Top Menu

Why Islamophobes Hate Ron Paul

(image from an Islamophobic website)

DISCLAIMER: LoonWatch has not endorsed any candidate for President of the United States.  This article should not be seen as such.

Islamophobes absolutely hate Ron Paul.  Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs–the King and Queen of Islamophobia on the internet–dedicate page after page on their hate blogs lambasting the Congressman and presidential hopeful.

Why do they hate Ron Paul so much?

There are three major reasons why they detest him:

(1) Ron Paul stands up for American Muslims against Islamophobia.  For example, he defended the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque,” arguing that the entire controversy was “all about hate and Islamophobia.”

(2) He has been one of the most vocal opponents of the Bush-Obama curtailments of civil liberties that specifically target Muslims.

(3) Paul is the only major presidential candidate to oppose America’s wars in the Muslim world.  Even more importantly, Ron Paul links reason #1 above (the Lesser Islamophobia) to reason #3 (the Greater Islamophobia), arguing that “in order to perpetuate this foreign policy…they have to perpetuate this hate toward Islam.”

This third reason is also why mainstream politicians and the mainstream media dislike Ron Paul and have tried their utmost to destroy him.  Fox political pundit Bill O’Reilly argued that Paul’s views on foreign policy “disqualifies him” as a candidate for president.  Here is exactly what O’Reilly said:

His foreign policy disqualifies him in my eyes as an American…

Bill O’Reilly has inadvertently touched upon something very deep and meaningful:  “As an American,” foreign policy must include waging war.  To do without war would simply be un-American.

One recalls the words of H. Rap Brown, the chairman of the civil rights group Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), who famously declared in 1967:

Violence is as American as cherry pie.

Brown uttered this statement during the height of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War.  While blacks were being beaten up and hosed down in the streets of America, the United States was raining death down upon the Vietnamese population halfway across the earth.

H. Rap Brown was not the only one in the civil rights movement who linked the struggle of blacks in America to the struggle of the darker skinned peoples of the world.  For instance, Martin Luther King, Jr. called America “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” for its war-making:

The Soviet Union brought attention to America’s “Negro problem.”  Michael L. Krenn writes on pp.89-90 of Race and U.S. Foreign Policy During the Cold War:

By 1949, according to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, “the ‘Negro question’ [was] [o]ne of the principal Soviet propaganda themes regarding the United States.” “[T]he Soviet press hammers away unceasingly on such things as ‘lynch law,’ segregation, racial discrimination, deprivation of political rights, etc., seeking to build up a picture of an America in which the Negroes are brutally downtrodden with no hope of improving their status under the existing form of government.”  An [American] Embassy official believed that “this attention to the Negro problem serves political ends desired by the Soviet Union and has nothing whatsoever to do with any desire to better the Negro’s position.”

Apparently, only the United States is allowed to saber rattle and invade countries on the grounds that the “existing form of government” is discriminatory or unjust to part of its population.

With the world’s spotlight on America’s treatment of its darker-skinned citizens–and those same citizens linking their struggle to America’s foreign wars against darker-skinned peoples–the United States moved in the direction of racial integration in the 1970’s.  America’s longest war was also grudgingly brought to an end.

But today, despite the fact that we have been waging wars for two decades in the Muslim world and in just the last couple years bombed over half a dozen Muslim countries, the anti-war movement is, at least compared to the 1960’s and 70’s, all but dead.

Ron Paul is one of the only major political figures–and the only major presidential candidate–to oppose America’s wars.

And that is why he is in the cross-hairs of anti-Muslim bigots, who see the world in apocalyptic holy war terms: the jihad will bring an end to Western civilization as we know it so we must destroy them first!  This is their fundamental world view, which is why sustaining and protracting the wars against the Muslim world is their greatest desire.

Ron Paul threatens that paradigm.  He dares to cogitate that it is our military interventions in the Muslim world that result in Islamic terrorism against the United States and her allies.  He had the chutzpah to include 9/11 in this: “They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.”

In the American national discourse, this is next to blasphemy.  But, in the rest of the world (especially in Muslim countries), this is not just common knowledge, it’s common sense.  In fact, nothing could be more obvious.

It’s precisely because this idea is so obvious and self-evident that it must simply never be uttered in the United States.  Anyone who does so must be condemned as unpatriotic and, worse, as Unserious.  Such a person’s character must be viciously attacked.

