The Loonwatch website uses the subheading: “the mooslims! they're heeere!” The implication here is that all us “loons” and “Islamophobes” are exaggerating the problem of Islamic terrorism, sharia law, etc. Consequently Loonwatch dedicates itself to uncovering such “Islamophobia” and exposing “Islamophobes”, “loons” and “wackos”; as well as to analysing all the various and many unfounded criticisms of Islam and Muslims.
Yes, the problem is that each and every criticism of Islam, Muslims (as Muslims), the Koran, Muhammad, etc. is deemed - by Loonwatch - to automatically be “Islamophobic” and/or the work of a “loon”.
Now isn't that convenient? Isn't that neat?
Exactly the same thing occurs in the UK. The British have Islamophobia Watch as well as the “anti-Islamophobia” journalist, Seumas Milne (of The Guardian). Neither of them attempt to make even the most basic of distinctions between the many critics of Islam and Muslims. To Islamophobia Watch and Seumas Milne, all critics of Islam and Muslims are, by Marxist/Leftist definition, “Islamophobes” and/or “fascists”. Even the critics who Islamophobia Watch and Seumas Milne don't explicitly call “fascists” or “Islamophobes” are still accused of “contributing to Islamophobia” or even of “contributing to the rise of fascism”. In other words, all critics of Islam and Muslims should, according to Leftist diktat, keep utterly silent. (Seumas Milne is an open and keen fan of the former Soviet Union and Bob Pitt, the founder of Islamophobia Watch, is a well-known Trotskyist.)
Let's put what Loonwatch is doing in this way. Instead of sharia law (i.e., blasphemy law, death for apostasy, etc.) stopping all criticism of Islam, the Koran, Muhammad, etc. (which it has for up to 1,400 years in parts of the Muslim world), we now have a seemingly hip, ironic and Leftist website which is attempting to enforce sharia law with the help of its pseudo-journalistic and sometimes pseudo-academic articles. These articles are also copiously sprinkled with mindless ad hominems and some terrible pop psychiatry (stuff about “loons” and “wackos”).
One permanent article on Loonwatch is: 'All Terrorists are Muslims... Except the 94% that Aren't'
When you read the small print (which the writer - Danios - and the title don't really make clear), the percentages are only actually about the situation in the United States; which has a big problem, according to Loonwatch, with "Latino” terrorism. However, most of that Latino terrorism is very low-level – hardly anyone has been killed.
Nonetheless, Loonwatch says that, according to another survey, most of the terrorist acts were in fact bombings. That is, of all the terrorist acts in the US between 1980 and 2005, 209 were bombings.
Everyone is well aware that all sorts of non-Islamic groups have bombed places and buildings. (In England animal rights activists have done so.) But there is a big difference between all Islamic bombings and most other attacks. (The attacks Loonwatch is talking about are in the US.) In most cases of the latter, the bombings weren't carried out specifically in order to kill civilians; but to intimidate and scare. In the Muslim terrorism case, virtually every bombing is designed specifically to kill civilians. In fact I've never heard of an Islamic terrorist attack which was only aimed at a building or designed simply to intimidate rather than kill. Most Islamist bombs are designed to kill civilians – and that is the source of the terror. Most other non-Muslim bombings - specifically in the US and Europe - are designed to scare or intimidate.
Loonwatch provides a link to a FBI page which cites 318 terrorist attacks in the US between 1980 and 2005. Firstly I would say that there have been more attacks in one year alone in, say, Pakistan and Iraq than during the entire 25-year period cited by the FBI. In the Muslim world as a whole, there will be more than 300 terrorist attacks every few months.
The death toll of such attacks in the US was 3178 (between 1980 and 2005) – and that includes 9/11 and the Oklahoma bombing! If you take away those two attacks, you are left with around 116 deaths in 25 years. (That death toll has been surpassed in a single day in such Muslim countries as Syria and Egypt.) The other thing worth mentioning is that most of the attacks were either carried out by foreigners or by American citizens who favoured foreign causes. Hardly any of the attacks were for domestic causes.
Loonwatch also fails to mention the fact that when most "right-wing loons" talk about Islamic terrorism, they aren't specifically talking about the US (as this article is).
