Terrorists Not Muslim?…Then “Police Blotter Bob” Doesn’t Care

I am sure that “Police Blotter Scholar” Robert Spencer was salivating at the news: Parcel blasts occurred at two embassies in Rome. I’m sure he was quick to type up a long screed on his hate site about how Muslims are a threat, that Islam is all about “jihad” and violence, that all Muslims are radicals and if they are not, they are lying to you…etc, etc. I mean, what a perfect, mouthwatering scenario for Spencer: Muslim terrorists attack the capital of Catholic Christianity! Why, I bet his keyboard was soaked with his saliva!

But, it must have all come to a screeching halt when it was learned that the terrorists behind the attacks were “Anarchists-insurrectionists”:

An Italian anarchist group said it was behind the attacks in a note found on the clothing of the injured Chilean.

The message, written on behalf of the Informal Anarchist Federation (FAI), said: “We have decided to make our voice heard with words and with facts, we will destroy the system of dominance, long live the FAI, long-live Anarchy.”

The Italian intelligence services said in a report to parliament last year that the FAI was “the main national terrorist threat of an anarchist-insurrectionalist type”.

In fact, according to the BBC article:

Responding to Thursday’s blasts, the Mayor of Rome, Gianni Alemanno, said: “It’s a wave of terrorism against embassies, something much more worrisome than a single attack.”

The terrorists in this case are not Muslim, and thus it explains why Robert Spencer has no mention of the attacks on his hate site. You see, news such as this does not fit into Spencer’s narrative about Islam’s evil, its violence, its threat to the West, and so on. Thus, he simply omits the evidence that refutes his hypothesis. Why, how scholarly of him!

41 thoughts on “Terrorists Not Muslim?…Then “Police Blotter Bob” Doesn’t Care

    • You mean the ones that Spencer doesn’t talk about, downplays or pretends don’t exist? Those don’t “fizzle out”, people like Spencer just doesn’t talk about them. Those effected always have to live with it, so it certainly doesn’t “fizzle out” for them.

    • Seriously, Jihadbob, why deny hate crimes against Muslims. I don’t deny the existence of hate crimes against others. Loonwatch has covered hate crimes against others. Robert Spencer, on the other hand, implied that the cabbie attack was faked and that CAIR is secretly pumping out hate crimes to take over America.

      Here, for example, Muslims sympathise with Jews when their synagogue is attacked.


    • I guess that’s all there is to you JB. Your case against Muslims, Islam and Prophet Muhammad has no basis to it and has been exposed for the nonsense that it is, so what do you do? Harp back to the “anti-Muslim hate crimes are fake” nonsense.

      Merry get-a-life Christmas you lying, hate-mongering, ethnocentric, fascist scumbag.

      • Merry get-a-life Christmas you lying, hate-mongering, ethnocentric, fascist scumbag.

        Muslim uses PROJECTION!
        *It’s not very effective*

        *Allah recalls Muslim*
        *Allah sends out Jihadist*

        Jihadist uses SELFDESTRUCT!
        *Jihadist fainted*

        • Wow, Ahni, you’re a comedian. That was so funny I forgot to laugh.

          Is this your new strategy. When you can’t answer any of the points raised in one thread, you jump over to another one, accuse someone of terrorism, perhaps crack a useless joke and carry on thinking you’ve won the argument.

          Sorry, that’s always been your strategy. How about actually responding when someone exposes your looniness. You did say you came here to debate.


          14 days, and you have yet to respond, even though you have been reminded numerous times.

        • Muslim uses PROJECTION!

          – Which seems impossible without a PROJECTOR!

          No Projector?

          *****IT’S A SENSATION!!!!*******

          I suppose that must mean it isn’t projection

          *It’s not very effective*

          – Especially since it isn’t even a projection, and there is no projector being used at all, genius.

          *Allah recalls Muslim*

          – Oh what, for not projecting? Does that even make any sense?

          *Allah sends out Jihadist*

          – A fictional jihadist over a non-existent projection?

          Maybe you shouldn’t talk about projections when there aren’t any projectors, Ahninny

          Jihadist uses SELFDESTRUCT!

          – Oh, and now a non-existent self-destruction to go with it? There sure are a lot of “non-existents” in this story of yours.

          *Jihadist fainted*

          – So he fainted instead? I guess he forgot he “self-destructed”. Perhaps if he forgets he fainted too, then he can do something else?

          What an interesting imagination you have, Ahninny. You have a fictional character who can have things happen to him, and then continue on like they didn’t. Oh wait, that’s just a plot hole.

          I guess you have holes in your stories just like in your arguments. Logic and common sense aren’t your strong points, are they?

        • Immature Pokemon reference aside, that was pretty lame. You’re much better at accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being a terrorist/stealth jihadist/leftist/Islamic supremacist/dhimmi/*insert ad hominem attack here*.