That’s exactly what is happening to Ron Paul.  Unfortunately, Paul deserves much of the blame for making himself such an easy target.  The racist newsletters are a gold-mine for his opponents.  Pamela Geller gleefully called them a “bombshell,” arguing that his presidential bid is now “unrecoverable” and that “[h]e is done.”

The evidence against Ron Paul, that he wrote those vile things against black people, is certainly very strong.  The only saving grace for Paul is the fact that those racist screeds do not sound anything like him.  Whether or not this alone can outweigh the proof against him, I do not know.  Whatever the case, Paul’s delay in disassociating himself from the letters, his ever-changing excuses, and his questionable associations are enough to condemn him.  (A balanced article on Ron Paul was written by the indefatigable Glenn Greenwald.)

Under normal circumstances, I’d have nothing but absolute contempt for Ron Paul.  In fact, even if he didn’t have such racism-related baggage,  a progressive like myself would have nothing to do with a man who wants to get rid of social welfare programs, the Department of Education, etc. etc.  When it comes to domestic issues, there is probably very little Ron Paul and I would see eye-to-eye on.  Worse yet, I find many of his views on such matters to be outside the realms of reasonableness–I’d go so far as to call them loony.

Yet, many progressives like myself are finding themselves inexorably drawn to Ron Paul.  That is because he is the only major presidential candidate to oppose America’s wars.  Stated another way: the rest of the candidates–including the incumbent president (who expanded the War on Terror)–are war-makers.  Ron Paul is the only peace candidate.

This says a lot about the state of our union more than it does about Ron Paul.  War-making has become such a staple of American life that the only man who stands a chance (and a slim one at that) of bringing an end to Endless War is a loony, fringe candidate with a questionable and possibly racist past.

I have been criticized by some Islamophobes for daring to say anything positive about Ron Paul.  But, the fact that a person of my views (a progressive peacenik) is forced to consider Ron Paul is indicative of how truly violent and warlike our country has become (or, rather, has always been).  This underscores my main counter-argument to the Supreme Islamophobic Myth: we, as part of the Judeo-Christian West, have been and are still, just as, if not more, violent and warlike than the Muslim world.

This fact is underscored even more by the fact that the reason why Ron Paul has been “disqualified” as a realistic candidate is because, in the words of Bill O’Reilly, of his peace-loving foreign policy.  Imagine, for instance, if an Iranian candidate for the Iranian presidency could never realistically win unless he advocated for war against other countries.  What would it say about Iranians if they, by convention and consensus, refused to elect someone who advocated peaceful relations with the rest of the world?

One would expect that progressive peaceniks like myself would have more options to choose from than just one candidate.  But because warmongering is an essential component of being president of the United States (and serving in the military is almost a prerequisite to getting elected–imagine if Iranians would demand that their leaders must have sometime in their lives fought jihad), there is virtually nobody to vote for.

In an earlier article, I wrote of how war has been a part of the American psyche since the very beginning, from 1776 all the way to the present.  We’ve never gone a decade without a major war, and no president in our history can truly be considered a peacetime president.  Yet, somehow even after waging wars for more than 91% of our existence, we look at ourselves as peace-makers and “those Moozlums over there” as violent and warlike.

A verse from the Quran is most fitting here: “When it is said to them: ‘Do not make mischief on earth,’ they say: ‘We are but peace-makers.’  In fact, they are the mischief-makers, but they realize it not.” (2:11-12)

*  *  *  *  *

Something else that reinforces my argument is the fact that even Ron Paul, the single peace proponent in the presidential race, does not seem to oppose war based on peacenik principles.  He usually raises financial and political arguments against the wars, instead of humanitarian ones: We’re bankrupting ourselves.  Or: These wars result in terrorism (against us).

Our moral compass should not be dictated by money or self-interest.  We should oppose these wars because killing innocent civilians is morally atrocious.  This is what should be the main argument:

Not this:

Let me clarify: there is nothing wrong with raising financial and political arguments as secondary reasons to end the wars.  In fact, I would encourage doing so.  But, the primary motivation behind opposing wars should be less self-centered (the war is costing us too much money, they may retaliate with terrorism against us, too many of our young soldiers are risking their lives over there), but more humanitarian towards the victims of our aggression: we are killing innocent civilians.

Ron Paul’s emphasis on financial and political reasons, as opposed to humanitarian concerns, seems to be consistent with his ideology.  (After all, he supported Israel’s bombing of Iraq in 1981 and seems unconcerned if Israel bombs Iran on its own accord.  This indicates to me that it is not the dead in Iraq or Iran that bothers him so much, but only that it would cost us money to kill them or would risk retaliation against us for doing so.)  What does it say about America if even the one and only supposed peace candidate is against wars not out of humanitarian reasons but financial and political concerns?

