This is a total strawman; the invasion of Iraq was based on faulty intelligence Iraqi women were not mentioned as a justification. Its true that the unique suffering of Afghan women was cited as justification for the Afghan war but that wasn’t an invasion, the US role in the war had more to do with crushing an organization synonymous with Al-Qaeda; the facts do not support LW’s strawman. There is a nasty argument among the far left to dismiss Islamist misogyny as “colonial feminism” or “propaganda” which is exactly what garibaldi is doing. Also if LW cannot even get the basic facts about the Afghan war right, they’re in no position to criticize it.

www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=693

“That is one of the reasons we’ve termed the bombing, invasion and occupation of Muslim lands, the Greater Islamophobia.”

Which is an incredibly stupid idea; does that mean that anyone going to war with a Christian majority country hates Christians? Besides I doubt loonwatch would condemn any state going to war with Israel as anti-Semitic, so again more hypocritical garbage from loonwatch. The only intervention that fits their template is the Iraq war, which wasn’t a Muslim state; its as stupid as claiming that intervention in the Balkans was ‘Christianophobia.’

“Interestingly, when one analyzes say…the number of women in positions of power in countries across the world, we see the percentages of women in parliament to be higher in many majority Muslim nations than in parts of the West. [These statistics also buttress the fact that more Muslim nations have had female leaders, (Presidents, Prime Ministers) than the USA!]“

One could bring that up to debunk the ideas that Islam is inherently sexist and anti-Democratic but LW’s argument is imbecilic; they are trying to dismiss Islamist misogyny with cherry picked examples.

“Below we have a list of countries whose percentages of women in parliament is higher than the USA, which ranks a dismal 71st.”

Which only means that women have not chosen to run for senate or other offices in the US. One commenter makes a good point:

“Let’s take Tunisia for example, since this article placed emphasis on Tunisia. Well it may be true that Tunisia has more women in parliament than say the U.S. (which doesn’t have a parlimentary system of govt to begin with) such an argument misses a key point. The overall general women population in Tunisia have limited access to the political process or political rights.

Tunisia was ranked 76th overall best place for women and out of a score of 100 it only received a 28.9 in the category entitled “politics.” This indicates that only a minority of the women population in Tunisia have access to the political process or political rights.”

See the full list here:

“*Afghanistan (I have added an asterisk here because this nation is under foreign occupation and the results for many are not considered legitimate.”

The majority of Afghans support the military presence and its not an occupation since there was no invasion; the use of the word ‘legitimate’ is chilling but not surprising since loonwatch gets angry over taliban corpses getting peed on but remain when the taliban kills people. The taliban were the only ‘foreign occupation’ in Afghanistan after the soviets; they were imposed in Afghanistan by Pakistan under Bhutto (one of the many reasons why anyone citing her in an attempt to dismiss Islamist misogyny is a complete dolt).

” However it is still interesting that Afghanis, some of the most vilified people in the world today when it comes to views of women vote for them at a higher percentage than Americans.”

The loonwatch forest of strawmen continues to grow; first of all Afghanis are the names of a currency Afghanistan’s population are referred to as Afghans, this goes to show how ignorant LW bloggers actually are, second, the idea of trying to dismiss criticism of the taliban as ‘vilification’ of Afghans is too stupid for words.

“Tunisia is not a surprise to many who know the country, but lets put these numbers into perspective. The Islamist party Ennahda won elections, they are known as “moderates,” but within the media, especially the Right we see an effort to translate Ennahda’s victory into a harbinger for the repression of women’s rights and other usual hoopla associated with Right-wing anti-Islam rhetoric.”

Ennahda passed a law stating that the Tunisian head of state can only be a Muslim and is heavily anti-Semitic even Juan Cole voiced concern, imagine if Israel were to pass a similar law can you imagine the wailing from LW? Putting aside their hypocrisy and praise for anti-Semites that isn’t a reason to view the Tunisian revolution as a mistake; but it is a reason to condemn Ennahda and support those trying to reform the government.

“Here are two Western nations who you’d think would have done better in the numbers and who wax eloquent about “women’s rights,” even using it as a pretext to bomb and invade nations:”

Once again the “pretext” claim is complete garbage as I’ve already shown, the rest of his argument is moronic the fact that Pakistan has more females in office just means that more have chosen to run for office it doesn’t mean that Pakistan, a country where a Christian woman could be murdered by the state for drinking from a well, has a better record on womens rights than the US. Their take on Pakistan becomes even more obscene given that they have seriously argued that anyone critical of Pakistan is an ‘Islamophobe’ while holding up anti-Semites as ‘critics of Israel.’ For example if I was to avoid running for office in a small town, it would be pretty stupid to argue that that the fact that no one voted for me somehow proves that the population of that town hates my guts. There is nothing stopping American women from running for office or being elected; the fact that few have chosen not to do so doesn’t mean that Kazakhstan or Indonesia (which has a high rate of female genital mutilation) treat women better than the US.

“Of course some of the above Muslim nations still have low percentages, however my purpose here is not to draw conclusions but to add to the empirical evidence when it comes to the discussion of women, women’s role in Muslim societies and women’s rights.”

Sure you could bring it up to show that Islam doesn’t turn people into sexist beasts but the idea of using to dismiss misogyny is obscene, the list they use shows that Cuba has more women in parliament than Switzerland does that mean that a dictatorship like Cuba is a paradise while Switzerland is a sexist hell? Of course not, it just means that few Swiss women stood for elections or lost in elections. Its about as stupid as arguing that the PIRA terrorists were a feminist group since gosh they had female fighters. Perhaps loonwatch will support Ennahda’s Hungarian counterpart Jobbik? After all Jobbik has a prominent female politico and the party’s views on Israel and Iran are virtually identical to LW opinions:

“Gyongyosi further told the Chronicle, “I always support the position of a threatened country.

Iran is in the center of a Middle East axis that Israel and the US want to subjugate and keep under their control. Iran is an extremely peaceful country and never started a war, unlike Israel, which has declared wars on anything and everybody around it.””

http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=256767

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/17/hypocrisy-and-syria/

Hypocrisy in counterpunch jargon is a synonym for ‘bullshit-relativist-whataboutery’ cheap diversion tactics are their favorite method of defending crimes; its a five year old’s non-argument that can be used to defend any action.

“Few spectacles have been more surreal than senior US officials – starting with the President, the Secretary of State and the US ambassador to the UN – solemnly lecturing Assad and his beleaguered Syrian government on the need to accommodate rebel forces whose GCC sponsors are intent on slaughtering the ruling Alawite minority or driving them into the sea.”

Right off the bat Cockburn is content to lie; the Syrian resistance is ill organized and has expressed no desire to slaughter Alawis whereas CP does support Hamas and supported neo-chetniks both of whom tried to slaughter entire populations. Cockburn’s attempt to paint Assad as a bold defender of Alawis against demonic rebels and an international conspiracy sounds straight out of Syrian state media.

“In 1993, the first year of the Clinton administration, federal agents launched an armed assault on a religious group in a compound outside Waco, Texas. The Feds deemed the compound and the Branch Davidians therein, headed by David Koresh, an affront to their authority. After seven weeks, Attorney General Janet Reno concluded that negotiation with the besieged Christian fundamentalists was useless and ordered an assault. Seventy-six Branch Davidians were burned alive. Autopsies showed that five children were among those shot to death by federal agents. The outcome was widely endorsed by the national press and Attorney General Reno commended for her resolve.”

This sounds identical to the rants of Cockburn’s fellow moral relativist; Timothy McVeigh who used whatabouterish excuses to justify his actions, its like a rapist claiming he should go free because a different rape occurred in the 90s, its immoral and illogical. If Alexander the not so great was to have the shit beaten out of him, I doubt he would accept an excuse that the guy who beat him up should be let go because of a 90s beating; because only his pain matters to him. Cockburn’s whining about the 60s and 70s shows how he lives in the past and the comparison doesn’t work; if the US at that point was not a fascist state run by a scientologist crime family who slaughtered protesters en masse by the thousands.

“No one could doubt that determined separatist activity or armed challenges to the government of the United States are always met with immediate, overwhelming and lethal ferocity.”

See above, second of all this isn’t even true: separatists are involved in the Alaskan state government they haven’t been purged and sent off to gulags, neo-confederates can spew their poison as much as they want, the michigan militia can hold drills, the SVR’s following hasn’t been massacred by the thousands; Cockburn is a dullard and a moral cretin.

After a weak attempt to disguise his support for the regime, he states that “there is every reason to press Assad towards reform” thus he support a dictatorship modeled after nazism.

*Claims that Hitler will be proven right.
*Praise for the protocols of the elders of Zion.
*That the credit crunch was a Jewish conspiracy.
*That the holocaust is a “religion.”
*Claims that Hitler was “provoked” by a “Jewish lobby” into “fighting back.”

DV claims to love Muslims, the content says another thing, this is a reproduced media lens article which illustrates the banal network that DV belongs to from dancing on a mass grave, which promotes Bosnian genocide denial:

“Holocaust denial falls into a very special category. It is inextricably linked to anti-Semitic hatred, and has been used as a form of violence by other means — a way of continuing to demonise and attack the victims of one of history’s worst crimes. Holocaust denial is not rejected because it is wrong to question and doubt claims of genocide. It is rejected because of the extreme racism and hatred motivating the doubt in this particular instance.”

