The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

Steve Emerson, Backing King Hearings, Pushes Misleading Statistic on Muslim Terrorism

By Robert Steinback on March 23, 2011 - 2:57 pm, Posted in Anti-Muslim

UPDATE: Steve Emerson, who is criticized in the post below, sent in a lengthy statement last night in response to a request for comment submitted by the writer earlier in the week. It can be found in the comments at the end of the story.

The day before U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) convened the first round of his controversial hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims, the nonprofit Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) released what certainly seemed to be a sobering statistic. “More than 80 percent of all convictions tied to international terrorist groups and homegrown terrorism since 9/11 involved defendants driven by a radical Islamist agenda,” IPT said in the opening lines of the March 9 statement on its website. “Though Muslims represent about 1 percent of the American population, they constitute defendants in 186 of the 228 cases DOJ lists.”

These claims, while not exactly going viral, nevertheless were quickly picked up by the political right. Anti-Muslim firebrand Pamela Geller, executive director of Stop Islamization of America (which is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-Muslim hate group), went on Eric Bolling’s FOX Business program “Follow the Money” on the evening of King’s hearings. “As we witnessed in the recent study released by [IPT Executive Director] Steve Emerson,” she said, “where we saw that over 80% of the attacks since 9/11 were Islamic in nature, so there is a problem.”

But it really isn’t so.

IPT’s statistics, clearly intended to justify King’s decision to focus only on the threat of homegrown Muslim terrorists to the exclusion of all other domestic terror threats, mischaracterized the source material it analyzed from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) — and then drew a meaningless conclusion from its own flawed analysis. While Emerson didn’t flatly misstate most of the facts, IPT’s characterization of those facts — especially its second sentence, comparing the percentage of American Muslims with the percentage of Muslim defendants in terror cases listed by the DOJ — was essentially a propaganda ploy meant to hype the domestic Muslim threat.

Here’s the reality.

The list that IPT was working from was drawn up by DOJ to satisfy a specific congressional request, according to spokesman Dean Boyd. It was a roster only of cases that were linked to international (not domestic) “terrorist organizations” that involved an American (as suspect or victim) or American interest, anywhere in the world, that the DOJ was somehow involved in. If the DOJ wasn’t involved, it didn’t get counted. If the terrorism wasn’t linked to an international organization, then it didn’t get counted. And that rules out virtually all terror coming from the domestic American radical right — Klansmen, neo-Nazis, antigovernment “Patriots” and others — in recent history. The SPLC has documented close to 75 such plots since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, but virtually none of them would get on to the list that the IPT chose to focus on. Indeed, it seems obvious that most cases linked to international organizations would by definition be jihadist.

What’s more, many of the cases listed by the DOJ didn’t involve terrorist attacks at all, but rather were focused cases like people suspected of raising money for terrorist groups or who allegedly obstructed an investigation into those groups.

That still isn’t all. In fact, the DOJ listed 403 cases, not the 228 figure that Emerson’s group mentions. In the remaining 175 cases, the IPT could not determine a suspect’s motivation, so the IPT simply excluded them from its analysis. Thus, while the IPT claimed that “more than 80%” of the cases DOJ listed involved Muslim defendants, the truth is it really doesn’t know how many did. Likewise, elsewhere in its release, the IPT claimed that “about 13 percent” of “the terror cases” involve “homegrown Islamic extremists.” But the raw number of such cases in the DOJ list is 30 — 30 out 403, which is 7.4%, not the exaggerated claim of 13%.

The most egregious ploy, and the one that smacks most obviously of big-lie propagandizing, is the way that IPT links, in its second sentence, the percentage of Muslims in the United States to the percentage of convictions of people “driven by a radical Islamist agenda” in the DOJ-listed cases. Again, many of the cases on the DOJ list did not involve American defendants at all. The illogical lining up of the two figures — 1% of Americans are Muslims and 80% of convictions in the DOJ cases were of Muslim radicals — is, in other words, complete nonsense. The numbers are married up simply to defame Muslims as radical jihadists.

Emerson does finally get around, in paragraph 10, to admitting the obvious: “The [DOJ] list emphasizes international terror, so groups like the Hutaree militia and eco-terrorists are not included.” And in paragraph 22, IPT concedes: “The DOJ list does not demonstrate that vast segments of the Muslim community constitute a threat to carry out terrorist attacks or support groups which do. Assuming a Muslim American population of about 5 million people, the DOJ cases amount to .00004 percent of the community.” But even that calculation includes all 186 suspects, foreign and domestic, supposedly motivated by Islam. To be fair, IPT should have compared only the 30 cases it says were linked to “homegrown terror” – thus implicating an even-more infinitesimal fraction of the U.S. Muslim community –  .000006%, to be exact. Otherwise, what was the point in comparing that 80% figure with the 1% of Americans are Muslims figure? Simply to defame Muslims, perhaps?

Hatewatch requested comment on these claims in an E-mail to Emerson on Tuesday, but as of this afternoon he had not replied.

Emerson and Congressman Peter King have been close allies – until the planned March 10 hearings set off a tiff between the two, according to Politico’s Ben Smith. Apparently, Smith wrote on Jan. 19, Emerson was upset that King intended to take testimony from actual Muslims. Then, Emerson was further aggrieved when King told Politico that Emerson himself wouldn’t be invited to testify.

“I have dutifully worked with your staff in trying to help you prepare for these meetings but obviously you don’t need my input,” a peeved Emerson wrote to King, according to Politico, adding that he had planned to share with King, among other documents, an “amazing study” debunking Muslim groups’ claims to have assisted law enforcement. Apparently, King and Emerson sufficiently patched up their row so that Emerson released his “amazing study” just in time for the hearings.

Writing in the New York Daily News on March 10, under the headline “Muslim American groups, not Rep. Pete King, are the ones fomenting hysteria with hearings on tap,” Emerson wrote: “The figures confirm that there is a disproportionate problem of Islamic militancy and terrorism among the American Muslim population.”

Of course, the data show nothing of the sort. But Emerson clearly hopes that merely saying it will make it true.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Iran’s GDP per capita puts it at around 91: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....per_capita

  • Ian

    Jordan,

    Mali is both Muslim and one of the poorest nations in the world. To my knowlege, it has not produced as much terrorists as rich nations like Saudi Arabia or hell, even Northern Ireland.

    Iran’s per capita GDP is higher than most nations. Every Persian-American I have spoken to considers it a (if you’ll forgive the terminology) First World nation.