Even if I am being too harsh on Ron Paul and it’s just a political consideration to focus on financial and political reasons, what does it say about us Americans that we can only be convinced based on our wallets and not on our consciences?

*  *  *  *  *

I don’t say this very often, but Pamela Geller was absolutely right when she said  about Ron Paul that “[h]e is done.”  He most certainly is.  And so dies the only candidate who could have ended America’s Endless Wars.

One should point out, however, that just because the Islamophobes have found the Kryptonite that will kill Ron Paul (the racist newsletters) this doesn’t change the fact that Paul’s foreign policy views were correct.

Let this be a lesson to groupies and fan boys of Ron Paul, a lesson that groupies and fan boys of Barack Obama should also heed: do not put your hopes in a man, because if you do, that man will often, if not always, disappoint you. Put your faith in a conviction instead.  If you hold on tightly enough to the conviction and not the man, it will persevere.

Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.  

DISCLAIMER: LoonWatch has not endorsed any candidate for President of the United States.  This article should not be seen as such.

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

    • donnel fenton

      Why would anyone vote for Ron Paul.(1) He doesn’t like wars (2)against the draft(3)Backs the constitution(4)wants to bring back morality,snore. 5.Repeal US Supreme court rulings on full immunities to judges and prosecutors, Forced arbitration on Americans wiping out due process,AT&T case. allowing inlimited corporation donations to politicians thus owning them(99.9%)–.(6) wants to bring our troops home-Boooooooooooooooo, party pooper! Whats wrong with what we have had over the past fifty years, corruption, low IQ Washington DC politicians, New world order, Tarper banks who steal our tax $$$ and now want to do away with the Constitution and I say Yes to that. Groupie party voters(demos/repubs) unite for more of the same. Polish up your children to offer themselves up to the War profiteers.

    • Saladin

      @Danios & @Believing Atheist Ben Swan has revealed the ghost writer

      @Danios you should update this article to include that

    • Ilisha writes: The point is that visitors don’t need to have a debate among themselves because the administrator sets and enforces the policies.

      Exactly. My point is that starting such a debate is no more than an attempt at censorship and a way of taking a discussion off-topic, as in “Divert, distort, denigrate, disrupt or destroy any discussion of anything adverse to any agenda of the enemies of humanity.”

      I’ve been watching the enemies of liberty take advantage of short attention spans to keep people from thinking things through, for over a decade. On any subject related to Islam or Israel it’s a professionally-directed organized activity with partisans at least monitoring virtually every Web forum for any discussion that needs to be dominated or disrupted. Muslims are just as intent on spreading their “message” ~ which usually contains something true, relevant to the reader or not ~ as are the zionists on spreading their “hasbara” ~ which usually contains something true, relevant or not.

      John Deere, owner of the now-defunct political discussion forum, refused to believe that disrupting deliberative discussions, a time-honored strategy of partisan political warfare, was organized and running in his forum even after we proved it with forensic evidence. The loons had already taken over his forum, and he couldn’t hear the warning. His forum became a cacophony of trivial mindless contentions, and died.

      The loons are here, at LoonWatch, obviously and more subtly. The “Divert, distort, denigrate, disrupt or destroy any discussion of anything adverse to any agenda of the enemies of humanity” is in full play here, and some of it is organized and professional. LoonWatch is a real threat to the loons, and is being taken seriously.

      What is most threatening to them is that LoonWatch is not a “muslim” party effort, but more “secular” and oriented on human rights rather than religious liberty per se. It’s not part of the “religious squabble,” it’s about the essential wrongness of demonizing and dehumanizing people. The loons have refined the “religious squabble” to a boring art, concealing the fact that it’s contention over “religion as a tool of oppression” as opposed to “religion as liberation,” with undeniable history showing both. But here, their “religious squabble” arguments fall flat ~ they have to fall back on tactics of provocation and disruption.

      “Blog-pimping” (whatever that is) isn’t a debate, it’s a provocation and disruption. It has nothing to do with Why Islamophobes Hate Ron Paul.

      The polis was the ancient Greek city-state. The word politics comes from this Greek word. The polis was the central urban area that may also have controlled the surrounding countryside.