Except the Bosnian genocide sprang from the same roots of Christian supremacism, it was an attempt to finish what axis collaborators in WWII had begun; next they make the stupid attempt to present genocide denial as healthy skepticism which is akin to citing pedophilia as example of sex positivism.

“we have written virtually nothing about Srebrenica.”

Huh.

“SGB Editorial Notice: The so called “Media Lens” is a Srebrenica genocide denial website operated by two far-right extremists, David Edwards and David Cromwell; Olly Maw serves as a webmaster. Although all three of them are irrelevant dirt-bags who support Nazi Serb fascists, it is important to expose them, because genocide denial is a form of hate speech. Srebrenica Genocide Blog is a high traffic blog and we refrain from linking to extremist web sites who support fascist Serbian war criminals and their anti-American sympathisers. However, there is exception to every rule, and it is only fair that we publish a follow-up response of George Monbiot to Media Lens. George Monbiot is a man of honor, integrity, and he speaks the truth. Here is George’s response to hate speech disseminated by Media Lens and similar fascist Serb supporters:”

http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2011/06/george-monbiot-v-media-lens.html

“Herman and Peterson, then, are +not+ denying that mass killings took place at Srebrenica. They also do not accept the figure cited by Kamm and others, but that they are perfectly entitled to do. The point is that while critics are free to take issue with their facts, sources and arguments, it is nonsense to accuse them of sins that are the “moral equivalent of Holocaust denial”. And to associate us with Holocaust denial on the grounds that we publish their material is desperate indeed.”

Monbiot has already written an excellent to this:

“In fact they ARE denying that the great majority of the killings took place, even though these killings are as well-attested as such events can be. It’s a grotesque example of revisionism, which they have entirely failed to justify.

You continue as follows:

“They also do not accept the figure cited by Kamm and others”

The figure “cited by Kamm and others” is in fact the 8,000 which they have just dismissed. It’s not just cited by Kamm and others: it’s accepted by everyone except some extreme Serb nationalists and a small group of wilful deniers as the correct total, with a possible margin of error of roughly 300 in either direction. Yet Herman and Peterson insist that the total is “only” hundreds or “possibly as many as a thousand or more”. That is what their “not accepting” the figure you ascribe to “Kamm and others” means: straightforward denial of the existence of the great majority of the victims. It is this that you say they are “perfectly entitled to do.””

They also ignore that virtually every genocide denier admits that killings occured neo-nazis admit that people were killed in camps, Turkish nationalists admit that the Ottomans killed Armenians; genocide denial is denying that the killings constitute genocide and denying the scale which is what media lens and DV have done.

Bosnian genocide denial illustrates how anti-Muslim prejudice is easy to find through out most political camps, but like a young gang banger starting out DVees try to outdo their colleagues. Nazi apologia? Thats too old hat for them, DVees prefer to deny the Rwanda genocide much like global research; DVees don’t even try to disguise their support for genocide with an article titled ‘the rwanda genocide fabrications.’ Like gang members DVees are a cowardly lot thus I doubt they would have the chutzpah to make their case in a room full of survivors, people who the DVees wish had been exterminated.

The first sentence puts the words genocide in Rwanda in quotes chomsky style; like children in an FLDS compound DVees strive to imitate their elders. And we’re off with claims like:

“To say that Des Forges was “amongst the first voices calling for the killings to be declared genocide” in 1994 is an Orwellian ruse. The genocide label applied by Alison Des Forges and certain human rights bodies in May of 1994 was misdirected, used to accuse and criminalize only the majority Hutu people and the remnants of the decapitated Habyarimana government (much as the genocide and war crimes accusations have been selectively applied against President Omar al-Bashir in Sudan).”

None of the above remotely qualifies as an argument; first we have an abuse of Orwell to justify the very sort of evil he condemned second we have baseless easily dismissed claims and third a support for sudanese genocidists, its evidence of schizophrenia but not that Hutu power genocidaires were victims. DV’s fiction is about as convincing as the FLDS apologist claim that:

“Warren Jeffs is no more a bigot than I am.”

“Lisa Sandberg or Goebbels?”

Well enough of that cult lets return to the cult that is the subject of this post, they cite Wayne Madsen as a source describing him as “U.S. intelligence insider”, yeah right. Its true Madsen had a military career as did many other kooks (such as lunatic William Cooper) but he isn’t a reliable source or a sane man. His wikipedia profile (they’ll put anyone on there) shows:

*That he is a 9/11 truther.
*That he is a birther.
*That Spitzer’s legal troubles were the product of a Jewish conspiracy.
*His work on the neo-nazi site rense.com.

DV then goes onto CnP Madsen’s wild fantasies about a western plot for Rwanda’s natural resources, yet anyone remotely familar with the country knows that it “has few natural resources to exploit and a small, uncompetitive industrial sector.” Yet DV makes claims about “massive oil reserves” “petroleum sector investment” and cabals of corporations like “eritage Oil and Gas, H Oil & Minerals, PetroSA, Tullow Oil.” You can imagine the planning session “heehee guys, lets coordinate rival corporations and governments for control a tiny obscure country with with no valuable resources! Muahahaha!”

Next the reports of the genocide as dismissed as part of a “western propaganda system” other evidence free claims that can and should be dismissed include the libel that HRW are a CIA front, trials of genocidaires are labeled “show trials.” The rest is pretty much rewording of the same anti-human fiction the genocide is described as an “inversion of truth” with repeating the imbecilic claims of “U.S. government and powerful corporations involved in the plunder” of non-existent resources. The country’s main export is coffee; I’m sure that the CIA, MOSSAD, MI6 and oil companies share my love for lattes but I doubt they like coffee to engage in a massive conspiracy for it.

Hacking out material that is false, vile and against basic decency isn’t that hard; you reword what you’ve already written and cite lunatics you found via google who share your views are authoritarian sources. The next ‘expert’ is one Charles Onana described as an ‘author’ of exposes; all it takes is a few minutes to find that he is a notorious genocide denier. After smearing Des Forges, the DVee behind this foul article blames the genocide on the RPF next they cite Ferdinand Nanimana as a source who was actually convicted of participated in the genocide. Then the DVee rants about “genocide fabrications” “victors justice” “disinformation conduits” and predictably the claim that any mention of the genocide is an attack on all Hutus; I’m shocked that that number 1 genocide denier non-argument was played so late. Genocide deniers frequently claim that Kagame shot down Habyarimana’s (with CIA help of course) yet:

“Paul Kagamé ‘cleared’ of part in 1994 downing of Rwandan president’s plane
Fatal missile killing President Habyarimana and triggering genocide likely fired by militant Hutus, according to new inquiry”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/17/new-evidence-rwanda-inquiry-kagame

Who is the next ‘expert’? Why Christopher Black, only the most prominent Rwanda genocide denier; what an interesting pattern, Chrissy’s libel against Forges is presented as unquestionable fact. I would continue but the article stretches on and on; reading it is not unlike being stranded in a remote desert trying to reach a watering hole fifty miles away with bleeding, infected feet.

Eric Walberg’s rants are all over DV, who blames Jews for anti-Semitism:

“Poor old Eric Walberg. He graduates from the Pushkin Institute in Moscow only to see the Soviet Union collapse before his very eyes. He’s then turfed from Uzbekistan, where he’d worked in the office of President Islam Karimov, known for boiling his enemies in oil. Writes euphoric public-relations copy for that gathering of “anti-war activists” with Hamas and Hezbollah in Cairo last May only to be outed by his former associates in Canada, where his former editor at Peace Magazine disclosed to me a few months back that yes, Walberg is one and the same person as Simon Jones, from whom we learn that among the Jews’ many unheralded accomplishments are the First World War, Russia’s communist revolution, and the “growing alienation and humiliation of the Islamic world. . . right up to the still mysterious collapse of the WTC.”

http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2007/12/hes-back-eric-jews-deserved-it-walberg.html

In heart of darkness Eric comes in support of the taliban describing them as “freedom fighters battling the non-Muslim foreign occupiers — the real “enemy” — who invaded the country illegally and have killed hundreds of thousands of resistance fighters and innocent civilians illegally.” He uses the word ‘murder’ to describe the killing of taliban combatants.

There was no invasion of Afghanistan:

“Substantial foreign ground combat forces–including Canadian–only entered the country after the Taliban had been deposed by indigenous Afghan forces. Those foreign troops entered with the agreement of the Northern Alliance, still the UN-recognized government of the country.”

http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=693

There’s no popular support for the taliban (a pakistani proxy) but these are facts for a relatively sane critic of the Afghan war, Eric no mask of neutrality:

“Western readers have become numbed into accepting the code words “enemy” and “insurgents”, ignoring the underlying fact that the Taliban are still the legitimate government”

That’s outright support for the taliban; DV has probably only avoided holocaust denial because of PR reasons.

