on the grounds that his homophobia is part of his religion.
But religions are just another set of ideas formulated by human beings and open to human discussion.
Tatchell says, "All people are worthy of respect - but not all ideas are."
Just because somebody wrote it in a book a millennia ago and called it a 'religion',
doesn't place it beyond discussion. If I write a book calling Sacranie a homophobe
and claim it was dictated to me by the Archangel Gabriel,
will Pitt defend it as my religious view, and damn everyone who disagrees as 'Johann-phobic'?"
"Islamophobia Watch - and the dense chunk of the hard left that adopts a similar approach -
is trying to redefine consistent atheism as a form of racism."
"Islamophobia-Watch .. is a blog designed to smear human rights activists who criticise the treatment of women, gays and lesbian, secularists and apostates in Middle Eastern countries; defame Muslims who are critical of aspects of their own faith community or Islamist politics; and Iranian political dissidents - usually left-wing women - who criticise the reactionary and patriarchal theocratic regime
Much of his time seems to be spent pouring vitriol on middle eastern dissidents who oppose the Islamist politics he promotes."
Comment points out that "Islamophobia Watch" is spreading Islamophobia:
"In fact, by encouraging Islamism in this country, he does everybody who lives here a great disservice. He encourages anger and fear in Muslims, by falsely representing any criticism of Islamist groups as an attack on Muslims generally. He encourages anger and fear among ordinary people, who see what the Islamist groups say and do. Can you imagine what people think about Muslims,
is held up as their representative?"
Islamophobia Watch, September 15, 2012, says that films that mock the Prophet Mohammed should be illegal.
- run by leftists or Islamists,
it's hard to tell. (And isn't that a sad comment on the left!)
I suspect Loonwatch is run by Islamists, though,
because of the bitterness with which they attack Muslim apostates like
"self-proclaimed turn coats from their Arab and Muslim identities".
Why would a non-Muslim care two cents
if a Muslim loses their faith and their Muslim identity?
Hence I suspect Loonwatch are Muslims who
don't have the honesty to say so.
I don't understand why the LoonWatch people are anonymous.
Counter-jihad people are obviously anonymous because of the attacks, arson, murders and death threats from Islamists.
But why would counter-counter-jihad people be anonymous?
Robert Spencer, 24 Oct 2010, challenges the anonymous cowards of LoonWatch to a public debate.
He mocks them for being anonymous:
"I use my real name, have received numerous death threats, and cannot appear in public without guards
What is "Danios of Loonwatch" afraid of? He knows that Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore can appear in public with no concern whatsoever, so why does he cower in the shadows?"
"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".
I suspect there is more to it than that.
Who is Danios?
What are his motivations?
How could someone hate the counter-jihad so much?
He condemns the jihad of Hamas and Hezbollah:
"Although I recognize the right of the Palestinian people to defend their land and resist occupation
... under no circumstances - none whatsoever - is one allowed to target and kill civilians."
Given that the Palestinians will
never do this (resist without targeting and killing civilians)
why does he still support them?
He is supporting imaginary Palestinians, not the real ones.
He seems opposed to sharia:
"Even if Hamas and Hezbollah were to categorically renounce such tactics (and back up their words with actions), I would still not support these groups, which - like the Israeli and Jewish groups I will discuss - hold extremist religious views."
"I'm a strong supporter of pluralistic, secular, liberal democracy, whereas Hamas supports an ultra-conservative Islamic "Sharia state.""
Is he opposed to sharia everywhere?
Will he condemn the
hundreds of millions of Muslims
who support it?
Given that the counter-jihad spends much of its time attacking sharia,
why does he dislike them so much?
If he opposes jihad and sharia, can he name opponents of jihad and sharia that he likes?
Could such exist?
Loonwatch, Sept 2012, on the lunatic Muslim riots in response to the
Innocence of Muslims film.
Loonwatch describes the riots as:
"surreal, like something out of a salivating Islamophobe's wildest dream."
But this is hardly the first time
lunatic Muslim mobs
have rioted in response to perceived "offence".
It happens all the time.
There is nothing strange about these riots.
There are weekly or monthly riots like this in places like Pakistan.
I suspect the Loonwatch guy does not read the news.
That is why he finds these riots unusual.
Loonwatch resists learning from this.
The writer does not draw the obvious conclusion - that if what actually happens in the world is
"a salivating Islamophobe's wildest dream",
then maybe the Islamophobes understand the world
LoonWatch is a hate site:
"Garibaldi" on LoonWatch
doesn't have the guts to give his own name,
but he works hard to track down where Robert Spencer lives and worships,
so that his Islamic co-religionists can kill him.