  • Jordan

    Ian,
    ‘[T]hings like Islam, and Christianity, and Judaism are diverse religions that cannot be viewed as singular entities.’
    “We are in agreement.”
    Did you not post earlier
    “Of course the disparity between Christian and Islamic extremisms is because of historical events, such as the lack of the Islamic equivilant of the Enlightenment.”
    The Enlightenment (which followed the Scientific Revolution, a result of the Reformation’s decentralization of Christianity) was not a ‘Christian’ movement but a European one. Statements like this demonstrate a perception of singularity (Christian extremism contrasted with Muslim extremism), this is what I disagree with. There is no difference between Christian extremists and Muslim extremists (many even work towards the same goal, the bringing of the “Kingdom of God” under Jesus of Nazerath [Arabic: Isa]), the difference is in number and state of location, nothing more. Islam has more fanatics because Middle Eastern nations like Iraq and Iran are impoverished nations, poverty breads fanaticism, and lawlessness, put those together and you get terrorism. The forces that drive terrorism are political and economic in nature, terrorist leaders like Bin Laden use religion as a tool (much like Hitler used Ariosophy and Christianity). These forces are not to different from the forces that drove the election of the NSDAP (Nazi) party in the 30s in Germany. Fanatics are just individuals desperate to get some emotional reward (happiness, belonging, self worth) from a belief system and thus follow it blindly, it is politically and economically motivated leaders that turn fanatics into terrorists.

  • Ian

    Any controversy over translation is limited to a few lines in a show that ran for years. It’s like saying the Nazi documentary “The Eternal Jew” isn’t antisemitic because a translator got a few passages wrong. Arabic speakers have also expressed outrage over the show.

    And let the record reflect that Jonas does not consider the following things bizzare: a giant talking mouse dancing to songs about AK-47s, an Easter bunny screaming that he will eat Jews, and the fact that said bunny has a cousin who is a bee who goes on a violent jihad. I cannot imagine any readers who do not live inside Alice’s Wonderland would agree.

    20% of Israel’s population is Arab. If they are trying to “annihilate the Palestinians” they are doing a pretty poor job of it.

  • Jonas Rand

    I was wrong to say that Hamas was not founded as a chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood – but it certainly isn’t anymore. That was 1988, during the Intifada. After re-reading the charter, it does indeed say that Hamas is part of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine.

    Tomorrow’s Pioneers is not in any way “antisemitic” and I don’t consider it “bizarre” either, but I see how one would have such an opinion. The main controversy over it was nothing – caused by a great error in translation (changing victimization to desiring aggression) – and should have been investigated by the Arabic translators for American news outlets before being spread. The Mickey Mouse lookalike character never said “We want to annihilate the Jews”, but that they want to exterminate Palestinians. While one may not like the binary thinking at play here, it certainly seems like Israel, which proclaims itself “Jewish State” wants to annihilate the Palestinians.

    Anyway, this has nothing to do with Hamas, or the Muslim Brotherhood. It is about bigoted Islamophobes propagating hatred.

  • Ian

    “No, reality matters.”

    If by “reality” you mean the ethnocentric views of gentiles…

  • Ian

    Jonas,

    I may have addressed some of your points in the previous post, which I think was not approved by the moderator until after you wrote yours. If I am mistaken or I did not address a certain statement, feel free to point it out.

    I did not address the other anti-Zionist Jews because I was not making the argument that all anti-Zionists were antisemitic. I was just pointing out that using Shahak and Chomsky as examples of non-antisemites may be a mistake.

    I do not know how you differentiate between being a “chapter” or “affiliate” and being “of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood”. Forgive me if this strikes one as semantics.

    The fact that HAMAS has not amended it’s charter speaks volumes, but that is not the only place where their antisemitism is shown. The strangest example is a children’s TV show on Al-Aqsa TV – a network run by HAMAS – called “Tomorrow’s Pioneers”. It must be seen to be believed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow%27s_Pioneers

    More common, less bizarre manifestations of their antisemitism occurs on an almost weekly basis and are too numerous to mention.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    “When you are talking about a cultural term like “Jewishness” of course the beliefs of Jews matter. It is incredibly arrogant to insist that the definition of “Jew” should be decided by non-Jews.”

    No, reality matters. Different sects of Judaism have different ideas about who can be considered a Jew, so even according to belief there is no standard. If someone says “I’m half Jewish”, what is this really saying? It’s like saying that up until their father or mother, they have some unbroken line of ancestry going back to the ancient Hebrews. It’s just as foolish as when neo-Nazis apply the same standards.

  • Jonas Rand

    @Ian “it is also inaccurate to say that no criticism of Israel is antisemitic” – strawman. I never said that no criticism of Israel is antisemitic. You cited the Hamas Charter’s quotation of the historic Tsarist hoax, Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Hamas was founded by MB members, but was not a “chapter” or “affiliate organization” of the Muslim Brotherhood.
    Rather, it had its own goal while still remaining friendly to the Brotherhood. Additionally, Hamas’ Charter has antisemitic portions, but they are mostly ignored today within the organization.

  • Jonas Rand

    As for Afghan mujahideen – it is well-known that the founder and leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, was part of the CIA armed, funded, and trained mujahideen in Afghanistan. As Ruslan Amirkhanov correctly pointed out, the Islamic mujahideen were not all Afghan – many of them were Arabs – and they were all there for the same cause: to replace Russian rule and invasion with an Islamic state. The CIA may not have had contact with them all, which would have been impossible, but they did arm them in an effort to send the Soviet Union careening into a quagmire, like the Viet Nam war, and bring about its collapse.

    I too support the one-state solution – where Palestinians can have equal amounts of land, equal rights, and justice, and do not have to live as second-class citizens, or refugees in other countries because the Zionists expelled them.

    There is no reason why right-of-return cannot be a collective right – surely it will not be any more harmful (and indeed, much less so) than the “collective right” of Zionist European Jews to have expelled those demanding that right in the first place.

  • Jonas Rand

    Ian, you are referring to Chomsky’s writing of an appeal that defended the free speech rights of a French holocaust denier, in the spirit of the phrase “I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (not Voltaire). As Dr. Chomsky states in the film, “Manufacturing Consent”, this was done without his knowledge that it would be used as the preface to the holocaust denier’s book (though he gave permission to do anything with it after accepting the offer). This was overplayed in the French media. Dr. Chomsky does not himself deny the holocaust, and cannot in any way be perceived as supporting holocaust denial. He opposes criminalization of expressing any view, including holocaust denial; however, it is an unjustified slander to accuse him of denying the holocaust.

