Cyberpath still on the War Path against Ahmed Rehab and Reza Aslan

How sad can Robert Spencer get? My colleagues at LoonWatch have termed him an Internet Psychopath. Perhaps a more fitting description would be a Cyberpath.

Blowing the whistle on Robert Spencer’s pyscho-cyber path syndrom:

Cyberpath: People that possess a NarcissisticSociopath , or Psychopath personality disorder where they use the Internet as a tool against others on the Internet (their victims) in order to harm, bully, abuse, provoke, troll, torment, created conflict, destroy, damage, deceive, flame and inflame others for their own gratification , for example, seeking personal or financial gain.

This describes Robert Spencer to a tee. He has graduated from being a psychopath to being an all out Cyberpath. His narcissistic image of himself doesn’t allow for him to let any perceived slight or blight (even if it doesn’t exist) against his person go.

This has manifested itself in his recent Crusade against two Muslims who don’t really fit the extremist mold as far as any discerning viewer can note: Reza Aslan and Ahmed Rehab.

Spencer has stooped to calling the two “Islamic Supremacists.” Their crimes, aside from blasting Spencer as belonging in the “trash bin of history” seems to be that they “look metrosexual” (I didn’t know Spencer the flobby anti-Muslim polemicist was also a fashion expert, his attire would suggest otherwise), won’t entertain Spencer and his arguments as serious but view him as a bigoted clown, and that they are active in protecting the rights of Muslims.

In a little over 48 hours Spencer has produced 7 pieces of varying length and verbiage against both Aslan and Rehab, essentially confirming himself as their cyberstalker.

-Islamic Supremacist Reza Aslan: “Nothing can stop the spread of Islam” (Spencer relies on one of his followers, Evan Mark, for this “quote.” No one in the media reported it, but when we look at the actual speech we see that what Aslan is saying is that there are fundamentalists (such as Spencer) who wish to destroy Islam and to go to war with Islam and strip Muslims from practicing or preaching their religion, Aslan said that this is stupid and is not going to happen because Islam is a great world faith and all indicators are it is going to keep growing.)

-Bill O’Reilly Fawns over anti-Semitic Islamic Supremacist Ahmed Rehab of Hamas-linked CAIR (I sense a bit of jealousy and envy on the part of poor ole’ irrelevant Spencer. No longer able to bask in the 5 minute glory of the ginned up “NYC Ground Zero Mosque” controversy, no one wants him on air. In fact they don’t want to be near him with a ten feet pole because he is just that ludicrous. He is sad that O’Reilly, a hardcore Right-winger, had a Mooslim with some intelligence on his program and not awkward self-proclaimed academic Robert Spencer.)

-Pro-Democracy Movement of Iran protests State Department’s Sending lobbyist for Islamic Republic on tax-payer-funded jaunt to Saudi Arabia (By pro-Democracy what he means is the anti-Islamic and neo-Conservative organization PDMI, an Orwellian organization that includes one Amil Imani whose vitriol against Muslims would put Geert Wilders to shame. Not to mention that it is so “pro-Democracy” that it hosts a portrait of “His Majesty Mohammed Reza Shah,” a real scion of Democracy!.)

-Juan Williams and the Left’s Intellectual Bankruptcy ( a Human Events piece that continues his worn out attacks of Leftist/Mooslim stealth conspiracy to advance Jihad)

State Department sponsors Saudi trip of apologist for Islamic Republic of Iran (Trita Parsi, the reason they dislike him, an individual who supported the Green Movement that called for Reforms in Iran, and who are the real Pro-Democracy advocates is because he isn’t a hysterical anti-Muslim bigot)

CAIR’s Ahmed Rehab and the Use of Ridicule (a hypocritical piece in which Spencer whines about being ridiculed by Ahmed Rehab while at the same time previously and in this blog piece calling Ahmed Rehab a “metrosexual who uses lipstick and eyeliner.”)

CAIR’s Brave Ahmed Rehab, who ran from debate with me, claims never to have run from a debate (The “objective scholar,” very “scholarly” slings personal attacks and lies against Ahmed Rehab. O’ Little Cyberpath (to include a variation on an Andrew Bostom quote) how can someone “duck” a debate with you when they didn’t agree to one in the first place? I guess facts don’t matter to faux-scholars!)

