Spencer’s Deafening Silence

There is no doubt that any news about a homegrown terrorist seeking to harm his fellow Americans is big and should be covered. And when that person is a Muslim…then you can bet the farm that Police Blotter Scholar Robert Spencer will be all over it.

But what is astonishing, truly astonishing, to me is that when bad news is about non-Muslims, Spencer could care less. Another case in point: Today, authorities in California conducted a controlled burn of a house that, according to news reports, contained “the largest amount of certain homemade explosives ever found in a single U.S. location.” In fact, the article continues: “Authorities said the cluttered home was filled with so much dangerous material that they had to burn it to the ground to protect the neighborhood.”

The man who rented the house was taken into custody. According to the Washington Post:

While the immediate safety threat had passed, Pat MacQueen, 76, and other residents were still haunted by the man who rented the house – George Jakubec. How did he, as authorities say, amass so much explosive material and what did he plan to do with it?

“It was scary at first to think someone had been making bombs so close to me,” said MacQueen as she watched the fire from about a block away.

Jakubec, an unemployed software consultant, 54, has pleaded not guilty to charges of making destructive devices and robbing three banks. He rented the house that authorities say had the kind of chemicals used by suicide bombers and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The materials included Pentaerythritol tetranitrate, or PETN, which was used in the 2001 airliner shoe-bombing attempt as well as airplane cargo bombs discovered last month.

A coffee table was found cluttered with documents and strewn with detonators, prosecutors said.

In the backyard, bomb technicians found six mason jars with highly unstable Hexamethylene triperoxide diamine, or HMTD, which can explode if stepped on.

Did Spencer say anything? Mention this historic find? Talk about the man who was arrested for having all these dangerous bomb making materials? Nope. He didn’t make one sound about this story. His silence, in fact, was deafening. No, he was busy talking about obscure Saudi fatwas, and instances of child marriage in the Muslim world (which is not unique to the Muslim world), and other random acts of criminality.

Yet, I bet I know what will make him speak up about this incident: if George Jacubek turns out to be Muslim…

52 thoughts on “Spencer’s Deafening Silence

    • I see no mention on JihadWatch of the countless Imams and members of the ulema that have condemned terrorism, including the Grand Mufti of Al-Azhar, whom I think, Ibn Warraq himself claimed was the closest thing to a Muslim Pope.

      I see no mention of the positive things Muslims have done. I see no mention of the Ugly Betty actor who killed his mother whilst reciting verses of the Bible but Spencer is quick to mention stories where Muslims have killed people shouting “Allahu Akbar”.

      I see no mention, on JihadWatch, of LoonWatch and its brilliant articles. I see no official discussion of the points raised by Danios in his articles refuting the lies in Robert Spencer’s book. I certainly don’t see Robert Spencer accepting Danios’ challenge of a debate anytime soon.

      Here’s one, Ahni, why is Robert Spencer so scared of debate if he is so confident in his views.

      • I also see plenty of stories regarding foiled terrorist plots on JihadWatch, but interestingly, no mention of the crucial role played by the Muslim community in foiling them.

        • So I guess the Hadith isn’t a trusted source anymore? Or is there too much bad publicity about Islam in there for you to be truthful about it?

        • Lol. Nothing was being said about the hadith being a trustworthy source or not. You used a video in which an Imam quotes a hadith and you told us it was the Quran.

          I wasn’t questioning the hadith, just your inadequate understanding of Islam. You were unable to differentiate between the two texts which makes any other conclusions you draw about Islam seem less reliable.

      • You don’t seem to understand how this works. See, the site admin starts whining about how jihadwatch doesn’t talk about some joe-schmoe non-Muslim terrorist. I point out that this site doesn’t talk about some Muslim terrorist, and I subsequently accuse the site of hypocrisy. You reiterating what the site admin brought up initially, as a response to my accusation, doesn’t do anything to refute my claim.

        • You could have made that clear. I thought you were “pulling a JihadBob” — that is justifying a bad thing done to Muslims by bringing up an example of Muslims doing something bad.