Its a bit shocking that the Belarus regime isn’t as popular as Castro’s island prison, here we have a leftover from the Soviet bloc complete with a KGB! In ‘Belarus Prepares to Face NATO’ a nasty character named Gearóid Ó Colmáin by whoever whelped him shills for a regime whose brutality he will never experience. Colmain starts off by uncritically post Lukashenko’s pro-Gadaffi comments equating NATO with nazism claiming that the regime “is perhaps more qualified than any other country to make allusions to Nazism.” Gerry then claims that “the worst atrocities of the Second World War were carried out in Belarus” yes he thinks it was worse than the holocaust.

“In fact, the resistance of the Belarusian people against their Nazi hoards was so heroic, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR voted in favour of a proposal to include the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic as a separate seat in the General Assembly of the United Nations after the Second World War.”

Pardon my lack of Slavophile tears but that doesn’t begin to excuse the crimes of a dictatorship; you might as well go into patriotic rant about Boer suffering under the British to defend apartheid’s legacy, besides Lukashenko has praised Hitler.

“The past 16 years of Lukashenko’s presidency have seen steady economic growth, rising wages and full employment. Belarus has one of the lowest rates of inequality in the world, spends up to 6 percent of GDP on education and scientific research. Education and health care are free.”

Gerry is a blatant liar like anyone else writing for DV.

“Experts say the economic crisis was on its way even before last week’s deadly terror blast rocked Mr. Lukashenko’s 17-year-old regime and rattled the population, mainly due to deteriorating relations with the Kremlin, Belarus’s traditional sponsor.

Promises of financial aid from the European Union disappeared after Lukashenko launched a brutal – ongoing – crackdown against the independent media and his political opposition over allegations that he rigged the December polls in which he was re-elected to a fourth term with an improbable 80 percent of the votes.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2011/0418/Belarus-economy-appears-to-unravel-in-wake-of-terror-attack-crackdown

Perhaps the baghdad bob hat is on his deformed head a little too tight.

“The socially-oriented economy of Belarus maintains close links with other countries resisting the dictates of the New World Order such as Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and, until recently, Libya.”

Yes Colmain supports many of the worst dictatorships on the map (despite his godwin’s law schtick the Syrian regime was modeled on nazism) because of a conspiracy theory.

“Needless to say, Lukashenko’s determination to serve the interests of his own people over the interests of Western finance capitalists has resulted in a sustained and unrelenting campaign of lies, calumny and defamation from the global corporate media empires.”

And more lies; the only interesting thing is that DV has no trouble lying to their own audience, DV are the only people who have less respect for their followers than me.

“Lukashenko’s popularity in Belarus has long been the target of a heavily funded opposition from within the country, composed of so-called ‘civil society’ activists and ‘journalists’ funded by the National Endowment for Democracy in the United States, an organisation which works closely with the CIA to overthrow foreign governments who are not subservient to US interests.”

To quote Jon Lajoie Gerry’s man ‘shenko is about as popular “as an STD” indeed Gerry’s rants do seem similar to material produced by people with syphilis. The next few paragraphs go on to paint an alternate universe where ‘shenko is beloved by people he claims ownership over and the victim of a CIA plot which makes no sense; there’s certainly little to be gained for the US by “installing a subservient leader in Minsk” if ‘shenko and his fan club (of which Gerry is prez) thinks that the CIA stays up all night plotting to gain control over a tiny stalinist throwback they’re flattering themselves.

The next portion of Gerry’s stomaching churning reads like a translation of Belarus state media with the title “The Great Conspiracy against the Republic of Belarus” paints protesters as foreign agents, the proof? Why its an article “published in the Minsk Times” that in Gerryverse ” proved that many of the youths used by Western intelligence in the riots had been trained in far-right training camps in the Ukraine” who were employed by multiple “western intelligence agencies” this makes Israel Shamir look subtle. Next we have paragraphs copied and pasted from belarus.by; official state media and denial of Gaddafi’s atrocities with unsourced Russian anecdotes. Gerry apparently forgets which dictator he’s shilling for (due to meth possibly) he portrays Gaddafi’s libya as a paradise lost “bombed into the stone age” by NATO and that rebels “slaughtered every man, woman and child” all of which is comically untrue. Then its back to Belarus (which Gerry probably couldn’t even find on a map), he ends his miserable little rant with a typical nazi comparison; classic projection. The article includes a link to Gerry’s blog, here are a few quotes:

“In fact, Stalin had never been a dictator.”

“The Trotskyite myth of Stalinist villainy was taken up by British intelligence agent George Orwell and subsequently re-layed by the film director Ken Loach.”

That’s the sort of mental illness that find a home at dissident voice.

“I was going to write an article about this topic, but then Prof. Saree Makdisi beat me to it on Salon.”

Heavens forbid if he were to focus on victims; a category which taliban members do not fit into.

” Although I find U.S. Marines urinating on dead Afghans to be morally repugnant”

Admittedly this isn’t a completely crazy view to hold; someone posting something like this isn’t necessarily a taliban fan but just has high standards but that cannot be said of Danios who reveals his pro-taliban stance with this:

“….it is not as morally repugnant as the killing of said Afghans.”

In other words danios sees killing taliban members as “morally repugnant” which is just as insane and depraved as describing people who killed chetniks or members of the Imperial Japanese army in self defense as “morally depraved” people, obviously anyone saying something like would be an apologist and supporter of those hordes.

” It’s bad publicity and takes away from the very important work of killing, bombing, and occupying Afghans”

Its standard Taliban apologia to present the coalition as the main killers of Afghans and the taliban as a little ragtag team; when in fact the majority of Afghan civilian deaths (which doesn’t include the pre-war hazara genocide) were caused by the taliban. Danios cannot be dismissed as a pacifist with a flawed view of Afghanistan; genuine humanitarians get angry at clerofascists not those who kill them. His language chose is virtual identical to those who try to present the taliban as a heroic ‘resistance’.

“The most recent BBC poll of Afghans showed that 83% think that it was either very or mostly good that the Taliban were overthrown. 69% regard the Taliban as ‘the biggest danger in our country’ and only six percent of the population would like to see them as their rulers.”

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/02/09/moazzam-begg-taliban-supporter/

Once again, Loonwatch strictly monitors comments; if someone makes a comment and the moderator does not critically respond he supports that comment, the first comment is a pro-taliban rant written by a ‘nur alia’ it was posted at ‘January 15th, 2012 at 8:05 pm’ still no response from danios who hates Israel but loves the taliban. The latest LW post celebrates MLK for exposing “the futility of hate, the absurdness of it, while also reminding us that there is much work to be done to reach a dream that has not been understood or realized” hilarious coming from a site supportive of taliban and a certain anti-civil rights demagogue. Predictably they praise King for claiming that “the USA is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” which is false, the greatest purveyors of violence at that time were the USSR and PRC.

“Taliban fighters cut the breasts of a woman who was breastfeeding her child and asked other women to eat the pieces, in a gory incident highlighted in a report on the abuse of women in the militancy-hit tribal belt bordering Afghanistan.”

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/taliban-cut-nursing-womans-breast-asked-others-to-eat-pieces-unbacked-report/888403

I agree with loonwatch’s description of Geller as a “hate-mongering-attention-seeking loon blogger” but those words also fit Bob Pitt of ‘Islamophobia watch’ who loonwatch continues to use a use as a source (bear in mind they have condemned anti-Muslim bloggers for using hate sites as sources, a standard they do not apply to themselves). The LW blogger goes onto post something very imbecilic:

” I guess this answers the puzzle of her “LOVE” necklace, she “loves” when Muslims are killed, urinated on or otherwise mutilated.”

This is as disgusting and abhorrent as a Serbian fascist arguing that (hypothetical) partisans or BiH army members who relieved themselves on a dead chetnik were guilty of a ‘hate crime’ against Orthodox Christianity. Loonwatch claims to be opposed to the taliban yet they get teary eyed over the thought of dead combatants belonging to a genocidal organization getting micturated on. Bear in mind that emperor is arguing that taliban are representative of Muslims (when in fact they’re a death cult who go whatever they’re leaders tell them to) a key Islamophobic trope. Simultaneously LW produced an article condemned the Israeli far right, while I do not support them they are obviously not even close to Israel’s level, so while loonwatch continues to portray Israel as being pure evil they produce material dripping with pro-taliban sympathy; who get a pass because they claim the label of Muslim or because they’re not Jewish or both.

“How sick and sadistic can Geller get? Why doesn’t her best friend Robert Spencer condemn her for such asinine comments?”

Admittedly I don’t think its something to celebrate online, but acting as if its some sort of moral outrage is absurd and reveals sympathy for the taliban.

“Geller couches her approval and “love” of such actions by implying that those being urinated on deserve it because…they were “jihadis” and “Taliban.”

Which they were, it seems as if LW is trying to deny what these guys actually were and ignoring that pissing on a corpse doesn’t hurt anyone or violate anyone’s rights. What do they expect? A tomb shrine where taliban dead are preserved? I’m sure they’d like that along with Pakistan reinstating the taliban into power.

