Top Menu

The Sikh Temple Carnage, White Supremacy and Islamophobia

Sikhs pray at the funeral for those killed by White Supremacist terrorist, Wade Michael Page.

by Garibaldi

Friday, in Oak Creek, Wisconsin six Sikh Americans, five men and one woman, victims of a terrorist attack were laid to rest “surrounded by men and women singing traditional Punjabi hymns.” They were killed in their house of worship, the Gurdwara, where they had gathered for prayer and celebration. The six fallen are as follows: Sita Singh, 41; Ranjit Singh, 49; Prakash Singh, 39; Paramjit Kaur, 41; Suveg Singh, 84; and the temple’s president, Satwant Singh Kaleka, 65.

When news of the terrorist attack on the Sikh Temple was breaking I unreservedly reported it on Loonwatch, it had all the hallmarks of an attack rooted in hate and Islamophobia. Considering the underreported increase in hate crimes and bias attacks against Sikhs, many of which are motivated by attackers’ “misplaced Islamophobia,” I highlighted that,

At the moment we do not know who the shooter was, or his motivation, but in light of the rise in bias attacks and incidents against Sikhs, who are often mistaken for Muslims, this story may be related to violent anti-Muslim Islamophobia and general xenophobia.

Immediately, Islamophobic critics, most of whom are keen on downplaying the effects of racism and bigotry took offense, claiming we were trying to score “points.” This is nothing more than their own projection, as any crime, real or perceived, possibly committed by a Muslim would forthrightly be blamed by them on “Islam.” As Wajahat Ali points out, questions about whether Wade Michael Page actually mistook Sikhs for Muslims are “irrelevant.”

We have yet to determine if Page mistook Sikhs for Muslims, but such questions are irrelevant. In today’s Islamophobic atmosphere, there has been increased marginalization of all AMEMSA (Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, South Asian) communities. In particular, Sikh Americans have faced the brunt of post 9/11 hate crimes and backlash, with Sikh men often being mistaken for Muslims. The first, post 9/11 hate crime murder was of Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh gas station owner in Arizona, whom the murderer chose because he was“dark-skinned, bearded and wore a turban.”

What has largely been missing from this discussion however is the relationship between White Supremacists and Islamophobia; there is a nexus that links the two. White supremacy is not new to the Islamophobia Movement. White Supremacist groups and ideologues on both sides of the Atlantic have latched onto the rhetoric of Islamophobic anti-Muslim hate, which they find to be an altogether more easier, accommodating and acceptable vehicle of bigotry to express their agendas and policies. This approach was summed up by Nick Griffin of the BNP (heirs of the White Supremacist National Front), his quite public attempt to break with the BNP’s anti-Semitic past was revealed for the fraud that every one suspected it was. At a conference in the USA, Griffin spoke about the BNP’s strategy and true attitude towards Jews,

“The proper enemy to any political movement isn’t necessarily the most evil and the worst. The proper enemy is the one we can most easily defeat.”

The enemy he talks about most “easily” defeating are Muslims.

Like the BNP, the Islamophobes in the EDL are following a similar course, showing faux respect and solidarity with other groups while bashing Muslims and Islam. Frequently, one will see Israeli flags at EDL protests, a cover that ironically masks a number of Neo-Nazis and sieg heil saluters at the core of the EDL grassroots. In Germany, a story layered with Islamophobia from the lowest to the highest levels exposed a severe security blunder on the part of authorities; for over ten years a cell of Neo-Nazis targeted and murdered German Muslims of Turkish and North African descent. Throughout Europe, Muslim places of worship, community centers and graves have been desecrated with swastikas. Geert Wilders (PVV), Marine Le Pen (FN), Vlaams Belang, Italy’s Northern League, Greece’s Golden Dawn are just some of the supremacists whose rhetoric echoes closely their more open and unabashed White Supremacist and fascist predecessors.

In the United States one must recall the godfather of Islamophobia, Daniel Pipes who bemoaned ‘brown-skinned Muslim people’s exotic customs,’

“Western societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned peoples cooking strange foods and maintaining different standards of hygiene…All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.”

Pipes’ Jewishness in this regard did not impede him from hurling such racist sentiments akin to what we expect to hear from the Grand Wizard of the KKK. The revelation here is that while some White Supremacists are eager to mask their old prejudices for more convenient “new” ones, there are some individuals from minority backgrounds who are all too eager to reciprocate. This is likely why you saw a Jewish Defense League division of the EDL, and Rabbi Nachum Shifren taking up the rhetoric of White Supremacism,

… I AM an Islamophobe, and everything we need to know about Islam, we learned on 9-11! I believe in peace and justice for everybody – but that’s not why they’re here…. We’re getting sucker-punched because we as white – yes I said it! – as white, Christian Americans are being taught that somehow WE are to blame for all the problems.

White Supremacism’s nexus with Islamophobia is even more vividly on display when we encounter the curious case of White Supremacist, David Yerushalmi. Yerushalmi, one will note, is the chief architect behind the anti-Sharia legislation drive that has swept dozens of US states over the past several years. Yerushalmi’s oxymoronic identities of Orthodox Jew and White Supremacist reminds one of the case of young Israeli-Russian Jews who turned Neo-Nazi, and afterword went on an anti-Semitic binge in Tel Aviv.