  1. This guy and his girlfriend Pammy make a huge amount of money with the donations that they are constantly getting. Can we find out how much this bigot makes in donations?

    • Oops. Loon fail.

      No, Awesome, that was not an example of an anti-Muslim hate crime that “fizzled out. I’m sure there must be examples of such a case, but there are equally many examples of a few idiots from other groups who love doing the same.

      In any case, bringing up the Nigeria blast is irrelevant and is a typical Jihadbob way to distract everyone from how uber-wrong he was about something else. I could just as easily pull out pictures of Abu Ghraib when we’re discussing America or pictures of Palestinian children, disfigured from numerous wars, when discussing Israel. But I see no point in doing so in these situations because not only is it not entirely relevant, but it’s a useless tactic to only highlight the worse things that people have done whilst ignoring the good that they have also done.

      I interpret JihadBob’s random link as a miserable attempt at trying to silence us, when he knows that he was wrong in implying that, because a few hate crimes have “fizzled out”, we should forget about the real hate crimes that have taken place. I need not remind you that there are many non-Muslim victims of Islamophobia.

    • The US government lied that there were WMDs in Iraq, so therefore there is no threat to the US from the Middle East.

      Wow, Islamophobe logic is amazing.

      By the way, the “fizzling out” of hate crimes is unrelated to this article. At least read it before you comment.

    • This hate crime against a black man “fizzled out”. When I say this fake cross burning fizzled out, I mean it fizzled out. It fizzled out so damn fast it makes your fizzlin’ hate crime seem like shizzle.


      I guess that means we can now deny the existence of hate crimes against black people.

      Wow, Islamophobe logic is outstanding.

    • Oh, so out of the countless examples you pick one where there was no conviction, and think that counts as “fizzling out”.

      You think “no conviction” = “fizzling out”, but that’s a faulty assumption, as no conviction doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, it just means 12 people don’t think it’s what the prosecution says it is.

      Also, you need to demonstrate that all alleged hate crimes against Muslims “fizzle out”, if you’re going to claim that they do.

  2. I have no problem posting hate crimes that turned out to be hoaxes – the point is, is that LW covered this ‘hate’ crime that turned out to be a simple altercation, just like the last ‘hate’ crime that turned to be nothing more than Hispanic men who had robbed a taxi driver they happened to call Osama bin Laden.

    • Firstly, this article is about some Italian anarchists that had bombed the Chilean and Swiss embassies. It would be classified by most sensible people as terrorism, not a hate crime. This is why I was wondering why you went on a rant about hate crimes since this clearly is a terrorist incident and has not, and probably will not, “fizzle out”.

      Secondly, Loonwatch did not report it as a hate crime. But the shouting of “Osama bin Laden” at the taxi driver because he is ‘unfortunate’ enough to look Mooslim is Islamophobia, which is what Loonwatch reported it as. Last I checked, the case was still being treated as a hate crime, the Sikh community and taxi drivers association in Sacramento viewed it as a hate crime and the taxi driver’s lawyers viewed it as a hate crime but aren’t optimistic the judge will view it as such. Not because it isn’t a hate crime, but because they know that’s what the judges have done in the past. Understandably, the Sikh community is frustrated why the courts don’t see it as a hate crime. On the other hand, some people have commented that with enough pressure from the Sikh community, the judge might not throw out the hate crime charges.

      In any case, Loonwatch didn’t say anything wrong. I didn’t say anything wrong because based on the information I have, this is a hate crime. I believe that when you pick out a turban wearing taxi driver, take his money and, instead of running, you decide to beat him severely and call him “Osama bin Laden”, then you have committed a hate crime. However, whether it is a hate crime or not, or whether it has truly “fizzled out” or not, is up to the judge. Not me or you, but the judge. It was a horrible crime that needs to be punished and prevented from happening again. That’s it.

      Again, it doesn’t matter. If this hate crime does fizzle out, what does that mean? You haven’t answer my question. Does the “fizzling out” of one hate crime mean we should forget about the real hate crimes against Muslims?

  3. I didn’t say anything wrong because based on the information I have, this is a hate crime. I believe that when you pick out a turban wearing taxi driver, take his money and, instead of running, you decide to beat him severely and call him “Osama bin Laden”.

    You don’t have any proof that a) the Hispanic men singled out a taxi driver because he was Sikh or Muslim b) decided to beat the taxi driver because they thought he was Muslim.

    The men were Hispanic and probably don’t even know what Islam is, to be honest. But they do know who people like Osama bin Laden are and just called the taxi driver that name.

    It would be the same as someone calling a cabbie Sammie Sosa because he was Dominican or talked/looked like a Dominican.

    Would that be Politically Correct? No.

    But would that be ‘racist’? Probably not.