“She then trumps out the Nazi analogy, saying,”

LW constantly compares Israel to nazi Germany and repeatedly condemns Israeli actions; yet they don’t consider the Taliban to be comparable to the nazis and when they do mention the taliban its in a post filled with sympathy for the taliban not their victims. Next LW uncritically CnPs as a CAIR press release bashing the marines as “disgusting and immoral” it would be condescending to explain why expressing contempt for people via urination who in life tried to kill you, an entire Muslim population and enslave people is not “digusting” or “immoral.” Don’t get me wrong I’m not supportive of their actions which I fear could be used as a recruiting tool but to act as if this is some sort of heinous war crime reveals taliban support.

Loonwatch’s comments are heavily moderated which means they share blame for vile racist comments like this:

“Does Pamela Geller know that Nazi prisoners of war used to be treated better than Black US service men.”

Other comments include whining about how the talibans are “human too” and how we must see “their human side” this is from people who think Israelis are pure evil yet sympathize with taliban members; thats LW’s audience.

This make no sense even at first glance, no US president cited Islamophobic texts as justification for war besides if Islamophobia really drove US military actions Iraq wouldn’t have been invaded, any real neo-crusader would want to keep a non-religious anti-Muslim state on the map.

“We see this quite clearly in the jingoistic rhetoric against Iran, a Muslim country that is portrayed as being inherently violent and warlike. This is then flipped around, using the argument that we must attack them before they attack us.”

Lets examine this for insight into the depravity of leftists sympathetic to Islamism (Danios is the guy who defend Qaradawi) because they the US might go to war with Iran they are willing to defend a vile theocratic regime.

“Yet, this is a Myth–the Mother of all Myths. It is the United States that has been waging wars of aggression, not Iran. Ahmed Rehab challenged Bill O’Reilly on this point by asking him: “How many countries has Iran attacked in the past 50 years?” The answer is, of course, zero.”

Once again Iran’s holy war against the Kurdish nation.

“Meanwhile, the United States and her “stalwart ally” Israel have attacked numerous Muslim countries, as I recently portrayed in this graphic: “

One could argue that danios’ graphic is merely an attempt to explain anti-americanism among Muslim masses, yet the ‘they’ in those questions never refer to peaceful Muslim masses but terrorists.

” In other words, there were only 21 calendar years in which the U.S. did not wage any wars.”

Awesome, we’re a proud warrior race just like the Tharks!

“When we look at the present situation (see map above) and our violent past (see timeline below), is it not a bit hypocritical of us to point the finger at Muslims? Whenever I hear “good Judeo-Christian American patriots” telling me how violent Muslims are and how Islam supposedly endorses Perpetual War–I cannot help but think of how their own “Judeo-Christian nation” has been locked in perpetual warfare since its inception.”

This is about as stupid as Jeffrey Goldberg digging through Iranian history to find cherry picked items (such as 20th century slavery) to bash Iran with.

“The U.S. was born out of ethnic cleansing, a violent process that had started long before 1776 and would not be complete until 1900. “

Completely false and predictable since promoting claims about Indians are the number 1 arrow in the anti-American quiver; if we accept Danios’ claim Japan was founded on the ethnic cleansing of Ainu.

” In other words, more than half of America’s existence (about 53%) has been marked by the active process of ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population, which was ultimately all but destroyed.”

Completely false, any historian will tell you that most died of diseases and the actual views of the founders can hardly be compared to evil ethnic cleansers. Danios’ distortions also require us to view Indians as a monolith which doesn’t work; the Choctaw were generally well treated, their downfall came as a result of taking the side of the Confederacy. Indeed many of the worst confederate war crimes were committed by Choctaws, does that mean that we can say that the Choctaw nation was founded on the poison spring massacre?

“In truth, the ultimate point of rest and happiness for [the Indians] is to let our settlements and theirs meet and blend together, to intermix and become one people…”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1803

“If the Islamophobes insist that the Armenian Genocide, which took place in the span of eight years, defines the Ottoman Empire (which existed for over 600 years, meaning the Armenian Genocide lasted only 1% of its existence), then would they be consistent and use this logic to argue that the ethnic cleansing of the American Indians (which spanned more than a century and a quarter, or 53% of America’s existence) defines the United States?”

This is borderline Armenian genocide denial and a very stupid argument, the Indian wars are more comparable to the Ottoman conquests of Christian lands there are striking similarities between the reservation and millet systems and that process defined the bulk of Ottoman history so in fact Danios has it in reverse. There’s no comparison between the Armenian genocide and the Indian wars, only a liar or an apologist would make such a stupid argument.

“In the start, the country expanded by occupying American Indian lands, portraying its indigenous population as inherently violent and warlike.”

Except the US does not officially portray Muslims as evil; like most of his arguments Danios’ case rests on falsehoods.

“American belligerence towards Mexico heated up in the 1800′s, culminated in the U.S. annexation of half of Mexico’s land (leaving right-wingers today to wonder “why so many Mexicans are in our country?”), and seamlessly transitioned into the Banana Wars of the early 1900′s.”

This is an amusing case of hypocrisy, Danios supports Ron Paul perhaps the most anti-Hispanic candidate in politics yet here he is parroting the Chicano side of the Mexican-American war that ignores the complexities of that conflict.

“The Cold War had not even ended before the U.S. found its new target: the Middle East and the Muslim world. By 1990, the U.S. was already bombing Iraq in the First Gulf War–a country that the U.S. would go on to bomb for over two decades. Needing another boogieman now that the Soviet Union was dead, the U.S. turned to “radical Islam” as the enemy.”

If thats true why did the US attack one of the few secular state in the region? If the US wants control of the mid east why wage an expensive war in Central Asia? The last sentence is heavily offensive, September 11th clearly proves that Islamism isn’t a “boogieman” and communists never attacked the US. Claims of “another boogieman” are widespread throughout extremist screeds written in support of Islamism.

“It should be noted that American plans to dominate the Middle East date back to at least the end of World War II”

See above, also the US has plans for most events this only shows that he doesn’t understand how the military works.

“Now that the U.S. has followed through on this plan, do you think “radical Islam” is really “an existential threat” just as American Indians were “fierce savages” waging “an exterminating war” against the “peaceful inhabitants” of the United States; or how Mexicans were “violent” and “terrorized” people; or how Central Americans were “dangerous bandits”?”

This is nothing more than an attempt to defend Islamism, none of those groups above committed an attack on par with 9/11.

“The rampant Islamophobia that abounds today is part of a long tradition of vilifying, Other-izing, and dehumanizing the indigenous populations of lands that need to controlled.”

Once again material on sites like jihad watch are not official US material their goals are contrary to American policy, no US official wants to retake Constantinople and nuke Mecca. Danios also seems to be implying that groups like the taliban are hapless innocents ‘villified’ by a conspiracy.

” The Muslim world is being bombed, invaded, and occupied by the United States not because of radical Islam or any inherent flaw in themselves. Rather, it is being so attacked because it is in the path of the American juggernaut, which is always in need of war.”

This is complete garbage; Iraq (only Iraq war fits Danios’ template) was one of the few states without an Islamic government, if the taliban were practicing genuine Islam that is a very serious case against his arguments.

“President Barack Obama repeated the now infamous words of George W. Bush, declaring: “We are at war…” Yes, and we have been, ever since 1776.”

What’s his source? Why its the anti-Semitic anti-Muslim prison planet; one of the most prominent hate sites on the net.

“To put this into greater perspective, Iran has not invaded a country since 1795, which was 216 years ago. (h/t LW’s Ilisha)”

“Khomeini’s regime declared a holy war on the Kurdish people”

http://www.unpo.org/article/10360

Danios’ sources include Chetnik apologist Noam Chomsky; because anti-Americanism not genuine opposition to anti-Muslim hatred drives loonwatch.

Loonwatch predictably launched an attack on Hitchens after his death describing him as “a neo-Con with blood on his hands.”

Loonwatch has praised Tariq Ramadan and Erdogan describing them as “representing the best of west” yet Ramadan praised Jihadis from Algeria to Chechnya “on every battlefield” Erdogan is currently occupying Iraqi lands, waging endless war against Kurds and occupying Cyprus thus by their own standards LW has “blood on its hands.”

Interesting: LW has compared Israel to nazi Germany but mocks the reality that Iran is a theocracy.

“As for the Iranian people, angry mobs are often shown in the streets, burning American flags and shouting “Death to America!”

Maybe in the 80s but the overhyped and dead Green movement has become the media face of Iranian people.

“No wonder it is easy to convince Americans that Iranians are consumed by hatred and eager to reduce American cities to rubble.”

Their source for this blatant lie? The hate site antiwar.com, which is features Bosnian genocide denial, praise for Axis Japan and revisionism in favor of Nazi Germany, the particular is written by hate monger Justin Ramaindo, the same guy who blames the holocaust on Poles for “wanting to keep Danzig.” Interesting for a site claiming to oppose anti-Muslim bigotry to use a site that promotes Christo-Slavist fundamentalism and the denial of a Muslim genocide.

“A journalist from the Christian Science Monitor confirmed that the affection Iranians have for Americans is not confined to secular liberals”

According to polls 51% have a favorable view of the American people while 49% have a negative view.

“The regime has always capitalized on legitimate grievances against Western foreign policy to rally Iranians against America”

The claim that the US and Israel are going to bomb Iran plays very nicely into Mullah hands.

