Top Menu

New York: Predictably, The So-Called “Islamorealism” Ads are Based in Bigotry and Lies

The above ads are appearing at Metro-North stations in New York. A continuation of Islamophobic activists Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller‘s AFDI/SIOA racist and anti-Muslim/Islam advertisement campaign.

In light of recent hate attacks, 8 over a period of 11 days, and another possible attack yesterday, the attempted firebombing of a Muslim family’s home in Panama City, Florida, can we not consider such advertisements to be an incitement to violence?


If these ads are not a form of “false advertisement,” at the very least they are a form of false and inaccurate information that is being disseminated to the general public, making the masses more ignorant.

Factually, the number of “*19,250 Islamic attacks (*and counting)” is a purposeful fabrication. To label such attacks as “Islamic” is not only offensive but a dangerous and ignorant essentialization of Islam and the very broad and variegated phenomenon of terrorism in Muslim majority countries and the West. It tells us nothing about the so-called “terrorist” attacks themselves; what criteria was used to judge them “terrorist” or “Islamic”; nor about who or what created the “terrorism.” It purposefully reinforces the Islamophobic myths that Islam, a religion of over 1.5 billion people worldwide, that is over 1400 years old is a unified, monolithic and totalitarian force that is inherently obligated to wreak random and terrible violence. Also notice the intentional and shameless exploitation of 9/11 in the ad, “…Since 9/11/01.”

What is strangely not mentioned in the advertisements is that this so-called “Islamic Terrorism ticker” that gives us the oddly precise round number of 19,250 is taken from the anti-Muslim website “The Religion of Peace” (TROP). In a previous article I pointed out that the methodology by which TROP arrived at these inflated numbers is very deceptive.

Even a cursory glance at TROP’s list of so-called “Islamic terrorist attacks” reveals it to be nothing more than a deeply biased, propagandistic spin-job that conflates:  real terrorist attacks, (semi)religious/culturally motivated crimes, attacks on military personnel and attacks by secular groups with no ideological basis in Islam — all in theaters of occupation, civil war and separatist conflict.

I cited a sampling of the attacks they claimed were so-called “Islamic terrorism” from a period of just one month that on further inspection proved not to be related to either “terrorism” or “Islam.” Many of the attacks listed by TROP relate to nationalist insurgencies, such as the conflict involving Baluchi nationalists seeking independence from Pakistan. Some of the attacks listed by TROP are in fact crimes committed by Muslims or people with Muslim sounding names that have nothing to do with Islam or terrorism, such as honor killings, the killing of local policemen, petty assault, etc.

In the end I wonder if there are any actionable grounds to contest these advertisements? Even though they are not selling a product they are promoting hate propaganda based on fabricated and faulty information, and hence are doing an immense disservice to the general population.

by James Arkin (NYDailyNews)

The Metro-North is once again the center of a controversy over potentially offensive billboards.

Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner is urging Metro-North to put up ads of its own in response to “inflammatory” postings in the Hartsdale station.

The ad in question, sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, lists the number of deadly Islamic attacks since 9/11″[This needs to be challenged and not just stated as fact–Ed.] and says “It’s not Islamophobia, It’s Islamorealism.”

Feiner says the ad can’t be removed, but is offensive. He wants Metro-North to warn passengers that the ads could be upsetting and don’t represent Metro-North’s views or that of the community.

“There are many Muslims residing in Greenburgh and in our villages,” he said. “They should not be discriminated against. the posters encourage hatred, discrimination and do not help the efforts to fight hate crimes.”

After lots of feedback — positive and negative — from residents concerning the ads, Feiner added that he will recommend the Metro-North donate profits from the ad to education campaigns against discrimination.

“I feel it’s not a violation of free speech for Metro North to put up a competing sign and it’s also not a violation of free speech if they donate the profits to an anti-defamation league or an organization that objects to hate crimes,” he said. “I feel that it should be clear that the people of Metro North and the town do not support this message.”

AFDI executive director Pamela Geller said the ad is not hate speech, but merely a statement of fact.

“There is nothing hateful, mean-spirited, or offensive about opposing jihad terror,” she said in an email. “Are the facts offensive? It is, as the ad says, Islamorealistic. Islamic supremacist imams around the world foment violence, promote hatred, teach children to hate, and exhort Muslims to gain a place in Paradise by murdering infidels.”

The MTA lost a recent federal court case to Geller, who sued after the MTA banned an advertisement, saying it violated standards prohibiting language that demeans an individual or group.