      When we step into the political arena, we’re dealing with parties, not the individuals who make up those parties. The loons are a party, connected financially to another party, which in turn is related to another party. We see the individuals ~ we also have to see the parties, which we can do by recognizing the tactics and strategies ~ and aims ~ of the parties controlling “the surrounding countryside,” the individuals we see. When we see someone trying to disrupt the discussion, that is the party; ad hominem attacks are the party; provocation is the party; obfuscation, misrepresentation, and falsity are the party. It’s not necessary to name names, and it’s seldom possible to tell whether an individual is part of the party or part of the countryside ~ but the tactics work (or don’t) whether the individual knows what he’s doing or has just acquired a habit from compulsory public education or at the fringes of political activism.

      Why do Islamophobes Hate Ron Paul? Because he speaks plainly and sincerely, which the loons and the liars and the leeches cannot do, and just that exposes the sell-out, bait and switch shell game of “American democracy,” and there’s nothing they can do to stop it short of killing him.

      But they might be able to divert discussions about Ron Paul and what he’s saying and doing, at LoonWatch, by talking about that crime of the century, “blog-pimping,” which is a red herring in the first place. LoonWatch and LoonWatchers can do nothing for me, I have nothing to gain here by posting links to the Muslim America website. And that’s my point: the aim is censorship and disruption, not any imaginary “offense.”

    • Ilisha

      @Hajj Dawud

      “Posting links to websites is fine as long as you’re not affiliated with the site? What kind of a mind can wrap itself around that?

      You left off the first part: “Visitors are allowed to link to their blogs and other resources they feel are relevant to the discussion.”

      The second part was directly addressing the “blog pimping” allegations that were being debated. The point is that visitors don’t need to have a debate among themselves because the administrator sets and enforces the policies.

    • Anticipated Serendipity

      @Geji The internet connection went faulty then disappeared for a week, sorry for the late reply.

      There’s no point in flogging a dead horse, dear. I think the evil West gets more than its fair share of criticism on this site. It baffles me how anyone can have the audacity to state: “Islamist group in Nigeria kills Christians, it must be the West or the Evangelical Christians fault”, because the possibility that there are some Muslim extremists in Nigeria who are of the conviction that Christians must be eradicated is just too far-fetched. There’s no way the most logical conclusion can be the correct one, right? The West must be involved. That said, I don’t support any form of imperialism and would like proof of your assertion that I support Western/American imperialism. You appear to support sitting around and blaming all of the ummah’s problems on the omnipresent Western imperialists, rather than doing something about it or at the very least acknowledging it.

      When I’m on “anti-jihadist” website and there are comments linking everything from Hitler to McVeigh (yes, I’ve read McVeigh was in cahoots with “Muslim terrorists”) to Muslims, I similarly point out the lunacy of that.

    • Anticipated Serendipity

      @Khusboo Obama is only continuing the wars and path to destruction that Bush the Younger started, two wars and a decline that could’ve been avoided had Bush not been elected to begin with.

      I’m not an Obama fan, nor am I an American and my country is actually doing relatively well amid the global financial turmoil, despite us being more “socialistic” than the US. By most standards the US is very far from being anything close to a socialist country, and I thought it was all the market deregulation and unlimited spending of the Bush era that started this mess anyway? I suppose everybody should get a tax cut and more regulations be scrapped. I’m sure that’ll work.

      LOL, you’re an Obama voter but somehow he’s “my Obama”.

      No I’m not happy at all with the NDAA bill. Detention without charge or trial is not right, not for anyone, but the cold truth is that the US has almost 200 non-US citizens detained in its foreign dungeon in Cuba and arbitrary detention has been okayed for us non-Americans for a long time now, so welcome to the party!

    • Ilisha writes: If the administrator determines there is too much “blog pimping,” offenders will be contacted directly and asked to scale back.

      Or comments are deleted, when a particular link is unwanted. It’s not always clear what will be “acceptable” and what not ~ the persistent troll posts, and replies to them, make it impossible to know that, but “disappeared” comments are sometimes instructive.

      Since October 26 (2011), at least 110 Loonwatchers have followed links to our website 187 times ~ 104 of the 187 were from links in comments, not the link in my screen name. At least three Loonwatchers have followed most, if not all, of the links I’ve included in comments. Sixteen Loonwatchers had done some exploring on the site by the time I stopped keeping track of the LW traffic after the first couple of weeks. Those numbers don’t include visitors whose browsers don’t identify the location of the link they followed, which statistically runs about 30%, so they’re certainly “lower” low numbers than they would be.