Yerushalmi is a co-founder of the Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE); an organization that seeks to criminalize the practice of Islam. Islamophobe David Gaubatz‘s Mapping Shariah Project was conducted under the aegis of SANE, it’s main claim that over 80% of mosques in the USA are hotbeds of radicalism and terror is a viral talking-point with the Islamophobia Movement. This fake claim about US mosques has been reproduced by such prominent bigots as Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney and has even found its way into the mouths of numerous politicians, including Rep. Peter King, the McCarthyist chair of the current witch-hunt hearings on American Muslims. The number of “80%” has also been used to delegitimize and impede the construction of mosques. It was a frequent trope that was pulled out by anti-Mosque activists during the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy.

We know that bigots have, since 9/11, wedded the rhetoric of Islamophobia and White Supremacism. The Twin Towers, a building that was targeted by terrorists, has been transformed by the cynical in the Islamophobia-White Supremacist nexus into a symbol to be manipulated and exploited for their own agendas. Was it a coincidence that the terrorist Wade Michael Page had a 9/11 tattoo?

Maybe not.

9/11 and The Twin Towers have unfortunately become part of the iconography of hate amongst the Islamophobia Movement. The Twin Towers are all over the Islamophobes’ websites and blogs and even in their emblems, for instance, take Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller’s SIOA image:

Long before the SPLC labeled SIOA a hate group, Loonwatch did. Loonwatch exposed not only how Islamophobic the SIOA is but how its membership is filled with racists, many who espouse White Supremacist views, with frequent talk of “ragheads” and “sandniggers” on their official Facebook membership page.

In a clear example of the union of Islamophobic and White Supremacist iconography take Douglas Story, a White Supremacist who adorned his pickup truck with the Confederate flag; the Neo-Nazi code numbers of 14 and 88 on his license plate; as well as an image of the collapsing Twin Tower’s with the words, “Everything I Ever Needed to Know About Islam, I Learned on 9/11.”

Douglas Story was later arrested by the FBI for purchasing an AK-47 from an undercover agent. Robert Spencer defended Douglas Story and has never issued a retraction or an apology for his defense of Story.

I have only scratched the surface when it comes to the nexus between White Supremacism and Islamophobia in this article. There is much more to discuss. While Islamophobia is a multi-varied phenomenon, White Supremacism is a virulent and pungent trend within the ranks of the Islamophobia Movement. A further, more detailed article discussing all of the various Islamophobic-White Supremacist hate organizations, web sites, blogs, and political parties is necessary for a full treatment of this dangerous racism.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Jim

    @ Chameleon

    Don’t cry, man.

    You can’t win them all.

  • Chameleon

    @Jim,

    So you concede complete defeat in not being able to defend your claim whatsoever. Thank you very much. As a reminder, your now totally debunked claim is as follows:

    “[S]entiments [are] expressed widely on Stormfront” seeking “common ground” with Muslims by white supremacists as part of a “final solution” (i.e., collaborative violent aggression and terrorism against Jews or whomever to destroy them).

    You continue to try set up straw man claims as substitutes: for example, that white separatists and some “Muslim” terrorists share similar racist views against Jews. No one is disputing such an obvious common sense claim. I am sure even some Eskimos share the same racists sentiments with white supremacists in how they might view the financial power of Jews to be responsible for the encroachment and destruction of their natural environment and resources. Does this mean there is now a link, or true “common ground”, between Native American religions and white supremacist ideology, or an implied potential collaboration between the two? Of course not. There is none, just as there is zero evidence of any such link between Islam (or Muslims) and white supremacists.

    So far, the only “common ground” sentiment or collaborative overture that you, Jack, and JihadWatch have ever alluded to is the 2005 statement from some potbellied, redneck, illiterate, bloviating, attention-seeking, convict, reject loser who was forced out of the white supremacist splinter group that he opportunistically assumed control of in a power vacuum. He was thoroughly investigated by the FBI, and NO link to any other terrorist group was ever found, nor was even a single response from any “Muslim” terrorist group ever documented. End of story.

    I am not letting this topic go for the simple reason that I don’t give Islamophobic claims even a single inch when there is not even a single inch to give. The claim that you made above was unequivocally Islamophobic, since it spreads irrational fear, suspicion, doubt, and even terror in the minds of the general public against Muslims that all this evil that they are now seeing coming from white supremacists could be, might be, or (as Robert Spencer claims) definitely IS linked to “Islamic supremacism”. In fact, this is the new buzzword of JiwadWatch, with the obvious implication of linking the two ideologies on the basis of mutual “supremacist” intentions against their common enemy, the Zionists. There is no such link, as your failure to demonstrate one clearly shows, and as I have shown to the contrary (and can show much further) with literally hundreds of extremely hateful sentiments expressed by white supremacists against Islam and Muslims on Stormfront– with not even a single quote that I have ever found to the contrary after a significant amount of effort trying to do so.

  • Chameleon, I think we normally agree on stuff but here I believe Jim is correct. Now, I’ll admit that this thread has degraded some what and I’m really not sure what is being argued on both sides anymore, but there are at least some people within the Stormfront type networks who do agree to working with Muslims or have some sick and bent ‘admiration’ for Islam. Sadly this view is sometimes reciprocated by some Muslims and there have been exchanges of ideas and thoughts in the past. For example in the UK there have been some ‘Muslim’ gangs that base themselves on their ‘white’ gang counterparts, though interestingly the two often come into conflict over the drugs trade.

    I made an amateur study of various ‘white supremacist’ groups over the years. I have a fascination with extremism in general from a psychological point of view and race related extremism has always held interest for me. I can link to stuff, just not here as I am wary of any potential pingbacks but I can email you stuff if you wish (my public address is the.strangers.blog@gmail.com).