          The writer of this article is making a point that Spencer is continually writing about how Jihadi terrorism is a threat to Western civilisation. Here, there is another terrorist who is also a threat to Western civilisation. Hence, it is only fair that Spencer covers both stories. But he doesn’t, simply because this instance does not involve a Muslim and he needs a story with a Muslim involved to spread the lie that all Muslims are terrorists.

          This site has always condemned all forms of terrorism ever committed be it by Muslims, Christians, Jews or Hindus. It need not report on every case as this is not its stated job. Therefore, it is not silent on issues of Muslim terrorism, it has already made its policy clear. Spencer, on the other hand, has declared it his job to “watch” these kind of incidents and actively promotes the belief that terrorism is solely a Muslim thing. This article refutes that plain and simple.

          • Spencer is continually writing about how Jihadi terrorism is a threat to Western civilisation. Here, there is another terrorist who is also a threat to Western civilisation. Hence, it is only fair that Spencer covers both stories.

            What? By your own admission, Spencer is dedicated to discussing Jihadi terrorism. If there is another kind of terrorism that happens, that is not Jihadi terorrism, why should he have to talk about it? It’s not related.

            This site offers nothing more than an easy blanket condemnation against terrorism, and then rationalizes and justifies the terrorism committed by Muslims, who are always the victims, never the victimizers.

          • The fact is that through his site, Spencer is spreading the misconception that Jihadi terrorism is the only type. Perhaps he should variate and sometimes say something like “Unfortunately, this Christian man got arrested for trying to blow something up. I condemn this act and all acts of terrorism, regardless of the religion of the perpetrator”

            Just once in a while…Like LoonWatch threw in the story of the Baghdad Church Massacre.

            “then rationalizes and justifies the terrorism committed by Muslims,”

            Find me one example in which this site has done what you claim.
            Go on. I dare you.

      • Here’s one, Ahni, why is Robert Spencer so scared of debate if he is so confident in his views.

        I could ask the same question of the coward you are defending, Danios, who has probably never debated anybody about Islam in real life. Spencer has debated many people, and will continue to do so.

        • How is Danios a coward when he accepted Robert Spencer’s challenge and issues another challenge to Hugh Fitzgerald. If Robert Spencer thinks he can’t afford to spend his time in this debate then he can send one of his minions. Danios declared himself ready, the ball is is in Spencer’s court and has been for the past 176 days.

          Who’s the coward?

  1. This site offers nothing more than an easy blanket condemnation against terrorism, and then rationalizes and justifies the terrorism committed by Muslims, who are always the victims, never the victimizers.

    After setting up a very feeble strawman about this site and what it stands for, how about you attempt to fortify it with maybe some quotes or examples. The fact that you failed to do that many times in the past with your accusations of tu quoque notwithstanding. It’s a pathetic attempt at a comeback at best. When are you going to pull your head out of Spencer’s ass, and stop being a groupie? And if you insist, why don’t you at least entertain us with semi-intellectual debate if you can?

  2. Spencerwatch is (I assume, based on your oh-so-original domain name) a site concerned with watching Spencer and criticizing what he posts at Jihadwatch. If you bothered to do some research you might learn that if Spencer doesn’t post something at Jihadwatch, there’s a very good chance that it doesn’t have anything to do with Islamic jihad. That’s why his site is called Jihadwatch.

    However, Spencerwatch posted the present entry that has nothing to do with watching Spencer or Jihadwatch. How does this news item relate to Jihadwatch or Spencer? You say Spencer could care less about bad news concerning non-Muslims. How do you know that’s true? There’s a reason Jihadwatch.com isn’t called BadNewsConcerningNonMuslims.com – it’s because in non-Islamic, non-Sharia America, Spencer has the freedom to choose the name of his blog and report on what he finds related to jihad, and document his findings accordingly when they relate to Islamic source texts that everyone can examine – USC has a very nice compendium of Islamic source texts available online (although it’s not as complete as it once was – the Muslims removed some of the violent texts from the site because of University complaints).