The Muslim population in the US is small compared to the Latinos. There are around 43 million Latinos in the US compared to between 2.8 to 6 million Muslims (as in the UK, the true numbers are in dispute). So is it any wonder the figures are what they are? But all this also depends on what Loonwatch classes as "terrorism" in the Latino and in other non-Muslim cases. When Muslims bomb, tens of civilians are often killed. Have the Latinos really done anything even remotely equivalent to the daily worldwide carnage that is Islamic terrorism? No! And not even according to the statistics which Loonwatch provides links to.
Let's put it this way: if there were as many Muslims in the US as there are in, say, Somalia or Pakistan, then there it could quite possibly be that there would be as many terrorists attacks in the US as there are in those two countries. It really is that simple. Put that another way. Muslims are not yet in a position to carry out systematic terrorist campaigns in the US. However, they are in Pakistan, Iraq, India, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, Kenya, southern Thailand, Nigeria, southern Philippines, Egypt... and even now in Russia. The low-level of Islamic terrorism in the US is simply a result of the insufficient number of Muslims in that country as well as the insufficient secrecy of Muslim terror groups. (This is something CAIR is trying to rectify.)
A lot of Islamic terrorism in the US has also been foiled (as it has been in Israel and the UK). And perhaps Loonwatch is right: this is because the authorities are concentrating on Muslim terrorists rather than on, say, Latino terrorists. But that's because Islamic terrorists kill en masse and have done countless times.
Of course Loonwatch's central argument may be that Americans Muslims are fundamentally different to Muslims in Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, etc. Are they really? Or is the real point that Muslims in the US are a minority? Is that fact alone at the heart of all such differences? (For example, Muslim interfaith and moderation occurs in the US but in most Muslim countries there's virtually zero interfaith and moderation.) If Muslims were a majority in the US, or even a much larger minority, would Loonwatch argue that things would be just the same? I strongly doubt that. History has shown that the larger a Muslim minority becomes, the more violent it becomes towards its non-Muslim neighbours and equally towards the states which host them. That is until, of course, Muslims become the majority: then literally everything changes (which is a statement of the obvious when you think about it).
The other thing is that percentage figure: 94%. I too have seen the figure which states that 94% of all terrorists – globally, not in the US! - are Muslims. So what Loonwatch has done is simply use that figure itself, applied it to the US alone and then stated: “except the 94% of terrorists that aren't”. But even that doesn't make sense. Even if Muslims don't make up 94% of all terrorists, it's a bit of a coincidence that, according to Loonwatch, they make up 100% minus that 94% of terrorists – that is, 6% of all terrorists. If that 94% figure was wrong in the first place, then why has Loonwatch used it again in such a sly way so as to come to a figure of 6% Muslim terrorists? In addition to that, Loonwatch gives a contradictory figure elsewhere in the very same article. Here it says that 99.6% of terrorists attacks – in the US? - are carried out by non-Muslims. That is, less than 1% of terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims. So what on earth happened to the 6% Muslim terrorist figure Loonwatch cited earlier?
I also love the way Loonwatch uses classic Stalinist tactics. Stalin himself accused virtually all of his political opponents of being “fascists” or “Nazis”. Nowadays the word-weapons Stalinists, Trotskyists and progressives use include “racist”, “Islamophobe”, “bigot, "xenophobe”, etc. And now Loonwatch adds such tasteful psychological ad hominems as “loon”, “wacko” and “mad” into the mix. (The Communists/Stalinists of yore used more scientifically respectable psychiatric terms for political dissidents and opponents such as "philosophical intoxication" and “sluggish schizophrenic”.)
So who runs and writes for Loonwatch? There's a lot of speculation about this because no writer uses his or her real name. (Most recent posts are by someone called Emperor and Garibaldi is also a frequent contributor.) My strong guess is that Loonwatch writers use fake names for one very simple reason: they are all - or mainly - Muslims. Distinctly non-Muslim names may be used because Loonwatch knows full well that if they used their Muslim names then, in a manner of speaking, the cat really would be let out of the bag. In other words, why else would Loonwatch writers use false names? (Because Loonwatch lies so much, it may also have something to do with avoiding litigation.) However, if it's not a Muslim website, then it's almost certainly a Leftist/Trotskyist/communist one (something easily decipherable from Loonwatch's 'blog list', amongst many other things). Alternatively, it may that both totalitarian ideologists, Leftist and Islamist, are working together (as they often do) on this project of monumental taqiyya or, as Leftists put it, "lying for Justice". Still, despite all that, I'm convinced that the
main writers are Muslims.