    This is why I was wondering why you went on a rant about hate crimes since this clearly is a terrorist incident and has not, and probably will not, “fizzle out”.

    Read what the OP says:

    I am sure that “Police Blotter Scholar” Robert Spencer was salivating at ….

    I merely pointing out that LW and other victim merchants ‘salivate’ over alleged hate crimes.

    Nothing more, nothing less and something you can’t deny.

    • “You don’t have any proof that a) the Hispanic men singled out a taxi driver because he was Sikh or Muslim b) decided to beat the taxi driver because they thought he was Muslim.”

      Obviously you didn’t read what I had written. The Sikh community, the taxi driver and numerous other Sikh organisations believe it to be a hate crime. I believe it also to be a hate crime but my opinion doesn’t matter. It is the judge’s decision. Hate crime enhancements have been filed. However, Mukesh Advani, founding and former president of the South Asian Bar Association is not optimistic that they will stick because the case might end in a plea bargain and “hate crime enhancements are the first to get negotiated away”. Whatever happens, it is not my concern. I believe it is a hate crime because they shouted “f*&k you Arabian, f*^k you, Osama bin Laden” (see link below) and beat him unnecessarily even when they had the money. The hate crime enhancements may be “negotiated away” but the racial motive is still there, no matter what happens. This is another point that could be made with the story that you linked to. Although the court ruled it was not a hate crime, racial slurs were still uttered by the defendant.

      Most importantly, this particular case proves nothing for your point that “Loonwatch salivates over alleged hate crimes”. Firstly, let’s look at this salivation business. This article is about a terrorist incident which Spencerwatch has mentioned because they know for sure that Spencer will not mention it anywhere the moment he discovers the terrorist was a non-Mooslim. If you read the article, which I suspect you didn’t read because your first comment was totally irrelevent to the content of the article, you will see that Spencerwatch mentioned that Spencer salivates over any terrorist incident only if the terrorist is Mooslim. To that article, you, for some reason, made a comment about the “fizzling out” of hate crimes. It is irrelevent because this terrorist incident did not “fizzle out” and is not a hate crime. Now that I have brought this up, you say that the link between your comment and the article is that both sites (JW and LW) salivate over certain things. However, this was not stated in your original comment, meaning that you only said that because you realised afterwards that you had not read the article properly and had commented on it about something else. By the way, Spencer also ‘salivates’ over hate crimes. I remember a particular incident in which someone spread pieces of paper around which said “Kill Jews” around New York. He alleged that the criminals were Mooslim but it turned out the criminal was Greek and trying to frame Mooslims. Obviously, Spencer didn’t update the original article because that would make him look like a complete idiot so he’s left it there for his even more idiotic readers to read.

      Anyway, Loonwatch did not report anything wrong. They did not say it was a hate crime. In fact the very article they linked to had the headline “Robbery or Hate Crime?”, a headline which they copied into their article, highlighting that it could go either way. That was not a concern for Loonwatch but a problem to be dealt with by the court. It was, however, an Islamophobic incident which is why Loonwatch reported it. It was Islamophobic because the criminals called him “Osama bin Laden” simply because he wore a turban. That was Islamophobia and so Loonwatch reported it as “Islamophobia”. Furthermore, when the story was copied on spencerwatch, it was tagged as “Robbery”, further proving that Loonwatch had kept the option open that it could be a simple robbery.

      Here’s the latest news about the case I could find:


    • Also, what disgusted me about your comment was your unnecessary attack on Hispanics. It seems Ahni is not the only Islamophobe who holds ideas that most people, obviously not you, would consider racist.

      “The men were Hispanic and probably don’t even know what Islam is, to be honest.”

      The assertion that just because someone is Hispanic so they will have no clue about Islam is racist. Why? Because you are assuming that because that because of who they are, they will have no access to TV, internet or newspapers. If they have been born and raised in the USA then they will have no doubt encountered Muslims. They will have heard about 9/11 and so will have some idea about what Islam is. All around the world people learnt about 1/4 of the world’s population on that day. Even Muslims in South Korea reported some discrimination because of 9/11, so even if these men had been living outside of the USA in Central America or South America or Spain, they will still have heard about this incident and have encoutered Islam in some way or another. Also, there has been huge Arab migration towards these countries and many mosques have been constructed there. Futhermore, many Hispanics living in America have even converted to Islam, proving that your assertion that because they are Hispanics, they will automatically have no clue about Islam is rubbish. Even if they have only been in this country for a short time, they will have experienced the Islamophobiapalooza that has been this year. From the immense controversy over “Park51” to various anti-mosque protests around the country, from the outrageous Quran-burning plan to the accusations that Obama is a Mooslim, there is no way these criminals will have not heard of Islam.