Internet Sociopath Robert Spencer Scared of Debate

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 Loonwatchring 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 sociopath 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 that he can’t see his feet.

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.

Spencer Proven Wrong (Again) About Muslim Organizations

It is a staple of his “Police Blotter” website about Muslims: his assertions that mainstream Muslim organizations such as the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) are “Hamas-linked.” He frequently links his posts with these assertions. It is based on federal prosecutors naming these two organizations, along with 244 other Muslim individuals and groups, as “unindicted co-conspirators” in a case against the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim charity, in 2007. HLF was later convicted of supporting the terrorist group Hamas.

Federal prosecutors did this despite having no proof that these Muslim organizations had anything to do with the activities of HLF. Moreover, neither ISNA nor CAIR has ever been charged with any wrongdoing or criminal activity. Yet, Spencer continually calls CAIR and ISNA “Hamas-linked” in order to discredit anything mainstream Muslim organizations do and say, smearing them with the association with the terrorist group Hamas and terrorism in general.

He must stop doing so, because the assertion is incorrect.

In an opinion disclosed on October 20, an Appeals Court disclosed the ruling of a Federal District Court judge who ruled that that the Government should not have listed ISNA and CAIR as “unindicted co-conspirators” in the case against the HLF. When the ruling was initially made by the District Court judge, he sealed the ruling. This was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and this Court ordered the ruling to be unsealed.

The Appeals Court judge wrote:

The Court held that the Government did not argue or establish any legitimate government interest that warranted publicly identifying NAIT and 245 other individuals and entities as unindicted coconspirators or joint venturers, and that the Government had less injurious means than those employed, such as anonymously designating the unindicted co-conspirators as ‘other persons,’ asking the court to file the document under seal, or disclosing the information to the defendants pursuant to a protective order.

The ruling came in a case brought by the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), another “unindicted co-conspirator.” In fact, the District Court ruled that the Government violated NAIT’s Fifth Amendment rights by naming it as an “unindicted co-conspirator.” The Fifth Amendment, remember, guarantees due process of law. It states, in part:

No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

In addition, a footnote in the ruling states:

NAIT’s motion was filed in conjunction with the Islamic Society of North America (“ISNA”), which is not a party to this appeal. Another entity, the Council on American Islamic Relations (“CAIR”) moved the district court for leave to file an amicus brief requesting that its name and all other unindicted coconspirators be stricken from Attachment A. CAIR’s motion was addressed in the order addressing NAIT’s motion, but CAIR is not a party to this appeal.

If I understand this correctly, this may mean that the District Court judge also found that the Government violated ISNA’s and CAIR’s Fifth Amendment rights by naming them as “unindicted co-conspirators,” but since they were not parties to the appeal, that part of the ruling will not be unsealed. In any case, it has been established that the Government was wrong and had no basis to name ISNA and CAIR as “unindicted co-conspirators,” and this totally pulls the rug out from underneath Spencer’s and other Islamophobes’ attempts to paint all maintream Muslim organizations as “extremist.” So, will Spencer stop saying CAIR and ISNA are “Hamas-linked”? We will see. I’m not holding my breath, though, for it’s been shown that facts don’t matter to the “Scholar” Robert Spencer.

You know, it is interesting…this news came out on October 20, but there was barely a peep in the media. A Google news search came up with only 3 links. Spencer didn’t mention it at all on his “Police Blotter.” But, that doesn’t surprise me. Maybe he thinks that no one will notice. Rest assured, we here at SW will notice, believe you me!

Spencer on the Juan Williams “Imbroglio”

It’s a new dawn and Spencer doesn’t like it. No more bigotry and hate of Muslims! No more Islamophobia!

Spencer thinks that the Juan Williams incident only takes on significance in light of whether one can have negative opinions of Islam or not, or at least he implies as much in his hasty comment on a blog post where he reproduces a Michael Medved piece titled, Is a negative view of Islam really evidence of bigotry? Spencer comments,

In “Does a negative opinion of Islam amount to conclusive evidence of bigotry?,” October 20, Michael Medved pierces through today’s propaganda fog with some observations that take on a new significance with the Juan Williams imbroglio.(emphasis added)

What propaganda fog? More obfuscation from Spencer and company who might be slightly alarmed by the fact that denigrating and making bigoted comments about Islam may not be given a free pass like in the good old days.