“Paradoxically, the US is largely responsible for setting back Iranian democracy and self-rule by decades. In 1953, the US and Britain overthrew Iran’s democracy, imposed the tyrannical Shah of Iran as the new leader, and divided up the country’s oil wealth among themselves. “

I’ve already gone over this before what the hey,  the coup was overwhelmingly supported by the clergy and much of Iran’s population blaming the theocracy on the US is about delusional as blaming Apartheid on the British.

“ The Iranian Hostage Crisis enraged Americans, and spawned Iranophobia, a special strain of fear and hatred that has never entirely faded from public memory. ”

Yet they provide no evidence that anti-Iranian sentiment is widespread in the US, just one pic of a some guy with a sign.

“ The US supported and armed Saddam Hussein, who was an ally at the time. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed during the Iran-Iraq War. “

A blatant lie:

“Who armed Saddam? The short answer is that, contrary to standard mythology, it wasn’t the US. …Yes, I know there is a pre-fabricated geopolitical morality play into which Saddam Hussein is supposed to fit, playing the role of just one more pro-American dictator, so that everything he ever did is really (you guessed it) the fault of the US. The complication is that in real life, he doesn’t fit into this scenario, and no amount of mindless parroting of the standard clichés will make them less erroneous. This is ideological mystification, not analysis or serious argument…..Saddam’s weapons came overwhelmingly from the Soviet Union & other Soviet Bloc countries (69% during this period), followed by France (13%) and China (12%) and a string of smaller suppliers.”

http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2003/03/who-armed-saddam-some-reality-checks.html

In other countries that are today allies of the IRI, armed Iraq to kill Iranians.

“As much as Iranians despise their current regime and adore Americans on a personal level, they are united in the opposition to foreign intervention. If the US attacks Iran, Iranians will rally around the flag. ”

Agreed, my stance toward Iran is basically “not my country, not my problem” my chief concern is how American discourse have been poisoned by extremist arguments and apologia.

“Like the people of Iran, most Americans support diplomacy and are opposed to war. While it’s true that most Americans don’t reciprocate the love Iranians feel for them, it is largely because they glimpse into Iranian society exclusively through the corporate media. ”

The first contains a hyperlink to the hate site globalresearch, all the poll shows it that most Americans hate the regime not Iranians. Corporate media? Thats the classic card used by people who run fringe hate sites like globalresearch.

*Updates

From “Umm, Iran, Can You, Like, Give Back Our Drone Please”

“So, let me get this straight: the U.S. has been using surveillance from stealth drones to bomb and assassinate targets inside Iran, one of these drones goes down while flying inside its sovereign territory, and now the U.S. is asking for it back? “

The hyperlink in his claim that the US is bombing Iran only links to a story that mysterious blasts have occurred in the IRI, that doesn’t prove that the US is responsible since it could been the Saudis or enemies of the IRI.

“What do you think the United States would do if an Iranian drone was downed in U.S. territory? We all know the answer: bomb Iran back to the Stone Ages. Or, at minimum we would use drones to drop a few bombs on their heads. “

There is a wealth of evidence suggesting the drone is fake, Danios reveals his own bias by going off half cocked about an unconfirmed story from a dictatorship.

“The “threat” comes after U.S. drones violated Pakistan’s sovereignty for the millionth time and committed what under international law is considered an act of war: they bombed and killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Some “friend and ally” America is.”

First of all Pakistan has bombed Afghan villages and shot at Afghan soldiers apparently they were tired of letting their taliban proxy have all the fun, according to Afghan sources

As for an ally after years of American funding in countless millions Pakistan in addition to having formed the taliban is responsible for countless thousands of coalition deaths the fact that the US has avoided war with Pakistan after countless acts of war committed by Pakistan shows a great deal of restraint on the part of the US.  Danios’ delusional claim that Pakistan is a victim isn’t just mere ignorance LW has published at least one article diablizing criticism of Pakistan as “Islamophobia.”

In another article LW bashes Israel for supporting a law that will “Ban Loudspeakers at Mosques” yet there’s no mention of the highly discriminatory laws recently passed in Tunisia that makes it illegal for a non-Muslim to be president, a clear example of bias.

In “eye opening” graphic Danios continues to bash the US:

“This “three-decade war for domination of the Middle East” becomes apparent when we consider how many Muslim countries the peace-loving United States and her “stalwart ally” Israel have bombed”

Claims of a three decade long war for ME domination do not stand up to fact, to begin with Afghanistan is in central Asia not the mid east, why would an evil empire hell bent on dominating a certain region conduct a very expensive lengthy war in a different region? Danios’ method of conflating the US with Israel is very dishonest and an attempt to up the number.

“In the time of George Bush, the U.S. bombed Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, and Somalia.

Under Barack Obama, the U.S. is currently bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. According to some reports (see here and here), we can add Iran to this ever-expanding list. “

In Afghanistan the US provided “air support” for the UN recognized government of Afghanistan, Iraq was a Baathist state (a strange target for an evil empire supposedly at war with Islam), in Somalia most people have died from a famine caused by Islamists as for Pakistan see above, the president reluctantly sided with rebels against a secular dictator in an operation supported by Arab governments and the public. Danios articles do not refer to bombs, one details a troop increase in Afghanistan, his source on Pakistan is a fringe hate blog called ‘rebel reports’  its the personal blog of a nasty crank named Jeremy Scahill who is genuinely proud of his work for other hate sites like antiwar.  Once again there is no evidence that the US is going to go to war with Iran.

“Meanwhile, the U.S. has military bases in several countries”

Bases that are there with the consent of the governments in question.

“I wonder where those silly Muslims come up with the conspiratorial, absolutely irrational idea that the U.S. is waging war against the Muslim world?”

I’ve already gone gone over this tedious claim but its also worth noting that the president has deployed troops to fight the LRA does that mean that the US is waging war against Christianity? By Danios’ reasoning you’d have to say yes.

“Every four years, Americans get the illusion of choice: the choice between Democrat and Republican. In terms of foreign policy, the difference is like the difference between Coke and Pepsi. In the last election, John McCain sang a variation of the famous Beach Boys song “Barbara Ann,” changing the lyrics to “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!”; meanwhile, Barack Obama hinted at expanding the war to Pakistan. The American voter was given the choice not between war and peace, but between war against Iran or war against Pakistan. ”

Putting aside how the first sentence sounds identical to disdainful conspiracist comments about American elections, the fact that the US has not gone to war witt Pakistan shows the false and delusional nature of Danios’ arguments.

“In the national discourse, there exists a bipartisan consensus on the need for perpetual war: both candidates agreed on the need to expand the War on of Terror and attack more Muslim countries. There was no confusion about whether or not to bomb, invade, and occupy–the question was only where to do this. If the Muslim world were imagined to be a turkey, the question was then only whether to begin munching on the leg first or to start with the breast. “

Again, the fact that Danios claims that a vote for obama was a vote for war with Pakistan debunks the above paragraph the president’s term is drawing to a close yet the US has not invaded Pakistan.

“According to experts in the field–such as Prof. Noam Chomsky and Dr. Norman Finkelstein–Labor has had a far worse track record toward Palestinians than the Likud. Labor and Likud play good cop, bad cop toward Palestinians–or rather bad cop, badder cop. But while the two parties disagree on rhetoric and tactics, they share similar overall goals. “

Danios attempts to ‘prove’ his point by citing a chetnik apologist and a Hezbollah fan; but thats what happens when celebrity is confused for credibility, he goes on to make a simply imbecilic comparison between current US foreign policy and the Mexican-American war oh well at least he’s discovered that there are comparisons than hitler.

“ Even while these avowed liberals criticize right-wingers for warmongering against Iran, they themselves often saber-rattle against Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia. “

Once again the president’s response to green protests was so restrained that he won praise from IRI fans, surely a warmonger against Iran would have used those protests to further a case for war with Iran I’ve already covered his pro-pakistan whining as for Saudi Arabia I haven’t heard a single call for war with that monarchy although Danios previously condemned the US for “hypocrisy” for having diplomatic relations with the Saudis so its more damned if you do or don’t  silliness.

“This is because both left and right agree with the Supreme Islamophobic Myth: that Islam (or radical Islam) is the greatest threat to world peace. This inevitably leads to the central tenet of Islamophobia, which is to endorse the Supreme Islamophobic Crime: bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim lands. ”

No president has claimed that Islamism is the greatest threat to peace,  strawman much? Only the Iraq fits in the template of invading and occupying, if the US is at war with Islam why remove a secular anti-Muslim state instead of allying with it against Saudi Arabia?

“This can only be done by realizing that it is the United States that is the greatest threat to peace in the region (look at the map!). “

Total nonsense, the taliban are the greatest threat to Afghanistan and have killed the majority of Afghan civilians, remember that LW has praised Turkey (an example of their hypocrisy) which is currently occupying an EU member, waging perpetual war against Kurds and it recently invaded Iraq, until he was removed Gadaffi supported every terrorist and genocidist with a pulse etc. The map shows countries bombed by Israel and the US, ergo danios is dishonestly inflating numbers.

“  If “wars of aggression” constitute “the supreme international crime”–as decided during the Nuremberg Trials–then what does it say about the situation when America has initiated multiple wars of aggression against the Muslim world whereas no single Muslim country has done so against the United States? “

Apart from the stupid godwin’s law comparison he really can’t see the different going to war with the taliban and the nazi invasion of peaceful states?