The MTA declined further comment and said its position has not changed on the issue.

Feiner is not the first politician to complain about offensive advertisements on the railroad: The MTA faced a controversy in July over potentially offensive billboards concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict.

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

    • Chameleon_X

      What’s the matter, wimp, are you too scared to accept my challenge? Since you seem to believe that 93% of the incidents on TROP are “as advertised” in terms of being “Islamic terrorism”, then why do you find it so difficult to support the far lesser claim of demonstrating that just ONE out of ten incidents meets this claimed criterion? It is very simple, really: because there is no factual basis behind this naked claim of TROP whatsoever.

      So what you are basically admitting here by running away from such a trivial challenge without conceding your complete ignorance is that you are a screaming bigot masquerading as someone interested in truth. If you ever come back to this site again, I will not hesitate to remind you and everyone else of your spineless bigotry.

    • 1DrM

      Sounds good, brother. You could also upload it(obscuring the private details) to a file sharing website. Nothing like raw data.

    • Chameleon_X

      You are just chasing your tail, and on top of that, you don’t even realize when you are being ridiculed – how funny.

      TROP is basically making the claim that “Islamdunnit” with respect to crimes committed by alleged Muslims. There is no data backing up this claim, or even the lesser claim that religion was the primary motive, or even the still lesser claim that the perpetrators were Muslim in most cases. Instead, just a vomit list of crimes committed in specific war zones and other Muslim-majority regions is posted with the label of “Islamic terrorism” slapped on all of them.

      When someone is making such bald claims, the onus is on the person making the claims to prove them. The onus cannot be on others to disprove claims that have no evidence behind them to even analyze, contrary to your idiotic assertion to the contrary. Is this rudimentary data requirement sinking in to your thick skull yet? If not, then let me explain the obvious still further.

      The willful ignorance on your part is why I ridiculed you by making the parallel counterclaim that 145,000 “Christian terrorist” murders were done in the Americas in 2012. I am asserting (in ridicule) that the motive is Christianity in 100% of the cases in the same way that TROP asserts that the motive was Islam for similar crimes committed by alleged Muslims. This massive number of murders by Christians (or at least 75% of them, as you justifiably qualify) is a valid statistic, which you can find on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

      Now, my contention – again, in ridicule of you – is that I am right and you are wrong until you can show me the proof that the vast majority of the 145,000 cases were not done with the motive of Christianity (i.e., “in the name of” Christianity). You may prove a few thousand to not be in support of my claim, but hey, that would still leave one hell of a lot of Christian terrorism, now wouldn’t it?

      Let me know when you are starting to feel stupid. I am quite happy to continue embarrassing you until then, at least until I get bored of your clown show. What is so shocking is that you continue to see relevance in data that is 1) extremely biased, as you already acknowledge, and 2) that completely fails to back up the overarching claim of TROP that “Islamdunnit”. The only claim that the TROP site can possibly support is the very trite conclusion that there is a lot of crime all over the world, especially in politically unstable, war-torn regions lacking a justice enforcement infrastructure, from which the vast majority of TROP’s data is derived. Yawn … as if everyone did not already know that obvious fact already.

    • Nick Lynch

      This article states that the figures are a ‘purposeful fabrication’. If one has been supplied no data then how does one know they are fabricated?

    • 1DrM

      If you still have your email exchange with that neo-Nazi, do post it here.

    • Chameleon_X

      “TROP uses only legitimate sources from third parties – usually international news agencies” (per your previous post).

      Oh, yes, those same legitimate sources showed 145,000 murders (i.e., “Christian terrorist attacks”) in 2012 alone for the Americas, which would be greater than 15 times higher than the 2 year TROP number of “Muslim terrorist attacks” worldwide, which itself is bogus. And that 145k excludes the 1.5 million Iraqis murdered by U.S. Christians, along with the millions of others slaughtered elsewhere in U.S.-occupied and invaded territories.

      Are you that much of a moron that you buy into this idiotic propaganda? As Ilisha implied, any idiot with time to waste and Zionist propaganda money to burn can make a very long list of all the crimes done by a certain group like Muslims and then slap the “Islamic Terrorism” label on all those crimes. The entire premise of the TROP site is that it relies on an endless repetition of the same association fallacy, which – as yet another propaganda pawn just proved – is extremely persuasive to idiots with small minds.