    Similarly, you have the right to criticize everything Spencer does or doesn’t do, but sadly your site rests solely on the coattails of Spencer. If Jihadwatch disappeared tomorrow, what would happen to your site? On the other hand, if Spencerwatch disappeared tomorrow, Jihadwatch would continue unimpeded. That’s why I feel sorry for you – without Spencer you would have nothing to say.

    I suggest you be original and honest. If you feel passionate about defending Islamic terrorists, go defend them. If you feel Islamic Jihadists are mistreated victims, then go help them and become one of them. If you feel America is the enemy, then go fight America – but whatever you decide, do your best – Allah is always watching.

    • I suggest you be original and honest. If you feel passionate about defending Islamic terrorists, go defend them. If you feel Islamic Jihadists are mistreated victims, then go help them and become one of them. If you feel America is the enemy, then go fight America – but whatever you decide, do your best – Allah is always watching.

      They are doing all of these things, only in legal, inconspicuous ways. They defend the Islamic terrorists by perpetuating the lie that Islam, the religion that is giving rise to these terrorist acts, is a peaceful and benign religion. Just like the 9/11 hijackers told the passengers on the planes “Just stay quiet and you’ll be okay. We are returning to the airport. Everything will be ok” they are lulling us into a false sense of security. They also go out of their way to appear as victims because it distracts us from the fact that they are actually the victimizers.

      As for staying in America… why would they go overseas to fight America when they can do more to advance their goals by staying here? The country will feel more uneasy about these people living amongst us, as opposed to living half way around the world. They are not loyal to America, in fact, if you stay here long enough, you will hear them whine constantly about how evil “modern, civilized America” is. Their loyalties lie with the ummah. They are here for “other” reasons… none of which include integrating into American society and culture.

      • They defend the Islamic terrorists by perpetuating the lie that Islam, the religion that is giving rise to these terrorist acts, is a peaceful and benign religion.

        What a liar you are, and I’m not just talking about this latest comment from you. Remember the anti-Islam website with supposedly anti-Semitic quotes you linked to? They were completely fabricated; every quote I checked couldn’t be found in the Qu’ran or the Hadith. The whole website is a fake. Fake just like your silly world-view.

        http://spencerwatch.com/2010/12/07/robert-spencer-goes-bonkers-for-austrian-fascist-ewald-stadler/#comment-2308

      • They are here for “other” reasons… none of which include integrating into American society and culture.

        They’re here because they though this was the land of oppurtunity, and not the land of bigoted morons like Anhi.

          • Man up Anhi. Admit that you’re either a liar or are too stupid to identify lies.

            I won’t be holding my breath.

          • Finding a less nefarious interpretation for a few of the many quotes I mentioned does not disprove that there is a lot of anti-semitism in the Qur’an and the Hadith.

            “The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time [of judgment] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” (Sahih Muslim book 41, no. 6985);

          • Yeah yeah, political. Although I’m sure the promise of houris in Islamic heaven doesn’t help matters.

          • The US is involved in many other countries besides “Islamic lands.” Funny how Muslims are the only ones doing these types of things.

            And even if we ignored all of the justifications for murder and martyrdom in the Qur’an and accept that this is all political, it doesn’t eliminate the fact that Muslims are warring with their neighbors all across the globe, even those not involved in the “occupation.”

          • Finding a less nefarious interpretation for a few of the many quotes I mentioned…

            Actually, many of the quotes (not just a few) on the website you linked to were completely fabricated. You obviously didn’t click on my link, and thus didn’t see the libel against Muslims that I highlighted. Just so you know, I only checked a few quotes and almost all of them were fabricated or abridged.

            And even if we ignored all of the justifications for murder and martyrdom in the Qur’an and accept that this is all political, it doesn’t eliminate the fact that Muslims are warring with their neighbors all across the globe, even those not involved in the “occupation.”

            Apart from civil wars, where are Muslims warring with countries not occupying them, and why do you have “occupation” in quotation marks? And yet again, you fail understand the basics of Islam and the Koran, especially in regards to warfare.

            The Basics: http://www.defendtheprophet.com/islam-and-war-analysis-and-commentary-of-shaykh-mahmud-shaltut%E2%80%99s-treatise-quran-and-fighting

          • Finding a less nefarious interpretation for a few of the many quotes I mentioned does not disprove that there is a lot of anti-semitism in the Qur’an and the Hadith.

