JihadWatch Afraid to Debate 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.

62 thoughts on “JihadWatch Afraid to Debate LoonWatch

  1. Maybe its Plastic Pam’s non de plume , evidently she is a well known human rights activist and as such should be able to handle a civilised logical debate …………..
    That what it says on Bobbys blog although writing a hate filled ranting web site does nothing for anyones human rights and lots to spread fear.
    I am thinking is the VP a paid position and does the IRS know? 🙂
    They would have a view on this 😉

  2. Tell Bobby Spencer I’d debate him too. I already have compiled the Quran verses, hadith, and scholarly commentary that prove him wrong.

    • Assalam Alaykum brother….

      i would love if you can send the collection as currently many peoples are debating with me,I hope inshahAllah Allah will make it helpful for me…!

      please send it at kingslaveofallah@yahoo.co.in / com

      I hope to get ur support to fight agaist the Islam haters!

      JazakAllah khair !

  3. Hugh is a nut–althought that might be an understatement. Here’s some of his writing (special thanks to @mp11):

    The Western world should show no great interest in helping Saudi Arabia. It should be secretly delighted with each day’s news, the news that brings word not of Infidel casualties, but of Muslim casualties, inflicted by other Muslims.
    We should take pleasure in the spectacle of warfare, in any Muslim land, warfare that takes up the attention of the locals, and uses up not only their resources, but also, one hopes, the resources of their neighbors.

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/fitzgerald-yemen-and-what-to-think-about-it.html

    • Perhaps he’s simply saying that Muslims only object to terrorism when they are themselves the victims of their own terrorism.

      Polls prove this – support for suicide bombings against civilians to defend Islam only plummeted in Muslim countries after Muslim terrorist groups began bombing Muslim governments.

      His views are certainly controversial at first glance, but more understandable when one realizes the impossibility of countering the support for Jihad terrorism through other means.

      • ???

        Celebrating the deaths of innocent civilians will lessen terrorism?

        And here I was thinking you couldn’t get any loonier…

          • Son have you forgotten that famous christian saying ” the blood of the martyr is the seed of the church” or how about matthew10:39 ” who ever loses his life for my sake will find it” or maybe ephesians 6:12-20 ” and our lordmay callupon any of usto witness and even be martyred for our faith, thus we must be prepared”. I suggest you read a book on martyrdom in the christian faith called ” foxes book of martyrs” by john fox. Son there are many more quotes in the bible if so wish me to pass them on to you.

      • Seriously Jbob, I think you know that what is written by Hugh is indefensible. I think the fact that you are defending him (and particularly the filth that he wrote above) means your hatred for Muslims has reached a point of no-return where rational discussion is impossible.

        Its understandable, if you believe that what Hugh and Robert are saying is the truth, then all kinds of things start to become acceptable, including rejoicing at the sight of dead Muslim men, women and children.

  4. Danios, great stuff, what a genius idea! Now you have really called his bluff,

    I am certain Hugh Fitzgerald is either Robert Spencer himself, or it’s an “honorary” title for someone who is funding him, but who gives him ideas as to what he wants to say. In other words, a ghost writer who probably is a funder, and wants to distinguish him/herself from Spencer, but probably get’s Spencer to put his idea’s into article form.

    It may even be Joyce Chernic, or Aubrey Chernick.

    In any case, Hugh Fitzgerald cannot refuse a debate with you, if he does he will show himself up to be the colossal fraud we already know he is.

  5. Nassir H
    I’ve just read the article by this hatemonger Fitzgerald. Is this how deep their islamophobia is? Has jihad watch website been translated into Urdu and Arabic? The Muslims are not even aware of these bigots!

  6. This man will indeed be relegated to the trash bin of history. Can anyone say DAVID DUKE. The sight of his mug makes me sick.

    • He sort of looks like a white Salman Rushdie. Beard, receding hairline, glasses and of course they both share a hatred of Islam.