      This Glen guy is running a hate site, plain and simple, and he is a proven liar. If you can’t see that, you need some serious help. I debated this dolt in a private email exchange, and I completely destroyed his juvenile “Islamdunnit” arguments, which is the implied conclusion of all his association fallacies. I proved his web site information unequivocally wrong on multiple points, but he refused to make any changes, contrary to his stated promise to do so. He is not interested in truth whatsoever. He is only interested in propaganda. And you are just the latest sucker to fall for it. Congratulations on earning your graduate diploma in idiocy.

    • Nick Lynch

      Ilisha, many thanks for your response as always, but I believe you’re twisting my words. I have never said that I don’t see anything wrong with TROP. In fact I actually agree with most of what you just said. I don’t like the biased sites which TROP links to, it is conducive to ill-feeling towards Islam which could lead to hate, potentially leading to violence which I abhor.

      If Polpot had said that 2+2=4 I’d have agreed with him, it doesn’t mean that I’d agree with his actions and views, he was an atrocity.

      Please please see the difference between me defending its views and me defending the accuracy of its data – that is the reason I asked you to read the link.

      I’m kind of glad you said you’re not going to spend much more time on this, I agree we’re not really going anywhere fast.

    • Nick Lynch

      >> ‘First, I’ve already explained to before that when it’s written, it’s libel, not slander.

      Touché! I’ll concede that point.

      But for the rest, I hate repeating myself. Please see this –

      As for the individual events, you can probably find the sources yourself to really prove them wrong if you use a search engine.

    • Nick Lynch

      >> ‘What’s right about it?’

      It’s accuracy, which is somewhere between 93 and 99.5%, high enough to be considered ‘right’. I’ve been through this already.

      >> ‘TROP says every kind of attack, including a crime murder, is a terrorist attack’

      Please could you provide evidence of this! (Loonwatch could not to do so when they carefully examined the reports last year).

      Now I really am beginning to go around in circles – Loonwatch admitted the violence was real, and claimed that ONLY 7% WAS EITHER NOT TERRORISM OR NOT ISLAMIC.

      You can express any opinion you want about the hate-site, please do, but to suggest it deliberately fabricates its results is plain slander.

    • CriticalDragon1177

      Couldn’t have said it better myself

    • Nick Lynch

      Hello Ilisha, thank you for your reply.

      Before I go any further perhaps I should set some things straight: I do not endorse TROP, I never have, and I certainly don’t endorse the external links it publishes, many of which direct to heavily biased websites. Neither am I a Christian – I frequently visit Christian-biased websites to debate all manner of things, including violence committed in its name.

      What I value above all is truth. I’m not stupid enough to neglect that when confronted by something so obviously as biased as TROP, that I shouldn’t exercise caution in interpreting their statistics, but I am yet to find any evidence at all that any of their statistics are fabricated. They can provide credible sources for each event, together with evidence the terrorist attacks are committed specifically in the name of Islam.

      It’s all fair and well saying that they’re biased and anti-muslim so they must be wrong – indeed Loonwatch thought this, but in reality they really couldn’t find much wrong at all.

      TROP’s ulterior motives in publishing the results is a whole different debate altogether, largely irrelevant to my argument, which is purely based around the accuracy of their data.

      If you believe I’m guilty of bigotry and duplicity after reading this, then that is your prerogative. I really couldn’t care less what I’m thought of so I have no reason to pretend to be anything I’m not.

    • Nick Lynch

      There were mass protests against the illegal war in Iraq, and most people, certainly in my country, were against it even though it removed a tyrranical dictator. It’s terrible about the dead Iraqis although I would say that 1.5 million deaths as a direct result of the war is a substantial overestimate. I read elsewhere that there have been 87% fewer violent deaths in Iraq since the war than when Hussein was dictator, although I suspect this is an overestimate too.

      As for this article, the figure is absolutely NOT a ‘purposeful fabrication’. TROP lists all of the terrorist acts in question, and can provide all the sources upon request. Loonwatch themselves identified only 7% of the reports as being incorrect, later debunked by TROP here: It’s based not on bigotry nor lies, but a factual representation on the atrocities committed in the name of Islam on a daily basis. Saying that other religions are bad too does NOT change this.

  • Guess

    Senior Carlos, I think it is time for you to start go read, ponder and reflect upon all the answers and links provided to your challenge, instead of replying passé idiocies. Maybe you could see something there

Powered by Loon Watchers