    That said, and I think this is also a point Jim made, these sorts of collaborations are very minor. As you pointed out, these people really hate anyone ‘non-white’ and I’ve seen people on Stormfront kicked off purely for fantasizing about ‘non-white’ women! I think that any potential relations have got worse and worse over the years, on Stormfront in particular, perhaps due to appeals such as the one Jim mentioned largely being a failure. I think any potential relations were temporary at best, but again that depends upon the ‘type’ of supremacist we are talking about. Many for example are simply ‘separation and segregation’ types who just want a ‘white homeland’ since they decide to blame all their problems on Da Joos or non-whites (which leads to the interesting question as to how ‘whites’ can be so powerful yet sat on by people they feel are inferior). So while any collaboration to make this happen is acceptable to them, you will also get ‘racial purists’ who will vehemently attack any ‘non white’ no matter what advantage collaboration may have. Those sorts tend to be the ones with tattoos and skinheads, not the best the ‘white race’ has to offer to say the least…

    Anyway, this probably isn’t the time and place for a detailed analysis, interesting as it may be for me, and I think the thread has pretty much collapsed. The original point of the article seems to have been lost now.

    Eid Murbark to all.

  • Jim

    Right, so…

    David Duke the most prominant white nationalist in America and former KKK grand wizard is NOT RACIST ENOUGH.

    Okay…

    And him prostrating himself ON CAMERA to Muslims FOR 15 MINUTES about their common Zionist enemy and praising Muslim culture isn’t enough to prove that said sentiment exists amongst these people.

    Um hmm…

    The man who’s wife founded Stormfront.

    Got it.

    The sky is also orange.

    Agreed, we’re done. You’re a comedy sketch at this point.

  • Chameleon

    @Jim,

    You continue to embarrass yourself — and yet again with your own source material! For someone who was originally pointing the finger at Garibaldi — quite incorrectly, as I already showed — that he did not understand the diversity of racism or the pro-white movement, you are now blatantly doing exactly that. David Duke is a white SEPARATIST, not a white SUPREMACIST! Did you even bother to watch that 15 minute syrupy David Duke video with not even a hint of aggression being advocated in it as part of some “common ground” “final solution” as you claimed? There was not even a single collaborative overture being expressed. Unlike you, I actually did, and sincerely regret wasting my time. Here are a couple of nuggets that capture the overall message quite well:

    “You can change things without murder and terrorism… there is no room for terrorism.” (towards the beginning, I didn’t note the exact time)

    “It is only evil when one race tried to suppress or control another race or to destroy another one. That’s what real racism is.” (13:25 into the video)

    I am not going to waste any more time with your diversions. Either produce those white SUPREMACIST Stormfront quotes that you claim exist or move on along and spoon feed your JiwadWatch drivel somewhere else.

  • Jim

    Dude, you really are tragic…

    I said THERE IS NO COLLABORATION.

    You are so desperate you have to distort my statement into terrorist conspiracies to avoid looking wrong.

    I’ve said MULTIPLE TIMES THERE IS NO COLLABORATION but there are white power people who illogically EXPRESS VIEWS of Muslims as potential allies, EVEN IF that is irrational.

    Like for example this gem from LAST YEAR by David Duke one of today’s top dog haters addressed lovingly and DIRECTLY TO Muslims:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWL3Gt_0qYM

    Enjoy!

    Also:

    http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss60/DPenguin11/spoonfeed-1.jpg

    I deemed you worthy of about 2 minutes of search time and found plenty and there’s tons more out there so feel free to end your vain attempts at sounding smart and do your own homework.

    But I have a feeling you could care less about truth than continuing to ask about bomb plots with al Qaeda I never proposed so you don’t look stupid.

    So keep beating your straw man… Up to you.

  • Chameleon

    @Jim

    Lazy, lazy, lazy, or just plain wrong. You previously made claims about all this “common ground” between white supremacists and Muslims. Then, when you could not support that claim, you say “I’m not making any ‘claims’. I’m simply passing along sentiments expressed widely on Stormfront.” So I called you out on all those “sentiments expressed widely on Stormfront.” What did you give me to support this claim, which I already rebutted in advance with all my quotes (and a whole lot more I didn’t quote) from Stormfront? You didn’t give me a single Stormfront quote as evidence for these widespread sentiments, let alone to show a prevalence of such sentiments. You provided zero evidence of any active collaboration, zero evidence of any bubbling up of conspiracy between the two groups, zero evidence of any actual communication between the two groups, and zero evidence of even a single serious outreach from one group to the other. Instead, you gave me two pieces of other “evidence”:

    1) The same old 2005 claptrap that I alluded to above that Robert Spencer is still peddling to this day to “prove” a link between Islam and white supremacy. All of this centers around some musings of jealous grandiosity by a singular dimwit, August Kreis III, that were totally rejected by the white supremacists as a whole, as I also alluded to above. He was a high school dropout, he was thrown out of the military, he bullied his neighbors and his ex-wife (the latter of which has a restraining order against him), he was kicked off the Jerry Springer show (which is nearly an impossible achievement) for making threats, he was convicted for fraud totaling $193,000 and sent to prison, and he was ultimately forced to quit the Aryan Nations splinter group that he previously assumed the leadership of in a power struggle – among other notable signs of a total reject loser, who in no way shape or form can be taken seriously as an ideological leader, let alone as an openly jealous admirer of Al Qaeda’s “accomplishments” of 9/11 . Here is what Wikipedia says on him to summarize:

    CNN reported that, “So while August Kreis may be calling, there is no sign that al Qaeda is listening.” His statements raised federal concerns about violations of law which caused the government to look closely at his activities and finances. The federal government concluded he had no link with any terrorist organization.