  7. I have begun reading loonwatch everyday and I love you guys! Danios, you’re articles are fantastic, it’s obvious why Rob is so afraid of you!
    Cheers!

    • Nice try, Jihadbob. But he wasn’t there to spread his hate of blacks but of Jews. Anyone could go to Syria, say some crap about the Jews, and get a medal — unfortunately…

  8. Mosizzle, actually Salman Rushdi is an atheist and he shows equal hatred for religion in general.

    He wrote a book that was banned in India because it was insulting to Christianity. This was before he wrote the Satanic Verses.

  9. Mosizzle, it’s ironic that people are so busy slagging off the religous Muslim states, that they overlook the secular Muslim states, like Syria which are just as bad in my opinion.
    The former use Islam to stay in power, without really putting it’s practices into play, rather they pick and choose what they can exploit and call it an “Islamic state”, there is no Islamic state today that is as should be.

    The latter, (which Syria is part of) try to be more secular and European than the Europeans and in so doing have adopted all the bad practices and non of the good ones. That is rife in former French colonial states, when it didn’t exist prior.
    It’s a snapshot of the sorry state the Muslim world is in today.

    • You’re right. That’s why I’m not convinced secular democracy will work in the Islamic World. It has failed in nearly all of the Muslim countries it has been tried in. And Syria, though a secular country, is indeed acting like a dictatorship. The only way forward is a decent government based on Islamic values and principles not like the “Islamic State” that the Taliban had, or the “Islamic State” that is fantasised about by fundamentalists. Just a modern, Islam inspired government. Secular Democracy may work for the West but it won’t work for Muslims.

  10. So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.

    Sounds like Hugh is being attacked for following the Koran in rejoicing those who have become Martyrs.

    [links won’t post through]

    Go, condemn those Islamo-phobes (and the Koran) before you go after anyone else.

    • Except Hugh isn’t rejoicing on martyrdom, he is rejoicing in the fact that innocents are killed, simply because they happen to be Muslims.

      By your logic, he should also be rejoicing on those killed in the 9/11 attacks as “martyrs”. But, your hypocrisy trumps your own depraved logic when its convenient to do so, thus you’ll reject that inevitable conclusion.

      However, therein lies one of the few consistencies about your arguments; they revolve around convenience towards your pre-established thesis.

        • Yep, and we both know why that is don’t we Bob? When the US has been spending it’s time engaging in proxy wars and conflicts around the world, meddling away and causing numerous deaths then I can see why a group like Al-Queda would be ‘cheered’ initially for getting one back at them, and not just by Muslims. Then of course people saw what Al-Queda is really like and their popularity fell very very fast, it didn’t take long, after a few months their ‘popularity’ was already falling, partly due to the mass of condemnations. But you know all this.

          • I agree, their popularity has waned because Muslims have died in recent years.

            If they killed more Westerners, especially Israelis, their popularity would rise again.

          • If they killed more Westerners, especially Israelis, their popularity would rise again

            I’m sorry, but that’s just wishful thinking on your part. Oh wait, I forgot you were using your super powers to look into the “collective Muslim psyche”. Or maybe it’s your newfound Prophethood? I’m sure it’s either or. Unleessss, you happen to develop some other shit that we don’t know about. Enlighten us Bob.

        • Except you mentioned that he was being attacked for “following the Qur’an”, and I simply pointed out, that, according to your logic of “getting killed = martyrdom”, he should have said the same thing about those that were killed on 9-11.

          • Bob, their popularity would have waned anyway, like most ‘freedom fighter’ groups once people see their motives then they start to hate them with good reason. In fact their popularity was already falling before they started killing Muslims. However, like I said you can understand why people liked them to begin with, they were getting back at someone who had been stamping on them for a long time, you cannot deny that fact.

  11. Hugh (when mentioning the Iran-Iraq war):

    But it was, from the viewpoint of Infidels, a good war. It was not as good a war as the eight-year war that took up the attention of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and caused both sides to expend men, money, materiel for eight wonderful years.