"Note that we do not give preferential treatment to nominees on the basis of ideology, becauise our goal is to highlight the authentic diversity of the Muslim blogosphere. So long as nominees consider themselves to be working in the best interests of Muslims and/or Muslim/non-Muslim relations, and are accepted as such by the bulk of their readers, they will be eligible for nomination to the BCA, in the spirit of the Qur'anic injunction to "compete, then, with one another in doing good works" (5:48)."
2010 Muslim blog awards.
Best Blog (nominated):
Best Writer (honorable mention):
Danios of Loonwatch.
Best non-Muslim blogger:
(Non-Muslim? Are you sure?)
are furious with Wafa Sultan for losing her faith in Islam.
I suspect that Loonwatch is an Islamist site,
because of the anger they direct at Islamic apostates.
Why would a secular leftist give a toss
if a Muslim loses their faith?
Latuff promotes his filthy violence and terror in my country, Ireland.
Just to be clear, in Latuff's world, the guy in the mask is the good guy.
It is no surprise that
Latuff supports the IRA terrorists
that have killed 2,000 people
in Northern Ireland and destroyed its economy.
Anyone fighting a democracy gets the thumbs up
More IRA support here.
CJ Werleman, 22 Jan 2017, calls for violence against counter-jihadist Robert Spencer.
Atheist Saudi woman,
who must stay anonymous or she will be killed,
complains, March 2017, that people like her get no support from the western left.
She says the western left are "racist" because they think people like her
"love being oppressed".
Proving her point, western leftist tosser
C.J. Werleman attacks her.
C.J. Werleman goes full jihad, Aug 2018.
"Israel does not have a right to defend itself against Palestinian resistance ...
Palestinians have every right to attack Israel by whatever means necessary."
He writes an entire article supporting jihad:
"Under international law, Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal, and Palestinians have a right to “armed struggle” against their illegal occupier – Israel - thus ipso facto Palestinians have a right to defend themselves against Israel, but Israel's right to defend itself against Palestinian resistance is not guaranteed in the same manner."
This is an Islamist site run by extremist group
It prints a "hit list" of "Islamophobes",
apostates from Islam,
media such as
and National Review,
and even leftists
such as Bill Maher.
Robert Spencer Watch
- run by leftists or Islamists,
I don't know.
But certainly not by people with any interest in the vast human suffering caused by
jihad and sharia around the world.
Elliott sneers at anti-jihad people for using terms like "taqiyya" and "shariah"
without (he claims) knowing what they mean.
He attempts to define these terms, using partial and whitewashed definitions from
(Saudi Arabia is a sharia state that oppresses its dhimmis
and funds global jihad.
Elliott can look up what these terms mean.)
Robert Spencer replies, 21 June 2011:
"Elliott purports to expose the ignorance of the various evil "right-wingers" he quotes, but he allowed himself to be played by Esposito, who left out of his explanations the aspects of the words that showed the "right-wingers" to be a lot closer to correct about Islam than Justin Elliott will ever be."
I would have to say that Elliott is a "dhimmi". (He can look up what that means.)
"Arabic for right-wingers"
was posted on LGF by
This is the
kind of useless
anti-counterjihad person you find on LGF these days,
since Charles Johnson had a breakdown and ruined his blog.
Colm Ó Broin
compares the counter-jihad to the Nazis.
That's the counter-jihad!
like to blame counterjihad people for violence that they never called for and do not praise.
e.g. See the new, far-left Charles Johnson
blaming Spencer and Geller for everything.
all the lefties in the world
blaming the counterjihad for Breivik.
In extreme cases, counterjihad people are even blamed for Islamic violence.
"Couple shot in NJ were targeted: cops", New York Post, August 17, 2011,
on the shooting of a Muslim couple while pushing their 3-year-old son in a stroller.
The wife dies.
The husband says the shooters were 3 men who shouted "slurs about terrorists".
Right from the start, there are code words showing that the cops know damn well this is not Islamophobia.
The Prosecutor says:
"this shooting clearly appears to be target specific and that there is not a continuing danger to the general public".
This would certainly not be true if there was an attacker at large shooting random Muslims.
Despite this obvious clue, activist Muslim student
implies Spencer and Geller are to blame.
Blood on their hands!
which is often quoted by anti-counterjihad people
to "prove" that Islam is peaceful: "For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being
for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth,
it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth."
which immediately follows it, and somehow is never quoted by the anti-counterjihad people: "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;"
Who I block on Twitter:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who:
(a) target my job,
(b) target my appearance, or:
(c) libel me.
Also, since 2016, abusive reporting has become a thing.
I was targeted with abusive reporting by
an Israel-hater pretending to be "Jewish".
So I now also block:
(d) any account that even hints that it reports its enemies,
(e) any Israel-hater that claims to be Jewish.
It is just self-defence.