    As for antipathy toward American Jews, I have heard that claim before, but have never seen the source of a quote by him expressing that particular idea; it could have referred to most Zionist Jews, or American ‘Jewish organizations’ like Bnai Brith. It still does not mean that he hates Jews, or is antisemitic. Indeed, Chomsky has in the past said that he was a Zionist, but that his views are today what would be called “anti-Zionist”. I posted on a website called Dissident Voice for over a year, and the commenters there hated Chomsky for that comment, saying that he was a ‘Zionazi propagandist’ for Israel and a Jewish supremacist! And I can see why they feel that way; he opposes BDS, for example.

    Also, Uri Avnery, Ilan Pappé, etc. You failed to explain how any of these people were out right racists.

  • Ian

    Ruslan,

    Jonas said:

    “Yes, ‘Soldiers of Allah’, were supported by the US, no matter how brutal, as long as the government’s desires were fulfilled. This included Osama Bin Laden and the (ideologically opposite, non-Islamist) Saddam Hussein.”

    I responded:

    “There is no evidence that the United States supported bin Laden or any of the Arab volunteers fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.”

    It was a conversation about American support for bin Laden and the Arab volunteers, not American support for the anti-Soviet forces as a whole. I asked you to calm down because you were so hyped up that you came to one or more of the following misunderstandings. You either a) confused Arabs with Afghans, b) did not read the conversation between Jonas and I carefully and assumed I was denying American support for anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan, or c) you failed to realize that the Arab volunteers did not play a major role until the 1990s.

    http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal.....mrubin.pdf

    Every black or Turkish German knows that when s/he hears a crowd of racist skinheads chanting “Germany for Germans”, they are advocating a Germany made up of ONLY light-skinned, German-speaking people whose ancestors spoke German. There is a huge difference between saying a nation is the homeland of a certain ethnicity or that a certain religion should be the state religion of a nation and saying ONLY people of a certain ethnicity or religion should live in an area. Again, if you do not believe in homelands or state religions, that’s fine as long as such a belief is consistent for all religions and ethnicities.

    Chomsky’s comments on “deeply totalitarian” American Jews:
    Interview, Shmate: A Journal of Progressive Jewish Thought, Summer 1988

    “98% control”
    Variant, Scotland, Winter 2002

    The pro-denial petition
    Werner Cohn, “Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the
    Holocaust Deniers” (Avukah Press, 1995), pp53-4.

    Weber’s connection
    Cohn, “Partners in Hate”, 55-56.

    Fiscal support for Holocaust denial
    http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/guillaume.html

    There is a difference between politely asking for sources and calling someone a liar without evidence. Please learn this difference.

    There is a huge, huge difference between defending the free speech rights of the adherents of a belief system and supporting that belief system.

    I said:
    Claiming Jews cannot be antisemitic is like saying Eddie Long (the closeted preacher) isn’t a homophobe, or H.K. Edgerton (a black neo-Confederate) isn’t racist.

    You said:
    Good thing nobody even claimed that.

    Jonas argued that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic and then listed the names of several Jews, at least two of whom, I would argue, are antisemitic. That is why I brought it up.

    When you are talking about a cultural term like “Jewishness” of course the beliefs of Jews matter. It is incredibly arrogant to insist that the definition of “Jew” should be decided by non-Jews.

    “Very few states have such [immigration] policies.”

    There are many states (including Ireland) that have similar policies, some of which are the split image of Israel’s, though they do not have the same history of persecution. Again, if you oppose all of these laws that’s fine.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    “The first “Time” article contains one brief sentence on the topic. The second article’s apologetic for the pre-invasion communist government makes it loose all credibility in my eyes.”

    Luckily ENTIRE BOOKS have been written on the subject of US support for Islamists in Afghanistan. And luckily nobody cares what has credibility “in your eyes” because you demonstrate a basic lack of knowledge about countless historical facts. The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong with you.

    “The third article is too vague. The consensus of people who have studied the mujaheddin at the time is that the CIA had no contact with bin Laden, a fact that has been confirmed by bin Laden himself.”

    It…doesn’t….matter. They supported the insurgency. Do
    you think they made it a point to meet and greet every single rebel commander and send him a gift basket?

    “Why do you have no objection to Irish or German homelands? Let’s assume your argument (or rather, the Muslim Brotherhood’s) that Israel is made up of “lands taken by force from Muslims”; ignoring the many Palestinian Christians and the fact that such a overstatement is a bit controversial.”

    Why do groups like the ADL attack nationalists in Germany or Britain who demand “Germany for the Germans, etc.”? I noticed you ducked that question. Also, Zionist publications often ignore Palestinian Christians, knowing that American Christians would find it easier to hate and revile Muslims rather than Christians.

    “Why do they not oppose the existence of similar states that kicked out refugees, like the Czech Republic, Russia, Poland, Croatia, India, Pakistan, ect?”

    First of all, Czech, Russia, etc. are not religions. Also these are multi-ethnic nations which extend de jure equality to all ethnicities for their part.

    “Ruslan,

    First, calm down.”

    No, first stop lying. The only shrill one here is you.

    “Second, I was simply pointing out to Jonas that, if he wants examples of Jewish anti-Zionists to show that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic, he could do much, much better than Chomsky or Shahak.”

    Except you had to lie about Chomsky.

    “Chomsky’s work with deniers went far beyond defending their free speech rights. A petition he signed that ostensibly defended deniers on free speech grounds only, called a denier’s activities “findings”; put “Holocaust” in quotes; and was passed around by Mark Weber, a name familiar to many readers of this blog. Chomsky allowed a French denier organization the publishing rights to one of his books, a move the group’s officials say saved them from bankruptcy.”

    This is what happens when people believe in absolute free speech. Also I’d like a source for some of your claims, since you’ve demonstrated you have no discrimination when it comes to sources which support your beliefs.

    “Claiming Jews cannot be antisemitic is like saying Eddie Long (the closeted preacher) isn’t a homophobe, or H.K. Edgerton (a black neo-Confederate) isn’t racist.”

    Good thing nobody even claimed that.

    “Re Muslim states:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S….._countries”

    Wikipedia scholarship again? Many countries claim to be “Muslim countries”, but if that were true there would be no reason for them to join under a unified state, even if they are not contiguous. Political and ethnic reality stand in the way of that pipe dream.

    “Yes, that’s Casey with the Afghan mujahedeen. Again, that’s Casey with the AFGHAN mujahedeen. Afghans and Arabs are not the same.”

    This may be one of the most idiotic comments I have seen on here. What do you think the Arabs were there for? Are you really going to try to claim that the CIA had nothing to do with this, when Zbigniew Brzezinski has publicly bragged about their involvement in the insurgency?