Spencer knows, though he wishes to blur, the fact that one has negative views about Islam doesn’t mean you are a bigot. What makes you a bigot is your irrational fear of Islam and HATRED for Muslims. Juan Williams didn’t say, “I have negative views of Islam,” he said I am “nervous around Muslim garbed people on planes.”

The difference is lost on ole’ Police Blotter scholar Robert Spencer.

Spencer Grasping at Straws against Imam Ibrahim Dremali

Grasping at straws Spencer is on the war path of character assassination and misrepresentation, trying to inflate, as he always does, the threat from Mooslims. In a blog about Ibrahim Dremali titled Texas: Imam who donated to terror-tied Islamic charity arrested for marriage fraud, we see a perfect example of his modus operandi.

Spencer’s title exposes his bias. He attempts to link the Imam who made a donation to a charity that the government shut down to the boogeyman word “terror.” It is all innuendo and low brow hyperbole. Spencer knows that people who donated to these charities including the one Dremali gave to, Global Relief, had no a priori knowledge that these charities were contravening US laws.

Even former Bush era Attorney General John Ashcroft made clear that those who contributed to these charities did nothing wrong and were not terrorists. If that were the case there would be thousands of donors who would be in jail or facing trial for giving material support to terrorists.

Spencer then descends further into the gutter commenting,

Well, they got Capone on tax evasion.

There you go folks, Spencer standards. He equates Dremali with Capone and implies that he is guilty of something more than marriage fraud. What is the bigot trying to get at? You know…all Muslims are terrorists.

Robert Spencer’s “Police Blotter” Scholarship

Many times, we have commented on Robert Spencer’s “scholarship” and his “scholarly ways.” Yet, when one really looks at his operation and his alleged “exposure” of the radical jihadists in Islam, it is really  nothing more than a “Police blotter.” A police blotter is a listing of the police investigations, calls, and actions in a particular city or town. It is public record. Here is an example of one from Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Now, Colorado Springs is a nice town. In fact, in 2006 it was listed as one of the Best Places to Live in America. Yet, if you only judged the town of Colorado Springs by its police blotter, a much different picture would emerge in one’s mind:

Thursday, October 14, 2010 4:30 PM [RELEASE AT WILL]:

As was previously reported, on Tuesday, October 12, 2010 at around 1:15 AM, the Colorado Springs Police Department was notified of a possible dead body at 1248 Potter Dr, the Rustic Hills Park Apartments. A security officer was checking the parking lot area of the apartments when he located an unresponsive male inside of a parked vehicle. Officers and medical personnel were dispatched and upon arrival they located a male party with an apparent head trauma inside of a vehicle in the northern parking lot. The male was transported to Memorial Hospital by ambulance where he was pronounced dead.

The El Paso County Coroner’s Office has completed an autopsy on the man and determined he died from a gunshot wound to the head, and the manner of death was determined to be a homicide. The victim is identified as 37 year old Martique Webster of Colorado Springs. This is the 23rd homicide is Colorado Springs this year. There were 17 this time last year.

[...]

As was previously reported, at approximately 3:15 PM on 10-12-2010 Colorado Springs Police Department (CSPD) Tactical Enforcement Officers were transporting 20 year old John R. Winkler after he was arrested on two felony warrants to the El Paso County Criminal Justice Center. Mr. Winkler was handcuffed behind his back and seat belted in an unmarked police vehicle. Mr. Winkler managed to unbuckle his seatbelt, open the door and jump out of the moving police vehicle. After recovering from his fall he began to run across the lanes of the interstate when he was struck by a southbound vehicle. John R. Winkler succumbed to the injuries he received in the crash last night at an area hospital.

Today, 10-14-2010 CSPD received information that John R. Winkler’s father, 43 year old John P. Winkler of Oklahoma, was on his way to Colorado Springs to kill the police officers that were transporting his son when his son jumped from the car. Mr. Winkler is on parole for drug and weapons violations in Oklahoma. CSPD confirmed that Mr. Winkler was in Colorado Springs and additional information was obtained that Winkler intended on carrying out the threat.