Finally, Loonwatch's central claim is that all critics of Islam and Muslims are “loons”. This is quite amazing claim when you bear in mind the simple fact that every single week at least 150 people die (sometimes up to 200 or m... as a result of Islamic terrorism around the world. On top of that there's the daily deaths from sharia law, honour killings, the massive persecution of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. Yet Loonwatch thinks that everyone who points such facts out is a "loon". That strikes me as being the position of, well, a loon. If not a loon, then the position of an Islamist or, alternatively, a Trotskyist/"progressive". Who knows, perhaps some of Loonwatch's writers have managed, somehow, to fuse totalitarian Leftism with totalitarian Islamism (or vice versa). Would that be such a difficult thing to do?
1.) This is a link to an article about Loonwatch's total support and defence of literally all things Islamic. It's on the website The Religion of Peace website; which Loonwatch has attempted to make yet another victim of its absolutist support of Islam.
The article is about Loonwatch's campaign to bring about a global (sharia) blasphemy law aimed at all – and I mean all! - critics of Islam; thus making universal a law which has existed in the Muslim world for up to 1,400 years.
2.) Is Loonwatch's Garibaldi actually Nathan Lean (see image below) of the Huffington Post?
Of course Garibaldi denies it. Simple solution, Nathan or Garibaldi, come clean with your name. It really is that simple. You know, come clean as Robert Spencer has come clean and in so doing given you so much information with which you try to dismiss him and give him so much student-leftist sharia treatment.
What are you hiding? Give up on the cloak-and-dagger student Leftism/Islamism. Tell us who you are.
Garibaldi asks us, at Loonwatch, why Nathan Lean would use another name when he regularly publishes stuff about counter-jihadists and Robert Spencer in his own name. The answer is simple. His Huffington Post stuff is in the journalistic style and his books are seen as academic and objective. However, as Garibaldi, Nathan Lean can indulge his other persona: a vicious, nasty red fascist who is utterly intolerant towards all who dare to disagree with him. He would never get away with such viciousness, student sarcasm and intolerance in the Huffington Post. Only Loonwatch caters for such extreme rhetoric and pure nastiness. Nathan Lean may simply be letting off steam through his alter-ego: Garibaldi.
The UK's Islamophobia Watch is exactly the same: white, middle-class Trotskyists like their Muslims extreme and Islamist (or "radical", in their terms).
In fact Loonwatch has just published a piece on Quilliam and accuses it of being "neo..., or "Zionist", financed by Robert Spencer, or paid for by "Islamophobic loons from Israel" - you know the kind of thing. You see, when Muslims finally get around to tackling extremism, Loonwatch and Leftists deem them to be Uncle Toms. That suits their own Leftist agenda of "radicalisation" and the "destabilisation of capitalist states"... and what can help that project more than supporting "radical" Muslims and dismissing Muslim Uncle Toms?
4) If I were an American Latino, I would sue Loonwatch for racism and defamation. Fancy talking about 'Latino terrorism' as Loonwatch does. Of course a website run by Muslims, and maybe some Leftists, will never be accused, by Leftists and Muslims, of being racist.
Comments and Replies
“You're 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist. Just putting that out there.” - Anarcho-Syndicalist
In 2005, 52 civilians were killed in one day in London by Muslim terrorists. (In the last fifteen years, 34 civilians have been killed by police officers in the UK.) Dozens of terrorists attacks have also been foiled. Hundreds would have been killed had they not been foiled.
Do police officers kill people simply because of their faith or political beliefs? Do they randomly choose innocent civilians? There has been a massive fuss made about the killings in the US by police officers; but they were all done while on duty and in response to possible danger (even if some of the killings were ultimately unjustifiable).
The Left, and most anarchists, are virtually silent on the massive daily body-count in the Muslim world simply because the killers have brown skin and aren't "capitalist dogs". Of course no doubt, as an anarcho-syndicalist, you would say that the police officers killed people because they were black or poor. I know that's not true. You know that's not true.
In any case, because US police officers have killed people in the US, does that mean that Islamic terrorists don't kill at least 150 people every week? How does that work? There have been countless of anarcho-syndicalist and Leftist articles on the police "pigs" who kill people. Do you think my article above shouldn't have been written? Do you think people should remain silent of Islamic terrorism as Loonwatch does?
“Do police officers kill people simply because of their faith or political beliefs? Do they randomly choose innocent civilians?