            Less nefarious? Give me a fucking break. More like complete fabrications. Case in point:

            And some among them believed in it, and some among them were averse to it. And sufficient is Hell as a blaze.

            becoming:

            Sufficient for the Jew is the Flaming Fire!

            Or how about

            They will not fight you all except within fortified cities or from behind walls. Their violence among themselves is severe. You think they are together, but their hearts are diverse. That is because they are a people who do not reason.

            magically becoming:

            The Jews are devoid of sense. There is a grievous punishment awaiting them. Satan tells them not to believe so they will end up in Hell.

            Why can’t you just admit that you and people like you are the ones who are trying so desperately hard to show that there’s antisemitism in the Qur’an…(or was it the Hadith Ahni? Have fun figuring out :lol:) that you have to completely disfigure passages. If the Qur’an was so antisemitic why don’t you just show the original text? My guess is that you won’t get the desired results amirite?

        • “”O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Qur’an 5:51)

          Quick! Scramble to find a more friendly version!

          • Crap red herring is crap. How about you learn some Arabic, and come back when you find out what the term Awliyaa means in that verse. Friendlier version? Hah!

            It’s cool though, that you won’t man up to your lies.

          • That verse tells Muslims not to trust Christian allies as much as you would trust Muslim allies. It only says the truth.

            Ask Saddam how trustworthy America was as an ally. One minute you’re hanging out with top American leaders eager to use you as a puppet dictator and the next minute you’re getting hanged.

          • You like good music. Too bad you have to be a follower of Islam. You might be a cool guy, otherwise.

            No need to learn Arabic. It’s a language, just like any other, that can be translated. Your God may have a boner for it, but it’s just another language.

          • Hung by fellow Muslims even though American could have intervened but it didn’t because it would be better to show a video of a hanging dictator to highlight the heavy price of not following America most of the time.

          • You like good music. Too bad you have to be a follower of Islam. You might be a cool guy, otherwise.

            Funny thing, I was about to the same to you. It’s a shame that you’ve been brainwashed by Spencer. But hey, my taste in music is probably just clever taqiyya on my part eh? To deceive the infidels into thinking that I’m a normal human being. I even went as far as forging a Last.fm account:

            http://www.last.fm/user/Keyblade_91

            As the saying goes “Master the Art of Taqiyya, and the gates of Paradise will be open to you”…or something to that effect. I should ask Spencer as he’s more well-versed in the taqiyya mythos…being a scholar and all. Meh.

            No need to learn Arabic. It’s a language, just like any other, that can be translated.

            Keep telling yourself to make yourself feel better. The term for friend in Arabic is ‘khalil’, yet the term ‘awliyaa’ is used in that verse, obviously denoting something different. And it would contradict this statement in the Qur’an:

            Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

            But it’s ok if you want to cling to your bastardized “Abridged” tafsirs in order to further justify hating Muslims.

          • True say Cynic. There are 2 terms commonly used in Arabic to denote friendship – sadiq, and khalil. Khalil denotes a much more intimate relationship. We find in the Qur’an that Abraham is known as “khalil Allah”, as God’s intimate friend (Qur’an 4:125).

            And I also already discussed the awliya’ issue quite thoroughly here, giving some examples from classical Qur’anic exegesis regarding its meaning and scope.

          • Lol, one would think so. But no, to me the heathenry for the most part is very subtle. And although it doesn’t really show as much on Last.fm, Agalloch are at least in my top 5…new album and all.

  3. This is only a minor detail: Robert Spnecer’s website is called JihadWatch not ExplosivesWatch. It’s none of his responsibilities to report about every lunatic who stores explosives in his house. He leaves that to the media and the FBI and police press releases. They’re in charge of that kind of report. All he’s doing is minding his own business, and he does a great job.

    • Robert “Spnecer” gets all excited whenever a Muslims blows something up but is notably silent when the terrorist is from his own religion. If Spencer really was trying to defend the West, then he would equally condemn both attacks.