    “I said criticism of Israel may cross the line when the critic “only attacks the idea of a Jewish nation state without contesting the idea of [nation-states for other ethnic and religious groups.]” If you want to argue that the nation-state is passe, fine. I would only ask that you recognize the difference between someone stating “I believe areas with religious/ethnic group X deserves independence” and someone stating “I believe area X should be wiped clean of all people not belonging to religious/ethnic group X”. When X = Jews, the former is a Zionist, the latter is a bigot and many of their organizations are banned in Israel.”

    Strawmen destroyed.

    “The “right of return” focuses on an alleged collective right, not an individual right. Non-Jews can, and do, immigrate to Israel just like non-Germans can immigrate to Germany and non-Irish can immigrate to Ireland. In fact, the immigration laws, though far from perfect, are much more liberal than most Arab lands.
    Ian said, ”

    Jews have an easier time immigrating to Israel, even if those who have no roots in the region, than Palestinians who were driven out. This is the problem.

    “Many Jews believe that Jewishness is an ethnicity, not a religion. Many Israeli Jews are secular. There are even atheist rabbis.”

    Oh gee if they BELIEVE something than it must be true!!

    :I have less in common with most people living in Helsinki that your Birobidzan has with the average Israeli, yet according to Finnish law all I have to do is show that I have Finnish ethnicity and I am on the fast track to citizenship. Any fair criticism of Israel must be aware that there are dozens of nations with the same system.”

    Very few states have such policies. I can easily prove my Irish roots(at least as far as the UK), but it’s not going to fast-track me anywhere.

    The question you ducked was why pro-Zionists like the ADL attack nationalists who claim “X COUNTRY FOR X NATIONALITY”, while playing the “why can’t we have a Jewish state” game.

    I am all for the existence of one state in Palestine(perhaps called Israel still)- so long as it extends full equality to all citizens regardless of religion, and applies this to immigration as well.

  • Ian

    Many Jews believe that Jewishness is an ethnicity, not a religion. Many Israeli Jews are secular. There are even atheist rabbis.

    http://www.shj.org/default.htm

    I have less in common with most people living in Helsinki that your Birobidzan has with the average Israeli, yet according to Finnish law all I have to do is show that I have Finnish ethnicity and I am on the fast track to citizenship. Any fair criticism of Israel must be aware that there are dozens of nations with the same system.

  • Ian

    Mitch,

    The first “Time” article contains one brief sentence on the topic. The second article’s apologetic for the pre-invasion communist government makes it loose all credibility in my eyes.
    http://www.paulbogdanor.com/le.....ildren.pdf
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f.....nted=print

    The third article is too vague. The consensus of people who have studied the mujaheddin at the time is that the CIA had no contact with bin Laden, a fact that has been confirmed by bin Laden himself.

    Jason Burke, Al-Qaeda (Penguin, 2003), p59; Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the
    CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden (Penguin, 2004), p87; Peter Bergen, The Osama bin Laden I Know
    (Free Press, 2006), pp60-1.

    HAMAS’ covenant states “The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine.”

    I’ll post a link to HAMAS’ charter and let the readers read Article 22 and decide if the comment about the French and Russian Revolutions was intended as a compliment.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

    Why do you have no objection to Irish or German homelands? Let’s assume your argument (or rather, the Muslim Brotherhood’s) that Israel is made up of “lands taken by force from Muslims”; ignoring the many Palestinian Christians and the fact that such a overstatement is a bit controversial. Why do they not oppose the existence of similar states that kicked out refugees, like the Czech Republic, Russia, Poland, Croatia, India, Pakistan, ect?

    But if you want to go with a more limited definition of antisemitism, go with the words of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the Brotherhood’s spiritual leaders.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HStliOnVl6Q

    Ruslan,

    First, calm down.

    Second, I was simply pointing out to Jonas that, if he wants examples of Jewish anti-Zionists to show that anti-Zionism is not antisemitic, he could do much, much better than Chomsky or Shahak.

    Chomsky’s work with deniers went far beyond defending their free speech rights. A petition he signed that ostensibly defended deniers on free speech grounds only, called a denier’s activities “findings”; put “Holocaust” in quotes; and was passed around by Mark Weber, a name familiar to many readers of this blog. Chomsky allowed a French denier organization the publishing rights to one of his books, a move the group’s officials say saved them from bankruptcy.

    Claiming Jews cannot be antisemitic is like saying Eddie Long (the closeted preacher) isn’t a homophobe, or H.K. Edgerton (a black neo-Confederate) isn’t racist.

    Nepal used to be a Hindu state. I was not referring to India.

    Re Muslim states:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S....._countries

    “Yes, that’s ex-CIA director William Casey with the Afghan Mujahedeen”

    Yes, that’s Casey with the Afghan mujahedeen. Again, that’s Casey with the AFGHAN mujahedeen. Afghans and Arabs are not the same.

    I said criticism of Israel may cross the line when the critic “only attacks the idea of a Jewish nation state without contesting the idea of [nation-states for other ethnic and religious groups.]” If you want to argue that the nation-state is passe, fine. I would only ask that you recognize the difference between someone stating “I believe areas with religious/ethnic group X deserves independence” and someone stating “I believe area X should be wiped clean of all people not belonging to religious/ethnic group X”. When X = Jews, the former is a Zionist, the latter is a bigot and many of their organizations are banned in Israel.

    The “right of return” focuses on an alleged collective right, not an individual right. Non-Jews can, and do, immigrate to Israel just like non-Germans can immigrate to Germany and non-Irish can immigrate to Ireland. In fact, the immigration laws, though far from perfect, are much more liberal than most Arab lands.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    Ian, you need to stop lying. Noam Chomsky, aside from being Jewish, did not “work” with Holocaust deniers. He believes in absolute free speech(kinda stupid really, as even the American Founding Fathers never envisioned such a thing), and thus he opposed the prosecution of Holocaust deniers. There are many other Jewish critics of Israel who would never be embraced by Holocaust deniers, such as Tim Wise.

    And then there’s this train wreck: “Finnish state, a Hindu state, a Mongolian state, a Muslim state, a Korean state, a German state, an Irish state, etc, etc. The Muslim Brotherhood can clearly be accused of all of the above.”

    Ok first of all, there is no “Hindu state or Muslim state”, even if there are people who want them. India is home to several religions which enjoy formal equality. Islamic states ruled by sharia law to varying degrees still have political differences and different ethnicities. The idea that there will ever be a “Muslim” state made up of Muslims is a pipe dream in the mind of fanatics.