“Something else troubling I’ve noticed about the national discourse is how even those opposed to war (or at least one set of wars) will frame their opposition in financial terms. The primary argument to convince Americans against war seems not to be the fact that war is immoral, that bombing countries and killing so many countless civilians is morally repugnant, but rather that it’s just too costly to do so. It’s our wallets, not our soul, that is at stake.”

Countless civilians? The UN report on Afghanistan in 2008 concluded that the taliban caused the majority of civilian deaths, in 2009 the taliban were responsible for more than three fourths of civilian deaths, thats exclude pre-war deaths such as the taliban attempt to exterminate the Hazaras. Also I’m curious how someone like Danios can assume a position of moral purity when he obviously wants all troops out of Afghanistan, given that the Afghan army cannot deal with the taliban (and its backer Pakistan) that would result in a return to taliban rule. Its interesting that anti-interventionists accuse anyone who doesn’t promote far left ideology about the wars as being a cowardly keyboard hawk advocating a war that won’t affect them but then said anti-interventionists demand the taliban’s return.

“Another argument that takes precedence over the moral argument includes the idea that too many of our troops are dying (victim inversion)”

No victim inversion is a better description of Danios’ pity party for pakistan.

“Of what moral character would you consider a Nazi official if he argued against Hitler’s wars on the basis of “it will cost too much German tax payer money” or “it will kill too many German soldiers” or “it may result in retaliation against Germany?”

This is a stupid comparison especially since Baathism was modeled on nazism, besides if we accept this idiotic comparison that means that any countries involved in the coalition are equal to nazis, what sane person would say that Latvia is just like nazi Germany?

“Do you think all this activity regarding Iran is just a preliminary way to pave the way for war with Iran, much in the same way as was done with Iraq?

RA: No. We are not going to war with Iran. Nobody is going to war with Iran, neither the United States or Israel. I can tell you for a fact that Israel is not going to war with Iran because Israel keeps talking about it. If anybody who has studied Israeli politics at all can tell you anything is if Israel talks about bombing Iran then that means it has no intentions of doing it. When the Israelis want you dead you just die, OK.

No one sends an invitation first, no one issues a press release and this is exactly what is going on and I love it, it’s like the media is a monkey that sees something shiny in the corner. There was this great piece that I circulated not too long ago in which it was just a collection of headlines from major newspapers and magazines: the Atlantic, Harpers, New York Times, Los Angeles Times.

A collection of headlines describing imminent war, the imminent bombing of Iranian nuclear sites by Israel and or the United States, the collection was from the last fifteen years, so again, all we have to remember is the cover of Atlantic last year, Jeffrey Goldberg’s article that Israel is six months from bombing Iran. This is every few months, people start to raise this specter that Israel is going to bomb Iran. Israel, America these aren’t stupid countries. They know better than you and I the repercussions of such a conflict. I can show you half a dozen quotes from Ehud Barak himself, the defense minister of Israel stating in no uncertain terms the idiocy of such a campaign. So the idea that he has all of a sudden changed his mind and is planning to bomb Iran is ridiculous, I think this is just what Israel does every few months to ratchet up the pressure on the United States to be more aggressive and robust in trying to counter Iran’s nuclear program.

LW: Well that really puts it in perspective. So you think it is only saber rattling and positioning within the region.

RA: That’s all it is and that’s all it’s ever been for the last 20 years.”

He focuses on Goldberg’s call for an attack on Iran, admittedly chickenhawkery should be criticized but acting as if Jeff’s cowardly warmongering is the worst thing ever is a bit myopic; people praised or used as sources by LW shill for dictatorships while spewing racism. Goldberg’s keyboard regiment antics get old quick but he’s nowhere nearly depraved as Yusuf al-Qaradawi or Israel Shahak and of course Danios is an adamant Finkelstein fan who supports Hezbollah’s war against the Jewish people, Danios has gone so far as to defend/dismiss Fink’s armchair ghazi antics. Obviously someone like Goldberg (who supports an attack that won’t happen) is at least a lesser evil than someone who supports attacks that are ongoing.

“The Crusades that ravaged the Muslim world centuries ago were fueled by mindless hatred of the Other, a hatred without which it is unlikely that a whole civilization could have been successfully mobilized against another.”

The crusades was not a simple Christian vs. Muslim affair, as anyone remotely familiar with Russian history can Danios. Besides the Mongol assault on Muslim lands, Timur’s atrocities and the Ottoman conquests were far worse than the crusades.

” Similarly, the United States of America has taken up the sword against the Muslim world”

Completely false, there was no invasion of Afghanistan:

“Before the fall of Kabul to the insurgent Afghan Northern Alliance in November 2001, and the subsequent collapse of the Taliban regime, there were no foreign regular combat formations in Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance did receive American air support and assistance from special forces (both U.S. and British); that, however, is not an invasion.”

http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=693

Only Iraq fits with Danios’ characterization of US foreign intervention, a war against a neo-fascist state which wasn’t remotely Islamic the facts clearly show that the US is not at war with “the Muslim world.” Claims that US foreign policy however constitute modern crusades is central to Jihadi ideology, the fact that Danios choose to parrot such nonsense is very telling.

“something that simply would not be possible without large segments of the society accepting an anti-Muslim worldview as axiomatic.”

Which isn’t true since the only thing supporting this claim happens to be false.

“Islamophobia is necessary to wage war against the Muslim world but it is also the inevitable result of such wars. “

Apart from the supporting of lumping a Baathist state in with a “Muslim world” Danios choose to define recent Jihadist ‘movements’ as “the Muslim world” and anyone who fights them as “crusaders” Mullah Omar would approve. Under his crude ‘logic’ Muslims involved in the Afghanistan Coalition are “crusaders” at war with “Islam” for fighting the taliban, too *censored* up for words. I don’t think that the taliban represent a genuine form of Islam, its a death cult where thugs generally just do whatever their leaders tell them to, but if we accept Danios’ fiction the taliban practice a real form of Islam thus by LW’s arguments thats a significant case against Islam.

” There is a need to spread the Supreme Islamophobic Myth that radical Islam is the greatest threat to world peace and must be fought.”

No one outside of blogs like jihad watch has said that, honesty is crucial to criticism which means avoiding putting words into Jeff’s mouth.

“This need exists (1) in order that nobody, especially the American population itself, realizes that the opposite is true (that it is the United States–not any Muslim country–that is committing the “supreme international crime” of waging aggressive wars in foreign lands), and (2) in order to justify endless war and military occupations.”

The thinly veiled anti-American sentiment aside, its simply untrue as we can see from Turkey’s recent invasion of Iraqi territory, Pakistan’s actions etc.

“Yet, these same individuals were among the greatest defenders of the Greater Islamophobia, which is the real cause behind Muslim anger: the bombing, invading, and occupying of Muslim lands. In fact, their opposition to Pastor Jones was that he was making it more difficult to sustain the military campaign against Muslims.”

If the first sentence is true why did the hijackers come from nations that the US had never bombed, invaded or occupied? Why is the Al-Qaeda support, funding and recruitment at the lowest ever? Once again Danios defines a campaign about the Taliban waged by Muslims and non-Muslims alike as war against “Muslims” which means he either sees talibs as inseparable from or representative of Muslims, either way its about as stupid as claiming that the Yugoslav partisan campaign against Ustashas was a “vicious campaign against Catholics.”

He parrots Glenn Greenwald’s rambling, confirmation bias much? Glenn writes that actions such as the “occupation of Afghanistan” have triggered “anger and violence in the Muslim world” which isn’t supported by facts, especially since the taliban are the only ones ‘occupying Afghanistan.’ Glenn’s flawed take on A-Stan is unsurprising since he thinks taliban, hezbollah fanboy and misogynist Nir Rosen products great “reporting.”

” Even before the blood of Afghan and Iraqi citizens dried from the American sword,”

Apart from how the taliban have killed the most Afghan civilians, if we accept the moral relativism of Danios and Greenwald that means that we have to give the US a pass for Iraq since the total number of civilian deaths by all side (under 67,000 according to wikileaks) is dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands killed by the former Baathist state. Also people like Danios and Greenwald need to stop pretending that they actually give something resembling a s*** about Afghan civilians since they want to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan (arguments for this usually revolve around the idea that Afghans are savages so there’s no point etc.) here’s a sneak preview of what would happen.

” U.S. war rhetoric against two other Muslim countries–Iran and Pakistan–has ratcheted up.”

The ramblings of a columnist prove that US is hell bent on war? What a joke especially since (as Greenwald) pointed out the US will not attack Pakistan for obvious reasons – nukes – similarly the claim of war with Iran has been demolished. The president made a restrained response to the 2009 Iranian protests and continues to avoid conflict with Pakistan, in other words far from being warmongerers the US has gone to lengths to avoid war, especially with Pakistan a state responsible for the taliban and tens of thousands of coalition deaths. Who really wants a war? As I’ve noted before LW is very pro-Pakistan, hissing that anyone who dares criticize P-stan is guilty of ‘Islamophobia’ (while arguing that its not anti-Semitic to use a guy who was praised by david duke as a source).