    Thousands of civilians died and Hugh rejoices.

    Why would he take offence in being called a bigot?

    • “Sounds like Hugh is being attacked for following the Koran in rejoicing those who have become Martyrs.”

      So he’s converted. Ooh.
      Stop the excuses. Just admit it, Hugh is being a complete loon. He’s freaking me out — he gets quite excited when Muslim blood is spilt.

      You say he’s rejoicing their deaths for being martyrs but he is obviously not seeing it that way because he isn’t Muslim. He just sees that getting Muslims to start on each other is easier than killing them all yourself. Divide and Conquer.

  12. “Go, condemn those Islamo-phobes (and the Koran) before you go after anyone else.”

    Condemn the Quran? Would u ask a Christian or a Jew to condemn their holy books, which also contain bloody and perverted verses (there’s probably some context/scholarly interpretation, but I’ll ignore it cuz it goes against my belief that Christianity and Judaism is bad) Condemning terrorism I understand (even tho that happens
    frequently), but asking followers to condemn their holy book is
    disrespectful and utterly ridiculous. It simply won’t happen.

  13. Spencer issued this pre-condition knowing full well that I value my anonymity too much to do that.

    Said while posting a picture of a chicken. Oh the irony.

    • You have yet to explain what’s wrong with choosing to remain anonymous. Brigitte Gabriel, and Hugh Fitzgerald come to mind of some of your anonymous buddies. And you speak of irony. Whatever.

    • Except Danios has already accepted the original challenge, which Spencer only decided to change after the fact.

      Spencer is the one who added the condition of “identity disclosure” only AFTER Ahmed Rehab called him out on Danios accepting his challenge, yet Fitzgerald gets a free pass for enjoying his anonymity. Care to explain that, Ahninny?

      So who’s chicken:

      – Danios for accepting Spencer’s original open challenge to debate

      – Or Spencer, who has since changed the conditions of the challenge, where Danios wouldn’t meet them?

      Spencer challenges anyone to play against him. Danios accepts his challenge. Spencer only then changes the challenge to anyone willing to show his face to play against him, so Danios can’t play.

      That sounds like Spencer is trying to chicken out of a challenge he made.

      If he was only willing to debate identified invididuals, he should’ve made that the condition from the beginning. Instead, he only makes it one after Danios accepted his original challenge.

  14. Son, david dukes went to syria and Gert wilders went to Israel, both are hate filled lunatics and both found some support in those countries, both are or have been elected representatives in their countries, what is the point you are trying to make? Remember to eat all your vegetables and by that I do not mean have a nibble on Robert Spencers leg!

  15. These cowards are too much of a chicken to want to go to a debate with anyone exposing their foul nonsense about Islam. Not holding my breath waiting for it to happen, because the outcome is already foreseen.

  16. Loonwatch should do more on Fitzgerald–he might just be loonier than Spencer.

    End all access to Western education, not only for those Arabs and Muslims studying any kind of science, but in every area. Attempting the hopeless project of “educating them” out of their belief-system will not work…

  17. I just challenged President Obama to a debate. He hasn’t responded, so I guess that means that he’s afraid of my superior debating skills.

    Let me start my own website where I can brag about the default victory I believe I won.

    • If President Obama challenged any and all paranoid conspiracy theorists to a no holds barred debate, and is now refusing to live up to his challenge by adding a silly condition…then that means President Obama is obviously not as confident about his debating skills as he was when he issued his grandiose challenge.

    • Lame excuse Anhi. Danios and Spencer were already debating via Loonwatch and Jihadwatch posts. Spencer was getting humiliated and challenged Danios to a live debate. Unfortunately for Spencer, Danios accepted the challenge–that’s when Spencer chickened out.