Due to the threat, CSPD locked down all the police divisions to include the Police Operations Center (POC) and put two officers in every patrol car. The parking lots of all divisions were being monitored by police and medical was staged at all divisions. A command post was established at the POC to coordinate regional law enforcement efforts. The El Paso County Sheriff’s Office (EPSO), FBI, ATF, DEA and the Colorado Springs Fire Department assisted with resources to assist us in our attempts to locate Mr. Winkler before he could carry out any alleged threats.

Mr. Winkler was located in the Rockrimmon area of Colorado Springs and was taken into custody without incident for parole violations and questioning reference the alleged threats. Mr. Winkler was near, but outside of his vehicle when he was contacted, and it was determined after the contact that he did not have a weapon on his person. The investigation into the threats is ongoing and a search warrant is being sought for the vehicle Mr. Winkler was driving.

The CSPD takes all threats to the public or police officers very seriously and will take every precaution to insure their safety. At this point Mr. Winkler has not been charged for the threats, but that is still a possibility pending the outcome of the investigation. 

[...]

On 10/13/10 Officers were dispatched to a possible stabbing in the 1700 block of Woodburn St. Officers contacted a female who stated she was stabbed by an identified male. She was taken to the hospital, treated and released for a possible stab wound to the hand.

My Lord, judging by the police blotter, Colorado Springs looks like an awful place to live. Is this a fair way by which a town such as Colorado Springs is judged?

What about the United States? Most people around the world would jump at any chance to get to live and raise their families in the United States. This is truly a wonderful country, full of freedom, and opportunity, and tolerance. It is a place that Robert Spencer and his other Islam-hater friends want to fundamentally change with their hate speech and rhetoric.

Yet, if the only thing by which America would be judged is her crime statistics, a very different picture would emerge:

In 2009, there were 1,318,398 violent crimes in the United States; 15,241 murders; 88,097 forcible rapes; 408,217 robberies; 806,843 aggravated assaults; 9,320,971 property crimes; 2,199,125 burglaries; 6,327,230 larcenies; and 794,616 motor vehicle thefts.

This is according to the FBI. Is this an accurate picture of the reality of America? Is America reflected in the actions of her criminals? Of course not. In fact, looking at the numbers is actually deceiving, because, in reality, violent and property crimes are actually down in the United States last year. But, one wouldn’t realize that if he or she solely focused on the numbers.

This is exactly what Robert Spencer does: he judges the 1.5 billion people who profess the Islamic faith by the actions of their criminals. And the “jihadists” are just that: criminals who cloak their brutal and horrific crimes in the garb of religious piety. And the clerics who use Islamic sources to justify acts of un-Islamic barbarity are accessories to those crimes.

Take a look at his headlines:

Al-Qaeda: Ram cars into crowds for Allah

Indonesia: Muslims oppose building of churches

India: Muslims thrash reporter for asking an inconvenient question

According to Sharia, rape is not possible in marriage, says Islamophobe Muslim cleric

The site goes on, and on, and on, and on. He cherry picks outrageous stories from the Muslim world and wants his readers (and the rest of the public) to conclude that Islam and Muslims are like the criminals who act in their name. And when it is proven that his assertions are incorrect, he does not acknowledge this at all, because he is well on his way to blog about another crime committed by some Muslim somewhere; or about some crazy thing said by some cleric somewhere; or about the truly horrific things that the “Islamic jihadists” do around the world.

His site is basically a “Police blotter.” Is this the way to judge a people? Is this true “scholarship”?

Maybe He Didn’t Know…

Maybe the “Scholar” missed it; maybe he didn’t really know; maybe, his “Muslim police blotter” failed to pick it up. But, Robert Spencer seems to conveniently ignore exculpatory facts that strike at the heart of his relentless argument that Islam is violent, evil, etc. Just the latest case in point: his decrying the death threat against Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris. He writes, in part:

It should be front-page news in every newspaper in the country: Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris has given up her job, her home, and even her identity because of death threats for Islamic supremacists. That Islamic jihadists can force an American citizen into hiding for exercising her freedom of speech is bad enough; that her cause has aroused only indifference from the media and the nation’s leading officials is even worse.