“Goldberg fails to mention what The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh pointed out “

Thats the same guy whose take on Iran includes anti-Semitic rants about “Jewish money” and wild, bizarre claims that do not have a shred of evidence.

‘Furthermore, despite all the war-cheerleading from America’s propaganda press”

This is a baseless claim, its also a popular extremist position demonize “mainstream media” in order to justify using fringe sources its also a bit hypocritical since Danios has used hate sites like antiwar.com besides Danios’ sources includes mainstream US publications.

“In addition to being a hyper-aggressive superpower that bombs countries left and right “

What sort of evil empire would tolerate Pakistan’s betrayal for years?

” It simply does not enter into polite discussion in Western media–but it does in Iran, Pakistan, and the rest of the Muslim world–how hypocritical it is of the United States, the country with the most nuclear weapons in the world, to vilify a country for (allegedly) trying to build a single such bomb. The forbidden question to ask is: what moral right does the United States, the greatest nuclear power in the world, have to stop other countries from pursuing the same course of action?”

Apart from how Danios apparently thinks the average American is inferior to unwashed ISI or Basij thugs, he is using contrived standards to defend the actions of a theocratic dictatorship which is simply reprehensible especially since his second sentence could easily be used by a DPRK apologist.

“Other absurdities include the fact that Israel, America’s closest ally, also has a secret (not so secret) nuclear weapons program, possessing “over 400 nuclear and hydrogen weapons.” Why can Israel have so many nuclear weapons, yet Iran cannot have a single one?”

I’m actually supportive of disarming Israel of nukes, but this is cheap whataboutery obscene for the reasons I’ve explained.

“Furthermore, in the words of FAIR”

Thats the site that has material denying neo-Chetnik crimes against Bosnian Muslims (the left’s recently acquired love of Islam only goes so far) in other Danios has cited an Islamophobic source.

“Israel pushed war on Iraq and is now doing the same with Iran for trying to produce nuclear weapons.”

Hmmm, the idea that Jewish influence pushed the US into war; a theory summarized by David Duke catchphrase “no war for Israel” (Danios’ position).

“But such ironies do not get discussed in America”

Imagine if someone generalized publics of Muslim majority countries as ignorant, I doubt LW would approve.

“Another counter-argument raised is the claim that the United States and Israel cannot possibly be equated with countries such as Iran. The implication here is that Iran is just so absolutely warlike that it cannot be trusted with nuclear weaponry. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Israel are peace-loving democracies and can be trusted never to use them. “

A misrepresentation: sane people rightly argue that a theocratic regime cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

“There is the obvious absurdity that the United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against human beings (not once, but twice). Not only this, but the U.S. has never apologized for doing so; quite the opposite: Americans have always claimed that incinerating two civilian cities saved millions of lives, a morally repugnant lie that lives on. “

First of all the extreme nature of WWII is obvious, its not a typical example second of all Danios parrots the “well there was a war then evil Americans bombed pure innocent Japanese” narrative which is a great comfort to people like this. Danios’s cites John Pilger who recently listed the neo-nazi Gilad Atzmon as his idea of a god Jew, Pilger is not a historian or a scholar of the pacific war; he is a dishonest leftover from the era of stalinist newsletters, you can read a response to Pilger’s distortions here.

“In the words of George Orwell: war is peace.”

Abuse of Orwell is a constant extremist tactic, its a variation of Godwin’s law.

“Imagine if Nazi Germany had produced the atomic bomb first–and had nuked Great Britain or the United States (not once, but twice). The dastardly act would be remembered by the Western powers as the ultimate act of Nazi depravity; the atomic bomb would be viewed as the most Nazi-like of weapons, one that wantonly and indiscriminately incinerates civilian populations. In such a scenario, Nazi propaganda that such an act was noble because it “saved millions of German lives” would be scoffed at and not taken seriously. “

This is too stupid for words; the US is compared to the Axis for fighting an Axis state, although a nazi comparison does come to mind: the hiroshima victim cult which completely ignores the genocide(s) that Japan inflicted on Asia is very similar to how neo-nazis focus on dresden without any mention of the Holocaust (which danios trivializes with stupid comparisons to Palestine).

“Here, we see the profound hypocrisy of the U.S. government on full display: while using the threat of Iranian nuclear attack as a moral pretense to wage war against Iran, the United States itself has long been planning “a broad array of contingencies” under which Iran may be nuked. Is this not a case of mind-boggling projection?”

This only shows that Danios does not understand the military which basically has to consider every scenario, he then goes on to praise the IRI’s supreme leader for a public ‘no nukes’ stance apart from how he vilifies elected leaders while praising dictators its highly dishonest to compare leaked documents to public statements. The US had not been “using the threat of Iranian nuclear attack as a moral pretense to wage war against Iran” given the president’s response to Iran and that Danios’ article deals with rants made by a pundit who isn’t in the US government.

“From this, it is clear that the U.S. government does not desire nuclear disarmament, but nuclear monopoly: this unequal balance of nuclear power leaves open the nuclear option against its non-nuclear enemies without fear of nuclear retaliation.”

He uses falsehoods to support the claim above, my response – so what? Better a monopoly than a nuclear arsenal in every dictator’s pocket, which is what Danios is arguing for using juvenile whataboutery.

“Meanwhile, the truth is that the Supreme Leader of Iran has rejected the use of nuclear weaponry because it is “forbidden in Islam”

I’ve already covered this but it shows that Danios is stupid enough to take a theocrat’s word at face value.

“If anyone tries to mention that the United States and Israel are far more warlike than Iran, he must be quickly shut up. One recalls the debate Ahmed Rehab had with Bill O’Reilly; asked Rehab: “How many countries has Iran attacked in the past 50 years?” The answer: zero.”

This is a complete lie gone memetic that I’ve previously debunked:

“Khomeini’s regime declared a holy war on the Kurdish people in Iran, and this war has continued to this date resulting in the death and imprisonment of thousands of innocent people in Kurdistan and the destruction of Kurdish society, culture, economy and environment.”

http://www.unpo.org/article/10360

Likewise the oppression of Ahwazi Arabs easily qualifies as a war against a civilian population – for oil.

“Meanwhile, the United States and Israel have attacked dozens and dozens of countries (in a future article, I will compile the lengthy list of nations that have been attacked by the U.S. and Israel.)”

The idea that waging war makes a democracy worse than a dictatorship is imbecilic, by that standard Turkey is worse than North Korea.

” Yet, the Iran-Iraq War was not initiated by Iran–rather, Iraq attacked Iran. There is no debate about this fact,”

Except the fact that the war “continued that long was essentially the decision of the Ayatollah Khomeini.”

http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2003/03/who-armed-saddam-some-reality-checks.html

“Worse yet, the example O’Reilly cited is an example of Iran being attacked by a country that received the military backing to do so by the United States. In fact, “the CIA authorized, approved and assisted…in the manufacture and sale of cluster bombs and other munitions to Iraq” for use against Iran.”

As Weintraub correctly notes Baathist Iraq was supported by “almost the whole world, including all the major powers, to support, fund, and/or arm Iraq. Again contrary to popular mythology, Iraq’s arms continued to come overwhelmingly from the Soviet bloc, France, and China, with the US providing a relatively trivial amount…”

“The other examples O’Reilly gave, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, also show that he simply cannot answer the question in a straight manner. The reason he can’t do so is because the answer is zero. Neither Hamas or Hezbollah is Iran. At most one could argue that Hezbollah operates as a proxy for Iran.”

As you can see from above Danios uses fictionalized history to bash the US for supporting Iraq (largely armed by China, France and Russia) yet he doesn’t see Iran’s establishment of anti-Semitic death squads as something to criticize.

“In that case, we should compare the number of countries that the United States has not only attacked but how many the U.S. has done so by proxy. That list would certainly dwarf Iran’s.”

This is nothing but crude (im)moral relativism which could be used to defend almost any regime, like most apologists he tries to invent his own standards by defining war as the most evil thing ever and then arguing that any action committed inside borders is at most a lesser evil. If we accept this thoroughly artificial view we have to give many of the worst dictators in recent memory a pass since they were content to wage war against the people they lay claim to, under Danios’ construct its ‘moral’ to avoid fighting genocidal regimes but immoral to intervene.

“The double standard is well-understood by Iranians and Muslims living in other countries: nuclear weapons are OK for America and Israel, but off limits to countries like Iran.”

In other Danios is arguing for every dictatorship to have nuclear weapons out of fairness, with such insanity like this he should consider joining the Basij thuglets.

“Yet, it is exactly such countries that would most need nuclear weapons to act as deterrence against American and Israeli threats of military action, belligerence, and propensity toward aggression.”

Proof of Danios’ stupidity and the depravity of leftism: ‘anti-war’ types are willing to line up behind a theocracy (therefore becoming supporters of the regimes’s war against women, Kurds, Arabs and non-Muslims) merely because the US says a few nasty things about a dictatorship. As we can see from his final sentence their sympathy lies with dictators instead of their victims.

Part 2:

“For the record, I am a strong believer in complete nuclear disarmament.”

Suuuuure.