    Did you catch that? He NEVER even communicated with Al Qaeda, and after an extensive investigation by the FBI, absolutely NO LINK to Al Qaeda or any other Muslims for that matter could be found. End of story. Conspiracy fantasy debunked. You were sipping on the Spencer Kool-Aid and didn’t even realize it.

    2) A long-outdated “Letter of admiration” from some deputy (Billy Roper) of a neo-Nazi group in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. This letter was designed with the singular purpose to use the 9/11 attacks to recruit more neo-Nazi members — to inspire them to action — NOT to seek some sort of absurd ideological alliance with Muslim terrorists. Billy Roper was merely expressing an admiration for the “accomplishment” of attacking Jews (as symbolized by the heart of their financial power at the WTC, according to the implication of his own words). Are you seriously going to make the claim that this individual was that stupid to make overtures of alliance with Al Qaeda right after the U.S. declared a massive, all out war on them? Really? We have to look no further than the source you provided to show that there is absolutely zero evidence of any such overture of alliance as part of a “final solution” that Muslims and white supremacists could work together on, hand in hand in brotherly hate, as you previously claimed. And there it is — yet another alleged link between Islam and white supremacists totally debunked.

    Are you finished embarrassing yourself, or should we continue some more? Oh, and next time, before putting the ad hominem frosting on your argument, you might want to 1) pay attention long enough to read the sources that you are citing in support of your argument to realize that they actually contradict your argument, and 2) try to support the claim you are actually making rather than try to backtrack into a straw man claim that was never in dispute.

    In case you forget what your latest claim is, here are your own words as a reminder: “sentiments [are] expressed widely on Stormfront” seeking “common ground” with Muslims by white supremacists. Show me that “common ground”, and show me those “sentiments expressed widely” – or even just ONCE – without being trashed by other posters. And if you want to bring Jack Cope or anyone else in on this too, then I also challenge him and anyone else to show me where they are as well. I have read quite a large sampling of postings on Stormfront by now to realize that such a broad claim is sheer and utter bunk. These hate-mongers are scared of Muslims. They hate Muslims. And they will never trust Muslims. Even simple neutrality towards Muslims is rarely tolerated without the predictable groupthink objection from other posters to keep everyone in line. I am not the one being lazy here. I have honestly not found even one single quote to support your claim after a lot of trying. The only possibility is that my sampling methodology is completely flawed. If so, then prove it. It is your claim, not mine.

  • Jim

    @Chameleon

    From that “hate group” the SPLC:

    “There’s a great solidarity with the point of view of the [Osama] bin Ladens of the world,” said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a hate-group monitoring organization based in Montgomery, Ala. “These people wouldn’t let their daughters near an Arab, but they are certainly making common cause on an ideological level. They see the same enemy, American culture and multiculturalism.”

    I never proposed an activist “collaboration” between white power and Muslims. I said not all white supremecists push the hatred of Islam. Most white supremicists of course REALLY DO hate Muslims but calling an Islamophobe a white supremicist or vice versa is an inaccurate and lazy description.

    These took all of 1 minute to find. There are plenty others on Stormfront as Jack Cope has acknowledged. Feel free to not be lazy.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2005-03-29/us/schuster.column_1_aryan-nation-qaeda-white-supremacists?_s=PM:US

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-10-27/news/0110270173_1_bubonic-plague-attacks-terrorist

    Shockingly, your gargantuan intellectual powers have uncovered that these people do not always make sense. Jews are also behind hurricanes, dontcha know?

    HOWEVER…

    Your inability to comprehend that people can be illogical and that what people actually say about their own ideology is is irrelevent IS interesting…

    Aspergers spectrum, perhaps? Good luck with that.

  • Jim

    Wow. You are even thicker than I thought.

    From that “hate group” the SPLC:

    “There’s a great solidarity with the point of view of the [Osama] bin Ladens of the world,” said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a hate-group monitoring organization based in Montgomery, Ala. “These people wouldn’t let their daughters near an Arab, but they are certainly making common cause on an ideological level. They see the same enemy, American culture and multiculturalism.”

    I never proposed an activist “collaboration” between white power and Muslims. I said not all white supremecists push the hatred of Islam. Most white supremicists REALLY DO hate Muslims but calling an Islamophobe a white supremicist or vice versa is an inaccurate and lazy description.

    These took all of 1 minute to find. There are plenty others on Stormfront as Jack Cope has acknowledged. Feel free to not be a lazy fk.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2005-03-29/us/schuster.column_1_aryan-nation-qaeda-white-supremacists?_s=PM:US

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-10-27/news/0110270173_1_bubonic-plague-attacks-terrorist

    Shockingly, your gargantuan intellectual powers have uncovered that these people do not always make sense. Jews are also behind hurricanes, dontcha know?

    HOWEVER…

    Your inability to comprehend that people can be illogical and that what people actually say about their own ideology is is irrelevent IS interesting…

    Aspergers spectrum, perhaps? Good luck with that.

  • Chameleon

    @Jim,

    So what you are conceding is that you have absolutely zero evidence of any collaboration or planned collaboration between white supremacists and Muslims. “Sentiments” and “enemy of my enemy” sophistry are just mindless, irrelevant banter. Conspiratorial fantasies are for children, Jim. Grownups are only interested in reality and facts. Even Jack says “Stick yourself into one of the open forums as a Muslim and see how long you last.” If you still think there is any possibility of a future collaboration, then why don’t you experimentally collect some data first by doing as Jack suggests and propose (temporarily — and later give them the boot on the way out) a collaboration of hate to see how you are received. Alternatively, why don’t you experimentally act like a white supremacist and propose a collaboration with Muslims. You will get the same reception — or likely much worse — as whatever dimwit on the Stormfront side got when he expressed such musings years ago. How could anyone who professes Islam, the most diverse religion in the world with over a billion non-“whites”, find any common ground with his ideological opposite? And how could any white supremacist possibly lower himself to depend on those they utterly hate with principles like this (from Stormfront):

    “1. A White Nationalist places their race above all and makes any and all sacrifices necessary to further the cause of White Nationalism and the advancement of our people.

