stand up against injustice and racism, which this bill seems to advocate. No matter what good this bill claims to bring, we see that its harm will outweigh its good. We see it as a desperate attempt to legitimize racial profiling in order to hide the failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform. It is a reminder of recent attempts to legitimize racial profiling at airports.”

Hlayhel said the new law is a major setback to civil rights accomplishments in America.

LoonWatch agrees.  By the passage of this discriminatory law, police are obligated to stop anyone whom they “reasonably suspect” of being an illegal immigrant.  Realistically, this means stopping anyone with brown skin, and Hispanics in particular.  The good people of Arizona have succumbed to the forces of intolerance, hatred, and xenophobia.  This law is quite simply un-American, and those who backed it don’t seem to believe in the ideals of this country.

Right-wingers in general and the anti-Islam camp in specific have pushed hard to legitimize racial profiling at airports, calling for all Arabs or Muslims to receive extra screening.  This campaign has met with considerable success, with very little uproar from the public.  Justifying racial profiling in one context legitimizes it in another; a bad precedent opens up pandora’s box.  Now we find the discussion moved from Arabs/Muslims to Hispanics, and who’s to say it will stop there?  Could police officers eventually be granted the right to randomly pull over black Americans driving through white neighborhoods?  Where do we stop?  If we tolerate discrimination against Arabs/Muslims and Hispanics, then it opens the door to discrimination against everyone that does not look exactly like the majoritorian group.

The right-wing fear factory has created this imaginary boogie man of so-called “stealth jihad”, claiming that “the other” is seconds away from overthrowing democratic rule and enacting a brutal interpretation of Sharia in North America and Europe.  Meanwhile, these right-wing fear-mongers are the ones hacking away at the roots of our democracy, pushing their hate-filled agenda in the shroud of rationalized legislation, justifying racial profiling, warrantless wiretapping, torture, the suspension of habeas corpus, secret prisons, targeted assassinations of citizens, and the pursuit of imperial conquest abroad.

Since the creation of our great nation-state, there has been an element in us that has said “we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal,” and paradoxically another element that has called for some people to be considered only three-fifths human.  Throughout U.S. history, the country has wrestled between these two sides: the tolerance inherent in our nation’s ethos on the one hand, and the wretched flame of intolerance on the other.  It’s time for Americans of conscience everywhere to stand in solidarity for the ideal of tolerance, and against this repugnant law.  This nation was founded and built by immigrants (illegal ones at that).  While sensible immigration reform is something desirable, we cannot allow xenophobia to snuff out the country’s legacy of multiculturalism.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breath free…

 

Do You Love LoonWatch? If So, Do Your Part

Posted in Anti-Loons with tags , , , , , , , on March 6, 2010 by loonwatch

i_want_you_poster

LoonWatch has become a very popular website, exposing the dirty underworld of Muslim-bashing.  But we cannot reach our full potential without your help.  So if you really love this website, please do your part.  Here are some things we need our loyal readers to help out with:

1)  Monitor the comments on our website, and if you see an Islamophobe saying something outlandish, respond.  Please do not expect the writer of the article to have the time to respond to each and every comment.  We’re really busy individuals, and responding to comments takes time away from writing future articles.  So we’d really like our loyal readers to pick up the slack, and to respond in full force to these nutters.  But answer them intelligently.  For example, we had a reader by the name of “Zam” who used to do a fantastic job of thoroughly refuting their points.  (Where’d that guy go anyways!?)  Take the initiative, and go the extra mile to help out, so that we absolutely dominate in the comments section of this site.

2)  If you like an article, say it.  If you frequently visit our site but don’t post, please take out some extra time to start commenting on our articles.  This builds our LW community.

3)  Advertise our website.  Drop our links everywhere.  Link to us on your FaceBook wall, and post our links up on various discussion forums.

4)  Send us helpful tips when you hear or read about a story that you might think be relevant to our website.

Everyone always thinks “someone else will do it.”  We need people to think “I will do it.”

 

LoonWatch Islamophobia Montage

Posted in Loon TV with tags , , , , , on December 23, 2009 by loonwatch
From Left to Right: Andrew Bostom, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Pamela GellerFrom Left to Right: Andrew Bostom, Geert Wilders, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller

One of our readers, isherif who if I recall has been commenting on our site for quite some time now really took the initiative and provided us with a cool short montage of some of our best hits. We really love it when readers interact with us and are pro-active in joining us in exposing Islamophobia.

Take a look and enjoy:

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBW0_3c93G4 300 250]

 

Robert Spencer Dodges Debate with LoonWatch

Posted in Feature, Loon Blogs with tags , , , , , , , , on December 10, 2009 by loonwatch
One artist's depiction of Robert SpencerOne artist’s depiction of Robert Spencer

LoonWatch.com, recently published a devastating rebuttal of chapter four of Robert Spencer’s bookThe Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades.