Although I can’t believe I’m actually saying this, he is right: the threat against Molly Norris is nothing short of repugnant. Norris, if you will remember, started the “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” on Facebook, which turned into a vile anti-Muhammad orgy. It was so bad, in fact, that Molly Norris backed away from it completely. Yet, Spencer’s “defense” of Norris is really a thinly veiled attack against President Obama:

Molly Norris’s cause should be taken up by all free people – not least the President of the United States. Obama could have explained that human beings control their own reactions to things. If Muslims chose yet again to riot and murder because of Terry Jones or Molly Norris, that would be a choice they would be making out of an unlimited array of other choices. Instead, Western authorities have fallen into the Islamic supremacists’ trap and are starting to behave in just the way they want them to: thinking that they must not do certain things, because if they do, there will be violence from Muslims. Yet that violence is in every case solely the responsibility of the perpetrator, not of anyone else.

Yet, Spencer seems to have ignored the fact that some of Molly Norris’ most passionate defenders are Muslims themselves. Soon after the news of Norris being forced to go into hiding became public, a group of Muslim journalists, academics, writers, and scholars issued a statement:

A DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH BY AMERICAN AND CANADIAN MUSLIMS

We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.

We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation.

We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims. We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur’an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.

We affirm the right of free speech for Molly Norris, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and all others including ourselves.

As Muslims, we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance, respect, and forgiveness.

The Qur’an enjoins Muslims to:
* bear witness to Islam through our good example (2:143);
* restrain anger and pardon people (3:133-134 and 24:22);
* remain patient in adversity (3186);
* stand firmly for justice (4:135);
* not let the hatred of others swerve us from justice (5:8);
* respect the sanctity of life (5:32);
* turn away from those who mock Islam (6:68 and 28:55);
* hold to forgiveness, command what is right, and turn away from the ignorant (7:199);
* restrain ourselves from rash responses (16:125-128);
* pass by worthless talk with dignity (25:72); and
* repel evil with what is better (41:34).

Islam calls for vigorous condemnation of both hateful speech and hateful acts, but always within the boundaries of the law. It is of the utmost importance that we react, not out of reflexive emotion, but with dignity and intelligence, in accordance with both our religious precepts and the laws of our country.

We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority.

We therefore call on all Muslims in the United States, Canada and abroad to refrain from violence. We should see the challenges we face today as an opportunity to sideline the voices of hate—not reward them with further attention—by engaging our communities in constructive dialogue about the true principles of Islam, and the true principles of democracy, both of which stress the importance of freedom of religion and tolerance.

The list of signatories keeps growing. There is no mention of this statement by Spencer on his website.  I wonder why? Is it because it debunks Spencer’s notions about Islam and Muslims?

Maybe Spencer didn’t know about the statement…or maybe, he chose to look the other way, because the truth is too inconvenient.

Reza Aslan Serves Robert Spencer Overdose of Truth

Christiane Amanpour had an interesting show called “Holy War: Should Americans Fear Islam?” on her program This Week. The panelists were quite diverse, there was Azar Nafisi, author of Reading Lolita in TehranDonna Marsh O’Connor of September 11th Families for a Peaceful Tomorrow, andDaisy Khan. Opposing the mosque and supporting the idea that America should fear Islam was anti-Muslim bigot Robert Spencer of Jihad WatchPeter Gadiel of 9/11 Families for a Secure Americaand Rev. Franklin Graham. Other special guests included: Reza Aslan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Gary Bauer, Brad Garret, Anjem Choudary and Imam Ossama Bahloul.