    2. A White Nationalist does all they can to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.”

    The answer is that it is NOT possible. To allege otherwise, especially with zero facts to support that argument, is simply a childish, loon-inspired conspiratorial fantasy. Oh, and by the way, here are some more “facts” from Stormfront (all from different posters) in their discussions about Islam — good luck in trying to find some “common ground” with these folks:

    “The idea behind Islam, much like communism, is to ensnare psychologically a large group of people; break down all pre-existing groups within them; and replace those pre-existing groups with one new, all-encompassing group (the Muslim Ummah). They see reality as contrasting only between Muslim and non-Muslim; their racial and national identity has been stolen. Of course, this has always been the goal. It’s the goal behind every cult movement.”

    “You’d hear blacks being joked about too at the local synagog, but that doesn’t make blacks any less an enemy to us. Islam requires the destruction of all heritage and culture that is not islamic, that along with being founded by an illiterate pedophile, means islam and White cannot mix.”

    “I imagine the jews are very uneasy to awknowledge that they share almost identical genetics with the Muslim people and the grudge between them is between religion and regional grievances. I had never stopped to consider that semitic was a also a way to describe their race. For me Muslim describes not only a race but an religious and political affiliation which is staunchly ant-white at it’s core. The conversion factor is another point of concern with Islam. It shocks me that whites can be disillusioned enough to embrace such perversity.”

    “Whites who convert to islam are not considered White anymore as they have betrayed their own culture in doing so. You’ll note that most converts change their name to an arab one at the same time, hardly a sign of love in your own ancestors and traditions.”

    “I hate Muslims! Islam is evil!”

    “Next to the Negro in my opinion islam is one of the most destructive forces ever thought up. It is as backwards as the Negro.”

    Should I go on or wait for your opposing quotes from Stormfront to demonstrate your point that a collaboration could be, maybe, kind of, sort of, is theoretically possible between these white supremacists and Muslims? You say such sentiments are “expressed widely on Stormfront”. Now show me. I have yet to see a single one. I see only a massive excretion of hate against Islam and Muslims. And give me the location so that I can validate how other posters received such proposals in diametric opposition to their hate ideology.

  • Jim

    @ Chameleon

    Sorry you can’t join the party where everyone else gets it.

    Ho hum… Regarding:

    1) I’m not making any “claims”. I’m simply passing along sentiments expressed widely on Stormfront.

    LIKE I SAID …… you’re free to READ YOURSELF on Stormfront et al but apparently you are too busy trying to sound smart on forums to bother. Jack Cope is not apparently.

    2) Garibaldi acknowledged “the enemy of my enemy” faction is worth discussion while saying it’s important to also continue to acknowledge those who are trying to exploit anti-Islamic sentiment. I agree. I’m simply saying don’t assume Islamophobes are racists or racists are Islamophobes and be aware of the differences and don’t oversimplify the situation like they do. It’s ignoring significant swaths of the trend.

    I’d say let’s agree to disagree but you don’t even seem to be following what the grown ups are saying.

    2)

  • Chameleon, out of interest have you ever read some of Stormfront? I go there from time to time to… well I guess it’s like how people look at car crashes… you know you shouldn’t but you do it anyway. Anyway, I do find that while a few years ago there was some effort to include Muslims it is now almost dead. In fact, I remember that one of their members even linked to LW at one point and did a pretty crappy ‘deconstruction’ of the article. Anyone want proof? Stick yourself into one of the open forums as a Muslim and see how long you last…

    And sure, the hate brigade are not a monolith, same as everyone, but at the same time they have common trends that you pick up. Stormfront make their trend ‘Jews’ and ‘Immigrants’, the EDL similarly just chose the latter (in public at least). My point is that while it is wrong to paint them as a monolith, to deny common trends in groupings is just as wrong. Heck, that’s why they are groups right?

    Oh and yes, I did see the JW spin on white supremacists. It was painful in a way.

  • Chameleon

    @Jim,

    Garibaldi actually disagreed with you, but ultimately gave you a pass. I do not. Anyone would agree with your new watered down statement that the white supremacists are a diverse bunch — what could be more obvious? You, on the other hand, made two prior claims that you are now backing down from: 1) white supremacists are looking to ally with Muslims against Jews as part of a “final solution”, if they have not done so already (thereby respinning the JihadWatch propaganda that white supremacists are now somehow absurdly under the umbrella of Islam rather than Christianity, which is where they actually are); and 2) this article paints a “simplistic, monochromatic portrait of the ‘hate brigade'”. I proved your second point completely wrong, and I called you out on your first point by demanding that you back up your claim, which you failed to do. If you want to call that blowing hard, then your arguments simply suck.

  • Jim

    @ Chameleon

    Gotta love a good blowhard.

    My point from the beginning has been that there is not a simple homogeneity among these groups and that assuming a white supremacist is hardcore anti-Islam or that an Islam basher is a racist may not be the most accurate depiction of reality.

    This was a fairly simple idea that Garibaldi seems to have EASILY understood and concisely addressed without confusion.