“However, either all countries should get rid of nuclear weapons or all countries have the right to acquire them. There cannot be a double-standard in this regard”

So danios believes his silly playground concept of fairness should apply to acquiring nukes, because to him impossible standards of purity trump practically.

“If the United States and Israel possess them, then Iran–which is under constant American and Israeli threat of not just conventional warfare but nuclear strike–not only has the right to obtain them”

There’s no threat, Reza Aslan on LW recently debunked the claim that Israel or the US will attack Iran if your own site refutes your claims you don’t have very much to stand on. Besides danios correctly states that Iranian anti-Semitism does not justify an invasion, but by that standard western saber rattling does not justify a nuclear weapon.

“Goldberg is repeating multiple falsehoods against Iran. Here, he is referring to an infamous statement that was uttered by the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in which he supposedly said “Israel must be wiped off the map.” In fact, this was a case of blatant mistranslation by the Western media: what he really said was Ahmadinejad was calling for regime change, not for Israel’s destruction or the annihilation of Jews. Certainly, the two greatest proponents of regime change–the United States and Israel–should be the last to equate regime change with genocide.”

I’ve already covered this before even if we do assume that A’jad was mistranslated the call for Israel to be wiped off the map is not inexistent in Iran I don’t think that justifies war of course.

“In a previous article, I pointed out how misleading it is to focus on Iranian rhetoric over Israeli action. While the Western media obsesses over whether or not Hamas or Iran may have called to wipe Israel off the map (mere rhetoric), Israel has literally wiped Palestine off the map (actual action)–it has been and is currently in the process of wiping the land of pesky Palestinians as well. “

A very poor move since Iran’s war of ethnic cleansing against Ahwazi Arabs is far worse, Palestinians have a high obesity rate, Ahwazis are nearly starving, Arabic is an official Israeli lingo while its illegal in the Ahwazi plight is constantly ignored, in addition to an Arab state (Jordan) in what was once the mandate of Palestine the Palestinian refugees have a state-like entity none of that can be said about Ahwazi Arabs.

“There is no doubt that denying or downplaying the Holocaust is morally repugnant, but how could such a person as Jeffrey Goldberg, who throughout his career has justified, downplayed, and denied the Palestinian suffering, be up in arms about Iranian leaders doing the same with the suffering of Jews during the Holocaust?”

Now we have danios equating the holocaust to the “nakba” which is very stupid since even if we accept every nasty thing that has been said about Israel’s founding there is still the issue of the ethnic cleansing of Jews from multiple countries.

Next Danios claims that Israel carried out terrorist attacks in Iran, his only evidence is a guardian article relying on “claims” made by Richard Silverstein.

“In that incident, Nidal Hasan killed U.S. soldiers on a military base as they were about to be deployed to go to war against Muslim countries. At that time, it was wondered: how could Muslims be so bloodthirsty that they would do such a thing? Yet, when Americans or Israelis kill Iranian scientists, then this is either brushed off as a necessary casualty in the War on Terror or even gleefully rejoiced over as yet another “success” in the War on Terror.”

First of all the consensus view is that Hasan was insane, it only proves that danios is willing to make baseless claims to support a view of American people as ignorant, second he has no solid evidence to support claims that Americans or Israelis have committed terrorism in Iran, it could have been gulf monarchies.

“Of course, such double standards abound in our national discourse, without anyone pointing out the obvious.”

This is what is generally known as a superiority complex.

“Goldberg’s statement is very telling, because he accidentally reveals what every Arab and Muslim in the region knows: “[T]he U.S. [has] been waging a three-decade war for domination of the Middle East.” Hmm….I wonder why do Arabs and Muslims in the region hate us? It’s such a big mystery to me. How would Americans feel if some other country was “waging a three-decade war” to dominate them? But, of course, such comparisons–putting the shoe on the other foot–must never be discussed in the national discourse–and anyone who does so should be ignored, marginalized, and vilified.”

The claim that “they hate us for our foreign policy” is easily debunked: most of AQ’s victims are Muslims, AQ has attacked peaceful Muslim majority countries like Algeria, none of the hijackers came from countries had been “occupied or invaded” by the US. If it was true AQ support would be at an all time high yet its an all time low and AQ are struggling to find recruits. Danios’ sole source is the fringe racist Ron Paul who thinks the US was “allied with Bin Laden” and that the US “created the taliban” in reality the Bin Laden-US theory is easily debunked and Pakistan formed the taliban in the 90s, someone so ignorant is not a legit source. Lastly if doc no has been “ignored marginalized and vilified” its because of his bestial racism.

“What Goldberg is saying then is that the American-supported stooge dictatorships–those same ones that the democratic Arab Spring has been shaking off–would support such a move against Iran.”

This is a blatant lie, regimes like Syria and Libya are former soviet client states that adopted anti-American and anti-Israel positions, if danios was correct about the Arab spring such regimes would not have been touched.

” To any good colonialist, what the people of a nation want does not matter: simply install a subservient client regime and through it thwart the will of the people. I wonder why they hate us? It is an absolute mystery to me.”

To begin with Iran is a colonial power due to its treatment of Ahwazi Arabs, Kurds and other groups Turkey is also a colonial power danios is just using the c-word to bash the US. It also reveals his hypocrisy, when the US fights dictatorships thats imperialism when the US conducts cordial relations with a dictatorships thats ‘colonial.’

“The irony of the president of the United States–leader of a country that has the most nuclear weapons in the world, the only one to have ever used them (not once, but twice), one that is in violation of the NPT, one that still actively plans on how to use nuclear weapons in future wars, and one that comes to the swift defense of Israel when it opposes a nuclear free Middle East (see part I of my article)–claiming to be “ideologically committed to a world without nuclear weapons” should not be lost.”

I’ve already covered this.

“Iran’s leaders who have steadfastly pledged never to use nuclear weapons against anyone”

Danios requires the reader to trust theocratic tyrants oh I’m sorry “leaders” very stupid. He whines about the “the mandatory Hitler reference” yet Danios has repeatedly compared Israel to nazi Germany, using Jewish suffering to bash Jews.

“Imagine, for instance, if Iran militarily occupied Canada and Mexico, if Cuba and other islands near the U.S. mainland were Iranian client regimes, if a massive Iranian naval fleet were stationed nearby on both East and West Coasts”

Except Israel is largely cornered by hostile regimes, its only getting worse since the new Egypt will be devoutly anti-Israel, so by his own reasoning danios should become a bibi fan.

“if Iranian sky robots were flying over American soil targeting and killing U.S. citizens, if Iran committed acts of terrorism on U.S. soil such as blowing up power plants, if Iran assassinated American scientists, if Iran launched sophisticated cyber-attacks against the U.S., if Iran lobbied for crippling sanctions against America”

Yet there is no evidence that the US had done any of that against Iran, he relies on heresay to drum up support for a theocracy.

“After noting that the U.S. has done all this whereas “Iran has not invaded, occupied or air attacked anyone”, Greenwald writes”

As I’ve already explained the ‘holy war’ against Kurds makes this a complete lie.

“This is why I hope that, like other Arab dictatorships that have been toppled by the people themselves, the same happens in Iran.”

I don’t buy this for a second, if I argued that the zetas were a lesser evil compared to other states and that they should hightech weapons since everyone else has them I would be correctly considered a zeta fan.

“But, as Greenwald pointed out:

Iran, to be sure, is domestically oppressive, but no more so — and in many cases less — than the multiple regimes funded, armed and otherwise propped up by the U.S. during this period.”

Greenwald’s argument is that…there are other nasty regimes, its cheap idiotic whataboutery at the highest level apart from how Glenn fails name these “multiple regimes” he claimed that the US was setting up an Islamist state in Libya yet the president’s cabinet is entirely secular. GG is using dishonest “damned if you do or don’t” crap, if the US conducts friendly relations with dictators that’s evil but if the US fights dictators thats evil if the US stays out completely its guilty of the evil of “standing by.”

*  Sam Antonio, a national spokesperson for the John Birch Society.

*Angela Keaton a vile individual lacking anything resembling coherence she is the “Development Director of AntiWar.com” a vile hate site that was formed to defend Serbian fascists; articles on AW blame the holocaust on the Poles for “wanting to keep danzig” and praise Axis Japan openly claiming that the “wrong side won in the pacific war.”

*Antiwar.com hate monger Phil Giraldi an apologist for Lukashenko’s regime in Belarus and believes that Israel/Jews control the US.

*Neo-confederate and 9/11 apologist Jack Hunter.

*Neo-Confederate Mike Church.

*Walter Block an advocate of “slave contracts”, a member of the “Senior Faculty of the Ludwig von Mises Institute” a hate group and apologist for the PRC arguing that its “hypocrisy” to support the Tibetan cause without “allowing the confederate states to set up their own country” you might be noticing a trend here if you accidentally attend the conference my advice is to use Woody Allen’s survival tactic and just say “grits” in reply to everything.

*Armenian genocide denier Bruce Fein.

*Larry Pratt gun nut, Buchanan fan and president of ‘engish first.’

*Tea bagger Donna Holt.

* Mike Lee a tea bagger who wants to remove child labor laws.

*Rand ‘aqua buddha’ Paul.

*Arthur Thompson; CEO of the John Birch Society.