    Now, what about Finland, Germany, Mongolia, etc. Well first of all, Jewish is a religion, not a “race” or nation. The idea that Jews around the world share some bond beyond their religion is ludicrous, and actually smacks of anti-Semitism(anti-semites typically believing in a “Jewish” race or nation which supersedes boundaries). Even the way Jews practice their religion in different countries is not the same. The idea that a Jew from New York(descending several generations) has such a profound bond with a Jew from say, Birobidzan, is absurd.

    And this brings us to the question of a German state, a French state, etc. The ADL monitors nationalist groups around the world, the very same groups who shout “Germany for the Germans,” “Finland for Finns”, and so on. They condemn groups which attack immigrants, support discrimination against immigrants, and claim that they are being out-bred by immigrants. Yet they use these same arguments when it comes to things like a right of return for Palestinians.

    The nation is a transitory phase in human society. “Germany” today once consisted of various small states and principalities, and they had a very different ethnic make-up than they have today. In the late 19th century to WWI, they had significant Slavic and French populations, whereas today they have immigration from Turkey, Poland, Africa and so on. So if you are saying that Germans allegedly have the “right” to have a “German” nation, you are basically throwing in your lot with the nationalists and right-wingers in Germany who would like to send those groups packing.

    Nations have not existed for all eternity(in fact they are relatively new in human history), and they will not last forever. If groups like the ADL want to condemn nationalist parties in Europe(and indeed they deserve condemnation for constant scapegoating), they must abide by this same standard when it comes to Israel.

    “There is no evidence that the United States supported bin Laden or any of the Arab volunteers fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.”

    What can I say about this statement? I’m trying to decide on either “sheer idiocy or ignorance.”

    Have a look at this:

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vW1G.....-16011.jpg

    Yes, that’s ex-CIA director William Casey with the Afghan Mujahedeen. It is an indisputable fact that the US funneled funds to the Pakistani dictatorship of Zia, and the CIA used the Pakistani ISID(intelligence agency) to fund the Afghan rebels. Money that got to Bin Laden went through the ISID to the Maktyab al Khidimat or (Services Bureau).

    I find it laughable that someone in 2011 would actually be denying these historical facts. I suggest you read Through our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheuer(CIA veteran of the Afghan campaign in the 80s) and Charlie Wilson’s War.

    Damn.

  • Mitch Beales

    It seems to me that “accusing” Jews of starting the French and Russian revolutions could only be considered anti-semitic if one thought those revolutions were bad things. It seems unlikely to me that Hamas is very strongly opposed to the Russian revolution.

    Does the Muslim Brotherhood oppose “the idea of a Jewish nation state ” or does it simply oppose the establishment of such a state on lands taken by force from Muslims? Is the US “anti-Japanese” because it once invoked stereotypes etc.? Does the Muslim Brotherhood continue invoking anti-semitic stereotypes or is this something that happened in the past which you find impossible to forgive? Am I “anti-white” because I oppose the establishment of a “white homeland” in Idaho even though I have no objection to a German state in Germany, an Irish state in Ireland, etc. etc.?

  • Mitch Beales

    Ian you may dispute the evidence that the United States supported bin Laden in Afghanistan but there certainly is evidence.
    http://www.time.com/time/magaz.....-2,00.html
    http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/24198
    http://www.historycommons.org/.....ioncyclone

    Is there evidence that Hamas is a “chapter” of the Muslim Brotherhood or that the brotherhood “spawned” Egyptian Islamic Jihad?

  • Ian

    Also, I clearly write the word “clearly” way too much.

  • Ian

    Jonas,

    Though its support of terrorism is mostly limited to advocacy, many Muslim Brotherhood members are connected to terrorism. The organization spawned Egyptian Islamic Jihad and HAMAS.

    Many neoconservatives and others have pointed out the Saudi government’s support of terrorism.

    There is no evidence that the United States supported bin Laden or any of the Arab volunteers fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.

    While there is indeed nothing automatically antisemitic about criticizing Israel, it is also inaccurate to say that no criticism of Israel is antisemitic. HAMAS, a chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood, clearly crosses that line when it quotes the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and accuses Jews of starting the French and Russian Revolutions with the help of the Freemasons. Dislike of Israel clearly crosses the line into antisemitism when a) the critic invokes anti-Jewish myths, conspiracies, and stereotypes; b) the critic ignores the much bigger flaws of gentile states; or c) the critics only attacks the idea of a Jewish nation state without contesting the idea of a Finnish state, a Hindu state, a Mongolian state, a Muslim state, a Korean state, a German state, an Irish state, etc, etc. The Muslim Brotherhood can clearly be accused of all of the above.

    Your list of Jews opposing Zionism is a bit suspect. Noam Chomsky called Jewish Americans “deeply totalitarian” and claimed they want “total control, not just 98% control” of the United States. He has also worked closely with Holocaust deniers and has been praised by antisemites like the Institute for Historical Review and Radio Islam. Shahak has accused religious Jews of worshiping Satan, defended the Khmelnytsky pograms because “Jews profited from [the peasent's] state of slavery and exploitation”, and stated that Holocaust memories “are a fake” (in an article called “The Jews Who Run USA” no less). He has been praised by David Duke and Zundel.

  • Jonas Rand

    There is nothing “anti-semitic” about disliking Israel. I have seen no evidence of the Muslim Brotherhood’s alleged antisemitism in its opposition to Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Where is the evidence that they are “deeply hateful towards America” or Jews? They are not a branch of Al-Qaeda, and they didn’t assassinate Sadat (by the way, that was over thirty years ago. Before Mubarak took power.) That was Ayman al Zawahiri’s organization, and he was a member of the Brotherhood, but he (not the Muslim Brethren) ran Egyptian Islamic Jihad. See http://ikhwanweb.com and http://ikhwanonline.com (Brotherhood websites)

    Taqiyya is not “lying to the infidel”. Taqiyya, if you bother to read its actual definition, is a practice that was historically used by SHI’A Muslims when open admission of their religion could cause them death, to hide their Islam. Compare “crypto-Jew”. It is not, nor has it ever been, used by the majority of Muslims (Sunni) or any other sect but Shi’ites. I am by no means a Muslim, Shi’a, Sunni, or otherwise. I’m not religious at all.

    One can be vehemently anti-Zionist, and find Zionism to be an inherently racist concept, but – like the Jews Joe Slovo, Noam Chomsky, and Ilan Pappé – not be antisemitic at all. Prof. Israel Shahak, in addition to many others in the past and present, was a Jew who opposed Zionism and Israel’s existence. Whether by “pathologically anti-semitic when it comes to Israel” you mean that being opposed to Israel is antisemitic or that the Brotherhood’s views on Israel oppose the state because it was a Jewish creation- is quite unclear. But unless you can provide evidence for your claims, none of this is true.