    You on the other hand… well…

  • Chameleon

    @Jim,

    Your previous point was not this watered down, meaningless statement that anyone with common sense would agree with: “I’m making the point, that not every white supremacist is a fan of Robert Spencer and not everyone in the EDL is necessarily a fan of David Duke.” This is your new point, which totally contradicts your previous point. It is better to concede an argument than to try to slither out of one by changing your claim.

    Oh, and by the way, I am well aware of the “white-supremacist Islam” BS claim by Robert Spencer from 2005 that you were originally parroting and that Stormfront zombies have likely latched onto. Spencer has refused to provide the web link to support this claim out of concern that it will attract more visitors to this mystery site — right.

  • Jim

    @Chameleon

    This isn’t some abstract argument I’m constructing on a white board or something I think makes any logical sense whatsoever.

    There are a gazillion threads on Stormfront where this “discussion” is being had and there is a surprising diversity of opinion… (not coherence, but there is diversity). The opinions are less homogeneous than one would expect.

    I’m making the point, that not every white supremacist is a fan of Robert Spencer and not everyone in the EDL is necessarily a fan of David Duke.

    No reason to believe me, go read for yourself. Just wash your eyes afterwards.

  • Ummer F

    The Alex Jones following insist that this was a 9/11 styled false flag terrorist attack by those who want to remove rights.

  • Chameleon

    I am just following up on my reply to @khushboo above with respect to the NCTC report I cited. I am also renewing my call for a full article on this topic (feel free to copy/paste/edit what I wrote so far on this topic without direct quotes).

    Not only does the NCTC definition of “terrorism” exclude and excuse all acts of terrorism by state actors, including the U.S., but it essentially forces every action initiated by non-state actors in a war zone to be categorized as terrorism! So when someone (no names mentioned) stirs up a hornet’s nest of a war and occupies a country with tens of thousands of troops, any and all violent reactions to such war and occupation could be deemed “terrorism”. So by that definition, the founding fathers and first settlers of the U.S., when they fought against oppressive British occupation, would be nothing but cold-blooded terrorists according to those at the NCTC. This would be especially true – again, according to the NCTC definition – given the extensive use of insurgent and guerilla-like tactics initiated by the settlers/terrorists against the British as a result of their weaker position and training in fighting a traditional “battlefield-style” war.

    But wait, you say, the “subnational” founding fathers and U.S. settlers were fighting with “premeditated, politically motivated violence” against the British military (and its mercenaries), so that would not be deemed “terrorism” by the NCTC. Wrong again. Even attacks against military targets can be deemed as “perpetrated against noncombatant targets”:

    “Victim types cataloged in WITS include, but are not limited to, civilians, business people, students, military, and police” (p.7, also note just above this quote that IED attacks are included, which are almost always targeting the military or police).

    But what is most deceiving about the report is that it deliberately hides all data, definition and guidance around how “noncombatant targets” is specifically defined:

    “Determining when noncombatants have been targeted, as provided in the U.S.C. definition, can be challenging. NCTC developed a combatant matrix that details the various areas of war-like settings and the common combatant or combatant-like actors such as military police, militias, and soldiers. NCTC utilizes this combatant matrix to determine when an act targeting combatant-like actors should be included in WITS. To remain as accurate as possible, the combatant matrix is adjusted when circumstances surrounding world conflicts change” (p. 8).

    In spite of the deliberate ambiguity and the fluidly-defined nature of this critical term that is constantly “adjusted” by the NCTC’s own admission, what seems clear is that “noncombatant target” is defined by a regional “matrix” of some sort (i.e., “areas of war-like settings”). It does not appear to be defined by the actual attack or the target itself. For example, an IED attack on a tank passing through an area not deemed to be a “war-like setting” would presumably be a “noncombatant target”. Therefore, if there is no “war-like setting” in the area (which could in theory be defined as the entire country when no U.S. operations are underway), then it would be considered an act of terrorism, even when the attack is “targeting combatant-like actors”. In other words, any and all unilateral attacks by the U.S. simply create a “war-like setting”, but any reactive attack initiated against the U.S. and its occupation, where the U.S. has not yet created a “war-like setting”, would be slapped with the “terrorism” label:

    “Terrorists, under the WITS methodology, must have initiated and executed an attack for the attack to be included in the database” (p. 7).

    It then logically follows that ANY attack on “combatant-like actors” that is included in the database merely because it is not in a “war-like setting” must, by the NCTC’s own assertion, have met the definition of “terrorism” — just as ANY attack initiated by ANY subnational actors against ANY state-sponsored occupation and/or oppression would be deemed to be “terrorism”. The founding fathers and first settlers of what is now the United States of America are therefore hereby guilty as charged – by the NCTC – with the heinous crime of terrorism on a massive scale. And the Declaration of Independence is hereby denounced as a terrorist manifesto by the NCTC, since it motivated all these terrorist attacks against the “legitimate” occupying authority. And we could go on, and on, and on.

    The point of all this reductio ad absurdum is not to use the legitimacy of the NCTC to make an absurd point (e.g., to justify any terrorism, which is always wrong, or to impugn an honorable fight against oppression), but to use the absurd definitions of the NCTC to make the legitimate point that the NCTC’s “terrorism” stats are totally bogus. The stats may be meticulously measured and accurately tabulated, but the definitional premises upon which they are based are ultimately no better than those used by TheReligonOfPeace web site.

    A suggested title for the article could be as follows: “National Counterterrorism Center Defines the Founding Fathers of the U.S. as Terrorists”. However, before doing any article, I would recommend getting a copy of the NCTC database and beefing up this claim with actual facts and information derived from it. It is supposed to be publicly available and on their web site, but it is not. Can someone point me to it so that I can do a bit of OLAP and data mining analysis on it, or explain to me why it is no longer available?