      What many of you loons don’t understand is that this website isn’t realistically expecting Spencer to highlight this incident. It’s just making a point about Spencer’s hypocrisy and how he tries to convince his gullible readers that terrorism is only a Muslim problem even though this terrorist is far more dangerous than other Muslim terrorists in the US with the “largest amount of certain home made explosives ever found in a US location.”

      • It’s not like he supports a member of his own religion committing a terrorist attack (even though that doesn’t stop you zealous Muslims from calling him a crusader (lol)). Spencer’s point is that Muslims are committing the overwhelming majority of religiously inspired terrorist attacks and violence around the world, so he sees it as a much larger threat. He’s right.

        • “Spencer’s point is that Muslims are committing the overwhelming majority of religiously inspired terrorist attacks and violence around the world, so he sees it as a much larger threat. ”

          I agree with that. But I wouldn’t go so far as to blame Islam. I think a combined effort by Muslims to eliminate the terrorism might be most useful. But many times they have to waste their time arguing with Islamophobes and dealing with the terrible economic and political situation in their home countries and other countries in which they live.

          “It’s not like he supports a member of his own religion committing a terrorist attack (even though that doesn’t stop you zealous Muslims from calling him a crusader (lol))”

          I don’t support anyone using terrorist attacks to voice their frustration at the US. I never have. But you might be referring to another comment in which I didn’t justify terrorism but merely explained the political reason behind it. I don’t remember calling anyone a Crusader but if I did, I apologise.

          • I’ve been called a crusader several times already since posting here, most recently here. It just underscores how Muslims view everything through a religious lens and perceive any attack on Islam as a religious act of war.

          • Or maybe Ahni, they use it in its contemporary meaning, “a vigorous campaigner for or against something”?

            The fact that you choose to see it only through the lens of religion may reflect more on your own perception of Muslims and how they view the world than their own perception of others…

          • And you were called that in your link by Rob. Not the most “Muslim” of names, though of course I could be wrong!

            Why whine about it when you call people “supremacists”, “Islamists” and a host of other names?

          • It’s not like he supports a member of his own religion committing a terrorist attack (even though that doesn’t stop you zealous Muslims from calling him a crusader (lol)).

            Wrong on both counts again Anhi. Robert Spencer openly calls for a new Crusade against Islam in his book The Pathetically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Seriously, just check for yourself.

            As for Robert Spencer supporting terrorism: he posted a militant Hindu group’s video on his website, joined a genocidal Facebook group that sought to ethnically cleanse Turkey of Muslims, smeared the Bosnian Muslims who died during the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans (not to mention every other Muslim who has ever existed), has let Fitzgerald post essays on Jihadwatch that demand that Americans be “secretly delighted” at the deaths of innocent Muslims…need I go on?

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

          • NassirH Bro,

            I suggest no need to explain yourself, your views, your Quran, your Hadith to this lunatic, seriously. He/she/it whatever lifeform it is is just wasting everyone’s time and energy.

  4. Oh but he does aberration…when that lunatic is a Muslim. But of course to Spencer the human police blotter, he wouldn’t be a lunatic but a practicer of true Islam. Lame excuse is lame.

  5. They are here for “other” reasons… none of which include integrating into American society and culture.

    We should use Ahni as an example of the kind of mentality that the demagoguery of Robert Spencer produces. He may claim he’s watching the “Global Jihad” or other such fairy tales as much as he wants, but who is he kidding?

    Apparently every single one of the millions of Muslims in the United States are there for “other reasons” (read: monolithically destroying the United States from within<—LOLZ) according to Ahni. Nurtured by Robert Spencer, he's also been taught that he is not a bigot (they’re just trying to silence us! amirite?)…despite the overwhelming evidence above that would point otherwise. I think it’s a good thing that all of his comments are documented on this site.

  6. What I don’t understand is that why bigots like Ahni are given bandwidth over this site? Its absolutely clear she/he/it is not here to learn anything about Islam or accept the fact that lies are spread around by Spencer and his girlfriend Pamela all over the forums about Islam. I have learnt that its better to communicate with good people (Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists) than to waste your breath with unbelievers.

Leave a Reply

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