  • David

    Jonas Rand writes, “The Muslim Brotherhood/Al-Ikhwan is not a terrorist group and you have nothing to fear from it.” You mean this group that assassinated Sadat and spawns Hamas has renounced violence? Sounds like a lot of takkiya (lying to the infidel) to me. And it’s not that the Muslim Brotherhood is “disliked” because it is “not blindly supportive of the U.S. and Israel.” It’s downright blindly murderous and pathologically anti-semitic when it comes to Israel, and deeply hateful towards America. That’s a far cry from not being “blindly supportive.”

  • ModerateMike

    “Our article never mentioned nor assumed any statistics based on nationality, nor did the DOJ report upon which our analysis was conducted.”

    Well, why not? Is that not a relevant detail? Otherwise, why tie the DOJ cases to the percentage of Muslims in the U.S. population?

    We have discussed in this forum the part that one’s environment plays in the development of one’s viewpoints. Is that not the case with religiously-based extremism as well? It seems to me that a Muslim living in the U.S. would be less susceptible to religiously-motivated extremism than someone who lived in a country with an indifferent government, limited economic opportunities, and anti-American teaching unchecked by vigorous debate.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    The US is still supporting radical Islamists; for several years now they have been urging talks between the corrupt Afghan government and the Taliban for a cease-fire which would include some kind of power-sharing.

    More up-to-date, some of the Libyan rebels have revealed ties to Al Qaeda and the insurgency in Iraq, yet the US and NATO are supporting their military effort with airstrikes.

    The capitalists do indeed create their own grave-diggers.

  • Jonas Rand

    The Muslim Brotherhood/Al-Ikhwan is not a terrorist group and you have nothing to fear from it. It is a well-established, above-ground Islamist organization which was founded in 1928 and has renounced violence for decades. I am tired of this slander. Their views are theocratic and inclusive to all aspects of the political Islamic movement (i.e. right wing, but including religious liberals), but that does not mean that they are a terrorist group. Muslim Brotherhood is only disliked by the US at the moment – not because it is Islamist (“radical” or not) – but because it is not blindly supportive of the US and Israel. The House of Saud has been reactionary and Islamist for centuries, ascribing to fundamentalist interpretations of Islamic law since before ibn Wahhab was born – and no neocon is calling them terrorists. You know why? Because House of Saud and USA-Israel kiss each other’s asses. Most right-wing American commentators who discuss about the Muslim Brotherhood know nothing about it, and your slavish parroting of the Islamophobes doesn’t indicate that you know any more. The US will impose or support any regime in the ‘Middle East’ that bows down to its interest, which has included (throughout history) Ba’athists, other secular dictators, radical Islamists, and pro-Western neoconservative and neoliberal client regimes. Yes, “Soldiers of Allah”, were supported by the US, no matter how brutal, as long as the government’s desires were fulfilled. This included Osama Bin Laden and the (ideologically opposite, non-Islamist) Saddam Hussein.

  • Ian

    “[T]hings like Islam, and Christianity, and Judaism are diverse religions that cannot be viewed as singular entities.”

    We are in agreement.

  • Ruslan Amirkhanov

    “I’m glad I have nothing to fear from Nidal Hassan, The times square bomber, the underwear bomber, Jihad Jane, Sheikh Gilani, and the Muslim Brotherhood in America. These Soldiers of Allah are just victims.”

    Statistically you have more to worry about from lightning storms. Some people love being afraid, but they fear the wrong things.

  • Jordan

    Ian,
    I read the list, not everyone on it was even listed as being involved in terrorism (is that where the ’228′ came from, the number of people involved in terrorist plots?) – other crimes like ‘identity theft’ and ‘bank fraud’ were also listed. I didn’t say there was no disproportionality in the statistics (just as their is a disproportionality in the statistics related to crime and ‘race’ in the United States); my point is that you are attempting to calculate that discrepancy by comparing cases of individuals involved in an unknown number of plots to plots involving an unknown number of individuals. The primary point is this: due to the history of the Middle East, several Muslim majority nations have ended up as ‘third world’ or ‘developing’ nations, this has lead to the development of instability and eventually an increase in radicalization (as happens frequently when times are bad, look at what happened to the domestic ‘sovereign citizen’ movement as a result of the recession). People fail to realize this, fail to see the history behind the modern world and instead see simply “group A is doing better than group B therefore group B must be inferior”; this is the flawd logic that every supremecist uses and people have begun applying it to Muslims. Islam is neither worse nor better than Christianity, the current state of the world is the result of the past and many have forgotten that and simply see the current state of Muslim majority nations like Iraq and Pakistan as the sole result of Islam and the success of nations like the U.S.A. as the sole result of Christianity, disregarding things like the Enlightenment, the Invasion of the Middle East by the Mongols, the effects of Imperialism, and the billion other things that have shaped our world. That is the point I want to make. That extremists like al-Qaeda, the IRA, the ‘sovereign citizens’ are problems that our society needs to deal with by going after THEM while things like Islam, and Christianity, and Judaism are diverse religions that cannot be viewed as singular entities. It is a waste to do so.

  • Ian
  • CM

    For the record: The comments by “Ishmael Royer” reflect nothing but recycled smears against CAIR that have been thoroughly debunked. For anyone interested in actual facts: http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/.....t_CAIR.pdf

  • Steve Emerson

    Robert Steinback’s March 23 posting, “Steve Emerson, Backing King Hearings, Pushes Misleading Statistic on Muslim Terrorism,” completely mischaracterizes our story on Department of Justice terrorism prosecution data and omits a number of things we wrote that contradict his basic premise.

    Many of his criticisms minimize significant caveats and statements of context we purposely included by noting where they appear in the story. Yet, the fact that they appear at all disproves Steinback’s central thesis – that we endeavored to publish a propaganda piece intended to smear Muslims.

    He attempts to undercut our statistics by writing, “If the DOJ wasn’t involved, it didn’t get counted.” Well, yes, that is the point. Our story, which you can read here, made clear that the baseline was the DOJ list of successful terrorism prosecutions tied to international terrorism. That data included some cases of homegrown terrorism, but we made it clear that the DOJ data did not include terrorism tied to domestic groups, writing “The [DOJ] list emphasizes international terror, so groups like the Hutaree militia and eco-terrorists are not included.”