There seemed to be too many people on the show and not enough time, but at the end of the day the result was a positive one: Robert Spencer got roasted for being the anti-Muslim bigot that we have always known him to be. Continue reading

An “American Dirty Bomber,” Yet Spencer Stays Silent

TIME Magazine has just released the results of a six-month journalistic investigation of the many extreme militias that have emerged in America. Conducted by veteran reporter Barton Gellman, it chronicles chilling stories of American militias that are armed to the teeth and ready for war. Check out this excerpt:

Camouflaged and silent, the assault team inched toward a walled stone compound for more than five hours, belly-crawling the last 200 yards. The target was an old state prison in eastern Ohio, and every handpicked member of Red Team 2 knew what was at stake: The year is 2014, and a new breed of neo-Islamic terrorism is rampant in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio … The current White House Administration is pro-Muslim and has ordered a stand-down against Islamic groups. The mission: Destroy the terrorist command post — or die trying. The fighters must go in “sterile” — without name tags or other identifying insignia — as a deniable covert force. “Anyone who is caught or captured cannot expect extraction,” the briefing officer said.

At nightfall the raiders launched their attack. Short, sharp bursts from their M-16s cut down the perimeter guards. Once past the rear gate, the raiders fanned out and emptied clip after clip in a barrage of diversionary fire. As defenders rushed to repel the small team, the main assault force struck from the opposite flank. Red Team 1 burst through a chain-link fence, enveloping the defense in lethal cross fire. The shooting was over in minutes. Thick grenade smoke bloomed over the command post. The defenders were routed, headquarters ablaze.

This was a training exercise conducted by the “Ohio Defense Force,” a private militia that claims 300 members. Notice how they talk about “neo-Islamic terrorism” and that the Administration is “pro-Muslim,” thus necessitating their attack. And according to the article:

As militias go, the Ohio Defense Force is on the moderate side. Scores of armed antigovernment groups, some of them far more radical, have formed or been revived during the Obama years, according to law-enforcement agencies and outside watchdogs. A six-month TIME investigation reveals that recruiting, planning, trainin and explicit calls for a shooting war are on the rise.

But wait, there’s more:

Some groups, though not many overtly, embrace the white-supremacist legacy of the Posse Comitatus, which invented the modern militia movement in the 1970s. Some are fueled by a violent stream of millennial Christianity. Some believe Washington is a secondary foe, the agent of a dystopian new world order.

A small but growing number of these extremist groups, according to the FBI, ATF and state investigators, are subjects of active criminal investigations. They include militias and other promoters of armed confrontation with government, among them “common-law jurors,” who try to make their own arrests and convene their own trials, and “sovereign citizens,” who respond with lethal force to routine encounters with the law. In April, for example, Navy veteran Walter Fitzpatrick, acting on behalf of a group called American Grand Jury, barged into a Tennessee courthouse and tried to arrest the real grand-jury foreman on the grounds that he refused to indict Obama for treason. In May, Georgia militia member Darren Huff was arrested by Tennessee state troopers after telling them that he and other armed men intended to “take over the Monroe County courthouse,” free Fitzpatrick and “conduct arrests” of other officials, according to Huff’s indictment and his own account in an interview posted online. Investigators are keeping a wary eye on a related trend, which has yet to progress beyond words, in which law officers and military service members vow to refuse or resist orders they deem unconstitutional. About a dozen county sheriffs and several candidates for sheriff in the midterm elections have threatened to arrest federal agents in their jurisdictions.

One of these “Patriots,” as many of them call themselves, was even a “Dirty Bomber,” like Jose Padilla. His name was James Cummings, and after he was shot to death by his wife, chilling details emerged about his deeds and intentions:

Amber Cummings, then 31, shot her husband James, 29, to death, dropped the Colt .45 revolver and walked to a neighbor’s to dial 911. Evidence of her torment at the dead man’s hands during years of domestic abuse would later persuade a judge to spare her a prison sentence.

On the day of the shooting, Dec. 9, 2008, the story she told and an initial search of the house brought an FBI forensic team running. James Cummings appeared to have accumulated explosive ingredients and radioactive samples. He had filled out an application to join the National Socialist Movement and declared an ambition to kill the President-elect.

[...]

A much more sobering picture emerged from the dead man’s handwritten notes and printed records, some of which were recently made available to TIME. Fresh interviews with principals in the case, together with the documents, depict a viciously angry and resourceful man who had procured most of the supplies for a crude radiological dispersal device and made some progress in sketching a workable design. In this he was far ahead of Jose Padilla, the accused al-Qaeda dirty-bomb plotter, and more advanced in his efforts than any previously known domestic threat involving a dirty bomb. Cummings spent many months winning the confidence of online suppliers, using a variety of cover stories, PayPal accounts and shipping addresses. He had a $2 million real estate inheritance and spent it freely on his plot.