  18. So guys..Does Spencer’s silence suggests he has accepted defeat(btw he has not responded to any of the rebuttals in his blog,which also leads us to assume he’s a falure)or should we wait for a response…I guess that’s not coming anytime soon..

  19. “D, you couldn’t stand in the same room as Spencer on your best day. Give up your anonymity and debate him.”

    Probably because he would take up all the space. Yeah, I said it, let’s see Spencer publish this on his site!

    Also, why is it that you worship him so much. He isn’t recognised anywhere as a real scholar and remember how he did this:

    http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/05/robert-spencer-and-pamela-geller-promote-video-by-militant-genocidal-group/

  20. Pingback: Robert Spencer of JihadWatch Becomes Desperate Against LoonWatch | Spencer Watch

  21. Pingback: The mind and ‘scholarship’ of the charlatan Robert Spencer: Part One « The Transatlantic Right

  22. Why is Robert Spencer on TV, radio, writing books and you are hiding in the backround? Come out and meet his condition, if it means so much to you to debate him, show yourself Danios, don’t be afraid, stop talking about teh VP and focus on Spencer, what are you worried about? You know that the Koran teaches jihad against the unbeliever, the Islamic terrorists are doing exactly what the Koran says…when will you wake up?

  23. I challenge you to unbrainwash yourself by hearing the TRUE Muslim point of view on the relevant verses (not FALSE/made-up lies from people who are not Muslim). Here is a short talk to open up your mind and reduce your hatred which is based on ignorance and not truth:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMnuFxnxnwU&feature=related

    Also dear brother Eric, if your monopolistic capitalistic media would allow Muslims to get up and talk, we would. And we do, wherever we can. Unfortunately your country does not allow freedom of speech, hence it is made very difficult to propagate the true message of Islam for the benefit of everyone (instead of the benefit of the power/money hungry elite). You watch the mainstream media too much, there’s a lot of lies out there, you should take a look at alternate media.

    Also brother Eric, we know quite well what the Koran teaches. As Muslims, we are certainly in a position to know it better than you, who only gets your information from narrow-minded, one-sided people who are NOT Muslims, and take advantage of your ignorance of the Koran to brainwash you with hatred.

    With regard to the verses in the Koran speaking about war, we Muslims are quite happy and aware and comfortable with those verses. That is because we know what you do NOT know, and what Robert Spencer is very careful to HIDE from you. We know that the VERY NEXT VERSES, and sometimes WITHIN the same verses that refer to behavior ONLY in the battlefield, when fighting AGGRESSORS, speak of keeping peace and not hurting those who are NOT fighting, and giving SECURITY to those who ask for it. Would your laws tell a soldier to be a coward in the middle of battle? Your Dept. of Defense has far more barbaric laws (such as shoot-and-kill policies without regard to whether the victim is even on the battlefield or a civilian on the street), and certainly if a COMBATANT on the battlefield asked for peace and security, your laws do NOT protect the person and escort them to a place of safety before returning to the battle. The laws of war in your country have no ethics, no morals, no limits. You bombard innocent civilians without concern. Why, you do not even have a BATTLEFIELD defined! For your country, the whole world is a place where innocents can be murdered! These principles of aggression practised by your country are precisely those against which Islam is firm. On the other hand, Islam’s laws on war do not even allow for a plant to disturbed if it can be helped. The war condoned in Islam is only as a last resort, against only those who do the FIRST aggression and refuse to make peace, despite all efforts. As your own country, my dear brother, refuses to remove its illegal armies from the rest of the world, where noone even invited it.

    Check out the verses in the Koran yourself, dear brother, and IN CONTEXT, instead of hanging on to crap from the media. Also hidden from you is the fact that Koran PROHIBITS us to be the first AGGRESSORS. eg. “You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors. [2:191]”

  24. Pingback: Robert Spencer of JihadWatch Becomes Desperate Against LoonWatch | Average Joe Bodybuilder

Leave a Reply to Imad Cancel reply

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