    That’s still no good, Steinback writes, because it appeared 10 paragraphs into the story. But why mention it at all if our goal was baseless propaganda? In the next paragraph, Steinback makes a claim disproven by our story.
    He writes:
    “In fact, the DOJ listed 403 cases, not the 228 figure that Emerson’s group mentions. In the remaining 175 cases, the IPT could not determine a suspect’s motivation, so the IPT simply excluded them from its analysis.” [Emphasis added]

    This is dead wrong. It appears that Steinback never looked at the spreadsheet we posted to show which cases we included as Islamist in motivation, which we did not, and which were considered undetermined. Had he done so, it would have been clear that our research included all 403 cases listed by the DOJ. You can see it here.

    The DOJ statistics were broken into two categories. As we explained in our story: ““The cases listed by DOJ are divided between those involving direct support for terrorist plots or organizations, and those where investigations ‘involved an identified link to international terrorism’ but the resulting indictments and complaints involved charges such as fraud, immigration violations, firearms, drugs, false statements and obstruction of justice.” [Emphasis added]

    These defendants were located and/or brought into the United States for prosecution stemming from investigations that occurred, at least in significant or most part, within the United States. The defendants, by the nature of their terror or terror support or terror-linked activity, had, in some form or fashion, notable linkage to the United States. Steinback makes a specious attempt to claim these statistics are not that important because the defendants were mostly foreigners operating in foreign lands who happened to get snared up in some kind of adjunct DOJ case.

    The 228 cases we cited in our lead include all 158 cases in the direct support category, plus 70 other cases in which we determined there was direct involvement with a terrorist organization or a homegrown plot. That includes the Fort Dix defendants and a fraud case involving a man who openly raised money for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Other examples included in the 228 figure include prosecutions of defendants tied to the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionaries de Colombia (FARC) and the Tamil Tigers.

    We made it clear that we counted all the DOJ-listed cases combined, acknowledging that there was a huge amount in which we could not determine the political motivation. Factoring in all 403 cases, “an Islamist connection was found in at least 46 percent,” we wrote. “An almost equal percentage, however, involved cases listed by the DOJ as terror-related, but in which there was insufficient information to determine whether a person was tied to an Islamist cause. In many, it was unclear why the case was included on a list of terror-related prosecutions.”

    Steinback’s article never mentions this. In fact, he claims we ignored those cases in which political motivation remained undetermined.

    Steinback does cite our caveat that, though Muslims are disproportionately represented in DOJ terror prosecutions, the totals represent .0004 percent of the American Muslim community. We wrote “The DOJ list does not demonstrate that vast segments of the Muslim community constitute a threat to carry out terrorist attacks or support groups which do.”

    If we wanted “Simply to defame Muslims, perhaps?” as Steinback wrote, such context never would have been in the story.

    In pushing his propaganda theory, Steinback claims we cite “1% of Americans are Muslims and 80% of convictions in the DOJ cases were of Muslim radicals,” and the juxtaposition of those two statistics is “complete nonsense.”

    When Steinback claims, “The numbers are married up simply to defame Muslims as radical jihadists,” that argument is simply specious.

    What we said is, “Though Muslims represent about 1 percent of the American population, they constitute defendants in 186 of the 228 cases DOJ lists.” We have explained here our analysis of the case numbers. That Muslims constitute approximately 1% of the American population assumes an estimated 5 million Muslims, both citizens and non-citizens, who live in the United States. Our article never mentioned nor assumed any statistics based on nationality, nor did the DOJ report upon which our analysis was conducted.In addition, our first story after the King hearing was an essay by a Muslim American convert who walked away from radicalism. Had our intent been to stigmatize all, we would not seek out such voices. It is an IPT practice to showcase Muslims who take on the radical element and the self-anointed spokesman of a diverse community.

    Among the examples:
    http://www.investigativeprojec.....pitol-hill http://www.investigativeprojec.....er-muslims
    http://www.investigativeprojec.....ng-critics
    http://www.investigativeprojec.....-islamists
    http://www.investigativeprojec.....m-arabs-we
    http://www.investigativeprojec.....r-of-ideas

    Radical Islamists have made clear their intention to attack the United States. During the past three years, we’ve seen a dramatic spike in cases involving U.S. citizens, radicalized by the preaching and encouragement of figures like Anwar al-Awlaki and Omar Hammami, actively trying to carry out attacks.

    The DOJ data shows that terror-support activities have been happening here for years. That is noteworthy.
    Many of the misconceptions could have been avoided. Steinback did send a list of questions to us Tuesday, but did not define whether it was for a blog or for the SPLC’s Intelligence Report. He defined no deadline and offered no indication of when he intended to publish. Nor did he ever call or alert us to the fact that a story was imminent. We were drafting a response to his questions and even sent him a note indicating he would send that to him Thursday morning. He has not even replied to that with a courtesy notice that his story already was posted.

    That too is disappointing. Had he made any attempt to alert us, we could have explained the flaws in his reasoning we’ve noted.

  • Ishamel Royer

    The FBI again publicly stated they severed all relations with CAIR – The Council on American Islamic Relations because of that groups ties to terrorism and the large number of CAIR principles who have been deported or arrested for ties to terrorism.

    It’s reassuring to know that CAIR was the most vocal group against the King Hearings and has no ties to domestic terrorism despite the arrests and voluminous quotes to the contrary.

    I am so thankful I have nothing to worry about in the mountain of evidence in the Holy Land Foundation Terrorist Funding trial that got convictions on their 8 top Islamist targets.

    I’m glad I have nothing to fear from Nidal Hassan, The times square bomber, the underwear bomber, Jihad Jane, Sheikh Gilani, and the Muslim Brotherhood in America. These Soldiers of Allah are just victims.

    Thank you SPLC for defending the indefensible.

    America Akbar

  • Ian

    Sorry, forgot the link with the signs.

    http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/default.htm

  • Ian

    Jordan,

    You do bring up a good point regarding the difference between a case and a individual, and I should have addressed that, but I still fail to see how there is no evidence that the threat of Islamist terrorism is disproportionate for a few reasons:

    1) “Terror on the Right” also lists incidents for which there was no arrests, while the IPT covered only prosecutions. Some, like Eric Rudolph, committed more than one crime.
    2) While there is no proof of the motivation of some of those on the IPT list, we can be fairly certain that individuals with Arabic-sounding names are more likely to be working for Islamist causes than, say, FARC or the Patriot movement. However, the IPT did not count them.
    3) If Muslims are 1% of the population, a disproportionate number of terrorism cases would be more than 1%. It certainly seems like we’re dealing with more than 1% and the only discussion is asking how much more.
    4) The IPT did not cover some incidents, like the Ft. Hood shooting, where the accused shouted “Allahu akbar” (“God is greatest”) as he fired. We can be pretty sure he wasn’t working for the ETA.