  • Pingback: The Sikh Temple Carnage, White Supremacy and Islamophobia | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper()

  • @Fearless ferret no one is saying that being critical of Islam is racist. We are saying that white racist bigots are making racist claims against Islam.And its easy to say these people are racist with out having to admit that Islam appeals to certain people. The reason is because they themselves make racist comments about Muslims as if Muslims are a race. They do this REGARDLESS of the fact that Muslims come from different backgrounds including White European and American.

    So your claim makes no sense at all. Apples and oranges!

  • Chameleon

    @Jim,

    I agree with Garibaldi here. Garibaldi never even remotely argued that the problem is isolated to “only knuckle dragging white supremacists”. In fact, what came across to me as the larger threat from reading the article was exactly the point you are saying he is missing: “What SHOULD concern you is that these days otherwise liberal minded people are turning to these parties.” The real threat, as Garibaldi argues, is in all the professional hate machines mentioned in the article, who are sanitizing, repackaging and putting the lipstick on the pig of this white supremacist thug ideology, thereby infecting “otherwise liberal minded people” with this hate.

    As for your interesting claim that “anti-Jewish sentiment in the Muslim world” is “viewed simplistically by white supremacists as a common ground for when the ‘final solution’ comes about”, I do look forward to your support of this claim with actual facts evidencing 1) white supremacists somewhere — anywhere — on the planet reaching out to such Muslims in a kindred spirit of hate (For example, do they go bowling together too?); and 2) white supremacists planning some sort of “final solution” conspiracy – or any conspiracy, for that matter — that would involve the collaborative assistance of Muslims in any way.

    Before you answer, try to keep in mind what you are actually saying. Accordingly to your logic, white supremacists should be finding even more common ground with anti-Muslim sentiments in the Jewish world, since Muslims in Europe are generally much darker skinned than Jews, and “Muslim customs are more troublesome than most” according to the white supremacist ideology quoted in the article. So if we follow your logic to its ultimate contradictory conclusion, this would mean white supremacists can find a lot of “common ground” with just about every group they hate BECAUSE they hate them all and each group hates the others. In other words, the more that each group hates the others, the more “common ground” they would all have to work together. You might want to tweak your argument a bit.

  • Zakariya Ali Sher

    @ Fearless Ferret:

    You’ve said the same thing multiple times, but that doesn’t make it true. Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina are Muslim majority countries in Eastern Europe which would be described as ‘white,’ and there are significant Muslim minorities in Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Romania, Macedonia and the like. Not to mention that the largest Muslim majority nations are in South and Southeast Asia, not the Middle East, while a significant number of Muslims are also found throughout black Africa. That is pretty racially diverse.

    Yes, there are relatively few Muslims of Western European descent, and most of those are converts within the last generation or two, but they do exist and to pretend otherwise is rather foolish. If you are going to say that Islam ‘appeals to certain (non-white) races,’ then you also have to say that Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and just about every other religion on earth also doesn’t appeal to whites.

    Now, of course, there is a reason that you don’t see many white Hindus. The biggest one being that you don’t really have freedom of religion. I strongly believe that social pressure and the artificial construct of race has prevented many people from converting. Christianity is, ironically, portrayed as the ‘white’ religion, and people who convert away from it are treated with a certain amount of disdain. Indeed, many people don’t seem to understand why a white Euro-American would convert to another religion, which is especially funny since Euro-American Protestants are some of the most aggressive proselytizers towards other cultures and peoples.

    The other part is simple history. All of the Western European nations essentially had state religions, and they were all different flavours of Christianity. Everyone else was a second class citizen at best, and murdered or expelled at worst. Just look at what happened to the Jews in Spain, Portugal and… well, just about everywhere else they settled. Even here in America, we eventually closed our borders and set up a quota system which favored northern European Protestants over everyone else, including Muslims, but also Catholics and Orthodox Christians from southern and eastern Europe. That means that Muslims have had a far shorter period of time to make much of an impact in Western Europe and North America. Most people were Lutheran or Methodist or Anglican, but largely out of tradition more than anything else.

    Tell me Ferret, what religion are you? Do you have any Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs or anything else in your family tree, or are you just another average white guy?

    @ Jim:

    You are only fooling yourself if you think most of the anti-immigration crowd are normal people expressing their frustration with immigration. Do you know what the Muslim population of Britain is? 4.5%. No matter how you look at it, that’s a minority of the population, and one that is hardly likely to be imposing sharia law on anyone, let alone stealing jobs, mooching pensions, or anything else. Yes, I do believe there are plenty of frustrated young people, but it has a hell of a lot less to do with Islam than it does with unsustainable economic practices, something we have right here in America too.

    Muslims are targetted not because they are causing problems, but because we represent a visible minority. Aside from the fact that every bigot out there assumes anyone with brown skin is a Muslim (even the Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and Atheists) we also open businesses (halal grocers, restaurants, sheesha bars, mosques, schools, music stores, clothing stores) and bring with us clothing, food and other proud family traditions. Islamophobes seem to soil themselves whenever they see a woman in hijab or a man with a kurta and a beard, never mind that many younger Muslims here in America DON’T dress like that all the time. But we become a visible minority in the minds of the bigots, and thus we stand out. They remember us, and think we have huge numbers.

    We also make a rather convenient target. Notice how the media has downplayed the white supremacist ties of the Oak Creek shooter. Have you ever wondered why? A ‘foreign’ scapegoat, like a Muslim terrorist, is a much better boogeyman. There would be utter chaos if people started fearing white supremacist terrorists. Remember the vigilante actions after 9-11? Imagine neighbor shooting neighbor, people reporting other white people to the police. It would induce a huge amount of paranoia. People would get hurt. But the media and politicians don’t care if some random ‘muzzie’ gets hurt or killed. In their minds, we just operate cornershops and gas stations.