[...]

Maine state police detective Michael McFadden, who participated in the investigation throughout, says he came to believe that James Cummings posed “a legitimate threat” of a major terrorist attack. “When you’re cooking thorium and uranium under your kitchen sink, when you have a couple million dollars sitting in the bank and you’re hell-bent on doing something, I think at that point you become someone we want to sit up and pay attention to,” he says. “If she didn’t do what she did, maybe we would know Mr. Cummings a lot better than we do right now.”


James Cummings

The article is a must read. It is a frightening look into the world of America’s other homegrown terrorists, who are just as – if not much, much more – dangerous than the Faisal Shahzads and Nidal Malik Hassans.

Yet, there is one person who, apparently, does not pay attention to such things: why, the “Scholar” Robert Spencer. A look at his website revealed no such mention of the TIME investigation, even though it made national news. I mean, he is so quick to jump on any news of potential terrorist plots, or criminal acts committed by Muslims all across the world. In fact, he even reports on terrorist plots by Muslims and then fails to mention that the perpetrators had no religious motivation.

But, this time, there is not one peep from Spencer about these militia groups, not even about America’s own “Dirty Bomber,” who was

far ahead of Jose Padilla, the accused al-Qaeda dirty-bomb plotter, and more advanced in his efforts than any previously known domestic threat involving a dirty bomb.

Why would this be? Why the silence, Mr. Spencer? (Psst: they’re not Muslims!)

Facts Don’t Matter to the “Scholar” Robert Spencer

Everyone keeps claiming that Robert Spencer is this big time “scholar.” Yet, it seems that he could care less when it comes to the facts. In a recent rant about the Chicago man who was arrested after planting what he thought was a real bomb in a dumpster outside of Wrigley Field, Spencer penned this:

Got to watch out for those “Chicago men,” especially during yet another long summer of frustration at Wrigley, as Sweet Lou Piniella has ridden off into the sunset with no end in sight for the Cub Fan’s frustration. It would drive anyone to plant a bomb, now, wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t it?

He seems to lament the fact that the media, quite responsibly, called the suspect, Sami Hassoun, as a “Chicago man,” rather than identifying him by his religion. Presumably, looking at his Facebook page, he is Muslim since he did have a status saying “eid mubarak.” Still, Spencer seemed to not like the fact that the news reported him as he is: a Chicago man.

Once again, however, Robert Spencer’s “scholarship” shows in his total disregard for the facts. Had he bothered to even do a simple Google search, rather than just post the headline and move on, he would have found that this “Chicago man,” Sami Hassoun, had absolutely no religious motivation for his alleged attack:

Authorities said Hassoun wasn’t motivated by religious or political views but rather by a bizarre desire to undermine the mayor’s political support and allow an associate to take control of the city. He also hoped to profit from the scheme by being paid for his terrorism work by supporters, the charges alleged.

In fact, according to the authorities, Hassoun had even suggested that they blame the attacks on Muslim extremists:

Hassoun suggested the plotters attempt to put blame for the attack on Muslim extremists.

When undercover agents told Hassoun their group wanted to change how the U.S. treated people “back home,” Hassoun seemed uninterested in ideology.

“Mine is a different kind of concept than this,” Hassoun said. “We’re floating same boat, you know. … We’re doing the same thing, but everybody has their own interest. … The results of this is a benefit to everybody.”

So, this man had absolutely no religious motivation behind his plot to bomb Wrigleyville. He never mentioned Islam or “jihad,” or the Qur’an as his motivation. No “taqiyya,” or “kitman,” or any other term that Spencer uses to mislead the public. He told his informants why he wanted to commit terrorism:

Hassoun was critical of Daley, telling the informant that the mayor’s policies had weakened security in the city and once saying he wanted to foment a “revolution” in the city, according to the charges.

But, that doesn’t matter to Robert Spencer. It seems that if any criminal commits a crime and happens to be a Muslim, then “poof” he becomes a “Islamic Jihadist” bent upon destroying the West. Facts just don’t matter to the “scholar” Robert Spencer.