    Here’s a list of convictions, by the way:
    http://www.investigativeprojec.....sc/627.pdf

    Sorry, the term “homegrown” did come from the IPT on second look. Links to specific cases identified as homegrown are in the link above.

    The bottom left of this page contains a slide of signs at anti-Israel protests, which include the “Nazi kikes” one and some other pretty antisemitic ones thrown in. I have not seen the Uncle Sam one.

    JM,

    The “Intelligence Project” did do a terrific report on antisemitism on US colleges.
    http://www.splcenter.org/get-i.....-to-school

    But the far-left is not their primary issue, nor should we expect it to be.

  • Jordan

    JM,
    Sources please.

  • JM

    Good job SPLC. I’m glad someone is doing this work. I get so tired of racists and BS artists in all camps, from every political persuasion.

    However, You guys seem pretty quiet about groups sending funds to Islamic terrorists though. And those with ties to same, those that have no ties but promote their aims too. CAIR tops my list. Also, if you go to any anti-Israel rally, you don’t merely see signs calling for an end to the violence. You see signs that say “NAZI KIKES OUT OF LEBANON” sponsored by some socialist party or another. “I WANT YOU TO DIE FOR JEWISH WARS!” spoken by a cartoon uncle sam too. The Palestinian leadership and various smaller violent groups have a tremendous following with the Left in the West, which is interesting considering that their aim isn’t merely to end occupation but to ethnically cleanse Israel of non-Muslims, chiefly Jews. Anyone in the US or elsewhere who tries to make it look like they’re shooting for anything less, or that their violence can be dismissed as “understandable,” is basically supporting the murder of more than 5million people in the middle east. And the vast majority of those supporters in the US appear to be on the Left from what I’ve seen. Where’s your outrage about that? I love the work you do but your focus on Right Wing hate groups threatens your moral authority when everyone’s being a jerk in this day and age.

    By the way, no, I am not one of those crazies who denies that Israel is committing crimes of its own but I know this: if Israel’s Right Wing is successful with its expansionist aims, the Palestinians will be pushed out again. If the Palestinian forces are successful, all of the Jews in the region, and if Hamas has thier way (read their charter if you havent), all Jews on Earth will be next. I have family in Israel and when I see fellow local progressives tell me that they should be forcibly expelled or exterminated, I take it rather personally. Wouldn’t you?

    So where’s your coverage of the Left’s outrage?

  • Jordan

    Mr. Steinback,
    Ohh, thank you. So the DoJ does not have any official definition or classification of ‘homegrown’, and their is no official statement as to the suspects motivations?
    So Ian, where exactly did “By “homegrown”, the DoJ means terrorists who are native-born US citizens.” come from?

  • http://splcenter.org Robert Steinback

    To Jordan,

    IPT examined the cases listed by the Department of Justice and determined for itself the motivations of the suspects (Islamic or otherwise) and which among them were “homegrown.” Those evaluations were not part of the DoJ analysis.

    Robert Steinback
    Deputy Editor, Hatewatch blog
    SPLC

  • CM

    Emerson claims, “Though Muslims represent about 1 percent of the American population, they constitute defendants in 186 of the 228 cases DOJ lists.”

    OK, so what percentage of the American population do right-wing extremists represent, and what percentage of defendants in cases of actual terrorist activity (as opposed to just raising money or refusing to cooperate with investigations) do they constitute?

    This is the kind of cherry-picking, data-fitting approach that enables Emerson to make a living supplying phony rationalizations to the anti-Muslim community. Thanks to SPLC for doing the math.

  • Jordan

    Ian,
    You might want to look at those statistics again. The SPLC lists 75 plots* (it doesn’t say how many people were involved in each plot) while the DoJ report lists 30 individuals* (it doesn’t say how many plots they represented). It could be that each far-right plot only had one individual and that each Islamic extremist represented only one plot, but that seems unlikely and without a source to say one way or the other it is just speculation. And could you post the link to where you got your definition for ‘homegrown’? I searched the Department of Justice site but I couldn’t find it.

  • Linnea

    Real analysis… how refreshing! Thanks, SPLC, for taking the time to break down these things and tell us what’s really going on. In other words, thank you for doing the job that most of the media (especially the right-wing media) can’t or won’t do.

  • Ian

    “The figures confirm that there is a disproportionate problem of Islamic militancy and terrorism among the American Muslim population.”

    “Of course, the data show nothing of the sort.”

    If we’re going with the IPT’s estimate of an American Muslim population of 1%, I do not see how even the least generous view of Emerson’s interpretation of the data can fail to show a disproportionate problem, given that there were 30 cases with American-born Muslims since 2001 compared with what seems to be less than 35 cases with far-right, non-Muslim Americans since 2001.*

    By “homegrown”, the DoJ means terrorists who are native-born US citizens. While most American Muslims are native, it is a disproportionally immigrant group. Most of the non-homegrown cases involve either legal residents or naturalized citizens and may of them were connected to American mosques.

    * Correct me on my math if I’m wrong, but I used the sentence “The SPLC has documented close to 75 such plots since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing”. I went to the SPLC publication “Terror on the Right” and subtracted the 41 cases that I counted which took place between the OKC bombing and 9/11, when the IPT’s report starts counting. I came up with 34, though it may be less, since it said “close to 75″.

    Arithmetic is one of my weak points, so I am fully prepared to be wrong.

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-i.....-the-right

  • skinnyminny

    Last night in Santa Clarita, Califas, a black man, a resident of this city, car was torched, and the car and garage had, what was reported as racist graffiti. Law enforcement said they were not sure it was a hate crime. Pictures of this incident showed it was, IMO, a hate crime.

    In Villa Park, Califas, the city council held a meeting about Councilwoman Pauly’s behavior at the ‘Patriot Rally,’ in which videos surfaced showing Pauly at this protest against Muslims. It got heated as some of the residents asked Pauly to resign, and/or for an apology. Other’s sided with Pauly, one speaker asked why don’t people focus on the Imam at the event. In addition to this, a man from the valley area of Califas was arrested for allegedly threatening Councilwoman Pauly.

    I was appalled to see that there were other elected officials on the federal level such as Ed Royce and Gary Miller attending this Patriot Rally. I think it’s time for someone to provide a copy of the oath that these people take when sworn into office, because most voters believe that they have to wait until an elected officials’ term is up, or that they have to wait until another elected official calls for someone to step down. What I am seeing here, is these officials are overstepping their boundaries/abusing their power – meanwhile, ordinary people charged in the justice system, especially minority, can’t get away with this type of stuff.