      So LW administrators can compare “110” (LW visitors to the MA website) with the number of LW regular readers (which we suspect is much larger) and draw any conclusions they want ~ I really don’t care, I’m not a “fame” or “popularity” junkie and I don’t measure the worth of the Muslim America website by the volume of traffic it gets. The public website tells us whether more or fewer people are realizing that “faith” might have something to do with their lives ~ that information is in the search engine queries that bring visitors to the site, not the traffic statistics.

      People in most web forums post links to pages they think other readers might want to see. There are muslim readers at LoonWatch ~ some actually practicing and doing Islam, and some learning, thinking, and talking about doing that. We could post links to “talking about Islam” websites all day long ~ but we have a “doing it” website that we think is more worthwhile than “talking about it.” Some agree, some don’t ~ that just tells us about them, it tells us nothing about ourselves. But the enemies of liberty will stop at nothing to prevent anyone from seeing a “doing it” muslim website ~ and that identifies them.

      Posting links to websites is fine as long as you’re not affiliated with the site? What kind of a mind can wrap itself around that?

    • Ilisha

      Visitors are allowed to link to their blogs and other resources they feel are relevant to the discussion.

      If the administrator determines there is too much “blog pimping,” offenders will be contacted directly and asked to scale back.

    • There you are, HajjiDawud pimping his blog. That was an example

      To gain exactly what, “Inspired”? I’ve been at the top of my field for over thirty years, our needs are satisfied with no effort on my part, and the only interest I have in people like you is keeping a good distance between us. So for what purpose am I “pimping” a website whose main traffic is from search engines that routinely put it at the top of highly specific searches?

      Your devotions are not my devotions. Whatever you imagine that I “want,” based on what you would want, is most probably the opposite of what I actually want. And with reference to the Muslim America website, I doubt whether you could even imagine what I might want.

      Muslim America’s active website is hosted on our Local Area Network that serves Madrasat al-‘Ulum-e-Shar’iah (the Muslim America School of Law), the Muslim America Children’s Forest, Masjid al-Amr, administrations of communities of faith associated with the indigenous sector of Muslim America, and a few discussion forums and chat rooms. It all sits on machines under the direct physical control of our Network Operations Center, inside our offices. You couldn’t gain access to that website even if you knew the domain names that lead to the password screens ~ you’d never reach the password screens, the connection request would be ignored.

      So who’s “pimping” what here? And for what purpose? We’re already established with more dominion than we ever wanted, and threatened by nothing.

      As for your notion that webmasters and forum hosts commonly prohibit linking to participants’ websites, that’s nonsense. Forum hosts routinely ask participants to post links to “off-topic” material on the off-topic posters’ websites or ISP “home pages.” Here at LoonWatch, trolls take discussions completely off-topic all day long ~ perhaps some twisted notion of “Free Speech” allows that.

      Your aim is censorship, plain and simple. There are views, facts and perspectives you don’t want seen by LoonWatch readers.

      And that’s how you’re “Inspired by Mohammad,” who didn’t even stop a Bedouin from peeing on the wall of the mosque in Madinah.

      Which is all you’re doing.

    • Sir Stephen writes: I suggested that anyone who wishes to see what I believe will find the answer at my blog. Now to my way of thinking, that’s just reasonable.”

      As you can see from a recent post above, the “pimping your own blog” nonsense is aimed primarily at me. Here’s why:

      I’ve been fighting the loons ~ the “Islamophobes” and the enemies of humanity ~ on the Web, on their home ground ~ FreeRepublic, MSN, LibertyForum, the USS Liberty Court of Inquiry, and some other “public Web discussion forums” that are openly or secretly run by “Islamophobes” ~ since 1997. I’ve been banished from those four ~ and others ~ because I debunk their false representations effectively.

      I don’t publish a blog ~ what I write that’s appropriate to a “blog” goes to a private mailing list with educated, professional subscribers on four continents. What I write at the blogs and forums goes into a text file and is sent to that list, partly for peer review, after which it goes on the Muslim America website for reference use by writers who take on the loons on their home ground ~ solid, on-point refutations of the habitual contentions of the anti-Islam brigades, the hasbara teams, and the nut cases. My laptop recently ate one such text file, erasing over year’s worth of writings that I had sent to our mailing list ~ and received from a subscriber a complete copy of everything sent to the current list, and to all of its predecessors, for the last seven years, which included everything I’ve posted to anti-Islam blogs and forums for those years.