      Perhaps you will say that you never made this absurd assertion but then why did you mention that “the men were Hispanics”? What does their ethnicity have to do with this crime?

      They called him an “Arabian” and “Osama bin Laden”, what more proof do you need that they were under the impression that he was Mooslim. Even the Sikh taxi driver yelled “I am not Muslim”. All you need to acknowledge is that whilst they were severely beating him, they believed he was Mooslim.

  4. I’ve got to say it again Robert Spencer’s blog is called JihadWatch, not commie or anarchist watch. It doesn’t make sense if he reports about any terrorist attack that occurs on this planet. You’re delighted, because the perps were not Muslims, but in 99.9 % of the cases of terrorism they are. When will you guys ever learn to apologise for your wrong doings? You only put the blame on the OTHERS, especially on Jews.

  5. The assertion that just because someone is Hispanic so they will have no clue about Islam is racist. Why?

    The assertion is that people from LA, not Detroit, who are Hispanic, as opposed to Arab or Indian and who also rob cabbies will in most likelihood have no idea what Islam is.

    Do you really mean to tell me that if the cabbie was Eastern European, the robbers probably wouldn’t have called the cabbie Boris, a Russian villain from Rocky and Bullwinkle?

    Would that have made the robbery and beating a hate crime?

    • You didn’t read my entire comment. I see no reason to respond if you’re not going to read what I have written.

      You cannot prove that they had no idea about Islam. They don’t need to have a PhD in Islamic studies. All they need to assume that the Sikh was a Mooslim or not, was a rough idea of what a Mooslim or more specifically, Osama bin Laden looks like. They saw he was brown so hence they shouted “f*&k you Arabian”, they saw he had a beard and turban and hence they shouted ” f*^k you, Osama bin Laden”. They don’t need to know about Islam, just Mooslims. And they have had plenty of info about that through TV, Internet and newspapers.

      I believe I have made my point sufficiently clear in my earlier comments.

  6. Osama bin Laden looks like. They saw he was brown

    Ah, so we’re now scraping the bottom of the barrel and already forgetting that the attackers were Latino, not white, so they must have singled out the cabbie because he was brown – of course, no evidence nor reasoning is presented that way, it must be true because you say so.

    But this is a priceless example of what would have happened if the attackers were white – of course, in the minds of the intellectually bankrupt, they must have been racist! (they were white, afterall, dontchya know?)

    so hence they shouted “f*&k you Arabian”

    I’ll remember that the next time whites are assualted and the non-white attackers hurl ‘YT’ and ‘cracker’ at their victims.

    Strange why these attacks are never branded ‘racist’ or ‘hate crimes’.

    I also see you have not touched my Boris example. Pray tell, if an Eastern or Central European cabbie is ever mugged and his attackers call him ‘Boris’, from the villain of ‘Rocky and Bullwinkle’, will such a crime become racist? Do you think it’s as all likely? And do you see yourself desperately concluding the attacks singled out the cabbie because of his pale skin?

    • So you still haven’t read the comments I had written earlier. Too much truth?

      Anyway, I never said they attacked him because he was brown but assumed he was Arabian because of his colour. And what does it matter if they were Latino. Are you saying only white people can attack people with a brown skin colour? Looks like someone is in a racist mood today…

      “I also see you have not touched my Boris example. ”

      Yes, the act of calling the Eastern european “Boris” will be racist. If the crime was initiated because he was Eastern European then it will be a hate crime. If the crime was initiated for money, then it is not. No need to soil yourself now, what I am saying is not an admission that I was wrong. Actually this is exactly what I said in my earlier comment, that calling the cabbie “Osama bin Laden” was Islamophobic and that was what Loonwatch claimed it was. They never said it was a hate crime because the decision of whether the crime was initiated because of his race is up to the courts. Hence, there was no salivating at any hate crime neither was there any “fizzling out”. Case closed.

      Too bad you aren’t passionate enough about what you claim otherwise you would have read my entire comment…

    • Jihadbob, why are we even debating whether it was a hate crime or not? My opinion is that it is and yours is that it isn’t. But like I have said in my earlier comments, it isn’t our decision but the judge’s and we have to respect that.

      The real argument is whether Loonwatch ‘salivated’ over this incident being a hate crime. You claim that they were excited by finding this incident and that they claimed it was a hate crime.

      Nowhere did they claim it was a hate crime. Therefore, you are wrong. Simple.

      • I don’t care about the skin colour. For me all the people on this planet were created equal, which means they’ve got equal rights, regardless of their skin colour. I hate your sharia which is inhuman, against mankind, against women and made by some stupid blokes not by G*d.

        • “I don’t care about the skin colour. For me all the people on this planet were created equal, which means they’ve got equal rights, regardless of their skin colour”

          The Prophet (PBUH) agrees,

          “All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action”

Leave a Reply

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