The article no doubt knocked Spencer flat on his backside.  In one swift move, LoonWatch completely neutralized one of his main lines of argumentation against Islam and Muslims–his pet issue of “dhimmitude” which he recurrently brings up to fear monger.  One cannot underestimate the importance he gives to this issue–after all, he registered DhimmiWatch[dot]com!  It is arguably his favorite topic.

Spencer issued a half-hearted (non)reply to the rebuttal.  LW immediately counter-replied, completely pummeling Spencer.

And now…silence.  Spencer, who has no real job other than this, has suddenly become as quiet as a mouse.  What happened, Spencer?  Cat got your tongue?  Where did all the bravado go?

It’s not like Spencer is averse to going twelve rounds in debate…In fact, he had a debate with Omer Subhani on this very issue, and Spencer churned out not one but three (!) articles rebutting Subhani.  (See herehere, and here.)  Notice the blustering confidence Spencer exudes in those articles.  Unfortunately, Subhani was by his own admission very busy during the time that he wrote his rebuttal (he’s a law student) and therefore was unable to do the in-depth research that we did.

Notice how detailed Spencer’s replies to Subhani are (complete with photographs that Spencer took of his own personal library and rotund self). It is clear that Spencer’s multiple replies took a lot of effort and time (he doesn’t have a real job like Omer Subhani does).  So how come LoonWatch doesn’t get just one article rebutting our article on the same exact topic that Spencer was earlier willing to write three rebuttals of?  Well, we all know the answer to that: Spencer has been defeated in debate, is boxed in, and has no possible way to respond to the points raised.  And so the once ferocious Muslim eating tiger has turned into a cowardly chicken.

Omer Subhani recently blogged about my rebuttal and Spencer’s non-response:

…An entire chapter of Spencer’s book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), was refuted and his response was monumentally weak and disingenuous…

Spencer is always whining about debating these issues. Now someone has come up and punched him in the nose. Will he respond, or will he avoid the conversation, thus proving the falsity of his claims that Islam treated Jews worse than Christianity? I ain’t holding my breath.

Mr. Subhani, we aren’t holding our breath either.

Further reading:

The Church’s Doctrine of “Perpetual Servitude” was Worse than “Dhimmitude”

Robert Spencer is on the Ropes; Spencer’s Bumbling Reply to LoonWatch

Update:

Robert Spencer argues in his book that the Jews historically fared (much) better in Christian Europe than they did in the Islamic world.  It was this claim which I thoroughly debunked.  After I published my article, two of our readers (hat tip: Reza and Nabeela) pointed out that even Daniel Pipes–an Islamophobe and one of Spencer’s own buddies–said in an interview:

Rachael Kohn: As an historian, you would know that Jews had comparatively better time under Muslim rule than they did under Christian rule. When did it change so radically?

Daniel Pipes: It was very radical and quick. The Jewish experience from the origins of Islam in the 7th century, until rather specifically in 1945, was better under Muslim rule than under Christian rule. And since 1945, it’s been better under Christian rule than Muslim rule. One can see it for example by exchange of populations. Jews fled the Christian countries for the Muslim countries, until 1945.

As late as the 1930s, when Jews fled Germany to go to Turkey. Since then, it’s been the reverse. I think this points to the fact that things change. You know, what looked like it was a permanent thing, the fact that Jews were better off in Muslim countries, just changed on a dime, in a moment, just changed. It also points to the fact that the Muslim world is going through a very difficult stage now, and it’s presumably a temporary one. It’s comparable again to Germany in the middle of the last century. It was a horrible, horrible period, did a lot of damage to Germany and to the outside world, but the Germans came out of it. And so the key now is to figure out how the Muslim world can come out of this particularly difficult time that it’s in.

Daniel Pipes even refers to Professor Mark R. Cohen’s book Under Crescent and Cross as an “excellent study.”  (It is this book which I used as a template, and which convincingly outlines why life for Jews was so much more tolerable in the Islamic East as compared to the Christian West.)

Pipes noted (as did I in my rebuttal) that although dhimmis were second-class citizens, at least they were citizens–unlike the Christian world where they were excluded from society altogether; saysPipes:

…Non-Muslims were allowed to live under Muslim rule with the legal status of dhimmis (protected persons). They paid higher taxes and enjoyed fewer privileges, in return for which they had the right to practice their own religions. Such sanctioned toleration has no Christian counterpart; under Islam, Jews were second-class citizens but they were part of the legal landscape, not the problematic anomaly they presented the Christian world.

And he concludes:

In pre-modern times, they lived markedly better under Islam than under Christianity.

(Notice the words “markedly better.”)

To be clear, I don’t consider Daniel Pipes to be a reliable source, simply because he is a biased Islamophobe.  But the point here is that Spencer considers Pipes to be a reliable scholar.  Furthermore, it illustrates how even a staunchly anti-Islam ideologue such as Pipes (and Spencer’s comrade-in-arms) is forced to admit what Spencer in his unbelievable revisionism cannot: Jews fared better in the Islamic world than the Christian one.  In other words, Pipes could not keep a straight face and argue Spencer’s point. This indicates the depths of Spencer’s lack of scholarship and sophistication.