    Islamophobia IS a big industry. How much do you think Kamal Saleem makes for all of his speaking appearances? How much do you think Robert Spencer makes off his book deals? They are all parasites, mooching off other peoples’ racial fears and prejudices. Ten, fifteen years from now, people are going to either forget about them or view them as the racist monsters that they are. People will deny ever supporting or believing in them. But in the mean time, they are going to enjoy their huge cash cow. Its in their best interest to keep it up, just as it is in the American government’s best interests to keep ramping up new wars in the Middle East and even beyond. After all, someone needs to push through hefty contractors for their incestuous little buddies.

    But all of it harkens back to the fact that Islam is almost universally viewed as a ‘brown’ religion. The anti-Islam rhetoric almost always drifts into bigoted speeches against ALL Arabs, ALL Asians, ALL ‘brown’ people. We saw it with the revenge attacks, and we see it in quotes from Pipes, Spencer, Geller and the whole bloody lot of them. Very seldom do Islamophobes mention white Muslims or black Muslims or Southeast Asian Muslims… its pretty much ONLY focused on the Middle East and South Asia.

  • Garibaldi

    @Jim,

    The comments are rather mixed with more actually seeming to agree with me, clearly, because it seems they note that the article is neither “simplistic” or “monochromatic.”

    There are differences between these groups, but as Nick Griffin made plain there is a trend that exists that wants to defeat the “easy” enemy (Muslims), that’s undeniable. There isn’t any reason why this “enemy of my enemy” thinking cannot be discussed, nor is it absolved by the fact that there are also White Supremacists who view anti-Israel/Jewish sentiment in Muslim majority countries with glee.

    The reason is, one I provide facts, and two I note the nuance that “White Supremacism” is a trend within the Islamophobia Movement. I don’t say it is the be all, end all of the movement.

  • Chameleon

    @khushboo said “The first time I checked terrorist, the definition was simply ‘someone who terrorizes’ and now it’s been changed to ‘someone who terrorizes for political agenda’.”

    I definitely agree with you, except that your conclusion that it is merely a “wrong definition” is far too soft and generous. The definition has become even more stilted than what you indicate, and it is so utterly wrong and morally corrupt that heinous acts of terrorism can be committed with complete impunity by the U.S. and others without ever even risking a whisper of being labeled as terrorism. Here is the definition in use by the National Counterterrorism Center from NCTC.gov (NCTC is the U.S. gov’t. agency tasked with tracking all terrorist incidents worldwide):

    “NCTC uses the definition of terrorism found in Title 22, which provides that terrorism is ‘premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.’” (See, 22 U.S.C. § 2656f(d)[2]).

    As you can see, it is simply NOT possible for ANY state actor — the U.S. most especially — to EVER be guilty of terrorism by this definition, no matter what. By definition, only non-state actors can commit terrorism. If the “subnational” qualifier were removed, for example, the U.S. would be guilty, by their own definition, of what I consider to be the worst terrorist attacks in human history: the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    To expand on this topic more, I would highly recommend a brief article on the NCTC definition of terrorism in the near future, along with the consequences that this has on the perceived (very high) vs. actual (almost nil) terrorist threat to U.S. citizens.

    With respect to your other comment about the Fort Hood shooter, it is quite compelling based on the Wikipedia page that the shooter was mentally ill according to his colleagues’ assessments. Ironically, what seemed to put him over the edge was not any absurd Islamic kill order that he suddenly came across while reading the Quran, but rather the extreme accumulation of emotional distress in having to hear about his patient’s atrocities (i.e., war crimes) against Muslims, in combination with being forced to deploy to Afghanistan to accumulate even more such emotional distress. He was apparently not permitted by his colleagues to report these incidents due to patient-doctor confidentiality, thereby denying justice to the Muslim victims of U.S. actions. Although no explanation for his crimes can ever excuse them, all lethal behavior must be based on some sort of rational cause-effect explanation. In this case, the explanation is clearly not Islam, but rather a compelling case of mental illness.

  • Jim

    @ Garibaldi

    Well, it appears that I’m not the only one who sees your simplistic, monochromatic portrait of the “hate brigade” as lacking nuance. There are huge differences amongst these groups and large hostilities between some over ideology.

    The reality and Islam is a major faultline amongst these crazies.

    MANY white supremicists view Muslims as a lesser evil and potential ally. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not there is a lot of anti-Jewish sentiment in the Muslim world and this is viewed simplistically by white supremacists as a common ground for when the “final solution” comes about.

    I’m sure @Nur Alia above and David Duke could find quite a lot of common ground actually.

    On the other end of the spectrum painting the anti immigration movement in Europe simply as a white supremacist “angle” is a huge mistake. As someone who lives in Europe I can tell you that these people are not only knuckle dragging white supremacists.

    What SHOULD concern you is that these days otherwise liberal minded people are turning to these parties out of a perceived frustration with existing parties not acknowledging the growing pains related to large scale immigration. Many supporters are relatively normal people worried, legitimately OR NOT, about crime, economics, etc… and are not simply run of the mill racists.

    If you’d like to pretend they are all just neo-Nazis working an “angle” and utilizing deception, then congratulations, you sound like Robert Spencer and you’ve managed to uncover the white man’s “taqiyya.”

    You are also showing a serious lack of understanding of your opponent which is dangerous.

Powered by Loon Watchers