“Yes. Let's look at the deaths of the civil rights protesters, or the anti-war protesters of the 70s. Or maybe we can just look at the website which actively documents police killings of innocents.
“I thought the Left and most anarchists were 'evil atheists'? Most radical leftists (including anarchists) are against ALL religions, but though the most vocal come from wealthier nations, which happen to be dominated by Christian cultures, they tend to denounce the religion of their culture more than the religions of other cultures.
“Now, I think there are more pressing matters to think about then to be hyped up and paranoid about a threat that isn't really a threat. It's like worrying about the end of the world happening because the calendar of an ancient civilization ended.” - Anarcho-Syndicalist
Of course you'll think that all such victims of the police would have been “innocent” by definition. Still, it was still mostly within the context of political demos, Leftist terrorism and violent activism (in the 1970s). There is no equivalent here of a policeman going into a pizza restaurant and blowing its customers - men, women and children - to smithereens. That's what I meant by “innocent”.
Do you think that I'm not aware that most Leftists are atheists? That doesn't mean that they will criticise Islam in any way. Marxists/Leftists will not criticise Muslims because they have brown skin and are therefore, to them, all children and thus the automatic victims of capitalism (or, by Leftist definition, "the oppressed"). Islam, to Marxists, is a mere “epiphenomenon of material conditions”. That is why Leftists/Marxists never criticise Islam and Muslims – for reasons of Marxist THEORY and their very white, very middle-class positive or inverted racism.
You only criticise domestic issues? There are up to six million Muslims in the US. That's pretty domestic to me. And Leftists had a lot to say about Vietnam and, today, about Syria. So you hardly only comment what's happening in the US.
(I find it interesting that, as an anarchist, you also class yourself as a “radical Leftist”. I thought that anarchists saw Marxists and fascists as being more or less the same problem - “when extremes meet” and all that. How can an anarchist class himself as a "Leftist" when most Leftists believe in total collectivist states - if not in any current states which aren't Leftist enough for them. Islam, which is as totalitarian as Leftism, doesn't have much time for anarchism either; as I'm sure you know.)
“Now, I think there are more pressing matters to think about then to be hyped up and paranoid about a threat that isn't really a threat.”
Oh my God! That is an incredible statement. That sounds like the sort of thing Loonwatch would say. Did you actually read the article? Have you ever watched the news or read any history? I suggest you stop read your juvenile anarcho-syndicalist comics, grow up, and look at what's happening around you.
I think the anarchist and Leftists are silent on Islamic terrorism for two main reasons: they thinks that Muslims are brown-skinned and that at least they aren't capitalists (except that some Muslims are white and some are capitalists!). Such a way of thinking is both (positively) racist and simplistic (a result of Leftist/Marxist THEORY).
And yet Loonwatch classes all critics of Islam as being "racist". The truth is the reverse: most Leftists support Muslims because they are brown-skinned (even if some aren't). That is racism – even if positive or inverse racism!The Leftist position on Islam and Muslims is utterly racial; except that Leftists see their racism as positive (as in "positive discrimination") or not racist at all.
The anarchist had not read the article anyway because all his points are covered in it. For example, he plays down the threat. In the article I say that Muslim minorities are always less of a threat than Muslims majorities; and even less of a threat than the larger Muslim minorities (as in the UK and Europe). Virtually all conflicts around the world today involve Muslims clashing with their non-Muslim neighbours. Why will that be any different in American in, say, thirty or more years' time (the bombings will occur well before that)?
If the anarchist were to look at the situation in the UK and Europe today, he would see that we already have many low-level civil conflicts which are largely a result of Muslim SELF-ghettoisation and Islamic supremacism (e.g., Paris, Oslo, London, parts of Germany, parts of Holland, the north west of England, Marseille, Stockholm, etc.) The situation will be far, far worse in less than twenty years' time. History has shown this. And the global situation today shows it.
If Leftists refuse to see all this because most Muslims have brown skin, then that's their problem, not ours. Leftist inverse racism will not solve these problems - it will make them much worse.
I'm also convinced that many Leftists support Muslims - no questions asked! - because they know full well that this will help destablise Western capitalist societies. And, as the Leftist mantra has it, “the worse things are, the better they are”. That is, the better things are for “radicals” and the revolution. After massive civil strife, which will include Muslims, these Leftists believe that a better and more "progressive" society (state!) will arise. Such is the level of Leftist fantasy and utopianism.