      And when I can address a contention by referring to something I’ve written twenty times before, refining it each time to shorten it and make it more directly effective against the propaganda attack, I link to the appropriate page and sometimes include a short extract or introduction.

      At the Muslim America website visitors can find over ten years of debunking the lies of the loons, in Christian forums, Republican forums, technical forums, libertarian forums, and “cacophony” forums (like Daily Bell, BoingBoing, CNN, Freedom Portal, the Seattle Times, USAToday, and the Washington Post) to which someone has sent me a link to refute a specific lie. Over ten years of defeating the agenda to “Divert, distort, denigrate, disrupt or destroy any discussion of anything adverse to any agenda of the enemies of humanity.” And over ten years of being the target of the “Dismiss, discredit, denounce, demonize or deny any proponent or professor of humanly effective inspiration” agenda that those with eyes to see are watching ~ now ~ at LoonWatch.

      Google the phrase “muslim america” and you’ll find the Muslim America website at the top of the list of hits ~ yesterday it was the first four links at Google. The Muslim America website has been at the top of that list for at least seven years. We don’t “promote” it ~ we don’t need to. We don’t use any of the “tricks” to put it at the top of the list ~ we do nothing at all. Search on any number of topics related to Islam or religion, or the stock lies of the enemies of humanity related to Islam, and you’ll find the Muslim America website in the list. We don’t use “keyword” headers on our web pages. We don’t care about traffic, the site is located on an Internet backbone with no bandwidth limits ~ DDoS attacks fail regularly.

      We just added Dominions of Faith: Humanity is the Crown of Creation yesterday, because it is (in my opinion) too long and too tangential to LoonWatch’s purposes to post here as a comment. It’s the first page that’s been added to the website since we set up “The Priceless Muslim America Bookstore” ~ where there are no prices, everything is there for free download. There’s no advertising on the entire website. There are no “donation” requests ~ the “donations” page, if you can find it, discourages donations. Go to the Wayback machine and you’ll find that there have never been any “fund” requests on the website. is in the “top ten million” websites for traffic, which is just the way we like it. Our other three domain name sites aren’t even visible, and two-thirds of the site is not accessible through the public pages, you have to find links somewhere else ~ if you can at all, most of the pages are not linked in any public forum.

      We’ve also hosted graphics for others engaged in this “war in the heavens” against humanity. Our Network Operations Center runs chat rooms inaccessible from the Muslim America website. We run several Majordomo mailing lists not accessible from the Muslim America website. None of our password-protected or encrypted pages are reachable through the Muslim America website. And we host a library of literature from, about, or related to Islam on three terabytes of web space not accessible from the Muslim America website, on a server physically located in our offices, on machines to which no one else has any access.

      We didn’t start fighting the loons yesterday or even two years ago ~ we’ve been at it for a while, and we know the dirty ways they fight ~ Geller isn’t even the tip of one of the icebergs they’re running on the Web to sink efforts such as LoonWatch, fighting lies with truth.

      That’s why the “pimping your own blog” nonsense is being injected ~ off-topic ~ into a discussion of “Why Islamophobes Hate Ron Paul,” and why “Hajji Dawud/Shaykh is the most avid pimper of his own blog here.” And Hajj Dawud doesn’t even write a public blog.

      It’s just lunacy.

    • Sir David,

      Though Hajji Dawud/Shaykh is the most avid pimper of his own blog here, in all fairness others do it too, i’ve seen other bloggers posting links to their own blogs, it’s not their fault because Loon Watch allows it, and it is irritating, and unprofessional.

      Other websites I go to, ban people immediately if they pimp their own blogs. Rightly so, in my opinion.

  • Sir David

    Inspired by Momammed Not that you are promoting a website in any way Is that a link I see on your name or are you just pleased to be coloured red /orange ?

    Read my comment carefully. I said it was sufficient that a blog can be linked in the comment where it says ‘website’.

    Talking about or promoting your OWN website when writing comments at another website is strictly forbidden in most forums. It’s called ‘pimping your own blog’. The rule makes sense. It ensures that people who post comments are genuine supporters (or enemies or whatever ) of the cause, and not just there to pick up traffic and divert readers to their website.

    My linking to a website in the ‘website’ box, does not mean i’m pimping it. because first it’s not my website, and second, I don’t talk about it.

    Why do i get the feeling you did not read my comment properly

Powered by Loon Watchers